Mexico

Astrid Puentes

Aída Navarro Barnetche

Victor Quintanilla Sangüeza

Mexican Supreme Court order to protect the Veracruz reef still unenforced

A port expansion project threatens the reef that hosts the greatest biodiversity of reef species in the western Gulf of Mexico.   More than two years after the Supreme Court of Mexico ordered the adoption of several measures to protect the Veracruz Reef System and surrounding ecosystems affected by a port expansion project, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) still refuses to comply with the ruling, putting the largest reef in the Gulf of Mexico and its environmental benefits at risk. The environmental organizations Territorios Diversos para la Vida, A.C. (TerraVida), Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and Earthjustice denounce this failure to comply with the court order. The Veracruz Reef System—a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention since 2004—hosts the greatest biodiversity of reef species in the western Gulf of Mexico and is home to several critically endangered species such as the hawksbill sea turtle. The reefs are of high importance to the Veracruz community because they protect the coast from hurricanes and support local fishing and tourism. On February 9, 2022, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court in an amparo action filed to defend the Veracruz reef and other relevant ecosystems from the impacts of the port expansion. The highest court in Mexico determined that Semarnat violated the people of Veracruz’s right to a healthy environment after finding the project’s approval to be severely deficient. As a result, the Court ordered the revocation of the project’s permits, as well as a complete and holistic reevaluation of the project’s impacts, tasks that Semarnat has not yet complied with. "Today, the right to a healthy environment of the people living in the Veracruz-Boca del Río-Medellín metropolitan area continues to be violated because Semarnat, when re-evaluating the port expansion’s environmental impact after the court order, used outdated scientific information, failed to conduct a new evaluation, and allowed the port to again fragment its project by separating out the rock quarries and breakwaters," said Francisco Xavier Martínez Esponda, co-coordinator of TerraVida, the organization representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "In short, the project was never evaluated in a complete and holistic manner, as ordered by the Court, and therefore we remain unaware of the project’s true environmental risk." The environmental authority had authorized the project in a fragmented manner, dividing it into 15 sections, which it evaluated and approved independently, obscuring its full impact. Far from complying with the court’s order, on December 30, 2022, Semarnat's General Directorate of Environmental Impact and Risk conditionally reauthorized the Veracruz port’s expansion, but once again in a fragmented manner, without adequately assessing the full project using the best available science and without allowing for public participation, as the court required. In its decision, Mexico’s highest court also ruled that Semarnat was obligated, among other things, to seek international technical assistance to preserve the site within the framework of the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental treaty for the protection and sustainable use of wetlands and coastal areas. To date, Semarnat has not yet finalized its request for international support. "In the absence of adequate and meaningful government efforts, there is a clear delay in obtaining expert advice from the Ramsar Convention," said Jorge Lu Palencia, an attorney with AIDA. "It is paradoxical that the expansion of the port has been authorized while still awaiting an independent technical evaluation, which, by its nature, should be prior to any decision that puts the ecosystem at risk." In addition, a scientific analysis prepared by independent researchers concluded that the mitigation measures proposed by the project promoter—the Veracruz Port System Administration—are not capable of avoiding the adverse consequences on the Veracruz reef because they were not based on a scientifically valid assessment of the project’s impacts. The scientific analysis shows that the environmental agency has not studied the potential impacts on the entirety of the reefs within the Veracruz Reef System National Park. In addition, dredging activities were carried out without considering the direct impact on the invertebrate species that inhabit the marine sediments. In view of the situation, the analysis recommends an external evaluation provided by a public research center. For these reasons, the organizations, at different times, have requested the Fifth District Court in Veracruz—in charge of supervising compliance with the judgment—to withhold from ruling on compliance with the judgment until these deficiencies are corrected. Press contacts Gabriela Sánchez, TerraVida, [email protected], +52 5511429935 Víctor Quintanilla (Mexico), AIDA, [email protected], +521 5570522107  

Report reveals shocking rights violations by Canadian corporations in Latin America

Geneva - A groundbreaking report titled "Unmasking Canada: Rights Violations Across Latin America" was unveiled at the United Nations Universal Periodic Review Process (UPR) pre-session in Geneva, spanning from August 28 to September 1, 2023. This in-depth investigation highlights extensive human rights and environmental breaches by Canadian companies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Compiled through the collaboration of over 50 civil society organizations, the report implicates 37 Canadian projects across nine countries in the region. Of these, 32 projects have been found responsible for environmental rights infringements, including 105 oil spills in Peru's Block 192, directly linked to Frontera Energy. Additionally, the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent was violated in 26 projects, exemplified by dubious practices in Ecuador's Warintza project managed by Solaris Resources Inc. Violent confrontations tied to 16 projects are also highlighted, with a notable incident in Peru in July 2023, where 20 individuals were injured. While Canada positions itself as "climate forward," this report challenges such a portrayal, emphasizing Canada's protection of extractive industries that are responsible for significant human rights and environmental harm. In response to these findings and anticipating Canada's UPR on November 10, 2023, the report advocates for UN member states to impose legally binding resolutions on Canada, compelling the nation to address corporate misconduct overseas. Mauricio Terena, Legal Coordinator from Brazil’s Association of Indigenous People (APIB), said: "We have come here to denounce the involvement of Canadian companies in human rights violations in Brazil, particularly the case of the Belo Sun mining company in Pará, which aims to establish the country's largest open-pit gold mine. While Canada portrays itself as a defender of human rights and the environment, its actions contradict this narrative, especially when infringing upon the rights of indigenous peoples in Brazil. The discrepancy becomes evident when we realize that Canada has not signed the ILO's Convention 169. Therefore, we hope that the states with which we are in dialogue recognize this reality and urge Canada to reassess the operations of its corporations, seeking tangible action in defense of indigenous peoples and traditional communities". Addressing the UPR's function, where every four years UN member states review each other's human rights records, Latin American civil society representatives presented new recommendations for Canada. These recommendations underscore the need for Canada to introduce binding and comprehensive legislation centered on due diligence and corporate accountability. This encompasses the oversight of financial institutions and Canadian corporations throughout their global supply chains, aiming to prevent, mitigate, and penalize corporate misdeeds while ensuring victims of such practices overseas can seek justice and full reparation. "We hope that the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) process will establish itself as another strategy in our defense of indigenous peoples' rights, serving as a tool for the protection of human, indigenous, and environmental rights. It is essential to acknowledge that corporations involved in such violations are committing criminal acts. These actions should not be viewed merely as isolated incidents, but rather on a broader scale, as violating indigenous rights impacts all of humanity. Thus, beyond national and international laws, these transgressions should be seen from a more comprehensive perspective. It is crucial for states to commit, within the UN framework, to join a global mechanism where they recognize the need to monitor and mutually hold each other accountable for actions that uphold human, indigenous, and environmental rights", said Maria Judite "Kari" Guajajara, Legal Advisor at the National Indigenous Organization of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB). This isn't the first instance of Canada facing allegations within the United Nations Universal System due to the activities of its corporations abroad. Six recommendations were directed at Canada during the 3rd cycle of the Periodic Review. These addressed, among other concerns, Canadian businesses' vital assurance and protection of human rights. Nevertheless, even after pledging to meet these recommendations, Canada consistently failed to fulfill its extraterritorial obligations, neglecting to take effective action to supervise corporate activities domestically and internationally. Gisela Hurtado, Advocacy Manager at Amazon Watch, commented: "Our report unveils the disturbing reality behind Canada's corporate endeavors in Latin America. While Canada boasts of ethical business conduct, the documented evidence reveals a starkly contrasting picture – one where profit is prioritized over people and the environment. Urgent change is paramount." The report's presentation in Geneva was spearheaded by a delegation that included Mauricio Terena from APIB; Maria Judite "Kari" Guajajara from COIAB; Josefa de Oliveira, a Popular Educator with Movimento Xingu Vivo Para Sempre; Lorena Aranha Curuaia, Vice President of the Iawá Community; ; and Brayan Mojanajinsoy Pasos, General Secretary of the Association of Indigenous Councils of the Municipality of Villagarzón Putumayo (ACIMVIP). The delegation was further supported by representatives from organizations including Amazon Watch, AIDA (Regional), Earthworks (US) Gaia (Colombia), and Ambiente y Sociedad (Colombia).   Short summary involving Canadian companies involved in rights violations highlighted in the report   1. Frontera Energy in Lote 192 in Peru: - Over 2,000 sites contaminated, affecting 26 Amazonian indigenous communities. - Proposed activity closure plan doesn’t include reparations for affected communities.   2. Mineradora Argentina Gold SRL (joint venture between Barrick Gold and Shandong Gold): - Responsible for at least five toxic substance leakages, including cyanide and arsenic, into the Jáchal River in Argentina from the Veladero mine. - The project is in violation of the Glacier Law due to its location in a glacial zone and affects the UNESCO recognized biodiversity heritage site, the San Guilhermo Reserve.   3. Belo Sun's Volta Grande project in Brazil: - Cumulative impacts with the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam, located less than 10 km away from the prospected mining site; - Armed security forces hired by the Canadian mining company to monitor local leaders and hindering their freedom of movement; - Utter disrespect to Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous and riverine communities; - Imminent and irreversible risks of an environmental tragedy if toxic waste spills into the Xingu River due to a potential dam break, given the lack of sysmic and tailings dam safety studies. - Direct impact on communities, their traditional livelihoods, and local ecosystems.   4. The Mina Varadero in Chile: - Contaminated water sources with mercury, impacting rural populations and children.   5. ISAGEN - Brookfield Asset Management's Hidrosogamoso dam in Colombia: - Significant harm to local ecosystems and communities.   6. American Lithium's mining projects (Falchani, Macusani, and Quelccaya) in Peru: - Regularly release toxic residues, affecting over 700,000 people and contaminating the Lake Titicaca and Amazon River basins.   7. Solaris Resources Inc.'s Warintza mining project in Ecuador: - Ignored the territorial rights of the Shuar Arutam indigenous people and adopted divisive tactics.   8. Mining project of Ixtaca in Mexico: - Suspended due to violations of indigenous rights.   9. El Pato II mining project in Guatemala: - Affected the Poqomam Maya and mestizo communities without proper prior consultation.   10. Libero Copper's Mocoa mining project in Colombia: - Directly harmed the ancestral territory of the Inga people, violating their rights.   11. Cosigo Resources LTD's Machado gold extraction project in Colombia: - Severely impacted sacred indigenous sites in the Yaigojé Apaporis territory.   12. Barrick Gold's Pueblo Viejo mine in the Dominican Republic: - Forced the displacement of 65 local families due to the El Llagal waste dam.   13. Mining projects of La Plata by Atico Mining Corporation and Las Naves by Curimining S.A. (a subsidiary of Adventus Mining Corporation) and **Salazar Resources Limited in Ecuador: - Tried legalizing their operations despite violating national and international human rights laws, leading to confrontations and injuries.   14. Petrotal's Lote 95 in Peru: - Protests demanding community rights resulted in several deaths by police forces guarding the oil field.   15. Equinox Gold in Brazil: - Concealed data regarding their operations and impacts, including a dam break. - 4,000 of people directly impacted by toxic waste resulted from the dam break that contaminated local Amazonian rivers, violating the right to a clean environment and adequate access to drinking water. - Criminalization of local community leaders that protested for the right to water.    16. Gran Tierra Energy in Ecuador: - Conducted explorations without proper information dissemination in the Charapa, Chanangué, and Iguana blocks.  

Mexican environmental authority violates Mexico’s highest court and international obligations when reissuing a permit for a port expansion that threatens the Veracruz Reef System

In a legal brief, AIDA and Earthjustice argue the Secretary of the Environment failed to properly evaluate the environmental impact of the project to the reef, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, as required by Mexico’s highest court.   Mexico City, Mexico – Today, AIDA (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense) and Earthjustice filed a brief with the Fifth District Court of Veracruz to help protect the Veracruz Reef System from the Veracruz port expansion project. When reauthorizing the project, the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) not only failed to comply with a ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, but also ignored Mexico’s international obligations regarding environmental protection and human rights, including the human right to a healthy environment guaranteed in the Mexican Constitution. This was demonstrated by AIDA and Earthjustice in a legal brief (Amicus Curiae or "Friend of the Court") filed before the Fifth District Court of Veracruz. In it they request that the court -- which is in charge of determining whether the Supreme Court’s ruling was complied with or not -- establish contempt and force Semarnat to re-examine the project based on the environmental impact assessment procedure required by the high court. "The authorities must comply with the Supreme Court ruling and protect this internationally-recognized natural treasure of Mexico.  The human right to a healthy environment cannot be ignored," said Guillermo Zúñiga, a Veracruz native and Earthjustice attorney.  "The reef not only hosts the greatest biodiversity of species in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico, but also helps mitigate the impact of storm surges and hurricanes. The people who grew up here, as I did, and who live here now, know the value of this sanctuary where land and sea harmonize in unity." On February 9, 2022, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court in an amparo action filed to defend the Veracruz Reef System -- the largest reef in the Gulf of Mexico -- and its environmental services against the Veracruz port expansion project. The Supreme Court ordered the revocation of the permits by determining that Semarnat, by approving the project, violated the right to a healthy environment of the people of Veracruz. Despite the ecological, cultural, and economic importance of the Veracruz Reef System, the environmental authority had authorized the port expansion in a fragmented way, dividing the project into 15 permits and diluting its true impact. In addition, it completely excluded from its analysis a non-emerging reef ("La Loma") located in the area of the Veracruz Reef System National Park. In its ruling, the Supreme Court ordered the environmental authority to reevaluate the project in an integral, holistic and complete manner. In addition, it ordered that the new evaluation be made in accordance with the elements that make up the right to a healthy environment, as well as the principles of prevention and precaution, enshrined in international law. It also requested the support of the National Council of Natural Protected Areas and the International Wetlands Committee of the Ramsar Convention to design a protection scheme for the Veracruz Reef System. "Right now, the court has the opportunity to confirm the transformative effect of the Supreme Court's ruling and set a valuable precedent for the real protection, not just on paper, of Veracruz's reefs and the universal right to a healthy environment," said Sandra Moguel, an attorney with AIDA's Ecosystems Program. "Including the international authorities of the Ramsar Convention would mean strengthening the project's environmental impact assessment with technical knowledge and transparency." As demonstrated in the brief, by granting a second permit to the project -- on December 30, 2022 -- Semarnat failed to comply with the Court's ruling and the Mexican State's obligations because: It did not require a new environmental impact study -- mandatory for projects of this size under international law and national legislation -- to analyze the cumulative impacts of all segments of the original project. On the contrary, the environmental authority based its assessment on the original deficient statements. Even so, it left three of the original segments out of its analysis. It failed to submit its new assessment to a public consultation nor did publish new information on the impacts of the project before authorizing it again. In this way, it ignored the rights of the people of Veracruz to public participation and access to information in environmental decision-making. Semarnat has not yet requested the support of the National Council of Natural Protected Areas or the International Wetlands Committee. The participation of this committee is of particular importance due to its experience and technical knowledge in the protection of protected areas and wetlands.   The Veracruz Reef System is a Natural Protected Area designated under national legislation, a wetland of international importance under the international Ramsar Convention, and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.   AIDA is an international non-profit organization that has been protecting the human right to a healthy environment in the Americas for 25 years. Earthjustice is the premier nonprofit public interest environmental law organization in the United States. We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people's health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change. press contacts Sandra Moguel, AIDA, [email protected] (Spanish and English) Kathryn McGrath, Earthjustice, [email protected] (English) Guillermo Zúñiga, Earthjustice, [email protected] (Spanish)  

Latin America's role in coal extraction and use

The extraction, transport, use and export of coal to generate electricity are major causes of both the climate crisis and systematic human rights violations. Forty-four percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels come from the use of coal, and the entire coal chain creates serious social, environmental and human rights impacts including forced displacement, water pollution and disease. In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reiterated that, in order to avoid a catastrophic rise in the planet's average temperature, 80 percent of coal reserves must remain underground and that the use of coal for power generation must be phased out by 2050. However, according to the International Energy Agency, coal consumption reached 8 billion tons for the first time at the close of 2022, representing a 1.2 percent growth in global demand. These figures could rise further in 2023 and stabilize in the following two years, according to forecasts by the energy arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This is partly because, to cope with gas shortages due to the war in Ukraine, Europe plans to relax emission controls regarding fuels like coal. This contradicts the Glasgow Climate Pact (2021) in which States agreed to gradually reduce its use. Latin America is no stranger to this situation. The region participates both in the burning of coal and in the extraction of the mineral which, after being exported, is used as a fossil energy source in other corners of the world. Colombia is the fifth largest coal exporter in the world and Mexico represents the fourteenth largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Governments in the region therefore have a shared responsibility in global efforts to curb the exploitation and burning of coal in favor of energy systems based on non-conventional renewable sources that are sustainable over time and respectful of the environment and people. The story of coal in Latin America, and the pressing need for decarbonization, can be told by taking a closer look at the cases of Chile, Colombia and Mexico.   Chile: progress and challenges of decarbonization In Chile, coal-fired power generation is the main cause of serious impacts on the ecosystems and the health of people living in so-called Sacrifice Zones. Historically, pollution from coal-fired power plants—there were, at one time, 28 in operation—has been concentrated in these geographic areas, resulting in toxic air and one of the country’s greatest socio-environmental problems. In recent years, the Andean nation has seen progress toward the decarbonization of its electricity sector. Between October 2021 and September 2022, 27.5 percent of Chile’s electricity came from solar and wind sources—representing the first time renewables surpassed coal use, which fell to 26.5 percent after being the main source for more than a decade. In 2019, the Chilean government committed to closing all coal plants by 2040. Since that public announcement, the timetable has been accelerating. The initial proposal was to close eight thermoelectric plants by 2024 and the remaining 20 by 2040. Now, 65 percent of the plants are scheduled to close by 2025. A bill approved in June 2021 by the Chamber of Deputies and Chamber of Deputies backed the change, which now awaits Senate endorsement. Despite the progress, some experts say that Chile’s roadmap may not be entirely feasible and could increase diesel use in the short term. There is also an imminent risk that rapid decarbonization becomes an excuse to increase the use of gas, ignoring its risks and its role in the country's greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the government has committed to carbon neutrality by 2050 based on scenarios that include an increased use of gas, but fail to recognize a greater use of diesel. Moving forward, it’s important that Chile’s decarbonization plan contains provisions to prevent continued and increased use of gas. On the contrary, a progressive plan must promote the implementation of renewable energies, encourage distributed generation and increase energy efficiency. A comprehensive plan must also include measures to adequately address energy poverty, and to relocate and reemploy people who lose their jobs due to the energy transition. Only then will it be truly responsible and fair. Colombia: the damages of coal mining and exports Colombia is the world's fifth largest coal exporter, with only 8 percent of the extracted coal being used for domestic consumption. Coal is the mineral that contributes most to the national economy, accounting for more than 80 percent of mining royalties.  Yet poverty levels in the departments where 90 percent of the extraction takes place—La Guajira and Cesar—far exceed the national average. Much of Colombia’s coal extraction occurs in El Cerrejón, the largest open-pit coal mine in Latin America. Its operation and growth over the last 40 years has destroyed rivers, streams and endemic ecosystems like the tropical dry forest; polluted the air, causing serious health consequences; and continuously violated the rights of Wayuu, Afro-descendant and rural populations in La Guajira. At the 27th UN Conference on Climate Change (COP27), the current Colombian government announced its intention to reduce the exploitation of fossil fuels and undertake a gradual energy transition. However, to date, the climate impacts of coal mining have not been evaluated, no legislation has been passed on the closure of mines currently in operation, and there’s a lack of certainty around the future growth (or not) of the 1,774 existing coal-focused titles or new investments in the sector. At the same time, Germany has increased its imports of Colombian coal due to the scarcity of gas in Europe. And purchases from the European market increased between January and November 2022, although Asia and the Americas are still the main buyers of the Colombian mineral. These exports demonstrate that the impacts of burning coal anywhere in the world are global—just as multinational corporations have a responsibility in the human rights violations derived from their coal mining in Colombia, the Colombian government has a responsibility in the aggravation of the climate crisis due to coal’s extraction and sale. Achieving a just transition in Colombia requires—among other things—building inclusive and participatory spaces, developing and implementing standards for the responsible closure of coal mines, and creating policies that allow for the adequate economic and social reconversion of those people most affected by the process. Mexico: the backlash of betting on coal and other fossil fuels In 2020, coal-fired power plants produced 10 percent of Mexico’s electricity and emitted 22 percent of the energy sector's total greenhouse gases, according to calculations by the Mexico Climate Initiative. Coal production and electricity generation from the mineral are concentrated in the state of Coahuila, where 99 percent of Mexico's coal is mined in just five municipalities. The origins and cultural identity of this region lie in coal mining, which dates back more than 200 years and still sustains the economy of 160,000 people. At the same time, the coal business has brought air and water pollution, disease and death. According to the historical record kept by victims' families, since coal mining began, more than 3,100 miners have died in the area. Two of the three coal-fired power plants operating in the country are in Coahuila; the other is in Guerrero and is fueled by imported coal. Those two plants consume almost half of the mineral extracted in the region and create more than 60 percent of the energy. Air pollution from burning coal causes around 430 deaths a year in Coahuila from respiratory diseases, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. According to 2019 data, Mexico is the 14th largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally—69.5 percent of its emissions come from the energy sector. Under the current government, energy policy shifted from expanding renewable energy projects to prioritizing the use of fossil fuels and promoting state dominance through the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) and the state-owned petroleum company PEMEX. In fact, in 2022, coal-based energy production in Mexico increased 63 percent from the previous year. Environmental organizations have pointed out that "prioritizing electricity generation from CFE plants implies guaranteeing the burning of more coal and fuel oil indefinitely, and the development of new fossil gas infrastructure, which would tie us to US gas imports or the development of fracking projects in the north of the country with the consequent negative social and environmental impacts."   It’s clear that Latin America has a role in the extraction and use of coal, as well as in its social and environmental impacts. For the region, a just transition towards other forms of energy generation must take into account the particularities of each country, be orderly and have a human rights and gender approach. This implies, among other things: considering the local communities that depend on the coal chain; designing policies to identify and manage the economic and social impacts of the transition; placing alternatives to coal at the center of the discussion; and developing broad and participatory decision-making processes with an active role for the urban and rural population. To achieve this, governments must take decisive action to ensure compliance with their climate and human rights commitments.  

Reaffirming the legitimate protection of the right to a healthy environment

In December 2016, two women from Veracruz decided to defend the Veracruz Reef System in court. They sought to protect the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico from the expansion of the port of Veracruz, which would cause serious and irreversible impacts on the reef’s biodiversity and, by extension, the local population.  Residents of the Veracruz metropolitan area, represented by the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA), filed an injunction against the project because its environmental permit resulted from a fragmented impact assessment that did not consider the full range of risks to the reefs. AIDA supported our partners at CEMDA by filing an amicus brief with detailed information on the important services the reefs provide: sequestering carbon, generating oxygen, producing food, and protecting coastal areas from storms and hurricanes, among others. In April 2017, the court that heard the case rejected the injunction and, with it, the request to suspend work on the port expansion. The court argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the project had "a real and relevant impact" on their rights and that they lacked a "legitimate interest" in the case. Legitimate interest—also known as legal standing—refers to a person’s capacity to claim damages before a court of law, in any scope. In a traffic accident, for example, only you have the legitimate interest to claim the damages your vehicle may have suffered, which must be individual and quantifiable. However, in matters of environmental damage, the situation is more complex. The degradation of an ecosystem affects more than one person and even transcends generations.  The residents of Veracruz appealed the judicial setback and their case arrived before Mexico’s highest court, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Given the lower court’s limitations in recognizing in its ruling the right of all people to equal access to justice in environmental matters, AIDA and Earthjustice filed a second legal brief before the Supreme Court, requesting an expansion of the requirements for legitimate interest. We provided legal and technical evidence regarding the human right to a healthy environment and access to justice, enshrined in international law. These rights mean that the Mexican government must ensure that anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental degradation has the possibility of achieving justice, regardless of whether their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. The Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide also contributed a brief that analyzes court decisions from various jurisdictions recognizing the right of any person, civil society organization, or local resident to file lawsuits against projects and decisions that may negatively affect the environment. Finally, on February 9, 2022, more than five years after the original lawsuit was filed, the residents of Veracruz won an important victory for the area’s reefs. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that government authorities violated the right to a healthy environment of the people of Veracruz by authorizing the port’s expansion. Since it was unopposed, the ruling creates a binding precedent for all courts of the nation. The Veracruz decision is a landmark ruling, valuable for not just Mexico but for the entire region because it: Ratifies that proximity to a project does not define who the affected people are or who can claim protection of their right to a healthy environment before the courts. Reaffirms that it is not necessary to prove quantifiable and individualized damage in order to have access to environmental justice; it is sufficient to demonstrate that a project or activity, by degrading an ecosystem, damages or threatens to cause damage (economic, social, cultural, health, etc.) to a community. Recognizes an expanded legitimate interest, as well as the collective nature of the right to a healthy environment and public participation in environmental assessment processes. Sets a precedent with the capacity to transform the way in which environmental impact assessments are carried out in Mexico, incorporating the principles of prevention and precaution. Points to Mexico's international obligations, including those acquired under the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (Escazú Agreement). As an organization and individuals, we are celebrating this important step toward strengthening the defense of the right to a healthy environment in the region. We are proud to have contributed to this achievement, and hopeful that the implementation of the ruling will be carried out according to the highest standards.  

Supreme Court orders protection of Veracruz's reefs and wetlands

Mexico’s high court unanimously ruled that authorities violated the right to a healthy environment by authorizing the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. Environmental authorities failed to use the best scientific information, analyze the port expansion in a comprehensive manner, and consider all of its impacts. The ruling implies that the project’s approvals are unfounded and that its impacts must be re-evaluated, this time in a comprehensive manner, to determine the viability of the project.   Mexico City, Mexico — On February 9, residents of Veracruz won a victory before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in a legal injunction filed to defend the Veracruz Reef System (SAV) and its environmental services against the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. The justices of the Court unanimously voted in favor of the draft ruling that protects the reefs of Veracruz and transforms the way the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure operates throughout the country. This decision underpins the protection of the right to a healthy environment, and it sets a new precedent that will change the way officials determine how projects are assessed by their environmental impact. The Court held that "the protection of wetlands is a national and international priority that has led our country to issue a strict regulation of this ecosystem and… any analysis made in relation to wetlands must be guided by a criterion of maximum precaution and prevention." The ruling pointed out that the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) violated the right to a healthy environment by authorizing the expansion project of the Port of Veracruz, since "it did not take into account the best scientific information available; it did not analyze or evaluate in a complete manner each one of the different environmental impacts that the project and its modification could cause, in addition to the fact that the project and the works related to it were analyzed in a fragmented manner." The Supreme Court’s ruling annuls the authorization for the port’s expansion and orders a complete reevaluation of the project’s environmental impacts and determination of the consequent viability of the project. "CEMDA filed this injunction, together with the community, to protect and contribute to the conservation of the Veracruz Reef System, as well as the reefs and the services they provide, since they are key to the well-being of the people living in the Veracruz-Boca del Río-Medellín conurbation," explained Xavier Martínez Esponda, CEMDA's Operational Director. The case sets a precedent that will transform the way in which Semarnat and state authorities conduct Environmental Impact Assessments in the country. Martinez Esponda pointed out that, "with this decision, the principles of prevention and precaution will have to become much more ingrained in the decision-making process. Likewise, authorities and investors should learn the lesson that it is more expensive, in all senses, not to present their projects in a complete manner, than to comply in time and form with the Environmental Impact Assessment." Background The Veracruz Reef System is a National Park and a wetland of international importance according to the Ramsar Convention. It has great environmental value as the largest reef system in the central region of the Gulf of Mexico. This reef system hosts the greatest biodiversity of species in the western Gulf of Mexico and is also home to several protected species, such as the critically endangered hawksbill turtle. The SAV also helps mitigate the impact of storm surges and hurricanes, which have increased in frequency and intensity as a result of climate change. The Port of Veracruz expansion project was proposed in the late 1990s and its implementation included plans for new breakwater works, access and navigation channels, land access, terminals, and port facilities. These works will damage reefs and seagrasses in the area, as they will be impacted by the increased sedimentation caused by the construction works. Due to the importance of the case, international environmental protection organizations supported the process.  Earthjustice and the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) delivered a joint amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of CEMDA’s filing with the court. Sandra Moguel, AIDA's attorney, emphasized that "it is not the proximity of a project that determines who are the affected people and who should have access to justice to defend their right to a healthy environment." In its brief, AIDA explains that international law obliges the Mexican government to allow anyone whose fundamental rights are threatened by environmental harm to access judicial remedies, even if their connection to the threatened ecosystem is indirect or remote. Guillermo Zuñiga, an attorney with Earthjustice, emphasized that his ties to this reef are important and personal: "I grew up in Veracruz.  I am a Xalapeño. That area gave birth to me, and I grew up swimming in the rivers and beaches of Veracruz with my family. I want the children of Veracruz to have the opportunity to enjoy the richness of its biodiversity as I did." Alejandra Serrano Pavón, a lawyer with the international organization Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW), was interested in the case because of the opportunity to encourage the Court to broadly interpret the right to access to justice in defense of the environment. ELAW presented an amicus brief that supported the filing, through which is provided examples from various countries around the world that recognize a broad interpretation of this right, which allows "any civil society organization or, at least residents of a place, to initiate a legal action to protect the environment." We widely celebrate this decision of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court, and we hope that in the process of executing the judgment, the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources complies with what it has been ordered to do under the highest standard of protection enshrined in the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, known as the Escazú Agreement. Underwritten by: AIDA Earthjustice ELAW CEMDA press contacts: Ricardo Ruiz, CEMDA, [email protected], 5559644162 Victor Quintanilla, AIDA, [email protected], 5570522107  

Mexico’s climate commitments lack ambition

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) are the mechanism through which the countries that signed the Paris Agreement contribute to the fulfillment of the global pact's objective: to keep the increase in the planet's average temperature below 2°C. Each country's NDC outlines its national mitigation and adaptation commitments in the face of the climate crisis, including emission reduction efforts. The Paris Agreement stipulates that these commitments must be communicated to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every five years and that each successive NDC must represent a progression from the previous one, reflecting the highest possible ambition (Article 3). In addition, NDCs must contain sufficient information on clear, transparent and understandable targets (Article 8, paragraph 8). And, in the case of Mexico, the General Law on Climate Change (LGCC) considers the NDC as one of the planning instruments of the National Climate Change Policy (Article 58) and establishes that it must observe, among others, the principle of progressivity, which implies that the established goals must be progressive and gradual over time (Article 26, section XIII). In its most recent update, Mexico's NDC does not comply with the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and the LGCC. Ambition in the spotlight The Mexican State presented its first NDC in 2015. In it, the government made an unconditional commitment—through its own resources—to a 22 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 51 percent reduction in black carbon emissions, by 2030. Last December, Mexico presented its updated NDC, which should be more ambitious than the previous one. However, the new instrument merely reiterates the mitigation commitments made in 2015. Moreover, the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario—a tentative scenario in which there are no mitigation policies and which serves as a baseline for climate actions—was adjusted upwards with a higher total level of emissions by 2030 than indicated in the first NDC. This, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent scientific analysis that tracks governments’ climate action and compares it to what was agreed globally in the Paris Agreement. The CAT analysis states, "Because the NDC is based on a percentage reduction below BAU projections, a higher level of emissions in 2030 effectively reduces the country's mitigation ambition, even if the reduction targets remain unchanged." Due to its lack of ambition, Mexico's updated NDC was rated as "highly insufficient" in the CAT ranking. This means that the commitments adopted by the country "are not at all consistent with keeping [global] warming below 2°C [...]," being instead "consistent with warming levels of between 3°C and 4°C.” International agencies such as the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Commission have emphasized the need for Mexico to increase its mitigation ambition, especially in the energy sector, which contributes most to the climate crisis and where the greatest emissions reduction opportunities exist in the short and long term. But Mexico's recent NDC does not set out specific actions in key economic sectors to achieve the endorsed targets, although it does state that these will be developed in an NDC implementation roadmap to be presented in the next Biennial Update Report. In this sense, the instrument lacks sufficient information to have clear, transparent and understandable targets. Regarding the adaptation component, Mexico's updated NDC includes nature-based climate solutions. However, the inclusion of such actions is not sufficient to have the level of ambition required to address the climate crisis and meet the objective of the Paris Agreement. A violation of the principle of progressivity In light of the facts, the updating of Mexico's climate commitments fails to meet the level of ambition required by the Paris Agreement and with this the Mexican State also disregards the principle of progressivity established in the LGCC since the targets set do not represent a progression and gradualness with respect to the first NDC. Other countries in the region—including Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica and Chile—have updated their NDCs, demonstrating increased climate ambition. Although they include measures that could be improved, their actions demonstrate a willingness to make further progress in terms of their contribution to global climate action. In this context, the Mexican State is leaving behind the progress and leadership it had years ago on climate issues. Its lack of ambition demonstrates indifference to the climate crisis and its impacts on the human rights of the most vulnerable populations. Mexico must assume its responsibility, one that comes from being on the list of the 20 largest emitters in the world. It must adopt mitigation and adaptation commitments compatible with the global goal of preventing global warming from reaching a point of catastrophic consequences.