Blog
Biocultural Corridor: Hope for a better future for the Pantanal
By Jorge Lu Palencia and Andrea Islas López*The Pantanal is a unique and rich wetland. It integrates elements of the semi-arid Amazon Rainforest, the Atlantic Forest (humid forest), the Cerrado (tropical savannah), the Chiquitano Dry Forest and the steppe savannah of the Chaco. With an extension of almost 18 million hectares, it crosses the borders of Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay. Its biodiversity is fundamental to water conservation, food production, climate regulation, and the life and culture of millions of people: farmers, traditional communities, quilombola communities, and indigenous peoples. The Pantanal, however, is in danger of disappearing due to devastating seasons of forest fires and other threats caused by structural deficiencies in the institutional management of the ecosystem.In 2022, civil society organizations asked the Ramsar Convention to apply the protection mechanisms for wetlands of international importance to the Pantanal, warning that the number of heat sources had increased to five times the historical average. And in 2024, they reported that the fire season again exceeded historical average conditions.A few weeks after the fires, in November 2024, the Popular Water and Climate Committees—made up of small farmers from the Paraguay River basin—gathered to celebrate nature and reaffirm their commitment to water conservation through the self-affirmation of the Paraguay River / Pantanal Biocultural Corridor.These committees have been working for more than 25 years to confront the socio-environmental threats posed by mining, projects such as waterways and hydroelectric dams, and soy and sugarcane monocultures.They represent an alternative model of ecosystem management in which communities organize themselves to protect their territory and promote sustainable practices. What does self-affirmation of the biocultural corridor mean?In environmental practice, the term “corridor” is applied to ecological corridors, whose main function is connectivity, i.e., the movement of wildlife species for shelter, feeding and reproduction, as well as plant dispersal.Adding the “biocultural” element to the corridors means thinking that human beings are part of the ecosystem, that the conservation of nature does not exclude the purpose of making possible the full life of human groups, and that culture—materialized in the diverse world views, ancestral knowledge, traditional practices and forms of organization—is a fundamental element for effective conservation of nature.The self-affirmation of the popular committees of the Pantanal is a milestone that reminds us that the protection of nature does not depend only on the action of governments but is made possible by the awareness and popular initiative of communities and peoples. It shows that the exercise of public participation rights is indispensable and fundamental for public policies that make life and socio-environmental justice possible.Biocultural corridors make it possible to integrate conservation and economic and cultural activities with ecological practices, thus promoting a more sustainable future for the communities and the Pantanal region.They represent the birth of a more legitimate and effective conservation initiative, a participatory management and an organizational system in which decisions and policies flourish from the bottom up. An alternative model to poor institutional governance In the context of the climate crisis and a political and economic system that exacerbates the threats, the devastating fire seasons in the Pantanal highlight the problems of land-use change, irresponsible use of fire for agricultural and cattle raising activities, inadequate management of resources to prevent and fight fires, and the lack of coordination and transboundary cooperation.Structural deficiencies in institutional governance have led to inadequate public policies or even to habitat loss through incentives for monocultures and extensive cattle ranching, water regulation using waterways and dams that provide ecosystem services, subsistence and culture for local communities and indigenous peoples.Faced with this panorama, the self-affirmation of the biocultural corridor emerges as an alternative model of territorial management, driven by the people as a response to the lack of effective public policies.With this model, the communities promote conscious popular education to protect water and adopt ecological agricultural practices, instead of relying on a system that favors an economy of degradation at the expense of habitat destruction. Reasons to be hopeful about preserving the PantanalThe self-affirmation of the biocultural corridor allows us to be optimistic due to:The resilience of the people of the Pantanal, which allows them to overcome the devastation and open an alternative path for the conservation of the ecosystem, with the initiative and participation of the farmers.Emancipatory awareness and action that puts life at the center, based on the rights of nature, respect for human rights, and social and environmental justice.An organization that resists and builds itself democratically, based on the Pantanal’s identity, mystique, ancestral knowledge and sustainable traditional practices.A popular and participatory management model that harmonizes conservation and integral development goals, builds bridges with other communities and indigenous peoples, and has the potential to expand as a transboundary socio-environmental governance system with an ecosystem approach.Thanks to the popular committees, the Pantanal is alive and has possibilities for a more sustainable future. The creation of the biocultural corridor is a clear sign of hope for this vast and rich wetland.This model, based on popular management and respect for nature, offers a viable alternative to the threats facing the Pantanal and is a source of inspiration for other territories in crisis on the continent.* Jorge Lu Palencia is an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program; Andrea Islas López is an attorney and intern at AIDA.
Read more
Let's talk about project closure and responsible exit
No mining, fossil fuel extraction or power generation project lasts forever. Their useful life is determined by internal factors, such as the quantity of resource reserves, and external factors, such as declining demand or financial problems.But no matter how long a project lasts or how it is affected, its promoters—whether public or private—must provide for a closure and responsible exit process that considers the natural environment and affected communities, and that is desired and promoted by all stakeholders.This issue is even more relevant in the context of actions needed to address the climate crisis, largely related to the energy transition, which generally implies the substitution of fossil fuel extraction and use projects, as well as the promotion of low-emission renewable energies associated with mineral extraction. In both scenarios, closure and exit issues are of great importance.In the first, it is necessary to incorporate concrete and enforceable commitments to close down and move on from existing projects. In the second, these requirements should be built in from the planning and pre-feasibility stages and should also be included in the environmental impact assessments and subsequent stages.In all projects, the role of the promoters is essential. Likewise, the obligation of the state to supervise and monitor is of great importance in order to protect and guarantee the rights of those who may be affected. In some cases, the responsible exit also includes other key actors that are part of the value and supply chains of the projects: investors, financiers, insurers, suppliers, distributors and buyers, among others.Therefore, the discussion of project closure and responsible exit is essential to environmental protection and climate management in Latin America.What do we mean by project closure and exit?All mining and energy projects have different phases in their life cycle: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, closure, and post-closure. In turn, they have supply and value chains that, as we have said, involve actors from different sectors.In this context, closure refers to the stage of a project in which it ceases to operate and is terminated. Exit, on the other hand, refers to the decision and subsequent process in which the different actors in the project's value and supply chain, in their own roles, completely disengage from the project. What does it mean for a closing and exit process to be responsible?There is currently no consensus on the definition and scope of responsible exit and fair project closure processes. Sometimes these terms are used indiscriminately, which can lead to confusion about the responsibilities of the actors involved and the scope of the processes to be carried out. However, there are elements that allow these concepts to be explained precisely:Responsible and fair project closure is a planned, upfront process that should be considered from the earliest stages of a project and continually updated as the project evolves. Responsible closure ensures a planned, coordinated and participatory cessation of activities and dismantling, and guarantees the right to a healthy environment.The planning and development of a closure plan should focus on risk management as well as impact prevention and mitigation. This will ensure a responsible closure in which the affected areas can be readapted and made safe for both nature and communities, while allowing the ecosystems to recover their functions.The general obligation of the project developer is to properly identify the impacts that the project may cause and to adequately and timely comply with the measures approved by the State in its environmental management instruments.The main obligation of the State (in addition to its general regulatory duty) is to supervise and monitor the project to verify compliance with the developer's obligations and to prevent environmental and/or social damage.The role of other actors in the value and supply chain is to act with due diligence, to use their influence to encourage the promoter to comply with its obligations and, in the event of non-compliance, to act within their role and influence to ensure that the necessary corrective measures are taken.Responsible and fair exit refers to the process undertaken by the various actors in the value and supply chain when they decide to fully divest from a project, considering the responsibilities inherent in their role, which include fulfilling their obligations with respect to human rights and due diligence.In Latin America, there has been important progress in regulating aspects related to the permitting, commissioning and implementation of mining and energy projects. However, experience has shown that there are significant challenges in ensuring that the closure and exit processes are responsible for the ecosystems and communities involved.To learn more about this issue, see our report Closure and Responsible Exit. A requirement for environmental and climate justice in Latin America (in Spanish).
Read more
The international search for justice of the Mapuche communities in Mendoza, Argentina
In the context of a global climate crisis that has deepened existing inequalities in Latin America, Mapuche communities in Mendoza, Argentina, face multiple threats that increase their vulnerability to climate change and violate their rights.One of these activities is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a method of extracting hydrocarbons widely associated with socio-environmental impacts. In Argentina, it is widely used in the Vaca Muerta mega-development, which covers an area of about 30,000 square kilometers and is considered the second largest gas deposit and the fourth largest unconventional oil deposit in the world.A significant portion of Vaca Muerta is in Mendoza Province. The megaproject covers 8,700 square kilometers. Here, Mapuche communities also face a complex political environment that is threatening their territorial rights and even their identity. Added to this are national policies that are detrimental to indigenous rights in the country. These policies aim to dispossess the communities and make it easier to carry out fracking and other extractive activities.Faced with this situation, the Mapuche people are not willing to give up in the defense of their rights, their way of life and their territorial integrity.The Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization, which represents more than 20 Mapuche communities in the province of Mendoza, has appealed to various international organizations to denounce and publicize the critical situation and to demand justice.This process of international denunciation includes communications to the UN Special Rapporteurs on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and on the Environment and Human Rights, and the submission of an amicus curiae brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate emergency and human rights. Fracking's many impactsOil and gas extraction through fracking in Vaca Muerta takes place on the ancestral lands of the Mapuche people. Fracking is an extreme extraction technique that has significant environmental impacts, including increased greenhouse gas emissions. In the provinces of Neuquén and Río Negro, where the exploitation of Vaca Muerta is most widespread, serious environmental and human damage has been occurring for more than a decade and continues to increase.For Mapuche communities, the impact of fracking goes beyond physical damage to the environment. Extractive activities in their territories undermine their capacity for self-determination and profoundly affect their psychological and spiritual well-being, as their relationship with the land is fundamental to their identity and culture.Although fracking in Mendoza is in its infancy, with only a few active wells, the companies and the province have plans to expand it, in addition to the continued growth of activity throughout Vaca Muerta. In order to do this, they will need larger areas of land and the availability of large amounts of water. In this context, traditional practices such as transhumance – a type of seasonal migration in which shepherds move their animals between pastures at different times of the year – are seriously threatened.The growth of these activities, in the current context of water and climate crises in the region, increases the vulnerability of these communities and compromises their ability to continue living sustainably in their natural environment. Reduced human rights safeguardsThe strategy of expanding the occupation of Mapuche lands with mining and other extractive activities has led to the adoption of retrogressive policies that are undermining the framework for the protection of the rights of the Mapuche people in Mendoza and throughout the country.One of these is the declaration approved in March 2023 by the Chamber of Deputies of Mendoza, which questions the status of the Mapuche as an indigenous people of Argentina. This has raised concerns about the possibility of recognizing their territorial rights and the increase in evictions they are already suffering.Complementary measures that facilitate the development of extractive activities over the human rights of indigenous peoples are also being promoted at the national level. These include the closure by decree of the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, whose mission was to promote policies and actions aimed at achieving a society free of discrimination. This measure weakens the institutional protection of human rights.Similarly, the government announced the closure of the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs, dedicated to the promotion and defense of indigenous rights. Although this measure has not been carried out, its functional autonomy has been abolished and the areas dedicated to the recognition of communities and the regularization of their territories have been eliminated. In practice, these measures prevent these peoples from exercising their constitutional right to their ancestral lands.In addition, Law 26160, which had suspended the evictions of indigenous peoples while their territorial regularization was in process, has also been repealed. The Secretary of National Security, Patricia Bullrich, argued that there cannot be permanent laws preventing evictions, since "there cannot be a right to usurp.” Violent evictions against indigenous communities have already begun. Actions of international defenseIn response, the Mapuche communities of Mendoza have shown an enormous capacity for organization and resistance.They have turned to international bodies to expose their situation and demand concrete action from local and national authorities. A key example is the communications sent to the UN Rapporteurs on Indigenous Peoples and on Environment and Human Rights to denounce political persecution and violations of their territorial rights. These communications highlight the complacency of the authorities towards extractive interests. The focus of these denunciations has been the defense of their rights in the face of the advance of fracking and other extractive activities.Additionally, the communities were part of the advisory opinion process through which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will clarify the continent's states' obligations to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis.The Malalweche Organization submitted an amicus curiae brief, and its representative testified at a public hearing before the International Court of Justice to demonstrate that the extraction of hydrocarbons through fracking and metalliferous mining in their territories reduces their capacity to resist the climate crisis and exacerbates the severe water scarcity in the area, threatening their very survival.The Mapuche communities of Mendoza also presented concrete proposals for action. They called for their inclusion in all consultation and decision-making processes that affect their territories, in accordance with Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization. They stressed the importance of including their traditional wisdom in the development of public policies that benefit indigenous communities and contribute to more effective and sustainable solutions to global environmental challenges.They also called for the intervention of multilateral organizations to demand that the Argentine state guarantee free, prior and informed consultation and strengthen the national institutions responsible for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.Supported by organizations that defend human rights and the environment, these struggles aim not only to protect the ancestral territories of the Mapuche, but also to guarantee their right to live in peace, with dignity, and in harmony with their natural environment. Their goal is to ensure the self-determination of indigenous peoples. This will allow them to manage their lands and resources in accordance with their worldview, which is deeply linked to conservation.Recognition of the rights of Mapuche communities, including the cessation of extractive activities such as fracking in their territories, is essential to protect their culture, health and livelihoods. With their ancestral wisdom, they offer a way to effectively address the climate crisis and build a more just and sustainable future.
Read more
10 legal advances toward climate justice in 2024
If there is one thing we've seen in the world this year, it's the advancement of climate litigation and the publication of new guidelines and best practices with future generations in mind. We know that the climate fight can often seem exhausting, but today we invite you to take a breath and celebrate the good news and small victories that are bringing us closer to climate justice. 1. The climate emergency comes before the Inter-American CourtThis year, a very important question came before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR): What obligations do States have to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from the effects of the climate crisis?Colombia and Chile asked the Court for an advisory opinion to answer this question. To this end, the Court called for public hearings with unprecedented participation. AIDA testified before the court and we supported communities, organizations and civil society alliances through the productions of 15 amicus briefs. We expect their pronouncement in the first half of 2025.Learn more about the voices that arrived to the Court. 2. Inter-American Court highlights climate in landmark ruling on a healthy environment In March, the Inter-American Court of Justice found the Peruvian state guilty of violating the rights of the inhabitants of the town of La Oroya to a healthy environment, health, personal integrity, a life of dignity, access to information, political participation, judicial guarantees and protection, and the right to childhood. It was an unprecedented decision for failing to act in a timely and effective manner to protect the residents from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex that has operated in their community for almost 90 years.In its ruling, the Court highlighted the relationship between the protection of children and action on climate change, stating that the protection of children requires the adoption of effective measures to prevent and mitigate the risks to their health caused by the emission of polluting gases that contribute to climate change.Learn more about the case's legal contributions. 3. Brazil's biggest trial on climate impactsIn July, a cattle rancher was sentenced to pay more than US$50 million for destroying part of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest and ordered to restore the affected area. The decision is seen as a milestone in the fight against illegal deforestation in the country and sets a precedent for future legal action.This is the largest lawsuit ever brought by the Brazilian Attorney General's Office for damage to the rainforest. It was filed by the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and seeks compensation for climate damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of vegetation and the loss of carbon sinks from deforestation. The court stressed the importance of holding violators accountable and restoring the Amazon ecosystem.Learn more: The Guardian and Climate Case Chart. 4. Landmark victory for island nations at the International Tribunal for the Law of the SeaSmall island states have won a resounding victory at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The unanimous ruling established that the 169 signatory states to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as marine pollution. This decision strengthens the struggle of island nations, which are least responsible for the climate crisis but face its worst consequences. The ruling sets a global precedent by underlining that compliance with the Paris Agreement is not enough and that concrete action and accountability are required from the major powers.Learn more: Grist, EuroNews and High Commission on Human Rights. 5. Ruling urges regulation of carbon credits in indigenous territoriesColombia's Constitutional Court has issued a ruling highlighting the importance of protecting the rights of indigenous communities in carbon credit projects, in a case involving the Pirá Paraná indigenous territory. The ruling, which defends the self-determination of communities, underlines the need for clearer regulations and an approach that guarantees their participation and respect in these projects. The decision has been welcomed as a positive step by both indigenous communities and carbon market actors, who believe it will provide greater legal certainty and strengthen the sustainability of environmental projects.Learn more: La Silla Vacía and Corte Constitucional. 6. Mexico Recognizes First Climate Displaced and Orders RelocationIn an unprecedented development in Mexico, the first families displaced by climate change have been relocated to new homes in Tabasco. The residents of El Bosque, a fishing community affected by sea erosion, received 51 houses from the federal government, marking the beginning of official recognition of climate impacts in the region. After years of uncertainty, these families, who saw their homes swallowed by the sea, describe their relocation as "a dream come true." While there is still work to be done to count all those affected, this step is a crucial step towards climate justice and the protection of vulnerable communities.Learn more: Nuestro Futuro, Greenpeace and El País. 7. A global commitment to move beyond fossil fuelsThe UN General Assembly adopted the Compact for the Future, an agreement that reaffirms the commitment of members to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. The Compact, the result of years of negotiations, sets clear goals such as tripling global renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency by 2030. It also commits to a "just phase-down" of fossil fuels, recognizing the need for a global transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system. While it remains to be seen how these goals will be implemented, the agreement marks a significant step forward in reducing the use of fossil fuels.Learn more: Pacto por el Futuro and EuroNews. 8. South Korea Recognizes Climate Crisis as Constitutional IssueIn a landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court of Korea declared parts of the Carbon Neutrality Act unconstitutional because the law does not set greenhouse gas reduction targets beyond 2030, thus shifting the burden of climate action to future generations. This is a significant development for climate litigation globally, as it is the first time that the climate crisis has been recognized as a constitutional issue in the country, and the rights of future generations have been recognized.Learn more in the Plataforma de Litigio Climático. 9. UN launches principles to prioritize equity in energy transitionThe United Nations Panel on Critical Minerals for Energy Transition has issued key recommendations to ensure the fair, equitable and sustainable management of these minerals, which are essential for the transition to renewable energy. The report emphasizes the importance of prioritizing human rights and social equity, especially in regions such as Latin America where large reserves of these minerals are found. The proposal includes seven guiding principles, ranging from environmental protection to international cooperation, with the aim of promoting sustainable development and equity in developing countries.Learn more: AIDA and the UN Principles. 10. Climate crisis reaches the International Court of JusticeWe close the year with hearings at the International Court of Justice on the legal obligations of governments to protect the environment and curb climate change. Initiated by a group of law students from Vanuatu, this case could set important legal precedents for global action on climate change. The ICJ is expected to issue an advisory opinion in 2025 that could strengthen international cooperation and assistance to vulnerable countries, promoting a more effective approach to addressing climate challenges and protecting human rights.Learn more: The Conversation. BONUS: The Climate Litigation Platform continues to growWith so much progress to serve as inspiration, the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean continues to grow in information, membership and cases. This project, the result of the collaboration of organizations and professionals, is an effort to continue promoting climate litigation and supporting those who want to learn more and work for environmental justice.
Read more
With the territories: 6 achievements for a healthy environment in 2024
The knowledge, experience and insights that come from the land and communities are an important way to address the global crises of climate, pollution and biodiversity loss.In 2024, by building bridges between communities affected by environmental degradation and high-level decision-making spaces, we at AIDA have helped to establish important precedents for the protection of a healthy environment in Latin America and the Caribbean.These are achievements that show that victories for the environment and human rights on the continent depend on including the voice of those who care for nature and live in balance with it. 1. Inter-American Court ruling sets historic precedent for achieving justice in the face of industrial pollutionOn March 22, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its decision in the case of the inhabitants of the Peruvian town of La Oroya, affected by extreme pollution from a metallurgical complex. It found the state responsible for violating their rights and ordered it to adopt comprehensive reparation measures. The ruling is the culmination of more than 20 years of struggle for justice and reparation, and is now the most important regional and global precedent for state oversight of corporate activities in the areas of human rights and the environment. AIDA has supported the case since 1997 and represented the victims before the Court. The outcome reflects our longstanding efforts to guarantee the right to a healthy environment in Latin America.Learn More 2. Voices from the Americas reach international tribunal to strengthen climate actionIn a historic and emblematic event, communities, organizations and civil society alliances from the Americas brought their voices to the process of preparing the declaration that will, for the first time, clarify the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' obligations of the continent's governments to protect people in the face of the climate crisis. AIDA supported the inclusion of these voices through the submission of 15 legal briefs (amicus curiae) to the International Court and the testimony of community representatives at public hearings. We also submitted our own brief to demonstrate the existence of the right to a "stable and safe climate" as part of the universal right to a healthy environment, and the obligations of governments to guarantee it.Learn More 3. Green Climate Fund cancels project funding after evidence of human rights violationsIn an unprecedented move, the Green Climate Fund - the world's leading multilateral climate finance institution - has canceled the disbursement of US$64 million to a forestry project following evidence of violations of the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities in Nicaragua. The decision followed a complaint, supported by AIDA and allied organizations, submitted by the communities to the Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism, which launched an investigation and concluded that the project did not comply with the institution's policies and procedures on socio-environmental safeguards. The proposal that requested the funding ignored the context of violence and lack of human rights protection that indigenous communities in Nicaragua continue to suffer today.Learn More 4. Colombia's High Court reaffirms the right to free, prior and informed consultationIn response to two lawsuits supported by AIDA, the Colombian Constitutional Court, after finding that the territory of the Afro-descendant community of Afrowilches was directly affected, ruled that their right to free, prior and informed consultation had been violated in the environmental licensing process of two pilot projects for the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking. This is a regional milestone in which the Supreme Court recognized that the processes and regulations governing the energy transition must be fair and guarantee the rights of communities that may be affected.Learn More 5. The Inter-American Commission hears about the human rights impacts of mining for the energy transitionIn a public hearing, AIDA, together with communities and allied organizations, presented evidence to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of human rights violations associated with the extraction of lithium, copper and other minerals used in the energy transition. These violations are already occurring in highly biodiverse areas vulnerable to mining pressures, such as the Gran Atacama —a region located in the cross-border Puna region of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile— and the Amazon. At the hearing, we will ask the Commission to urge the continent's governments to take concrete steps to protect human rights in energy transition processes.Learn More 6. Civil society paves the way for ratification of the High Seas TreatyThe AIDA team joined Latin American government representatives and experts in a series of informative meetings to dispel doubts about the High Seas Treaty —which aims to protect life in the area of the ocean beyond national waters— and to highlight the importance of its ratification, as well as the transfer of knowledge and experience between countries. Issues such as the equitable benefit-sharing mechanism, capacity building and the role of civil society in the implementation of the treaty were addressed, with an emphasis on the realities of each country. Against this backdrop, Panama ratified the treaty in October. To enter into force, the treaty needs to be ratified by 60 countries.Learn MoreIn our 2024 Annual Report you’ll find more information on these achievements and our review of the year.
Read more
COP29: Climate target disappoints and invites us to look elsewhere for hope
The twenty-ninth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, was dubbed "the COP of finance" because the most anticipated decision was the establishment of the New Collective and Quantifiable Global Climate Finance Goal (NCQG), the amount that developed countries would pledge to finance climate action in developing countries. This issue grabbed all the attention, overshadowing everything else.In addition, the recent re-election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, accompanied by his threat to abandon the Paris Agreement and reverse the country's climate action, set the tone for the event.The negotiations, which took place from November 11 to 22, were intense and ended almost two full days late, with the approval of a text that caused great disappointment.However, the invitation is not to be blinded by disappointment. As much as we want, demand and hope, the international climate negotiations are not delivering what we so desperately need. Let us look for hope in what is happening and working, such as local, community-led projects and the work of civil society that is not giving up.Here is a review of COP29 based on what was agreed on climate finance and other relevant issues. A new climate finance targetThe mandate was clear: the new target should exceed the previous one of $100 billion per year and respond to the needs and priorities of developing countries. But while developing countries demanded $1.3 trillion per year, the offer was a mere $300 billion (less than a third and just 12% of the global military budget in 2023) by 2035. "Is this a joke?" exclaimed the head of the Bolivian delegation at a press conference.Developing countries also demanded that financing be adequate, i.e. based mainly on public resources, in the form of grants and highly concessional instruments that would not add to the heavy debts they already carry. They also called for the explicit inclusion of loss and damage as one of the objectives of financing (along with mitigation and adaptation), as well as a specific target for adaptation.None of this was achieved. The target was left open to private financing, further diluting the responsibility of developed countries. There was no specific target for adaptation, nor was there any mention of loss and damage. In case there was any doubt, all references to human rights were removed from the final text.The only saving grace was a call to mobilize $1.3 trillion in climate finance annually from a broad base of sources through the so-called Baku-Belem Roadmap, with a view to achieving this goal by 2035. However, this is a "call" and not a binding commitment, the concrete results of which will depend on political will in the coming years. Global stocktaking and gender issuesNo significant progress was made on the results of last year's Global Stocktaking on the implementation of the Paris Agreement, particularly on the transition away from fossil fuels. The issue was deferred to COP30, which will be held next year in the Brazilian city of Belém do Pará.While there has also been insufficient progress on gender issues, some progress should be recognized, such as the extension of the Lima Work Program to 10 years, which lays the groundwork for the development of a Gender Action Plan and provides an opportunity to further deepen the integration of gender into climate action, particularly as countries develop updates to their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).In addition, the text of the NCQG recognizes women as beneficiaries of funds but fails to ensure that the specific circumstances and intersectional discrimination that many women face are addressed. Carbon marketsWhat did see advances during the negotiations were carbon markets, with the approval of the rules for a global market. Carbon markets are trading systems where carbon credits are bought and sold. Each credit represents one ton of CO₂, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases, removed from the atmosphere. The credits are generated by projects that reduce emissions (such as forest conservation, renewable energy, or energy efficiency). The buyers are polluting companies that want to offset their emissions in order to remain in compliance.The issue has been under discussion for more than a decade due to the difficulty of ensuring the credibility of the system to reduce emissions. Although it is the last outstanding issue of the Paris Agreement, signed more than 10 years ago, civil society is not celebrating. These markets allow companies to continue polluting if they pay for carbon reductions elsewhere in the world. Methane emission reductionsA promising development was the signing of the Declaration on Methane Reduction from Organic Waste by more than 30 countries. The signatories, representing nearly half of global emissions, committed to setting sector-specific methane reduction targets in their future NDCs, underscoring the importance of organic waste management in the fight against climate change. Closing thoughtsIn the end, the results are not surprising. Conventions on climate change are often not much to celebrate, but we must not forget that they are a unique space where all countries sit down to seek consensus to advance a common goal. Its very existence reflects an intention to acknowledge historical responsibilities in favor of justice and a world where we can live together in harmony. It is a platform from which to push, even if it brings more frustration than results.On the other hand, it is very encouraging and motivating to see civil society in action. Hundreds of representatives from different organizations and movements are doing their best to achieve results that reflect the fulfillment of international commitments of developed countries towards their developing counterparts, the climate and the natural balance of our planet.Finally, the side events that take place parallel to the negotiations are a source of inspiration. On the sidelines, without much fanfare, there are people from communities and indigenous peoples who are implementing climate solutions in their territories, with concrete, successful results. These people, like seeds silently germinating, are a powerful source of hope.
Read more
Whales and salmon farming: how does the industry impact our gentle marine giants?
Chile is by nature a country of marine mammals. Of the 94 species of cetaceans existing in the world, 43 have their habitat in the country's waters. And just over a quarter of them are found in Patagonia. But Chile is also a country of salmon, occupying the second place in the world production, surpassed only by Norway. The overlap of the salmon industry with the habitat of these emblematic marine mammals represents a significant threat to cetaceans in Chile about which not enough is known.The recent deaths of three whales in protected areas of Chile's southern seas force us to ask ourselves why they are dying and how they are affected by the growing industry with which they share their habitat.Civil society is responding. In early November 2024, Greenpeace - together with the Kawésqar community Grupos Familiares Nómadas del Mar and with the support of AIDA - filed two criminal complaints against those responsible for the deaths of humpback whales in protected areas.These lawsuits, which have already been declared admissible, represent an unprecedented milestone in the country's criminal history, as they are the first take advantage of the amendaments made to the Penal Code by Law 21,595 on Economic and Environmental Crimes to the Penal Code to file a lawsuit for possible violations committed inside protected areas.In this context, AIDA, together with Greenpeace and the NGO FIMA - historical allies in the resistance to the expansion of salmon farming in the waters of Chilean Patagonia - commissioned a scientific report entitle “Cetaceans and Salmon Farming: Challenges for the Protection of Marine Biodiversity in Chilean Patagonia.”The report is currently available in Spanish, which lays out the available information on the impacts of salmon farming on the whales and dolphins of Chilean Patagonia. The results are alarming: serious risks have been identified, in addition to a lack of data that makes it difficult to understand the magnitude and consequences of the threats.One of the most evident impacts is the incidental capture of small and large cetaceans in farming centers. There are documented cases of entanglement and deaths, although the lack of official records makes it difficult to measure the severity of the problem.Another significant threat is the Intense maritime traffic in Patagonia, largely related to the salmon industry. Although there is no official data in Chile, there is evidence of deaths and serious injuries due to collisions between boats and whales. In addition, underwater noise from boat engines affects the health and well-being of the whales and dolphins, which depend on sound for communication and orientation.In addition to these, there are other problems of the industry, whose effects on whales and dolphins have not been adequately studied, but which we should consider while the studies are being conducted. One of these is the escape of salmonids, which compete with native species for food resources and may carry diseases that could affect smaller cetaceans in particular by reducing the availability of prey that serve as food.Microplastic pollution, 40 percent of which comes from salmon farming centers, is another under-researched environmental concern in terms of its impact on cetaceans. And the excessive use of antibiotics in Chilean salmon farming, one of the highest rates in the world, could be having negative indirect effects on the ecosystems that support these marine mammals.Finally, one of the most significant environmental impacts of the salmon farming in Chilean Patagonia is the generation of hypoxia and anoxia due to the excess of organic matter in the farming centers, coming from salmon feces and uneaten food that falls to the seabed. The decomposition of this matter consumes the oxygen in the water, creating zones in the sea where life becomes difficult or impossible.We hope that this report will fill the information gap that has become uncomfortable and even untenable in light of recent whale deaths.With this evidence, even in a scenario of limited knowledge, we will be able to encourage a governmental response towards the rapid implementation of effective protection measures for whales and dolphins in Chilean waters.Chile is a country of cetaceans, and as their guardians, we must ensure that our waters are a safe space for their development and well-being. Read and download the report (in Spanish)
Read more
Let's talk about NDCs, countries' commitments to the climate crisis
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are the plans developed by each country to address the climate crisis under the Paris Agreement. In them, countries commit to meeting targets for reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and making progress in adapting to the climate crisis, including - ideally - how they will finance these actions. The Paris Agreement, from which NDCs are derived, is a legally binding international agreement to combat climate change that entered into force in 2016 after being signed by 195 countries. As such, NDCs are the pathway to achieving the Agreement's goals, which are to: Ensure that the global average temperature increase is well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. Strengthen the capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Align financing with the needs of countries to achieve these goals. Each country is free to decide and commit in its NDCs how it will adjust to and alleviate the impacts of the crisis, based on its unique abilities and circumstances. In this sense, NDCs reinforce the agreed-upon global goals to address the climate crisis and contain specific commitments by countries to achieve them. They also provide short- and medium-term plans, with political backing, in key areas not only to stabilize the climate, but also to promote sustainable development and address other global crises such as pollution and biodiversity loss. Countries that have signed the Paris Agreement must submit their NDCs to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and update them every five years with increasingly ambitious targets based on their own capabilities. The Conferences of the Parties (COPs), the decision-making body of the Convention, will provide guidance to countries on how to meet these commitments. The first NDCs were presented in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was adopted, and their first update occurred in 2020. Next year, countries must update them again with targets for 2030 and 2035. Given their relevance for global climate action and the proximity of the second update, we will dig deeper into relevant aspects of the NDCs. The content of the NDCs In their NDCs, countries present a projected analysis of climate risks and impacts, as well as specific commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts. This results in quantitative or qualitative targets, deadlines and actions in priority sectors such as agriculture, water, biodiversity, forests, energy, risk management, industry, infrastructure, fisheries, health, transport, tourism and coastal zones, among others. Most countries include indicative budgets for achieving their targets, and many developing countries indicate the support they will need—financial, technology transfer, and/or capacity-building—to implement some or all their actions. In an NDC, targets that can be achieved without external support are called "unconditional" and those that depend on such support are called "conditional." Examples of NDC commitments include: Reduce 22 percent of its GHG emissions with its own resources by 2030 (unconditional mitigation target). Increase GHG reduction to 36 percent, but subject to a global agreement that includes technical cooperation and technology transfer, as well as access to low-cost financial resources (conditional mitigation target). Increase, by 2030, the adaptive capacity of the population to climate change and reduce the high vulnerability of 160 municipalities (unconditional adaptation goal). Progress on NDCs According to the World Resource Institute, current NDC emission reduction commitments submitted by countries fall far short of the ambition needed to meet the Paris Agreement's goals, as they would result in a temperature increase of between 2.5 and 2.9°C even if fully implemented. On a more optimistic note, data from the United Nations Development Program's Climate Promise initiative, which is supporting 85 percent of countries in the preparation of their NDCs, shows that the most vulnerable countries are making tangible progress in terms of ambition. For example, African countries are more committed than the global average to their climate resilience goals, increasing transparency efforts, and incorporating just transition, while the NDCs of Latin American and Caribbean countries show high levels of stakeholder engagement and accountability compared to the global average. Although most Latin American countries have plans to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change and promote renewable energy in their NDCs, they remain dependent on oil, gas and coal, making their current climate commitments insufficient. Human rights and gender approach in NDCs While the global crisis is a threat to humanity, its impact is disproportionately felt by vulnerable populations who are less able to cope. This is the case for indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, as well as peasant and rural populations. Furthermore, according to the UN Human Rights Council, "women are particularly vulnerable to the risks associated with climate change due to gender discrimination, inequalities and gender roles that constrain them. One of the main negative impacts of the climate crisis on women is that it exacerbates the burden of unpaid domestic and care work, thereby deepening existing structural inequalities. Considering the above, it is essential that States incorporate the human rights framework and the gender perspective in the formulation of their climate policies, as recognized by various international instruments and treaties. This implies that States - in the elaboration, implementation and monitoring of NDCs - comply with their obligations to promote, respect, protect and fulfil human rights without discrimination and with a gender and intersectional approach, thereby strengthening the capacity of people and communities to act effectively in the face of the climate crisis, particularly those who have been historically marginalized. NDCs must also ensure the rights of future generations and the long-term integrity of ecosystems. What's next Next year's round of NDCs should focus on delivering on the commitments made at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) to phase out fossil fuels in energy systems, set specific methane emission reduction targets, triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency. Given that this new round will cover targets up to 2035 - the midpoint between 2020, when countries began implementing their NDCs, and 2050, the year agreed for achieving the global goal of zero net emissions - the commitments presented are critical to aligning near-term actions with long-term goals. In the face of accelerating climate impacts with increasingly severe consequences, there is an urgent need for NDCs with sufficient ambition to contribute to deep emission cuts, enhanced adaptation, adequate attention to loss and damage already caused, and a significant increase in climate finance. Learn more To learn more about the progress of each country's climate commitments, you can: Consult the UNFCCC database, which contains the list of countries that have submitted their NDCs and the date they did so. Consult the information generated by the Climate Action Tracker, which tracks governments' climate actions and compares them to the Paris Agreement targets. Learn about NDC LAC, a digital tool that provides information on progress in implementing and updating NDCs in Latin America and the Caribbean. sources - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The Paris Agreement and nationally determined contributions". - United Nations, "All about NDCs." -World Resources Institute, "Next Generation NDCs. Accelerating climate action under the Paris Agreement". - United Nations Development Programme, “What are NDCs and how do they drive climate action?”. - Verónica Méndez Villa and Daniela García Aguirre, "Human Rights and Gender Perspective in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in Latin America," Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). - Inter Press Service, "Latin America arrives at COP28 with insufficient ambitions for its goals".
Read more
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.
Read more
Communities bring their voice on the climate crisis before the Inter-American Court
By Liliana Ávila and Marcella Ribeiro* The hearing was held May 25 to 29 in Manaus, Brazil's largest Amazon city, where the mighty Amazon River is born when the dark waters of the Negro River meet the lighter waters of the Solimões. A delegation of seven communities and a network of trans and non-binary people from different corners of the continent arrived there to tell the Inter-American Court of Human Rights where they come from, what territory and habitat they occupy, how the climate crisis and environmental injustice affect their way of life, and what they propose so that the international court can help guarantee their rights in the face of the global crisis and actions to combat it. As in Bridgetown, Barbados, a month earlier, Manaus was the venue for the public hearings of the Advisory Opinion on Climate Emergency and Human Rights, an opinion in which the Court will clarify the obligations of the hemisphere's states to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from the effects of the climate crisis. The voices from the territories Oral hearings are part of the process by which the Court delivers its advisory opinions. In these hearings, the judges of the Court listen to States and other actors in interventions that should not exceed 10 minutes. The history of peoples and their struggles do not fit into 10 minutes. Nevertheless, the testimonies of each member of the delegation were full of wisdom, dignity and hope. Francis Cruz, representative of the Honduran Climate Change Alliance and resident of the community of Marcovia, told how the sea destroyed his house and restaurant, everything he had. Coastal erosion has taken away more than 12 meters of land in his community, which depends on fishing and tourism. In fact, the community and others in the southern part of the country live with the constant threat of meteorological events whose intensity and frequency are linked to climate change and the environmental degradation it causes. The Court also learned that the extraction of hydrocarbons through fracking in the province of Mendoza, Argentina, is limiting the resilience of Mapuche communities in the face of the climate crisis and is exacerbating the serious situation of water scarcity in the area. This was explained by Gabriel Jofré, spokesperson for the Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization, who highlighted the traditional knowledge of the Mapuche people as a source of answers to their situation of climate vulnerability. In her testimony, Katta Alonso, spokesperson for the territorial movement MUZOSARE (Mujeres de Zona de Sacrificio en Resistencia), described what it is like to live in Quintero and Puchuncaví, Chile, a highly polluted place that has been transformed forever into an industrial complex of thermoelectric, oil and chemical plants, where energy conversion projects are exacerbating the problem. "Climate change affects us because it affects everyone, but even more because we are already in a situation of environmental vulnerability. We are also affected by the policies and measures that the government adopts in its attempts to deal with the climate crisis, because they are sacrificing us again. Once again, they are offering our territories for the installation of harmful industries that will supposedly solve the problem. There is no information, no participation, no possibility of defense," she said. On behalf of Mujeres Unidas en Defensa del Agua: Lago Titicaca Perú-Bolivia, María Eugenia Millares spoke about the contamination of the lake and how temperature changes affect planting, food production cycles and food preservation. She highlighted the role of women: "Our capacity to adapt is diminishing as we lose our livelihoods due to the climate crisis and the failure of the state. But we know that we can change this situation. We women, who are the most affected because we use the water for household and other activities, must be heard and recognized for our role in saving the lake and its life." Angelica Ortiz, representing the communities of La Gran Parada and El Rocío - located in the department of La Guajira, Colombia - and the organization Wayuu Women's Forces, also spoke at the hearing. She highlighted the reality of the Wayuu indigenous people, whose ability to adapt to the climate emergency has been diminished in a situation of economic vulnerability, water crisis, decades of coal exploitation and, more recently, wind energy projects being developed in their territories without consulting them. "We don't know when it will rain, so we don't know when to plant.” The Court also heard the case of the four indigenous communities of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, an ecosystem that has lost more than 90 percent of its glaciers due to global warming. "Our mother is sick, the climate crisis is the disease that we have caused to the mother, and that is the message we are receiving today," said Jaime Luis Arias, Cabildo Governor of the Kankuamo people. Among other things, the climate crisis threatens the ancestral knowledge system of these peoples, their traditional practices and their spiritual life. Finally, Yoko Ruiz, Territorial Coordinator of the Trans Health League, spoke about the differentiated impacts of the climate crisis on women, girls and LGBTIQ+ people. She urged that the Court's decision to clarify state obligations to protect human rights in the face of climate emergency be consistent with the realities of discrimination and structural violence faced by these populations. Contributing from experience and wisdom The members of the delegation came to Manaus not only to talk about the problems they face. As agents of change, they also brought concrete proposals on how to urgently address the climate crisis, based on their knowledge and experience, and respecting human rights. Their proposals are a cry of hope that they wish to be heard by the Court. They are a call to rethink the structural causes of the natural and spiritual imbalance; and to stop the affronts to Mother Earth, her sacred elements, organs and vital systems. Among many other things, they suggested to: Establish a declaration of integral protection for ethnic and rural territories and ecosystems that are highly vulnerable to the climate crisis. Strengthen the adaptive capacity of populations through ancestral knowledge, community monitoring and other mechanisms that ensure the climate resilience of their inhabitants. Recognize the validity of ancestral knowledge and urge states to strengthen the capacity of populations to monitor and care for ecosystems as a means of promoting climate adaptation. Ensure that plans for prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and adaptation to climate disasters include a gender perspective and guarantee services and inputs related to health in general and the sexual and reproductive health of women, girls and LGBTQ+ people. The convening of the peoples of the Americas to prepare for the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court is more than a formality and a 10-minute presentation. It is above all a bet on hope, an affirmation that the fight against the climate crisis will be with and for the peoples, or not at all. AIDA supported various communities in the region to bring their voices to the process by participating in the hearings in Bridgetown and Manaus, and by submitting legal briefs to the Court highlighting the multiple socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency and valuable proposals to address them. This experience reflects our commitment to build ethical, collective and horizontal processes together with Latin American communities to strengthen the reach of their voices and promote the renewal of international law based on their knowledge. For our team, it is essential to be a bridge between defenders who fight for life every day. We seek to change the traditionally exclusionary logic of international decision-making spaces, promoting the exchange of diverse knowledge and working to ensure that decisions about nature include the voice of those who truly protect it and live in harmony with it. *Liliana Ávila is the Director of AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program; Marcella Ribeiro is a senior attorney with the program.
Read more