CDMX Mexico
Greenpeace Mexico filed an injunction against several Mexican authorities for the preparation and approval of the revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), updated in 2020, arguing that they violate the right to a healthy environment and the principle of progressivity by (i) relaxing the unconditional target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 22% in relation to the target established in 2015, (ii) increasing the business as usual (BAU) baseline, and (iii) enabling a greater emission of tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
The case was referred to a District Court (court of first instance), which dismissed the injunction, arguing that Greenpeace Mexico lacked standing. Specifically, the judge held that fundamental rights should only be recognized for legal entities if they are necessary for the fulfillment of their objectives, to protect their existence, and to ensure the free development of their activities. In the judge's opinion, legal entities like Greenpeace do not enjoy the human rights that presuppose intrinsic or natural characteristics of natural persons, including the right to a healthy environment. Therefore, it was concluded that the organization could not demand compliance with the State's obligations for the proper exercise of the right to a healthy environment through the injunction.
Greenpeace Mexico filed an appeal against the first instance ruling, which was resolved by the Eleventh Collegiate Court in Administrative Matters of the First Circuit (Mexico City).
In the judgment, the Court ruled on Greenpeace's standing and on the substance of the matter: the violation of the right to a healthy environment due to the updating of the NDC.
Regarding the plaintiff's standing, the Court reversed the decision of the lower court, ruling that the defense of the right to a healthy environment can be promoted by environmental organizations, and not only by individuals. Therefore, the Court determined that Greenpeace does have a legitimate interest, since its corporate purpose—environmental protection—places it in a special position with respect to safeguarding the right to a healthy environment. In doing so, the Court applied a broad criterion of standing consistent with the Escazú Agreement.
Regarding the substance of the matter, the Court denied the injunction, arguing that the environmental organization failed to demonstrate that the updated NDC violates the human right to a healthy environment, because it did not provide “the necessary evidence” to that effect. This disregards the fact that the Escazú Agreement mandates judges to apply measures such as the reversal of the burden of proof, which shifts the duty to prove to the plaintiff, in order to correct the imbalance (of political, technical, and economic power) between the responsible authority and the plaintiff.
Although the provisions of the Escazú Agreement were not fully observed to resolve the substance of the matter, the Mexican government took the ruling as a victory, stating that the judgment determined that the Mexican government's climate policy complies with the right to a healthy environment.
In its legal challenge, Greenpeace argued that the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted in 2020 reduced the ambition of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation efforts compared to the commitments made in 2015. Specifically, it stated that this constitutes a regressive measure that violates the right to a healthy environment because (i) it eliminates the previously stipulated peak in GHG emissions for 2026, (ii) it eliminates the targets for a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, and (iii) it fails to break down sectoral reduction contributions. Furthermore, the organization indicated that the NDCs submitted in 2020 increased the business-as-usual (BAU) baseline by 1.8%, from 973 to 991, "allowing for up to 14 million more tons of CO2e compared to the 2015 targets." Therefore, Greenpeace also argued that the commitments arising from the Paris Agreement are being violated.
In the lawsuit, the organization also highlighted the link between climate change and human rights, mentioning report A/HRC/31/52, from February 2016, by the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations related to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as well as its separate report A/74/161 of July 15, 2019. Greenpeace also referenced a precedent set by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, amparo appeal 610/2019, which recognized this link.
The district judge did not rule on the constitutionality of the NDCs submitted in 2020, but emphasized that their purpose is "to update Mexico's Nationally Determined Contribution under the General Law on Climate Change and in accordance with decisions 1/CMA.2 and 1/CP.21 and Article 4 of the Paris Agreement." It was also highlighted that this entails "reaffirming the commitments made in 2015 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and working in coordination with the international community to keep the global temperature increase below 2°C and make additional efforts to achieve 1.5°C, by establishing commitments on climate change adaptation and mitigation of Greenhouse Gases and Compounds (GHGs) at the same level of importance."
- Greenpeace Mexico.
- National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change.
- Intersecretarial Commission on Climate Change.
- General Directorate of Policies for Climate Change (the DGPCC), attached to the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.
- President of the Republic.
As the UNFCCC (UN Climate Change) secretariat has clarified, the NDCs are at the heart of the Paris Agreement and the achievement of its long-term goals. These contributions reflect each country's efforts to reduce its national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change. Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Paris Agreement requires each Party to prepare, communicate, and maintain successive NDCs that it intends to achieve. These commitments are reported to the UNFCCC every five years.
The Parties adopt national mitigation measures to achieve the objectives of these contributions. Furthermore, Article 3 of the Paris Agreement states that each signatory's subsequent NDC must represent a progression from that Party's current contribution, reflecting the highest possible ambition.
The Mexican government submitted its first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) in 2015, committing to a 22% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a 51% reduction in black carbon emissions by 2030, without conditions—that is, using its own resources. Furthermore, since the submission of this first NDC, the government has emphasized its commitment to implementing measures to address the country's vulnerability and protect its biological and cultural diversity.
In the 2019 Climate Change Performance Index , a tool for monitoring climate protection in various countries, Mexico's performance on the international stage was highlighted, emphasizing the government's proactive role in international negotiations and its participation in different international and regional partnerships. However, in the Climate Action Tracker , an independent scientific analysis that tracks government climate action and compares it to the commitments of the Paris Agreement, Mexico's updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) was categorized as "highly insufficient" because the commitments adopted by the country are not consistent with the goal of keeping global warming below 2°C.
Standards
- Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.
- Paris Agreement.
- 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
- Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
- Bali Guidelines.
- Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, also called the “Protocol of San Salvador”
- Escazú Agreement.
- General Law on Climate Change.
Beginning
- Progressivity and non-regression.
- Pro persona.
- Caution.
- In dubio pro natura.
- In dubio pro actione.
- Reversal of the burden of proof