Latin America

Litigation to promote (and accelerate) climate action

In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its first assessment report. It was the first time that the international scientific community officially and accurately demonstrated that greenhouse gas emissions, produced by human activities, would lead to additional warming of the planet's surface, with global consequences. Over more than two decades of international climate negotiations and agreements to drastically reduce emissions, progress has been slow. And so, climate litigation has become a tool increasingly used by organizations and communities to hold governments and companies accountable for the climate crisis. Legal cases have forced nations to adopt more concrete and ambitious measures to curb emissions and mitigate the human rights impacts of the climate crisis. In May, a Dutch court set a landmark precedent when it ordered multinational oil company Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent over less than 10 years, marking a global environmental victory. "This judgment has been of great significance because Shell is one of the companies that most contributes to climate change," says Verónica Méndez, an attorney with AIDA's Climate Change Program. AIDA's legal and scientific team provides legal support and technical information to organizations and communities initiating climate litigation against governments and companies in Latin America. AIDA also developed a climate litigation platform, which systematizes key information on the cases developed in the region. The mapping of data is being done collaboratively with other organizations and will allow for the strengthening of joint litigation strategies. A brief overview of climate litigation Climate litigation includes cases that raise issues related to the legal obligations that states and companies have in relation to the climate crisis. They are brought before judicial bodies to seek, among other things, the enforcement of existing climate laws; an expansion in the scope of other laws to address climate change; recognition of the relationship between fundamental human rights and the impacts of the climate crisis; and compensation for loss and damage. This, according to a report prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme, in collaboration with the Sabine Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University (New York), which assesses the global situation of this type of litigation. According to the report, as of July 1, 2020, at least 1,550 climate litigations have been registered in 38 countries, almost doubling the number of cases registered in 24 countries in 2017. The United States leads the list where the most litigation has been filed (1,200), followed by Australia (97), the United Kingdom (58) and the European Union (55). Climate lawsuits are also booming in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Chile. To date, AIDA has analyzed nearly 50 cases that will form part of the region's climate litigation platform. Challenges and opportunities in climate litigation While climate litigation seeks to achieve justice for communities affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, one of its great challenges lies the implementation of decisions. In 2018, a historic judgement ruled in favor of 25 young Colombians, who sued the government for deforestation in the Amazon and its direct link to the violation of the right to a healthy environment for future generations. This lawsuit is considered a climate litigation due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. In it, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered the creation of an action plan to reduce deforestation, and the adoption of an intergenerational pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon. However, the conclusions of follow-up reports on the case indicate that, to date, there has not been full compliance with the ruling. "A judgment does not end with the sentence,” explains Méndez. “It must be followed up with to ensure compliance." Demonstrating that corporations and governments have an enormous responsibility in the fight against the climate crisis not only requires scientific information that proves that the emissions generated or allowed contribute to climate change. It requires linking the facts to human rights to provide more reasons for the courts to act and issue a favorable ruling. "A purely scientific climate change litigation has less chance of success," Méndez emphasizes. "It’s strategic to link a case to direct impacts on the human rights of those people who will be  disproportionately affected." According to a report by the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), the outlook for climate demands in Latin America is encouraging because governments are making more commitments to climate action and, in addition, climate science is establishing direct links between extreme weather events and climate change. The coming together of communities and environmental organizations is crucial in the movement to accelerate strong policies and actions that will ensure a sustainable, just transformation for both people and the environment. Visit the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America and the Caribbean  

Webinar "A Material Transition: Mining and the Renewable Energy Transition"

Presenting A Material Transition, a report from War on Want investigating the impacts of an increased demand for the minerals required to move away from fossil fuels, and what can be done to address global supply chains and reduce unsustainable demand. PanelistsAndy Whitmore: Researcher specialising in extractive industries and indigenous peoples rights. Co-chair, trustee and founding member of London Mining Network.Sebastian Ordóñez Muñoz: Colombian migrant based in the UK. Senior Programme Officer for Latin America, War on Want.Moderator: Andrés Ángel, Scientific Advisor, AIDA. Recording Presentations1. Introductory presentation: 2. Presentation of Andy Whitmore: Reference materialA Material Transition: Exploring supply and demand solutions for renewable energy mineralsImpactos a perpetuidad. El legado de la minería

Member countries of the World Trade Organization must reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies

We regret that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference, held today in Geneva, failed to reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies, an urgent measure to achieve effective management of our fisheries resources, as well as to ensure global food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities. At the same time, we recognize that the negotiations are at an advanced stage and that we finally have a draft text. We wish to highlight the commitment and participation of Latin American delegations including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Uruguay. We urge all WTO member countries to assume the great responsibility of reaching an agreement soon. After two decades of negotiations, the deadlines for completing the negotiations and reaching an agreement have been repeatedly missed. Although negotiations officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 Ministerial Conference that countries committed to take action and reach an agreement at the next conference, which was to take place in December 2020, but was suspended due to the pandemic. This commitment also responds to the fulfillment of target 14.6 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This target establishes that by 2020 "certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing" should be prohibited, and aims to "eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation." According to recent estimates, governments spend US$35 billion each year to support their fisheries sectors, of which US$22 billion represent negative subsidies, which promote overfishing. That practice results in alarming data, including that 63 percent of global fish stocks need to be rebuilt and that, according to a 2020 FAO report, 34 percent of them are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels. While the agreement is being finalized, more needs to be done to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. We urge WTO member countries to define without further delay commitments in this regard at the national and regional levels. For our part, AIDA attorneys will continue to work hand-in-hand with governments to reach an ambitious agreement. It is imperative that said agreement adopt solid rules, eliminate the possibility of creating legal loopholes, and seize the opportunity to establish ocean policies aimed at achieving greater sustainability and guaranteeing the satisfaction of the needs of current and future generations, as well as the conservation of our marine resources. press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107  

Session 2 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

Gender, indigenous peoples and REDD+ within the GCF Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources. GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF. In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists. PanelistsLiane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: Main takeaways from B.29.Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development (WEDO): Gender at the GCF.Helen Magata, Tebtebba: Indigenous Peoples at the GCF.Souparna Lahiri, Global Forest Coalition: REDD + at the GCF.Moderator: Salina Sanou, PACJA.  Recording Presentations1. Liane Schalatek, Heinrich Böll Stiftung: 2. Tara Daniel, Women's Environment and Development (WEDO):Presentación en francés 3. Helen Magata, Tebtebba: 

People v. Shell: A step towards climate justice

On May 26, the District Court in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a landmark climate ruling. It ordered Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell—one of the world's leading fossil fuel producers and suppliers—to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels. The decision came in response to a 2019 lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth, along with six other organizations and more than 17 thousand Dutch citizens. Although Shell publicly committed in 2020 to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the Dutch court found that this pledge was not enough. According to the verdict, the multinational is responsible for not only its own CO2 emissions, but also those of its suppliers and customers, which together threaten the fragile planetary balance and the realization of human rights. The ruling determines, for the first time, that a company and its subsidiaries must align their policies with global CO2 emission reduction targets. It bases this obligation on the emission reduction targets of the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015. Thus, those who litigated against Shell fulfilled their main objective, which was not to obtain financial compensation for damages caused, but to force the oil company to reduce its emissions in compliance with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, and to continue efforts to reach 1.5°C. The Shell group has been aware for nearly 60 years of the risks of climate change, as demonstrated by a documentary they themselves produced in the 1990s. However, the multinational responsible for nine times more emissions than the whole of the Netherlands has never stopped investing in fossil fuels, intentionally favoring its economic interests at the expense of the environment, the climate and people. Check here the recording of the conversation we had with Niels Hazekamp, Senior Policy Adviserat Both Ends, one of the organizations that sued Shell, where explains the details of the litigation.   A worldwide precedent The ruling is a major step forward in the use of judicial systems as tools to advance climate justice, and it demonstrates that society, as a whole, is more determined than ever to stop the negative impacts that powerful multinationals have on the environment, the climate and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. Despite being litigated on European soil, the case represents a significant step towards global climate justice, offering an interesting opportunity for replication in Latin America and the world. The case not only opened the discussion on corporate climate responsibility, but was also a pioneer in incorporating the use of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The use of these instruments, which regulate multinational companies by requiring them to respect human rights, demonstrates their potential for global climate justice. The language of the verdict is based primarily on respect for human rights, thus opening the possibility of applying the same reasoning against other polluting companies, in accordance with the obligations set out in the above-mentioned instruments. More about the People v. Shell ruling Under the ruling, Shell must reduce Type 1 net emissions—those generated by its activities and those of its subsidiaries—and make a significant effort to reduce Type 2 and 3 net emissions—those generated by users of the oil and gas produced by the multinational. To account for the net reduction of its emissions, the oil company cannot resort to any of the carbon capture or offsetting tools established under the Paris Agreement, which consist of capturing CO2 emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants and heavy industry, for deep subway storage or reuse. It is worth noting that, although there is no certainty about the exact nature of the climate impacts caused by Shell, the judges highlighted the universally recognized risks to communities and ecosystems related to industrial pollution, and the company's financial priorities, to support their ruling. Primary doubts and concerns The primary doubts regarding this ruling have to do with its implementation. Although the court established that Shell may not use offsetting or absorption systems for its emissions, it does not oblige it to end the exploration, extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the ruling does not allow for the identification of exactly what kind of effort could be considered significant for the reduction of emissions by the oil company's customers. Nor is there clarity regarding the responsibility of the Shell group for the sale of its refineries to other public companies in the Global South, which would allow the multinational to comply in part with emissions reductions, while the refineries continue to operate in some of the most vulnerable places on the planet. In addition to the use of the Paris Agreement, which assisted the judges in ruling in favor of the climate in this case, the litigation opened the door to the use of existing soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, or others that are expected to be legally binding to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Likewise, considering the difficulty and possible manipulation in counting emissions, new avenues are opening up to establish specific obligations on polluting actors. As recommended by several civil society organizations, basing corporate emission reductions on the measurement of barrels of oil, cubic meters of gas and tons of carbon would be easier and more useful for the implementation of successful judgments such as this one. Finally, there are concerns about the rights of Shell workers, which could be negatively affected by the ruling. The drastic reduction that Shell will have to apply to its oil and gas activities must be framed in a fair and inclusive transition process, which includes respecting labor rights and transforming its activities by making them more sustainable. The case of People v. Shell has opened up valuable tools for a global shift towards climate justice and holding companies accountable for their environmental and human rights harms. For those of active in climate litigation, the case demonstrates the need to strengthen the capacities of our teams, the importance of creativity and the use of science, the importance of ensuring that we have the time and resources to pursue landmark cases and, finally, the relevance of building alliances to build upon the current momentum of the global climate justice movement.  

Session 1 of the 2021 GCF Watch International Webinar Series

The GCF Watch platform and an overview of 2021 Effective civil society monitoring of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is crucial to avoid damages and make the best use of much-needed climate resources.GCF-Watch is a civil society initiative, led from the Global South, created to improve access to information on GCF matters and enable better public follow-up and supervision of the GCF.In this international series of three webinars, experts from across the globe discussed engaging through the GCF Watch platform. Updated information on the GCF, its board meetings and the main issues of 2021 were discussed, as well as ways in which people and communities can engage with the Fund in their countries and regions. Each session included expert presentations followed by an open space for conversation among attendees and panelists. PanelistsFlorencia Ortúzar, Attorney, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): Introduction to the webinar series.Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Deputy Executive Director, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC): The GCF Watch Platform.Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL): Takeaways from BM 28 and main topics for 2021.Moderator: Bertha Argueta, Germanwatch. Recording Presentations1. Angelo Kairos de la Cruz, Institute for Climate and Sustainable Cities (ICSC):Presentation in French 2. Erika Lennon, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL):Presentation in French 

Transition in AIDA's Executive Leadership

The board of directors and team of AIDA, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, are announcing a transition in its leadership. After 18 years of dedicated service, Astrid Puentes Riaño has decided to step down from her role as co-executive director, effective August 31, 2021. Today, AIDA is a solid organization with regional presence, a committed board of directors and strong internal leadership. As such, the time is right for a transition and to further strengthen the organization for the benefit of Latin America’s people, communities, and environment. Anna Cederstav, current co-executive director, will continue in a leadership role, and in the coming weeks we will begin the process of recruiting new executive leadership. At this time of transition, we would like to express our deep appreciation and gratitude to Astrid. For nearly two decades, she and Anna have led AIDA and its team of legal and scientific professionals in working with hundreds of partner organizations in more than ten countries of Latin America. As a result, AIDA is today one of the most effective environmental law organizations in the region. Astrid’s vision, strategic leadership and powerful command of various issues, jurisdictions, and national and regional laws, have strengthened AIDA and increased its impact. At the same time, Astrid has become one of the savviest and most dedicated environmental rights litigators in Latin America. She has helped establish the link between human rights and the environment and spearheaded efforts on climate change and climate justice in the region. Astrid has been, and continues to be, a mentor to her colleagues, and we are all better because of her leadership, which we will miss. We are confident that she will continue to bring her passion, dedication and expertise to the defense of the environment and human rights in Latin America and around the world. The AIDA board and team congratulate Astrid on all she has accomplished with AIDA and look forward to continuing our collaboration with her. We thank her for all she has contributed and wish her the best in her future endeavors. We are grateful for the support of each of our allies and reiterate our commitment to working to achieve environmental justice, climate justice and strong environmental governance in our beloved region.

"Defenders prevent us from entering into a situation of no return"

If you’re seeking to improve air quality in your city or working to halt a project that poses risks to the people and environment in your community, you are an environmental defender, although you probably haven't thought of it that way. Defenders are on the front lines of the battle to protect the environment and human rights, challenging public and private interests. Many of them face great difficulties in doing so, suffering from serious rights violations like persecution, threats, the use of public force, legal sanctions and even assassination. According to Global Witness’ most recent report, 212 murders of environmental and territorial defenders were recorded in 2019. Latin America was the most affected region, with Colombia leading the list with 64 murders. Despite the fact that States have the obligation to protect, respect and guarantee the rights of those who defend the environment, violence against them is worsening. On April 22, Earth Day, the Escazú Agreement came into force. It is the first environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean that values the work of environmental defenders and obliges States to protect them and punish actions that violate their rights. Marcella Ribeiro, a Brazilian attorney with AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program discusses the reality of those who defend the environment in Latin America, and the leading role that governments should play in protecting them. What is the current situation of environmental defenders worldwide and particularly in Latin America? We are going through a moment of extreme vulnerability. At the beginning of the pandemic, and particularly in the countries that are home to the Amazon, media covered shifted to focus only on news related to COVID-19. In this context, defenders were increasingly threatened and some were even killed without any public repercussions. In what way did the pandemic exacerbate their vulnerability? I am going to speak from the perspective of Brazil, where I am located. Environmental human rights defenders have had to defend themselves against both the state and companies that seek to enter their territories and implement a vision of development that is not in line with the vision of the communities themselves. Why is it important to protect the people who defend the environment? Because they are the first force there is for the defense of territory, nature and human rights, not from an individual perspective, but from a collective one. What they do is protect all of us, our rights, our air and our water, even our food security. Defenders prevent our planet from entering into a situation of no return: once the forest is cut down or the river is polluted, there will be no way to recover those ecosystems. With the entry into force of the Escazú Agreement, how does the situation of these people change and how can they be guaranteed access to justice?   The Escazú Agreement is the first international legal framework focused entirely on defenders that seeks to ensure that justice and guarantee their rights. Not all Latin American countries have ratified it. This agreement complements and supports efforts to protect them, but for it to be effective we need countries to truly integrate these responsibilities into their national systems so that defenders can use it to their advantage. Political will is vital to protect those who defend the environment, how do you assess progress in this regard? It is evident that environmental defenders in Latin America are being increasingly threatened, even murdered. As this issue gains visibility, I believe that we are seeing a change and an increase in concern from States, even if it is not entirely genuine. While it is difficult to believe in the political, autonomous and altruistic will of Latin American governments, I do believe that the visibility achieved by the Inter-American Human Rights System, the United Nations and NGOs working to document and link the motivations behind these murders gives us a collective strength. Megaprojects should be implemented with a human rights-based development, but what happens when a State opposes the will of people or communities to reject them? Often in Latin America, States decide that a project is going to be implemented regardless of community resistance, or environmental risks related to the project. That is not connected to development, but to corruption. Promoting projects that we know are going negatively impact thousands of people is directly connection to corruption. We need stronger links between those of us working on human rights and environmental issues and those investigating corruption, in order to try to break those links before they are implemented.   Given their work for the common good of all humanity and the increasing violence defenders face, AIDA has developed a guide that explains the obligations States have regarding the protection of environmental defenders. Read more here!  

Towards an end to subsidies that promote overfishing

Human Rights Council addresses the water crisis and environmental defenders protection

The 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council is the first to be held entirely online, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It runs until March 23. The virtual format of this HRC session enabled AIDA to make our first participation ever in the HRC and join the discussions on two of the topics that are at the core of its human rights work: the right to a healthy environment and the protection of environmental human rights defenders. On 03 March, the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David Boyd, presented his report “Human Rights and the Global Water Crisis” to the Human Rights Council. In it, Boyd highlighted the severe impacts of water pollution, water scarcity and water-related disasters on the rights to life, health, education, food, development and the right to a healthy environment.     He also emphasized that climate change is a risk-multiplier, exacerbating water-related human rights issues. The Special Rapporteur called on States to incorporate a rights-based approach in both their climate strategies and water plans. Finally, Boyd reiterated his call for the Human Rights Council to support the initiative for a resolution to recognize that everyone everywhere has the right to live in a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. In the Interactive Dialogue that followed Boyd’s presentation, AIDA Attorney Rosa Peña denounced the negative impacts of mega-dams, coal mining and fracking on human rights and water access in Latin America. She noted that these projects not only threaten the human rights of local communities but also exacerbate the climate crisis. She called the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the communities affected by the Belo Monte mega-dam in the Brazilian Amazon. Currently, implementation of the so-called ‘Consensus Hydrogram’ in the Xingu River threatens the lives of local communities, pollutes the water, dries up the river and causes food insecurity and severe biodiversity loss. On March 4, it was the turn of the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mary Lawlor, to engage in an Interactive Dialogue on ”Final warning: death threats and killings of human rights defenders”     She concluded that lack of political will is one of the reasons why various States fail in their moral and legal obligation to protect Human Rights Defenders, and therefore called for more effective responses to the threats against them. Representing AIDA in the Interactive Dialogue, Attorney Marcella Torres highlighted that Latin America is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental human rights defenders and urged all States to actively protect them. She turned the spotlight on the situation of environmental defenders in Brazil, Guatemala and Colombia, where the invasion of indigenous lands, mega-dams and fracking are closely related to the increase in violence against defenders. She concluded by reminding States that the protection of environmental defenders should promote the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, and provide guarantees so that all people are free to exercise their right to defend human rights. See AIDA’s contributions in the Interactive Dialogues in full: