A 2019 report released today by the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) clearly demonstrates that people who protect the environment and human rights are increasingly being monitored, threatened, harassed – and even murdered.
The civil society democratic space is shrinking. Since 2012 more than 70 countries have introduced legal restrictions aimed at citizens involved in civil society organisations. The situation has become increasingly dangerous for people fighting for democracy, environmental protection and human rights. People who defend nature are particularly vulnerable.
…The report presents the results of a comprehensive study carried out by the SSNC … based on testimonies given by 25 environmental organisations around the world with whom SSNC collaborate:
• 88 percent … state that the situation for civil society … has deteriorated in recent years.
• 80 percent state that they find it difficult to carry out their activities as planned…
• 24 percent state that employees or individuals from the organisation’s target groups have been killed as a result of their environmental work.
• 52 percent state that they can give examples of when they or their target groups have been harassed or threatened by private companies.
• 68 percent perceive that decision-makers … regard the environmental movement as a threat.
On 27 March 2026, Pablo López Alavez was released following a ruling by the High Court of Justice of the State of Oaxaca on appeal. The decision revised the legal classification of the offences and imposed a sentence of 15 years and 3 months imprisonment for the offence of simple homicide. Taking into account the time the human rights defender had spent in detention since his arbitrary arrest on 15 August 2010, the court considered the sentence to have been served and ordered his immediate release. Although the sentence remains in force, his release represents a significant step forward after more than 15 years of detention. Due to concerns for Pablo’s safety and that of his family, as well as for security reasons, this information is only being made public now.
Pablo has been released after a fight for justice and freedom of over 15 years, led by his wife, the woman human rights defender Yolanda Pérez Cruz, and organisations from the state of Oaxaca, as well as Mexican and international civil society organizations. Activists, collectives and human rights organisations celebrate the release of our colleague Pablo López Alavez, a Zapotec forest defender originally from the community of San Isidro Aloapam, Oaxaca. This long journey would not have been possible without the support and solidarity shown from all corners of the world. We thank all the organisations, individuals and collectives who never gave up on their efforts and commitment to securing his release over the course of more than 15 years. We thank the international bodies for their sensitivity in highlighting the political use of the criminal justice and the prison system to criminalise and impose prolonged punishment on human rights defenders in Mexico.
His family were forcibly displaced from their community due to the constant and serious threats they have faced as a result of their struggle for justice and the defence of human rights: so they are currently under protective measures granted by the Oaxaca State Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office (DDHPO). We emphasise that Pablo’s detention and his family’s forced displacement have had profound impacts on their well-being, including chronic illnesses, cultural and community displacement, as well as the necessity of having to learn Spanish against their will and adapt to an urban, mestizo environment.
The fight for justice continues. We, the undersigned organisations, call on the Federal Judiciary to conduct a thorough review of the case, as the ruling that convicted him lacks a solid basis. In order to put an end to the criminalisation that the defender has faced for more than 15 years, an acquittal must be issued in favour of the forest defender and comprehensive measures must be adopted to provide redress for the harm caused. This implies ensuring that the authorities responsible for the serious violations committed against him are properly investigated, prosecuted and punished, as well as implementing all necessary measures to protect his physical integrity and psychological well-being, as well as that of his family and the organisations that have supported them. Finally, our organisations emphasise the obligation of the Mexican authorities to establish robust guarantees of non-repetition.
The conviction was issued without taking into account the serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution. Nor did it give due consideration to the evidence presented by the defence, which demonstrated that the human rights defender was elsewhere when the events of which he was accused took place.
Nine years after the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issuedOpinion 23/2017, which concluded that Pablo’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary and motivated by his legitimate work in environmental defence; and that, similarly, in December 2020, a group of United Nations Special Rapporteurs issued the joint communication UA MEX 14/2020 calling for his release and the adoption of comprehensive reparatory measures; both of these opinions by international United Nations experts remain unfulfilled.
We therefore demand that the State of Mexico, in compliance with its international obligations, put an end to the serious and systematic violations of the rights of the forest defender Pablo López Alavez, and we call on the authorities to:
Comply immediately with the recommendations set out in Opinion 23/2017 and UN Urgent Action UA MEX 14/2020, including comprehensive redress and guarantees of non-repetition;
Overturn the conviction issued on 27 March 2026 and acquit Pablo López Alavez, given the lack of a proper assessment of the evidence, which resulted in his wrongful imprisonment and prevented him from continuing to defend the territory;
Ensure comprehensive and effective protection measures for him and his family, who remain under constant harassment and threat;
Refrain from the misuse of criminal law against defenders of the territory and indigenous peoples, and ensure that no unfounded criminal proceedings are initiated or pursued on the grounds of the legitimate exercise of their defence of human rights.
On 17 July 2026 UN experts expressed concern over the arrest and detention of five Indigenous human rights defenders in Assam, warning that the charges against them could undermine the legitimate work of those defending Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the context of business activities.
“We are deeply concerned by reports that Indigenous human rights defenders have been deprived of their liberty in connection with their peaceful advocacy on behalf of Indigenous communities’ lands and rights,” the experts said. “Such arrests and prosecutions can have a chilling effect on civic space and discourage others from speaking out against abuses.”
Assam Police reportedly arrested Pranab Doley, Rajib Pegu, Brijit Kutum, Amit Nag and Bhaskar Saikia in connection with protests on 29 June 2026 concerning the planned construction of a luxury tourism project in Inglay Pathar, near Kaziranga National Park. The project is reportedly linked to an agreement between the Assam Government and Juniper Hotels, and associated with the Hyatt group.
In its recent report, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights noted that threats, arrests, surveillance, retaliation and legal harassment can undermine the safety and ability of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous human rights defenders to participate freely in processes concerning business activities.
“States must ensure human rights defenders are able to exercise their right to protect, defend and promote human rights and carry out their work safely and without fear of intimidation, reprisals or criminalisation,” the experts said.
They expressed concern regarding reports that the local police responsible for these arrests have previously been associated with allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and urged authorities to ensure that all detained human rights defenders are treated with dignity and that their rights are fully protected.
The experts called for the immediate release of the detained defenders if their detention is linked solely to the peaceful exercise of their rights, urged authorities to ensure any criminal proceedings fully comply with international human rights standards, and called on authorities to suspend any land acquisition or development until affected Indigenous communities have been meaningfully consulted and their free, prior and informed consent has been obtained.
The Inter-American Court’s climate Opinion requires States across Latin America and the Caribbean to apply the standards of the Escazú Agreement—even if they have not yet ratified the treaty.
In a Blog Post Published on 2 july, 2026Luisa Gómez, Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, explains that one year after the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency, the debate is no longer whether countries across Latin America and the Caribbean must protect environmental defenders. That question has already been answered. The Court confirmed that all Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS)—to which the Advisory Opinion directly applies—must implement the highest standards of protection for those defending the environment.
To define those standards, the Court drew extensively on the Escazú Agreement, the first legally binding regional treaty promoting environmental democracy. In doing so, it reinforced the treaty’s significance, even in countries that have not yet ratified it, including Peru, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. The implication is clear: these States can no longer treat Escazú’s standards as external, optional, or irrelevant.….
The incorporation of Escazú’s standards into the Inter-American corpus juris marks an important step toward strengthening access rights and protections for environmental defenders in the context of the climate crisis.
But no Advisory Opinion changes reality on its own. These decisions generate change when they are used in litigation, legislative reform, public debate, and collective organizing to ensure that human rights standards addressing the climate crisis translate into concrete protections for those defending the environment.
Recently, in the Province of Mendoza, Argentina, a significant development unfolded regarding criminal charges against environmental defenders protesting against mining activities. Public authorities, citing the Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, requested the suspension of the prosecution. They argued that continuing with the charges would be unconstitutional and could criminalize social protest and environmental advocacy.
One year later, the true measure of the Advisory Opinion’s impact will not be found in its pages, but in how judges, legislators, communities, and environmental defenders use it to strengthen protections for both the environment and the people who defend it.
Click here to dive deeper into the practical uses of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion on the climate emergency.
Women human rights and environmental defenders face escalating repression simply because of their gender and need stronger international protections to continue their work, Right Livelihood Laureates warned at a United Nations side event last week.
The event, organised by Right Livelihood as part of the Women Laureates Hub and Exile Project programmes during the 62nd session of the UN Human Rights Council, brought together Laureates and international experts to examine the specific threats and challenges faced by women activists solely because of their gender.
“Gender apartheid” in Afghanistan
“Human rights defenders in general are the core or the most important element of a democratic society,” said Dr Sima Samar, a 2012 Laureate and former Minister for Women’s Affairs of Afghanistan. “Among them, women human rights defenders are the main ingredient of democracy. We cannot say that ‘There’s democracy, but women should be at home,’ like the Taliban does in Afghanistan.” In her country, a total of 160 laws, decrees and orders have been passed to suppress women’s rights. Those include a ban on women working outside the home and on girls receiving an education beyond 6th grade.
“It is a crime against humanity – that is why we call it gender apartheid,” Samar said, calling for the codification of gender apartheid in the Convention on Crimes Against Humanity. She also warned that some European countries are beginning to normalise the Taliban’s restrictions by framing them as cultural or religious practices. “It’s not our religion, it’s not our culture,” Samar said. “Please, do not use the excuse of respecting the culture and religion in Afghanistan.”
Women environmental defenders also face heightened risks compared to their male counterparts, warned Diana Nabiruma, Programmes and Communications Manager at 2022 Laureate organisation Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO).
“In Uganda today, unfortunately, what we see is that laws are used to repress not only environmental and human rights defenders but women in particular,” Nabiruma said. Uganda currently has five laws restricting civic freedoms and activist work, including a recently passed law on foreign funding.
Nabiruma has observed stark differences in how men and women environmental defenders are treated, especially by authorities. “Women do not speak up; women are more repressed than men are,” she said. “When they protest, they are asked, ‘Who will marry you? You’re a terrible person!’ There’s a lot of anti-gender rhetoric, which forces women to become silenced, so they don’t demand their rights to be protected.”
A “problem for democracy,” not just for women
Eva Zillen, Senior Adviser at the Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation, a Swedish organisation that received the 2002 Right Livelihood Award, said that their 2026 report on the situation of women and queer rights activists in conflict-affected countries confirmed many of the trends her fellow Laureates were witnessing on the ground. One striking finding: for the first time since 2008, fewer activists reported feeling threatened. This isn’t progress, the organisation said, just an indication that digital hate speech has become so normalised that it’s no longer recognised as a threat. “A lot of activists are withdrawing: self-silencing has become a form of self-protection, and they are leaving social media,” Zillen said. “This is not a problem for the women’s movement; this is a problem for democracy.”
The report identified governments and state authorities as the leading source of threats against women human rights defenders, alongside traditional and community leaders, religious actors and anti-gender movements. “These four are working together, and they are using the anti-gender narrative,” Zillen said. “It has to do with gaining power or sustaining power, and this is a narrative that has proven to be very successful.”
Olivia Ekobe, Human Rights Officer at the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), said her organisation documented over 60 cases of women human rights defenders facing risks last year alone, underscoring the need for gender-sensitive monitoring.
Ekobe outlined three recommendations: civil society organisations must increase visibility around the criminalisation of women human rights defenders and the protections available to them; states must end this criminalisation and adopt adequate legal frameworks; and donors must increase funding for women-led local organisations. “We have a responsibility to help create an environment where women HRDs can carry out their work without fear,” she added.
The side event was held as the culmination of a week-long workshop in Geneva for women Right Livelihood Laureates and fellows of the Exile Project, a programme in collaboration with the Global Campus of Human Rights.
The recommendations include practical actions that states can take to protect women human rights defenders and provide guidance on how to engage with other states on the matter.
ISHR introduces a new on-line course on advocacy for environmental human rights defenders, a practical, self-paced resource for activists, community leaders, and allies to defend the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment using UN and regional mechanisms.
Environmental human rights defenders are those who protect our planet and defend the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. They are Indigenous Peoples, farmers, scientists, journalists and young activists from all over the world.
Despite their vital role, more than 2,253 of them were killed, harassed, or persecuted between 2012 and 2024 according to Global Witness. More recently, the Business and Human Rights Centre found that the most dangerous sectors in which to pursue activism to defend rights are mining, agribusiness and fossil fuels.
Behind those numbers are stories of resistance and solidarity.
Why a new course for environmental human rights defenders?
The past few years saw an increased number of positive developments for the protection of the environment and environmental human rights defenders.
This includes the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the Human Rights Council’s Resolution 40/11 recognising the role of environmental defenders, the Escazú Agreement enshrining the latter’s rights in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the creation of the Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention. All these developments also require defenders to understand how and when to use these mechanisms.
I became an environmental human rights defender by coincidence. I need practical tools like this to help me navigate spaces for my advocacy. The ISHR Academy is really a useful one! Christopher Opio, Uganda
Chapter 1 examines the legal and conceptual foundations of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the role of environmental human rights defenders in addressing the triple planetary crisis, including accountability of States and non-State actors.
Chapter 2 provides strategic and practical guidance to advance environmental justice through UN human rights mechanisms like the Human Rights Council, the Special Procedures, the Treaty Bodies or the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and translate local defence into international advocacy.
Chapter 3 dives into regional mechanisms and other tools, in particular, for the protection of environmental human rights defenders. This includes rapid response mechanisms in Europe and Latin America, and other options designed for African and Asia-Pacific defenders through regional institutions and tools.
Free, self-paced, modular and flexible, each chapter can be taken independently, enriched with case studies, videos, and additional resources. You set the pace according to your needs.
How do I know if this is for me?
You know that bringing international attention could create pressure for change, but you don’t know where to start? You have an idea of who the Special Rapporteur on climate change is, the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does, but don’t know the steps to engage with them?
The pathway walks you through exactly this.
Whether you are a community leader facing displacement, an environmental lawyer seeking international leverage, a representative of a grassroots organisation whose government has stopped listening, a young advocate learning to navigate international spaces, or an NGO supporting defenders on the frontline — this pathway was built for you.
Environmental human rights defenders are often the first to raise the alarm. I often meet people who face pressure or harassment for defending environmental rights and without knowing that international tools can support them. In this module, I will explain what my mandate can do and how defenders can engage with it.
Astrid Puentes Riaño, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to a healthy environment
By the end of this pathway, you will be able to:
Understand who environmental human rights defenders are, the contexts they operate in, and the legal frameworks for their protection
Identify international and regional advocacy avenues, within the UN and beyond, to advance the right to a clean, healthy environment
Plan strategic engagement with mechanisms based on your context, and hold governments and non-State actors accountable.
The late Honduran environmentalist Juan Lopez sits on a rock on the outskirts of Tocoa, Honduras, on September 28, 2021 [AFP]
On 12 May 2026 Al Jazeera reported that the Honduran authorities have arrested three people, including a powerful politician, accused of plotting the 2024 assassination of an environmental leader, an incident that became a symbol of government corruption. Adan Funez, former mayor of the city of Tocoa, was captured at his home on Tuesday on suspicion of masterminding the killing of Juan Lopez, following years of accusations by religious and environmental leaders.end of list
Lopez was an anti-corruption crusader who led a community effort against an iron oxide mining project in Colon, a rural region of northwestern Honduras, which activists said endangered the area’s dense jungles and crystalline waters, including protected reserve areas.
Accusations also emerged against Funez, a power-broker in the region’s decades-long bloody agrarian conflict. The death brought back stark memories of the global outcry over the 2016 murder of Honduran environmentalist Berta Caceres.
Funez’s arrest on Tuesday comes more than a year after Lopez’s assassination.
The First European Forum on Environmental Human Rights Defenders (EHRDs) invites individuals and organizations committed to the promotion, protection, and respect of environmental and human rights across Europe to express their interest in participation. This landmark Forum represents a significant opportunity for Environmental Human Rights Defenders, civil society organizations, institutions, policymakers, and advocates to engage in meaningful dialogue, collaboration, and knowledge exchange on pressing environmental and human rights challenges affecting the European region.
The Forum will be held on 3–4 June 2026 at the headquarters of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The event is jointly organized by the Council of Europe, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention. Additional collaboration is provided by the UNECE Aarhus Convention Secretariat, several Human Rights Council Special Procedure mandate holders, and a range of civil society organizations actively working throughout Europe.
Purpose of the Forum
The Forum aims to strengthen networks among Environmental Human Rights Defenders and supporting organizations while fostering regional cooperation and advocacy. Participants will have the opportunity to:
Share experiences and best practices
Discuss emerging environmental and human rights issues
Explore strategies for protection and advocacy
Build partnerships across sectors and countries
Contribute to discussions on policy and accountability mechanisms
The gathering is expected to attract a diverse range of participants from across the Council of Europe member states, including grassroots defenders, activists, indigenous representatives, youth leaders, academics, legal experts, international organizations, and civil society actors.
Event Format and Languages
The Forum will be conducted exclusively as an in-person event. Online participation or virtual attendance options will not be available. Participants are therefore encouraged to prepare for travel and related logistical arrangements should their participation be approved.
Registration and Selection Process
Submitting an Expression of Interest does not automatically guarantee participation in the Forum. All applications will undergo a comprehensive review and selection process conducted by the organizers. Applicants whose participation is approved will receive an official registration confirmation letter. The review process will take place on a rolling basis to allow selected participants sufficient time to make necessary arrangements, including:
Visa applications
Travel planning
Accommodation bookings
Administrative preparations
Interested individuals are therefore strongly encouraged to submit their applications as early as possible.
Funding and Financial Support
Due to limited available resources, the organizers will only be able to provide financial support to a select number of Environmental Human Rights Defenders. Funding decisions will be based on several factors, including:
Resource availability
Geographic diversity
Gender balance
Inclusion and representation criteria
Nature of environmental and human rights work
Applicants who meet the general participation criteria but are not selected for financial support may still receive an invitation to attend the Forum through self-funded participation.
The organizers anticipate that the majority of participants will need to finance their own attendance. Institutions, donor organizations, and networks that support Environmental Human Rights Defenders are encouraged to assist participants financially where possible.
Cyrille Traoré Ndembi, 61, is the President of the Vindoulou Residents’ Collective, a neighbourhood on the outskirts of Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo. This retired community development specialist has been fighting to defend the residents’ right to a healthy environment since he moved there in 2019.
His house is located just ten metres from the Metssa Congo plant run by a subsidiary of the India-based Metssa Group. This recycling plant produced lead bars for export from 2013 to 2024, 50 metres from a school and in the middle of a residential area. Cyrille noticed severe health problems in his family including respiratory and digestive disorders. Blood tests on some residents showed lead levels far above the alert level set by the WHO.
Following Cyrille’s campaigning, and with the help of Amnesty International, the authorities ordered the plant’s closure in December 2024. Cyrille continues to fight for justice for his community.
“When I arrived in Vindoulou, I quickly realized the danger we were in. The air was unbreathable!
Black dust and fumes were spreading and invading our homes. Sometimes, when we went out, we couldn’t even see our nearest neighbour. The plant staff discharged oil and wastewater in front of our houses. Metal debris from the plant’s chimney fell onto our roofs. Once, I went to walk along the wall of the plant and debris fell on me like hail.
Right from the start, I had doubts about the legality of this activity in the middle of a populated area. I couldn’t understand how a substance as dangerous as lead could be recycled using processes that were, in my view, contrary to the standards and regulations in force.
‘My whole family was ill’
We arrived in Vindoulou in August 2019 and by January 2020 my whole family was ill. Our children were found to have the beginnings of pneumonia, bronchitis and bronchopneumonia. We also had diarrhoea and abdominal pains.
Across the neighbourhood, people had the same problems. I was told that the children who had moved away from Vindoulou no longer suffered from those symptoms.
The residents believed that nothing could make this company leave. For the community, it was David against Goliath. Some even called me King David.
I went door-to-door to convince people that something serious was going on. Everywhere I went, I reminded people of article 41 of our Constitution: every citizen has the right to live in a healthy environment.
I explained to people the benefits of getting organized together and taking up the fight. Today, our collective has over a hundred members.
From survivor to human rights defender
We tried to meet the directors of Metssa Congo. We met the plant’s manager, who said he was not authorized to comment on the subject. He promised us an audience with the CEO, but it never took place. They wouldn’t talk to us, simply saying that they had authorization to operate. We couldn’t even consult their environmental impact report, which is a document that we were entitled to access under the current legislation. After calling in a bailiff, I was finally able to consult another type of document, their environmental audit report produced after they had already begun operations.
In 2022, I went to meet Amnesty International’s representatives to alert them. From 2023 onwards, Amnesty investigated and provided funds to carry out blood tests on a sample of the population. We then had proof that people tested had high levels of lead in their blood.
At the time, the workers were against what I was doing. Now, most of them have joined us in our fight.Cyrille Traoré Ndembi
I took two blood tests, in March and September 2023. They showed blood lead levels above 400 µg/L. For the 17 other people tested, the levels were alarming. When the ministry carried out other tests in 2024, some ex-workers had levels of 1,000 µg/L – that’s enormous!
My youngest daughter just turned four. Of the nine children tested, she had the highest lead level, above 530 µg/L. I’m worried about her. She’s running fevers even though she has no infection.
Amnesty also helped us take legal action in 2023, to publicize our situation and, in the face of the administration’s inaction, to make a plea to the authorities. As a result, the minister [of Environment] came here and spoke to the population in December 2024. We as a collective did not have a formal audience with the minister. The authorities received Metssa Congo’s managers for an audience in Brazzaville [the Republic of Congo’s capital] several times, but never our collective! I’m not being heard. Ideally, we should be able to talk directly to the authorities.
I’ve been under pressure. Metssa filed a complaint against me alleging defamation in May 2024. I went to court, but Metssa didn’t show up. They were bolstered by the decision of the Supreme Court’s public prosecutor that allowed them to resume their activities after a suspension ordered by an administrative judge in April 2024.
One night, some young people came and threatened me. It was stressful, but I didn’t back down. At the time, the workers were against what I was doing. Now, most of them have joined us in our fight.
When the company’s operations were suspended again in June 2024 by the Ministry of Environment, we continued to fight because the word suspension meant nothing to us. We wanted to hear the word closure. When the decision was taken on 11 December 2024 to close and dismantle the plant, we were relieved, but the fight was far from over.
Indigenous environmental human rights defenders (IEHRDs) across Latin America face disproportionate levels of violence for protecting land, water, and territory. Of the 146 environmental defenders killed or disappeared in 2024, approximately one-third were Indigenous. This overrepresentation reveals the structural risks faced by Indigenous Peoples at the forefront of environmental defense.
A study by Nefeli Poulopati, Ezihe Chikwere and Paulina Macías Ortega for Kennedy Human Rights Centre published on 30 April 2026 explores who IEHRDs are, the legal protections available to them, the challenges they face, and cases that reflect their ongoing resistance and struggle across Latin America.
The study looks at Legal Frameworks, Violence against IEHRDs, Impacts of Extractivism, and looks Ahead: A Differentiated Approach…
States must adopt an intersectional approach in all measures taken to protect the rights of IEHRDs. A differentiated, preventive, and collective approach to protecting IEHRDs requires applying a gender, ethno-racial, and cultural perspective when determining the level of risk faced by an IEHRD. The ethnic reality of the territory and the traditional ways of Indigenous peoples need to be taken into account when designing protection schemes, to ensure they align with these communities’ practices. The special relationship of Indigenous Peoples to the land reinforces States’ obligation to protect IEDHRs.
One way to fulfill this obligation is to decide on protective measures for IEHRDs in consultation with Indigenous communities, a practice that is often not followed by States. It is particularly important for governments to consider the heightened risk that IEHRDs face when they oppose development megaprojects. States should adopt the necessary measures to establish or strengthen systems to monitor and control these practices in a manner consistent with their legal obligations.
However, as the cases above illustrate, formal recognition does not equal protection. Instead, it is the first step to rethink the colonial origins of the extractivist system that perpetuates power imbalances, thereby weakening safeguards at the regional and local levels.
To learn more about this work, visit the Civic Space Case Tracker, which maps leading ongoing judicial cases litigated by local organizations and lawyers in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 