Blog
How the Inter-American Court can help protect human rights in the face of the climate emergency
The climate crisis has been identified as the most urgent problem facing humanity and the greatest threat to human rights. In this context, what obligations do States have to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from its effects? The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights provide a powerful answer to this question, since their purpose is to specify the content and scope of the obligations to protect human rights that the States of the Americas have under their domestic laws and the treaties or conventions they have signed. The international court is currently in the process of issuing an advisory opinion to clarify these obligations, specifically regarding the climate crisis. The interpretations provided by the Court in this case will strengthen the arguments of organizations, communities, and other actors who decide to initiate climate litigation before national or international tribunals. It’s important, then, to understand what these advisory opinions are, why they are important, and how they relate to climate litigation; as well as this opinion’s potential for moving the region toward climate justice. What are the Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights? The Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court are pronouncements issued by this international court—at the request of both the members of the Organization of American States (OAS) and of some of its affiliated organizations—in order to interpret international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights, to clarify their scope, to determine the specific obligations they impose, and to develop the guarantees they provide to the inhabitants of the continent. They are important because they consolidate the correct understanding of human rights and thus guide States on how to guarantee and apply them within their territory or jurisdiction. A clear example is Advisory Opinion 23 of 2017, in which the Court set a historic precedent by recognizing the right to a healthy environment as fundamental to human existence and for the first time pronouncing on the content of this right. These declarations contribute to a better understanding of the obligations, authorizations and prohibitions deriving from each of the rights recognized in the international treaties signed by the countries of the continent. They therefore constitute a relevant element in determining the responsibility of a State for possible human rights violations resulting from its actions or omissions. What is the process by which advisory opinions are issued? Any member of the OAS or any of its member institutions may request an advisory opinion to ask the Inter-American Court how to interpret its provisions or those of "other treaties for the protection of human rights" in the hemisphere. The questions must be specific and justified. Once the consultation is received, the Court informs all member states and the organs of the Inter-American Human Rights System so that they may submit their written comments. At the same time, a period of time shall be opened for any interested person or entity to submit to the Court its considerations on the issues raised and how they should be resolved. The Court will then, if it deems it necessary, convene oral hearings to hear the States and other actors involved in the process. It may also ask questions and seek clarification on the written submissions it has received. The Court will then deliberate the matter in closed session and adopt the relevant decision, which will be communicated by its secretariat to all parties to the proceedings. How do advisory opinions contribute to climate litigation? Climate litigation has emerged as an important and increasingly popular tool in the fight against the climate crisis. It is essentially strategic litigation that seeks broad societal change through judicial decisions that hold governments, corporations, and stakeholders accountable for the causes and impacts of the climate crisis. Advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court can help achieve these judgments by providing authoritative interpretations of human rights treaties adopted by states in the region. They serve as a legal benchmark for judging the actions or inactions of state entities and private actors under their control that have exacerbated or threaten to exacerbate the climate crisis. Treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights establish guarantees for life with dignity, personal integrity and health, which can be invoked before courts as a basis for the obligations of States to adopt actions to adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis. Thus, the advisory opinions offer solid arguments to demand compliance with such actions as a way to protect human rights. Opportunities of the ongoing advisory opinion for climate justice In January 2023, Colombia and Chile requested an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court to clarify the scope of States' human rights obligations in the context of the climate emergency. Both States stated that their populations and others in the continent are suffering the consequences of the global crisis, particularly due to droughts, floods, and fires, among others. Therefore, they consider it necessary for the Court to determine the appropriate way to interpret the American Convention and the rights recognized therein "in what is relevant to address the situations generated by the climate emergency, its causes and consequences." This will be the first time that the international court will rule on the mandates, prohibitions, and authorizations to be derived from human rights in the specific context of the negative impacts of the climate emergency on individuals and communities in the continent. Once issued, this advisory opinion will clarify the legal obligations of Latin American states to address the climate crisis as a human rights issue. The Court's opinion could compel governments to recognize their competence to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support adaptation measures, and establish mechanisms to address loss and damage. Given this unique opportunity, AIDA is participating in the public consultation convened by the Court before it issues its Opinion. We have submitted a legal brief with arguments demonstrating the existence of an autonomous human right to a "stable and safe climate" as part of the universal right to a healthy environment, and the consequent obligations of states to prevent and avoid the harmful effects of the climate emergency on their inhabitants. In addition, we are supporting diverse communities in the region to bring their voices to the process and be heard by the Court by submitting other legal briefs that highlight the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on indigenous peoples, women, children, populations with diverse gender orientations and identities, and fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. We are also supporting the participation of community representatives in the hearings of the case, which the Court has scheduled for April and May in Barbados and Brazil, respectively. The climate justice movement in Latin America and around the world is growing stronger and more effective, fueled by successful climate litigation and important precedents such as the advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Read more
Community of La Oroya wins landmark ruling to stop environmental damage in Latin America
After more than 20 years, the residents of the town of La Oroya in the Peruvian Andes have found justice, opening a major new avenue for protecting a healthy environment throughout the continent. In an unprecedented decision, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found Peru guilty of violating their human rights by failing to act in a timely and effective manner to protect them from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex that has operated in their community for nearly 90 years. "Twenty years ago, when this struggle began, I carried my banner saying that children's health is worth more than gold," recalls Don Pablo, a resident of La Oroya. "We never gave up, and now I am very happy with the Court's decision.” La Oroya is located in the central mountain range of Peru, in the department of Junín, approximately 176 km from Lima. In 1992, the US company Cerro de Pasco Cooper Corporation installed the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex to process ore concentrates. The complex was nationalized in 1974 and operated by the state until 1997, when it was taken over by Doe Run Peru, which operated it until 2009. For generations, the inhabitants of La Oroya have inhaled toxic substances that pose serious risks to human health. Heavy metal contamination has invaded their respiratory system, traveled through their bloodstream, and been imperceptibly deposited in several of their vital organs. Most of those affected had lead levels above those recommended by the World Health Organization, and in some cases higher levels of arsenic and cadmium, in addition to stress, anxiety, skin disorders, stomach problems, chronic headaches, and respiratory or cardiac problems. In 1997, AIDA became involved in defending the rights of the La Oroya community. Our publication La Oroya No Espera (La Oroya Cannot Wait), published in 2002, helped bring the gravity of the situation to international attention. In 2006, in the absence of effective responses in Peru, we joined an international coalition of organizations in filing a complaint against Peru before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In 2021, the Commission established the responsibility of the Peruvian government in the case and referred it to the Inter-American Court. In October 2022, more than 16 years after the complaint was filed, the victims presented the case to the Court in a public hearing, represented by AIDA and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), with the support of Earthjustice. Since 2009, when the metallurgical complex ceased operations due to Doe Run Peru's financial crisis, the levels of heavy metal contamination have not been reduced to acceptable levels. Nor has the situation of those affected improved significantly in recent years. Although the Peruvian government has known since 2009 that all children living near the complex are suffering from lead poisoning, it has not provided them with adequate medical care. But there is no deadline that will not be met. On March 22, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights gave a powerful response to more than two decades of seeking justice. The Court found that Peru was guilty of violating the rights to a healthy environment, health, personal integrity, life with dignity, access to information, political participation, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection of the 80 people involved in the case; of violating the rights of the children of 57 victims; and of violating the right to life of two others. "This is the first judgment that recognizes the international responsibility of a state for violating the right to a healthy environment and other related rights," says Rosa Peña, AIDA Senior Attorney. Ver esta publicación en Instagram In addition, the Court ordered the State to adopt measures of integral reparation for the damage caused to the people of La Oroya. These include the prosecution and punishment of those who harassed the residents for their environmental defense work; the preparation of a remediation plan for air, soil, and water contamination; the provision of free and specialized medical care to the victims, as well as to other residents with symptoms and illnesses related to mining and metallurgical activities; the updating of air quality regulations to ensure the protection of the environment and human health; the provision of monetary compensation to the victims; and the creation of an air, water, and soil quality monitoring system. It also ordered that the operations of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex—which was transferred to the workers of Doe Run Peru as part of the company's liquidation—comply with international environmental standards and prevent and mitigate damage to the environment and human health. The Court's decision is not only a unique opportunity to restore the dignity and rights of the people of La Oroya. Its scope extends beyond the Peruvian context, making it an important precedent in Latin America for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities. Among other things, the Court established the obligations of states to regulate, monitor and control air and water quality, to identify sources of pollution, and to implement plans to enforce air and water quality standards. The Court held that in order to establish state liability for environmental damage, it is sufficient to show that the state, despite being aware of the existence of high levels of pollution, failed to take adequate measures and thus allowed the pollution to continue, thereby posing a significant risk to human health. In light of the judgment, states must prevent human rights abuses by public and private enterprises. Businesses, for their part, must prevent their activities from causing or contributing to human rights abuses and take steps to remedy such abuses. Defending the right to a healthy environment has been part of AIDA's history since our inception and has always been a collective effort. We celebrate and recognize all the people who, from different sectors, roles and capacities, made possible the historic result of the La Oroya case. With renewed vigor, we will work for the proper implementation of the judgment and for the establishment of new important precedents that will guarantee in practice the universal right to a healthy environment in the region.
Read more
The Kawésqar people and the defense of their "maritorio" in Chile
By Liliana Ávila and Cristina Lux* A little over a month ago, the community Kawésqar Grupos Familiares Nómades del Mar sent us a very special invitation. The appointment was near the sea, near their territory, or more precisely, near their "maritorio", a place of islands, islets and archipelagos. There, the borders between sea and land are blurred and the trees grow sideways, adapted to the strong winds. The maritorio is a concept and also a way of inhabiting and understanding the world. It evokes the image of "territory", but seen from and in the sea. As a concept, it emerged in the context of what is known as nisology, or the study of islands. The place we visited is located in the fjords of Magallanes, the southernmost region of Chile, about two hours from Punta Arenas, the regional capital. The Kawésqar people tell us that less than a century ago, this maritorio was their home. There, their grandfathers and grandmothers sailed among the fjords, built their canoes, fished and dived. They went into the icy sea without special neoprene suits, protected with sea lion oil, and there they learned the secrets that its depths held. In the midst of fjords, winds and intense climates, these people developed their own systems of thought and life. But the lives of the Kawésqar have changed radically in recent decades. They tell us so. The vast territory that previous generations inhabited for centuries is now enclosed. The process of eradication has been accompanied by the commercialization of the land, the creation of extensive pastures and, more recently, the development and expansion of the salmon farming industry. Industrial salmon production has serious and lasting impacts on marine ecosystems. The communities of Kawésqar are well aware of this. Salmon is an exotic and carnivorous species for Chile, raised in huge farms: hectares of cages in the sea. The introduction of exotic species (which threaten native species), the excessive use of antibiotics, salmon escapes, the generation of waste, the treatment of large quantities of dead salmon, the excessive discharge of organic matter into the sea, and the generation of anaerobic environments (total or partial loss of oxygen necessary for life to thrive) are just some of the impacts of salmon farming in Chile. These impacts not only accumulate in the waters and on the seabed, but also penetrate the lives of the Kawésqar communities. The maritorio that their grandfathers and grandmothers sailed is now a desecrated space. The processes of reconstructing their identity, the appropriation of sacred places and the rites that are part of their collective memory have been affected by the development of an industry that sees the sea only as a space of economic exploitation and not as the sacred place where, in the not so distant past, men and women developed their worldviews and ways of life. Despite everything, the Kawésqar are a living people who meet, who gather around the sea and discuss strategies to rebuild their cultural fabric. They also come together to honor their grandfathers and grandmothers, to activate the genetic memory that connects them to the sea, to dive into its waters and fight for a salmon-free sea and for a country that recognizes the cultural diversity that runs through its history. We also connect with the legacy of the Kawésqar. Swimming with people from the community in these seas that have been navigated for thousands of years allowed us to look out a window that blurs the present and shows us alternatives. A present that allows life and coexistence with the sea, its ecosystems and its balance. Their struggle— supported by AIDA, the NGO FIMA, Greenpeace and many other organizations— has borne fruit. It has highlighted the impact of salmon farming in Chile and the need to end our dependence on it. But the challenges are still enormous. Salmon farming continues to ravage the seas inside and outside protected areas, in the most remote areas of Patagonia, occupying spaces that were once shared by all the peoples and creatures that inhabited the territory. Meanwhile, the people of Kawésqar continue to travel through their territory —rewarded and lived in and from the sea— identifying and recomposing their history, swimming in the waters that surround them. They do not lose hope of returning to their sea; they to continue to exist in it. *Liliana Avila is coordinator of AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program; Cristina Lux is an attorney with the Climate Program.
Read more
5 milestones in the "Inhabitants of La Oroya v. Peru" case ruling
Our long-fought victory before the Inter-American Court sets important precedents for all communities seeking environmental justice in the Americas. The story of the community of La Oroya, Peru, in its quest for justice and reparations spans decades. The perseverance of the residents of this Andean town has borne fruit for the entire region, as they achieved a victory that sets important precedents for all communities seeking environmental justice on the continent. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of the community of La Oroya, holding the Peruvian state responsible for violating the right to a healthy environment and other related rights, such as health and life, of its inhabitants by failing to take timely and effective measures to protect them from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex. AIDA has led the case from its inception, bringing La Oroya's struggle to the Inter-American Human Rights System and providing legal representation to the victims before the Court. Why is the international court’s ruling in "Community of La Oroya vs. Peru" such a joy and a door opener for us? We explain below, how the ruling: 1. Responds to the first case of its kind before the Inter-American Court. This is the first time the Inter-American Court has ruled on a case of toxic air and environmental pollution in an urban community. In its ruling, the Court recognized the disparate impact on women, children, and other vulnerable populations. It also addressed the importance of the rights of access to information and participation. 2. Recognizes and values the importance of a healthy environment as a human right. The Court recognized this right as a jus cogens (mandatory) norm and clarified the obligations of states to ensure a healthy environment for all people. A key point of the judgment is that states must avoid, prevent, and control environmental damage and its effects on human health by using all the means at their disposal. 3. Opens the door to accountability. The ruling sets precedents to hold states and companies accountable for taking the necessary measures to avoid lifelong impacts on people's health and the environment. The Peruvian state must provide financial compensation to the affected people of La Oroya, provide free and specialized medical care, adopt non-recurrence measures, and monitor air and water quality in places where mining activities are taking place. 4. Establishes the responsibility of the State in a case of contamination. In addition to stating that companies must act with due diligence and respect for human rights, the Court concluded in its ruling that the Peruvian state should have acted to protect and guarantee the rights of the people exposed to the contamination, using, among other tools, the precautionary principle. 5. Sets precedents for the entire region. The ruling goes beyond the Peruvian context, as it is binding on States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights and sets an important precedent in Latin America for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and for the adequate supervision by States of corporate activities.
Read more
Defending the Volta Grande do Xingu in the Brazilian Amazon
"Certain lives exist only in the Xingu River, mine is one of them. And also that of the indigenous and riverine peoples. Can these lives be destroyed?” The question posed by Sara Rodrigues Lima - a local river dweller, fisherman and researcher - highlights the paradox that one of the most biodiverse, ecologically, climatically and culturally important regions in the world is also one of the most affected by socio-environmental impacts. The Volta Grande (or "Big Bend") of the Xingu River, located in the heart of the Brazilian Amazon, is home to a unique ecosystem and is a key region for the conservation of global biodiversity. For centuries, it has been home to indigenous and riverine peoples who have shared ownership of the river and the Amazonian rainforest, providing sources of food, water, identity, culture and mobility, among other things. This link has translated into livelihood systems based on caring for and defending the territory and their own existence, which are now severely threatened. Since 2015, this region has been the target of large extractive projects that threaten the livelihoods and physical and cultural survival of traditional peoples and communities. This has been accompanied by violence against people defending this Amazonian territory. In order to deal with this situation, the affected peoples and civil society have created a network that unites and strengthens their efforts. The Alliance for the Volta Grande do Xingu, formed by social movements and organizations, including AIDA, supports and coordinates actions to defend the region as a living and healthy territory. The coalition has taken the case to the United Nations. The cumulative impact of two megaprojects One of these projects is the Belo Monte dam, whose construction has caused irreparable environmental damage and human rights violations for several generations. The drought caused by the diversion of the river to generate electricity, as well as the ineffectiveness of the mitigation measures implemented, have led to an ecological and humanitarian collapse in the Volta Grande. Currently, thousands of traditional families are suffering from the death of fish, extinction of fishing, lack of food security, impoverishment, physical and mental illnesses. Another major threat to the region and its traditional inhabitants is the Volta Grande project, where the Canadian company Belo Sun intends to build the largest open-pit gold mine in Brazil. The coexistence of the two projects poses the risk of overlapping areas of direct impact. In this scenario, the potential damage to the environment and to indigenous and riverine peoples will be irreversible. The Belo Sun project is proposed to be built less than 10 kilometers from the Belo Monte dam, on the banks of the Xingu River, in the midst of indigenous lands, protected areas and traditional communities. The magnitude of the synergistic and cumulative impacts of the mine and hydroelectric dam has not been assessed. Also ignored were technical analyses that pointed to the serious impacts of the use of cyanide, the contamination of the river, and the risks of a dam breach that, if it were to occur, would flood 41 kilometers along the river and reach nearby indigenous lands. In addition, the state excluded indigenous peoples, riverine and peasant communities from the environmental licensing process for the mining project. Because they live outside the demarcated indigenous lands or more than 10 kilometers from the project, some indigenous peoples were not considered affected or consulted about the implementation of the project. The lack of consultation and public participation of indigenous and riverine peoples led Brazilian courts to order the suspension of the mining company's operating license. Violence and threats against human rights defenders The arrival of Belo Sun in the area is a serious intervention in the socio-cultural environment of the Volta Grande do Xingu. The overlapping of the mining project in a territorial polygon inhabited by traditional peoples, rural groups benefiting from the agrarian reform, and artisanal miners has led to community divisions and violence against those who oppose the mine. In the context of the project's development, there have been reports of illegal land purchase and sale contracts to evict rural families, threats to the area's inhabitants by private security companies, and violence against peasants claiming agrarian reform lands acquired by the mining company, which are the subject of legal proceedings. Threats of violence against environmental and human rights defenders have also increased in intensity and severity. Some of them have had to leave the area to protect their lives, and those who remain in the area face constant risks and threats. Defending the Volta Grande and its people before the United Nations One of the most important actions of the Alliance for the Volta Grande do Xingu has to do with advocacy in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a special process of periodic review of the human rights record of the 193 member states of the United Nations. At Canada's fourth UPR cycle in Geneva in August 2023, more than 50 civil society organizations and communities affected by Canadian business activities presented a report highlighting human rights abuses from 37 projects in nine countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Belo Sun's Volta Grande project. The document includes recommendations to ensure that states exercise effective environmental oversight that requires human rights due diligence on the part of companies operating in their territories. One of the defenders of the Volta Grande was part of the delegation in Geneva. In addition to denouncing the abuses suffered, he reported on the risks posed by the socio-environmental impact of the Belo Sun project. More than 20 countries and 13 permanent missions and UN agencies took note of the situation in the region. The results of Canada's fourth UPR cycle, released last month, include 34 recommendations directly related to the Alliance's report. Canada has not yet accepted these recommendations, but may do so at the next session of the UN Human Rights Council, which concludes on April 5. As a follow-up to the UPR advocacy, the Alliance submitted reports on the impact of the Belo Sun project to UN Special Rapporteurs. One of them, sent to the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, focuses on the situation of vulnerability and criminalization of human rights defenders. Similarly, the Alliance submitted a report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights highlighting the human rights violations committed by Brazil in the Belo Monte and Belo Sun cases, as well as the lack of effective measures to require human rights due diligence by the companies responsible for these projects. Networking in these international spaces to expose the pattern of environmental impacts and human rights violations of extractive economic projects in Amazonian territories has been one of the alliance's strategies of resistance and denunciation. The conservation of the Amazon and the protection of its peoples are incompatible with the large-scale mining planned by Belo Sun. States have an obligation to prevent serious and irreversible damage to the environment and the population. In the case of Belo Sun, Brazil has the opportunity to avoid repeating the environmental tragedy of Belo Monte and to declare definitively that the mining project is unsustainable from a socio-environmental point of view. The road to these demands and the achievement of these goals will be full of challenges and struggles. But courage and resisting are inherent to those who live in and defend the Amazon. The defense of the Xingu River Basin as a free, vibrant, healthy and safe territory for its peoples and its defenders is an urgent call for social mobilization for the social-ecological protection of one of the world's most important ecosystems.
Read more
Forest fires: How can we help prevent them?
The recent huge fire in the Valparaíso region of Chile has been described as the country's biggest disaster since the 2010 earthquake. But this year, as in previous years, forest fires and their deadly consequences are not an isolated phenomenon in Latin America. In Colombia, the fires forced the government to declare a national disaster and prompted civil society to call for comprehensive protection of Colombia's forests and páramos. Fire also reached part of Argentina's Patagonia region. Ninety percent of forest fires are caused by humans, particularly through activities such as logging and slash-and-burn agriculture. The climate crisis is contributing to their greater intensity and frequency, increasing the risks to forests, species and communities. In addition, wildfires affect air quality and thus human health If this situation is the result of our actions, it is also in our hands to prevent it. What can we do to prevent fires? Here are some actions that different actors in society can take to contribute to this important task. What can governments do? Design and implement laws to ensure forest security and ensure compliance with existing laws. Develop education campaigns to raise public awareness of the importance of forests and how to care for them. Strengthen fire prevention and suppression infrastructure, including spray planes, containment barriers, and technology to constantly monitor the health of forests. What can businesses do? Reduce emissions of gases that heat the atmosphere and increase the risk of wildfires by switching to cleaner energy sources. If flammable waste is generated, implement policies to dispose of it responsibly. Train their work teams to respond to these types of disasters. Promote best practices that help protect the environment. What can citizens do? Organize garbage collection groups and avoid making campfires and/or practicing livestock and agricultural activities in the forest. Obtain and disseminate quality information about the importance of these ecosystems for life on the planet. Follow safety instructions, such as wearing masks and/or evacuating smoke-contaminated areas. Be vigilant and make sure we know how to report fires and what action plans are in place to protect our nearby forests. It is essential that governments, businesses and citizens work as a team to protect forests and promote a culture that cares for the environment and all life.
Read more
Lithium unveiled: Origins, extraction and environmental implications
One of the paradoxes of the energy transition is that it replaces the use of fossil fuels with mineral resources whose extraction and refining can have negative impacts on ecosystems, species and communities. This is happening with lithium, a mineral that has traditionally been used in glass and ceramics to provide greater adhesion and hardness, but is now being used primarily to make the batteries required by technologies that eliminate or reduce the use of fossil fuels. This has led to an increase in its demand. The serious social and environmental impacts of its extraction have been hidden or minimized. What makes lithium special? Lithium is a mineral in high demand due to its unique properties: It is the lightest metal with the highest electrochemical potential. It has a high energy storage capacity. It is malleable, so it can be adapted to different sizes, shapes and designs. These qualities make it a key material in the manufacture of batteries for cell phones, computers and, most importantly, electric vehicles. Lithium is considered key to the energy transition because it can be used to store non-conventional renewable energy, such as wind and photovoltaic power. Where it is: The so-called "lithium triangle"? The primary sources of lithium are salt flats, which are wetlands covered with a saline crust that contain brines, bodies of water in which many salts and elements, including lithium, are dissolved. Salt flats are attractive to the mining industry because of the relative technical ease of exploitation, low operating costs and low energy requirements to extract lithium from them compared to other sources. Worldwide, the salt flats of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile account for 54 percent of lithium resources (potentially mineable material). In addition, Argentina and Chile hold 46 percent of the world's lithium reserves (the portion of known resources with a high level of confidence and proven economic viability). The mining industry has dubbed the region where the mineral is concentrated the "Lithium Triangle" - because that is all they see there - which includes northeastern Argentina, northern Chile and southern Bolivia. But there is much more than lithium in this region. There are also communities, ecosystems and species that depend on these salt flats. The region's inhabitants are engaged in small-scale ranching and subsistence agriculture, activities that require water, an already scarce resource in these latitudes. How is lithium mined from the salt flats? The procedure is as follows: The salt flat is drilled. The brine is poured into large pools or basins. Wait for the water to evaporate so that the lithium concentration increases. When the concentration is sufficient, the brine is sent to an industrial plant. The brine is chemically treated to produce lithium carbonate, which is marketed for battery production. Lithium extraction, especially by this method, involves huge consumption and loss of water because: Water is lost in pumping brine. Evaporation in ponds requires two million liters of water for every ton of lithium produced. Water is also needed in the final processes to obtain lithium carbonate and separate it from the rest of the compound. Lithium mining is threatening South America's salt flats, which are Andean wetlands, affecting local water availability and threatening the survival of communities and species living around these fragile ecosystems. The energy transition is urgent, but it must be equitable and not at the expense of other natural resource extraction that endangers people and the environment. sources -Maritza Tapia, “Claves del litio: el metal más liviano y con mayor potencial electroquímico”, Universidad de Chile. -Heinrich Böll Stiftung Colombia, “Litio: los costos sociales y ambientales de la transición energética global”. -Florencia Ballarino, “¿Qué es el litio, para qué sirve y de dónde se extrae en la Argentina?”, Chequeado. -Wetlands International, “El impacto de la minería de litio en los Humedales Altoandinos”. -Rodolfo Chisleanchi, “‘Triángulo de litio’: la amenaza a los salares de Bolivia, Chile y Argentina”, Mongabay Latam. -U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2023, “Lithium”.
Read more
After COP28 in Dubai: The complex road to Baku and Belém
By Javier Dávalos, Claudia Velarde and Marcella Ribeiro* The twenty-eighth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, was the largest ever in terms of the number of participants. The representatives of the States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement held intense discussions under the scrutiny of stakeholders from various sectors. The final results lack the clarity and ambition needed to define the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). However, the fact that for the first time in almost 30 years all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) were mentioned in the main decision of the meeting represents a before and after in climate negotiations. This fact also marks the way towards the next conferences: COP29 in Baku (Azerbaijan) and COP30 in Belém do Pará (Brazil). Below we take stock of COP28 and analyze its implications for the future of climate action in Latin America and the Caribbean. Progress at COP28 For the first time, the outcome document mentioned the need for a transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade. The text of the global stocktake of the state of implementation of the Paris Agreement also clearly stated the goals of tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency. The Glasgow target for reducing methane emissions by 2030 was affirmed, as was the exit from inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Key elements of the work program on just transition pathways were defined, including its scope, objectives, results and institutional arrangements. What was missing at COP28 With regard to the energy transition, there was a need for greater determination to close the door on false climate solutions. On the one hand, there was a call to accelerate nuclear energy and abatement and elimination technologies (carbon capture, utilization and storage) and, on the other, it was noted that "transition fuels" could facilitate this process while ensuring energy security, implicitly giving a free pass to fossil gas. In terms of adaptation, no real progress was made towards a framework for climate action based on the protection of the ocean, wetlands and forests. Nor was there reinforcement of operational synergies between the key policy processes governing terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems worldwide. While the first step was taken to operationalize the Loss and Damage Fund, the decision did not include a reference to human rights in its objectives and mission. In addition, it limited the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities on the Board of the Fund under the category of invited observers. It also failed to mention the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, meaning that the fund would be financed solely by grants. In addition, the World Bank was designated as the fund's administrator, putting at risk that the communities most affected by the impacts of the climate crisis would have access to resources in an agile, direct and debt-free manner. Regarding the just transition, it was not recognized that the energy transition puts different pressures on the territories where raw materials or critical minerals such as lithium, copper and cobalt are obtained. This affects Latin America in particular. As a result, developed and developing nations disagreed on whether to keep the transition at the national or international level. And so the transition was not considered an integral and plural transformation process that implies creating socio-political conditions to restructure the organization, ownership and distribution of the current production and consumption systems for the enjoyment of the right to energy. The countries failed to reach an agreement on the substantive elements of the new quantified financing target. Progress was limited to definitions of the process and procedures for defining it. In 2024, there will be at least three technical dialogues to discuss the elements of the target such as amounts, timelines, financing targets by area, and how progress will be measured. What's next: Heading towards COP29 and COP30 The next climate conferences will have to navigate complex contexts, marked by the long-standing crisis of multilateralism, the unfair distribution of burdens for the energy transition—particularly in terms of the exploitation of critical minerals—,and the growing co-optation of negotiations by the corporate interests of fossil-related companies. In this context, the performance of Latin American countries at COP28 is an indication of how their positions for COP29 and COP30 will be constructed: Brazil sought to position itself as a "climate champion" but could not hide its strong fossil fuel extraction agenda. As host of the upcoming COP30, Brazil tried and failed to explain away membership in the expanded Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+) without success. Then, days after COP28, it tendered 613 oil blocks in the Amazon with a view to becoming the world's fourth largest oil producer by 2030. Despite this, Brazil created a new work program on the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which it will take as a banner to COP30, together with the protection of nature and the fight against deforestation. Colombia, for its part, was the most vocal leader on the urgent need for transition, announcing its accession to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and maintaining clear interventions on the exit from fossil fuels in its panels and public interventions, which positions it as a regional leader for the upcoming conferences. Ecuador missed the opportunity to obtain funding and support from the international community to implement the Ecuadorian people's decision to close the ITT oil field in Yasuni Park. This omission could be remedied at COP29 because, beyond the delicate internal context, the South American country has just under a year to comply with the legal obligation to implement this decision and the international community can and should support the decision to close the ITT oil field in Yasuní Park. In another area, and within the process of the Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency, AIDA, together with other organizations, requested that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights refer to the decision adopted at COP28 regarding the Loss and Damage Fund, as it does not comply with or satisfy the obligations of States under international human rights law. It is expected that the Court will recognize the right to climate reparations and clarify that the establishment, implementation and operation of this fund does not exclude the possibility of making claims for reparations for losses and damages, nor does it block other judicial or administrative processes, measures or mechanisms for access to justice and comprehensive reparations for people affected by climate impacts. *Javier Dávalos is coordinator of AIDA's Climate Program, Claudia Velarde is co-coordinator of the Ecosystems Program, and Marcella Ribeiro is a senior attorney with the Human Rights and Environment Program.
Read more
Our vision for a just future
Latin America is key to protecting biodiversity and combating the global climate crisis. Its forests, wetlands and marine ecosystems are among the most important carbon sinks on the planet, a service weakened by activities such as the exploitation and use of fossil fuels. At AIDA, we envision a region where the environment and communities, especially those in highly vulnerable situations, have lasting protections. To achieve this, we select precedent-setting cases that result in new, replicable tools and strategies that add to the protection of a healthy environment in the region. Having celebrated 25 years of working for the right to a healthy environment in the region, AIDA is poised to enter a new quarter century as a robust, multidisciplinary organization. In the coming years, we will continue and strengthen our pursuit of environmental and climate justice through two interconnected initiatives, each with defined lines of work: 1. Promotion of a just energy transition A just energy transition implies transforming the power relations between those who pollute the most and the rest of the world, avoiding the deepening of socio-environmental conflicts and protecting the rights of communities and people involved in energy generation processes. As this is an issue that cannot be addressed only at the national level, AIDA will contribute its regional vision to increase the scope of local and national decisions, enhance legal strategies, and strengthen a proposal for the continent’s transition. We will focus on: Avoiding dependence on oil and gas. Halting the extraction and use of coal. Promoting renewable and sustainable energies. Advocating for human rights-based climate finance and governance. 2. Protection of life-sustaining systems The ecosystem services that sustain life in Latin America and the world—including natural carbon capture and storage to mitigate the climate crisis, and the provision of clean food, air, and water - are at risk due to the lack of ambitious and effective actions. To ensure the livelihoods of life systems on the continent, both in rural communities and large cities, AIDA will focus its efforts on: Protecting the ocean, from the coasts to the high seas. Preserving freshwater sources and traditional territories. Defending culture and traditional livelihoods. Improving air quality. In the coming years, from our regional perspective, we will continue to contribute to solutions that center nature and communities, and that effectively address the continent’s social and environmental challenges.
Read more
The triple planetary crisis: What is it and what can we do about it?
You may have heard that humanity is facing "a triple planetary crisis.” In the words of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, this crisis "threatens the well-being and survival of millions of people around the world." But what exactly does it mean? The triple planetary crisis refers to three interrelated problems: climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. Each of these problems is a crisis with its own causes and effects, but all three converge and feed on each other. All three affect human rights, and more intensely impact people in vulnerable conditions. The climate crisis The United Nations considers climate change to be humanity's most urgent problem and the greatest threat to human rights. Climate change, which involves long-term changes to the planet's temperatures and weather patterns, can completely alter ecosystems. Although changes in climate can occur due to the natural patterns of the planet, what we are facing is caused by human activities. Since the Industrial Revolution, there has been an accelerated change in the planet's average temperatures. One of the primary causes of that change is the exploitation and use of fossil fuels. The climate crisis, then, refers to the consequences of climate change caused by human activities, which include: an increase in the intensity and severity of natural events such as droughts, fires, and storms; rising sea levels and the melting of the poles; changes in the hydrological and climatic cycles that affect biodiversity; and impacts on the enjoyment of human rights. The pollution and waste crisis The dominant economic system, dependent on consumption, implies the generation of high levels of pollution and waste that have a great impact on human and ecosystem health. Air pollution is the leading cause of disease and premature death worldwide. The World Health Organization estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year because of poor air quality. Air degradation is caused by emissions from factories, transportation, and forest fires. Those who lack access to less harmful technologies for cooking or keeping warm also breathe polluted air in their homes. Air pollution is related to climate change, as many of the emissions also warm the planet. Pollution caused by plastics and microplastics is another global concern, as it directly affects biodiversity. An increasing number of studies are finding that plastics are affecting the health of people and other living things. They take centuries to decompose, and are derived from petroleum, a fossil fuel. And we can’t forget pollution caused by extractive activities which, in addition to generating greenhouse gas emissions and leaving in their wake chemicals that are toxic to health, degrade freshwater sources and large tracts of land. The biodiversity loss crisis Biodiversity loss refers to the decrease and disappearance of biological diversity: flora, fauna, and ecosystems. This crisis is caused by the two previous crises, in addition to the overexploitation of resources and changes in land use—which cause overfishing, illegal hunting and trafficking, and deforestation—and the introduction of non-native and invasive species. This loss also implies the decline of many of the species on which we depend. Its impacts extend to affect food supplies and access to fresh water. One example is the Amazon, the world's largest tropical forest and a global climate stabilizer. It is home to 10 percent of the planet's known biodiversity and is the ancestral home of more than 470 indigenous and traditional peoples. The Amazon is endangered by colonization, deforestation, and extractive activities, among other threats. The situation is so serious that the point of no return for the Amazon, in which deforestation levels cancel out its capacity for regeneration, is no longer a future scenario. Actions to confront the triple planetary crisis The triple planetary crisis is a complex problem involving diverse stakeholders and requiring multidisciplinary solutions. Although local actions and individual lifestyle changes can help, many of the necessary actions require decisions on a global scale and profound changes to economic, political, and social systems. According to the United Nations, global actions to confront the crises must include: Limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees: this means that global emissions should be reduced by 45 percent by 2030, with the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Accelerating the expansion of clean renewable energies: to achieve the above, a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels is required to make way for energy systems based on renewable sources that are sustainable over time and respectful of the environment and people. In addition to combating climate change, this would reduce air pollution. Investing in adaptation and resilience: this means considering those who are already suffering the impacts of the climate crisis in the solutions, with emphasis on the nations, people, and communities in vulnerable situations and who are least responsible for these crises. Conserving and protecting 30 percent of the planet: this applies particularly to areas of biodiversity importance, including the ocean. It also implies actions to mitigate climate change. Improving the food system: this includes changes in irrigation and soil management, as well as producing healthier food and reducing food waste. Leaving no one behind: the measures described above must be carried out simultaneously and with a focus on protecting human rights, as they represent an opportunity to reduce the inequalities that are both a cause and a consequence of the crises. Making progress before the triple crisis These crises threaten not only our basic sources of livelihood, but even our mental health. And while much remains to be done, progress has been made that demonstrates the global cooperation needed to advance on a large scale. We’re happy to share some recent examples of global progress: The High Seas Treaty, designed to protect two-thirds of the ocean, was adopted in June 2023, and will need to be ratified by 60 countries before entering into force. The United Nations recognized the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as a universal right. 175 nations agreed to develop a global instrument to address plastic pollution. The steps we take as individuals help us to act locally: to live our values and contribute to our communities. But it’s also important we think globally, and demand that our representatives in decision-making bodies guarantee widespread participation and commit to taking key and concerted actions.
Read more