|
Peru - Biodiversity - Resolución Legislativa 26181, 1992 |
|
|
SCREENING WATER DIVERSIONS FOR FISH PROTECTION: A SURVEY OF POLICY, PRACTICES AND COMPLIANCE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST |
|
|
Sentencia 00048-2004-AI, 2005 - Peru |
Este caso impugnó la constitucionalidad de la Ley 28258: Ley de Regalías Mineras. Lo más pertinente es que los artículos 1-5 de la ley establecen lineamientos y regulaciones con respecto al uso y regalías de los materiales minerales. El tribunal discutió aspectos de preservación natural, igualdad social y libertad en relación con el uso y la tributación de dichos materiales. En última instancia, el tribunal consideró que la demanda carecía de fundamento y exigió transparencia en la asignación de los fondos para que la sociedad civil pudiera conocer su uso. |
|
Sentencia Constitucional 1982/2011-R- Bolivia |
|
|
Sentencia T-622, 2016 |
This is not a judicial decision that touches on animal welfare issues. However, it is important to mention as the Constitutional Court granted for the first time the status of legal person to a river. The Plaintiff, ‘Centro de Estudios para la Justicia Social “Tierra Digna”’ brought an action of ‘tutela’ (Constitutional mechanism that is preferential and summary created for the purpose of protection of fundamental rights) in representation of various community councils of the Atrato region in the Colombian Pacific against the Presidency of the Republic and others. The basin of the Atrato river covers and area of about 40,000 KM2 (15,444.086 sq mi) It is considered one of the highest water yields in the world. There are many ethnic communities that live in the adjoined municipalities that include Afro-Colombian communities, indigenous communities and mixed communities that obtain their sustenance from activities such as artisanal mining, agriculture, hunting and fishing by this river. The water of the river is also used for direct consumption. The Plaintiff alleged that the contamination of the river is a threat to the health of the communities that use the river as a source of work, recreation and to obtain food. The Plaintiffs sought that the court stop the large-scale and permanent use of illegal extraction methods of minerals such as gold and platinum. Additionally, logging that includes the use of heavy machinery and highly toxic substances such as mercury and cyanide as well as other toxic chemicals used in mining of the Atrato river. They argued that the illegal mining in the Atrato river was resulting in harmful and irreversible consequences on the environment, affecting the fundamental rights of ethnic communities that live in the area and the natural balance of the territory. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs asked the court to declare protection of the fundamental rights of the ethnic communities: life, health, water, food security, a healthy living environment, to culture and to the territory, by ordering the implementation of structural changes. The lower courts denied the action of ‘tutela’ in first and second instance, arguing that the Plaintiff sought the protection of collective rights, rather than fundamental rights. Therefore, this constitutional mechanism was not appropriate. After holding that the action of ‘tutela’ was the appropriate mechanism for the protection of the fundamental rights of the ethnic communities, the court established in its ruling that the right to water was a fundamental right, as it is a necessary component to the right to a dignified life, and it is essential for many organisms that inhabit the planet to be able to survive. The use of mercury and other toxic substances in mining activities is prohibited, regardless the legality of the activity. In a new approach, the court held that the Atrato river is subject to rights that imply its protection, conservation and maintenance and instructs the national government to be the guardian and to exercise the river’s legal representation through the president or whichever he appointed, along with the ethnic communities that inhabit the basin of the river. Thus, it guarantees the Atrato river is represented by a member of these communities and a delegate of the Colombian government.
|
|
Sierra Club v. Morton |
The Petitioner, the Sierra Club, brought this action for a declaratory judgment and an injunction to restrain federal officials from approving an extensive skiing development in the Mineral King Valley in the Sequoia National Forest. The Sierra Club did not allege that the challenged development would affect the club or its members in their activities, but rather argued that the project would adversely change the area's aesthetics and ecology. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the club lacked standing and had not shown irreparable injury. On grant of certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the Sierra Club, which asserted a only special interest in conservation of natural game refuges and forests, lacked standing under Administrative Procedure Act to maintain the action because it could not demonstrate that its members would be affected in any of their activities or pastimes by the proposed project.
|
|
Something Stinks: The Need for Environmental Regulation of Puppy Mills |
This Comment defines the current federal and state regulations targeting the commercial breeding industry. It critically examines the successes and failures of current legislation regulating commercial breeders. The article considers the environmental impacts of large commercial breeding facilities and suggest that these operations should be regulated as animal feeding operations (AFOs). Finally, Section V evaluates the need for further federal and state governmental regulation of commercial breeding facilities through pollution control and waste management, thereby ensuring the well-being of commercially-bred dogs as well as the local environment.
|
|
State ex rel. Miller v. DeCoster |
State of Iowa sued the owner of a hog confinement operation for violations of manure disposal and animal control regulations.
|
|
Stout v. U.S. Forest Service |
Plaintiff ranch owners grazed cattle within the Murderer's Creek Wild Horse Territory (WHT), an area in which the threatened Middle Columbia River steelhead was present. The Forest Service approved a wild horse management plan in the area, but failed to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to determine whether the plan was likely to affect the threatened species, and whether formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was necessary. The Forest Service’s failure to comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was arbitrary and capricious, and was ordered to consult with NMFS on its plan.
|
|
Supreme Decree 038-2001-AG, 2001 - Rights of Nature (Peru) |
This law establishes the natural legally protected areas and ecosystems of Peru, their importance to scientific, ecological, and sustainable studies and development, and well as their permitted uses. |
