Rights of nature

The thinking behind this proposal doesn't really make sense to me:

The South American republic of Ecuador will next week consider what many countries in the world would say is unthinkable. People will be asked to vote on Sunday on a new constitution that would give Ecuador's tropical forests, islands, rivers and air similar legal rights to those normally granted to humans. If they vote yes - and polls show that 56% are for and only 23% are against - then an already approved bill of rights for nature will be introduced, and new laws will change the legal status of nature from being simply property to being a right-bearing entity.

If there are reasons for legislation to protect natural systems, then fine - legislate to do that. But the reasons should be based on the interests of sentient beings, not the interests, real or supposed, of inanimate matter - earth, rivers and rocks, or even trees and shrubs. If you read the rest of the report, you'll see that the interests of human beings are indeed central to the purpose behind the legislation. The laws could have protected whatever natural entities needed to be protected, without the nonsense of 'Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist...'