Project
Photo: Steven Ablitt / Cassiar WatchVictory: Canada supports public participation and environmental assessment
Thanks to a court ruling to which AIDA and our allies contributed, Canadian authorities must allow active participation in all mining and industrial megaprojects, as well as comprehensive environmental impact assessments.
The decision came after a long legal battle that began in 2006. That year, an open-pit copper and gold mine called Red Chris was approved without the adequate evaluation of its environmental impacts. It was sleighted to process 30 thousand metric tons a day.
The Imperial Metals company intended to build the mine in the Kapplan River Valley, a remote and pristine natural area home to large mammals such as Dali’s sheep, caribou, bears and moose. In addition, the area is part of the migratory salmon route and the Tathlan indigenous community lives nearby.
The company had fragmented the project into small parts to avoid evaluating the full impact of the project, thus violating international standards and the right to public participation.
In 2009 AIDA filed a brief with Canada’s Supreme Court in support of a lawsuit filed against the project by MiningWatch and Ecojustice.
The ruling remains a powerful tool to protect huge expanses of pristine and valuable land for its biodiversity, water sources, and the culture of indigenous communities.
It was a watershed moment in terms of ensuring companies fulfill their obligations when developing projects that put at risk the natural environment and those who depend on it.
Related projects
Climate Marchers to Global Leaders: No dirty energy in the Green Climate Fund
New York, NY – As world leaders prepared to announce pledges of climate action and money for the Green Climate Fund, thousands of people flooded the streets of New York City yesterday demanding a financial commitment to clean energy and climate-resilient solutions. Heads of state are gathering at the United Nations tomorrow, at the invitation of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in an attempt to jump-start negotiations for a new global climate deal. According to Janet Redman, climate policy director at the Institute for Policy Studies, “Reaching an agreement to stabilize the climate rests on developed countries making good on their promises. Contributions to the Green Climate Fund are past due. We need to see serious commitments from our governments to deliver financing for low-carbon, climate-friendly development now.” Andrea Rodríguez, Mexico-based legal advisor for the climate change program of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), added, “Billions of people still lack access to energy. The Green Climate Fund should support communities to meet that need through truly clean, decentralized, sustainable renewable energy. Despite the interest from various sectors in promoting carbon capture, natural gas, and large dams as climate solutions, this institution should not provide financial support for any project that emits greenhouse gas pollution.” The policies established by the Fund's 24 board members, from both developed and developing countries, have so far not excluded any energy sector from receiving finance, increasing the risk that dirty projects could ultimately receive support. “Dirty energy is more than fossil fuels,” noted Zachary Hurwitz, a consultant for International Rivers. “Hydropower dams can release methane, they can destroy carbon-sequestering forests, and they can displace thousands of people. And there’s nothing clean about the human rights violations that all too often result.” Lidy Nacpil, director of Jubilee South Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development, based in the Philippines, said, “In my country, we’re already facing the devastation of climate change. Wealthy industrialized countries have a legal and moral obligation to repay their climate debt and support adaptation through the Green Climate Fund. But that’s not enough. The fund must not exacerbate climate change and its impacts by financing dirty energy.” Additional information: Read the latest commentary from the Institute for Policy Studies on the Green Climate Fund. Read the Global South Position Statement on the Green Climate Fund. Read the 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.
Read moreClimate Marchers to Global Leaders: No dirty energy in the Green Climate Fund
New York, NY – As world leaders prepared to announce pledges of climate action and money for the Green Climate Fund, thousands of people flooded the streets of New York City yesterday demanding a financial commitment to clean energy and climate-resilient solutions. Heads of state are gathering at the United Nations tomorrow, at the invitation of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, in an attempt to jump-start negotiations for a new global climate deal. According to Janet Redman, climate policy director at the Institute for Policy Studies, “Reaching an agreement to stabilize the climate rests on developed countries making good on their promises. Contributions to the Green Climate Fund are past due. We need to see serious commitments from our governments to deliver financing for low-carbon, climate-friendly development now.” Andrea Rodríguez, Mexico-based legal advisor for the climate change program of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), added, “Billions of people still lack access to energy. The Green Climate Fund should support communities to meet that need through truly clean, decentralized, sustainable renewable energy. Despite the interest from various sectors in promoting carbon capture, natural gas, and large dams as climate solutions, this institution should not provide financial support for any project that emits greenhouse gas pollution.” The policies established by the Fund's 24 board members, from both developed and developing countries, have so far not excluded any energy sector from receiving finance, increasing the risk that dirty projects could ultimately receive support. “Dirty energy is more than fossil fuels,” noted Zachary Hurwitz, a consultant for International Rivers. “Hydropower dams can release methane, they can destroy carbon-sequestering forests, and they can displace thousands of people. And there’s nothing clean about the human rights violations that all too often result.” Lidy Nacpil, director of Jubilee South Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development, based in the Philippines, said, “In my country, we’re already facing the devastation of climate change. Wealthy industrialized countries have a legal and moral obligation to repay their climate debt and support adaptation through the Green Climate Fund. But that’s not enough. The fund must not exacerbate climate change and its impacts by financing dirty energy.” Additional information: Read the latest commentary from the Institute for Policy Studies on the Green Climate Fund. Read the Global South Position Statement on the Green Climate Fund. Read the 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.
Read more
"We want the Green Climate Fund to follow the rules of procedure it has adopted"
AIDA attended the Latin American Carbon Forum 2014 in Bogotá, Colombia. There, our lawyer Andrea Rodríguez participated as a representative of civil society in a panel on the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a mechanism that will mobilize large amounts of resources to support adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Andrea answers a series of questions about the current situation and prospects of the GCF. - What are civil society’s expectations for the Fund? - We have the same expectations as the Fund. We want it to be a transparent, inclusive institution that is constant learning, as stated in Article 3 of its governing instrument. Its focus has to be driven by each country’s determination of what priorities should be funded. It must balance funding for adaptation and mitigation of climate change. We expect the Fund to promote social, environmental, economic, and development co-benefits and taking a gender sensitive approach; men and women are affected to the same degree by climate change. In short, we want the Green Climate Fund to follow the rules of procedure it has adopted. - How can a balance in funding for mitigation and adaptation be ensured? - Financing is given mostly for mitigation projects, despite the great need to fund projects for adaptation to climate change. In Bali, Indonesia, during the penultimate meeting of the Fund’s Board, it was decided that 50% of the funding will go to mitigation and 50% for adaptation. That decision was made and we must ensure that it is followed. Furthermore, in Latin America, development plans and climate change strategies that have been advanced have set adaptation financing as a priority. - How should civil society involve itself in the Fund? - We must go beyond design to implementation. The Fund's governing instrument provides in Article 71 that the Board needs to develop mechanisms to promote the participation of all stakeholders (vulnerable groups, women, civil society and indigenous groups) in the design, development and implementation of projects and programs financed by the Green Climate Fund. There is a mandate for civil society in all stages. The issue is relevant because the Fund will become operational soon and will have to create these participatory mechanisms at the national level, particularly when countries begin to name their national designated authorities (those that collateralize the projects or activities financed by the Fund). It needs to institutionalize these participatory processes. - How can one measure the effectiveness of a project to be funded? - The definition of indicators will be among the topics discussed at the next meeting of the GCF Board, but some are particularly important. In adaptation, we need to consider whether a project can help reduce the vulnerability of a community to climate change. As for mitigation, you have to measure the amount of emissions reduced. But the most important aspect is to measure co-benefits that a project or activity can generate: if it creates jobs, improves people’s quality of life, etc. This is because the Green Climate Fund aims to contribute to a paradigm shift that promotes sustainable development. Helping to improve quality of life is a change of this nature. Many times, projects that have positive climate benefits generate social, environmental, and economic problems. So it is essential that additional benefits are evident in social, environmental, and economic terms.
Read more