The Aftermath of the Escazú Agreement: a Failure, or the Path to Environmental Awareness and the Protection of Environmental Activists in Latin America?

Source: Photo by Isabella Jusková on Unsplash

By: Mathilde Aupetit

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao.

Introduction

Indigenous communities are essential actors against climate change, the disappearance of species, increasing desertification and the decline of ecosystems. They represent 5% of the world's population and protect 80% of the planet's biodiversity in their daily life (Raygorodetsky 2018), yet indigenous communities and their lands have been under threat for centuries (Sierra Praeli 2019). In recent decades, increasing rates of deforestation, infrastructure development and resource extraction have destroyed their lands, threatening the stability of the planet at large.

When community activists try to oppose these tendencies, they are often arrested, attacked, or even killed. The non-profit NGO, Global Witness, documented more than 200 killings of environmental defenders in 2019 (Global Witness 2019), the majority of which took place in Latin America. It is in this context that the Escazú agreement, an innovative treaty on human rights in environmental matters, was signed by 22 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Context of the Agreement’s signature

September 2020 marked the second anniversary of the opening for signature of the Escazú Agreement at the United Nations. This little-known regional treaty, adopted in 2018 in Costa Rica, aims to strengthen the rights of those in Latin America and the Caribbean who defend the environment (CEPAL 2018). This international treaty is the object of a real campaign of disinformation, which aims to ensure that it is neither signed nor ratified. Indeed, it is since September 2018 that this important regional agreement, adopted in Costa Rica in March of the same year, was officially opened for signature by thirty-three States from the Latin America and the Caribbean (Wilson 2018).

What is the Escazú Agreement?

The Escazú Agreement is the first regional environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the first in the world to include specific provisions on environmental defenders. It aims to guarantee the full and effective implementation of the rights of access to environmental information, of public participation in environmental decision-making processes and of access to justice in environmental matters (Amnesty International 2018). In addition, it seeks international cooperation to protect the right to live in a healthy environment, which is especially important in the Latin American region as, according to the FAO, 49% of the total area of Latin America and the Caribbean is covered by forest, which corresponds to around 20% of the world’s forest area (FAO 2020). This agreement is also important because, as mentioned earlier, Latin America is one of the most dangerous regions for environmental activists, accounting for two thirds of the world assassinations of environmentalists (Greenfield and Watts 2020). The Escazú Accord was developed over a six-year period, with input from civil society and community groups. Based on Principle No. 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the treaty has three main objectives: to provide citizens with full and transparent information on activities affecting the environment; to allow citizens to have more say in how land and marine resources are used; and to ensure full legal rights and protection for environmental defenders (World Resources Institute 2018).

What are the main debates about it today?

Two years after its inception, the treaty has yet to be ratified. September 26th, 2020 was the deadline for at least eleven countries ratifying the agreement, the amount required for it to enter into force, but only ten had done so. Indeed, although negotiations were led by Chile and Costa Rica, neither country ratified the agreement, which is one of the major paradoxes and topics of debate surrounding the Escazú Agreement (Guzmán 2020). Even Chile, who currently holds the presidency of the UN summit on climate change, the COP25, has not even signed the agreement, which calls into question the country's commitment to the environment (Aguilar Córdoba 2020).

The reasons given by the Chilean government are that the text, which Chile assisted in drafting, is too ambiguous and that it would give rise to possible international requests, on the parts of European governments especially, regarding Latin American progress, and reinforce the dependency of the Latin American region to its European counterpart (Aguilar Córdoba 2020). On the other hand, and just a few hours before the ratification deadline, Chile’s president, Sebastián Piñera, assured that Chile is "totally committed" to climate change before the United Nations General Assembly (Ibidem). However, there is no legal reason, from the point of view of international law, not to sign the agreement. Rather, one could point to possible economic interests behind Chile's refusal to sign the Escazú Agreement (Gandara 2020). The treaty therefore remains open for ratification by countries that have not yet signed or ratified it, but it will be necessary to wait for this eleventh signature for it to enter into force.

The failure to ratify the treaty: a reflection about the lack of environmental preoccupations from the Latin American region

The decision from the Chilean government not to ratify the agreement drew harsh criticism from the opposition and environmental organizations. According to Amnesty International, this long waiting time before the ratification of the treaty shows a lack of interest and willingness to put in effort on the part of the governments in the region (Amnesty International 2020). Matías Asun, national director of the Greenpeace organization in Chile, criticized the government's management, accusing it of carrying out "misleading advertising" for making people believe that environmental policies are at the centre of its agenda (AFP and the Tico Times 2020).

Conclusion

Although it is a necessary step to protect environmental leaders and promote sustainable development in the region, the Escazú Agreement is not a magical remedy against environmental damages. Even in the countries that have signed and ratified the agreement, environmental decision-making remains contradictory. In Mexico, for example, the Senate that ratified the treaty also eliminated the funds for the protection mechanism for environmental defenders, which in practice leaves them even less protected (Mexico News Daily 2020). Besides, in Antigua and Barbuda, and many Central American countries, the destruction of natural barriers due to the construction of large infrastructure projects leaves them even more exposed to natural events such as the recent storms Eta and Iota (Sanders 2020).

For now, the double discourse of Latin American governments seems to show that it takes more than eleven signatures for this unprecedented instrument to really work; this change should also operate through a change of mindset and perception about a conception of development in which economic growth should not be opposed to environmental preservation and life, in all its meanings.

Originally from France, Mathilde is currently a MPhil Student in Latin American Studies at Cambridge University. Before her MPhil, she completed a BA in International Relations at King’s College London, with a focus in Latin America, which sharpened her interest in the region. She is especially interested in Latin American identity politics and minorities integration

Bibliography

AFP and the Tico Times. 2020. ‘Chile Rejects Escazú Agreement, Environmental Pact Supported by Costa Rica’. Chile Rejects Escazú Agreement, Environmental Pact Supported by Costa Rica. 23 September 2020. https://theworldnews.net/cr-news/chile-rejects-escazu-agreement-environmental-pact-supported-by-costa-rica.

Aguilar Cordoba, Andrea. 2020. ‘Why Won’t Chile Ratify Escazu Environmental Agreement?’ 25 September 2020. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/environment/why-wont-chile-ratify-escazu-environmental-agreement/1985943.

Amnesty International. 2018. ‘Americas: 12 Countries Sign Historic Environmental and Human Rights Treaty’. 27 September 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/09/americas-12-countries-sign-historic-environmental-treaty/.

———. 2020. ‘The Americas Must Not Miss Opportunity to Lead on Environmental Protection’. 26 September 2020. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/americas-oportunidad-para-proteccion-medio-ambiente/.

CEPAL, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 2018. ‘El Acuerdo de Escazú: un hito ambiental para América Latina y el Caribe’. Text. CEPAL. 2018. https://www.cepal.org/es/articulos/2018-acuerdo-escazu-un-hito-ambiental-america-latina-caribe.

FAO. 2020. ‘Forest Loss Slows in South America, Protected Areas Rise  | FAO’. 7 May 2020. http://www.fao.org/americas/noticias/ver/en/c/1274254/.

Gandara, Fernanda. 2020. ‘Escazú Treaty: “Human Rights Cannot Be Enjoyed Without a Healthy Environment”’. Chile Today (blog). 24 September 2020. https://chiletoday.cl/chile-rejects-the-escazu-agreement-that-it-originally-spearheaded/.

Global Witness. 2019. ‘Land and Environmental Defenders: Annual Report Archive’. Global Witness. 2019. https:///en/campaigns/environmental-activists/land-and-environmental-defenders-annual-report-archive/.

Greenfield, Patrick, and Jonathan Watts. 2020. ‘Record 212 Land and Environment Activists Killed Last Year’. The Guardian, 29 July 2020, sec. Environment. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/record-212-land-and-environment-activists-killed-last-year.

Guzmán, Lorena. 2020. ‘Why Chile Promoted the Escazú Agreement Then Rejected It’. Dialogo Chino (blog). 26 November 2020. https://dialogochino.net/en/climate-energy/38525-why-chile-promoted-the-escazu-agreement-then-rejected-it/.

Mexico News Daily. 2020. ‘Mexico Ratifies Treaty That Protects Rights of Environmental Activists’. Mexico News Daily (blog). 14 November 2020. https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/treaty-protects-rights-of-environmental-activists/.

Raygorodetsky, Gleb. 2018. ‘Indigenous Peoples Defend Earth’s Biodiversity—but They’re in Danger’. 16 November 2018. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/can-indigenous-land-stewardship-protect-biodiversity-/.

Sanders, Sir Ronald. 2020. ‘WORLD VIEW: We’re in a New Reality and Those Who Control the Purse Strings Need to Realise That - and Help’. 23 November 2020. http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/nov/23/world-view-were-new-reality-and-those-who-control-/.

Sierra Praeli, Yvette. 2019. ‘Latin America Saw Most Murdered Environmental Defenders in 2018’. Mongabay Environmental News. 29 August 2019. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/latin-america-saw-most-murdered-environmental-defenders-in-2018/.

Wilson, Kate. 2018. ‘The Escazu Agreement: A Case for Signature’. 27 August 2018. https://pressroom.oecs.org/the-escazu-agreement-a-case-for-signature.

World Ressources Institute. 2018. ‘RELEASE: 12 Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean Sign Historic Agreement to Protect Environmental Defenders’. World Resources Institute. 27 September 2018. https://www.wri.org/news/2018/09/release-12-countries-latin-america-and-caribbean-sign-historic-agreement-protect.

When Human Rights, the Environment and Young People Intersect: the Case of the Colombian Amazon

Source: https://images.app.goo.gl/VWy5dM2DsB17MDby6

By: Valeria Sinisi García

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao.

People often underestimate young people and by consequence, the latter can feel disenfranchised and powerless to be the change they want to see in the world. However, some decide to reject and contradict this notion and despite the, occasionally, overly bureaucratic systems in place around them, they manage to inspire, make and demand change. The young Swedish climate-activist Greta Thunberg is a very obvious example, while William Kamkwamba, a Malawian boy that at 13 saved his town from famine by building windmills that provided water and electricity, is another equally as impressive one. An instance which is not as well-known is the lawsuit filed by a group of 25 young people in 2018 against several Colombian governmental bodies and agencies for violating their constitutional rights to a healthy environment. A lawsuit which went on to rule in their favour. 

The group consisted of children, teenagers and young adults, from ages 7 to 26. They were motivated to act because of their critical view of the agenda that the Colombian government had adopted towards climate change and deforestation. Their dissent was directed especially towards the lack of regulation protecting the Colombian Amazon, which extended on a territory roughly the size of Germany and England combined. This continued disregard of the Amazon’s ecosystem was also cited in the lawsuit as already threatening the food and water security of the young plaintiffs as well as many other Colombians. Hence, they constructed their argument around their constitutional right to a healthy environment, claiming that the Presidency of the Republic - among other entities - was violating this right by not protecting the Amazon rainforest. Furthermore, they cited Colombia’s numerous international commitments, such as their obligation to “reduce the net rate of deforestation to zero in the Colombian Amazon by 2020,” present in the Paris Agreement and which they weren’t on track to achieve. Deforestation rates actually increased by 44% from 2015 to 2016, showing that the government of Colombia had not been dormant towards their environmental pledges: it had been actively going against them. 

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favour of the Amazon, making it the first time that a lawsuit of this kind had ruled favourably for the environment in Latin America. The court even succeeded in recognising the Amazon as an entity subject to the same rights as a human being. One of the plaintiffs, Camilla Bustos, said that “the ruling states the importance of protecting the rights of future generations,” a concept which has already emerged as a new and possibly more effective approach to environmental law. While this case and its verdict signalled a historic precedent in terms of climate change litigation, it isn’t the only time that individuals have tried to fight for climate justice through legal means. Reports clearly show that this branch of legal action has been growing both in importance and as a means to counter climate change in recent decades. Furthermore, the human rights argument is also being increasingly used. In 2015, the Dutch supreme court was presented with a similar case, in which the right to life proclaimed in the European convention on human rights was recognised to rule that the government of the Netherlands had a responsibility to fight climate change with greater efforts. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes an article which also states “the right to life,” which suggests that the ruling that the environment must be protected and that climate justice must be achieved could be adopted globally. 

While the right to life is recognised by international law, the right to a healthy environment still isn’t. Indeed, the intersection and interdependence between human rights and environmental protection has often been underlined by scholars, politicians and lawyers, but a clear link still hasn’t been presented in the form of a proclamation of a human right by the UN, which is arguably the most important international governing body in the world. The relationship between the two has, besides, been recognised at every level of the world’s legal systems, in both domestic cases and multilateral treaties. Furthermore, over 100 constitutions over the world, such as the Colombian one, recognise their citizens’ right to a healthy environment. In fact, the UN Environmental Programme states that human rights and a healthy environment go hand in hand, and that one does not exist without the other. Even the Paris Agreement states the undeniable interconnectivity between the two. Therefore, this poses the question as to why the UN still hesitates to globally recognise the human right to a healthy and liveable environment. 

The case brought forth by the group of 25 young people in Colombia not only succeeded in determining this crucial link, but it also served to show that age doesn’t matter when one wishes to bring about change, especially in the context of climate change. This is due to the fact that it’s the youngest generations which will start to experience some of its direst effects. The lawsuit further demanded public participation in the creation of an intergenerational plan to halt deforestation and ensure a liveable planet for Colombian citizens of the future. To fulfil this, the Supreme Court ordered the government to participate with the plaintiffs, as well as other affected communities and scientific experts, to come up with said plan together and within four months of the ruling. 

Although the court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favour, and although some efforts to uphold its ruling were initiated shortly after the ruling, the government has overall failed to deliver. After requesting a ten-month extension to deliver the plan, the proposed plan did not include any details regarding dates, persons nor agencies in charge of implementing these. Moreover, the deforestation proposal, which the Ministry of the Environment was responsible for, clearly showed its disinterest in curbing it as the only action defined was directed towards ensuring the rates did not increase. This means that according to this plan, which was also ineffective as deforestation actually rose since the ruling, it would be within regulations to cut 219,973 hectares of forests per year. The Ministry also did not allow participation from other actors, contrary to what was mandated by the Supreme Court. 

Despite the ultimate failure in its execution, this lawsuit is extremely significant in the history of environmental law and in the fight for climate justice. It recognises both the Amazon forest, one of the most important parts in the fight against climate change, as an entity with rights, as well as future Colombian generations, in what was described as “one of the most robust environmental court rulings in the world.” One of the most impressive parts of this case is the fact that it was brought forward by a group of young people, with members as young as 7 years old. They actively defied their assumed powerlessness towards the system which they believed was failing them, showing youths across the world that their voices are not always unheard. This lawsuit has undoubtedly also aided to inspire more arguments and cases of a similar nature to emerge, in what has been, and will be, a very long fight towards complete climate justice

Valeria Sinisi García is a Spanish and Italian student, in her last year of a BA in International Relations. She is a regular contributor for El Cortao' and the Regional Editor for Latin America in the student-led magazine ‘Dialogue.’ Her main research interests include climate change and its intersection with human rights, as well as issues regarding Latin America, international law, feminism, and current affairs.

Bibliography

Bryner, Nicholas. “Colombian Supreme Court Recognizes Rights of the Amazon River Ecosystem.” IUCN, May 15, 2018. https://www.iucn.org/news/world-commission-environmental-law/201804/colombian-supreme-court-r ecognizes-rights-amazon-river-ecosystem. 

DeJusticia. “Climate Change and Future Generations Lawsuit in Colombia: Key Excerpts from the Supreme Court's Decision.” Dejusticia, April 17, 2018. https://www.dejusticia.org/en/climate-change-and-future-generations-lawsuit-in-colombia-key-excerp ts-from-the-supreme-courts-decision/. 

DeJusticia.“The Colombian Government Has Failed to Fulfill the Supreme Court's Landmark Order to Protect the Amazon.” Dejusticia, April 5, 2019. https://www.dejusticia.org/en/the-colombian-government-has-failed-to-fulfill-the-supreme-courts-lan dmark-order-to-protect-the-amazon/. 

Kaminski, Isabella. “Dutch Supreme Court Upholds Landmark Ruling Demanding Climate Action.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, December 20, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/20/dutch-supreme-court-upholds-landmark-ruling-dem anding-climate-action. 

Knox, John H., and Ramin Pejan. “Introduction.” Chapter. In The Human Right to a Healthy Environment, edited by John H. Knox and Ramin Pejan, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. doi:10.1017/9781108367530.001. 

Moloney, Anastasia. “Colombia's Top Court Orders Government to Protect Amazon Forest in Landmark Case.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, April 6, 2018.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-colombia-deforestation-amazon-idUSKCN1HD21Y. 

Parker, Larissa. “Make a Healthy Climate a Legal Right That Extends to Future Generations.” The Economist, 2019. https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/09/17/make-a-healthy-climate-a-legal-right-that-extend s-to-future-generations. 

Setzer, Joana, and Rebecca Byrnes. Rep. Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2020 Snapshot. Grantham Research Institute, July 2020.https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Global-trends-in-climate-change -litigation_2020-snapshot.pdf. 

Tenreyro, Tatiana. “What's William Kamkwamba Doing In 2019? 'The Boy Who Harnessed The Wind' Inventor Is Making A Difference Globally.” Bustle. Bustle, March 1, 2019. https://www.bustle.com/p/whats-william-kamkwamba-doing-in-2019-the-boy-who-harnessed-the-win d-inventor-is-making-a-difference-globally-16103209. 

UNEP. “What Are Environmental Rights?” UNEP - UN Environment Programme. Accessed November 13, 2020.https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/environmental-rights-and-governance/what-we-do/adv ancing-environmental-rights/what. 

UN. “#YouthStats: Environment and Climate Change - Office of the Secretary-General's Envoy on Youth.” United Nations. United Nations. Accessed November 15, 2020. https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/environment-climate-change/. 

UN. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. United Nations. Accessed November 13, 2020. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.