Blog
Let's talk about NDCs, countries' commitments to the climate crisis
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are the plans developed by each country to address the climate crisis under the Paris Agreement. In them, countries commit to meeting targets for reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and making progress in adapting to the climate crisis, including - ideally - how they will finance these actions. The Paris Agreement, from which NDCs are derived, is a legally binding international agreement to combat climate change that entered into force in 2016 after being signed by 195 countries. As such, NDCs are the pathway to achieving the Agreement's goals, which are to: Ensure that the global average temperature increase is well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. Strengthen the capacity to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Align financing with the needs of countries to achieve these goals. Each country is free to decide and commit in its NDCs how it will adjust to and alleviate the impacts of the crisis, based on its unique abilities and circumstances. In this sense, NDCs reinforce the agreed-upon global goals to address the climate crisis and contain specific commitments by countries to achieve them. They also provide short- and medium-term plans, with political backing, in key areas not only to stabilize the climate, but also to promote sustainable development and address other global crises such as pollution and biodiversity loss. Countries that have signed the Paris Agreement must submit their NDCs to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and update them every five years with increasingly ambitious targets based on their own capabilities. The Conferences of the Parties (COPs), the decision-making body of the Convention, will provide guidance to countries on how to meet these commitments. The first NDCs were presented in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was adopted, and their first update occurred in 2020. Next year, countries must update them again with targets for 2030 and 2035. Given their relevance for global climate action and the proximity of the second update, we will dig deeper into relevant aspects of the NDCs. The content of the NDCs In their NDCs, countries present a projected analysis of climate risks and impacts, as well as specific commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts. This results in quantitative or qualitative targets, deadlines and actions in priority sectors such as agriculture, water, biodiversity, forests, energy, risk management, industry, infrastructure, fisheries, health, transport, tourism and coastal zones, among others. Most countries include indicative budgets for achieving their targets, and many developing countries indicate the support they will need—financial, technology transfer, and/or capacity-building—to implement some or all their actions. In an NDC, targets that can be achieved without external support are called "unconditional" and those that depend on such support are called "conditional." Examples of NDC commitments include: Reduce 22 percent of its GHG emissions with its own resources by 2030 (unconditional mitigation target). Increase GHG reduction to 36 percent, but subject to a global agreement that includes technical cooperation and technology transfer, as well as access to low-cost financial resources (conditional mitigation target). Increase, by 2030, the adaptive capacity of the population to climate change and reduce the high vulnerability of 160 municipalities (unconditional adaptation goal). Progress on NDCs According to the World Resource Institute, current NDC emission reduction commitments submitted by countries fall far short of the ambition needed to meet the Paris Agreement's goals, as they would result in a temperature increase of between 2.5 and 2.9°C even if fully implemented. On a more optimistic note, data from the United Nations Development Program's Climate Promise initiative, which is supporting 85 percent of countries in the preparation of their NDCs, shows that the most vulnerable countries are making tangible progress in terms of ambition. For example, African countries are more committed than the global average to their climate resilience goals, increasing transparency efforts, and incorporating just transition, while the NDCs of Latin American and Caribbean countries show high levels of stakeholder engagement and accountability compared to the global average. Although most Latin American countries have plans to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change and promote renewable energy in their NDCs, they remain dependent on oil, gas and coal, making their current climate commitments insufficient. Human rights and gender approach in NDCs While the global crisis is a threat to humanity, its impact is disproportionately felt by vulnerable populations who are less able to cope. This is the case for indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, as well as peasant and rural populations. Furthermore, according to the UN Human Rights Council, "women are particularly vulnerable to the risks associated with climate change due to gender discrimination, inequalities and gender roles that constrain them. One of the main negative impacts of the climate crisis on women is that it exacerbates the burden of unpaid domestic and care work, thereby deepening existing structural inequalities. Considering the above, it is essential that States incorporate the human rights framework and the gender perspective in the formulation of their climate policies, as recognized by various international instruments and treaties. This implies that States - in the elaboration, implementation and monitoring of NDCs - comply with their obligations to promote, respect, protect and fulfil human rights without discrimination and with a gender and intersectional approach, thereby strengthening the capacity of people and communities to act effectively in the face of the climate crisis, particularly those who have been historically marginalized. NDCs must also ensure the rights of future generations and the long-term integrity of ecosystems. What's next Next year's round of NDCs should focus on delivering on the commitments made at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) to phase out fossil fuels in energy systems, set specific methane emission reduction targets, triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency. Given that this new round will cover targets up to 2035 - the midpoint between 2020, when countries began implementing their NDCs, and 2050, the year agreed for achieving the global goal of zero net emissions - the commitments presented are critical to aligning near-term actions with long-term goals. In the face of accelerating climate impacts with increasingly severe consequences, there is an urgent need for NDCs with sufficient ambition to contribute to deep emission cuts, enhanced adaptation, adequate attention to loss and damage already caused, and a significant increase in climate finance. Learn more To learn more about the progress of each country's climate commitments, you can: Consult the UNFCCC database, which contains the list of countries that have submitted their NDCs and the date they did so. Consult the information generated by the Climate Action Tracker, which tracks governments' climate actions and compares them to the Paris Agreement targets. Learn about NDC LAC, a digital tool that provides information on progress in implementing and updating NDCs in Latin America and the Caribbean. sources - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The Paris Agreement and nationally determined contributions". - United Nations, "All about NDCs." -World Resources Institute, "Next Generation NDCs. Accelerating climate action under the Paris Agreement". - United Nations Development Programme, “What are NDCs and how do they drive climate action?”. - Verónica Méndez Villa and Daniela García Aguirre, "Human Rights and Gender Perspective in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in Latin America," Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). - Inter Press Service, "Latin America arrives at COP28 with insufficient ambitions for its goals".
Read more
The Amazon: The complexities and challenges of its protection
By Vania Albarracín and José David Castilla* Protecting the Amazon is one of the region's greatest challenges. Facing it requires coordination and cooperation between states, peoples and organizations. In this context, the Pan-Amazonian Social Forum (FOSPA) was born out of the need to think about the Pan-Amazonian region - a region made up of the countries that have jurisdiction or territory in the Amazon basin, and/or have jungle coverage, and/or are part of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty (TCA) - in all its complexity. FOSPA is a regional space for articulation, reflection and exchange between indigenous peoples, social movements and civil society from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guiana, Peru, Venezuela and Suriname. The reason why so many actors have come together around the Amazon is that it is a mega-diverse ecosystem and a global climate stabilizer, containing more than 13% of all known plant and animal species and releasing 6,600 km³ of freshwater annually into the Atlantic Ocean, representing between 16 and 20% of global runoff. It is therefore essential to consider the interconnections and interdependencies between the Amazon and other ecosystems in the region. Marine-coastal ecosystems, Andean wetlands, mountain ranges and forests are interconnected throughout the continent and should be recognized as part of a comprehensive conservation strategy. The Amazon region is facing serious problems of deforestation and ecosystem degradation, which have led to warnings of reaching the so-called point of no return. This refers to the loss of the ecological balance and climatic functions of the Amazon, which would have incalculable negative global repercussions. FOSPA holds biannual meetings in different cities and sub-regions of the Amazon to discuss the violations of human, environmental, territorial and natural rights that afflict the region, as well as to propose alternatives that come from the local communities and indigenous peoples that inhabit the region. The eleventh version of FOSPA was held from June 12 to 15 in the cities of Rurrenabaque and San Buenaventura, in the Amazon region of Bolivia. The meeting resulted in a joint declaration in defense of life, peoples and nature. AIDA participated in the meeting and we share below our assessment of the main agreements, the gaps in their implementation and what is missing to ensure the protection of the Amazon. The agreements 1. Mining threats The threats posed by mining to the Amazon region can be seen in two key issues: the promotion and impact of new extractivism (such as copper mining) and mercury contamination from gold mining. The meeting highlighted the need to ban the global trade of mercury and to develop multinational strategies to combat its use in gold mining, in accordance with the Minamata Convention. In addition, a biocultural approach to assessing the impacts of mining was advocated, recognizing the interrelationship between biodiversity and indigenous cultures, the fundamental role of women in preserving and reproducing life, and the participation of civil society in decision-making spaces, ensuring transparency and full disclosure. 2. An Amazon free of extractivism One of the main concerns of the communities, peoples and organizations that participated in the meeting is the presence of different types of extractivism in the Amazon region. They recognized that their rights are violated and threatened by hydrocarbon extraction and transportation projects, by the exploitation of transition minerals such as gold and copper, and by the implementation of public policies related to the energy transition. One of the most relevant proposals in this regard was to generate a multifactorial and plurinational declaration of the Amazon as a zone free of fossil fuels and mining, not only as a slogan, but as a political, social and environmental horizon for the protection of life in all its forms. This proposal must be evaluated in the context of the different tensions and social realities of the region. 3. Guarantees for a just and popular energy transition A just and popular energy transition was another relevant point of the meeting. Indigenous communities and peoples raised the need to decolonize the concept of energy transition and propose a process that comes from them, who have historically suffered the impacts of extractivism. The call was for an energy transition that remediates these impacts and restores affected ecosystems. Achieving this goal requires responsible project closure and exit processes, as well as transition processes that incorporate the highest human rights standards and the perspectives of affected communities. Practical gaps 1. Insufficient commitment to regional cooperation The eleventh version of the FOSPA revealed a lack of political commitment on the part of the member governments of the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization (ACTO), reflected in the absence of firm agreements and mechanisms for effective participation. This favors extractivist policies and weakens the protection of indigenous and environmental rights. It is essential that ACTO review and strengthen its structures to ensure that international commitments are implemented and that pan-Amazonian communities play an active and decisive role in policy formulation. 2. Exclusion of indigenous peoples and communities from the decision-making process The exclusion of indigenous peoples and indigenous Amazonian communities from decision-making processes is evident. This results in policies and agreements that do not reflect their needs and realities. A clear example of this is the Conferences of the Parties (COP) on climate change and biodiversity, where indigenous representation is not real or substantive, resulting in a failure to value their ancestral knowledge and fundamental role in biodiversity and climate protection. 3. Absence of a binding mechanism The implementation of agreements reached in forums such as FOSPA has been inadequate and, in many cases, non-existent. This has been one of the main demands of indigenous peoples and communities. Due to the non-binding nature of FOSPA and its lack of relevance to the state perspective, many of the demands remain in the realm of declarations. Although the FOSPA is essential for pan-Amazonian integration and the construction of alternatives from the territories, a joint effort is needed to strengthen its link with decision-makers, to promote the active participation of communities and to turn the forum into a platform for mobilization and action. The road ahead The next FOSPA meeting will take place in two years, but the effective protection of the Pan-Amazon region cannot wait. In the short term, it is necessary to take concrete actions to mitigate the impacts on the ecosystem and to adopt regional cooperation measures to ensure its integral and transboundary protection. Among other things, it is necessary and urgent: Achieve a regional consensus and design a plan to guarantee the declaration of the Amazon as a zone free of fossil fuels and all forms of extractivism. Coordinate an Andean-Amazonian and coastal articulation for the integral defense of territories, demanding concrete actions against mining with a biocultural approach. Demand regulatory frameworks for environmental and human rights due diligence in the Amazonian countries and in the countries of origin of the companies, in order to oblige them to comply with international standards in these two areas. Urge states to apply the principles of prevention and precaution and to raise their standards for projects that may affect the Amazon. Develop a mechanism for the closure and phasing out of fossil fuel extraction projects in the Amazon. Guarantee the active, representative and binding participation of Pan-Amazonian communities and peoples in international forums where decisions are made about nature, such as the next UN Conference on Biodiversity (COP16 in Colombia) and the next UN Conferences on Climate Change (COP29 in Azerbaijan and COP30 in Brazil). *Vania Albarracín Silva is an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program and José David Castilla Parra is an attorney with Human Rights and Environment Program.
Read more
Communities bring their voice on the climate crisis before the Inter-American Court
By Liliana Ávila and Marcella Ribeiro* The hearing was held May 25 to 29 in Manaus, Brazil's largest Amazon city, where the mighty Amazon River is born when the dark waters of the Negro River meet the lighter waters of the Solimões. A delegation of seven communities and a network of trans and non-binary people from different corners of the continent arrived there to tell the Inter-American Court of Human Rights where they come from, what territory and habitat they occupy, how the climate crisis and environmental injustice affect their way of life, and what they propose so that the international court can help guarantee their rights in the face of the global crisis and actions to combat it. As in Bridgetown, Barbados, a month earlier, Manaus was the venue for the public hearings of the Advisory Opinion on Climate Emergency and Human Rights, an opinion in which the Court will clarify the obligations of the hemisphere's states to protect people, especially those in vulnerable situations, from the effects of the climate crisis. The voices from the territories Oral hearings are part of the process by which the Court delivers its advisory opinions. In these hearings, the judges of the Court listen to States and other actors in interventions that should not exceed 10 minutes. The history of peoples and their struggles do not fit into 10 minutes. Nevertheless, the testimonies of each member of the delegation were full of wisdom, dignity and hope. Francis Cruz, representative of the Honduran Climate Change Alliance and resident of the community of Marcovia, told how the sea destroyed his house and restaurant, everything he had. Coastal erosion has taken away more than 12 meters of land in his community, which depends on fishing and tourism. In fact, the community and others in the southern part of the country live with the constant threat of meteorological events whose intensity and frequency are linked to climate change and the environmental degradation it causes. The Court also learned that the extraction of hydrocarbons through fracking in the province of Mendoza, Argentina, is limiting the resilience of Mapuche communities in the face of the climate crisis and is exacerbating the serious situation of water scarcity in the area. This was explained by Gabriel Jofré, spokesperson for the Malalweche Territorial Identity Organization, who highlighted the traditional knowledge of the Mapuche people as a source of answers to their situation of climate vulnerability. In her testimony, Katta Alonso, spokesperson for the territorial movement MUZOSARE (Mujeres de Zona de Sacrificio en Resistencia), described what it is like to live in Quintero and Puchuncaví, Chile, a highly polluted place that has been transformed forever into an industrial complex of thermoelectric, oil and chemical plants, where energy conversion projects are exacerbating the problem. "Climate change affects us because it affects everyone, but even more because we are already in a situation of environmental vulnerability. We are also affected by the policies and measures that the government adopts in its attempts to deal with the climate crisis, because they are sacrificing us again. Once again, they are offering our territories for the installation of harmful industries that will supposedly solve the problem. There is no information, no participation, no possibility of defense," she said. On behalf of Mujeres Unidas en Defensa del Agua: Lago Titicaca Perú-Bolivia, María Eugenia Millares spoke about the contamination of the lake and how temperature changes affect planting, food production cycles and food preservation. She highlighted the role of women: "Our capacity to adapt is diminishing as we lose our livelihoods due to the climate crisis and the failure of the state. But we know that we can change this situation. We women, who are the most affected because we use the water for household and other activities, must be heard and recognized for our role in saving the lake and its life." Angelica Ortiz, representing the communities of La Gran Parada and El Rocío - located in the department of La Guajira, Colombia - and the organization Wayuu Women's Forces, also spoke at the hearing. She highlighted the reality of the Wayuu indigenous people, whose ability to adapt to the climate emergency has been diminished in a situation of economic vulnerability, water crisis, decades of coal exploitation and, more recently, wind energy projects being developed in their territories without consulting them. "We don't know when it will rain, so we don't know when to plant.” The Court also heard the case of the four indigenous communities of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, an ecosystem that has lost more than 90 percent of its glaciers due to global warming. "Our mother is sick, the climate crisis is the disease that we have caused to the mother, and that is the message we are receiving today," said Jaime Luis Arias, Cabildo Governor of the Kankuamo people. Among other things, the climate crisis threatens the ancestral knowledge system of these peoples, their traditional practices and their spiritual life. Finally, Yoko Ruiz, Territorial Coordinator of the Trans Health League, spoke about the differentiated impacts of the climate crisis on women, girls and LGBTIQ+ people. She urged that the Court's decision to clarify state obligations to protect human rights in the face of climate emergency be consistent with the realities of discrimination and structural violence faced by these populations. Contributing from experience and wisdom The members of the delegation came to Manaus not only to talk about the problems they face. As agents of change, they also brought concrete proposals on how to urgently address the climate crisis, based on their knowledge and experience, and respecting human rights. Their proposals are a cry of hope that they wish to be heard by the Court. They are a call to rethink the structural causes of the natural and spiritual imbalance; and to stop the affronts to Mother Earth, her sacred elements, organs and vital systems. Among many other things, they suggested to: Establish a declaration of integral protection for ethnic and rural territories and ecosystems that are highly vulnerable to the climate crisis. Strengthen the adaptive capacity of populations through ancestral knowledge, community monitoring and other mechanisms that ensure the climate resilience of their inhabitants. Recognize the validity of ancestral knowledge and urge states to strengthen the capacity of populations to monitor and care for ecosystems as a means of promoting climate adaptation. Ensure that plans for prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and adaptation to climate disasters include a gender perspective and guarantee services and inputs related to health in general and the sexual and reproductive health of women, girls and LGBTQ+ people. The convening of the peoples of the Americas to prepare for the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court is more than a formality and a 10-minute presentation. It is above all a bet on hope, an affirmation that the fight against the climate crisis will be with and for the peoples, or not at all. AIDA supported various communities in the region to bring their voices to the process by participating in the hearings in Bridgetown and Manaus, and by submitting legal briefs to the Court highlighting the multiple socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency and valuable proposals to address them. This experience reflects our commitment to build ethical, collective and horizontal processes together with Latin American communities to strengthen the reach of their voices and promote the renewal of international law based on their knowledge. For our team, it is essential to be a bridge between defenders who fight for life every day. We seek to change the traditionally exclusionary logic of international decision-making spaces, promoting the exchange of diverse knowledge and working to ensure that decisions about nature include the voice of those who truly protect it and live in harmony with it. *Liliana Ávila is the Director of AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program; Marcella Ribeiro is a senior attorney with the program.
Read more
La Oroya v. Peru: Historic precedent on human rights and the environment
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights set an important precedent for state oversight of industrial pollution. By Rosa Peña and Jacob Kopas*This past March, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the human rights tribunal for the Americas, released an historic ruling condemning Peru for failing to control toxic industrial pollution. The ruling set an important precedent for the right to a healthy environment and state oversight of corporate activities across the Americas.This victory began as a petition that the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and Earthjustice, together with partner organizations, presented in 2006 on behalf of families and environmental defenders in La Oroya, a small town in the heart of the Peruvian Andes. For more than 100 years, an industrial smelter has exposed La Oroya to extreme levels of toxic pollution, leading to nearly all the town’s children having dangerously high levels of lead and other heavy metals in their blood.The court’s binding judgment is a powerful condemnation that the families of La Oroya are today using to demand concrete action from the Peruvian government. In addition to financial compensation, the court ordered Peru to halt further harmful pollution from the smelter, clean up the toxic metals in the soil and water, and provide specialized health care for the victims and inhabitants of La Oroya. The court's judgment itself also constitutes a form of reparations for the victims, by acknowledging the legitimacy of their work as environmental defenders.The significance of the ruling goes far beyond the immediate benefits for people in La Oroya and Peru. Ensuring the environmental quality of water and air in Latin America remains a major challenge across the Americas. This is the first time that the Inter-American Court has held that industrial pollution can harm human rights, opening a path to justice for communities in so-called “Sacrifice Zones” overburdened with industrial pollution.The court’s landmark ruling establishes several key precedents with significance for both international and domestic jurisprudence. Innovative new measures for collective reparations.This case went beyond previous cases by ordering not only individual reparations, but also collective reparations that benefit all inhabitants of La Oroya. These include environmental remediation of the surrounding ecosystem (para. 351), comprehensive and specialized health care for any inhabitant who presents symptoms (para. 348), and support for relocating inhabitants who wish to do so (para. 355). In addition, the court ordered differentiated measures for women, children, and elderly victims. The judgment also ordered environmental and public health measures that will improve the lives of all Peruvians impacted by the mining industry, including bringing air quality standards in line with international standards (para. 346), guaranteeing that mining companies adhere to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (para. 352), and creating an information system that proactively provides updated air and water quality data in mining areas (para. 354). Showing causality: Exposure to a significant health risk is enough to prove a human rights violation.One major obstacle to access to justice for communities exposed to dangerous pollution is showing causality, that is, proving that pollution caused a specific health condition. Showing causality is often difficult because many communities lack access to proper health care and diagnostic tests, because some conditions such as cancer can be latent and lie undetected for years, and because many different factors contribute to poor health. To account for this reality, the court held that it is sufficient to show that an exposure to pollution created a significant health risk, without having to prove that the exposure caused a concrete condition or disease (para. 204). The court also went a step further, and noted that under the precautionary principle, the lack of scientific certainty regarding those risks cannot be an excuse for failing to adopt measures to protect public health (para. 207). The right to clean air and water as substantive elements of the right to a healthy environment.In the judgment, the Court established that the right to a healthy environment includes the rights to air and water that are free of pollution which could constitute a significant risk to health and rights. These rights also entail specific obligations for states. These include:Setting environmental quality standards that do not constitute a risk to health and that are based on the best available scienceMonitoring air and water quality and providing access to information on pollution that endangers healthCreating plans to maintain air and water qualityEffectively enforcing environmental quality standards and ensuring the proper management of water resources (paras. 120-121) Access to public participation in environmental decisions.This ruling is also the first time that the Inter-American Court has condemned a state for failing to guarantee effective public participation in environmental decision-making affecting the general public (para. 256). In prior cases, the court examined the right to public participation only in the context of consultation with Indigenous Peoples, who have special protections under international law. In addition, the court held that the mere existence of formal procedures for public participation may not be sufficient for states to satisfy their obligations under the American Convention. Authorities must also ensure that these procedures provide an effective opportunity to be heard and participate in decision making (para. 260). The judgment also consolidated advances in other important issues for environmental justice in the region:Business and human rights obligations. The court emphasized states’ obligations to protect human rights and their duties to supervise and control companies (paras. 109-110). It also held that companies themselves have responsibilities to respect human rights and act with due diligence, regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership, or structure (para. 111).Environmental pollution violates the right to a dignified life. Because pollution impacted many different areas of the lives of families in La Oroya, it also violated their right to a dignified life. These impacts included not being able to carry out a life project under normal circumstances, which affected their personal, family, psychological, and professional development (paras. 220-230).The effects of environmental contamination fall disproportionately on individuals, groups, and communities that already bear the burden of poverty, discrimination, and systemic marginalization. The court recognized that pregnant women, children, teenagers and the elderly, who, given their condition, are frequently exposed to a greater risk of harm from pollution (para. 134). Given the principle of intergenerational equity, states have particular obligations to protect children’s health from environmental pollution and provide specialized care for those that acquired illnesses as a result of exposure (para. 141).The right to a healthy environment as jus cogens. The ruling noted that guaranteeing the interest of both present and future generations from serious, extensive, long-lasting, and irreversible damage to the environment is fundamental for the survival of humanity. The court thereby called on the international community to recognize such environmental harm as violating a preemptory norm (jus cogens) of international law (para. 129).Weakening air quality standards violates international law. The court found that when Peru rolled back national air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, it violated its duty against retrogressive measures inherent in the right to a healthy environment (paras. 182-186). The court held that any such rollbacks must be justified in light of the state’s maximum available resources for guaranteeing human rights and be consistent with the precautionary principle (para. 186).Obligation of active transparency when guaranteeing access to information. This case is the first time the court has found a state responsible for failing its obligation of “active transparency,” which requires states to not only respond to requests for accessing environmental information, but also to actively distribute and publicize environmental information (para. 247). This information must be complete, comprehensible, and in an accessible language (para. 255). The ruling is poised to a significant legal precedent for the many communities affected by industrial pollution. Its ultimate impact will depend on how it is implemented by courts in Peru and throughout Latin America. In Peru alone, the Peruvian Human Rights Ombudsman estimated that over 10 million people (31% of the population) are at risk of exposure to heavy metal pollutants and other chemicals related to the mining industry. With this new ruling as a powerful legal tool, hopefully other communities will not have to wait 100 years to finally breath clean air. Learn more about the legal contributions of the ruling of the Inter-American Court in the La Oroya case *Rosa Peña is a senior attorney with AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program; Jacob Kopas is a senior attorney with Earthjustice's International Program.
Read more
Climate negotiations: Reflections after the Bonn meeting ahead of COP29
By Florencia Ortúzar and Javier Dávalos* The 60th session of the UN Subsidiary Bodies on Climate Change (SB60) was held in Bonn, Germany, from June 3-13, 2024. These sessions, held twice a year, consist of technical meetings at which government delegates advance the agenda for international climate negotiations. The Bonn session was part of the preparations for the twenty-ninth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November, and was guided by the agreements reached at COP28, held last year in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. AIDA participated in SB60 to bring the voice of Latin America to the negotiations from a human rights and gender perspective. The following are reflections on the four main issues addressed at the meeting: just transition, global accounting, the new financing target, and the Loss and Damage Fund. Work Programme on Just Transition On June 2 and 3, the long-awaited first dialogue took place on the Just Transition Work Programme, which was created at COP27 to address the challenges of the transition to low-carbon economies and societies. The goal is to achieve an equitable and inclusive process that promotes the protection of workers and affected communities. Civil society observer organizations noted that the principles of a just transition require an assessment of the impact of climate action on all human rights - including labor, social, economic and environmental rights - in key areas. To this end, decision-making in the work programme must include social dialogue and multiple levels of consultation with groups and communities. AIDA advocated for the justice dimension to consider the differentiated impacts of the transition in different areas of the planet, particularly in the Global South, where the extraction of transition minerals (lithium, cobalt and copper, among others) threatens fragile ecosystems, species and vulnerable communities. The problems of fossil fuel extraction are being repeated. Safeguards, participatory approaches and international cooperation are therefore relevant. It is also important to support economic diversification approaches that protect us from a new dependence on the sale of raw materials and encourage the search for new sources of income. Follow-up to the Global Stocktake Dialogue The Global Stocktake is a collective assessment mechanism to review global progress on climate mitigation, adaptation and finance every five years. The exercise will allow us to know whether global efforts are sufficient to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the global temperature rise to below 2°C, and hopefully 1.5°C. The results of the stocktaking should have a direct impact on countries' climate commitments contained in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The text of the first stocktaking, adopted in 2023, gave way to the process of updating the NDCs, which countries must submit in 2025 and which must reinforce the historic commitment made at COP28 to phase out fossil fuels, set specific targets to reduce methane emissions, triple renewable energy, and double energy efficiency. The updated NDCs must include clear adaptation measures based on the conservation of biodiversity and key ecosystems such as the Amazon, wetlands and oceans. AIDA will monitor and follow up to ensure that countries in the region make progressive climate commitments that are consistent with what was agreed in the Global Stocktake. The new collective quantified goal on climate finance In 2009, developed countries agreed to mobilize $100 billion per year by 2020 to support climate action in developing countries. Then, in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, it was agreed to set a new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG). This target should be adopted in November, during COP29, and the Bonn meeting should pave the way for it. In addition, the new target will be an indicator of developing countries' ability to meet their updated NDCs, as well as a sign of fairness that could strengthen the credibility of the climate negotiation system. However, reaching an agreement has not been easy due to the number of decisions needed to outline the new target in its entirety. The most difficult point to agree on is the amount that developed countries will have to commit to. So far, they have only agreed that it should exceed US$100 billion. The Latin American countries, for their part, have not been able to propose figures based on the needs of the region. The list of countries that will contribute to the target is also still under discussion. According to the developed countries, some countries at an advanced stage of development could begin to contribute. There is also debate over whether the new target should also be used to finance loss and damage compensation, an issue that was not considered when the previous target was discussed and for which there is now a special fund. Another challenge for developing countries is that the financing resulting from the new target should not increase public debt. There are other details that still require agreement. The COP co-chairs must now propose a document that reconciles divergent visions and serves to reach agreement at COP29. Countries can apply the lessons learned from the first target and secure a new target that is more effective in terms of quantity and implementation. Financing climate action is neither a handout nor a charity, but a duty and responsibility of developed countries. It is also in their interest: the effects of the climate crisis are global. Without a goal, there are no financial flows, and without financing, there is no way to address the crisis. Launching the loss and damage fund The Loss and Damage Fund was established in 2022 at COP27, and its operationalization was agreed a year later at COP28. While the creation of the fund is welcome, it is only a first step in making it the channel of support so desperately needed by countries already suffering the worst impacts of the climate crisis. There are many challenges ahead. The Bonn meeting confirmed that the World Bank will be the interim administrator of the fund for the first four years. For civil society and developing countries in general, loss and damage must be recognized as the third pillar of climate action, alongside mitigation and adaptation. However, some developed countries seem to be suggesting that with the creation of the fund, it would no longer be necessary to include the issue as part of the new collective quantified climate finance goal, which does not make sense. Moreover, the amount that developed countries have pledged to the fund so far is less than 0.2% of what is needed annually. There is still no strategy that proposes how much contributing countries should contribute according to their responsibilities and capacities. The fund must be decentralized and involve civil society, indigenous communities, youth, women and other vulnerable groups from the outset to ensure that the money reaches those who need it. It must also be efficient and sufficient, providing financial and quality assistance as quickly as possible. On the other hand, developing countries, including those in Latin America and the Caribbean, must make efforts to monitor and report losses and damage in their territories, which often poses economic, technical and even methodological challenges that require support, training and guidance. The results of international climate negotiations are slow and the process often frustrating. The attitude of many industrialized countries, which shirk their responsibilities while enjoying development at the expense of the global climate balance, is disappointing. However, in the face of such a scenario, lowering our guard is not an option. The organized civil society working around these negotiations is a cause for hope. It is a demonstration of solidarity and competence that achieves results and does not give up. By being there, representing our region, we are contributing to this movement with the wisdom and strength that comes from the Global South. *Florencia Ortúzar is a senior attorney with AIDA y Javier Dávalos is the Director of AIDA's Climate Program.
Read more
What you need to know about the “loss and damage” of the climate crisis
Recent flooding in the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul has forced more than 500,000 people from their homes, turning them into climate refugees and causing millions of dollars in crop and livestock losses.Meanwhile, in Panama, some 300 coastal families had to leave Cartí Sugdupu, an island threatened by rising sea levels, and be relocated to a government-built settlement off the Caribbean coast.These types of negative impacts of extreme weather events, which occur despite or because of the lack of mitigation and adaptation measures, are technically referred to as "loss and damage" of the climate crisis.Scientific evidence shows that these losses and damages are already occurring, will increase, and are unevenly distributed, with a disproportionate impact on developing countries and vulnerable groups.This issue - key to international climate negotiations - is closely linked to the concept of climate justice, as it raises the question of who should pay for the losses and damages in the poorest countries, which bear little historical responsibility for the climate emergency.In this text, we address the basic aspects of this issue, which is becoming increasingly relevant and requires urgent action. What counts as loss and damage?Let's start by breaking down the term a little further:"Loss" refers to what is permanently lost due to the climate crisis, such as human and other species’ lives, territories, water sources, ecosystems, livelihoods, cultural heritage, and languages."Damage" refers to what has been affected by the climate crisis but can be restored or rebuilt, such as impacts on physical and mental health, soils, roads, schools, homes, health centers, and businesses. Loss and damage are usually divided into two categories, which may overlap:Economic. Loss and damage can be assigned a monetary value: destruction of assets such as houses or cars, loss of livelihoods such as crops or livestock, reduced productivity due to lost working hours, damage to basic infrastructure or disruption of supply chains. This can occur at the international, national or local level.Non-economic. Loss and damage that is difficult to measure in monetary terms. They include loss of human life, damage to health, the trauma of forced displacement, and impacts on culture, language, heritage, identity, etc. This category also includes the loss or reduction of biodiversity, the extinction of species, and the disruption or loss of ecosystem services, such as the production of oxygen by a forest. In international climate negotiations, however, the term takes on a different meaning. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change refers to efforts to "avert, minimize and address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, especially in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change."The terms "avoid" and "minimize" generally refer to mitigation and adaptation, respectively, while the word "address" refers to actions to deal with the impacts of the climate crisis that could not be avoided. How much money is needed to address loss and damage?Discussions on loss and damage, which address issues such as liability and compensation, have been contentious in international negotiations. Developed countries – historically responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that have warmed the planet – have resisted possible agreements that would hold them accountable and make them pay for the loss and damage their emissions have caused and continue to cause.How big is the bill?According to a report published by the Loss and Damage Collaboration, 55 of the most climate-vulnerable economies will suffer losses of more than $500 billion between 2000 and 2020, and this could increase by a similar amount in the following decade. Other estimates put the annual cost of loss and damage at $400 billion by 2030.In Latin America, according to a 2019 study, losses and damages due to the climate crisis are expected to reach $462 billion by 2050 and could rise to $891 billion by 2070. What is being done to address loss and damage?Although the issue of loss and damage has emerged in international climate negotiations for more than three decades, it only gained momentum in 2013. That year, at the 19th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP19), countries established the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage with a mandate to share knowledge, strengthen dialogue among stakeholders, and mobilize expertise to strengthen action and support on the issue.In 2015, developing countries successfully lobbied for the inclusion of an article on loss and damage in the Paris Agreement (a legally binding international treaty in force since 2016), but the issue of finance was left out.This brings us to the next milestone, which occurred at COP27 in Egypt in 2022, when it was agreed to establish a Loss and Damage Fund to provide financial support to developing countries.A year later, at COP28 in Dubai, the launch of the fund was agreed, including the rules of operation and other key aspects, like an invitation to the World Bank to act as interim manager for the first four years.In June 2024, during the Bonn negotiations, the World Bank accepted the invitation to manage the fund, and discussions began to make it operational.Civil society is calling for loss and damage to be recognized as the third pillar of climate action (alongside mitigation and adaptation), but developed countries are resisting, suggesting that the creation of the fund would be sufficient and even suggesting that loss and damage should not be part of the new global finance goal.While welcome, the existence of the fund is only the first step in making it what is so desperately needed by countries suffering the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Challenges include:Financing. Developed countries have so far pledged US$700 million, less than 0.2% of what is needed ($400 billion).Governance. Among other things, the World Bank must ensure the independence and integrity of the fund's Board and Secretariat, that all countries party to the Paris Agreement have direct access to resources (even if they are not members of the Bank), and that resources are delivered in a sufficient and efficient manner.Participation. The Fund requires a decentralized structure and the participation of civil society, indigenous communities, youth, women and other vulnerable groups from the outset to ensure that the money reaches those who need it.Access. The fund should provide direct access to funding, not only to national authorities, but also to civil society organizations and affected communities.Inventories. Developing countries need to monitor and report losses and damage on their territory, which requires economic and technical resources. Sources- United Nations Environment Programme, "About Loss and damage".- Preety Bhandari, Nate Warszawski, Deirdre Cogan y Rhys Gerholdt, "What Is 'Loss and Damage' from Climate Change? 8 Key Questions, Answered", World Resources Institute.- United Nations, "Loss and Damage: A Moral Imperative to Act".- The Loss & Damage Collaboration, "WHAT IS LOSS AND DAMAGE?".- The London School of Economics and Political Science, "What is climate change ‘Loss and Damage’?".- Navin Singh Khadka, "COP27: what does the concept of 'loss and damage' mean for extreme weather pitting rich and poor countries against each other," BBC Mundo.- Alejandra Cuéllar, "COP27: What are losses and damages, and what do they mean for Latin America?", Climate Tracker.- Adriana Abramovits, “The Loss and Damage Fund, why is it not what civil society expected?”, Dejusticia.
Read more
Maritime shipping: what’s being done to reduce emissions?
Maritime transport is the activity of moving goods from one destination to another by sea. It is fundamental to trade and accounts for 80% of global shipping.However, it is also a major source of pollution, particularly greenhouse gases that warm the planet and other pollutants that harm human health.The sector therefore needs to decarbonize its activities by reducing its emissions, both in transport and in the loading and unloading of goods at ports around the world. How many emissions does international shipping produce?Every year, 10 billion tons of cargo are transported by sea, accounting for 2.9% of global greenhouse gas emissions - including carbon dioxide (CO₂) - a percentage close to that of Japan. This is because ships use enormous amounts of oil to move, emitting nearly 1 billion tons of greenhouse gases.The above figures do not include emissions generated at cargo ports, which are not automated and use fossil fuels. The main energy source for ships moving goods around the world is heavy fuel oil, a highly polluting fossil fuel that produces CO₂ emissions that accelerate global warming.In 2023, greenhouse gas emissions from shipping will be 20% higher than they were 10 years ago, according to the United Nations. And projections published by the European Environment Agency indicate that they could reach 17% of global emissions by 2050 if no action is taken to decarbonize the sector.The warming and subsequent melting of the Arctic - the geographic region around the North Pole - is evidence of the impact of shipping emissions on the global climate:According to the Clean Arctic Alliance, the Arctic —one of the world's most important climate regulators— is warming up to four times faster than the rest of the planet.Much of this is due to emissions of black carbon, or soot, from shipping, which is the residue left after heavy fuel is burned on ships.Black carbon is emitted in both gaseous and solid forms. As a gas, it contributes to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere; as a solid particle, it accelerates the melting of snow and ice. How do ship emissions affect human health?International shipping generates pollutants such as black carbon and particulate matter that affect human health.According to the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, which reviewed 32 studies on shipping emissions, the industry could be responsible for an estimated 265,000 premature deaths worldwide in 2020. This means that 0.5% of global mortality would be associated with its emissions.Although air pollution from shipping is a global problem, it disproportionately affects coastal populations, especially those living near ports and other industrial facilities. Who is responsible for preventing emissions from shipping?The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for setting standards for safe, efficient, and environmentally sound shipping. In 2023, the 175 countries that make up the IMO agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry by 20-30% (compared to 2008) by 2030 and by at least 70% by 2040. The pact is complemented by a target to achieve a zero emissions balance (so that gases released into the atmosphere are neutralized or offset by sinks) by "around 2050."Within this framework, meetings at the IMO in the coming months and until April 2025 will focus on achieving the decarbonization of shipping through a just energy transition.During this period, a range of technical and economic measures will be analyzed and discussed to achieve the objectives of the Ship Emissions Reduction Strategy.The main challenges of these efforts include:Meeting market demand for zero emission fuels in the volume required to power the entire global marine fleet.Bridging the cost gap between fossil fuels and low-emission fuels.Enabling ships to adapt their technology for a rapid transition to cleaner fuels. The process of decarbonizing maritime transport will require the combined efforts of various actors: States, companies, NGOs, and international governance organizations.It is a complex process that involves the entire global shipping chain. For the decarbonization of the sector to be equitable, it is necessary to take into account shared responsibilities as well as the different needs and capacities of countries in the face of the costs of phasing out fossil fuels in maritime transport.It must also consider the impact that global warming is already having on economically and climatically vulnerable countries, such as islands, least developed and developing countries.Sources- International Maritime Organization, "Introduction to the IMO".- Natalie Mueller, "Maritime transport: the forgotten pollution", Barcelona Institute for Global Health.- Michelle Carrere, "Agreements to reduce shipping emissions considered ‘weak’ by environmental organizations", Mongabay.-Paula Mateu, "Maritime transport will reduce emissions by 30% in 2030 but NGOs see it as insufficient", La Vanguardia.
Read more
Native bees and indigenous peoples: an ancestral bond
Did you know that there are bees native to our continent that have been part of the cosmovision and way of life of various indigenous peoples? The native bees or Melipona beesbelong to the tribe of the Meliponini. They are known as "stingless bees" because they do not have a functional stinger, although they have other defense mechanisms, such as biting. There are dozens of species of these bees found from Mexico to Argentina. In some indigenous communities, native bees are considered spiritual and symbolic beings, but they are also valued for their essential functions in sustaining life: by pollinating crops, they are allies in food production; their honey, wax, and propolis have recognized nutritional and healing properties; and they maintain the balance of nature for the conservation of ecosystems. As part of World Bee Day—celebrated every year on May 20 to raise awareness, promote and encourage actions to protect bees and other pollinators—we would like to highlight the work of some communities that honor and care for native bees in a variety of ways, and in doing so, care for and preserve their own cultures. A work of mutual care The breeding and use of melipona bees, native to the Americas, is an ancestral practice for several indigenous peoples. This activity, called meliponiculture, is part of their way of life and worldview. The introduction of the domestic bee (Apis mellifera) from Europe drastically reduced this practice. However, many communities have preserved it, protecting native bees from extinction and ensuring biodiversity in their territories. We have examples of this across the continent. Guatemala The warm forests of Alta Verapaz, Guatemala, are the preferred habitat of native bees and are home to the greatest diversity of bees in the country. Their conservation is in the hands of Q'eqchi Mayan families and small producers who build technological hives or "bee houses." Peru Through her Sumak Kawsay initiative, Ysabel Calderón is promoting the conservation of native bees by restoring their habitat in Lambayeque, Peru. Calderón has planted more than 1,000 trees in Lambayeque and increased the native bee population. This has also created jobs for a group of women in the region. Argentina In Argentina's Gran Chaco, Silvia Godoy and other small-scale honey producers are recovering native bee nests in sawmills that have been lost to forestry activities. The colonies are carefully placed in boxes for better conservation and rational use of their honey. Colombia Yucuna women from the Mirití-Paraná region of Colombia are working to document the origins of native bees in their culture and their importance to the territory and the environment. They are doing this hand in hand with the wise grandmothers and grandfathers of the villages. They collect stories, songs and drawings about bees. MExico About 20 years ago, Nahua families in Cuetzalan del Progreso, Mexico, began promoting meliponiculture as an ancestral practice that was being lost. Today, honey harvesting benefits the families economically and allows them to protect their territory. And in southeastern Mexico, the Colectivo de Comunidades Mayas de los Chenes has put native bees at the center of its fight against GMOs and agrotoxins. The women's voice and the protection of meliponiculture, a traditional practice and their livelihood, have been key to defending their territory. SOURCES -S. Engel, M. et al. “Stingless bee classification and biology (Hymenoptera, Apidae): a review, with an updated key to genera and subgenera”, ZooKeys. -Practical guide for the implementation of meliponiculture in the Colombian Amazon, Amazon Conservation Team/The Nature Conservancy, 2020. -Importance of meliponiculture", General Directorate of Natural Resources and Biosecurity. -"Native bees of Mexico. The importance of their conservation", Conacyt.
Read more
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