Climate Change

July 15 2015 ability and Transparency, Climate Change, Toxic Pollution

New Zealand sets shameful emission-reduction target, completely ignores public consultation

By Natalie Jones Natalie is a legal intern on the Climate Change team at AIDA, based in Mexico City. She is a delegate to COP21 with the New Zealand Youth Delegation, and volunteers for NZ youth climate group Generation Zero. In this post, she covers an issue AIDA is following closely in Latin America—emission-reduction targets—in her native country. Last week New Zealand released its INDC, or “intended nationally determined contribution,” for the post-2020 climate deal set to be agreed upon in Paris this December. It’s not good news. An INDC is the target each country must set for its future greenhouse gas emissions—in other words, its intended contribution to the effort to reduce climate-changing pollutants to a sustainable level. At the UN climate talks, the world’s governments agreed that these targets should be nationally determined, to allow each nation to respond best to its own needs, priorities, and abilities. Because climate change is an issue we all face together, New Zealand’s announcement is relevant to people in all parts of the world, including Latin America. New Zealand is one of the world’s higher emitters: the small country emits more than three times its share of global emissions per capita. So far, however, New Zealand is failing to live up to its historic responsibility. The Government announced an emissions reduction target of 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. While this may sound okay – 30 is a big percentage, right? – it actually equates to a cut of just 11 percent below 1990 levels, which is not that much bigger than our already-pitiful 2020 target of 5 percent below 1990 levels. To stay in line with the international effort to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, New Zealand’s target would need to be a minimum of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – a rate accepted by the European Union and other progressive nations. Instead, the target is worse than those proposed by China, Mexico and other developing countries. To make matters worse, New Zealand has already proposed a conditional target of 10-20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, in addition to the unconditional 5 percent target. It is likely that all the conditions attached to the 10-20 percent target will be met. So the recent announcement is essentially lowering New Zealand’s ambition by giving the country ten more years to hit the low end of its conditional target. At this critical moment in history, we can’t afford a decade of inaction. ing rule mischief But it doesn’t stop there. The target will remain provisional until a final deal is reached in Paris, including rules on ing for land sector emissions and carbon markets. This means the target is even worse than it seems. New Zealand’s existing 2020 target is based on gross emissions calculated for 1990, without ing for the lower net amount of carbon once some of it is taken up and stored by forests. But for 2020, the target does for forests as a carbon sink. This skewed approach means New Zealand is on track to meet its 5 percent reduction target by 2020, even though actual emissions are on track to increase 36 percent since 1990. If New Zealand plans to use the same methodology for the 2030 target, which seems likely, our target would actually be a 134 percent net increase from 1990 levels. A target for the 1% What’s more, the Government has completely ignored the results of its own public consultation, which overwhelmingly called for much stronger action. Ninety-nine percent of submitters called for a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Over 15,000 submissions were made, and more than 4,600 of those submissions were mobilized by youth climate organization Generation Zero’s Fix Our Future campaign, which I helped run. Generation Zero spokesperson Paul Young characterized the target as being “for the 1 percent who deny the need to transition to a low carbon economy.” Failing to take responsibility for the Pacific New Zealand is a neighbour to many vulnerable Pacific Island countries, such as Samoa, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. These countries are some of the lowest contributors to climate change, but are the first to face its devastating impacts, such as rising sea levels and more frequent and severe storms. New Zealand has a responsibility to care for its neighbours. Oxfam New Zealand called the country’s recent announcement a “slap in the face” to Pacific Island nations. A wasted opportunity Perhaps most disappointing about this announcement is the fact that New Zealand has the ability to lead the way to a thriving, zero carbon world. Currently running on more than 80 percent renewable energy, the country is in a prime position to transition to 100 percent renewable energy, shift its transport and heat needs to electricity and other clean energy sources, and absorb carbon by planting forests. Instead, New Zealand is leaving it to other countries to pick up its slack. Historically, New Zealand has used the inaction of major emitters like the US and China as an excuse for its own inaction, but that simply won’t cut it any more. What’s holding us back now is not technology, but political vision. AIDA’s work on INDCs AIDA advocates for public participation in the formation of INDCs throughout Latin America, and calls on nations to include information in their INDCs about the finance needed to meet their commitments and respond to the impacts of climate change. It is important to monitor the contributions of countries outside Latin America, particularly developed countries who have contributed the most to the problem, in order to determine whether each country is upholding their responsibility on this collective issue and to ensure political ability for poor contributions. Find Natalie on Twitter at @nataliejonesnz.

July 07 2015 Public Participation, Climate Change

Two Texts That Will Reconnect You With the Earth

There are two texts you should read because you live on this planet, two texts that will reconnect you with the Earth. You should read them because the Earth is protected not just by law and science, but also by heart and spirit; and because, like it or not, we share this home with everyone. They are Laudato Si, the recently published encyclical by Pope Francis, and Falling in Love with the Earth, an essay by Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh. As the Zen Master says, “we and the Earth are one.” The texts concern all people, regardless of their religion, beliefs, politics or understanding of the planet’s environmental realities. It is not my intent to summarize these publications, or to deter you from reading and experiencing them firsthand. My intention is to encourage you to know them, because each allows us to better understand the realities of our planet, and sheds light on how to make our time on Earth positive. What is at stake is, as the Pope would say, “our dignity.” We must be mindful of the kind of planet we want to leave for the future. Laudato Si: The Papal Encyclical Pope Francis’ encyclical is an extensive document that, with the help of science, analyzes both the reasons behind the planet’s grave environmental situation and its possible solutions. I was pleasantly surprised by the level of scientific detail included in the text, and by the recognition that climate change is the responsibility of human beings. By reminding us of the urgent need to move from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources, and to control atmospheric pollution, the text illuminates the path to Paris. At the end of the year, the French capital will host the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference, set to usher in a new and binding global climate accord. It was heartening to see the Pope emphasize the social inequalities of the planet, particularly by explaining the relationship between environmental degradation and the communities it affects—primarily poor and indigenous peoples. But still, the encyclical is not perfect. One point it misses is how women suffer more from climate impacts, so the historical debt the Catholic Church has with us is still pending. The Pope states that those with the most power—corporations, countries and elites—are the primary responsible parties, though they’re certainly not the only ones. The powerful, therefore, are obligated to develop solutions. It is encouraging to read this since the Vatican has not exactly been characterized by its vows of poverty, and especially since I’m Latin American and work in this region, the most unequal in the world. The encyclical concludes that an “ecological conversion” is necessary because “living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.” This applies to everyone, as the work of protecting nature is the essence of being a virtuous person. A Time to Act In reading both the encyclical and the essay, you may notice that their conclusions are not new. The Pope is quite reminiscent of his namesake, St. Francis of Assisi, who first spoke in the 13th Century of the need to protect “our Sister Earth.” Thus, the Pope and the Zen Master continue the urgent call to analyze our way of life, our consumption and our treatment of the Earth. So, why don’t we care for the planet, as we should? Why do we need their reminders? Why does it still seem we’re going from bad to worse? I don’t have the answers. But neither do the Zen Master or the Pope. “Sadly, many efforts to find concrete solutions to the environmental crisis have proven ineffective, due not only to powerful opposition, but also to a general lack of interest,” Pope Francis said. Trending topics on social networks are a hard reminder of this reality. Cities, countries and what seems like the entire world are paralyzed during the World Cup, the Olympics, and even during beauty contests. Paying attention to these events is not bad, but the little attention we give to environmental problems and inequality is. The apathy must stop TODAY. Therein lies the relevance of these documents. We need to get involved, strive to understand their content, act on our understanding and show results, not make excuses. The Pope acknowledges that “politics and business are slow to react, far from living up to global challenges.” Judging from the current situation, I would say we’ve all reacted slowly. Let’s change that now. I’m sure we all have something we could improve, and something we could contribute. Regardless of specifics, simply because we live on Earth, we have a responsibility we must acknowledge. As Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh says, caring for and honoring the Earth “is not an obligation. It is a matter of happiness, of personal and collective survival.”

June 10 2015 ability and Transparency, Climate Change, Climate Change

Closing Statement by NGOs at Ramsar COP12

Presented by Rafaela Nicola, World Wetland Network Committee’s Neo-Tropics delegate We would like to thank the Secretary General and the Parties for this opportunity to address the meeting, to share our message that NGOS are committed to Ramsar and we want to do more. We also wish to thank the government of Uruguay for hosting the COP. We appreciated the field trips yesterday, which introduced us to the beautiful wetlands in this country, some of which are Ramsar Sites. World Wetland Network was launched at Ramsar COP 10; this is our third COP. Our participation in Ramsar is recognized in Resolution 11.6.We were formed to complement the activity of the IOPs. We fully appreciate the value and expertise of the non-governmental IOPs, who work in strong partnership with local communities and indigenous peoples. WWN was formed at the initiative of smaller, grass-roots NGOs and CSOs seeking a voice at the table. I speak on behalf of our 2000 worldwide and our friends at the COP: local and sub-regional organizations who have been meeting daily to engage with and monitor this important process. The core work of the Ramsar COP 12 has been the resolutions. Crafting and revising resolutions. Collaborating, negotiating and finally reaching agreement. We humbly acknowledge the co- operation and hard work of the Secretariat, Contracting Parties and IOPs to create meaningful resolutions that ensure conservation and wise of our world’s wetlands. When we all return home the real challenge begins, turning these resolutions into action. We urge the Contracting Parties to show steadfast commitment and leadership. We stand ready to help at the local level. The Fourth Strategic Plan is the most significant outcome of this COP, guiding our combined efforts for the next nine years. World Wetland Network welcomes the Contracting Parties initiative to strengthen engagement of NGOs, civil society groups, local communities and indigenous peoples in the Strategic Plan. These stakeholders provide a long-term and often continuous connection to wetland sites and are essential partners to achieve the Ramsar vision. We note that the top priority of the Strategic Plan is to prevent, stop and reverse the loss and degradation of wetlands. Your recognition of the key threats including unsustainable agriculture, forestry and extractive industries, especially oil, gas, mining, and urbanization closely reflects the local knowledge and concerns of our , in Latin America and globally. We encourage Contracting Parties to work cohesively across ministries and prioritize long-term sustainability when approving developments. A healthy environment is fundamental to our economic and social security. Cohesive implementation will be ed by the effective mobilization of National Wetland Committees. We note that establishment of these committees, with both government and non- government representatives, is an indicator for success of Goal 1 in the Plan, and we urge the parties to comply. The theme of the COP has been “Wetlands for our future.” That future starts today. Every planning and development decision taken today will directly impact on wetlands and the communities that depend on them. Our message is loud and clear: we are committed to Ramsar and we want to do more. We trust our activities at Ramsar COP 12 have enhanced the meeting and we pledge our commitment to the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Thank you

June 03 2015 ability and Transparency, Climate Change

Statement by NGOs at Ramsar COP12

By World Wetland Network The non-government NGO sector and civil society greatly appreciates this opportunity to address the 12th Conference of Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention on wetlands. We have worked together to prepare this statement through the World Wetland Network, an international alliance of NGOs and civil society organizations, many of whom are focused on one or two wetlands in their local area. These organizations reflect their local cultures and communities and are a considerable force for Ramsar wetland conservation. All present understand the values of wetlands for life on earth. For NGOs and Civil Society groups, these values are very close to our heart, our life’s work. Sometimes even a matter of life and death. Wetlands supply us with fresh, clean water. They are essential to food security, providing water for irrigation, rice and fish to sustain us. Wetlands store carbon to mitigate climate change and reduce the impacts of disaster risk by slowing and storing floodwater. They a wealth of plants and wildlife that make our world a richer place. Wetlands are our home, sustaining us spiritually and culturally. And we in turn are their custodians. Our stewardship ethic inspires us to work on wetland conservation through many activities: on-ground work, research, monitoring, advocacy, education and community engagement. We now know that our earth has suffered the destruction of 64% of all wetlands at the hands of human development since 1900. NGOs and Civil Society fully the Ramsar goal to slow, stop and reverse the trend in wetlands loss and degradation world-wide. In 2014, World Wetland Network conducted a global survey of NGOs to explore their relationship with the delivery of Ramsar wetland conservation goals. 190 individuals responded from 52 counties, giving us the chance to hear the collective voice of local people. The survey findings are offered now so that Ramsar Parties can successfully deploy both government and non-government resources to ensure the greatest gain for wetlands, wildlife and people. The survey overwhelmingly showed that NGOs are committed to Ramsar and want to do more. ing and enabling volunteers and NGO staff to be engaged in wetland conservation requires resources, but small inputs create big outcomes, leading to better programs for Ramsar sites. Ramsar’s Communication, Education, Participation and Awareness activities require greater advocacy, technical and financial . Many NGOs have skills that could be more actively used in this process. NGOs are concerned that some governments appear to discourage strategic Ramsar site designations. A means for civil society to highlight potential nominations would be welcomed. Some governments do not actively use Ramsar as a tool to protect wetlands. NGOs reported government inactivity, reduced financial resources and reduced involvement of public officials. NGOs are concerned about inaccurate reporting in the national Ramsar reports. Contracting parties should take responsibility to ensure accurate reporting of wetland status to inform effective decision-making. More needs to be done to enforce site protection.  Based on the broad findings of our survey, the World Wetland Network offers the following  recommendations for Ramsar consideration: a) Recognize that NGOs often create a longer-term and more continuous link for Ramsar sites than Government Representatives. b) Develop more structured guidance for Ramsar Parties, and National Focal Points, on how to engage civil society. c) Explore options to include more NGOs and civil society organisations in the decision-making process for Ramsar at international, regional and country levels. d) Create avenues for NGO and civil society input into reporting on the state of wetlands, Ramsar site nominations and the Montreux Record. e) Prioritize funding and for NGOs and civil society organisations that are working on Ramsar listed wetlands. Finally, full and effective collaboration between civil society and contracting parties is critical to achieve wetland conservation at the local level. With regard to the draft resolutions for Ramsar COP12, NGOs are calling for stronger linkages to the NGO and civil society sector in DR2 – the Strategic Plan and DR 9, the CEPA program. We trust that this Ramsar COP12 meeting will help civil society, corporate sector and government partners to work together to protect, restore and promote wetlands.

May 28 2015 ability and Transparency, Climate Change

AIDA Attends Ramsar COP for Wetlands Conservation

In regions across the Americas, water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource. Baja California and other parts of Mexico are experiencing water shortages. Washington, Oregon and California are confronting the worst drought in history. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization says that, by 2025, at least 1.9 billion people will live in countries or regions facing an absolute shortage of water. In this situation, it is urgent to preserve wetlands – the natural ecosystems that provide fresh water, help to replenish groundwater aquifers, and nurture aquatic wildlife. Wetlands include páramos, mangroves, rivers, lakes and coral reefs. At AIDA, we’re committed to protecting these unique ecosystems. We work to strengthen the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty that mandates the conservation and wise use of wetlands worldwide. The Convention’s member nations are obligated to ensure that wetlands in their territories conserve important ecological characteristics, which provide clean water and myriad benefits for humanity. To ensure compliance with the Convention’s obligations, nations convene every three years at the Conference of Parties (COP), the Convention’s primary organ. The twelfth conference (COP12) – focusing on “Wetlands for Our Future” – will take place June 1-9 in Punta de Este, Uruguay. One of the functions of the COP is to consider information presented by organizations like AIDA to improve each country’s compliance with the Convention. AIDA is participating in COP12 as an observing civil society organization, presenting comments on draft resolutions to be discussed at the conference. These resolutions provide solutions to the challenges nations encounter when implementing the treaty, and ensure that governments make clear commitments to conserve important ecosystems. We will submit comments on three of the most important draft resolutions: The Philippines calls on the Convention to propose economic tools to reduce the risk of natural disasters. Thailand proposes to analyze the effectiveness of mechanisms used to evaluate the management and conservation of sites the Convention considers Wetlands of International Importance. Mexico proposes that countries identify the possible negative impacts that infrastructure projects have on water, biodiversity and wetland services. AIDA will also make specific recommendations to protect wetlands in Colombia, Mexico and Panama. We will advocate the inclusion of two sites on the Montreux Record, a list of wetlands that receive international priority, and for which a country may obtain technical assistance and financial resources for conservation. The sites AIDA proposes to add are the Bay of Panama Wetlands, threatened by the construction of tourism infrastructure, and the Veracruz Reef System National Park, endangered by the expansion of the Port of Veracruz in Mexico. Finally, we will ask the Secretariat of the Convention to make advisory visits to Colombia to learn about the situation of the country’s páramos, at risk from large-scale mining projects, and of Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, an important site affected by unsustainable agriculture. Following these visits, the Secretariat may make recommendations for Colombia to improve management of these sites. We invite you to follow our work during the COP12 of the Ramsar Convention on our website, Facebook and Twitter!

April 29 2015 ability and Transparency, Climate Change

Green Climate Fund Begins Accreditation Process

2015. This is the year. Sink or swim. It’s all or nothing. Opening the Green Climate Fund’s Ninth Meeting of the Board last month, Executive Director Hela Cheikhrouhou spoke with an urgency characteristic of the lead-up to December’s UN Climate Conference in Paris, describing this year as one of the last opportunities humanity has to change course and steer a sustainable path. As we approach the g of a new global agreement on climate change, the efficacy of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) holds particular importance. Counting now with $10.2 billion, it will serve as the primary vehicle to finance projects designed to help all societies – whether developed or developing – confront the causes, and the effects, of a changing climate. At last month’s meeting, the Fund’s Board accredited its first intermediary and implementing institutions – charged with channeling money into developing nations – and then announced plans to begin allocating its resources before the year’s end. These accreditations, in turn signaling the imminent arrival of the first project proposals, represent an important milestone in the rigorous, nearly five-year process since the Fund was first established. "This will be the ultimate test of the effectiveness of the institution," said Andrea Rodríguez Osuna, AIDA’s Senior Attorney for Climate Change, who has been monitoring the development of the Fund. "When it all comes down to it, this is the step that matters." The first seven entities accredited by the Board represent a broad geographic and thematic range, and will likely be the first to submit proposals for funding. Including organizations from Senegal to Peru, they specialize in issues such as coastal protection, biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, and improving the lives of low-income communities. While the accreditations represent an advance towards the actualization of the Fund’s mission, a number of significant organizational decisions remain under debate, or are as yet unaddressed. Among other topics on the agenda last month, the Board addressed the expected role and impact of the Fund, which will enable them to identify financing priorities, and the Initial Investment Framework, which will outline what types of projects will be financed and how they will be selected and assessed. "Alongside accreditation, these elements are essential. Without them, the Fund can’t advance toward the future, toward having more focused and productive discussions," Rodríguez explained. The criteria and methodology for the Fund’s Initial Investment Framework triggered a heated debate, which largely pitted developed against developing nations. On one side, the developed nations pushed for minimum required benchmarks that would enable simpler measurement of success; on the other side, developing nations pushed for qualitative measures with no strict requirements that would better ensure more equal access to funds. Finally, they reached a compromise, deciding to use non-mandatory indicative minimum benchmarks that would both encourage ambition and take into the needs of those developing countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. The Secretariat will present the proposed benchmarks for further development in about a year’s time, at the 13th meeting of the Board. Discussing the expected role and impact of the Fund, the Board came to an uncharacteristically unified decision – to keep the Initial Investment Framework under review, and to take action as needed regarding the criterion on needs of the recipient countries. Agreeing the document presented by the Secretariat lacked sufficient information, the Board requested they be presented with more technical and scientific data before beginning to outline their priorities. Notably missing from the conversation, due to lack of time, was an item particularly important to AIDA’s work, Enhanced Direct Access, which would obligate public participation in certain projects. If approved, this direct access would ensure the moreequitable involvement of all the actors working to confront the effects of a changing climate. The next meeting of the Board of the Green Climate Fund will be July 6-9 at the Fund’s headquarters in Songdo, South Korea. AIDA will be there again to monitor these issues and report back on important developments, as the world prepares for a new global climate accord, and the Green Climate Fund moves ever closer to implementation.

March 23 2015 Climate Change, Freshwater Sources, Mining

Toward a law to protect glaciers and water in Chile

More than 70 percent of the world’s fresh water is frozen in glaciers,[1] making these giants the most important freshwater reserves on the planet. The distribution of this wealth has been generous to some countries. According to the Randolph Inventory, the most complete map of glaciers in the world, Chile is the guardian of the largest area of glaciers in South America: 14,600 square miles distributed across thousands of glaciers that reach from the peaks of the Altiplano in the north to the extreme southern tip of the continent. The most dangerous threats to glaciers are climate change and industrial activities near them, especially mining. Through strategic litigation and advocacy, AIDA is working to halt the harms from both of these threats. Climate change has caused the decline of snow and rainfall, as well as an increase in temperature, which reduces the accumulation of ice and increases the melting of glaciers. Mining exploration and exploitation degrade glaciers with road construction, drilling, explosives, and toxic materials. These activities also generate dust that settles on glaciers, making them darker and accelerating their rate of melt. Although we know that water is fundamental for life, and that glaciers are dangerously threatened, surprising littleinternational law protects glaciers. No international treaty aims to preserve them, nor is any such treaty under consideration. At the national level, only Argentina has a law to protect its glaciers. In Chile, draft legislation to protect glaciers has been debated in Congress for many years. Bearing in mind the drought currently plaguing the country, what better reason could there be to develop a SMART legal tool to care for Chilean glaciers? In search of a law The first attempt to enact a law to protect Chile’s glaciers was in 2006. It was driven by the approval of the Pascua-Lama mining project, which threatened the mountainous glaciers in the north of the country. The unsuccessful initiative was shelved in 2007. On May 20, 2014 of Congress, calling themselves "the Glacier Caucus," proposed a new law to preserve the glaciers. Mining and geothermal companies severely criticized their proposal, which forbade mining and other activities that harm glaciers. This March, the executive branch made a counterproposal. According to environmental organizations, the spirit of the Glacier Caucus law was completely changed in response to mining-industry demands. What follows are points for and against the government’s proposal, based on the minutes in (Spanish) of a collaborative meeting of environmental organizations: Positive Recognizes glaciers as freshwater reservoirs, as providers of ecosystem services, and as national public property. Prohibits applications for rights to harvest glacial water. Strengthens the power of the General Water Directorate to generate information, monitor the status of glaciers, and impose fines. Elevates the legal hierarchy of the glacier inventory. Negative Does not protect all glaciers, only those found in national parks or wildlife reserves. This is a serious oversight, considering that the most threatened glaciers are in the north, where national parks are rare and where they share territory with mining reserves. Worse, still, glaciers in the north supply drinking water to millions of people who live in areas where water is scarce. Could safeguard some glaciers outside of protected areas if the Committee of Ministers for Sustainability considers them "strategic water reserves." The proposal, however, makes no reference to the tools or public funds needed to make such an assessment. The risk is that this designation would eventually be left to consultants who frequently work for mining companies. Leaves glaciers that are not considered “strategic reserves” open to industrial projects, depending on the conclusions of Environmental Impact Assessments. In the past, EIAs have permitted such damaging projects as the Pacua-Lama, Andina 244, Los Bronces, and Los Pelambres mines. States that a project’s environmental permit will only be reviewed if the project currently impacts glaciers in national parks or those declared "strategic reserves." All other glaciers remain subject to the mining and energy projects that are already harming them. Internal debates in Congress will continue. We truly hope the resulting law will provide all glaciers with their due protection and that similar laws will be enacted in the rest of the countries where glaciers hold precious water for future generations. Meanwhile, AIDA’s dedicated legal advocates are working hard to prevent and minimize mining threats to the environment and people. AIDA is currently preparing a guide, Basic Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Projects: Recommended of Reference (in Spanish), detailing the comprehensive analysis that must be completed for any proposed mining project. We are advocating with government agencies to conduct thorough assessments before approving new mine projects and, when necessary, we’re pursuing strategic litigation to compel agencies to improve their assessments. We’re also strengthening environmental laws and precedents that apply to extractive industries. In Colombia and Panama, AIDA is actively advocating revisions to the national mining codes, specifically to protect crucial water resources. Bringing international law to bear on the issue, we’re using international agreements to establish precedents that apply to mines broadly. We’ve also begun to create a pool of technical experts to help local communities and governments understand and evaluate proposals for mineral extraction. Please watch this blog for news about mines, water, and AIDA’s efforts to protect a healthy environment. [1] According to data from Global Water Partnership: http://www.gwp.org/

Foto: Construcción de la represa Barro Blanco en el río Tabasará, Panamá. Crédito: Ed Grimaldo/La Estrella de Panamá.

February 24 2015 Large Dams, Climate Change, Human Rights

Four Recommendations for the Summit of the Americas

Inequality has increased in the last decades in Latin America, and this clearly is an obstacle for democracy. Latin America remains the region with the greatest income inequality on the planet. Considering this, the Organization of American States has made "Prosperity with Equity" the theme of its Summit of the Americas. In Panama on April 10 and 11, Heads of State and Government will pledge concerted actions at both the national and regional levels to confront the development challenges of the continent. I believe that the main goal should be to just stop doing certain things, or, at least, to act differently. When I asked Eli, an indigenous Ngobe from Panama, what she wanted from her government, she said, "Just that they leave us alone." Drawing on OAS consultations with civil society, AIDA analyzed two of the eight Mandates for Action, the document to be negotiated at the Summit. From this analysis, we have made the following recommendations relating to the mandates on energy and the environment: 1. Stop building large dams The Mandates establish that the region will the United Nations Initiative, Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL). Since access to energy plays a key role in reducing inequality, we recommend working with this initiative provided hydroelectric dams are excluded from sustainable energy. Among other harms, Dams produce greenhouse gases, aggravating climate change, especially in tropical regions. Dams cause irreparable harms to the environment and human rights violations. Dams typically cost twice as much as their developers’ estimates, even without considering their socio-environmental damages. In addition, constructing these energy dinosaurs takes much more time than expected. Three currently suspended dams prove the point: Belo Monte (Brazil) - Suspended after protests of affected communities whose compensation had been breached. It is a year late, and the project is facing fines and the possible payment of additional interest on loans from Brazil’s national development bank, BNDES. El Quimbo (Colombia) - The filling of the dam is suspended by judicial order for lack of an evaluation of its impact on the fishing sector. Barro Blanco (Panama) - Suspended by an order of the government while they revise—and hopefully fix—irregularities in the Environmental Impact Assessment. From all this, we remind the Summit of the Americas that last December more than 200 organizations, networks, and movements from across the world requested that governments, international organizations, and financial institutions realize that large dams are an unsustainable source of energy and implement truly sustainable solutions. 2. Recognize the human rights impact from climate change Climate change has caused and will continue to cause serious impacts in Latin America that are compromising the enjoyment of human rights. Climate change is a priority on the Summit’s agenda, which is good. But government leaders should incorporate an understanding of the relationship between climate change and human rights. They should commit to respect human rights in all climate actions. The United Nations and the OAS General Assembly have recognized that the respect for and enjoyment of human rights are intrinsically connected to climate change. The World Bank has concluded that climate change complicates efforts to end poverty, which has clear implications on human rights. Even the recent draft of the negotiating text of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change contemplates the necessity to respect human rights. For all these reasons, the Summit should consider that the link between climate change and human rights must be incorporated into all actions seeking to combat inequality and promote better standards of living. 3. Include a commitment to mitigate climate change, not just adapt to it The Summit’s Mandates for Action refer to adaptation measures. But mitigation should not be left out. These actions would reflect the reality of the region, in which important efforts are being developed to confront climate change. Considering the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, all States must demonstrate willingness to implement mitigation actions to confront climate change. Although not all States should mitigate to the same extent, all countries should contribute to this task—including those in Latin America. 4. Recognize that corruption undermines equity, and include actions to eradicate it The Mandates for Action recognize the impacts of corruption in as much as the use of technology is intended to improve public participation. But corruption is a structural problem in the region and actions to confront it should be part of democratic governance. Corruption has a direct relationship with inequality, systematically preventing real progress in the fight against poverty.

January 26 2015 Climate Change, Human Rights

Human rights in the new climate agreement: Tomorrow will be too late

Observing the UN Climate Negotiations is like entering another world. Governments, organizations and individuals advance their agendas, and all are discussed simultaneously: mitigation, adaptation, financing, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), loss and damages, common but differentiated responsibilities, and many other matters. The common objective is making binding commitments to tackle climate change. As a member of AIDA’s team, together with my colleagues Andrea Rodríguez and Víctor Quintanilla, I participated last December in the 20th session of the Conference of Parties of the United Nationals Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 20) in Lima, Peru. Being there was an incredible learning experience. The Conference was two weeks of intense negotiations, even more so in the final days, intended to pave the way for the new binding climate agreement that will be adopted at the UN Climate Conference in Paris later this year. The result was the Lima Call for Climate Action, a document approved in overtime hours as an emergency measure so that the meeting did not conclude without an agreement. The document has been much written about, touted by some as a great success and by others as a failure. I would simply like to point out that a key point is missing from the Lima appeal: the recognition that climate change interferes with the enjoyment of human rights. Not for lack of trying. Mary Robinson, the former United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, who is now the Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, warned that climate change is "the greatest human rights issue of the 21st Century." Photo: Máximo Ba Tiul presents the case of the Santa Rita hydroelectric project in an event during the COP20. Credit: AIDA. Experts and UN rapporteurs have asked States that are part of the Framework Convention to include in the coming agreement specific language stating that all parties must, in all climate change related actions, promote, protect, respect and fulfill with the human rights of all people. These are the words written by 28 experts and special rapporteurs to the UN in an open letter sent on October 17, 2014. Also, more than 70 independent experts and UN special rapporteurs also called for this recognition on December 10, International Human Rights Day. AIDA and colleague organizations have been insisting not only that the new climate agreement should incorporate comprehensive and operative language on human rights, but also that the actions taken to mitigate climate change respect human rights. Amidst the technicalities and the negotiations, I saw the human face of climate change. During the Lima Conference, I met Máximo Ba Tiul, an indigenous Maya Poqomchi from Guatemala and the representative of the Tezulutlán Peoples Council. Máximo participated in a variety of activities during the Conference, carrying with him the message of the indigenous peoples affected by the Santa Rita dam, a project ed under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Convention. Through the Mechanism, industrialized countries may obtain carbon credits by implementing emission-reduction projects in developing countries. The problem is that many of these projects have caused human rights violations. For example, the Guatemalan government neither consulted with nor obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of the affected indigenous communities before authorizing Santa Rita. Furthermore, security forces have harassed communities that oppose the dam and charged opposition leaders as criminals. Violence and repression have escalated: a worker from the company murdered two children, David, 11, and Ageo, 13, in August 2013. In August 2014, the violence flared. More than a thousand state agents raided the area and attacked community , among them pregnant women, the elderly, and children, who were all forced to flee. Photo: Machinery beginning the dredging of the Dolores River for the construction of the Santa Rita Dam at the end of 2011. Credit: Community Archive. The Santa Rita hydroelectric project has clearly led to human rights violations, which continue to this day. Crime, violence, and harassment remain unpunished. The project continues to hold its certification from the Clean Development Mechanism. Going public at one of the Conference events, Máximo asked: Why do you have to violate human rights to mitigate the effects of climate change? The only response: silence. Cases like Guatemala’s Santa Rita dam, emblematic of many projects ed under the Clean Development Mechanism, remind us of the urgent need to incorporate human rights protection into all climate actions. Human rights protection must be binding in the new climate agreement to be approved in Paris. Otherwise, the defense of communities’ rights will be another fight lost in the fight against climate change. The time is NOW. Tomorrow will be too late!

December 23 2014 ability and Transparency, Climate Change

COP20 fails to provide certainty on climate finance and human rights

The 20th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP20) was held this month in Lima, Peru, with the goal of drafting a new climate agreement, to be signed in Paris in 2015. The conference, however, concluded with an unimpressive draft agreement that failed in two key tasks: providing certainty about funding to combat climate change, and including human rights protections in climate actions. For AIDA and other civil society organizations, it was important that the Lima agreement lay out a roap for how and when governments will fulfill their commitment to provide 100 billion dollars per year by 2020 to finance mitigation activities and adaptation to climate change. "Developing countries need to know with certainty how much money they have and what the source of it will be, so they can plan their fight against climate change," said Andrea Rodriguez, a senior attorney for AIDA. The Conference provided no such certainty. This is evidenced by the decision made on the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which left out finance and adaptation—key aspects to the countries most vulnerable to extreme changes in climate. The INDCs decision was meant to contain specific information on the scope, format, timeframe and assessment. Instead it included only contributions for mitigation, without stating whether or not they will be compulsory. During the conference, AIDA and global allied organizations encouraged State Parties to ensure the draft of the new agreement include specific language on the protection, promotion, respect for, and observance of human rights in all climate actions. As a result of the collective effort, the Philippines, Mexico, and Ghana made specific calls for the draft and final agreements to include such references. "There is no doubt that climate change interferes with the enjoyment of human rights. The agreement in Lima includes no reference to human rights, but we will work hard to ensure their full inclusion in the Paris agreement, not only in words, but also in deed," said María José Veramendi Villa, an AIDA senior attorney. Yet it was not all bad. AIDA drew attention to the new pledges that had arrived to the Green Climate Fund, which brought its total funding to 10.2 billion dollars. We highlighted the momentum in Latin America that contributed to that achievement, with countries such as Peru, Colombia, Mexico and Panama making the effort to contribute, despite their status as developing countries. "Although all contributions are welcome, it is important to emphasize that the amount collected so far does not yet cover the financing needs of developing countries," Rodriguez stated. The conference also made public the climate finance actions of governmental and nongovernmental actors in the region. The Climate Finance Day organized by AIDA and allied organizations facilitated a dialogue on regional progress in preparing for accessing resources, the increasing involvement of the private sector in fighting climate change, and the conditions that such requires—legal certainty being one of them. Also that day, civil society shared their experiences with transparency and ability, which are essential not only to obtain greater resources, but also to ensure their effective use. AIDA reported on the opportunity the Green Climate Fund provides for countries of the continent to improve public participation in the design, development, and implementation of policies and climate projects. Much remains to be done to find effective solutions to climate change. We will continue contributing to the achievement of this goal!