Project
Victory: Haven for leatherback sea turtles declared off-limits
In two separate rulings in May 2008, the Costa Rican government stood up for endangered leatherback sea turtles against business interests intent on building within their protected habitat.
A relative of dinosaurs, the endangered leatherback sea turtle has continually found its home in Costa Rica under threat. Poor planning and lack of oversight destroyed its nesting beaches in Flamingo and Tamarindo.
This time developers had their eye on the Leatherback National Marine Park (LNMP), home to some of the most important Leatherback nesting beaches in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
A municipal zoning regulation was enacted that would authorize construction in part of the LNMP. However, AIDA and its local partner CEDARENA, together with the Leatherback Trust, successfully defended the park.
The Constitutional Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court nullified the municipal zoning regulation, safeguarding the Leatherback sea turtles and their nesting beaches. This ruling closely followed another court victory by AIDA, CEDARENA, and Justice for Nature that required the government to expropriate the private lands within the LNMP, otherwise destined to be tourist playgrounds.
The leatherback sea turtle will continue to face threats from tourism development, fishing, egg poaching, and pollution. However, AIDA and its partners have shown that the law can be used to make a powerful difference.
Related projects
Latest News
Humanity has an urgent task ahead: to transform energy systems without continuing to fill the atmosphere with warming gasses and pollutants. This is a fact proven by science. Failure to do so means that our planet will no longer be a safe haven for the the many species that call it home. The problem is that the necessary transition is far from simple. In addition to the difficulty of cutting dependence on the fossil fuels that have dominated for centuries, it turns out that not just any transition will do. It’s not just a matter of stopping to burn these fuels, we must also consider other ways to leave behind the development model that has for centuries been separating humanity into winners and losers, while violating human rights. What is a JUST transition? There is currently no single concept of what it means for the energy transition to be just. At AIDA, we believe that to be just, the transition must be equitable and inclusive, recognizing that the impacts of climate change and the necessary transition are not evenly distributed. Thus, certain groups—such as those working in traditional energy sectors and/or marginalized communities—may be disproportionately affected. To get a glimpse of the problem, it’s worth understanding that humanity today is suffering from a myriad of crises that affect the lives and well being of people, especially those in the most vulnerable conditions. These crises include the climate emergency, pollution, biodiversity loss, global pandemics and democratic crises. And at the heart of it all is social inequality, that widening gap between rich and poor that generates disparities in all aspects of life, including access to health, education and economic opportunities. These crises are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Responses to one can help solve others, but they can also aggravate them. For example, when transitioning to clean energy sources not only helps combat climate change, but also reduces air pollution and improves public health, we are solving two problems in one. An example in the opposite direction occurs when a rapid and unchecked transition to electric mobility results in the aggressive extraction of rare minerals such as lithium, which comes from fragile ecosystems on which local communities depend. Where do we start? To ensure a just transition, we must be guided by the principles of justice, equity and inclusion, and ensure that the most vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected. As Naomi Klein said in her book This Changes Everything, to address the climate crisis we must understand that climate change is not only an environmental, but also a human rights issue. A just energy transition requires not only ending the burning of fossil fuels, but also addressing economic inequality, including a gender perspective, strengthening social safety nets, protecting workers' rights, respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, empowering communities to participate in decisions that affect their lives, and making reparations to those who have been affected by the current economic and energy model. What role can litigation play? Litigation is already moving in step with the dilemmas of the energy transition. We have seen an increase in lawsuits that appear to go against the energy transition, such as those challenging renewable energy generation projects, or pro-transition regulations, or otherwise hindering the transition. But can it be said that these are always "regressive" lawsuits? A lawsuit to challenge the environmental permitting of a wind generation venture might be blocking the transition, but it is not necessarily regressive. If it is a mega-project, for example, owned by a transnational company that will export all the energy generated without benefiting local communities, and if it intends to be located on indigenous lands without local participation, then it is a project aimed at an "unjust transition" that does not serve us because it reinforces the same model, the one that has us so badly on track. The report Litigation for a Just Transition in Latin America, published in January 2023 by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, and translated into Spanish by AIDA, refers to this type of case. The report questions the purpose of just transition litigation, asking whether it promotes or obstructs an energy and climate-resilient transition. In this regard, the authors conclude that just transition litigation cannot be fully characterized as regressive or non-regressive in relation to the transition. As such, they consider that just transition litigation should be seen and understood as a new category of climate litigation, with its own diverse rationale. The issue allows us to reflect on the complexity of the longed-for transition. Faced with this type of dilemma, in AIDA we generally choose to analyze each case, without marrying a dogmatic position. But a constant and, in this sense, valuable starting point is that everything that is carried out in favor of the energy transition—whether projects, policies or actions—must have a strong and decisive focus on the environment, human rights and gender. Without that there is no justice; and without justice there is no remedy or solution. So we believe that litigation does have a role to play, not only in making the transition happen, but also in making it just.
Read more
Latest News
Offshore drilling is expanding in Latin America and the Caribbean as part of a government and business strategy implying the continuity of the oil and gas industry, despite the role of fossil fuels in aggravating the global climate crisis. The advance of offshore hydrocarbon activity also risks serious damage to the ocean—our planet's greatest climate regulator—the vast biodiversity it harbors, and to the livelihoods of coastal communities. Worldwide, offshore areas represent 30 percent of total hydrocarbon reserves and are concentrated in surface waters up to 125 meters deep, according to academic research. The United States, Mexico, Norway, Brazil and Saudi Arabia are the main producers, accounting for 43 percent of the world total. The current expansion of drilling in Latin America is tending towards extremes with greater environmental complexity, in ultra-deep waters, with wells that exceed 1,500 meters in depth. The authorization of new offshore drilling projects deepens dependence on the use of fossil fuels, representing a step backwards in global efforts to avoid global warming with catastrophic consequences. It also constitutes an obstacle in the transition towards sustainable energy systems, based on renewable sources and respectful of people and the environment. However, there are cases in the region that demonstrate a growing collective resistance to the blind advance of offshore drilling projects. With the help of strategic litigation and citizen participation, these cases are creating an opportunity to set important precedents at national and international levels for the protection of the environment, the climate and human rights from the damages caused by offshore drilling. In defense of the Argentine Sea In May 2019, the Energy Secretariat awarded several companies a total of 18 areas (225,000 square kilometers of surface area) in the Argentine Sea—a sector of the Southwest Atlantic Ocean—for the search for gas and oil. In December 2021, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development authorized a seismic exploration project in three of the awarded areas, located off the coast of the province of Buenos Aires, about 300 kilometers from the beaches of Mar del Plata, one of the country’s most popular beaches. The project includes the drilling of an exploratory well, and is being managed by the Norwegian state-owned company Equinor, the Argentine YPF and the Anglo-Dutch Shell. The governmental decision has been questioned and rejected by the scientific community and by the assemblies of several coastal cities. In January 2022–in view of the threats to biodiversity, climate and local economies posed by the prospecting and possible exploitation of hydrocarbons off the Argentine coast—scientific groups and environmental organizations filed a class action lawsuit before a Federal Court in Mar del Plata against the Argentine State, the Ministry of Environment and the Secretariat of Energy, requesting the nullity of the resolution authorizing the seismic exploration project and the process by which the 18 areas of the Argentine Sea were licensed off. The lawsuit was followed by protests in the streets and other actions, which have swelled into an ongoing legal battle. In February 2022, the court temporarily suspended seismic exploration through a precautionary measure. However, in December of that year, the Court of Appeals lifted that suspension. This decision was appealed before the Supreme Court of Justice, which has not yet ruled on the matter. Moratorium at risk in Belize In October 2017, the government of Belize established by law a permanent moratorium on oil activity in its maritime zone. This occurred after an informal referendum organized by environmental groups in 2012 resulted in 96 percent of participants voting against oil activity; and after the global outrage generated in October 2016 by the government's decision to allow seismic testing for oil exploration just one kilometer away from the Belize Barrier Reef, one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. However, offshore hydrocarbon exploitation is still a risk for the Caribbean nation. In 2022, the Prime Minister expressed the government's willingness to allow seismic exploration without lifting the moratorium. In view of this, organizations dedicated to environmental protection seek to reinforce the prohibition by forcing a referendum on whether or not to lift the moratorium. Court victory in Guyana In Guyana, since the early 2000s there have been reports of discoveries of large offshore oil and gas reserves in the so-called Guyana Suriname Basin. Guyana is the South American nation with the most oil reserves discovered in the last decade, and has decided to expand its gas reserves as well. Offshore gas production in Guyana has also been the subject of controversy due to environmental and safety concerns. Recently, a court decision rejected an attempt by multinational ExxonMobil and the government to dissolve the written commitment that obliges the company to bear all cleanup, restoration, and damage compensation costs of any oil spill in its offshore operations. The judge in the case found that ExxonMobil is in violation of the permit issued to the Liza 1 project—which requires financial guarantees in case of oil spills and accidents—and that Guyana's environmental regulators are not enforcing the terms of the permit. Biodiversity and climate defense Carrying out offshore hydrocarbon exploration and/or exploitation projects may involve the violation of international commitments, including those undertaken by States under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Migratory Species. Offshore seismic exploration generates sounds at levels far in excess of natural levels. Many of these overlap with the hearing and vocalization ranges of marine species (mammals, turtles, fish, diving birds and others). This can cause serious injuries, long-term physical and physiological effects and even death, explains Pablo García Borbroglu, expert and leader of the Global Penguin Society, while affirming that it can also lead to a reduction in fishing activity. The impacts of the drilling are not limited to the exploited area, but affect the entire sea and all the species that inhabit it, aggravating the precarious situation of a large number of already threatened or endangered species. The expansion of the offshore industry also implies nations are failing to comply with global commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, or adopt measures aimed at the management of key ecosystems such as marine areas, both contained in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The cases described above, which bring together diverse voices under a common cause, have the potential to establish precedents that will force States to take responsibility for the possible environmental and social consequences of endorsing harmful industries such as offshore hydrocarbons. They are key opportunities for courts and other decision-making bodies to set exemplary precedents for the hemisphere in the protection of the environment and human rights, especially in the face of the global climate and biodiversity crises.
Read more
Latest News
When we lose words, we don’t know how to name what we see. And if what we see disappears, what do we do with the words we once used? "Words that are not used, are forgotten," wrote young essayist Laura Sofía Rivero. "We say trees because we can't pinpoint what stands before us among all that vast category." Why do we lose these words? There are complex political, historical, economic and educational reasons that have led to what linguist Yásnaya Aguilar of the Ayuujk people in Oaxaca, Mexico has called a "massive death" of languages. Today, species and lifestyles that deserve unique words are disappearing and we are also losing the people who have long known those words. The loss of some is related to the loss of others. The rate at which species and languages are disappearing has accelerated since the beginning of the 20th century. Although there is a whole scientific discussion to agree on a rate of annual biodiversity loss, as there are many variables that are left out, there exists great consensus that we are entering a sixth mass extinction. The same could be said of languages. UNESCO estimates that a language becomes extinct every two weeks—implying that 3,000 languages, mostly indigenous, could be lost before the end of this century. And this is where biodiversity and linguistic diversity meet. In the most biodiverse areas of the planet, 70 percent of existing languages are spoken: 4,800 of the 6,900 spoken worldwide. In Latin America, 80 percent of natural areas encompass or converge with territories inhabited by indigenous peoples. One fact, as surprising as it is alarming, is that 3,202 languages—nearly half of all existing languages—are located in just 35 biodiversity hotspots, defined as places that require our immediate attention and action. A biodiversity hotspot is a region that is home to at least 1,500 species and has lost at least 70 percent of its habitat. Habitat destruction unleashes a chain of impacts ranging from damage to ecological cycles to drastic changes in the lives of those who inhabit these areas. And to do anything, we need to understand the interconnectedness of all the elements that make up biocultural richness. WHAT ARE WE LOSING WITH LANGUAGES? Words are born because there are fruits, plants, and animals that need to be named. There is a wealth of sounds and rules, where abundance of life is the norm and there are different lifestyles and social organization. Yásnaya Aguilar** has an example for this: in Matlatzinca—spoken in central Mexico—there are four different "we's", in Mixe (Ayuujk) there are two and in Spanish, one. The biodiversity and richness of words is easy to understand when we talk about food, as happens with corn, the essential and basic grain in the Mesoamerican diet. To begin with, the history of the word mahis, whose origin is Taino, a now extinct language spoken in what is now Haiti and the Dominican Republic, is revealing. Each stage of corn cultivation and the ways of processing it have merited their own name in the cultures of the continent. For example, in the Xhon variant of Zapotec*— a language spoken in the mountains of Oaxaca, in southern Mexico— the plant is referred to as xhu'a, corn is called za (when it is cut and fresh) and, when it is already on the cob, yez. In Nahuatl, the most widely spoken native language in Mexico, there is a similar designation. Food is an indicator of biodiversity loss. While there are more than 30 thousand species of plants that can be eaten, we only grow about 150 and almost all the calories consumed in the world come from just 30 species. Many languages have unique words for unique foods (species) that we have not even seen. Imagine what delicacies may be hidden in the 420 different languages spoken by the 522 indigenous peoples that inhabit Latin America. We are losing an understanding of the systems that sustain life on the planet. The recognition of indigenous peoples as guardians of biodiversity and generators of empirical knowledge is very recent in Western science and culture, which is not to say that it has not been valid before. Several sections of the most recent IPCC report include the importance of this knowledge as a key element for preservation and adaptation in the midst of the environmental crises we face. The knowledge exists, but for centuries we have refused to engage in dialogue with it. UNDERSTAND TO PROTECT A few years ago, researchers proposed studying biological, linguistic and cultural diversity together because of the close relationship between them. UNESCO has since introduced the term "biocultural diversity." But to protect it, we must understand its complexity. What benefits biodiversity in indigenous territories is absolutely necessary to face environmental crises. Data from the US Food and Agriculture Organization demonstrates that: Indigenous territories in Latin America store more carbon than all the forests of Indonesia or Congo, the countries with the most tropical forests after Brazil. Bolivia's Tacana and Leco Apolo indigenous territories are home to two-thirds of all their vertebrate species and 60 percent of their plant species. About 35 percent of Latin America's forests are found in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples. More than 80 percent of the area inhabited by indigenous peoples is covered by forests. In general, indigenous territories report considerably lower rates of deforestation. Unfortunately, this is not the case for Brazil. The Amazon basin has been threatened for years by different extractivist activities, which were supported by the previous government. Particularly, where illegal mining has been installed, deforestation increased 129% since 2013. This situation does not stop there, it is reflected in the very serious humanitarian crisis that was recently declared for the Yanomami people or the situation of insecurity that was revealed with the murder in the middle of the Amazon of the peoples' rights activist Bruno Pereira and the journalist Dom Phillips. Thus, to speak of protecting biodiversity and linguistic diversity becomes an exercise in speaking in defense of territory and environmental defenders; of access to justice, training and the creation of policies that truly integrate and contemplate the complexity of diverse life systems. * Special thanks for the example in Xhon Zapotec to Ezequiel Miguel of the Proyecto Jaguar podcast that explores the identity elements of indigenous communities. ** To understand more about language preservation as an action for the defense of territory, I recommend reading Ää: manifiestos sobre la diversidad lingüística, by Yásnaya Aguilar, in Editorial Almadía.
Read more