Climate Change

Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate change: are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

Last week, the IPCC published the first part of its sixth assessment on the global state of climate change (AR6), reflecting the latest scientific information. The existence and assessment of damage to the planet is not entirely new information for those of us who have been working in this field for decades. What’s new is the level of scientific certainty, the magnitude and scale of climate impacts, and the projections for our future. In short, the global situation today is worse than previously believed. As an attorney working for climate justice, the report is very disturbing, even frustrating. As a mom, it is devastating. I want the best for my children. Yet, despite having no responsibility for the climate disaster, their future will be determined by it and by the impacts that my generation, and previous ones, left them. This reality is shared by all children, as well as by millions of people and communities in the most vulnerable situations, who suffer the worst consequences of the climate crisis without having caused it. Faced with this bleak scenario, we can succumb to fear and depression, and be indifferent; or we can act. I choose to act. I decided to write this last column as co-executive director of AIDA, where I’ve had the honor of working for 18 years. I will highlight the most important findings of the IPCC, and explain the importance of differentiating responsibility for the climate crisis in order to move towards effective solutions. I consider these elements essential to crafting a complete picture of climate solutions. I invite you to renounce indifference and the (understandable) feeling of helplessness, defeat or frustration; and replace it instead with collective and effective action. Words matter, even in science. The IPCC report is blunt in concluding for the first time that it is "unequivocal" that the atmosphere, ocean and land have been affected by human influence. This was established by hundreds of scientists from around the world. Unequivocal means that there is no doubt, that something is incontrovertible, that it is unambiguous. Although it sounds obvious, it’s relevant to emphasize because, very recently, I heard presidents of countries responsible for the greatest emissions deny the existence or seriousness of the climate crisis. Such denial has cost us decades of progress. The IPCC also concluded that the temperature of the planet has increased, that "each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that has preceded it since 1850," and that the negative impacts on our planet are real, current and will become increasingly intense as temperatures and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to rise. The impacts suffered in Latin America and the Caribbean have cost us thousands of human lives, millions in losses, and displaced several thousand people, whose vulnerability is increasing. Yet the region continues to increasingly rely on fossil fuels, deforestation remains uncontrolled, and cities, where 80 percent of the population lives, are growing without planning and with severe air pollution. The IPCC identified the problem in cities as one of fundamental concern because the reduction of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) could both help the climate and improve air quality (and, with it, public health). RESPONSIBILITY AND ACTION TOWARDS CLIMATE SOLUTIONS Solutions exist, but to implement them it is essential to understand the cause and magnitude of the climate crisis. This is the role and importance of the IPCC. On the other hand, it’s necessary to understand the source of emissions as well as those responsible for them, since not all people, entities and countries are equally responsible for this crisis. It is precisely the lack of climate responsibility that is one of the greatest challenges to finding solutions today. On the one hand, there are the governments, which despite international commitments like the Paris Agreement, have not yet translated them into ambitious and effective action. For example, governmental targets for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) remain far from the needed commitments. In fact, no country in Latin America has an NDC of the required level of ambition and effectiveness. On the other hand, there are companies that fail to acknowledge their responsibility, supported governments and an international community thus fair incapable of demanding they do so. This is essential not only because of ethical issues, but also de facto ones. According to scientific research, just 90 corporate entities are responsible for 63 percent of the global carbon dioxide and methane emissions from 1751 to 2010. And then, there is individual responsibility. According to the United Nations, the richest 1 percent of the population generates more than twice as many emissions as the poorest 50 percent. The inequality is evident: those who are least responsible for the climate crisis are those who are experiencing its impacts the most, as the UN has concluded in multiple reports. This lack of action has led affected communities, people and organizations to seek solutions through strategic litigation. With the intervention of the courts, there have been landmark climate decisions out of the Netherlands, Colombia and Pakistan, among others. This is what it means to see climate justice as a starting point to solving the climate crisis. Climate justice implies looking beyond the reduction of tons of CO2 other GHGs, and the beyond conservation of millions of hectares of forest. Climate justice is the search for comprehensive solutions—incorporating the perspective of human rights and the environment; putting people and communities at the center, with participatory and inclusive processes, and a gender perspective; seeking for those who have caused this crisis, emitting for decades, to assume their historical responsibility; and so that those who are suffering the most from the impacts, be compensated. This is the backbone of our work at AIDA, which we promote together with dozens of communities and organizations in Latin America, in coordination with colleagues from the Global South and the Global North. Today, the scientific evidence and the level of urgency demand that we finally change course to avoid a major debacle. It’s our decision, as a society, to either continue business as usual, ignoring the IPCC, or to finally pay attention and act comprehensively towards the climate justice that the planet requires of us. We have the information, the tools and the call of urgency. I am confident that we can make it happen and we will continue to work towards solutions. Each person, company and State can join in and decide to be part of the solution. Otherwise, they will continue to be part of the problem.   

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

Session 3 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

Engaging with the GCF in different regions and countries Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources.GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists. Recording PanelistsBertha Argueta, Germanwatch: CSOs participation in GCF processes at the national level: Engaging with National Designated Authorities (NDAs) and Focal Points.Collins Otieno, PACJA: Experiences from Africa’s regional node.Tunga Rai, Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN); and Titi Soentoro - Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice: Experiences from Asia's regional node.Florencia Ortúzar, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Experiences from Latin America’s regional node.Moderator: Claire Miranda, climate justice advocate. Presentations1. Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch: 2. Collins Otieno, PACJA: 3. Tunga Rai, Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN): 4. Titi Soentoro - Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice: 5. Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA: 

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

Litigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action

In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be  disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean  

Read more
Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Climate Change

Reflections for a Bolivia free of fracking

Text written as part of the series #TRANSFORMAR LA CRISIS, Tomo II. Crisis Ecológica, extractivismo y poblaciones vulnerables by the foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Bolivia, to be published soon.   It all began with a study, published in 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reporting the existence of large quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons in Bolivia.  The study created considerable expectations in the Andean Nation. Given the gradual depletion of conventional oil and gas deposits, fracking has since become a latent threat. Fracking is a risky, costly and highly polluting technique. As a region, Latin America is home to roughly seven thousand fracking wells. The technique’s advance—as well as related public policies, regulations and social opposition—has commonalities across the region, including its affects on protected areas and on urban, rural and indigenous populations. So far, Bolivia remains free from fracking. But without an intentional political decision to avoid it, and without a population better informed about its effects, fracking could soon become a reality here as well. The risks of fracking in Bolivia The implementation of fracking is a latent threat in Bolivia because of the nation’s significant dependence on fossil fuels. In 2013, the state-owned company YPFB signed a cooperative agreement with YPF Argentina to study the potential of unconventional hydrocarbons. It also asked the operating companies to extract samples from the Los Monos geological formation in the Chaco region. That same year, YPFB Chaco (a subsidiary of YPFB), with the support of Halliburton, carried out a "mini-fracture" in the Ingre X-2 well, part of the Tupambi formation, in Chuquisaca. This operation would have allowed for the discovery of tight sand oil. Based on this discovery, YPFB Chaco had proposed to perform a complete fracture of the reservoir in 2014. It is unknown if this occurred because, in the years following, YPFB stopped generating public information on the project. In 2018, Canadian company CanCambria Energy Corp. signed a study agreement with YPFB, the prelude to an exploration/exploitation contract, to determine the unconventional gas potential at Miraflores, also in Chuquisaca. CanCambria's preliminary data points to the possible existence of a mega-field in the area, whose potential gas resources would be comparable to those of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta. The Canadian firm has prepared a proposal to extract gas by drilling 800 wells over 202 square kilometers in the Miraflores area, in the municipality of Macharetí. Miraflores is located in the Heroes del Chaco Municipal Protected Area and is part of the Yrenda Toba Tarijeño Aquifer System, which Bolivia shares with Paraguay and Argentina. The people living in Macharetí, including Guaraní indigenous communities, were shocked to receive news of the project. The alarm raised by the possibility of fracking in this territory led those who live there to learn about the consequences of the technique, particularly in relation to the use and contamination of immense quantities of water. As a direct result, Macharetí included in its autonomous statute the prohibition of fracking in its territory, intensifying the controversy over the technique’s development in the area. Between extreme energy and an energy transition In the face of this controversy over fracking, two paths lay before us: on the first, is the deepening of the extractivist model and the generation of highly polluting energy, with serious and irreversible negative impacts on Mother Earth and local populations; on the second, is a just and democratic energy transition, which implies the decommodification of energy, a change in the energy matrix, and a shift in the development paradigm. Bolivia, and Latin America as a region, need to profoundly transform the way energy is produced; the new system should be formed with a long-term vision and based on the respect for human rights and the protection of nature. The development of fracking, far from initiating any transition, goes against this trend because it continues to promote a polluting, risky and costly energy system. It is based on dependence on non-renewable energy sources with negative impacts on the territories, inequity and lack of citizen participation in the construction of energy policies. Instead, Bolivia must bet on a socially just, economically viable and ecologically sustainable energy transition. "Bolivia should not move towards the implementation of fracking in its territory because it represents one of the greatest risks to its ecosystems, resources and populations," says Jorge Campanini, researcher at the Center for Documentation and Information Bolivia (CEDIB). "It is urgent to generate solid policies that declare a moratorium or indefinite ban on this technique throughout the country". The experience of Latin American countries that have bet on fracking clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of this technique. In this context, many organizations, communities and peoples have organized to confront the threat. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic forces us to reflect on the future of fossil fuels, and the need for a just energy transition. Instead of considering fracking as an easy way to create jobs in difficult times, we must confront the health, economic and climate crises together. It’s time to think of resilient recovery, and thus an energy system that is not based on fracking. One idea usually associated with transition is the change of the energy matrix, yet, while necessary, the rapid and effective de-fossilization of that matrix is not enough. The energy transition must be comprehensive and incorporate environmental, economic and social dimensions so that it is also just and democratic. That’s why it’s so important that governments address the issue with a systemic approach.  

Read more
Climate Change, Capacity Building, Mining

Webinar "A Material Transition: Mining and the Renewable Energy Transition"

Presenting A Material Transition, a report from War on Want investigating the impacts of an increased demand for the minerals required to move away from fossil fuels, and what can be done to address global supply chains and reduce unsustainable demand. PanelistsAndy Whitmore: Researcher specialising in extractive industries and indigenous peoples rights. Co-chair, trustee and founding member of London Mining Network.Sebastian Ordóñez Muñoz: Colombian migrant based in the UK. Senior Programme Officer for Latin America, War on Want.Moderator: Andrés Ángel, Scientific Advisor, AIDA. Recording Presentations1. Introductory presentation: 2. Presentation of Andy Whitmore: Reference materialA Material Transition: Exploring supply and demand solutions for renewable energy mineralsImpactos a perpetuidad. El legado de la minería

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

Session 2 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

Gender, indigenous peoples and REDD+ within the GCF Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources. GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF. In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists. PanelistsLiane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: Main takeaways from B.29.Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development (WEDO): Gender at the GCF.Helen Magata, Tebtebba: Indigenous Peoples at the GCF.Souparna Lahiri, Global Forest Coalition: REDD + at the GCF.Moderator: Salina Sanou, PACJA.  Recording Presentations1. Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: 2. Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development (WEDO):Presentación en francés 3. Helen Magata, Tebtebba: 

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

People v. Shell: A step towards climate justice

On May 26, the District Court in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a landmark climate ruling. It ordered Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell—one of the world's leading fossil fuel producers and suppliers—to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels. The decision came in response to a 2019 lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth, along with six other organizations and more than 17 thousand Dutch citizens. Although Shell publicly committed in 2020 to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the Dutch court found that this pledge was not enough. According to the verdict, the multinational is responsible for not only its own CO2 emissions, but also those of its suppliers and customers, which together threaten the fragile planetary balance and the realization of human rights. The ruling determines, for the first time, that a company and its subsidiaries must align their policies with global CO2 emission reduction targets. It bases this obligation on the emission reduction targets of the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015. Thus, those who litigated against Shell fulfilled their main objective, which was not to obtain financial compensation for damages caused, but to force the oil company to reduce its emissions in compliance with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, and to continue efforts to reach 1.5°C. The Shell group has been aware for nearly 60 years of the risks of climate change, as demonstrated by a documentary they themselves produced in the 1990s. However, the multinational responsible for nine times more emissions than the whole of the Netherlands has never stopped investing in fossil fuels, intentionally favoring its economic interests at the expense of the environment, the climate and people. Check here the recording of the conversation we had with Niels Hazekamp, Senior Policy Adviserat Both Ends, one of the organizations that sued Shell, where explains the details of the litigation.   A worldwide precedent The ruling is a major step forward in the use of judicial systems as tools to advance climate justice, and it demonstrates that society, as a whole, is more determined than ever to stop the negative impacts that powerful multinationals have on the environment, the climate and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. Despite being litigated on European soil, the case represents a significant step towards global climate justice, offering an interesting opportunity for replication in Latin America and the world. The case not only opened the discussion on corporate climate responsibility, but was also a pioneer in incorporating the use of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The use of these instruments, which regulate multinational companies by requiring them to respect human rights, demonstrates their potential for global climate justice. The language of the verdict is based primarily on respect for human rights, thus opening the possibility of applying the same reasoning against other polluting companies, in accordance with the obligations set out in the above-mentioned instruments. More about the People v. Shell ruling Under the ruling, Shell must reduce Type 1 net emissions—those generated by its activities and those of its subsidiaries—and make a significant effort to reduce Type 2 and 3 net emissions—those generated by users of the oil and gas produced by the multinational. To account for the net reduction of its emissions, the oil company cannot resort to any of the carbon capture or offsetting tools established under the Paris Agreement, which consist of capturing CO2 emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants and heavy industry, for deep subway storage or reuse. It is worth noting that, although there is no certainty about the exact nature of the climate impacts caused by Shell, the judges highlighted the universally recognized risks to communities and ecosystems related to industrial pollution, and the company's financial priorities, to support their ruling. Primary doubts and concerns The primary doubts regarding this ruling have to do with its implementation. Although the court established that Shell may not use offsetting or absorption systems for its emissions, it does not oblige it to end the exploration, extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the ruling does not allow for the identification of exactly what kind of effort could be considered significant for the reduction of emissions by the oil company's customers. Nor is there clarity regarding the responsibility of the Shell group for the sale of its refineries to other public companies in the Global South, which would allow the multinational to comply in part with emissions reductions, while the refineries continue to operate in some of the most vulnerable places on the planet. In addition to the use of the Paris Agreement, which assisted the judges in ruling in favor of the climate in this case, the litigation opened the door to the use of existing soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, or others that are expected to be legally binding to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Likewise, considering the difficulty and possible manipulation in counting emissions, new avenues are opening up to establish specific obligations on polluting actors. As recommended by several civil society organizations, basing corporate emission reductions on the measurement of barrels of oil, cubic meters of gas and tons of carbon would be easier and more useful for the implementation of successful judgments such as this one. Finally, there are concerns about the rights of Shell workers, which could be negatively affected by the ruling. The drastic reduction that Shell will have to apply to its oil and gas activities must be framed in a fair and inclusive transition process, which includes respecting labor rights and transforming its activities by making them more sustainable. The case of People v. Shell has opened up valuable tools for a global shift towards climate justice and holding companies accountable for their environmental and human rights harms. For those of active in climate litigation, the case demonstrates the need to strengthen the capacities of our teams, the importance of creativity and the use of science, the importance of ensuring that we have the time and resources to pursue landmark cases and, finally, the relevance of building alliances to build upon the current momentum of the global climate justice movement.  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

A Guide for GCF Watch Coordinators

A publication for coordinators of GCF Watch, a civil society initiative from the global South aimed at improving monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the world's leading multilateral climate finance institution.   DOWNLOAD THE FULL GUIDEBasics of the Green Climate Fund (GCF)The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the operating entity of the funding mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As such, it provides funding to developing countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation projects and programs.Read and downloadNational Designated Authorities and Green Climate Fund Focal PointsNational Designated Authorities (NDAs), Government institutions, and Focal Points (FPs) are responsible for all matters related to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in developing countries. They represent the GCF and serve as a liaison or point of contact between the GCF and developing countries. Read and downloadFunding Proposals before the Green Climate FundProposals for project and program funding can be classified according to several criteria: type of access, public or private, amount of funds requested, and risk category.Read and downloadGuide to Reviewing a Funding Proposal before the Green Climate FundThe GCF Watch will consolidate all observations made by civil society before sending to the GCF Board. Your comments will be part of the message directly delivered to the Board!Read and downloadAccredited Entities before the Green Climate FundThe funding granted by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is channeled through accredited entities (AEs), which are in charge of managing the resources and implementing the projects and programs. The AEs must ensure that projects and programs comply with GCF safeguards, as well as oversee compliance when implementation is the responsibility of executing entities.Read and downloadThe Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM)The Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM) was created to respond to complaints from individuals, groups or communities who feel that they have been adversely affected by projects or programs financed by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) due to non-compliance with its operational policies and procedures, including its environmental and social safeguards.Read and downloadGCF Watch: A Southern Civil Society-Led InitiativeThe platform aims to improve the monitoring of the operations of the GCF through collaboration between organizations working at the level of the GCF Board and organizations and communities in the region that are close to the territories where projects supported by the entity are implemented.Read and downloadGlossary of useful terms for monitoring the Green Climate FundRead and download 

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

Session 1 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

The GCF Watch platform and an overview of 2021 Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources.GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists. PanelistsFlorencia Ortúzar, Attorney, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Introduction to the webinar series.Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): The GCF Watch Platform.Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Takeaways from BM 28 and main topics for 2021.Moderator: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch. Recording Presentations1. Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC):Presentation in French 2. Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL):Presentation in French 

Read more
Fracking, Climate Change, Human Rights

International pressure to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia

Many Latin American governments continue to promote extractive activities—including the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking, or hydraulic fracturing—as a means of economic revitalization in the face of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This trend contradicts the international commitments adopted by these countries to reduce emissions and mitigate the global climate crisis. A United Nations report, to be released this month, is expected to state that reducing methane emissions will be critical to avoid the most extreme effects of global warming. The report is based on recent data showing that carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere reached record highs last year, despite the pandemic bringing much of the global economy to a halt. This information complements scientific evidence that methane emissions from oil and gas production—one of its major human-related sources—may be higher than previous estimates. This increase has been associated with the leakage and flaring of methane from fracking operations. Although methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, it has a relatively short life cycle in the atmosphere, meaning that reducing its emissions could help the world meet our climate goals more quickly. Colombia is an example of how the push for fracking contradicts the urgent need to combat the climate crisis and its damages. Although it is not legal to carry out fracking operations in the country because its regulation is temporarily suspended, the government has not stopped the development of pilot projects of this technique and continues to anchor its energy policy on hydrocarbons. At the same time, there is a national and international push to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia. While the Council of State makes a final decision on the regulation, two legislative initiatives are underway: one that seeks to prohibit the implementation of fracking nationwide, and another that would prohibit the exploration and/or exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons by any technique. In the framework of the parliamentary treatment of both bills, which are expected to be unified, authorities from the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) participated in public hearings, in which they called on Congress to approve the legislation that would allow Colombia to move toward a fair and low-emission energy transition. The case for protecting people and the climate In his intervention, David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, referred to the climate crisis as "serious and unprecedented", highlighting that its impacts on human rights "disproportionately affect poor, vulnerable and marginalized people." In the same vein, Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances and Human Rights, expressed concern about "the Colombian State's intention to consider funding and supporting fossil fuel fracking," considering its potential impact on human rights and sustainability. He emphasized, "new investments in fracking are incompatible with the protection of human rights." For his part, Renato Zerbini, chairman of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—a body, composed of 18 independent experts, that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by its State parties—stressed that hydraulic fracturing "is closely related to multiple and ongoing human rights violations, as it causes irreversible environmental impacts and severe social affectations." Thus, the use of the technique violates the rights guaranteed by the Covenant, to which Colombia is a party, Zerbini pointed out. In general, the extractive industry "increases the risk for environmental defenders, territorial occupation and the impact on the rights of the communities surrounding the projects," added Soledad García Muñoz, the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights. In sum, the representatives of the international organizations reported on the unfeasibility of fracking in climatic, social and even economic terms: "When the real costs of fracking are taken into account, it becomes evident that these far exceed the alleged economic gains," emphasized Orellana. They referred to the international obligations of the Colombian State in terms of human rights and climate change, contained in various instruments. Among those, they cited Advisory Opinion 23/17 on human rights and environment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; General Comment 36 on the right to life, contemplated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; as well as the Joint Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change that five human rights bodies issued in 2019. The statement expresses that "failure to take measures to prevent foreseeable harm to human rights caused by climate change, or to regulate activities that contribute to such harm, could constitute a violation of States' human rights obligations." The common recommendation: ban fracking At the conclusion of their interventions, the international authorities expressed their support for a law banning fracking throughout the Colombian national territory: David Boyd argued,"to address the climate crisis, Colombia must urgently pursue a low-carbon, climate-resilient future, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy in light of its obligations under constitutional law, international human rights law and the right to a healthy environment." He concluded, "the government of Colombia must pass a law to ban fracking." Marcos Orellana pointed out that "the Congress of the Republic of Colombia has the opportunity to raise its gaze towards the future and preserve the legacy of its megabiodiversity." In that sense, he pointed out, "the protection of the right to live in a toxic-free environment inspires my respectful call for Congress to adopt a law banning fracking." Soledad Muñoz said that "the approval of a bill whose purpose would be to put an end to the exploration and exploitation of unconventional oilfields, prohibiting practices such as fracking, would represent a valuable measure of environmental protection, the reduction of socio-environmental conflicts and compliance with the commitments emanating from the Paris Agreement and the Inter-American (Human Rights) System itself." Continuing to base local economies on the extractive industry and promoting fracking only increases the dependence of our societies on fossil fuels, deepening the causes of the climate crisis and the damage it does to the most vulnerable among us.  

Read more