Blog

January 26 2015 Climate Change, Human Rights

Human rights in the new climate agreement: Tomorrow will be too late

Observing the UN Climate Negotiations is like entering another world. Governments, organizations and individuals advance their agendas, and all are discussed simultaneously: mitigation, adaptation, financing, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), loss and damages, common but differentiated responsibilities, and many other matters. The common objective is making binding commitments to tackle climate change. As a member of AIDA’s team, together with my colleagues Andrea Rodríguez and Víctor Quintanilla, I participated last December in the 20th session of the Conference of Parties of the United Nationals Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 20) in Lima, Peru. Being there was an incredible learning experience. The Conference was two weeks of intense negotiations, even more so in the final days, intended to pave the way for the new binding climate agreement that will be adopted at the UN Climate Conference in Paris later this year. The result was the Lima Call for Climate Action, a document approved in overtime hours as an emergency measure so that the meeting did not conclude without an agreement. The document has been much written about, touted by some as a great success and by others as a failure. I would simply like to point out that a key point is missing from the Lima appeal: the recognition that climate change interferes with the enjoyment of human rights. Not for lack of trying. Mary Robinson, the former United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, who is now the Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, warned that climate change is "the greatest human rights issue of the 21st Century." Photo: Máximo Ba Tiul presents the case of the Santa Rita hydroelectric project in an event during the COP20. Credit: AIDA. Experts and UN rapporteurs have asked States that are part of the Framework Convention to include in the coming agreement specific language stating that all parties must, in all climate change related actions, promote, protect, respect and fulfill with the human rights of all people. These are the words written by 28 experts and special rapporteurs to the UN in an open letter sent on October 17, 2014. Also, more than 70 independent experts and UN special rapporteurs also called for this recognition on December 10, International Human Rights Day. AIDA and colleague organizations have been insisting not only that the new climate agreement should incorporate comprehensive and operative language on human rights, but also that the actions taken to mitigate climate change respect human rights. Amidst the technicalities and the negotiations, I saw the human face of climate change. During the Lima Conference, I met Máximo Ba Tiul, an indigenous Maya Poqomchi from Guatemala and the representative of the Tezulutlán Peoples Council. Máximo participated in a variety of activities during the Conference, carrying with him the message of the indigenous peoples affected by the Santa Rita dam, a project registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Convention. Through the Mechanism, industrialized countries may obtain carbon credits by implementing emission-reduction projects in developing countries. The problem is that many of these projects have caused human rights violations. For example, the Guatemalan government neither consulted with nor obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of the affected indigenous communities before authorizing Santa Rita. Furthermore, security forces have harassed communities that oppose the dam and charged opposition leaders as criminals. Violence and repression have escalated: a worker from the company murdered two children, David, 11, and Ageo, 13, in August 2013. In August 2014, the violence flared. More than a thousand state agents raided the area and attacked community members, among them pregnant women, the elderly, and children, who were all forced to flee. Photo: Machinery beginning the dredging of the Dolores River for the construction of the Santa Rita Dam at the end of 2011. Credit: Community Archive. The Santa Rita hydroelectric project has clearly led to human rights violations, which continue to this day. Crime, violence, and harassment remain unpunished. The project continues to hold its certification from the Clean Development Mechanism. Going public at one of the Conference events, Máximo asked: Why do you have to violate human rights to mitigate the effects of climate change? The only response: silence. Cases like Guatemala’s Santa Rita dam, emblematic of many projects registered under the Clean Development Mechanism, remind us of the urgent need to incorporate human rights protection into all climate actions. Human rights protection must be binding in the new climate agreement to be approved in Paris. Otherwise, the defense of communities’ rights will be another fight lost in the fight against climate change. The time is NOW. Tomorrow will be too late!

January 22 2015 Coral reefs, Oceans

Working to protect coral reefs in Mexico and throughout Latin America

In the Gulf of Mexico, 27 coral reefs form a submarine mountain range that runs between six islands in an area stretching for miles. Hundreds of colorful fish species, sea urchins, starfish, and sea grasses share the reef with an abundance of other life forms. This is the magnificent Veracruz Reef, the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf. Unfortunately, planned expansion of the Port of Veracruz, recently approved by the Mexican government, will damage the reef and harm the creatures that depend on it for survival. The project will also harm the nearby Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve, a jewel of Mexico’s Emerald Coast, because developers will mine it for rock to use in port construction. The environmental authority approved the port development in 2013, even though Mexico declared the Veracruz Reef System a National Protected Area in 1992. What’s more, Mexico is a party to the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the protection of wetlands of international importance—which includes the Veracruz Reef. Despite the reef’s recognized significance, the government has officially reduced the size of the protected area to make way for the larger port. "Now is a good time to call the attention of world leaders and diplomats to Mexico’s unsustainable actions," said AIDA legal advisor Sandra Moguel. Mexico is preparing to host the December 2016 Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, an international treaty to sustain the rich diversity of life on Earth. AIDA and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), representing 13 organizations and individuals, have sent a letter (in Spanish) to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (The Secretariat is a neutral organization staffed by international civil servants, accountable to the Conference of Parties and its subsidiary bodies, and linked to the United Nations Environment Program.) The letter requests two things of the Secretariat: assess the harms that the expansion will cause, and ask Mexico to revoke project authorization because of the serious impact it will have on the diversity of life on the reef. "The manner in which the government has authorized this development project worries us," Moguel said. "Mexico has breached their international commitment to protect the rich biodiversity within its borders, particularly when it falls within natural protected areas." AIDA’s marine team has been working on similar cases in Mexico and throughout the region, gaining expertise in national and international laws that enable the protection of coral reefs. They have produced a report that synthesizes knowledge gained through years of such work, The Protection of Coral Reefs in Mexico: Rescuing Biodiversity and its Benefits to Mankind (in Spanish). "We want to interest and inform people working in wetlands protection," Moguel said. "There is a diverse array of legal tools at their disposal, which they may not be aware of," Moguel said. "In addition to describing our own legal work on this issue, we discuss the power of international treaties and commitments that nations must abide by." The report outlines the importance of coral reefs in the world—in Mexico in particular—explores case studies, outlines relevant international treaties and obligations, and looks to best practices from nations around the region for inspiration. AIDA Marine Senior Attorney Gladys Martínez said that reports such as these are intended to raise awareness of the legal means available to protect wetlands and to highlight the different methods that decision-makers can use. "AIDA selects emblematic cases like these of Mexico, to illustrate environmental problems that recur throughout the hemisphere," said Gladys Martínez. "The threats to the Veracruz Reef System are a sign of the urgent need for nations to take effective measures to protect coral reefs and comply with their international obligations." AIDA has launched a campaign to fund the marine program’s continued efforts to protect corals in the region. Our work will provide advocates and decision-makers with the practical resources, recommendations, and tools needed to improve coral reef protection. Your donation will directly support this work, and provide a brighter future for the brilliant array of life on the coral reefs of Latin America.

January 12 2015 Fracking

Fracking prohibited in New York, but promoted in Colombia

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is an unconventional form of extracting oil and gas. The technique requires drilling first vertically and then horizontally, and injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand, and toxic chemicals. The injection fractures subsurface layers of shale, releasing the oil and gas contained within. Fracking has severe impacts on both the environment and human health: it contaminates surface and ground water sources, causes earthquakes and air pollution, and releases greenhouse gases, among other things. These effects have been documented in studies by the German Ministry of Environment, the US Government Accountability Office, the Canadian Council of Academies, and Anthony Ingraffea, a professor at Cornell University. On December 17, 2014 the Governor of New York announced the prohibition of fracking in the State because of the "significant health risks" posed by the practice.This argument stems from a two-year study conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which analyzed the impacts of fracking on human health and on air and water quality in communities throughout the state. The decision has been celebrated by environmental advocates and criticized by some investors who claim that it is denying the State economic benefits from the extractive industry. The debate over whether or not to permit fracking has been going on in other latitudes as well. In France, fracking was banned in 2011 by national law. After an oil company sued the government, the Constitutional Court upheld the ban in 2013. Bulgaria banned fracking in 2012, and Germany maintains a moratorium on the technique. Bans or moratoriums have also been issued by municipalities in the United States, Canada, Spain, Argentina, Switzerland, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Australia. Despite this international precedent, the Colombian government has promoted fracking. In 2008, the National Hydrocarbons Agency issued a study to identify the potential in unconventional hydrocarbons in the country. In 2012, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized a hydraulic fracturing project in Boyacá. That year, the Comptroller General of the Republic issued just one warning recommending that companies "take into account the precautionary principle regarding the latent risk hydraulic fracturing poses to environmental heritage through the possible contamination of groundwater and surface water sources, geological risk, and the risk to public health and nearby urban centers." In January 2015, in a special performance-monitoring warning, the Comptroller found that the State had not adopted the necessary measures. By the end of 2012, the Colombian government began creating a regulatory framework for fracking in Colombia. They contracted international experts to regulate and identify the impacts of the technique. An investigation by independent news site La Silla Vacía has found that several of these experts are linked to the oil industry. The Ministry of Mines and the National Hydrocarbons Agency then issued legal instruments that would serve as the framework for the start of fracking in the country. Francisco José Lloreda, president of the Colombian Petroleum Association, publicly stated that without fracking “we would have a fiscal catastrophe” within six or seven years. And the Minister of Mines, Tomás González, said that fracking is needed to finance the country’s peace process. Even before fracking began in Colombia, various sectors issued warnings. In August 2014, AIDA publicly urged (in Spanish) the government to apply the precautionary principle and prevent the serious and irreversible consequences of fracking. Later, in September, the National Environmental Forum and other organizations requested a conditional moratorium on fracking in Colombia. Additionally, Housing Minister Luis Felipe Henao voiced concern about the effect fracking would have on the water supply. He said, "To me, as Minister of Water, fracking scares me.… When you see what is happening in Santa Marta, you realize that one can invest a lot in pipes, but if you don’t have clean water supplies, you won’t do much more than carry air through them." From all these arguments, the obvious question arises: Why is fracking – which has been prohibited or restricted in various countries and municipalities – being promoted by the Colombian government? The most apparent response is that it will increase extraction of hydrocarbons and, as a consequence, the revenues of government and private industry. What government and industry do not see is that no amount of revenue is great enough to offset the social and environmental impacts of fracking, or of the possible new conflicts that may arise because of its effects on water resources. We have seen nationally (Guajira and Arauca) and internationally (Los Angeles and San Paulo) that without drinkable water, a successful economy,and even life itself are not feasible.

December 23 2014 Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

COP20 fails to provide certainty on climate finance and human rights

The 20th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP20) was held this month in Lima, Peru, with the goal of drafting a new climate agreement, to be signed in Paris in 2015. The conference, however, concluded with an unimpressive draft agreement that failed in two key tasks: providing certainty about funding to combat climate change, and including human rights protections in climate actions. For AIDA and other civil society organizations, it was important that the Lima agreement lay out a roadmap for how and when governments will fulfill their commitment to provide 100 billion dollars per year by 2020 to finance mitigation activities and adaptation to climate change. "Developing countries need to know with certainty how much money they have and what the source of it will be, so they can plan their fight against climate change," said Andrea Rodriguez, a senior attorney for AIDA. The Conference provided no such certainty. This is evidenced by the decision made on the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which left out finance and adaptation—key aspects to the countries most vulnerable to extreme changes in climate. The INDCs decision was meant to contain specific information on the scope, format, timeframe and assessment. Instead it included only contributions for mitigation, without stating whether or not they will be compulsory. During the conference, AIDA and global allied organizations encouraged State Parties to ensure the draft of the new agreement include specific language on the protection, promotion, respect for, and observance of human rights in all climate actions. As a result of the collective effort, the Philippines, Mexico, and Ghana made specific calls for the draft and final agreements to include such references. "There is no doubt that climate change interferes with the enjoyment of human rights. The agreement in Lima includes no reference to human rights, but we will work hard to ensure their full inclusion in the Paris agreement, not only in words, but also in deed," said María José Veramendi Villa, an AIDA senior attorney. Yet it was not all bad. AIDA drew attention to the new pledges that had arrived to the Green Climate Fund, which brought its total funding to 10.2 billion dollars. We highlighted the momentum in Latin America that contributed to that achievement, with countries such as Peru, Colombia, Mexico and Panama making the effort to contribute, despite their status as developing countries. "Although all contributions are welcome, it is important to emphasize that the amount collected so far does not yet cover the financing needs of developing countries," Rodriguez stated. The conference also made public the climate finance actions of governmental and nongovernmental actors in the region. The Climate Finance Day organized by AIDA and allied organizations facilitated a dialogue on regional progress in preparing for accessing resources, the increasing involvement of the private sector in fighting climate change, and the conditions that such support requires—legal certainty being one of them. Also that day, civil society shared their experiences with transparency and accountability, which are essential not only to obtain greater resources, but also to ensure their effective use. AIDA reported on the opportunity the Green Climate Fund provides for countries of the continent to improve public participation in the design, development, and implementation of policies and climate projects. Much remains to be done to find effective solutions to climate change. We will continue contributing to the achievement of this goal!

December 15 2014 Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

COP20: Towards a climate deal with human rights protections

The impact of climate change on human rights is clear. Yet no international treaty on climate change makes reference to human rights, nor does any human rights treaty reference climate change. The next climate agreement, recently drafted in Lima and to be signed in Paris next year, provides an important opportunity to make a clear, explicit connection between climate change and human rights through the incorporation of specific language. During an event at the UN Climate Summit, Gustavo Alanís, president of the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), cited the human rights to food and water, explaining that rising temperatures reduce crop productivity and decrease the availability of clean water. This relationship highlights the material vulnerability of many people's living conditions. Effective adaptation measures are needed to ensure that conditions do not worsen, added Manuel Pulgar Videl, Peru's Minister of the Environment and President of the COP20. María José Veramendia Villa, an AIDA senior attorney, recalled that the impacts of climate change on human rights were addressed in a 2009 report prepared by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report said that climate change will affect the right to life by causing increased hunger and malnutrition, and that related diseases would have consequences for the growth and development of children. Following the report, the UN Human Rights Commission issued a resolution that stated, "the impacts related to climate change have a series of implications, both direct and indirect, on the full enjoyment of human rights…" Agreements signed at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico provide that the State Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change "must fully respect human rights" in all climate change related activities. Given this background, added Veramendi Villa, a challenge for 2015 is to ensure that the new climate agreement includes specific and comprehensive language on the obligation of States to protect, promote, and respect human rights in all its climate actions. "If this happens," she explained, "we will have a binding international instrument that will guide the States' climate actions, and help them to implement the obligations they already have on human rights." For more information from COP20 and to post comments, visit our interactive blog at aida-cop.org

December 11 2014 Fracking

COP20: Fracking, an experimental, hazardous and contaminating technique

During an event at the People’s Summit on Climate Change, a parallel event to the COP20 in Lima, fracking took center stage. Activists expressed their central argument about the controversial oil extraction method: that fracking is an experimental technique that involves serious risks to health and the environment, including the worsening of climate change. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is an extreme method of exploration and/or exploitation of unconventional oil and gas (as both shale and tight gas). Special drills bore holes vertically into the subsoil and then horizontally into rock formations. Drill teams inject a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure to fracture the rock, releasing trapped gas and oil. "These chemicals have unknown effects due to contact with elements of the subsoil," explained Eduardo D’elia, petroleum engineer and member of the Citizens Environmental Assembly of Rio Gallegos in Argentina, during Fracking: A Challenge for Latin America, organized by the Heinrich Böll Foundation in the People's Summit. "The fracturing of horizontal wells is highly complex and unpredictable, so this makes fracking an experimental technique." Fracking affects people in a number of unfortunate ways: the massive use of water (from 9 to 29 million liters of water per well) reduces availability of fresh water for drinking water, agriculture or other needs; fracking fluids can contaminate surface and groundwaters; the chemicals used may cause cancer, allergies, and malformation, among other diseases. Aroa de la Fuente, member of FUNDAR and the Mexican Alliance Against Fracking, made it clear that fracking is not an option for confronting climate change. She said that in hydraulic fracturing projects, up to eight percent of the natural gas (methane) produced escapes directly into the atmosphere. And methane holds a global warming potential 25 times that of carbon dioxide. "In 20 years, the climate impact of electricity generated by fracked gas would be higher than 20 percent of the impact of coal-fired electric generation," she stated. Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico, among other Latin American countries, are intending to develop fracking broadly in coming years. Attendees at the People’s Summit wondered, "What can people do in the face of these hazardous plans?" Ariel Perez Castellón, an attorney with AIDA, emphasized the existence of legal tools designed to safeguard human health and the environment against fracking. The first, he said, is the precautionary principle, which is recognized in international law and which States and civil society should apply to address the threats of fracking. This principle establishes that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation". [1] This means that when in doubt about the occurrence, scope, or magnitude of severe environmental damage, States must take proactive and effective measures to prevent such damage. "Based in this principle, States have three obligations related to fracking: to generate broad, clear and impartial information regarding this activity and its impacts; to protect the environment and the people with a moratorium on fracking activities, until there is a demonstration of its innocuous development; and to promote opportunities for public debate about fracking", Pérez said. Attendees in Lima stressed that social mobilization is key in supporting the legal strategies against fracking. Various civil society organizations within Latin American spoke of their efforts to promote public discussions, disseminate information in their communities, and take the necessary steps to prevent the damage that fracking may bring to their countries. In recent times, these organizations are starting to share experiences and articulate advocacy efforts within the region. On the occasion of COP20, 80 Latin American organizations issued a statement (text in Spanish) warning that fracking will have disastrous consequences for the environment and the population of Latin America, and that it will worsen climate change. The organizations asked their national governments to "prevent the use of hydraulic fracturing in their territory under the state obligation of the principle of precaution, and ensure the protection of fresh water resources and their peoples' health." [1] Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development of 1992, principle 15

December 03 2014 Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

COP 20: And what about the effective use of climate finance?

The amount of money required to confront the effects of extreme climate changes is much larger than currently sought in global negotiations. Clearly more resources are needed, but it is also important to track the effective use of climate finance now being mobipzed. "We must recognize the funding gap for adaptation programming," said Annaka Peterson Carvalho of Oxfam America. She was a panel member Wednesday at a COP20 event entitled, A fair and accountable cpmate finance regime: Confronting the contentious issues. In her opinion, we must determine, on the basis of science, the real costs that countries must rightfully bear, and we need a responsible finance system to determine how much money each country needs and where it will come from. Sandra Guzmán, General Coordinator of the Cpmate Finance Group of Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), agreed that while it is necessary to have more resources for the fight, it’s also necessary to use them effectively. "It’s not just about asking for more money," she said. "We must change priorities at a national level to distribute funding by reassigning it to activities that allow for reduced emissions." Guzmán explained that the Climate Finance Group has developed a methodology to know how much money each country receives, and how much they spend in deapng with climate change. Their analysis encompasses many activities, including some that are not traditionally labeled as relating to cpmate change. She identified five challenges in the task of tracking the use of cpmate finance: Transparency and access to information; Definition of the criteria of climate finance; Institutional structure and communication between different institutions; Public participation in the evaluation of projects; and Better methodology for monitoring, reporting, and verification to analyze the effective use of the money. The experience of the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (iCSC) in the Philippines demonstrates that accountability on climate finance is “everybody’s business,” according its Executive Director, Red Constantino. The Institute tracks not only committed funding for adaptation, but also how it is channeled locally. The work that Constantino has done has enabled him to identify difficulties in apgning funding with the real needs and priorities of vulnerable communities; provide limited opportunities to involve communities in decision-making about adaptation; and understand that while money flows, it is not necessarily used efficiently or completely. Andrea Rodríguez, senior lawyer at AIDA, also referred to the importance of ensuring that climate change programs and projects meet the requirements of individual countries and are directed by them. To be effective, she said, the new climate regime must find ways for countries to monitor climate finance, learn from the experiences of other institutions, and reallocate their resources to be effective. "Climate finance responds to a specific need, it is not general assistance for development," Rodríguez added. "Public participation is central to the process, and if we know how much money we need and how to use it, we will know how much to ask for in global negotiations. In this sense, Constantino highlighted coordination between local and national levels, between governments and civil society. For more information from COP20 and to post comments, visit our interactive blog at aida-cop.org

December 02 2014 Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change

COP20: Protecting human rights in all climate actions

By Víctor Quintanilla, AIDA Communications Coordinator, @vico_qs All countries have an obligation to fight climate change. But they must also protect the human rights of their people. The fact that officially recognized clean development projects aimed at combating climate change often cause grave human rights violations was discussed Tuesday at a side event at the COP in Lima. Co-hosted by AIDA, the p for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and Carbon Market Watch, the side event asked the question, "How can the lessons learned from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) influence the design of climate finance mechanisms?" Máximo Ba Tiul stood before the room and spoke of the grave impacts of the Santa Rita hydroelectric project, which was registered under the CDMof the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A representative of the Tezulutlán Indigenous Council of Guatemala, Ba Tiul explained that the so-called clean development project has caused human rights violations, including the death of children, in at least 20 surrounding communities. Implementation of hydroelectric projects, Ba Tiul explained, often imply human rights violations: Shirking international standards, Santa Rita was approved without consulting or obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of affected populations. Hugh Sealy, President of the Board of the CDM, replied that he was "disturbed" to hear that a CDM-registered project had allegedly violated human rights. While hydroelectric projects such as Santa Rita are promoted as clean energy solutions to climate change, scientific evidence has shown that large dams, particularly those in the tropics, release large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 to 40 times more potent than carbon dioxide. "All countries must respect human rights," Niranjali Amerasinghe, director of CIEL’s Climate & Energy Program, said during the event. He explained that the connection between climate change and human rights, or, more precisely, the impact of one on the other, has been recognized in previous climate agreements, such as those drafted at COP16 in Cancun, Mexico. Amerasinghe advocated for consistency within the Convention in terms of applying social and environmental safeguards. Andrea Rodriguez, an AIDA senior attorney, spoke of the importance of implementing such safeguards, particularly with respect to the Green Climate Fund. The Fund must adopt the strictest standards in the design of their social and environmental safeguards, she said. Only in this way can they ensure that projects financed won’t cause harm to the environment or violate human rights. Rodriguez said that the best international standards must be applied to projects at every phase of development, along with ongoing evaluation to learn from mistakes and to guide the choice of tools that have proved most effective. During its first three years of operation, the Green Climate Fund will use the standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which Rodriguez considers "insufficient for preventing harm." Ba Tiul noted that the challenge is for all United Nations entities to honor differences and respect human rights. Amerasinghe added that projects registered with mechanisms like the CDM should be monitored throughout implementation, not just during the initial consultation and approval phases. And, faced with allegations of human rights abuses, he said, authorities must not hesitate to undertake an investigation. At the conclusion of the event, Sealy thanked the participants for the information provided and promised to do everything possible to strengthen the Clean Development Mechanism consultation process. For more information from COP20 and to post comments, visit our interactive blog at aida-cop.org

December 01 2014 Accountability and Transparency, Climate Change, Climate Change

COP20: It’s All On Our Shoulders Now

ECO/Climate Action Network We are very happy to be in Lima, and ECO is ready to get right to it. COP20 needs to deliver on enough confidence building measures to ensure climate action and a successful outcome from next year’s COP in Paris. The wheels have already started turning: The Peruvian COP presidency has shown commitment and substantial effort to guide the negotiations onto the right track. The US-China climate announcement, on the heels of similar action by the EU, has injected positive impetus into the political aspect of the negotiations – and is pressuring significant laggards and defaulters, who can no longer claim inaction by the G2 to wiggle out of doing their part. The IPCC is shining clear light on the latest science, pointing urgently to deeper climate action as well as the fast-rising costs of delay. The GCF is seeing some light at the dim end of the climate finance tunnel with pledges at $9.7 billion for initial capitalization – though that’s welcome, it must not distract from the pressing need to scale up finance within the new agreement. Are these announcements and developments enough to create the right confidence building measures across countries, cement the foundation for greater political will and achieve success in Paris? ECO surely hopes so – but let’s be clear, this opening round of mitigation announcements must not be a resting place but rather a starting point that Parties will broaden and expand. The agreement in Paris is going to rest on three key decisions here in Lima: the elements of the 2015 agreement, the iNDC upfront information requirements, and ways to ramp up pre-2020 ambition. These outcomes are going to define the contours of the new global agreement. So let’s look a bit closer. The elements text must include a long-term goal of phasing out all fossil fuel emissions and phasing in 100% renewable energy as early as possible, but not later than 2050. We also expect to see goals for public finance along with a robust and honest MRV regime for them; a global adaptation goal that enables adaptation to be mainstreamed; and a strengthened two-year work plan to immediately operationalize the Warsaw loss and damage mechanism and to ensure that loss and damage has its appropriate place within the 2015 agreement. Not so easy, right? Well, don’t worry, as always, ECO is here to help. And with that in mind, we also look forward to seeing the inclusion of an enhanced role for civil society in the text. To be clear, we have high hopes for the iNDC text. The iNDCs should include mitigation with regular 5-year cycles of contributions, starting with countries putting forward their contributions for the 2020-2025 cycle, provision and mobilization of finance as part of countries’ fair share of the global effort, and voluntary adaptation contributions. Not only that, all current and future contributions must undergo a sound, robust equity and adequacy assessment phase to help drive up ambition and ensure that low ambition is not locked in by any country. The first round of iNDCs will set the tone for the future. We’ve really got to get it right on this one – it is no exaggeration to say the future of human civilization is weighing on all our shoulders. And every step counts. The effectiveness of the post-2020 agreement to be reached in Paris next year depends on the progress we make between now and 2020. On pre-2020 finance it’s simple: developed countries have to present a credible roadmap on how they are going to meet their $100 billion promise, deliver additional pledges to the GCF (this means you, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Iceland and Ireland) and also not let the Adaptation Fund dry up. We need finance and a full set of means of implementation and support to unlock untapped potential in countries and sectors that can deliver greater ambition for reducing emissions, as well as assisting vulnerable communities that are already facing impacts from climate change. On mitigation, what has the latest IPCC report taught us? All countries need to increase their pre-2020 mitigation commitments, and deliver on them through real mitigation actions. As session after session has shown, climate impacts do not stick to UNFCCC timelines; the atmosphere sees what we do, not what we think. The pressure is on but ECO is confident we can respond. We’ve got a lot of work to do, and there is no time to lose. Archivado en: English

November 30 2014 Climate Change, Human Rights

Welcome!

Each year, representatives of a variety of nations unite with one purpose: to spur international action to combat climate change. However, in the 20 years that these meetings have been taking place, the international community has yet to reach a definitive agreement. The topics covered are many, but the most important demands are that the nations commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, and that they assist in the creation of a joint economic fund that will help to mitigate the impacts of climate change in developing countries. With the purpose of informing and representing civil society, AIDA‘s team will be present in Lima to take part in the activities of the COP20 and the People’s Summit. We will be closely following the themes of climate finance, the Green Climate Fund, human rights and climate change, dams and fracking. Thank you for following along with us! Archivado en: English, Noticias