Bright Green Blog
Return to Environment

A sea lion pup on Santiago Island, one of Ecuador's famed Galapagos Islands. (MELANIE STETSON FREEMAN/STAFF/FILE)

Ecuador constitution would grant inalienable rights to nature

By Eoin O'Carroll | 09.03.08

Ecuador’s proposed constitution includes an article that grants nature the right to “exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution” and will grant legal standing to any person to defend those rights in court.

Voters will get to decide on Sept. 28 whether to adopt the new constitution, which would allow the president to run for reelection, to dissolve Congress, and to exert great control over the country’s central bank. According to Reuters, 56 percent of Ecuadorans approve of the proposed document.

The blog Green Change quotes the five articles that acknowledge rights said to be possessed by nature, or “Pachamama,” a goddess revered by indigenous Andean peoples whose name roughly translates into “Mother Earth.”

Chapter: Rights for Nature

Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.

Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution.

Art. 2. Nature has the right to an integral restoration. This integral restoration is independent of the obligation on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people and the collectives that depend on the natural systems.

In the cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including the ones caused by the exploitation on non renewable natural resources, the State will establish the most efficient mechanisms for the restoration, and will adopt the adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate the harmful environmental consequences.

Art. 3. The State will motivate natural and juridical persons as well as collectives to protect nature; it will promote respect towards all the elements that form an ecosystem.

Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles.

The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic patrimony is prohibited.

Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.

The environmental services are cannot be appropriated; its production, provision, use and exploitation, will be regulated by the State.

The concept that nature itself can possess rights runs counter to the classical liberal theories of government that hold sway throughout much of the West, which view rights as possessed only by individual human beings. But Ecuador is not the first country to propose granting rights to nonhuman entities: Many countries, including the United States, have long held that corporations possess many of the same rights – such as the rights to free expression and to due process – that human beings have. And in June, Spain’s parliament approved a measure to extend some human rights to nonhuman apes.

But, as an editorial in the Los Angeles Times observes, Ecuador’s extension of rights to nature may represent a larger shift in how humans view their place in the world:

No other country has gone as far as Ecuador in proposing to give trees their day in court, but it certainly is not alone in its recalibration of natural rights. Religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama and the Archbishop of Constantinople, have declared that caring for the environment is a spiritual duty. And earlier this year, the Catholic Church updated its list of deadly sins to include polluting the environment.

Ecuador is codifying this shift in sensibility. In some ways, this makes sense for a country whose cultural identity is almost indistinguishable from its regional geography – the Galapagos, the Amazon, the Sierra. How this new area of constitutional law will work, however, is another question. We aren’t ready to endorse such a step at home, or even abroad. But it’s intriguing. We’ll be watching Ecuador’s example.

[via Grist]

<< States make way for low speed vehicles | Main

Comments

1. Linda Wallace | 09.05.08

A long time ago, Aldo Leopold wrote his essay, The Land Ethic, in which he promoted the concept that nature be granted moral standing. In this he not only encourage us to protect ecosystems, but also to protect “species”, not only the organisms of which the species is composed. It’s taken a long time, but it’s exciting to see these ideas take root.

2. Candace | 09.05.08

This planet is our home, and we are to protect and nourish it, otherwise it will not nourish us. Good to see these ideas. People are the part of nature that are out of balance with it, and nature will restore the balance, one way or the other. It would behoove people to partner with nature in this regard.

3. Shannon | 09.05.08

This is fantastic! Let’s hope is goes through and starts a worldwide initiative.

4. Jaya | 09.06.08

What a great contribution to Mother Earth. Protecting the very basis of all Life is the main basis for putting things right than to grant rights to profit oriented corporations, which claim to be a person.

5. kay | 09.06.08

it is impossible to grant “inalienable” rights. The very meaning of inalienable is “non transferrable”. If the state can “grant” rights then they can also take them!!!!

6. Purple Library Guy | 09.08.08

Well, yeah, but granting “alienable” rights sounds so lame.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Comment

  By clicking "Submit Comment", you agree to our Terms of Service.

We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.

Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.

Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.

Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.