Blog
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.
Read more
Sharks in Colombia: The risks of weak regulation
Sharks have inhabited the planet for more than 400 million years, one of the oldest and most diverse classes of animals. They’re considered apex predators because they’re at the top of the oceanic food chain. Due to their position, sharks play a fundamental role in marine ecosystems: controlling populations of fish, marine mammals, and some invertebrates. Their contribution, however, has been eclipsed by bad publicity. Sharks have been stigmatized as frightening beasts that are perpetually prepared to attack humans with their razor-sharp teeth. This reputation went viral due to Steven Spielberg’s 1975 classic film, Jaws. Scientific experts say that these types of films inspired dozens of tournaments in which sharks were fished mercilessly, and indiscriminate fishing has diminished the numbers of most species of sharks. According to an article by the magazine Marine Policy, more than 100 million sharks are killed each year. And 17 of the 39 pelagic shark species are threatened with extinction, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Of the 400 that exist worldwide, Colombia is home 76 species of sharks, which are distributed through 18 families in the Caribbean (57) and the Pacific Ocean (36). These statistics rank Colombia as the third most diverse country in terms of sharks in Latin America, after Mexico and Brazil. Many of these species, however, are considered vulnerable or at risk of extinction on the Red List of Marine Fishes. Colombian regulations allow small-scale artisanal shark fishing by communities on both coasts, but prohibit industrial scale shark fishing. The reality on the water, however, is that weak enforcement fails to adequately protect these magnificent creatures within Colombia’s boundaries. An ineffective tool Since 1990, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has produced annual resolutions regulating artisanal shark fishing. The resolution passed this year—known as Resolution 350 and published on October 25, 2019—was widely rejected by environmental and citizens groups across the country. One of the main reasons for this rejection is that the resolution maintains high fishing quotas (quantity of tons allowed) that date from 2011 and include vulnerable or at-risk species. Establishing quotas without scientific evidence on the current state of shark populations encourages overfishing and does not contribute to the conservation of these animals. Sharks have long gestation periods and give birth to few young, making it difficult for their populations to rebound in the face of overexploitation. Furthermore, Resolution 350 establishes a specific quota for shark fins, despite the fact that a prior resolution (Resolution 1743 from 2017) specifically prohibited the practice of fishing for shark fins in Colombia. Thus the new resolution could be misinterpreted and lead to an increase in the illegal market for shark fins in the country. Not only is harvesting fins illegal but it is also a cruel practice that involves cutting the fins off of a captured shark and throwing the still-living animal back into the sea. To meet the quota for shark fins without resorting to the illegal practice, it would be necessary to catch approximately 110,000 sharks. Although not eaten in Colombia, shark fins are highly prized on the international market, particularly in Asian countries. Between 2012 and 2016, more than 800 tons of shark fins were illegally exported from Colombia to Taiwan, China and Hong Kong, according to Fundación MarViva. Fishermen are able to sell sharks to the Asian market without breaking any law by claiming them as bycatch, experts at Colombia’s Fundación Malpelo have pointed out. Towards Effective Protection Colombia has many international obligations to conserve its biodiversity, of which sharks are a part. Some of these are the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region. The National Action Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks highlights the responsibility to sustainably manage Colombia’s marine resources, prioritizing the management and conservation of various species. The government must act accordingly. Thanks to recent popular action, Resolution 350 will be modified to eliminate the term “shark fin” and therefore avoid its exploitation. Nevertheless, the Resolution contains other loopholes and weaknesses that must be corrected. It fundamentally important that scientific studies be taken into consideration during the creation of future resolutions. This will allow for fishing, as it is currently practiced, to become a truly sustainable practice. Also, where scientific data is lacking, it is essential that decisions be based on the Precautionary Principle, so as to avoid causing irreversible harm to species and ecosystems. The effective protection of sharks in Colombia requires more than legal measures. It’s also necessary to educate the people about the importance of protecting shark populations and maintaining the health of marine ecosystems, and to share with local communities fishing methods and management strategies that support sustainable fisheries. Sharks are key to the health of our oceans, and the debate brought about by th fishing regulations creates an opportunity to rethink and improve our decisions.
Read more
3 ways to maintain hope in the face of the climate crisis
Those of us who work on environmental issues are bombarded on a daily basis with headlines repeating the message: “Time is up, our days are numbered.” And, to tell the truth, rarely do they seem exaggerated: the IPCC reports, fires in Australia, the disillusionment of COP25, the mocking of the youth movement, assassinations and threats to environmental defenders. During dinner parties and casual get-togethers, people who know I work on environmental issues ask me what they can do for our planet. We start by talking about garbage: produce less of it. This, although seemingly basic, leads to long and heated conversations. Why? Because it questions our means of consumption, how we transport ourselves, feed ourselves, and dress. It makes us analyze our lifestyle and ask ourselves what “quality of life” means for us. Our garbage, after all, is the result of a long chain of emissions, which include the exploitation of land, species, and people. The truth is, everything is connected and it’s impossible to detach ourselves from our impact on the Earth. It’s through this chain of thoughts that many of us fall into episodes of “eco-anxiety.” It’s an increasingly common condition that, if left untreated, can be detrimental to our health. In 2017 the American Psychological Association (APA) described eco-anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom… Watching the slow and seemingly irrevocable impacts of climate change unfold, and worrying about the future for oneself, children and later generations.” The strange thing about this condition is that it can stop us from acting. We might begin to believe there’s nothing we can do and, then, stop paying attention. We might become more lax with our consumption habits and end up aggravating the problem. So what can we do? From what I’ve gathered, our actions can be divided into three areas: the individual, the community, and the citizen-consumer. First things first: Be good to yourself A general rule for helping others is to first help yourself. The climate crisis affects our physical health, food security, human rights, and mental health. According to the APA, emotional responses are normal and negative emotions are necessary for making decisions and living a full life. But extreme emotions and the lack of a plan to resolve the problem can interfere with our ability to think rationally and behave appropriately. Not to mention the fact that those suffering losses due to environmental catastrophes (hurricanes, droughts, and floods) may develop post-traumatic stress. To confront these emotions, the APA suggests that we: Believe in our own resilience and know that we can overcome obstacles. Practice optimism and learn from our experiences. Cultivate self-regulation and emotional self-awareness in order to develop long-term strategies; knowing how to detect them prevents episodes from worsening. Find meaning in your life. Faith or religion work for some; for others it’s meditation or building community. The point is to find something that gives you a sense of peace. Individual actions do help, and people united for a cause can make a difference. Rather than punish ourselves for everything that we can’t do, let’s begin to talk about what we can. How many emissions can we cut back on by riding a bicycle? How many plastic bags can we divert from the sea? How does our consumption help the local economy and our environment? And always, always, take a daily dose of nature to inspire yourself. Second: Your immediate circle Recently, single-use plastic bags were banned in Mexico City. More than one person said that it violated their right to shop as they please; others complained they didn’t know how to shop anymore. I’ve used cloth bags for years. I could have just rejoiced in my own environmental righteousness and bragged on Twitter. Instead I asked myself, “Why not share some recommendations?” Practices that I had already applied to my house were well received by friends and neighbors because they were practical. Building relationships, however brief, is a step toward strengthening our community. Also, it helps to maintain perspective and a sense of humor. Get together with neighborhood groups, volunteer with organizations whose cause you support. Donating time, money, or materials is taking a step beyond your individual actions. Have a friend who wants to eat less meat? Offer them your best vegetarian recipes! Do you know how to program or do graphic design? Do you have a pick up truck? Surely there are groups who would appreciate your help. At AIDA, for instance, we’re often looking for volunteers and interns. The APA recognizes the impacts of the climate crisis on the mental health of certain communities; they are not the same in a city as they are in an area at risk of environmental disaster, or in an indigenous community. Affected communities confront a loss of social cohesion and the loss of important spiritual or recreational places. They also witness an increase in violence, including racial violence, as certain groups become increasingly persecuted. Furthermore, a loss of identity ruptures the unity of these communities, as is happening with the Inuit of Greenland or as we at AIDA have seen in displaced indigenous and riverine populations in the Amazon. Third (I’m sorry): We have to talk about politics and civic engagement This may be a subject you don’t particularly enjoy, but you’re needed here too. The wastewater produced in your home is but a drop compared to untreated industrial waste being dumped into a river. You could ride your bike everyday, but you would still be living in a country that permits industries to emit volatile carcinogenic and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without accountability. While our goodwill does matter, it just doesn’t have as large an impact as the will (and obligations) of governments and industries to do things right and work for the health of all living things. In Latin America, the election of our local representatives may work differently than it does in the United States. But that doesn’t free us from the responsibility to elect representatives that will work for a cleaner and more resilient future. Indeed, we must demonstrate our interest in that future and demand that they work toward it. Environmental writer Emma Marris explained it well in her New York Times column: “The climate crisis is not going to be solved by personal sacrifice. It will be solved by electing the right people, passing the right laws, drafting the right regulations, signing the right treaties—and respecting those treaties already signed, particularly with indigenous nations. It will be solved by holding the companies and people who have made billions off our shared atmosphere to account.” The balance we’re seeking in AIDA We are proud to be an organization made up of professionals who are deeply passionate about the environment. On a personal level, we share our ideas with each other about how to create a better planet. On a community level, we all support the organization, and there are also those of us that organize civic and neighborhood events. On the level of public policy and participation, AIDA works for environmental justice. We empower communities with the knowledge and tools they need to safeguard and monitor their rights. We take emblematic cases to court and before international bodies to ensure that companies and governments live up to their obligations. We believe that a healthy and equitable future is possible.
Read more
Why are women so important to the pursuit of environmental justice?
Women have long played a fundamental role in the conservation and defense of the planet. Past and present struggles for environmental justice and the defense of animals have been, to a large extent, led by women. Yet the close relationship between women and the environment has not escaped the inequalities that characterize today’s societies. Poverty, exclusion, and inequality are intertwined with environmental degradation and the climate crisis. Women, in general, suffer these plagues in a differential and aggravated manner. In natural disasters, for example, women often experience higher mortality rates than men. Due to the role women play in their communities, they are often less equipped with mechanisms to help them respond to emergencies that result from disasters. They are less likely to know how to swim or climb trees. They are more likely to be responsible for young children or older members of the family. They are more likely to wear clothing that makes it difficult to quickly react to a crisis situation. Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, women are less likely to have access to information or be able to participate in situations that affect their right to a healthy environment. They also are less likely to have access to the mechanisms for addressing injustices or repairing damages from catastrophes. Women who do take on roles in the public sphere, participating in public issues, are more likely to take on additional responsibilities that, generally, a man in the same situation would not have to assume. And, at the same time, they confront more intense risks and greater obstacles to the development of their leadership. In this context, the gender focus—defined as the mechanism developed to guarantee holistically valuing the impact any action has on men, women, and those who identify between those categories—is fundamental to making asymmetries visible, overcoming barriers of discrimination, and removing scenarios of exclusion that impede women’s ability to enjoy their right to equality. The gender focus seeks to ensure that those challenges are included in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of each intervention on a political, economic, and social level. The gender perspective is indispensable to empowering the leadership of women, which is proving increasingly vital in the struggle for environmental justice. In effect, the development of ecofeminist theories offers the world new and transformative alternatives to the ways of thinking that are bringing about the destruction of our environment and negatively affecting the lives of men, women, and other living things. Women are more than simply the most affected by the climate crisis. They also are active participants with a vital role to play in preserving nature and seeking solutions for the health of our planet.
Read more
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).
Read more
Strengthening society’s call for climate action
When Cristina Briseño learned that the twenty-fifth United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP25) would be moved from Santiago, Chile to Madrid, Spain she felt like crying. "I had a lot of faith in the pressure that an event as big as this would create for urgent environmental issues in Chile," she told me. At 46 years old, Cristina, a Chilean citizen who has always supported environmental causes, signed up to volunteer at the Social Summit for Climate Action, planned as a parallel event to COP25. When the Conference was move to Madrid, the People’s Summit stayed in Santiago. "The opportunity to discuss climate change issues in a country as vulnerable as Chile was missed," Ingrid Wehr, director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation's Southern Cone Regional Office, said during the Summit. But all was not lost. COP25 was moved due to social unrest in Chile—the result of a historic movement in which the society’s most vulnerable are making their voices heard. In this context, the Social Summit further demonstrated that citizens have a lot to say on environmental issues, and much to contribute to confronting the climate crisis. "In the end, you have to keep fighting with the tools you have," Cristina told me. The Summit that persisted The Summit was organized by Civil Society for Climate Action (SCAC), a platform that brings together more than 130 organizations from different sectors in Chile. It took place at the Tío Lalo Parra Cultural Center in the municipality of Cerrillos, located in southwest Santiago, where the official COP25 was to be held. Characterized by a large amount of waste and unused land, Cerrillos has a desert-like appearance and eroded terrain. "Holding the Summit there meant decentralizing a problem that tends to be discussed in big cities or in the most central spaces of the capitals," Cristina explained. Over 10 days, from December 2 to 11, the Summit hosted hundreds of activities on issues related to the climate crisis, emphasizing the need for more ambitious actions to address it. There were talks, conferences, workshops, art exhibitions, plays, and interactive activities. Participants discussed many issues. While one group focused on socio-environmental activism and conflict, or the role of young people as agents of change, another delved into the impacts of the climate crisis on the ocean and fisheries. Citizens, researchers, activists and community representatives reflected together. From their shared experiences, they demonstrated that the social crisis in Chile is also an environmental crisis reflecting the inequality that plagues the region. "SCAC, which was born with the intention of celebrating the Summit alongside COP25, achieved something very important for the country's environmental movement," said Florencia Ortúzar, an AIDA attorney who participated in an event on decarbonization and just transition. “It achieved the union of Chile’s environmental groups, from the smallest and youngest to the largest and most consolidated. Now we are all connected.” The voice of Latin America Historically, international climate negotiations have failed to respond to the demands of Latin American civil society. That’s why efforts to include the region and the voice of its citizens in climate conversations are so valuable. The Latin American Climate Manifesto embodies this spirit of inclusion. It was jointly developed by hundreds of individuals and organizations from across the region, and launched simultaneously at the Social Summit in Chile and a parallel event in Madrid. The document calls for a better world and outlines the actions necessary to achieve it, focusing on nine water; nature; energy transition; new development models; women; native, indigenous, afro-descendants, and ethnic and tribal peoples; human rights and climate change;climate justice; and climate governance. If anything characterized 2019, it was increased global awareness about the seriousness of the climate crisis and the urgency of facing it together. Last year also saw the awakening of a new social consciousness, and with it the rising voices of the most vulnerable among us, demanding justice. These awakenings are not coincidence, but two sides of the same coin. The call for social justice and environmental justice is being heard around the world, opening up a window of opportunity for change. That’s why it’s essential that human rights be recognized as a central element in all climate action.
Read more
Six measures to ensure our actions achieve climate justice
On December 2, the twenty-fifth Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change opened in Madrid. It’s a vital meeting for the planet, during which governments must drastically increase their ambitions and climate commitments if we hope to preserve life, as we know it today. So far, there have been more announcements than actions. That’s why I’d like to highlight six measures that will help us move towards the results the planet needs. The outlook is not encouraging. Change remains urgent. Every day, the climate crisis causes greater harm, particularly for the most vulnerable among us. According to the United Nations Emissions Gap report, emissions continue to rise and current actions are insufficient to achieving the necessary reductions. In an evident political and financial weakening, nations that once led climate actions are now withdrawing or refusing to comply with the agreements. Added to this are emerging social protests, particularly in Latin America. The governments of Ecuador, Chile and Colombia have declared curfews in recent weeks to deal with the serious situations in their countries; COP25 was moved from Santiago de Chile to Madrid. In some instances, abuse of force caused several deaths and hundreds of other injuries. All this demonstrates the urgency of heeding the social call, of acknowledging and dealing with inequality, of finding solutions and building countries where all have a place. One thing is clear: we’ve been moving in the wrong direction and we must change course. We need profound changes in energy, transportation and food systems, as well as in the negotiation, decision-making and implementation of climate actions. This is essential if we are to arrive at peak global emissions as soon as possible, cut them in half by 2030, and reach zero emissions by 2050. Significant efforts are undoubtedly being made. There are billion-dollar investments by governments, businesses, organizations and individuals. But it’s not enough. We must stop and assess what is serving us and what is not; what we should continue to do and what we must do differently. These six measures could make climate action more effective and help us achieve climate justice: 1. Include human rights as a transversal element (seriously). Although it’s been a petition of social movements, indigenous peoples and organizations for decades, official recognition of human rights has yet to materialize. Responding to this call is vital to increasing the ambition and responsibility that is so needed. While the Cancun and Paris Agreements refer to the importance of respecting human rights, their implementation has failed to include this perspective. This, despite the fact that human rights bodies have reminded States of their obligation to do so; and IPCC scientists have highlighted the importance of addressing social inequality and including the wisdom of indigenous communities as a fundamental element in resolving the climate crisis. 2. Ensure the effective participation of affected people and communities in the planning, discussion, decision-making and monitoring of climate actions. Indigenous peoples, rural communities, Afro-descendants, and youth are among the groups most affected by the climate crisis. In addition, local communities have protected millions of hectares of forests and other natural areas, essential for climate resilience. Yet spaces for the participation for these actors remain scarce and spaces for decision-making, in COPs and other instances, are almost non-existent. Ensuring that discussions and decisions are truly diverse is an essential step towards increasing climate ambition and effectiveness. Communities should be considered subjects of rights, not simply objects of protection projects and actions. 3. Secure the equitable distribution of funds We live in the midst of immense inequality, where wealth, property and privileges belong to a few, while the majority assume the negative impacts. The climate crisis is partly a result of this situation. Although Latin America is the most unequal region on the planet, inequality is underestimated, according to ECLAC. That’s why the distribution of economic and human resources must address this reality, ensuring that the Global South has access to opportunities to participate on equal footing towards true climate justice. This would increase the possibility of finding alternative solutions and replicating those already in place. 4. Hold accountable those responsible for the climate crisis Those causing the climate crisis should be held accountable for it, instead of attacking those who seek accountability and climate justice. This is one of the great obstacles to moving forward. It’s time to name those responsible and demand that they take charge and repair the damages, rather than accepting false solutions and ineffective voluntary actions. 5. Incorporate a feminine perspective, based in maternal love By this I mean the need to rescue a perspective of collaboration and serious dialogue in order to reach consensus, assuming responsibilities over differences and competition. Let us include a perspective that prioritizes the care of the Earth, of nature and of people. Let's stop putting economic interests and short-term vision above the health of our planet. Let's focus our efforts on agreeing how we can achieve climate justice, coming out of denial, and leaving behind excuses about why it can't be done. 6. Acknowledge the true costs of the climate crisis: social, economic, environmental and human. So far most economic assessments have focused on calculating the costs of the transition to a zero-emission economy. While there are estimates of the costs involved in not implementing the transition, these ignore the social, environmental and cultural impacts. This is particularly significant for regions such as Latin America, which, in addition to suffering human and cultural losses, are losing their natural wealth. Scientists have concluded that the changes will be more costly the longer they take to be implemented. COP25 could be an opportunity to incorporate these and many other measures in the battle against the climate emergency. At this point, insisting on the same thing will only bring more frustration and failures. Not taking action will condemn millions more people to suffer the consequences of the climate crisis, and of inadequate solutions that violate their rights. The reality is indisputable, which makes it imperative to include human rights as the crosscutting axis of our climate actions. If we do not, the actions resulting from the Conference of the Parties will resemble the emperor of the Brothers Grimm’s story. They will come out to the parade naked, proudly wearing a costly suit made with climate ambition, yet insufficient for what the planet needs. We must instead cover climate actions with a suit of climate justice—a visible one that we must weave together. We have no time to spare.
Read more
Sacrifice Zones: The injustice of living in an unhealthy environment
Forty percent of the energy produced and consumed in Chile comes from burning coal. Just 28 thermoelectric plants, concentrated in five locations across the country, generate that enormous amount of energy. In these so-called Sacrifice Zones, inhabitants live immersed in pollution. The result is severe health damages, children with learning disabilities, and poisoned seas. The serious detriment of living in one of these areas has been amply documented. A recent report from the Catholic University of Chile, commissioned by the NGO Sustainable Chile, shows that living in a Sacrifice Zone translates into greater risks of illness and premature death. The country’s current social unrest represents a historic opportunity for transformation. Pushed by the voice of its people, and in the Presidency of this year’s international climate negotiations, Chile can lead a structural change focused on the redistribution of burdens and benefits, both social and environmental. The result would be a cleaner and fairer country. The road to decarbonization In June, after a year of discussions with industry and other stakeholders, President Sebastian Piñera announced a schedule for the decarbonization of Chile. In the agreement, industry leaders pledged to close all coal-fired power plants by 2040. As positive as it may seem, an in-depth analysis of the proposal leads to the conclusion that the government’s goal is not ambitious enough to achieve the prompt justice that affected communities deserve. The timetable sets the nation’s eight oldest plants up for the closure by 2024, but fails to give dates or details on the closure of the remaining 20 plants, leaving it to the goodwill of future administrations. Under those terms, there is no way to guarantee that the plan will be implemented. Moreover, waiting 20 more years is not an acceptable deal for those who have already carried too much of the burden for far too long. Nor is it a move toward maintaining our planet’s climate equilibrium, a battle in which we have no time to spare. Another criticism of the government's proposal is that shortly after it was announced, the energy company Engie inaugurated a new coal-fired power plant in Mejillones, a Sacrifice Zone in the north of the country. The new plant has more than double the operating capacity of two thermoelectric plants in Tocopilla, which the same company would have closed after signing the decarbonization plan. But it's not all bad news. A month before social protests broke out in Chile, the government signaled a more ambitious decarbonization goal. In September, the Chamber of Deputies approved an initiative asking the President to move the closure of coal-fired power plants up by ten years, to 2030. The request is based on a study commissioned by the NGO Sustainable Chile and completed by the consulting firm Kas Engineers. Their research shows the technical and economic feasibility of reaching decarbonization by 2030. Chile’s current social crisis erupted in the midst of the search for a binding agreement to achieve decarbonization. Social unrest in Chile Chile is in the midst of a historic moment. Social discontent—generated by the injustices, inequality and lack of equity endured for years by the most vulnerable segments of the population—triggered ongoing protests, which have yet to abate. What’s happening in Chile is a mirror of what could happen in many countries of the world, particularly in Latin America. The metaphorical grass is dry and any spark could surely ignite social mobilization, uncovering chambers that have for years accumulated injustice and discontent. The figures confirm that Chile has grown and there is less poverty, but neither the benefits nor the burdens have been equitably distributed. Authorities have failed. Confidence is running out and disillusionment is increasing. The Sacrifice Zones are a very clear example of the structural problems afflicting our society: certain communities bear all the costs and enjoy none of the benefits. This is unacceptable. A new direction is possible Fires, floods and other extreme weather events, which uproot people’s lives, show us that nature will not stop protesting until we respect her. Society is also calling for respect, with an urgency that has gained the attention of decision-makers. Changes that once seemed impossible are within reach. It’s not that social demands are more important than environmental demands, or vice versa. Environmental demands are also social demands. Although the climate crisis and pollution affect us all, the damage is much greater for the most vulnerable populations. Changes that favor our planet can and must be made with a social justice perspective, and in harmony with nature. In the case of Chile, decarbonization—and with it, an end to Sacrifice Zones—is the change that will make us a better country. Because one of life’s greatest injustices is being forced to live in an unhealthy environment.
Read more
The oil spill devouring life on Brazil’s beaches
Photos: Marcela Cintra / Text: Laura Yaniz Since late August, oil has been registered at more than 500 points along 2,500 kilometers of coastline in northeastern Brazil. What began with the appearance of small black spots on some beaches quickly became huge stains that changed the color of the sand itself. The spill’s origin remains unknown, as local organizations and communities organize to clean up their beaches. Far from being resolved, the problem is getting worse every day. The oil’s advance is threatening the marine life in mangroves and coral reefs, both key ecosystems for the survival of species. In addition, residents of the affected communities, who depend on tourism and fishing, have seen their lifestyles and economies threatened. Their health is also at risk due to the consumption of contaminated seafood and direct exposure to the spill. Faced with the inaction of government authorities, the people have been cleaning the beaches and sea with their own hands. The spill itself, coupled with state neglect, violates the human rights of the inhabitants of the hundreds of affected beaches. AIDA—together with the Projeto Publico Institute, Salve Maracaipe, Projeto Caribessa and Rede Minha Jampa—denounced these violations before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in an effort to urge the Brazilian government to respond to this social and environmental crisis. Soledad García Muñoz, the Commission's Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights expressed her solidarity with the Brazilian people and authorities in the face of the tragedy and called on the State to "take the necessary measures to avoid a bigger deterioration of the affected ecosystems, considering that the time, the resources and the way of acting focused on human rights are the key factors for the effectiveness of a contingency plan that the present situation deserves.” She added: “the slower and partial are the measures adopted, more irreparable will be the damages for the Brazilian coast and its biodiversity, as well as for the quality of life of the people that live in these affected regions. It is necessary an urgent and sensible response in face of these serious events generated by the contamination, because that could also accelerate the effects of the climate change in the coast, mangroves, swamps and other ecologically vulnerable habitats.”
Read more
Air pollution: it damages your health from day one
Although they occur seasonally each year, respiratory diseases are becoming increasingly severe, said pediatrician Gina Pinilla, who works in Bogotá. As air quality decreases, health complications increase for children who come to the emergency department. What Dr. Pinilla has observed in more than a decade of experience as a doctor is no mere impression. A study conducted by a multidisciplinary team of researchers in Colombia shows that health damage from poor air quality is noticeable from day one. Hospital admissions increase over the first 24 to 72 hours and can extend for almost two weeks. It’s the first multi-city study conducted in Colombia and Latin America to determine the relationship between air pollution and respiratory and circulatory diseases in the population, explained lead researcher Dr. Laura Rodriguez of the Industrial University of Santander. Each contaminant affects us differently One of the findings that most caught the researchers' attention is that harms caused by pollutants are different for children and adults. Children suffer from respiratory diseases, while adults face cardiovascular complications. "Children between 5 and 9 years old face greater impacts and are more likely to have an episode that takes them to the emergency room,” explained Dr. Rodriguez. “But this doesn't mean that the younger ones are unaffected. When a child has respiratory complications, he or she may stay hospitalized for up to a week and be connected to respiratory support. "There are children who need prolonged hospitalizations. For a week, they are dependent on oxygen, whether from a nasal cannula or oxygen machines,” Dr. Pinilla added. “Then they are left with side effects and get sick often." The particular mixture of pollutants found in the air also affects each age group differently. "Pollution in every city has its own behavior: interaction, quantity and the change in makeup between cities," said Dr. Rodriguez. In Bogotá, for example, pollution by sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) are related to circulatory diseases in people over 60. Pollution by nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and PM2.5 particles significantly increases the risk of hospitalization in people under the age of 15. The researcher says that the damage caused by nitrogen dioxide is not given much importance, despite being associated with cardiovascular disease in adults. And, when that pollutant is combined with sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, its effects are enhanced. Pollution harms, even in small quantities An important takeaway from this study is that contaminants can begin to damage public health even before they reach maximum allowable limits. Nitrogen dioxide, for example, is considered harmful, yet regulations have set very high emission limits. "Reaching these limits is very difficult. The city has to be in absurdly high pollution for the alerts to sound," explained Dr. Rodriguez. “The health effects are not related to whether you are exposed to the limits or not, but to the type of mixture you are breathing, because the pollutants are potentiating each other.” In several Latin American cities, regulations allow pollution limits that exceed the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). For example, the WHO recommends a maximum average of 20 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter) of PM10 (solid particles such as ash, soot and dust), but Bogotá has an average of 38 µg/m3. Other cities in the region have even higher annual averages: 40 (Monterrey), 55 (Mexico City), 62 (Lima) and 69 (Santiago). What does this information mean for your city? When poor air quality reaches its most critical levels, hospitals are left without beds and many children with respiratory illnesses remain in the emergency area, explained Dr. Pinilla. It's a common situation because there are no action plans for environmental contingencies. For Dr. Laura Rodriguez, the most important result of her research would be that it helps institutions take action to confront the issue. She recommends local governments and health institutions: Control and regulate the air quality parameters of industrial emissions, and consider monitoring other pollutants. Increase efforts to communicate to the public about the risks of pollution levels in their cities. Prepare hospitals, especially in the first months of the year when pollution reaches its highest level, aggravated by changes in the climate. She emphasized the importance of making intersectoral and multidisciplinary plans and investigations to understand the panorama of air pollution, and to ensure that this information gets into the hands of the appropriate authorities. The study was also conducted by Julián Alfredo Fernández-Niño (U. del Norte, Barranquilla), Néstor Rojas (U. Nacional), Luis Camilo Blanco (U. Santo Tomás) and Víctor Herrera, U. Autónoma de Bucaramanga). Consult it here.
Read more