Human Rights

Conserving the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta

Brazilian Court overturns suspension of Belo Monte’s operating license

Brasilia, Brazil. The Federal Regional Court of the First Region (TRF1) overturned the preliminary decision suspending the operating license of the Belo Monte Dam. On January 11, the Federal Justice of Altamira decided to suspend the license until the federal government and Norte Energia, the company in charge of the dam’s construction, complied with their obligation to restructure the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) of Altamira. However, a federal judge from TRF1 decided today that this decision disproportionately “affects the public interest, causing grave repercussions on the economy and public order.” Another argument presented was that the suspension would prevent the implementation of various plans designed to benefit indigenous peoples. “This is yet another attack on the rights of the affected indigenous communities. The decision manipulates the arguments of public interest, order, security and the economy, and then uses the plans – which should have been implemented when the previous license was granted in 2010 – to justify why it is not possible to suspend the operating license. The bottom line is that the operating license never should have been granted in the first place without the fulfillment of those plans,” said María José Veramendi, AIDA attorney. For more information, please consult the factual record of the case and the latest news about our case before the IACHR.  

IACHR opens case against Brazil for human rights violations related to Belo Monte Dam

Para português, clique aqui Four years after civil society organizations filed their original petition, the Commission opens the case, asking the Brazilian government to respond to allegations of human rights violations stemming from the hydroelectric project under construction in the Brazilian Amazon. Washington D.C., United States. As the first reservoirs of the Belo Monte Dam are being filled, the Brazilian government is coming under fire from international organizations. On December 21, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) opened a case against Brazil, which was challenged by affected communities represented by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Justiça Global and the Sociedade Paraense de Defesa de Direitos Humanos (SDDH). After an initial review lasting four years, and several requests for fast tracking the case by the petitioners, the Commission finally determined that the petition contains sufficient grounds to open the case, which means that Brazil must respond to the claims of human rights violations caused by Belo Monte. “We hope and believe that now is the time for Brazil to respond comprehensively to our claims about: the absence of consultation and free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous communities; the lack of participation and adequate assessment of environmental impact; and the forced displacement and violations of the rights to life, health, integrity and justice of indigenous peoples, riverine communities, and residents of the city of Altamira,” said María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA attorney. Based on Brazil’s response, the Commission will then determine if requirements have been met to have the case admitted and, if so, to establish whether or not the project caused the alleged human rights violations. “The opening of the case is, above all, a victory for the affected communities and local social movements, who have endured for all these years, and remain strong and determined in their search for justice and reparation,” said Raphaela Lopes of Justiça Global. This past November, the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Resources (IBAMA) authorized Belo Monte’s operating license, which allowed the dam’s reservoirs to be filled. IBAMA did so despite the fact that Norte Energía, the company in charge of the project, failed to comply with the conditions necessary (potable water and sanitation, among others) to guarantee the life, health and integrity of affected populations. By opening the case for processing, the Commission is using all available tools to monitor the situation surrounding Belo Monte. Indigenous communities affected by the dam have been protected by precautionary measures that the Commission authorized in 2011, which Brazil has yet to meet. In early December, the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights visited Altamira, the city closest to the Belo Monte project and one of the areas most affected by displacement and socio-environmental conflicts caused by the dam’s construction. There, they met with affected groups, among them members of indigenous and riverine communities, listening to their complaints. After their visit, the Working Group issued a statement that, among other things, urged the Brazilian government to respect human rights, not sacrifice them for economic development.  The Working Group is expected to present the final report of their visit to the Human Rights Council in June 2016. It is our hope that they conduct an adequate follow-up to their visit, and that the report they produce is explicit regarding both the human rights violations surrounding Belo Monte, and the actions of the Brazilian government and the companies involved. As organizations representing the victims of Belo Monte, we will continue to press Brazil to respond to the human rights violations directly caused by the dam’s construction.

5 Recommendations for Integrating Climate Action into the Financial Sector

by Astrid Puentes Riaño This blog was produced in collaboration with Andrea Rodriguez, AIDA’s lead climate change attorney. During the Paris climate talks, I had the honor of participating in a panel on climate and the financial sector. We discussed the importance of ensuring that the fight against climate change is consciously integrated into all finance decisions. Financing is one of the primary challenges that has delayed effective worldwide progress on climate change, because many countries do not have the resources they need, and those that do have the resources haven’t contributed as much as they should. Currently, financial institutions are not providing sufficient funding to combat climate change. In fact, the majority of global resources are still invested in fossil fuels or other activities that have negative impacts on the climate. AIDA has been advocating at the highest levels to make climate finance more effective for more than five years. Our focus has been on ensuring that the allocation of climate finance is transparent, participatory, respectful of human rights, and responsive to the needs of the Global South. We have advocated for inclusion of and compliance with these principles before international and national financial institutions, as well as in a new global mechanism, the Green Climate Fund. To advance the discussion, AIDA requested a side event at the climate talks in Paris. As it turns out, a regional financial institution simultaneously requested a side event to present its voluntary principles for integrating climate change into the financial sector. Since there are thousands of requests for side-events and limited space, the Secretariat of the Convention merged the two events. This is how AIDA came to co-organize an event with a coalition of financial institutions. Although the institutions hadn’t planned to include comments from civil society in their presentation, they agreed to collaborate. This twist of fate created a great opportunity for the institutions to present their principles, and for us to provide early feedback from the point of view of civil society. Twenty-six institutions have supported the voluntary principles so far, including the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), the European Investment Bank, the World Bank Group, and the Inter-American Development Bank. The Five Voluntary Principles, as described by the institutions, are: COMMIT to climate strategies MANAGE climate risks PROMOTE climate smart objectives IMPROVE climate performance ACCOUNT for your climate action​ An initial assessment Is not my intention to make a thorough analysis of the principles at this point. My goal, for the time being, is simply to ensure the principles are known, and to share with you a preliminary analysis, including our initial observations and the five recommendations that I presented at the panel. As a civil society organization, AIDA welcomes initiatives intended to advance climate action, accountability and participation. We therefore consider the voluntary principles a positive initiative from the financial sector, and a good place from which to start looking for concrete ways to integrate climate change fully into their activities. We consider mainstreaming climate finance an ongoing process, and view these principles as just one element of it. From AIDA’s perspective, the principles will actually benefit the sector, and help to decrease financial and other risks to financial institutions. If effectively implemented, the principles can help to increase climate actions while protecting communities and ecosystems, and fight poverty and inequality, two of the most important challenges facing the world. That said, improving access to information is fundamental to ensuring the principles positively impact climate change. Essential information should be made publicly available, including amounts of resources, types of activities or sectors, and projects in which financial institutions are investing. 5 Recommendations for Better Integration 1. Include a human rights perspective and incorporate social risk in assessments Financial investments that don’t incorporate human rights and social perspectives can contribute to rights violations and have severe impacts on communities. In addition to the consequences such investments have on people, they become a financial risk for the institution. Incorporating a human rights perspective in risk assessments can also help to advance goals related to fighting poverty and inequality, which are particularly applicable to public financial entities. 2. Define common concepts  Concepts such as sustainable development, climate change, and climate finance can be interpreted very broadly and generate confusion. Additionally, the lack of agreement on what those concepts mean can lead, for example, to one institution considering an activity as clean or sustainable, when it is not. The definition of renewable energy is a good example. While several major financial institutions agree that large hydropower cannot be considered renewable energy, there are still some institutions that include hydropower, and even nuclear energy, projects in that definition. The inclusion of experts from the non-financial sector—particularly non-state actors—can help increase understanding of what the needs are and where investment should be enhanced or directed. 3. Create a clear, transparent and participatory road map The manner in which the voluntary principles are implemented is crucial. Therefore, a clear and measurable implementation plan is essential. It’s a good thing that the financial institutions highlighted the need to avoid duplication, and incorporate lessons learned. However, to ensure that the principles are as effective as possible, it is also important to at least incorporate experiences from existing accountability mechanisms and applications of safeguards. The current initiative considers a planning group that, as far as we understand, hasn’t been created, although there is a suggestion of how it should be formed. Aligning with the intention of the institutions to include other stakeholders, this planning group should also engage participants outside of the financial sector to increase the impact of investments. The work plan should include effective mechanisms to measure advancement, and be flexible enough to make necessary improvements. It should be seen as a dynamic process that incorporates lessons learned, not as a rigid mandate. 4. Embrace the opportunity in low-carbon economies The financial sector has a unique role to play in encouraging climate actions by helping clients avoid the same old carbon-intensive development. Financial institutions have the power to leapfrog this type of development and implement real, effective solutions for the 21st Century. They can be proactive by enhancing the capacity of other actors interested in fully integrating climate strategies into their operations. The financial sector naturally thrives from risk-taking and innovation. Low-carbon economies represent an important opportunity for growth. 5. Elevate accountability One question posed during the panel was whether or not the principles should be binding. If there is a strong willingness to implement the principles, and adequate mechanisms to measure advances and make adjustments, having a binding agreement isn’t the most important aspect. Accountability is key in this process, thus the importance of Principle Five. Climate change is the most important threat to human kind. It is an urgent matter that most profoundly impacts the world’s most vulnerable populations. There is no more time to lose. Effective actions must continue to be implemented, and the financial sector has an important opportunity to contribute to the solutions, rather than the problem. It’s time for financial institutions worldwide to walk the talk – it’s time for them to seriously commit to fighting climate change, and to start delivering results. The opportunity for us as members of civil society to sit beside representatives when they publically presented their five principles was an interesting start. Now we must follow up so that financial institutions put these principles into practice, especially Principle 5: being accountable. Building upon these comments, and providing recommendations from other stakeholders in the field, will be an important next step. 

A Human Rights Based Approach to Climate in Latin America

By María José Veramendi Villa, AIDA senior attorney, and Camila Bustos, Nivela lead researcher A few days before the beginning of the climate negotiations in Paris, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights submitted an official document to the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on “Understanding human rights and climate change”. For many, the link between these two remains unclear. Aren’t there already other international agreements that discuss this issue in depth? What is the point of including human rights language in a climate change agreement? The link between human rights and climate change has been recognized long ago by the UN Human Rights Council, which has passed several resolutions to bring attention to this issue. Several countries are already feeling the impacts of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, extreme weather events and floods among other disasters are becoming increasingly common. Latin America and the Caribbean is one the most vulnerable regions to climate change. People and communities across the region are suffering from devastating impacts such as the melting of glaciers in the Andes, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification. Many face the risk of losing their traditional livelihoods and being displaced.     The impacts of climate change on the enjoyment of human rights in Latin America have been thoroughly documented by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense in its 2011 report on Climate Change and Human Rights. One of the most shocking impacts includes the drastic reduction to water in the region. By the year 2025, melting glaciers, the degradation of wetlands, intense droughts and erratic meteorological patterns will limit access to water to more than 50 million people in the tropical Andean region.  Other anticipated effects include flooding and changing rain patterns. In Colombia, flooding affected more than 2.2 million people and cost $300 million USD in 2010 alone. In the transition to a low-carbon and resilient economy, countries are already working to design and implement projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect citizens from climate change impacts. A reference to human rights in the operational section of the agreement can ensure that human rights are taken into account in the process of developing and implementing climate policies. This is why: It will raise the ambition and strengthen the agreement promoting an implementation that will ensure that parties comply with their already existing human rights obligations. It will support the goals of the agreement by preventing discrimination, exclusion and inequality. The affected communities have to have a say in the policies and projects designed to help them. It will not create additional obligations, but ensure that there is coherence in the international regime. Parties are already obliged to comply with other human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the world turns its attention to Paris, we cannot forget to humanize climate change and remember that those who have contributed to the least to the problem are and will continue to be the most affected. If we want to ensure a livable planet for the future generations the new climate agreement must include the respect, protection, promotion and fulfilment of human rights. We call on all State Parties and specially those of our Latin American region to support the inclusion of human rights protections in the agreement.

Brazil authorizes operation of the Belo Monte Dam, disregarding the rights of affected communities

The environmental authority granted the project’s operating license, ignoring evidence of noncompliance with conditions necessary to guarantee the life, health and integrity of indigenous and other affected populations. Altamira, Brazil. The Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) today authorized the Belo Monte Dam’s operating license, which allows the dam’s reservoirs to be filled. The authorization was granted despite clear noncompliance with conditions necessary to guarantee the life, health and integrity of affected communities; the same conditions that IBAMA called essential in its technical report of September 22. IBAMA’s decision makes no reference to conditions needed to protect affected indigenous peoples. “We can’t believe it,” said Antonia Melo, leader of Movimiento Xingú Vivo para Siempre, who was displaced by the dam’s construction. “This is a crime. Granting the license for this monster was an irresponsible decision on the part of the government and IBAMA. The president of IBAMA was in Altamira on November 5 and received a large variety of complaints. Everyone – riverside residents, indigenous representatives, fishermen, and members of the movement – talked about the negative impacts we’re living with. And now they grant the license with more conditions, which will only continue to be violated.” In an official letter to IBAMA on November 12, the president of the National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) concluded that conditions necessary for the protection of affected indigenous communities had clearly not been met. However, he gave free reign for the environmental authority to grant the operating license “if deemed appropriate.” “The authorization clearly violates Brazil’s international human rights commitments, especially with respect to the indigenous communities of the Xingú River basin. Those affected populations are protected by precautionary measures granted in 2011 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which the Brazilian government continues to ignore,” said María José Veramendi, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). The license allows for the filling of two of the dam’s reservoirs on the Xingú River, an Amazon tributary. It is valid for six years and is subject to compliance with certain conditions; progress will be monitored through semiannual reports. Such conditions should have been met before the dam’s license was even considered, let alone granted. “Environmental licensing is a way to mitigate the effects, control damage and minimize the risks that the dam’s operation entails for the community and the environment. By disrespecting and making flexible the licensing procedures, the government is allowing economic interests to prevail and ignoring its duty to protect the public interest,” said Raphaela Lopes, attorney with Justiça Global. AIDA, Justiça Global, and the Para Society of Defense of Human Rights have argued on both national and international levels that the conditions needed for Belo Monte to obtain permission to operate have not been met. The project must still guarantee affected and displaced populations access to essential services such as clean water, sanitation, health services and other basic human rights. “The authorization of Belo Monte, a project involved in widespread corruption scandals, contradicts President Rousseff’s recent statement before the United Nations, in which she declared that Brazil would not tolerate corruption, and would instead aspire to be a country where leaders behave in strict accordance with their duties. We hope that the Brazilian government comes to its senses, and begins to align its actions with its words,” said Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of AIDA.   The green light for Belo Monte couldn’t have come at a worse moment. On November 5th, two dams impounding mine waste—owned by Samarco, a company jointly overseen by Vale and BHP Billiton—broke in the city of Mariana, Minas Gerais, causing one of the greatest environmental disasters in the country’s history. A slow-moving flood of mud and toxic chemicals wiped out a village, left 11 dead and 12 missing, and affected the water supply of the entire region, destroying flora and fauna for hundreds of miles around. The toxic flood has since reached the sea. The company’s operating licenses had expired two years ago.  Approval of Belo Monte’s operating license comes just six days before the start of the Paris climate talks, the most important meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in recent history. Once in operation, Belo Monte will emit greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane; as the world’s third-largest dam, it will become a significant contributor to climate change. By authorizing Belo Monte, the government of Brazil is sending a terrible message to the world. Ignoring its international commitments to protect human rights and mitigate the effects of climate change, the government is instead providing an example of how energy should not be produced in the 21st Century. 

For the life and health of my children: We MUST include Human Rights in the New Climate Accord

By Astrid Puentes Riaño (@astridpuentes) Originally published by IntLawGrrls We humans have caused climate change, a real threat to humanity thus it requires human solutions.  We also have lost precious time on eternal discussions about the existence of climate change, despite imminent evidence.  Our efforts to deliver solutions must be inclusive and ambitious if they are to ensure that the lives and livelihoods of all people are protected. If and how to include human rights protections in new climate accord was one of the primary issues discussed during October’s Bonn Climate Conference. These protections were notably left out of the no-text presented by the co-chairs, and then added back in at the insistence of several countries, many from the Global South, and hundreds of civil society organizations. I could write a long list of legal, political, ethical, and economic arguments as to why human rights must be included in the Paris Agreement. In my opinion, however, they can all be distilled into two primary and powerful arguments: my children! At 4 and nearly 2 years old, they are already experiencing the realities of a changing climate.  Some days, for example, they cannot go to the park because of increased air and climate pollution levels in Mexico City, be it black carbon or ozone, or both.  Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, as hurricanes, droughts, floods, glacier loss, and fires are all increasing. Now the question for my kids is not whether they will suffer from climate change, but to what extent. Some may say I’m exaggerating, and that my kids aren’t among the most affected. They’re right. Many others are suffering, and will continue to suffer, far worse consequences, such as: the Kunas in Panama, who are loosing their land due to sea-level rise; the 62 million people living on 52 small island states, including Tuvalu and Barbados; the 70 million people in the Andes, all of whom depend on water from glaciers and paramos, which are expected to dissapear within a few decades. Despite the evident urgency, official responses have been shamefully slow. The United Nations recently announced that current national commitments aren’t enough to prevent world temperatures from surpassing 2oC by 2100, when my children will be 89 and 87 years old. How, then, can we speed up agreements, increase ambition, and close the gap between what is needed and what is promised by States? Human Rights are an important part of this answer. If implemented, they can help to: Recognize the realities of climate change and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights of all peoples, particularly those in vulnerable situations. Remind States of their existing obligations to protect and respect human rights, obligations which are fundamentally shared by corporations and other international entities. Incorporating human rights in the climate change agreement will not create new obligations; it will instead allow us to be consistent and comply with preexisting commitments. Avoid increased threats to world stability that have been linked to climate change due to impacts such as: local resource competition, livelihood insecurity, migration, extreme weather events and disasters, volatile food prices, transboundary water management, sea-level rise, coastal degradation, and the unintended effects of climate policies. Spur effective solutions, such as the rethinking of energy. These kinds of solutions haven’t yet been achieved due to a lack of ambition and political will. For my son and daughter, and the millions of children of the world, we must accept that climate change is a human rights issue. For the health of future generations, and that of those already suffering from its impacts, we must do all we can to create effective solutions. The new climate accord, which will be signed in Paris this December, must include human rights protections in its Preamble, as well as in its operative text. Only then, with an overarching respect for the rights of all people, can begin to see the results we need in the fight against climate change. We must take the climate crisis seriously. If not, we will be trapped in short-sighted negotiations that won’t provide my children the hope of a dignified and healthy life. They will be left inside, unable to play in the park, to enjoy the world beyond our doorstep. And those in more vulnerable situations may be left with nowhere at all to find the shelter they seek.

Still Waiting for Justice in La Oroya

Part 1 of a 2-Part Series on the Human Rights Situation in La Oroya, Peru. By María José Veramendi Villa Juana[1] is tired. She and her neighbors have been waiting eight years for a ruling; eight years for a decision that could better their lives, clean their air, attend to their sick children and families. What began as a courageous and hopeful quest for justice has become a discouraging waiting game. Since 2007, a group of residents in La Oroya, Peru, has acted as petitioner in a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Community of La Oroya v. Peru. For nearly a century, their city has been contaminated by the operation of a metallurgical complex (smelter) within its borders. The smelter has blackened the air, poisoned their bodies, and released toxic chemicals into the land and water. La Oroya was once identified as one of the most polluted cities in the world. The severe contamination has, and continues to have, grave impacts on the health of the city’s residents. Realities of La Oroya When AIDA’s co-executive director Anna Cederstav first arrived in La Oroya in 1997, women were walking around with scarves covering their faces, a vain attempt to ease the pain of breathing. Juana explained that she had felt the steady burning in her eyes and throat—the effects of contamination—since she could remember, but didn’t pay it any mind. Like most of the population, she thought it was normal. She didn’t really know what clean air was because she’d never experienced it. AIDA has worked for nearly two decades with the community of La Oroya. In 2002, we published the report La Oroya Cannot Wait with the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law. That report began to reveal to the community the severity of the pollution and health risks they were facing on a daily basis. The community realized they had to do something. Juana said it was in 2003, more than 80 years after the smelter began operating, that she became aware of the contamination. Through work with her parish, she was able to access information and learn about what was happening in her city.  From there, she connected the dots—the respiratory problems in her family were, in fact, a result of her city’s extreme contamination. The quest for justice Residents submitted their case before the Inter-American Commission after their attempts at justice within Peru produced no remedy. A 2006 ruling by Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal against the State ordered it to adopt measures to protect the health of the community, but the State took no such action. In 2007, the Commission urged the Peruvian state to carry out precautionary measures—a specialized diagnosis of 65 residents and treatment for those who showed irreversible damage to their lives or personal integrity. Juana said receiving news of the precautionary measures was a happy moment because “we knew that we were winning something. At the beginning, everything went well and we believed that everything would be fixed, (but) with the passing of months—years—there were no answers.” Then, in 2009, the Commission issued a report admitting AIDA’s petition, declaring that the State’s omissions in the face of pollution could, if proven, represent human rights violations. But still, nearly a decade after the petition was first filed, the victims await a decision, the precautionary measures have yet to be enforced, and the State’s responsibility for the acts have yet to be established.  “It’s taking a really long time, and not all of us have the patience or desire to keep waiting,” Juana said. Time affects the victims, wearing them out until they begin to waver and give up fighting for their right to justice. They become even more vulnerable as they face a city hostile to anyone who fights for their rights to life and health, a state that denies its responsibility and looks for any excuse to avoid assuming responsibility, and a company that wants to polish its reputation and use its economic power to manipulate the government. Where is the law in these cases? Where is justice? Juana explained that leaving La Oroya would be impossible for her family, because there they have work. She remains committed to achieving change with the lawsuit. But that’s not the case for everyone.  La Oroya contains thousands of stories of families whose lives were radically changed due to the city’s contamination and the subsequent damages to their health and lives. There are those who had to abandon their homes because they did not see a future in the city, and those who have been unable to leave La Oroya because their entire lives and family are there. Then there are those who have suffered painful attacks and insults from their own neighbors in a community worried about losing jobs, but who march forward with the conviction that, one day, change will come and La Oroya will be a better and fairer place for them, their children, and their grandchildren. I trust and hope that the law will deliver justice to salvage those years of waiting. [1] The name has been changed to protect the client. This blog is based on a longer article Maria José wrote on the case entitled La Oroya: A Painful Wait for Justice. It was published as Chapter 8 of DeJusticia’s book, Human Rights in Minefields: Extractive Economies, Environmental Conflicts and Social Justice in the Global South. Read the full account here.  

6 Things You Should Know About The Paris Climate Talks

Across Latin America, and the world, communities are facing the severe effects of a changing climate. As floods destroy ancestral homes, and droughts threaten livelihoods, the urgency with which world leaders must act is becoming increasingly apparent. It is in this critical global climate that world leaders will meet this December in Paris for a pivotal meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as COP21. The conference is expected to produce a new global agreement on climate change, which we hope will set the stage for the transition to a low carbon, climate resilient economy. AIDA’s lead Climate Change attorney Andrea Rodríguez has been monitoring key elements of the ongoing climate negotiations and bringing information and analysis to policy makers and NGOs throughout the Americas. To prepare you for the barrage of news that will come out of COP21, we’ve asked Rodríguez some questions we thought you’d like to know the answers to: What is the COP21? The meeting in Paris will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of Parties to the global climate change convention, also known as the UNFCCC. World leaders will convene in Paris with the goal of signing a new global agreement on climate change. The primary goal of the agreement will be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature increase to 2° C above pre-industrial levels, so we can adapt to the new changes in climate. Why is the conference so important? Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. No matter what governments do, if they don’t work together and take collaborative actions, we are never going to succeed at providing an effective solution. That’s why a global space that coordinates what countries do to tackle the problem is crucial for finding a way forward. The global treaty on climate change has been established for more than 20 years. What we need from COP21 is further guidance to ensure its effective implementation. If we don’t provide clarity on exactly how we’re going to achieve reduced emissions in a timely manner, we’re putting at risk the future of the planet. What are the key issues AIDA is following? AIDA is following two key components in the development of the new climate accord: climate finance and the protection of human rights in climate related activities. Climate finance entails providing money for developing countries—which are generally the least responsible for and the most impacted by climate change—to implement climate related actions effectively. COP21 needs to provide clarity on the specifics of that support—when and how will it arrive, and where will the money come from? A baseline of $100 billion per year by 2020 has already been agreed upon. But how do we make sure that goal is reached, and that is continues to grow?  And, once resources are distributed, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure those resources are used properly and effectively. AIDA is pushing governments to incorporate human rights protections into the agreement, because climate change directly affects human rights. We need to create a broad consciousness of the human rights dimensions of climate change. That includes incorporating specific language to ensure the protection of human rights in all climate actions. When governments or institutions are planning climate-focused projects, programs, plans and strategies, they must also think about how those projects will affect people and the realization of their human rights. What will the agreement mean for governments? Governments of the world need to start looking within. They must do an internal analysis to see what they have, and what they need, to ensure they can strategically implement the agreement. In order for a nation to commit to taking action, it must first make sure it has the institutional capacity and the means to succeed. What will it mean for the average person? The climate agreement is a political commitment, but it will certainly have repercussions at the local level. It will influence national policies. If leaders create an effective agreement, you will see your government shifting to low-emission, climate-resilient development. There will be better local regulations, and you will begin to see policy improvements, and eventually more climate resilient actions taken in your own communities. You will be less vulnerable to the effects of climate change. How can the average person engage on this issue? You can begin by demanding more of your government. Climate change is a political fight, and your voice can help influence outcomes. Learn what your government wants and what their expectations are—you can start now by familiarizing yourself with their INDC. Then get organized and push your government to take a more proactive stance. Familiarize yourself with climate finance, follow the negotiations, and help inform others by sharing our work. It is our duty as citizens to hold our governments responsible, and to do our part to protect and defend this beautiful planet as best we can. 

Rights of the Environment: The Pope is on our Side

In his speech before the United Nations today in New York, Pope Francis argued passionately in defense of the environment, proclaiming that the natural world should have the same rights and protection as humanity. The Pope insisted on the “rights of the environment” because, according to His Holiness: We human beings are part of the environment. We live in communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human actions must acknowledge and respect (…) Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity… In all religions, the environment is a fundmental good. The Pope also proclaimed the fundamental nature of the fight against climate change, which requires concrete and effective actions. A decisive moment in this fight will come this December at the Paris Climate Conference, where governments from around the world will meet and commit to global actions to confront the climate crisis. The Pope declared: I’m confident that the Paris Conference on climate change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.  During the UN General Assembly, before leaders and representatives of the people of the world, the Pope added: Our world demands of all government leaders a will that is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment.  This speech is a milestone in the struggle for the defense of the environment and against climate change. It’s yet another push to continue fighting every day for the preservation of biodiversity, ecosystems, freshwater, and the balance of life on this planet, this marvellous creation that we humans share with so many other forms of life. At AIDA we strive every day to defend the right to a healthy environment in the Americas, and in our Climate Change program we monitor and support the negotiations to reach a new global climate accord. As long as humanity and the environment suffer at the hand of irresponsible development, we will continue to fight in defense of the environment.