Search

CONSISTENCY: The Most Urgent Action Against Climate Change

By Astrid Puentes Riaño, Co-Executive Director, AIDA, @astridpuentes This post is also pubpshed at IntLawGrrls During the first two weeks of December, world leaders will lay the foundation for a new global agreement on cpmate change at the 20th Conference of the Parties (COP20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Cpmate Change in pma, Peru. Its focus will be creating a draft agreement that, at next year’s COP in Paris, will replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This time, as stated by Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Peru’s Environment Minister and next President of the Conference, "the world will not accept another failure." Not without reason. Each year we are both witnesses to and victims of the worsening impacts of cpmate change. And our role in the problem is conspicuous: "Human influence on the cpmate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history," the Intergovernmental Panel on Cpmate Change concluded in their fifth report. With COP20 nearing and recognition of the problem growing, world leaders are increasingly giving speeches, promising action and making hopeful commitments. One recent example is the unprecedented agreement between China and the United States, which estabpshed pmits and objectives for the reduction of emissions. In Latin America we, too, have taken effective steps to confront the greatest threat to the human race. Despite this progress, however, there remain in practice many popcies that both created the problem and make it worse. In particular, the repance of our economies on fossil fuels, which generate 57 percent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide. In the search for alternatives, we have boosted hydroelectric power from large dams. But dams are not clean energy. They generate significant amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, particularly in tropical regions. These and the other negative impacts of dams are often ignored, resulting in rudimentary solutions to cpmate change. Consistency, then, becomes critical. What follows are examples of the lack of it in our own countries. Let’s take them into account as an effort to make adjustments, apgn objectives, and not erase with one hand what was written by the other: Brazil is a key player in the region, and has demonstrated its will to achieve positive results on cpmate change. Proof of this is the historic decpne of deforestation in the country, 79 percent in the last decade, as announced by Brazil’s President at the Cpmate Summit. However, Brazil continues to focus its development on fossil fuels, mining and large dams, particularly in the Amazon Basin. Under the influence of Brazil, 254 new dams are either under construction or in planning phases in the Amazon Basin, including the massive Belo Monte Dam on the Xingú River. Chile has made positive signs by deciding, for example, that it would not allow the HidroAysén dams in Patagonia. The country recently presented its Mitigation Action Plans & Scenarios (MAPS Chile) to combat cpmate change, with an emphasis on energy efficiency in high-emitter sectors such as mining. However, it also estabpshed as a priority the implementation of large dams, actually the same dams in Aysen, and the import or exploitation of shale gas in the Magallanes basin. The extraction of shale gas is done by fracking, a major source of CO2 and methane. Ecuador recognized the Rights of Nature in its Constitution in 2008 and created the Ministry of Good pving in 2013, promoting the “respect of all beings of Nature” and sustainable development. At the same time, the country continued to base its economy on the exploitation of fossil fuels without considering low-carbon alternatives, in the short or long term. The decision to start extracting oil in Yasuni National Park, where indigenous communities pve in voluntary isolation, is inconsistent with the Constitution, and with cpmate change required actions. Mexico has been a leader in global negotiations on cpmate change. The country has shown a wilpngness to implement adequate popcy measures, legal frameworks and financial instruments. Earper this year Mexico was a pioneer in committing financial contributions to the Green Cpmate Fund, setting an example for the many countries with greater cpmate responsibipties that have not yet announced their commitments. However, Mexico is also pushing energy reform that prioritizes hydrocarbon extraction, undermining progress on cpmate popcy. This "reform" is locking the country into continued dependence on fossil fuels. Peru, host of COP20, also must resolve huge popcy inconsistencies. The country’s leadership in cpmate negotiations has been remarkable, as have its internal efforts to promote adaptation to cpmate change by incorporating traditional knowledge. But still, lack of consistency between talk and action has resulted in widespread promotion of mining and hydroelectric activities. These decisions have been made without considering environmental impacts or clean alternatives. Bopvia, Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, Argentina and the rest of the countries of the region are not exempt from the massive inconsistencies that compromise the effectiveness of the cpmate actions they champion. It’s worth noting that the development of mining, hydropower and fracking on the continent contribute gravely to the effects of cpmate change. The need for development in the region, and a single country’s relatively smaller contribution to global emissions, are not excuses. There exist opportunities for economic development and energy production that could be more efficient than continued dependence on fossil fuels. Cpmate change is a global issue that can’t be solved with patches here and there.  Cpmate change affects the planet, and Latin America is one of the most vulnerable regions. But as long as the popcies and actions of the States do not consider cpmate change a central issue, we will continue moving forward one step and backwards three. It is our responsibipty and in our interest to act consistently. We must apgn our talk with our actions to accomppsh quick and effective steps to combat cpmate change. The time is NOW!

Organizations asked that the IACHR urge the Colombian State to comply with international obligations, to declare a moratorium on mining and energy projects, and establish a Working Group between authorities and the affected communities

They also asked that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) urge the State to adequately attend to the victims of the forced displacement caused by the “development” projects, and to begin a dialogue between the victims and the authorities seeking effective solutions to the problem.

The Protection of Coral Reefs in Mexico (in Spanish)

This report outlines the importance of coral reefs in the world—in Mexico in particular—and looks to best practices from nations around the region for inspiration.

Stopping the spread of fracking in Latin America

Organizations alert World Bank to risks of Colombian mining investment

Delegation explains to the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a branch of the World Bank Group, illegalities and possible harms to people and the environment from Eco Oro Mineral’s Angostura mine in Santurbán, Colombia.

Tri-national organization to investigate Mexico for environmental enforcement in Gulf of California development

The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) recommended a thorough investigation of Mexico’s systemic failure to enforce its environmental law when authorizing the construction of tourism resorts in the Gulf of California, Mexico.

Mexico illegally authorizes hydropower dam

The permit for the project on the San Pedro Mezquital River violates national and international environmental and human rights laws.

Thousands rally in Colombia's capital for Global Climate Action

By Seble Gameda, geographer The sounds of brass instruments, drumming, bike bells, and chants filled the streets of Bogota, Colombia on Sunday, September 21, as over three thousand people bearing banners, posters, flags and face paint, rallied for urgent climate action, as part of the International People's Climate March. "We are making a global petition to the heads of state to make a binding treaty that responds to the climate crisis, and we need national and local governments to commit as well," said Ana Sofía Suarez, Campaign Coordinator with the international citizen’s movement, Avaaz, and Event Coordinator for the People’s Climate March in Bogotá. Over 100 world leaders met in New York City to discuss the climate crisis and carbon emissions reductions, just months prior to the Conference of the Parties (COP) 20 that will take place in Lima, Peru as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A binding agreement is planned to be signed at COP 21 in Paris in December 2015. The United Nations Climate Summit in New York City also focused on the Green Climate Fund, in which developed countries aim to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 in climate finance, in order to assist developing countries towards "low-carbon, climate resilient development." Hector Herrera, Coordinator of the Colombian Environmental Justice Network, spoke to the importance of developing countries participating in the climate marches, stating that "although the global north is primarily responsible for climate change, we in the global south are most affected, and less prepared to adapt to a changing climate." Demonstrations were organized worldwide to show the power of the people’s climate movement. "We are the first generation that is really aware of climate change, but we are the last that can do something about it," stated Juan David García, an organizer with the grassroots environmental organization 350.org. Bogotá’s Climate March was filled with diversity; artists, professors, youth, bankers, cyclists, the elderly. As Suarez commented, "in these spaces when everyone comes together, you begin to realize that you are not alone, that we are among many who are dreaming of something different, and if we begin to demand changes, then we can make this dream happen." Climate change is no longer just an isolated issue of scientists and environmentalists, we are reaching a critical mass, showing once again that protest is powerful; it is the movement of people that makes change: anti-war, civil rights, healthcare, education, and … climate justice.            

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

57 CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS AND COALITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA INSIST THAT LARGE DAMS ARE NOT CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES AND WE ASK GOVERNMENTS, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO IMPLEMENT REAL SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE It is time to learn from the past and to implement alternatives appropriate to our time According to the World Commission on Dams, by the year 2000, fifty thousand dams had already been built, disrupting more than 60% of Earth’s rivers.[1] In Latin America alone, 973 dams of all sizes are operating, and roughly 1,600 more are being built or planned—254 in the Amazon Basin.[2] Scientific evidence reveals that large dams: emit greenhouse gases, including methane, especially in tropical regions,[3] aggravating climate change, and making adaptation more difficult; cost almost twice their initial budget, causing economic difficulties in the communities and countries where they are implemented;[4] take a long time to become operational, making them an inefficient solution to the urgent energy crisis that they are intended to tackle;[5] may cause great and irreparable environmental damage; and may cause human rights violations and impoverishment of communities if not implemented with appropriate safeguards. Nevertheless, they continue to be promoted as clean energy sources to meet increasing energy demand.[6] Why are dams not clean energy sources and why are alternatives needed? 1. Because they contribute to climate change and make adaptation more difficult Construction and operation of large dams in tropical regions causes emission of CO2 and methane from the large amounts of flooded and retained organic matter in reservoirs. The greenhouse gas effect of methane is between 20 to 40 times more powerful than that of CO2.[7] Dams also destroy large areas of surrounding lands needed to build them. Dams are not flexible enough to endure climate change. On the contrary, they are inefficient in droughts and unsafe in floods, which aggravates the risk of disasters. Moreover, they threaten communities’ entire hydrologic system, destroying key ecosystems and fisheries, thus compromising communities’ ability to adapt to climate change. 2. Because of the cost overruns, delays and economic damage that they entail Data show that the final cost of the majority of dams that have been built is 96% greater than their initial budgets. This expense has been linked to the increase of public debt and to economic crisis in several countries.[8] 3. Because they take a long time to become operational, making them an inefficient solution to the urgent energy crisis that they are intended to tackle Construction of large dams takes approximately 8.6 years, plus time to begin operating,[9] and they operate on average only 50 years.[10] Experts have documented that eight out of every ten dams exceed their initial construction-time estimates by more than 44%.[11] Dams are not an efficient solution to growing and urgent energy demand. 4. Because they may cause great and irreparable environmental damage Large dams cause environmental damages to rivers, hydrologic basins and surrounding ecosystems, including: worsening water quality in rivers; degradation of aquatic ecosystems and disappearance of many riparian ecosystems; and serious harms to biodiversity, including the extinction of species.[12] 5. Because environmental damage may violate human rights and impoverish communities The human rights of the people affected by large dams have been systematically unrecognized. Large dams have caused forced displacement;[13] health problems; loss of food sources and traditional ways of life; community impoverishment;[14] and criminalization of social protest. Additionally, permitting processes are generally flawed; permits are issued without  comprehensive environmental or social impact assessments, and without adequate public participation and consultation. TODAY there are cleaner, more efficient, less costly and faster alternatives to respond to energy demand. Therefore we DEMAND that Governments, international organizations and financial institutions immediately: Stop considering large dams as clean energy sources, given the proved negative impacts mentioned above. These impacts must be considered comprehensively. Incorporate in the planning stage for new dams: scientific evidence of greenhouse gas emissions, including methane produced by reservoirs; the instability that climate change causes in the hydrologic regime; lessons learned regarding costs and real implementation time of large dams; comprehensive evaluation of environmental and social impacts that will be caused; an integrated, realistic energy strategy through a Comprehensive Plan for Electric Sector Energy Resources; Make decisions that account for impacts on the environment, human rights and climate change. Implement real energy solutions that prove to be effective, with benefits that outweigh the harms they cause. Adopt inclusive and transparent decision-making processes, taking into account the whole spectrum of energy alternatives.   Abogadas y Abogados para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos, A.C., México Alianza de Comunidades y Usuarios en Defensa del Río Biobos-Nautla, México Alianza para la Conservación y el Desarrollo (ACD), Panamá Amazon Watch, Estados Unidos Amazónicos por la Amazonía (AMPA), Perú Amigos del Río San Rodrigo, México Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativas y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA), México Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad, Colombia Asociación Amigos de los Parques Nacionales (AAPN), Argentina Asociación Ceiba, Guatemala Asociación de Ecología Social (AESO), Costa Rica Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (AIDA), Regional Asociación Palmareña para la Recuperación del Ambiente (APRA), Costa Rica Asociación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Perú Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), Perú Asociación Proyectos Alternativos para Desarrollo Social (PROAL), Costa Rica Bloque Verde, Costa Rica Centro de Desarrollo Étnico (CEDET), Perú Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo S.J.” (CSMM), Ecuador Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social "Tierra Digna", Colombia Centro de Promoción y Defensa de Derechos Humanos Arequipa (CEPRODEH), Perú Centro Humboldt, Nicaragua Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, A.C. (CEMDA), México Centro para la Sostenibilidad Ambiental de la Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (CSA-UPCH), Perú Colectivo Defensa Verde Naturaleza para Siempre, México Comisión de Derechos Humanos de Ica, Perú Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU), Ecuador Comité por los Derechos en América Latina (CEDHAL), Canadá Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota  (CECOP), México Coordinadora de Afectados por Embalses y Trasvases (COAGRET), España Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Perú Derechos Humanos y Medio Ambiente, Perú Ecologia E Ação (ECOA), Brasil Federación Ecologista de Costa Rica (FECON), Costa Rica Finca Amalur, Costa Rica Fiscalía del Medio Ambiente (FIMA), Chile Foro Ciudadano de Participación por la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos (FORO), Argentina Fórum Solidaridad Perú, Perú Fundación Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA), Argentina Fundación Ecuménica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ), Perú Fundación GaiaPacha, Bolivia Fundación POPOL NA, Nicaragua Fundar, México Grupo Ecologista Cuña Pirú, Argentina Instituto Madeira Vivo (IMV), Brasil International Rivers, Estados Unidos JASS, Asociadas por lo Justo, México Justicia para la Naturaleza, Costa Rica  María Esperanza Alonso, especialista de Derecho Ambiental, Argentina Movimiento Ciudadano frente al Cambio Climático (MOCICC), Perú Oilwatch Mesoamérica, Costa Rica Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo (PIDHDD Regional), Ecuador Programa Chile Sustentable, Chile Pueblos Unidos de la Cuenca Antigua por los Ríos Libres, México Red Jurídica Amazónica (RAMA), Bolivia Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental (SPDA), Perú Unión Norte por la Vida, Costa Rica   For more information: AIDA on dams: http://www.aida-americas.org/es/project/grandesrepresas International Rivers: http://www.internationalrivers.org/ Report: Grandes Represas en América: ¿Peor el Remedio que la Enfermedad? Blog: Desmantelando el mito de las represas, Grandes represas elefantes blancos, Hydropower Will Not Solve All Africa's Problems   [1] World Commission on Dams Report. http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/world_commission_on_dams_final_report.pdf [2] State of the World’s Rivers. http://www.internationalrivers.org/worldsrivers/  [3]2013 IPCC Supplement to the 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories: Wetlands http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/ [4]Ansar, Atif and Flyvbjerg, Bent and Budzier, Alexander and Lunn, Daniel, Should We Build More Large Dams? The Actual Costs of Hydropower Megaproject Development (March 10, 2014). Energy Policy, March 2014, pp.1-14. [5] Ibid [6] Directions for the World Bank Group’s Energy Sector. http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/energy-2013-0281-2.pdf [7] Climate and Clear Air Coalition. Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. (2011).  http://www.unep.org/ccac/ShortLivedClimatePollutants/tabid/101650/Default.aspx. [8] Ansar, A et al. Furthermore, the Brazilian Federal Court of Accountability carried out a study of the energy projects developed between 2005 and 2012, and it concluded that almost 80% of dams will not comply with their schedule.  http://oglobo.globo.com/economia/tcu-constata-atrasos-nas-obras-de-energia-leiloadas-pelo-governo-de-2005-2012-13822128 (Spanish) [9] Ansar, A., et al. [10] Friends of the Earth, et al. Dam Removal Success Stories. (1999).  http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/fishing/dams/SuccessStoriesReport.pdf http://www.teachengineering.org/view_lesson.php?url=collection/cub_/lessons/cub_dams/cub_dams_lesson08.xml [11] Ansar, A., et al. [12] AIDA. Grandes Represas en América: ¿Peor el remedio que la enfermedad? http://www.aida-americas.org/sites/default/files/InformeAIDA_GrandesRepreseas_BajaRes_1.pdf (Spanish) [13] According to the World Commission on Dams, between 40 and 80 million people have been displaced due to big dams—approximately one out of every 100 people alive today. [14] Thayer Scudder, California Institute of Technology, promoted construction of dams for 58 years, believing that they were an option for the relief of poverty. He publicly changed his mind when he was 84 years old, declaring that they are not worth their cost and that many of the dams currently under construction will have disastrous consequences. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/opinion/sunday/large-dams-just-arent-worth-the-cost.html?emc=eta1&_r=3  

Brazil secures Belo Monte site, but not human rights of affected people

Time doesn’t stop and, unfortunately, nor does the construction of the Belo Monte Dam. Work is advancing at an impressive rate on the Xingu River, in the Brazilian Amazon; 65% of the dam is complete. As it grows, the ecosystem—and the lives of people living in the area—deteriorates. Construction of the gigantic dam has opened an enormous gash through the thick Amazonian vegetation. Seeing it from the air creates a feeling of helplessness. And on land, it’s frustrating to see that the situation of indigenous peoples, coastal communities, and residents of the city of Altamira worsens. Recently, AIDA lawyers, María José Veramendi Villa and Alexandre Andrade Sampaio, visited the Arara indigenous community, nestled in the Big Bend of the Xingu River. Once Belo Monte dams the river, it will reduce the river’s flow so drastically that fishing, the livelihood of the Arara, will no longer be possible. Furthermore, the Arara will lose the track that leads to their sacred sites. They await the arrival of vehicles and construction of a road and a suitable well, because the quality of drinking water is not the best. In Altamira, the deteriorating situation is similar. Veramendi and Sampaio went there too. Once dam construction began, the population of the city grew massively. This boom has overwhelmed health services and the sanitation system and, worse, led to an increase in cases of sexual violence and human trafficking. Norte Energia, the consortium of government and private enterprises building the dam, has caused pisions among the affected population by paying more for some lands than for others. Many people were forced to sell their homes at a minimum price before they were evicted. And the small cinderblock cubes built for the relocation of displaced families do not qualify as adequate housing. Relocation also involves a change in lifestyle: from fishing to farming or hauling bags of cement. "This frays the social fabric,” explained Veramendi. “We work daily, along with our colleagues in Brazil, to make clear in the country and internationally that what is happening in Belo Monte constitutes human rights violations. We are constantly working to compel the government of Brazil to comply with the precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights." On April 1, 2011, the Commission issued precautionary measures that Brazil should take to protect the life, health, and personal and cultural integrity of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation; the health of other indigenous communities affected by the project; and demarcation of the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples. Our work, like the work of the human rights and environmental defenders we support in Brazil, is not easy. State security forces guard the construction site and Altamira. "We are surrounded, intimidated and harassed; there is no guarantee for our work," said Sampaio. With your help, we will continue fighting to see that the Belo Monte case progresses with the Commission, and that the Government of Brazil complies with its international human rights obligations rather than use the dam to bolster its electoral campaign at the cost of the environment and human welfare. Follow us on Twitter: @AIDAorg "Like" our page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/AIDAorg