Apc submits input to UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders

The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) has submitted written input to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the human right to a healthy environment for the Rapporteur’s forthcoming report on environmental human rights defenders and the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. APC describes itself as an international civil‑society organisation and a network of 73 organisational members and 44 associates active in 74 countries, primarily in the Global South.

The submission draws on forthcoming community‑led research with environmental defenders, the Safety for Voices initiative that documents digital violence against women human‑rights defenders, previous APC submissions to United Nations bodies, and the collective knowledge of networks and organisations of defenders. It states that environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) face a continuum of digital and offline violence, including technology‑facilitated violence, smear and disinformation campaigns and digital surveillance by state and non‑state actors that aim to repress, isolate and silence communities defending territorial and land rights. The submission also highlights the weaponisation of cyber‑related frameworks to criminalise, censor and intimidate EHRDs and presents community‑led strategies that seek to mobilise digital inclusion and create safe environments.

Vulnerable groups and identity‑based risks are outlined. The submission notes that women human‑rights defenders (WHRDs) and Indigenous women are frequently targeted with racist and misogynistic messages that ridicule spiritual practices and cultural identities, and that identity‑based disinformation and smear tactics impact WHRDs and their families, creating a chilling effect. In Honduras, 52 % of documented digital attacks were directed at women defenders of land, territory and natural resources. In Brazil and Ecuador, Indigenous leaders are sometimes accused of not being ‘Indigenous enough’ as a tactic to undermine credibility. Coastal, rural and peasant communities are reported to face physical violence such as militarised evictions and the arson of ancestral healing houses, and fisherwomen and rural activists often encounter social‑control measures that restrict movements and livelihoods. LGBTQIA+ activists are said to face multi‑layered discrimination, including threats of ‘corrective rape’. Journalists, lawyers and scientists documenting environmental abuses are described as facing criminalisation, surveillance, theft of equipment, active censorship, disinformation campaigns and, in some cases, severe physical attacks.

Regional and sectoral realities are cited. Honduras and Mexico are described as among the deadliest countries for EHRDs resisting mining and agribusiness in Mesoamerica. In the Asia‑Pacific region, climate change is identified as a major security threat and environmental defenders are said to be ‘red‑tagged’ as terrorists to justify state repression; research from the Philippines on frontline defenders in the Cordilleras and Mindanao is said to reflect systematic, multi‑layered violence. In Africa, defenders opposing the East African Crude Oil Pipeline are reported to encounter online harassment, digital surveillance and direct state intimidation, and research from Kenya indicates that hate speech is the most reported form of digital violence against Indigenous communities.

Legal measures that increase risk are identified. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) are described as being systematically used to burden EHRDs with lengthy, costly legal battles. Laws concerning ‘usurpation’ of land are said to be used in Guatemala and Honduras to penalise Indigenous and peasant communities reclaiming ancestral territories. Vague ‘anti‑terrorism’ and ‘cybercrime’ laws are said to be manipulated in India and the Philippines to justify arbitrary detentions and the freezing of bank accounts. The submission states that these measures create a chilling effect, forcing defenders into self‑censorship; WHRDs in Libya are said to fear that social‑media posts could lead to harm to their families. The inclusion of ‘undercover digital agents’ in the criminal‑procedure code in El Salvador is said to further intimidate journalists and defenders.

Psychosocial impacts are described. Defenders are reported to experience chronic stress, burnout, panic attacks, collective exhaustion and physical ailments such as chronic stomach pain. The submission says that states and non‑state actors weaponise caregiving roles by threatening the children of mothers involved in movements. Internal conflicts are said to arise from smear campaigns that foster distrust, from judgments directed at defenders who leave for safety, and from family or community pressure. The document also mentions ‘Venezuelasplaining’ and external pressures in which Global South activists are said to face ‘lectures’ from international colleagues who demand proof that is impossible to provide in repressive contexts.

Factors contributing to the worsening situation are listed. The submission attributes the escalation to capitalist extractivism and corporate power, to unequal access to technology in Indigenous and marginalised areas, to collusion between authoritarian governments and large technology firms that deploy AI‑enabled surveillance, facial‑recognition and biometric tracking, to emerging AI‑driven disinformation such as deepfakes and ‘nudify’ apps, to a collapse of international funding streams for gender and environmental justice, and to an anti‑rights backlash involving coordinated transnational anti‑gender and anti‑rights movements.

Protective policies and legal wins are cited. El Salvador’s 2017 law banning metal mining, Honduras’s 2022 repeal of the Employment and Economic Development Zones, and the 2022 cancellation of the Gunaa Sicaru wind‑park project in Mexico following transnational litigation by the Zapotec community of Unión Hidalgo are highlighted. The Safety for Voices consortium partner IM‑Defensoras is said to have participated in a UN Women Expert Group Meeting on gender equality in the context of the climate crisis, linking the Escazú Agreement to the experiences of women land and territory defenders.

Weaponisation of law is described. The submission says that ‘usurpation’ statutes are used, for example Honduras’s 2021 criminal‑justice reform that toughened penalties and a Guatemalan sentencing of a defender for aggravated usurpation. ‘Foreign‑agents’ legislation in Nicaragua and El Salvador – the latter including a 30 % tax on grants – is said to choke financing for organisations defending territory. States of emergency declared in Guatemala and Ecuador are said to be used to justify the deployment of military and police forces to repress peaceful opposition to mining and extractivism.

Barriers to accountability are described as judicial co‑optation, with justice systems characterised as ‘porous’ and co‑opted by economic elites and transnational corporations, and as the ineffectiveness of official protection measures – the submission notes that approximately 19.2 % of attacks documented in Mesoamerica were against defenders who had already been granted official protection.

Actions by non‑state actors are detailed. The Urgent Action Fund Asia and Pacific (UAF A&P) is said to use a network of 160 advisors to provide early‑warning and to ensure that resources reach remote communities, for example an Indigenous tribe in North Maluku, Indonesia resisting nickel mining. Language‑justice approaches that involve accompaniment in local languages such as Bahasa or Indigenous dialects are mentioned. Community‑based policing systems launched by UAF A&P grantees are said to aim at gender justice and physical security where state police are primary assailants. The Zapotec community in Mexico is said to have engaged in transnational litigation in civil courts in Paris against Electricité de France. Safe houses and resilience centres such as La Serena in Mexico and La Siguata in Honduras are said to provide respite, psychosocial support and security training for defenders at risk.

Non‑state grievance mechanisms are listed, including the Mesoamerican Registry of Attacks and the African Feminist Republik Registry as documentation mechanisms, and digital safety hubs operated by APC members (for example 7amleh in Palestine and TEDIC in Paraguay) that provide structured referral and response services for digital violence. ‘Webs of Safety and Care’ grants are said to enable communities to design rapid‑response focal points, peer‑support groups and legal‑aid toolkits in local languages, although implementation is said to be hindered by confidentiality constraints and the collapse of international funding architectures in 2025.

Examples of effective measures are presented. Community‑led communications infrastructure is described as being built by Indigenous and community groups to provide internet access and to produce counter‑narratives to disinformation. Community committees and assemblies for water or land are said to allow monitoring, collective fund management and decision‑making. Collective direct action such as mass mobilisations, takeovers of government palaces and plans to ‘storm the jailhouse’ are noted as protective layers. Digital ‘rituals’ and identity‑based security practices are described, including the use of Indigenous languages for usernames, profile pictures that minimise facial visibility and risk‑mitigation rituals before sharing sensitive content. Initiatives such as Family Production Units that use eco‑techniques to ensure community self‑sufficiency are said to protect against economic coercion by extractivist actors. Knowledge‑sharing programmes that provide scientific evidence of environmental harm and community‑based monitoring programmes that deploy women officers and real‑time environmental sensors are also highlighted.