Latin America

June 19 2024 Climate Change, Human Rights

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.

June 04 2024 Climate Change, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

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.

May 20 2024 Indigenous Rights

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.

Casas de madera a orillas del río Dulce en Guatemala

April 19 2024 Climate Change, Human Rights

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.

Vista panorámica de La Oorya, Perú, en 2016

April 15 2024 Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

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.

April 08 2024 Human Rights

Celebrating the appointment of Astrid Puentes Riaño as UN Special Rapporteur

On April 5, during its 55th session, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed Astrid Puentes Riaño as the new UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. For 18 years, as co-executive director of AIDA, Puentes Riaño led efforts across Latin America to uphold the right to a healthy environment and protect affected communities from environmental harms. Her strategic vision and powerful command of public interest law and advocacy has left a lasting contribution on both AIDA and the larger movement for climate justice in the region. She will be the first woman and first person from the Global South, and the third Special Rapporteur, to assume this important mandate. Gladys Martínez de Lemos, executive director of AIDA, expressed: “Astrid’s career has long been focused on protecting the right to a healthy environment, as a leader of the movement in Latin America. Her new role as Special Rapporteur is a natural and well-deserved progression, and we know her continued leadership on the international stage will strengthen efforts towards climate and environmental justice around the world.” In May Puentes Riaño will replace David R. Boyd, who made tremendous strides as Rapporteur, including the UN recognition of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right. Boyd is a former member of AIDA’s Board of Directors. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate is an essential nexus of environmental and human rights defense, as it exists to: examine human rights obligations linked to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; promote best practice in the use of human rights in policy making; identify challenges and obstacles to the global recognition and implementation of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; and conducting country visits and responding to human rights violations.

Paisaje de Antofagasta de la Sierra, Argentina.

March 27 2024 Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Freshwater Sources

Court decision stops new lithium mining projects in Argentine salt flat, sets regional precedent

On March 13, the Supreme Court of Argentina’s Catamarca province ordered a halt on authorizing new lithium mining projects around the Salar del Hombre Muerto, in the department of Antofagasta de la Sierra. The high provincial court established that all projects must comply with the free, prior, and informed consultation of affected communities, thus granting the injunction filed by Román Guitián, Cacique of the Atacameños del Altiplano Indigenous Community.It is one of the most important rulings of recent times regarding care for nature and the protection of the rights of traditional communities.The court ordered the providence’s Ministry of Mining and the Ministry of Water, Energy and Environment to "refrain from granting new authorizations or environmental impact statements with respect to any work or activity" in the area until an environmental impact report with two fundamental characteristics is completed. The first is that it must be "cumulative and integral," covering the entire salt flat and especially the Los Patos River, which is in the same salt flat. The second is that it must consider the total impact of the companies that have applied for water use and extraction permits, and their potential to transform the environment in the same geographical area.Lithium mining in Antofagasta de la Sierra began in 1997 by the multinational company FMC, currently operating as Livent. The local communities denounced that the river and the Trapiche Valley were drying up because of the mining activity.The Alliance for Andean Wetlands (Alianza por los Humedales Andinos) celebrates this achievement of the Atacameños del Altiplano Indigenous Community and the Asamblea PUCARA (Pueblos Catamarqueños en Resistencia y Autodeterminación).The same model of lithium mega-mining that the Catamarca Supreme Court's ruling points to is being reproduced in the Puna region of Chile and Bolivia. In this sense, the sentence is an important precedent for the protection of the environment and affected communities, which should be replicated in all the regions of the continent affected by this extractive model.Governments must take measures to provide the necessary security guarantees for the territorial defense of local communities demanding the fulfillment of their human and environmental rights, both in Argentina and in other countries. Quotes from Alliance membersClaudia Velarde, co-coordinator of the Ecosystems Program of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)"What happened in Catamarca is a historic milestone for the protection of water, territory and life in Latin America. The Court's decision confirms that the concept of the cumulative impact of an extractive activity is fully valid and a transcendental aspect of environmental management. It also clarifies that any damage to the environment that may result in a violation of the right to life or personal integrity must be considered significant damage. It is a relevant precedent in every sense and a strong message: national and international environmental regulations must be respected, environmental impact assessments must be strategic and cumulative, the right to environmental participation must be guaranteed, and the energy transition must be just." Ramón Balcázar, executive director of Fundación Tantí and co-coordinator of the Plurinational Observatory of Andean Salt Flats (OPSAL)"This ruling is the result of years of work and shows the importance of articulating knowledge and legal strategies for the defense of territories from a wetland perspective, setting a precedent that should be extended to the entire region for a cumulative assessment of projects, not only lithium, but also metallic mining and the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, our colleague Román Guitián was the target of death threats after learning of the ruling, in a country like Chile that has ratified the Escazú Agreement. In this sense, we must categorically reject any form of violence against the defenders of the Andean salt flats, as well as the political advantage that institutions linked to the greenwashing of mining have tried to take from such a complex situation." Cristian Fernández, coordinator of the Legal Affairs area of Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN)"The recent ruling of the Court of Justice of Catamarca, ordering the preparation of a "cumulative and integral" environmental impact study for all lithium projects being developed in the Los Patos River basin, and requiring the local government to refrain from issuing any new permits or authorizations for the activity, represents a milestone in the environmental jurisprudence of our country. It consolidates the path started almost 15 years ago by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation when, in the "Salas Dino" case, it demanded a cumulative impact study against the deforestation of native forests in Salta. In doing so, the Catamarca Court set a precedent that could be applied to the ecosystem damage suffered by the provinces of Salta and Jujuy due to the cumulative impact of numerous lithium projects in Salinas Grandes and Guayatayoc Lagoon."

La chimenea del Complejo Metalúrgico de La Oroya, en Perú, vista desde un campo deportivo

March 27 2024 Mining, Toxic Pollution, Human Rights

5 milestones in the "Inhabitants of La Oroya v. Peru" case ruling

Our long-fought victory before the Inter-American Court sets important precedents for all communities seeking environmental justice in the Americas. The story of the community of La Oroya, Peru, in its quest for justice and reparations spans decades. The perseverance of the residents of this Andean town has borne fruit for the entire region, as they achieved a victory that sets important precedents for all communities seeking environmental justice on the continent. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of the community of La Oroya, holding the Peruvian state responsible for violating the right to a healthy environment and other related rights, such as health and life, of its inhabitants by failing to take timely and effective measures to protect them from extreme levels of pollution from a metallurgical complex. AIDA has led the case from its inception, bringing La Oroya's struggle to the Inter-American Human Rights System and providing legal representation to the victims before the Court. Why is the international court’s ruling in "Community of La Oroya vs. Peru" such a joy and a door opener for us? We explain below, how the ruling: 1. Responds to the first case of its kind before the Inter-American Court. This is the first time the Inter-American Court has ruled on a case of toxic air and environmental pollution in an urban community. In its ruling, the Court recognized the disparate impact on women, children, and other vulnerable populations. It also addressed the importance of the rights of access to information and participation. 2. Recognizes and values the importance of a healthy environment as a human right. The Court recognized this right as a jus cogens (mandatory) norm and clarified the obligations of states to ensure a healthy environment for all people. A key point of the judgment is that states must avoid, prevent, and control environmental damage and its effects on human health by using all the means at their disposal. 3. Opens the door to accountability. The ruling sets precedents to hold states and companies accountable for taking the necessary measures to avoid lifelong impacts on people's health and the environment. The Peruvian state must provide financial compensation to the affected people of La Oroya, provide free and specialized medical care, adopt non-recurrence measures, and monitor air and water quality in places where mining activities are taking place. 4. Establishes the responsibility of the State in a case of contamination. In addition to stating that companies must act with due diligence and respect for human rights, the Court concluded in its ruling that the Peruvian state should have acted to protect and guarantee the rights of the people exposed to the contamination, using, among other tools, the precautionary principle. 5. Sets precedents for the entire region. The ruling goes beyond the Peruvian context, as it is binding on States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights and sets an important precedent in Latin America for the protection of the right to a healthy environment and for the adequate supervision by States of corporate activities.

Vista panorámica de la ciudad de La Oroya, Perú.

March 22 2024 Toxic Pollution, Human Rights, Mining

Inter-American Court ruling on La Oroya case sets key precedent for the protection of a healthy environment

The Court found Peru responsible for violating the rights of residents of La Oroya, who have been exposed to unsafe levels of toxic contamination for generations. San José, Costa Rica. The ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case "Community of La Oroya vs. Peru" sets an important precedent for the protection of the right to a healthy environment across the Americas and for adequate state oversight of corporate activities. The first-of-its-kind decision holds Peru accountable for its failure to protect the inhabitants of the Andean city of La Oroya who were exposed to toxic pollution from a smelter complex that operated without adequate pollution controls for a century.The Inter-American Court heard the case in a public hearing against Peru. In the absence of effective responses at the national level and on behalf of the victims, an international coalition of organizations filed a complaint against Peru before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2006. In October 2021, the Commission established the Peruvian government's responsibility in the case and referred it to the Inter-American Court. In October 2022, more than 16 years after the filing of the complaint, the victims presented the case before the Court in a public hearing, represented by the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH), with the support of Earthjustice."This ruling is a very important step forward and a key precedent for environmental justice in Latin America, as it is the first case in which the Court recognizes a state’s responsibility for violating the right to a healthy environment and the impact this has on the guarantee of several other rights," said Liliana Avila, coordinator of AIDA's Human Rights and Environment Program. "The Court also referred to the collective and individual dimensions of this right, acknowledging the differential impact of its violation on children, women and the elderly, and the important role of environmental defenders."In its judgment, published on March 22, 2024, the international court established the Peru’s responsibility for the violation of 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; for the violation of the rights of the children of 57 victims; and for the violation of the right to life of two victims. The Court also concluded that the State was responsible for violating the obligation of progressive development by adopting regressive measures in environmental protection."The decision is a fundamental precedent in international law that establishes the parameters of the State's obligation to regulate, control and remediate the effects of environmental pollution, as well as the obligations derived from the right to a healthy environment as an autonomous right and its interdependence and indivisibility with other fundamental rights of human existence, such as health, life and personal integrity," said Christian Huaylinos, Legal Coordinator of APRODEH. "It is also a great satisfaction for the victim’s two decades long struggle.”For more than 20 years, the residents of La Oroya have been seeking justice and redress for the widespread contamination caused by the La Oroya smelter complex, which was operated by Doe Run Peru from 1997 to 2009. The town has been recognized as one of the most polluted places on the planet."Twenty years ago, when this fight started, I was carrying my banner saying that the health of the children 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."In the judgment, the Court ordered the State of Peru to adopt comprehensive reparation measures for the damage caused to the population of La Oroya, including identifying, prosecuting and, where appropriate, punishing those responsible for the harassment of the victims; determining the state of contamination of the air, water and soil and preparing an environmental remediation plan; providing free medical care to the victims and guaranteeing specialized care to residents with symptoms and illnesses related to contamination from mining and metallurgical activities; ensuring the effectiveness of the city's warning system and developing a system for monitoring the quality of air, water, and soil; ensuring that the operations of the La Oroya Metallurgical Complex comply with international environmental standards, preventing and mitigating damage to the environment and human health; providing monetary compensation to victims for material and non-material damages."What we expect now is that the ruling will be implemented, that for the first time the State will fulfill its obligations and guarantee our rights as environmental defenders," said Yolanda Zurita, a resident of La Oroya and a petitioner in the case. "Compliance with this ruling is the least we expect from a state that is committed to guaranteeing the rights of its citizens."Since 1999, the government of Peru has known that almost all the children living near the complex suffer from lead poisoning yet failed to offer proper medical care and remediation. For decades, the population of La Oroya was exposed to extreme levels of lead and other harmful contaminants, including arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide. Nearly all the children in the case have had lead and other heavy metals in their blood at concentrations many times higher than the guidelines established by the World Health Organization. And many residents suffer from chronic respiratory illness, in addition to stress, anxiety, skin problems, stomach problems, chronic headaches, and heart problems, among others."This ruling issues a warning to governments across the Americas that they cannot sit idly by while multinational corporations poison local communities. Corporations will now be on notice that exposing families to unhealthy levels of industrial pollution is a violation of international law and governments must hold polluters accountable,” said Jacob Kopas, Earthjustice senior attorney. ResourcesCourt's press release on the judgment, available here (in Spanish).Official summary of the judgment, available here (in Spanish).Full text of the judgment, available here (in Spanish).Background information on the case, available here.Folder with photographs, available here.Press contactVíctor Quintanilla-Sangüeza (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 70522107

March 08 2024 Climate Change, Human Rights

Communities in Nicaragua win Green Climate Fund withdrawal from project that violated their rights

In an unprecedented decision resolving a complaint filed in 2021, the Green Climate Fund terminated a forestry project because the developers failed to comply with the Fund's policies and procedures on socio-environmental safeguards. This non-compliance violated the human rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities. The Green Climate Fund, the world's leading multilateral climate finance institution, decided to terminate funding for a forest conservation project in Nicaragua because the developers failed to comply with the institution's policies and procedures on socio-environmental safeguards. The non-compliance violated the rights of indigenous and Afro-descendant communities, as the project threatened to exacerbate the situation of violence from which they were already suffering. The Fund had not made any disbursements for the project and project implementation had not yet begun.The decision, the first of its kind in the Fund's history, is in response to a complaint filed in June 2021 by representatives of the affected communities, with the support of local and international organizations, with the Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism. The Independent Redress Mechanism hears complaints from people who are or may be affected by projects or programs financed by the Fund."This decision is a recognition of the tireless efforts of the communities behind the case, who were able to demonstrate the difficult situation they face, as well as a reminder of the importance of involving local communities in all stages of a project, from its conception," said Florencia Ortúzar, Senior Attorney at AIDA, one of the organizations that accompanied and provided legal support to the complaint process.In the complaint, the communities argued that implementing the project— called Bio-CLIMA: Integrated Climate Action to Reduce Deforestation and Strengthen Resilience in the BOSAWAS and Río San Juan Biospheres— would have serious impacts because:There was no adequate disclosure of information, no indigenous consultation, and no free, prior, and informed consent.The project would cause environmental degradation and increase violence against indigenous communities due to land colonization.The conditions imposed by the Fund's Board of Directors for project approval (including independent monitoring of project implementation and ensuring the legitimate participation of indigenous peoples) were not met.There was a lack of confidence in the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, the entity accredited to channel the funds, as to its compliance with the Fund's policies.There was a lack of confidence in the ability of the Government of Nicaragua, as the implementing agency, to fulfill its obligations in the execution of the project. The goal of the project, for which the Fund committed $64 million USD in 2020, was to restore degraded forest landscapes in Nicaragua's most biodiverse region (home to 80 percent of the country's forests and most of its indigenous peoples) and to channel investments toward sustainable land and forest management.However, the project was designed without adequate consultation, with a complete lack of transparency on the part of the sponsoring bank and ignoring the difficult context of violence and lack of human rights protection still suffered by indigenous communities in Nicaragua, particularly in the project area.In recent decades, the harsh local situation has only worsened because of organized crime, drug trafficking, the expansion of agriculture and cattle ranching, and the promotion of extractivist policies, as well as the lack of state protection.The investigation launched by the Independent Reparations Mechanism, which included field work and face-to-face and virtual interviews with all stakeholders, confirmed some of the allegations made in the complaint, including the lack of adequate consultation processes and the lack of free, prior, and informed consent of the affected communities. This is stated in the investigation’s final report.In July 2023, the Fund's Board of Directors, which was called upon to decide on the future of the project based on the Investigation Report, delegated the task to the Fund's Secretariat. As a result, neither the IRM nor the claimants had any further say in the matter.Finally, on March 7 of this year, the Secretariat announced its decision: to terminate the project's financing agreement, acknowledging that the developers had failed to comply with the Fund's policies, as alleged by the communities in the complaint."The decision is a valuable lesson for the Green Climate Fund, whose policies and safeguards exist to prevent these unfortunate situations and must be applied rigorously and consistently from the conception of projects seeking funding," said Ortúzar. Press contactVíctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +52 5570522107