Latin America

Climate Change, Human Rights

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

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

Read more
Oceans

Our responsibility in the conservation of fisheries resources

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

Read more
Large Dams, Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

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

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

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

Session 3 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

Engaging with the GCF in different regions and countries Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources.GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists. Recording PanelistsBertha Argueta, Germanwatch: CSOs participation in GCF processes at the national level: Engaging with National Designated Authorities (NDAs) and Focal Points.Collins Otieno, PACJA: Experiences from Africa’s regional node.Tunga Rai, Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN); and Titi Soentoro - Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice: Experiences from Asia's regional node.Florencia Ortúzar, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Experiences from Latin America’s regional node.Moderator: Claire Miranda, climate justice advocate. Presentations1. Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch: 2. Collins Otieno, PACJA: 3. Tunga Rai, Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN): 4. Titi Soentoro - Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice: 5. Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA: 

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

Litigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action

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

Read more
Climate Change, Capacity Building, Mining

Webinar "A Material Transition: Mining and the Renewable Energy Transition"

Presenting A Material Transition, a report from War on Want investigating the impacts of an increased demand for the minerals required to move away from fossil fuels, and what can be done to address global supply chains and reduce unsustainable demand. PanelistsAndy Whitmore: Researcher specialising in extractive industries and indigenous peoples rights. Co-chair, trustee and founding member of London Mining Network.Sebastian Ordóñez Muñoz: Colombian migrant based in the UK. Senior Programme Officer for Latin America, War on Want.Moderator: Andrés Ángel, Scientific Advisor, AIDA. Recording Presentations1. Introductory presentation: 2. Presentation of Andy Whitmore: Reference materialA Material Transition: Exploring supply and demand solutions for renewable energy mineralsImpactos a perpetuidad. El legado de la minería

Read more
Oceans

Member countries of the World Trade Organization must reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies

We regret that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference, held today in Geneva, failed to reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies, an urgent measure to achieve effective management of our fisheries resources, as well as to ensure global food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities. At the same time, we recognize that the negotiations are at an advanced stage and that we finally have a draft text. We wish to highlight the commitment and participation of Latin American delegations including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Uruguay. We urge all WTO member countries to assume the great responsibility of reaching an agreement soon. After two decades of negotiations, the deadlines for completing the negotiations and reaching an agreement have been repeatedly missed. Although negotiations officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 Ministerial Conference that countries committed to take action and reach an agreement at the next conference, which was to take place in December 2020, but was suspended due to the pandemic. This commitment also responds to the fulfillment of target 14.6 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This target establishes that by 2020 "certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing" should be prohibited, and aims to "eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation." According to recent estimates, governments spend US$35 billion each year to support their fisheries sectors, of which US$22 billion represent negative subsidies, which promote overfishing. That practice results in alarming data, including that 63 percent of global fish stocks need to be rebuilt and that, according to a 2020 FAO report, 34 percent of them are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels. While the agreement is being finalized, more needs to be done to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. We urge WTO member countries to define without further delay commitments in this regard at the national and regional levels. For our part, AIDA attorneys will continue to work hand-in-hand with governments to reach an ambitious agreement. It is imperative that said agreement adopt solid rules, eliminate the possibility of creating legal loopholes, and seize the opportunity to establish ocean policies aimed at achieving greater sustainability and guaranteeing the satisfaction of the needs of current and future generations, as well as the conservation of our marine resources. press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

Session 2 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

Gender, indigenous peoples and REDD+ within the GCF Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources. GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF. In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists. PanelistsLiane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: Main takeaways from B.29.Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development (WEDO): Gender at the GCF.Helen Magata, Tebtebba: Indigenous Peoples at the GCF.Souparna Lahiri, Global Forest Coalition: REDD + at the GCF.Moderator: Salina Sanou, PACJA.  Recording Presentations1. Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: 2. Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development (WEDO):Presentación en francés 3. Helen Magata, Tebtebba: 

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

People v. Shell: A step towards climate justice

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

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

Session 1 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

The GCF Watch platform and an overview of 2021 Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources.GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists. PanelistsFlorencia Ortúzar, Attorney, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Introduction to the webinar series.Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): The GCF Watch Platform.Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Takeaways from BM 28 and main topics for 2021.Moderator: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch. Recording Presentations1. Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC):Presentation in French 2. Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL):Presentation in French 

Read more