Rights of nature

By

THE recent news about the recommendation of the Mining Industry Coordinating Council (MICC) to lift the ban on open pit mining saddened not only former Environment Secretary Gina Lopez but all Filipinos who recognize the adverse impact of open-pit mining on the environment. The lifting of the ban would now allow big mining projects such as the $5.9-billion Tampakan copper and gold mine to operate. The project covers an area the size of 700 soccer fields in what otherwise could be agricultural land. Removing ban may also lead to resumption of the development of the $1.2-billion Silangan copper and gold mine also in Mindanao, by the Philex Mining Corporation.

Gina notes that open-pit mines pose very high risks in tropical and archipelagic countries like the country where strong typhoons are normal. MICC reassures the public that the lifting of the ban would be accompanied by a provision that operators must strictly adhere to laws and regulations. But given our past record of impunity in this area, we must seek other ways by which we can regulate some of the hazards (to health and to the environment) that have occurred in places where large mining industries operate.

I googled to explore the extent of state control of mining and discovered that it is quite high with Africa, Russia, China, and India leading a few other emerging economies which have state ownership or control of the mining industry. We do not know whether state control and ownership is the answer but we do realize that following the onset of globalization, and after we became one of the four countries which adopted the new structural programs initiated by the World Bank to bring down tariffs, regulate the economy, and privatize government enterprises, our average growth rate left much to be desired.

Perhaps it is about time to again examine whether our pro-market and corporate driven policies are helping us achieve the vision of authentic development – social justice for all, lessened inequality and poverty. Or whether we should be exploring alternatives which other countries are doing. Such as alternative ways of measuring and development such as GNH or Gross National Happiness instead of mere focus on the GNP or GDP. Or searching for alternative paths in addressing the continuing deterioration of our environment?

A new book written by environmentalist David R. Boyd has just come out. I haven’t read it but from the review on the Amazon website, it should be read by everyone concerned about what governments and its citizens must do to preserve our planet. Entitled “Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution that Could Save the World,” it cites what governments of some countries are now doing in terms of enacting laws and regulations that would save the environment.

Another positive development is the organization of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature which states this principle in its framework: “Rather than treating nature as property under the law, rights of nature acknowledges that nature in all its life forms has the right 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 the ecosystems.”

Ecuador, in its Constitution, has enacted a provision that grants rights of nature to exist and persist. Costa Rica was the first to create a Pago Por Servicios Ambientales where landowners receive compensation for using their land to engage in activities that protect the environment, like reforestation and forest management. In 2009, the Bolivian Constitution included Pachamama or Mother Earth and adopted a set of laws called Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra or Laws of the Rights of Mother Nature. In Hawaii and India, judges have recognized that endangered species like birds and lions have the right to exist. Bolivia has passed laws recognizing that ecosystems – rivers, forests, mountains – have legally enforceable rights. Its president, Evo Morales led the way for international adoption of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth which was drafted and enforced at the 2010 World People’s Conference on Climate Change at Cochabamba. Peru has approved new environmental policies through new laws and regulations that support the Paris pact on climate change. Lawyers in California and New York are now fighting to give legal rights to chimpanzes and killer whales. An updated map prepared by Article 19 (after Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), a nonprofit organization committed to promoting transparency , provides updated environmental information about various countries.

T.M Jayatilaka, in his scholarly analysis of the framework of the rights of nature, noted that it represents a paradigm shift from the Western legal culture of consumerism, capitalism, to include philosophies from indigenous groups that are more respectful to nature. In addition to the country cases cited earlier, he added Colombia which recognizes the rights of a river, New Zealand, and the United States. New Zealand’s concept of Rights of Nature evolved by way of agreement between and government and indigenous tribes before its transformation into legislation. It first bestowed legal personhood upon an indigenous tribal area and a river – a symbolic act, a process of government’s reparation efforts for past historical injustices. In the United States, Supreme Court Justice, William Douglas, argued that public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of legal personhood upon natural entities. A local government in Pennsylvania passed a law banning sewage sludging stating that it is a violation of the rights of nature.

And, finally, there is Pope Francis’ encyclical, Laudato Si on climate change and justice, and about humanity’s collective responsibility to care for our environment.

My e-mail, florangel.braid@gmail. com