Tag Archive for: Environment

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>

On August 11, through a Resolution of the Official Gazette, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Livestock defined its new organization chart and made official the creation of the National Directorate of Agroecology, which will be chaired by the agronomist Eduardo Cerdá who is the president of the National Network of Municipalities and Communities that Promote Agroecology (Renama). This direction will act under the orbit of the Secretariat of Food, Bioeconomy and Regional Development.

“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 main objective of the directorate will be “to intervene in the design and implementation of policies, programs and projects that promote intensive and extensive primary production based on agroecology at all its scales, coordinating with producers, agrarian organizations and municipal and provincial governments.” To comply with this, it is expected, among other actions, the creation of a Strategic Plan of Productive Transition that contains the objectives, methodology and recipients for the agro-ecological implementation; and the granting of technical, credit and tax assistance to promote said activity.

This government decision is historic for our country, and is framed within the growing environmental crisis and the need to establish consistent public policies, such as the design of alternatives to the agricultural production model that prevails today. It is a decision that recognizes the approach that various farmer organizations have been developing for years, who have created alternatives to confront the hegemonic system. In addition, the current Minister of the Environment, Juan Cabandié, has repeatedly pointed out the risk that the use of pesticides and phytosanitary products entails in the health of the population and the environment, classifying them as “poisons”.

In this sense, agroecology proposes another way of producing food, which in the words of Eduardo Cerdá “implies taking into account and putting into play all ecological processes when producing agriculture and livestock. It is not a business look, it is a system look, to understand the natural processes that work in a field. By taking into account all the processes, it is easier to take care of them ”.

For these reasons, we welcome the implementation of this direction at the national level, since it represents a change of vision in the way of producing food in our country and implies an advance in the much-promised food sovereignty. We believe that this measure provides the appropriate initial impulse to give place and space to this production alternative based on sustainability and caring for the health of people and the environment. In this way, it is possible to incorporate a social and environmental perspective to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, which is extremely necessary in these times.

Authors

Maria Laura Carrizo Morales 

Ananda Maria Lavayén

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

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

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

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

Together with 16 civil society organizations in Latin America, we prepare this report that addresses the problem of Climate Change, its effects and impacts on human rights from the regional context. It was presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights during the 173rd session.

Together with other civil society organizations in Latin America, we prepare a report addressing the problem of Climate Change, its effects and impacts on human rights from the regional context. This was then presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights during the 173rd session.

“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 report, prepared collaboratively with 16 Latin American civil society organizations, analyzes the existing problems surrounding the effects of climate change. In particular, the impact that the phenomenon has on the human rights of millions of people worldwide is examined. Its consequences cross and violate the right to life, health, water, and a healthy environment, in turn affecting many others due to the interdependence between all of them.

Likewise, the differentiated impact to which certain groups and communities in vulnerable situations are subject, such as those who belong to Indigenous and tribal peoples, children and adolescents, women and members of rural communities. Those who make up these groups, due to their particular circumstances, suffer more intensely from the harmful effects of climate change, consequently, their situation of vulnerability worsens.

In this document, we also examine the scope of measures necessary to prevent and deal with such consequences. For this, it is essential that the States implement mitigation and adaptation measures, as well as measures that provide for the repair of losses and damages caused. In this context, the report analyzes the obligations and responsibilities that both state and non-state actors have, in order to achieve complete respect for human rights. Finally, the document contains some recommendations based on the international human rights system.

The role that each actor occupies around the problem calls for a differentiated action. The States, Companies, Financial Institutions, and International Organizations must implement actions and measures that respect human rights in a context of climate emergency.

Download Report (Spanish version Only)

Contact
Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

Coordinated by the Circle of Environmental Policy (C.A.B.A.), and in conjunction with other specialists, We elaborate the Legislative Environmental Agenda 2020, giving account and analyzing the main bills on environmental matters that have parliamentary status.

“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 2020 Legislative Environmental Agenda is an initiative led by the Policy Circle Environmental, which is emerging as a fundamental input to publicize those projects of law that are in force and in the process of being treated in both houses of Congress of the Nation. With the participation of various actors and specialists, the content, scope and importance of those projects in parliamentary status, linked to environmental issues, energy and public health.

The main objective of the report, according to María Eugenia Testa (director of the Circulo de P. Environmental) focuses on the visibility of those projects presented by different legislators, as well as in promoting parliamentary debate on issues environmental. Our contribution consisted of specifically examining those related projects to the ratification of the so-called “Escazú Agreement”; noting the importance that its incorporation into the local regulatory system, particularly due to the circumstance of taking a step in assuming international commitments in this area. These would allow to incorporate monitoring and enforcement tools regarding compliance with those measures to effective access to environmental justice, citizen participation and access to information environmental.

We appreciate the invitation, highlighting the importance of implementing initiatives collaboratives like the Legislative Environmental Agenda. We believe that the incorporation of different perspectives in the analysis process, enriches the debate and promotes alternatives for development of public policies in environmental matters. Likewise, we believe that such contribution to society allows to make visible the existing projects in the congress, examine their content, participate in public debate, monitor the legislative process, among other virtues that they strengthen the foundations of a transparent and participatory democratic system.

Access the full report

2020 CPA Legislative Environmental Agenda

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

Coordinated by the Circle of Environmental Policy (C.A.B.A.), and in conjunction with other specialists, We elaborate the Legislative Environmental Agenda 2020, giving account and analyzing the main bills on environmental matters that have parliamentary status.

Together with other organizations of the Civil Society of Latin America and the Caribbean, we prepare a working document that reflects the contributions and lessons learned in the negotiation process of the Escazú Agreement.

“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”.

This document was carried out in the framework of the work of the Regional Observatory of Investments, Transparency and Human Rights (composed of various civil society organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean, many of them authors of this publication), as part of a collective effort for making known from our experience the contributions and lessons learned from the negotiation process of Principle 10 so that they can be incorporated into the current signature and ratification processes of the Escazú Agreement.

Thus, what is described in this document responds to the achievement of a regional aspiration: the Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean, now the Agreement on Escazú, the first regional instrument of environmental rights, which represents a historic opportunity for the materialization of environmental democracy and the consolidation of citizenship, especially those groups that have been historically and systematically discriminated, such as indigenous peoples.

The publication summarizes the internal processes in various Latin American countries aimed at the approval of the Agreement, in particular, from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru.

More information

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

The Governor of Mendoza, Rodolfo Suárez, endorsed the reform of the law that protects the water of his province, to end the ban on the use of cyanide and other toxic substances and to remove the need for the Environmental Impact Statement (DIA) For metal mining projects, it must be ratified by the provincial legislative body. This modification implies a setback in the levels of environmental protection.

“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”.

Law 7722 in force in the province of Mendoza began to take shape in 2005 when, in the face of the interest of mining companies to settle in the Uco Valley, residents began to inform themselves and mobilize in defense of water. The law was approved by the Mendoza legislature in 2007 and ratified by the Mendoza Supreme Court in 2015 before about ten requests for unconstitutionality filed by mining companies. This law does not prohibit mining, but prohibits in the territory of the province of Mendoza, the use of chemical substances such as cyanide, mercury, sulfuric acid, and other similar toxic substances in mining processes, in pursuit of water protection and of agriculture

The draft modification of the law of Governor Rodolfo Suárez, seeks to introduce changes in the essential articles of the law, proposes to eliminate the prohibition of the use of chemical substances –except for mercury- and toxic substances “in metal mining mining processes, prospecting, exploration, exploitation and / or industrialization of metal ores ”; on the other hand, it seeks to remove the need for the Declaration of Environmental Impact (DIA) for metal mining projects to have to be ratified by the provincial legislative body. It aims to promote large-scale metal mining activity in the province of Mendoza.

This modification not only violates the environment as an integral legal good, but also implies the violation of the principles that order the environmental microsystem, in particular the principles of irretroactivity and progressivity established in the General Environment Law (Law 25.675), meaning a setback in the levels of protection already existing in the province. To this must be added the lack of water suffered by the Mendoza area, attentive to the fact that it has a water emergency declaration for more than ten years. The right to water constitutes a basic human right, a fundamental public good for life and health insofar as it is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other human rights. Thus, in protection of this human right, it is that law 7722 was enacted that today the Mendoza government intends to modify.

It is a primary duty of legislators to listen to citizens who have been mobilizing for years and expressing their rejection of this project during these days. As the Superior Court of Justice of Mendoza will express, the Mendoza decided by law 7722 the productive model they want to develop, it is the right of each society to decide, define and manage the way it adopts to progress. Given these circumstances, we express our concern and rejection of the attempt of the Government of the province to modify the current law.

Author

Maria Laura Carrizo

Contact

Juan Bautista Lopez, juanbautistalopez@fundeps.org

On October 28, the Supreme Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, in the framework of an endless dispute between environmental groups, rural teachers and the Entre Rican government, issued a ruling validating provincial decree 2239/19, which establishes infamous distances of fumigation of the rural schools of said 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 judicial dispute began when the Ecological Forum of Paraná (FEP) and the Entrepreneurship Association of Entre Ríos (AGMER) promoted an environmental protection action against the Superior Government of the Province of Entre Ríos and the General Council of Education ( in the cause called the Ecologist Forum “1”). Faced with this action, Chamber II, room II of Paraná, issued a ruling admitting amparo and forbidding ground spraying with pesticides within a radius of one thousand meters (1,000 meters) around all rural schools in the Province of Entre Ríos, and the aerial spraying with the same pesticides within a radius of three thousand meters (3,000 meters) around these educational establishments; all this, until it is determined by the specific state areas that identical preventive effects will be obtained for the health of students and staff who attend them with different distances ”. That ruling was then confirmed by the Superior Court of Justice.

Following this judicial record in the month of January of this year, the Entre Rican governor through a decree (No. 4407/2018), established an “exclusion zone” of pesticide application of one hundred (100) meters radius for the case of land applications and five hundred (500) meters for aerial applications, measured from the center of the hull of the rural school. This new decree, which markedly diminished the protective distances around rural schools, was again challenged by the Ecological Forum of Paraná and Agmer through judicial proceedings, requesting the annulment of the decree.

Such request is based on the fact that the State of Entre Ríos was obliged (by the previous sentence) to carry out necessary studies prior to establishing smaller distances, to guarantee the health of the students and the staff of the rural schools. From this action, the Third Chamber of the Second Chamber in Civil and Commercial, on March 28, 2019, resolved to annul the aforementioned decree, because the Province had not carried out the necessary studies, a resolution that it adopted in a similar sense the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos on May 14 of this year.

Even with all these pronouncements against it, the Government of Entre Ríos, by decree No. 2239/19 (dated 08/01/2019), insisted on reducing the distances of application of agrochemicals around rural schools. On this occasion, it established exclusion distances in relation to the hulls of rural schools, 100 meters for land spraying and 500 meters for aerial spraying. Before this new decree, the NGOs Forum Ecologista de Paraná and Agmer again resorted to justice by filing a new environmental protection, but this time against this new decree, arguing that the first of the sentences already analyzed was affected again. Such action obtained a positive pronouncement from the Third Chamber of the Second Chamber of Civil and Commercial Appeals, which ruled in favor of the amparistas, which decided to dictate the decree in question, under similar arguments as those that were held before the first attempt of the entrerriano Government to limit the distances of protection.

Before this last resolution, again contrary to the interests of the Government of Entre Ríos, and of its intention to reduce the distances of application, he appealed the sentence, finally obtaining a sentence favorable to his interests, at the expense of the protection of the health of students, teachers and staff of rural schools. Thus, the Superior Court of Justice of Entre Ríos, on October 28, ended the judicial course, ruling the validity of the last of the decrees (No. 2239/19).

Its main rationale was that the provisions resolved in the first ruling were transitory and therefore did not have the effect of “res judicata” and that said transience ended with the issuance of this decree. However, and almost absurdly, it raises a ridiculous modification: the 100 meters of shelter for ground spraying and the 500 meters for aerial spraying should be measured, not from the center of the school helmet, but from a plant barrier to be implanted. 150 meters away.

This questionable pronouncement, put an end to the judicial question in the Entre Rican justice. The organizations that were part of the fight for health and environmental rights, chose to continue their way before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Thus, it will be up to the highest judicial body in Argentina to resolve the conflict in rural Entrerrian schools, ending an issue that will undoubtedly affect all rural classrooms in the country.