Blog

June 04 2020 Indigenous Rights, Mining

Continued extractive activities put indigenous and rural communities at increased risk from the pandemic

In most Latin American nations, governments have implemented health and social isolation measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within the framework of these restrictions, exceptions have been established for activities considered essential, including emergency care, the provision of health services, and the marketing and supply of essential goods. However, the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru have also exempted mining and oil activities from the restrictions, stating they are in the national interest. The exceptional treatment accorded to extractive activities in some countries of the region has significantly increased the vulnerability of indigenous peoples, and amplified the risks and threats they face, since these operations are carried out in their territories. In addition, the entry and exit of workers without proper health measures diminishes the effectiveness of the protective measures adopted by these peoples, such as epidemiological fences or social isolation. Thus, there is an increase in the spread of the virus and in the number of infected persons. In addition, in practice, these rural populations have little or no access to the health and sanitation services needed to deal with a health crisis such as that generated by COVID-19. At the regional level, the Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) has demanded that States guarantee access to health and food for the indigenous peoples and nationalities of the Pan-Amazon, as well as to intensify surveillance and protection of the territories "invaded by oil, mining, logging and other people." The particular situation of each country is as follows: BOLIVIA In late March, the government issued a Supreme Decree establishing that companies that "provide services for the supply of gasoline, gas, diesel and other fuels" are authorized to continue their operations "without interruption.” The decision has generated concern among indigenous organizations. "In Tarija and part of Santa Cruz, as well as in El Chaco, the oil companies continue to work with total normality. There are changes in personnel that arrive in vehicles continuously. Our fear is that they will bring the virus to the indigenous communities," indigenous leader Alex Villca, member of the Coordinating Committee for the Defense of Indigenous, Native, Peasant and Protected Areas Territories (Contiocap), told Mongabay. ECUADOR The organization of the Waorani Nationality of Ecuador (NAWE) alerted the national government to the detection of two positive cases of coronavirus among the workers of Block 16, which would be operated by the company Repsol YPF. The Waorani called on the government to adopt special protocols for "the protection of territories and indigenous populations," adopting measures to control and restrict the activities of oil company personnel who "are operating legally in indigenous territories and to prevent the propagation of the pandemic." Repsol Ecuador S.A. informed in a press release that the two positive cases correspond to workers of a contracting company who, after being previously tested, did not enter the company's operations. PERU In March, the government issued a Supreme Decree to combat the health crisis resulting from the pandemic. The decree provides for restrictions on the right to freedom of movement, exempting from this measure certain welfare and economic activities considered essential. Mining was not one of them. However, the Ministry of Energy and Mines included mining among the essential activities that must still be carried out in quarantine to ensure minimum operations, saying it would do so without affecting the integrity of workers and communities. This decision came after the National Society of Mining, Oil and Energy and the National Confederation of Private Business Institutions separately stated that the mining industry could not be stopped. The National Organization of Andean and Amazonian Indigenous Women of Peru criticized this decision. The presence of mining and oil operations in indigenous territories "puts the lives and health" of those peoples at risk, they said. In the context of the pandemic, states must implement comprehensive and concerted health strategies to respect, guarantee and protect indigenous and peasant communities near mining or oil exploitation projects and other activities that put them at risk.

May 29 2020 Public Participation, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Colombia: Holding virtual hearings violates communities' right to participation

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

May 20 2020 Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

COVID-19 Response: The importance of providing special protection to indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants

Indigenous and afro-descendant peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean have been essential actors in the protection of nature, of key ecosystems and, in short, of the lives of all beings that inhabit the planet. At the same time, they have historically suffered discrimination, exclusion and the violation of their rights, seeing their survival threatened. According to the International Labor Organization’s report, Towards an Inclusive, Sustainable and Fair Future, Latin America is the region with the highest proportion of indigenous and tribal groups living in extreme poverty. In the context of global health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the vulnerability of indigenous and afro-descendant peoples in the region has increased for at least three reasons. 1. The pandemic aggravates the lack of access of ethnic communities to their economic, social, cultural and environmental rights Both the United Nations and the Inter-American Human Rights System have drawn attention to the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. However, ethnic communities have historically faced the absence of guarantees for the enjoyment of their economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. Many of these peoples do not have effective access to health, sanitation and social security services. And due to deforestation and the advance of the agricultural frontier in their territories, they face increasing challenges in ensuring their food sovereignty, confronting new diseases, and adjusting their traditional medicine systems. In addition, several of them have serious problems accessing indispensable goods such as water and food. The barriers to accessing these services under quality conditions have become greater with the current health crisis, making these populations more vulnerable and putting their very survival at risk. This is an overwhelming reality for the region. In a recent statement, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expressed its concern by stating that, at the local level, "pandemic processes produce disproportionate impacts on populations with greater difficulties in accessing health structures and health care technologies within countries, such as indigenous peoples…” At the regional level, COICA (Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin) declared a state of emergency in the face of the health crisis. In Guatemala, the International Commission of Jurists denounced that indigenous peoples "face the risk of suffering the destructive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to historical and systematic discrimination against them" and that in the current crisis "they do not have access to clear and simple information on how to protect themselves from the pandemic and how to be protected during the emergency by the Health System." Indigenous leaders in Peru denounced food shortages and deficiencies in health care, calling for the supply of essential items in communities and the definition of protocols for carrying supplies. In Colombia, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) reported that more than 191,000 indigenous families are at risk of infection and that for nearly 513,000 families the humanitarian crisis due to the pandemic is imminent. In addition, the National Conference of Afro-Colombian Organizations said that their population is at high risk and that "the majority of Afro-descendant territories do not have a network of equipment and personnel that would allow them to properly attend to potential affected persons." The situation in Brazil is the same. Out of 471 indigenous lands, 13 have critical vulnerability indexes regarding the pandemic. In the states of the Legal Amazon, 239 indigenous lands have intense or high vulnerability indexes. In general, the index varies between moderate, high, intense and critical. In addition, less than 10% of Brazilian municipalities with indigenous lands have beds available in the Intensive Care Unit and the indigenous health system only treats common diseases. Without guidance from the health departments, many indigenous groups are taking preventive measures on their own to prevent the pandemic from reaching their territories. Such measures include voluntary isolation, hygiene campaigns, and suspension of large mobilizations, events and travel; there has even been a closure of traffic between villages to prevent the spread of the disease. 2. Ethnic communities require differentiated measures, but the response of States remains insufficient In various countries of the region, indigenous communities are reporting that the measures taken by authorities in response to the pandemic have been precarious and culturally inadequate because they do not consider the uses and customs of these peoples. The IACHR and the Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights have reiterated that States must adopt culturally appropriate, timely, and effective responses to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples in the face of the pandemic. The IACHR reminded States of their obligation to provide "special protection" to the indigenous population, as well as " the importance of providing them clear information about the pandemic in their traditional language, whenever possible.” It also referred to Afro-descendant and tribal communities, highlighting the need for their situation “to be made visible in the context of this pandemic, especially to include an ethnic-racial perspective with an intersectional approach in all response measures implemented both in the level national, as in the regional responses that can be articulated.” In Mexico, the Mayan Community Collective of Hopelchén publicly denounced the Mexican government for the lack of implementation of an official strategy to inform Mayan indigenous peoples about the risks they face in the face of the health crisis. In Ecuador, the WHO warned of the lack of protocols for indigenous peoples and nationalities in the face of the pandemic. It noted that it is essential that social food programs reach these communities and the rural sector, and that prevention campaigns reach them in their own languages. The situation is aggravated by the poor connectivity of many of these peoples, who lack land, air and/or river routes. This hinders their mobility and access to social services, the internet and information about the pandemic, including state measures taken and self-care actions to be implemented. 3. The territorial rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities continue to be violated In the midst of the sanitary emergency and the confinement decreed in several countries of the region, governments and other actors have adopted measures or promoted initiatives that ignore the right to prior consultation, cause the relaxation of environmental requirements for high-impact development projects, and favor the lack of effective guarantees for citizen participation in environmental matters. In Colombia, the national government promoted virtual prior consultations. The National Commission on Indigenous Territories and several human rights organizations rejected the initiative, which was finally repealed. However, concern persists over the request made by businesspeople to the government for the relaxation of environmental permits in the country, a vital instrument for protecting the environment and indigenous territories. In Brazil, the pandemic's threats to indigenous communities are compounded by the invasion of indigenous territories and increased violence and threats to their leaders. In Roraima, Mato Grosso and Bahia, indigenous peoples blocked roads and built barriers to prevent invaders from entering their lands. These risks also come from the State. The National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) published an administrative act promoting the recognition of boundaries of private property on indigenous lands. This is intended to allow the issuance of property titles to invaders on indigenous lands, legitimizing their actions. In Mexico, organizations and communities denounced the federal government’s continuation of the so-called "Mayan train" project despite the fact that its construction is non-essential in the context of the pandemic. The project puts at risk the population in charge of its construction and prevents access to information and justice for communities given the suspension of deadlines in state institutions and the impossibility of resorting to appropriate judicial mechanisms. In Bolivia, the National Coordinator for the Defense of Indigenous and Peasant Territories and Protected Areas stated that indigenous peoples are vulnerable not only to the coronavirus, but also to what will come next: "a big hole in the global economy" and, therefore, "an excuse for more attacks on nature, indigenous territories and the natural protected areas where they are located.” On this issue, the IACHR reiterated to the States " the importance of recognizing the territorial rights of collective property to the Afro-descendant communities and guaranteeing them the effective right to free, prior and informed consent and consultation, respecting their free self-determination.” It also urged States to " refrain from promoting legislative initiatives or projects that affect ethnic territories during the duration of this pandemic, due to the impossibility of carrying out said consultation processes.” Towards emergency health care that respects the rights of indigenous peoples and people of African descent Indigenous peoples and people of African descent represent one of the continent's most important assets. Their millenary residence and their worldview—which respects nature and the beings that inhabit it—have been and are an invaluable legacy. They will be an indispensable element in promoting reflections on the global health and ecological crises that we face. The contributions of ethnic communities and their ancestral knowledge, which have transcended time and contributed to the survival of the planet, are essential for the implementation of preventative and care measures related to the pandemic. This is what the President of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues emphasized: “Indigenous peoples can contribute to seeking solutions. Their good practices of traditional healing and knowledge, such as sealing off communities to prevent the spread of diseases and of voluntary isolation, are being followed throughout the world today.” Protecting these peoples so that the pandemic does not threaten their lives and integrity is a moral and historic duty, and an international obligation of all States. It is therefore imperative that States: Promote special care plans and emergency protocols for ethnic communities and other vulnerable populations, with a human rights approach and from a differential perspective. Support the initiatives that some Afro-descendent peoples and indigenous communities have taken to deal with the crisis of the pandemic on the basis of self-government and autonomy, including strategies of voluntary isolation, the use of traditional medicine and the conduct of internal information and communication campaigns. Refrain from promoting measures that disregard the territorial rights of indigenous peoples and people of African descent. AIDA urged States to suspend the approval of environmental and other official permits for sensitive projects unrelated to the response to the health crisis, until human rights can be adequately guaranteed. Suspend prior consultations until conditions are in place to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples. Suspend bills and initiatives that weaken the integrity of indigenous territories, as well as the progress of any development project or extractive activity on indigenous or Afro-descendant lands that could have negative effects on the life or integrity of these peoples.

April 28 2020 Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Inter-American Court upholds indigenous rights in Argentina

In Argentina’s Rivadavia department, along the border of Bolivia and Paraguay, the lands have been inhabited by indigenous people for at least 60 years. Communities there subsist primarily from hunting, gathering, and fishing. Many of these ancestral peoples have been battling for governmental recognition of their land rights since 1984, when the country’s transition from dictatorship to democracy began. This lack of recognition has had profound impacts on the lives of indigenous inhabitants, affected by changes in their land and its use. As Creole families settled in the area, they brought their own customs and economic activities, such as animal grazing and illegal logging. Barbed wire fence was erected without consulting indigenous populations, and an international bridge was built that crosses into their land. These developments have changed how the indigenous people eat and disrupted their access to water, threatening their very cultural identity. With no protection from the Argentine government, in 1998 a coalition of indigenous groups took their struggle before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Grouped in the Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) Association—made up of Wichí (Mataco), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí) and Tapy'y (Tapiete) indigenous peoples—, they were represented by the Centre for Legal and Social Studies. In 2012, the Commission issued its Merits Report, establishing the violation of indigenous communities' rights and recommending that the State adopt reparation measures. When Argentina failed to comply with the provision, the case was referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. On April 2, 2020, the Court’s decision declared Argentina responsible for the violation of the indigenous peoples’ rights to community property, cultural identity, a healthy environment, and adequate food and water. The ruling marks an important milestone in the struggle for indigenous rights. It is the first time that the Court, in a contentious case, has analyzed these rights autonomously on the basis of Article 26 of the American Convention, and ordered specific measures for their restitution, including actions for access to food and water, the recovery of forest resources, and the recovery of indigenous culture. Actions for Reparation Among other implications, the Court's decision could lead to solutions to the health issues afflicting the indigenous communities of Lhaka Honhat. The violation of their rights to food and water has caused deaths from malnutrition and dehydration. The Court demanded that the State present a study within six months that identifies critical situations of lack of access to drinking water and food, formulates a plan of action to address them, and begins its implementation. It also ordered the creation and implementation of a community development fund within a period of no more than four years. As for the territory, the State shall, within a maximum period of six years: Delineate, demarcate, and grant a single collective title without subdivisions or fragmentations for the indigenous communities. Transfer the Creole population out of the indigenous territory through specific mechanisms that promote, above all, voluntary transfer. Remove barbed wire fences and livestock belonging to Creole settlers from indigenous lands. Refrain from carrying out acts, works or undertakings in indigenous territory. Additionally, the Court requested the adoption of legislative and/or other measures to provide legal certainty to the right to indigenous community property in Argentina. Supporting the Indigenous Struggle In March 2019, AIDA helped author and amicus brief in support of the climate of the indigenous communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association. We did so alongside our allies on the litigation group of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), including Amnesty International, the Asociación Civil por Igualdad y Justicia, the Colombian Commission of Jurists, Dejusticia, FIAN International, International Women's Rights Action Watch - Asia Pacific, and the Minority Rights Group International. Our arguments highlighted the importance of recognizing economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights as real enforceable rights—similar to others such as the right to life or personal integrity—due to their independent and indivisible nature. In this sense, AIDA recalled the important advance that the Court promoted with Advisory Opinion 023, which recognizes the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human life. Our brief called on the government to respect the rights of indigenous peoples—as outlined in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights—to a healthy environment, food and water, and cultural identity. The Court's decision establishes an important regional precedent for the protection of the environment in the Americas. It contributes to the consolidation of standards to protect the land of indigenous communities, as well as their rights to a healthy environment, water and culture.

April 16 2020 Coral reefs, Oceans

What I learned from my internship at AIDA

Last year, I completed a three-month internship with AIDA in La Paz, the capital of Baja California Sur, Mexico. It was part of the academic process to become a lawyer in Germany, my home country. The internship allowed me to combine my professional training with my passion for nature, as well as to gain experience working with an international NGO in the field of environmental law. I applied to the internship with AIDA's Marine Biodiversity and Coastal Protection Program without specifying a preferred location. Imagine my delight to learn that the internship would take place in La Paz, Mexico, a small city surrounded by nature. Coming from one of the most densely populated countries in the world, it was amazing to live in a place with so much space. I was fascinated by the diversity of ecosystems in the area: deserts, mangroves, mountainous pine forests, and the rock and coral reefs of the Gulf of California. On my first weekend, I was able to take in the abundance of wildlife in La Paz when Camilo Thompson, AIDA attorney and my supervisor, and Mario del Angel, his neighbor and a kayak guide, took me on a tour of the El Mogote wetlands, an ecosystem of international importance. I was impressed to see, in the first light of day, a group of dolphins in the bay. The morning was complete when I had my first chilaquiles, a typical Mexican dish, for breakfast. As we toured the waterways taking pictures of herons among the mangroves, I learned about the importance of coastal wetlands—they serve as habitat for key species and are natural carbon sinks. From the beginning of my internship, I participated in the virtual meetings of AIDA’s marine team, distributed throughout several countries of the region. I learned about the variety of animals and ecosystems that AIDA works to protect. From the office in La Paz, our contribution was focused on Mexico. I learned about national regulations related to reefs, herbivorous fish, and Natural Protected Areas. I supported research on the state of protection of these fish, which are essential for keeping Latin American and global coral reefs healthy. The combination of direct contact with nature and working in the office for local and regional projects gave me a different perspective on the nature of environmental law, and increased my motivation to learn. I learned that AIDA has worked for years with other organizations, local stakeholders, and scientists to protect fisheries and endangered species such as whales and sea turtles. One of the most enriching aspects of my internship was being able to experience first-hand the natural wealth that AIDA seeks to preserve. Though I’d been a diver for many years, I never ceased to be amazed by the sight of sea lions, bull and hammerhead sharks, killer whales, rays, sea turtles, and countless species of reef fish in their natural habitat. While in La Paz, I finished my rescue diver course and accompanied a team of marine biologists to conduct a visual census of marine life on Espiritu Santo Island. On four occasions, I visited Cabo Pulmo National Park, the largest coral reserve in the Gulf of California. I went diving and snorkeling. I participated in meetings of the Cabo Pulmo Vivo coalition, dedicated to protecting the park and its area of influence. It was gratifying to know that I was doing my small part for the site’s conservation. The internship gave my professional training a multidisciplinary approach. La Paz is one of the scientific centers of marine biology in Mexico and, while there, I was able to exchange ideas with marine biologists on diving trips and while socializing in bars in the city. Around La Paz, I was also able to spend time bird watching, one of my hobbies. The state of Baja California Sur is home to roughly 432 species of birds. I was able to see a wide variety of migratory species, as well five of the six endemic ones. I completed the internship very grateful for the experiences I had gained. Now, I’m back in Berlin, but I plan to return soon to La Paz to see the birds, whale sharks, and other majestic species that inhabit the area and are living proof of the valuable work of organizations like AIDA.

March 30 2020 Oceans, Public Participation, Climate Change, Human Rights

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.

February 25 2020 Oceans

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.

February 24 2020 Climate Change, Human Rights

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.

February 12 2020 Indigenous Rights, Climate Change, Human Rights

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.

January 27 2020 Mining, Public Participation, Freshwater Sources, Toxic Pollution

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).