This post was written by Natalia Greene, the Global Director of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature.

On November 16, after a very short period for campaigning and preparation, Ecuador held a historic national referendum with four questions. The most controversial was Question D, which proposed initiating a full constituent process to rewrite the 2008 Constitution—the first in the world to enshrine the Rights of Nature.

The other questions sought to:

(A) remove the constitutional ban that currently prohibits foreign military bases or foreign military facilities on Ecuadorian soil, as well as the transfer of Ecuadorian military bases to foreign forces;

(B) eliminate the State’s obligation to provide permanent public funding to political parties and political organizations; and

(C) reduce the number of members of the National Assembly and adjust the electoral system according to population and provincial representation criteria.

While the security-related questions reflected the government’s response to rising violence, Question D was widely regarded as a political attempt to reset institutional power and posed serious risks to the constitutional recognition of Nature’s rights, Indigenous rights, and social guarantees. Despite an unfunded, diverse, and organic civic campaign, the majority of Ecuadorians voted NO to all four questions, refusing to accept the proposed changes in the first three and rejecting the constituent proposal—signaling overwhelming distrust toward further institutional rupture.

Question D received the highest NO vote, with 62% of the population rejecting the plan to change the 2008 Constitution. The results reaffirmed the public’s desire for stability, democracy, and the protection of Ecuador’s pioneering Rights of Nature—a constitutional innovation that has inspired the world.

Hence, Ecuadorians sent a clear and powerful message to President Noboa and to the world this Sunday: we will not allow the country to be pushed into an unnecessary and risky constituent process that could jeopardize the Rights of Nature, the progress we have made in nature, collective and human rights, and the democratic foundations we have fought so hard to defend.

For those of us working on the Rights of Nature at both the national and global levels, this outcome reaffirms that Ecuadorian society understands the value of the constitutional advances of 2008 and refuses to let them be dismantled during moments of political instability. The vote reflects a collective intuition: our Constitution—with all its flaws and its many pending tasks—remains a global beacon for ecological jurisprudence, plurinationality, and the protection of our territories.

I felt proud of Ecuador—proud of the communities, women, Indigenous peoples, youth, and civil society organizations who mobilized with clarity and courage. And I felt a renewed commitment to continue defending the Rights of Nature so they are not only preserved on paper but fully implemented as the living foundation of our democracy. I believe we seized the opportunity to reaffirm that Ecuadorians are proud of the advances of the 2008 Constitution—especially the Rights of Nature—and that there is broad national and international support to guarantee and implement these rights.

Having the Rights of Nature enshrined in Ecuador’s Constitution is fundamentally important for the holistic protection of our environment, and it has transformed not only our country but the world. When Ecuador recognized Nature as a subject of rights in 2008, we opened an entirely new legal and ethical horizon—one that allowed a true paradigm shift. This step enabled ecosystems like Los Cedros, the Vilcabamba River, and the Machángara River to be defended in court not as resources to be exploited but as living beings with intrinsic value.

For Ecuador, this constitutional framework has been a lifeline. It provides communities, Indigenous peoples, women’s collectives, and environmental defenders with powerful tools to stop destructive projects, prevent irreversible ecological harm, and demand State accountability in ways that were unthinkable before. It has become the backbone of our resistance to extractivism and a crucial safeguard in moments—like today—when political pressures threaten to roll back social and environmental rights.

But the importance goes far beyond our borders. Ecuador’s bold constitutional leap sparked a global movement: today, more than 40 countries have advanced Rights of Nature initiatives—constitutional reforms, national laws, municipal ordinances, river declarations, and court decisions—directly inspired by the Ecuadorian experience. From New Zealand to Colombia, from Spain’s Mar Menor to tribal nations in the United States, the world has looked to Ecuador as the birthplace of Earth-centered jurisprudence. Our victories in emblematic cases have become precedents studied in universities, courts, and international bodies.

In other words, defending the Rights of Nature in Ecuador is not only about protecting our páramos, forests, rivers, and communities—it is about shifting a paradigm that views nature as a resource, separate from humans, even though we are nature. The health of Ecuador’s environment and the credibility of a worldwide movement are intertwined. Keeping these rights constitutionally grounded ensures that Ecuador continues to be a lighthouse for countries seeking new ways to confront the climate and ecological crises with dignity, justice, and courage.

I believe the NO vote triumphed because it was an authentic, diverse, and organic expression of a society that has already lived through too much uncertainty, violence, authoritarianism, and institutional fragility. Unlike government-led campaigns with massive resources, this movement had no funding, no centralized structure, and no political machinery behind it. It was built by citizens—Indigenous leaders, women’s groups, youth, environmental organizations, collectives, lawyers, academics, cultural workers, and everyday people—who understood what was at stake and mobilized from a place of deep care for the country.

After years of escalating violence—especially after the last uprising, El Paro, which ended the lives of three Indigenous people—Ecuadorians are exhausted by fear and instability. People are tired of navigating crisis after crisis while political actors attempt to reshape the Constitution in moments of fear and chaos. The proposal for a new constituent process triggered a collective memory: we know that rewriting the Constitution in the midst of violence can open dangerous doors, weaken rights, and expose society to even greater uncertainty. It also meant that a new constitution could cost more than 250 million dollars, turning 2026 into an electoral and unstable year.

In that context, the NO vote was not simply a rejection of a political initiative; it was a defense of the few democratic and ecological safeguards we still trust—especially the Rights of Nature, the rights of Indigenous peoples, and the social guarantees embedded in the 2008 Constitution. It was also an act of self-protection: people recognized that a constitutional rewrite, without guarantees, could dismantle the progress that communities and movements have achieved over decades of struggle.

What is remarkable is that a grassroots, unpaid, decentralized campaign managed to overcome fear, misinformation, and the overwhelming power of the State. This shows that Ecuadorians still have a strong democratic instinct. They know that our problems—violence, inequality, corruption, extractivism—cannot be solved by erasing the foundation of our rights. The triumph of the NO reflects a society that wants peace, not another rupture; strengthened institutions, not weakened ones; and real solutions, not shortcuts.