Human Rights

Bote con población ribereña navega en el río Xingún, en la Amazonía brasileña

May 14 2026 Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

The Xingu River is being silenced, but not its people

A river is always a path, sustenance, and memory. At the Volta Grande (or Great Bend) of the Xingu River, deep in the Brazilian Amazon, the water did more than just flow: it taught people when to plant, when to fish, and when to celebrate. There, life moved to the rhythm of the river. But that began to change in 2010, when plans were underway to build the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, and a silent question began to grow: Who decides the fate of the water? Six years later, on May 5, 2016, when the dam was inaugurated, nearly 80% of the Xingu River’s flow had been diverted.As early as 2018, organizations and communities were warning that the flow management plan imposed on the Xingu River for the operation of the hydroelectric plant foreshadowed a future of drought.That warning has come true.Today, entire stretches of the river are dry. More than 100 kilometers of the Volta Grande have lost their natural flow. The water, which once sustained biodiversity and local ways of life, no longer flows as it once did. Without enough water, the fish have stopped reproducing. There has been no spawning for three years. The river’s silence has turned into hunger, uncertainty, and disruption. The death of the fish is not just an environmental impact: it is the breakdown of a way of life. Indigenous, riverine, and fishing communities have lost not only their primary source of food but also their autonomy and their connection to the land. Today, the legacy of Belo Monte is a growing accumulation of ecological, social, and cultural degradation. However, this story is not yet over. Time for justice for the Xingu River and the life it sustainsTen years after the Belo Monte Dam began operations, the reported impacts have been confirmed, but something unexpected has also grown stronger: resistance.The affected communities remain organized, active, and determined. They continue to speak out, demand reparations, and defend their right to live alongside the river.That strength is evident today in the protests against new projects in the area.Because for these communities, the struggle is not just against a project; it is for the survival of their way of life.Today is a moment of justice for them. The complaint against the Brazilian State for its international responsibility in the case has been before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights since 2011, pending a decision that could mark a turning point for the communities of the Xingu Basin. The complaint contains the legal and evidentiary elements necessary for the Commission to admit it, determine that there were several human rights violations, and refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, whose ruling could set a precedent for state regulation of megaprojects in the context of the climate crisis; public participation; and the protection of indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and key ecosystems such as the Amazon.But as the process moves forward slowly, the impacts continue to worsen every day. The urgency is not legal; it is human. Every unanswered cycle is another cycle of drought, biodiversity loss, and mounting violations. In this case, making a decision is not just an institutional matter; it is a matter of life expectancy for those who depend on the river.What happened with Belo Monte has become a symbol. It is a clear example of how projects marketed as “clean energy” can have profound and lasting impacts when they disregard human rights. At a time when the world is seeking energy solutions to address the climate crisis, we cannot repeat old patterns of injustice. Learn More

May 06 2026 Climate Change, Human Rights

Santa Marta and the End of Fossil Fuels: From “Yes” to “How”

The First International Conference on the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels has concluded in Santa Marta, Colombia. And all signs point to this initiative being here to stay.Many aspects deserve attention in this process launched by Colombia and the Netherlands. Are we witnessing the first step toward a new era?While the world is still processing what has happened and awaits the official report from the co-hosting countries in the coming months, we offer an early analysis. The OriginsThe Santa Marta conference was a response to the frustration caused by three decades of international climate negotiations—at the successive Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—failing to directly address the primary and undisputed cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels. And it was about time.Since 1992, the international community has negotiated emissions targets and market mechanisms without ever facing the elephant in the room. The words "oil," "coal," and "fuels" do not appear in the Paris Agreement. It wasn’t until 2021, at the Glasgow COP, that fossil fuels were acknowledged for the first time as causing climate change, but only a gradual reduction in coal was called for. In 2023, in Dubai, the greatest progress was made: the phrase "transitioning away from fossil fuels." And in 2025, in Belém, not even that could be maintained. But at least that frustration helped spark the Santa Marta conference, which was precisely the opposite: 57 countries representing a third of global GDP sat down to discuss how to phase out fossil fuels, not whether to do so. If it amounts to nothing more, this conference was at least a relief, a sign of sanity in a world that sometimes is truly hard to understand.And the discussion wasn't just about the "what," but also the "how," which includes justice. The official summary document circulated by the host countries discusses territorial plans for a just transition, labor restructuring with the participation of workers and communities, direct access to financing for indigenous peoples, and explicit prevention of "new forms of extractive dependency." Decentralized and community-based energy systems are mentioned as concrete examples of sustainable production.At AIDA, we believe this is a fundamental condition: without justice, there can be no viable transition. It is not merely an ethical or legal imperative; it is also a practical one. When the transition is carried out without involving communities, without safeguarding people and territories, and without a fair distribution of burdens and benefits, it generates resistance that can hinder the projects themselves. The evidence in Latin America speaks for itself.In times when humanity is going through such darkness, it is hard to be optimistic. Perhaps in this case, there are reasons to be so. A war that, paradoxically, shows the way forwardWith the war in the Middle East as a backdrop, the Santa Marta conference took on an unprecedented sense of urgency: the disruption to oil and gas supplies that it has caused puts us in a unique situation. Overnight, between 20 and 25% of the world’s oil and gas flow was cut off, wreaking havoc across the globe: skyrocketing living costs, blackouts, and faltering economies. A conflict in one specific part of the world is affecting nearly every economy on the planet.And that shifted the tone of the conversation. The transition is no longer framed solely as a climate or environmental necessity, but as a matter of security and sovereignty. The war demonstrated that relying on fossil fuels makes us tremendously vulnerable. It is time to recognize that the climate emergency and economic stability are on the same side—they are not at odds.Fatih Birol, director of the International Energy Agency, stated from Santa Marta that the war "has broken fossil fuel markets beyond repair," referring to the metaphor of the broken vase. This is not merely an environmentalist position; it is a global assessment. The Revitalization of Santa MartaIn addition to its content, the way the Santa Marta conference unfolded was also surprising and could be considered a breakthrough in climate diplomacy.The fossil fuel lobby was explicitly excluded. Countries that have historically blocked any progress were not invited. And the format of the high-level segment broke with traditional dynamics: instead of the computer-read statements that characterize COPs, ministers and delegates sat in small circles under Chatham House rules, without screens, alongside representatives of civil society and indigenous peoples under the same conditions. It didn’t happen at the end, when no one is listening anymore, but rather by setting the tone from the very beginning.Tzeporah Berman, chair of the initiative to establish the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, described the experience as "watching a dam break": "All that accumulated experience, knowledge, and passion suddenly translates into concrete steps to phase out polluting fuels." Science at the WheelAmong the concrete outcomes, the launch of the Scientific Panel for Global Energy Transition (SPGET) stands out. In the early years of climate negotiations, science led the way: COPs opened with an update on the latest scientific findings, and decisions were built upon that foundation. Over time, this approach eroded. Countries with fossil fuel interests gradually diluted scientific warnings and introduced what was openly called “false solutions” at the Santa Marta conference—such as carbon capture and offsets—to justify continued extraction. The conference set out to put science back in the driver’s seat.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continues to produce essential reports, but it has limitations that the SPGET can address. It publishes reports every seven years, a slow process for a crisis that is accelerating. Its summaries for policymakers—which, in practice, are read by governments—are negotiated line by line with government representatives, including those from countries with fossil fuel interests, diluting the conclusions. And the IPCC is not authorized to make policy recommendations to countries. Carlos Nobre, one of the founders of the SPGET, recounted that he once sought to include information on the risks facing the Amazon in an IPCC summary, but a representative from his own country rejected it.The SPGET is completely independent. No government can veto its findings, and it will produce annual updates with concrete policy recommendations to support countries in developing roadmaps aligned with the 1.5°C goal. In terms of its structure, it is co-chaired by a Cameroonian economist (Vera Songwe), a German economist (Ottmar Edenhofer), and a Brazilian energy engineer (Gilberto Jannuzzi). If it works as promised, it could become the scientific arm that the transition needs. Continuity and Structure: A Commitment to the FutureThe Santa Marta conference was not a one-off event, but rather the start of a structured process. To begin with, a second conference has already been confirmed for 2027, co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland, cementing the commitment to North-South collaboration. With this in mind, three permanent working groups have been established that will continue their work until the Tuvalu conference.The first line of work will support countries in developing national transition roadmaps aligned with their climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. There are concrete examples: France presented its own roadmap to phase out fossil fuels from its energy mix by 2050—the first proposal of its kind submitted by a developed country. But the plan has been criticized by civil society. It does not address the remediation of territories damaged by decades of extraction, nor does it account for the new pressures that its electrification model could exert on the Global South, from which the vast majority of the minerals needed for batteries, grids, and renewable energy come.Colombia, for its part, presented its own plan at the academic pre-conference, with data showing that the transition would become economically viable starting in 2040.Unlike the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), these roadmaps address fossil fuel production. The NDCs focus on reducing emissions, but they do not commit to closing coal mines or power plants or ending tenders for fossil fuel extraction. However, NDCs also have something that roadmaps lack: legal standing, as they are part of the Paris Agreement. Thus, the promise lies in integrating roadmaps into NDCs, which would result in concrete and binding transition commitments. But, as the French case shows, if the roadmaps do not incorporate the remediation of affected territories or the supply chains that electrification demands, there is a risk of ending up with binding commitments that reinforce an unequal transition rather than correcting it.The second ongoing line of work will address financial barriers—debt, fossil fuel subsidies, and access to capital—with support from IISD, a research center specializing in subsidy policies and climate finance. And the third will seek ways to decarbonize international trade by connecting fossil fuel-producing and -consuming countries so they can work together on the transition, with support from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).In addition, there is the Scientific Panel (SPGET), which will provide the technical foundation for the entire process, and a permanent coordination group between the current co-hosts (Colombia and the Netherlands) and the future co-hosts (Tuvalu and Ireland) to ensure continuity. Everything that emerges from these lines of work will inform the official UN climate negotiations, including COP31, scheduled for November of this year in Turkey.Although there are no binding agreements to show for it, we already have concrete working mechanisms in place among the countries committed to moving forward, including supporting institutions, clear mandates, a second conference to review progress, and a commitment to influence official UN negotiations. It’s a good start, with a structure that sustains itself. What Remains to Be ResolvedThere is one issue that cuts across all of the above: timelines and urgency. We have only just begun discussing roadmaps to phase out fossil fuels, but their implementation should have begun 40 years ago. That delay should set the tone for everything that lies ahead.One area where the Santa Marta conference fell particularly short is financing. The issue—debt, fiscal space, subsidies, and the international financial architecture—was discussed at length, but this failed to translate into clear signals. For a process aimed at coordinating the global phase-out of fossil fuels, the absence of a financial roadmap is a serious limitation.This is nothing new, nor is it a matter of charity. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, enshrined in the UNFCCC itself, establishes that the countries that contributed most to the climate crisis must support those that contributed least and are suffering the most. On this basis, climate finance targets have been set, currently amounting to USD 300 billion annually by 2035, as agreed at COP29. But most of that financing comes in the form of loans, which means that countries in the Global South are taking on debt to solve a problem they did not create. The North’s climate debt to the South paradoxically becomes the South’s financial debt to the North. Thus, a just transition is not possible. And the Santa Marta conference failed to make any progress on this issue.Another structural barrier that was addressed in Santa Marta but still requires further work is the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows fossil fuel corporations to sue governments for adopting climate measures. At least $100 billion in compensation has been awarded to companies through international arbitration tribunals. ISDS was included in the official summary of the Santa Marta conference, but with lukewarm language. As long as governments can be sued for billions for closing a coal mine, the transition will not move forward—not for lack of will, but out of fear of lawsuits.Nor was the debate over natural gas as a "transition" fuel resolved. The official document acknowledges that "there were differing perspectives regarding the role of transition fuels and technologies"—a step forward achieved thanks to pressure from civil society, given the number of countries that openly promote gas as a solution. But gas is a fossil fuel, and methane leaks from it exacerbate global warming. Presenting it as a "transition" fuel only deepens dependence and delays the transition.Finally, an analysis from Latin America reveals a significant practical inconsistency: the gap between what countries say and what they do. The Mexican government actively participated in the conference while also establishing a committee to assess the viability of "sustainable" fracking. The Brazilian government, guardian of the Amazon, continues to auction off oil wells. And Colombia, host of the conference, announced that it seeks to expand the extractive frontier in the Caribbean Sea. It seems that different branches of the same government are acting with entirely contradictory objectives. The problem is that this undermines the credibility of the process, which is crucial for a coalition such as the one being sought.That said, perhaps it was too much to expect that the first conference of its kind—which sought and succeeded in laying the groundwork for a new process—would provide all the answers to the crisis of our times. The Santa Marta conference served to identify the problems, establish lines of action, and build trust. The next step cannot wait much longer. By the 2027 conference in Tuvalu, there should be no unresolved issues left, especially regarding financing. A plan without financing, no matter how good or well thought out it may be, cannot get off the ground. From a Coal Port to a Sinking Island The conference in Santa Marta, a major coal port in Colombia, has come to a close, and the next stop is Tuvalu, a small Pacific island nation facing an existential threat from rising sea levels. The route is symbolic: from a country that exports coal to one that is disappearing due to the global warming caused by burning that very coal. That these two nations are now working together to lay the groundwork for a change in course is precisely what we need: to acknowledge the past and look to the future with solidarity.The First International Conference on the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels could go down in history as the cornerstone of a new era. Let’s keep building on this foundation.

Inundación de islas en el río Xingú para la operación de la represa Belo Monte

May 05 2026 Human Rights, Large Dams

Ten years of Belo Monte: The time for justice has come

Ten years after its inauguration, the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant (UHE) in Pará returns to the center of public debate, this time under the scrutiny of the Inter-American Human Rights System. More than an anniversary, this milestone reinforces the urgency of an effective institutional response:justice cannot continue to be postponed.The case, currently pending before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), brings together a substantial body of evidence regarding human rights violations associated with the Belo Monte UHE. Filed by a coalition of civil society organizations, including the Inter-American Association for the Defense of the Environment (AIDA), Global Justice, Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira (COIAB), Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre (MXVPS), and the Conselho Indigenista Missionário (CIMI), the petition consolidates allegations of violations of the rights to life, health, prior consultation, and a healthy environment. The case is at an advanced stage of review and could soon be referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.A decade on, the socio-environmental impacts remain significant and largely unmitigated. The Volta Grande do Xingu—a stretch of approximately 130 km directly affected by the artificial reduction in river flow—represents the project’s most serious liability. The alteration of the hydrological regime, compounded by extreme events associated with climate change, has compromised local ecosystems, disrupted the reproductive cycle of species, reduced navigability, and threatened the food and water security of populations that depend directly on the river.Indigenous communities, riverine populations, and artisanal fishers face the ongoing deterioration of their ways of life, including reduced fish availability and impacts on fishing livelihoods. Additional harms include inadequate resettlements, increased violence, mental health impacts, and threats to cultural practices and traditional ways of life.Unlike the debates that characterized the project’s implementation phase, today’s discussion is shaped by the climate emergency and new international regulatory standards. Advisory Opinion OC-32 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights provides clear guidelines on states’ obligations to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis, recognizing the right to a healthy environment as a foundational principle. In this context, the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant case is a significant test of how energy development, environmental protection, and the rights of local populations can—and must—be reconciled.The organizations monitoring the case highlight non-compliance with precautionary measures issued by the Commission as a key reason to advance to the Court. The legal merit of the case, combined with its international significance, positions the case as ready for adjudication."More than a decade after the start of the Belo Monte hydroelectric project, the impacts on the Xingu River continue and are worsening, exacerbated by pressure for new projects and the climate crisis. The communities remain mobilized for justice and confident in the Inter-American Commission’s efforts to bring the case before the Court—the final step to ensure full reparations and the protection of the territory and its ways of life," said Marcella Torres, legal coordinator of AIDA’s Human Rights Program.According to Melisanda Trentin, coordinator of Socio-Environmental and Climate Justice at Justiça Global, the Belo Sun mining project is moving forward in the Volta Grande do Xingu region with consultation flaws identical to those of the Belo Monte project. “What is at stake in the region is the accumulation of harm and violations of human and environmental rights. A river with reduced flow, communities facing food insecurity and altered ways of life, and now a new project that repeats the same violations denounced in the Inter-American System for over 10 years,” she points out.For the signatory organizations, the ten-year mark represents a critical window for justice. The Belo Monte case is no longer an isolated episode— it stands as a benchmark for the concrete application of environmental justice in the Amazon, amid growing climate pressure and demands for state accountability.ABOUT - Belo Monte is the fourth-largest hydroelectric power plant in the world, built on the Xingu River in the state of Pará, in the heart of the Amazon. With an installed capacity of 11,233 MW, it was inaugurated on May 5, 2016. Its operation diverts 80% of the Xingu River’s flow through a canal 500 meters wide and 75 km long. The flooded area between the canal and the reservoir covers 516 km², larger than the city of Chicago, of which 400 km² was native forest.#JutiçaNoXingu See the statement from the petitioners in the Belo Monte case before the IACHR Read what the petitioning organizations in the case have to say:Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB)"There is no legal certainty without respect for the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. In the Amazon, this defense goes beyond the legal realm: it is a commitment to life, to the integrity of territories, and to the planet’s climate balance. The harm that the construction of the Belo Monte Dam has caused to indigenous populations and the environment has become a reality and is irreversible. COIAB’s Legal Advisory Office works to ensure that the Constitution, international treaties, and the self-determination of indigenous peoples are effectively respected at all levels of decision-making," states Gabriele Baré, coordinator of COIAB’s Legal Advisory Office.Movimento Xingu Vivo Para Sempre "Belo Monte uprooted people from the riverbanks and scattered the Xingu people far and wide, away from the river, their community, and the daily life they knew and loved. The riverine dwellers ceased to be who they were; the fisherwomen ceased to be who they were; they became nothing, many of them wandering the outskirts of cities. These people lost their identity and, with it, their soul. All that remained was emptiness and loneliness. The impact of the loss of their way of life cannot be compensated, but it must be acknowledged so that some form of redress can be made," says Ana Laide Barbosa, an educator with the Xingu Vivo para Sempre Movement.Observatory of Isolated Indigenous Peoples (OPI)"The construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam has exacerbated threats and pressures on the indigenous peoples of the Middle Xingu region in a manner similar to what occurred during the dictatorship with the opening of the Trans-Amazonian Highway in the same region. Recently contacted peoples such as the Parakanã and the Arara have suffered from alarming rates of invasions and illegal deforestation on their lands, and the refuge of the isolated indigenous groups of Ituna Itatá has become one of the most deforested areas in Brazil. At the same time, the diversion of the Xingu River’s waters causes ecocidal damage to the indigenous peoples of Volta Grande; and harmful impact compensation policies have had disintegrating and ethnocidal effects on nearly all the peoples. “For all these reasons, the hydroelectric dam has become yet another example of the colonial relationship established by the Brazilian state with the Amazonian peoples and a debt of reparation that must be acknowledged and addressed," says Helena Palmquist, deputy coordinator of the Observatory of Isolated and Recently Contacted Indigenous Peoples (OPI).

Comunidad ribereña en el río Xingú, Amazonía brasileña

May 04 2026 Human Rights, Large Dams

Open letter: Ten years since Belo Monte

BELO MONTE: TEN YEARS OF OPERATION, MORE THAN A DECADE OF UNREPAIRED DAMAGE On May 5, 2016, the first turbine of Belo Monte began operating on the Xingu River. Ten years later, the Indigenous, riverine, and artisanal fishing communities along the middle Xingu River—who were never properly consulted—continue to suffer systematic violations of their rights. The balance of this decade is not one of development; it is one of documented harm and denied reparation.The impacts are concrete and persistent. More than 100 kilometers of the Volta Grande do Xingu have lost their natural flow. The operational hydrograph imposed by the plant does not guarantee the minimum ecological conditions necessary for the reproduction of aquatic life, causing the collapse of artisanal fishing and severe food insecurity for populations that depend on the river as their main source of food and income. The loss of access to the river also entails a loss of culture, territory, and rights.Isolated and recently contacted Indigenous peoples present in the region face heightened risks, as their survival depends directly on the environmental and territorial integrity of the Xingu River. This context imposes an enhanced duty of protection on the State, in accordance with constitutional and international standards.The climate crisis exacerbates each of these violations. The extreme droughts that struck the Amazon in 2016, 2019, 2020, 2023, and 2024 worsened existing impacts and exposed the project’s structural fragility. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in Advisory Opinion 32/25, recognized that ecosystems such as the Amazon are critical to climate stability and that States have an obligation to act with enhanced due diligence to prevent serious and irreversible damage to these territories and to the communities that depend on them.Since 2011, the case has been under consideration before the IACHR and is awaiting an admissibility and merits report. The evidentiary record is complete. The violations are documented, continuous, and unrepaired. The passage of time is not neutral — each lost piracema (the seasonal spawning cycle on which fishing communities depend), each family displaced from the river, each new threat to the region adds to a human cost that is real, growing, and inexcusable.For their part, the riverine and Indigenous communities of the region, both in the Volta Grande do Xingu and its surrounding areas, have not stood idly by. While they fight for full reparation, they work toward the establishment of riverine territory and the expulsion of intruders from Indigenous lands; they organize environmental and territorial monitoring of the river, document impacts, and resist each new threat to their territory. This documentation is not advocacy — it is evidence. It forms part of the legal record and unequivocally demonstrates the continuity of the violations.These are ten years of operation and more than fifteen years of documented violations. We expect the case to be admitted by the Commission and submitted to the IACtHR without delay and that, in an act of justice, it recognize the responsibility of the Brazilian State and require the adoption of an ecological hydrograph that guarantees minimum conditions for the reproduction of life in the Volta Grande do Xingu; the establishment of riverine territory; full reparation for affected communities; the suspension of new high-impact projects in the region while existing damages are not remedied; and the ordering of effective guarantees of non-repetition. The communities of the Volta Grande do Xingu have waited long enough.Signed by the petitioners:Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA); Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI); Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB); Diocese of Altamira; Justiça Global; Xingu Vivo Para Sempre Movement; Observatory of Isolated Indigenous Peoples (OPI); and the Pará Society for the Defense of Human Rights (SDDH). Download the letter

April 28 2026 Climate Change, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Let's talk about project closure and responsible exit

No mining, fossil fuel extraction or power generation project lasts forever. Their useful life is determined by internal factors, such as the quantity of resource reserves, and external factors, such as declining demand or financial problems.But no matter how long a project lasts or how it is affected, its promoters—whether public or private—must provide for a closure and responsible exit process that considers the natural environment and affected communities, and that is desired and promoted by all stakeholders.This issue is even more relevant in the context of actions needed to address the climate crisis, largely related to the energy transition, which generally implies the substitution of fossil fuel extraction and use projects, as well as the promotion of low-emission renewable energies associated with mineral extraction. In both scenarios, closure and exit issues are of great importance.In the first, it is necessary to incorporate concrete and enforceable commitments to close down and move on from existing projects. In the second, these requirements should be built in from the planning and pre-feasibility stages and should also be included in the environmental impact assessments and subsequent stages.In all projects, the role of the promoters is essential. Likewise, the obligation of the state to supervise and monitor is of great importance in order to protect and guarantee the rights of those who may be affected. In some cases, the responsible exit also includes other key actors that are part of the value and supply chains of the projects: investors, financiers, insurers, suppliers, distributors and buyers, among others.Therefore, the discussion of project closure and responsible exit is essential to environmental protection and climate management in Latin America.What do we mean by project closure and exit?All mining and energy projects have different phases in their life cycle: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, closure, and post-closure. In turn, they have supply and value chains that, as we have said, involve actors from different sectors.In this context, closure refers to the stage of a project in which it ceases to operate and is terminated. Exit, on the other hand, refers to the decision and subsequent process in which the different actors in the project's value and supply chain, in their own roles, completely disengage from the project. What does it mean for a closing and exit process to be responsible?There is currently no consensus on the definition and scope of responsible exit and fair project closure processes. Sometimes these terms are used indiscriminately, which can lead to confusion about the responsibilities of the actors involved and the scope of the processes to be carried out. However, there are elements that allow these concepts to be explained precisely:Responsible and fair project closure is a planned, upfront process that should be considered from the earliest stages of a project and continually updated as the project evolves. Responsible closure ensures a planned, coordinated and participatory cessation of activities and dismantling, and guarantees the right to a healthy environment.The planning and development of a closure plan should focus on risk management as well as impact prevention and mitigation. This will ensure a responsible closure in which the affected areas can be readapted and made safe for both nature and communities, while allowing the ecosystems to recover their functions.The general obligation of the project developer is to properly identify the impacts that the project may cause and to adequately and timely comply with the measures approved by the State in its environmental management instruments.The main obligation of the State (in addition to its general regulatory duty) is to supervise and monitor the project to verify compliance with the developer's obligations and to prevent environmental and/or social damage.The role of other actors in the value and supply chain is to act with due diligence, to use their influence to encourage the promoter to comply with its obligations and, in the event of non-compliance, to act within their role and influence to ensure that the necessary corrective measures are taken.Responsible and fair exit refers to the process undertaken by the various actors in the value and supply chain when they decide to fully divest from a project, considering the responsibilities inherent in their role, which include fulfilling their obligations with respect to human rights and due diligence. In Latin America, there has been important progress in regulating aspects related to the permitting, commissioning and implementation of mining and energy projects. However, experience has shown that there are significant challenges in ensuring that the closure and exit processes are responsible for the ecosystems and communities involved.To learn more about this issue, see our report Closure and Responsible Exit. A requirement for environmental and climate justice in Latin America (in Spanish).In the following video, we explain the main findings of the report, which documents and analyzes cases in several countries across the continent:

April 08 2026 Climate Change, Human Rights

Closure and Responsible Exit

A requirement for environmental and climate justice in Latin America No natural resource (material or energy) extraction project lasts forever. Its useful life is subject to many variables, including endogenous factors -such as the amount of resource reserves or the extraction rate- and exogenous factors -such as decisions to address the climate crisis, the decrease in demand, financial problems, etc.- that condition the moment in which the project must close or the moment in which an actor in its value and supply chain must leave. Regardless of the length of the project's useful life or how it may be affected, a responsible closure process with the natural environment and society must be contemplated, which must be desired and promoted by all the stakeholders involved.This issue is even more relevant in the context of the climate crisis we are experiencing, which makes it urgent to implement measures to manage it in the short, medium and long term. Many of the actions required to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets are related to energy transition, which implies, in general terms, at least two things: 1) the substitution of fossil fuel extraction and use projects and 2) the promotion of low-emission renewable energies, which are associated with mineral extraction. In both scenarios, closure and exit issues are of great importance.In both extraction and generation projects, the role of their promoters, whether public or private, is essential. Likewise, the obligation of supervision and oversight of the States is very important for the protection and guarantee of the rights of those who may be affected. On occasions, the responsibility of the exit includes other key actors that are part of the value and supply chains of the projects: investors, insurers, distributors and buyers, among others.In Latin America, there have been important advances in regulating aspects related to the authorization, start-up and implementation of mining and energy projects. In these phases, environmental principles such as prevention and precaution, as well as rights such as prior consultation and free, prior and informed consent, and access rights, have played a crucial role in determining the viability and progress of projects, as well as in protecting and guaranteeing the rights of communities in the region. However, experience has shown that there are significant challenges for the closure and exit processes to be responsible with the ecosystems and communities involved. Indeed, the lack of a closure process, as well as the lack of clarity about the obligations surrounding the social transition processes and overcoming the conditions of economic dependence, are complex obstacles that can exacerbate environmental and social impacts. This report arises from the idea of proposing approaches based on law and science to address the closure and responsible exit of projects. To this end, we at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), in the period 2022-2024, interviewed various stakeholders and systematized 12 cases that exemplify the problematic situation of multiple fossil fuel extraction, mineral and power generation projects, which are in the closure phase or in exit processes in different countries of the region. These cases highlight the current challenges and legal, technical and administrative gaps regarding closure and exit in specific contexts.With this publication, we seek to provide answers to the following questions: what is meant by project closure and exit, what is the basis for closure and exit obligations under international law, what should closure and exit look like, who should be involved in these processes, and how should the social, environmental, economic and human rights challenges and impacts that arise from them be addressed? Read and download the report

Audiencia ante la CIDH sobre impactos en DDHH por extracción de combustibles fósiles

March 26 2026 Human Rights

When environmental defenders in Latin America take the stage at key international forums

By Víctor Quintanilla and Mayela Sánchez García* The voices of communities across Latin America and the Caribbean are powerful, especially when they call for environmental protection amid multiple, growing threats.Often, this demand falls on deaf ears among those who deliver justice at the national or local level.This trend makes it necessary to turn to complementary avenues of international justice.One such platform is provided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an international body with a critical mandate: the promotion and protection of human rights on the continent.As an organization driven by the mission of guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment in Latin America and the Caribbean, the IACHR serves as a key forum for highlighting environmental issues that affect human rights in the region. We do this in alliance with communities and partner organizations. This allows the voices of local communities to be heard by an international body capable of urging the continent’s governments to change their practices and strengthen their standards for protecting populations affected by environmental degradation. Testimonies calling for a responsible phase-out of fossil fuelsBringing the voices of communities before the IACHR is also an opportunity to highlight regional patterns of risk and human rights violations.So it was on March 10, when representatives from communities in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic testified before the Commission about how decades of fossil fuel extraction and use have seriously violated human rights such as the right to a healthy environment, the right to health, and the right to access information and participate in environmental matters."Our region doesn’t just need to decarbonize its energy system; it also needs to address the historical injustice that our communities have endured," said Yaneth Ortiz, a representative of the Wayuu indigenous people of La Guajira, a region in northern Colombia that has been severely impacted by the operations of the Carbones del Cerrejón mining project.Their messages were heard by the IACHR during a public hearing titled "Human rights situation related to fossil fuel extraction," held as part of its 195th Period of Sessions.Community representatives also noted that, in the current context of the energy transition, these violations and risks have become more severe."Our children are getting sick in their own schools. Despite all this, there are no clear parties to blame and no structural solutions… For us, this decarbonization process [in Chile] has been insufficient and lacking in transparency," said Katta Alonso, speaking on behalf of the Chilean organization Mujeres en Zonas de Sacrificio en Resistencia. The local experiences shared highlighted the urgency of implementing just transitions, which entail the responsible phase-out of fossil fuel projects throughout the region.Meanwhile, Juan Bay, president of the Waorani Nationality of Ecuador (NAWE), stated: "We have not been consulted in a prior, free, and informed manner regarding oil exploration on our territory, nor regarding the establishment of the protected area. We now demand that our rights be respected in the process of closing down oil operations and in the environmental and social remediation."AIDA requested the hearing in collaboration with the communities and partner organizations. "We explained the risks and human rights violations faced by various communities in the context of the closure and irresponsible exit of coal, gas, and oil extraction and combustion projects," explains Rosa Peña, AIDA’s attorney.The Commission views the purpose of these hearings as gathering information on human rights issues in specific countries or regionally, in order to issue recommendations to governments aimed at ensuring respect for and the enjoyment of human rights.Before each session, it receives a huge number of requests to address various human rights issues across the continent during the hearings—issues that go beyond just the environment or climate."This is how we got here, after convincing the Commission of the importance of approaching this issue from a human rights perspective and of listening to the communities," says Liliana Ávila, director of AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program.Over the years, AIDA has developed significant expertise and leadership in successfully bringing cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—the two pillars of the Inter-American Human Rights System, a mechanism of the Organization of American States—to achieve regional impact in the protection of a healthy environment, in partnership with local communities. Voices against the damage caused by illegal miningAlso, during the 195th Period of Sessions of the IACHR, we participated in the ex officio hearing titled "Impacts of illegal mining on economic, social, cultural and environmental rights," convened by the Commission itself.Our contribution joined other voices in highlighting why this activity is now one of the most alarming phenomena on the continent, given its severe impact on ecosystems and human rights. In Latin America, gold mining fuels illegal extraction that violates numerous rights, primarily those of indigenous peoples and traditional communities. At the hearing, we proposed relevant measures to the Commission to address the issue from a regional perspective.At AIDA, we seek to amplify the strength of local communities and their people, bringing their wisdom to decision-making forums with the potential to transform realities and build a better future for the continent. *Víctor Quintanilla-Sangüeza is AIDA’s Content Coordinator, and Mayela Sánchez García is the organization’s digital community specialist.

Hombre navega en bote un río de la Amazonía brasileña.

March 25 2026 Climate Change, Human Rights

International Principles for Responsible Divestment from Fossil Fuels

Against the backdrop of an ever-worsening climate emergency, companies must rapidly withdraw from the extraction of coal, oil, and gas as well as associated fossil energy industries and ancillary facilities for transport, storage, refining, and processing. The urgent need to quit fossil fuels, however, does not justify irresponsible divestment by fossil energy companies. Rapid closure and responsible closure of the fossil fuel industry are not mutually incompatible agendas. Both are vital to achieve climate and environmental justice and a just energy transition.In the absence of responsible divestment policies and practices, communities are left facing legacy pollution, as well as the long-term health risks that come from abandoned infrastructure that is not properly decommissioned and a lack of proper ecosystem restoration. Many communities also confront significant loss of livelihoods and financial hardship as the fossil fuel industry divests with no regard for the local economic consequences, particularly where economic dependencies have been built up over time.Rooted in the lived experiences and demands of communities and workers affected by fossil fuel activities around the world, and in line with existing international obligations of states and international frameworks for corporate accountability, including the responsibility to respect human rights, these International Principles for Responsible Divestment from Fossil Fuels set out a positive agenda that all companies and states must follow to advance a just transition. They are designed to shift the power imbalance currently favouring powerful companies and states in order to ensure that affected communities and workers have agency and control over how fossil fuel divestment occurs. They are intended to be followed by companies and made obligatory by the states. Read and download the document

March 20 2026 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Families in La Oroya are calling on the Peruvian government to take four urgent actions to ensure effective compliance with the Inter-American Court’s ruling

In the absence of significant progress, they are calling on the government to identify the entities responsible for implementing each measure ordered by the Court, to provide comprehensive and specialized health care, to ensure the mitigation of pollution from the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex, and to immediately pay compensation to the victims of the case. La Oroya, Peru. Given the minimal progress made in complying with the ruling issued two years ago by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, families affected by decades of pollution in La Oroya are demanding that the government urgently take four necessary steps to ensure the effective implementation of the ruling in the short term.On March 22, 2024, the international court issued a ruling holding the Peruvian government responsible for human rights violations against a group of 80 residents of La Oroya and ordering it to take comprehensive remediation measures. However, implementation of the ruling remains in its early stages, primarily due to the government’s lack of political will and its constant shifting of arguments to delay the process. Progress to date has been limited to publicizing the ruling, making payments to the Victims’ Fund established by the Court, and launching criminal investigations into the stigmatization and persecution of victims for their environmental defense work.Furthermore, in the two years since the ruling was issued, the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex, having resumed operations, has once again caused pollution levels in the city to exceed those recommended by the World Health Organization. "The reactivation of the Metallurgical Complex in March 2024, without complying with current environmental standards, once again puts the health of the entire population of La Oroya at risk. Today, neither the victims in this case nor the rest of the city’s residents are guaranteed access to healthcare in the face of pollution. Furthermore, there is no clarity on when this situation will end, which creates significant uncertainty due to the government’s failure to act," stated Rosa Peña, senior attorney at the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the organization bringing the case before the Court alongside the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH) of Peru. In light of this situation, the group of victims in the case is calling on the Peruvian government to move forward with implementing the ruling through four urgent actions:Issue a resolution determining jurisdiction that clearly defines which entity is responsible for each court order, and establishes a budget and specific implementation deadlines.Adopt and implement a specialized protocol for comprehensive health care, developed with the active participation of victims and with sufficient funding.Suspend operations at the Metallurgical Complex until an environmental management plan is in place that complies with the standards established by the Court; and evaluate transitional measures for property owners and workers to prevent further social impacts.Pay compensation to the victims as ordered by the Court. After more than 20 years of struggle, the landmark ruling in the case has yet to translate into better living conditions for the victims or into reparations for the harm they suffered. "It is deeply concerning that, two years after the ruling was issued, the government has not yet determined which agencies will be responsible for enforcing each of its provisions. This situation makes it impossible to even establish a forum for direct coordination on behalf of the victims and the general population of La Oroya and the country regarding mining and metallurgical activities. Let us not forget that the Court also ordered public policies at the national level to protect the environment and health in Peru," said Christian Huaylinos of APRODEH’s legal department.Although Peru’s political instability has played a role, the main obstacle to steady progress in implementing the binding international ruling has been the government’s lack of determination. Press contactLorena Zárate | AIDA | [email protected] | +52 553902 7481

Termoeléctrica Ventanas en la Bahía de Puchuncaví, Chile

March 10 2026 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights

Organizations and communities call on the IACHR to take action against human rights violations caused by fossil fuel projects

At a public hearing, they highlighted the impacts and risks to Latin American communities resulting from decades of extraction, commercialization, and use of coal, oil, and gas, as well as from irresponsible closure and exit of projects in the context of the energy transition.Guatemala City. Representatives of organizations and communities in Latin America called on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to address human rights violations resulting from the operation and closure of fossil fuel projects (coal, gas, and oil) in the region.They did so at a public hearing in which—based on emblematic cases in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic—they presented evidence to the Commission of human rights violations and risks of violations resulting from decades of extraction, commercialization, and use of fossil fuels without complying with socio-environmental standards. They also warned of violations already occurring in the irresponsible closure and exit from projects within the framework of energy transition policies.The cases presented included the Carbones de Cerrejón project in La Guajira, northern Colombia, which is the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America; the Punta Catalina Thermoelectric Power Plant, located in the southern region of the Dominican Republic and fueled by Colombian coal; the Quintero and Puchuncaví Thermoelectric Complex, located in a bay in Chile recognized as an environmental sacrifice zone and where 14 polluting industries converge; the Norgener thermoelectric power plant in Tocopilla, Chile, whose closure process included the forced and accelerated burning of 94,000 tons of coal that were in storage; and oil exploitation in the Amazon, including that installed in the Yasuní National Park in Ecuador, declared a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO.The hearing—held during the 195th Session of the IACHR—was granted to the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Waorani Nationality (Ecuador), the La Guajira le Habla al País Platform (Colombia) (1), communities of Tocopilla and the association Mujeres de Zona de Sacrificio Quintero-Puchuncaví en Resistencia (Chile), and the National Committee to Combat Climate Change (Dominican Republic).During the session, organizations and communities also presented information demonstrating that Latin America lacks regulatory frameworks to ensure the closure and exit of fossil fuel projects with a human rights approach. In this context, and based on the cases described and the trends identified, they requested that the Commission:Establish standards to guide States in fulfilling their obligations to respect and guarantee human rights throughout the entire project life cycle, ensuring early identification of impacts, prevention of harm, definition of responsibilities, and reparation for damages.Define standards and criteria to guide States in adopting preventive, corrective, and impact mitigation measures in relation to human rights, including comprehensive closure plans, the safe dismantling of infrastructure, environmental remediation, and the monitoring of risks to health and ecosystems.Promote regulatory frameworks that require companies to plan for project closure, including establishing responsibilities for environmental and social liabilities, financial guarantees for closure, and mechanisms to prevent the abandonment of operations or the transfer of assets without fulfilling closure obligations.Incorporate differentiated approaches that address the disproportionate impacts on indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, rural communities, and other groups in vulnerable situations.Strengthen guarantees of access to information, effective participation, and access to environmental justice throughout the project cycle, ensuring that affected communities participate in an informed manner in the design, implementation, and oversight of closure and transition processes.Guide States in the creation of oversight, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms to monitor operational, closure, and post-closure processes; define corporate and State responsibilities; and prevent asset transfers or other corporate restructuring as a means of evading responsibilities.Urge States to anticipate and manage the social, economic, cultural, and environmental risks of the gradual replacement of fossil fuels, including measures to address the economic dependence of territories, protect communities' livelihoods, and avoid the impacts of abrupt or poorly managed closure processes.Organizations and communities argued before the IACHR that there is a growing regional risk that the closure and exit processes of fossil fuel projects will be carried out irresponsibly. In several cases, companies abandon operations, cede or transfer assets, return concessions, and cease operations without ensuring the proper management of the socio-environmental impacts generated over many years. These practices can leave impacts unaddressed or unrepaired, while blurring the responsibilities of public and private actors, thereby deepening the risks to human rights and territories.They emphasized that Amazonian states must adopt regional cooperation measures and guarantee the comprehensive protection of the Amazon—one of the most important ecosystems on the planet due to its biodiversity and role in climate regulation—in the face of the closure and exit of hydrocarbon extraction projects. (1) The platform is made up of Wayuu indigenous communities and Afro-descendants from La Guajira, the Center for Research and Popular Education Program for Peace (Cinep/PPP), Censat Agua Viva, and the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Collective (CAJAR).Press contactLorena Zárate | AIDA | [email protected] | +52 553902 7481