Project
Photo: Ana Rodríguez Carrington (CC BY 2.0)Victory: Biosphere Reserve in Baja California Saved from Toxic Mine
Known as an “ecological treasure house,” the Sierra La Laguna Biosphere Reserve at the southern tip of Baja California will not be spoiled by toxic mine waste, thanks in part to AIDA’s advocacy.
The reserve was once an island, so it’s home to rare plant and animal species. Canyons, swimming holes, and hot springs can be found in its granite mountain range and lowland tropical forests.
Thanks to AIDA and our partners in Mexico, the Mexican government denied an environmental permit for the Paredones Amarillos gold mine, halting the project for the time being. To protect the biosphere reserve, AIDA helped educate community groups and decision makers about the mine's risks. This helped to build the political momentum necessary for the government to deny the permit.
To extract gold from the mountains, the Canadian company Vista Gold proposed to carve out huge quantities of rock—each ton containing a mere gram of gold–-grind it into sludge, and treated it with cyanide. The company planned to dump massive amounts of toxic waste (called “tailings”) behind a dam intended to store it forever. Unfortunately, tailings dams can break for various reasons, as happened at Bolivia’s Porco mine in 1996. When that dam collapsed, more than a quarter million metric tons of tailings flooded the river and contaminated 500 miles (800 km) of waterways in Bolivia, Argentina and Paraguay.
The mine could also cause acid mine drainage. When sulfur-containing rocks are exposed to air and water, sulfuric acid forms, which causes toxic heavy metals to dissolve and drain into the watershed. The risk of acid mine drainage in Sierra La Laguna was significant and the human and environmental cost would have been tremendous: thousands of people and countless wildlife in the reserve rely on its water for survival.
Depleting freshwater is a further threat because mines use tremendous quantities of water. Owing to the scarcity of water in the reserve, Vista Gold proposed to build a plant on the Pacific coast to remove salt from sea water in a highly energy-intensive process, and then pump the water 45 km to the mine site. The desalination plant posed a threat to the endangered leatherback sea turtle.
Singly and together, the mine’s impacts would have devastated a rare jewel, a unique and lush paradise worth saving for future generations.
Related projects
Human rights and the rights of nature in the governance of minerals for the energy transition
A reading of Advisory Opinion 32 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by the Andean Wetlands Alliance The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) outlined in its Advisory Opinion No. 32 (OC-32), released on July 3, 2025, how human rights must be upheld in the face of the climate emergency. The Court also recognized the rights of nature and the responsibilities of States and companies regarding climate change. This advisory opinion followed more than 150 oral interventions and over 260 written submissions—including those from organizations that are part of the Andean Wetlands Alliance.This pronouncement sets a course for protecting valuable ecosystems and the rights of people in Latin America, a region deeply affected due to its significant reserves of minerals increasingly in demand for the global energy transition.Human rights and "critical" mineralsThe IACHR, a central institution in setting human rights standards for Latin America and the Caribbean, provided through OC-32 a set of tools for moving toward policies grounded in equity and justice. These tools align with the principles put forward by the UN Secretary-General in relation to the minerals value chain for the energy transition.Minerals such as lithium and copper are at the heart of current energy transformation policies due to their value for battery manufacturing. This value chain begins in territories such as the high Andean wetlands of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, with the exploration and extraction of mineral deposits. It continues with their processing and refining in specialized facilities for the production of cells, which are later integrated into batteries that power a range of devices—mainly individual electric vehicles.The Court placed special emphasis on the protection of human rights during the extraction of so-called “rare or critical” minerals for the energy transition, which make up the first links in this value chain. This directly reflects Principle 1 of the 2024 Report of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition and offers a key legal instrument for protecting human rights in Latin American countries. It also outlines essential elements for respecting the integrity of ecosystems (Principle 2) from the most biodiverse region on the planet, as well as advancing justice and equity (Principle 3), transparency and accountability (Principle 6), and strengthened multilateral cooperation (Principle 7).Rights of Nature in a Megadiverse RegionAmong its conclusions, the Court recognizes the rights of nature, referring to the need to preserve its essential ecological processes. This contributes to consolidating a development model that respects planetary boundaries and ensures the availability of vital resources for present and future generations.This recognition is especially critical in Latin America, one of the most biodiverse regions in the world. It holds 50% of the planet’s biodiversity in ecosystems such as wetlands and tropical forests—especially the Amazon. It is home to 12 of the 14 terrestrial biomes and is a key epicenter for nature’s contributions to people.These issues are particularly relevant for a region whose historical role as a provider of natural resources has helped build the global economy, yet at great cost—causing severe ecosystem damage and violating community rights. The protection of nature’s rights provides a central tool for managing the mineral wealth essential for the energy transition, especially given that the region holds more than 50% of the world’s lithium reserves and 40% of its copper reserves.Latin America is also one of the most culturally diverse regions: approximately 54.8 million Indigenous peoples live across its territories, representing 8.5% of the total population—the highest global proportion relative to total population—and occupying over 20% of the land.OC-32 particularly highlights the role of communities in preserving ecosystems and a healthy climate, free from human interference. It acknowledges the importance of local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge for informed decision-making and cultural preservation. This approach empowers local and Indigenous communities—long-standing guardians of ecosystems who possess deep traditional knowledge—yet who are often excluded from decision-making processes and denied their rights to free, prior, and informed consultation and participation.The right to a healthy climate: Promising newsOC-32 recognizes the right to a healthy climate as part of the broader right to a healthy environment, free from human interference. States are thus required to prevent any irreversible harm to the planet’s ecological balance and exercise heightened due diligence—taking into account the degree of potential harm, the best available science, and the specific vulnerabilities of at-risk groups, without creating or exacerbating such vulnerabilities.In their mitigation strategies, States must prioritize both people and ecosystems—particularly those that play a vital role in regulating the Earth’s climate systems and natural cycles.In this regard, the Court’s acknowledgment of the Andean wetlands of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile is especially significant. These ecosystems contribute to climate adaptation through water regulation. They also have the capacity to mitigate climate change by acting as carbon sinks: studies have recorded significant levels of carbon dioxide absorption through their vegetation and extremophile microorganisms.Ironically, these very wetlands are now under threat from the expansion of mining for the energy transition.Corporate Obligations on Human RightsOC-32 makes it clear that, in addition to States, companies also bear obligations concerning the climate emergency and its impact on human rights. The Court calls on States to regulate and oversee corporate due diligence across the entire value chain, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). These obligations include identifying, preventing, mitigating, and accounting for business-related impacts on the environment, climate, and human rights. These are non-transferable obligations—they cannot be outsourced to third parties, such as certification bodies. The advisory opinion also calls for the avoidance of greenwashing and undue influence from third-party actors in corporate decision-making.A perspective on Advisory Opinion 32 from the Andean wetlandsSpanning more than 200 pages, OC-32 provides tools to ensure the protection of human rights throughout the mineral value chain, as well as the integrity of ecosystems, from a Latin American perspective. It also promotes implementation of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel principles on critical minerals for the energy transition.No less important, it upholds the interdependence of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights protection within the Inter-American system, and strengthens the role of access rights and the protection of human rights, environmental, and climate defenders, in accordance with the Escazú Agreement. This recognition is especially crucial for the most dangerous region in the world for defending nature.In a context of climate denialism, fueled by political leaderships that reject humanity’s role in the climate crisis, OC-32 stands as a vital roadmap to urge States to meet their climate commitments through a human rights-based approach.From the Andean Wetlands Alliance, we view this opinion with hope—as a key tool to help ensure the rights of those who have inhabited these wetlands for generations and to protect these vital ecosystems. Reactions from Members of the Andean Wetlands Alliance to Advisory Opinion No. 32 of the Inter-American CourtPía Marchegiani, Deputy Executive Director, Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Argentina):"In a context where discussions on critical minerals are increasingly shaped by security and military interests, and unilateral or bilateral agendas from the Global North seek to control mineral supply chains, the Inter-American Court has taken a clear, strategic step in defining how the balance must be struck: placing human rights and nature at the center. Only in this way can we move forward toward justice and equity, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Minerals."Ricardo Frez, Director, ONG Defensa Ambiental (Chile):"This unprecedented recognition of nature as a rights-bearing subject marks a shift toward ecocentric approaches in international human rights law. It is especially significant amid the growing—and often irreversible—impacts of mining for critical minerals like lithium and copper in the Global South. The Court affirms the autonomous protection of nature, not only as a means to secure human rights, but as an end in itself. It reinforces States’ obligations to prevent irreparable climate and environmental damage. In a context where the energy transition risks replicating extractivist models, this advisory opinion provides crucial normative tools to defend territories and life."Vivian Lagrava Flores, Empodérate, Human Rights Collective (Bolivia):"Although communities may not be familiar with technical terms like climate, energy transition, and so on, they have welcomed with hope the fact that Advisory Opinion 32/25 places greater obligations on States. Laws, constitutions, and human rights standards are being ignored, while all kinds of impacts are overlooked. Wetlands—especially freshwater bofedales—are nature’s miracle that sustains our way of life and are essential for mitigating climate change. Yet they are being destroyed by extractivism. The Bolivian State must grasp the magnitude of its obligations."Ezio Costa Cordella, FIMA NGO (Chile):"The concept of a just transition appears in several parts of the advisory opinion issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. There is a specific and explicit mention of this type of transition, and the Court refers to the obligation of States to uphold this principle when developing climate policies and strategies. This means they must avoid deepening situations of multidimensional poverty and instead assess how a transition will affect a given territory and the people who live there—including, of course, the workers in industries undergoing change. In this sense, it is important to understand that the ecological transition is not limited to policy measures; it also concerns how a range of social systems, including those of production and consumption, will adapt to the new climate and environmental reality. In this process—from the present state of affairs to what will emerge as a result of this new environmental condition—we must ensure that no further violations of human rights occur. On the contrary, we should create conditions that lead to better protection and fairer distribution of those rights."Oscar Campanini, CEDIB (Bolivia):"The advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court is an enormously important reinforcement of civil society’s defense of the environment, water, Indigenous peoples’ territories, and life itself—a defense that benefits not just specific groups but is, in fact, the only way to ensure our survival as a species. In the case of the high Andean plateau, this opinion supports the struggles of communities defending water and wetlands against growing pressure from critical mineral extraction projects such as lithium."Verónica Gostissa, Asamblea PUCARÁ (Argentina):"We are at a turning point for climate justice and human rights. The Inter-American Court now recognizes the autonomous right to a healthy climate. In regions like northwest Argentina—where ecosystems of high ecological value, such as high Andean wetlands, coexist with intense extractive pressures from lithium mining—this decision directly challenges the current mining and energy model. This legal milestone reinforces a truth that communities and peoples have long upheld: if it dries up rivers, it’s not an energy transition. And there can be no true transition without environmental justice."Paulina González Quiroga, Fundación Tantí (Chile):"We deeply value the statement issued by the Inter-American Court at a strategic moment for our bodies and territories, especially for those of us living in the Global South—in the highland and coastal desert regions of Chile. This is a mining and productive zone where both continental and marine waters are being affected by the entire value chain operating in the area. In our territory, marked by a history of environmental sacrifice, there is no real transition. On the contrary, the same communities and ecosystems are now facing an intensification of extractivist practices—now labeled ‘green.’ We are witnessing an unimaginable increase in the impacts on our high Andean and marine ecosystems, and on the ways of life that exist here. In this context, the Court’s opinion will be crucial in strengthening the legal defense of our territories in various processes of Indigenous consultation and environmental justice that are already underway and will undoubtedly continue within the framework of these policies." Yeny Rodríguez, senior attorney and Line Coordinator, Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA)"The Advisory Opinion No. 32 of the Inter-American Court recognizes the high degree of vulnerability and risk in which strategic ecosystems in Latin America are found for the water cycle and climate, such as the Andean salt flats, and sends a very clear message to the governments of the region and to the companies operating in our territories: in application of enhanced due diligence, they must avoid mining activities that could generate irreversible damage to ecosystems and aggravate the situation of vulnerability of indigenous peoples or communities at risk."
Read more
Landmark Inter-American Court Decision Requires States to Protect Human Rights in the Face of the Climate Crisis
In a groundbreaking advisory opinion issued today, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights clarifies the obligations of States to effectively protect people and communities from the harmful impacts of the climate crisis. The decision sets a powerful precedent for climate justice and offers critical guidance to national and international courts worldwide.San José, Costa Rica. In its Advisory Opinion No. 32, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has taken a historic step toward strengthening global climate accountability. The Court sets a powerful precedent by establishing legal standards that States across the continent must meet to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis. This landmark ruling is expected to drive a new wave of strategic climate litigation, enabling affected people and communities to access justice.“The Court’s decision marks a watershed moment for climate justice in Latin America and around the world, as it is the first time a regional human rights tribunal has clearly spelled out States’ legal obligations in response to the climate crisis,” said Gladys Martínez, Executive Director of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). “We welcome this significant step forward — one that will not only help protect communities and individuals, but also guide national and international courts, including the International Court of Justice, which is now developing its own opinion on this critical issue.”The Court recognized, for the first time, the existence of an autonomous human right to a healthy climate, derived from the right to a healthy environment. In light of Advisory Opinion No. 32, States across the region now have legal obligations to address the climate crisis as a human rights issue, in accordance with their domestic laws and applicable treaties and agreements, including:Guaranteeing a climate system free from dangerous anthropogenic interference, as a precondition for the exercise of other human rights.Respecting the principle of intergenerational equity, by ensuring that current generations leave behind conditions of environmental stability that allow future generations similar opportunities for development.Regulating, supervising, and overseeing, as well as requiring and approving environmental impact assessments, to fulfill their duty to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.Defining a mitigation goal; developing and maintaining an up-to-date mitigation strategy grounded in human rights; and strictly monitoring and supervising public and private GHG-emitting activities.Ensuring an equitable distribution of the burdens of climate action and climate impacts, avoiding the imposition of disproportionate burdens—this includes the fair allocation of the costs associated with the energy transition. In addition, the Court recognized in its opinion that local, traditional, and Indigenous knowledge is protected under Inter-American treaties and constitutes an integral part of the concept of the best available science—opening a new path for the enforceability and inclusion of these knowledge systems in responses to the climate emergency.“This decision by the Inter-American Court ushers in a new era for climate negotiations and litigation by providing individuals, communities, and civil society organizations with a clearer and more robust legal framework,” said Liliana Ávila, Director of the Human Rights and Environment Program at AIDA. “It empowers people to hold States accountable – both in climate negotiations and courtrooms – and to push for the structural changes needed to confront the climate crisis. This includes meeting their obligations on mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage, all while upholding fundamental human rights.”The Court’s decision responds to a request submitted in January 2023 by the governments of Colombia and Chile. In their petition, the two States emphasized that their populations — along with those of other countries across the Americas — are already experiencing severe impacts from the global climate crisis, including droughts, floods, wildfires, and other extreme events. They called on the Court to clarify how the American Convention on Human Rights should be interpreted in the context of the climate emergency, its root causes, and its wide-ranging consequences.“This decision serves as a binding interpretive tool for States in the region, opening new legal pathways to hold governments accountable for protecting human rights,” said Marcella Ribeiro, Senior Attorney at AIDA. “States must now align their domestic policies to meet the legal standards set by the Court — including, among other things, properly regulating corporate activity in the context of the climate crisis and ensuring a stable climate for future generations.”From the outset of the process, AIDA played a proactive role. The organization supported various communities across the region in ensuring their voices were heard by the Inter-American Court, submitting legal briefs that highlighted the socio-environmental impacts of the climate emergency on Indigenous peoples, women, children, people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, and on particularly fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. AIDA also facilitated the participation of community representatives in the public hearings held as part of the process, which took place in Barbados and Brazil in April and May 2024, respectively.AIDA additionally submitted its own legal brief to the Court, arguing that the right to a “stable and safe climate” should be recognized as part of the universal right to a healthy environment – underscoring States’ obligations to prevent and mitigate the harmful effects of the climate emergency on their populations.The process saw the submission of more than 200 written observations — an unprecedented number for an Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court — reflecting the region’s strong engagement with the issue. Advisory Opinions play a vital role in shaping human rights law by clarifying how existing rights should be interpreted, thereby guiding States in how to uphold and enforce them within their territories or jurisdictions.Advisory Opinion No. 32 builds upon and reinforces earlier rulings, including the 2024 advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which clarified States’ obligations to protect the marine environment from the climate crisis. It also complements the forthcoming opinion from the International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest judicial body – which will define States’ responsibilities in the face of the global climate emergency.In a global context that demands ever-stronger climate action, the Inter-American Court’s decision reaffirms that governments must act based on binding legal obligations — not merely voluntary commitments. This legal milestone provides people and communities across the region a powerful foundation from which to demand real action and the full protection of their rights in a safe, just, and sustainable climate. Press contact:Víctor Quintanilla, [email protected], +52 5570522107
Read more
Media Advisory: Inter-American Court Decision on Climate and Human Rights Approaching
Expected Release: Early July 2025The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is expected to release a historic Advisory Opinion in early July, clarifying how states must uphold human rights in the context of the climate crisis.This legal milestone follows public hearings where frontline communities, Indigenous leaders, and civil society organizations shared powerful testimony on the real-world impacts of environmental degradation and government inaction. The Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for climate policy, state accountability, and the protection of environmental defenders across the Americas.From the beginning of the process, AIDA assumed a proactive role, promoting the involvement of communities affected by the climate crisis in Latin America. We supported a diverse array of amicus briefs and community testimonies before the Court in public hearings and presented our own amicus brief arguing that the right to a “stable and safe climate” should be recognized as part of the universal right to a healthy environment.Spokespeople Available for Media Interviews:Legal Experts & Organizational LeadersMarcella RibeiroSenior Attorney, AIDALanguages: Portuguese (native), Spanish, English Expertise: Community participation, just transition, climate reparationsBased in: Brazil Available for: Interviews and background briefingsLiliana ÁvilaProgram Director, AIDA Languages: Spanish (native), EnglishExpertise: Human rights law, climate litigation, regional legal mechanismsBased in: ColombiaAvailable for: Interviews and background briefingsFrontline Community VoicesWe can coordinate interviews with several key members of frontline communities who testified directly before the Court during the public hearings.These spokepeople bring a vital human and territorial perspective to the legal decision and are available for media conversations in Spanish and local language, with interpretation support as needed. Background Materials:AIDA's amicus brief on the right to a safe and stable climate.Civil society contributions from around Latin America, on the Climate Litigation Platform for Latin America & the Caribbean.Frontline community interviews from the Manaus public hearing.The Manaus Declaration signed by nearly 400 people and organizations from across the continent.AIDA's background ABC on the Advisory Opinion process. Media Contacts:Victor QuintanillaMedia Coordinator, AIDA 📧 [email protected]📱 +52 55 7052 2107Lorena ZáratePositioning Coordinator, AIDA 📧 [email protected]📱 +52 55 7052 2107
Read more