Search Results for: rights of nature
On May 16th, CELDF participated in the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on Human Rights, Fracking and Climate Change.
Earth Law Alliance requested the PPT convene the tribunal to consider:
“What is the extent of responsibility and liability of States and non-state actors, both legal and moral, for violations of the rights of nature related to environmental and climate harm caused by these unconventional oil and gas extraction techniques?”
CELDF submitted an amicus curiae brief arguing that fracking violates the rights of nature and the human right to a healthy environment. From impacts on air and water quality, to wildlife, to climate change, CELDF’s brief demonstrates how from a scientific, legal, moral, and spiritual perspective, both state and non-state actors are responsible, and therefore liable, for violating the rights of nature.
The Center for Earth Jurisprudence also submitted an amicus curiae brief to highlight indivisible connection between human rights and rights of the Earth, and detailed why they must be considered together.
CELDF working in India to Recognize Rights of the Ganga River Basin
Contact:
Stacey Schmader
Administrative Director
Info@celdf.org
717-498-0054
MERCERSBURG, PA, USA: On March 20, the High Court of Uttarakhand at Naintal, in the State of Uttarakhand in northern India, issued a ruling declaring that the River Ganga and River Yumana are “legal persons/living persons.” This comes after numerous rulings by the court which found that while the rivers are “central to the existence to half of Indian population and their health and well being,” they are severely polluted, with their very existence in question.
The court declared that throughout India’s history, it has been necessary to declare that certain “entities, living inanimate, objects or things” to be declared a “juristic person.” In the case of the Ganga and Yumana, the court explained the time has come to recognize them as legal persons “in order to preserve and conserve” the rivers.
The movement to recognize certain legal rights of nature and particular ecosystems is growing. Beginning in 2006, the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) assisted the community of Tamaqua Borough, in the State of Pennsylvania in the United States, to draft and pass the very first rights of nature law in the world. CELDF has since assisted more than three dozen communities across the U.S., as well as the first country in the world – Ecuador – to secure the rights of nature to exist and flourish.
As efforts to advance legal rights of nature continue, CELDF has been partnering with India-based NGOs to recognize fundamental rights of the Ganga River and the entire river basin.
With the Global WASH Alliance-India and Ganga Action Parivar, CELDF drafted the proposed National Ganga River Rights Act. The Act would recognize fundamental rights of the Ganga to exist, flourish, evolve, and be restored, and the people of India to a healthy, thriving river ecosystem. The legislation is now under consideration by India Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, which in recent months established a committee within the Modi administration to review the Act.
In calling for significant legal change, in a February 2016 ruling – a precursor to this week’s ruling – the court stated, “The legislation, till now, has not helped to save Ganga. We need a comprehensive legislation at the national level dealing with the Ganga alone.”
With regard to the court’s ruling this week, a CELDF representative explained, “Recognition of personhood rights are an important step forward toward the recognition of the full rights of the rivers to be healthy, natural ecosystems.”
“Such rights would include the rights of the rivers to pure water, to flow, to provide habitat for river species, and other rights essential to the health and well-being of these ecosystems,” they explained. In local laws in the U.S., as well as in the Ecuador Constitution, rights of nature laws secure rights that are necessary to the ability of ecosystems to be healthy and thrive. These laws transform ecosystems from being considered resources available for human use, to living entities with inherent rights.
These laws have been passed as there is a growing recognition around the world that environmental laws premised on regulating the use of nature, are unable to protect nature. They stated, “The collapse of ecosystems and species, as well as the acceleration of climate change, are clear indications that a fundamental change in the relationship between humankind and the natural world is necessary.”
In a February 2016 ruling, the Uttarakhand court wrote, “All the rivers have the basic right to maintain their purity and to maintain free and natural flow.” Whether the court includes these rights within the scope of its recent “personhood” declaration is not clear, or whether courts will expand on the rights recognized this week remains to be seen.
The High Court of Uttarakhand’s ruling comes after the finalization of a settlement agreement between the Maori people and the government of New Zealand regarding the Whanganui River. In that settlement, finalized through a vote of the Parliament, the river is recognized as having personhood rights. CELDF believes that the movement in New Zealand and India to recognize certain rights of ecosystems are important in the growing movement to move away from legal systems which treat nature as property under the law, to laws which recognize inherent rights of nature.
Today, CELDF is partnering with communities and organizations across the United States, as well as in Nepal, India, Australia, Sweden, and other countries to advance rights of nature legal frameworks.
About the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) & the International Center for the Rights of Nature
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund’s mission is to build sustainable communities by assisting people to assert their right to local self-government and the rights of nature. CELDF’s International Center for the Rights of Nature is partnering with communities and organizations in countries around the world to advance the rights of nature.
###
Highland Township in Elk County, PA, adopted a Community Bill of Rights Ordinance in January 2013, codifying the community’s rights to clean air, water, the rights of nature, and to local self-governance – and banning fracking wastewater injection wells as a violation of those rights.
Faced with Seneca Resources Corporation applying for a permit to site an injection well within the Township, the community contacted CELDF to assist in drafting their Community Bill of Rights to protect themselves from the threat of wastewater.
Seneca Resources Corporation has now threatened a lawsuit. With overwhelming community support for the Township Supervisors, the Supervisors have retained CELDF to defend the Community Bill of Rights.
For more information on Highland Township organizing, or Community Rights organizing in Pennsylvania, contact Chad Nicholson at chad@celdf.org.
Whether or not you agree with his strategies, you’ve got to admit that Thomas Linzey has some of the most interesting ideas in environmentalism today. And if ever there was a moment for his community-powered approach to catch fire, it’s now. Given all the grassroots, localized efforts to ban fracking in New York, New Mexico and elsewhere, it could be that the future of his dreams is on its way to becoming reality.
Linzey’s work baRune Mathisensically tackles two linked ideas: first, that a true environmental movement (which he says has never existed in the US) should end its focus on regulation and instead start with the premise that nature has rights. Here’s one of my favorite quotes from our interview.
Unfortunately, you have this huge growth of quasi-green Astroturf environmentalism in the United States which sucks in millions of dollars each year and continues this dream that we can continue treating nature as property, all we have to do is regulate the use of that property a little bit better. And I think that’s crazy.
Linzey points to abolition and women’s suffrage as true movements, where entities once seen as property (slaves, women) worked to have their rights written into the constitution. That, he says, should be the aim of environmentalism.
Second, Linzey says, the rights of corporations (now considered people under the constitution) must be checked. Since there is little pr0spect of either of those things happening on a federal level in the near future, Linzey’s work focuses on helping local communities establish their rights of home-rule to create ordinances on both levels: codifying natural rights and stripping away corporate rights.
I do have questions about this scenario carried out to its logical conclusion. If every locality enacts ordinances banning this and that…what happens when decisions have to be made for the good of the larger community? Transmission lines, say. Or roads. Could we really ever live in a world where those things aren’t necessary? Linzey addresses that question toward the end of our conversation. What do you think?
Thomas Linzey will be speaking at UNM on February 2nd at 7:00 PM. More info
Whether or not you agree with his strategies, you’ve got to admit that Thomas Linzey has some of the most interesting ideas in environmentalism today. And if ever there was a moment for his community-powered approach to catch fire, it’s now. Given all the grassroots, localized efforts to ban fracking in New York, New Mexico and elsewhere, it could be that the future of his dreams is on its way to becoming reality.
Linzey’s work baRune Mathisensically tackles two linked ideas: first, that a true environmental movement (which he says has never existed in the US) should end its focus on regulation and instead start with the premise that nature has rights. Here’s one of my favorite quotes from our interview.
Unfortunately, you have this huge growth of quasi-green Astroturf environmentalism in the United States which sucks in millions of dollars each year and continues this dream that we can continue treating nature as property, all we have to do is regulate the use of that property a little bit better. And I think that’s crazy.
Linzey points to abolition and women’s suffrage as true movements, where entities once seen as property (slaves, women) worked to have their rights written into the constitution. That, he says, should be the aim of environmentalism.
Second, Linzey says, the rights of corporations (now considered people under the constitution) must be checked. Since there is little pr0spect of either of those things happening on a federal level in the near future, Linzey’s work focuses on helping local communities establish their rights of home-rule to create ordinances on both levels: codifying natural rights and stripping away corporate rights.
I do have questions about this scenario carried out to its logical conclusion. If every locality enacts ordinances banning this and that…what happens when decisions have to be made for the good of the larger community? Transmission lines, say. Or roads. Could we really ever live in a world where those things aren’t necessary? Linzey addresses that question toward the end of our conversation. What do you think?
Thomas Linzey will be speaking at UNM on February 2nd at 7:00 PM. More info