Latin America

July 21 2017 Oceans

Important progress made towards ocean treaty

States meeting at the United Nations in New York took an important step towards launching negotiations for a new treaty to protect the biodiversity of the high seas (areas beyond the national jurisdiction). Making up two thirds of the global ocean, marine life in the high seas is not effectively protected. A new treaty will rectify this, putting in place measures to protect the rich and globally significant biodiversity and ecosystem services of the high seas and to govern activities undertaken there sustainably. Although the wording of the recommendation did not reflect the very strong support for rapid UN action towards a treaty, it will enable the General Assembly to convene an Intergovernmental Conference. The 35 member organisations of the High Seas Alliance which have campaigned for this treaty were pleased with the recommendation to move forwards. Peggy Kalas of the High Seas Alliance said: “This is a significant step for the high seas and humanity since we are all dependent on the ocean for a healthy planet. A new treaty will bring law and governance to this most neglected and besieged part of our world and we are closer to that goal now. We are profoundly thankful to the many, many states who have worked so hard to achieve this; their determination to protect the global commons for all humankind has been inspiring.” The decision of the Preparatory Committee will now go the UN General Assembly. The overwhelming majority of states are pushing for the next step to be an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) convened in 2018. An IGC would mean formal negotiations on the text of a new treaty would commence. "Today marks a significant step forward for the world’s ocean," said Lisa Speer, Director of international Oceans at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Sylvia Earle said: “The nations of the world took important steps towards a treaty today. The high seas are half of the world and need the rule of law. To those who have worked so hard at the UN and in support of this moment, we extend an ocean of gratitude and carry forward optimism for a high seas treaty.” Veronica Frank of Greenpeace said: “Although we hoped to see a starting date included for the negotiating conference, it was good to see such overwhelming support for moving the process forward and so many people around the world speaking up for ocean protection. It is now for the UN General Assembly to make that step forward for the ocean and for all the people that depend on it. Anything less would fall short of what is our blue planet needs to recover." Gladys Martínez, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, said: “We applaud the commitment of so many delegates to protect nearly half of our planet. We are both proud and grateful for the work of Latin American nations in this regard.” Maria Damanaki of the Nature Conservancy said: “This is a demonstration of global collaboration, and a step towards protecting half of our planet, which today is an unregulated no man's land. We join our partners in the High Seas Alliance in commending the states and organisations that have worked effortlessly to make this happen." “This represents a major step in a long journey driven by a large number of committed states. We need to continue this momentum through to the General Assembly to deliver a resolution for an Intergovernmental Conference” added Tim Packeiser of WWF. In June all States signed on to a global call to action for the ocean, of which the high seas is a major part.

May 29 2017 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Spending climate dollars on large dams – a bad idea

During its last board meeting, the Green Climate Fund—charged with financing developing nations’ fight against climate change—approved two projects related to large dams. That means $136 million will finance large-scale hydropower, contradicting the Fund’s goal of stimulating a low-emission and climate-resilient future. We’ve said it before: large dams are not part of the paradigm shift we need. They worsen climate change and are highly vulnerable to its impacts. They also cause grave economic and socio-environmental problems that make it impossible to label them as sustainable development. dam Projects before the gcf While the two projects will exacerbate climate change, they aren’t the most destructive we’ve seen. The first is expected to generate 15 MW of electricity in the Solomon Islands, an impoverished Pacific archipelago highly vulnerable to climate change. Planned for the Tina River, the dam will be the country’s first major infrastructure project. Today, the Solomon Islands rely almost entirely on imported diesel to produce energy. It is an unreliable, highly polluting energy source for which residents must pay one of the highest rates in the region. We would have liked to see the Solomon Islands leapfrog toward a more sustainable alternative, avoiding the era of large dams altogether. But we were pleased to see the World Bank’s consultation and engagement processes with local communities, which lend legitimacy to the project. The second project will rehabilitate a dam built in the 1950’s in Tajikistan. The repairs will make the dam more resilient to weather and less subject to accidents. Since it is focused on rehabilitation, the project will not generate the socio-environmental impacts typical of ground-up dam construction. Tajikistan already gets 98 percent of its energy from hydropower, an increasingly unreliable energy source. In fact, during colder months, when more energy is needed, more than 70 percent of the population suffers cutbacks due to the malfunctioning of dams. It’s unreasonable to use climate finance to deepen a country’s energy dependency instead of diversifying its matrix and increasing its climate resiliency. Our Campaign against large dams When we learned that large dam proposals would come before the Fund, just before the 14th meeting of the Board of Directors, we drafted a letter explaining why large dams are ineligible for climate funding. Then, in anticipation of the 16th meeting, during which the projects would be discussed, we sent Board Members an informational letter on each of the projects, signed by our closest allies. Finally, during the board meeting, we circulated a statement signed by a coalition of 282 organizations, further strengthening our position against the funding of large dams. We obtained official replies from several members of the Board, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in charge of the project in Tajikistan), and the Designated National Authority of the Solomon Islands. Delegates from Canada and France requested further discussion of the issue. The problems with large dams received international media attention through articles published in The Guardian and Climate Home. Advancing with Optimism Although financing was ultimately granted to both of the projects, we managed to draw international attention to the contradiction inherent in funding large dams with money designated to combat climate change. Several members of the Green Climate Fund expressed doubts about further promoting large hydropower initiatives. We’re confident they’ll raise their voices when faced with projects far more damaging than those recently approved. Cheaper, more effective, and more environmentally friendly alternatives need the support and momentum the Green Climate Fund can provide. Both solar and wind power, for example, have proved to be more efficient and less costly than large-scale hydropower. Other less-developed technologies, such as geothermal, have largely unexplored potential. As part of a coalition of civil society organizations monitoring the Fund’s decisions, AIDA will continue working to ensure that the recent decision to fund large dams does not become a precedent.

May 19 2017 Freshwater Sources, Mining, Public Participation

Remembering Robert Moran

It is with great sadness that we share news about the passing of Dr. Robert E. Moran, a distinguished hydrogeologist who was an immense resource in furthering environmental protection globally and a dedicated partner to AIDA. He died May 15 in a car accident while vacationing in Ireland. With over 45 years of experience in water quality monitoring, geochemical, and hydrological work, Dr. Moran was invaluable in the fight for clean water and responsible mining worldwide. His work as an expert on the environmental impacts of mining led him to collaborate with a wide range of actors, from non-governmental organizations and indigenous communities, to private sector and government clients. He was an admirable scientist and a strong defender of environmental rights. Some of Dr. Moran's recent projects in Latin America included: a review of technical issues at the Veladero gold mine in Argentina following a toxic cyanide spill; providing assistance and training to Colombian government officials on coal mine inspection and water quality monitoring; and preparing reports evaluating the environmental impact statements of the Minero Progreso Derivada II project in La Puya, Guatemala. Dr. Moran also conducted reviews of mining operations and their impacts in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Honduras, as well as in Africa, Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the United States. He dedicated his life to helping others understand and better evaluate the true costs of mining activities. Dr. Moran will be sorely missed by many in the environmental movement and people everywhere whom his life touched. We honor and thank him for all of his magnificent work to defend our planet.

May 10 2017 Public Participation

Love for my daughter and the planet

Before I became a mother, I heard the question a thousand times: “Is it a good idea to bring more human beings into the world?” I often asked it myself. Thinking logically, the most obvious answer is no. The news shows us that we live on an overpopulated planet—one with water shortages, species extinction, alarming pollution and environmental degradation. It seems to be getting ever worse. That´s why, while being a mom is always difficult, being an environmentalist as well makes it even more so. Being an environmentalist is like fighting a million-headed monster: when one problem is solved, another 10 pop up. It means learning daily of the perilous situation facing our planet: the threats, the battles lost, the people and species suffering. Faced with such news, it’s impossible to turn a blind eye. Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for our actions. “What kind of world do you want to leave your children?” This is the question I’m faced with now. Yet it seems almost obsolete. It’s more important to think about what kind of world we want our kids to live in right now. To address this, parents like me are faced with an endless array of factors to consider before deciding something as simple as what to feed our children. It’s no longer enough that the food be balanced and nutritious. Now we must know if the food is pesticide-free, non-GMO, made with only natural ingredients… the list is endless. In Mexico, where I live, few children have the privilege of playing in a river or forest, on a beach or mountainside, or simply in the greenery of a park. In addition to keeping them safe from violence and human trafficking, we must also prevent our children from being exposed to high levels of air pollution. So if the world is so bad, why do we keep having children? They say that frogs do not breed unless they know there will be rain because, without rain, they know their offspring will be in danger. In the animal world, countless species regulate their reproduction based on their close relationship with nature. If conditions are not conducive, they do not reproduce. Are we human beings, then, the only species that reproduces at all costs, regardless of environmental threats? Humans are different from other species because of our awareness, and our ability to see beyond basic survival to things like art, love, empathy, and the search for meaning. Helping to make a difference is what brings meaning to my life. As part of the AIDA team, I work alongside professionals who dedicate their lives to saving rivers, defending human rights, protecting forests, supporting environmental defenders, empowering vulnerable communities, and giving a voice to the voiceless. It’s true that the news bombards us daily with worrisome stories about our planet. But it’s what the news rarely reports that shapes my vision of the future. Every day, I see a growing number of people who are prepared, engaged, and working to build a better world. They are mothers, fathers, children, students, teachers, professionals, and volunteers; they come from every imaginable country and culture; and they are willing to do whatever is necessary to help others. Above all, I see a critical mass of people that believe we can. We can change course, generate alternative energies, lessen our footprint; we can rectify wrongdoings, empower the vulnerable, combat xenophobia and greed; we can spend our money more wisely, and find more democratic ways of doing business. I have the privilege of working alongside a diverse group of people who have committed to fighting the good fight, and who won’t let go of the divine connection to the land that has given us life. These are the people who make me think that having children today is not only feasible, but also desirable. Because we can instill our children with generosity, compassion and respect—not just for themselves and the people around them, but also for the trees, the rivers, the animals, and all living things. Still, I often wonder whether we’ll ever get it right. I wonder if my five-year-old daughter will become an adult in a world where fresh water and clean air are seen as basic human rights; or if they will be commodities within reach of only the privileged few. Though I’ve never questioned whether or not my decision to have my daughter was the right one, I do still return to the question of whether or not the world needs more people. And then I look at my daughter’s shining eyes, at her gentle hands, at her dancing legs, at her infectious smile and her tireless curiosity. In her soft embrace, I feel her generosity, her compassion, and her boundless hope. Her laughter is so deep it could wake the flowers in spring; her spirit so generous it can shine love out on all living things; and her potential so huge she just may be the one to help push our planet towards a brighter future. There is no answer, then, but YES. For my daughter, and all children who carry within the potential for a better world, we will continue working to defend our beautiful planet. Join us! AIDA is an international nonprofit organization that uses the law to protect the environment, primarily in Latin America.

En Mocoa, Colombia, un megadeslizamiento arrastró masas de agua, tierra y lodo, sepultando barrios completos.

May 08 2017 Climate Change, Human Rights

In times of climate change, we must respect nature

(Column originally published in El País) We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us. Over the last months, severe landslides have devastated communities in Peru and Colombia. Together, they left more than 500 people dead, dozens missing, and more than 100,000 victims. Tragedies like these have some things in common: they occurred in cities and regions with high rates of deforestation and changes in land use; in both areas there was evidence of poor planning and regulation. Effectively, these disasters were foreshadowed. They make clear once again the vital need to care for our forests and riverbanks, and to avoid deforestation and erosion. Climate change means hard rains, fires, and hurricanes will become increasingly frequent and more intense. In Mocoa, Colombia, the equivalent of 10 days of rain fell in just one night, causing flash flooding that devastated much of the small town. In many cases, nature is only taken into account after tragedy strikes. But nature, when well cared for, can literally save lives. In Mocoa, a native forest helped protect one neighborhood from being washed away. That’s why environmental protection must be taken seriously, and any exploitation of natural resources must be well planned and sensible. Yet in Latin America, there remains a regional tendency towards unregulated extractivism. Over the last few years, governments across the region have been weakening environmental regulations in the name of development. Meanwhile, year after year, hundreds of people in Latin America and the Caribbean—especially children and others in vulnerable situations—die from events associated with droughts and floods. Activists, movements, mayors, and others seeking to protect land and water from extractive activities are frequently criticized, even criminalized and attacked. In the small Andean town of Cajamarca, Colombia, 98 percent of voters recently chose to ban all mining in their territory. It’s a decision that has sparked national controversy. Critics of the referendum have questioned whether the results are mandatory, despite the fact that Colombian law clearly states, “the decision of the people is mandatory.” Through their popular vote, the people of Cajamarca reminded their government of its commitment to protect their water and natural resources. Communities in Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Peru, and El Salvador have done the same. While some extraction is necessary in modern society, there must be a healthy balance. Not every project is safe, and alternative development models must be embraced and explored. It’s time to incorporate the environment into public policy and development, once and for all. Two Latin American nations have shown what is possible. In 2011, Costa Rica banned all open-pit metal mining. In March, El Salvador did the same. In both cases it’s a big yet viable change, because alternatives exist and it’s understood that protecting land and water is necessary to secure a healthy future. El Salvador has the second-highest rates of deforestation and environmental degradation, which has led to severe water scarcity. This is why the ban on metal mining passed there. It was no favor to environmentalists; it was based on years of sound analysis. Social and economic studies of the proposal concluded that the best thing for the country was to care for and restore its remaining forests and water sources. The decision prioritized environmental restoration—particularly its social and economic benefits—above the perceived benefits of mining. Environmental degradation is not a problem that exists in a vacuum. That’s why States have signed treaties and other international instruments that recognize their obligation to protect the environment. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change, signed by 34 of 35 States on the American continent, is the most recent. Now, more than ever, these commitments must be honored and fulfilled. Not all extractive projects are viable. Determining their worth must involve sound planning, coupled with policies and legal frameworks that are strong and effective. Environmental Impact Studies must be done carefully, objectively, and independently. Decisions should consider short- and long-term impacts on both local and national levels. We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us.

March 14 2017 Large Dams, Climate Change, Human Rights

Changing the way we approach large dams

Cigarettes once served to cure cough; lead-based makeup was fashionable; and DDT, a highly toxic insecticide, was used in gardens where children played. At the time, little was known of their grave impacts on health and the environment. These facts may shock us now, but once they were normal. Cigarettes, lead, and DDT were widely believed to be more beneficial than harmful to humanity. Thanks to science, we learned of their serious health and environmental impacts. We’re learning the same now about large dams. A photograph of a dam surrounded by trees is as misleading as the doctor-approved cigarette ads once were. In the last decade, we’ve seen that the damage dams do to communities and ecosystems is far greater than the benefits they provide. Recently, an academic study confirmed something even more worrying: large dams aggravate climate change. At the end of 2016, researchers from Washington State University (WSU) concluded that reservoirs around the world, not just those in tropical areas, generate 1.3 percent of the total greenhouse gases produced by mankind. Dams, they found, are an “underestimated” source of contaminating emissions, particularly methane, a pollutant 34 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. These findings have not yet been properly absorbed. Large dams continue to be funded and promoted as clean energy. Some countries boast nearly 100 percent renewable energy, yet reports show that at least half of that is hydroelectric energy, produced primarily by large dams. Violating human rights Even before WSU’s study was made public, the damage large dams do to communities and the environment was well documented. Dams disrupt traditional lifestyles, and affected communities are forced to adapt to new environmental conditions, such as altered river flow and species migration. Many communities have also been victims of forced displacement and fall into poverty as a result. In the Brazilian Amazon, the Belo Monte Dam provides a prime example of the ways dams cause negative impacts on both people and the environment. At AIDA, we’ve worked hand-in-hand with the indigenous and river communities of the Xingu River Basin, who have seen the trees fall around them, the red earth spread like a stain across their forest, the fish disappear from their rivers, and their small islands submerged. For those living in Altamira, the city nearest the dam, living conditions also worsened significantly, with increased violence, substance abuse, and prostitution. This story has been repeated thousands of times around the world. According to International Rivers, 57 thousand large dams had been built by 2015, disrupting more than half of the world’s rivers and causing the displacement of at least 40 million people. What can we do? Although the WSU study may surprise governments and corporations that promote the construction of large dams, for the health of the planet the trend must be stopped. Environmentally friendly alternatives exist, which do not imply the same social, economic and climatic impacts as dams. Hope can be found in the Brazilian Amazon with the Munduruku tribe. Last year, their long fight paid off with the cancellation of a large dam project on the Tapajós River, the sacred waterway on which their lifestyle depends. The decision to cancel the dam was backed with evidence of the impacts dams have on communities and ecosystems, exemplified by the case of Belo Monte. Recently, the Munduruku gathered to discuss and find solutions for the threats they continue to face as development rages in the Amazon. Solutions include the decentralization of energy sources, the promotion of small-scale projects, and solar and geothermal energy, all of which must be accompanied by adequate community-consultation processes. But they must be studied on a case-by-case basis and according to available resources, as what’s best for one community may not be best for another. Funding must carefully evaluate which projects to support, analyzing in detail the potential socio-environmental impacts. It may sound like people are making all the wrong decisions, but now is no time to be discouraged. We have the scientific information we need to care for our planet. Societal changes prove that we can change our actions to prioritize our health. Why can’t we do the same for the health of our planet? In the last several decades, the number of smokers has drastically decreased, we’ve stopped lacing makeup and other products with lead, and DDT has been regulated. In terms of large dams, the solution lies in re-thinking the way we produce energy and prioritizing the preservation of our free-flowing rivers.

February 23 2017 Large Dams, Accountability and Transparency

The Odebrecht Tsunami: can we restore the public trust, or just the money?

(Column originally published in El País) Corruption in Latin American and the Caribbean is no longer news. Some even consider it normal. But this too has a limit. So when we learned of the extent of corruption involved with Brazilian multinational Odebrecht, the news hit like a tsunami: the corporation not only swept away huge piles of money, it also destroyed the public trust. Now we must question whether the more than 100 infrastructure projects involved in the Odebrecht case were really in the public interest, or if they were merely an excuse to pay millions in bribes. The details of this complex and corrupt machinery came to light on December 21. That day the Department of Justice and the US Attorney’s Office published a document in which corporate executives confessed to having paid roughly $788 million in bribes to officials in 11 Latin American countries and Mozambique. According to the document, “between 2001 and 2016, Odebrecht, together with its co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed with others to corruptly provide hundreds of millions of dollars… for the benefit of foreign officials, foreign political parties, foreign political party officials, and foreign political candidates… in order to obtain and retain business…” It is a confession of actions that completely betray the public trust. The executives implicated dozens of governments, including heads of state (such as Colombian President and Nobel Prize-winner Juan Manuel Santos), ministers, senators, and others who are now being investigated or have been jailed. Indignation is rampant, as are demands for justice. Although it wasn’t possible to access the complete list of projects, public information in each country accounts for the following: Argentina: gas pipelines, water purification projects, potassium extraction, and the burial of the Sarmiento railway, among others. Brazil: hundreds of projects, including extractive industries and the Belo Monte Dam, which since its planning stages has been violating human rights. Colombia: the Ruta del Sol and the navigation of the Magdalena River, the two most important engineering projects in the country. Ecuador: the Manduriacu dam and the Pacific refinery. Although the administration of Rafael Correa has stated that possible bribes occurred before 2007, the US government claims to have evidence of later bribes. Mexico: the Ethylene XXI petrochemical project (the largest in Latin America) and the Los Ramones II Norte gas pipeline. Peru: the North-South Interoceanic Highway, the Alto Piura hydroelectric project, and the Lima electric train. Dominican Republic: the Punta Catalina thermoelectric plant and the Pinalito hydroelectric plant. In all countries, the bribes involve energy or infrastructure projects that were declared essential for development by governments, international agencies, and corporations. Yet communities and organizations have for decades denounced these same projects for abridging human rights, harming the environment, and aggravating climate change. The majority of their complaints about these projects were ignored. The Belo Monte Dam, for example, began operations despite the fact that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested a halt to its construction and government protection of the rights of affected indigenous communities. Requests for justice were also repressed, sometimes by the very governments that, according to the evidence, were reportedly given bribes to implement the projects. The situation is all the more serious if we consider that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for human rights defenders, particularly those who protect the environment and their territory. Faced with unprecedented corruption, it is vital to analyze each of the projects from the Odebrecht case to determine its true public utility. It’s likely that, in many cases, the socio-environmental costs far outweigh the benefits. In such cases, damages must be penalized. The Odebrecht case may be just the tip of the iceberg in a broader regional problem. Each State and corporation on the continent must adopt effective anti-corruption measures and re-evaluate their project planning and implementation processes. One clear lesson from this scandal is that the region needs to strengthen the independent, objective fulfillment of national and international standards for the protection of the environment and human rights. In the case of mega-projects, transparency and the participation of those affected (and those interested in protecting the public interest) must be ensured. Given that, in some cases, the investigation of corruption rests with the administrations implicated in the scandal, independent regional citizen’s oversight should be established to investigate the impacts of the mega-projects, and the best ways to compensate for damages. We must ensure, once and for all, that decision-makers are truly serving the public interest, and not their own pocketbooks. All of us citizens must contribute to making this a reality. One thing you can do to help is support AIDA – the only regional organization of Latin American experts providing free legal support to secure the wellbeing of people, places, and the planet.

February 15 2017 Climate Change

The role of civil society in the Green Climate Fund

Climate change is real, and its impacts are here to stay. The nations of the world have agreed that, to get out of this mess, they must act together. But beyond setting intentions, little progress has been made. One important opportunity to get things done is the Green Climate Fund, the primary financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It’s a relatively new institution with the ability to move large quantities of money from rich countries to those in development. With these resources, the most vulnerable and least financially equipped nations can develop the projects and programs they need to confront climate change. How the Fund works in practice The Fund is a complex mechanism in which diverse actors interact. The Board of Directors, in charge of governing and supervising the Fund, is made up of 24 members, 12 representatives from developed nations and 12 from developing ones. The Independent Secretariat implements the decisions adopted by the Board. The Fund relates to countries through the National Designated Authorities or Focal Points, which are entities designated within each nation. The Fund also accredits national, regional and international institutions to channel economic resources through the presentation and implementation of climate proposals. These are called Accredited Entities. Last, but certainly not least, observers from civil society and the private sector play a key role in ensuring that the Fund takes into account the needs of local populations, especially the most vulnerable, when approving projects and programs to combat climate change. How decisions get made In practice, the Fund has been built at meetings of its Board of Directors, held every three months. There, board members discuss and decide on the policies that shape the Fund. They also grant accreditation to entities that will channel funds from the GCF to the different countries, and approve the projects and programs that the Fund will finance. Last October, I was fortunate to participate, as a civil society observer, at the 14th meeting of the Board, which was held at the Fund’s headquarters in Songdo, South Korea. I had the opportunity to see, on the ground, how this complex international mechanism works and, above all, how civil society contributes. It quickly became clear to me that the working conditions of civil society are not easy. To begin with, there is no economic support for civil society representatives that must travel and stay abroad at least three times a year to attend the board meetings. Inside the meetings of the Board, only “active observers” can participate: two from civil society and two from the private sector. The remaining observers sit in an adjoining room, following the meeting on television screens. Civil society has the right to speak, but this right can only be exercised by the two active observers, and only if the Co-Chairmen of the Board of Directors approve. All civil society interventions are previously discussed, prepared and perfected by the coalition of observers. This leads to many sleepless nights, since the subjects are broad and complex. In practice, civil society contributions are relegated to the end of the Board’s discussions. When time is scarce, a common reality, many times the right to speak is denied. This can be extremely frustrating, since crucial contributions are lost. Why civil society support is important Civil society contributes to the construction of the Fund’s policies with the objective of elevating its standards. Among other tasks, each funding proposal is studied, and the communities potentially affected by or benefitting from it are contacted, in order to understand what the project or program may actually involve, beyond what appears on paper. That’s why the informal work that civil society does “behind the scenes” is so important. It is the work done during recess, at lunchtime, and in the corridors. Gradually, civil society observers build relationships with decision makers (Board members and advisors) and are able to share their ideas, concerns and suggestions with them. The results of civil society’s work are being seen in decision-making, slowly but surely. The Green Climate Fund offers hope because its guidelines are correctly posed: it seeks to promote transformation and paradigmatic change, promises transparency, and its decisions are made giving equal weight to representatives of developed and developing nations. Its mandate is to promote “country ownership” of the programs and projects it finances, that is, to ensure they are guided by the needs and priorities of the beneficiary countries. In addition, the Fund has an obligation to act with a gender approach. However, the Fund also has problems and shortcomings. That’s why involvement of civil society is critical. Because they do not represent any government, political party or other interest, civil society observers ensure the protection of the environment, respect for human rights, and the participation and inclusion of people directly affected by climate change. The physical participation of civil society in Board meetings is vital. They ensure the Fund takes into account the voices of the communities directly affected by or benefitting from the financing. Learn more about the Fund on our website!

November 09 2016 Climate Change, Human Rights

Now, more than ever, it’s time to work for our planet

The results of the United States election have shocked the world. Many of us feel hurt, angry and, above all, worried. For those of us who work to protect our planet and our shared environment a Trump presidency is deeply troubling. The president-elect has called climate change a hoax and promised to back out of the Paris Agreement, to dismantle President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, and to rebuild the coal industry. In the challenging years ahead, the movement to protect Earth will be more important than ever. We must all be a part of it. Today, more than ever, we reiterate our commitment to justice—for the environment and for all those whose lives depend so intimately on it. Now is the time to act. The world needs leadership, ours and yours. Each one of us at AIDA is committed to making our planet a better place to live. We are dedicated to defending it from destructive climate policies, and to uplifting its most vulnerable populations. We know what’s coming will be difficult. That’s why your support is so important. Coming together now is imperative. We have a historic responsibility to demonstrate leadership, to find peaceful solutions, and to ensure a brighter future for present and future generations. We must react with unity, engage, and collaborate. It’s time to build hope and lay the path to a peaceful, prosperous, respectful, and tolerant future. With our valued supporters and partners, AIDA will keep working to protect the Earth, its defenders, their culture, and their way of life.

October 05 2016 Climate Change, Climate Change

New study confirms large dams to be a principle source of greenhouse gas emissions

Researchers from the Washington State University found that the world’s reservoirs generate 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases produced by humankind. The finding confirms once more than large dams are unsustainable energy sources that cause great harm to the climate. Seattle, United States. An important new study by researchers at the Washington State University found that large dams are an “underestimated” source of greenhouse gas. The findings show that all reservoirs, not only those built in tropical zones, release far greater quantities of emissions into the atmosphere than previously believed. According to the study, gases are released from the decomposition of organic matter after artificial reservoirs flood natural areas. In fact, over the course of a year reservoirs were found to generate 1.3 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases (more than all of Canada). Eighty percent of those emissions were methane, a pollutant 34 times stronger than carbon dioxide. “Across the Americas, governments are pushing for the construction of hundreds of new large dams, arguing that dams are clean energy and will help to mitigate climate change,” explained Astrid Puentes Riaño, co-director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “It’s become increasingly clear that large dams are more of a problem than a solution. World leaders must urgently start to plan and implement alternative energy solutions in order to achieve real progress in the fight against climate change.” Along with a coaltion of civil society organizations, AIDA, Amazon Watch and International Rivers have been insisting for years that operating large hydroelectric projects—such as the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil—causes severe damage to the environment, the climate, and the rights of affected communities. “Large dams are one of the most significant causes of environmental destruction in the Amazon,” said Leila Salazar-López, executive director of Amazon Watch. “In addition to emiting methane, they destroy biodiversity and the ancestral forest of thousands of indigenous and traditional communities that have lived for centuries from river ecosystems. It is imperative to calculate the true costs of large dams to understand all their impacts, and avoid causing more harm than good.” As organizations working to promote real solutions to climate change, we are committed to sharing scientific evidence about the harms of large dams to governments, international bodies, and financial institutions. "The new findings lay to rest the myth of hydropower as a clean source of electricity and underline why large hydropower should not receive climate finance," said Kate Horner, executive director of International Rivers. The results of Washington State University's study must be considered in the inventory of emissions that contribute to climate change, as well as in the execution of program and plans aimed at solving energy needs. For more information consult: Washington State University's study. Washington State University’s press release on the study. Short video from Astrid Puentes Riaño, AIDA co-director, with a brief explanation of the research and why it is important. Our Manifesto on 10 reasons why climate initiatives should not include large dams. An open letter to governments, international institutions and financial mechanisms to stop considering large dams as clean energy and to implement real solutions to climate change.