Blog
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
Defending my place in the fight for the climate
I started at AIDA as a law student exploring the possibilities of working in the field of environmental law. Four years later, I am the youngest attorney on the organization's legal team, supporting the efforts of the Marine Biodiversity and Coastal Protection Program. I always say that the best part of my job is being surrounded by so many young, powerful and exemplary women. Their teachings have cemented my path. Last month, I participated in the preparatory meeting for the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which took place in Costa Rica. It was my first time at such an event. It was there that I really felt the strength of women and the younger generations, who have united to demand our place at the table to discuss solutions to the climate crisis. In recent months, we’ve seen the strength of global and regional movements of young people outraged by what they see as the inaction of governments to curb global warming. For the most part, young women, adolescents and even girls have led these movements. The climate meeting in Costa Rica was no exception, and reflected the generational change we are experiencing. In that forum, young people of various professions and aspirations made our claim and sought to be heard. We were united by a common purpose: to guarantee our future and to be better than present generations in fulfilling that goal. Millennials (the generational group to which I belong) and the centennials (to which my 13-year-old sister belongs) are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of political inaction in the face of the climate crisis. It is our future that is at stake. Women are especially vulnerable to environmental degradation due to the special role we play in caring for natural resources and the people around us. That is why it’s good news that we’re rising up and demanding clear, concrete and, above all, urgent actions. This PreCOP was an opportunity for learning and growth. I identified with the emphasis that the government of Costa Rica placed on the protection of the ocean and solutions based in nature. And I was inspired to see more and more young women taking the lead in the determined and ambitious actions that the world's environmental and social crises require us to take.
Read more
Lessons for moving into a world without fossil fuels
By Javier Dávalos and Florencia Ortúzar Recent social conflict in Ecuador, triggered by the abrupt suspension of diesel and gasoline subsidies, has demonstrated the need for a just energy transition that takes people into account. Measures aimed at ending government support for the production and use of fossil fuels must be progressive and consensual. The extraction of coal, oil and gas produces significant emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, contaminants that cause global warming. Burning these fuels to produce energy also contributes greatly to air pollution, which kills millions of people annually. Nevertheless, governments worldwide spend between 160 and 400 billion dollars each year to subsidize the fossil fuel industry, according to information from the United Nations Environment Program. Total financial support for renewable energy reaches only 121 billion. If we really want to combat the climate crisis and improve our air quality, we much change this situation. Understanding subsidies Public incentives to producers and consumers of coal, oil and natural gas include payments to consumers or businesses and tax deductions. Therefore, even if fuel prices rise steadily, subsidies keep them artificially low. As a result, transportation and trade costs are contained and remain internationally competitive. These subsidies weigh heavily on national economies, which are left without resources that could well be allocated to sectors such as health and education. Support for the industry deepens our dependence on fossil fuels and ties us to a crippling economic system that the planet desperately needs us to escape. It’s important to understand that this dependence is much more acute for the most vulnerable among us, for whom each dollar counts toward quality of life. A just energy transition The events in Ecuador have taught us a valuable lesson: a desirable result does not necessarily justify the way it is carried out. There, the subsidies for diesel and gasoline were eliminated by decree, unilaterally and without prior national dialogue, hitting the poorest sectors of society hardest. This provoked an intense and violent social conflict that forced the government to revoke its decree, which had not even considered the fight against the climate crisis (let alone a just energy transition). Actions of this type, which imply important changes in the basic needs of the population, like the fuel needed for transportation, must be accompanied by protective measures for society’s most vulnerable. It’s time to leave fossil fuel subsidies behind. But their elimination must be framed in serious plans that seek a real transition to a low-carbon way of life. And must be accompanied by supportive actions such as the promotion of local economies, the protection of ecosystems that naturally regulate the climate, the effective improvement of public transport systems, and investment in renewable energy sources. Only in this way will we begin walking in the direction of climate justice. A new social pact to tackle inequality Chile has also erupted in protests in recent weeks. Events there confirm that forgotten segments of society will no longer bear the burden of inequality, and that the time has come to change course. The Chilean crisis is not directly related to fossil fuels subsidies, but it is related to a fundamental problem in Latin America: abysmal social inequality that has for too reigned in our region. Deep social discontent erupted after the government increased the price of public transportation without considering the social consequences it would have. When commodity prices rise, the most vulnerable will always be the hardest hit. Therefore, these changes must incorporate actions that close social gaps rather than aggravate them. Like Ecuador, Chile has shown us that it is time to aim further, beyond palliative measures that affect the pockets of the poorest, in search of a new social pact. The current social and environmental crisis can be taken as a unique opportunity to begin building a more just society, putting an end to the serious inequalities that have long afflicted our countries, our region and the world.
Read more
Want to solve the climate crisis? Let's bet on the ocean
So far, the ocean has featured little in the United Nations climate negotiations. Yet without it, solutions to the climate crisis would be incomplete. The annual sessions of the UN Convention on Climate Change have emphasized reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but have not recognized the role of the ocean and its importance in meeting climate change goals. A healthy ocean is a natural carbon reservoir and its degradation implies the intensification of the climate crisis. Without its help, we cannot prevent the planet from warming to an unsustainable level. But the ocean is beginning to crumble due to pressure from factors such as overfishing and pollution, in addition to the climate crisis. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that the ocean suffers from overheating, acidification, and loss of oxygen—an element essential for life under the sea. The report revealed the worst: the climate crisis is the ocean crisis. However, we still have windows of opportunity to bring the ocean back to health by improving its governance and controlling the planet's temperature. Decadent health The ocean plays a key role in maintaining life on the planet. It produces half the oxygen we breathe, circulates fresh water, and generates nutrients. The livelihoods of fishing and tourism communities depend on its good health. In recent years, the ocean has been a buffer. Standing between our communities and the worst effects of the climate crisis, the ocean has absorbed 93 percent of the excess heat and 28 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, UN experts said. But this natural protection has serious consequences. By absorbing and interacting with pollutants, the rate of increase in ocean temperature has more than doubled since the end of the 20th century, according to the IPCC. Recent scientific evidence is not just another warning, but perhaps the last and most urgent call to protect the ocean through accelerated climate action. Act now An opportunity to rescue this ecosystem is in each country's plans to reduce emissions and contain global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (or as close as possible to that figure). The twenty-fifth Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to be held in Chile in December, represents the final deadline for countries to submit new and more ambitious commitments by 2020. Costa Rica, as host of the COP25 preparatory meeting, decided to give nature space in the climate fight. In fact, the ocean is one of the issues that the government has placed on the agenda of the PreCOP, underway this week. Stronger commitments to reducing emissions will rid the ocean of one of the main pressure points that has it on the verge of collapse. Integral solution This is not the only action the international community is taking to save this ecosystem. A treaty is still being negotiated on the high seas: marine areas beyond national jurisdiction. Together they account for almost two-thirds of the ocean. Countries have between now and 2020 to achieve a treaty that protects the high seas and, with it, almost half of the planet. On the other hand, the States Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity will negotiate new targets for the protection of biodiversity at a meeting to be held in 2020. The target for marine biodiversity should be the protection of at least 30 percent of the ocean through effectively protected areas and the sustainable management of the remaining 70 percent. Ending overfishing and pollution in all its forms, as well as preventing further loss of biodiversity, ecosystems and habitats, are essential measures within our reach. There is an urgent need for the political class to act accordingly and protect the ocean. The next decade is imperative.
Read more
Empowering fishermen to protect coral reefs, and their guardians
When he thinks of his childhood, Mario Smith remembers the abundance of fish, crabs and lobsters he and his father used to find while fishing, an activity now in decline on his island. "There used to be such abundance and today we are forbidden to fish for many things because of our irresponsibility in taking care of our resources," said Mario, who is now the leader of the San Luis Fishermen's Committee, whose members work on San Andres Island, Colombia. San Luis is a hamlet located on the east coast of San Andres with white sandy beaches and calm waters. I was there in August to support the dissemination of a very important resolution for the conservation of the coral ecosystems of the Colombian Caribbean. The law prohibits the capture and sale of several species of herbivorous and omnivorous fish that cleanse the corals of the algae that take away their light and space, thus supporting their survival. In recent years, a decrease in commercial species has led fishing communities have to go after herbivorous fish. This, in turn, has caused a reduction in populations of these species, particularly in the Caribbean. The resolution was issued on July 15 by the Corporation for the Sustainable Development of the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina (CORALINA), the environmental authority in that region. Disseminating and socializing these type of norms in local communities is very important so that residents, understanding the importance of these fish for the health of both the reefs and their economies, support actions aimed at their conservation. Along with CORALINA's education team, I visited several fishermen's committees, as well as schools and restaurants. I participated in a meeting of the Inter-Institutional Committee on Environmental Education, which was also attended by representatives of the government, the police, and the tourism and education sectors. The visits were very enriching, full of questions and emotions. In each of them I highlighted the benefits of taking care of our corals and the fish that help them thrive. Coral reefs are one of the most important ecosystems on the planet. They are home to more than 25% of our marine species and protect our coasts from hurricanes, storms and other weather events. At Cajasai School, the active participation of one student surprised me. He told me of his concern about garbage on his beaches and about catching parrotfish, one of the most important species of herbivorous fish. "I'm very concerned about my resources and that's why I made a foundation to take care of the beaches that are close to my home," he told me passionately. His empathy and desire to fight for his beaches and sea inspired me. The beautiful landscapes of San Andrés and the interest of all the people I spoke with filled me with satisfaction and energy to continue working. But there is still a lot to do. Our marine resources are in danger of disappearing in the face of the global climate crisis. And the urgency to do something about it is becoming ever more pressing. Our coral reefs are among the ecosystems most threatened by this crisis, mainly due to changes in the acidity and temperature of our oceans. In addition, human actions such as pollution and overfishing are causing irreversible damages. That’s why AIDA will continue to support local efforts to conserve important marine species, such as the parrotfish and his herbivorous relatives. LEARN MORE
Read more
Human rights, the great absentees at the UN Climate Summit
The United Nations Climate Action Summit on September 23rd was an interesting step toward the future. Some commitments were announced to confront the climate crisis. But one key aspect was absent: the express, transversal and decisive inclusion of human rights. Goals of the global meeting included preventing the development of new coal projects, achieving zero net emissions by 2050, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and making those who pollute pay. To this end, 19 states—supported by various organizations—worked in coalition to achieve goals on mitigation, social and political drivers, youth and public mobilization, energy transition, industrial transition, nature-based solutions, adaptation and resilience, climate finance and carbon pricing, as well as infrastructure, cities and local action. Although previous meetings were held with indigenous peoples, and some coalitions recognized that solutions shouldn’t increase inequality—but be fair and include a gender perspective—what we needed was an explicit reference to human rights. It was conspicuous for its absence. This is not a minor need. It’s enough to see those who suffer first and worst the impacts of the climate emergency: families in Central America who, after losing their crops, leave everything behind to migrate to the United States; residents of the Bahamas, devastated by Hurricane Dorian; and those who live in the Amazon, partially destroyed by fires. The climate crisis is already affecting human rights. Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called it their greatest threat. Some measures to address the climate emergency actually aggravate it, while ignoring human rights. This is the case with wind projects and large hydroelectric dams in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Honduras, which have been implemented without consulting local communities, some of them indigenous. It was therefore essential that world leaders use Summit to expressly include in their commitments a respect for human rights, a recognition already found in the Paris Agreement. That did not happen. Nevertheless, hope is fuelled by growing awareness, which increases pressure on governments, companies and other sectors to contribute more. Millions of students around the world are on strike and dropping out of school on Fridays. Mobilizations have multiplied and so have their supporters. Having true ambition for climate justice means putting human rights at the center of our solutions, not least because indigenous and traditional communities have knowledge essential to preserving the planet.
Read more
Ecuador bets on a mining boom, at the expense of nature
In southeast Ecuador, in the heart of its Amazon, stands an imposing mountain massif that stretches more than 160 kilometers in length: the Condor Mountain Range, which, once largely unknown, retains an expansive intact and unexplored territory. In this area of vital importance for life, science and conservation, an open-pit copper mine known as the Mirador project, with an expected lifespan of 30 years, began operating in July. The launch of the project marks the beginning of large-scale mining in Ecuador, with which the government intends to sustain the economy and leave behind its dependence on oil. This is a sad novelty because large-scale mining involves the risk of enormous environmental damages, which are most serious in ecosystems of great biodiversity and proximity to water sources such as the Condor Range, where indigenous and peasant communities also live. This impulse toward extractive activity contradicts the progress made in 2008, when Ecuador was the first country in the world to recognize the rights of nature in its Constitution. As the Amazon burns in flames, and takes our future with it, Ecuador has a responsibility to change course. The nation must serve as an example for other countries of the Amazon Basin, and the world, of the effective protection of the rainforest and those who depend on it. The resources we must conserve "This country lacks resources." Based on these words, the Mirador project and the presence of the mining industry in Ecuador has been intensified without precedent. They were said by spokespersons of the Chinese company Ecuacorriente (in charge of the mining concession) and echoed, in turn, by government representatives. But what will happen to the biodiversity and environmental services of the priceless Condor Range? These Amazonian mountains protect cloud forests and páramos (high mountain wetlands), both natural carbon sinks. They are home to more than 2,000 species of flora, including one of the few carnivorous plants in Ecuador, and hosts 613 species of birds. According to studies, there are another 2,000 plant species to be discovered in this unique environment. It is there that excavations of 300 to 500 meters deep will be carried out to access subsoil minerals, and where risky dams will be built to deposit tons of waste. The damages are already occurring. The company confirmed that 1,422 hectares of forest have been cleared for the project. And local organizations have denounced serious legal and constitutional violations surrounding the project. The discourse of large profits in store for the country from the exploitation and sale of subsoil resources has gained strength in recent months. Official data shows that currently 7.5% of the territory is concessioned for mineral exploration, and the government is analyzing the granting of new concessions. By 2020, the government plans to have a map of the new areas where mining will be permitted. These plans ignore the perpetual impacts of large-scale mining, including impacts on the landscape and damage to water quality. In the case of Mirador, the project has already caused the diversion of the Tundayme River, just to name one of its impacts, recognized as irreversible by the company itself. "Be coherent, stop using cell phones and bicycles and other objects made from materials extracted from the mines," challenged Vice President Otto Sonnenholzner, one of mining's biggest promoters, to those who oppose the projects. "I propose another challenge: you stop using water and food," replied Yaku Perez, a defender of water and prefect of the province of Azuay. The above is the clearest metaphor of what is at stake with the blind advance of open-pit mining in Ecuador. The climate crisis demands a new vision of development The accelerated move towards large-scale mining in Ecuador means acting negligently in the face of the global climate crisis, which forces us to change our development model this decade in order to achieve the goals of mitigation and adaptation. The international scientific community warned in 2018 that we only have a dozen years to maintain global warming at a maximum of 1.5°C (with respect to the pre-industrial era) and that exceeding that limit would make the risks of droughts, floods and extreme heat worse. This requires unprecedented transitions in sectors such as energy and industrial systems. Boosting large-scale mining is reversing and deepening the development model that has caused the climate emergency. It means destroying natural carbon sinks such as those in the Condor Mountain Range and the Amazon as a whole. Ecuador can and must take a new step forward. It must, as it did in 2008 with the recognition of the rights of nature, find a development model that effectively respects its obligations to the climate and to human rights. Ecuador cannot continue to mortgage the present and future of entire communities and ecosystems under the pretext of the immediate and ephemeral profits of mining. New paths are possible and, above all, urgent.
Read more
Coal or life: Walking where a stream once ran
The appointment was on a hot Sunday in July. Together with Wayuu indigenous and Afro-descendant communities displaced by coal mining, members of social and human rights organizations, employees of Cerrejón, and government officials, I walked for more than five hours over the barren land where the Bruno Stream once ran. What I saw in my path were the remains of snails that died of thirst, stuck to the mud, and the lifeless body of a tigrillo that showed us so clearly what mustn’t happen again. The Bruno is a vein of water that once irrigated the department of La Guajira, located in Colombia’s far north, a region hit years ago by extreme drought. It is a major tributary of the Ranchería River, one of the department’s most important water sources, and forms part of the underground water systems that have long given life to the region’s communities. It was painful to walk where the Bruno once flowed free, and to think—while doing so—that what is now a dry riverbed was once abundant with life. That Sunday, we also toured the area intended to be the artificial channel of the stream. In 2014, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized Cerrejón to divert 3.6 kilometers of Bruno’s flow to favor ongoing coal exploitation in La Guajira. Several things made on impact on me that day. One of them was that, although the rivers belong to us all and natural water sources are public, we were accompanied the entire time by employees of the company. While walking the stream, we entered the land “owned” by the coal-mining concessionaire. Communities that used to travel freely along the banks of the stream can no longer do so today. Although the Bruno is one of few streams in Colombia’s driest department and one of the scarce sources of fresh water for communities living there, its channel was clogged and diverted to facilitate mining. An engineering project has altered one of the most important streams for a thirsty region and created an artificial path through which not a single drop of water flows. “If they carry water, they’re rivers; if not, they’re roads,” a verse from Guatemalan indigenous poet Humberto Ak’abal teaches us. The new “channel” of the Bruno is not a river, but “a barren road” attesting to the deterioration of a sensitive ecosystem. The “road” does not recover or mitigate the damages from the stream’s diversion. On the contrary, it produces new ones. The world is facing a climate crisis, and coal mining is one of its primary causes. While many countries are replacing the use of coal in their energy matrices with cleaner options, Colombia has decided to dry up a river to exploit more and more coal. Walking paths of justice The day after the walk, the frustration of the absurd did not prevent me from embracing a glimmer of hope. On Monday, I joined representatives of indigenous communities and local organizations at a public hearing convened by several Congressmen to discuss what happened with the Bruno. The strength and dignity of their words, in which decades of resistance were encrypted, fed my soul. “This territory is ours, our rivers are our life and we care for life—for our children, for our present, for our future and that of the world.” As it has done many times before, La Guajira spoke to the country and the world. They told the Congressmen that it’s not possible to prioritize the use of water for mining over human consumption. They warned that the country must transition to an energy production that doesn’t cause the damages that coal mining has to the climate, human rights, and the species and ecosystems that sustain us. The stream must return to its channel, the snails must drink again from its waters, and no tigrillo should die due to the intentional destruction of its natural habitat. In a 2017 ruling, the Constitutional Court demonstrated that uncertainties exist as to the environmental and social impacts of the Bruno Stream riverbed modification project. The Court ordered the creation of an Inter-Institutional working group to resolve the complaints of the affected people. Communities will continue to demand compliance with that ruling and demonstrate that the uncertainties are, in fact, certain damages that will continue to undermine their lives. AIDA, along with our partner organizations, will continue to accompany this struggle to demonstrate the harms of coal mining and promote clean alternatives that respect both people and the environment.
Read more
What we must do to preserve the planet’s biodiversity and natural heritage
Society is at serious risk of losing our natural world and all that sustains us. Our actions are provoking mass extinction and accelerating the loss of natural resources, plants and animals. Among these actions are the growth of agriculture and livestock production, the destruction of habitats, the introduction of invasive species, the expansion of urban areas, poaching and overfishing, overpopulation and pollution. That’s according to the most complete global evaluation of biodiversity yet, recently published by scientists at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The report shows that the capacity of Earth’s ecosystems to provide benefits to people has diminished drastically over the last 70 years. That’s because, on average: global resources have diminished by 47 percent; 25 percent of flora and fauna species are in danger of extinction; and the climate crisis is driving higher temperatures and increased acidification of the ocean, which is causing coral reef coverage worldwide to shrink. What’s more, a third of all species in the ocean are being overfished. Despite these alarming statistics, we can still take the planet out of the grave situation we’ve put it in. But it will require radical changes to our approach. The diagnosis for Latin America Historically, the world has passed through five mass extinctions that have caused the loss of more than 70 percent of the Earth’s life forms. Currently, we seem to be living through the sixth. Although species extinction occurs naturally, it generally does so at a rate of about one species per million each year. The current rate far exceeds that, as at least 100 species per million are going extinct each year—and that rate is rising. Another way to visualize this global threat is by listing the countries with the most species in danger of extinction. Five countries in Latin America are in the top 10 for species loss, with Mexico topping the list at 665 threatened species (71 species of birds, 96 mammals, 98 reptiles, 181 types of fish and 219 amphibians). Mexico’s situation is largely being driven by high rates of deforestation, a practice aimed at increasing agricultural area to cover the country’s growing demand for food. In fact, Latin America and Southeast Asia have lost millions of hectares of terrestrial ecosystems and fresh water through increased livestock production and agriculture (which includes the use of fertilizers). Other countries in the region with high rates of species loss include Colombia (540 species), Ecuador (436), Brazil (413), and Peru (385). Species extinction alters and impedes the proper functioning of ecosystems, which rely on interactions between varied forms of life to produce food, manage water supply, regulate climate, and more. Big changes to ensure a better future Although life on our planet has existed for some 4 billion years, humanity has only been around 200 thousand of those; yet we’ve managed to disrupt the Earth’s natural balance. Although our actions have negatively affected the earth, this shows that we, as humans, have the ability to transform our environment. The IPBES report mentions the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as transformative actions that can protect biodiversity. One of those is the creation of natural protected areas, which have helped reduce the risk of extinction for species like mammals and amphibians. Nevertheless, the report emphasizes the need for a drastic change in the values and objectives of our governments so that decisions at the local, national, and international levels are aligned to combat the causes behind the planet’s degradation. To that end, and taking into account the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, nations must: Expand and coordinate the global network of natural protected areas. Invest in green infrastructure. Produce food, materials, and energy in sustainable ways. Conserve and use water efficiently. Support indigenous and traditional communities, who protect many of the planet’s remaining natural resources. Adequately approach population growth and global consumption levels. Create new environmental laws and better compliance with existing ones. Slow pollution and the overexploitation of our natural resources. “People shouldn’t panic, but they should begin to make drastic changes,” said Josef Settele, an IPBES co-chair and entomologist at the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Germany. “Business as usual with small adjustments won’t be enough.” Our air, water, and food depend on biodiversity—the varied forms of life on our planet and the interaction between them. Caring for this natural heritage is a shared task; it is now more important than ever.
Read more