Earth Law Center Blog
Launch of Earth Law Portal to Transform Ideas to Action
Launch of Earth Law Portal to Transform Ideas to Action
Every day we see troubling news of climate change impacts or environmental degradation around the globe, reminding us that we need to transform ideas to action for a healthier planet. Flooding in Pakistan. Areas of the Amazon rainforest and Earth’s climate reaching new tipping points.
Earth Law is the body of law that evolves legal and governance systems to view Nature as a living being, recognizing our human responsibilities to and interdependent relationship with the environment. This legal movement is emerging worldwide with frequent new developments. Just this year: Panama passed a Rights of Nature law, Mar Menor ecosystem was recognized as a legal entity, and the Convention on Biological Diversity increased support for the Rights of Mother Earth. But to further momentum, we need a method to scale these efforts and provide access to robust and effective legal models.
Earth Law Portal
Earth Law Center and partners will launch a portal called Earth Law: Transforming Ideas to Action for a Healthier Planet in summer 2023. This will be a digital portal and repository of Earth Law legal models and templates. Here, legislators, activists, and others can customize and download Earth laws—much like other law template sites, but for the planet!
This new initiative will generate a user-friendly website to mainstream Earth-centered laws (e.g. Rights of Nature, Rights of Future Generations, Right to a Healthy Environment, Indigenous Inherent Relationships, Rights of Mother Earth, etc.). Many of these movements are already advancing around the world. Our vision for Earth Law is to amplify these efforts and partner with organizations and allies to make best practices and resources accessible to all—-to empower communities, governments and everyone to take action for Nature.
In addition, the portal will provide educational resources to grow awareness and understand how to implement these templates. By seeking to restore balance to our relationship with Nature, we collectively protect human well-being by contributing to the protection of ecosystems that support all life.
ELC is excited to advance this initiative, and will keep readers informed with updates as it progresses. If you have any questions about Earth Law, or your organization has interest in partnering with us (to share your templates or resources within the shared portal), we invite you to send queries to info@earthlaw.org.
How can you help?
Make a monthly contribution of $5 to protect our only home
Connect with us on social media and Sign up for the ELC Newsletter
The Ocean needs a High Seas Treaty
Silas Baisch from Unsplash
The Ocean needs a High Seas Treaty
The High Seas are two-thirds of the world’s Ocean. Despite being home to a myriad of biodiversity, (such as the Pacific Blue Tuna, White Shark or Leatherback Sea Turtle), and numerous species still unknown to science, there is still no comprehensive framework on how to govern human activity on the High Seas.
History of High Seas Governance
In 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) marked the beginning of global agreement for the Ocean. The High Seas, also known as the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), is the water column of the Ocean areas outside a coastal country’s Exclusive Economic Zone, generally 200-miles offshore. That is to say, no one country has the sole responsibility of these areas, so governance ought to be collective and collaborative across the globe.
While UNCLOS requires nations ‘to protect and preserve the marine environment,’ there are significant legal and governance gaps that consequently, have not effectively deterred overfishing and other human induced threats.
Fortunately, there has been recognition of the need to better protect marine biological diversity on the High Seas for decades. The development of a new international and legally-binding treaty under UNCLOS is long overdue, but has yet to reach formal adoption.
High Seas Treaty Talks Continue
The fifth round of United Nations High Seas negotiations (IGC-5) ended in New York on August 26, without reaching consensus on the treaty.
Though IGC-5 was intended to be the last scheduled session, delegations will have to meet again this year to fulfill the deadline of adopting the treaty by the end of 2022 (set by UN General Assembly resolution 72/249).
Commenting on the 2022 target, the High Seas Alliance, a coalition of organizations, of which Earth Law Center is a part of, pushed for momentum and collaboration between States to continue, stating “this is essential if the world is to achieve the goal of protecting 30% of the ocean by 2030 - something which cannot be achieved without the Treaty.”
Why the urgency?
The failure to adopt a treaty to protect marine life on the High Seas comes at a critical time. Speaking at the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon in June, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared “we have taken the ocean for granted and today we face what I would call an ocean emergency.”
Ocean health continues to decline. This is a defining moment and historical opportunity to restore a relationship of care and stewardship of the Ocean.
Rights and Interests of Marine Life
Though State interests and disagreements halted the negotiation process, one brightspot is the recommendation submitted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for the treaty to include:
“Stressing the need to respect the balance of rights, obligations and interests set out in the Convention, as well as the rights and interests of future generations and marine life to a healthy, productive and resilient ocean” (Preamable Paragraph 2).
Where negotiations ended, this text was not yet included in the treaty, but we look forward to continuing advocacy for the Ocean’s rights and interests to be recognized. This would be the first global treaty to do so!
Acknowledging the Ocean as a rightsholder and interest would help ensure the Ocean’s needs and well-being are considered in decisions that affect the health of marine ecosystems and biodiversity. In practice, this could strengthen implementation of States’ obligations to protect and conserve the High Seas by recognizing that human activity must be governed by and respect the Ocean’s intrinsic value and ecological limits.
Additionally, this would promote and align with many Indigenous peoples worldviews, and provide an avenue for increased participation of Indigenous Peoples as those who may represent the Ocean’s interests and needs in decision making under the new agreement.
Indigenous and local communities have been widely excluded and underrepresented in the treaty process, despite supportive nations calling for their direct inclusion and consultation. Just as many Indigenous and coastal peoples have been teaching for millennia, we are in a deeply connected relationship with the Ocean. The Ocean is our source of life and a living sacred entity. For centuries this kinship understanding has guided activities, balancing between the needs of people and the capacity of Ocean. Amplifying diverse understandings of relating to the Ocean, can not only help replace our focus on exploiting the High Seas, but help guide our use and value of the Ocean.
Ocean Stewardship
We also commend and support Article 5 to remain in the treaty that calls for the stewardship of the High Seas, “protecting, caring for and ensuring responsible use of the marine environment, maintaining the integrity of ocean ecosystems and preserving the inherent value of biodiversity” (Article 5 k.).
The stewardship principle strengthens States’ responsibility to maintain healthy and thriving Ocean ecosystems on behalf of present and future generations of all life. This means helping States’ adhere to the best available scientific evidence and include the Ocean’s needs in decision making.
Rather than fulfilling States’ short-term interests, active stewardship requires prioritizing the long-term well-being of the Ocean. In fact, in 2022, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) produced an assessment report on the valuation of Nature, highlighting that, ‘a broader diversity of nature’s values’ should be incorporated into decision making. It additionally finds that the causes of and solutions for our global environmental challenges are tightly linked to the ways in which we value our environments (p.4).
We urge adoption of a treaty this year that recognizes the inherent value, rights and interests of the High Seas and States’ responsibility to conserve. This will signify a turning point from “business as usual” towards living in harmony with Mother Earth. The Ocean needs us to adopt a global vision and treaty that embodies stewardship, care and respect for Ocean health.
Join ELC in our efforts to encourage governance respect the Ocean’s Rights and interests!
Find Updates on the High Seas Alliance Treaty Tracker
Rights of Nature, Animals Rights: What’s the Difference?
Rights of Nature, Animals Rights: What’s the Difference?
Though seemingly similar or even interchangeable at first glance, rights of nature and animal rights are concepts that are different in practice, yet do intersect and support each other. As Earth law develops around the world, understanding these perspectives in which rights are viewed is crucial.
Animal Rights: Individuals
The idea of animal rights has long been involved with ideas of animal welfare and protection. This movement stresses that animals have inherent value and don’t exist to be used by humans. Focuses of the animal rights movement might range from tackling the ethics in the consumption or captivity of animals to recognition of human-like cognitive and emotional abilities. Although, this varies significantly among nations, influenced by factors such as their economies, religions, etc.
The Nonhuman Rights Project has also done extensive work in this area, advocating for the legal personhood of animals and the right to not be imprisoned/experimented upon. Mainly, they have helped in cases of mistreatment of chimpanzees and elephants in captivity through petitioning for writs of habeas corpus in challenging the detainment of these animals. One of their longest running cases concerns Happy, an elephant kept alone in the Bronx Zoo (since 1977) who was ruled in June to not be a legal person, though two dissenters stressed Happy’s rights of liberty and autonomy.
Looking at legislation, the recognition of animal sentience is another emerging trend, although this does not go so far as to establish rights for animals. In the UK, the recently passed Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act states that vertebrate animals, along with decapods and cephalopods (e.g. lobsters, octopus) are seen as sentient. This would allow for future considerations of animal welfare in policy development.
Rights of Nature: Ecosystems
Rather than focusing on individual animals and their well-being, the Rights of Nature recognizes the rights of entire ecosystems. This means considering all the biotic and abiotic features and the right of these ecosystems to thrive and flourish without human alteration or damage. Put into action, a focus is on giving ecosystems legal guardianship and personhood.
One example of this is with rights of rivers. To assert these rights, giving rivers legal personhood helps protect them as they can then be represented in court. This has occurred with all the rivers in Bangladesh and the Atrato River in Columbia, and many others. These actions have often been motivated by growing concerns of pollution in the environment and support from Indigenous nations.
Rights of Nature may also be addressed on a larger scale on the national level. Most recently in 2022, with the input and support from Earth Law Center in the drafting process, a law signed by the President of Panama now includes provisions for people and corporations to protect and be able to defend the Rights of Nature, while stressing the ancestral knowledge of Indigenous peoples in this process. Similar laws in Bolivia and Ecuador also reform the way nature is viewed, shifting away from seeing nature as existing for human use.
Interconnectedness is Key
In many ways, the animal rights movement is connected to the Rights of Nature and the two often work towards similar goals. A recent ruling by Ecuador’s Constitutional Court concerning a woolly monkey named Estrellita exemplifies this. The librarian keeping Estrellita had filed a petition for her return after authorities seized and relocated Estrellita to a zoo due to the keeping of wild animals being illegal. The court ruled 7-2 in applying the Rights of Nature to this case.
While Rights of Nature values overall ecosystem health, considering things such as keystone or invasive species, this case showed that such principles can be applied to animal rights issues too.
As both animal rights and Rights of Nature continue to be relevant and important in today’s world, it is through reconciling them with each other, with regard to human rights movements, that progress will be furthered.
Iceland Announces End to Whaling
By Emma Hynek
In March 2022, Iceland announced an end to the country’s long standing whaling tradition, citing a lack of interest and profit as the reasoning behind the decision. However, once it takes effect in 2024, the impacts will extend far beyond financial. Though not often considered, whales play a critical role in the ocean’s ecosystem, and there is increasing evidence that cetaceans possess high levels of intelligence and sentience. With the end to Iceland’s whale hunting industry nearing, we hope to see further protection and recovery of whale populations.
Whaling History
National Geographic writes that whaling dates back to the 1600s and was a practice that could be found in Iceland, Norway, Japan, and America. Whaling in the United States was banned in 1971, and this year, Iceland announced its plans to allow current whale hunting quotas to expire in 2024, effectively ending the whaling practice in Iceland, and leaving Norway and Japan as the only two countries where whaling is still legal.
BBC reported on Iceland’s decision to ban whaling, saying, "Why should Iceland take the risk of keeping up whaling, which has not brought any economic gain, in order to sell a product for which there is hardly any demand?" Svandis Svavarsdottir wrote on Friday in the Morgunbladid newspaper.”
In 1982, the International Whaling Commission announced a moratorium on whaling, a decision that has helped protect whales to this day. Though whaling still occurs in Norway and Japan, the moratorium allowed previously hunted whale populations to recover, writes National Geographic. In recent years, as a result of increasing evidence of whale intelligence and sentience, many have pushed for further protections and even the recognition of whales as having legal rights.
Why Is Protecting Whales Important?
According to Whale and Dolphin Conservation, “Whales play a vital role in the marine ecosystem where they help provide at least half of the oxygen you breathe, combat climate change, and sustain fish stocks. How do they do it? By providing nutrients to phytoplankton.” These nutrients, specifically iron, nitrogen, and phosphorus, are dispersed through their fecal plumes.
Despite their importance, they still face many threats to their existence. In addition to hunting, “…industrial fishing, ship strikes, pollution, habitat loss, and climate change are creating a hazardous and sometimes fatal obstacle course for the marine species,” states the World Wide Fund for Nature.
Whaling has also caused whale populations to decrease immensely. This World Economic Forum article details the number of whale species that have been reduced to near extinction through whaling. When whale numbers decline, so does the overall health of the ocean. However, the article also reiterates that the IWC’s moratorium helped to bring whale populations to a healthier number, citing the gray whale as an example of the 1986 moratorium’s success. “The moratorium was largely successful, with the population of Western gray whales increasing from 115 individuals in 2004 to 174 in 2015. The WSA humpback whale, which numbered fewer than 1,000 for nearly 40 years, has recovered to close to 25,000, according to the latest study.”
The Helsinki Group, based in Helsinki, Finland, released a declaration in 2010 calling for the rights of cetaceans to be recognized. The Helsinki Group is just one of many organizations that are dedicated to granting rights to cetaceans. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has pushed for cetacean rights to be recognized, as have Sonar and ELC.
Next Steps
While there is still work to be done, it is encouraging that a previous ban on whaling created a positive impact. With legal rights for cetaceans not yet in place and whaling set to end in Iceland, now is the time to reinvigorate the fight for the rights of whales and all cetaceans. Earth Law Center has worked for several years to lead initiatives around the world to protect these intelligent, vital creatures, including the Southern Resident Orca campaign, which is a campaign for state recognition of the Southern Resident’s inherent rights to life, which includes the right to life, autonomy, free and safe passage, adequate food supply from naturally occurring sources, and to be free from conditions causing physical, emotional, or mental harm, including a habitat degraded by noise, pollution and contamination.
"If humans are to survive we must re-remember our kinship with Nature and our non-human relatives. This will undoubtedly require changes in the way we do business; opening space for innovations so that we can have a future with clean rivers, ocean and seas, and healthy habitats for humans, animals and plants alike." says Elizabeth Dunne, Director of Legal Advocacy at Earth Law Center.
ELC’s very own Michelle Bender has also written an e-book on Ocean Rights, which can be found here. We urge you to join our mission to protect the rights of the ocean and the creatures it houses!
How You Can Help
· Click here to learn more about ocean rights.
· Click here to donate.
· Click here to join our team as a volunteer!
Advancing Ecocentric Law for Antarctica
Antarctica, the white continent in the Southern Hemisphere known as one of the most pristine places on Earth absorbs nearly three-quarters of global excess heat and captures almost one-third of of the planet’s carbon dioxide.
Not only does Antarctica contain 90% of the ice and 70% of the fresh water on Earth, a host of species live only here including: 5 species of penguins, 6 whale species, 200+ fish species, and 23 mammalian species. Did you know that Emperor Penguins have lived in Antarctica for 60 million years?
Antarctica not only profoundly affects Earth’s climate and ocean systems, its ice sheet bears a unique record of what our planet’s climate was like over the past one million years.
Factors Challenging the Ecosystems of the Antarctic Peninsula
Climate change, however, threatens the iconic Emperor Penguins and indeed most life in this unique ecosystem with extinction.
The Antarctic Peninsula has warmed at a rate about 10 times faster than the global average. The average annual temperature of the Western Peninsula has increased by nearly 3°C in the last 50 years.
Fishing (both legal and illegal), invasive species, tourism, pollution, oil/gas mining and human infrastructure compound the stresses threatening the delicate ecosystems of Antarctica.
Opportunities to Advance Conservation of Antarctica
Many groups and governments have taken up the call to protect Antarctica, including the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC). Among their objectives, ASOC advocates for science-based policies within the existing Antarctic governance framework, namely the Antarctic Treaty signed 1959. Now with 50 signatories, the treaty sets aside Antarctica as a scientific preserve and establishes freedom of scientific investigation.
The creation of the Ross Sea Protected Area created in 2017, protects one of the most biodiverse and productive marine areas in the region. At the time this marked the largest MPA in the world, covering 1.55 million square kilometers, of which 1.12 million square kilometers is fully protected. This represents one of the most significant conservation milestones for Antarctica to date.
With no permanent population, all personnel found on Antarctica hail from other countries (mostly ones who have laid claim to Antarctica but also those with no official claim). Many of these do not recognize each other’s claims. All this makes it exceedingly challenging to create and implement the holistic deep protections that Antarctica now urgently needs to safeguard its unique ecosystems.
Earth Law for Antarctica
Earth Law Center has joined a coalition to create a Declaration of Rights of Antarctica to provide a framework for a new eco-centric vision, planned for launch at Earth Day in April 2022.
Building on earlier frameworks to protect oceans and rivers, Earth Law Center has worked to catalyze a global movement to curtail activities which harm diverse ecosystems.
The declaration aims to provide a code of conduct, to manage human activity in Antarctica with the protection of the ecological needs and natural capacities of that unique ecosystem as a priority. Similar to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and World Charter for Nature, countries can then join in supporting, implementing and enforcing this new norm.
“Antarctica is a ripe opportunity for reimagining governance and reclaiming sovereignty for the natural inhabitants of the area. Rather than seeking to claim parts of the whole, and exercise rights given to us under the Treaty system, we instead would honor our responsibilities to ensure the area is protected as a common heritage for future generations of all life.” Michelle Bender, Ocean Campaigns Director, Earth Law Center.
Take action today and be part of the solution to rebalance the human-Nature relationship:
Get ELC’s ebook about Ocean Rights
Stay informed by signing up for ELC’s monthly newsletter
Join our newly launched ELC Ambassador Community as a moderator here
Make a monthly contribution of $5 to protect our only home
Wild Rice Gets its Day in Court
By Adelaide Duckett
Wild rice sues the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for violating its rights. That’s right, a species of wild rice itself has brought a suit against a state agency, marking the first time that a plant has brought a lawsuit in US tribal court. The White Earth Band of Ojibwe consider this species of wild rice, Manoomin, sacred. As they describe in the lawsuit, they consider it a “gift from the Creator,” the species playing a central role in “traditional stories, teachings, lifeways and spirituality since the earliest times to the present day.” Manoomin plays a key role in the Ojibwe creation story, where a prophecy guided their people to Minnesota to find food growing on the water. Since this migration, the Ojibwe have been inextricably connected with Manoomin and its freshwater habitat.
In 2018, The White Earth Band adopted a resolution recognizing the rights of Manoomin to exist, flourish, regenerate and evolve, as well as its rights to freshwater. With this resolution, the White Earth Band granted legal rights to wild rice and now defend the rights of this sacred plant. Through this lawsuit, the group aims to halt construction plans for the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands crude oil pipeline, a project whose construction threatens Manoomin’s habitat. Current construction plans, approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, call for billions of gallons of water to be drained from Manoomin’s natural habitat.
So, what are the rights of nature? While the concept of wild rice filing a lawsuit in court may seem strange to some, communities and activists across the globe have fought for more than a decade to codify the rights of nature. Rights of nature laws establish environmental personhood, or standing in court, for nature. This enables ecosystems, rivers, plants and animals to have legal representation. Earth Law Center fights for a future where nature will be able to defend its rights in court, just like people can. In 2013, ELC supported the city of Santa Monica in passing a sustainability rights ordinance recognizing “the rights of people, natural communities and ecosystems to exist, regenerate and flourish” within the City. And in 2018, ELC consulted with the town of Crestone, Colorado, assisting the Crestone Board of Trustees in passing a resolution recognizing the rights of nature.
Currently, ELC is working with several Indigenous Nation partners on their efforts to implement ecocentric law. With each new government that ELC assists in codifying rights for nature, we aim to catalyze a global movement to realign the human relationship with nature. Only when humans recognize and respect our own interdependence with the natural world can we build a sustainable society. Through initiatives like supporting the upcoming Global Freshwaters Summit and publishing tool kits and templates to support rights of nature advocacy, ELC works every day towards a more ecocentric world.
The White Earth Band, too, is leading the way with their effort to force the Minnesota government to recognize their crucial relationship with Manoomin. Through threatening this sacred plant, the Minnesota government violates the rights of the White Earth Band as well as of Manoomin itself. Rights of nature advocates will watch this case closely to see if Manoomin and the White Earth Band will succeed in their effort to defend their rights and halt the current construction plans for the Line 3 pipeline.
How You Can Help
About the Author
Adelaide Duckett is an environmentalist and recent University of Chicago graduate from Southern California. She is heading to law school in the fall and hopes to become an environmental attorney and continue advocating for the rights of nature.
Local Rights of Nature in the Rocky Mountains
By Emma Hynek
In recent years, three communities in Colorado have prioritized environmental protection by recognizing the inherent rights of their surrounding natural ecosystems. Crestone, Nederland, and Ridgway, Colorado, have all created resolutions with the collective goal to give Nature a voice in local government and, eventually, result in statewide action to permanently protect and restore Colorado’s ecosystems.
Rights of Nature in Colorado
With the help of Earth Law Center and others, Crestone, Colorado, passed a resolution in 2018 to recognize the Rights of Nature in the town. The resolution acknowledges the role Nature plays in Crestone’s deep spiritual culture and explains the responsibility humans have to act as environmental guardians. By recognizing the Rights of Nature, the community collectively invested in protecting its ecosystem. Specifically, the recognized Rights of Nature with the goal of protecting the North Crestone Creek and Burnt Gulch aquifer, the source of the majority of Crestone’s water. Crestone is also a Dark Sky community, with its successful application emphasizing the Rights of Nature as a motivation to protect dark skies. Dark skies are necessary for many species and ecosystems to flourish.
In July of 2021, the town of Nederland, Colorado, became the first in the state to recognize the rights of a body of water: Boulder Creek and its accompanying watershed. ELC partnered with Save the Colorado (which has a rights of rivers program), Boulder Rights of Nature, and others to make the resolution possible. According to a Daily Camera article, while the resolution is not legally binding, it does allow for guardians of the creek to be appointed so that it has representation in legal decisions. Ensuring Boulder Creek has the ability to flow and be pollution-free was a major goal in the resolution, as was preserving the creek’s cultural significance.
Ridgway, Colorado quickly followed in Nederland’s footsteps, recognizing the rights of the Uncompahagre River just a few months later. The Uncompahagre River is located on the border of downtown Ridgway and according to the resolution, provides the town with clean water, cultural connections, a diverse array of plants and animals, and more. The resolution outlines a plan to consistently ensure the river is adequately protected, a plan that includes implementing effective policies and programs, appointing a legal representative of the river, and opposing actions that would violate the river’s rights.
How Does Recognizing the Rights of Nature Help Conservation Efforts?
There are many places around the world that have recognized the Rights of Nature in some capacity. The Magpie River in Canada was granted legal personhood and basic rights and protections in early 2021, animals in Spain gained legal protection this year, and the Atrato River in Colombia gained legal rights in 2017, to name a few. The hope is that as we see these efforts more often, they will expand into additional cities, states, and countries, giving us a new way to adequately protect Nature.
Each of these three Colorado communities has acknowledged the fact that in preserving Nature, we are also preserving the health and wellbeing of humans. The two are intricately connected. By ensuring that the ecosystems we depend upon are protected, we are protecting our own livelihoods in more ways than one. Our physical and cultural wellbeing depends on nature.
A special thanks to Save the Colorado and Boulder Rights of Nature for their work in this field! They are essential partners to ELC and are amongst the most dedicated supporters of the Rights of Nature in the world.
Next Steps
The common goal in passing these resolutions is to mobilize other communities in Colorado to do the same, instilling the Rights of Nature into the local community and eventually leading to support at the state level. For example, the fifth section of Ridgway’s resolution is a call to action that asks the state government of Colorado to implement legal policies that would further protect Colorado’s bodies of water. Currently, ELC is working closely with Save the Colorado in conversation with over ten other communities who envision passing similar resolutions to those passed in Crestone, Nederland, and Ridgway.
How Can You Help?
Sign up for the ELC Newsletter
About the Author
Emma Hynek lives in Charlotte, North Carolina and is the Marketing Manager at North Media, a strategic communications and consulting firm. She has a passion for all things animals and nature, and you can often find her running the trails of North Carolina or reading a good mystery novel.
Hot Ecuadorian Mangrove News You Might’ve Missed
By Jason Effmann
If you want an example of how a relatively small entity can produce a wallop of an environmental impact, find yourself a mangrove. Although covering only 0.1 percent of the earth’s surface, mangrove forests store more carbon per square mile than any other ecosystem on earth—depending on what study you’re referencing, up to four times more carbon than your “traditional” terrestrial forest. (Turns out, perpetually wet coastal soil is an uber-efficient carbon storage facility.)
Additionally, mangroves help reduce the harm caused by coastal storms (including hurricanes and tsunamis), maintain the structural integrity of coastlines, and despite their fairly homogenous appearance provide habitat for a wealth of species.
So it seems like a good idea to keep mangroves around. Only: Mangrove forests have been reduced at a rate between 1% and 2% per year, with a total loss rate of 35% over the last 20 years. Much of this is the result of development and agriculture—both of whom then tend to suffer, long-term, from a lack of the very thing they cut down in the first place.
Fortunately, we have another example of how a relatively small entity (or two) can produce a wallop of an environmental impact, and it’s found in Ecuador, home of the world’s tallest mangrove forest in the area known as Reserva Majagual.
This past September—after a legal contest that lasted more than three years—Ecuador’s Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the Rights of Nature for mangroves, declaring as unconstitutional a rule that allowed for activities and infrastructure that interrupted mangroves’ functions and threatened their wellbeing.
In short: Mangroves are now protected to the same degree as other high-profile ecological zones in Ecuador.
Earth Law Center was among the organizations filing amicus curiae briefs in the case, providing expertise as to the benefits of mangroves and the fragility of these environments. It’s just one of several cases in the country where ELC is helping nature make strides: Already the Constitutional Court halted mining concessions in Los Cedros Protected Forest for violating the Rights of Nature. Three more amicus submissions on a variety of cases within the country await.
As to why these types of cases are so successful within Ecuador, having the Rights of Nature baked directly into the country’s constitution doesn’t hurt. Another factor is the consistent presence of environmental advocacy groups like Earth Law Center, who are able to assist in bringing cases forward and providing conclusive evidence in favor of protecting and even expanding those baked-in rights. This is one of the ways donations to ELC help—keeping people in close proximity and working within the country’s legal system to ensure the right thing gets done.
With the rights of mangrove forests now declared in writing, the ELC and other advocates for the Rights of Nature move on to fight the next case. Meanwhile, those mangrove forests will keep doing what they do best: fighting climate change. Right on, mangroves.
And speaking of doing what you do best, there are plenty of opportunities for you to help the Earth Law Center. You can volunteer, donate, become a moderator of our online community, or simply sign up to receive our newsletter. Thanks for being a part of this community, and our efforts to secure nature’s rights, everywhere.
One Health for One Planet
Introduction from Earth Law Center
This week’s guest blog is from Jonathon Keats, a longtime collaborator and now resident philosopher at Earth Law Center (ELC). At ELC, we believe that Earth-centered (or ecocentric) law is essential to restoring the interconnected health of ecosystems and local communities, especially marginalized communities, which experience disproportionate impacts of the environmental crises. To safeguard human rights, such as the rights to life, food, and water, Nature must be restored, which makes sense because humans are part of Nature. ELC works to operationalize this understanding in the legal system by writing legal briefs, informing new laws and constitutional amendments, supporting ecocentric business leaders, and educating future leaders on how the legal system can work better to protect the interconnected health of humans and Nature. Learn more here.
Ecocentric Policy is Crucial to Personal and Planetary Wellbeing
By Jonathon Keats
Contending with ever-changing variants of the novel coronavirus, governments are increasingly acknowledging the need for a pandemic treaty that can coordinate efforts to monitor and thwart the spread of COVID-19. Public discussion about this treaty has renewed interest in the One Health Initiative first proposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2008 and subsequently endorsed by organizations ranging from the US Center for Disease Control to the World Health Organization.
The American Veterinary Medical Association defined the One Health Initiative as a “collaborative effort of multiple disciplines – working locally, nationally and globally – to attain optimal health of people, animals, and our environment”. These goals are laudable. The fact that the health of humans is related to animal and environmental health is evident in shared threats ranging from habitat loss to global warming, yet has still not been taken seriously by most doctors and policymakers. The tragic impact of COVID, and widespread recognition of the risk posed by zoonotic diseases, provides an opportunity to implement One Health as more than an empty promise.
However, like ‘ecosystem services’, One Health might easily be operationalized to serve humans alone. The belief that animals and the environment pose a threat may even amplify human efforts to assert control over planetary systems, and to eradicate any lifeform or phenomenon deemed ‘unhealthy’ to humans. Given the momentum to enforce the principles of One Health through an international treaty, it’s urgent now to define One Health from an ecocentric perspective. From this point of view, “people, animals, and our environment” must be construed as nested systems. People are animals, and animals are constituents of the environment as a whole. In other words, One Health is the health of the environment, which is imparted on all who comprise the environment, including people.
This shift in perspective has both methodological and political implications.
If human medicine is a specialized branch of ecology, then doctors must first be trained as ecologists (much as cardiologists are first trained as doctors). Medical textbooks must begin with geography before addressing anatomy. Human ailments must be diagnosed as ailments of the environment. Although healing acts may be localized (as heart surgery is a local intervention), the treatment needs to extend outward to the surrounding ecology (much as treatment of heart disease also includes changes in diet and exercise). A healthy diet puts the body in good shape to repair and maintain damaged tissue. A healthy ecosystem puts the environment in good shape to restore and sustain the person as a whole.
There is a notable precedent for this point of view. As early as the 5th century BCE, Hippocrates posited that “nature is the best physician”, Even the word physician has natural connotations: The Greek root phusikós means “pertaining to nature”.
As Hippocrates recognized, and as his followers believed for the next two millennia, even the wisest doctors have their limitations. The wisdom of non-human healers should therefore also be consulted in healthcare. Plants, for instance, should not only be administered as medicine but also respected as medical practitioners.
Plants dispense the medicinal substances needed for the survival of other organisms including humans because they depend on the health of those organisms for their own wellbeing. In its purest state, medicine is a product of symbiosis, a chemical trace of caretaking. Instead of merely extracting and refining the chemicals, we should observe the conditions in which they are offered as instructions for use, and we should symbiotically reciprocate as caretakers of the beings who take care of us.
More broadly, the reciprocal relationship can provide a basis for interspecies diagnosis. Ecologists routinely assess the health of a biome by observing indicator species. The wellbeing of these organisms indicates the wellbeing of the entire living system to which they belong. The trees in our gardens and our houseplants are likewise indicators of our domestic ecosystem and all beings within, including ourselves. We need to learn how to interpret the suffering of a rosebush in terms of what is not well with us – and we can come a long way toward healing ourselves by healing the shrub.
But we cannot turn inward at the expense of the world. This is especially the case when considering preventative medicine, which must extend out from the individual to the whole planet. Keeping in shape must be reframed as a collective effort to do good in the world.
As a political matter, One Health requires a refocusing of public health to maximize the wellbeing of life. Factors such as biodiversity need to be taken into consideration. Practices that support biodiversity must be prioritized with input from every organism, setting health policy by consensus.
The challenge of attaining consensus is nontrivial, but the importance of doing so exceeds the difficulties. Humans have assumed too much for too long, leading the planet from extraordinary habitability to anthropogenic climate change and mass-extinction.
The conditions of wellbeing on Earth are best understood as conditions that support planetary biodiversity through deep time. Biodiversity is best understood to encompass multiple dimensions of difference, such as genomics, niche, and biological complexity.
Crucially, there is no universal optimum that endures over the long term. Before humans came to be predominant, biodiversity was constantly negotiated. Consensus emerged as a matter of self-organization, which had to be dynamic because planetary conditions were unstable. We might take initial steps toward reviving that process by convening a planetary wellbeing convention in which the expressed and observed needs of all species are considered collectively, to assess whether their common interests are being met and to negotiate terms for maximal habitability in the environmental conditions of the moment. As an annual event, the convention could decide environmental policy.
Given all the evidence that people are healthier in a healthy environment – as the scientifically-trained heirs to Hippocrates recognize today – the human benefits of planetary wellbeing are undeniable. But departments of health and the World Health Organization should not be guided by those secondary advantages. One Health must remain oriented toward one patient. That patient is Earth.
Jonathon Keats is a research associate at the University of Arizona Desert Laboratory and Consulting Philosopher for Earth Law Center. He is also the author of six books, most recently You Belong to the Universe: Buckminster Fuller and the Future, published by Oxford University Press.
How Environmental Law Spreads Across the World
By Alissa Lampert
An Introduction to the Spread of Legislation around the World
Environmental law has spread around the world into many countries’ legal systems. By studying the different policies each country has adopted to protect their lands and resources, we can see a resemblance between legal themes, the way that governments protect their nature, and where there is room to grow.
Consider the spread of environmental law through the impact-assessment laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Practically, what NEPA means is that federal agencies must consider environmental consequences in their decision-making. For example, if the Department of Transportation wished to build a new highway, they would have to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) outlining how humans might be harmed from the pollutants, as well as if any protected plant or animal species would be further put in harm’s way from the project.
Countries outside the United States, like Mexico, China, and India, along with many others, adopted environmental impact assessments in the decades following NEPA, or structured their environmental policy programs to include them. Requiring EISs has dipped to international law, too. The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, or Earth Summit, included a principle stating that environmental impact assessments should be used for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant negative impact on the environment. EISs are now commonly included in multilateral environmental agreements, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Convention on Biological Diversity, amongst others.
Laws that protect specific parts of the environment have also spread internationally. We can look to the U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) as an example. In practice, the CWA empowered the EPA to review individual states’ water quality targets and ensure they are sufficient to keep the water swimmable and pollutant-free. After its passage, the Hudson River went from a waterway filled with pollutants and garbage to a much cleaner river that has seen growing numbers of aquatic species over the past decades.
Many countries use similar playbooks to the CWA for regulating water pollution, such as EISs or requiring water discharge permits for polluters which prescribe the amount of pollutants that can regulate a waterway. Additionally, the United Nations Environment Programme promotes nature-based solutions for wastewater and pollutant management, with the goal of protecting overall water quality. They also administer Sustainable Development Goal target 6.3.2, which aims to help countries understand, measure, and report on water quality.
How Earth law might spread throughout the world
Earth law is an emerging field whose goal is to shift the focus of environmental law from a human, or anthropocentric, focus, to a more eco-centric focus. The task is vast but begins with the combined efforts of many dedicated stakeholders such as Earth Law Center (ELC).
The Rights of Nature movement is one of the most promising in building Earth law. It encompasses the wider goals of Earth law of integrating ecocentric laws into national and international legislation. It broadly aims to have governments and citizens consider the inherent rights of Nature to exist and thrive as its own legal entity. In the context of American and other legal frameworks, this includes granting Nature standing, which would allow it to act as a party in legal disputes and be granted legal personhood.
The movements that grant rights to Nature must be collaborative attempts, as Nature itself does not know political boundaries. As we have seen over the past couple of years, wildfires do not stop at the U.S.-Canada border just because they started in the U.S.
The Rights of Nature movement is spreading across the world. In 2017, New Zealand recognized rivers as rights-bearing entities and granted them legal personhood status. Similar actions have also been taken with the Atrato River in Colombia and the Vilcabamba River in Ecuador. A court in India held in 2018 that the animal kingdom is a legal entity with rights. A court in Colombia held in 2018 that the state must protect bees as pollinating agents.
These values pervade international legal entities. The United Nations Secretary General wrote a report emphasizing that animals have rights to live and flourish as people do.
The way these Earth laws spread shows how the world stage can inspire development and cooperation. The global and regional international organizations such as the UN, NATO, EU, Organization of American States, etc., ensure that countries will periodically convene to discuss the state of their affairs and how they wish to see things change around the world. In the context of the environment, these discussions are happening more frequently as countries continue to realize the threat of climate change and environmental degradation.
What can you do to support Earth law and Rights of Nature?
Support for Rights of Nature and Earth law has been steadily growing. More countries, spurred on by the support of their citizens, are starting to include Earth law values in their legislation. ELC has worked tirelessly to enhance these efforts across the globe by providing people and stakeholders with information and toolkits to promote Earth law in their home nations.
Earth Legislator is a work-in-progress by ELC, which aims to provide legal templates for Earth law. Earth Legislator will change the face of the Earth law movement. Like LegalZoom, in which a user can enter their information in and receive a legislative template that they can present to their local governments, ELC and the Earth Legislator project aims to make templates for Earth law widely available to the public. Then, private citizens and groups can take more active roles in the Rights of Nature movement. We hope this to be a collaborative effort so that shared resources can be widely accessible to practitioners within the Earth law field. We invite partners to get in touch with us to collaborate on this project.
To receive updates about the Earth Legislator project and steps ELC is taking to promote Earth Law, sign up for the ELC newsletter, or consider donating to ELC to ensure we can continue fighting for Nature’s rights. You can also sign up to volunteer with ELC to make an impact on your local community. If you would like to get in touch with us, email info@earthlaw.org.
Alissa Lampert is an intern at ELC and a senior at Barnard College majoring in environmental science.
Earth Law Center Partners with The Leatherback Project to Support Sea Turtle Conservation Efforts in Panama
By Emma Hynek
Panama Introduces New Conservation Law to Protect Endangered Sea Turtles
Of the five species of sea turtles in Panama’s waters, three are globally considered vulnerable to extinction, one is endangered with extinction, and another is critically endangered with extinction. Sea turtles are a vital component of the marine ecosystem as they provide support for the subsistence of the reef ecosystem and food transport throughout the world’s oceans. However, both the species and its habitat need urgent protection.
Over 60 percent of the world's 356 turtle species are threatened or extinct, making them one of the most vulnerable species on the planet. Sea turtles are threatened by human actions including harvesting turtles and their eggs, irresponsible tourism and development practices, pollution and debris, bycatch, climate change and vessel strikes. The Panama Wildlife Conservation’s Sea Turtle Project states that coastal overdevelopment, fisheries bycatch, pathogens, and climate change are all substantial threats to the survival of sea turtles.
However, lawmakers are working to change that. In 2021, Congressman Gabriel Silva introduced a law designed to preserve Panama’s sea turtles through a multi-part conservation plan that guarantees the restoration, prevention of contamination, and severe degradation of sea turtles’ habitats.
Adult female green sea turtle photographed returning to the ocean after laying eggs during the first scientific study conducted on El Playon, Isla del Rey, Pearl Islands Archipelago, Panama. Photo credit: Michael Ryan Clark
Granting Sea Turtles Rights of Nature
Following the law’s introduction, Earth Law Center (ELC) partnered with The Leatherback Project (TLP) to campaign for even more protection of sea turtles in Panama. The Leatherback Project is an organization dedicated to the conservation of the massive leatherback sea turtle throughout its global range through research, education, and advocacy initiatives aimed at mitigating fisheries bycatch, reducing plastic pollution, and combating climate change.
The two organizations have submitted a formal request that Rights of Nature be added to Panama’s law. You can read more about Rights of Nature in this ELC report.
By recognizing nonhuman species’ rights, we are taking a crucial step towards ensuring conservation is proactive rather than reactive. For example, many policies (such as the Endangered Species Act in the United States) are only enacted once a species is already endangered, at which point it can often be too late to restore the population's health. By taking an ecocentric approach rather than a human-centric approach to conservation, we are considering the sea turtle’s inherent right to exist, thrive, and evolve. This means that when humans make decisions affecting sea turtles, they need to also consider their well-being.
Olive ridley sea turtle hatchling racing towards the sea, documented for the first time on Playa Atajo, Isla del Rey, Pearl Islands Archipelago, Panama. Photo credit: Callie Veelenturf
In our society, increased legal rights means increased protection. This is seen in human rights and corporate rights, and the same would apply to animals that receive rights. Adding Rights of Nature for sea turtles would allow the conservation of the species to take a forefront in relevant decisions and would emphasize the interdependence between humans and animals. According to ELC’s Community Toolkit for Rights of Nature, adding Rights of Nature would mean:
“Recognizing Nature as an independent stakeholder in decision-making and creating a guardianship system,
Enabling representation through the standing of any person or community.”
Next Steps
Rights for non-human beings are not new! International and local recognition of non-human being’s rights to exist and flourish include:
Both San Francisco and Malibu passed resolutions protecting the rights of whales and dolphins in their coastal waters.
The ʔEsdilagh First Nation in what is now Canada (one of the six that comprises the Tsilhqot’in Nation) enacted the Sturgeon River Law (also known as the Fraser River) that states the people, animals, fish, plants, the nen (“lands”), and the tu (“waters”) have rights.
The New Zealand Government legally recognizes animals as 'sentient' beings; the Uttarakhand High Court of India ruled that “the entire animal kingdom, including avian and aquatic, are legal entities with rights; and the United Kingdom now recognizes lobsters, crabs, and octopus as sentient beings.
Ecuador has recognized the Rights of Nature on the national level.
Rivers in Colombia and New Zealand have obtained legal rights.
Panama’s proposed bill is currently in the seventh round of debates. If enacted, this would be the first time that the specific rights of a species group would be recognized in a Rights of Nature law. This bill could set a precedent for protecting the inherent rights and intrinsic value of marine species, a precedent that can encourage other nations to proactively protect sea turtles and other species.
Join ELC in our efforts to educate others and create a positive impact on the Earth!
Sign up for the ELC Newsletter
Animals Gain Legal Protections in Spain
In a huge win for the Earth Law Movement, the Spanish Congress of Deputies recently declared that nonhuman animals (animals), including household companions and members of wild species, are sentient beings.
Animals in Spain will no longer be considered as “objects” by the law thanks to new legislation passed on Thursday by Spain’s lower house, the Congress of Deputies. From now on, animals will be treated as “sentient beings,” and as such will have a different legal standing than an inanimate object. They will no longer be able to be seized, abandoned, mistreated or separated from one of their owners in the case of a divorce or separation, without having their wellbeing and protection taken into account.
Earth Law advocates for ecosystem rights to exist, thrive, and evolve—and that Nature should be able to defend its rights in court, just like people can.
This holds true as much for non-human animals as for rivers and forests. Despite decades of environmental protection, Earth’s health continues to decline. Earth Law takes the view that Nature is not just a source of free resources for humans but entities deserving of being considered subjects in the eyes of the law. This gives them protection in the courts and consideration when decisions impact their life and well being. National recognition of non-human animal rights helps rebalance the human-Nature relationship such that we legally care not just about humans but about all life who call Earth home.
Evolution of the Lobster
Did you know? During the mid to late 1700’s, plentiful lobster supplies meant prisoners, apprentices, slaves and children routinely ate lobster while in Massachusetts, some servants allegedly sought to avoid lobster-heavy diets by including clauses in their contracts that they would only be served the shellfish twice a week.
Today, the UK government recognizes octopuses, squids, crabs and lobsters as sentient beings as part of a new law proposed (which already includes all vertebrates). Driven in large part by a new report from the London School of Economics about sentience amongst invertebrates, cephalopod mollusks (octopuses, squids and cuttlefish) and decapod crustaceans (crabs, lobsters, shrimp and crayfish) — will now be included on the list of sentient beings, which means considering their welfare in future government decisions.
Other Examples of Animal Protections
In the U.S., Oregon is the only state so far to specifically cite animal sentience in its laws, in 2013. However, politicians from U.S. states including New York, Massachusetts and Nevada are currently advocating through proposed legislation a greater recognition of animals' intrinsic worth when they are harmed.
Many groups continue to work tirelessly for the welfare of animals. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) continues working to prevent animal abuse. The Nonhuman Rights Project has secured the world’s first habeas corpus hearings on behalf of nonhuman animals in their chimpanzee and elephant rights cases. There are many additional groups working to recognize rights of animals.
Earth Law Center’s work in partnership with elders from the Lummi Nation to free an orca named Sk’aliCh’elh-tenaut (also known as Tokitae) upholds the same worldview on animal sentience and their inherent rights.
ELC’s ecocentric approach has always included animals, including farmed animals. Going vegan is another way to respect animals.
Want to be part of the solution today?
How Does Beef Production Affect Climate Change?
By Vivian Pham
Prices are a normal part of the dining experience, but it’s not always apparent what the true cost is until the very end. No, I’m not talking about sales tax. I’m talking about the unwritten costs that you don’t know about and that the food industry doesn't care to inform you of—the cost to Nature.
Certain foods have always been harder on the planet than others. This is especially the case with beef, an expensive dish in terms of animal welfare, natural resources, land, and climate change.
What if Animals are Sentient?
All animals are sentient and experience pain. They experience emotions like fear, joy, anxiety, and sadness. And cows are no different. Studies show that cows actually enjoy learning new things, hold grudges, and can even recognize cow and human faces.
For example, mother cows who are separated from their young cry for weeks at a time. Calves are also affected by this separation both mentally and physically and can carry this trauma with them through life. These are just a few ways cows demonstrate their intellectual capacity and emotional depth.
What If We Could Feed More People If We All Went Plant-based?
Each time energy is passed down from one being (like a plant) to another (like an animal), about 50-90 percent of it is lost.
Cows are fed a diet of grass and grains. Therefore, beef represents a costly meal that if replaced with plant-based foods could conservatively feed twice as many people. One study estimates we could save 8 million people from starvation if everyone went vegan today.
What If More Land Could Be Rewilded?
Certain foods were never meant to be produced en masse. And the more people indulge in these foods, the more these inefficiencies are magnified.
Currently, meat and other animal by-products take up 76 percent of the land we use to grow food globally. Beef alone led to the deforestation of hundreds of thousands of square miles of the world’s rainforests—land that would have otherwise captured CO2 and helped to protect Earth’s ozone layers.
What If We Could Slow Global Warming?
Farm animals in general are responsible for up to 18 percent of global methane emissions.
Cows are the worst of the bunch, releasing 60 kg of greenhouse gas emissions for each kg of meat produced. Cows also release methane gas which is 34 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
If all this doesn’t sit right with you, there are ways to help:
What If Plant-based Diets Are Healthier?
The U.S. consumes three times more meat than the global average. If everyone in the country were to go vegan, we could cut our food-related greenhouse emissions by up to 73 percent.
Eating veggies is also healthier for you. In general, vegetarians and vegans consume fewer calories and less fat, weigh less, go out into nature more often, and are less likely to have a heart disease. One 2017 Jama study revealed that replacing just 3% of animal protein with plant-based protein was associated with 19% lower likelihood of death from any cause.
What If Locally Sourced Beef Was Better All Around?
While going vegan is the most sustainable option, it’s not necessarily the right choice for everybody. Fortunately, we as consumers can enjoy beef while still reducing our carbon footprints by buying from sustainable farms.
Certain high-impact beef producers use more land and water, require more transport or processing, release more greenhouse gases, and contribute to the pollution of rivers. As a result, high-impact cow farms are responsible for over half of all beef-related environmental damage, using up to 50 times more land and releasing 12 times as much CO2 as low-impact farmers.
By supporting only low-impact farms as well as cutting our intake of animal products, we could enjoy 70 percent of the environmental impact of going completely vegan.
Support ELC
Thankfully, we’re not starting from zero. There are currently bills at the federal level to improve the standards of living of livestock. For example, bans on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) are gradually becoming more commonplace. In 2020 California passed legislation that will phase out battery cages by 2025 and the sale of products from battery cage systems by 2023.
Earth Law Center is also joining in this fight by seeking to rebalance the human-Nature relationship. Rather than viewing Nature as something to be used for the benefit of humans, we are working to create a legal framework under which Nature and its wellbeing must be considered in all decisions which impact it. This includes the perspective of seeing cows and other animals as independent subjects with their own rights and protections.
Paying the Check
Every small act helps. Whether it’s spreading awareness, cutting your intake of beef, or donating to ELC, your decisions as a consumer have a ripple effect on your social circle, your community, and the people who make your food.
More ways to become an active supporter:
Keep up with what’s happening and what strides we’re making in Earth law by signing up for our newsletter.
Trying to be more proactive in your community? Start volunteering.
Ready to put your wallet where your beliefs are? Donate what you can whether that’s a dollar or a few hundred dollars.
So, when it’s time to settle your tab to Nature, what costs are you okay with?
A Look Back at 2021 and the COP26 Climate Summit
By Myra Jackson, Michelle Bender, and Marsha Moutrie
The Earth Law Center and COP26
As the old year ended and the new year began, we thought about 2021’s events and their impact on Earth and ELC’s work. One of the most anticipated events was the United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP26, which convened in GIasgow, Scotland from October 31st through November 13th. Two of us had the opportunity to attend: Michelle Bender, ELC’s Ocean Campaign Director, and Myra Jackson, UN Representative and Focal Point, who has long guided and supported ELC’s work.
Myra and Michelle opted to go to Glasgow. As an official observer, Myra could witness the proceedings from “inside the room.” Her credentials allowed access to the secured Blue Zone, the conference space at Scottish Events Campus, managed by the UN, where the negotiations took place outside the public purview. Michelle joined the thousands of environmental and social activists, Indigenous people, union representatives, artists, youth groups, nonprofit groups, and uncredentialed business representatives in the Green Zone at the Glasgow Science Center. It was open to the public and offered a schedule of free, ticketed events, including workshops, panel discussions, movies, poetry readings, and exhibitions.
What did they take away? What can we all learn from the conference? Here’s a look back and some thoughts about the conference and our future work, offered from the vantage point of this new year.
COP26 and Its Participants
The UN has been organizing climate change conferences (“Conferences of the Parties” or COPs) for thirty years. The 26th (COP26) was particularly significant because it was the first at which the parties were expected to ratchet up their commitments to mitigate climate change. Under the Paris Agreement made at COP21 in 2015, parties are expected to enhance their pledges to mitigate climate change every five years. The pandemic necessitated a one-year postponement of the 2020 conference. So, COP26 was expected to produce new and stronger commitments.
The UK, which hosted the event, announced four key goals for COP26: secure net zero emissions, globally, by 2050 and keep within reach the goal of limiting global temper increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels; adapt to protect communities and natural habitats; mobilize finance to curtail global heating; and secure international cooperation to achieve results. About 40,000 reportedly registered for the conference: 22,000 political leaders and other members of national delegations, 12,000 representatives of nongovernmental organizations, 2,300 official observers, and 3,700 media representatives.
The official count of delegates actually attending is 38,347, making last year’s the largest of the COP summit ever. Delegates represented 200 countries and included 120 heads of state. The absence of the leaders of China and Russia was widely noted in the press, though China sent a delegation and its climate change envoy. Brazilian President Bolsonaro also did not attend; but his country’s delegation, numbering 479, was the largest national delegation at the conference.
The largest participating group was the fossil fuel industry. The BBC reported that 503 people with links to that industry were accredited attendees. This number included lobbyists, national delegation members, and 103 members of the International Emissions Trading Association. Lobbyists participated as delegates for 27 nations. Reportedly, they outnumbered indigenous representatives by a ratio of 2 to 1. Corporations also participated as conference sponsors, though the UK government limited sponsorship to organizations having “real commitments” to reaching net zero emissions in the “near future.” (This was a change made in response to concerns expressed about fossil fuel companies’ participation as sponsors of past COP summits.)
A Conference Characterized by Conflicting Perspectives and Divergent Goals
Like Michelle, the thousands gathered at Green Zone events and in the streets attended to express and demonstrate their commitment to environmental and social justice as inseparable goals. They also attended to learn, teach, and share their ideas and beliefs about protecting Earth. Michelle organized and opened a panel on “Rights of Nature: An Urgent and Transformative Movement to Address Climate Change”, which conference attendees could view at the New York Times Climate Hub.
In the Blue Zone, “inside the room”, motivations appeared much more complex and varied. In general, delegates went to promote their individual nation’s, corporation’s or organization’s interests through negotiation, bartering, persuasion, shaming, and other means. Heads of state and representatives of “developed” nations (generally in the global North), went to protect or enhance their nations’ present and future economic welfare and political status in the world community. Representatives from “emerging nations” went to protect their perceived pathway to development and increased prosperity.
Some were in the room seeking environmental justice. Registrants from poorer nations (mostly located in the Global South) wanted developed nations to fulfill their promises (made at the 2009 COP) to pay poorer countries $100 billion a year to address climate change. Their rationale was fairness: though they had done the least to cause climate change, they were bearing its worst brunt. Accordingly, they wanted rich countries to acknowledge their role in causing the losses and damages poor countries are suffering from increasingly extreme weather events. They also wanted rich countries to pay reparations. Representatives of poor island and coastal nations were particularly desperate for aid and reparations because their homelands are literally disappearing into rising seas.
Many more in the room went to further their existing, highly-profitable corporate endeavors and consequent power and status. Representatives of oil, gas, and other extracting industries went to ensure continuation of their current business models for as long as possible. Representatives of new, Green Technologies and businesses went to promote their interest in shifting to a Green Economy. Representatives of the world-wide banking and finance industry went seeking the financial opportunities which a “new” economy would bring. They also wanted to combat the negative impact of climate disruption upon economic and social stability, which is vital to the success of financial markets.
The UN hosts and representatives came shouldering the incredibly difficult burden of persuading nation states, industries, and organizations, with vastly different goals, needs, and situations, to come together and compromise for the common, present and future good of all countries and the Earth. The difficulty of the UN mission is illustrated by COP26 President Alok Sharma’s work at the conference.He opened the conference by asking participants act boldly to “consign coal power to history.”
Conference Outcomes
That was not to be. After two weeks of speeches, meetings, negotiations, delegates did manage to agree on the Glasgow Climate Pact. It does not consign coal power to history. The final draft of the pact had included a call to “phase out” coal power and fossil fuel subsidies. However, at the last minute, China and India proposed changing “phase out” to “phase down”, allowing for the indefinite, continued reliance on coal power and fossil fuels. This last-minute change brought strenuous objection from some countries. Nonetheless, in the interest of ensuring the pact’s adoption, the delegates accepted the revisions.
The agreement:
States that carbon emissions will have to fall by 45 percent by 2030 to sustain the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C;
Establishes new rules for trading carbon credits across national borders;
Calls for nations to return in 2022 with new, more ambitious emissions cutting targets;
Requests yearly progress reports on fulfilling commitments; and
Includes agreement by developed countries to double their collective funding of poorer countries’ climate adaptation efforts.
Obviously disappointed by the failure to phase out fossil fuels, President Sharma said of the pact, “We have kept 1.5 degrees alive. But its pulse is weak, and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action.”
In addition to the adoption of the pact, the conference yielded some important pledges. 100 plus nations pledged to cut 30% of methane emissions by 2030; 130 nations agreed to halt and then reverse deforestation by 2030; 45 countries pledged to give more than $4 billion for transitioning to sustainable agriculture; the US and other countries pledged to stop spending on fossil fuel projects abroad by 2022; the US and China, the world’s two largest emitters, agreed to work together on climate issues, despite their other conflicts; and 450 financial institutions, which collectively oversee $130 trillion in assets promised to align their portfolios with the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. (The New York Times ran a guest essay entitled “Bankers Took Over Climate Summit”.)
Reactions to the Summit
Commentators’ reactions to the pact and to COP26 were mixed. UN News ‘s Martina Donlon acknowledged that the conference yielded “a compromise that is not enough, especially for small island States and other vulnerable countries” but does provide some “positive steps forward.” Experts from the Council on Foreign Relations commented that, “Countries made notable commitments … but they still fell short of the action needed to keep global warming within manageable levels.” Asked if the conference was a success, they responded, “Yes, but barely.”
In general, commentators acknowledge that, while the COP26 pact may keep the Paris Agreement alive, it will not avert the worst anticipated effects of climate change. Even if the emissions promises are fulfilled, the world will still be on the path to average temperature increase of 2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100 -- significantly above the target of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees which is necessary to avert worst consequences.
The doubling of richer countries' contributions to poorer countries for adaptation was criticized as falling far short of the estimated cost of those poor countries’ needs. Moreover, wealthier nations blocked an effort to create a loss and damage (reparations) fund and merely agreed to participate in future dialogue about increased financial support and technical assistance. Myra Jackson notes that the delegates from richer, developed nations appeared absolutely unwilling to consider reparations or even to acknowledge the damage their countries had caused to the rest of the world. She was struck by the reaction of delegates from Pacific Island nations, which face annihilation by rising seas. Distraught, they left asking, “What will we tell our children?”
In addition to criticisms of the pact’s substance, there were complaints about the process. Women and young people were under-represented in the decision-making process. Many registrants from poorer nations, particularly in the global south, were excluded from participation by limited resources and Covid related travel restrictions. One commentator observed that COP26 seemed, in comparison to past UN climate summits, more White and more like DAVOS – a gathering of the rich and powerful for the benefit of the rich and powerful, many of whom arrived by private jet.
A review in Forbes magazine stated: “[L]acking from the discussions at COP26 was the understanding that reaching net zero emissions requires more than just a switch from one energy source to another, but a reinvention of current modes of production and consumption.” We at Earth Law agree that reinvention of current modes of production and consumption are essential, but much more is needed as is demonstrated by the ongoing and relentless series of disasters afflicting the planet.
What’s Happened Since COP26
The day after COP 26 ended, heavy rains and flash flooding in Egypt crumbled mud-brick houses around Aswan and washed hundreds, perhaps thousands of ground-dwelling, poisonous scorpions into villages. The scorpions are known as Deathstalkers because their sting can be deadly. After the flood, the Deathstalkers stung at least 500 people in one day, inundating local emergency rooms.
A severe storm in the US Midwest spawned dozens of tornados which brought destruction to seven US states in one day. One of them cut a 260-mile swath through Tennessee, pulverizing anything in its way, including entire neighborhoods and most of one town. The number of the tornadoes, the length of the most severe tornado’s path, and the fact that this event occurred outside the usual tornado season, all attested to the unprecedented extremity of the event.
Flood water inundated 116 cities in northeastern Brazil, affecting 470,000 people, leaving over 70,000 people homeless or displaced in the State of Bahia.
Super hurricane Rai battered the Philippines, with flooding and winds of up to 168 miles per hour. Over 200 people were killed and 300,00 were evacuated. It was the island nation’s 15th major storm of 2021.
A wildfire raced across drought-decimated grasslands and into residential neighborhoods north of Denver, forcing tens of thousands of Colorado residents to flee their suburban homes with little or no time to pack vehicles. Unseasonable winds gusted at 110 miles per hour. Thousands of homes were destroyed.
These incidents demonstrate the increasingly destructive power of weather events supercharged by climate change. In a matter of hours, or even minutes, a town or neighborhood can be inundated by flood waters, pulverized by winds, or reduced to ashes. As COP26 demonstrates, diplomacy moves slowly; winds, fires, and floods move very, very fast. Effectuation of the commitments made at COP26 is uncertain; the continuance of increasingly ferocious, climate-related disasters is not.
Along with the post-COP26 disasters, recent weeks have included signs of hope. For example, the New York Times reported that 155 Chileans have been elected to write a new constitution during what Chile has declared to be “a climate and ecological emergency”. Among the questions to be considered by the group are how to regulate mining, whether nature should have rights, and how to protect the environment for the welfare of future generations. To help promote environmental injustice, the Biden White House has mandated the replication and use by federal agencies of a regulatory tool developed by the State of California. It uses data and mapping to correlate environmental impacts with income and thereby direct governmental resources to communities overwhelmed by toxic air and economic hardship. It also forces local officials to consider that history when granting various permits.
ELC will continue to push for transformative change
The limited results attained at COP26 were disappointing. At ELC, we were particularly disappointed that the conference focused almost exclusively on economic, technical and market fixes to the climate catastrophe. We have heard time and time again that we need transformative change to address climate change, but what does that actually mean? At Earth Law Center we believe we need to advance a transformation in the values and ethics that underlie our legal, governance and economic systems--- how we value, relate to, and treat Nature. Earth law and Rights of Nature is one way to transform our values and systems to address climate change at its roots by recognizing the interconnectedness and dependency of human and economic systems on Earth's natural systems.
At the New York Times Climate Hub session, Michelle reflected on the scant attention paid to the role of ocean health, which is vital to the health of all life on Earth. She commented, “Human-centered values and priorities dominate conservation agendas and frameworks. Consider the main staple of this COP, the Paris Agreement, where the Ocean is only mentioned in the preamble ... and where economy or economics is mentioned over 20 times.” Consistent with this focus, COP26 delegates displayed little or no willingness to question basic assumptions about Nature as human property to be used for private gain and human convenience – no impulse to move towards Earth stewardship by learning to consume and live differently. Delegates appeared to believe that by simply replacing fuel sources and properly harnessing technological advances, the climate catastrophe could be solved without any changes in law or lifestyles in wealthier nations.
While we wish that COP26 had accomplished more, we realize that there are serious limitations on what can be accomplished through the COP model. There is no world government, no global environmental law, and no world court with jurisdiction to enforce the COP26 Pact or similar agreements. However, the UN COP summits provide a forum for the creation of voluntary agreements between and among nations. Perhaps even more important, the summits provide a rare opportunity for in person, global communication and shared experience. They facilitate communication between divergent countries and interests -- between the neediest and the wealthiest nations and between the Global South and North -- an opportunity to work for the common welfare of all people and the entire community of life on Earth.
The summits also provide a vital opportunity for governments to hear from the people. The Glasgow gathering included several massive street demonstrations. On November 5th, Greta Thunberg spoke to thousands of young people and schoolchildren at a Fridays for Future rally, demanding action, not talk. On November 6, designated the Global Day of Action for Climate Justice, 100,00 people marched in Glasgow, and thousands more marched in other cities. News reports estimated that a global total of over two million people took to the streets, demanding action.
While disappointing, it is not surprising that negotiations and governments act slowly. Governmental leaders must balance competing policies and interests, including balancing their countries’ short-term economic interests against their peoples’ and future generations’ long-term welfare.
However, that does not mean that the young people and others, like those consigned to the Green Zone and those marching in the streets should be patient. Indeed, it means the opposite. The continuing onslaught of climate-related disasters demonstrates that impatience is not only warranted. It’s essential. Earth is heating even faster than anticipated by the scientific community. Nature won’t wait on the ponderous progress of diplomacy.
In his closing remarks, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized the need for ongoing pressure on world governments and acknowledged the power of activism and of the “climate action army”, which took to the Glasgow streets by the tens of thousands. He admonished that army, saying, “Never give up. Never retreat. Keep pushing forward.”
The COP process provides possibilities. Here at Earth Law, we will keep pushing for results. We will push for a transition away from classifying Earth as human property and toward a new paradigm of Earth-centered laws and policies. We will continue advocating in council chambers and the courts. We will continue to assist others in their fight for social justice and Earth stewardship. COP26 demonstrated to us that, despite huge disparities in wealth, power and interests, world-wide progress can be made towards living in Harmony with Nature. ELC will push, ever harder, to speed that progress.