judgment

Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of river Pirá Paraná “ACAIPI” v. Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and others - judgment

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

petition

Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of river Pirá Paraná “ACAIPI” v. Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and others - petition

ruling

Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of river Pirá Paraná “ACAIPI” v. Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and others - ruling

Filing Year For Action

On July 15, 2022, the Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and the Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of river Pirá Paraná “ACAIPI” filed a tutela arguing the violation of their fundamental and human rights to self-determination, cultural integrity, autonomous governing and territory. Defendants in this case are the private companies that are implementing REDD+ projects in their territory and the environmental authorities in charge of authorizing and monitoring the projects. 

Plaintiffs argue that the REDD+ projects violate their fundamental and human rights as a result of (i) a lack of human rights due diligence by the private companies, and (ii) the failure of the government to protect their rights. Plaintiffs contend that all climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, projects and programs must protect and ensure the enjoyment of Indigenous fundamental rights in their respective territories. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that the Colombian legal framework ought to incorporate human rights’ standards regarding the implementation of REDD+ projects to ensure mitigation measures that aim towards environmental protection do not violate human rights. Likewise, plaintiffs assert that due diligence conducted by the private companies must include human rights’ standards, which was not the case. Plaintiffs argue that the private companies deliberatively ignored and excluded the Indigenous authorities.

The case was first heard by a judge, who rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments. The judge’s reasoning is based on the subsidiary nature of the tutela mechanism, which is an expedite procedure only available in case regular mechanisms are inadequate to ensure the protection of the plaintiffs’ rights. The judge found that the plaintiffs have indeed other judicial mechanisms to challenge the defendants’ actions and declared that the tutela was not adequate in this case. Plaintiffs filed an appeal and the Administrative Tribunal upheld the judge’s decision. 

On April 28, 2023, the Colombian Constitutional Court (the Court) exercised its judicial review and selected this case for review. The case will now be heard by the Court’s Justices, who will have the opportunity to study the REDD+ projects for the first time, in what could become a precedent for other carbon emission and climate change mitigation activities particularly regarding Indigenous communities’ rights. The Court deemed it important to provide a clear judicial guideline as to the way these and similar projects are being implemented as well as whether the tutela is the adequate mechanism to challenge the projects, especially with regard to Indigenous rights.

On June 25, 2024, the Constitutional Court found that the plaintiffs' rights to self-determination, cultural integrity, autonomous governing and territory had been violated. The Court found that the private companies charged with developing the project failed to exercise due diligence by failing to (i) include domestic and international human rights standards, (ii) obtain free, prior and informed consent, and (iii) effectively monitor the potential harms derived from the project. The Court also underscored the importance of applying an ethnic perspective to all REDD+ projects to ensure the protection of Indigenous rights.

The Court acknowledged the importance of REDD+ projects in the fight against climate change. The Court stated that these projects constitute a viable option for sustainable forest management as well as Indigenous communities' governance, if done adequately. The Court ordered an open dialogue so Indigenous peoples can decide whether and if so, how to implement the REDD+ project in their territory in a way that guarantees the protection of their rights. Further, the Court ordered the creation and implementation of a protocol for future projects that applies an ethnic perspective and allows for monitoring the implementation of REDD+ projects in Indigenous and collective territories.

Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council and Association of Indigenous Traditional Authorities of river Pirá Paraná “ACAIPI” v. Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and others