(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
One in four mammal species is in danger of dying out and disappearing forever. A new study from the World Conservation Union (IUCN) published 6. October shows that 38 percent of the 45.000 species listed on the IUCN Red List are under threat. Deforestation and destruction of habitats is the biggest threat. Climate change increases the loss of species diversity. Many of the species that are not at risk today will be as the temperature rises. But the report also shows that proper measures can ensure the lives of species that are close to disappearing.
Solutions for endangered species were also the subject when the American lawyer Christopher Stone in the essay "Should trees have standing" from 1972 argued that endangered species and plant species and other parts of nature should be given legal rights. He believed that plants, animals, rivers and water should be appointed guardians who could speak their case before a court, and pointed out that many who today have rights, from children and women to indigenous peoples and African slaves, once stood without many basic rights.
Thirty-six years later, more specifically, on September 36 this year, 28 percent of Ecuador's citizens voted in a referendum for a new constitution that gives nature rights similar to those of human rights. The text of the Constitution states that "human beings have fundamental rights guaranteed in ... the Constitution and in the international human rights instruments" and that "nature is also subject to the rights in the Constitution".
It is the first time a country has enshrined extensive rights to nature in a constitution. The law changes the legal status of nature from being property to becoming a rights-bearing entity. The constitutional amendments should guarantee the existence and maintenance of the country's ecosystems and include both flora and fauna.
First in the world
"Ecuador's people are now leading the way in how other countries in the world can change their view of how nature should be protected," said Mari Margil, director of the American organization Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund. The organization has guided Ecuador in drafting the text on the rights of nature in the new constitution.
The law of Ecuador not only gives nature "the right to exist, survive, maintain and renew its vital cycles, structures, functions and processes in development", but also gives the state as well as local communities and individuals – regardless of nationality – the legal right to claim these rights before a court. Private individuals thus have the right to sue on behalf of the ecosystems, without having themselves been harmed. Until now, legal systems around the world have been person-based and it has been necessary to promote evidence of personal injury, such as that pollution has led to cancer. This can be difficult. Precisely the fact that the constitution allows not only the state, but also most people, to enforce the law, Margil believes is important for the constitutional amendments to be implemented in practice.
- If the authorities do not enforce nature's rights, the people have the opportunity to do so. It is an important step for this to have significance in practice, says Margil. She also emphasizes that indigenous peoples 'delegates to the Constitutional Assembly believed that nature's rights were a natural and necessary extension of Ecuador's indigenous peoples' rights.
The right of nature
The Rainforest Fund rejoices, and believes that the law in Ecuador is a recognition of the indigenous struggle in the country. They believe the new constitution will open the world to new ideas about how to treat nature, while at the same time giving the environmental movement and Native American organizations in Ecuador greater legal opportunities.
- This is the first time nature has become a subject with rights. Nature then acquires a value in itself beyond being of direct benefit to humans, says Maria Guzmán-Gallegos, project coordinator for the Amazon in the Rainforest Fund. Although Ecuador's constitution is completely unique, she believes that there is a growing awareness both of the importance of maintaining ecosystems and of the fact that nature is of great importance to humans. Increased focus on the environment, nature and climate change in recent years has probably also contributed to this development.
- What we and many are still struggling with is to achieve that climate change not only threatens us, but also the ecosystems we depend on. Climate change and the loss of biological diversity are by far the biggest environmental challenges we have today, says Secretary General of the Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation Jan Thomas Odegard, who precisely on this basis thinks the new constitution in Ecuador is interesting.
- I think this is a direct consequence of the fact that we are the generation in human history that exterminates most species. This is a way of recognizing that species diversity in nature has its own right to exist and survive, says Odegard.
However, the Norwegian Society for Nature Conservation is more skeptical about how the constitution should be implemented in practice.
- There are usually only big words without obligations. It is good that poor countries get rights to nature in their constitution, but it does not help much if they are not able to develop ecosystem schemes and climate cooperation that can make it possible to follow up the provisions, says Odegard. He points out that Ecuador needs income from natural resources and fears that the country will find it difficult to withstand the pressure of economic interests. He points out that we in Norway also have a constitutional provision that says something about how nature is to be managed, without it being respected to a large enough degree.
- But it is positive if the change in the law allows for the business community to take nature into account to a greater extent, says Odegard.
From ethics to law
Legal Adviser in the Animal Welfare Alliance, Live Kleveland, thinks it is very interesting to see that the ethical-philosophical debate about whether nature should have procedural rights, which was introduced in the 70s, is now beginning to take root in the legal system and affect legislation.
- The new constitution in Ecuador is groundbreaking. The most interesting thing is that the constitutional text also addresses the issue of procedural rights, and here states that both legal persons, such as companies, and natural persons can act legally on behalf of nature, says Kleveland who believes that it has generally become easier for both animals and nature to win with their demands in recent years both in the form of the rights being established and the right of procedure being changed. It is nevertheless too early to say whether the constitutional proposals will have any bearing on case law and further legislation in Ecuador, she believes.
- But we can assume that it can have an influence both on the interpretation of the laws in Ecuador and also influence international law, says Kleveland.
- Destroyed by multinational companies
The starting point for the constitutional amendment in Ecuador lies in a growing disappointment with foreign companies. Everything from natural gas to banana companies has utilized the country's natural resources. The country is currently in the middle of an environmental lawsuit against the American oil giant Chevron, which is accused of dumping many billions of liters of oil in the Amazon rivers over a twenty-year period. Texaco, which was acquired by Chevron in 2001, drilled for oil in the Amazon in the 1990s. Indigenous people claim the environmental damage has led to cancer and birth defects. Chevron denies the allegations, saying they handed over responsibility to Ecuador's authorities as early as 1992. Should Chevron lose the case, they could have to pay as much as $ 16 billion in damages, according to court experts.
- Oil extraction in Ecuador has not made the people better off, only the companies have received the benefit. The constitution is therefore important because Ecuador must now think carefully about the consequences that mining and oil extraction may have for nature and ecosystems, regardless of whether the operation benefits people financially, says Guzmán-Gallegos.
The fight against polluting large corporations was also what started the work of giving nature rights in the first place. The process did not start in Ecuador's Amazon or the Galapagos Islands, but in Pennsylvania in the United States. There, the organization Environmental Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) has provided legal assistance to grassroots organizations and local communities in their fight against coal mines and large factories. In the US states of Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia, the organization CELDF has worked with communities to enact laws that change the legal status of nature and give it rights. In Ecuador, they became acquainted with the organization's work in the United States and invited them to provide input during the preparation of the new constitution.
- Ecuador has been destroyed by multinational companies. By giving nature rights, Ecuador is now fundamentally changing the way they view and protect their ecosystems, says Margil. Following the Constitution of Ecuador, the American organization has also been contacted by parliamentarians in Nepal who, in the work on their new constitution, are considering including rights to nature. Organizations in countries such as Australia and South Africa have also shown interest.
Monkeys get rights
Ecuador currently goes much further than others and is alone in giving trees and monkeys the opportunity to stand before a court. But the idea that nature and animals should have rights has also led to changes elsewhere in the world. In June, the Spanish parliament gave its support to give the country's monkeys some "human rights" such as the right to life, liberty and not to be tortured. According to Reuters, this is the first time a national assembly has requested such rights for anyone other than animals. Parliament's Committee on the Environment approved a resolution calling on the country to follow the Great Ape project to scientists and philosophers who believe that our closest genetic relatives deserve extended rights. It is expected that the resolution will be adopted and it will then be forbidden to use monkeys in experiments, in circuses, in TV commercials and movies, and violation of the law will be punished. But it will not be forbidden to keep the approximately 300 monkeys that currently live in Spanish zoos captive.
Read more in this week's issue of Ny Tid
