Ecuador court case: rights of marine ecosystems

Summary

In late-2024, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador ruled that coastal marine ecosystems have legal rights that must be protected, potentially requiring stricter limits on human activities like industrial fishing. The Court stated that those ecosystems have a right to maintain their natural “life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes” and the Ecuadorian government must adopt sufficient protective measures to ensure those “vital processes” persist. The court added that marine coastal ecosystems have “intrinsic value,” and Ecuador made a commitment in its constitution to “build a new form of citizen coexistence, in diversity and harmony with nature.”

Ecuador, in 2008, became the first country in the world to recognize in a national constitution that nature, similar to humans and corporations, has legal rights. More than a dozen other countries have through legislation or court rulings recognized that ecosystems or individual species have rights, including to live, persist and regenerate.

Prior to this ruling, all of Ecuador’s Constitutional Court rulings regarding nature’s rights have involved ecosystems on land, mangroves, and wild animals. Lawyers of Rights of Nature jurisprudence say this coastal marine ecosystem case is a landmark decision that extends heightened protections to the country’s vast aquatic ecosystems.

The case had an unusual origin. Industrial fishers initiated the lawsuit in 2020 against various national government authorities, arguing that a legal restriction on industrial fishing within an 8-nautical mile zone is unconstitutional. Small-scale, “artisanal” fishing is allowed inside the zone.

The industrial fisher plaintiffs argued that the restriction violated their rights to engage in economic activities and threatened food sovereignty. They also argued, ironically, that the law was incompatible with the rights of nature: They claimed that the zoning law could inadvertently lead to overfishing by artisanal fishers and thus lead to a violation of nature’s rights. The government therefore ought to abolish or reduce the 8-nautical mile zone, they argued.

The court disagreed. In their decision, the judges cited scientific evidence indicating that the 8-mile zone was necessary to protect fish populations, maintain the health of marine ecosystems and ensure long-term viability of the fishing industry. Following implementation of the zoning law, fish populations increased, according to one governmental study. Ultimately, the court ruled that the zoning law was not incompatible with coastal marine ecosystems’ rights and would stay in place.

The Ecuadorian court’s decision affirming that marine ecosystems have constitutional rights imposes a stricter obligation on the government to safeguard them. This means that traditional environmental regulations, such as fishing limits and pollution controls, must be robust enough to protect the essential functions of marine ecosystems. Additionally, the rights of other entities, including humans and corporations, may be restricted to prevent species extinction and preserve delicate ecosystems.