logo
Ecuador approves controversial law on protected areas, sparking legal threats

Ecuador approves controversial law on protected areas, sparking legal threats

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Ecuador's parliament has approved a new law on protected areas that has drawn sharp criticism from Indigenous groups, legal experts and environmental advocates who say it threatens Indigenous land rights and violates both national and international protections.
The law, which passed on Thursday in the 151-seat National Assembly with 80-23 votes in favor, with the remaining lawmakers absent during the vote, allows private entities, including foreign companies, to participate in managing conservation zones.
Government officials have defended the measure, arguing that it will strengthen oversight of protected lands, help improve park security, promote ecotourism and combat illegal mining without allowing extractive activity.
Critics say it could lead to displacement, increased resource extraction and the rollback of hard-won
environmental and Indigenous protections
enshrined in Ecuador's 2008 Constitution.
'This is constitutional vandalism,' said Oscar Soria, co-CEO of the international policy group The Common Initiative. 'Ecuador has shattered its international credibility and invited isolation from the global community.'
Opponents also say the law violates at least 15 international agreements — including the ILO Convention 169, the Escazú Agreement, and the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — and that the lawmakers failed to consult with affected communities as required by law.
'The legislators of Ecuador reopened a historic wound,' said Justino Piaguaje, leader of the Siekopai peoples and head of the NASIEPAI Indigenous organization.
Piaguaje slammed the law as 'dangerous and unconstitutional' and said it not only reinforces systemic violations of Indigenous rights but 'actively perpetuates a legacy of dispossession and violence that stretches back to the colonial era.'
'It threatens our survival and desecrates the dignity of the Ecuadorian people,' he said.
Valentina Centeno, president of the parliament's Economic Development Commission, insisted the law does not open the door to extractive industries — and that here is a provision 'that explicitly prohibits' them.
She asked for an applause in the National Assembly after the law was passed.
Still, Indigenous leaders say the process lacked transparency and bypassed meaningful dialogue with their communities. Legal challenges are already underway, with Indigenous organizations vowing to take the case to Ecuador's Constitutional Court and international forums.
The law was passed under an 'economic urgency' designation linked to a national internal conflict declaration, a move that accelerated debate and limited legislative scrutiny.
___
Follow Steven Grattan on Instagram: @steven.grattan
___
The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's
standards
for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
AP.org
.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trial starts over Trump administration's deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles
Trial starts over Trump administration's deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles

Boston Globe

time39 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trial starts over Trump administration's deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On Monday, Trump said he was Advertisement The trial in San Francisco could set a precedent for how Trump can deploy the guard in the future in California or other states. The Trump administration federalized California National Guard members and sent them to the second-largest US city over the objections of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and city leaders after Advertisement The Department of Defense ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Most of the troops have since left, but California is asking Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to the state and to stop the federal government from using military troops in California 'to execute or assist in the execution of federal law or any civilian law enforcement functions by any federal agent or officer.' Newsom won an early victory from Breyer, who found the Trump administration violated the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded its authority. The Trump administration immediately appealed, arguing that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. It After their deployment, the guard members accompanied federal immigration officers on raids in Los Angeles and at two marijuana farm sites in Ventura County while Since June, federal agents have rounded up Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Advertisement Breyer found the protests in Los Angeles 'fall far short of 'rebellion.'' Ernesto Santacruz Jr., the field office director for the Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles, said in court documents that the troops were needed because local law enforcement was slow to respond when a crowd gathered outside the federal building to protest the June 7 immigration arrests. 'The presence of the National Guard and Marines has played an essential role in protecting federal property and personnel from the violent mobs,' Santacruz said.

Video appears to show the moment a Palestinian activist is killed as an Israeli settler opens fire
Video appears to show the moment a Palestinian activist is killed as an Israeli settler opens fire

NBC News

time40 minutes ago

  • NBC News

Video appears to show the moment a Palestinian activist is killed as an Israeli settler opens fire

TEL AVIV, Israel — New video footage appears to show the moment a Palestinian activist was killed as an Israeli settler fired toward him during a confrontation with unarmed Palestinians in the occupied West Bank last month. The video released Sunday by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, shows Israeli settler Yinon Levi firing a gun toward the person filming. The footage cuts but the camera keeps rolling as the person moans in pain. B'Tselem says it obtained the video from the family of Awdah Hathaleen, 31, an activist, English teacher and father of three who was shot and killed on July 28, and who they said had filmed it. Levi, who is shown firing his gun twice in a video shot by another witness and obtained by The Associated Press, was briefly detained and then released from house arrest by an Israeli court, which cited lack of evidence. The shooting occurred in Umm al-Khair, a village that has long weathered settler violence in an area profiled in the Oscar-winning film 'No Other Land.' Settler attacks on Palestinians have spiked since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, as have attacks by Palestinian militants. 'Awdah's killing is another horrific example of how Palestinians, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, are currently living without any sort of protection, fully exposed to Israeli violence, while Israeli soldiers or settlers can kill them in broad daylight and enjoy full impunity while the world watches,' said Sarit Michaeli, the international outreach director for B'Tselem. Levi was previously under U.S. sanctions that were lifted by the Trump administration. Both videos appear to show the same confrontation between Levi and a group of Palestinians. The earlier video shows him firing two shots from a pistol but doesn't show where the bullets struck. Several witnesses had told the AP they saw Levi shoot Hathaleen. Avichai Hajbi, a lawyer representing Levi, told the AP that Levi acted in self-defense — without specifying what his actions were. Hajbi pointed to a court's decision earlier this month that released Levi from house arrest, citing insufficient evidence. The judge said Levi did not pose a danger justifying continued house arrest, but barred him from contact with the villagers for a month. The Israeli police didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about whether they'd seen the videos. B'Tselem said Levi was with a crew that brought an excavator from a nearby settlement into Umm al-Khair. Residents, fearing it would cut the village's main water line, gathered on a dirt road to try and block its path, and at least one individual threw a stone at the vehicle's front window. Levi then confronted the crowd while waving a handgun. The new video shows Levi arguing heatedly with three men before firing the gun in the direction of the person filming. Hathaleen was standing at the village community center about 40 meters (130 feet) from the confrontation, said B'Tselem. The bullet hit him in the chest and he collapsed on the spot, it said. Eitan Peleg, a lawyer for Hathaleen's family, said they told him Hathaleen had shot the footage on his phone. He said the police asked him for the video, which they hadn't seen. Peleg said he's urging the district court to investigate Levi for more serious crimes. Levi helped establish a settler outpost near Umm al-Khair that anti-settlement activists say is a bastion for violent settlers who have displaced hundreds since the start of the war. Palestinians and rights groups have long accused Israeli authorities of turning a blind eye to settler violence. In a 2024 interview, Levi told the AP that he was protecting his own land and denied using violence. After Hathaleen's killing, Israel's army initially refused to return his body for burial unless conditions were met for the funeral, including limiting the number of people and the location. After an agreement was made with the police about a week later, Hathaleen's body was returned and buried. Hathaleen had written and spoken out against settler violence and had helped produce the Oscar-winning film. Supporters have erected murals in his honor in Rome, held vigils in New York and have held signs bearing his name at anti-war protests in Tel Aviv.

What Is the Home Rule Act? The Law Trump Invoked in D.C. Takeover
What Is the Home Rule Act? The Law Trump Invoked in D.C. Takeover

Time​ Magazine

timean hour ago

  • Time​ Magazine

What Is the Home Rule Act? The Law Trump Invoked in D.C. Takeover

To take control of the police force of Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump on Monday invoked part of the law that has given the nation's capital a greater degree of self-governance over the past five decades. Citing 'violent crime,' Trump declared a public safety emergency in D.C. and invoked section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. The law 'is the result of the ongoing push by District residents for control of their own local affairs,' according to the Council of the District of Columbia. D.C. was previously directly governed by Congress—which the Constitution grants authority to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the district—and federal appointees. The Home Rule Act allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council starting in the fall of 1974, though it maintained a congressional oversight over D.C. Congress reviews all legislation that the Council passes before it can be enacted into law, and maintains authority over the city's budget. D.C. still doesn't have a voting member of Congress. Section 740 of the law allows the President to take control of D.C.'s police force in 'conditions of an emergency nature'—with certain limitations. The President can federalize the city's law enforcement agency for a period of up to 30 days under the Act, after which point both chambers of Congress must enact into law a joint resolution to extend the emergency control. The Executive Order that Trump signed on Monday says that the federal government shall maintain control of the city's police force 'for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' Read More: Trump Threatens to Federalize D.C. After Beating of 'Big Balls' Trump threatened to federalize D.C., decrying crime in the city, after the reported assault of a Trump Administration staffer—though data show that violent crime in the city is down significantly. For the federal government to fully take control of the city's governance, the Home Rule Act would have to be suspended or repealed. Some GOP politicians have expressed support for federalizing D.C., a heavily Democratic city, and pushed to repeal the law. Democrats, meanwhile, slammed Trump's move on Monday. D.C.'s Democratic non-voting representative in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, called it 'an historic assault on D.C. home rule' and 'a counterproductive, escalatory seizure of D.C.'s resources to use for purposes not supported by D.C. residents.' Norton and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland announced the same day that they plan to reintroduce legislation that would give the district full control over the D.C. National Guard and the city's police department when Congress convenes next month, saying those actions 'are needed more urgently than ever.' The bills, the lawmakers said, would repeal the section in the Home Rule Act that allows the President to federalize the city's police force. Norton and other Democratic lawmakers previously introduced similar legislation in 2021, soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In announcing her intention to introduce the legislation at the time, Norton said that the attack on the Capitol 'highlighted more starkly than ever the risk to local D.C. public safety from the president's control over the D.C. National Guard and ultimate authority over the D.C. police department,' adding that 'the mayor should not be reliant on the president to deploy the National Guard to protect public safety in D.C., and D.C. should never have to worry that a president will take over its police force and use it how he or she sees fit.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store