Buen Vivir: "El Sumak Kawsay como proyecto político" -- por Floresmilo Simbaña

Floresmilo Simbaña de la Agencia Latinoamericana de Información, es antiguo dirigente del movimiento indígena y actual miembro de la CONAIE-ECUARUNARI. Gracias de este texto a la página de Gerard Coffey La linea del fuego abril 12, 2011. For historical background see Simbaña's The Ecuadorian indigenous movement and the current process of transition, and Benjamin Dangl, Ecuador: Indigenous movements challenge Correa government. 

*

CONAIE: photo caminatuspensamientos.blogspot.com

El Sumak Kawsay es uno de los conceptos que provoca amplios debates tanto en ámbitos académicos como políticos. Esta irrupción no se debe únicamente a que forme parte de la estructura normativa de las Constituciones de Bolivia y Ecuador, sino también porque fue uno de los discursos fundamentales que le permitió al movimiento indígena y otras organizaciones sociales enfrentar al neoliberalismo.

Pero si queremos acercarnos a una definición, obligadamente tenemos que remitirnos a la memoria historia de los pueblos originarios, pues de ella viene; por lo que es en la combinación de estos dos procesos o tiempos en donde se deben buscar los elementos que nos posibiliten una mejor comprensión. Es preciso tener presente esto para no caer en el común absurdo de mostrar al Sumak Kawsay como una noción más bien cuantitativa, donde se amontonan, como si de una caja vacía se tratase, derechos, políticas, pautas morales y todo lo que se nos ocurra poner para mostrarnos amplios y originales y así asegurar que el Sumak Kawsay es “la satisfacción de las necesidades, la consecución de una calidad de vida y muerte dignas, el amar y ser amado, y el florecimiento saludable de todos, en paz y armonía con la naturaleza, para la propagación de las culturas humanas y de la biodiversidad”[1].

Este debate está determinado por las circunstancias políticas del proceso constituyente del 2008 y el subsecuente proceso postconstitucional, caracterizado por las políticas adoptadas por el gobierno de la revolución ciudadana para la edificación del nuevo marco jurídico e institucional del Estado y su modelo económico. En él, el movimiento indígena y el gobierno nacional enfrentan sus argumentos y propuestas, que en ningún momento se reduce a “una pelea por celo político”, menos aún por “defender espacios y privilegios” como aseguran funcionarios gubernamentales. Lo que está en juego son visiones distintas de propuestas que permitan enfrentar el modelo capitalista y construir un proceso revolucionario.

Sumak Kawsay vs. neoliberalismo

Desde una perspectiva histórica el Sumak Kawsay subsistió en la memoria histórica de las comunidades indígenas de la región andina como un sentido de vida, una ética que ordenaba la vida de la comunidad. Pero en tiempos de los Estados originarios no solo servía para organizar la comunidad, sino toda la sociedad, incluido el Estado. Ésta última característica, obviamente, no sobrevivió tras la destrucción de los Estados precolombinos con la conquista y la colonia. El Sumak Kawsay fue rescatado y practicado por las familias, el ayllu: la comunidad. Los actuales movimientos indígenas retomaron y reivindicaron este principio como perspectiva ética-civilizatoria.

Y es justamente de aquí de donde se toma para su actual elaboración como proyecto político. Durante los años de ajuste estructural, la resistencia anti neoliberal se concentra en la lucha contra los tratados de libre comercio. La movilización cuestiona el discurso neoliberal que se presenta como una respuesta definitiva a la crisis permanente de Latinoamérica mediante la entrada incondicional al mercado mundial y la globalización. Para los neoliberales era el único camino posible para el progreso y desarrollo. Este discurso, además de sus referencias y promesas de libertad y democracia, hacía énfasis en un modelo económico de abundancia y de libre acceso a la modernización tecnológica, de flujo de alimentos, etc.

Este discurso es el que el movimiento indígena y campesino tuvo que denunciar y combatir y alrededor del cual desplegó sus propuestas alternativas; elementos para un modelo de economía opuesto a la ofrecida por el neoliberalismo. En el caso ecuatoriano, las propuestas se movieron desde lo económico a lo agrario y desde aquí hacia la soberanía alimentaria y la reforma agraria como condición indispensable para un modelo económico contrario al presentado por el capitalismo. Pero la idea de una reforma agraria como base de la soberanía alimentaria no podía repetir las experiencias de las reformas de los años 60 y 70 del siglo pasado, y tampoco las experiencias realizadas por los antiguos procesos socialistas. En esta necesidad de nuevas respuestas es que el concepto que subyacía en la memoria y en el espíritu de los pueblos indígenas se transforma en proyecto político: hablamos del Sumak Kawsay.

Así es como actualmente el movimiento indígena ecuatoriano promueve su propuesta de construir el Estado Plurinacional, mediante una revolución agraria para el Sumak Kawsay.

Estas propuestas: la Plurinacionalidad y el Sumak Kawsay, se desarrollaron al calor de la resistencia contra el neoliberalismo, y su fuerza y asimilación social fue tal que en este nuevo periodo marcado por el gobierno de Rafael Correa, sobre todo en la Asamblea Constituyente, no tuvieron otra alternativa que asumirlos y consagrarlos en la nueva Constitución y en los discursos del gobierno.

Elementos para una conceptualización

El fundamento capital de la filosofía occidental es concebir al ser humano como entidad separada de la naturaleza: una sociedad es más civilizada mientras más alejada está del mundo natural; tener cualquier percepción o relación con la naturaleza como vínculo activo era prueba de su barbarismo. La naturaleza es concebida como contraposición a lo civilizado, a lo humano, a la razón; por lo tanto, hay que controlarla y someterla como mero objeto de dominio y máxima fuente de riqueza.

Fuera de la órbita occidental, e incluso dentro de ella, otros pueblos tuvieron, tienen, otras concepciones. Para ellos, para alcanzar niveles altos de civilización necesariamente tenían que estar ligados a la naturaleza, porque no podían entenderse fuera de ella: sociedad y naturaleza eran-son una totalidad; por lo tanto, concebirse “parte de” no es sinónimo de barbarie. Este es el caso de los pueblos originarios de América; para estos pueblos, Abya Yala no era un continente rico en recursos naturales, sino la “tierra de abundante vida”, de ahí que la naturaleza no era un recurso, sino la Pachamana, la “madre” de todo lo existente.

El Sumak Kawsay es un concepto construido históricamente por los pueblos indígenas de lo que hoy conocemos como área andina de Sudamérica. Hace referencia a la consecución de una vida plena, un vivir bien; pero, para que esto sea posible, la vida de la naturaleza y de la sociedad deben regirse bajo el principio de la armonía y el equilibrio: “en armonía con los ciclos de la Madre Tierra,… de la vida y de la historia, y en equilibrio con toda forma de existencia”[2]. Esto involucra la dimensión social, cultural, económica, ambiental, epistemológica, política, como un todo interrelacionado e interdependiente, donde cada uno de sus elementos depende de los otros; la vida humana no puede pervivir sin la naturaleza. Por eso, dentro del Sumak Kawsay subyace el concepto de Pachamama, que hace referencia al universo, como la madre que da y organiza la vida. Por lo tanto, garantizar el Buen Vivir de la sociedad, implica considerar a la naturaleza como “sujeto”.

Bajo esta perspectiva, el Buen Vivir, no depende del desarrollo económico, como dicta el capitalismo, mucho menos del crecimiento económico exigido por el neoliberalismo; pero tampoco del extractivismo. Depende de la defensa de la vida en general. Por lo tanto, el Sumak Kawsay no es una referencia moral individual o idea abstracta o bacía, como algunos funcionarios gubernamentales intentan imponer: “El sumak kawsay implica mejorar la calidad de vida de la población, desarrollar capacidades y potencialidades; contar con un sistema económico que promueva la igualdad a través de la redistribución social y territorial de los beneficios del desarrollo”[3]. Para ellos, el Sumak Kawsay se reduciría a “redistribuir los beneficios del desarrollo”, por lo tanto no sería necesario cambiar de modelo ni destruir las estructuras reales que lo sostienen. Pero algunos son más audaces, pues intentan convencernos que es una referencia moral individual, pues se sustentaría “no solo en el «tener» sino sobre todo en el «ser», «estar», «hacer» y «sentir»: en el vivir bien, en el vivir a plenitud”[4].

El Sumak Kawsay, como sistema, del brazo de los derechos de la naturaleza exige una reorganización y nuevos enfoques en el modelo político-económico, lo que transforma a su vez no sólo a la sociedad, sino, y sobre todo, al Estado.

No se puede pensar en sostener, o lo que es peor expandir, la explotación petrolera, minera y de otros bienes naturales bajo la promesa de una redistribución y una mayor participación estatal y no darse cuenta de que con ello se sigue debilitando la economía social de los pueblos. En el caso ecuatoriano, el modelo aplicado por la revolución ciudadana está demostrando que en último resultado termina asentándose en la sobreexplotación de la naturaleza, manteniendo el vigor de las economías no productivas (financiera y comercial) y potenciado otras nuevas como los agronegocios y agroalimentos, que son las economías que más dinámica de crecimiento tuvieron en los cuatro años del gobierno de Rafael Correa, concentrados además en dos grandes monopolios. Como es obvio, esta “nueva realidad” agrava los conflictos sociales.

Lo Comunitario en el centro del Sumak Kawsay

Lo comunitario es el elemento capital de la propuesta de la plurinacionalidad, por ende del Sumak Kawsay.

Existen por lo menos dos entendimientos de este concepto (y de esta realidad). Por un lado, es visto únicamente como una forma de organización social de un segmento reducido y marginal de la sociedad, básicamente rural, que se adopta como estrategia para acceder a bienes (tierra) y/o servicios (agua potable, vías de comunicación, etc.), pero que es anacrónico e ineficiente para gestionar, administrar y para la reproducción socioeconómica; así que, en última caso, se le reconoce un valor cultural aún vigente. Dentro de este enfoque, no tiene cabida lo comunitario en tanto sistema político, económico, cultural y jurídico. De ahí que el Estado le reconozca un débil respaldo institucional.

En el Ecuador, ese fue el pecado original de la legislación. Desde la primera ley de comunas, de 1937, se afirmaba un extendido entendimiento administrativo, con leves referencias a la propiedad y sin ningún reconocimiento de autogobierno social. Con las leyes de reforma agraria de 1964 y 1973, la lógica fue la misma: se hacía una mención abstracta, meramente administrativa de la propiedad comunitaria. Pero en las políticas públicas concretas se promovía el cooperativismo primero, luego la “libre asociación de productores individuales”, que en épocas neoliberales, sobre todo con la Ley de Desarrollo Agrario -1994-, dejó en indefensión a las comunas, que se vieron obligadas a adoptar, o “transformarse” en, otras formas organizativas como medida de subsistencia.

Pero esta manera de concebir y “reglamentar” lo comunitario no provocó, a su pesar, el fin de su existencia y de su pertinencia histórica: ni de lo comunitario, menos aún de lo indígena.

Aquí, entonces, surge la otra visión, aquella dada por las propias voces de los pueblos indígenas. Según escribe Luis Macas[5], uno de sus dirigentes más destacados, la comuna es una de las instituciones vertebradoras “en el proceso de reconstrucción de los pueblos y de las naciones ancestrales […,] que se han establecido a lo largo de [la] historia y cuya función primordial es la de asegurar y dar continuidad a la reproducción histórica e ideológica de los pueblos indios. Para nosotros”, continúa Macas, “la comuna es la llacta, o el ayllu o jatun ayllu. La comuna es la organización nuclear de la sociedad indígena. Desde nuestra comprensión, la institución de la comuna constituye el eje fundamental que articula y da coherencia a la sociedad indígena”.

Como podemos ver, desde este enfoque la comuna y/o lo comunitario no se reducen a un instrumento puntal o circunstancial, sino que va mucho más allá: abarca más ámbitos de la vida, va desde lo material, hasta lo histórico y subjetivo (lo cultural y lo espiritual), “es la base fundamental de concentración y procesamiento cultural, político social, histórico e ideológico”.

Siguiendo a Luis Macas, en el espacio comunitario se recrea los siguientes principios:

• La reciprocidad
• Un sistema de propiedad
• La relación y convivencia con la naturaleza
• La responsabilidad social
• Los consensos

Estos principios son normas éticas y prácticas de convivencia y de relaciones colectivas e individuales: imaginarios, ideología, el “deber ser”; es el “centro articulador de la cosmovisión indígena” y de la identidad; son parámetros cognitivos, pero también son modelos concretos y defendidos en abierta contradicción con el liberalismo capitalista y sus paradigmas de progreso y desarrollo.

Por eso el comunitarismo es uno de los principios organizadores del proyecto político de la organización nacional de los pueblos y nacionalidades indígenas del Ecuador, CONAIE. En un importante documento, redactado en 1994 y revisado en el 2007, podemos encontrar la siguiente definición:

Las Nacionalidades y los Pueblos indígenas históricamente hemos construido y practicado milenariamente el modo de vida comunitario.

El comunitarismo es el principio de vida de todas las Nacionalidades y los Pueblos indígenas, basados en la reciprocidad, solidaridad, igualdad, equidad y autogestión. Por lo tanto, para nosotros, el comunitarismo es un régimen de propiedad y sistemas de organización económica y socio-política de carácter colectivo, que promueve la participación activa y el bienestar de todos sus miembros.

Nuestros sistemas comunitarios se han ido adaptando históricamente a los procesos económicos y políticos externos; se han modificado, pero no han desaparecido, viven y se los practica en las Nacionalidades y Pueblos indígenas cotidianamente, dentro de la familia y la comunidad.

El modelo sociopolítico que propugnamos, es una Sociedad Comunitaria e intercultural. En el nuevo Estado Plurinacional se reconocerá y fortalecerá la propiedad familiar, comunitaria, pública y su economía se organizará mediante formas comunitarias, colectivas y familiares.

Como podemos ver, el Sumak Kawsay no es un concepto que se puede entender por sí mismo, necesariamente está unido al de Plurinacionalidad y éstos se encuentran directamente ligados a lo comunitario, que es la base constitutiva de ambos.

***

[1] René Ramírez Gallegos: Socialismo del sumak kawsay o biosocialismo republicano. En Socialismo y Sumak Kawsay, los nuevos retos de América Latina. SENPLADES, Quito, 2010, p. 61

[2] Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas CAOI. Buen Vivir-Bien Vivir, Filosofía, Políticas, Estrategias y Experiencias Regionales Andinas. CAOI. Lima-Perú. 2010. Pág. 34.

[3] Ana María Larrea: La disputa de sentidos por el buen vivir como proceso contrahegemónico. Socialismo y Sumak Kwsay, los nuevos retos de América Latina, cit., p. 22.

[4] René Ramírez Gallegos, ob. cit., p. 61.

[5] Luis Macas: “Instituciones Indígenas: La comuna como eje”; en: Boletín ICCI Ari Rimay. Quito. 2000.

We are Facing the Greatest Threat to Humanity: Only Fundamental Change Can Save Us -- by Maude Barlow

Barlow, a former UN Senior Water Advisor, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and founder of the Blue Planet Project, gave this speech to the Environmental Grantmakers Association on 15 October 2010. Republished from Alternet. She is a contributor to AlterNet's forthcoming book Water Matters and is circulating a petition for a UN debate on this concern 22 April 2011.

We all know that the earth and all upon it face a growing crisis. Global climate change is rapidly advancing, melting glaciers, eroding soil, causing freak and increasingly wild storms, and displacing untold millions from rural communities to live in desperate poverty in peri-urban slums.

Almost every human victim lives in the global South, in communities not responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. The atmosphere has already warmed up almost a full degree in the last several decades and a new Canadian study reports that we may be on course to add another 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.

Half the tropical forests in the world – the lungs of our ecosystems – are gone; by 2030, at the current rate of harvest, only 10% will be left standing. Ninety percent of the big fish in the sea are gone, victim to wanton predatory fishing practices. Says a prominent scientist studying their demise “there is no blue frontier left.” Half the world’s wetlands – the kidneys of our ecosystems – were destroyed in the 20th century. Species extinction is taking place at a rate one thousand times greater than before humans existed. According to a Smithsonian scientist, we are headed toward a “biodiversity deficit” in which species and ecosystems will be destroyed at a rate faster than Nature can create new ones.

We are polluting our lakes, rivers and streams to death. Every day, 2 million tons of sewage and industrial and agricultural waste are discharged into the world’s water, the equivalent of the weight of the entire human population of 6.8 billion people. The amount of wastewater produced annually is about six times more water than exists in all the rivers of the world. A comprehensive new global study recently reported that 80% of the world’s rivers are now in peril, affecting 5 billion people on the planet. We are also mining our groundwater far faster than nature can replenish it, sucking it up to grow water-guzzling chemical-fed crops in deserts or to water thirsty cities that dump an astounding 200 trillion gallons of land-based water as waste in the oceans every year. The global mining industry sucks up another 200 trillion gallons, which it leaves behind as poison. Fully one third of global water withdrawals are now used to produce biofuels, enough water to feed the world. A recent global survey of groundwater found that the rate of depletion more than doubled in the last half century. If water was drained as rapidly from the Great Lakes, they would be bone dry in 80 years.

The global water crisis is the greatest ecological and human threat humanity has ever faced. As vast areas of the planet are becoming desert as we suck the remaining waters out of living ecosystems and drain remaining aquifers in India, China, Australia, most of Africa, all of the Middle East, Mexico, Southern Europe, US Southwest and other places. Dirty water is the biggest killer of children; every day more children die of water borne disease than HIV/AIDS, malaria and war together. In the global South, dirty water kills a child every three and a half seconds. And it is getting worse, fast. By 2030, global demand for water will exceed supply by 40%— an astounding figure foretelling of terrible suffering.

Knowing there will not be enough food and water for all in the near future, wealthy countries and global investment, pension and hedge funds are buying up land and water, fields and forests in the global South, creating a new wave of invasive colonialism that will have huge geo-political ramifications. Rich investors have already bought up an amount of land double the size of the United Kingdom in Africa alone.

We Simply Cannot Continue on the Present Path

I do not think it possible to exaggerate the threat to our earth and every living thing upon it. Quite simply we cannot continue on the path that brought us here. Einstein said that problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. While mouthing platitudes about caring for the earth, most of our governments are deepening the crisis with new plans for expanded resource exploitation, unregulated free trade deals, more invasive investment, the privatization of absolutely everything and unlimited growth. This model of development is literally killing the planet.

Unlimited growth assumes unlimited resources, and this is the genesis of the crisis. Quite simply, to feed the increasing demands of our consumer based system, humans have seen nature as a great resource for our personal convenience and profit, not as a living ecosystem from which all life springs. So we have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed either that nature would never fail to provide or that, where it does fail, technology will save the day.

Two Problems that Hinder the Environmental Movement

From the perspective of the environmental movement, I see two problems that hinder us in our work to stop this carnage. The first is that, with notable exceptions, most environmental groups either have bought into the dominant model of development or feel incapable of changing it. The main form of environmental protection in industrialized countries is based on the regulatory system, legalizing the discharge of large amounts of toxics into the environment.

Environmentalists work to minimize the damage from these systems, essentially fighting for inadequate laws based on curbing the worst practices, but leaving intact the system of economic globalization at the heart of the problem. Trapped inside this paradigm, many environmentalists essentially prop up a deeply flawed system, not imagining they are capable of creating another.
Hence, the support of false solutions such as carbon markets, which, in effect, privatize the atmosphere by creating a new form of property rights over natural resources. Carbon markets are predicated less on reducing emissions than on the desire to make carbon cuts as cheap as possible for large corporations.

Another false solution is the move to turn water into private property, which can then be hoarded, bought and sold on the open market. The latest proposals are for a water pollution market, similar to carbon markets, where companies and countries will buy and sell the right to pollute water. With this kind of privatization comes a loss of public oversight to manage and protect watersheds. Commodifying water renders an earth-centred vision for watersheds and ecosystems unattainable.

Then there is PES, or Payment for Ecological Services, which puts a price tag on ecological goods – clean air, water, soil etc, – and the services such as water purification, crop pollination and carbon sequestration that sustain them. A market model of PES is an agreement between the “holder” and the “consumer” of an ecosystem service, turning that service into an environmental property right. Clearly this system privatizes nature, be it a wetland, lake, forest plot or mountain, and sets the stage for private accumulation of nature by those wealthy enough to be able to buy, hoard sell and trade it. Already, northern hemisphere governments and private corporations are studying public/private/partnerships to set up lucrative PES projects in the global South. Says Friends of the Earth International, “Governments need to acknowledge that market-based mechanisms and the commodification of biodiversity have failed both biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation.”

The second problem with our movement is one of silos. For too long environmentalists have toiled in isolation from those communities and groups working for human and social justice and for fundamental change to the system. On one hand are the scientists, scholars, and environmentalists warning of a looming ecological crisis and monitoring the decline of the world’s freshwater stocks, energy sources and biodiversity. On the other are the development experts, anti-poverty advocates, and NGOs working to address the inequitable access to food, water and health care and campaigning for these services, particularly in the global South. The assumption is that these are two different sets of problems, one needing a scientific and ecological solution, the other needing a financial solution based on pulling money from wealthy countries, institutions and organizations to find new resources for the poor.

The clearest example I have is in the area I know best, the freshwater crisis. It is finally becoming clear to even the most intransigent silo separatists that the ecological and human water crises are intricately linked, and that to deal effectively with either means dealing with both. The notion that inequitable access can be dealt with by finding more money to pump more groundwater is based on a misunderstanding that assumes unlimited supply, when in fact humans everywhere are overpumping groundwater supplies. Similarly, the hope that communities will cooperate in the restoration of their water systems when they are desperately poor and have no way of conserving or cleaning the limited sources they use is a cruel fantasy. The ecological health of the planet is intricately tied to the need for a just system of water distribution.

The global water justice movement (in which I have the honour of being deeply involved) is, I believe, successfully incorporating concerns about the growing ecological water crisis with the promotion of just economic, food and trade policies to ensure water for all. We strongly believe that fighting for equitable water in a world running out means taking better care of the water we have, not just finding supposedly endless new sources. Through countless gatherings where we took the time to really hear one another – especially grassroots groups and tribal peoples closest to the struggle – we developed a set of guiding principles and a vision for an alternative future that are universally accepted in our movement and have served us well in times of stress. We are also deeply critical of the trade and development policies of the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the World Water Council (whom I call the “Lords of water”), and we openly challenge their model and authority.

Similarly, a fresh and exciting new movement exploded onto the scene in Copenhagen and set all the traditional players on their heads. The climate justice movement whose motto is Change the System, Not the Climate, arrived to challenge not only the stalemate of the government negotiators but the stale state of too cosy alliances between major environmental groups, international institutions and big business – the traditional “players” on the climate scene. Those climate justice warriors went on to gather at another meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia, producing a powerful alternative declaration to the weak statement that came out of Copenhagen. The new document forged in Bolivia put the world on notice that business as usual is not on the climate agenda.

How the Commons Fits In

I deeply believe it is time for us to extend these powerful new movements, which fuse the analysis and hard work of the environmental community with the vision and commitment of the justice community, into a whole new form of governance that not only challenges the current model of unlimited growth and economic globalization but promotes an alternative that will allow us and the Earth to survive. Quite simply, human-centred governance systems are not working and we need new economic, development, and environmental policies as well as new laws that articulate an entirely different point of view from that which underpins most governance systems today. At the centre of this new paradigm is the need to protect natural ecosystems and to ensure the equitable and just sharing of their bounty. It also means the recovery of an old concept called the Commons.

The Commons is based on the notion that just by being members of the human family, we all have rights to certain common heritages, be they the atmosphere and oceans, freshwater and genetic diversity, or culture, language and wisdom. In most traditional societies, it was assumed that what belonged to one belonged to all. Many indigenous societies to this day cannot conceive of denying a person or a family basic access to food, air, land, water and livelihood. Many modern societies extended the same concept of universal access to the notion of a social Commons, creating education, health care and social security for all members of the community. Since adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, governments are obliged to protect the human rights, cultural diversity and food security of their citizens.

A central characteristic of the Commons is the need for careful collaborative management of shared resources by those who use them and allocation of access based on a set of priorities. A Commons is not a free-for-all. We are not talking about a return to the notion that nature’s capacity to sustain our ways is unlimited and anyone can use whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. It is rooted rather in a sober and realistic assessment of the true damage that has already been unleashed on the world’s biological heritage as well as the knowledge that our ecosystems must be managed and shared in a way that protects them now and for all time.

Also to be recovered and expanded is the notion of the Public Trust Doctrine, a longstanding legal principle which holds that certain natural resources, particularly air, water and the oceans, are central to our very existence and therefore must be protected for the common good and not allowed to be appropriated for private gain. Under the Public Trust Doctrine, governments exercise their fiduciary responsibilities to sustain the essence of these resources for the long-term use and enjoyment of the entire populace, not just the privileged who can buy inequitable access.

The Public Trust Doctrine was first codified in 529 A.D. by Emperor Justinian who declared: “By the laws of nature, these things are common to all mankind: the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.” U.S. courts have referred to the Public Trust Doctrine as a “high, solemn and perpetual duty” and held that the states hold title to the lands under navigable waters “in trust for the people of the State.” Recently, Vermont used the Public Trust Doctrine to protect its groundwater from rampant exploitation, declaring that no one owns this resource but rather, it belongs to the people of Vermont and future generations. The new law also places a priority for this water in times of shortages: water for daily human use, sustainable food production and ecosystem protection takes precedence over water for industrial and commercial use.

An exciting new network of Canadian, American and First Nations communities around the Great Lakes is determined to have these lakes named a Commons, a public trust and a protected bioregion.

Equitable access to natural resources is another key character of the Commons. These resources are not there for the taking by private interests who can then deny them to anyone without means. The human right to land, food, water, health care and biodiversity are being codified as we speak from nation-state constitutions to the United Nations. Ellen Dorsey and colleagues have recently called for a human rights approach to development, where the most vulnerable and marginalized communities take priority in law and practice. They suggest renaming the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals the Millennium Development Rights and putting the voices of the poor at the centre.

This would require the meaningful involvement of those affected communities, especially Indigenous groups, in designing and implementing development strategies. Community-based governance is another basic tenet of the Commons.

Inspiring Successes Around the Globe

Another crucial tenet of the new paradigm is the need to put the natural world back into the centre of our existence. If we listen, nature will teach us how to live. Again, using the issue I know best, we know exactly what to do to create a secure water future: protection and restoration of watersheds; conservation; source protection; rainwater and storm water harvesting; local, sustainable food production; and meaningful laws to halt pollution. Martin Luther King Jr. said legislation may not change the heart but it will restrain the heartless.

Life and livelihoods have been returned to communities in Rajasthan, India, through a system of rainwater harvesting that has made desertified land bloom and rivers run again thanks to the collective action of villagers. The city of Salisbury South Australia, has become an international wonder for greening desertified land in the wake of historic low flows of the Murray River. It captures every drop of rain that falls from the sky and collects storm and wastewater and funnels it all through a series of wetlands, which clean it, to underground natural aquifers, which store it, until it is needed.

In a “debt for nature” swap, Canada, the U.S. and The Netherlands cancelled the debt owed to them by Colombia in exchange for the money being used for watershed restoration. The most exciting project is the restoration of 16 large wetland areas of the Bogotá River, which is badly contaminated, to pristine condition. Eventually the plan is to clean up the entire river. True to principles of the Commons, the indigenous peoples living on the sites were not removed, but rather, have become caretakers of these protected and sacred places.

The natural world also needs its own legal framework, what South African environmental lawyer Cormac Cullinen calls “wild law.” The quest is a body of law that recognizes the inherent rights of the environment, other species and water itself outside of their usefulness to humans. A wild law is a law to regulate human behaviour in order to protect the integrity of the earth and all species on it. It requires a change in the human relationship with the natural world from one of exploitation to one of democracy with other beings. If we are members of the earth’s community, then our rights must be balanced against those of plants, animals, rivers and ecosystems. In a world governed by wild law, the destructive, human-centered exploitation of the natural world would be unlawful. Humans would be prohibited from deliberately destroying functioning ecosystems or driving other species to extinction.

This kind of legal framework is already being established. The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that protection of natural lakes and ponds is akin to honouring the right to life – the most fundamental right of all according to the Court. Wild law was the inspiration behind an ordinance in Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania that recognized natural ecosystems and natural communities within the borough as “legal persons” for the purposes of stopping the dumping of sewage sludge on wild land. It has been used throughout New England in a series of local ordinances to prevent bottled water companies from setting up shop in the area. Residents of Mount Shasta California have put a wild law ordinance on the November 2010 ballot to prevent cloud seeding and bulk water extraction within city limits.

In 2008, Ecuador’s citizens voted two thirds in support of a new constitution, which says, “Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights.” Bolivia has recently amended its constitution to enshrine the philosophy of “living well” as a means of expressing concern with the current model of development and signifying affinity with nature and the need for humans to recognize inherent rights of the earth and other living beings. The government of Argentina recently moved to protect its glaciers by banning mining and oil drilling in ice zones. The law sets standards for protecting glaciers and surrounding ecosystems and creates penalties just for harming the country’s fresh water heritage.

The most far-reaching proposal for the protection of nature itself is the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth that was drafted at the April 2010 World People’s Conference on Climate Change in Cochabamba, Bolivia and endorsed by the 35,000 participants there. We are writing a book setting out our case for this Declaration to the United Nations and the world. The intent is for it to become a companion document to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every now and then in history, the human race takes a collective step forward in its evolution. Such a time is upon us now as we begin to understand the urgent need to protect the earth and its ecosystems from which all life comes. The Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth must become a history-altering covenant toward a just and sustainable future for all.

What Can We Do Right Now?

What might this mean for funders and other who share these values? Well, let me be clear: the hard work of those fighting environmental destruction and injustice must continue. I am not suggesting for one moment that his work is not important or that the funding for this work is not needed. I do think however, that there are ways to move the agenda I have outlined here forward if we put our minds to it.

Anything that helps bridge the solitudes and silos is pure gold. Bringing together environmentalists and justice activists to understand one another’s work and perspective is crucial. Both sides have to dream into being – together – the world they know is possible and not settle for small improvements to the one we have. This means working for a whole different economic, trade and development model even while fighting the abuses existing in the current one. Given a choice between funding an environmental organization that basically supports the status quo with minor changes and one that promotes a justice agenda as well, I would argue for the latter.

Support that increases capacity at the base is also very important, as is funding that connects domestic to international struggle, always related even when not apparent. Funding for those projects and groups fighting to abolish or fundamentally change global trade and banking institutions that maintain corporate dominance and promote unlimited and unregulated growth is still essential.

How Clean Water Became a Human Right

We all, as well, have to find ways to thank and protect those groups and governments going out on a limb to promote an agenda for true change. A very good example is President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who brought the climate justice movement together in Cochabamba last April and is leading the campaign at the UN to promote the Rights of Mother Earth.

It was this small, poor, largely indigenous landlocked country, and its former coca-farmer president, that introduced a resolution to recognize the human right to water and sanitation this past June to the UN General Assembly, taking the whole UN community by surprise. The Bolivian UN Ambassador, Pablo Solon, decided he was fed up with the “commissions” and “further studies” and “expert consultations” that have managed to put off the question of the right to water for at least a decade at the UN and that it was time to put an “up or down” question to every country: do you or do you not support the human right to drinking water and sanitation?

A mad scramble ensued as a group of Anglo-Western countries, all promoting to some extent the notion of water as a private commodity, tried to derail the process and put off the vote. The U.S., Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand even cooked up a “consensus” resolution that was so bland everyone would likely have handily voted for it at an earlier date. But sitting beside the real thing, it looked like what it was – an attempt, yet again, to put off any meaningful commitment at the UN to the billions suffering from lack of clean water. When that didn’t work, they toiled behind the scenes to weaken the wording of the Bolivian resolution but to no avail. On July 28, 2010, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to adopt a resolution recognizing the human right to water and sanitation. One hundred and twenty two countries voted for the resolution; 41 abstained; not one had the courage to vote against.

I share this story with you not only because my team and I were deeply involved in the lead up to this historic vote and there for it the day it was presented, but because it was the culmination of work done by a movement operating on the principles I have outlined above.

We took the time to establish the common principles that water is a Commons that belongs to the earth, all species, and the future, and is a fundamental human right not to be appropriated for profit. We advocate for the Public Trust Doctrine in law at every level of government. We set out to build a movement that listens first and most to the poorest among us, especially indigenous and tribal voices. We work with communities and groups in other movements, especially those working on climate justice and trade justice. We understand the need for careful collaborative cooperation to restore the functioning of watersheds and we have come to revere the water that gives life to all things upon the Earth. While we clearly have much left to do, these water warriors inspire me and give me hope. They get me out of bed every morning to fight another day.

I believe I am in a room full of stewards and want, then to leave you with these words from Lord of the Rings. This is Gandalf speaking the night before he faces a terrible force that threatens all living beings. His words are for you.

“The rule of no realm is mine, but all worthy things that are in peril, as the world now stands, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail in my task if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair, or bear fruit, and flower again in the days to come. For I too am a steward, did you not know?” —J.R.R. Tolkien

Rights of Nature, a Planet Trust -- proposals by Polly Higgins

UK environmental lawyer Polly Higgins urges expanding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to all life forms. She proposes a Planetary Rights declaration, similar to Law of Nature developed in Bolivia and Ecuador. In this video from Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen, she is introduced by George Montbiot.
All life has a right to exist, to habitat, to diversity and integrity, and to restorative justice,
defensible at law, and supported by a Planet Trust. For more details see her site This is Ecocide, her Copenhagen slide presentation and her blog. Earth Trustee duties and legal implications are explained on Trees Have Rights Too, which she founded in 2008, as well as WISE (Women in Sustainability and the Environment). The Ecologist magazine named her "One of the Top Ten Visionaries to Save the Planet".
See also her article on Ecocide (Jan 2012), her biography in Wikipedia, the NEF animation video The Impossible Hamster, and Quaker discussion of Zero Growth and fall 2009 conference on Zero Growth Economy.

An alternative to killing: Avatar, Ecuador and the Suquamish

In James Cameron's Avatar, ex-Marine Jake Sully leads a war by indigenous Na'vi against destruction by an Earth-based mining corporation. A white guy saves the peace-loving natives, unifies the tribes, gives them machine guns. What's wrong with this picture?

Ecuadorean native peoples who have been living through a long environmental battle against oil pipelines say the answer is not war, but dialogue.

Video by PRI's Melaina Spitzer. Listen to her full length PRI podcast.

The Suquamish (a Salish people in the US Pacific Northwest) have an alternative to Avatar, says Fran Korten of Yes magazine: "There are many paths to power that don’t involve guns. Yeah, they take longer and can’t be portrayed in a burst of climactic drama. But they seem to work better. That’s why native people for centuries have survived by withdrawing to a safer spot to regroup. Some have gone on to find those other routes to power. Like using the sender culture’s laws to gain recognition of rights; exploiting the sender culture’s enthusiasm for gambling to gain financial power; reviving traditions to strengthen cultural power; and perhaps most importantly, working with allies to change the sender culture itself. It’s that last one, I believe, that’s the true solution.
... my neighbors the Suquamish have been using all the nonviolent levers. Yep, they’ve got a thriving casino. They, together with other Northwest tribes, have mounted lawsuits to defend their rights to fish and to protect land and fishing grounds. They’ve helped revive the region’s magnificent canoe journey traditions. And they’ve worked with allies to, among other things, regain their land.

Suquamish potlatch at HAC opening
from Indian Country Today Mar 2009

"One place is particularly poignant. In 1904 the U.S. military took over part of their land where Chief Seattle once lived. In 2004, exactly 100 years later, the State of Washington returned that land, after a campaign that involved many non-native allies, including YES! Magazine editor Sarah van Gelder. Then, just last March, they opened a new building, called the "House of Awakened Culture," right next to the newly regained land. It’s a place of community for the Suquamish. But it is also a place for native and non-native alike to share a different vision for how to live—one that respects all the creatures and the Earth and allows us to come together as a community, honor our ancestors and our roots, and build a world that works for everyone."

We could learn, from natives, to use "weapons of mass democracy".

***

More about the Ecuador pipeline and other megaprojects from Friends of the Earth, BBC, Corpwatch, and AmazonWatch.

Canada: the Liberian flag of mining

Mexico City mining protest 24 July 09: photo Carlos Ramos Mamahua

Updates 30 Oct. 2010: Canada Corporate Accountability Bill C-300 defeated in House of Commons. It asked simply for corporate disclosure similar to US SEC requirements. 21 Jul. 2010: US Dodd-Frank law tells SEC to tighten disclosure rules. 23 Mar. 2011: Globe and Mail: Canada's anti-corruption enforcement deliberately lags behind US. 1 Oct 2014 Kairoscanada: Harper government refuses mining oversight bill C-584.

A system of sleaze was created over the last two decades by successive Canadian governments and financial wizards. Like Liberian shipping, you fly the flag, follow no rules, answer no questions, do what you want and take your profits elsewhere. And better yet, the Canadian taxpayer will bankroll you.

More than 2/3 of the world's oil, gas and mineral companies are now Canadian (most of them in name only). They get hundreds of millions of dollars in export credits. They have given us a world reputation for toxic dumping, murder, massacre, forced displacement of aboriginals, cozying up to dictators, and financial fraud. (1) Our diplomatic service have become their touts and apologists. (2) Says Development and Peace, a Catholic NGO, “This is not a case of a few bad apples: Canadian extractive companies have been implicated in human rights abuses and environmental disasters in more than 30 countries." The latest annual report of the Canadian Mining Association boasts 4900 projects, a huge worldwide expansion thanks to lax supervision by the 'virtual' Toronto Stock Exchange. (3)

Riding roughshod over aboriginal rights is nothing new in Canadian mining. To name only a few of the most flagrant: BC's century-long refusal of treaty, yellowcake poisoning of NWT Dene that left a “village of widows”, the shameful treatment of the Lubicon Cree, and a rash of recent jailings of native protesters in Ontario. (4) With world commodity prices soaring, Canadian governments have made things even easier at home. Ottawa overrode its own environmental legislation to allow lakes to be used as toxic dumps. (5) Ontario has exempted mines from environment assessments for at least a decade. (6) To the Bay Street boys, the message is clear: “anything goes”.

Even worse things were happening in the Third World, where corruption, bribery, and murderous contempt for natives were added to the mix. A map of the most notorious cases has been published by the Halifax Initiative; Amnesty has protested CPP investment in some of them (7). A few examples must suffice. There are many more.

Talisman Energy (ex-BP Canada), Sudan was accused in 2002 by the Presbyterian Church of helping the Sudan government "bomb churches, kill church leaders and attack villages in an effort to clear the way for oil exploration." A US lawsuit failed, but divestment by Ontario Teachers and other pension plans forced Talisman to sell out its Sudan holdings. (8)

Ivanhoe's joint Monywa copper mine with the SLORC dictatorship of Burma has been marked by 13 years of slave labour, torture, and genocide, according to Amnesty International (9); in all that time Canada consistently failed to take action. In July 2009 the company hired ex-Prime Minister Jean Chretien as “senior adviser” -- meaning lobbyist -- to get US sanctions lifted. (10)

Ms Otiego Mseti, one of the Tanzanian villagers suffering from Barrick's “alleged” contamination of the Tigethe River: courtesy ProtestBarrick.net

North Mara mine, Tanzania, June 2009: “More than 20 people have died in recent weeks as a direct result of the contaminated water. We have no problem with investors. But the investors must respect and treat us like human beings. These Canadians are killing us... they are not doing business,’’ says a villager. (12) Protests have gone on for eight years, with forced evictions, dumping on village land without permission or compensation, arrests of elders, company collusion with corrupt politicians, and murder of at least 6 villagers. Recently scientists found cyanide and heavy metal contamination associated with “a wide range of carcinogenic effects such as skin, kidney, teratogenic effects; mutagenic effects; and brain damage". For years, the company has refused to clean up. (13)

Colombia: Canadian mining lobbyists were the spearhead of the neoliberal Washington Consensus. After the World Bank ordered deregulation in 1996, Canadian experts rewrote Colombia's mining law, slashing royalties and safety provisions. In 2003 the World Bank ordered the state to sell off its national mines. Since then, corrupt deals with politicians, paramilitaries and big landowners have resulted in evictions of afro-Colombians and aboriginals, over 400 murders and disappearances. Last year two environmental groups challenged the Mining Law, on grounds that it violates the Constitution by permitting destruction of unique ecosystems. (14)

Colombia mining on U'wa aboriginal land: courtesy FOEI

Omai mine, Guyana: in 1995 there were five cyanide incidents. In the worst and last, a tailings pond spilled 120 million gallons of toxic effluent into the Omai and Essequibo rivers. Aboriginals, traders and miners reported dead fish and animals; they complained of skin rashes and blistering for two months after the accident. Many of the 50,000 inhabitants fish, boat, bathe and drink water from the river. The government issued warnings to all residents downriver of the mine to cease using the river for washing, drinking and fishing. No current information on cleanup activity is available. (15)

Ecuador: in April 2008 after a political movement of aboriginals voted against corruption and environmental destruction, the government revoked 4/5 of mining concessions. But in 2009 president Correa restored the concessions, winning high praise from the Canadian mine lobby. Canadian church protests stopped his attempt to outlaw the NGO Acción Ecológica, which is now backing the native group CONAIE's court challenge to the new mining law as a violation both of aboriginal rights and the Rights of Nature law. (16)

Porgera, Papua New Guinea: a Barrick mine has dumped millions of tonnes of toxic tailings into rivers. Hundreds of natives have been killed or injured by security guards. In protest, the Norwegian Pension Fund has divested its stock. CPP and QPP continue their holdings. In April 2009 PNG police torched over 300 houses in the area. (17)

Marinduque, Phillipines: "forests, river basins and coral reefs have been smothered by hundreds of millions of tons of pulverized mining waste rock and toxic tailings laden with arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, nickel and sulfate". Bankrupt, facing civil suits and angry stockholders, the original owner Placer Dome was bought out by Barrick. National mining laws had been gutted under the Ramos dictatorship in the 1990s. Those who protested were murdered or disappeared by security forces, a practice which has continued to the present day under President Macapagal-Arroyo. (18)

blasting at Cerro San Pedro: Tamara Herman photo

Cerro San Pedro, Mexico: Metallica plans to level the sacred mountain, destroying most of the historic town, poisoning the water and soil for miles around with cyanide. It will take 32 million litres of water daily, has defied court orders to stop blasting, and sent gangs to attack peaceful protesters, the majority of the population. Corrupt federal politicians refuse to enforce the law. In May 2009, Montreal sympathizers “staked a claim” and announced an open-pit mine in Mount Royal park – to show what a Canadian equivalent would be. (19) A secret July 2009 memo from the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City says it is seriously worried by country-wide protests against mine pollution and corruption; "4/5 of the companies are Canadian," it admits. Two weeks later it was occupied by a sit-in -- see top photo. (20)

a pile of D&P petitions to Harper 2008

Canadian churches and human rights groups have kept the cause alive. This spring, Development and Peace took another 150,000 petitions to Parliament calling for a mining ombudsman who can hear evidence of offshore violations, and a new corporate accountability law. The Conservative government refused, ignoring the advice of expert Roundtables which urged it to create “a Canadian CSR Framework for all Canadian extractive-sector companies operating in developing countries.” Nevertheless, a private member's draft (Bill 300) passed first reading in April. (21)

Here are the principles that should underlie such legislation, according to Development and Peace: (22)

1. The Earth is sacred. All life is interconnected and interdependent. Therefore, the Earth’s ecological diversity, beauty and health must be protected.
2. The Earth’s resources must be shared by peaceful means in an equitable manner that allows current and future generations to meet their needs.
3. All people have the right to participate fully in and have control over decisions that affect their lives and communities.
4. In the interests of solidarity and the common good, decisions made for the benefit of one community must not violate the rights of other communities.
5. The importance of the Earth’s resources to the common good takes priority over any possible commercial value. In the extraction, management, and use of resources, human rights must be respected.
6. Preference must be given to the rights of indigenous peoples and those who are marginalized by poverty or because of race and gender.

******

Notes
(1) See 13 Jun 09 public statements by Development and Peace and Halifax Initiative.
The latter, a coalition of churches, human rights lawyers and environmental groups, in 2003 severely criticized Export Development Corporation's seven deadly secrets: huge export subsidies to mining projects without real environmental assessment or public hearings.
(2) In the USA, Barrick lawyers in 2003 and 2009 admitted financial fraud, claiming that the company was acting on on behalf of central banks, which cannot be sued.
(3) For the role played by Canadian diplomats in bribery and death in Tanzania, among other places, see Alain Denault, Noir Canada: Pillage, corruption et criminalité en Afrique (Montréal, Ecosociété, 2007). Barrick Gold launched a $6 million SLAPP suit in Canada trying to stop the book's distribution, although the company had lost a similar suit in a UK court against a British journalist who first broke the story. See also http://Protest.Barrick.net
(4) See Wikipedia on Toronto Stock Exchange, now the TSX/TSVX. In 2001 it closed its floor to trade entirely online (and unsupervised) after swallowing up the penny-stock Vancouver and Calgary exchanges. Its 2009 report crows that it is now bigger than New York's NYSE. Many US firms have shell listings on TSX/TSVX, allowing them to avoid SEC disclosure.
(4) The century-long Gitksan case in BC, NWT yellowcake poisoning, the Lubicon story; on recent jailings see previous posts in this blog: one two three four five six
For a full account see the highlights and CD of the 1990s Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The current Tory government has refused to honour the resulting Kelowna Accord.
(5) CBC news 16 Jun 08.
(6) Ontario extends EIA moratorium 2002-2012: MiningWatch report.
(7) example of an Amnesty protest of CPP investment.
(8) Halifax Initiative's map, part of the campaign for government supervision, gives details of human rights abuses by Canadian mining companies and $100s of millions in taxpayer subsidies. CPP and QPP have also invested heavily: see note 22.
(9) Amnesty 2002 statement to Ivanhoe shareholders. Our previous posts on Burma.
(10) Chretien hired by Ivanhoe, Rabble.ca news July 2009.
(12) Mother Africa blog 29 Jun 09.
(13) Protest Barrick 17 June 06.
(14) Colombia stories from Friends of the Earth and IPS news.
(15) Omai is one of the world's worst ten toxic sites.
(16) For native protests and police killings see Mining Watch, Ecuador Rising and Grain. Canadian churches campaign Mar 2009 in support of Acción Ecológica. Protests in Peru and Bolivia June 2009, linked to “special clauses” in free-trade agreements imposed by the US and Canada, were broken by police massacres.
(17) Wikipedia on Porgera; June 2009 police action.
(18) quotation from Wikipedia on Marcopper disaster in Marinduque.
(19) Cerro San Pedro and Montreal sympathy action.
(20) secret Canadian Embassy memo and later sit-in.
(21) Development and Peace news 12 May 09; see also its reasons for CPP disinvestment and for an ombudsman. The March 2007 national Roundtable report calling for a corporate accountability law, was refused by the Harper government. The Montreal Social Justice Committee's Upstream July 2009 issue notes that the government's March 2009 proposal for a "CSR counsellour" is far nore restricted than an ombudsman; the proposed CSR centre has no enforcement powers; and corporate compliance is voluntary. NGOs and corporations provide the main impetus in Voluntary Principles (VPs), an international stakeholders group which Canada just joined. Liberal John McKay introduced the private member's Bill 300 in February 2009.
(22) Development and Peace Declaration of principles. See also the Natural Resource Charter and Publish What You Pay.

Update from Africa Report 26 Nov 2013: Harper imposes "investor rights" on Africa
Update from Mining Watch 21 Sep 2015: Canadian corporate offenders in the Americas.

Blood & Oil – Peru and Bolivia natives protest

Police attack unarmed native blockade at Bagua, Peru: ENS
Under bilateral Free Trade Agreements signed with Canada and the United States, President Alan Garcia recently pushed through 99 laws, some later declared unconstitutional, to support multinational oil, mining, logging, and land “development” in Peru's Amazon region, the largest outside of Brazil. Peru wants to become an oil exporter. Billions of dollars are at stake.

For years, over 200,000 native peoples living in the region have demanded consultation. After peaceful protesters shut down oil and gas pipelines, and blockaded roads and rivers in April, Prime Minister Yehude Simon finally agreed to talks with Alberto Pizango, leader of the AIDESEP native coalition.

President Garcia has now broken the government's promise, sending navy, army and police to attack protesters on the Napo River, and on the Devil's Curve road near Bagua. At least 66 (most of them native) are reported dead. Official responses: at televised police funerals Garcia likens the protesters to Shining Path terrorists; police sweeps, snipers, disappearances and vengeance killings have continued for the last 3 days. AIDESEP's Pizango calls Bagua a “massacre” and has gone into hiding. See eyewitness reports and photos by Ben Powless, a Six Nations Mohawk; Mongabay, Amazon Watch news and videos; Council of Canadians; history of the movement in Rootforce posts; NativeWeb / Abya Yala Net information from First Peoples in English & español.

17 June update: While blockades continued, Alberto Pizango was given asylum by Nicaragua. After weeks of talks with native leaders, Prime Minister Simon (who had been pushed aside by Garcia) promises to end the state of emergency and repeal the laws enabling land grabs in the Amazon -- but not the free trade treaty. Then he will resign.

Click map for details of Peru oil concessions: courtesy Amazon Watch

Oil plays include Conoco-Phillips, Occidental Oil, the Canadian Petroleum Institute, Brazil's Petrobras, and Argentina's Pluspetrol. For 35 years Occidental has poisoned local populations by dumping toxic wastes into local rivers, practices illegal in North America; similar practices are reported in Ecuador* by Chevron. Natives fled disease and disruption by retreating into the rainforest. But that is no longer possible.

In neighbouring Bolivia, gas conflict blockades by the aboriginal movement brought Evo Morales to power in 2005. He insisted on a national share of oil and gas revenue. Bolivia continues as one of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) but can now afford to pay. With the poorest population in Latin America, for decades Bolivia suffered from “Washington Consensus” policies that enforced privatization of water, mining, transport and utilities – frequently aided by military dictators. Conservative parties in provinces east of the Andes, supported by oil interests, threatened secession last year, leading riots and massacres of local natives.

*Ecuador's Bill of Natural Rights now permits class lawsuits on behalf of the environment.

*****

Día histórico para los pueblos indígenas

AIDESEP, 18 de junio de 2009 -- A nombre de los pueblos indígenas, la vicepresidenta de la Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana, Daysi Zapata, expresó hoy su satisfacción por la decisión del Congreso de la República de derogar los cuestionados decretos legislativos 1090 y 1064 y exhortó al gobierno iniciar un diálogo sincero y transparente para el bien del país.

“Hoy es un día histórico, estamos agradecidos porque la voluntad de los pueblos indígenas ha sido escuchada y solo esperamos que en el futuro, los gobiernos atiendan y escuchen a los pueblos, que no legislen a espaldas de ellos”, enfatizó.

Acompañada de decenas de dirigentes nacionales y regionales con quienes acudió al recinto legislativo, Zapata saludó la actitud del presidente Alan García por darles la razón al dar marcha atrás con sus decretos que las comunidades indígenas consideraron atentatorio contra la amazonía, aunque expresó –nuevamente- que si esta decisión hubiera sido antes, se habría evitado lamentables muertes y enfrentamientos entre peruanos.

“Hoy mismo desde AIDESEP estaremos llamando a nuestras bases para que levanten sus medidas de lucha”, señaló. “Mis hermanos de Yurimaguas –agregó- afirmaron que volverán a sus comunidades, apenas los congresistas deroguen los decretos legislativos”.

La representante de Aidesep pidió, asimismo, que se deroguen los siete decretos legislativos restantes. Demandó además al Ejecutivo levantar cuanto antes el estado de emergencia y toque de queda instaurados en la ciudad de Bagua, la persecución política y hostigamiento a seis dirigentes de Aidesep, incluyendo al líder indígena Alberto Pizango.

Sobre el presidente de Aidesep, Zapata expresó sus deseos de que retorne pronto de Nicaragua al Perú, por lo que pidió a las autoridades cesar todo tipo de persecución.

“Quiero agradecer a los hermanos peruanos de la costa, sierra y selva por todo el apoyo que nos han dado”, dijo. Zapata aclaró que ni la dirigencia ni los hermanos indígenas han sido manipulados por organismos no gubernamentales. “Trabajamos con las bases regionales que son las que llevan la voz de los pueblos indígenas. Nosotros no estamos manipulados ni por las ONG ni por los grupos políticos, defendemos los justos derechos de los pueblos indígenas”, precisó.

Invocó a la mesa directiva y a la representación nacional levantar la suspensión aplicada a los siete congresistas que fueron – dijo – injustamente sancionados por defender los derechos de los indígenas.

Ecuador's Bill of Natural Rights / Derechos de la naturaleza en la nueva constitución ecuatoriana

Rio Yasuni, Ecuador: photo V. Utreras, Wildlife Conservation Society
In a September 29 plebiscite the people of Ecuador approved a Bill of Natural Rights for their new Constitution. Article 1 states: “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public bodies.” The state must "apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems, or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles." This has enormous implications for post-Kyoto governance, such as the right to sue on behalf of the environment, GDR subsidies to leave the oil in the ground and preserve the rainforest, etc.
Full details in The Guardian (UK), 24 Sep 2008 and NYT 29 Sep 08.

¡La Constitución Ecuatoriana es la primera constitución en el mundo en reconocer los derechos de la naturaleza!

extrato de derechosnaturaleza.blogspot.com/
ver tambien el texta del ley
y los videos de AmazonWatch with English subtitles,
ChevronTexaco on Trial y ChevronTexaco: Ecuador's Black Plague

...En este momento histórico para el Ecuador vale la pena hacer un pequeño resumen de cómo se logró el reconocimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza en la Nueva Constitución Ecuatoriana. La propuesta de reconocer a la naturaleza como sujeto de derecho no es nueva, muchos académicos ambientalistas como Goodofredo Stuntzi, estudiantes, entre otros habían planteado antes esta idea, sin embargo, el mundo no experimentaba tan de cerca los efectos del cambio climático, y por lo tanto sus propuestas no recibieron una acogida tan amplia como lo hizo ahora la ANC. Sin embargo, sin hacerlo formalmente, los pueblos indígenas, especialmente quienes habitan en el Ecuador con quienes tenemos una relación muy cercana, plantean como una forma cultural de vida, la protección del bosque, del agua, la defensa y respeto de la naturaleza como un alguien y no como un recurso, un algo a ser explotado y destruido como lo ha hecho la sociedad occidental con la naturaleza. Por lo tanto, considerando que esta nueva Constitución planteaba un cambio profundo para el país, un cambio de modelo de desarrollo ya no basado en la explotación indiscriminada de los recursos naturales sino en una relación harmónica con la naturaleza, un desarrollo basado en el buen vivir basado en mejoras cualitativas y no cuantitativas, la idea de reconocer derechos a la naturaleza cabía perfectamente entre las propuestas. Además, Ecuador es uno de los países más biodiversos del mundo, sus ecosistemas únicos como sus páramos, selva amazónica, ecosistemas marinos, archipiélago de Galápagos, entre otros, hacen del Ecuador un país clave para empezar un proceso serio de protección del ambiente, tomando en cuenta además que somos como país muy vulnerables al cambio climático. La naturaleza ecuatoriana ha sufrido mucho por la degradación ambiental, consecuencia de la explotación de recursos naturales, especialmente del petróleo, es por eso que como país nos destacamos por liderar el juicio ambiental más importante contra una gran corporación, el caso Texaco. Es por todas esas razones y por la voluntad de democratizar esta Constitución incluyendo valores de la cosmovisión indígena que se pensó inicialmente en el reconocimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza.

Alberto Acosta, ex presidente de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente había planteado esta propuesta desde inicios del proceso constituyente en diciembre del 2007, con un artículo de su autoría presentando la necesidad de este reconocimiento. La Fundación Pachamama, a través de Bill Twist, presidente de Pachamama Alliance en EE.UU contactó a Thomas Linzey, miembro de “The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF)” quien había iniciado un proceso legal del reconocimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza en las ordenanzas locales de algunas comunidades en los Estados Unidos. La lucha de CELDF se basa en el trabajo del sudafricano Cormac Cullinan quien a través de su libro “Wild Law” logró que se reconozcan los derechos de los ecosistemas marinos en la Constitución Sudafricana. La Fundación Pachamama contactó a Thomas Linzey e invitó a Thomas y a Mari Margil, directora asociada de CELDF a venir a Ecuador para visitar la ANC en Montecristi y contar su historia.

El día 7 de julio se debatieron todos los artículos que desarrollan el reconocimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza y sus sustentos. El artículo 71 se aprobó con 93 votos favorables, 18 en contra, 0 blancos y 3 abstenciones en el que se dispone que la Naturaleza tiene derecho a que se respete integralmente su existencia y el mantenimiento y regeneración de sus ciclos vitales, estructura, funciones y procesos evolutivos. Además toda persona, comunidad, pueblo o nacionalidad podrá exigir a la autoridad pública el cumplimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza. Una segunda parte de este artículo que establece que el Estado incentivará a las personas naturales y jurídicas, y a los colectivos, para que protejan la naturaleza, y promoverá el respeto a todos los elementos que forman un ecosistema se aprobó con 96 votos favorables, 7 en contra, 0 blancos y 11 abstenciones.

El artículo 72 fue aprobado con 91 votos favorables, 13 en contra, 1 blancos y 9 abstenciones y se refiere a que la Naturaleza, tiene derecho a la restauración y que esta restauración será independiente de la obligación que tienen el Estado y las personas naturales o jurídicas de indemnizar a los individuos y colectivos que dependan de los sistemas naturales afectados. En los casos de impacto ambiental grave o permanente, incluidos los ocasionados por la explotación de los recursos naturales no renovables, el Estado establecerá los mecanismos más eficaces para alcanzar la restauración, y adoptará las medidas adecuadas para eliminar o mitigar las consecuencias ambientales nocivas.

El artículo 73 se aprobó con 90 votos favorables, 15 en contra, 2 blancos y 6 abstenciones y dice que dice el Estado aplicará medidas de precaución y restricción para las actividades que puedan conducir a la extinción de especies, la destrucción de ecosistemas o la alteración permanente de los ciclos naturales. Dice además que se prohíbe la introducción de organismos y material orgánico e inorgánico que puedan alterar de manera definitiva el patrimonio genético nacional.Finalmente el artículo 74 que determina que las personas, comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades tendrán derecho a beneficiarse del ambiente y de las riquezas naturales que les permitan el buen vivir. Dice además que los servicios ambientales no serán susceptibles de apropiación; su producción, prestación, uso y aprovechamiento serán regulados por el Estad se aprobó ese mismo día con votos favorables, 19 en contra, 1 blancos y 4 abstenciones...

Durante el período de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, la Fundación Pachamama acompañó el proceso, las discusiones y debates, documentó este proceso, socializó el tema en la prensa y elaboró materiales audiovisuales para la defensa de los derechos de la naturaleza. Realizó además una campaña de socialización de los derechos de la naturaleza en los medios tradicionales, televisión, radio y prensa escrita así como medios alternativos, teatro, títeres, cine para promocionar el tema de los derechos de la naturaleza e informar a la ciudadanía de este nuevo derecho reconocido.

Ver tambien el quinto infierno 10 oct 08. Details of Ecuador's legal battle against ChevronTexaco pollution in Chevrontoxico, AmazonWatch, and Wikipedia.

Rights of Nature

Pachamama Alliance, Thomas Linzey's Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund with links to US reportage of the Ecuadorian law, which Linzey helped develop. He has been a leader in US citizens' struggles to take back democracy from corporations. See also this summary of Cormac Cullinan's Wild Law (2003).
See also Conservative Quaker Marshall Massey’s 1989 proposal for a Nature Amendment to the US Constitution, RisingTide, and the UK-based Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development on international environmental governance (IEG).