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