In Colombia, a case that began as a requirement for the coal sector ultimately became a regulation applicable to all projects requiring an environmental permit.

This refers to the publication of the General Methodology for the Preparation and Submission of Environmental Studies, a regulatory "master key" that requires quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and including climate mitigation and adaptation measures in mining, hydrocarbon, energy, and infrastructure projects, among others.

Colombia's Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development published this methodology in late July 2026, in compliance with a 2023 ruling by the Council of State.

This important resolution was the result of a compliance action filed by a coalition led by AIDA and also comprising the "José Alvear Restrepo" Lawyers’ Collective (CAJAR), Censat Agua Viva, the Center for Research and Popular Education (CINEP), POLEN Transiciones Justas, the University of Magdalena, and researchers.

The new methodology for environmental studies represents a major step forward in protecting the right to a healthy environment and ensuring the right to a healthy climate through preventive measures.

It also marks a victory for climate litigation in the region, demonstrating that the Colombian government failed to fulfill specific climate commitments and securing a ruling ordering one of the competent authorities to take concrete actions for proper climate management.

Other countries in the region may replicate the strategy employed and the precedent set.

A three-year path toward climate justice

In May 2023, AIDA led a coalition of civil society organizations, think tanks, researchers, and a university that filed a compliance action with the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca. The goal was to demand compliance with laws related to addressing the climate crisis in the coal sector.

In Colombia, neither environmental regulations nor climate change management regulations address GHG mitigation or the climate impacts generated by the coal sector, despite the significance of coal projects in the country and their role in exacerbating the climate crisis.

Colombia is by a wide margin the largest coal producer and exporter in Latin America. In 2024, it accounted for 87.67% of regional production and 99.84% of exports, playing a significant role in its trade balance and its rail and port infrastructure. Furthermore, it ranks third in the region in terms of final consumption (24.52%), and in the last 12 months, nearly 5% of the country’s electricity was generated from coal.

But without specific regulations, environmental authorities lack the tools to establish effective measures to prevent, mitigate, and manage the climate impacts of coal industry activity.

The Administrative Court of Cundinamarca ruled in the coalition's favor in the first instance. The Council of State—the country’s highest authority on administrative matters—upheld the ruling on second instance. Consequently, it ordered the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development to comply with the obligations outlined in Law 1931 of 2018, which establishes the minimum actions the country must take to honor its international climate commitments.

And this is where the case went beyond its initial objective: the ruling established a specific obligation for the ministry to regulate the consideration of climate impacts not only in coal sector projects but in all projects requiring an environmental permit. In other words, it includes the mining, hydrocarbons, energy, and infrastructure sectors, among others.

This entails, among other things, quantifying GHG emissions from these projects and assessing how environmental offset measures can help Colombia meet its climate commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The ruling also ordered the government agency to issue a resolution adopting the Mandatory Emissions Report, which would require major greenhouse gas emitters to report their total emissions annually on a disaggregated basis. Similarly, it ordered the agency to issue the environmental sector’s climate change management plan and coordinate actions with territorial climate change plans.

A significant and reproducible ruling

The Ministry of the Environment’s publication of the methodology for environmental studies marks a milestone in environmental permitting by incorporating specific procedures to ensure environmental impact studies account for the climate impacts generated by projects seeking permits.

It also focuses on environmental permitting and human rights, considers indirect emissions, and introduces new guidelines for assessing projects' environmental impacts.

In addition, it sets a regulatory precedent that demonstrates, in practice, the climate unfeasibility of new coal mining and burning projects.

In short, it is a regulatory instrument that seeks to close gaps in environmental permitting processes and strengthen the assessment of shortcomings associated with the climate impacts of certain projects, particularly in the coal sector. It incorporates a human rights perspective—a first within an environmental permitting process.

Its scope is ambitious: stricter technical and climate management requirements would raise the compliance costs of coal-fired projects—making them more expensive than cleaner alternatives—and could support strategies to phase out coal as part of the country’s efforts to meet its climate obligations.

The orders contained in the Council of State’s ruling do not end with the publication of the methodology. Other orders also seek to incorporate specific guidelines for climate change management.

Among these is the Mandatory Emissions Report, a key tool for establishing processes to monitor, verify, and control the mitigation actions implemented by major greenhouse gas emitters. However, the ministry has published only a draft resolution adopting this instrument, which, if confirmed, would represent a unique regulatory advancement in the region with strong potential for replication.

In other words, the Council of State’s ruling sets a very important precedent for the region for two reasons: it demonstrates that strategic litigation can lead to concrete regulatory actions to address the climate crisis, and it highlights the need to update regulatory frameworks to incorporate specific measures for climate change mitigation and adaptation in specific sectors and procedures.

Therefore, it will be important to design strategies that allow both the litigation approach and the results achieved during implementation to be replicated in other countries in the region.