Blog
The UPOV Convention and the privatization of seeds: What’s at stake?
By Florencia Ortúzar, legal advisor, AIDA "Modern agriculture is not a system for producing food but for producing money"(Bill Mollison: Australian researcher, scientist, teacher, naturalist and the father of permaculture). Seeds are the beginning of life itself. They are the means of nature’s propagation and the building blocks of life. Patenting seeds hands their ownership rights to a select few, and this causes great resentment among many. What does all of this really mean? The UPOV: An international convention The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is an intergovernmental organization whose objective is to grant intellectual property rights to “breeders.” That is, to people who have created or discovered new varieties of seeds. Some countries in the Americas have signed the UPOV Convention, which was established in Paris in 1961 and revised three times (the latest in 1991), and others are considering it. A seed needs to be considered a new variety in order to be patented. New varieties can be generated through the use of traditional techniques or genetic modification in laboratories. It is difficult to measure the possible ramifications of something so new and novel as the privatization of the life contained in a seed and, for good reason, many people are worried. The situation in Chile (and other countries): To join or not to join? Chile’s Congress is currently debating legislation known as the “Monsanto law” that, if passed, would implement the UPOV Convention and the ability to patent new seed varieties. This means that someone could alter the genetics of a native seed to become its inventor and owner. This would give them the right to sell it, charge a fee every time the seed is used, prohibit its trade in the market and draw up a contract dictating what farmers can and can’t do with the harvested product (for more information, you can listen to the interview (in Spanish) with the co-founder of the NGO Chile sin Transgénicos (Chile without Transgenics)). Proponents of the law argue that it is a necessary protection to encourage innovation in the country's agriculture sector. Concerns Making native seeds obsolete: What chance does a native seed have for survival competing against a seed that is genetically modified to be more productive and efficient? According to market rules, the “new” cultivated seeds will displace the native ones. Even worse, GM crops could easily contaminate the remaining natural varieties. Monopolies: Those with the resources to create new seeds, especially genetically modified ones, which are the most profitable, are typically the huge corporations that today dominate the production of GM foods, like Monsanto. If the seed patent system were authorized in Chile, these companies would get a free pass to take control of the country’s cropland as they have already done with great efficacy in Argentina. What is more, the most profitable companies would gain access to the country’s most arable land, expanding monoculture practices while also forcing less profitable seeds out of the market even if they are more nutritional. Seed exchange: The “Monsanto law” grants great power to the seed owner by binding the seed purchaser to a contract that controls the entire harvest and the new seeds that are generated. Traditional practices such as the propagation, sale, gift giving and exchange of seeds, customs as old as agriculture itself, would be prohibited. The law would strip farmers not only of an essential part of their job but also a key source of income: the sale of cultivated seeds. As a consequence, the farmer would lose power and identity and become a mere cog in the corporate machine. Genetically modified crops: To the benefit of big companies, we inevitably favor the entry of genetically modified foods, the products with the greatest economic return. While the adverse side effects of eating GM food are not yet officially known, it seems wise to err on the side of the precautionary principle and avoid uncontrolled testing on humans. The advent of this law would protect GM crops. Natural products, which are less economical but generally more nutritional, would be overtaken by more productive seeds. There are many reasons to treat GM foods with caution. Rather than helping to end world hunger, we have increased the use of pesticides, destroyed biopersity, caused inequality between farmers and contaminated native varieties of seeds. It also is dangerous for people’s health to live near GM crops, as has been proven in Argentina. Environmental impacts: By allowing seed monopolization, crops will become homogenized to achieve the most economic harvests. This will lead to monocultures, many of them pesticide-resistant seeds that will require the use of alarming amounts of agrochemicals. Of particular concern, a lack of persity means crops become less resilient and adaptable to environmental changes, including those associated with global warming (You can read here (in Spanish) an article about the problems Argentina is experiencing with the expansion of GM soy monoculture). Unforeseeable risks: If a country drastically changes its agricultural system, the risks are difficult to predict. It is possible that a company could incite a plague that would force desperate farmers its new seed that is resistant to the plague. Another risk is that farmers could be unfairly penalized for using patented seeds, especially if farmers have not been properly educated about the new legislation. Could farmers face lawsuits, convictions and the burning and seizure of their crops? Conclusion The implementation of the UPOV Convention threatens to drastically change an essential part of the natural cycle. The most dangerous aspect is that the global initiative is attracting more followers. It does not seem fair that a person can pay a fee for a seed that should never really be the creation of a person. Although the “breeder” could have changed a gene, it should not give him the right to copyright and control the rest of the seed’s genetic information. In Europe, only two countries have permitted the entry of GM crops. Chile has enormous potential to produce organic crops, and it could position itself successfully in the European market. But the Chilean authorities haven’t considered this as a possibility. The approval of the patent law on new seeds favors multinational seed monopolies, and this would allow the entry of GM crops that would displace and contaminate original varieties without the possibility of turning back. On the contrary, Peru recently passed a law banning the import and production of GM crops for 10 years. This is a good example to follow.
Read more
Virtual water: What we do not see
By Haydée Rodríguez, legal advisor, AIDA We live in an era of virtual creations. We have virtual reality, universities and conferences and even virtual pets. It’s no surprise then that the term “virtual water” is used more and more. But what does it mean and what’s it got to do with our everyday lives? Virtual water is defined as the quantity of water needed to create a certain product. This estimate takes into account the volume of water consumed and contaminated in the different stages of the manufaccturing process. The United Nations estimates our daily water requirement is 2 to 4 liters per person. But it takes 2,000 to 5,000 liters to make the food that one person needs every day. The Virtual Water Project has made estimates of the virtual water needed to make many of the products we consume daily. You can even download an application to do the calculations on your mobile phone. Here are a few numbers that caught my attention: 15,000 liters of water are needed to produce 1 kg of meat. 8,000 liters of water are needed for a pair of jeans. 1,000 liters of water are needed for 1 liter of milk. 2,500 liters of water are needed for 500 g of cheese. 25 liters of water are needed for 1 potato. 3,600 liters of water for 1 kg of rice. 109 liters of water for 1 glass of wine (125 ml). Our water footprint The virtual water calculation allows us to measure our water footprint as well. The water footprint of an inpidual, business or country is the sum total of the virtual water used in making every product and service. On a per-country basis, the calculation includes the water used for domestic and industrial purposes as well as the water used in foreign countries to produce the goods and services imported and consumed by the country's inhabitants. The map above shows the water footprint by country on a world scale (you can check out the data of every country here). It is interesting to note that developed countries like Canada that have a high level of manufacturing and imports also have a very high water footprint. Even so, according to the United Nations water availability map, not all the countries listed suffer water shortages. In general, this is becuase many products requiring high levels of water are imported and not manufactured locally, thus generating greater pressure in countries suffering from water stress: high water demand with low availability due to shortage or pollution. You can also calculate the water footprint of inpiduals taking into account social characteristics and consumption patterns. If you want to calculate yours, you can enter your data on this link. Virtual water, real action Being aware of the concepts of virtual water and water footprint is important for promoting the need for more information and transparency regarding what we consume. That makes it possible for us to change our habits and choose more sustainable products with low virtual water content. We can always ask ourselves what's behind the scenes for the pair of jeans we want to buy but may not need. Both concepts are essential for designing any strategy for protecting water and reducing the impact on aquatic ecosystems. Countries should consider the virtual water content of imported and exported products in their water resources management plans. There is still much to learn in this field. The virtual water coming from aquifers or páramos can have a higher value and impact on populations and associated ecosystems than surface waters. To have a better idea of the pressure we put on water resources we should incorporate the economic value of the environmental services offered by the difference sources into the calculation of virtual water. Virtual water is a tool we can use to understand the impact we have on natural resources. Even beyond what we can see, water is present in all our activities and decisions. By taking action to protect our water resources and making informed decisions, we can guarantee the human right of access to water for many people around the world.
Read more
Why defend the environment?
By Tania Paz, general assistant, AIDA,@TaniaNinoshka “The earth will be as the men are.” (Nahuatl proverb) “They murdered a friend of the collective in Amatlán,” read the text message I received on the afternoon of August 2. They had killed Noé Vázquez Ortiz, an artisan, farmer and member of the Defensa Verde Naturaleza para Siempre (Green Nature Forever Defense) collective, a group of citizens from Amatlán de los Reyes, a municipality in Veracruz, Mexico. Since 2011, the collective has been fighting against the construction of the El Naranjal hydropower dam, a project that will disrupt rivers and affect the livelihoods of some 30,000 people in five neighboring municipalities. Noé was killed while gathering flowers and seeds for the opening celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Mexican Movement Against Dams and in Defense of Rivers (MAPDER). I never met Noé and I’ve never visited Amatlán de los Reyes. But for the past three years I have been following the struggle of the Amatlán people to protect their land. The tragedy prompted me to ask myself: Why should we defend the environment, and what motivates people to risk their lives for it? There are important reasons why it’s essential for us to defend the environment, which I am sharing here. While this is not an exhaustive list, I think it does help at least to explain key motivations. The right to a healthy environment The right to live in a healthy environment was established in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and reaffirmed in the Rio Declaration of 1992. This right encompasses others such as the right to life, the right to food and food security, access to drinking water and sanitation through the protection of water sources, forests and wildlife. Environmentalists are more than anything defenders of human rights, as AIDA attorney María José Veramendi has said. The defense of our identity as communities Natural resources have played an important role in the development of civilizations throughout human history. This is manifest in the construction of community culture and identity. The legends, stories, traditions and characteristics of the Mesoamerican communities, for example, are intrinsically linked to the gifts of nature. During Easter in Nicaragua, children re-enact the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in an aquatic Via Crucis (in Spanish) (Stations of the Cross) on Lake Nicaragua, the largest freshwater source in the country, while the river system is an important aspect of the famous Mexican legend of “The Weeping Woman.” In the Rarámuri territory of Mexico, “corn provides the backbone of the indigenous Sierra Tarahumara culture as it does for all ethnic groups in the country. Any changes involved in the production, consumption and distribution of the grain signifies a transformation in the social, cultural and biological persity of these ethnic groups,” says Horacio Almanza Alcade (2004, in Spanish). What will happen to our cultural wealth and identy when natural resources are depleted? Will we lose our identities as communities? These questions are worth asking. The continuity of the human species For me, defending the environment is a way to preserve the human species with a high standard of living and quality of life. In a well-known letter from 1854, Chief Seattle of the Suwamish tribe wrote in reply to an offer by US President Franklin Pierce to buy the country’s northwest territories the following: “Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves.” Today, the harm we are inflicting on the environment comes at a great cost. According to the most recent estimates (2013) of the World Health Organization (WHO), more than two million people die each year from inhaling small particulate contaminants in the air both indoors and outdoors. Malaria kills over one million children under the age of five every year, mostly in Africa. The spread of the disease is worsened by poor water storage and handling, inadequate housing, deforestation and the loss of biopersity. Defending the environment is no easy task. At every level, whether in communities, national or international organizations, civil associations or NGOs like AIDA, tackling the problem requires many hours of work and study at the sacrifice of time away from family and friends. In many cases, environmental defense means risking lives for the sake of others, for the sake of society. Protection is needed. It is the obligation of governments and authorities at home and around the world to provide this necessary protection and support to the defenders of the environment.
Read moreProtecting the Colombian páramos: It’s more than just rules
By Carlos Lozano, legal advisor, AIDA,@CLozanoAcosta The consensus in Colombia is that páramo ecosystems are important and must be protected. These high-altitude wetlands are a source of clean water for over two million people. They play a key role in combating climate change, and they host a wealth of strategic biopersity. Half of the world’s páramos are found in Colombia, where they provide the country with 70% of its potable water [1]. Colombia’s print media, for the most part, has shown support for protecting the páramos, backed by a critical mass of congruent public opinion. Progress has been made to conserve the páramos with new regulations and public policies, but challenges remain. Hampering the conservation efforts are the poor implementation of regulations, local community protests, persuasive mining interests and, most recently, a national agrarian strike [2]. National laws incorporate provisions to protect the páramos, including a prohibition of mining activities, among other things. Unfortunately, Colombia’s Constitutional Court recently ruled against reforms to the Mining Code (Law 1382 of 2010) that included a provision expressly forbidding mining in the páramos. Despite this setback, there is a series of domestic rules that, when interpreted as a whole, retain the prohibition on mining. Other legal safeguards exist in the country’s judicial system. The Colombian Constitution, for example, makes general references to environmental protection in articles 8, 58, 79, 80, 333 and 334. The law for the National Environment System (Law 99 of 1993) states that páramo areas are subject to special protection and that human consumption of páramo water is prevalent. The Constitutional Court also has said that the zones banned from mining in the country are not limited to national parks (case C-339 of 2002), and the National Development Plan (Law 1450 of 2011) stipulates that páramo ecosystems cannot be used for further agricultural activities, the exploration or exploitation of oil and minerals or for the construction of oil refineries. What is more, Colombia is obliged to protect the páramo through binding international laws including conventions on biological persity, wetlands of international importance (Ramsar) and climate change. All of these make strong arguments for the protection of the páramos. In spite of the clear legal framework in place to protect the páramos, a nationwide debate is underway as to what defines the páramos and where its official boundaries lie. The discussion was settled with a scientific territorial demarcation drawn up by the Humboldt Institute, initially mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 and then with some areas at a scale of 1:25,000 in accordance with the National Development Plan. The cartography is a serious and rigorous work, so much so that it won an award of excellence from Colombia’s Alejandro Ángel Escobar Foundation for its significant and meaningful contribution to science. The National Development Plan law states that the delimitation should be adopted as part of a legal administrative act so that it becomes a mandatory standard. There are no legal arguments preventing the proper demarcation from being adopted as soon as possible. It’s likely that a strict demarcation of the páramos would have social and economic impacts on the local community. But these do not outweigh the potential harm that could result as a consequence of allowing high-impact activities like mining in the páramos. A particular harm would be the disruption of clean water supplies. Moreover, a weaker demarcation that allows the continuation of local economic activities (including mining and agriculture) not only harms the environment but also fails to recognize the importance of these pristine ecosystems. The course of action we recommend for Colombia is: i) To adopt the demarcation of the Humboldt Institute mapped at as detailed a scale as possible, according to the National Development Plan law; ii) To work with local communities, making a gradual and concerted effort to properly implement and enforce the requirements of the demarcation, including the cessationof industrial activities and iii) Employ mechanisms to compensate for the demarcation’s impacts, including effective economic and industrial restructuring where necessary. [1] ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Andean Páramo Project: The Great Book of the Páramo, page 61. [2] Since August, some sectors of the Colombian farming community have mobilized in protest against the impact of free trade agreements on local food production: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23829482. The strike has caused a sharp drop in the popularity of President Juan Manuel Santos and with it, his chances for re-election. Some analysts argue that with the current situation governance is weak. That means sectors like mining have a strong incentive to lobby the government to gain concessions. It could also lead to the implementation of an unsatisfactory páramo demarcation.
Read moreAndisols: Vitally important and vulnerable soils
Have you ever heard of Andisols? They are a vitally important building block for ecosystems in the Americas including Andean forests and high-altitude wetlands known as páramos, not to mention the cultivation of food. In this post, I’ll explain more about these soils and why it’s crucial to protect them. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines Andisols as a type of volcanic black soil typically found in mountainous regions. Andisols occupy roughly 1% of the world’s land surface area, primarily in the Ring of Fire, a string of volcanoes and active tectonic hotspots along the edges of the Pacific Ocean. The ring runs through Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Japan, Indonesia, New Zealand and other countries, with among the world’s greatest amount of Andisols found in Colombia. Andisols are an essential tool for agriculture and can be used to cultivate sugarcane, tobacco, potatoes, tea, vegetables, wheat, rice and other crops. These soils also sustain fragile ecosystems in the Andes mountains from forests to páramos, helping to provide essential nutrients and regulate the water cycle. In short, Andisols play a vital role in Colombia’s natural landscape. On the world stage, the protection of Andisols is equally important to sustain the food requirements of an increasing global population. By 2050 there will be some nine billion people, and, according to the FAO, to feed them we will need to produce “another one billion tons of cereals and 200 million tons of livestock products per year.” Right now, soil conservation, the protection of ecosystems and sustainable food production are merely transcendental topics for humanity. A rational and respectful use of soils is strategically important. In 2050, a hungry person will not be able to eat banknotes, electronic devices, cars, gold bullion or gasoline. We will face a serious problem if no fertile soil is left for food cultivation. Already today millions of people that go hungry due to unequal food distribution. FAO data from 2011 shows that “almost one billion people are undernourished, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (239 million) and Asia (578 million).” While Andisols play a critical role in food production and ecological health, the development of extractive industries – primarily energy and mining – are causing serious negative impacts on these rich soils in Colombia. Public policies must be put in place to regulate and guarantee environmentally sustainable management of these essential soils because the country’s food security and sovereignty depend on them, as does the conservation of mountain ecosystems. To properly protect Andisols, we need to implement a legal framework to ensure they are used in a responsible and environmentally sustainable way for food production and that they are protected from harmful extractive industries. The FAO World Soil Charter of 1982 provides the following guidance to the world’s governments, including Colombia’s: “Develop a policy for wise land use according to land suitability for different types of utilization and the needs of the country.” Regardless of any directives from the United Nations or whatever other international organization, Colombia’s future rests in our own hands. We need to think about how we can guarantee our viability, survival and, of course, our food. We must also consider how to fulfill our responsibility of caring for a country with an incredible wealth of biopersity, from flora and fauna to water supplies and Andisols.
Read more
Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico: Lots of tourism, little sustainability
By Sandra Moguel, legal advisor, AIDA, @sandra_moguel Sun and sand tourism is one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the Americas. Indeed, an increasing number of foreigners, mostly Americans and Canadians, are opting to retire to beaches in Latin America. Mass tourism is having a negative impact on the region’s coasts and oceans. In this post, I’ll talk about what’s happening in Costa Rica, Panama and Mexico. Ecotourism and social problems Since the late 1980s, Costa Rica has become known for promoting a successful ecotourism industry. Leisure travel is now the country’s leading foreign exchange earner. According to official data, international tourism increased sixfold and the gross income it generated shot up twelvefold between 1986 and 2005. Thanks to ecotourism, Costa Rica nets over USD $1,000 per tourist today. But it’s not all icing on the cake. Despite its sustainable tourism fame, Costa Rica has fallen into the temptation of building massive resorts that feature “all-inclusive” services and end up causing a number of social problems. When mass tourism is prioritized, the results are mass displacements of people from their homes, unequal wealth distribution and a shortage of public services like energy supplies and garbage collection. Local populations also face a loss of identity, greater competition for resources like clean water and access to the beach, not to mention environmental damages. Panama Bay Like Costa Rica, Panama is not without its problems. The country’s environmental and tourism policies undermine the rights of indigenous communities and harm the environment. Demonstrating the power and determination of the tourism industry, a group of developers seeking to build mega-resorts in the protected area of Panama Bay have filed several lawsuits questioning the legality of a decree declaring the protected status of this ecosystem. In 2012, AIDA worked with its Panamanian partners to defend the bay, which so far has maintained its protected status. Mexico and competitive tourism In 2011, 22.3 million foreign tourists visited Mexico, contributing USD$1.18 billion to the economy, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). Mexico was ranked 43rd in the world for its potential to attract new tourism investment in 2011, according to the World Economic Forum’s Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report. Under the leadership of Felipe Calderón, who served as president between 2006 and 2012, efforts were made to raise Mexico’s profile as a global tourism destination and policies were implemented to create a more sustainable and competitive tourism industry. Despite the start of these policies and the approval of the General Tourism Law, Mexico’s plan to boost tourism numbers is wanting. For example, the law doesn’t have regulations that detail the new figures it has created, nor does it provide legal certainty to investors or the local communities about their involvement in making decisions about where they live. Research on Mexico’s tourism industry has found that authorities are failing in their responsibility to protect the environment. In its report Alternative Development Models and Good Practices for Sustainable Coastal Tourism: A Framework for Decision Makers in Mexico, The Center for Responsible Travel (CREST) found the country’s chief tourism bodies, the Secretary of Tourism (SEMARNAT) and the National Tourism Development Fund (FONATUR), in many cases did not follow international best practices for sustainable tourism, approving resorts that have caused social and environmental damage including in the use of energy generated from the burning of fossil fuels. The destruction of mangroves, wetlands and coral reefs not only negatively affect Mexico’s competitiveness as a tourist destination, but these bad practices also demonstrate that the country is failing to meet its international obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. For these reasons AIDA and Earthjustice, working as partners to represent 11 civil society organizations, submitted a citizen petition to the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). In the petition, we denounced the Mexican government for not properly implementing its environmental legislation to evaluate the environmental impacts of planned mega resorts on the Gulf of California. This suggests that the government may have skirted important safeguards in order to attract more investment to the country, and thereby creating – possibly unfairly – competition with its trade partners, the United States and Canada. In large-scale tourism, local communities are generally not properly consulted during the planning stages of mega resorts and their development model. The WTO Global Code of Ethics for Tourism states that tourism professionals, particularly investors, “should deliver, with the greatest transparency and objectivity, information on their future programs and their foreseeable repercussions and foster dialogue on their contents with the populations concerned.” Mass tourism developments typically bring with them new hydropower plants, highways, airports and other major infrastructure projects. These do not necessarily favor the interests of local communities. In Resolution XI.7, the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty that protects wetlands of international importance and of which Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica are signatories, it is stressed that there is a need to implement closer collaboration between the tourism and conservation sectors and the rational use of the wetlands in order to maximize and sustain the long-term benefits derived from the expertise of each sector. It is worth noting Ramsar’s proposal because it shows the inconsistencies between environmental and tourism policies. An example of successful environmental and tourism management is Argentina, where the two sectors complement each other through close coordination. The country’s National Parks Administration (APN) is a public body that functions under the aegis of the Ministry of Tourism. The infrastructure of bathrooms, visitor centers, signage and marked pathways reflects the sustainability of the business plan and management of tourism sites. There still is a great deal of work to be done to achieve sustainable tourism in Latin America. Great strides can be made if we strengthen tourism and environmental policies and establish methodologies for public consultation that foster community involvement.
Read more
How we protect Andean ecosystems from mining's impacts
Few places in the world are so vulnerable to environmental degradation from mining than Colombia. The country ranks second in coal reserves in South America and is home to what could be one of the largest gold mines in the Americas. This means it is imperative to deal with the environmental problems linked to mining. Paradoxically, Colombia has a rich ecology. This ranges from forests to fragile environments such as páramos, or high-altitude ecosystems that capture water from fog and supply it to lowlands. Both have a rich biodiversity that would suffer devastating impacts from mining. But it’s not just the environment. The ethnic and rural communities that rely on these natural resources for their livelihoods are the most susceptible to mining. AIDA has worked to protect these Andean ecosystems, which are vital sources of water. Due to a shift in national policy from agriculture to mining as Colombia’s economic and industrial priority, the threats of mining are intensifying. In response, AIDA has used political and legal strategies to strengthen and enforce environmental legislation in the country. We have turned to comparative and international law to clarify the country’s legal requirements and establish precedents for the creation of public policies that protect fragile environments from large-scale mining. In this effort, AIDA helped the Inter-Church Commission for Justice and Peace, a Colombian human rights group, to file a lawsuit against the Mandé Norte project of Muriel Mining Corp. in the northeastern department of Chocó. With the resolution of this case (see above, Spanish only), Colombia's Constitutional Court set a crucial precedent. It ruled that indigenous and tribal communities have the right to freely access information about the project and to express their prior consent for the construction of the mine, all while under the protection of national and international laws. Specifically, the court ordered the Colombian government to stop all work on the Mandé Norte mine until the company carried out extensive studies on the potential environmental impacts and made a new and adequate consultation of the affected communities. The Ministry of Interior and the mining company asked the court to reverse its decision. AIDA and other organizations submitted requests (see our interventions, Spanish only) to keep the ruling intact. This finally happened on March 12, 2012 when the court confirmed its decision (see the confirmation of the sentence, Spanish only). To the east of the Mandé Norte project, another such project is threatening the environment and communities in the Santander department. AIDA is working to stop the construction of Angostura, an open-pit gold mine that Canada’s Greystar Resources Ltd. – now called Eco Oro Minerals Corp. – plans to build in the Santurbán páramos, high-altitude wetlands that supply drinking water to 2.2 million Colombians and help to mitigate the effects of climate change. During the environmental licensing process for the project, AIDA helped to demonstrate that Colombia’s legal obligations as well as international norms prohibit mining in the páramos. Based on this argument, Colombia’s Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development rejected (Spanish only) the environmental impact assessment denied the environmental license for Angostura in May 2011. But as the decision didn’t cancel the mining licenses, Eco Oro said it would seek to build an underground mine. In January 2013, the ministry declared Santurbán a Regional Natural Park, a move that can prevent the development of mining concessions in páramos areas. Through all of this, we found evidence of violations to social and environmental standards in the national and international funding for the Angostura mine by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), an entity of the World Bank Group. Given the alleged noncompliance with these standards, we teamed up with the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and MiningWatch Canada to submit a complaint to the Office of the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), the independent complaints office of the IFC. We called for an audit of the project and a subsequent divestment. The CAO decided to audit the investment process. The outcome could set a precedent to ensure that the IFC does not finance mining in páramos, a key decision given that such initiatives are planned elsewhere in Colombia as well as in Ecuador and Peru. In addition to these efforts, AIDA has been actively involved in the debate (Spanish only) concerning a boundary demarcation of Colombia’s páramos as a way to protect these ecosystems. According to Colombian law, the geographical location and characteristics of páramo ecosystems must be mapped out to establish their legal perimeters. Once officially determined, the boundaries will provide the basis for conservation measures, in particular the prevention of activities that cause irreversible damage. Together with prestigious Colombian environmentalists and society as a whole, AIDA has taken action (Spanish only) to press the Ministry of Environment to endorse a demarcation based on scientific criteria by adopting a new atlas of the páramos drawn up by Colombian officials. At the same time, AIDA has worked with other environmental organizations to investigate La Colosa, a mining project that South Africa-based AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. plans to develop in the forest reserves and the large farmlands of Tolima, a central-western department of Colombia. In this case, we have sought a more active and informed participation of citizens and compliance with the highest environmental standards. AIDA also has joined forces with other organizations to file a suit with the goal of analyzing the constitutionality of Colombia’s National Mining Code. The Constitutional Court has set important precedents regarding the need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and the importance of the precautionary principle. It also has set a precedent for ensuring the independence of environmental authorities in regard to mining authorities when it comes to awarding environmental licenses for mining projects. In addition to Colombia, AIDA has been enlisted to help halt the construction of mines in Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama and elsewhere. To do this, AIDA has developed legal and scientific resources from our analysis of case studies and writing of reports. These resources can be useful for protecting the environment and the rural and indigenous communities that are the most affected by mining.
Read more
The bicycle: Can it be our principle mode of transport?
By Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director, AIDA, @astridpuentes Have you ever thought that bicycles could be our main mode of transport, or is it already for you? I tell people that I cycle, and that I live in Mexico City! I love riding on two wheels for many reasons: it’s environmentally friendly, and it’s easy, fast, cheap and fun. Many times I’ve ridden past cars idling in traffic, leaving them behind as I arrive at my destination in less time than if I’d taken a car or bus. Although it seems incredible, I hardly ever take a car. This might seem crazy given that we are in the modern era and I live in Mexico City, but its doable. I use Ecobici, a public rental service for bicycles. It’s not perfect, but it works well enough. I’m not saying that bicycles should be the only option for everyone. It works for me because most of the destinations I ride to are within a reasonable distance. Of course, when I need to go somewhere with my two year old, I resort to other means of transport such as our family car. As we all know, the increasing use of bicycles and other zero-emission modes of transport help to combat climate change in our cities. Sustainable transport alone will not provide the panacea for solving global warming, but it does go a long way in reducing its impact. The case of The Netherlands Riding a bike, especially in Latin America, can sometimes be more of a challenge than an adventure. I found a BBC article that explains why some countries like The Netherlands use bicycles on a grand scale. The reasons why are surprisingly simple. The country has: Excellent bike path infrastructure, with enough space for everyone to cycle, including children. A bicycle-friendly culture: Motorists respect cyclists because in most cases they either know someone who is a cyclist or they cycle themselves. Strict traffic rules for everyone: Motorists and cyclists alike face hefty fines if they park poorly on the street, travel in the wrong direction or do not follow traffic light rules. Tolerant neighbors allow cyclists to park their bicycles outside their houses, which is clearly a safe place to leave them! How can this be achieved? An interesting aspect in the case of The Netherlands is that civil society pressure and the oil crisis were decisive factors that influenced a considerable change in the country’s transport system. Like most countries in the 1950s and 1960s, the number of road vehicles in The Netherlands grew significantly and, with it, a rise in traffic-related accidents. The number of people killed in 1971 as a result of traffic accidents was 3,000, 450 of whom were children, according to the BBC. The sharp increase in deaths prompted a social movement called “Stop the Child Murder,” which called on the government to improve road safety for cyclists. These incidents, together with the oil crisis of the 1970s, led to changes in government policy, the construction of new bike infrastructure, improved safety standards and, above all, the framework for The Netherlands to take a new bicycle route of its own. Helmet or no helmet… Curiously, it is not mandatory to wear a helmet when bicycling in The Netherlands, as is also the case in much of Europe. Wearing a helmet is not considered necessary given the very low number of accidents and the high level of road safety. The obligation to wear a helmet is seen by many as an attack on the culture that promotes bicycles as a mode of transport. In Spain, there have been protests against government efforts to impose rules enforcing helmet use. In contrast: Cyclists of all ages must wear helmets in Australia and Dubai. It is mandatory to wear a helmet in some Canadian provinces, not others. United States federal law does not require cyclists to wear helmets, but cities like Dallas require helmets for cyclists of all ages, while only those under the ages of 16 and 18 in California and Washington D.C., respectively, are required to do so. Certainly any government attempt to implement policies on helmet use in Latin American cities would be difficult. On the one hand, it is a very real danger to cycle on busy cities, especially if drivers are not accustomed to sharing the roads with cyclists. On the other hand, mandatory helmet requirements could act as a disincentive to people in choosing whether to take up riding bicycles. Something to consider is that helmets alone do not prevent all accidents. A great majority of accidents -- children falling off their bicycles or collisions on the congested streets of Bogota and in other Latin American cities -- can be avoided if appropriate security measures are put in place. I myself had an accident at the age of three when my uncle took me for a ride on his Super Monareta (a Colombian brand of bikes) near my grandmother’s house. My left foot got stuck in the spokes of the rear wheel, badly injuring my inner foot and resulting in the destruction of my best pair of shoes. Fortunately, I came away with only a scar. But it could have been much worse. Progress in Latin America It’s pretty much impossible to compare our countries with The Netherlands. But I think the progress made and lessons learned there hold the key to bicycle reform, and are well worth noting. The good news is that various Latin American capitals have taken action to encourage the use of bicycles. Bike paths are expanding: Bogota has 297 km, Santiago is planning to build an additional 400 km in the inner city, Mexico City reached 42 km in 2012 and Buenos Aires has about 90 km. In reality there is still a great deal to be done and, fortunately, citizens are becoming more involved in the issue, demanding better infrastructure, improved security and air quality to ride something that is more than just a child’s toy. Hopefully progress will continue and we’ll finally see positive changes toward the adoption of fun, environmentally friendly and cheap forms of transport like cycling. What do you think? Do you dare ride a bike?
Read more
"No thank you" says the Green Climate Fund Board to transparency and civil society input
By Andrea Rodríguez, legal advisor, AIDA,@arodriguezosuna Once again civil society organizations expressed disappointment at the lack of transparency and civil society engagement at the latest meeting of the board of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), an operating entity of the United Nations Convention Framework for Climate Change (UNFCCC). The 24-member board met June 25-28 in Songdo, South Korea to further advance a process of putting the GCF into operation. The GCF will operate as a mechanism for transferring funds from the developed to developing world in order to help developing countries finance adaptation and mitigation practices to combat climate change. Civil society organizations have been constantly asking the GCF board for better opportunities for civil society to effectively be involved in the GCF decision-making process. Organizations have sent letters to board members, advisors and the GCF Interim Secretariat. But these many attempts to draw attention and consideration to civil society’s concerns have come to no avail. The board has constantly closed the doors to civil society’s active and effective participation. At board meetings, civil society may only have two active observers in the meeting room: one representing the north and the other the south. The other accredited observers have to sit in an overflow room to watch the meeting. The two active observers may only engage in the meeting if invited by the co-chairs of the board. Only one intervention can be made per each agenda item of the meeting and for no more than three minutes each time. On the last day of the Songdo meeting, the co-chairs disallowed any interventions from civil society, claiming there was not enough time. Ironically, the most important decisions were made on the last day. Given these limitations imposed by the co-chairs, the two active observers in the meeting room approached several board members to share key points on different papers from the perspective of civil society. The co-chairs, however, penalized this action and forbade the active observers from talking to board members. Despite the frustration of the being undermined and excluded, civil society was hoping to win at least one battle at the meeting: getting the board to decide in favor of live webcasting. Live webcasting shows a commitment to accountability and transparency. It provides opportunities for people without the resources to travel to board meetings to get involved in the meeting while also limiting the CO2 emissions generated by each board meeting through a reduction in the number of international flights taken for attendance. Webcasting is widely used by climate-related funds and is even used by the UNFCCC, the international environmental treaty of which the GCF is part. In Songdo, the GCF board decided against live webcasting on the argument that it would be too expensive at US$20,000 to US$30,000 per meeting. The board’s reference prices, however, are far more than the market average of US$1200 per day. According to the Adaptation Fund (AF) Secretariat and its webcast provider, live-streaming of AF board meetings costs about $1,000-$1,250 per day of broadcast, depending on site specific issues. Instead of live webcasting, the GCF board agreed to make webcasts of the meeting accessible three weeks after the event upon registration. Civil society organizations believe that this three-week delay prohibits organizations from advocating on the issues related to the discussions and decisions at the meeting. The Green Climate Fund has decided to have a strategic focus on climate mitigation and adaptation and seek to maximize sustainable development. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand how the fund would ever be able to maximize “sustainable development” if its decisions are not made with the support of effective stakeholder participation and engagement throughout the whole process.
Read more
There is a blot in the middle of the ocean…
By Florencia Ortúzar, legal advisor, AIDA The first time I heard about the mysterious “rubbish island” I was shocked. How could a huge floating mass as big as a country go unnoticed in the ocean without being on everyone’s lips? Incredibly, many people haven’t even heard of this Pacific Trash Vortex that grows larger every day, making it the world’s largest rubbish dump. A soup of what? The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, as it’s officially known, is one of the five floating rubbish dumps polluting our world’s oceans. It was the first to be discovered and is the biggest. It’s located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean between the U.S. states of Hawaii and California, about 1,000 kilometers off the coast of Hawaii. The size of the rubbish heap is difficult to determine. Estimates range from about 15,000 square kilometers (equivalent to the surface area of Antarctica or 8.1% of the Pacific Ocean) to 700,000 square kilometers (almost the surface area of Chile). Let me explain a little more about this sad and unusual phenomenon. The island of rubbish is not a solid island as such, nor a floating sheet of trash. Rather, it’s a soup of plastic particles floating in a gyre. Ocean currents collect thousands of tons of floating garbage and round them up in a giant vortex. The slowly rotating mass prevents the rubbish from dispersing. This soup has everything: abandoned fishing nets, plastic bottles, caps, toothbrushes, shoes and much more. But more than anything, the vortex consists of small particles of plastic created when the waves and sun break down larger pieces. This gigantic mass remains below the surface of the water in a column estimated to extend 30 meters deep. Paradoxically, despite its huge size, the rubbish dump is not easy to visualize as a whole and has not been captured in satellite images because of its location under the water. Worse, it is located in international waters, so no nation is responsible for the waste. After concerned scientists and environmentalists, the only people left to help clean up the mess are passengers on special cruise ships who visit the vortex to help remove some of the rubbish. In all, it’s a gigantic mess going unnoticed, growing slowly but surely in a no man’s land devoid of a god or the rule of law. A chance discovery In 1988, experts from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted the existence of the garbage patch in the North Pacific Ocean by analyzing local marine currents. But it wasn’t until a decade later when oceanographer Charles Moore officially discovered the trash heap, which was dubbed the "Eastern Garbage Patch." In July 1997, Captain Moore was sailing through the North Pacific Gyre when he came across miles and miles of synthetic pieces of debris, and an immense mass of floating garbage. It took the American one week to cross the accumulation of waste. In 1994, Moore established the foundation Algalita Marine Research to focus on the protection and regeneration of kelp forests and wetlands along the coast of California. But after his floating garbage island discovery, Moore dramatically changed the course of his foundation and dedicated it to raising awareness and promoting education about the garbage patch. (See Moore’s TED talk). Expeditions to the forgotten island Since its discovery, there have been various scientific expeditions to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and other floating garbage islands like it. Unfortunately, these trips have not managed to generate a significant amount of public awareness or impact outside environmental circles. Nobody seems to be willing to take responsibility or action. The most recent expedition in May was organized by the Society of French Explorers (in French) on a schooner called L’Elan, assisted by Captain Moore on board. The results of the mission have not yet been published. Hopefully now with the ability of social networks to disseminate information widely, the issue will generate more interest and make people aware of the huge amount of plastic we consume. What can we do? As mentioned above, the garbage island mainly consists of billions of plastic pieces too small to be seen. This makes it difficult for the debris to be removed from the ocean. You would have to put a very fine net across the surface of the water, which would disturb the ecosystem and essential marine fauna such as plankton, a key food source for ocean animals. What is more, accessing the polluted area would require a considerable amount of resources including manpower and expensive materials to undertake the difficult work out in the open seas. The task becomes even more unlikely where you consider that the garbage island is located in international waters where no country is sovereign (the tragedy of the commons). For now and until we come up with new technology that lets us travel back in time to prevent this disaster, the best and most sensible thing to do is to stop producing so much garbage, and especially to limit our consumption of disposable plastic. It is also important to help raise awareness of the problem so more people understand the effects of their consumerism, change their lifestyles and educate future generations who will be looking after the planet. The island of trash consists of materials that at one time helped revolutionize the world. Today we are surrounded by plastic: we eat and drink from it. We use it every day. It is present in nearly all of our activities. Plastic is almost a miracle product. Cheap, effective and virtually indestructible, it doesn’t break. It just disintegrates into smaller parts. The considerable durability of plastic means that almost all the plastic molecules ever created still remain somewhere on the planet. Now at least we have a better idea on where they end up: on rubbish island.
Read more