Blog
Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: A great opportunity to put the brakes on climate change
By Florencia Ortuzar, legal advisor, AIDA While many of us are alarmed by climate change and its already tangible effects, concern becomes even greater when learning the fact that all the CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere cannot be removed, even if we were to shut down all the sources of emissions today. This reality was confirmed in the Fifth Assessment Report on the state of the climate, issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The explanation for this is simple: CO2, in contrast to other gases and pollutants, remains in the atmosphere for millennia after being released. It is stuck in the atmosphere for what is eternal for human standards, implying that its greenhouse effect does not end even with an immediate halt in emissions. The good news is that CO2 is not the only cause of global warming. There are other pollutants that, unlike CO2, only stay in the atmosphere for a relatively short time. These “other” agents are responsible for 40-45% of global warming, and they remain in the atmosphere for a minimum of a few hours to a maximum of a few decades. They are called short-lived climate pollutants, or SLCPs. Like CO2, SLCP emissions have a negative impact on humans and ecosystems. So a reduction in these pollutants would bring immediate relief to the worst affected by climate change and would bring important benefits to the environment and people. The main SLCPs Although all SLCPs contribute significantly to climate change and share the trait of being short-lived, each has its unique characteristics and emission sources. Black carbon or soot, is a particulate substance produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, mainly from motor vehicles, domestic stoves, fires and factories. The dark particles heat the atmosphere as they absorb light, and when the particles land on snow and ice they accelerate melting. Black carbon also affects human health by causing respiratory problems such as lung cancer and asthma. Tropospheric ozone is a gas formed by the reaction of the sun with other gases called "precursors," which can be man made or naturally occurring. One of these precursors is methane, another SLCP. Tropospheric ozone is associated with diseases including bronchitis, emphysema, asthma and permanent scarring of the lung tissue. Studies also show that this gas has a direct impact on vegetation, reducing crop yields and the ability of plants to absorb CO2. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and 60% of its emissions come from human activities like rice farming, coal mining, landfill and oil combustion. Two important sources of methane include cattle farming, whose effect has dangerously increased with industrial meat production (Spanish), and large dams, especially those in tropical areas. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made gases used in the production of air conditioners, refrigerators and aerosols. They have replaced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were banned under the Montreal Protocol. Although HFCs represent a small proportion of the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, their use is growing at an alarming speed of an average of 10-15% each year, according to a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report. Everyone wins According to the IPCC, the reduction of these pollutants could avert a rise in average global temperatures by approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, cutting the current rate of global warming in half and helping to protect some of the areas most susceptible to climate change like the Arctic, the high Himalayan regions and Tibet. The mitigation of SLCPs is also crucial for decelerating glacial melting and rising sea levels, a serious situation for the world’s population that lives in coastal areas. The reduction of SLCPs would also bring important socio-environmental benefits. Black carbon and tropospheric ozone harm human health and reduce crop yields. This in turn affects ecosystems, food security, human welfare and the entire natural cycle that keeps the planet healthy. Some talking points Given that SLCPs stem from different sources, effective mitigation requires a series of comprehensive actions that deal with each pollutant separately. Fortunately, the road is already laid out. Many of the technologies, laws and institutions needed to cut SLCP emissions already exist. In the case of black carbon, new technologies are inexpensive and available. Developed countries have already reduced emissions significantly through the use of green technologies. Ideas include the modernization of domestic cooking systems in the region, introducing the use of solar cookers and new transport systems with improved exhaust filters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of methane in the atmosphere, which affects the level of tropospheric ozone, is largely dependent on industrial activities. To reduce emissions, effective regulations should be implemented to control the industries that emit the most methane, including intensive cattle farming, mining, hydrocarbons and large dams. For HFCs, an alternative already exists. There need to be regulations that encourage people to substitute HFCs for greener alternatives, no matter the commercial barriers. Some countries have proposed incorporating HFCs in the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement recognized as one of the most successful initiatives to significantly and rapidly reduce CFC emissions, addressing a similar challenge, to the one we face today. To find out more about SLCPs, you can read a briefing paper (Spanish) put together by AIDA, CEDHA, CEMDA and RedRacc.
Read more
Report from COP19: Warsaw, Poland
A terrifying nightmare came true before their eyes. Waves of up to seven meters (23 feet), propelled by winds that reached 315 kilometers per hour (196 miles per hour), caught the inhabitants of the Philippines off guard, devouring everything in their path. Typhoon Haiyan was the most devastating of the climate shocks that frequently hit the Asian country. “We can stop this madness.” With those words, Yeb Saño, the Philippine’s climate change commissioner, demanded “climate justice“ for his people during the inauguration of the 19th Conference of the Parties (COP19) on climate change in Warsaw, Poland. The tragedy was palpable in his eyes and voice. The effects of climate change are unmistakable. Ocean levels and temperatures are rising, and this is provoking storms surges of such intensity that they’re impossible to ignore. No more time can be wasted in coming up with the financing needed to fight this problem. And we must set the rules for the effective use of these funds. AIDA is pushing for this. At the COP19, we worked with other civil society organizations to encourage the governments of developing countries to draft an action plan next year designed to fulfill a vital commitment: making US$100 billion available to developing countries from 2020 for fighting climate change. Part of these funds will be channeled through the Green Climate Fund (GCF). AIDA has assisted in putting pressure on the governments of developed countries to provide certainty about the contributions they will make to this financing mechanism. We also have taken part in the creation of GCF by participating at meetings of its Board of Directors. Our short-term goal is to ensure that the role of civil society is effective and meaningful in the GCF decision-making process. Long term, we want the GCF to support effective actions for climate change mitigation and adaptation that will not only help reduce emissions but also benefit the most vulnerable communities that already are being affected by the phenomenon. Our presence at the COP19 also made it possible for AIDA to form alliances with groups from different sectors – civil society, youth, indigenous peoples, among others – in order to develop and strengthen a joint position ahead of the COP20 to be held in Peru. We hope that the COP20 will set the foundation for a new and hopefully successful climate agreement at the COP21 in Paris. We also worked with partner organizations to develop a briefing paper (in Spanish) on short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), which we distributed in Warsaw. As SLCPs remain in the atmosphere less time than CO2, reducing these contaminants is a valuable opportunity for a short-term solution to global warming and an important element that should enter into the new climate agreement. With your support we will continue fighting to prevent typhoons and other natural disasters from becoming a way of life.
Read more
Latin America and its little-known biodiversity
By Tania Paz, general assistant, AIDA, @TaniaNinoshka Latin America and the Caribbean stretches over more than two billion hectares, or about 15% of the earth’s total land surface area. The region possesses the richest persity of species and ecoregions in the world. It is home to one third of the world’s renewable water resources and close to 30% of the world’s total runoff, or the free flow of surface water into a drainage basin, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC, 2002). Even so, there are still many ecosystems that we don’t know much about despite their important role in maintaining the health and wellbeing of the environment and human society. These include mangrove forests, glaciers and páramos. Mangroves According to Mexico’s National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biopersity (CONABIO, in Spanish), mangroves are plant formations grouped into a distinct biome known as mangal, or a tree or shrub with branches that reach down and take root in the ground. They are a unique plant species for their resistance to salt and for growing in tropical coastal environments near estuaries and coastal lagoons. They are the transition between terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Mangrove forests form a natural protective barrier that prevents wind and tide erosion. They play an important role in the environment by filtering water and allowing it to flow into underground aquifers, and they act as carbon sinks that helpmitigate the effects of climate change. The major threats to mangrove ecosystems stem from urban, industrial, tourism and agricultural development given that they compete for land with these fragile ecosystems and cause heavy pollution. This is happening in Marismas Nacionales and Laguna Huizache-Caimanero, where a mega-tourism resort is threatening a wetland ecosystem that protects Mexico’s last remaining mangrove forests and 60 endangered species. Páramos Páramos (in Spanish) are wetlands found between 2,500 and 3,600 meters above sea level in a climate of high rainfall and dry winds. Páramos are known as water factories for their capacity to generate clean water. They also act as a climate regulator with capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. Colombia is home to the largest surface area of páramo ecosystems in the world, holding 98% of páramo plant species. These ecosystems also are home to an immense persity of flora and fauna, including the spectacled bear and Andean condor, the world’s largest flying land bird. Rich in precious metals, the páramos are threatened by mining developments, both existing and planned. In Colombia, for example, miners are looking to undertake extractive activities in the Santurbán páramo, which would put in peril a vital source of fresh water for millions of Colombians. AIDA is leading a campaign (in Spanish) that calls for a proper demarcation of the Santurbán páramo’s territorial boundaries in an effort to stop mining development, an activity prohibited in officially declared páramo zones. Glaciers Glaciers are large bodies of dense ice, snow and rocks. They can stretch down or across mountainsides -- depending on their weight -- as they flow into the water system. They can melt, evaporate or break up into icebergs. In Latin America, 70% of the earth’s tropical glaciers are found high in the Andes mountain range of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru (OLCA, 2013, in Spanish). Glaciers regulate water supplies by releasing water in the form of meltwater in the hot and dry seasons and by storing it as ice during cold and wet periods. In Ecuador, the city of Quito gets 50% of its water from glacier reservoirs and likewise Bolivia’s La Paz gets 30% from glacier catchment areas. Glacier melt, caused by the effects of climate change, is the greatest threat to the glaciers. Since 1970 the Andean glaciers have lost 20% of their volume, according to a report by Peru’s National Meteorology and Hydrology Service (SENAMHI, in Spanish). See the documentary La Era del Deshielo (The Age of the Thawing) by Señal Colombia. Source: YouTube Glacier melt is putting the water production of Andean countries at risk. In Peru, for example, the volume of surface ice that has been lost as a consequence of melting equates to seven billion cubic meters of water, a quantity that represents around 10 years worth of water supplies for the city of Lima. If all the world’s glaciers melted, sea levels could rise by some 66 meters, causing catastrophic impacts on coastal cities (OLCA, 2013, in Spanish). Como vemos, América Latina es una región totalmente rica en biopersidad que juega un papel importante en el mundo y en la continuidad de la especie humana. La belleza y riqueza del continente quedan expresadas en la letra de América, canción de Nino Bravo: “Cuando Dios hizo el Edén, pensó en América”. ¡Defendamos y preservemos nuestro Edén!
Read more
Green financing: Sources, preparation and the allocation of resources
By Andrea Rodríguez, legal advisor, AIDA,@arodriguezosuna, and Mónica Valtierra, AIDA volunteer Warsaw, Poland. The financing needed to fight climate change was a key issue at the side events of the Warsaw Climate Change Conference (COP19). Discussions dug deep into the issues of the sourcing of funds, the preparation to secure financing and how to turn financial support into real solutions. persifying the financial resources of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the Climate Markets and Investment Association (CMIA) organized an event to discuss the theme of financial persification and the tools necessary to mobilize GCF funds. Giles Dickson, vice president of environmental policies and global advocacy at the multinational energy and transport conglomerate Alstom, said that for the private sector to provide capital, the GCF needs mechanisms for providing incentives and a framework for making investments through loans. It is important to break the myth that the private sector will use public resources to its own benefit, given that the true intention is to contribute to financial instruments in which the public sector is involved, he said. Jeanne Ng, director of environmental affairs at Hong Kong-based electric company CLP Group, said the private sector already has financed renewable energy projects without public resources. For this reason, she said it is important for the GCF to take into account these efforts and include them within its objectives, and also to make sure that public resources don’t go to projects that already are getting financing. Talking about the inclusion of the private sector in funding GCF investments, Ng said the Fund needs the help of private institutions to market low-carbon products. Vikram Widge, head of climate finance and policy at the International Finance Corp. (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank, said the GCF must play a participative role in capitalizing financial resources and generating profits. The financial instruments must guarantee the stability of private resources and the development of countries, he said. Alstom’s Dickson said private sector participation could come through three channels: in projects on the local and municipal level, in promoting new technologies and through the development of projects supported by private companies. This will only happen if governments put in place economic policies that guarantee positive results, he said. Readiness support The question of readiness support was the focus of discussion at another side event called Rolling up the sleeves for the Green Climate Fund: Expectations and experience from building GCF readiness, where representatives from different countries expressed their views: South Africa. Zaheer Fakir, chief policy advisor at South Africa’s Department of Environmental Affairs, said it is important to have a leader country to run the Fund’s projects, some of which are designed for specific environmental problems. There are solutions that cannot be replicated in each country because they rely on the institutional capacity of each country, he said. It’s not just about giving money to national entities. This is because there are concerns of money-laundering and also because some entities already have direct access to financial resources. The funding must go to projects that have the potential for transformation and for which the end goal should not be exclusively limited to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, he added. On the same topic, Richard Calland, an associate professor of public law at the University of Cape Town, presented a study on the preparation capacity of each country. It mentioned three indispensible prerequisites: the country must be relative, responsive and reasonable. In identifying the local difficulties in terms of planning, he proposed that each country form financial partnerships with research institutions. This is not about the ability to deploy financial resources, but rather to use the maximum capacity possible, he said. Lastly, on the subject of access of financial resources, he called on people to consider the possible modalities, fiduciary standards and safeguards. Germany. Norbert Gorben mentioned that Germany is considering the possibility next year of participating in the GCF and contributing to it 14 billion Euros through bilateral schemes and multilateral organizations. He said the Fund’s board should ask the GCF Secretariat to begin action on implementing programs and mobilizing resources as soon as possible. Ina von Frantzius, a policy advisor on climate policy and financing at the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, said Germany wants to offer specific help to each country that needs it. Peru. Gabriel Quijandria, vice minister of the strategic development of natural resources at the Ministry of the Environment, said that together with the Ministry of Finance he is working on a program to modernize the state. The two ministries have discussed establishing a national body charged with implementing and managing the country’s funds once the GCF starts to operate. The preparation for the program, he said, was not an easy concept to fathom, but one that requires the right attitude. In order to define the program, it is necessary to understand and pay attention to the perspective of poor communities, he said. As an example, he cited farmers who take out international insurance against the effects of climate phenomena such as El Niño. The allocation of resources The financing of projects by the Global South to countries in the Global South is a growing trend in the developing world. In most cases, the resources come from the private sector in these countries and are funneled to projects related to public policy. This issue was addressed at another side event at the COP19 in Warsaw called Developing Countries in the Driving Seat for Accelerating Green Finance. On this topic, Monique Barbut, head of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), said the priority is to know exactly where the money goes. Some 60% of the financial resources for climate projects come from the private sector, with a large part of this money going toward renewable energy projects. This is not yet enough to combat climate change. Approximately 48% of government funds are allocated to adaptation projects related to sustainable use of the land, she said. On the importance of resource allocation, she clarified that this depends on the generation of social benefits. Funding sustainability projects can lead to less migration, poverty and insecurity for vulnerable communities, she explained. Zaheer Fakir, the representative of the South African government, also spoke about leadership. In his opinion, countries in the Global South are more interested in doing more to combat climate change than the countries in the Global North, and so they are more open to the idea of offering their money to help. “We cannot sit and wait for the multilateral process to be agreed upon” because it is now when countries are suffering extreme poverty, unemployment, uneducated youth and other problems that impel us to go home and do something about it rather than wait around. “How can we improve the lives of our citizens at home?” asked Fakir. It is a question of “being green,” of involving communities, indigenous groups and all levels of society in green projects, he said. More than the source of funding , it is important that money is invested in the adequate technology for resolving climactic problems in a country, said Nick Beglinger, president of Zurich-based clean technology business association Swisscleantech. Businesses can make money while also helping the environment, he said. He added that it is also necessary to start innovating in green finance. He suggested reviewing the use of the public money in pension funds in order to reach the common goals of the government and society, because pensioners are the ideal investors for long-term plans. On this issue, there is not much difference between developed and developing countries, he said, adding that the pisions between the Global South and North should be eliminated in order for the financing mechanisms to function in an efficient way regardless of the origin of the funds.
Read more
Climate change funding: Needs and expectations
By Andrea Rodríguez, legal advisor, AIDA, @arodriguezosuna, and Mónica Valtierra, AIDA volunteer Warsaw, Poland. In the discussions about the financial resources needed to tackle climate change, the plenary session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 19) in Warsaw focused on three topics: long-term financing, a report by the Standing Committee on Finance, and another report of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) of the COP. Long-term financing The Philippines. The Philippine representative said long-term financing is crucialfor developing countries and that the outcome of the agreements reached in 2015 will depend on how far those countries are willing to go to see them through. He said: “There needs to be clarity on the specific amount [of resources required] and which projects will receive the finances. But until now the situation can only be described as disastrous.” Egypt. The Egyptian delegate, on behalf of an African group of nations, said: “The agreements will depend on the climate fund’s progress in realizing its goals, the ability of countries to keep the global temperature from rising at less than 2°C this century, and mobilizing US$100 billion. These are the urgent issues. European Union. The EU reaffirmed its commitment to mobilize climate change finances with the expectation that the Green Climate Fund will increase its funding in the area of adaptation. Malpes. The Malpes’ delegate spoke about the need to strike a balance between the funding granted for global warming mitigation and what is put toward climate change adaptation. It is an essential issue for developing countries, he said. Colombia. Colombia’s delegate called for continued efforts to secure climate change funding because up until now there has been very little action taken in this regard. The commitment of US$100 billion in funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation is another a pressing task, he added. The Standing Committee report The Philippines. The Standing Committee has a great deal of work to do, especially with regard to the issues of transparency and access to information, the delegate said on behalf of the G77. “We need to strengthen the mechanisms in place for monitoring, verification and reporting purposes before 2015,” and fully address the issue of additional financing, he said. Egypt. Along the same vein of the Philippines, this delegation emphasized the urgent need to provide support for the verification, monitoring and reporting mechanisms. Bolivia. The Bolivian delegate spoke about access to funds, which he said is “the cornerstone of addressing the impact of climate change.” It requires the support of all countries, he added. Green Climate Fund (GCF) report to the COP The co-chairs of the GCF said the organization must be ambitious and have ever-increasing efforts. They repeated earlier calls to strike a balance between the funds put toward mitigation and adaptation to climate change, and to mobilize financial resources before mid-2014. On this topic, the countries said the following: The Philippines. There are high expectations for the GCF, said the delegate. But three years after the COP meeting in Cancun, Mexico, it is time to start moving the money. Egypt. The mobilization of funds should be optimized as soon as possible and the Fund must concentrate on sustainable financing for climate change, this delegation said. India. According to this delegation, the agreements to be reached in 2015 depend on the climate funding that exists at that time. He reiterated the idea of finding an equilibrium between the resources for mitigation and adaptation of the Fund. Zambia. “Fifty percent of the funds should be put toward adaptation measures,” which will also support programs set up to reduce poverty in vulnerable groups, said the Zambian delegate. Malpes. On the importance of mobilizing financial resources promptly, this delegate called for the funds to be available before the COP 20 in Lima. Uganda. This delegate reminded the audience that climate change is not waiting for the mobilization of resources to begin.
Read more
The reduction of HFCs and methane emissions
By Andrea Rodríguez, legal advisor, AIDA, @arodriguezosuna, and Mónica Valtierra, AIDA volunteer Warsaw, Poland - The reduction of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and methane gas emissions has enormous potential to help in the fight against climate change under the framework of the Montreal Protocol and through the development of clean technologies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from refrigerants, air conditioners and vehicles. Mark W. Roberts, a senior counsel and international policy advisor at the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), made this point during Catalyzing Pre-2020 Mitigation Action – Phasing down HFCs and Reducing Methane Emissions event at the 19th Conference of the Parties (C0P19) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Warsaw, Poland. He reminded listeners that short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), which include HFCs and methane, may have a relatively short lifespan in the atmosphere but they have a global-warming potential (GWP)much greater than CO2. This means that action to reduce these particular pollutants will have substantial short-term climate benefits. Among the activities to reduce of HFCs we have the use of ammoniums, hydrocarbons, methyl formats and other technologies that involve the sustainable use of CO2. He also suggested the implementation of alternative manufacturing processes for aerosols and fiber materials, the use of dry powder for asthma inhalers and the use of solar energy for refrigeration and air conditioners. Roberts said the scope of the Montreal Protocol includes the reduction of 8 billion tonnes of CO2 since 1980, five times more than the goal established in the Kyoto Protocol between 2008 and 2012. The United States and Canada have proposed amendments to the Montreal Protocol that would help to dramatically reduce the consumption of HFCs, he added. Along the same vein, the representative of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) mentioned the importance of implementing the Montreal Protocol for the global reduction of HFCs. With regard to financing mechanisms, he said the Global Environment Facility (GEF) could be an alternative for developing countries without access to the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. He also highlighted UNIDO’s role in promoting new technologies based on ozone-friendly chemicals and improvements in manufacturing processes in developing countries. As an example of the latter, he cited a project in which 10 companies in the Philippines had reduced their use of HFCs by 10%. He also mentioned the recent launch of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which seeks to reduce HFCs emissions and put the reduction of SLCPs on the agenda. At the same time, Markus Kurdziel, a consultant for BMZ in Germany, spoke about projects the German government is working on with public agencies and the private sector for refrigerants, air conditioning and foam production. These projects are part of Proklima, a program supported by 40 countries with the following areas of action: political consulting, technology transfer, research, subsidies development, technological adaptation, emissions reduction and the implementation of bilateral strategies. As an example, Kurdziel mentioned projects in China and India where the governments there helped private companies in the manufacturing of air conditioners with 15% greater efficiency. In Brazil, the initiative implemented a program to recover and recycle refrigerators. Also at the event, representatives of the International United Steelworkers Union said U.S. natural gas networks were leaking a combined total of around 6 million cubic feet of gas because of old and deteriorated pipes. In response, David Foster of the Blue Green Alliance called for greater efforts to repair the pipes to prevent methane gas from escaping into the atmosphere, a project that he said would create millions of jobs in the United States. The event closed with a message. We must take action to reduce methane and HFCs emissions -- and we must do it now. For more information, see the document (in Spanish) about short-lived climate pollutants that AIDA, CEDHA, CEMDA and RedRacc presented at COP19.
Read more
Can COP19 move the Green Climate Fund closer to reality?
By Andrea Rodríguez, AIDA's legal advisor, and Marcus Pearson, AIDA's volunteer (article published in Respond/RTCC Magazine) The Green Climate Fund was created as an effective response to the impacts of climate change by channeling financial resources from developed to developing countries. Will this happen? The Conference of the Parties in November will provide an opportunity for developing countries to lobby for significant financial commitments from the developed world to ensure the long-term viability of the GCF. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was created in 2010 at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Its mission is to channel public and private financial resources to developing countries to help them mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change through low-emission and climate-resilient programs. But nearly four years later, the GCF has yet to disburse any funds. The GCF board has held four meetings with only limited results. At the first meeting in Geneva in August 2012, the board selected two interim co-chairs: Mr. Zaheer Fakir of South Africa and Mr. Ewen McDonald of Australia. It also formed committees, designated the World Bank as Interim Trustee, and agreed to invite observer organizations to participate, albeit in a restricted capacity. A lack of consensus stalled decisions at the October 2012 meeting in South Korea, where the only notable motion was making Songdo, South Korea the GCF’s headquarters. More advances came at the February 2013 meeting in Berlin. The board adopted procedural rules to govern its actions, regulate board member selection and define the participation and role of civil society observers. This laid the groundwork for the GCF to carry out its mission. At the June 2013 meeting in South Korea, the board then discussed the GCF’s business model framework (BMF) and the policies, guidelines and organizational structures needed to commence operations. The board also chose the governance structure of the private sector facility (PSF) [i] and appointed Ms. Hela Cheikhrouhou of Tunisia as executive director of the GCF Secretariat. The fifth meeting in Paris could address the many outstanding issues still needed to bring the GCF into effective operation. To do so, the Board must overcome its perceived ineffectiveness. Civil society concerns Civil society organizations (CSOs) are concerned about the GCF’s decision-making process and future. Perhaps the greatest issue is the uncertainty of funding. The GCF board has started to identify project areas and define criteria to allocate resources, but developed countries have yet to pledge meaningful funds. Concrete commitments are essential to ensuring the availability of predictable resources needed to achieve long-term results to mitigate and protect against the impacts of climate change. CSOs also fear that a lack of transparency and accountability will hamstring the GCF. Transparency does not seem to be a priority for the board. For example, the board has decided against webcasting its meetings even though the UNFCCC commonly does so, helping to cut costs and carbon emissions associated with travel. If the GCF already broadcasts meetings to observers in an overflow room, why not webcast? CSOs fear the board does not want to make its meetings open to the public. Lack of public accountability remains a concern particularly because of the small opportunity given to civil society to participate in the decision- making process. The GCF will mobilize financial resources from both public and private sectors, and civil society oversight is needed to ensure that policies do not respond to the investment interests of the private sector but to the needs of the most vulnerable. Moreover, the board is not granting CSOs meaningful opportunities for participation. The GCF publishes documents before meetings without sufficient time for many CSOs to review and comment on proposals[ii]. Meanwhile, only two CSO representatives may actively participate at board meetings in person and even so may not be allowed to talk or approach board members[iii]. These practices call into question the GCF’s legitimacy. Globally, CSOs play a vital role in developing climate change policy by informing decision makers about local issues and needs, and by providing examples of best practices for resource allocation. Given that the GCF stresses accountability in its mandate, CSOs should have access to government representatives and information in open and transparent meetings. COP19: An opportunity for the GCF? The COP19 this November in Warsaw will show the world whether the GCF can become an effective engine for climate change funding in developing countries. At this conference, developing countries must seek firm financial commitments for climate adaptation and mitigation. Only guaranteed funding will enable the board to make effective decisions regarding resource distribution or provide developing nations with a clear picture of how much funding is available. The GCF Board must also seek -- and receive -- guidance because many COP attendees will benefit from GCF resources. Countries can use the COP to provide advice on GCF policies, share their priority needs for funding, and recommend criteria to guarantee access to resources. The COP will also give CSO representatives a chance to raise questions and highlight counterproductive practices. Conclusions The COP presents a prime opportunity for developed nations to commit to the GCF’s stated goals and pledge desperately needed financing. Parties and CSOs must use the COP – GCF’s monitoring body – as a tool to improve GCF accountability, inclusivity and transparency so that the GCF can truly work to benefit vulnerable populations in developing countries. The COP should be a benchmark for advancing the GCF rather than just another event for developed countries to congratulate themselves on timorous steps forward. [i] The PSF will enable the GCF to directly and indirectly finance private sector mitigation and adaptation activities at the national, regional and international level. [ii] For the June meeting in South Korea, documents were published less than two weeks before the meeting, rather than 21 days as outlined in the additional rules of procedure decision taken in Berlin. [iii] As was the case on the last day of the meeting in Songdo.
Read more
Climate change is real and will have a serious impact on human rights
By Héctor Herrera, AIDA legal advisor and coordinator of the Colombian Environmental Justice Network, @RJAColombia The impact of human-induced global climate change is already being felt, and going forward it will have a profound effect on the global population. Many people already believe the phenomenon exists, and they know about its likely impacts. But many others ignore the problem or deny it. In fact, the Climate Name Change initiative has compiled a list of policymakers who still deny climate change in the United States, a country with the greatest emissions of greenhouse gases in the Western Hemisphere. Watch the video Climate Name Change. Source: YouTube New and compelling evidence of climate change was published this year in the first part of the fifth report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was commissioned by the governments of 195 countries and with input from over 800 international scientists. The most recent IPCC report found that: · The warming of the climate system is ‘unequivocal,’ · The odds that humans are the principal cause of climate change are at least 95%, · The Earth’s average surface temperature rose 0.85ºC between the years 1880 and 2012, · The Earth’s sea level rose 0.19 meters between 1901 and 2010, · Average global temperatures could rise between 1.5ºC and 4.5ºC by the year 2100, and · Sea levels could rise between 26 and 82 centimeters by 2100. There is scientific unanimity on climate change, and it will have a negative impact on human rights. It is worth noting that in 2008 the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to investigate the link between climate change and human rights. Within this framework, AIDA published the report “A Human Crisis: Climate Change and Human Rights in Latin America,” which explains how the impact of global warming affects people’s ability to exercise their basic human rights in Latin America. It concludes that the IACHR should recognize the negative impacts of climate change on human rights and make recommendations to the OAS member states to fulfill their obligations to protect and guarantee human rights as global warming becomes more pronounced. The report mentions that the harmful effects of global warming include the loss of resources such as clean water as well as more extreme floods and storms, rising sea levels, more intense forest fires and droughts, and an increase in the spread of heat- and vector-borne diseases. These impacts, the document states, will have a profound effect on fundamental human rights such as the rights to a healthy environment, food, water, housing and a dignified life. AIDA says that in the face of such a scenario it is important to recognize that some communities are more vulnerable than others because they suffer from poverty or discrimination. The responsibility to take care of these communities is shared between different governments to varying degrees, which is to say that more responsibility falls on the states that have historically polluted the most. In sum, the report recommends that governments and other relevant bodies including intergovernmental organizations and international financial institutions adopt and promote measures to prevent human rights violations brought about by climate change. Althoughthese actions are executed on an institutional level, there are still many things we can do on a personal level. We can become informed of the problem, learn how to mitigate the effects of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and apply these principles to our everyday lives. For example, you can ride a bike, reduce your electricity consumption or lessen your red meat intake. In short, the scientific community is certain that human-induced climate change is a reality. As AIDA notes in its report, the impact of global warming will seriously affect human rights in Latin America and around the globe. Now is the time to act! To learn more, visit the section on climate change on AIDA’s website.
Read more
The International Coral Reef Initiative and the role of AIDA
By Sandra Moguel, legal advisor, AIDA, @sandra_moguel Made up of government representatives, scientists and civil society members, the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) meets annually to discuss and make decisions on priority issues regarding the protection of international coral reefs. This year the meeting was held in Belize from October 14 to 17, hosted by ICRI Secretariat co-chairs Australia and Belize. The ICRI describes itself as an informal partnership between nations and organizations. It was created out of concern for the degradation of coral reefs, mainly as a consequence of human activities including land pollution, anchoring and more. Its objectives are to: 1) Encourage the adoption of best practices in the sustainable management of coral reefs and associated ecosystems; 2) Build capacity; and 3) Raise awareness at all levels on the plight of coral reefs around the world. Although ICRI decisions are not binding among members, they have been crucial in highlighting the important role of coral reefs and similar ecosystems in guaranteeing environmental sustainability, food security and social and cultural welfare. In its own documents, the United Nations has recognized the work and cooperation efforts of the ICRI in the international area. Much of AIDA’s work runs in parallel with the ICRI’s efforts. AIDA’s Marine Biopersity and Coastal Protection Program aims to ensure that Latin American coral reefs are legally protected and managed in a way that safeguards their biological integrity. This was reason enough for us to apply for ICRI membership so we could take part in this platform for dialogue. By participating in Belize, AIDA sought to identify opportunities to expand our work in high-priority countries and islands in the Americas. We also think it is important that the ICRI should take into account our expertise in international law and our partnerships with participating organizations. It is also key to apply a legal framework to the ICRI discussion, and there are some interesting ad hoc committees involved in the initiative that could explore this aspect. We are particularly interested in the economic value of coral reefs and similar ecosystems, a topic that also addresses the issue of compensation. Another interest is in the law enforcement committee that performs research on the assessment of the evidence and standardization of rules in different countries. Colombia, Costa Rica, Granada, Panama and the Marine Ecosystem Services Partnership (MESP) all attended the ICRI meeting in Belize as new members. Ricardo Gómez, Mexico’s representative to the ICRI, made a formal presentation of his paper entitled Regional Strategy for the Control of Invasive Lionfish in the Wider Caribbean[1]. In addition, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) presented its paper Status and Trends of Caribbean Coral Reefs: 1970-2012, edited by Jeremy Jackson, Mary Donovan and others. The paper looks at the changing patterns in coral reefs such as overfishing, coastal pollution, global warming and invasive species. The analysis concludes that rising tourism and overfishing are the most apparent causes of coral decline over the past 40 years. Coastal pollution is undoubtedly increasing, but no specific data are available to properly estimate its effects. Global warming also is a threat, but its effect was found to be of limited importance for now in the study. As a result of the study, the delegates approved a motion to ban fish traps, spearfishing and parrotfish fishing throughout the wider Caribbean and its adjacent ecosystems, and provide economic alternatives for affected fishermen. It also prompted a proposal to increase co-management agreements between government and civil society. At the meeting the delegates also discussed a simplification and standardization for monitoring the reefs and to make the results available in a database to facilitate adaptive management. It would be accompanied by a data exchange for local managers to benefit from others’ experiences. At the closing of the event, the delegates revised the ICRI Action Plan and held a ceremony to transfer the Secretariat responsibilities to Japan and possibly Thailand, which will be in charge of the administration of the ICRI in 2014. I really enjoyed working with my colleague and friend Haydée Rodríguez, another legal advisor at AIDA, who I talk with on a daily basis even though we live in different countries. I very much enjoyed discussing the scientific and management aspects of the coral reefs with experts in the protected marine environments of different countries. Although faced with similar problems, they resolve them in different ways because the same solutions cannot always be replicated in different contexts. In my point of view, the biggest challenge the ICRI faces is financing its platform. I also think it’s important to invite new members to encourage a greater representation from the government, scientific and civil society communities. [1] ReadEl Pez León y la necesidad de combatir especies invasoras(in Spanish, 20-noviembre-2012).
Read moreDams, mines threaten indigenous rights: Recommendations from UN human rights expert
By Jessica Lawrence, Earthjustice's research analyst A longstanding goal of Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has been to sound alarms at the United Nations, in national courtrooms and in international fora such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about environmental and human rights violations associated with mines and dams. Indigenous peoples are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of such extractive and energy industries in their territories. Last April, Earthjustice and AIDA provided evidence of these harms, as well as recommendations about how to avoid them, to U.N. indigenous rights expert James Anaya, who recently issued a report on extractive and energy industries and indigenous peoples. Comments from Earthjustice and AIDA focused on mine closure, describing how inadequate closure, restoration or monitoring can cause severe, long-term environmental contamination that can violate indigenous and human rights. We identified steps that countries can take to prevent these problems, including enacting strong laws on pabipty of mine operators and requiring operators to provide financial guarantees to ensure adequate clean-up during and after mine closure. Such measures can help protect human rights to health, clean water and a clean environment, as well as indigenous rights to culture, food, a means of subsistence and their lands and natural resources. Anaya’s report includes a number of recommendations with environmental and health imppcations. Key recommendations include: Guaranteeing indigenous communities’ right to oppose extractive and energy projects without fear of reprisals, violence, or coercive consultations. If a government decides to proceed with a project without their consent, indigenous communities should be able to challenge that decision in court. Rigorous environmental impact assessment should be a precondition. Indigenous communities should have the opportunity to participate in these assessments, and have full access to the information gathered. Governments should ensure the objectivity of impact assessments, either through independent review or by ensuring that assessments are not controlled by the project promoters. Measures to prevent environmental impacts, particularly those that impact health or subsistence, should include monitoring with participation from the pubpc, as well as measures to address project closure. If governments and project operators followed Anaya's recommendations, it would substantially reduce the harm caused to indigenous peoples by the often shameful and irresponsible conduct of extractive and energy industries. AIDA, to which Earthjustice provides significant support, works with local communities to address human rights violations from extractive industries throughout the hemisphere, including the Barro Blanco dam in Panama, the Belo Monte dam in Brazil, the La Parota dam in Mexico, and mines in the Andean ecosystems of Colombia.
Read more