I lately attended a webinar on the safety of the Cape Flats Aquifer convened by the Philippi Horticultural Area (PHA) Food & Farming Campaign. One of the audio system from a authorized NGO spoke about present laws that could possibly be used to guard underground water sources and briefly referred to the thought of the ‘rights of Nature’. The speaker was adopted by a widely known and revered water scientist who offered a quick description of aquifers as underground water-bearing permeable rock and soil materials, earlier than turning to the query of rights of Nature raised by the sooner speaker. She insisted that it made little sense to equate the rights of people with these of whales and dolphins, and added that this was, in any case, a Euro-American authorized idea that had little relevance and traction within the international South.
What this scientist didn’t point out, nonetheless, was that the rights of Nature is in actual fact already enshrined within the Ecuadorian Constitution. The preamble to that Constitution commits Ecuador to constructing “a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living, the sumak kawsay”. The Constitution makes it clear, firstly, that “the good way of living” have to be pursued by residing in concord with Nature, and secondly, that recognising and implementing the rights of Nature is a very powerful authorized mechanism for selling concord with Nature. This constitutional provision has in actual fact had very actual results within the courtroom, as an example when plans to mine in a protected cloud forest in Ecuador have been lately quashed as a result of this violated the nation’s Constitution. This landmark ruling insisted on inserting people in context as a part of Nature, quite than above, or aside from, the ‘non-human’ world. In reality, Dr Mika Peck, a tutorial within the UK, acknowledged that this ruling was as vital to Nature as Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man have been to the human species.
For many individuals, it might be tough to think about recognising the rights of Nature with out inserting human rights above, or separate from, the ‘other-than-human’ world. But concepts associated to the rights of Nature are very a lot in step with scholarly debates going down everywhere in the world concerning the human-nature nexus and the company of the non-human, together with these materials entities akin to rocks, rivers and mountains that many contemplate being inert and inanimate. If the thought of animal rights is turning into more and more acceptable, why is it so tough to think about that forests, mountains, rivers and aquifers may have rights?
Stellenbosch University anthropology doctoral pupil, Matthew Wingfield, has discovered that the successes of the PHA Campaign’s authorized arguments for the safety of the ecologically delicate aquifer are largely a results of the larger visibility this very important underground water physique has acquired in a post-‘Day Zero’ situation of worldwide local weather change and water shortage. Notwithstanding the aquifer’s central function within the PHA court docket case opposing city improvement on prime of this underground water physique, many judges, attorneys, scientists, and extraordinary residents would little question nonetheless discover it a little bit of a stretch to simply accept that the aquifer should have rights.
For PHA Campaign activists, it makes good sense to foreground the Cape Flats Aquifer as a key actor that, if legally shielded from environmentally damaging improvement, may present Cape Town with long-term water and meals safety. Over the years, these activists have held aquifer seminars along with scientists to advance interdisciplinary information about this invisible and opaque underground water entity. In December 2021, the PHA Campaign held an Aquifer Festival on the PHA that included talks, artwork and music celebrating this invisible watery physique. Activists wore T-shirts with the phrases: “Aquifer Below, Life Above” to convey the connection between this underground water entity and on a regular basis life that takes place on prime of it, together with unlawful dumping and contamination from large-scale business farming with pesticides and fertilisers. As one of many organisers of the Aquifer Festival, the PHA Campaign’s Nazeer Sonday, put it: “In the past the PHA Campaign hosted two successful Cape Flats Aquifer Seminars [2014, 2016] in which scientists, academics, farmers and activists confirmed the value of the aquifer. The seminars started the process of bringing people together to protect the Cape Flats Aquifer. This is growing. Day Zero, pandemics and climate change [are] caused by our broken relationship with nature. The Aquifer Festival 2021 objective is to shift the consciousness of citizens. Through the arts, we want to protect the aquifer. We need the aquifer. The aquifer needs us.”
PHA Campaign activists lately gained a court docket case through which the decide instructed non-public builders to return to the drafting board as a result of that they had not adequately taken under consideration the dangers of detrimental penalties for the aquifer of setting up large concrete constructions above it. Although the decide didn’t depend on the idea of the rights of Nature in her judgement, it appeared that the Cape Flats Aquifer (CFA) had certainly develop into the central actor on this courtroom drama. But what wouldn’t it imply for the aquifer to have rights?
Environmental writers akin to Amitav Ghosh and Jason Moore have claimed that the conquest of the Americas and lots of different components of the world by Europeans not solely unleashed genocidal violence and slavery and the relentless extraction of ‘natural resources’, however it additionally set in movement cultural concepts that indigenous and colonised peoples, and ladies, could possibly be categorised as belonging to ‘nature’ — and therefore ‘less than human’. These concepts have been a part of dominant Western scientific, cultural and mental traditions when it comes to which solely people (i.e. white European males) had souls, rights and the capability to make historical past; on this schema, ‘Nature’ and the non-human world was deemed to be inert and with out company. Yet, even Nineteenth-century scientists akin to Alexander von Humboldt believed that nature consisted of a ‘web of life’ that included each human and non-human worlds that have been filled with vitality. In current years, this attitude has been substantiated by scientists akin to Suzanne Simard whose research of ‘the social life of forests’ have discovered that timber have the capability to speak and cooperate with one another via subterranean networks and partnerships of timber and fungi referred to as mycorrhizas. Clearly, ‘Nature’ is just not as inert as some could imagine.
In an age of local weather disaster, environmental activists have returned to concepts concerning the vitality of Nature that have been as soon as universally held by humanity, and have been stored alive by indigenous cultures. These concepts about very important pure worlds have been promoted as antidotes to capitalist ideologies of relentless financial progress and extraction of the earth’s assets. From the attitude of a few of these activists, indigenous peoples protected the earth as a result of that they had no clear separation between people and Nature — and since they recognised that mountains, rivers, and ancestral spirits have been such intimate points of their lives. These concepts are sometimes seen by environmental activists to be in sync with their very own efforts to problem the extractive capitalist logics of agroindustry and mining that view Nature merely as a ‘resource’ to be exploited to extend company revenue margins and dividends of shareholders. It is inside this context of understandings of the vitality of the net of life, that the thought of the rights of Nature is at the moment circulating so broadly in environmental struggles.
Although there’s nonetheless a protracted method to go earlier than the rights of Nature are recognised in South Africa legislation, the rising opposition of rural communities to mining means that this idea may discover some traction. In locations akin to Xolobeni within the Wild Coast space of the Eastern Cape, rural communities have mobilised round ‘the right to say no’ to titanium mining, and have insisted on correct session and group participation. They have additionally drawn on concepts of ‘sacred space’ to guard their land and livelihoods from mining. These communities additionally lately efficiently opposed Shell’s plans to conduct seismic surveys within the ocean off the Wild Coast — thereby rejecting extravagant claims by authorities and mining firms that mining will present jobs and improvement of their villages. Likewise, First Nations activists opposing the Amazon Corporation mega-development in Cape Town’s Two River Urban Park declare that their Khoi ancestors had intimate relationships with the sacred areas on the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek rivers. These environmental struggles are a part of international mobilisations, together with by indigenous activists opposing oil pipelines within the Niger Delta space of Nigeria in addition to North America. These struggles are animated by narratives a few very important pure world that’s something however inert.
Amitav Ghosh writes in his newest ebook The Nutmeg’s Curse: Parables for a Planet in Crisis, that the West is chargeable for the modern planetary disaster, which he attributes to the legacies of European colonial violence (together with genocide and slavery), histories of racial capitalism and environmental destruction produced by ideologies of infinite progress and consumption propelled by unsustainable vitality and useful resource use. According to Ghosh, it’s not attainable to unravel this planetary disaster with no shared narrative through which all people acknowledge their mutual dependence not simply on one another, however on the non-human world as nicely. This would additionally require now not seeing the Earth as an inert entity that exists purely to offer people with assets. But how may such seismic modifications in perspective come about, and would this be sufficient?
Matthew Wingfield and I lately interviewed Cormac Cullinan, one of many main environmental attorneys in South Africa. Amongst his many different accomplishments, Cullinan performed a number one function within the drafting of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, adopted by a Peoples’ World Conference convened in Bolivia in 2010. His Cape Town-based authorized agency beforehand represented the Wild Coast communities of Xolobeni and adjoining villages in opposing the development of a toll highway via their ancestral lands. It is at the moment representing a spread of events opposing seismic surveys by Shell off the Wild Coast and the Observatory Civic Association (OCA) and Goringhaicona Khoi Khoin Indigenous Traditional Council of their authorized problem to the River Club improvement within the Two Rivers Urban Park in Cape Town.
Cullinan’s curiosity in environmental points started as a youngster when he got here to understand that probably the most basic points confronting the way forward for humanity involved ecological points. Decades later, in Wild Law, a pioneering ebook he printed in 2002, Cullinan outlined his philosophical perspective on these ecological challenges. He believes that human behaviour has been altering the chemistry of the planet so radically that it has threatened most lifeforms.
Cullinan advised us about how his excited about environmental legislation had modified through the years. “So, for many years, I proceeded happily drafting environmental legislation because I thought this would have a wider effect. I then began to realise that there were some problems that couldn’t be fixed by drafting legislation. It wasn’t the question of finding the right words and legal concepts. The problem was deeper than the law; it preceded the law.” Although he nonetheless believes that legislation has a job to play in regulating the worst excesses of such behaviour, he has come to the conclusion that there are severe limits to the function of the legislation, which in the end protects and legitimises the property rights of exactly these oil, gasoline, and mining firms which can be largely chargeable for fossil gasoline emissions and the present state of the local weather disaster. This realisation led Cullinan to conclude that what is required is a radical shift in authorized, financial and political governance programs. It would additionally require a decisive break from mainstream financial and cultural concepts concerning the complete separation of people from nature.
For Cullinan, a helpful strategy to addressing the planetary ecological disaster can be to be taught from Ecuador’s enshrining of the rights of Nature in its Constitution. He notes that such an ‘Earth jurisprudence’ may represent a basic problem to the core premises of your entire authorized, financial and political governance system. This may change the aim of your entire governance system from selling human domination and colonisation of Earth to selling a extra harmonious co-existence primarily based on respect for different beings, together with ‘other than human’ ones. While he acknowledges that this can be very tough to implement, he’s satisfied that, not like environmental legislation, it might handle the foundation causes of the present social and ecological catastrophes. It would additionally present prospects for shielding rivers, oceans and aquifers from the devastating results of extractive mining, and go a way in the direction of safeguarding ecologically delicate aquifers and rivers from rapacious non-public builders. DM
Professor Steven Robins is with the Department of Sociology & Social Anthropology, University of Stellenbosch.
Leave a Reply