Human Rights

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, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Fabiola Nuñez, NRDC, [email protected], +1 (646) 889-1405 Renata Assumpção (Brazil), Instituto Alana, [email protected] Ricardo Ruiz (Mexico), CEMDA, [email protected], +5215559644162  

Six measures to ensure our actions achieve climate justice

On December 2, the twenty-fifth Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change opened in Madrid. It’s a vital meeting for the planet, during which governments must drastically increase their ambitions and climate commitments if we hope to preserve life, as we know it today. So far, there have been more announcements than actions. That’s why I’d like to highlight six measures that will help us move towards the results the planet needs. The outlook is not encouraging. Change remains urgent. Every day, the climate crisis causes greater harm, particularly for the most vulnerable among us. According to the United Nations Emissions Gap report, emissions continue to rise and current actions are insufficient to achieving the necessary reductions. In an evident political and financial weakening, nations that once led climate actions are now withdrawing or refusing to comply with the agreements. Added to this are emerging social protests, particularly in Latin America. The governments of Ecuador, Chile and Colombia have declared curfews in recent weeks to deal with the serious situations in their countries; COP25 was moved from Santiago de Chile to Madrid. In some instances, abuse of force caused several deaths and hundreds of other injuries. All this demonstrates the urgency of heeding the social call, of acknowledging and dealing with inequality, of finding solutions and building countries where all have a place. One thing is clear: we’ve been moving in the wrong direction and we must change course. We need profound changes in energy, transportation and food systems, as well as in the negotiation, decision-making and implementation of climate actions. This is essential if we are to arrive at peak global emissions as soon as possible, cut them in half by 2030, and reach zero emissions by 2050. Significant efforts are undoubtedly being made. There are billion-dollar investments by governments, businesses, organizations and individuals. But it’s not enough. We must stop and assess what is serving us and what is not; what we should continue to do and what we must do differently. These six measures could make climate action more effective and help us achieve climate justice: 1. Include human rights as a transversal element (seriously). Although it’s been a petition of social movements, indigenous peoples and organizations for decades, official recognition of human rights has yet to materialize. Responding to this call is vital to increasing the ambition and responsibility that is so needed. While the Cancun and Paris Agreements refer to the importance of respecting human rights, their implementation has failed to include this perspective. This, despite the fact that human rights bodies have reminded States of their obligation to do so; and IPCC scientists have highlighted the importance of addressing social inequality and including the wisdom of indigenous communities as a fundamental element in resolving the climate crisis. 2. Ensure the effective participation of affected people and communities in the planning, discussion, decision-making and monitoring of climate actions. Indigenous peoples, rural communities, Afro-descendants, and youth are among the groups most affected by the climate crisis. In addition, local communities have protected millions of hectares of forests and other natural areas, essential for climate resilience. Yet spaces for the participation for these actors remain scarce and spaces for decision-making, in COPs and other instances, are almost non-existent. Ensuring that discussions and decisions are truly diverse is an essential step towards increasing climate ambition and effectiveness. Communities should be considered subjects of rights, not simply objects of protection projects and actions. 3. Secure the equitable distribution of funds We live in the midst of immense inequality, where wealth, property and privileges belong to a few, while the majority assume the negative impacts. The climate crisis is partly a result of this situation. Although Latin America is the most unequal region on the planet, inequality is underestimated, according to ECLAC. That’s why the distribution of economic and human resources must address this reality, ensuring that the Global South has access to opportunities to participate on equal footing towards true climate justice. This would increase the possibility of finding alternative solutions and replicating those already in place. 4. Hold accountable those responsible for the climate crisis Those causing the climate crisis should be held accountable for it, instead of attacking those who seek accountability and climate justice. This is one of the great obstacles to moving forward. It’s time to name those responsible and demand that they take charge and repair the damages, rather than accepting false solutions and ineffective voluntary actions. 5. Incorporate a feminine perspective, based in maternal love By this I mean the need to rescue a perspective of collaboration and serious dialogue in order to reach consensus, assuming responsibilities over differences and competition. Let us include a perspective that prioritizes the care of the Earth, of nature and of people. Let's stop putting economic interests and short-term vision above the health of our planet. Let's focus our efforts on agreeing how we can achieve climate justice, coming out of denial, and leaving behind excuses about why it can't be done. 6. Acknowledge the true costs of the climate crisis: social, economic, environmental and human. So far most economic assessments have focused on calculating the costs of the transition to a zero-emission economy. While there are estimates of the costs involved in not implementing the transition, these ignore the social, environmental and cultural impacts. This is particularly significant for regions such as Latin America, which, in addition to suffering human and cultural losses, are losing their natural wealth. Scientists have concluded that the changes will be more costly the longer they take to be implemented. COP25 could be an opportunity to incorporate these and many other measures in the battle against the climate emergency. At this point, insisting on the same thing will only bring more frustration and failures. Not taking action will condemn millions more people to suffer the consequences of the climate crisis, and of inadequate solutions that violate their rights. The reality is indisputable, which makes it imperative to include human rights as the crosscutting axis of our climate actions. If we do not, the actions resulting from the Conference of the Parties will resemble the emperor of the Brothers Grimm’s story. They will come out to the parade naked, proudly wearing a costly suit made with climate ambition, yet insufficient for what the planet needs. We must instead cover climate actions with a suit of climate justice—a visible one that we must weave together. We have no time to spare.  

Sacrifice Zones: The injustice of living in an unhealthy environment

Forty percent of the energy produced and consumed in Chile comes from burning coal. Just 28 thermoelectric plants, concentrated in five locations across the country, generate that enormous amount of energy. In these so-called Sacrifice Zones, inhabitants live immersed in pollution. The result is severe health damages, children with learning disabilities, and poisoned seas. The serious detriment of living in one of these areas has been amply documented. A recent report from the Catholic University of Chile, commissioned by the NGO Sustainable Chile, shows that living in a Sacrifice Zone translates into greater risks of illness and premature death. The country’s current social unrest represents a historic opportunity for transformation. Pushed by the voice of its people, and in the Presidency of this year’s international climate negotiations, Chile can lead a structural change focused on the redistribution of burdens and benefits, both social and environmental. The result would be a cleaner and fairer country. The road to decarbonization In June, after a year of discussions with industry and other stakeholders, President Sebastian Piñera announced a schedule for the decarbonization of Chile. In the agreement, industry leaders pledged to close all coal-fired power plants by 2040. As positive as it may seem, an in-depth analysis of the proposal leads to the conclusion that the government’s goal is not ambitious enough to achieve the prompt justice that affected communities deserve. The timetable sets the nation’s eight oldest plants up for the closure by 2024, but fails to give dates or details on the closure of the remaining 20 plants, leaving it to the goodwill of future administrations. Under those terms, there is no way to guarantee that the plan will be implemented. Moreover, waiting 20 more years is not an acceptable deal for those who have already carried too much of the burden for far too long. Nor is it a move toward maintaining our planet’s climate equilibrium, a battle in which we have no time to spare. Another criticism of the government's proposal is that shortly after it was announced, the energy company Engie inaugurated a new coal-fired power plant in Mejillones, a Sacrifice Zone in the north of the country. The new plant has more than double the operating capacity of two thermoelectric plants in Tocopilla, which the same company would have closed after signing the decarbonization plan. But it's not all bad news. A month before social protests broke out in Chile, the government signaled a more ambitious decarbonization goal. In September, the Chamber of Deputies approved an initiative asking the President to move the closure of coal-fired power plants up by ten years, to 2030. The request is based on a study commissioned by the NGO Sustainable Chile and completed by the consulting firm Kas Engineers. Their research shows the technical and economic feasibility of reaching decarbonization by 2030. Chile’s current social crisis erupted in the midst of the search for a binding agreement to achieve decarbonization. Social unrest in Chile Chile is in the midst of a historic moment. Social discontent—generated by the injustices, inequality and lack of equity endured for years by the most vulnerable segments of the population—triggered ongoing protests, which have yet to abate. What’s happening in Chile is a mirror of what could happen in many countries of the world, particularly in Latin America. The metaphorical grass is dry and any spark could surely ignite social mobilization, uncovering chambers that have for years accumulated injustice and discontent. The figures confirm that Chile has grown and there is less poverty, but neither the benefits nor the burdens have been equitably distributed. Authorities have failed. Confidence is running out and disillusionment is increasing. The Sacrifice Zones are a very clear example of the structural problems afflicting our society: certain communities bear all the costs and enjoy none of the benefits. This is unacceptable. A new direction is possible Fires, floods and other extreme weather events, which uproot people’s lives, show us that nature will not stop protesting until we respect her. Society is also calling for respect, with an urgency that has gained the attention of decision-makers. Changes that once seemed impossible are within reach. It’s not that social demands are more important than environmental demands, or vice versa. Environmental demands are also social demands. Although the climate crisis and pollution affect us all, the damage is much greater for the most vulnerable populations. Changes that favor our planet can and must be made with a social justice perspective, and in harmony with nature.  In the case of Chile, decarbonization—and with it, an end to Sacrifice Zones—is the change that will make us a better country. Because one of life’s greatest injustices is being forced to live in an unhealthy environment.  

The oil spill devouring life on Brazil’s beaches

Photos: Marcela Cintra / Text: Laura Yaniz  Since late August, oil has been registered at more than 500 points along 2,500 kilometers of coastline in northeastern Brazil. What began with the appearance of small black spots on some beaches quickly became huge stains that changed the color of the sand itself. The spill’s origin remains unknown, as local organizations and communities organize to clean up their beaches. Far from being resolved, the problem is getting worse every day. The oil’s advance is threatening the marine life in mangroves and coral reefs, both key ecosystems for the survival of species. In addition, residents of the affected communities, who depend on tourism and fishing, have seen their lifestyles and economies threatened. Their health is also at risk due to the consumption of contaminated seafood and direct exposure to the spill. Faced with the inaction of government authorities, the people have been cleaning the beaches and sea with their own hands. The spill itself, coupled with state neglect, violates the human rights of the inhabitants of the hundreds of affected beaches. AIDA—together with the Projeto Publico Institute, Salve Maracaipe, Projeto Caribessa and Rede Minha Jampa—denounced these violations before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in an effort to urge the Brazilian government to respond to this social and environmental crisis. Soledad García Muñoz, the Commission's Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights expressed her solidarity with the Brazilian people and authorities in the face of the tragedy and called on the State to "take the necessary measures to avoid a bigger deterioration of the affected ecosystems, considering that the time, the resources and the way of acting focused on human rights are the key factors for the effectiveness of a contingency plan that the present situation deserves.” She added: “the slower and partial are the measures adopted, more irreparable will be the damages for the Brazilian coast and its biodiversity, as well as for the quality of life of the people that live in these affected regions. It is necessary an urgent and sensible response in face of these serious events generated by the contamination, because that could also accelerate the effects of the climate change in the coast, mangroves, swamps and other ecologically vulnerable habitats.”