Blog
Love for my daughter and the planet
Before I became a mother, I heard the question a thousand times: “Is it a good idea to bring more human beings into the world?” I often asked it myself. Thinking logically, the most obvious answer is no. The news shows us that we live on an overpopulated planet—one with water shortages, species extinction, alarming pollution and environmental degradation. It seems to be getting ever worse. That´s why, while being a mom is always difficult, being an environmentalist as well makes it even more so. Being an environmentalist is like fighting a million-headed monster: when one problem is solved, another 10 pop up. It means learning daily of the perilous situation facing our planet: the threats, the battles lost, the people and species suffering. Faced with such news, it’s impossible to turn a blind eye. Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for our actions. “What kind of world do you want to leave your children?” This is the question I’m faced with now. Yet it seems almost obsolete. It’s more important to think about what kind of world we want our kids to live in right now. To address this, parents like me are faced with an endless array of factors to consider before deciding something as simple as what to feed our children. It’s no longer enough that the food be balanced and nutritious. Now we must know if the food is pesticide-free, non-GMO, made with only natural ingredients… the list is endless. In Mexico, where I live, few children have the privilege of playing in a river or forest, on a beach or mountainside, or simply in the greenery of a park. In addition to keeping them safe from violence and human trafficking, we must also prevent our children from being exposed to high levels of air pollution. So if the world is so bad, why do we keep having children? They say that frogs do not breed unless they know there will be rain because, without rain, they know their offspring will be in danger. In the animal world, countless species regulate their reproduction based on their close relationship with nature. If conditions are not conducive, they do not reproduce. Are we human beings, then, the only species that reproduces at all costs, regardless of environmental threats? Humans are different from other species because of our awareness, and our ability to see beyond basic survival to things like art, love, empathy, and the search for meaning. Helping to make a difference is what brings meaning to my life. As part of the AIDA team, I work alongside professionals who dedicate their lives to saving rivers, defending human rights, protecting forests, ing environmental defenders, empowering vulnerable communities, and giving a voice to the voiceless. It’s true that the news bombards us daily with worrisome stories about our planet. But it’s what the news rarely reports that shapes my vision of the future. Every day, I see a growing number of people who are prepared, engaged, and working to build a better world. They are mothers, fathers, children, students, teachers, professionals, and volunteers; they come from every imaginable country and culture; and they are willing to do whatever is necessary to help others. Above all, I see a critical mass of people that believe we can. We can change course, generate alternative energies, lessen our footprint; we can rectify wrongdoings, empower the vulnerable, combat xenophobia and greed; we can spend our money more wisely, and find more democratic ways of doing business. I have the privilege of working alongside a diverse group of people who have committed to fighting the good fight, and who won’t let go of the divine connection to the land that has given us life. These are the people who make me think that having children today is not only feasible, but also desirable. Because we can instill our children with generosity, comion and respect—not just for themselves and the people around them, but also for the trees, the rivers, the animals, and all living things. Still, I often wonder whether we’ll ever get it right. I wonder if my five-year-old daughter will become an adult in a world where fresh water and clean air are seen as basic human rights; or if they will be commodities within reach of only the privileged few. Though I’ve never questioned whether or not my decision to have my daughter was the right one, I do still return to the question of whether or not the world needs more people. And then I look at my daughter’s shining eyes, at her gentle hands, at her dancing legs, at her infectious smile and her tireless curiosity. In her soft embrace, I feel her generosity, her comion, and her boundless hope. Her laughter is so deep it could wake the flowers in spring; her spirit so generous it can shine love out on all living things; and her potential so huge she just may be the one to help push our planet towards a brighter future. There is no answer, then, but YES. For my daughter, and all children who carry within the potential for a better world, we will continue working to defend our beautiful planet. us! AIDA is an international nonprofit organization that uses the law to protect the environment, primarily in Latin America.
Read more
In times of climate change, we must respect nature
(Column originally published in El País) We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us. Over the last months, severe landslides have devastated communities in Peru and Colombia. Together, they left more than 500 people dead, dozens missing, and more than 100,000 victims. Tragedies like these have some things in common: they occurred in cities and regions with high rates of deforestation and changes in land use; in both areas there was evidence of poor planning and regulation. Effectively, these disasters were foreshadowed. They make clear once again the vital need to care for our forests and riverbanks, and to avoid deforestation and erosion. Climate change means hard rains, fires, and hurricanes will become increasingly frequent and more intense. In Mocoa, Colombia, the equivalent of 10 days of rain fell in just one night, causing flash flooding that devastated much of the small town. In many cases, nature is only taken into after tragedy strikes. But nature, when well cared for, can literally save lives. In Mocoa, a native forest helped protect one neighborhood from being washed away. That’s why environmental protection must be taken seriously, and any exploitation of natural resources must be well planned and sensible. Yet in Latin America, there remains a regional tendency towards unregulated extractivism. Over the last few years, governments across the region have been weakening environmental regulations in the name of development. Meanwhile, year after year, hundreds of people in Latin America and the Caribbean—especially children and others in vulnerable situations—die from events associated with droughts and floods. Activists, movements, mayors, and others seeking to protect land and water from extractive activities are frequently criticized, even criminalized and attacked. In the small Andean town of Cajamarca, Colombia, 98 percent of voters recently chose to ban all mining in their territory. It’s a decision that has sparked national controversy. Critics of the referendum have questioned whether the results are mandatory, despite the fact that Colombian law clearly states, “the decision of the people is mandatory.” Through their popular vote, the people of Cajamarca reminded their government of its commitment to protect their water and natural resources. Communities in Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, Peru, and El Salvador have done the same. While some extraction is necessary in modern society, there must be a healthy balance. Not every project is safe, and alternative development models must be embraced and explored. It’s time to incorporate the environment into public policy and development, once and for all. Two Latin American nations have shown what is possible. In 2011, Costa Rica banned all open-pit metal mining. In March, El Salvador did the same. In both cases it’s a big yet viable change, because alternatives exist and it’s understood that protecting land and water is necessary to secure a healthy future. El Salvador has the second-highest rates of deforestation and environmental degradation, which has led to severe water scarcity. This is why the ban on metal mining ed there. It was no favor to environmentalists; it was based on years of sound analysis. Social and economic studies of the proposal concluded that the best thing for the country was to care for and restore its remaining forests and water sources. The decision prioritized environmental restoration—particularly its social and economic benefits—above the perceived benefits of mining. Environmental degradation is not a problem that exists in a vacuum. That’s why States have signed treaties and other international instruments that recognize their obligation to protect the environment. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change, signed by 34 of 35 States on the American continent, is the most recent. Now, more than ever, these commitments must be honored and fulfilled. Not all extractive projects are viable. Determining their worth must involve sound planning, coupled with policies and legal frameworks that are strong and effective. Environmental Impact Studies must be done carefully, objectively, and independently. Decisions should consider short- and long-term impacts on both local and national levels. We are living now with the realities of climate change; to act otherwise would be ignorant and irresponsible. But, in case we forget, nature will surely remind us.
Read more
Victory in Colombia: Citizens Vote to Ban Mining in their Territory
On March 26, 2017, 98% of voters in Cajamarca, Colombia decisively rejected mining in their territory. The results of the referendum (or “popular consultation”) are binding under Colombian law. Now municipal authorities must issue regulations to implement the ban. AIDA was part of the legal team that advised the Cajamarca community and developed a strategy, including the referendum, to stop a proposed mine that threatens to pollute the water supply. AngloGold Ashanti was in the exploration phase of a project called La Colosa (the Collosus)—aptly named, because it would be among the world’s 10 largest open-pit gold mines, the second-largest in Latin America. In a country coming out of a 50-year civil war, the referendum is a victory not only for the environment, but also for democracy. Banning mining through popular consultation demonstrates a commitment to solving environmental conflicts in a peaceful and participatory manner. It also allows citizens to exercise their human right to have a voice in public issues that affect them—a key element of true democracy—and to safeguard their human right to a healthy environment.
Read more
My time before the region's leading court on human rights
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.” - Marianne Williamson As I sat before the Court, one woman in a long line of observers, my pulse raced. For the first time in my life I was speechless, even awestruck. Towering regally over me sat six men and one woman, dressed in robes. The seven judges of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. Public speaking is something I do regularly and with ease, but I was seriously nervous! My heart was going to explode; my throat was tight. I was acutely aware of the power of what I was about to say. I felt deep within myself the strength of my colleagues at AIDA. I sat up straight, took a deep breath, and leaned in closer to the microphone. As I began to speak, my words bore the influence of the last 20 years. I was representing AIDA in our very first intervention before the most important international human rights body in the Americas. We had been invited by the Court to comment on the consultative opinion raised by Colombian government on the link between environmental degradation and human rights; an issue reflecting the very core of our mission. The basic question to be addressed was this: If a megaproject damages the marine environment in the Greater Caribbean and, as a result, human rights are threaten or violated, should the State implementing the project be held able under international human rights law? When I began my career in environmental law 20 years ago, this very moment was one of my goals. I dreamt of engaging in this type of conversation before the Court; of influencing jurisprudence in the institution charged with protecting the human rights of the people of the Americas. Now, because I sit proudly as co-director of AIDA, those dreams have come true. Not just for myself, but also for all the brave and thoughtful attorneys I work alongside. The document we drafted represents countless hours of research and analysis, the contributions of human rights experts and environmental attorneys, decades of experience, lifetimes of dedication. We drafted it so the Court would recognize environmental protection as a human rights issue; that a healthy environment is essential to the enjoyment of all human rights. We hope it will show the judges of the Inter-American Human Rights System that incorporating international environmental law and standards can help them implement their mission. ing the months of work and the expert opinions in the document calmed me that day. The testimonies I heard were like music to my ears—more than 20 people, one after the other, from States and civil society organizations, spoke of the relationship between the environment and human rights; they spoke of the power of using international environmental law to protect people and communities. The arguments we crafted, together, made the link between the environment and human rights crystal clear. We had the historic opportunity to highlight how, in some situations, environmental degradation violates human rights. Protecting our environment, therefore, is an international obligation of all States in the Americas. When I finished speaking, I took a deep breath, and sat back in my chair. A smile broke across my face, as my phone began to light up with messages from my colleagues from every corner of the Americas. I left that day happily reflecting on the past 20 years, and wholly re-invigorated for 20 more. I left full of gratitude and pride for my team. And I left convinced of the power we have—as AIDA, as attorneys, as citizens, as human beings—to create change. It all goes to show that, while we may be small, we are not alone. Together we are powerful and, together, we are capable of building a better world. The decision is now in the hands of the Court, whose opinion has the power to influence the future of development in the Americas.
Read more
Costa Rica launches wetlands protection policy
On March 6, Costa Rica’s rivers, lakes, mangroves and other wetlands became better protected when the government launched its first national policy for their sustainable management. The National Wetlands Policy (2017-2030) was created to preserve and revitalize the nation’s wetlands and the great biodiversity they house. The Ministry of the Environment, the National System of Conservation Areas, and the United Nations Development Program created the historic public policy instrument over the last year and a half. AIDA helped develop the policy, providing comments based on international environmental law. We drew from our experience helping Mexico craft its own wetlands policy in 2014. “We sought to ensure that the National Wetlands Policy was in alignment with Costa Rica’s obligations under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty that states all countries should have a wetlands policy and provides governments with assistance protecting wetlands in their territory,” explained Gladys Martínez, senior attorney with AIDA’s Marine Biodiversity and Coastal Protection Program. Costa Rica’s Organic Law of the Environment defines wetlands as ecosystems that depend on both sweet and brackish water, are natural or artificial, and which can be permanent or temporary. Therefore, wetlands are not just bodies of water like rivers and lakes; they’re also marshes, mangroves, flood plains, and coral reefs, among others. “In Costa Rica we have thousands of wetlands that represent roughly seven percent of the national territory,” stated Edgar Gutiérrez, the Minister of Environment and Energy, in a statement released to mark the launch of the policy. “This policy will help improve the governance and protection of these resources, paying off a historic debt to our vital ecosystems.” Five main components The policy’s action plan is based on five strategic themes: Conservation of wetlands, their goods and services: Avoid future losses of wetlands and mitigate factors that endanger their health and wellbeing. It also proposes the creation of a National Inventory of Wetlands. Climate adaptation and rational use: Identify which wetlands are the most vulnerable to climate change and to carry out mitigation actions. Ecological rehabilitation: Once vulnerable wetlands are identified, recovery actions will be planned. Strengthening institutional for adequate management: Better coordination and communication between the entities in charge of the management and conservation of wetlands. Inclusive participation: Citizens should be involved and participate actively in wetland-conservation processes. Community consultation It’s particularly important to celebrate the participatory nature of the policy. Many Costa Ricans base their lives and livelihoods on the health of wetlands and other natural environments. Now, instead of removing the public from decision-making, the government officially recognizes the importance of consultation. “The most important aspect of the policy is that, in addition to complying with the Ramsar Convention, the government is also complying with other international conventions that promote consultation,” Martínez explained. Costa Rica’s new policy represents a significant advance in defense of the environment. It shows the region that progressive environmental policies are possible. At AIDA we’re happy to say “Pura Vida!” to the wetlands. We hope more countries will in their protection.
Read more
Changing the way we approach large dams
Cigarettes once served to cure cough; lead-based makeup was fashionable; and DDT, a highly toxic insecticide, was used in gardens where children played. At the time, little was known of their grave impacts on health and the environment. These facts may shock us now, but once they were normal. Cigarettes, lead, and DDT were widely believed to be more beneficial than harmful to humanity. Thanks to science, we learned of their serious health and environmental impacts. We’re learning the same now about large dams. A photograph of a dam surrounded by trees is as misleading as the doctor-approved cigarette ads once were. In the last decade, we’ve seen that the damage dams do to communities and ecosystems is far greater than the benefits they provide. Recently, an academic study confirmed something even more worrying: large dams aggravate climate change. At the end of 2016, researchers from Washington State University (WSU) concluded that reservoirs around the world, not just those in tropical areas, generate 1.3 percent of the total greenhouse gases produced by mankind. Dams, they found, are an “underestimated” source of contaminating emissions, particularly methane, a pollutant 34 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. These findings have not yet been properly absorbed. Large dams continue to be funded and promoted as clean energy. Some countries boast nearly 100 percent renewable energy, yet reports show that at least half of that is hydroelectric energy, produced primarily by large dams. Violating human rights Even before WSU’s study was made public, the damage large dams do to communities and the environment was well documented. Dams disrupt traditional lifestyles, and affected communities are forced to adapt to new environmental conditions, such as altered river flow and species migration. Many communities have also been victims of forced displacement and fall into poverty as a result. In the Brazilian Amazon, the Belo Monte Dam provides a prime example of the ways dams cause negative impacts on both people and the environment. At AIDA, we’ve worked hand-in-hand with the indigenous and river communities of the Xingu River Basin, who have seen the trees fall around them, the red earth spread like a stain across their forest, the fish disappear from their rivers, and their small islands submerged. For those living in Altamira, the city nearest the dam, living conditions also worsened significantly, with increased violence, substance abuse, and prostitution. This story has been repeated thousands of times around the world. According to International Rivers, 57 thousand large dams had been built by 2015, disrupting more than half of the world’s rivers and causing the displacement of at least 40 million people. What can we do? Although the WSU study may surprise governments and corporations that promote the construction of large dams, for the health of the planet the trend must be stopped. Environmentally friendly alternatives exist, which do not imply the same social, economic and climatic impacts as dams. Hope can be found in the Brazilian Amazon with the Munduruku tribe. Last year, their long fight paid off with the cancellation of a large dam project on the Tapajós River, the sacred waterway on which their lifestyle depends. The decision to cancel the dam was backed with evidence of the impacts dams have on communities and ecosystems, exemplified by the case of Belo Monte. Recently, the Munduruku gathered to discuss and find solutions for the threats they continue to face as development rages in the Amazon. Solutions include the decentralization of energy sources, the promotion of small-scale projects, and solar and geothermal energy, all of which must be accompanied by adequate community-consultation processes. But they must be studied on a case-by-case basis and according to available resources, as what’s best for one community may not be best for another. Funding must carefully evaluate which projects to , analyzing in detail the potential socio-environmental impacts. It may sound like people are making all the wrong decisions, but now is no time to be discouraged. We have the scientific information we need to care for our planet. Societal changes prove that we can change our actions to prioritize our health. Why can’t we do the same for the health of our planet? In the last several decades, the number of smokers has drastically decreased, we’ve stopped lacing makeup and other products with lead, and DDT has been regulated. In of large dams, the solution lies in re-thinking the way we produce energy and prioritizing the preservation of our free-flowing rivers.
Read more
Tárcoles: The most contaminated river in Central America
The sun rises slowly over the Rio Grande de Tárcoles. Guacamayas rest on treetops, and crocodiles laze upon the shore. Hundreds of tourists stop to photograph this beautiful moment when, suddenly, a hunk of garbage floats by. This is life on the Tárcoles, the most polluted river not just in Costa Rica but also in all of Central America. While the country has made great strides in moving beyond fossil fuels for power generation, there is still much to be done in of waste management. The source of pollution There are two main reasons for the excessive contamination of the large river: increasing urbanization and government bureaucracy. Within the river’s enormous span—which covers 4.2 percent of the Costa Rican territory—flows all the dirty water of the small nation’s Greater Metropolitan Area. In 2012, the State of the Nation report revealed that 96 percent of the country’s wastewater was untreated before entering the river. The Tárcoles suffers the consequences of this deficiency. The river is used as a city sewer, receiving the equivalent of 100 Olympic swimming pools of untreated water, according to the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers. Its waters have been victim to antiquated laws that have for years favored economic activity above the river’s health. Despite an established fine for discharging wastewater and pollutants into the river, enforcement is not respected. As a result, the number of illegal spills of dirty water, tech waste, and garbage into the Tárcoles remains unchanged. Thanks to all of this, the National University’s environmental analysis laboratory estimated that if more effective measures were not adopted by the year 2040, the river’s recovery would be impossible. The river has been saturated with pollution, reaching the critical situation we find it in today. Environmental wealth at risk Despite the heavy pollution, the biological wealth at the mouth of the Tárcoles River is extraordinary. In its waters lives the largest American crocodile population in the country and around 50 species of birds. The river feeds the Guacalillo mangroves, home to a huge variety of animals, and four of the five species of mangrove in Costa Rica. This rich ecosystem also contributes to fishing and tourism for the subsistence of local communities, who pride themselves on its natural beauty. What’s been done and what’s left to do Efforts have been made to mitigate the impact of pollution on the river and to rescue its great biodiversity. The Los Tajos water treatment plant was designed to clean 20 percent of the waters that reach the Tárcoles. Isolated citizens’ cleaning campaigns have also made an impressive impact. In 2007, a cleanup of the river removed approximately 1,000 tires from its waters. This spurred the government to issue a decree favoring local communities, with the intention of guaranteeing their right to a healthy environment. The decree recognizes the biological importance of the river and the deterioration it has suffered. It created the Comprehensive Management Commission for the Rio Grande de Tárcoles Basin to plan sustainable ways to protect the river. These responses are steps in the right direction. However, more significant actions are needed to ensure the full recovery of the Tárcoles, before the damage becomes irreparable. The Commission has thus far been unable to mitigate pollution significantly. It needs better organization and more resources. The Commission should be involving local communities and carrying out massive cleanups in the river basin. The Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers must act efficiently to treat wastewater properly, prevent illegal spills, clean the river to restore the health of this sick giant, and control all water entering the river. The challenge is great, but the natural beauty of the river basin makes it a worthwhile effort.
Read more
The Odebrecht Tsunami: can we restore the public trust, or just the money?
(Column originally published in El País) Corruption in Latin American and the Caribbean is no longer news. Some even consider it normal. But this too has a limit. So when we learned of the extent of corruption involved with Brazilian multinational Odebrecht, the news hit like a tsunami: the corporation not only swept away huge piles of money, it also destroyed the public trust. Now we must question whether the more than 100 infrastructure projects involved in the Odebrecht case were really in the public interest, or if they were merely an excuse to pay millions in bribes. The details of this complex and corrupt machinery came to light on December 21. That day the Department of Justice and the US Attorney’s Office published a document in which corporate executives confessed to having paid roughly $788 million in bribes to officials in 11 Latin American countries and Mozambique. According to the document, “between 2001 and 2016, Odebrecht, together with its co-conspirators, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed with others to corruptly provide hundreds of millions of dollars… for the benefit of foreign officials, foreign political parties, foreign political party officials, and foreign political candidates… in order to obtain and retain business…” It is a confession of actions that completely betray the public trust. The executives implicated dozens of governments, including heads of state (such as Colombian President and Nobel Prize-winner Juan Manuel Santos), ministers, senators, and others who are now being investigated or have been jailed. Indignation is rampant, as are demands for justice. Although it wasn’t possible to access the complete list of projects, public information in each country s for the following: Argentina: gas pipelines, water purification projects, potassium extraction, and the burial of the Sarmiento railway, among others. Brazil: hundreds of projects, including extractive industries and the Belo Monte Dam, which since its planning stages has been violating human rights. Colombia: the Ruta del Sol and the navigation of the Magdalena River, the two most important engineering projects in the country. Ecuador: the Manduriacu dam and the Pacific refinery. Although the istration of Rafael Correa has stated that possible bribes occurred before 2007, the US government claims to have evidence of later bribes. Mexico: the Ethylene XXI petrochemical project (the largest in Latin America) and the Los Ramones II Norte gas pipeline. Peru: the North-South Interoceanic Highway, the Alto Piura hydroelectric project, and the Lima electric train. Dominican Republic: the Punta Catalina thermoelectric plant and the Pinalito hydroelectric plant. In all countries, the bribes involve energy or infrastructure projects that were declared essential for development by governments, international agencies, and corporations. Yet communities and organizations have for decades denounced these same projects for abridging human rights, harming the environment, and aggravating climate change. The majority of their complaints about these projects were ignored. The Belo Monte Dam, for example, began operations despite the fact that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested a halt to its construction and government protection of the rights of affected indigenous communities. Requests for justice were also repressed, sometimes by the very governments that, according to the evidence, were reportedly given bribes to implement the projects. The situation is all the more serious if we consider that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for human rights defenders, particularly those who protect the environment and their territory. Faced with unprecedented corruption, it is vital to analyze each of the projects from the Odebrecht case to determine its true public utility. It’s likely that, in many cases, the socio-environmental costs far outweigh the benefits. In such cases, damages must be penalized. The Odebrecht case may be just the tip of the iceberg in a broader regional problem. Each State and corporation on the continent must adopt effective anti-corruption measures and re-evaluate their project planning and implementation processes. One clear lesson from this scandal is that the region needs to strengthen the independent, objective fulfillment of national and international standards for the protection of the environment and human rights. In the case of mega-projects, transparency and the participation of those affected (and those interested in protecting the public interest) must be ensured. Given that, in some cases, the investigation of corruption rests with the istrations implicated in the scandal, independent regional citizen’s oversight should be established to investigate the impacts of the mega-projects, and the best ways to compensate for damages. We must ensure, once and for all, that decision-makers are truly serving the public interest, and not their own pocketbooks. All of us citizens must contribute to making this a reality. One thing you can do to help is AIDA – the only regional organization of Latin American experts providing free legal to secure the wellbeing of people, places, and the planet.
Read more
The role of civil society in the Green Climate Fund
Climate change is real, and its impacts are here to stay. The nations of the world have agreed that, to get out of this mess, they must act together. But beyond setting intentions, little progress has been made. One important opportunity to get things done is the Green Climate Fund, the primary financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It’s a relatively new institution with the ability to move large quantities of money from rich countries to those in development. With these resources, the most vulnerable and least financially equipped nations can develop the projects and programs they need to confront climate change. How the Fund works in practice The Fund is a complex mechanism in which diverse actors interact. The Board of Directors, in charge of governing and supervising the Fund, is made up of 24 , 12 representatives from developed nations and 12 from developing ones. The Independent Secretariat implements the decisions adopted by the Board. The Fund relates to countries through the National Designated Authorities or Focal Points, which are entities designated within each nation. The Fund also accredits national, regional and international institutions to channel economic resources through the presentation and implementation of climate proposals. These are called Accredited Entities. Last, but certainly not least, observers from civil society and the private sector play a key role in ensuring that the Fund takes into the needs of local populations, especially the most vulnerable, when approving projects and programs to combat climate change. How decisions get made In practice, the Fund has been built at meetings of its Board of Directors, held every three months. There, board discuss and decide on the policies that shape the Fund. They also grant accreditation to entities that will channel funds from the GCF to the different countries, and approve the projects and programs that the Fund will finance. Last October, I was fortunate to participate, as a civil society observer, at the 14th meeting of the Board, which was held at the Fund’s headquarters in Songdo, South Korea. I had the opportunity to see, on the ground, how this complex international mechanism works and, above all, how civil society contributes. It quickly became clear to me that the working conditions of civil society are not easy. To begin with, there is no economic for civil society representatives that must travel and stay abroad at least three times a year to attend the board meetings. Inside the meetings of the Board, only “active observers” can participate: two from civil society and two from the private sector. The remaining observers sit in an ading room, following the meeting on television screens. Civil society has the right to speak, but this right can only be exercised by the two active observers, and only if the Co-Chairmen of the Board of Directors approve. All civil society interventions are previously discussed, prepared and perfected by the coalition of observers. This leads to many sleepless nights, since the subjects are broad and complex. In practice, civil society contributions are relegated to the end of the Board’s discussions. When time is scarce, a common reality, many times the right to speak is denied. This can be extremely frustrating, since crucial contributions are lost. Why civil society is important Civil society contributes to the construction of the Fund’s policies with the objective of elevating its standards. Among other tasks, each funding proposal is studied, and the communities potentially affected by or benefitting from it are ed, in order to understand what the project or program may actually involve, beyond what appears on paper. That’s why the informal work that civil society does “behind the scenes” is so important. It is the work done during recess, at lunchtime, and in the corridors. Gradually, civil society observers build relationships with decision makers (Board and advisors) and are able to share their ideas, concerns and suggestions with them. The results of civil society’s work are being seen in decision-making, slowly but surely. The Green Climate Fund offers hope because its guidelines are correctly posed: it seeks to promote transformation and paradigmatic change, promises transparency, and its decisions are made giving equal weight to representatives of developed and developing nations. Its mandate is to promote “country ownership” of the programs and projects it finances, that is, to ensure they are guided by the needs and priorities of the beneficiary countries. In addition, the Fund has an obligation to act with a gender approach. However, the Fund also has problems and shortcomings. That’s why involvement of civil society is critical. Because they do not represent any government, political party or other interest, civil society observers ensure the protection of the environment, respect for human rights, and the participation and inclusion of people directly affected by climate change. The physical participation of civil society in Board meetings is vital. They ensure the Fund takes into the voices of the communities directly affected by or benefitting from the financing. Learn more about the Fund on our website!
Read more
Why Chile is burning and what we can do about it
Uncontrollable wildfires in Chile have burned more than 500,000 hectares, an area three times the size of Mexico City. With each day that es, the figure grows. It’s the worst environmental catastrophe the country has seen. Eleven people have died and nearly 4,000 have been affected. The flames have engulfed at least six of Chile’s 15 regions. Causes of the tragedy Much has been said about what could have started these voracious fires. Below is a compilation of the various causes, in hopes that understanding them may help us avoid and better control such fires in the future: Climate change. With the extreme changes in climate, temperatures have risen, causing an eight-year-old drought in the center of the country. This reality has enabled the fulfillment of the so-called “30-30-30” rule, which facilitates the perfect scenario for wildfires: a temperature of 30 degrees Celsius, 30 percent humidity, and winds of 30 kilometers per hour. The human factor. According to the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF), the organization responsible for fighting wildfires in Chile, the vast majority of fires are actually caused by human neglect. In this case, there have been indications that some of the fires were started intentionally. Forest plantations. This cause has the deepest roots. In the central and southern regions of the country, forest plantations have been replacing native forest. That means heterogeneous and biodiverse forests have been transformed into thousands of hectares of one single species, eliminating the natural barriers against fire. These monocultures, mostly pine and eucalyptus, quickly absorb large amounts of water, drying the soil around them and stifling most other life. In addition, both of these trees contain flammable elements that contribute to the spread of fire. Inadequate legislation. Decree Law 701, issued in 1974, sought to boost forestry development through economic incentives, leading to the explosion of large-scale pine and eucalyptus plantations in Chile. By financing up to 75 percent of monocultures, the decree most benefited those who already owned large tracts of land. It promoted the felling and burning of native forest to replace it with monocultures of exotic species. High voltage cables. When ing over forests, these cables generate high-temperature heat waves. If a branch falls on a cable, it can easily cause a fire. Lack of prevention and preparedness. The factors mentioned above were all known realities; the risk of the current fires was latent. More should have been done to prevent them, and to have been better prepared to face them. Chile has no public policy to address the issue. There is no law on fighting wildfires or confronting other such emergencies. Prevention would involve actions ranging from regulating the activities of forest companies, to implementing effective firefighting, to avoiding the accumulation of garbage in places where fires may emerge. What we can do about it Institutional and forestry planning appropriate for a changing climate. Changes in weather patterns have made wildfires far more likely to occur. For this reason, adequate plans and policies must be developed to deal with such situations, which will continue to be an underlying threat. Planning should be geared towards building a forest landscape resilient to a drier and hotter future. Strengthening firefighting capacities. The budget afforded to CONAF and the firefighting companies must be sufficient to cover the necessary equipment and human capacity needed to effectively battle such blazes. Regulations to prevent and protect. Legal measures must be taken to ensure that reforestation incorporates firebreaks and ample buffer zones around sensitive areas (villages, water sources and productive areas, among others). This reduces the ability of wildfires to progress and protects local biodiversity and ecosystem services. Impose responsibilities. The owners of forest plantations must be responsible for setting up firewalls and other safeguards, as well as for having emergency plans. Stop promoting monocultures and reestablish native forest. Because they are harmful to the environment and propagate wildfires, the State must stop encouraging monocultures and instead encourage the cultivation of diverse and native forests. Plan reforestation after the fire. Local development must be ensured throughout the process of reforestation, involving affected communities and stakeholders. Education and training of residents and local authorities. Those who live and keep watch over high-risk areas should know how to respond in the case of an emergency, and they must know how to prevent it. How YOU can help now The platform “movidos x Chile” has information on how to help those affected by the fires (donations, volunteering, etc.). The following organizations are receiving money to help victims: Desafío Levantemos Chile (includes information on how to donate from abroad). Un Techo para Chile. Hogar de Cristo. Ministry of the Interior (includes information on how to donate from abroad). The Red Cross (receives in-kind and monetary donations). There are also organizations focused on helping affected animals: Veterinary Medical College of Chile (receives in-kind and monetary donations). The website abandonados.cl (contains information on various organizations that offer help to the animals affected by the fires). Also, on this page you can find information about all the organizations and institutions that are receiving donations for both victims and animals, including locations across the country where material can be provided.
Read more