December, 01 2021, 08:23pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Hugo Echeverría, Attorney, echejur@yahoo.ca
Mari Margil, Executive Director, mmargil@centerforenvironmentalrights.org
Rights of Nature Victory in Ecuador - Los Cedros Case - Constitutional Court Upholds Rights of Nature
Court rules that mining in a protected forest is unconstitutional, violates constitutional rights of nature
QUITO, Ecuador
On December 1, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador issued a landmark ruling in the Los Cedros case. Key outcomes of the Court's ruling:
- The Court ruled that mining in the Los Cedros Protected Forest is a violation of the constitutional rights of nature, and is therefore prohibited in the forest.
- The Court ruled that the constitutional rights of nature were violated by the issuance of mining permits that would harm the biodiversity of the forest, including species at high risk of extinction and fragile ecosystems (par. 131).
- To enforce the ruling, the Court ruled that the governmental authorizations granted to mining corporations to operate in Los Cedros are revoked.
- The Court ruled that the government of Ecuador is obligated to apply Article 73 of the Ecuador Constitution, which requires precautionary and restrictive measures be taken to prevent the extinction of species. Based upon the intrinsic value of nature as the foundation of these new rights the Court said: "Article 73 also establishes a duty of the State by indicating imperatively that precautionary and restrictive measures apply. It is not an option, but a constitutional obligation derived from the intrinsic value of nature...Indeed, the risk in this case is not necessarily related to human beings...but to the extinction of species, the destruction of ecosystems or the permanent alteration of natural cycles..." (para. 65).
- The Court also declared that the application of the constitutional rights of nature is not limited to protected areas, such as Los Cedros, rather - as with any constitutional right - it applies in the entire territory of the country. The Court explained: "It would not be logical to state that the rights of nature, the right to water, and the human right to a healthy and balanced environment are valid only in the areas protected and intangible areas. On the contrary, the obligations of protection of these rights apply to public authorities throughout the national territory and must be analyzed in accordance with the Constitution and infra-constitutional regulations to authorize, restrict or regulate such extractive activities" (para 142).
Court ruling reflects arguments in CDER amicus brief
The Court's ruling reflects a number of arguments that the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights (CDER) made in its amicus curiae brief and in testimony that it submitted to the Court in the Los Cedros case. CDER explained how the constitutional rights of nature protects ecosystems and species. Focusing on Article 73 of the Constitution, CDER provided two key arguments:
- That Article 73 mandates the prohibition of mining in fragile and threatened ecosystems and in the habitat of wild species threatened with extinction.
- That while the Los Cedros case is concerned with mining in a protected forest, that the rights of nature apply to ecosystems and species across the country. This means, therefore, that the application of the rights of nature is not limited only to protected areas or protected forests, but applies throughout Ecuador, especially in ecosystems and habitats with specific constitutional protection as provided for with the rights of nature.
Hugo Echeverria, CDER external attorney in Ecuador, said: "The verdict indicates that the Constitutional Court of Ecuador is taking the new constitutional rights of nature very seriously. This verdict upholds the constitutional character of these new rights. The Court ruled that the government has a duty to apply Article 73 of the Ecuador Constitution to prevent wildlife extinction and ecosystem degradation. The law must be applied rigorously. This is a good day for the species and fragile ecosystems of Ecuador."
Mari Margil, CDER's Executive Director, stated, "We congratulate the community and everyone who worked so hard, for so long, to protect nature within Los Cedros. This is a very important ruling by the Court that will mean greater protection of at-risk species and fragile ecosystems across Ecuador."
Los Cedros Case: Background
In 2017, Ecuador's national environmental agency authorized two corporations to conduct exploratory mining in Los Cedros, a zone designated as Protected Forest in 1995. Los Cedros is a place of significant biodiversity and fragile ecosystems, including the humid forests of Choco, the tropical Andes Mountain range, and a cloud forest. It is also habitat for 178 species of flora and fauna threatened with extinction, including the spider monkey (Ateles fusciceps) and the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus).
Concerned about the impacts of mining in Los Cedros, the nearby municipality of Santa Ana de Cotacachi went to court to dispute the government's authorizations to the mining corporations. The municipality argued such authorization was in violation of the constitutional rights of nature and other rights.
In 2019, the case was selected by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. This is the highest court of Ecuador, and it has the power to select cases to review the application of constitutional rights and to define their legal content. To date, the Court has selected at least six cases on rights of nature. Verdicts issued in selected cases set standards of general application (erga omnes effect).
The Los Cedros case dealt with activity authorized by the government of Ecuador. Since the mining was in an early phase of exploration, the environmental requirements were not strict. In fact, the authorization was issued on-line, without a specific procedure to assess the impact of the mining on the rights of nature.
This is an important statement of the Court as the mining industry has argued that the rights of nature is limited only to protected areas, which covers only one-fifth of the country.
The Court addresses many other important aspects of rights to nature, including its autonomy and their impact on legislation regarding environmental impact assessment. Other constitutional rights, such as environmental rights are also addressed by the Court. CDER will issue further information on this in the coming days.
Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights is building a global movement to advance the rights of nature into law.
(509) 474-9761LATEST NEWS
Key Republican's $500 Billion 'Red Line' for Medicaid Cuts Slammed as Cruel Farce
"If your 'red line' is taking away healthcare from millions of people, then you don't have a red line."
Apr 30, 2025
A key House Republican said Tuesday that he would be unwilling to accept more than $500 billion in Medicaid cuts in the GOP's emerging reconciliation package, a "red line" that drew swift mockery and condemnation from healthcare campaigners.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who is seen as a critical swing vote in the narrowly controlled Republican House, toldPolitico that his ceiling for Medicaid cuts over the next decade is a half-trillion dollars—a message he has privately delivered to President Donald Trump's White House.
Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement Tuesday that a $500 billion cut to Medicaid "is not at all moderate, but massive—the biggest cut in the history of Medicaid, one that would force millions of Americans to lose coverage."
"Slashing Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars would force states like Nebraska to make the unholy choice to drop people from coverage, cut benefits, and/or cut payments to the providers we all rely on, or otherwise raise taxes," said Wright. "Medicaid cuts would be another wrecking ball to the health system and to the economy."
The Century Foundation has estimated that cutting federal Medicaid funding by $500 billion over a 10-year period would strip health coverage from more than 18 million children and more than 2 million adults with disabilities.
"If your 'red line' is taking away healthcare from millions of people, then you don't have a red line," said Kobie Christian, a spokesperson for the advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy.
"Not one dollar should be cut from Medicaid to pay for one dollar of tax breaks for the rich."
Bacon also made clear Tuesday that he would support draconian changes to Medicaid that have been tried with disastrous results at the state level.
"They should be seeking the skill sets for better jobs," Bacon said in support of adding work requirements to Medicaid, despite an abundance of evidence showing that such mandates succeed only at booting people from the program, not increasing employment. (Most Medicaid recipients who are able to work already do.)
Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "as the GOP drafts their devastating budget, one thing remains true: Republicans in Congress want to make the largest Medicaid cuts in history to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."
"Whether it's a trillion dollars, half a trillion, or hundreds of billions in Medicaid cuts, no member of Congress can justify ripping healthcare away from some of the most vulnerable Americans to give tax breaks to the wealthy," said Woodhouse. "Not one dollar should be cut from Medicaid to pay for one dollar of tax breaks for the rich."
The "moderate" $500 billion Medicaid cut being pitched here would finance a $500 billion tax cut for millionaire business owners and the heirs of estates worth over $28 million per couple. There is nothing moderate about cutting low-income Americans' health care to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
[image or embed]
— Brendan Duke (@brendanvduke.bsky.social) April 29, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Congressional Republicans have previously backed budget plans that would allow $880 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, as well as massive reductions in spending on federal nutrition assistance.
But the GOP push for Medicaid cuts to pay for another round of tax breaks that would largely benefit the wealthy has sparked outrage nationwide, and it appears some Republicans are feeling the pressure from constituents.
Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), whose district has the highest percentage of Medicaid recipients in the House GOP conference, raised concerns about deep Medicaid cuts in an interview with Politico on Tuesday.
But like Bacon, Valadao said he was open to proposals that experts say would bring disastrous consequences for Medicaid recipients. Politico noted that the California Republican "is leaving the door open to capping the overall funding for certain beneficiaries in the 41 states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act."
Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy's Center for Children and Families, warned earlier this week that the per-capita funding cap Republicans are considering should "be viewed as just another proposal to sharply shift expansion costs to states by lowering the effective expansion matching rates, with the intent of undermining and eventually repealing the Medicaid expansion."
"That, in turn, would take away coverage from nearly 21 million low-income parents, people with disabilities, near-elderly adults, and others," Park wrote. "It would also have significant adverse effects on the children of expansion adults: Research shows that the Medicaid expansion increases enrollment among eligible children and therefore reduces the number of uninsured children."
"And, of course, it would also deter the 10 remaining non-expansion states from taking up the expansion in the future," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one officials said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweatheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Elon Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular