Community | January 14, 2010 | 35 comments

In Ecuador trees now have rights

source: http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/in_ecuador_trees_now_have_rights

Image
JanforGore
September 29, the Associated Press reported that Ecuador’s new constitution would “significantly expand leftist President Rafael Correa’s powers.” It wasn’t until the end of a 15-paragraph article that the AP mentioned the new constitution – approved by 65 percent of voters – “guarantees free education through university and social security benefits for stay-at-home mothers.” Also missing from the AP’s report: any mention that Ecuador’s voters had just ratified the world’s first “eco-constitution,” a pioneering document that, for the first time in human history, extends “inalienable rights to nature.”

Not too long ago, Ecuador would have seemed an unlikely nation to become the birthplace of Earth’s first green constitution. To service its massive debt to US creditors, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund forced Ecuador to open its pristine Amazon forests to foreign oil companies. Nearly 30 years of drilling enriched ChevronTexaco, desecrated the northern Amazon, and utterly failed to improve the lives of millions of poor Ecuadoreans. Amazon Watch estimates that Texaco damaged 2.5 million acres of rainforest, left the landscape pitted with 600 toxic waste pits, and polluted the rivers and streams that some 30,000 people rely on. Cancer rates in the area where Texaco operated are 130 percent of the national norm, and childhood leukemia occurs at a rate four times higher than in other parts of Ecuador.

In 1990, the Siona, Secoya, Achuar, Huaorani, and other Indigenous forest-dwellers won title to three million acres of traditional forestland, but the government retained rights to the minerals and oil. In November 1993, Indigenous communities filed a $1 billion environmental lawsuit against Texaco, and Indigenous groups subsequently demanded a 15-year moratorium on drilling, environmental reparations, corporate indemnification, and a share of oil profits.

In 1997, when Ecuador’s pro-US government announced plans to rev up oil exploitation by a third, all eyes turned to the Yasuni Rainforest, home to the country’s largest oil reserve – estimated at 1 billion barrels. The Yasuni is also home to rare jaguars, endangered white-bellied spider monkeys, spectacled bears, and Indigenous tribes protected by international treaty.

In 2007, the new government of President Rafael Correa announced plans to halt oil exploration in the Yasuni, an action Amazon Watch called “a giant first step toward breaking Ecuador’s dependence on oil.” Correa’s proposal marked a shift to making renewable energy the new path for Ecuador’s economic future. The language in the new constitution takes the new policy several steps further.

Ecuador’s radical new constitution features a chapter on the “Rights for Nature” that begins by invoking the Indigenous concept of sumak kawsay (good living) and the Andean Earth Goddess: “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.” The constitution contains a Nature’s Bill of Rights that includes “the right to an integral restoration” and the right to be free from “exploitation” and “harmful environmental consequences.”

Surprisingly, there is a US connection to this story. The Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), along with the San Francisco-based Pachamama Alliance, spent a year working with Ecuador’s 130-member Constituent Assembly to craft the language that installed ecosystem rights in the heart of the new constitution.

“Today’s environmental laws are failing,” CELDF observes in a section on its Web site. “By most every measure, the environment today is in worse shape than when the major US environmental laws were adopted over 30 years ago.” CELDF notes that US regulations “treat nature as property under law. These laws legalize environmental harm by regulating how much pollution or destruction of nature can occur.” They don’t forbid pollution, they merely “codify it.” By contrast, Right of Nature laws challenge property law by “eliminating the authority of a property owner to interfere with the functioning of ecosystems that exist and depend upon that property for their existence and flourishing.” The idea is gaining momentum. Municipalities in Pennsylvania, California, New Hampshire, and Virginia have adopted Right to Nature laws in recent years.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Sustainable Agriculture,   Human Rights,   1 more
  2. tags:
  3.     
    |

35 comments // In Ecuador trees now have rights

  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  

    • This does not give legal rights to trees. It transfers legal rights from fictitious corporations to the actual people who live in the environment and depend on the trees.
      It gives real people back legal rights that were previously transfered to corporations as if they were real people.

    • 2 years ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  

    • Pawper----------"I know gas is bad in general , but is there "greener" gas I can fuel my car with, if Texaco/Chevron cannot be trusted? I mean, at least gas that doesn't come from killing the rainforest and destroying the lives of indigenous people?"---------

      Yes, natural gas. We have been able to run our vehicles on natural gas for over 90 years.

      Several European manufacturers are offering bi-fuel engine vehicles that can run on both gasoline and compressed natural gas. Fiat makes the Siena Tetrafuel in Brazil and Argentina---the Siena can run on straight gasoline, E25(Brazilian gasoline), hydrous ethanol(straight from the still, no blending) or compressed natural gas. Volkswagen makes the Golf and Passat in gasoline/natural gas factory installed bi-fuel versions. The clean diesel Jetta will be coming out soon in a diesel bi-fuel version.

      Diesel or the flex fuel Fiat Siena can run indefinitely and never use a single drop of petroleum.

      Petroleum companies do not want people to have the option of using compressed natural gas vehicles. It costs about 1/2 to drive a vehicle with natural gas compared to what it does using petroleum. They'd rather sell you petroleum at twice the price. Also, natural gas burns so cleanly, oil does not need to be changed every 3,000 miles like it does with gasoline. Bi-fuel engines can easily go 10-15,000 miles between oil changes or longer depending on gasoline usage. Since liquid biofuels are much cleaner than petroleum, using biofuel/compressed natural gas could extend the need for oil change out to 25-30,000 miles. Obviously, petroleum companies would rather sell you oil every 3,000 miles. If you use synthetic oil/biofuels/compressed natural gas in your vehicle---you can drive the entire lifetime of the vehicle and never use a single drop of petroleum.

      Natural gas(methane) is a fossil fuel. But it is also a biofuel. It is produced naturally by the decomposition of cellulose. We can easily and cheaply produce natural gas by treating sewage or tapping landfills. Biomethane is exactly the same chemically as fossil methane. It can be mixed in any proportion with fossil methane in any application with no loss of performance. We need to treat sewage anyway.

      CO2 is a greenhouse effect gas, it traps heat in the atmosphere. But it is not the only greenhouse gas, methane is also a greenhouse gas. Methane has 17X the heat capture ability that CO2 does. If we mix biomethane with fossil methane, the resulting emissions have a lower GHG effect in the atmosphere than if we had done nothing at all. We exchange high GHG effect methane to low GHG effect CO2. A mix of just 6% biomethane produces GHG nuetral emissions.

      There are conversion kits available to convert almost any existing internal combustion engine to use both liquid fuel or natural gas at the flip of a switch. There are also compressors available to make compressed natural gas from a home utility hook up so that you can flll up your vehicle at home.

    • 2 years ago
  • buyheradrum
    • 0
      buyheradrum  

    • Nice job, Ecuador. I had a class last semester dealing with the rights/value of the natural world. More governments should perform this extension of moral ground.

    • 2 years ago
  • davzap
    • 0
      davzap  

    • It is refreshing to see that other countries are not going to keep cow towing to the US when our methods are divergent from nature. Better senses and ideas know no borders.

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • Alanisnotcool
    • 0
      Alanisnotcool  

    • yay i am half ecuadorian! and trees shouldnt have rights because we already have smart people in this world to think FOR trees, isnt that the way it should be?

    • 2 years ago
  • smaksnell
    • 0
      smaksnell  

    • It's true. We are all connected, and we as a species should embrace Ecuador's mindset. Everything that lives deserves a chance to grow and flourish.

    • 2 years ago
  • fhavenger09
    • 0
      fhavenger09  

    • I'm from Ecuador and the only reason 65% of people support it is because there are a lot of poor people in Ecuador and are very easily swayed when a politician offers them free things. Correa is a terrible president who is not trying to extend presidential powers and continue as president as long as he can. This is just a ridiculous report because Ecuador is doing terribly economically because of the government which switches the rules of trade and scares away investors.

    • 2 years ago
  • kyackr
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • This move will also help preserve trees that are now needed as vital carbon sinks to balance out Co2 emissions as well as preserving water and biodiversity. Much more valuable than the crap people put a price on in the materialistic world.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • EdJoyProductions
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • The price on goods is already up. Don't worry, it won't stop you from having your precious wood decks. Stop using your wallet as an excuse to hide your disdain for our environment and the rights of those who were there first. You do a very poor job of it.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
    • 0
      ibrake4rappers13  
    • JanforGore:

      "The price on goods is already up"

      So should we continue to add to that?

      And what about the people who dont have a big wallet and depend on the forest industry to feed their family, how do you feel about them?

    • 2 years ago
  • EdJoyProductions
  • 02
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • EdJoyProductions
    • 0
      EdJoyProductions  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      So? Even if that were true, the best part is that companies will have to start getting creative and more environmentally savvy about how they operate. It will result in innovations in green energy solutions and more earth friendly procedures.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • EdJoyProductions
    • 0
      EdJoyProductions  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      Not really the same thing as demanding that corporations respect nature and begin utilizing greener alternatives and curtail needless destruction of forests for finite and dirty energy sources. I don't think that will cause any famine.

      You do love your communist boogeymen. :)

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • goodname
    • 0
      goodname  
    • ibrake4rappers13:

      "Mao told all of the farmers to stop farming and to start producing steel, famine was the result. you simply cant force change on people."

      i didnt realize deforestation in ecuador had been going on as long, and was as prevalent as farming in china.

      quite the reasonable analogy

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • Part of the reason this was passed was because of the rights that the Amerindians in Ecuador's Amazon. Its good to see that they got some of their land safe. But even then there is still alot of native land that is being encroached upon by development and companies.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
    • 0
      Ares  

    • I murdered a tree two years ago and now I'm burning its carcass in my fireplace. Gonna put me in jail for it?

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • Ares:

      This is more of a guarantee that Ameriindian land will not be violated. Green activists are happy because it also protects a large part of Ecuador's Amazon. So there are many winners.

    • 2 years ago
  • 02
  • 02
  • crob80227
    • 0
      crob80227  

    • Hopefully a lot of coutries are waking up to the fact that destorying their entire country and handing all the money over to Big Oil isn't a "great" long term strategy for success.Their natural resources need to be carefully managed and it looks like they are starting to do that.

    • 2 years ago
  • Denica_Cassandra
  • SleepDirt
  • rickm8
    • 0
      rickm8  

    • Pawper, not naive are you?

      I like this constitution. It's pretty legit, I mean I could definitely dig moving there if it actually works.

    • 2 years ago
  • Pawper
    • 0
      Pawper  

    • I know gas is bad in general , but is there "greener" gas I can fuel my car with, if Texaco/Chevron cannot be trusted? I mean, at least gas that doesn't come from killing the rainforest and destroying the lives of indigenous people?

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Protecting the right to nature to exist protects our right to live healthy and peacefullly . This is a great move and I hope more states in this country put forth such Right to Nature laws. This is also why I believe as many do that access to potable water must be declared a human right globally in order to preserve it for future generations and to keep it out of the greedy hands of corporate exploiters. Good move Ecuador. Now all we need to see is Chevron paying BIG for the crimes they have committed against nature. The dots need to be connected by us as indigenous people have known for years: We are all connected.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • JanforGore:

      We need to be careful to assign this victory a bigger meaning than what it means. In the end, the real reason the Ecuadorian government did this was becuse of the intense lobbying of Amerindian groups from the Amazon who fought for years to protect their lands.

      But the same cannot be said of all the natural land in Ecuador, especially of the lands that do not have anyone defending them. It was a victory first for the Amerindians, and secondly for those of us concerned with the preservation of the Earth's natural places. It would not have been possible without the Amerindians fighting for it.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos