Blog
Defending the environment is defending our future from the climate crisis
It is estimated that, from December 2015, when the Paris Accord was adopted—seeking to strengthen the global response to the climate crisis—until December 2019, an average of four environmental defenders have been killed each week. This is in addition to countless violent attacks, arrests, death threats and legal actions by state and private agents. This is one of the principal findings of the Global Witness' report, Defending Tomorrow: The climate crisis and threats against land and environmental defenders, which was released in July. The document shows the undeniable link between attention to the climate crisis and the work of human rights defenders. The international NGO contributes to ending human rights and environmental abuses driven by the management and use of natural resources, as well as by corruption. Each year it publishes a report presenting its findings on socio-environmental conflicts and the situation of human rights defenders around the world. This report draws attention to a serious contradiction in the face of a critical problem: human rights defenders play a crucial role in the fight against the climate emergency, but too many governments, companies and financial institutions have failed to safeguard their lives and work. Failing to protect those who care for us The climate crisis is a real and tangible threat to life itself and requires drastic solutions. The international scientific community has warned of the serious consequences of not putting a limit on human activities that accelerate global warming. We need public policies for adaptation and mitigation, to put a stop to the use of fossil fuels, to protect nature and not to criminalize its defense. However, state mechanisms have been more effective in promoting extractive industries and have made little progress in what truly matters. The Global Witness report notes that large-scale agriculture, hydrocarbon extraction and especially mining are the main industries driving conflict and violence against defenders. At the same time, they lead the activities that aggravate the climate emergency, since they involve the clearcutting of forests and the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Echoing recent research, the report notes that indigenous and local communities around the world care for forests that absorb the equivalent of 33 times our current annual carbon emissions. In other words, their role in mitigating the climate crisis is vital. It has also been shown that lands managed by indigenous peoples have lower deforestation rates and better conservation outcomes than protection areas that exclude these peoples. Despite this, Indigenous defenders suffer a disproportionate number of attacks. Between 2015 and 2019, they represent more than a third of attacks against defenders despite representing only 5 percent of the world's population, the report says. And last year alone, 40 percent of those killed belonged to Indigenous communities. The climate crisis and the violence against human rights defenders have different impacts. But in both cases, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, peasant communities and women are disproportionately at risk. Women defenders not only face contextual violence like the rest of the community, but are often doubly stigmatized for their role as women and as defenders. In turn, they may become victims of sexual violence, a practice historically used to show power over bodies and territories. Increasing violence against defenders According to Global Witness, 2019 was the deadliest year on record for defenders, with 212 murders. More than two-thirds of the crimes were recorded in Latin America, which has consistently been the most affected region since the organization began publishing this data in 2012. In the Amazon alone, there were 33 deaths (90 percent of the murders in Brazil occurred there). In Colombia, there were 64 murders, a 150 percent increase from 2018 and the highest figure the organization has recorded in the country. And Honduras, with 14 deaths, became the most dangerous country in 2019 in terms of the number of murders per million people. The Philippines and Colombia combined represent more than half of all the murders of environmental defenders recorded last year. The report is very clear in mentioning that intimidation, harassment and violence against defenders have their structural causes in the linkage between governments, companies and unions. States' actions and omissions have resulted in stigmatization, criminalization and killings. The document includes a global map with concrete cases of violence and actions taken by human rights defenders and civil society. One of these cases is that of women in the micro-region of Ixquisis, Guatemala, who are defending their territory from two hydroelectric projects. Through their struggle, they have managed to have their complaint addressed by the accountability mechanism of the Inter-American Development Bank, one of the dams’ financiers. AIDA represents the community in that case. Putting defenders first It is increasingly clear that environmental defenders are at risk for opposing projects that exacerbate the climate crisis. It is therefore urgent to prioritize within climate action their protection and the eradication of all violence against them. The situation presented is serious and requires solutions that are committed to the planet and to people. It’s necessary to respect and guarantee the defenders’ rights to participation, association, access to information and justice. States must put an end to violence within the framework of their international obligations; provide immediate protection to defenders; and implement transformative measures through legal, political, and administrative actions, in accordance with international human rights standards. Such actions include the ratification of the Escazú Agreement and the normative adaptation necessary to guarantee the fundamental rights to life, integrity, and a healthy environment and to defend human rights. In addition, they should promote transitions that overcome the long chain of impacts on human rights and the environment from fossil fuel extraction. In light of this, and within the framework of the obligation of due diligence, corporate responsibility is key to stopping, preventing and investigating possible conflicts or violence against human rights defenders. Finally, a social, political and ecological transition is needed that fully respects environmental and human rights. The transition must ensure that inequality gaps are not widened, address the structural causes of conflict to achieve a violence-free planet, mitigate environmental and climate damage, and ensure justice for all.
Read more
Environmental racism and the differentiated harm of the pandemic
By Tayná Lemos and Marcella Ribeiro Brazil’s major cities are reopening—with packed bars in Rio de Janeiro and restaurants serving up crowds in São Paulo—despite the lethality of COVID-19, which had caused more than 112 thousand deaths as of August 20. The reopening of bars and restaurants during the height of the pandemic demonstrates how the virus differentially affects people of different races and socioeconomic levels. A study by the Health Operations and Intelligence Center (NOIS), an initiative involving several Brazilian universities, found that a Black person without schooling is four times more likely to die from the novel coronavirus in Brazil than a white person with a higher level of education. Based on cases through May, the study also shows that the overall mortality rate of 38 percent for the white population climbs to nearly 55 percent for the Brazil’s Black population. "The mortality rate in Brazil is influenced by inequalities in access to treatment," Silvio Hamacher, NOIS coordinator and one of the study's authors, told EFE. Painfully, this trend is repeated in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. This demonstrates that one of the factors behind the high mortality rate of COVID-19 is environmental racism—a phenomenon in which the negative and unintended consequences of economic activities are unevenly distributed. Unequal Distribution of Damages The term environmental racism was coined in the United States by researcher Benjamin Chavis, after he observed that chemical pollution from industries was dumped only in Black neighborhoods. "Environmental racism is racial discrimination in environmental policy-making and enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the presence of life threatening poisons and pollutants in communities of color, and the history of excluding people of color from leadership of the environmental movement,” Chavis wrote. While all activity generates some environmental impact, the territories chosen to carry it out are usually regions located on the outskirts of the city, inhabited by traditional or outlying communities. In Brazil, environmental racism affects both outlying urban communities and traditional rural communities. And, as in the United States, one of its characteristics is the disproportionate pollution suffered by these minority groups in comparison with the white middle class. This includes the contamination of air and water with toxic agents, heavy metals, pesticides, chemicals, plastics, and so on. In his 2019 report, Bashkut Tuncak, then-UN Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, warned that there is a silent pandemic of disease and disability resulting from the accumulation of toxic substances in our bodies. In 2020, following a country-visit to Brazil, he noted that there is a connection between environmental pollution and mortality from the novel coronavirus and that fewer people would die in Brazil if stricter environmental and public health policies were in place. "There are synergies between exposure to pollution and exposure to COVID-19. Toxic substances in the environment contribute to the Brazil’s elevated mortality rate," Tuncak affirmed. The underlying health conditions that exacerbate the pandemic are not "bad luck," but largely "the impacts of toxic substances in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the toys we give to our children, and the places where we work.” An Increase in Vulnerability Tuncak confirmed that those most vulnerable to the pandemic are the urban poor as well as traditional and indigenous communities, because they are also the most affected by environmental and public health problems. This leads to hyper-vulnerability. An example of this situation is that of the 17 quilombos (Afro-descendant settlements) in the municipality of Salvaterra, in the state of Pará, home to around 7,000 people. Twenty years ago, an open dump was installed without consulting the families living there. Children, adults and the elderly were forced to live with domestic garbage and toxic and hospital waste, among other refuse. Their vulnerability increased with the pandemic. Despite the size of the country, there are no territorial gaps in Brazil. When an industry, a landfill, a monoculture, a hydroelectric project, a mine, or a nuclear plant is installed, a historically forgotten community is impacted. The invisible damage of pollution caused by these activities is difficult to prove, but it profoundly affects the health and quality of life of people who live nearby and are already extremely vulnerable. Another example is that of the indigenous community of Tey Jusu, which in April 2015 received a rain of toxic agro-chemicals spilled by an airplane over a corn monoculture. The fumigation intoxicated people in the community, damaging their health. Unfortunately, the direct ingestion of pesticides by members of communities living near monoculture plantations is a recurring reality. What’s worse is that the current government authorized 118 new agrochemicals during the pandemic, adding to the 474 approved in 2019 and another 32 launched in the first months of 2020. These pesticides cause several diseases but it is not yet possible to determine their exact consequences on the human body, much less their interaction with other toxic substances or with diseases like COVID-19. According to an analysis by the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon and the Amazon Research Institute, the death rate from the pandemic among indigenous people in the legal Amazon is 150 percent higher than the national average. The rate of COVID-19 infection among this population is also 84 percent higher than the national average. This is due to historical factors such as the lack of health posts, distance from hospitals, absence of any kind of assistance from the federal government, land invasion, and environmental degradation. In fact, one of the greatest threats to indigenous communities in Brazil is the invasion of their lands by illegal miners, which causes, among other human rights violations, mercury contamination in water sources. Last year, a study by the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation found that 56 percent of the Yanomami Indians had mercury concentrations above the limits set by the World Health Organization, which implies serious damage to public health. In this sense, environmental racism is a term that exposes a historical separation between those who reap the fruits of economic growth and those who become ill and die due to the environmental consequences of that same economic growth. The array of systemic damage to the health of these vulnerable communities makes them especially susceptible to the worst effects of COVID-19. Therefore, in discussing and addressing the pandemic, it is essential to know that it does not reach all people in the same way, that it puts traditional communities at risk of extinction, and that environmental issues are also public health issues. To overcome the global health crisis, we must bring this racism to the center of the debate.
Read more
Moving towards clean food production, without glyphosate
By Sofía García, AIDA intern, and Johans Isaza, former AIDA intern In recent decades, the practice of healthy eating, and with it the quality of the food we eat, has gained particular relevance in western society. Many have grown concerned about industrial food production and its negative impacts on the environment and public health. In response, environmental organizations, ethnic communities, rural farmers, international organizations and even some governments have spoken of the need to move towards an agro-ecological model. This model implies the development of sustainable agricultural practices to optimize food production, and do so without the use of agrotoxins, while also promoting social justice and recognizing ancestral knowledge and traditional practices. The serious harms of glyphosate, a popular herbicide In recent weeks, public debate around glyphosate—the most widely used agrotoxin in the world—has regained prominence in Mexico and Colombia. Glyphosate is used most frequently and intensively in the large-scale cultivation of genetically modified crops. In Mexico, roughly 45 percent of glyphosate usage is focused on transgenic soybean, corn, canola and cotton crops. The rest goes to the sowing of sugar cane and to forestry or fruit production. In Colombia, glyphosate is used primarily on cotton, corn, rice, tomato, sugar cane and palm plantations, as well as in the pastures where cattle are raised. Though a visible tool of the war on drugs, until 2013 less than 5 percent of total glyphosate usage in Colombia was destined to eradicate crops of illicit use. As a non-selective herbicide, glyphosate not only affects the crop to which it is applied. Retained in the most superficial layers of the soil, it throws entire ecosystems out of balance and harms the health of the plants and animals that depend on them. What’s more, glyphosate use affects biodiversity in a variety of ways and causes both direct and indirect short and long-term impacts. It damages aquifers, causing harm to aquatic organisms; can be deadly for some species of amphibians; causes biological malformations in animals like rats; reduces nutrient absorption in plants, increasing their likelihood of becoming sick or attracting pests; and affects pollination processes, which are fundamental for life on this planet. When looking at the harms of glyphosate, we mustn’t fail to mention the serious social damages it causes as it filters into bodies of water, and becomes present in the food we consume on a daily basis. Since 2015, the World Health Organization has classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen (placing it in the second strongest category of evidence on a four-tier scale). Several studies have shown that glyphosate can irritate the eyes and skin, damage the respiratory system at the lung level, cause dizziness, lower blood pressure and destroy red blood cells. The negative impacts of glyphosate use can result in the violation of various human rights, among them the rights to a healthy environment, to water, to health, to life and to integrity. Its use in indigenous and traditional lands may also violate the rights to cultural identity and territory. The transition to sustainable agriculture Though evidence exists of glyphosate’s negative environmental and health impacts, it is not irrefutable. There is no scientific certainty that glyphosate impacts the environment or harms human health and wellbeing. There is also no scientific certainty that the herbicide is harmless. What is certain is that the above-described impacts are sufficient to necessitate the application of the precautionary principle. According to this principle, in cases that threaten serious and irreversible damage, and in the absence of scientific certainty, States have the obligation to adopt necessary and effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. There’s no justification for postponing the measures necessary to mitigate the harms supposedly caused by glyphosate, until it is proven with absolute scientific certainty that glyphosate is not harmful. Ongoing discussions in Mexico and Colombia provide an opportunity to reflect on our forms of food production and encourage a shift towards the agro-ecological model. The future of agriculture could be one that seeks wellbeing and prosperity, and promotes clean food production. To this end, it’s essential that governments implement regulations to protect and ensure the return of native seeds, gradually eliminate agro-industrial technologies, and promote a return to the use of natural pesticides. Public policies must be implemented that respect both farmers and the environment. The transition must include an intercultural approach that includes dialogue with and exchanges between rural farmers, indigenous peoples and scientists. Achieving such a system would contribute to a more peaceful coexistence with other forms of life, and a healthier planet for present and future generations.
Read more
Championing Lake Poopó’s recovery to protect the life it holds
Calixta Mamani thinks with nostalgia of the tall, green cattails growing along the shores of Lake Poopó, in the arid central plateau of the Bolivian Andes. She once used the reeds as feed for her livestock. "Now, everything has dried up,” she reflected. “There is no life here, the land no longer produces." She thinks also of the birds—Titicaca grebes and Andean flamingos—and of the fish that were once so abundant in the area. "Now you don't see them anymore,” she lamented. “Everything, our culture, is gone." The losses described by Calixta represent a plundering. The indigenous and rural communities living near Lake Poopó have been deprived, not only of their primary water source, but of their livelihood, their way of life, and their culture. Bolivia's second largest lake, Poopó has been damaged by the diversion of rivers, the climate crisis, and mining activities—which have continued despite the pandemic—to the point of putting at risk all the life systems that depend on it. Calixta is a member of the National Network of Women in Defense of Mother Earth (RENAMAT), an organization that defends the rights of indigenous and peasant women against the destructive impacts of extractive industries in the regions of Oruro, La Paz, and Potosí. Responsible for grazing the animals, food preparation, and other household tasks, Calixta and other local women live with the lake on a daily basis. As a result, they more acutely suffer the effects of its degradation. It’s because of the respectful relationship they have with Mother Earth and Mother Water that the communities around Lake Poopó are fighting to save it. Decades of Pollution According to a report by the Collective for the Coordination of Socio-Environmental Actions (Colectivo CASA), complaints related to Lake Poopó’s contamination by mining activities date back to 1981, when researchers revealed that 120 lead, tin, and gold mines were discharging their waste directly into its waters. The situation, which has continued over the years, has led to sedimentation. This means that considerable amounts of cadmium, zinc, arsenic, and lead have become sediment in the lake, making its waters unsuitable for human and animal consumption and of limited use for crop irrigation. "With the passage of time and the advance of mining, the exploitation of minerals has intensified,” said Petrona Lima, from Ayllu San Agustín de Puñaca, municipality of Poopó, in a testimony collected by the Center for Andean Communication and Development (CENDA). “Little by little all this has been disappearing, water veins have been cut, and everything has come to be as it is now; it looks like everything is burned." In an effort to preserve its biodiversity—which includes endemic and migratory birds and the largest number of flamingos in the Bolivian highlands—in 2002 Lake Poopó, along with Lake Uru Uru, was declared a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention. Despite this protection, the ecosystem remains in serious danger. In December 2015, water levels in Poopó reduced to such an extent that the body of water actually disappeared—an event considered one of Bolivia’s greatest environmental catastrophes. Although the lake managed to recover its flow during the rainy season, the situation remains critical in the dry months. The Climate Crisis and River Diversion The degradation of the lake is also a result of the global climate crisis, which brings intense droughts and increased temperatures. If the global average temperature increased by 0.8°C due to climate change, in Lake Poopó the increase was 2.5°C, according to information published in 2015, accelerating the evaporation of its waters. Another major source of the degradation of these high-Andean lakes is the diversion of two of the rivers that feed it: the Desaguadero and Mauri rivers. The former has decreased due to mining and agricultural operations, while the later, located on the border with Peru, has been diverted. Currently threatening the Poopó Basin is the implementation of the second phase of a canal project that would divert more than 500 liters of water per second from the Mauri River to feed the agro-industry in Tacna, Peru. The implementation of the project’s first phase was one of the primary causes of the lake’s disappearance in 2015. Defending Their Source of Life Rural communities, the Aymara and Quechua peoples, the Uru Murato—among Bolivia’s oldest native nations—all depend on the Poopó and Uru Uru lakes. The Uru Murato used to live from fishing, but the contamination of Poopó has forced them to migrate to work in the salt mines. In addition to causing serious environmental damages, what’s happening to this ecosystem is a serious violation of affected peoples’ rights to water, health, territory, food, and work. That’s why AIDA and local organizations have joined forces to defend Lake Poopó, its biodiversity, and the communities that depend on it. In July of last year, we asked the Ramsar Convention Secretariat to send a mission of experts to the country to assess the health of Lakes Poopó and Uru Uru and make recommendations to the government for their recovery. This month, we launched the campaign #LagoPoopóEsVida to make the situation visible and to draw the attention of national and international authorities to the risks facing the lakes and its people. Protecting Lake Poopó would be tantamount to saving lives and preserving one of Bolivia’s cultural cornerstones.
Read more
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.
Read more
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.
Read more
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.
Read more
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.
Read more
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.
Read more
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.
Read more