Blog

October 29 2021 Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

Science's call to action for climate and air

By Fabio López Alfaro y Luisa Gaona Quiroga, AIDA interns The first installment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report—which will be completed in 2022—devotes an unprecedented entire chapter to short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), the reduction of which can mitigate the climate crisis and improve air quality. The IPCC's emphasis on these pollutants reaffirms the intrinsic relationship between climate and air, as well as the urgent need to implement effective and joint measures for their protection. SLCPs are compounds that absorb or reflect solar energy. They have the capacity to heat or cool the Earth on short time scales (days to years), in contrast to greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, whose climate impact can last decades, centuries or even longer. The best-known SLCPs include black carbon (small particles produced by burning diesel, biofuels and biomass), methane (which has a high global warming effect and is a precursor of other pollutants), tropospheric ozone and hydrofluorocarbons. Because they remain in the atmosphere for only short periods of time, their impacts on climate are regional and their changes are linked to changes in their emission sources. Although some SLCPs warm the planet and others cool it, the fact is that these pollutants cause between 30 and 45 percent of global warming, in addition to damaging air quality and affecting crop yields. Therefore, their integral management is decisive for mitigating the climate crisis and improving our quality of life. The situation in Latin America In this IPCC assessment cycle, the availability of information made it possible to emphasize the regional analysis of climate change, illustrating the relevance of SLCPs, whose impacts on climate and air are primarily local. However, the findings for Latin America are minor compared to those of Europe, Asia or North America, evidencing a lag in the region's knowledge. Closing this knowledge gap on SLCPs is fundamental because the region ranks third in terms of short-term (10 year) warming generation, surpassed by East Asia and North America. Despite having less information, the IPCC was able to identify the key sectors and pollutants to manage in Latin America. The report highlights that mitigation policies should focus on particulate matter and ozone generated in industry, energy production and open burning of biomass, sectors that are regionally responsible for the highest emissions. As the diameter of the particulate matter decreases, the negative health impacts are greater. Thus, fine particles— of particulate matter 2.5—cause the most harmful impacts on people's respiratory and cardiovascular systems. According to the World Health Organization, black carbon and organic carbon form a substantial part of particulate matter in air pollution, and are an important cause of morbidity and premature mortality worldwide. Moreover, methane and black carbon are the primary pollutants of concern in agriculture, fossil fuels, waste management and diesel engines, sectors that are projected to contribute 90 percent of non-OECD countries' black carbon emissions by 2100. Call to action The scientific evidence presented by the IPCC is also a call to action, a joint fight for climate and air. The report proves that it is vital to have crosscutting public policies that simultaneously seek to mitigate the climate crisis and SLCP emissions. The absence of such policies, coupled with weak air pollution control, implies short-term warming for Latin America, mainly because it is estimated that emissions of methane, ozone and hydrofluorocarbons—compounds characterized by high warming rates—will increase, as well as lower contributions from aerosols, which would decrease the cooling effect. However, with proper monitoring and in scenarios that combine efforts to reduce GHGs and SLCPs, high climate benefits and stabilization are expected after 2040. Although the climate results of these measures will be visible in 20 to 30 years, they will contribute to improving air quality and protecting human health in the short term. Public policies that work to lessen air pollution can reduce mortality rates due to poor air quality and contribute to meeting several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially those targets related to particulate matter exposure (targets 3.9 and 11.6), human health and cities (targets 3.8 and 11.7), and the health of people and the environment (targets 3.9 and 11.7). They can also contribute to access to clean and affordable energy, responsible consumption and production, climate action and biodiversity protection (SDGs 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15). Finally, reducing CCVC emissions will help reduce crop losses, contributing to achieving zero hunger (SDG 2). Now that we know the sectors and pollutants whose management will be key in the coming years, it is time to demand that authorities and companies implement concrete actions to reduce emissions of SLCPs and obtain co-benefits in the fight for climate and clean air.

September 14 2021

¡Gracias totales!

I’m ending an era of 18 great years at AIDA, my second home. Words are not enough to describe how grateful, proud and happy I feel as I take stock of the achievements, progress and lessons learned. I treasure the wonder of meeting and sharing this journey with so many people in every corner of our Americas and beyond; the blessing of traveling rivers, mountains and territories and learning with and from each and every person and community. For all of this, I can only say: ¡Gracias totales! This has been the work of my dreams and the great honor of my life: to be able to build and lead this organization, alongside great people, building community from our female leadership, contributing throughout the continent to the protection of territories, rights and the environment. I am deeply grateful for the company, support, mentorship, inspiration, and sisterhood of Anna Cederstav, with whom I shared the dream and leadership of AIDA during this time, and who will continue in the organization supporting the new executive leadership. It is impossible to imagine a better co-director. Infinite thanks also to the Board of Directors for their trust and continued support. It is great to know that the organization has your back to ensure its growth and transcendence in these times of change. To each of the people of my current team and of all these years, words cannot express my admiration and deep gratitude for their invaluable commitment, professionalism, love and dedication. The results achieved are thanks to you all. It is very gratifying to have contributed to important advances in the region, including making visible and supporting the fights for justice in La Oroya, Peru, and in the Xingu River basin in Brazil; helping to protect the San Pedro Mezquital and Papagayo rivers in Mexico, the páramos in Colombia, the corals and mangroves on our coasts; conserving turtle nesting areas such as Las Baulas in Costa Rica; helping improve the Constitution in Mexico; helping include human rights in climate agreements and improving standards to protect rivers and mangroves; helping improve the safeguards of some international financial institutions; and contributing to the advancement of jurisprudence in the Inter-American System, including the recognition that climate change impacts human rights. It has been even more gratifying to have achieved all this together with great people both in our team and in various organizations, networks, communities and national and international entities. Today especially, and in view of the climate crisis and the reality of our region, it is essential to continue advancing in the collective work with and from the territories, motivating the diversity of knowledge and seriously including the perspective of women, youth and communities to reach the solutions that have so far proved elusive. This has all been a learning experience, because each achievement has been the result of close coordination, and of the diverse and complementary contribution of multiple visions. I am confident that this perspective will continue to be strengthened in order to make further progress towards finding solutions for our collective challenges. The magnitude of the climate and biodiversity crisis, the imperative need for a transformative recovery, and effective protection of human rights defenders, the environment and territory are three priorities that require our best efforts and impact. It is comforting to know that we have helped strengthen and build a great regional and global community with whom we share the goal of advancing the outcomes that people, communities, nature, and our societies and countries so desperately need. It is one of my greatest rewards after so many years of work. For all these reasons, and given that the only constant in life is change, the time has come to give free rein to new leadership. This decision has been difficult because this has been my home for so long. I first heard about AIDA in July 1997, when the organization was still in its infancy and I was studying law and working at Fundepúblico in Colombia. Upon learning of their intention to work on public interest environmental law in and from Latin America, I knew immediately that it was my place. I started as an intern in May 2003 and, a few months later, the Board of Directors hired me as an attorney. My heart did not fit in my chest and the ideas did not stop running through my mind. Today I have the satisfaction of having done my best to make a positive contribution to my region, putting law and science at the service of people, communities and the environment. In the process, I was also able to grow as a lawyer, and a leader, while building my family and becoming a wife and mother. After countless adventures, learning, successes and failures, it is time to embark on other paths and embrace change. I will continue to contribute to the understanding of the climate crisis and especially to identify how we can move towards climate justice with and from a feminist perspective and from the South, of course. We will continue to share this path towards climate and environmental justice, which is also social. I reiterate my deepest gratitude for so many lessons learned, opportunities and achievements. I am confident that AIDA is in the best hands and ready to move on to an exciting new stage.

September 10 2021 Climate Change, Human Rights

The IPCC's Sixth Report: the stark reality we must face with agency and hope

“Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act”. - Greta Thumberg, addressing the World Economic Forum in January 2019. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report confirmed what we’ve all feared. With more refined scientific evidence than ever before, the report warns that climate change is intensifying, affecting all regions of the planet. Humanity's influence on this imbalance is now referred to as "unequivocal." As such, there’s no doubt that it’s our responsibility to confront the problem. Recent and aggressive climate events demonstrate that the world is transitioning from mere warnings to real, apocalyptic experiences. The Panel is not exaggerating. Over the last few months, floods have killed hundreds of people in some of the richest countries on the planet, and fires have ravaged thousands of hectares across the globe. Despite all this, there is still hope! And hope is our main ally in changing course. The report projected five scenarios, from the least to the most ambitious, according to the mitigation measures that humanity could implement. All of them, even the most ambitious, result in exceeding the 1.5 °C average temperature of the planet by 2040. Despite the starkness of that forecast, the report also shows that, by taking aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we could stabilize the increase at 1.4°C by 2100. The battle is not over, let alone lost. The most important consequences of this planetary imbalance are still uncertain and are being played out in the field. So what’s next? Drastic reductions of greenhouse gases will only be possible with systemic changes at the government and corporate levels. We also need to adjust our narratives so as to not fall into defeatism and hopelessness, because there is no scientific evidence to support surrender. Nor should we allow the environmental movement to become divided; we must be alert to the campaigns of fear and diversion practiced by our opponents. Hopelessness, defeatism and the division of our voices are precisely the winning cards of those who resist change. Given the global context, what follows are some necessary and urgent actions that will allow us to advance toward the future we need: Aiming for a rapid and just energy transition that respects human rights and includes a gender focus; as well as a new type of development that does not bulldoze nature, but cherishes and respects it. These changes should not produce fear. The technology to generate energy with minimal emissions and environmental impacts exists, is proven, and has greater potential to create jobs than the fossil fuel industry. A world powered by clean, renewable energy is a fairer, greener world. Holding the industries and companies that drive our economy accountable for what their activities leave behind. The subsidy nature has paid in the name of economic development has already exceeded what is reasonable. Projects that impact the environment, that attack the balance of nature, are no longer viable. The institutional framework and the principles of national and international law that protect the environment and human rights are on our side. We must interpret and use them for what they are: sources of binding and obligatory law. Ensuring the protection of natural sites that have not yet been disturbed, especially those of high environmental value. Nature has the capacity to regenerate and heal itself, but we must give it a chance. Indigenous and traditional peoples, guardians of their forests and territories, play a key role in this. Advocating for the correct use of climate funds at the international level, ensuring that they work toward climate justice and not false solutions that do more harm than the disease itself. National and international financial institutions move huge amounts of money each year to address climate change. Funds for mitigation and adaptation are available and projects to be financed must comply with environmental and social safeguards. The monetary cost of not acting or not acting enough is much higher than the cost of taking immediate, effective and decisive action. Being strategic and relying on science to take advantage of every mitigation opportunity. One example is the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants, which were specifically addressed in the recent IPCC report. These pollutants have historically lacked the attention they deserve, despite the incredible opportunity their mitigation implies. One of them is methane, whose presence in the environment is at an all-time high. Methane—the sources of which include coal mining, fracking, large dam reservoirs and intensive livestock farming—has 67 times more power than carbon dioxide (CO2) to warm the planet over a 20-year period, and its emissions cause almost 25% of that warming. Reducing these pollutants also means improving air quality in cities across the global. Achieving ambitious results in international negotiations and honoring the treaties that protect the planet, taking advantage of the strength we have when we act in coordination. It’s true that we have been attending UN conferences on climate change for 25 years without managing to reduce emissions, but it’s also true that we have an agreement signed by all member states that is binding and that orders each country to do its part to avoid exceeding the dangerous barriers of warming. Let us not dismiss what has been achieved; rather, let’s continue to build on it. We must demand these actions and not settle for less. We must be on alert to vote for leaders who have what it takes to lead us that way. Every small victory, every ton of CO2 that is kept in the ground, every natural space that is preserved, moves us away from the worst effects of this crisis. It's our turn, and nature must come first. We owe it to those who will inhabit this beautiful planet in the near and distant future.

August 18 2021 Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate change: are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

Last week, the IPCC published the first part of its sixth assessment on the global state of climate change (AR6), reflecting the latest scientific information. The existence and assessment of damage to the planet is not entirely new information for those of us who have been working in this field for decades. What’s new is the level of scientific certainty, the magnitude and scale of climate impacts, and the projections for our future. In short, the global situation today is worse than previously believed. As an attorney working for climate justice, the report is very disturbing, even frustrating. As a mom, it is devastating. I want the best for my children. Yet, despite having no responsibility for the climate disaster, their future will be determined by it and by the impacts that my generation, and previous ones, left them. This reality is shared by all children, as well as by millions of people and communities in the most vulnerable situations, who suffer the worst consequences of the climate crisis without having caused it. Faced with this bleak scenario, we can succumb to fear and depression, and be indifferent; or we can act. I choose to act. I decided to write this last column as co-executive director of AIDA, where I’ve had the honor of working for 18 years. I will highlight the most important findings of the IPCC, and explain the importance of differentiating responsibility for the climate crisis in order to move towards effective solutions. I consider these elements essential to crafting a complete picture of climate solutions. I invite you to renounce indifference and the (understandable) feeling of helplessness, defeat or frustration; and replace it instead with collective and effective action. Words matter, even in science. The IPCC report is blunt in concluding for the first time that it is "unequivocal" that the atmosphere, ocean and land have been affected by human influence. This was established by hundreds of scientists from around the world. Unequivocal means that there is no doubt, that something is incontrovertible, that it is unambiguous. Although it sounds obvious, it’s relevant to emphasize because, very recently, I heard presidents of countries responsible for the greatest emissions deny the existence or seriousness of the climate crisis. Such denial has cost us decades of progress. The IPCC also concluded that the temperature of the planet has increased, that "each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that has preceded it since 1850," and that the negative impacts on our planet are real, current and will become increasingly intense as temperatures and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to rise. The impacts suffered in Latin America and the Caribbean have cost us thousands of human lives, millions in losses, and displaced several thousand people, whose vulnerability is increasing. Yet the region continues to increasingly rely on fossil fuels, deforestation remains uncontrolled, and cities, where 80 percent of the population lives, are growing without planning and with severe air pollution. The IPCC identified the problem in cities as one of fundamental concern because the reduction of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) could both help the climate and improve air quality (and, with it, public health). RESPONSIBILITY AND ACTION TOWARDS CLIMATE SOLUTIONS Solutions exist, but to implement them it is essential to understand the cause and magnitude of the climate crisis. This is the role and importance of the IPCC. On the other hand, it’s necessary to understand the source of emissions as well as those responsible for them, since not all people, entities and countries are equally responsible for this crisis. It is precisely the lack of climate responsibility that is one of the greatest challenges to finding solutions today. On the one hand, there are the governments, which despite international commitments like the Paris Agreement, have not yet translated them into ambitious and effective action. For example, governmental targets for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) remain far from the needed commitments. In fact, no country in Latin America has an NDC of the required level of ambition and effectiveness. On the other hand, there are companies that fail to acknowledge their responsibility, supported governments and an international community thus fair incapable of demanding they do so. This is essential not only because of ethical issues, but also de facto ones. According to scientific research, just 90 corporate entities are responsible for 63 percent of the global carbon dioxide and methane emissions from 1751 to 2010. And then, there is individual responsibility. According to the United Nations, the richest 1 percent of the population generates more than twice as many emissions as the poorest 50 percent. The inequality is evident: those who are least responsible for the climate crisis are those who are experiencing its impacts the most, as the UN has concluded in multiple reports. This lack of action has led affected communities, people and organizations to seek solutions through strategic litigation. With the intervention of the courts, there have been landmark climate decisions out of the Netherlands, Colombia and Pakistan, among others. This is what it means to see climate justice as a starting point to solving the climate crisis. Climate justice implies looking beyond the reduction of tons of CO2 other GHGs, and the beyond conservation of millions of hectares of forest. Climate justice is the search for comprehensive solutions—incorporating the perspective of human rights and the environment; putting people and communities at the center, with participatory and inclusive processes, and a gender perspective; seeking for those who have caused this crisis, emitting for decades, to assume their historical responsibility; and so that those who are suffering the most from the impacts, be compensated. This is the backbone of our work at AIDA, which we promote together with dozens of communities and organizations in Latin America, in coordination with colleagues from the Global South and the Global North. Today, the scientific evidence and the level of urgency demand that we finally change course to avoid a major debacle. It’s our decision, as a society, to either continue business as usual, ignoring the IPCC, or to finally pay attention and act comprehensively towards the climate justice that the planet requires of us. We have the information, the tools and the call of urgency. I am confident that we can make it happen and we will continue to work towards solutions. Each person, company and State can join in and decide to be part of the solution. Otherwise, they will continue to be part of the problem.

August 16 2021 Oceans

Our responsibility in the conservation of fisheries resources

It’s increasingly common to hear people say that they identify themselves as flexitarian, or semi-vegetarian. Being flexitarian means a person eats mostly a vegetarian diet, but occasionally consumes animal products like meat, poultry, seafood and fish. There are also pescetarians, or pesco-vegetarians, who only consume different varieties of fish and seafood As with any consumption habit, it is important to reflect on its environmental impact. While the current pattern of meat consumption is not sustainable, largely due to its impacts on the climate, the situation for fish consumption is no more encouraging. According to the biennial report of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for more than 60 years global fish consumption has increased at a rate considerably higher than the growth of the world population. In addition, it is estimated that more than 30 percent of the world's fish stocks are overexploited and 60 percent are overfished. The continued increase in overfishing has consequences not only for biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, but also causes a decrease in fish production, with negative economic and social repercussions. Why fish consumption is increasing There are many reasons why people change their eating habits. They are often linked to health, weight and ethical considerations that reflect an ideology of respect for animals and environmental sustainability related to the reduction of red meat consumption. In recent years, fish-rich diets have been strongly promoted, mainly for their nutritional benefits. The nutritional content of fish varies according to factors such as species, age, environment, diet and even the time of capture. However, in general terms, fish are characterized by being sources of vitamins and proteins with high biological value. Oily or fatty fish—among them salmon, sardines and tuna—are usually exceptionally rich in Omega-3 and in minerals such as potassium, magnesium and phosphorus. Nutritionally, it’s advisable to consume them two to three times a week since rational consumption of fish helps regulate blood pressure, and reduce coronary risk and triglyceride levels. Although it’s necessary to eat in a healthy and balanced way to have a full life, it is also crucial to take into account the origin of the food we consume and to question where it comes from, and under what conditions it was caught or processed. An example of the relevance of answering these questions is the case of salmon, whose nutritional value lies in wild species and not in farm-raised ones, which are fed with an excessive amount of antibiotics. Overfishing, incentives and consequences According to the FAO, about 90 percent of marine fish stocks worldwide are fully exploited, overfished or depleted. Negative fisheries subsidies account for much of this problem. By increasing fishing capacity, these subsidies provide short-term benefits, but threaten the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and coastal communities. Worldwide, negative subsidies represent an investment of $22 billion each year. The most widely used are those for the purchase of fuel and the modernization of vessels to increase catches. Ecologically, these incentives reduce fish stocks and hinder their recovery. They destroy marine habitats and exacerbate overfishing. Given that nearly 60 million people work directly in the world's fisheries, it is vital that fish stocks be allowed to regenerate properly, thus ensuring the continued livelihoods of fishing communities. The responsible use of fishery and aquaculture resources must be recognized as a priority for global food security and nutrition, as well as for local development opportunities. The promotion and adoption of responsible fishing practices, from catch to consumption, is a joint effort in which consumers play a fundamental role. How to eat fish responsibly Sustainable fishing allows fish stocks to reproduce adequately and continuously, keeping them healthy and productive. While this task necessitates the active involvement of the fishing sector and government authorities, as consumers we also have a responsibility to promote sustainability through our purchasing decisions. Here are some simple tips fish eaters can implement in their daily lives: Verify the origin and size of the fish or seafood: Learn aspects such as the origin and method of capture, in addition to the size of the piece, which determines whether it reached sufficient maturity. Diversify consumption habits: Consume fish and seafood according to seasonality, a phenomenon related to the times of reproduction and movement of species, which are highly dependent on characteristics such as water temperature. Consuming seasonal fish and seafood allows for proper reproduction and recovery of species, ensuring greater balance and helping to avoid overfishing. Buy from authorized sites: Know if the place of sale actually complies with sustainability and traceability criteria for the products it sells. Traceability is the set of measures and procedures that make it possible to follow the trail of a fishery product from its capture to its final sale. Check labels: Where possible, choose products with certifications in sustainable fishing and marketing practices, such as the MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) seal or the Environmental Responsibility Standard for Fish Marketing, granted by Marviva in Costa Rica, Panama and Colombia. If we as a society allow for the gradual recovery of our ocean, we will be making a positive contribution to food security, the economy, the wellbeing of coastal communities, and future generations.

August 11 2021 Large Dams, Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

The IDB's opportunity to support the protection of the environment and human rights

The Inter-American Development Bank Group (IDB Group) is uniquely positioned not only to support recovery efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region hard hit by the pandemic, but also to do so with respect for people and the environment. The IDB Group—composed of the IDB, which works with governments; IDB Invest, which collaborates with the private sector; and IDB Lab, the bank’s innovation laboratory— is the continent's most important development financing entity. In 2020, it approved a record US$21.6 billion for its 26 member countries in the region. In addition to the challenge of leading the recovery of public finances, the current economic and social crisis represents an opportunity for the IDB Group to successfully face another major challenge: the adoption of operational policies that comply with international environmental and human rights standards, as well as improved accountability processes. This is fundamental to the role the Bank plays in the region, and has become even more relevant in the current context: Regarding accountability and the evaluation of its current policies, it is important to consider that four hydroelectric projects financed by the IDB Group are or have been under scrutiny by the IDB's Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) due to the impacts caused by their implementation in indigenous and rural communities in Guatemala, Chile and Colombia. These projects, financed by IDB Invest, have affected the livelihoods of those who live in their shadow. AIDA—together with the International Platform Against Impunity and the Plurinational Government of the Q'anjob'al, Chuj, Akateko, Popti and Mestiza Nation—has supported members of the Mayan communities of the Ixquisis micro-region in Guatemala in the face of the destruction caused by two of these projects: the San Mateo and San Andres dams. Personally, I’ve seen first hand the damages caused to the indigenous population. I’ve heard the fear and uncertainty in the voices of local women as they explained how their rivers were polluted, their children fell ill, and their lives forever changed. “One day we will run out of water and we won’t be able to live,” a female indigenous leader from Ixquisis told me. “Our children will suffer.” The women of Ixquisis have played a central role in the complaint presented before MICI, as a primary question at play centers on the supposed violation of the Bank’s operational policy on gender, which recognizes that development projects often have differential impacts on local women. For the women, the rivers are a vital element, since they enable access to fresh water and food, also playing a key role in their interactions with each other. In the complaint, affected communities also denounced the projects’ lack of compliance with the Bank’s operational policies indigenous rights and the environment, and for the resulting damages. They argue that the company implementing the San Mateo and San Andrés dams acted without due diligence and violated the right to consultation and the free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous peoples. In fact, the implementation of the projects actually ignored the results of a good faith consultation, carried out in 2009, in which the majority of the local population decided they did not consent to the implementation of such mega-projects in their territory. What’s evident is that the Bank’s capacity to supervise the projects it finances is limited and, despite meeting minimum standards, its operational policies are often ineffective. What’s more, spaces in which the Bank verifies compliance are reduced and the consequences for that non-compliance, uncertain. Earlier this year, MICI published a report on Chile’s Alto Maipo hydroelectric project, finding that the dam violated several operational policies, including that on gender. Yet that report has come under scrutiny for failing to offer restitution measures for the ongoing damages incurred by affected communities. In the coming months, the preliminary report on the Ixquisis case will be released. Affected communities hope that the recommendations it holds are reflective of the realities on the ground, and oriented toward the adoption of corrective measures, including the immediate divestment of financing. With this case, the Bank has a key opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to accountability, as well as its openness to assess compliance with its own operational policies and to remedy the damages that failure to comply has caused to vulnerable groups. It’s also an opportunity for the entity to take preventive measures and lay the groundwork for changing its practices. When he was elected president of the institution, Mauricio Claver-Carone promised to "act on priority issues in the region.” This includes an evaluation of any global context that affects the very development the IDB Group seeks to promote. These days, that includes not just the current public health crisis, but also the global climate crisis, the serious situation facing environmental defenders, and resolving a number of pending complaints on gender equity and respect for indigenous rights. The actions taken by the IDB Group as a result of the Ixquisis case may be the first step in establishing a fundamental precedent for the protection of human rights and the environment among international financial institutions, a contribution that is undoubtedly as, if not more, valuable than the economic one.

July 26 2021 Climate Change, Human Rights

Litigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action

In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean

July 20 2021 Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Climate Change, Human Rights

Reflections for a Bolivia free of fracking

Text written as part of the series #TRANSFORMAR LA CRISIS, Tomo II. Crisis Ecológica, extractivismo y poblaciones vulnerables by the foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Bolivia, to be published soon. It all began with a study, published in 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, reporting the existence of large quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons in Bolivia. The study created considerable expectations in the Andean Nation. Given the gradual depletion of conventional oil and gas deposits, fracking has since become a latent threat. Fracking is a risky, costly and highly polluting technique. As a region, Latin America is home to roughly seven thousand fracking wells. The technique’s advance—as well as related public policies, regulations and social opposition—has commonalities across the region, including its affects on protected areas and on urban, rural and indigenous populations. So far, Bolivia remains free from fracking. But without an intentional political decision to avoid it, and without a population better informed about its effects, fracking could soon become a reality here as well. The risks of fracking in Bolivia The implementation of fracking is a latent threat in Bolivia because of the nation’s significant dependence on fossil fuels. In 2013, the state-owned company YPFB signed a cooperative agreement with YPF Argentina to study the potential of unconventional hydrocarbons. It also asked the operating companies to extract samples from the Los Monos geological formation in the Chaco region. That same year, YPFB Chaco (a subsidiary of YPFB), with the support of Halliburton, carried out a "mini-fracture" in the Ingre X-2 well, part of the Tupambi formation, in Chuquisaca. This operation would have allowed for the discovery of tight sand oil. Based on this discovery, YPFB Chaco had proposed to perform a complete fracture of the reservoir in 2014. It is unknown if this occurred because, in the years following, YPFB stopped generating public information on the project. In 2018, Canadian company CanCambria Energy Corp. signed a study agreement with YPFB, the prelude to an exploration/exploitation contract, to determine the unconventional gas potential at Miraflores, also in Chuquisaca. CanCambria's preliminary data points to the possible existence of a mega-field in the area, whose potential gas resources would be comparable to those of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta. The Canadian firm has prepared a proposal to extract gas by drilling 800 wells over 202 square kilometers in the Miraflores area, in the municipality of Macharetí. Miraflores is located in the Heroes del Chaco Municipal Protected Area and is part of the Yrenda Toba Tarijeño Aquifer System, which Bolivia shares with Paraguay and Argentina. The people living in Macharetí, including Guaraní indigenous communities, were shocked to receive news of the project. The alarm raised by the possibility of fracking in this territory led those who live there to learn about the consequences of the technique, particularly in relation to the use and contamination of immense quantities of water. As a direct result, Macharetí included in its autonomous statute the prohibition of fracking in its territory, intensifying the controversy over the technique’s development in the area. Between extreme energy and an energy transition In the face of this controversy over fracking, two paths lay before us: on the first, is the deepening of the extractivist model and the generation of highly polluting energy, with serious and irreversible negative impacts on Mother Earth and local populations; on the second, is a just and democratic energy transition, which implies the decommodification of energy, a change in the energy matrix, and a shift in the development paradigm. Bolivia, and Latin America as a region, need to profoundly transform the way energy is produced; the new system should be formed with a long-term vision and based on the respect for human rights and the protection of nature. The development of fracking, far from initiating any transition, goes against this trend because it continues to promote a polluting, risky and costly energy system. It is based on dependence on non-renewable energy sources with negative impacts on the territories, inequity and lack of citizen participation in the construction of energy policies. Instead, Bolivia must bet on a socially just, economically viable and ecologically sustainable energy transition. "Bolivia should not move towards the implementation of fracking in its territory because it represents one of the greatest risks to its ecosystems, resources and populations," says Jorge Campanini, researcher at the Center for Documentation and Information Bolivia (CEDIB). "It is urgent to generate solid policies that declare a moratorium or indefinite ban on this technique throughout the country". The experience of Latin American countries that have bet on fracking clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of this technique. In this context, many organizations, communities and peoples have organized to confront the threat. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic forces us to reflect on the future of fossil fuels, and the need for a just energy transition. Instead of considering fracking as an easy way to create jobs in difficult times, we must confront the health, economic and climate crises together. It’s time to think of resilient recovery, and thus an energy system that is not based on fracking. One idea usually associated with transition is the change of the energy matrix, yet, while necessary, the rapid and effective de-fossilization of that matrix is not enough. The energy transition must be comprehensive and incorporate environmental, economic and social dimensions so that it is also just and democratic. That’s why it’s so important that governments address the issue with a systemic approach.

June 28 2021 Climate Change, Human Rights

People v. Shell: A step towards climate justice

On May 26, the District Court in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a landmark climate ruling. It ordered Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell—one of the world's leading fossil fuel producers and suppliers—to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels. The decision came in response to a 2019 lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth, along with six other organizations and more than 17 thousand Dutch citizens. Although Shell publicly committed in 2020 to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the Dutch court found that this pledge was not enough. According to the verdict, the multinational is responsible for not only its own CO2 emissions, but also those of its suppliers and customers, which together threaten the fragile planetary balance and the realization of human rights. The ruling determines, for the first time, that a company and its subsidiaries must align their policies with global CO2 emission reduction targets. It bases this obligation on the emission reduction targets of the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015. Thus, those who litigated against Shell fulfilled their main objective, which was not to obtain financial compensation for damages caused, but to force the oil company to reduce its emissions in compliance with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, and to continue efforts to reach 1.5°C. The Shell group has been aware for nearly 60 years of the risks of climate change, as demonstrated by a documentary they themselves produced in the 1990s. However, the multinational responsible for nine times more emissions than the whole of the Netherlands has never stopped investing in fossil fuels, intentionally favoring its economic interests at the expense of the environment, the climate and people. Check here the recording of the conversation we had with Niels Hazekamp, Senior Policy Adviserat Both Ends, one of the organizations that sued Shell, where explains the details of the litigation. A worldwide precedent The ruling is a major step forward in the use of judicial systems as tools to advance climate justice, and it demonstrates that society, as a whole, is more determined than ever to stop the negative impacts that powerful multinationals have on the environment, the climate and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. Despite being litigated on European soil, the case represents a significant step towards global climate justice, offering an interesting opportunity for replication in Latin America and the world. The case not only opened the discussion on corporate climate responsibility, but was also a pioneer in incorporating the use of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The use of these instruments, which regulate multinational companies by requiring them to respect human rights, demonstrates their potential for global climate justice. The language of the verdict is based primarily on respect for human rights, thus opening the possibility of applying the same reasoning against other polluting companies, in accordance with the obligations set out in the above-mentioned instruments. More about the People v. Shell ruling Under the ruling, Shell must reduce Type 1 net emissions—those generated by its activities and those of its subsidiaries—and make a significant effort to reduce Type 2 and 3 net emissions—those generated by users of the oil and gas produced by the multinational. To account for the net reduction of its emissions, the oil company cannot resort to any of the carbon capture or offsetting tools established under the Paris Agreement, which consist of capturing CO2 emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants and heavy industry, for deep subway storage or reuse. It is worth noting that, although there is no certainty about the exact nature of the climate impacts caused by Shell, the judges highlighted the universally recognized risks to communities and ecosystems related to industrial pollution, and the company's financial priorities, to support their ruling. Primary doubts and concerns The primary doubts regarding this ruling have to do with its implementation. Although the court established that Shell may not use offsetting or absorption systems for its emissions, it does not oblige it to end the exploration, extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the ruling does not allow for the identification of exactly what kind of effort could be considered significant for the reduction of emissions by the oil company's customers. Nor is there clarity regarding the responsibility of the Shell group for the sale of its refineries to other public companies in the Global South, which would allow the multinational to comply in part with emissions reductions, while the refineries continue to operate in some of the most vulnerable places on the planet. In addition to the use of the Paris Agreement, which assisted the judges in ruling in favor of the climate in this case, the litigation opened the door to the use of existing soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, or others that are expected to be legally binding to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Likewise, considering the difficulty and possible manipulation in counting emissions, new avenues are opening up to establish specific obligations on polluting actors. As recommended by several civil society organizations, basing corporate emission reductions on the measurement of barrels of oil, cubic meters of gas and tons of carbon would be easier and more useful for the implementation of successful judgments such as this one. Finally, there are concerns about the rights of Shell workers, which could be negatively affected by the ruling. The drastic reduction that Shell will have to apply to its oil and gas activities must be framed in a fair and inclusive transition process, which includes respecting labor rights and transforming its activities by making them more sustainable. The case of People v. Shell has opened up valuable tools for a global shift towards climate justice and holding companies accountable for their environmental and human rights harms. For those of active in climate litigation, the case demonstrates the need to strengthen the capacities of our teams, the importance of creativity and the use of science, the importance of ensuring that we have the time and resources to pursue landmark cases and, finally, the relevance of building alliances to build upon the current momentum of the global climate justice movement.

May 30 2021 Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

"Defenders prevent us from entering into a situation of no return"

If you’re seeking to improve air quality in your city or working to halt a project that poses risks to the people and environment in your community, you are an environmental defender, although you probably haven't thought of it that way. Defenders are on the front lines of the battle to protect the environment and human rights, challenging public and private interests. Many of them face great difficulties in doing so, suffering from serious rights violations like persecution, threats, the use of public force, legal sanctions and even assassination. According to Global Witness’ most recent report, 212 murders of environmental and territorial defenders were recorded in 2019. Latin America was the most affected region, with Colombia leading the list with 64 murders. Despite the fact that States have the obligation to protect, respect and guarantee the rights of those who defend the environment, violence against them is worsening. On April 22, Earth Day, the Escazú Agreement came into force. It is the first environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean that values the work of environmental defenders and obliges States to protect them and punish actions that violate their rights. Marcella Ribeiro, a Brazilian attorney with AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program discusses the reality of those who defend the environment in Latin America, and the leading role that governments should play in protecting them. What is the current situation of environmental defenders worldwide and particularly in Latin America? We are going through a moment of extreme vulnerability. At the beginning of the pandemic, and particularly in the countries that are home to the Amazon, media covered shifted to focus only on news related to COVID-19. In this context, defenders were increasingly threatened and some were even killed without any public repercussions. In what way did the pandemic exacerbate their vulnerability? I am going to speak from the perspective of Brazil, where I am located. Environmental human rights defenders have had to defend themselves against both the state and companies that seek to enter their territories and implement a vision of development that is not in line with the vision of the communities themselves. Why is it important to protect the people who defend the environment? Because they are the first force there is for the defense of territory, nature and human rights, not from an individual perspective, but from a collective one. What they do is protect all of us, our rights, our air and our water, even our food security. Defenders prevent our planet from entering into a situation of no return: once the forest is cut down or the river is polluted, there will be no way to recover those ecosystems. With the entry into force of the Escazú Agreement, how does the situation of these people change and how can they be guaranteed access to justice? The Escazú Agreement is the first international legal framework focused entirely on defenders that seeks to ensure that justice and guarantee their rights. Not all Latin American countries have ratified it. This agreement complements and supports efforts to protect them, but for it to be effective we need countries to truly integrate these responsibilities into their national systems so that defenders can use it to their advantage. Political will is vital to protect those who defend the environment, how do you assess progress in this regard? It is evident that environmental defenders in Latin America are being increasingly threatened, even murdered. As this issue gains visibility, I believe that we are seeing a change and an increase in concern from States, even if it is not entirely genuine. While it is difficult to believe in the political, autonomous and altruistic will of Latin American governments, I do believe that the visibility achieved by the Inter-American Human Rights System, the United Nations and NGOs working to document and link the motivations behind these murders gives us a collective strength. Megaprojects should be implemented with a human rights-based development, but what happens when a State opposes the will of people or communities to reject them? Often in Latin America, States decide that a project is going to be implemented regardless of community resistance, or environmental risks related to the project. That is not connected to development, but to corruption. Promoting projects that we know are going negatively impact thousands of people is directly connection to corruption. We need stronger links between those of us working on human rights and environmental issues and those investigating corruption, in order to try to break those links before they are implemented. Given their work for the common good of all humanity and the increasing violence defenders face, AIDA has developed a guide that explains the obligations States have regarding the protection of environmental defenders. Read more here!