elpais.com
Global Witness Report: 146 Environmental and Social Leaders Killed in 2024
A new Global Witness report reveals that at least 146 environmental and social leaders were killed or disappeared in 2024, with 120 (82%) of these deaths occurring in Latin America, making it the most dangerous continent for activism.
- Which regions and countries were most affected by these killings, and what are the main causes?
- Latin America and the Caribbean were the most affected regions, accounting for 72% (1,619) of the total deaths since 2012. Colombia consistently leads in the number of killings, although it saw a decrease in 2024. Guatemala experienced a significant increase in killings, becoming the country with the highest per capita rate. The main causes are linked to land disputes (68%), mining and extractive industries (29%), and other factors.
- What are the implications of these findings for future environmental activism and the upcoming COP30 summit?
- The high number of killings highlights the extreme risks faced by environmental and social activists, particularly in Latin America. The report underscores the urgent need for stronger state protection and accountability for these crimes. The findings raise serious questions about the safety and effectiveness of environmental activism and its potential to impact the COP30 climate summit.
- What are the most significant findings of the Global Witness report on the killings of environmental and social leaders in 2024?
- The report reveals that at least 146 environmental and social leaders were killed or disappeared globally in 2024, with Latin America accounting for 120 (82%) of these deaths. Colombia had the highest number of killings (48), followed by Guatemala (20), Mexico (18), and others. This brings the total number of killings since 2012 to 2,253.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue by highlighting the alarming number of murdered environmental and social activists, particularly in Latin America, emphasizing the danger faced by those protecting the planet. The use of strong emotional language, such as 'sangría de activistas' (bleeding of activists), and the inclusion of personal stories of murdered activists, creates a sense of urgency and reinforces the severity of the situation. The focus on the increasing number of killings year after year, particularly in Colombia and Guatemala, further amplifies the problem's scale. However, the article also presents counterpoints, such as the decrease in killings in Colombia compared to the previous year and government initiatives in Guatemala, which offers a more nuanced perspective.
Language Bias
The article uses strong and emotionally charged language, such as 'masacrados' (massacred) and 'sangría' (bleeding), to describe the killings of activists. While this language effectively conveys the gravity of the situation, it also risks swaying the reader's emotions and potentially hindering objective judgment. The use of terms like "estorbo" (obstacle) in a quote from a Global Witness representative could be seen as loaded, although it's presented within the context of the activist's perspective. Neutral alternatives could include words like "impediment" or "hindrance.
Bias by Omission
The article does not delve into the motivations of the perpetrators beyond mentioning organized crime, paramilitarism, and hitmen. A more detailed analysis of the underlying causes of the violence, such as political corruption, land disputes, and the influence of powerful corporations, might provide a more comprehensive understanding. Also, exploring the effectiveness of existing legal frameworks and protections for activists might give a more complete picture. The article also lacks specific information about the support systems available to activists and the challenges faced by these organizations. While acknowledging the space constraints, a more thorough investigation into these aspects would enhance the reader's comprehension.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present a false dichotomy, but it focuses heavily on the negative aspects of the situation without fully exploring the complexities of the issue. While highlighting the alarming number of killings, it does not fully analyze the governmental or societal efforts in place that are trying to address the issue, which would help provide a more balanced and informed perspective.
Gender Bias
The article mentions that indigenous and Afro-descendent peoples, and women, are disproportionately affected, but it doesn't provide a detailed breakdown of gender-specific violence or analyze the specific ways in which gender plays a role in the targeting of activists. While naming several male activists, it doesn't go into the gendered reasons behind their murders. Further investigation into the intersection of gender and activism in this context would be beneficial.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article directly addresses the alarming number of murdered and disappeared environmental and social leaders, highlighting a failure of institutions to protect them and uphold the rule of law. This directly undermines SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. The lack of protection for activists demonstrates a weakness in the justice system and poses a significant threat to sustainable development.