Human Rights

July 22 2019 Oceans, Freshwater Sources, Climate Change

What we must do to preserve the planet’s biodiversity and natural heritage

Society is at serious risk of losing our natural world and all that sustains us. Our actions are provoking mass extinction and accelerating the loss of natural resources, plants and animals. Among these actions are the growth of agriculture and livestock production, the destruction of habitats, the introduction of invasive species, the expansion of urban areas, poaching and overfishing, overpopulation and pollution. That’s according to the most complete global evaluation of biodiversity yet, recently published by scientists at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The report shows that the capacity of Earth’s ecosystems to provide benefits to people has diminished drastically over the last 70 years. That’s because, on average: global resources have diminished by 47 percent; 25 percent of flora and fauna species are in danger of extinction; and the climate crisis is driving higher temperatures and increased acidification of the ocean, which is causing coral reef coverage worldwide to shrink. What’s more, a third of all species in the ocean are being overfished. Despite these alarming statistics, we can still take the planet out of the grave situation we’ve put it in. But it will require radical changes to our approach. The diagnosis for Latin America Historically, the world has passed through five mass extinctions that have caused the loss of more than 70 percent of the Earth’s life forms. Currently, we seem to be living through the sixth. Although species extinction occurs naturally, it generally does so at a rate of about one species per million each year. The current rate far exceeds that, as at least 100 species per million are going extinct each year—and that rate is rising. Another way to visualize this global threat is by listing the countries with the most species in danger of extinction. Five countries in Latin America are in the top 10 for species loss, with Mexico topping the list at 665 threatened species (71 species of birds, 96 mammals, 98 reptiles, 181 types of fish and 219 amphibians). Mexico’s situation is largely being driven by high rates of deforestation, a practice aimed at increasing agricultural area to cover the country’s growing demand for food. In fact, Latin America and Southeast Asia have lost millions of hectares of terrestrial ecosystems and fresh water through increased livestock production and agriculture (which includes the use of fertilizers). Other countries in the region with high rates of species loss include Colombia (540 species), Ecuador (436), Brazil (413), and Peru (385). Species extinction alters and impedes the proper functioning of ecosystems, which rely on interactions between varied forms of life to produce food, manage water supply, regulate climate, and more. Big changes to ensure a better future Although life on our planet has existed for some 4 billion years, humanity has only been around 200 thousand of those; yet we’ve managed to disrupt the Earth’s natural balance. Although our actions have negatively affected the earth, this shows that we, as humans, have the ability to transform our environment. The IPBES report mentions the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as transformative actions that can protect biodiversity. One of those is the creation of natural protected areas, which have helped reduce the risk of extinction for species like mammals and amphibians. Nevertheless, the report emphasizes the need for a drastic change in the values and objectives of our governments so that decisions at the local, national, and international levels are aligned to combat the causes behind the planet’s degradation. To that end, and taking into account the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, nations must: Expand and coordinate the global network of natural protected areas. Invest in green infrastructure. Produce food, materials, and energy in sustainable ways. Conserve and use water efficiently. Support indigenous and traditional communities, who protect many of the planet’s remaining natural resources. Adequately approach population growth and global consumption levels. Create new environmental laws and better compliance with existing ones. Slow pollution and the overexploitation of our natural resources. “People shouldn’t panic, but they should begin to make drastic changes,” said Josef Settele, an IPBES co-chair and entomologist at the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Germany. “Business as usual with small adjustments won’t be enough.” Our air, water, and food depend on biodiversity—the varied forms of life on our planet and the interaction between them. Caring for this natural heritage is a shared task; it is now more important than ever.

July 09 2019 Climate Change, Human Rights

Putting people’s fundamental rights at the core of solutions to the climate emergency

Announcing the First Ever Global Summit on Human Rights and Climate Change The People’s Summit on Climate, Rights and Human Survival – the first ever global summit on human rights and climate change – will be hosted by leading civil society groups and the UN Human Rights Office in New York on 18-19 September. The People’s Summit aims to galvanize the human rights community to urgently scale-up its efforts on climate justice, creating the most diverse movement ever assembled to tackle the climate crisis. The People’s Summit was announced in an open-letter below, which was published on the Thomson Reuters Foundation. The human rights and environmental communities must seek solutions together. It’s time for all of us to come forward as one to face the climate crisis. Our organisations seek a world where people thrive in a safe and healthy environment, where human rights come before corporate profits. To make it happen, we need to face the climate crisis united in the strongest and most diverse movement ever assembled. Only together can we make world leaders take this emergency seriously. Real solutions to the climate breakdown must place people and our fundamental rights at the core. This is an invitation to all those who value human dignity and wellbeing to fully throw their weight behind the call for global climate justice. And to those working to protect our planet to center their efforts in communities, particularly the people most impacted and least responsible for the climate crisis. The human rights community can bring key constituencies, power and skills to the fight for climate justice. The strength of a collective movement to overcome the climate crisis needs to match the gravity of the problem. Our organisations are coming together to make it happen, and we are urging the environmental and human rights communities to join us. To meet the challenge we, the people, must be more connected with each other and more committed to our planet than ever before. This is a matter of survival. Rampant carbon emissions have triggered unprecedented, dangerous and destabilising changes in our climate. Corporate and governmental neglect has already exposed millions to increasingly extreme weather disasters. We must reverse course now; the window of opportunity to act is closing. Make no mistake. The impacts of climate change already hinder our rights to health, food, water, housing, work and even life itself. These impacts are even more severe for people already in vulnerable situations in places impacted by severe weather, poverty or oppression. Our societies cannot keep on like this. People need access to justice, governments must work for the people and corporations need to be accountable for their actions. Now is the time to act. The signs of a shared will to do so are everywhere. Students are taking to the streets to call for a safe future. Indigenous Peoples are speaking up for the defense of land, water and communities’ rights. Workers are demanding safe and well-paying jobs in better, cleaner industries. Women’s rights activists are putting forward a wealth of feminist solutions. Religious leaders are calling on us to protect communities and nature. Scientists are gathering and sharing evidence to guide us out of the crisis. We know the challenge, and the answers are there. Solutions are available now, including renewable energy sources, respect for fundamental rights and traditional knowledge, and a true focus on the needs of the people over corporate greed. All of our organisations work on climate change already, some more explicitly than others. But now is the moment for us to connect the dots between our causes and join forces. A climate emergency is upon us, and we must act now. Environmental human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples and local activists have long risked everything to fight environmental degradation. They are now joined in their struggle by growing mass movements such as the school climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion and campaigners calling for a Green New Deal. In this new era of climate activism, the human rights community cannot remain on the sidelines. It is more urgent than ever that we step up by working together to protect the communities and individuals on the frontlines of the climate struggle. That is why 150 non-governmental leaders and activists from different communities are coming together on September 18 and 19 for the ‘People’s Summit on Climate, Rights and Human Survival’. Our organisations will be there along with the United Nations Human Rights Office to support people demanding immediate and ambitious climate action from their governments to protect communities. We believe in unleashing the potential of a diverse movement to safeguard present and future generations. We are united to demand climate justice. Confirmed signers: Astrid Puentes, Co-Executive Director, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) Bridget Burns, Director, Women’s Environment and Development Organization Carroll Muffett, President and CEO, Center for International Environmental Law Chris Grove, Executive Director, ESCR-Net Ellen Dorsey, Executive Director, Wallace Global Fund Gillian Caldwell, CEO, Global Witness Iago Hairon Souza, Coordinator, Engajamundo Jennifer Morgan, International Executive Director, Greenpeace International Kumi Naidoo, Secretary General, Amnesty International May Boeve, Executive Director, 350.org Phil Bloomer, Executive Director, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre Philip Alston, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice Chair, New York University Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation Sofia Monsalve, Secretary General, FIAN International Steve Trent, Executive Director, Environmental Justice Foundation Thalita Silva e Silva, Coordinator, Engajamundo

July 06 2019 Climate Change, Human Rights

The GCF should thoroughly assess the policies and practices of the BNDES and require conditions for its accreditation

The Board of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is considering an application for accreditation of the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES, Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social). The accreditation process of the BNDES is an opportunity to strengthen the Bank’s policies and procedures designed to identify, address and remediate environmental and social impacts linked to its activities and operations. With the new administration of President Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil is suffering severe setbacks in its environmental, social and climate policies and agenda. Brazilian environmental agencies are being dismantled, while renowned and effective mechanisms such as the Amazon Fund are at risk of becoming inoperative or even eliminated. In such a context, the effectiveness of the country’s environmental and social (E&S) governance and its instruments, agencies and institutions, risks being severely undermined. In order to fulfil its mandate to promote a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate resilient development pathways within the context of sustainable developmentthe GCF should ensure that local systems and institutions are adequately equipped to deliver the sustainability outcomes intended by the Fund. The GCF should carefully assess BNDES’ existing E&S policies and procedures and ensure that approval is conditioned upon commitments and measurable steps by the Bank, with political support from the Brazilian government, to further strengthen its policies and procedures to address following shortcomings related to: Disclosure of environmental and social (E&S) information; Design of E&S policies and monitoring tools; Human rights standards and the rights of indigenous peoples and other traditional communities; Grievance mechanism; Commitments concerning climate change. Read the full statement here

June 20 2019 Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

International tribunal supports indigenous struggle for the Amazon

“The most beautiful jungle in the world,” wrote Alcides D’orbigny, a French biologist, of the Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park (known locally as Tipnis, for its Spanish initials) in the 1830s. Located between the departments of Beni and Cochabamba, Tipnis is a natural protected area that extends over 12,363 square kilometers of Bolivian Amazon. It’s one of the world’s most biodiverse sites and home to many indigenous cultures—among them the Mojeño Trinitarios, the Tsiman and the Turacaré. Despite its recognition as a National Park and Indigenous Territory, the area has for decades been threatened by a proposed highway that would effectively divide it in two. The construction would cause grave social and environmental damages, some of which have already occurred—two of three proposed stretches of road have already been built. As long as the highway has been proposed, the indigenous people of Tipnis have stood strong in their resistence, calling to protect the rainforest and the life it holds. Their efforts paid off last month in a precedent-setting legal victory for the protection of human rights and the environment. The International Rights of Nature Tribunal ruled that the Bolivian State had “violated” the rights of nature and of the indigenous people that inhabit Tipnis by encouraging the highway’s construction. The Tribunal was created in April 2010 at the People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, when the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth was also signed. Its role is to establish and investigate any violation of the rights outlined in the Declaration and found in the internal laws of each country. The Tribunal determines whether there was a violation and, if so, who was responsible. It emits recommendations, advisory opinions, and can determine provisional measures. Indigenous defense of the Bolivian Amazon The proposed highway through Tipnis has spurred strong indigenous resistance, and has also caused great suffering. The most painful incident happened in 2011 when more than 100 indigenous people marching on La Paz, headquarters of the Bolivian government, were brutally repressed by police. Despite the conflict, that demonstration achieved the enactment of a law that bestowed the national park the status of “intangible zone” or absolute reserve. Unfortunately, six years later, that law was null and void when the government enacted a new law through more expeditious process. Tipnis indigenous representatives denounced this and other acts before the International Rights of Nature Tribunal, which agreed to consider the case in January 2018, and then sent an international commission of observers to visit the zone and interview stakeholders. Indigenous representatives denounced that, despite being a single roadway, the project was actually presented separately, in three separate phases. Currently, only the final section remains unconstructed. Other irregularities included the awarding of the project to a Brazilian company without first completing an environmental impact assessment, and the lack of adequate consultation with affected indigenous communities. The Tribunal's sentence, issued May 15, finds the Bolivian government responsible for rights violations and calls for immediate compliance with measures including: Definitively stopping of any progress on construction; Recognizing the faculties of indigenous peoples to guarantee their control in Tipnis, including territorial autonomy and the right to prior consultation; Annuling a law that removed the status of intangible zone from Tipnis; Stopping the advance of colonization toward the central zone of the national park; Canceling plans for oil expansion on the site; Effectively applying the law to guarantee the protection of the rights of Mother Earth; and Guaranteeing indigenous peoples their fundamental role as defenders of Mother Earth. What’s next for Tipnis? Although the Tribunal’s judgment is not binding, it is a precedent established by a recognized and ethical court. For this reason, the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin—an international indigenous organization—announced it would use the ruling as an instrument of proof to bring the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The situation in Tipnis is complex. While construction of the missing section was suspended after losing credit for its execution, some actors continue to defend the road as fundamental to connecting the center and the north of the country, facilitating access to basic services and other development opportunities for the communities of Tipnis. The other side of that argument is the extensive environmental degradation to an area rich in biodiversity—acknowleding that the road would be just the beginning of activities within the protected area. I don’t believe anyone has the absolute answer. And so my analysis isn’t about making a value judgment, but about complying with the law, which resides in reason and justice. Although part of the road is constructed, there is much more to go, and so the resistance continues. The Tribunal’s decision can and should be used as an added impulse toward protecting the land. In the end, every effort is worthwhile knowing that the destruction of such a valuable natural ecosystem represents a point of no return.

May 20 2019 Climate Change, Fracking, Freshwater Sources

Is the UN finally turning against fracking?

The world is divided over the issue of fracking, a fact that is (at times painfully) apparent in the United Kingdom (UK) where I grew up. Four separate countries make up the UK. Of them, England is the only nation that still allows hydraulic fracturing; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (along with a host of other countries worldwide) have banned the controversial process. Despite earthquakes linked to fracking in areas of the country where such things are virtually unheard of—plus waves of protests, controversy and opposition campaigns— the British government has so far refused to change its position. However, a recent United Nations recommendation to the UK may signal the beginning of the end for fracking in England and, hopefully, around the world. Fracking and the United Nations Until recently, the UN has appeared to have a complicated relationship with fracking. Several different UN bodies have made conflicting statements about the benefits of, and issues with, this means of energy production. In early 2018, the UN Conference on Trade and Development released a report that, according to one of its authors, did “not [say fracking] is good or bad,” but rather that each project’s cost/benefit analysis was dependent on a number of context-specific factors. The report cited positive aspects of fracking, calling it a useful “bridge fuel” for States aiming to move towards more environmentally-friendly renewable power sources, alongside it’s disadvantages. This argument is not viable since the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing is even greater than that of conventional gas and oil exploitation. Over the last few months, however, it seems the UN has been hardening its position against fracking, particularly given its negative climate change impacts in the context of the Paris Agreement, the intergovernmental treaty in which nations have committed to taking ambitious steps to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade with respect to pre-industrial levels. Since October 2018, there have been 2 UN recommendations issued against fracking. In the UK, the government was urged to consider a complete and comprehensive ban on fracking; and in Argentina, the government was urged to reconsider the development of a large fracking project. The dangers of fracking Although for its promoters fracking has led to a huge spike in oil and gas production around the world—perhaps most notably in the US—its use has come at great environmental cost, particularly with regards to air quality and water supply due to the amount of water used in the process and its consequent contamination. Fracking releases large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas whose global warming potential is 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In addition, the release of this gas can be hugely detrimental to the air quality surrounding fracking sites. Fracking also leads to increased earthquake risks due to the high pressure used to fracture layers of shale rock and extract oil and gas from it. In its recommendations to the UK and Argentina, the UN has clearly stressed the dangers of fracking. The key reason behind its recommendation to Argentina to reconsider the fracking project was its effect on climate change, especially in light of the Paris Agreement, and “the negative impact [that the project would have] on global warming and on the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the world’s population and future generations.” In its recommendation to the UK, it was noted that women in the UK are “disproportionately affected by the harmful effects of fracking, including exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals, environmental pollution, and climate change.” Stopping the spread of fracking While operational in certain areas of the world, and being banned in others, fracking is advancing rapidly in Latin America. In the face of increasing global energy demand, it is crucial that the region, and the international community as a whole, commits to developing only truly sustainable energy projects. Fracking is not one. I believe the UN’s recent change in tone on fracking is a positive advance that should inspire both Argentina and the UK to react accordingly. From a personal point of view, I hope the UK heeds the growing evidence about the dangers of fracking and abandons the practice immediately. For Latin America, and other regions facing fracking’s blind advance, there are many countries to hold up as examples of how to confront the controversial practice. That’s why AIDA recently published a report highlighting the arguments and mechanisms that have been used around the world to restrict fracking and avoid its negative impacts on people and the environment. It is crucial that these impacts be properly considered as we take the ambitious steps needed to create an energy matrix that can solve the world’s energy needs without violating human rights, destroying our common goods, or worsening the catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis.

May 15 2019 Climate Change, Human Rights

Protests Challenge Hydropower Companies at Global Event in Paris

Civil society organizations denounce corporate attempts to label hydroelectric dams as “green energy,” citing human rights abuses and environmental damage. Paris, France—A coalition of activists, organizations and indigenous leaders convened a series of events this week in light of the opening of the World Hydropower Conference, calling attention to the socially and environmentally destructive nature of hydroelectric dams, as well at their climate-aggravating impacts. From May 14-16, the International Hydropower Association (IHA) is hosting its biannual World Hydropower Congress in central Paris. The industry seeks to portray hydroelectric dams as a clean source of renewable energy, which they claim are essential for delivering the Paris Climate Agreement and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. However, a broad coalition of environmental and human rights organizations, together with social movements, argue that the dam industry’s claims amount to greenwashing, and are aimed at capturing new sources of finance from institutions like the Green Climate Fund. They point to numerous cases where hydropower projects have provoked disastrous consequences for people and the environment. Citing mounting scientific evidence that dams are a significant source of greenhouse gases—CO2and, particularly, methane—civil society groups also highlight the role of dams in aggravating climate change. A joint statement signed by more than 250 civil society groups from 70 countries calls attention to the false promises of hydropower and the urgent need for truly sustainable energy solutions. It is available in five languages. These and other issues—including the impacts of hydroelectric dams on natural and cultural heritage sites—were debated by scientists, activists and representatives of affected communities from Brazil, Colombia, Myanmar and Turkey in a parallel event to the IHA Congress, held at the Town Hall of the 6thArrondissement of Paris on May 13. The conference was organized by the NGOs Planète Amazone, GegenStrömung / CounterCurrent, Rivers without Boundaries, International Rivers, and AIDA. Myint Zaw, an activist and researcher from Myanmar who was awarded the 2015 Goldman Prize, was one of the speakers at the conference. “The food security of millions of people is threatened by dam projects planned for the Irrawaddy River that would impact important farmlands needed for rice production along the river and in delta region,” Zaw said. During Tuesday’s opening of the World Hydropower Congress, representatives of indigenous communities, social movements and non-governmental organizations protested together with activists from Extinction Rebellion in front of the Espace Grande Arche in La Défense. A focus of the protest was to call attention to the growing number of human rights and environmental activists murdered in dam-related conflicts. “Miguel Ángel Pabón Pabón disappeared as a result of his activism against the Hidrosogamoso Dam in Colombia, which has continued despite severe human rights violations,“ said Juan Pablo Soler from Movimiento Ríos Vívos of Colombia, mentioning one of many defenders lost. In Gabon, the Kingélé and Tchimbélé dams are adversely affecting populations living beside rivers. “During heavy rains, some villages are flooded when reservoirs overflow. Rivers turn into lakes, water becomes polluted and fish die intoxicated. There is no structure to help us on the ground, nor does the government hear our complaints, which is why we look abroad to issue a distress call,” proclaimed Assossa, a Pigmy leader. Three representatives of the Munduruku people from the Brazilian Amazon—Chief Arnaldo Kabá, Alessandra Korap and Candido Waro Munduruku—participated in both the parallel conference and the protest. After the protest, the Munduruku attempted to hand deliver a letter to the corporate headquarters of Électricité de France (EDF), majority-controlled by the French government. EDF is involved in the controversial Sinop dam on the Teles Pires River, a tributary of the Tapajos, and has contributed to studies that promote the São Luiz do Tapajós mega-dam, which would flood Munduruku territory. EDF representatives refused to speak with the Munduruku leaders. “EDF invades our territory, destroys our rivers, our territory and our sacred places. And when we come here to deliver a letter to this huge company, we’re barred,” stated Alessandra Munduruku. “We’re sad, but we’re determined to continue our struggle to defend our territory.” Press Contacts: Gert-Peter Bruch, Planète Amazone, [email protected] (French, English), + 33 (0)7 81 23 92 91 Brent Millikan, International Rivers, [email protected] (English, Portuguese), +55 61 8153-7009 Thilo F. Papacek, GegenStrömung – CounterCurrent / Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung, [email protected] (German, Portuguese, Spanish, English), ++49 151 412 145 19 Eugene Simonov, Rivers without Boundaries, [email protected](Russian, English, Chinese), +79 (0) 165 491 22 Resources: Further information about the parallel event from May 13: http://www.transrivers.org/2019/2634/ The joint statement, available in Chinese, English, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish can be downloaded here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pgS3YHm4zy5_LFSSjRe0KH-DMK773DQI Link to the Munduruku letter of protest to EDF: Électricité de France (Portuguese and English):https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TxqIiOuJDxNUI2YKPtUBrE_wucJLFl-E/view?usp=sharing Press photos available free of charge (Credit: Todd Southgate): https://tinyurl.com/y34b2g7u Clip reel of protest at opening of IHA Congress and Munduruku attempt to deliver letter at IHA headquarters: https://youtu.be/9BrI3AqVnXE Fact sheet from CounterCurrent on hydroelectric dams and UN Sustainable Development: tinyurl.com/y6mbjqj2

May 13 2019 Climate Change, Human Rights

Nature first: it’s time to build environmental consciousness

Speaking in front of more than 500 people was a unique and beautiful experience, above all for the reason I came together with such an amazing group of people. We were seven diverse individuals with two powerful things in common: our love for the natural environment and our work to preserve it. We were in Santiago, Chile as part of the conference, “Nature first: a new deal with the environment.” The great interest the audience had in the event filled me with such joy, as did the opportunity to speak beside my colleagues from The Naturalists, a series of interviews in which professionals from distinct environmental professions were invited to speak about what being a naturalist implies in the modern world. The video series and this event was put on by Ladera Sur, an online platform and community built around nature, the environment, the outdoors, travel, and much more. It was Ladera Sur that introduced us as 20thCentury Naturalists, a great honor and an even greater obligation. But what does “nature first,” a title with such urgency, really mean? It means that, for too long, nature has been subsidizing our technological advancements and even our quality of life. We live in a world in which those who have the means can do practically anything. Perhaps some of us have stopped to think about tomorrow, and how it may be difficult for our children or grandchildren to enjoy even the simplest things in life. But the time has come to reorganize our priorities. We have neither the time, nor the credit, to continue borrowing from nature. Before proceeding with any potentially harmful project or activity, we first must demonstrate that the activity would not hurt the health of the planet. Only after assuring that is it worth asking whether a project is also good business, or if it will make our lives easier or more comfortable. This is not the position of an eco-terrorist, nor is it counter to economic development. It’s simply looking ahead at the reality of a living on a sick planet—a planet on whose health we depend. The good news is that the changes we need to make to resolve the environmental crisis are not only achievable; they are what people living on this planet actually want. A world with low emissions is a cleaner and more just world; a world driven by renewables means less pollution and more equitable access to energy; a world with more protected natural areas is a greener, healthier, more verdant world; it is rich in biodiversity and has a greater capacity to provide clean air and water. See the complete video of the conference below.

May 07 2019 Indigenous Rights, Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

Inter-American Commission to examine rollback of indigenous rights in Brazil

In a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, civil society organizations will demonstrate how measures adopted by the administration of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro are undoing decades of human rights protections in the country. Rio De Janiero, Brazil. On May 9, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) will hear how measures adopted by the government of President Jair Bolsonaro have rolled back protections for human rights in the country, creating a dangerous situation for indigenous communities and violating Brazil’s international obligations to protect human rights. The hearing was requested by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, International Rivers, Conectas, Teles Pires Forum, Operation Native Amazon and Brazil Indigenous People Articulation (APIB) in an effort to halt further rollbacks, and to demand a reversal of the government’s actions that are currently threatening indigenous communities. The hearing will form part of the Commission’s 172 Period of Sessions, which is taking place in Kingston, Jamaica from May 3 to 10, 2019. During the hearing, organizations will detail how reforms made by the Bolsonaro government in matters of law, public policy, foreign policy, and other areas, violate the preservation of indigenous communities’ way of life in the country. The case will also show how those reforms violate communities’ rights to life, culture, food, a healthy environment, clean water, and the delimitation of their ancestral homelands, among others. The government has diminished legal and administrative protections for indigenous communities through the following actions: The transfer of key functions from the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Agriculture. Increased precarity for employees at the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources. Weakening of the Chico Mendes Institute for the Conservation of Biodiversity and of the process for granting environmental permits. The threat of exposing indigenous lands to the dangers of mining. Measures adopted by the Ministry of Environment that fragment the legal order that guarantees minimum conditions for the protection of the environment and indigenous rights. The transfer of authority for the demarcation of indigenous lands from the National Indian Foundation to the Ministry of Agriculture. The threat of withdrawing Brazil from international treaties like the Paris Agreement and others valuable agreements to protect the environment and human rights. In addition to these rollbacks, the above organizations assert that the situation has been aggravated by increased deforestation, encroachment on indigenous lands, and violence against environmental and human rights defenders. press contacts Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Eloy Terena (Brazil), Brazil Indigenous People Articulation (APIB), [email protected], +55 61 9695-1377

April 30 2019 Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

Clean air and climate justice: the best gifts for our children

Today Mexico celebrates Children’s Day. The best gift we can give to millions of boy and girls is clean air and climate justice. It’s the only thing I want to give to my children that, sadly, I can’t, at least not this year. Mexico City, where we live, has had bad air quality 112 of the 120 days of 2019, thus far. Those of us who live in this city have suffered from contamination, particularly over the last month; three “environmental contingencies” (air pollution alerts) for ozone were declared for a total of seven days. In recent years, contingencies have occurred during peak ozone season—February 15 to June 15—a period in which tropospheric ozone (present in the air we breathe) exceed the maximum levels allowed by Official Mexican Law. This gas, present throughout the year, rises when the burning of fossil fuels by vehicles and industries is compounded by changing weather conditions: less rain and winds, and more solar radiation. This prevents the air pollution that we produce from dispersing into nearby areas. Increased ozone causes serious damages to the environment and public health, particularly to children. According to the Pan American Health Organization, ozone in the air can affect lung function, making breathing difficult. Thus, the group most vulnerable to contamination also includes people with respiratory diseases, older adults and athletes. Authorities recommend that the people, particularly vulnerable groups, abstain from outdoor activities during the contingencies, particularly between 1:00 and 7:00 p.m. Other measures include increasing vehicle restrictions and reducing the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas. Despite its harsh realities, ozone season is not a new or surprising phenomenon, nor is it normal. It shouldn’t be normal for parents to resign ourselves to its presence, to birthday parties indoors and not letting our children go to the park with their friends. I understand the impossibility of controlling the rain, sun and wind; but ozone is another story. There are clear measures that could and should have been implemented years ago to prevent the ozone season from being unavoidable in Mexico City. Already fully identified, they include: improving the quality of gasoline, vehicular technology and fixed sources; ensuring safe and adequate public transportation and bicycle infrastructure; and effectively controlling fleets of private and public transport. Until now, these actions have been incomplete, inefficient and unable to solve the underlying problem. But the improvement of air quality during gasoline shortages has demonstrated that such solutions are possible. What’s more, actions aimed at reducing air pollution could have a double benefit. Tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas that aggravates climate change. It is a short-lived climate pollutant that stays in the atmosphere for only a few weeks, meaning that actions to control it have an almost immediate effect on public health, ecosystems and the climate. Therefore, in addition to improving the health of millions of people living in cities, Mexico has the opportunity to fulfill its international obligations on climate change. Diminishing ozone season requires the urgent and structural change of public policies, laws and their application. New standards must include a human rights perspective that prioritizes public interest and the health of children, and others, above vehicular mobility. While the development and implementation of these measures may not be easy, it’s essential we take the first steps toward the results we want to achieve. Government efforts require the support of our entire society. Companies must contribute to the implementation of solutions, acting with due diligence. Academics, civil society organizations, trade unions and other sectors must contribute with our knowledge and participation to ensure that the plans and programs are ambitious and effective, and that they promote a just transition. Every resident of the city has a duty to contribute. A few weeks ago, Professor David Boyd, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and the Environment, published a report reiterating the obligation of States to guarantee the right to clean air, and the duty of companies to contribute. The report has recommendations related to tropospheric ozone that could be very useful for Mexican authorities. The enjoyment of clean air is a right that has yet to be met. Today almost two million children (from 0 to 14 years old) live in Mexico City, including mine. They and a large part of the more than 35 million children across the country could enjoy clean air; most live in cities and towns with air quality problems. According to organized trade, the celebration of Children's Day in Mexico involves an expenditure of 17 billion pesos ($900 million dollars) in gifts, an amount that could be used for authorities, companies and individuals to implement actions to ensure that the children of the country have something much more valuable: the ability to breathe air that does not endanger their health. This would be aligned with the goal of those who instituted the celebration of Children's Day in Mexico in 1924, and with the intention of the United Nations to establish one day a year to honor the importance of children's rights. Air pollution is, unfortunately, a regional and a global problem. Peru and Colombia also celebrate their children this month. Since their cities are among the most polluted in Latin America, what is reflected here can also be applied to those countries, and the continent as a whole. My gift for my children this year will be to continue working for better air quality in Mexico City, and to collaboratively build a future—hopefully a not-so-distant one—in which climate justice is a reality.

April 22 2019 Indigenous Rights, Public Participation, Human Rights

Listening to indigenous peoples to save the planet

More than 400 indigenous groups live throughout Latin America, many at home in the region’s protected areas, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Their ancestral knowledge of and connection to the natural world has been recognized as a way to guarantee a healthy environment and cope with climate change. Yet society seldom listens to them to learn how to best protect our natural resources. Pu’amé is a Cora expression that means “you first.” It’s used to give way to someone, but also as an expression of respect when someone is talking; it’s a way of saying, “Continue, I’m listening.” Julián López, a Náyeri indigenous leader who speaks Cora, explains this to me in a meeting with members of rural communities in Nayarit, México. I’ve come to listen. During the meeting, pu’amé becomes a way of helping us pay attention and understand. To listen to representatives of indigenous communities is to confront a different worldview, particularly for those of us who exist in the urban, western world. While our way of life is focused on consumption and dependent on exploitation, indigenous communities see the Earth as a source of bounty that requires care and gratitude; it provides them with food and health. These conflicting visions have resulted in the incessant violation of indigenous rights, putting at risk not only their cultural integrity, but also their very lives. To achieve real dialogue with indigenous peoples, you must understand them, Julián tells me, while teaching me a few words in Cora. Opposing visions of development Representatives of rural Mexicanero and Cora communities from the upper and lower regions of the San Pedro Mezquital river basin have come to this meeting to discuss the Las Cruces hydroelectric project. Their concerns are many: if the dam, or any other sacred site, is constructed, what will be the fate of their children and their sacred sites? What will happen to the life of the river, the quality of the fish, and the natural balance? Odilión de Jesús López, also Náyeri, expresses his concern that authorities “don’t value that caring for nature is for the good of all.” He questions the pushback he has received for defending the river and his community’s sacred sites. “How do we use sacred sites? We bring offerings, and give thanks for the good in life.” Julián raises his hand and questions the conflicting ways of seeing development. “Development at what cost? We can’t compete with the way they see development, because what they see is money. We need to ask, what do we want in our villages?” Julián reminds us all that real wealth can be found in clean air, in a river full of fish. But he also speaks of something else: poverty. While it’s true that indigenous people want to protect their land and culture, Julián admits that inaction is not an option. There are families that can’t even fulfill their children’s basic needs: health, education and a balanced diet. But he also knows that won’t be achieved by destroying the world around them. “What if we were trained to use forests sustainably?” he suggests. The representatives of the lower basin, almost all Mexicaneros, agree with him. They want to learn how to use the resources available downstream to ensure steady work. Julián mentions something else that concerns us all: instability. He himself has been the victim of threats and harassment since he began opposing the dam. During a visit to Mexico, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders pointed out that indigenous activists and environmentalists are the most criminalized defenders. Their work is often related to large-scale mining, energy and infrastructure projects. Julián understands the situation of defenders throughout the region. He says that he doesn’t feel alone in the fight to protect the rivers, and he understands that risks are everywhere. “If they kill a defender in Colombia,” he says, “it harms us too.” Women and Mother Earth If the situation is complicated for indigenous men who seek to make their voices heard, it’s even more so for women who speak out in defense of their territory. Marcelina López, a Náyeri leader, speaks softly, glances down at her hands, and shares how difficult it’s been to fight for her community. Then, with a clear and strong voice, she explains, “The authorities treat me badly because I am indigenous and a woman. Of course, we are poor and indigenous; but we are rich because of Mother Earth.” Marcelina speaks of the little they have been consulted for development projects, of the purchase of consent through municipal services, and of the constant discourse that indigenous people don’t know how to see “beyond,” to see progress. “What they don’t understand is that we choose not to exploit some things because we are afraid of contaminating, and the river always comes first,” she explains. Gila de la Cruz, also Náyeri, timidly agrees with Marcelina. She tells us that, as a woman, she’s only been consulted on issues related to children. She says she has an opinion about the river, the services in her community, and the production of food; she mentions a drainage project that she and a large portion of her community disapprove of. She asks us not to misunderstand her, but she believes things shouldn’t happen just because they’ve always been done that way. She’s worried that they haven’t explained everything. “What happens after they put the tubes in? Where does the water go, to the river? Why can’t we reuse the water?” Gila’s complaint makes sense: the river could be at risk, the authorities don’t explain what they're doing, and then they scold her for questioning them. “There are other options, I've seen them,” she says. “There are ways to be more sustainable and not contaminate the water. " Angry now, she says that her opinions have not been heard because she is a woman. Why we must listen to indigenous voices All the representatives agree on one thing: they do not want to be seen as a closed opposition, without the desire to have a better life. They’re merely asking for dialogue. Among their activities as peasants, artisans and fishermen, they’ve made time to organize themselves, to learn about their rights, to master a language that is not their own, and take their concerns to the relevant institutions. They all agree that there are sustainable ways to better their quality of life without affecting the environment. Julián hopes that, ultimately, indigenous groups and authorities can reach a mutual understanding. “Can we all work together—organizations, governments and indigenous peoples? I think so,” he says. Julián asks for training; he wants to learn about infrastructure, and about a socially responsible economy. Gila and Marcelina have dedicated themselves to seeking more sustainable options to produce their food, to build something, to be healthy. "We just need to be taught," Gila says. Humanity is going through a period in which it's become necessary to question all our schemes: our ways of consumption, of using resources, of seeking comfort. Indigenous peoples have lived for centuries in a much more sustainable way than societies constructed under the ethos of the industrial revolution. They offer us, in many ways, examples and opportunities to learn again, to change and to improve. "One day there will be a public space where there is no fear, where I can say anything," Gila says. She speaks about progress made in recent years, noting that they’ve been slowly gaining space. "They should start listening to women,” she says. “They think we should be at home, but we’re here, organizing." Marcelina adds, with satisfaction, "This is how you feel when you’re fighting for your life.”