Project
Organizing the Network for Environmental Justice in Colombia
The Network for Environmental Justice in Colombia is an effort to coordinate organizations and legal resources for the protection of human rights and the environment.
The Network was founded in 2010 under the coordination of AIDA and with the help of the Latin American Institute for Alternative Society and Law, the Institute for the Study of Peace and Development, the Inter-Ecclesial Commission for Justice and Peace, and the University of Los Andes, the University of Caldas, and Del Rosario University. The network began with 79 participants and now includes more than 500 people and participating organizations.
The Network’s principal objective is to propose solutions to environmental conflicts in Colombia. It also aims to promote the fair and effective use of international and domestic environmental law, in particular, the right to a clean and healthy environment.
What does the network do?
- Facilitates the exchange of knowledge and information to implement legal strategies in precedent-setting cases. One such project was the Mandé Norte Mine, in which several members of the Network developed a legal strategy, resulting in a judicial decision that established Colombia’s need to perform an independent environmental impact assessment. Most importantly, the decision also mandated that developers obtain the consent of indigenous peoples before moving forward with any projects in their territory.
- Promotes organizational alliances, garners support, and connects legal work in defense of the environment.
- Organizes conversations, forums, and constructive debates on environmental issues.
- Provides access to legal resources including laws, court decisions, articles and legal analysis, and facilitates communication through its website and social media channels.
- Advises law students through the AIDA volunteer program. In doing so, the Network strengthens the capacity for environmental law in Colombia.
Partners:
Member countries of the World Trade Organization must reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies
We regret that the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference, held today in Geneva, failed to reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies, an urgent measure to achieve effective management of our fisheries resources, as well as to ensure global food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities. At the same time, we recognize that the negotiations are at an advanced stage and that we finally have a draft text. We wish to highlight the commitment and participation of Latin American delegations including Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Uruguay. We urge all WTO member countries to assume the great responsibility of reaching an agreement soon. After two decades of negotiations, the deadlines for completing the negotiations and reaching an agreement have been repeatedly missed. Although negotiations officially began in 2001, it was not until the 2017 Ministerial Conference that countries committed to take action and reach an agreement at the next conference, which was to take place in December 2020, but was suspended due to the pandemic. This commitment also responds to the fulfillment of target 14.6 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This target establishes that by 2020 "certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing" should be prohibited, and aims to "eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation." According to recent estimates, governments spend US$35 billion each year to support their fisheries sectors, of which US$22 billion represent negative subsidies, which promote overfishing. That practice results in alarming data, including that 63 percent of global fish stocks need to be rebuilt and that, according to a 2020 FAO report, 34 percent of them are fished at "biologically unsustainable" levels. While the agreement is being finalized, more needs to be done to ensure the sustainability of fish stocks. We urge WTO member countries to define without further delay commitments in this regard at the national and regional levels. For our part, AIDA attorneys will continue to work hand-in-hand with governments to reach an ambitious agreement. It is imperative that said agreement adopt solid rules, eliminate the possibility of creating legal loopholes, and seize the opportunity to establish ocean policies aimed at achieving greater sustainability and guaranteeing the satisfaction of the needs of current and future generations, as well as the conservation of our marine resources. press contact Victor Quintanilla (Mexico), [email protected], +525570522107
Read more
People v. Shell: A step towards climate justice
On May 26, the District Court in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a landmark climate ruling. It ordered Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell—one of the world's leading fossil fuel producers and suppliers—to reduce its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2019 levels. The decision came in response to a 2019 lawsuit filed by Friends of the Earth, along with six other organizations and more than 17 thousand Dutch citizens. Although Shell publicly committed in 2020 to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, the Dutch court found that this pledge was not enough. According to the verdict, the multinational is responsible for not only its own CO2 emissions, but also those of its suppliers and customers, which together threaten the fragile planetary balance and the realization of human rights. The ruling determines, for the first time, that a company and its subsidiaries must align their policies with global CO2 emission reduction targets. It bases this obligation on the emission reduction targets of the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015. Thus, those who litigated against Shell fulfilled their main objective, which was not to obtain financial compensation for damages caused, but to force the oil company to reduce its emissions in compliance with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, and to continue efforts to reach 1.5°C. The Shell group has been aware for nearly 60 years of the risks of climate change, as demonstrated by a documentary they themselves produced in the 1990s. However, the multinational responsible for nine times more emissions than the whole of the Netherlands has never stopped investing in fossil fuels, intentionally favoring its economic interests at the expense of the environment, the climate and people. Check here the recording of the conversation we had with Niels Hazekamp, Senior Policy Adviserat Both Ends, one of the organizations that sued Shell, where explains the details of the litigation. A worldwide precedent The ruling is a major step forward in the use of judicial systems as tools to advance climate justice, and it demonstrates that society, as a whole, is more determined than ever to stop the negative impacts that powerful multinationals have on the environment, the climate and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. Despite being litigated on European soil, the case represents a significant step towards global climate justice, offering an interesting opportunity for replication in Latin America and the world. The case not only opened the discussion on corporate climate responsibility, but was also a pioneer in incorporating the use of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The use of these instruments, which regulate multinational companies by requiring them to respect human rights, demonstrates their potential for global climate justice. The language of the verdict is based primarily on respect for human rights, thus opening the possibility of applying the same reasoning against other polluting companies, in accordance with the obligations set out in the above-mentioned instruments. More about the People v. Shell ruling Under the ruling, Shell must reduce Type 1 net emissions—those generated by its activities and those of its subsidiaries—and make a significant effort to reduce Type 2 and 3 net emissions—those generated by users of the oil and gas produced by the multinational. To account for the net reduction of its emissions, the oil company cannot resort to any of the carbon capture or offsetting tools established under the Paris Agreement, which consist of capturing CO2 emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants and heavy industry, for deep subway storage or reuse. It is worth noting that, although there is no certainty about the exact nature of the climate impacts caused by Shell, the judges highlighted the universally recognized risks to communities and ecosystems related to industrial pollution, and the company's financial priorities, to support their ruling. Primary doubts and concerns The primary doubts regarding this ruling have to do with its implementation. Although the court established that Shell may not use offsetting or absorption systems for its emissions, it does not oblige it to end the exploration, extraction and exploitation of fossil fuels. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the ruling does not allow for the identification of exactly what kind of effort could be considered significant for the reduction of emissions by the oil company's customers. Nor is there clarity regarding the responsibility of the Shell group for the sale of its refineries to other public companies in the Global South, which would allow the multinational to comply in part with emissions reductions, while the refineries continue to operate in some of the most vulnerable places on the planet. In addition to the use of the Paris Agreement, which assisted the judges in ruling in favor of the climate in this case, the litigation opened the door to the use of existing soft law instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, or others that are expected to be legally binding to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Likewise, considering the difficulty and possible manipulation in counting emissions, new avenues are opening up to establish specific obligations on polluting actors. As recommended by several civil society organizations, basing corporate emission reductions on the measurement of barrels of oil, cubic meters of gas and tons of carbon would be easier and more useful for the implementation of successful judgments such as this one. Finally, there are concerns about the rights of Shell workers, which could be negatively affected by the ruling. The drastic reduction that Shell will have to apply to its oil and gas activities must be framed in a fair and inclusive transition process, which includes respecting labor rights and transforming its activities by making them more sustainable. The case of People v. Shell has opened up valuable tools for a global shift towards climate justice and holding companies accountable for their environmental and human rights harms. For those of active in climate litigation, the case demonstrates the need to strengthen the capacities of our teams, the importance of creativity and the use of science, the importance of ensuring that we have the time and resources to pursue landmark cases and, finally, the relevance of building alliances to build upon the current momentum of the global climate justice movement.
Read more
Transition in AIDA's Executive Leadership
The board of directors and team of AIDA, the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, are announcing a transition in its leadership. After 18 years of dedicated service, Astrid Puentes Riaño has decided to step down from her role as co-executive director, effective August 31, 2021. Today, AIDA is a solid organization with regional presence, a committed board of directors and strong internal leadership. As such, the time is right for a transition and to further strengthen the organization for the benefit of Latin America’s people, communities, and environment. Anna Cederstav, current co-executive director, will continue in a leadership role, and in the coming weeks we will begin the process of recruiting new executive leadership. At this time of transition, we would like to express our deep appreciation and gratitude to Astrid. For nearly two decades, she and Anna have led AIDA and its team of legal and scientific professionals in working with hundreds of partner organizations in more than ten countries of Latin America. As a result, AIDA is today one of the most effective environmental law organizations in the region. Astrid’s vision, strategic leadership and powerful command of various issues, jurisdictions, and national and regional laws, have strengthened AIDA and increased its impact. At the same time, Astrid has become one of the savviest and most dedicated environmental rights litigators in Latin America. She has helped establish the link between human rights and the environment and spearheaded efforts on climate change and climate justice in the region. Astrid has been, and continues to be, a mentor to her colleagues, and we are all better because of her leadership, which we will miss. We are confident that she will continue to bring her passion, dedication and expertise to the defense of the environment and human rights in Latin America and around the world. The AIDA board and team congratulate Astrid on all she has accomplished with AIDA and look forward to continuing our collaboration with her. We thank her for all she has contributed and wish her the best in her future endeavors. We are grateful for the support of each of our allies and reiterate our commitment to working to achieve environmental justice, climate justice and strong environmental governance in our beloved region.
Read more