Blog
Why is lithium mining in Andean salt flats also called water mining?
By Víctor Quintanilla, David Cañas and Javier Oviedo* According to official figures, approximately 2.2 billion people worldwide lack access to drinking water.Despite this panorama, threats to this common good from overexploitation and pollution are increasing. One such threat is the accelerated extraction of lithium in Latin American countries, driven by corporate and state actors to meet the energy transition needs of the global North.Lithium extraction involves enormous water consumption and loss and is essentially water mining.On the continent, the advance of the lithium industry particularly threatens the salt flats and other Andean wetlands of the Gran Atacama region—located in the ecological region of the Puna, on the border of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile—where more than 53 percent of the mineral’s resources (potentially exploitable material) are located.Lithium mining exacerbates the natural water deficit in the area, threatening not only the salt flats, but also the many forms of life that live there. Where does the water used in lithium mining come from?First, it’s necessary to point out that salt flats are aquatic ecosystems located at the bottom of endorheic or closed basins. There, rivers do not flow into the sea but into the interior of the territory, so the water forms lakes or lagoons often accompanied by salt flats due to evaporation.In the salt flats, freshwater and saltwater usually coexist in a delicate balance that allows life to survive.The regions with salt flats, such as the Gran Atacama, are arid or semi-arid, with high evaporation and low rainfall. There we find freshwater aquifers at the foot of the mountains and brine aquifers in the center of the salt flats, both connected and in equilibrium.Brine is basically water with a high salt content, although the lithium mining industry considers it a mineral to justify its exploitation and minimize the water footprint of its activities.In addition to being essential for life, the waters of the salt flats are a heritage resource because they are very old—up to tens of thousands of years—and have been the livelihood of the indigenous people who have inhabited the Puna for thousands of years.When the mining industry moves into a salt flat, it threatens the natural balance and directly affects the relationship between water and the social environment, as well as the relationship between water and other forms of life.To extract lithium from a salt flat, the traditional procedure is to drill the salt flat, pour the brine into large ponds, wait for the water to evaporate so that the lithium concentration increases, send the lithium concentrate to an industrial plant and subject it to chemical treatment to separate the lithium from other salts and finally obtain lithium carbonate or hydroxide: a raw material used mainly in the manufacture of batteries.The continuous and large-scale extraction of brine from saline aquifers alters the natural balance of groundwater. As a result, areas that were previously filled with brine are emptied, causing freshwater from nearby aquifers to move in and occupy those spaces, becoming salinized in the process.The final processes to extract lithium carbonate and separate it from the rest of the compound also require water, which is drawn from surface or underground sources that also supply local communities.Therefore, the water used in lithium mining comes from:Underground freshwater and brine aquifers.Surface sources such as rivers and vegas (land where water accumulates). Therefore, the inherent risk of lithium mining is the overexploitation of these water sources. How much water does lithium mining use?The extraction of lithium by the methods described above involves an enormous consumption and loss of water, which is not returned to the environment because it completely used up, because its properties change, or because it is simply lost through evaporation.According to scientific data, the average water overconsumption in lithium mining is as follows:150 m3 of fresh water used to produce one ton of lithium.350 m3 of brine per ton of lithium.Between 100 and 1000 m3 of water evaporated per ton of lithium produced. To illustrate the loss of water resources in lithium mining, the water lost to evaporation is equivalent to the total water consumption of the population of Antofagasta (166,000 people) for two years. This Chilean city is located 200 km from the Salar de Atacama, where more than 90 percent of the country's lithium reserves are located.In addition to water depletion, lithium mining can also contaminate the resource by producing wastewater containing toxic substances. Our vital relationship with waterUnlike the mining industry, which sees water as just another resource to be exploited, the indigenous communities living in the area have an ancestral connection to the resource on which their economic and productive activities depend, as well as their customs, traditions and worldview.These communities must now confront the pressures on water from the advance of lithium mining, driven by outside interests.But they are doing so with courage, developing processes of defense of water and territory.Let us learn from them to defend a common good without which no way of life is possible.Learn more about the impacts of lithium mining on Andean salt flats in this StoryMap (in Spanish)Watch the recording of the webinar “Evidence of hyperconsumption of water in lithium extraction and production” (in Spanish) *Víctor Quintanilla is AIDA's Content Coordinator; David Cañas and Javier Oviedo are scientific advisors.
Read more
Learn about the negotiations to reduce maritime shipping emissions
The decarbonization of productive and economic activities is essential and urgent to address the triple crisis –climate, pollution and biodiversity loss– that the world is facing.In maritime shipping –which moves 10 billion tons of cargo each year and accounts for 2.9% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2)– the global need to reduce and eventually eliminate these emissions is being addressed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN specialized agency responsible for setting standards for safe, efficient and environmentally sound shipping.The move toward decarbonization is critical because without significant change, shipping emissions could increase by as much as 50% by 2050.The IMO has a revised emissions reduction strategy that was agreed in 2023 by the 175 countries that make up the organization. It is expected to reduce emissions from the sector by up to 30% by 2030, 80% by 2040 and reach net zero by around 2050. Implementation of the strategy is currently the subject of international negotiations.AIDA is participating in these negotiations as part of the Clean Shipping Coalition, an international coalition of organizations. In addition, AIDA is coordinating efforts with Ocean Conservancy and Fundación Cethus to generate advocacy with Latin American countries and to collaborate with updated technical information on the progress of the negotiations and their implications for the region.The decarbonization of global shipping and its economic impact is a very important discussion for Latin America and the Caribbean. It is necessary that all countries and economic sectors align themselves with clear targets and that all impacts are assessed equally and fairly, as well as the ways in which countries can mitigate them. Read on to learn more about this important process. What measures are being discussed to reduce emissions from maritime shipping?Negotiations are underway at the international level to select the package of measures needed to meet the 2023 targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. This package will include both technical and economic measures. Its final structure will be decided in April this year at the IMO headquarters in London, marking a global milestone in the fight against the climate crisis.Technical measures include a global fuel standard, carbon capture on ships, energy efficiency measures for the fuels used, and reductions in ship speed. They all aim to make maritime transport as efficient as possible in terms of the fuels used and to gradually phase out the use of the most polluting fuels. This means using the least amount of energy, emitting the least amount of carbon dioxide and keeping the sector in operation.In addition to technical measures, economic measures are proposed to put a price on carbon emissions from maritime transport. Increasing the efficiency of ships is expected to have not only a technological component but also a market incentive. This combination is crucial for achieving emission reduction targets, as it will provide both the public and private sectors with the necessary resources:The economic resources to invest in the new technologies, new fuels, and other investments needed for the energy transition.An economic stimulus to close the current cost gap between fossil fuels and near-zero emission clean technologies. To define a price for carbon dioxide emissions, there are two main proposals:The first has a flexible structure with respect to emissions. In its simplest form, it takes account of differences in emissions when implementing the measure. To this end, a "permissible limit" of carbon dioxide emissions is envisaged, with ships being divided into those below and those above the limit. The former could receive a financial reward, and the latter would pay a fee for the carbon dioxide emitted under a system of emission quotas. In this sense, although there is a mechanism to regulate emissions below the set limit, the tolerance of these limits offers the possibility of an accelerated reduction, which could delay the energy transition that the climate crisis requires.The second has a universal structure, i.e. a fixed price for all CO2 emissions generated by the operation of the maritime fleet. The aim is to create a market stimulus that will increase the demand for new low-emission technologies (new ships and fuels) and encourage maritime operators to purchase them in order to avoid paying a fee. This measure is expected to provide more accurate monitoring of total emissions from ships, motivate a faster and more pronounced energy transition, and collect and then redistribute a significant number of economic resources among maritime operators and countries to mitigate the disproportionate costs and negative impacts of the decarbonization process. What does decarbonizing shipping mean for Latin America and the Caribbean?According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Latin America and the Caribbean is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change-related disasters, so actions aimed at achieving decarbonization targets in different sectors of the regional economy are essential to address the climate crisis.On the other hand, actions specifically aimed at decarbonizing maritime transport will have different impacts in the short, medium and long term in each of the countries of the continent. For example, the choice of one or the other proposal for the payment of a tariff for the sector's CO2 emissions - the flexible modality or the fixed price - will have a different impact in each country. What all scenarios have in common is that the region will be strongly affected by the process of decarbonizing maritime transport.In this context, it is important for countries to identify the scenarios that allow them a greater range of actions to compensate for these impacts and to ensure that the transition is equitable and fair, without leaving any country behind.In economic terms, the introduction of a universal price on CO2 emissions would allow States to receive part of the economic resources generated to compensate and mitigate the effects of decarbonization. The amounts and forms of this transfer of resources will be agreed within the IMO. The combination of more ambitious measures (technical and economic) is expected to raise up to $120 billion annually in the coming years. The flexible proposal for paying for emissions does not include mechanisms for redistributing resources, as these would go directly to ship operators and fuel producers. This would leave countries to mitigate the impact of decarbonization with their own resources.From an environmental perspective, without the incentive of a universal price, there is a risk that the flexible scheme will indirectly encourage the continued use of fuels that generate CO2 emissions, particularly in regions with limited economic resources to invest in the least polluting state-of-the-art technology. This would result in a delay in achieving emission reduction targets for the world's shipping fleet and would move countries away from meeting their climate change commitments under the IMO.In general, the costs of reducing CO2 emissions from shipping and other sectors, which are at the root of the current climate crisis, are a reality for all countries, although the impact varies by region. The active participation of Latin America and the Caribbean in the international discussions on this issue throughout 2025 is essential to ensure that the energy transition and the reduction of maritime emissions are fair and equitable. It is important that the countries of the continent adopt a position that allows them to protect their economic and environmental interests from the economic consequences of this process. If the IMO's decarbonization strategy does not live up to its ambitions, we will have a shipping industry that exacerbates the climate crisis and its impacts. The success of this strategy will be the achievement of a global consensus on environmental considerations. The equity and fairness of the transition must be one of the key elements. Recognizing the differentiated impacts of maritime decarbonization measures and their compensation, especially in the most affected countries, will ensure a triumph based on criteria of justice and environmental equity.
Read more
Biocultural Corridor: Hope for a better future for the Pantanal
By Jorge Lu Palencia and Andrea Islas López*The Pantanal is a unique and rich wetland. It integrates elements of the semi-arid Amazon Rainforest, the Atlantic Forest (humid forest), the Cerrado (tropical savannah), the Chiquitano Dry Forest and the steppe savannah of the Chaco. With an extension of almost 18 million hectares, it crosses the borders of Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay. Its biodiversity is fundamental to water conservation, food production, climate regulation, and the life and culture of millions of people: farmers, traditional communities, quilombola communities, and indigenous peoples. The Pantanal, however, is in danger of disappearing due to devastating seasons of forest fires and other threats caused by structural deficiencies in the institutional management of the ecosystem.In 2022, civil society organizations asked the Ramsar Convention to apply the protection mechanisms for wetlands of international importance to the Pantanal, warning that the number of heat sources had increased to five times the historical average. And in 2024, they reported that the fire season again exceeded historical average conditions.A few weeks after the fires, in November 2024, the Popular Water and Climate Committees—made up of small farmers from the Paraguay River basin—gathered to celebrate nature and reaffirm their commitment to water conservation through the self-affirmation of the Paraguay River / Pantanal Biocultural Corridor.These committees have been working for more than 25 years to confront the socio-environmental threats posed by mining, projects such as waterways and hydroelectric dams, and soy and sugarcane monocultures.They represent an alternative model of ecosystem management in which communities organize themselves to protect their territory and promote sustainable practices. What does self-affirmation of the biocultural corridor mean?In environmental practice, the term “corridor” is applied to ecological corridors, whose main function is connectivity, i.e., the movement of wildlife species for shelter, feeding and reproduction, as well as plant dispersal.Adding the “biocultural” element to the corridors means thinking that human beings are part of the ecosystem, that the conservation of nature does not exclude the purpose of making possible the full life of human groups, and that culture—materialized in the diverse world views, ancestral knowledge, traditional practices and forms of organization—is a fundamental element for effective conservation of nature.The self-affirmation of the popular committees of the Pantanal is a milestone that reminds us that the protection of nature does not depend only on the action of governments but is made possible by the awareness and popular initiative of communities and peoples. It shows that the exercise of public participation rights is indispensable and fundamental for public policies that make life and socio-environmental justice possible.Biocultural corridors make it possible to integrate conservation and economic and cultural activities with ecological practices, thus promoting a more sustainable future for the communities and the Pantanal region.They represent the birth of a more legitimate and effective conservation initiative, a participatory management and an organizational system in which decisions and policies flourish from the bottom up. An alternative model to poor institutional governance In the context of the climate crisis and a political and economic system that exacerbates the threats, the devastating fire seasons in the Pantanal highlight the problems of land-use change, irresponsible use of fire for agricultural and cattle raising activities, inadequate management of resources to prevent and fight fires, and the lack of coordination and transboundary cooperation.Structural deficiencies in institutional governance have led to inadequate public policies or even to habitat loss through incentives for monocultures and extensive cattle ranching, water regulation using waterways and dams that provide ecosystem services, subsistence and culture for local communities and indigenous peoples.Faced with this panorama, the self-affirmation of the biocultural corridor emerges as an alternative model of territorial management, driven by the people as a response to the lack of effective public policies.With this model, the communities promote conscious popular education to protect water and adopt ecological agricultural practices, instead of relying on a system that favors an economy of degradation at the expense of habitat destruction. Reasons to be hopeful about preserving the PantanalThe self-affirmation of the biocultural corridor allows us to be optimistic due to:The resilience of the people of the Pantanal, which allows them to overcome the devastation and open an alternative path for the conservation of the ecosystem, with the initiative and participation of the farmers.Emancipatory awareness and action that puts life at the center, based on the rights of nature, respect for human rights, and social and environmental justice.An organization that resists and builds itself democratically, based on the Pantanal’s identity, mystique, ancestral knowledge and sustainable traditional practices.A popular and participatory management model that harmonizes conservation and integral development goals, builds bridges with other communities and indigenous peoples, and has the potential to expand as a transboundary socio-environmental governance system with an ecosystem approach.Thanks to the popular committees, the Pantanal is alive and has possibilities for a more sustainable future. The creation of the biocultural corridor is a clear sign of hope for this vast and rich wetland.This model, based on popular management and respect for nature, offers a viable alternative to the threats facing the Pantanal and is a source of inspiration for other territories in crisis on the continent.* Jorge Lu Palencia is an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program; Andrea Islas López is an attorney and intern at AIDA.
Read more
Let's talk about project closure and responsible exit
No mining, fossil fuel extraction or power generation project lasts forever. Their useful life is determined by internal factors, such as the quantity of resource reserves, and external factors, such as declining demand or financial problems.But no matter how long a project lasts or how it is affected, its promoters—whether public or private—must provide for a closure and responsible exit process that considers the natural environment and affected communities, and that is desired and promoted by all stakeholders.This issue is even more relevant in the context of actions needed to address the climate crisis, largely related to the energy transition, which generally implies the substitution of fossil fuel extraction and use projects, as well as the promotion of low-emission renewable energies associated with mineral extraction. In both scenarios, closure and exit issues are of great importance.In the first, it is necessary to incorporate concrete and enforceable commitments to close down and move on from existing projects. In the second, these requirements should be built in from the planning and pre-feasibility stages and should also be included in the environmental impact assessments and subsequent stages.In all projects, the role of the promoters is essential. Likewise, the obligation of the state to supervise and monitor is of great importance in order to protect and guarantee the rights of those who may be affected. In some cases, the responsible exit also includes other key actors that are part of the value and supply chains of the projects: investors, financiers, insurers, suppliers, distributors and buyers, among others.Therefore, the discussion of project closure and responsible exit is essential to environmental protection and climate management in Latin America.What do we mean by project closure and exit?All mining and energy projects have different phases in their life cycle: initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and control, closure, and post-closure. In turn, they have supply and value chains that, as we have said, involve actors from different sectors.In this context, closure refers to the stage of a project in which it ceases to operate and is terminated. Exit, on the other hand, refers to the decision and subsequent process in which the different actors in the project's value and supply chain, in their own roles, completely disengage from the project. What does it mean for a closing and exit process to be responsible?There is currently no consensus on the definition and scope of responsible exit and fair project closure processes. Sometimes these terms are used indiscriminately, which can lead to confusion about the responsibilities of the actors involved and the scope of the processes to be carried out. However, there are elements that allow these concepts to be explained precisely:Responsible and fair project closure is a planned, upfront process that should be considered from the earliest stages of a project and continually updated as the project evolves. Responsible closure ensures a planned, coordinated and participatory cessation of activities and dismantling, and guarantees the right to a healthy environment.The planning and development of a closure plan should focus on risk management as well as impact prevention and mitigation. This will ensure a responsible closure in which the affected areas can be readapted and made safe for both nature and communities, while allowing the ecosystems to recover their functions.The general obligation of the project developer is to properly identify the impacts that the project may cause and to adequately and timely comply with the measures approved by the State in its environmental management instruments.The main obligation of the State (in addition to its general regulatory duty) is to supervise and monitor the project to verify compliance with the developer's obligations and to prevent environmental and/or social damage.The role of other actors in the value and supply chain is to act with due diligence, to use their influence to encourage the promoter to comply with its obligations and, in the event of non-compliance, to act within their role and influence to ensure that the necessary corrective measures are taken.Responsible and fair exit refers to the process undertaken by the various actors in the value and supply chain when they decide to fully divest from a project, considering the responsibilities inherent in their role, which include fulfilling their obligations with respect to human rights and due diligence.In Latin America, there has been important progress in regulating aspects related to the permitting, commissioning and implementation of mining and energy projects. However, experience has shown that there are significant challenges in ensuring that the closure and exit processes are responsible for the ecosystems and communities involved.To learn more about this issue, see our report Closure and Responsible Exit. A requirement for environmental and climate justice in Latin America (in Spanish).
Read more
The international search for justice of the Mapuche communities in Mendoza, Argentina
In the context of a global climate crisis that has deepened existing inequalities in Latin America, Mapuche communities in Mendoza, Argentina, face multiple threats that increase their vulnerability to climate change and violate their rights.One of these activities is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a method of extracting hydrocarbons widely associated with socio-environmental impacts. In Argentina, it is widely used in the Vaca Muerta mega-development, which covers an area of about 30,000 square kilometers and is considered the second largest gas deposit and the fourth largest unconventional oil deposit in the world.A significant portion of Vaca Muerta is in Mendoza Province. The megaproject covers 8,700 square kilometers. Here, Mapuche communities also face a complex political environment that is threatening their territorial rights and even their identity. Added to this are national policies that are detrimental to indigenous rights in the country. These policies aim to dispossess the communities and make it easier to carry out fracking and other extractive activities.Faced with this situation, the Mapuche people are not willing to give up in the defense of their rights, their way of life and their territorial integrity.The Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization, which represents more than 20 Mapuche communities in the province of Mendoza, has appealed to various international organizations to denounce and publicize the critical situation and to demand justice.This process of international denunciation includes communications to the UN Special Rapporteurs on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and on the Environment and Human Rights, and the submission of an amicus curiae brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate emergency and human rights. Fracking's many impactsOil and gas extraction through fracking in Vaca Muerta takes place on the ancestral lands of the Mapuche people. Fracking is an extreme extraction technique that has significant environmental impacts, including increased greenhouse gas emissions. In the provinces of Neuquén and Río Negro, where the exploitation of Vaca Muerta is most widespread, serious environmental and human damage has been occurring for more than a decade and continues to increase.For Mapuche communities, the impact of fracking goes beyond physical damage to the environment. Extractive activities in their territories undermine their capacity for self-determination and profoundly affect their psychological and spiritual well-being, as their relationship with the land is fundamental to their identity and culture.Although fracking in Mendoza is in its infancy, with only a few active wells, the companies and the province have plans to expand it, in addition to the continued growth of activity throughout Vaca Muerta. In order to do this, they will need larger areas of land and the availability of large amounts of water. In this context, traditional practices such as transhumance – a type of seasonal migration in which shepherds move their animals between pastures at different times of the year – are seriously threatened.The growth of these activities, in the current context of water and climate crises in the region, increases the vulnerability of these communities and compromises their ability to continue living sustainably in their natural environment. Reduced human rights safeguardsThe strategy of expanding the occupation of Mapuche lands with mining and other extractive activities has led to the adoption of retrogressive policies that are undermining the framework for the protection of the rights of the Mapuche people in Mendoza and throughout the country.One of these is the declaration approved in March 2023 by the Chamber of Deputies of Mendoza, which questions the status of the Mapuche as an indigenous people of Argentina. This has raised concerns about the possibility of recognizing their territorial rights and the increase in evictions they are already suffering.Complementary measures that facilitate the development of extractive activities over the human rights of indigenous peoples are also being promoted at the national level. These include the closure by decree of the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism, whose mission was to promote policies and actions aimed at achieving a society free of discrimination. This measure weakens the institutional protection of human rights.Similarly, the government announced the closure of the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs, dedicated to the promotion and defense of indigenous rights. Although this measure has not been carried out, its functional autonomy has been abolished and the areas dedicated to the recognition of communities and the regularization of their territories have been eliminated. In practice, these measures prevent these peoples from exercising their constitutional right to their ancestral lands.In addition, Law 26160, which had suspended the evictions of indigenous peoples while their territorial regularization was in process, has also been repealed. The Secretary of National Security, Patricia Bullrich, argued that there cannot be permanent laws preventing evictions, since "there cannot be a right to usurp.” Violent evictions against indigenous communities have already begun. Actions of international defenseIn response, the Mapuche communities of Mendoza have shown an enormous capacity for organization and resistance.They have turned to international bodies to expose their situation and demand concrete action from local and national authorities. A key example is the communications sent to the UN Rapporteurs on Indigenous Peoples and on Environment and Human Rights to denounce political persecution and violations of their territorial rights. These communications highlight the complacency of the authorities towards extractive interests. The focus of these denunciations has been the defense of their rights in the face of the advance of fracking and other extractive activities.Additionally, the communities were part of the advisory opinion process through which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will clarify the continent's states' obligations to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis.The Malalweche Organization submitted an amicus curiae brief, and its representative testified at a public hearing before the International Court of Justice to demonstrate that the extraction of hydrocarbons through fracking and metalliferous mining in their territories reduces their capacity to resist the climate crisis and exacerbates the severe water scarcity in the area, threatening their very survival.The Mapuche communities of Mendoza also presented concrete proposals for action. They called for their inclusion in all consultation and decision-making processes that affect their territories, in accordance with Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization. They stressed the importance of including their traditional wisdom in the development of public policies that benefit indigenous communities and contribute to more effective and sustainable solutions to global environmental challenges.They also called for the intervention of multilateral organizations to demand that the Argentine state guarantee free, prior and informed consultation and strengthen the national institutions responsible for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.Supported by organizations that defend human rights and the environment, these struggles aim not only to protect the ancestral territories of the Mapuche, but also to guarantee their right to live in peace, with dignity, and in harmony with their natural environment. Their goal is to ensure the self-determination of indigenous peoples. This will allow them to manage their lands and resources in accordance with their worldview, which is deeply linked to conservation.Recognition of the rights of Mapuche communities, including the cessation of extractive activities such as fracking in their territories, is essential to protect their culture, health and livelihoods. With their ancestral wisdom, they offer a way to effectively address the climate crisis and build a more just and sustainable future.
Read more
10 legal advances toward climate justice in 2024
If there is one thing we've seen in the world this year, it's the advancement of climate litigation and the publication of new guidelines and best practices with future generations in mind. We know that the climate fight can often seem exhausting, but today we invite you to take a breath and celebrate the good news and small victories that are bringing us closer to climate justice. 1. The climate emergency comes before the Inter-American CourtThis year, a very important question came before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR): What obligations do States have to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from the effects of the climate crisis?Colombia and Chile asked the Court for an advisory opinion to answer this question. To this end, the Court called for public hearings with unprecedented participation. AIDA testified before the court and we supported communities, organizations and civil society alliances through the productions of 15 amicus briefs. We expect their pronouncement in the first half of 2025.Learn more about the voices that arrived to the Court. 2. Inter-American Court highlights climate in landmark ruling on a healthy environment In March, the Inter-American Court of Justice found the Peruvian state guilty of violating the rights of the inhabitants of the town of La Oroya to a healthy environment, health, personal integrity, a life of dignity, access to information, political participation, judicial guarantees and protection, and the right to childhood. It was an unprecedented decision for failing to act in a timely and effective manner to protect the residents from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex that has operated in their community for almost 90 years.In its ruling, the Court highlighted the relationship between the protection of children and action on climate change, stating that the protection of children requires the adoption of effective measures to prevent and mitigate the risks to their health caused by the emission of polluting gases that contribute to climate change.Learn more about the case's legal contributions. 3. Brazil's biggest trial on climate impactsIn July, a cattle rancher was sentenced to pay more than US$50 million for destroying part of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest and ordered to restore the affected area. The decision is seen as a milestone in the fight against illegal deforestation in the country and sets a precedent for future legal action.This is the largest lawsuit ever brought by the Brazilian Attorney General's Office for damage to the rainforest. It was filed by the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and seeks compensation for climate damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of vegetation and the loss of carbon sinks from deforestation. The court stressed the importance of holding violators accountable and restoring the Amazon ecosystem.Learn more: The Guardian and Climate Case Chart. 4. Landmark victory for island nations at the International Tribunal for the Law of the SeaSmall island states have won a resounding victory at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The unanimous ruling established that the 169 signatory states to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as marine pollution. This decision strengthens the struggle of island nations, which are least responsible for the climate crisis but face its worst consequences. The ruling sets a global precedent by underlining that compliance with the Paris Agreement is not enough and that concrete action and accountability are required from the major powers.Learn more: Grist, EuroNews and High Commission on Human Rights. 5. Ruling urges regulation of carbon credits in indigenous territoriesColombia's Constitutional Court has issued a ruling highlighting the importance of protecting the rights of indigenous communities in carbon credit projects, in a case involving the Pirá Paraná indigenous territory. The ruling, which defends the self-determination of communities, underlines the need for clearer regulations and an approach that guarantees their participation and respect in these projects. The decision has been welcomed as a positive step by both indigenous communities and carbon market actors, who believe it will provide greater legal certainty and strengthen the sustainability of environmental projects.Learn more: La Silla Vacía and Corte Constitucional. 6. Mexico Recognizes First Climate Displaced and Orders RelocationIn an unprecedented development in Mexico, the first families displaced by climate change have been relocated to new homes in Tabasco. The residents of El Bosque, a fishing community affected by sea erosion, received 51 houses from the federal government, marking the beginning of official recognition of climate impacts in the region. After years of uncertainty, these families, who saw their homes swallowed by the sea, describe their relocation as "a dream come true." While there is still work to be done to count all those affected, this step is a crucial step towards climate justice and the protection of vulnerable communities.Learn more: Nuestro Futuro, Greenpeace and El País. 7. A global commitment to move beyond fossil fuelsThe UN General Assembly adopted the Compact for the Future, an agreement that reaffirms the commitment of members to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. The Compact, the result of years of negotiations, sets clear goals such as tripling global renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency by 2030. It also commits to a "just phase-down" of fossil fuels, recognizing the need for a global transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy system. While it remains to be seen how these goals will be implemented, the agreement marks a significant step forward in reducing the use of fossil fuels.Learn more: Pacto por el Futuro and EuroNews. 8. South Korea Recognizes Climate Crisis as Constitutional IssueIn a landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court of Korea declared parts of the Carbon Neutrality Act unconstitutional because the law does not set greenhouse gas reduction targets beyond 2030, thus shifting the burden of climate action to future generations. This is a significant development for climate litigation globally, as it is the first time that the climate crisis has been recognized as a constitutional issue in the country, and the rights of future generations have been recognized.Learn more in the Plataforma de Litigio Climático. 9. UN launches principles to prioritize equity in energy transitionThe United Nations Panel on Critical Minerals for Energy Transition has issued key recommendations to ensure the fair, equitable and sustainable management of these minerals, which are essential for the transition to renewable energy. The report emphasizes the importance of prioritizing human rights and social equity, especially in regions such as Latin America where large reserves of these minerals are found. The proposal includes seven guiding principles, ranging from environmental protection to international cooperation, with the aim of promoting sustainable development and equity in developing countries.Learn more: AIDA and the UN Principles. 10. Climate crisis reaches the International Court of JusticeWe close the year with hearings at the International Court of Justice on the legal obligations of governments to protect the environment and curb climate change. Initiated by a group of law students from Vanuatu, this case could set important legal precedents for global action on climate change. The ICJ is expected to issue an advisory opinion in 2025 that could strengthen international cooperation and assistance to vulnerable countries, promoting a more effective approach to addressing climate challenges and protecting human rights.Learn more: The Conversation. BONUS: The Climate Litigation Platform continues to growWith so much progress to serve as inspiration, the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean continues to grow in information, membership and cases. This project, the result of the collaboration of organizations and professionals, is an effort to continue promoting climate litigation and supporting those who want to learn more and work for environmental justice.
Read more
With the territories: 6 achievements for a healthy environment in 2024
The knowledge, experience and insights that come from the land and communities are an important way to address the global crises of climate, pollution and biodiversity loss.In 2024, by building bridges between communities affected by environmental degradation and high-level decision-making spaces, we at AIDA have helped to establish important precedents for the protection of a healthy environment in Latin America and the Caribbean.These are achievements that show that victories for the environment and human rights on the continent depend on including the voice of those who care for nature and live in balance with it. 1. Inter-American Court ruling sets historic precedent for achieving justice in the face of industrial pollutionOn March 22, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights published its decision in the case of the inhabitants of the Peruvian town of La Oroya, affected by extreme pollution from a metallurgical complex. It found the state responsible for violating their rights and ordered it to adopt comprehensive reparation measures. The ruling is the culmination of more than 20 years of struggle for justice and reparation, and is now the most important regional and global precedent for state oversight of corporate activities in the areas of human rights and the environment. AIDA has supported the case since 1997 and represented the victims before the Court. The outcome reflects our longstanding efforts to guarantee the right to a healthy environment in Latin America.Learn More 2. Voices from the Americas reach international tribunal to strengthen climate actionIn a historic and emblematic event, communities, organizations and civil society alliances from the Americas brought their voices to the process of preparing the declaration that will, for the first time, clarify the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' obligations of the continent's governments to protect people in the face of the climate crisis. AIDA supported the inclusion of these voices through the submission of 15 legal briefs (amicus curiae) to the International Court and the testimony of community representatives at public hearings. We also submitted our own brief to demonstrate the existence of the right to a "stable and safe climate" as part of the universal right to a healthy environment, and the obligations of governments to guarantee it.Learn More 3. Green Climate Fund cancels project funding after evidence of human rights violationsIn an unprecedented move, the Green Climate Fund - the world's leading multilateral climate finance institution - has canceled the disbursement of US$64 million to a forestry project following evidence of violations of the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities in Nicaragua. The decision followed a complaint, supported by AIDA and allied organizations, submitted by the communities to the Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism, which launched an investigation and concluded that the project did not comply with the institution's policies and procedures on socio-environmental safeguards. The proposal that requested the funding ignored the context of violence and lack of human rights protection that indigenous communities in Nicaragua continue to suffer today.Learn More 4. Colombia's High Court reaffirms the right to free, prior and informed consultationIn response to two lawsuits supported by AIDA, the Colombian Constitutional Court, after finding that the territory of the Afro-descendant community of Afrowilches was directly affected, ruled that their right to free, prior and informed consultation had been violated in the environmental licensing process of two pilot projects for the extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons through fracking. This is a regional milestone in which the Supreme Court recognized that the processes and regulations governing the energy transition must be fair and guarantee the rights of communities that may be affected.Learn More 5. The Inter-American Commission hears about the human rights impacts of mining for the energy transitionIn a public hearing, AIDA, together with communities and allied organizations, presented evidence to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of human rights violations associated with the extraction of lithium, copper and other minerals used in the energy transition. These violations are already occurring in highly biodiverse areas vulnerable to mining pressures, such as the Gran Atacama —a region located in the cross-border Puna region of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile— and the Amazon. At the hearing, we will ask the Commission to urge the continent's governments to take concrete steps to protect human rights in energy transition processes.Learn More 6. Civil society paves the way for ratification of the High Seas TreatyThe AIDA team joined Latin American government representatives and experts in a series of informative meetings to dispel doubts about the High Seas Treaty —which aims to protect life in the area of the ocean beyond national waters— and to highlight the importance of its ratification, as well as the transfer of knowledge and experience between countries. Issues such as the equitable benefit-sharing mechanism, capacity building and the role of civil society in the implementation of the treaty were addressed, with an emphasis on the realities of each country. Against this backdrop, Panama ratified the treaty in October. To enter into force, the treaty needs to be ratified by 60 countries.Learn MoreIn our 2024 Annual Report you’ll find more information on these achievements and our review of the year.
Read more
COP29: Climate target disappoints and invites us to look elsewhere for hope
The twenty-ninth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, was dubbed "the COP of finance" because the most anticipated decision was the establishment of the New Collective and Quantifiable Global Climate Finance Goal (NCQG), the amount that developed countries would pledge to finance climate action in developing countries. This issue grabbed all the attention, overshadowing everything else.In addition, the recent re-election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, accompanied by his threat to abandon the Paris Agreement and reverse the country's climate action, set the tone for the event.The negotiations, which took place from November 11 to 22, were intense and ended almost two full days late, with the approval of a text that caused great disappointment.However, the invitation is not to be blinded by disappointment. As much as we want, demand and hope, the international climate negotiations are not delivering what we so desperately need. Let us look for hope in what is happening and working, such as local, community-led projects and the work of civil society that is not giving up.Here is a review of COP29 based on what was agreed on climate finance and other relevant issues. A new climate finance targetThe mandate was clear: the new target should exceed the previous one of $100 billion per year and respond to the needs and priorities of developing countries. But while developing countries demanded $1.3 trillion per year, the offer was a mere $300 billion (less than a third and just 12% of the global military budget in 2023) by 2035. "Is this a joke?" exclaimed the head of the Bolivian delegation at a press conference.Developing countries also demanded that financing be adequate, i.e. based mainly on public resources, in the form of grants and highly concessional instruments that would not add to the heavy debts they already carry. They also called for the explicit inclusion of loss and damage as one of the objectives of financing (along with mitigation and adaptation), as well as a specific target for adaptation.None of this was achieved. The target was left open to private financing, further diluting the responsibility of developed countries. There was no specific target for adaptation, nor was there any mention of loss and damage. In case there was any doubt, all references to human rights were removed from the final text.The only saving grace was a call to mobilize $1.3 trillion in climate finance annually from a broad base of sources through the so-called Baku-Belem Roadmap, with a view to achieving this goal by 2035. However, this is a "call" and not a binding commitment, the concrete results of which will depend on political will in the coming years. Global stocktaking and gender issuesNo significant progress was made on the results of last year's Global Stocktaking on the implementation of the Paris Agreement, particularly on the transition away from fossil fuels. The issue was deferred to COP30, which will be held next year in the Brazilian city of Belém do Pará.While there has also been insufficient progress on gender issues, some progress should be recognized, such as the extension of the Lima Work Program to 10 years, which lays the groundwork for the development of a Gender Action Plan and provides an opportunity to further deepen the integration of gender into climate action, particularly as countries develop updates to their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).In addition, the text of the NCQG recognizes women as beneficiaries of funds but fails to ensure that the specific circumstances and intersectional discrimination that many women face are addressed. Carbon marketsWhat did see advances during the negotiations were carbon markets, with the approval of the rules for a global market. Carbon markets are trading systems where carbon credits are bought and sold. Each credit represents one ton of CO₂, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases, removed from the atmosphere. The credits are generated by projects that reduce emissions (such as forest conservation, renewable energy, or energy efficiency). The buyers are polluting companies that want to offset their emissions in order to remain in compliance.The issue has been under discussion for more than a decade due to the difficulty of ensuring the credibility of the system to reduce emissions. Although it is the last outstanding issue of the Paris Agreement, signed more than 10 years ago, civil society is not celebrating. These markets allow companies to continue polluting if they pay for carbon reductions elsewhere in the world. Methane emission reductionsA promising development was the signing of the Declaration on Methane Reduction from Organic Waste by more than 30 countries. The signatories, representing nearly half of global emissions, committed to setting sector-specific methane reduction targets in their future NDCs, underscoring the importance of organic waste management in the fight against climate change. Closing thoughtsIn the end, the results are not surprising. Conventions on climate change are often not much to celebrate, but we must not forget that they are a unique space where all countries sit down to seek consensus to advance a common goal. Its very existence reflects an intention to acknowledge historical responsibilities in favor of justice and a world where we can live together in harmony. It is a platform from which to push, even if it brings more frustration than results.On the other hand, it is very encouraging and motivating to see civil society in action. Hundreds of representatives from different organizations and movements are doing their best to achieve results that reflect the fulfillment of international commitments of developed countries towards their developing counterparts, the climate and the natural balance of our planet.Finally, the side events that take place parallel to the negotiations are a source of inspiration. On the sidelines, without much fanfare, there are people from communities and indigenous peoples who are implementing climate solutions in their territories, with concrete, successful results. These people, like seeds silently germinating, are a powerful source of hope.
Read more
The ABCs of transition minerals and their role in energy production
By Mayela Sánchez, David Cañas and Javier Oviedo* There is no doubt that we need to move away from fossil fuels to address the climate crisis. But what does it mean to switch to other energy sources?To make a battery or a solar panel, raw materials from nature are also used.Some of these raw materials are minerals which, due to their characteristics and in the context of the energy transition, have been descriptively named transition minerals.What are these minerals, where are they found, and how are they used?Below we answer the most important questions about these mineral resources, because it is crucial to know which natural resources will supply the new energy sources, and to ensure that their extraction respects human rights and planetary limits, so that the energy transition is just. What are transition minerals and why are they called that?They are a group of minerals with a high capacity to store and conduct energy. Because of these properties, they are used in the development of renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels, batteries for electric mobility, or wind turbines.They are so called because they are considered essential for the technological development of renewable energy sources, such as those mentioned above. And in the context of the energy transition, energy sources that use these minerals are the most sought-after to replace fossil energy sources.Transition minerals are also often referred to as "critical" minerals because they are considered strategic to the energy transition. The term "critical" refers to elements that are vital to the economy and national security, but whose supply chain is vulnerable to disruption. This means that transition minerals may be strategic minerals, but not critical in terms of security and the economy.However, given the urgency of climate action, some states and international organizations have classified transition minerals as "critical" minerals in order to promote and facilitate access to these raw materials. What are the most important transition minerals?The most important transition minerals are cobalt, copper, graphite, lithium, nickel and rare earth.But there are at least 19 minerals used in various renewable energy technologies: bauxite, cadmium, cobalt, copper, chromium, tin, gallium, germanium, graphite, indium, lithium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silicon, tellurium, titanium, zinc, and the "rare" earth. What are "rare" earth elements and why are they so called?The "rare" earth elements are the 16 chemical elements of the lanthanoid or lanthanide group, plus Ithrium (Y), whose chemical behavior is virtually the same as that of the lanthanoids.They are Scandium, Ithrium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium, Samarium, Europium, Gadolinium, Terbium, Dysprosium, Holmium, Erbium, Tullium, Iterbium and Lutetium.They are so called because when they were discovered in the 18th and 19th centuries, they were less well known than other elements considered similar, such as calcium. But the name is now outdated.Nor does the term "rare" refer to their abundance, because although they are not usually concentrated in deposits that can be exploited (so their mines are few), even the less abundant elements in this group are much more common than gold. What are transition minerals used for? What technologies are based on transition minerals?The uses of transition minerals in the technological development of renewable energy sources are diverse:Solar technologies: bauxite, cadmium, tin, germanium, gallium, indium, selenium, silicon, tellurium, zinc.Electrical installations: copper.Wind energy: bauxite, copper, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, rare earths, zinc.Energy storage: bauxite, cobalt, copper, graphite, lithium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, rare earths, titanium.Batteries: cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, nickel, rare earths. In addition, they are used in a variety of modern technologies, for example in the manufacture of displays, cell phones, computer hard drives and LED lights, among others. Where are transition minerals found?The geography of transition minerals is broad, ranging from China to Canada, from the United States to Australia. But their extraction has been concentrated in countries of the global south.Several Latin American countries are among the top producers of various transition minerals. These materials are found in complex areas rich in biological and cultural diversity, such as the Amazon and the Andean wetlands.Argentina: lithiumBrazil: aluminum, bauxite, lithium, manganese, rare earths, titaniumBolivia: lithiumChile: copper, lithium, molybdenumColombia: nickelMexico: copper, tin, molybdenum, zincPeru: tin, molybdenum, zinc How do transition minerals support the energy transition and decarbonization?Transition minerals are seen as indispensable links in the energy transition to decarbonization, i.e. the shift away from fossil energy sources.But the global interest in these materials also raises questions about the benefits and challenges of mining transition minerals.The issue has become so relevant that last September, the United Nations Panel on Critical Minerals for Energy Transition issued a set of recommendations and principles to ensure equitable, fair and sustainable management of these minerals.In addition, as a result of the intensification and expansion of their extraction in countries of the region, the issue was brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the first time on November 15.In a public hearing, representatives of communities and organizations from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Colombia, as well as regional organizations, presented information and testimonies on the environmental and social impacts of transition mineral mining.Given the current energy transition process, it is necessary to know where the resources that will enable the technologies to achieve this transition will come from.The extraction and use of transition minerals must avoid imposing disproportionate environmental and social costs on local communities and ecosystems. *Mayela Sánchez is a digital community specialist at AIDA; David Cañas and Javier Oviedo are scientific advisors.Sources consulted:-Olivera, B., Tornel, C., Azamar, A., Minerales críticos para la transición energética. Conflictos y alternativas hacia una transformación socioecológica, Heinrich Böll Foundation Mexico City/Engenera/UAM-Unidad Xochimilco.-Science History Institute Museum & Library, “History and Future of Rare Earth Elements”.-FIMA NGO, Narratives on the extraction of critical minerals for the energy transition: Critiques from environmental and territorial justice.-Haxel, Hedrick & Orris, “Rare Earth-Elements. Critical Resources for High Technology,” 2005.-USGS 2014, “The Rare-Earth elements. Vital to modern technology and lifestyle”, 2014.-Final Report for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Thematic Hearing: Minerals for Energy Transition and its Impact on Human Rights in the Americas, 2024.
Read more
Whales and salmon farming: how does the industry impact our gentle marine giants?
Chile is by nature a country of marine mammals. Of the 94 species of cetaceans existing in the world, 43 have their habitat in the country's waters. And just over a quarter of them are found in Patagonia. But Chile is also a country of salmon, occupying the second place in the world production, surpassed only by Norway. The overlap of the salmon industry with the habitat of these emblematic marine mammals represents a significant threat to cetaceans in Chile about which not enough is known.The recent deaths of three whales in protected areas of Chile's southern seas force us to ask ourselves why they are dying and how they are affected by the growing industry with which they share their habitat.Civil society is responding. In early November 2024, Greenpeace - together with the Kawésqar community Grupos Familiares Nómadas del Mar and with the support of AIDA - filed two criminal complaints against those responsible for the deaths of humpback whales in protected areas.These lawsuits, which have already been declared admissible, represent an unprecedented milestone in the country's criminal history, as they are the first take advantage of the amendaments made to the Penal Code by Law 21,595 on Economic and Environmental Crimes to the Penal Code to file a lawsuit for possible violations committed inside protected areas.In this context, AIDA, together with Greenpeace and the NGO FIMA - historical allies in the resistance to the expansion of salmon farming in the waters of Chilean Patagonia - commissioned a scientific report entitle “Cetaceans and Salmon Farming: Challenges for the Protection of Marine Biodiversity in Chilean Patagonia.”The report is currently available in Spanish, which lays out the available information on the impacts of salmon farming on the whales and dolphins of Chilean Patagonia. The results are alarming: serious risks have been identified, in addition to a lack of data that makes it difficult to understand the magnitude and consequences of the threats.One of the most evident impacts is the incidental capture of small and large cetaceans in farming centers. There are documented cases of entanglement and deaths, although the lack of official records makes it difficult to measure the severity of the problem.Another significant threat is the Intense maritime traffic in Patagonia, largely related to the salmon industry. Although there is no official data in Chile, there is evidence of deaths and serious injuries due to collisions between boats and whales. In addition, underwater noise from boat engines affects the health and well-being of the whales and dolphins, which depend on sound for communication and orientation.In addition to these, there are other problems of the industry, whose effects on whales and dolphins have not been adequately studied, but which we should consider while the studies are being conducted. One of these is the escape of salmonids, which compete with native species for food resources and may carry diseases that could affect smaller cetaceans in particular by reducing the availability of prey that serve as food.Microplastic pollution, 40 percent of which comes from salmon farming centers, is another under-researched environmental concern in terms of its impact on cetaceans. And the excessive use of antibiotics in Chilean salmon farming, one of the highest rates in the world, could be having negative indirect effects on the ecosystems that support these marine mammals.Finally, one of the most significant environmental impacts of the salmon farming in Chilean Patagonia is the generation of hypoxia and anoxia due to the excess of organic matter in the farming centers, coming from salmon feces and uneaten food that falls to the seabed. The decomposition of this matter consumes the oxygen in the water, creating zones in the sea where life becomes difficult or impossible.We hope that this report will fill the information gap that has become uncomfortable and even untenable in light of recent whale deaths.With this evidence, even in a scenario of limited knowledge, we will be able to encourage a governmental response towards the rapid implementation of effective protection measures for whales and dolphins in Chilean waters.Chile is a country of cetaceans, and as their guardians, we must ensure that our waters are a safe space for their development and well-being. Read and download the report (in Spanish)
Read more