Colombia reports 33% drop in deforestation in early 2025, with major progress in Amazon parks
Speaking at a press conference, Environment Minister Lena Estrada Añokazi said deforestation fell from 40,219 hectares in early 2024 to 27,000 hectares this year. The government identified 18 active deforestation hot spots, including 13 in the Amazon and others in regions like Catatumbo, Arauca and the Pacific north.
'In the Amazon's national parks, deforestation dropped by 54% ... which is a very good result,' Estrada said, highlighting gains in Amazonian parks Tinigua, Chiribiquete and La Macarena.
The Amazon remains Colombia's most affected region, accounting for 69% of the country's deforestation. The departments — Colombia's main administrative divisions — of Meta, Caquetá and Guaviare saw the biggest declines, while Putumayo had a slight increase.
Estrada attributed the decline to the government's integrated plan to curb deforestation, which includes community agreements, institutional strengthening, and joint operations with the Defense Ministry and Attorney General's Office.
A recent report by Colombia's inspector general noted that while deforestation dropped overall, pressure on protected areas remains intense, with illegal coca cultivation and unregulated mining advancing into national parks. The independent watchdog said that between October 2024 and March 2025, nearly 88,900 hectares of forest were lost nationwide, much of it in areas designated for environmental conservation.
The minister said the efforts have led to key arrests, including of individuals tied to the environmental sector.
Looking ahead, Estrada outlined a territorial action plan to further engage local and Indigenous authorities. A series of regional meetings is set to begin in June, starting in Villavicencio with Amazon and Orinoquia leaders.
Deforestation in Colombia is mostly driven by land grabbing, illegal road building, cattle ranching, illicit mining and coca cultivation, the raw ingredient to produce cocaine.
—
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Countries must protect human right to a stable climate, court rules
There is a human right to a stable climate and states have a duty to protect it, a top court has ruled. Announcing the publication of a landmark advisory opinion on climate change on Thursday, Nancy Hernández López, president of the inter-American court of human rights (IACHR), said climate change carries 'extraordinary risks' that are felt particularly keenly by people who are already vulnerable. In the strongly worded and wide-ranging 300-page document setting out its perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, the court says states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate change. That includes taking 'urgent and effective' actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt, to cooperate internationally, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation. The inquiry was instigated by Colombia and Chile, which in 2023 asked what legal responsibilities states have to tackle climate change and to stop them breaching people's human rights. The Costa Rica-based court received hundreds of submissions and held a series of hearings last year in Barbados and the Brazilian cities of Brasília and Manaus. A wide variety of states and regional bodies, academics and civil society groups – as well as individual victims of climate change themselves – were allowed to participate. 'The evidence we have seen and received during the hearing and written submissions shows that there is no margin for indifference,' López said. 'Success depends on all of us.' The IACHR's founding purpose is to interpret and apply the American convention on human rights, a treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS). But its newly published opinion takes into account a broad range of national, regional and international laws and principles. And it affirms that the findings not just apply only to signatories of the convention but to all 35 members of the OAS, which includes the United States and Canada. The court affirmed the right to a healthy environment, and said for the first time that this includes the right to a stable climate. This means states have legal obligations to regulate emissions from both public and private organisations. The court says all businesses have a responsibility not to harm human rights but those that have emitted huge volumes of greenhouse gas emissions in the past or present have a particular responsibility 'due to the risk created by their activities'. It singles out the exploration, extraction, transportation and processing of fossil fuels, cement manufacturing and agro-industry. States must set tougher requirements for such sectors, it says, suggesting changes to business operating conditions, taxation, contributions to just transition plans and strategies, investment in education, adaptation measures and addressing loss and damage. If companies do not comply, it suggests the polluting activities should stop and states consider demanding compensation for the harm caused to the climate. It adds that states should pass laws so that transnational corporations and conglomerates can be fully held to account for the emissions of their subsidiaries. States also have a duty to ensure a fair transition to a cleaner society, and must ensure that this does not in itself involve breaching human rights, for example, when mining for critical minerals needed for electric vehicles. 'This is not just about the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy,' said Marcella Ribeiro, a senior human rights and environment attorney for the Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Aida), an environmental law organisation that works in Latin America. 'This is an opportunity for a structural transformation that will correct historical inequality and protect people and ecosystems.' The IACHR also recognised the rights of nature and states have a duty to restore damage to ecosystems caused by climate change. Luisa Gómez, senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, said the court made a 'critical connection' between the effects of the climate crisis on the rights of people and ecosystems, and how those responsible for guaranteeing those rights should react. 'It sends a clear message that impunity in climate matters can no longer be tolerated.' The inter-American court of human rights is the second of four top courts to publish an advisory opinion on climate change. The first court to publish its opinion, the international tribunal for the law of the sea, concluded last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants that are wrecking the marine environment, and states have a legal responsibility to control them. The international court of justice held hearings on its own opinion last December and is expected to publish in the coming months. Meanwhile, the African court on human and people's rights has only just begun the process. These documents are technically non-binding but are considered authoritative because they summarise existing law. And they are expected to be used in future litigation and political negotiations. Viviana Krsticevic, executive director of the Centre for Justice and International Law, a human rights NGO which supported Colombia and Chile's request for the advisory opinion, said the new opinion gives a 'very rich roadmap' for responding to the climate emergency across society, including setting a series of standards for national climate strategies that could be very important for the forthcoming COP30 in Brazil.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Reuters
US, Colombia recall their ambassadors in diplomatic tussle
WASHINGTON, July 3 (Reuters) - The United States has recalled its top diplomat from the U.S. embassy in Bogota over statements it said were made at high levels of the Colombian government, the U.S. State Department said on Thursday, prompting the South American country to also recall its ambassador to the U.S. President Donald Trump's administration recalled Chargé d'Affaires ad interim John McNamara "for urgent consultations following baseless and reprehensible statements from the highest levels of the Government of Colombia," State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement. "In addition to the recall of the Chargé, the United States is pursuing other measures to make clear our deep concern over the current state of our bilateral relationship." The State Department did not specify which comments it took issue with or what other measures were being pursued by Washington. After Washington's announcement, Colombian President Gustavo Petro announced that he was recalling Colombia's ambassador to the U.S., Daniel Garcia-Pena. In a lengthy post on X, Petro said the diplomat should come back to discuss the two countries' bilateral agenda, listing priorities such as climate cooperation, anti-narcotics efforts and migration policy. Colombia's foreign ministry said Minister Laura Sarabia, who announced her resignation on Thursday, is "in communication with the United States while she is in office until they designate a new foreign minister who will be in charge of the matter." U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a rebuke to Colombia's government last month after Colombian Senator Miguel Uribe, a potential presidential contender and a member of the opposition conservative Democratic Center party, was shot in Bogota. Rubio said the shooting of Uribe was "the result of the violent leftist rhetoric coming from the highest levels of the Colombian government." Uribe has been undergoing repeated serious surgeries since the shooting, which left him in critical condition. In January, Trump and Petro clashed over Colombia's refusal to accept military aircraft carrying deported migrants, prompting Trump to threaten tariffs and sanctions. But the two countries managed to pull back from the brink of a trade war and overcome the impasse. Petro at the time had condemned the military deportation flights and said he would never carry out a raid to return handcuffed Americans to the U.S. "We are the opposite of the Nazis," he wrote in a post on social media platform X. Colombia is the third-largest U.S. trading partner in Latin America. The U.S. is Colombia's largest trading partner, largely due to a 2006 free trade agreement that generated $33.8 billion in two-way trade in 2023 and a $1.6 billion U.S. trade surplus, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Reuters
Latin America court calls for unified climate action as legal fights mount
SANTIAGO, July 3 (Reuters) - Member states must cooperate to tackle climate change and not take actions that set back environmental protections, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) said in a non-binding advisory opinion issued on Thursday. The court holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries and the advisory opinion, requested by Colombia and Chile, said that countries must also regulate and monitor corporate activities, especially those that generate greenhouse gases. The opinion also said companies must adopt "effective" measures to combat climate change and states should discourage "greenwashing" and undue corporate influence in politics and regulations related to climate change. States must also pass legislation for companies to act with "due diligence when it comes to human rights and climate change along their value chain." States must also set binding GHG emission mitigation goals that "are as ambitious as possible" with concrete time frames. Cooperation must go beyond transboundary harm, the opinion said, and should go beyond mitigation and adaptation and cover all necessary measures to comprehensively respond to the climate emergency. Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate change litigation at the Sabin Center at Columbia Law School, said that many countries rely on these opinions as precedent, even though they're non-binding. "The (IACHR) is a little bit of a special case because it's highly influential in domestic courts," Tigre said, adding that regional supreme courts often cite IACHR opinions. "The other aspect is if there is a contentious case on the topic, it will likely follow what's said in the advisory opinion," she said, citing a 2024 IACHR as an example. In 2024, the IACHR ordered Peru to pay damages to a mining town, a decision that followed the 2017 interpretation of an 2017 advisory opinion the court issued that stated that a healthy environment was a human right. The ruling builds on a global wave of climate litigation as countries, organizations and individuals are increasingly turning to courts for climate action. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights said climate inaction violates human rights and a South Korean court said that the country's climate change law does not effectively shield future generations. Vanuatu has also urged the top United Nations court to recognize the harm caused by climate change in its judgment on the legal obligation of countries to fight it and address the consequences of contributing to global warming. The ruling is expected this year. The IACHR opinion noted that climate litigation is an "emerging field" but also an increasingly essential tool for holding states and companies accountable for climate change and obligations.
