Publications

October 23 2016 Climate Change

The Green Climate Fund: Summary of Decisions of the Board of Directors (in Spanish)

This report offers an overview of the development, evolution and current state of the Green Climate Fund. It includes a summary of the decisions made thus far by the Board of Directors. It also highlights the progress made by the Fund, and the challenges it must overcome in order to achieve its objectives. In 2010, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change created the Green Climate Fund with the goal of contributing significantly and ambitiously to the goals set by the international community to combat climate change. The Fund will be the primary mechanism through which developing nations receive financial resources from developed nations to undertake adaptation and mitigation activites that will help them confront extreme changes in climate. The Latin America nations that are of the Convention will be beneficiaries of the financing. That’s why a clear understanding of the objectives and operation of this institution can contribute to better use of these resources in the region. the report (in Spanish)

June 01 2016 Large Dams, Indigenous Rights

Letter to the President of Panama on Test Flooding in Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Project

AIDA and other organizations sent an open letter to Juan Carlos Varela Rodríguez, President of the Republic of Panama. We urge him to protect life and integrity of the Ngäbe communities and to immediately suspend the test flooding in the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Power Plant Project which is violating their rights and placing them at risk of irreparable harm. Dear President Varela, We, the undersigned organizations, are deeply concerned for the personal safety and security of the Ngäbe communities, affected by the Barro Blanco Hydroelectric Power Plant Project. On May 22, Panama’s National Authority for Public Services (ASEP) announced in a press release that Barro Blanco’s reservoir would be filled[1], starting on May 24. ASEP’s press release indicated that the water would rise up to 103 meters above sea level by June 21, 2016. According to a fact finding mission led by the United Nations Development Programme in 2012[2], the Ngäbe communities of Kiad, Nuevo Palomar and Quebrada Caña will be directly impacted by the flooding. This report indicates that 6 hectares + 9816.86 m² of their lands, including 6 houses and a petroglyph located in the community of Quebrada Caña, will be under water. Furthermore, we have received reports from affected community that floodwaters of the Barro Blanco reservoir have reached the limits of the Bakama Area (Corregimiento) of the Ngäbe-Bugle Territory (Comarca) in Western Panama. At this point, the Ngäbe communities of Quebrada Plata, Quebrada Caña, Kiad and Nuevo Palomar - as well as the Mama Tatda ceremonial sites - could be seriously harmed by the so-called test flooding this week, much ahead of the estimated June 21 peak level announced by ASEP. Contrary to what is stated by ASEP press release, and as confirmed by Milton Henriquez, Minister of Internal Affairs[3], the affected communities were not notified or consulted prior to the test flooding. This goes against international human rights standards, which stipulate that indigenous peoples have the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent. As derived from the right to property protected under the American Convention on Human Rights and other agreements, indigenous peoples have also the right to adequate housing, to possess, use, and “freely enjoy” their traditional lands and territories, and to “not be forcibly removed” from them[4]. The Ngäbe communities are determined to stay and defend their sacred lands, regardless of the ongoing flooding. We urge you to protect their life and their integrity and to immediately suspend the test flooding which is violating their rights and placing them at risk of irreparable harm. [1] http://www.panamaamerica.com.pa/economia/asep-anuncia-el-inicio-del-periodo-de-prueba-de-central-hidroelectrica-barro-blanco-1027251 [2] http://canal-empresarias.ciudaddelsaber.org/wp-content/s/2015/09/0-informe-mision-verficacion-final-20121219.pdf [3] http://www.mingob.gob.pa/mingob/inside.php?artID=3246 [4] For more information, please see http://www.ciel.org/Publications/BarroBlanco_Appeal_18Feb2014.pdf

May 26 2016 Human Rights

Letter to OAS Member States on the Financial Crisis at the IACHR

AIDA s more than 300 organizations in calling on Member States of the Organization of American States to act swiftly in the face of the financial crisis affecting the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Our letter calls for urgent action to guarantee the immediate funding of the important human rights institution, as well as for the creation of a sustainable fund to guarantee ongoing financing. Read it below: OAS Member States, The Coalition for Human Rights in the Americas, and the of other regional and global networks from civil society, express our deep concern over the severe financial crisis currently affecting the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR). We endorse this statement in order to appeal all Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS) to take the necessary actions to guarantee the immediate and proper funding of the IACHR in order to fulfill its mandate. In addition, we urgently call for the creation of a sustainable fund to finance the Organs of the Inter-American Human Rights System (IHRS), in order to address the precarious situation, which both the Commission and Inter-American Court of Human Rights have been going through since in the last few years. The Inter-American Commission is mandated to promote the observance and protection of human rights in the Americas, and acts as a consultative organ to the OAS in this area. It is the only regional mechanism that supervises the obligations of all Member States of the OAS in this area, and constitutes the last resort for defending against violations of fundamental rights in the continent. The IACHR is an international referent, due to its great labour of protecting thousands of human rights defenders, who live threatened and criminalized in the Americas. This organ watches over the indigenous people and afro-descendant people’s rights, women and children, and the LGTBI community rights as well, among other vulnerable populations. The role of the IACHR, not only in the area of human rights protection, but also in the implementation of measures to promote their accomplishment, affects almost a billion people across the region. In spite of that, the Inter-American Commission has historically suffered from a structural lack of funds, which are currently reaching the point of effectively compromising the Commission's ability to fulfill its basic functions, including its mandate assigned by the OAS Member States. The Commission itself has announced that on July 31st of 2016 the contracts of 40 percent of its personnel will expire, and at this time the Commission does not have the funds—or the expectation of receiving the funds—to be able to renew them. In addition, the IACHR has reported that it has been forced to suspend the country visits it had planned for this year, as well as the 159th and 160th Period of Sessions, which had been scheduled for July and October of this year. In contrast with other human rights protection organs, either national or international, the financing received by the IACHR from the regular OAS fund, meaning from the Member States, is contradictory with the countries' wish to aspire to build a more democratic region. In 2016, the regular budget provided by the fund was around $5,4287.9 million dollars, which is 6.44 percent of the annual budget of the OAS – by comparison, the Council of European member States provides 41.5 percent of its annual budget to the promotion and protection of human rights. Even though the OAS General Assembly has approved in the past resolutions committing to address this matter, these changes have not materialized with the required increase of resources, that would allow both the Commission and Court – whose budget will be reduced in a third part by the end of the year, if nothing changes – to have with the proper funding to successfully fulfill their mandates. In addition, the aim of this petition is not only for the IACHR to be able to carry out with the scheduled activities for the current year, to renew the contracts of 40 percent of its staff and to conduct the 159th and 160th Period of Sessions, but also to create a structure for this purpose that converts the funding of those organs into a sustainable practice, significantly increasing the budget that the OAS provides to the Inter-American Human Rights System. The g Civil Society organizations see in this crisis a unique opportunity to reinforce the OAS Member States' commitment to human rights in the continent. This is why we call on countries to figure out how to secure a strong and stable funding structure, which effectively guarantees the protective devices and tools that the ISHR provides to millions of people in the Americas.

May 13 2016 Large Dams, Indigenous Rights

Correspondence with the World Bank Regarding Berta Cáceres and Large Dams

On May 11th, more than 300 organizations from around the world sent a letter to Dr. Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank, to respond to a statement he made during an event at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. In response to a question about the impacts of large dam projects as illustrated by the murder of Berta Cáceres in Honduras he stated, among other things, that “you cannot do the work we’re trying to do and not have some of these ‘incidents’ happen.” The organizations g this letter consider these statements from the World Bank President unacceptable and urge him to immediately rectify his actions and make a public apology. Dr. Kim’s statement is available on video (minute 53). CONSULT the letter sent to the World Bank President in ENGLISH and SPANISH. On May 11th, the World Bank responded to the letter from organizations in a public brief on Honduras and indigenous peoples, which can be found on their website. On May 13th, a drafting committee from the coalition of organizations answered the World Bank, taking note of the President's condemnation of the murder of Berta Cáceres. The also noted that the reference the President of the World Bank made to the grave human rights violations caused by dams, such a involuntary displacement, is worrying and must be addressed. They reiterated the existence of alternatives to large hydroelectric projects and the need to implement such solutions. The organizations concluded: "In honor of your commitment to “hear the voices of the Berta Caceres of the world” we look forward to the World Bank Group moving towards energy alternatives that are respectful of the human rights of people and communities; that are more efficient, less expensive and actually respectful of the planet. That is the main way to achieve real prosperity for all."

May 02 2016 Mining

Open Letter on Mining to Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau

Excerpt: As activists, Latin American organizations and networks, along with international groups and organizations that have partners in Latin America, we are aware of and concerned about the human rights violations committed by Canadian mining companies operating in the region. On the basis of our experience, we offer the following observations and recommendations, as we share certain universal principles of human rights and justice that transcend borders. ... In light of early indications of concern for human rights from your istration, we urge the adoption of workable measures to promote legislative and istrative reforms that will more effectively regulate the operations of Canadian mining companies around the world. In particular, we recommend an immediate change in existing policies in order to: Ensure Canadian mining companies operating in Latin America do so in conformity with the international human rights standards established in treaties, which apply to both host countries and to Canada. In recognition of the increasing number of mining conflicts in the region, it is vital that the Canadian government and Canadian mining companies respect the rights of Indigenous communities to self- determination and to free, prior, and informed consent before any mining activities are undertaken on their territories. Respect the decisions of numerous communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, who have said no to large-scale mining because of its severe damaging impacts on the environment and social wellbeing. Implement the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2005. End Canadian intervention and the provision of any kind of governmental , be it through overseas development aid, trade, and investment agreements, public financing or technical assistance, or diplomacy that seeks to influence the adoption or modification of regulatory frameworks in recipient countries for extractive projects. Incorporate international human rights and transparency standards in the regulation of credit agencies and public and private investment that finance extractive activities and impose safeguards on companies that receive state subsidies. Guarantee effective access to Canadian courts so that victims of human rights violations caused by Canadian businesses abroad can obtain justice, truth, and reparations. Create objective and impartial mechanisms to effectively monitor and investigate complaints of individual and collective human rights violations in connection with Canadian mining companies abroad. These mechanisms should be designed in conformity with the Paris Principles regarding the status and functions of national human rights institutions. End the pursuit of free trade and investment agreements that favor the protection and promotion of Canadian mining companies over individual and collective human rights, as well as environmental protection. Refrain from promoting international arbitration mechanisms, which is a powerful tool to shield foreign investments that profit from the absence of effective ability measures aimed at preventing human rights violations. After many years of a lack of will to dialogue and an absence of critical self-evaluation by previous governments, we are hopeful that your commitment to human rights will lead to measures that hold state agencies and corporations to and prevent further abuses by Canadian mining companies operating abroad. Such measures would earn Canada greater recognition as a nation that respects human rights.

April 25 2016 Oceans, Mining

10 Things You Should Know About Don Diego

1. Don Diego is a proposed marine mining project in Mexico. Marine mining is a process used to extract metals or minerals from the seabed. The Don Diego proposal calls for dredging seven million tons of phosphate sand from the seabed 19 kilometers off the coast of Baja California Sur.[1] Leftover materials – excess or waste – that are not of interest would be returned to the sea.[2] 2. If created, it would be the first phosphate mine of its type, using this technique, in the region. This makes it impossible to accurately predict the damage that it could do or the measures that could be taken to protect against it.[3] Other countries, such as Namibia and New Zealand, [4] have rejected similar projects due to the severity of their potential impacts. Exploraciones Oceánicas, the company in charge of the project, does not have adequate experience in this area,[5] nor does the Mexican government have the experience to implement and monitor it properly. Even with this uncertainty, the company has not provided a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the plan for managing, monitoring and supervising Don Diego. 3. It would alter the marine ecosystem. The collection of phosphate sand from the sea, and the deposition of waste, would create sediment that blocks light from entering, in turn affecting marine photosynthesis.[6] Dredging would destroy the health and habitat of benthic species such as oysters and clams, damaging the food chain and the natural equilibrium of the area.[7] The ecosystem could take years to recover. 4. The mine will not necessarily create greater food security in Mexico. Phosphate is used in fertilizer, which helps to produce food. The project’s proponents say a marine mine is needed to make up for reduced global phosphate reserves on land.[8] But beginning an operation of this type, without necessarily understanding the technique and its impacts, could cause more harm than good. In addition, extracting phosphate from Mexico’s waters does not guarantee that the phosphate will then be used to meet the demands of agriculture in Mexico, or in the Americas at all. 5. It would put at risk fisheries and the families that depend upon them. The location of the mining project would overlap with fishing concessions.[9] Ulloa Bay produces nearly 8,450 tons per year of commercial species including abalone, clams, squid, shrimp, snail, dogfish, crab, lobster, oyters, octopus, sharks and rays.[10] Fisheries would decline considerably due to the impacts of dredging the seabed.[11] 6. It would impact an ecologically rich and vulnerable area. Ulloa Bay is a unique marine region characterized by its biodiversity and high productivity. The bay is home to a great number of species of interest both to fisheries and to conservationists. In addition, a portion of the project would spread over 20 percent of the Magdalena Bay Region of Marine Importance,[12] a mangrove ecosystem that provides essential environmental services to coastal communities, including mitigation of climate change. 7. It would further endanger the habitat of the loggerhead turtle. Ulloa Bay is a critical habitat for the endangered loggerhead turtle, so much so that the Mexican government previously named it a refuge for the protection of the species.[13] Studies show that heavy noise, such as the mine would generate, would cause drastic changes in behavior and displace turtles from their habitat.[14] In addition, the Interamerican Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles has recently included mining as one of the listed activities threatening the health and habitat of sea turtles.[15] 8. It would destroy a refuge for the grey whale. Each year, the grey whale travels from Alaska to the warm waters of Baja California Sur to give birth to and raise its young.[16] Whales use sound to identify and locate their pod, and to find and capture their food.[17] Don Diego would generate noise, increase traffic and change the marine ecosystem, forever altering what has been for centuries a refuge for migrating whales.[18] 9. Approval of the project would involve a breach of international obligations on the part of the Mexican government. Mexico has obligations under international law to protect its marine ecosystem and the vulnerable species that depend on its health. The precautionary principle should be applied to this case, as there is no scientific certainty about the magnitude and intensity of the environmental damage that could occur. The Mexican government is required to take measures to avoid such damage, including evaluating a no-project alternative, until it proves that harm can be avoided or minimized. 10. The details of the project are confusing and available public information is incomplete. The duration and specific location of the project remain unclear. For example, the project is proposed to last 50 years, but under the Mining Law it could be extended 50 additional years.[19] [1] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego”, pp. 4, 5 y 7. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/resumenes/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [2] Todo el proceso es descrito por el promovente, con mayor énfasis en el Capítulo II de la Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental, pp. 23-42. [3] Rofomex was a phosphate project in San Juan de la Costa, close to the city of La Paz, Baja California; the mine produced two million tons of phosphate annually, information available at http://www.dredge.com/dred2-10.html , http://defiendelasierra.org/wp-content/s/San-Juan-de-la-Costa.pdf y http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show-mrds.php?dep_id=10048963; however, the project was located on land and was not in Ulloa Bay, see the extact location here. [4] The first marine phosphate mine was proposed in Namibia in 2013, however the project was not approved and a moratorium was subsequently announced on this activity. See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1307/S00188/marine-phosphate-mining-cannot-be-sustained-by-namibia.htm and http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/sandpiper-project.html; New Zealand used the precautionary principle to negate permission of an underwater phosphate mine, see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/66038589/Chatham-Rock-Phosphate-aghast-mining-consent-refused [5] Website of Exploraciones Océanicas and activity on the NASDAQ stock exchange, which shows the company has never before undertaken a marine phosphate mining project. [6] The phosphate mining industry is considered of the potential sources of nuclear contamination, stemming from elements like Uranium (238U) and Thorium (232Th). The sediments that would be returned to the sea may contain high levels of toxic chemicals, including the presences of these two elements, which would be exposed during the phosphate separation process. Al-Masri, M., Mamish, S. et al. (2002). “The impact of phosphate loading activities on near marine environment: The Syrian Coast.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 58 (2002) 35-44. P. 1. [7] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,” Chapter VIII, Table VI.3, p. 64, y Chapter V, p. 48. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [8] U.S Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2015. Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/mcs-2015-phosp.pdf [9] Instituto Nacional de la Pesca Oficio RJL/INAPESACA/DGAIPP/978/2014 [10] CONABIO. Estudio sobre la caracterización socioeconómica y pesquera del Área Golfo de Ulloa, BCS (2010). Available in Spanish at: http://goo.gl/7An5o5 [11] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project: “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,” Chapter VIII, Table VI.3, p. 64. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [12] Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Oficio RJL/INAPESCA/DGAIPP/757/2014 [13] The Agreement that establishes the Area of Refuge for the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta Caretta) in Ulloa Bay in Baja California Sur was before the Federal Regulatory Improvement Commission to obtain an approving opinion, December 9, 2014. 2014. Available in Spanish at: http://www.cofemermir.gob.mx/mir/crLecAnte.asp?submitid=33808 [14] Convention on Biological Diversity. “Sea turtle hearing and sensitivity to acoustic impacts.” Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/mcbem-2014-01/other/mcbem-2014-01-submission-boem-03-en.pdf, pgs. 3 and 4. [15] Interamerican Convention on the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Seventh Conference of Parties, June 24-26, 2015, Mexico City. Resolution CIT-COP7-2015-R3. Available at: http://www.iacseaturtle.org/docs/resolucionesCOP7CIT/CIT-COP7-2015-R3_Cabezona_ Resolucion_ESP_7.15.15_ADOPTADA.pdf [16] Guerrero Ruiz, M., Urbán Ramírez, J. y Rojas Bracho, L. 2006. Las ballenas del golfo de California. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE). 537 pp. [17] Baker C. S. y C. M. Herman. 1984. Aggressive behavior between Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) wintering in Hawaiian waters. Can. J. Zool. 62(10): 1,922-1,937.; Croll, D. A., C. W. Clark, A. Acevedo, B. R. Tershy, S. Flores, J. Gedamke y J. Urbán. 2002. Only male fin whales sing loud songs. Nature 417: 809. [18] Annex 13 is a three page document that does not the conclusions of the company in the environmental impact assessment. [19] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,” Chapter II, p. 4. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf

March 31 2016 Capacity Building, Oceans

Tools for sustainable fisheries and coastal management

Our oceans are collapsing in every sense of the word. In the last hundred years, we have overfished and polluted most every treasured and productive marine and coastal ecosystem in reach. Climate change is now causing its own grave set of marine problems. Yet there is hope: success stories that suggest we can turn things around if we act now. AIDA is committed to making sustainable fisheries a reality and to helping restore and protect coastal waters throughout the Americas. To achieve this, we must help governments strengthen and enforce laws and regulations protecting marine and coastal biodiversity. AIDA’s new publication, “Tools for Sustainable Fisheries and Coastal Management” provides a road-map to tackle this challenging work. This Spanish-language guide explains the many problems plaguing our seas and provides specific legal, scientific and economic tools to more sustainably manage our marine and coastal resources. Government officials and legislators can use this information to develop, improve, and more effectively enforce national marine biodiversity laws and regulations. Read the Executive Summary (in Spanish) Chapter 1. The Oceans and Our Fisheries: the Need for Sustainable Marine Management Chapter 1 analyzes the current condition of the oceans, discussing those factors responsible for the decline in fisheries. Among those most responsible for the decline are overfishing, lack of regulation, and an abuse of technology. The chapter continues with a review of international legal instruments in force that establish obligations for governments to protect and conserve the seas and their biodiversity. The review concludes that current controls and preventative measures have not been sufficient to reduce harmful impacts on marine resources. Some fish populations are deteriorating so rapidly that new collapses in commercial fisheries may occur in several regions of the world. For this reason, it is up to decision-makers, consumers and the fishing industry to implement more effective control measures (presented in the following chapters) to prevent the same grave situations, provided as examples here. Chapter 2. Planning for Sustainable Fisheries This chapter addresses the issue of fishing regulations, which in most countries comprise an important tool to control the activity but are not the only answer to declining fish stocks. Once the term of fisheries management is defined, the discussion shifts to measures for fishing management and classification, from techniques to controls on inputs or efforts and products or catches. The chapter explores management plans that make use of only one of these measures. It also touches on the content of these plans and their design procedures and some of their outstanding aspects. Also mentioned in the chapter is the need to have regularly updated records of granted fishing permits as a requisite for sustainable management. It concludes that the plight of fish stocks should compel countries to properly organize fishing activities to ensure the recovery and availability of fish for future generations. Chapter 3. Limiting the Overall Fishing Effort Chapter 3 describes and analyzes the current regulatory instruments used to limit the overall fishing effort, including programs to reduce fishing boat licenses, decommission boats, retrain fishermen, and reduce the time nets are cast. The chapter also suggests measures that should be considered in order for these programs to truly accomplish their objectives. Additionally, the chapter provides examples of specific programs to limit the overall fishing effort that were designed and implemented in various countries and can serve as models for parties interested in deg similar programs. Chapter 4. Controlling Catch Levels This chapter looks at the measures implemented to exercise control over fish catches. Among them are the so-called traditional methods such as fishing permits and fees, setting quotas on catches, establishing fishing seasons for certain species (closed seasons) and the minimum size of the specimens of commercial species as well as those under special protection or management. These tools have been applied in various countries to control catches, and the chapter includes examples of where this has happened to provide examples of the many options available. Also described in this chapter are "alternative" methods that countries can implement to control catches and ensure sustainable fishing activities. Of these options, some deserve particular attention. One involves controlling incidental catch, or bycatch, given its importance for conserving marine species. Another involves setting individual fishing quotas (IFQs), the most modern method to control catches. Chapter 5. Controlling Bycatch This chapter examines the phenomenon of bycatch, responsible for much of the deterioration of the world's marine biodiversity. Given that most modern fishing methods do not discriminate between targeted and untargeted species, many resources are lost when captured incidentally as bycatch, including fish, marine mammals and birds, among others. The chapter begins by describing the different types of fishing and the risk each poses to bycatch. Subsequently, the chapter looks at the different existing security measures, including examples of how different countries have faced the problem. It then explains that it is best to opt for a combination of measures that will result in the best possible scenario. Chapter 6. Marine Coastal Planning This chapter examines the tools for coastal planning and management as a method for effectively protecting coastal zones and seas. Coastal zones are particularly vulnerable to jurisdiction conflicts over the use and allocation of coastal marine resources due to the diversity of activities and ecosystems that exist in them. The chapter also looks at integrated coastal management (ICM) as a continuous and dynamic process between community, science and the state to implement integrated plans for the protection and development of coastal resources. Examples of ICMs are explored in Peru, Belize, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and the European Union. The issue is complemented with ecosystem-based management and examples of the governance of spaces and marine resources in Antarctica and the high sea. The chapter concludes that to effectively and sustainably manage our seas we must integrate the basics of biophysical, social, economic and planning with a long-term vision. Chapter 7. Forms of Marine Protection This chapter explores marine protected areas (MPAs) and their benefits as a conservation tool. It also mentions the MPA categories in relation to protected ecosystems and the classifications of international organizations like UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It then lists the problems and solutions related to the delimitation of the size of the MPAs as well as those related to the actions of control, inspection and surveillance, and to the current and future financing of these areas. As case studies, the treatment of the MPAs in law and public policy are examined in Mexico, Costa Rica and Brazil. The chapter includes measures for the protection of offshore resources by transnational MPAs and ends by addressing the difference between no-fishing zones and fish stocks. Chapter 8. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance of Fishing Activities This chapter explores the monitoring, control and surveillance techniques in different countries. It shows how they are necessary to compliance with standards and determine the effectiveness in doing so. Monitoring is important to collect fishing information for making decisions. The chapter also addresses the issue of sanctions. It’s important to have the istrative and criminal legislation necessary to sanction and prevent behaviors that threaten the sustainability of fishing and marine biodiversity, the text reads. The chapter emphasizes the need for coordinating efforts between the different systems of government and/or countries to achieve greater compliance with standards. Chapter 9. Economic Tools and Incentives for Responsible Fishing In this chapter, the main economic tools for responsible fishing are analyzed, which when efficiently designed and applied can promote the protection, restoration, preservation and sustainable use of marine resources. As it is immersed in market dynamics, fishing is especially susceptible to the application of economic instruments and incentives. The chapter discusses three categories of economic instruments: market (fish certification and eco-labeling), fiscal (green taxes, duties and subsidies) and financial (creating funds and loans). For each category, the concept of the tool and its practical application are explained through examples. The last section of the chapter examines other economic incentives such as penalties and fines that seek to promote positive behaviors in the population. The chapter wraps up with a series of recommendations for the effective use of economic tools. These include studying the economic and social reality for setting positive environmental goals and for applying these instruments together with other policy and monitoring tools. Chapter 10. Aquaculture y Mariculture In Chapter 10, AIDA explains the impacts and health risks associated with aquaculture in the Americas and discusses less harmful, alternative approaches. The chapter includes examples of both successful and unsuccessful projects. We provide detailed information about the damaging impacts of aquaculture on the marine environment, wild species, local economies, and public health. We also discuss the basic requirements needed to reduce harmful impacts from aquaculture activities such as: adequate zoning of projects; regulation of cultivated species; appropriate feeding and waste-elimination techniques; and effective government monitoring and enforcement, among others. Additionally, we explain novel techniques such as polyculture, land cultivation, and ecological certification, which are being researched as possible alternatives with less human and environmental impacts. Chapter 11. Social and Economic Aspects of Responsible Fishing This chapter focuses on the socio-environmental aspects of the fishing industry, which is crucial for job creation, food security and the potential for overcoming poverty in a large portion of the world population. The chapter begins by analyzing the current state of the sector, and it raises warnings about the poverty and harsh labor conditions of those working in fishing. The chapter calls for changes in fishing policies to promote real change to the grim conditions in the industry. Different alternatives for action are discussed, and each is illustrated by real experiences from around the world to show their success or failure and the lessons that can be learned from them. Executive SummarY (SPANISH) Read the Full Report (in Spanish) Acknowledgements We thank everyone who in one form or another contibuted their knowledge and expertise to this publication. We especially thank: Rolando Castro, member of the AIDA Board of Directors; Sofía Cortina, Isabel Calle, Samantha Namnum, Gladys Martínez, Sandra Moguel, Florencia Ortúzar, María Giménez, Mónica Ribadeneira, John Kaltenstein and Phil Eager, Haydée Rodríguez, Víctor Quintanilla, Clarissa Castillo, Diego Alvarez, lawyers with expertise on the subject of marine conservation; and all interns who have helped us make this possible.

March 30 2016

Controlling Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: An opportunity to better air quality and mitigate climate change

The report review the institutional, legislative, and regulatory frameworks, as well as existing government programs related to the control and monitoring of SLs, in three strategic countries of Latin America: Brazil, Chile and Mexico. Short-lived climate pollutants (SLs) are atmospheric agents that contribute to climate change and degrade air quality. They are so-named because of their relatively short lifespan in the atmosphere, ranging from a few days to a few decades. SLs include: black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons. This report identifies areas of opportunity and potential gaps in which each of the three countries can make progress in mitigating these pollutants. Addressing these opportunities will benefit the fight against climate change, as well as the protection of ecosystems and human health. The report was made by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), in collaboration with the Instituto de Energia e Meio Ambiente (IEMA), and with the participation of the Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA) of Argentina, and the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA), as well as the Red Latinoamericana de Contaminantes Climáticos de Corta Vida (RedRacc). Special thanks to Romina Picolotti of the Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA); Laura Gallardo and Nicolás Huneeus of the Centro del Clima y Resiliencia de la Universidad de Chile; Gianni López of the Centro Mario Molina Chile; Gabriela Niño and Giselle García of the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA); Erika Rosenthal of Earthjustice; Sandra Guzmán of the Grupo de Financiamiento Climático para América Latina y el Caribe (GFLAC); Stela Herschmann of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD); Evangelina Vormitagg of the Instituto Saúde e Sustentabilidade de Brasil; Marcelo Mena of the Ministerio de Medio Ambiente of Chile; Flavia Liberona and Javiera Valencia of the Fundación TERRAM of Chile; Luis Cifuentes of the Universidad Católica de Chile; Maria de Fatima Andrade and Paulo Hilário Nascimento Saldiva of the Universidad de São Paulo; and Sebastián Tolvett of the Universidad Técnico Metropolitana de Chile, for their comments and . Read and the report (in Spanish) Read and the executive summart (available in English)

March 14 2016 Fracking

The Precautionary Principle: A legal tool against the impacts of fracking

This report analyzes the viability of using the precautionary principle to prevent, avoid or stop fracking operations in Latin America. These measures can result in prohibitions or moratoriums, as has occurred in various states, provinces and cities across America and Europe. Fracking is a technique that enables the exploration of historically inaccessible reservoirs of natural gas or petroleum. Governments and businesses across the world have pushed for the exploration of these reservoirs due to declining global reserves of conventional hydrocarbons, thanks to 150 years of overexploitation. The exploitation of unconventional hydrocarbons is technically more difficult, has a higher economic cost, and implies greater risks to the environment and public health.Promoting fracking to extract unconventional hydrocarbons is a bad decision on climatic, political, social and environmental levels. It deepens our dependence on fossil fuels and wastes energy and resources that should be directed at developing renewable energies.That's why we felt it important to examine the viability of applying the precautionary principle as a legal tool to avoid or slow down the risks and damages caused by fracking, particularly in countries that have begun or are planning to begin fracking in coming years. Read and the report (in Spanish)

March 08 2016 Climate Change

Facts on Financing the Climate Fight

The impacts of climate change are already being felt by many millions of people and communities around the world – but the burden weighs most heavily on the poor and marginalised in developing countries. That’s why 195 countries came together to create the Green Climate Fund (GCF) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The GCF is expected to play a central role in financing efforts to combat climate change » (mitigation) and to help developing countries cope with its effects (adaptation). LEARN MORE ABOUT IT: