Blog
When the energy transition isn’t just: The case of Quintero and Puchuncaví in Chile
By Cristina Lux and Florencia Ortúzar * The energy transition in Chile will inevitably occur. In fact, it is already underway. The country doesn’t have large deposits of fossil fuels, but it does have abundant renewable energy resources. It only makes sense, then, that prior dependence on coal should naturally shift to the sun, wind and other renewable sources. Today, after decades of struggle by local communities, the closure of Chile’s original 28 coal-fired thermoelectric power plants is underway as part of the Decarbonization Plan promoted by the government in 2019. Eight have closed, six others have a future closure date, six more are in the process of establishing one, and eight do not yet have a closure plan. If the government and private actors deliver as promised, the thermoelectric plants as a whole should close before 2040, freeing Chile from the energy derived from burning coal. But the history of coal dependence will undoubtedly leave a deep mark. For many years, Chile obtained more than 50 percent of its energy from thermoelectric plants, all located in just five locations, known as "sacrifice zones." The people who live in those areas have long suffered at the expense of generating electricity for the rest of the country. The story of one of the most emblematic of Chile’s sacrifice zones, the bay of Quintero and Puchuncaví, demonstrates why the transition not only must occur, but why it has to be just. A beautiful seaside resort battered by pollution With a little more than 40 thousand inhabitants, the bay of Quintero and Puchuncaví is located two hours by road from the country's capital. The families there have historically lived from agriculture, artisanal fishing and tourism, ways of life that have been extinguished by the relentless advance of intensive industrial activity. Photo: Claudia Pool / @claudiapool_foto / www.claudiapool.com Today, the site is home to more than 30 different companies: a coal-fired thermoelectric complex, gas-fired thermoelectric plants, a copper refinery and a petroleum refinery, a regasification port, a cement plant, ports that receive coal and other fuels, as well as coal and ash storage centers, among others. Public information regarding the emissions of this mix of companies is deficient and the lack of regulations governing them is abysmal. In fact, only a few pollutants are regulated. The rest are not even measured, despite the fact that several are dangerous to human health. And so, paradoxically, the monitoring stations show normal levels as people are being intoxicated in the streets and schools. In the bay there are often mass poisonings of adults and youth, many of whom end up in the hospital. In these cases, schools are closed, but businesses are not, and the wind is monitored to activate protocols in case of poor ventilation. The blame is placed on the lack of wind instead of on those responsible for the pollution. It’s also common to see coal deposits on the beaches, which stain the sands. In 2022 alone, more than 100 episodes were recorded. It’s alarming how the situation affects local children, who are particularly vulnerable to pollution due to its effects on human development. The impact on women is also disproportionate, as they are the first to be forced to leave their jobs to care for sick family members since they bear the brunt of the care work. Things have not been done well in this beautiful coastal area. Today, new projects and the expansion of industrial operations continue to be approved. But the community is rising up, demanding a truce for this area. It is time to move towards ecological restoration in Quintero and Puchuncaví. Signs of hope Some recent events are giving hope that things could improve in the bay and that this area, which for years has been sacrificed in favor of the rest of the country, could once again show its beautiful beaches and wonderful fishing and agricultural resources to Chile and the world. Although the situation is not yet cause for celebration, some things seem to be moving in the right direction. One important step was the environmental damages lawsuit filed in 2016 by local communities against the government and all the companies in the industrial corridor. The process has been long, but a final judgment is expected soon. Meanwhile, in 2019, the Supreme Court resolved several appeals for protection for episodes of mass intoxications, giving reason to the communities and issuing a landmark ruling, perhaps the most important on environmental matters in Chile. The ruling orders the State to comply with 15 measures to identify the sources of contamination and repair the environmental situation in the area. Sadly, this ruling has not yet been properly implemented. Moving forward, the Supreme Court recently issued three rulings that refer to non-compliance with the 2019 ruling and provide tools to enforce compliance. Also, two of the four thermoelectric plants of the U.S.-owned AES Andes have closed operations in the bay. Two remain. Finally, in May, after 58 years of operation, the furnaces and boiler of the Ventanas Smelter were finally shut down. Thus, the icon of pollution in the area—a 158-meter chimney that consistently expelled pollutants—ceased to operate. The search for justice is far from over Despite the good signs, there is still no secure future for the people of Quintero and Puchuncaví. That’s why we must continue to demand justice and a transition that protects the most vulnerable people. Photo: Claudia Pool / @claudiapool_foto / www.claudiapool.com Although two of the four AES Andes thermoelectric plants operating in the bay have closed, the companies that owned them have been granted "strategic reserve status," whereby they are paid to remain available to operate again if required. On the other hand, although the copper smelter of the state-owned Corporación Nacional del Cobre closed, the refinery continues to operate in the area. There was a relocation plan for the workers, but no remediation plan for the communities that for almost six decades breathed the toxic waste of that industry. In addition, projects continue to be approved without the participation of the communities. This is the case of the Aconcagua desalination plant, which intends to desalinate water to transport it through subway pipes over 100 km to supply the Angloamerican mining company. Last but not least, decarbonization in Chile seems to bring an increase in the use of gas, which has been falsely labeled as a "transition fuel." It’s expected that gas activity in the area—which hosts one of the country's two LNG (liquefied natural gas) regasification ports—could intensify and, with it, so could its environmental impacts. Chile has the opportunity to set an example of just transition Chile, located at the end of the continent, has the opportunity to do things right. There are indications they’re moving in the right direction; the only thing missing is the political will to change course. The region of Quintero and Puchuncaví deserves the opportunity to shine again and to reach its full potential as a colorful coastal town and seaside resort with an identity rooted in agriculture, tourism and artisanal fishing. In this case, a truly just transition must include the closure of polluting companies that are making people sick. But it must also involve the participation of those people affected, putting the respect of their human rights at the forefront—a respect that was so diminished over the last six decades. The injustice that has weighed on the territory and its inhabitants must be recognized—establishing reparation mechanisms, ensuring non-repetition, and involving the people themselves in the environmental recovery of the area. Only in this way will the communities recover their capacity for agency—that power to decide and to be part of the decisions that affect them—which was taken away from them so many years ago. *Cristina Lux is an attorney with AIDA's Climate Program and Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney with AIDA.
Read more
Climate finance: Questions and answers
The climate crisis knows no borders. It impacts people, ecosystems and species around the world. Addressing this global crisis requires profound and innovative transformations in all facets of human life: the production of energy, food and other goods; the design and construction of infrastructure; the use and management of terrestrial, marine and freshwater habitats; the transport of people and products; and more. These systemic changes demand financial resources and sound investments. This is why we hear time and again that addressing the climate crisis is costly and requires financing. Climate finance is a complicated topic, and so we offer you a glimpse of the basics. What do we mean by climate finance? The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) describes climate finance as the type of local, national or transnational finance used to support and implement climate change mitigation and adaptation actions with financial resources from public, private and alternative sources. These resources are defined as "new and additional" and cannot include those previously committed, for example, for official development assistance. To better understand this definition, we can point out that climate finance is captured and used to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance carbon sinks, or seeks to reduce vulnerability, as well as to maintain and increase the resilience of human and ecological systems to the negative effects of the climate crisis. Why is climate finance important? To echo UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell's message at the Sustainable Investment Forum, "We cannot achieve our climate goals without finance. Whether we are talking about transitioning to renewable energy, improving energy efficiency or protecting vulnerable communities from the effects of climate change, all of these efforts require significant investment." Climate finance impacts everything from national policies to changes occurring at the local level that make a concrete difference in people's lives. "Climate finance is ultimately about what we as societies value: the world we want to live in and the lives and hardships we can save by channeling our money into building resilience to the ravages of climate change," Stiell said in his speech. Financing by and for whom? The impacts of the climate crisis are inversely proportional to the weight of responsibility, in that the countries historically responsible for the highest levels of GHG emissions are often the least affected. This is why the UNFCCC advocates that developed countries, those with the most economic resources, should financially assist the least developed and most vulnerable countries. This is what the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" established in the Convention is all about. On the other hand, the Paris Agreement—a legally binding international treaty in force since November 2016—reaffirms the obligation of developed countries in addition to promoting, for the first time, voluntary contributions from other States. It further provides that developed countries should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, taking into account the important role of public funds, as well as the needs and priorities of developing countries. It’s key to note that this mobilization of finance should represent a progression from previous efforts. What climate finance mechanisms exist? Under the UNFCCC, there are three main mechanisms for climate finance to reach nations, created for different purposes and with different scopes: Global Environment Facility (GEF): Grants financial resources to developing countries or countries with economies in transition to meet the objectives of international environmental conventions and agreements. It also manages the Special Climate Change Fund and the Least Developed Countries Fund. Adaptation Fund: Created as a financial instrument for adaptation and resilience in those countries that are part of the Kyoto Protocol. Green Climate Fund (GCF): Created with the objective of financing mitigation and adaptation programs and projects aimed at low-emission and climate-resilient development. It is the main multilateral climate finance entity worldwide. How much financing do we need? In the framework of the UN climate negotiations in 2009, developed countries committed to transfer $100 billion per year to developing countries by 2020 (target extended to 2025 in the Paris Agreement). But this amount has not been achieved. For example, in 2016 they only reached $58.5 billion and, although the amount increased significantly for 2019, they only reached $79.6 billion. In that sense, to meet the goal of net zero emissions by 2050, the Climate Policy Initiative organization estimates that global financing of $4.35 trillion is needed by 2030 (when the 2020 estimate was only $632 billion dollars). What are the main challenges of climate finance today? The main challenge, as we have seen, is the need for a substantial increase in the flow of finance. Another key challenge is to measure and track this type of finance, which is not subject to a common universal definition. Along the same lines, given that developed countries’ commitment to the UN does not include official guidelines on what activities count as climate finance, it’s difficult to ensure that money is not double-counted or that it goes to efforts that will actually help reduce global warming and its impacts. There is also the need to balance the allocation of funds more equitably between mitigation and adaptation activities, as well as those related to loss and damage already suffered by communities around the world. In 2020, 90 percent of global funding went to mitigation, while only 7 percent to adaptation projects and 3 percent to dual activities. On the other hand, it’s important that the financing channeled does not result in human or environmental impacts, as often happens when there are large investments in which adequate consultation and participation processes are not implemented. An energy project, however renewable and clean it may be, can accentuate inequalities and vulnerabilities if it is poorly planned or if it is designed without the participation of local communities. Finally, it should be considered that, although a lot of money is allocated to address the climate crisis, at the same time, businesses that promote dependence on fossil fuels, and that keep us in a predatory and unjust economic system that perpetuates extractivism as a mode of development, continue to increase around the world. This, of course, counteracts the progress we can make in favor of the environment and communities. What is clear is that a specific annual amount of climate finance is not enough; what we really need at this point is that all the money mobilized contributes to the regeneration of the planet and to resolving the environmental and climate crisis, not exacerbating it. At AIDA we monitor the climate finance coming to the region because we understand how important it is to increase the possibilities of building a future where we can live well and in harmony with the environment. We also understand that the problems often caused by poorly designed financing are due to a lack of connection between the territories that suffer the impacts of the climate crisis, and the decision-making spaces where projects are proposed to overcome them. In this sense, AIDA seeks to build a bridge between these two worlds, motivating organizations in the region to be active, to follow up on projects and to participate in decisions. Only in this way can we ensure that scarce climate funds not only exist, but also reach their full potential towards the paradigm shift we all need. Join the "Observatory of the Green Climate Fund for Latin America and the Caribbean", a joint effort to better monitor the world's largest climate fund.
Read more
The dilemmas of a just energy transition
Humanity has an urgent task ahead: to transform energy systems without continuing to fill the atmosphere with warming gasses and pollutants. This is a fact proven by science. Failure to do so means that our planet will no longer be a safe haven for the the many species that call it home. The problem is that the necessary transition is far from simple. In addition to the difficulty of cutting dependence on the fossil fuels that have dominated for centuries, it turns out that not just any transition will do. It’s not just a matter of stopping to burn these fuels, we must also consider other ways to leave behind the development model that has for centuries been separating humanity into winners and losers, while violating human rights. What is a JUST transition? There is currently no single concept of what it means for the energy transition to be just. At AIDA, we believe that to be just, the transition must be equitable and inclusive, recognizing that the impacts of climate change and the necessary transition are not evenly distributed. Thus, certain groups—such as those working in traditional energy sectors and/or marginalized communities—may be disproportionately affected. To get a glimpse of the problem, it’s worth understanding that humanity today is suffering from a myriad of crises that affect the lives and well being of people, especially those in the most vulnerable conditions. These crises include the climate emergency, pollution, biodiversity loss, global pandemics and democratic crises. And at the heart of it all is social inequality, that widening gap between rich and poor that generates disparities in all aspects of life, including access to health, education and economic opportunities. These crises are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Responses to one can help solve others, but they can also aggravate them. For example, when transitioning to clean energy sources not only helps combat climate change, but also reduces air pollution and improves public health, we are solving two problems in one. An example in the opposite direction occurs when a rapid and unchecked transition to electric mobility results in the aggressive extraction of rare minerals such as lithium, which comes from fragile ecosystems on which local communities depend. Where do we start? To ensure a just transition, we must be guided by the principles of justice, equity and inclusion, and ensure that the most vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected. As Naomi Klein said in her book This Changes Everything, to address the climate crisis we must understand that climate change is not only an environmental, but also a human rights issue. A just energy transition requires not only ending the burning of fossil fuels, but also addressing economic inequality, including a gender perspective, strengthening social safety nets, protecting workers' rights, respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, empowering communities to participate in decisions that affect their lives, and making reparations to those who have been affected by the current economic and energy model. What role can litigation play? Litigation is already moving in step with the dilemmas of the energy transition. We have seen an increase in lawsuits that appear to go against the energy transition, such as those challenging renewable energy generation projects, or pro-transition regulations, or otherwise hindering the transition. But can it be said that these are always "regressive" lawsuits? A lawsuit to challenge the environmental permitting of a wind generation venture might be blocking the transition, but it is not necessarily regressive. If it is a mega-project, for example, owned by a transnational company that will export all the energy generated without benefiting local communities, and if it intends to be located on indigenous lands without local participation, then it is a project aimed at an "unjust transition" that does not serve us because it reinforces the same model, the one that has us so badly on track. The report Litigation for a Just Transition in Latin America, published in January 2023 by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, and translated into Spanish by AIDA, refers to this type of case. The report questions the purpose of just transition litigation, asking whether it promotes or obstructs an energy and climate-resilient transition. In this regard, the authors conclude that just transition litigation cannot be fully characterized as regressive or non-regressive in relation to the transition. As such, they consider that just transition litigation should be seen and understood as a new category of climate litigation, with its own diverse rationale. The issue allows us to reflect on the complexity of the longed-for transition. Faced with this type of dilemma, in AIDA we generally choose to analyze each case, without marrying a dogmatic position. But a constant and, in this sense, valuable starting point is that everything that is carried out in favor of the energy transition—whether projects, policies or actions—must have a strong and decisive focus on the environment, human rights and gender. Without that there is no justice; and without justice there is no remedy or solution. So we believe that litigation does have a role to play, not only in making the transition happen, but also in making it just.
Read more
Offshore drilling: Resisting a growing threat in Latin America
Offshore drilling is expanding in Latin America and the Caribbean as part of a government and business strategy implying the continuity of the oil and gas industry, despite the role of fossil fuels in aggravating the global climate crisis. The advance of offshore hydrocarbon activity also risks serious damage to the ocean—our planet's greatest climate regulator—the vast biodiversity it harbors, and to the livelihoods of coastal communities. Worldwide, offshore areas represent 30 percent of total hydrocarbon reserves and are concentrated in surface waters up to 125 meters deep, according to academic research. The United States, Mexico, Norway, Brazil and Saudi Arabia are the main producers, accounting for 43 percent of the world total. The current expansion of drilling in Latin America is tending towards extremes with greater environmental complexity, in ultra-deep waters, with wells that exceed 1,500 meters in depth. The authorization of new offshore drilling projects deepens dependence on the use of fossil fuels, representing a step backwards in global efforts to avoid global warming with catastrophic consequences. It also constitutes an obstacle in the transition towards sustainable energy systems, based on renewable sources and respectful of people and the environment. However, there are cases in the region that demonstrate a growing collective resistance to the blind advance of offshore drilling projects. With the help of strategic litigation and citizen participation, these cases are creating an opportunity to set important precedents at national and international levels for the protection of the environment, the climate and human rights from the damages caused by offshore drilling. In defense of the Argentine Sea In May 2019, the Energy Secretariat awarded several companies a total of 18 areas (225,000 square kilometers of surface area) in the Argentine Sea—a sector of the Southwest Atlantic Ocean—for the search for gas and oil. In December 2021, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development authorized a seismic exploration project in three of the awarded areas, located off the coast of the province of Buenos Aires, about 300 kilometers from the beaches of Mar del Plata, one of the country’s most popular beaches. The project includes the drilling of an exploratory well, and is being managed by the Norwegian state-owned company Equinor, the Argentine YPF and the Anglo-Dutch Shell. The governmental decision has been questioned and rejected by the scientific community and by the assemblies of several coastal cities. In January 2022–in view of the threats to biodiversity, climate and local economies posed by the prospecting and possible exploitation of hydrocarbons off the Argentine coast—scientific groups and environmental organizations filed a class action lawsuit before a Federal Court in Mar del Plata against the Argentine State, the Ministry of Environment and the Secretariat of Energy, requesting the nullity of the resolution authorizing the seismic exploration project and the process by which the 18 areas of the Argentine Sea were licensed off. The lawsuit was followed by protests in the streets and other actions, which have swelled into an ongoing legal battle. In February 2022, the court temporarily suspended seismic exploration through a precautionary measure. However, in December of that year, the Court of Appeals lifted that suspension. This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court of Justice, which has not yet ruled on the matter. Moratorium at risk in Belize In October 2017, the government of Belize established by law a permanent moratorium on oil activity in its maritime zone. This occurred after an informal referendum organized by environmental groups in 2012 resulted in 96 percent of participants voting against oil activity; and after the global outrage generated in October 2016 by the government's decision to allow seismic testing for oil exploration just one kilometer away from the Belize Barrier Reef, one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. However, offshore hydrocarbon exploitation is still a risk for the Caribbean nation. In 2022, the Prime Minister expressed the government's willingness to allow seismic exploration without lifting the moratorium. In view of this, organizations dedicated to environmental protection seek to reinforce the prohibition by forcing a referendum on whether or not to lift the moratorium. Court victory in Guyana In Guyana, since the early 2000s there have been reports of discoveries of large offshore oil and gas reserves in the so-called Guyana Suriname Basin. Guyana is the South American nation with the most oil reserves discovered in the last decade, and has decided to expand its gas reserves as well. Offshore gas production in Guyana has also been the subject of controversy due to environmental and safety concerns. Recently, a court decision rejected an attempt by multinational ExxonMobil and the government to dissolve the written commitment that obliges the company to bear all cleanup, restoration, and damage compensation costs of any oil spill in its offshore operations. The judge in the case found that ExxonMobil is in violation of the permit issued to the Liza 1 project—which requires financial guarantees in case of oil spills and accidents—and that Guyana's environmental regulators are not enforcing the terms of the permit. Biodiversity and climate defense Carrying out offshore hydrocarbon exploration and/or exploitation projects may involve the violation of international commitments, including those undertaken by States under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Migratory Species. Offshore seismic exploration generates sounds at levels far in excess of natural levels. Many of these overlap with the hearing and vocalization ranges of marine species (mammals, turtles, fish, diving birds and others). This can cause serious injuries, long-term physical and physiological effects and even death, explains Pablo García Borbroglu, expert and leader of the Global Penguin Society, while affirming that it can also lead to a reduction in fishing activity. The impacts of the drilling are not limited to the exploited area, but affect the entire sea and all the species that inhabit it, aggravating the precarious situation of a large number of already threatened or endangered species. The expansion of the offshore industry also implies nations are failing to comply with global commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, or adopt measures aimed at the management of key ecosystems such as marine areas, both contained in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The cases described above, which bring together diverse voices under a common cause, have the potential to establish precedents that will force States to take responsibility for the possible environmental and social consequences of endorsing harmful industries such as offshore hydrocarbons. They are key opportunities for courts and other decision-making bodies to set exemplary precedents for the hemisphere in the protection of the environment and human rights, especially in the face of the global climate and biodiversity crises.
Read more
Biodiversity and indigenous languages: one heritage to protect
When we lose words, we don’t know how to name what we see. And if what we see disappears, what do we do with the words we once used? "Words that are not used, are forgotten," wrote young essayist Laura Sofía Rivero. "We say trees because we can't pinpoint what stands before us among all that vast category." Why do we lose these words? There are complex political, historical, economic and educational reasons that have led to what linguist Yásnaya Aguilar of the Ayuujk people in Oaxaca, Mexico has called a "massive death" of languages. Today, species and lifestyles that deserve unique words are disappearing and we are also losing the people who have long known those words. The loss of some is related to the loss of others. The rate at which species and languages are disappearing has accelerated since the beginning of the 20th century. Although there is a whole scientific discussion to agree on a rate of annual biodiversity loss, as there are many variables that are left out, there exists great consensus that we are entering a sixth mass extinction. The same could be said of languages. UNESCO estimates that a language becomes extinct every two weeks—implying that 3,000 languages, mostly indigenous, could be lost before the end of this century. And this is where biodiversity and linguistic diversity meet. In the most biodiverse areas of the planet, 70 percent of existing languages are spoken: 4,800 of the 6,900 spoken worldwide. In Latin America, 80 percent of natural areas encompass or converge with territories inhabited by indigenous peoples. One fact, as surprising as it is alarming, is that 3,202 languages—nearly half of all existing languages—are located in just 35 biodiversity hotspots, defined as places that require our immediate attention and action. A biodiversity hotspot is a region that is home to at least 1,500 species and has lost at least 70 percent of its habitat. Habitat destruction unleashes a chain of impacts ranging from damage to ecological cycles to drastic changes in the lives of those who inhabit these areas. And to do anything, we need to understand the interconnectedness of all the elements that make up biocultural richness. WHAT ARE WE LOSING WITH LANGUAGES? Words are born because there are fruits, plants, and animals that need to be named. There is a wealth of sounds and rules, where abundance of life is the norm and there are different lifestyles and social organization. Yásnaya Aguilar** has an example for this: in Matlatzinca—spoken in central Mexico—there are four different "we's", in Mixe (Ayuujk) there are two and in Spanish, one. The biodiversity and richness of words is easy to understand when we talk about food, as happens with corn, the essential and basic grain in the Mesoamerican diet. To begin with, the history of the word mahis, whose origin is Taino, a now extinct language spoken in what is now Haiti and the Dominican Republic, is revealing. Each stage of corn cultivation and the ways of processing it have merited their own name in the cultures of the continent. For example, in the Xhon variant of Zapotec*— a language spoken in the mountains of Oaxaca, in southern Mexico— the plant is referred to as xhu'a, corn is called za (when it is cut and fresh) and, when it is already on the cob, yez. In Nahuatl, the most widely spoken native language in Mexico, there is a similar designation. Food is an indicator of biodiversity loss. While there are more than 30 thousand species of plants that can be eaten, we only grow about 150 and almost all the calories consumed in the world come from just 30 species. Many languages have unique words for unique foods (species) that we have not even seen. Imagine what delicacies may be hidden in the 420 different languages spoken by the 522 indigenous peoples that inhabit Latin America. We are losing an understanding of the systems that sustain life on the planet. The recognition of indigenous peoples as guardians of biodiversity and generators of empirical knowledge is very recent in Western science and culture, which is not to say that it has not been valid before. Several sections of the most recent IPCC report include the importance of this knowledge as a key element for preservation and adaptation in the midst of the environmental crises we face. The knowledge exists, but for centuries we have refused to engage in dialogue with it. UNDERSTAND TO PROTECT A few years ago, researchers proposed studying biological, linguistic and cultural diversity together because of the close relationship between them. UNESCO has since introduced the term "biocultural diversity." But to protect it, we must understand its complexity. What benefits biodiversity in indigenous territories is absolutely necessary to face environmental crises. Data from the US Food and Agriculture Organization demonstrates that: Indigenous territories in Latin America store more carbon than all the forests of Indonesia or Congo, the countries with the most tropical forests after Brazil. Bolivia's Tacana and Leco Apolo indigenous territories are home to two-thirds of all their vertebrate species and 60 percent of their plant species. About 35 percent of Latin America's forests are found in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. More than 80 percent of the area inhabited by indigenous peoples is covered by forests. In general, indigenous territories report considerably lower rates of deforestation. Unfortunately, this is not the case for Brazil. The Amazon basin has been threatened for years by different extractivist activities, which were supported by the previous government. Particularly, where illegal mining has been installed, deforestation increased 129% since 2013. This situation does not stop there, it is reflected in the very serious humanitarian crisis that was recently declared for the Yanomami people or the situation of insecurity that was revealed with the murder in the middle of the Amazon of the peoples' rights activist Bruno Pereira and the journalist Dom Phillips. Thus, to speak of protecting biodiversity and linguistic diversity becomes an exercise in speaking in defense of territory and environmental defenders; of access to justice, training and the creation of policies that truly integrate and contemplate the complexity of diverse life systems. * Special thanks for the example in Xhon Zapotec to Ezequiel Miguel of the Proyecto Jaguar podcast that explores the identity elements of indigenous communities. ** To understand more about language preservation as an action for the defense of territory, I recommend reading Ää: manifiestos sobre la diversidad lingüística, by Yásnaya Aguilar, in Editorial Almadía.
Read more
Latin America's role in coal extraction and use
The extraction, transport, use and export of coal to generate electricity are major causes of both the climate crisis and systematic human rights violations. Forty-four percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels come from the use of coal, and the entire coal chain creates serious social, environmental and human rights impacts including forced displacement, water pollution and disease. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reiterated that, in order to avoid a catastrophic rise in the planet's average temperature, 80 percent of coal reserves must remain underground and that the use of coal for power generation must be phased out by 2050. However, according to the International Energy Agency, coal consumption reached 8 billion tons for the first time at the close of 2022, representing a 1.2 percent growth in global demand. These figures could rise further in 2023 and stabilize in the following two years, according to forecasts by the energy arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is partly because, to cope with gas shortages due to the war in Ukraine, Europe plans to relax emission controls regarding fuels like coal. This contradicts the Glasgow Climate Pact (2021) in which States agreed to gradually reduce its use. Latin America is no stranger to this situation. The region participates both in the burning of coal and in the extraction of the mineral which, after being exported, is used as a fossil energy source in other corners of the world. Colombia is the fifth largest coal exporter in the world and Mexico represents the fourteenth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Governments in the region therefore have a shared responsibility in global efforts to curb the exploitation and burning of coal in favor of energy systems based on non-conventional renewable sources that are sustainable over time and respectful of the environment and people. The story of coal in Latin America, and the pressing need for decarbonization, can be told by taking a closer look at the cases of Chile, Colombia and Mexico. Chile: progress and challenges of decarbonization In Chile, coal-fired power generation is the main cause of serious impacts on the ecosystems and the health of people living in so-called Sacrifice Zones. Historically, pollution from coal-fired power plants—there were, at one time, 28 in operation—has been concentrated in these geographic areas, resulting in toxic air and one of the country’s greatest socio-environmental problems. In recent years, the Andean nation has seen progress toward the decarbonization of its electricity sector. Between October 2021 and September 2022, 27.5 percent of Chile’s electricity came from solar and wind sources—representing the first time renewables surpassed coal use, which fell to 26.5 percent after being the main source for more than a decade. In 2019, the Chilean government committed to closing all coal plants by 2040. Since that public announcement, the timetable has been accelerating. The initial proposal was to close eight thermoelectric plants by 2024 and the remaining 20 by 2040. Now, 65 percent of the plants are scheduled to close by 2025. A bill approved in June 2021 by the Chamber of Deputies and Chamber of Deputies backed the change, which now awaits Senate endorsement. Despite the progress, some experts say that Chile’s roadmap may not be entirely feasible and could increase diesel use in the short term. There is also an imminent risk that rapid decarbonization becomes an excuse to increase the use of gas, ignoring its risks and its role in the country's greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the government has committed to carbon neutrality by 2050 based on scenarios that include an increased use of gas, but fail to recognize a greater use of diesel. Moving forward, it’s important that Chile’s decarbonization plan contains provisions to prevent continued and increased use of gas. On the contrary, a progressive plan must promote the implementation of renewable energies, encourage distributed generation and increase energy efficiency. A comprehensive plan must also include measures to adequately address energy poverty, and to relocate and reemploy people who lose their jobs due to the energy transition. Only then will it be truly responsible and fair. Colombia: the damages of coal mining and exports Colombia is the world's fifth largest coal exporter, with only 8 percent of the extracted coal being used for domestic consumption. Coal is the mineral that contributes most to the national economy, accounting for more than 80 percent of mining royalties. Yet poverty levels in the departments where 90 percent of the extraction takes place—La Guajira and Cesar—far exceed the national average. Much of Colombia’s coal extraction occurs in El Cerrejón, the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America. Its operation and growth over the last 40 years has destroyed rivers, streams and endemic ecosystems like the tropical dry forest; polluted the air, causing serious health consequences; and continuously violated the rights of Wayuu, Afro-descendant and rural populations in La Guajira. At the 27th UN Conference on Climate Change (COP27), the current Colombian government announced its intention to reduce the exploitation of fossil fuels and undertake a gradual energy transition. However, to date, the climate impacts of coal mining have not been evaluated, no legislation has been passed on the closure of mines currently in operation, and there’s a lack of certainty around the future growth (or not) of the 1,774 existing coal-focused titles or new investments in the sector. At the same time, Germany has increased its imports of Colombian coal due to the scarcity of gas in Europe. And purchases from the European market increased between January and November 2022, although Asia and the Americas are still the main buyers of the Colombian mineral. These exports demonstrate that the impacts of burning coal anywhere in the world are global—just as multinational corporations have a responsibility in the human rights violations derived from their coal mining in Colombia, the Colombian government has a responsibility in the aggravation of the climate crisis due to coal’s extraction and sale. Achieving a just transition in Colombia requires—among other things—building inclusive and participatory spaces, developing and implementing standards for the responsible closure of coal mines, and creating policies that allow for the adequate economic and social reconversion of those people most affected by the process. Mexico: the backlash of betting on coal and other fossil fuels In 2020, coal-fired power plants produced 10 percent of Mexico’s electricity and emitted 22 percent of the energy sector's total greenhouse gases, according to calculations by the Mexico Climate Initiative. Coal production and electricity generation from the mineral are concentrated in the state of Coahuila, where 99 percent of Mexico's coal is mined in just five municipalities. The origins and cultural identity of this region lie in coal mining, which dates back more than 200 years and still sustains the economy of 160,000 people. At the same time, the coal business has brought air and water pollution, disease and death. According to the historical record kept by victims' families, since coal mining began, more than 3,100 miners have died in the area. Two of the three coal-fired power plants operating in the country are in Coahuila; the other is in Guerrero and is fueled by imported coal. Those two plants consume almost half of the mineral extracted in the region and create more than 60 percent of the energy. Air pollution from burning coal causes around 430 deaths a year in Coahuila from respiratory diseases, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. According to 2019 data, Mexico is the 14th largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally—69.5 percent of its emissions come from the energy sector. Under the current government, energy policy shifted from expanding renewable energy projects to prioritizing the use of fossil fuels and promoting state dominance through the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and the state-owned petroleum company PEMEX. In fact, in 2022, coal-based energy production in Mexico increased 63 percent from the previous year. Environmental organizations have pointed out that "prioritizing electricity generation from CFE plants implies guaranteeing the burning of more coal and fuel oil indefinitely, and the development of new fossil gas infrastructure, which would tie us to US gas imports or the development of fracking projects in the north of the country with the consequent negative social and environmental impacts." It’s clear that Latin America has a role in the extraction and use of coal, as well as in its social and environmental impacts. For the region, a just transition towards other forms of energy generation must take into account the particularities of each country, be orderly and have a human rights and gender approach. This implies, among other things: considering the local communities that depend on the coal chain; designing policies to identify and manage the economic and social impacts of the transition; placing alternatives to coal at the center of the discussion; and developing broad and participatory decision-making processes with an active role for the urban and rural population. To achieve this, governments must take decisive action to ensure compliance with their climate and human rights commitments.
Read more
What happened at the World Water Conference 2023?
By Yeny Rodríguez, Claudia Velarde and Rosa Peña* The UN Water Conference 2023, held March 22-24 in New York, was organized in response to the need to evaluate the fulfillment of global goals and targets in the areas of water and sanitation, about which there is growing concern. AIDA participated in the Conference to position key messages from Latin America and the Caribbean that should be made visible and included in the discussions and that should now be part of the fulfillment of the Water Action Agenda, which was adopted at the global meeting. What follows is our take on the important event and what we hope will come of it in the future. The Advances An agenda for urgent action The Conference concluded with the adoption of the Water Action Agenda, a plan that included 689 commitments—collected from the official sessions and side events—as well as pledges of $300 billion dollars in financing to drive them forward. The commitments cover capacity building, data and monitoring systems, and improving infrastructure resilience, among other actions. The online platform hosting the Agenda will remain open for submissions. Overall, the Conference served as a global call to protect water and the water cycle as a global common good and a fundamental human right. The international community was also alerted to the need for urgent action to address the water crisis—which translates into shortages and droughts, contamination of water sources, degradation of strategic ecosystems and serious governance problems— which today particularly affects the world's indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants and rural communities. It’s important that the commitments made be incorporated into climate discussions, since the water crisis and the climate crisis are closely interconnected. The drive for fair water governance Innovative initiatives for the protection of ecosystems and for fair water governance were launched at the Conference. Water governance involves decision-making processes, as well as institutions and power relations that influence the flow, quality, use, availability and distribution of water (fresh or salt, surface or subsurface). One such initiative was the Transformative Water Pact, built collectively by a diverse group of more than 40 civil society organizations and academia, including AIDA. The Dutch NGO Both ENDS and the International Water Knowledge Institute (IHE-Delft) spearheaded the initiative. The Pact proposes an alternative vision of water management based on the principles of environmental justice, equity and care. It proposes frameworks for action and strategic priorities to guide decision-making. It is a response to the continued overexploitation and degradation of freshwater ecosystems, human rights violations, and the extreme power imbalances that characterize current water management around the world. The Inspiring The role of women and indigenous peoples The presence of civil society at the Conference was mostly female. This both revealed the intersectional nature of the inequalities that women experience on a daily basis in their struggles for water, and vindicated their important role in water management. Women possess and transmit traditional ecological knowledge for the care of water, lead struggles in its defense, and are more frequently exposed to risks and threats to their lives. Yet their voice is often disregarded, and they are not often invited to participate in environmental decision-making spaces. Similarly, important indigenous leaders from across Latin America and the world attended the Conference. This showed how much we have to learn from indigenous ancestral practices for the care of water, as well as the decisive role that indigenous and traditional communities play in the care of 80 percent of the planet's biodiversity and in the mitigation of the climate and water crises. The parallel events in which these actors participated made the world reconsider and reevaluate what the West has understood from science, making it clear that the ancestral knowledge system of indigenous peoples is specialized and sophisticated, and therefore must be prioritized in any policy of integrated and fair water management. The unity of civil society for water justice Although largely absent from official UN spaces, civil society had a strong and inspiring presence at the Conference. Organizations, activists and water advocates from around the world held important conversations and called for effective participation, with their own voice, in these spaces. "When you ask me about this conference, I can tell you that I am optimistic, not because of the results, but because of the spirit that was born thanks to you," said Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, to a room full of civil society members and water defenders. "The UN needs the energy and legitimacy that water defenders' movements are offering and I am sure it will come." Representatives of more than 500 organizations, indigenous peoples, social movements and water defenders presented the Water Justice Manifesto with the intention of amplifying the voices of those who are not being heard and insisting that fundamental issues be placed at the center of water policies at the global, regional, national and subnational levels. Although not scheduled, movement leaders were able to read the manifesto in an official space at the Conference, which allowed for its entry into the central dialogue. What was Missing Guarantees for the effective fulfillment of commitments Although the Conference was a unique and relevant opportunity to place water-related issues on the world agenda, there is still a long way to go toward achieving effective commitments from nations, as those included in the Water Action Agenda are not legally binding. In the near future, we need these commitments to be binding, and for there to be a follow-up mechanism, indicators to measure the progress made by States in fulfilling the Agenda and – why not? – a specialized international instrument for the protection of the human right to water and sanitation. A more open and inclusive participation in the dialogue Practically all sectors echoed the need for greater participation in official UN spaces and in future conferences. This requires a broad understanding of the water crisis and the intersectional movement needed to address it justly. It implies thinking about participation based on the inclusion of stakeholders on an equal footing for dialogue and, at the same time, recognizing the individuals, communities and peoples who hold the right to water, whose voice must be taken into account in a differential manner given their interdependent relationship with water. Recognition of the valuable role of water defenders In Latin America, defending rivers, lagoons, streams, aquifers and, in general, the right to water is a risky activity. Water is a natural resource in dispute. Those who work to safeguard it for human consumption or for its recognition as an enforceable right have for years been subjected to stigmatization, threats, persecution and attacks on their lives and integrity. The water agenda must recognize the important role of water defenders, as well as promote the creation of instruments and mechanisms aimed at providing greater guarantees to those who dedicate their lives to this work. The promotion of horizontal alliances and articulations for the protection of water The protection of water is a task of all States with differentiated responsibilities and capacities. Its effective achievement requires initiatives and processes of international cooperation, alliances and articulations among States based on mutual respect and recognition. This will make it possible to reach consensual paths and prevent the repetition of dynamics of imposition. Furthermore, these articulations must recognize and respect the normative frameworks of indigenous peoples so that, based on their uses and customs, they can continue to play their fundamental role in the protection and management of water. What’s Next It’s expected that the commitments contained in the Water Action Agenda will be reviewed and endorsed internally by Latin American governments and promoted at the international level at upcoming summits and high-level meetings. It’s also expected that the importance of protecting the human right to water and sanitation will be a key theme in all international forums where progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is discussed, such as the SDG Summit scheduled for September, and especially at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28). AIDA will continue to work to protect key ecosystems, prevent industrial pressure on water, advocate for the participation of local communities in decision-making about their water sources, and defend the human right to water. *Yeny Rodríguez is an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program, Claudia Velarde is Area Coordinator of Ecosystems Program y Rosa Peña is an attorney with Human Rights and Environment Program.
Read more
Strategic litigation and its role in the pursuit of justice
In La Guajira, Colombia, indigenous Wayuu and Afro-Colombian communities—accompanied by civil society organizations—initiated litigation to defend their rights to water, food security and ethnic integrity, all of which are at risk from the diversion of the Bruno stream for the expansion of El Cerrejón, the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America. The goal of bringing this particular case to court is not only to prevent the loss of an important water source. The litigation also seeks to set a precedent in the country and on the continent for the protection of rural communities against the systematic violation of their rights. It also represents an important action in the face of the climate crisis, a global problem aggravated by the continued extraction and burning of coal and other fossil fuels. The case can be categorized as strategic litigation, also called impact litigation, which consists of selecting and filing a lawsuit in order to promote the protection of rights or changes in public policy, while achieving broad changes in society, i.e., those that extend beyond a particular case. Strategic litigation is a tool that, through the law, promotes social transformations and strengthens human rights protections. It is strategic because, based on a legal cause, it seeks to change unjust realities and position issues that are key to the formation of a democratic society. In this sense, the ultimate goal of strategic litigation is to leave a lasting mark, a judicial precedent that can be replicated. It is also strategic because it includes the use of communication strategies, social mobilization, and political advocacy to put relevant debates on the table regarding the recognition of rights. When legal actions involve local communities, they also become a tool to help strengthen their internal processes of defense. Its premises and characteristics have made strategic litigation an important means to promote the protection of key ecosystems and human rights, including the right to health and a healthy environment, and the rights of indigenous peoples, communities and groups in vulnerable situations. Components As described above, strategic litigation is consciously designed to achieve broad goals and to generate a roadmap for future litigation. It consists of many different elements, including the following: A robust legal strategy that, on many occasions, must be enriched with interdisciplinary technical and scientific arguments. A communications strategy. Social or community organizing, which means involving communities, networks and local organizations in all phases of the litigation under a perspective of active participation and collective strategy construction. A strategy to protect against scenarios of risk that the litigation may cause. Political advocacy before decision-makers. Objectives and scope Although there are many, three main objectives of strategic litigation are to: Place important debates in the public opinion. Promote social mobilization around a common cause. Strengthen the rule of law, which means that citizens invite the State and judges to recognize rights, make problems visible, and ultimately strengthen the democratic system. Strategic litigation has been especially important for struggles and causes in which it is difficult for social movements and communities to position the recognition of their rights in legislative and public policy agendas. At AIDA, we believe that all people should have full access to environmental justice, and strategic litigation has been a powerful tool to guarantee the individual and collective right to a healthy environment in Latin America. To achieve this, we select emblematic cases and projects where the strategic use of international law and scientific argumentation can set key precedents. We work closely with local organizations and allies to jointly build the litigation process, design communication campaigns, and complete risk analyses that promote the protection of all stakeholders involved in litigation.
Read more
Commitments to marine conservation: A look back at Our Ocean 2023
"Our ocean, our connection." That was the theme of the eighth Our Ocean Conference, held March 2-3 in Panama, the first Latin American country to host the annual event. The conference began in 2014 as an initiative of the U.S. State Department to draw international attention to the serious global threats to the ocean and to secure to concrete commitments for marine conservation and sustainable development. The event brought together heads of state and representatives of the private sector, civil society and academic institutions under the specific objective of highlighting the urgency of implementing effective area-based management measures as part of interconnected systems including marine protected areas, the development of a global blue economy, and approaching innovative solutions to marine pollution. An AIDA delegation attended the conference and participated in the plenary sessions and side events. The following is a summary of the event. The inspiring The focus of the conference Our Ocean is not a space for sharing knowledge about this vast ecosystem and its biodiversity. The environmental community already knows for certain that the ocean must be effectively protected as soon as possible and that there is no need to present further evidence of the multiple services it has provided to humanity for centuries. The conference brought together leaders and ministers to advance international agreements and pressure nations to commit to taking the necessary steps to protect the ocean. The power of a generation The voice of youth was prominent throughout the conference, represented for example by more than 70 members of the Sustainable Ocean Alliance (SOA), which since 2014 has built the world's largest network of new generations of people working to create solutions to the ocean's greatest challenges. Hearing youth leaders speak passionately about the importance of caring for the planet for generations to come was encouraging. As the youngest member of AIDA, I found inspiration in meeting other young people advocating for the ocean and its biodiversity. In my daily work I’m surrounded by news and numbers about the damage humanity has caused to the ocean and being part of this conference helped me see the other side of the coin. Those of us who are actively working for a healthier, cleaner and more protected ocean are part of the change and, in large part, it is thanks to us that high officials have stopped to look at the evidence and take concrete action. It is this generation that will inherit the management of the ecological crisis, whose voice deserves to be reflected in commitments to improve the way we relate to the ocean. The positive Support for seabed defense AIDA co-hosted a side event on deep-sea mining with the not-so-simple task of bringing together decision-makers to support a moratorium on deep-sea mining and seabed protection. Thanks to the impetus of a group of co-organizers—including young people from Comms Inc, The Oxygen Project, Only One and SOA—Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr. and Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka attended the event. High-level representatives from Latin American and European countries also attended. It was a space for dialogue between civil society and invited authorities that resulted in encouraging commitments, including France's commitment (seconded by Germany) to invest in scientific research of the seabed and to stop investments in industrial processes related to deep-sea mining. World-renowned oceanographer Sylvia Earle touched the audience with her love for the ocean and her undying commitment to its protection. Those who attended reaffirmed their commitment to the moratorium and the search for alternatives. Commitments to marine biodiversity Overall, the conference provided a unique platform for several nations to make valuable commitments. Participating government delegations made 341 commitments worth nearly $20 billion, including funds to expand and enhance marine protected areas and biodiversity corridors. In Latin America, Panama announced the expansion of Banco Volcán, a marine reserve in the Caribbean, from 14,212 to 93,000 square kilometers. With this, Panama will be protecting 54 percent of its exclusive economic zone, meeting the goal of protecting 30 percent of its territory by 2030. And Ecuador committed to protecting its first eighty nautical miles (14,800 square kilometers), allowing for only artisanal fishing. This decision positions Ecuador as a Latin American leader in marine conservation and sustainable natural resource management. Ecuador called on the other countries that make up the Pacific Marine Corridor—Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia—to take similar measures to preserve one of the most biodiverse spaces in the ocean. What's next? Nations are now expected to comply with their announced commitments. In the region, Panama and Ecuador must expand their protected territories, ensuring the adequate monitoring of biodiversity and the sustainable management of resources. Similarly, it is expected that the countries of the Pacific, Latin America and the European Union that have declared their support for halting deep-sea mining will continue with actions consistent with that position, including active participation in meetings of the Seabed Authority, supporting the moratorium or precautionary pause on extractive activity. While there is certainly a long way to go, each decision announced at the conference in favor of preserving marine biodiversity provides some hope and motivation for our work. We will continue to collaborate with governments and communities to preserve the ocean, the planet's largest and most diverse ecosystem.
Read more
Actions and reasons to preserve the Amazon
Shared by eight countries and home to 10 percent of the planet's known biodiversity, the Amazon is the largest tropical forest in the world. It’s also a global climate stabilizer, storing between 90 and 140 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)—one of the most harmful greenhouse gases that, when released, accelerates the climate crisis. For more than 470 communities of indigenous and traditional peoples, the Amazon is an ancestral place of life, from which they have developed their ways of being in the world. However, the rainforest is facing various threats—including colonization, deforestation and extractive activities—that increase its vulnerability and affect the human rights of those who inhabit and protect it. These pressures have caused some areas of the Amazon to emit more carbon dioxide than they absorb. This situation poses the challenge of implementing strategies for the legal protection of Amazonian territories that articulate with the struggles of affected peoples. At AIDA, we have strengthened these strategies and have supported community processes aimed at combating the damage caused by mining and oil exploitation in Amazonian territories in three countries. With hopes currently pinned on the incoming government of Lula da Silva in Brazil—who announced his goal of reducing deforestation in the Amazon to zero by 2030—the preservation of this ecosystem requires political will and strong coordinated and cross-border actions. In this regard, Colombia proposed a common front to defend the Amazon rainforest. Strengthening legal defense AIDA's work strengthened the capacities of national organizations in Brazil, Ecuador and Peru for legal defense of the Amazon. Brazil: By highlighting the shortcomings of its environmental impact study, we helped ensure that the communities affected by the Volta Grande mining project of the Canadian company Belo Sun are included in the environmental authorization process and that the state is obligated to consult with them to obtain their consent. We also prepared a report for UN agencies in which we identified measures to guarantee the safety of environmental defenders in the Amazon region. Ecuador: We strengthened litigation strategies to halt the implementation of a decree by which the government seeks to expand mining exploitation in the country, with serious impacts for the Amazon region. We also generated greater understanding of the tools needed to develop strategic litigation and improve the communication skills of indigenous peoples. Perú: We supported the acceleration of litigation aimed at ensuring the repair and maintenance of the Norperuano oil pipeline, whose operation has generated serious environmental impacts and human rights violations for indigenous peoples affected by oil spills. In all three countries, we were able to advance towards a more precise understanding of the legal protection needs of the Amazon and the contexts in which such strategies should be developed. This was made possible by working in partnership with national and local organizations and indigenous peoples. Arguments to protect the ecosystem There are many reasons to preserve the Amazon, whose importance is regional and global. In order to strengthen communication efforts linked to the legal protection of the ecosystem, AIDA has developed two infographics that present in a schematic and didactic way the arguments for defending the Amazon territories, as well as their inhabitants, in court. The focus of one of the infographics is the vast biodiversity contained in the Amazon. Some figures show its high levels of richness: 40,000 species of plants; 16,000 of trees; 3,000 of fish; 1,300 of birds; more than 430 of mammals; more than 1,000 of amphibians; and more than 400 species of reptiles; therefore, any intervention in the Amazon rainforest must start from the knowledge of it as a highly diverse, complex and interconnected territory. The richness of the Amazon is also cultural, represented in the indigenous and traditional peoples that have inhabited the ecosystem since ancestral times, whose diversity is present in 86 languages and 650 dialects. The Amazon: A megadiverse region (in Spanish) The other infographic illustrates the capacity of the Amazon to regulate the humidity and climate of the continent. In addition to storing large amounts of carbon dioxide, the ecosystem absorbs half of the solar energy it receives through the evaporation of water from its foliage. Most of the trapped energy is released when the vapor condenses to form clouds and rain. Among other things, the Amazon recycles between 50% and 70% of annual precipitation, pumping some seven billion tons of water a year into the atmosphere through evapotranspiration. The Amazon: A global climate regulator (in Spanish) The Amazon and its care are emblematic of the intrinsic relationship and balance that must exist between a healthy environment and human existence. "The spirits that give us life exist in the forest, the water and the air. We all have a correlation," said Humberto, a member of a community in the Ecuadorian Amazon. "That existence is what we call life—our own home, the pharmacy, nature or what we can call, in general, the existence of man and nature."
Read more