By a majority vote, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador decided in favor of protecting the Bosque Protector Los Cedros, a highly biodiverse forest. The decision revoked the environmental permits previously conferred for mining concessions in the region, prohibited activities that threaten the rights of nature in Los Cedros, and determined that the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition had violated the rights of nature, the right to a healthy environment, the right to water, and the right to environmental consultation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Decentralized Autonomous Government (GAD) of Santa Ana de Cotacachi \u2013 through protective actions favoring Bosque Los Cedros \u2013 alleged the violation of the rights to nature, the right to a healthy environment, the right to water, and the right to environmental consultation by contesting administrative acts that grant mining concessions and Environmental Registration to the Empresa Nacional Minera<\/em> [National Mining Company] (ENAMI EP) and Cornerstone Ecuador, S.A. for the initial exploration phase in the forest. Sentencia No. 1149-19-JP\/21 (November 10, 2021), paragraphs 14-17.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The action was partially rejected by the court of original jurisdiction, though partially accepted by the General Jurisdiction Chamber of the Provisional Court of Justice of Imbabura in the analysis of the appeal on June 19, 2019. Paragraphs 19-20. The full bench of the Constitutional Court selected the case and reviewed the court of appeal\u2019s decision. Paragraph 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the form of preliminary information, the Court presents general data describing the Bosque Protector Los Cedros, which was declared an area of Guardian Forest and Vegetation on October 19, 1994 and is located in the province of Imbabura. Paragraphs 9 and 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Ecuadorian Constitution\u2019s Article 10 establishes that nature is a subject of rights, including \u201cthe right to have its existence comprehensively respected\u201d and \u201cthe right to maintain and regenerate its cycles, structure, roles, and evolutionary processes.\u201d Paragraph 25 (informal translation of \u201cel derecho a que se respete integralmente su existencia\u201d and \u201cel derecho a mantener y regenerar sus ciclos, estructura, funciones y procesos evolutivos.\u201d) The Court then commences its analysis, recalling that the Constitution celebrates the Pachamama and \u201cincludes human beings as an inseparable part of her and of the life she reproduces and creates in her bosom.\u201d Paragraph 28 (informal translation of \u201cincluye a los seres humanos Rights of nature and ecological justice<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court highlighted that the rights of nature enjoy full regulatory power, as well as all of the applicable guarantees and principles of constitutional interpretation. Paragraphs 35 & 38. Thus, these rights are \u201cdirectly and immediately applicable by and before any public, administrative, or judicial servant, ex-officio, or at the request of the party.\u201d Paragraph 39 (informal translation of: \u201cdirecta e inmediata aplicaci\u00f3n por y ante cualquier servidor o servidora p\u00fablica, administrativo o judicial, de of\u00edcio o a petici\u00f3n de parte\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also recalled the principles of favorability pro natura<\/em>[1]<\/sup><\/strong><\/sup><\/em><\/a> and in dubio pro natura<\/em>,[2]<\/sup><\/strong><\/sup><\/em><\/a> by which \u201cjudges who consider protective actions and petitions for precautionary measures for possible violations of the rights of nature are obligated to carefully examine such allegations and petitions.\u201d Paragraph 41 (informal translation of: \u201cjueces y juezas que conocen acciones de protecci\u00f3n y peticiones de medidas cautelares por posibles violaciones a los derechos de la naturaleza est\u00e1n obligados a realizar un examen cuidadoso sobre tales alegaciones y peticiones.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Intrinsic valuation of nature<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recalling the central idea of the rights of nature \u2013 that it has value in and of itself, regardless of the utility it may have for human beings \u2013 the Court explained the ecological principle of resistance. Paragraphs 42 & 44. According to this principle, when a natural system\u2019s resistance level is exceeded, it becomes impossible for it to exercise its right to reproduce lifecycles. Paragraph 44. Thus, biodiversity \u201cacts as natural insurance for the ecosystem.\u201d Paragraph 47 (informal translation of: \u201cact\u00faa como un seguro natural para el ecosistema.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n If there are several species that fulfill a similar role, such as for example feeding themselves from plants, it is feasible that in the event one of them experiences a population decrease due to natural catastrophes, the others can make up for that deficiency and the ecosystem can recuperate its stability.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Paragraph 47 (informal translation of: \u201cSi hay varias especies que cumplen una funci\u00f3n similar, como por ejemplo alimentarse de plantas, es factible que en el caso de que una de ellas disminuya en su n\u00famero poblacional debido a cat\u00e1strofes naturales, las otras puedan suplir esa deficiencia y el ecosistema recupere su estabilidad.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n In terms of <\/span>the intrinsic valuation of nature, the Court highlighted that this deals with a \u201cchange in legal paradigm,\u201d in that humans should not be the only subjects of rights, and nature is not merely a natural resource. Paragraphs 50 & 52 (informal translation of: \u201cun cambio de paradigma jur\u00eddico\u201d<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Precaution and prevention<\/p>\n\n\n\n With grounds primarily in Article 396 of the Constitution,[3]<\/sup><\/a> the Court invokes the precautionary principle, emphasizing that the adoption of timely and effective measures by the State is not an option but rather an obligation. Paragraphs 62, 65, & 66. Thus did it deem that the judges of constitutional guarantees must determine on a case-by-case basis the possible application of the precautionary principle, taking into account the existence of a risk of grave and irreversible harm, as well as scientific uncertainty. Paragraph 67.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the extinction of species and destruction of ecosystems<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also emphasized that species extinction is a violation of the rights of nature of such magnitude that \u201cit is equivalent to what is meant and implied by genocide,\u201d in that it leads to an irreparable loss of diversity and knowledge. Paragraph 68 (informal translation of: \u201cEsta es una violaci\u00f3n de tal magnitud que equivaldr\u00eda a lo que significa e implica el genocidio\u201d)<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Precautionary principle and Bosque Protector Los Cedros<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its analysis of the application of the precautionary principle in the specific case in question, the Court noted a high level of risk of irreversible harm due to mining activities, which constitutes a \u201cclear violation of the rights of nature.\u201d Paragraph 124 (informal translation of: \u201cuna clara violaci\u00f3n de los derechos de la naturaleza\u201d)<\/span>. Ultimately, Los Cedros is a remnant of Ecuador\u2019s northwestern forests, characterized by high levels of biodiversity, including endemic, threatened, unique, and rare species. Paragraphs 73, 82-97, & 119.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With regard to scientific uncertainty, the Court concluded that that comes about due to the lack of specific information about the effects that metal mining would have on a fragile ecosystem such as that of Los Cedros. Paragraph 126. Furthermore, it highlighted the importance of the impact studies that must be performed during the initial phase of exploration and guarantees regarding the rights of nature. Paragraph 128 & 132. Recalling the obligations of public authorities when issuing environmental permits, the Court indicated that the environmental record in the case was limited to a mere automated procedure, \u201cwithout verifying that there has been an analysis performed by the environmental authorities of the rights of nature that assist the Bosque Protector Los Cedros.\u201d Paragraphs 133 & 137 (informal translation of: \u201csin que se verifique que haya un an\u00e1lisis por parte de la autoridad ambiental sobre los derechos de la naturaleza que asisten al Bosque Protector Los Cedros\u201d)<\/span>. It further noted that the Environmental Management Plan\u2019s exploration phase was deficient, in that it only listed \u201cin a general manner the activities to be performed by the defendant business, without a greater, adequate analysis undertaken of the reality of the biodiversity in the Bosque Protector Los Cedros.\u201d Paragraph 140 (informal translation of: \u201cse limita The Court then refers to the grounds for the interdependence of the ecosystems to refute the defendants\u2019 argument that the constitutional provision that prohibits extractive activities involving non-renewable resources in protected areas, city centers, and areas declared to be intangible is of an exclusionary and exhaustive character. \u201cWhile it is clear that in this provision the Framers of the Constitution expressly prohibit extractive activities in these areas, one cannot then conclude from that that such activities are automatically or unconditionally authorized in the rest of the national territory, or that, once the constitutional and legal conditions have been verified, such activities cannot be restricted or suspended in different areas according to a case-by-case analysis.\u201d Paragraph 141 (informal translation of:\u201cSi bien es claro que en esta disposici\u00f3n el constituyente proh\u00edbe actividades extractivas expresamente en estas \u00e1reas, de ello no se concluye que tales actividades est\u00e1n autom\u00e1tica o incondicionalmente autorizadas en el resto del territorio nacional, o que, verificadas las condiciones constitucionales y legales, no se puedan restringir o suspender tales actividades en zonas distintas, bajo un an\u00e1lisis caso a caso.\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, the Court considered relevant the application of the precautionary principle with respect to the rights of nature and consequently, the adoption of effective and timely protective measures, and therefore null and void the Environmental Registration for mining activities. Paragraphs 161 & 164.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding the right to water, the Court recalled that due to its importance, \u201cinternational instruments and the Ecuadorian Constitution have enshrined it as a right in and of itself.\u201d Paragraph 169 (informal translation of: \u201clos instrumentos internacionales y la Constituci\u00f3n ecuatoriana lo han consagrado como un derecho en s\u00ed mismo.\u201d). <\/span>Furthermore, it considered the relationship between the right to water and the management of the Bosque Protector Los Cedros\u2019 water sources, indicating that \u201can action that affects the water will in turn impact the communities\u2019 ecosystems and environment\u201d, as is the case with human consumption, the sustainability of economic activity, community water reserves, and the maintenance and regeneration of nature\u2019s lifecycles. Paragraphs 180, 207, 210 & 212 (informal translation of: \u201cuna acci\u00f3n que afecta al agua impactar\u00e1, a su vez, en los ecosistemas y en el ambiente de las comunidades\u201d)<\/span>. Considering the fact that mining activities can cause a \u201cdisruption in the lifecycles of the Bosque Protector Los Cedros\u2019 ecosystems that exceed its capacity for resilience\u201d, and that no technical information exists providing a detailed assessment of the impact on water, the Court deemed that the precautionary principle was not observed by the responsible authorities, and that no mining activities should be performed in this forest. Paragraphs 220 (informal translation of: \u201cuna disrupci\u00f3n en los ciclos vitales de este ecosistema que supere su capacidad de resiliencia\u201d)<\/span> & 235.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As regards the right to a healthy environment, the Court deemed that \u201call human activities, including those of a productive nature involving the direct use of natural resources, must observe constitutional provisions and international instruments on the subject. This additionally entails the obligation of State organs to issue environmental regulations and public policies that regulate these activities while respecting the constitutional parameters for protecting the environment and rights of nature.\u201d Paragraph 247 (informal translation of: \u201ctoda actividad humana, incluyendo las de car\u00e1cter productivo que involucren el aprovechamiento directo de recursos naturales, est\u00e1n obligadas a observar las disposiciones constitucionales y de los instrumentos internacionales en la materia. Esto conlleva tambi\u00e9n la obligaci\u00f3n de los \u00f3rganos estatales de generar las normativas y pol\u00edticas p\u00fablicas ambientales que regulen estas actividades respetando los par\u00e1metros constitucionales para la protecci\u00f3n del ambiente y los derechos de la naturaleza. \u201d)<\/span> In the specific case in question, it concluded that the Environmental Registration was issued without the necessary precautions, thereby affecting the right to a healthy environment. Paragraph 252.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With regard to the right to environmental consultation, the Court recalled that the Constitution and international instruments \u201cdeem active and continuous participation to be a fundamental element of public environmental management, and in general of the democratic system.\u201d Paragraph 265 (informal translation of: \u201cconsideran a la participaci\u00f3n activa y permanente como un elemento fundamental de la gesti\u00f3n p\u00fablica ambiental y, de manera general, del sistema democr\u00e1tico\u201d)<\/span>. Furthermore, this right is directly related to the right to be consulted. As on other occasions, the Court deemed that \u201cthe obligation of the State to hold environmental consultations is a responsibility that is nondelegable to private individuals or legal entities or international organizations, which is upheld by the Mining Law (Article 87) in the realm of mining activities. Paragraph 282 (informal translation of: \u201cla obligaci\u00f3n del Estado de realizar la consulta ambiental es una competencia indelegable a personas naturales o jur\u00eddicas privadas o a organismos internacionales \u201d)<\/span>. Even in this sense, the Court emphasized that the environmental consultations should be performed in a prior manner and \u201cthe community should be widely informed\u201d accessibly, clearly, objectively, completely, in a way that is free from pressure and undertaken in good faith. Paragraphs 289 (informal translation of: \u201cdebe informar ampliamente a la comunidad\u201d)<\/span>, 290, 301 & 307-308.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the specific case in question, the Court concluded that the informational meetings did not include all of the affected communities, nor had they been planned or held primarily by the public entity that issued the Environmental Registration; as such, neither objectivity nor impartiality were guaranteed in the citizen participation process. Paragraph 322 & 323. It further held that the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition did not fulfill its obligation to inform in a broad and timely manner. Paragraph 325. As a legal consequence of the lack of environmental consultation, it declared the Environmental Registration to be unenforceable and invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Therefore, the Court concluded that the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition violated the rights of nature that correspond to the Bosque Protector Los Cedros, as well as the rights to water, a healthy environment, and consultation of the affected communities. Paragraphs 337-340. Thus, it upheld the decision adopted in the decision under review issued by the Provincial Court of Justice of Imbabura, and ordered that the following comprehensive reparation measures be taken, among others: the prohibition of activities that violate the rights of nature of the Bosque Protector Los Cedros; the duty to reforest the areas affected by the project infrastructure; the adaptation of non-statutory regulations regarding environmental registrations and licenses; the development of a participatory plan for managing and caring for the Bosque Protector Los Cedros; the dissemination of the decision; and building the capacity of public servants responsible for issuing environmental permits. Paragraphs 344 & 345.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By a majority vote of seven (against 2), the decision presented by Reporting Judge Agust\u00edn Grijalva Jim\u00e9nez was approved by the full Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Decision: Sentencia No. 1149-19-JP\/21<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n [1]<\/sup><\/a> According to which \u201call public servants . . . must apply the regulation and interpretation most favorable for ensuring that rights and guarantees, including the rights of nature, are in force.\u201d Paragraph 40 (information translation of “todo servidor p\u00fablico . . . debe aplicar la norma y la interpretaci\u00f3n que m\u00e1s favorezca la efectiva vigencia de los derechos y garant\u00edas, incluyendo los derechos de la naturaleza.”) <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
como parte inseparable de la misma, y de la vida que reproduce y realiza en su seno”). <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
a enumerar de manera general actividades a realizar por parte de la empresa accionada, sin mayor an\u00e1lisis adecuado a la realidad de la biodiversidad del Bosque Protector Los Cedros\u201d)<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n\n\n\n