Blog
International pressure to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia
Many Latin American governments continue to promote extractive activities—including the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking, or hydraulic fracturing—as a means of economic revitalization in the face of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This trend contradicts the international commitments adopted by these countries to reduce emissions and mitigate the global climate crisis. A United Nations report, to be released this month, is expected to state that reducing methane emissions will be critical to avoid the most extreme effects of global warming. The report is based on recent data showing that carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere reached record highs last year, despite the pandemic bringing much of the global economy to a halt. This information complements scientific evidence that methane emissions from oil and gas production—one of its major human-related sources—may be higher than previous estimates. This increase has been associated with the leakage and flaring of methane from fracking operations. Although methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, it has a relatively short life cycle in the atmosphere, meaning that reducing its emissions could help the world meet our climate goals more quickly. Colombia is an example of how the push for fracking contradicts the urgent need to combat the climate crisis and its damages. Although it is not legal to carry out fracking operations in the country because its regulation is temporarily suspended, the government has not stopped the development of pilot projects of this technique and continues to anchor its energy policy on hydrocarbons. At the same time, there is a national and international push to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia. While the Council of State makes a final decision on the regulation, two legislative initiatives are underway: one that seeks to prohibit the implementation of fracking nationwide, and another that would prohibit the exploration and/or exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons by any technique. In the framework of the parliamentary treatment of both bills, which are expected to be unified, authorities from the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) participated in public hearings, in which they called on Congress to approve the legislation that would allow Colombia to move toward a fair and low-emission energy transition. The case for protecting people and the climate In his intervention, David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, referred to the climate crisis as "serious and unprecedented", highlighting that its impacts on human rights "disproportionately affect poor, vulnerable and marginalized people." In the same vein, Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances and Human Rights, expressed concern about "the Colombian State's intention to consider funding and supporting fossil fuel fracking," considering its potential impact on human rights and sustainability. He emphasized, "new investments in fracking are incompatible with the protection of human rights." For his part, Renato Zerbini, chairman of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—a body, composed of 18 independent experts, that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by its State parties—stressed that hydraulic fracturing "is closely related to multiple and ongoing human rights violations, as it causes irreversible environmental impacts and severe social affectations." Thus, the use of the technique violates the rights guaranteed by the Covenant, to which Colombia is a party, Zerbini pointed out. In general, the extractive industry "increases the risk for environmental defenders, territorial occupation and the impact on the rights of the communities surrounding the projects," added Soledad García Muñoz, the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights. In sum, the representatives of the international organizations reported on the unfeasibility of fracking in climatic, social and even economic terms: "When the real costs of fracking are taken into account, it becomes evident that these far exceed the alleged economic gains," emphasized Orellana. They referred to the international obligations of the Colombian State in terms of human rights and climate change, contained in various instruments. Among those, they cited Advisory Opinion 23/17 on human rights and environment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; General Comment 36 on the right to life, contemplated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; as well as the Joint Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change that five human rights bodies issued in 2019. The statement expresses that "failure to take measures to prevent foreseeable harm to human rights caused by climate change, or to regulate activities that contribute to such harm, could constitute a violation of States' human rights obligations." The common recommendation: ban fracking At the conclusion of their interventions, the international authorities expressed their support for a law banning fracking throughout the Colombian national territory: David Boyd argued,"to address the climate crisis, Colombia must urgently pursue a low-carbon, climate-resilient future, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy in light of its obligations under constitutional law, international human rights law and the right to a healthy environment." He concluded, "the government of Colombia must pass a law to ban fracking." Marcos Orellana pointed out that "the Congress of the Republic of Colombia has the opportunity to raise its gaze towards the future and preserve the legacy of its megabiodiversity." In that sense, he pointed out, "the protection of the right to live in a toxic-free environment inspires my respectful call for Congress to adopt a law banning fracking." Soledad Muñoz said that "the approval of a bill whose purpose would be to put an end to the exploration and exploitation of unconventional oilfields, prohibiting practices such as fracking, would represent a valuable measure of environmental protection, the reduction of socio-environmental conflicts and compliance with the commitments emanating from the Paris Agreement and the Inter-American (Human Rights) System itself." Continuing to base local economies on the extractive industry and promoting fracking only increases the dependence of our societies on fossil fuels, deepening the causes of the climate crisis and the damage it does to the most vulnerable among us.
Read more
Human Rights Council addresses the water crisis and environmental defenders protection
The 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is the first to be held entirely online, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It runs until March 23. The virtual format of this HRC session enabled AIDA to make our first participation ever in the HRC and join the discussions on two of the topics that are at the core of its human rights work: the right to a healthy environment and the protection of environmental human rights defenders. On 03 March, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David Boyd, presented his report “Human Rights and the Global Water Crisis” to the Human Rights Council. In it, Boyd highlighted the severe impacts of water pollution, water scarcity and water-related disasters on the rights to life, health, education, food, development and the right to a healthy environment. He also emphasized that climate change is a risk-multiplier, exacerbating water-related human rights issues. The Special Rapporteur called on States to incorporate a rights-based approach in both their climate strategies and water plans. Finally, Boyd reiterated his call for the Human Rights Council to support the initiative for a resolution to recognize that everyone everywhere has the right to live in a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In the Interactive Dialogue that followed Boyd’s presentation, AIDA Attorney Rosa Peña denounced the negative impacts of mega-dams, coal mining and fracking on human rights and water access in Latin America. She noted that these projects not only threaten the human rights of local communities but also exacerbate the climate crisis. She called the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the communities affected by the Belo Monte mega-dam in the Brazilian Amazon. Currently, implementation of the so-called ‘Consensus Hydrogram’ in the Xingu River threatens the lives of local communities, pollutes the water, dries up the river and causes food insecurity and severe biodiversity loss. On March 4, it was the turn of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, to engage in an Interactive Dialogue on ”Final warning: death threats and killings of human rights defenders” She concluded that lack of political will is one of the reasons why various States fail in their moral and legal obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, and therefore called for more effective responses to the threats against them. Representing AIDA in the Interactive Dialogue, Attorney Marcella Torres highlighted that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental human rights defenders and urged all States to actively protect them. She turned the spotlight on the situation of environmental defenders in Brazil, Guatemala and Colombia, where the invasion of indigenous lands, mega-dams and fracking are closely related to the increase in violence against defenders. She concluded by reminding States that the protection of environmental defenders should promote the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, and provide guarantees so that all people are free to exercise their right to defend human rights. See AIDA’s contributions in the Interactive Dialogues in full:
Read more
Legal resistance to the expansion of salmon farming in Chile
By Claudia Arancibia (AIDA), Victoria Belemmi (FIMA) y Estefanía González (Greenpeace Chile) In the Magallanes Region of Southern Patagonia, one of Chile’s most pristine natural areas, the indigenous communities who have lived amongst these awe-inspiring fjords and channels for six thousand years are now fighting to project them. A coalition of Kawésqar communities – organized as Kawésqar Atap, As Wal Lajep, Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar, Residentes Río Primero e Inés Caro – are defending their land and seas from the expansion of the salmon industry into their ancestral territory. In February, they won an important legal victory. Chile’s Supreme Court ruled in their favor, repealing an environmental permit that had authorized the construction of a salmon farm in Lake Balmaceda, citing the project’s failure to consider the observations of local communities. The ruling overturns a 2018 decision of the Third Environment Court that had rejected the communities’ claims. This case sets an important precedent—the nation’s highest court recognized the value of indigenous participation in the environmental evaluation process of projects that could affect ancestral territories. It also reaffirmed the State's obligation to respect the indigenous consultation process and to comply with the provisions of national environmental law and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, ratified by Chile. The Supreme Court's ruling represents progress toward understanding that the participation of indigenous, local and traditional communities—in addition to being a right—is a valuable input for decision-making. In November 2020, another important legal development acknowledged the damages caused by these salmon farming operations. The Third Environmental Court recognized that the lack of oxygen in the waters of Chilean Patagonia is directly related to the operation of salmon farms. Despite being informed of the situation, the Environmental Superintendent had previously ignored the causal relationship between salmon farming and environmental damages, arguing that, often, the decrease of oxygen was due to natural causes such as marine currents, the geography of the area, or climate change. The Court’s ruling also constitutes a key precedent, as it associates industrial salmon production with the dangerous percentage of areas with low oxygen levels in the seas of Chilean Patagonia. Known as anaerobism, this condition is caused by the large amount of organic matter (uneaten food and feces) that the salmon industry discharges into the sea, inadequate handling of dead fish, and the amount of farmed fish per square meter, which exceeds the carrying capacity of the waters. What about sanctions? Despite the progress described above, Chilean authorities still face serious problems in adequately controlling salmon farming and preventing the damages the industry’s expansion is causing. It’s clear that the sanctions imposed on offending companies have not been sufficiently exemplary or dissuasive. In spite of multiple sanctioning procedures against several companies, no efforts have been made to improve sanitary and environmental standards, neither of which is considered by the environmental authorities when granting operating permits. For a revelatory case study, we need look no farther than a Magallanes scandal known as “Salmon Leaks.” In 2019, a journalistic investigation uncovered that the company Nova Austral was hiding the amount of fish that died daily in their farms in the Alberto de Agostini National Park. A subsequent report revealed that the company also adulterated the seabed with heavy machinery (until it was basically dead), in order to hide its anaerobic condition and obtain permission to continue farming salmon in biologically deteriorated marine areas. In response, the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas sanctioned the company with the maximum fine and the suspension of a productive cycle. In 2020, the State Defense Council sued the company for possible fraud because it was collecting tax benefits under the Navarino Law in breach of its obligation to "make rational use of the natural resources of the Magallanes region, preserving nature and the environment." Then, General Treasury of the Republic withheld four payments covering up to four months of subsidies under the law. Despite the multiple scandals and sanctions imposed, the company continues to advertise the "sustainability" of its salmon. The future of the Kawésqar Reserve Now, Nova Austral is seeking to relocate four of its aquaculture concessions to Kawésqar National Reserve, with prior approval from the Environmental Evaluation Service. Six other projects are currently undergoing environmental evaluation for the same purpose. This is alarming for many reasons, but principal among them is the fact that the Reserve lacks an adequate management plan to safeguard its conservation objectives. This leaves the area exposed potentially serious impacts to its natural wealth and the ancestral rights of the Kawésqar indigenous communities. It’s urgent that the Reserve’s management plan prohibits salmon farming within its boundaries, due to the outright incompatibility of salmon farming with the reserve’s objectives. We have much to learn from the Kawésqar communities, who reaffirm the protection of the seas of the Patagonian archipelago as the basis for protecting their worldview, their cultural identity and their way of life. What will it take for the rest of the country to defend the Patagonian seas as a natural treasure vital not just for Chile, but for the world?
Read more
Mexico’s climate commitments lack ambition
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) are the mechanism through which the countries that signed the Paris Agreement contribute to the fulfillment of the global pact's objective: to keep the increase in the planet's average temperature below 2°C. Each country's NDC outlines its national mitigation and adaptation commitments in the face of the climate crisis, including emission reduction efforts. The Paris Agreement stipulates that these commitments must be communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every five years and that each successive NDC must represent a progression from the previous one, reflecting the highest possible ambition (Article 3). In addition, NDCs must contain sufficient information on clear, transparent and understandable targets (Article 8, paragraph 8). And, in the case of Mexico, the General Law on Climate Change (LGCC) considers the NDC as one of the planning instruments of the National Climate Change Policy (Article 58) and establishes that it must observe, among others, the principle of progressivity, which implies that the established goals must be progressive and gradual over time (Article 26, section XIII). In its most recent update, Mexico's NDC does not comply with the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the LGCC. Ambition in the spotlight The Mexican State presented its first NDC in 2015. In it, the government made an unconditional commitment—through its own resources—to a 22 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 51 percent reduction in black carbon emissions, by 2030. Last December, Mexico presented its updated NDC, which should be more ambitious than the previous one. However, the new instrument merely reiterates the mitigation commitments made in 2015. Moreover, the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario—a tentative scenario in which there are no mitigation policies and which serves as a baseline for climate actions—was adjusted upwards with a higher total level of emissions by 2030 than indicated in the first NDC. This, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent scientific analysis that tracks governments’ climate action and compares it to what was agreed globally in the Paris Agreement. The CAT analysis states, "Because the NDC is based on a percentage reduction below BAU projections, a higher level of emissions in 2030 effectively reduces the country's mitigation ambition, even if the reduction targets remain unchanged." Due to its lack of ambition, Mexico's updated NDC was rated as "highly insufficient" in the CAT ranking. This means that the commitments adopted by the country "are not at all consistent with keeping [global] warming below 2°C [...]," being instead "consistent with warming levels of between 3°C and 4°C.” International agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Commission have emphasized the need for Mexico to increase its mitigation ambition, especially in the energy sector, which contributes most to the climate crisis and where the greatest emissions reduction opportunities exist in the short and long term. But Mexico's recent NDC does not set out specific actions in key economic sectors to achieve the endorsed targets, although it does state that these will be developed in an NDC implementation roadmap to be presented in the next Biennial Update Report. In this sense, the instrument lacks sufficient information to have clear, transparent and understandable targets. Regarding the adaptation component, Mexico's updated NDC includes nature-based climate solutions. However, the inclusion of such actions is not sufficient to have the level of ambition required to address the climate crisis and meet the objective of the Paris Agreement. A violation of the principle of progressivity In light of the facts, the updating of Mexico's climate commitments fails to meet the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and with this the Mexican State also disregards the principle of progressivity established in the LGCC since the targets set do not represent a progression and gradualness with respect to the first NDC. Other countries in the region—including Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica and Chile—have updated their NDCs, demonstrating increased climate ambition. Although they include measures that could be improved, their actions demonstrate a willingness to make further progress in terms of their contribution to global climate action. In this context, the Mexican State is leaving behind the progress and leadership it had years ago on climate issues. Its lack of ambition demonstrates indifference to the climate crisis and its impacts on the human rights of the most vulnerable populations. Mexico must assume its responsibility, one that comes from being on the list of the 20 largest emitters in the world. It must adopt mitigation and adaptation commitments compatible with the global goal of preventing global warming from reaching a point of catastrophic consequences.
Read more
What you should know about deep-sea mining
Deep-sea mining consists of the exploitation of mineral deposits located deeper than 200 meters in the ocean. Although interest in the technique dates back to 1960, initial ideas were never implemented due to factors such as low metal prices, relatively easy access to raw materials in the countries of the Global South, multiple technical difficulties, and legal uncertainty. On the ocean floor, there are three types of resources of great economic interest: polymetallic nodules, ferromagnesian crusts, and seafloor massive sulfides generated by hydrothermal vents. Currently, interest in these resources has regained strength due to geopolitical changes and greater demand from the non-conventional renewable energy sector. To date, 30 mining exploration contracts have been confirmed in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans involving 21 contractors from around the world among companies, government authorities, and science and technology institutes. Unfortunately, we know very little about the ecosystems on the ocean floor and the real impacts of this type of mining. Some scientists believe that the recovery of the habitat would take decades to centuries and that, in some cases, the damage could be irreversible since certain environments are unique. Socio-ecological impacts Although ocean mining could stimulate the economy, the social impacts it entails must be emphasized, especially for the most vulnerable local communities, which depend on natural resources for their livelihoods. Ocean mining has been associated with dilemmas such as foreign interference, cultural disruption, unequal distribution of wealth, loss of access to natural hunting grounds, and alterations in the distribution and migration of species, which would generate variations in the quantity and quality of fishing. Ecological impacts include, among others: an increase of particulate matter in the water, greater mortality of organisms, habitat destruction, the risk of encountering unknown bacteria and viruses in the oceans, the arrival of invasive species through extraction equipment, and the risk of accidental spills caused by the inputs used. The environmental management of this activity is also a concern. The agency in charge of regulating ocean mining is the International Seabed Authority (ISA), founded in 1994 by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. ISA has jurisdiction over the seabed and subsoil in international waters. It is currently developing a proposal for regulations for ocean mining, which has been faced with multiple challenges. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition—an alliance of more than 80 organizations that has been operating since 2004 with the objective of protecting the deep sea—questioned whether the proposal establishes that the form of environmental monitoring should depend on ISA or on the contractors. As early as 2018, the coalition stated that independent scientific review and assessment is key to all environmental documents, especially Environmental Impact Assessments and Environmental Monitoring and Management Plans. It is pertinent to mention that, in addition to regulating mining in international waters, ISA is responsible for ensuring the ecological protection of the oceans from the potential harmful effects of activities developed or related to the seabed. The fact that those promoting the projects may carry out environmental monitoring implies the risk of environmental problems due to conflicts of interest. Looking ahead The ocean floor is the largest living area on our planet. There, ecosystems of splendid beauty exist, of which we know practically nothing, and which could suffer irreversible damage from deep-sea mining projects, scientists and conservationists have warned. Healthy oceans play an integral role in global climate regulation and are essential to ensuring food security and livelihoods for millions of people around the world. In addition, significant ignorance about how the deep ocean works make any attempt at Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and future projections difficult. In fact, on almost every new dive, new species are discovered. And much remains to be learned about the relationship between the ocean floor and the climate crisis, water acidification, and pressures from anthropogenic (human-induced) activities. Without adequate knowledge of species, ecosystems, ecological processes, and their connections, EIAs cannot be effective. The concept of the common heritage of mankind should be central to any proposal. Besides, it would be prudent to adopt legal protection measures such as the Precautionary Principle, as well as engage in prior exploration and research activities. With all this in mind, ISA has an immense responsibility before the planet and humanity. For the sake of a sustainable future and the natural legacy of future generations, ISA must ensure adequate protection of the oceans. Should deep-sea mining finally be permitted on the high seas, they must pay close attention to prevention and mitigation measures using a precautionary and adaptive approach, in collaboration with other international bodies.
Read more
7 AIDA Advances of 2020
It was a year unlike any other. This new reality makes our victories and daily accomplishments all the more sweet. So we’re especially proud to report on the progress we've made toward a healthy environment and climate justice in Latin America. 1. Safeguarding the High Seas More than 99% of the global high seas—waters beyond national jurisdiction—are unprotected. To remedy this, over the past year we have led Latin American representation in the High Seas Alliance, collaborating with governments to negotiate an ambitious United Nations treaty to protect these waters and key migratory species of sharks, whales, turtles and tuna. The high seas are both essential to long-term ocean health and a critical carbon sink that helps mitigate climate change. 2. Influencing Divestment in the Amazon For nearly a decade we have worked to halt Brazil’s Belo Monte dam, which has displaced thousands of indigenous people and devastated hundreds of rare species. This year, our testimony led the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world's largest state-owned fund, to exclude one of the dam’s main financers, Eletrobras, from its portfolio because of environmental and human rights violations caused by the dam. This is a notable step toward justice for affected communities. 3. Defending Páramos from Mining We continued to protect páramos in Colombia and Ecuador from mining. These biodiverse, high-altitude forests and wetlands are critical carbon sinks that also provide fresh water for millions of people and habitat for endangered species. Our team contributed legal and technical expertise, and, in the case of Santurbán in Colombia, helped build capacity among local attorneys who are now leading the lawsuit to protect this páramo. 4. Protecting Environmental Defenders Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental defenders. This year, AIDA brought together more than 70 prominent environment defenders from 14 countries across Latin America to share current information about risks and effective strategies for defense. Participants discussed their challenges, identified gaps in knowledge, and developed new approaches for protecting themselves and their territories. 5. Halting Extractive Energy Development Our ongoing legal and technical expertise was critical to halting fossil fuel expansion. We continued litigation to uphold the moratorium on fracking and, helped prevent further coal mining expansion in Colombia, supported communities in Chile affected by coal power plants, and led efforts to hold International Financial Institutions accountable for funding harmful hydropower Guatemala and Colombia. This work is key to promoting the just transition toward truly clean energy. 6. Preserving Marine Biodiversity in Patagonia The Chilean Magallanes region is home to some of the largest whales and dolphins and one of the most pristine areas on our planet. The greatest environmental threat for this region is the salmon farming industry. Building on our past work, we used the law to halt expanded salmon farming and expose the harms the industry brings. Our work closed one salmon farm and set a precedent for the closure of seven others, all of which are under review by Chilean courts. 7. Strengthening Indigenous Land Management in Colombia In coalition with four indigenous communities of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, we continued protecting their lands from illegal mining. Facing hundreds of proposed projects, we helped implement legal strategies demanding a new territorial management plan that recognizes the traditional governing authority of the indigenous. We also helped strengthen community capacity through workshops on environmental protection.
Read more
Five years after the Paris Agreement, climate justice is more urgent than ever
On December 12, 2015, the Paris Agreement was reached. Five years later, its effective implementation is more important than ever. One of the agreement’s most significant advances was to reiterate that States must, "when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.” This aspect is one of the outstanding issues, and also one of the great opportunities, of the Paris Agreement. In 2015, I had the privilege of participating in the twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where the agreement was adopted. Thanks to the live broadcast, I saw the last hammer blow of this historic summit on my phone while on the train to the airport. I traded celebratory hugs with dozens of colleagues for arriving a day earlier to celebrate with my family. It was worth it. After all, my contribution had concluded a few hours earlier. Over the five years prior, and with full intensity during the COP21, I reviewed drafts, and spoke with missions and colleagues about how crucial it was to include human rights in the climate agreement. My priority—shared by colleagues from organizations, some government representatives and international entities—was to ensure a strong agreement, including the obligation to consider and respect human rights. For some people, this was an obstacle, even inappropriate, as they saw the climate crisis as a purely technical issue. Some delegations told me that human rights issues are another area entirely. We insisted on the point until we achieved it, not out of stubbornness (although there may have been some of that), but because in essence the climate crisis affects our rights, our lives and all of us. That’s why it is vital to put human rights at the center of climate action. Otherwise, these actions are incomplete. This is evidenced by the reality of the climate crisis, translated for example into the damages sustained by millions of people and communities by the hurricanes and storms that have, in recent months, devastated coastal areas in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico and the Caribbean; the floods in South Asia; the droughts in northern Mexico; and the devastating fires in the Amazon, California and Australia. The most vulnerable people and communities who have contributed least to the crisis are disproportionately affected. It is therefore possible, and necessary, to find balance through a human rights approach. It’s necessary to hold States, companies and even some sectors of the population accountable. Responsibility with a sense of equity is one of the fundamental principles of human rights. In fact, the 2020 UN Emissions Gap Report concludes by saying, "Equity is central to addressing lifestyles. The emissions of the richest 1 per cent of the global population account for more than twice the combined share of the poorest 50 per cent." Communities, movements and peoples around the world have demanded—even in court—effective climate action that respects their rights. This has been reiterated by the United Nations. But climate action is still largely considered a question of numbers, tons of emissions to be reduced and hectares to be conserved. People and communities, despite being the ones who live the consequences, remain on the periphery of this action. Ensuring a true human rights perspective would help raise ambition and the level of obligations and outcomes. It would also allow impacts to be considered in a comprehensive manner and, as the IPCC concluded, take into account ancestral knowledge and social justice, which are central elements in finding effective solutions. Therein lies the opportunity that is being lost. The scientific community today confirms the widening gap between the current situation and where we should be in reducing emissions. According to the recent UN emissions gap report, emissions were reduced in the last year due to the suspension of activities caused by the pandemic, while in the previous year they had continued to increase. In fact, despite the pandemic, which is also linked to environmental degradation, countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, as in other regions, continue to rely mostly on fossil fuels, even for the economic recovery following the pandemic. This trend ignores the provisions of the Paris Agreement on the obligation of States to reduce emissions and implement effective measures while respecting human rights. It’s an element yet to be fulfilled, and a fundamental tool for States to increase their ambition and move towards the solutions that have as yet proven elusive. The five-year anniversary of this Agreement is a good time to remember it and to demand its implementation. If not, the most vulnerable communities will continue to suffer the consequences, and global inequalities will continue to deepen. Then, there will also be an increase in lawsuits and demands for a solution that the agreement itself incorporated. One element of leadership would be to put people and communities at the center of climate action. This is what I mean when I talk about climate justice, a great opportunity that many of us will continue to promote.
Read more
5 things you should know about methane
Although its presence in the atmosphere is less than that of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the most abundant and well-known greenhouse gas—methane is much more effective at retaining heat due to its chemical composition. Therefore, adding smaller amounts of methane to the atmosphere can have an effect equal to that of adding tremendous amounts of CO2. Since 2006, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has grown considerably—by about 25 million tons per year. Studies have associated this increase with the leakage and burning of methane from the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons through the process of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing. Although extracting gas through fracking is sold as a “greener” alternative to other fossil fuels, it is a false narratiave that must be combatted. In general, all activities that cause methane emissions aggravate the climate crisis and the increasingly urgent need to combat air pollution. The common understanding of methane is inaccurate. Therefore, it’s necessary to generate more awareness about what it is and what its real impacts are. What follows are five basic facts about methane. 1. Methane is a short-lived greenhouse gas and climate pollutant Methane is a greenhouse gas.The Greenhouse Effect is a natural phenomena in which the atmosphere, composed of different gases, captures some rays of the sun and keeps them trapped in order to balance the temperature of the planet. When an excess of gases such as methane are emitted, the atmosphere traps more heat than necessary, leading to global warming. Methane has 67 times more power than CO2 to warm the planet over a 20-year period. Its emissions are responsible for nearly 25 percent of global warming. And since it stays less time in the atmosphere—12 years on average (CO2 stays for centuries)—it is among the Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs), which cause 40-45 percent of global warming and damage air quality. 2. Methane primarily is produced from human sources About 60 percent of the methane in the atmosphere is considered by scientists to be caused by human activity, while the other 40 percent comes from natural sources like wetlands, volcanoes, and permafrost. Human sources include livestock, gas and petroleum exploitation, rice farming, mining (particularly coal mining), and landfills. It should be noted that, according to scientific evidence, reservoirs are also an important source of methane. They generate 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases worldwide each year, more than all of Canada's polluting emissions, and 80 percent of that pollution is from methane. 3. Methane directly and indirectly degrades air quality Large amounts of methane are intentionally leaked or released during the exploitation, processing, and transportation of oil and gas. In the United States alone, such direct emissions amount to 13 million tons each year. When released into the atmosphere, methane is accompanied by other toxic pollutants such as benzene, formaldehyde, and ethylbenzene. In addition, by interacting with solar radiation, methane promotes the formation of ground-level ozone (O3), another short-lived climate pollutant (CCVC) and the main component of smog. Methane gas flaring also produces black carbon and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are also CCVCs. 4. Methane causes serious damage to human health As mentioned, methane emissions promote the formation of ozone found in the lower layers of the atmosphere, which has serious impacts on public health. It irritates the airways, generates a feeling of burning and shortness of breath, complicates asthma, causes lung dysfunction and even premature death, and alters the immune system's response, reducing its ability to respond to diseases such as COVID-19, which mainly affects the airways. And since methane burning generates black carbon, it is relevant to point out that it is a key component of particulate matter (PM 2.5)—particles that are 35 times smaller than a grain of sand. These particles cannot be filtered or retained naturally in the nose, and can even enter the lungs. Particulate matter is the air pollutant most frequently associated with cardiovascular, respiratory, and pulmonary diseases, including lung cancer. 5. It is urgent to regulate and curb methane emissions Since methane, in addition to aggravating the climate crisis, deteriorates air quality and with it human health, it is urgent to act to curb its emissions. Civil society must demand that governments efficiently regulate methane emissions from the hydrocarbon industry and other sectors such as coal mining and industrial livestock. In addition, we must demand the monitoring of emissions, as well as the production and dissemination of timely information about methane’s damage to our air quality.
Read more
Science as a human right and a tool for environmental justice
By María Fernanda Ordoñez y Andrés Ángel According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, science is any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. For its part, the United Nations (UN) defines science as the tool created by human beings to understand the world around them, and thus apply that knowledge to their benefit. If science is such an important tool, why is it not available to everyone? There is still a long way to go before science is recognized as a human right, and even the advances that have been made to that end are not well enough known. The so-called right to science was formed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 27 of which states that "everyone has the right to participate in scientific progress and in the benefits resulting therefrom.” It is also referred to in the Charter (Article 38) of the Organization of American States and in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. In addition, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—which entered into force in 1976—recognizes in its Article 15 the right of every person to "enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.” It is precisely to raise public awareness of the responsible use of science for the benefit of society that World Science Day for Peace and Development is celebrated every November 10. The big gaps remaining Although the right to science is promoted by various world class scientific organizations, like the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), its application is still relatively unknown. This may be due in part to ignorance and economic difficulties in some countries. In Latin America and the Caribbean, socioeconomic, racial, and gender gaps are the major obstacles to the establishment of the universal right to science, which is closely linked to other rights, such as the right to education. According to UNESCO’s 2017-2018 World Education Report, 52 percent of children and adolescents in the region fail to reach minimum levels in mathematics and 36 percent fail in reading. In addition, in 2015 the rate of out-of-school youth of secondary school age reached 15.3 percent. A more telling indicator is the percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) allocated to public education, which stands at an average of 5 percent. In terms of the percentage of GDP allocated to research and development, the World Bank data shows that the countries that allocated the most resources for this purpose in 2017 were Brazil (1.26%) and Argentina (0.54%), followed by Cuba (0.43%) and Costa Rica (0.42%). The lowest figures were recorded in Guatemala (0.03%), Honduras (0.04%) and Peru (0.12%). These figures demonstrate that there are profound challenges to be faced in order to create the necessary conditions for the effective exercise of the right to science. Science in the Service of Environmental Justice Scientific advances allow us to find solutions to the new economic, social and environmental challenges we face on our way to a more just and sustainable future. Most communities in Latin America lack access to basic tools, or the training to develop programs for independent monitoring of environmental parameters, such as air or water quality. Thus, communities are at a serious disadvantage in the context of socio-ecological conflicts that may result from proposals for large mining, oil, and agro-industrial projects. However, it’s worth highlighting and promoting progress where it exists. It is encouraging to hear from empowered communities that have decided to implement community water quality monitoring programs, epidemiology initiatives, and many others. There is also hope because UNESCO data shows gross enrollment in higher education rose from 22 to 46 percent between 2000 and 2015. Likewise, many of the region’s civil society organizations are supporting the recognition of the right to science. At AIDA, scientific knowledge is used to strengthen our legal strategies to protect people and environments in the region. During the AAAS’s Conference on Science, Technology, and Human Rights in October 2019, we explained the link between science and human rights advocacy, and how we apply it in our work. Two months earlier, in August, UNESCO organized their first Latin American workshop in Argentina to discuss the development and implications of the right to science. There, the right to science was defined as a major focus of the organizattion’s work in the region. Strengthening the right to science in Latin America is vital for promoting more just and sustainable societies, where socioeconomic, racial, and gender gaps do not impede access to information as a common good. It’s essential to involve trained people committed to research in projects, organizations, and entities that promote social and environmental justice. In addition, the support of scientific professionals is fundamental to the process of knowledge transfer between countries and regions. This support is indispensable for the development of effective and efficient public policies. Finally, it should be noted that science should not only contribute to overcoming information asymmetries among actors in society, but should also be practiced and developed within a framework of respect for the rights of nature and human rights. At AIDA, we will continue to promote the right to science, building new capacities and strengthening existing ones, both for our partners and for the communities we support.
Read more
Three major opportunities to save the ocean and the climate
The novel coronavirus pandemic has brought a change in perspective on the importance of many issues, among them access to health and technology, and the inequalities present in many aspects of our lives. It has also renewed discussion about the need to act on the greatest threat facing humanity: the climate crisis. My intention is not to cause alarm or panic, but to emphasize that there is still much to be done. Life on the planet arose in the ocean and, after millions of years, adapted to be possible on land, eventually leading to human existence. Although we do not live in the ocean, it is key to sustaining life on Earth. The ocean is the planet’s main climate regulator. Marine currents set the tone for the seasons and their interaction with the air is the origin of tropical storms, hurricanes, and typhoons. Furthermore, mangroves—which serve as a link between the ocean and the land—and coral reefs are natural barriers against tropical storms. Therefore, a healthy ocean means a healthy climate, and we must seek to preserve it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, scientific evidence shows that the ocean suffers from overheating, acidification, and a loss of oxygen. In the face of this harsh reality, there are three major opportunities for climate-focused ocean protection measures. Despite being delayed due to the pandemic, these international negotiation processes still represent important windows of opportunity to save the ocean, the climate and our future. 1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change The first scenario is within the negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, during which member nations meet to review their commitments, progress made in fulfilling them, and the ongoing challenges in the global fight against the climate emergency. During the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) in 2019, the possibility of initiating a dialogue on the importance of the ocean in climate action was opened. The country parties, observer organizations, and other institutions were asked to send their contributions on the subject for analysis at the next meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Body. The idea is to more actively integrate marine ecosystems into climate change adaptation and mitigation plans, as well as to highlight their role in building planetary climate resilience. There is no definite date for the next meeting of the Scientific Advisory Body and we will have to wait until November 2021 for the next UN climate summit. 2. High Seas Treaty Conservation and sustainable management of marine resources is another key aspect of protecting oceans and the benefits they provide. This is precisely the goal of the negotiation of a High Seas Treaty within the framework of the United Nations. Marine areas outside national jurisdiction, known as the high seas, represent approximately half of the planet's surface. These areas are under little or no regulation. The treaty seeks to create an integrated legal framework to regulate productive activities on the high seas through environmental impact assessments, spatial management tools such as marine protected areas, management of marine genetic resources, technological capacity building, and technology transfer. Ecosystems in the high seas are highly productive and capable of sequestering carbon and regulating the climate. They are also essential for present and future food security. The last Intergovernmental Conference for the negotiation of the High Seas Treaty was scheduled for March 2020, but was postponed until March of next year. 3. Convention on Biological Diversity The negotiation of biodiversity management targets for the next decade, which are broad and cover a variety of ecosystems, are managed under the Convention on Biological Diversity. One idea that is being promoted is the protection of 30 percent of the ocean by 2030. This goal requires the creation of biologically significant, science-based, and properly managed marine protected areas. Without the High Seas Treaty, this goal is impossible to achieve. Negotiations on the Convention were planned for November 2020, but were postponed until the second quarter of 2021. The link between these three negotiations is undeniable and necessary. Without marine protected areas created with a scientific approach, and without an ocean whose resources are managed sustainably, we will not have effective climate action. This pause in the negotiations gives us time to inform ourselves and learn more about the importance of the ocean. It is a time to reflect on why it’s necessary to protect at least 30 percent of the world's oceans, including the high seas. At stake is our climate resilience, our food security, and our future. Now is the perfect time to reflect on the wise words of Sylvia Earle: “No water, no life. No blue, no green. WIth every drop of water you drink, every breath you take, you’re connected to the sea.”
Read more