Trees Have Rights Too News RSS Feed

22 April: Ecocide an International Crime

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:28:37 GMT

Ecocide: An International Crime Against Peace

Polly Higgins will be presenting her UN proposal for implementation of the international Crime of Ecocide

What: The Haldane Society Lecture: Protecting the Environment-legal challenges. Where: College of Law, 14 Store Street, London WC1E 7DE. When: Thursday 22nd April 2010 @6:30pm. Admission free

Admission free. More details: Haldane Society thisisecocide.com

20-22 April: The World's People's Conference, Bolivia

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:11:31 GMT

The World’s People’s Conference starts in Bolivia today: it runs for 3 days 20 – 22 April. Mother Earth’s volcanic intervention in Iceland has kept many travellers in Europe grounded, but you can still engage in the proceedings by simply by turning onto oneclimate.net and on Bolivia’s site.

If you are in the UK this Saturday there will be reporting and analysis on the outcome of the Conference, with linkup to Bolivia:

What: After Copenhagen, What Next? A report back from Bolivia Where: St Mary’s, Bramall Lane, Sheffield, S2 4QZ When: Saturday April 24, 2010 from 10am to 4pm More details here Contact: ajmiller@blueyonder.co.uk

09.04.10: British campaigner urges UN to accept 'ecocide' as international crime

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:03:31 GMT

Proposal to declare mass destruction of ecosystems a crime on a par with genocide launched by lawyer. by Juliette Jowitt, The Guardian

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.

The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.

Full article here thisisecocide.com

Ecocide - definition

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:22:24 GMT

The humanitarian crisis of the Second World War required the word ‘genocide’ to describe the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. So it is in 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity, that the current environmental crisis calls for new language to describe the extensive damage and loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes. That word is ecocide.

DEFINITION

ecocide: the extensive damage to and loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.

Non-ascertainable ecocide describes the outcome, or potential outcome, where there is damage and loss to the territory per se, but without specific identification of the cause by human agency.

Ascertainable ecocide describes the outcome, or potential outcome, where there is damage and loss to the territory, and determination can be made of the instigator(s) of cause (or omission) of action directly or indirectly resulting in ecocide. In such cases, ascertainable ecocide applies to strict/absolute, reckless and vicarious liability.

Non-ascertainable ecocide

Where ecocide is established but causation is in doubt or the perpetrators are not determinable (for instance, due to a naturally occurring event such as an earthquake), this need not prevent application of immediate remedy. The threatened/damaged territory must be afforded emergency remedy for the ecosystems and species (including human) therein.

Examples of non-specific ecocide territories:

the threatened existence of the low lying Maldives due to rising sea levels;
the shrinking of the Greenland ice sheet;
the melting of the Himalayan Glaciers;
the pacific gyre, the ‘island of garbage twice the size of Texas’, slowly spinning in the ocean.

Ascertainable ecocide

Cause is due to identifiable human related activity (or the failure to act). Prosecution of the legal person(s), with whom responsibility lies for the causing of the resultant damage is thus possible.

Human agency liability can be deliberate, reckless or absolute. The destruction of large areas of the environment and ecosystems can be caused directly or indirectly by various activities, such as nuclear testing, exploitation of resources, extractive practices, dumping of harmful chemicals, use of defoliants, emission of pollutants or war. Criminal prosecution of ecocide does not preclude the immediate application of emergency remedy.

Examples of ascertainable ecocide territories:

deforestation of the Amazonian rainforest;
the proposed expansion of the Athabasca Oil Sands, Peace River and Cold Lake deposits reservoirs located in northeastern Alberta, Canada, which will culminate in destruction of boreal forest and muskeg (peat bogs) covering an area the size of England;
the Bingham Canyon Mine, an open-pit mine extraction of copper deposit southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah, in the Oquirrh Mountains;
coal mining in Appalachia.

Extract: P. Higgins, ‘Towards a Garden of Eden’ in Wild Law: A Reader in Earth Jurisprudence, ed P. Burdon, Wakefield Press, Adelaide, 2010.

THE CANADIAN TAR SANDS OIL-YMPICS - action against ecocide

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:17:05 GMT

The Canadian Tar Sands Oil-ympics – The Race To The Tar Sands Has Begun! Saturday February 13th, was the opening day of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada. Meanwhile here in London, a different kind of sport was taking place.

In the spirit of mischief and fun, Canada House in Trafalgar Square was the centre of focus for the three oily teams: BP, Shell and Total, who took their places to ‘Race to the Tar Sands’.

Curling, one of the olympic sports, is being put to good use to help sweep out BP, Shell, and RBS as they all race headlong into the Tar Sands.

The Canadian Tar Sands in Alberta is one of the biggest examples of ecocide on planet earth. The extraction of unconventional oil from the Tar Sands (called the dirtiest oil on the planet) has caused, and will continue to cause, extensive destruction and loss of widespread ecosystems to an area the size of England. There is currently a global ‘race to the tar sands’ and the main competitors are Shell, Total and BP who are all in pursuit of the profits to be gained from the extraction of unconventional oil from the Canadian Tar Sands, regardless of the environmental and social costs and opposition from local communities directly affected by the extraction.

Although the oil is being extracted in Canada, there are direct links to the UK. Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Barclays have all invested in the tar sands. Britain’s very own BP are about to reverse their decision to stay away from the destructive project, making Beyond Petroleum nothing more than a Broken Promise.

This action is in solidarity with Canadian First Nations groups whose lands and communities are being devastated in the name of corporate profit, and who have called for a moratorium on the tar sands.

For more info about the Canadian Tar Sands, the Oil-ympics and the UK Tar Sands Network check out these links:

20.01.10 Event: From bad COP to good COP

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:46:25 GMT

Speaker Event: From bad COP to good COP

A peoples report on COP 15 & preparations for COP 16

140,000 people attended COP 15 in December 2009. 50,000 of those people came – not as part of a delegation, nor as an NGO representative – with one agenda: concern for the planet. Those excluded from the COP taking place in the Bella Centre were based downtown at Klimaforum, in warehouses in the meatpacking district, Christiania & the Fresh Air Centre.

4 women from the UK who were actively involved:

- Kirsty Schneeberger, environmental law student & UKYCC youth delegate,

- Anuradha Vittachi documentary maker & Founder OneClimate,

- Tamsin Omond activist & founder of Climate Rush and

- Polly Higgins barrister & advocate for Planetary Rights.

They need your help to co-create a good COP.

As the lawyer at the Peoples Climate Summit, Polly will report on how events unfolded from the peoples perspective and the legal steps we can take to protect the planet; Tamsin was out on the (freezing cold) front line of direct action and will tell us what took place on the streets, while Kirsty (who famously asked delegates in Bonn ‘How old will you be in 2050?’) and Anuradha (who filmed and spoke with many of the leaders) will provide the insider’s view from the Bella Centre where the NGO’s, business lobbyists, negotiators and politicians were unable to prevent the collapse of the negotiations.

To kick off the evening, Ande Somby, is a well known traditional Norwegian Sami joik artist and Indigenous Rights Lawyer, shall open the event with a joik. 6.30pm *joik by Ande Somby* 6.40 - 7.30pm *reports from the speakers* 7.30 - 8.15pm *refreshments & optional vegetarian dinner* 8.15 - 9.00pm *Co-creating COP 16* 9pm joik by Ande Somby Where: *The Window, 13 Windsor Street, London N1 8QG* When: *6.30pm - 9pm, Wed 20th Jan 2010* Cost: *£5 for Event (Students FREE); £7.50 for Dinner* (pay at door) RSVP: *polly@wisewomen.me.uk* This is an event hosted by EnlightenNext in collaboration with Wise Women, and Be The Change.

21.12.09 The People of the Planet v's the Politicians: Emergency Application

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:33:05 GMT

So the climate negotiations are over. The end result was a 3 page document, now named the Copenhagen Accord (not a Treaty because it is non-binding, it states a few principles to “take note of”) which no country has signed up to in any event. In other words, it has no lawful authority or standing at all, it is a mere statement of vague intent. Arguably this is a crime against the planet (a sin of omission) and all those who live within, upon and on it.

Compare this to how an international genocide case would be addressed (the abuse here being the equivalent – let us call it Planet Earth genocide, or for short: terracide). This is a case for the International Criminal Court, which is where genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are heard. For our purposes, the ICC powers have now been extended to address terracide as well (for we accept that damage and death of the planet means damage and death of many species, including humans, who are dependent upon the survival of planet life). The case has been brought on behalf of The People of the Planet against their heads of state who we claim have failed to take action to stop the terracide.

Counsel for the various heads of states (who are vicariously liable for those who have been perpetrators of terracide on their patch of the planet), present to the court an unsigned piece of paper proposing a suggested outcome – only none have signed it. The judge points out that an unsigned document is not an outcome that a court of law can accept. It is a comprehensive failure to negotiate and moreover the listed terms of (non)agreement are on the face of it unacceptable. And so it is that The Peoples case for Planet Earth shall be immediately listed for trial to be heard on the earliest possible date.

Meanwhile, in the world arena of political posturing, with no judge to take control of the situation, proceedings have been adjourned for the 15th time over 15 years, with no set date put in place. Interim measures have proven to be utterly ineffectual and the terracide of our planet continues unabated….

....Friday night through to the small hours of Saturday I was holed up in the aptly named Fresh Air Centre.

It is the hub for the alternative reporters – the bloggers, the independents, the green journos, the non-mainstream voices; the ones seeking to report the truth, not just the hot air. I say this informedly after witnessing propaganda news coming out of the likes of CNN (distraction news: continual reporting on how bad China’s pollution is) and on local Danish news (false news: how the Danish PM had saved the day).

We sat there digesting the live streaming of Obama’s press statement from the airbase before he headed home and the subsequent responses from the Bella Centre from the other Heads of State. Only, the streaming was constantly cut, and in the end we were left with very little from any nation. Our sources in the Bella Centre were faring no better, and although they were there literally outside the negotiation room, they were unable to access any more information. Those out on the streets (this was now 2am) who earlier had gone to march in protest had all been rounded up under the newly imposed preventative powers of the police (paranoia powers: if in doubt, spray pepper gas and arrest anyone acting suspiciously). Hundreds were left seated outside on the cold ground, handcuffed and held there through the night (presumably until the negotiators had gotten safely to their beds). It was minus 7 degrees outside.

All of this is so wrong.

Why has this all gone so horribly wrong?

3 issues come to the fore. Barak Obama in his final statement touched on the same three points that cut to the crux of the problem.

Counsel acting on behalf of the people of the planet has lodged an emergency application for remedial steps to be imposed in time for the next COP.

The Peoples Reasons:

1. The system as it currently stands does not work.

As has been demonstrated with the comprehensive failure of the 187 ratified parties to uphold the binding Kyoto Agreement, it is pointless to sign up to any type of new agreement, especially an even weaker non-binding one.

2. Utter lack of transparency of proceedings.

In these climate negotiations, we have evidence that documents were suppressed and meetings held behind closed doors. We call for full and frank disclosure to be implemented so that everybody knows what is happening and we can collectively come to informed decision making. We call for any information which is of potential assistance to be publicly disclosed all to scrutinise. If pertinent and relevant, concealment of evidence and process cannot be an option.

3. There has been a complete disintegration of trust.

Accusations of secret meetings, the implementation and use of excessive policing laws, the ousting of NGO’s – all this and more bear the hallmark scars of the collapse of trust. It is pertinent to remember that the politicians and heads of state are there to represent us, the people.

The Peoples Proposals:

1. Change the approach from business as usual to rapid transition.

a) Instead of market provision agreements, implement binding international public trust doctrine law. This would ensure a shift from business opportunities being put first to planet protection being foremost, with direct responsibility and protection provisions implemented which identify duties and obligations. Mechanisms for restorative and ecological justice can then be put in place which if ignored are actionable in a court of law; b) cut the damaging subsidies ($300 billion per annum which props up the fossil fuel industry), replacing them with emergency subsidies for the rapid roll-out of clean energy solutions (with each nation putting in place the required emergency legislation to facilitate this); c) replace the word sustainability with responsibility in all documents.

2. Change the procedure from hidden to transparent.

Transparency and accountability procedures be implemented at all levels. The onus will be on the UN to give full and frank disclosure of all proceedings. Any information which is of potential assistance shall be disclosed all to scrutinise. In a court of law the onus is on the defendant to ensure that all procedures and all documents in the negotiation process are open to public scrutiny at all times. This must be the norm for the UN. Closed door meetings be banned. Specific application will have to be heard to determine whether there is exceptional reason for public interest immunity to apply, with right to appeal. a) all negotiators to be under the age of 40 – they are the ones who are going to have to live through the outcome; b) all negotiations are filmed live for real-time public access; c) the public who are in attendance at the COP will be given the ability to vote on issues as they arise to give real-time indicators of their views into the process to assist with negotiations; d) all leaders make themselves available to their people at some point during the COP to account for their progress.

3. Establish trust between our leaders and between the politicians and people.

This will be achieved in part by implementation of the above suggestions, but more steps are required: a) banish the 3 tier system ( negotiators = participants, NGO’s = observers, the remainder are excluded) and treat all who attend as participants; b) decriminalise the process. Cancel the police powers which alienate the process; c) ensure gender balance at all levels – 51% of the world is female, but 96% of the negotiators at top level are male. With more female input we would have a better balance of proposed solutions d) provide for, listen to and act upon the voice of the people – those who come with wisdom, the indigenous voice, the activists, those who have travelled to the negotiations out of the personal agenda that they care for the planet and want to find an equitable solution. All voices be fully acknowleged and embraced, not marginalised; e) ensure enough time for negotiations and for rest. Leaders allocating just 2 days to the process has proven to be useless. Decisions made on 48 hours worth of concentrated sleep deprived negotiations lead to desperate and misplaced responses (as COP 15 demonstrated); f) implement and subsidise supportive mechanisms that are required on a basic level: sustenance and nourishment for all, intellectually, physically and spiritually. For example, more events be open to the public online and on ground to demystify the various aspects of the process (the People’s Climate Summit to be implemented at each COP with even more accessibility to all, with more voices being heard from all arenas), good affordable fresh organic food (too many activists were starving by the end of the fortnight due to exhorbitant basic living expenses), more host family support (5,000 people stayed with host families in Copenhagen), massages for participants…

4. The next COP be in 6 months.

Such is the urgency of the problem, a year is too long to wait to begin again – six months should be the absolute latest. When all of the above is implemented, then we will hear Barak Obama and all our leaders making a speech worthy of a standing ovation.

With enormous thanks to all the people of the planet who helped with their proposals for a good COP. Together we can make this happen. Sign up to become a Trustee of Planet Earth today.

18.12.09 Become a Trustee of Planet Earth

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:19:50 GMT

Last year I addressed the Untied Nations on the need for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights. One year on and Bolivia is now going to run with this idea. This week I am in Copenhagen for the Climate negotiations, but they look set to collapse. So, today I am launching a Planet Earth Trust for us the people to sign up to. Help me, with many millions of others, find the solution for life of all beings.

The planet is our capital asset and we the people have a responsibility to ensure that this asset is protected, not exploited. We can do that by being trustees for the planet. When humanity becomes the trustee of the planet and holds the asset in perpetuity for use of all beings, as guided by the principles, life is assured for us all.

This is a Planet Earth Trust, in which we the people are Trustees and All Beings are the Beneficiaries. Become a Trustee at www.treeshaverightstoo.com

18.12.09 A People's Referendum

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:17:16 GMT

I am currently in Copenhagen for the International Climate negotiations, and everything hangs on a balance today, the last day. Here is some information on what I have been saying and doing whilst here. You can also watch much of what I am up to at Positive TV

Yesterday George Monbiot and I called on COP15 to become accountable and transparent to the people. I asked for the next COP to provide real-time video streaming of the negotiations, not that the politicians remain behind closed doors. I also called for a referendum by the people. Bolivia has been brave enough to run with this idea today! You can have your say by answering the following questions on their website.

Hopenhagen or Nopenhagen?

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:12:33 GMT

All,

As I write this, we are down to three days here at the Copenhagen climate talks. And I am afraid to say that there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Everybody has card to put on the table but no one is playing.

Actually, not everybody has cards. The Least Developed Countries, the poorest of the poor, and the Association of Small Island States, also mostly poor, have little to offer beyond their presence. Their emissions are so small they can offer little in the way of mitigation. They come asking for help to adapt as weather patterns change, storms grow and seas rise. They are being offered a tiny fraction of what economists say they will need. The only card they have to play is to pack up and leave, refusing to sign on to a national suicide pact. Their presence here is now on a hair trigger.

To gain some influence in the talks, they are aligned with a large group of developing countries that goes by the name of the G77. Other than the poorest countries, this group includes what have become known as the BASIC countries. Those letters (kind of) stand for the names of the biggest of the emerging economies. Brazil, South Africa, India and China are most prominent. These countries have emissions profiles that are distinctive for a combination of four factors. They are a significant portion of current global emissions and they represent a large portion of future emissions growth, but they do not represent a significant proportion of historic emissions and their per capita emissions levels are far below the developed world. Each of these countries has made significant pledges to slow the growth of their emissions, but refuse to set limits on growth for economies that includes hundreds of millions of people that still live below income levels of two dollars per day.

Distinctive among this group is China, now the world’s largest emitter, right behind the U.S. Largest emitter and greatest source of emissions growth, but relatively small in terms of historic emissions and per capita emissions. Chinese emissions are still one-quarter of the U.S per person. The U.S. has made China the prime target of these talks. China has proposed to reduce its emissions intensity– the amount of carbon emitted per unit of economic activity—by 40-45% by 2020. That is a significant contribution. If implemented and assuming the U.S. gets one of the bills now before Congress passed and implemented, China will still have emissions less than half per person in the U.S. in 2020. But the U.S. is pushing measurement, reporting and verification of that promise. China is resisting throwing its economy open to outside review. I hope China will move on this issue, but it is certain they will not move before others, especially until the U.S. puts more on the table.

There is one last group of G77 countries. They are largely oil producers led by Saudi Arabia. For the most part they are here to stop anything from happening to the oil industry. They are not afraid to take undisguised action to slow or stop the process. In the end though, they don’t have enough power alone to sink these talks.

First among developed countries is the European Union. The EU is perhaps the most transparent group here. But their pledge of 20% reduction from 1990 levels is not what it seems. The EU moves as a bloc of countries and includes Eastern European countries that had high post-Soviet emissions in 1990. Many of those countries are significantly below those levels now, allowing other EU countries higher emissions while still claiming overall reductions. But the EU is likely to move to a 30% reduction if other developing countries move further.

Of course the meaning of 30% depends on how you count. The biggest factor on counting is international offsets. Those currently come in the form of financing projects in other countries for the benefit of emission reduction credits. A new deal could significantly expand these offsets while also including a bunch of new credits from forestry projects in developing countries. My biggest worry for the last month has been that some kind of weak forest deal will get done here and be sold to the public as saving the forest to save the climate. So far what is on the table on forests is largely a greenwash for covering up general inaction.

After the EU comes a group of developed countries called the Umbrella Group, including Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. These countries are a mixed bag. Canada is horrible and claims it is horrible because the U.S. is horrible. Russia is sitting on a load of hot air. That is the term for the emissions credits based on those higher 1990 levels that I talked about earlier. Russia can claim to reduce emissions about 40% below 1990 levels while nonetheless actually increasing emissions and selling that hot air to polluting countries. Japan under its new government might have a reasonable plan on the table but has been obstructive in negotiations. Australia and New Zealand embrace the general lack of ambition.

So it is clear, given this lack of action on the part of the rich countries that caused the climate problem in the first place, why developing countries say they need to see the rich countries move before they do.

Which brings me to the U.S. We are now proposing to reduce emissions a miserable 3-4% below 1990 levels. We have put no solid numbers on the table to help developing countries mitigate their emissions or adapt to the problem we helped create. We generally advocate for the biggest loopholes in the rules. Sometimes we even block proposals that everyone except OPEC supports. And we seem to be saying that we won’t do anything more, especially without China doing more. It is embarrassing to be an American at talks like these. I am incapable of defending my country’s actions.

What is especially frustrating is that about half of the biggest, richest environmental groups from the U.S. continue to back the U.S. negotiating position. They are like a broken record that argues that we can’t take strong action in Copenhagen because then the Senate will be scared off from passing a climate bill in the U.S. Arrgh! People used to say we needed a strong bill in the Senate to get a strong deal in Copenhagen. Now we are hearing we need a weak agreement in Copenhagen to get any bill in the Senate at all.

So it is easy to see why I say there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Almost no reason. Let me point out the cracks of light. First, other than the elites that run the show here, the world largely supports strong action on an international climate deal. The hundred thousand or so in the streets here on Saturday was just one example. Next the people I work with everyday are tireless, fierce and refuse to take no for an answer. It is almost impossible of believe that this level of dedication can fail. And finally, a solution is in the hands of one man who can change everything.

President Obama could come here and unlock a deal that is fair, ambitious and legally binding. He could instruct negotiators to stop creating loopholes and blocking honest progress. He could commit to go beyond the weak levels proposed in the current bills before Congress. He could pledge to raise funds to help the world’s most vulnerable adapt to a problem that was created by our American lifestyles of consumption. He could sign up to a deal that has real consequences for the failure to meet commitments.

The amount of goodwill that would be unlocked in the world from the result of such action would be like a flood. So many people are waiting for leadership. There is a vast ocean of positive action held back by a dam of fear and self-interest. The kind of deal the world needs is all on paper right now in brackets; it simply needs to be released from those brackets, to be agreed. The leaders of 110 countries are arriving already. Everybody necessary to tackle this greatest of all problems head on will be in the same city on the same day with the same purpose. This can still happen.

When so many people all want the same thing and their leaders fail to deliver, it rocks my faith in democracy to the core. But I am not a quitter. Let me try one more time. Let’s give this guy one more chance to really be different. We effectively have three more days there in the U.S. to ask for what we want. So I am going to ask you to help.

I know, it seems like such a weak response to such a big problem, but let’s at least try. Let’s try everything we can to get the message to Obama that we want real leadership on this issue. Many of you have been asking me if you can share my emails. I am not only giving you permission to share or publish this email anywhere you want. I am asking you to please do so. Please share this email with anyone you think might care.

Then I am asking you to make that one phone call a day until this deal is done – White House switchboard – 1-202-456-1111. “President Obama, please show real leadership on the climate issue, not just a greenwash deal. Deepen our cuts, put long-term funding on the table and stop waiting for other countries to go first. Prove that America is the world leader we always claim.”

Again, I know it is a small effort on such a big problem, a forwarded email and three one-minute phone calls. But don’t let its small nature stop you. The Earth needs people who care more than ever. Rare moments in history arise when the way forward appears as a fork in the road. We’ll never know what might have or failed to have tipped the balance.

Please give a little push with me.

Tim Ream Copenhagen 15 December, 2009

05.11.09: Ocean Declaration of Maupiti

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:37:38 GMT

The representatives of Pacific Countries and Territories, Aotearoa-New Zealand, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia, Hawaii, Kiribati, Niue, New Caledonia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rapa Nui, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Tonga, who met in Maupiti, of Society Islands, French Polynesia, during the UNESCO World Heritage Workshop of the Pacific Islands held from 1st to 7th November 2009:

THANK the local community of PUATIRIOURAIVAIAHU-RAIPUAEA, the people and the municipality of Maupiti for their generosity and friendship,

WE:

REAFFIRM that, for many Pacific communities:

There are sacred and intrinsic links with land, sky and ocean. This constitutes for many a fundamental and spiritual basis of existence.

The Ocean is a holistic reality of the life cycles of the earth.

The ocean is their identity, way of living, values, knowledge and practices that have sustained them for millennia.

ACKNOWLEDGE that the Ocean represents for many island communities the beginning and the end of their heritage, respected, shaped and passed through successive generations by their ancestors.

OBSERVE that the Ocean is a sacred, essential entity for many island communities, which is subject to a climate crisis of human origin.

OBSERVE that the loss of values associated with the ocean and its resources threatens the collective, physical, moral, spiritual well being, integrity and survival of many islands communities.

RECOGNIZE the need to safeguard knowledge, spirituality, traditional practices and their inter-relationships with land, sky and ocean.

- URGENTLY CALL to action all nations and the peoples of the World to join and protect, manage, maintain and sustain the cultural and natural integrity of the ocean for our ancestors and future generations.

12.11.09 UN Resolution: Harmony with Mother Earth

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:43:48 GMT

On 12th November, the Bolivian Ambassador Mr. Pablo Solon presented to the UN a Draft Resolution Presentation Speech “Harmony with Mother Earth” (A/C.2/64/L.24) co-sponsored by Algeria, Benin, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Eritrea, Georgia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mauritius, Nepal, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Seychelles and Venezuela. The resolution seeks recognition of the Earth as a Whole and the interaction of human beings with that system of which we are a part.

Mr Solon stated to the UN: “We acknowledge and share the progress of the environmental agenda of the United Nations at the level of the biodiversity, the ozone layer, desertification, climate change and other sectors, but we are convinced that this needs to be supplemented with a more holistic approach given the serious global impacts we are witnessing.”

Of the approximately 200 items that the United Nations General Assembly Agenda has, about 10 deal with the environment and sustainable development, and none directly addresses the holistic, global and integrated relationship among human beings and the earth system as a whole. This parallels the focus of the forthcoming international climate change negotiations on the imposed value (i.e. the price we place on the planet’s resources; the financing of reduction of carbon emissions by use of carbon trading etc). To include recognition of the intrinsic value of the planet, as a living being with whom we have an interdependent relationship, would be an acknowledgement of Earth as a Whole, a concept Indigenous communities understand well.

Values: imposed v’s intrinsic

It is the difference between treating the planet as a commodity and taking responsibility. Both start with very different paradigms. The former, from a position of viewing the planet as an inert being, from which we can take without consequence. The latter, a position of understanding the planet as a living being, where we are all interconnected and interdependent. The outcomes of such divergent views are dramatic – and we can see them being played out in the international climate change arena today.

It is not only the 350+ million indigenous peoples of the world and by a similar number of Buddhists who adhere by the intrinsic values of the planet: “1,360 experts from 95 countries that participated in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment conducted at the request of the Secretary-General Kofi Annan from 2001 to 2005 propose that when analyzing and defining the actions that influence ecosystems it is necessary to consider not only welfare of human beings, but also the intrinsic values of the species and ecosystems.”

Mr Solon’s proposal, supported by the 22 nations, for “a possible declaration of ethical principles and values to a life in harmony with Mother Earth” signals a growing momentum for recognition of what the Bolivian indigenous peoples term ‘buen vivir’ or ‘living well’ and in harmony with nature – a vision shared by many others throughout the world. The new paradigm is starting to take shape.

11.09: Mother Earth rights and rights of all beings in Copenhagen Treaty

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:26:55 GMT

One year on from planetary rights being presented to the United Nations, Mother Earth rights and rights of all beings have been included in the forthcoming Copenhagen Treaty currently being drafted for the international climate change negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December.

Paragraph 13 of the Non-Paper No 52 (of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Co-operative Action under the Convention, to give it it’s full title) currently states:

“Noting that a shared vision for long-term cooperative action should take account not only of the rights of human beings, but also of the rights of Mother Earth and all its natural beings as the adverse effects of climate change also have a range of direct and indirect implications for the full and effective enjoyment of human rights – including the right to sustainable development, self determination, statehood, life, the right of people not to be deprived of their own means of subsistence, the right to water and the right to live well – and are increasingly posing a risk to security and the survival, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.”

As of yet, the inherent rights of the wider earth community have not been included. The rights listed are are specifically human-centered. Most are not rights identified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the exception being right to life), nor are they enshrined in national or international legislation. The proposed list does not take into account of the wider inherent rights that apply equally to all beings (including humans).

The inherent rights and freedoms that could be included here are:

the right to diversity;

the right to ecological integrity;

the freedom of the natural cycles of life;

the right not to be polluted;

the right to restorative justice; and

the freedom of a clean and healthy environment.

The implications of such wording for the future protection of biodiversity and restoration of large degraded eco-systems is of course enormous.

The Right to Diversity

The concept of diversity is a recognition that each being is unique, and the acceptance of our individual differences. This applies not only to human race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It applies equally to all species, all beings and variations of life form within a given eco-system, including biodiversity. The problem is that we are losing thousands of species at an unprecedented rate.

The latest update of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species shows that 17,291 species out of the 47,677 assessed species are threatened with extinction. The results confirm that 21% of all known mammals, 30% of all known amphibians, 12 per cent of all known birds and 32% of all known gymnosperms (conifers and cycads) are threatened with extinction. Results for other species-groups that have not yet been comprehensively assessed such as freshwater fishes and dragonflies, indicate similar high levels of threat including bees, who are suffering from extensive worldwide colony collapse disorder and without which we will lose 60% of our food. We need to take proactive steps to protect the remaining endangered species, as well as ensuring the continuance of others not yet threatened, to ensure diversity flourishes. Without diversity our eco-systems begin to fail. One consequence of loss of diversity is the disruption of interconnected feeding chains for numerous species, including humans.

The Right to Ecological Integrity

Ecological Integrity is the condition in which the ecological processes and biological communities of a natural eco-system function in a relatively self-sustaining equilibrium. The challenge for the concept of ecological integrity is to provide a means of distinguishing between responses that represent improvements in the quality of ecosystems, and those that are degradations.

The notion of ecological integrity is analogous to that of health. A healthy individual is relatively vigorous in his or her physical and mental capacities, and is uninfluenced by disease. Health is indicated by diagnostic symptoms that are bounded by ranges considered to be normal, and by attributes that are regarded as desirable. Unhealthy conditions are indicated by the opposite, and may require treatment to prevent further deterioration. However, the metaphor of human and ecosystem health is imperfect in some important respects, and has been criticized by ecologists. This is mostly because health refers to individual organisms, while ecological contexts are much more complex, involving many individuals of numerous species, and both living and nonliving attributes of ecosystems.

The Freedom of the Natural Cycles of Life

is the culmination of the Right to Diversity and the Right to Ecological Integrity being applied. When both are implemented the Freedom of the Natural Cycles of Life are thereby upheld.

The Right not to be Polluted

By definition, pollution is the introduction of contaminants – be they synthetic or an excess of natural – into the environment that cause instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to physical systems and living organisms. Thus, the excess of greenhouse gases can be termed a pollutant. Such legislation is necessary to stop the continuance of large scale creation of GHG’s that are damaging to people and planet. Until we actually stop the pollution at source, no amount of offsetting, carbon crediting or carbon capture and storage will solve the problem.

On 17.04.09 the US Environmental Protection Agency ruled that excess greenhouse gas emissions are to be now termed as “pollutants, which are a danger to public health”. Greenhouse gases are also a danger to all beings health, as is cogently demonstrated by the loss of numerous species (the polar bear being the most obvious example). Likewise, Europe is now considering implementing a similar directive.

The Right to Restorative Justice

Large scale restoration of degraded eco-systems (wetlands, forests, deserts etc) provides tangible, effective and true remedy on various fronts: the use of physical interventions to change biodiversity and biomass results in raised water tables, perennial agro-forestry practices, soil stability, natural fertility, hydrological regulation and the creation of natural carbon sinks. Correspondingly, such activities dramatically reduce biodiversity loss, fresh water stress, desertification, loss of soil fertility, poverty, disparity, population growth, conflict and climate change.

In China, the principle of restorative justice was applied with enormous success to the restoration of the Loess Plateau (referred to as the Loess Plateau principles) – 35,000 square kilometers of previously desert land (roughly the size of France) was restored to green oasis within 8 years (see: www.earthshope.org). All that was learned from this project that had positive benefit has now become national policy, and all behaviours that were recognised to have negative input were banned.

The Freedom of a Clean and Healthy Environment

is the culmination of these two rights being applied. When both pollution and restoration are addressed, a clean and healthy environment for all beings is assured.

By including wider rights, the drafting of the Copenhagen Treaty would be a vitally important first step to integrating the principle of the interconnectedness of all life.

“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us ‘universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest… a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” Einstein Lessons of the Loess Plateau: www.earthshope.org

21.10.09 Gaia Foundation Evening: Wild Law in Action

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:45:03 GMT

Polly will be speaking at the Gaia Foundation about her journey to the United Nations to deliver the ‘hard law’ – the Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights. She will also be unveiling her next step, the rolling out of the ‘soft law’ – the Universal Declaration of All Beings, more commonly referred to as The Peoples’ Declaration.

Drinks and light buffet from 6.30pm at Gaia House, talk begins at 7.30pm in Burgh House. Tickets cost £10 and can be booked online by clicking here

What: Wild Law in Action: A Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights with Polly Higgins

Where: Gaia Foundation, 6.30pm at 18 Well Walk, Hampstead, NW3 1LD and then the talk from 7.30pm at Burgh House, just opposite.

When: Wednesday 21st October, 6.30pm

Tickets: £10 Book here

01.10.09 New Internationalist: Greening the Law

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:38:35 GMT

The streets have traditionally been the home of environmental activism. But could campaigners be just as at home in the courtroom?

Olly Zanetti of the New Internationalist considers the evidence.

Couldn’t find Asset with ID=47

Across the world, there are more environmental regulations in force today than at any point in legal history. From oceans to mountains, micro-organisms to the largest of creatures, almost all are – in one way or another – under the jurisdiction of a regulatory framework. Yet, the planet’s environment is in a worse state than ever. Rather than a network of countries united in well-regulated environmental stewardship, we have a global Wild West of poorly formed and inadequately enforced environmental laws.

So what’s gone wrong? And, with human-induced biodiversity-loss marching on, and some estimates putting irreversible shifts in our climate at only 86 months away, what hope do legal structures offer in finding solutions to such problems?

Read full article here: Greening The Law

25-28.06.09 Planetary Rights presented at the Tallberg Forum, Sweden

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:44:48 GMT

Tallberg Forum

23.06.09: 1/2 day conference, London School of Economics

Thu, 28 May 2009 11:03:11 GMT

THE CASE FOR A UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF PLANETARY RIGHTS

Can human rights survive without planetary rights? Global governance in the 21st Century

PROGRAMME:

09.30 Registration East Building, Houghton Street

09.45 Chair Introduction DR VEERLE HEYVAERT Department of Environmental Law, LSE

10.00 Keynote Speaker SIR CRISPIN TICKELL Former British Ambassador to the UN, environmentalist and academic: A United Nations World Environment Organisation: the building blocks of the new world?

10.30 Speaker CORMAC CULLINAN Author of Wild Law and Founder of EnAct International: Principles of Wild Law and Earth Jurisprudence: governance for a sustainable world

11.10 Refreshments

11.40 Performance Wild Lawyer ELIZABETH RIVERS will perform The Lotus from the Chinese-Tibetan martial art of Chi Kung

11.50 Speaker POLLY HIGGINS Barrister, Founder of Trees Have Rights Too Campaign and Associate of EnAct International: Trees Have Rights Too: why we need a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights

12.30 Q&A with all speakers chaired by DR VEERLE HEYVAERT

To Register for this event: click here

Queries: contact queries

10.10.08: 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - now is the time for Planetary Rights

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:56:51 GMT

60 years on and now we need to look to Planetary Rights

60 years on from the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the UN has been called upon to officially recognise the rights of the Planet

10th December 2008 – today’s 60th anniversary of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been chosen as an appropriate springboard for addressing the growing crisis of global climate change. Choosing to launch a campaign for a UN Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights on this significant date is hoped to encourage people to recognise its urgency and importance in a bid to raise widespread awareness and positive action across the globe.

What is required is a seismic shift in our consciousness, rather than a mere reduction of emissions. This shift should give full recognition of the duty of care that we owe to this beautiful planet. Just as the humanitarian crisis of the Second World War gave birth to the implementation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 60 years ago on 10th December 1948, so we now have a planetary crisis that needs to be addressed with equal urgency. Let this be the date when we take those first steps to seriously address this problem.

Official advice from NASA’s James Hansen urges us as a civilisation to reduce our green house gas emissions to 350 parts per million from the current 385ppm. It’s not merely a matter of reducing emissions, but also formally committing at a meaningful global level to a duty of care to the planet. We have to provide an inspirational legal foundation to create the legal tools to remedy the damage, pollution and loss as well as to protect that which is precious and still exists. Just as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has provided us with the tools to fight for human rights so now we need to do the same to provide the necessary tools to fight for the planets rights

Climate change is one of the symptoms of the damage humankind has caused by excessive consumption of the earth’s resources. We have but a small window of opportunity to act – and that window is opening now.

“We must speak for the Earth – We are the Earth”

18.11.08: Speaker Event - Conway Hall

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:28:43 GMT

What: Three Climate Change Solutions.

DESERTEC: Clean Power from the Desert
The Sahara Forest Project
a call for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights.

06.11.08: presentation to the United Nations

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:27:22 GMT

Thursday, 6 November 2008

The call for a Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights was formally presented today by Polly to the United Nations at their Climate Change Conference in Belfast. You can read the basis of her speech here