decision

Greenpeace Argentina et. al., v. Argentina et. al. - decision

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

Greenpeace Argentina et. al., v. Argentina et. al. - Other

petition

Greenpeace Argentina et. al., v. Argentina et. al. - petition

order

Greenpeace Argentina et. al., v. Argentina et. al. - order

appeal

Greenpeace Argentina et. al., v. Argentina et. al. - appeal

opinion

Greenpeace Argentina et. al., v. Argentina et. al. - opinion

Filing Year For Action

On December 30, 2021, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development published Resolution 436/2021 approving the implementation of an offshore seismic acquisition project submitted by the Norwegian company Equinor. This approval of offshore fossil fuel exploration resulted in several lawsuits seeking an injunction to halt the project and an order declaring the approval’s regulations null and void. Some of those lawsuits are, partially, grounded on climate concerns. Other relevant cases can be found <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/guillermo-tristan-montenegro-v-ministry-of-environment-and-sustainable-development/">here</a> and <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/organizacion-de-ambientalistas-organizados-v-ministry-of-environment-and-sustainable-development/">here</a>.

On January 13, 2022, a group of NGOs filed a constitutional collective action (amparo colectivo ambiental) against the Argentinian National State and the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development for its approval of the offshore exploration activities. This case presents the climate impacts of the projects as the main grounds for its claims. Among others, plaintiffs mention that the project breaches national and international climate commitments and affects intergenerational equity, that the NDC to the Paris Agreement is insufficient, that the State is responsible not only for emissions within its territory but also for emissions arising from future fossil fuels exports, and that the Environmental Impact Assessment is flawed because it did not consider climate impacts. Notably, this claim refers to high-profile climate cases in other jurisdictions, like Urgenda (the Netherlands), Neubauer (Germany), Sharma (Australia); Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (South Africa); Gray and Gloucester Resources (Australia) and Greenpeace Nordic (Norway). 

On January 14, 2022, all the three climate lawsuits against the offshore exploration activities (together with other non-climate related cases) were combined, and the court will hand down a single judgment for all.  

On February 11, 2022, the Federal Court of Mar del Plata ordered a halt to the fossil fuel exploration activities. The order does not make any mention of climate change concerns. Instead, the judge focuses on failures regarding procedural rights (participation and information) with explicit mention of the Escazú Agreement, lack of strategic environmental assessment, and possible risk to marine biodiversity. In the decision, the precautionary principle plays a key role. On February 15, 2022, the government filed an appeal to the injunction order. In its appeal, the government is also asking for the removal of the judge from the case. On February 18, 2022, a different judge (Federal Court of Mar del Plata N.4) allowed the appeal to proceed with suspensive effect. That means that the exploration activity can go ahead until the Federal Court of Appeal revises the injunction order.  

On June 3, 2022, the Federal Court of Appeal (Federal Chamber of Mar del Plata) annulled the injunction relief delivered by the Federal Court on February 11, 2022. However, at the same time, the Court ordered the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, as a new injunction, to issue a new complementary environmental impact assessment that considers possible cumulative impacts of the activities. In this new assessment, the spatial and temporal scope of the project's implementation must be analyzed and weighed. It is also mandatory to include the participation of the National Parks Administration and to consider the results of the public consultative hearings, organized at both local (public hearing initiated on 30 May 2022), and national levels (public consultation which ended on 19 May 2022). Finally, the Court asked for the inclusion of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development in the control and monitoring of compliance with the Environmental Impact Statement and its corresponding Environmental Management Plan (a task before assumed only by the Secretary of Energy). In this sense, exploration activities should stop (again) until all these requirements are met. Climate arguments were not developed by the Court of Appeal.

On December 5, 2022, the Federal Court of Appeal (Federal Chamber of Mar del Plata) considered that the authority had met all the requirements asked in its order of June 3th. That implies the termination of the injunction and, therefore, the exploration activity can go ahead until a final decision on the merits is delivered. Climate arguments are, once again, absent in the Court of Appeal's decision. The plaintiffs announced their intention to appeal this decision before the Supreme Court. 

On January 25, 2023, the Court of Appeal declared inadmissible the appeal.

On October 4, 2023, the plaintiffs (Greenpeace et al.) asked for a new precautionary measure in response to a further governmental authorization (Resolution 19/2022, December 2022) of an exploratory activity (exploratory drill, ‘‘Argerich-1’) and changes in the exploration timeline (Resolution 17/2023, June 2023). They asked the Court for its immediate halt. Although the submission primarily focused on foreseeable impacts on biodiversity and the sea, including impacts of extraterritorial scope, it also reiterated arguments regarding the climate impacts of further producing fossil fuels. It mentioned the IACHR’s Resolution 3/2021 on Climate Emergency and the REDESCA’s Report on Business and Human Rights. 

On 4 December, 2023, the Public Prosecutor expressed his opinion on the precautionary measure requested by Greenpeace et al. Notably, the Public Prosecutor fully supported (and went even further) Greenpeace et al.’s request, focusing most of his opinion on the climate dimension of the lawsuit. Of particular interest here are his acknowledgment of the soundness of climate science (including climate attribution science) and the prominent role of fossil fuel in the problem; and his mention of the global proliferation of climate litigation, particularly right-based cases against the State and corporations. The Prosecutor referred to human rights treaties, the Paris Agreement, IPCC reports and the national Constitution as legal bases for this kind of case and observed that the IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion 23/17 reinforced this legal framework. He also noted that there is a global (transnational) consensus that climate issues are not exempt from judicial scrutiny, regardless of whether the courts’ decisions reject, support, or are deferential to the governments’ behaviours. Specifically regarding the issue at stake, the Prosecutor conducted a preliminary compatibility assessment between the State commitments under the climate regime (NDCs, long-term strategy, national mitigation plans) and the expected emissions of the consented projects. In this assessment, on the one hand, the Prosecutor noted that Argentina’s climate commitments are highly insufficient (referencing Climate Action Tracker reports) and, on the other hand, that it is not clear how the expected emissions will be consistent with the 2030 goals and the 2050 net-zero pledge. Those emissions are not speculative but foreseeable. Furthermore, according to the Prosecutor, even if the fossil fuels produced were exported, their emissions must be considered (referencing the People v. Arctic Oil case). In sum, the State must explain how the offshore fossil fuel initiatives are consistent with its climate and human rights commitments before continuing the exploratory activity. The Prosecutor also challenged a tax discount provided to the companies by the government, noting that this goes directly against the alleged reasons that justified the projects in the first place: financing the energy transition. 

On December 27, 2023, despite the Prosecutor’s opinion, the Federal Court rejected the precautionary measures requested by Greenpeace et al. In what matters here, the Court found that halting an exploratory activity is, at this point, excessive and premature. Notwithstanding this, the Court, in response to the Prosecutor’s concerns, asked the State to inform about its mitigation goals, the compatibility of the exploration and exploitation projects with those goals, and how this issue was dealt with in the environmental impact statement. 

On February 7, 2024, the plaintiffs and the Public Prosecutor appealed. These appeals were rejected by the Court of Appeal on May 10, 2024.

On March 14, 2024, the defendants —corporations and the National State— submitted their written replies to the complaint. Among other arguments, the State argued that the fossil fuel development will bring the wealth needed for the transformation of Argentina’s energy matrix. In its reply, the State alleged to have answered the Court’s petition for information. 


Greenpeace Argentina et. al., v. Argentina et. al.

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

An aim to achieve a quantifiable outcome within a given time-frame, set by an institution such as a national government.

Policy instruments are techniques or tools used by governing authorities to promote certain policies in order to achieve predetermined goals. Put simply, instruments are how a government tries to achieve its goals, with this taxonomy being focused on national policy instruments.

Risk is the potential for adverse consequences resulting from the dynamic interplay between (climate-related) hazards, exposure, and vulnerability of affected human or ecological systems.

Groups  of people who are adversely affected by climate change or the response to it

A set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.

Renewable energy means all forms of energy produced from renewable sources in a sustainable manner.

Fossil fuel is a generic term for non-renewable energy sources such as coal, fossil gas, and oil (including crude oil, and petroleum products), that can be used for electricity and heat generation. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons formed from pressurised and heated organic material buried over millions of years.

Molecules in the atmosphere that play a key role in the greenhouse effect by trapping heat radiating from Earth’s surface.

Area of the economy in which actors engage in identical or related activities.

In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate change and its effects, in order to moderate harm, increase resilience or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate change and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate change and its effects.

The management and allocation of funds, assets and investments to meet various objectives

This sector involves the wholesale and retail selling of goods.

Activities that involve the cultivation of crops and raising of livestock for food, fibre, and other products essential for human life and industry.

Either money or something of monetary value is transferred between two or more organisations, people or countries.

Coastal zone and marine-related actions and measures to adapt and increase resilience to climate change

Activities involving the catching, processing, and selling of fish for food, recreation, and industry.

A company that is owned wholly or partially by the state, typically operating in key sectors.

Climate change impacts our society by disrupting the natural, economic and social systems we depend on. Physical hazards and underlying vulnerabilities can lead to increased resource competition for food and water, which can heighten the risk of conflict.

Actions or measures to adapt freshwater, coastal and marine systems to climate change.

Activities that provide lodging, food, and entertainment services to guests, including hotels, restaurants, and resorts.

Zoning and spatial planning are both methods for guiding the distribution of people and activities in a space, and are regulatory restriction.

Activities of industries that extract natural resources, such as mining, oil, and gas, for commercial use.

Oil is a combustible liquid fossil fuel composed mainly of hydrocarbons, occurring as crude oil and refined into petroleum products such as petrol, diesel and kerosene.

Social inclusion is the process of improving the terms on which individuals and groups take part in society—improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of those disadvantaged on the basis of their identity.

Greenpeace Argentina et. al., v. Argentina et. al. - decision

Policy instrument

Risk

Just transition

Fossil fuel

Economic sector

Adaptation/resilience

Finance