Tag Archive for: Climate Change

,

Congress passed the Minimum Budget Law on Climate Change

Yesterday, in the framework of its last annual session, the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress sanctioned the law of Minimum Budgets of adaptation and mitigation to Global Climate Change.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The project promoted by Fernando «Pino» Solanas has the character of a minimum budget law, dictated within the framework of the powers that attend the National Congress under Art. 41 of the National Constitution. This implies that it must be applied throughout the territory of the Republic, including by Provincial and Municipal States. The regulation adds to the set of instruments of international law that regulate the phenomenon of climate change, that is, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, all ratified by the Argentine State .

Throughout its six chapters, the law includes, in broad strokes, general provisions, objectives, definitions and principles that guide public instruments and policies aimed at adapting and mitigating the effects of climate change. In turn, in chapter II, he creates the so-called “National Climate Change Cabinet” and an interdisciplinary Advisory Council. In chapter III, it demarcates the guidelines for the formulation of the “National Plan for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation” and the National Climate Change Information System. Then delineates measures and minimum actions of adaptation and mitigation, providing in its final part institutes linked to citizen participation and the right of access to information.

The brand new regulation establishes in large part of its articulated guidelines and objectives aimed at orienting public policies, while at the same time establishing norms of practical scope. Among some of them we can highlight:

  • Principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it implies the historical recognition of the unequal responsibility for the damages of global warming that should guide decisions regarding priorities, technology transfer and funds.
  • Transversality of climate change in State policies: it implies that in all public and private actions, the impact of actions, measures, programs and ventures on climate change must be considered.
  • Priority: principle according to which any adaptation and mitigation policy must prioritize the needs of the social groups most vulnerable to climate change.
  • Citizen participation in the formulation of climate change response plans (adaptation and mitigation measures).
  • Development of guidelines for incorporating into the processes of Environmental Impact Assessment considerations related to the impact of climate change.
  • Climate change adaptation measures to be adopted by the National Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Plan, considering the impacts of the phenomenon on human health, in the energy matrix, with sensitivity in the areas most vulnerable to soil desertification processes, of populations located in more vulnerable areas, tending towards food sovereignty; contemplating the impact on glacier and periglacial environments and seeking the management of water heritage; at the same time it will tend to the planning of the territorial planning contemplating an environmentally sustainable land use.
  • Mitigation measures to be adopted by the National Plan for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation, which promote the reduction and elimination of emissions, the use of renewable energies, energy self-sufficiency, the distributed generation of electrical energy, appropriate mitigation practices in the sector agro-livestock; the revision of urban planning and building standards.
  • Promotion by each jurisdiction (provincial and municipal) of the processes of participation among stakeholders, in the definition of adaptation and mitigation actions.
  • Access to environmental information on climate change.
  • Interjurisdictional coordination through the Federal Environment Council for the implementation of actions and measures for the application of the law.

Undoubtedly, the law constitutes, in some way, fulfilling the obligation that weighs on the States to provide a regulatory legal framework to the phenomenon of climate change. However, as it was argued, the great majority of the articles have an orientation dye, formulated around political guidelines. Contrary to what is established in the vast majority of minimum budget laws in force in our country, the newly sanctioned legislation does not have a substantial regulation regarding the rights of communities linked to effective ways to demand the prevention, mitigation, repair of damages caused due to the effects of climate change, as well as regulations related to access to «climate» justice, procedural rights in particular, updating of environmental management instruments, all circumstances that could have been contemplated in order to respond to those human rights that today are affected by the effects of climate change. A laudable advance, but certainly not enough.

Author

Juan Bautista Lopez. juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org.ar

,

What is the Green Climate Fund and how does it work?

The purpose of this document is to describe the operation of the Green Climate Fund, where its financial resources, its projects, operational policies come from and how its accountability mechanism works.

Descargar Documento / Download File
,

We participate in a hearing on climate change before the IACHR

Together with other non-governmental organizations, we participate in a thematic hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. At this hearing we present a report on the impact of climate change on the enjoyment and enjoyment of human rights.

Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic.

In the framework of the 173 session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) held in Washington DC, we participated in the hearing on climate change and the rights of women, children, indigenous and rural communities. Together with other Latin American non-governmental organizations – advocated for the protection of human rights and the environment – we present a report on climate change and its impact on human rights.

The report was prepared collaboratively together with Fundación Pachamama, Dejusticia, AIDA, IDL, Engajamundo, Earthrights International, Honduran Alliance on Climate Change, FIMA, CELS, DPLF, Conectas, FARN, CEMDA and the Climate Route. It was presented to the IACHR, it mainly addresses the differentiated impact caused by climate change on the populations and communities of Latin America. The following topics were addressed in this:

  1. Impacts of Climate Change on Rights
  2. Response Measures to Address Climate Change and its Implications with Human Rights
  3. Differentiated Impacts of Climate Change on the Rights of Vulnerable Groups
  4. Obligations of States and Responsibilities of Non-State Actors in the Context of Climate Change and Human Rights

It is important to point out that the tool for participation in thematic hearings of the IACHR allows the immediacy on the part of the regional body in those problems that afflict local communities, while providing tools to then urge the member states of the Organization of American States, to the fulfillment of respectful Human Rights policies.

Regarding the pressing problem of climate change, it is important that the IACHR recognizes the impacts that this phenomenon causes throughout Latin America, and accordingly demands that States deepen their prevention, regulation, mitigation and adaptation policies in pursuit of guarantee human and social development in healthy and balanced environmental conditions.

Authors

Valentina Castillo Barnetche

Aranza Ruiz

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

PreCOP Córdoba “Civil Society Collaboration”

On August 7, a parallel event was held within the framework of the Pre-COP Córdoba 2019, where we participated in the organization jointly with Fundación Tierravida, Córdoba Young Agency Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. The Side Event convened various sectors of civil society, NGOs, universities, native peoples, entrepreneurs and activists, involved in the theme of climate change.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Given the cross-cutting nature of environmental management, which is why environmental problems must be considered and assumed comprehensively and cross-sectorally, a logic of horizontal, multisectoral and interdisciplinary participation was sustained throughout the day.

In the morning the event began with the dissertation of specialists in climate change and then in the afternoon, through various work tables, the participants discussed, discussed and contributed on an equal and transparent footing to write a Roadmap . The discussion, in addition to being linked to the PreCOP issues, was framed in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

In addition to the aforementioned, various projects and actions of NGOs against climate change were presented under the Pecha Kucha format, topics such as renewable energy, differentiated waste collection, community empowerment on climate change were discussed.

About the Roadmap

The Road Map was the central and final objective of the event, in which representatives of the Cordoba civil society left the actions to be followed. Specifically, it focused on what elements are necessary to achieve governance that guarantees and promotes the effective participation of all sectors in decision-making and in the allocation of resources for projects, plans and programs related to climate change.

The aforementioned document was presented, in its preliminary version, before the official PreCOP authorities and at COP 25 to be carried out in December 2019 in Chile. During the month of September, work will continue among the participating organizations of the Side Event to continue developing their content.

The Climate Summit (COP) this year will be held in Chile and is a great opportunity to reach our representatives the various voices embodied in a document that show what are the necessary actions to deal with climate change. The summit is attended by representatives from almost every country in the world, scientists, specialists and NGOs where they intend to set criteria for compliance with the Paris Agreement and improve gas reduction goals.

Authors 

Carolina Tamagnini

Ananda Lavayén

María Laura Carrizo

Contact

Juan Bautista López, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org 

,

IFIs and climate change: The role of the Green Climate Fund

We participated in a workshop organized by the review mechanism of the Green Climate Fund accounts to inform us about the mandate of that institution and discuss ways of interacting with civil society.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is one of the financial institutions for climate within the architecture created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In order to promote a change in the paradigm towards the reduction of emissions and development compatible with the environment, it provides financial support for adaptation projects and mitigation of the effects of climate change. Its objective is to be the main operating entity within the financial mechanism of the Convention, in addition to projecting itself as the central institution in the global climate finance plan.

To make the work and operation of GFC more known, the Independent Repair Mechanism (IRM) convened civil society organizations in Santiago, Chile, on May 30 and 31. In the case of the IRM, it has only been functioning for 2 years and has had only three case presentations, so it was also an opportunity to discuss the future interactions of the mechanism with potential cases and with civil society.

Among the issues mentioned by the organizations are the dangers for human rights defenders, the difficulties in implementing remediation plans, the impact of projects on communities and on the rights of indigenous peoples, gender issues within the projects and the claims. In this way, ways to operate from the mechanism to address these concerns were also discussed

More information

Green Climate Fund

Independent Repair Mechanism

Author

Carolina Tamagnini

Contact

Gonzalo Roza,  gon.roza@fundeps.org

, ,

The Supreme Court rejected the action initiated by the mining company Barrick Gold against the Law of Glaciers

Within the framework of a declarative action of certainty initiated by Barrick Exploraciones Argentinas S.A and the Province of San Juan, the highest judicial organ of Argentina decided to reject the action. Although the arguments for such a resolution were related to the non-existence of a “judicial case”, in addition, the Court hinted at its position in the eventual proposal of unconstitutionality of the Law of Minimum Budgets for the Preservation of Glaciers and the Periglacial Environment.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The proposals of the mining company and the province of San Juan, focused on questioning: a) the legislative procedure for the enactment of Law 26,639 (of Glaciers); b) The unconstitutionality of the aforementioned regulations for advancing on regulatory competences specific to the Province as holder of the original domain of natural resources. The company Barrick and the province of San Juan converged on this last point arguing that the law in question, hypothetically, posed an affront to the possibilities of exploitation by the mining company and management of natural resources by the province.

In view of this situation, the Court analyzed whether the necessary requirements were met for the organ to enter into the analysis of the parties’ claims, that is, if there was a “judicial case” (subject that may be subject to a process). The conclusion reached was that there was no sufficient accredited legal interest, or a so-called “act in the making” (administrative act necessary to consider the existence of a judicial case) that endangers the rights of the parties. He also considered that the lack of completion of the Glacier Inventory (ordered to the Executive Branch by the glaciers law), necessarily implied the inexistence of the “act in the making”, since this inventory was a basic budget for the operation of the attacked law by the parties.

As a consequence of the inexistence of the justiciable case, the Supreme Court held that as regards the conflict between the provincial and national jurisdiction alleged by the province of San Juan, the judicial power should not intervene, while the environmental policy issues should be resolved by the federal dialogue before the intervention of the judges.

However, even though it was not necessary according to the conclusions regarding the inexistence of a justiciable “case”, the ministers of the Court held that the process by which the Glaciers Law had been sanctioned had been valid from the point of view constitutional, according to the background and regulations of the Chamber of Senators.

On the other hand, in a convincing “environmental” message, the Court expressed its opinion regarding the validity of the Glaciers Law, in the face of the arguments that raised its unconstitutionality, thus outlining its position regarding a future “judicial case”. Among some of the arguments offered by the high judicial body, the following can be highlighted:

  1. The clear rule that when there are rights of collective incidence pertaining to the protection of the environment – in the case of the Law of Glaciers the strategic resource Water – the hypothetical controversy can not be treated as the mere collision of subjective rights (individual lease). The characterization of the environment as a “collective good” changes the focus of the problem, which must not only address the claims of the parties.
  2. The interests that exceed the bilateral conflict must be considered (in the case between the Province of San Juan and the Barrick mining company against the provisions of the Glaciers Law), in order to have a polycentric vision, since there are numerous rights affected.
  3. The solution can not only be limited to solving the past, but, and fundamentally, to promoting a solution focused on future sustainability, for which a decision is required that foresees the consequences of such a decision.
  4. The environment is not according to the National Constitution, an object intended for the exclusive service of man, appropriable according to their needs.
  5. Access to drinking water is a right that must be regulated under an eco-centric, or systemic legal paradigm, which not only takes into account private or state interests, but also those of the same system, according to the General Environmental Law ( 25,675).
  6. This vision regarding access to drinking water is relevant as the regulation that protects the glaciers, has as an objective to preserve them as strategic reserves of water resources for human consumption; for agriculture; for the recharge of water basins; for the protection of biodiversity.
  7. Based on these objectives, the Glaciers Law protects this resource from the harmful effects that certain extractive processes (mining) can have on the preservation and conservation of glaciers. Such protection is part of the provisions of the Paris Agreement on global warming.
  8. Faced with the provisions of the Law of Glaciers that aim to protect rights of collective incidence, judges must consider that natural and legal persons can certainly be holders of subjective property rights. More must also consider that this individual right must be harmonized with the rights of collective incidence to ensure that the exercise of lawful industry is sustainable.
  9. The Court concludes that the constitutionality trial of a possible injurious act derived from the glacier law -if a judicial cause is proven- should be analyzed in the context of the weighing of the various rights and property involved.
  10. Likewise, the Court warns that such weighting will not be possible until the National Executive Power complies with the obligation to draw up the national inventory of glaciers.

In short, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, rejected the action of Barrick Gold and the province of San Juan on the grounds that there was no “judicial case” and did not resolve the substantive claim on the constitutionality or otherwise of the Law of Glaciers. However, in a blunt message, he left his position before an eventual proposal of similar characteristics: Glaciers law, protects a supraindividual environmental good, which, faced with a conflict against an individual right, must be weighted based on criteria of sustainability , Intergenerationality, biodiversity, under an eco-centric or systemic paradigm (not anthropocentric). Between the lines, the Glaciers Law … is constitutional.

  • More information:

Read the full ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice

  • Author:

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

Climate change and human rights: request for a thematic hearing before the IACHR

Together with organizations with a history in the defense of human rights and the environment of Latin America and the Caribbean, we request a thematic hearing before the IACHR regarding the violation of human rights in the context of climate change in the region. In Cordoba, the cycles of floods and droughts are aggravated by the lack of planning and coordination of policies that take into account the effects of climate change.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

On March 5 different organizations from Latin America and the Caribbean, including FUNDEPS, sent a request to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), Dr. Paulo Abrão, to hold a thematic hearing, general and regional scope, on the impacts of climate change and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The thematic hearings are spaces that are granted to civil society to deal with matters of interest in the region. The petitioners can make recommendations to the IACHR so that the latter may then develop them. Although the recommendations made by the IACHR are not binding, they are usually used and taken into account by judges and authorities when deciding a specific matter; for this reason they acquire so much relevance.

The hearing was petitioned jointly with various civil organizations from several countries in the region such as the Mexican Center for Environmental Law – CEMDA – (Mexico), the Honduran Alliance against Climate Change, Due Process of Law Foundation – DPLF – (Regional ), the Inter-American Association for the Defense of the Environment -AIDA- (Regional), EarthRights International (International), the Pachamama Foundation (Ecuador), the Center for Law, Justice and Society Studies – Dejusticia- (Colombia), lFiscalía del Medio Environment – FIMA – (Chile), Center for Legal and Social Studies – CELS – (Argentina), CONECTAS (Brazil), Engajamundo (Brazil) and the Legal Defense Institute – IDL – (Peru). They have a great track record for the work they do in the region, specifically in relation to the defense of human rights and the environment. Through this request, we seek to share and combat our concern about the negative effects that climate change is already inflicting on the present and its projection in the future.

The main purpose of the thematic hearing is to transmit to the IACHR, relevant and up-to-date information regarding the role played by climate change and the measures designed to combat it, in the enjoyment of the human rights recognized by the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Implications of climate change in the region

The effects of climate change are deployed throughout the world, overwhelmingly breaking social and ecological systems, generating a detriment in the enjoyment of a range of internationally recognized human rights such as the rights to life, physical health and mental, to food, water and sanitation, to adequate housing, to self-determination, among others. Added to this, it provokes a deepening of the pre-existing socio-economic vulnerabilities and differences in historically disadvantaged countries and groups.

Specifically in the case of the Americas and the Caribbean, this becomes more evident when there are currently several million people living in the path of hurricanes and low-lying coastal areas, which makes them victims of sea level rise. , storm surges and coastal floods. Even more so considering that several countries have a large proportion of their urban population living in areas less than five meters above sea level. As temperatures continue to rise, so does the risk of vector-borne diseases, such as malaria and dengue, aggravated by poor water and housing conditions, thus affecting the right to health of the population.

In addition, the rural poor in general, and indigenous groups, in particular, are especially vulnerable to climate change due to their dependence on small-scale agriculture and natural resources. Additionally, climate change differentially impacts more women. Indeed, the analysis of population censuses of natural disasters in 141 countries showed that “although catastrophes cause suffering to everyone, on average, they produce more fatalities among women than men, or they take the lives of more young women than men. “

In the case of Argentina, and more precisely in Córdoba, the cycles of floods and droughts caused by climate change are aggravated by the lack of planning and coordination of policies to combat their effects. In 2015, this situation led to the floods produced in almost all the towns of the Sierras Chicas, causing all kinds of damage – structural housing, economic and health – many still unsolved and, what is even more serious, the loss of human lives.

Adaptation and mitigation measures are not enough

The States of the region have adopted numerous measures in order to reduce the adverse effects of climate change. These are the so-called “mitigation and adaptation” measures; the first, referring to the intervention of man in reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, and the second, those that seek to moderate or avoid damage or take advantage of beneficial opportunities. The problem that arises with such measures is that in many cases they also violate or negatively affect the enjoyment of certain human rights, such as those that limit access to and use of natural resources, such as land, water and water. forests.

Por este motivo es que, luego de la entrada en vigor del Acuerdo de París (2016), todas las medidas que los Estados adopten deben “respetar, proteger y considerar sus respectivas obligaciones en materia de derechos humanos” y, en particular, “el derecho a la salud, los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, las comunidades locales, los migrantes, los niños, las personas con discapacidad y las personas en situación de vulnerabilidad y el derecho al desarrollo, así como la igualdad de género, el empoderamiento de las mujeres y la equidad intergeneracional”.

With an eye on the Framework Convention on Climate Change

If the request for a thematic hearing is approved, it will be held during the 172nd period of sessions of the IACHR, between May 2 and May 10, 2019 in Kingston, Jamaica. In addition, the following Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC will take place in Santiago, Chile at the end of 2019, making the thematic hearing a preamble as a multi-stakeholder dialogue addressing this issue from human rights and with a regional perspective . Contributing thus to an articulation of themes conducive to the same objective: sustainable development with a focus on rights.

This new global context, where climate change is an unprecedented challenge, requires the IACHR’s innovative agency to set the standards and standards necessary for the States of the continent to advance at an accelerated pace towards a future with a safe level of greenhouse gases, allowing climate stability and with fully guaranteed rights.

As global warming continues to rise, basic human rights are at risk, affecting not only the present generations, but especially the generations to come. For all these reasons, and bearing in mind that the IACHR is the body in charge of the promotion and protection of human rights in the region, we consider it fundamental that the request for a thematic hearing presented be considered.

More information

Solicitud de audiencia temática ante la CIDH

Author

Ananda Lavayen

Contact

María Pérez Alsina – mariaperezalsina@fundeps.org

,

We participate in the First Latin American Workshop on Litigation Strategies on Climate Change and Human Rights

From July 11 to 13, the First Latin American Workshop on Litigation Strategies on Climate Change and Human Rights was held in Bogotá, Colombia. The workshop was jointly organized by the Law, Justice and Society Studies Center (Dejusticia) and the Sabin Center on Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The event brought together 21 activists and lawyers from Latin America who work on environmental issues and human rights with the purpose of training them on the new and innovative strategies of climate litigation in the world.

In this sense, the three main objectives of the workshop were:
– Analyze the theoretical and legal bases that have been used in different types of climate litigation in different parts of the world.
– Develop specific strategies that the participants can adapt to their own countries and organizations.
– Establish a collaborative network between activists and organizations interested in studying and promoting strategic litigation on climate change in the region.

During the workshop, various presentations were presented on the importance of climate justice, the types of existing climate litigation, legal principles and doctrines, legal precedents, climate litigation strategies, as well as the climate litigation challenges related to jurisdiction, attribution factor, causality, quantification of damages, among others.

Likewise, the new tendencies in the matter of climate litigation were presented, taking as initial kick-off the first guardianship on climate change and future generations of Latin America granted by the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia to 25 boys, girls
and young people, supported by Dejusticia.

More information:

https://www.dejusticia.org/tutela-cambio-climatico-colombia/
http://climatecasechart.com/

Contacto:
María Pérez Alsina –mariaperezalsina@fundeps.org

Climate Change and Open Government at the Global TAI Meeting

The 6th Global Meeting of The Access Initiative (TAI) was held in Paris on 5 and 6 December, in which representatives of civil society from around the world met to discuss the importance of open government in relation to The challenges of climate change.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

 

In view of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Summit, which takes place from 7 to 9 December in Paris, the TAI Network held its Global Meeting to explore the linkages between two agendas: climate change and open government. TO

During two days, experiences, opinions and ideas were exchanged between experts and experts on both issues, to strengthen the capacities of civil society to influence these issues. Among the issues that have emerged from this is the link between transparency, open data and participation with climate finance, Nationally Determined Projected Contributions (INDC) under the Paris Agreement, among others. In this context, issues that were transversal to the agendas of civil society, such as human rights, gender, environmental advocates, were also addressed.

The results of this meeting are expected to be reflected in the OGP Summit, which this year focuses on climate change. The priority is then to achieve the synergy between these two agendas, in order to be able to advocate for transversal public policies.

Contact

Carolina Tamagnini – carotamagnini@fundeps.org

Movimientos sociales proponen nuevo modelo de desarrollo al Banco de los BRICS

Organizaciones de la sociedad civil y movimientos sociales de todo el mundo están difundiendo un manifiesto en el que proponen un nuevo modelo de desarrollo para el anunciado Banco de BRICS, una institución de financiamiento y desarrollo que está siendo fomentado por los gobiernos de Brasil, Rusia, India, China y Sudáfrica. La declaración se produce después de la reciente cumbre de los presidentes de los BRICS celebrado en Ufa, Rusia. Las organizaciones establecen que es necesario repensar el desarrollo.

“El modelo actual de desarrollo en muchos países emergentes y en desarrollo se basa en las estrategias y políticas específicas para la exportación de materias primas. Este modelo conlleva daños sociales, es ambientalmente insostenible y genera desigualdades dentro y entre países. Si el Nuevo Banco de Desarrollo quiere cambiar esta realidad, debe comprometerse con los cuatro principios siguientes”, dice el manifiesto. El primer principio es que el nuevo banco debe promover el desarrollo para todos, ya que cuando no se satisfacen las necesidades de las personas, las inversiones no generan desarrollo. Para las organizaciones, el NBD debe apoyar un desarrollo incluyente, accesible y participativo con las opciones de las comunidades; debe apuntar a la pobreza y las desigualdades, eliminar barreras de acceso a las oportunidades, respetar los derechos humanos, las culturas locales y el medio ambiente. Además, el NBD debe priorizar las inversiones transformadoras que no se limiten a gran megaproyectos a gran escala y centralizados. En su lugar, debe centrarse en la infraestructura social para las poblaciones más pobres y excluidas, proporcionando acceso a los servicios públicos, vivienda, educación y el florecimiento de las economías locales. El segundo principio es que debe ser transparente y democrático, es decir, accesible al público en general. Por lo tanto, el NBD debe garantizar que la información bajo su custodia, la elaboración de las políticas internas y el manejo de sus operaciones sea transparente, accesible y participativo, para que las comunidades que sean afectadas por las actividades de NBD tengan acceso a la información y la posibilidad de influir y moldear las decisiones de las inversiones. El NBD también debe construir estructuras de gobierno democráticas, transparentes y representativasque aseguren un tratamiento equitativo y no discriminatorio entre los proveedores y los beneficiarios. “El desarrollo no es exclusivo de los Estados, aunque éstos corresponde larendición de cuentas y la definición de responsabilidades. El NBD debe proporcionar espacios a otras partes interesadas – incluyendo, de manera pero no exhaustiva, a sindicatos, movimientos sociales, comunidades y organizaciones no gubernamentales – para que participen en la elección, diseño, implementación y seguimiento de los proyectos NDB “, expresa el texto de la nota. Fijar reglas “fuertes” y garantizar que sean respetadas, este es el tercer principio propuesto. El nuevo Banco de Desarrollo debe garantizar que las comunidades y Establecer reglas “robustas” y asegurarse que sean respetadas es el tercer principio propuesto. El nuevo Banco de Desarrollo debe garantizar que las comunidades y el medio ambiente comparten los beneficios de sus actividades, y no sean afectados negativamente por ellos. Las políticas y procedimientos internos del NBD se deben desarrollar con los más altos estándares de protección de los derechos humanos y el medio ambiente y, por lo menos, debe ser compatible con el derecho internacional. Si la legislación interna de un país en el que se realizan las inversiones es diferente de las políticas NBD, se sugiere que la norma aplicable debe ser la que ofrece el más alto nivel de protección del medio ambiente y para las comunidades. Las políticas y procedimientos internos del NBD deben ser elaborados conforme los más altos estándares de protección de los derechos humanos y del medio ambiente y, por lo menos, deben ser consistentes con el derecho internacional. Si la ley doméstica de un país donde las inversiones se realizan con diferencias de las políticas del NBD, se sugiere que la norma aplicable debe ser aquella que ofrezca el más alto nivel de protección ambiental y para las comunidades. El NBD también debe instituir mecanismos para una mayor rendición de cuentas y responsabilidad, incluyendo mecanismos independientes para asegurar que sus estructuras cumplan con sus propias políticas, que recursos estén disponibles para las comunidades puedan reparar daños generados por los proyectos y que la institución pueda extraer lecciones de su propia experiencia y mejorar a partir de ella. Para las organizaciones y movimientos sociales que firman el manifiesto, un buen punto de partida en este sentido son los Criterios de Efectividad de Mecanismos de Reclamo no Judiciales, de los Principios Orientadores de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas [ONU] para Empresas y Derechos Humanos. El cuarto y último principio es que debe promover el desarrollo sostenible, que es la espina dorsal del mandato del NBD. “Teniendo en cuenta los cambios climáticos y sus actuales efectos dañinos sobre el desarrollo y la tendencia a su agravamiento para el futuro, las inversiones del NBD deben promover soluciones a largo plazo que sean sostenibles y con capacidad de recuperar los daños (resiliencia). Esto significa respetar los derechos de las comunidades sobre sus territorios y un medio ambiente limpio, rompiendo el actual modelo de extracción contaminante, depredadora e intensiva en recursos naturales que se están realizando en los países en desarrollo hace demasiado tiempo”. Firman el manifiesto: Rede Brasileira Pela Integração dos Povos (Rebrip) – Brasil; Conectas Derechos Humanos – Brasil; Friends of the Siberian Forests – Rusia; Centre for Applied Legal Studies– África do Sul; Ecoa – Ecologia e Ação – Brasil; Consumer Unity and Trust Society [(CUTS International) – Índia; OT Watch – Mongólia; Foundation for Environmental Rights, Advocacy & Development (Fenrad) – Nigéria; Jamaa Resource Initiatives – Quênia; ActionAid International; Rivers without Boundaries – Mongolia; Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – EUA e Suíça; Global Network for Good Governance (GNGG) – Camarones; Plataforma de Derechos Humanos – Dhesca – Brasil; Friends of the Earth US – EUA; Foundation for the Conservation Of The Earth (Focone)- Nigéria; Asociación Ambiente y Sociedad – Colombia; Foro Ciudadano de Participación por la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos – Argentina; Instituto de Pesquisa y Formación Indígena (Iepé) – Brasil; Social Justice Connection – Canadá; Coordinadora de Comunidades Afectadas por la Construcción de la Hidroeléctrica Chixoy (COCAHICH) – Guatemala; Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación – México; Actions pour les Droits, l’Environnement et la Vie (Adev) – República do Congo; e Civicus: World Alliance for Citizen Particpation – África do Sul. También: Fórum da Amazonia Oriental (Faor) – Brasil; Movimiento Ciudadano frente al Cambio Climático (Mocicc) – Perú; International Rivers – International Fundación para el Desarrollo de Políticas Sustentables (Fundeps) – Argentina; Otros Mundos – México; Sexual Minorities Uganda (Smug) – Uganda; Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Aida) – Regional; Rede de Cooperação Amazônica (RCA) – Brasil; Red Mexicana de Afectados por la Minería (Rema) – México; Lumière Synergie pour le Développement – Senegal; Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR) – Perú; Centro Terra Viva – Estudos e Advocacia Ambiental – Moçambique; Inclusive Development International – EUA; Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales – Argentina; FIAN International – Brasil; Accountability Counsel – EUA; Justicia Asbl – Congo; L’Association des Jeunes Filles pour la Promotion de L’Espace Francophone – Guiné Equatorial – Conakry; Forest Peoples Programme – Reino Unido; Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND) – Líbano; International Accountability Project Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute – África do Sul; ONG Hadassa – Gabão; Institute for Economic Research on Innovation – África do Sul; y la Anistia Internacional.

Fuente: Adital, Noticias de América Latina y Caribe

, ,

Funding infrastructure in Latin America- COP20, Lima

The frame of activities for the Conference of Parties in the framework convention on the Lima Climate Change Conference, will discuss how international funding and socio environmental safeguards in infrastructure projects in Latin America have an impact on the Amazon jungle.

This event has been jointly organised by FUNDAR, Centre of Analysis and Investigation (Mexico), Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies- FUNDEPS (Argentina) Association for Environment and Society AAS (Colombia) and the Right of the Environment and Natural Resources- DAR (Peru) all constituting as the regional group for Funding and Infrastructure.
The discussion forms part of the Conference of Parties in the framework convention on climate change in Lima. The speakers will tackle the actual state of funding for infrastructure in Latin America from traditional banks like the World Bank Group/ International Finance Corporation and the new bank from the BRIC Countries. A comparative analysis of four projects with external funding has been carried out in Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia and Peru, evaluating the impacts on the Amazon forest and the instruments (safeguards) for the management of social and environmental risks.

It will especially be about the negative example of Brazil and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES, its acronym in Portuguese). The BNDES, who also funds projects outside of Brazil, has been accused of its lack of transparency, of described social and environmental norms, which have been clearly defined, and the mechanisms guaranteeing the fulfillment of national laws.
It is feared that the recent creation of the BRICS nations bank will neither put enough emphasis on the norms that protect the environment and society in the process of its application. This reality is affecting the policies of traditional banks, such as the World Bank Group or the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB). Those countries seeking to attract more investment will also react to the changes in the available international funding. Large infrastructure projects that ignore the environmental concerns, such are the cases of CVIS (Peru), Mocoa Pasto (Colombia), Coca Codo Sinclair (Ecuador) and the TIPNIS (Bolivia), are proof of it.

A panel of experts on climate change, megaprojects and governance (transparency, participation, risk management) will debate the key ideas and any advance of the previously mentioned analysis. The session will also give the public the possibility to participate in the debate.

Key questions:

1.How can banks apply safeguards on project funding in Latin America to prevent social conflicts and environmental disasters?
2.What is the role of the new national and regional banks in the funding of regional infrastructure?
3.How the weakening of standards in funding the region affects the countries system? How can these react in front of new challenges?

More information:

– Details on the logistics of the event
– Panorama on the funding for infrastructure in Latin America
– Guideline for the discussion. Implementation of a Freedom of Information Policy for The Brazilian Development Bank
– Paradigmatic cases of BNDES investment in South America. Need and opportunity to improve internal policies

Contact:

Gonzalo Roza / Coordinator of Global Governance
gon.roza@fundeps.org

Translated by: Gisela Quevedo

FUNDEPS co-organizes regional workshop on infrastructure finance trends in Latin America

The event’s agenda revolved around the governance of and trends of investments in infrastructure in Latin America, and on the necessity of improved communication on the part of Latin American civil society in the face of a complicated and challenging regional backdrop.

The regional workshop “Trends in Investments in Infrastructure in the Region: Climate Change and Governance” took place in the city of Lima (Peru) on the 24th and 25th of April. Its objective was to examine and debate the economic and socio-environmental impact of investments in infrastructure financed by the multilateral development bank and by the national development banks of Latin America. The event was organized by AAyS (Environment and Society Association) of Colombia; CDES (Center for Economic and Social Rights) of Ecuador; CEDLA (Center of Studies for Labor and Agrarian Development) of Bolivia; DAR (Environmental Law and Natural Resources) of Peru; IBASE (Brazilian Institute for Social and Economic Analysis) of Brazil; FUNDAR Center for Analysis and Research of Mexico, and FUNDEPS (Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policy) of Argentina.

The first day of the event was dedicated to the presentation of papers and publications that the organizations of the region have been carrying out in the past few months. These papers covered various topics: the current situation of governance and financing of infrastructure in the region; socio-environmental safeguards and human rights; and climate change.  The presentations revolved around the infrastructure megaprojects in the Amazon, the financing of infrastructure by the multilateral development bank and by the national development banks, Chinese investment in the region, the financing of Climate Change, and the processes of citizen participation in spaces like UNASUR and BNDES, among other topics. Simultaneously, there was a space dedicated to the discussion around the adpotation of a strategy on the part of Latin American civil society in relation to the upcoming COP-20 (Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), to take place in the city of Lima in December of this year.
With these discussions the conference articulated the complex situation of infrastructure finance in the region:
  • Multiplicity of involved actors, be they multilateral international banks like the World Bank or regional multilateral banks like BId and CAF; national development banks like Brazil’s BNDES;
  • More global forums and spaces, like the G-20, the BRICS or UNASUR itself, via its Council on Infrastructure and Planning (COSIPLAN) charged with implementing the criticized IIRSA initiative in the region.
  • Growing Chinese investment in the region
  • Greater participation of the private sector either directly or via public-private partnerships.
  • Weakening of environmental safeguards on the part of the principal institutions offering financing
  • Failure on the part of the states to effectively observe and guarantee human rights when driving development projects.
On the second day of the event, the agenda was centered on a workshop activity in which the participants, members of diverse organizations and civil society network from the majority of the countries of the region, worked to identify priorities and to advance in the development of a strategic agenda that would allow the region to effectively confront such a complex and troublesome situation.
The Lima workshop is an important step in the direction of improved communication and coordination among the diverse organizations of the region, allowing for effective change on issues that would be impossible to deal with individually. Therefore, we invite all interested organizations to join us in the process of communication and collective work to promote a development model for our region that is more sustainable, participative, and respectful of human rights.
Translated by: Savannah Mcdermott