Blog

July 24 2020 Oceans, Toxic Pollution

The unbridled use of disposable plastic: A new global crisis

The massive spread of COVID-19 has created a global health crisis, leaving millions of people sick and thousands dead. Due to the nature of the disease and the ease of contagion, protective and biosecurity measures have been implemented on a massive scale. These include confinement and safe distancing, constant disinfection of hands and surfaces, and the use disinfectant bottles, bags, and personal protective equipment like mouthpieces, masks, gloves, and other objects. Unfortunately, plastic—single-use plastic, in particular—is the primary material used to make these objects, which implies an indiscriminate increase in the use and disposal of this material. The processes needed to manage those single-use plastics have become another major challenge in the face of a crisis that is collapsing economies and health systems. It’s clear that our greatest global concern is to defeat the pandemic, and prevent more deaths and infections. But also of concern are the side effects it’s producing, like the backsliding of global efforts to reduce plastic waste and prevent environmental damage. Before the pandemic, contamination by plastic waste was already considered one of the main threats to the environment and biodiversity. According to a recent study, only 9 percent of the plastic produced worldwide is recycled. The rest is left as accumulated waste that damages ecosystems, mainly the oceans, and the species that live in them. Plastic pollution directly affects thousands of species, like marine mammals or birds that get entangled in the waste. Other species confuse the debris with food, as is the case with fish and sea turtles. Our greatest global concern right now must be overcoming the pandemic and preventing further death and infection. But let’s also be aware that, because of it, we’re moving backwards in the reduction of plastic waste and the prevention of the damages it causes. Backsliding in the Regulation of Plastics In December 2018, the European Union's parliament approved a ban on single-use plastics, which was due to come into effect next year. However, due to the pandemic, the plastic products industry has asked the European Commission to delay the implementation of the standard by at least one year. Although many countries had committed themselves to reducing the use of plastics this year, the pandemic has forced some of them to postpone such plans. In California, the governor temporarily lifted the ban on single-use grocery bags because of the risk of transmission through reusable bags. In Thailand, where single-use bags had been banned since January, officials expect up to a 30 percent increase in their use. According to that country's Environment Institute, 62 percent more plastic was consumed in Bangkok in April compared to the previous year, most of it being food packaging, which is difficult to recycle. In Latin America, the situation is similar. In the Mexican state of Jalisco, an era free from plastic bags and disposable straws was set to begin in January 2020, after a rule banning their use came into force. When the pandemic struck, the ban was abandoned and consumption of these products by establishments and citizens was only 10 percent less than last year, according to recent data. Greenpeace denounced the plastic industry in Mexico for seeking to reverse local bans using the argument that plastic is the ideal material to avoid COVID-19 infections. The environmental organization warned that nothing replaces continuous hand washing and surface disinfection. It explained that using disposable plastic containers, utensils, and cutlery neither guarantees hygiene nor prevents infection since the virus can remain on these surfaces for two to six days. The Importance of Debate and Seeking Alternatives Before the pandemic, there was greater social awareness of the need to reduce the use of plastics, especially single-use plastics. However, the need to contain the spread of the virus and industry strategies to capitalize on the health concerns of the population have led to the re-emergence of plastic as an indispensable material. Now more than ever, we must take care of each other. We also must protect the natural world that sustains life. The pandemic has exposed our weaknesses, and one of them is vulnerability to pollution. It’s possible that when containment measures are lifted or relaxed we’ll find that our dependence on plastic has increased significantly and that our planet is in more danger than before. We must continue the global debate on plastics and work together to find effective alternatives, taking into account the economic recovery of the sectors most affected by the crisis. Some urgent actions that could be taken in short and medium term include: Promoting environmental awareness and responsible consumption, encouraging non-healthcare workers to use reusable personal protection items made from environmentally friendly materials. Adopting best practices for recycling and policies against pollution by plastics at the national level, as part of a global action plan. Promoting the development of the circular economy, which aims to eliminate waste through the continuous reuse of resources. Requiring companies to make greater investments in sustainability, ensuring compliance with their environmental policies and corporate social responsibility. Encouraging investment in the research and development of alternative materials, which are more biodegradable and recyclable, as well as progress in the design of new, less contaminating, chemical additives. When it comes to plastics, we cannot control everything. But these actions can help give the new normal a more sustainable form.

July 17 2020 Fracking, Climate Change, Human Rights

Why fracking is not an energy transition

The current global health crisis is forcing society to reflect on our ever increasing need for change. It’s putting us face-to-face with the fragility and unfeasibility of an energy system based on fossil fuels. This is evidenced by the historic collapse of oil prices associated with lower international demand for hydrocarbons—due to measures adopted in response to the pandemic—as well as overproduction and speculation in oil contracts, among other factors. Demand for gas is also expected to fall by 5 percent, following a decade of uninterrupted growth. Latin America is highly dependent on fossil fuels, both as an export commodity and for its own domestic consumption—88 percent of the energy used on the continent comes from nonrenewable resources. Since 2010, governments and private businesses have been pushing for fracking, or hydraulic fracturing of unconventional deposits, due in large part to the overexploitation of conventional hydrocarbons. Some countries describe fracking as a ‘bridge’ to reducing dependence on coal and petroleum as energy sources, claiming it gives them time to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Following this logic, fracking has been promoted as a step toward energy transition. But how can a process that demonstrates a clear lack of economic, environmental, and social viability be labeled a transition? Reasons to say “No!” to fracking To resort to fracking is to continue to promote an energy system characterized by high private ownership and appropriation, the use of non-renewable resources, and negative impacts on affected populations and territories. What’s more, this system is defined by a great inequity in terms of access to, and use of, energy. Hydraulic fracturing involves the injection of toxic substances into the subsoil, which can cause the contamination of aquifers and air due to the volatility of some compounds. What’s more, leaks in the production and transport of gas and oil extracted vía fracking have been related to the increase in global emissions of methane, a pollutant responsible for about a quarter of all global warming. The technique also requires large amounts of water, which is especially relevant in a region that continues to confront serious problems concerning access to this basic resource. The use of fracking affects the ways of life of communities, both in terms of health—due to toxic substances in the air, water and soil—and in the violation of human rights and democracy. Many communities, particularly indigenous ones, lack access to information and are not properly consulted on fracking projects in their territories. The damages may be more serious for women, aggravating previously existing structural inequities. In economic terms, hydraulic fracturing requires large investments and, in order to be viable, it needs a market with high prices. In that sense, the unpredictability of oil prices makes it so that any nation that depends on hydrocarbons for its energy sovereignty is taking a dubious risk. Also, in fracking the rate of return on energy is lower. This means that the extraction process demands much more energy that it can capture. All this results in an energy benefit that is sometimes non-existent, and in which profits come from financial speculation. To promote fracking today would be to take a step backward, rather than forward. It simply does not meet the definition of a transition away from fossil fuels, and the logic of fracking has little to do with satisfying the social and economic needs of the people, among them environmental sustainability. A Movement for Change A growing number of organizations, institutions, communities and individuals throughout the Americas have organized to prevent the advance of fracking. These joint efforts, like the Latin American Alliance On Fracking, promote access to information and dismantle the position of businessmen and governments that claim fracking and more extractive activities are the only way out. Initiatives have emerged that seek energy alternatives by promoting dialogue and creating working groups on a just transition. Examples range from the experience of energy autonomy through small community hydroelectric plants in Guatemala, the Rio Negro Production and Energy Transition Working Group in Argentina, and the various experiences of Censat Agua Viva in Colombia, including a Social Working Group for a New Mining, Energy and Environmental Model. Meanwhile, using legal and administrative mechanisms, several municipalities and communities in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay have prohibited or declared a moratorium on fracking in their territories. Thinking about another society requires thinking about another energy system, one that is just and democratic. These spaces of resistance and the construction of alternatives give us a roadmap to promote structural changes and to jointly confront our society’s health, economic, and climate crises. Only then can we move beyond a system in which what was once considered "normal" simply wasn’t working.

July 14 2020 Climate Change, Human Rights

Challenges and conditions to advance towards energy justice in Mexico

This blog entry accompanies the launch of the first ever Benchmark on Renewable Energy and Human Rights. It was originally published by the Business & Human Rights Information Centre. By Rosa Peña Lizarazo and Astrid Puentes Riaño The climate crisis, in the words of Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is the greatest current threat to human rights, and one that requires urgent political decisions and collective action. One such decision concerns progress in the energy transition, that is, the shift from the use of energy derived from fossil fuels to the use of energy that is renewable and less emission-intensive. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this transition would help to address the climate crisis and improve air quality. In Mexico, this transition has motivated multi-sector debates and requires a participatory, inclusive, and transparent dialogue with a human rights approach and a territorial perspective. There are four main challenges to this: main challenges 1. The socioeconomic context Mexico has some of the highest levels of inequality on the planet, with ten of the country’s richest people holding wealth the equivalent to 50% of its poorest. Understanding this context is key to adapting energy transition policies that meet international climate obligations without creating more inequity. It is also essential to learn from the past. The 2013 energy reform set in motion a model for the massive implementation of renewable energy projects, both large-scale and private. This made it impossible to overcome the wide gaps in exclusion for socio-economic and territorial reasons. 2. Energy consensus Another challenge is achieving regulatory and social consensus on what clean and renewable energy is and what the goal should be in its implementation. Despite the proposals of some environmental organizations, the Mexican Government accepted vague and more convenient definitions to fulfill its climate commitments. It defined clean energies as those that do not generate polluting emissions during their production, ignoring whether they can generate other negative impacts on the environment. 3. Respect and protection of human rights The generation of energy from fossil fuels has violated human rights, provoking scenarios of exclusion and serious implications for Mexico’s indigenous and rural communities. Likewise, many non-conventional renewable energy projects, like those developments in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec or in the Yucatan Peninsula, have generated new socio-environmental conflicts. These relate to the lack of transparency and participation, violation of the rights of native peoples, lack of knowledge of traditional ownership and uses of land, obstacles to access natural resources, and environmental degradation. It is therefore a challenge to undertake a transition that considers and prevents these harms from a human rights perspective. 4. Energy diversification and reliability Given current dependence on fossil fuels in the energy grid - which by 2018 generated 75.88% of the country's energy - progress towards mitigation and adaptation to climate change requires a process of diversification of energy sources that takes advantage of Mexico's potential to develop renewable energy. Another associated challenge is to guarantee the reliability of the system to ensure it can continuously meet the country's energy demand. how can a fair transition come about? At AIDA, we believe this can be done by building energy justice in Mexico, through the following: Adapting to the socioeconomic context: Betting on a transition that becomes an engine of local development, through for example, the generation of jobs, the democratization of energy and energy generation in the scale necessary for self-supply. This requires overcoming existing barriers to exclusion by implementing, for example, community energy projects. Designing participatory energy policy: Propose scenarios of effective and inclusive participation in order to agree on the minimum aspects of the goals of energy policy in the country, in response to the climate crisis. Compliance with environmental and human rights standards: Advisory Opinion 23 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights highlights that any policy or project must guarantee access rights in environmental matters and labour rights, comply with the principles of prevention and precaution, respect the rights of indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples, and have a gender perspective. Diversification of the energy grid: Promote financing mechanisms that encourage clean technological innovation and investment in decentralized renewable energies and with better storage strategies. Without a doubt, a just energy transition is necessary and urgent in Mexico. The country now has the opportunity to undertake a progressive and timely transition that allows for better scenarios of social, environmental and climate justice, and that responds to current social demands.

June 30 2020 Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

Contamination and COVID-19: Why didn't air quality Improve in the Valley of Mexico?

Measures adopted to deal with the global health pandemic caused by COVID-19 have led to a reduction in some atmospheric pollutants, which has considerably improved air quality in various cities around the world. Yet in the metropolitan area of the Valley of Mexico (MCMA)—which includes Mexico City and surrounding towns—air quality has not improved despite the suspension of activities associated with sources of pollution like traffic and industry. Months before the health emergency was declared in late March 2020, the air quality reported by the Valley’s Atmospheric Monitoring System was in the range of "regular" to "bad," due primarily to vehicle congestion. With restrictions on mobility established due to the pandemic, vehicle traffic decreased by up to 70% and, with it, so did some of the air pollution. According to official information, distancing measures caused a reduction in carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides—of 58 and 32 percent, respectively. However, tropospheric ozone (O3), one of the most damaging pollutants to air quality and human health, did not decrease significantly (only 3 or 4 percent, according to official data). That’s why, in May, two months after measures were adopted to address the health crisis, air quality in the Valley of Mexico remained at the same parameters as the beginning of the year—that is, ranging from "regular" to "bad," according to the Atmospheric Monitoring System. The question that arises, then, is WHY? What causes air pollution? Various gases and compounds contaminate the air. Primary pollutants—like carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)—are directly discharged into the atmosphere. Secondary pollutants, like tropospheric ozone (O3), form in the atmosphere as a result of the chemical transformation of those primary pollutants. Tropospheric ozone is formed from the interaction of sunlight with "precursor gases," including volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. Now, there are three factors that actually affect air quality: weather conditions, topography, and concentrations of one or more pollutants at levels that can harm the environment and human health. These concentrations are measured by official monitoring systems, like the MCMA Atmospheric Monitoring System. The World Health Organization establishes concentration levels of pollutants that should not be exceeded over a specific period. For tropospheric ozone, the recommended value is 50 parts per billion (ppb) over an eight-hour average. But Mexican regulations are more lax and establish a lower limit for this compound: a concentration less than or equal to 95 ppb on an hourly average (that is, in a 60-minute time interval). In addition, to activate an environmental contingency for ozone, concentrations must be greater than 154 ppb (hourly average). This standard implies less protection for the population's health. At the beginning of this year, the hourly ozone concentration in the Valley of Mexico averaged only 23 ppb, but it has risen since then. Despite the restrictions resulting from the health crisis, the average hourly concentration of ozone was 41 ppb in April and 45 ppb in May. Also, from January to May, 99 days were recorded in which ozone concentrations exceeded the 95 ppb limit. Why did concentrations of ozone increase? The restriction on mobility during the health contingency was not adequate to decrease concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere for two reasons: first, the sources of this compound are not limited to the use of vehicles; and second, the period of social isolation coincided with the so-called ozone season, a time of the year when the concentrations rise due to the increase of solar radiation and the decrease of rain and wind. As previously mentioned, tropospheric ozone is formed by the interaction of sunlight with precursor gases. Among these gases are nitrogen oxides—mainly generated by the combustion processes of automobiles, especially diesel engines—and volatile organic compounds, which arise from more diverse sources: the use of solvents, leaks of liquefied petroleum gas in heaters and stoves, cosmetic and cleaning products, and evaporated fuel in gas stations and automobiles without evaporative emissions control. According to official data, during social isolation, volatile organic compounds were only reduced by 15 percent, including all their emission sources. On the other hand are forest fires, a major source of ozone precursor gases. From January 1 to May 3 of this year, in Mexico City alone there were 644 forest fires— lower in number compared to the same period in 2019, but equally as intense. As for the ozone season, which begins the last week of February and ends with the first rains in June, the average temperature in the Valley of Mexico was higher this year. In April, it was 2°C higher than the average recorded in the same month between 1981 and 2010—the hottest April in recorded history. Because the temperature is directly related to solar radiation and lack of wind, its increase explains the higher ozone concentrations. The sum of these factors contributed to the fact that ozone concentrations actually increased despite the restrictions established by the pandemic. This, in turn, led to the residents of the Valley of Mexico continuing to experience poor air quality and suffering its negative health impacts. Why reducing ozone is good for public health and the climate Ozone not only affects air quality and thus public health. It also has the ability to absorb sunlight and heat the atmosphere, meaning it is a short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP). Because its emissions aggravate the climate crisis, more than 11,000 scientists from around the world have highlighted the need to reduce SLCPs in order to rapidly combat global warming. The intensity of the forest fires and the particularly high temperatures of this year's “ozone season” demonstrate the effects of the climate crisis that we are failing to adequately confront. That’s why it’s imperative that the government implement actions to reduce emissions of precursors gases—not only during the health emergency, but also when we get through it, when motorized transportation (a source of nitrogen oxides) is reactivated. Improved controls on the type of cars on the road, based on their polluting potential, and personal choices like biking, also recommended to reduce the risks of contagion, would help to achieve this objective, reduce global warming, and improve the health of those living in the Valley of Mexico. In addition, society must commit to measures of regulation, communication and education that curb consumer habits and improve on the production and distribution of goods and services that continue to emit volatile organic compounds (another ozone precursor) on a daily basis. Restricting the production and use of aerosol products, as well as repairing and preventing leaks of liquefied petroleum gas, would help to reduce these emissions. Finally, it’s necessary to strengthen the country's weak environmental policy and combat non-compliance with environmental health standards, which has resulted in an insufficient reduction in air pollution. Mexican air quality standards must be updated to set stricter limits that are compatible with international standards and the protection of the human right to health. The above are just some examples of actions that authorities and society can take to show that we have learned a lesson and will do what is necessary to improve air quality and face possible new health crises, as well as to combat the climate crisis that threatens to end the world as we know it today.

June 29 2020 Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

Protecting environmental defenders, a State duty that mustn’t be deferred

Every day men and women around the world dedicate their lives to protecting the ecosystems upon which entire communities and other living things depend. This work, essential for the protection of our planet, is carried out in legal, social, and political spheres. Unfortunately, those who defend the environment are victims of threats and assassinations. For many years now, Latin America has been the most dangerous region in the world to be an environmental defender, accounting for nearly 60 percent of these crimes. This, despite the fact that national and regional governments recognize human rights like free speech and a healthy environment, as well as the rights of nature. In 2019, Global Witness reported on the murder of 164 environmental defenders, many from Latin American nations—Colombia (24); Brazil (20); Guatemala (16) and Mexico (14). The report explained, “mining was the worst sector, causing 43 deaths, though deaths related to conflicts over water sources also surged. Attacks driven by agribusiness, logging and hydropower continued too.” In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the grave risk facing environmental defenders has not ceased. Despite social distancing and other measures adopted to slow the spread of the virus, violence aimed at defenders has continued. It is important to consider that the pandemic strains the networks of protections that exist to respond to emergencies, putting environmental defenders at increased risk. This, combined with the lack of will or ability for institutions to respond to any problems other than the current health crisis, makes for a complicated security situation. In effect, States must respect and guarantee human rights at all times. These are obligations that cannot be deferred, even in emergency situations, and must be emphasized and strengthened for those at risk, like environmental defenders. stATE’s Role as Protector The work of environmental defenders has been recognized within the international system of human rights as essential, in a democratic society, for strengthening the respect and enjoyment of other rights. The reality of the dangers with which these defenders live has been accompanied by a judicial evolution, as evidenced by international legal instruments such as the Escazu Agreement, which for the first time included environmental defenders as people subject to special protection. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights said that this type of protection is especially necessary due to the threats and intimidation defenders face. States have the obligation to: Avoid violating human rights and prevent others from doing so, something that applies to all people. Ensure a safe and conducive environment for environmental defenders to freely carry out their work, and therefore take special action to protect them when they are threatened; refrain from imposing obstacles that hinder the performance of their work; and seriously and effectively investigate violations committed against them. Ensure compliance with procedural rights in environmental matters, i.e. the right to information, public participation and access to justice. Refrain from acting in any way that encourages, stimulates, favors or deepens the vulnerability of these persons; and take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or protect the rights of those who are in such a situation. This is relevant in the face of the increasing criminalization of human rights defenders by governments, who accuse them of "going against development" in a discourse that has wide reach. Conduct a prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation into cases of violent death. Always include the perspective of women, since women defenders are exposed to higher levels of violence due to the context of pre-existing inequality. Finally, it’s important to highlight the need for all measures taken by States to clearly respect human rights and, at the same time, assure the life and integrity of environmental defenders as an indispensable element for climate justice and environmental democracy.

June 04 2020 Indigenous Rights, Mining

Continued extractive activities put indigenous and rural communities at increased risk from the pandemic

In most Latin American nations, governments have implemented health and social isolation measures to contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within the framework of these restrictions, exceptions have been established for activities considered essential, including emergency care, the provision of health services, and the marketing and supply of essential goods. However, the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru have also exempted mining and oil activities from the restrictions, stating they are in the national interest. The exceptional treatment accorded to extractive activities in some countries of the region has significantly increased the vulnerability of indigenous peoples, and amplified the risks and threats they face, since these operations are carried out in their territories. In addition, the entry and exit of workers without proper health measures diminishes the effectiveness of the protective measures adopted by these peoples, such as epidemiological fences or social isolation. Thus, there is an increase in the spread of the virus and in the number of infected persons. In addition, in practice, these rural populations have little or no access to the health and sanitation services needed to deal with a health crisis such as that generated by COVID-19. At the regional level, the Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA) has demanded that States guarantee access to health and food for the indigenous peoples and nationalities of the Pan-Amazon, as well as to intensify surveillance and protection of the territories "invaded by oil, mining, logging and other people." The particular situation of each country is as follows: BOLIVIA In late March, the government issued a Supreme Decree establishing that companies that "provide services for the supply of gasoline, gas, diesel and other fuels" are authorized to continue their operations "without interruption.” The decision has generated concern among indigenous organizations. "In Tarija and part of Santa Cruz, as well as in El Chaco, the oil companies continue to work with total normality. There are changes in personnel that arrive in vehicles continuously. Our fear is that they will bring the virus to the indigenous communities," indigenous leader Alex Villca, member of the Coordinating Committee for the Defense of Indigenous, Native, Peasant and Protected Areas Territories (Contiocap), told Mongabay. ECUADOR The organization of the Waorani Nationality of Ecuador (NAWE) alerted the national government to the detection of two positive cases of coronavirus among the workers of Block 16, which would be operated by the company Repsol YPF. The Waorani called on the government to adopt special protocols for "the protection of territories and indigenous populations," adopting measures to control and restrict the activities of oil company personnel who "are operating legally in indigenous territories and to prevent the propagation of the pandemic." Repsol Ecuador S.A. informed in a press release that the two positive cases correspond to workers of a contracting company who, after being previously tested, did not enter the company's operations. PERU In March, the government issued a Supreme Decree to combat the health crisis resulting from the pandemic. The decree provides for restrictions on the right to freedom of movement, exempting from this measure certain welfare and economic activities considered essential. Mining was not one of them. However, the Ministry of Energy and Mines included mining among the essential activities that must still be carried out in quarantine to ensure minimum operations, saying it would do so without affecting the integrity of workers and communities. This decision came after the National Society of Mining, Oil and Energy and the National Confederation of Private Business Institutions separately stated that the mining industry could not be stopped. The National Organization of Andean and Amazonian Indigenous Women of Peru criticized this decision. The presence of mining and oil operations in indigenous territories "puts the lives and health" of those peoples at risk, they said. In the context of the pandemic, states must implement comprehensive and concerted health strategies to respect, guarantee and protect indigenous and peasant communities near mining or oil exploitation projects and other activities that put them at risk.

May 29 2020 Public Participation, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Colombia: Holding virtual hearings violates communities' right to participation

In the context of the pandemic, and since the beginning of Colombia's obligatory isolation, businessmen have asked the Colombian government to "simplify environmental procedures." On April 3, 25 entrepreneurs sent a letter to President Iván Duque asking for the simplification of processes including prior consultation, environmental licenses and royalities. One of the first measures undertaken was the attempt to simplify the prior consultation, proposing to make it virtual. In response, indigenous communities and the Ombudsman's Office requested that the Ministry of the Interior respect human rights and reverse the measure, which it did. However, the quest to change the way consultations are conducted continues. At the request of the Ministry of the Environment, the National Environmental Licensing Authority (ANLA) is promoting several virtual environmental hearings, even proposing they be held on radio and digital platforms such as Facebook and YouTube. These are hearings to address key environmental issues in the country. The problem is that communication on these platforms is unilateral, denounced the organization DeJusticia, thus eliminating the possibility of discussing technical issues, and presenting an obstacle for those with limited access to the Internet. On April 13, 2020, ANLA issued Resolution 642, which opened the way for virtual participation processes. Days later, the licensing authority scheduled a virtual hearing to discuss a very important issue for the region: the return of aerial spraying with glyphosate, a toxic herbicide. The hearing, scheduled for May 27, was intended to address the modification of the glyphosate environmental management plan. But, thanks to a legal action, on May 18 a judge from the department of Nariño suspended the hearing. As evidenced, there exists an ongoing intention to carry out similar proposals during the pandemic. Many have been halted by the early warnings of citizens, judicial actions or statements by control authorities. On 20 May, the Administrative Court of Santander ordered the Ministry of the Environment to plan virtual working groups. It has also called for a virtual public hearing on the Santurbán páramo, where a mega-mining project threatens to harm this strategic ecosystem, which is vital for local water supply and the mitigation of the climate crisis. Holding virtual hearings implies a damage to the rural, indigenous and urban communities affected by a project, and to Colombian society in general. In addition to being in the midst of the worst crisis in recent history, these communities lack access to the internet and the basic necessities that could guarantee their virtual participation. In Colombia, and across the region, the rights of access to information, justice and participation are among the most violated. We must stand at high alert so that the pandemic does not become an excuse to continue abusing them. All remaining proposed virtual proceedings must be immediately suspended, until there exists guarantees for the due exercise of the right to participation and the exercise of national and international oversight in these matters.

May 20 2020 Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

COVID-19 Response: The importance of providing special protection to indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants

Indigenous and afro-descendant peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean have been essential actors in the protection of nature, of key ecosystems and, in short, of the lives of all beings that inhabit the planet. At the same time, they have historically suffered discrimination, exclusion and the violation of their rights, seeing their survival threatened. According to the International Labor Organization’s report, Towards an Inclusive, Sustainable and Fair Future, Latin America is the region with the highest proportion of indigenous and tribal groups living in extreme poverty. In the context of global health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the vulnerability of indigenous and afro-descendant peoples in the region has increased for at least three reasons. 1. The pandemic aggravates the lack of access of ethnic communities to their economic, social, cultural and environmental rights Both the United Nations and the Inter-American Human Rights System have drawn attention to the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. However, ethnic communities have historically faced the absence of guarantees for the enjoyment of their economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. Many of these peoples do not have effective access to health, sanitation and social security services. And due to deforestation and the advance of the agricultural frontier in their territories, they face increasing challenges in ensuring their food sovereignty, confronting new diseases, and adjusting their traditional medicine systems. In addition, several of them have serious problems accessing indispensable goods such as water and food. The barriers to accessing these services under quality conditions have become greater with the current health crisis, making these populations more vulnerable and putting their very survival at risk. This is an overwhelming reality for the region. In a recent statement, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) expressed its concern by stating that, at the local level, "pandemic processes produce disproportionate impacts on populations with greater difficulties in accessing health structures and health care technologies within countries, such as indigenous peoples…” At the regional level, COICA (Coordinating Body of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin) declared a state of emergency in the face of the health crisis. In Guatemala, the International Commission of Jurists denounced that indigenous peoples "face the risk of suffering the destructive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to historical and systematic discrimination against them" and that in the current crisis "they do not have access to clear and simple information on how to protect themselves from the pandemic and how to be protected during the emergency by the Health System." Indigenous leaders in Peru denounced food shortages and deficiencies in health care, calling for the supply of essential items in communities and the definition of protocols for carrying supplies. In Colombia, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) reported that more than 191,000 indigenous families are at risk of infection and that for nearly 513,000 families the humanitarian crisis due to the pandemic is imminent. In addition, the National Conference of Afro-Colombian Organizations said that their population is at high risk and that "the majority of Afro-descendant territories do not have a network of equipment and personnel that would allow them to properly attend to potential affected persons." The situation in Brazil is the same. Out of 471 indigenous lands, 13 have critical vulnerability indexes regarding the pandemic. In the states of the Legal Amazon, 239 indigenous lands have intense or high vulnerability indexes. In general, the index varies between moderate, high, intense and critical. In addition, less than 10% of Brazilian municipalities with indigenous lands have beds available in the Intensive Care Unit and the indigenous health system only treats common diseases. Without guidance from the health departments, many indigenous groups are taking preventive measures on their own to prevent the pandemic from reaching their territories. Such measures include voluntary isolation, hygiene campaigns, and suspension of large mobilizations, events and travel; there has even been a closure of traffic between villages to prevent the spread of the disease. 2. Ethnic communities require differentiated measures, but the response of States remains insufficient In various countries of the region, indigenous communities are reporting that the measures taken by authorities in response to the pandemic have been precarious and culturally inadequate because they do not consider the uses and customs of these peoples. The IACHR and the Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights have reiterated that States must adopt culturally appropriate, timely, and effective responses to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples in the face of the pandemic. The IACHR reminded States of their obligation to provide "special protection" to the indigenous population, as well as " the importance of providing them clear information about the pandemic in their traditional language, whenever possible.” It also referred to Afro-descendant and tribal communities, highlighting the need for their situation “to be made visible in the context of this pandemic, especially to include an ethnic-racial perspective with an intersectional approach in all response measures implemented both in the level national, as in the regional responses that can be articulated.” In Mexico, the Mayan Community Collective of Hopelchén publicly denounced the Mexican government for the lack of implementation of an official strategy to inform Mayan indigenous peoples about the risks they face in the face of the health crisis. In Ecuador, the WHO warned of the lack of protocols for indigenous peoples and nationalities in the face of the pandemic. It noted that it is essential that social food programs reach these communities and the rural sector, and that prevention campaigns reach them in their own languages. The situation is aggravated by the poor connectivity of many of these peoples, who lack land, air and/or river routes. This hinders their mobility and access to social services, the internet and information about the pandemic, including state measures taken and self-care actions to be implemented. 3. The territorial rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities continue to be violated In the midst of the sanitary emergency and the confinement decreed in several countries of the region, governments and other actors have adopted measures or promoted initiatives that ignore the right to prior consultation, cause the relaxation of environmental requirements for high-impact development projects, and favor the lack of effective guarantees for citizen participation in environmental matters. In Colombia, the national government promoted virtual prior consultations. The National Commission on Indigenous Territories and several human rights organizations rejected the initiative, which was finally repealed. However, concern persists over the request made by businesspeople to the government for the relaxation of environmental permits in the country, a vital instrument for protecting the environment and indigenous territories. In Brazil, the pandemic's threats to indigenous communities are compounded by the invasion of indigenous territories and increased violence and threats to their leaders. In Roraima, Mato Grosso and Bahia, indigenous peoples blocked roads and built barriers to prevent invaders from entering their lands. These risks also come from the State. The National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) published an administrative act promoting the recognition of boundaries of private property on indigenous lands. This is intended to allow the issuance of property titles to invaders on indigenous lands, legitimizing their actions. In Mexico, organizations and communities denounced the federal government’s continuation of the so-called "Mayan train" project despite the fact that its construction is non-essential in the context of the pandemic. The project puts at risk the population in charge of its construction and prevents access to information and justice for communities given the suspension of deadlines in state institutions and the impossibility of resorting to appropriate judicial mechanisms. In Bolivia, the National Coordinator for the Defense of Indigenous and Peasant Territories and Protected Areas stated that indigenous peoples are vulnerable not only to the coronavirus, but also to what will come next: "a big hole in the global economy" and, therefore, "an excuse for more attacks on nature, indigenous territories and the natural protected areas where they are located.” On this issue, the IACHR reiterated to the States " the importance of recognizing the territorial rights of collective property to the Afro-descendant communities and guaranteeing them the effective right to free, prior and informed consent and consultation, respecting their free self-determination.” It also urged States to " refrain from promoting legislative initiatives or projects that affect ethnic territories during the duration of this pandemic, due to the impossibility of carrying out said consultation processes.” Towards emergency health care that respects the rights of indigenous peoples and people of African descent Indigenous peoples and people of African descent represent one of the continent's most important assets. Their millenary residence and their worldview—which respects nature and the beings that inhabit it—have been and are an invaluable legacy. They will be an indispensable element in promoting reflections on the global health and ecological crises that we face. The contributions of ethnic communities and their ancestral knowledge, which have transcended time and contributed to the survival of the planet, are essential for the implementation of preventative and care measures related to the pandemic. This is what the President of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues emphasized: “Indigenous peoples can contribute to seeking solutions. Their good practices of traditional healing and knowledge, such as sealing off communities to prevent the spread of diseases and of voluntary isolation, are being followed throughout the world today.” Protecting these peoples so that the pandemic does not threaten their lives and integrity is a moral and historic duty, and an international obligation of all States. It is therefore imperative that States: Promote special care plans and emergency protocols for ethnic communities and other vulnerable populations, with a human rights approach and from a differential perspective. Support the initiatives that some Afro-descendent peoples and indigenous communities have taken to deal with the crisis of the pandemic on the basis of self-government and autonomy, including strategies of voluntary isolation, the use of traditional medicine and the conduct of internal information and communication campaigns. Refrain from promoting measures that disregard the territorial rights of indigenous peoples and people of African descent. AIDA urged States to suspend the approval of environmental and other official permits for sensitive projects unrelated to the response to the health crisis, until human rights can be adequately guaranteed. Suspend prior consultations until conditions are in place to guarantee the rights of indigenous peoples. Suspend bills and initiatives that weaken the integrity of indigenous territories, as well as the progress of any development project or extractive activity on indigenous or Afro-descendant lands that could have negative effects on the life or integrity of these peoples.

April 28 2020 Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources, Human Rights

Inter-American Court upholds indigenous rights in Argentina

In Argentina’s Rivadavia department, along the border of Bolivia and Paraguay, the lands have been inhabited by indigenous people for at least 60 years. Communities there subsist primarily from hunting, gathering, and fishing. Many of these ancestral peoples have been battling for governmental recognition of their land rights since 1984, when the country’s transition from dictatorship to democracy began. This lack of recognition has had profound impacts on the lives of indigenous inhabitants, affected by changes in their land and its use. As Creole families settled in the area, they brought their own customs and economic activities, such as animal grazing and illegal logging. Barbed wire fence was erected without consulting indigenous populations, and an international bridge was built that crosses into their land. These developments have changed how the indigenous people eat and disrupted their access to water, threatening their very cultural identity. With no protection from the Argentine government, in 1998 a coalition of indigenous groups took their struggle before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Grouped in the Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) Association—made up of Wichí (Mataco), Iyjwaja (Chorote), Komlek (Toba), Niwackle (Chulupí) and Tapy'y (Tapiete) indigenous peoples—, they were represented by the Centre for Legal and Social Studies. In 2012, the Commission issued its Merits Report, establishing the violation of indigenous communities' rights and recommending that the State adopt reparation measures. When Argentina failed to comply with the provision, the case was referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. On April 2, 2020, the Court’s decision declared Argentina responsible for the violation of the indigenous peoples’ rights to community property, cultural identity, a healthy environment, and adequate food and water. The ruling marks an important milestone in the struggle for indigenous rights. It is the first time that the Court, in a contentious case, has analyzed these rights autonomously on the basis of Article 26 of the American Convention, and ordered specific measures for their restitution, including actions for access to food and water, the recovery of forest resources, and the recovery of indigenous culture. Actions for Reparation Among other implications, the Court's decision could lead to solutions to the health issues afflicting the indigenous communities of Lhaka Honhat. The violation of their rights to food and water has caused deaths from malnutrition and dehydration. The Court demanded that the State present a study within six months that identifies critical situations of lack of access to drinking water and food, formulates a plan of action to address them, and begins its implementation. It also ordered the creation and implementation of a community development fund within a period of no more than four years. As for the territory, the State shall, within a maximum period of six years: Delineate, demarcate, and grant a single collective title without subdivisions or fragmentations for the indigenous communities. Transfer the Creole population out of the indigenous territory through specific mechanisms that promote, above all, voluntary transfer. Remove barbed wire fences and livestock belonging to Creole settlers from indigenous lands. Refrain from carrying out acts, works or undertakings in indigenous territory. Additionally, the Court requested the adoption of legislative and/or other measures to provide legal certainty to the right to indigenous community property in Argentina. Supporting the Indigenous Struggle In March 2019, AIDA helped author and amicus brief in support of the climate of the indigenous communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association. We did so alongside our allies on the litigation group of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), including Amnesty International, the Asociación Civil por Igualdad y Justicia, the Colombian Commission of Jurists, Dejusticia, FIAN International, International Women's Rights Action Watch - Asia Pacific, and the Minority Rights Group International. Our arguments highlighted the importance of recognizing economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights as real enforceable rights—similar to others such as the right to life or personal integrity—due to their independent and indivisible nature. In this sense, AIDA recalled the important advance that the Court promoted with Advisory Opinion 023, which recognizes the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human life. Our brief called on the government to respect the rights of indigenous peoples—as outlined in Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights—to a healthy environment, food and water, and cultural identity. The Court's decision establishes an important regional precedent for the protection of the environment in the Americas. It contributes to the consolidation of standards to protect the land of indigenous communities, as well as their rights to a healthy environment, water and culture.

April 16 2020 Coral reefs, Oceans

What I learned from my internship at AIDA

Last year, I completed a three-month internship with AIDA in La Paz, the capital of Baja California Sur, Mexico. It was part of the academic process to become a lawyer in Germany, my home country. The internship allowed me to combine my professional training with my passion for nature, as well as to gain experience working with an international NGO in the field of environmental law. I applied to the internship with AIDA's Marine Biodiversity and Coastal Protection Program without specifying a preferred location. Imagine my delight to learn that the internship would take place in La Paz, Mexico, a small city surrounded by nature. Coming from one of the most densely populated countries in the world, it was amazing to live in a place with so much space. I was fascinated by the diversity of ecosystems in the area: deserts, mangroves, mountainous pine forests, and the rock and coral reefs of the Gulf of California. On my first weekend, I was able to take in the abundance of wildlife in La Paz when Camilo Thompson, AIDA attorney and my supervisor, and Mario del Angel, his neighbor and a kayak guide, took me on a tour of the El Mogote wetlands, an ecosystem of international importance. I was impressed to see, in the first light of day, a group of dolphins in the bay. The morning was complete when I had my first chilaquiles, a typical Mexican dish, for breakfast. As we toured the waterways taking pictures of herons among the mangroves, I learned about the importance of coastal wetlands—they serve as habitat for key species and are natural carbon sinks. From the beginning of my internship, I participated in the virtual meetings of AIDA’s marine team, distributed throughout several countries of the region. I learned about the variety of animals and ecosystems that AIDA works to protect. From the office in La Paz, our contribution was focused on Mexico. I learned about national regulations related to reefs, herbivorous fish, and Natural Protected Areas. I supported research on the state of protection of these fish, which are essential for keeping Latin American and global coral reefs healthy. The combination of direct contact with nature and working in the office for local and regional projects gave me a different perspective on the nature of environmental law, and increased my motivation to learn. I learned that AIDA has worked for years with other organizations, local stakeholders, and scientists to protect fisheries and endangered species such as whales and sea turtles. One of the most enriching aspects of my internship was being able to experience first-hand the natural wealth that AIDA seeks to preserve. Though I’d been a diver for many years, I never ceased to be amazed by the sight of sea lions, bull and hammerhead sharks, killer whales, rays, sea turtles, and countless species of reef fish in their natural habitat. While in La Paz, I finished my rescue diver course and accompanied a team of marine biologists to conduct a visual census of marine life on Espiritu Santo Island. On four occasions, I visited Cabo Pulmo National Park, the largest coral reserve in the Gulf of California. I went diving and snorkeling. I participated in meetings of the Cabo Pulmo Vivo coalition, dedicated to protecting the park and its area of influence. It was gratifying to know that I was doing my small part for the site’s conservation. The internship gave my professional training a multidisciplinary approach. La Paz is one of the scientific centers of marine biology in Mexico and, while there, I was able to exchange ideas with marine biologists on diving trips and while socializing in bars in the city. Around La Paz, I was also able to spend time bird watching, one of my hobbies. The state of Baja California Sur is home to roughly 432 species of birds. I was able to see a wide variety of migratory species, as well five of the six endemic ones. I completed the internship very grateful for the experiences I had gained. Now, I’m back in Berlin, but I plan to return soon to La Paz to see the birds, whale sharks, and other majestic species that inhabit the area and are living proof of the valuable work of organizations like AIDA.