Bolivia and Ecuador Grant Equal Rights to Nature: Is “Wild Law” a Climate Solution?
The concept of “a wild law,” which grants equal rights to nature, is based on the idea that humans do not have an explicit right to destroy our natural environment. Under wild law, natural ecosystems’ rights supersede the interests of any one species (including humans). Obviously, this idea can be incredibly controversial. Even in Bolivia, where they’ve amended their constitution to give nature equal rights to people, they are still working out the details.
Bolivia amended its constitution after pressure from its large indigenous population who places the environment and the earth deity, Pachamama, at the center of all life. But what this means in practical terms, such as how to address the serious environmental problems caused by mining for raw materials in the Andean nation, is yet to be determined. Bolivians hope that this will give their country the power to hold mining companies accountable and force them to adhere to stricter environmental standards.
Research by glaciologist Edson Ramirez of San Andres University in the capital city, La Paz, suggests temperatures have been rising steadily for 60 years and started to accelerate in 1979. They are now on course to rise a further 3.5-4C over the next 100 years. This would turn much of Bolivia into a desert.
Most glaciers below 5,000m are expected to disappear completely within 20 years, leaving Bolivia with a much smaller ice cap. Scientists say this will lead to a crisis in farming and water shortages in cities such as La Paz and El Alto.
Ecuador, which has a large indigenous population, has also amended its constitution to grant rights to nature. But like in Bolivia, the law has not stopped oil companies from destroying their natural landscape.
Even though these laws are mostly abstract, their existence helps elevate a debate about the relationship between people and nature. Bolivia’s Foreign Minister, David Choquehuanca, puts it well:
“Our grandparents taught us that we belong to a big family of plants and animals. We believe that everything in the planet forms part of a big family. We indigenous people can contribute to solving the energy, climate, food and financial crises with our values.”
It’s hard to imagine such laws adopted en masse today — particularly in the U.S. But the concept has gained traction. In recent years, numerous conferences have been held on how to apply wild law to climate change mitigation efforts.
To hear more about the concept, watch the video below featuring Cormac Cullinan, an environmental lawyer and leading wild law intellectual, who recently addressed the World People’s Summit on Climate Change in Bolivia.
CONNECT














14 comments on "Bolivia and Ecuador Grant Equal Rights to Nature: Is “Wild Law” a Climate Solution?"
November 21, 2011 9:14pm
I lived in Bolivia for two years. It is an extremely poor country which is run by the wealthy class. The only jobs available to the general public are cook, maid, driver and gardner. Journalists can be paid to put anything into the papers.
Poverty makes for a lot of problems.
I wish the people of Bolivia well when they work to "give their country the power to hold mining companies accountable and force them to adhere to stricter environmental standards". International corporations owe better things to this country than destroying their natural landscape while making a profit.
November 21, 2011 8:39pm
It is an interesting idea, but, ultimately, laws are only as good as their enforcement.
November 21, 2011 7:19pm
Is it not true that the Earth is not only a limited resource but in truth belongs to all of us as we are all dependent upon it for our survival. For the corporations to leave devastation behind them is a crime against mankind and should be treated as such.
When we can muster enough respect for Nature to spell its name correctly (with a capital N), then perhaps we can claim to have made a little progress.
November 21, 2011 2:33pm
I just started reading John Perkins' book Confessions of an Economic Hitman so the mention of Ecuador here caught my attention. Powerful, greedy, amoral international private organizations and corporations have been destroying nature, culture and lives all over the world since the 1960's. The task of creating societies focussed on the interests of both people and nature seems incredibly enormous. But science, indigenous peoples, and average-income people of all cultures have a lot of common interests. How can we work together?
November 21, 2011 1:34pm
IF we are to have equal rights for all species, then we as humans will have the right to defend ourselves from attack instead of some stupid law that says I must let the grissly bear invade my home and kill me or I go to jail. It also means I can defend myself the same with any human animal instead of being at the mercy of some muderer or rapist. I can also freely hunt animals for food whenever I or my family is hungry just like any other animal. The conservatives will support that aspect republican or democrat, but the bleeding heart liberals republican or democrat will fight against real equal rights like they always have done and the corporate structure goes on raping the environment.Enter a bears cave or lions den? You better be good friends or be eaten.Enter a person's house or attack their body be ready to die.I can live by the real rules of nature, can you?
November 23, 2011 7:39pm
Reply to Whodoyouthink
You will also have the right to live in harmony and balance with Nature, if you can. It seems you are unable to do so, even with yourself. Nature always removes what is out of harmony and balance. And regardless, of what you do, Nature always wins.
November 23, 2011 5:10pm
If you spent as much time thinking before you posted as you did trying to come up with anything to bash liberals, your post might make an iota of sense.
Where do you live where you're not allowed to defend yourself fro a grizzly bear? What mythical country inside your head do you occupy where you are not allowed to defend yourself against a rapist or murderer?
Where are you not allowed to hunt for food? Unless you are trapped in a city or have a taste for endangered species, you're living inside your delusions again.
Your entire post is a big, delusional non-sequitur. I suggest you seek professional help.
November 21, 2011 1:27pm
I've never wanted to move to Bolivia or Ecuador before today!This is great! It is too bad our country is too backward to see this is necessary.
November 21, 2011 1:09pm
As an Indigenous person (White Earth Anishnaabe), I, too, wish to see the US adopt such visionary principles. Of course, if we can't get this passed at the national level --wich seems virtually impossible-- we should all take the responsibiliity in our own (public and private) lives to "tread lightly on Mother Earth."
November 23, 2011 7:46pm
Reply to Phil Bellfy
Aho Brother. Mitakuye Oyasin.
In a few more years, we will see the "impossible" become a reality.
Leave no trace.
November 21, 2011 1:03pm
Now that you brought this concept to the attention of the GOP and its backers, rest assured that Bolivian law will not see the light of day.
November 21, 2011 6:42pm
Norm
Really like you'r car. Does it use Regular or Premium
November 23, 2011 5:04pm
If you weren't using all your brain power attempting to be snarky and smart-assed, you'd realize how stupid you sound. It's not necessary to be a luddite to be environmentally responsible or to advocate for the intelligent use of resources without being hypocritical. Only stupid black/white binary thinking leads you to believe otherwise.