Our minuscule brain cannot perceive what
is the might and sophistication of nature. Yet without me and needing to
understand everything the world exists. The land is not real estate. You own real estate. That there is land
and nature and nobody owns that. This idea of time, my brain can stretch
back 30 years the land is millions and I get to be connected to that. Since the
dawn of the Industrial Revolution humans have viewed nature as a resource from
which to extract commodities: fish energy minerals timber. Nature is also seen as a
place to dispose of waste often without considering the impact it may have on
the human condition whose lives depend on a healthy ecosystem. Today these
environmental challenges continue, but a new idea pulled from ancient indigenous
practice may provide the earth with a rights-based solution. You are the child
and that land out there that earth mother of yours is your parent. No human
owns your mother. Equador, a land known across the globe
for its untouched ecosystems each year hundreds of thousands of tourists travel
to experience the country's rain forests and rivers as well as the exotic
Galapagos Islands. In Ecuador and across much of South America the idea of Mother
Earth or Pachamama as it is known in indigenous andean cultures, has a
presence in everyday life. There is no distinction between human and non-human
nature. For the indigenous nature is mother earth, pachamama. And that does not represent a kind of metaphor. It is a reality
There is much to learn from the ancestral communities. The confirmation of certain elements of nature that were already known millennia ago. Before the recognition of nature I think there should be a deep recognition to the ancestral communities. I believe this is the starting point. It is at this
starting point that in 2008, the Constitutional Assembly of Ecuador
considered taking a new approach their political view of nature as not just a
resource, but as a living entity capable of being legally represented. In the case of Ecuador, the Constitution of Ecuador already contained the recognition of the right to a healthy environment in its previous version. In 2008, it is decided to move forward a little more. They decided to recognize the rights of nature, which articulates the views of different indigenous peoples as well as environmental organizations. For decades Ecuador has struggled to
protect its natural areas. Mining, oil drilling, even tourism are endangering
some of the most biologically diverse places on the planet.
This is a country that in the past ten years has lived through intense environmental conflicts over land. Because when implementing the mining or oil or agroindustrial projects there have been many tensions for people who traditionally inhabit their territories. Ecuador’s Yasuní Biosphere Reserve in the Amazon basin sits on a multi-billion dollar oil deposit. It also happens to be home o the Waorani indigenous people, numbering less than 3000, with some clans living an isolated existence. You know the whole rights of nature indigenous rights interface is particularly relevant in a place like
eastern ecuador where indigenous people are basically living fairly traditional
lives in a way that's pretty similar to a thousand years ago. tThere absolutely demand is that their resources be held intact. If they're not, they themselves disappear. So the human rights and nature's rights really are one unit. Considering that what has hitherto been happening with environmental law has not produced highly positive results but rather the ecological crisis continues to worsen every day. So what I find interesting about the rights of nature is it is a big opportunity to start thinking that there is no single way to try to address the ecological crisis. Nature is not an object to be exploited and to be mistreated but it is a subject that is cared for and respected. So it is a radical change to think of nature as object subject to rights. The idea of nature itself having rights has
existed among indigenous peoples for centuries. In 1949 American
conservationist Aldo Leopold echoed the idea in his book A Sand County Almanac.
In it he proposed a vision for a healthier human relationship with nature,
writing that conservation is a state of harmony between men and land. He felt
that eliminating the artificial boundary between people and nature would open
doors to a new understanding. In 1972 American law professor Christopher D
Stone published Should Trees Have Standing which at the time presented the
nearly inconceivable idea that rights be given to forests, oceans and rivers. That
same year Supreme Court justice and outdoorsman William O Douglas made
headlines when he issued a dissenting opinion based on stones article in the
1972 Sierra Club versus Morton Case stating that environmental objects
should be able to sue for their own protection. Even though legal systems that govern the Western world are now slowly coming
to consider the rights of nature concept, indigenous beliefs came to the table in
2008 during the Ecuador Constitutional Debate. Here was an opportunity to give
nature the same rights held by individuals and corporations. Undoubtedly one of the most interesting topics, more anecdotal also of the Constitutional Debate in Montecristi in 2007-2008 was the introduction of the rights of nature. Nature is no longer seen simply as an object to be appropriated, to be used, to be exploited, but begins to be seen as a subject having rights. Ecuador had already recognized nature's role in good living known as sumak kawsay or “buen vivir” but going as far as giving it legal
standing was still a stretch for some. The debate was going on in various instances with different intensities, but I’ll be honest, I did not think we were going to move forward on the subject of the rights of nature. Many lawyers considered that these rights could not be given. They said nature cannot be a subject of rights because nature can not protect itself. It cannot write a document to present in court. But people were persuaded when nature was compared with children's rights and how a newborn child already has all the rights of children even though he cannot go to court and submit a written document. Why? Because it is necessary to have a guardian of these rights. And for nature, the agreement was that the guardian, the representative of the rights of nature, could be any citizen of the country. We saw it almost as impossible to really include this in the constitution. However, I think Ecuador was going through a very precise moment. And it was a moment of political transition and a lot of change, so people expected very new things. I remember that some assemblymen from the asked me, as President of the Constitutional Assembly, if we were going to establish police stations for the cats, dogs, parrots and apes. It was used as an ironic question to mock the rights of nature, but the rights of nature were approved. And we are speaking now about the need to have a universal declaration of the rights of nature. As a result of the Constitutional
Assembly Pachamama or mother earth was recognized
as a legal entity and written into the Ecuadorian Constitution. Ecuador became
the first country to establish the rights of nature at a national level.
Nature legally could no longer be seen just as a set of natural resources to be
exploited. In 2009 the nearby South American nation of Bolivia also
referenced Pachamama in its constitution acknowledging that nature had the right
to protect and defend itself. These two reforms in Bolivia and Ecuador would
soon have impacts elsewhere. I believe that that the rights of nature has been one of the great contributions that Ecuador has given to the world. We are part of nature. And just like human beings need bread and money to live, human beings need a relationship with nature. Aotearoa--the land of the long white cloudis the Maori name
for New Zealand the country's two main islands, the north and south are home to
snowcat volcanoes ancient forests and rivers flowing from rugged mountains to
the ocean through canyons and across vast pasture lands. Nature is intertwined
with New Zealand's national identity. When we introduce ourselves we refer to
our Mountain we refer to our River. We refer to our muri, that place, the home
that our forebears our ancestors were born. It's connecting us to place. It's
firmly and planting our identity. The first people to settle New Zealand were
Polynesian explorers the ancestors of the Maori. They establish settlements on
both the North and South Islands some 700 years ago. The Dutch map maker and
explorer Abel Tasman was the first European to visit the islands followed
by Captain James Cook 127 years later. The British government signed a treaty
with Maori Chiefs On February 6 1840 but the treaty had both an English
language version and a Maori version that were not identical in content as
the Maori version welcomes settlers to share the land ,but the English version
stated that the Maori would become subjects of the British crown.
The treaty also introduced an alien and incomprehensible concept to the Maori
that of land ownership. Take for example the Whanganui River. The people of the
Whanganui River say the river as me and I and the river. And when I first looked
at that it seemed to me to be a little bit sort of something out of James
Cameron's Avatar, but the more you look at it the more you realize that the
indigenous people have a completely different view of nature then European
New Zealanders. And so it's a question of reconciling traditional ideas and
dizziness ideas with the way in which the crown has been traditionally
thinking over the years. The Maori tribes or iwi, view
themselves as kaitiaki or guardians and caretakers of the land which is
viewed as a living entity. They do not view themselves as simply owners but as
stewards. When you are born to wherever it is that you were born on the planet
that then becomes the thing that you are connected to. The land is not
real estate. That there is land and nature and nobody owns that. I don't care
if you were the owner I don't I don't care if you are the CEO or something
that I can't spell I really don't care. You don't belong here. It's hard to
overstate the anger and frustration the Maori have felt for generations over the
Treaty of Waitangi. On the North Islands Whanganui River local iwi have sought
rights for the river for over 140 years. Prior to European exploration and
settlement Maori grew crops along river terraces and build wares to trap eel and
lamprey during upstream migrations. They build over 80 settlements and
fortifications along the rivers 290 kilometres.
The rapid filled river was not simply a place that provided sustenance it was a
part of who New Zealanders were and are. It was here before I came here. I might own
the 1,400 acres that I've got. I've got a white man's piece of paper to say it's
mine but it's not mine. It belongs to
everybody I'm only the caretaker while I'm here. I
can't take it with me when I go. For centuries
Maori used the river for transport and trade, navigating it with large dugout
canoes. The 1840s brought European exploration and missionary work to the
Whanganui and by the late 19th century large river streamers carry passengers
and freight from the coast to settlements upstream. The river was
advertised as the Rhine of New Zealand attracting thousands of tourists to the
Whanganui. Today the river and its lands are used
for farming forestry and tourism but decades of poor logging and agricultural
practices have taken a toll on the Whanganui and its watershed a well-known
fact to both Maori and those of non Maori descent.
If they hadn't cut a lot of that Bush down there wouldn't be so much debris
coming down the river and if they hadn't cut that down the river wouldn't
have flood so much. Today because of all the land development and the erosion
problems is just as crazy. The environment is getting hammered.
Elsewhere in New Zealand Maori have sought to recover their rights to Te Urewera, a 2127 square kilometer region of ancient moss covered forests that is
home to 7,000 Tūhoe. This mountainous region historically was their homeland.
The Tūhoe people, are known as na tamariki o te kohu, the children of the mist, a
name that marks them as inseparable from the land. However in the 19th century the
New Zealand crown or government, aiming to control fertile Tūhoe territories
pushed them off the land in a deadly scorched earth campaign. Those Tūhoe that survived were relegated to a landlocked territory with no access to traditional
fishing grounds and they descended into extreme poverty. I'm sure many Outsiders
think that New Zealand is very much an idyllic country and in many respects it
is. But the fact of the matter is there have been wrongs happened.
As the demand for land grew stronger and stronger the Tūhoe people were
increasingly locked out of any decision-making. And then in 1954 without
any discussion whatsoever with the people of the land, the particular area
was made into a national park and what that meant is that it was all governed
by central government in Wellington and those people who lived in the land, who
had lived on the land for hundreds and hundreds of years were totally knocked
out of its administration. For two generations that has been the
arrangement. The National Parks Act took responsibility away from Tūhoe people
and took it to the capital under the guise that they could be to govern and
manage a and land they knew nothing about. And it's my experience that if
there were two parcels of land, one Maori land one general land and land was
required for development land would be taken under the Public Works Act and it
was invariably Maori land that was taken. National Park goals in New Zealand
generally include preserving nature and facilitating visitation but here, Te Urewera
National Park conflicted with a connection between people and place that
was so essential to the Tūhoe. It was an artificial structure, a veneer of
management laid over a land that did not need it.
Living with the land, living with nature is hard.
But hardship is the thing that makes us tough. You start to see how much
you need each other. Snd so when government has taken that
responsibility away from Tūhoe people our relationships to each other eroded. It was at this crossroads both Te Uwera
and on the Whanganui River that the New Zealand government realized it needed to
address the wrongs inflicted on the Maori. Could recognizing both nature's
rights and those of the indigenous Maori people provide a solution to a
century-old conflict? In terms of the New Zealand recognition of the rights of
nature we were dealing with a number of these settlements and dealing with the
aspirations of the various tribes. And then we had to say well if we transfer
the river or ownership of the river to the local iwi
it'll be World War 3. And if we transferred a national park or what had
been a National Park to the iwi there would be trouble because people would
say we were giving away something that was their birthright. And so we had to
try and explore ways in which we could reach just and durable settlements
without getting ourselves into trouble. I mean good old politics at its best. And
the result is a truly unique settlement. And fortunately the various groups that
we were dealing with provided the answer. Get away from Western concepts of
ownership into something else and recognising that maybe the river just owns
itself, maybe the forests they Te Ureweras own themselves.
The Te Urewera act of 2014 granted the legal rights of a person to
the former Te Urewera national park. For the 40,000 - Tūhoe, the return of Te Urewera was more than just about land having rights
it was central to Tūhoe identity a key to a sustainable future. The agreement,
part of a larger 170 million dollar settlement from the crown to settle the
historic grievances held by the Tūhoe also included a public apology. The crown
apologizes for its unjust and exess of behavior and the burden carried by
generations of Tūhoe who suffer greatly and who carry the pain of their
ancestors. Let these words guide our way to a green stone door tato pounamu which
looks back on the past and closes it which looks forward to the future and
opens it. Under the Te Urewera agreement the Tūhoe will share management of the lands
with the Department of Conservation but neither will own the land. The land will
own itself. The goal is to seek to establish an intergenerational
principle-based system to manage Te Urewera drawn from Maori traditions and a
focused responsibility to the land that involves asking what is best for the
land rather than a set of regulations. Well how can a bunch of humans represent
the voice of nature? It's a board that does not represent humans. We have this
delightful conversation about things like I well that stakeholder wants this and that person - ahh, we don't see humans. No. I am nature. Nature is connected to
everything. I have a memory that is timeless. I can't see things and annual
plans. For us what applies here is 1,000 years of history, we don't live in
legislation. Three years later in 2017 similar rights were also extended to the
Whanganui River. In a landmark decision that made global headlines the Whanganui
River was granted the same rights as a person. This recognition allowed the
river to be heard in court. The Whanganui River Claims Settlement known as Te Awa Tupua in Māori describes the Whanganui River as an indivisible and
living whole from the mountains to the sea incorporating its tributaries and
all its physical and metaphysical elements. Appointed with a care of the
river are two guardians one from the government and another from the
Whanganui River iwi. The details will be worked out in time and many in New
Zealand and elsewhere in the world are optimistic about the model. When
you--when one looks at it the first time it's strange. The idea of a natural
resource owning itself but once you reconcile it with the aspirations of the
indigenous people then there is a way through. I am the river and the river is me.
You've got to respect the river. You know she's beautiful
she's a beautiful thing. It's our life. Reconnection with land and
nature makes us good people. It can work anywhere that people respect nature. The
rights of nature developments in New Zealand are part of a growing number of
nations redefining their relationship with nature.
Iceland specified in its 1971 nature conservation act that humans and nature
should engage in such a way that life or land be not needlessly wasted nor sea,
fresh water or air polluted. The High Court of India's Uttarakhand state
ruled that then Gangotri and Yamunotri glaciers as well as lakes and
forests in the Himalayan region have legal rights. The court also ruled the
Ganges River sacred to a billion Indians and the Yamuna River had the same legal
rights as people. The rivers both badly polluted were to be legal and living
entities which advocates hoped would improve efforts to clean up these
watersheds. Though in July 2017 India's Supreme Court overturned the Ganges and
Yamuna rivers ruling it did uphold the ruling on Himalayan glaciers lakes and
forests. I believe that many countries are opening some very fantastic decisions. But for us who live in urban areas I think it is very important we recognize that we are part of nature. For people from big cities the distance from nature if very great. Often children in schools do not know where their water comes from. So the problem is how to make everyone understand this. Could the rights of nature take root in a populous increasingly urbanized nation with the
world's largest economy? In 2013 the city council of Santa
Monica California with broad public support voted unanimously to pass a
sustainability Rights Ordinance to help ensure that nature will continue to
thrive. Right now it's really urgent in cities to really reconsider how we
develop. And that doesn't just mean build buildings how do we as human beings
evolve and develop. We need healthy relationships with nature and nature is
a community like the human community. What does that look like in law? that
looks like, in Santa Monica, the sustainability Bill of Rights.
Santa Monica is a city of 100,000 people west of Los Angeles on the shores of the
Pacific Ocean it is just one of over 150 communities
in the United States to enact a community Bill of Rights. Santa Monica is
a progressive affluent community with a strong commitment to sustainability, but
after hearing about rights of nature movements elsewhere they wanted to take
their efforts a step further. Santa Monica has been looked at as a national
leader in urban sustainability for decades. We were literally the first city
with a sustainable city plan in the United States way back in 1994. By 2010
as the Citizens United decision was advancing - great concern about are we
gonna have more money going to polluters? What are we gonna do at a place like
Santa Monica to safeguard what we're already doing? Is our plan enough? And
hence the rights of nature was laid on the table. In 1994 Santa Monica established a comprehensive sustainability plan. The 2013 rights of
nature ordinance stated that natural communities and ecosystems possess
fundamental and in a legal rights to exist and flourish. Residents can now
bring forward legal action on behalf of nature. And so really that bold statement
on behalf of the city that we all have the right to clean water we all have the
right to clean air and Nature has to have the ability to thrive. And so nature
has rights as well we put all of those principles into the sustainable rights
ordinance and we actually made it enforceable. And so development here is a
really big struggle and some of the developers are big corporate entities.
Their rights to gain profits do not supersede the communities rights or most
important the rights of nature to thrive. What does that mean? There's a boost with
some people's thinking about our planet and our watershed are not about
profit-making. And we need to not maximize its destruction for profits.
While the new law has been highly popular with residents of Santa Monica
implementation has not been as successful. The city has struggled with
the same thing that rights in nature has struggled with throughout the world
which is how do you actually make it enforceable? In the case of Santa Monica
we're also a very built out City which is very different from a lot of these
areas that have a river system to protect or a rain forest or a pine
forest and so the sort of nature that you would really protect
really it's a very urban environment in which we all live. And really Santa
Monica Bay would be the one Natural Area that exists there and the Clean Water
Act is a pretty darn good tool to use which is federal law to make sure that
Santa Monica Bay gets cleaned up. Here in the States the notion of
environmental standing is fairly well-established so you don't need the
habitat to have its own sort of legal existence for it to be protected if
enough people care. Litigation is expensive and I think certainly the city
can do it on its own nickel but for private individuals to do it you have to
get a lawyer interested ann the prospect of having the you know a private counsel
of ten, twenty, fifty thousand dollar retainer is going to turn off a lot of
people. From the standpoint of actually any citizen using the law to enforce
against violation of those rights that has yet to occur. Despite the rights of
nature not having immediate legal impacts in Santa Monica supporters
believe that the idea can inspire people to rethink their relationship to nature.
You know could it be made more effective?
Absolutely. And I think every community needs to see what's the foothold that
they can get and to internalize what are they already working on that could then
be uplifted. And if nothing else the rights of nature allows us to re-conceptualize who we are, part of Mother Earth. I think there's a real big question on the rights of nature whether these are just a great value
from the standpoint of awareness to the public. What's really interesting about
the Santa Monica experience is back in the 1990s our groundwater supply was so
polluted the literally zero percent of our water our drinking water was coming
from our local groundwater but this city boldly went after the polluters to
actually clean up the aquifers and provide the public, restore our right to
our local water supply to the public. It was extraordinary. And in a lot of ways
that was sort of you know the the the motivation to show that you know this
right for nature really can exist and Santa Monica has already fought for it
using different methods to make it happen.
So that's why this work is so important, to give these sorts of examples of
realizing that you can speak up for resources that can't speak up for
themselves. Several hundred miles east of California is the state of Utah. Home to
world-renowned national parks such as Zion and arches. A desert state Utah is
facing environmental issues of its own. Great Salt Lake is under pressure from
water diversions and expanding population and climate change.
Stakeholders are exploring whether and how laws might be changed to guarantee a
minimum inflow for Great Salt Lake which currently has no right to water. Whether
you've characterize it at a write of nature or a whether a river is entitled
to have a water right or a lake is entitled to have a water right allocated
to it that's a very difficult thing to do in a state like Utah where the water
is already fully appropriated. Convincing our very conservative legislature to do
anything that would even be remotely viewed as treading on private property
rights is really problematic. Great Salt Lake is a Utah icon as famous as the
Mormon Tabernacle Choir or its powdery ski slopes. I remember the first day I
came out here and I stood there and looked around and I was just blown away.
I couldn't believe that a place like this existed. The lake is an
extraordinary ecosystem vital for over five million migratory birds
traveling north and south across the Americas. And we get anywhere between
thirty fifty even heading up towards a hundred percent of North America's
populations of some of these bird species. Great Salt Lake also contributes
to Utah's economy through the brine shrimp and minerals industry as well as
through the money spent by bird watchers hunters and tourists. All economic and
recreational activities are dependent on adequate water levels in the lake. But
changing climate and a population expected to double to six million by
2060 will create pressure to build more dams and divert more water from streams
and rivers including the Bear River the lakes major tributary. In short the
future of this unique resource is threatened unless a right to water is
established. The water picture and the Great Salt Lake relationship is a very
fragile one. The lake is very dependent upon water so as the population grows
and they consider what their values are Great Salt Lake oftentimes is left out
of that picture. You've got greater water demand for
irrigation you've got greater water demand for
cooling for electricity so you've got the squeeze from population growth
through climate change. Utah water in general and Great Salt
Lake as well is kind of trapped in the jaws of this vise that are closing on us.
The lake is at 4193 right now that historic low is 4191 and
so we're within two feet of the historic low where the salinity of the South Arm
rises to the point where the brine shrimp industry is impacted, where the
harbors are impacted recreation birds. That's our biggest challenge I think
going forward is keeping water in the lake. Lakes don't do well about water.
The ways in which water has been used in Utah and the laws that govern it
originated at a time when perhaps it made sense to incentivize people to use
as much water as they could to help provide a strong economic foundation for
the more arid States in the American West. Back then
environmental concerns preserving water for lakes wildlife and recreation or
supplying water to huge cities were factors in determining water needs.
as a result current Utah water law is based on a belief system
that no longer matches today's reality. Agriculture which consists of about 2
percent of Utah's total economic output uses about 80 percent of Utah's
water. While indoor water use is only about 2 percent of all water used in the
state. The system as it's currently set up actually works against using water
wisely and incentivizes farmers to use as much water as possible even though
they don't actually need that much water. The use it or lose it
principle. There's actually plenty of water to expand the population without
developing new sources of water. We are not running out of water.
But even though plenty of water is available for Great Salt Lake, because it
has no legal rights the lake cannot purchase or lease water shares. The law
simply does not allow us to set water aside just to sit there in the lake for
the values of the lake. The state water laws was such that the water in the lake
is considered wasted. We're looking for an opportunity for groups to be able to go
out and buy water runs lease water rights from agriculture in order to keep
water flowing to the lake. It's just we don't have a mechanism to do that right
now. One solution would be a viable in stream flow law which would allow water
rights holders such as farmers to sell donate or transfer their water rights to
a river or lake providing a financial incentive. Utah water law does include
protections to the environment stating that a water right can only be granted
if by removing the water from a river or stream the environment will not be
affected. While this part of the law has been overlooked in the past pushing for
its enforcement could return water shares to the state thereby increasing
water flows into Great Salt Lake. the legal tool is there to force them to, but
it forces taking lawsuits and other things tjat will simply delay
the implementation any of this for decades while it works
through courts. If it can be done through market-based transfers without violating
priorities and without violating property rights I think we'll find
willing sellers who wouldn't do a variety of things. The biggest problem
with that is the environmental community has trouble competing on the economic
basis and that often leaves the environment on the outs looking in. Could a
rights of nature law help Great Salt Lake?
Some think so but gaining significant public support could take time. I think
the reason we have water concerns for Great Salt Lake is because the Great
Salt Lake is an afterthought if it even makes it that far and if we can build
public concern about Great Salt Lake and that'll build up into political support.
And to me that's the key is if this can be couched in terms of we are trying to
sustain this resource for the benefit of all of us and I think today it probably
is more feasible than ever before. Utah isn't unique. Manny nations and
communities across the globe struggle to provide rights for their ecosystems.
Ecuador despite being the birthplace of the modern Pachamama movement in 2008
has yet to see the law become fully operational
I think people in Ecuador really like the fact that we have this rights of
nature law. I think they're proud that this country was the first one to
include that kind of thing in their constitution
but I do believe there is a big chasm between this law as it's written and the
way that it's put into practice for Ecuador. I think in a big way it is left
quite empty. In 2011 a section of the Vilcabamba River in Ecuador was
damaged by road construction. An American couple who owned property along the
river sued and eventually prevailed in court. If you cut down the width of the
river by half the river current picks up everything that was thrown in and and
takes it downstream. Ecuador upheld its rights of nature law making global
headlines and setting a legal precedent for the application of the rights of
nature. Wowever enforcement of the ruling has proven difficult. Very little has
actually been done to restore the damaged section of the Vilcabamba
River. In other places in Ecuador the law seems to have no force as mining
activities continue with no plans for the mitigation of environmental damage.
Ecuador, despite being the country that recognizes the right of nature, allows large-scale mining to enter in this same period. We even pursued a case against the company Ecuacorriente, the one that had the first contractual for the large-scale mining. So there were many obvious cases, the mining was evident for a country that never had large-scale mining before and suddenly had the rights of nature. For example, the Constitution supports the defense defensa de las fuentes de why the Rose
couses young sing embargo the Ocado en of water sources and watercourses. However, in this moment, the Mining Law says that mining companies must be guaranteed all services including water services, hich means that mining can legally affect sources of water. These government contradictions have a series of very difficult conditions for the rights of nature to apply. First there are people who will never accept that nature has rights. In practice, we have serious difficulties In practice, we have serious difficulties because for lawyers and for judges it is difficult to take that step. Then many do not understand that it is not even necessary a legal framework, predetermined laws, to put into effect the rights of nature because the Constitution opens the door to apply them without law. Moreover, I am weary about establishing a law that regulates the rights of nature where the rights of nature should permeate all laws. Ecuador's world-famous Galapagos Islands
lie 1000 kilometers from the mainland. This unusual archipelago where Charles
Darwin did much of his pioneering work on natural selection is home to a rich
array of wildlife including species found nowhere else on earth. The islands
with their white sand beaches, animals and tropical vegetation are increasingly
popular with tourists. In 2018 the island saw over 225,000 visitors. Nearly 20
times the level from the 1960s. The population of the Galapagos has also
increased from about 1,000 in the 1950s to over 30,000 people today. This human
tide has created significant conservation challenges with a greater
need for fresh water supplies electrical generation and waste disposal. Increased
construction including that of illegal hotels and houses pose even more
challenges. Invasive plant and animal species are also threatening the
Galapagos unique biodiversity, 20 endemic species are now critically
endangered. Nature that is suffering today because of our direct or indirect fault. In 1998 a special regime for the Galapagos
Islands was established to help manage tourism and a new law was designed to
restrict migration to the islands but these efforts only brought marginal
improvements a subsequent study recommended to cap on visitors but the
report was set aside and its recommendations not implemented.
Basically when we talk about rights of nature versus development versus human
interest versus economy all those things it really boils down to money. It's like
what do we value? Is this worthwhile or is this worthwhile? We have now said
economy is everything and I think we're really moving farther and farther away
from any kind of potential to recognize that nature itself has value and should
be recognized as having rights to exist. If tourism and development are
detrimental to nature in the Galapagos could the new rights of nature law be
used to limit that development? Perhaps yes, but whether the law will be applied
is another question. The money earned by tourism may limit the political will to
enforce such a law. It will be a process to implement those rights in Ecuador. One that will possibly take decades. It similar to when slavery existed in the United States. The whole subject of abolishing slavery and that the slave moves from object to subject of rights. It is no longer legal to hit or beat him. You understood that it was absurd to do so. Today we are understanding that these laws that permit the mistreatment and pollution of nature are absurd. By treating nature as a person we can ask why do we not stop polluting it. t is a very radical change to think of nature as object to subject, not an object, and that will take time. Definitely here in Ecuador the we have not been able to implement 100 percent. It will take time. But for us this one of the only solutions to understand how to achieve this balance again with the nature - to understand it as a person. So what does the future hold for the Rights of Nature? Changes in the legal system are reflection of social
changes which typically take time to take root and grow. The rights of nature
movement reflects a new way of thinking about the human relationship with nature
and with patience and perseverance change can happen.
If we think about the meaning of the recognition of the rights of nature, I like to think of it as an opportunity, hat is, an opportunity to start generating questions that were thought to be already answered in a certain sense. We’re starting to see in the recognition of rights of nature an open door to show the diversity of ways to deal with the ecological crisis around the world, I think that fundamentally it is recognize nature as our mother and all living beings as our brothers. And recognize that society is not going to have a good future if we break those family ties with our mother and our brothers. The Rights of Nature are an opportunity to build another civilization, a civilization that will definitely overcome the anthropocentric visions, not looking for humans as the center and the dominator of all nature, but all living beings, including humans of course, have the opportunity to live with dignity. Despite challenges, the rights of nature
movement continues to gain momentum. In New Zealand following the Whanganui
River and Te Urewera settlements attention turned to Mount Taranaki. In 1865 the New
Zealand government took the mountain from the local iwi and gave ownership
of it and surrounding lands to European settlers but the Māori view the
snow-capped dormant volcano as an ancestor and seek to care for it in that
fashion not simply as one might care for piece of property. If you talk about
legal personality I mean ultimately someone needs to be the voice. In order
to make those decisions you need a set of values. Now that's tough because whose
values? Uou know if you think about a mountain being your grandparent it
actually just starts with how would you like your grandparents to be treated? And
so you know you think about that in the context of it becomes quite personal and
you can start thinking around actually what is important. In 2017 a Memorandum
of Understanding was signed by the Maori and the New Zealand government to give
the mountain legal personhood. The Maori hope their story can continue to
inspire the world to reconsider our relationship with nature. I think you
know we've got an opportunity to demonstrate what can be achieved because
we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to develop a new model which
could be a blueprint not only for New Zealand but I think globally from the
perspective of how we care for places and I think also the relationship that
we can have as people. Today over 100 nations have some form of legal rights
for nature in their constitutions or federal laws. The United Nations has taken up the question of considering a universal
declaration for the rights of nature and though courts in industrialized
countries seem less willing to grant nature a legal right as they have an
Ecuador or New Zealand each step provides a model and inspiration for
others. They provide a foundation for a more sustainable future for humans and
the physical world they share. The reconnection of people with the land has
to do with restoring our relationships to each other,
regrowing our sense of purpose a sense of community and our kindness to each
other. We get that because of what we observe about nature. We see the
relationships between trees and insects, between mist and land between rock and
mud and we see how in that extreme diversity everything works together.
Reconnection with land in nature is your sense of security about the future.
