Public Participation

December 14 2024 Human Rights, Mining, Public Participation

European Union regulations and strategies jeopardize a just energy transition in Latin America

Reducing the production and consumption of minerals and deepening its circularity policy could enable the EU to address the social and environmental crises equitably, without exacerbating inequalities or compromising human well-being in the areas of the Global South where minerals are extracted. Brussels, Belgium – Following EU Raw Materials Week, which convened in Brussels this week, civil society organizations in Latin America warned that European Union regulations fail to respect the rights of communities affected or at risk of being impacted by mineral extraction projects used for energy transition and other industries, deepening inequalities in the Global South.While the debate around the future dynamics of raw materials in Europe – under the slogan “Europe means business; Europe is a powerhouse”– sought to foster investment opportunities between EU industry and countries of the Global South, the event fully ignored the realities of the territories in which these minerals are extracted. The effective participation of Latin American civil society has been practically non-existent, and the voices of local communities affected by the “critical minerals” projects promoted at the event have been excluded.“The EU's current raw materials and trade policy contradicts Europe's claim and rhetoric of upholding human rights and the highest environmental standards and supporting mineral-rich countries in creating added value and in their own energy transition.” said Teresa Hoffmann, EU raw materials policy expert and member of FARN. “Instead of making rapid progress in implementing human rights and environmental standards, there is a risk of even deregulating existing laws in the name of ‘competitiveness through simplification.’”The competitiveness paradigmThe event's agenda showcased the paradigm promoted by the European Commission in the framework of competitiveness vis-à-vis other countries such as China and the United States, which also seek to control the market of the so-called “clean technologies” and other industries, such as the military and aerospace. This approach is supported by the Draghi report, which stresses the importance of strengthening Europe's position in the global market.This narrative frames competitiveness in a very narrow perspective of perpetual growth, ignoring key elements such as environmental sustainability, social justice, and the need for real action in order for the EU to take steps to reduce its demand for minerals and its energy consumption.“The new paradigm of competitiveness does not take into account the limits of the planet, nor the climate, biodiversity and water crises, and risks deepening the asymmetry of power and inequality that exist between the countries of the Global South and the Global North, while promoting policies that impede a just global energy transition,” said Pía Marchegiani, deputy executive director and director of the Environmental Policy area of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN).European Critical Raw Materials Regulation (CRMR)The Commission this week discussed the implementation of the European Critical Raw Materials Regulation (CRMR) through 'strategic projects' and 'strategic partnerships' in and with countries in the Global South.Critically, although the regulation will be widely implemented in Latin America—where many of these minerals are found in strategic ecosystems and indigenous territories—it does not include robust human rights and environmental due diligence mechanisms appropriate to the socio-cultural context of this region. On the contrary, the CRMR allows European companies to self-regulate their compliance with human rights and environmental standards through schemes that do not consider the complexity of the aggregate and synergistic impacts of extractive activities, which are expanding rapidly due to European and global demand.“Europe is seeking to secure access to minerals and energy through the modernization of free trade agreements, bilateral investment agreements and the CRMR itself. This new law promotes private mechanisms for multi-stakeholder participation and mining standards on environmental issues or transparency, which cannot be understood as a substitute for the procedures and regulations provided for in the laws of countries” said Ramón Balcázar, researcher and executive director of the Fundación Tantí. “Currently, we see them being used by the same companies and states that together systematically deny the right to free, prior and informed consultation to the peoples who are often affected simultaneously by mining and energy mega-projects”.Territorial realities not on the EU agendaIn Latin America, there is vast evidence that large-scale mineral extraction leads to socio-environmental degradation and conflict, and poses serious risks to local communities and environmental defenders. In the Salar de Atacama in Chile and the Salar del Hombre Muerto in Argentina, lithium extraction has generated environmental conflicts, weakened the social fabric, deepened state violence, and significantly affected these sensitive ecosystems.Despite this, government representatives from several Argentine provinces attending the event failed to refer to the lack of social license and the serious socio-environmental conflicts they face. On the contrary, they emphasized the investment opportunities in these mineral-rich provinces and promoted reforms that represent a serious setback for human and environmental rights, such as the Incentive Regime for Large Investments (RIGI), denounced by the Argentinean organization FARN in a recent communication.“The European Union has regulations whose implementation processes do not respect the rights of access and international environmental law,” said Yeny Rodríguez, senior lawyer at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “This is extremely worrying because we know that there are 49 strategic projects applications for the extraction of transitional minerals outside of the EU (out of a total of 170 proposals), but we have no information about which ones. They are likely in the Global South and, more worryingly, they may be planned on indigenous lands and in strategic ecosystems that should be recognized by the EU as no-go zones, or mining-free areas”. We call on the EU to rapidly adopt effective solutions to reduce the production and consumption of minerals and to deepen its circularity policy to address the social and environmental crises in an equitable and intergenerational way, without creating new inequalities or compromising human well-being in Latin America, as recently called for by the UN Economic Commission for Europe itself. Press ContactsAnna Miller (USA), AIDA, [email protected], +17166029553Belén Felix (Argentina), FARN, [email protected], +5491134214728Felipe Fontecilla (Chile), TANTI [email protected], +56954460903

XI Foro Social Panamazónico en Rurrenabaque y San Buenaventura, Bolivia

July 18 2024 Indigenous Rights, Mining, Public Participation

The Amazon: The complexities and challenges of its protection

By Vania Albarracín and José David Castilla* Protecting the Amazon is one of the region's greatest challenges. Facing it requires coordination and cooperation between states, peoples and organizations. In this context, the Pan-Amazonian Social Forum (FOSPA) was born out of the need to think about the Pan-Amazonian region - a region made up of the countries that have jurisdiction or territory in the Amazon basin, and/or have jungle coverage, and/or are part of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty (TCA) - in all its complexity. FOSPA is a regional space for articulation, reflection and exchange between indigenous peoples, social movements and civil society from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guiana, Peru, Venezuela and Suriname. The reason why so many actors have come together around the Amazon is that it is a mega-diverse ecosystem and a global climate stabilizer, containing more than 13% of all known plant and animal species and releasing 6,600 km³ of freshwater annually into the Atlantic Ocean, representing between 16 and 20% of global runoff. It is therefore essential to consider the interconnections and interdependencies between the Amazon and other ecosystems in the region. Marine-coastal ecosystems, Andean wetlands, mountain ranges and forests are interconnected throughout the continent and should be recognized as part of a comprehensive conservation strategy. The Amazon region is facing serious problems of deforestation and ecosystem degradation, which have led to warnings of reaching the so-called point of no return. This refers to the loss of the ecological balance and climatic functions of the Amazon, which would have incalculable negative global repercussions. FOSPA holds biannual meetings in different cities and sub-regions of the Amazon to discuss the violations of human, environmental, territorial and natural rights that afflict the region, as well as to propose alternatives that come from the local communities and indigenous peoples that inhabit the region. The eleventh version of FOSPA was held from June 12 to 15 in the cities of Rurrenabaque and San Buenaventura, in the Amazon region of Bolivia. The meeting resulted in a joint declaration in defense of life, peoples and nature. AIDA participated in the meeting and we share below our assessment of the main agreements, the gaps in their implementation and what is missing to ensure the protection of the Amazon. The agreements 1. Mining threats The threats posed by mining to the Amazon region can be seen in two key issues: the promotion and impact of new extractivism (such as copper mining) and mercury contamination from gold mining. The meeting highlighted the need to ban the global trade of mercury and to develop multinational strategies to combat its use in gold mining, in accordance with the Minamata Convention. In addition, a biocultural approach to assessing the impacts of mining was advocated, recognizing the interrelationship between biodiversity and indigenous cultures, the fundamental role of women in preserving and reproducing life, and the participation of civil society in decision-making spaces, ensuring transparency and full disclosure. 2. An Amazon free of extractivism One of the main concerns of the communities, peoples and organizations that participated in the meeting is the presence of different types of extractivism in the Amazon region. They recognized that their rights are violated and threatened by hydrocarbon extraction and transportation projects, by the exploitation of transition minerals such as gold and copper, and by the implementation of public policies related to the energy transition. One of the most relevant proposals in this regard was to generate a multifactorial and plurinational declaration of the Amazon as a zone free of fossil fuels and mining, not only as a slogan, but as a political, social and environmental horizon for the protection of life in all its forms. This proposal must be evaluated in the context of the different tensions and social realities of the region. 3. Guarantees for a just and popular energy transition A just and popular energy transition was another relevant point of the meeting. Indigenous communities and peoples raised the need to decolonize the concept of energy transition and propose a process that comes from them, who have historically suffered the impacts of extractivism. The call was for an energy transition that remediates these impacts and restores affected ecosystems. Achieving this goal requires responsible project closure and exit processes, as well as transition processes that incorporate the highest human rights standards and the perspectives of affected communities. Practical gaps 1. Insufficient commitment to regional cooperation The eleventh version of the FOSPA revealed a lack of political commitment on the part of the member governments of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO), reflected in the absence of firm agreements and mechanisms for effective participation. This favors extractivist policies and weakens the protection of indigenous and environmental rights. It is essential that ACTO review and strengthen its structures to ensure that international commitments are implemented and that pan-Amazonian communities play an active and decisive role in policy formulation. 2. Exclusion of indigenous peoples and communities from the decision-making process The exclusion of indigenous peoples and indigenous Amazonian communities from decision-making processes is evident. This results in policies and agreements that do not reflect their needs and realities. A clear example of this is the Conferences of the Parties (COP) on climate change and biodiversity, where indigenous representation is not real or substantive, resulting in a failure to value their ancestral knowledge and fundamental role in biodiversity and climate protection. 3. Absence of a binding mechanism The implementation of agreements reached in forums such as FOSPA has been inadequate and, in many cases, non-existent. This has been one of the main demands of indigenous peoples and communities. Due to the non-binding nature of FOSPA and its lack of relevance to the state perspective, many of the demands remain in the realm of declarations. Although the FOSPA is essential for pan-Amazonian integration and the construction of alternatives from the territories, a joint effort is needed to strengthen its link with decision-makers, to promote the active participation of communities and to turn the forum into a platform for mobilization and action. The road ahead The next FOSPA meeting will take place in two years, but the effective protection of the Pan-Amazon region cannot wait. In the short term, it is necessary to take concrete actions to mitigate the impacts on the ecosystem and to adopt regional cooperation measures to ensure its integral and transboundary protection. Among other things, it is necessary and urgent: Achieve a regional consensus and design a plan to guarantee the declaration of the Amazon as a zone free of fossil fuels and all forms of extractivism. Coordinate an Andean-Amazonian and coastal articulation for the integral defense of territories, demanding concrete actions against mining with a biocultural approach. Demand regulatory frameworks for environmental and human rights due diligence in the Amazonian countries and in the countries of origin of the companies, in order to oblige them to comply with international standards in these two areas. Urge states to apply the principles of prevention and precaution and to raise their standards for projects that may affect the Amazon. Develop a mechanism for the closure and phasing out of fossil fuel extraction projects in the Amazon. Guarantee the active, representative and binding participation of Pan-Amazonian communities and peoples in international forums where decisions are made about nature, such as the next UN Conference on Biodiversity (COP16 in Colombia) and the next UN Conferences on Climate Change (COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil). *Vania Albarracín Silva is an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program and José David Castilla Parra is an attorney with Human Rights and Environment Program.

Paisaje de Antofagasta de la Sierra, Argentina.

March 27 2024 Indigenous Rights, Mining, Public Participation

Court decision stops new lithium mining projects in Argentine salt flat, sets regional precedent

On March 13, the Supreme Court of Argentina’s Catamarca province ordered a halt on authorizing new lithium mining projects around the Salar del Hombre Muerto, in the department of Antofagasta de la Sierra. The high provincial court established that all projects must comply with the free, prior, and informed consultation of affected communities, thus granting the injunction filed by Román Guitián, Cacique of the Atacameños del Altiplano Indigenous Community. It is one of the most important rulings of recent times regarding care for nature and the protection of the rights of traditional communities. The court ordered the providence’s Ministry of Mining and the Ministry of Water, Energy and Environment to "refrain from granting new authorizations or environmental impact statements with respect to any work or activity" in the area until an environmental impact report with two fundamental characteristics is completed. The first is that it must be "cumulative and integral," covering the entire salt flat and especially the Los Patos River, which is in the same salt flat. The second is that it must consider the total impact of the companies that have applied for water use and extraction permits, and their potential to transform the environment in the same geographical area. Lithium mining in Antofagasta de la Sierra began in 1997 by the multinational company FMC, currently operating as Livent. The local communities denounced that the river and the Trapiche Valley were drying up because of the mining activity. The Alliance for Andean Wetlands (Alianza por los Humedales Andinos) celebrates this achievement of the Atacameños del Altiplano Indigenous Community and the Asamblea PUCARA (Pueblos Catamarqueños en Resistencia y Autodeterminación). The same model of lithium mega-mining that the Catamarca Supreme Court's ruling points to is being reproduced in the Puna region of Chile and Bolivia. In this sense, the sentence is an important precedent for the protection of the environment and affected communities, which should be replicated in all the regions of the continent affected by this extractive model. Governments must take measures to provide the necessary security guarantees for the territorial defense of local communities demanding the fulfillment of their human and environmental rights, both in Argentina and in other countries. QUOTES FROM ALLIANCE MEMBERS Claudia Velarde, co-coordinator of the Ecosystems Program of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) "What happened in Catamarca is a historic milestone for the protection of water, territory and life in Latin America. The Court's decision confirms that the concept of the cumulative impact of an extractive activity is fully valid and a transcendental aspect of environmental management. It also clarifies that any damage to the environment that may result in a violation of the right to life or personal integrity must be considered significant damage. It is a relevant precedent in every sense and a strong message: national and international environmental regulations must be respected, environmental impact assessments must be strategic and cumulative, the right to environmental participation must be guaranteed, and the energy transition must be just." Ramón Balcázar, executive director of Fundación Tantí and co-coordinator of the Plurinational Observatory of Andean Salt Flats (OPSAL) "This ruling is the result of years of work and shows the importance of articulating knowledge and legal strategies for the defense of territories from a wetland perspective, setting a precedent that should be extended to the entire region for a cumulative assessment of projects, not only lithium, but also metallic mining and the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, our colleague Román Guitián was the target of death threats after learning of the ruling, in a country like Chile that has ratified the Escazú Agreement. In this sense, we must categorically reject any form of violence against the defenders of the Andean salt flats, as well as the political advantage that institutions linked to the greenwashing of mining have tried to take from such a complex situation." Cristian Fernández, coordinator of the Legal Affairs area of Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN) "The recent ruling of the Court of Justice of Catamarca, ordering the preparation of a "cumulative and integral" environmental impact study for all lithium projects being developed in the Los Patos River basin, and requiring the local government to refrain from issuing any new permits or authorizations for the activity, represents a milestone in the environmental jurisprudence of our country. It consolidates the path started almost 15 years ago by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation when, in the "Salas Dino" case, it demanded a cumulative impact study against the deforestation of native forests in Salta. In doing so, the Catamarca Court set a precedent that could be applied to the ecosystem damage suffered by the provinces of Salta and Jujuy due to the cumulative impact of numerous lithium projects in Salinas Grandes and Guayatayoc Lagoon."

May 31 2023 Oceans, Public Participation, Toxic Pollution

Offshore drilling: Resisting a growing threat in Latin America

Offshore drilling is expanding in Latin America and the Caribbean as part of a government and business strategy implying the continuity of the oil and gas industry, despite the role of fossil fuels in aggravating the global climate crisis. The advance of offshore hydrocarbon activity also risks serious damage to the ocean—our planet's greatest climate regulator—the vast biodiversity it harbors, and to the livelihoods of coastal communities. Worldwide, offshore areas represent 30 percent of total hydrocarbon reserves and are concentrated in surface waters up to 125 meters deep, according to academic research. The United States, Mexico, Norway, Brazil and Saudi Arabia are the main producers, accounting for 43 percent of the world total. The current expansion of drilling in Latin America is tending towards extremes with greater environmental complexity, in ultra-deep waters, with wells that exceed 1,500 meters in depth. The authorization of new offshore drilling projects deepens dependence on the use of fossil fuels, representing a step backwards in global efforts to avoid global warming with catastrophic consequences. It also constitutes an obstacle in the transition towards sustainable energy systems, based on renewable sources and respectful of people and the environment. However, there are cases in the region that demonstrate a growing collective resistance to the blind advance of offshore drilling projects. With the help of strategic litigation and citizen participation, these cases are creating an opportunity to set important precedents at national and international levels for the protection of the environment, the climate and human rights from the damages caused by offshore drilling. In defense of the Argentine Sea In May 2019, the Energy Secretariat awarded several companies a total of 18 areas (225,000 square kilometers of surface area) in the Argentine Sea—a sector of the Southwest Atlantic Ocean—for the search for gas and oil. In December 2021, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development authorized a seismic exploration project in three of the awarded areas, located off the coast of the province of Buenos Aires, about 300 kilometers from the beaches of Mar del Plata, one of the country’s most popular beaches. The project includes the drilling of an exploratory well, and is being managed by the Norwegian state-owned company Equinor, the Argentine YPF and the Anglo-Dutch Shell. The governmental decision has been questioned and rejected by the scientific community and by the assemblies of several coastal cities. In January 2022–in view of the threats to biodiversity, climate and local economies posed by the prospecting and possible exploitation of hydrocarbons off the Argentine coast—scientific groups and environmental organizations filed a class action lawsuit before a Federal Court in Mar del Plata against the Argentine State, the Ministry of Environment and the Secretariat of Energy, requesting the nullity of the resolution authorizing the seismic exploration project and the process by which the 18 areas of the Argentine Sea were licensed off. The lawsuit was followed by protests in the streets and other actions, which have swelled into an ongoing legal battle. In February 2022, the court temporarily suspended seismic exploration through a precautionary measure. However, in December of that year, the Court of Appeals lifted that suspension. This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court of Justice, which has not yet ruled on the matter. Moratorium at risk in Belize In October 2017, the government of Belize established by law a permanent moratorium on oil activity in its maritime zone. This occurred after an informal referendum organized by environmental groups in 2012 resulted in 96 percent of participants voting against oil activity; and after the global outrage generated in October 2016 by the government's decision to allow seismic testing for oil exploration just one kilometer away from the Belize Barrier Reef, one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. However, offshore hydrocarbon exploitation is still a risk for the Caribbean nation. In 2022, the Prime Minister expressed the government's willingness to allow seismic exploration without lifting the moratorium. In view of this, organizations dedicated to environmental protection seek to reinforce the prohibition by forcing a referendum on whether or not to lift the moratorium. Court victory in Guyana In Guyana, since the early 2000s there have been reports of discoveries of large offshore oil and gas reserves in the so-called Guyana Suriname Basin. Guyana is the South American nation with the most oil reserves discovered in the last decade, and has decided to expand its gas reserves as well. Offshore gas production in Guyana has also been the subject of controversy due to environmental and safety concerns. Recently, a court decision rejected an attempt by multinational ExxonMobil and the government to dissolve the written commitment that obliges the company to bear all cleanup, restoration, and damage compensation costs of any oil spill in its offshore operations. The judge in the case found that ExxonMobil is in violation of the permit issued to the Liza 1 project—which requires financial guarantees in case of oil spills and accidents—and that Guyana's environmental regulators are not enforcing the terms of the permit. Biodiversity and climate defense Carrying out offshore hydrocarbon exploration and/or exploitation projects may involve the violation of international commitments, including those undertaken by States under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Migratory Species. Offshore seismic exploration generates sounds at levels far in excess of natural levels. Many of these overlap with the hearing and vocalization ranges of marine species (mammals, turtles, fish, diving birds and others). This can cause serious injuries, long-term physical and physiological effects and even death, explains Pablo García Borbroglu, expert and leader of the Global Penguin Society, while affirming that it can also lead to a reduction in fishing activity. The impacts of the drilling are not limited to the exploited area, but affect the entire sea and all the species that inhabit it, aggravating the precarious situation of a large number of already threatened or endangered species. The expansion of the offshore industry also implies nations are failing to comply with global commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, or adopt measures aimed at the management of key ecosystems such as marine areas, both contained in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The cases described above, which bring together diverse voices under a common cause, have the potential to establish precedents that will force States to take responsibility for the possible environmental and social consequences of endorsing harmful industries such as offshore hydrocarbons. They are key opportunities for courts and other decision-making bodies to set exemplary precedents for the hemisphere in the protection of the environment and human rights, especially in the face of the global climate and biodiversity crises.

November 03 2022 Public Participation, Climate Change, Human Rights

Headed for Egypt: What can we expect from COP27?

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

May 30 2022 Indigenous Rights, Public Participation, Climate Change

What is a just energy transition?

It is possible to propose real solutions to current problems. The various crises facing humanity—climate, energy, food, environment, health—as well as the enormous inequalities that cause, and are deepened by, them can be overcome if we manage to rethink the systems in which we live. In 2021, the energy sector contributed 73.2 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The current energy system, based on fossil fuels, is unequal and inequitable. It is concentrated in large private or state-owned companies, is particularly conflictive in terms of access to resources, and is closed to social participation in decision-making. For these reasons, progress on the energy transition is urgent. There is no single view of energy transition; it is a concept in dispute. Toward what? For whom? How? Conservative views focus the transition on a process of technological substitution toward a change in the energy matrix focused on renewable resources and the search for energy efficiency. On the other hand, the most complete proposals warn that a change in the energy matrix is necessary, but not enough. They see the transition as a process of integral transformation, territorially situated and plural, which implies the creation of new socio-political conditions that restructure the organization, ownership and distribution of the current production and consumption systems. The goal is advancing the right to energy. If we consider the transition as a systems change, it is essential to build another type of relationship between human beings, nature and means of production. Guidelines for thinking about the energy transition in Latin America Based on the arguments of Pablo Bertinat, an expert on the subject, to walk this path in the region requires that we: Build the right to energy as a collective right, in congruence with the rights of nature. We must: take into account the damages to territories and communities created by energy development; eradicate Sacrifice Zones by recognizing their vulnerability; and guarantee respect for human rights during the transition. Solve energy poverty problems with clean, accessible, reliable and affordable energy. Energy projects must benefit the territory in which they are installed in terms of creation, supply and work force, in order to achieve the redistribution of wealth. Advance a process of energy reduction in the face of a scenario of restriction in which resources do not cover the demand. This implies an integral transition. A new productive model based on the availability of energy must be considered, as well as rethinking transportation systems, agriculture, infrastructure, etc. Deepen the change of the energy matrix from processes of resignification of technologies to those that are adequate, that is to say, that allow social inclusion, that are built from the communities, that are oriented to solve their problems, and that take into account the processes of acceptance of new energy enterprises. Promote energy democratization processes through the participation of diverse actors, particularly excluded sectors, in decision-making regarding the transition and the creation and implementation of policies, guaranteeing the rights of access to timely and complete information, quality participation and access to environmental justice, in order to ensure energy autonomy at the local level. In conclusion, speaking of a just energy transition implies recovering energy as a tool to satisfy human needs in a context of finite resources and inequalities. We must not start from scratch. Local communities, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, social organizations and governments have already taken important steps towards a just, democratic and popular energy transition in the region. With this momentum, the transition is not only desirable, but possible.

April 22 2022 Fracking, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Court ruling may approve licensing for Belo Sun's mining project in the Amazon

Environmental licensing for the largest open-pit gold mine project in Brazil has been challenged by eight lawsuits exposing flaws in environmental impact studies. A possible decision in favor of Belo Sun may set a precedent that illegally restricts consultation of traditional peoples and sanctions human rights violations. Altamira (Pará), April 22, 2022 — On Monday, April 25, the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) will rule on two decisive cases that could pave the way for the beginning of the project by Canadian mining company Belo Sun in Pará, in the Brazilian Amazon. The company plans to build the largest open-pit gold mine in Brazil, at Volta Grande do Xingu, one of the most biodiverse sites in the world and a region that has already suffered the impacts of the Belo Monte dam and hydroelectric plant. In 2017, the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) revoked a second license granted by the state of Pará for the installation of the project, prompting the mining company to undergo a process of prior consultation with affected Indigenous peoples, in accordance with Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO). The Court also required the company to prepare an Indigenous Component Study (ECI) within the parameters required by Funai (Brazilian National Indigenous Foundation), on the impacts of the project on Indigenous peoples. At the hearing on April25, 2022, the court will revisit the case. Belo Sun claims it has complied with the requirements, but the Federal Prosecution Office (MPF) is contesting this assertion. The Prosecution Office says that Belo Sun performed no actual consultation with affected populations, and that the ECI study is flawed — researchers have considered the project to be environmentally unfeasible, with a high likelihood of dam failure. The Prosecution Office's claims are based on a report published in February by researchers from the Observatory of Community Protocols of Consultation and Prior, Free and Informed Consent, at the request of the Prosecution Office itself. “If the TRF-1 upholds Belo Sun's request, we will be facing a dangerous precedent, which illegally restricts the content of the consultation provided for in Articles 6, 15, and 16 of Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), and sanctions the violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples and traditional communities in Volta Grande do Xingu. Such decision would legitimize the lawless actions undertaken by Belo Sun and would open the doors to the exploration of the newest gold frontier in the Amazon, which, if made possible, will surely drive the ecocide and systematic destruction of the already-fragile region of Volta Grande,” declares Ana Carolina Alfinito, legal advisor at Amazon Watch, an organization that is part of the Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance. Belo Sun’s Volta Grande Project would affect multiple Indigenous peoples, including the Jurunas of the Paquiçamba Indigenous Land, the Araras of the Arara da Volta Grande Indigenous Territory, the isolated peoples of the Ituna-Itatá Indigenous Territory, and “desaldeados”—Indigenous groups who traditionally occupy territories that haven’t yet been formally demarcated by the Brazilian government. These groups inhabit territories very close to the site the project would occupy. Such is the case of the population that lives on Ilha da Fazenda, Ressaca, and Galo, in addition to the communities of São Francisco (Juruna), Iawa (Kuruaya), Jericoá II (Xipaia), Kanipá (Xipaia), and Kaniamã (Xipaia). The São Francisco community, for example, is located only 600 meters from the project area, so it would suffer serious and direct impacts, which makes its exclusion from the impact assessment and consultation process even more serious. According to the document from the Prosecution Office, Belo Sun only collected testimonies from the affected communities, leaving no room for Indigenous people to express their views and influence the project, as should occur in an effective consultation process. The report also suggests that the mining company is attempting to classify meetings with the desaldeado communities as consultations—although the company’s initial and expressed goal was merely to collect information. There are no records that Indigenous people who attended these meetings were informed that they were attending a prior consultation process for deliberation on the gold mine. A 2012 ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights upholds that consultations must take place “at all stages of planning and from the earliest phases.” The same ruling by the Court determined that prior consultation is a responsibility of the government, which cannot be delegated to private companies, “much less to those interested in extracting the resources. There are records of meetings in which only representatives of Belo Sun and some of the Indigenous communities participated, without the presence of governmental agencies,” the Observatory's report points out. In a statement to Repórter Brasil, Lorena Kuruaya says that the Iawá community, made up of members of the Xipaia and Kuruaia peoples and one of those affected by Belo Sun’s project, sent several consultation requests to Funai but got no response. “We need to know about the project, about explosions and the use of cyanide, because we fear what happened in Brumadinho and Mariana. To date, we have been treated as if we were invisible in the consultation process,” reads a letter from 2020 signed by community members. In another joint communiqué, according to Repórter Brasil, residents of Iawá and the Kanipá, Jericoá I, and Jericoá II communities informed Funai that none of them had been “sought, consulted, let alone informed” about the implications of the project, and requested mediation from the agency so the mining company could present explanations, execution plans, and potential environmental impacts. “A decision in favor of Belo Sun means that the Brazilian government, as in the case of Belo Monte, will once again side with big companies, completely ignoring the socio-environmental impacts that will result from this project,” points out lawyer Marcella Ribeiro, from the Human Rights program of AIDA (Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense). “The polygons under scrutiny go beyond the river area and extend to Indigenous regions. Within a few years we will likely see gold exploration in adjoining areas. And if Bill 191 is approved, these Indigenous lands will become a large mine,” she proclaims. Failures and impacts of Belo Sun’s project According to experts, the Belo Sun mining project in Volta Grande do Xingu has serious structural flaws which were not clearly presented to the impacted communities during the consultation process. Environmental impact studies carried out by the mining company disregard both the potential seismic impacts on the tailings dam that needs to be built and the cumulative impacts it would cause along with the dam of the Belo Monte plant. The dam designed for the mine would be similar in size to the Vale dam that collapsed in Mariana in 2015, causing Brazil's biggest environmental disaster. A report by an expert in geology and mining, Dr. Steven H. Emerman, claims that at least nine million cubic meters of toxic mining waste could reach the Xingu River and travel more than 40 kilometers in two hours, causing irreversible damage. These tailings could contain highly toxic metals, such as cyanide, arsenic, and mercury, which could lead to ecocide of the Xingu River. Furthermore, Belo Sun’s project is only ten kilometers from the main dam on the Xingu River, built for the Belo Monte hydroelectric power plant. The exploration conducted by the mining company expects explosions 24 hours a day to extract gold from the earth, for at least 12 years. There is a risk that the explosions will impact the stability of the Belo Monte dam, as well as that of the Volta Grande project, something that has not been considered until now. Belo Monte itself, in a recent statement, warned of the risks of implementing a minint megaproject in the area. Other studies point to impacts such as changes in the reproductive cycle of fauna, deforestation and/or burning, pollution of water resources, and soil contamination. Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance This is a communiqué by the Volta Grande do Xingu Alliance, which includes organizations and social movements from Brazil and the world. The Alliance supports the defense of life and dignity in the Volta Grande do Xingu region and its permanent protection against infrastructure projects such as the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant and Belo Sun’s mine. The Alliance comprises: AIDA, Amazon Watch, Earthworks, International Rivers, Instituto Socioambiental – ISA, Mining Watch, Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre, and Rede Xingu+.

May 29 2020 Public Participation, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Colombia: Holding virtual hearings violates communities' right to participation

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

March 30 2020 Oceans, Public Participation, Climate Change

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.

January 27 2020 Mining, Public Participation, Freshwater Sources

Learning from Mendoza, Argentina: “Water is not negotiable

Near the end of 2019, the citizens of Mendoza, Argentina united in one of the province’s most important social manifestations. Their objective was clear: to defend their water. People of all ages—members of NGOs, environmental assemblies, anti-mining movements, scientists and academics—took to the streets to demand that the local government reverse the modification of Law 7722, known as "guardian of the water" or "the people’s law." The law is fundamental for the protection of water in Mendoza because it prohibits the use of cyanide, mercury, sulfuric acid and other toxic chemicals in mining activities—all of which seriously contaminate rivers, lakes and other natural water sources. Enacted on June 21, 2007, this law resulted from a long struggle by civil society. A step back in environmental protection The government intended to modify Law 7722 with another regulation, Law 9209, which allowed for "the use of chemical substances [including cyanide], mixtures or dissolutions of them, to ensure the sustainability of the [mining] project.” The justification for eliminating the prohibition on the use of cyanide and other toxic elements was "to guarantee the sustainability of the use of natural resources, with special emphasis on the protection of water resources and to ensure compliance with mining activities.” The use of cyanide in legal mining is becoming less frequent due to the risks involved in its manufacture, transport and use. Cyanide compounds are highly toxic in their gaseous form or when dissolved in water. Considering that the limit of cyanide in drinking water for safe human consumption is four drops per liter, the concentrations used in mining present high risks. In addition, there is abundant evidence of cyanide spills and losses from mining facilities during transport, and multiple cases of mass fatalities of wildlife near mining facilities, particularly migratory birds. The legislative amendment sought to make the procedures for environmental control and monitoring more flexible, by establishing that it was no longer obligatory for the Environmental Impact Statement of a mining project to be ratified by law. This undermined the effectiveness of Law 7722. These changes, promoted by the government of Mendoza, violated environmental protection principles contained in Argentina’s Constitution, among them sustainability and other national regulations that the provinces are obliged to comply with and enrich. For example, article 41 of the Constitution states that "all inhabitants have the right to a healthy, balanced environment, suitable for human development and for productive activities to satisfy present needs without compromising those of future generations; and they have the duty to preserve it." The citizen's response The social response to this modification—which intended to give free rein to the use of substances with a high environmental impact—surpassed all precedents. By successfully reversing an initiative already approved by Mendoza's legislators, it became an example for the entire region. The largest demonstrations in Mendoza's history began on December 22. Under the slogans "water is not negotiable" and "water is worth more than gold," the people of Mendoza organized to express their disapproval of the new law. The following day, 50,000 people gathered in front of the Provincial Government House after a journey of more than 100 kilometers, which began in the town of San Carlos, in the Uco Valley. They demanded: Law 7722 is not to be touched. Despite this widespread popular rejection, the Governor of Mendoza enacted the reform. Then, thousands of self-convoked neighbors gathered at kilometer zero—between San Martín and Garibaldi Streets—in the provincial capital to demand the law’s repeal. On December 26, faced with constant and growing social pressure, the Governor announced that he would not enact the new law. That palliative measure was deemed unconvincing and mobilizations intensified. The Governor then decided to reverse the amendment to Law 7722. On Friday the 27th, he announced the reform’s repeal, which finally happened on Monday the 30th. The case of Mendoza teaches a valuable lesson to all Latin American countries: When citizens are aware of the importance of nature and the scale of the dangers it faces, they will not yield. Socio-environmental conflicts are not only a response to those who have control over natural resources, but also to their effects on a complex social network. For humans and also for other beings, nature is a formative part of our identity, culture and customs. We are part of it and it is part of us. It is a living and interconnected network. That is why we must be its main defenders. The prompt and necessary updating of the concept of "sustainable development" is one of the challenges of Environmental Law in the 21st century. We mustn’t promote development that attacks nature and ignores human rights. Learn more about the use of cyanide in mining (in Spanish).