Human Rights

November 03 2022 Public Participation, Climate Change, Human Rights

Headed for Egypt: What can we expect from COP27?

By Javier Dávalos, Liliana Ávila and Verónica Méndez* The context in which the 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) is taking place—from November 6 to 18 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt—is not particularly encouraging. It will not be easy to address the return to intensive use of fossil fuels in several countries—largely motivated by the economic crisis from the pandemic and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine—and the growing reports of increasingly intense and frequent extreme events due to climate change. At the same time, however, the climate movement is growing stronger, along with the need for systemic and concrete changes. COP27 is a new opportunity for nations to respond with action to the demands of their citizens. At the previous COP in Glasgow, leaders decided that countries should adopt more ambitious measures to combat climate change and comply with the Paris Agreement: to limit global warming to far below 2°C, preferably at 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. AIDA will participate in COP27 as an accredited observer, along with our allies, to advocate once again for strong progress on climate action. What is it that most encourages us to participate? Below are some of the main advances we expect from COP27. 1. More Ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) NDCs are how national governments communicate and measure the targets they will adopt to confront the climate crisis. In his first report, Ian Fry, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, stated that "the global response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been wholly inadequate." In the Glasgow Climate Pact, countries reaffirmed their commitment to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5°C and to increase the ambition of their NDCs. It is therefore imperative that all countries update their NDCs (only 24 have done so), so that they ensure the inclusion of concrete and ambitious measures and actions. Doing so ensures that countries will continue to make progress and comply with their common, but differentiated, responsibilities as established by the Paris Agreement. 2. Financing for Loss and Damage: Now! Climate change is generating widespread loss and damage. Measures to mitigate and adapt to these losses are late in arriving, leading to a global human rights crisis. States must address this situation in a committed manner. Special Rapporteur Ian Fry notes that there is a need to create a financing mechanism to help people recover from climate change impacts that are beyond their capacity to adapt. In Glasgow there was no consensus on the creation of such a mechanism. The demand for COP27 is to include the issue in the discussion and to push for the adoption of a financing mechanism with strict operating criteria, a human rights perspective, and clear accountability mechanisms. It is also vital to have measurable results on the working of the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage, created at COP25. Demands regarding loss and damage will become an increasingly relevant issue. A strong climate movement, driven mainly by the countries of the South, is arriving in Egypt to ensure progress. 3. Promoting a Just Energy Transition The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its sixth report on mitigation, indicated that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions requires significant and urgent transitions, including a substantial reduction in the overall use of fossil fuels. This will perhaps be one of the most debated issues at the conference. Unfortunately, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, countries that had made progress in the decarbonization of the energy sector have increasingly turned back to fossil fuel production in the face of high energy prices. In addition, there is increased pressure on Latin America to continue exporting fossil fuels. Energy transition is not only an urgent necessity, however, it is also an opportunity to promote justice and equity for the people and species that inhabit the planet. We must move toward decarbonization but we must do so in a just manner, with a comprehensive, democratic and pluralistic transformation process. At COP27, it’s expected that countries will be evaluated on the progress of their commitments to phase out coal-fired power generation and fossil fuel subsidies, as well as their progress toward global reduction of methane emissions. 4. A Conference Free of Corporate Control and Available to All Voices The path to climate justice and many of the issues being addressed at the climate conferences require a diversity of voices, many of which face significant barriers to being heard. Added to this is a disproportionate presence of industries and corporations with agendas aimed directly at defending business interests over the common good and the planet. This creates serious challenges toward achieving more ambitious progress. Rapporteur Fry rightly pointed out that conference venues "are increasingly expensive and difficult for indigenous peoples and civil society organizations to attend." Civil society has expressed its firm opposition to the fact that the most polluting actors are both judge and jury in the matter. The specific demand is for a review of the sponsorship guidelines so that climate conferences do without the contributions of major polluters and so that, starting with COP27, there is a truly equitable inclusion of all actors, especially those who are on the front line of the climate crisis and suffer directly from its consequences. The climate struggle is here to stay. It is a growing and vibrant movement that will not stop until real commitments are made. According to the IPCC, COP27 keeps open the "window of opportunity to ensure a livable and sustainable future." It’s the space where actors converge to defend their interests with that purpose in mind. Governments and other participants must see the climate conferences as a space to advance towards climate justice, to avoid reaching a point of no return, and to put people and the planet at the center of the climate conversation. *Javier Dávalos is coordinator of AIDA's Climate Program, Liliana Ávila is coordinator of the organization's Human Rights and Environment Program, and Verónica Méndez is an attorney with the Climate Program.

November 03 2022 Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Victims of toxic contamination in La Oroya take their voice before the Inter-American Court

There’s no deadline that won’t be met. And so, after a 20-year quest for justice, the habitants of the small Andean city of La Oroya, Peru appeared before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. On October 12 and 13, the judges of the high international court heard their complaint against the government of Peru for the serious violation of human rights derived from a metal smelter that has contaminated La Oroya for almost 90 years. The city has been documented as one of the most polluted places on the planet. "The contamination from the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex has permeated every component of its inhabitants' environment: the water they drink, the soil they walk on, the air they breathe, the schoolyards and the mountains that frame their living environment," said AIDA's attorney Liliana Avila, as she presenting closing arguments in the case. Brave Testimonies At the hearing in Montevideo, Uruguay, three affected former residents of La Oroya gave their testimony. They are just a few of the more than 80 courageous people who filed the lawsuit—those residents willing to defend their right to live in a healthy environment despite the context of harassment they have faced because of it. "The period in which the metal smelter developed was disastrous. The toxic gases emanating from the complex created a thick mist that turned into a dandruff that coated the faces of the children,” recalled Rosa Amaro, a 74-year-old mother who chaired the Movement for Health in La Oroya, where she lived until 2017. “We tried to survive, but the government was like a father who turned his back to us.” Dressed in warm clothes and a woolen hat, Rosa's face, body and voice bore the indelible marks of the passing years, deteriorating health and the fear that forced her to leave her hometown. "They call us enemies of La Oroya." In tears, Rosa expressed to the court her desire to return home and to see her name cleared of all stigmas. "Our struggle is not for one, it is for an entire population". The case represents many more residents of La Oroya who, for fear of reprisals, are not named in the lawsuit. After testifying, Rosa felt relieved of a heavy burden and with enough strength to continue. The population of La Oroya has breathed multiple toxic substances that, according to scientific evidence, cause serious risks to human health. The contamination with lead and other heavy metals has burst into their respiratory system, traveled through their bloodstream and has been deposited imperceptibly in their vital organs. "I didn’t have a childhood because I spent it locked up in four walls, not because they wouldn’t let me go out, but because of the discomfort, because our throats were itchy,” Maricruz Aliaga, 28, told the court. “When we went to school, my mother protected us [from the ashes] with a hat." The contamination has affected her memory and is the reason why, even today, her body is paralyzed several times a year. “In Huancayo, I could breathe.” As a child, Maricruz’s vacations to the neighboring city made her realize that it was not normal to watch the plants she took to school die after just 15 days. Following a lifetime of hostility due to her family’s activism, she now lives in another city, and the effects on their health were her main motivation to study nursing. The toxic elements from the smelter remain in the bodies of those who lived and grew in La Oroya. Their presence has caused health problems, many of them irreversible, and may generate new illnesses in the future. "The only thing we want, since we are no longer going to enjoy good health—that is already done, my health is already destroyed—is for future generations to enjoy good health," Yolanda Zurita added in her testimony before the court. "That will be our reward, our satisfaction; that is what we are looking for." The road to justice Reaching this point has not been easy. On behalf of the victims, and with the support of the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), in 2006 AIDA filed the international complaint against the Peruvian government. Finally, in October 2021—15 years after the process began—the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) established the government's responsibility for right violations and referred the case to the Inter-American Court. Preparation for the hearing began at that time and intensified in the weeks leading up to it. The long hours of work were reflected in the solidity with which we demonstrated that the government is responsible for violating the rights to life, health, personal integrity, children and a healthy environment of the inhabitants of La Oroya. At the hearing we presented four main arguments: The existence of serious environmental contamination, The risk and causal link with the damages derived from that contamination, The government’s knowledge of that situation, and The absence of urgent and effective measures to respond to it. In addition, we called in experts whose testimony amply supported our allegations. Two of them presented their findings at the hearing. "The duty of care does not arise with clinical harm, but with the risk of harm," emphasized Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights implications of exposure to hazardous substances and toxic waste. In addition, Marisol Yañez, a psychosocial expert, demonstrated based on 61 in-depth interviews, four focus groups and psychometric tests the existence of "environmental suffering," aggravated by impunity and stigmatization. After the hearing, there remains the written presentation of the arguments and a potential visit to La Oroya by the judges of the Court. The sentence, which cannot be appealed, is expected within the next six months. The importance of the case goes beyond the Peruvian context and represents a historic opportunity to establish a key precedent for all of Latin America. "This is the first case before this court with the potential to develop in-depth violations of the right to a healthy environment as the result of government action regarding public and private companies,” explained Jorge Meza Flores, deputy executive secretary of the IACHR's Petitions and Cases System. Taking into account what is at stake is undoubtedly fundamental when the national debate around La Oroya has prioritized, even in these days, the possible reactivation of the metal smelter over the protection of the fundamental rights and health of an entire population.

October 05 2022 Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

With La Oroya case, the Inter-American Court may set a key precedent for protecting a healthy environment in Latin America

On October 12 and 13, the international court will hear the case of people affected by toxic pollution in La Oroya, Peru. Beyond reestablishing the rights of the victims, the court’s eventual decision marks an historic opportunity to strengthen the protection of the right to a healthy environment in the region and to encourage States to adequately supervise corporate activities. Montevideo, Uruguay. On October 12 and 13, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will hear the case of residents from La Oroya, Peru, whose fundamental rights have been violated for decades due to heavy metal contamination from a metal smelting complex. The hearing will take place during the 153rd Session of the Court, to be held October 10-21 in Montevideo, Uruguay. Last October, 15 years after the international lawsuit against the Peruvian State was filed, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—in it’s decision on the merits of the case—established the Peruvian government’s international responsibility in the violation of the human rights of the residents of La Oroya, and referred the case to the Inter-American Court. At the hearing next week, as part of the process of drafting their ruling, the judges of the court will hear from witnesses, experts, and victims, as well as from State representatives. As organizations that have legally represented and accompanied the group of victims since the beginning of the case, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH) will bring to the court strong arguments, supported by legal and scientific evidence, to defend the rights of the affected people. After a decades-long search of justice, the case is important not only for the community of La Oroya, but for all people affected by corporate activities across the continent. In addition, the case is representative of a serious political, social and environmental situation that has not been considered by national, regional and international politics. The current conditions prevent the citizens of La Oroya from having healthy prospects for the future. There exists a real need for justice and mobilization to generate a strong recognition of economic and environmental alternatives for the direct and indirect victims. Liliana Avila, senior attorney at AIDA, explains the context of the case and emphasizes the importance of a favorable and forceful decision by the court: "The La Oroya case before the Inter-American Court puts an end to more than 20 years of waiting in the search for justice and reparations for those whose lives were drastically changed by historic exposure to toxic contamination. It is a milestone for the Inter-American Human Rights System because it will be one of the first cases to centrally address the indivisible relationship between a healthy environment and other fundamental human rights such as life, health and personal integrity. It constitutes a unique opportunity to set a regional and global precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and compliance with the obligations of States to adequately supervise corporate activities, as well as to guarantee the special protection of children, girls, women, the elderly and other vulnerable groups.” Gloria Cano Legua, executive director of APRODEH, refers to the urgency of a decision that grants justice and reparation to the people of La Oroya: "The victims have had to see how the State, through various governments, has disregarded its obligations, while their health problems have worsened. The indifference and sometimes hostility with which they have been treated has offended their dignity". PReSS CONTACTS: Víctor Quintanilla (AIDA), [email protected], +525570522107 Gloria Cano Legue (APRODEH), [email protected], +51 964 809 193 Christian Huaylinos Camacuari (APRODEH), [email protected], +51 959 789 232

September 07 2022 Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

An alliance for clean air in Latin America is born

In the face of environmental injustices, like poor air quality and its harm to human health, our societies respond together and organize in similar ways, without even knowing it. This was one of the takeaways from the Latin American Meeting for Clean Air, which in early August brought together researchers, government officials, youth leaders, civil society representatives and international cooperation agencies from Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru. They met with three main objectives: to strengthen the link between air quality and climate justice, to exchange lessons learned, and to build networks for international collaboration. "Poor air quality and related health problems are a common problem in Latin America, knowing no borders or territorial boundaries," explained Anaid Velasco, Research Manager at the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA). According to the World Health Organization, air pollution affects close to 90 percent of people living in urban areas around the world. Despite the magnitude of the problem, public actions and policies to improve the air we breathe are not fully standardized. In addition, air quality indices across the region are not uniform and do not allow people to be adequately informed of the dangers of air pollution in different environments. This represents a problem and, at the same time, an opportunity to collaboratively create and refine tools. Aware of the opportunity, meeting participants founded the Latin American Coalition for Clean Air (ALAIRE) to respond to three primary goals: To position a narrative that makes air quality a strategic priority in the public health and climate crisis management agendas in Latin America. To influence authorities and promote public policies that contribute to an improved management of the sources that contribute to poor air quality in the region. To advocate for conditions for civil society and the business sector to become involved in compliance with regulations, policies and the improvement of air quality in the continent. "The creation of this coalition is a fundamental step towards improving the air we breathe, across the region," Velasco said. "CEMDA is very proud to be part of it as clean air is a fundamental condition to guaranteeing the human right to a healthy environment." The Latin American Meeting for Clean Air was organized by AIDA, El Derecho a No Obedecer (a project of Corporación Otraparte), Trébola Organización Ecológica, Coalición Respirar, El Poder del Consumidor and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. It had open activities attended by 200 people, as well as closed meetings to reach agreements among the key organizations. The meeting served to reaffirm that the fight for clean air is also the fight to reduce greenhouse gases and confront the climate crisis, as well as a necessity to guarantee the right to health of people in the region. The event also confirmed the importance of citizen science, in which individuals are working to demonstrate the true levels of exposure to poor air quality in different cities in the region, in turn highlighting the urgency to act. The newly formed coalition will empower the efforts of citizens, academics, organizations and other actors, while contributing to the achievement of regional agreements for the development and implementation of public policies that improve air quality and protect human health.

September 06 2022 Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

Session 3 of the 2022 GCF Watch International Webinar Series (part two)

Important topics around the GCF (part two) This session focused on key issues identified by CSOs during the series initial webinar. It addressed key aspects of the proposals that are presented by accredited entities to the GCF to become approved projects, including tips on how to review them. We also talked and reflected upon the critical aspects of gender and indigenous peoples at the GCF. PanelistsFlorencia Ortúzar, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Reviewing funding proposals.Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBS): GCF project types, approaches & relationship to false solutions.Helen Magata, Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education): Indigenous Peoples at the GCF.Natalia Daza, GCF Gender Monitor for Latin America: Gender at the GCF.Moderator: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch. Recording Presentations1. Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA: 2. Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBS): 3. Helen Magata, Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education): 4. Natalia Daza, GCF Gender Monitor for Latin America:

August 30 2022 Human Rights

Lessons on protecting the right to a healthy environment

A healthy environment implies, among other things, breathing clean air, having access to clean water and quality food, and having a decent place to live. Until recently, the human right to a healthy environment was recognized only at the national level in most countries of the continent. Then, on July 28th, in a historic resolution, the United Nations voted unanimously to recognize a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right. The decision is a significant step in the long and complex process of guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment in practice, which has been part of AIDA's story since our inception. "For nearly 25 years, we have invoked the right to a healthy environment to defend people in Latin America from environmental impacts that threaten their lives and dignity," explained Gladys Martínez de Lemos, our executive director. AIDA has always worked to highlight the link between a healthy environment and fundamental human rights such as those to integrity, life, and health. "In international law, it has taken time to assume this relationship, which for the AIDA has been undeniable from the start," added Liliana Ávila, senior attorney. "Our approach to international law begins with those affected and, based on that proximity, focuses on the communities whose rights have been most impacted by environmental degradation." What we’ve learned As an essential part of our efforts and over the years, we have learned that: The right to a healthy environment is increasingly included in Constitutions, laws and regional justice systems. This has empowered individuals and communities to demand its defense, as well as motivated judges to integrate it into their decisions. Strategic litigation—a combination of legal, communications, social mobilization and advocacy tools—is especially important in promoting the protection of fundamental human rights. The climate crisis has exacerbated the impacts of environmental degradation on the enjoyment of human rights and cases have tripled in number. This has brought with it the need to rely more on comprehensive and less on case-by-case strategies. Despite important advances, there are still large compliance debts for the right to a healthy environment to materialize in practice. The main challenge is the lack of implementation of court rulings. At the same time, the link between a healthy environment and human rights has served a variety of purposes, including the following: Demonstrating that the right to a healthy environment and other rights essential to life are indivisible. Demanding that States comply with their international human rights obligations, especially the application of the principles of prevention and precaution. Promoting the guarantee of access rights in environmental matters such as the right to information and participation. Our most emblematic cases While defending the right to a healthy environment is present in all our work, there are emblematic cases in which AIDA has helped establish key precedents by guaranteeing it. Restoration of rights for residents of La Oroya, Peru Our work as an international environmental organization began in 1998 with this case. Since then, we’ve worked to demonstrate how the violation of the right to a healthy environment—due to air pollution with heavy metals from a smelter—has violated the rights to life and health of residents of the city of La Oroya, Peru. We’ve shown how the impacts have been differentiated for women, children and the elderly. And we’ve demanded that the Peruvian State take urgent measures to guarantee the rights of the affected population. In 2005, we took the case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which in September 2021 brought it before the Inter-American Court after establishing the international responsibility of the State. It will be one of the first cases to centrally address the indivisible relationship between a healthy environment and other human rights. A healthy environment as a fundamental right for human existence In November 2017, in response to a consultation made by Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established that a healthy environment is an autonomous right, "fundamental to the existence of humanity." It also recognized the impact of climate change on the effective enjoyment of human rights, especially for the most vulnerable populations such as indigenous peoples, children and people living in extreme poverty. In the framework of the consultation, AIDA presented our observations and participated in the hearing before the Court. We demonstrated that the implementation of large infrastructure projects could affect the environment to such an extent that it would put life and personal integrity, among other human rights, at risk. Our contribution made clear the link between human rights and the environment. Access to justice for people affected by environmental damage When Veracruz residents defended the Veracruz Reef in court against damage from a port expansion, AIDA presented technical and legal evidence supporting recognition of the rights to a healthy environment and access to justice. Together, these obligate the government to allow anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental degradation the possibility of achieving justice, regardless of whether their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. We directly contributed to the Mexican Supreme Court’s ruling in February 2022, in which the Court determined that authorities violated the right to a healthy environment of the people of Veracruz by authorizing the port project. "The UN's recognition of the right to a healthy environment as a universal human right is undoubtedly an impetus for the construction of new key precedents for its protection," said Daniela García, AIDA attorney. It’s also an impetus for states to strengthen their policies and legislation focused on environmental protection, as well as to enshrine this right in their legal frameworks. And it’s a tool for people and organizations that defend the environment and human rights to strengthen their work. At AIDA, we are clear about this, and we reaffirm our commitment to our mission of strengthening people's capacity to guarantee their individual and collective right to a healthy environment.

August 18 2022 Climate Change, Human Rights

Brazilian court reaffirms the power of litigation to strengthen climate action

In July, Brazil's high court ruled that the government has a constitutional duty to allocate the necessary economic resources to support the operation of its Climate Fund, a tool created to combat the climate crisis, which has been paralyzed in recent years. With this ruling, the Supreme Federal Court resolved the first climate litigation in its history and set an important precedent for Brazil and the world. The decision equates the Paris Agreement—which seeks to strengthen the global response to the climate emergency—with a human rights treaty, granting it a higher status than ordinary laws and other inferior norms such as Executive Branch decrees. This may give way for courts and judges in other Latin American countries to make the same recognition. "The Supreme Federal Court created a privileged framework of protection for climate change mitigation and adaptation, one that ensures one of the fundamental pillars of climate action: financing," explains Marcella Ribeiro, an AIDA attorney. "Furthermore, it made clear that the Executive Branch, by restricting resources that by law are destined for climate action, is failing to comply with international agreements and conventions on human rights to which Brazil is a party." The Brazilian Socialist Party, the Socialism and Liberty Party, the Workers’ Party and the Sustainability Network Party filed the lawsuit over the Brazilian government’s failure to provide resources to the Climate Fund in 2020, with support from the Climate Observatory and the Alana Institute. Litigation as a strategic tool The case of the Climate Fund in Brazil demonstrates that strategic climate litigation is an effective and necessary way to help the continent's governments and companies meet their climate commitments. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted that climate-related litigation is on the rise and, in some cases, has influenced the results and ambition of climate governance, understood as the way in which different actors—state, civil society, academia and the private sector—define, implement and monitor actions aimed at addressing the causes and consequences of climate change. "In the global south, Brazil is one of the countries where climate litigation is developing most strongly," highlights Javier Dávalos, AIDA senior attorney. "The country is characterized by a growing ecosystem of litigants and organizations that are taking the climate fight to court." Brazil's push for climate litigation in the region is critical because the country is home to 65 percent of the Amazon, a key ecosystem for global climate regulation and one that is at serious risk. Brazil emits the most carbon dioxide of any Latin American nation, with deforestation representing the largest source of these emissions. In this sense, it is fundamental that one of the judges who heard the Climate Fund case explicitly pointed out the large increase in deforestation in the Amazon in 2021— the highest in 15 years: more than 22 percent, and a total area of 13,235km². It is therefore essential to demand in court that the Brazilian state fulfill its obligations to protect the Amazon and the global climate. The importance of financing solutions Transitioning to a zero carbon economy and avoiding the worst physical impacts of climate change requires investing nearly $125 billion USD by 2050, according to the Net Zero Financing Roadmaps study commissioned by the United Nations High Level Champions. These resources must come from two complementary sources, private and public financing. Government financing of climate action represents a relevant public policy and thus must conform to a country's laws. In its ruling, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court recognized the Climate Fund as the main federal instrument for financing climate action and meeting national greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. It also noted that the government kept the fund paralyzed for two years. Considering that the resources intended to fight the climate crisis seek to materialize fundamental human rights, the court concluded that the government couldn’t restrict them. "Guaranteeing the allocation of resources for climate action means setting a clear limit from which we cannot retreat," Ribeiro said. "Despite the clear violation of the Brazilian state's duties regarding the right to a healthy environment, reflected in the dismantling of environmental norms and institutions, the Brazilian Supreme Court's ruling put a brake on the erosion of the legal protection of the environment and climate in the country." Learn about this and other cases on AIDA’s Plataforma de Litigio Climático para América Latina y el Caribe.

August 03 2022 Climate Change, Human Rights

Session 3 of the 2022 GCF Watch International Webinar Series (part one)

Important topics around the GCF (part one) This session focused on key issues identified by CSOs during the series initial webinar. It addressed important aspects of the GCF and CSOs' engagement, including the outcomes of the latest Board meeting, the replenishment process and access to GCF finance, as well as engagement with National Designated Authorities (NDA). panelistsErika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Key findings from B33 and what lies ahead.Mirja Stoldt, Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF): Interacting with the NDA.Andrea Rodríguez, Fundación Avina: Access to GCF finance through the accreditation processModerator: Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung (HBS). Recording Presentations1. Mirja Stoldt, Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF): 2. Andrea Rodríguez, Fundación Avina:

July 28 2022 Human Rights

AIDA applauds recognition of healthy environment as a universal human right

The decision adopted by the UN General Assembly is a call for States to recognize that the defense of the environment is essential for existence on the planet. The historic resolution strengthens longtime efforts to guarantee this right in practice. New York, USA. In a landmark resolution, the UN General Assembly recognized a safe, healthy, clean and sustainable environment as a universal human right. Since this right was absent from then Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the decision marks a milestone for international human rights law. The resolution endorses language similar to that proposed in October 2021 by the UN Human Rights Council, which issued a draft resolution in June to the 193 members of the General Assembly. Sponsored by Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia and Switzerland, the universal recognition of the right to a healthy environment was unanimously approved today, by a vote of 161-0. Liliana Avila, senior attorney of AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program, responds: "The United Nations recognition is a very important call for States to recognize that the environment involves essential elements without which our existence on the planet would not be possible. Most of the Constitutions in the continent already recognize the healthy environment as a right and citizens claim it daily through different mechanisms. The step taken today undoubtedly strengthens these efforts and advances us towards the construction of societies where this right is a reality." Gladys Martinez de Lemos, Executive Director, states: “Today marks a historic moment, one that enables citizens to demand the creation of measures to guarantee in practice a right that is now universally recognized. At AIDA we celebrate this new tool and reaffirm our 25-year commitment to protecting a healthy environment as a fundamental human right. The UN recognition represents a hope for justice for those who suffer from environmental degradation around the world—people like the residents of La Oroya, Peru, who have for decades breathed polluted air; families in Central America, forced to migrate due to the impacts of the climate crisis; coastal communities in the Caribbean who lost their homes due to the destruction of mangroves and reefs, natural barriers against storms and hurricanes; and the thousands of environmental defenders risking their lives to protect their territories." As a regional organization, AIDA would like to highlight the fact that a Latin American nation, Costa Rica, has led the proposal for recognition before the General Assembly. Its role was key to the result we are celebrating today. We also highlight the hard work of civil society organizations, social movements, local communities and indigenous peoples to promote this recognition. A healthy environment – recognized as a right by more than 150 States around the world – is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights. Its recognition as a universal human right can lead to more effective laws and policies, and can help to empower local communities in the protection of their territory. Press ConTACT: Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107

July 08 2022 Fracking, Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

In regressive decision, high court endorses fracking in Colombia

Bogotá, Colombia. Colombia’s highest administrative court, the Council of State, on Thursday ruled against a lawsuit that sought to nullify the government’s regulation of fracking, effectively endorsing the controversial technique’s implementation in the Andean nation. The nullity lawsuit was filed by the Public Interest Law Clinic of the Universidad del Norte—which was jointly advised by AIDA, Corporación Podion, and the legal clinics of Universidad Javeriana and Universidad de los Andes—in an attempt to challenge the legality of the rules that would allow for fracking operations in the country, found in 2013’s Decree 3004 and 2014’s Resolution 90341. This decision means the suspension of Colombia’s judicial moratorium on fracking, which has been in place since 2018, when the when the Council preventively suspended the rules based on the precautionary principle and due to the lack of certainty about the risks of irreversible damage that the technique implies for the environment, climate and public health. Fracking has been assessed by national and international academics and scientists as an experimental technique that threatens air, water, human health, democratic participation, social fabric and culture, traditional knowledge systems, biodiversity and, in the long term, economic, seismic and climatic stability. In addition, it creates atmospheric pollution due to the emission of methane—a potent gas whose warming potential is 84 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide on a 20-year scale. While the Council of State's ruling ratifies the government's regulations and lifts the moratorium, it does not exonerate national and local authorities from protecting the environment and respecting the fundamental rights of the population as they consolidate the mining and energy policy. Legal experts who brought the case before the Court respond to the ruling: "In Latin America and around the world, many countries have banned fracking because of its impacts on the environment and on the protection of human rights. The ruling of Colombia’s Council of State is regressive and goes against international advances on environmental, climate and human rights issues.” - Yeny Rodríguez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) "The Council of State has issued a decision contrary to the facts proven in the litigation. They have ignored the survey conducted by the National University of Colombia, the report of the expert commission, the concept of the Attorney General's Office, and the rest of the documentary evidence and scientific texts that clearly demonstrated the need to prohibit this technique under the precautionary principle. In addition, the ruling ignores Colombia's international climate commitments and the principle of intergenerational solidarity, as it ignores the fundamental rights of future generations." - Juan Pablo Sarmiento, plaintiff’s attorney in the case. “The Council of State lost a great opportunity to strengthen, through the courts, a regulation that many experts considered too weak to protect the environment and public health. Its now is in the hands of the national government and the legislature to guarantee society the protection of the precautionary principle and democratic participation in environmental matters" - Juan Felipe García, attorney with the Law and Territory Clinic of the Universidad Javeriana “The decision of the highest administrative court in the country is not an open invitation to carry out fracking in Colombia. The government must fully guarantee the right to participation and the voice of communities in decision-making about projects that may generate environmental impacts in their territories, as well as guarantee the safety and protection of environmental leaders who defend their territories". - Silvia Quintero, legal advisor to the Environmental and Public Health Legal Clinic of the Universidad de Los Andes “The lifting of the judicial moratorium on fracking leaves open the possibility of moving forward with such projects whose contracts were previously suspended. It’s necessary that fracking have a social license because several regions of the country have been considered as potential areas for its implementation." - Lizeth Gómez, attorney with Corporación Podion Contactos de prensa: Juan Pablo Sarmiento, [email protected], +573005514583 Yeny Rodríguez, AIDA, [email protected], +573107787601 Juan Felipe García, Clínica en Derecho y Territorio de la Universidad Javeriana, [email protected], +573125588889 Lizeth Gómez, PODION, [email protected], +573176430036