by Nicolas Takamine

0 Comments »

,

Natural Rights

Yesterday, on the eve of Earth Day’s 39th birthday, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article contrasting today’s environmental situation with the one that gave rise to the first such event. The environment is now under a great deal more threat, the article argues, but it has finally gained some prominence in American politics. The challenge, it points out, is that many of today’s environmental issues—and, arguably, the ones that are most dangerous—are, in a way, less apparent than those in 1970. Climate change and overfishing, for example, are relatively abstract ideas that consistently seem to “take the back burner” when it comes time to pay for cleaner energy or restrictions on fishing. The article argues that “such misgivings are understandable but shortsighted” because the full costs of these and other activities “are not tabulated in our current system of accounting” (read more).

The issue is now at least up for discussion in the U.S. A bill is being drafted that, among other things, is expected to mandate a cap-and-trade system to attach a price to carbon emissions and let market forces drive the optimal management of those emissions.

One Latin American country, however, has recently taken a different approach to finding a way to exist sustainably on this planet. On September 28, 2008, the people of Ecuador voted to adopt a new constitution that included legal rights for nature for the first time ever in a national constitution. Specifically, Article 1 of the “Rights for Nature” section of the new constitution reads:

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 bodies.1

Whether or not one agrees, on a philosophical level, with the concept that the environment as an entity possesses fundamental rights, Ecuador’s move is significant because it formalizes, in the document that defines what a nation stands for, the value of the earth and its ecosystems. The provisions imply an inherent value, but they also remind us of the value that the environment provides us from a practical standpoint.

The constitutionalization of rights for nature is not a solution. Still, it is an exploration of a path that may change our mindset to account for this value in the decisions that have historically pushed the cost of today’s activities out to future generations. It will be interesting to see how the principle in these provisions is reflected in legislation and behavior in Ecuador. Likely, there will be something to learn.

1 According to a press release by The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a U.S.-based organization that participated in the development and drafting of these provisions by invitation from Fundación Pachamama, a part of The Pachamama Alliance, which is working with indigenous groups in Ecuador and surrounding areas to empower them to protect their rainforest homelands.