Climate Change

Climate Change, Human Rights

Communities bring their voice on the climate crisis before the Inter-American Court

By Liliana Ávila and Marcella Ribeiro* The hearing was held May 25 to 29 in Manaus, Brazil's largest Amazon city, where the mighty Amazon River is born when the dark waters of the Negro River meet the lighter waters of the Solimões. A delegation of seven communities and a network of trans and non-binary people from different corners of the continent arrived there to tell the Inter-American Court of Human Rights where they come from, what territory and habitat they occupy, how the climate crisis and environmental injustice affect their way of life, and what they propose so that the international court can help guarantee their rights in the face of the global crisis and actions to combat it. As in Bridgetown, Barbados, a month earlier, Manaus was the venue for the public hearings of the Advisory Opinion on Climate Emergency and Human Rights, an opinion in which the Court will clarify the obligations of the hemisphere's states to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from the effects of the climate crisis.   The voices from the territories Oral hearings are part of the process by which the Court delivers its advisory opinions. In these hearings, the judges of the Court listen to States and other actors in interventions that should not exceed 10 minutes. The history of peoples and their struggles do not fit into 10 minutes. Nevertheless, the testimonies of each member of the delegation were full of wisdom, dignity and hope. Francis Cruz, representative of the Honduran Climate Change Alliance and resident of the community of Marcovia, told how the sea destroyed his house and restaurant, everything he had. Coastal erosion has taken away more than 12 meters of land in his community, which depends on fishing and tourism. In fact, the community and others in the southern part of the country live with the constant threat of meteorological events whose intensity and frequency are linked to climate change and the environmental degradation it causes. The Court also learned that the extraction of hydrocarbons through fracking in the province of Mendoza, Argentina, is limiting the resilience of Mapuche communities in the face of the climate crisis and is exacerbating the serious situation of water scarcity in the area. This was explained by Gabriel Jofré, spokesperson for the Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization, who highlighted the traditional knowledge of the Mapuche people as a source of answers to their situation of climate vulnerability. In her testimony, Katta Alonso, spokesperson for the territorial movement MUZOSARE (Mujeres de Zona de Sacrificio en Resistencia), described what it is like to live in Quintero and Puchuncaví, Chile, a highly polluted place that has been transformed forever into an industrial complex of thermoelectric, oil and chemical plants, where energy conversion projects are exacerbating the problem. "Climate change affects us because it affects everyone, but even more because we are already in a situation of environmental vulnerability. We are also affected by the policies and measures that the government adopts in its attempts to deal with the climate crisis, because they are sacrificing us again. Once again, they are offering our territories for the installation of harmful industries that will supposedly solve the problem. There is no information, no participation, no possibility of defense," she said. On behalf of Mujeres Unidas en Defensa del Agua: Lago Titicaca Perú-Bolivia, María Eugenia Millares spoke about the contamination of the lake and how temperature changes affect planting, food production cycles and food preservation. She highlighted the role of women: "Our capacity to adapt is diminishing as we lose our livelihoods due to the climate crisis and the failure of the state. But we know that we can change this situation. We women, who are the most affected because we use the water for household and other activities, must be heard and recognized for our role in saving the lake and its life." Angelica Ortiz, representing the communities of La Gran Parada and El Rocío - located in the department of La Guajira, Colombia - and the organization Wayuu Women's Forces, also spoke at the hearing. She highlighted the reality of the Wayuu indigenous people, whose ability to adapt to the climate emergency has been diminished in a situation of economic vulnerability, water crisis, decades of coal exploitation and, more recently, wind energy projects being developed in their territories without consulting them. "We don't know when it will rain, so we don't know when to plant.” The Court also heard the case of the four indigenous communities of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, an ecosystem that has lost more than 90 percent of its glaciers due to global warming. "Our mother is sick, the climate crisis is the disease that we have caused to the mother, and that is the message we are receiving today," said Jaime Luis Arias, Cabildo Governor of the Kankuamo people. Among other things, the climate crisis threatens the ancestral knowledge system of these peoples, their traditional practices and their spiritual life. Finally, Yoko Ruiz, Territorial Coordinator of the Trans Health League, spoke about the differentiated impacts of the climate crisis on women, girls and LGBTIQ+ people. She urged that the Court's decision to clarify state obligations to protect human rights in the face of climate emergency be consistent with the realities of discrimination and structural violence faced by these populations.   Contributing from experience and wisdom The of the delegation came to Manaus not only to talk about the problems they face. As agents of change, they also brought concrete proposals on how to urgently address the climate crisis, based on their knowledge and experience, and respecting human rights. Their proposals are a cry of hope that they wish to be heard by the Court. They are a call to rethink the structural causes of the natural and spiritual imbalance; and to stop the affronts to Mother Earth, her sacred elements, organs and vital systems. Among many other things, they suggested to: Establish a declaration of integral protection for ethnic and rural territories and ecosystems that are highly vulnerable to the climate crisis. Strengthen the adaptive capacity of populations through ancestral knowledge, community monitoring and other mechanisms that ensure the climate resilience of their inhabitants. Recognize the validity of ancestral knowledge and urge states to strengthen the capacity of populations to monitor and care for ecosystems as a means of promoting climate adaptation. Ensure that plans for prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and adaptation to climate disasters include a gender perspective and guarantee services and inputs related to health in general and the sexual and reproductive health of women, girls and LGBTQ+ people.   The convening of the peoples of the Americas to prepare for the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court is more than a formality and a 10-minute presentation. It is above all a bet on hope, an affirmation that the fight against the climate crisis will be with and for the peoples, or not at all. AIDA ed various communities in the region to bring their voices to the process by participating in the hearings in Bridgetown and Manaus, and by submitting legal briefs to the Court highlighting the multiple socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency and valuable proposals to address them. This experience reflects our commitment to build ethical, collective and horizontal processes together with Latin American communities to strengthen the reach of their voices and promote the renewal of international law based on their knowledge. For our team, it is essential to be a bridge between defenders who fight for life every day. We seek to change the traditionally exclusionary logic of international decision-making spaces, promoting the exchange of diverse knowledge and working to ensure that decisions about nature include the voice of those who truly protect it and live in harmony with it.   *Liliana Ávila is the Director of AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program; Marcella Ribeiro is a senior attorney with the program.  

Read more
60 sesión de los Órganos Subsidiarios de la ONU sobre el Cambio Climático en Bonn
Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate negotiations: Reflections after the Bonn meeting ahead of COP29

By Florencia Ortúzar and Javier Dávalos*   The 60th session of the UN Subsidiary Bodies on Climate Change (SB60) was held in Bonn, , from June 3-13, 2024. These sessions, held twice a year, consist of technical meetings at which government delegates advance the agenda for international climate negotiations. The Bonn session was part of the preparations for the twenty-ninth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November, and was guided by the agreements reached at COP28, held last year in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. AIDA participated in SB60 to bring the voice of Latin America to the negotiations from a human rights and gender perspective. The following are reflections on the four main issues addressed at the meeting: just transition, global ing, the new financing target, and the Loss and Damage Fund.   Work Programme on Just Transition On June 2 and 3, the long-awaited first dialogue took place on the Just Transition Work Programme, which was created at COP27 to address the challenges of the transition to low-carbon economies and societies. The goal is to achieve an equitable and inclusive process that promotes the protection of workers and affected communities. Civil society observer organizations noted that the principles of a just transition require an assessment of the impact of climate action on all human rights - including labor, social, economic and environmental rights - in key areas. To this end, decision-making in the work programme must include social dialogue and multiple levels of consultation with groups and communities. AIDA advocated for the justice dimension to consider the differentiated impacts of the transition in different areas of the planet, particularly in the Global South, where the extraction of transition minerals (lithium, cobalt and copper, among others) threatens fragile ecosystems, species and vulnerable communities. The problems of fossil fuel extraction are being repeated. Safeguards, participatory approaches and international cooperation are therefore relevant. It is also important to economic diversification approaches that protect us from a new dependence on the sale of raw materials and encourage the search for new sources of income.   Follow-up to the Global Stocktake Dialogue The Global Stocktake is a collective assessment mechanism to review global progress on climate mitigation, adaptation and finance every five years. The exercise will allow us to know whether global efforts are sufficient to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the global temperature rise to below 2°C, and hopefully 1.5°C. The results of the stocktaking should have a direct impact on countries' climate commitments contained in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The text of the first stocktaking, adopted in 2023, gave way to the process of updating the NDCs, which countries must submit in 2025 and which must reinforce the historic commitment made at COP28 to phase out fossil fuels, set specific targets to reduce methane emissions, triple renewable energy, and double energy efficiency. The updated NDCs must include clear adaptation measures based on the conservation of biodiversity and key ecosystems such as the Amazon, wetlands and oceans. AIDA will monitor and follow up to ensure that countries in the region make progressive climate commitments that are consistent with what was agreed in the Global Stocktake.   The new collective quantified goal on climate finance In 2009, developed countries agreed to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020 to climate action in developing countries. Then, in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, it was agreed to set a new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG). This target should be adopted in November, during COP29, and the Bonn meeting should pave the way for it. In addition, the new target will be an indicator of developing countries' ability to meet their updated NDCs, as well as a sign of fairness that could strengthen the credibility of the climate negotiation system. However, reaching an agreement has not been easy due to the number of decisions needed to outline the new target in its entirety. The most difficult point to agree on is the amount that developed countries will have to commit to. So far, they have only agreed that it should exceed US$100 billion. The Latin American countries, for their part, have not been able to propose figures based on the needs of the region. The list of countries that will contribute to the target is also still under discussion. According to the developed countries, some countries at an advanced stage of development could begin to contribute. There is also debate over whether the new target should also be used to finance loss and damage compensation, an issue that was not considered when the previous target was discussed and for which there is now a special fund. Another challenge for developing countries is that the financing resulting from the new target should not increase public debt. There are other details that still require agreement. The COP co-chairs must now propose a document that reconciles divergent visions and serves to reach agreement at COP29. Countries can apply the lessons learned from the first target and secure a new target that is more effective in of quantity and implementation. Financing climate action is neither a handout nor a charity, but a duty and responsibility of developed countries. It is also in their interest: the effects of the climate crisis are global. Without a goal, there are no financial flows, and without financing, there is no way to address the crisis.   Launching the loss and damage fund The Loss and Damage Fund was established in 2022 at COP27, and its operationalization was agreed a year later at COP28. While the creation of the fund is welcome, it is only a first step in making it the channel of so desperately needed by countries already suffering the worst impacts of the climate crisis. There are many challenges ahead. The Bonn meeting confirmed that the World Bank will be the interim of the fund for the first four years. For civil society and developing countries in general, loss and damage must be recognized as the third pillar of climate action, alongside mitigation and adaptation. However, some developed countries seem to be suggesting that with the creation of the fund, it would no longer be necessary to include the issue as part of the new collective quantified climate finance goal, which does not make sense. Moreover, the amount that developed countries have pledged to the fund so far is less than 0.2% of what is needed annually. There is still no strategy that proposes how much contributing countries should contribute according to their responsibilities and capacities. The fund must be decentralized and involve civil society, indigenous communities, youth, women and other vulnerable groups from the outset to ensure that the money reaches those who need it. It must also be efficient and sufficient, providing financial and quality assistance as quickly as possible. On the other hand, developing countries, including those in Latin America and the Caribbean, must make efforts to monitor and report losses and damage in their territories, which often poses economic, technical and even methodological challenges that require , training and guidance.   The results of international climate negotiations are slow and the process often frustrating. The attitude of many industrialized countries, which shirk their responsibilities while enjoying development at the expense of the global climate balance, is disappointing. However, in the face of such a scenario, lowering our guard is not an option. The organized civil society working around these negotiations is a cause for hope. It is a demonstration of solidarity and competence that achieves results and does not give up. By being there, representing our region, we are contributing to this movement with the wisdom and strength that comes from the Global South.   *Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney with AIDA y Javier Dávalos is the Director of AIDA's Climate Program.  

Read more
Isla de San Blas, Panamá.
Climate Change, Human Rights

What you need to know about the “loss and damage” of the climate crisis

Recent flooding in the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul has forced more than 500,000 people from their homes, turning them into climate refugees and causing millions of dollars in crop and livestock losses.Meanwhile, in Panama, some 300 coastal families had to leave Cartí Sugdupu, an island threatened by rising sea levels, and be relocated to a government-built settlement off the Caribbean coast.These types of negative impacts of extreme weather events, which occur despite or because of the lack of mitigation and adaptation measures, are technically referred to as "loss and damage" of the climate crisis.Scientific evidence shows that these losses and damages are already occurring, will increase, and are unevenly distributed, with a disproportionate impact on developing countries and vulnerable groups.This issue - key to international climate negotiations - is closely linked to the concept of climate justice, as it raises the question of who should pay for the losses and damages in the poorest countries, which bear little historical responsibility for the climate emergency.In this text, we address the basic aspects of this issue, which is becoming increasingly relevant and requires urgent action. What counts as loss and damage?Let's start by breaking down the term a little further:"Loss" refers to what is permanently lost due to the climate crisis, such as human and other species’ lives, territories, water sources, ecosystems, livelihoods, cultural heritage, and languages."Damage" refers to what has been affected by the climate crisis but can be restored or rebuilt, such as impacts on physical and mental health, soils, roads, schools, homes, health centers, and businesses. Loss and damage are usually divided into two categories, which may overlap:Economic. Loss and damage can be assigned a monetary value: destruction of assets such as houses or cars, loss of livelihoods such as crops or livestock, reduced productivity due to lost working hours, damage to basic infrastructure or disruption of supply chains. This can occur at the international, national or local level.Non-economic. Loss and damage that is difficult to measure in monetary . They include loss of human life, damage to health, the trauma of forced displacement, and impacts on culture, language, heritage, identity, etc. This category also includes the loss or reduction of biodiversity, the extinction of species, and the disruption or loss of ecosystem services, such as the production of oxygen by a forest. In international climate negotiations, however, the term takes on a different meaning. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change refers to efforts to "avert, minimize and address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, especially in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change."The "avoid" and "minimize" generally refer to mitigation and adaptation, respectively, while the word "address" refers to actions to deal with the impacts of the climate crisis that could not be avoided. How much money is needed to address loss and damage?Discussions on loss and damage, which address issues such as liability and compensation, have been contentious in international negotiations. Developed countries – historically responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that have warmed the planet – have resisted possible agreements that would hold them able and make them pay for the loss and damage their emissions have caused and continue to cause.How big is the bill?According to a report published by the Loss and Damage Collaboration, 55 of the most climate-vulnerable economies will suffer losses of more than $500 billion between 2000 and 2020, and this could increase by a similar amount in the following decade. Other estimates put the annual cost of loss and damage at $400 billion by 2030.In Latin America, according to a 2019 study, losses and damages due to the climate crisis are expected to reach $462 billion by 2050 and could rise to $891 billion by 2070. What is being done to address loss and damage?Although the issue of loss and damage has emerged in international climate negotiations for more than three decades, it only gained momentum in 2013. That year, at the 19th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP19), countries established the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage with a mandate to share knowledge, strengthen dialogue among stakeholders, and mobilize expertise to strengthen action and on the issue.In 2015, developing countries successfully lobbied for the inclusion of an article on loss and damage in the Paris Agreement (a legally binding international treaty in force since 2016), but the issue of finance was left out.This brings us to the next milestone, which occurred at COP27 in Egypt in 2022, when it was agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund to provide financial to developing countries.A year later, at COP28 in Dubai, the launch of the fund was agreed, including the rules of operation and other key aspects, like an invitation to the World Bank to act as interim manager for the first four years.In June 2024, during the Bonn negotiations, the World Bank accepted the invitation to manage the fund, and discussions began to make it operational.Civil society is calling for loss and damage to be recognized as the third pillar of climate action (alongside mitigation and adaptation), but developed countries are resisting, suggesting that the creation of the fund would be sufficient and even suggesting that loss and damage should not be part of the new global finance goal.While welcome, the existence of the fund is only the first step in making it what is so desperately needed by countries suffering the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Challenges include:Financing. Developed countries have so far pledged US$700 million, less than 0.2% of what is needed ($400 billion).Governance. Among other things, the World Bank must ensure the independence and integrity of the fund's Board and Secretariat, that all countries party to the Paris Agreement have direct access to resources (even if they are not of the Bank), and that resources are delivered in a sufficient and efficient manner.Participation. The Fund requires a decentralized structure and the participation of civil society, indigenous communities, youth, women and other vulnerable groups from the outset to ensure that the money reaches those who need it.Access. The fund should provide direct access to funding, not only to national authorities, but also to civil society organizations and affected communities.Inventories. Developing countries need to monitor and report losses and damage on their territory, which requires economic and technical resources. Sources- United Nations Environment Programme, "About Loss and damage".- Preety Bhandari, Nate Warszawski, Deirdre Cogan y Rhys Gerholdt, "What Is 'Loss and Damage' from Climate Change? 8 Key Questions, Answered", World Resources Institute.- United Nations, "Loss and Damage: A Moral Imperative to Act".- The Loss & Damage Collaboration, "WHAT IS LOSS AND DAMAGE?".- The London School of Economics and Political Science, "What is climate change ‘Loss and Damage’?".- Navin Singh Khadka, "COP27: what does the concept of 'loss and damage' mean for extreme weather pitting rich and poor countries against each other," BBC Mundo.- Alejandra Cuéllar, "COP27: What are losses and damages, and what do they mean for Latin America?", Climate Tracker.- Adriana Abramovits, “The Loss and Damage Fund, why is it not what civil society expected?”, Dejusticia. 

Read more
Vista áerea de un barco contenedor.
Climate Change, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Maritime shipping: what’s being done to reduce emissions?

Maritime transport is the activity of moving goods from one destination to another by sea. It is fundamental to trade and s for 80% of global shipping.However, it is also a major source of pollution, particularly greenhouse gases that warm the planet and other pollutants that harm human health.The sector therefore needs to decarbonize its activities by reducing its emissions, both in transport and in the loading and unloading of goods at ports around the world. How many emissions does international shipping produce?Every year, 10 billion tons of cargo are transported by sea, ing for 2.9% of global greenhouse gas emissions - including carbon dioxide (CO₂) - a percentage close to that of Japan. This is because ships use enormous amounts of oil to move, emitting nearly 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases.The above figures do not include emissions generated at cargo ports, which are not automated and use fossil fuels. The main energy source for ships moving goods around the world is heavy fuel oil, a highly polluting fossil fuel that produces CO₂ emissions that accelerate global warming.In 2023, greenhouse gas emissions from shipping will be 20% higher than they were 10 years ago, according to the United Nations. And projections published by the European Environment Agency indicate that they could reach 17% of global emissions by 2050 if no action is taken to decarbonize the sector.The warming and subsequent melting of the Arctic - the geographic region around the North Pole - is evidence of the impact of shipping emissions on the global climate:According to the Clean Arctic Alliance, the Arctic —one of the world's most important climate regulators— is warming up to four times faster than the rest of the planet.Much of this is due to emissions of black carbon, or soot, from shipping, which is the residue left after heavy fuel is burned on ships.Black carbon is emitted in both gaseous and solid forms. As a gas, it contributes to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere; as a solid particle, it accelerates the melting of snow and ice. How do ship emissions affect human health?International shipping generates pollutants such as black carbon and particulate matter that affect human health.According to the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, which reviewed 32 studies on shipping emissions, the industry could be responsible for an estimated 265,000 premature deaths worldwide in 2020. This means that 0.5% of global mortality would be associated with its emissions.Although air pollution from shipping is a global problem, it disproportionately affects coastal populations, especially those living near ports and other industrial facilities.   Who is responsible for preventing emissions from shipping?The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for setting standards for safe, efficient, and environmentally sound shipping.  In 2023, the 175 countries that make up the IMO agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry by 20-30% (compared to 2008) by 2030 and by at least 70% by 2040. The pact is complemented by a target to achieve a zero emissions balance (so that gases released into the atmosphere are neutralized or offset by sinks) by "around 2050."Within this framework, meetings at the IMO in the coming months and until April 2025 will focus on achieving the decarbonization of shipping through a just energy transition.During this period, a range of technical and economic measures will be analyzed and discussed to achieve the objectives of the Ship Emissions Reduction Strategy.The main challenges of these efforts include:Meeting market demand for zero emission fuels in the volume required to power the entire global marine fleet.Bridging the cost gap between fossil fuels and low-emission fuels.Enabling ships to adapt their technology for a rapid transition to cleaner fuels. The process of decarbonizing maritime transport will require the combined efforts of various actors: States, companies, NGOs, and international governance organizations.It is a complex process that involves the entire global shipping chain. For the decarbonization of the sector to be equitable, it is necessary to take into shared responsibilities as well as the different needs and capacities of countries in the face of the costs of phasing out fossil fuels in maritime transport.It must also consider the impact that global warming is already having on economically and climatically vulnerable countries, such as islands, least developed and developing countries.Sources- International Maritime Organization, "Introduction to the IMO".- Natalie Mueller, "Maritime transport: the forgotten pollution", Barcelona Institute for Global Health.- Michelle Carrere, "Agreements to reduce shipping emissions considered ‘weak’ by environmental organizations", Mongabay.-Paula Mateu, "Maritime transport will reduce emissions by 30% in 2030 but NGOs see it as insufficient", La Vanguardia. 

Read more
Volcán Maderas, Nicaragua
Climate Change, Human Rights

Leading participatory monitoring processes for Green Climate Fund financed projects

The Green Climate Fund (GCF), a multilateral climate fund under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), allocates funding for projects and programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resilience to climate change impacts in developing countries. To date, the GCF board has approved 243 projects worldwide, committing 13.5 billion USD in total. Notably, approximately 26% of these projects and programs target Latin America.This financial mechanism has become a lynchpin of the climate finance architecture, challenging conventional approaches to international projects. It is governed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries (UNFCCC designations); robust environmental and social policies rooted in human rights; an indigenous people’s policy, backed by an advisory group that interfaces with the Secretariat and the Board; a stated preference for maximal information disclosure; a seat for active observers representing civil society organizations; strong ties to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement; and an explicit mandate to include a gender perspective. In fact, all approved projects and programs are required to integrate a Gender Action Plan (GAP). In addition, the GCF is mandated by its own policies to facilitate stakeholder participation mechanisms. These mechanisms encom representation from diverse sectors, including the private sector, civil society organizations, vulnerable groups, women, and indigenous peoples.Though implementation of these safeguards and progressive policies is far from perfect, their existence lays the groundwork for stronger future implementation. Civil society, including feminist movements and organizations, engage with the GCF as a climate finance mechanism that should continue to be strengthened. The explicit analysis and commitment mandated for each project regarding social and gender considerations not only facilitate engagement but also uphold ability.In late 2022, partner organizations of the Global Alliance for Green and Gender Action (GAGGA), including the International Analog Forestry Network (IAFN), Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, AIDA), Fondo Centroamericano de Mujeres (Central American Women’s Fund, FCAM), Fondo Tierra Viva (Tierra Viva Fund) and Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), collectively launched a pilot initiative. The project aimed to facilitate participatory monitoring of the implementation of the project FP089 Upscaling climate resilience measures in the dry corridor agroecosystems of El Salvador (RECLIMA). 3 RECLIMA was approved by the Board of Directors of the GCF during its 21st meeting (B.21) in 2018. For the fieldwork, an alliance was formed with Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña (Salvadorean Ecological Unit, UNES), a local ecofeminist NGO advocating for environmental and gender justice in El Salvador.The main objective of this project was to pioneer a participatory monitoring process for a GCF-funded project, with specific emphasis on gender equality. Each participating organization approached this collaborative initiative with genuine curiosity, eager to explore its feasibility and potential impact. There was also a collective commitment to openly share information about the process, results, challenges, and lessons learned. This report aims to summarize the outcomes of this exercise, providing an overview of the RECLIMA project and highlighting the importance of gender equality and participatory monitoring within climate projects; as well as sharing primary findings and key recommendations, tailored to GCF Accredited and Executing Entities.   Read and the report 

Read more
Casas de madera a orillas del río Dulce en Guatemala
Climate Change, Human Rights

How the Inter-American Court can help protect human rights in the face of the climate emergency

The climate crisis has been identified as the most urgent problem facing humanity and the greatest threat to human rights. In this context, what obligations do States have to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from its effects? The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights provide a powerful answer to this question, since their purpose is to specify the content and scope of the obligations to protect human rights that the States of the Americas have under their domestic laws and the treaties or conventions they have signed. The international court is currently in the process of issuing an advisory opinion to clarify these obligations, specifically regarding the climate crisis. The interpretations provided by the Court in this case will strengthen the arguments of organizations, communities, and other actors who decide to initiate climate litigation before national or international tribunals. It’s important, then, to understand what these advisory opinions are, why they are important, and how they relate to climate litigation; as well as this opinion’s potential for moving the region toward climate justice.   What are the Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights? The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court are pronouncements issued by this international court—at the request of both the of the Organization of American States (OAS) and of some of its d organizations—in order to interpret international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights, to clarify their scope, to determine the specific obligations they impose, and to develop the guarantees they provide to the inhabitants of the continent. They are important because they consolidate the correct understanding of human rights and thus guide States on how to guarantee and apply them within their territory or jurisdiction. A clear example is Advisory Opinion 23 of 2017, in which the Court set a historic precedent by recognizing the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence and for the first time pronouncing on the content of this right. These declarations contribute to a better understanding of the obligations, authorizations and prohibitions deriving from each of the rights recognized in the international treaties signed by the countries of the continent. They therefore constitute a relevant element in determining the responsibility of a State for possible human rights violations resulting from its actions or omissions.   What is the process by which advisory opinions are issued? Any member of the OAS or any of its member institutions may request an advisory opinion to ask the Inter-American Court how to interpret its provisions or those of "other treaties for the protection of human rights" in the hemisphere. The questions must be specific and justified. Once the consultation is received, the Court informs all member states and the organs of the Inter-American Human Rights System so that they may submit their written comments. At the same time, a period of time shall be opened for any interested person or entity to submit to the Court its considerations on the issues raised and how they should be resolved. The Court will then, if it deems it necessary, convene oral hearings to hear the States and other actors involved in the process. It may also ask questions and seek clarification on the written submissions it has received. The Court will then deliberate the matter in closed session and adopt the relevant decision, which will be communicated by its secretariat to all parties to the proceedings.   How do advisory opinions contribute to climate litigation? Climate litigation has emerged as an important and increasingly popular tool in the fight against the climate crisis. It is essentially strategic litigation that seeks broad societal change through judicial decisions that hold governments, corporations, and stakeholders able for the causes and impacts of the climate crisis. Advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court can help achieve these judgments by providing authoritative interpretations of human rights treaties adopted by states in the region. They serve as a legal benchmark for judging the actions or inactions of state entities and private actors under their control that have exacerbated or threaten to exacerbate the climate crisis. Treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights establish guarantees for life with dignity, personal integrity and health, which can be invoked before courts as a basis for the obligations of States to adopt actions to adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis. Thus, the advisory opinions offer solid arguments to demand compliance with such actions as a way to protect human rights.   Opportunities of the ongoing advisory opinion for climate justice In January 2023, Colombia and Chile requested an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court to clarify the scope of States' human rights obligations in the context of the climate emergency. Both States stated that their populations and others in the continent are suffering the consequences of the global crisis, particularly due to droughts, floods, and fires, among others. Therefore, they consider it necessary for the Court to determine the appropriate way to interpret the American Convention and the rights recognized therein "in what is relevant to address the situations generated by the climate emergency, its causes and consequences." This will be the first time that the international court will rule on the mandates, prohibitions, and authorizations to be derived from human rights in the specific context of the negative impacts of the climate emergency on individuals and communities in the continent. Once issued, this advisory opinion will clarify the legal obligations of Latin American states to address the climate crisis as a human rights issue. The Court's opinion could compel governments to recognize their competence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation measures, and establish mechanisms to address loss and damage. Given this unique opportunity, AIDA is participating in the public consultation convened by the Court before it issues its Opinion. We have submitted a legal brief with arguments demonstrating the existence of an autonomous human right to a "stable and safe climate" as part of the universal right to a healthy environment, and the consequent obligations of states to prevent and avoid the harmful effects of the climate emergency on their inhabitants. In addition, we are ing diverse communities in the region to bring their voices to the process and be heard by the Court by submitting other legal briefs that highlight the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on indigenous peoples, women, children, populations with diverse gender orientations and identities, and fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. We are also ing the participation of community representatives in the hearings of the case, which the Court has scheduled for April and May in Barbados and Brazil, respectively. The climate justice movement in Latin America and around the world is growing stronger and more effective, fueled by successful climate litigation and important precedents such as the advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  

Read more
Río San Juan, Nicaragua
Climate Change, Human Rights

Communities in Nicaragua win Green Climate Fund withdrawal from project that violated their rights

In an unprecedented decision resolving a complaint filed in 2021, the Green Climate Fund terminated a forestry project because the developers failed to comply with the Fund's policies and procedures on socio-environmental safeguards. This non-compliance violated the human rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities. The Green Climate Fund, the world's leading multilateral climate finance institution, decided to terminate funding for a forest conservation project in Nicaragua because the developers failed to comply with the institution's policies and procedures on socio-environmental safeguards. The non-compliance violated the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities, as the project threatened to exacerbate the situation of violence from which they were already suffering. The Fund had not made any disbursements for the project and project implementation had not yet begun.The decision, the first of its kind in the Fund's history, is in response to a complaint filed in June 2021 by representatives of the affected communities, with the of local and international organizations, with the Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism. The Independent Redress Mechanism hears complaints from people who are or may be affected by projects or programs financed by the Fund."This decision is a recognition of the tireless efforts of the communities behind the case, who were able to demonstrate the difficult situation they face, as well as a reminder of the importance of involving local communities in all stages of a project, from its conception," said Florencia Ortúzar, Senior Attorney at AIDA, one of the organizations that accompanied and provided legal to the complaint process.In the complaint, the communities argued that implementing the project— called Bio-CLIMA: Integrated Climate Action to Reduce Deforestation and Strengthen Resilience in the BOSAWAS and Río San Juan Biospheres— would have serious impacts because:There was no adequate disclosure of information, no indigenous consultation, and no free, prior, and informed consent.The project would cause environmental degradation and increase violence against indigenous communities due to land colonization.The conditions imposed by the Fund's Board of Directors for project approval (including independent monitoring of project implementation and ensuring the legitimate participation of indigenous peoples) were not met.There was a lack of confidence in the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the entity accredited to channel the funds, as to its compliance with the Fund's policies.There was a lack of confidence in the ability of the Government of Nicaragua, as the implementing agency, to fulfill its obligations in the execution of the project. The goal of the project, for which the Fund committed $64 million USD in 2020, was to restore degraded forest landscapes in Nicaragua's most biodiverse region (home to 80 percent of the country's forests and most of its indigenous peoples) and to channel investments toward sustainable land and forest management.However, the project was designed without adequate consultation, with a complete lack of transparency on the part of the sponsoring bank and ignoring the difficult context of violence and lack of human rights protection still suffered by indigenous communities in Nicaragua, particularly in the project area.In recent decades, the harsh local situation has only worsened because of organized crime, drug trafficking, the expansion of agriculture and cattle ranching, and the promotion of extractivist policies, as well as the lack of state protection.The investigation launched by the Independent Reparations Mechanism, which included field work and face-to-face and virtual interviews with all stakeholders, confirmed some of the allegations made in the complaint, including the lack of adequate consultation processes and the lack of free, prior, and informed consent of the affected communities. This is stated in the investigation’s final report.In July 2023, the Fund's Board of Directors, which was called upon to decide on the future of the project based on the Investigation Report, delegated the task to the Fund's Secretariat. As a result, neither the IRM nor the claimants had any further say in the matter.Finally, on March 7 of this year, the Secretariat announced its decision: to terminate the project's financing agreement, acknowledging that the developers had failed to comply with the Fund's policies, as alleged by the communities in the complaint."The decision is a valuable lesson for the Green Climate Fund, whose policies and safeguards exist to prevent these unfortunate situations and must be applied rigorously and consistently from the conception of projects seeking funding," said Ortúzar. Press Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +52 5570522107 

Read more
Lagunas de Siecha, Parque Nacional Natural Chingaza, Colombia.
Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

Forest fires: How can we help prevent them?

The recent huge fire in the Valparaíso region of Chile has been described as the country's biggest disaster since the 2010 earthquake. But this year, as in previous years, forest fires and their deadly consequences are not an isolated phenomenon in Latin America. In Colombia, the fires forced the government to declare a national disaster and prompted civil society to call for comprehensive protection of Colombia's forests and páramos. Fire also reached part of Argentina's Patagonia region. Ninety percent of forest fires are caused by humans, particularly through activities such as logging and slash-and-burn agriculture. The climate crisis is contributing to their greater intensity and frequency, increasing the risks to forests, species and communities. In addition, wildfires affect air quality and thus human health If this situation is the result of our actions, it is also in our hands to prevent it. What can we do to prevent fires? Here are some actions that different actors in society can take to contribute to this important task.   What can governments do? Design and implement laws to ensure forest security and ensure compliance with existing laws. Develop education campaigns to raise public awareness of the importance of forests and how to care for them. Strengthen fire prevention and suppression infrastructure, including spray planes, containment barriers, and technology to constantly monitor the health of forests.   What can businesses do? Reduce emissions of gases that heat the atmosphere and increase the risk of wildfires by switching to cleaner energy sources. If flammable waste is generated, implement policies to dispose of it responsibly. Train their work teams to respond to these types of disasters. Promote best practices that help protect the environment.   What can citizens do? Organize garbage collection groups and avoid making campfires and/or practicing livestock and agricultural activities in the forest. Obtain and disseminate quality information about the importance of these ecosystems for life on the planet. Follow safety instructions, such as wearing masks and/or evacuating smoke-contaminated areas. Be vigilant and make sure we know how to report fires and what action plans are in place to protect our nearby forests.   It is essential that governments, businesses and citizens work as a team to protect forests and promote a culture that cares for the environment and all life.  

Read more
Montones de sal en el salar de Uyuni, Bolivia
Indigenous Rights, Mining, Freshwater Sources

Lithium unveiled: Origins, extraction and environmental implications

One of the paradoxes of the energy transition is that it replaces the use of fossil fuels with mineral resources whose extraction and refining can have negative impacts on ecosystems, species and communities. This is happening with lithium, a mineral that has traditionally been used in glass and ceramics to provide greater adhesion and hardness, but is now being used primarily to make the batteries required by technologies that eliminate or reduce the use of fossil fuels. This has led to an increase in its demand. The serious social and environmental impacts of its extraction have been hidden or minimized.   What makes lithium special? Lithium is a mineral in high demand due to its unique properties: It is the lightest metal with the highest electrochemical potential. It has a high energy storage capacity. It is malleable, so it can be adapted to different sizes, shapes and designs.   These qualities make it a key material in the manufacture of batteries for cell phones, computers and, most importantly, electric vehicles. Lithium is considered key to the energy transition because it can be used to store non-conventional renewable energy, such as wind and photovoltaic power.   Where it is: The so-called "lithium triangle"? The primary sources of lithium are salt flats, which are wetlands covered with a saline crust that contain brines, bodies of water in which many salts and elements, including lithium, are dissolved. Salt flats are attractive to the mining industry because of the relative technical ease of exploitation, low operating costs and low energy requirements to extract lithium from them compared to other sources. Worldwide, the salt flats of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile for 54 percent of lithium resources (potentially mineable material). In addition, Argentina and Chile hold 46 percent of the world's lithium reserves (the portion of known resources with a high level of confidence and proven economic viability). The mining industry has dubbed the region where the mineral is concentrated the "Lithium Triangle" - because that is all they see there - which includes northeastern Argentina, northern Chile and southern Bolivia. But there is much more than lithium in this region. There are also communities, ecosystems and species that depend on these salt flats. The region's inhabitants are engaged in small-scale ranching and subsistence agriculture, activities that require water, an already scarce resource in these latitudes.   How is lithium mined from the salt flats? The procedure is as follows: The salt flat is drilled. The brine is poured into large pools or basins. Wait for the water to evaporate so that the lithium concentration increases. When the concentration is sufficient, the brine is sent to an industrial plant. The brine is chemically treated to produce lithium carbonate, which is marketed for battery production.   Lithium extraction, especially by this method, involves huge consumption and loss of water because: Water is lost in pumping brine. Evaporation in ponds requires two million liters of water for every ton of lithium produced. Water is also needed in the final processes to obtain lithium carbonate and separate it from the rest of the compound.   Lithium mining is threatening South America's salt flats, which are Andean wetlands, affecting local water availability and threatening the survival of communities and species living around these fragile ecosystems. The energy transition is urgent, but it must be equitable and not at the expense of other natural resource extraction that endangers people and the environment. sources -Maritza Tapia, “Claves del litio: el metal más liviano y con mayor potencial electroquímico”, Universidad de Chile. -Heinrich Böll Stiftung Colombia, “Litio: los costos sociales y ambientales de la transición energética global”. -Florencia Ballarino, “¿Qué es el litio, para qué sirve y de dónde se extrae en la Argentina?”, Chequeado. -Wetlands International, “El impacto de la minería de litio en los Humedales Altoandinos”. -Rodolfo Chisleanchi, “‘Triángulo de litio’: la amenaza a los salares de Bolivia, Chile y Argentina”, Mongabay Latam. -U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2023, “Lithium”.  

Read more
Plenaria de cierre de la la vigésimo octava Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (COP28) en Dubai.
Climate Change, Human Rights

After COP28 in Dubai: The complex road to Baku and Belém

By Javier Dávalos, Claudia Velarde and Marcella Ribeiro*   The twenty-eighth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, was the largest ever in of the number of participants. The representatives of the States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement held intense discussions under the scrutiny of stakeholders from various sectors. The final results lack the clarity and ambition needed to define the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). However, the fact that for the first time in almost 30 years all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) were mentioned in the main decision of the meeting represents a before and after in climate negotiations. This fact also marks the way towards the next conferences: COP29 in Baku (Azerbaijan) and COP30 in Belém do Pará (Brazil). Below we take stock of COP28 and analyze its implications for the future of climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean.   Progress at COP28 For the first time, the outcome document mentioned the need for a transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade.  The text of the global stocktake of the state of implementation of the Paris Agreement also clearly stated the goals of tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency. The Glasgow target for reducing methane emissions by 2030 was affirmed, as was the exit from inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Key elements of the work program on just transition pathways were defined, including its scope, objectives, results and institutional arrangements.     What was missing at COP28 With regard to the energy transition, there was a need for greater determination to close the door on false climate solutions. On the one hand, there was a call to accelerate nuclear energy and abatement and elimination technologies (carbon capture, utilization and storage) and, on the other, it was noted that "transition fuels" could facilitate this process while ensuring energy security, implicitly giving a free to fossil gas. In of adaptation, no real progress was made towards a framework for climate action based on the protection of the ocean, wetlands and forests. Nor was there reinforcement of operational synergies between the key policy processes governing terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems worldwide. While the first step was taken to operationalize the Loss and Damage Fund, the decision did not include a reference to human rights in its objectives and mission. In addition, it limited the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities on the Board of the Fund under the category of invited observers. It also failed to mention the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, meaning that the fund would be financed solely by grants. In addition, the World Bank was designated as the fund's , putting at risk that the communities most affected by the impacts of the climate crisis would have access to resources in an agile, direct and debt-free manner. Regarding the just transition, it was not recognized that the energy transition puts different pressures on the territories where raw materials or critical minerals such as lithium, copper and cobalt are obtained. This affects Latin America in particular. As a result, developed and developing nations disagreed on whether to keep the transition at the national or international level. And so the transition was not considered an integral and plural transformation process that implies creating socio-political conditions to restructure the organization, ownership and distribution of the current production and consumption systems for the enjoyment of the right to energy. The countries failed to reach an agreement on the substantive elements of the new quantified financing target. Progress was limited to definitions of the process and procedures for defining it. In 2024, there will be at least three technical dialogues to discuss the elements of the target such as amounts, timelines, financing targets by area, and how progress will be measured.   What's next: Heading towards COP29 and COP30 The next climate conferences will have to navigate complex contexts, marked by the long-standing crisis of multilateralism, the unfair distribution of burdens for the energy transition—particularly in of the exploitation of critical minerals—,and the growing co-optation of negotiations by the corporate interests of fossil-related companies.  In this context, the performance of Latin American countries at COP28 is an indication of how their positions for COP29 and COP30 will be constructed: Brazil sought to position itself as a "climate champion" but could not hide its strong fossil fuel extraction agenda. As host of the COP30, Brazil tried and failed to explain away hip in the expanded Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+) without success. Then, days after COP28, it tendered 613 oil blocks in the Amazon with a view to becoming the world's fourth largest oil producer by 2030. Despite this, Brazil created a new work program on the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will take as a banner to COP30, together with the protection of nature and the fight against deforestation. Colombia, for its part, was the most vocal leader on the urgent need for transition, announcing its accession to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and maintaining clear interventions on the exit from fossil fuels in its s and public interventions, which positions it as a regional leader for the conferences.  Ecuador missed the opportunity to obtain funding and from the international community to implement the Ecuadorian people's decision to close the ITT oil field in Yasuni Park. This omission could be remedied at COP29 because, beyond the delicate internal context, the South American country has just under a year to comply with the legal obligation to implement this decision and the international community can and should the decision to close the ITT oil field in Yasuní Park. In another area, and within the process of the Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency, AIDA, together with other organizations, requested that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights refer to the decision adopted at COP28 regarding the Loss and Damage Fund, as it does not comply with or satisfy the obligations of States under international human rights law. It is expected that the Court will recognize the right to climate reparations and clarify that the establishment, implementation and operation of this fund does not exclude the possibility of making claims for reparations for losses and damages, nor does it block other judicial or istrative processes, measures or mechanisms for access to justice and comprehensive reparations for people affected by climate impacts.   *Javier Dávalos is coordinator of AIDA's Climate Program, Claudia Velarde is co-coordinator of the Ecosystems Program, and Marcella Ribeiro is a senior attorney with the Human Rights and Environment Program.  

Read more