Climate Change

Salar de Pastos Grandes en Potosí, Bolivia

July 22 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Human rights and the rights of nature in the governance of minerals for the energy transition

A reading of Advisory Opinion 32 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by the Andean Wetlands Alliance The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) outlined in its Advisory Opinion No. 32 (OC-32), released on July 3, 2025, how human rights must be upheld in the face of the climate emergency. The Court also recognized the rights of nature and the responsibilities of States and companies regarding climate change. This advisory opinion followed more than 150 oral interventions and over 260 written submissions—including those from organizations that are part of the Andean Wetlands Alliance.This pronouncement sets a course for protecting valuable ecosystems and the rights of people in Latin America, a region deeply affected due to its significant reserves of minerals increasingly in demand for the global energy transition.Human rights and "critical" mineralsThe IACHR, a central institution in setting human rights standards for Latin America and the Caribbean, provided through OC-32 a set of tools for moving toward policies grounded in equity and justice. These tools align with the principles put forward by the UN Secretary-General in relation to the minerals value chain for the energy transition.Minerals such as lithium and copper are at the heart of current energy transformation policies due to their value for battery manufacturing. This value chain begins in territories such as the high Andean wetlands of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, with the exploration and extraction of mineral deposits. It continues with their processing and refining in specialized facilities for the production of cells, which are later integrated into batteries that power a range of devices—mainly individual electric vehicles.The Court placed special emphasis on the protection of human rights during the extraction of so-called “rare or critical” minerals for the energy transition, which make up the first links in this value chain. This directly reflects Principle 1 of the 2024 Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition and offers a key legal instrument for protecting human rights in Latin American countries. It also outlines essential elements for respecting the integrity of ecosystems (Principle 2) from the most biodiverse region on the planet, as well as advancing justice and equity (Principle 3), transparency and accountability (Principle 6), and strengthened multilateral cooperation (Principle 7).Rights of Nature in a Megadiverse RegionAmong its conclusions, the Court recognizes the rights of nature, referring to the need to preserve its essential ecological processes. This contributes to consolidating a development model that respects planetary boundaries and ensures the availability of vital resources for present and future generations.This recognition is especially critical in Latin America, one of the most biodiverse regions in the world. It holds 50% of the planet’s biodiversity in ecosystems such as wetlands and tropical forests—especially the Amazon. It is home to 12 of the 14 terrestrial biomes and is a key epicenter for nature’s contributions to people.These issues are particularly relevant for a region whose historical role as a provider of natural resources has helped build the global economy, yet at great cost—causing severe ecosystem damage and violating community rights. The protection of nature’s rights provides a central tool for managing the mineral wealth essential for the energy transition, especially given that the region holds more than 50% of the world’s lithium reserves and 40% of its copper reserves.Latin America is also one of the most culturally diverse regions: approximately 54.8 million Indigenous peoples live across its territories, representing 8.5% of the total population—the highest global proportion relative to total population—and occupying over 20% of the land.OC-32 particularly highlights the role of communities in preserving ecosystems and a healthy climate, free from human interference. It acknowledges the importance of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge for informed decision-making and cultural preservation. This approach empowers local and Indigenous communities—long-standing guardians of ecosystems who possess deep traditional knowledge—yet who are often excluded from decision-making processes and denied their rights to free, prior, and informed consultation and participation.The right to a healthy climate: Promising newsOC-32 recognizes the right to a healthy climate as part of the broader right to a healthy environment, free from human interference. States are thus required to prevent any irreversible harm to the planet’s ecological balance and exercise heightened due diligence—taking into account the degree of potential harm, the best available science, and the specific vulnerabilities of at-risk groups, without creating or exacerbating such vulnerabilities.In their mitigation strategies, States must prioritize both people and ecosystems—particularly those that play a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate systems and natural cycles.In this regard, the Court’s acknowledgment of the Andean wetlands of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile is especially significant. These ecosystems contribute to climate adaptation through water regulation. They also have the capacity to mitigate climate change by acting as carbon sinks: studies have recorded significant levels of carbon dioxide absorption through their vegetation and extremophile microorganisms.Ironically, these very wetlands are now under threat from the expansion of mining for the energy transition.Corporate Obligations on Human RightsOC-32 makes it clear that, in addition to States, companies also bear obligations concerning the climate emergency and its impact on human rights. The Court calls on States to regulate and oversee corporate due diligence across the entire value chain, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). These obligations include identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for business-related impacts on the environment, climate, and human rights. These are non-transferable obligations—they cannot be outsourced to third parties, such as certification bodies. The advisory opinion also calls for the avoidance of greenwashing and undue influence from third-party actors in corporate decision-making.A perspective on Advisory Opinion 32 from the Andean wetlandsSpanning more than 200 pages, OC-32 provides tools to ensure the protection of human rights throughout the mineral value chain, as well as the integrity of ecosystems, from a Latin American perspective. It also promotes implementation of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel principles on critical minerals for the energy transition.No less important, it upholds the interdependence of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights protection within the Inter-American system, and strengthens the role of access rights and the protection of human rights, environmental, and climate defenders, in accordance with the Escazú Agreement. This recognition is especially crucial for the most dangerous region in the world for defending nature.In a context of climate denialism, fueled by political leaderships that reject humanity’s role in the climate crisis, OC-32 stands as a vital roadmap to urge States to meet their climate commitments through a human rights-based approach.From the Andean Wetlands Alliance, we view this opinion with hope—as a key tool to help ensure the rights of those who have inhabited these wetlands for generations and to protect these vital ecosystems. Reactions from Members of the Andean Wetlands Alliance to Advisory Opinion No. 32 of the Inter-American CourtPía Marchegiani, Deputy Executive Director, Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina):"In a context where discussions on critical minerals are increasingly shaped by security and military interests, and unilateral or bilateral agendas from the Global North seek to control mineral supply chains, the Inter-American Court has taken a clear, strategic step in defining how the balance must be struck: placing human rights and nature at the center. Only in this way can we move forward toward justice and equity, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Minerals."Ricardo Frez, Director, ONG Defensa Ambiental (Chile):"This unprecedented recognition of nature as a rights-bearing subject marks a shift toward ecocentric approaches in international human rights law. It is especially significant amid the growing—and often irreversible—impacts of mining for critical minerals like lithium and copper in the Global South. The Court affirms the autonomous protection of nature, not only as a means to secure human rights, but as an end in itself. It reinforces States’ obligations to prevent irreparable climate and environmental damage. In a context where the energy transition risks replicating extractivist models, this advisory opinion provides crucial normative tools to defend territories and life."Vivian Lagrava Flores, Empodérate, Human Rights Collective (Bolivia):"Although communities may not be familiar with technical terms like climate, energy transition, and so on, they have welcomed with hope the fact that Advisory Opinion 32/25 places greater obligations on States. Laws, constitutions, and human rights standards are being ignored, while all kinds of impacts are overlooked. Wetlands—especially freshwater bofedales—are nature’s miracle that sustains our way of life and are essential for mitigating climate change. Yet they are being destroyed by extractivism. The Bolivian State must grasp the magnitude of its obligations."Ezio Costa Cordella, FIMA NGO (Chile):"The concept of a just transition appears in several parts of the advisory opinion issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. There is a specific and explicit mention of this type of transition, and the Court refers to the obligation of States to uphold this principle when developing climate policies and strategies. This means they must avoid deepening situations of multidimensional poverty and instead assess how a transition will affect a given territory and the people who live there—including, of course, the workers in industries undergoing change. In this sense, it is important to understand that the ecological transition is not limited to policy measures; it also concerns how a range of social systems, including those of production and consumption, will adapt to the new climate and environmental reality. In this process—from the present state of affairs to what will emerge as a result of this new environmental condition—we must ensure that no further violations of human rights occur. On the contrary, we should create conditions that lead to better protection and fairer distribution of those rights."Oscar Campanini, CEDIB (Bolivia):"The advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court is an enormously important reinforcement of civil society’s defense of the environment, water, Indigenous peoples’ territories, and life itself—a defense that benefits not just specific groups but is, in fact, the only way to ensure our survival as a species. In the case of the high Andean plateau, this opinion supports the struggles of communities defending water and wetlands against growing pressure from critical mineral extraction projects such as lithium."Verónica Gostissa, Asamblea PUCARÁ (Argentina):"We are at a turning point for climate justice and human rights. The Inter-American Court now recognizes the autonomous right to a healthy climate. In regions like northwest Argentina—where ecosystems of high ecological value, such as high Andean wetlands, coexist with intense extractive pressures from lithium mining—this decision directly challenges the current mining and energy model. This legal milestone reinforces a truth that communities and peoples have long upheld: if it dries up rivers, it’s not an energy transition. And there can be no true transition without environmental justice."Paulina González Quiroga, Fundación Tantí (Chile):"We deeply value the statement issued by the Inter-American Court at a strategic moment for our bodies and territories, especially for those of us living in the Global South—in the highland and coastal desert regions of Chile. This is a mining and productive zone where both continental and marine waters are being affected by the entire value chain operating in the area. In our territory, marked by a history of environmental sacrifice, there is no real transition. On the contrary, the same communities and ecosystems are now facing an intensification of extractivist practices—now labeled ‘green.’ We are witnessing an unimaginable increase in the impacts on our high Andean and marine ecosystems, and on the ways of life that exist here. In this context, the Court’s opinion will be crucial in strengthening the legal defense of our territories in various processes of Indigenous consultation and environmental justice that are already underway and will undoubtedly continue within the framework of these policies." Yeny Rodríguez, senior attorney and Line Coordinator, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)"The Advisory Opinion No. 32 of the Inter-American Court recognizes the high degree of vulnerability and risk in which strategic ecosystems in Latin America are found for the water cycle and climate, such as the Andean salt flats, and sends a very clear message to the governments of the region and to the companies operating in our territories: in application of enhanced due diligence, they must avoid mining activities that could generate irreversible damage to ecosystems and aggravate the situation of vulnerability of indigenous peoples or communities at risk."

Corte Interamericana hace pública su Opinión Consultiva 32 sobre emergencia climática

July 17 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate Justice in the Courtroom: The impact of the Advisory Opinion from the Inter-American Court

In a landmark ruling published on July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its Advisory Opinion No. 32, taking a historic step toward strengthening global climate accountability. For the first time, a regional human rights tribunal has clearly articulated the legal obligations of States in response to the climate crisis—establishing legal standards that governments across the Americas must meet to protect human rights and the environment.The Court recognized the existence of an autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment. The opinion affirms that States have binding legal obligations to address the climate emergency as a human rights issue, in line with domestic legislation and international treaties.This decision is expected to catalyze a new wave of strategic climate litigation, strengthen previous decisions, such as that of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and serve as a key reference for the forthcoming advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.In this webinar, we analyzed the legal significance and practical implications of Advisory Opinion No. 32. Together with regional experts and movement leaders, we explored how the Court’s decision can guide climate action, strengthen legal tools to protect people and nature, and help deliver justice to affected communities across Latin America and beyond. PanelAstrid Puentes, UN Special Rapporteur for the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.Javier Palummo, Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights, IACHR.Catalina Fernández, Head of the Department of Multilateral Systems for the Protection of Human Rights and Bilateral Affairs, Chile's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Nora Cabrera Velasco, director of Nuestro Futuro.Fábio Ishisaki, public policy advisor to the Observatório do Clima.Moderator: Marcella Ribeiro, AIDA. Recording

Mujer pastorea camélidos en una zona de los Andes de Perú

July 14 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights

The Inter-American Court's Opinion: 7 reasons it matters for climate justice

On July 3, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights released its long-awaited Advisory Opinion No. 32 (OC-32), clarifying the scope of States' obligations in the face of the climate crisis – including, among other responsibilities, the duty to guarantee the right to a healthy climate.This marks the first time that a regional human rights court has made a broad and comprehensive statement on the issue of climate change.The opinion was issued in response to a request submitted by the governments of Chile and Colombia in January 2023. It is also the outcome of an unprecedented participatory process within the Inter-American Human Rights System, in which dozens of States, civil society organizations, Indigenous peoples, activists, and academics engaged through oral statements in public hearings and a record number of written submissions.Below are seven reasons why this landmark decision — written in and for Latin America — represents a turning point for climate justice in the region and beyond. 1. Clarifying States’ legal obligations in the face of the climate emergencyIn its decision, the Court affirms that the world is currently experiencing a climate emergency—a crisis driven by human activities, unequally generated by different States, and one that progressively and severely impacts people, especially those in vulnerable situations.In response, the Court underscores that States have binding legal obligations—not merely voluntary commitments—to confront this emergency with “urgent and effective actions, articulate, with a human rights perspective, and under the prism of resilience.” This means that, amid the climate emergency, States are required to respect and guarantee human rights. 2. Recognizing the human right to a healthy climateFor the first time, the Court explicitly recognizes the autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the broader right to a healthy environment. This recognition establishes that States must protect the ability of both present and future generations to live in a climate system free from dangerous human-caused interference.Protecting this right—which underpins the enjoyment of other human rights—also requires honoring the principle of intergenerational equity. In practice, this means that States must act today to ensure that future generations inherit conditions of environmental stability that allow for equal opportunities for well-being and development. 3. Strengthened protection for people in vituations of VulnerabilityAdvisory Opinion No. 32 establishes that States must ensure that individuals and groups in situations of particular vulnerability — including women, children, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, peasant and fishing communities, older adults, persons with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ individuals, and human rights defenders, among others — are able to exercise their rights on equal terms in the face of climate impacts.The Court also recognizes that certain territories in the Americas — such as the Amazon, the Insular Territories, and Caribbean States — are especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change. 4. Emissions control and regulation of business activitiesAccording to the opinion, States are required to set clear greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets and maintain an up-to-date mitigation strategy grounded in human rights. They must also tighten and rigorously regulate both public and private activities that produce GHG emissions.In line with these mitigation strategies, States must determine which projects or activities require an environmental impact assessment that explicitly evaluates potential climate impacts. 5. Protecting human rights within the energy transitionAdvisory Opinion No. 32 underscores that States must safeguard human rights from potential violations linked to the extraction of minerals and other resources necessary for the energy transition.The Court also affirms that States are obligated to ensure the fair distribution of both the burdens of climate action and the impacts of climate change. This includes avoiding disproportionate burdens on certain populations — for example, in how the costs of the energy transition are allocated. 6. Recognition of traditional knowledge in climate actionThe opinion recognizes local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge as protected under Inter-American human rights treaties and as a key part of the best available science. This recognition opens new avenues for demanding the inclusion of such knowledge in climate solutions.The Court thus reaffirms that the right to science also encompasses the intellectual and practical contributions that Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, and other local groups have sustained and safeguarded over generations. 7. Advancing the global movement for climate justiceThis decision reinforces and builds upon earlier rulings, such as the one issued in May 2024 by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which clarified States’ obligations to protect the marine environment from the effects of the climate crisis. It also contributes to ongoing global legal efforts — including the forthcoming Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice, which will further define States’ responsibilities in the face of the global climate emergency.Together, these decisions are strengthening the global movement for climate justice, as well as supporting citizen demand for stronger government action.

Audiencia sobre crisis climática ante la Corte Interamericana en Manaos, Brasil

July 02 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights

Landmark Inter-American Court Decision Requires States to Protect Human Rights in the Face of the Climate Crisis

In a groundbreaking advisory opinion issued today, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights clarifies the obligations of States to effectively protect people and communities from the harmful impacts of the climate crisis. The decision sets a powerful precedent for climate justice and offers critical guidance to national and international courts worldwide.San José, Costa Rica. In its Advisory Opinion No. 32, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has taken a historic step toward strengthening global climate accountability. The Court sets a powerful precedent by establishing legal standards that States across the continent must meet to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis. This landmark ruling is expected to drive a new wave of strategic climate litigation, enabling affected people and communities to access justice.“The Court’s decision marks a watershed moment for climate justice in Latin America and around the world, as it is the first time a regional human rights tribunal has clearly spelled out States’ legal obligations in response to the climate crisis,” said Gladys Martínez, Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “We welcome this significant step forward — one that will not only help protect communities and individuals, but also guide national and international courts, including the International Court of Justice, which is now developing its own opinion on this critical issue.”The Court recognized, for the first time, the existence of an autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment. In light of Advisory Opinion No. 32, States across the region now have legal obligations to address the climate crisis as a human rights issue, in accordance with their domestic laws and applicable treaties and agreements, including:Guaranteeing a climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic interference, as a precondition for the exercise of other human rights.Respecting the principle of intergenerational equity, by ensuring that current generations leave behind conditions of environmental stability that allow future generations similar opportunities for development.Regulating, supervising, and overseeing, as well as requiring and approving environmental impact assessments, to fulfill their duty to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.Defining a mitigation goal; developing and maintaining an up-to-date mitigation strategy grounded in human rights; and strictly monitoring and supervising public and private GHG-emitting activities.Ensuring an equitable distribution of the burdens of climate action and climate impacts, avoiding the imposition of disproportionate burdens—this includes the fair allocation of the costs associated with the energy transition. In addition, the Court recognized in its opinion that local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge is protected under Inter-American treaties and constitutes an integral part of the concept of the best available science—opening a new path for the enforceability and inclusion of these knowledge systems in responses to the climate emergency.“This decision by the Inter-American Court ushers in a new era for climate negotiations and litigation by providing individuals, communities, and civil society organizations with a clearer and more robust legal framework,” said Liliana Ávila, Director of the Human Rights and Environment Program at AIDA. “It empowers people to hold States accountable – both in climate negotiations and courtrooms – and to push for the structural changes needed to confront the climate crisis. This includes meeting their obligations on mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage, all while upholding fundamental human rights.”The Court’s decision responds to a request submitted in January 2023 by the governments of Colombia and Chile. In their petition, the two States emphasized that their populations — along with those of other countries across the Americas — are already experiencing severe impacts from the global climate crisis, including droughts, floods, wildfires, and other extreme events. They called on the Court to clarify how the American Convention on Human Rights should be interpreted in the context of the climate emergency, its root causes, and its wide-ranging consequences.“This decision serves as a binding interpretive tool for States in the region, opening new legal pathways to hold governments accountable for protecting human rights,” said Marcella Ribeiro, Senior Attorney at AIDA. “States must now align their domestic policies to meet the legal standards set by the Court — including, among other things, properly regulating corporate activity in the context of the climate crisis and ensuring a stable climate for future generations.”From the outset of the process, AIDA played a proactive role. The organization supported various communities across the region in ensuring their voices were heard by the Inter-American Court, submitting legal briefs that highlighted the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on Indigenous peoples, women, children, people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and on particularly fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. AIDA also facilitated the participation of community representatives in the public hearings held as part of the process, which took place in Barbados and Brazil in April and May 2024, respectively.AIDA additionally submitted its own legal brief to the Court, arguing that the right to a “stable and safe climate” should be recognized as part of the universal right to a healthy environment – underscoring States’ obligations to prevent and mitigate the harmful effects of the climate emergency on their populations.The process saw the submission of more than 200 written observations — an unprecedented number for an Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court — reflecting the region’s strong engagement with the issue. Advisory Opinions play a vital role in shaping human rights law by clarifying how existing rights should be interpreted, thereby guiding States in how to uphold and enforce them within their territories or jurisdictions.Advisory Opinion No. 32 builds upon and reinforces earlier rulings, including the 2024 advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which clarified States’ obligations to protect the marine environment from the climate crisis. It also complements the forthcoming opinion from the International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest judicial body – which will define States’ responsibilities in the face of the global climate emergency.In a global context that demands ever-stronger climate action, the Inter-American Court’s decision reaffirms that governments must act based on binding legal obligations — not merely voluntary commitments. This legal milestone provides people and communities across the region a powerful foundation from which to demand real action and the full protection of their rights in a safe, just, and sustainable climate. Press contact:Víctor Quintanilla, [email protected], +52 5570522107

Audiencia de la Corte IDH en Manaos, Brasil

June 10 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

From rights to remedies: What's at stake in the Inter-American climate advisory opinion

On January 9, 2023, Chile and Colombia jointly submitted a request to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) to clarify State obligations in the face of the climate emergency. The request raised critical questions about States’ duties related to the prevention, adaptation, mitigation, and reparation of climate impacts, as well as the protection of environmental defenders and the promotion of equity.The process, which included the submission of over 200 written observations—an unprecedented number for an advisory opinion before the Court—and three rounds of hearings in April and May 2024, has created a unique space to understand the legal positions of States, international organizations, civil society, and Indigenous Peoples.In this webinar, co-hosted by AIDA, CDH - Honduras, CIEL, Earthjustice, ERI, FACE, Greenpeace International, La Ruta del Clima, UCS, and other allied organizations, we explored the transformative potential of this historic advisory opinion.We shared key reflections on the legal arguments presented to the Court, the broader scope of the proceedings, and what an ideal outcome might look like. We also examined how this opinion—alongside others issued or pending before international courts such as ITLOS and the ICJ—can strengthen climate justice, guide State action, influence climate litigation, and make a meaningful difference in people’s lives across Latin America and beyond. SpeakersElisa Morgera, UNSR on climate change and human rights.Alana Lancaster, West Indies University, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados.Sandra Reyes and Dagoberto Majano, Mesa Justicia Climática, Cedeño community, Honduras.Moderator: Luisa Gomez, CIEL. Recording

Peces nadan en praderas submarinas en alta mar

June 02 2025 Climate Change, Oceans

The natural wonders we could protect with the High Seas Treaty

For decades, the ocean has protected us from the impacts of climate change, absorbing 90 percent of the excess heat produced by global warming. It’s given us food and the genetic resources we use to produce life-saving drugs. As if that weren’t enough, it’s enabled millions of families to thrive in an economy based on its bounty.Despite its importance, the ocean remains unprotected in large part; no country governs the high seas, international waters that comprise 64 percent of the ocean’s total surface area. Management measures have given rise to a patchwork of uncoordinated protections.To fill this gap, in June 2023, UN member countries formally adopted an agreement to protect biodiversity in the high seas, which requires ratification by at least 60 countries to enter into force.The High Seas Treaty - short name for the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) - proposes, among other aspects, the creation and adequate management of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the high seas, regions that would allow for the conservation and rescue of the rich biodiversity found in the ocean. Protection at a high costIn addition to absorbing a large part of the planet’s excess heat, the ocean absorbs nearly 30 percent of all greenhouse gases, which are responsible for climate change.But this protective role comes with serious consequences. By interacting with and absorbing pollutants such as carbon dioxide, the ocean suffers from acidification - a phenomenon that reduces the levels of calcium, an element necessary for the shells and external skeletons of several species of marine fauna - and loss of oxygen, essential for life under the sea.These impacts consequently affect the food supply and employment in the fishing and tourism industries.Faced with the impacts of the climate crisis on marine ecosystems, governments must do much more to protect the ocean, starting with ratifying the High Seas Treaty, which establishes a clear legal framework and process for maintaining its health and resilience. Protected natural wondersAs the ratification of the High Seas Treaty progresses, there is growing interest from governments and civil society to lay the groundwork for greater protection of the high seas.As part of this push, areas of high ecological value have been identified that could form the first wave of protection once the treaty goes into effect. High Seas Alliance - a coalition of organizations of which AIDA is a member - has highlighted 8 priority sites that could be part of this first generation of MPAs, which it has called the Hidden Natural Wonders of the World:Salas y Gómez and Nazca Ridges: Deep in the waters of the southeastern Pacific, these two unique chains of submarine slopes and peaks are separated from South America by the waters of the Humboldt Current and the enormous chasm of the Atacama Trench. They are critical habitats and migratory corridors for at least 82 threatened or endangered species, along with many others of ecological and economic importance.The Termal Dome: Each year in the eastern tropical Pacific, strong seasonal winds push warm waters from the coast offshore, where they meet cooler waters carried by ocean currents. This interaction causes a unique upwelling system that brings cold, nutrient-rich waters to the sea surface, benefiting many species.Emperor Seamounts: Located in the North Pacific, this chain of more than 80 seamounts extends for 2,000 kilometers on the seafloor between the northwesternmost point of the Hawaiian Islands and the Kuril-Kamchatka Trench (Pacific Northwest). Its nutrient-rich waters feed a great diversity of species. And in the mountains, a range of corals and sponges shelter countless species of fish and invertebrates.Walvis Ridge: It is a range of seamounts that extends for about 3,000 kilometers off the coast of southwestern Namibia to the mid-Atlantic ridge (submarine ridge that runs along the Atlantic Ocean). It is composed of several seafloor types and includes many features of the deep ocean floor, along with its abyssal plains, seamounts and guyots (seamounts).Sargasso Sea: It is the only sea in the world without land borders. It is geographically defined by four Atlantic Ocean currents in an area of about 1,100 kilometers wide and 3,200 kilometers long. It is called the “golden rainforest of the high seas” because of the sargassum algae that float on its surface and provide habitat for a myriad of species, while absorbing and storing carbon and producing oxygen.South Tasman Sea: Located between Australia and New Zealand, it is a diverse and dynamic area that supports abundant marine life. It is also an important breeding area and migratory corridor for a large number of species, including endangered species such as the Antipodean albatross, which often transit its waters.The Lost City: It is a complex of 30 hydrothermal vent chimneys located on the upper slopes of the Atlantis seamount massif in the North Atlantic Ocean. The complex of vents rises 4,300 meters from the seafloor, with peaks at a depth of 750 meters. The Lost City chimneys are believed to be more than 120,000 years old.Saya de Malha: Located in the heart of the Indian Ocean, midway between the Seychelles and Mauritius, this unique seascape is home to the world’s largest seagrass community. It is a rare example of seagrass meadows on the high seas and the largest submerged ocean bank in the world, covering more than 40,000 square kilometers.Preserving these natural wonders through marine protected areas requires the entry into force of the High Seas Treaty.It is time to take care of the ocean as it takes care of us.

June 04 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights

Small investments with great impacts. Territorial gender-just climate solutions

Since 2016, the Global Alliance for Green and Gender Action (GAGGA), together with other actors, has promoted a series of initiatives to strengthen the inclusion of a gender perspective in climate finance, particularly within the projects and financial flows of the Green Climate Fund (GCF).The GCF is the first international climate finance fund to incorporate a gender perspective as a central pillar of its operations, becoming a key framework for advancing equity in the access, use, and allocation of climate resources globally.However, international climate finance that reaches countries is often disconnected from the actual needs of the local communities it is meant to benefit— especially women. This poses a critical issue that demands urgent attention— communities have the right to participate in decisions that directly affect them. At the same time, it misses the opportunity to incorporate local knowledge into solutions— knowledge that could make them more relevant and effective in addressing the climate crisis. In its special report on climate change and land, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022) highlights that incorporating women’s knowledge of land management helps mitigate degradation and supports the adoption of integrated adaptation and mitigation measures.Gender-responsive climate finance goes beyond allocating resources to women and promoting gender equality—it requires rethinking how financial and climate solutions are designed and implemented. This means acknowledging the diversity of women, removing barriers to resource access, defunding so-called ‘false solutions’, and supporting initiatives that tackle the structural causes of climate change.In Latin America and the Caribbean, many local climate solutions remain unknown to decision-makers. As a result, they struggle to receive support, be replicated, or serve as inspiration for other initiatives benefiting the same communities. This publication presents five case studies of successful, locally developed climate solutions with a focus on gender and climate justice. The goal is to strengthen collaboration between those responsible for providing and implementing GCF resources and civil society organizations.The case studies show the efficiency that can be achieved when resources are channeled directly to civil society organizations and communities. All the projects were carried out with budgets under USD 50,000 and made significant contributions to transforming the structural conditions that heighten the vulnerability of territories, women, and other marginalized groups in the face of the climate crisis. Read and download the publication

May 08 2025 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Reimagining the circular economy from the extraction territories. Proposals from Latin America

Among the various global commitments to address current climate crisis, international governance bodies, such as the United Nations, have provided guidance on the need to duplicate renewable energy production and electromobility to decarbonize the global energy mix, calling this process “energy transition”. However, this implies intensifying the extraction of minerals that make the development of these technologies possible. Each region of the world plays a different rol within the supply chain of minerals that will be used in decarbonization proceses. Latin America has been identified as one of the regions with vast mineral reserves that would fuel this transicion proposal. However, in this context of mining interest there is the tendency to make invisible the populations that inhabit these territories as well as their hydrogeological systems of local, regional and global significance.Lithium is one of the minerals that has noticeatly increased its commercial interest in terms of progress on energy decarbonization. It is in the Gran Atacama region, which encompasses areas of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, where the greatest global reserves are found. Nevertheless, for lithium to be available it requires going through a complex international supply chain, which is particularly complex since it includes mineral extraction, its refining to battery-grade, production of electrodes for batteries, production of batteries and, finally, production of electric vehicles.This situation, of increased demand for minerals in complex global supply chains, generates warnings about the risk for the region to recreate a new cicle of extractivism, should public policies that integrate in an effective way environmental, social and territorial development standards, are not devised and implemented.Circular economy, closely related to the energy transition process, arises as a key strategy to overcoming the logic of traditional linear economy system (take - make - consume - throw away). Its aim is to reduce pressure on the territories and common goods through the incorporation of sustainability criteria to supply chains, by promoting a more rational management of the mineral resources extracted.However, this way of understanding circular economy, linked to minerals for energy transition, is also supported by the expansion of extractivism, especially in the Global South. This comes as a result since decarbonization options requires a huge amounts of minerals for energy storage, and these are extracted at the cost of high environmental and social impacts that threatens the resilience of the ecosystems from where they are extracted posing a risk to the populations that inhabit them.Taking into account these limitations, a circular economy proposal, from the perspective of Latin American extraction zones and applied to transition minerals, should contribute to guarantee that changes in the energy mix towards technologies with fewer Greenhouse effect emissions (widely known as energy transition), be truly just throughout all the stages of the process. This implies avoiding the creation, expansion and/or deepening of sacrifice zones, as well as ensuring environmental restoration, guaranteeing compliance with human rights as well as reparation of those rights that have been violated. Furthermore, it should take into account the biophysical boundaries and resilience capacity of the environments. Read and download

March 10 2025 Climate Change, Freshwater Sources, Mining

Declaration of a Temporary Reserve Area in the Santurbán Páramo is a victory for the defense of water in Latin America

Civil society organizations celebrate the measure taken by the Colombian Ministry of the Environment, which involves a two year suspension of Canadian company Aris Mining's gold mining project in the páramo.Bogotá, Colombia. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) - Mining and Trade Project, MiningWatch Canada, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and Common Frontiers Canada celebrate the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development’s (MADS) resolution that declares the western side of the Santurbán massif a temporary renewable natural resource reserve area. This major step strengthens the protection of one of the most emblematic high-altitude Andean wetlands, known as páramo, and its related ecosystems, which are fundamental for climate change adaptation and water security in the region for an estimated 2 million people.Resolution 0221, issued on March 3, 2025 by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development (MADS), delimits and protects an area of 75,344.65 hectares, ensuring a two year provisional suspension of the Soto Norte gold mining project owned by Canadian company Aris Mining and its Colombian subsidiary, Sociedad Minera de Santander S.A.S. (Minesa), which puts Santurbán at risk. Citing the precautionary principle, the resolution prohibits the granting of “new mining concessions, special exploration and exploitation contracts, (...) as well as new environmental permits or licenses for the exploration or exploitation of minerals” in the area until the necessary technical studies are carried out toward its definitive protection. This resolution does not affect agricultural, livestock or tourism activity in the area.However, we are concerned that the resolution leaves in force the concession contract with Calimineros, which has had a subcontract with Minesa to formalize [its small-scale mining activities] since 2020, and from which Minesa promises to buy and process mineralized material. We encourage the competent authorities to suspend evaluation of its environmental license application and extension of the formalization subcontract, due to potential environmental impacts on Santurbán and because it is effectively part of the Soto Norte project.The páramo and related ecosystems are highly sensitive, recognized for their role in water regulation, carbon capture, and the conservation of endemic biodiversity. The removal of vegetation cover and the fragmentation of ecosystems that mining in Santurbán would generate could affect the ecological balance, biodiversity, and the provision of ecosystem services essential for life; acidify and reduce the amount of available fresh-water; and break the ecological interconnectivity with other biomes and ecosystems, destroying their capacity to sequester carbon and causing irreparable damage.For these reasons, we appreciate that the resolution seeks to prevent mining development in this highly sensitive and environmentally important area, preventing degradation of the watersheds that arise from Santurbán and preserving the water cycle.Sebastián Abad-Jara, an attorney for AIDA, pointed out that "by protecting Santurbán, Colombia ratifies its commitment to meet global environmental goals in terms of biodiversity, climate and wetlands, and sets a high bar for the governments of other countries where these ecosystems are similarly threatened by mining activity, such as Peru and Ecuador.""We celebrate this declaration as an important first step toward the consolidation of the western side of the Santurbán massif as a permanent reserve area, definitively protecting this important water source, vital for all who depend on it," said Jen Moore, associate fellow at IPS - Mining and Trade Project.Viviana Herrera, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, added that "this resolution is the result of the Committee for the Defence of Water and Páramo of Santurbán’s hard work, which has faced harassment and intimidation for its work in defense of the páramo, as well as disinformation campaigns about the supposed harmful effects of the resolution on agricultural activity."AIDA, IPS-Mining and Trade Project, MiningWatch Canada, CIEL and Common Frontiers Canada support the adoption of this protection measure for Santurbán. We also encourage the national and local government to carry out the necessary technical studies for its definitive protection, and to take preventive measures to avoid the cumulative environmental impacts of mining in the area given other projects that already have mining licenses. Furthermore, we reiterate the urgency of adopting measures to protect environment defenders in Colombia who stand up for the páramo.The Santurbán experience provides valuable lessons and should serve as an example to promote legislation for environmental protection in Latin America that focuses on the human right to water and the balance and integrity of fragile ecosystems, such as the páramo and other high-altitude ecosystems.#OurGoldIsWater Press contactsVictor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +5215570522107Jennifer Moore, IPS, [email protected], +12027049011 (prensa IPS)Viviana Herrera, Mining Watch Canada, [email protected], +14389931264Alexandra Colón-Amil, CIEL, [email protected], +12024550253

February 24 2025 Climate Change, Toxic Pollution, Oceans

Learn about the negotiations to reduce maritime shipping emissions

The decarbonization of productive and economic activities is essential and urgent to address the triple crisis –climate, pollution and biodiversity loss– that the world is facing.In maritime shipping –which moves 10 billion tons of cargo each year and accounts for 2.9% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2)– the global need to reduce and eventually eliminate these emissions is being addressed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN specialized agency responsible for setting standards for safe, efficient and environmentally sound shipping.The move toward decarbonization is critical because without significant change, shipping emissions could increase by as much as 50% by 2050.The IMO has a revised emissions reduction strategy that was agreed in 2023 by the 175 countries that make up the organization. It is expected to reduce emissions from the sector by up to 30% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and reach net zero by around 2050. Implementation of the strategy is currently the subject of international negotiations.AIDA is participating in these negotiations as part of the Clean Shipping Coalition, an international coalition of organizations. In addition, AIDA is coordinating efforts with Ocean Conservancy and Fundación Cethus to generate advocacy with Latin American countries and to collaborate with updated technical information on the progress of the negotiations and their implications for the region.The decarbonization of global shipping and its economic impact is a very important discussion for Latin America and the Caribbean. It is necessary that all countries and economic sectors align themselves with clear targets and that all impacts are assessed equally and fairly, as well as the ways in which countries can mitigate them. Read on to learn more about this important process. What measures are being discussed to reduce emissions from maritime shipping?Negotiations are underway at the international level to select the package of measures needed to meet the 2023 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. This package will include both technical and economic measures. Its final structure will be decided in April this year at the IMO headquarters in London, marking a global milestone in the fight against the climate crisis.Technical measures include a global fuel standard, carbon capture on ships, energy efficiency measures for the fuels used, and reductions in ship speed. They all aim to make maritime transport as efficient as possible in terms of the fuels used and to gradually phase out the use of the most polluting fuels. This means using the least amount of energy, emitting the least amount of carbon dioxide and keeping the sector in operation.In addition to technical measures, economic measures are proposed to put a price on carbon emissions from maritime transport. Increasing the efficiency of ships is expected to have not only a technological component but also a market incentive. This combination is crucial for achieving emission reduction targets, as it will provide both the public and private sectors with the necessary resources:The economic resources to invest in the new technologies, new fuels, and other investments needed for the energy transition.An economic stimulus to close the current cost gap between fossil fuels and near-zero emission clean technologies. To define a price for carbon dioxide emissions, there are two main proposals:The first has a flexible structure with respect to emissions. In its simplest form, it takes account of differences in emissions when implementing the measure. To this end, a "permissible limit" of carbon dioxide emissions is envisaged, with ships being divided into those below and those above the limit. The former could receive a financial reward, and the latter would pay a fee for the carbon dioxide emitted under a system of emission quotas. In this sense, although there is a mechanism to regulate emissions below the set limit, the tolerance of these limits offers the possibility of an accelerated reduction, which could delay the energy transition that the climate crisis requires.The second has a universal structure, i.e. a fixed price for all CO2 emissions generated by the operation of the maritime fleet. The aim is to create a market stimulus that will increase the demand for new low-emission technologies (new ships and fuels) and encourage maritime operators to purchase them in order to avoid paying a fee. This measure is expected to provide more accurate monitoring of total emissions from ships, motivate a faster and more pronounced energy transition, and collect and then redistribute a significant number of economic resources among maritime operators and countries to mitigate the disproportionate costs and negative impacts of the decarbonization process. What does decarbonizing shipping mean for Latin America and the Caribbean?According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Latin America and the Caribbean is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change-related disasters, so actions aimed at achieving decarbonization targets in different sectors of the regional economy are essential to address the climate crisis.On the other hand, actions specifically aimed at decarbonizing maritime transport will have different impacts in the short, medium and long term in each of the countries of the continent. For example, the choice of one or the other proposal for the payment of a tariff for the sector's CO2 emissions - the flexible modality or the fixed price - will have a different impact in each country. What all scenarios have in common is that the region will be strongly affected by the process of decarbonizing maritime transport.In this context, it is important for countries to identify the scenarios that allow them a greater range of actions to compensate for these impacts and to ensure that the transition is equitable and fair, without leaving any country behind.In economic terms, the introduction of a universal price on CO2 emissions would allow States to receive part of the economic resources generated to compensate and mitigate the effects of decarbonization. The amounts and forms of this transfer of resources will be agreed within the IMO. The combination of more ambitious measures (technical and economic) is expected to raise up to $120 billion annually in the coming years. The flexible proposal for paying for emissions does not include mechanisms for redistributing resources, as these would go directly to ship operators and fuel producers. This would leave countries to mitigate the impact of decarbonization with their own resources.From an environmental perspective, without the incentive of a universal price, there is a risk that the flexible scheme will indirectly encourage the continued use of fuels that generate CO2 emissions, particularly in regions with limited economic resources to invest in the least polluting state-of-the-art technology. This would result in a delay in achieving emission reduction targets for the world's shipping fleet and would move countries away from meeting their climate change commitments under the IMO.In general, the costs of reducing CO2 emissions from shipping and other sectors, which are at the root of the current climate crisis, are a reality for all countries, although the impact varies by region. The active participation of Latin America and the Caribbean in the international discussions on this issue throughout 2025 is essential to ensure that the energy transition and the reduction of maritime emissions are fair and equitable. It is important that the countries of the continent adopt a position that allows them to protect their economic and environmental interests from the economic consequences of this process. If the IMO's decarbonization strategy does not live up to its ambitions, we will have a shipping industry that exacerbates the climate crisis and its impacts. The success of this strategy will be the achievement of a global consensus on environmental considerations. The equity and fairness of the transition must be one of the key elements. Recognizing the differentiated impacts of maritime decarbonization measures and their compensation, especially in the most affected countries, will ensure a triumph based on criteria of justice and environmental equity.