Human Rights

Colombia: Holding virtual hearings violates communities' right to participation

In the context of the pandemic, and since the beginning of Colombia's obligatory isolation, businessmen have asked the Colombian government to "simplify environmental procedures." On April 3, 25 entrepreneurs sent a letter to President Iván Duque asking for the simplification of processes including prior consultation, environmental licenses and royalities. One of the first measures undertaken was the attempt to simplify the prior consultation, proposing to make it virtual. In response, indigenous communities and the Ombudsman's Office requested that the Ministry of the Interior respect human rights and reverse the measure, which it did.  However, the quest to change the way consultations are conducted continues. At the request of the Ministry of the Environment, the National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA) is promoting several virtual environmental hearings, even proposing they be held on radio and digital platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. These are hearings to address key environmental issues in the country. The problem is that communication on these platforms is unilateral, denounced the organization DeJusticia, thus eliminating the possibility of discussing technical issues, and presenting an obstacle for those with limited access to the Internet. On April 13, 2020, ANLA issued Resolution 642, which opened the way for virtual participation processes. Days later, the licensing authority scheduled a virtual hearing to discuss a very important issue for the region: the return of aerial spraying with glyphosate, a toxic herbicide. The hearing, scheduled for May 27, was intended to address the modification of the glyphosate environmental management plan. But, thanks to a legal action, on May 18 a judge from the department of Nariño suspended the hearing. As evidenced, there exists an ongoing intention to carry out similar proposals during the pandemic. Many have been halted by the early warnings of citizens, judicial actions or statements by control authorities. On 20 May, the Administrative Court of Santander ordered the Ministry of the Environment to plan virtual working groups.  It has also called for a virtual public hearing on the Santurbán páramo, where a mega-mining project threatens to harm this strategic ecosystem, which is vital for local water supply and the mitigation of the climate crisis.  Holding virtual hearings implies a damage to the rural, indigenous and urban communities affected by a project, and to Colombian society in general. In addition to being in the midst of the worst crisis in recent history, these communities lack access to the internet and the basic necessities that could guarantee their virtual participation.  In Colombia, and across the region, the rights of access to information, justice and participation are among the most violated. We must stand at high alert so that the pandemic does not become an excuse to continue abusing them. All remaining proposed virtual proceedings must be immediately suspended, until there exists guarantees for the due exercise of the right to participation and the exercise of national and international oversight in these matters.   

COVID-19 Response: The importance of providing special protection to indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants

Indigenous and afro-descendant peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean have been essential actors in the protection of nature, of key ecosystems and, in short, of the lives of all beings that inhabit the planet. At the same time, they have historically suffered discrimination, exclusion and the violation of their rights, seeing their survival threatened. According to the International Labor Organization’s report, Towards an Inclusive, Sustainable and Fair Future, Latin America is the region with the highest proportion of indigenous and tribal groups living in extreme poverty. In the context of global health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the vulnerability of indigenous and afro-descendant peoples in the region has increased for at least three reasons. 1. The pandemic aggravates the lack of access of ethnic communities to their economic, social, cultural and environmental rights Both the United Nations and the Inter-American Human Rights System have drawn attention to the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. However, ethnic communities have historically faced the absence of guarantees for the enjoyment of their economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. Many of these peoples do not have effective access to health, sanitation and social security services. And due to deforestation and the advance of the agricultural frontier in their territories, they face increasing challenges in ensuring their food sovereignty, confronting new diseases, and adjusting their traditional medicine systems. In addition, several of them have serious problems accessing indispensable goods such as water and food. The barriers to accessing these services under quality conditions have become greater with the current health crisis, making these populations more vulnerable and putting their very survival at risk. This is an overwhelming reality for the region. In a recent statement, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expressed its concern by stating that, at the local level, "pandemic processes produce disproportionate impacts on populations with greater difficulties in accessing health structures and health care technologies within countries, such as indigenous peoples…” At the regional level, COICA (Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin) declared a state of emergency in the face of the health crisis. In Guatemala, the International Commission of Jurists denounced that indigenous peoples "face the risk of suffering the destructive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to historical and systematic discrimination against them" and that in the current crisis "they do not have access to clear and simple information on how to protect themselves from the pandemic and how to be protected during the emergency by the Health System." Indigenous leaders in Peru denounced food shortages and deficiencies in health care, calling for the supply of essential items in communities and the definition of protocols for carrying supplies. In Colombia, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) reported that more than 191,000 indigenous families are at risk of infection and that for nearly 513,000 families the humanitarian crisis due to the pandemic is imminent. In addition, the National Conference of Afro-Colombian Organizations said that their population is at high risk and that "the majority of Afro-descendant territories do not have a network of equipment and personnel that would allow them to properly attend to potential affected persons." The situation in Brazil is the same. Out of 471 indigenous lands, 13 have critical vulnerability indexes regarding the pandemic. In the states of the Legal Amazon, 239 indigenous lands have intense or high vulnerability indexes. In general, the index varies between moderate, high, intense and critical. In addition, less than 10% of Brazilian municipalities with indigenous lands have beds available in the Intensive Care Unit and the indigenous health system only treats common diseases. Without guidance from the health departments, many indigenous groups are taking preventive measures on their own to prevent the pandemic from reaching their territories. Such measures include voluntary isolation, hygiene campaigns, and suspension of large mobilizations, events and travel; there has even been a closure of traffic between villages to prevent the spread of the disease. 2. Ethnic communities require differentiated measures, but the response of States remains insufficient In various countries of the region, indigenous communities are reporting that the measures taken by authorities in response to the pandemic have been precarious and culturally inadequate because they do not consider the uses and customs of these peoples. The IACHR and the Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights have reiterated that States must adopt culturally appropriate, timely, and effective responses to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples in the face of the pandemic. The IACHR reminded States of their obligation to provide "special protection" to the indigenous population, as well as " the importance of providing them clear information about the pandemic in their traditional language, whenever possible.” It also referred to Afro-descendant and tribal communities, highlighting the need for their situation “to be made visible in the context of this pandemic, especially to include an ethnic-racial perspective with an intersectional approach in all response measures implemented both in the level national, as in the regional responses that can be articulated.” In Mexico, the Mayan Community Collective of Hopelchén publicly denounced the Mexican government for the lack of implementation of an official strategy to inform Mayan indigenous peoples about the risks they face in the face of the health crisis. In Ecuador, the WHO warned of the lack of protocols for indigenous peoples and nationalities in the face of the pandemic.  It noted that it is essential that social food programs reach these communities and the rural sector, and that prevention campaigns reach them in their own languages. The situation is aggravated by the poor connectivity of many of these peoples, who lack land, air and/or river routes. This hinders their mobility and access to social services, the internet and information about the pandemic, including state measures taken and self-care actions to be implemented. 3. The territorial rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities continue to be violated In the midst of the sanitary emergency and the confinement decreed in several countries of the region, governments and other actors have adopted measures or promoted initiatives that ignore the right to prior consultation, cause the relaxation of environmental requirements for high-impact development projects, and favor the lack of effective guarantees for citizen participation in environmental matters. In Colombia, the national government promoted virtual prior consultations. The National Commission on Indigenous Territories and several human rights organizations rejected the initiative, which was finally repealed. However, concern persists over the request made by businesspeople to the government for the relaxation of environmental permits in the country, a vital instrument for protecting the environment and indigenous territories. In Brazil, the pandemic's threats to indigenous communities are compounded by the invasion of indigenous territories and increased violence and threats to their leaders. In Roraima, Mato Grosso and Bahia, indigenous peoples blocked roads and built barriers to prevent invaders from entering their lands. These risks also come from the State. The National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) published an administrative act promoting the recognition of boundaries of private property on indigenous lands. This is intended to allow the issuance of property titles to invaders on indigenous lands, legitimizing their actions. In Mexico, organizations and communities denounced the federal government’s continuation of the so-called "Mayan train" project despite the fact that its construction is non-essential in the context of the pandemic. The project puts at risk the population in charge of its construction and prevents access to information and justice for communities given the suspension of deadlines in state institutions and the impossibility of resorting to appropriate judicial mechanisms. In Bolivia, the National Coordinator for the Defense of Indigenous and Peasant Territories and Protected Areas stated that indigenous peoples are vulnerable not only to the coronavirus, but also to what will come next: "a big hole in the global economy" and, therefore, "an excuse for more attacks on nature, indigenous territories and the natural protected areas where they are located.” On this issue, the IACHR reiterated to the States " the importance of recognizing the territorial rights of collective property to the Afro-descendant communities and guaranteeing them the effective right to free, prior and informed consent and consultation, respecting their free self-determination.” It also urged States to " refrain from promoting legislative initiatives or projects that affect ethnic territories during the duration of this pandemic, due to the impossibility of carrying out said consultation processes.” Towards emergency health care that respects the rights of indigenous peoples and people of African descent Indigenous peoples and people of African descent represent one of the continent's most important assets. Their millenary residence and their worldview—which respects nature and the beings that inhabit it—have been and are an invaluable legacy. They will be an indispensable element in promoting reflections on the global health and ecological crises that we face.  The contributions of ethnic communities and their ancestral knowledge, which have transcended time and contributed to the survival of the planet, are essential for the implementation of preventative and care measures related to the pandemic. This is what the President of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues emphasized: “Indigenous peoples can contribute to seeking solutions. Their good practices of traditional healing and knowledge, such as sealing off communities to prevent the spread of diseases and of voluntary isolation, are being followed throughout the world today.” Protecting these peoples so that the pandemic does not threaten their lives and integrity is a moral and historic duty, and an international obligation of all States. It is therefore imperative that States: Promote special care plans and emergency protocols for ethnic communities and other vulnerable populations, with a human rights approach and from a differential perspective. Support the initiatives that some Afro-descendent peoples and indigenous communities have taken to deal with the crisis of the pandemic on the basis of self-government and autonomy, including strategies of voluntary isolation, the use of traditional medicine and the conduct of internal information and communication campaigns. Refrain from promoting measures that disregard the territorial rights of indigenous peoples and people of African descent. AIDA urged States to suspend the approval of environmental and other official permits for sensitive projects unrelated to the response to the health crisis, until human rights can be adequately guaranteed. Suspend prior consultations until conditions are in place to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples. Suspend bills and initiatives that weaken the integrity of indigenous territories, as well as the progress of any development project or extractive activity on indigenous or Afro-descendant lands that could have negative effects on the life or integrity of these peoples.  

Webinar "A Just Transition: Why should industrialized countries reduce their consumption of raw materials? The case of Germany"

The global expansion of renewable energies, electric mobility and digitalization will massively increase the demand for raw materials. This implies the risk of damage to human rights and the environment, as well as an intensification of geopolitical tensions over these resources. In this context, a globally inequitable distribution of raw material consumption would jeopardize the sustainable and fair development of the countries of the Global South.In this webinar, we presented the proposals of an NGO network in Germany to achieve a reduction in the consumption of raw materials and to include the perspectives of producer countries, supporting their call for a "change in raw materials" (Rohstoffwende). PanelistRebecca Heinz: Policy Advisor – Resource Policy at Germanwatch. Recording Presentations1. Opening presentation: 2. Presentation of Rebecca Heinz, Germanwatch: Additional materialGermanwatch report 12 Reasons for a Primary Resource Transition(in German) More informationTo learn more about the just transition proposal presented at the seminar, write to heinz@germanwatch.org 

Inter-American Court upholds indigenous rights in Argentina

In Argentina’s Rivadavia department, along the border of Bolivia and Paraguay, the lands have been inhabited by indigenous people for at least 60 years. Communities there subsist primarily from hunting, gathering, and fishing. Many of these ancestral peoples have been battling for governmental recognition of their land rights since 1984, when the country’s transition from dictatorship to democracy began. This lack of recognition has had profound impacts on the lives of indigenous inhabitants, affected by changes in their land and its use. As Creole families settled in the area, they brought their own customs and economic activities, such as animal grazing and illegal logging. Barbed wire fence was erected without consulting indigenous populations, and an international bridge was built that crosses into their land. These developments have changed how the indigenous people eat and disrupted their access to water, threatening their very cultural identity. With no protection from the Argentine government, in 1998 a coalition of indigenous groups took their struggle before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Grouped in the Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) Association—made up of Wichí (Mataco), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí) and Tapy'y (Tapiete) indigenous peoples—, they were represented by the Centre for Legal and Social Studies. In 2012, the Commission issued its Merits Report, establishing the violation of indigenous communities' rights and recommending that the State adopt reparation measures. When Argentina failed to comply with the provision, the case was referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. On April 2, 2020, the Court’s decision declared Argentina responsible for the violation of the indigenous peoples’ rights to community property, cultural identity, a healthy environment, and adequate food and water. The ruling marks an important milestone in the struggle for indigenous rights. It is the first time that the Court, in a contentious case, has analyzed these rights autonomously on the basis of Article 26 of the American Convention, and ordered specific measures for their restitution, including actions for access to food and water, the recovery of forest resources, and the recovery of indigenous culture. Actions for Reparation Among other implications, the Court's decision could lead to solutions to the health issues afflicting the indigenous communities of Lhaka Honhat. The violation of their rights to food and water has caused deaths from malnutrition and dehydration. The Court demanded that the State present a study within six months that identifies critical situations of lack of access to drinking water and food, formulates a plan of action to address them, and begins its implementation. It also ordered the creation and implementation of a community development fund within a period of no more than four years. As for the territory, the State shall, within a maximum period of six years: Delineate, demarcate, and grant a single collective title without subdivisions or fragmentations for the indigenous communities. Transfer the Creole population out of the indigenous territory through specific mechanisms that promote, above all, voluntary transfer. Remove barbed wire fences and livestock belonging to Creole settlers from indigenous lands. Refrain from carrying out acts, works or undertakings in indigenous territory. Additionally, the Court requested the adoption of legislative and/or other measures to provide legal certainty to the right to indigenous community property in Argentina. Supporting the Indigenous Struggle In March 2019, AIDA helped author and amicus brief in support of the climate of the indigenous communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association. We did so alongside our allies on the litigation group of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), including Amnesty International, the Asociación Civil por Igualdad y Justicia, the Colombian Commission of Jurists, Dejusticia, FIAN International, International Women's Rights Action Watch - Asia Pacific, and the Minority Rights Group International. Our arguments highlighted the importance of recognizing economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights as real enforceable rights—similar to others such as the right to life or personal integrity—due to their independent and indivisible nature. In this sense, AIDA recalled the important advance that the Court promoted with Advisory Opinion 023, which recognizes the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human life. Our brief called on the government to respect the rights of indigenous peoples—as outlined in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights—to a healthy environment, food and water, and cultural identity. The Court's decision establishes an important regional precedent for the protection of the environment in the Americas. It contributes to the consolidation of standards to protect the land of indigenous communities, as well as their rights to a healthy environment, water and culture.   

International Environmental Law: History and milestones

International Environmental Law (IEL) is a discipline that involves the whole world in the protection of a common good: our environment. At AIDA, we apply it every day to help individuals and communities defend the environment and the fundamental human rights that depend on it. But where did this global discipline come from and how has it evolved? Its rules have not been dictated by a national institution or an international authority. Rather, it is a compendium of declarations, treaties and rules—some binding, some voluntary—that have developed alongside scientific knowledge and awareness of the current state of our natural world. The history of IEL can be divided into three stages, separated by two of the most relevant international conferences held so far: the Stockholm Conference (1972) and the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (1992). And in 2016, with the signing of the Paris Agreement, a new stage began to confront humanity's most important natural challenge: the current climate emergency. The beginnings: Before Stockholm Before the 1960s, there was little environmental awareness and only a few isolated international environmental regulatory initiatives. One of these was the failed London Convention of 1900, which sought to protect African wildlife. It never came into force because it was not signed by the minimum number of parties. It was replaced 33 years later by the 1933 London Convention, which was implemented in much of colonized Africa through the creation of nature parks and species protection. During those years, other initiatives were carried out in isolation. But things really started to change in the 1960s, when public opinion became aware of the dangers threatening the planet. Some of the events that marked this era were the publication in 1962 of the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which documented the negative effects of pesticides on birds and the environment; and the release of the image known as Earthrise, taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission. The Stockholm Declaration A product of the first UN Conference on the Human Environment, the Stockholm Declaration (1972) was the first international document to recognize the right to a healthy environment through 26 principles, many of which have played an important role in the subsequent development of IEL. Principle 21, for example, confirmed one of the cornerstones of IEL: the responsibility of States to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment of other States. The Declaration also established the Principle of Cooperation, which is crucial in the further development of IEL, by recognizing that countries should unite their  efforts to meet the global challenges of our shared environment. Also in Stockholm, the UN General Assembly created the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the central body in charge of environmental affairs today. Between Stockholm and Rio After Stockholm, changes began to be seen in national governments: the first green political parties were formed, some Ministries of Environment were created, and a significant amount of local environmental legislation began to be developed. In 1983, the UN created the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission. Its work, which focused on the difficult relationship between environment and development, resulted in the report Our Common Future (1987). That document coined the concept of sustainable development - defined as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" - which is the basis for the evolution of IEL. At this time, some of the global environmental problems that still afflict us today began to manifest themselves--including the depletion of the ozone layer, risks to biological diversity, and the threat of climate change. International cooperation was absolutely necessary and developed countries would have to help poorer countries if humanity was to be able to meet such challenges. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed to combat the depletion of the ozone layer. This international agreement has been an example of successful international cooperation.Because of it, it’s believed that the ozone layer could recover by 2050. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro  In 1992, during this Conference, two conventions were presented to be signed by national governments: the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Rio Declaration was also established, which reaffirmed the Stockholm Declaration and the Agenda 21 action program, which continues to guide governments and non-state actors in environmental protection activities. In Rio, in the face of growing evidence that human activities in pursuit of economic growth were responsible for major environmental threats, the central concept continued to be sustainable development. Two principles of the Rio Declaration deserve special consideration: the Precautionary Principle, the most advanced form of prevention and important to the formation of modern IEL; and Principle 10, which recognizes the right to information, participation, and justice in environmental matters. In 1998 Principle 10 gave rise to the Aarhus Convention, binding in Europe and Central Asia. The Aarhus Convention is the predecessor of the Escazú Agreement, which seeks recognition of these rights in Latin America. This recognition is also considered an important milestone in the creation of IEL because it shows the emergence of civil society as an increasingly important and active player in global environmental protection. After Rio and into the Future After Rio, all major economic treaties began to include environmental protection. A case in point is the Marrakech Agreement, which created the World Trade Organization in 1994 and was the first economic treaty to recognize the goals of sustainable development and environmental protection. The Convention on Climate Change of 1995 deserves special mention, since its signatories have met every year at the so-called Conference of the Parties (COP). Within this framework, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was presented. Despite not having been successful in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, it was the first international agreement to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries. In 2000, 189 countries adopted the Millennium Declaration in New York, which strengthened the importance of sustainable development by recognizing the need for sustainable economic growth with a focus on the poor and respect for human rights. Two years later, in 2002, representatives from 190 countries attended the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg to follow up on the commitments of the Rio Summit. On that occasion, they adopted the Declaration on Sustainable Development, which focused on development and poverty eradication with a legal-economic approach on "public-private partnerships”. And in 2012, the UN organized the third Conference on Sustainable Development, known as Rio + 20, which brought together 192 Member States, private sector companies, NGOs, and other organizations. The result was a non-binding document called The Future We Want. In the document, States renewed their commitment to sustainable development and the promotion of a sustainable future. Modern Times The Kyoto Protocol to address climate change gave way to the Paris Agreement (2016).  In this agreement, the signatory countries committed themselves to doing everything possible to prevent the average temperature of the planet from rising by 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, and hopefully staying below a 1.5°C rise. The relationship between human rights and climate change was recognized in its preamble. Having been ratified by almost all countries in the world, it has immense potential as an instrument of international law. In fact, recently the first ruling that prevented a project (the expansion of an airport) was made in England, on the grounds that by proceeding the country would not be complying with the Paris Agreement. A contemporary landmark of great relevance, especially for Latin America, is Advisory Opinion 23 (2017) on the environment and human rights of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In it, the Court recognized for the first time the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence, as well as the impacts of environmental degradation and climate change on human rights. Finally, it is worth mentioning the current construction of an international legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In recognition of the crucial role that the ocean plays in the health of the planet and especially in the stability of the climate, safeguarding the vast and mysterious areas in the high seas seems to be absolutely necessary. Conclusion: Where do we stand? After reviewing the most important milestones related to global efforts to address the serious environmental crisis we are experiencing, it is inevitable that we will be plunged into deep concern. Global initiatives have not succeeded in motivating the change of direction we need for our planet to begin to regain its health. As it stands, no one can ensure that future generations will be able to meet their needs as past and present generations have done. Despite the disappointments, it is important to continue promoting global initiatives where common policies are discussed and where IEL takes shape. Although these initiatives have not yet been able to stop the environmental crisis, they have strengthened IEL as an instrument to defend our causes, something that we make the most of at AIDA. Likewise, world conferences often become platforms for large-scale protests and awareness-raising campaigns directed by global civil society, which has become increasingly alert and determined to defend our environment. Today, much of the hope for change lies in the strength of civil society, especially in the young people who have awakened and come to the defense of the planet. This force finds in IEL a point of support to demand what we need: a resounding change in the model of development that still guides the affairs of the planet, and which is causing so much damage.  

3 ways to maintain hope in the face of the climate crisis

Those of us who work on environmental issues are bombarded on a daily basis with headlines repeating the message: “Time is up, our days are numbered.” And, to tell the truth, rarely do they seem exaggerated: the IPCC reports, fires in Australia, the disillusionment of COP25, the mocking of the youth movement, assassinations and threats to environmental defenders. During dinner parties and casual get-togethers, people who know I work on environmental issues ask me what they can do for our planet. We start by talking about garbage: produce less of it. This, although seemingly basic, leads to long and heated conversations. Why? Because it questions our means of consumption, how we transport ourselves, feed ourselves, and dress. It makes us analyze our lifestyle and ask ourselves what “quality of life” means for us. Our garbage, after all, is the result of a long chain of emissions, which include the exploitation of land, species, and people.   The truth is, everything is connected and it’s impossible to detach ourselves from our impact on the Earth.   It’s through this chain of thoughts that many of us fall into episodes of “eco-anxiety.” It’s an increasingly common condition that, if left untreated, can be detrimental to our health. In 2017 the American Psychological Association (APA) described eco-anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom… Watching the slow and seemingly irrevocable impacts of climate change unfold, and worrying about the future for oneself, children and later generations.” The strange thing about this condition is that it can stop us from acting. We might begin to believe there’s nothing we can do and, then, stop paying attention. We might become more lax with our consumption habits and end up aggravating the problem.  So what can we do? From what I’ve gathered, our actions can be divided into three areas: the individual, the community, and the citizen-consumer. First things first: Be good to yourself A general rule for helping others is to first help yourself. The climate crisis affects our physical health, food security, human rights, and mental health. According to the APA, emotional responses are normal and negative emotions are necessary for making decisions and living a full life. But extreme emotions and the lack of a plan to resolve the problem can interfere with our ability to think rationally and behave appropriately. Not to mention the fact that those suffering losses due to environmental catastrophes (hurricanes, droughts, and floods) may develop post-traumatic stress. To confront these emotions, the APA suggests that we: Believe in our own resilience and know that we can overcome obstacles. Practice optimism and learn from our experiences. Cultivate self-regulation and emotional self-awareness in order to develop long-term strategies; knowing how to detect them prevents episodes from worsening. Find meaning in your life. Faith or religion work for some; for others it’s meditation or building community. The point is to find something that gives you a sense of peace. Individual actions do help, and people united for a cause can make a difference.  Rather than punish ourselves for everything that we can’t do, let’s begin to talk about what we can. How many emissions can we cut back on by riding a bicycle?  How many plastic bags can we divert from the sea?  How does our consumption help the local economy and our environment?  And always, always, take a daily dose of nature to inspire yourself. Second: Your immediate circle Recently, single-use plastic bags were banned in Mexico City. More than one person said that it violated their right to shop as they please; others complained they didn’t know how to shop anymore. I’ve used cloth bags for years. I could have just rejoiced in my own environmental righteousness and bragged on Twitter. Instead I asked myself, “Why not share some recommendations?” Practices that I had already applied to my house were well received by friends and neighbors because they were practical. Building relationships, however brief, is a step toward strengthening our community.  Also, it helps to maintain perspective and a sense of humor.  Get together with neighborhood groups, volunteer with organizations whose cause you support. Donating time, money, or materials is taking a step beyond your individual actions. Have a  friend who wants to eat less meat? Offer them your best vegetarian recipes!  Do you know how to program or do graphic design?  Do you have a pick up truck? Surely there are groups who would appreciate your help.  At AIDA, for instance, we’re often looking for volunteers and interns.  The APA recognizes the impacts of the climate crisis on the mental health of certain communities; they are not the same in a city as they are in an area at risk of environmental disaster, or in an indigenous community.  Affected communities confront a loss of social cohesion and the loss of important spiritual or recreational places. They also witness an increase in violence, including racial violence, as certain groups become increasingly persecuted. Furthermore, a loss of identity ruptures the unity of these communities, as is happening with the Inuit of Greenland or as we at AIDA have seen in displaced indigenous and riverine populations in the Amazon.  Third (I’m sorry): We have to talk about politics and civic engagement This may be a subject you don’t particularly enjoy, but you’re needed here too. The wastewater produced in your home is but a drop compared to untreated industrial waste being dumped into a river. You could ride your bike everyday, but you would still be living in a country that permits industries to emit volatile carcinogenic and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without accountability.  While our goodwill does matter, it just doesn’t have as large an impact as the will (and obligations) of governments and industries to do things right and work for the health of all living things.  In Latin America, the election of our local representatives may work differently than it does in the United States. But that doesn’t free us from the responsibility to elect representatives that will work for a cleaner and more resilient future. Indeed, we must demonstrate our interest in that future and demand that they work toward it. Environmental writer Emma Marris explained it well in her New York Times column: “The climate crisis is not going to be solved by personal sacrifice. It will be solved by electing the right people, passing the right laws, drafting the right regulations, signing the right treaties—and respecting those treaties already signed, particularly with indigenous nations. It will be solved by holding the companies and people who have made billions off our shared atmosphere to account.”  The balance we’re seeking in AIDA We are proud to be an organization made up of professionals who are deeply passionate about the environment. On a personal level, we share our ideas with each other about how to create a better planet. On a community level, we all support the organization, and there are also those of us that organize civic and neighborhood events.  On the level of public policy and participation, AIDA works for environmental justice. We empower communities with the knowledge and tools they need to safeguard and monitor their rights. We take emblematic cases to court and before international bodies to ensure that companies and governments live up to their obligations.  We believe that a healthy and equitable future is possible.     

Why are women so important to the pursuit of environmental justice?

Women have long played a fundamental role in the conservation and defense of the planet. Past and present struggles for environmental justice and the defense of animals have been, to a large extent, led by women. Yet the close relationship between women and the environment has not escaped the inequalities that characterize today’s societies.  Poverty, exclusion, and inequality are intertwined with environmental degradation and the climate crisis. Women, in general, suffer these plagues in a differential and aggravated manner. In natural disasters, for example, women often experience higher mortality rates than men.  Due to the role women play in their communities, they are often less equipped with mechanisms to help them respond to emergencies that result from disasters. They are less likely to know how to swim or climb trees. They are more likely to be responsible for young children or older members of the family. They are more likely to wear clothing that makes it difficult to quickly react to a crisis situation. Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, women are less likely to have access to information or be able to participate in situations that affect their right to a healthy environment. They also are less likely to have access to the mechanisms for addressing injustices or repairing damages from catastrophes. Women who do take on roles in the public sphere, participating in public issues, are more likely to take on additional responsibilities that, generally, a man in the same situation would not have to assume.  And, at the same time, they confront more intense risks and greater obstacles to the development of their leadership.  In this context, the gender focus—defined as the mechanism developed to guarantee holistically valuing the impact any action has on men, women, and those who identify between those categories—is fundamental to making asymmetries visible, overcoming barriers of discrimination, and removing scenarios of exclusion that impede women’s ability to enjoy their right to equality.  The gender focus seeks to ensure that those challenges are included in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of each intervention on a political, economic, and social level. The gender perspective is indispensable to empowering the leadership of women, which is proving increasingly vital in the struggle for environmental justice. In effect, the development of ecofeminist theories offers the world new and transformative alternatives to the ways of thinking that are bringing about the destruction of our environment and negatively affecting the lives of men, women, and other living things.  Women are more than simply the most affected by the climate crisis. They also are active participants with a vital role to play in preserving nature and seeking solutions for the health of our planet.  

Preserving the legacy of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Heart of the World

Strengthening society’s call for climate action

When Cristina Briseño learned that the twenty-fifth United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP25) would be moved from Santiago, Chile to Madrid, Spain she felt like crying. "I had a lot of faith in the pressure that an event as big as this would create for urgent environmental issues in Chile," she told me. At 46 years old, Cristina, a Chilean citizen who has always supported environmental causes, signed up to volunteer at the Social Summit for  Climate Action, planned as a parallel event to COP25. When the Conference was move to Madrid, the People’s Summit stayed in Santiago.  "The opportunity to discuss climate change issues in a country as vulnerable as Chile was missed," Ingrid Wehr, director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation's Southern Cone Regional Office, said during the Summit. But all was not lost. COP25 was moved due to social unrest in Chile—the result of a historic movement in which the society’s most vulnerable are making their voices heard. In this context, the Social Summit further demonstrated that citizens have a lot to say on environmental issues, and much to contribute to confronting the climate crisis. "In the end, you have to keep fighting with the tools you have," Cristina told me. The Summit that persisted The Summit was organized by Civil Society for Climate Action (SCAC), a platform that brings together more than 130 organizations from different sectors in Chile. It took place at the Tío Lalo Parra Cultural Center in the municipality of Cerrillos, located in southwest Santiago, where the official COP25 was to be held. Characterized by a large amount of waste and unused land, Cerrillos has a desert-like appearance and eroded terrain. "Holding the Summit there meant decentralizing a problem that tends to be discussed in big cities or in the most central spaces of the capitals," Cristina explained.  Over 10 days, from December 2 to 11, the Summit hosted hundreds of activities on issues related to the climate crisis, emphasizing the need for more ambitious actions to address it. There were talks, conferences, workshops, art exhibitions, plays, and interactive activities. Participants discussed many issues. While one group focused on socio-environmental activism and conflict, or the role of young people as agents of change, another delved into the impacts of the climate crisis on the ocean and fisheries. Citizens, researchers, activists and community representatives reflected together. From their shared experiences, they demonstrated that the social crisis in Chile is also an environmental crisis  reflecting the inequality that plagues the region. "SCAC, which was born with the intention of celebrating the Summit alongside COP25, achieved something very important for the country's environmental movement," said Florencia Ortúzar, an AIDA attorney who participated in an event on decarbonization and just transition. “It achieved the union of Chile’s environmental groups, from the smallest and youngest to the largest and most consolidated. Now we are all connected.” The voice of Latin America Historically, international climate negotiations have failed to respond to the demands of Latin American civil society. That’s why efforts to include the region and the voice of its citizens in climate conversations are so valuable. The Latin American Climate Manifesto embodies this spirit of inclusion. It was jointly developed by hundreds of individuals and organizations from across the region, and launched simultaneously at the Social Summit in Chile and a parallel event in Madrid. The document calls for a better world and outlines the actions necessary to achieve it, focusing on nine  water; nature; energy transition; new development models; women; native, indigenous, afro-descendants, and ethnic and tribal peoples; human rights and climate change;climate justice; and climate governance. If anything characterized 2019, it was increased global awareness about the seriousness of the climate crisis and the urgency of facing it together. Last year also saw the awakening of  a new social consciousness, and with it the rising voices of the most vulnerable among us, demanding justice. These awakenings are not coincidence, but two sides of the same coin. The call for social justice and environmental justice is being heard around the world, opening up a window of opportunity for change. That’s why it’s  essential that human rights be recognized as a central element in all climate action.  

COP25: Organizations call on governments to improve air quality and, with it, slow the climate crisis

In a public letter, environmental and social organizations from Latin America and around the world urge governments to limit short-lived climate pollutants in their international climate commitments, which must be submitted to the United Nations by March 2020. Madrid, Spain. Governments must include ambitious and measurable targets for the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants in their new climate commitments, more than 100 organizations said in an open letter presented today, on the occasion of Human Rights Day, at the twenty-fifth Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. "Mitigating short-lived climate pollutants implies reducing global warming in the short term and, at the same time, advancing in the decontamination of our cities," said Javier Dávalos, coordinator of the Climate Change Program at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). These pollutants are sometimes called "super climate pollutants" because they contribute to the climate crisis with much more intensity than carbon dioxide (CO2). As their name indicates, they stay a relatively short time in the atmosphere—from days to decades—unlike CO2, which can remain for millennia. Short-lived climate pollutants include black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone and hydrofluorocarbons. They degrade air quality, affect glacial areas, and reduce crop yields. Poor air quality is the world's most deadly environmental problem. Each year, more than four million people die from the health damages caused by air pollution. The benefit of reducing these harmful emissions has been backed by science. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which brings together experts on the subject, stressed that to tackle global warming we must incorporate the mitigation of non-CO2 pollutants, specifically black carbon and methane. In addition, more than 11,000 scientists from around the world noted that the early reduction of short-lived climate pollutants would reduce warming by more than 50 percent over the next several decades. "The coming update of Nationally Determined Contributions opens up the possibility of governments betting on the elimination of these pollutants and thus contributing effectively to the fight against climate change and poor air quality," said Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney. The deadline for governments to update their contributions is March 2020. That’s why the signatory organizations have called for the inclusion of ambitious and measurable goals for the reduction of these short-lived climate pollutants, and for governments to detail how the targets will be implemented, monitored and reported in the new commitments before the United Nations. "The solutions needed to reduce and eliminate each of the four short-lived climate pollutants are not mysteries. They are known and have been proven. But we need governments to prioritize those solutions if we are going to be able to avoid the worst impacts of climate change," commented Amanda Maxwell, director of the Latin America Project for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In addition to the open letter, the organizations have launched an online petition for the cause to be supported with signatures from individuals around the world. Both problems, the climate crisis and poor air quality, most severely affect the most vulnerable segments of the population, among them children, pregnant women and the elderly. Confronting poor air quality is a human rights issue.   Read the letter to governments. Read and sign the citizen petition. pRESS CONTACTS Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, vquintanilla@aida-americas.org, +521 5570522107 Fabiola Nuñez, NRDC, fnunez@nrdc.org, +1 (646) 889-1405 Renata Assumpção (Brazil), Instituto Alana, renata.assumpcao@alana.org.br Ricardo Ruiz (Mexico), CEMDA, ricardo_ruiz@cemda.org.mx, +5215559644162