Climate Change

Mexico’s climate commitments lack ambition

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) are the mechanism through which the countries that signed the Paris Agreement contribute to the fulfillment of the global pact's objective: to keep the increase in the planet's average temperature below 2°C. Each country's NDC outlines its national mitigation and adaptation commitments in the face of the climate crisis, including emission reduction efforts. The Paris Agreement stipulates that these commitments must be communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every five years and that each successive NDC must represent a progression from the previous one, reflecting the highest possible ambition (Article 3). In addition, NDCs must contain sufficient information on clear, transparent and understandable targets (Article 8, paragraph 8). And, in the case of Mexico, the General Law on Climate Change (LGCC) considers the NDC as one of the planning instruments of the National Climate Change Policy (Article 58) and establishes that it must observe, among others, the principle of progressivity, which implies that the established goals must be progressive and gradual over time (Article 26, section XIII). In its most recent update, Mexico's NDC does not comply with the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the LGCC. Ambition in the spotlight The Mexican State presented its first NDC in 2015. In it, the government made an unconditional commitment—through its own resources—to a 22 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 51 percent reduction in black carbon emissions, by 2030. Last December, Mexico presented its updated NDC, which should be more ambitious than the previous one. However, the new instrument merely reiterates the mitigation commitments made in 2015. Moreover, the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario—a tentative scenario in which there are no mitigation policies and which serves as a baseline for climate actions—was adjusted upwards with a higher total level of emissions by 2030 than indicated in the first NDC. This, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent scientific analysis that tracks governments’ climate action and compares it to what was agreed globally in the Paris Agreement. The CAT analysis states, "Because the NDC is based on a percentage reduction below BAU projections, a higher level of emissions in 2030 effectively reduces the country's mitigation ambition, even if the reduction targets remain unchanged." Due to its lack of ambition, Mexico's updated NDC was rated as "highly insufficient" in the CAT ranking. This means that the commitments adopted by the country "are not at all consistent with keeping [global] warming below 2°C [...]," being instead "consistent with warming levels of between 3°C and 4°C.” International agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Commission have emphasized the need for Mexico to increase its mitigation ambition, especially in the energy sector, which contributes most to the climate crisis and where the greatest emissions reduction opportunities exist in the short and long term. But Mexico's recent NDC does not set out specific actions in key economic sectors to achieve the endorsed targets, although it does state that these will be developed in an NDC implementation roadmap to be presented in the next Biennial Update Report. In this sense, the instrument lacks sufficient information to have clear, transparent and understandable targets. Regarding the adaptation component, Mexico's updated NDC includes nature-based climate solutions. However, the inclusion of such actions is not sufficient to have the level of ambition required to address the climate crisis and meet the objective of the Paris Agreement. A violation of the principle of progressivity In light of the facts, the updating of Mexico's climate commitments fails to meet the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and with this the Mexican State also disregards the principle of progressivity established in the LGCC since the targets set do not represent a progression and gradualness with respect to the first NDC. Other countries in the region—including Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica and Chile—have updated their NDCs, demonstrating increased climate ambition. Although they include measures that could be improved, their actions demonstrate a willingness to make further progress in terms of their contribution to global climate action. In this context, the Mexican State is leaving behind the progress and leadership it had years ago on climate issues. Its lack of ambition demonstrates indifference to the climate crisis and its impacts on the human rights of the most vulnerable populations. Mexico must assume its responsibility, one that comes from being on the list of the 20 largest emitters in the world. It must adopt mitigation and adaptation commitments compatible with the global goal of preventing global warming from reaching a point of catastrophic consequences.  

Fracking regulation in Mendoza violates Argentina's climate commitments

AIDA filed a legal brief before the Supreme Court of Mendoza arguing the unconstitutionality of a decree allowing for unconventional oil and gas drilling through hydraulic fracturing in the Argentine province.   Mendoza, Argentina. In support of a lawsuit filed by Argentine ally OIKOS, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed a “friend of the court” brief claiming the unconstitutionality of local regulations allowing for the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons, known as fracking. Using arguments based on international law, the brief outlines how Mendoza’s Decree 248 violates Argentina’s climate commitments and disregards the precautionary principle. "As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a signatory of the Paris Agreement, the Argentine State has assumed international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate crisis," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "Betting on fracking implies an increase in those emissions and non-compliance with the nation’s climate commitments.” Several studies of fracking in the United States have posited that leakage and flaring during fracking operations are associated with a significant increase of methane in the atmosphere. Though less notorious than carbon dioxide, methane emissions are responsible for around 25 percent of global warming. Decree 248 fails to contemplate any provision to control greenhouse gas emissions generated by fracking or limit their climate impacts. “There are not sufficient grounds for the government of Mendoza to claim they can effectively regulate fracking,” Velarde said. "It’s clear that this regulation is insufficient, and that it ignores the precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle establishes that, when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not prevent the adoption of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In fracking, being an unconventional technique with a high degree of technical and scientific difficulty, there is no certainty about its impacts, which merits the application of the precautionary principle. The brief also documents the applicability of this argument based on similar cases in other countries of Latin America. Colombia currently has a moratorium on fracking based on this legal principle. "In recent decades, the development of fracking has raised alarms worldwide due to evidence of serious and irreversible damages to the environment and public health, both of which are aggravated by the climate crisis," Velarde added. AIDA’s brief joins others filed by national and international organizations against the decree regulating fracking in Mendoza, including Xumek, FARN (Environment and Natural Resource Foundation) and Earthjustice. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +5215570522107.  

Fact Sheet: SPAW Protocol (Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife)

The Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) and its Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW Protocol) establishes that Contracting Parties have the obligation to regulate the protection of the vulnerable species and ecosystems of the region.The revised criteria for the nomination of species (1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10) determines the need to include essential species for vulnerable ecosystems - such as coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses - in the species lists of Annexes II and III of the SPAW Protocol.The national or regional measures imply in a different way protection processes, biological monitoring of species, fishing recovery zones; analysis of catch data, health status of ecosystems, population dynamics and size; closed periods; and regulation of the capture, possession, transport, trade or total prohibition of the use of the species.In 2018, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) prioritized the evaluation of herbivorous fish and currently the Species Working Group carries out the evaluation of parrotfish through the integration and analysis of scientific and regulatory data.Eleven of the 17 countries that have signed the Protocol have generated regulatory measures on herbivorous fish. Some regulatory experiences are in force, others are not, and there are those that came into force recently.   Download the Fact Sheet in EnglishDownload the Fact Sheet in SpanishDownload the Fact Sheet in French 

7 AIDA Advances of 2020

It was a year unlike any other. This new reality makes our victories and daily accomplishments all the more sweet. So we’re especially proud to report on the progress we've made toward a healthy environment and climate justice in Latin America. 1. Safeguarding the High Seas More than 99% of the global high seas—waters beyond national jurisdiction—are unprotected. To remedy this, over the past year we have led Latin American representation in the High Seas Alliance, collaborating with governments to negotiate an ambitious United Nations treaty to protect these waters and key migratory species of sharks, whales, turtles and tuna. The high seas are both essential to long-term ocean health and a critical carbon sink that helps mitigate climate change.   2. Influencing Divestment in the Amazon For nearly a decade we have worked to halt Brazil’s Belo Monte dam, which has displaced thousands of indigenous people and devastated hundreds of rare species. This year, our testimony led the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world's largest state-owned fund, to exclude one of the dam’s main financers, Eletrobras, from its portfolio because of environmental and human rights violations caused by the dam. This is a notable step toward justice for affected communities. 3. Defending Páramos from Mining We continued to protect páramos in Colombia and Ecuador from mining. These biodiverse, high-altitude forests and wetlands are critical carbon sinks that also provide fresh water for millions of people and habitat for endangered species. Our team contributed legal and technical expertise, and, in the case of Santurbán in Colombia, helped build capacity among local attorneys who are now leading the lawsuit to protect this páramo. 4. Protecting Environmental Defenders Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental defenders. This year, AIDA brought together more than 70 prominent environment defenders from 14 countries across Latin America to share current information about risks and effective strategies for defense. Participants discussed their challenges, identified gaps in knowledge, and developed new approaches for protecting themselves and their territories. 5. Halting Extractive Energy Development Our ongoing legal and technical expertise was critical to halting fossil fuel expansion. We continued litigation to uphold the moratorium on fracking and, helped prevent further coal mining expansion in Colombia, supported communities in Chile affected by coal power plants, and led efforts to hold International Financial Institutions accountable for funding harmful hydropower Guatemala and Colombia. This work is key to promoting the just transition toward truly clean energy. 6. Preserving Marine Biodiversity in Patagonia The Chilean Magallanes region is home to some of the largest whales and dolphins and one of the most pristine areas on our planet. The greatest environmental threat for this region is the salmon farming industry. Building on our past work, we used the law to halt expanded salmon farming and expose the harms the industry brings. Our work closed one salmon farm and set a precedent for the closure of seven others, all of which are under review by Chilean courts. 7. Strengthening Indigenous Land Management in Colombia In coalition with four indigenous communities of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, we continued protecting their lands from illegal mining. Facing hundreds of proposed projects, we helped implement legal strategies demanding a new territorial management plan that recognizes the traditional governing authority of the indigenous. We also helped strengthen community capacity through workshops on environmental protection.  

Five years after the Paris Agreement, climate justice is more urgent than ever

On December 12, 2015, the Paris Agreement was reached. Five years later, its effective implementation is more important than ever. One of the agreement’s most significant advances was to reiterate that States must, "when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.” This aspect is one of the outstanding issues, and also one of the great opportunities, of the Paris Agreement. In 2015, I had the privilege of participating in the twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where the agreement was adopted. Thanks to the live broadcast, I saw the last hammer blow of this historic summit on my phone while on the train to the airport. I traded celebratory hugs with dozens of colleagues for arriving a day earlier to celebrate with my family. It was worth it. After all, my contribution had concluded a few hours earlier. Over the five years prior, and with full intensity during the COP21, I reviewed drafts, and spoke with missions and colleagues about how crucial it was to include human rights in the climate agreement. My priority—shared by colleagues from organizations, some government representatives and international entities—was to ensure a strong agreement, including the obligation to consider and respect human rights. For some people, this was an obstacle, even inappropriate, as they saw the climate crisis as a purely technical issue. Some delegations told me that human rights issues are another area entirely. We insisted on the point until we achieved it, not out of stubbornness (although there may have been some of that), but because in essence the climate crisis affects our rights, our lives and all of us. That’s why it is vital to put human rights at the center of climate action. Otherwise, these actions are incomplete. This is evidenced by the reality of the climate crisis, translated for example into the damages sustained by millions of people and communities by the hurricanes and storms that have, in recent months, devastated coastal areas in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico and the Caribbean; the floods in South Asia; the droughts in northern Mexico; and the devastating fires in the Amazon, California and Australia. The most vulnerable people and communities who have contributed least to the crisis are disproportionately affected. It is therefore possible, and necessary, to find balance through a human rights approach. It’s necessary to hold States, companies and even some sectors of the population accountable. Responsibility with a sense of equity is one of the fundamental principles of human rights. In fact, the 2020 UN Emissions Gap Report concludes by saying, "Equity is central to addressing lifestyles. The emissions of the richest 1 per cent of the global population account for more than twice the combined share of the poorest 50 per cent." Communities, movements and peoples around the world have demanded—even in court—effective climate action that respects their rights. This has been reiterated by the United Nations. But climate action is still largely considered a question of numbers, tons of emissions to be reduced and hectares to be conserved. People and communities, despite being the ones who live the consequences, remain on the periphery of this action. Ensuring a true human rights perspective would help raise ambition and the level of obligations and outcomes. It would also allow impacts to be considered in a comprehensive manner and, as the IPCC concluded, take into account ancestral knowledge and social justice, which are central elements in finding effective solutions. Therein lies the opportunity that is being lost.  The scientific community today confirms the widening gap between the current situation and where we should be in reducing emissions. According to the recent UN emissions gap report, emissions were reduced in the last year due to the suspension of activities caused by the pandemic, while in the previous year they had continued to increase. In fact, despite the pandemic, which is also linked to environmental degradation, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, as in other regions, continue to rely mostly on fossil fuels, even for the economic recovery following the pandemic. This trend ignores the provisions of the Paris Agreement on the obligation of States to reduce emissions and implement effective measures while respecting human rights. It’s an element yet to be fulfilled, and a fundamental tool for States to increase their ambition and move towards the solutions that have as yet proven elusive. The five-year anniversary of this Agreement is a good time to remember it and to demand its implementation. If not, the most vulnerable communities will continue to suffer the consequences, and global inequalities will continue to deepen. Then, there will also be an increase in lawsuits and demands for a solution that the agreement itself incorporated. One element of leadership would be to put people and communities at the center of climate action. This is what I mean when I talk about climate justice, a great opportunity that many of us will continue to promote.  

5 things you should know about methane

Although its presence in the atmosphere is less than that of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the most abundant and well-known greenhouse gas—methane is much more effective at retaining heat due to its chemical composition. Therefore, adding smaller amounts of methane to the atmosphere can have an effect equal to that of adding tremendous amounts of CO2. Since 2006, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has grown considerably—by about 25 million tons per year. Studies have associated this increase with the leakage and burning of methane from the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons through the process of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing.  Although extracting gas through fracking is sold as a “greener” alternative to other fossil fuels, it is a false narratiave that must be combatted. In general, all activities that cause methane emissions aggravate the climate crisis and the increasingly urgent need to combat air pollution. The common understanding of methane is inaccurate. Therefore, it’s necessary to generate more awareness about what it is and what its real impacts are. What follows are five basic facts about methane.  1. Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas and climate pollutant Methane is a greenhouse gas.The Greenhouse Effect is a natural phenomena in which the atmosphere, composed of different gases, captures some rays of the sun and keeps them trapped in order to balance the temperature of the planet. When an excess of gases such as methane are emitted, the atmosphere traps more heat than necessary, leading to global warming. Methane has 67 times more power than CO2 to warm the planet over a 20-year period.  Its emissions are responsible for nearly 25 percent of global warming. And since it stays less time in the atmosphere—12 years on average (CO2 stays for centuries)—it is among the Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs), which cause 40-45 percent of global warming and damage air quality. 2. Methane primarily is produced from human sources About 60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere is considered by scientists to be caused by human activity, while the other 40 percent comes from natural sources like wetlands, volcanoes, and permafrost. Human sources include livestock, gas and petroleum exploitation, rice farming, mining (particularly coal mining), and landfills.  It should be noted that, according to scientific evidence, reservoirs are also an important source of methane. They generate 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases worldwide each year, more than all of Canada's polluting emissions, and 80 percent of that pollution is from methane. 3. Methane directly and indirectly degrades air quality Large amounts of methane are intentionally leaked or released during the exploitation, processing, and transportation of oil and gas. In the United States alone, such direct emissions amount to 13 million tons each year. When released into the atmosphere, methane is accompanied by other toxic pollutants such as benzene, formaldehyde, and ethylbenzene. In addition, by interacting with solar radiation, methane promotes the formation of ground-level ozone (O3), another short-lived climate pollutant (CCVC) and the main component of smog. Methane gas flaring also produces black carbon and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are also CCVCs. 4. Methane causes serious damage to human health As mentioned, methane emissions promote the formation of ozone found in the lower layers of the atmosphere, which has serious impacts on public health. It irritates the airways, generates a feeling of burning and shortness of breath, complicates asthma, causes lung dysfunction and even premature death, and alters the immune system's response, reducing its ability to respond to diseases such as COVID-19, which mainly affects the airways. And since methane burning generates black carbon, it is relevant to point out that it is a key component of particulate matter (PM 2.5)—particles that are 35 times smaller than a grain of sand. These particles cannot be filtered or retained naturally in the nose, and can even enter the lungs. Particulate matter is the air pollutant most frequently associated with cardiovascular, respiratory, and pulmonary diseases, including lung cancer. 5. It is urgent to regulate and curb methane emissions Since methane, in addition to aggravating the climate crisis, deteriorates air quality and with it human health, it is urgent to act to curb its emissions. Civil society must demand that governments efficiently regulate methane emissions from the hydrocarbon industry and other sectors such as coal mining and industrial livestock. In addition, we must demand the monitoring of emissions, as well as the production and dissemination of timely information about methane’s damage to our air quality.  

Three major opportunities to save the ocean and the climate

The novel coronavirus pandemic has brought a change in perspective on the importance of many issues, among them access to health and technology, and the inequalities present in many aspects of our lives. It has also renewed discussion about the need to act on the greatest threat facing humanity: the climate crisis. My intention is not to cause alarm or panic, but to emphasize that there is still much to be done. Life on the planet arose in the ocean and, after millions of years, adapted to be possible on land, eventually leading to human existence. Although we do not live in the ocean, it is key to sustaining life on Earth. The ocean is the planet’s main climate regulator. Marine currents set the tone for the seasons and their interaction with the air is the origin of tropical storms, hurricanes, and typhoons. Furthermore, mangroves—which serve as a link between the ocean and the land—and coral reefs are natural barriers against tropical storms. Therefore, a healthy ocean means a healthy climate, and we must seek to preserve it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, scientific evidence shows that the ocean suffers from overheating, acidification, and a loss of oxygen. In the face of this harsh reality, there are three major opportunities for climate-focused ocean protection measures. Despite being delayed due to the pandemic, these international negotiation processes still represent important windows of opportunity to save the ocean, the climate and our future. 1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change The first scenario is within the negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, during which member nations meet to review their commitments, progress made in fulfilling them, and the ongoing challenges in the global fight against the climate emergency. During the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) in 2019, the possibility of initiating a dialogue on the importance of the ocean in climate action was opened. The country parties, observer organizations, and other institutions were asked to send their contributions on the subject for analysis at the next meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Body. The idea is to more actively integrate marine ecosystems into climate change adaptation and mitigation plans, as well as to highlight their role in building planetary climate resilience. There is no definite date for the next meeting of the Scientific Advisory Body and we will have to wait until November 2021 for the next UN climate summit. 2. High Seas Treaty Conservation and sustainable management of marine resources is another key aspect of protecting oceans and the benefits they provide. This is precisely the goal of the negotiation of a High Seas Treaty within the framework of the United Nations. Marine areas outside national jurisdiction, known as the high seas, represent approximately half of the planet's surface. These areas are under little or no regulation. The treaty seeks to create an integrated legal framework to regulate productive activities on the high seas through environmental impact assessments, spatial management tools such as marine protected areas, management of marine genetic resources, technological capacity building, and technology transfer. Ecosystems in the high seas are highly productive and capable of sequestering carbon and regulating the climate. They are also essential for present and future food security. The last Intergovernmental Conference for the negotiation of the High Seas Treaty was scheduled for March 2020, but was postponed until March of next year.  3. Convention on Biological Diversity The negotiation of biodiversity management targets for the next decade, which are broad and cover a variety of ecosystems, are managed under the Convention on Biological Diversity. One idea that is being promoted is the protection of 30 percent of the ocean by 2030. This goal requires the creation of biologically significant, science-based, and properly managed marine protected areas. Without the High Seas Treaty, this goal is impossible to achieve. Negotiations on the Convention were planned for November 2020, but were postponed until the second quarter of 2021.  The link between these three negotiations is undeniable and necessary. Without marine protected areas created with a scientific approach, and without an ocean whose resources are managed sustainably, we will not have effective climate action.  This pause in the negotiations gives us time to inform ourselves and learn more about the importance of the ocean. It is a time to reflect on why it’s necessary to protect at least 30 percent of the world's oceans, including the high seas.  At stake is our climate resilience, our food security, and our future. Now is the perfect time to reflect on the wise words of Sylvia Earle: “No water, no life. No blue, no green. WIth every drop of water you drink, every breath you take, you’re connected to the sea.”  

Championing Lake Poopó’s recovery to protect the life it holds

Calixta Mamani thinks with nostalgia of the tall, green cattails growing along the shores of Lake Poopó, in the arid central plateau of the Bolivian Andes. She once used the reeds as feed for her livestock. "Now, everything has dried up,” she reflected. “There is no life here, the land no longer produces." She thinks also of the birds—Titicaca grebes and Andean flamingos—and of the fish that were once so abundant in the area. "Now you don't see them anymore,” she lamented. “Everything, our culture, is gone." The losses described by Calixta represent a plundering. The indigenous and rural communities living near Lake Poopó have been deprived, not only of their primary water source, but of their livelihood, their way of life, and their culture. Bolivia's second largest lake, Poopó has been damaged by the diversion of rivers, the climate crisis, and mining activities—which have continued despite the pandemic—to the point of putting at risk all the life systems that depend on it. Calixta is a member of the National Network of Women in Defense of Mother Earth (RENAMAT), an organization that defends the rights of indigenous and peasant women against the destructive impacts of extractive industries in the regions of Oruro, La Paz, and Potosí. Responsible for grazing the animals, food preparation, and other household tasks, Calixta and other local women live with the lake on a daily basis. As a result, they more acutely suffer the effects of its degradation. It’s because of the respectful relationship they have with Mother Earth and Mother Water that the communities around Lake Poopó are fighting to save it. Decades of Pollution According to a report by the Collective for the Coordination of Socio-Environmental Actions (Colectivo CASA), complaints related to Lake Poopó’s contamination by mining activities date back to 1981, when researchers revealed that 120 lead, tin, and gold mines were discharging their waste directly into its waters. The situation, which has continued over the years, has led to sedimentation. This means that considerable amounts of cadmium, zinc, arsenic, and lead have become sediment in the lake, making its waters unsuitable for human and animal consumption and of limited use for crop irrigation. "With the passage of time and the advance of mining, the exploitation of minerals has intensified,” said Petrona Lima, from Ayllu San Agustín de Puñaca, municipality of Poopó, in a testimony collected by the Center for Andean Communication and Development (CENDA). “Little by little all this has been disappearing, water veins have been cut, and everything has come to be as it is now; it looks like everything is burned." In an effort to preserve its biodiversity—which includes endemic and migratory birds and the largest number of flamingos in the Bolivian highlands—in 2002 Lake Poopó, along with Lake Uru Uru, was declared a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention. Despite this protection, the ecosystem remains in serious danger. In December 2015, water levels in Poopó reduced to such an extent that the body of water actually disappeared—an event considered one of Bolivia’s greatest environmental catastrophes. Although the lake managed to recover its flow during the rainy season, the situation remains critical in the dry months. The Climate Crisis and River Diversion The degradation of the lake is also a result of the global climate crisis, which brings intense droughts and increased temperatures. If the global average temperature increased by 0.8°C due to climate change, in Lake Poopó the increase was 2.5°C, according to information published in 2015, accelerating the evaporation of its waters.  Another major source of the degradation of these high-Andean lakes is the diversion of two of the rivers that feed it: the Desaguadero and Mauri rivers. The former has decreased due to mining and agricultural operations, while the later, located on the border with Peru, has been diverted. Currently threatening the Poopó Basin is the implementation of the second phase of a canal project that would divert more than 500 liters of water per second from the Mauri River to feed the agro-industry in Tacna, Peru. The implementation of the project’s first phase was one of the primary causes of the lake’s disappearance in 2015. Defending Their Source of Life Rural communities, the Aymara and Quechua peoples, the Uru Murato—among Bolivia’s oldest native nations—all depend on the Poopó and Uru Uru lakes. The Uru Murato used to live from fishing, but the contamination of Poopó has forced them to migrate to work in the salt mines. In addition to causing serious environmental damages, what’s happening to this ecosystem is a serious violation of affected peoples’ rights to water, health, territory, food, and work. That’s why AIDA and local organizations have joined forces to defend Lake Poopó, its biodiversity, and the communities that depend on it. In July of last year, we asked the Ramsar Convention Secretariat to send a mission of experts to the country to assess the health of Lakes Poopó and Uru Uru and make recommendations to the government for their recovery. This month, we launched the campaign #LagoPoopóEsVida to make the situation visible and to draw the attention of national and international authorities to the risks facing the lakes and its people. Protecting Lake Poopó would be tantamount to saving lives and preserving one of Bolivia’s cultural cornerstones.  

Preserving Bolivia’s High-Andean lakes, sources of life

Why fracking is not an energy transition

The current global health crisis is forcing society to reflect on our ever increasing need for change. It’s putting us face-to-face with the fragility and unfeasibility of an energy system based on fossil fuels. This is  evidenced by the historic collapse of oil prices associated with lower international demand for hydrocarbons—due to measures adopted in response to the pandemic—as well as overproduction and speculation in oil contracts, among other factors. Demand for gas is also expected to fall by 5 percent, following a decade of uninterrupted growth. Latin America is highly dependent on fossil fuels, both as an export commodity and for its own domestic consumption—88 percent of the energy used on the continent comes from nonrenewable resources.  Since 2010, governments and private businesses have been pushing for fracking, or hydraulic fracturing of unconventional deposits, due in large part to the overexploitation of conventional hydrocarbons.  Some countries describe fracking as a ‘bridge’ to reducing dependence on coal and petroleum as energy sources, claiming it gives them time to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.  Following this logic, fracking has been promoted as a step toward energy transition.  But how can a process that demonstrates a clear lack of economic, environmental, and social viability be labeled a transition?  Reasons to say “No!” to fracking To resort to fracking is to continue to promote an energy system characterized by high private ownership and appropriation, the use of non-renewable resources, and negative impacts on affected populations and territories. What’s more, this system is defined by a great inequity in terms of access to, and use of, energy. Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of toxic substances into the subsoil, which can cause the contamination of aquifers and air due to the volatility of some compounds. What’s more, leaks in the production and transport of gas and oil extracted vía fracking have been related to the increase in global emissions of methane, a pollutant responsible for about a quarter of all global warming. The technique also requires large amounts of water, which is especially relevant in a region that continues to confront serious problems concerning access to this basic resource. The use of fracking affects the ways of life of communities, both in terms of health—due to toxic substances in the air, water and soil—and in the violation of human rights and democracy. Many communities, particularly indigenous ones, lack access to information and are not properly consulted on fracking projects in their territories. The damages may be more serious for women, aggravating previously existing structural inequities. In economic terms, hydraulic fracturing requires large investments and, in order to be viable, it needs a market with high prices. In that sense, the unpredictability of oil prices makes it so that any nation that depends on hydrocarbons for its energy sovereignty is taking a dubious risk. Also, in fracking the rate of return on energy is lower. This means that the extraction process demands much more energy that it can capture. All this results in an energy benefit that is sometimes non-existent, and in which profits come from financial speculation.  To promote fracking today would be to take a step backward, rather than forward. It simply does not meet the definition of a transition away from fossil fuels, and the logic of fracking has little to do with satisfying the social and economic needs of the people, among them environmental sustainability. A Movement for Change A growing number of organizations, institutions, communities and individuals throughout the Americas have organized to prevent the advance of fracking. These joint efforts, like  the Latin American Alliance On Fracking, promote access to information and dismantle the position of businessmen and governments that claim fracking and more extractive activities are the only way out. Initiatives have emerged that seek energy alternatives by promoting dialogue and creating working groups on a just transition.  Examples range from the experience of energy autonomy through small community hydroelectric plants in Guatemala, the Rio Negro Production and Energy Transition Working Group in Argentina, and the various experiences of Censat Agua Viva in Colombia, including a Social Working Group for a New Mining, Energy and Environmental Model. Meanwhile, using legal and administrative mechanisms, several municipalities and communities in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay have prohibited or declared a moratorium on fracking in their territories. Thinking about another society requires thinking about another energy system, one that is just and democratic. These spaces of resistance and the construction of alternatives give us a roadmap to promote structural changes and to jointly confront our society’s health, economic, and climate crises. Only then can we move beyond a system in which what was once considered "normal" simply wasn’t working.