Our Annual Report
From our blog
Dive into our latest insights and stories from our team
Whales and salmon farming: how does the industry impact our gentle marine giants?
Chile is by nature a country of marine mammals. Of the 94 species of cetaceans existing in the world, 43 have their habitat in the country's waters. And just over a quarter of them are found in Patagonia. But Chile is also a country of salmon, occupying the second place in the world production, surpassed only by Norway. The overlap of the salmon industry with the habitat of these emblematic marine mammals represents a significant threat to cetaceans in Chile about which not enough is known. The recent deaths of three whales in protected areas of Chile's southern seas force us to ask ourselves why they are dying and how they are affected by the growing industry with which they share their habitat. Civil society is responding. In early November 2024, Greenpeace - together with the Kawésqar community Grupos Familiares Nómadas del Mar and with the support of AIDA - filed two criminal complaints against those responsible for the deaths of humpback whales in protected areas. These lawsuits, which have already been declared admissible, represent an unprecedented milestone in the country's criminal history, as they are the first take advantage of the amendaments made to the Penal Code by Law 21,595 on Economic and Environmental Crimes to the Penal Code to file a lawsuit for possible violations committed inside protected areas. In this context, AIDA, together with Greenpeace and the NGO FIMA - historical allies in the resistance to the expansion of salmon farming in the waters of Chilean Patagonia - commissioned a scientific report entitle “Cetaceans and Salmon Farming: Challenges for the Protection of Marine Biodiversity in Chilean Patagonia.” The report is currently available in Spanish as an executive summary, which lays out the available information on the impacts of salmon farming on the whales and dolphins of Chilean Patagonia. The results are alarming: serious risks have been identified, in addition to a lack of data that makes it difficult to understand the magnitude and consequences of the threats. One of the most evident impacts is the incidental capture of small and large cetaceans in farming centers. There are documented cases of entanglement and deaths, although the lack of official records makes it difficult to measure the severity of the problem. Another significant threat is the Intense maritime traffic in Patagonia, largely related to the salmon industry. Although there is no official data in Chile, there is evidence of deaths and serious injuries due to collisions between boats and whales. In addition, underwater noise from boat engines affects the health and well-being of the whales and dolphins, which depend on sound for communication and orientation. In addition to these, there are other problems of the industry, whose effects on whales and dolphins have not been adequately studied, but which we should consider while the studies are being conducted. One of these is the escape of salmonids, which compete with native species for food resources and may carry diseases that could affect smaller cetaceans in particular by reducing the availability of prey that serve as food. Microplastic pollution, 40 percent of which comes from salmon farming centers, is another under-researched environmental concern in terms of its impact on cetaceans. And the excessive use of antibiotics in Chilean salmon farming, one of the highest rates in the world, could be having negative indirect effects on the ecosystems that support these marine mammals. Finally, one of the most significant environmental impacts of the salmon farming in Chilean Patagonia is the generation of hypoxia and anoxia due to the excess of organic matter in the farming centers, coming from salmon feces and uneaten food that falls to the seabed. The decomposition of this matter consumes the oxygen in the water, creating zones in the sea where life becomes difficult or impossible. We hope that this report will fill the information gap that has become uncomfortable and even untenable in light of recent whale deaths. With this evidence, even in a scenario of limited knowledge, we will be able to encourage a governmental response towards the rapid implementation of effective protection measures for whales and dolphins in Chilean waters. Chile is a country of cetaceans, and as their guardians, we must ensure that our waters are a safe space for their development and well-being. Read and download the executive summary
Interim Director, Climate Program
Let's talk about NDCs, countries' commitments to the climate crisis
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are the plans developed by each country to address the climate crisis under the Paris Agreement. In them, countries commit to meeting targets for reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and making progress in adapting to the climate crisis, including - ideally - how they will finance these actions. The Paris Agreement, from which NDCs are derived, is a legally binding international agreement to combat climate change that entered into force in 2016 after being signed by 195 countries. As such, NDCs are the pathway to achieving the Agreement's goals, which are to: Ensure that the global average temperature increase is well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. Strengthen the capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Align financing with the needs of countries to achieve these goals. Each country is free to decide and commit in its NDCs how it will adjust to and alleviate the impacts of the crisis, based on its unique abilities and circumstances. In this sense, NDCs reinforce the agreed-upon global goals to address the climate crisis and contain specific commitments by countries to achieve them. They also provide short- and medium-term plans, with political backing, in key areas not only to stabilize the climate, but also to promote sustainable development and address other global crises such as pollution and biodiversity loss. Countries that have signed the Paris Agreement must submit their NDCs to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and update them every five years with increasingly ambitious targets based on their own capabilities. The Conferences of the Parties (COPs), the decision-making body of the Convention, will provide guidance to countries on how to meet these commitments. The first NDCs were presented in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was adopted, and their first update occurred in 2020. Next year, countries must update them again with targets for 2030 and 2035. Given their relevance for global climate action and the proximity of the second update, we will dig deeper into relevant aspects of the NDCs. The content of the NDCs In their NDCs, countries present a projected analysis of climate risks and impacts, as well as specific commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts. This results in quantitative or qualitative targets, deadlines and actions in priority sectors such as agriculture, water, biodiversity, forests, energy, risk management, industry, infrastructure, fisheries, health, transport, tourism and coastal zones, among others. Most countries include indicative budgets for achieving their targets, and many developing countries indicate the support they will need—financial, technology transfer, and/or capacity-building—to implement some or all their actions. In an NDC, targets that can be achieved without external support are called "unconditional" and those that depend on such support are called "conditional." Examples of NDC commitments include: Reduce 22 percent of its GHG emissions with its own resources by 2030 (unconditional mitigation target). Increase GHG reduction to 36 percent, but subject to a global agreement that includes technical cooperation and technology transfer, as well as access to low-cost financial resources (conditional mitigation target). Increase, by 2030, the adaptive capacity of the population to climate change and reduce the high vulnerability of 160 municipalities (unconditional adaptation goal). Progress on NDCs According to the World Resource Institute, current NDC emission reduction commitments submitted by countries fall far short of the ambition needed to meet the Paris Agreement's goals, as they would result in a temperature increase of between 2.5 and 2.9°C even if fully implemented. On a more optimistic note, data from the United Nations Development Program's Climate Promise initiative, which is supporting 85 percent of countries in the preparation of their NDCs, shows that the most vulnerable countries are making tangible progress in terms of ambition. For example, African countries are more committed than the global average to their climate resilience goals, increasing transparency efforts, and incorporating just transition, while the NDCs of Latin American and Caribbean countries show high levels of stakeholder engagement and accountability compared to the global average. Although most Latin American countries have plans to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change and promote renewable energy in their NDCs, they remain dependent on oil, gas and coal, making their current climate commitments insufficient. Human rights and gender approach in NDCs While the global crisis is a threat to humanity, its impact is disproportionately felt by vulnerable populations who are less able to cope. This is the case for indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, as well as peasant and rural populations. Furthermore, according to the UN Human Rights Council, "women are particularly vulnerable to the risks associated with climate change due to gender discrimination, inequalities and gender roles that constrain them. One of the main negative impacts of the climate crisis on women is that it exacerbates the burden of unpaid domestic and care work, thereby deepening existing structural inequalities. Considering the above, it is essential that States incorporate the human rights framework and the gender perspective in the formulation of their climate policies, as recognized by various international instruments and treaties. This implies that States - in the elaboration, implementation and monitoring of NDCs - comply with their obligations to promote, respect, protect and fulfil human rights without discrimination and with a gender and intersectional approach, thereby strengthening the capacity of people and communities to act effectively in the face of the climate crisis, particularly those who have been historically marginalized. NDCs must also ensure the rights of future generations and the long-term integrity of ecosystems. What's next Next year's round of NDCs should focus on delivering on the commitments made at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) to phase out fossil fuels in energy systems, set specific methane emission reduction targets, triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency. Given that this new round will cover targets up to 2035 - the midpoint between 2020, when countries began implementing their NDCs, and 2050, the year agreed for achieving the global goal of zero net emissions - the commitments presented are critical to aligning near-term actions with long-term goals. In the face of accelerating climate impacts with increasingly severe consequences, there is an urgent need for NDCs with sufficient ambition to contribute to deep emission cuts, enhanced adaptation, adequate attention to loss and damage already caused, and a significant increase in climate finance. Learn more To learn more about the progress of each country's climate commitments, you can: Consult the UNFCCC database, which contains the list of countries that have submitted their NDCs and the date they did so. Consult the information generated by the Climate Action Tracker, which tracks governments' climate actions and compares them to the Paris Agreement targets. Learn about NDC LAC, a digital tool that provides information on progress in implementing and updating NDCs in Latin America and the Caribbean. sources - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The Paris Agreement and nationally determined contributions". - United Nations, "All about NDCs." -World Resources Institute, "Next Generation NDCs. Accelerating climate action under the Paris Agreement". - United Nations Development Programme, “What are NDCs and how do they drive climate action?”. - Verónica Méndez Villa and Daniela García Aguirre, "Human Rights and Gender Perspective in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in Latin America," Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). - Inter Press Service, "Latin America arrives at COP28 with insufficient ambitions for its goals".
Content Coordinator
The Amazon: The complexities and challenges of its protection
By Vania Albarracín and José David Castilla* Protecting the Amazon is one of the region's greatest challenges. Facing it requires coordination and cooperation between states, peoples and organizations. In this context, the Pan-Amazonian Social Forum (FOSPA) was born out of the need to think about the Pan-Amazonian region - a region made up of the countries that have jurisdiction or territory in the Amazon basin, and/or have jungle coverage, and/or are part of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty (TCA) - in all its complexity. FOSPA is a regional space for articulation, reflection and exchange between indigenous peoples, social movements and civil society from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guiana, Peru, Venezuela and Suriname. The reason why so many actors have come together around the Amazon is that it is a mega-diverse ecosystem and a global climate stabilizer, containing more than 13% of all known plant and animal species and releasing 6,600 km³ of freshwater annually into the Atlantic Ocean, representing between 16 and 20% of global runoff. It is therefore essential to consider the interconnections and interdependencies between the Amazon and other ecosystems in the region. Marine-coastal ecosystems, Andean wetlands, mountain ranges and forests are interconnected throughout the continent and should be recognized as part of a comprehensive conservation strategy. The Amazon region is facing serious problems of deforestation and ecosystem degradation, which have led to warnings of reaching the so-called point of no return. This refers to the loss of the ecological balance and climatic functions of the Amazon, which would have incalculable negative global repercussions. FOSPA holds biannual meetings in different cities and sub-regions of the Amazon to discuss the violations of human, environmental, territorial and natural rights that afflict the region, as well as to propose alternatives that come from the local communities and indigenous peoples that inhabit the region. The eleventh version of FOSPA was held from June 12 to 15 in the cities of Rurrenabaque and San Buenaventura, in the Amazon region of Bolivia. The meeting resulted in a joint declaration in defense of life, peoples and nature. AIDA participated in the meeting and we share below our assessment of the main agreements, the gaps in their implementation and what is missing to ensure the protection of the Amazon. The agreements 1. Mining threats The threats posed by mining to the Amazon region can be seen in two key issues: the promotion and impact of new extractivism (such as copper mining) and mercury contamination from gold mining. The meeting highlighted the need to ban the global trade of mercury and to develop multinational strategies to combat its use in gold mining, in accordance with the Minamata Convention. In addition, a biocultural approach to assessing the impacts of mining was advocated, recognizing the interrelationship between biodiversity and indigenous cultures, the fundamental role of women in preserving and reproducing life, and the participation of civil society in decision-making spaces, ensuring transparency and full disclosure. 2. An Amazon free of extractivism One of the main concerns of the communities, peoples and organizations that participated in the meeting is the presence of different types of extractivism in the Amazon region. They recognized that their rights are violated and threatened by hydrocarbon extraction and transportation projects, by the exploitation of transition minerals such as gold and copper, and by the implementation of public policies related to the energy transition. One of the most relevant proposals in this regard was to generate a multifactorial and plurinational declaration of the Amazon as a zone free of fossil fuels and mining, not only as a slogan, but as a political, social and environmental horizon for the protection of life in all its forms. This proposal must be evaluated in the context of the different tensions and social realities of the region. 3. Guarantees for a just and popular energy transition A just and popular energy transition was another relevant point of the meeting. Indigenous communities and peoples raised the need to decolonize the concept of energy transition and propose a process that comes from them, who have historically suffered the impacts of extractivism. The call was for an energy transition that remediates these impacts and restores affected ecosystems. Achieving this goal requires responsible project closure and exit processes, as well as transition processes that incorporate the highest human rights standards and the perspectives of affected communities. Practical gaps 1. Insufficient commitment to regional cooperation The eleventh version of the FOSPA revealed a lack of political commitment on the part of the member governments of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO), reflected in the absence of firm agreements and mechanisms for effective participation. This favors extractivist policies and weakens the protection of indigenous and environmental rights. It is essential that ACTO review and strengthen its structures to ensure that international commitments are implemented and that pan-Amazonian communities play an active and decisive role in policy formulation. 2. Exclusion of indigenous peoples and communities from the decision-making process The exclusion of indigenous peoples and indigenous Amazonian communities from decision-making processes is evident. This results in policies and agreements that do not reflect their needs and realities. A clear example of this is the Conferences of the Parties (COP) on climate change and biodiversity, where indigenous representation is not real or substantive, resulting in a failure to value their ancestral knowledge and fundamental role in biodiversity and climate protection. 3. Absence of a binding mechanism The implementation of agreements reached in forums such as FOSPA has been inadequate and, in many cases, non-existent. This has been one of the main demands of indigenous peoples and communities. Due to the non-binding nature of FOSPA and its lack of relevance to the state perspective, many of the demands remain in the realm of declarations. Although the FOSPA is essential for pan-Amazonian integration and the construction of alternatives from the territories, a joint effort is needed to strengthen its link with decision-makers, to promote the active participation of communities and to turn the forum into a platform for mobilization and action. The road ahead The next FOSPA meeting will take place in two years, but the effective protection of the Pan-Amazon region cannot wait. In the short term, it is necessary to take concrete actions to mitigate the impacts on the ecosystem and to adopt regional cooperation measures to ensure its integral and transboundary protection. Among other things, it is necessary and urgent: Achieve a regional consensus and design a plan to guarantee the declaration of the Amazon as a zone free of fossil fuels and all forms of extractivism. Coordinate an Andean-Amazonian and coastal articulation for the integral defense of territories, demanding concrete actions against mining with a biocultural approach. Demand regulatory frameworks for environmental and human rights due diligence in the Amazonian countries and in the countries of origin of the companies, in order to oblige them to comply with international standards in these two areas. Urge states to apply the principles of prevention and precaution and to raise their standards for projects that may affect the Amazon. Develop a mechanism for the closure and phasing out of fossil fuel extraction projects in the Amazon. Guarantee the active, representative and binding participation of Pan-Amazonian communities and peoples in international forums where decisions are made about nature, such as the next UN Conference on Biodiversity (COP16 in Colombia) and the next UN Conferences on Climate Change (COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil). *Vania Albarracín Silva is an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program and José David Castilla Parra is an attorney with Human Rights and Environment Program.
Attorney, Ecosystems Program
From our Press releases
Stay updated with our latest key advances
Organizations and communities alert to human rights impacts of mineral extraction for the energy transition
A public hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will focus on the impact of the expansion and intensification of extractive operations for transition minerals like lithium and copper on communities in Latin America. Washington DC. On November 15, at a public hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, representatives of national and regional organizations, as well as members of communities and indigenous peoples, will present updated information on how the exponential increase in the demand for and extraction of transition minerals has caused serious human rights violations as part of a transition process that is proposed only as a change in the energy matrix and is incapable of addressing inequalities in energy production and consumption, particularly in the Global South. Transition minerals like lithium, copper, cadmium, and cobalt—also called “critical” minerals—have been proposed in many global discussions as one of the main solutions to the climate crisis, as they are used in the development of technologies for the production of renewable energy, thus reducing or replacing the use of fossil fuels. A large part of these minerals are located in Latin America, in areas of great biocultural diversity. At the hearing, participants will present the main threats that mining for energy transition poses to the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, the right to a healthy environment, access to environmental information, citizen participation, and justice. In addition, concrete cases of human rights violations in the context of mining for energy transition will be presented through testimonies. These impacts are already occurring in countries such as Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, which concentrate about 53 percent of the world's known lithium deposits in their Andean wetlands, extremely fragile ecosystems confronting water scarcity; in Chile and Peru, where 40 percent of the world’s copper is mined; and in the Colombian Amazon, where concessions, mining claims and illegal extraction of transition minerals are violating the rights of indigenous peoples. Several international organizations have spoken out about human rights abuses related to climate crisis response, particularly energy transition processes. In September, the UN Panel on Critical Minerals for Energy Transition issued a set of recommendations and voluntary principles for governments, industry and other stakeholders to ensure equitable, fair and sustainable management of these minerals. These guidelines aim to ensure that the transition to renewable energy is based on fairness and equity, and that it promotes sustainable development, respect for people, and environmental protection in developing countries. The hearing will take place during the 191st period of sessions of the Inter-American Commission. It was requested by the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF), the Gaia Amazonas Foundation and the organizations that are members of the the Alliance for Andean Wetlands (Alianza por los Humedales Andinos): the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), a regional organization; the Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN) and the PUCARÁ Assembly, of Argentina; the Centro de Documentación e Información Bolivia (CEDIB) and the Colectivo de Derechos Humanos Empodérate, of Bolivia; ONG FIMA, Defensa Ambiental and Fundación Tantí, of Chile. The hearing will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. (Washington DC time) and will be broadcast via Zoom, which requires prior registration at the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_dsEZdrDqSyOA8-i7ikveJQ#/registration. Quotes from representatives of organizations and communities Verónica Chávez, representative of the communities of Salinas Grandes and Laguna de Guayatayoc, Argentina: "All of us who are part of the Salinas Grande watershed are living a situation in which our rights are being affected. We hope that the IACHR can resolve this situation because it is very serious; they are damaging our territories, living beings, and nature itself." Liliana Ávila, director of the Human Rights and Environment Program at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): "The energy transition in our countries should be an opportunity to move towards more just and equitable energy production and distribution processes. The human rights framework and the role of the international protection system are fundamental in this regard. It is very important that the Inter-American Commission closely follows this process and promotes the protection of human rights." Verónica Gostissa, attorney with Asamblea Pucará of Catamarca, Argentina: "In our territory, the province of Catamarca, Argentina, we are living a serious violation of our rights, which is reflected first and foremost in the visible environmental impacts. Since 1997, lithium mining has caused significant environmental damage, including the drying up of a branch of the Trapiche River, a damage that persists to this day. Water continues to be taken from this damaged river, despite recognition of the damage by the company and government authorities. Access to public information, participation and consultation, and access to justice are also affected. For years, extractive projects have been approved without adequate procedures, and although a lawsuit filed by the Atacameños del Altiplano indigenous community resulted in a regulation, it does not meet the standards for effective indigenous consultation. In addition, more than 10 lithium projects are being developed in the same territory, the Salar del Hombre Muerto, without any cumulative and comprehensive impact assessment to date." Vivian Lagrava Flores, coordinator of the Colectivo de Derechos Humanos Empodérate, Bolivia: "Indigenous communities reject mining projects, they can even issue their resolutions and say no in the mining consultation process, but their decisions are not binding for governments. International standards are not respected, and the subjugation of territories and the imposition of mining rights are legitimized with discourses of progress and development, but it is not development from the vision of the indigenous peoples, nor from ours." Lady Sandón, representative of the Environment Unit of the Consejo de Pueblos Atacameños, Chile: "There is a lot of ignorance of the law for the native/indigenous people, which favors the state, and that is why the inhabitants of the land, by not knowing, do not enforce their guarantees. The state institutions violate the social, environmental, and cultural aspects; sometimes they use the indigenous people themselves to create divisions and to have supporters or political and mining operators who promote the change of the thinking of the genetic memory that we have as native people. I hope that we can revisit the situation of ancestral indigenous justice as a mechanism that previously established corrections so that the values and principles of ‘Buen Vivir’ are respected." Daniel Cerqueira, program director of the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF): "This hearing is an opportunity for the Inter-American Commission to clarify the parameters of action for both States and companies in the management of transition minerals. It is imperative to have specific obligations in this area, as human rights violations resulting from the extraction of these minerals are a reality that tends to worsen in several countries in the region." Juan Sebastian Anaya, advocacy advisor at the Gaia Amazonas Foundation (Colombia): "The indigenous governments of the Amazon exercise their territorial and environmental authority in accordance with the Law of Origin, which guides their knowledge systems and principles of relationship with the elements of the territory, such as minerals. The decarbonization of the energy matrix to maintain consumption standards in the global north should not be done at the expense of indigenous territories and the communities that protect them, govern them and make them flourish with their daily practices." Press contacts Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +52 5570522107 Rocío Wischñevsky (Argentina), FARN, [email protected], +54 91159518538 Karen Arita (Mexico), DPLF, [email protected], +52 442 471 9626
COP16: To conserve biodiversity, governments must respect indigenous and local knowledge
At the UN Conference on Biodiversity, countries must also make progress in ensuring the participation of indigenous and local communities in decision-making on biodiversity. The energy transition model of the global north implies irreversible impacts for the Andean wetlands and the communities that inhabit them, whose territories overlap with lithium reserves. Ahead of the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which will take place from October 21 to November 1 in Cali, Colombia, the Alliance for Andean Wetlands (Alianza por los Humedales Andinos) calls on member countries to respect, preserve and maintain the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Doing so implies honoring the obligations acquired with the signing of the treaty. In addition, the signatory countries of the convention must make progress, through the presentation of concrete action plans at the national level, in ensuring the participation of communities in decision-making on biodiversity issues, one of the 23 targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted in 2022. One of the goals of COP16 is to review compliance with these targets, aimed at halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030. According to the Living Planet Report, Latin America is the region with the greatest loss of biodiversity, as populations of all species show an average decline of 94% and 83% in the case of freshwater species. The Alliance warns of the irreversible impacts that the energy transition model promoted from the global north implies for the Andean wetlands, where some of the most sought-after transition minerals, such as lithium and copper, are found. These ecosystems harbor more than that: they are home to an enormous and unique biodiversity, as well as to local communities that depend on them and that for thousands of years have protected and preserved them, maintaining the ecological balance. Quotes from members of the Alliance for Andean Wetlands Laura Castillo, Coordinator of the High Andean Program at Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN), Argentina: "To address the biodiversity crisis, it is crucial to transcend the current paradigm of production and consumption, which promotes excessive use of environmental goods and exacerbates the ecological crisis. To this end, it is imperative to promote the reduction of high levels of consumption of natural goods, especially from the global north. Solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises -which are closely related- will inevitably require countries to define their own socio-ecological transitions towards models of life that respect human rights and planetary limits." Vivian Lagrava Flores, Coordinator of Empodérate and the Wetlands, Biodiversity and Water Protection project, Bolivia: "Biodiversity and water should not be assumed as an 'exploitable resource' by the States. As long as this mercantilist view persists, we will have more people affected by mining and sacrificed and, therefore, more biodiversity exposed and at risk of extinction." Verónica Gostissa, attorney and coordinator of the Alianza por los Humedales Andinos project at Asamblea Pucará, Catamarca, Argentina: "It is urgent to address the problem of lithium exploitation in the Puna. It is advertised as 'clean energy', but it is devastating our ecosystems. In Argentina, they intend to turn the Salar del Hombre Muerto into an industrial park, installing more than eight projects in the same territory. In this COP, it is crucial to recognize the irreversible impact generated by extractivism and, from there, to deploy ecosystemic links based on the care of all that is vital." Cynthia Escares, biologist and director of the NGO Defensa Ambiental, Chile: "The climate crisis is an undeniable reality. However, in its name, forms of extractivism disguised as clean energy and equity are being promoted, without recognizing the profound implications of these processes. Projects such as lithium and rare earth mining, essential for batteries and green technologies, are presented as solutions to climate change, but they replicate the same logics of exploitation that have historically devastated territories and communities. This time, not only will we lose the inhabitants of these vulnerable regions, but we are leading the planet and all its biodiversity towards an irreversible collapse." Yeny Rodríguez, senior attorney with the Ecosystems Program at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): "The biological and cultural diversity of our region is at risk. After COP16, it should be understood that we can no longer talk about defossilization as the panacea that will save us from the climate crisis. The energy transition towards 'clean energy' also requires the extraction of minerals such as lithium, an industry that in Latin America is already causing the destruction of Andean wetlands and the disappearance of rivers. We are facing an opportunity to move towards the protection of biodiversity and the human rights of the native communities that have cared for the territories since before the existence of our States." Ramón Balcázar Morales, executive director and researcher of Fundación Tantí, Chile: "The salt flats from which South American lithium is obtained are wetlands, territories inhabited by indigenous peoples and communities whose ways of life are key to the conservation of ecosystems that sustain a threatened biodiversity. Faced with the deepening of the polycrisis, we must promote democratic processes that allow us, as a society, to overcome the profound contradiction between the climate agenda based on green growth and the biodiversity conservation agenda. This requires governmental and institutional efforts and will to strengthen and dialogue with communities and social actors in the territories affected by mining and energy megaprojects associated with the energy transition."
Organizations concerned by Mendoza Supreme Court rejecting their Participation while allowing that of the oil industry in litigation over fracking
The Mendoza Supreme Court’s differential treatment occurred in a lawsuit over the authorization of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, for extracting oil and gas from the Vaca Muerta formation in the Argentinian province. Civil society groups express concern about the Mendoza Supreme Court’s refusal to receive information about the dangerous impacts of using fracking to extract oil and gas on indigenous peoples and the environment in Mendoza. The Court rejected the participation of seven organizations--including an organization of the Mapuche Indigenous People and both Argentinian and international groups on human rights and the environment--in a case that will impact the regulation of the oil and gas industry in Mendoza. The court has instead shown preference toward the fossil fuel industry, having allowed the participation of several groups representing the interests of oil companies in the same court case. The court is weighing a decision involving the authorization of hydraulic fracturing--also known as fracking--to extract oil and gas from the Vaca Muerta formation in Mendoza. Although fracking has not been widely used in Mendoza, the technique has caused public health and safety risks in other countries because of its impact on the environment. The organizations requested to participate in the case as "Friends of the Court" (amicus curiae). This is a common practice permitted in Mendoza and many countries around the world that allows people not otherwise connected with litigation to share information with the courts in cases that affect the public interest. One justice dissented from the Supreme Court's decision, criticizing that this ruling "is far from the level of listening that ought to demand the judge's attention in the resolution of cases of undoubted social interest, such as the one at issue here." Furthermore, the justice pointed out that "[t]he entities requesting this Court to grant them participation as amicus, have vast experience and specialization in environmental issues." So far, the Supreme Court has rejected the interventions of the following organizations: Organización Identidad Territorial Malalweche (Mendoza); Xumek (Mendoza); Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (national); the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (international), the Center for International Environmental Law (international); Earthjustice (international) and the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (international). Statements from the organizations Ana Laura Piccolo, executive director of XUMEK: "At Xumek, we are concerned by the provincial Supreme Court’s repeated rejections of the participation of civil society organizations through the figure of the 'Friend of the Court.' The organizations that have come forward to collaborate have established experience in the subject matter of the case and we make our contributions from a serious and objective perspective, in accordance with the technical and legal knowledge and expertise we possess. In addition, we have participated as amicus curiae in numerous judicial proceedings, both local and international". Ñushpi Quilla Mayhuay Alancay, attorney in charge of the Indigenous Peoples Area of XUMEK: "As expressed in the dissenting vote, ignoring all the voices of civil society in a case of high social complexity affects the dialogue between the judiciary and the citizens, thereby weakening the democratic process in cases of social interest where the human rights of society can be affected". Erika Schmidhuber, attorney with the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS): "We consider it essential that the province complies with international human rights standards on free, prior and informed consultation with indigenous peoples for development projects in their ancestral territory, regardless of whether or not that territory is formally recognized. The Argentine State has already been condemned internationally for not complying with these standards. It is necessary for the Mendoza court to evaluate the arguments we have presented as they reflect the obligations that Mendoza must comply with." Jacob Kopas, attorney at Earthjustice: "Strong scientific evidence from other countries shows that fracking generates serious contamination risks, particularly by leeching toxic chemicals into nearby water supplies. It is essential that the Supreme Court of Mendoza take this evidence into consideration along with the support for fracking it has received from groups that profit from oil extraction." Sofía Barquero, attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program: "Our interest in this case stems from our desire to ensure that environmental protection and the rights of indigenous peoples are an integral part of any decision that may affect these communities. In that sense, we respectfully call on the Court to reconsider its decision and allow for the inclusion of civil society voices in this judicial process. We trust that the Court will take into consideration the importance of listening to all stakeholders in this case." Upasana Khatri, attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): "Fracking poses long-term environmental and health hazards that outlast production. It is essential that the Court hears from civil society experts on the evidence of such harms and the legal duty to prevent them - not just from industry actors with a stake in fossil fuel production - to ensure an informed decision on the risks and regulation of fracking in Mendoza." press contacts Organización Identidad Territorial Malalweche, Werken Gabriel Jofre, +54 2604592679 XUMEK Asociación para la promoción y protección de los derechos humanos, Ñushpi Quilla Mayhuay Alancay, +54 9 2616807798 CELS, Martina Noailles, [email protected], +54 9 11 6562-6566 AIDA, Víctor Quintanilla, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Earthjustice, Jacob Kopas, [email protected], +1 5862924603 CIEL, Press Office, [email protected]
When the violation of the rights of Amazonian peoples in Brazil receives no response nationally, these communities find in AIDA a voice in the Americas.
