Human Rights

Indigenous Rights, Accountability and Transparency, Human Rights

Indigenous victory as development bank withdraws investment and drafts exit plan following rights violation in Guatemala

In a historic advance, the Inter-American Development Bank has designed a responsible exit plan to accompany their divestment from two controversial large dams in the Yichk'isis micro-region of Guatemala. Affected Mayan communities celebrate the decision, a response to their 2018 complaint, while acknowledging that the Bank has several challenges left to confront.   Washington, DC, U.S.A. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) announced its decision to withdraw financing from the San Mateo and San Andrés hydroelectric projects, run by the company Energía y Renovación S.A. in the micro-region of Yichk'isis (Ixquisis) in northern Guatemala. The Bank designed a responsible exit and institutional strengthening plan to address the weaknesses the case revealed. The Bank’s decision stems from a complaint affected Mayan communities filed in 2018 before the IDB Group's Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI, for it’s Spanish initials). In resolving the complaint, the accountability office concluded that IDB Invest failed to comply with the bank’s operational policies and safeguards in the framework of project financing, and opened the possibility of a withdrawal of investment. "It’s an opportunity for the bank to take into account the lessons learned from the case: among them the relevance of understanding the local contexts of projects, the socio-cultural dynamics of the populations that will be directly affected, and the local perspective of development to determine the viability of the financing," says Liliana Avila, senior attorney of the Human Rights and Environment Program of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). "It is also an opportunity for the bank to strengthen the monitoring and supervision of the projects it supports in order to prevent non-compliance.” The divestment was finalized in October 2021, when IDB Invest and Energía y Renovación S.A. signed settlement agreements. Notably, this is the first time that the IDB Group, as a result of a complaint, has drawn up a plan to make its exit responsible. However, there are still challenges and pending issues that the financial institution must address in the process of exiting hydroelectric projects. "In order to prepare the responsible exit plan, IDB Invest must carry out consultation processes with the affected communities, which will largely define the plan's capacity to effectively address and offer viable solutions to the damages recognized in the MICI report, such as the increase in conflict, the lack of knowledge of the existence of indigenous peoples and their rights, the effects on ancestral cultural heritage, the differentiated impacts on women and the lack of prevention and consequent environmental degradation," said Carolina Juaneda, of the Bank Information Center. "If these issues are not addressed and included in the responsible exit plan, all this effort will not have been worthwhile since, ultimately, it will not lead to any improvement or reconstitution of living conditions for the affected people and the environment." The action plan proposed by the entity establishes that IDB Invest will create a transition plan translated into the native languages of the affected communities, as well as a gender-differentiated impact assessment, and an investment to promote financial inclusion and women's empowerment in the area. In addition, the plan contains actions to address MICI's recommendations for structural changes at the institutional level. In this regard, the bank plans to strengthen the environmental and social safeguards unit of IDB Invest in the area of indigenous peoples, as well as to establish a zero tolerance policy for gender-based violence, which will be included in the contractual conditions of operations approved by the bank. Existing protocols will include tools to follow up on acts of violence associated with projects financed by IDB Invest. Regarding the categorization of projects, an update will be made so that the internal supervision classification will be modified to a higher one when circumstances are identified that raise the risks and impacts of a project after its financing was approved. "The bank's responsibility in the investment process and in the non-compliance with its social and environmental safeguards is evident; therefore, it must promote during the exit process the effectiveness of the actions in a participatory manner, free of manipulation and in an inclusive manner with the community to reduce the risks of re-victimization and violation of the affected population," indicates Mara Bocaletti, Director of the International Platform against Impunity. "This experience is a first step to maximize the benefits in the territories so as to make amends for the damage caused." The communities submitted their complaint to MICI in August 2018 with the accompaniment of AIDA, the International Platform against Impunity and the Plurinational Ancestral Government of the Akateko, Chuj, Q'anjob'al and Popti' Native Nations. In it, they requested that IDB Invest withdraw its investment due to the damage that the implementation of the projects has caused to the environment, indigenous peoples and women of Ixquisis. In September 2021, the IDB Group Board of Directors approved the MICI report, which concluded that IDB Invest failed to comply with its own operational policies and safeguards for at least five reasons: 1) validating an inadequate characterization of the affected population, which denied the existence of indigenous peoples; 2) failing to verify the completion of an identification of gender-differentiated impacts on women; 3) failing to ensure that the client made an adequate identification and management of environmental impacts; 4) failing to ensure that the communities were properly informed and consulted; and 5) failing to carry out adequate monitoring of local conflict risks that could be generated in the area because of the projects. "The MICI report confirms that IDB Invest failed to comply with its policies, generating adverse impacts on the lives of the communities. The company Energía y Renovación did not act with due diligence in the framework of its operations and, on the contrary, has implemented strategies contrary to the respect of human rights. Currently, several indigenous authorities and human rights defenders are criminalized, making undeniable the continued risk for the communities," says Rigoberto Juárez, General Coordinator of the Plurinational Ancestral Government. "Given this evidence, it’s important that IDB Invest guarantee actions aimed at repairing the damages caused to the communities in the framework of the financing of these projects, and more strongly recognize its responsibility." press contacts: Victor Quintanilla (México), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107 Camila Castellanos, Plataforma Internacional contra la Impunidad, [email protected]  

Read more
Oceans, Human Rights

In Chile, progress for indigenous participation in decisions affecting their territories

In January, Chile’s Supreme Court ruled that indigenous communities have the right to be informed of and participate in decisions affecting their territory and way of life. The high court ordered industrial salmon farmer Nova Austral to engage in public participation processes prior to authorizing the relocation of four farms into the Kawésqar National Reserve. The government's Environmental Evaluation Service had authorized the relocation of those farms without implementing mechanisms for consultation with the Kawésqar communities, and later rejecting their requests for public participation. It did so by arguing that the farms posed no harmful environmental impacts. The case at hand Since 2018, AIDA has been working in strategic alliance with Greenpeace Chile and FIMA to exclude industrial salmon farming from protected areas in the Magallanes Region, in the heart of Chilean Patagonia, and to defend the rights of the Kawésqar peoples, ancestral inhabitants of the area's canals and fjords. By approving the relocation, the environmental authority ignored the effects that salmon farms have had in the Los Lagos region, in the extreme north of Patagonia, demonstrating the serious risks posed by the industry's expansion into the extreme south of Patagonia, still a pristine natural area. These effects include biological contamination from the introduction of exotic species, the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, and frequent mass salmon escapes, as well as the accumulation of food and feces on the seabed, generating total or partial loss of oxygen and red tides. The environmental agency also overlooked the fact that salmon farming is incompatible with the protection objectives of the Kawésqar National Reserve, one of which is "to comply with the fundamental demands of the Kawésqar people." In fact, when the reserve was created in 2018, an indigenous consultation process chose to exclude industrial aquaculture, considering the fragility of the ecosystems of the area and the indigenous cultural legacy, closely linked to the sea. An appeal for improvement Faced with the government’s authorization of salmon farming in their territory, Kawésqar communities—with the support of the coalition formed by AIDA, Greenpeace Chile and FIMA—filed an appeal before the Supreme Court for the protection of constitutional guarantees. The judgment in favor of public participation was significant due to the fact that Chile has often been questioned for its low standard of compliance with ILO Convention 169, the most important international instrument for guaranteeing indigenous rights, including the right to prior consultation. One of the main criticisms is that the regulation for incorporating indigenous consultation into the environmental assessment encourages this not to take place. This is particularly relevant in projects evaluated by Environmental Impact Statements, for which a consultative mechanism of lesser incidence is applied and which is subject to a great deal of discretion on the part of the authority to be carried out. Moreover, in precisely those cases—including the relocation of salmon farms— public participation is not mandatory, as it is for projects evaluated by environmental impact studies. This further diminishes the possibility for communities to have their voices heard in this type of procedure. The future of participation in Chile The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a contribution to the deepening of public participation as a tool to improve environmental decision-making. It highlights the voice of indigenous communities in matters affecting their ancestral territory. It also broadens the geographic scope of citizen participation by recognizing that these communities exercise a legitimate interest in environmental conservation, thus breaking with the idea that direct involvement depends only on their proximity to where people live. We hope that this is the first step to completely rejecting the installation of salmon farms in the Kawésqar National Reserve, in any protected area and, in general, in the seas of Chilean Patagonia.  

Read more
Coral reefs, Oceans, Human Rights

Reaffirming the legitimate protection of the right to a healthy environment

In December 2016, two women from Veracruz decided to defend the Veracruz Reef System in court. They sought to protect the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico from the expansion of the port of Veracruz, which would cause serious and irreversible impacts on the reef’s biodiversity and, by extension, the local population.  Residents of the Veracruz metropolitan area, represented by the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA), filed an injunction against the project because its environmental permit resulted from a fragmented impact assessment that did not consider the full range of risks to the reefs. AIDA supported our partners at CEMDA by filing an amicus brief with detailed information on the important services the reefs provide: sequestering carbon, generating oxygen, producing food, and protecting coastal areas from storms and hurricanes, among others. In April 2017, the court that heard the case rejected the injunction and, with it, the request to suspend work on the port expansion. The court argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the project had "a real and relevant impact" on their rights and that they lacked a "legitimate interest" in the case. Legitimate interest—also known as legal standing—refers to a person’s capacity to claim damages before a court of law, in any scope. In a traffic accident, for example, only you have the legitimate interest to claim the damages your vehicle may have suffered, which must be individual and quantifiable. However, in matters of environmental damage, the situation is more complex. The degradation of an ecosystem affects more than one person and even transcends generations.  The residents of Veracruz appealed the judicial setback and their case arrived before Mexico’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Given the lower court’s limitations in recognizing in its ruling the right of all people to equal access to justice in environmental matters, AIDA and Earthjustice filed a second legal brief before the Supreme Court, requesting an expansion of the requirements for legitimate interest. We provided legal and technical evidence regarding the human right to a healthy environment and access to justice, enshrined in international law. These rights mean that the Mexican government must ensure that anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental degradation has the possibility of achieving justice, regardless of whether their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. The Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide also contributed a brief that analyzes court decisions from various jurisdictions recognizing the right of any person, civil society organization, or local resident to file lawsuits against projects and decisions that may negatively affect the environment. Finally, on February 9, 2022, more than five years after the original lawsuit was filed, the residents of Veracruz won an important victory for the area’s reefs. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that government authorities violated the right to a healthy environment of the people of Veracruz by authorizing the port’s expansion. Since it was unopposed, the ruling creates a binding precedent for all courts of the nation. The Veracruz decision is a landmark ruling, valuable for not just Mexico but for the entire region because it: Ratifies that proximity to a project does not define who the affected people are or who can claim protection of their right to a healthy environment before the courts. Reaffirms that it is not necessary to prove quantifiable and individualized damage in order to have access to environmental justice; it is sufficient to demonstrate that a project or activity, by degrading an ecosystem, damages or threatens to cause damage (economic, social, cultural, health, etc.) to a community. Recognizes an expanded legitimate interest, as well as the collective nature of the right to a healthy environment and public participation in environmental assessment processes. Sets a precedent with the capacity to transform the way in which environmental impact assessments are carried out in Mexico, incorporating the principles of prevention and precaution. Points to Mexico's international obligations, including those acquired under the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement). As an organization and individuals, we are celebrating this important step toward strengthening the defense of the right to a healthy environment in the region. We are proud to have contributed to this achievement, and hopeful that the implementation of the ruling will be carried out according to the highest standards.  

Read more
Capacity Building, Climate Change, Human Rights

Climate litigation in Latin America and the Caribbean: Launching a regional platform

By Maria Antonia Tigre, Florencia Ortúzar and Javier Dávalos* With the largest rainforest in the world, the largest freshwater reserves on the planet and the most significant amount of arable land where food is produced, the importance of Latin America and the Caribbean in the fight against climate change is undeniable. Unfortunately, however, the region is also highly vulnerable to the damaging effects of the climate crisis, despite not being significant emitters of greenhouse gasses. As a result, human and environmental rights are being threatened in a context where defenders are constantly at risk. Sadly, the region has been recognized as the most dangerous for environmental and human rights defenders. Strategic climate litigation has slowly grown in the region as a critical tool to complement the work for the defense of the environment, the territory, and the protection of the rights of peoples and communities. Litigating in the Global South and Latin America is different from litigating in the Global North, with particular challenges that must be addressed strategically. Cases in some of the most dangerous countries for environmental defenders might render them more vulnerable to attacks and threats. A lack of resources might leave plaintiffs, who bravely stand up for the cause, unprotected, and not only from violence but from subtler maladies, such as emotional stress or stigmatization. Another huge obstacle is the grave corruption that affects the region, which implies excessive power for extractive companies. Corruption is a widespread and deeply rooted phenomenon, especially in multimillion-dollar industries such as fossil fuels and extractivism. There’s a risk that companies or governments might co-opt academics, and proving and battling corruption is extremely difficult and dangerous. Finally, one of the most severe obstacles to making climate litigation effective in Latin America and the Caribbean is the difficulty litigators face when implementing favorable decisions. LAC presents some encouraging but at the same time alarming statistics around climate litigation. Although the vast majority of cases that have been resolved so far have had favorable decisions, the implementation of these has, so far, been unsatisfactory. There is much to be done on this front, including identifying administrative deficiencies of States that influence the difficulty of enforcing decisions; and considering, from the planning stage of cases, which remedies are sought and how implementation will be demanded. Despite these challenges, climate litigation is already showing the power it beholds in promoting change. In Peru, a group of young people sued the government for failing to formulate and execute a national policy and plan to curb deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon (Álvarez et al. v Peru). In Colombia, the Wayúu indigenous communities promoted an action to annul the environmental permit of a colossal coal mine (Mina Cerrejon). In Mexico, Greenpeace promoted an injunction to stop atmospheric pollution and improve air quality in the State of Mexico (Greenpeace v Secretaría de Medio Ambiente). In Argentina, the Organización de Ambientalistas Organizados demanded that the Ministry of Environment halts the approval of offshore exploration of fossil fuels for its impacts on whales and climate change (Organización de Ambientalistas Organizados v Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development). In Ecuador, a group of nine girls questions the Ecuadorian State for authorizing oil companies to burn gas in the Ecuadorian Amazon (Caso Mecheros). In Chile, the NGO Defensoría Ambiental sued the government and all the companies operating in an emblematic sacrifice zone for the environmental damage caused after years of operations (Daño Ambiental en Ventanas). And these are only some examples.     The Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean has been created in this context. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), a regional NGO that uses the law to protect the environment and the human rights of communities, has been leading the effort in close collaboration with regional organizations and litigators who have been behind some of the cases in the region. AIDA launched the platform in a webinar, the recording of the event is available here. The Platform, which is maintained in Spanish, offers information on the judicial cases in the region that use climate arguments in a friendly and intuitive manner. It also includes a section of downloadable resources that might be useful for stakeholders who are planning on using the law to advance their cases. The goal is to promote more cases and better outcomes. Thus, the Platform is a tool to deliver, share strategies, experiences, and arguments on climate litigation, help create and strengthen alliances and facilitate contact between people who work in favor of the environment and climate. This initiative emanates from a collaboration with different organizations. It is a cross-cutting and participatory initiative that feeds on collective work. AIDA’s initiative fits well within the collaborative endeavors of the Sabin Center. In December 2021, the Sabin Center launched the Peer Review Network of Global Climate Litigation to enhance the field of study and practice in climate litigation and ensure broad and equal geographic representation in our Global Climate Litigation Database. The Network includes national rapporteurs who help us ensure the database is comprehensive and up-to-date. In addition, the Sabin Center is continuously partnering with regional initiatives that specifically analyze climate litigation within a national or regional context. As part of this ongoing effort, the Sabin Center has partnered with AIDA to share information and facilitate the exchange between collaborators of the two projects. The launch of this regional Climate Litigation Platform is not only great news for Latin America and the Caribbean but also for the whole active global community that uses the Courts in favor of the planet. Visit the Platform   *Maria Antonia Tigre is Global Climate Litigation Fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney at AIDA and Javier Dávalos is coordinator of AIDA's Climate Program.  

Read more
Coral reefs, Oceans, Human Rights

Supreme Court orders protection of Veracruz's reefs and wetlands

Mexico’s high court unanimously ruled that authorities violated the right to a healthy environment by authorizing the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. Environmental authorities failed to use the best scientific information, analyze the port expansion in a comprehensive manner, and consider all of its impacts. The ruling implies that the project’s approvals are unfounded and that its impacts must be re-evaluated, this time in a comprehensive manner, to determine the viability of the project.   Mexico City, Mexico — On February 9, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in a legal injunction filed to defend the Veracruz Reef System (SAV) and its environmental services against the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. The justices of the Court unanimously voted in favor of the draft ruling that protects the reefs of Veracruz and transforms the way the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure operates throughout the country. This decision underpins the protection of the right to a healthy environment, and it sets a new precedent that will change the way officials determine how projects are assessed by their environmental impact. The Court held that "the protection of wetlands is a national and international priority that has led our country to issue a strict regulation of this ecosystem and… any analysis made in relation to wetlands must be guided by a criterion of maximum precaution and prevention." The ruling pointed out that the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) violated the right to a healthy environment by authorizing the expansion project of the Port of Veracruz, since "it did not take into account the best scientific information available; it did not analyze or evaluate in a complete manner each one of the different environmental impacts that the project and its modification could cause, in addition to the fact that the project and the works related to it were analyzed in a fragmented manner." The Supreme Court’s ruling annuls the authorization for the port’s expansion and orders a complete reevaluation of the project’s environmental impacts and determination of the consequent viability of the project. "CEMDA filed this injunction, together with the community, to protect and contribute to the conservation of the Veracruz Reef System, as well as the reefs and the services they provide, since they are key to the well-being of the people living in the Veracruz-Boca del Río-Medellín conurbation," explained Xavier Martínez Esponda, CEMDA's Operational Director. The case sets a precedent that will transform the way in which Semarnat and state authorities conduct Environmental Impact Assessments in the country. Martinez Esponda pointed out that, "with this decision, the principles of prevention and precaution will have to become much more ingrained in the decision-making process. Likewise, authorities and investors should learn the lesson that it is more expensive, in all senses, not to present their projects in a complete manner, than to comply in time and form with the Environmental Impact Assessment." Background The Veracruz Reef System is a National Park and a wetland of international importance according to the Ramsar Convention. It has great environmental value as the largest reef system in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico. This reef system hosts the greatest biodiversity of species in the western Gulf of Mexico and is also home to several protected species, such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle. The SAV also helps mitigate the impact of storm surges and hurricanes, which have increased in frequency and intensity as a result of climate change. The Port of Veracruz expansion project was proposed in the late 1990s and its implementation included plans for new breakwater works, access and navigation channels, land access, terminals, and port facilities. These works will damage reefs and seagrasses in the area, as they will be impacted by the increased sedimentation caused by the construction works. Due to the importance of the case, international environmental protection organizations supported the process.  Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) delivered a joint amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of CEMDA’s filing with the court. Sandra Moguel, AIDA's attorney, emphasized that "it is not the proximity of a project that determines who are the affected people and who should have access to justice to defend their right to a healthy environment." In its brief, AIDA explains that international law obliges the Mexican government to allow anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental harm to access judicial remedies, even if their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. Guillermo Zuñiga, an attorney with Earthjustice, emphasized that his ties to this reef are important and personal: "I grew up in Veracruz.  I am a Xalapeño. That area gave birth to me, and I grew up swimming in the rivers and beaches of Veracruz with my family. I want the children of Veracruz to have the opportunity to enjoy the richness of its biodiversity as I did." Alejandra Serrano Pavón, a lawyer with the international organization Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW), was interested in the case because of the opportunity to encourage the Court to broadly interpret the right to access to justice in defense of the environment. ELAW presented an amicus brief that supported the filing, through which is provided examples from various countries around the world that recognize a broad interpretation of this right, which allows "any civil society organization or, at least residents of a place, to initiate a legal action to protect the environment." We widely celebrate this decision of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court, and we hope that in the process of executing the judgment, the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources complies with what it has been ordered to do under the highest standard of protection enshrined in the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, known as the Escazú Agreement. Underwritten by: AIDA Earthjustice ELAW CEMDA press contacts: Ricardo Ruiz, CEMDA, [email protected], 5559644162 Victor Quintanilla, AIDA, [email protected], 5570522107  

Read more
Large Dams, Freshwater Sources, Accountability and Transparency

IDB must guaranty a responsible exit from the Hidroituango project

Ongoing investigation of the project continues regardless of early repayment of loan​. The IDB Group concluded the loan for Hidroituango prematurely as they face uncertainty regarding project initiating operations. The investigation process regarding non-compliance with IDB policies in Hidroituango continues, regardless of the early termination of the loan. The construction of the Hidroituango dam, a project that has created a humanitarian and environmental crisis without precedent in Colombia, was financed by IDB Invest, the private lending arm of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which invested millions of dollars in the hydroelectric project and facilitated the investment of a billion additional dollars from other international development banks. The Office of the Transparency Hub of IDB Invest informed Movimiento Ríos Vivos (MRV) -which represents communities affected by HidroItuango - that the bank concluded its involvement in the project after receiving the advance repayment of funds from Empresas Públicas de Medellin (EPM). Further, it informed that the compliance investigation process currently underway at the Independent Consultation and Investigation Mechanism (MICI) to assess compliance with IDB policies will continue, separate from the exit from the project by IDB. Regarding the communication sent by IDB Invest to MRV, the movement and accompanying international organizations, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), stated the following: First, the undersigned organizations maintain that the continuation of the complaint before the MICI demonstrates a respect for the integrity and independence of the accountability mechanism and a commitment to respond to the concerns of communities affected by IDB financed projects. Furthermore, we would underline that the fact the IDB has concluded its involvement in the project, resulting from a voluntary repayment due to the uncertainty of reaching certain project milestones, does not imply the absence or the removal of the investment. Much to the contrary, the prepayment by EPM to the IDB Group demonstrates that the IDB effectively disbursed funds and financed the project, and that Hidroituango is an IDB branded project. Consequently, we believe that it is correct for the MICI, the accountability mechanism in this case, to continue its investigative functions, and that the Board and management of the Bank remain committed to the process and its findings. Secondly, as has been set forth by the MICI in recent reports recognizing the lack of compliance with environmental and social safeguards by the bank, such as the case of the San Mateo and San Andres hydroelectric projects in the microregion of Yich K’isis in Guatemala, “in case of exit from the Projects, IDB Invest should make the necessary provisions to ensure a responsible exit from the Operations”. We are confident that the payment of the debt by EPM to the IDB opens up a historic possibility for the bank to conclude its involvement in a responsible way, by creating an Exit Plan in participation with communities which allows for the restoration of affected livelihoods, thereby legitimizing the bank as a responsible international finance institution. This possibility brings hope to the MRV communities affected by the Hidroituango project, who have called for the end of the investment by the IDB and its responsible exit for years. Thirdly, the undersigned organizations expect the IDB to fulfill its commitment to transparency in its operations, guaranteeing the principle of maximum access to project information, in a straightforward and comprehensive manner, under the terms established in the bank’s access to information policy. It is under these terms that we will be requesting meetings with the Board of the IDB in the near future. Today the IDB has an opportunity to fulfill its commitment to maintain high standards of integrity, transparency and accountability within its operations not only in Colombia but throughout Latin America. For this reason, we insist on the need for i) decision-making to be more transparent about the remaining IDB Group investments or loans which currently finance this project, both from its public and private lending arm, as was set forth in the petition sent on December 6th, 2021, ii) that a responsible, effective and participatory exit plan be built with communities. Press contacts: Milena Florez, Movimiento Ríos Vivos (MRV), [email protected], +57 319 2131656 Carla García Zendejas, CIEL, [email protected], +1 202 374 2550 Yeny Rodríguez Junco, AIDA, [email protected], +57 310 7787 601  

Read more
Human Rights, Mining, Accountability and Transparency

Environmental responsibility through supply chains

This report emphasizes the importance of binding legislation for companies to comply with environmental aspects as well as human rights throughout their supply chains.The document reviews environmental impact assessments as an instrument of due diligence and corporate responsibility in their supply chains. It examines the independent monitoring of impacts of business operations, and reflects on environmental guarantees and human rights for the legislative processes of due diligence.   Download the publication 

Read more
Mining, Toxic Pollution, Climate Change

5 important advances for the environmental movement in 2021

Across the region and the world, civil society movements are becoming stronger and ensuring their voices are heard in important decision-making spaces. Actions born locally, and implemented across geography and ideology, are enabling progress on a common goal that transcends borders: the protection of our planet, and the people that most closely depend on it. The best cases and demands reach not only the highest level of their jurisdiction, but set replicable precedents for the movement at large. Given the considerable stress of the year, we wanted to take a moment to look at some of the good things that happened in 2021, all of which will help further and strengthen our work. These five advances were achieved thanks to countless activists, advocates, academics and governments from Latin America, and the world. They’re helping pave the way for accountability, the protection of human rights, and new legal tools that strengthen the global movement for climate and environmental justice.   1. Escazú Agreement enters into force On Earth Day 2021, the region celebrated the entry into force of the Escazú Agreement, the first environmental rights treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean and the only in the world to enshrine protection for environmental defenders. Escazú seeks to guarantee access to information, public participation and justice in environmental matters, all of which are necessary to facilitate the work and protect the lives of environmental defenders. It also recognizes the need for protection measures for communities in vulnerable situations. With the ratification of Argentina and Mexico, the necessary accessions for this breakthrough were achieved. The agreement is also the result of many years of work by civil society, a sector that promoted the development of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which is key to guaranteeing the human right to a healthy and sustainable environment. Now that it has entered into force, governments must integrate the responsibilities that Escazú establishes into their domestic systems so that defenders and communities can use it to their advantage. Only then will it truly be effective. 2. Court orders Shell to cut emissions by nearly half In a landmark ruling in the citizens' struggle for climate justice, the District Court of The Hague ordered the Anglo-Dutch company Shell to reduce its emissions by 45 percent by 2030. The verdict provides, for the first time, that a company and its subsidiaries must align their policies with global emissions reduction targets, such as those stipulated in the Paris Agreement. It sets a global precedent that was reached thanks to a lawsuit filed by several civil society organizations and more than 17,000 Dutch citizens. The main objective of the lawsuit was not to obtain financial compensation for damages, but to force the oil company to reduce its emissions. This case opened the discussion about the responsibility of companies in aggravating the climate crisis, and was a pioneer in the application of the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Niels Hazekam, Senior Policy Advisor at Both Ends, one of the organizations involved in the lawsuit, explained the details of the Shell litigation in this AIDA webinar. This victory represents a major advance towards using judicial systems as tools to advance climate justice, with great potential for replication in other parts of the world, including Latin America. 3. International court reaffirms environmental protection in Costa Rica It is legitimate for a country to declare itself free of open-pit mining as part of its environmental protection objectives, declared the ICSID arbitration tribunal of the World Bank in response to a case filed by the mining company Infinito Gold against Costa Rica. In the arbitration, the mining company demanded the payment of $400 million dollars as compensation for the profits not received when the country annulled its mineral exploitation concession. In the early stages of the Crucitas mining project, AIDA warned the Costa Rican government of the threats it would pose to the environment and human rights. In 2008, the government issued a decree declaring the project of interest. Then, in 2011, the Supreme Court upheld a prior court decision to declare the Crucitas project illegal. Clearly unhappy with this decision, Infinito Gold began international arbitration and requested compensation for losses. This year, ICSID concluded that Costa Rica will not have to pay and clarified that the country did not deny the company access to local justice. The decision is an important step forward in the face of the growing intention of companies to sue governments for deciding to protect certain ecosystems. 4. The UN recognizes the human right to a healthy environment On October 8, in a historic day for the future of the planet, the United Nations Human Rights Council recognized that all people have a human right to a safe, healthy, clean and sustainable environment. Costa Rica, Slovenia, Maldives, Morocco and Switzerland led efforts within the Council in the latest stage of a long struggle, along with thousands of organizations, movements, businesses and advocates who joined the call for a #HealthyEnvironmentForAll. By circulating letters and inviting civil society around the world, they were able to show the legitimate interest in recognizing this right. This milestone in the history of international environmental law is the result of nearly 50 years of work by thousands of people who, since the Stockholm Declaration in 1972, have laid the groundwork for this day. Also on 8 October, the Council established the creation of a new Special Rapporteur to promote human rights in the context of climate change. This action responded to a request from civil society, in which AIDA was the meeting and coordination point in Latin America to mobilize the decision. 5. Pollution case goes to the Inter-American Court After more than 15 years, the case of human rights violations due to environmental contamination in La Oroya, Peru, reached the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It is the first time that a case of air pollution caused by business activities in an urban context has reached the Court. The Inter-American Commission brought the case before the Court after establishing the international responsibility of the State, in response to a petition of a group of local residents—represented by AIDA and our allies—who have been chronically exposed to heavy metals from the Doe Run Peru metallurgical complex. The affected people appealed to the Inter-American Human Rights System because, despite the Peruvian Constitutional Court's order in 2006 for urgent measures to protect their rights, the State failed to comply. The presentation of the case before the Court represents a unique opportunity to restore the rights of the affected persons.   Read more and learn about AIDA’s top victories of the year in our 2021 Annual Report!  

Read more
Indigenous Rights, Climate Change, Human Rights

"Portraits of a feminist energy transition"

The energy transition is essential and underway, but what are the risks and opportunities that the green energy revolution represents for the realisation of women's rights? How can we prevent the replication of extractive practices commonly associated with fossil industries? How can we promote renewable energy models that promote women's participation and the eradication of energy poverty? The series "Portraits of a Feminist Energy Transition" seeks to showcase the stories of women activists and human rights defenders advcating for a just energy transition. A new energy system that protects the environment, advances gender equality and provides safe, affordable and sustainable access to energy. Although women play a critical role in the management and use of energy resources in households and their communities, they face common challenges linked to systemic discrimination, energy poverty and lack of representation in the development of the new renewable energy sector. We cannot accelerate the move towards sustainable energy systems without bringing to the centre the voices of women and communities who have historically been left behind in energy decision-making spaces. In the context of COP26 and when discussing an energy transition that involves an unprecedented technical and technological shift from one source of energy to another and counteracting the effects of climate change, the civil society organisations, Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), with the support of FES-Geneva, launch the first video in the series that tells the story of Maria, an indigenous woman from the Maya Chuj ethnic group living in the Yich K'isis micro-region of Guatemala. It is only through women's stories and experiences that we can reduce the potential risks of the energy transition and catalyse the transformative power of renewable energy to advance gender equality and a low carbon future for all. Listen to María’s story!  

Read more
Toxic Pollution, Climate Change, Human Rights

Science's call to action for climate and air

By Fabio López Alfaro y Luisa Gaona Quiroga, AIDA interns The first installment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report—which will be completed in 2022—devotes an unprecedented entire chapter to short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), the reduction of which can mitigate the climate crisis and improve air quality. The IPCC's emphasis on these pollutants reaffirms the intrinsic relationship between climate and air, as well as the urgent need to implement effective and joint measures for their protection. SLCPs are compounds that absorb or reflect solar energy. They have the capacity to heat or cool the Earth on short time scales (days to years), in contrast to greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, whose climate impact can last decades, centuries or even longer. The best-known SLCPs include black carbon (small particles produced by burning diesel, biofuels and biomass), methane (which has a high global warming effect and is a precursor of other pollutants), tropospheric ozone and hydrofluorocarbons. Because they remain in the atmosphere for only short periods of time, their impacts on climate are regional and their changes are linked to changes in their emission sources. Although some SLCPs warm the planet and others cool it, the fact is that these pollutants cause between 30 and 45 percent of global warming, in addition to damaging air quality and affecting crop yields. Therefore, their integral management is decisive for mitigating the climate crisis and improving our quality of life. The situation in Latin America In this IPCC assessment cycle, the availability of information made it possible to emphasize the regional analysis of climate change, illustrating the relevance of SLCPs, whose impacts on climate and air are primarily local. However, the findings for Latin America are minor compared to those of Europe, Asia or North America, evidencing a lag in the region's knowledge. Closing this knowledge gap on SLCPs is fundamental because the region ranks third in terms of short-term (10 year) warming generation, surpassed by East Asia and North America. Despite having less information, the IPCC was able to identify the key sectors and pollutants to manage in Latin America. The report highlights that mitigation policies should focus on particulate matter and ozone generated in industry, energy production and open burning of biomass, sectors that are regionally responsible for the highest emissions. As the diameter of the particulate matter decreases, the negative health impacts are greater. Thus, fine particles— of particulate matter 2.5—cause the most harmful impacts on people's respiratory and cardiovascular systems. According to the World Health Organization, black carbon and organic carbon form a substantial part of particulate matter in air pollution, and are an important cause of morbidity and premature mortality worldwide. Moreover, methane and black carbon are the primary pollutants of concern in agriculture, fossil fuels, waste management and diesel engines, sectors that are projected to contribute 90 percent of non-OECD countries' black carbon emissions by 2100. Call to action The scientific evidence presented by the IPCC is also a call to action, a joint fight for climate and air. The report proves that it is vital to have crosscutting public policies that simultaneously seek to mitigate the climate crisis and SLCP emissions. The absence of such policies, coupled with weak air pollution control, implies short-term warming for Latin America, mainly because it is estimated that emissions of methane, ozone and hydrofluorocarbons—compounds characterized by high warming rates—will increase, as well as lower contributions from aerosols, which would decrease the cooling effect. However, with proper monitoring and in scenarios that combine efforts to reduce GHGs and SLCPs, high climate benefits and stabilization are expected after 2040. Although the climate results of these measures will be visible in 20 to 30 years, they will contribute to improving air quality and protecting human health in the short term. Public policies that work to lessen air pollution can reduce mortality rates due to poor air quality and contribute to meeting several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially those targets related to particulate matter exposure (targets 3.9 and 11.6), human health and cities (targets 3.8 and 11.7), and the health of people and the environment (targets 3.9 and 11.7). They can also contribute to access to clean and affordable energy, responsible consumption and production, climate action and biodiversity protection (SDGs 7, 12, 13, 14 and 15). Finally, reducing CCVC emissions will help reduce crop losses, contributing to achieving zero hunger (SDG 2). Now that we know the sectors and pollutants whose management will be key in the coming years, it is time to demand that authorities and companies implement concrete actions to reduce emissions of SLCPs and obtain co-benefits in the fight for climate and clean air.  

Read more