Has the company made a difference from the final agreement? What is in the agreement that would not be there if it were not for the representation of the interests of civil society? Coordinating efforts is the key to greater efficiency. The Escaz process, in which international support and coordination between regional and national processes have consolidated the work of civil society, is a good example. In addition, several UN rapporteurs called on all states in the region to sign and ratify the agreement quickly, which may have influenced several states that signed it. The work of civil society has made a big difference. The RHD issue was a proposal from civil society that was not included in the first version of the agreement. This was undoubtedly the greatest achievement and historic milestone for environmental democracy, as no other international treaty contains provisions on the protection of HDRs. The same goes for the inclusion of people in vulnerable situations: we have worked hard to define a definition and insist that it be included in the text of the agreement. Decision Chile was the main promoter and facilitator of the negotiations on the development of the agreement with Costa Rica, yet the Chilean government pointed out to Parliament that « the signing of the Escaz Agreement is uncomfortable given the ambiguity and the great form of its conditions, its final self-enforcement and the imperative nature of its rules , which would fall under priority internal environmental legislation. » It should be recognized, however, that the negotiation process has been typically characterized by the presence of more or less important civil society organizations in each country, while the participation of communities and HDRs, whose agreement is aimed at protecting rights, has been very limited. We would have liked to see more Aboriginal leaders have a voice in the negotiations, but there have been great restrictions on funding participation in the regional process, which we have only partially been able to counter by seeking greater participation in national processes and virtual networks. The aim of the agreement is to « protect the right of every human being, present and future generations, to live in a healthy environment. » According to the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the term « health » is widely controversial internationally and could be at odds with the legal definition of « right to life in an environment without an environment » contained in the Chilean Constitution.
Two weeks ago, the organizations that support the agreement published a letter calling for the process to be accelerated. However, officials from the Ministry of Finance informed them at a meeting, without giving details, that they were not yet talking about an analysis of the economic impact of ratification. « This is the last signature left to get permission. Everything stops, because it is their responsibility and all the actors are aware of it, » said Toms Severino, director of the NGO Ecological Culture. « We have not received a clear answer as to why she is arrested, » Said Norma Gonzalez Benétez of Amnesty International. The civil society network spoke on all articles of the text proposed by ECLAC, as well as on its later versions. The text was also distributed to all contacts and allies of the network`s member organizations and their contributions were collected. That is why, during their participation in the negotiating sessions, representatives of civil society presented opinions from all relevant organizations in the region. We also had a communication and alliance strategy with international ZIVIL bricks to publicize and discuss the agreement. With these ratifications, the revolutionary agreement reached a total of eight, which approached the elf, necessary to become a reality.
However, quarantine, social distances and other emergency measures taken by Latin American countries to contain the new coronavirus have slowed the pace. The Legislature approved the agreement in a first debate on February 13.