Climate Change

November 07 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Mining

Justice for Andean Wetlands and Indigenous Peoples in Climate Action

The growing global demand for transition minerals—including lithium, copper, and nickel—driven by the current energy transition model, but also by the expansion of the digital economy, data infrastructure, and the military and aerospace industries, is causing irreversible ecological damage and violating fundamental human rights across the territories of the Global South. Latin America is the most biodiverse region on the planet and one of the most culturally diverse regions in the world. It is home to numerous Indigenous peoples who inhabit and safeguard these territories.At the same time, the region holds significant mineral deposits, placing it at the center of the growing global interest in mineral extraction. This demand intersects with fragile ecosystems, unique biodiversity and the territories of traditional and Indigenous communities, including the Amazon and the high Andean wetlands, which are crucial for climate adaptation due to their role in water regulation, and in mitigation, as they act as carbon sinks.Intensive mining in these ecosystems exacerbates climate vulnerability and fosters socio-environmental conflicts, compromising the ecological and cultural integrity of these ecosystems and communities. The push to expand extraction contradicts multilateral environmental protection frameworks and the climate and biodiversity commitments adopted by the States Parties. This trend jeopardizes the possibility of a just and equitable transition, reproducing the same patterns of inequality and climate harm that current policies claim to overcome. In this context, the Alliance for Andean Wetlands calls on States Parties to the UNFCCC to ensure: 1. Human rights and justice must be at the center of any transition and of all strategies for climate change adaptation and mitigation, including the rights of communities living in territories where the transition minerals are located.Human rights are essential to ensuring a just, equitable and people-centred process. States must guarantee the right to self-determination of Indigenous peoples, recognized worldwide as guardians of natural systems. This must encompass their right to define their own development priorities and to exercise Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), as well as the unequivocal obligation of States to respect their decisions, particularly their right to say “no” to projects that threaten their integrity and that of their territories. States must also ensure protection of environmental defenders, and guarantee public access to information, participation and justice on decisions about transitions that might affect the environment and human rights. These guarantees are crucial for the case of so-called transition minerals, like lithium and copper, found in the high Andean wetlands, ecosystems that are fundamental to life, ecological and climate balance, and the livelihoods of the communities that inhabit them. 2. Respect of planetary boundaries and the protection of the integrity of ecosystems, particularly those that play essential roles in climate adaptation and mitigation.Keeping ecosystems such as Andean wetlands, which are of high ecosystemic and cultural value, free from high-impact activities is a priority for climate and ecological justice. Because lithium mining is water mining, it drains already scarce water sources and severely affects surrounding ecosystems, leaving lasting environmental damage.To preserve the high Andean wetlands and their contributions on which life in the region and on the planet depends, States must fully respect and comply with international environmental law; adopt and strengthen effective protection measures (including the establishment of “no-go zones”, protected areas, ICCAs); and apply robust and science-based environmental planning instruments that seek to prevent environmental damage (i.e. environmental strategic and cumulative impact assessment, environmental impact assessment).Effective environmental protection also requires up-to-date knowledge of ecosystem structure, functioning, and contributions, developed through collective and democratic processes, integrating traditional knowledge and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Parties should systematically incorporate scientific advances and traditional knowledge into climate-related decisions, including the design and implementation of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and related roadmaps, to ensure commitments reflect the realities of the territories they aim to protect. 3. Support for socio-ecological transitions for the Global South.Countries in the Global South need enough fiscal and policy space to devise pathways out of fossil fuels that do not reproduce existing asymmetries and inequalities, or further extractivism. This calls for socio-ecological transitions that protect local economies while ensuring economic diversification, energy access, and energy sufficiency, respect for biodiversity, and human rights.These transition paths should be planned, implemented and monitored in a participatory manner, ensuring intersectional, intercultural and intergenerational participation. The Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) under the UNFCCC provides a crucial space to integrate these concerns into global climate governance. It must ensure that the transition towards decarbonization also addresses material demand, territorial justice, and the rights of affected communities. Incorporating the realities of mineral extraction and socio-ecological transitions from the Global South within this programme is essential to achieve a truly just transition. 4. Traceability of the projections and uses of mineral demand and commitment of Global North countries to rapidly adopt policies aimed at reducing the consumption of primary minerals and energy.The current production and consumption model of industrialized countries disproportionately affects territories in the Global South by exacerbating environmental degradation and the violation of human rights, deepening North– South inequalities. In order to tackle the triple planetary crisis, unsustainable demand for raw materials and energy has to be addressed by binding targets on demand reduction that take into account planetary boundaries. Parties have the opportunity to include them in policy instruments such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and Long Term Strategies (LTS).These must be implemented through sufficiency and efficiency measures, as well as global and fair circular economy policies. This should involve considering alternatives to mobility beyond individual EVs. 5. Adequate, quality, accessible and additional financial and technical support, based on needs and priorities, so that the energy and socio-ecological transitions of the Global South are truly just and equitable.Such financing must be sustainable in time and of quality, that is, non-debt-creating and aligned with countries’ priorities, and accessible to enable progressive and sustained climate action. It should also address opportunities and conditions for instruments that foster fair transitions, including debt relief mechanisms and debt swaps. Furthermore, it remains important to discourage the use of trade regimes (including ISDS mechanisms) as pressure tools against countries in the Global South when they seek to regulate their mineral resources and establish no-go zones and other safeguards to protect human rights and environmental integrity. Download the document

Sesión Plenaria de los pueblos en la 30 Conferencia de la ONU sobre Cambio Climático en Brasil

November 25 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

COP30 ends — with a few achievements to move forward

With more than 25 hours of delay, the 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) has come to an end. The so-called "Amazon COP," held in the Brazilian city of Belém do Pará, leaves behind disappointment for failing to change course, but also some advances that can help push climate action forward. It was not a total failure: multilateralism remains intact, though battered.COP30 was marked by the presence of Indigenous peoples, especially from the Amazon basin, who filled the streets and side events. However, according to reports, only a fraction of these delegations gained access to the formal negotiation rooms, while a disproportionate number of representatives from the fossil fuel industry participated in the official event. This imbalance reflects the democratic health of the climate regime: at the Amazon COP, the power of Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples was felt in the streets, but their voices remained underrepresented in decision-making spaces.A few days into the conference, the latest synthesis report of updated nationally determined contributions was released. Its message was more bitter than sweet, but it offered one important takeaway: although the gap to keep global warming below 1.5°C remains enormous and complex, the report confirms that the Paris Agreement has indeed helped steer the challenge. We are in a better position than in a scenario without the agreement: projected emissions growth has been slowed, though not nearly enough.At this point, it is clear that COPs will not "save the world," but it also seems impossible to overcome this crisis without the cooperative platform they provide. From that perspective, it is worth asking what COP30 leaves us. The approved agreement: Global MutirãoThe word "Mutirão" references the spirit of collective effort—body and soul—that Brazil sought to bring to the international negotiation process at this COP.The approved agreement reiterates the goal of keeping the planet’s temperature increase below 1.5°C, acknowledging that time is running out. To that end, it proposes two voluntary mechanisms, led by the Presidency, which for now seem more like statements of good intent than tools with teeth: a "Global Implementation Accelerator" and the "Belém Mission for 1.5°C."On financing, the text establishes a two-year work program on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which concerns the public resources developed countries must provide, understood in the context of Article 9 as a whole.A footnote was added to clarify that this does not prejudge the implementation of the new global goal. Civil society organizations warn that this formulation risks further diluting developed countries’ specific obligations under the narrative of "all sources of financing," without clear rules on who must actually provide the resources and under what conditions. The real value of all this remains to be seen in practice. What was gained: A new mechanism for a just transitionA major achievement of COP30 was the adoption of the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM), a new institutional arrangement under the Just Transition Work Programme. It was the main banner carried by organized civil society.The mechanism is designed as a hub to centralize and coordinate just transition initiatives around the world, providing technical assistance and international cooperation to ensure the transition does not repeat the mistakes of the fossil era.The text incorporates many of the principles championed by Latin American civil society—including human rights, environmental and labor protections, free, prior and informed consent, and the inclusion of marginalized groups—as essential elements for achieving ambitious climate action.Even with gaps in safeguards and governance definitions, the BAM is a concrete step forward for this COP on climate justice. It creates a starting point to discuss not only whether there will be a transition, but how it will be done and under what rules, so as not to replicate the logic of the fossil economy. Its design and implementation will be debated at upcoming COPs, where it will be crucial for the region to arrive with solid, united proposals. Ending fossil fuels and deforestation: Two “almosts” that move us forwardAn agreement to leave behind fossil fuels and end deforestation—directly addressing the main drivers of the climate crisis—"almost" made it into the final decision.More than 80 countries from both the global north and south called for a roadmap to exit oil, gas, and coal. More than 90 supported a roadmap to stop and reverse deforestation by 2030. Although these requests made their way into drafts of the closing decision, they disappeared from the final text after resistance from major fossil fuel producers.Still, we do not leave empty-handed: Brazil, as COP30 Presidency, announced it will advance these roadmaps outside the formal framework of the UNFCCC. For the fossil fuel phaseout, Colombia committed to co-organize, with the Netherlands, the first global conference on the topic in April 2026.Although these items were not secured within the official negotiations, it is worth celebrating that—for the first time—such a broad coalition of countries united to achieve them. These two "almosts" matter: they set a new political and legal baseline for the rounds ahead. Two tools to advance adaptationCOP30 delivered tools to keep adaptation negotiations moving forward.The Mutirão decision calls for tripling collective adaptation finance by 2035, tied to the $300 billion USD per year agreed under the new global goal. This falls short of what the poorest countries asked for (tripling by 2030, with an explicit figure) and lacks clarity or guarantees regarding the role of developed countries. But it is a political anchor worth building on.At the same time, a first package of 59 indicators was adopted for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). Several African countries and experts described them as "unclear, impossible to measure, and in many cases unusable," because they sacrifice precision and grounding in community realities in order to unblock the agreement. In response, the text included the "Belém–Addis Vision," a two-year window to correct flaws and make the framework operational by 2027.In short, we have more promises of money and an indicator framework weaker than necessary, but also a process through which the region can continue pushing for a useful GGA and for fair, sufficient adaptation finance. Loss and damage: Slow and uncertainProgress on this issue has been painfully slow compared with the urgency of the problem. At COP30, the third review of the Warsaw International Mechanism was finally approved. The result is frustrating: discussions have taken a decade while communities are already paying the cost of warming.On the other hand, the Loss and Damage Response Fund, created two years ago, issued its first call for proposals, with an initial package of $250 million USD in grants available over the next six months. The Fund has $790 million USD pledged, but only $397 million USD actually deposited—an enormous gap compared to the hundreds of billions estimated annually for developing countries.The expected political pressure for developed countries to scale up contributions was largely diluted in the final text, although the Fund was at least linked to the new global financing goal agreed at COP29. A new Gender Action PlanCOP30 concluded with the adoption of a new Gender Action Plan under the renewed Lima Work Programme. The Plan identifies five priority areas: capacity-building and knowledge; women’s participation and leadership; coherence among processes; gender-responsive implementation and means of implementation; and monitoring and reporting. It also provides a roadmap to ensure climate action is truly gender-responsive, with indicators to track progress. Methane: A super-pollutant still lacking the spotlight science demandsAt COP30, short-lived climate pollutants—especially methane—gained visibility thanks to a dedicated pavilion and dialogues with regional and global actors. The Global Methane Status Report 2025 was also presented, noting “significant” progress since the 2021 launch of the Global Methane Pledge. However, it warns that current progress remains far from the goal of reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030.In the official negotiations, the draft of the Sharm el-Sheikh Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme included an explicit reference to methane mitigation through proper waste management, but that mention was removed from the final text, leaving only a general call to improve waste management and diminishing the focus on the urgent need to reduce emissions of a pollutant whose mitigation is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement goals. Still, during COP30, the global “No Organic Waste (NOW) Plan to Accelerate Solutions” was launched, aiming to reduce methane emissions from organic waste by 30% by 2030.Overall, this COP missed a crucial opportunity to advance its core objective. If we truly want to stay on track with the Paris Agreement, we must treat methane as what it is: a decisive opportunity we are still not seizing. How we close COP30 and prepare for the nextCOP31 will be held in Turkey, under the presidency of Australia. And despite the shortcomings of COP30, there are at least four things to defend and build on:The normalization of the debate on phasing out fossil fuels, with more than 80 countries openly calling for a roadmap and Colombia–Netherlands taking that discussion to a dedicated conference in 2026.A forest agenda that, although left out of the text, carries the promise of a Brazilian roadmap and explicit support from a wide group of countries.A small but real advance on adaptation, with the decision to triple finance and a first set of indicators that, while weak, offer a basis to push for improvements.The creation of a new mechanism for a just transition, which can shape how the transition unfolds—bringing together and strengthening efforts that support and protect workers, communities, and Indigenous peoples.

Flamencos en la Laguna Colorada, Bolivia

November 20 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Mining

“Choose Europe”: Prioritizing minerals, not rights

The Raw Materials Week in Brussels, Belgium, has come to an end. This annual event, organized by the European Commission, aims to discuss how to ensure "sustainable and secure" access to raw materials in and for Europe, with the goal of strengthening international alliances to meet its defense, digitalization, and security goals.The European Commission emphasized that Europe is highly dependent on mineral imports from Latin America, which deepens the region’s historical pressures and the resulting need for stronger socio-environmental protections. However, from the Andean Wetlands Alliance, we maintain the week’s debates revealed an approach increasingly disconnected from human rights, community voices, and the global socio-environmental crisis.This shift in priorities is part of a broader political turn marked by geopolitical tensions around access to critical minerals and new energy sources, as well as by the rise of conservative forces and authoritarianism. A trend is emerging within the EU toward the privatization of human rights and environmental standards, along with the weakening of social and environmental safeguards through deregulatory processes. An example of this is the debate on the possible weakening of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.The dominant narrative this week was shaped by concepts such as “competitiveness” and “defense” as the guiding axes of European policies. Within the framework of a geopolitical rivalry between China and the United States, Europe seeks to reduce its dependence on its long-standing Western ally under the slogan “Choose Europe,” which titled this year’s edition. In this context, the European Commission continued to promote access to minerals through an approach centered on the security of its supply chains, without assessing its policies in light of planetary boundaries or human rights. This approach contradicts the commitments associated with the energy transition that originally motivated the discussions on “critical minerals.” Today, we ask to what extent the cost of “choosing Europe” will continue to be borne by local communities in Latin America and other peripheral regions affected by mining expansion.Today, we ask to what extent the cost of "choosing Europe" will continue to be borne by local communities in Latin America and in other peripheral regions affected by mining expansion.This edition had the least debate compared to the last years on the need to integrate human rights into European mineral policies. Indeed, accreditation for access to the official event was limited, and the forum's official agenda lacked a space for communities and civil society from the Global South to express their perspectives on mineral value chains like lithium, and to influence the debates that will shape the decisions affecting them. Instead, discussions focused primarily on investment opportunities for corporations and governments.From the Andean Wetlands Alliance, we highlight that the expansion of the extractive frontier contradicts the climate and biodiversity commitments endorsed by the EU and risks deepening existing asymmetries between the two regions. For this reason, we reaffirm our position on the need for a paradigm shift in EU raw materials policies, so that they become inclusive, transparent, and sustainable, ensuring the participation of communities and organizations located at the extractive frontier of transition minerals. Likewise, in the context of the ecological and democratic polycrisis, we stress the need for the EU to adopt concrete targets to effectively reduce mineral demand and to strengthen compliance with international human rights and environmental treaties.Press KitPress contactsVíctor Quintanilla, AIDA (regional), [email protected], +521 5570522107Rocío Wischñevsky, FARN (Argentina), [email protected], +541159518538Manuel Fontenla, Asamblea PUCARÁ (Argentina), [email protected], +54 9 3834790609Oscar Campanini, CEDIB (Bolivia), [email protected], +591 70344801Juan Francisco Donoso, Formando Rutas, [email protected], +4915780743628

Inauguración de la Conferencia de la ONU sobre cambio climático en la Amazonía brasileña

November 18 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights

The home stretch of COP30: Shadows, contradictions, and some glimmers of hope

The first week is over, and the political phase of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) has begun in Belém do Pará, Brazil. These are the days when decisions must be made.A COP had not been held in a country where public protest is possible since 2021 — and people have certainly made their voices heard. On Saturday, a massive demonstration took place: thousands demanded climate justice in the streets, to the rhythm of Amazonian drums. There was also a theatrical "funeral for fossil fuels," reminiscent of Tim Burton, with monsters and somber widows bidding farewell to an era that must be buried.But it has not all been carnival. Indigenous leaders blocked access to the event several times and even entered the "blue zone" — the restricted area — en masse, denouncing the exploitation of their territories. Their discontent is absolute. Although COP authorities met with the group, they soon sent a letter to the Brazilian government requesting increased security and the dispersal of protests. Human rights and environmental organizations have warned about the risks of criminalizing protest and the harmful message this sends about the role of Indigenous peoples.These protests reflect communities that ended up being a minority in an event that promised to be inclusive. There was also widespread criticism of the disproportionately large number of fossil fuel industry representatives involved in negotiations — a dynamic that makes the path toward climate justice even more complicated.Finally, advisory opinions (AOs) must not be left out of this review. While not formally on the agenda, they have made a strong impact. Their central message is powerful: international cooperation is not optional — it is a legal obligation. It is no surprise, then, that the theme keeps resurfacing: in side events, in constant references by civil society and some national delegations, and in cross-cutting mentions across debates on finance, adaptation, and transition. The AOs are not merely being cited; they are being embraced. Momentum is building to fully unleash their potential at this COP and beyond. Negotiations: Four key issues in “presidential consultations”The COP Presidency acted quickly with a novel approach: to adopt the agenda without delays, it set aside four complex issues and moved them into “presidential consultations.”Article 9.1 — Public Funding from Developed Countries. The debate centers on whether climate financing should come only from public sources or also from private sources, as well as on accountability and reporting standards. Developed nations — which are legally obligated to provide this financing — are resisting, while vulnerable countries urgently need the funds to survive the climate crisis.Unilateral Climate-Related Trade Measures. These include policies such as carbon border taxes. They are considered unfair or protectionist, especially by Global South countries with less capacity to reduce emissions. Negotiations aim to prevent arbitrary trade barriers while respecting climate action.NDCs and Ambition. According to the latest NDC synthesis report, there is a significant gap between current commitments and what is required to stay below 1.5°C. Many negotiators argue that agreeing on concrete measures to close that gap is essential, but large emitters continue to resist.Synthesis of Climate Transparency Reports. Under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework, countries must periodically report emissions, actions taken, and financial support provided or received. At COP30, the debate centers on how to make these synthesis reports more robust, comprehensive, and useful. The consultations have been tense and slow. On Sunday, the Presidency published a "summary note" outlining possible pathways, and today a draft decision was released, though reactions are still forthcoming. In the coming days, closed-door sessions will continue and could lead to various outcomes. Based on the draft, it seems increasingly likely that COP30 will end with a “cover decision” consolidating all progress and addressing these complex matters. The final scope will depend heavily on what happens during the next four days. A just energy transition: Promises and a mechanism that worksThe Belém Action Mechanism for a Just Transition is a new institutional arrangement under the UNFCCC, championed by NGOs and Global South countries. Its objective is to bring order to the currently fragmented landscape of just transition efforts. The mechanism would coordinate initiatives, systematize knowledge, and provide quality financing and support — essentially evolving the Just Transition Work Program discussed since COP27.Civil society, particularly the Climate Action Network (CAN), has invested enormous effort in developing a strong decision that advances the creation of this mechanism. The G77 + China — the largest negotiating bloc of developing countries — supported this proposal, earning CAN’s "Ray of Light" award, given to actors making significant contributions to climate justice.Some developed countries presented less ambitious proposals, but even that confirms that convergence is drawing closer. Civil society remains optimistic that a concrete, positive outcome will be achieved — and ready to celebrate it. A path to phase out fossil fuelsThis story began in 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, when, for the first time, the idea of phasing out fossil fuels appeared in an official COP text.Now, at the opening of COP30, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva explicitly referenced a "route" for the energy transition, while Environment Minister Marina Silva has worked to reinforce the political momentum. Meanwhile, Colombia issued a declaration referencing the advisory opinions and seeking international support for the initiative. Several industrialized countries have revived their position through the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.Today, 63 countries support a commitment to "Transition Away from Fossil Fuels." However, this is not yet part of the formal negotiation agenda — initiatives remain fragmented, and efforts proceed in parallel. What could emerge is a concrete action plan, a dedicated section in the final decision, or perhaps a roadmap for a future roadmap. The alternative is that it remains a voluntary coalition of willing countries pushing the idea forward. Climate finance: The central — and most complicated — issueFinance remains the central issue at this COP, and perhaps the most complex. Several deeply interconnected discussions are underway:Article 9.1: Developing countries insist that public financing from developed nations is a binding obligation that cannot be replaced by private investment.Adaptation: A strong consensus is forming to triple the adaptation finance goal (to about USD 120 billion annually) while improving transparency and direct access to funds.The Baku–Belém Roadmap: This initiative seeks to scale up global climate finance to USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035 through a combination of public, multilateral, and private flows.Loss and Damage Facility: The fund is technically operational but not fully capitalized. New contributions from Spain and Germany are welcome — but insufficient to meet global needs.Tropical Forests Forever Facility: Brazil has proposed this as an “investment model” for tropical forest countries. Civil society has expressed serious concerns: the model depends heavily on volatile market investments and lacks safeguards to ensure the protection of local communities and ecosystem integrity. Adaptation progress, but under the shadow of chronic underfundingDiscussions on adaptation are unfolding on two parallel fronts:Indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation. Ten years after the Paris Agreement, there is still no consensus on how to track adaptation progress. A working group narrowed approximately 9,000 proposed indicators down to about 100, but technical and political challenges persist. Some African and Arab countries have asked to postpone final adoption until they have the financial resources and capacity to implement them. A prevailing sentiment is: "no indicators without funding" — adopting metrics without support would repeat past mistakes.Adaptation finance. Although adaptation financing is not formally included within the Global Goal on Adaptation, the two issues are inseparable. Without adequate financial support, indicators alone will be ineffective. Following the agreement on a new climate finance goal at COP29, the current debate focuses on aligning that goal with adaptation needs — especially through technology transfer, capacity building, and direct-access funding channels. Substantial gaps remain, and negotiations continue to hinge on how to categorize financial flows (private vs. public, domestic vs. international).

November 07 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Mining

Call for a paradigm shift in EU Raw Materials Policies from a Latin American perspective

A toolkit for using Advisory Opinion 32/25 in climate justice work

October 29 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights

A Practical Toolkit for Using Advisory Opinion 32/25 in Climate Justice Work

READ AND DOWNLOAD THE TOOLKIT The climate crisis is already affecting people and communities across Latin America and the Caribbean—damaging homes, livelihoods, ecosystems, and the fundamental right to a healthy environment.Advisory Opinion 32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the first of its kind to establish that both States and non-State actors—including companies—have clear and binding legal obligations to confront the causes and consequences of the climate emergency as a human rights issue.The historic interpretation, made public on July 3, 2025, gives human rights and environmental defenders a powerful new tool to demand action and justice.But how can this decision be used in real cases, campaigns, and policies today? A Legal Toolkit for Climate JusticeTo help answer that question, more than 20 experts and organizations—including AIDA—created a new publication analyzing the Court's decision with an emphasis on its practical applications.Climate Justice and Human Rights: Legal Standards and Tools from the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion 32/25 contains 14 briefs, organized into four key areas:Foundational Rights and Knowledge;State and Corporate Obligations;Rights of Affected Peoples and Groups;Environmental Democracy and Remedies. Each brief contains:Context and background to situate the issue.A clear legal analysis of the Court’s key contributions.A critical look at how these standards can be applied in practice.Identification of opportunities to advance advocacy and litigation, as well as the gaps that remain. All content was rigorously peer-reviewed to ensure clarity and accuracy. Why Does This Matter Now?With OC-32/25, advocates and local communities across the region now have:Stronger grounds for litigation—incorporating human rights standards into climate-related cases.Legal leverage for corporate accountability—clarifying businesses’ duties to prevent and remedy harm.Arguments to expand protections for those most affected: children, women, Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities, and environmental defenders.Policy tools to demand national climate actions aligned with human rights. In a region facing disproportionate climate risks, this decision shifts power toward communities and movements seeking justice.What You Can Do With This ToolkitThis publication is a tool to facilitate understanding of the Court's decision and promote concrete legal and political actions to protect communities and ecosystems from the climate emergency.It is addressed to individuals, communities, organizations, and networks working on the climate crisis and human rights issues, providing them with standards and practical recommendations to strengthen their litigation and advocacy strategies and efforts.In short, it's designed to help you incorporate strong legal arguments your work, including:Shaping urgent protection actions for frontline communities.Strengthening advocacy campaigns with legal backing.Informing climate legislation and public policy debates.Supporting community-led demands for adaptation and resilience.Integrating human rights standards into strategic litigation. Whether you are a lawyer, organizer, community leader, or policymaker—this toolkit can help you to turn legal standards into real protection and accountability. A Call to ActionLatin America has contributed least to global emissions but is among the most impacted by climate harms. OC-32/25 opens a new chapter: one where the defense of human rights is also the defense of our climate.Now is the time to use this decision to advance justice across the region.Together, we can transform this legal milestone into tangible protections for the people and places who need them most. READ AND DOWNLOAD THE TOOLKIT

October 27 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate Justice and Human Rights: Legal Standards and Tools from the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion 32/25

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) delivered its Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on Climate Emergency and Human Rights (Advisory Opinion), marking a historic legal and political milestone in the global fight for climate justice. It is the first advisory opinion issued by an international court to find that both States and non-State actors, such as business enterprises, have obligations rooted in international human rights law to address the causes and consequences of the climate emergency.The Court articulates clear and binding obligations to act urgently in protecting the global climate system, preventing human rights violations resulting from its alteration, and securing climate reparations. The Advisory Opinion will guide climate litigation in local, regional, and national courts, and provide a foundation for climate policymaking, grounding local legislation and global negotiations not in voluntary commitments, but in legal duties. It will also serve as a testament to the lived experiences and expertise of those on the frontlines of climate harm and at the forefront of climate justice, affirming the peril that climate change represents for human rights and the promise of human rights-based climate action and remedy.This Advisory Opinion is not an isolated development but rather part of an unprecedented global movement for climate justice. It stands alongside the recent climate advisory opinions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and may be joined by one from the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) in the near future. Together, these proceedings mark a decisive moment in consolidating a more comprehensive and human rights-based legal framework to confront the climate emergency— what the IACtHR deems an exceptional threat that endangers life on the planet and severely undermines the enjoyment of human rights. Moreover, these advisory opinions may help cut through the political inertia that has long stalled progress in international climate negotiations and national climate policymaking. This publication compiles fourteen thematic documents developed through the collaborative efforts of a coalition of environmental, human rights, and academic organizations, alongside experts who have actively participated in the advisory proceedings from the outset. The topics reflect the main thematic areas articulated by the Court in the Advisory Opinion and are organized into four sections: (i) Foundational Rights and Knowledge; (ii) State and Corporate Obligations; (iii) The Rights of Affected Peoples and Groups; and (iv) Environmental Democracy and Remedies.Each brief was prepared by a lead organization and subjected to rigorous peer review to ensure accuracy and consistency. Together, they provide an in-depth analysis of the Advisory Opinion’s key contributions, its legal and practical implications, and the gaps and opportunities this landmark decision presents across the selected thematic areas. They also present arguments, standards, and practical recommendations aimed at strengthening climate litigation and advocacy strategies.This series serves as a resource for legal and advocacy networks, enhancing understanding of the scope of the Court’s decision and encouraging legal and political action to advance the structural changes necessary for communities and ecosystems to achieve climate justice.Read and download the publication

Vista aérea del Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio en Costa Rica

September 30 2025 Climate Change, Oceans

The Ocean-Climate Link: 5 Things to Know

Por Víctor Quintanilla y Natalia Oviedo*Although the ocean is essential for stabilizing the planet's climate, it is rarely the focus of attention when we talk about the global climate crisis.The ocean is our best ally in the face of the climate emergency because it absorbs much of the greenhouse gases that humanity emits and that are the source of the problem.At the same time, the ocean is a victim of the climate crisis, whose impacts are pushing it to the limit with acidification of its waters, rising sea levels, and loss of oxygen, processes that seriously affect marine life.Despite its importance, the relationship between the ocean and climate has not been fully included in international negotiations in which governments seek agreements and policies to address the climate crisis.Faced with this gap and in a historic breakthrough, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued a ruling in 2024 clarifying the obligations of States to protect the marine environment from the climate crisis.Below, we present five keys to understanding the link between the ocean and climate.1. The role of the ocean in the climate crisis.According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ocean is “a fundamental climate regulator on timescales ranging from seasonal to millennial.” Since 1955, it has absorbed 90 percent of the excess heat caused by global warming, along with a quarter of the carbon dioxide released by human activities.Ocean currents transport warm water from the tropics to the poles, sending colder water back. This balances the temperature and makes much of the Earth habitable. The ocean influences climate variations on land by being the main source of rain, which feeds rivers and other vital freshwater systems.The ocean is known as a lung for the planet because, through microscopic organisms known as phytoplankton, it is responsible for generating approximately half of the world's oxygen supply. In turn, coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, marshes, and seagrass beds absorb enormous amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, mitigating the climate crisis. 2. The impact of the climate crisis on the ocean.The climate crisis alters the physical and chemical properties of the ocean, affecting its ability to regulate the climate. One of the irreversible impacts of climate change is ocean warming, whose rate and heat absorption has more than doubled since 1993. As its waters warm, they begin to release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.In addition, rising ocean temperatures are expected to reduce the amount of oxygen available, altering nutrient cycles and thereby affecting fish distribution and abundance. Another consequence is sea level rise, which is due to thermal expansion of the ocean and loss of land ice.Finally, the absorption of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide has resulted in ocean acidification, understood as a decrease in pH. This reduces calcium levels, a substance necessary for the shells and external skeletons of various species of marine fauna and ecosystems such as coral reefs.3. The inclusion of the ocean in international climate negotiations.Although the link between the ocean and climate change has been recognized since the beginning of negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—by including the ocean in the definition of “climate system”—its presence in these negotiations has been gradual. A decisive milestone occurred at the 25th UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) in 2019, where the first official dialogue on the subject was called for, resulting in recommendations to align climate and ocean action, while also promoting the mobilization of financing to protect marine ecosystems. Since then, the ocean has earned a permanent place on the climate agenda. At subsequent conferences, the inclusion of the ocean was further expanded. The Glasgow Climate Pact (COP26, 2021) recognized the ocean as an ally in carbon absorption, called for the integration of ocean-based action into UNFCCC work plans, and mandated an annual dialogue on the topic. At COP27 (2022), countries were encouraged to include ocean-based action in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). And at COP28 (2023), the ocean was included in the first global stocktake of the Paris Agreement.Ahead of this year's COP30 in Brazil, which will have a specific agenda on “Forests, Oceans, and Biodiversity,” the challenge is to move from political recognition to the implementation of concrete actions to protect the ocean.4. States' obligations to protect the ocean in the face of the climate crisis.The health and resilience of the ocean is essential not only for addressing the climate crisis, but also for the exercise of fundamental human rights such as life, health, culture, food, access to water, and the right to a healthy environment. This highlights the interdependence between the ocean, climate change, and human rights.Recognizing this link, on May 21, 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued an important decision clarifying the obligations of States to preserve the ocean in the face of the climate crisis. These duties include adopting concrete mitigation measures to minimize the release of toxic substances into the marine environment, as well as exercising strict due diligence to ensure that non-state actors effectively comply with such measures.The tribunal emphasized the obligations of states to prevent climate change-related pollution that affects other states and the marine environment outside national jurisdiction. In relation to the right to a healthy environment, the ruling emphasizes the use of precautionary and ecosystem approaches in the context of states' obligations to conduct environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments of any activity that may cause marine pollution related to climate change. This includes that, in the face of the possibility of serious or irreversible damage to the marine environment, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as an excuse to delay protective measures.5. Some key actions to protect our ocean and, with it, the climate.Effective protection of our ocean requires the commitment of governments, which must act at the national and international levels to prioritize its health. These include:Prioritizing concrete measures that integrate the ocean into climate mitigation and adaptation actions. Among the most effective are the protection and restoration of ecosystems, especially those that, in addition to capturing and storing enormous amounts of carbon, protect coastlines and maintain vital ecosystem services (mangroves, marshes, seagrass beds, coastal wetlands, and coral reefs, among others).Ensuring the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in the ocean area beyond national jurisdiction. This involves the effective implementation of the High Seas Treaty, which will enter into force on January 17, 2026, as well as its ratification by countries that have not yet done so, to ensure fair, equitable, and sustainable governance.Defending the deep sea from mining. This requires imposing moratoriums on deep-sea mining activities on the grounds that there is insufficient technical and scientific information to prevent, control, and mitigate the potential impacts on the biological diversity of unknown ecosystems in deep waters and on the seabed.Protect the rights of coastal and island communities, which depend on fishing and local tourism for their livelihoods. These populations face increasing impacts from the climate crisis and multiple environmental pressures. Governments have a responsibility to ensure their resilience and well-being by safeguarding the marine and coastal biodiversity that sustains their ways of life and culture.Acknowledging the link between the ocean and climate, and translating it into concrete and effective measures, is essential to protect and maintain the balance of both life systems.This is what will guarantee the health of marine and coastal biodiversity, our food security, and, ultimately, a future for the planet.* Víctor Quintanilla is AIDA's Content Coordinator; Natalia Oviedo is a Costa Rican international lawyer and former intern at the organization.

La laguna congelada en el Desierto de Atacama, Chile

September 04 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

New European Union policies for mineral supply: What are the implications for Latin America?

Amid the global race for minerals for the energy transition, digitalization, and the defense and aerospace industries, the European Union (EU) has adopted an industrial policy to secure its access to "critical" raw materials, including lithium. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, 25 of the 34 raw materials the EU considers essential are found in Latin America's indigenous territories and strategic ecosystems. Civil society warns that the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and other recent policies aimed at deregulation and promoting the defense sector (Omnibus I and II) could deepen historical inequalities between Europe and Latin America.In this webinar, we addressed the threats to Latin America by the European Union's new policies and what the region's states and civil society can do to address them. To this end, we focused on the significance of the "strategic partnerships" that the EU has signed with Chile and Argentina, and explained what the so-called "strategic projects" that the EU intends to consolidate at the global level to maintain the flow of minerals from South to North consist of. Indigenous leaders denounced how excessive water use in lithium mining has already degraded Andean wetlands and caused the loss of biodiversity and culture.In this session, we debated the justice of the "European green transition," which, in the name of decarbonization, threatens to open up new sacrifice zones in the Global South, while erasing ancient knowledge and causing irreversible damage to carbon sinks that are essential for tackling the climate crisis. PanelAlejandro González, Senior Researcher and Advocate in SOMO's Climate Justice team and member of the EU Raw Materials Coalition.Pía Marchegiani, Deputy Executive Director and Director of the Environmental Policy area of the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN).Joám Evans Pim, Coordinator of the Confederal Mining Area at Ecologistas en Acción and Director of the Montescola Foundation.Ramón Balcázar, Director of the Tantí Foundation.Román Elías Guitián, Community Atacameños del Altiplano, Argentina.Moderator: Yeny Rodríguez, Senior Attorney and Area Coordinator, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). Recording (in Spanish)

Un grupo de vicuñas bebe agua de un manantial en un paisaje de los Andes chilenos.

August 21 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Circular economy: what is it and what role does it play regarding the climate crisis and energy transition?

Life on the planet, including our own, depends on nature.To create more sustainable ways of life and keep global warming under control, we need to ensure healthy, resilient, and productive ecosystems.The climate crisis, as well as the pollution and biodiversity loss crises, stem from human activities that exploit nature beyond its limits, without giving it a chance to recover, degrading ecosystems and pushing them to points of “no return.”These activities are based on the conventional economic model, which is linear and follows the logic of extracting, producing, using, and discarding resources.A more sustainable use of natural resources requires a different economic model.One option among many is the circular economy, an economic model of production and consumption traditionally described as a combination of reduction, reuse, and recycling activities.However, most current approaches to the circular economy, incorporated into various public policies, focus on extending the life cycle of products that have already been manufactured. They do not comprehensively incorporate the processes of extracting the materials needed to manufacture the products or their final disposal. This considerably reduces the protection of nature and territories during the economic cycle.That is why it is important to understand what the circular economy is and what it should include, in theory and in practice, so that it can truly contribute to a more sustainable and fair world. Circular economy: Definition and challengesAs an alternative to the linear economic system, the circular economy involves closing the economic cycle through various mechanisms. These include reducing the use of virgin natural resources, increasing the use of recycled materials, and minimizing waste through the repair and reuse of products, keeping them in circulation for as long as possible.It also means creating additional value for products whose useful life has ended when their materials are used again and again. In the face of our continued and unsustainable use of resources, the concept of the circular economy is becoming increasingly prevalent in different areas.Although it is a living and evolving concept, when it becomes public policy, most definitions of the circular economy consider its main objective to be economic prosperity, with environmental care as a secondary result.In 2020, a legal definition of the circular economy in the European Union considered it to be “aneconomic system whereby the value of products, materials and other resources in the economy is maintained for as long as possible, enhancing their efficient use in production and consumption, thereby reducing the environmental impact of their use, minimising waste and the release of hazardous substances at all stages of their life cycle” …This and other definitions show that the positive effects of the circular economy on nature tend to be taken for granted, when certain theories or practices associated with the concept may actually hinder the protection of ecosystems and the people who depend on them.This is happening with the type of circular economy promoted to make extractive processes linked to the energy transition, designed to address the climate crisis, environmentally friendly. Circular economy and energy transitionHistorically, extractive activities such as mining have degraded ecosystems and violated human rights in Latin America, creating so-called “sacrifice zones.”Today, to address the climate crisis, several international organizations have positioned an energy transition that requires doubling the production of renewable energies and electromobility to decarbonize the global energy matrix.This also implies intensifying the extraction of so-called "critical" minerals for the development of clean technologies. One of these is lithium, a mineral of which the region has large reserves.Thus, far from putting an end to it, the energy transition promoted by the Global North is renewing the historical extractivist trend, generating great pressure on Latin American territories rich in minerals for the transition, affecting ecosystems and populations near extraction areas.In this context, the circular economy is promoted as a tool to make mining an environmentally responsible process. However, international proposals in this regard do not guarantee the resilience of ecosystems or the well-being of communities.This is evident in countries such as Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile due to the growing global demand for minerals such as lithium.Currently, the circular economy applied to mining in Latin America focuses on the internal processes of mining companies, but not on the consequences that their interactions with ecosystems and communities generate in the extraction territories, without stopping the expansion of extractivism or the high socio-environmental impacts caused.Obtaining lithium for electromobility, for example, involves a complex, transnational supply chain. This includes mineral extraction, refining, the production of electrodes for batteries, battery manufacturing, and finally, the manufacture of electric vehicles.From a global northern perspective, the circular economy is mainly applied here to battery recycling and industrial improvements for mining. However, it does not include measures to protect the biophysical limits and resilience of the ecosystems where lithium is extracted, ensure environmental restoration, prevent damage to local economies, guarantee human rights, and repair those that have already been violated. Proposals from Latin America for a just circular economyTo ensure that the energy transition does not become a new extractive process that generates the same conflicts and environmental impacts that it has systematically caused and that are precursors to the current climate crisis, it is essential that the circular economy comprehensively integrates the mineral extraction territories.Circular economy schemes must avoid the creation, expansion, and/or deepening of “sacrifice zones.” They must also recognize the strategic value of ecosystems as natural capital for countries and communities, given the ecosystem functions they provide, including freshwater supply and carbon capture.To move towards a just circular economy in the extraction territories, the following principles must be respected:Protection of the human rights of local populations, guaranteeing their permanence in the territory and the continuity of their economic activities, linked to their livelihoods and their relationship with ecosystems.Promotion of environmental balance in accordance with the biophysical limits of ecosystems, recognizing their intrinsic values, which favor the conservation of their functions.Internalization of environmental costs in mineral value chains, incorporating the value of ecosystem services used for extraction into prices.Learn more in our policy brief Reimagining the circular economy from the extraction territories. Proposals from Latin America.