NATURE SUBJECT OF RIGHTS …

                                  NATURE SUBJECT OF RIGHTS

                                            Alberto Acosta


If social justice was, during the twentieth century, the axis of social struggles, environmental justice
is so each time more in what is becoming of the twenty first century. No one could have anticipated
with enough clarity in the last century that the main conflicts ­ at the local as well as the global
level ­ would be tied to the environment.

Up until now, problems and even suits pertaining the environment have been attempted to be dealt
with through legal measures that regulate human behaviour. However, there is increasing suspicion
that the current normative frameworks end up justifying and tolerating environmental damage. In
one way or another, by not questioning the current predatory model, they merely concentrate on
defining how much contamination (that is to say, destruction) of Nature is allowed. Even the view
of a remedy of environmental damage focuses on the restitution of what was used in that ecosystem
by people o communities but in no way in recovering the natural system in and of itself.
Additionally, the phenomenon of commercialization of waste can be added on: rich countries
buying off from poorer countries the difference between how much they pollute and how much they
can pollute, or depositing in the territory of the poor toxic waste from their most polluting
companies; all of this within the corresponding legal frameworks.

The end result of this vision of right and the law related to the environment, which does not prevent
or impede pollution and the environmental destruction, rather merely leads to its codification. And,
in the best of cases, penalizes it.

The fact of the matter is that for western society Nature and its living species are considered objects
of property o simple natural "resources." Nature is not considered as a total, but rather its elements
are recognized to the extent to which they have immediate utility, such as wood, banana,
underground minerals, etc. They are resources to be exploited, bought and sold. Similar to the
vision that was upheld not too long ago in relation to slaves...

Throughout legal history, each extension of rights was previously impossible. The emancipation of
slaves or the extension of civil rights to African Americans, women and children were resisted by
authorities who considered them an absurd.

For the abolition of slavery, the recognition of "the right to have rights" and the political effort were
a requirement to change laws and costumes which denied these rights. To free Nature from this
condition of a subject without rights or of a simple object of property, a political effort which
recognizes that Nature is a subject of rights is necessary.

The absence of this recognition of Nature being a subject of rights leads to, for example,
environmentalist not being considered activists fighting in defence of fundamental rights ... on
occasion they are seen as "criminals" who affect the rights of property of others, as "disoriented"
people who slow down development, even as "fundamentalists" who inhibit the resolution of the
problems of the great majorities.

Under the current conditions and with the known technological and organizational tendencies, from
the ecological perspective, the "western development model" is simply impossible to reproduce and
will become quickly unsustainable even in industrialized countries. The industrialist model of
                                                                                                       1
progress and wellbeing in the western world, its actual ways of consumption and production, their
lifestyle, cannot be generalized intergenerationally nor internationally.

From this point of view, the logic of traditional development must be rethought. The myth of
development, behind which most of the planets inhabitants run, must be denounced.

The word Nature, which occupies a very important place in diverse discussions and analysis, must
be focused in on its real dimension. Once the perception of the "wild frontier" to be dominated by
humans was overcome, our perception of Nature has been progressively refined. The readings that
understand Nature as a basket of resources, like capital to be invested and exploited, are not only
insufficient but result, in essence, in a predatory view, to the extent to which they pretend to solve
this challenge with a simple market rationality. Eduado Gudynas invites us to understand "the
category of Nature as a social creation, distinct in each historic moment, changing according to how
man interacts with his environment." This approximation, substantial for the democratic
construction of sustainable societies, which continues to be complex, puts forward the task of
recognition and of redefining of many dominant ontological categories. If, on the one hand, the
diversity of ideas about Nature is evident, on the other hand, this approximation demands dialectic
understandings that would allow for the reconstruction of the idea of development.

Permanent material accumulation is a given. And not any material accumulation, but in particular
the type of material accumulation sustained in the destruction of Nature. This implies a questioning
of development in its quasi magical solutions to the problems of the South through unlimited
economic growth. In reality, what has been done so far is to insert, in the countries of the South, the
often devastating logic of capitalist accumulation, which affects the environment, cultures and
promotes inequality. To manage this questioning a crucial point must be clear, this opens the doors
for an understanding of the existing interrelations between Nature and development strategy,
beginning with the denial of "western progress," seen from the times of Sir Francis Bacon, as an
instrument to dominate Nature.

Environmental considerations specifically open the door for the processing of a series of
transcendental issues, such as, biogenetics and genetically modified foods, the uncontrolled
exploitation of natural resources, pollution and international treaties in the area of global climate, to
mention only a few key points. Therefore, taking the accumulated experience of the world, present
and intergenerational answers must be pushed forward, given that future generations find
themselves at the bottom of our value scale and priorities; they are deprived of power in the face of
the current generations. To sum up, answers from the ethical perspective need to be put forward.

Specifically, the sustainable development perspective, respectful of our natural heritage demands
the coordination of productive processes within our environmental limits and demands, it confronts
the ideological base of mainstream development which assumes environmental destruction as an
inevitable cost. This is the price of progress, they say. And that it will later be remedied with the
quantitative and technological results obtained. If the environmental issues concern us, the social
issues also demand answers:

As Gudynas affirms, "not as much as to exceed Nature's carrying capacity and the ecosystems
holding faculty, nor as much as to impede us having living standards superior to the poverty limits,
but always below the unsustainable and not generalized actual levels of opulence."

This renewable logic is not exhausted on a national level, it demands local responses, without
overlooking the global level. In this context, being aware of the actual historical power model,
when the environmental deterioration and the world's inequities expand at an accelerated rhythm, it
is absolutely necessary to rethink development, or even better, the way human life is organized in
                                                                                                 2
the planet, as a universal subject, that has to be assumed nationally and globally.

What is at stake is the search for a new social regime of accumulation and participation. This focus
considers humans as the subject and object of the action and it demands to incorporate and
appreciate some ecological considerations, as well as social and cultural considerations, without
forgetting the economic aspect. This should be a new programming to guide us and to offer us a
series of criterions for the short, medium and long run.

Today, as the environmental problems start to overwhelm us, and as we understand that the current
life style of the rich elites is impossible to replicate at a global level, it is essential to strengthen this
process of awareness and mobilization. It is absolutely necessary to understand that humans cannot
survive away from Nature. Humans are part of Nature, Nature is not in front as if it was a ceremony
where humans are to be the spectators. It must be noted that this Nature has essential food chains
for humanity's life.

All of the above leads us to understand that Nature has to be assumed as a subject of rights. These
rights for Nature must be recognized starting from humans' identity that finds itself merged with
Nature. From this broad and inclusive perspective, the new normative constitutional framework of
our country, in consequence, must recognize that Nature is not only an ensemble of objects that
could be someone's property, but also a subject with its own legal rights and with legal legitimacy.

Any legal system related to common sense, sensible to the environmental disasters that we know
nowadays, applying modern scientific knowledge, or the knowledge of the native cultures- about
how the universe works, will have to prohibit humans to extinct other species or to destroy the
functioning of the natural ecosystems. As it is stated by the famous earth ethics of Aldo Leopold,
"something is right if it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community.
It is incorrect when it does the contrary."

Following this line of reflection, here are some fundamental premises to advance towards what is
considered "Earth's democracy":
    - Individual and collective human rights have to be in harmony with the rights of other natural
       communities on Earth;
    - Living beings have the rights to follow their own vital processes;
    - Life's diversity expressed in Nature is a value in itself;
    - Ecosystems have their own values that are independent of the utility for human beings.

The establishment of a legal system in which ecosystems and natural communities have the
inalienable right to exist and prosper will place Nature in the highest level of values and
importance. Without doubt, this will have the direct effect of preventing damages, it will force us to
rethink about many human activities with big environmental costs, it will raise awareness, respect
for others and the feeling of belonging of a specie threatened by its own irresponsibility.

The day will come when Nature's rights will be respected. Hopefully this will not be too late... We
are still on time for our laws to recognize the right of a river to flow, to prohibit the actions that will
destabilize Earth's climate or impose respect to the intrinsic value of every living being. It is time to
stop the mad commodification of Nature, as it was, in other times, the prohibition to buy and sell
human beings.




                                                                                                            3