Blog
Climate-focused environmental assessment: Key to protecting human rights
In a landmark ruling for climate justice in Latin America, on June 16, Costa Rica’s Constitutional Court ordered the government to include a climate impact analysis in the assessment of any project, construction, or activity that could affect the environment.The decision builds on similar achievements in other countries on the continent, resulting from strategic climate litigation.The ruling in Costa Rica was the result of litigation supported by AIDA, in which we filed a legal brief presenting solid arguments demonstrating that incorporating a climate perspective into project assessments is an obligation under national legislation, international agreements, and the experience of other countries in the region.Since the climate crisis is the most urgent environmental and human rights threat the world currently faces, it is important for courts to uphold the requirement that governments assess climate-related risks and impacts before authorizing any project or activity.The procedure established to conduct this analysis—known as an environmental impact assessment (EIA)—is specifically designed to identify, anticipate, analyze, mitigate, and/or prevent the environmental impacts of potentially harmful projects or activities.At the same time, it is a key tool for preventing development proposals from violating the rights of individuals and communities, including the universal right to a healthy environment.Below, we detail the reasons why governments must assess a project’s climate impacts before giving it the green light—these were our contributions to the recent legal victory in Costa Rica. National and international obligationsThere are several national regulations that establish the obligation to include climate change criteria in project environmental assessments. In Costa Rica, for example, we have:The Manual of Technical Tools for the Environmental Impact Assessment Process calls for taking climate factors into account, particularly regarding the vulnerability of rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water, as well as the life they sustain.Decree 42465 of 2019, which requires institutions carrying out public infrastructure projects to assess climate risks, climate change, and other natural or human-induced factors at all stages of the project. Our brief also refers to a series of documents that analyze climate risk in Costa Rica, a country that, due to its location in the Central American tropics, is exposed to extreme weather events—hurricanes, tropical storms, droughts, and floods—whose frequency and intensity have increased as a result of global warming.A nivel internacional, Costa Rica, al igual que otros países del continente, es parte de tratados y otros instrumentos del derecho internacional que implican obligaciones en materia de ambiente y derechos humanos que hacen referencia a la evaluación ambiental de proyectos:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It requires governments to use appropriate methods, such as project impact assessments, to minimize the adverse effects of climate change on the economy, public health, and the environment.Paris Agreement. It requires governments to take and report on the actions they will undertake to reduce climate-damaging gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change, all of which must respect human rights.Convention on Biological Diversity. It requires countries to implement appropriate procedures to ensure that projects likely to have a significant adverse impact on biological diversity are assessed, with a view to preventing or minimizing such impacts, and to allow for public participation where appropriate.Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. It calls on countries to develop, strengthen, and implement relevant actions to align sustainable development and growth, food security, health and safety, climate variability and change, environmental management, and disaster risk reduction.Advisory Opinion No. 23 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It requires that environmental assessments of projects take into account their cumulative impacts, prevent harm to indigenous communities and tribal peoples, include contingency and mitigation plans, and ensure that the assessments are objective, independent, and subject to state oversight. Lessons from other Latin American countriesIn several countries on the continent, the requirement to incorporate climate criteria into environmental assessments has been institutionally established and also upheld by court rulings. Two recent cases illustrate this:Chile. In a 2022 litigation related to the Mejillones thermal power plant, located in the Antofagasta Region, the Supreme Court ordered Chile’s Environmental Assessment Service to analyze the atmospheric component—including those elements that have changed in the terrestrial environment due to climate change—from the start of the project’s implementation to the present.Colombia. In response to a lawsuit challenging the country’s environmental permitting regulations, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2024 that environmental impact studies must include an assessment of climate change impacts: “a global phenomenon determined by multiple biophysical and socioeconomic variables that interact over long periods of time, which is having an increasingly decisive effect on natural processes and impacts territories, communities, and individuals in different ways, with Colombia being one of the most affected countries.” Protecting a healthy environment in the face of the climate crisisAs noted above, incorporating climate change criteria into the environmental assessment of projects is essential for the enjoyment of the right to a healthy environment. This implies:Assessing the impacts that the project or activity may have on climate change. This includes quantifying and documenting direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions; determining whether, and to what extent, these emissions increase or decrease; and analyzing appropriate mitigation strategies to address anticipated impacts.Considering the effects of the climate crisis (such as climate-induced accidents or disasters) on the development, viability, and sustainability of the project or activity over time, this analysis should inform the decision on its authorization. The climate crisis is not a threat, but a reality that is already severely affecting the region. In this context, it is imperative that development projects continue to undergo proper environmental assessments that require mandatory, systematic consideration of climate impacts for both mitigation and adaptation. Through strategic litigation, AIDA will continue to contribute to this effort. Learn more in our fact sheet, "Climate Change Perspectives in Environmental Impact Studies" (in Spanish). Check out our report, "Global Best Practices for Environmental Impact Studies" (in Spanish).
Read more
Climate justice unlocked
How the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion 32/25 Rewrites the Rules for Climate Litigation in Latin America. This article was originally published on Verfassungsblog. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has just handed climate litigators in Latin America the most powerful tool they have ever had. Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, issued in 2025, does not merely interpret existing rights in the context of the climate crisis. It restructures the procedural architecture of climate litigation by inverting burdens of proof, authorising the presumption of causal links between state emissions and climate harm, and recognising satellite imagery as evidence that states must make accessible to victims. For organisations that have spent years fighting for communities on the front lines of the climate emergency, this is not an incremental development. It is a transformative moment.The Opinion did not emerge from a vacuum. Over the past decade, the Inter-American Court has built the foundations step by step. In 2017, Advisory Opinion OC-23 established the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right under the American Convention – not a derivative entitlement, but a freestanding legal guarantee with its own independent status. That standard moved from theory to practice in the contentious case of La Oroya v. Peru, where the Court found that severe environmental contamination created a systemic risk to life, health, and physical integrity. OC-32/25 is the third step in this trajectory – and by far the most ambitious.The Opinion characterises the climate crisis as a human rights problem that falls disproportionately on those already marginalised. It maps the vulnerabilities of Latin America and the Caribbean with precision, identifying Central America, the Amazon, the Caribbean and the Andes as zones of existential risk. The figures the Court cites are sobering. In 2021, the region counted 17.1 million internally displaced persons due to climate-related causes. The top one per cent of the population generated 92 per cent of per-capita CO₂ emissions in 2019, while the bottom 50 per cent generated just 0.27 per cent. Those who emit the least suffer the most. Across these ecosystems, indigenous peoples and traditional communities are disproportionately affected by ongoing violations of their rights linked to climate change. A New Autonomous RightFrom the right to a healthy environment, the Court derives a new autonomous right: the right to a healthy climate, defined as the right to live in a climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic interference. The Opinion treats this right as an indispensable precondition for the exercise of all other human rights in the context of the climate emergency. States are accordingly bound by a standard of heightened due diligence. Climate governance is no longer treated as a matter of political discretion alone. States must prevent climate harm inside and beyond their borders, require environmental impact assessments to include specific analyses of greenhouse gas emissions before authorising projects, and set ambitious, progressive reduction targets calibrated to the best available science. The scientific consensus reflected in IPCC assessments is explicitly treated as the legal reference standard.The Court adds a prohibition on regression: protection levels already achieved are a floor, not a ceiling. It extends due diligence obligations not only to states’ own activities but also to companies operating under their jurisdiction. These propositions are not entirely new, but the Opinion consolidates them into a unified framework and gives them the authority of a definitive Inter-American interpretation. For litigation purposes, the catalogue of obligations is now largely settled. Procedural Rights as the Real InnovationIf the substantive obligations are important, the procedural innovations are transformative. The most significant contribution of OC-32/25 for climate litigation is not the declaration of a right to a healthy climate – it is the way the Opinion restructures the access rights framework. Indeed, the Court developed two very valuable elements: the right to science, and standards of proof and evidence that strengthen climate litigation. "The right to science includes access to the benefits of scientific and technological progress and to the co-production of knowledge between scientists and holders of local, traditional and indigenous knowledge." (par. 473) The right to science, grounded in Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and read together with OC-32/25, creates enforceable obligations for states to guarantee effective access to scientific climate knowledge. States can no longer rely on claims of scientific uncertainty or insufficient knowledge: policies must be based on the best available science and updated as that science evolves. Environmental impact assessments (par. 362), national adaptation plans (par. 388), and Nationally Determined Contributions are treated as auditable documents that must rely on scientifically credible evidence and remain transparent (parr. 510, 511 and 486). Most significantly, judges can and must evaluate whether the scientific basis relied upon by the state satisfies Convention standards (parr. 488–539). This substantially expands the scope of judicial review of climate policy within the Inter-American system. Reversing the Burden of ProofProving a direct causal link between a specific state’s emissions and a specific harm has historically been the single greatest obstacle in climate litigation – technically demanding, judicially contested, and practically out of reach for most affected communities. OC-32/25 dismantles that obstacle in four concrete moves.The Opinion acknowledges that climate litigation is characterised by marked asymmetries between parties in their access to technical and scientific information. National courts must therefore adopt measures – including the reversal of the burden of proof – to guarantee effective judicial protection. The language is direct: "the burden of justifying any denial always falls on the State" (par. 490). In matters of information access passivity is not an option for the state.Second, the Opinion accepts a presumption of the causal nexus between a state’s greenhouse gas emissions and the degradation of the global climate system, and in turn the link between that degradation and the risks facing people and ecosystems – provided this is anchored in IPCC assessments. This responds directly to the attribution problem that has shaped the limits of climate litigation for decades. Courts are no longer required to resolve the full scientific chain of causation in each individual case.Third, the Opinion introduces alternative standards of proof. Access to climate justice does not require proving individualised causation for each harm. It is sufficient to demonstrate the generation or tolerance of significant risks through state inaction, and the effective exposure of people or groups to those risks. Communities do not need to show that a specific tonne of CO₂ from a specific state caused their specific flood. They need to show that they were exposed to foreseeable risks that the state failed to address.Fourth, the Court highlights satellite evidence as particularly relevant in climate cases and requires states to ensure cooperation and technology transfer to make such evidence accessible to victims in judicial proceedings. This is a practical recognition that the evidentiary tools needed for climate litigation are often technically sophisticated and economically inaccessible to the communities that need them most. What Changes for LitigationTaken together, these four innovations transform the strategic landscape for climate litigation across the Americas. Organisations like AIDA can now challenge fossil fuel projects whose environmental impact assessments fail to incorporate adequate climate analysis – invoking the right to science directly. We can contest state climate policies on the grounds of scientific insufficiency or obsolescence. We can bring cases on behalf of entire communities without proving individual, direct harm, thanks to the broad standing the Opinion recognises. And we can defend indigenous territories by connecting climate damage to collective territorial rights through a framework that no longer demands the near-impossible standard of individualised causation.OC-32/25 is not a self-executing judgment. Its standards will need to be invoked, argued, and developed case by case before the Inter-American Court, the Commission, and national courts across member states. Resistance from states that seek to preserve the status quo is predictable. But the architecture is now in place: the applicable rules have changed.At AIDA, we have spent years litigating in a region where the gap between states’ formal climate commitments and the actual protection experienced by communities is vast. OC-32/25 gives us legal instruments to narrow that gap. It does not ask us to be more optimistic. It asks us to be more ambitious – in the cases we choose, in the standards we invoke, and in the connections we draw between international law and the communities on the front lines of the climate crisis.
Read more
Pre-COP31 sessions in Bonn: A worn-out climate system with glimmers of hope
By Florencia Ortúzar Greene and Karla Maass* The world has been negotiating on climate change for 30 years. For 30 years, governments have been meeting annually, accompanied by increasingly alarming scientific reports. The multilateral process has matured; it now has implementation rules and mechanisms in place to drive global climate action, but that action remains limited and discretionary.What's going on? How can we breathe new life into this very important global process?The following are our reflections after participating in the 64th Sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held June 8–18 in Bonn, Germany, to advance negotiations leading up to the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (COP31). The stalemate in international climate negotiationsIt would be unfair to say that the sessions in Bonn were a failure, let alone to be surprised by the lack of concrete results. What is happening is simply a reflection of a process in slow decline. This becomes evident at a time when there is sustained and widespread talk of the need for “implementation” and “cooperation” to put the Paris Agreement into effect, while, time and again, two irreconcilable rifts continue to block progress. Being able to identify them so clearly brings a certain sense of reassurance.The main point of contention remains financing. Developing countries consistently raise in negotiating rooms that the Paris Agreement not only sets targets for emissions reductions and adaptation but also establishes concrete commitments for financial support from developed countries. However, discussions on the provision of financing are completely stalled. This is happening in a context where commitments are not only insufficient but also inadequate in quality, accessibility, and predictability.In response to this demand, developed countries have placed increasing emphasis on mobilizing private capital and creating enabling conditions for investment. Although these flows can play an important role, private investment tends to be directed toward sectors and projects with clear financial returns. Meanwhile, critical areas such as adaptation, loss and damage, and capacity building continue to depend on concessional public financing. Added to this are structural debt-related issues that ultimately exacerbate shortcomings in countries already struggling to cope.The second point of contention relates to phasing out fossil fuels. For several States Parties, the willingness to embark on phasing out fossil fuels is not on the table. This is despite the fact that they are signatories to the Paris Agreement ad, at COP28 in Dubai, agreed to move toward a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. There is talk of a just transition, but plans to expand fossil fuel use are as certain as they are concrete. The role of science in addressing the climate crisis has been sidelined One cause for concern at SB64 was the intention of representatives from various countries to downplay the role of science in climate decision-making. This is nothing new. It has been happening for years, gradually and steadily—perhaps so slowly that we hadn’t noticed it until now.This phenomenon became evident when contrasted with the results of the First International Conference on the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels, held recently in Santa Marta, Colombia. There, science served as the common thread and central foundation of the political dialogue. The way science was given a platform reminded us of how it was handled at the early COPs, which opened with presentations of the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Today, that no longer happens. These days, science appears as a second-rate guest, with a contested and unclear role.This is extremely important because, without science, the process loses its foundation and becomes a purely political negotiation, in which the side with the most power wins. Climate action: A new wind of hopeThis story doesn't end on a completely bleak note. At the climate talks in Bonn, some encouraging developments took place—the result of this long and complex process.The Brazilian COP30 Presidency took on the task of developing roadmaps to transition away from fossil fuels and to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030, thereby reinforcing the two central pillars of any effective and reliable climate action. This demonstrates leadership willing to break away from the official path to make progress.In addition, at COP30, it was agreed to implement a just transition mechanism (known as BAM), a decision that responded to the urgent call from civil society and affected communities. And in Bonn, countries made progress in implementing it. While there is still much to be done, the process is still on track and will be finalized at COP31, to be held November 9–20 in Antalya, Turkey.Furthermore, the Santa Marta Conference—organized within the framework of COP30 and bringing together 57 countries willing to discuss the energy transition—succeeded in launching a renewed process of dialogue, which is also an undisputed source of hope that will continue to grow stronger as we look ahead to the second conference, to be hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland. Learn more in our review of the SB64 (in Spanish). *Florencia Ortúzar Greene is the director of AIDA's Climate Program, and Karla Maass is an external consultant for the organization.
Read more
The Xingu River is being silenced, but not its people
A river is always a path, sustenance, and memory. At the Volta Grande (or Great Bend) of the Xingu River, deep in the Brazilian Amazon, the water did more than just flow: it taught people when to plant, when to fish, and when to celebrate. There, life moved to the rhythm of the river. But that began to change in 2010, when plans were underway to build the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, and a silent question began to grow: Who decides the fate of the water? Six years later, on May 5, 2016, when the dam was inaugurated, nearly 80% of the Xingu River’s flow had been diverted.As early as 2018, organizations and communities were warning that the flow management plan imposed on the Xingu River for the operation of the hydroelectric plant foreshadowed a future of drought.That warning has come true.Today, entire stretches of the river are dry. More than 100 kilometers of the Volta Grande have lost their natural flow. The water, which once sustained biodiversity and local ways of life, no longer flows as it once did. Without enough water, the fish have stopped reproducing. There has been no spawning for three years. The river’s silence has turned into hunger, uncertainty, and disruption. The death of the fish is not just an environmental impact: it is the breakdown of a way of life. Indigenous, riverine, and fishing communities have lost not only their primary source of food but also their autonomy and their connection to the land. Today, the legacy of Belo Monte is a growing accumulation of ecological, social, and cultural degradation. However, this story is not yet over. Time for justice for the Xingu River and the life it sustainsTen years after the Belo Monte Dam began operations, the reported impacts have been confirmed, but something unexpected has also grown stronger: resistance.The affected communities remain organized, active, and determined. They continue to speak out, demand reparations, and defend their right to live alongside the river.That strength is evident today in the protests against new projects in the area.Because for these communities, the struggle is not just against a project; it is for the survival of their way of life.Today is a moment of justice for them. The complaint against the Brazilian State for its international responsibility in the case has been before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights since 2011, pending a decision that could mark a turning point for the communities of the Xingu Basin. The complaint contains the legal and evidentiary elements necessary for the Commission to admit it, determine that there were several human rights violations, and refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, whose ruling could set a precedent for state regulation of megaprojects in the context of the climate crisis; public participation; and the protection of indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and key ecosystems such as the Amazon.But as the process moves forward slowly, the impacts continue to worsen every day. The urgency is not legal; it is human. Every unanswered cycle is another cycle of drought, biodiversity loss, and mounting violations. In this case, making a decision is not just an institutional matter; it is a matter of life expectancy for those who depend on the river.What happened with Belo Monte has become a symbol. It is a clear example of how projects marketed as “clean energy” can have profound and lasting impacts when they disregard human rights. At a time when the world is seeking energy solutions to address the climate crisis, we cannot repeat old patterns of injustice. Learn More
Read more
Santa Marta and the End of Fossil Fuels: From “Yes” to “How”
The First International Conference on the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels has concluded in Santa Marta, Colombia. And all signs point to this initiative being here to stay.Many aspects deserve attention in this process launched by Colombia and the Netherlands. Are we witnessing the first step toward a new era?While the world is still processing what has happened and awaits the official report from the co-hosting countries in the coming months, we offer an early analysis. The OriginsThe Santa Marta conference was a response to the frustration caused by three decades of international climate negotiations—at the successive Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—failing to directly address the primary and undisputed cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels. And it was about time.Since 1992, the international community has negotiated emissions targets and market mechanisms without ever facing the elephant in the room. The words "oil," "coal," and "fuels" do not appear in the Paris Agreement. It wasn’t until 2021, at the Glasgow COP, that fossil fuels were acknowledged for the first time as causing climate change, but only a gradual reduction in coal was called for. In 2023, in Dubai, the greatest progress was made: the phrase "transitioning away from fossil fuels." And in 2025, in Belém, not even that could be maintained. But at least that frustration helped spark the Santa Marta conference, which was precisely the opposite: 57 countries representing a third of global GDP sat down to discuss how to phase out fossil fuels, not whether to do so. If it amounts to nothing more, this conference was at least a relief, a sign of sanity in a world that sometimes is truly hard to understand.And the discussion wasn't just about the "what," but also the "how," which includes justice. The official summary document circulated by the host countries discusses territorial plans for a just transition, labor restructuring with the participation of workers and communities, direct access to financing for indigenous peoples, and explicit prevention of "new forms of extractive dependency." Decentralized and community-based energy systems are mentioned as concrete examples of sustainable production.At AIDA, we believe this is a fundamental condition: without justice, there can be no viable transition. It is not merely an ethical or legal imperative; it is also a practical one. When the transition is carried out without involving communities, without safeguarding people and territories, and without a fair distribution of burdens and benefits, it generates resistance that can hinder the projects themselves. The evidence in Latin America speaks for itself.In times when humanity is going through such darkness, it is hard to be optimistic. Perhaps in this case, there are reasons to be so. A war that, paradoxically, shows the way forwardWith the war in the Middle East as a backdrop, the Santa Marta conference took on an unprecedented sense of urgency: the disruption to oil and gas supplies that it has caused puts us in a unique situation. Overnight, between 20 and 25% of the world’s oil and gas flow was cut off, wreaking havoc across the globe: skyrocketing living costs, blackouts, and faltering economies. A conflict in one specific part of the world is affecting nearly every economy on the planet.And that shifted the tone of the conversation. The transition is no longer framed solely as a climate or environmental necessity, but as a matter of security and sovereignty. The war demonstrated that relying on fossil fuels makes us tremendously vulnerable. It is time to recognize that the climate emergency and economic stability are on the same side—they are not at odds.Fatih Birol, director of the International Energy Agency, stated from Santa Marta that the war "has broken fossil fuel markets beyond repair," referring to the metaphor of the broken vase. This is not merely an environmentalist position; it is a global assessment. The Revitalization of Santa MartaIn addition to its content, the way the Santa Marta conference unfolded was also surprising and could be considered a breakthrough in climate diplomacy.The fossil fuel lobby was explicitly excluded. Countries that have historically blocked any progress were not invited. And the format of the high-level segment broke with traditional dynamics: instead of the computer-read statements that characterize COPs, ministers and delegates sat in small circles under Chatham House rules, without screens, alongside representatives of civil society and indigenous peoples under the same conditions. It didn’t happen at the end, when no one is listening anymore, but rather by setting the tone from the very beginning.Tzeporah Berman, chair of the initiative to establish the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, described the experience as "watching a dam break": "All that accumulated experience, knowledge, and passion suddenly translates into concrete steps to phase out polluting fuels." Science at the WheelAmong the concrete outcomes, the launch of the Scientific Panel for Global Energy Transition (SPGET) stands out. In the early years of climate negotiations, science led the way: COPs opened with an update on the latest scientific findings, and decisions were built upon that foundation. Over time, this approach eroded. Countries with fossil fuel interests gradually diluted scientific warnings and introduced what was openly called “false solutions” at the Santa Marta conference—such as carbon capture and offsets—to justify continued extraction. The conference set out to put science back in the driver’s seat.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continues to produce essential reports, but it has limitations that the SPGET can address. It publishes reports every seven years, a slow process for a crisis that is accelerating. Its summaries for policymakers—which, in practice, are read by governments—are negotiated line by line with government representatives, including those from countries with fossil fuel interests, diluting the conclusions. And the IPCC is not authorized to make policy recommendations to countries. Carlos Nobre, one of the founders of the SPGET, recounted that he once sought to include information on the risks facing the Amazon in an IPCC summary, but a representative from his own country rejected it.The SPGET is completely independent. No government can veto its findings, and it will produce annual updates with concrete policy recommendations to support countries in developing roadmaps aligned with the 1.5°C goal. In terms of its structure, it is co-chaired by a Cameroonian economist (Vera Songwe), a German economist (Ottmar Edenhofer), and a Brazilian energy engineer (Gilberto Jannuzzi). If it works as promised, it could become the scientific arm that the transition needs. Continuity and Structure: A Commitment to the FutureThe Santa Marta conference was not a one-off event, but rather the start of a structured process. To begin with, a second conference has already been confirmed for 2027, co-hosted by Tuvalu and Ireland, cementing the commitment to North-South collaboration. With this in mind, three permanent working groups have been established that will continue their work until the Tuvalu conference.The first line of work will support countries in developing national transition roadmaps aligned with their climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. There are concrete examples: France presented its own roadmap to phase out fossil fuels from its energy mix by 2050—the first proposal of its kind submitted by a developed country. But the plan has been criticized by civil society. It does not address the remediation of territories damaged by decades of extraction, nor does it account for the new pressures that its electrification model could exert on the Global South, from which the vast majority of the minerals needed for batteries, grids, and renewable energy come.Colombia, for its part, presented its own plan at the academic pre-conference, with data showing that the transition would become economically viable starting in 2040.Unlike the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), these roadmaps address fossil fuel production. The NDCs focus on reducing emissions, but they do not commit to closing coal mines or power plants or ending tenders for fossil fuel extraction. However, NDCs also have something that roadmaps lack: legal standing, as they are part of the Paris Agreement. Thus, the promise lies in integrating roadmaps into NDCs, which would result in concrete and binding transition commitments. But, as the French case shows, if the roadmaps do not incorporate the remediation of affected territories or the supply chains that electrification demands, there is a risk of ending up with binding commitments that reinforce an unequal transition rather than correcting it.The second ongoing line of work will address financial barriers—debt, fossil fuel subsidies, and access to capital—with support from IISD, a research center specializing in subsidy policies and climate finance. And the third will seek ways to decarbonize international trade by connecting fossil fuel-producing and -consuming countries so they can work together on the transition, with support from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).In addition, there is the Scientific Panel (SPGET), which will provide the technical foundation for the entire process, and a permanent coordination group between the current co-hosts (Colombia and the Netherlands) and the future co-hosts (Tuvalu and Ireland) to ensure continuity. Everything that emerges from these lines of work will inform the official UN climate negotiations, including COP31, scheduled for November of this year in Turkey.Although there are no binding agreements to show for it, we already have concrete working mechanisms in place among the countries committed to moving forward, including supporting institutions, clear mandates, a second conference to review progress, and a commitment to influence official UN negotiations. It’s a good start, with a structure that sustains itself. What Remains to Be ResolvedThere is one issue that cuts across all of the above: timelines and urgency. We have only just begun discussing roadmaps to phase out fossil fuels, but their implementation should have begun 40 years ago. That delay should set the tone for everything that lies ahead.One area where the Santa Marta conference fell particularly short is financing. The issue—debt, fiscal space, subsidies, and the international financial architecture—was discussed at length, but this failed to translate into clear signals. For a process aimed at coordinating the global phase-out of fossil fuels, the absence of a financial roadmap is a serious limitation.This is nothing new, nor is it a matter of charity. The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, enshrined in the UNFCCC itself, establishes that the countries that contributed most to the climate crisis must support those that contributed least and are suffering the most. On this basis, climate finance targets have been set, currently amounting to USD 300 billion annually by 2035, as agreed at COP29. But most of that financing comes in the form of loans, which means that countries in the Global South are taking on debt to solve a problem they did not create. The North’s climate debt to the South paradoxically becomes the South’s financial debt to the North. Thus, a just transition is not possible. And the Santa Marta conference failed to make any progress on this issue.Another structural barrier that was addressed in Santa Marta but still requires further work is the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows fossil fuel corporations to sue governments for adopting climate measures. At least $100 billion in compensation has been awarded to companies through international arbitration tribunals. ISDS was included in the official summary of the Santa Marta conference, but with lukewarm language. As long as governments can be sued for billions for closing a coal mine, the transition will not move forward—not for lack of will, but out of fear of lawsuits.Nor was the debate over natural gas as a "transition" fuel resolved. The official document acknowledges that "there were differing perspectives regarding the role of transition fuels and technologies"—a step forward achieved thanks to pressure from civil society, given the number of countries that openly promote gas as a solution. But gas is a fossil fuel, and methane leaks from it exacerbate global warming. Presenting it as a "transition" fuel only deepens dependence and delays the transition.Finally, an analysis from Latin America reveals a significant practical inconsistency: the gap between what countries say and what they do. The Mexican government actively participated in the conference while also establishing a committee to assess the viability of "sustainable" fracking. The Brazilian government, guardian of the Amazon, continues to auction off oil wells. And Colombia, host of the conference, announced that it seeks to expand the extractive frontier in the Caribbean Sea. It seems that different branches of the same government are acting with entirely contradictory objectives. The problem is that this undermines the credibility of the process, which is crucial for a coalition such as the one being sought.That said, perhaps it was too much to expect that the first conference of its kind—which sought and succeeded in laying the groundwork for a new process—would provide all the answers to the crisis of our times. The Santa Marta conference served to identify the problems, establish lines of action, and build trust. The next step cannot wait much longer. By the 2027 conference in Tuvalu, there should be no unresolved issues left, especially regarding financing. A plan without financing, no matter how good or well thought out it may be, cannot get off the ground. From a Coal Port to a Sinking Island The conference in Santa Marta, a major coal port in Colombia, has come to a close, and the next stop is Tuvalu, a small Pacific island nation facing an existential threat from rising sea levels. The route is symbolic: from a country that exports coal to one that is disappearing due to the global warming caused by burning that very coal. That these two nations are now working together to lay the groundwork for a change in course is precisely what we need: to acknowledge the past and look to the future with solidarity.The First International Conference on the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels could go down in history as the cornerstone of a new era. Let’s keep building on this foundation.
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).In the following video, we explain the main findings of the report, which documents and analyzes cases in several countries across the continent:
Read more
How much water is used to produce energy?
Water and energy go hand in hand. Processes such as gas extraction, oil refining, and hydroelectric power plant operations all require water. Thus, as energy demand increases, so does the need for water to generate it.This leads to environmental and social impacts, including the depletion of water sources and the pollution of rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water.Understanding the connection between water and energy production gives us a broader perspective on what our water consumption entails.Conserving water also means reducing our energy consumption, exploring more sustainable energy generation options, and demanding that energy be produced in a clean and fair manner. The water footprint of energyWater is essential for energy production. But not all sources consume the same amount of water, so their environmental impact varies. To generate 1 megawatt—enough to power 1,000 homes for one hour—here is how many liters of water are consumed by different sources of electricity: But water use goes beyond that. In addition to electricity generation, the energy sector uses freshwater—with various socio-environmental impacts—in its various production processes: Conventional thermoelectric power plantsIn these plants, water is heated to high temperatures—by burning coal, gas, or oil—to produce steam, which drives turbines to generate electricity.Water is also used in thermal power plants to cool the power-generating units. Hydroelectric power plantsThey use the force of water to drive turbines that generate electricity. By damming or diverting the natural flow of rivers, streams, and lakes, they fragment habitats, leading to the displacement and decline of species. They also impact water quality.Furthermore, they cause the forced displacement of communities living near water sources and who depend on them. Fuel extraction and productionWater is used in coal mining and in drilling wells for oil and gas. In many cases, these processes generate wastewater.Water is also needed to refine oil and gas before they can be used as fuels. Coal miningIn addition to using water to extract the mineral, it can be used—along with chemicals—to remove sulfur and impurities before combustion. Coal mining using explosives generates debris that can contaminate local water sources and even block them. Coal can be transported to the power plant using a method that pumps the finely ground coal mixed with water through pipes. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking)In this technique, a mixture consisting of more than 90% water, along with chemicals and sand, is injected at high pressure into underground rock formations to fracture them and access the oil or gas they contain.The wastewater from this mixture remains underground and can contaminate the groundwater that feeds nearby aquifers. Renewable energySolar photovoltaic and wind power do not use water to operate, but they require supplies and materials whose production requires water.A notable example is lithium, which is used to manufacture the batteries that store the energy generated by these sources. Its extraction involves massive water consumption from salt flats, one of its primary sources:2,000 liters of water for every ton of lithium produced in evaporation ponds.Water is used to extract lithium carbonate and separate it from the remaining compound.Water is lost during brine pumping. Understanding how much water is needed to generate the energy we use gives us a broader perspective on the water our energy consumption entails.Reducing our energy needs and promoting sustainable and equitable energy production are also ways to conserve water. If you'd like to learn more about this topic, here is a list of the sources we consulted: - "How It Works: Water for Electricity", Union of Concerned Scientists.- "El uso del agua: una planta de energía termoeléctrica", USGS.- "¿Por qué la termoeléctrica no es energía limpia?", J. Soto, Greenpeace.- "How much water does the typical hydraulically fractured well require?", U.S. Geological Survey.- "Hydraulic Fracturing and its Impact on Water Resources", Water Footprint Calculator.- "The intensification of the water footprint of hydraulic fracturing", Science Advances.- "Efectos del represamiento de ríos en países de América Latina y el Caribe sobre la biodiversidad, el agua, la alimentación y la energía", A. Stehr, CEPAL.- "Las represas y su impacto en la naturaleza", WWF.- "¿Qué es el litio, para qué sirve y de dónde se extrae en la Argentina?", Florencia Ballarino, Chequeado.- "El impacto de la minería de litio en los Humedales Altoandinos", Wetlands International.- "'Triángulo de litio: la amenaza a los salares de Bolivia, Chile y Argentina", Rodolfo Chisleanchi, Mongabay Latam. Data on water consumption in electricity generation obtained from: - "A simple model to help understand water use at power plants", A. Delgado y H. J. Herzog, MIT.- "How it Works: Water for Natural Gas", Union of Concerned Scientists.- "Hidropower Explained", U.S. Energy Information Administration.- "How it Works: Water for Nuclear", Union of Concerned Scientists.- "Geothermal Energu Factsheet", University of Michigan.- "Life cycle water use for electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates", J. Meldrum y otros, Environmental Research Letters.
Read more
When environmental defenders in Latin America take the stage at key international forums
By Víctor Quintanilla and Mayela Sánchez García* The voices of communities across Latin America and the Caribbean are powerful, especially when they call for environmental protection amid multiple, growing threats.Often, this demand falls on deaf ears among those who deliver justice at the national or local level.This trend makes it necessary to turn to complementary avenues of international justice.One such platform is provided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an international body with a critical mandate: the promotion and protection of human rights on the continent.As an organization driven by the mission of guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment in Latin America and the Caribbean, the IACHR serves as a key forum for highlighting environmental issues that affect human rights in the region. We do this in alliance with communities and partner organizations. This allows the voices of local communities to be heard by an international body capable of urging the continent’s governments to change their practices and strengthen their standards for protecting populations affected by environmental degradation. Testimonies calling for a responsible phase-out of fossil fuelsBringing the voices of communities before the IACHR is also an opportunity to highlight regional patterns of risk and human rights violations.So it was on March 10, when representatives from communities in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic testified before the Commission about how decades of fossil fuel extraction and use have seriously violated human rights such as the right to a healthy environment, the right to health, and the right to access information and participate in environmental matters."Our region doesn’t just need to decarbonize its energy system; it also needs to address the historical injustice that our communities have endured," said Yaneth Ortiz, a representative of the Wayuu indigenous people of La Guajira, a region in northern Colombia that has been severely impacted by the operations of the Carbones del Cerrejón mining project.Their messages were heard by the IACHR during a public hearing titled "Human rights situation related to fossil fuel extraction," held as part of its 195th Period of Sessions.Community representatives also noted that, in the current context of the energy transition, these violations and risks have become more severe."Our children are getting sick in their own schools. Despite all this, there are no clear parties to blame and no structural solutions… For us, this decarbonization process [in Chile] has been insufficient and lacking in transparency," said Katta Alonso, speaking on behalf of the Chilean organization Mujeres en Zonas de Sacrificio en Resistencia. The local experiences shared highlighted the urgency of implementing just transitions, which entail the responsible phase-out of fossil fuel projects throughout the region.Meanwhile, Juan Bay, president of the Waorani Nationality of Ecuador (NAWE), stated: "We have not been consulted in a prior, free, and informed manner regarding oil exploration on our territory, nor regarding the establishment of the protected area. We now demand that our rights be respected in the process of closing down oil operations and in the environmental and social remediation."AIDA requested the hearing in collaboration with the communities and partner organizations. "We explained the risks and human rights violations faced by various communities in the context of the closure and irresponsible exit of coal, gas, and oil extraction and combustion projects," explains Rosa Peña, AIDA’s attorney.The Commission views the purpose of these hearings as gathering information on human rights issues in specific countries or regionally, in order to issue recommendations to governments aimed at ensuring respect for and the enjoyment of human rights.Before each session, it receives a huge number of requests to address various human rights issues across the continent during the hearings—issues that go beyond just the environment or climate."This is how we got here, after convincing the Commission of the importance of approaching this issue from a human rights perspective and of listening to the communities," says Liliana Ávila, director of AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program.Over the years, AIDA has developed significant expertise and leadership in successfully bringing cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—the two pillars of the Inter-American Human Rights System, a mechanism of the Organization of American States—to achieve regional impact in the protection of a healthy environment, in partnership with local communities. Voices against the damage caused by illegal miningAlso, during the 195th Period of Sessions of the IACHR, we participated in the ex officio hearing titled "Impacts of illegal mining on economic, social, cultural and environmental rights," convened by the Commission itself.Our contribution joined other voices in highlighting why this activity is now one of the most alarming phenomena on the continent, given its severe impact on ecosystems and human rights. In Latin America, gold mining fuels illegal extraction that violates numerous rights, primarily those of indigenous peoples and traditional communities. At the hearing, we proposed relevant measures to the Commission to address the issue from a regional perspective.At AIDA, we seek to amplify the strength of local communities and their people, bringing their wisdom to decision-making forums with the potential to transform realities and build a better future for the continent. *Víctor Quintanilla-Sangüeza is AIDA’s Content Coordinator, and Mayela Sánchez García is the organization’s digital community specialist.
Read more
Coal, a dirty and obsolete fuel
Historically, coal has been identified as an important source of non-renewable energy. It was the fuel that powered the Industrial Revolution, transforming the world's production methods, and for a long time, it was the main fuel for transportation, electricity generation, and heating.But it is time to leave that era behind. Today, we know that coal is the fossil fuel that generates the highest carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, one of the main greenhouse gases driving global warming, with effects such as melting glaciers and rising sea levels.In addition to climate and environmental arguments, there are economic, political, and human rights reasons to end the extraction and burning of this fuel.To better understand why coal is so polluting and what its impacts are on the environment and health, we have taken a closer look. Getting to know coalCoal is a rock formed from plant remains that were buried in layers of sediment and did not decompose due to the absence of oxygen.Over millions of years, through geological processes, this organic matter was exposed to high temperatures and pressures. The result was a material composed mainly of carbon.The energy in coal is released during combustion. When burned, coal generates heat. In thermoelectric plants, this heat is used to generate steam and produce electricity.When coal is burned to produce heat or electricity, it releases large amounts of carbon dioxide and, in smaller amounts, methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere.All these gases harm the environment and human health. Why is it so polluting?Coal has an impact from the moment it is extracted, as open-pit coal mining involves excavating and removing large amounts of earth to reach the coal-rich layers.This means destroying landscapes, razing vegetation and animals, and even causing the forced displacement of populations.Coal mining also pollutes water and soil at extraction sites, both through mining the mineral and through the waste it generates.But the chain of impacts does not end there. During coal combustion, large amounts of CO2 are generated, the main gas responsible for global warming.At the same time, other gases are released during its extraction, handling, and combustion:Methane, which has a global warming potential up to 30 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.Nitrous oxide, whose global warming potential over a 100-year period is up to 273, and whose lifetime in the atmosphere extends up to 109 years. In addition to greenhouse gases, coal combustion also releases other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and black carbon (soot), which affect air quality and have indirect effects on the climate, including altering precipitation patterns and contributing to acid rain. What damage does it cause to health?Despite the known environmental and health impacts of coal, for many economies it remains a reliable and cheap energy source.Following the decline in coal consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic, global demand for coal has grown by more than 1.2 billion tons since 2020, according to the International Energy Agency's Coal 2024 analysis.Despite increased electricity generation from renewable sources, major consumers such as China and India continue to rely on coal.In Latin America, the future of coal is uncertain. On the one hand, the region continues to extract coal for export or for burning to generate energy. The most emblematic case is Colombia, the world's fifth-largest coal exporter.On the other hand, there are efforts towards decarbonization, such as in Chile, where coal-fired power generation has caused serious health and environmental impacts in so-called “sacrifice zones.”The government proposed a plan to have the entire National Electric System generate 100% clean energy by 2050. However, the recent accelerated burning of surplus coal at a thermoelectric plant, as part of its closure process, has put the spotlight on how this decarbonization is being carried out.As a coal-producing and consuming region, Latin America has a share of responsibility in global efforts to curb coal mining and burning and instead promote energy systems based on non-conventional renewable sources that are sustainable over time and respectful of the environment and people.Ending the coal era is possible. It is time to do so.
Read more
The importance of the “how” in the energy transition
Of the global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels, one of the main causes of the climate crisis, nearly half come from coal use. Latin America is no stranger to the problem because it participates in both coal burning and the extraction of the mineral, which, after export, is used as a fossil fuel source in other parts of the world.In this context, the closure of coal-fired power plants—as is happening in Chile—is both great news and an opportunity to steer the energy transition toward justice.But in a just energy transition, the "how" matters: every step toward defossilization must ensure energy systems based on non-conventional renewable sources, respect for the environment and human rights, and responsible closure and exit processes. Thus, the Chilean case, which we explain below, is an important example of why the region needs to implement responsible decarbonization. When decarbonization causes more pollutionIn early 2024, AES Andes SA closed the Norgener thermoelectric power plant in Tocopilla, a coastal city in northern Chile. As part of the closure process, the company rapidly burned the 94,000 tons of coal it had stored at the plant, affecting a city already saturated with pollution and publicly recognized as an environmental sacrifice zone.The population of Tocopilla was exposed to potential health effects, including impacts on the respiratory system, increased risk of heart attacks, and—in children—perinatal disorders, developmental disorders, and impaired lung function, among others.The forced burning of coal was authorized by the National Electricity Coordinator (CNE)—the agency responsible for managing the various energy sources that enter the national electricity system—and displaced the use of renewable energy. To stop the burning, AIDA, Greenpeace, and Chile Sustentable, together with local communities, filed an appeal with the Santiago Court of Appeals to halt it, but the court's decision came after the coal had already been burned. Furthermore, the court ruled that the case should be reviewed by a specialized court in a more lengthy proceeding. A bad precedent for Chile and for the continentBy authorizing the burning of the remaining coal from the Norgener thermoelectric plant, the National Electricity Coordinator made an exception to the law governing the order of energy dispatch. Shortly thereafter, in September 2024, the agency issued an internal procedure to order the early closure of power plants. Although it is an attempt to streamline the closure process, the measure opens the door for other companies with coal-fired power plants in the process of closing to replicate what happened at Norgener: burn their remaining coal under the argument of “emptying stock” and generate energy that enters the national electricity system with priority, once again displacing energy from renewable sources. In Chile, the National Electricity Coordinator decides which unit dispatches its energy to the system at any given time based on a criterion of increasing economic merit, according to which the energy with the lowest variable cost enters first. However, the internal procedure stipulates—without sufficient regulatory backing—that the agency may authorize dispatching energy outside economic order so that coal-fired power plants consume their remaining fuel before closing. In response, AIDA, Greenpeace, Chile Sustentable, and MUZOSARE (Women in Sacrifice Zones in Resistance) filed a complaint on February 6, 2026, with the Superintendency of Electricity and Fuels against the Coordinator and his advisors for approving and implementing the measure. The complaint represents an opportunity to do things right: for the sector's regulatory body to ensure that the planning for the closure of thermoelectric power plants does not end up rewarding poor coal inventory management at the expense of communities' health and a just energy transition. What the energy transition needsIn 2019, the Chilean government committed to closing all coal-fired power plants in the country by 2040. Since that public announcement, the timeline has been accelerated. But the urgency of decarbonization should not be used to favor companies operating thermoelectric plants or to harm communities near polluting industries. Doing so weakens Chile's climate leadership and sets a bad example for any decarbonization process in the region. In a just energy transition, companies along the entire coal and other fossil fuel supply chain have an obligation to ensure the responsible closure and exit of their operations. The energy transition is not merely a change in technologies; it is an opportunity to rethink energy and development models and to correct injustices. This requires clear and appropriate rules that promote energy system security, competition, and a healthy environment.
Read more