Blog
Empowering fishermen to protect coral reefs, and their guardians
When he thinks of his childhood, Mario Smith re the abundance of fish, crabs and lobsters he and his father used to find while fishing, an activity now in decline on his island. "There used to be such abundance and today we are forbidden to fish for many things because of our irresponsibility in taking care of our resources," said Mario, who is now the leader of the San Luis Fishermen's Committee, whose work on San Andres Island, Colombia. San Luis is a hamlet located on the east coast of San Andres with white sandy beaches and calm waters. I was there in August to the dissemination of a very important resolution for the conservation of the coral ecosystems of the Colombian Caribbean. The law prohibits the capture and sale of several species of herbivorous and omnivorous fish that cleanse the corals of the algae that take away their light and space, thus ing their survival. In recent years, a decrease in commercial species has led fishing communities have to go after herbivorous fish. This, in turn, has caused a reduction in populations of these species, particularly in the Caribbean. The resolution was issued on July 15 by the Corporation for the Sustainable Development of the Archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina (CORALINA), the environmental authority in that region. Disseminating and socializing these type of norms in local communities is very important so that residents, understanding the importance of these fish for the health of both the reefs and their economies, actions aimed at their conservation. Along with CORALINA's education team, I visited several fishermen's committees, as well as schools and restaurants. I participated in a meeting of the Inter-Institutional Committee on Environmental Education, which was also attended by representatives of the government, the police, and the tourism and education sectors. The visits were very enriching, full of questions and emotions. In each of them I highlighted the benefits of taking care of our corals and the fish that help them thrive. Coral reefs are one of the most important ecosystems on the planet. They are home to more than 25% of our marine species and protect our coasts from hurricanes, storms and other weather events. At Cajasai School, the active participation of one student surprised me. He told me of his concern about garbage on his beaches and about catching parrotfish, one of the most important species of herbivorous fish. "I'm very concerned about my resources and that's why I made a foundation to take care of the beaches that are close to my home," he told me ionately. His empathy and desire to fight for his beaches and sea inspired me. The beautiful landscapes of San Andrés and the interest of all the people I spoke with filled me with satisfaction and energy to continue working. But there is still a lot to do. Our marine resources are in danger of disappearing in the face of the global climate crisis. And the urgency to do something about it is becoming ever more pressing. Our coral reefs are among the ecosystems most threatened by this crisis, mainly due to changes in the acidity and temperature of our oceans. In addition, human actions such as pollution and overfishing are causing irreversible damages. That’s why AIDA will continue to local efforts to conserve important marine species, such as the parrotfish and his herbivorous relatives. LEARN MORE
Read more
Human rights, the great absentees at the UN Climate Summit
The United Nations Climate Action Summit on September 23rd was an interesting step toward the future. Some commitments were announced to confront the climate crisis. But one key aspect was absent: the express, transversal and decisive inclusion of human rights. Goals of the global meeting included preventing the development of new coal projects, achieving zero net emissions by 2050, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and making those who pollute pay. To this end, 19 states—ed by various organizations—worked in coalition to achieve goals on mitigation, social and political drivers, youth and public mobilization, energy transition, industrial transition, nature-based solutions, adaptation and resilience, climate finance and carbon pricing, as well as infrastructure, cities and local action. Although previous meetings were held with indigenous peoples, and some coalitions recognized that solutions shouldn’t increase inequality—but be fair and include a gender perspective—what we needed was an explicit reference to human rights. It was conspicuous for its absence. This is not a minor need. It’s enough to see those who suffer first and worst the impacts of the climate emergency: families in Central America who, after losing their crops, leave everything behind to migrate to the United States; residents of the Bahamas, devastated by Hurricane Dorian; and those who live in the Amazon, partially destroyed by fires. The climate crisis is already affecting human rights. Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called it their greatest threat. Some measures to address the climate emergency actually aggravate it, while ignoring human rights. This is the case with wind projects and large hydroelectric dams in Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Honduras, which have been implemented without consulting local communities, some of them indigenous. It was therefore essential that world leaders use Summit to expressly include in their commitments a respect for human rights, a recognition already found in the Paris Agreement. That did not happen. Nevertheless, hope is fuelled by growing awareness, which increases pressure on governments, companies and other sectors to contribute more. Millions of students around the world are on strike and dropping out of school on Fridays. Mobilizations have multiplied and so have their ers. Having true ambition for climate justice means putting human rights at the center of our solutions, not least because indigenous and traditional communities have knowledge essential to preserving the planet.
Read more
Ecuador bets on a mining boom, at the expense of nature
In southeast Ecuador, in the heart of its Amazon, stands an imposing mountain massif that stretches more than 160 kilometers in length: the Condor Mountain Range, which, once largely unknown, retains an expansive intact and unexplored territory. In this area of vital importance for life, science and conservation, an open-pit copper mine known as the Mirador project, with an expected lifespan of 30 years, began operating in July. The launch of the project marks the beginning of large-scale mining in Ecuador, with which the government intends to sustain the economy and leave behind its dependence on oil. This is a sad novelty because large-scale mining involves the risk of enormous environmental damages, which are most serious in ecosystems of great biodiversity and proximity to water sources such as the Condor Range, where indigenous and peasant communities also live. This impulse toward extractive activity contradicts the progress made in 2008, when Ecuador was the first country in the world to recognize the rights of nature in its Constitution. As the Amazon burns in flames, and takes our future with it, Ecuador has a responsibility to change course. The nation must serve as an example for other countries of the Amazon Basin, and the world, of the effective protection of the rainforest and those who depend on it. The resources we must conserve "This country lacks resources." Based on these words, the Mirador project and the presence of the mining industry in Ecuador has been intensified without precedent. They were said by spokespersons of the Chinese company Ecuacorriente (in charge of the mining concession) and echoed, in turn, by government representatives. But what will happen to the biodiversity and environmental services of the priceless Condor Range? These Amazonian mountains protect cloud forests and páramos (high mountain wetlands), both natural carbon sinks. They are home to more than 2,000 species of flora, including one of the few carnivorous plants in Ecuador, and hosts 613 species of birds. According to studies, there are another 2,000 plant species to be discovered in this unique environment. It is there that excavations of 300 to 500 meters deep will be carried out to access subsoil minerals, and where risky dams will be built to deposit tons of waste. The damages are already occurring. The company confirmed that 1,422 hectares of forest have been cleared for the project. And local organizations have denounced serious legal and constitutional violations surrounding the project. The discourse of large profits in store for the country from the exploitation and sale of subsoil resources has gained strength in recent months. Official data shows that currently 7.5% of the territory is concessioned for mineral exploration, and the government is analyzing the granting of new concessions. By 2020, the government plans to have a map of the new areas where mining will be permitted. These plans ignore the perpetual impacts of large-scale mining, including impacts on the landscape and damage to water quality. In the case of Mirador, the project has already caused the diversion of the Tundayme River, just to name one of its impacts, recognized as irreversible by the company itself. "Be coherent, stop using cell phones and bicycles and other objects made from materials extracted from the mines," challenged Vice President Otto Sonnenholzner, one of mining's biggest promoters, to those who oppose the projects. "I propose another challenge: you stop using water and food," replied Yaku Perez, a defender of water and prefect of the province of Azuay. The above is the clearest metaphor of what is at stake with the blind advance of open-pit mining in Ecuador. The climate crisis demands a new vision of development The accelerated move towards large-scale mining in Ecuador means acting negligently in the face of the global climate crisis, which forces us to change our development model this decade in order to achieve the goals of mitigation and adaptation. The international scientific community warned in 2018 that we only have a dozen years to maintain global warming at a maximum of 1.5°C (with respect to the pre-industrial era) and that exceeding that limit would make the risks of droughts, floods and extreme heat worse. This requires unprecedented transitions in sectors such as energy and industrial systems. Boosting large-scale mining is reversing and deepening the development model that has caused the climate emergency. It means destroying natural carbon sinks such as those in the Condor Mountain Range and the Amazon as a whole. Ecuador can and must take a new step forward. It must, as it did in 2008 with the recognition of the rights of nature, find a development model that effectively respects its obligations to the climate and to human rights. Ecuador cannot continue to mortgage the present and future of entire communities and ecosystems under the pretext of the immediate and ephemeral profits of mining. New paths are possible and, above all, urgent.
Read more
Coal or life: Walking where a stream once ran
The appointment was on a hot Sunday in July. Together with Wayuu indigenous and Afro-descendant communities displaced by coal mining, of social and human rights organizations, employees of Cerrejón, and government officials, I walked for more than five hours over the barren land where the Bruno Stream once ran. What I saw in my path were the remains of snails that died of thirst, stuck to the mud, and the lifeless body of a tigrillo that showed us so clearly what mustn’t happen again. The Bruno is a vein of water that once irrigated the department of La Guajira, located in Colombia’s far north, a region hit years ago by extreme drought. It is a major tributary of the Ranchería River, one of the department’s most important water sources, and forms part of the underground water systems that have long given life to the region’s communities. It was painful to walk where the Bruno once flowed free, and to think—while doing so—that what is now a dry riverbed was once abundant with life. That Sunday, we also toured the area intended to be the artificial channel of the stream. In 2014, the National Environmental Licensing Authority authorized Cerrejón to divert 3.6 kilometers of Bruno’s flow to favor ongoing coal exploitation in La Guajira. Several things made on impact on me that day. One of them was that, although the rivers belong to us all and natural water sources are public, we were accompanied the entire time by employees of the company. While walking the stream, we entered the land “owned” by the coal-mining concessionaire. Communities that used to travel freely along the banks of the stream can no longer do so today. Although the Bruno is one of few streams in Colombia’s driest department and one of the scarce sources of fresh water for communities living there, its channel was clogged and diverted to facilitate mining. An engineering project has altered one of the most important streams for a thirsty region and created an artificial path through which not a single drop of water flows. “If they carry water, they’re rivers; if not, they’re roads,” a verse from Guatemalan indigenous poet Humberto Ak’abal teaches us. The new “channel” of the Bruno is not a river, but “a barren road” attesting to the deterioration of a sensitive ecosystem. The “road” does not recover or mitigate the damages from the stream’s diversion. On the contrary, it produces new ones. The world is facing a climate crisis, and coal mining is one of its primary causes. While many countries are replacing the use of coal in their energy matrices with cleaner options, Colombia has decided to dry up a river to exploit more and more coal. Walking paths of justice The day after the walk, the frustration of the absurd did not prevent me from embracing a glimmer of hope. On Monday, I ed representatives of indigenous communities and local organizations at a public hearing convened by several Congressmen to discuss what happened with the Bruno. The strength and dignity of their words, in which decades of resistance were encrypted, fed my soul. “This territory is ours, our rivers are our life and we care for life—for our children, for our present, for our future and that of the world.” As it has done many times before, La Guajira spoke to the country and the world. They told the Congressmen that it’s not possible to prioritize the use of water for mining over human consumption. They warned that the country must transition to an energy production that doesn’t cause the damages that coal mining has to the climate, human rights, and the species and ecosystems that sustain us. The stream must return to its channel, the snails must drink again from its waters, and no tigrillo should die due to the intentional destruction of its natural habitat. In a 2017 ruling, the Constitutional Court demonstrated that uncertainties exist as to the environmental and social impacts of the Bruno Stream riverbed modification project. The Court ordered the creation of an Inter-Institutional working group to resolve the complaints of the affected people. Communities will continue to demand compliance with that ruling and demonstrate that the uncertainties are, in fact, certain damages that will continue to undermine their lives. AIDA, along with our partner organizations, will continue to accompany this struggle to demonstrate the harms of coal mining and promote clean alternatives that respect both people and the environment.
Read more
What we must do to preserve the planet’s biodiversity and natural heritage
Society is at serious risk of losing our natural world and all that sustains us. Our actions are provoking mass extinction and accelerating the loss of natural resources, plants and animals. Among these actions are the growth of agriculture and livestock production, the destruction of habitats, the introduction of invasive species, the expansion of urban areas, poaching and overfishing, overpopulation and pollution. That’s according to the most complete global evaluation of biodiversity yet, recently published by scientists at the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The report shows that the capacity of Earth’s ecosystems to provide benefits to people has diminished drastically over the last 70 years. That’s because, on average: global resources have diminished by 47 percent; 25 percent of flora and fauna species are in danger of extinction; and the climate crisis is driving higher temperatures and increased acidification of the ocean, which is causing coral reef coverage worldwide to shrink. What’s more, a third of all species in the ocean are being overfished. Despite these alarming statistics, we can still take the planet out of the grave situation we’ve put it in. But it will require radical changes to our approach. The diagnosis for Latin America Historically, the world has ed through five mass extinctions that have caused the loss of more than 70 percent of the Earth’s life forms. Currently, we seem to be living through the sixth. Although species extinction occurs naturally, it generally does so at a rate of about one species per million each year. The current rate far exceeds that, as at least 100 species per million are going extinct each year—and that rate is rising. Another way to visualize this global threat is by listing the countries with the most species in danger of extinction. Five countries in Latin America are in the top 10 for species loss, with Mexico topping the list at 665 threatened species (71 species of birds, 96 mammals, 98 reptiles, 181 types of fish and 219 amphibians). Mexico’s situation is largely being driven by high rates of deforestation, a practice aimed at increasing agricultural area to cover the country’s growing demand for food. In fact, Latin America and Southeast Asia have lost millions of hectares of terrestrial ecosystems and fresh water through increased livestock production and agriculture (which includes the use of fertilizers). Other countries in the region with high rates of species loss include Colombia (540 species), Ecuador (436), Brazil (413), and Peru (385). Species extinction alters and impedes the proper functioning of ecosystems, which rely on interactions between varied forms of life to produce food, manage water supply, regulate climate, and more. Big changes to ensure a better future Although life on our planet has existed for some 4 billion years, humanity has only been around 200 thousand of those; yet we’ve managed to disrupt the Earth’s natural balance. Although our actions have negatively affected the earth, this shows that we, as humans, have the ability to transform our environment. The IPBES report mentions the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as transformative actions that can protect biodiversity. One of those is the creation of natural protected areas, which have helped reduce the risk of extinction for species like mammals and amphibians. Nevertheless, the report emphasizes the need for a drastic change in the values and objectives of our governments so that decisions at the local, national, and international levels are aligned to combat the causes behind the planet’s degradation. To that end, and taking into the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, nations must: Expand and coordinate the global network of natural protected areas. Invest in green infrastructure. Produce food, materials, and energy in sustainable ways. Conserve and use water efficiently. indigenous and traditional communities, who protect many of the planet’s remaining natural resources. Adequately approach population growth and global consumption levels. Create new environmental laws and better compliance with existing ones. Slow pollution and the overexploitation of our natural resources. “People shouldn’t panic, but they should begin to make drastic changes,” said Josef Settele, an IPBES co-chair and entomologist at the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in . “Business as usual with small adjustments won’t be enough.” Our air, water, and food depend on biodiversity—the varied forms of life on our planet and the interaction between them. Caring for this natural heritage is a shared task; it is now more important than ever.
Read more
Why these algae-eating fish may be corals’ greatest allies
Numerous studies have shown that herbivorous fish play a fundamental role in the health and survival of coral reefs by removing the algae that robs corals of the light and space they need to grow. But populations of these small algae-eating fish are diminishing rapidly due to human activity, which puts our reefs at greater risk. In the Mexican Caribbean, for example, 60 percent of the reefs are considered in poor or critical health. There exist a diverse array of herbivorous fish in our oceans; they’re grouped into various families that are, in turn, divided into groups according to their feeding habits and roles in controlling algae growth. Parrotfish are among the most important species, as their strong beaks allow them to clean large amounts of macroalgae. Herbivorous fish live in tropical and subtropical waters, including many Latin American and Caribbean nations—Belize, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico, to name a few. These fish contribute to the health of key coral ecosystems like the Mesoamerican Reef System. Despite serving as fish hatcheries and natural barriers against hurricanes, coral reefs are extremely fragile and vulnerable to the global climate crisis, which is driving ocean acidification, sea level rise, and increased algae growth. Experts say that, when faced with the reduced presence of herbivorous fish, reef systems lose their capacity to recover from extreme weather events like hurricanes, which are becoming more and more powerful. But the relationship between herbivorous fish and coral reefs is at increasing risk. Dwindling herbivorous fish populations are evident in the Caribbean, where fishing communities have begun to capture parrotfish after overfishing commercial species. The destruction of mangroves and marine grassland habitats put these fish at risk, since many species of parrotfish rely on them during their life cycle. Environmental degradation also increases sedimentation and the concentration of nutrients, causing an increase in macroalgae. Algae growth and an increase in coral diseases are the result of pollution caused by inadequate wastewater management and runoff from commercial agriculture. These problems require the implementation of urgent measures aimed at preserving herbivorous fish populations and, with them, maintaining the health and regenerative capacity of coral reefs. Such measures should include the establishment and adoption of clear fisheries management and conservation strategies to ensure the recuperation of herbivorous fish, particularly parrotfish, populations. Protected marine areas or regeneration zones that prohibit fishing in key areas should also be created. To adequately protect these fish, States must also: standardize the monitoring of fish populations in the region and implement alternative management strategies; promote comprehensive, regional management that enables local authorities to share experiences and establish common conservation tools; and create and implement regulations and laws to combat overfishing and bad tourism practices, and promote low-impact coastal development. In nature, symbiotic relationships, like that of herbivorous fish and corals, are abundant. We must learn to recognize and value them. Likewise, if we take care of nature, nature will take care of us.
Read more
International tribunal s indigenous struggle for the Amazon
“The most beautiful jungle in the world,” wrote Alcides D’orbigny, a French biologist, of the Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory and National Park (known locally as Tipnis, for its Spanish initials) in the 1830s. Located between the departments of Beni and Cochabamba, Tipnis is a natural protected area that extends over 12,363 square kilometers of Bolivian Amazon. It’s one of the world’s most biodiverse sites and home to many indigenous cultures—among them the Mojeño Trinitarios, the Tsiman and the Turacaré. Despite its recognition as a National Park and Indigenous Territory, the area has for decades been threatened by a proposed highway that would effectively divide it in two. The construction would cause grave social and environmental damages, some of which have already occurred—two of three proposed stretches of road have already been built. As long as the highway has been proposed, the indigenous people of Tipnis have stood strong in their resistence, calling to protect the rainforest and the life it holds. Their efforts paid off last month in a precedent-setting legal victory for the protection of human rights and the environment. The International Rights of Nature Tribunal ruled that the Bolivian State had “violated” the rights of nature and of the indigenous people that inhabit Tipnis by encouraging the highway’s construction. The Tribunal was created in April 2010 at the People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, when the Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth was also signed. Its role is to establish and investigate any violation of the rights outlined in the Declaration and found in the internal laws of each country. The Tribunal determines whether there was a violation and, if so, who was responsible. It emits recommendations, advisory opinions, and can determine provisional measures. Indigenous defense of the Bolivian Amazon The proposed highway through Tipnis has spurred strong indigenous resistance, and has also caused great suffering. The most painful incident happened in 2011 when more than 100 indigenous people marching on La Paz, headquarters of the Bolivian government, were brutally repressed by police. Despite the conflict, that demonstration achieved the enactment of a law that bestowed the national park the status of “intangible zone” or absolute reserve. Unfortunately, six years later, that law was null and void when the government enacted a new law through more expeditious process. Tipnis indigenous representatives denounced this and other acts before the International Rights of Nature Tribunal, which agreed to consider the case in January 2018, and then sent an international commission of observers to visit the zone and interview stakeholders. Indigenous representatives denounced that, despite being a single roadway, the project was actually presented separately, in three separate phases. Currently, only the final section remains unconstructed. Other irregularities included the awarding of the project to a Brazilian company without first completing an environmental impact assessment, and the lack of adequate consultation with affected indigenous communities. The Tribunal's sentence, issued May 15, finds the Bolivian government responsible for rights violations and calls for immediate compliance with measures including: Definitively stopping of any progress on construction; Recognizing the faculties of indigenous peoples to guarantee their control in Tipnis, including territorial autonomy and the right to prior consultation; Annuling a law that removed the status of intangible zone from Tipnis; Stopping the advance of colonization toward the central zone of the national park; Canceling plans for oil expansion on the site; Effectively applying the law to guarantee the protection of the rights of Mother Earth; and Guaranteeing indigenous peoples their fundamental role as defenders of Mother Earth. What’s next for Tipnis? Although the Tribunal’s judgment is not binding, it is a precedent established by a recognized and ethical court. For this reason, the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin—an international indigenous organization—announced it would use the ruling as an instrument of proof to bring the case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The situation in Tipnis is complex. While construction of the missing section was suspended after losing credit for its execution, some actors continue to defend the road as fundamental to connecting the center and the north of the country, facilitating access to basic services and other development opportunities for the communities of Tipnis. The other side of that argument is the extensive environmental degradation to an area rich in biodiversity—acknowleding that the road would be just the beginning of activities within the protected area. I don’t believe anyone has the absolute answer. And so my analysis isn’t about making a value judgment, but about complying with the law, which resides in reason and justice. Although part of the road is constructed, there is much more to go, and so the resistance continues. The Tribunal’s decision can and should be used as an added impulse toward protecting the land. In the end, every effort is worthwhile knowing that the destruction of such a valuable natural ecosystem represents a point of no return.
Read more
Clean air should be a human right, says UN Special Rapporteur
Even on a clear day in Bogotá, the air pollution can be so overwhelming that the sky is cast in a foggy, washed out haze that hangs over the city. In Bogotá—as in many cities across the Americas—air pollution has become a part of daily life. But it shouldn’t have to be that way. In a recent report, David Boyd, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment said that breathing clean air should be considered a human right. While the majority of countries around the world have recognized the right to a healthy environment, the right to clean air does not yet enjoy the same level of global recognition. Air pollution is a dual killer: not only is it one of the biggest risks to public health worldwide, airborne pollutants also exacerbate the climate crisis. States and the human rights community, therefore, must incorporate the Rapporteur’s recommendations into law, because tackling air pollution is the best thing we can do to improve public health while also saving the planet. Air pollution: a dual killer More than six billion people, including two billion children around the world, are breathing air that adversely affects their health, according to the World Heath Organization (WHO). The effects of ambient and household air pollution cause roughly 7 million premature deaths worldwide each year, more than 300 thousand of which occur in the Americas alone. Hundreds of millions of people around the world suffer from illnesses caused by air pollution, which is considered one of the five leading factors contributing to non-communicable diseases like stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cancer. Fine particulate matter like soot, black carbon, sulfates, nitrates and heavy metals all significantly increase the risk of these diseases. Moreover, air pollution disproportionately affects society’s most vulnerable populations. Children and the elderly are particularly affected by airborne pollutants, and suffer disproportionate impacts including illnesses and chronic breathing problems. Low income and poor communities, more often located near the sources of pollution—factories, power plants, and busy roads, among others—also suffer outsized health risks. Global air pollution is more than just a public health concern. Often, the same polluting activities that harm human health are also speeding up climate crisis. Research shows that black carbon—generated by burning fossil fuels, biofuels, and biomass—may accelerate snowmelt in glaciers, contributing to water insecurity and natural disasters. And methane, another short-lived climate pollutant, can trap up to 30 times more heat than CO2, speeding up global heating. Both issues amount to a costly problem. The World Bank estimates that global costs of air pollution will soon exceed $5 trillion per year, and says that unless countries curb global air pollution, air pollution-induced mortality could increase 50 to 100 percent by 2050. The economic benefits of slowing climate change will far outweigh the astronomical costs caused by flooding, more powerful storms, and crippling droughts, which could reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century, according to a report by the United States’ fourth National Climate Assessment. Respecting human rights While reducing air pollution makes good economic sense, curbing airborne pollutants is also a matter of respecting human rights. Besides violating the right to a clean and healthy environment, poor air quality can affect one’s right to life, health, water, food, housing and adequate standard of living, as well as the rights of the child, the UN report said. According to the Special Rapporteur, States should immediately devise action plans that: Monitor air quality and its impacts on human health; Assess sources of air pollution; Make information publicly available and release public health advisories; Establish air quality legislation, regulations, standards and policies; Develop air quality action plans at the local, nation, or regional level; Implement that air quality action plan and enforce its standards; and Evaluate progress and strengthen the plan to ensure the standards are met. Not only does this framework charge states with monitoring air quality, educating the public on air pollution, and making information accessible, it also urges States to establish strong, enforceable standards that will hold polluters able. Without those standards, improving air quality would be impossible. What’s more, States should apply the precautionary principle and use adequate margins of safety in order to protect society’s most vulnerable. Cities across Latin America are already starting to take air pollution seriously. Curitiba, Brazil, for example, built an extensive rapid bus system and, in 2013, launched an ambitious plan to add 300 kilometers of bicycle paths. Now, life expectancy in the city is two years longer than the national average, and the city has relatively low infant mortality, according to the WHO. In 2014, the Chilean government implemented a progressive tax on air pollution, taxing industry at higher rates in more densely populated areas to hold polluters able for their disproportionate impacts on urban populations. Although these examples show that change is possible, air pollution won’t be solved overnight, and States must begin establishing ambitious regulations to curb airborne contaminants. Otherwise, the world will continue coughing and sputtering into the 21st Century, as the impacts of climate crisis only continue to get worse.
Read more
Is the UN finally turning against fracking?
The world is divided over the issue of fracking, a fact that is (at times painfully) apparent in the United Kingdom (UK) where I grew up. Four separate countries make up the UK. Of them, England is the only nation that still allows hydraulic fracturing; Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (along with a host of other countries worldwide) have banned the controversial process. Despite earthquakes linked to fracking in areas of the country where such things are virtually unheard of—plus waves of protests, controversy and opposition campaigns— the British government has so far refused to change its position. However, a recent United Nations recommendation to the UK may signal the beginning of the end for fracking in England and, hopefully, around the world. Fracking and the United Nations Until recently, the UN has appeared to have a complicated relationship with fracking. Several different UN bodies have made conflicting statements about the benefits of, and issues with, this means of energy production. In early 2018, the UN Conference on Trade and Development released a report that, according to one of its authors, did “not [say fracking] is good or bad,” but rather that each project’s cost/benefit analysis was dependent on a number of context-specific factors. The report cited positive aspects of fracking, calling it a useful “bridge fuel” for States aiming to move towards more environmentally-friendly renewable power sources, alongside it’s disadvantages. This argument is not viable since the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing is even greater than that of conventional gas and oil exploitation. Over the last few months, however, it seems the UN has been hardening its position against fracking, particularly given its negative climate change impacts in the context of the Paris Agreement, the intergovernmental treaty in which nations have committed to taking ambitious steps to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees centigrade with respect to pre-industrial levels. Since October 2018, there have been 2 UN recommendations issued against fracking. In the UK, the government was urged to consider a complete and comprehensive ban on fracking; and in Argentina, the government was urged to reconsider the development of a large fracking project. The dangers of fracking Although for its promoters fracking has led to a huge spike in oil and gas production around the world—perhaps most notably in the US—its use has come at great environmental cost, particularly with regards to air quality and water supply due to the amount of water used in the process and its consequent contamination. Fracking releases large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas whose global warming potential is 86 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, according to the Intergovernmental on Climate Change. In addition, the release of this gas can be hugely detrimental to the air quality surrounding fracking sites. Fracking also leads to increased earthquake risks due to the high pressure used to fracture layers of shale rock and extract oil and gas from it. In its recommendations to the UK and Argentina, the UN has clearly stressed the dangers of fracking. The key reason behind its recommendation to Argentina to reconsider the fracking project was its effect on climate change, especially in light of the Paris Agreement, and “the negative impact [that the project would have] on global warming and on the enjoyment of economic and social rights by the world’s population and future generations.” In its recommendation to the UK, it was noted that women in the UK are “disproportionately affected by the harmful effects of fracking, including exposure to hazardous and toxic chemicals, environmental pollution, and climate change.” Stopping the spread of fracking While operational in certain areas of the world, and being banned in others, fracking is advancing rapidly in Latin America. In the face of increasing global energy demand, it is crucial that the region, and the international community as a whole, commits to developing only truly sustainable energy projects. Fracking is not one. I believe the UN’s recent change in tone on fracking is a positive advance that should inspire both Argentina and the UK to react accordingly. From a personal point of view, I hope the UK heeds the growing evidence about the dangers of fracking and abandons the practice immediately. For Latin America, and other regions facing fracking’s blind advance, there are many countries to hold up as examples of how to confront the controversial practice. That’s why AIDA recently published a report highlighting the arguments and mechanisms that have been used around the world to restrict fracking and avoid its negative impacts on people and the environment. It is crucial that these impacts be properly considered as we take the ambitious steps needed to create an energy matrix that can solve the world’s energy needs without violating human rights, destroying our common goods, or worsening the catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis.
Read more
Nature first: it’s time to build environmental consciousness
Speaking in front of more than 500 people was a unique and beautiful experience, above all for the reason I came together with such an amazing group of people. We were seven diverse individuals with two powerful things in common: our love for the natural environment and our work to preserve it. We were in Santiago, Chile as part of the conference, “Nature first: a new deal with the environment.” The great interest the audience had in the event filled me with such joy, as did the opportunity to speak beside my colleagues from The Naturalists, a series of interviews in which professionals from distinct environmental professions were invited to speak about what being a naturalist implies in the modern world. The video series and this event was put on by Ladera Sur, an online platform and community built around nature, the environment, the outdoors, travel, and much more. It was Ladera Sur that introduced us as 20thCentury Naturalists, a great honor and an even greater obligation. But what does “nature first,” a title with such urgency, really mean? It means that, for too long, nature has been subsidizing our technological advancements and even our quality of life. We live in a world in which those who have the means can do practically anything. Perhaps some of us have stopped to think about tomorrow, and how it may be difficult for our children or grandchildren to enjoy even the simplest things in life. But the time has come to reorganize our priorities. We have neither the time, nor the credit, to continue borrowing from nature. Before proceeding with any potentially harmful project or activity, we first must demonstrate that the activity would not hurt the health of the planet. Only after assuring that is it worth asking whether a project is also good business, or if it will make our lives easier or more comfortable. This is not the position of an eco-terrorist, nor is it counter to economic development. It’s simply looking ahead at the reality of a living on a sick planet—a planet on whose health we depend. The good news is that the changes we need to make to resolve the environmental crisis are not only achievable; they are what people living on this planet actually want. A world with low emissions is a cleaner and more just world; a world driven by renewables means less pollution and more equitable access to energy; a world with more protected natural areas is a greener, healthier, more verdant world; it is rich in biodiversity and has a greater capacity to provide clean air and water. See the complete video of the conference below.
Read more