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
Don Diego mining project poses grave risk to Mexican marine ecosystem
AIDA’s formal comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the phosphate-mining project, proposed in a Baja California Sur bay, point to insufficient information about safeguards for the ecosystem, which is vital for both coastal communities and endangered species. Mexico City, Mexico. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) has commented on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Don Diego phosphate-mining project in Ulloa Bay, Baja California Sur. In their analysis, AIDA proved that the document lacks sufficient technical information to ensure that the project will not seriously damage the Bay. Ulloa Bay serves as an important marine ecosystem for coastal communities as well as for endangered species like the Blue and Humpback whales and the Loggerhead turtle. The Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) presented the comments in AIDA’s name to Mexico’s Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT). "The comments show that the Don Diego project, the first of its type in the region, could cause serious environmental damage," said Haydée Rodríguez, an AIDA attorney. The primary reasons the project should not be authorized as presented are: The project could cause irreversible damage to an ecologically vulnerable and biodiverse region, which includes Magdalena Bay, a mangrove ecosystem considered a Marine Region of Importance. The region is also home both to threatened marine species and to others vital to the fishing industry. The Environmental Impact Statement lacks important information about possible impacts on the marine ecosystem and measures to avoid them. The project involves a mining process that will greatly alter the marine environment: large boats will dredge the seabed and extract sand in search of phosphate, but in doing so may also extract living organisms. The project will alter the marine ecosystem by unearthing sediments that contain toxic elements, such as uranium, that will be returned to the ocean after processing. The exposed toxic sediments, along with the dredging and noise of the mining operation, will alter the habitat of endangered species of whales and turtles. The Mexican government has national and international obligations to apply the Precautionary Principle. As such, they should deny permission to the project to ensure that it does not cause serious and irreversible environmental damage. In authorizing the project, the Mexican government would violate international treaties that require it to protect marine environments and threatened and endangered species. The project puts at risk fishing and tourism activities that provide the livelihoods of the region’s coastal communities. You can see our full comments on the Don Diego Environmental Impact Statement here (in Spanish).
Read more
International Regulatory Best Practices for Coral Reef Protection
This Best Practices Guide provides examples of effective regulatory tools for protecting coral reefs. These tools can be adapted to the circumstances of various jurisdictions where reefs are at risk. It is not an exhaustive list of best practices, but rather a compilation of approaches that countries around the world have implemented to regulate human activities that harm coral reefs. This Guide presents basic legal and regulatory tools and practices that can be modified, improved, strengthened, and applied according to the unique circumstances and objectives of each country seeking to implement stronger protections for its coral reef resources. Download the guide Download the summary report
Read moreInternational Regulatory Best Practices for Coral Reef Protection
This Best Practices Guide provides examples of effective regulatory tools for protecting coral reefs. These tools can be adapted to the circumstances of various jurisdictions where reefs are at risk. It is not an exhaustive list of best practices, but rather a compilation of approaches that countries around the world have implemented to regulate human activities that harm coral reefs. This Guide presents basic legal and regulatory tools and practices that can be modified, improved, strengthened, and applied according to the unique circumstances and objectives of each country seeking to implement stronger protections for its coral reef resources. Download the guide Download the summary report
Read more