The Legal Protection of Pachamama: The Implications of Environmental Personhood in Ecuador

When adopting their new constitution in 2008, Ecuador became the first country to recognize the legal personhood of nature, or Pachamama. Specifically, Chapter 7 “Rights of Nature” ensures the “maintenance and regeneration of [nature’s] life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes” and calls for “[a]ll persons, communities, peoples and nations” to protect this right. [1] This clause in the Constitution has provided a legal pathhood for the conservation of nature; theoretically, any person can act as a representative of Ecuador’s environment and file a lawsuit to prevent the harmful degradation of a specific body or region. 

During the past few years, Ecuador’s courts have made landmark decisions pertaining to Rights of Nature, and in many of these cases, they have ruled in favor of the environment. Although the court system provides a viable pathway to enact climate protection in the present, the long-term impacts of these rulings remain widely unknown. Rights of Nature has provided the foundational constitutional language for conservation within the legal system, however this clause does not guarantee the sustained protection of Ecuador’s environment.

One major factor complicating this issue is that localized environments do not remain isolated from the global environment; decisions made by other nations can lead to indirect harm and consequential devastation within Ecuador’s borders. This means that even if Ecuador makes the most environmentally-conscious decisions, their ecosystem can become overwhelmed from overall international pollution. Additionally, the Constitution’s ambiguous language allows for varying, value-based interpretations. For example, Article 72 states “in those cases of severe or permanent environmental impact.. [the State] shall adopt adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate harmful environmental consequences” while Article 74 states, “Persons, communities, peoples, and nations shall have the right to benefit from the environment and the natural wealth enabling them to enjoy the good way of living.” [2] “Adequate measures” to protect the environment, when taking into consideration the “good way of living,” might lead to conflicting ideals with one entity being prioritized. Therefore, the environmental efficacy of Ecuador’s Rights of Nature will be largely determined by cultural perception; the understood relationship between anthropogenic activities and future environmental destruction will influence the role of the legal system within climate change mitigation.

Nevertheless, Rights of Nature has allowed for the foundational footwork to be set regarding environmental protection. For example, in the 2022 “Estrellita Monkey” case, or No. 253-20-JH, an illegally owned monkey named Estrellita was seized from the domestic home in which she lived in for eighteen years and was relocated into the San Martín de Baños zoo, where she died a little less than a month later. [3] Her previous owner, Ana Beatriz Burbano Proaño claimed that the zoo did not let her know about Estrellita’s death. She soon after filed a writ of habeas corpus to bring Estrellita in front of a judge in hopes of receiving a wrongful conviction verdict and returning Estrellita home. [4] Even though Estrellita had already died, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador heard this case with a keen interest in the rights of animals. In a 7-2 decision, they ruled that the Rights of Nature apply to animals, therefore individual animals have legal rights. [5] This landmark decision has set precedent for providing the privilege of habeas corpus to all animals within Ecuador, a feat made possible due to the country’s constitution.

Rights of Nature has also blocked human activities that put biodiversity conservation at risk. In 2018, local communities near the protected Los Cedros forest sued Empresa Nacional Minera EP (ENAMI EP), Ecuador’s national mining company, and the Ministry of the Environment in No.1149-19-JP “Collateral Review” case. [6] ENAMI EP obtained permits that gave them exploration rights for two-thirds of Los Cedros, and the petitioners claimed that this extraction would disrupt the balance of the ecosystem. [7] Los Cedros spans almost 12,000 acres, consisting of both cloud and wet tropical forest biomes, and is inhabited by many endangered and vulnerable species. [8] In 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that mining could not occur in this region and revoked all of the issued permits. [9] Through this decision, the Court put a greater emphasis on wildlife rather than concentrated economic profit. It interpreted Rights of Nature to prohibit all mining activity, understanding that even limited activity could affect the fragility of this reserve.

Besides protecting the environment, the Rights of Nature has been used to promote indigenous rights. The Intag Valley in Ecuador, for example, is one of the most biodiverse regions consisting of 30,000 acres. [10] For almost thirty years, indigenous communities living in this area fought mining operations. In 2021, they filed a suit to stop the Llurimagua copper mining project, a joint venture between ENAMI EP and Coldeco, a Chilean company. The Imbabura Provincial Court voided their mining licenses in 2023 due to the violation of the Rights of Nature, citing the “Los Cedros” ruling that required local communities to be consulted prior to the granting of environmental permits. [11] This decision reaffirmed the authority of the local communities within their surrounding environment; it prohibited the intervention of external entities that would bring harm not just to the environment, but those who inhabit that land.

While Rights of Nature have allowed for landmark decisions in the courts, public opinion has also significantly shaped the environmental conversation within Ecuador. In 2023, voters passed a referendum to prohibit oil drilling in the Yasuni National Park with a 60% majority. The Yasuni National Park, inhabited by indigenous groups such as the Tagaeri and Taromenane, spans over 2.5 million acres with hundreds of species, and the referendum will ensure the protection of this region. On a more macroscopic scale, this vote was critical in the larger consideration of climate change mitigation. The forest acts as a carbon sink that absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide, and this referendum prevented the deforestation that would have resulted from further oil drilling. [12] Voters had to grapple with ethical and economic considerations in this decision; the Ecuadorian energy minister estimated that the referendum would result in an annual loss of 1.2 billion dollars, or approximately 1% of the country’s GDP. [13] Even so, voters prioritized both the wellbeing of Yasuni’s indigenous communities and biological diversity.

With an aligned cultural and legal mindset, Rights of Nature can amplify activism in Ecuador and provide an alternative pathway for environmental protection. This constitutional clause has already redefined the legal understanding of nature, and courts have established important precedence during the past few years. However, the well-being of Ecuador’s future environment remains uncertain; regardless of Ecuador’s own measures, other countries’ actions will have indirect negative effects on this land. Nature is not divided by national borders, so climate mitigation needs to be addressed on the international level. Collective action on restructuring and reducing the environmental impact of anthropogenic activities is imperative to preserve the health of Pachamama; unless a global consensus is reached, individual constitutions alone will not reduce the most dire consequences of the climate crisis.

Edited by Shria Ramanathan

[1] “Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador,” Georgetown University Political Database of the Americas, January 31, 2011, https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html

[2] “Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador,” Georgetown University Political Database of the Americas, January 31, 2011, https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html

[3] “Estrellita Monkey" Case, No. 253-20-JH, 1 (Constitutional Court of Ecuador 2022)

[4] “Habeas Corpus,” Cornell University Legal Information Institute, March 2022, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus#:~:text=A%20writ%20of%20habeas%20corpus,holds%20the%20defendant%20in%20custody.

[5] “Constitutional Court of Ecuador Recognizes Animal Rights in Landmark Ruling,” Harvard Animal Law and Policy Program, March 23, 2022, https://animal.law.harvard.edu/news-article/landmark-ruling/

[6] Ana Cristina Basantes, “Mining Company Pressing to Enter Ecuador’s Los Cedros Protected Forest,” Mongabay, May 22, 2020, https://news.mongabay.com/2020/05/mining-company-pressing-to-enter-ecuadors-los-cedros-protected-forest/#:~:text=The%20decentralized%20autonomous%20government%20of,court%20ruled%20in%20their%20favor.

[7] Patrick Greenfield, “Plans to Mine Ecuador Forest Violate Rights of Nature, Court Rules,” Guardian, December 2, 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/02/plan-to-mine-in-ecuador-forest-violate-rights-of-nature-court-rules-aoe

[8] “What is Los Cedros?,” Los Cedros Reserve, https://loscedrosreserve.org/ 

[9] Collateral Review Case, No. 1149-19-JP, 84 (Constitutional Court of Ecuador 2021)

[10]  Mike DiGirolamo, “Podcast: Moths vs. Mines in Ecuador’s Astounding Biodiversity Hotspot,” Mongabay, February 8, 2023, https://news.mongabay.com/2023/02/podcast-moths-vs-mines-in-ecuadors-astounding-biodiversity-hotspot/

[11]  Liz Kimbrough, “Ecuador Court Upholds ‘Rights of Nature,’ Blocks Intag Valley Copper Mine,” Mongabay, March 31, 2023, https://news.mongabay.com/2023/03/ecuador-court-upholds-rights-of-nature-blocks-intag-valley-copper-mine/

[12] “‘Historic’: Ecuador Voters Reject Oil Drilling in Amazon Protected Area,” Aljazeera, August 21, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/21/historic-ecuador-voters-reject-oil-drilling-in-amazon-protected-area

[13] “‘Historic’: Ecuador Voters Reject Oil Drilling in Amazon Protected Area,” Aljazeera, August 21, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/21/historic-ecuador-voters-reject-oil-drilling-in-amazon-protected-area