casebook

Case No. 1149-19-JP/21 (Ecuador) – Los Cedros Decision

Ecuador

In this landmark, paradigm-shifting judgment, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court held that the right to a healthy environment is intertwined with and dependent upon the rights of nature. Recognizing the Los Cedros cloud forest as a subject of rights, the Court prohibited all extractive activities within the forest and rescinded mining permissions issued by the State.

Credit: PatricioHidalgoP, Stock photo ID 954357734

Casebook Info

In 2017, Ecuador granted mining permits to state-owned enterprises, permitting exploration and mining activities within the Los Cedros preserve, an Andean cloud forest. Local authorities reacted by filing a constitutional challenge, asserting that the government had infringed upon the rights of nature, the right to a healthy environment (R2HE), the right to water and the rights of local communities to information and consultation. The case progressed through the lower courts and reached the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. The Court determined that the mining concessions and permits violated the affected parties’ fundamental rights. In addressing R2HE, the Court drew upon domestic constitutional frameworks and international instruments, defining the right as individual and collective, encompassing a human and biocentric approach.

  • Year Filed 2018
  • Year of Most Recent Ruling 2021
  • Year of Final Ruling 2021
  • Jurisdiction Ecuador
  • Court Name Constitutional Court of Ecuador
  • Plaintiff(s) GAD of Santa Ana de Cotacachi
  • Ruling On Merits or Procedure
  • Respondent(s) Ministry of the Environment, Water and Ecological Transition
  • Outcome Decided
  • Decision Link to the decision/ruling

Background

The Los Cedros Protected Forest is a biodiversity hotspot, hosting numerous endemic species due to its distinctive geographic and natural characteristics. Recognizing its significance, Ecuador designated Los Cedros as an ‘Area of Forest and Protective Vegetation’ in 1994. However, in 2017, Ecuador’s Ministry of the Environment, Water and Ecological Transition (defendant) authorized and granted mining concessions and environmental permits to the state-owned ENAMI EP for operations within Los Cedros. Responding to the authorization, the Decentralized Autonomous Municipal Government of Cotacachi (plaintiff) filed a constitutional protection action in 2018, aiming to cease all mining activities in the area.

The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s decision to permit mining in Los Cedros violated the rights of nature and the rights of local communities to information and consent. The rights of nature ensure ecosystems’ sustainability, full respect for their existence and the preservation and regeneration of their life cycles, structures, functions and evolutionary processes. A lower court initially acknowledged that the defendant infringed on the affected parties’ right to prior consultation, which the Ecuadorian Constitution protects. However, this violation did not factor into the lower court’s legal analysis and ruling. Given the central role of the rights of nature in the plaintiff’s challenge, they appealed to a higher court, seeking a determination on the alleged breach of rights of nature.

In 2021, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador declared that the defendant had violated (1) the rights of nature –Articles 10 and 73 of the Constitution; (2) the right to water —Articles 12 and 313 and R2HE— Article 14; and (3) the right to prior consultation for those communities affected by mining projects –Articles 61 and 398. Although the plaintiff initially referred to R2HE solely as part of the rights of nature, the Court recognized the significance of discussing R2HE and the right to water as distinct and individual rights. The Constitutional Court delved extensively into the nature and scope of R2HE, emphasizing that within the Ecuadorian constitutional framework and international instruments, the right is held by humans and elements of nature, given the right’s ecocentric disposition. R2HE protects the individual and collective. The latter requires “environmental authorities to adopt public policies and regulations that promote and strengthen the harmonic relationship of human activities with the environment in which they are developed.”

As relief, the Court ordered full restitution and restoration of the previous conditions and for the defendant to fulfill its constitutional obligations to protect the rights of nature and R2HE going forward.

  • Rights of Nature The plaintiff argued that the mining leases violated the rights of nature recognized by the Constitution. The Court took the opportunity presented by the case to discuss the scope and character of R2HE, which the rights of nature implicate.
  • Biocentric Approach While R2HE is a human right, the Court recognized that R2HE is biocentric, thereby protecting the elements that make up nature.
  • Full Restitution and Restoration The defendant’s violation of R2HE and the rights of nature required a complete restoration of the environment and a reversal of the mining’s impact.

Plaintiff Strategies & Court Good Practices

Using an established domestic body of law

Using an established domestic body of law

The plaintiff’s environmental integrity arguments primarily hinged on the constitutional rights of nature, which values nature’s intrinsic value. It referenced R2HE as an interrelated constitutional right, which ensures individuals, communities, peoples and nationalities have viable and thriving ecosystems that guarantee “sustainability and good living.” These rights are enshrined in Articles 14 and 66 of the Ecuadorian Constitution. Although the plaintiff had not expanded or developed legal arguments on R2HE beyond its cross-reference to the rights of nature, the Court recognized the importance of articulating the scope and character of the right based on the case’s specific facts. Therefore, the Court’s discussion of R2HE primarily rested on the protections and norms of the Ecuadorian Constitution, analyzed with reference to the rights of nature.

Connecting R2HE to the rights of nature (RoN)

Connecting R2HE to the rights of nature (RoN)

The plaintiff argued that the rights of nature were being violated due to mining activities, prompting an exploration of R2HE as a right that nature possesses. R2HE was also presented as a distinct and standalone human right, requiring individual analysis. The Court embraced this perspective, discussing R2HE not just as a right inherent to nature but also as a fundamental and independent human right. Building on its examination of the defendant’s lack of precautionary and prevention measures regarding the rights of nature, the Court extended its analysis to obligations under R2HE. In the end, the Court determined that the authorities’ disregard for the precautionary principle concerning the rights of nature and R2HE resulted in inadequate measures to protect the Los Cedros ecosystem.

Following a constitutional analysis of the rights of nature and the precautionary principle, the Court elucidated the identifying elements: (1) “the potential risk of serious or irreversible damage that a product or… activity may have on the rights of nature, the right to water, the right to a healthy environment, and the right to health;” (2) “Scientific uncertainty about these negative consequences;” (3) “the adoption of effective and timely protected measures by the State … that best protect the rights of nature, water, a healthy environment and health.”

Take Aways

The Los Cedros case underscores the Court’s attention to an argument less elaborated by the plaintiff, making it a pivotal piece of its ruling. It showcases the interconnectedness of various rights, including those of nature, life, health, water and a healthy environment. These rights rely on the principles of precaution, prevention and sustainability. The case highlights the importance of emphasizing the significance of every argument related to environmental integrity, sustainability and human rights when presenting cases in court.

Terms

Element

Healthy Biodiversity and Ecosystems

R2HE includes healthy biodiversity and ecosystems among its substantive elements. This internationally recognized right encompasses the entitlement of individuals and communities to live in a balanced environment that supports diverse and thriving ecosystems. It necessitates safeguarding and preserving ecological diversity, ensuring the resilience and well-being of ecosystems and promoting the sustainability of natural habitats for present and future generations. Additionally, this right entails the protection of various species, habitats and ecological processes essential to the maintenance of a healthy and functional environment.
Element

Non-toxic Environments

R2HE includes protection against toxic environments among its substantive elements, and recognizes the entitlement of individuals and communities to live in environments free from harmful pollutants, toxins and hazardous substances. The right provides that governments and businesses should apply a human rights approach to regulations, legislation, policies and actions related to the production, import, sale, use, release and disposal of substances that may harm the environment or human health. Toxic pollution may include contamination of the land, air and/or water.
Element

Pollution

R2HE encompasses protection against pollution through its substantive elements – particularly the elements of Non-Toxic Environments, Clean Air, Safe and Sufficient Water and Healthy Biodiversity and Ecosystems – because pollution in excess of a certain standard may compromise the “healthy environment” to which all individuals have a right. Individuals are entitled to live in environments that are devoid of various forms of harmful pollution, including harmful contaminants, emissions and pollutants. Consequently, R2HE emphasizes the need for clean air, water, soil and surroundings that are free from contaminants detrimental to human health and well-being. It stresses the obligation of states to take action to prevent pollution. ‘Pollution’ may refer to air, water, marine, noise and/or chemical pollution.
Element

Procedural Elements / Components

R2HE encompasses and guarantees a range of core procedural rights. Corresponding obligations include the duty to: (i) ensure access to environmental information, (ii) enable public participation in environmental decision-making, (iii) guarantee access to justice and effective remedies, and (iv) mandate the execution of Environmental Impact Assessments prior to the commencement of potentially impactful operations or activities.
Element

Safe and Sufficient Water

R2HE includes access to safe and sufficient water among its substantive elements. This internationally recognized right provides that every person must have affordable access to a supply of safe water in quantities adequate for essential personal and domestic uses, including drinking, sanitation, washing of clothes, food preparation and personal and household hygiene. When water is polluted, contaminated or overexploited, the right to adequate quantities of safe water is jeopardized.
Strategy

Connecting R2HE to the rights of nature (RoN)

Recognizing that R2HE includes protections for nature and the “rights of nature” in virtue of its intrinsic value, not solely because it holds instrumental value for human use. This strategy makes full achievement of R2HE dependent on the recognition and defense of nature’s rights.
Strategy

Emphasizing international developments

Referencing or examining recent international legal developments related to R2HE in order to support the protection of R2HE. International developments may include emerging case law, policy evolution, state practice, regional agreements or international treaties, among others. Commonly referenced international developments include, for example, the Paris Agreement and the UN Resolutions on R2HE.
Strategy

Emphasizing the obligation to cooperate internationally or nationally

Underscoring the need for governments, sub-governments and other actors to coordinate, cooperate and commonly work toward effective protection of R2HE. This strategy may emphasize the need for cooperation at the domestic level, international level or both, and can entail varying levels of specificity.
Strategy

Emphasizing the State's duty to regulate or its failure to observe its due diligence obligations

Invoking a government’s affirmative obligations under national and/or international law to regulate and implement policy to advance and monitor the protection of R2HE. One common instance of this strategy appears in the climate change context, where a plaintiff might argue that the government has taken insufficient action to mitigate climate change or reduce emissions. Another common context is that of corporate pollution, which might prompt a plaintiff to argue the government did not do enough to ensure a polluter’s compliance with environmental standards.
Strategy

Focusing on youth

Emphasizing the disproportionate and inequitable vulnerability of young people, children and/or future generations to climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. This emphasis is often articulated through the principles of Intergenerational Equity and Sustainable Development, which generally provide that governments and other entities must ensure the basic needs and rights of future generations when making decisions that bear on the environment. Additionally, the principles suggest that all individuals have a responsibility to care for future generations by limiting environmental degradation and consumption in the present.
Strategy

Invoking the political significance of the R2HE

Recognizing R2HE’s political weight and implications may entail emphasizing the linkage between – and/or mutual reinforcement of – R2HE and other democratic values. These common imperatives include public participation, access to justice and equity in environmental decision-making.  Additionally, this strategy involves invoking R2HE to guide the formation and enforcement of public policy.
Strategy

Reinforcing the status of the R2HE as a fundamental and independent human right

Recognizing R2HE as a standalone human right – that is, a human right that does not depend on or emerge from any other human right or source, but which exists independently and self-sufficiently. Recognition of R2HE as a fundamental and independent human right can be accomplished, for example, by invoking the UN Resolutions on R2HE.
Strategy

Using amicus curiae briefs advance the R2HE conceptually

Submitting amicus curiae – documents written by third parties interested in the case who are neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants, and who wish to submit arguments to the Court – in order to bolster and advance arguments supporting and in defense of R2HE. Amicus curiae may relate to a case’s facts, context and/or the arguments presented.
Strategy

Using an established domestic body of law

Invoking well-established national laws, norms and/or legal principles in support of arguments related to R2HE. Where R2HE is present in a country’s constitution, the constitution will serve as the primary authoritative source for the right. Other, secondary sources of established domestic law commonly include statutory law and requirements governing public participation and/or the assessment of environmental risks. Environmental principles enshrined in domestic sources of law – for example, the precautionary principle – may also be emphasized to further the protection of R2HE.
Strategy

Using an established international body of law to support R2HE

Relying on well-established international treaties, norms and principles in making arguments advancing and protecting R2HE. Commonly cited international bodies of law include UN Reports, jurisprudence from international and/or regional courts, General Comments by UN bodies, Declarations and more.
Good Practices

Expansive reading of the scope and content of R2HE

An expansive definition of R2HE refers to the broad and inclusive nature or interpretation of a particular concept, document, principle or legal provision related to R2HE. Legal definitions of the complex R2HE and associated concepts often lack specificity as applied to real-world circumstances, leading many courts to ‘fill in the gaps’ by situating the right within wider contextual frameworks of law, policy and science. As the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution intensifies, courts are increasingly reading the scope and content of R2HE broadly to address a growing variety and number of environmental harms. By providing inclusive and robust definitions of guarantees associated with the right – for example, by confirming R2HE ensures a safe climate, protects biodiversity and/or entails a duty to regulate – courts can help to ensure and further the right’s protections and utility.
Good Practices

Methods for ensuring baseline protections

Courts have employed various strategies, mechanisms and approaches to establish fundamental environmental safeguards, minimum standards and/or quality levels which are necessary to guarantee R2HE. These approaches aim to ensure a basic level of protection for individuals, communities and/or the environment. Further, courts have developed various methods to assess the appropriateness of government and corporate action relative to the baseline environmental standards. These methods can vary widely in form and across jurisdictions, but may take the form of a presumption in favor of the environment, the examination of long-term consequences or the application of environmental principles like that of non-regression.
Good Practices

Providing remedies

Provision of remedies is the process by which courts, after finding that a legal right has been violated or harmed, offer or provide a resolution or solution to address the harm or injustice suffered by the aggrieved party. Appropriate and effective judicial remedies play a key role in ensuring that R2HE materially protects individuals and all aspects of the environment. Remedies can vary widely in number, specificity, urgency and stringency, and those variations bear closely on whether a given remedy adequately redresses the original harm. Frequent remedies include protection and restoration measures, compensation and the creation of compliance or implementation mechanisms.

Collective Rights

Rights that are granted or recognized to groups of people rather than to individuals. These rights are based on the idea that certain groups, such as minorities, indigenous communities, or cultural or linguistic groups, have specific needs, interests, and identities that deserve protection and promotion.

Ecocentrism

Sometimes called ‘biocentrism,’ this philosophy, model and/or approach recognizes the intrinsic value of all living organisms and the natural world. In contrast to anthropocentrism, which prioritizes human interests above all other forms of life, the ecocentric view values all living beings as equal and meriting moral consideration, regardless of their utility to humans. This framework places special emphasis on the interconnectedness of all living beings, ecosystems and naturally occurring cycles.

Precautionary Principle

This environmental law principle provides that, where there exists a risk of serious and/or irreversible harm, scientific uncertainty about the extent of the harm or about the exact consequences of a particular action or process does not justify failing to implement measures to combat associated risks of environmental degradation or destruction. In other words, in the face of scientific uncertainty, authorities should still take measures to address environmental threats.

Prevention Principle

This environmental law principle provides that states and other actors must take meaningful steps to avoid environmental harms before they occur. In other words, if there is a tangible risk of environmental harm that is imminent and demands an emergency response, authorities are obliged to implement the necessary measures before damage is caused to the environment.

Restitution

Involves the process of actively and deliberately rehabilitating or repairing ecosystems, habitats, or natural areas that have been degraded, damaged, or altered by human activities or natural disasters. The primary aim of environmental restoration is to bring back the ecological functions, biodiversity, and overall health of an ecosystem to a condition as close as possible to its original or natural state.

Restoration

The broader concept of making amends or compensating for environmental harm caused by human actions. It involves acknowledging responsibility for the damage and taking actions to repair, mitigate, or compensate for the adverse impacts. The primary goal of environmental restitution is to address the environmental damage by compensating affected ecosystems, communities, or resources for the harm done.

Rights of Nature

The concept of "rights of nature" is centered on the idea that natural entities, such as ecosystems, rivers, forests, or other natural elements, should possess legal rights just like humans do. This perspective suggests that nature itself should have intrinsic rights to exist, thrive, and evolve, independent of its usefulness to humans.

Sustainable Development

This concept and guiding principle provides that states should pursue measures that allow present generations to meet their essential needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. Moreover, it recognizes the need for states to work towards their economic development while also ensuring the realization and protection of fundamental human rights. Consequently, a state seeking to achieve Sustainable Development goals is not excused from compliance with its human rights obligations, such as the duty to guarantee the R2HE.

Tutela / Constitutional Protection Action

A legal mechanism found primarily in Latin American countries, designed to protect fundamental constitutional rights. It allows individuals to seek immediate judicial protection when they believe their rights have been violated or are under imminent threat.