Mexico Supreme Court Case: mangroves in Laguna del Carpintero

Summary

In 2018, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice determined that environmental damages to mangroves and the Laguna del Carpintero eccosystem constitute a violation of the human rights to a healthy environment, which includes protection of the environment for it’s inherent value and not only its use for humans. The case referenced the 2017 Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion and “noted a trend towards recognizing legal personhood and, consequently, rights for nature.”

Background
The Laguna del Carpintero is an area of ​​approximately 150 hectares, located in the heart of the city of Tampico in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Despite being subject to constant urban pressure, it has a great variety of fauna and flora and is surrounded by mangroves.

In 2013, during construction of the urban “Parque Temático-Ecológico Laguna del Carpintero” in the city of Tampico, local mangroves were cut and damage to the Laguna del Carpenter ecosystem occured. On July 1, a resident of Tampico filed an amparo (constitutional appeal), arguing that the development of the park violates articles 4 and 14 of the federal constitution. The petitioner claimed the irreversible damange to the mangrove and wetland ecosystems violate the human right to a health environment, a right that is also protected by the Ramsar Convention, which is signed by Mexico.

A District Court dismissed the case in the first instance, finding the petitioner did not have “legitimate interest” because the petitioner did not demonstrate through conclusive proof that he suffered some deterioration in his health. The petitioner filed an appeal for review, which was accepted byt the Supreme Court on April 4, 2016. To analyze whether the dismissal decreed by the District Judge was correct, the Supreme Court deemed it necessary to undertake a full analysis of the human right to the environment and determine what its essential core of protection is.

Ecocentric Framing
Human Right to a Healthy Environment
The Court stated in its analysis that “The recognition of this human right [to a healthy environment] requires understanding that humans coexist with and are part of the ecosystems that nature itself creates” (39) … “Hence, the scope of protection of this human right seeks to regulate human activities to protect nature, which implies that its essential core of protection goes even beyond the most immediate objectives of human beings; in other words, this right not only addresses the right of human beings to live in a healthy and dignified environment, but also protects nature for the value it has in itself” (page 40).

The Court referenced the 2017 IACHR Opinion, stating that “The aim is to protect nature and the environment not only because of their connection to human utility or because of the effects their degradation could have on other human rights, such as health, life, or personal integrity, but also because of their importance to other living organisms with whom we share the planet, which are also deserving of protection in themselves. Therefore, the Court notes a trend towards recognizing legal personhood and, consequently, rights for nature, not only in judicial rulings, but even in constitutional orders.” (page 42).

Legal Ruling
The Court concluded that the human right to the environment has a dual dimension: first, the objective or ecological one, which protects the environment as a fundamental legal good in itself, which attends to the defense and restoration of nature and its resources regardless of its repercussions on human beings; and second, the subjective or anthropocentric one, in which protection of the environment constitutes a guarantee for other rights recognized for the person. Therefore, the violation of either of these two dimensions constitutes a violation of the human right to the environment. (page 43)

The court concluded that the Municipality of Tampico violated articles 4, 14, and 16 in the constitution. The court determined that in light of the precautionary principle, in dubio pro natura (“when in doubt, favor nature”), and the principle of non-regression (preventing the weakening or reversal of existing legal protections), any activity carried out in wetland areas requires special protection. Since the municipality did not produce an environmental impact statement, the court declared the municipality put the wetland ecosystem at risk and failed to fulfill its duty as guarantor to consider the human right to the environment.