During its last board meeting, the Green Climate Fund—charged with financing developing nations’ fight against climate change—approved two projects related to large dams.  That means $136 million will finance large-scale hydropower, contradicting the Fund’s goal of stimulating a low-emission and climate-resilient future.

We’ve said it before: large dams are not part of the paradigm shift we need.

They worsen climate change and are highly vulnerable to its impacts. They also cause grave economic and socio-environmental problems that make it impossible to label them as sustainable development.

dam Projects before the gcf

While the two projects will exacerbate climate change, they aren’t the most destructive we’ve seen. 

The first is expected to generate 15 MW of electricity in the Solomon Islands, an impoverished Pacific archipelago highly vulnerable to climate change. Planned for the Tina River, the dam will be the country’s first major infrastructure project.

Today, the Solomon Islands rely almost entirely on imported diesel to produce energy. It is an unreliable, highly polluting energy source for which residents must pay one of the highest rates in the region.

We would have liked to see the Solomon Islands leapfrog toward a more sustainable alternative, avoiding the era of large dams altogether. But we were pleased to see the World Bank’s consultation and engagement processes with local communities, which lend legitimacy to the project.

The second project will rehabilitate a dam built in the 1950’s in Tajikistan. The repairs will make the dam more resilient to weather and less subject to accidents. Since it is focused on rehabilitation, the project will not generate the socio-environmental impacts typical of ground-up dam construction.

Tajikistan already gets 98 percent of its energy from hydropower, an increasingly unreliable energy source. In fact, during colder months, when more energy is needed, more than 70 percent of the population suffers cutbacks due to the malfunctioning of dams.

It’s unreasonable to use climate finance to deepen a country’s energy dependency instead of diversifying its matrix and increasing its climate resiliency. 

 

Our Campaign against large dams

When we learned that large dam proposals would come before the Fund, just before the 14th meeting of the Board of Directors, we drafted a letter explaining why large dams are ineligible for climate funding. 

Then, in anticipation of the 16th meeting, during which the projects would be discussed, we sent Board Members an informational letter on each of the projects, signed by our closest allies.

Finally, during the board meeting, we circulated a statement signed by a coalition of 282 organizations, further strengthening our position against the funding of large dams.

We obtained official replies from several members of the Board, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (in charge of the project in Tajikistan), and the Designated National Authority of the Solomon Islands. Delegates from Canada and France requested further discussion of the issue.

The problems with large dams received international media attention through articles published in The Guardian and Climate Home.

Advancing with Optimism

Although financing was ultimately granted to both of the projects, we managed to draw international attention to the contradiction inherent in funding large dams with money designated to combat climate change.

Several members of the Green Climate Fund expressed doubts about further promoting large hydropower initiatives. We’re confident they’ll raise their voices when faced with projects far more damaging than those recently approved.

Cheaper, more effective, and more environmentally friendly alternatives need the support and momentum the Green Climate Fund can provide. Both solar and wind power, for example, have proved to be more efficient and less costly than large-scale hydropower. Other less-developed technologies, such as geothermal, have largely unexplored potential.

As part of a coalition of civil society organizations monitoring the Fund’s decisions, AIDA will continue working to ensure that the recent decision to fund large dams does not become a precedent.

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 members, 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 account 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 members 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 14^th 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 support 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 adjoining 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 support 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 contacted, 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 members 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 account the voices of the communities directly affected by or benefitting from the financing.

Learn more about the Fund on our website!

Uncontrollable wildfires in Chile have burned more than 500,000 hectares, an area three times the size of Mexico City. With each day that passes, 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. High voltage cables. When passing over forests, these cables generate high-temperature heat waves. If a branch falls on a cable, it can easily cause a fire.
6. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Impose responsibilities. The owners of forest plantations must be responsible for setting up firewalls and other safeguards, as well as for having emergency plans.
5. 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.
6. Plan reforestation after the fire. Local development must be ensured throughout the process of reforestation, involving affected communities and stakeholders.
7. 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 support can be provided. 

By Florencia Ortúzar

Chile is the second largest producer of salmon in the world. For more than 20 years, the industry has put profit above environmental protection.

In the absence of government regulation, large-scale salmon farms release contaminating chemicals and create oceanic dead zones. They hurt other species and harm the people and communities that depend on the ocean for sustenance.

The situation is bad, but it could get worse as the industry looks to expand into new areas of pristine waters.

Bad Practices

Salmon farming in Chile will never be sustainable because it requires much more protein to operate than it generates. Salmon are carnivorous. To produce one kilo of salmon you need about five kilos of wild fish for feed.

Years of bad business practices and lack of government regulation have resulted in serious environmental damage, which has, in turn, brought grave social consequences to those who depend on seafood for their livelihoods. On the Big Island of Chiloé, for example, seaweed and shellfish gatherers, artisanal fishermen and people who work in plants that process wild-caught fish are experiencing massive unemployment. This social crisis is a direct result of the environmental catastrophe caused in large part by the salmon industry, which has extensive operations in the area.

In Chile, developers must present declarations or environmental impact studies that examine their project’s potential to harm nature. Despite the great risk to ecosystems, salmon farms are supported by mere affidavits, and not by studies that would allow for the identification and proper handling of potential negative impacts.

The result is thousands of salmon hatcheries. Each one consists of floating cages that, without sufficient spacing or adequate sanitation, house thousands of salmon crammed into small spaces (half the space allowed in Europe). Although it seems difficult to believe, and despite the law saying otherwise, in Chile no studies have been done on the ability of the ocean, lakes, and rivers to accommodate the number of salmon that are grown.

These captive salmon are fed pellets that contain a mix of wild fishmeal, pesticides, dyes, fungicides, and chemicals used to speed growth.  A majority of these pellets are not consumed and simply fall to the seabed.  Additionally, each salmon is injected with an exorbitant quantity of antibiotics (up to 5,000 times more than used in Norway). Finally, the waste generated by the fish, which contains chemicals, also accumulates on the ocean floor.

More than 20 years of these practices have caused dead zones in the ocean where life is no longer possible.

Another serious problem with the industry is that salmon often escape from their cages. According to a report by the NGO Terram, escaped salmon in Chile represent 1.5 percent of the total production, equivalent to more than 9,000 tons per year. Some studies report that this percentage could reach as high as five percent. Although by law farms must have recapture plans, they rarely succeed.

Salmon are an aggressive fish. When free, they compete with native fish for food and shelter, and transmit disease.

Crisis in the Sea

In May, Chile’s coasts were devastated by an unprecedented red tide, believed to be the country’s worst recent environmental crisis. The natural phenomenon, characterized by an excessive increase in microalgae, resulted in the beaching of whales, squid, sardines and even birds. Captive salmon were also affected and the industry suffered huge losses: thousands of tons of salmon carcasses rotted in floating cages.

The death rate was such that the national maritime authority authorized the release of 9,000 tons of dead salmon into the sea.

According to the salmon industry and the government, the red tide was caused by El Niño, which was aggravated by global warming.

However, some scientists have said that the salmon industry is largely to blame for submitting the ocean to their bad practices for so many years.

Patagonia Without Salmon Farming!

Not only has the salmon industry not learned from its mistakes, but it is also looking to expand into new, uncontaminated waters. It’s happening in the Patagonia regions of Magallanes and Aysen, where approximately 3,100 applications for salmon farms are awaiting approval. Farms were even proposed for places declared as priority conservation sites.

Together with our allies, AIDA is working to ensure salmon farming and other industries comply with environmental standards.

But there’s something you can do too, as citizens and consumers. Vote with your pocketbook. By purchasing only sustainable seafood products, you can help prevent the creation of more dead zones in our oceans. 

By Florencia Ortúzar Greene, AIDA attorney

The 2016 Río Olympics have come to an end. Over the last few weeks, the world has once again borne witness to the greatest achievements of the human body, to the forging of new world records.

But, amid high levels of air and water pollution, the thousands of competitors that met in Brazil affirmed that one record must not be broken: 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The Earth has been warming steadily in recent years, causing the melting of permafrost, rising oceans, increasingly dangerous storms and floods, and more intense and frequent droughts. Exceeding a global temperature increase of 1.5 °C would trigger a global catastrophe with unknown consequences.

The opening message

The Olympics put the issue of climate change on the table once again. Athletes from around the world called on us all to do something about it.

During the opening ceremony on August 5, images of clouds of pollution filled Maracaná Stadium in Río de Janeiro. Alarming projections showed cities and regions of the world being flooded. The peace symbol, altered to resemble a tree, was projected on the ground while a voice warned that our planet’s ice caps are melting quickly.

Athletes from around the world joined in a campaign to ask the world not to break the record of 1.5 degrees, implying that the union of all nations is necessary to control global warming.

Each Olympian received a tree seed, which will grow into the Athlete’s Forest, cementing their legacy in Río’s Deodoro Olympic Park.

Bad air and water quality

In a report on water quality in Río, the World Health Organization (WHO) made recommendations to athletes competing in aquatic events. The organization told them to cover cuts and scrapes with waterproof bandages; to avoid ingesting the water; to wash as soon as possible after exposure; to stay in it as briefly as possible; and to avoid contact with all water after it rains. Clearly, water in Río carries significant health risks.

Air pollution in Río has also reached dangerous levels, authorities have warned. Promises to improve air quality before the big event were not fulfilled. According to government data, since 2008 the city’s air has contained airborne particles that cause respiratory illnesses at a concentration three times higher than annual WHO-recommended limits.

Another key to the planet’s health is the Amazon rainforest, of which Brazil is the principle guardian. The Amazon stores huge amounts of carbon, taking up some of what we release into the atmosphere. But this natural treasure is at risk. According to the World Wildlife Fund, over the last several years the Amazon has lost at least 17 percent of its vegetation, and deforestation has released large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

The protection of this treasure is a responsibility humanity is failing to live up to.

The fight we must win

This month, nearly 11 thousand competitors from all around the world united in the world’s most important athletic competition. It was a unique occasion to reflect on the urgent challenges facing humanity.

AIDA helps the nations of Latin America tackle these challenges.  We work to improve air quality, and mitigate short-lived climate pollutants, which remain in the air for a relatively short time, yet generate extreme changes in climate, degrade air quality, and damage crop yields.

We believe the fight against climate change is the most critical of all fights. To truly achieve victory, we must ensure we don’t break the 1.5 °C record.

Our ability to win it requires us all to work as one global team.

By Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney

On December 8^th, one of the last pristine places on the planet, Patagonia, lost one of its greatest protectors, Douglas Tompkins. At 72 years old, the conservationist and multimillionaire lost his life in a kayaking accident.

Much has been said about the eccentric man who sold the companies that made him rich, and left it all behind to undertake an ambitious conservation project in Chile and Argentina. It was looked on with suspicion when he began frantically buying lands in the Southern Cone for the sole purpose of protecting them.

Tompkins thought that effective conservation should be “extensive, wild and connected.” So he decided to create large national parks that would be protected even in his absence.

To do so, he acquired large tracts of land and began returning them to their natural state, removing fences and recuperating ecosystems. Without fences, wildlife could move freely, a condition which is fundamental for their prosperity. 

Donating in exchange for protection

Barely more than a month after she was widowed, Kris Tompkins, Doug’s wife for 20 years, met with Chilean President Michelle Bachelet to offer the donation of more than 400 thousand hectares of land in Chilean Patagonia, including millions of dollars in infrastructure. With it, she sought to realize the last of the couple’s major projects in Chile: the creation of Patagonia Park, which together with other lands, donated or in process of being donated, would form a network of parks in Patagonia.

In Chile, the Tompkins had already donated land for the creation of Corcovado Park in Patagonia and Yendegaia Park in Tierra del Fuego. The land to create Pumalín Park, also in Patagonia, is in the process of being donated. All together, these land donations equal more than 500 thousand hectares of protected wilderness.

But the Tompkins’ gifts come with conditions: for each hectare they receive, governments must protect a certain number more.  In exchange for the posthumous donation in Chile, for example, the government is required to create new national parks, expand existing parks and reclassify four natural reserves. Negotiations are expected to conclude in 2018.

If the Tompkins’ succeed, the agreement will create the most important network of national parks in the country. 

Protection in Argentina

Tompkins also donated vast stretches of land in Argentina. In the Entre Ríos Province, he started a soil recuperation project, using highly diversified organic crops to overcome the damage of industrial monoculture.

The Argentine Patagonia also received protection, through land donations of 66 thousand hectares to Monte Leon National Park and 15 thousand hectares to Perito Moreno National Park.

Tompkins’ last project in Argentina was completed last December when the Argentine government met with Kris Tompkins to accept the donation of 150 thousand hectares of land in the Estuaries of Iberá, the second largest wetland on the planet. This area, when added to the 50 thousand hectares previously donated and the 500 thousand that already form Iberá Park, will create one of the largest reserves in the country. 

¡Patagonia sin Represas!

In addition to contributing to the creation of national parks, Tompkins supported the activism of conservation groups in Patagonia. One of the initiatives he sponsored was the campaign Patagonia sin Represas, which managed to stop the HidroAysén project in its tracks. HydroAysén had aimed to construct five mega-dams on the Baker and Pascua rivers, two of the largest free-flowing rivers in Chile, located in the heart of Patagonia. During Doug’s burial the mantra “Patagonia sin Represas” is said to have been shouted by mourners when the last handful of dirt was thrown upon his grave. 

At the end of the 1900s, when Tompkins’ land purchasing in Argentina and Chile was at its peak, he was accused of buying the land cheaply and displacing its inhabitants, leaving them without work. Later, the accusations became more sophisticated: they accused him of buying land to create a new Zionist state, of being a CIA spy, and of trying to seize enormous reserves of fresh water to export to places experiencing drought.

Many looked upon his work with suspicion.  Maybe they found it difficult to believe that someone would invest millions of dollars with the sole objective of preserving the perfect natural harmony that surrounds us. Any accusation was easier than giving credit to his true

intention: buying land to prevent it from being exploited, and then giving it back to the government, not for money, but for a commitment of protection.

Whatever his detractors may say, here in reality, Douglas Tompkins left an enormous legacy to all of mankind. He has conserved more land than any other person in the history of Chile and Argentina. His work has translated into massive patches of green on the maps of Patagonia.

For those pristine and wild places, we are eternally grateful.

CONGRATULATIONS DOUG, and THANK YOU! 

By Florencia Ortuzar, AIDA attorney

They’re all around you – the air conditioner hanging from your neighbor’s window, the charcoal powering your grill, the black smoke pillowing out of a passing truck, even the cows dotting the fields outside town. These familiar aspects of our daily lives are just some of the sources of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs).

When released, SLCPs warm our atmosphere. But, compared to carbon dioxide, they have a relatively short lifespan. Consequently, their effective mitigation could provide a life jacket on the troubled waters of climate change.

That’s why SCLPs are worth considering as the world moves rapidly toward the new global climate accord to be signed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The meeting in Paris this December will be the most important in the global climate negotiations thus far. The new accord it produces could help us out of the planetary dilemma we’re currently in.

The task is difficult. There have been 20 conferences of the UNFCCC so far, none of which has made substantial progress. Emissions have increased each year since the convention began, except for 2008 and 2009, when they decreased due the global economic crisis (not, notably, due to human will to survive). Sometimes, it’s hard to keep hope alive, but at AIDA, we never lose it. 

What are SLCPs?

These contaminants include black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane and hydroflourocarbons (HFC). Each one of them is different, but they share two main characteristics: they are major contributors to global warming, and, once emitted, they remain in the atmosphere briefly.

The second feature is the one to which we must draw attention if we seek to mitigate climate change in the short term. Unlike SLCPs, carbon dioxide (CO2) can remain in the air for centuries. That means that even if we stopped all emissions today, the CO2 emitted would continue to warm the atmosphere for a very long time. 

How big of a problem are they? 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that SLCPs are responsible for more than 30 percent of global warming. More recent studies estimate between 40 and 45 percent. Mitigating carbon dioxide, responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect, is essential to maintaining the climatic equilibrium of the earth in the long term. But the opportunity offered through the mitigation of SLCPs is much more immediate, and its effects could be felt in our daily lives. 

Advantages of reducing SLCPs

The desirability of reducing SLCPs is much greater if we consider that, in addition to heating the atmosphere, these contaminants cause other problems that directly affect human health and the natural environment.

Black carbon and tropospheric ozone, for example, are the cause of millions of premature deaths each year, since they increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease. They also damage crop yields, so their control would help improve food security worldwide.

What does the Convention say? 

The Convention and its Kyoto Protocol do not recognize SLCPs as a concept, although the Protocol does include methane and HFCs in the greenhouse gases it seeks to combat. But this lack of recognition may change with the new climate accord. 

The current agreement includes a list of specific polluting gases that States must reduce. With the new agreement, however, countries will be free to decide what to include in their gas mitigation targets.

Mexico has become a notable example in this regard by unconditionally committing, through its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), to reduce black carbon by 51 percent by 2030. This percentage has the potential to rise to 70 percent with international assistance. 

The work at hand

At AIDA we work to inform governments of the measures they could take to effectively reduce short-lived climate pollutants in their countries. We advocate for the adoption of solutions whose effectiveness has already been tested in various parts of the world.

We are preparing a report that reviews current regulation of these pollutants in three Latin American countries: Brazil, Chile and Mexico. We hope this report will facilitate progress towards a better approach to SLCPs in these countries. We will then continue working on this important issue in the rest of the region.

You can find more information about SLCPs HERE! 

By Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA attorney, and Karol Rodríguez, AIDA intern

Mining gives rise to a serious problem: toxic waste. Tailings from ore extraction have been known to damage the environment and communities living near dump sites. Responsible management, then, is critical if we desire economic development that brings more benefits than problems.

In Chile, mine companies are running out of places to dump their dangerous byproducts. Inadequate disposal has already caused substantial harm; nobody wants toxic waste near their home or community. Even depositing tailings in dry areas with low biodiversity is not safe, because rain and floods can wash contaminants into communities.

In this context, Chilean mining companies have come up with the “brilliant” idea of depositing mine tailings into the sea, through a pipeline that would transport tons of waste to a valley on the ocean floor.

The Ocean: delicate and mysterious cradle of life

The ocean is one of the greatest mysteries on our planet. In fact, 95 percent of the ocean floor has not been mapped, which means we know only 5 percent of it. We know more about the surface of the moon than about the depths of the ocean.

What’s more, oceans contain the most complex ecosystems on the planet. The variables involved in their health and dynamics are infinite. Given these unknowns, it is impossible to predict the effect that mine tailings would have on the ocean floor.

This uncertainty is reason enough to apply the precautionary principle, an important legal tool to prevent environmental degradation caused by human development. We don’t know how the waste may affect complex marine ecosystems, their many species, or even ourselves, who take nourishment from fish and other seafood.

So how could we sleep soundly while a pipeline funnels contaminated, and certainly hazardous, waste into our oceans? The effects of the environmental damage could be large and uncontrollable, and, once the water is released into the ocean, there would be no turning back.

An international workshop on the idea

To understand more about this worrying initiative, two renowned Chilean environmentalists—Juan Pablo Orrego, president of Ecosistemas, and Flavia Liberona, executive director of Fundación Terram—attended an international workshop in Lima in June. Participants at the workshop, convened by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection and the International Maritime Organization, discussed the viability of depositing mine tailings in the ocean. Orrego penned an article on the theme, which you can read here.

In the workshop they learned that dumping mine waste into the ocean is nothing new. It happens in Canada, Turkey, Papua New Guinea, and in some African countries. The Norwegian government recently authorized the use of a pristine fjord (a narrow sea inlet) as a repository for mine tailings from a rutile mine. During the workshop, an official from the Norwegian government defended the decision, arguing, “The social benefits from the mine outweigh the destruction of the fjord.” According to whom?

For and against

Supporters of the Chilean proposal claim that dumping tailings into the sea does not necessarily entail a hazard. They say the risks are minimal because there’s no oxygen on the bottom of the ocean, so the chemical reaction that causes toxicity on the surface would not occur.

Leonel Sierralta J., former official of Chile’s Environmental Ministry and current scientific director of Sustainable Initiatives for Mining, penned an open letter in response to Orrego’s article. In it, he says that although there have been disastrous cases involving mine waste in the ocean, there are also cases in developed countries in which waste dumping has been carried out based on science and following strict environmental criteria.

His arguments have not convinced those who oppose the proposal, including five Chilean senators who sponsored a bill to prohibit the discharge of tailings into the ocean.

An alternative: neutralize the risk

Orrego proposes to regulate mining more strictly. He says that before tailings are deposited, mining companies must extract from them all heavy metals and neutralize their chemical compounds.  In that way, it would be feasible to deposit practically inert tailings in places such as old mine shafts. It would even create an economic opportunity for companies to begin extracting and recycling dangerous elements. The neutralization of tailings is an appropriate alternative to continuing environmental destruction.

Orrego’s proposal is sensible. It’s reasonable to assert that economic activities dangerous for the environment continue only if their impacts are neutralized.

If we generate more waste than we can deal with, it’s because we are not acting sustainably, which means we are not assuring the conservation of a healthy planet for our descendants. This is why we at AIDA work daily to preserve the health of ecosystems in the face of highly polluting activities like mining.  

By Florencia Ortuzar, legal advisor, AIDA

While many of us are alarmed by climate change and its already tangible effects, concern becomes even greater when learning the fact that all the CO2  accumulated in the atmosphere cannot be removed, even if we were to shut down all the sources of emissions today. This reality was confirmed in the Fifth Assessment Report on the state of the climate, issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The explanation for this is simple: CO2, in contrast to other gases and pollutants, remains in the atmosphere for millennia after being released. It is stuck in the atmosphere for what is eternal for human standards, implying that its greenhouse effect does not end even with an immediate halt in emissions.

The good news is that CO2 is not the only cause of global warming. There are other pollutants that, unlike CO2, only stay in the atmosphere for a relatively short time. These “other” agents are responsible for 40-45% of global warming, and they remain in the atmosphere for a minimum of a few hours to a maximum of a few decades. They are called short-lived climate pollutants, or SLCPs.

Like CO2, SLCP emissions have a negative impact on humans and ecosystems. So a reduction in these pollutants would bring immediate relief to the worst affected by climate change and would bring important benefits to the environment and people.

The main SLCPs 

Although all SLCPs contribute significantly to climate change and share the trait of being short-lived, each has its unique characteristics and emission sources. 

Black carbon or soot, is a particulate substance produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, mainly from motor vehicles, domestic stoves, fires and factories. The dark particles heat the atmosphere as they absorb light, and when the particles land on snow and ice they accelerate melting. Black carbon also affects human health by causing respiratory problems such as lung cancer and asthma. 

Tropospheric ozone is a gas formed by the reaction of the sun with other gases called "precursors," which can be man made or naturally occurring. One of these precursors is methane, another SLCP. Tropospheric ozone is associated with diseases including bronchitis, emphysema, asthma and permanent scarring of the lung tissue. Studies also show that this gas has a direct impact on vegetation, reducing crop yields and the ability of plants to absorb CO2.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and 60% of its emissions come from human activities like rice farming, coal mining, landfill and oil combustion. Two important sources of methane include cattle farming, whose effect has dangerously increased with industrial meat production (Spanish), and large dams, especially those in tropical areas. 

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are man-made gases used in the production of air conditioners, refrigerators and aerosols. They have replaced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were banned under the Montreal Protocol. Although HFCs represent a small proportion of the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, their use is growing at an alarming speed of an average of 10-15% each year, according to a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report.  

Everyone wins

According to the IPCC, the reduction of these pollutants could avert a rise in average global temperatures by approximately 0.5 degrees Celsius by 2050, cutting the current rate of global warming in half and helping to protect some of the areas most susceptible to climate change like the Arctic, the high Himalayan regions and Tibet. The mitigation of SLCPs is also crucial for decelerating glacial melting and rising sea levels, a serious situation for the world’s population that lives in coastal areas.

The reduction of SLCPs would also bring important socio-environmental benefits. Black carbon and tropospheric ozone harm human health and reduce crop yields. This in turn affects ecosystems, food security, human welfare and the entire natural cycle that keeps the planet healthy.

Some talking points

Given that SLCPs stem from different sources, effective mitigation requires a series of comprehensive actions that deal with each pollutant separately. Fortunately, the road is already laid out. Many of the technologies, laws and institutions needed to cut SLCP emissions already exist.

In the case of black carbon, new technologies are inexpensive and available. Developed countries have already reduced emissions significantly through the use of green technologies. Ideas include the modernization of domestic cooking systems in the region, introducing the use of solar cookers and new transport systems with improved exhaust filters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  

The amount of methane in the atmosphere, which affects the level of tropospheric ozone, is largely dependent on industrial activities. To reduce emissions, effective regulations should be implemented to control the industries that emit the most methane, including intensive cattle farming, mining, hydrocarbons and large dams.

For HFCs, an alternative already exists. There need to be regulations that encourage people to substitute HFCs for greener alternatives, no matter the commercial barriers. Some countries have proposed incorporating HFCs in the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement recognized as one of the most successful initiatives to significantly and rapidly reduce CFC emissions, addressing a similar challenge, to the one we face today.

To find out more about SLCPs, you can read a briefing paper (Spanish) put together by AIDA, CEDHA, CEMDA and RedRacc.

By Florencia Ortúzar, legal advisor, AIDA

"Modern agriculture is not a system for producing food but for producing money"(Bill Mollison: Australian researcher, scientist, teacher, naturalist and the father of permaculture).

Seeds are the beginning of life itself. They are the means of nature’s propagation and the building blocks of life. Patenting seeds hands their ownership rights to a select few, and this causes great resentment among many. What does all of this really mean?

The UPOV: An international convention

The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) is an intergovernmental organization whose objective is to grant intellectual property rights to “breeders.” That is, to people who have created or discovered new varieties of seeds. Some countries in the Americas have signed the UPOV Convention, which was established in Paris in 1961 and revised three times (the latest in 1991), and others are considering it.

A seed needs to be considered a new variety in order to be patented. New varieties can be generated through the use of traditional techniques or genetic modification in laboratories. It is difficult to measure the possible ramifications of something so new and novel as the privatization of the life contained in a seed and, for good reason, many people are worried.

The situation in Chile (and other countries): To join or not to join?

Chile’s Congress is currently debating legislation known as the “Monsanto law” that, if passed, would implement the UPOV Convention and the ability to patent new seed varieties. This means that someone could alter the genetics of a native seed to become its inventor and owner. This would give them the right to sell it, charge a fee every time the seed is used, prohibit its trade in the market and draw up a contract dictating what farmers can and can’t do with the harvested product (for more information, you can listen to the interview (in Spanish) with the co-founder of the NGO Chile sin Transgénicos (Chile without Transgenics)). Proponents of the law argue that it is a necessary protection to encourage innovation in the country's agriculture sector.

Concerns

• Making native seeds obsolete: What chance does a native seed have for survival competing against a seed that is genetically modified to be more productive and efficient? According to market rules, the “new” cultivated seeds will displace the native ones. Even worse, GM crops could easily contaminate the remaining natural varieties.
• Monopolies: Those with the resources to create new seeds, especially genetically modified ones, which are the most profitable, are typically the huge corporations that today dominate the production of GM foods, like Monsanto. If the seed patent system were authorized in Chile, these companies would get a free pass to take control of the country’s cropland as they have already done with great efficacy in Argentina. What is more, the most profitable companies would gain access to the country’s most arable land, expanding monoculture practices while also forcing less profitable seeds out of the market even if they are more nutritional.
• Seed exchange: The “Monsanto law” grants great power to the seed owner by binding the seed purchaser to a contract that controls the entire harvest and the new seeds that are generated. Traditional practices such as the propagation, sale, gift giving and exchange of seeds, customs as old as agriculture itself, would be prohibited. The law would strip farmers not only of an essential part of their job but also a key source of income: the sale of cultivated seeds. As a consequence, the farmer would lose power and identity and become a mere cog in the corporate machine.

 

• Genetically modified crops: To the benefit of big companies, we inevitably favor the entry of genetically modified foods, the products with the greatest economic return. While the adverse side effects of eating GM food are not yet officially known, it seems wise to err on the side of the precautionary principle and avoid uncontrolled testing on humans. The advent of this law would protect GM crops. Natural products, which are less economical but generally more nutritional, would be overtaken by more productive seeds. There are many reasons to treat GM foods with caution. Rather than helping to end world hunger, we have increased the use of pesticides, destroyed biopersity, caused inequality between farmers and contaminated native varieties of seeds. It also is dangerous for people’s health to live near GM crops, as has been proven in Argentina.
• Environmental impacts: By allowing seed monopolization, crops will become homogenized to achieve the most economic harvests. This will lead to monocultures, many of them pesticide-resistant seeds that will require the use of alarming amounts of agrochemicals. Of particular concern, a lack of persity means crops become less resilient and adaptable to environmental changes, including those associated with global warming (You can read here (in Spanish) an article about the problems Argentina is experiencing with the expansion of GM soy monoculture).
• Unforeseeable risks: If a country drastically changes its agricultural system, the risks are difficult to predict. It is possible that a company could incite a plague that would force desperate farmers its new seed that is resistant to the plague. Another risk is that farmers could be unfairly penalized for using patented seeds, especially if farmers have not been properly educated about the new legislation. Could farmers face lawsuits, convictions and the burning and seizure of their crops?

Conclusion

The implementation of the UPOV Convention threatens to drastically change an essential part of the natural cycle. The most dangerous aspect is that the global initiative is attracting more followers. It does not seem fair that a person can pay a fee for a seed that should never really be the creation of a person. Although the “breeder” could have changed a gene, it should not give him the right to copyright and control the rest of the seed’s genetic information.

In Europe, only two countries have permitted the entry of GM crops. Chile has enormous potential to produce organic crops, and it could position itself successfully in the European market. But the Chilean authorities haven’t considered this as a possibility. The approval of the patent law on new seeds favors multinational seed monopolies, and this would allow the entry of GM crops that would displace and contaminate original varieties without the possibility of turning back. On the contrary, Peru recently passed a law banning the import and production of GM crops for 10 years. This is a good example to follow.