Translation Disclaimer
Unless noted otherwise, ELAW’s Spanish- and French-language web pages have been automatically translated by Google Translate.
Sentencia No. 1149-19-JP/21 (November 10, 2021) Bosque Protector Los Cedros
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.
- Procedure before the Constitutional Court, jurisdiction, and facts in the case
The Decentralized Autonomous Government (GAD) of Santa Ana de Cotacachi – through protective actions favoring Bosque Los Cedros – 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 [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.
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’s decision. Paragraph 7.
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.
- The rights of nature
The Ecuadorian Constitution’s Article 10 establishes that nature is a subject of rights, including “the right to have its existence comprehensively respected” and “the right to maintain and regenerate its cycles, structure, roles, and evolutionary processes.” Paragraph 25 (informal translation of “el derecho a que se respete integralmente su existencia” and “el derecho a mantener y regenerar sus ciclos, estructura, funciones y procesos evolutivos.”) The Court then commences its analysis, recalling that the Constitution celebrates the Pachamama and “includes human beings as an inseparable part of her and of the life she reproduces and creates in her bosom.” Paragraph 28 (informal translation of “incluye a los seres humanos
como parte inseparable de la misma, y de la vida que reproduce y realiza en su seno”).
Rights of nature and ecological justice
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 “directly and immediately applicable by and before any public, administrative, or judicial servant, ex-officio, or at the request of the party.” Paragraph 39 (informal translation of: “directa e inmediata aplicación por y ante cualquier servidor o servidora pública, administrativo o judicial, de ofício o a petición de parte”
The Court also recalled the principles of favorability pro natura[1] and in dubio pro natura,[2] by which “judges 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.” Paragraph 41 (informal translation of: “jueces y juezas que conocen acciones de protección y peticiones de medidas cautelares por posibles violaciones a los derechos de la naturaleza están obligados a realizar un examen cuidadoso sobre tales alegaciones y peticiones.”)
Intrinsic valuation of nature
Recalling the central idea of the rights of nature – that it has value in and of itself, regardless of the utility it may have for human beings – the Court explained the ecological principle of resistance. Paragraphs 42 & 44. According to this principle, when a natural system’s resistance level is exceeded, it becomes impossible for it to exercise its right to reproduce lifecycles. Paragraph 44. Thus, biodiversity “acts as natural insurance for the ecosystem.” Paragraph 47 (informal translation of: “actúa como un seguro natural para el ecosistema.”)
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.
Paragraph 47 (informal translation of: “Si hay varias especies que cumplen una función similar, como por ejemplo alimentarse de plantas, es factible que en el caso de que una de ellas disminuya en su número poblacional debido a catástrofes naturales, las otras puedan suplir esa deficiencia y el ecosistema recupere su estabilidad.”)
In terms of the intrinsic valuation of nature, the Court highlighted that this deals with a “change in legal paradigm,” 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: “un cambio de paradigma jurídico”).
Precaution and prevention
With grounds primarily in Article 396 of the Constitution,[3] 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.
Regarding the extinction of species and destruction of ecosystems
The Court also emphasized that species extinction is a violation of the rights of nature of such magnitude that “it is equivalent to what is meant and implied by genocide,” in that it leads to an irreparable loss of diversity and knowledge. Paragraph 68 (informal translation of: “Esta es una violación de tal magnitud que equivaldría a lo que significa e implica el genocidio”).
Precautionary principle and Bosque Protector Los Cedros
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 “clear violation of the rights of nature.” Paragraph 124 (informal translation of: “una clara violación de los derechos de la naturaleza”). Ultimately, Los Cedros is a remnant of Ecuador’s northwestern forests, characterized by high levels of biodiversity, including endemic, threatened, unique, and rare species. Paragraphs 73, 82-97, & 119.
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, “without verifying that there has been an analysis performed by the environmental authorities of the rights of nature that assist the Bosque Protector Los Cedros.” Paragraphs 133 & 137 (informal translation of: “sin que se verifique que haya un análisis por parte de la autoridad ambiental sobre los derechos de la naturaleza que asisten al Bosque Protector Los Cedros”). It further noted that the Environmental Management Plan’s exploration phase was deficient, in that it only listed “in 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.” Paragraph 140 (informal translation of: “se limita
a enumerar de manera general actividades a realizar por parte de la empresa accionada, sin mayor análisis adecuado a la realidad de la biodiversidad del Bosque Protector Los Cedros”).
The Court then refers to the grounds for the interdependence of the ecosystems to refute the defendants’ 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. “While 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.” Paragraph 141 (informal translation of:“Si bien es claro que en esta disposición el constituyente prohíbe actividades extractivas expresamente en estas áreas, de ello no se concluye que tales actividades están automática 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 análisis caso a caso.”)
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.
- The right to water and the right to a healthy environment
Regarding the right to water, the Court recalled that due to its importance, “international instruments and the Ecuadorian Constitution have enshrined it as a right in and of itself.” Paragraph 169 (informal translation of: “los instrumentos internacionales y la Constitución ecuatoriana lo han consagrado como un derecho en sí mismo.”). Furthermore, it considered the relationship between the right to water and the management of the Bosque Protector Los Cedros’ water sources, indicating that “an action that affects the water will in turn impact the communities’ ecosystems and environment”, as is the case with human consumption, the sustainability of economic activity, community water reserves, and the maintenance and regeneration of nature’s lifecycles. Paragraphs 180, 207, 210 & 212 (informal translation of: “una acción que afecta al agua impactará, a su vez, en los ecosistemas y en el ambiente de las comunidades”). Considering the fact that mining activities can cause a “disruption in the lifecycles of the Bosque Protector Los Cedros’ ecosystems that exceed its capacity for resilience”, 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: “una disrupción en los ciclos vitales de este ecosistema que supere su capacidad de resiliencia”) & 235.
As regards the right to a healthy environment, the Court deemed that “all 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.” Paragraph 247 (informal translation of: “toda actividad humana, incluyendo las de carácter productivo que involucren el aprovechamiento directo de recursos naturales, están obligadas a observar las disposiciones constitucionales y de los instrumentos internacionales en la materia. Esto conlleva también la obligación de los órganos estatales de generar las normativas y políticas públicas ambientales que regulen estas actividades respetando los parámetros constitucionales para la protección del ambiente y los derechos de la naturaleza. ”) 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.
- Environmental consultation in the case of Los Cedros
With regard to the right to environmental consultation, the Court recalled that the Constitution and international instruments “deem active and continuous participation to be a fundamental element of public environmental management, and in general of the democratic system.” Paragraph 265 (informal translation of: “consideran a la participación activa y permanente como un elemento fundamental de la gestión pública ambiental y, de manera general, del sistema democrático”). Furthermore, this right is directly related to the right to be consulted. As on other occasions, the Court deemed that “the 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: “la obligación del Estado de realizar la consulta ambiental es una competencia indelegable a personas naturales o jurídicas privadas o a organismos internacionales ”). Even in this sense, the Court emphasized that the environmental consultations should be performed in a prior manner and “the community should be widely informed” accessibly, clearly, objectively, completely, in a way that is free from pressure and undertaken in good faith. Paragraphs 289 (informal translation of: “debe informar ampliamente a la comunidad”), 290, 301 & 307-308.
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.
- Conclusions and reparations
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.
By a majority vote of seven (against 2), the decision presented by Reporting Judge Agustín Grijalva Jiménez was approved by the full Constitutional Court.
Decision: Sentencia No. 1149-19-JP/21
[1] According to which “all public servants . . . must apply the regulation and interpretation most favorable for ensuring that rights and guarantees, including the rights of nature, are in force.” Paragraph 40 (information translation of “todo servidor público . . . debe aplicar la norma y la interpretación que más favorezca la efectiva vigencia de los derechos y garantías, incluyendo los derechos de la naturaleza.”)
[2] According to this principle, “in case of doubt regarding the specific and exclusive scope of environmental legislation, it should be interpreted in the most favorable sense for protecting nature.” Paragraph 40 (informal translation of “en caso de duda sobre el alcance específica y exclusivamented de la legislación ambiental, debe interpretarse en el sentido más favorable a la protección de la naturaleza.”)
[3] Article 396: The State shall adopt timely policies and measures that prevent negative environmental impacts when certainty of harm exists. In case of doubt regarding the environmental impact of a given action or omission, even in the absence of any scientific evidence of harm, the State shall adopt effective and timely protective measures.
The responsibility for environmental harms is objective. All harms to the environment, in addition to corresponding sanctions, shall also entail the obligation to comprehensively restore the ecosystems and indemnify the persons and communities impacted.