This article was downloaded by: [Sabanci University]On: 09 August 2014, At: 15:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of EnvironmentalStudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/genv20

The rights of nature in Ecuador: themaking of an ideaMihnea Tanasescua

a Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 5, 1050 Brussels, BelgiumPublished online: 20 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Mihnea Tanasescu (2013) The rights of nature in Ecuador: themaking of an idea, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70:6, 846-861, DOI:10.1080/00207233.2013.845715

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2013.845715

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The rights of nature in Ecuador: the making ofan idea

MIHNEA TANASESCU*

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 5, 1050 Brussels, Belgium

In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in history to guarantee rights to nature, in its new consti-tution. This article tells the story of this extraordinary moment in constitutional history, presentinga detailed description of how these rights came about, why they appeared when and where theydid, and what they mean to those concerned with this innovation.

Keywords: Nature rights; Ecuadorian constitution; Political ecology

In 2008, Ecuador became the first country to guarantee rights to nature, incorporated inthe rewriting of the state’s constitution. The new president, Rafael Delgado Correa, electedin 2006 and inaugurated in January 2007, convoked a Constitutional Assembly thatdebated the various provisions of the new founding document throughout 2008. The rightsof nature, an idea that had never made it into the intellectual or political mainstreambefore, managed to find its way into the final document, approved through referendum on28 September 2008. This article will detail the story of this extraordinary event in constitu-tional history, aiming at a detailed description of how these rights came about, why theyappeared when and where they did, and what they mean to the various people concernedwith their development. I will present their claims as I have recorded them during myinterviews and visit to Ecuador, in the summer of 2011.

1. The context

Ecuador, a presidential republic with a system of representative democracy, had its firstdemocratic elections, following decades of military or populist rule, in 1979. From thenuntil 2006, the country experienced extreme political instability, changing – between 1984and 2006 – eight presidents (averaging two and a half years in office). In the early 1990s,the indigenous movement became a decisive electoral and political force under the bannerof the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) [1–3]. Partlybecause of the power of this movement, the presidential elections of 2006 brought RafaelCorrea into office, a figure with high popularity among the indigenous and the poor. Hecame to power without the backing of any major party: the organization that functioned as

*Email: mihnea.tanasescu@vub.ac.be

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2013Vol. 70, No. 6, 846–861, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2013.845715

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

the de facto party was Alianza País, a movement which continues in power today andwhich does not refer to itself in terms of the traditional party form.1 Since the elections of2006, Ecuador has enjoyed its greatest degree of political stability in recent history.

In order to situate the rights of nature of the 2008 constitution, it is necessary to takeseveral factors into account. One is the influence of the 2006 Alianza País governmentplan, which contained in embryo many provisions now in the constitution. The AlianzaPaís movement2 presented its government plan as a radical alternative to the status quo,3

one which needed a new constitution in order to put the foundations of a new type ofpolitics termed ‘revolución ciudadana’ – ‘citizen’s revolution’. The idea was to create apolitical democracy that would empower citizens4 and that would be based on the princi-ples of ‘buen vivir’, or ‘good living’. The 2008 constitution extends for 444 articles,5

detailing an impressive amount of rights and principles that have to do with establishingthe framework for this new kind of political engagement.

Another important factor to take into account is the influence of the organized indige-nous communities, under the banner of CONAIE and its political arm, Pachakutik. Theinfluence of the indigenous population on the rights of nature is important in several ways.It was claimed by a majority of those I interviewed that the rights of nature have theirintellectual origin in indigenous traditions. Furthermore, although the number ofindigenous representatives in the Constitutional Assembly was small (four representativesof Pachakutik), many argue that the indigenous influence was decisive.6 The internationalmovement for the rights of nature, a movement re-energized and thrown into semi-promi-nence by Ecuador’s constitution, routinely juxtaposes the rights of nature with indigenoussensibilities, whether rightly or wrongly.7 For these reasons, the indigenous experience ispart of the relevant context.

Lastly, one must mention the role that the prevalent model of economic developmenthas played in energizing social movements to find and propose alternatives. Although theentire economic system of the country matters, the part that must be mentioned is the oilindustry and its environmental, social and cultural consequences. Whether it is in fact theoil industry per se that is to blame for undesirable consequences, environmental and indig-enous activists have signalled it out as a major negative inspiration.

It can be said that the first constitutional rights of nature in history come out of acontext of social mobilization against a dominant mode of political economy, and arewoven into indigenous sensibilities. A similar context is developing in many more partsof the world, and perhaps the case of Ecuador, beyond local power-politics and theendless in-fighting of any political system, contains insights of universal validity. I nowturn to the drafting of the constitutional text, in order to describe how the rights ofnature appeared and persisted on the agenda, eventually making their way into the finaltext.

2. The Constitutional Assembly

Alberto Acosta is an economist, academic (professor and researcher at FLACSO8), politi-cian9 and environmental activist. He has been the energy minister and the president of theConstitutional Assembly that drafted the 2008 constitution.10 An early supporter and allyof the Correa government, he is now in opposition to the government for what he per-ceives to be disavowals of its original principles. An economist turned environmentalvisionary, Acosta is the key figure in understanding the complexities and paradoxes of the

The rights of nature in Ecuador 847

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

rights of nature in Ecuador, and more generally of the country’s environmental politics. Iasked him why the rights of nature appeared in Ecuador, and how?

Acosta explained the genesis of these provisions in two related ways. First, the govern-ment plan of 2006 contained, in embryo, all the principles that will later come to dominatethe constitutional framework. Although the rights of nature are not spelled out in thatdocument, the framework of good living (buen vivir) in harmony with nature opens thedoor toward this idea. And yet one can easily imagine the constitution without thoserights, but with the rest of the framework intact. Something else must have been in play.‘Ecuador has always been a product country – it has an extractivist DNA’ (int. AA). Thisis the political-economic background to resistance struggles by a significant part of thepopulation, suffering the stark inequalities created by the resource-intensive model ofdevelopment.11 Among these, the opposition of the indigenous nationalities ‘has facilitatedconcrete responses’, or in other words alternatives to the extractivist model had slowlybeen developing. In Acosta’s view, the last decades of Ecuadorian history clearly show anincreasing formulation of political alternatives from the social periphery, slowly makingtheir way toward the center. This in turn explains the radical vision of the government planof Alianza País, a movement which indeed enjoyed popular support (Correa won the 2006presidential elections with 56.57% of the popular vote), in great part due to their system-atizing for the political mainstream a political vision from decades of popular resistancestruggles. Taken together, the government plan and the history of resistance and creationof alternatives describe the context for the drafting of the rights of nature. This is why,Acosta argued, ‘what was done in Montecristi [the city that hosted the assembly] was notthe act of a group of enlightened people, but the continuation of a process of buildingalternatives’.

For Mr. Acosta, this context accounts, in great part, for the political will to include therights of nature in the new constitution. But, as already stated, the 2008 document couldhave had the same framework of good living in harmony with nature, the same extensivesystem of rights, without specifying rights for nature, an untested and radical idea. Otherforces must have been active to raise the issue, and to support its passage through theassembly. Indeed, ‘a series of suitable moments add themselves to this context’ (int. AA).The Constitutional Assembly was organized in various working groups (roundtables)around particular themes,12 and civil society organizations, or simply concerned citizens,were welcome to give their opinion on any theme. The constitutional debates startedtoward the end of 2007, and views were gathered from across the country. The first‘suitable moment’ is that a number of assembly members, including Acosta himself, had‘enormous environmental sensibility’ (int. AA). At the beginning of 2008, a group ofcitizens came to the assembly to suggest the incorporation in the new constitution of rightsfor animals and this, according to Acosta, ‘was the trigger’. The first two coincidenceswhich set the debate on the track of the rights of nature were the existence within theassembly of environmentally-minded members, the most important of which was thepresident, and the appearance from outside of an unexpected but welcome group advocat-ing the rights of animals.

Acosta recognized the moment and, inspired by the animal rights group, authored tworelevant papers. The first is titled Do Animals Have Rights? [8], and the second Nature asa Subject of Rights [9], making the case for the rights of nature. These papers appeared inFebruary 2008, the second being published on the website of the Constitutional Assemblyon 29 February 2008. In this paper, Acosta made the case for rights of nature in theperspective of environmental justice, arguing that each subsequent extension of rights was

848 M. Tanasescu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

unthinkable to the generations before. Just as women were not thought of as subjects untilthey in fact became subjects of rights, so nature does not seem amenable to rights-statusuntil it in fact becomes a subject of rights. Ridiculing the idea or arguing that it isunthinkable strengthens this line of argumentation, as the refusal to acknowledge nature asa subject is immediately seen as being reactionary and out of step with history. Acostaused Aldo Leopold’s formulation of the land ethic, that ‘something is good if it tends topreserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is bad if it tendstoward the opposite’ [9], and so he argued that the time had come to recognize theexistence of fundamental rights of nature and, most importantly, to recognize that it hasinherent values irrespective of human use. The argument he presented, on the website ofthe Constitutional Assembly, goes hand in hand with what Singer termed the ‘expandingcircle of moral concern’ [10]. This is the form that the argument took, and the fact thatAcosta’s papers were published on the official site suggests that at least some discussionswere going on in the assembly, albeit informally, as by this date there is no mention of therights of nature in the official transcripts.

In April, the Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano published an article titled Nature is notDumb [11], in which he mentioned that ‘a Latin American country, Ecuador, is debating anew Constitution. And in this Constitution, the possibility is open to recognize, for the firsttime in universal history, the rights of nature’ (p. 1). Although there were no officialdebates about the rights of nature at this time, Galeano could claim that they existed giventhat the official website hosted Acosta’s arguments. Galeano’s article brought the issue intothe official debates: it was published on 18 April and the first extensive debate on therights of nature appears in the official transcripts for 29 April. The Acta 040 [12] transcriptshows that the debates of the day, chaired by Acosta in his capacity as president, were tocentre on themes discussed in Roundtable 5 on Natural Resources and Biodiversity. ThisRoundtable was chaired by Mónica Chuji, an indigenous leader whose views on the matterwill also be presented, and the order of the day was to discuss constitutional provisionsunder the theme ‘Nature and Environment’ [12]. The day of the debates was 5 monthsfrom the beginning of the Constitutional Assembly [12]; thus, a significant amount of timehad elapsed before the issue of the rights of nature had appeared on the official agenda.Yet, preliminary discussions had occurred, as evidenced by Acosta’s and Galeano’s writ-ings and by further elements presented below.

2.1. First plenary discussion (29 April 2008)

Roundtable 5 on Natural Resources and Biodiversity had been working for some monthson issues related to its main theme. The process by which they gathered information wasextremely participatory. The roundtable considered thousands of opinions and proposalsfrom social leaders, NGOs, women’s organizations, indigenous groups, youth movements,labour unions, campesino organizations and others, in all corners of the country [12, 13].The discussions of 29 April began by setting the framework and giving a hint as to thestrategic meaning of the rights of nature: ‘what is at stake in the constitutional process isnot just institutional reform, but the very way in which the new political practice will bepossible […]. In this context, the present proposals are part of the necessity to redefine thesociety-nature, economy-society and nature, environment and culture interrelations, amongothers’13 [12]. The proposals in this discussion aimed at fundamentally redesigning theway in which both the State and individual citizens can interact with each other and with

The rights of nature in Ecuador 849

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

the natural world. In other words, ‘the Constitution has to ensure that the decisions of theState and of citizens in social, economic, and environmental matters are in equilibrium,without economic imperatives like the ones that have dominated until now’. This isanother way of formulating the principle of harmony that was already present in the gov-ernment plan. This means that the rights of nature are part of a fundamental redesign ofpolitics and society. In the process of redefining the relationships between political societyand nature, weight has to be given to the claims of nature, in order to ensure a proper bal-ance. This argumentation closely resembles Acosta’s own arguments in the paper discussedabove, and is another hint toward the work of informally popularizing the rights of nature.

The idea of rights for nature is part of a much wider rights-strategy of political emanci-pation. The proposals emanating from Roundtable 5 were explicitly stated as such, eventhough it was not directly the task of this Roundtable to deal with fundamental rights (thatwas the task of Roundtable 1, which we will encounter shortly). ‘Guaranteeing a healthyand ecologically balanced environment goes hand in hand with cultural strengthening, andthat is a genuine human right that is woven together with the right to life, to health, towork, to dignity and identity, among others’. This is connected to the ‘good living’ strat-egy, which is here shown to be closely related to the idea of rights. ‘It is necessary thatthe Constitution construct a systemic vision that obliges the State as much as the citizensto live another development, more balanced and more in accord with the principle ofsumak kawsay (life in balance or good living), consecrated in this Constitution as a centralpart of the definition of the regime of development’ [12]. So the rights of nature werestrategically understood as a frame of reference. This was something confirmed to me byMónica Chuji, president of Roundtable 5 (int. MC).

The crux of the late April discussion was the proposed Article 3, which addressed theissue of the state’s obligation (or lack thereof) to consult affected communities beforeapproving resource exploitation in their territories. The indigenous factions and somemembers of the government group were advocating a right to consent, while the officialgovernment position was to establish a right to consultation. The indigenous communitieswanted a clear right to oppose (or approve) development projects (consent), which isexactly what the government tried to oppose by promoting consultation. The debates onthe topic show a clear fault line. In the end, the government position won and made itsway into the final draft. Art. 408 of the constitution states that all natural resources are theproperty of the state. The state can decide to exploit any natural resources it deems to beof national importance, as long as it consults the affected communities, without having anactual obligation to listen.14

Thus, the rights of nature seem possessed of a double personality. On the one hand, theyare presented as a moral principle of inclusion, akin to liberating the enslaved (literally sofor their proponents). On the other hand, they appear to be a subtle weapon against a statethat is unwilling to concede some principles that the indigenous in particular hold dear.This is evident in the discussion of late April, where the tone oscillates from moral imper-ative to strategic tool. The rights of nature seem to join the discussion of late April fromnowhere. They were not included in the official agenda, and only about half-way throughthe plenary session they were brought up, by assembly member Queirolo Rosanna,15 whospoke against them. After this point, many more assembly members spoke of the rights ofnature, and all of a sudden the theme was squarely on the agenda, with one member evenstarting his speech by claiming that the rights of nature were the central issue under dis-cussion. It must be the case that the discussions within Roundtable 5 did indeed touchupon the rights of nature significantly, but it remains a mystery why then the articles that

850 M. Tanasescu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

they presented to the Plenary did not include them. The mystery is dispelled by thefact that opposition to the idea within the Roundtable was strong. Mr. Acosta, having real-ized that the rights of nature would probably not pass through Roundtable 5, had to movethem somewhere else, where support could be constructed (int. AA). Roundtable 1,charged with Fundamental Rights, was the one that eventually approved the rights ofnature, and there is an interesting debate when they present the rights of nature to theplenary, which I will describe below. When one compares the two discussions of the rightsof nature, one presented by each Roundtable, the behind the scenes work becomes veryapparent. Where in April the rights of nature failed to convince many, in the discussion of6 June everyone was in favour.

There is another interesting feature of the discussions of late April which partly confirmsAcosta’s account of the coincidences that brought the rights of nature into the constitution.Galeano’s article praising Ecuador’s Constitutional Assembly for considering the rights ofnature had an impact. Rafael Esteves, a member of the populist right, speaks exuberantlyof the rights of nature while referring to Galeano’s article. Esteves’ speech illustrates oneway in which the rights of nature swayed assembly members that had very little affinitywith them – by appealing to the revolutionary nature of the constitution and to the senseof pride that could be taken from being part of it. No longer marginalized, but leading,‘[…] us, in these parts, are trying to write a constitution that is advanced, progressive, rev-olutionary’. He goes on to say that ‘we should be proud of creating a true advancement inconstitutional right’ and ‘[…] to demonstrate to Latin America that here, in this Andeancountry, as they call us, in this small country, we can indeed add to the evolution of inter-national constitutional right’ [12]. Besides this appeal, he defends the rights with the sameprogressivist argument that the evolution of right inexorably goes from less to more inclu-sion, and the time of nature has come. This argument of course functions to strengthen theother, patriotic appeal. We can be the first ones to recognize what ‘after 20 or 30 years[…] will be commonplace’, For him, as well as for many other assembly members withlittle environmental sensibility or knowledge, the possibility of making history counted sig-nificantly. The work of persuasion that went on behind closed doors surely relied heavilyon this argument,16 and the confirmation offered by Galeano certainly helped. Mr. Estevesmight have thought that nature was next in line for getting rights, but of at least equalimportance was his being present to hand them out for the first time. ‘Let’s open ourminds and allow for real progress. I have always wanted to participate in an Assembly orCongress that could call itself revolutionary – I was waiting for it. And I, Mister President,feel like I am in the right place, at the right time […]’.

Others showed similar arguments. Assembly member Guillem Humberto17 argued that‘some will think that to recognize nature’s rights is a juridical heresy, as rights are forhumans, not things. This is how the ones opposing the rights of slaves in the 19th centurywould have thought’. One way of dispelling this worry is to point out that ‘nature is not amere thing amenable to property. It is a subject with an existence more concrete and realthan that of juridical persons, capital associations with fictitious existence, whose rights wedid recognize’ [12]. Assembly member Espin Sofia18 also cited Galeano and argued that‘because we are part of nature, to speak of nature’s rights is to speak of the rights of com-munities, the rights of the Huaorani, the rights of the uncontacted tribes, because they livefrom nature’ [12]. Mr. Humberto agreed: ‘the right of nature to exist, and to have its vitalcycles, which support life, not be altered by human aggression, mixes with the collectiverights of the indigenous nationalities and their self-determination in order to strengthen thefight for the defence of the territories against the aggression of extractive and development

The rights of nature in Ecuador 851

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

activities’ [12]. This shows once again that the rights of nature were understood as part ofa wider rights-strategy, and particularly useful for communities resisting the state and itsmodel of development. This was the other winning argument for many assembly members,notably those associated with or sympathetic to the indigenous cause: if ethical progressiv-ism and the chance to make history were not enough, then surely a tool to oppose the statein its momentum would be attractive.

Mr. Humberto, as well as assembly member Ortiz Alfredo,19 argued for the creation ofNature’s Ombudsman, to act as a legal guardian of nature’s rights, together with the disso-lution of the post of Minister for the Environment which, being politically affiliated, hadbeen widely seen as inadequate.20 As with the issue of previous consultation vs. consent,the idea of an ombudsman for nature did not in fact appear in the final constitutional text,significantly weakening the capacity of the rights of nature to function in one of theirintended ways, as tools against state-sanctioned development. The issue is clearlyrecognized by Mr. Hernandez Luis21: ‘the discussion here is not about whether we protectnature or not, but about who has access to resources and how’ [12]. In this sense, thediscussion about the rights of nature in this particular debate of late April is inseparablefrom the discussion about prior consultation/consent. The opponents of rights for natureand consent from affected communities were worried that these provisions might blockany and all development. As noted, the supporters insisted that far from blocking develop-ment, they would encourage the state to develop in a more inclusive, democratic andsustainable fashion.

In the end, the constitution represents a compromise between these two opposing posi-tions. Rights of nature without an ombudsman, but with a possibility for establishing suchan institution; and prior consultation instead of consent, with the state maintaining owner-ship of natural resources, while local communities have rights to their territories. In termsof how the rights of nature came to be in the constitution at all, the debate of 29 Aprilindicates that discussions continued without a consensus on the issue.22 These debatesshow the kinds of arguments used, but not how consensus was eventually reached.

2.2. Lobbying for nature

Natalia Greene is the ‘Political Plurinationality and the Rights of Nature’ coordinator atthe Fundación Pachamama, one of the most influential environmental organizations inEcuador. She is also the president of CEDENMA, Ecuador’s national coordinating entityfor environmental NGOs. Mrs. Greene lobbied the Constitutional Assembly on behalf ofthe rights of nature, as well as suggesting ways in which these could be written into theconstitution. Mrs. Greene explained the process through which the idea of rights of naturewas accepted by the assembly members, an account which mirrors closely that of Mr.Acosta. They provided documents supporting the idea, mostly relying on the argument ofhistorical progressivism. They argued that this was a new idea in practice, but one with anintellectual pedigree stretching back decades. According to Mrs. Greene, the intellectualroots of the idea stem from the work of Christopher Stone23 and Godofredo Stutzin,24

writing in the 1970s and 1980s. Fundación Pachamama and other environmental groups,like Acción Ecológica, used these authors to argue that the idea has a history – it is not anad hoc pronouncement of environmentalists.25. They encountered much resistance, particu-larly from lawyers, and most assembly members did not understand the issue, while notbeing necessarily hostile to it. The work of convincing assembly members focused on

852 M. Tanasescu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

those that could be convinced, such as the representative of the populist right, Mr. EstevesAssembly member Viteri Leonardo (of the Social Christian Party), a former mayor andcurrently a member of the Ecuadorian parliament for the province of Manabí, also becameconvinced of the benefits of the rights of nature after having been opposed to them (int.NG).

Another important tool in the work of convincing assembly members and pushingthrough drafts for the rights of nature was the Community Environmental Legal DefenseFund (CELDF), ‘a non-profit, public interest law firm providing free and affordable legalservices to communities facing threats to their local environment, local agriculture, thelocal economy, and quality of life’. Their ‘mission is to build sustainable communities byassisting people to assert their right to local self-government and the rights of nature’.26

CELDF was instrumental in passing the first municipal ordinances in history to proclaimand uphold the rights of nature, in various municipalities across the USA. It was the onlyorganization in the world with any significant experience with the rights of nature. Fundac-ión Pachamama invited Mari Margil (associate director) and Thomas Linzey (executivedirector) to come and meet with assembly members, as well as to help draft the actualconstitutional provisions granting nature rights. Mari Margil told me that they met withseveral groups within the assembly, including indigenous delegates, and were verysurprised to find that the elected representatives of the indigenous communities ‘weretalking about the rights of nature as strengthening collective rights, hence it was a naturaldiscussion for them’.27 The major role of the American lawyers was to help the Ecuadori-an environmental groups draft provisions, based on the experience gathered with municipalordinances in the USA. Indeed, the draft that Fundación Pachamama presented was elabo-rated with the help of CELDF, and Art. 71 of the final constitution is very similar to theirinitial proposal (int. NG). Similarly, Acción Ecológica’s draft is reflected in Art. 74 of thefinal constitution (int. NG; see Section 3 below for the articles themselves).

The idea of the rights of nature was introduced to the Constitutional Assembly byRoundtable 5 but, despite all the lobbying efforts,28 it became apparent that opposition inthis Roundtable was too strong (int. AA). Even though the president of this working groupwas Mónica Chuji, an indigenous leader very favourable to the idea, according to Mr. Ac-osta ‘she did not control it [the Roundtable]’. Mrs. Chuji herself testified to the vigorousdebates that went on within the Roundtable, particularly about the topic of prior consulta-tion. Yet, she lamented the fact that the majority of members did not employ their criticalfaculties during the discussions but rather voted with their party’s line. The rights of naturehad little chance of being successful there, and so they did not appear on the officialagenda in the April debate. There was a significant number of dissenting voices in thatsame Plenary discussion. On 6 June, there was another Plenary debate, this time presentedby Roundtable 1 (charged with the topic of fundamental rights). The order of the day wasthe rights of nature. The debates of June are very different from those of April. This sug-gests that the efforts of convincing assembly members and of finding a favourable groupof individuals within a Roundtable, were beginning to work.

2.3. Unanimous support (6 June 2008)

Viteri Leonardo (see Section 2.2) shows this transformation very well, making a couple ofpoints that demonstrate how the (mostly) informal lobbying was beginning to affect thetargeted audience. As Acosta confirmed, ‘the internal debates were not the determining

The rights of nature in Ecuador 853

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

ones. There were no big debates, because in reality there was not much understanding ofwhat this [the rights of nature] represented. A small group of people pushed this. Manydid not manage to understand’ (int. AA). Yet, some did. Once Roundtable 1 was identified,by Esperanza Martínez29 as suitable, some informal convincing took place. The efforts ofthe core group of supporters of the idea were expressed in producing drafts, making surethe issue did not blow out of control (by, for example, becoming central to many debates),and making sure that, once passed, the rights of nature were not undermined via other con-stitutional articles (int. AA). Mr. Leonardo says that, during the first debates of the rightsof nature in the Plenary (see Section 2.1), he found the idea unpalatable ‘because itseemed to me a patent absurdity to give rights to nature; however, during these days ofreflexion, of cohabitation with many of you and, especially, with my friends that love Pa-chamama, I reconsidered the issue’ [18]. He wondered how the idea of rights of naturecould make sense until someone told him: ‘how come they give rights to companies? Iremained quiet, as I had always thought that it was a pipe dream giving nature rights. But,reading Galeano, that you all have also read, I realized it is truly an interesting topic’(ibid). This confirms the influence of Galeano’s article, and also testifies to the process ofconversion that took place between April and June. Furthermore, Mr. Leonardo seems tohave no doubts about who was behind the promotion of this idea in the ConstitutionalAssembly. ‘Mr. President, you want to leave a mark on the Constitution, and this issue ofthe rights of nature will be your mark’ [18]. Acosta himself did not participate in this, orApril’s, debate, even though he could have. As he explained, it was not necessary: ‘I real-ized it was all under control’ (int. AA).

The combination of a series of fortunate coincidences with the careful lobbying efforts ofa dedicated group of activists, together with the assurance that a radical environmentalistassembly president could bring, were enough to make the participants in the debates of Juneunanimous in their backing of the rights of nature. This, together with the cunningidentification of Roundtable 1 – headed by another person with high environmentalsensibilities, Esperanza Martínez – as the place where these rights stood a chance, accountsfor much of the way in which the four articles granting nature rights made their way intothe constitution. The patriotic rhetoric of making constitutional history in a small andmarginalized country, together with the presentation of the rights of nature as the moralequivalent of freeing slaves, gave the rest of the impetus for their approval. Yet, one shouldnot underestimate the power of ignorance as well. As Natalia Greene, Alberto Acosta andMónica Chuji told me, the majority of assembly members did not understand what theserights were about and, more importantly, did not really care to understand. This allowed theconversion efforts to be targeted, and justified the apparent lack of systematic debate ofthese rights. Indeed, instead of running the risk of opposition, the rights of nature werediscussed little, strategically included in a comprehensive package of rights, and drafted byenvironmentalists and groups (e.g. CELDF) outside of the formal assembly and subse-quently introduced into the forum, without much ado, by figures such as Acosta himself.

This account seems to contradict Acosta’s claim that the 2008 constitution, andparticularly the rights of nature, were the result of bottom-up struggles of resistance and ofindigenous consciousness breaking through into the mainstream. Quite the contrary, itseems to be the orchestrated and dedicated work of a handful of people. In my interviewwith Mr. Acosta, while he was explaining how the rights of nature were moved from theiroriginal Roundtable, he added: ‘there wasn’t a lot of understanding of what these [rightsof nature] signified. A small group of people did it’. Similarly Mónica Chuji, reflecting onthe constitutional process, told me that ‘the integration of these rights [in the constitution]

854 M. Tanasescu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

was forceful, with a lot of pressure to introduce these rights, as well as good living andsustainable development’ (int. MC). Mari Margil confirmed this version, saying that ‘thedevelopment of these rights in Ecuador did not start from the grassroots,’ but rather camefrom above, namely from members of the Constitutional Assembly. ‘Alberto Acosta was achampion of this’ (int. MM).

There seem to be two stories in play: one version of how the rights made it into theconstitution explains their inclusion by the history of resistance struggles in Ecuador,particularly the indigenous experience [4, 19]. It is further claimed that the intellectualpedigree of this idea is of indigenous origin – they cannot be understood without a particu-lar indigenous philosophy in mind. The other story claims that these rights were the resultof a top-down strategy that counted on a healthy dose of luck, but that nonetheless wascanny enough to seize the moment and push through constitutional articles that mostprobably would not have been accepted in slightly different circumstances. I consider thatthe second version is closer to the truth. This begs the question of what the first version,of indigenous genesis, represents. There is little doubt that the organized indigenousnationalities had something to do with the rights of nature, both politically and intellectu-ally. But, the insistence on this version of the rights of nature needs further explanation. Itcan be fairly maintained that the image of the indigenous was itself part of the lobbyingeffort, functioning as a powerful symbol tied to the ethics of seeing nature as a subject.

3. The constitutional document

The constitutional articles dealing directly with the rights of nature and resulting from theprocess here described are:

Art. 71. Nature, or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integralrespect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure,functions and evolutionary processes.

All persons, communities, peoples and nations can demand public authorities enforce therights of nature. To enforce and interpret these rights, the principles set forth in the Constitu-tion shall be observed, as appropriate.

The State shall give incentives to natural persons and legal entities and to communities to pro-tect nature and to promote respect for all the elements comprising an ecosystem.

Art. 72. Nature has the right to be restored. This restoration shall be apart from the obligationof the State and natural persons or legal entities to compensate individuals and communitiesthat depend on affected natural systems.

In those cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including those caused by theexploitation of nonrenewable natural resources, the State shall establish the most effectivemechanisms to achieve the restoration and shall adopt adequate measures to eliminate or miti-gate harmful environmental consequences.

Art. 73. The State shall apply preventive and restrictive measures on activities that might leadto the extinction of species, the destruction of ecosystems and the permanent alteration of nat-ural cycles.

The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material that might definitively alterthe nation’s genetic assets is forbidden.

The rights of nature in Ecuador 855

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Art. 74. Persons, communities, peoples, and nationalities shall have the right to benefit fromthe environment and the natural wealth enabling them to enjoy the good living.

Environmental services shall not be subject to appropriation; their production, delivery, useand development shall be regulated by the State.

There is a clear continuity between the lobbying efforts and these four articles. Impor-tantly, the constitution gives the right of representation to anybody, irrespective of personaldamage (Art. 71), a step that reinforces the idea of nature as subject: it can now be repre-sented as an end in itself. If, as is common under current dominant legal codes, one canonly contest harm to nature via harm to oneself, then nature cannot be anything other thanan object of property. In contrast to this view, which we saw was directly opposed by nat-ure’s advocates, the Ecuadorian constitution grants any person the right to represent natureand defend its rights, just as any person can claim the violation of another’s human rights,irrespective of damage to themselves.

Besides the direct rights of nature, Art. 74 presents rights to nature, which are reinforcedby Art. 14 (rights to a healthy environment). In line with these, Art. 12 and Art. 13 giverights to water and food, both of which become fundamental human rights, confirming thecontention by nature’s advocates that human and nature rights are intertwined and comple-mentary to each other. Similarly, Art. 74 prohibits genetically modified organism, a pointreinforced by Art. 15, which prohibits transgenics. So, the four articles above are substanti-ated by others throughout the constitution, something which we saw was a goal of nature’srepresentatives.

Nature is defined by Art. 71 as that ‘where life is reproduced and occurs’. It is also saidto have ‘life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes’. A close reading ofthe four articles also reveals a string of apparent synonyms that might hold the key to themeaning of nature: pachamama, ecosystem, natural system, natural cycle, genetic assets,environment, natural wealth and environmental services. Natalia Green, whose representa-tion of behalf of nature I presented in Section 2.2, argued that this imprecise use of theword can be a problem for the implementation of nature’s rights (int. NG). On the otherhand, we can take this proliferation to indicate that, as far as nature’s advocates are con-cerned, these terms are – if not equivalent – close enough. Abstracting from the specificmeaning that each term might have in different contexts, a general outline can be dis-cerned: nature in these four articles is close in meaning to ‘the natural’. All of these differ-ent terms can be held at once if we adopt a very large view of nature and the natural. Anegative definition would fashion nature as that which is not human-made, though this dis-tinction is not always easy to draw. For instance, if the latest archaeological evidence iscorrect and the Amazon basin was largely managed by pre-conquest human populations,then it is an open question whether much of the rainforest is natural [20]. Similarly, if nat-ure means non-human, then a farming landscape sits uncomfortably within ‘the natural’.

The trouble with not having a unified definition and a single term is that the inter-changeably used terms above can be harnessed selectively, either to allow for the natural-ness of a farm, or else deny it. For some, a farm might not be a ‘natural system’, thoughit can be part of an ‘ecosystem’. Mineral wealth might be portrayed as ‘natural wealth’,and hence its extraction as part of a ‘natural system’. And these tricky definitions could beexploited. It seems then that the meaning of nature that we can confidently extract fromthese four articles is relegated to vagueness. This is hardly a new issue and even though,as Mrs. Green argues, the constitutional text could have been more clear, this problem can

856 M. Tanasescu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

never be fully eliminated. It is in the nature of nature to be a slippery term. Inasmuch asone wants to grant nature as such rights, the problem of vagueness seems inescapable.What this means for the future of a rights-bearing nature remains to be seen.

4. Reflections

This article has described the process that led to the formulation of the first rights of naturein constitutional history. No arguments, other than those of the advocates for nature, havebeen presented. This does not mean that lobbying on behalf of nature, in order to secureits constitutional rights, is uncontroversial, or must always take the form described here.Quite the contrary: the idea enshrined in Ecuador’s highest document is certainly contro-versial, and the mechanism of rights need not always be applied to non-human nature inthis particular way, following these particular arguments. In this concluding section, I wantto signal some of the points of contention hidden behind the descriptive narrative, as wellas the other forms that the rights of nature have taken so far. This cannot be an exhaustivecritique; rather, it is a necessary reflection on what the case of Ecuador opens up for politi-cal ecological thought.

The idea of granting nature rights, of one form or another, did not start with Ecuador.As nature’s advocates themselves made clear (see Section 2.2), it has a history stretchingback to at least the 1970s. Professor Christopher Stone is widely credited with being thefirst to propose the concept, in the now classic, Do Trees Have Standing? [21], which hadan immediate impact on Sierra Club vs. Morton [22]. At the turn of the century, rights fornature appeared in municipal ordinances in the USA (see Section 2.2). There have beenother intellectual developments of the idea – most recently Cullinan’s concept of earthjurisprudence [17] – but it would be fair to say that it never really left the fringes of politi-cal, environmental and jurisprudential thought. In effect, nature’s advocates in Ecuadorproposed to assimilate a marginal history into the mainstream. But that, by itself, does notand cannot solve the great difficulties that most observers have in accepting that rights canbe predicated of inanimate nature. What it does do is put the issue squarely onto theagenda of current political ecology, challenging the notion that rights can only be predi-cated for human beings (or animals).

Rights have traditionally been formulated in function of either will or interest [23]. Awill theory of rights cannot make sense of the rights of nature, just as it has difficultieswith the notion of animal rights. An interest theory, though it can substantiate rights predi-cated of various animals, also has difficulties in incorporating nature, inasmuch as weuphold a strict notion of interest. If, on the other hand, we allow interests to bediscursively constructed by nature’s appointed guardians, nature’s rights could fit into aninterest-theory of rights. In 2012, New Zealand granted the Whanganui River rights of per-sonhood, and appointed a joint council, formed by the local indigenous community andthe crown, to debate and settle on a plan for the river’s future; the indigenous communityis to represent the river’s discursively created interests. The river now, thanks to its rightsof personhood, has legal standing. This, however, is different from the case of Ecuador, inthat the rights granted to the river are entirely unspecified: the Whanganui simply receivesstanding, which is the issue that Stone’s arguments also focused on [21, 22]. In this sense,Ecuador has departed from the classic history of the concept in granting nature more spe-cific rights (though still vague), thus making the interest issue even more difficult, whilealso complicating the ascription of guardianship and standing. Paradoxically then, it might

The rights of nature in Ecuador 857

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

be that rights for nature are more easily inscribed into a theory of rights if they are eitherentirely vague – rights of personhood – or else very specific – the rights of a strictly deter-mined part of nature (this environment) to exist in this or that kind of way. Ecuador sitsexactly in-between.

Hohfeld [24] is the figure most often invoked in classical jurisprudential theories ofrights. Oddly, it might be there that we can find ways to make sense of the rights of nature,as a species of claim-right which signals certain binding relations that, as a society, we findimportant to allocate and uphold. In this sense, the rights of nature indicate a society’s will-ingness to recognize certain claims that it wants to ascribe to what it calls nature. The issuesof guardianship and standing, always central to any non-human rights, will then have to beresolved within the framework set-up by such claims. The first enforcement of the rights ofnature in Ecuador dealt with a river, the Vilcabamba [25]. Its course had been modified byan adjacent road enlargement operation and, citing the constitution, a group of local citizenssued on behalf of the river, whose rights had been infringed by the dumping of constructionmaterial into its waters. The court ruled that the municipal government has to pay for therehabilitation of the river habitat. In this case, the guardians were the local concerned citi-zens, and the river had standing as a rights-subject represented by a spontaneous groupingof people, something which the Ecuadorian constitution allows (Art. 71). Although this casewas won by the river, it raises more questions than it answers; not least the question of howhumanity’s age-old tinkering with nature could continue under this framework.

It might also be that the rights of nature, instead of prohibiting development, will beused selectively. This possibility is revealed by the second case of enforcement in Ecuador.There, the state acted as the guardian of nature and sued a group of artisanal miners forinfringing on nature’s rights [25]. Unsurprisingly, the state – or shall we say nature? –won, and the army moved into the mining territories and seized and destroyed personalproperty used for mining. This case raises yet another set of questions, and is a worryingdevelopment of the rights of nature in their Ecuadorian incarnation, one which has beenmet by total silence from the advocates and activists that have celebrated the ‘success’ ofVilcabamba.30

As this very short discussion indicates, the rights of nature are multidirectional and, tosome extent, unpredictable. New Zealand has applied them differently from Ecuador, whileBolivia has followed Ecuador’s lead and adopted a law of mother earth. Their empiricalpolitical development remains to be observed. Their theoretical implications, and the inter-play between theory and practice, deserve further elaboration. This contribution cannot goany further in developing these points, but I submit that applying rights to nature can betheoretically reconciled with jurisprudential theory. Rights applied to nature are not a for-mal contradiction, though that remains to be demonstrated elsewhere. Yet, whether theyare formally sound or not tells us surprisingly little about whether they are a sound mecha-nism for including the natural environment into our polities. Rights of nature can beadvanced, and have been advanced; whether they should be advanced is a different matter.

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the kind co-operation of the intervie-wees cited throughout. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their comments,the Virje Universiteit Brussel for its financial support, Patrick Stouthuysen and IreneCaselli for their intellectual and logistical contributions.

858 M. Tanasescu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

Notes

1. In their latest manifesto, from 2 May 2012, Alianza País defines itself as ‘a political cluster of citizens,organizations, movements, and collectives with the task of fighting for democracy, equality, sovereignty,solidarity, social justice, diversity, in order to eliminate oppression, domination, inequality, injustice, andmisery. Its historical objective is the building of the Socialism of Good Living’. See http://www.mov-imientoalianzapais.com.ec/linea-politica for more (Accessed 3 January 2013).

2. One of the most prominent members of this movement, as well as the most influential environmentalist inthe country – Alberto Acosta – will later be the president of the Constitutional Assembly.

3. One of its proposals was a moratorium on oil exploitation, in a country where by far the biggest contributorto the state coffers is the oil industry.

4. One of the main goals of Alianza País was to exemplify the idea of citizen participation in the drafting ofthe government plan, as well as of the constitution. Both documents did in fact benefit from wide popularparticipation – many different social groups of all kinds presented proposals for the drafting of the twodocuments.

5. This is without taking into account the 30 articles of the concluding ‘Transitional Regimen.’6. For example, Acosta [4] argues for the indigenous origin of the rights of nature, as does Gudynas [5].7. Consult, for instance, www.rightsofmotherearth.com, as well as www.therightsofnature.org.8. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales. See www.flacso.org for more.9. His political career has seen him as founding member and candidate of the indigenous socialist party, Pac-

hakutik, as well as member of Alianza País. He was energy minister from January 2007 and president ofthe Constitutional Assembly from October 2007 to July 2008. His latest political activity sees him as thepresidential candidate from the Plurinational Left Coalition for the 2013 presidential elections. This coalitionunites left and indigenous parties in opposition to the current government. It did not manage to win the2013 presidential elections, which were decisively won by Mr. Correa in the first round of voting.

10. He was the candidate with the greatest amount of votes in the elections for the Constitutional Assembly,which elected 130 members. This is why he was elected president of the assembly. He did not complete histerm as president, but for present purposes that is not relevant.

11. In 2009, 46% of the population lived in poverty, and 20% in extreme poverty, as defined by the UnitedNations [6]. A UNDP 2010 report on inequality found that Latin America and the Caribbean are the mostunequal areas in the world, with 10 of the most unequal countries in the world being found there. Women,indigenous and African descent populations are the most affected segments. In 2000, Ecuador had 61% ofits indigenous and afro-descendant population live on less than one dollar per day. Even though there wereother countries with worst rankings (for instance Bolivia), even for the most unequal continent it did fairlypoorly. The report is available here: http://www.idhalc-actuarsobreelfuturo.org/site/index.php

12. The assembly, totalling 130 members with a clear majority for Alianza País (80 members), was organizedin: a Plenary, uniting all assembly members and having the power to vote on constitutional articles and pro-visions; a Directive Commission, with administrative duties; 10 Roundtables organized around variousthemes. The roundtables were responsible for: deciding on issues within their theme; gathering informationon issues via citizen participation; presenting the issues, drafts and provisions to the Plenary, where com-ments and recommendations could be made for further elaboration of a text, or approval through votingcould happen. See [7] for more details on the organization of the Constitutional Assembly.

13. All quotations from official documents, as well as interviews, are my translation. Original quotations anddocuments are available upon request.

14. Indeed, since the approval of the constitution, social movements and environmental organizations havealleged that the government does not respect the previous consultation provision, particularly in relation tothe passage of the controversial Mining Law and of new oil concessions in the Oriente [14–16]. Also seewww.accionecologica.org for more.

15. Queirolo Rosanna is a well-known Ecuadorian model and TV announcer, elected to the ConstitutionalAssembly (member of Roundtable 5) on a socialist ticket. She is a commercial engineer by training, havingobtained both a BA and an MA in the subject from Lesley University. She also holds degrees in sportsnutrition and family counselling. Her CV, available on http://americo.usal.es/oir/Elites/curriculums/Ecuador/queirolo.pdf, shows a multifaceted personality. She is also a marathon runner, a pro-life activist, and since2011 a fashion designer. Her personal life does not cease to attract local tabloids and newspapers.

16. Natalia Greene interview. Hereafter int. NG. See Section 2.2 for more.17. Humberto Guillem Murillo is a doctor from the province of Manabí with a long and distinguished political

career: health minister in the government of Jaime Roldos Aguilera (1979–1981), Ecuador’s representativeto the WHO, twice deputy from the province of Manabí (1984–1986; 1994–1996), twice prefect of the sameprovince (1996–2000; 2000–2004), presidential candidate in 2006, member of the Constitutional Assembly(Roundtable 4), and currently mayor of Portoviejo, the capital city of Manabí.

18. Sofia Espin Reyes was a member of the Constitutional Assembly elected on the Movimiento País ticket.19. Alfredo Ortiz Cobos was Assembly member from Galapagos, part of the Inspection Commission.

The rights of nature in Ecuador 859

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

20. My interview with the minister of the environment, Marcela Aguiñaga, suggested that concern for the rightsof nature was modest, to say the least.

21. Assembly member from the opposition party Red Ética y Democracia (RED – Ethical and Democratic Net-work).

22. If anything, at this stage the consensus was tilting away from the rights of nature. Most assembly memberswere not in agreement over the issue, while other members of the government, not elected as assemblymembers, went as far as calling the idea ‘stupid’ (int. AA; the official who expressed this opinion is AlexisMera, juridical secretary of the Presidency).

23. American professor of law who, in 1972, published the highly influential article Do Trees Have Standing?24. Chilean animal and nature advocate, proponent of earth jurisprudence, and winner (1990) of the United

Nations Environment Program.25. Part of this history sees the rights of nature as necessary modifiers of property law [17] This was an implicit

goal of the Ecuadorian lobby described here. The idea is that if nature has rights, it is therefore a personunder the law, and persons cannot be owned like things. This is the strength of Acosta’s argument, dis-cussed earlier (see Section 2), and the logic behind the moral progressivism that sees the rights of nature asthe latest extension of rights.

26. See www.celdf.org.27. Interview with Mari Margil, hereafter int. MM.28. Alberto Acosta played an important role, as the president of the assembly and perhaps the most fervent

advocate of the rights of nature. The majority of those I interviewed singled out Acosta as the most impor-tant figure in the inclusion of the rights of nature in the constitution.

29. Acosta’s adviser during his assembly presidency; founder of Acción Ecológica and co-founder of Oilwatch.30. Unsurprisingly, given that nature’s advocates meant the rights of nature as a tool against the state. In the

mining case, they became a powerful tool of the state.

References

[1] Beck, S.H. and Mijeski, K.J., 2000, Indigena self-identity in Ecuador and the rejection of Mestizaje. LatinAmerican Research Review, 35(1), 119–137.

[2] Beck, S.H. and Mijeski, K.J., 2001, Barricades and ballots: Ecuador’s Indians and the Pachakutik politicalmovement. Ecuadorian Studies, 1, 1–23.

[3] Zamosc, L., 2007, The Indian movement and political democracy in Ecuador. Latin American Politics andSociety, 49(3), 1–34.

[4] Acosta, A., 2010, Policy Paper 9: El Buen Vivir en el Camino del Post-desarollo. Una Lectura desde laConstitución de Montecristi [Good Living on the Way to Post-development. A Reading through the Montec-risti Constitution] (Quito: Fundación Friedrich Ebert).

[5] Gudynas, E., 2011, Desarollo, Derechos de la Naturaleza y Buen Vivir Despues de Montecristi [Development,rights of nature and good living after Montecristi]. In: G. Weber (Ed.) Debates Sobre Cooperación y Modelosde Desarollo. Perspectivas desde la Sociedad Civil en el Ecuador [Debates on Cooperation and DevelopmentModels: Perspectives from Ecuadorian Civil Society] (Quito: Centro de Investigaciones CIUDAD),pp. 83–102.

[6] Bertzky, M., Ravilious, C., Araujo Navas, A.L., Kapos, V., Carrión, D., Chíu, M. and Dickson, B., 2010,Carbon, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services: Exploring Co-Benefits Ecuador (Cambridge: United NationsEnvironmental Programme and World Conservation Monitoring Center.

[7] Center Carter, 2008, Informe Sobre la Asamblea Constituyente de la Republica del Ecuador, September 5th2008 [Report on the Constitutional Assembly of the Republic of Ecuador] (Quito: Carter Center).

[8] Acosta, A., 2008a, Tienen Derechos los Animales? La Insignia. Available online at: http://www.lainsignia.org/2008/enero/cul_005.htm (accessed 24 June 2011).

[9] Acosta, A., 2008b, La Naturaleza como Sujeta de Derechos. Available online at: http://www.ambiental.net/opinion/AcostaNaturalezaDerechos.htm (accessed 24 June 2011).

[10] Singer, P., 1981, The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology (Oxford: Clarendon Press).[11] Galeano, E., 2008, La Naturaleza no es Muda. Pagina 12. Available online at: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/

diario/contratapa/13-103148-2008-04-27.html (accessed 1 July 2011).[12] Asamblea Constituyente, 2008a, ACTA 040, Transcript Plenary Discussion of April 29th 2008 (Quito:

Biblioteca Nacional).[13] Asamblea Constituyente, 2008b, Sistematización de propuestas ciudadanas. Validación de la información de

las Propuestas Ciudadanas ingresadas a la base de datos y recuperación gráfica de lo más sobresaliente[Systematization of Citizen’s Proposals. Validation of Archived Citizen’s Proposals and Graphic Renderingof the most Salient] (Quito: Biblioteca Nacional).

[14] Unda, M. and Bethania, E., 2011, Los Conflictos de la “Revolución Ciudadana” [The conflicts of thecitizen’s revolution]. Revista R, 3(7), 27–40.

860 M. Tanasescu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4

[15] Harnecker, M., 2010, Gobierno de Correa y Movimiento Indígena. Rebelión. Available online at: http://www.rebelion.org/docs/114792.pdf (accessed 10 January 2013).

[16] Vogel, S., 2008, Los Alcanzes y Límites de Participación Ciudadana: la Conaie y la Plurinacionalidad enla Asamblea Constituyente de 2008. ISP Collection Paper 33.

[17] Cullinan, C., 2011, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice, 2nd ed. (Devon: Green Books).[18] Asamblea Constituyente, 2008c, ACTA 058. Transcript Plenary Discussion of June 6th 2008 (Quito:

Biblioteca Nacional).[19] Acosta, A., 2011, La Naturaleza con Derechos: Una Propuesta de Cambio Civilizatorio. Available online

at: http://www.lai.at/attachments/article/89/Acosta-Naturaleza%20Derechos%202011.pdf (accessed 20 January2013).

[20] Mann, C.C., 2005, 1491: The Americas before Columbus (London: Granta Books).[21] Stone, C.D., 1972, Should trees have standing? toward legal rights for natural objects. Southern California

Law Review, 45.[22] Stone, C.D., 2010, Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment, 3rd ed. (Oxford:

Oxford University Press).[23] Campbell, T., 2006, Rights: A Critical Introduction (London: Routledge).[24] Hohfeld, W.N., 1964, Fundamental Legal Conceptions: As Applied in Judicial Reasoning (New Haven: Yale

University Press).[25] Daly, E., 2010, The Ecuadorian exemplar: the first even vindications of constitutional rights of nature.

Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 21, 63–66.

Interviews Used

[26] Acosta, Alberto. Interview taken in Quito, Ecuador, May 13th, 2011.[27] Chuji, Monica. Interview taken in Quito, Ecuador, May 2nd, 2011.[28] Greene, Natalia. Interview taken in Quito, Ecuador, May 13th, 2011.[29] Margil, Mari. Interview taken from Quito, Ecuador, via Skype, May 11th, 2011.

The rights of nature in Ecuador 861

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Saba

nci U

nive

rsity

] at

15:

28 0

9 A

ugus

t 201

4