Hey, Drilled listeners, I wanted to bring you this episode of Damages, our new show, because it's about Ecuador and dovetails with our season on the Chevron Ecuador case back in season five. This episode gets into Ecuador's history as a leader in the rights of nature movement. It was the first country to bake rates of nature into its constitution. That happened under Rafael Correa, right around the time that things were starting to really shift around the Chevron Ecuador
case down there. The Constitutional Court in Ecuador just released a ruling in late twenty twenty one that was pretty groundbreaking and has really started to spark some interesting changes in both climate law in general and rights of nature across the board. We get into all of that and more in this episode. I hope you enjoy it, and please go and check out Damages. We're doing some really exciting work over there, and I want you guys to
listen to it. If you're not already subscribed to our newsletter or our Patreon, you can do that at either Patreon dot com slash Drilled or Drilled podcast dot com. In both cases, you get ad free and bonus episodes delivered to your inbox. Plus weekly write ups on whatever I'm reporting that week, so check that out. You can also support us by leaving a reading or review wherever you're listening to your podcasts. It actually really helps a lot,
so it's a great way to support us. Thanks for listening and for supporting the show and all of our work, and I hope you enjoy this episode. Welcome back to Damages. I'm Amy Westervelt. So far this season we've looked at how rights of nature has worked in both tribal court and district courts in the United States.
What would the law have to look like to correspond to a state of affairs in which the river had rights?
The suit would have to be brought in the name of the river.
The river would be the planet, not Jones.
But for most folks, if they've heard about rights of nature at all, it's not because of how the idea has played out in the US, but because of how it took hold in South America, particularly in Ecuador Monica. Firietinta mentioned this in our last episode.
You know, it is quite unique in the world. The constitution in Ecuador has this acknowledgement that nature has rights, something that doesn't exist in other constitutions.
In two thousand and eight, Ecuador became the first country in the world to write rights of nature into its constitution. Today, we're going to look at how that came about and why we're just now starting to see rulings come out of Ecuador that are shaping how the whole world understands rights of nature. We're going to time travel a bit first, all the way back to the nineteen seventies when the oil industry first arrived in Ecuador.
Joye sa lugar A in Nagosto.
This is Louis Yanza. He moved to the Oriente area of the Ecuadorian Amazon, that's in the eastern part of the country as a kid in the seventies. He says, when he stepped off the bus in Lago Agrio, the largest city in the area at the time, the streets were literally filled with oil, as in there was oil running down the streets. He stepped onto a street of oils.
A Sosan in Yominama de.
Jansa says growing up he would see big black clouds in the distance nuez neingras. He didn't know what caused them, but he found out later it was the oil refineries. In the area. Later he would see pits filled with
wastewater and oil in the jungle as well. All of that, the oil streets, the black clouds, the waste pits, who created them and whose responsibility it was to clean them up became the focus of a massive lawsuit that started in nineteen ninety three against the American oil company Texaco.
Whether you drive on many come back a medium sized gar or a magnificent limousine, you can trust Texico to have the great gasolines exactly right.
That suit lasted through an acquisition Chevron acquired Texico in two thousand, multiple trials and settlements and appeals in courts in multiple countries. There are aspects of that case that are still going on today. It's long and really really complicated. I did a whole twelve part podcast about it on my other show Drilled. But for our purposes today, it's
important to understand a few key things about that case. First, that some indigenous communities in the Amazon were literally obliterated by foreign oil companies in the seventies. Foreign companies started an oil industry in Ecuador that was many, many times more harmful and polluting than they would ever dare to be back home. Then it's important to note that the election of a new Ecuadorian president changed the course of
that case and the country's relationship to oil. And finally that Chevron technically lost that case, but instead of paying or cleaning up the oil pits, they took the lawyers to court and halt the government of Ecuador in front of an international arbitration tribunal for daring to let its citizens sue Chevron. In a word, colonialism, or to put a finer point on it, oil colonialism. Oil colonialism has cast a black cloud over the economy and government of
Ecuador for fifty years. So imagine how exciting it was for Ecuadorians in two thousand and six to have someone running for president who promised to do something about it. Remember this was during a time period when George W. Bush was the President of the United States.
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so were we. They never stopped thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
And Latin America was taking a big swing to the left.
The forty six year old Morales won the presidency in December with more popular support than any Bolivian president in decades. He's the latest in a string of left leaning leaders to assume power in South America in what many see as a backlash against US backed free market policies.
In Bolivia and Brazil, socialist presidents had just been elected, and of course, in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez was the favorite socialist boogeyman of the capitalist West. Ecuador was poised to take a hard left too. When Chavez made international headlines calling Bush the devil, Ecuador's socialist candidate, Rafael Goria said that was an insult to the devil. Coorea made indigenous rights a campaign promise, and he vowed to renegotiate the
country's contracts with foreign oil companies. That made him a huge threat to American corporate interests, but wildly popular with the people of Ecuador. Correa's anti establishment campaign didn't mince words. He called the Congress a sewer and vowed to overrun the old Guard with a citizen revolution. He was elected in two thousand and six, and just two years later made good on his campaign promises. He amended the constitution to include indigenous rights, a whole host of other sorts
of civil rights and yep, you guessed it. Rights of nature. It was the first time any country in the world had put rights of nature in its constitution.
Bersonalmente jobingo di Narelida.
This is Alberto Costa, an economist and the former Minister of Energy and Mining for Ecuador. He says he spent a lot of years believing that nature was a subordinate object, a resource to be used for development or the economy, that it must be controlled by human beings. And then years, he says, and his thinking changed. He came to realize that his view of the world, a view that's still shared by much of the rest of the world, was
completely wrong. Acosta went on to actually help write those amendments to the Constitution in two thousand and eight, which was a big deal both for Ecuador and for rights of nature advocates all over the world who started to look at Ecuador as a place to test out the idea of using rights of nature to hold corporations accountable.
In one of the very first cases, activists sued the government on behalf of a river that was being impacted by a developer and the river one Then the deep Water Horizons Bill happened in the Gulf of Mexico.
The gusher unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico continue used to spew crude oil. There are no reliable estimates of how much oil is pouring into the gulf, but it comes to many millions of gallons since the catastrophic blowout.
And some folks had the idea of filing a case in Ecuador about it.
Environmentalist organizations from five countries file a complaint on November twenty six against British Petroleum VP for the spill of over five million oil burrows and the environmental damage linked to that spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The complaint was filed before an Ecuador's court because this is the only country that recognizes nature as a subject and protects its rights in its constitution.
If Ecuador's constitution protected mother nature, was that really just limited to ecosystems within the country's borders. It was an interesting test of Ecuador's rights of nature law, but ultimately unsuccessful. The case was thrown out for lack of jurisdiction, and then not much happened on rights of nature for a while, no big cases but Correa. Yeah, he kept turning up in the news.
Planter com promiso then no explotade cercas.
Petrolium.
The international press could not get enough of this plan he had hatched to protect the Amazon, specifically Yasuni Park, where an enormous oil reservoir had been found beneath an exceptionally fragile part of the forest. Corea tried to sidestep the oil curse. Instead of having to decide whether to preserve the forest or get the oil money, Correa proposed something along the lines of climate debt. Developed countries should
pay Ecuador not to extract that oil. For just three point six billion dollars over thirty teen years, Ecuador would agree to leave it in the ground, avoiding more than four hundred and seventy three million tons of CO two emissions. It also would have protected one of the most biodiverse places on the planet. Five years later, though, Korea was announcing a shockingly different plan to the country.
So Alassemble nal.
I asked the National Assembly a national interest to explore for oil in Yasuni. But listen well, people of Ecuador, especially my dear young people. Exploration will effect less than one percent of Yasuni Park.
Jessuoni Developed Nations had only kicked in thirty million dollars to preserve the Ecuadorian Amazon, and Korea's argument was that he couldn't say no to the economic development the country so desperately needed just to save a forest for a lot of people. This officially marked the end of Korea's commitments to indigenous communities and the environment. By this point in his presidency, Korea had already survived a coup attempt
and various corruption scandals. Chevron had gone after him really hard for supporting the case against it in Ecuador, and he was coming to grips with the fact that his country's economy had become entirely dependent on oil money. He couldn't turn that off immediately and risk plunging the country deeper into poverty. And he couldn't allow more drilling without harming indigenous communities and the ecosystem. It's kind of like the position a lot of countries are finding themselves in today.
So Korea went for a plan that made nobody happy, just a little bit of drilling. He moved forward with plans to drill in just one percent of Yesudy, which he thought was a great compromise, but it disappointed both environmentalists and indigenous leaders, and even the people who were for oil drilling didn't get what they wanted. Over the years, Kurea got kind of bitter about the whole thing. Are we really going to put nature's rights over helping the poor?
He asked.
He complained about quote infantile environmentalism and people who just couldn't accept trade offs. Between the coup attempt and the various scandals plaguing his administration. From twenty ten until he left office in twenty seventeen, Kuda's government was marked by instability, and that included the courts too. His successor, President Lenin Moreno, made it his goal to strengthen the country's institutions. In twenty nineteen, he tasked a Council of Citizen Participation with
appointing nine new judges to the Constitutional Court. Those judges announced that they would take on several rights of nature cases. For the first time in years.
This particular court has prioritized rights of nature specifically, and they I've selected a few cases to concentrate on so that the parameters of rights of nature, how it is applied in practical.
Ways, the scope of the law.
Is worked out. This is Melissa Troutman. She's a journalist and co founder of the investigative news outlet Public Herald in the United States. She made a documentary film about rights of nature called Invisible Hand that came out in twenty twenty, and she's been following the rights of nature movement for several years.
And one of those cases before the Constitutional Court of Ecuador is a case to protect Los Adro's Forest.
Reserved from mining.
It's a very, very ecologically diverse forest that will be gone if concessions for mining put forth by the Ecuadorian government will go through.
Losdros is a cloud forest that's a type of rain forest with dense tree canopies and constant precipitation that looks kind of like clouds. It's one of the most biodiverse forests in the world and is home to several endangered species, including the very adorable brown headed spider monkey. It's also already listed as a protected forest in Ecuador, so a lot of environmentalists in the country we're asking, if you can mine in a protected forest, what does the protected
label even mean? It's important politically too. The Losros case didn't just come before the court after new justices had been put in place. It came before the Court during a much more business friendly presidency. President Guillermo Lasso vowed to expand mining and oil extraction in the country and
has so far done just that. Tossing mining permits in Los Adros could shut down mining in any of the country's protected forests, and it could put both Lasso and various companies on notice about the court's intention to actually enforce rights of nature. That story coming up after the break.
Are you looking for a country with naively low mining regulations, zero red tape and I responsibly low taxes, Look no further, introducing a fibulus once in a lifetime opportunity to open your very own mind in the most biodiverse country on the planet, and there is literally nowhere you can't mind.
This is from a parody ad that some environmental groups made around the time that the Losedro's case was going to court.
Los Cedros ready to mind, Sabu good to blow, John tal for grabs.
The complaint in the lo Aro's case centers on a twenty seventeen policy change that allowed mining on six million million acres in Ecuador, including more than half of Los Adros. It was thought to be a quick move to replace declining oil revenues with mining money. Lossros was originally given protected for a status because it's home to so many rare and endangered species, dozens of them, so environmentalists immediately
questioned the permits there. Environmental groups began working with indigenous leaders in the area and filed their case invoking rights of nature to block the mining permits in Los Adros. In twenty nineteen, the provincial court agreed with the activists mining Los Aedros was a clear rights of nature violation. The mining companies appealed that decision and headed to the constitutional court in twenty twenty, here's Alberto Costa again.
Lub deel Castle and Auviencia de los CROs so presentaron persola scientificos, the scientificas they received as partes der mundo.
He says, scientists from all over the world testified to defend the spider monkeys, the plant, the water, and it was great, magnificent. Even Junta sajimos defendlas. We continue to defend isolated situations, He says, this wonderful protected forest of Losdros, But why not all the forests, Why not all the forests and all the moors. Why not all the water sources already for a cost of protecting entire ecosystems would be more in keeping with the intention of rates of nature,
not just one case, one place at a time. But there's that problem again of shoehorning this very different view of nature into a Western court system. The courts in Ecuador, like those in the US, work case by case, so it's hard to make big shifts in philosophy. You can't really say, forget specifics, let's litigate how we treat forests overall. Although rights of nature cases still have to be litigated one at a time, Los Cedros was seen as a case that could set enough of a precedent to protect
lots of other forests. So scientists and lawyers from all over the world zoomed in to testify before the Constitutional Court in Ecuador on behalf of Los.
Cedros Representantes de Las or the Nisaciones Air Law Center, Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, Center of Biological Diversity, International Drivers, Great Lakes Environmental and Loss.
And then it was a waiting game until finally, in December twenty twenty one.
La Corte Constitutions Delos.
Hello, this is Jane Goodul. Last week there was some wonderful news for those of us who are fighting to protect the natural world. The Ecuadorian Constitutional Court, in a landmark ruling, agreed that the government should revoke the mining permits that it had granted for exploration in the Las Cidrus Protected Forest in order to uphold the rights of nature.
The Cloud forest.
One huge news the court not only rejected the mining permits for those the there's it made some pretty broad judgments in its ruling that will help protect other forests too.
I called up Constanza Prieto, the Latin America legal director for Earth Law Center, to get some more details.
Well, we decide to intervene in Lossdros because it was such an important case.
Trieto is a expert on rates of nature and she says the Lossro's ruling will impact not just future rates of nature cases, but also how the government thinks through permitting for things like mining and ohiel drilling, how rates of nature might come into play earlier on in the process.
What the is very important because they talk about the forest, but not only the first about also the university and also about the water. They explain what means for the authorities all these rules. It's even like a class of what should mean for the authorities, also for the judge and also for the legislative power, what means our rate of nature?
This is really key. This ruling sets a precedent, and the court used this opportunity to not just say yes Los thero's wins, no mining there, but also to say, this is how authority should think about rates of nature in these situations, and this is how policymakers and the courts should think of it.
So that is the main importance of the case. And also because such an important subject mining.
Mining is a hot subject in Ecuador, in particular, since that twenty seventeen law change that opened up millions of acres to mining. The government has granted permits for more than seven million acres in Ecuador, and a lot of those acres are in protected forests. So the court's decision to throw out the mining permits in loss Thro's could reverberate through the economy in a big way.
That is a biggest statement to say, like no mining activities or similar to mine activities now on the future can be in this kind of force.
It's really it's a pretty sweeping ruling no mining activities or activities similar to mining can be done in this kind of forest, But Preeto says it's not exactly the blanket ruling in might seem to be. It's not saying no mining in protected for us ever period.
It's not clear. I think I suppose so well be cased by case, but I suppose a more fragile or vo diverse ecosystem will not allow this kind of destructive mining.
So at least in the most fragile and biodiverse ecosystems, it seems pretty certain that mining won't be allowed. If Ecuadorian President gir Molasso had his way, the ruling wouldn't impact anything outside of Los ae CROs. The businessman president has pinned his hopes for building Ecuador's economy on mining, and there's an interesting twist here. At least some of that mining will feed into the international supply chain for
renewable energy and electric vehicles. In an interview with The Financial Times, Lasso said that Ecuador's deposits of copper and other valuable metals need to be mined to support the global energy transition away from fossil fuels. This is a super interesting problem facing the entire world at the moment.
As we turn towards electrification as part of the solution to climate change, how does that system rely on the same extract of processes that led to the climate crisis in the first place, and what can be done to address the impact of those processes. Lasso has also okayed a lot of oil development, and it's unclear just how much of the country's planned mining is actually connected to electrification or how committed to that energy transition the president
actually is. But Lasso told the FT that he planned to try to win over public opinion by quote explaining what kind of mining this is, responsible, sustainable mining, and defending the greater interest of the majority of Ecuadorians above
the political interests of indigenous leaders. Meanwhile, just a few weeks after the Lesdros decision, the Constitutional Court dealt Lasso another potential blow in the same round of constitutional amendments that added rights of nature to Ecuador's constitution back in two thousand and eight. Remember, the country also added various specific rights for indigenous communities. One of those rights was the right to free, prior and informed consultation around development
or extraction projects, taking place in their lands. In February twenty twenty two, the court ruled that some indigenous communities' rights to this type of consultation had been violated by various oil projects. The court called for stronger protections to guarantee indigenous communities rights to decide over extractive projects in their territories. The one to two punch of Los Sedros and this indigenous rights ruling sends a clear signal to
Lasso and to extractive industries. Ecuador's new court plans to take its constitution, including rights of nature and indigenous rights seriously. The tension between colonial governments and indigenous nations is something that often crops up in rights of nature cases, and in a lot of ways, rights of nature laws are seen as something of an attempt to bridge the two. That was certainly the case in New Zealand, where a massive rights of nature case became the first step toward
healing the harms done by colonialism. That's our story next week.
The kanundrum in the case is that the people lived in the environment. You know, it's quite it was quite amusing for them to say, you know, the government owns and controls this area and the people were saying, well, we live there, so you don't own it and you don't control it. One of the key witnesses for me, he described it in our language, is tutor. It as my mother and my father. It's where I grew up.
It's where I go to pray. It's where I go to partake of food that nourishes me and my future generations. So for you to suggest that you can own my mother and my father, it's completely entathetical to our ideology or our relationships to that environment.
Come back for that, Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time. Damages is an original Critical Frequency production. Our editor and senior producer is Sarah Ventry. Sound designed by Repaying, mixing and mastering by Mark Busch. Our fact checker is wou dan Yan. Our First Amendment attorney is James Wheaton of the First Amendment Project. Our artwork was done by Matt Fleming. Our theme song is Bird in the Hand by Forenoon. Archival in this episode is courtesy
of National Public Radio and Vanderbilt University. Damages is made possible in part by a generous grant from the File Foundation. We appreciate their support. If you're enjoying this podcast, Please rate or review it wherever you're listening.