Des représentants des communautés autochtones Wayuu ont présenté des plaintes constitutionnelles contre les autorités gouvernementales et une société minière (Cerrejón) pour avoir menacé leurs droits fondamentaux à l'eau, à la nourriture et à la santé en détournant une section de 3 kilomètres d'un ruisseau (Arroyo Bruno) afin d'étendre des opérations minières liées au charbon dans une région aride du département de La Guajira en Colombie. La Cour a suspendu les activités liées au projet de dérivation de cours d'eau jusqu'à ce que les différentes ordonnances soient rendues respectées par un groupe de travail judiciaire interinstitutionnel, expliquant que, bien que les opérations minières initiales aient été autorisées en 1983, ce qui les rend exemptes, ainsi que les modifications ultérieures (y compris la modification proposée pour étendre les opérations en détournant Arroyo Bruno) du cadre juridique actuel exigeant et régissant l'évaluation des incidences sur l'environnement (conformément au cadre juridique transitoire envisagé dans la loi 99 de 1993), les impacts du projet de détournement de cours d'eau n'ont pas été suffisamment évalués de façon à garantir les droits des communautés affectées à l'eau, à la nourriture et à la santé. Considérations 5.1.3 et 5.2.5.
Representantes de las comunidades indígenas Wayuu presentaron demandas constitucionales contra autoridades gubernamentales y una empresa minera (Cerrejón) por atentar contra sus derechos fundamentales al agua, la alimentación y la salud al desviar un tramo de 3 kilómetros de un arroyo (Arroyo Bruno) para expandir las operaciones mineras de carbón en una región árida del departamento de La Guajira en Colombia. La Corte suspendió las actividades relacionadas con el proyecto de desvío de arroyos hasta que las diversas órdenes sean cumplidas por un Grupo de Trabajo Interinstitucional creado judicialmente, explicando que, si bien las operaciones iniciales de extracción de carbón fueron autorizadas en 1983, lo que las hace y modificaciones posteriores (incluyendo la modificación propuesta para ampliar operaciones mediante el desvío de Arroyo Bruno) exenta del marco legal vigente que exige y rige la evaluación de impacto ambiental (de acuerdo con el marco legal transitorio contemplado en la Ley 99 de 1993), los impactos del proyecto de desvío de corriente no han sido suficientemente evaluados para garantizar los derechos de las comunidades afectadas al agua, la alimentación y la salud. Consideraciones 5.1.3 y 5.2.5.
La Corte determinó que hay varias incertidumbres relacionadas a los impactos sociales y ambientales del proyecto del desvío y las posibles amenazas que presentan para los derechos de las comunidades indígenas afectadas debido a la inadecuada identificación y estimación de varias variables relevantes antes de la autorización del proyecto del desvío del Arroyo Bruno.
Although the initial coal-mining operations were authorized in 1983, which makes them and subsequent modifications (including the proposed modification to expand operations by diverting Arroyo Bruno) exempt from the current legal framework requiring and governing environmental impact assessment (in accordance with the transitional legal framework contemplated in Law 99 of 1993), the Constitutional Court determined that the impacts of the stream-diversion project have not been sufficiently assessed to guarantee the affected communities’ rights to water, food, and health. The Court concluded that there are several uncertainties regarding the social and environmental impacts of the stream-diversion project and the potential threats they pose to the affected communities’ rights to water, food security, and health due to the authorities’ failure to adequately identify or estimate relevant variables before authorizing the stream-diversion project. Thus, the Court upheld a lower court’s injunction suspending activities related to the stream-diversion project until the following orders are complied with by a judicially created Inter-Institutional Workgroup composed of governmental and non-governmental actors: (1) ensure the participation in said Workgroup of civil society and academic actors that intervened in the judicial proceedings; (2) identify and assess the uncertainties related to the stream-diversion project in order to establish the measures that should be adopted; (3) within a month of notification of this sentence, develop a detailed schedule of the activities to be carried out, as well as the specific actor responsible for carrying out each activity, in order to identify and assess the uncertainties related to the stream-diversion project; (4) in case the Workgroup determines the stream-diversion project is environmentally viable, incorporate the conclusions resulting from its technical study of uncertainties into Cerrejón’s Integral Management Plan so that Cerrejón adopts measures to prevent, mitigate, control, compensate, and correct environmental and social impacts.
The State of Washington has violated Tribes' off-reservation fishing rights by building and maintaining culverts under State roads that harm fish habitat and reduce the production of fish. Because (1) currently there is not enough harvestable salmon available to ensure the Tribes a moderate living, (2) the State’s culverts block roughly a thousand miles of streams suitable for salmon habitat, and (3) replacing or modifying those culverts (structures built to allow streams to flow under roads) to allow fish passage would produce several hundred thousand additional mature salmon each year, the State was ordered to identify all state-owned barrier culverts and ensure those culverts allow fish passage (by differentiated deadlines depending on several ecological and economic considerations).
The National Green Tribunal suspended the environmental clearance for a proposed hydroelectric dam until a study is completed to determine the impact of the project on endangered Black-necked cranes and its habitat.
The Government of Belize violated Maya community members’ constitutional right to protection of the law by failing to ensure that the existing land law system recognized and protected Maya land rights.
The Supreme Court of Canada declared that the Tsilhqot’in Nation established title to 1,750 square kilometres of land including areas that are used for hunting, fishing, trapping, foraging and other cultural purposes or practices. The Court declared Aboriginal title holders have the “right to the benefits associated with the land – to use it, enjoy it and profit from its economic development” such that “the Crown does not retain a beneficial interest in Aboriginal title land.”
