ELC Inspires: UN Representative Myra Jackson

At Earth Law Center, our governance committee brings together bright minds and deep thinkers. In 2021, we are more committed than ever to transparency, cooperation and diversity within the organization. One of these key committee members is Myra Jackson. A virtuoso in many subjects ranging from electrical engineering, climate change and public wellness to organizational emotional intelligence and global spiritual traditions, Myra is a longtime advocate for rights of Nature.

Getting Here

From a young age, Myra was fascinated by all that came her way. Growing up in San Diego, everything was big: from the sky to her curiosity and ideas. In explaining her journey, Myra says,

“I've walked a spiral, a very dynamic spiral of feeling connected to the macro and the micro, aware of the inner life and inner processes. I am fascinated with that at the nano level.”

 Though an aficionado of books and learning, she stays grounded. She carries a “deep appreciation for feeling myself a part of Nature, knowing all of us, in fact, are a part of Nature.”

 This love of Nature and curiosity about our inner and outer worlds has led Myra on a journey that includes participating in the open working group at the United Nations that brought about the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. She continues to work with the United Nations Expert Platform on Harmony with Nature and is a delegate to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Credit: Chris Ensey via Unsplash

Where She Belongs

Myra’s curiosity has always helped her lean into the unknown. Throughout her many career paths, she has often been in spaces where there weren't women, let alone black women. A sense of confidence and belonging has helped her navigate these periods:

“I never thought about it as being the only one [black woman] in the group. I felt that I was where I belonged, simply because that was where conversations or activities were happening that were of interest to me.”

One of the things she appreciates about the Earth Law Center is the deep respect for and cooperation with Indigenous peoples. “We are connecting with those that still have a sense of relatedness to the Earth, through working with Indigenous peoples and sovereign nations.”

Leaving a better world for her great-grandchildren has become one of the major pillars of Myra’s life and she doesn’t shy away from the big questions:

“Each day I'm listening and asking from the biosphere, ‘what activities support the living space of all beings on the planet? How do we restore the earth in a way that there's a place for all existence, for all to exist whole?’ I'm listening for a new future that will raise the whole and give space for all.”

Credit: Adobe Stock

Law Enshrines Our Values

Myra’s vision and Earth Law Center’s is different from traditional environmental law:

“We understand that where Nature is violated, human rights violations occurred in tandem. Earth Law recognizes the axiomatic relationship between people and Nature.  When Nature is protected, we are stronger in body, mind and spirit. Linking the wellness of Nature and the wellness of people as one dynamic is what humanity is waking up to as we live through an array of converging crises.”

Serving as the UN representative and focal point for Earth Law Center offers Myra a way to help bring nature-centric approaches into global and local policy-making foras where decisions impact people and planet.  She feels the big shift will occur in the social dimension as the  values of society are reconciled with the natural world. Then, the law will evolve to enshrine that newly forged social contract  as ecocentric law.

For Myra, “Earth Law Center offers one measure of entering into this restoration of relationship, cooperation and collaboration with the  earth and a path for humanity to move toward living in harmony with Nature.”

Interpreting the United States Return to the Paris Agreement

Local climate activists around the world rejoiced on the first day of Biden’s term. The new president issued an executive order to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. This act shows his commitment to re-establishing the nation as a global leader regarding the climate crisis. The president has ambitious goals, including putting the US on a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. But no man is an army, and the US will need to implement a series of aggressive domestic climate policies and new legislation from Congress for the United States to reach its goals. Will the United States legislators follow Biden’s lead in passing climate-related legislation? And how much good will that do?

A Step Backwards

In December of 2015, 196 countries signed the first global agreement aimed at reducing emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases. At the core of the Paris Agreement was the idea that every country, rich or poor, would set goals to curb carbon emissions to slow down the effects of climate change. The Paris Agreement was a monumental milestone in the global fight against climate change.

With a long-term objective to achieve a climate-neutral world by mid-century, the agreement allows each country to set its emission-reduction targets, known as a national determined contribution (NDCs). Although the United States was instrumental in the design and negotiation of the Paris Agreement, it became the only nation to withdraw from the agreement, under the Trump administration. The decision was wildly unpopular among environmentalists and activists.

The US shocked the world with its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Donald Trump.

In 2017, as a signal to the world that the United States would still honor its commitment, the “We Are Still In” declaration was announced. More than 3,600 leaders from America’s cities, states, tribes, businesses, colleges, and universities signed in to say that they would continue to support climate action to meet the commitments of the Paris Agreement. One of the governing bodies of the We Are Still in declaration is the U.S. Climate Alliance, composed of 25 states, seeks to continue pursuing the climate goals on a state level.  

When the Obama administration entered the Paris Agreement, the US pledged to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. Four years later, if Biden wants to meet this goal, he will need to introduce drastic measures that can turn this long term goal into short-term policy. To do so, he will need the help of broad organizations like the U.S. Climate Alliance, and frontline organizations like Earth Law Center.

Local communities must be involved in building strategy to protect their lands. Image credit: Wilderness Society

Local Policy that Works

Policy changes on a national scale will be difficult to realize if local communities do not have the resources needed to make changes. A national government ambitiously acting to save the planet certainly sets the tone for change, but it’s been shown again and again that local action works best.

Earth Law Center and other leading practitioners released a Community Toolkit for Rights of Nature to guide local governments in harmonizing their environmental programs with the needs of Nature. If you’re a local climate activist or just someone concerned about your hometown environment, our Community Toolkit is a great way to join the movement and make a positive change for the planet. Your local river, mountain, prairie, or public park is counting on you!

Download our toolkit.

You can help!

• Donate to ELC

• Volunteer with ELC

• Connect with us on social media and sign up for our newsletter

• Contact ELC if you want to work on your own river rights campaign

Keystone XL Canceled: Is This A Precedent for Biden’s Environmental Policy?

In the stack of executive orders signed by Joe Biden on his first day as number 46, the developers of the Keystone XL pipeline saw their permits revoked. How will this action impact the future of the project and what does it say about Biden’s environmental policy?

Why are we still talking about Keystone XL?

In 2011, the Keystone XL pipeline became a national controversy when protestors gathered at the White House. Among them were Indigenous leaders, religious figures, climate scientists, landowners, and environmentalists.

The KXL pipeline would be used to transport tar sand crude oil from oil fields in Alberta to refineries on the Texas coast. Tar sand crude oil releases up to 20% more greenhouse gas emissions than other crude oils. It is also more corrosive, which means pipeline leaks are not uncommon. These leaks are hazardous for the natural ecosystem and human communities. Supporters of the pipeline argue that it would create up to 60,000 direct and indirect jobs in the US and Canada.

After much hand wringing, Obama rejected the plans for the pipeline in 2015. But in 2017, Donald Trump brought the project back to life, not only reinstating the permits, but also clearing the way for developers by loosening regulations. Now, Joe Biden has once again revoked the permits, blocking construction.

The KXL pipeline would create a shortcut of the existing pipeline from Alberta to Nebraska, cutting through Indigenous and protected lands

What has Biden’s action accomplished?

By putting a stop to pipeline construction, Biden has drawn enormous public support but also enormous criticism, from both sides of the aisle. Rural counties, like Valley County in Montana, were counting on the tax revenue generated by the pipeline. Further, investors on the Canadian side of the project are disappointed and pushing for consequences. The province of Alberta invested more than $1.5 billion in the project, and is calling for consequences.

Joe Biden’s swift action to stop construction of the KXL pipeline indicates his campaign commitment of taking climate change seriously. Hopefully he will act ambitiously; he is up against a lot. Keystone XL is only one of several contested pipeline projects in the US today, like the Dakota Access and Line 3 pipelines. Only time will tell if he will continue to make policy steps forward to protect the environment.

 What does this mean for the Earth Law Center?

Leaders, activists and communities are listening to see how much action Biden is willing to take against climate change. Biden has the power to create federal programs that would fund institutional and frontline action to better preserve our planet.  Will he use it?

At Earth Law Center, we hope to see the rise of a new generation of law that recognizes the interconnectedness between humans and Nature and our responsibility to protect and defend Nature.

To this end, we provide frontline support to the very same communities standing up against projects like the KXL. new generation of law that recognizes the interconnectedness between humans and Nature and our responsibility to protect and defend Nature.

Get involved by volunteering for us, donating, or even subscribing to our newsletter . We’re counting on you!

A Story of Earth Law Center

Grant Wilson, Executive Director

“Earth lawyer wanted.” This wasn’t the exact language used, but my career at Earth Law Center (ELC), like many interesting things in life, began in response to an internet advertisement eight years ago. I was a young lawyer who had studied law for the sole purpose of defending nature. The idea of revolutionizing the law so that it worked for all species, not just humans, resonated deeply. I couldn’t wait to start.

I dove right in, learning about the Rights of Nature, Earth jurisprudence, ecological economics, human environmental rights, and other staples of the field. These and other legal movements comprise “Earth law.” When my family asked me to explain it, I would say that currently, environmental law plays defense. For instance, it prevents extinctions and puts some conditions on development. Earth law, on the other hand, plays offense, requiring humans to actually restore Nature to health.

Back then, the idea of Rights of Nature was, compared to today, relatively obscure, with a few victories, such as in Ecuador (2008) and a handful of U.S. communities (beginning in 2006). Of course, Indigenous peoples have for millennia understood that Nature is alive and that humans have a responsibility to protect it. But most Western lawyers—even the idealists—thought that a legal system that enfranchises Nature was simply unrealistic.

I dug in and we kept fighting. Slowly but surely, along with our partners, we started to win. Lawyers, judges, and politicians became educated about the flaws of our current legal system and how we could correct them. Legislation and sweeping court decisions began to recognize the Rights of Nature, now established at some level in at least twelve countries, along with other Earth-centered legal movements. Law journal articles began to pile up. Media took notice. Once the Guardian and the New York Times write about a movement, it becomes real to the average household. We turned a corner and became a force to be reckoned with.

Earth Law Center itself grew from a small team of a few extremely dedicated individuals to a group of dozens of staff, interns, volunteers, and active Board members. Along the way, I witnessed many highs: laws recognizing rights of rivers that ELC had drafted, an “Earth Law” textbook, a new Latin American program, and courtroom wins. I also witnessed lows: fundraising challenges, legal victories that came so close but fell short, and plenty of skepticism.

More recently, I have also enjoyed the opportunity to put my stamp on the organization since I became Executive Director. I took what I learned from two wonderful Executive Directors before me and carried their work forward while making my own mark.

In 2021, I hope to make progress towards two specific goals to continue ELC’s development. My first goal is to strengthen ELC’s status as an equitable and progressive organization. This begins with challenging our own power structures. To this end, I have been working the last six months to envision how ELC can become a horizontal, democratically run organization in order to promote equity and empower a greater diversity of voices. We are nearing completion of this process. Everyone in ELC will become a leader in their own space.

My second goal is to scale our work. This means new partnerships—we cannot do it all alone, and we always welcome collaborators in the space. It also means creating replicable legal models, such as “Rights of Rivers” laws that governments worldwide can customize and adopt, and “Earth law” courses that any law school can teach. It is time to mainstream the movement.

Earth Law Center has come a long way in a short amount of time. We hope that in another ten or twenty years, we can look back at this moment—the start of a new year—as the beginning of something great.

Advancing Legal Guardianship for Nature

Humans routinely benefit from legal guardians, such as children who can’t always advocate for their best interests without some help. Why, then, do we not have a guardian system to protect our fragile Mother Earth? This is beginning to change as the Rights of Nature are increasingly put into practice through legal guardians.

What is the guardianship model of ecosystem protection?

The guardianship model of ecosystem protection is a key political framework emerging from the development of Earth Law worldwide, creating standards for decision-making based on the principles of sustainability, responsibility, reciprocity, and interconnectedness. Drawing inspiration from Indigenous perspectives, guardianship bodies allow local communities to speak on behalf of ecosystems—bodies of water, mountain ranges, forests, and others—that cannot physically speak for themselves.

When implemented effectively, guardianship bodies ensure that ecosystems are treated as living entities with intrinsic rights and political representation rather than property allocated strictly for human use. Although they act independently, guardianship bodies present a unique opportunity to assemble governments that are more inclusive of Indigenous populations, many of whom have intimate spiritual connections to their ancient tribal lands. 

Types of Guardians

While there is no universally accepted formula for the composition of guardianship bodies, New Zealand can serve as a blueprint for other communities considering the adoption of Rights of Nature guardianship frameworks. In accordance with the Māori belief that views the Whanganui River as a living whole, the government of New Zealand granted the River legal personhood status in 1978 under the name Te Awa Tupua. The Ministry of Conservation then formed a guardianship body composed of both Indigenous and Western representatives, who have since regularly exercised their collective authority to protect the interests of the river.

In general, guardianship bodies should include many types of knowledgeable representatives and stakeholders from the ecosystem’s region, including but not limited to the following:

• Indigenous Peoples: For centuries, Indigenous populations have lived in a sacred coexistence with their natural surroundings. It is therefore critical to include Indigenous peoples in ecosystem guardianship, as the interconnectedness they foster with their tribal lands is unmatched by any other group.

• Activists: Around the world, environment rights defenders work tirelessly to protect vital ecosystems and natural resources like clean air and water.

• Region & Ecosystem-specific Nonprofit Organizations: Hundreds of thousands of organizations exist globally that focus on local community and local ecosystem issues. Members are incredibly passionate and possess an intimate knowledge of their region’s natural areas.

• Federal, State & Local Governments: Governmental representatives can often provide additional power and helpful insights on legislative processes, key stakeholders, and historical contexts that surround a given issue. Although governments can play an important role in guardianship bodies, they must act independently to ensure they always act in the best interest of Nature.

Fundamental to the theory behind guardianship bodies is the principle that all relevant interests must be adequately represented. Ideally, state and federal governments should provide funding while non-state interests make decisions at local levels. Additionally, because the guardian body might include interests that are incongruous with each other, communities can choose to designate an oversight or advisory commission composed of local officials, tribal members, environmental scientists/ biodiversity experts, and local community members to (1) Provide advice when the legal guardians request so, and (2) To have a final say when there is deadlock in the guardianship body’s decision-making process. This system of broad representation managed by checks and balances offers the best opportunity for the protection of Nature’s interests and rights, both in courts and throughout wide-ranging policy and social fora.

Advocating for Guardianship in the Courts

In September, Earth Law Center, along with the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, the Center for Biological Diversity, International Rivers, and the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, submitted an amicus brief to Ecuador’s Constitutional Court seeking the application of Rights of Nature principles to save the Los Cedros forest from the threat of mining. Among other requests, the brief called for the appointment of legal guardians for Nature to advocate for and oversee the protection of the Key Biodiversity Area. On November 2, the court conducted a day-long virtual hearing on the case, the outcome of which will shape the future of mining throughout Ecuador and serve as a precedent for Rights of Nature cases worldwide.

We must continue to advocate for robust, transparent, and independent guardianship bodies in the context of Rights of Nature. This will help solve one of the movements major shortcomings thus far—the lack of enforcement of many strong Rights of Nature laws. ELC will continue to advocate for the development of cutting-edge guardianship bodies in all of our advocacy, legal drafting, and amicus briefs.

What You Can Do

Earth Law Center seeks to secure practical rights for all of Nature, without which the human race cannot persist. We have decades of experience helping communities develop guardianship frameworks that best meet their unique needs.

The Global Pact for the Environment

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Guest blog by Ben Thomas

This year, President Trump’s first term comes to a close. These previous four years of his presidency were marked by policy debates over issues such as immigration, trade, and now a global pandemic. Another topic of concern for the Trump administration, and an agenda relentlessly pushing forward, is rolling back regulations enacted by his predecessor.  A great bulk of these Obama-era policies are composed of climate and environmental regulations, and the President has largely succeeded in dismantling them.

Whether rolling back rules on air and water quality, or slashing restrictions on power plant carbon dioxide emissions, the Trump administration’s actions are putting the health of people and our planet at risk. But despite these decisions from the top, many lower governing bodies such as states, cities, communities, and other stakeholders such as businesses remain committed towards policies focused on environmental protection, such as promoting shifts to renewable sources of energy or joining coalitions supporting the Paris agreement.

While these actions are inspiring, more large-scale approaches are necessary to deal with the climate crisis. It was only less than two years ago that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that a 2°C rise of global average temperatures above pre-industrial levels would be disastrous for the planet and its inhabitants.

For such an enormous feat, voluntary action on behalf of regional governments and the private sector will not be enough. We need a stronger approach from the international community, an agenda that can lay the path forward through strong, multilateral commitments between nations. One possible solution could be the Global Pact for the Environment, the world’s most encompassing environmental legal initiative.

THE GLOBAL PACT: WHAT IS IT, AND WHY IS IT NECESSARY?

Possibly the next major UN environmental initiative of the century, the Global Pact for the Environment proposes the adoption of a legally binding treaty whose draft text was based on the principals of the right to a healthy environment and the duty to take care of the environment. This would be an important step for international law, shifting the rights of nature closer to the rights of humans. 

Advocates of the Global Pact also argue that the such a comprehensive legal instrument is necessary to fill the “gaps” in international environmental law, clarify and define important environmental principals, and improve coordination between overlapping bodies. This type of umbrella text would ultimately ensure that its component principles are feasibly integrated and implemented in global and national legal systems.

The Global Pact’s adoption could also contribute towards global environmental constitutionalism. In essence, this means that as its principles are transformed into compulsory environmental actions, the process of environmental norms being integrated into national legal systems could be accelerated. The movement for Environmental constitutionalism has been growing around the world, and the Global Pact would only help accelerate the process of countries adding environmental protection to their lists of fundamental values of governance.

Another important quality of the Global Pact’s enshrined principles, based off the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, is that they would form binding obligations. These environmental covenants currently exist, but they lack the heft of being considered accepted norms. For example, due to being a soft-law instrument, some of the Rio Declaration’s principles, like the precautionary principle, have been subject to conflicting interpretations. This has consequently led to failures in effective implementation and enforcement. The Global Pact would settle the question of which principles are recognized as norms, fast-tracking their application across national legal systems.

Photo by Patrick Hendry on Unsplash

50 YEARS IN THE MAKING

How did the Global Pact initiative come into being, and where is it heading? The movement for creating a global legal framework for environmental protection can be traced back to the Stockholm Conference of 1972. This landmark event led to the creation of domestic environmental laws around the world, and even the advent of multiple national environmental ministries. Despite this impact, the conference’s resulting declaration was a soft-law instrument with no legal force.

The next major leap forward for the movement was the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Setting forth constitutional principles for global environmental governance, the Rio Declaration catalyzed the adoption of customary norms, many of which were adopted into international treaties. The soft-law principles of the Declaration laid the groundwork for the Global Pact, igniting a worldwide debate on the necessity of an all-encompassing legal framework.

In 2015, the legal think tank Club de Juristes released a report recommending the adoption of a Universal Pact to combine environmental law into one all-encompassing instrument. The report piggybacked off the success of the recent Paris Agreement and international support continued to grow through 2017, when over 100 environmental law experts from more than 40 countries convened to finalize a draft text. Later that year, the group of experts, led by COP 21 president Laurent Fabius, published the white paper Toward a Global Pact for the Environment.

International favor continued to grow at this time, with over 40 heads of state expressing support at the Summit on a Global Pact for the Environment. Action on behalf of the UN General Assembly was finalized in May of 2018 with the adoption of the resolution “Towards a Global Pact for the Environment.” 143 states voted to adopt the resolution with only 5 against, one of those five being the United States.

One condition of the resolution was for the UN Secretary General to prepare a report, which upon release in November 2018 expressed that international environmental law could indeed be strengthened by a comprehensive and unifying legal instrument. A working group, established to make recommendations to the UN General Assembly on the matter, met for three substantive meetings in Nairobi during 2019.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

WHERE IS THE PACT NOW, AND WHAT’S NEXT?

As opposed to previous milestones within the Global Pact initiative, member states struggled to find consensus during the Nairobi meetings. The recommendations adopted by states were a firm setback compared to the original objectives of the initiative, taking the form of a vague declaration of encouraging actions that lack any binding substance. Most disappointingly, the recommendations proclaim that the path forward now lies in States making a “political declaration” on the matter in 2022, the 50th anniversary of the Stockholm Conference.

So, what’s next? Well, supporters of the initiative are hopeful that continued efforts could lead to a formal adoption of the Pact in 2022. Here in the United States, shifting political tensions regarding climate change could also lead to future support for such action. If the US government wishes to address concerns, it should take the lead in multi-lateral negotiations and help formulate the discussion. Instead, if our political situation in two years mirrors that of today’s, we may see the United States sidelined as the international community moves forward with shaping global environmental law. The US might desire avoiding such a situation as the disastrous effects of climate change worsen globally. Perhaps the country may even want to lead the charge against the threat, as it has done with other post World War II crises. This is the opportunity to showcase it.

Ecocide and the Importance of Prevention

Guest blog by Ben Thomas

In this time of crisis and uncertainty, I’ve found some solace in a little morning routine I’ve made for myself. Once I’m out of bed, I have a coffee and glue my eyes to the TV as I wait for Andrew Cuomo, the governor of my home state of New York, to make his morning address on the state of the coronavirus pandemic. While there is evidence that the outbreak of cases in New York could have been minimized with swifter action, the strict measures later imposed have put the state in a favorable position compared to other parts of the country. With the number of new cases appearing to be declining, the governor claims that evidence-based policies will now be critical in order to keep the virus at bay. This includes actions like contract tracing and the systematic reopening of businesses, but I am aware that the rate of Covid-19 cases could easily spike again in New York, as it has in other states. Now that we are a few months into the pandemic, this game of chess between the government and the virus has shed light on a crucial lesson: that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

While many governments around the world were quick to implement reactionary policies to contain the outbreak, some researchers were already spreading the message of prevention, speaking out about what factors ignite epidemics. Many diseases like Ebola, HIV, and now Covid-19 have a history of spreading to humans from wildlife, and studies show that the number and frequency of zoonotic disease outbreaks has been increasing over recent decades. This flood of new diseases is already proving to be one of the 21st century's greatest threats towards humanity, and a new understanding is forming about how human activity has increased our exposure to the viruses and pathogens at the center of it all.

“We cut the trees; we kill the animals or cage them and send them to markets. We disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from their natural hosts. When that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it.” wrote David Quammen, author of Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic, in a New York Times article.

“Possibilities for zoonotic disease transmissions.” Image from U.S. Government Accountability Office from Washington, DC, United States. Licensed under Public domain

Research shows that the rise of many diseases is linked to environmental change and human behavior. As environmental degradation occurs on a larger scale, we become more exposed to wildlife, increasing the likelihood that an infectious disease will make the transition from animals to humans. For example, take this recent Stanford University study that focused on deforestation in Uganda. Combining satellite imagery and in-person surveys, researchers analyzed the factors that led to physical interactions between humans and wild primates in different areas of the country. What they found was quite interesting: It wasn't the large areas of forest with dense primate populations that saw the most interactions, but small patches of forest that were bordered by human populations.

Widespread environmental degradation is already a topic of international concern. For example, the deforestation ravaging the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil has gotten significant media attention. In the Amazon, an area the size of a soccer field is cleared out every minute, and as more forest is converted to farmland, human-caused fires have increased in size and frequency. Last year, deforestation in the Amazon during the first 8 months of 2019 rose 76% above the rate in 2018, the highest overall in a decade, and this led to larger and more uncontrollable fires. As the fires raged, the Amazon began receiving serious international attention.

Millions of dollars were pledged to fight the fires, some countries froze aid to the region to pressure the government to act, and French President Emmanuel Macron even threatened to end a trade deal with Brazil. The private sector also rallied behind the cause. Companies called for a reduction in the reliance on deforestation, and many boycotted Brazilian industries.

It is crucial to make sure that the international response is effective and carefully targets those actually responsible for harm. Economically starving a population of people in response to the actions of their government will not get to the root of the problem. The Brazilian people, especially indigenous communities, remain the greatest victim of the deforestation of the Amazon. Meanwhile, members of Brazil’s leadership and wealthy corporations (including those based in the U.S.) encourage and benefit from the rainforest’s exploitation and deforestation.

Cases like the Amazon’s display the importance of developing a global legal framework in the name of preventing nature’s destruction. If the international community can come together to combat deforestation, why has it been so difficult to get preventative policies on the books?

“Fires and Deforestation on the Amazon Frontier.” Image by Jesse Allen and Robert Simmon. Licensed under Public domain.

Enter Ecocide

Ecocide has a few varying definitions, but all cases refer to the widespread destruction of nature and ecosystems such as which occurred in the Amazon in 2019. Like genocide, ecocide is of international concern, not only because of the aforementioned public health implications, but because without preventative laws put in place these catastrophic events will continue to put our planet and the life that lives on it at risk.

The greatest champion of establishing a set of international laws against ecocide is the late Polly Higgins, who notably claimed that “Ecocide is the missing international crime of our time.” While the few countries that have existing ecocide laws mostly base the crime off a requirement of criminal intent, Higgins argues that ecocide should be a strict liability crime. Under this standard, a person or entity that committed ecocide would be responsible for the consequences of the crime, regardless of the intent behind the action. On top of increasing the effectiveness of enforcement measures, the existence of strict liability would also place the main focus of policy on prevention.

International criminal laws against ecocide actually exist, but they relegate it to times of war. The Rome Statute, the major legal instrument in international criminal law, refers to the act as “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment…” This falls under War Crimes, one of the four crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Polly Higgins sought to make ecocide the fifth crime under their jurisdiction, establishing it beyond just the scope of military acts. In 2010, she submitted a draft amendment of the Rome Statute to the United Nations. Her definition of the crime of Ecocide is below:

“Ecocide is the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished.”

Since Higgins death in 2019, her work has been carried on by her Stop Ecocide campaign co-founder Jojo Mehta. Jojo and the Stop Ecocide campaign are currently at the forefront of the ecocide legal movement, furthering efforts to get ecocide recognized as a crime in international criminal law.

Artist interpretation of ecocide. Image by Marek Studzinski from Pixabay.

 Problems with Enforcing Ecocide

It has been historically difficult to prosecute environmental crimes of this scale, especially when those thought to be responsible are nation states or corporate entities. One reason concerns the process of identifying the victim, which in many cases is nature itself. Nature is generally not considered a holder of legally protected rights, and international statutes tend to limit the definition of a victim to humans.

Finding a responsible party to connect to the crime of ecocide can be even more difficult. Let’s return to the 2019 fires in the Brazilian Amazon. In this case, who were the actors at fault? Was it Brazil’s President, Jair Bolsonaro, who slashed enforcement measures, encouraged development, and eventually declared that the deforestation would never stop? What about the companies that incentivize the fires, creating the demand that finances the deforestation in the region? Lastly, it was individuals that ultimately carried out the burning. Whether a farmer trying to feed their family or an agent acting on behalf of a larger organization, are they any more responsible than the aforementioned parties?

It is important to note that in a global economy where wealthy countries exploit the land and labor of poorer countries, holding the responsible actors accountable can be difficult when they are far removed from the scene of the crime.

The way ecocide is framed can also pose as a challenge to its application as a crime. This is because, in many cases, the act is an externality of another. During a war, some might view destroying nature as necessary to defeating the enemy. During peace, pollution of a river could be considered a negative side effect of increasing manufacturing production. These are both examples of nature being thought of as something for human use. If, as with genocide, the goal of regulating ecocide is to prevent it as much as possible, a new legal framework, one that goes beyond existing environmental laws and paves the way for efficient enforcement, will be necessary.

Conclusion

A discussion I have heard come up a lot regarding the coronavirus outbreak is how to balance the cost to public health with the cost to the economy. It seems the major consensus is that life must be prioritized above all else, and we as a society will deal with the economic fallout after we solve the public health crisis. Furthermore, an economic system can’t thrive when the public is unhealthy and its future is uncertain.

Earth Law takes a similar approach to the ecocide challenge. Under Earth Law, economic benefits to humans are never prioritized over an ecosystem’s right to thrive and survive. The establishment of ecocide finds a nice place within Earth Law, as an ecological consciousness is assumed, and harm to nature is not simply an externality of reaping economic benefits for humans.

Just as this current crisis has brought about changes in the ways through which we empower our communities, we can also change with ways through which we empower the natural world. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Why High School Education is Important For Students to Tackle Global Environmental Challenges

Almost two decades ago in 2003, Glendale High School students planted 500 trees in the Douglas Complex Burn, the author of this blog post argues that environmental education for today’s high school students would benefit from more tree planting and hands on activity (Image from Oregon Department of Forestry is licensed under CC BY 2.0)

By Charlotte Moog

Introduction from Earth Law Center:

This week’s blog is a guest submission from an eighth-grade student in New York, Charlotte Moog. She writes about how to improve high school education so that students can better tackle global environmental challenges. At Earth Law Center, part of our mission is to train the next generation of environmental leaders with the tools they need to save the planet. Although much of our education focuses on training college students and legal professionals, we also work with younger age groups to educate them on basic Earth law concepts—Rights of Nature, legal guardianship of Nature, nonhuman rights, and so forth. As you read this week’s blog, consider the importance of educating and empowering students of all ages to serve as stewards for the planet. 

Environmental Education in Nature

The best way to give students the education to be prepared for environmental challenges is to leave the classroom

High schools around the world are incorporating environmental education into the classroom, but not with enough urgency or impact.

Typically, schools invite a volunteer from a charity or organization to come and talk with students about what they do, how they do it, and how to get involved. Meetings might end with an emotional video showing upsetting photos and distressing statistics, aimed to inspire the students into action. The students then leave perhaps feeling motivated, but no doubt heavy-hearted, as they move onto their next class. By the time school is over, though, many students will have forgotten about the presentation and statistics. Once the next day arrives, their attention shifts to the upcoming test or the over-due essay, the dreadful statistics and video forgotten. (Of course, some schools and programs advance cutting-edge environmental education, but this not the norm.)

What if there was more action?

Students could get outside and pick up trash and recycle plastic as they forge a deeper connection with Nature. They could mail letters to the government or local town hall demanding the phase-out of fossil fuels, a ban on animal testing, or even the recognition of the Rights of Nature—a focus-area of Earth Law Center. Students could develop their own educational campaigns to inform local shops and stores, neighboring schools, community centers, family, and friends about important environmental issues and solutions. It could take as little as twenty minutes. Not even the whole afternoon. All it takes is a little walk, a little time, a little action to ensure a memory is remembered.

Even more than this afternoon, high schools (and other secondary schools) need to integrate environmental education into the curriculum in a permanent way. In order for students to take global challenges seriously, schools need to take the impending environmental calamity seriously. In order for schools to do so, legislation needs to change the curriculum to mandate that all high school students have to take environmental studies in order to graduate. It should be a requirement, much like history or math.

In turn, the environmental studies requirement would have to leave ripples of change outside the classroom walls. There needs to be an action component in environmental studies. It is not enough to talk about environmental issues, but students and schools need to do something about it.

Action Across The Globe

Across the globe, countries are beginning to find ways to include children and schools in environmental conservation. Schools and communities are working together to give their students the inspiration they need to change the worldwide problems.

In the Philippines, all it took was a shovel, dirt, and ten trees to get their students involved. On December 5, 2018, House Bill 8728 was passed in the Philippines, changing countless lives. The act requires all students graduating from elementary school, high school, and college to plant at least ten trees each in order to complete the academic year. The objective was to continue and strengthen environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, as well as adjustment for poverty reduction and food security.

This isn’t the only time where the Philippines had everyone engaged in biodiversity preservation. About forty years earlier, in 1977, Presidential Decree 1153 required every citizen to plant one tree every month for five consecutive years. Both requirements are a major step towards a greener future.

Tree Planting (Image by Alex Indigo licensed under CC BY 2.0)

In 1988, the Brazilian Constitution established that environmental education (EE) is a citizenship right and a duty of the state. By 2012, Brazil established the National Curriculum Guidelines for Environmental Education. The schools believe everyone in the community should know why environmental efforts are taking place. Schools have begun projects like building green roofs, electrical systems powered by solar energy, bamboo furnishings, botanical gardens ,and ecological streams. These projects include a variety of different opportunities for everyone to take part in and enjoy.

In 2004, Kwazulu Natal in South Africa become an Eco-School. The school’s green environment not only taught the children about sustainable education, but influenced other schools do to the same. Kwasulu Natal started with their focus on water. Students learned how to turn recycled materials into hand-washers. The school also turned their attention to the trash polluting the area. The solution was to fix both the unhealthy eating and the litter by handing out new snacks with little or no packaging, while the students reused the waste for art projects, and hand-made crafts

The Tangerang Selatan School in Indonesia generated a school compost to battle the important problem of food waste. Students took it upon themselves to ban styrofoam food packaging, while others planted trees and flowers and were responsible for caring for the plants. Not only did the Tangerine Selatan School create an eco-friendly environment, it’s something the students can be proud of.

Sustainable schools are catching on everywhere; one school located in the Shin-Shing village in Taiwan planted ethnobotanical gardens, installed solar energy technology, and built an ecological stream. Each of these sustainable features changed the students’ education for the better, as well as directly benefiting the local society. The stream treated sewage, the garden provided a hands-on learned experience, and the part-time jobs helped out local residents. Funding was granted from the Taiwan Sustainable Campus Program and had positive outcomes for both the school and the community.

Some schools, like Al-Kawthar Secondary School in Beirut, Lebanon, have begun to raise awareness of climate change within their school community. Projects that involve tree-planting, crafts made with recycled materials, helping national forests, and conserving water are a few examples. Al-Kawthar Secondary School’s environmental committee hosts events discussing ways to save the Earth, getting the adults involved, as well. The committee also develops action plans recapping what was learned and achieved the previous year, and in result the students have a well-structured, thorough, and clever environmental course to learn and work from.

Other countries are working closer to home, integrating lessons on sustainable development and environmental conservation into everyday life at school. Schools are teaming up with various programs to include environmental education in their curriculums. Global Environmental Education Program (GEEP), Environmental Education (EE), Green Flag Green Schools, Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE), Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), National Education for Sustainable Development Workgroup (NESDW) are only a handful of programs working to make environmental education mandatory. Many countries like Italy, Denmark, Malaysia, Finland, Panama, Canada, and more have already begun working with these programs and included environmental education in their mandatory school curriculum. The aim for environmental literacy in schools is slowly making its way, and though the progress is slow it is gradual.

Earth Law Center has been doing its part to strengthen environmental education. Several years ago, they began hosting high school mock trials on the Rights of Nature in New York. Students learn the nuts and bolts of legal systems that recognize and enforce basic rights for Nature. Then they take sides—some serving as Nature’s legal representation, others acting on behalf of government or industry—and present Rights of Nature arguments in a mock courtroom setting. This exercise teaches students about shortcomings of our current environmental laws and challenges them to think critically about how our legal system can work better for Nature. 

This chart outlining the various elements of a “The Whole-School approach to Climate Change” is represented in many of the school systems that the author describes (Image from UNESCO licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0-IGO)

What The Adults Think

A recent Ipsos/NPR poll on how parents in the United States feel towards teaching their children about climate change in schools received very optimistic responses. 84% of parents of children under eighteen support schools teaching about climate change; 78% of Americans agree their children should start learning about climate change as a whole.  A second Ipsos/NPR poll reports that teachers agree with parents. In Washington, DC, teachers were interviewed about their thoughts on climate change, and how it should be taught. 82% agreed that the climate was changing, and 86% believed it should be addressed in schools.

Stubborn Problems in Environmental Education

Despite these bright spots, environmental education as a whole still needs to come a long way.

Charles Saylan, a biology professor at the University of California-Los Angeles, a Marine conservationist, and co-author of ‘The failure of Environmental Education (and How We can Fix It)’, tells a Yale Environment 360 interviewer that the U.S. public educational system fails to make environmental values a major concern. Saylan emphasized that raising awareness was only half of the problem. Students, he says, should be able to take environmental problems in their communities as well as learning about the political processes, which is what the schools should adopt into their systems.

“Environmental Education has failed because it is not keeping pace with environmental degradation, with human impacts on the environment. I also think that it’s failed to provoke action.”

I agree with Saylan. The theme of ‘action’ isn’t being emphasized enough in schools. How else are millions of students across the world going to change anything?

“We don’t see a lot of motivation in these kids,” Saylan admits. “They knew the material and said what was expected of them, but we don’t see a change in behaviour or willingness to give up something for the benefit of the environment.”

Again, Saylan is spot on. Without motivation and outcome, environmental education becomes another class, where the message is quickly forgotten almost as quickly as it is learned, leaving few tangible results.

Charles Saylan tells Yale Environment 360 that though they might not have all of the answers required for the change, the biggest issue is the lack of relevance. “I don’t think that environmental education as it’s currently taught directly affects the lives of the students we’re teaching.” Schools may be teaching their students, but nothing can force them to take the initiative to start something themselves, which is where the engagement plays a large role. “We provided open access to other programs that offered hands-on experience — whale watching, marine-mammal rehabilitation — things that kids could get interested in and then take part in as much as they liked.” Saylan’s observations confirm that there are two parts in environmental education — the teaching in the classrooms, and the activity outside.

“We had kids coming back weekly, not only because we were giving them a good time, but also because they were pulling trash out of the water, and they couldn’t ignore the mountain of junk that was coming out.  That was a real object lesson.”

Listening to the Students

Speaking from the point of view of a student, I think environmental education should start from a young age. It should be a mandatory class incorporated into the school’s curriculum, as it is essential to change our habits early in order to alter the climate’s trajectory. The classes should be woven into daily life; students should approach the subject as if it were history or math. Environmental education would be a credited class required in order to graduate high school. A successful class would take students out of the classroom and engaged in an environmental curriculum of action. Each pupil would graduate from high school with the knowledge to live a sustainable life and act in a sustainable way.

Earth Law Education

Along with environmental studies, curricula should also touch on Earth law, including the Rights of Nature and other ecocentric legal movements. These legal movements require action in order to ensure they succeed—writing letters to politicians, educating businesses about the benefits of operating in harmony with Nature, and so forth. by learning about Earth law and taking action within their communities, students will also gain a deeper understanding of how to represent the voice of Nature in law, politics, grassroots movements, and other areas. As students become professionals—business leaders, lawyers, politicians, educators, and so forth—this knowledge will permeate their work and lead to stronger protections for the planet.

Interested in learning more about Earth Law Center’s educational programs? Contact info@earthlaw.org

---

References

https://e360.yale.edu/features/green_failure_whats_wrong_with_environmental_education

https://www.fee.global

https://thegeep.org/learn/countries/denmark

https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/05/29/new-filipino-law-requires-every-student-to-plant-10-trees-if-they-want-to-graduate/#7990568e5aeb

http://congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/first_17/CR01007.pdf

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1977/06/06/presidential-decree-no-1153-s-1977/

https://www.wwfmy-esd.com/ecoschoolsprogramme

https://e360.yale.edu/features/green_failure_whats_wrong_with_environmental_education

http://www.nea.org/home/Green-Schools-Environmental-Education.html

Think Like a Fish: Pacific Philosophies and Climate Change

New Zealand, Photo by Rod Long on Unsplash

Guest Writing by: Distinguished Professor Dame Anne Salmond DBE CBE FBA FANAS FRSNZ FNZAH

Introduction from Michelle Bender, Ocean Rights Manager at Earth Law Center:  

Pacific Islanders are considered by many to be the leaders and pioneers of ocean conservation efforts. This is because they understand better than most the deep connection and kinship the human race has with the Ocean. In particular, Indigenous peoples of New Zealand are taking the lead creating a transformation in our relationship with the natural world—rivers, national parks, mountains—and the Ocean. They recognize that the natural world is an indivisible whole, the Ocean has authority (mana) and life force (mauri), and that the Ocean and climate are inextricably tied.

Earth Law Center has partnered with groups and individuals across the Pacific, including Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and Conservation International Pacific Islands Programme plan to create a Convention on the Rights of the Pacific Ocean.

In November 2018, the first meeting of partners and groups with an interest in recognizing the rights of the Pacific produced a Statement from the Collective Thinking of those present. This statement is meant to be used to invite communities, businesses, and governments to redefine their relationships with the Ocean at local, regional, and global scales. This initiative comes at a critical time in light of international negotiations to create a new biodiversity treaty for the high seas and, more broadly, the growing global environmental crisis.

Below we share writing from Anne Salmond, a partner with Earth Law Center in the effort to recognize ‘Ocean Rights’. Anne Salmond is a Distinguished Professor at the University of Auckland, prize-winning author on Māori life and one of New Zealand's most prominent scholars in history and anthropology. The following writing “Think like a Fish: Pacific Philosophies and Climate Change” was previously published as an afterword in the book, Pacific Climate Cultures: Living Climate Change in Oceania (De Gruyter Open Press).

Think like a Fish is a story of culture, relationships, and kinship; a story to ground us all and remind us to place ourselves within the larger Earth community, as a part of the whole; a story of what is possible if we think like a fish.

An Afterword, Think like a Fish: Pacific Philosophies and Climate Change, in eds. Tony Crook and Peter Rudiak-Gould. Pacific Philosophies and Climate Change. Pacific Climate Cultures: Living Climate Change in Oceania (De Gruyter Open Press), 155-159

 

His Highness Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Ta'isi Efi, the head of state of Samoa, opened this book by urging his readers to adopt a perspective based on va tapuia – ‘sacred relations between humans, animals, cosmos and the gods.’[1] He suggested we might think about climate change from the vantage-point of other life forms – a dog, perhaps, the ocean, the stars, trees, a bird or a fish; and explore Pacific worlds patterned by existential interlocks between people and other beings. 

In these ways of being, balanced exchanges between different life-forms generate health, peace and prosperity, while arrogance and greed breed ill-health, poverty and conflict.[2] While equilibrium is highly prized, it is always fragile. According to Maori ancestral chants, for instance, cosmic order is established in two main ways - by affinity and alliance, when different powers come together to create new forms of life; and by contestation and quarrelling, in which different beings separate (or are separated) from each other. 

According to the Te Arawa scribe Te Rangikaheke, for instance, at the beginning of the world there was just one founding ancestor, Rangi-nui the Sky Father and Papa-tuānuku the Earth Mother, a single being. For many pō (era of darkness) their children lived between them, cramped and frustrated.  Weary of their confinement, they began to talk about separating their parents so that light could enter the world.  Although the wind-ancestor Tāwhiri-matea disagreed with this idea, his older brothers ignored him.  After many unsuccessful attempts, Tāne, ancestor of the forests, lay on his back and pushed up with his legs, forcing earth and sky apart.

As Rangi wept for Papa, his tears became rivers and lakes, and she sent up mists to greet him.  Tormented by their grief, Tāwhiri-matea flew into a fury and attacked his brothers with whirlwinds and tornadoes, smashing Tāne’s trees to splinters, driving Rongo and Haumia’s root crops underground and lashing Tangaroa, the sea god into submission.  In the midst of this chaos, Tangaroa’s children fought with each other.  When Ika-tere, the ancestor of fish, taunted his brother Tū-te-wanawana, the ancestor of lizards, saying, ‘’You go inland, and be heaped up after fires in the fern!’ Tū-te-wanawana replied, ‘You go to sea, and be hung up in baskets of cooked food!’[3] After this quarrel, they went their separate ways.

Only Tū, the ancestor of people, stood tall in the face of Tāwhiri-matea’s onslaught.  For his bravery, he earned for his descendants the right to harvest his brothers’ offspring – birds, root crops, forest foods and trees, crayfish, shellfish and fish, although they had to ask the ancestors for permission. In Te Ao Māori, as in Samoan and other ancestral Pacific ways of living, the fundamental kinship between people and other life forms is never forgotten.

According to the Tainui scholar Pei te Hurinui Jones, the double spiral in Maori carving, painting and tattoo embodies this swirling emergence of the cosmos.[4] Unlike the linear arrow of modernist time, Maori space-time spins in and out from an ancestral source. When the sea ancestor Tangaroa breathes in, for instance, the sea spirals down his throat, forming a great vortex (Te Parata) at the heart of the ocean; the tide goes out and people die. As he breathes out, the tide flows and children are born into the world.  When Tāwhiri flies up to the highest heaven to fetch the baskets of knowledge, he ascends on a whirlwind. The spiral of space-time is at once destructive and creative.

Pei Te Hurinui Jones, Taken by an unidentified photograper. Location unknown / Public domain

To think like a fish, then, is to understand that apocalyptic storms may herald conflict and confusion, but also new forms of life. After millennia of sea living, Pacific islanders - especially fishers and navigators - are closely attuned to climatic shifts and changes. While ‘movements on the ocean are often unpredictable and surprising,’[5] their ancestors had the power to calm or raise particular winds, to smooth the sea or summon up waves to swamp the fleets of their enemies. In New Zealand, for instance, the early missionary Samuel Marsden spoke with a tohunga who controlled the winds and waters in the Hokianga harbour, and reported that according to the warrior chief Hongi Hika, the sea god Tangaroa lived in his forehead.[6]  When Marsden boarded a ship in the Bay of Islands, intending to take the errant missionary Thomas Kendall back to Port Jackson in defiance of Hongi’s wishes, the ship was wrecked before it left the Bay.  It was a fine, calm day, and Marsden could not understand what had happened. He had recently been told, however, about the wreck of another ship in the Hokianga, where the mate attacked some sacred rocks with a hammer, and the local taniwha (powerful water being) picked up his ship and smashed it on the rocks as he tried to sail out of the harbour.[7]

In this book, Maria Robertson describes exchanges with an elderly female navigator from Kiribati, Teueroa, and her connection with the ocean.  In a deep sense, she and the sea are one.  When Teueroa was born, her father took her umbilical cord out to sea and dropped into deep water, and in her early teens, she was initiated as a navigator when her father sailed out of sight of land, tossed her into the water and sailed away.  When he returned to pick her up, he asked her to point out the direction of the land. Later, he taught her how to predict the weather from the winds and stars. According to Teueroa, droughts that are explained by scientists as due to climate change have already been foretold by the stars. As Robertson remarks, 

[Given] the notion that the world is made of relationships, engaging in known and unknown ways, fixing and unfixing, always struggling and co-operating, the world emerges in these connections. And the notion of organised exchanges of energy … allows individuals to engage with systems and correct imbalances that could otherwise be said to be out of their control.[8]

These exchanges of energy may include songs, as well as ritual knowledge and other artistic interventions. As Elfriede Hermann and Wolfgang Kempf report, many Kiribati people address the prospect of catastrophic climate change with a prophetic song that exhorts them to ‘rise up’ and take practical action to avert the loss of their islands.[9] For New Guinea, Marian Strucke-Garbe describes powerful artistic responses.[10] Other examples include ‘Moana: The Rising of the Sea,’ a performance created by Vilsoni Hereniko at the University of Hawai’i that has featured at many international gatherings focused on climate change.[11]

In her account of Cyclone Pam in the Cook Islands, Cecile Rubow suggests that such storms (‘natural-cultural whirls’) may be reflected in ‘giant rotating, intensifying discursive systems’ that gather momentum across large networks, bringing together different knowledges and voices in ways that make different kinds of sense to different people. She suggests that ‘climate change’ is one of these spinning assemblages, sweeping across the islands and whirling together ancestral, Christian and scientific ideas, generating fear and vulnerability, practical responses and creative power.[12] 

Devastation after Cyclone Pam 14 March 2015 by Graham Crumb, licensed under CC BY-SA

This sense of being caught in relational vortices and yet having the power to strike new balances also emerges in John Connell’s account of the Carteret Islanders, a population of less than 1000 people who inhabit a cluster of six small atolls off Bougainville. While these people have been described by the global press as the first climate refugees - ‘frontline victims of the excesses of capitalism,’[13] they have suffered food, cash and timber shortages for at least half a century.  At the same time, tectonic shifts, seismic events, and local interventions such as dynamiting the reefs and building sea walls amplify their difficulties. Nevertheless, the discourse of climate change serves as a ‘weapon of the weak,’ giving them chances to build new lives in other places.

In this swirl of ideas, Pacific peoples have also been powerfully influenced by Christian narratives. As Jennifer Newell describes for Samoa and Emilie Nolet for Fiji, Biblical stories about God driving Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for their sin of eating forbidden fruit; Noah building the Ark to survive the Great Flood; and the Apocalypse, when the sun scorches the earth, the rivers dry up and there is darkness and pain in the land are echoed in local debates around climate change.[14]

These mythic narratives also underpin metropolitan accounts of climatic change. Ideas such as ‘the Anthropocene’, ‘anthropogenic impacts,’ ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘resource management’ all reflect Biblical stories in which God gives Adam and Eve ‘dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,’[15] putting people in control of the cosmos. An onto-logic in which all other beings are created for human purposes fosters a sense of exceptionalism and entitlement that helps to drive resistance to talk of climate change, biodiversity losses and related phenomena, alongside fears of Armageddon or being driven out of Paradise.  It is also very different from ancestral Pacific accounts in which all living phenomena including earth, sky, winds, rivers, birds, fish and people are linked together in kin networks, powered by reciprocal exchanges.

These kin-based philosophies have more in common with other strands in Western thought, for instance those that trace back to vitalist philosophies in the Enlightenment, and ideas about the ‘tree of life’ or the ‘web of life’ elaborated by scientists including Alexander Humboldt or Charles Darwin.[16] Ideas about complex networks and systems, symbiosis and ‘holobionts’ in the contemporary biological sciences[17] all resonate closely with Pacific ideas.

In these kinds of framings, it makes sense to ‘think like a fish’ – to consider the vantage-points of life forms other than human beings on planetary processes. In the context of attempts to sustainably manage the Pacific Ocean, for example, whether through exclusive economic zones or marine reserves, these perspectives might allow us to see that fish do not register such boundaries, and to come up with devices that do not allow them to be harvested to extinction.

If people and environment, culture and nature are not divided in ancestral ways of being in the Pacific, neither are mind and matter, theory and practice.   Engagements with Pacific forms of order are not just thought experiments, but also inform legal frameworks and practical action. In New Zealand, for instance, as part of the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, both the Urewera, the ancestral territory of Tūhoe people, and the Whanganui River have recently been recognised as legal beings in their own right, with their own entitlements to health and well-being. 

Treaty of Waitangi / William Hobson, James Freeman, and James Busby (English version); Henry Williams and Edward Williams (Māori translation) / Public domain

These laws have many practical implications, and not just for Maori people.  While they place obligations of care on the iwi concerned, they also fundamentally reshape relationships between all people and these ancestral beings.  For the Whanganui river, its restoration becomes a right, not an optional extra; and for the Urewera, once a major national park, the iwi has initiated a regime that seeks to manage people, rather than communities of plants and animals.  Once issued with tramping, hunting and fishing permits, visitors now enter into ‘friendship agreements’ with the Urewera, and are guided by young Tūhoe who introduce them to new ways of understanding this place that is an ancestor.[18]

Such philosophical experiments can also inform scientific projects.  In the Te Awaroa project, for instance, funded by the University of Auckland, teams of scientists and local experts draw on mātauranga Maori (ancestral knowledge) along with an array of natural and social sciences to listen to the ‘voice of the river’ in different parts of the country, studying rivers as living systems through time, with their plants, animals and people, to inform healthier futures. In the wider Pacific, too, star navigators are again sailing across the ocean, carrying out scientific research and raising urgent concerns about the state of this great sea with its dying reefs, depleted fish stocks, gyres of rubbish and drowning islands.

In relation to climate change, Maori ancestral perspectives suggest that this is among an array of symptoms that show interlinked living systems are moving away from a state of ora (health, well-being and abundance) towards a state of mate (ill-health, dysfunction, degradation and failure). Intensive agriculture that over-tills or over-grazes the land, for example, while using many imported inputs (diesel for machinery, chemical sprays and palm kernels as feed, in the case of intensive dairying) may also degrade aquifers, rivers, estuaries and harbours, contribute to biodiversity losses through mono-cropping and deforestation, and drive climate change through animal methane emissions, deforestation and the use of fossil fuels.

To ‘think like a fish’, then, is to recognise that aspects of modernist science may be non-adaptive.  In order to understand these interconnected processes, the separation of the social from the natural sciences and the fragmentation of the disciplines are profoundly unhelpful.  If we are to deal intelligently with climate change, new paradigms that foster intelligent inquiry into an array of intricate relational networks and patterns of exchange among planetary systems at different scales are urgently needed.

As Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Ta'isi Efi suggests, there is also a need to live differently – to confront human greed and the urge to exploit ‘natural resources’ for short term profit by considering the interests of future generations, and to pursue reciprocal exchanges that seek balance with other life forms, however elusive. The gravity of this challenge is highlighted by Nalau Bingeding’s account of a disjuncture in Papua New Guinea between the government’s powerful rhetoric about climate change in international fora and a lack of practical action at home.[19] On the island of Gau in Fiji, on the other hand, according to Veitayaki and Holland, the inhabitants are tackling climate change on many fronts through the Lomani Gau project, informed by rigorous inquiry and ancestral precedents.[20]

Across the contemporary Pacific, many thinkers are seeking to engage with climate change and related existential challenges by weaving together ancestral ideas with insights from the contemporary sciences, and activating these through innovative artistic, political and legal devices. In the face of apocalyptic visions that engender helplessness and despair, these experiments offer new ways of thinking, a sense of resilience and hope, and a will to take practical action:

As my mentor Eruera Stirling used to chant:

Whakarongo! Whakarongo! Whakarongo!      Listen! Listen! Listen!

Ki te tangi a te manu e karanga nei                 To the cry of the bird calling

Tui, tui, tuituiā!                                                 Bind, join, be one!

Tuia i runga, tuia i raro,                                    Bind above, bind below

Tuia i roto, tuia i waho,                                     Bind within, bind without

Tuia i te here tangata                                       Tie the knot of humankind

Ka rongo te pō, ka rongo te pō                         The night hears, the night hears

Tuia i te kāwai tangata i heke mai                   Bind the lines of people coming down

I Hawaiki nui, i Hawaiki roa,                             From great Hawaiki, from long Hawaiki

I Hawaiki pāmamao                                         From Hawaiki far away

I hono ki te wairua, ki te whai ao                     Bind to the spirit, to the day light

Ki te Ao Mārama!                                             To the World of Light!

---

FOOTNOTES

[1] Efi in Crook and Rudiak 2018, 5.

[2] Ibid, 3.

[3] Te Rangikaheke in Curnow 1983, 254.

[4] Jones 1959, 232.

[5] Robertson in Crook and Rudiak 2018, 36.

[6] Salmond 2017.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Robertson in Crook and Rudiak 2018, 45.

[9] Herman and Kempf in ibid, 20-28.

[10] Strucke-Garbe in ibid.

[11] Steiner 2015.

[12] Rubow in Crook and Rudiak 2018, 31.

[13] Connell in ibid, 58.

[14] Newell and Nolet in ibid.

[15] King James Bible, Genesis 1:28.

[16] Reill 2005, Normandin and Wolfe, eds. 2013; Lash 2016.

[17] Gilbert, Sapp and Tauber 2012, 326.

[18] For more detailed accounts of these experiments, see Salmond 2017.

[19] Bingeding in Crook and Rudiak 2018, 101-112.

[20] Veitayaki and Holland in ibid, 89-100.

---

REFERENCES

Crook, Tony and Rudiak-Gould, Peter 2018.  Encountering Climate Change and Scientific Prophecy in Oceania.

Curnow, Jenifer 1983. Wiremu Maihi Te Rangikaheke, M.A. thesis, University of Auckland.

Gilbert, Scott F., Sapp, Jan; and Tauber, Alfred L. 2012.  A Symbiotic View of Life: We have never been Individuals.’ The Quarterly Review of Biology 87/4, 325-341.

Jones, Pei te Hurinui 1959. King Potatau. Wellington, The Polynesian Society.

Lash, Scott 2016.  Life (Vitalism).  Theory Culture Society 23, 323-329.

Normandin, Sebastian and Wolfe, Charles T. eds. 2013. Vitalism and the Scientific Image in Post-Enlightenment Life Science 1800-2010. Dordrecht, Springer.

Reill, P.H., 2005. Vitalizing Nature in the Enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Salmond, Anne 2017. Tears of Rangi: Experiments across Worlds.  Auckland, Auckland University Press.

Steiner, Candice 2015. A Sea of Warriors: Performing an Identity of Resilience and Empowerment in the Face of Climate Change in the Pacific. The Contemporary Pacific 27/1, 147-180.

---

About the Author

Distinguished Professor Dame Anne Salmond DBE CBE FBA FANAS FRSNZ FNZAH

Anne Salmond

Anne Salmond is a Distinguished Professor in Māori Studies and Anthropology at the University of Auckland.   In 2013 she became the Kiwibank New Zealander of the Year. In 2017 she hosted Artefact, a TV series about the power of iconic taonga (treasures), past, present and future; with more episodes to come in 2020.

Dame Anne has written many prize-winning books on Māori life and early cross-cultural encounters in Aotearoa, Tahiti and the Pacific, and received the Prime Minister’s Award for Literary Achievement.

She has a strong interest in Maori and Pacific philosophies relating to land and sea, and a fascination with voyaging, reflecting on these in her latest book Tears of Rangi: Experiments across Worlds, a finalist for the Al-Rodhan Prize for Global Cultural Understanding from the British Academy.

Anne Salmond is a Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences in the US, Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, and Foreign Member of the American Philosophical Society. In 2018 she was awarded a Carl Friedrich von Siemens Research Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in recognition of lifetime achievements in research.

Dame Anne served on the founding Board of Te Papa Tongarewa and the Experts Advisory Committee for the Taputapuatea World Heritage site in Ra’iatea.  She is the patron of many cultural and environmental organisations, and co-founder of the Waikereru Ecosanctuary in Gisborne (https//www.waikereru.org).

Nature Has a Right to a Stable Climate System: Lessons from the Climate Change Youth Lawsuits

“YOUTH_v_GOV_IMG_1707-1” by Peg Hunter is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

By Ella Johnson

Introduction from Earth Law Center:

Within the past three centuries, the definition of what a “right” is and to whom it is owed has shifted. Rights that we take for granted today—such as the right to vote, bodily autonomy and freedom from discrimination—were previously unrecognized or even seen as fringe beliefs in the not so distant past. In this week’s blog, Ella Johnson argues that the impeding climate catastrophe of global warming will lead to greater acceptance of a new right, the right to a stable climate. This right is urgently needed for both humans and all other life on Earth. The legal movement to recognize the right to a stable climate has had some success, as well as some disappointing setbacks, but the author argues that coalition building between various youth and environmental groups and Rights of Nature-centered initiatives could be more effective in swaying public opinion and spurring future action.

The Current Climate Crisis

Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that climate change poses an existential threat to humanity. With 1°C of warming already reached since preindustrial times, we face an increase in severe droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, and other extreme weather events;  250,000 human deaths per year (and rising);  and nearly 1 in 6 species at risk of extinction.

If things do not change soon, the situation will only get worse. Governments are failing to meet their current commitments under the Paris Agreement (the most recent international climate treaty). Even if governments met all of the commitments in the treaty, the world would warm to 2.8°C by 2100 according to the Climate Action Tracker, a scientific analysis by Climate Analytics and New Climate Institute that tracks climate pledges and climate action by nations.

The international community has been trying to solve this problem for over four decades. If we are going to succeed, we need a new approach.

Youth Climate Change Lawsuits

A lack of governmental regulation of carbon emissions threatens the liberty of billions of the worlds inhabitants to breathe clean air, drink clean water and be free from the fear of climate catastrophe and the loss of home and livelihood that that would bring. It also threatens the very existence of countless animal species and ecosystems.

Young people, who have never known a time when climate change was not widely understood to be a serious threat, have become some of the most vocal and passionate advocates for climate justice. However, their advocacy has not borne out their minimum and reasonable demands for reduced carbon emissions and the hope of a future without fear of climate instability.

One avenue that youth advocates have taken in response to the failures of their government to guarantee climate justice is to act as the role of plaintiff and sue their government for depriving them of their right to a healthy climate. The young plaintiffs in these cases are typically tasked with proving two basic argument: first, that the government is culpable in contributing to climate change by failing to act to curb carbon emissions, and second, that this negligence violates the plaintiffs human rights—mainly the right that the youth and all future generations have to inherit a healthy and habitable climate. 

While giving their testimony in these lawsuits, youth advocates have aimed to show the damages they have suffered as a result of unchecked emissions. They have described the destruction of their family’s homes in climate change spurred disasters, decreased production on their family’s farms, loss of forests that they depend on for cultural traditions, and a loss of freshwater that they need for drinking, hygiene, and recreation. The testimonials of these youth advocates emphasize that climate change impacts every aspect of our lives as human beings and the right to a stable climate is a prerequisite to every other guaranteed right.

“Supporters of the Youth Climate Lawsuit Against the Government Chicago Illinois 10-29-18 4997” by “Charles Edward Miller” licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Juliana et al. vs USA et al.: A Youth Climate Change Lawsuit

One of these youth lawsuits, Juliana et al. vs. USA et al. (2015, has become a landmark case on the subject of climate stability rights. The petitioners in Juliana are 21 young persons, the nonprofit Earth Guardians, and all “future generations” as represented by former NASA scientist and climate activist James Hansen. In the suit, the plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government is depriving them of life, liberty and property by sanctioning fossil fuel emissions and thus allowing for climate change to accelerate.

Juliana worked its way through the court system and received media coverage from high profile news outlets like the New Yorker, who wrote that the “right to a stable climate is the constitutional question of the twenty-first century.” The lawsuit received notable media attention again in 2016 when Judge Aiken of the U.S. district court of Oregon refused to dismiss it, stating that a clean environment is a fundamental right.

In 2020, five years after the lawsuit began, the case was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a close 2-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Hurwitz argued that the remedies that the suit would necessitate—wide-reaching policy changes—went beyond the court’s jurisdiction.

What is interesting about the Juliana case, is that the court did not dispute the plaintiffs’ claims of harm, nor that the government was responsible for them. However, they also did not see the case as a matter of “rights,” and thus were not emboldened to rule in favor of the plaintiffs. If they had seen the case as a matter of human rights, then policy changes (which are always outside the jurisdiction of the court) would have been no obstacle. An example of the court choosing to protect human rights despite not being able to control policy implementation can be found in Brown vs. Board of Education, where the court ordered schools to integrate without concerning themselves with the policy specifics on the ground. This comparison, between Brown vs Board of Education and Juliana was made by Judge Staton in her famous dissent of the court’s opinion, where she states with some sarcasm, "my colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.”

Turning back to climate change litigation, a similar approach to Brown vs. Board of Education was taken in 2019 Urgenda case in the Netherlands. Here, similar to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Julianna, the Dutch Supreme Court did not want to overstep its authority and infringe upon the powers of the other branches of government. However, the Dutch Supreme Court found that it could still order emissions reductions (a human rights issue) so long as the other branches of governments could determine the means of making those reductions (a policy-making issue).

Extending Rights to Nature

Our current legal system has proved insufficient in assuring the right to climate stability. The Rights of Nature movement can provide an alternative to our current legal system and reshape the way we think about the environment and our right to climate stability.

The Rights of Nature framework is a school of thought that conceives of animals, plants, and ecosystems as living beings with rights of their own to exist, rather than as property. The Rights of Nature framework emphasizes that humans are a part of these systems and that our health is dependent upon Nature’s. One of the principles of the Rights of Nature framework is that nature should be allowed direct legal representation in court and other legal processes.

The Rights of Nature movement challenges key assumptions that our current legal frameworks make, including that only human needs and desires should be taken into account when making decisions. Instead, the Rights of Nature movement considers the right of all living beings to exist. As Earth Jurisprudence scholar Thomas Berry states: “human rights do not cancel out the rights of other modes of being to exist in their natural state.”

The Rights of Nature movement emphasizes the importance of ecosystems, or the interconnected survival of all species in concert. This understanding of ecosystems shows that the choice between immediate human needs and climate stability is a false one, as meeting any immediate human need that threatens the climate will make it impossible to meet human needs in the future. Therefore, the choice between profit and health is no choice at all.

Applying a Rights of Nature Framework to Climate Advocacy

A Rights of Nature framework fits naturally within the climate justice movement. One of the only differences between the two is that while the Climate Justice movement has thus far advocated for climate stability on the basis that it is a human right, the Rights of Nature movement advocates for the right of all living beings and their environment by proxy. 

This theory of rights as being for all living entities provides many benefits. It forces us to reconcile the rights of our environment with our immediate desires. It also asks us to consume with care so that Earth’s ecosystems can thrive and are still available for future generations.  Finally, through enforceable rights-based standards, it ensures that humans live within Nature’s limits not just for our own benefit, but for the benefit of all life. The application of the Rights of Nature framework, which justifies long-lasting environmental and human stability over profit, can help Climate Justice leaders in their work and advocacy by integrating a new voice into the debate: that of Nature itself.

Aerial view of the Amazon Rainforest from Wikimedia Commons licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Successes and Setbacks within the Colombia Youth Climate Lawsuits

Around the same time that the Juliana case was introduced, another youth lawsuit was being filed in Colombia. This lawsuit, which drew comparisons to Juliana, was filed by 25 young people with the support of Dejusticia, a Colombia-based research and advocacy organization. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that both the deforestation of the Amazon and the impacts of climate change impede on their rights to a healthy environment, life, health, food and water. In Colombia, deforestation of the Amazon is the main source of carbon emissions, generating approximately 180 million tons of carbon per year.

The Supreme Court of Justice agreed with the youth. The court granted the youths’ petition and ordered the government to halt deforestation and adjust existing land management plans with an eye toward climate change mitigation and adaptation. Furthermore, the court also recognized the Colombian Amazon forest as a legal entity which the government has a duty to protect, conserve, maintain, and restore. This was a win for climate activists and proof that Rights of Nature can win in major courts and are supportive of other climate justice movements.   

However, it is important to note that even with the positive ruling, government action in response to the youths’ demands has been slow to materialize. In 2019, Dejustica reported in a press release that the 25 youth plaintiffs would return to the court to seek a declaration that the government and other defendants have failed to fulfill the four orders the Supreme Court of Justice mandated. As of 2019, Dejustica claims that “the government’s proposed development plan has no commitment to reduce forest loss. On the contrary, the plan’s deforestation goals would allow approximately 800,000 hectares of forests to be cut down in the next four years.”

No More Loose and Incentive-based Commitments: Rights of Nature in Practice

As the youth lawsuits demonstrate, current climate change solutions are failing. Commitments to greenhouse gas emissions reductions are insufficient.

Other popular solutions such as REDD and geoengineering have major flaws and are incompatible with the Rights of Nature. REDD, led by the United Nations and others, seeks to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries by allowing rich countries to continue to pollute if they pay developing countries to preserve their forests. Keeping existing forests around will not be enough to stop climate change if emissions by wealthy countries are not stopped, as well. Nor will geoengineering solutions that pull carbon out of the atmosphere make it safe to keep emitting, because the technology needed to pull carbon out of the atmosphere is not yet proven and may never be feasible at the scale required to slow climate change.

The technology needed to create renewable energy from a variety of sources does exist, however. Though it will take time to transition our energy grid, we are ready to drastically slash emissions. If a Rights of Nature framework were implemented in climate change decision-making, “false solutions” such as REDD and geoengineering would be disregarded, as Rights of Nature requires us to address climate change at its source.

What does Nature’s right to a stable climate look like in practice? Consider the follow tenets:

1.     There is no “right to pollute” carbon, including by developed countries who can afford carbon credits. All countries must make necessary reductions to their emissions, with developed nations providing significant financial support to help developing countries do so. 

2.     Countries are legally bound to rapid de-carbonization to achieve net-zero then net-negative emissions in the near future, limiting near-term temperature increases to well below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and then fully stabilizing the climate system.

3.     Ecosystems have a “seat at the table,” both internationally during climate change negotiations as well as within domestic legal processes.  Nature may become an official party to climate change agreements if it wishes to do so.

4.     The global community commits to economic systems change by challenging overarching models of production and consumption, fully de-carbonizing in the near-future, achieving zero conversion of natural forests and supporting community forest management, living well within all planetary boundaries, and empowering Indigenous communities to serve as stewards of all ancestral lands.

5.     The Rights of Nature is recognized globally and is legally enforceable as a fundamental right. Nature’s right to a stable climate in particular is recognized and put into practice through enforceable climate change action plans.

Earth Law Center Advocates for Rights to a Stable Climate

Given the need for change in our decision making about the environment and the potential of a partnership between climate justice and Rights of Nature, ELC is launching a new “Right to a Stable Climate” initiative. The initiative will build on the work done by the climate justice movement through youth lawsuits to prioritize the human right to a stable climate by fighting for the right to a stable climate for all living entities. To accomplish this goal, ELC will partner with organizations and communities internationally to transform our law.

This initiative focuses particularly on assisting island nations and their communities, who are disproportionately affected by climate change and are some of the strongest proponents of climate action. Island nations represent just 5.3% of Earth’s land area yet are home to 19% of bird species and 17% of flowering plants. They are highly vulnerable to threats posed by climate change, including sea level rise, salinization of freshwater sources, and damage to coral reefs from ocean warming and acidification. Establishing the Nature’s right to a stable climate for island nations (or any other countries) can help permanently protects nature in the face of climate change and provides a platform for conservation partnerships.

Stay tuned for the next blog in this series to delve into this initiative further.

Contact

Donate

Volunteer

Nature Runs For Mayor In Clearwater, Florida

Guest Blog by Elizabeth Drayer

A SEA TURTLE FOR MAYOR? WHY NOT!

            Six months ago, I donned a turtle suit and marched into the city clerk’s office in Clearwater, Florida. My mission: to enter a sea turtle in the mayor’s race. The clerk and her staff exchanged smiles, then puzzled looks. Was this turtle serious? They accepted my filing, but called me back to city hall the next day. The city attorney had determined non-humans couldn’t appear on the ballot. Would I agree to run as Elizabeth “Sea Turtle” Drayer instead? Challenge accepted.

So began my quest to give nature political representation in government. As a lawyer and environmental advocate, I realized years ago that our current laws can’t stop ecosystem decline. As long as sprawl and pollution generate profit, nature won’t stand a chance. We must change the system, and legal personhood for nature is step one.

Step two is political representation -- electing guardians to legislate in the best interests of nature. Natural resources sustain human life, so why don’t they rate representation in Congress and state legislatures? When I saw two pro-development candidates file to run for mayor in my town, I decided it was time to put nature on the ballot.

            Announcing my campaign in a turtle suit invited laughter but also significant interest. Local news outlets interviewed me, as did The Hill, a national publication. The point of the costume was to convey a clear message: nature needs a voice in government. As mayor, I’d act as guardian for ecosystems, voting in the best interests of air, water, wildlife and plants. This wasn’t the usual environmental campaign pushing recycling and plastic straw bans. This was a real effort to change the game.

FIRST THEY IGNORE YOU, THEN THEY LAUGH AT YOU, THEN THEY FIGHT YOU…

            Predictably, many tried to trivialize my campaign, including other candidates. One suggested I drop out of the race because I’d steal votes from his “serious” run. Community leaders declined to meet with me; no consultants or campaign manager types wanted to help me. Even liberals were a hard sell. “Clearwater’s an aging, conservative town and they’ll never buy what you’re selling” I was told again and again.

When I took my message to residents, nature rights drew raised eyebrows. Most listened politely to my pitch before sharing their own concerns. “Will you raise taxes?” “Our neighborhood park has no bathroom.” “We need a left turn lane in front of the mall.” The issue of greatest concern was the dominance of the Church of Scientology, whose adherents have bought up a large swath of property in downtown Clearwater. The fact that our beach community will be swamped by a few feet of sea level rise didn’t worry most people, nor did the wholesale paving of our natural areas. Many cared about environment in a general way, but were resigned to the wall of concrete on the beach as the sad consequence of “progress.”

For the next six months I pressed on, determined that nature rights get a real hearing. I fielded questions at forums, gave speeches to neighborhood groups, knocked on thousands of doors. I accepted no campaign contributions because turtles and trees can’t write checks. Nature was a huge underdog compared to my three well-connected opponents, two of whom served multiple terms on the city council, including a two-time mayor with a six-figure campaign fund.

Still, little by little, I garnered support. From residents in a mobile home park where the owner had razed dozens of old oaks. From neighborhoods fighting commercial rezoning alongside their quaint streets. From people fed up with nightmare traffic in a city with little public transport. Volunteers stepped up to knock on doors, make phone calls and wave signs. Leaders of bird and native plant groups endorsed me. Sierra Club and the National Organization for Women got behind my campaign. The more I talked, the more people listened.

ELECTION NIGHT - WOW!

Though I lacked connections and big money, Elizabeth “Sea Turtle” Drayer won 24% of the vote, placing second in a four-way race. I was baffled yet thrilled, never expecting this kind of showing. My goal was to put nature rights on the ballot and use the platform to spread the word. People actually voted for nature! Who knew?

LESSONS LEARNED

            Though I felt compelled to stand up when I saw pro-development candidates running for mayor, I should have started a year in advance laying the groundwork for a campaign. Through preparation, I could have mastered the technical side of campaigning and made important connections. Of course, experience is often the best teacher, and walking the walk was itself an education. Trying to spread the word about nature rights beyond Clearwater was a big task which I should have asked someone else to take on.

            The biggest challenge, though, was broadcasting the nature rights message while addressing non-nature issues. People would say, okay, you care about wildlife, but what about pensions for police and rising rents? What about humans? We need to convince voters nature protection is about humans -- these resources are vital to our survival and require representation by guardians committed to their well-being.

All these lessons can help other candidates who want to run in the future. Oh, I forgot the most important one -- don’t sprain your ankle six weeks before Election Day. That really takes the spring out of your step.

WHAT IS NEXT?

            Nature rights made a splash in one Florida city.  Now the challenge will be to get other candidates running in other towns, especially progressive ones where they can win. I’m ready to help anyone who wants to take on this challenge, and have high hopes we can pave the way for real change. Don’t let this experiment end with me! Let’s ride this wave and take nature rights to voters everywhere.

Emerging Education Initiatives In Earth Law

Photo by Iñaki del Olmo on Unsplash

By: Whitney Richardson

Introduction from Earth Law Center

This is the first post in Earth Law Center’s education series. Each post in the series will focus on educational initiatives that the Earth Law Center has created or promotes to benefit the public intellectual conversation around rights of nature initiatives. In this blog post, Earth Law Center contributor Whitney Richardson speaks about her personal experience studying Earth Law as a graduate student, as well as two new Earth Law educational initiatives, an Earth Law master’s program in Ecuador and the Earth Law Center’s first ever Earth Law textbook. The next post in the series will cover Earth Law Society, a membership based program founded by the Earth Law Center that will host debate panels and guest speakers at colleges and universities.

EARTH LAW Advocacy & Education

Advocacy and education work in tandem. The philosophy underlying Earth law far predates its adoption into law and informs lawyers and advocates who translate them into the legal context. The next natural step in the evolution of the Earth law movement is to formalize educational programs as a means to further develop it. Education programs can tell us where Earth law has come from and why, as well as where it’s been and is going.

Education brought me to ELC in the first place. I discovered Earth law as a Master of Science student in International Environmental Studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. When discussing the intentions behind the term “ecosystem services,” I asked my professor if there was already a corresponding framework to communicate our responsibility to provide services to the Earth in return. He then directed me to the growing legal movement to recognize Nature’s rights to life.

This movement helps to formally consecrate our responsibility toward Earth; it does so by legally recognizing Earth’s intrinsic rights to exist and evolve. I learned that this rights-based legal framework protects and defends Nature for its intrinsic value and ensures harms done to Nature are considered by law.

From that day forward, I have centered my studies around this interest in emerging Earth law frameworks. I was drawn to this movement because it is value-driven – not in terms of economic value but, rather, in principles, ethics, and an innate desire to defend what matters most. Earth law recognizes the undeniable reality that human life has emerged from other life on Earth, and that it is our responsibility as humans to protect it.  By re-centering Nature’s intrinsic value in legal frameworks, we can begin to level the playing field against short-sighted profit interests that are harmful to human and non-human communities at large.

Earth law has been encoded in indigenous laws for millennia. A relatively recent codification of the law and the principles it contains can be found in Thomas Berry’s theory of ‘Earth Jurisprudence’ which argues that humans are a part of a larger ecosystem, wherein our welfare is dependent on the welfare of the earth as a whole.

One of the earliest practical applications of the law can be traced back to 2006 when Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania became the first U.S. municipality to adopt a local ordinance recognizing the rights of nature to exist in response to concerns over industrial toxic dumping in their community.  As momentum for Earth rights movements continues to build worldwide, educational initiatives that seek to develop knowledge of the movement continue to build as well.

In the year 2020, two major developments in Earth law education will hit the world stage -- an Earth rights-focused Master’s program that will begin in Quito, Ecuador and the release of the first Earth Law textbook.

Chimborazo, Ecuador; Photo by Fernando Tapia on Unsplash

OP-TIN Launches First Earth Law Master’s Program, Ecuador

For those familiar with Earth rights history, you may know that Latin America has paved the way for the development of Earth law worldwide. In 2008 and 2009, Ecuador and Bolivia became the first two countries to recognize Earth law, by placing the Rights of Mother Earth directly into their constitution and natio collaborative effort by 8 partner universities engaged in OPT-IN (The Intercultural Transnational law, respectively Shortly after, Bolivia pioneered a proposal to the UN to formally adopt a charter recognizing the rights of Mother Earth on a global scale.

Latin America continues to pave the way, as it prepares to host the first Earth law Master’s program – Interculturalidad, Paz y Derechos de la Naturaleza [Interculturalism, Peace and Rights of Nature] – at the Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar in Quito, Ecuador. The program will be led in Spanish, and the first cohort begins in October 2020.

The program is a product of an international, ational Operators Project). The mission of engaged universities is to defend Nature and build peace, by promoting cross-cultural exchange across academies and protecting diversity in its multiple expressions.

This year, I was able to travel to Colombia to investigate the emerging Earth law frameworks in the country. I had heard Adriana Rodriguez, Program Director of the forthcoming Master’s, present on a panel at the Foro Internacional de los Derechos por la Madre Tierra [International Forum of the Rights for Mother Earth] (read more about the conference here). In the panel, she discussed interculturalism, or the importance of cross-cultural dialogues, as a central component to Earth rights law.

Over coffee and fruit-drenched waffles one late afternoon, Adriana told me all about the program. I listened with delight, and I am excited to report what I learned from her. First, the basics: in 2017, Europe’s Erasmus network funded the development of the Master’s program. Ecuador was chosen as the host site, for being the first country to include Earth rights in the constitution. The Master’s invites participation from both lawyers and non-lawyers, by offering sociopolitical perspectives and context on public policy and litigative/legislative strategy.

The program serves a dual purpose in the context of Earth law in Latin America. First, it provides a much-needed platform to navigate juristic pluralism and strategies for intercultural cooperation in defense of Earth systems. Second, it recognizes the link between defense of Nature and defense of territory. Across Latin America, profit-driven extractivist models have spurred violence and conflict, causing grave harm to both humans and Nature.

In early September 2019, OP-TIN hosted two simultaneous 3-day-long seminars with course contents presented by participating professors from the forthcoming Master’s program. (Check out the link to the 3-day seminars to get a taste of what the Master’s program offerings will include.)

I sincerely hope those of you who are Spanish-speaking and Spanish-speaking hopefuls share information about the program with interested friends. It is open to students and professionals from a variety of backgrounds. Like many Master’s, the program will take place over a 2-year period and will admit up to 30 students per year. Admission to the program follows typical admission procedure to the host university.

ELC Advancing Earth Law Education, USA and Beyond

Earth Law Center drives Earth law education through a significant number of avenues.

First, ELC created mock trials for high school students centered on Earth law. These serve multiple purposes. Students become more familiar with Earth law and the American legal system’s structure and trials procedure. Students learn about Earth law in an applied sense and, in the process, practice vital communication skills – such as working effectively in teams and public speaking.  Also, mock trials provide insight into career pathways, inviting interest in the professional field of Earth law. Mock trials have taken place near ELC’s old home base in Brooklyn, NY, USA, with the Brooklyn College Community Partnership.

Secondly, ELC designed and has offered the ‘Earth Law’ course with Vermont Law School for the last 6 years; designed specifically for students engaged or interested in environmental law. Students learn how to discuss Earth Law, how to change the anthropocentric language of existing law to that which is ecocentric, the successes and challenges of the movement, and varying advocacy strategies and techniques to advance Earth law. Ocean Rights Manager at ELC, Michelle Bender took the class 5 years ago while at Vermont, and speaks highly of the experience. As a companion program to the Earth Law course, ELC also offers Earth Law Clubs as law schools – many of which have seen a spike in recruits as of late.

As Michelle Bender relays her experience, “I was taking all these classes on United States environmental law, and I was thinking that we just needed to better implement these laws. But the Earth Law course opened my eyes. I realized pushing for more implementation will not do the trick, the laws are flawed and not designed to have the Environment’s interests in mind. Not only did the course change how I thought about law, but it offered hands on practice in pushing for this paradigm shift. At the end of the course we had a project to participate in a mock community meeting on the Delta Tunnels in California. My group were fishermen advocating against the tunnels, and we decided to have one of our team members present as a coho salmon, and speak on behalf of the salmon. It seemed almost comical at the time-- but now that I am doing work to save the Southern Resident Orca’s in WA, I am consistently speaking on behalf of the salmon and Orcas and being their voice. It really comes full circle.”

ELC’s legal education initiatives continue to develop. Late this year, ELC will launch an Earth Law Society, similar in form to a Federalist Society. The Earth Law Society will advocate for an interpretation of the U.S. legal system aligned with Earth Jurisprudence. Subscribe to ELC’s newsletter and find out how to join the Earth Law Society when it launches.

Stowe, Vermont; Photo by Clay Kaufmann on Unsplash

First Earth Law Textbook

Inspired by the aforementioned efforts, Earth Law Center is getting set to launch the first ever textbook on Earth law with Wolters Kluwer in 2020! The textbook is geared toward law schools and universities across the US, but contains a wealth of knowledge for any audience regarding the Earth law movement globally.

As a basis, the textbook will review centuries of United States case law, legal precedents, and comparable legal components of Earth law, such as legal guardianship. It will review legal arguments to assign rights to Nature, including the rights of animals. It will also include arguments for the International Criminal Court of Justice to adopt ecocide law, and arguments for the rights of future generations (also known as intergenerational rights, or intergenerational justice). It  will also present case studies demonstrating the contemporary development of Earth law and Earth jurisprudence around the world.

From a conceptual standpoint, the textbook emphasizes an essential perspective shift – that Earth makes life possible, and that humans and Nature are interdependent. It is with this understanding that legal systems are to recognize the rights of Nature to exist, thrive and evolve. This legal transformation is seen as necessary to address growing environmental crises such as climate change.

Subscribe to ELC’s newsletter to get a pre-order link when it’s available!

Want ELC to participate in your education initiative? ELC regularly participates in speaking events at law schools and universities. Contact us (info@earthlaw.org) to schedule something.

Advocating for a More Verdant New York: Ecologically Sound and Progressive Policy for Pollinators

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

By: Zachary Davis

Introduction from Earth Law Center

“Earth law” as a field not only means establishing fundamental rights for Nature and environmental rights for humans, but ultimately requires broad reform throughout the entire legal system to harmonize human law with the laws of nature. This means changes in property law, corporate law, international law, and many other fields. In 2020, in addition to our normal blog content, we will feature guest blogs from frontlines advocates, legal scholars, and activists who are working to change our legal system, from the bottom up, to address the planet’s most pressing environmental challenges.

This week’s guest blog discusses how we can create common-sense policies that support pollinator species (be sure to sign this petition if you agree). It concludes by highlighting Earth Law Center’s new campaign to give legal rights to pollinator populations. 

Pollinators and a Changing Climate

We know that the climate is changing, compounding habitat loss and other threats to pollinators. We know that pollinators are important, including here in New York, where the apples, wines, and berries we pride ourselves on require pollinators to produce their fruits. And we also know that pollinator populations are in severe decline. 

So why is it that our policies, such as the codes which dictate what must be done to maintain our properties, fail to promote the overarching goal of promoting ecological health, including for pollinators? For example, Section 302.4 of the Property Maintenance Code of New York State requires all premises and immediate exterior property to be “free from weeds or plant growth in excess of 10 inches." But this definition has the consequence of prohibiting some native and protected plant species that would support pollinators. 

One reason for this shortcoming is society’s vision of a lawn as needing to be “neat and tidy.” And very green. But we now know that our priority must instead be promoting healthy ecosystems in urban environments, such as by creating flowering “bee lawns” and other pollinator-friendly environments. Fortunately, there are still steps we can all take as citizens and advocates to help pollinators.

Background on Pollinators and Insect Populations

Ecosystems are rooted by pollinators. Without pollinators 75% of flowering plant species could not reproduce, including 35% of the crops we grow for our food. Insects as a whole provide an astronomical $57,000,000,000 in ecosystem services to the U.S. alone. Humans, and other fauna, are therefore intimately entwined with insects and other pollinators, but unfortunately pesticide use, chemical pollutants, and habitat loss have set nearly half of the world’s insect species en route to extinction, and caused the loss of 1 in 4 bird species. 

“Bee Lawn” Best Practices

Fortunately, a growing number of governments are beginning to take action to maintain and restore pollinator populations. The State of Minnesota just devoted $900,000 to be available to landowners who wish to create pollinator habitat on their property. Canada, and many other countries around the globe have banned neonicotinoid pesticides, a major contributor to pollinator decline. Similarly, leaf blowers are being banned in Germany to protect insects.

Times are changing close to home as well. New York’s Albany County was the first to declare itself a “Pollinator Friendly County,” and Ulster County may be adopting a similar resolution. 

“Bee lawns,” which is simply a flowering lawn that supports bee populations, and pollinator-supporting green roofs are wonderful ideas. In fact, New York City recently passed legislation mandating all new buildings have a green roof. Meanwhile, residents of Albany County have created some prime examples of just how beautiful conservation can be by prioritizing yards with perennial native plants rather than grass. 

If you’re a landscaper, gardener, or someone devoted to their yard, then you are in a position to make a great difference in pollinator conservation. At some point I would love to follow suit. 

Figure 1 "A Bee Proud sign in a lawn" by USDAgov

Stop Mowing?

While these programs are admirable, many people—including myself—do not have the time or resources to replace their lawns. I don’t have the funds to purchase the tools and seeds needed to do this myself, unless I had some assistance from my municipality, and I certainly can’t afford to hire a private landscaper to do it. Besides, according to the State Department of Environmental Conservation, wildflowers will sprout from my lawn and help pollinators if I just don’t mow or use pesticides, and I believe conservation shouldn’t be limited to those who can afford it. 

So, I’m done mowing my lawn. 

And technically that’s illegal thanks to New York State’s Property Maintenance Codes.

But what am I left to do? 

I am compelled by this law to destroy the habitat I seek to create. I am compelled to chop up native plants because they are “too tall” according to arbitrary standards. 

Wild bergamot and blazing star, some of the most gorgeous native flowers that can grow in my region, are considered weeds, and destroyed because they can grow taller than a foot. They are destroyed in part because neighbors are worried about property value, and they think that because a yard has tall goldenrod and evening primrose growing on it during the winter to provide habitat for birds and bees, their property value will be negatively impacted.

Why are these outdated values still engrained in our society, particularly in the midst of a global ecological emergency?

In the time of climate change, biodiversity loss, and economic disparity, our laws should make it effortless for homeowners to contribute to conservation, instead of encouraging neighbors to act as lawn police. We shouldn’t have to fear sanctioning and stigma because we wish to promote biodiversity and some folks think that looks “untidy.”

Nature isn’t tidy. We shouldn’t value destruction.

Figure 2 Photo by Jeffrey Hamilton on Unsplash

Restoring Our Relationship with Nature in New York

Imagine a New York that provides resources to municipalities so they can shape their own communities’ conservation initiatives and aesthetics; to keep bees flourishing in our yards, and to put green roofs on our buildings and bus stops, for instance. We have the capacity to become a leader in both conservation and beauty.

But not with ecologically unsound laws on the books.

That is why I have started a campaign to rewrite our codes with ones that are ecologically sound. It’s time that New Yorkers lead the way on the creation of a more verdant New York. It’s time that we stop the destruction. We should enable efforts for conservation; we should set the example of a harmonious relationship with pollinators and other wild species and places. 

Please stand in solidarity with pollinators by signing this petition.

Looking Ahead: Rights for Insect Populations?

While changing local and state law to meet the needs of ecosystems is a good first step, we must also begin to pursue broader, systemic reform that recognizes Nature not as property, but as a subject of rights. Towards this goal, Earth Law Center (“ELC”) has launched a new campaign to recognize the rights of pollinators, including by opposing harmful practices that threaten their existence.

ELC has already drafted a model law to recognize pollinator rights. The law “recognizes the Rights of Nature to exist and flourish, which extends to all ecosystems and all native life forms within those ecosystems, including pollinators.” It also calls for governments to eliminate, repeal, or modify laws, policies, and practices that are detrimental to the life and continued existence of pollinators, including through a moratoria the use neonicotinoids and other insecticides detrimental to pollinators. 

In addition to saying “no,” this law would say “yes” by requiring governments to put into place best-practices that encourage thriving populations of pollinators and other insect populations. Some of these practices are discussed above.

Want to be a trailblazer in the Rights of Nature movement and become the first city, state/region, or country to recognize that pollinators have rights? Contact Earth Law Center at info@earthlaw.org to discuss how we can help.

How Earth Law Can Help Protect Old Growth Forests

Figure 1 Photo by Mali Maeder from Pexels

By Hali Stuck

Living in West Virginia, nature is a huge part of my life. With a forest as my backyard, I hike weekly. My beautiful and biologically diverse state is in good company. The United States has 154 protected areas known as National Forests, which represent 14% of the total land area of the nation and one tenth of the protected land area of the world. Although this is down from the roughly 50% of forested land that existed prior to the arrival of Europeans, the majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910. 

Forests face such destructive threats around the world that the first ever UN Strategic Plan for Forests was created in 2017 at a Special Session of the UN Forum on Forests. The plan has a focus on sustainably managing all types of forests and trees outside forests and on halting deforestation and forest degradation.

Forests cover nearly 30% of the world’s landmass and 18 million acres are lost each year – an area the size of Panama (or between the sizes of South Carolina and West Virginia). At this rate, the world’s forests will disappear in about 250 years – just nine generations away. The United States of America has been a nation longer than that and we are still considered a young country.

So, what can we do about this and why should we care?

What Trees Do for Our Earth

New research has revealed a multitude of ways in which forests create rain and cool local climates. The paper calls for a paradigm shift in the way the international community views forests and trees, from a carbon-centric model to one that recognizes their importance in cross-continental water cycles. Specifically the paper concludes that integrating forest effects on energy balance, the water cycle and climate into policy actions is key for the successful pursuit of adaptation and forest carbon-related mitigation goals.

The Water Cycle

Figure 2 Water Cycle. Sagar Purnima

Among plants, trees are by far the most effective evapo-transpirers, adding moisture to the air. Transpiration is the process by which moisture is carried through plants from roots to small pores on the underside of leaves, where it changes to vapor and is released to the atmosphere. Transpiration is essentially evaporation of water from plant leaves.

One tree sends between 250 to 400 gallons of water a day into the atmosphere.  Recent studies have shown that as much as 70 percent of the atmospheric moisture generated over land areas comes from plants (as opposed to evaporation from lakes or rivers) – much more than previously thought. New research has revealed that forests also play a key role in water vapor actually forming clouds and then falling as rain. 

Trees emit aerosols that contain tiny biological particles – fungal spores, pollen, microorganisms and general biological debris – that are swept up into the atmosphere. Rain can only fall when atmospheric water condensates into droplets, and these tiny particles make that easier by providing surfaces for the water to condense onto. 

Local water availability

Research conducted by Ulrik Ilstedt from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, one of the study’s co-authors, has shown that in dry landscapes, trees (at some densities) can actually increase the availability of water, by assisting with groundwater recharge. 

Tree roots – and the animals they attract like ants, termites and worms – help to create holes in the soil for the water to flow through.

Figure 3 Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash

Forests cool locally and globally

Forests cool the Earth’s surface not just with shade, but the water they transpire cools the air nearby. “One single tree is equivalent to two air conditioners, and can reduce the temperature by up to 2 degrees,” says study author Daniel Murdiyarso, from CIFOR.

Maintaining tree cover can therefore reduce high temperatures and buffer some of the extremes likely to arise with climate change, the authors say.

The Carbon Cycle 

Forests contain three-fourths of the earth’s plant biomass, about half of which is carbon. Thus forests play a key role in the global carbon cycle by capturing, storing, and cycling carbon.

How do they do this? Trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, using it as food while producing oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis. U.S. forests alone store 14 percent of all annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the national economy. 

NASA has just released a new map which shows the carbon stored in the forests around the world. Forests in the 75 tropical countries studied contained 247 billion tons of carbon. Consider that 10 billion tons of carbon gets released annually from combined fossil fuel burning and land use changes.

Researchers also found that forests in Latin America hold 49 percent of the carbon in the world's tropical forests. For example, Brazil's carbon stock alone, at 61 billion tons, almost equals all of the carbon stock in sub-Saharan Africa, at 62 billion tons.

Homes

80% of land-dwelling animals live in forests. Even dolphins can be found in rainforests (in the rivers).

Over two-thirds of the species currently listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) live in forests. That’s about 4,600 plant and animal species, including the Louisiana black bear, key deer, and red-cockaded woodpecker. 

Figure 4 Red-cockaded Woodpecker in Louisiana. Dominic Sherony

Pollution, storm and drought mitigation

One large tree can lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground and discharge it into the air in a day. That means trees also absorb rain runoff (which often happens to be polluted) thus preventing some of it from running into streams, rivers, lakes, and the ocean.

Forests can retain excess rainwater, prevent extreme run-offs and reduce the damage from flooding. They can also help mitigate the effects of droughts. Trees have the ability to provide shade and even water to nearby areas. Trees also assist in reducing water pollution by absorbing water before it travels to polluted areas and disperses into nearby streams, lakes, and rivers. 

Results of deforestation

Deforestation means “ the permanent removal of standing forests through deliberate, natural, or accidental means.”

Short-term human needs sacrifice long term sustainability when it comes to cutting down trees. Driven largely by the need for: fuel, housing development, timber harvesting for furniture and paper products, clearing land for agriculture and cattle ranching – deforestation has many unintended consequences. 

Increased destruction from natural disasters

When rivers cannot cope with rainfall, floods occur. Floods caused an estimated $8bn of losses around the world in the month of March 2019. Human factors contributing to the increased rate of flooding include structural failures of dams and levees, altered drainage, and land-cover alterations (such as pavement) not to mention higher intensity storms and unusual precipitation patterns from climate change.

Rivers that have been dredged and canalized to protect farmland not only destroy riparian ecosystems but also bring flood waters further inland. By re-connecting brooks, streams and rivers to floodplains, former meanders and other natural storage areas, and enhancing the quality and capacity of wetlands, river restoration increases natural storage capacity and reduces flood risk.

50 years ago, the Puyallup River (near Tacoma) endured significant straightening and levee building while opening up the river’s floodplains for people to cultivate and build on. Starting in 2015, the levees on the Puyallup River are being intentionally breached or setback to reconnect the river with its floodplains. Regional efforts resulted in the Floodplains by Design program, a partnership with Washington State’s Department of Ecology, the Puget Sound Partnership, and The Nature Conservancy. Floodplains by Design uses a competitive process to fund multi-benefit floodplain restoration projects that “improve flood protection for towns and farms, restore salmon habitats, improve water quality, and enhance outdoor recreation”.

Figure 5 Map of the Puyallup River.

Climate Change

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, accounting for 82.2% of all US greenhouse gases. 

Deforestation not only removes a key absorber of carbon dioxide, felled trees also release back into the atmosphere all the carbon they’ve stored. Burning or leaving trees to rot causes further emissions – with deforestation responsible for about 10 percent of worldwide emissions.

Scientific American notes that deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation.

Figure 6 Rainforest loss over time.

Disease and species loss

Due to the clearing of the forests, animals have to either compact themselves into smaller environments or move into closer proximity to humans resulting in an increase in zoonotic diseases (a disease that normally exists in animals but that can infect humans).

According to EcoHealth Alliance 31% of new outbreaks of Nipah virus, Zika, and Ebola have links to deforestation.

They also say that areas that have experienced significant amounts of deforestation are more likely to see an Ebola outbreak in two years than an area that has not.

What has been done 

In 2016 the Paris agreement became available to signatures from within the United Nations. The agreement aims to prevent global temperature change from reaching the 2 degrees threshold.  Signatories agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by switching to greener and more stable and effective technology.

Currently the only country that has not signed is the United States.

Other acts such as the Wilderness Act and the Lacey Act help to prevent deforestation by outlawing imports of illegal wood.

Figure 7. Forest in Inverness, Reino Unido. Photo by Luis Del Río Camacho on Unsplash

How Earth Law can help

Rights of Nature can help protect forests by recognizing the inherent rights of forests to exist, thrive and evolve. The needs of a forest ecosystem can be considered along with the needs of other parties, so that win win solutions can be created instead of ones that only result in the destruction of forest ecosystems.

Forest rights are currently at the forefront of Earth Law Center’s work, partnering with Eneas Wilfredo Martínez Santos and other partners in El Salvador to draft a Declaration of the Rights of Natural Forests in El Salvador.  

Earth Law Center supports the idea that humans have a responsibility for how we impact the world around us. The belief that nature — the species and ecosystems that comprise our world — has inherent rights has proven to be a galvanizing idea, and we work with local communities to help them organize around the rights of nature to protect their environment from the threats that they see.

The heart of the ELC approach is to seek legal personhood for ecosystems and species, a designation similar to that given to corporations in U.S. law, and one that if done well will imply both rights for the entities so designated and responsibilities on the part of human beings and societies to respect those rights.

Empowering nature empowers communities: when advocates see themselves as rights defenders rather than responsible stewards of nature for human ends, the stakes are raised, and the relationships between people and the environment is transformed. ELC connects these emerging local advocates to build regional movements, with the ultimate aim of creating national and international momentum for a radical change in how humans view and interact with the natural world.

---

Here’s more you can do:

• Sign up for monthly newsletter

• Volunteer

• Donate

Seeking Rights of Nature for Elliott State Forest

Figure 1 Old growth forest. Photo by Patte David, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

By Davis Hianik

Old-Growth Forests 101           

Contrary to popular belief, experts struggle to define old growth forests. Robert Leverett summarizes the four main ways that scientists and forestry professionals have define old-growth forest in the opening chapter of Eastern Old-Growth Forests: Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery. 

1. Definitions that emphasize lack of disturbance by humans (at least post-colonization); there are abundant old trees some of which are approaching the maximum old-age for the species.

2. Definitions that use a minimum age (typically around 150 years) combined with presence of old-growth characteristics such as logs, snags (standing dead trees), canopy gaps etc.; some human disturbance may be permitted.

3. Definitions that emphasize stand development, in particular climax forest – that is, the forest is in a stable state where trees are dying of old age and being replaced, and may continue to be stable for centuries.

4. Definitions that use an economic threshold. Old-growth stands are past the economic optimum for harvesting – usually between 80-150 years, depending on the species.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, around 36 percent of forest in the world today is primary, or old-growth, forest. The United Nations estimates that 57 percent of the world’s forest is currently or has been subject to industrial logging. 

Not everyone has old growth forests. researchers estimated that 98 percent of the world’s primary forests occur in just 25 countries. Half of this is found in just five developed countries: the U.S., Canada, Russia, Australia, and New Zealand.

With just 22 percent of the world’s standing primary forests are currently protected, or five percent of the world’s pre-agriculture forests – this leaves these forests vulnerable to destruction.

Benefits of old growth forests 

Old growth forests benefit the ecosystem in ways that freshly planted (or monoculture) trees cannot in the form of: 

• Biodiversity. The complexity of the old-growth forest creates many habitats which support thousands of species, including soil arthropods, spiders, insects, mites, millipedes, lichen, fungi, mosses, small mammals, and bats.

• Biological legacies. After a fire or windstorm, the dead trees become snags or fallen trees which in turn shelter many plants and animals, protect the soil, and enrich the soil as they decay. Biological legacies ensure that many species survive a fire or other disturbance, and the legacies help rebuild the ecosystem.

• Resilience. Forests are dynamic and continue their ecological processes through all the changes, a quality known as resilience. A forest rich in biodiversity and biological legacies is resilient. 

Specifically, old growth forests provide a range of critical services including:

• Production and regulation of water

• Formation and retention of soil

• Regulation of atmosphere and climate

• Regulation of disturbances plus nutrients and pollution

• Providing habitat, food, pollination, pest control

• Productsion of genetic, medicinal, aesthetic, recreational, spiritual, scientific and educational resources

Figure 2 A North Bank Road view of the Umpqua River. Gary Halvorson, Oregon State Archives

Elliott State Forest - Oregon Coastal Range

Enter the Elliott State Forest located on the magnificent Oregon Coastal Range, the first state forest established in Oregon (named after the first states forester Francis Elliott). Stretching 18 miles long (north to south) and approximately 16 miles wide (west to east), this area includes the beautiful Umpqua River bordering the northern section of the forest. 

Over to the west, the Elliott State Forest borders almost six miles of the Pacific ocean. On the eastern side, rich old-growth forest extends about 21 miles inland. In total, the Elliott State Forest used to cover 93,282 acres, mostly located in Coos and Douglas Counties. 

Trees commonly found in this forest are the Douglas-fir, western hemlock, western redcedar, bigleaf maple, and red alder. For years this site has been logged for the Oregon Common School Fund, generating millions of dollars of lumber sales – leaving just 41,000 acres of old-growth forest. Even so, it remains one of the largest uncut areas left in the Oregon Coast Range.

The Elliott State Forest provides critical habitat for endangered species including Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Owl, elk, and many species of salmon. In fact, 22% of all wild Oregon Coast Coho salmon originate in the Elliott’s rivers and streams.

Carbon Cycle 

Nature, one of the top scientific journals, has found that the rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. This means that big, mature trees capture the most carbon dioxide (CO2). Yet selective logging usually removes the bigger trees, so this new research supports the Greenpeace campaign for zero (gross) deforestation, globally, by 2020.

In the Elliott State forest, old-growth trees provide an unmatched donation to the carbon cycle that can be tributed to the large amount of vegetation preserved. Forests store carbon that would otherwise contribute to climate change. As the trees continue to grow their carbon capture ability grows with age. Preserving the Elliott State Forest allows for the continued growth of old-growth trees which is beneficial for capturing and storing carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.

Old-growth forests have notoriously been used by logging companies for large economic incentive due to their massive lumber yield. In the pacific northwest, old-growth is defined as trees older than 250 years with the presence of some trees recorded over 1000 years old. Because of their rich biodiversity, old-growth forests are often home to endangered, threatened, and rare species. 

Threats to the Elliott State Forest

Old-growth forests once covered much of Oregon, but today less than 10 percent of the state’s heritage forests remain.  Much of what survives is found on US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands that are still actively targeted for logging.

In 2017, two of the three members of Oregon's State Land Board voted to sell the Elliott State Forest to a private timber company for clearcutting. Oregon Wild and coalition partners helped mobilize a powerful grassroots response to persuade Tobias Read to reverse his position and express support for keeping the forest public. On May 9, Read, Governor Kate Brown and Republican Dennis Richardson voted unanimously to halt the sale and keep the Elliott public.

For now, this is a most decisive win for this old growth forest. Looking ahead, however, there is still no protection against future development or sales of the Elliott-State Forest.

Actions to protect Elliot State Forest

The Oregon Legislature allocated $100 million in bonding revenue to help keep the forest public for the diversity of services it provides including clean water, old-growth forests, salmon and wildlife habitat, carbon storage and recreation opportunities. Currently owned by the public, this land is still vulnerable to the lease of private entities in the near future.

The Elliott State Forest harbors a unique and rare island of biodiversity. Surrounded on three sides by industrially managed tree plantations and clearcuts, species also can’t easily migrate out of the area. In 1990, the Endangered Species Act included the Northwest Spotted Owl, the Marbled Murrelet in 1992, and Coho Salmon in 1998 which led to a reduction in logging. Managing the Elliott is costing the state more than what’s earned from timber harvests, in part because of protected species restriction.

In December 2018, the State Land Board directed the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) to work collaboratively with Oregon State University (OSU) to develop a plan for transforming the Elliott State Forest into a research forest. A successful plan will be consistent with the Land Board vision for the forest, which includes:

• Keeping the forest publicly owned with public access

• Decoupling the forest from the Common School Fund, compensating the school fund for the forest and releasing the forest from its obligation to generate revenue for schools

• Continuing habitat conservation planning to protect species and allow for harvest

• Providing for multiple forest benefits, including recreation, education, and working forest research

DSL and OSU anticipate a proposed plan will be presented to the Land Board for consideration in December 2019.

Earth Law strengthens protection of Elliott State Forest

The old growth forest ecosystem of the Elliot State Forest could be considered an entity with inherent rights. Legally recognizing those rights could help strengthen the protection of the Elliott State Forest from future predations. Precedents exist already for forests having rights. The wild Urewere Forest in the Hawkes Bay Region of New Zealand’s North Island gained rights recognition in 2014.

Earth Law Center works with local partners to seek Rights of Forests in El Salvador and other locations.

Earth Law aims to help communities and organizations protect the Nature around them by recognizing legal rights for those ecosystems and species. Rights of Nature 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.

Isn’t it time that we recognized the right of the Elliott State Forest to exist, thrive and evolve?

---

Take Action

• Weigh in on turning the Elliot State Forest into a research forest

• Sign up for ELC’s newsletter

• Volunteer

• Donate

Earth Law as One of the Solutions to Plastic Pollution

Figure 1 Photo by Brian Yurasits on Unsplash

By: Grace McGrath

As awareness grows around the world that Nature needs our help, movements have sprung up to solve the environmental issues of today. I first started thinking about plastic pollution when I started working for the University at Albany Office of Sustainability.  In doing research for blogs I wrote I saw the damage being done.  That is what led me to act on plastic straw use at my college.  Now I am trying to ban single-use plastic in New York State.  Now onto the blog.

The Shift Towards Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism refers to a nature-centered, as opposed to human-centered (i.e. anthropocentric), system of values.

According to the Assembly of First Nations, Indigenous peoples see themselves as caretakers of Mother Earth. By respecting her gifts, First Nations peoples relate to earth and all living things in it sourced from reverence, humility and reciprocity. Only what is needed is taken, with awareness so that future generations will not be put at risk. 

In essence, you are putting nature’s needs first compared to human desire. People naturally want convenience over anything else; being ecocentric opposes this. So, to become ecocentric, before you make a choice you have to ask yourself is this thing I am going to do hurting the environment or not? For instance, if you are going to buy a plastic bottle of water, ask yourself: do I need this or can I bring my own water bottle? These are choices you need to question if you want to be ecocentric.

Granted, becoming ecocentric takes time. This is a frame of mind, so you have to make small progressive changes. Maybe you focus on decreasing your meat consumption or decreasing your plastic use by reusing old containers. Eventually, these small shifts will lead to you becoming ecocentric. 

Figure 2 Photo by Mali Maeder from Pexels

Facts about Plastic Waste

Single-use plastics are not only plastic bags or cutlery.  A good definition of single-use plastics (aka disposable plastics) is that they are used for plastic packaging and include items intended to be used only once before they are thrown away or recycled.  They can also include the following:

• Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), i.e. water bottles and biscuit trays

• High-density polyethylene (HDPE), i.e. shampoo bottles and milk bottles

• Low-density polyethylene (LDPE), i.e. bags and food packaging film

• Polypropylene (PP), i.e. potato chip bags and microwave dishes

• Polystyrene (PS), i.e. cutlery and plates

• Expanded polystyrene (EPS), i.e. protective packaging and hot drink cups 

Here are some other facts to put plastic waste into perspective.

1. Americans use 100 billion plastic bags a year, which require 12 million barrels of oil to manufacture.

2. It only takes about 14 plastic bags for the equivalent of the gas required to drive one mile.

3. The average American family takes home almost 1,500 plastic shopping bags a year.

4. According to Waste Management, only 1 percent of plastic bags are returned for recycling. That means that the average family only recycles 15 bags a year; the rest ends up in landfills as litter.

5. Up to 80 percent of ocean plastic pollution enters the ocean from land. 

6. Since the 1950s, around 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced worldwide.

7. 73% of beach litter worldwide is plastic.

8. A million plastic bottles are bought around the world every minute.

9. 90% of plastic polluting our oceans is carried by just 10 rivers.

“In the next hour, Americans will use and throw away approximately 2,500,000 million plastic bottles. Of those 2.5 million bottles, everyone will still exist a thousand years from now.” – Intent Blog 

When did this all start? Bakelite, the first plastic, appeared in 1907 but plastic production really took off in the 1950s when annual production of plastics increased nearly 200-fold to 381 million tonnes in 2015.

Figure 3 World plastic production 1940-2019. Colin Battis

According to the UN, the most common single-use plastics in descending order of volume are: cigarette butts, plastic drinking bottles, plastic bottle caps, food wrappers, plastic grocery bags, plastic lids, straws and stirrers, other types of plastic bags, and foam take-away containers.

Plastic literally lasts forever. Sadly, a third of all plastic - water bottles, bags and straws - are used just once then discarded. Plastic cannot biodegrade; it breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces.

So plastic waste becomes an issue. About 55 percent of global plastic waste was discarded, 25 percent was incinerated, and 20 percent recycled. So, attention has turned to how to put less plastic into our ecosystem, and how to step up the use of recycled plastic to reduce the world’s plastic load.

Figure 4 Photo by freestocks.org from Pexels

The Rise of Plastic Bag Bans

As of last July, the United Nations counted 127 nations that have banned or taxed bags‒and bag regulations have proliferated so quickly, especially at the local level, that even an Al Qaeda-backed terrorist group joined in‒banning plastic shopping bags last summer as “a serious threat to the well-being of humans and animals alike.”

This spring, the European Union took steps to ban plastic bags as part of a sweeping effort on plastic items found most commonly on Europe’s beaches. In the United States, New York this month became the second state, after California, to ban plastic bags‒and at least 95 bills relating to bags were introduced in state legislative sessions this winter, more than any other year.  Hawaii has a defacto statewide bag ban because every county banned them.  Also, Kenya has taken action on the issue by now packing perishables in thicker bags made of synthetic fabric. 

Despite being relatively new hence lacking in long-term research on impact, researchers at the United Nations reviewed 60 “national bans and levies” and estimated that 30 percent of these measures have reduced consumption of plastics.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) puts more responsibility on producers for the treatment or disposal of post-consumer products. A total of 81 state EPR laws passed in the United States, most in the last decade. Since EPR appeared in Europe 20 years ago, most EU Member States have introduced EPR for packaging, ranging from mandatory regulations to voluntary agreements between government and industry to voluntary industry initiatives. 

Plastic Producers Also Need to Take Responsibility

In addition to government action and consumer demand, investors have also asked manufacturers to reduce their use of plastic. Bloomberg reported investors managing over $1 trillion in assets demanded that Nestlé, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Unilever to reduce their use of plastic packaging.  With the non profit As You Sow, the investors further asked companies to disclose annual plastic packaging use, set reduction goals, facilitate recycling and transition to recyclable, reusable or compostable packaging as much as possible.

Corporations have started to take on this challenge. Just some examples include:

• Cisco committed to decreasing use of virgin plastic by 20% by 2025, using FY18 as base year.

• Volvo said at least 25 per cent of plastics used in its new car models from 2025 will be made from recycled materials.

• Coca-Cola, which uses around 120 billion bottles a year, launched its World Without Waste campaign and pledged to increase the amount of recycled content in plastic bottles to 50 per cent by 2030.

• Dell aims to make its packaging 100 per cent waste-free by 2020, using materials from sustainable sources. It already uses recycled ocean plastics as well as other sustainable materials such as bamboo.

• IKEA has pledged to phase out single-use plastic products from its stores and restaurants by 2020 while phasing out oil-based plastics and ensuring that all its plastic products are made with recycled materials. 

Corporate Responsibility & “Environmental Theatre” 

You may notice when you go to the grocery store or any store for that matter that there is plastic everywhere.  There are many reasons for this; some are the oil industry, cost, durability, and little pushback.

Oil costs have gone down over the years, making it so recycling plastic is more expensive than producing more new plastic.  That is not to say some companies haven’t recycled some.  In the soda and bottled water industry there are good examples of plastic recycling.  However, that is not the majority of their production.

As much as I am not a plastic fan it is embedded in our lives our phones wouldn’t work without it; the main reason for this is because it is durable.

In terms of pushback, there is some, but it is not super widespread because plastic has become the norm and convenient.  Cost is the main reason though.

Companies will always try to cut costs unless consumers push back.  But change happens through the law, and if companies have potent lobbyists change will be hard.  There have been many cases of implementation talked about above that have been effective, but they were hard-fought.

Another point that has been made is that plastic bag bans are "environmental theatre" like TSA is "security theatre."  It makes everyone feel better but doesn't actually impact the issue in the way it looks.  That is not to say TSA doesn’t have a purpose and that the plastic bag bans aren’t significant, but more can be done.  While I think that this is an interesting point change happens with steps like this.  Just look at the example of sustainable fashion.  Many companies will say they are sustainable with making their fashion, but they aren’t they only use the label.  This is the same with plastic bans.  You get name recognition without adequately addressing the problem.  While that may happen, there are companies trying to make an effort which is great for the consumer and the environment.  A recent example that has been in the news is Zara that says by 2025 all their clothing will be sustainable.

That is why I believe, and many agree single-use plastic needs to be banned because many items are under that umbrella.  Keep in mind with plastic bag bans they are leading to more paper bags which kill trees.  What I mean by that statement is that no ban is perfect. 

Earth Law as Part of the Solution

Drawing from the long traditions of Indigenous Nations and ecological thinkers, Earth Law holds that ecosystems have the right to exist, thrive, and evolve—and that Nature should be able to defend its rights in court, just like people can.

Bolivia and Ecuador, rivers (the Whanganui in New Zealand, the Atrato and Amazon in Colombia along with the Coello, Combeima, Cocora and Cauca Rivers), mountains (Te Urewera in New Zealand) along with dozens of towns have enacted Rights of Nature ordinances around the world. Earth Law Center has passed an ordinance in Santa Monica, a resolution in Crestone plus helped partners pass Rights of Rivers legislation in Mexico City as well as in Colima Province.

Figure 5 Colombian Amazon. Mauricio Pineda

According to the Harmony with Nature initiative at the United Nations, the law is evolving towards a recognition that humankind and Nature share a fundamental, non-anthropocentric relationship given our shared existence on this planet, and it creates guidance for actions that respect this relationship. Legal provisions recognizing the Rights of Nature, sometimes referred to as Earth Jurisprudence, include constitutions, national statutes, and local laws. A complete list of current Rights of Nature initiatives around the world can be found here.

Greenfield Rights of Nature aims to raise awareness and take actions to help protect the environment in our community by collecting signatures for an ordinance to reduce plastic in the waste cycle. 

You Can Help Reduce Plastic 

Each of us makes a difference, and here are some ideas for how to reduce our plastic footprint:

1. Use reusable bags: Bring these to the grocery store or any place you shop to avoid plastic bags. Do this especially at restaurants because they are exempt from the plastic bag ban. Also, you can clean most reusable bags so they will last much longer than if you just continued using the same plastic bag.

2. Have your own water bottle: This way you don’t have to buy water when you go out. Also, you avoid single-use plastic doing this. In addition, they can keep hot liquids very hot too depending on the one you purchase.

3. Have your own metal/silicone/paper/bamboo straw: This way, you never have to use a plastic straw. And these straws are not hard to clean, so it is a great first step. This alone is not enough, but it is a start if you are just starting to decrease your plastic use. What I do is I bring my own cup and straw when I get coffee or a smoothie to avoid plastic altogether. 

4. Bring your own containers: This is for when you go out to eat such as to a food truck. When you bring your own container, you avoid single-use plastic that is hard to reuse with the food residue on it.

5. Talk to your friends: This is a huge one because many times if your friends know your reasoning, they might start making changes. Everyone has some power within their circle of friends. Remember you don’t have to be Beyoncé to makes changes.

6. Start composting: This way less goes in the garbage, and you get better soil than you would from the store. Many times, garbage bags are plastic, so the less you use, the better.

7. Reuse as much as possible: Many items you own can have a second life all you have to do is be a little creative. An example would be using old towels to clean your floors.

8. Refuse single-use plastic items at meetings and conferences: Many times, these are items you don’t need and will likely throw away. So, don’t get them in the first place. This way, companies will make less of them and might produce more sustainable giveaways.

9. Have your own bamboo or metal utensils: This way you avoid single-use plastic-eating ware. These are easy to clean too. Many times, you can get packages with bamboo utensils and metal straws.

10. Buy in bulk: This way, you avoid a lot of plastic packaging you aren’t likely to reuse. It also means you are more prepared for unexpected things that might happen in your environment, such as a natural disaster.

Conclusion

What I hope you took away from this piece is the importance of helping the planet. Remember, our climate and oceans are being ruined every day because of our actions. So, the changes we make today do matter. It is hard to quit hurting the environment cold turkey so ease into it by making small changes these will lead to bigger ones in the future. 

And you can look in the past to find that there used to be a time when we did not rely on the environment so heavily for goods we wanted. Talk to anyone over the age of 60, and they can tell you they didn’t see plastic many places. Now it is everywhere along with other inventions that are killing the environment. If we did it in the past, we could do it again. This may require more effort, but in the long run, it will be worth it because our children’s children will live in a healthy environment where they can strive. Remember, we only have one earth.

---

Join the Earth Law Movement today

• Sign up for the newsletter

• Volunteer

• Donate

Living in a World Where Nature Has Rights

Figure 1 Photo by Kevin Young on Unsplash

By Cameron La Follette    

What if Nature had rights? Not “contingent rights,” bestowed by humans and defensible in courts, but primal, pre-existing rights that human judicial systems recognize, honor and enforce. What kind of world would we be living in then? 

Earth Law as an innovative solution 

It is essential to recognize that “Rights of Nature” (also called “Earth law”) is not primarily a legal theory, despite the very legal-sounding name. Rights of Nature is a shorthand term for a philosophy that prioritizes systemic sustainability, rather than symptomatic partial fixes of environmental problems.

In other words, Earth Law seeks solutions to living that fit inside Nature’s limits, rather than beyond them. Going beyond nature’s limits causes cascades of environmental degradation, species extinction, reduced ecological resilience, and the miserable host of related ills with which we are so familiar today. Rights of Nature is a means of restoring relationships with nature.  

This relationship with Nature needs to evolve from one of treating Nature as a grab-bag of resources for human use towards a relationship of mutual respect. In any relationship of dignity, both parties have responsibilities and rights to advance the wellbeing of the other.

To change living and consumption patterns as intended, Rights of Nature must be considered as, and enshrined as, a set of pre-existing rights whose provenance comes before any human right. Otherwise, Rights of Nature becomes merely another in the already long list of rights which courts, and society as a whole, must seek to balance.  Existing rights familiar to Americans, for example, include the Declaration of Independence’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Figure 2 Brown turtle in the Galapagos, Ecuador. Photo by Cedric Fox on Unsplash

Implementation of the Rights of Nature continues to evolve. The details must be hammered out, place by place, to implement this desperately needed paradigm change. It is important to ensure that environmental justice is served for people as well as Nature.  We need to find the most accurate ways to measure harms to Nature and design economies so they lie within Nature, rather than seeking to enslave it.

The Beginning: Ecuador and Bolivia

The laurel belongs to Ecuador for taking a decisive step into national Rights of Nature governance, and bringing the world’s attention to this dramatic change of perspective. In its new Constitution, accepted by the people in 2008, Ecuador has language enshrining Rights of Nature: “Article 71. Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.”  These fundamental rights are enumerated in greater detail later in the section.

Bolivia became the second country in the world to recognize Rights of Nature nationally when it passed a comprehensive Mother Earth Law in 2012, which gave Mother Earth the right to life, to diversity of life, to water, clean air, equilibrium, restoration and pollution-free living. Bolivia had an even greater effect on the rising international concern over the deterioration of the earth when it convened the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in 2010.

This brought together concerned organizations from around the world, and resulted in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. This Declaration has been highly influential in shaping the Rights of Nature movement and development of Earth law principles, despite being conceived of, discussed and used as a template entirely outside the international justice system or any nation’s governance.

Sometimes Courts Lead the Way 

Ecuador now has ten years of court cases focusing, at least in part, on interpreting the Rights of Nature provisions of the Constitution. In a 2009 ruling on a case concerning biodigesters on an industrial hog farm, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court invoked the State’s duty of guardianship for the first time to protect the Rights of Nature.

Figure 3 Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Prakash Budha

The Court pointed out that the new Constitution gave Nature the right to have its existence fully respected, and the right to be restored when its natural systems were affected. This analysis resulted in the Court’s order to set up a commission to monitor operation of the biodigesters and the industrial farm’s waste  and environmental management. 

Recently, Ecuador turned down a proposed dolphinarium, based in part on Rights of Nature principles. Even more recently, the Ecuadoran Constitutional Court gave notice that it will develop binding jurisprudence on questions of natural resource exploitation and the impact on Rights of Nature and rights of communities – an essential step the Court has never taken before, which will be very important in Rights of Nature leadership worldwide.

Even Nepal, a war-torn country, is leading and creating discussion of Rights of Nature at the highest court level. Though their Supreme Court has issued important environmental rulings in many other realms, such as water pollution, groundwater pollution, petrol taxes and park protection, its holding in the Godavari Marble case is stunning. The Supreme Court ruled against Godavari Marble’s operation in the Kathmandu Valley in 1996, but the government continued to allow it to operate. However, in 2016, the Court unequivocally closed the marble quarry, and handed down a decision that enshrined the concept of Rights of Nature – that is, Nature’s need to exist for its own sake. By this one decision, the Supreme Court has brought ecological governance to the forefront of Nepal’s environmental conversation.

Sometimes Rivers Lead the Way    

New Zealand took a noteworthy first step with regards to its Whanganui River. In 2017, the New Zealand Parliament granted personhood to the Whanganui River as part of solving long-negotiated grievances between the government and the Maori iwi (tribal groups) for whom the Whanganui is ancestor, relative and part of the community. The Legislation created a new oversight commission comprised of one member appointed by the Crown and one member appointed by the Whanganui Maori. This commission has the power to promote and protect the health and well-being of the River. This action both solved treaty problems and provided a beautiful example of fusion between Western legal concepts and indigenous understanding, for the benefit of Nature and the human communities dependent on it.

Figure 4 Cataraft in the Klamath River. Zachary Collier

The Atrato River of Colombia is the locus for long-standing illegal mining of enormous scale, intensity and duration. The river, in the Chocó region, is highly biodiverse ecologically, and home to half a million people. Despite a maze of environmental protection laws, the Atrato basin continued to deteriorate, causing serious violations of rights to life, health, water, food security and healthy environment. The Sixth Chamber of Review of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, desperate to rise beyond the mere symbolic effectiveness of laws that clearly were not working on the ground, issued an unprecedented decision in 2016. The Court said, “Environmental justice must be applied beyond the human stage and must allow nature to be subject to rights.” No longer merely an object of rights, the Court respected the Atrato as a subject of rights.

Finally, just a few weeks ago, the Yurok Tribal Council passed a resolution recognizing the Rights of the Klamath River, which became the first river in the United States to have its rights formally recognized. The resolution recognizes the rights of the river “to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve; to have a clean and healthy environment free from pollutants; to have a stable climate free from human-caused climate change impacts; and to be free from contamination by genetically engineered organisms.”

Sometimes Sustainability Leads the Way

Rights of Nature – or some form of ecological governance – is the only road to true systemic sustainability. “Sustainability” is so overused a concept that it has become both spineless and colorless. But nevertheless it remains powerful: it means living inside Nature’s boundaries, not flouting them. Sustainability, in other words, cannot be an excuse for expanding human activity via an economy based on renewable energy, nor can it be limited to tricky calculations of the carbon footprint. Major decisions based on a visionary understanding of sustainability can lead to a strong focus on ecological governance, though it does not go by the Rights of Nature moniker.

Figure 5 Trongsa Dzong, Bhutan. @Christopher J. Fynn / Wikimedia Commons

From the 1960s to today, the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan has continued to protect an increasing amount of their land base. Currently, 51% of Bhutan is safeguarded from development. Bhutan’s Constitution also requires that 60% of the country’s forests be protected in perpetuity. Stewardship of Nature to ensure its flourishing have always been part of the kingdom’s policies and have shaped its conservation history. Most well known is Bhutan’s effort to govern by a different standard, other than sheer economic productivity, by instituting and measuring through its Gross National Happiness standard. Bhutan has a strong, centralized natural resources planning process in place that assists in maintaining the kingdom’s commitment to Nature’s stewardship, and fulfilling international commitments on climate change and biodiversity.

In Scotland, the Caledonian Forest that once covered much of the Highlands is so decimated, down to 1% of its natural range, that the Highlands are famous for an austere, ravished beauty of treeless hills, barren peat hags and heather-covered landscapes, devoid of most wildlife. Not until 1959 was the alarm sounded, which catalyzed several local reforestation projects beginning in the 1960s. Finally in 1989, visionary activist Alan Featherstone founded Trees for Life, a Scottish organization that has made dramatic recovery of the Caledonian Forest possible. They run their own nursery, purchased a 10,000-acre estate, and began the restoration of the broken ecological web that the native Scots pine forest would normally sustain. By 2018, Trees for Life had planted more than 1.5 million native trees, provided for restoration of many other forested areas by such means as deer-proof fencing, and initiated nationwide collaboration for restoration of the native forests of the Highlands.

Last month in June, the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador approved a pronouncement deeming that “forests are living entities” and that each person bears a responsibility to care for, preserve and respect forests while promoting concrete actions to expand forests in El Salvador. Earth Law Center supports Eneas Wilfredo Martínez Santos and local partners to secure rights for the forests of El Salvador.

Sometimes Desperation Leads the Way

The small island nation of Kiribati (formerly the Gilbert Islands) faces an uncertain future in this era of climate change, increasingly violent storms and rising sea levels. Its thirty-three islands are all low-slung coral atolls – narrow strips of coral sand surrounding a lagoon – with fragile lenses of fresh water on which the inhabitants depend. The approximately 120,000 people, whose home Kiribati has been for at least 3,000 years, can no longer be certain they will continue to have a homeland at all. As a result, the former President, Anote Tong, has become an international spokesman for ocean protection and strong action on climate change. He points out that the people of Kiribati cause almost none of the world’s carbon pollution, but are among the first to suffer from its devastating effects. President Tong spearheaded initiatives ranging from large-scale island barrier protections to finding alternative water sources, to policies on organized mass immigration if Kiribati’s people must flee their homeland.

Figure 6 Onotoa Atoll, Gilbert Islands, Republic of Kiribati, Central Pacific.Edvac

With local partners, Earth Law Center is working to pass an ordinance to recognize rights for the endangered Southern Resident Orcas, as part of a larger initiative to protect the inland Salish Sea, which stretches between Canada and Washington State. This initiative responded to the news from scientists, who reported in 2018 that the Orcas had hit a critical threshold in their ability to successfully reproduce in the wild. Part of the Orcas’ emergency stems from the bioaccumulation of toxins from Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia, whose watersheds drain into the Salish Sea. Symptomatic fixes, such as quieting or rerouting ferries, will not end the destruction of the Salish Sea’s ecology via pollution, fossil fuel tankers and other sources. A Rights of Nature ordinance, based on a paradigm change of relationship with Nature rather than mere exploitation, has a much better chance of success.

Conclusion 

Rights of Nature is a term advocating for the restoration of a mutual relationship between humans and Nature. The human relationship with Nature cannot be a relationship of servitude of Nature to human needs; the results of that paradigm are everywhere apparent. There is no single way to repair this relationship. Every culture has its own histories and cultural richness upon which to draw, as these examples from around the world show.

You can take action today:

• Sign up for ELC’s monthly newsletter

• Volunteer

• Donate

About the Author

Cameron La Follette lead-authored a book in 2017, Sustainability and the Rights of Nature: An Introduction, to survey the actions taken worldwide thus far, and to explore what would be necessary, in the United States, to prioritize Nature’s functioning. There were many surprising conclusions from this book, especially the extent to which the country’s laws, philosophies and actions on the ground need to change to honor Nature’s inherent rights. A companion volume, Sustainability and the Rights of Nature in Practice, is forthcoming. This second book consists of invited chapters from policymakers and advocates worldwide showcasing what their countries and communities are doing to repair the relationship with Nature. In this visionary task lies the great hope for the future.

Bats Evolved for a Darker Environment than 21st-Century Britain

Our suburban neighbourhood in south-east England has lots of bat-friendly habitats. There are trees, hedges, old buildings with accessible roof spaces, ponds, and waterways. Perfect for the 18 species of bat who live in England, Wales and Scotland. British bats are small, nocturnal, and eat insects. As the primary predators of night-flying insects they are important for a balanced ecosystem.

We see the bats at dusk. British bats are divided into two groups: slow and fast flyers. Our local bats are fast; blink and you’ll miss them. Dashing through the air, they could be mistaken for little birds. Recently we saw two chasing each other at high speed. It’s fairly rare to observe them interacting because they’re so quick.

Los Angeles basin night sky.

Conditions in the suburb look great for bats but there is a serious problem. At night the sky glows because of artificial lighting. Only a few stars of the 4,000 we should see are actually visible. When the moon is full and bright it makes no difference here. Its beams are hidden by light pollution. At night our neighbourhood has much more light than the bats evolved to live with.

Light pollution is widespread in Britain. It’s estimated that 55% of the population cannot see the stars of the Milky Way. England is the worst affected country. Only 21.7% of its skies have pristine darkness. Wales does better, with 57% of its skies pristine. In Scotland the situation is much better at 77%. Light pollution is concentrated in towns, cities, and also on the road network. In southern England the M25 and M21 motorways are visibly lit up in satellite images of nighttime lighting.

Light is measured in a unit called “lux.” Bats here evolved to live in the levels of lux found at twilight and under the stars and the moon. They emerge at dusk in direct response to the dimming light. Some bats species fly in and out of the roost to check the light level (PDF) before properly emerging.

A cloudy, overcast day is 5,000 lux. At sunset it goes down to 10 lux and in twilight it is 1 lux.

Artificial lights can prevent bats from seeing this change. Good main road lighting is between 5 and 20 lux. Typical side road lighting is 5 lux and security lighting is 2 lux. In all cases brighter than twilight and in some cases brighter than sunset.

We can see how artificial light outshines the moon and the stars when we compare lux measurements. The light of a clear full moon, which seems so strong in dark, rural areas is only 0.25 to 1 lux. Typical starlight is 0.001 lux. (Source of lux measurements. PDF)

In our neighbourhood and elsewhere, the lights create a complicated landscape for bats. A natural night is a blanket of darkness and artificial lighting interrupts this with rivers and pools of illumination. Highly-lit roads cut across darker areas for miles, leaving bats with no choice but to cross or avoid. Even the darker streets are patched with light from the street lamps and from buildings with unscreened windows. A well-lit office is 500 times brighter than twilight.

In very highly-lit areas there is also an effect called sky glow, in which the light reflects off particles in the air, brightening the whole sky. When I look up at the sky at night it often appears purplish blue or whitish brown because of the light bouncing off the clouds.

Barbestelle Bat

Light pollution disadvantages bats in numerous ways

Slow-flying bats tend to avoid light. In Britain, slow-flying bats include long-eared bats, Myotis species, barbastelle, and greater and lesser horseshoe bats. Light intolerance means slower bats face disadvantages (PDF) when trying to access to food and territory. The ultraviolet (UV) in many artificial lights draws insects away from darker areas and out of the slower bats’ reach. Fast flying, light tolerant bats, such as pipistrelles, gain the advantage because they can successfully hunt around lights.

The lights may give some fast-flying bats an evolutionary advantage over others within their own species. In Britain the common pipistrelle frequently hunts around street lights. Research shows (PDF) that in Italy its southern cousin, Kuhl's pipistrelle, may have physically adapted to artificial lights. Since 1945 their skull sizes have increased, perhaps to better enable them to eat the larger insects found under the lights. These larger insects include moths, which are also affected by light pollution. Research indicates that moths may lose the ability to hear bats’ echolocation signals under mercury vapour and LED lights.

Hunting under artificial lights is not all good news for fast-flying bats, as it makes them prey for cats and for large birds such as hawks and seagulls. Flying low near roads also increases the risk of collisions with vehicles.

Bats follow commuting paths through their habitat as they forage for insects. Studies show that while some bats avoid light completely, others have varying reactions to light depending on the time of year, and the presence of trees and insect-rich pasture or buildings. Where light interferes with the bats’ commuting paths (PDF) it can restrict their available foraging territory or force them to use more energy by flying a farther for less food.

Artificial light near bat roosts causes significant problems because it delays the bats’ evening exit, causing them to miss the period of intense insect activity at dusk. One study of Geoffroy’s bat and the lesser mouse eared bat found that pups in illuminated maternity roosts (PDF) had shorter forearms, lower body mass and delayed birth dates when compared to pups in non-illuminated maternity roosts. Maternity roosts attract bats from a wide surrounding area (PDF) year after year. Light pollution or indeed any other damage to a roost can significantly disrupt a local bat population. Bats only produce one pup a year and prefer to use the same roosts throughout their lives.

In the worst-case scenario artificial lights near roosts cause bats to stay entombed inside and eventually starve to death.

Bechstein’s Bat

British laws and government policies protect bats from some light pollution

In Scotland, England, and Wales it is a criminal offence to interfere with a bat or a bat roost, with punishments including fines and imprionment. Bats are protected by multiple laws, including the Wildlife and Countryside Act of 1981 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations of 2010.

The 2010 rules state it is an offence to “Disturb a bat deliberately (disturbance includes any disturbance which is likely to impair a bat’s ability to: survive, to breed or reproduce, or to rear or nurture their young), hibernate or migrate (in the case of animals of a hibernating or migratory species).” It is also an offence to “Affect significantly the local distribution or abundance of the species to which they belong.”

In guidance issued on its website, the government reminds the public that placing an artificial light outside or inside a roost harms bats.

Developers seeking planning permission for construction projects are responsible for ensuring that work does not harm bats.

An ecological survey conducted before the conversion of a hotel into a care home resulted in the following recommendations for developers:

• cease work and consult a licensed bat ecologist if a bat is found

• carry out demolition work when bats are not hibernating or summer roosting

• direct artificial light away from trees and scrub.

In southwestern England a local government issued bat-friendly lighting guidelines (PDF) for developments along a river and a canal, both of which are known bat commuting routes. Recommendations included:

• prevent artificial light from spilling onto the river, the banks and the water’s edge

• plant along the banks to encourage foraging bats

• zoning changes to allow unlimited lux in the development zone and decreasing levels in the three zones closest to the water (3 lux, 0.5 lux, 0.1 lux).

Bats and other nocturnal creatures receive further help under planning regulations concerning light pollution. Paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework for England (PDF) states:

“Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment…”

Paragraph 180 states that new developments should:

“limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”

Natterer’s Bat

Laws have helped bats but observation suggests more legislation is required

Bats received legal protection in Britain because of the major drop in their numbers in the 20th century. The decline coincided with the mass adoption of outdoor and indoor electric lighting in the 20th century.

These updated laws and the hard work of conservationists have combined to stabilise the population compared to the figures known for 1999. Only two of Britain’s 18 species have near threatened status on IUCN’s red list.

Although bat protection policies help mitigate the effects of artificial light, the population’s stabilisation might be due to a decline in the physical destruction of roosts. Each year the National Bat Helpline receives 14,000 queries “from building and planning professionals, householders with bat roost questions, and members of the public who have found injured and grounded bats. As a result, thousands of bats and their roosts are conserved.”

Light pollution still exists at a high level so the risk to bats remains. In 2016 the Campaign for Rural England urged the authorities to take action. It called on the national government to ensure developers were following planning guidelines, on local governments to protect dark areas and to prevent developers from increasing light pollution, on highway authorities to tackle light pollution on roads, and on businesses and large facilities to dim or switch off lights.

Our knowledge of bat behaviour tells us that the present high levels of light pollution must still be disturbing bats.

Current laws and policies protect bats in a wide range of situations including human discovery of roosts and new construction projects. What the law doesn’t do is treat all of Britain as a potential bat habitat. If we accept that bats could choose to roost, commute, forage, or mate in almost any area, the current light pollution problem means that bats are not completely protected, despite it being a criminal offence to hurt them.

Is it time for an Earth Law that regulates all existing and future artificial lighting to avoid damage to bats, regardless of whether we have knowledge of their presence? This law would acknowledge that this island belongs to the bats, just as much as it belongs to us humans.

What would an Earth Law to prevent light pollution from disturbing bats look like?

Complete natural darkness would be ideal for bats, but would not work for humans. We need light for safety. Earth Law practitioners seek to balance the needs of the entire Earth community, which includes people. An Earth Law would have to find a compromise that is acceptable to humans and bats.

Some compromises are common sense. We should wave goodbye to decorative architectural lighting schemes outside buildings. We should avoid directing lights where we do not have a functional use for them. We should also encourage people to use thicker curtains and screens to stop light leaving buildings at night.

Scientific study of bats shows other compromises are possible. We could switch to red outdoor lighting. A pioneering study in the Netherlands found that red street lights do not disturb light avoidant or light tolerant bats. The study said:

“Our findings show that bat activity in red light, which has less light of short wavelength and more light of long-wavelength, most resembles dark. This holds up for both light-shy species and more agile non-light shy species. Therefore, this finding opens the possibility for the mitigation of adverse consequences of artificial lighting for bats in situations where natural habitat has to be exposed to illumination.”

(A problem with red light at night is that it disturbs some light sensitive trees. This would have to be considered in an Earth Law that balances the needs of the whole community.)

Another study found that dimming lights, although not as effective as switching off, lessens the impact on bats. This compromise could be introduced in areas where “just enough” lighting is needed.

An Earth Law would affect everyone. Householders would need to screen windows and not place unnecessary lights in gardens. Stores would have to avoid bright lights in windows. Universities, airports and hospitals would need to consider hundreds of light fittings, windows and outdoor areas.

A new law, introduced too quickly, would incur a lot of resistance. The best solution would be to set a date for compulsory compliance several years into the future. This would give everyone the chance to prepare for the change.

In the meantime, everyone can help by voluntarily cutting down on light polluting activities and by spreading the word about why it matters. The good thing about light pollution is that it goes away when we switch off the lights.

Here’s more you can do:

• Sign up for the monthly newsletter

• Volunteer

• Donate

The Importance of Cryptobiotic Soil and How Earth Law Can Help

Figure 1 Cryptobiotic soil at Arches National Park, Utah, USA. Henning Schlottmann.

By Hali Stuck 

As I climbed up the red canyons and hiked through the brush and sand, I had to watch every step I took, why? Because of cryptobiotic soil of course. Sounds like some sort of radiation term doesn’t it?

Well it’s a special soil that only forms in arid areas such as the Colorado Plateau, Sonoran Desert, Great Basin, and the inner Columbia Basin. It can even be found in the Arctic! ‘Crypto’ meaning hidden and ‘bio’ meaning life is made up of five living organisms: cyanobacteria, lichens, mosses, green algae, and micro fungi.

These organisms work together to form a hard black crust that helps with preventing erosion, absorbing rainfall, and provides nutrients for the growing plants around it.

Why cryptobiotic soil

The most accurate name for cryptobiotic soil is ‘biological soil crust’ meaning “formed by living organisms and their by-products, creating a crust of soil particles bound together by organic material.”

You may also hear people call it ‘chemical’ or ‘physical’ crusts which is inaccurate because those are defined as inorganic features which is the opposite of what cryptobiotic soil is. Since this soil covers over 70% of the living ground in the arid Southwest it comes in many different shapes and sizes and even has many different species of microorganisms in it depending on what area it’s found in.

If you are in the Great Basin or the Colorado Plateau you may see smoother and wave-like cryptobiotic soil (or crypto for short). This is due to the large number of plant-roots in those areas and having most of their rainfall in the winter. These two factors keep the crypto from swelling repeatedly. 

However, in southern arid areas such as the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts where there are fewer plant roots and also excessive uneven erosion the crypto has much higher and steeper pinnacles. Depending on how old the crypto is it can be anywhere from one centimeter to fifteen centimeters deep. The deeper crusts can be up to thousands of years old.

There is even research that has been done that says that crypto was one of the first living organisms on this planet dating back to 3.5 billion years ago.

Figure 2 Soil crust at base of Wyoming big sagebrush Seedskadee. USFWS Mountain-Prairie.

What Does Cryptobiotic Soil Do?

Cryptobiotic soil is the glue that holds the desert together. It gives plants a safe sturdy place to grow, it protects the earth below it from washing away during rain, and it keeps the life that can survive the deserts harsh conditions from blowing away and turning a once green area into rolling barren sand dunes.

Rainfall

Rain may not fall often in the desert but when it does it can be intense. Erosion is one of the bigger issues that the desert faces due to the lack of sturdiness that the ground has in those areas. That’s where crypto comes into play. Crypto’s hard top layer gives sturdy protection to the soil below it as well as to the plants around it, guarding them from being washed away during harsh rainstorms. This top layer absorbs the rain keeping the area around it from washing away, as well as making water available for dryer seasons.

In addition, when cryptobiotic soil is dry the organisms that it consists of lie dormant. When it rains however the mosses, lichens, cyanobacteria, algae, and fungi can move through the sand leaving behind a sheath on loose areas creating the beginnings of new crypto.

Figure 3 Green frog in the rain. Photo by Jill Heyer on Unsplash.

Plant Life

Crypto also plays other roles in helping the plant life around it grow. Sand is not a great place for seeds to land. This loose substance causes plant seeds to get buried in areas that have little to no nutrients or it causes them to continuously blow through the wind, never to root into the ground.

Crypto catches these seeds on its hard surface and gives them a safe, nutrient rich area to grow. The dark color of crypto also keeps the ground that it is on the right temperature for seed germination. Plants that thrive in the presence of crypto include Sixweeks Fescue, Desert Blazing Star, Rock-Cress Prostrate Summercypress, Blue Flax, Mountain Peppergrass and Scarlet Globemallow.

However, there are plants that do not do well in crypto. Due to the hardness of the top layer of crypto it limits large seeds from being able to burrow themselves and germinate. These large seeds however are not usually native species therefore crypto also prevents invasive species from being able to grow and spread.

Nitrogen Fixation and other Nutrients

Cryptobiotic soil also helps with the process of nitrogen fixation. Plants need nitrogen to assist in the creation of amino acids, proteins and DNA. Without the help of nitrogen fixation especially in the desert where there is very little access to nutrients the fight for a plant to stay alive would be futile. Crypto contains denitrifying bacteria which assists in transforming the nitrogen in the atmosphere into a type of nitrogen that plants can use. 

Crypto is actually the dominant source of nitrogen in the desert, meaning that plants can’t get their nitrogen fix from anywhere else. Crypto’s hard top layer also provides a place for nutrients to cling to such as calcium, potassium, and manganese. These nutrients bind to the cryptobiotic soil and are in turn available to the plants around it.

Threats to Cryptobiotic Soil

Foot Traffic

The biggest threat that cryptobiotic soil faces is our very feet. Even though crypto is such an important piece of the desert it is extremely fragile. One boot print can destroy hundreds and even thousands of years of growth.

Livestock

The desert is not meant to sustain thousands of cattle moving through its plains and rolling hills. The excessive grazing and trampling of the native species turns thousands of miles of once thriving lands into barren sand dunes. 

Military Activities

The arid desert lands of North America is the perfect space for military activities such as testing new artillery to hosting bootcamp. The small amount of people that live in this region gives the military carte blanche to do as they please which has resulted in mass destruction of the native species and miles of crypto.

Wildfires

You hear all the time about the wildfires in California but what about the wildfires in the arid deserts of North America? Utah is even ranked one of the most vulnerable states to wildfires. Just looking at it you can see how one tiny little flame can spread across the countryside in a matter of minutes.

Entire valleys of plants are burnt to ash due to these rampant fires and crypto is no exception. Crypto can survive low intensity fires but high intensity fires can destroy miles of well-established crypto and high intensity fires are more than common due to the dry sage brush growing in these areas. 

How Long Does It Take Crypto to Recover?

Even though crypto is such a much-needed piece of the desert environment it is extremely fragile and takes a significant amount of time to recover. Crypto is most vulnerable when it is dry, which is most of the year due to the small amounts of rain the desert receives. When dry crypto is trampled by feet, livestock, ATV’s and whatever else humans bring into the desert it can take up to 250 years for that one patch to recover.

After one patch of destroyed crypto causes sandblasting which often buries other crypto covered areas. Visual recovery can take 1-7 years in favorable conditions. After that it can take up to 45 years for lichens to reappear and 250 years for mosses meaning that if an area is destroyed today it can take up to eight generations for that area of crypto to be fully recovered as long as there are favorable conditions. If not in a matter of just a few years that area will become sand dunes. Barren, dry, and lifeless.

Figure 4 Sand replaces soil without crypto.

What Happens When the Crypto Is Gone?

A lack of Cryptobiotic Soil can cause barren sand dunes to form but what else happens when the crypto is destroyed and disappears? Well, biodiversity decreases due to the sudden lack of nutrients and lack of stability in the soil along with increased sandblasting which in turn covers nearby sections of crypto as well as other plants.

Lack of crypto also increases runoff by half which causes six times the amount of soil loss that usually occurs when crypto is present. When crypto is lacking, once harmless native plants can turn harmful. Plants such as Artemisia Tridentata, Atriplex Confertifolia, and Ceratoides Lanata can cause nitrogen fixation to decrease by 80%.

How Earth Law can help protect cryptobiotic soil

Rights of Nature can help protect cryptobiotic soil by recognizing the critical role these fragile ecosystems play in the overall health of Nature and everything that depends on it (including us!). Earth Law includes us all into community in terms of rights to live, thrive, and evolve. Cryptobiotic soil is currently an overlooked community member who we will badly miss when it’s gone.

Less an arid sand dunes and more a desert that is full of life, crypto hosts a community which Earth Law can help protect just like other ecosystems.

Earth Law Center works with local communities and organizations to recognize the Rights of Nature, and strengthen the legal protection of Nature’s ecosystems.

What you can do to protect Cryptobiotic Soil

Even though we are the biggest contributors to cryptobiotic soil’s destruction we can also be the biggest contributors to its survival. It’s almost easier to protect it than it is to destroy it. All it requires us to do is to be more conscious of where we step.

Figure 5 CGP Grey.

Stay on the Paths

It’s truly that simple. Stay in areas that have already been impacted by humans such as set trails for walking and ATV’s and established campgrounds.

Continue the Growth of Protected Lands

There are many lands in the arid desert regions that have the law on their side such as different national parks and protected lands but what about the areas that aren’t protected? There are thousands of acres being destroyed everyday that are full of cryptobiotic soil. Due to the desperate need of crypto for anything to grow in the desert this should be outrageous. We must continue the efforts that have already begun and protect this needed yet extremely fragile aspect of desert lands.

Here’s more you can do:

• Sign up for the monthly newsletter

• Volunteer

• Donate

Corporations can help address today’s environmental crisis

Figure 1 Photo by Tirachard Kumtanom from Pexels

By Brandon Rosenbach 

"Campaigns against corporations have led them to take greater care that their goods are not produced under unacceptable working conditions for starvation wages. All of us, by the decisions we make about how we live and work and travel and consume help to shape an environment. To think and act morally, to do what is right because it is right, influence others; it begins to create a climate of opinion; good like evil, is infectious. We do not have to accept the unacceptable. The only thing that makes social or economic trends inevitable is the belief that they are. The unfolding drama of the 21st Century is one of which we are the co-writers of the script." - Rabbi Jonathon Sacks (The Dignity of Difference)

Society and industry rapidly transformed at the turn of the 20th century. Corporations rose to power, and wage earners outnumbered self-employed workers for the first time. Corporations began to dominate lives around the world, resulting in a reevaluation of the role of corporations in society.

The rise of corporate social responsibility

In 1889, Andrew Carnegie published The Gospel of Wealth laying out his principle that all personal wealth beyond that required to supply the needs of one's family should be regarded as a trust fund to be administered for the benefit of the community. He was one of the first to declare that the rich have a moral obligation to give away their fortunes and did his best to do so, giving away an estimated $350 million by the time he died.

Sharing a rags to riches history like Carnegie, John Davison Rockefeller gave away $540 million (unadjusted for inflation) before his death in 1937 at the age of 97. Other captains of industry were similarly generous including Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell and John Pierpont Morgan. 

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) took hold in the U.S. in the 1970s, when the concept of the “social contract” between business and society was declared by the Committee for Economic Development in 1971. The social contract is based on the idea that business functions because of public “consent,” therefore business has an obligation to constructively serve the needs of society. This is often referred to today as “license to operate” – that is to contribute more to society than solely their products for sale.

Figure 2 Hiker in Patagonia cap. Photo by Charles DeLoye on Unsplash

CSR and the environment

Those corporate philanthropic beginnings have spawned a diverse range of partnerships supporting some of the world’s largest environmental nonprofits today. Businesses have founded hundreds of foundations in the US alone, all focused on the environment.

Fortune 500 and other large businesses have added green initiatives into their future plans for growth and innovation. Patagonia aims to make its supply chain carbon-neutral by 2025, arguing that the supply chain is "where all the issues are." That's meant working with recycled cotton, polyester and down, among other materials, and trying to find more natural fibers to make clothing with, as well as pushing suppliers to adopt more sustainable practices.

Adidas invested almost 10 years of research into making recyclable shoes, and they just recently revealed they will be selling a running shoe that can be 100% recycled into a new pair of shoes - a “closed loop” manufacturing model, meaning the company can use previously made products to make an entirely new product. This will help the company keep its pledge to only use recycled plastic as of 2024.

In 2012, IKEA announced its goal to be powered by 100 per cent renewables by 2020 – but just four years later, it upped the ante aiming to be a net energy exporter in the same time. Lego runs on 100% renewable energy 3 years before their publicly announced deadline.

Seventh Generation not only uses sustainable practices, it’s also created space for green products in a particularly environmentally destructive industry – household cleaners. By 2025, 100 percent of materials and ingredients used by the company will be bio-based (made from plants or renewable agricultural, marine, and forestry materials, not fossil fuels) or recycled.

Drawbacks of CSR

The voluntary nature of CSR means that while some organizations have fundamentally transformed their sourcing, manufacturing and design to reduce their carbon footprint – others have deployed CSR mainly for the company’s own benefit. 

One such method, Greenwashing, helps companies look more environment-friendly than they really are - by spending more money, time and effort on marketing its products as ‘green’, rather than actually minimizing its adverse impact on the environment. For example, the Kauai Coffee recently stated that their single serving coffee product is 100% compostable, taking the guilt out of a single serve. In reality, if a consumer wanted to decompose the product, he or she would have to bring it to an industrial facility, not a basic compost pile. 

Starbucks claims to be climate-change aware and released goals to make 25% of its cups reusable by 2015 while eliminating the use of antibiotic treated meats. However, the company has fallen short of all its goals. In 2015, Starbucks’ percentage of reusable cups was only 1.9%, and the company earned a D+ in a report on antibiotics in their meats, lagging behind both McDonalds and Taco Bell. It’s up to consumers to hold companies to their promises. 

The next evolution of CSR: Extended Producer Responsibility

Figure 3 Plastic Bottles

Today 100 companies have been responsible for more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. So maybe a bit more support is needed to encourage more companies to take leadership in addressing the environmental impacts of their businesses.

When Thomas Lindquist first introduced the concept in Sweden in 1990, he proposed that product manufacturers and distributors should be responsible for the life of their products and packaging after the consumer is through with them. The idea of Extended Producer Responsibility has since gained some traction. 

Motivations for extended producer responsibility practices include a mixture of economic, environmental, and social factors. Extended producer responsibility shifts the economic burden of the cost of disposal from the government to the producer of the product. Within an environmental context, products must be designed for recyclability, and extended producer responsibility encourages design for recycling while discouraging the use of toxic components in the product. Finally, extended producer responsibility meets increasing consumer demand for environmentally friendly products that can easily be recycled or are manufactured using recycled content.

Extended producer responsibility legislation encourages remanufacturing initiatives because it "focuses on the end-of-use treatment of consumer products and has the primary aim to increase the amount and degree of product recovery and to minimize the environmental impact of waste materials".

The policy first appeared in the early 1990s in a few European Member States, especially for packaging waste, and has later on expanded across the EU and beyond . Since then, EPR has contributed to significant increases in recycling rates and public spending savings on waste management, and helped decouple waste management from economic growth. In April 2018, the European Parliament approved a plan to increase recycling and reduce landfills, strengthening provisions for extended producer responsibility.

Figure 4 Cardboard scraps awaiting recycling at paper factory in Poland. Photo by taw.

Over 68 million tons of paper and paperboard products are recovered annually in the U.S., achieving a recycling rate of 64.7 percent. US companies have pledged $1 Billion to recycle paper from Cascades, Green Bay Packaging, and Pratt Industries and ND Paper over the next 18 months. 

In Connecticut, the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) released the nation’s first statewide evaluation for four extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws for paint, mattresses, mercury thermostats, and electronics. These four programs have diverted 26 million pounds of material from waste, saved Connecticut municipalities and taxpayers more than $2.6 million per year, provided additional services worth another $6.7 million, and created over 100 jobs.

Unlike the U.S. and other countries, Canada used to send only 21% of its plastic to China. With China's scrap import ban and the resulting drop in commodity markets, trash is piling up in the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island. Meanwhile Vancouver has no such issues. This is attributed in part to a successful extended producer responsibility (EPR) system that already encouraged domestic processing.

Earth Law and extended producer responsibility

Earth Law wants legal recognition for Nature to be seen as a person like corporations are. Although we’re often critical of corporations, many have already taken transformative actions to be part of the solution. From CSR to extended producer responsibility, corporations now also have a clear pathway for approaches they can choose to adopt. 

Like extended producer responsibility, Earth Law also represents a paradigm shift in how we look at protecting the environment. Both are holistic approaches that address the root causes of the environmental crisis we face today. Recognizing the right of Nature to exist, thrive and evolve is the first step in taking proactive action to safeguard the health of Nature.

Figure 5 Photo by WestBoundary Photography chris gill unsplash.com

As with the successful examples of extended producer responsibility, codifying new behavior into law helps everyone evolve their business practices – in the same way that legally recognizing Rights of Nature will support decisions and actions which promote the health of Nature and our fellow species.

Integrating Earth Law concepts into business models and practices is similarly important to incorporating the principles and practices of extended producer responsibility. Earth Law Center works with governments, civil society organizations and businesses to connect and catalyze Rights of Nature efforts around the world.

Earth Law Center is building an international movement from the ground up, one that gives better grounding to the idea that humans have a responsibility for how we impact the world around us. The belief that nature - the species and ecosystems that comprise our world - has inherent rights has proven to be a galvanizing idea, and we work with local communities to help them organize around the rights of nature to protect their environment from the threats that they see.

This idea of Earth Law grows every day thanks to people spreading the word, local organizations launching initiatives, local governments looking for ways to strengthen protection of Nature. Businesses and consumers can spread the word about extended producer responsibility as well as Earth Law – so together we can work towards a healthy planet.

You can take action today by:

• Sign up for the Earth Law Center Newsletter

• Volunteer with Earth Law Center

• Support Earth Law Center by Donating