Human Rights

Panoramic view of the Metallurgical Complex of La Orota, Peru, in 2024.

June 20 2024 Human Rights, Mining, Toxic Pollution

La Oroya v. Peru: Historic precedent on human rights and the environment

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights set an important precedent for state oversight of industrial pollution. By Rosa Peña and Jacob Kopas* This past March, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the human rights tribunal for the Americas, released an historic ruling condemning Peru for failing to control toxic industrial pollution. The ruling set an important precedent for the right to a healthy environment and state oversight of corporate activities across the Americas. This victory began as a petition that the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and Earthjustice, together with partner organizations, presented in 2006 on behalf of families and environmental defenders in La Oroya, a small town in the heart of the Peruvian Andes. For more than 100 years, an industrial smelter has exposed La Oroya to extreme levels of toxic pollution, leading to nearly all the town’s children having dangerously high levels of lead and other heavy metals in their blood. The court’s binding judgment is a powerful condemnation that the families of La Oroya are today using to demand concrete action from the Peruvian government. In addition to financial compensation, the court ordered Peru to halt further harmful pollution from the smelter, clean up the toxic metals in the soil and water, and provide specialized health care for the victims and inhabitants of La Oroya. The court's judgment itself also constitutes a form of reparations for the victims, by acknowledging the legitimacy of their work as environmental defenders. The significance of the ruling goes far beyond the immediate benefits for people in La Oroya and Peru. Ensuring the environmental quality of water and air in Latin America remains a major challenge across the Americas. This is the first time that the Inter-American Court has held that industrial pollution can harm human rights, opening a path to justice for communities in so-called “Sacrifice Zones” overburdened with industrial pollution. The court’s landmark ruling establishes several key precedents with significance for both international and domestic jurisprudence. Innovative new measures for collective reparations. This case went beyond previous cases by ordering not only individual reparations, but also collective reparations that benefit all inhabitants of La Oroya. These include environmental remediation of the surrounding ecosystem (para. 351), comprehensive and specialized health care for any inhabitant who presents symptoms (para. 348), and support for relocating inhabitants who wish to do so (para. 355). In addition, the court ordered differentiated measures for women, children, and elderly victims. The judgment also ordered environmental and public health measures that will improve the lives of all Peruvians impacted by the mining industry, including bringing air quality standards in line with international standards (para. 346), guaranteeing that mining companies adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (para. 352), and creating an information system that proactively provides updated air and water quality data in mining areas (para. 354). Showing causality: Exposure to a significant health risk is enough to prove a human rights violation. One major obstacle to access to justice for communities exposed to dangerous pollution is showing causality, that is, proving that pollution caused a specific health condition. Showing causality is often difficult because many communities lack access to proper health care and diagnostic tests, because some conditions such as cancer can be latent and lie undetected for years, and because many different factors contribute to poor health. To account for this reality, the court held that it is sufficient to show that an exposure to pollution created a significant health risk, without having to prove that the exposure caused a concrete condition or disease (para. 204). The court also went a step further, and noted that under the precautionary principle, the lack of scientific certainty regarding those risks cannot be an excuse for failing to adopt measures to protect public health (para. 207). The right to clean air and water as substantive elements of the right to a healthy environment. In the judgment, the Court established that the right to a healthy environment includes the rights to air and water that are free of pollution which could constitute a significant risk to health and rights. These rights also entail specific obligations for states. These include: Setting environmental quality standards that do not constitute a risk to health and that are based on the best available science Monitoring air and water quality and providing access to information on pollution that endangers health Creating plans to maintain air and water quality Effectively enforcing environmental quality standards and ensuring the proper management of water resources (paras. 120-121) Access to public participation in environmental decisions. This ruling is also the first time that the Inter-American Court has condemned a state for failing to guarantee effective public participation in environmental decision-making affecting the general public (para. 256). In prior cases, the court examined the right to public participation only in the context of consultation with Indigenous Peoples, who have special protections under international law. In addition, the court held that the mere existence of formal procedures for public participation may not be sufficient for states to satisfy their obligations under the American Convention. Authorities must also ensure that these procedures provide an effective opportunity to be heard and participate in decision making (para. 260). The judgment also consolidated advances in other important issues for environmental justice in the region: Business and human rights obligations. The court emphasized states’ obligations to protect human rights and their duties to supervise and control companies (paras. 109-110). It also held that companies themselves have responsibilities to respect human rights and act with due diligence, regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership, or structure (para. 111). Environmental pollution violates the right to a dignified life. Because pollution impacted many different areas of the lives of families in La Oroya, it also violated their right to a dignified life. These impacts included not being able to carry out a life project under normal circumstances, which affected their personal, family, psychological, and professional development (paras. 220-230). The effects of environmental contamination fall disproportionately on individuals, groups, and communities that already bear the burden of poverty, discrimination, and systemic marginalization. The court recognized that pregnant women, children, teenagers and the elderly, who, given their condition, are frequently exposed to a greater risk of harm from pollution (para. 134). Given the principle of intergenerational equity, states have particular obligations to protect children’s health from environmental pollution and provide specialized care for those that acquired illnesses as a result of exposure (para. 141). The right to a healthy environment as jus cogens. The ruling noted that guaranteeing the interest of both present and future generations from serious, extensive, long-lasting, and irreversible damage to the environment is fundamental for the survival of humanity. The court thereby called on the international community to recognize such environmental harm as violating a preemptory norm (jus cogens) of international law (para. 129). Weakening air quality standards violates international law. The court found that when Peru rolled back national air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, it violated its duty against retrogressive measures inherent in the right to a healthy environment (paras. 182-186). The court held that any such rollbacks must be justified in light of the state’s maximum available resources for guaranteeing human rights and be consistent with the precautionary principle (para. 186). Obligation of active transparency when guaranteeing access to information. This case is the first time the court has found a state responsible for failing its obligation of “active transparency,” which requires states to not only respond to requests for accessing environmental information, but also to actively distribute and publicize environmental information (para. 247). This information must be complete, comprehensible, and in an accessible language (para. 255). The ruling is poised to a significant legal precedent for the many communities affected by industrial pollution. Its ultimate impact will depend on how it is implemented by courts in Peru and throughout Latin America. In Peru alone, the Peruvian Human Rights Ombudsman estimated that over 10 million people (31% of the population) are at risk of exposure to heavy metal pollutants and other chemicals related to the mining industry. With this new ruling as a powerful legal tool, hopefully other communities will not have to wait 100 years to finally breath clean air. *Rosa Peña is a senior attorney with AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program; Jacob Kopas is a senior attorney with Earthjustice's International Program.

60 sesión de los Órganos Subsidiarios de la ONU sobre el Cambio Climático en Bonn

June 19 2024 Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate negotiations: Reflections after the Bonn meeting ahead of COP29

By Florencia Ortúzar and Javier Dávalos* The 60th session of the UN Subsidiary Bodies on Climate Change (SB60) was held in Bonn, Germany, from June 3-13, 2024. These sessions, held twice a year, consist of technical meetings at which government delegates advance the agenda for international climate negotiations. The Bonn session was part of the preparations for the twenty-ninth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November, and was guided by the agreements reached at COP28, held last year in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. AIDA participated in SB60 to bring the voice of Latin America to the negotiations from a human rights and gender perspective. The following are reflections on the four main issues addressed at the meeting: just transition, global accounting, the new financing target, and the Loss and Damage Fund. Work Programme on Just Transition On June 2 and 3, the long-awaited first dialogue took place on the Just Transition Work Programme, which was created at COP27 to address the challenges of the transition to low-carbon economies and societies. The goal is to achieve an equitable and inclusive process that promotes the protection of workers and affected communities. Civil society observer organizations noted that the principles of a just transition require an assessment of the impact of climate action on all human rights - including labor, social, economic and environmental rights - in key areas. To this end, decision-making in the work programme must include social dialogue and multiple levels of consultation with groups and communities. AIDA advocated for the justice dimension to consider the differentiated impacts of the transition in different areas of the planet, particularly in the Global South, where the extraction of transition minerals (lithium, cobalt and copper, among others) threatens fragile ecosystems, species and vulnerable communities. The problems of fossil fuel extraction are being repeated. Safeguards, participatory approaches and international cooperation are therefore relevant. It is also important to support economic diversification approaches that protect us from a new dependence on the sale of raw materials and encourage the search for new sources of income. Follow-up to the Global Stocktake Dialogue The Global Stocktake is a collective assessment mechanism to review global progress on climate mitigation, adaptation and finance every five years. The exercise will allow us to know whether global efforts are sufficient to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the global temperature rise to below 2°C, and hopefully 1.5°C. The results of the stocktaking should have a direct impact on countries' climate commitments contained in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The text of the first stocktaking, adopted in 2023, gave way to the process of updating the NDCs, which countries must submit in 2025 and which must reinforce the historic commitment made at COP28 to phase out fossil fuels, set specific targets to reduce methane emissions, triple renewable energy, and double energy efficiency. The updated NDCs must include clear adaptation measures based on the conservation of biodiversity and key ecosystems such as the Amazon, wetlands and oceans. AIDA will monitor and follow up to ensure that countries in the region make progressive climate commitments that are consistent with what was agreed in the Global Stocktake. The new collective quantified goal on climate finance In 2009, developed countries agreed to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020 to support climate action in developing countries. Then, in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, it was agreed to set a new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG). This target should be adopted in November, during COP29, and the Bonn meeting should pave the way for it. In addition, the new target will be an indicator of developing countries' ability to meet their updated NDCs, as well as a sign of fairness that could strengthen the credibility of the climate negotiation system. However, reaching an agreement has not been easy due to the number of decisions needed to outline the new target in its entirety. The most difficult point to agree on is the amount that developed countries will have to commit to. So far, they have only agreed that it should exceed US$100 billion. The Latin American countries, for their part, have not been able to propose figures based on the needs of the region. The list of countries that will contribute to the target is also still under discussion. According to the developed countries, some countries at an advanced stage of development could begin to contribute. There is also debate over whether the new target should also be used to finance loss and damage compensation, an issue that was not considered when the previous target was discussed and for which there is now a special fund. Another challenge for developing countries is that the financing resulting from the new target should not increase public debt. There are other details that still require agreement. The COP co-chairs must now propose a document that reconciles divergent visions and serves to reach agreement at COP29. Countries can apply the lessons learned from the first target and secure a new target that is more effective in terms of quantity and implementation. Financing climate action is neither a handout nor a charity, but a duty and responsibility of developed countries. It is also in their interest: the effects of the climate crisis are global. Without a goal, there are no financial flows, and without financing, there is no way to address the crisis. Launching the loss and damage fund The Loss and Damage Fund was established in 2022 at COP27, and its operationalization was agreed a year later at COP28. While the creation of the fund is welcome, it is only a first step in making it the channel of support so desperately needed by countries already suffering the worst impacts of the climate crisis. There are many challenges ahead. The Bonn meeting confirmed that the World Bank will be the interim administrator of the fund for the first four years. For civil society and developing countries in general, loss and damage must be recognized as the third pillar of climate action, alongside mitigation and adaptation. However, some developed countries seem to be suggesting that with the creation of the fund, it would no longer be necessary to include the issue as part of the new collective quantified climate finance goal, which does not make sense. Moreover, the amount that developed countries have pledged to the fund so far is less than 0.2% of what is needed annually. There is still no strategy that proposes how much contributing countries should contribute according to their responsibilities and capacities. The fund must be decentralized and involve civil society, indigenous communities, youth, women and other vulnerable groups from the outset to ensure that the money reaches those who need it. It must also be efficient and sufficient, providing financial and quality assistance as quickly as possible. On the other hand, developing countries, including those in Latin America and the Caribbean, must make efforts to monitor and report losses and damage in their territories, which often poses economic, technical and even methodological challenges that require support, training and guidance. The results of international climate negotiations are slow and the process often frustrating. The attitude of many industrialized countries, which shirk their responsibilities while enjoying development at the expense of the global climate balance, is disappointing. However, in the face of such a scenario, lowering our guard is not an option. The organized civil society working around these negotiations is a cause for hope. It is a demonstration of solidarity and competence that achieves results and does not give up. By being there, representing our region, we are contributing to this movement with the wisdom and strength that comes from the Global South. *Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney with AIDA y Javier Dávalos is the Director of AIDA's Climate Program.

June 19 2024 Climate Change, Human Rights

What you need to know about the “loss and damage” of the climate crisis

Recent flooding in the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul has forced more than 500,000 people from their homes, turning them into climate refugees and causing millions of dollars in crop and livestock losses. Meanwhile, in Panama, some 300 coastal families had to leave Cartí Sugdupu, an island threatened by rising sea levels, and be relocated to a government-built settlement off the Caribbean coast. These types of negative impacts of extreme weather events, which occur despite or because of the lack of mitigation and adaptation measures, are technically referred to as "loss and damage" of the climate crisis. Scientific evidence shows that these losses and damages are already occurring, will increase, and are unevenly distributed, with a disproportionate impact on developing countries and vulnerable groups. This issue - key to international climate negotiations - is closely linked to the concept of climate justice, as it raises the question of who should pay for the losses and damages in the poorest countries, which bear little historical responsibility for the climate emergency. In this text, we address the basic aspects of this issue, which is becoming increasingly relevant and requires urgent action. What counts as loss and damage? Let's start by breaking down the term a little further: "Loss" refers to what is permanently lost due to the climate crisis, such as human and other species’ lives, territories, water sources, ecosystems, livelihoods, cultural heritage, and languages. "Damage" refers to what has been affected by the climate crisis but can be restored or rebuilt, such as impacts on physical and mental health, soils, roads, schools, homes, health centers, and businesses. Loss and damage are usually divided into two categories, which may overlap: Economic. Loss and damage can be assigned a monetary value: destruction of assets such as houses or cars, loss of livelihoods such as crops or livestock, reduced productivity due to lost working hours, damage to basic infrastructure or disruption of supply chains. This can occur at the international, national or local level. Non-economic. Loss and damage that is difficult to measure in monetary terms. They include loss of human life, damage to health, the trauma of forced displacement, and impacts on culture, language, heritage, identity, etc. This category also includes the loss or reduction of biodiversity, the extinction of species, and the disruption or loss of ecosystem services, such as the production of oxygen by a forest. In international climate negotiations, however, the term takes on a different meaning. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change refers to efforts to "avert, minimize and address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, especially in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change." The terms "avoid" and "minimize" generally refer to mitigation and adaptation, respectively, while the word "address" refers to actions to deal with the impacts of the climate crisis that could not be avoided. How much money is needed to address loss and damage? Discussions on loss and damage, which address issues such as liability and compensation, have been contentious in international negotiations. Developed countries – historically responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that have warmed the planet – have resisted possible agreements that would hold them accountable and make them pay for the loss and damage their emissions have caused and continue to cause. How big is the bill? According to a report published by the Loss and Damage Collaboration, 55 of the most climate-vulnerable economies will suffer losses of more than $500 billion between 2000 and 2020, and this could increase by a similar amount in the following decade. Other estimates put the annual cost of loss and damage at $400 billion by 2030. In Latin America, according to a 2019 study, losses and damages due to the climate crisis are expected to reach $462 billion by 2050 and could rise to $891 billion by 2070. What is being done to address loss and damage? Although the issue of loss and damage has emerged in international climate negotiations for more than three decades, it only gained momentum in 2013. That year, at the 19th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP19), countries established the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage with a mandate to share knowledge, strengthen dialogue among stakeholders, and mobilize expertise to strengthen action and support on the issue. In 2015, developing countries successfully lobbied for the inclusion of an article on loss and damage in the Paris Agreement (a legally binding international treaty in force since 2016), but the issue of finance was left out. This brings us to the next milestone, which occurred at COP27 in Egypt in 2022, when it was agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund to provide financial support to developing countries. A year later, at COP28 in Dubai, the launch of the fund was agreed, including the rules of operation and other key aspects, like an invitation to the World Bank to act as interim manager for the first four years. In June 2024, during the Bonn negotiations, the World Bank accepted the invitation to manage the fund, and discussions began to make it operational. Civil society is calling for loss and damage to be recognized as the third pillar of climate action (alongside mitigation and adaptation), but developed countries are resisting, suggesting that the creation of the fund would be sufficient and even suggesting that loss and damage should not be part of the new global finance goal. While welcome, the existence of the fund is only the first step in making it what is so desperately needed by countries suffering the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Challenges include: Financing. Developed countries have so far pledged US$700 million, less than 0.2% of what is needed ($400 billion). Governance. Among other things, the World Bank must ensure the independence and integrity of the fund's Board and Secretariat, that all countries party to the Paris Agreement have direct access to resources (even if they are not members of the Bank), and that resources are delivered in a sufficient and efficient manner. Participation. The Fund requires a decentralized structure and the participation of civil society, indigenous communities, youth, women and other vulnerable groups from the outset to ensure that the money reaches those who need it. Access. The fund should provide direct access to funding, not only to national authorities, but also to civil society organizations and affected communities. Inventories. Developing countries need to monitor and report losses and damage on their territory, which requires economic and technical resources. sources - United Nations Environment Programme, "About Loss and damage". - Preety Bhandari, Nate Warszawski, Deirdre Cogan y Rhys Gerholdt, "What Is 'Loss and Damage' from Climate Change? 8 Key Questions, Answered", World Resources Institute. - United Nations, "Loss and Damage: A Moral Imperative to Act". - The Loss & Damage Collaboration, "WHAT IS LOSS AND DAMAGE?". - The London School of Economics and Political Science, "What is climate change ‘Loss and Damage’?". - Navin Singh Khadka, "COP27: what does the concept of 'loss and damage' mean for extreme weather pitting rich and poor countries against each other," BBC Mundo. - Alejandra Cuéllar, "COP27: What are losses and damages, and what do they mean for Latin America?", Climate Tracker. - Adriana Abramovits, “The Loss and Damage Fund, why is it not what civil society expected?”, Dejusticia.

June 04 2024 Oceans, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

Maritime shipping: what’s being done to reduce emissions?

Maritime transport is the activity of moving goods from one destination to another by sea. It is fundamental to trade and accounts for 80% of global shipping. However, it is also a major source of pollution, particularly greenhouse gases that warm the planet and other pollutants that harm human health. The sector therefore needs to decarbonize its activities by reducing its emissions, both in transport and in the loading and unloading of goods at ports around the world. How many emissions does international shipping produce? Every year, 10 billion tons of cargo are transported by sea, accounting for 2.9% of global greenhouse gas emissions - including carbon dioxide (CO₂) - a percentage close to that of Japan. This is because ships use enormous amounts of oil to move, emitting nearly 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases. The above figures do not include emissions generated at cargo ports, which are not automated and use fossil fuels. The main energy source for ships moving goods around the world is heavy fuel oil, a highly polluting fossil fuel that produces CO₂ emissions that accelerate global warming. In 2023, greenhouse gas emissions from shipping will be 20% higher than they were 10 years ago, according to the United Nations. And projections published by the European Environment Agency indicate that they could reach 17% of global emissions by 2050 if no action is taken to decarbonize the sector. The warming and subsequent melting of the Arctic - the geographic region around the North Pole - is evidence of the impact of shipping emissions on the global climate: According to the Clean Arctic Alliance, the Arctic —one of the world's most important climate regulators— is warming up to four times faster than the rest of the planet. Much of this is due to emissions of black carbon, or soot, from shipping, which is the residue left after heavy fuel is burned on ships. Black carbon is emitted in both gaseous and solid forms. As a gas, it contributes to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere; as a solid particle, it accelerates the melting of snow and ice. How do ship emissions affect human health? International shipping generates pollutants such as black carbon and particulate matter that affect human health. According to the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, which reviewed 32 studies on shipping emissions, the industry could be responsible for an estimated 265,000 premature deaths worldwide in 2020. This means that 0.5% of global mortality would be associated with its emissions. Although air pollution from shipping is a global problem, it disproportionately affects coastal populations, especially those living near ports and other industrial facilities. Who is responsible for preventing emissions from shipping? The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for setting standards for safe, efficient, and environmentally sound shipping. In 2023, the 175 countries that make up the IMO agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry by 20-30% (compared to 2008) by 2030 and by at least 70% by 2040. The pact is complemented by a target to achieve a zero emissions balance (so that gases released into the atmosphere are neutralized or offset by sinks) by "around 2050." Within this framework, meetings at the IMO in the coming months and until April 2025 will focus on achieving the decarbonization of shipping through a just energy transition. During this period, a range of technical and economic measures will be analyzed and discussed to achieve the objectives of the Ship Emissions Reduction Strategy. The main challenges of these efforts include: Meeting market demand for zero emission fuels in the volume required to power the entire global marine fleet. Bridging the cost gap between fossil fuels and low-emission fuels. Enabling ships to adapt their technology for a rapid transition to cleaner fuels. The process of decarbonizing maritime transport will require the combined efforts of various actors: States, companies, NGOs, and international governance organizations. It is a complex process that involves the entire global shipping chain. For the decarbonization of the sector to be equitable, it is necessary to take into account shared responsibilities as well as the different needs and capacities of countries in the face of the costs of phasing out fossil fuels in maritime transport. It must also consider the impact that global warming is already having on economically and climatically vulnerable countries, such as islands, least developed and developing countries. sources - International Maritime Organization, "Introduction to the IMO". - Natalie Mueller, "Maritime transport: the forgotten pollution", Barcelona Institute for Global Health. - Michelle Carrere, "Agreements to reduce shipping emissions considered ‘weak’ by environmental organizations", Mongabay. -Paula Mateu, "Maritime transport will reduce emissions by 30% in 2030 but NGOs see it as insufficient", La Vanguardia.

Vista panorámica de La Oroya, Perú, en 2024.

May 24 2024 Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Warning of increased contamination in La Oroya and slow progress by the State to comply with the Inter-American Court ruling

The State's progress in implementing the international court's ruling has been slow and insufficient. Meanwhile, a high level of sulphur dioxide has recently been registered in the Andean city due to the partial reactivation of the metallurgical complex and the lack of prevention, warning, monitoring and control measures by the state. Two months after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its ruling in the case "La Oroya Community vs. Peru," the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH), organizations that legally represent the victims, warned at a press conference that the Peru is making slow and insufficient progress in effectively complying with the ruling. The ruling, issued on March 22 and considered a landmark in international law, established Peru’s responsibility for violating the rights of La Oroya residents affected by decades of toxic contamination. The international tribunal ordered comprehensive remedial measures, including environmental cleanup, reduction and mitigation of polluting emissions, air quality monitoring, free and specialized medical care, compensation, and a resettlement plan for the affected people. Increased pollution in La Oroya The organizations also denounced that the government’s slow action is occurring in the midst of an increase in the presence of toxic contamination in the area due to the partial reactivation of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex and the lack of prevention, warning, monitoring and control measures by the state. According to the Environmental Monitoring System of the Environmental Evaluation and Control Agency, a high presence of sulfur dioxide has recently been recorded in La Oroya, which makes it imperative that Peru take urgent action based on its international responsibility. One of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court is to ensure that the operations of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex comply with international environmental standards, preventing and mitigating damage to the environment and human health. Challenges in implementing the ruling During the press conference, Rosa Peña, Senior Attorney for AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program, said: "The ruling is a great opportunity for the State of Peru to prevent and better manage the environmental impacts of mining and metallurgical activities, as well as to improve health care for people exposed to contamination. The Court has already identified the key aspects, now it is up to the State as a whole to ensure a good implementation that will serve as an example for other cases at national and international levels." Christian Huaylinos, coordinator of the legal sector of APRODEH, emphasized the need for an articulated multisectoral work: "A coordinated effort of the three levels of the state—local, regional and national—is needed to advance in the effective compliance of the sentence. In addition, clear mechanisms must be put in place to ensure the effective participation of victims in the implementation of the orders issued by the Court." Community demands Yolanda Zurita, a petitioner in the case, emphasized the community's frustration with the lack of prompt and effective action: "We, as a population, need to feel and see that there is compliance. It is not possible that after 20 years of litigation, and after the Court's ruling has been made public, there are officials who claim to be ignoring the ruling." The Inter-American Court's ruling not only focuses on reparations for direct victims, but also includes restitution measures and guarantees of non-repetition for the entire population of La Oroya and the country. It defines parameters for the proper conduct of mining and metallurgical operations in Peru, in defense of the environment and health. The ruling is an important precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment in Latin America and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities. AIDA and APRODEH urge the Peruvian government to comply with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court and to take immediate action to protect the environment and health of the community of La Oroya. press contact Víctor Quintanilla-Sangüeza (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +52 5570522107

Finca Cristo Negro, Los Cedros, El Salvador. Foto: Roberto Peña en Unsplash.

April 20 2024 Climate Change, Human Rights

Leading participatory monitoring processes for Green Climate Fund financed projects

The Green Climate Fund (GCF), a multilateral climate fund under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), allocates funding for projects and programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resilience to climate change impacts in developing countries. To date, the GCF board has approved 243 projects worldwide, committing 13.5 billion USD in total. Notably, approximately 26% of these projects and programs target Latin America. This financial mechanism has become a lynchpin of the climate finance architecture, challenging conventional approaches to international projects. It is governed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries (UNFCCC designations); robust environmental and social policies rooted in human rights; an indigenous people’s policy, backed by an advisory group that interfaces with the Secretariat and the Board; a stated preference for maximal information disclosure; a seat for active observers representing civil society organizations; strong ties to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement; and an explicit mandate to include a gender perspective. In fact, all approved projects and programs are required to integrate a Gender Action Plan (GAP). In addition, the GCF is mandated by its own policies to facilitate stakeholder participation mechanisms. These mechanisms encompass representation from diverse sectors, including the private sector, civil society organizations, vulnerable groups, women, and indigenous peoples. Though implementation of these safeguards and progressive policies is far from perfect, their existence lays the groundwork for stronger future implementation. Civil society, including feminist movements and organizations, engage with the GCF as a climate finance mechanism that should continue to be strengthened. The explicit analysis and commitment mandated for each project regarding social and gender considerations not only facilitate engagement but also uphold accountability. In late 2022, partner organizations of the Global Alliance for Green and Gender Action (GAGGA), including the International Analog Forestry Network (IAFN), Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, AIDA), Fondo Centroamericano de Mujeres (Central American Women’s Fund, FCAM), Fondo Tierra Viva (Tierra Viva Fund) and Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO), collectively launched a pilot initiative. The project aimed to facilitate participatory monitoring of the implementation of the project FP089 Upscaling climate resilience measures in the dry corridor agroecosystems of El Salvador (RECLIMA). 3 RECLIMA was approved by the Board of Directors of the GCF during its 21st meeting (B.21) in 2018. For the fieldwork, an alliance was formed with Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña (Salvadorean Ecological Unit, UNES), a local ecofeminist NGO advocating for environmental and gender justice in El Salvador. The main objective of this project was to pioneer a participatory monitoring process for a GCF-funded project, with specific emphasis on gender equality. Each participating organization approached this collaborative initiative with genuine curiosity, eager to explore its feasibility and potential impact. There was also a collective commitment to openly share information about the process, results, challenges, and lessons learned. This report aims to summarize the outcomes of this exercise, providing an overview of the RECLIMA project and highlighting the importance of gender equality and participatory monitoring within climate projects; as well as sharing primary findings and key recommendations, tailored to GCF Accredited and Executing Entities. Read and download the report

Casas de madera a orillas del río Dulce en Guatemala

April 19 2024 Climate Change, Human Rights

How the Inter-American Court can help protect human rights in the face of the climate emergency

The climate crisis has been identified as the most urgent problem facing humanity and the greatest threat to human rights. In this context, what obligations do States have to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from its effects? The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights provide a powerful answer to this question, since their purpose is to specify the content and scope of the obligations to protect human rights that the States of the Americas have under their domestic laws and the treaties or conventions they have signed. The international court is currently in the process of issuing an advisory opinion to clarify these obligations, specifically regarding the climate crisis. The interpretations provided by the Court in this case will strengthen the arguments of organizations, communities, and other actors who decide to initiate climate litigation before national or international tribunals. It’s important, then, to understand what these advisory opinions are, why they are important, and how they relate to climate litigation; as well as this opinion’s potential for moving the region toward climate justice. What are the Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights? The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court are pronouncements issued by this international court—at the request of both the members of the Organization of American States (OAS) and of some of its affiliated organizations—in order to interpret international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights, to clarify their scope, to determine the specific obligations they impose, and to develop the guarantees they provide to the inhabitants of the continent. They are important because they consolidate the correct understanding of human rights and thus guide States on how to guarantee and apply them within their territory or jurisdiction. A clear example is Advisory Opinion 23 of 2017, in which the Court set a historic precedent by recognizing the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence and for the first time pronouncing on the content of this right. These declarations contribute to a better understanding of the obligations, authorizations and prohibitions deriving from each of the rights recognized in the international treaties signed by the countries of the continent. They therefore constitute a relevant element in determining the responsibility of a State for possible human rights violations resulting from its actions or omissions. What is the process by which advisory opinions are issued? Any member of the OAS or any of its member institutions may request an advisory opinion to ask the Inter-American Court how to interpret its provisions or those of "other treaties for the protection of human rights" in the hemisphere. The questions must be specific and justified. Once the consultation is received, the Court informs all member states and the organs of the Inter-American Human Rights System so that they may submit their written comments. At the same time, a period of time shall be opened for any interested person or entity to submit to the Court its considerations on the issues raised and how they should be resolved. The Court will then, if it deems it necessary, convene oral hearings to hear the States and other actors involved in the process. It may also ask questions and seek clarification on the written submissions it has received. The Court will then deliberate the matter in closed session and adopt the relevant decision, which will be communicated by its secretariat to all parties to the proceedings. How do advisory opinions contribute to climate litigation? Climate litigation has emerged as an important and increasingly popular tool in the fight against the climate crisis. It is essentially strategic litigation that seeks broad societal change through judicial decisions that hold governments, corporations, and stakeholders accountable for the causes and impacts of the climate crisis. Advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court can help achieve these judgments by providing authoritative interpretations of human rights treaties adopted by states in the region. They serve as a legal benchmark for judging the actions or inactions of state entities and private actors under their control that have exacerbated or threaten to exacerbate the climate crisis. Treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights establish guarantees for life with dignity, personal integrity and health, which can be invoked before courts as a basis for the obligations of States to adopt actions to adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis. Thus, the advisory opinions offer solid arguments to demand compliance with such actions as a way to protect human rights. Opportunities of the ongoing advisory opinion for climate justice In January 2023, Colombia and Chile requested an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court to clarify the scope of States' human rights obligations in the context of the climate emergency. Both States stated that their populations and others in the continent are suffering the consequences of the global crisis, particularly due to droughts, floods, and fires, among others. Therefore, they consider it necessary for the Court to determine the appropriate way to interpret the American Convention and the rights recognized therein "in what is relevant to address the situations generated by the climate emergency, its causes and consequences." This will be the first time that the international court will rule on the mandates, prohibitions, and authorizations to be derived from human rights in the specific context of the negative impacts of the climate emergency on individuals and communities in the continent. Once issued, this advisory opinion will clarify the legal obligations of Latin American states to address the climate crisis as a human rights issue. The Court's opinion could compel governments to recognize their competence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support adaptation measures, and establish mechanisms to address loss and damage. Given this unique opportunity, AIDA is participating in the public consultation convened by the Court before it issues its Opinion. We have submitted a legal brief with arguments demonstrating the existence of an autonomous human right to a "stable and safe climate" as part of the universal right to a healthy environment, and the consequent obligations of states to prevent and avoid the harmful effects of the climate emergency on their inhabitants. In addition, we are supporting diverse communities in the region to bring their voices to the process and be heard by the Court by submitting other legal briefs that highlight the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on indigenous peoples, women, children, populations with diverse gender orientations and identities, and fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. We are also supporting the participation of community representatives in the hearings of the case, which the Court has scheduled for April and May in Barbados and Brazil, respectively. The climate justice movement in Latin America and around the world is growing stronger and more effective, fueled by successful climate litigation and important precedents such as the advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Vista panorámica de La Oorya, Perú, en 2016

April 15 2024 Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

Community of La Oroya wins landmark ruling to stop environmental damage in Latin America

After more than 20 years, the residents of the town of La Oroya in the Peruvian Andes have found justice, opening a major new avenue for protecting a healthy environment throughout the continent. In an unprecedented decision, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found Peru guilty of violating their human rights by failing to act in a timely and effective manner to protect them from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex that has operated in their community for nearly 90 years. "Twenty years ago, when this struggle began, I carried my banner saying that children's health is worth more than gold," recalls Don Pablo, a resident of La Oroya. "We never gave up, and now I am very happy with the Court's decision.” La Oroya is located in the central mountain range of Peru, in the department of Junín, approximately 176 km from Lima. In 1992, the US company Cerro de Pasco Cooper Corporation installed the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex to process ore concentrates. The complex was nationalized in 1974 and operated by the state until 1997, when it was taken over by Doe Run Peru, which operated it until 2009. For generations, the inhabitants of La Oroya have inhaled toxic substances that pose serious risks to human health. Heavy metal contamination has invaded their respiratory system, traveled through their bloodstream, and been imperceptibly deposited in several of their vital organs. Most of those affected had lead levels above those recommended by the World Health Organization, and in some cases higher levels of arsenic and cadmium, in addition to stress, anxiety, skin disorders, stomach problems, chronic headaches, and respiratory or cardiac problems. In 1997, AIDA became involved in defending the rights of the La Oroya community. Our publication La Oroya No Espera (La Oroya Cannot Wait), published in 2002, helped bring the gravity of the situation to international attention. In 2006, in the absence of effective responses in Peru, we joined an international coalition of organizations in filing a complaint against Peru before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In 2021, the Commission established the responsibility of the Peruvian government in the case and referred it to the Inter-American Court. In October 2022, more than 16 years after the complaint was filed, the victims presented the case to the Court in a public hearing, represented by AIDA and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), with the support of Earthjustice. Since 2009, when the metallurgical complex ceased operations due to Doe Run Peru's financial crisis, the levels of heavy metal contamination have not been reduced to acceptable levels. Nor has the situation of those affected improved significantly in recent years. Although the Peruvian government has known since 2009 that all children living near the complex are suffering from lead poisoning, it has not provided them with adequate medical care. But there is no deadline that will not be met. On March 22, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights gave a powerful response to more than two decades of seeking justice. The Court found that Peru was guilty of violating the rights to a healthy environment, health, personal integrity, life with dignity, access to information, political participation, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection of the 80 people involved in the case; of violating the rights of the children of 57 victims; and of violating the right to life of two others. "This is the first judgment that recognizes the international responsibility of a state for violating the right to a healthy environment and other related rights," says Rosa Peña, AIDA Senior Attorney. Ver esta publicación en Instagram In addition, the Court ordered the State to adopt measures of integral reparation for the damage caused to the people of La Oroya. These include the prosecution and punishment of those who harassed the residents for their environmental defense work; the preparation of a remediation plan for air, soil, and water contamination; the provision of free and specialized medical care to the victims, as well as to other residents with symptoms and illnesses related to mining and metallurgical activities; the updating of air quality regulations to ensure the protection of the environment and human health; the provision of monetary compensation to the victims; and the creation of an air, water, and soil quality monitoring system. It also ordered that the operations of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex—which was transferred to the workers of Doe Run Peru as part of the company's liquidation—comply with international environmental standards and prevent and mitigate damage to the environment and human health. The Court's decision is not only a unique opportunity to restore the dignity and rights of the people of La Oroya. Its scope extends beyond the Peruvian context, making it an important precedent in Latin America for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities. Among other things, the Court established the obligations of states to regulate, monitor and control air and water quality, to identify sources of pollution, and to implement plans to enforce air and water quality standards. The Court held that in order to establish state liability for environmental damage, it is sufficient to show that the state, despite being aware of the existence of high levels of pollution, failed to take adequate measures and thus allowed the pollution to continue, thereby posing a significant risk to human health. In light of the judgment, states must prevent human rights abuses by public and private enterprises. Businesses, for their part, must prevent their activities from causing or contributing to human rights abuses and take steps to remedy such abuses. Defending the right to a healthy environment has been part of AIDA's history since our inception and has always been a collective effort. We celebrate and recognize all the people who, from different sectors, roles and capacities, made possible the historic result of the La Oroya case. With renewed vigor, we will work for the proper implementation of the judgment and for the establishment of new important precedents that will guarantee in practice the universal right to a healthy environment in the region.

April 08 2024 Human Rights

Celebrating the appointment of Astrid Puentes Riaño as UN Special Rapporteur

On April 5, during its 55th session, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed Astrid Puentes Riaño as the new UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. For 18 years, as co-executive director of AIDA, Puentes Riaño led efforts across Latin America to uphold the right to a healthy environment and protect affected communities from environmental harms. Her strategic vision and powerful command of public interest law and advocacy has left a lasting contribution on both AIDA and the larger movement for climate justice in the region. She will be the first woman and first person from the Global South, and the third Special Rapporteur, to assume this important mandate. Gladys Martínez de Lemos, executive director of AIDA, expressed: “Astrid’s career has long been focused on protecting the right to a healthy environment, as a leader of the movement in Latin America. Her new role as Special Rapporteur is a natural and well-deserved progression, and we know her continued leadership on the international stage will strengthen efforts towards climate and environmental justice around the world.” In May Puentes Riaño will replace David R. Boyd, who made tremendous strides as Rapporteur, including the UN recognition of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right. Boyd is a former member of AIDA’s Board of Directors. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate is an essential nexus of environmental and human rights defense, as it exists to: examine human rights obligations linked to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; promote best practice in the use of human rights in policy making; identify challenges and obstacles to the global recognition and implementation of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; and conducting country visits and responding to human rights violations.

Vista aérea de la Reserva Nacional Kawésqar, Chile

April 04 2024 Indigenous Rights, Oceans, Human Rights

The Kawésqar people and the defense of their "maritorio" in Chile

By Liliana Ávila and Cristina Lux* A little over a month ago, the community Kawésqar Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar sent us a very special invitation. The appointment was near the sea, near their territory, or more precisely, near their "maritorio", a place of islands, islets and archipelagos. There, the borders between sea and land are blurred and the trees grow sideways, adapted to the strong winds. The maritorio is a concept and also a way of inhabiting and understanding the world. It evokes the image of "territory", but seen from and in the sea. As a concept, it emerged in the context of what is known as nisology, or the study of islands. The place we visited is located in the fjords of Magallanes, the southernmost region of Chile, about two hours from Punta Arenas, the regional capital. The Kawésqar people tell us that less than a century ago, this maritorio was their home. There, their grandfathers and grandmothers sailed among the fjords, built their canoes, fished and dived. They went into the icy sea without special neoprene suits, protected with sea lion oil, and there they learned the secrets that its depths held. In the midst of fjords, winds and intense climates, these people developed their own systems of thought and life. But the lives of the Kawésqar have changed radically in recent decades. They tell us so. The vast territory that previous generations inhabited for centuries is now enclosed. The process of eradication has been accompanied by the commercialization of the land, the creation of extensive pastures and, more recently, the development and expansion of the salmon farming industry. Industrial salmon production has serious and lasting impacts on marine ecosystems. The communities of Kawésqar are well aware of this. Salmon is an exotic and carnivorous species for Chile, raised in huge farms: hectares of cages in the sea. The introduction of exotic species (which threaten native species), the excessive use of antibiotics, salmon escapes, the generation of waste, the treatment of large quantities of dead salmon, the excessive discharge of organic matter into the sea, and the generation of anaerobic environments (total or partial loss of oxygen necessary for life to thrive) are just some of the impacts of salmon farming in Chile. These impacts not only accumulate in the waters and on the seabed, but also penetrate the lives of the Kawésqar communities. The maritorio that their grandfathers and grandmothers sailed is now a desecrated space. The processes of reconstructing their identity, the appropriation of sacred places and the rites that are part of their collective memory have been affected by the development of an industry that sees the sea only as a space of economic exploitation and not as the sacred place where, in the not so distant past, men and women developed their worldviews and ways of life. Despite everything, the Kawésqar are a living people who meet, who gather around the sea and discuss strategies to rebuild their cultural fabric. They also come together to honor their grandfathers and grandmothers, to activate the genetic memory that connects them to the sea, to dive into its waters and fight for a salmon-free sea and for a country that recognizes the cultural diversity that runs through its history. We also connect with the legacy of the Kawésqar. Swimming with people from the community in these seas that have been navigated for thousands of years allowed us to look out a window that blurs the present and shows us alternatives. A present that allows life and coexistence with the sea, its ecosystems and its balance. Their struggle— supported by AIDA, the NGO FIMA, Greenpeace and many other organizations— has borne fruit. It has highlighted the impact of salmon farming in Chile and the need to end our dependence on it. But the challenges are still enormous. Salmon farming continues to ravage the seas inside and outside protected areas, in the most remote areas of Patagonia, occupying spaces that were once shared by all the peoples and creatures that inhabited the territory. Meanwhile, the people of Kawésqar continue to travel through their territory —rewarded and lived in and from the sea— identifying and recomposing their history, swimming in the waters that surround them. They do not lose hope of returning to their sea; they to continue to exist in it. *Liliana Avila is coordinator of AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program; Cristina Lux is an attorney with the Climate Program.