Showing posts with label RoN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RoN. Show all posts

30 January 2025

Mountain

The Explanatory Note for the Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill in New Zealand - likely to be much misreported - states 

 Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua/Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Bill (the Bill) gives effect to certain matters contained in Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo/the Taranaki Maunga collective redress deed signed on 1 September 2023 by the Crown and Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, the collective of the 8 iwi of the Taranaki region. The Bill contains provisions relating to redress that require legislation for their implementation. Other aspects of the arrangements are provided for only in the collective redress deed because they do not require legislative authority. The Bill comprises 9 Parts and 5 schedules. The Bill and the deed speak of the iwi of Taranaki and the origins of Taranaki Maunga: Ko Taranaki, ko Pouākai, ko Kaitake, koia te puna i heke mai ai te tangata. Koia ko hō mātou nei okiokinga, ko mātou nei tō rātou okiokitanga. (Taranaki, Pouākai and Kaitake are a reflection, and the source, of our existence, in life and in death.) 

Legal personality 

The concept of legal personality for Te Kāhui Tupua is primarily concerned with giving legal status to the tūpuna maunga of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki within the national park. The land in the national park owned by the Crown is to be vested in the legal personality. The land will also be inalienable (not able to be sold or otherwise disposed of), except in a very narrow set of circumstances. A similar legal personality has been delivered in Treaty settlements in respect of Ngāi Tūhoe (Te Urewera) and the Whanganui River (Te Awa Tupua). In each case, the legal personality requires an entity to act on its behalf. In the case of Te Kāhui Tupua, that is Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi. The land to be vested in the legal personality will continue to be a national park administered under the National Parks Act 1980 as amended by this Bill. The general principles of the National Parks Act, including free public access, will be protected alongside Ngā Pou Whakatupua (the Maunga values). The collective redress legislation will also repeal the Mount Egmont Vesting Act 1978. The recognition of Te Kāhui Tupua as a legal person aligns closely with Ngā Iwi o Taranaki understanding of the maunga being tūpuna, requiring care and protection now and into the future. 

Te Kāhui Tupua status 

The arrangements provide for a status statement for the legal personality. The status statement expresses the meaning of the legal personality and explains what the legal personality is intended to represent. Similar statutory recognition statements have been included in the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River) and Ngāti Rangi (Te Waiū-o-te-Ika arrangements over the Whangaehu River) Treaty settlements. The status statement, alongside Ngā Pou Whakatupua, will have the same effect as a general purpose under section 4(1) of the National Parks Act 1980 and will form the foundation for the ongoing administration and management of the national park. 

The recognition statement provides that the concept of the legal personality extends beyond the national park boundary into the surrounding lands, although with no direct legal effect. This extension aligns with the Ngā Iwi o Taranaki understanding of their tūpuna, which does not stop at the national park boundary. The Bill includes protection of all land within the national park from all commercial mining activities. ... 

Clause by clause analysis 

Clause 1 sets out a dual-language Title for this Bill, providing also that the Act may also be cited either by the te reo Māori Title or by the English Title. Clause 2 provides that the Bill, except for clause 125, comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives Royal assent. Clause 125 comes into force on the latest of the 5 events specified in clause 120(1). 

Part 1 He kupu wāwahi—Historical matters and preliminary provisions 

Clause 3 provides a statement by Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, Te Iho Tāngaengae, as acknowledged by the Crown, of the connection and relationship of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki with their Tūpuna Maunga and Te Kāhui Tupua. Te Pūeatanga ki te Ao Clauses 4 to 6 record in te reo Māori and English the summary of the historical account, the acknowledgements by the Crown, and the apology given by the Crown to Ngā Iwi o Taranaki in Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo, the collective redress deed. Purpose provision Clause 7 states the purpose of the Bill. 

Interpretation provisions 

Clause 8 provides that the Bill is to be interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements set out in Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo. Clause 9 defines certain terms used in the Bill and clause 10 defines Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, the group of iwi with whom the agreements have been made that are set out in Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo and this Bill. 

Other matters 

Clauses 11 to 14 provide for the following matters relevant to the interpretation and implementation of the Bill: the Bill when enacted will bind the Crown (clause 11): the provisions of the Bill take effect on the effective date, unless a provision of the Bill states otherwise (clause 12): the Bill overrides the rule under trust law that limits the life of a trust and of any documents that give effect to an agreement (clause 13): the Bill requires the chief executive of the Office for Māori Crown Relations—Te Arawhiti to make copies of Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo available for inspection free of charge, and for purchase at a reasonable price, at the head office of the Office for Māori Crown Relations—Te Arawhiti in Wellington on any working day. Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo must also be made available free of charge on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Office for Māori Crown Relations—Te Arawhiti (clause 14). In clause 15, the Bill sets out the limits to the effect of the Bill and Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo, including that neither the Bill nor Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo, unless expressly provided otherwise,— limits the relationship of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki in respect of Te Kāhui Tupua, including in relation to any extant customary rights; or displaces or diminishes the role of an iwi or a hapū of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki in relation to Te Kāhui Tupua; or applies to the coastal marine area, except as provided in clauses 3, 17, 19, and 52; or limits any existing private property rights, or affects rights or interests in water, wildlife, fish, aquatic life, or plants, or affects the application of any legislation. Clause 16 excludes the jurisdiction of the courts, tribunals and other judicial bodies to inquire or further inquire into, or make finding or recommendations in relation to Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo, the Bill, or the recress provided under either. this does not exclude the jurisdiction in relation to interpreting or implementing the redress provided under those instruments. 

Part 2 Te Kāhui Tupua 

Subpart 1—Te Kāhui Tupua and Ngā Pou Whakatupua Subpart 1 (clauses 17 to 21), recognises the status of Te Kāhui Tupua as a legal person, its rights, powers, and duties being exercised and performed on its behalf and in its name by Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi. Clause 19 sets out Ngā Pou Whakatupua, the intrinsic values associated with Te Kāhui Tupua. Clauses 20 and 21 provide for the relationship of the Bill and Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo with the National Parks Act 1980, Conservation Act 1987, and Resource Management Act 1991, and for the status of these when persons are acting under conservation of other legislation in rleation to land in Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki or the surrounding land (as defined in clause 17). Subpart 2—Official geographic names Clauses 22 to 26 provide for the official geographic name of the national park in which ngā maunga are situated to change to Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki and the names Mount Egmont and Mount Taranaki to change to Taranaki Maunga. 

Part 3 Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi 

Subpart 1—Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi: establishment, purpose, functions, and powers Clauses 27 to 30 establish Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi as a statutory body, with the purpose of being the human face and voice of Te Kāhui Tupua. These clauses set out the capacity and powers of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi for the purpose of achieving its purpose. The essence of its functions (clause 29) is to act and speak for Te Kāhui Tupua, upholding the status, values, and interests of Te Kāhui Tupua. Clauses 31 to 34 set out the requirements for the membership of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi and for the decision-making powers of its members. Clauses 35 and 36 deal with where responsibility lies for certain liabilities arising in respect of Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki, and clause 37 establishes, in Schedule 2, further provisions relevant to the establishment and administration of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi. Subpart 2—Name of Te Kāhui Tupua protected Clause 38 makes provision for the protection of the name Te Kāhui Tupua, and any intellectual property in the name. Subpart 3—Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki place section in conservation management strategy Clauses 39 and 40 make provision for the conservation management strategy relating to Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki to acknowledge and uphold the status of Te Kāhui Tupua and Ngā Pou Whakatupua (values). 

Part 4 Asset management 

The scheme for asset management (clauses 41 to 51) supports the right of Te Kāhui Tupua to own assets. The Bill requires assets owned by Te Kāhui Tupua to be managed on behalf of Te Kāhui Tupua by an asset management company, which Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi is empowered to set up under the Companies Act 1993. In the operation of the company, Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi must act as the representative of the sole shareholder, Te Kāhui Tupua. The constitution will have to meet the requirements of the Companies Act 1993 and the matters itemised in clause 44. Clause 45 provides that Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi does not need to comply with certain requirements of the Companies Act 1993. Other matters covered include how assets are to be administered, how funding is to be applied, and the reporting and accountability requirements (clauses 46 to 50). Clause 51 sets out the process to be adopted if the asset management company is dissolved under the Companies Act 1993. 

Part 5 Standing, status, and taxation matters applying to certain entities under this Act 

Part 5 covers the standing of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi and the trustees of Te Tōpuni Ngārahu as having an interest in Te Kāhui Tupua in relation to matters arising under the Local Government Act 2002 or the Resource Management Act 1991 for purposes such as making submissions or the right to be heard, or in relation to matters arising under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 or the Charities Act 2005 (clauses 52 to 54). Clause 55 provides for the taxation status of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi and any asset management company set up and operating in accordance with this Bill. Clause 56 amends the Income Tax Act 2007 by inserting 4 new sections into that Act. New section CH 11B states that a tax liability arises if Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi incurs expenditure on behalf of Te Kāhui Tupua for purposes outside the scope and effect of Part 3 of the Bill (unauthorised expenditure). A tax liability arises under new section CH 11C for the asset management company in respect of expenditure outside the purpose of the company (unauthorised expenditure), as provided for in clause 42. New sections CW 40D and CW 40E of the Income Tax Act 2007 provide an income tax exemption for each of the 2 entities, Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi and the asset management company. The exemption applies to income, except to the extent that the income is applied (referred to as “expenditure” in new sections CH 11B and CH 11C) for, or to, a purpose that is outside the scope of Part 4 (in the case of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi) or clause 42 in the case of the asset management company. Expenditure applied for purposes outside those set in Part 4 or clause 42 is to be treated as income in the hands of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi or the asset management company respectively. 

Part 6 Land and minerals 

Clause 57outlines the contents of Part 6. Subpart 1—Vesting of land and minerals Vesting of Te Whenua Taketake Clause 58 vests the Crown-owned land in the existing national park (as described in Schedule 1) in Te Kāhui Tupua and declares that land, when vested, to be a national park with the official geographic name Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki. The land is to be held as Te Whenua Taurikura (that is, land held in the name of Te Kāhui Tupua as part of the national park). Clause 59 provides that Te Whenua Taurikura is inalienable, unless provided otherwise in the Bill. 

Vesting of certain minerals 

Clause 60 overrides section 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to provide that the vesting of Te Whenua Taketake by clause 58 includes Crown-owned taonga tūānuku and industrial rocks and building stones (“certain minerals”) within that land. Clause 61 provides for the registration in the name of Te Kāhui Tupua of the land vested by clause 58, subject to the completion of any necessary survey. The record of title must be created within 24 months of the effective date (40 working days after the Bill comes into force). Subpart 2—Acquiring land for, and adding land to, Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki Land or interests in land acquired for Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki Clauses 62 and 63 set out the process to apply if the Director-General of Conservation is considering adding Crown-owned land to, or acquiring private land or an interest in private land for, Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki. Clause 64 provides for the vesting of Crown-owned land in Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki by Order in Council. Clause 65 provides for the discontinuance of the official geographic names of Crown protected areas whose fee simple estate is vested in Te Kāhui Tupua. Clause 66 enables Te Whenua Tupu (land held in the name of Te Kāhui Tupua but not part of Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki) to be added to Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki by Order in Council and held under the Bill as Te Whenua Taurikura (land held in the name of Te Kāhui Tupua as part of Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki). 

Minerals 

Clause 67 provides for certain Crown-owned minerals that form part of the land vested under clause 64 or added to Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki under clause 66 to be included in that vesting or addition. 

Registration 

Clause 68 provides for the registration of any land to be added to Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki, as described in an Order in Council under clause 64 or 66. Subpart 3—Te Whenua Tupu Clauses 69 to 73 provide for the asset management company to exercise the role of the registered owner of Te Whenua Tupu including, in clauses 71 and 72(2), the company’s role in acquiring or alienating any land within the meaning of Te Whenua Tupu or transferring such land to the Crown or a third party. Subpart 4—Land excluded from Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki Clauses 74 to 77 provide for the exclusion of land from Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki, vesting of that land in the Crown or a third party, and for its registration, including requiring a new record of title. Subpart 5—Provisions applying to certain land and improvements Land or interests in land not added to Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki Clause 78 covers how land or interests in land are acquired for, but not added to, Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki. Clauses 79 to 82 set out the effect on existing interests in, and improvements on or attached to, land that becomes part of Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki under the Bill. Clause 83 preserves the effect of existing bylaws and other statutory requirements applying to Te Whenua Taketake. Those matters apply subject to this Bill and the National Parks Act 1980 on and after the effective date. Clause 84 provides for the instruments documenting interests in land to be registered. Subpart 6—Protections under Crown Minerals Act 1991 Clauses 85 to 89 set up certain protections applying to Te Whenua Taurikura under the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Clause 89 requires joint decision making by Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi and the Minister of Conservation (the Minister) for decisions on interests in Te Whenua Taurikura that would otherwise be made by the Minister under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 or under the National Parks Act 1980. Subpart 7—Miscellaneous Clauses 90 and 91 deal with the application of certain enactments to Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki and to Te Whenua Taketake. Clause 92 provides that certain statutory memorials are not to be entered on the record of title for Te Whenua Taurikura. 

Part 7 Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki 

Subpart 1—He Kawa Ora mō Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki Clauses 93 to 95declare Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi responsible for overseeing the preparation and approval of a national park management plan, He Kawa Ora, for Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki. The plan must be consistent with the National Parks Act 1980. Subpart 2—Operational management of Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki This subpart (clauses 96 to 107) sets out the matters relevant to the management of the park, including how the operational management of the park must meet the aspirations of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki for enhancement of the iwi capability to meet their responsibilities as uri of Te Kāhui Tupua. The subpart sets out the responsibility of the Director-General of Conservation to undertake management activities consistently with this Bill, Te Ruruku Pūtakerongo, the National Parks Act 1980, He Kawa Ora, and other relevant legislation or planning documents. The aspirations of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki to participate in the operational management of Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki are also acknowledged, including in relation to the tendering of contracts and the granting of concessions within Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki. Particular requirements are set out in relation to new roads, biological control organisms, the introduction of live aquatic life, and specially protected areas within Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki. Clauses 108 and 109 provide for certain decisions made under the Conservation Act 1987 that, despite provisions in the Bill requiring joint decision making by the Minister and Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi, are the sole responsibility of the Minister. 

Part 8 Redress to assist Ngā Iwi o Taranaki to reconnect with Tūpuna Maunga 

Subpart 1—Taonga tūturu Clauses 110 to 112 provide for how newly found taonga are to be dealt with for the purposes of the Protected Objects Act 1975. Subpart 2—Cultural materials This subpart (clauses 113 to 119) provides for members of Ngā Iwi o Taranaki to be authorised to take or possess certain cultural materials. It requires the trustees of Te Tōpuni Ngārahu and the Director-General of Conservation to work together to prepare and review a cultural materials plan that regulates the taking and possessing of cultural materials. However, the Crown’s powers, functions, and duties under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 are not restricted by the provisions of the subpart. 

Part 9 Governance and other matters 

Subpart 1—Dissolution of Taranaki Māori Trust Board Clauses 120 to 123 provide for— the Taranaki Māori Trust Board (the Trust Board) to be dissolved on the latest of 5 specified events; and the Taranaki Māori Educational Trust to be dissolved on the same day as the Trust Board is dissolved; and the reporting requirements for the Trust Board; and the matters not affected by the provisions of this subpart. Subpart 2—Repeals and consequential amendments Clause 124 repeals the Mount Egmont Vesting Act 1978 on the day on which the Bill comes into force under clause 2. Clause 125 amends the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 by providing for the removal of a reference to the Taranaki Māori Trust Board from that Act. Clause 126 provides for the consequential amendment of certain legislation in the manner set out in Schedule 5. 

Schedules 

There are 5 schedules as follows: Schedule 1 records the legal description of Te Whenua Takatake: Schedule 2 sets out provisions relating to the establishment and administration of Te Tōpuni Kōkōrangi: Schedule 3 sets out further requirements for preparing and approving He Kawa Ora for Te Papa-Kura-o-Taranaki: Schedule 4 deals with how decisions are to be made on applications for concessions and other authorisations relevant to interests in Te Whenua Taurikura: Schedule 5 provides for how certain legislation is to be consequentially amended.

06 January 2025

Rights of Nature

'Ocean management and rights of Nature: The case of the Galapagos in Ecuador and beyond' by Dorine Eva van Norren and Chris de Blok in (2025) 173 Marine Policy comments 

The expanded protection zone of Galapagos encircling sea territories of Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica and Panama (CMAR) could incorporate a rights of Nature approach, whereby prosecution of trespassers becomes more likely to be successful as cross boundary ecology is recognized in the rights of Nature approach and extra territorial application facilitated with positive effects for ocean governance. In the rights of Nature doctrine, anyone can stand up for Nature regardless of personal interest. The Galapagos sharkfin cases of 2015 and 2019 based on constitutional rights of Nature legislation in Ecuador demonstrate the preventative effect. This can be a first step towards recognizing ocean rights (as a substrand of rights of Nature). There are several options for implementation in CMAR. This fits into a wider buen vivir (good living in harmony with Nature) and development approach. Closing of areas for biodiversity protection has wider ecosystem effects (as Palau demonstrated) causing multiplication of species such as sharks outside the protection zones as well. Current levels of (CMAR and general) ocean protection are highly insufficient. The national Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are too small in number. Moreover, the areas covered by MPAs do not always have high protection levels. The majority of areas beyond national jurisdiction are thus not protected. Which countries will ratify the new ocean protection regime (BBNJ) remains to be seen. 

On June 7 2022, Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Panama concluded an agreement for the expansion of the special protection zone of the Galapagos [32], [46]. This article argues that if the entire extended Galapagos protected zone, stretching over Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica and Panama, is also given a rights of Nature status, as has been done in Ecuador, better protection can be ensured. This could also give opportunities for species to recover their populations within this extremely important highway in the oceans, the Humboldt Current. The specific case of the Galapagos can be an example of how oceans can be better preserved and managed, and how rights of Nature can strengthen the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically SDG14 on oceans. 

Since 2008 Ecuador has had a constitution based on the philosophy of Buen Vivir, Good Living - derived from the indigenous Sumak Kawsay - which is understood as living in harmony with Nature. Under the leadership of Bolivia - which also adopted a Vivir Bien constitution in 2009 - harmony with Nature also became a formal UN institution. Buen Vivir is based on the indigenous biocentric ways of living and includes participatory democracy, economic solidarity mechanisms and rights of Nature [2]. 

The constitution contains a special protection provision for the Galapagos Islands. As part of the concept of harmony with Nature, rights of Nature are also enshrined in the constitution. On this basis, numerous law cases were conducted, one of which concerns the Galapagos Islands. Due to this regime, illegal shark fishers could be convicted by the court of fishing in or around the territorial waters. Despite the special protection regime for the Galapagos, this had not been possible earlier. Territorial waters delineation was an impediment to criminal conviction. Within the rights of Nature logics, the court found that the ecosystem, and its right to exist and be restored, extends beyond this limitation. This way sharks could be protected. 

Sharks are, as a predator, a keystone species and therefore crucial to the marine ecosystem as a whole [33]. ‘Closing of areas’ for biodiversity conservation, as has been done in the Galapagos, allows local ecosystems to flourish and provide for themselves. This also positively affects the biodiversity of the surrounding areas. This is known as a spillover effect and has been documented in an experiment in Palau that protecting restricted areas has a significant impact on the adjacent regions' fishing, flora, and fauna [37]. This article will first describe Ecuador’s constitution and rights of Nature. It will then explore the sharkfin court case, then it will briefly go into the Galapagos protection schemes, and efforts to give oceans rights. It will then apply this to the extended protection zone. The second half of the article details why Galapagos and the South Pacific matters, what protection zones are in place and how effective these current approaches are. It will then conclude with why new legal and policy approaches are desirable. This article is written from the point of view of postcolonial law and combined with the social science approach of marine ecology management. Postcolonial law emerged as a response to modernist claims of truth based in reason and empirical knowledge, and shaped around neoliberal economic views of society [3], [38], [4]. In this modernist view man is above nature instead of part of it. This anthropocentric view of life is counter to the biocentric indigenous view of life. Indigenous views of life were considered backward, unscientific and stuck in metaphysics. This resulted in epistemological injustice whereby indigenous knowledge systems were dismissed and basic philosophical differences were circumvented. The modernist legal view resulted in positivist approaches (rules-based justice) moving away from (metaphysical) natural law. Postcolonial law (such as Third World Lawyers for International Law) criticized this by deconstructing western views of international law, rooted in (neo)colonial practices. The movement for Good Living, Buen Vivir and rights of Nature, amongst others, attempts to reconstruct the law based on indigenous philosophies. This is rooted in a critical realist view of the world which accepts reality as a social construction and thus accepts possibilities of revised legal and economy theory and hence revised ocean governance. It considers law and economy as a social science (hence not factual hard science), uses interdisciplinary multilayered approaches. It looks at power as interwoven with knowledge systems and considers the epistemic injustice of subordinating indigenous knowledge systems to science. Thus it uses indigenous knowledge in its own right. Knowlton and Di Lorenzo [27] also emphasize why social sciences are increasingly important in ocean conservation, including the role of indigenous and local communities.

21 November 2024

Cold

'Realising Rights of Nature across and beneath the Southern Ocean' by AD Hemmings in The Polar Journal comments

 If the philosophical, ecological, moral and ethical imperatives for Rights of Nature (RON) in the Antarctic can be argued to be clear, given the limitations and failures of contemporary instrumental environmental management, the modalities of operationalising and applying these to the Antarctic marine environment, commonly understood as the Southern Ocean, are not. Securing progressive environmental policies is very much harder in the marine environment than ashore, everywhere. Structural complications of the existing Antarctic regime structure and the historic and contemporary regional geopolitics add to the challenges in the Southern Ocean, beyond those posed by RON. Classical Antarctic framings cast the Southern Ocean as either the area south of the Antarctic Convergence or as merely the area south of 60° South Latitude. Neither suffices for the purposes of RON. Antarctic biota cross even the Antarctic Convergence. In doing so, they enter spaces subject to extra-Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) international legal regimes including Regional Fisheries Management Organisations abutting the ATS area and/or coastal state jurisdictions in the sub-Antarctic. They also penetrate deep below the levels of the ocean hitherto operationally managed by the ATS. Even ‘within’ the ATS geographical area, the deep seabed and particular taxa (cetaceans) are formally subject to other regimes. The area of relevance for RON is thus neither coterminous with the geographical area nor the jurisdictional competence of the ATS. The relevant geographical area is a ‘Greater Southern Ocean’. The politico-legal context across multiple regimes meaningful to RON is extraordinarily complex and multi-tiered. Advancing a RON discourse across this huge and complex field likely entails a fragmented engagement with discrete jurisdictional and institutional entities, albeit an engagement informed by a unitary and coherent understanding and purpose. Necessary as this is, it will be neither simple nor quick.

29 October 2024

Rights

'On the Phenomenon of the Rights of Nature' by Ágnes Tahyné Kovács in Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law (20240 305-331 comments

 To protect natural environment effectively, humanity is constantly on the move. It is looking for solutions beyond the current anthropocentric regulatory models. A novel concept of environmental regulation, the Rights of Nature (RoN), was launched in Europe (2022). A previous EU study (2021) showed that the RoN concept alien to the European regulatory environment is not yet feasible on the continent. Our study highlights a very narrow slice of contemporary legal history. One of the slices of the current 50-year history of environmental law is the emergence and spread of the concept of rights of nature regulation around the world. The aim of this study is to draw attention to this recent phenomenon. Its method is descriptive-demonstrative. This paper is structured according to the geographical location of each phenomenon. It situates the phenomenon of the rights of nature within the regulatory concepts of environmental law and illustrates their common features with examples from around the world. The paper also highlights common features of the RoN concept with EU environmental legislation that make its introduction in Europe unnecessary. At the same time, these global examples show a number of lessons that can contribute to making European environmental law more effective.

Kovács concludes

The legal personality granted to ecosystems has so far been mainly symbolic, and it remains unclear how successful these lawsuits can be in achieving adequate long-term protection of ecosystems. Again and again, questions are raised about possible outcomes: What exactly does the plaintiff want to achieve on behalf of the injured party? Does the plaintiff seek to compel a public authority to compensate for the damage suffered? Does the party want to force another party to pay damages? Who can be held liable for these damages? Can an appointed guardian/guardian/representative be held liable if a river overflows and causes damage? Who has a say in the fate of a transboundary river (e.g. in India, where the Ganges and Yamuna rivers extend beyond the border of Uttarakhand)? If a lawsuit claims that climate change is a threat, how much responsibility does the activity of a particular industry bear in this regard? 

However, the increasing number of natural rights lawsuits could set a precedent for national and local governments to take action to protect biodiversity by opposing mining projects that could prove destructive to a particular ecosystem. The lawsuits also draw attention to the environmental justice issues faced by marginalized communities, particularly Indigenous communities that care for and manage these vital natural ecosystems and whose livelihoods and cultural and spiritual practices depend on natural formations. 

The European Parliament’s study examined the rights of nature in comparison to the legal personality and position of natural persons before the courts. In particular, it highlights the need to strengthen the requirements for independent scientific assessments in certain authorization schemes of EU law. However, there are strong doubts that the concept of the RoN can find a place in European legal culture. There are two approaches connected to RoN. The first is finding a way to facilitate the communication between science and law and how to apply this knowledge basis in court, while still upholding the procedural autonomy of each Member State as well as the effective implementation of EU law on the environment across the Union. The second is the legal philosophical discussion about the origin of ‘rights’. Closely related to this is how the courts determine the needs of the environment and future generations from scientific and technical evidence presented before them by representatives for those interests.

23 October 2024

Voicing Rivers

'Relational representation: Speaking with and not about Nature' by Lidia Cano-Pecharroman and Erin O’Donnell in 3(10) PLOS Water states 

Recognition of the rights of Nature is blooming across the globe, with over 409 rights of Nature initiatives in 39 countries [1]. Holders of rights include Nature as a whole (e.g. the Ecuadorian Constitution, Arts 71–74), specific landscape entities [such as rivers, lakes, mountains, and forests, see 2–4], and individual species [such as manoomin (wild rice), see 5]. The recognition of Nature as a legal rights holder transitions it from an object, over which humans have dominion, and with no powers to protest its own mistreatment, to a subject, able to claim what Tănăsescu describes as a ‘moral debt’ [6] and as well as the legal standing to sue on its own behalf [7]. This ‘alchemical transfiguration [renders Nature] uniquely visible, and legible, to the law in ways that it has not been before’ [8]. 
 
In addition to the wide range of different mechanisms for recognising the rights of Nature [including proclamations, policies, local laws, state and federal legislation, and court rulings, see 1], there is also a multitude of mechanisms for the representation of Nature as a rights holder. In Ecuador, any citizen has standing to demand that public authorities uphold the constitutional rights of Nature [6]. In Aotearoa New Zealand, on the other hand, representation arrangements are tightly prescribed in the legislation (Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, sections 18–20). Te Awa Tupua (the Whanganui River) has a ‘face and voice’, Te Pou Tupua, a position which is held by two people, appointed by the iwi of Te Awa Tupua and the Crown [9]. Even beyond the recognition of the rights of Nature, there is a growing acknowledgement that there are diverse ways of seeing and valuing Nature, and of culturally and socially relating to non human species and their habitats (IPBES,NA). However there is also an acknowledgement that the application of these ways of relating in practice is in "its infancy" (pg. 2) and requires further reflection on whom and how do we implement these ways of relating [10,pg.2]. 
 
The diversity of representation arrangements highlights a major issue for rights of Nature: there is no clarity on precisely who, or how, Nature can be represented in human spaces, or even what the intent of this representation is (or should be). Stone’s original conception of Nature as a legal subject was imagined with the express intent of enabling Nature’s interests to be represented directly in court, so that damage to Nature could be taken into account directly, rather than filtered through the lens of associated damage to human beings [7]. This notion had been also applied before to corporations, governments, ships or railroads, legally considered as legal persons [11, 12]. These basic extensions of traditional representation still rely on conceptions of personhood that are based on an ‘atomistic, isolated, individual making independent choices’ [13] to defend their interests in court. In doing so, this entrenches ‘Nature’ as an adversary, relying on its voice to be heard, and competing for outcomes against other self-interested persons. This can have the unintended consequence of reducing people’s willingness to protect Nature [14] and grossly misrepresents the inextricable relation of humans and human activity with Nature [15]. 
 
The Ecuadorian experience demonstrates that although it can take some time to gain genuine traction, there is real power in giving Nature a ‘voice’ in the court system [16]. Beyond the courts, legal systems have also granted Nature a voice more broadly, enabling representation of Nature in policy and decision-making spaces. For instance, in the settler colonial states of Aotearoa and Australia, the ‘voice’ of the river has a role in both policy-making and ensuring accountability and integrity, as well as enabling power transfers to Indigenous Peoples [9, 17]. 
 
The recognition of this voice in our legal and political systems has rehashed a never-ending theoretical dilemma with great implications in practice: what exactly do we mean by representation? And relatedly, how can Nature be ‘heard’ effectively within human systems for decision-making and dispute resolution? Can just anyone be Nature’s representative? What of those who have a clear conflict of interest, or without adequate power or funding to be effective? How do we know that Nature’s interests are being represented, as opposed to the interests of the person acting as representative? These are questions that have emerged for all sorts of representation arrangements (such as, who and how a legal guardian can represent the interests of its representee, how an individual can represent the interests of a group without letting their own interest permeate their exercise of representation). These questions warrant attention, and similarly understanding what representation means for the rights of Nature is important both for humans and for Nature. 
 
The definition of representation is forever evolving and elusive at times. However, the exercise of its definition is imperative for its operationalization in practice. This means first, anticipating the potential consequences of a particular conceptualization of representation as it gets implemented. As Tănăsescu argues ‘the rights of Nature have a strong anti-democratic potential, for several reasons: rights are a forceful representation, which leaves little room for deliberation… [and they can] subordinate the representation of humans to a Nature which is, definitionally, always more important’ [6]. Second, it means setting ourselves free from pre-existing assumptions of what representation is, and how it should look, and instead to embrace the possibility that this ever evolving concept will yet take another turn as Nature is enabled representation in human spaces. 
 
In this paper, we explore Tănăsescu’s relational model of representation as an alternative to the standard model of political representation. Re-evaluating what representation is and how the representation of Nature is conceptualized, Tănăsescu takes this definitional turn to argue that representation as an exercise of "claiming" makes more sense definitionally both for human and more-than-human variants of representation [6]. We consider how this definition of representation changes both our understanding of representation and our expectations of the process of representing the interests of natural entities that have been recognized as legal entities (persons, subjects, or living entities). We build on Tănăsescu’s model to identify a relational spectrum of representation of natural entities: (1) speaking about; (2) speaking for; and (3) speaking with. Both speaking about and speaking for are accounted for in the standard model of representation, but speaking with requires a relational model of representation. We further propose a definitional extension to Tănăsescu’s initial conceptualization by expanding this third category by considering representation as a dialogue of knowledges, with a clear role for the representative in enabling this dialogue. We use four case studies of waterway legal entities to document how these entities are being represented now and bring nuance to the translation of these forms of representation into practice. The cases portray how the recognition of rights for these natural entities is pushing the boundaries of what we have defined and understood as representation in practice and is eliciting new approaches to decision making. We document both the mechanisms of representation and the intent of that representation and assess where these case studies are placed along this relational spectrum of representation. Our analysis identifies common themes, as well as some of the challenges for effective and relational representation.

12 October 2024

Nature

'Rights for nature or protecting people’s rights?: The operationalization of rights of nature in non-indigenous communities in the United States' by Ellen Kohl in (2024) 156 Geoforum comments 

 As the Rights of Nature movement gains political traction globally, researchers must examine how this transnational movement to extend rights to nature or natural entities is being operationalized in place. Proponents of the rights of nature contend transferring rights to nature constitutes a paradigm shift in human-environment interactions and will lead to solutions directed at the root causes of environmental problems. Critics contend that these rights-based governance structures have the potential to do more harm than good for environmental protection depending on the cultural and legal frameworks within which rights of nature are enacted. In this paper, I examine how rights of nature have been operationalized in non-Indigenous communities in the United States through an analysis of rights of nature ordinances passed in these communities between 2006 and 2020. Drawing on theoretical engagements with rights I demonstrate how the reliance on universalizing human rights frameworks and anti-corporation rhetoric both distinguish these ordinances from the broader rights of nature movement and center the rights of people to have access to a clean environment rather than the intrinsic rights of nature. In conclusion, I explore alternatives to how rights of nature are currently operationalized in non-Indigenous communities in the United States and call for increased research on the implications and impacts of rights of nature ordinances to assess whether they achieve their stated goals. 

Rights of Nature (RoN) is a transnational “rights-based environmental governance” structure that uses liberal legal rights to protect nature rather than relying on existing forms of environmental governance (Kohl and Walenta 2023). The movement traces its intellectual origins to Earth Jurisprudence scholarship which contends that current environmental crises are caused by cultural and legal systems in which human needs are separate and superior to those of nature (Berry, 1999, Boyd, 2017, Cullinan, 2011). The RoN movement draws on different legal channels to grant nature legal rights akin to the rights secured by human persons, such as the right to live, thrive and flourish, and the right to not be polluted (Gilbert et al., 2023, Kauffman and Martin, 2021, Kauffman and Martin, 2018; O’Donnell, 2023, O’Donnell, 2020, Putzer et al., 2022, Tănăsescu, 2022). This can be done by granting personhood status to nature, either directly or indirectly through the appointment of an administrating body, or by extending rights to nature (Kauffman and Martin, 2021, Kurki, 2022, Tănăsescu, 2020). RoN advocates contend this structure provides greater protection to natural entities and will prevent catastrophic environmental destruction (Gilbert et al., 2023, O’Donnell, 2023). For many, the extension of rights to nature represents a paradigm shift in the human-environment relationship (Cuadros, 2019, Dogaru and Dogaru, 2022a, Dogaru and Dogaru, 2022b, Ito and Montini, 2018, Villavicencio-Calzadilla and Kotzé, 2023). As more communities turn to RoN activism, and adopt RoN legal frameworks, there is an emerging theoretical debate in support of (Bradshaw, 2022, Kauffman and Martin, 2023) and those raising concerns about extending rights to nature (Bellina, 2024, Guim and Livermore, 2021, Sachs, 2023, Spitz and Penalver, 2021, Petel, 2024). 

The motivations for transferring rights to nature vary over space and time but O’Donnell, writing in Eckstein et al. (2019), contends there at least four specific reasons that rivers, the natural entity she studies, are granted rights. These include (1) a recognition of Indigenous cosmologies and values, (2) eco-centrism, or bringing rivers and humans onto equal level, (3) market environmentalism, creating mechanisms through which rivers can participate in markets, and (4) private interest regulatory theory, which allows mechanisms through which rivers can advocate for themselves (Eckstein et al. 2019). In this paper, I add a motivation of people’s desires to address a particular environmental concern for which traditional forms of environmental rule making are not providing them sufficient protection. In this way, I frame the understandings of RoN not only through legal understandings, but also in place and through political understandings because “one cannot understand what the rights of nature are doing without thinking about them in terms of power relations” (Tănăsescu 2022, 16). Given the diversity of how, why, and where RoN are adopted the operationalizations of RoN looks different in different places. While RoN is a transnational movement, the specific place-based articulations of the movement and the outcomes of RoN activism are impacted by the social, cultural, and political context within which they take place (Kinkaid, 2019, Gilbert et al., 2023, Tănăsescu et al., 2024). Through an examination of the over 60 RoN ordinances enacted within the United States (US) between 2008 and 2020 I build on current scholarship examining the operationalization of RoN in the US context (Fitz-Henry, 2018, Fitz-Henry, 2022, Fitz-Henry, 2023, Kohl and Walenta, 2023; Macpherson, 2021, Moutrie, 2022) to expand our understandings of the place-based articulations of RoN. 

In this paper, I carry out this analysis to examine how theoretical conceptions of RoN have been translated in US legal structures. Through this analysis and discussion, I demonstrate that the operationalization of RoN in non-Indigenous communities in the US shifts from granting nature the status of personhood to an extension of rights to nature by extending conceptions of human rights onto nature. I demonstrate how this universalization centers the needs of people rather than the intrinsic rights of nature. Moreover, the operationalization of RoN in these communities specifically has an anti-corporation clause. These differences contradict the claims of RoN proponents who justify the need for RoN legislation as necessary because it represents a paradigm shift by elevating nature’s rights as equal to people’s rights. I begin by reviewing conceptions of property, rights, personhood, and rights to nature, paying particular attention to the US context. From there, I explain the methods used. Then I use the theoretical frameworks to analyze the ordinances enacted in the US context. In conclusion, I call for more research on how, if at all, these ordinances are changing people’s perceptions of nature and if environmental conditions have improved in and around places where RoN legislation has been enacted.

'Civil Litigation for Environmental Damages: Are the So-Called Rights of Nature an Alternative?' by Guillermo Schumann Barragan in (2024) 14 International Journal of Procedural Law 73–98 comments 

This paper aims to analyse civil litigation for environmental damages and whether the so-called rights of nature are a viable alternative de lege ferenda. To this end, it examines (i) the participation of civil society in environmental protection through public enforcement mechanisms in the Spanish legal order; (ii) the cause of action for environmental damage claims; and (iii) whether rights of nature are a good option to enhance the protection of nature in civil justice. 

On the 3rd of October 2022, Law 19/2022 on the recognition of the legal status of the Mar Menor lagoon was published in the Spanish Official State Gazette (boe). The law attributes the lagoon legal status (Article 1 Law 19/2022) and certain rights: the right to exist, protection, conservation and restoration (Article 2 Law 19/2022). Furthermore, according to Article 6, “any natural or legal person has the right to defend the ecosystem of the Mar Menor”. Depending on the nature of the action, criminal, civil or administrative courts will have subject-matter jurisdiction (Article 4 Law 19/2022). 

The attribution of legal status to elements of nature – e.g. a river, a forest, a mountain or a coral reef – is not new on the international scene. This theory, which is unknown in European legal orders, is known as the rights of nature. As a result of public concern about climate change, environmental protection has become one of the EU’s political priorities. A good example of this is the European Commission’s package of measures known as the Green Deal. Renewable energy and environmental have become a leitmotiv on the European political agenda. 

In this context, this paper aims to analyse civil litigation for environmental damages and whether the so-called rights of nature are a viable alternative de lege ferenda. To this end, it examines (i) the participation of civil society in environmental protection through public enforcement mechanisms in the Spanish legal order; (ii) the cause of action for environmental damage claims; and (iii) whether rights of nature are a good option to enhance the protection of nature in civil justice.

21 April 2024

Cosmovision

'The EU Charter on Rights of Nature – colliding cosmovisions on nonhuman relations' by Marie-Catherine Petersmann in Alexis Alvarez-Nakagawa and Costas Douzinas (eds) Non-Human Rights (Elgar, 2024) comments 

The movement of granting ‘rights to nature’has become prominent in academic debates. Much has been written on the self-proclaimed ‘revolutionary’potential that ‘rights of nature’present to overcome the destructive world-ecology brought about by capitalist modes in inhabiting the Earth. Granting rights to ‘nature’has been described by some as a practice of ‘legal animism’, and by others as one of ‘shamanic magic’. This is partly due to the fact that animistic Indigenous cosmologies informed activist movements that today call for a legal ‘paradigm shift’to re-connect humans with non-humans,

18 February 2024

Rivers

In several publications I have suggested that a fundamental question in awarding 'personhood' - or a variety of personhood - to rivers, forests and other domains is what you do with that personhood. 

'Beyond legal personhood for the Whanganui River: collaboration and pluralism in implementing the Te Awa Tupua Act' by Miriama Cribb, Elizabeth Macpherson and Axel Borchgrevink in (2024) International Journal of Human Rights comments 

There is now a large body of scholarly literature on the legal and governance arrangements for the Whanganui River in Aotearoa New Zealand, given the rights of a legal person under Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017. Most of this literature focuses on the innovation of legal personhood and rights of nature rather than situating the Act in its local context or examining its implementation in practice. This article analyzes two cases of implementation – Te Pūwaha (the revitalisation of the Port of Whanganui); and Te Kōpuka nā Te Awa Tupua, the collaborative group charged with developing a strategy for the river. We shift attention away from legal personality to three other elements: The centrality of Māori kawa (value-based, Indigenous law); the establishment of a comprehensive set of new institutions and practices; and the devolution of authority to hapū (subtribes) and communities. These elements represent a paradigm shift towards a relational and reciprocal form of governance. While Te Awa Tupua Act does have some alignment with rights of nature, it should primarily be understood as recognising Indigenous rights and the authority of Indigenous law. 

The case of the Whanganui River, recognised by legislation as a ‘legal person’ under the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (the Act) as part of a reparative Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) settlement between local Māori iwi (tribes) and the Crown, has become emblematic of legal innovations on the rights of rivers. Most of the scholarly engagement with the Whanganui model comes from outside Whanganui and, indeed, outside Aotearoa New Zealand, and has been overwhelmingly focused on the innovation of legal personhood for the river.Footnote1 Very little research has been conducted from within the place where this innovative legal model emerged, and almost nothing has been written about how the Act is being implemented in practice. This article seeks to fill these gaps. It investigates two cases of emerging forms of river governance at the local level, which are being developed as ways of implementing the Act. The article is written by an interdisciplinary team of researchers, who include a ‘born and bred’ Whanganui iwi descendant (uri) and PhD researcher, a Pākēha (non-Māori New Zealander) legal scholar and former Indigenous rights lawyer, and a senior European anthropologist with long experience of empirical work with Indigenous and local peoples. The results of this collaboration enabled new insights about the potential for legal frameworks to centre river relationality and reciprocity in collaborative river governance. 

Our focus on how local governance is being transformed as a consequence of the Act allows a new perspective on what is innovative in this legislation. The legal personhood for the Whanganui River is ground-breaking, and for this reason has caught international attention. Yet, in examining implementation, other elements of the Act are seen to be crucial and equally innovative, even though they have tended to fall below the radar in international publications. Our fieldwork within the Whanganui catchment (and in the case of the first author, her entire life there) has enabled us to draw three, interrelated implementation lessons from the Whanganui River model. The first, is the need for scholarly framing to shift from the Western legal fiction of the ‘person’ towards the broader enabling jurisdiction for kawa (value-based, Indigenous law) in the Whanganui model. The second, is the potential of a new way of decision-making than has historically been the case under the Resource Management Act, shifting away from traditional Western notions of sustainability towards kawa-based notions of relationality and abundance. The third, is the significance of the legal governance architecture that supports place-based authority, devolves decision-making to hapū (subtribes), and brings the whole community in conversation with the river as part of deliberative local democracy. 

We find that the Act can be best understood as a recognition of relational legal pluralism in response to Treaty of Waitangi claims raised by Māori. Indigenous law – the kawa – explicitly forms the core of the Act, and what it crucially does, is to devolve power and authority to hapū and local communities. Even though the Act does recognise the river as a person and establishes rights for the river, this is a by-product of legislation designed to (partially) repair the Crown’s past wrongdoings against Māori. In spite of Te Awa Tupua having gained international attention as a way of legislating rights of nature, it is better understood as a recognition of the state’s obligations in terms of Indigenous rights and authority, especially jurisdiction for Indigenous Law.

22 October 2023

Nature

'The Recognition of the Rights of Nature in Latin America – The Lost Linkage with the Rights of Future Generations' by Luis A. López Zamora in Hélène Ruiz Fabri, Valérie Rosoux and Alessandra Donati (eds) Representing the Absent (Studies of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, 2023) comments 

This Chapter involves a study on the Rights of Nature (RoN). RoN comprehends the establishment of a set of specific rights, as well as the recognition of a new legal subject (nature) at the national and at the international levels. For example, on the international level, various international forums slowly envision nature as a potential right holder. Even though this has yet to transpire in formulating and adopting an international treaty establishing that, the language of the RoN now commonly appears in different international soft law documents. Latin American jurisdictions have served as inspiration for those documents, since the recognition of RoN in the region has been considered as paradigmatic. However, the regional recognition of nature's rights has not been free of ambiguities, especially when it is considered together with the recognition of another new legal entity: the Future Generations. The interactions between those new right holders in Latin America have been scarcely studied; this contribution seeks to fill that gap. 

Recognising the Rights of Nature (RoN) is part of a global trend, in which Latin America has been considered a success story. Specialised scholarship highlights that in some Latin-American jurisdictions, the recognition of RoN has been enshrined at the constitutional level or, alternatively, pro‐ claimed by constitutional courts or tribunals. According to the scholarship on the subject, such recognition entailed a breakthrough in protecting nature as it extends legal protection to the environment for its intrinsic value. The purpose of this Chapter is to subject that statement to critical analysis. Unlike much of the regional and international scholarship that has studied the rise of the RoN in Latin America, we will not assume that such recognition has occurred innocuously or that – in any case – it has not caused complications in the legal systems where RoN have been incorporated. 

To demonstrate our position, we will take into account two tendencies we have observed during the course of this research: (a) Recognition of the RoN in the region has been executed without a detailed explanation of why this process was necessary. Some of the questions that remain unanswered are: Was the recognition of the RoN vital, bearing in mind that there were already legal frameworks in place in the Region protecting the environment? Was the recognition of the RoN warranted, bearing in mind the cost of implementing a new set of rights? (b) It is a fact that that recognition usually occurs in connection with the implementation of the rights of future generations. It should be borne in mind that in both scholarship and adjudication these two sets of rights have been considered together as if they were part of a similar phenomenon. Indeed, the proclamation in the region of the RoN is usually followed by references to the rights of future generations. Are those two sets of rights connected? Furthermore, if they are connected, how does their normative interplay transpire? 

To find answers to these questions, we will consider the legal reasons behind the recognition of the RoN in Latin America. This issue has scarcely been explored. That exercise will allow us to observe that the primary reasons for recognising the RoN have been procedural-based. For example, the proclamation of the RoN leads to the recognition of nature as an entity capable of holding rights – therefore – as a legal subject. As a result, nature has access to proceedings that are capable of protecting its interests, which were previously non-existent. Some of these proceedings are constitutional remedies which can protect nature directly. Another example of the proce‐ dural reasons behind the recognition of the RoN is that through those rights, the rights of future generations can be made effective. To explain this, it is important to bear in mind that the implementation of the rights of future generations faces theoretical and practical limitations. For example, in a dispute settlement context it is difficult to concretely determine the rights or interests of future generations. Without that determination, these rights and interests are merely rhetorical recognitions with no practical application. 

After reviewing the procedural reasons for the recognition of the RoN mentioned above, we have found that in both cases the RoN have been formulated directly or indirectly in connection with the rights of future generations and -in some cases- with the sole purpose of making the imple‐ mentation of those rights possible. This suggests that the recognition of the RoN in Latin America has not been based on the value nature possesses in and of itself, but for the service it can provide to human interests. We will consider the inconsistency of that outcome, and the theoretical incompatibility between the Latin American practice in the matter and the reasons why the RoN were formulated in scholarship in the 1970s. 

To explore all these points, we will begin (in Section 2 of this Chapter) by describing the emergence of the RoN in law and the particular theoret‐ ical discourse that promoted its recognition. At the same time, we will consider a similar trend that led ultimately to recognising the rights of future generations. In Section 3, we will describe the emergence of the RoN in Latin America and the considerations that scholarship has given to that process. With that in mind, we will revise the antecedents that allowed na‐ ture’s personhood to be recognised in the region, such as the relativisation of humans’ monopoly on the legal subjectivity given the recognition – to a certain extent – of animals’ rights. In Section 4 we will review the recogni‐ tion of the RoN in the jurisdictions of Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia, and inquire into the reasons that led to that process. This exercise will allow us to see that the recognition of the RoN and its utilisation for procedural reasons is due to the lack of theoretical differentiation between the interests protected through the RoN and those protected through the rights of future generations. We will then explain how that lack of differentiation can have theoretical and practical implications.

The Australian Treasury has meanwhile announced settlement of the proceeding commenced in the Federal Court of Australia by Kathleen O'Donnell against the Commonwealth (Proceeding No VID482/2020). 

This statement is published on the websites of the Department of Treasury and Ms O'Donnell's solicitors (Equity Generation Lawyers). 

In the proceeding in the Federal Court, Ms O'Donnell claimed that the Commonwealth failed to disclose information relating to climate change in connection with the issue of Exchange‑traded Australian Government Bonds (eAGBs). 

The parties have agreed that Ms O'Donnell will discontinue the proceeding with no order as to costs when the Court has approved this settlement. Climate change is a systemic risk that presents significant risks and opportunities for Australia's economy, regions, industries, and communities. Achieving Australia's emissions reduction commitments and realising the opportunities that accompany the transition will require significant investment by governments and the private sector. Uncertainty around the magnitude and timing of the physical impacts of climate change and the global transition to net zero emissions translates to uncertainty about the fiscal impacts of climate change. And, as a consequence, there is uncertainty about whether the fiscal impacts of climate change may affect (if at all) the value of Commonwealth Government Securities (also known as Australian Government Bonds or AGBs) and, in turn, eAGBs.  

x The economic and climatic changes brought about by climate change will have fiscal impacts. For example, the new industries and jobs emerging from the net zero transformation will impact the structure of the economy and, in turn, the tax base. Extreme weather events are also expected to occur with increased severity and frequency, which will increase demand for disaster relief payments and infrastructure repairs. Statement 3 of the 2022–23 October Budget outlined the drivers and nature of these fiscal impacts in detail, as well as the climate-related spending being undertaken by the Australian Government to respond to climate change. 

The 2023–24 Budget continues this practice by transparently reporting $4.6 billion in new climate‑related expenditure. This is further to the historic $24.9 billion in new climate‑related spending announced in the October 2022–23 Budget and is additional to ongoing climate‑related expenditure initiated prior to these budgets. The Government's approach to reporting climate‑related spending is informed by the climate‑reporting practices of international peers and is presented within the context of international best practice, as well as contributing to work underway to strengthen transparency in future budgets. 

The Government is developing a package of sustainable finance reforms, including the establishment of a sovereign green bonds program and regulatory reforms, to increase the transparency and credibility of Australia's growing sustainable finance market. The Government's intention is that these reforms will assist investors to align their investment decisions with net zero emissions targets and increase the flow of capital toward new opportunities that support Australia's net zero pathway. In accordance with the requirements of the Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth), the Commonwealth will continue to publish an Annual Climate Change Statement. Among other things, the Annual Climate Change Statement addresses the risks to Australia from climate change impacts, such as those relating to Australia's economy. .... 

The Commonwealth acknowledges that: 

As part of investors' strategic responses to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change, investors are making commitments to reduce emissions associated with their investment portfolios. 

Credit rating agencies and other stakeholders are increasingly examining the relationship between climate change and sovereign bonds. There is currently no internationally agreed framework for assessing any climate‑related risks and opportunities associated with sovereign debt instruments. 

The Commonwealth will continue to engage with asset owners and relevant stakeholders to ensure that investors are informed as to the Commonwealth's policy settings and actions in relation to the risks and opportunities posed by climate change.

03 September 2023

Nature

'The Ontological Indifference of Rights of Nature' by Bart Jansen in (2023) Liverpool Law Review comments 

The ontological question of whether nature ‘naturally’ has rights is related to indigenous people’s interactions with nature. In the academic discussion of that relationship, roughly two movements can be discerned. Indigenous people in the first movement would reject the idea of personality as something granted by humans to non-humans. A second movement is the view that thinking about rights does not coincide at all with indigenous people’s interactions with whatsoever; indigenous people, instead of a Western, dialectical discourse of rights, would have a more semiotic conception of normativity. In this way, the question of the ontology of rights for nature masks an underlying colonialism. A third perspective would offer an outcome from this discussion. This is the view that a philosophical-ontological discussion about the granting or recognition of rights for nature is just unimportant. The legal fiction theory merely declares the anthropological concept of man to be a legal subject and sees in the concept of legal personality a legal, dialectical construct, which, through sovereignty legitimated by the state, holds natural persons and legal persons to be equal. This argumentation is pragmatic and does not yield many legal-philosophical consequences.

11 August 2023

Constitutionalising Rights of Nature

Enshrining rights of nature in the Irish Constitution? The 2023 report from the Citizens Assembly on Biodiversity Loss offers the following recommendations 

1.1 Overarching Recommendations 

The Assembly believes that the State’s response to the biodiversity crisis requires effective leadership, clear vison and an enabling environment for action. The response to conserving and restoring biodiversity should take into account the integral heritage and cultural values of our natural world. 

1. The State must take prompt, decisive and urgent action to address biodiversity loss and restoration and must provide leadership in protecting Ireland’s biodiversity for future generations. 

2. The Assembly believes that the State has comprehensively failed to adequately fund, implement and enforce existing national legislation, national policies, EU biodiversity-related laws and directives related to biodiversity. This must change. 

3. The ambition of the State needs to be significantly increased to reflect the scale of Ireland’s biodiversity crisis. Adequate funding must be made available to address this crisis. This is likely to require substantial and sustained increases in expenditure, which should be made available immediately and guaranteed in the long term. 

4. The responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of biodiversity related legislation, directives and policies by all state bodies and agencies must be made clear, with each body/ agency held publicly accountable for their performance. This should be supported by an independent review of implementation and enforcement of biodiversity related legislation, directives and policies. 

5. The State must provide, communicate and implement a plan for the conservation and restoration of biodiversity for the benefit of its people. 

6. Local leadership, local communities and the activities of the Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector must be actively developed and resourced to assist the State in addressing the biodiversity crisis. 

7. In taking action to protect and restore biodiversity, nature-based solutions aimed at protecting, sustainably managing and restoring ecosystems should be prioritised where possible. 

8. As a matter of urgency areas and species of High Nature Value, including but not limited to the national network of Natura 2000 sites and protected species, should be protected from further degradation through the implementation and enforcement of existing legislation and directives. Management plans should also include restoration programmes. 

9. Ireland’s varied land and seascapes across and around the island must be supported, and appropriate monitoring systems designed to suit their local environment. Higher incentives and supports should be provided to prioritise the preservation and restoration of rare and threatened species. 

10. Ireland needs to recognise its global responsibility, including through our local actions, in terms of our consumerism, resource usage and our international biodiversity responsibilities. The State should advocate for a shift in emphasis in EU and international economic policy away from GDP expansion as a goal in itself and towards the goals of societal and ecological wellbeing. 

11. An all-island approach and wider transboundary approach should be taken into consideration with regard to biodiversity conservation and restoration. 

12. The State should renew and stand by its commitment to implement the objectives and targets of the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy and play a leading and supportive role in the adoption and implementation of a new EU Nature Restoration Regulation. 

13. All governmental departments must explicitly acknowledge the State’s declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency and take immediate and targeted action. 

14. All biodiversity incentives and grants should be results-based, supported by monitoring and evaluation. 

15. People in primary production industries should implement practices that conserve biodiversity and be incentivised for biodiversity enhancement and associated ecosystem service provision. 

16. The State must work with all stakeholders to review Ireland’s current food policy in the context of the biodiversity crisis, particularly in agriculture and marine sectors, to balance between the affordability and quality of food. This review must take into consideration vulnerable sections of the population and ensure reasonable standards of living, and result in a plan to address these issues. 

17. The Irish business community needs to engage with biodiversity and show leadership in the same way that they have begun to engage with the issue of the climate crisis. 

18. In order to drastically reduce the use of pesticides by at least 50% by 2030 in line with EU policy, the State should incentivise and encourage the domestic and commercial use of natural, cost- friendly alternatives, sustainable practices and biodiversity-friendly solutions. It should also regulate the use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers, while maintaining food security. This should coincide with the improvement of schemes for the safe disposal of unused hazardous materials, as well as their containers. 

19. Examples of good practice in relation to biodiversity protection and enhancement should be actively identified and supported with funding, infrastructure and other supports provided to enable replication or expansion of these practices, in partnership with those who design and operate such initiatives and schemes, e.g. the Burren Programme, Biodiversity Regeneration In a Dairying Environment (BRIDE) programme. and the Sustainable Uplands Agri-environment Scheme (SUAS). 

20. The State is urged to take into account the recommendations from the Children and Young People’s Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, an initiative featuring our next generation, and continue to engage with children and young people on the environment. 

1.2 Strategic Approach to Biodiversity Loss 

Given that the response to the biodiversity crisis requires action across the whole of the State and whole of society, the Assembly believes there is a need for coordinated action and an over-arching strategic approach at a national level. 

21. There must be a whole of State approach to drafting and implementing a new statutory National Biodiversity Plan, aligned with the Climate Action Plan, supported by legislation and properly funded. This and subsequent plans must not be constrained by electoral cycles and should have clearly defined ecological targets (e.g. the number of species on the at-risk list to be halved), with appropriate monitoring and timelines, to which all parties at national, regional and local levels are fully committed. 

22. There should be a senior ministerial position, with an associated department, with responsibility for biodiversity. 

23. There should be a permanent, cross-party Standing Oireachtas Committee on Biodiversity Loss, which will consider and respond to the recommendations of this Assembly, within 6 to 12 months. 

24. There should be a new national independent agency to act as a centralised biodiversity coordinating structure to: i. Coordinate: a. Government departments in their biodiversity-related actions. b. Government policy and ensure the coherence of these policies. ii. Coordinate budgets related to biodiversity actions. iii. Drive consultation around biodiversity actions. iv. Oversee and coordinate enforcement organisations. v. Implement, monitor and report biodiversity actions transparently. vi. Oversee education and public engagement related to biodiversity. vii. Oversee and coordinate research and data collection. viii. Act as a point of contact for members of the public and industry to liaise with supports related to biodiversity conservation and restoration. ix. Act in alignment with the Climate Change Advisory Council. x. Set up an Emergency Task Force. 

25. The new National Biodiversity Plan and all policies related to biodiversity action at national and local level should be developed in partnership with the people and sectors most affected by changes (i.e. local communities, farmers, fishers, business, etc.). In many cases consultation has to move beyond the current status quo, with trust having to be rebuilt and relationships realigned. 

26. The new National Biodiversity Plan should have clear targets with ambitious and achievable timelines at national, regional and county level for halting biodiversity loss, restoring and enhancing biodiversity. 

27. In addition to recent developments in judicial structures in environment and planning, the State must develop an environmental court at Circuit and District Court levels, in order to hold policy makers, businesses and citizens to account. 

28. All citizens should be empowered with ‘legal standing’ to protect nature and biodiversity in court. 

29. Each local authority must have at least one full-time dedicated biodiversity officer, the total number of which should be determined by population density, land mass and coastline. 

30. All relevant departments, bodies and agencies that deal with biodiversity should have in-house ecological expertise to advise on all biodiversity related policies and activities. 

1.3 The Constitution 

The Assembly believes that ensuring the purposeful and necessary conservation and restoration of biodiversity will involve a range of measures, including making amendments to the Constitution. Such actions should be taken to attempt to ensure that nature is protected enough to continue to provide people with necessary ecosystem services, such as food, clean freshwater and air, and to allow people to access and enjoy a clean, safe and healthy environment, both now and into the future. 

31. There should be a referendum of the people to amend the Constitution with a view to protecting biodiversity. The proposal to amend the Constitution should include: a. Human substantive environmental rights, e.g. a right to a clean, healthy, safe environment; a right to a stable and healthy climate; rights of future generations to these or other environmental rights. b. Human procedural environmental rights, e.g. the Aarhus rights regarding access to environmental information, public participation in environmental decision-making and justice in environmental matters. c. Substantive rights of nature, recognising nature as a holder of legal rights, comparable to companies or people e.g. to exist, flourish/perpetuate and be restored if degraded; not to be polluted/harmed/degraded. d. Procedural rights of nature, e.g. to be a party in administrative decision-making, litigation, etc. where rights are impacted/likely to be impacted. 

1.4 Resourcing the State’s Approach to the Biodiversity Crisis 

The Assembly believes that without adequate funding and resourcing, it will not be possible to curb the crisis of biodiversity loss or engage in the restoration of biodiversity. Such actions are necessary to continue Ireland’s food production, to ensure access to clean freshwater and air, and to ensure access to safe, healthy environments Members outline that funding should be made available firstly through greater efficiency and accountability for public funding, and reprioritisation between current spending and revenue raising.  When polled, three out of every four members indicated they were prepared to support and pay higher taxes, based on the principle of ability to pay, in order to make a reality of these recommendations. 

32. Sufficient funding and resources to meet the challenges of biodiversity loss must be allocated to all relevant bodies to sufficiently protect and enhance biodiversity, and implement and enforce related national and EU laws, directives and policies. This must be guaranteed in the short and longer term. 

33. The Government’s economic strategy needs to continue nurturing and embracing fully the ‘Beyond GDP’ concept and ensure that the National Well-being Framework, encompassing Environment, Climate and Biodiversity, is at the very core of economic decisions made now and in the future. 

34. The Well-being Framework for Ireland should be modified so that it more accurately measures economic, social and environmental progress in Ireland, with the metrics reported alongside GDP as an indication of how well Ireland is doing, and be given a strong role in shaping policy and informing the annual budgetary process. 

35. The State must undertake a comprehensive review of current and future taxation and levy policies, regulations and incentives to assess their impact on biodiversity. 

36. The State should significantly increase commitments and long-term funding with specific and targeted tax incentives and tax breaks to incentivise and support the regenerative economy, green technology and biodiversity activities. 

37. The Assembly supports the State making Ireland a global leader in sustainable finance models. 38. The State should introduce a lower “green rate” for loans that fund biodiversity initiatives. 

39. Planning levies should include a proportional contribution, ringfenced to conserve and enhance biodiversity. 40. In addition to a dedicated biodiversity budget, governmental departments and agencies should be permitted to roll over any unspent biodiversity funding into the next year. 

41. The State should establish a framework for corporations and large businesses, as major users of natural resources, to provide financial contributions to fund the conservation and restoration of biodiversity. 

42. Local authorities are uniquely placed to deliver biodiversity projects. Biodiversity funding and staff resources in local authorities must be significantly increased. Local authorities must be accountable and report on their biodiversity activities. Current resources must be enhanced, and biodiversity given greater priority in the councils’ activities. 

43. New sector-specific levies/charges on harmful imports must be introduced and ring-fenced for biodiversity. These should include: i. New sector-specific levies/charges on agricultural exports introduced and ring-fenced for biodiversity. ii. New sector-specific levies/charges on retailers introduced and ring-fenced for biodiversity. 

1.5 Accountability and Compliance in Biodiversity 

The Assembly believes that the laws currently in place regarding the protection of the environment are not being implemented or enforced, to the detriment of biodiversity and ecosystem services across Ireland. Penalties and sanctions for breaches in environmental law need to be increased and enforced. 

44. There should be an immediate review of existing frameworks and mechanisms for the implementation and enforcement of biodiversity policy and legislation. This review should identify those responsible, address gaps in responsibilities and policies, highlight areas with insufficient funding and result in a plan to address these issues. 

45. Sanctions for an offence should be proportionate to the offence so they adequately discourage negative behaviour (e.g. penalties should be linked to company turnover), with the offender incurring the cost of undoing the damage. Each governmental department, organisation and agency responsible for enforcement should be provided with training, a clear remit, have sufficient resourcing and should be held accountable. 

46. All penalties for any breach of pollution or environmental legislation/regulations should be increased to meaningful economic levels, reflecting all damage caused plus enforcement and restoration costs, with criminal sanction where necessary. 

1.6 Supporting Communities 

The Assembly believes local communities are key to protecting Ireland’s environment, heritage and culture, and are therefore critical to conserving and restoring biodiversity. 

47. The State must provide a streamlined and easily accessible system of small grants, information and support for the public to undertake biodiversity action on residential properties. 

48. The State must provide funding and infrastructural supports to local community and voluntary groups, including the settled and nomadic Traveller community, and other groups engaged in actions addressing biodiversity loss and restoration, e.g. managing invasive species, participating in citizen science, creating biodiverse spaces, and protecting and monitoring the health of the local environment, etc. 

49. The State must continue to promote and support the All-Ireland Pollinator Plan as a way of supporting communities and individuals to contribute to biodiversity initiatives. 

50. The State must align initiatives in Rural Regeneration and Development with local, community- based biodiversity activities. 

51. The State must ensure the expansion of community gardens and allotments through local authority initiatives in conjunction with private landowners, in both urban and rural communities. 

1.7 Non-Governmental Organisations 

The Assembly believes the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) sector plays a critically important role in biodiversity in Ireland by furthering research, engaging communities and acting as a watchdog in issues related to the environment. As lack of enforcement and implementation of legislation is a major issue in Ireland, the NGOs have often filled an important gap. However, compared to many other countries, public funding supports for NGOs in Ireland is poor. 

52. The value of NGOs engaged in biodiversity should be recognised in early consultations on all relevant plans, policies and projects. 

53. NGOs engaged in biodiversity should be appropriately funded in the short, medium and long-term to undertake targeted schemes with measurable outcomes and strict accountability measures. 

54. Core funding should be provided for collaborative work between NGOs and their partners. 

1.8 Public Engagement, Education and Awareness 

The Assembly believes that education and public engagement are key to empowering people to curb biodiversity loss across the country. With strengthened awareness, individuals, groups and communities across the country, in all environments from rural to urban, can be encouraged to engage in the conservation and restoration of biodiversity for one another and for the generations coming after us. 

55. The public must be encouraged to live in a way which reduces their impact on biodiversity loss. The State must develop public awareness and engagement campaigns on biodiversity and biodiversity loss, to educate people on the fundamental role of biodiversity in our lives and provide resources to inform people on what they can do in their own lives to support biodiversity. 

56. The State must develop an interactive website and app with easy-to-understand information on how the State and EU work together on environmental issues, where Ireland adheres to EU directives and the penalties of non-adherence. It should provide examples of good practice, information on what individual citizens can do, and details on who to contact for various issues. The website should highlight what collective action is occurring locally that people can participate in. 

57. The State must establish a public information campaign to promote the benefits of buying local and seasonal produce. 

58. Local authorities should play a central role in informing people of the importance of biodiversity in their areas. 

59. There should be mandatory and ongoing biodiversity training provided for any civil or public servant whose work impacts on wildlife and biodiversity. 

60. The Natura 2000 biodiversity sites provide opportunities for education for local communities. A programme should be established to promote awareness of the importance and vulnerabilities of these sites. 

61. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NWPS) should be funded to expand its education remit to make the public more aware of the importance and current conservation status of our protected habitats and species. 

62. Children and young people are integral to ensuring the environment is protected. In line with the current National Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development – ESD to 2030, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth with the Department of Education, the Teaching Council, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, and the Teacher Education Support Service(s) should continue to engage in meaningful curriculum reform and teacher education to explicitly incorporate teaching and learning on biodiversity in early childhood, primary and post-primary curricula. 

63. In line with the current National Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development - ESD to 2030, the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and relevant agencies, such as the National Skills Council, Regional Skills Fora, Expert Group on Future Skills Needs, SOLAS etc., should work with further and higher education providers to develop a greater number of easily accessible further and higher education programmes, apprenticeship and community-based education related to biodiversity and environmental sciences. 

64. School grounds and local public amenities need to be developed as a support to a diverse and meaningful nature education. In line with this, basic biodiversity training for school staff, including maintenance and grounds staff, should be rolled out on a national basis. 

65. The Green Schools Initiative should be reformed to ensure nature and biodiversity feature in the initial stages of the programme. 1.9 Biodiversity Research and Data In order to monitor biodiversity and the impacts on biodiversity of various activities and policies, it is essential that biodiversity and related resources are regularly measured against high-quality baseline data. 

66. The State must develop a research strategy to support the national and EU Biodiversity, soil and water strategies, involving all agencies, higher-education institutes and other organisations. 

67. The State must create, publish and maintain an integrated habitat, species and land-usage map for the island of Ireland to identify habitat loss and improvement, to support local community awareness and to inform policies and actions of state bodies and organisations. 

68. The State must increase funding to bodies and agencies, including the National Biodiversity Data Centre, local authorities, and State agencies such as the Natural History Museum and Teagasc, to carry out research related to biodiversity. 

69. The State must fund a programme of work to promote and support citizen science (scientific research conducted with participation of the public) on biodiversity-related research. 

70. The National Biodiversity Data Centre must be established on a statutory basis, its funding secured, and its role enhanced, particularly with regard to data generation, education, community engagement and citizen science. 

71. Increased funding should be made available for the research of new and emerging best practices that offer alternatives to overexploitation of natural resources. 

1.10 Energy Production 

In terms of its energy production Ireland has the potential to tackle the climate crisis, while also addressing the biodiversity crisis. In this, Ireland should reinforce its ambitions to produce renewable energy. 

72. The State must prioritise the shift to all forms of renewable energy to achieve decarbonisation, while ensuring that these developments undertake full consideration of local biodiversity, do not negatively impact biodiversity and enhance biodiversity wherever possible. 

73. The State should ringfence a percentage of funds raised through all energy production for biodiversity conservation measures. 

1.11 Agriculture 

As the majority of land across Ireland is used for agriculture, the Assembly believes that the agriculture industry and its approach to land-use have a major impact on biodiversity. Biodiversity underpins our production system providing pollination, nutrient recycling, soil structure, pest control, regulation of water supply, etc. Biodiversity is currently undervalued in our agriculture production system and policy framework. Acknowledging farmers as the custodians of the land, with a rich knowledge and understanding of the environment, the agriculture industry can make the most impact on conserving and restoring biodiversity. 

74. Current State policy on the management of biodiversity on agricultural lands is not sufficient and requires fundamental review and change to support and incentivise farmers and landowners to protect and restore biodiversity. 

75. The Government must ensure that Ireland’s food production is in line with commitments to the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Agreement, the EU Green Deal and current legal obligations to protect biodiversity, genetic resources (e.g. seed diversity) and water quality. It must phase out all environmentally harmful subsidies in the agricultural and food sector. 

76. Government departments, State and Semi State agencies shall ensure their work is done in a way which ensures collaborative planning, consultation in decision-making and implementation with farmers, local authorities and community groups. This must be underpinned by acknowledging that there is a need for local responses to local environments. Community led, peer-to-peer farming initiatives must maintain their community-led ethos once they are rolled out nationwide. (The Burren Programme and the BRIDE projects provide potential templates.) 

77. Biodiversity targets in national schemes (i.e. Common Agriculture Programme (CAP)/ Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme (ACRES)) must be made significantly more ambitious, detailed and focused on the medium to long-term. Funding must be increased to support this ambition. 

78. Public incentives and payments for farmers must not restrict them in their ambition to make change for the benefit of biodiversity. All biodiversity incentives for farmers shall be results-based over the whole farm, with farmers who protect and enhance biodiversity rewarded and paid for the ecosystem services they contribute. 

79. Increased access to agri-environmental and payments-on-results schemes must be available to all farmers with commensurate funding. 

80. The State must support community leadership and peer-to-peer support in order to share knowledge and assist local farmers and communities to understand and replicate good biodiversity practice. 

81. The State must further subsidise and incentivise organic farming and locally grown produce. Sufficient resources must be deployed to support an ambitious implementation of Ireland’s Strategy for the Development of the Organic Sector for the period 2019 to 2025, to ensure a more supportive environment for the development of organic food and farming in Ireland and for subsequent policies relating to the medium to long-term development of the sector. 

82. Bord Bia must significantly increase the promotion of the organic farming sector in Ireland and actions supporting the Farm to Fork strategy.  

83. People must be encouraged to consume a more plant-based diet. 

84. Biodiversity awareness and education training programmes need to be instigated and improved across the agriculture sector, including for farmers, advisors, policy makers, food processors and retailers. 

85. The Green Cert must be adapted by increasing the proportion of credits for sustainable farming. Modules should include the identification and management of nature/biodiversity features on farmland, combining latest scientific information and traditional knowledge, recognising and preserving skills built by generations of farmers. 

86. The State must offer incentives through agri-environment schemes to farmers that achieve high soil quality status, either from the start of the monitoring programme or as a result of their employing remedial measures. 

87. In line with EU Soils Strategy, a National Centre for Soil Science must be established based on up-to-date technology where soil testing of physical, chemical and biological properties of soil is subsidised for farmers. 

88. The State must require sufficient information on commodities’ labels and menus to improve consumer understanding of the origin of their food and the impact of their choices on biodiversity/environment. 

89. More farms and farmers must be encouraged and rewarded for adopting the Silvopasture approach to farming – planting native deciduous trees in amongst pasture lands. 

90. The State must encourage use of multi-species mixtures and phase out use of monoculture grass seed mixtures. 

1.12 Freshwater 

Ireland has a rich network of rivers and streams (over 84,800 kms) and over 12,000 lakes which cover about 2% of its land area. They connect our uplands and coasts, and our urban and rural areas. Three decades of monitoring of water systems has shown the ongoing loss of water quality, which is severely impacting the biodiversity of our rivers and lakes and has a devastating effect on the quality of drinking water. The poor condition of our freshwater systems is an urgent problem that requires an immediate and coordinated national response. Suitable actions must be taken to reduce the impact of nutrients, particularly nitrates, on our freshwater systems. 

91. The management of our freshwater systems requires immediate action. It requires increased level of ambition, increased resources for Water Framework Directive implementation (and therefore aquatic biodiversity protection and mitigation), a focus on water quality and aquatic biodiversity outcomes, clarity on roles and responsibilities and accountability for achievement of the outcomes. 

92. The State must provide a single body to oversee and co-ordinate the many relevant bodies that manage, implement, and enforce legislation and policies relevant to freshwater. 

93. There must be urgent increases in investment by Irish Water to build new and improve existing water treatment plants to prevent the unacceptable discharge of raw or partially treated sewage into any fresh or marine waters. The current timelines and targets are inadequate. 

94. The management of water catchment areas must be greatly improved, with assessments of water quality to be updated regularly to guide action on restoring water quality. 

95. Riparian buffer zones, related to agriculture, forestry, industry and extractive processes and urban development must be expanded and take into account local conditions to prevent nutrient and sediment run-off. Schemes must be put in place to incentivise landowners to protect waterways, with incremental subsidies depending on the width and quality of buffer zones. 

96. Local and other relevant authorities must be held responsible for maintaining and improving the conditions of rivers in their areas, working with each other and with State agencies, such as Office of Public Works (OPW), Coillte, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Inland Fisheries Ireland, industry, farmers, private landowners, community groups, etc. Furthermore, local authorities and landowners must maintain the highest standards to riparian zones along the rivers in their areas. 

97. It is imperative that penalties for polluting freshwater are significantly increased and enforcement considerably improved. 

98. Farmers must have access to continuous training and up to date research in actions and land management practices that protect freshwater biodiversity. 

99. The State must increase support for community groups and NGOs that are working on key projects to improve freshwater systems – e.g. support for Irish Rivers Trusts, group water schemes, angling and community groups. 

100. The 1945 Arterial Drainage Act is no longer fit for purpose and must be reviewed and updated in order to take proper account of the biodiversity and the climate crisis. 101. Nature-based solutions must be included in State and community programmes to tackle flood management and should include whole of catchment area hydromorphology planning and restoration. 

102. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), supported by Inland Fisheries Ireland and an expert group, must conduct a complete analysis and survey of all catchment areas to develop a National Hydromorphology Plan.  

103. Motorway attenuation pools must be more widely used and incorporate the use of biodiverse wetlands. The forestry and extractive industries must have the highest standards of attenuation pools and sediment traps applied to their drainage activities. 

104. Soil sealing poses a growing threat to our waterways and hydromorphology through surface water run-off. New regulations must be developed to limit the permissible area of soil sealing around all new buildings and other developments that are subject to planning. All other surface finishes must be made of permeable surfaces. 

1.13 Marine and Coastal Environments 

Ireland has a vast marine environment, which is currently under-recognised and undervalued. The Irish State has committed to designating 30% of Irish waters as Marine Protected Areas by 2030. This is in line with our commitments under the EU Biodiversity Action Plan. However, the Assembly heard that Ireland has failed to achieve “Good Environmental Status” for over half of the descriptors (6 of 11) in the existing EU Marine strategy framework, including in biological diversity. 

105. The State shall designate and effectively manage an ambitious network of Marine Protection Areas, in line with EU targets of 30% of Ireland’s Maritime Area by 2030. 

106. The State shall create a National Marine Biodiversity Coordination Body to have responsibility for the implementation of Marine Protected Areas, the achievement of Good Environmental Status and wider marine conservation and restoration initiatives. 

107. The State must implement ambitious marine conservation measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure ‘Good Environmental Status’ for Ireland’s seas. 

108. A proportion of funds raised by the State through fines and levies for activity in the marine environment must be used for the protection and restoration of marine biodiversity. 

109. The State must act to ensure fish stocks in Irish waters are well managed through quotas, monitoring and no fish zones, supporting income transition for fishers who will need to change their way of earning as policies on Marine Protected Areas and offshore energy evolve, for the necessary conservation and restoration of biodiversity. 

110. As a matter of urgency, the State must increase actions and legislation to considerably reduce single use plastics and microplastics to minimise pollution within its waters and along its shores. 

111. The siting, development and construction of energy generation at sea (both pylon and floating) must be done in close collaboration with the fishing community and relevant marine biodiversity authorities. (See also recommendation 72). 

112. All enterprise involved in marine extraction or exploration must have a strict biodiversity net gain clause attached to their development permission and must be responsible for the ongoing and future management and enhancement of the biodiversity of their sites. 

1.14 Peatlands 

Ireland’s peatlands are an integral part of our national culture and heritage. They are also one of our richest resources of biodiversity and carbon sinks. Restoration of peatlands will have clear benefits for both climate and biodiversity, as well as health benefits for local communities and potential new revenues through eco-tourism. 

113. An updated National Peatland Action Plan must be developed with clear, measurable, realistic and timed goals and sufficient funding to protect and restore peatlands. 

114. The cessation of turf-cutting on protected areas must be fully implemented and enforced. To facilitate a true ‘just transition’, the State must provide adequate financial assistance to offer viable alternatives to people currently predominantly reliant on peat for heating their homes. 

115. The State must promote community engagement and wider awareness of the value of peatland restoration for nature and culture. 

116. The remits of Bord Na Móna and Coillte must each be reviewed to include a focus on peatland restoration and rehabilitation projects, with targeted outcomes on biodiversity conservation. The results of these outcomes must be freely available and published annually. 

117. All enterprise involved in the harnessing of renewable energy from or on all peatland must have a strict biodiversity net gain clause attached to their development permission and must be responsible for the ongoing and future management and enhancement of the biodiversity of their sites. 

118. The State must develop a cross-agency response team to review practices of prescribed burning and address issues around implementation of guidance and recommendations to stop illegal burning. 

119. The State must encourage and incentivise peatland owners to engage in the active protection of peatland biodiversity through appropriate management and restoration activities. 

1.15 Forestry, Woodlands and Hedgerows 

Ireland ranks lowest in Europe for tree cover. There has been a substantial increase in forest cover in the last century but much of this has been through monoculture plantation, which has issues related to water quality and biodiversity. Improved forestry management, together with native woodland enhancement and creation, have the potential to contribute solutions for nature, water and climate. The Assembly believes that Ireland’s woodlands and forestry require a change in management approach for the benefit of its people now and the generations to come. 

120. There is a conflict of interest between business aims and corporate responsibility, particularly for State agencies. The State must fundamentally reassess the constitution, goals and operations of Coillte and the 1988 Forestry Act (as amended). This reassessment must ensure biodiversity protection and positive eco-system services are core objectives for Coillte, alongside providing higher quality timber, meaningful employment and benefits to the community. 

121. State-owned woodlands should be recognised and managed as a strategic, long-term national asset for the benefit of the common good. 

122. Afforestation requires long-term goals and timelines. The State must legislate and provide funding for long-term investments in forestry, with strategic and ambitious emphasis on native woodlands. In addition, the State must ensure its afforestation strategy is not negatively impacting on biodiversity by establishing an effective monitoring system for the Forestry Programme. 

123. A new national strategy for the protection, maintenance, restoration and expansion of Ireland’s network of hedgerows must be developed urgently. Existing legislation and regulations regarding hedgerows must be reviewed, strengthened and fully enforced, with due regard to public safety. Sufficient results-based incentives must be made available to support all aspects of their proper management. In particular, the new CAP schemes should recognise and reward good hedgerow quality. 

124. Forests currently planted and those already felled on peatlands are a significant and historic problem. The State should remedy this issue promptly and on a significant scale. 

125. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Marine must implement incentives for State, Semi State and commercial bodies to establish more nurseries for the cultivation of indigenous hedgerow species and indigenous broadleaf tree species. 

126. A significant proportion of profit earned through Coillte’s commercial activities should be ringfenced and re-invested directly back into biodiverse forestry initiatives. 

127. The State must plan for appropriate felling management, including provision for continuous cover to encourage a more biodiverse and sustainable mixed forestry management model. 

128. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and the Marine must ensure that licensing requires site- by-site ecological assessments to ensure that biodiversity is not negatively impacted both within and outside protected sites. 

129. The use of pesticides in public and private forestry is to be reduced by at least 50%. 

130. Hedge management courses and certification should be reintroduced and it should be a requirement that all hedge cutting contractors and their employees complete such courses, and be licenced. 

1.16 Protected Sites and Species 

Ireland’s network of protected sites for habitats and species of national and international conservation concern are a key aspect of our efforts to restore and enhance biodiversity. The Assembly believes that the designation and management of protected sites and species has not been sufficiently overseen by the State. This has led to failures in managing and protecting biodiversity, conflict with stakeholders, including landowners, and a lack of awareness across society of the existence and status of our protected sites and species. 

131. The designated sites and species are among our most important cultural, heritage, and biodiversity resources and their management needs to be sufficiently resourced to meet our EU obligations. 

132. The National Parks and Wildlife Service and other relevant agencies must be provided with targeted funding to provide sufficient resources and staff to manage designated sites and protect species, produce and implement management plans, enforce protections for designated sites on land and sea. 

133. Protected sites do not exist in isolation. These ecosystems require connectivity with areas outside these sites, with links between protected sites. These connections and links need to be considered, protected and improved in local authority planning and other activities. 

134. The hunting open season order list must be reviewed regularly to ensure alignment with the endangered species list. 

1.17 Invasive Species 

Invasive species are a major threat to biodiversity nationally and internationally and have the potential to impact human wellbeing. 

135. The management of invasive species needs to be carried out on an all-Island basis. 136. Biosecurity must be increased at all points of entry to the country, in line with best international practice. 

137. The State must provide funding, education and infrastructural supports to engage local community groups in appropriately managing invasive species, which negatively impact native habitats and species. 

138. The State must produce a multi-agency National Invasive Species Plan to manage, monitor and collate information on the distribution of invasive species across the country. This should be used for coordinated control programmes and community awareness campaigns. 

139. The State must introduce effective population controls regarding invasive animal species, such as non-native deer and mink. 

140. The State must act immediately to put a timeline on the phasing out of, and eventual ban of, the sale of invasive species, e.g. Cherry Laurel. 

141. Regulations for the importation of recreational wildlife, classed as invasive species, must be reviewed. 

142. Schemes to incentivise people to buy native plants, shrubs and trees, including native fruiting trees and shrubs, to support garden biodiversity over non-native species should be devised and encouraged. 

1.18 Urban and Built Environment Urban environments have an enormous role to play in the conservation and restoration of biodiversity. This is particularly important considering the housing crisis Ireland is currently experiencing and in view of the value of green spaces to populations living in urban environments. Integration of nature and nature-based solutions within urban areas can improve human wellbeing in these areas. 

143. The State must reform and update the planning and building regulations and legislation to better consider biodiversity in all new developments, with specific evidence-based and locally relevant biodiversity and environmental measures (e.g. inclusion of nesting bricks, restriction of artificial grass, green planting, corridors, sand and water, etc.). 

144. Planning policy must be updated to require all new developments to have a significant net-gain for the environment and biodiversity. 

145. In line with international best practice, the State must increase mandatory requirements for a percentage of green spaces that support biodiversity in urban areas. 

146. Local authorities must raise the status of biodiversity to ensure that this is addressed and championed at the highest level in the organisation. 

147. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), as well as bodies prescribed in legislation with regard to biodiversity and planning, including An Taisce, should be properly funded and resourced to effectively carry out their planning and development roles. 

148. The State must utilise public spaces, such as bus shelters and roofs, to create green corridors, green walls/roofs etc., to support pollinators and promote biodiversity. 

149. Authorities must incorporate ecological expertise in decision-making regarding planning. 

150. All Environmental Impact Assessments and Reports, and Appropriate Assessments and Natura Impact Statements must automatically be lodged with the National Biodiversity Data Centre so the data and information can be stored and made publicly accessible, with sufficient funding provided for such action. 

151. Each Local Authority must include a Green Infrastructure Strategy in County/City Development Plans which includes corridors between urban and rural biodiverse habitats, creation of new biodiverse spaces, retrofitting of existing spaces and restoration of degraded biodiversity. 

152. The State must introduce tax incentives and grants for capital investment in retrofitting existing buildings with biodiverse initiatives (roof gardens, vertical gardens etc.). 

153. The State must review An Bord Pleanála and local authority legislation and practices to take full cognisance of the Aarhus Convention, create more transparency and grant citizens greater access to information and inclusion in decision-making related to environmental issues in planning. 

154. As part of the new National Biodiversity Plan relevant Government departments and agencies must publish central advice for local authorities on incorporating nature based solutions and ecological features into new developments, ecosystem restoration, green infrastructure and biodiversity, addressing pollution issues (chemical, light, etc.), reinforcement and/or offsetting that can be linked to achieving local and national biodiversity objectives that would be identified in development plans and local area plans. 

1.19 Industry, Business and Tourism 

The Assembly believes that the needs of Ireland’s economy must be balanced with the need to conserve and restore our natural resources and biodiversity. 

155. State and Semi State agencies and bodies responsible for all major state infrastructure should prioritise the protection and restoration of biodiversity in strategic planning, with measurable goals and timelines that are held to account by a newly established, independent, central agency (see recommendation 24). 

156. In addition to actions around the climate crisis, businesses should be required to take biodiversity into account through programmes which promote industry’s engagement with biodiversity. 

157. Ireland’s tourism industry is dependent on the protection and good status of the environment and important biodiversity sites are often high amenity sites. The promotion of eco-tourism and amenities should therefore be consistent with biodiversity conservation and visitors should be managed to ensure that biodiversity is not damaged. Opportunities to include biodiverse positive areas and projects should be encouraged as an additional tool within the overall promotion of Ireland’s tourism industry. 

158. A scheme should be developed, similar to the Farming for Nature initiative, in which businesses can demonstrate real and substantial biodiversity credentials. 

159. All large businesses and financial organisations must develop a mandatory assessment and disclosure process of harmful impacts to biodiversity, with a mandated role (similar to a Health and Safety or Well-being Officer).