Climate Change

Short-lived climate pollutants: An opportunity to reduce emissions

AIDA together with CEDHA, CEMDA and RedRacc have produced a briefing paper on short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) for presentation at the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP19) on climate change, which is running November 11 to 22 in Warsaw, Poland.   SLCPs are agents that contribute to global warming and have a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere, from a few days to a few decades. That’s different from CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries or millennia after emission. CO2 contributes an estimated 55% to 60% to global warming, while the remaining 40-45% comes from the emission of SLCPs. The latter seriously affect human health and ecosystems, meaning that any reduction in their emissions also brings significant social benefits.   The fact that these contaminants remain so little time in the atmosphere means that their mitigation brings short-term benefits, in particular to the most vulnerable regions of the world already suffering the impacts of climate change. We must seize the opportunity to reduce SLCPs in the fight against the effects of this global challenge.   Our paper explains what SLCPs are, which are the most relevant ones, and what are the reasons we should work to regulate and reduce their emissions. The paper also provides recommendations for taking on the challenge. Read the Fact Sheet (in Spanish)

Can COP19 move the Green Climate Fund closer to reality?

By Andrea Rodríguez, AIDA's legal advisor, and Marcus Pearson, AIDA's volunteer (article published in Respond/RTCC Magazine) The Green Climate Fund was created as an effective response to the impacts of climate change by channeling financial resources from developed to developing countries. Will this happen? The Conference of the Parties in November will provide an opportunity for developing countries to lobby for significant financial commitments from the developed world to ensure the long-term viability of the GCF. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was created in 2010 at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Its mission is to channel public and private financial resources to developing countries to help them mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change through low-emission and climate-resilient programs. But nearly four years later, the GCF has yet to disburse any funds. The GCF board has held four meetings with only limited results. At the first meeting in Geneva in August 2012, the board selected two interim co-chairs: Mr. Zaheer Fakir of South Africa and Mr. Ewen McDonald of Australia. It also formed committees, designated the World Bank as Interim Trustee, and agreed to invite observer organizations to participate, albeit in a restricted capacity. A lack of consensus stalled decisions at the October 2012 meeting in South Korea, where the only notable motion was making Songdo, South Korea the GCF’s headquarters. More advances came at the February 2013 meeting in Berlin. The board adopted procedural rules to govern its actions, regulate board member selection and define the participation and role of civil society observers. This laid the groundwork for the GCF to carry out its mission. At the June 2013 meeting in South Korea, the board then discussed the GCF’s business model framework (BMF) and the policies, guidelines and organizational structures needed to commence operations. The board also chose the governance structure of the private sector facility (PSF) [i] and appointed Ms. Hela Cheikhrouhou of Tunisia as executive director of the GCF Secretariat. The fifth meeting in Paris could address the many outstanding issues still needed to bring the GCF into effective operation. To do so, the Board must overcome its perceived ineffectiveness. Civil society concerns Civil society organizations (CSOs) are concerned about the GCF’s decision-making process and future. Perhaps the greatest issue is the uncertainty of funding. The GCF board has started to identify project areas and define criteria to allocate resources, but developed countries have yet to pledge meaningful funds. Concrete commitments are essential to ensuring the availability of predictable resources needed to achieve long-term results to mitigate and protect against the impacts of climate change. CSOs also fear that a lack of transparency and accountability will hamstring the GCF. Transparency does not seem to be a priority for the board. For example, the board has decided against webcasting its meetings even though the UNFCCC commonly does so, helping to cut costs and carbon emissions associated with travel. If the GCF already broadcasts meetings to observers in an overflow room, why not webcast? CSOs fear the board does not want to make its meetings open to the public. Lack of public accountability remains a concern particularly because of the small opportunity given to civil society to participate in the decision- making process. The GCF will mobilize financial resources from both public and private sectors, and civil society oversight is needed to ensure that policies do not respond to the investment interests of the private sector but to the needs of the most vulnerable. Moreover, the board is not granting CSOs meaningful opportunities for participation. The GCF publishes documents before meetings without sufficient time for many CSOs to review and comment on proposals[ii]. Meanwhile, only two CSO representatives may actively participate at board meetings in person and even so may not be allowed to talk or approach board members[iii]. These practices call into question the GCF’s legitimacy. Globally, CSOs play a vital role in developing climate change policy by informing decision makers about local issues and needs, and by providing examples of best practices for resource allocation. Given that the GCF stresses accountability in its mandate, CSOs should have access to government representatives and information in open and transparent meetings. COP19: An opportunity for the GCF? The COP19 this November in Warsaw will show the world whether the GCF can become an effective engine for climate change funding in developing countries. At this conference, developing countries must seek firm financial commitments for climate adaptation and mitigation. Only guaranteed funding will enable the board to make effective decisions regarding resource distribution or provide developing nations with a clear picture of how much funding is available. The GCF Board must also seek -- and receive -- guidance because many COP attendees will benefit from GCF resources. Countries can use the COP to provide advice on GCF policies, share their priority needs for funding, and recommend criteria to guarantee access to resources. The COP will also give CSO representatives a chance to raise questions and highlight counterproductive practices. Conclusions The COP presents a prime opportunity for developed nations to commit to the GCF’s stated goals and pledge desperately needed financing. Parties and CSOs must use the COP – GCF’s monitoring body – as a tool to improve GCF accountability, inclusivity and transparency so that the GCF can truly work to benefit vulnerable populations in developing countries. The COP should be a benchmark for advancing the GCF rather than just another event for developed countries to congratulate themselves on timorous steps forward. [i] The PSF will enable the GCF to directly and indirectly finance private sector mitigation and adaptation activities at the national, regional and international level. [ii] For the June meeting in South Korea, documents were published less than two weeks before the meeting, rather than 21 days as outlined in the additional rules of procedure decision taken in Berlin. [iii] As was the case on the last day of the meeting in Songdo.

Dams, mines threaten indigenous rights: Recommendations from UN human rights expert

By Jessica Lawrence, Earthjustice's research analyst A longstanding goal of Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has been to sound alarms at the United Nations, in national courtrooms and in international fora such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about environmental and human rights violations associated with mines and dams. Indigenous peoples are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of such extractive and energy industries in their territories. Last April, Earthjustice and AIDA provided evidence of these harms, as well as recommendations about how to avoid them, to U.N. indigenous rights expert James Anaya, who recently issued a report on extractive and energy industries and indigenous peoples. Comments from Earthjustice and AIDA focused on mine closure, describing how inadequate closure, restoration or monitoring can cause severe, long-term environmental contamination that can violate indigenous and human rights. We identified steps that countries can take to prevent these problems, including enacting strong laws on pabipty of mine operators and requiring operators to provide financial guarantees to ensure adequate clean-up during and after mine closure. Such measures can help protect human rights to health, clean water and a clean environment, as well as indigenous rights to culture, food, a means of subsistence and their lands and natural resources. Anaya’s report includes a number of recommendations with environmental and health imppcations. Key recommendations include: Guaranteeing indigenous communities’ right to oppose extractive and energy projects without fear of reprisals, violence, or coercive consultations. If a government decides to proceed with a project without their consent, indigenous communities should be able to challenge that decision in court. Rigorous environmental impact assessment should be a precondition. Indigenous communities should have the opportunity to participate in these assessments, and have full access to the information gathered. Governments should ensure the objectivity of impact assessments, either through independent review or by ensuring that assessments are not controlled by the project promoters. Measures to prevent environmental impacts, particularly those that impact health or subsistence, should include monitoring with participation from the pubpc, as well as measures to address project closure. If governments and project operators followed Anaya's recommendations, it would substantially reduce the harm caused to indigenous peoples by the often shameful and irresponsible conduct of extractive and energy industries. AIDA, to which Earthjustice provides significant support, works with local communities to address human rights violations from extractive industries throughout the hemisphere, including the Barro Blanco dam in Panama, the Belo Monte dam in Brazil, the La Parota dam in Mexico, and mines in the Andean ecosystems of Colombia.

Letter to the Board of the Green Climate Fund

Organizations, movements and civil society groups from developing countries -with decades of experience working for the rights and aspirations of peoples and communities- express their unified call for the adoption of the most robust environmental and social protections at the Green Climate Fund.

AIDA and CEMDA joint report on the UPR of Mexico

In accordance with the guidelines of the Human Rights Council, the Mexican Environmental Law Center (CEMDA) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) present comments on the extent of Mexico’s compliance with the recommendations the country accepted as part of the 2009 Universal Periodic Review (UPR). We also present comments on other human rights violations related to environmental issues, which we believe should be taken into consideration during the next Universal Periodic Review set to take place later this year.  

The challenges of deploying wind energy in Mexico. The case of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec

To combat climate change, low-carbon projects such as wind farms must be promoted. But despite the urgency for renewable energy, these projects must be carried out in a sustainable and equitable fashion. This article is an open call to Mexico and the world to improve planning and development practices for renewable energy projects, helping to guarantee the respect of the human rights of affected communities. The Mexican government has authorized the development of at least 14 wind power projects on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Oaxaca, one of the poorest states in the country with a more than 34% indigenous population. The projects are backed by international investors including the Inter-American Development Bank and benefiting from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. Even so, a number of projects have caused negative social and environmental impacts that outweigh the benefits, threatening the human rights of local indigenous communities, including the right to free, prior, and informed consent for projects affecting their lands and livelihoods. The reason for this problem is that the Mexican government has not developed effective rules or mechanisms to regulate these investments. Without them, private companies have had to negotiate directly with local communities. There are other factors aggravating the situation, too: Locals lack information: Residents of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec say they have not received comprehensive and timely information about the projects. Some residents said in recent public forums that they were not told about the potential environmental impacts of the projects, such as those now affecting the possibility to cultivate their lands. Threats and violence against locals opposing the projects: For more than two years, the Jijot and Zapoteca communities have raised complaints about their leaders receiving threats and attacks by paramilitary groups and state officials seeking to silence any opposition to the development of wind farms. Lack of free, prior and informed consent: In the rush to grant permits and administrative permissions to wind power developers, the Mexican government has not fulfilled its obligation to consult local indigenous communities as guaranteed by international law. Unreasonable terms of land leases: A number of wind developers have signed contracts with local communities that offer paltry payments for the use of their land. Locals have complained about the lack of a process for negotiating on fair and equal terms. Absence of comprehensive and community-wide benefits: Some wind projects lack a comprehensive environmental and social development plan, meaning that they only benefit a fraction of the population: mostly investors and the companies that will buy the energy. While some locals have leased their lands at reasonable prices, the payments haven’t brought the promised development. Environmental impacts: Some projects have caused extensive environmental damage, yet studies to identify, prevent, and alleviate these damages have never been carried out. Impacts include the burning of large swaths of pastureland (a cause of greenhouse gas emissions), mangrove deforestation, and the destruction of migratory bird habitats. To mitigate the social and environmental impacts and avoid the violation of human rights during the development of wind farms, the following actions are suggested: Create a protocol for wind power development that guarantees the respect for human rights. The protocol should be observed in all relevant public policies. And it must meet the following standards: include criteria and indicators to verify the fulfillment of all environmental and social conditions; incentivize economic growth in the region, particularly to the benefit of non-landowners; promote collaboration between private developers, state and local governments, and local communities. Guarantee that all stakeholders and affected communities receive timely, comprehensive and clear information on the projects. The communities have the right to free, prior, and informed consent, and this must be observed. Their decisions must be respected even if they oppose a wind farm. Stakeholders should also seek opportunities to benefit local communities, including through job creation and the support of communal projects. Elaborate and implement a process for measuring the externalities of the projects, in which Mexico’s Federal Electricity and Hydrocarbons Regulator will evaluate sustainability based on independent assessments. If a development fails to benefit local communities, the wind farm must be prohibited from accessing the electricity grid to sell output. As representatives of civil societies working to protect the environment and affected communities, we want to raise awareness about the possible negative impacts of wind farms on communities and promote better practices. We will continue to help affected communities in search of justice and equity.   About the authors:   The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) is a nonprofit environmental law organization that works across international borders to defend threatened ecosystems and the communities that depend on them. Its mission is to strengthen people's ability to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment through the development, implementation, and effective enforcement of national and international law. Contact information: [email protected]   The Mexican Environmental Law Center (CEMDA) is a nonpartisan civic organization that promotes environmental protection and the right to a healthy environment. Its work contributes to the effective implementation of legislation, improvement of public policies, and the strengthening of legality and the rule of law. Its objective is to achieve better social welfare conditions in harmony with nature. Contact information: [email protected]

AIDA presents report at Durban linking climate change to decline of human rights in Latin America

Calls for measures to protect the human rights of the most vulnerable communities. Durban, South Africa – On Wednesday, December 7, 2011, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) presented delegates at climate meetings in Durban, South Africa with a report detailing the negative effects of climate change on human rights to life, access to water, health, food, and housing for millions of people in Latin America. “Climate change causes the greatest harm to the human rights of those who are least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions – vulnerable and historically disadvantaged communities such as peasant farmers, indigenous peoples, and the urban poor,” said AIDA staff attorney Jacob Kopas. “Governments disproportionately responsible for historical and current emissions have an international obligation to contribute more to lasting solutions.” The most troubling of the impacts detailed by the report is a dramatic reduction in access to freshwater in Latin America. Increased melting of glaciers, degradation of high-mountain páramo wetlands, erratic weather patterns and severe droughts will limit dry-season access to water for up to 50 million people in the Tropical Andean region by 2050. Other impacts include heavier rains and flooding, which affected 2.2 million people and caused $300 million of damages in Colombia alone in 2010, and the loss of 80% of Caribbean coral reefs due in large part to warming ocean temperatures and ocean acidification. “The parties must understand that the climate change problem can no longer be ignored. We need to act now to help the world’s most affected communities cope with climate change by securing urgent yet attainable solutions like the Green Climate Fund here in Durban,” said AIDA attorney Andrés Pirazzoli, who distributed the report to delegates at the meeting. AIDA backs the Green Climate Fund, which would finance low-carbon technology adoption and adaptation programs in the developing world. AIDA issued the report this week to inform an investigation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on the link between climate change and human rights. The report calls for a binding climate treaty and for the biggest emitters to pay for adaptation and mitigation measures in the developing world.

Advocating before the Green Climate Fund

Combating Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs)

AIDA Presents Report on Large Dams Before the Inter-American Development Bank (Spanish)

Para Publicación Inmediata: 19 de Marzo de 2010   Contacto: Astrid Puentes Riaño - AIDA, +(52-1-55) 23016639, [email protected]   Informe: Grandes Represas en América ¿Peor el remedio que la enfermedad?   AIDA PRESENTA DOCUMENTO ANTE EL BID El objetivo del documento es el de promover un mejor entendimiento de la situación, evidenciar la vinculación entre los graves impactos ambientales y la violación a los derechos humanos que las grandes represas pueden causar.   Cancún, México – La Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente, AIDA, presentará el informe: “Grandes Represas en América, ¿Peor el remedio que la enfermedad?” ante el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, BID. La presentación se hará en el marco de la Reunión Anual de Gobernadores del BID que se celebra en Cancún, hasta el 23 de marzo. En esta reunión, entre otros, el BID decidirá acerca de la recapitalización del Banco para promover mayores inversiones en el hemisferio.   “Esperamos que las futuras inversiones financiadas por el BID y otras Instituciones Financieras Internacionales tengan en cuenta este informe, así como los estándares internacionales para estos proyectos, incluyendo las recomendaciones de la Comisión Mundial de Represas” declaró Astrid Puentes, co-directora de AIDA. “Esto podría Así podrían evitar graves impactos ambientales y a los derechos humanos, y promover verdaderos proyectos de energía limpia”.   El objetivo del Informe es evidenciar la vinculación entre los graves impactos ambientales y la violación a los derechos humanos que las grandes represas pueden causar y motivar la implementación de proyectos de energía adecuados. Para ello, se analizan cinco estudios de caso de distintas regiones de América Latina: La Parota (México), Chan 75 (Centroamérica), Baba (región Andina), Río Madeira (Brasil) y Yacyretá (Cono Sur).    El informe preparado por AIDA en coordinación con International Rivers y con la cooperación de múltiples organizaciones no gubernamentales y de comunidades afectadas por las grandes represas en el hemisferio, se presentó también en noviembre pasado ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) en Washington. La CIDH celebró esta audiencia dada la importancia del tema para la adecuada protección de los derechos humanos en la región.   Entre los impactos más graves generados por las grandes represas, abordados en el Informe, se incluyen: el empeoramiento de la calidad y salubridad de las aguas tanto río arriba como río abajo por la modificación artificial de las cuencas hidrográficas; la degradación de ecosistemas acuáticos; los impactos a la biodiversidad; los impactos en el cambio climático por el aumento en la emisión de gases efecto invernadero dada la descomposición de materia orgánica inundada; el posible aumento de actividad sísmica; la destrucción de ecosistemas estratégicos; el desplazamiento forzado de comunidades típicamente en situación de vulnerabilidad, como las indígenas, campesinas y afrodescendientes, así como las mujeres y los niños y las niñas; la pérdida de fuentes de alimentación y de sustento; la falta de participación pública y acceso a la información; la falta de consulta y la obtención del consentimiento libre, previo e informado de comunidades afectadas; y criminalización de la protesta social hacia personas o comunidades que defienden sus derechos.   “Buscamos evitar estas consecuencias negativas y promover alternativas efectivas a las necesidades energéticas, para lograr un verdadero desarrollo sostenible”, puntualizó Jacob Kopas, abogado de AIDA y coautor del Informe.   Versión completa del informe y Resumen Ejecutivo   Para mayor información acerca de la situación de las grandes represas en América Latina visite: www.aida-americas.org www.internationalrivers.org www.redlar.org/