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
Closure and Responsible Exit
A requirement for environmental and climate justice in Latin America No natural resource (material or energy) extraction project lasts forever. Its useful life is subject to many variables, including endogenous factors -such as the amount of resource reserves or the extraction rate- and exogenous factors -such as decisions to address the climate crisis, the decrease in demand, financial problems, etc.- that condition the moment in which the project must close or the moment in which an actor in its value and supply chain must leave. Regardless of the length of the project's useful life or how it may be affected, a responsible closure process with the natural environment and society must be contemplated, which must be desired and promoted by all the stakeholders involved.This issue is even more relevant in the context of the climate crisis we are experiencing, which makes it urgent to implement measures to manage it in the short, medium and long term. Many of the actions required to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation targets are related to energy transition, which implies, in general terms, at least two things: 1) the substitution of fossil fuel extraction and use projects and 2) the promotion of low-emission renewable energies, which are associated with mineral extraction. In both scenarios, closure and exit issues are of great importance.In both extraction and generation projects, the role of their promoters, whether public or private, is essential. Likewise, the obligation of supervision and oversight of the States is very important for the protection and guarantee of the rights of those who may be affected. On occasions, the responsibility of the exit includes other key actors that are part of the value and supply chains of the projects: investors, insurers, distributors and buyers, among others.In Latin America, there have been important advances in regulating aspects related to the authorization, start-up and implementation of mining and energy projects. In these phases, environmental principles such as prevention and precaution, as well as rights such as prior consultation and free, prior and informed consent, and access rights, have played a crucial role in determining the viability and progress of projects, as well as in protecting and guaranteeing the rights of communities in the region. However, experience has shown that there are significant challenges for the closure and exit processes to be responsible with the ecosystems and communities involved. Indeed, the lack of a closure process, as well as the lack of clarity about the obligations surrounding the social transition processes and overcoming the conditions of economic dependence, are complex obstacles that can exacerbate environmental and social impacts. This report arises from the idea of proposing approaches based on law and science to address the closure and responsible exit of projects. To this end, we at the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), in the period 2022-2024, interviewed various stakeholders and systematized 12 cases that exemplify the problematic situation of multiple fossil fuel extraction, mineral and power generation projects, which are in the closure phase or in exit processes in different countries of the region. These cases highlight the current challenges and legal, technical and administrative gaps regarding closure and exit in specific contexts.With this publication, we seek to provide answers to the following questions: what is meant by project closure and exit, what is the basis for closure and exit obligations under international law, what should closure and exit look like, who should be involved in these processes, and how should the social, environmental, economic and human rights challenges and impacts that arise from them be addressed? Read and download the report
Read more
When environmental defenders in Latin America take the stage at key international forums
By Víctor Quintanilla and Mayela Sánchez García* The voices of communities across Latin America and the Caribbean are powerful, especially when they call for environmental protection amid multiple, growing threats.Often, this demand falls on deaf ears among those who deliver justice at the national or local level.This trend makes it necessary to turn to complementary avenues of international justice.One such platform is provided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an international body with a critical mandate: the promotion and protection of human rights on the continent.As an organization driven by the mission of guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment in Latin America and the Caribbean, the IACHR serves as a key forum for highlighting environmental issues that affect human rights in the region. We do this in alliance with communities and partner organizations. This allows the voices of local communities to be heard by an international body capable of urging the continent’s governments to change their practices and strengthen their standards for protecting populations affected by environmental degradation. Testimonies calling for a responsible phase-out of fossil fuelsBringing the voices of communities before the IACHR is also an opportunity to highlight regional patterns of risk and human rights violations.So it was on March 10, when representatives from communities in Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic testified before the Commission about how decades of fossil fuel extraction and use have seriously violated human rights such as the right to a healthy environment, the right to health, and the right to access information and participate in environmental matters."Our region doesn’t just need to decarbonize its energy system; it also needs to address the historical injustice that our communities have endured," said Yaneth Ortiz, a representative of the Wayuu indigenous people of La Guajira, a region in northern Colombia that has been severely impacted by the operations of the Carbones del Cerrejón mining project.Their messages were heard by the IACHR during a public hearing titled "Human rights situation related to fossil fuel extraction," held as part of its 195th Period of Sessions.Community representatives also noted that, in the current context of the energy transition, these violations and risks have become more severe."Our children are getting sick in their own schools. Despite all this, there are no clear parties to blame and no structural solutions… For us, this decarbonization process [in Chile] has been insufficient and lacking in transparency," said Katta Alonso, speaking on behalf of the Chilean organization Mujeres en Zonas de Sacrificio en Resistencia. The local experiences shared highlighted the urgency of implementing just transitions, which entail the responsible phase-out of fossil fuel projects throughout the region.Meanwhile, Juan Bay, president of the Waorani Nationality of Ecuador (NAWE), stated: "We have not been consulted in a prior, free, and informed manner regarding oil exploration on our territory, nor regarding the establishment of the protected area. We now demand that our rights be respected in the process of closing down oil operations and in the environmental and social remediation."AIDA requested the hearing in collaboration with the communities and partner organizations. "We explained the risks and human rights violations faced by various communities in the context of the closure and irresponsible exit of coal, gas, and oil extraction and combustion projects," explains Rosa Peña, AIDA’s attorney.The Commission views the purpose of these hearings as gathering information on human rights issues in specific countries or regionally, in order to issue recommendations to governments aimed at ensuring respect for and the enjoyment of human rights.Before each session, it receives a huge number of requests to address various human rights issues across the continent during the hearings—issues that go beyond just the environment or climate."This is how we got here, after convincing the Commission of the importance of approaching this issue from a human rights perspective and of listening to the communities," says Liliana Ávila, director of AIDA’s Human Rights and Environment Program.Over the years, AIDA has developed significant expertise and leadership in successfully bringing cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—the two pillars of the Inter-American Human Rights System, a mechanism of the Organization of American States—to achieve regional impact in the protection of a healthy environment, in partnership with local communities. Voices against the damage caused by illegal miningAlso, during the 195th Period of Sessions of the IACHR, we participated in the ex officio hearing titled "Impacts of illegal mining on economic, social, cultural and environmental rights," convened by the Commission itself.Our contribution joined other voices in highlighting why this activity is now one of the most alarming phenomena on the continent, given its severe impact on ecosystems and human rights. In Latin America, gold mining fuels illegal extraction that violates numerous rights, primarily those of indigenous peoples and traditional communities. At the hearing, we proposed relevant measures to the Commission to address the issue from a regional perspective.At AIDA, we seek to amplify the strength of local communities and their people, bringing their wisdom to decision-making forums with the potential to transform realities and build a better future for the continent. *Víctor Quintanilla-Sangüeza is AIDA’s Content Coordinator, and Mayela Sánchez García is the organization’s digital community specialist.
Read more
International Principles for Responsible Divestment from Fossil Fuels
Against the backdrop of an ever-worsening climate emergency, companies must rapidly withdraw from the extraction of coal, oil, and gas as well as associated fossil energy industries and ancillary facilities for transport, storage, refining, and processing. The urgent need to quit fossil fuels, however, does not justify irresponsible divestment by fossil energy companies. Rapid closure and responsible closure of the fossil fuel industry are not mutually incompatible agendas. Both are vital to achieve climate and environmental justice and a just energy transition.In the absence of responsible divestment policies and practices, communities are left facing legacy pollution, as well as the long-term health risks that come from abandoned infrastructure that is not properly decommissioned and a lack of proper ecosystem restoration. Many communities also confront significant loss of livelihoods and financial hardship as the fossil fuel industry divests with no regard for the local economic consequences, particularly where economic dependencies have been built up over time.Rooted in the lived experiences and demands of communities and workers affected by fossil fuel activities around the world, and in line with existing international obligations of states and international frameworks for corporate accountability, including the responsibility to respect human rights, these International Principles for Responsible Divestment from Fossil Fuels set out a positive agenda that all companies and states must follow to advance a just transition. They are designed to shift the power imbalance currently favouring powerful companies and states in order to ensure that affected communities and workers have agency and control over how fossil fuel divestment occurs. They are intended to be followed by companies and made obligatory by the states. Read and download the document
Read more