The sea and the life in the sea is its own. The Embassy of the North Sea was founded on this basis. Here things, plants, animals and people in and around the North Sea are given a voice. We have mapped out a route to 2030. First we will learn to listen to the sea, then learn to speak with the sea and finally be able to negotiate on behalf of the sea and marine life.
The sea and the life in the sea is its own. The Embassy of the North Sea was founded on this basis. Here things, plants, animals and people in and around the North Sea are given a voice.
We have mapped out a route to 2030. First we will learn to listen to the sea, then we will learn to speak with, and finally we will be able to negotiate on behalf of the sea and marine life.
Project
Zoöp
Zoöp is the title of an organisational model for cooperation between human and nonhuman life that safeguards the interests of all zoë (Greek for 'life'). The zoöp model makes the interests of nonhuman life part of organisational decision making.
With escalating climate change, declining biodiversity and the general habitability of the Earth being put to the test, the current way we collaborate in shaping our society falls short. Non-human life forms such as plants, animals, insects, but also those in the soil such as bacteria and fungi, are only seen as raw material and resources. The Zoöp model seeks to change this entrenched structure. By looking further than the interests of humans and by literally giving nature a seat at the table.
The zoöp is an innovative governance model that fosters a practice of ecological regeneration in organisations by allowing humans and non-humans to work together. It is a radical model that enables any organisation to contribute to ecological regeneration. An organisation becomes a Zoöp by assigning a Board Observer Seat to the Zoönomic Foundation. This foundation has the sole task of representing the interests of non-human life in the operational sphere of the zoöp. The work of the Zoönomic Foundation is done by strictly independent experts who translate the interests of non-human life into the operational decision-making of their zoöp.
The term zoöp is short for zoöperation and is a combination of the Greek word for life – zoë – and the word cooperation. The zoöp is inspired by recent developments in the field of rights-of-nature and works with the insights of the doughnut economy. The zoöp model is:
Immediate. No change of law required; zoöps can start having an impact now.
Empowering. The zoöp model channels concerns about the climate catastrophe into action.
Pragmatic. Transforms complex concepts into actionable practices.
Open. Applicable to all organisations, small, large, nonprofit and for-profit.
Coöperative. A network of zoöps that collaborate and share knowledge.
From 22 April 2022 (Earth Day) onwards, Het Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam will be the first zoöp in the world. After Het Nieuwe Instituut is officially inaugurated as a zoöp, others will quickly follow. Currently, almost 20 organisations in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy and Slovenia already work with aspects of the zoöp model, the so-called proto-zoöps.
The zoöp model is the outcome of research by Het Nieuwe Instituut and is a co-creation of a group of ecologists, philosophers, artists, entrepreneurs and lawyers. The legal structure was developed in close collaboration with the renowned law firm De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek. The zoöp approach works with existing legal instruments, and can be applied immediately. It is therefore not dependent on legislative changes or new policy frameworks, as rights of nature implementations would be.
Want to know more about Zoöp? Read more over here. Image: Patricia de Ruijter, mediakaal.nl
In de podcastserie Groene Oren vertellen planten, bomen en dieren zélf hun verhaal: wie zijn ze, hoe ziet hun dagelijks leven er uit en hoe is het om vanuit hun perspectief de wereld te ervaren?
Bekende acteurs en cabaretiers
In de eerste aflevering van ‘Groene Oren’ vertelt de nachtzwaluw over wat hij zoal doet in Zuid-Congo (spoiler: niet veel, vooral een beetje mijmeren) en hoe hij indruk probeert te maken op de vrouwtjes in Nederland. De dieren worden gespeeld door bekende acteurs en cabaretiers. Zij zijn voorafgaand aan ‘het interview’ door Staatsbosbeheer gebrieft, zodat ze zich helemaal kunnen inleven in het dier. Ze weten niet welke vragen ze krijgen, wat een spontane talkshow-dynamiek oplevert tussen interviewer en dier.
Het idee om ‘Everything is alive’ naar de natuur te trekken is van multimedia journalist Martijn van Tol vandeStudio, die ook de productie verzorgt. Daniel Cornelissen is de nachtzwaluw, Lies Visschedijk het gentiaanblauwtje, Wart Kamps de hazelmuis en Leopold Witte de zandhagedis. De dieren worden geïnterviewd door Chris Bajema die de succesvolle podcasts ‘Man met de microfoon’ en ‘Lockdown’ maakt.
Belang van bescherming van de natuur
De interviews worden aangevuld met een gesprek met een ecoloog of een boswachter die meer achtergrondinformatie geeft over de soort en vertelt wat in het beheer gedaan wordt om de soort te beschermen. Staatsbosbeheer probeert met de podcastserie op een laagdrempelige manier mensen te wijzen op het belang van de bescherming van de natuur. Daarom zijn ook juist deze vier soorten gekozen: fascinerende dieren die gewoon in Nederland leven, die voorkomen in een bepaald type landschap, en die Staatsbosbeheer – waar nodig – een handje helpt bij het beheer.
Om biodiversiteit te behouden heeft onze natuur rechten nodig
Professor mr. dr. Tineke Lambooy (Nyenrode Business Universiteit) legt uit waarom het toekennen van rechtspersoonlijkheid aan entiteiten van natuur zoals een bos of een rivier kan bijdragen aan het behoud van biodiversiteit. Zij onderzoekt nieuwe governance modellen gericht op behoud van natuurlijke ecosystemen en waarborging voor toekomstige generaties.
De herbepaling van onze relatie tot de natuurlijke wereld is de grootste uitdaging van de 21e eeuw. Recente, alarmerende rapporten laten zien dat wij ecosystemen, plant- en diersoorten met massavernietiging bedreigen als we nu geen actie ondernemen. Dit geldt ook voor de inheemse volkeren en culturen die in die ecosystemen wonen. Ook zij worden in hun voortbestaan bedreigd. Voorbeelden zijn de indiaanse bevolking in het Amazonegebied, de Inuit in de Arctische regionen en de zee-nomaden die in de Indische Oceaan wonen in gebieden met koraalriffen. Het antropocentrische paradigma heeft ertoe geleid dat wij nu geconfronteerd worden met een grootschalige reductie in de biodiversiteit, uitputting van natuurlijke bronnen en het uitsterven van volkeren. Het tijdperk van groei heeft duidelijk zijn grenzen bereikt.
De herbepaling van onze relatie tot de natuurlijke wereld is de grootste uitdaging van de 21e eeuw. Recente, alarmerende rapporten laten zien dat wij ecosystemen, plant- en diersoorten met massavernietiging bedreigen als we nu geen actie ondernemen. Dit geldt ook voor de inheemse volkeren en culturen die in die ecosystemen wonen. Ook zij worden in hun voortbestaan bedreigd. Voorbeelden zijn de indiaanse bevolking in het Amazonegebied, de Inuit in de Arctische regionen en de zee-nomaden die in de Indische Oceaan wonen in gebieden met koraalriffen. Het antropocentrische paradigma heeft ertoe geleid dat wij nu geconfronteerd worden met een grootschalige reductie in de biodiversiteit, uitputting van natuurlijke bronnen en het uitsterven van volkeren. Het tijdperk van groei heeft duidelijk zijn grenzen bereikt.
Bij publieke- of private beslissingen met betrekking tot landconversie of ander gebruik van de natuur, zit de natuur zelf niet aan tafel als belanghebbende. Overheidsinstellingen, bedrijven en andere organisaties zijn in de discussie vertegenwoordigd en zij bepalen dus wat er gebeurt met een rivier, een meer, een bos, een gebergte, etc. Zij bepalen in hoeverre een bepaald gedeelte van de natuur gebruikt kan worden voor economische gebruik of zelfs kan worden vernietigd. Het belang van de intrinsieke waarde van de natuur wordt vaak niet besproken of meegewogen in de besluitvorming.
Internationaal en nationaal zijn er veel verdragen en wetten die het doel hebben natuurgebieden en kwetsbare planten- en dierensoorten te beschermen. Deze zijn van groot belang voor wat betreft het formuleren van de normen. Toch wijst de huidige situatie uit dat deze juridische instrumenten onvoldoende effectief zijn. In de huidige situatie wint economisch belang het meestal van het ecologisch belang. Dat geldt zelfs voor natuurgebieden die de status hebben van nationaal park of UNESCO-werelderfgoed.
Het toekennen van rechten aan entiteiten van natuur, zoals aan een berg, een rivier of een bepaald natuurgebied, klinkt vreemd, maar het is een nieuwe trend. In verschillende landen verspreid over alle continenten is dat de afgelopen jaren al gebeurd. Daarnaast zijn er veel lopende initiatieven. Wanneer een natuurentiteit rechtspersoonlijkheid krijgt, betekent dit dat wij die entiteit gaan beschouwen als een juridisch subject in plaats van juridisch object. Wereldwijd zijn er 369 initiatieven gestart om rechten toe te kennen aan de natuur. Een meerderheid van deze initiatieven was succesvol: een stuk natuur, een specifiek dier of dierencategorie heeft nu zelf rechten. Het gaat meestal om initiatieven van burgers en NGO’s die het de hoogste tijd vinden om respect te tonen voor onze leefomgeving. Daarnaast spelen culturele overtuigingen een rol.
Onze planeet leefbaar houden? Geef bossen en rivieren rechten
Eeuwenlang was de mens het middelpunt van alles, ook in de rechtspraak. Maar op steeds meer plekken ter wereld krijgt de natuur rechten. En er gaan stemmen op om ‘ecocide’ – de vernietiging van de natuur – strafbaar te stellen. Wanneer volgt Nederland?
Bijna niemand durft tegenwoordig nog te ontkennen dat de mens in haar bestaan afhankelijk is van de natuur: bomen zorgen voor zuurstof, bijen bestuiven onze gewassen en algen in de oceaan dragen bij aan de stabilisatie van het klimaat. Toch gaat de mens slordig om met de aarde.
Met de natuur, die we zo hard nodig hebben, gaat hetslechter dan ooit.Ik geloof dat dat deels te wijten is aan de huidige wet- en regelgeving. Zo verdwijnen er dagelijks voetbalvelden aan regenwoud, zonder dat de mensen, overheden en bedrijven die hierachter zitten worden aangepakt. Een CEO die desastreuze beslissingen voor de natuur maakt, hoeft niet bang te zijn om persoonlijk voor diens acties vervolgd te worden.
Hetantropocentrischekarakter van milieuwetgeving spat ervanaf: de mens, als middelpunt van het bestaan, vormt het uitgangspunt van wet- en regelgeving. Dit uitgangspunt heeft ertoe geleid dat wij de natuur beschouwen als ons eigendom: iets wat we kunnen uitbuiten voor menselijk gewin. Wij, de mens, hebben als eigenaar onbeperkte macht over de natuur.
Kabinet-in-wording, het kan anders. We kunnen het tij keren. Om dat te doen, moeten we ons een nieuw denken en doen eigen maken ten opzichte van de natuur. In een tijdperk gedefinieerd door klimaatverandering, biodiversiteitsverlies en andere ecologische crises kunnen we het ons simpelweg niet veroorloven om op deze manier door te gaan.
Ik pleit voor een ecocentrische benadering in het recht, waarbij het welzijn van de natuur centraal staat.
Het is hoog tijd voor de juridische emancipatie van de natuur. Voor het strafbaar stellen van ‘ecocide’, oftewel de grootschalige beschadiging of vernietiging van de natuur, en voor het erkennen van de rechten van de natuur.
This paper considers some of the recent legislative developments concerning the rights of nature and argues that the environmental rights movement would benefit from more strenuous critical engagement with the question of nature's potential legal ‘rights'.
In 1972, Professor Christopher Stone from the University of Southern California was approaching the final minutes of an introductory lecture on property law. He noted that, like human culture, property law is an evolving social construct and has progressed through different stages of growth and development (Schlatter). As Aldo Leopold notes in the introductory quote, human beings were once considered property. Assault or even the intentional killing of a slave was considered a matter for property law, not a matter for human rights. Throughout history, we have seen a continual evolution in the types of things that can be owned, who was considered capable of ownership and the meaning of ownership itself (Stone, ‘Trees’ vii). Stone commented to his class that ‘it was easy to see how each change shifted the locus and quality of power ... each advance in the law-legitimated concept of “ownership”, fuelling a change in consciousness, in the range and depth of feelings’ (‘Trees’ vii). Stone was awakened from this historical narrative by the shuffling and voices of his students who had begun to ‘pack away their enthusiasm for the next venture’ (‘Trees’ vii). In an effort to maintain their attention, he wondered aloud:
So, what would a radically different law-driven consciousness look like? ... One in which Nature had rights ... Yes, rivers, lakes ... trees ... animals ... How would such a posture in law affect a community’s view of itself? (‘Trees’ vii) This thought experiment created uproar and as Stone stepped out of the lecture theatre he asked himself, ‘what did you just say in there? How could trees have rights?’ (‘Trees’ vii).
Evidently, he had no idea. Thirty years later, Stone’s paper ‘Should Trees Have Standing’ and its influence in Sierra Club v Morton has become the thing of legend and continues to resonate with pockets of students in contemporary law schools. However, until recently, the notion of recognising nature as an entity capable of holding rights was completely ignored by lawmakers.
A growing global movement committed to systemic change through the philosophy and practice of Earth Jurisprudence – recognising Nature as the primary source of law and ethics.
What is Earth Jurisprudence?
Earth Jurisprudence recognises that the Earth is embedded in a lawful and ordered Universe. Our Earth uniquely sustains life as we know it through a complex system of living processes and laws, as a self-regulating planetary organism. All species, including humans, are inextricably subject to these laws and processes.
Cultural historian, poet and geologian, Thomas Berry named this understanding of the Earth as the primary source of law, and reminded us that for most of human history, human societies across our planet have conceived law in this way. In order to comply with these life governing laws, traditional societies have derived their ethics, customary laws and governance systems from the laws of the Earth. This is rooted in the understanding that disturbing the dynamic equilibrium which sustains the conditions for life, would ultimately lead to chaos.
Earth Jurisprudence is a philosophy, a way of seeing and relating to the living world out of which we have evolved, with due respect and humility. It enables us to recognise that the dominant assumption underpinning the industrial growth model – that humans are superior and can extract from life endlessly – is both flawed and dangerous. We are now living the consequences of this inflated belief, as we face the chaos of multiple interconnected ecological, climate and social crises on a planetary scale.
The antidote to this hubristic conception of ourselves, saidThomas Berry, is to concertedly transform our way of thinking from the dominant anthropocentric or human-centred lens to an Earth-centred understanding of how we can conduct our lives in a mutually enhancing relationship with those with whom we have co-evolved.
Inspired by the cosmologies and cultural practices of indigenous peoples who see life from an Earth-centred, rather than a human-centred perspective, Gaia embraced Thomas Berry’s potent ideas and embedded them in our approach. We accompany communities in the Amazon and Africa and in nurturing an Earth Jurisprudence movement through trainings and collaboration. Together we are establishing policies for recognising Earth-centred governance, and tracking the evolution of the global Earth Jurisprudence movement – an idea whose time has come.
In recent years there has been a welcome global surge in recognition of Earth Jurisprudence – ranging from the United Nations’ Harmony with Nature dialogues, to International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as a growing number of precedents recognising Earth-centred customary governance systems and the Rights of Nature.
By Cormac Cullinan with contributions from Thomas Berry. Cited in “Earth Jurisprudence: From Colonization to Participation” by Cormac Cullinan, State of the World 2010, State of the World 2010: Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism to Sustainability (p.144 & 145.)
The Earth Community and all the beings that constitute it have fundamental “rights”, including the right to exist, to have a habitat or a place to be, and to participate in the evolution of the Earth community.
The rights of each being are limited by the rights of other beings to the extent necessary to maintain the other beings to the extent necessary to maintain the integrity, balance, and health of the communities within it exists.
Human acts or laws that infringe these fundamental rights violate the fundamental relationships and principles that constitute the Earth community and are therefore illegitimate and “unlawful.”
Humans must adapt their legal, political, economic, and social systems to be consistent with the fundamental laws or principles that govern how the universe functions and guide humans to in accordance with these, which means that human governance systems at all times must take account of the interests of the whole Earth community and must:
Determine the lawfulness of human conduct by whether or not it strengthens or weakens the relationships that constitute the Earth community;
Maintain a dynamic balance between the rights of humans and those of other members of the Earth community on the basis of what is best for Earth as a whole;
Promote restorative justice (which focuses on restoring damaged relationships) rather than punishment (retribution; and
Recognize all members of the Earth community as subjects before the law, with the right to the protection of the law and to an effective remedy for human acts that violate their fundamental rights.
With contributions from Thomas Berry and cited in “Earth Jurisprudence: From Colonization to Participation” by Cormac Cullinan, State of the World 2010, State of the World 2010: Transforming Cultures: From Consumerism to Sustainability p.144 & 145.
Earth Jurisprudence: Private Property and the Environment
This book argues that the anthropocentric institution of private property needs to be reconceived; drawing on international case law, indigenous views of property and the land use practices of agrarian communities, Peter Burdon considers how private property can be reformulated in a way that fosters duties towards nature. Using the theory of earth jurisprudence as a guide, he outlines an alternative ecocentric description of private property as a relationship between and among members of the Earth community.
Ecuador is the first country to recognize Rights of Nature in its Constitution. A great first step for humanity towards a change of paradigm! Ecuador rewrote its Constitution in 2007-2008 and it was ratified by referendum by the people of Ecuador in September 2008.
The new Ecuadorian Constitution includes a Chapter: Rights for Nature. Rather than treating nature as property under the law, Rights for Nature articles acknowledge that nature in all its life forms has theright to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles. And we – the people – have the legal authority to enforce these rights on behalf of ecosystems. The ecosystem itself can be named as the defendant.
The recognition of rights to nature by the Constitution of Ecuador sets a new normative scenario for analysis of the role of law in human-nature interactions. Given the scope of such a recognition, one relying on unorthodox biocentric views, these rights raise controversy. To some, nature rights are rather symbolic; to others, these rights are not only real but fundamental to effectively address the ever-growing degradation of nature. Yet, others focus on enforcement and juridical interpretation of their normative content as to determine whether recognition of constitutional rights to nature provide the foundations for a more effective role of the law in this field.
In 2008, Ecuador became the first State to recognize constitutional rights to nature. This recognition, which acknowledges the intrinsic value of nature, goes beyond the approach of protecting the environment, as it aims at respecting nature. What effects would this recognition bring to Ecuador and, perhaps, comparative constitutional environmental law? Would this recognition be symbolic or would it be of real significance? This article will address these issues. It will present the background as well as the normative dimension of nature rights on the Ecuadorian Constitution. The article will also examine doctrinarian perspectives while focusing on constitutional jurisprudence, to conclude that the Ecuadorian experience has provided a new scenario for analysis of the human-nature interactions from a biocentric perspective that coexists with a dominating anthropocentric perspective.
Bron: Echeverría., H. 2017. Rights of Nature: The Ecuadorian Case. Revista Esmat, 9(13), p. 77-86. DOI: 10.34060/reesmat.v9i13.192
Since 2017, some of the most beloved and iconic rivers in the world have been recognised in law as legal persons and/or living entities, with a range of legal rights and protections. These profound legal changes can transform the relationship between people and rivers, and are the result of ongoing leadership from Indigenous peoples and environmental advocates.
Since 2017, some of the most beloved and iconic rivers in the world have been recognised in law as legal persons and/or living entities, with a range of legal rights and protections. These profound legal changes can transform the relationship between people and rivers, and are the result of ongoing leadership from Indigenous peoples and environmental advocates. This paper uses a comparative analysis of the legal and/or living personhood of rivers and lakes in Aotearoa New Zealand, India, Bangladesh, Colombia to identify the legal status of specific rivers, and highlight the disturbing trend of recognising rivers as legal persons and/or living entities whilst also denying rivers the right to flow. Rather than empowering rivers in law to resist existential threats, the new legal status of rivers may thus make it even more difficult to manage rivers to prevent their degradation and loss. This paper highlights an ‘extinction problem’ for rivers that environmental law has exacerbated, by recognising new nonhuman living beings whilst simultaneously denying them some of the specific legal rights they need to remain in existence. The paper also shows how a pluralist analysis of the status of rivers can help to identify some potential ways to address this problem.
Bron: Erin O’Donnell (2021): Rivers as living beings: rights in law, but no rights to water?, Griffith Law Review, DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1881304
Onlangs kende een hoge Indiase rechtbank aan de rivier de Ganges de status van ‘persoon’ toe, een uitspraak die tot meer aandacht voor het milieu in India zou kunnen leiden.
Onder normale omstandigheden zou een foto van een vrouw die over het water loopt, veel ontzag of verbazing hebben gewekt, maar in dit geval roept het beeld eerder afschuw op.
Fotograaf Giulio Di Sturco legde dit soort taferelen vast in zijn serieDeath of a River, ‘Dood van een rivier’: een vrouw die de rivier de Ganges oversteekt, door over een brug van bemodderde zandzakken en afval te klauteren, laat zien hoe zwaar deze heilige waterweg door vervuiling is getroffen.
‘De Ganges is een schoolvoorbeeld van een onopgelost conflict tussen mens en milieu,’ zegt Di Sturco. De rivier is verweven met alle aspecten van het leven in India – als de bron van water, energie en levensonderhoud voor de meer dan een half miljard mensen die aan zijn oevers wonen.
De rivier wordt al eeuwenlang aanbeden door hindoes uit de hele wereld, die geloven in het verhaal van de zelfreinigende riviergodin Ganga. Die reinigende kwaliteiten van Ganga zijn niet te zien aan de rivier zelf, die dagelijks wordt vergiftigd door miljoenen tonnen aan industrieel afvalwater en onbehandeld rioolwater. Om maar te zwijgen over de honderden lijken per dag die worden gecremeerd of soms alleen in linnen worden gewikkeld en in de rivier worden gelegd.
Maar er zijn veranderingen op komst voor de ‘Ganga Mata’ (Goddelijke Moeder) na eenrecente uitspraak van een hoge rechtbank in India. Het hooggerechtshof van de deelstaat Uttarakhand heeft namelijk de Ganges en zijn voornaamste zijrivier, de Yamuna, tot ‘levende personen’ verklaard.
The Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 settled the longest-running litigation over Maori land claims in New Zealand history. The Whanganui river is New Zealand’s longest navigable river, stretching from Mount Tongariro in the North Island to the Tasman Sea. The settlement, and the 2017 Act which implements it, confers legal personality on the river system, giving it a unique legal status that recognises not only the need to protect the ecosystem it represents, but also to provide a legal forum in which to implement Maori cultural and spiritual attitudes to the relationship of land and people. It can be argued this marks a new and innovative approach to protecting the environment, focusing at the ecosystem level and incorporating spiritual values in a manner unknown in environmental law in most Western legal systems.
This is not, however, the first time that an approach based on principles found in the 2017 Act has been used in a New Zealand context. This article will consider the 2017 Act and its principal objectives, and set the legislation within the very distinctive context of the legal culture within which environmental law in New Zealand sits. It highlights differences of approach from those adopted in English law to similar problems of ecosystem management, and concludes by considering whether (and what) lessons can be drawn from this innovative approach for the wider environmental governance of the natural environment.
Source: Rodgers, C. 2017. A new approach to protecting ecosystems: The Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017. Environmental Law Review,, 19(4), p. 266-279. DOI: 10.1177/1461452917744909
In March 2017, the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (NZ) (‘Te Awa Tupua Act’) became the first piece of legislation in the world to declare a river a legal person. Through this grant of legal personality the Whanganui River acquires the rights, duties, powers and liabilities of an entity with legal standing including the ability to sue those who harm it. This legislation is aimed at reconciling the relationship between the government of Aotearoa New Zealand and its Indigenous peoples (Māori) in light of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, one of the founding documents of Aotearoa New Zealand.
However, the Te Awa Tupua Act also offers a platform to explore the promotion and protection of Indigenous rights in international human rights law including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples in relation to Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. This inquiry demonstrates that despite the novelty of the legislation and the exciting progress towards re-establishing Māori governance and management over the River that they held for centuries before European colonisation, the innovative grant of legal personality to a river does not fully address past wrongs in that it continues to exclude Māori ownership of freshwater. Ultimately the Te Awa Tupua Act leaves Aotearoa New Zealand wanting in its commitments under international human rights law.
New Zealand river granted same legal rights as human being
After 140 years of negotiation, Māori tribe wins recognition for Whanganui river, meaning it must be treated as a living entity.
In a world-first aNew Zealand river has been granted the same legal rights as a human being. The local Māori tribe of Whanganui in the North Island has fought for the recognition of their river – the third-largest in New Zealand – as an ancestor for 140 years.
On Wednesday, hundreds of tribal representatives wept with joy when their bid to have their kin awarded legal status as a living entity was passed into law. “The reason we have taken this approach is because we consider the river an ancestor and always have,” said Gerrard Albert, the lead negotiator for the Whanganui iwi [tribe]. “We have fought to find an approximation in law so that all others can understand that from our perspective treating the river as a living entity is the correct way to approach it, as in indivisible whole, instead of the traditional model for the last 100 years of treating it from a perspective of ownership and management.”
The new status of the river means if someone abused or harmed it the law now sees no differentiation between harming the tribe or harming the river because they are one and the same. Chris Finlayson, the minister for the treaty of Waitangi negotiations, said the decision brought the longest-running litigation in New Zealand’s history to an end. “Te Awa Tupua will have its own legal identity with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person,” said Finlayson in a statement. “The approach of granting legal personality to a river is unique ... it responds to the view of the iwi of the Whanganui river which has long recognised Te Awa Tupua through its traditions, customs and practice.”
Two guardians will be appointed to act on behalf of the Whanganui river, one from the crown and one from the Whanganui iwi. Albert said all Māori tribes regarded themselves as part of the universe, at one with and equal to the mountains, the rivers and the seas. The new law now honoured and reflected their worldview, he said, and could set a precedent for other Māori tribes in New Zealand to follow in Whanganui’s footsteps. “We can trace our genealogy to the origins of the universe,” said Albert. “And therefore rather than us being masters of the natural world, we are part of it. We want to live like that as our starting point. And that is not an anti-development, or anti-economic use of the river but to begin with the view that it is a living being, and then consider its future from that central belief.”
Financial redress of NZ$80m is included in the settlement, as well as an additional NZ$1m contribution towards establishing the legal framework for the river.
Rights of Nature is the recognition and honoring that Nature has rights. It is the recognition that our ecosystems – including trees, oceans, animals, mountains – have rights just as human beings have rights. Rights of Nature is about balancing what is good for human beings against what is good for other species, what is good for the planet as a world. It is the holistic recognition that all life, all ecosystems on our planet are deeply intertwined.
Rather than treating nature as property under the law, rights of nature acknowledges that nature in all its life forms has theright to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles. And we – the people – have the legal authority and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of ecosystems. The ecosystem itself can be named as the injured party, with its own legal standing rights, in cases alleging rights violations. For indigenous cultures around the world recognizing rights of nature is simply what is so and consistent with their traditions of living in harmony with nature. All life, including human life, are deeply connected. Decisions and values are based on what is good for the whole.
Nonetheless, for millennia legal systems around the world have treated land and nature as “property”. Laws and contracts are written to protect the property rights of individuals, corporations and other legal entities. As such environmental protection laws actually legalize environmental harm by regulating how much pollution or destruction of nature can occur within the law. Under such law, nature and all of its non-human elements have no standing. By recognizing rights of naturein its constitution, Ecuador – and a growing number of communities in the United States – are basing their environmental protection systems on the premise that nature hasinalienable rights, just as humans do. This premise is a radical but natural departure from the assumption that nature ispropertyunder the law.
British artist Alexandra Daisy Ginsberg (born in London in 1982) investigates the relationship between nature and the man-made, exploring how this interconnection changes through advances in design and technology. The resulting artworks tell evocative stories that are at once provocative and ironic.
Trained in architecture and interaction design, she has been especially interested in the emerging technoscience of 'synthetic biology' – the design of living matter. Within this context, Ginsberg has been intrigued by the premise that underpins all approaches to design: the desire to make things 'better'. But what exactly does better mean? Better for whom? And who decides? These questions, which are crucial in times of radical technological and scientific advances, are the basis of 'Better Nature'.
As the world becomes more urbanized, researchers and city managers from Baltimore to Britain are recognizing the importance of providing urban habitat that can support biodiversity. It just may be the start of an urban wildlife movement.
A peregrine falcon soars above New York City's Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. MTA/Patric Cashin
A few years ago in Baltimore County, Maryland, environmental staffers were reviewing a tree-planting proposal from a local citizens group. It called for five trees each of 13 different species, as if in an arboretum, on the grounds of an elementary school in a densely-populated neighborhood.
It seemed like a worthy plan, both for the volunteer effort and the intended environmental and beautification benefits. Then someone pointed out that there were hardly any oaks on the list, even though the 22 oak species native to the area are known to be wildlife-friendly. Local foresters, much less local wildlife, could barely recognize some of the species that were being proposed instead. As if to drive home the logical inconsistencies, both the school and the neighborhood were named after oak trees.
“Why are we doing this?” someone wondered.
That sort of epiphany has been happening a lot lately in metropolitan areas around the world, as people come to terms with both the dramatic increase in urbanized areas and the corresponding loss of wildlife. The portion of the planet characterized as urban is on track to triple from 2000 to 2030—that is, we are already almost halfway there. Meanwhile,17 percent of the 800 or so North American bird speciesare in decline, and all 20 species on the Audubon Society’s list of “common birds in decline” have lost at least half their populationsince 1970.
Those kinds of stark numbers, repeated around the world, have made it disturbingly evident that it’s not enough for cities to plant a million trees, preach the gospel of backyard gardens, or build green roofs and smart streets. The trees, shrubs, and flowers in that ostensibly green infrastructure also need to benefit birds, butterflies, and other animals. They need to provide habitat for breeding, shelter, and food. Where possible, the habitat needs to be arranged in corridors where wildlife can safely travel.
Though it may be too soon to call it an urban wildlife movement, initiatives focused on urban biodiversity seem to be catching on. The U.S. Forest Service, which once laughed off the idea that anything urban could be wild, now supports a growingurban forest program. Urban ecology and urban wildlife programs are also proliferating on university campuses. There’s a“Nature of Cities”blog, launched in 2012. University of Virginia researchers recently announced the beginning of aBiophilic Cities Networkdevoted to integrating the natural world into urban life, with Singapore, Oslo, and Phoenix among the founding partners.
Source: Conniff, R. 2014. Urban Nature: How to Foster Biodiversity in World's Cities. Yale Environment360.
You know what needs to be done: save nature, end the biodiversity crisis, help protect humanity. What you might not know is how we’re going to do it. The best contemporary science and traditional wisdom tell us that nature needs half. That may seem like a lot, but we have a plan for how to get there and transform the way society thinks about and benefits from nature.
What we do
Nature Needs Half is an international coalition of scientists, conservationists, nonprofits, and public officials defending nature at the scale she needs to continue to function for the benefit of all life, and support human well-being. And we've got a global ground game in place that will protect 50% of the planet by 2030, turning the tide in favor of Earth's life support systems and transforming society's relationship with nature, one ecoregion and country at a time.
Video: What is Nature Needs Half
Case Studies
Have you ever wondered why some places seem to effortlessly achieve conservation successes while others find it more difficult? Check out these in-depth studies on how countries around the world have achieved or are attempting to achieve half.
India
India is home to 1.3 billion people and 8% of the world’s most biodiversity, placing it among the most mega-populated and megadiverse countries. For these reasons alone, advancing protection for nature in India is as necessary as it is challenging. India’s human population is dependent upon this region’s rich biological diversity, and both the human and natural environment will accrue substantial benefits from the expansion of interconnected protected areas.
Many of the case studies for Nature Needs Half have involved an area within a defined political jurisdiction at the national, provincial or city level. It is important to note however, that nature crosses borders and that an ecological region is often spread amongst many different political jurisdictions. This is the case with NNH case studies including the Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Area, the South Caucasus Eco-Region, and the Silk Road. The most ambitious and the largest transfrontier conservation area in the world, however, is known as the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Area.
As criminal extractive industry undermines the ecological foundation of the Amazonian rainforest, the Kayapo defense of traditional lands is a glimmer of hope for the last large block of southeastern rainforest, lands large enough to sustain healthy ecological processes and endangered species. Drawing strength from a coalition of Kayapo leaders and the international NGOs who support them, 35 Kayapo villages withstand the coercive tactics of illegal miners and loggers while successfully caring for the forest upon which they depend for the continuation of their culture. The Kayapo Indigenous stewardship of the rainforest demonstrates the stunning potential for conservation and traditional cultures to work together for the benefit of nature.
Namibia’s protected area system is one of the most comprehensive in the world (covering over 42% of Namibia’s land mass and 12,000 km2 marine protected areas) and sustains healthy human and wildlife populations. Engaging a cross-sectoral suite of land owners and managers, Namibia has cultivated ecological connectivity that is second to none. With the recent declaration of Dorob National Park in 2010, Namibia became the first and only country in the world to have its entire coastline (1,500km) under protection via a network of four National Parks. Namibia is an example par excellence of the Nature Needs Half vision.
By creating a reserve network that protects 45% of its total land area, 7.7% of its marine coastal environment, and 45% of its forests, Tasmania has established a steadfast commitment to conserving the state’s incredible landscape and biodiversity. And, with the development of the Forest Agreement of 2012 to provide for the protection of an additional 500,000 hectares of the state’s native forests, Tasmania is demonstrating its continued dedication to expanding the amount of area to be protected for wild nature.
MSc Thesis WUR - Co-existing With Wildlife in Cities: A Literature Review on Nature-Inclusive Urban Development
With a rapid increase in urbanization across the globe, it is important to understand how this affects biodiversity, from a conservational point of view. The potential of urban environments for biodiversity is widely recognized and has caused an increasing interest on the part of (landscape) architects, planners and urban designers to construct more nature-inclusive urban developments to enhance biodiversity in cities. The report presents a pioneer study on the evidence and current state of the academic literature on nature-inclusive urban development. It addresses the main arguments to include nature in the urban development, discusses different spatial scenarios for implementation including building, plot, block, street and district level measures that can be used, and reflects upon the way forward in nature-inclusive urban development.