casebook

Álvarez and Others vs. Peru

Peru

Young activists take on the Peruvian government, alleging negligence in combating Amazon deforestation. Their demands for a policy overhaul underscore the urgency of environmental action and intergenerational equity.

Credit: Information Not Available

Casebook Info

In 2019, young activists voiced concerns to the Peruvian government, highlighting perceived shortcomings in preventing Amazon deforestation. They argued that the government’s inaction compromised their right to a healthy environment. Urging swift action, they petitioned the courts to facilitate a policy overhaul. Their goal was ambitious: achieving zero deforestation in five crucial Amazon regions by 2025. Their demands included setting clear goals, developing regional plans, and suspending deforestation permits until changes were made. Their ultimate aim was to protect the Amazon’s rights, challenge the environmental state as unconstitutional, and combat climate change for the sake of their own well-being.

  • Year Filed 2019
  • Year of Most Recent Ruling 2019
  • Year of Final Ruling /
  • Jurisdiction Peru
  • Court Name Superior Court of Lima
  • Plaintiff(s) Saul Amaru Álvarez Cantoral and other six young individuals
  • Ruling On Merits
  • Respondent(s) The Peruvian Government represented by the heads of the Presidency of the Republic, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, the Ministry of Energy and Mines, the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Economy and Finance, Regional Government of Loreto, Regional Government of Ucayali, Regional Government of Madre de Dios, Regional Government of Amazonas and Regional Government of San Martin.
  • Outcome Pending
  • Decision Link to the decision/ruling

Background

In 2019, a coalition of young individuals, supported by their parents (the Plaintiffs), lodged a constitutional challenge, known as “recurso constitucional de amparo,” against the Peruvian government. Fueled by the momentum of the environmental youth movement, the Plaintiffs accused the government of neglecting its duty to prevent deforestation in the Amazon. The implications extended beyond the present, impacting the rights of future generations, particularly Peruvians born between 2005 and 2011, who faced significantly worsening conditions. The government’s inaction signified an inadequate lack of commitment to address climate change and safeguard constitutionally protected fundamental rights.

The Plaintiffs presented three compelling arguments. Firstly, they asserted that the government fell short in implementing adequate measures to combat deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon, as mandated by the National Policy on the Environment and the National Policy on Forest and Wildlife. Secondly, they argued for a critical overhaul of environmental protection policies, emphasizing their inefficiency in addressing and mitigating the imminent threat of climate change—a direct peril to human survival. The Plaintiffs emphasized the heightened vulnerability of those born between 2005 and 2011, supported by scientific evidence. Lastly, they contended that the alleged failure of the government to halt Amazon deforestation amounted to a violation of their R2HE—rights to life, water, and health. Their legal framework drew from the Peruvian Constitution, the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and Additional Protocols, the Green Law of the Environment, and the Interamerican Democratic Charter (IDC).

The Plaintiffs urged the Court to compel the government to revamp its public policies, aiming for zero net annual deforestation by 2025. They proposed achieving this through the implementation of regional and national measures focused on both mitigation and adaptation, specifically targeting the effects of deforestation in Peru’s five key Amazonian regions—Loreto, Ucayali, Madre de Dios, Amazonas, and San Martin—aimed at combatting climate change.

The young Plaintiffs requested:

  1. The President, the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, and the Ministry of Finance establish clear goals and objectives to achieve zero net deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon by 2025.
  2. An order for the regional governments of Loreto, Ucayali, Madre de Dios, Amazonas, and San Martin to establish regional action plans by 2025. These plans should include climate change adaptation and mitigation measures, aiming to reduce net deforestation to zero.
  3. A suspension of deforestation permits on public lands in Peru’s Amazonian regions until the national and regional plans are formulated. The enforcement would fall on the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation.
  4. That the Peruvian Amazon be recognized as an entity entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration.
  5. Sought a declaration that the state of environmental conservation in the Peruvian Amazon violates the constitution.

Though filed in December 2019, the case remains pending as of January 5, 2023, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

  • Global Youth Climate Movement Plaintiffs were inspired and are part of the global movement of youth activists bringing R2HE challenges cenetered on intergenerational equity and the rights of children.
  • Article 2.22 The provision of the Peruvian Constitutuion that guarantees R2HE
  • Rights of Nature The Plaintiffs push the Court to draw inferences and expand their conception of a rights-holder to “nature” in and of itself based upon international legal developments.

Plaintiff Strategies & Court Good Practices

Using an established domestic body of law

Using an established domestic body of law

Article 2.22 of the Peruvian Constitution guarantees the right to “a balanced and suitable environment” for every individual (R2HE). Additionally, Law no. 28611, known as the General Law of the Environment, reinforces R2HE and establishes the fundamental principles and guidelines necessary for the efficient management and safeguarding of the environment. The Plaintiffs contended that R2HE held both constitutional and conventional status, emphasizing its role as a normative principle geared toward achieving an optimal balance—an environment conducive to the advancement of both individuals and communities.

Using an established international body of law to support R2HE

Using an established international body of law to support R2HE

To strengthen their argument regarding the recognition of R2HE as an established principle, the Plaintiffs referenced global and regional agreements to which Peru is a signatory. These include Article 12.2 of the International Pact of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 11 of the Additional Protocol of the ACHR, Article 3 of the Code of Children and Adolescents, and Article 15 of the IDC. Notably, the IDC emphasizes the crucial need for states to actively safeguard the environment for both present and future generations.

The Plaintiffs contended that Peru’s interpretation of R2HE should align with the international human rights treaties ratified by the state. They pointed to the Fourth of the Constitution’s Final and Transitory Provisions, which mandate that the Peruvian judiciary adopts this approach. Upon ratification, international human rights treaties become integrated into national law.

Connecting R2HE to the rights of nature (RoN)

Connecting R2HE to the rights of nature (RoN)

The Plaintiffs argue that although the country’s legal system doesn’t explicitly acknowledge nature as a rights holder, such recognition can be inferred through a progressive interpretation of the Constitution and international human rights law. This notion has found acceptance in other jurisdictions like Colombia, Ecuador, and New Zealand. The legal doctrine concerning the rights of nature is continually evolving in response to the ongoing global ecological and economic crisis.

Focusing on youth

Focusing on youth

Inspired by the likes of Great Thunberg and the environmental youth movement, the rights of youth and future generations are central to the litigation. The Plaintiffs argue that within the framework of sustainable development, three key elements or sub-principles emerge: a) intergenerational equity, b) sustainable utilization of natural resources, and c) the integration of environment and development. Notably, the Plaintiffs emphasize the significance of focusing on the sub-principle of intergenerational equity, underscoring that  “the minor Plaintiffs are the ones who will participate in the future political, social, and economic life of the Republic.”

Utilizing a variety of legal arguments

Utilizing a variety of legal arguments

The Plaintiffs said the government’s conduct violated the constitutional right to human dignity, to life and conditions of dignified existence, to a life plan, to health, and to water. The Plaintiffs claim that the government’s actions violate several constitutional rights, including the right to human dignity, to life and conditions of dignified existence, to a life plan, to health, and to water. A healthful natural environment is necessary for the dignified existence of a human being. R2HE is required for their complete development as individuals with dignity and as members of society. Therefore, R2HE is intricately linked to the other fundamental rights for their full realization.

Emphasizing the State’s duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations

Emphasizing the State's duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations

The purpose of public policies is to satisfy human rights. The Plaintiffs cited a Constitutional Court precedent stating that R2HE consists of two elements: (1) the right to enjoy the environment; and (2) the right to preserve the environment. The second component requires that the state, as the guarantor, protect and preserve the environment, ensuring that suitable conditions are maintained for everyone’s enjoyment. This obligation extends to both public authorities and individuals, especially those whose economic activities have direct or indirect impacts on the environment.

According to the Constitutional Court in the case STC. Exp. Nº 03228-2012-PA/TC, the mere recognition of fundamental rights in a legal sense is insufficient. Appropriate legislative, economic, and technical measures are necessary to achieve these rights progressively. Public decision-making through policies is essential for the realization of these rights.

Therefore, Peru has a constitutional obligation to establish and implement a well-designed public policy on environmental and forestry matters. These policies must aim to preserve the environment and enhance its protection. As part of this duty, the state must avoid taking any actions that could harm the environment and adopt all necessary measures to protect it. The precautionary principles require the State to act and implement technical measures to assess potential harm to the environment.

Take Aways

Álvarez represents one among several youth-driven climate cases brought before national courts in recent years, paralleling the surge of the youth climate movement. The argument posits that the state’s environmental public policies inadequately address the escalating crisis, imperiling human survival. Court intervention is advocated as indispensable to secure favorable conditions not just for the present generation but also for their descendants. While the outcome remains uncertain, the Plaintiffs enjoy certain advantages due to Peru’s constitutional protections, integration of international human rights law, and the recognized emphasis on intergenerational equity.

Terms

Element

Safe Climate

R2HE includes a safe climate among its substantive elements. A safe climate is one where the adverse effects of climate change are mitigated to safeguard fundamental human rights, such as the rights to life, health, food, water, housing and R2HE. While there isn’t a universally recognized and legally binding "right to a safe climate," there is a growing movement advocating for the recognition of such a right.
Strategy

Connecting R2HE to the rights of nature (RoN)

Recognizing that R2HE includes protections for nature and the “rights of nature” in virtue of its intrinsic value, not solely because it holds instrumental value for human use. This strategy makes full achievement of R2HE dependent on the recognition and defense of nature’s rights.
Strategy

Emphasizing the State's duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations

Invoking a government’s affirmative obligations under national and/or international law to regulate and implement policy to advance and monitor the protection of R2HE. One common instance of this strategy appears in the climate change context, where a plaintiff might argue that the government has taken insufficient action to mitigate climate change or reduce emissions. Another common context is that of corporate pollution, which might prompt a plaintiff to argue the government did not do enough to ensure a polluter’s compliance with environmental standards.
Strategy

Focusing on youth

Emphasizing the disproportionate and inequitable vulnerability of young people, children and/or future generations to climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. This emphasis is often articulated through the principles of Intergenerational Equity and Sustainable Development, which generally provide that governments and other entities must ensure the basic needs and rights of future generations when making decisions that bear on the environment. Additionally, the principles suggest that all individuals have a responsibility to care for future generations by limiting environmental degradation and consumption in the present.
Strategy

Reinforcing the status of the R2HE as a fundamental and independent human right

Recognizing R2HE as a standalone human right – that is, a human right that does not depend on or emerge from any other human right or source, but which exists independently and self-sufficiently. Recognition of R2HE as a fundamental and independent human right can be accomplished, for example, by invoking the UN Resolutions on R2HE.
Strategy

Using an established domestic body of law

Invoking well-established national laws, norms and/or legal principles in support of arguments related to R2HE. Where R2HE is present in a country’s constitution, the constitution will serve as the primary authoritative source for the right. Other, secondary sources of established domestic law commonly include statutory law and requirements governing public participation and/or the assessment of environmental risks. Environmental principles enshrined in domestic sources of law – for example, the precautionary principle – may also be emphasized to further the protection of R2HE.
Strategy

Using an established international body of law to support R2HE

Relying on well-established international treaties, norms and principles in making arguments advancing and protecting R2HE. Commonly cited international bodies of law include UN Reports, jurisprudence from international and/or regional courts, General Comments by UN bodies, Declarations and more.

Intergenerational Equity

This international and environmental law principle provides that States and other entities must regard the impact of their public policies on the environment on present and future generations equally. In other words, actions that allow present generations to meet their needs and wants but sacrifice the ability of future generations to meet their basic needs and live lives of dignity contravene Intergenerational Equity.

Precautionary Principle

This environmental law principle provides that, where there exists a risk of serious and/or irreversible harm, scientific uncertainty about the extent of the harm or about the exact consequences of a particular action or process does not justify failing to implement measures to combat associated risks of environmental degradation or destruction. In other words, in the face of scientific uncertainty, authorities should still take measures to address environmental threats.

Prevention Principle

This environmental law principle provides that states and other actors must take meaningful steps to avoid environmental harms before they occur. In other words, if there is a tangible risk of environmental harm that is imminent and demands an emergency response, authorities are obliged to implement the necessary measures before damage is caused to the environment.

Sustainable Development

This concept and guiding principle provides that states should pursue measures that allow present generations to meet their essential needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. Moreover, it recognizes the need for states to work towards their economic development while also ensuring the realization and protection of fundamental human rights. Consequently, a state seeking to achieve Sustainable Development goals is not excused from compliance with its human rights obligations, such as the duty to guarantee the R2HE.