Blog
New Zealand sets shameful emission-reduction target, completely ignores public consultation
By Natalie Jones Natalie is a legal intern on the Climate Change team at AIDA, based in Mexico City. She is a delegate to COP21 with the New Zealand Youth Delegation, and volunteers for NZ youth climate group Generation Zero. In this post, she covers an issue AIDA is following closely in Latin America—emission-reduction targets—in her native country. Last week New Zealand released its INDC, or “intended nationally determined contribution,” for the post-2020 climate deal set to be agreed upon in Paris this December. It’s not good news. An INDC is the target each country must set for its future greenhouse gas emissions—in other words, its intended contribution to the effort to reduce climate-changing pollutants to a sustainable level. At the UN climate talks, the world’s governments agreed that these targets should be nationally determined, to allow each nation to respond best to its own needs, priorities, and abilities. Because climate change is an issue we all face together, New Zealand’s announcement is relevant to people in all parts of the world, including Latin America. New Zealand is one of the world’s higher emitters: the small country emits more than three times its share of global emissions per capita. So far, however, New Zealand is failing to live up to its historic responsibility. The Government announced an emissions reduction target of 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. While this may sound okay – 30 is a big percentage, right? – it actually equates to a cut of just 11 percent below 1990 levels, which is not that much bigger than our already-pitiful 2020 target of 5 percent below 1990 levels. To stay in line with the international effort to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, New Zealand’s target would need to be a minimum of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – a rate accepted by the European Union and other progressive nations. Instead, the target is worse than those proposed by China, Mexico and other developing countries. To make matters worse, New Zealand has already proposed a conditional target of 10-20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, in addition to the unconditional 5 percent target. It is likely that all the conditions attached to the 10-20 percent target will be met. So the recent announcement is essentially lowering New Zealand’s ambition by giving the country ten more years to hit the low end of its conditional target. At this critical moment in history, we can’t afford a decade of inaction. Accounting rule mischief But it doesn’t stop there. The target will remain provisional until a final deal is reached in Paris, including rules on accounting for land sector emissions and carbon markets. This means the target is even worse than it seems. New Zealand’s existing 2020 target is based on gross emissions calculated for 1990, without accounting for the lower net amount of carbon once some of it is taken up and stored by forests. But for 2020, the target does account for forests as a carbon sink. This skewed approach means New Zealand is on track to meet its 5 percent reduction target by 2020, even though actual emissions are on track to increase 36 percent since 1990. If New Zealand plans to use the same methodology for the 2030 target, which seems likely, our target would actually be a 134 percent net increase from 1990 levels. A target for the 1% What’s more, the Government has completely ignored the results of its own public consultation, which overwhelmingly called for much stronger action. Ninety-nine percent of submitters called for a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Over 15,000 submissions were made, and more than 4,600 of those submissions were mobilized by youth climate organization Generation Zero’s Fix Our Future campaign, which I helped run. Generation Zero spokesperson Paul Young characterized the target as being “for the 1 percent who deny the need to transition to a low carbon economy.” Failing to take responsibility for the Pacific New Zealand is a neighbour to many vulnerable Pacific Island countries, such as Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. These countries are some of the lowest contributors to climate change, but are the first to face its devastating impacts, such as rising sea levels and more frequent and severe storms. New Zealand has a responsibility to care for its neighbours. Oxfam New Zealand called the country’s recent announcement a “slap in the face” to Pacific Island nations. A wasted opportunity Perhaps most disappointing about this announcement is the fact that New Zealand has the ability to lead the way to a thriving, zero carbon world. Currently running on more than 80 percent renewable energy, the country is in a prime position to transition to 100 percent renewable energy, shift its transport and heat needs to electricity and other clean energy sources, and absorb carbon by planting forests. Instead, New Zealand is leaving it to other countries to pick up its slack. Historically, New Zealand has used the inaction of major emitters like the US and China as an excuse for its own inaction, but that simply won’t cut it any more. What’s holding us back now is not technology, but political vision. AIDA’s work on INDCs AIDA advocates for public participation in the formation of INDCs throughout Latin America, and calls on nations to include information in their INDCs about the finance needed to meet their commitments and respond to the impacts of climate change. It is important to monitor the contributions of countries outside Latin America, particularly developed countries who have contributed the most to the problem, in order to determine whether each country is upholding their responsibility on this collective issue and to ensure political accountability for poor contributions. Find Natalie on Twitter at @nataliejonesnz.
Read more
“My Mom Is the Best Lawyer in the World”
“My mom is the best lawyer in the world because she defends the turtles, the corals, the salted forests they have in the sea, and alllll the fish.” As I listened to my 4-year-old daughter, Daniela, say this to an auditorium full of parents, boy and girls, my eyes filled with tears and my heart filled with love and happiness. Listening to my little girl brag about what her mother does renewed my strength and enables me to continue working passionately. Daniela summed up quite well my work on AIDA’s team of attorneys in the Marine and Coastal Protection Program. My colleagues and I focus on three key areas: coral reefs, mangroves and fisheries. We use national and international standards to support marine ecosystems and the people who depend upon them. Coral Reefs We know that by protecting coral reefs, we’re preserving natural barriers that protect coastal communities from storms and hurricanes—which are growing ever stronger due to climate change. We’re also conscious that the many varieties of fish we enjoy on our dinner table exist only because of the important breeding grounds that corals provide. Mangroves Mangroves, or “salted forests” as my daughter calls them, are swampy forests that exist in lakes, rivers and tropical coasts where fresh river water mixes with saltwater from the sea. My colleagues and I are determined to safeguard these ecosystems because we know they are our greatest allies. Mangroves capture from the atmosphere 50 times more carbon dioxide than tropical forests. They are also an important food source for birds, and a center of breeding and development for shrimp, crab and some fish, which provide a livelihood for coastal communities. One example of these unique ecosystems is Marismas Nacionales, the largest mangrove forest in Mexico, which we’re currently fighting to protect. Fishing Conscious that ecosystems are interrelated and reliant upon each other, we work to create sustainable fisheries. If we care for one fish, the rest of the fish will also benefit. We hope that future generations will also be able to taste a fish from the sea, not just observe one in a photograph. We have seen that adopting appropriate measures has allowed fish populations to recover, as occurred with the hoki in New Zealand, the anchoveta in Spain and France, and the cod in the northern Atlantic ocean. Every day I appreciate and enjoy the privilege my children, Daniela and Agustín, have to run through a forest, stick their feet in the ocean and feel the movement of little fish between their toes, or marvel at their first glimpse of a magnificent butterfly or a towering tree. In these moments, I reaffirm the words my parents said one day to my husband and me: “Many good memories outside are worth much more than many toys in the house.” At AIDA we are 26 people working throughout the continent with dedication and commitment. We do it for Daniela and Agustín, and for the rest of the little boys and girls who are part of our organization: Amber, Esteban and Eloísa, Constanza, Jared, Isabelle and Caroline, Izabela, Paloma, Marc and Rosalie. We work for our children and for all children, so that current and future generations have the opportunity to enjoy a healthy environment. Thank you for supporting our work!
Read more
Two Texts That Will Reconnect You With the Earth
There are two texts you should read because you live on this planet, two texts that will reconnect you with the Earth. You should read them because the Earth is protected not just by law and science, but also by heart and spirit; and because, like it or not, we share this home with everyone. They are Laudato Si, the recently published encyclical by Pope Francis, and Falling in Love with the Earth, an essay by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh. As the Zen Master says, “we and the Earth are one.” The texts concern all people, regardless of their religion, beliefs, politics or understanding of the planet’s environmental realities. It is not my intent to summarize these publications, or to deter you from reading and experiencing them firsthand. My intention is to encourage you to know them, because each allows us to better understand the realities of our planet, and sheds light on how to make our time on Earth positive. What is at stake is, as the Pope would say, “our dignity.” We must be mindful of the kind of planet we want to leave for the future. Laudato Si: The Papal Encyclical Pope Francis’ encyclical is an extensive document that, with the help of science, analyzes both the reasons behind the planet’s grave environmental situation and its possible solutions. I was pleasantly surprised by the level of scientific detail included in the text, and by the recognition that climate change is the responsibility of human beings. By reminding us of the urgent need to move from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources, and to control atmospheric pollution, the text illuminates the path to Paris. At the end of the year, the French capital will host the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference, set to usher in a new and binding global climate accord. It was heartening to see the Pope emphasize the social inequalities of the planet, particularly by explaining the relationship between environmental degradation and the communities it affects—primarily poor and indigenous peoples. But still, the encyclical is not perfect. One point it misses is how women suffer more from climate impacts, so the historical debt the Catholic Church has with us is still pending. The Pope states that those with the most power—corporations, countries and elites—are the primary responsible parties, though they’re certainly not the only ones. The powerful, therefore, are obligated to develop solutions. It is encouraging to read this since the Vatican has not exactly been characterized by its vows of poverty, and especially since I’m Latin American and work in this region, the most unequal in the world. The encyclical concludes that an “ecological conversion” is necessary because “living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.” This applies to everyone, as the work of protecting nature is the essence of being a virtuous person. A Time to Act In reading both the encyclical and the essay, you may notice that their conclusions are not new. The Pope is quite reminiscent of his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, who first spoke in the 13th Century of the need to protect “our Sister Earth.” Thus, the Pope and the Zen Master continue the urgent call to analyze our way of life, our consumption and our treatment of the Earth. So, why don’t we care for the planet, as we should? Why do we need their reminders? Why does it still seem we’re going from bad to worse? I don’t have the answers. But neither do the Zen Master or the Pope. “Sadly, many efforts to find concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proven ineffective, due not only to powerful opposition, but also to a general lack of interest,” Pope Francis said. Trending topics on social networks are a hard reminder of this reality. Cities, countries and what seems like the entire world are paralyzed during the World Cup, the Olympics, and even during beauty contests. Paying attention to these events is not bad, but the little attention we give to environmental problems and inequality is. The apathy must stop TODAY. Therein lies the relevance of these documents. We need to get involved, strive to understand their content, act on our understanding and show results, not make excuses. The Pope acknowledges that “politics and business are slow to react, far from living up to global challenges.” Judging from the current situation, I would say we’ve all reacted slowly. Let’s change that now. I’m sure we all have something we could improve, and something we could contribute. Regardless of specifics, simply because we live on Earth, we have a responsibility we must acknowledge. As Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh says, caring for and honoring the Earth “is not an obligation. It is a matter of happiness, of personal and collective survival.”
Read more
France’s Fracking Ban: Lessons for Latin America
By Eugenia D’Angelo, former AIDA intern, @DangeloEugenia Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—the process of drilling into rock and injecting a mixture of water, chemicals, and sand under high pressure to fracture it and release oil and gas—is making headway around the world, causing increasing damage to the environment and human health. Even so, social movements have been effective at slowing governments and corporations interested in expanding the practice. One of the best examples can be found in France. The first country to ban fracking, it did so thanks to the pressure applied by French citizens. Having lived in France for four years, I can attest first-hand to the strength and importance of social movements throughout the process. The Legal Process The ‘Jacob Law’ (named for Minister Christian Jacob, who presented it) was approved[1] in 2011, during Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency. It prohibits fracking for exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons. Later, taking advantage of division in the Socialist Party, oil companies found the help necessary to present a constitutional challenge to the fracking ban. On October 11, 2011, however, the Constitutional Council reaffirmed the validity of the ‘Jacob Law,’ stating that it complies with all constitutional principles. France became the first country in the world to turn its back on the controversial practice. Making A Difference Civil society and green political parties played a paramount role in France. French citizens overwhelmingly said “No!” to fracking,[2] with more than 80% voicing their opposition[3] (this compares to 47% in the United States, according to the latest Pew Research Center poll[4]). In France, movements are grouped together in social collectives that unite the populations of different departments. These groups were organized to be present in every part of the country where energy companies had permits for the exploration and exploitation of shale gas and oil. They remained there for the entire legal and political battle, until the prohibition on fracking finally became reality. Some of the actions taken by the “No Fracking France” association include: During the famous and highly publicized Tour de France, they carried an anti-oil-and-shale-gas banner signed by thousands of people. In the final stretch of the Tour de France, they sent a climber to hoist the banner to the top of Mont Blanc. They held a press conference on the matter in the National Assembly. They organised various informative and scientific seminars for the mayors of affected communities. They produced a video explaining fracking to the deaf-mute community. They took their complaints to the members of Parliament. Resistance in Latin America In contrast, various countries in Latin America are opening their doors to fracking. In response to this troubling trend, AIDA is helping to facilitate and coordinate a regional group, made up of civil society organizations and academic institutions, created to generate information, stimulate debate, and join forces to prevent and stop the negative impacts of fracking in Latin America. At AIDA we consider it necessary for governments and civil society to apply the precautionary principle. Within the framework of this principle and its constitutional obligations, States of the region should adopt effective measures to prevent the risks and severe damage to the environment and human health that fracking can bring about. As long as there isn’t a guarantee that the risks and impacts of fracking can be effectively prevented and mitigated, this type of activity should not be permitted. Raising awareness amongst citizens and social movements is key. Countries in Latin America are obligated to generate public, truthful and impartial information about the characteristics, process and components of fracking, and about its long-term impacts. Our authorities must create plural and adequate spaces for civil society in the decision-making process about the future of fracking in our territories. If they don’t, we as citizens have the right and the obligation to engage and mobilize ourselves so that those who resist can hear us. [1] It was a closed vote in the senate with 176 votes in favour and 151 against. “Gaz de schiste: le Parlement interdit l’utilisation de la fracturation hydraulique”, Le Monde, 30/06/2011. Available at: http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2011/06/30/gaz-de-schiste-le-parlement-interdit-l-utilisation-de-la-fracturation-hydraulique_1543252_3244.html [2] The Collectif 07 Stop Shale Gas and Oil said: “ …we should be proud of the efficiency of public mobilization which, although it has not won the war, has clearly won the battle. The commitment of millions of citizens, in our department and in the whole of France, that they demonstrated every day, resisted, informed, organized themselves, mobilized themselves…sometimes with the participation of the mayors…has borne fruit. It is a test that gives hope for the fight to come…” See: “Gaz de schiste: la mobilisation citoyenne a gagné une victoire, mais pas la guerre.” Bourg Socialisme avenir. Available at: http://www.bsavenir.fr/2011/10/01/gaz-de-schiste-la-mobilisation-citoyenne-a-gagne-une-victoire-mais-pas-la-guerre/ [3] This percentage is higher than that against nuclear energy (the primary source of energy in France) according to: Chu, Henry. “Pressure builds against France’s ban on fracking,” Los Angeles Times, 22/06/2014. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-france-fracking-20140622-story.html#page=1 [4] http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/13/3591891/pew-poll-voters-oppose-fracking/
Read more
Report from the Ramsar Conference
It’s a worrying and undeniable fact: 76 percent of the world’s wetlands have been destroyed in the last 40 years. In Latin America, these sensitive ecosystems suffer degradation from extractive industries, tourist activities, real estate projects, and other human causes. AIDA helped ensure that these threats were recognized as a priority concern of the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection of wetlands, during its 12th Conference of Parties. The Conference took place from June 2-9 in Punta del Este, Uruguay. AIDA and other civil society organizations included the risks in a public declaration presented before representatives of the various governments. The Ramsar Secretariat incorporated these threats into the Convention’s Strategic Plan 2016-2024. “This recognition opens the way for investigations to be made and guidelines established to combat the problem,” said Sandra Moguel, an AIDA attorney who attended the Conference. “By contributing to the identification of causes for the deterioration of wetlands, we’ve laid the base for the adoption of regulations and other effective measures to conserve these important ecosystems.” Alongside local organizations, AIDA also presented a petition to alert the Ramsar Secretariat that the Colombian government has failed to fulfill its obligation to protect the country’s páramos, high Andean wetlands. In the petition, we call attention to the impacts that activities such as large-scale mining have on páramos—the source of more than 70 percent of the water in Colombia—and ask the Secretariat to monitor the situation and take action according to their abilities. The Strategic Plan also recognizes the need to have better synergy with other international environmental treaties—such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—so that the sustainable use and conservation of wetlands attains greater relevance and is carried out more effectively. This correlation is key. “One of the greatest challenges of the Convention is to appropriately and effectively link the implementation of the treaty with the fight against climate change,” said Carlos Lozano Acosta, an AIDA attorney who also participated in the Conference. Lozano Acosta reported that one resolution was approved that calls on countries to reserve the quantity of water necessary for the preservation of their wetlands, and another that links the protection of these ecosystems with the mitigation of natural disasters, since wetlands are a natural barrier against hurricanes and storms. But Lozano Acosta lamented the fact that the Conference remained without sufficient and adequate space for civil society participation. For Moguel, it was a success that—thanks to the efforts of Latin American representatives—all resolutions adopted at the Conference recognized and included in their text the wetlands management done by indigenous people based on their traditional knowledge. Finally, in a parallel event organized by the International Coral Reef Initiative, AIDA attorneys presented their work defending reefs in the Americas. Particularly, they shared our Guide to Best Practices for Coral Reef Protection and emphasized the cases of Cabo Pulmo and the Veracruz Reef System, both sites in Mexico at risk from tourism and port development, respectively.
Read moreBelo Monte: Determined to achieve justice
By Flavia Amaral, AIDA attorney As construction of the world’s third-largest hydroelectric dam, Belo Monte, moves forward, social impacts and unrest continue. In the coming few months, close to 2,000 families are scheduled to be relocated from their homes in Altamira, on the Xingu River in Brazil, to newly built housing. Last year, another 2,000 families were resettled. The reconfiguring of the region continues to create social ills. The new settlements are far from downtown Altamira, and there is no public transportation. Many new houses are already showing structural problems, and there is little to no basic infrastructure such as health care centers, schools, and sewer treatment facilities. Also, as part of being relocated, a family must agree that they have no complaint or concern with the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant or the company responsible for the construction, a difficult ask for many who are giving up so much. For many indigenous communities, there is an explosion of illegal logging on their lands. Norte Energia,the consortium building Belo Monte, has not implemented required monitoring systems or constructed surveillance stations which would deter the logging. As a result, FUNAI, Brazil’s government agency that oversees Indian rights, reports that the situation is critical, and especially serious for the lands of the indigenous Arara people. Throughout the area, demonstrations continue by those who seek justice, recognition and compensation. Last month, hundreds of farmers held protests demanding land tenure, credit, and improvements to family farming. Two people died after being hit by a car that broke the blockade of protesters. This situation represents the unease, unrest, and violence that permeates the region. Clearly, the construction of Belo Monte has caused enormous impact in the Xingu River Basin – well before it’s operational phase. Four years ago, on the request of AIDA and partner organizations in Brazil, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights took an important step forward for the people of the region. It requested that the Brazilian government adopt precautionary measures to prevent irreparable damage to the rights of indigenous communities whose cultural integrity and way of life were at risk from the construction of Belo Monte. Clearly, after all these years, these threats remain: Brazil has not honored the precautionary measures. AIDA will continue working until we ensure that the environment and the rights of communities in Brazil’s Xingú River Basin are fully respected. We believe that the Commission still has time to act, and that there is potential for the Brazilian government to reframe its policies and practices to become a global model for equity and justice. Thank you so much for your ongoing support of our work for the people and the environment of the Amazon!
Read more
Progress on Protecting the Loggerhead Turtle!
By Gladys Martínez Significant strides were taken last week toward the conservation of loggerhead sea turtles. A new international resolution intends to strengthen protections for this endangered species in the Americas, and outlines the primary threats facing loggerheads, including mining, all of which should be regulated to avoid harm. The resolution was approved during the 7th Conference of Parties to the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (CIT), hosted last week in Mexico City. One of just seven species of sea turtle in the world, the loggerhead turtle is threatened by human activities such as unsustainable fishing, poorly planned development and extractive industries. AIDA was an actor and an observer in the conference, representing other organizations and individuals from civil society. My colleagues and I spoke with delegates and raised awareness of the harm that marine phosphate mining could cause to loggerheads, and to the ecosystem as a whole. We drew attention to the potential impacts of the Don Diego mining project in Bahia de Ulloa, Baja California Sur. The region’s first marine phosphate mine would, if executed, gravely impact populations of loggerhead turtles and other species that live in or migrate through Baja waters. I am pleased to report that I successfully advocated for the resolution to include mining on the list of threats to loggerheads. We also used our knowledge of international environmental law to help strengthen proposals within the resolution, and to make member States aware that immediate action is required for the conservation of the species. Details of the Loggerhead Resolution In the resolution, member States recognize that threats to the loggerhead turtle include development, coastal and deep-water fishing, marine debris, mining, pollution and climate change. The nations promise to work together to implement existing recovery plans for loggerhead populations, as well as to develop new plans in countries that still have not created them. They made the following commitments: Mexico and the United States will work together with Japan to develop a Trinational Recovery Plan for loggerhead turtles in the North Pacific. Chile, Ecuador, Peru and the United States will work with the Secretariat Pro Tempore of the Sea Turtle Convention and the Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species to implement a Species Action Plan for loggerhead turtles in the South Pacific. Mexico and the United States will continue working with collaborating countries of the North Atlantic to share information about the situation and tendencies of the loggerhead turtle of the Northeast Atlantic, and to identify collaborative conservation actions. A Report on the Conference Overall, I am quite satisfied with the advances achieved at this conference. I consider it a privilege to participate, and an honor to effectively contribute our knowledge and experience to conventions such as this, where decisions are made at an international level, and then taken back and implemented in each participating country. Another result of the Conference is the increased protection of the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) of the Western Pacific. Member States approved a resolution in which they committed to: Deliver information annually to the Secretariat of the Convention on leatherback turtle bycatch taken by their fleets. Annually inform the Secretariat of measures that are being adopted to reduce bycatch. Identify, with the help of the Scientific Committee, critical areas and fisheries that require spatial and temporal management to reduce bycatch. Strengthen actions for the protection of leatherback turtles eggs. Establish and evaluate national programs for handling and releasing leatherback turtles taken as bycatch in fisheries. We trust that the States will transform these international commitments into effective actions for the conservation of sea turtles. At AIDA, we will remain vigilant to ensure these promises become reality.
Read more
Strengthening the Sea Turtle Treaty
By Gladys Martínez When baby sea turtles first break through their shells, they slowly stick their heads out into the world. Then, they run as fast as they can to the vast body of salt water before them, where they will spend their lives. Sea turtles are migratory creatures that swim in the oceans, and nest on the beaches, of many different countries. Their survival is at risk from the impacts of human activity, such as unsustainable fishing, poorly planned development, and mining projects in marine and coastal areas. In an effort to confront these threats, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles was created in 2001. The international treaty promotes the protection, conservation and recovery of sea turtle populations. From June 24 to 26 in Mexico City, representatives from member States will discuss achievements and plan for the future of the Convention during the 7th Conference of Parties. AIDA will be there advocating for the States to continue meeting their obligations and making new commitments. Fifteen Contracting Parties have signed the Convention: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Netherlands (Antilles), Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and the United States. Thirty-two accredited observers, including academic institutions and NGOs, may participate in meetings of Scientific and Consultative committees of experts. The 7th Conference of the Parties will focus on adopting three key resolutions, on: The conservation of leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys Coriacea) in the Pacific Ocean. The conservation of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta Caretta). Exceptions to the subsistence harvest of olive ridley turtle eggs in Costa Rica. The Conference will also review the States’ compliance with regards to their annual reports, present the Secretariat’s work plan, and elect a new President, Vice President and Rapporteur. AIDA will seek for the States to: Commit to avoiding threats to turtle nesting habitats by mining projects. Continue restricting and prohibiting developments that affect sea turtle migration routes. Strengthen measures for responsible fishing and bycatch (sea turtles are captured and killed incidentally by fishermen targeting other species). We will concentrate our outreach efforts on creating awareness and promoting measures to curb the risks that the Don Diego marine mining project will have on the loggerhead turtle and Mexico’s marine ecosystem. AIDA has worked since 1998 to protect sea turtles. First we advocated the Convention’s ratification. A campaign organized by AIDA and other sea turtle advocates helped secure the signatures necessary to continue the negotiation process, and, in 2011, for the Convention to enter into force. We have advocated before Courts and decision-makers for the protection of sea turtles in several countries of Latin America, basing our advocacy on the obligations assumed by States under the Convention. Using this strategy, we have protected the green turtle from illegal poaching on Costa Rica’s Atlantic coast, avoided loss of nesting habitat of the leatherback turtle, and guaranteed that hawksbill and olive ridley turtles continue to enjoy one of their favorite coral reefs, Coiba National Park in Panama. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to learn more about the 7th Conference of Parties of the international treaty to protect sea turtles!
Read moreClosing Statement by NGOs at Ramsar COP12
Presented by Rafaela Nicola, World Wetland Network Committee’s Neo-Tropics delegate We would like to thank the Secretary General and the Parties for this opportunity to address the meeting, to share our message that NGOS are committed to Ramsar and we want to do more. We also wish to thank the government of Uruguay for hosting the COP. We appreciated the field trips yesterday, which introduced us to the beautiful wetlands in this country, some of which are Ramsar Sites. World Wetland Network was launched at Ramsar COP 10; this is our third COP. Our participation in Ramsar is recognized in Resolution 11.6.We were formed to complement the activity of the IOPs. We fully appreciate the value and expertise of the non-governmental IOPs, who work in strong partnership with local communities and indigenous peoples. WWN was formed at the initiative of smaller, grass-roots NGOs and CSOs seeking a voice at the table. I speak on behalf of our 2000 members worldwide and our friends at the COP: local and sub-regional organizations who have been meeting daily to engage with and monitor this important process. The core work of the Ramsar COP 12 has been the resolutions. Crafting and revising resolutions. Collaborating, negotiating and finally reaching agreement. We humbly acknowledge the co- operation and hard work of the Secretariat, Contracting Parties and IOPs to create meaningful resolutions that ensure conservation and wise of our world’s wetlands. When we all return home the real challenge begins, turning these resolutions into action. We urge the Contracting Parties to show steadfast commitment and leadership. We stand ready to help at the local level. The Fourth Strategic Plan is the most significant outcome of this COP, guiding our combined efforts for the next nine years. World Wetland Network welcomes the Contracting Parties initiative to strengthen engagement of NGOs, civil society groups, local communities and indigenous peoples in the Strategic Plan. These stakeholders provide a long-term and often continuous connection to wetland sites and are essential partners to achieve the Ramsar vision. We note that the top priority of the Strategic Plan is to prevent, stop and reverse the loss and degradation of wetlands. Your recognition of the key threats including unsustainable agriculture, forestry and extractive industries, especially oil, gas, mining, and urbanization closely reflects the local knowledge and concerns of our members, in Latin America and globally. We encourage Contracting Parties to work cohesively across ministries and prioritize long-term sustainability when approving developments. A healthy environment is fundamental to our economic and social security. Cohesive implementation will be supported by the effective mobilization of National Wetland Committees. We note that establishment of these committees, with both government and non- government representatives, is an indicator for success of Goal 1 in the Plan, and we urge the parties to comply. The theme of the COP has been “Wetlands for our future.” That future starts today. Every planning and development decision taken today will directly impact on wetlands and the communities that depend on them. Our message is loud and clear: we are committed to Ramsar and we want to do more. We trust our activities at Ramsar COP 12 have enhanced the meeting and we pledge our commitment to the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Thank you
Read more
Mine Threatens a Great Marine Migrator
By Haydée Rodríguez Each year, the gray whale sets out on one of the longest migratory journeys on the planet: a nearly 13,000-mile swim from its feeding grounds in Alaska to the warm waters of Baja California Sur, Mexico, where it births and raises its calves—after which it turns around and swims back again. It’s been estimated that, by the time a gray whale turns 50, it has traveled the equivalent of a journey from the Earth to the Moon and back. This impressive mammal, 50 feet long in its adult years, and its migratory feat are at risk from a marine mining project. If executed as proposed, the project would gravely damage the environment and living conditions of the gray whale. At the end of February this year, 2,652 grey whales arrived at the San Ignacio and Ojo de Liebre lagoons in Baja California Sur, very close to Ulloa Bay. This was the highest number recorded in the last 19 years, an occurrence that provides an important source of income for local families who depend on the sustainable tourism generated by whale watches. Yet it’s precisely in this area near Ulloa Bay that Odyssey Marine Explorations intends to begin the Don Diego phosphate-mining project. The project began in September 2014, when the company presented its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT). The Don Diego Mine The proposed mine would comprise five work sites in an area of 91,267 hectares. Each site would be exploited for 10 years, resulting in a 50-year-long project. The intent is to extract 350 million tons of phosphate sand from the marine floor—a quantity that would fill Mexico City’s Aztec Stadium 264 times. As proposed, the project would have grave and irreversible impacts on a marine zone rich in biodiversity and of great importance to local fisheries. The gray whale, as well as other species of whale and turtle that live or pass through the zone, depend on sound to communicate, stay united and locate food. The Don Diego project will use dredging boats to obtain the phosphate sand, producing a lot of noise in the area, potentially creating a “modification of vocal behavior or surprise reaction” in the whales, according to the project's Environmental Impact Assessment (chapter 4, page 229). Among other consequences, the noise would jeopardize the survival of the whales by causing changes in their behavior and migratory route, and would disrupt the feeding of calves. Principal Impacts on the Marine Ecosystem AIDA presented our comments on the Don Diego EIA before SEMARNAT, pointing out the environmental reasons why the project should not be authorized under the conditions by which it was approved. Our key points were as follows: The proposed mining activity would gravely alter the marine ecosystem: large boats will dredge the seabed to extract sand, but also living organisms. The dredged material will be separated to obtain phosphate, and the material not considered useful will be returned to the sea. The sediments that will return to the sea may contain high levels of toxic elements such as uranium and thorium, which are exposed during the phosphate-separation process. Exposed toxins may be transported on other organisms or consumed by fish that may then arrive on our tables. This is why the phosphate mining industry is considered a potential source of radioactive contamination. The exposed toxic sediments, noise and dredging will put at risk the gray whale and other vulnerable species of whale (humpback and blue) and turtle (loggerhead) already in danger. In addition to altering the habitat of marine species, the project will threaten the fishing and tourism activities on which various coastal communities depend. In places such as Namibia and New Zealand, after analyzing similar projects, the governments negated permissions or declared a moratorium on phosphate mining until the industry can show that it does not cause grave impacts. The Mexican government should follow this example and apply the precautionary principle to avoid irreversible environmental damage. The Environmental Impact Assessment of the project lacks important information about the possible impacts on the marine ecosystem and measures to avoid them. In our comments, AIDA highlighted the need for the company to provide more detailed information on the project’s potential impacts. The Mexican government has shown similar concern, as in their analysis of the EIA they’ve also requested additional information from the company. It is of particular interest to us to have better information on the impacts of sound and dredging on the coastal marine ecosystem, and on possible damage to fishing in the area. Without a doubt, it is better to prevent damage than to be sorry once it’s been done. The gray whale still has many miles left to swim.
Read more