[ad_1]
It is the first major environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean, but the Chilean government has just refused to ratify it.
It is the Escazú Agreement, an agreement promoted by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) whose adoption was precisely presided over Chile and Costa Rica in 2018 after four years of negotiations.
The agreement received that name because it was adopted in the Costa Rican city of Escazú and its objective is to facilitate access to public information and promote citizen participation in environmental policies in Latin America and the Caribbean.
- The global failure to meet 20 goals to protect the environment
Both the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Relations and the Ministry of Environment argued the rejection of the treaty for including “ambiguities” in some norms that “would prevail over internal legislation”, causing legal confusion and exposing them to possible international lawsuits.
The agreement enters into force on September 26, as long as it is ratified by at least 11 of the 22 states who originally subscribed to it.
So far it has been ratified by nine countries.
And although other members such as Colombia, Peru, Mexico or Argentina have not put their final signature at the moment, the case of Chile is paradoxical and “inconsistent” because it openly rejects it after being one of its main drivers.
Chile faces the driest decade in its history since rainfall records began in 1915. Image Copyright: GETTY IMAGES
The decision drew harsh criticism from the opposition and environmental organizations.
What is the Escazú Agreement?
Signed in 2018 by 22 countries in the region, the purpose of the treaty is, according to ECLAC, “to guarantee the right of all people to have access to information in a timely and adequate manner, to participate in a meaningful way in decisions that they affect their lives and their environment and to access justice when these rights have been violated. “
Andrés Allamand, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Carolina Schmidt, Minister of the Environment, explained the decision through a virtual address. Image copyright: CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES AND DEPUTIES / YOUTUBE
“One of the aspects that Escazú reinforces is the protection of the most vulnerable populations to the effects of climate change and provide them with better access to justice and information “, Pedro Cisterna Gaete, lawyer and researcher on law and environment at the University of Concepción in Chile, told BBC Mundo.
- The dispute over water ownership in Chile amid the worst drought on record
It’s about a regional agreement reached in negotiations chaired by Chile and Costa Rica and five other members of the Board of Directors, made up of Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago.
Although 22 countries originally signed the agreement, it has been ratified, so far, by only nine: Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guyana, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis and Uruguay.
In the absence of the two signatures required for the agreement to enter into force and four days after the deadline, Chile has rejected it.
Why did Chile reject the agreement?
On September 8, Foreign Minister Andrés Allamand announced that the agreement was “inconvenient for Chile.”
This Tuesday, through a joint address by Allamand himself and the Minister of the Environment, Carolina Schmidt, the reasons for the final decision were fully developed.
Carolina Schmidt, Chile’s Minister of the Environment, participated in the speech in which it was announced why the agreement was being rejected. Image Copyright: GETTY IMAGES
The Chilean executive considers that the Escazú treaty contains “ambiguous” obligations that could condition Chile’s environmental laws, create legal uncertainty and expose them to international controversies.
- The lithium triangle: 3 obstacles that Argentina, Bolivia and Chile face to escape the “curse of natural resources”
He cites, for example, that the fact that the rights of environmental defenders are recognized would grant “a different status from other human rights groups, thus affecting equality before the law.”
The analysis added that the agreement does not define its principles and that this causes “an interpretive problem.”
At the beginning of the document that summarizes the reasons, it is assured that “Chile has environmental legislation that is recognized, nationally and internationally, for its content, scope and consistency “.
On the other hand, and just a few hours before, the president of the government, Sebastian Piñera, assured that Chile is “totally committed” to climate change before the United Nations Assembly.
“Misleading advertising”
The wave of reactions and criticism from the opposition and environmental organizations did not wait.
Matías Asun, national director of the Greenpeace organization in Chile, criticized the government’s management, accusing it of “misleading advertising” for making people believe that environmental policies are at the center of its agenda.
“One of the aspects that Escazú reinforces is the protection of the most vulnerable populations to the effects of climate change.” Image Copyright: GETTY IMAGES
“The government promoted and led the Escazú agreement that today it decides not to sign, the government exposed the Escazú agreement as an argument to get the headquarters of the COP25. Well, it turns out that it was all a hoax. A misleading advertisement that finally comes true today, “said Asun.
The Chilean Human Rights Commission also spoke out on the matter and said on Twitter that the government “prioritizes business interests over the environmental rights of communities.”
Vlado Mirosevic, a member of the Liberal Party of Chile, called the government’s arguments “far-fetched and poor.”
Marcelo Mena, former Minister of the Environment during the previous government of Michelle Bachelet, said on Radio Duna de Chile that “taking these reasons out now is totally not serious and has to do with the fact that there are business sectors that have put pressure on the government, because they have mistrust of what that means greater participation. “
Inconsistencies
The reasons of the Chilean government are being a matter of debate in the country. For many they are incoherent and paradoxical.
“The decision is a bit inconsistent because Chile has already signed in other agreements some principles similar to those that it now qualifies as ambiguous in the Escazú treaty“, says Cisterna Gaete to BBC Mundo.
Chile was the organizer of COP25, but it was finally held in Madrid due to the social outbreak that occurred last year. Image Copyright: GETTY IMAGES
“In Escazú they talk about the principle of intergenerational equity, something that is included in most environmental treaties, such as that of Paris, signed by Chile. It is really difficult to understand the decision,” he adds.
The researcher fears that Chile’s rejection will have a “rebound effect” and affect the ratification of the agreement by other countries.
- The cracks in the Chilean economic model that the protests exposed
“It would be unfortunate if the future of the agreement were in jeopardy due to a decision by a single country that, in my opinion, it does not give well-founded reasons for not signing the agreement and that it is being inconsistent with respect to its historical position with Escazú “, warns Cisterna Gaete.
In view of the criticism received, BBC Mundo contacted the Chilean Foreign Ministry, but did not receive a response until the time of publication of this note.
[ad_2]
