Summary of holding
The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiffs did have standing, having alleged a breach of their fundamental, individual rights which could be redressed through a judicial order. A 4-3 majority then ordered the Presidency of the Republic, the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and other actors to develop short-, medium-, and long-term action plans to stop deforestation in, and ensure the preservation of, the Amazon by 2022.
In addition to these sweeping orders, there were at least three notable aspects of the decision: First, the Court also went as far as to recognize the Amazon as a “subject of rights,” only the second time such a designation has been made for a natural entity in Colombia. Next, the Court referenced Colombia’s international commitments – e.g., under the 2015 Paris Agreement – in its legal and scientific findings, thereby “domesticating” international law and policy. Finally, the Court – by no means a bastion of progressive jurisprudence – acknowledged that maintenance of a healthy environment is a crucial prerequisite to the enforcement of all other civil and social rights, and indeed to the very functioning of society.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- Future Generations was directly inspired by Juliana v. United States and other youth-led climate cases, and is perhaps the most successful example of such a case. In a matter of months, Dejusticia and their plaintiffs defeated procedural hurdles and convinced the highest court in Colombia to recognize the negligence of the government in allowing for environmental destruction, in contravention of the Constitution and international law. This should be inspiring to any would-be litigants who wish to pursue cases grounded in the rights of young people and future generations to health, dignity, and natural resources. Indeed, Future Generations has already inspired a similar case in Brazil to combat deforestation. However, such optimism should be tempered by the fact that none of the Court’s orders were fully implemented, and deforestation in the Amazonas region – far from being eliminated – worsened by 2022. So, this case also demonstrates the limits of climate litigation when institutional will and resources are limited.
- Nonetheless, Future Generations did succeed in bringing lots of attention to the issue of deforestation, and the Court’s ruling forced government actors to engage in community consultations and develop plans they likely would not have otherwise. Therefore, it is still a powerful example of what tutela-like cases can accomplish; young citizens directly asserting their rights against their government is always a powerful narrative, in courts and in the media.
- This litigation also succeeded in moving Colombia’s Constitution in a “green” direction, a positive development for future environmental and migration cases. Other countries in the region – including Ecuador and Bolivia – have even more ecologically-conscious constitutions and may also be promising jurisdictions within which to develop the rights of people, especially indigenous people, to a healthy environment.
- In addition to the promise of constitutional claims as they relate to the rights of movement and resettlement, climate migration litigators can also learn from how the Future Generations team established a favourable scientific record. Dr. James Hansen – a world-renowned climate scientist who also assisted with the Juliana case – submitted an amicus brief, which helped the Court accept that – with an average life expectancy of 78 years – the young plaintiffs might experience up to 2.14°C of global warming within their lifetimes. A major hurdle in climate migration litigation may be proving causality and individualized impact, so such successes in crediting climate attribution science should be carefully studied.