It’s with a frown that you read what recently happened at the Constitutional Convention in Chile, after voting in the plenary session on the first report by the environment, rights of nature, common natural resources and economic model commitee, where only six articles were approved to form part of the new Magna Carta.
While the articles approved (climate and environmental crisis, state duties toward nature, rights of nonhuman animals, right to environmental decision-making, and right of access to environmental information) represent great advances considering previous constitutions, given the state’s explicit concern for taking care of nature, it’s not enough to move away from an anthropocentric and eurocentric view of the world.
Many of the articles that were left without approval would change the state’s approach toward ecocentralism and decolonization, beyond a westernized view of nature as resource supplier for unlimited economic growth on a planet of finite resources, which has historically been seen as a passive and external subject. For example, the Convention’s rejection of Article 4 on the recognition and protection of rights of nature, which proposes a diversity of concepts related to nature (Mapu, Pacha Mama, Pat‘ta, Hoiri, Jau, Marremen), preexisting before the state, shows us their rejection of a universal proposal, as they are understanding nature from only one point of view.
Constitutionalizing environmental protection — the American experience
Rejection of articles
As a result, it’s no surprise that Article 26 about environmental principles was rejected. It considers an interdependence between all of nature’s components, including humans, which obviously clashes with the tale of modernity, radically separating nature and culture.
It’s also a serious matter that every article regarding the environment and common natural resources was rejected, as defending an abstract nature, without protecting some of its basic components such as the air, glaciers, cryosphere, the seabed, or mountains, will only facilitate further exploitation and regions will continue to be colonized.
Similarly, it’s very sad that Article 22, which refers to biodiversity was also rejected. The proposal included a state commitment to protecting, restoring, and conserving ecosystems, closing the door to forestry, mining, processed food and the energy sectors expanding uncontrollably in the country.
The list of rejected articles is long, even in related fields (sustainable construction, environmental and multinational democracy, waste management), which brings us to the question of whether we really will have an eco-friendly Constitution that will be able to deal with the crisis of civilization.
Fortunately, many of these rejected articles will be discussed and presented again for a general vote at the plenary session, but it won’t be easy, given the transformative potential of this committee, which is finally calling the unsustainable economic system in Chile into question, and trying to decolonize the idea we have about nature.
Radicalism
Consequently, the most conservative groups in the country have pointed out that the environmental committee’s proposals are maximalist and stem from radical environmentalism, covering up their fear that for the first time in Chile’s history, nature might no longer be a commercial good and preserving life is being put at the heart of the Constitution, above private property.
In light of this, I have to mention the great work the eco-constituent bench has done, where Camila Zarate, Alvin Saldaña, Elisa Giustinianovich, and many others, as well as organizations within Chile’s socio-environmental movement, have pushed this debate at the Constitutional Convention.
We must remember that the world is watching Chile right now, as was seen with the visit and meeting of the Latin American delegation for rights of nature to the eco constituent bench, where leading figures in the regional socio-environmental field were present.
Hopefully, the environmental committee’s report is reversed, and nature in Chile gains a voice, just like it did in 2008 in Ecuador, whose Constitution became the first in the world to recognize the rights of nature.
Andrés Kogan Valderrama is a sociologist, with a Master in Communication and Contemporary Culture and a Diploma in Education for Sustainable Development. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Latin American Social Studies.