Ecuador became the first country in the world to grant constitutional rights to nature. But before that could happen, very different ideas about nature had to find a common language. Who were the main voices in that conversation?

The debate over the Rights of Nature in Ecuador brought together three very different ways of understanding the world.

First, there are Indigenous peoples, who see themselves not as owners of nature but as part of it. Nature is not separate from society; it is the larger living system to which humans belong. Caring for nature, in this view, means caring for the community itself.

Second, there are environmentalists, many of them based in Ecuador’s cities. Their perspective is shaped by climate change and modern ecological science. They see the environment as something that must be protected through conservation, regulation, and public policy.

And finally, there is the dominant Western worldview, which tends to see nature primarily as a resource. Nature can be used, managed, and even protected — but ultimately for human purposes.

When Ecuador drafted its Constitution in 2008, these different perspectives collided in a rare national conversation. Indigenous organizations played a decisive role, but what ultimately made the Rights of Nature possible was an alliance between Indigenous movements and environmentalists.

…

The Constitution transformed a lived relationship with nature into a language that courts, governments, and legal institutions could understand. In doing so, it recognized something revolutionary: that humans are part of nature, and that nature itself possesses the right to exist, regenerate, and maintain its vital cycles.