Colombia’s Supreme Court rules that rampant deforestation in the Amazon violates youth plaintiffs’ right to a healthy environment and orders historic Intergenerational Pact for the forest’s protection.
Twenty-five youth plaintiffs represented by Dejusticia filed a petition against the Colombian government and others, challenging the surge in deforestation despite the state’s net-zero goal outlined in the National Development Plan following the Paris Agreement. The dispute centered on whether deforestation violated the plaintiffs’ right to a healthy environment (R2HE), jeopardizing their fundamental rights to life, health, food and water. Despite an initial setback in the lower court, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, recognizing the interconnectedness between environmental integrity and human rights. Notably, the Court declared the Colombian Amazon a rights holder entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration. The Court ordered the government to develop comprehensive plans to achieve net-zero deforestation by 2020 and establish an intergenerational pact with the plaintiffs and other stakeholders, underscoring the imperative link between environmental sustainability and preserving human dignity and well-being.
As a part of the Paris Agreement, the Colombian government committed to a net-zero deforestation goal in its 2014 to 2018 National Development Plan, aiming to safeguard biodiversity, carbon sequestration and ecosystem services. Despite these intentions, deforestation surged by 44% in Colombia in 2015, putting over 1,100 species of plants and animals in the Colombian Amazon in ongoing danger and undermining the State’s Nationally Determined Contribution to greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. Deforestation activities –ranging from land grabbing to illicit crop production and mining to infrastructure development, industrial agriculture and illegal logging– significantly contributed to the alarming trend.
Twenty-five youth plaintiffs, represented by Dejusticia, initiated a legal action known as a tutela, seeking to protect and uphold their and Colombians’ fundamental rights. They emphasized the exacerbating effects of deforestation on climate change, environmental degradation and crucial ecosystem services. The plaintiffs argued that their and future generations’ right to a healthy environment (R2HE) was infringed, thereby jeopardizing their rights to life, health, food and water. Should the plaintiffs live out their full lives, on average 78 years, they would be entering old age as Colombia was expected to face 2.14C of warming.
Holding the respondents responsible for safeguarding their fundamental rights, the plaintiffs pointed out that most deforestation occurred in areas under the respondents’ control. Given the intricate inter-institutional nature of deforestation and environmental regulation, as well as the constitutional implications involved, the plaintiffs argued for the appropriateness of the tutela over a “popular action.” They urged the State respondents to develop an action plan within six months, outlining a strategy to completely eliminate Amazonian deforestation in Colombia by 2020. They also requested an order for the President to collaborate with the plaintiffs and other representatives of future generations to establish an international agreement on deforestation and greenhouse gas emission reduction measures.
Although the plaintiffs initially faced defeat in the lower court, they appealed to the Supreme Court in February 2018. By April that year, the Supreme Court overturned the decision, acknowledging that “fundamental rights of life, health, the minimum subsistence, freedom, and human dignity are substantially linked and determined by the environment and the ecosystem.” Going beyond this recognition, the Supreme Court declared the Colombian Amazon a rights holder, entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration. It underscored that Amazonian deforestation posed an imminent threat to present and future Colombians by directly deteriorating the environment and indirectly exacerbating climate change, which alters the water cycle and diminishes biodiversity. The Court emphasized that the declining vitality and depleted life of the Amazon forest directly undermined the related and equivalent rights of human beings, including the right to life, health, minimum subsistence, freedom and human dignity.
In response to the plaintiffs’ requests, the Supreme Court ordered the government to devise short-, medium- and long-term plans to achieve net-zero deforestation by 2020 and to establish an intergenerational pact with the plaintiffs, affected communities and scholars. Furthermore, Amazonian municipalities were called upon to revise local plans to incorporate measures to reduce deforestation.
The plaintiffs lodged a tutela, a legal recourse to safeguard fundamental, constitutionally protected rights. Despite the respondents’ calling the action inappropriate, the plaintiffs contended that they could pursue a tutela so long as they could establish a connection between the respondents’ actions and the collective rights that were infringed. A tutela requires (1) demonstrating a link between the action and the violation of fundamental rights; (2) proving that the plaintiff filing the tutela is directly affected; (3) substantiating the violation of the fundamental right; and (4) showing that a judicial order can reinstate the individual right. The plaintiffs argued that the collective R2HE was intertwined with the individual plaintiffs’ rights to life, health, water and food. Their individual rights were subordinate to the collective R2HE violated by the respondents. As youths, the plaintiffs had standing because they would bear the brunt of environmental degradation and global warming resulting from the respondents’ failure to fulfill their obligations. The imminent threat to their fundamental rights necessitated immediate judicial intervention.
The Court sided with the plaintiffs, acknowledging the youths’ standing to demand the enforcement of the collective R2HE to safeguard their individual rights. Moreover, the precautionary principle compelled the Court to consider the potential irreparable harm stemming from Amazonian deforestation, emphasizing the need to address future damage. Scientific studies forecasting the dire consequences provided ample factual evidence that fundamental rights such as life, health, subsistence, freedom and human dignity were in jeopardy. These rights are intrinsically linked to the environment and ecosystem. The case at hand posed profound legal questions and complexities. Recognizing the interconnectedness of rights and their vital role in sustaining present and future generations, families, society and the State, the Court deemed the tutela appropriate.
The plaintiffs highlighted Colombia’s international commitments, such as its Nationally Determined Contributions and National Development Plan (Law 1753) following the 2015 Paris Agreement. They argued that the government had failed to meet its obligations to reduce deforestation and emissions, which it had pledged to eliminate by 2020.
Furthermore, they reinforced their arguments by suggesting that the Court should consider various international agreements and declarations that informed the legal principles and rights to be considered by the Court. They pointed to agreements like the Stockholm Declaration, Rio Declaration, UNFCCC and Brundtland Report, which stressed the importance of sustainable development and fairness across generations. They also highlighted principles such as precaution, prioritizing nature’s interests, solidarity, the right to participate in environmental decisions and children’s rights.
The Court acknowledged the emergence of both hard and soft international environmental laws. These not only impose obligations but also influence national legislation. Agreements such as the 1992 Rio Conference —aiming to achieve an environmentally balanced world— and the Paris Agreement — binding countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming— were notable examples.
The plaintiffs leaned on studies from scientific bodies like IDEAM and received amicus curiae support from scientific institutions to emphasize the crucial need to protect the Amazon. They argued that safeguarding this region was essential to mitigate global warming and uphold the fundamental rights and interests of both current and future generations. Convinced by the scientific evidence presented, the Court invoked principles such as the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity and the principle of participation. These principles compelled the Court to act, ensuring that the consequences do not unduly burden the plaintiffs and others in similar circumstances.
The plaintiffs invoked the principle of solidarity, seeking to extend it beyond human beings to encompass all living creatures. They argued that the planet’s inhabitants deserve protection as individuals and are integral to the “common planet.”
Deforestation and climate change threaten all species in the Amazon, thereby endangering the integrity of Earth’s ecosystem. The Court concurred, rejecting an anthropocentric perspective as arrogant and irresponsible regarding conserving environmental resources and acknowledging the interconnectedness of all entities with one another and humankind. The Court concluded that everyone is “obligated to stop thinking about [their] self-interest” and consider the interrelation between human society and nature. It recognized that the rights of future generations emanate from the same source as the rights of nature, emphasizing the ethical duty to stand in solidarity with all species.
The fundamental rights of youth and future generations took center stage in the case, as the plaintiffs argued that present government inaction and actions violated their future fundamental rights. They urged the Court to consider the principle of intergenerational equity, given its place within the framework of sustainable development. The plaintiffs emphasized that future generations would inherit and rely on the same rights to a healthy environment, life and health, among others, that current generations possess. Therefore, their rights, particularly children’s, should be a primary concern for the Court.
The Court agreed, recognizing the existence of a binding legal relationship where the rights of future generations must be safeguarded. Any actions or omissions that jeopardize the well-being of children and future generations necessitate environmental commitments to preserve ecosystem integrity and natural resources.
In addition to international instruments establishing “hard” commitments or outlining “soft” law, the Court emphasized Colombia’s overarching obligation of cooperation and service to the international community. Colombia bore a national and global responsibility to safeguard the Amazon, referred to as the “lung of the world.” The principle of solidarity extended beyond the plaintiffs, creating a shared responsibility for Colombia, as a member of the international community, to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and combat Amazonian deforestation. The obligation to protect R2HE extended not only to the plaintiffs and those residing in the Colombian Amazon or Amazon region but to all citizens, foreigners, members of the global community, ecosystems and every living being.
Following the Paris Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2015, Colombia and its Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development committed to achieving net-zero deforestation in the Amazon by 2020. Both national legislation and international agreements imposed a legally binding obligation on State authorities to fulfill this commitment. Actions of other private actors, whether engaged in deforestation through illegal or legal means, did not absolve the State of its duties. State authorities were mandated to mitigate and rectify environmental harms and the plaintiffs argued that the authorities’ failure to fulfill their obligations amounted to neglect of their duties. The Court concurred, citing the escalating deforestation rates as evidence of the government’s ineffectiveness, resulting in a violation of the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights. The respondents, which included environmental authorities, failed in their duties to assess, regulate and monitor natural resources and to penalize violators.
The plaintiffs contended that R2HE was a collective right that implicated individual rights they could assert through the tutela action. They emphasized that R2HE holds a “superior interest” distinct from other rights. The Constitutional Court had previously underscored that R2HE is rooted in constitutional norms —Articles 1, 2, 8 and 366 of the Colombian Constitution— and is considered a “juridical good,” rendering it a fundamental obligation and objective of the State. All individuals have the right to enforce the realization and protection of this right through legal means. The Constitutional Court had clearly articulated that “the protection of the environment as a constitutional right, [is] intimately linked to life, health and physical, spiritual and cultural integrity; and […] demands from the authorities and individual’s actions aimed at its protection and guarantee.” The Court determined that the respondents’ actions and omissions were ineffective and inadequate in fulfilling their constitutional and legislative obligations, thereby infringing upon the plaintiffs’ R2HE.
The case illuminates the Colombian government’s failure to address deforestation in the Amazon, resulting in violations of the plaintiffs’ and future generations’ fundamental rights, notably R2HE. Despite being one of the most robust environmental court rulings globally, the government did not fully implement the Court’s orders. Nevertheless, the ruling illustrates a trend in environmental strategic litigation, showcasing successful youth-led challenges against governments to future environmental harms.
