Project
Victory: Constitutional Court Defends Right to Prior Consultation
On January 23, 2008, the Colombian Constitutional Court declared the Forest Law of 2006 to be unconstitutional and therefore, invalid, because lawmakers did not consult with indigenous, afrodescendant, and tribal communities during development of the law as required.
This decision is an advance for these Colombian communities who view many economic development projects and policies as a threat to their traditional territory and cultural identity, as well as the environment. The ruling also establishes a valuable legal precedent that can be used to bolster indigenous and tribal communities’ rights in other legal cases throughout the Americas.
The Colombian government is required by law to consult with indigenous and tribal communities regarding administrative and legislative decisions that may affect them. It is obligated to do so because the Colombian Congress previously adopted into law “Convention 169,” a treaty of the International Labour Organization that protects this right and others.
In this case, the Court decided that indigenous and tribal communities should have been consulted because the Forest Law regulates forest issues in general terms, and contains provisions that “will likely affect areas generally used by the communities, which could impact their lifestyles and their close relationships with the forests.”
The court also declared that the requirement to consult with indigenous and traditional communities cannot be replaced with the general public participation process that the government carried out regarding the Forest bill. Rather, to comply with the law, the government should inform the communities about the proposed law, explain its implications and how it could affect them, and give them opportunities to effectively state their opinions regarding the bill.
As a result of this court ruling and civil society’s call to respect the right to prior and informed consultation, the Colombian government proposed a law to regulate and enforce this fundamental right. The Ministry of Agriculture also began developing a new forest law, this time using a process that complies with prior and informed consent procedures.
The lawsuit was brought by a group of students and professors from the University of Los Andes Law School in Bogota with the support of AIDA. Social organizations including the Proceso de Comunidades Negras, the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia (ONIC) and CENSAT Agua Viva also supported the group in presenting this case.
This group also filed a second lawsuit against the Forest Law alleging that the law violated Constitutional provisions protecting the environment. However, because of the January court decision, no decision will be made on this second suit.
Related projects
A raw materials transition instead of a raw materials rush: Civil society calls for a change of course in raw materials policy
Berlin. From today until October 8th, more than 35 organizations from Germany and numerous other countries will share their perspectives at events on raw material extraction and global justice during Alternative Raw Materials Week. With 25 events on the circular economy, human rights, and environmental protection, the week is intended as a civil society intervention in current international raw materials policy. The highlight will be the Raw Materials Summit on October 6, 2026.While Germany and the EU are securing their supply of critical raw materials and pushing ahead with new raw materials projects, a broad coalition of civil society organizations warns against sacrificing environmental, human rights, and participatory standards in the pursuit of faster raw materials supply.Hannah Pilgrim, coordinator of the Raw Materials Working Group and initiator of Alternative Raw Materials Week: "The federal government is setting completely the wrong priorities with its raw materials policy. It cannot keep up in a race against China or the U.S. Instead, it should focus on a sustainable raw materials policy that prioritizes reducing external dependencies by cutting raw materials consumption and expanding the circular economy. To be taken seriously by raw materials-rich partner countries, it must defend hard-won standards in the areas of human rights and the environment.Through the Alternative Raw Materials Week, we bring together voices that need to be heard more clearly in the current debate: from mining regions, academia, labor unions, and international civil society.”Víctor Quintanilla-Sangueza, Content Coordinator of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA): “European raw materials policy poses significant risks to the people of Latin America because of the serious environmental and social impacts associated with mining lithium, copper, and other raw materials. That is why we join critical forums for debate—such as the one facilitated by the Alternative Raw Materials Week—to amplify the voices of affected communities. We are countering the prevailing narrative of the energy transition with one that puts life at the center. We are questioning who is setting the rules for transition processes in the Global North and who is bearing the costs. We conduct this work in collaboration with communities and organizations in Latin America, including the Andean Wetlands Alliance”.During Alternative Raw Materials Week, various international guests from Argentina, Bolivia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Portugal will be available for interviews. Here is a selection:Pía Marchegiani - FARN, ArgentinaNik Völker - MiningWatch Portugal Check the events calendarPress contactsAK Rohstoffe | [email protected] | + 49 (0)30 41 93 41 82Press | [email protected] | +49 1577 7764 847
Read more
A victory for climate justice: Colombia includes climate obligations in environmental impact studies
In Colombia, a case that began as a requirement for the coal sector ultimately became a regulation applicable to all projects requiring an environmental permit.This refers to the publication of the General Methodology for the Preparation and Submission of Environmental Studies, a regulatory "master key" that requires quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and including climate mitigation and adaptation measures in mining, hydrocarbon, energy, and infrastructure projects, among others.Colombia's Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development published this methodology in late July 2026, in compliance with a 2023 ruling by the Council of State.This important resolution was the result of a compliance action filed by a coalition led by AIDA and also comprising the "José Alvear Restrepo" Lawyers’ Collective (CAJAR), Censat Agua Viva, the Center for Research and Popular Education (CINEP), POLEN Transiciones Justas, the University of Magdalena, and researchers.The new methodology for environmental studies represents a major step forward in protecting the right to a healthy environment and ensuring the right to a healthy climate through preventive measures.It also marks a victory for climate litigation in the region, demonstrating that the Colombian government failed to fulfill specific climate commitments and securing a ruling ordering one of the competent authorities to take concrete actions for proper climate management.Other countries in the region may replicate the strategy employed and the precedent set. A three-year path toward climate justiceIn May 2023, AIDA led a coalition of civil society organizations, think tanks, researchers, and a university that filed a compliance action with the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca. The goal was to demand compliance with laws related to addressing the climate crisis in the coal sector.In Colombia, neither environmental regulations nor climate change management regulations address GHG mitigation or the climate impacts generated by the coal sector, despite the significance of coal projects in the country and their role in exacerbating the climate crisis.Colombia is by a wide margin the largest coal producer and exporter in Latin America. In 2024, it accounted for 87.67% of regional production and 99.84% of exports, playing a significant role in its trade balance and its rail and port infrastructure. Furthermore, it ranks third in the region in terms of final consumption (24.52%), and in the last 12 months, nearly 5% of the country’s electricity was generated from coal.But without specific regulations, environmental authorities lack the tools to establish effective measures to prevent, mitigate, and manage the climate impacts of coal industry activity.The Administrative Court of Cundinamarca ruled in the coalition's favor in the first instance. The Council of State—the country’s highest authority on administrative matters—upheld the ruling on second instance. Consequently, it ordered the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development to comply with the obligations outlined in Law 1931 of 2018, which establishes the minimum actions the country must take to honor its international climate commitments.And this is where the case went beyond its initial objective: the ruling established a specific obligation for the ministry to regulate the consideration of climate impacts not only in coal sector projects but in all projects requiring an environmental permit. In other words, it includes the mining, hydrocarbons, energy, and infrastructure sectors, among others.This entails, among other things, quantifying GHG emissions from these projects and assessing how environmental offset measures can help Colombia meet its climate commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.The ruling also ordered the government agency to issue a resolution adopting the Mandatory Emissions Report, which would require major greenhouse gas emitters to report their total emissions annually on a disaggregated basis. Similarly, it ordered the agency to issue the environmental sector’s climate change management plan and coordinate actions with territorial climate change plans. A significant and reproducible rulingThe Ministry of the Environment’s publication of the methodology for environmental studies marks a milestone in environmental permitting by incorporating specific procedures to ensure environmental impact studies account for the climate impacts generated by projects seeking permits.It also focuses on environmental permitting and human rights, considers indirect emissions, and introduces new guidelines for assessing projects' environmental impacts.In addition, it sets a regulatory precedent that demonstrates, in practice, the climate unfeasibility of new coal mining and burning projects.In short, it is a regulatory instrument that seeks to close gaps in environmental permitting processes and strengthen the assessment of shortcomings associated with the climate impacts of certain projects, particularly in the coal sector. It incorporates a human rights perspective—a first within an environmental permitting process.Its scope is ambitious: stricter technical and climate management requirements would raise the compliance costs of coal-fired projects—making them more expensive than cleaner alternatives—and could support strategies to phase out coal as part of the country’s efforts to meet its climate obligations.The orders contained in the Council of State’s ruling do not end with the publication of the methodology. Other orders also seek to incorporate specific guidelines for climate change management.Among these is the Mandatory Emissions Report, a key tool for establishing processes to monitor, verify, and control the mitigation actions implemented by major greenhouse gas emitters. However, the ministry has published only a draft resolution adopting this instrument, which, if confirmed, would represent a unique regulatory advancement in the region with strong potential for replication.In other words, the Council of State’s ruling sets a very important precedent for the region for two reasons: it demonstrates that strategic litigation can lead to concrete regulatory actions to address the climate crisis, and it highlights the need to update regulatory frameworks to incorporate specific measures for climate change mitigation and adaptation in specific sectors and procedures.Therefore, it will be important to design strategies that allow both the litigation approach and the results achieved during implementation to be replicated in other countries in the region.
Read more
Tailings dams: Insights from science to address their risks
Mining begins by removing vegetation and topsoil. Next, miners excavate to extract metals and minerals from the subsoil. This process generates a large amount of waste or tailings: 200 kilograms of waste for every kilogram of economically valuable material in a high-efficiency mine.This waste is a mixture of rock debris, water, and chemical compounds used in mining operations. But where does this waste end up?They end up in tailings dams, permanent storage sites for mining waste located in the same areas where mining operations take place.Despite being critical infrastructure—since their failure or collapse can seriously harm the environment and people—prior, transparent discussion regarding tailings dams and their risks is rare among authorities, mining companies, and affected communities.To address this gap, on July 22 and 23, AIDA—in partnership with the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL) and the Find an Expert in Mining (FAIME) project—organized an inclusive event in the city of Loja, Ecuador, featuring academic dialogue and scientific outreach on the management of risks associated with tailings dams.The event brought together people from different regions and technical experts from Latin America for a diverse dialogue on managing mining waste.This initiative is part of our efforts to promote science—including traditional knowledge—as a fundamental and accessible tool for defending territories and everyone’s right to a healthy environment.Below, we share key information and insights from the event on tailings dams and the risks associated with them. Concerns and uncertainties surrounding tailings damsAll crushed, chemically processed rock—from which valuable metals and minerals have been extracted, as well as rock with no economic value to the industry—remains in the area in tailings dams.During mine operations, after mine closure, and in perpetuity, mining companies must ensure that these infrastructure systems completely isolate waste from the environment. Exposure to this mixture of mining waste has significant socio-environmental impacts. This raises concerns and questions that are rarely discussed, including:The dam's dimensions: How many metric tons of waste will be stored? Location: Where will this waste be allowed to be stored indefinitely?Isolation: How can we ensure that rocks containing toxic substances and heavy metals do not affect the soil, water sources, biodiversity, and people?Safety: How can we ensure infrastructure does not endanger people's lives or the environment they depend on? The event highlighted that science, as a tool for territorial protection, makes it possible to identify the threats posed by tailings dams, describe them, and delve deeper into the specific risks that must be managed in each territory.This is because those who have—or may potentially have—these so-called environmental "liabilities" in perpetuity where there was once a road, a forest, or a river face many unanswered questions that must be addressed.Even for experts in related technical fields, tailings dams are challenging structures. Those who work closely with this issue can confirm that complete or freely available data is not always available to monitor these structures throughout their entire life cycle. Several factors help us understand, for each specific project, aspects related to the design, construction, operation, monitoring, closure, and post-closure of tailings dams, as well as the effects of climate change and their resilience.In most projects, this information is confidential and may be reviewed only by mining companies and government regulatory agencies. Challenging the usual narrativesGovernments and companies often claim that they apply the highest standards at every stage of mining operations, but say little or nothing about the risks that mining waste poses to the environment and people.Unfortunately, many generations have suffered disasters caused by the collapse of these dams:2019: Brumadinho, Minas Gerais, Brazil.2014: Mount Polley, British Columbia, Canada.2010: Las Palmas, Maule, Chile.2010: Huachocolpa, Huancavelica, Peru.1965: El Cobre, Valparaíso, Chile. These disasters were not foreseen despite monitoring efforts, nor were they prevented. While they may seem distant, the surrounding communities bear the brunt of the human losses and environmental damage. In addition to these well-known catastrophes, these structures collapse every year around the world. A chronology of major tailings dam failures dating back to 1960 is available on the Wise Uranium website. A diverse and fruitful academic dialogueDiscussing the risks associated with tailings dams was key to understanding the concerns of those who already live near these structures. It was also important to recognize that with every new metal mining project, new communities will be forced to coexist with these tailings ponds. Regardless of where they are or may be located, understanding and managing these risks is essential.The event in Ecuador showed us that dams exist in many forms, both on and off the continent (in Canada, Chile, Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru). It helped us learn more about standards, community-based monitoring systems, restoration efforts, and demands around the risks involved.In working groups made up of experts—both technical specialists and members of the public—we shared knowledge, experiences, questions, and a few answers. We built alliances to continue spreading information and building a community that we hope will grow.One of the most striking discussions centered on tolerable risk. Even when we know the risks and manage them, they remain. How much risk can we tolerate, and are we willing to? The answers vary depending on whether they come from industry or certain governments. But if we focus on the populations at risk, the answer is NONE. Of course. Who among us, in the name of development and the energy transition, would leave their home right now to live next to a tailings dam? Using science to renew hope and bridge gapsWe heard stories from communities where water quality has been affected by metal mining projects. In these cases, for example, using science as a tool for territorial defense means maintaining a timeline of water quality parameters—monitored by the community—to show companies and authorities that water quality has changed and to demand immediate action. It is also reflected in directly affected communities that propose specific studies and monitoring initiatives for their territories, carry them out, and use the results to strengthen decision-making and legal action.However, for many communities, developing scientific studies tailored to their realities remains a pipe dream. Funding gaps and a lack of technical tools limit communities’ ability to use the best available science to defend their territories and livelihoods. That is why AIDA and FAIME seek to connect consultants and technical teams with communities and the organizations that support them, to help ensure that the best available science is no longer a privilege. Thank youWe at AIDA would like to thank the experts and representatives from various communities in the region for their participation in this academic dialogue. We will continue to foster these opportunities and find ways to ensure that communities affected by mining can use science as a useful and effective tool to defend their rights.
Read more