Going Beyond Nature

Even though I found both of these decisions groundbreaking and celebrated the fact that a new way of seeing, understanding and relating to nature was beginning to advance, I had, and still have, some doubts. What does granting rights to nature really mean? How can the rights of nature be materialized? Which rights? Where does this recognition leave the communities that have traditionally inhabited and helped to conserve certain areas? Is recognizing nature’s rights the most effective way to protect our rapidly degrading natural environment? Is it the best way?

I still don’t have an answer to those questions, but a few days ago I attended a meeting that left me with the same unrestful feeling. The meeting was about a new program, Herencia Colombia, intended to guarantee an increase in the number of hectares covered by protected areas, and their financial sustainability in the long term. I think I was the only participant in the meeting that was not especially dedicated to conservation issues, and was surprised by the little mention of the communities that inhabit protected areas during the meeting. And I guess that this is what perplexes me in the discussion of whether nature should have rights of its own: how can we separate nature from human beings?  And, should we do it?

A few days after this meeting, I discussed the subject with a colleague from Dejusticia that had just visited the Sarayaku territory in the Amazon region of Ecuador. She told me about Kawsak Sacha, a Kichwa concept that translates to “living jungle”.  Beyond the concept, Kawsak Sacha is a Sarayaku initiative, first launched in the COP 21 Paris Climate Summit 2015, which seeks, as an ultimate goal, to attain national and international recognition for Kawsak Sacha as a new legal category of protected area, in which the division between humans and nature does not exist.

What I found interesting while reading about Kawak Sacha, is that it understands the jungle, and all the living and spiritual beings in it – including humans- as whole that cannot be divided and that cannot thrive if it is not seen in a holistic way. It is not a discussion on whether nature should have rights or if communities should have rights over specific territories, or if nature should be protected due to its intrinsic value or because it is essential to fulfill the needs of the human species. Rather, it goes beyond that discussion and sees nature, the jungle, and the communities and spiritual beings that have been historically inhabiting it, using it and protecting it, as a whole.

Ecuador is a good example of why and how the discussion must include new concepts, like Kawsak Sacha. The Ecuadorian Constitution is one of the few constitutions that recognize nature as a subject of certain rights. It also recognizes collective territorial rights to indigenous communities. But this has not been enough to protect their territories and the special, spiritual relationship between their communities and the environment. According to the Kichwas, nature is seen only as a green space, and not as a space that contains living beings that are alive and that live in an integral and harmonic balance.