Really? Ecuador??
Last week, I had a conversation with a close family member about why I don’t vote. I explained that until someone of any party recognized the rights of the natural world instead of continuing to protect our interest in exploiting it, I would not vote. I explained that I don’t care about protecting jobs if the jobs we’re protecting are responsible for global destruction and untold amounts of suffering.
I was fired up.
Well, it seems that all I might have to do to make our whole conversation moot is move my ass to everyone’s favorite budding democracy – Ecuador.
As some of you may know, Ecuador has been involved in severe legal battles with many corporations over the damaging of its ecosystems (the Galapagos aren’t going to exploit themselves!) and have lost patience with the protection afforded by most environmental standards in place.
The solution? Ecuador has taken it upon itself to design a constitution wherein nature is granted inalienable rights, and will receive legal protection under the law as any Ecuadorian citizen would.
Seriously??? Seriously.
What this actually means is that air, water, rivers, islands, trees – would all achieve a legal standing that would allow citizens of Ecuador to sue a person or corporation on behalf of an ecosystem.
This article from the Guardian describes it much better than I can.
Here’s an excerpt:
Thomas Linzey, a US lawyer who has helped to develop the new legal framework for nature, says: “The dominant form of environmental protection in industrialised countries is based on the regulatory system. Governments permit and legalise the discharge of certain amounts of toxics into the environment. As a form of environmental protection, it’s not working.
“In the same way, compensation is measured in terms of that injury to a person or people. Under the new system, it will be measured according to damage to the ecosystem. The new system is, in essence, an attempt to codify sustainable development. The new laws would grant people the right to sue on behalf of an ecosystem, even if not actually injured themselves.”
Until now, all legal frameworks have been anthropocentric, or people-based. To file an environmental lawsuit requires a person to provide evidence of personal injury. This can be extremely difficult. To provide a conclusive link, say, between a cancer and polluted drinking water is, legally speaking, virtually impossible.
The origins of this apparent legal tidal shift lie in Ecuador’s growing disillusionment with foreign multinationals. The country, which contains every South American ecosystem within its borders, which include the Galapagos Islands, has had disastrous collisions with multi-national companies. Many, from banana companies to natural gas extractors, have exploited its natural resources and left little but pollution and poverty in their wake.
I am almost waiting for the punchline. I am still extremely skeptical of governmental regulation of this sort (The ACLU hasn’t exactly run out of law suits even though we’re all supposed to have rights). However, if this constitution passes it will be the first ever of its kind in the world, and who knows what might come next after this legal precedent has been established.
In order to obtain another opinion, I sent a quick note to activist Derrick Jensen, author of several books including The Culture of Make Believe and Endgame Volumes I and II soliciting his thoughts on the issue. Here is the response I received.
“I think it’s something that will actually help. Of course it won’t solve anything, since industrial civilization creates insoluble problems. But it’s good, I think.”
That pretty much sums it up.
Leave a Reply