After a long dispute, the Constituent Convention of Chile approved the Rights of Nature. Article 9 recognizes that “individuals and peoples are interdependent with Nature and form an inseparable whole”. And, more specifically, it states that “nature has rights and that the State and society have a duty to protect and respect them”.
The Chilean example is an expression of the fact that the world is advancing in the discussion about the Rights of Nature. The reason is simple: reality can no longer be covered up. Ecological collapse is undeniable. No region, population or sea is more safe from the damage currently caused by this collapse, according to the report by the United Nations Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Humanity is brutally and globally confronted with the certain possibility of the end of its existence. We must act. This explains why this debate finds a relevant point in Chile, a country affected by multiple socio-ecological destructions.
The debates in the Chilean Constitutional Convention opened the door to fundamental questions, such as the Rights of Nature. The theme is increasingly welcome, but it also clashes with the lack of knowledge about its meaning and the fear of losing privileges through its application.
An argument was made that these rights are useless, referring to the Ecuadorian experience. It was even said that human rights would be subordinated to the rights of nature and would affect the development model… Let’s clarify some doubts.
Despite the multiple misunderstandings in different instances and the limitations that are placed to prevent the application of these rights in Ecuador, starting with its own rulers, there is room for optimism. In this small Andean country, the Rights of Nature are gradually being consolidated. A series of court cases (almost 60 to date) confirm this. It is an arduous task in a country trapped by rampant extractivism.
Without minimizing the need to accelerate the pace for it to take root, let us keep in mind that the Constitution has only been in force for less than 14 years and that its application is breaking with conservative views. Furthermore, one might wonder how long it took to accept human rights, which in many places are more than inadequately enforced.
The same could be said of the rights of former Afro-descendant slaves: slavery was abolished, but racism was not overcome; women’s rights are advancing, but patriarchy is still present; Similar reflections could be made for indigenous peoples. Accepting these shortcomings should not lead us to the perverse conclusion that these rights are useless.
The important thing, therefore, is that, despite the multiple reticence and ignorance, the rights conquered by traditionally marginalized groups are increasingly permeating society. Gradually, rights are provoking greater social awareness, an awareness that is often more effective than simple institutional changes.
Regarding Ecuadorian justice, the recognition of the Rights of Nature did not resolve the conflict between Nature-object and Nature-subject. We have even recorded state manipulation of these rights when they are used to drive out irregular mining activities in certain territories in order to open up the field to large mining companies.
The indignation these aberrations can provoke should not discourage us. We must always keep in mind that a Constitution alone does not change reality, but it can help society itself to strengthen what it has at its disposal as a powerful tool for crystallizing the changes that are indispensable.
Indeed, for many civil society organizations in Ecuador, these rights represent an important change in outlook. They are a fighting tool. This is not surprising, as several social movements, especially indigenous and peasant movements, have been defending Nature in their struggles for their territories since long before the constitutional recognition of these rights. What is interesting now is that these rights strengthen the protection mechanisms of their territories and even the defenders of Pachamama, who are often criminalized for their struggles.
the chilean example
In addition to Ecuador, there are advances in the world. According to the United Nations, 37 countries have already incorporated this issue in some form at an official and institutional level.
In November 2016, the Constitutional Court of Colombia recognized the rights of the Atrato River and its basin; the same happened in 2018 with the Colombian Amazon. In 2016, the Uttarakhand High Court in Naintal, northern India, ruled that the Ganges and Yumana rivers are living entities, and Panama recently marked a notable milestone with a powerful Law on the Rights of Nature. In addition, there are other proposals underway to reach a constitutional acceptance of Nature as a subject of rights.
This international echo is expanding. As this is an issue of global repercussion, it is urgent that more and more countries constitutionalize these rights and that progress is made in the construction of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Nature, as proposed in Tiquipaya, Bolivia, in 2010.
This meeting was the trigger for the emergence of the International Tribunal on the Rights of Nature, built by civil society from all continents, as a preliminary step towards a formal tribunal within the United Nations to punish crimes against Mother Earth.
As Eduardo Gudynas rightly states: “the recognition of the intrinsic values of Nature imposes universal mandates, as life must be protected in every corner of the planet”.
Global environmental problems such as climate change or ocean acidification further reinforce this ethic as a core value. And so, sooner or later, the globalization of these rights will follow the path of human rights, which served to bring the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to justice and arrest him in Europe for his crimes against humanity.
An initiative in this direction was already expressed some years ago in the public action to prevent the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, Brazil, which sought to defend the Xingu River and its riverside inhabitants, referring to the Rights of Nature in the Ecuadorian Constitution.
Despite the ignorance of some and the defense of the privileges of others, the acceptance of the Rights of Nature is clearly a global and unstoppable issue. Chile is today a world example and the second country in the world to constitutionally free Nature from its status as an object, as it was when it emancipated slaves in 1823.
Finally, the claim that Human Rights would be limited by assuming Nature as a subject of rights is untenable. The rights of nature are in no way opposed to human rights. Predatory models of development of human and non-human life cannot be tolerated. Therefore, both sets of rights complement and value each other. Furthermore, let us accept that without the Rights of Nature there will be no full Human Rights.
