Climate Change

Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Climate Change

Reflections for a Bolivia free of fracking

Text written as part of the series #TRANSFORMAR LA CRISIS, Tomo II. Crisis Ecológica, extractivismo y poblaciones vulnerables by the foundation Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in Bolivia, to be published soon.   It all began with a study, published in 2011 by the U.S. Energy Information istration, reporting the existence of large quantities of unconventional hydrocarbons in Bolivia.  The study created considerable expectations in the Andean Nation. Given the gradual depletion of conventional oil and gas deposits, fracking has since become a latent threat. Fracking is a risky, costly and highly polluting technique. As a region, Latin America is home to roughly seven thousand fracking wells. The technique’s advance—as well as related public policies, regulations and social opposition—has commonalities across the region, including its affects on protected areas and on urban, rural and indigenous populations. So far, Bolivia remains free from fracking. But without an intentional political decision to avoid it, and without a population better informed about its effects, fracking could soon become a reality here as well. The risks of fracking in Bolivia The implementation of fracking is a latent threat in Bolivia because of the nation’s significant dependence on fossil fuels. In 2013, the state-owned company YPFB signed a cooperative agreement with YPF Argentina to study the potential of unconventional hydrocarbons. It also asked the operating companies to extract samples from the Los Monos geological formation in the Chaco region. That same year, YPFB Chaco (a subsidiary of YPFB), with the of Halliburton, carried out a "mini-fracture" in the Ingre X-2 well, part of the Tupambi formation, in Chuquisaca. This operation would have allowed for the discovery of tight sand oil. Based on this discovery, YPFB Chaco had proposed to perform a complete fracture of the reservoir in 2014. It is unknown if this occurred because, in the years following, YPFB stopped generating public information on the project. In 2018, Canadian company CanCambria Energy Corp. signed a study agreement with YPFB, the prelude to an exploration/exploitation contract, to determine the unconventional gas potential at Miraflores, also in Chuquisaca. CanCambria's preliminary data points to the possible existence of a mega-field in the area, whose potential gas resources would be comparable to those of Argentina’s Vaca Muerta. The Canadian firm has prepared a proposal to extract gas by drilling 800 wells over 202 square kilometers in the Miraflores area, in the municipality of Macharetí. Miraflores is located in the Heroes del Chaco Municipal Protected Area and is part of the Yrenda Toba Tarijeño Aquifer System, which Bolivia shares with Paraguay and Argentina. The people living in Macharetí, including Guaraní indigenous communities, were shocked to receive news of the project. The alarm raised by the possibility of fracking in this territory led those who live there to learn about the consequences of the technique, particularly in relation to the use and contamination of immense quantities of water. As a direct result, Macharetí included in its autonomous statute the prohibition of fracking in its territory, intensifying the controversy over the technique’s development in the area. Between extreme energy and an energy transition In the face of this controversy over fracking, two paths lay before us: on the first, is the deepening of the extractivist model and the generation of highly polluting energy, with serious and irreversible negative impacts on Mother Earth and local populations; on the second, is a just and democratic energy transition, which implies the decommodification of energy, a change in the energy matrix, and a shift in the development paradigm. Bolivia, and Latin America as a region, need to profoundly transform the way energy is produced; the new system should be formed with a long-term vision and based on the respect for human rights and the protection of nature. The development of fracking, far from initiating any transition, goes against this trend because it continues to promote a polluting, risky and costly energy system. It is based on dependence on non-renewable energy sources with negative impacts on the territories, inequity and lack of citizen participation in the construction of energy policies. Instead, Bolivia must bet on a socially just, economically viable and ecologically sustainable energy transition. "Bolivia should not move towards the implementation of fracking in its territory because it represents one of the greatest risks to its ecosystems, resources and populations," says Jorge Campanini, researcher at the Center for Documentation and Information Bolivia (CEDIB). "It is urgent to generate solid policies that declare a moratorium or indefinite ban on this technique throughout the country". The experience of Latin American countries that have bet on fracking clearly demonstrates the economic, environmental and social impacts of this technique. In this context, many organizations, communities and peoples have organized to confront the threat. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic forces us to reflect on the future of fossil fuels, and the need for a just energy transition. Instead of considering fracking as an easy way to create jobs in difficult times, we must confront the health, economic and climate crises together. It’s time to think of resilient recovery, and thus an energy system that is not based on fracking. One idea usually associated with transition is the change of the energy matrix, yet, while necessary, the rapid and effective de-fossilization of that matrix is not enough. The energy transition must be comprehensive and incorporate environmental, economic and social dimensions so that it is also just and democratic. That’s why it’s so important that governments address the issue with a systemic approach.  

Read more
Climate Change, Capacity Building, Mining

Webinar "A Material Transition: Mining and the Renewable Energy Transition"

Presenting A Material Transition, a report from War on Want investigating the impacts of an increased demand for the minerals required to move away from fossil fuels, and what can be done to address global supply chains and reduce unsustainable demand. istsAndy Whitmore: Researcher specialising in extractive industries and indigenous peoples rights. Co-chair, trustee and founding member of London Mining Network.Sebastian Ordóñez Muñoz: Colombian migrant based in the UK. Senior Programme Officer for Latin America, War on Want.: Andrés Ángel, Scientific Advisor, AIDA. Recording Presentations1. Introductory presentation: 2. Presentation of Andy Whitmore: Reference materialA Material Transition: Exploring supply and demand solutions for renewable energy mineralsImpactos a perpetuidad. El legado de la minería

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

Session 2 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

Gender, indigenous peoples and REDD+ within the GCF Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources. GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF. In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and ists. istsLiane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: Main takeaways from B.29.Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development (WEDO): Gender at the GCF.Helen Magata, Tebtebba: Indigenous Peoples at the GCF.Souparna Lahiri, Global Forest Coalition: REDD + at the GCF.: Salina Sanou, PACJA.  Recording Presentations1. Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: 2. Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development (WEDO):Presentación en francés 3. Helen Magata, Tebtebba: 

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

People v. Shell: A step towards climate justice

On May 26, the District Court in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a landmark climate ruling. It ordered Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell—one of the world's leading fossil fuel producers and suppliers—to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels. The decision came in response to a 2019 lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth, along with six other organizations and more than 17 thousand Dutch citizens. Although Shell publicly committed in 2020 to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the Dutch court found that this pledge was not enough. According to the verdict, the multinational is responsible for not only its own CO2 emissions, but also those of its suppliers and customers, which together threaten the fragile planetary balance and the realization of human rights. The ruling determines, for the first time, that a company and its subsidiaries must align their policies with global CO2 emission reduction targets. It bases this obligation on the emission reduction targets of the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015. Thus, those who litigated against Shell fulfilled their main objective, which was not to obtain financial compensation for damages caused, but to force the oil company to reduce its emissions in compliance with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, and to continue efforts to reach 1.5°C. The Shell group has been aware for nearly 60 years of the risks of climate change, as demonstrated by a documentary they themselves produced in the 1990s. However, the multinational responsible for nine times more emissions than the whole of the Netherlands has never stopped investing in fossil fuels, intentionally favoring its economic interests at the expense of the environment, the climate and people. Check here the recording of the conversation we had with Niels Hazekamp, Senior Policy Adviserat Both Ends, one of the organizations that sued Shell, where explains the details of the litigation.   A worldwide precedent The ruling is a major step forward in the use of judicial systems as tools to advance climate justice, and it demonstrates that society, as a whole, is more determined than ever to stop the negative impacts that powerful multinationals have on the environment, the climate and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. Despite being litigated on European soil, the case represents a significant step towards global climate justice, offering an interesting opportunity for replication in Latin America and the world. The case not only opened the discussion on corporate climate responsibility, but was also a pioneer in incorporating the use of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The use of these instruments, which regulate multinational companies by requiring them to respect human rights, demonstrates their potential for global climate justice. The language of the verdict is based primarily on respect for human rights, thus opening the possibility of applying the same reasoning against other polluting companies, in accordance with the obligations set out in the above-mentioned instruments. More about the People v. Shell ruling Under the ruling, Shell must reduce Type 1 net emissions—those generated by its activities and those of its subsidiaries—and make a significant effort to reduce Type 2 and 3 net emissions—those generated by s of the oil and gas produced by the multinational. To for the net reduction of its emissions, the oil company cannot resort to any of the carbon capture or offsetting tools established under the Paris Agreement, which consist of capturing CO2 emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants and heavy industry, for deep subway storage or reuse. It is worth noting that, although there is no certainty about the exact nature of the climate impacts caused by Shell, the judges highlighted the universally recognized risks to communities and ecosystems related to industrial pollution, and the company's financial priorities, to their ruling. Primary doubts and concerns The primary doubts regarding this ruling have to do with its implementation. Although the court established that Shell may not use offsetting or absorption systems for its emissions, it does not oblige it to end the exploration, extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the ruling does not allow for the identification of exactly what kind of effort could be considered significant for the reduction of emissions by the oil company's customers. Nor is there clarity regarding the responsibility of the Shell group for the sale of its refineries to other public companies in the Global South, which would allow the multinational to comply in part with emissions reductions, while the refineries continue to operate in some of the most vulnerable places on the planet. In addition to the use of the Paris Agreement, which assisted the judges in ruling in favor of the climate in this case, the litigation opened the door to the use of existing soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, or others that are expected to be legally binding to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Likewise, considering the difficulty and possible manipulation in counting emissions, new avenues are opening up to establish specific obligations on polluting actors. As recommended by several civil society organizations, basing corporate emission reductions on the measurement of barrels of oil, cubic meters of gas and tons of carbon would be easier and more useful for the implementation of successful judgments such as this one. Finally, there are concerns about the rights of Shell workers, which could be negatively affected by the ruling. The drastic reduction that Shell will have to apply to its oil and gas activities must be framed in a fair and inclusive transition process, which includes respecting labor rights and transforming its activities by making them more sustainable. The case of People v. Shell has opened up valuable tools for a global shift towards climate justice and holding companies able for their environmental and human rights harms. For those of active in climate litigation, the case demonstrates the need to strengthen the capacities of our teams, the importance of creativity and the use of science, the importance of ensuring that we have the time and resources to pursue landmark cases and, finally, the relevance of building alliances to build upon the current momentum of the global climate justice movement.  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

A Guide for GCF Watch Coordinators

A publication for coordinators of GCF Watch, a civil society initiative from the global South aimed at improving monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the world's leading multilateral climate finance institution.    THE FULL GUIDEBasics of the Green Climate Fund (GCF)The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the operating entity of the funding mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As such, it provides funding to developing countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation projects and programs.Read and National Designated Authorities and Green Climate Fund Focal PointsNational Designated Authorities (NDAs), Government institutions, and Focal Points (FPs) are responsible for all matters related to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in developing countries. They represent the GCF and serve as a liaison or point of between the GCF and developing countries. Read and Funding Proposals before the Green Climate FundProposals for project and program funding can be classified according to several criteria: type of access, public or private, amount of funds requested, and risk category.Read and Guide to Reviewing a Funding Proposal before the Green Climate FundThe GCF Watch will consolidate all observations made by civil society before sending to the GCF Board. Your comments will be part of the message directly delivered to the Board!Read and Accredited Entities before the Green Climate FundThe funding granted by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is channeled through accredited entities (AEs), which are in charge of managing the resources and implementing the projects and programs. The AEs must ensure that projects and programs comply with GCF safeguards, as well as oversee compliance when implementation is the responsibility of executing entities.Read and The Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM)The Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM) was created to respond to complaints from individuals, groups or communities who feel that they have been adversely affected by projects or programs financed by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) due to non-compliance with its operational policies and procedures, including its environmental and social safeguards.Read and GCF Watch: A Southern Civil Society-Led InitiativeThe platform aims to improve the monitoring of the operations of the GCF through collaboration between organizations working at the level of the GCF Board and organizations and communities in the region that are close to the territories where projects ed by the entity are implemented.Read and Glossary of useful for monitoring the Green Climate FundRead and  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights, Capacity Building

Session 1 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

The GCF Watch platform and an overview of 2021 Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources.GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and ists. istsFlorencia Ortúzar, Attorney, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Introduction to the webinar series.Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): The GCF Watch Platform.Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Takeaways from BM 28 and main topics for 2021.: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch. Recording Presentations1. Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC):Presentation in French 2. Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL):Presentation in French 

Read more
Fracking, Climate Change, Human Rights

International pressure to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia

Many Latin American governments continue to promote extractive activities—including the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking, or hydraulic fracturing—as a means of economic revitalization in the face of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This trend contradicts the international commitments adopted by these countries to reduce emissions and mitigate the global climate crisis. A United Nations report, to be released this month, is expected to state that reducing methane emissions will be critical to avoid the most extreme effects of global warming. The report is based on recent data showing that carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere reached record highs last year, despite the pandemic bringing much of the global economy to a halt. This information complements scientific evidence that methane emissions from oil and gas production—one of its major human-related sources—may be higher than previous estimates. This increase has been associated with the leakage and flaring of methane from fracking operations. Although methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, it has a relatively short life cycle in the atmosphere, meaning that reducing its emissions could help the world meet our climate goals more quickly. Colombia is an example of how the push for fracking contradicts the urgent need to combat the climate crisis and its damages. Although it is not legal to carry out fracking operations in the country because its regulation is temporarily suspended, the government has not stopped the development of pilot projects of this technique and continues to anchor its energy policy on hydrocarbons. At the same time, there is a national and international push to stop the advance of fracking in Colombia. While the Council of State makes a final decision on the regulation, two legislative initiatives are underway: one that seeks to prohibit the implementation of fracking nationwide, and another that would prohibit the exploration and/or exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons by any technique. In the framework of the parliamentary treatment of both bills, which are expected to be unified, authorities from the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) participated in public hearings, in which they called on Congress to approve the legislation that would allow Colombia to move toward a fair and low-emission energy transition. The case for protecting people and the climate In his intervention, David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, referred to the climate crisis as "serious and unprecedented", highlighting that its impacts on human rights "disproportionately affect poor, vulnerable and marginalized people." In the same vein, Marcos Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances and Human Rights, expressed concern about "the Colombian State's intention to consider funding and ing fossil fuel fracking," considering its potential impact on human rights and sustainability. He emphasized, "new investments in fracking are incompatible with the protection of human rights." For his part, Renato Zerbini, chairman of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—a body, composed of 18 independent experts, that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by its State parties—stressed that hydraulic fracturing "is closely related to multiple and ongoing human rights violations, as it causes irreversible environmental impacts and severe social affectations." Thus, the use of the technique violates the rights guaranteed by the Covenant, to which Colombia is a party, Zerbini pointed out. In general, the extractive industry "increases the risk for environmental defenders, territorial occupation and the impact on the rights of the communities surrounding the projects," added Soledad García Muñoz, the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights. In sum, the representatives of the international organizations reported on the unfeasibility of fracking in climatic, social and even economic : "When the real costs of fracking are taken into , it becomes evident that these far exceed the alleged economic gains," emphasized Orellana. They referred to the international obligations of the Colombian State in of human rights and climate change, contained in various instruments. Among those, they cited Advisory Opinion 23/17 on human rights and environment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; General Comment 36 on the right to life, contemplated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; as well as the t Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change that five human rights bodies issued in 2019. The statement expresses that "failure to take measures to prevent foreseeable harm to human rights caused by climate change, or to regulate activities that contribute to such harm, could constitute a violation of States' human rights obligations." The common recommendation: ban fracking At the conclusion of their interventions, the international authorities expressed their for a law banning fracking throughout the Colombian national territory: David Boyd argued,"to address the climate crisis, Colombia must urgently pursue a low-carbon, climate-resilient future, replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy in light of its obligations under constitutional law, international human rights law and the right to a healthy environment." He concluded, "the government of Colombia must a law to ban fracking." Marcos Orellana pointed out that "the Congress of the Republic of Colombia has the opportunity to raise its gaze towards the future and preserve the legacy of its megabiodiversity." In that sense, he pointed out, "the protection of the right to live in a toxic-free environment inspires my respectful call for Congress to adopt a law banning fracking." Soledad Muñoz said that "the approval of a bill whose purpose would be to put an end to the exploration and exploitation of unconventional oilfields, prohibiting practices such as fracking, would represent a valuable measure of environmental protection, the reduction of socio-environmental conflicts and compliance with the commitments emanating from the Paris Agreement and the Inter-American (Human Rights) System itself." Continuing to base local economies on the extractive industry and promoting fracking only increases the dependence of our societies on fossil fuels, deepening the causes of the climate crisis and the damage it does to the most vulnerable among us.  

Read more
Climate Change, Human Rights

Mexico’s climate commitments lack ambition

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) are the mechanism through which the countries that signed the Paris Agreement contribute to the fulfillment of the global pact's objective: to keep the increase in the planet's average temperature below 2°C. Each country's NDC outlines its national mitigation and adaptation commitments in the face of the climate crisis, including emission reduction efforts. The Paris Agreement stipulates that these commitments must be communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every five years and that each successive NDC must represent a progression from the previous one, reflecting the highest possible ambition (Article 3). In addition, NDCs must contain sufficient information on clear, transparent and understandable targets (Article 8, paragraph 8). And, in the case of Mexico, the General Law on Climate Change (LGCC) considers the NDC as one of the planning instruments of the National Climate Change Policy (Article 58) and establishes that it must observe, among others, the principle of progressivity, which implies that the established goals must be progressive and gradual over time (Article 26, section XIII). In its most recent update, Mexico's NDC does not comply with the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the LGCC. Ambition in the spotlight The Mexican State presented its first NDC in 2015. In it, the government made an unconditional commitment—through its own resources—to a 22 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 51 percent reduction in black carbon emissions, by 2030. Last December, Mexico presented its updated NDC, which should be more ambitious than the previous one. However, the new instrument merely reiterates the mitigation commitments made in 2015. Moreover, the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario—a tentative scenario in which there are no mitigation policies and which serves as a baseline for climate actions—was adjusted upwards with a higher total level of emissions by 2030 than indicated in the first NDC. This, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent scientific analysis that tracks governments’ climate action and compares it to what was agreed globally in the Paris Agreement. The CAT analysis states, "Because the NDC is based on a percentage reduction below BAU projections, a higher level of emissions in 2030 effectively reduces the country's mitigation ambition, even if the reduction targets remain unchanged." Due to its lack of ambition, Mexico's updated NDC was rated as "highly insufficient" in the CAT ranking. This means that the commitments adopted by the country "are not at all consistent with keeping [global] warming below 2°C [...]," being instead "consistent with warming levels of between 3°C and 4°C.” International agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Commission have emphasized the need for Mexico to increase its mitigation ambition, especially in the energy sector, which contributes most to the climate crisis and where the greatest emissions reduction opportunities exist in the short and long term. But Mexico's recent NDC does not set out specific actions in key economic sectors to achieve the endorsed targets, although it does state that these will be developed in an NDC implementation roap to be presented in the next Biennial Update Report. In this sense, the instrument lacks sufficient information to have clear, transparent and understandable targets. Regarding the adaptation component, Mexico's updated NDC includes nature-based climate solutions. However, the inclusion of such actions is not sufficient to have the level of ambition required to address the climate crisis and meet the objective of the Paris Agreement. A violation of the principle of progressivity In light of the facts, the updating of Mexico's climate commitments fails to meet the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and with this the Mexican State also disregards the principle of progressivity established in the LGCC since the targets set do not represent a progression and gradualness with respect to the first NDC. Other countries in the region—including Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica and Chile—have updated their NDCs, demonstrating increased climate ambition. Although they include measures that could be improved, their actions demonstrate a willingness to make further progress in of their contribution to global climate action. In this context, the Mexican State is leaving behind the progress and leadership it had years ago on climate issues. Its lack of ambition demonstrates indifference to the climate crisis and its impacts on the human rights of the most vulnerable populations. Mexico must assume its responsibility, one that comes from being on the list of the 20 largest emitters in the world. It must adopt mitigation and adaptation commitments compatible with the global goal of preventing global warming from reaching a point of catastrophic consequences.  

Read more
Fracking, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Fracking regulation in Mendoza violates Argentina's climate commitments

AIDA filed a legal brief before the Supreme Court of Mendoza arguing the unconstitutionality of a decree allowing for unconventional oil and gas drilling through hydraulic fracturing in the Argentine province.   Mendoza, Argentina. In of a lawsuit filed by Argentine ally OIKOS, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) filed a “friend of the court” brief claiming the unconstitutionality of local regulations allowing for the exploration and exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons, known as fracking. Using arguments based on international law, the brief outlines how Mendoza’s Decree 248 violates Argentina’s climate commitments and disregards the precautionary principle. "As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and a signatory of the Paris Agreement, the Argentine State has assumed international obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the climate crisis," explained AIDA attorney Claudia Velarde. "Betting on fracking implies an increase in those emissions and non-compliance with the nation’s climate commitments.” Several studies of fracking in the United States have posited that leakage and flaring during fracking operations are associated with a significant increase of methane in the atmosphere. Though less notorious than carbon dioxide, methane emissions are responsible for around 25 percent of global warming. Decree 248 fails to contemplate any provision to control greenhouse gas emissions generated by fracking or limit their climate impacts. “There are not sufficient grounds for the government of Mendoza to claim they can effectively regulate fracking,” Velarde said. "It’s clear that this regulation is insufficient, and that it ignores the precautionary principle.” The precautionary principle establishes that, when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of absolute scientific certainty should not prevent the adoption of effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. In fracking, being an unconventional technique with a high degree of technical and scientific difficulty, there is no certainty about its impacts, which merits the application of the precautionary principle. The brief also documents the applicability of this argument based on similar cases in other countries of Latin America. Colombia currently has a moratorium on fracking based on this legal principle. "In recent decades, the development of fracking has raised alarms worldwide due to evidence of serious and irreversible damages to the environment and public health, both of which are aggravated by the climate crisis," Velarde added. AIDA’s brief s others filed by national and international organizations against the decree regulating fracking in Mendoza, including Xumek, FARN (Environment and Natural Resource Foundation) and Earthjustice. Press : Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +5215570522107.  

Read more
Climate Change, Oceans

Fact Sheet: SPAW Protocol (Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife)

The Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention) and its Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW Protocol) establishes that Contracting Parties have the obligation to regulate the protection of the vulnerable species and ecosystems of the region.The revised criteria for the nomination of species (1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10) determines the need to include essential species for vulnerable ecosystems - such as coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses - in the species lists of Annexes II and III of the SPAW Protocol.The national or regional measures imply in a different way protection processes, biological monitoring of species, fishing recovery zones; analysis of catch data, health status of ecosystems, population dynamics and size; closed periods; and regulation of the capture, possession, transport, trade or total prohibition of the use of the species.In 2018, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) prioritized the evaluation of herbivorous fish and currently the Species Working Group carries out the evaluation of parrotfish through the integration and analysis of scientific and regulatory data.Eleven of the 17 countries that have signed the Protocol have generated regulatory measures on herbivorous fish. Some regulatory experiences are in force, others are not, and there are those that came into force recently.    the Fact Sheet in English the Fact Sheet in Spanish the Fact Sheet in French 

Read more