,

They reject our request for intervention as third parties interested in the case of Potrerillo de Larreta

Together with the social group Todos por Nuestro Arroyos (TxNA) we express our disagreement with the decision of the Civil, Commercial and Family Court of 2nd Nomination of Alta Gracia. Said resolution, notified hours before the start of the judicial fair, denied participation as interested third parties that we requested together with neighbors of the city, in the trial that Potrerillo de Larreta S.A. It started against the province of Córdoba for the removal of the wires, which illegally prevented the passage in the Los Paredones stream.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”

“It is regrettable that our participation has been considered irrelevant, and among the arguments the idea has been taken that we have no reason to feel legitimated to participate in the trial. This case mobilized all of Alta Gracia, who understood that there cannot be more wires in the spaces that belong to all of us, “said Fabiana Marbián, a member of TxNA and a resident of the city.

“It gets worse when the Judiciary took more than two years to respond to neighbors who, with no interest other than protecting the resources that belong to all Altagracians, ask for participation in a trial that involves all of us,” he emphasized. Marbián, while adding: “It is not to believe, but the years continue to pass and from the private neighborhood they continue to achieve their objective, which is to wire a public watercourse.”

From Fundeps we will appeal to the judicial decision, because the rejection seriously affects fundamental rights of citizenship. One of the most affected rights is the denial of the participation of neighbors in a controversy in which access to a stream (subject to the public domain) and the enjoyment of its environmental services are at stake, which goes against the guarantee of access to justice, the right to enjoy effective judicial protection, as well as the enjoyment of the right to the environment.

This rejection not only affects the participation of the institution in this specific case, but also sets a regressive judicial precedent for the entire province in terms of access to justice by civil society. The participation of civil society in this type of process is key to improving judicial activity in matters of public interest and to democratizing judicial debate.

, , , , ,

What has been the impact of COVID-19 on the Sustainable Development Goals?

We present a document analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted in 2015 by the UN Member States, with the purpose of ending poverty, protecting the planet and guaranteeing peace and prosperity for all people by the year 2030. The SDGs There are 17 integrated objectives in which the actions or impacts on one will affect another / s.

The situation generated by the pandemic is not at all encouraging, since pre-existing unfavorable issues such as increasing poverty and hunger, increasing inequalities, rising unemployment, the health and sanitation crisis, the economic recession, restricted access to education, the setback regarding gender equality, among other aspects.

Thus, the document “Impact of COVID-19 on the Sustainable Development Goals“, prepared in a collaborative way, analyzes and reflects on the impact of COVID-19 on the SDGs, the positive and negative consequences of the global pandemic on each of the 17 objectives.

The current context has posed challenges for States and international organizations in decision-making, and in the establishment of truly effective actions to prevent this type of situation from recurring. In this way, the current context made us have to rethink whether the current system is effective or whether we should build another model for the future, one that is more equitable, inclusive, fair and sustainable. Therefore, the situation that the world is going through may mean an opportunity to rethink what future we want to build from now on.

More information

Contact

Gonzalo Roza, gon.roza@fundeps.org

,

La Pampa passed a new legislation on agrochemicals

On November 30, the Legislature of the Province of La Pampa approved by majority the so-called “Comprehensive Pesticide Management Law” No. 3288, at the proposal of the Provincial Executive Power. This initiative is part of the attention through public policies of situations of social conflict, such as the application of agrochemicals so present in our province.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The regulations, applicable to the entire provincial territory, establishes protection zones, setting distances for agrochemical applications (pesticides according to the law) of 500 meters for land applications (environmental protection zone) and 3,000 meters for applications areas. Likewise, it provides for the prohibition of application on any establishment located in rural areas.

It should be noted that the new regulation establishes one of the greatest protective distances for aerial application, doubling that in force in the province of Córdoba. These are consistent with jurisprudential trends based mainly on the application of the so-called precautionary principle.

It should be noted that the new regulation establishes one of the greatest protective distances for aerial application, doubling that in force in the province of Córdoba. The rules of the Pampean law are consistent with jurisprudential trends based mainly on the application of the so-called precautionary principle.

Likewise, the Law provides for a complete comprehensive management regime for agrochemicals, since it implements a unique traceability system. This allows the “tracing” of the product in the production, marketing, use and application phases, including the differentiated management of the resulting empty containers.

The objectives that guide the system are based mainly on the preservation of human health, on guaranteeing food quality, preventing environmental impacts, as well as contributing to the responsible and sustainable development of agricultural activity.

A relevant point of the law consists in the creation of an interdisciplinary Council, made up of the portfolio of environment, health, university and research institutions, as well as specific technical institutions and councils.

The application of agrochemicals constitutes one of the main causes of social conflict, which calls for adequate regulation that guarantees the fundamental rights of those who, for one reason or another, are affected on a daily basis. We celebrate that the provinces advance, through their regulatory systems and public management, in the fulfillment of the constitutional mandate to guarantee fundamental rights such as the environment and health of the population.

Contacto

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

, ,

Protection for delay in access to environmental information

On December 1, we filed an amparo action for delay of the Secretary of Environment of the Province of Córdoba in providing environmental public information. Through this action we ask the courts to require the Province to fulfill its duty to provide the requested information.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

During the months of October and November, we asked the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change of the Province for public information related to the policies and actions implemented by the Provincial State regarding prevention, mitigation and adaptation measures to the phenomenon. In the absence of a response within the term provided by current provincial regulations, we again request the prompt dispatch of the administration.

In the absence of a specific response, and when the deadlines have expired, we filed an action for protection for default. This consists in informing the Provincial Courts of the delay in complying with the deadlines ordered by law to answer the request, so that later the judicial body requires the authority in question to fulfill its duty.

It should be remembered that the right of access to information is guaranteed in the Argentine regulatory system and is recognized in Principle 10 of the Declaration of Rio de Janeiro of 1994, the Escazú Agreement ratified by National Law No. 27,566, in art . 41 of the National Constitution, as well as Laws 25,831 on Access to Public Environmental Information and 25,675 General on the Environment. This right is a fundamental presupposition proper to democratic coexistence and is necessary for proper environmental management.

In fulfilling their obligations, the authorities must provide such information, without it being necessary to prove interest or any reason, free of charge and within the prescribed deadlines. In the event of non-compliance, the action for protection by default is outlined as the way to guarantee the enjoyment of such a fundamental right.

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

We asked the Senate to incorporate new principles into the General Environmental Law

In conjunction with other NGOs, we asked the Chamber of Senators to treat the bill that seeks to incorporate the principles in dubio pro aqua and in dubio pro natura Law No. 25,675.

The bill, which has already obtained the corresponding half-sanction in the Chamber of Deputies, modifies art. 4 of Law No. 25,675 “General Environment”, and incorporates the legal principles “in dubio pro aqua” and “in dubio pro natura”. Let us remember that these principles, although they have been recognized jurisprudentially by the Supreme Court of the Nation, are not regulated in the current regulatory system.

These principles are important because they play a decisive role in decision-making by the authorities. In such a way: The “in dubio pro natura” principle establishes, in the terms of the bill, that: in case of doubt, disputes must be resolved in a way that favors the protection and conservation of the environment, giving preference to the least harmful alternatives. No actions will be taken when their potential adverse effects are disproportionate or excessive in relation to the benefits derived from them.

For its part, the “in dubio pro aqua” principle provides that: in case of doubt, environmental and water disputes must be resolved in the way that is most favorable to the protection and preservation of water resources and related ecosystems.

Considering the importance of its incorporation into the legal system, we request, together with other members of civil society, the treatment of the bill. In the current context of environmental tragedies, it is vital that each organ of the State adopt, within the framework of its powers, the actions necessary to protect the environment.

More information

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, <juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org>

,

We participate in a discussion on climate change

On September 25 of this year, we participated in a discussion together with other NGOs from Latin America and the Caribbean, in which we discussed the collaborative work carried out this year: «Climate Change and the Rights of Women, Indigenous Peoples and Communities Rural of the Americas ».

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Together with members of La Ruta del Clima, Yale University, environmental activists, and members of the Rapporteurship for Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, we participated in a virtual conversation. Each person in charge of the exhibition gave an account of the challenges faced by their own States and societies in Latin America and the Caribbean around the phenomenon of Climate Change.

The discussion was organized by members of the Heinrich Böll Colombia organization, and had as its axis the report on Climate Change and the rights of Women, Indigenous Peoples, and Rural Communities of the Americas, prepared by various civil society organizations. In particular, various topics related to human rights affected by the phenomenon, obligations of States and Intergovernmental Organizations at the regional level and challenges in the region were discussed.

From the presentation of each member, it is possible to see that the challenges at the regional level are not different between the various States, which are faced with similar contexts around the weak economic situation, social crisis impregnated with profound inequality and extractivist policies. From Fundeps we appreciate the invitation to the event, and we applaud these meeting spaces, which are a fundamental part in the construction of an environmental citizenship.

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

The province on fire, again

Native forest ecosystems, no less than a month after the last fires, are again affected by this phenomenon, causing immeasurable environmental damage. Even though drought conditions constitute a variable that increases the risk of fire, these, for the most part, come from a premeditated and intentional human action.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

During the month of August, the province suffered serious fires that spread over over 40 thousand hectares, causing serious socio-environmental damage, that is, destruction and disappearance of forest ecosystems, damage to homes and evacuations of those who live in the vicinity. Even though its effects persist in the burned areas, new sources of fires are seriously affecting other geographical sectors of Cordoba.

This serious situation makes it possible to question the actions of the authorities regarding the efficiency or even existence of a system to prevent these phenomena. The reality is that less than a month after the last fires, prevention failed again and today it is necessary to observe and regret – again – the loss of biodiversity and the damage to mountain communities due to intentional fires in the province.

The objectives and values ​​that arise from the environmental protection regulatory system, and in particular, from the fire management system (National Fire Management Law No. 26,815) and that should guide the implementation of public policies around the phenomenon, they were and are clearly unfulfilled. The early warning and action systems envisaged in the regulations seem to be part of an ideal far from their effective implementation.

Notwithstanding this, even when the preventive stage has largely failed, it is important to emphasize the duty of recomposition that weighs on those who are responsible for the fires as well as on the authorities, and on the important role played by citizens and civil society in demanding compliance. Contrary to what seems to have happened on the preventive side, the recomposition cannot and should not constitute an illusion. Real measures must be put in place to guarantee, from a technical point of view, adequate restoration of ecosystems, ensuring real (not fictitious) citizen participation that allows communities to monitor and be part of this process.

At this point, it is necessary to clarify that, according to current regulations, the areas that were protected by the categories of forest land management do not lose this categorization due to fires, and there is an obligation to recompose them. This circumstance should not be ignored because any undertaking or action that intends to use these territories must be subject to the restrictions that are in force for the corresponding protection category, even when as a result of the fire there is no native forest there.

On the other hand, it is important to note that even when the figure of “ecocide” serves as a conceptual category to frame the events, the truth is that from the legal point of view, it is not incorporated into the Argentine criminal law. The reality is that the use of category can divert attention, blurring the true criminal responsibility attributable from Arts. 186,187, 188 and 189 of the Penal Code, that is, the crime of arson in its various forms and according to its various qualifiers. For this reason, it is important to note that this type of responsibility exists, is punishable by the Penal Code, can and should be reported, investigated and tried, without prejudice to the corresponding responsibilities regarding environmental recomposition.

From Fundeps, we believe that the authorities should, among other possible measures, carry out effective prevention actions immediately; comply with an adequate investigation in order to determine and attribute the corresponding responsibilities for the damages or crimes committed; launch an environmental recomposition plan closely linked to citizen participation; and to tend to the protection of all the native forest ecosystems existing in the province not only in relation to fires but also around any activity that threatens their integrity.

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

Source

Images of fires in Falda del Carmen and Bosque Alegre (Pedro Castillo / La Voz)

,

A bill that seeks to regulate the distances of application of agrochemicals

In June, Deputy Leonardo Grosso (Frente de Todos) presented before the Chamber of Deputies of the Nation, a bill of minimum environmental protection budgets for the handling and application of agrochemical products. Specifically, it seeks to prohibit “all aerial applications of agrochemicals and terrestrial, manual or mechanical, of agrochemicals within one thousand five hundred (1,500) meters of urban areas, permanent housing, rural schools, human settlements, beekeeping plants, production and industrialization of animal products; rivers, streams, lagoons, courses, mirrors, reservoirs, dikes and water wells ”.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

The importance of said bill, among other assumptions, starts from the basis of establishing a standard of minimum budgets which grants a uniform or common environmental protection for the entire national territory, and aims to impose necessary conditions to ensure environmental protection . The normative text is part of the State’s duty to preserve the human environment to the extent that it houses the health of citizens and safeguards their quality of life, which should configure its main objective (41 of the CN) and that in turn, it has been accepted by the General Environmental Law within the framework of the principles of environmental public policy.

Among the most notable aspects of the project the following can be mentioned:

Establishes minimum distances for the application of agrochemicals: art. 2 of the project prohibits the application, handling and storage of agrochemicals in urban areas and the obligation to establish a minimum distance of 1500 meters from urban areas, permanent homes, etc. It also establishes that in the event of a reasonable doubt about the delimitation of the environmental protection area, it will be the obligation of the person who is going to apply the agrochemical to request the delimitation of the prohibited area.

Regarding environmental damage, in art. 5 of the project, has an important forecast around responsibility. Thus, it presumes, unless proven otherwise, that whoever applies the agrochemical within the area of ​​environmental protection is responsible for the collective environmental damage caused. Likewise, it provides for a system of joint and several liability (jointly) of all the people who intervened in the application of the product, including the producers, usufructuaries, tenants, and any other person responsible for the property on which the product is applied. Said responsibility is extended in turn to the competent authorities that have not acted in a diligent manner when applying the law. Furthermore, the law obliges the latter to apply any ex officio measure tending to comply with the regulations.

From the content of the normative text arises, even if not expressly, the orientation of the rules arranged from the precautionary principle, cardinal in the environmental law microsystem. This establishes that the absence of scientific information will not be a reason to postpone the adoption of effective measures to prevent the degradation of the environment in the face of a danger of serious or irreversible damage, in this situation and in the event of a hypothetical negative impact on the environment and the health of The population due to the exposure of agrochemicals should apply this principle, and restrict or regulate its use in such a way as to prevent any harmful impact.

The initiative is important because it makes visible the problems posed by the use and application of these products indiscriminately and allows us to discuss this aspect of the problem, which until now has been casuistically resolved by numerous local courts, guaranteeing safe application distances. Argentina leads the world ranking in terms of the amount of glyphosate used in its agricultural production and there are no doubts about the toxic, acute and chronic effect that agrochemicals have on the health of the population in particular and the environmental impact at a general level. It is therefore essential that the State, within the framework of its powers, issue public policies aimed at defending the environment, thus guaranteeing respect for a fundamental human right such as health.

Link to the bill

Author
Maria Canedo

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org 

,

Judgment of the Appeals Chamber in favor of Potrerillo de Larreta

On July 15, the Ninth Nomination Chamber of Civil and Commercial Appeals of the city of Córdoba resolved to nullify the first instance ruling and allow the placement of fences in the Los Paredones stream in the town of Alta Gracia. In the same cause, with the group Todos Por Nuestro Arroyos, we request in 2018 to participate as interested third parties.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

During the month of July of this year, the Chamber of Appeals in Civil and Commercial matters of the 9th nomination issued a judgment in the proceedings entitled “El Potrerillo de Larreta S.A against Province of Córdoba-Ordinary-contentious administrative claim of full jurisdiction-precautionary”. The court decided to annul the judgment of first instance, admitting the demand of the Country Club Potrerillo de Larreta and consequently allowing the enclosure of the Los Paredones stream in that sector corresponding to the undertaking.

In the framework of this cause, together with the group of neighbors Todos por Nuestro Arroyos, we requested in 2018 the participation as interested third parties. The request had and is intended to be able to participate in the judicial process, allowing us to contribute elements that we consider relevant for its resolution. However, as of this date, said request continues without being resolved.

After almost two years have passed, the delay in processing and resolving the incorporation of Fundeps and the group Todos por Nuestro Arroyos in the case constitutes a barrier that restricts adequate access to justice while violating the guarantee of effective judicial protection . While we wait together with the community for acceptance to be part of the process, the case continues with its processing, a second instance having already been resolved and with the possibility of a final resolution, without being able to be heard those who have legitimate interests in participating.

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, <juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org>

We request information from the Ministry of Environment of the Nation

During December of last year, the National Congress passed the Law on Minimum Budgets for Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change. However, a large part of its provisions must be regulated by the National Executive Power to guarantee its operation.

Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic.

The brand new Law on Minimum Budgets for Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change No. 27,520 was enacted in December 2019, the month in which it was also enacted in fact, and is currently fully in force today. Despite this, much of the content of this regulation requires regulation by the National Executive Power for its implementation. It should be remembered that once a new law has been passed, it is the President of the Nation who must, through a regulatory decree, enable its execution (art. 99 inc. 2nd of the National Constitution).

Although the current context around the pandemic has prevented the normal operation of the public administration, the truth is that the progress of phases around Preventive and Compulsory Social Isolation, together with the implementation of virtual work mechanisms, have allowed to a certain extent the operation of state agencies. Such possibilities, added to the circumstance that the Argentine Republic is in a state of “Climatic Emergency”, make possible and demand the urgent regulation of the law for its effective operation.

In the absence of public information about regulatory projects, and in the face of a notorious delay on the part of the Executive Power, it is that we request information from the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of the Nation in charge of Minister Juan Cabandié regarding the current state of the regulatory process. Such request is framed in the right guaranteed by articles 1, 2 subsection b, and 3 of the Law of Access to Public Environmental Information N ° 25,831. Based on a response, it will be possible to monitor whether there are advances in regulation, if there are instances of citizen participation, and if bodies such as the National Cabinet on Climate Change and its corresponding Advisory Council are in the process of being established. by regulations.

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

Dismissal in the “Mother Cause” Ituzaingó Annex

As a result of a presentation made by the defense of one of the accused in the so-called “mother cause” of Barrio Ituzaingó, the Criminal Chamber No. 12, decided to allow the dismissal. She considered that the accused in question had already been convicted of the same crime in the first trial in which the fumigations in the neighborhood were tried. Now it will correspond to the Superior Court of Justice to resolve such situation.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

On June 23, 2020, the Criminal and Correctional Chamber No. 12, decided to dismiss producer Francisco Rafael Parra in the “Mother Cause” of the Ituzaingó neighborhood. He was accused of the crime of malicious environmental contamination.

The Court understood that Parra had already been tried and convicted for the same crime. To reach such a conclusion, the judge confronted both facts, the one for which he was previously convicted, and the fact on which the current accusation fell (in the mother case). The Chamber determined that they were the same “criminal event”, so judging it again would imply violating the so-called “non bis in idem” guarantee that prohibits double persecution for the same fact already tried.

Faced with such a decision, the parties to the case filed “cassation” appeals. From there, it will correspond to the Superior Court of Justice through its criminal chamber, to decide whether the decision of the Criminal Chamber must be confirmed or reversed.

The dismissal of the producer, already previously convicted of the same crime, implies the impossibility that in the mega-case he can be convicted again. This situation is important, since an eventual second sentence would entail effective enforcement in prison.

On the other hand, the foundations on which the Crime Chamber was based to resolve the dismissal, are highly debated in the legal field. In this sense, the arguments put forward by the Public Prosecutor of the Chamber are important, who in order to seek the trial of the accused, argued that the fact judged previously, was not the same now tried, and that it was far from being applicable the category of crime continued in the case since the circumstances of time, place, and mode of commission were radically different.

It is worth remembering that the so-called “Mother Cause” (also called the Barrio Ituzaingó megacause) is well known for treating the accumulation of numerous complaints of fumigation in the Barrio. This has been more than sixteen years, in which the prosecution and complaint presented as witnesses to numerous affected neighbors, experts in the subject, teachers from different universities, among other specialists, tending to determine the effects of the fumigations in cancer rates and malformations in the neighborhood.

This year, the Chamber had set the date for the oral and public trial for March, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it had to be suspended. Even so, the Chamber processed the exception presented by Parra’s defense.

The first cause set an important precedent and was symbolic in the fight in residential areas, as it was the first sentence in our country and in Latin America to convict an agricultural producer and an air fumigator for the crime of malicious contamination. In this sense, the judgment of the “megacause” by the particular nuances it presents, is transcendental in this struggle initiated by the mothers of Barrio Ituzaingó.

Authors

  • Ananda Lavayen
  • María Laura Carrizo

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

,

“Precautionary distancing” in the application of agrochemicals

On June 12, 2020, in the city of Santa Fe, the Second Chamber of the Civil and Commercial Appeals Chamber, made up of Eduardo Sodero, Luciano Pagiliano and Armando Drago, resolved to establish a distance of one thousand meters for fumigations land around a family home. This resolution was made within the framework of a fumigation action filed by Norberto Oscar Bassi and Estefanía Bassi against the Commune of Zenón Pereyra, Carlos Schalbetter, Luis Ballarino, Ballarino Rural S.H. and “subsidiarily” against the province of Santa Fe.

“Below, we offer a google translate version of the original article in Spanish. This translation may not be accurate but serves as a general presentation of the article. For more accurate information, please switch to the Spanish version of the website. In addition, feel free to directly contact in English the person mentioned at the bottom of this article with regards to this topic”.

Two residents of the town of Zenon Pereyra (Santa Fe) promoted an amparo action in order to prohibit fumigations in the fields adjacent to their home, in compliance with city ordinance no. 11/11. Through the action they requested that manual fumigation within 1000 meters with any type of agrochemical product be prohibited, at the same time that they requested the planting of a live fence to mitigate the contaminating effects of the products.

The plaintiffs claimed to be neighbors of the fields of Messrs. Schalbetter and Ballarino (the former, leased to the latter) in which soybeans and wheat were planted and fumigations with agrochemicals (2-4 D and glyphosate) were carried out through the use of “mosquitoes”. Furthermore, the plaintiffs stated that due to the fumigations and the toxicity of the products, they suffered from respiratory difficulties and other health disorders.

In the first instance, the District Judge in Civil, Commercial and Labor Law of the city of San Jorge decided to grant the amparo action and to prohibit the fumigation of the neighboring fields to the plaintiffs at a distance of less than five hundred meters. , “With no type of agrochemical”. In his sentence, the judge repeated what was resolved in the case «Peralta c. Municipality of San Jorge ”, considering that“ nothing has changed ”(and therefore“ the criteria set must be maintained ”), without prejudice to rejecting the request for“ a living fence ”.

Faced with such pronouncement, the co-defendant Luis Ballarino and the actors filed an appeal for annulment and appeal. The co-defendant maintained that the ruling was void because it had been based on poorly added documentation, and that this was favorably valued by the amparo. Regarding the appeal, he argued that the proposed protection did not meet the necessary requirements for its “origin” (requirements for it to be dealt with by a judge) and that the damage or injury to health had not been proven.

As for him and the amparista, they maintained that the sentence was null and void because the court said nothing about the request for the tree perimeter fence, and that it had only “copied and pasted” the grounds for a previous ruling. Regarding the appeal, they stated that the judge, when setting the distances, did so without taking into account the geographical and urban characteristics of the area, and that he considered the right to property and work over the right to life, to health and a healthy environment, without considering the environmental public order and the principles of “no regression” and “progressivity”.

The resolution of the Chamber

The Chamber granted the “appeal for annulment” filed by the actors. The organ affirmed that the judgment of first instance had effectively omitted to pronounce on certain issues raised, and that it lacked sufficient justification since it had only limited itself to literally transcribing its own precedent of relative antiquity, without taking into account or referring to the provincial rules and premises at stake as well as the principles that assist in environmental matters.

To resolve, they had special consideration in the rights of people who, for different reasons, settle in places adjacent to the land where exploitations are carried out (read fumigations), understanding that it is not fair or reasonable that they are disproportionately affected . They also took into account the protection deserved by people who have not yet been born, with whom there is a debit of intergenerational justice.

The court decided to set a thousand meters – counting from the outer limit of the plaintiffs’ house – the minimum distance to observe to carry out land spraying. The judges argued that, as a result of the greatest existing scientific evidence regarding the effects of agrochemicals, it was necessary to “adjust” the distances for the fumigations, also taking into account what was established by the judgment in the “Peralta” case. c. Municipality of San Jorge ”, of December 2009, which has become a common thread through the reiteration of other provincial courts. In this way, they reiterated the need to optimize the protection of health and well-being in the face of agricultural practices, encourage the use of alternative herbicides and redirect production towards another less dependent on agrochemicals.

In the aforementioned case, the classic collision of the economic rights of agricultural producers with the essential rights to a healthy environment, to life and to the health of people is presented. For its solution, a concordance between them must be sought, without forgetting that the human being is the source of all rights, taking into account the irreparability of the affectation of the essential rights of the affected communities, especially when there is ample evidence that shows that the Agrochemicals are not harmless to people’s health.

This resolution joins the list of judicial decisions that establish a minimum protective threshold for people who have their center of life in the vicinity of agricultural operations, protecting the neighbors who suffer the consequences of the fumigations and are deteriorated, thus their health and its development possibilities. In this context, and with the existing scientific information, we want to highlight the prevailing need to update the protective laws, which, based on the precautionary principle, must urgently advance in restricting the use of agrochemicals.

More information

Authors

  • Laura Fernandez
  • Ananda María Lavayén
  • Maria Laura Carrizo Morales

Contact

Juan Bautista López, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org