Latin America

Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

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

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

Read more
Coral reefs, Capacity Building, Oceans

Herbivorous Fish to improve Coral Reef Health: Science and regional regulatory measure

This virtual seminar presented monitoring and regulation measures for the conservation of herbivorous fish, essential to maintaining the health and ecological functions of coral reefs. The panelists were experts working for reef conservation in the Mesoamerican Reef System, Bonaire Island and other territories of the Wider Caribbean Region. PanelistsIleana Lopez, MsC. SPAW Protocol Programme Officer, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) & Secretariat of the Cartagena Convention representative. Welcome to the seminar & Introduction.Camilo Thompson, MsC. Attorney of Marine Program - AIDA. Importance of herbivorous fish regulation for Coral Reefs in the Wider Caribbean Region.Patricia Richards Kramer, PhD. Director of Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA). Status and trends of parrotfish in the Caribbean: updates from the AGRRA program.Brice Semmens, PhD. Director, California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI)/ Associate Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego. Long-term trends in Caribbean parrotfish abundance at local, regional and basin-wide scales: Implications for fisheries and ecosystem management.Melanie McField, PhD. Founder and Director of the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (HRI). Collaborative monitoring and reporting help protect parrotfish and improve reef health in the Mesoamerican reef.Robert S. Steneck, PhD. Professor of Oceanography, Marine Biology and Marine Policy, School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine / Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation. Parrotfish and the recovery resilience of coral reefs: A case study from Bonaire. Recording Presentations1. Introductory presentation: 2. Ileana Lopez: 3. Camilo Thompson: 4. Patricia Richards Kramer: 5. Brice Semmens: 6. Melanie McField: 7. Robert S. Steneck: 

Read more
Oceans

ON WORLD OCEAN DAY: An open letter

If we have learned anything from the Covid-19 pandemic it is that we are all inextricably connected with each other and the natural world. Without greater balance and cooperation we cannot survive as a species. Human wellbeing is at the heart of what we do. Our work, to protect the ocean is driven by the reality that humankind needs a healthy planet that can sustain life, for the sake of our homes, health, livelihoods and food. Many have taken the rupture to our lives caused by Covid-19 to think about this and about how we can rebuild better, learning from the pandemic to achieve a greater balance and to protect the fundamentals which make life on Earth possible. Doing so is a necessity. We do not have the luxury of choosing between paths which damage the natural world and those which do not.  If we continue to harm nature at the rate we have been, our world will not be able to sustain human wellbeing – from jobs to food security and health. We have been given a stark warning. Once we emerge and start to rebuild, we need to do so in a way that protects the fundamentals that all human beings rely upon, foremost among these being a planet capable of sustaining human life. Governments will be put under pressure to drop environmental protections to make it easier for industry to operate; to privilege short term economics and job increases over other considerations. These will be presented as a choice – choose humans over nature - but it is not a real choice. For the good of humankind, we must achieve balance with the natural world, a coexistence which ultimately enables us to thrive. If we do not achieve that balance, take action to do better now, the rupture in our lives will get bigger, we will face other, escalating global disasters. We ask governments to protect human wellbeing and to make decisions which keep a functioning blue planet beneath our feet.   Deep Sea Conservation Coalition Ecology Action Centre Global Fishing Watch Global Ocean Trust Greenovation Hub  High Seas Alliance Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense International Programme on the State of the Ocean Marine CoLABoration Marine Conservation Institute Marine Conservation Society Oceans North  Our Fish  Seas at Risk Shark Project International Turkish Marine Research Foundation One Ocean  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Mining

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

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

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Human Rights

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

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

Read more
Human Rights, Capacity Building, Mining

Webinar "A Just Transition: Why should industrialized countries reduce their consumption of raw materials? The case of Germany"

The global expansion of renewable energies, electric mobility and digitalization will massively increase the demand for raw materials. This implies the risk of damage to human rights and the environment, as well as an intensification of geopolitical tensions over these resources. In this context, a globally inequitable distribution of raw material consumption would jeopardize the sustainable and fair development of the countries of the Global South.In this webinar, we presented the proposals of an NGO network in Germany to achieve a reduction in the consumption of raw materials and to include the perspectives of producer countries, supporting their call for a "change in raw materials" (Rohstoffwende). PanelistRebecca Heinz: Policy Advisor – Resource Policy at Germanwatch. Recording Presentations1. Opening presentation: 2. Presentation of Rebecca Heinz, Germanwatch: Additional materialGermanwatch report 12 Reasons for a Primary Resource Transition(in German) More informationTo learn more about the just transition proposal presented at the seminar, write to [email protected] 

Read more

AIDA calls on governments to maintain democratic rule of law

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, we demand that Latin American governments refrain from approving projects that damage the environment and violate human rights, and that they maintain special protections for environmental defenders. In the context of the global emergency unleashed by COVID-19, the Interamerican Association for the Environmental Defense (AIDA) urges Latin American States to comply with their obligations to protect the environment and uphold human rights. Governments must refrain from advancing projects that setback established protections through harmful regulatory changes or the approval of projects without adequate social and environmental impact assessments. We also express our worry at the lack of conditions to ensure the rights to participation and access to information for people affected by high-risk projects and public policy decisions. In particular, we regret the decision of the Colombian government to conduct virtual prior consultations with ethnic communities, and the determination of the provincial government of Mendoza, Argentina, to use online means to realize consultations on development projects. While we believe that social distancing is essential to dealing with the pandemic, it is not the appropriate means of realizing the rights to participation and access to information. AIDA thus calls on States of the region to suspend the approval of environmental and other official permits for sensitive projects unrelated to the response to the health crisis, until such time as the above-mentioned rights can be adequately guaranteed. This implies taking into account that the necessary conditions do not currently exist for people affected by projects to defend themselves in court.  We also emphasize that, in the face of the pandemic, actions must be framed within the path recommended by science and the law to confront the climate crisis, seeking a just transition, respectful of human rights, towards a more resilient and sustainable way of life, based on clean energy and not fossil fuels. We express our solidarity with all people affected by COVID-19. We underscore the urgency of guaranteeing and respecting their rights in the midst of the crisis, particularly for those in vulnerable conditions, including indigenous peoples, migrants, women, and environmental defenders, among others. In this regard, we demand that governments of the region maintain democratic rule of law and the special protection of environmental defenders. And we ask that international organisms closely monitor the human rights situation on the continent. Press contact: Victor Quintanilla, [email protected], +5215570522107  

Read more
Oceans, Public Participation, Climate Change

International Environmental Law: History and milestones

International Environmental Law (IEL) is a discipline that involves the whole world in the protection of a common good: our environment. At AIDA, we apply it every day to help individuals and communities defend the environment and the fundamental human rights that depend on it. But where did this global discipline come from and how has it evolved? Its rules have not been dictated by a national institution or an international authority. Rather, it is a compendium of declarations, treaties and rules—some binding, some voluntary—that have developed alongside scientific knowledge and awareness of the current state of our natural world. The history of IEL can be divided into three stages, separated by two of the most relevant international conferences held so far: the Stockholm Conference (1972) and the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit (1992). And in 2016, with the signing of the Paris Agreement, a new stage began to confront humanity's most important natural challenge: the current climate emergency. The beginnings: Before Stockholm Before the 1960s, there was little environmental awareness and only a few isolated international environmental regulatory initiatives. One of these was the failed London Convention of 1900, which sought to protect African wildlife. It never came into force because it was not signed by the minimum number of parties. It was replaced 33 years later by the 1933 London Convention, which was implemented in much of colonized Africa through the creation of nature parks and species protection. During those years, other initiatives were carried out in isolation. But things really started to change in the 1960s, when public opinion became aware of the dangers threatening the planet. Some of the events that marked this era were the publication in 1962 of the book Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, which documented the negative effects of pesticides on birds and the environment; and the release of the image known as Earthrise, taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission. The Stockholm Declaration A product of the first UN Conference on the Human Environment, the Stockholm Declaration (1972) was the first international document to recognize the right to a healthy environment through 26 principles, many of which have played an important role in the subsequent development of IEL. Principle 21, for example, confirmed one of the cornerstones of IEL: the responsibility of States to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment of other States. The Declaration also established the Principle of Cooperation, which is crucial in the further development of IEL, by recognizing that countries should unite their  efforts to meet the global challenges of our shared environment. Also in Stockholm, the UN General Assembly created the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the central body in charge of environmental affairs today. Between Stockholm and Rio After Stockholm, changes began to be seen in national governments: the first green political parties were formed, some Ministries of Environment were created, and a significant amount of local environmental legislation began to be developed. In 1983, the UN created the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission. Its work, which focused on the difficult relationship between environment and development, resulted in the report Our Common Future (1987). That document coined the concept of sustainable development - defined as "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" - which is the basis for the evolution of IEL. At this time, some of the global environmental problems that still afflict us today began to manifest themselves--including the depletion of the ozone layer, risks to biological diversity, and the threat of climate change. International cooperation was absolutely necessary and developed countries would have to help poorer countries if humanity was to be able to meet such challenges. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol was signed to combat the depletion of the ozone layer. This international agreement has been an example of successful international cooperation.Because of it, it’s believed that the ozone layer could recover by 2050. The Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro  In 1992, during this Conference, two conventions were presented to be signed by national governments: the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Rio Declaration was also established, which reaffirmed the Stockholm Declaration and the Agenda 21 action program, which continues to guide governments and non-state actors in environmental protection activities. In Rio, in the face of growing evidence that human activities in pursuit of economic growth were responsible for major environmental threats, the central concept continued to be sustainable development. Two principles of the Rio Declaration deserve special consideration: the Precautionary Principle, the most advanced form of prevention and important to the formation of modern IEL; and Principle 10, which recognizes the right to information, participation, and justice in environmental matters. In 1998 Principle 10 gave rise to the Aarhus Convention, binding in Europe and Central Asia. The Aarhus Convention is the predecessor of the Escazú Agreement, which seeks recognition of these rights in Latin America. This recognition is also considered an important milestone in the creation of IEL because it shows the emergence of civil society as an increasingly important and active player in global environmental protection. After Rio and into the Future After Rio, all major economic treaties began to include environmental protection. A case in point is the Marrakech Agreement, which created the World Trade Organization in 1994 and was the first economic treaty to recognize the goals of sustainable development and environmental protection. The Convention on Climate Change of 1995 deserves special mention, since its signatories have met every year at the so-called Conference of the Parties (COP). Within this framework, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was presented. Despite not having been successful in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, it was the first international agreement to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries. In 2000, 189 countries adopted the Millennium Declaration in New York, which strengthened the importance of sustainable development by recognizing the need for sustainable economic growth with a focus on the poor and respect for human rights. Two years later, in 2002, representatives from 190 countries attended the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg to follow up on the commitments of the Rio Summit. On that occasion, they adopted the Declaration on Sustainable Development, which focused on development and poverty eradication with a legal-economic approach on "public-private partnerships”. And in 2012, the UN organized the third Conference on Sustainable Development, known as Rio + 20, which brought together 192 Member States, private sector companies, NGOs, and other organizations. The result was a non-binding document called The Future We Want. In the document, States renewed their commitment to sustainable development and the promotion of a sustainable future. Modern Times The Kyoto Protocol to address climate change gave way to the Paris Agreement (2016).  In this agreement, the signatory countries committed themselves to doing everything possible to prevent the average temperature of the planet from rising by 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, and hopefully staying below a 1.5°C rise. The relationship between human rights and climate change was recognized in its preamble. Having been ratified by almost all countries in the world, it has immense potential as an instrument of international law. In fact, recently the first ruling that prevented a project (the expansion of an airport) was made in England, on the grounds that by proceeding the country would not be complying with the Paris Agreement. A contemporary landmark of great relevance, especially for Latin America, is Advisory Opinion 23 (2017) on the environment and human rights of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In it, the Court recognized for the first time the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence, as well as the impacts of environmental degradation and climate change on human rights. Finally, it is worth mentioning the current construction of an international legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In recognition of the crucial role that the ocean plays in the health of the planet and especially in the stability of the climate, safeguarding the vast and mysterious areas in the high seas seems to be absolutely necessary. Conclusion: Where do we stand? After reviewing the most important milestones related to global efforts to address the serious environmental crisis we are experiencing, it is inevitable that we will be plunged into deep concern. Global initiatives have not succeeded in motivating the change of direction we need for our planet to begin to regain its health. As it stands, no one can ensure that future generations will be able to meet their needs as past and present generations have done. Despite the disappointments, it is important to continue promoting global initiatives where common policies are discussed and where IEL takes shape. Although these initiatives have not yet been able to stop the environmental crisis, they have strengthened IEL as an instrument to defend our causes, something that we make the most of at AIDA. Likewise, world conferences often become platforms for large-scale protests and awareness-raising campaigns directed by global civil society, which has become increasingly alert and determined to defend our environment. Today, much of the hope for change lies in the strength of civil society, especially in the young people who have awakened and come to the defense of the planet. This force finds in IEL a point of support to demand what we need: a resounding change in the model of development that still guides the affairs of the planet, and which is causing so much damage.  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

3 ways to maintain hope in the face of the climate crisis

Those of us who work on environmental issues are bombarded on a daily basis with headlines repeating the message: “Time is up, our days are numbered.” And, to tell the truth, rarely do they seem exaggerated: the IPCC reports, fires in Australia, the disillusionment of COP25, the mocking of the youth movement, assassinations and threats to environmental defenders. During dinner parties and casual get-togethers, people who know I work on environmental issues ask me what they can do for our planet. We start by talking about garbage: produce less of it. This, although seemingly basic, leads to long and heated conversations. Why? Because it questions our means of consumption, how we transport ourselves, feed ourselves, and dress. It makes us analyze our lifestyle and ask ourselves what “quality of life” means for us. Our garbage, after all, is the result of a long chain of emissions, which include the exploitation of land, species, and people.   The truth is, everything is connected and it’s impossible to detach ourselves from our impact on the Earth.   It’s through this chain of thoughts that many of us fall into episodes of “eco-anxiety.” It’s an increasingly common condition that, if left untreated, can be detrimental to our health. In 2017 the American Psychological Association (APA) described eco-anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom… Watching the slow and seemingly irrevocable impacts of climate change unfold, and worrying about the future for oneself, children and later generations.” The strange thing about this condition is that it can stop us from acting. We might begin to believe there’s nothing we can do and, then, stop paying attention. We might become more lax with our consumption habits and end up aggravating the problem.  So what can we do? From what I’ve gathered, our actions can be divided into three areas: the individual, the community, and the citizen-consumer. First things first: Be good to yourself A general rule for helping others is to first help yourself. The climate crisis affects our physical health, food security, human rights, and mental health. According to the APA, emotional responses are normal and negative emotions are necessary for making decisions and living a full life. But extreme emotions and the lack of a plan to resolve the problem can interfere with our ability to think rationally and behave appropriately. Not to mention the fact that those suffering losses due to environmental catastrophes (hurricanes, droughts, and floods) may develop post-traumatic stress. To confront these emotions, the APA suggests that we: Believe in our own resilience and know that we can overcome obstacles. Practice optimism and learn from our experiences. Cultivate self-regulation and emotional self-awareness in order to develop long-term strategies; knowing how to detect them prevents episodes from worsening. Find meaning in your life. Faith or religion work for some; for others it’s meditation or building community. The point is to find something that gives you a sense of peace. Individual actions do help, and people united for a cause can make a difference.  Rather than punish ourselves for everything that we can’t do, let’s begin to talk about what we can. How many emissions can we cut back on by riding a bicycle?  How many plastic bags can we divert from the sea?  How does our consumption help the local economy and our environment?  And always, always, take a daily dose of nature to inspire yourself. Second: Your immediate circle Recently, single-use plastic bags were banned in Mexico City. More than one person said that it violated their right to shop as they please; others complained they didn’t know how to shop anymore. I’ve used cloth bags for years. I could have just rejoiced in my own environmental righteousness and bragged on Twitter. Instead I asked myself, “Why not share some recommendations?” Practices that I had already applied to my house were well received by friends and neighbors because they were practical. Building relationships, however brief, is a step toward strengthening our community.  Also, it helps to maintain perspective and a sense of humor.  Get together with neighborhood groups, volunteer with organizations whose cause you support. Donating time, money, or materials is taking a step beyond your individual actions. Have a  friend who wants to eat less meat? Offer them your best vegetarian recipes!  Do you know how to program or do graphic design?  Do you have a pick up truck? Surely there are groups who would appreciate your help.  At AIDA, for instance, we’re often looking for volunteers and interns.  The APA recognizes the impacts of the climate crisis on the mental health of certain communities; they are not the same in a city as they are in an area at risk of environmental disaster, or in an indigenous community.  Affected communities confront a loss of social cohesion and the loss of important spiritual or recreational places. They also witness an increase in violence, including racial violence, as certain groups become increasingly persecuted. Furthermore, a loss of identity ruptures the unity of these communities, as is happening with the Inuit of Greenland or as we at AIDA have seen in displaced indigenous and riverine populations in the Amazon.  Third (I’m sorry): We have to talk about politics and civic engagement This may be a subject you don’t particularly enjoy, but you’re needed here too. The wastewater produced in your home is but a drop compared to untreated industrial waste being dumped into a river. You could ride your bike everyday, but you would still be living in a country that permits industries to emit volatile carcinogenic and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere without accountability.  While our goodwill does matter, it just doesn’t have as large an impact as the will (and obligations) of governments and industries to do things right and work for the health of all living things.  In Latin America, the election of our local representatives may work differently than it does in the United States. But that doesn’t free us from the responsibility to elect representatives that will work for a cleaner and more resilient future. Indeed, we must demonstrate our interest in that future and demand that they work toward it. Environmental writer Emma Marris explained it well in her New York Times column: “The climate crisis is not going to be solved by personal sacrifice. It will be solved by electing the right people, passing the right laws, drafting the right regulations, signing the right treaties—and respecting those treaties already signed, particularly with indigenous nations. It will be solved by holding the companies and people who have made billions off our shared atmosphere to account.”  The balance we’re seeking in AIDA We are proud to be an organization made up of professionals who are deeply passionate about the environment. On a personal level, we share our ideas with each other about how to create a better planet. On a community level, we all support the organization, and there are also those of us that organize civic and neighborhood events.  On the level of public policy and participation, AIDA works for environmental justice. We empower communities with the knowledge and tools they need to safeguard and monitor their rights. We take emblematic cases to court and before international bodies to ensure that companies and governments live up to their obligations.  We believe that a healthy and equitable future is possible.     

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Climate Change, Human Rights

Why are women so important to the pursuit of environmental justice?

Women have long played a fundamental role in the conservation and defense of the planet. Past and present struggles for environmental justice and the defense of animals have been, to a large extent, led by women. Yet the close relationship between women and the environment has not escaped the inequalities that characterize today’s societies.  Poverty, exclusion, and inequality are intertwined with environmental degradation and the climate crisis. Women, in general, suffer these plagues in a differential and aggravated manner. In natural disasters, for example, women often experience higher mortality rates than men.  Due to the role women play in their communities, they are often less equipped with mechanisms to help them respond to emergencies that result from disasters. They are less likely to know how to swim or climb trees. They are more likely to be responsible for young children or older members of the family. They are more likely to wear clothing that makes it difficult to quickly react to a crisis situation. Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, women are less likely to have access to information or be able to participate in situations that affect their right to a healthy environment. They also are less likely to have access to the mechanisms for addressing injustices or repairing damages from catastrophes. Women who do take on roles in the public sphere, participating in public issues, are more likely to take on additional responsibilities that, generally, a man in the same situation would not have to assume.  And, at the same time, they confront more intense risks and greater obstacles to the development of their leadership.  In this context, the gender focus—defined as the mechanism developed to guarantee holistically valuing the impact any action has on men, women, and those who identify between those categories—is fundamental to making asymmetries visible, overcoming barriers of discrimination, and removing scenarios of exclusion that impede women’s ability to enjoy their right to equality.  The gender focus seeks to ensure that those challenges are included in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of each intervention on a political, economic, and social level. The gender perspective is indispensable to empowering the leadership of women, which is proving increasingly vital in the struggle for environmental justice. In effect, the development of ecofeminist theories offers the world new and transformative alternatives to the ways of thinking that are bringing about the destruction of our environment and negatively affecting the lives of men, women, and other living things.  Women are more than simply the most affected by the climate crisis. They also are active participants with a vital role to play in preserving nature and seeking solutions for the health of our planet.  

Read more