Jackson, Yvette --- "Evolutionary Spiral in the Development of Environmental Ethics" [2006] MqJlICEnvLaw 11; (2006) 3(2) Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law 119
Evolutionary Spiral in the Development of Environmental Ethics
YVETTE JACKSON[*]
The recent emergence of a societal conscience attuned to environmental issues has caused the community, scientists, environmentalists and politicians to reassess established approaches to environmental policy and decision-making. This increased awareness of environmental issues has precipitated a new ethical approach, broadening the established anthropocentric perception of the environment as an infinite resource for human exploitation, to incorporate a biocentric perspective intrinsic to sustainable development.
This article describes two philosophies which underpin environmental ethics and traces the emergence and evolution of a new global environmental ethic, by outlining the historical changes in the broad policy framework of international agreements and environmental law which reflect the need for more environmentally responsible conduct.
I Overview of Environmental Philosophies
Any definition of ‘environment’ reflects a contemporary interpretation of the concept. Early definitions, notably those cited by Boer[1] are inadequate, because they ‘divorce humans from the natural environment’[2] and portray humanity as operating outside of nature.[3] It is better described as the totality of biotic and abiotic conditions affecting all organisms (including humans) in the ecosystem,[4] as well as interactions between these factors. The human environment also includes an aggregate of social and cultural conditions[5] which impact the natural environment, but are not relevant to this definition.
An ‘ethic’ is a system of philosophical values which underpin morally correct conduct and are founded on human interests and the premise that any ‘individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts’.[6] An ethic ‘is nothing else than reverence for life’.[7]
‘Environmental Ethic(s)’ provides the conceptual framework for the ‘basic beliefs, values, attitudes and assumptions which shape and reflect how’ humans perceive and relate to others as well as to their surroundings.[8] It subscribes to the aim of making as small an ecological footprint as possible. Just as the scope of the environment has broadened over time, so has the nature of Environmental Ethics which emerged in the 1960’s to reflect man’s awareness of the importance of the environment and that its capacity to tolerate degradation was not infinite. It evolved from notions of remediating environmental destruction to its current model advocating universal protection and conservation of the natural environment in conjunction with sustainable development.
In an utopian world, environmental interests would trump human technological and economic affairs. In practice however, direct conflict exists between environmental interests and human exploits and environmental ethics emerged to acknowledge human obligations to protect the natural environment. An environmental ethic demands different duties from individuals, corporations, non-governmental organisations and governments as part of the international community. Environmental ethics thus serves to recognise and weigh the relative value of these interests,[9] to balance the dislocation between ‘nature and society’,[10] because humans have immense technological capacity to radically alter the environment.
In environmental ethics, valuation of the environment can be derived from either a strong or weak instrumental perspective.[11] The former adopts an anthropocentric attitude, where value is derived directly from how the environment can be used in production. Preservation of this environment and its resources is a precondition for human survival which provides the incentive for its protection.[12] The latter approach appreciates the environment for its inherent worth and diversity beyond human concerns, adopting a broader value system recognising non-living entities, sentient and non-sentient organisms.[13] Although we are not able to escape the value system imposed by human consciousness,[14] Sterba claims that both perspectives invoke ‘a common set of principles for achieving environmental justice’.[15]
Most environmental ethics approaches provide strong anthropocentric perspectives. Stewardship for example holds that every person owes a custodial duty of care to the natural world not to exploit its resources,[16] but exercise dominion over it as God intended[17] and with long-term strategic planning.[18] Stone[19] suggests that guardians be appointed to safeguard aspects of the environment, thereby granting rights to inanimate entities. As our legal system accords rights to bodies other than individuals,[20] such doctrinal innovation[21] could be used to attribute rights and ‘anthropological validation’ to animals.[22] Attribution of rights to other eukaryotes is somewhat problematic, but permissible, because humans share fundamental metabolic processes with these organisms. Such attribution of rights reflects a move toward moral pluralism in environmental ethics, but contradicts ethical humanism.[23] As ethical humanism denies moral consideration of non-human organisms, it denies them value and no justification exists to protect them.
Utilitarian philosophy which holds that the consequences of human acts should maximise benefit to society,[24] has been extended by Mill’s harm principle.[25] Whilst traditionally applied to humans, it could also be applied to other sentient beings[26] which ‘deserve equal consideration’,[27] although not necessarily equal treatment. This approach however does not protect the interests of any particular organism or ecosystem[28] and may divert limited resources to populous or unthreatened species or resources.[29]
Paternalistic tradition has legitimised male dominance over women and nature.[30] Ecofeminist philosophy[31] which associates oppression of women[32] with exploitation of the environment, rejects the masculine notion of ‘separateness, control and domination’.[33] It emphasises ‘relationships, caring and sensitivity’[34] and promotes the value of nurturing Mother Nature’s inherent organic productivity over consumption of her commercial resources. If women were to move beyond the glass ceiling and occupy more positions of authority, it is argued that environmental issues would have greater priority. Ecofeminism thus has the potential to revolutionise environmental ethics.
Other approaches to environmental ethics subscribe to biocentric philosophies. ‘Respect for life irrespective of sentience’[35] for example recognises the inherent value of all forms of life and despite our inability to absolutely preserve them, ‘we should take account of living things in considering the effects of our actions’.[36] Thus whilst it is not possible to prevent the utilisation of resources, it is necessary in accordance with ‘distributive and inter-generational justice’[37] to conserve resources for future generations.
Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis proposes that the Earth is a single entity, functioning as a ‘living, self-regulating biosystem’,[38] analogous to a living organism which operates homeostatically to maintain optimal conditions for metabolism. As the Gaia metaphor is a slogan rather than a science, it has promoted rationale for the new environmental ethics, but cannot provide a scientific foundation for the promulgation for environmental legislation.
A more practical philosophy is Leopold’s ‘land ethic’[39] which values the interdependence of biological systems, without ascribing ‘honorary life to inanimate objects’.[40] The foundation of this environmental ethic is that a ‘thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community’.[41] Leopold repudiated the notion that the relationship between people and the land was ‘strictly economic, entailing privileges, but not obligations’,[42] asserting it ‘is inconceivable … that an ethical relation to the land can exist without love’[43] and that the privilege of using the earth ‘entails the responsibility of passing it on, the better for our use’.[44]
Similarly, Naess’ philosophy of deep ecology adopts the principle of ‘biospherical egalitarianism’ which describes the geological and biological ‘whole in which we are embedded’[45] and enunciates that responsible land use ensures continued symbiotic co-existence of man and biosphere.
Melding of the land ethic with deep ecology provides an holistic value theory which incorporates multiple perspectives[46] of global ethical heritage into a coherent theory, acknowledging that ‘human duties to the natural world arise … from the fact that we exercise enormous power … over it’.[47]
II The Developing Approach to Environmental Ethics
Tribe likens the ‘evolving framework’ of environmental ethics to a ‘multidimensional spiral along which society moves’[48] to transform its character from insouciance to accountability. The 1970s could be considered the first turn in the spiral when, in recognition of the need to develop environmental ethics, the Stockholm Conference[49] developed a broad policy framework. Prevailing environmental ethics initiatives were essentially anthropocentric and although reconstructive measures were largely successful, society failed to prevent harm or value nature for itself.
The late 1970s saw the creation of public authorities charged with responsibility for protecting the natural environment from the deleterious effects of development. This included Environmental Impact Assessments,[50] which although anthropocentric planning tools, served to alert the community to potential concerns and prevent environmental degradation.
The 1980’s represent the second turn in the spiral when it was recognised that environmental degradation was not an ‘inescapable aspect of [social and economic] development’,[51] but resulted from egocentric and environmentally inappropriate policy. More responsible environmental management emerged as the expanding scope and detail of environmental law integrated environmental needs with economic and social demands. This integrated approach to ‘reconcile human affairs with natural laws’[52] was given impetus by various international agreements,[53] which collectively stipulated that upon ratification, domestic legal provisions of member states would plan and implement economic, social and environmental development activities, to take account of biological productivity, diversity and aesthetics.[54] Thus a new environmental ethics emerged to initiate an ‘era of economic growth … based on policies that sustain and expand the environmental resource base’.[55]
Ecologically sustainable development was adopted to implement specific environmental conservation instruments and to protect natural resources, without compromising regional self-government or viable economic development (especially in developing states). These objectives were achieved by ongoing monitoring of environment quality; assessment of human impacts; appropriate amendments to environmental policies; provision of adequate funding and dissemination of information.[56] Implicit in these sustainable development strategies was preservation of inter-generational equity.[57]
As sustainable development practices are in the short-term expensive to implement, financial assistance to developing nations was provided to counter unsound practices,[58] to subsidise sustainable environmental management and enforcement strategies appropriate to the circumstances and culture.[59] As the 1980s progressed however, foreign aid proved inadequate because it essentially reflected the anthropocentric economic priorities of the donor,[60] rather than the needs of the local populace. Moreover, the benefit of foreign aid was to an extent negated by trade barriers imposed by wealthy nations to protect their markets. This increased pressure on vulnerable ecological systems to yield more profitable returns.[61]
During the 1980s poverty and unemployment were recognised as significant social ‘causes and effects of global problems’.[62] Adoption of socially-just policy[63] permitted humanity to address differential needs of developing and developed nations, recognising that impoverishment of local resources impoverishes environmental policy and generates international inequity.[64] It also represented the beginning of a broad strategic approach which regarded social dysfunction, economic, technological, and environmental development not as separate crises, but as a single concern.[65]
Whilst 1980s legislation and policy clearly identified economic interests, it tended to overlook the value of intangible environmental concerns because no monetary worth could be ascribed to any biotic component or environmental quality improvement. Legal and institutional systems also excluded intangible ‘values in preference for objective insights’,[66] unless they were actively championed by those involved in decision making. However this decade saw the establishment of a burgeoning number of national parks and protected reserves reflecting a ‘global conservation paradigm of protectionism and human exclusion’.[67]
Although an anthropocentric environmental ethic permeated environmental law and policy of 1980s, it was realised that ‘mankind is a part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems’.[68] This acknowledged the moral code inherent in ‘respect for life’ and the need to ‘extricate our nature-regarding impulses from the conceptually oppressive sphere of human want’.[69] Over the decade an increasing awareness of the need to maintain the stability, diversity and sustainable productivity of ecosystems infiltrated the global psyche, softening strong instrumental environmental ethics in favour of biocentric philosophy.
The 1990s represented the third turn in the spiral when ‘conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity resources and fair and equitable sharing of benefits with local people’[70] constituted the rationale for environmental ethics. This recognised the significance of the environment, not only from an anthropocentric perspective, but also for distributive and inter-generational justice and particularly from a biocentric perspective, cognisant of the ‘intrinsic values of biological diversity … for maintaining life-sustaining systems’.[71] This environmental ethic represented a shift from the predominantly loose and fragmented approach of previous decades to a more cohesive approach underpinned by biocentric philosophies.
The ‘blueprint’ for building environmental ethics during the decade was Agenda 21[72] which advocated ‘global consensus and political commitment’[73] to solve environmental problems through international co-operation (including governments of developing nations) and community participation. It was anticipated that non-state actors in science[74] and industry bodies,[75] in private and corporate sectors, NGO’s and inter-governmental organisations would be involved in providing objective advice, and negotiating and developing common environmental standards and protocols[76] in a concerted effort to prevent further environmental degradation. Close co-operation between these organisations reduced duplication,[77] prompted government action and established industry standards higher than those required by governments, holding corporations accountable for their actions and generating good corporate citizenship.[78] This integrated social, fiscal, environmental and other policies to reflect the importance of environmental ethics in a cross-section of policy areas.[79]
The broad consultative nature of these negotiations ensured that policy guidelines and laws which emerged were environmentally sound, realistically achievable and widely accepted. It was however, recognised that uniform application of environmental standards in developing and developed countries would impose inequitable burdens, and accepted that countries would tailor implementation of their own environmental priorities in accordance with prevailing domestic concerns[80] to facilitate enforcement of the regulations.
The 1990s agreements[81] specified strategies for flexible integration of environment and development concerns at ‘policy, planning and management levels’,[82] including institutional capacity building,[83] monitoring and assessment of human impacts,[84] sanctions and remedies for breach.[85] They also made provision for technical support,[86] for implementation of the precautionary principle[87] and for systems of ‘integrated environmental and economic accounting’.[88] These strategies were implemented to target social and economic concerns which contributed to environmental degradation. Issues which were addressed included poverty and employment,[89] food security,[90] gender and education,[91] health,[92] and the provision of clean water and sanitation.[93]
This multifaceted environmental ethic approach subscribed to the philosophies of utilitarianism, respect for life, ecofeminism and a combination of the land ethic and deep ecology. It rejected the previous ‘tendency … to dissect phenomena and examine their fragments’[94] to resolve the dislocations between the natural world and human society.
Prior to the 1990s compliance with environmental regulations was secured through legal instruments,[95] ‘command and control’ using international momentum,[96] imposition of strict liability and by ‘mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon’[97] against ‘rogues’.[98] During the 1990s, a new, dynamic and normative fiscal model for enforcement and compliance developed[99] to facilitate environmental ethic directives. This included financial assistance[100] for sustainable development initiatives in developing nations, subsidies to promote environmentally conscientious behaviour,[101] environmental taxation,[102] market incentives[103] and economic instruments. This led to adoption of polluter/user pays approaches[104] which passed costs to producers and consumers.[105] A market oriented approach resulted in the emergence of companies specialising in pollution control[106] and in resource management[107] which utilised ‘technological innovation … to meet sustainable development objectives’.[108] Costs associated with environmental management were incorporated into economic policy[109] which reduced the tendency to regard the environment as an infinite resource or waste dump.
As international enforcement became more effective, nation-states recognising their treaty obligations would be stringently monitored, enacted domestic legislation or ‘local Agenda 21s’[110] to reflect their global obligations.[111] To further encourage compliance with international environmental agreements, effective veto power to bring them into force was vested in developing nations.[112] To prevent the exercise of any such veto, the developing nation was provided with certain ecologically sound economic incentives.[113]
During this decade increased knowledge of the interdependence of complex ecological interactions led to a better understanding of the impact of human activities on the environment. Concomitant with advances in technology was the capacity to take restorative and preventive environmental action. Despite the significant potential of these contributions, an acute awareness that the solutions were not all to be found in science and technology undermined scientific influence in policy decisions and to an extent, contributed to a ‘preoccupation with sectoral environmental protection’.[114] Nonetheless, Agenda 21 advocated greater collaboration between the scientific community and those formulating policy to clarify interactions between the environment and society and to ensure sound scientific recommendations were implemented.[115]
The rise of ‘Green Politics’ during the 1990s as a more mainstream and pervasive force reflected the permeation of environmental ethics into the democratic political arena which provided another mechanism to influence policy to adopt more biocentric philosophies.
The beginning of the 21st century marks a further half turn in the spiral of environmental ethics. Most significant of the 21st century initiatives to protect the environment are the Earth Charter,[116] the WSSD[117] and the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law’s Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (IUCN Draft Covenant).[118]
The Earth Charter came at ‘a critical moment in the Earth’s history, a time when humanity [had to] choose its future’, and include ‘fundamental changes … [to its] values, institutions and ways of life’.[119] The Charter essentially comprises a declaration of environmentally ethical principles, with content derived from indigenous wisdom as well as legal, scientific and philosophical principles. Its prime objective is to create a ‘just, participatory, sustainable and peaceful global society for the 21st century’,[120] through ‘respect for nature’[121] and shared responsibility for environmental protection.[122] In practice, it advocates conservation of biological diversity[123], education[124] and democratisation of institutions[125] in accordance with intergenerational equity[126] from anthropocentric and biocentric perspectives. This integration of ecosystem protection, human rights,[127] sustainable development and environmental justice provides the ‘new ethical foundation for [the evolution of environmental ethics in] the world community’[128]. It must be recognised that whilst the Earth Charter remains a soft law instrument, it is merely an aspirational expression of commitment by civil society to environmental ethics and is yet to be fully implemented in practice.
Whilst Maurice Strong (Earth Charter Commissioner) acknowledges some progress in the implementation of the Earth Charter, he is also critical of the fact that society has not yet been successful in making ‘the transition to a sustainable way of life’,[129] suggesting that the fourth turn in the evolutionary spiral of EE remains incomplete and justifying the importance of the Earth Charter + 5. The Earth Charter + 5 Report provided further practical guidelines for implementation of the Earth Charter,[130] notably promoting global awareness of the Earth Charter and ‘education for a sustainable way of life’ as well as an ‘ethics-based assessment’ for government, industry and individuals to determine the adequacy of their contribution to the Charter’s obligations.[131]
Although building on the Earth Charter’s new ethical foundation, the 2002 WSSD committed all parties not merely to aspirational statements, but to further integrate economic, social and environmental development[132] by focusing attention on the need for incorruptible governance[133] and poverty eradication[134] particularly in the third world.
The IUCN Draft Covenant whilst aiming to ‘distil … the many soft law statements and declarations … into a binding treaty, to promote consensus on fundamental principles’[135] and even acting as a supplement to the Earth Charter, is unlikely to become a binding treaty because it is perhaps perceived as being too radical[136] and competing against the Earth Charter. The current political perception is that it is unnecessary to become bound as a signatory to the IUCN Draft Covenant when membership of the Earth Charter negates such responsibilities or obligations.
In developing nations however, neither the theoretical rationale nor the practical implementation of the new environmental ethic has been adopted, essentially due to lack of infrastructure. Once the new environmental ethic is universally practised, the fourth turn in the spiral will be complete.
Unless this occurs early in the 21st century, as ‘the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future ... holds great peril’[137] because our modes of production and consumption are wasteful, stretching environmental resources to the point that, despite current profits and surpluses, our children will inherit permanent deficits of the ‘borrowed environmental capital … [which we have] no intention or prospect of repaying’.[138]
‘Significant progress’ has been reported[139] in achieving some environmental ethic objectives, specifically in resource management and recycling, biodiversity and genetic resources, wilderness protection, soil conservation, reduction of atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gases. Despite this, the global community remains in denial about climate change and the widespread introduction of GMOs could have unforeseen ecological impacts. Although social advances have also been made in gender equality, primary education, population control,[140] access to safe water and sanitation, reduction in poverty and hunger,[141] overall progress has been slow.[142]
Recently, emphasis has been placed on ‘triple-bottom-line’ accounting.[143] Adopting this environmental ethic philosophy into business practice will make the corporate sector an ally in responsible ecological management. Eco-tourism could provide an opportunity to expand sustainable development in the poorest nations and generate foreign investment, infrastructure and local employment,[144] as well as providing a significant incentive for further protection of the natural environment. Society must also take cognisance of the knowledge of indigenous populations[145] who have traditionally adopted sustainable development practices with minimal deleterious impact and should ‘legislate temperance’,[146] rather than rely upon proscriptive legislation which is difficult to enforce.
The rapid adoption rate and expanding scale of development impact continues to outstrip promulgation of environmental law and at times, even recognition of the need to protect certain interests and ecosystems.[147] The new environmental ethic which developed in association with a proliferation of international agreements resulted in inconsistency and inefficiencies of provisions. If a universal declaration on environmental protection and sustainable development could be developed under the auspices of one internationally recognised body,[148] it would provide a single, comprehensive environmental code to be used as the basis to ‘redesign new legal systems’[149] to uphold contemporary social, economic and ecological needs. These laws should attempt not just to ‘define the ethics necessary to guide human conduct … but … design legal systems of conduct to stimulate … discovery of that ethical relationship’.[150]
III Conclusion
Attitudinal change to the environment is occurring rapidly and the world is no longer universally perceived as an instrumental, economic resource, but as having inestimable intrinsic value. A new environmental ethic has evolved, reflecting acknowledgement of our obligations and responsibilities as humans to other species, and our abandonment of previously anthropocentric conceptions of ethics. It espouses biocentric ethics,[151] to satisfy inter-generational and global distributive justice. The proper focus of the new environmental ethic is not on any particular species or project, but aims to sustain the entire biotic community.[152]
A significant contribution of this holistic environmental ethic is that it has shaped global environmental law and policy, prompting ‘global governance’[153] to become more transparent in its dealings and broader in its jurisdiction in that it has encouraged participation of different non-governmental parties and promoted the integration of environmental issues with social, economic, cultural and political interests. To an enlightened, civilised community, this provides more than adequate reason to cherish and steward the Earth for its inherent values. However, despite considerable investment of human effort and financial resources, the practical outcomes of the new environmental ethic have yet to be fully realised.
[*] BSc LLB undergraduate student at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
[1] Boer describes three different concepts of the environment: (i) The ‘basic elements of the earth’, namely air, land and water, analogous to nature; (ii) the ‘natural resources upon which humans place value’; (iii) ‘all living elements of the earth, as well as its natural resources’, excluding humans, Ben Boer (ed), ‘Environmental Law Training Manual’ (1997) 3-9 in Donna G Craig, Nicholas A Robinson and Koh Kheng-Lian (eds), Capacity Building for Environmental Law in the Asian and Pacific Region: Approaches and Resources (2002) vol 1, 6-8 cited in Susan Shearing (ed), LAW 510/811/855 Readings in Environmental Law (2006) vol 1, part A, Chapter 1, 36 (1-36).
[2] Ibid.
[3] This is evident in Australia’s Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 s 2 which specifically excludes humanity from its definition of environment, Boer, above n 1, 1-36.
[4] The Council of European Convention, Environmental Law Institute, ‘Liability for Environmental Damage’ (1995) 3-28 in Craig Text, cited in Susan Shearing (ed), LAW 510/811/855 Readings in Environmental Law (2006) vol 1, part B, 4-25; The United Nations General Assembly’s World Charter for Nature (1982) cited in Boer, above n 1, 1-36; Contra Passmore in James Connelly and Graham Smith, Politics and the Environment: from Theory to Practice (2nd ed 2003) cited in Shearing, above n 1, 1-3.
[5] These include customs, laws, language, religion, economic affairs and political organisation, Boer, above n 1, 1-36.
[6] Aldo Leopold, ‘The Land Ethic’ in Hugh LaFollette (ed), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (1997) 635.
[7] Albert Schweitzer in Nicholas Robinson, ‘The “Ascent of Man”: Legal Systems and the Discovery of an Environmental Ethic’ (1998) 15 Pace Environmental Law Review 497-513 in Shearing, above n 1, 2-42.
[8] Karen J Warren, ‘The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism’ in Hugh LaFollette (ed), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (1997) 658.
[9] Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-11.
[10] M Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom (1982) 22.
[11] Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-9.
[12] Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-9.
[13] Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-4, 1-9.
[14] Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-10.
[15] James P Sterba, ‘Reconciling Anthropocentric and Nonanthropocentric Environmental Ethics’, in Hugh LaFollette (ed), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (1997) 644.
[16] Contra Francis Bacon in Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-5.
[17] The Holy Bible, Genesis 1:26-28, 2:15; Robin Attfield in Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-5.
[18] Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-5.
[19] Christopher Stone, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?-Toward Legal Rights For Natural Objects’, (1972) 45 S.Cal.L.Rev 450 in Laurence H Tribe ‘Ways Not to Think About Plastic Trees: New Foundations for Environmental Law’ (1974) 83 Yale Law Journal, 1315-1348, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 1-31.
[20] Juristic constructs have granted legal personhood to corporations and organizations.
[21] Tribe, above n 19, 1-32.
[22] In fact it is argued that awarding rights to higher vertebrates is justified because of their ability to perceive pleasure and discomfort, not dissimilar to human perceptions, Tribe, above n 19, 1-32-33.
[23] Michael E Levin in Peter Singer ‘Animal Rights Evaluated’ (July/August 1977) The Humanist 12, 14-15; John Passmore, in Man’s Responsibility for Nature (1974) and Michael Fox, ‘Animal Liberation: A Critique’ (1978) 88 Ethics 106-18 cited in J Baird Callicott, Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair in Hugh LaFollette (ed), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (1997) 671.
[24] Jeremy Bentham in Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-5.
[25] J S Mill, On Liberty, cited in C Johnson, Philosophy of Law (1993) 168-179.
[26] Peter Singer in Animal Liberation (1975) cited in Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-5-6.
[27] Ibid 1-6.
[28] Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-6.
[29] A Scheffler in Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-7.
[30] Warren, above n 8, 657.
[31] This emerged in mid-1975 as a result of Françoise d’Eaubonne’s work, Warren, above n 8, 656.
[32] Warren, above n 8, 657-8.
[33] Hugh LaFollette (ed), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (1997) 632.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Albert Schweitzer in Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-7.
[36] Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-7.
[37] Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-4.
[38] Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-7.
[39] Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-8.
[40] Connelly and Smith above n 4, 1-7.
[41] Leopold in Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-8; Leopold, above n 6, 639.
[42] Leopold, above n 6, 635; Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-8; Robinson, above n 7, 2-42.
[43] Leopold, above n 6, 638.
[44] Leopold, above n 6, 640.
[45] Arne Naess in Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-8.
[46] These perspectives include biocentric, economic and anthropocentric values.
[47] Connelly and Smith, above n 4, 1-4.
[48] Tribe, above n 19, 1-30.
[49] The UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972.
[50] Tribe, above n 19, 1-31.
[51] Boer, above n 1, 1-37.
[52] World Commission on Environment and Development, ‘From One Earth to One World- An Overview by the World Commission on Environment and Development’ in WCED, Our Common Future (1987) 1-23 in Craig Text 90-96, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 2-17.
[53] The IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy (1980); UN General Assembly’s World Charter for Nature (1982); World Wildlife Fund’s Wildlife and Human Needs Programme (1985); UN World Commission of Environment and Development (WCED), also known as the Brundtland Commission which produced the report Our Common Future (1987).
[54] United Nations General Assembly, World Charter for Nature (1982) in Craig Text, 87-90 cited in Shearing, above n 1, 2-15.
[55] Ibid 2-17.
[56] Ibid 2-22-23.
[57] World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-20-21; Boer, above n 1, 1-37.
[58] This is illustrated in Africa where emphasis on commodity sales led to abuse of fragile soils which in turn, contributed to desertification, World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-20.
[59] United Nations, ‘Agenda 21’ Chapter 8: Integrating Environment and Development in Decision-Making’ (1992) in Craig Text 46-56, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 2-3.
[60] World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-20.
[61] World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-20.
[62] World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-18.
[63] World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-17-23.
[64] Failure to remedy global inequities could compromise not only environmental health, but also political stability and even national security, World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-20. This could come about because developing nations, following the example of the first world would see no need to curb their development potential by diverting limited funds from industrial or even military endeavours to serve ecological interests. Thus nations investing more in military offensives than ecological defences, could trigger an arms race exacerbating environmental destruction, for example the military conflict between India and Pakistan, John Pike (2005) Global Security, <http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak.htm> 17 April 2006.
[65] World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-18-19.
[66] Tribe, above n 19, 1-20.
[67] Dilys Roe, IIED, Joanna Elliott, ‘Meeting the MDG’s – Is Conservation Relevant? In Dilys Roe (ed), The Millennium Development Goals and Conservation (2004) 7-19 in Shearing, above n 1, 2-28.
[68] United Nations General Assembly, above n 54, 2-14.
[69] Tribe, above n 19, 1-31.
[70] Roe, IIED and Elliott, above n 67, 2-28.
[71] Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) established by the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992) in Robinson, above n 7, 2-42.
[72] Agenda 21 was established at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992, United Nations, ‘Agenda 21: Preamble’ (1992) in Craig Text 45-46, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 2-2; United Nations, above n 59, 2-3-13.
[73] United Nations, ‘Agenda 21: Preamble’ (1992) in Craig Text 45-46, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 2-2, paragraph 1.3.
[74] United Nations, above n 59, 2-5 paragraph 8.9.
[75] Examples of such bodies are the International Standards Organisation (ISO), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the World Industry Council for the Environment (WICE), United Nations, above n 59, 2-3 paragraph 8.2; E Brown Weiss, ‘New Directions in International Environmental Law’ (1995) in Craig Text, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 1-42.
[76] Brown Weiss, above n 75, 1-42.
[77] United Nations, above n 59, 2-7 paragraph 8.19.
[78] Brown Weiss, above n 75, 1-42.
[79] United Nations, above n 59, 2-3 paragraph 8.2.
[80] United Nations, above n 59, 3-6 paragraphs 8.3, 8.4b, 8.4c, 8.13.
[81] Such as those enshrined in the UN Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21 (1992), the UN Convention of Biodiversity (1992), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (1994), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1997).
[82] United Nations, above n 59, 2-3 paragraph 8.2.
[83] Judicial and Administrative, United Nations, above n 59, 2-7 paragraph 8.21c.
[84] United Nations, above n 59, 2-4 paragraphs 8.4d, 8.5b; (Principle 17) United Nations, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) in Craig Text, 96-100, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 2-25.
[85] United Nations, above n 59, 2-7 paragraph 8.18.
[86] United Nations, above n 59, 2-8 paragraph 8.25.
[87] The Earth Charter (2000) The Earth Charter Initiative <http://www.earthcharter.org/ innerpg.cfm?id_menu=19> 14 December 2004 cited in Shearing, above n 1, 2-36; (Principle 15) United Nations, above n 84, 2-25.
[88] United Nations, above n 59, 2-11 paragraph 8.41.
[89] To safeguard livelihoods and encourage sustainable use of bioresources to ensure continued employment potential and eradication of poverty (Principle 5), United Nations, above n 84, 2-23.
[90] By identifying the links between decreased hunger and sustainable management of natural resources to eliminate unsustainable practices (Principle 8), to ensure SD (Principle 4) and greater productivity in fragile or marginal environments, United Nations, above n 84, 2-23-24.
[91] Providing technical and scientific information (Principle 7), especially to women (Principle 20) and indigenous people (Principle 22) and ensuring local populations understand the environmental ramifications of their conduct, United Nations, above n 84, 2-24-25.
[92] Including preservation of natural products, traditionally used for treatment.
[93] Roe, IIED and Elliott, above n 67, 2-31.
[94] Bookchin, above n 10, 22.
[95] In the 1970’s these legal instruments provided fixed solutions to clearly defined problems in a world that [apparently] changed slowly. It was assumed that ‘[all] states complied with … their obligations’, Brown Weiss, above n 75, 1-39.
[96] In the 1980’s.
[97] Garrett Hardin, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ in Timothy O’Riordan and R Kerry Turner (eds), An Annotated Reader in Environmental Planning and Management (1983) 288-299, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 1-50.
[98] Brown Weiss, above n 75, 1-41-2.
[99] United Nations, above n 59, 2-6 paragraph 8.13.
[100] From GEF, UNEP, UNDP, World Bank and IMF.
[101] United Nations, above n 59, 2-9 paragraph 8.32.
[102] United Nations, above n 59, 2-10 paragraph 8.36a.
[103] United Nations, above n 59, 2-8 paragraph 8.27.
[104] United Nations, above n 59, 2-9 paragraph 8.28; Principle 16 United Nations, above n 84, 2-25.
[105] United Nations, above n 59, 2-9 paragraph 8.31a.
[106] Such as waste disposal and environmental consultancy.
[107] United Nations, above n 59, 2-9 paragraph 8.32d.
[108] United Nations, above n 59, 2-9 paragraph 8.29.
[109] United Nations, above n 59, 2-9 paragraph 8.31b.
[110] Ben Boer, ‘Institutionalising ESD: The Roles of National, State and Local Governments in Translating Grand Strategy into Action’ (1995) 31 Willamette Law Review 342-357 in Craig Text 197-202, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 3-81.
[111] United Nations, above n 59, 2-6 paragraph 8.15.
[112] Where a developing nation perceives that an international agreement imposes an unfair burden on its economy, or obliges them to forgo practices which generated wealth in developed nations, their refusal to ratify could prevent it coming into force.
[113] This is reflected in the Kyoto Protocol (1997) established by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) where Russia held the crucial interest for its implementation. The incentive for Russia’s ratification achieved in February 2006, was that the industrialised nations and not developing nations/ economies in transition were required to decrease their Greenhouse Gas emissions to pre-1990 levels. This failed to recognise that nations currently developing their economies will in future contribute most significantly to emissions.
[114] J M Bewers, ‘The Declining Influence of Science on Marine Environmental Policy’ (1995) 10 Chemistry and Ecology 9-23, in Craig Text, cited in Shearing, above n 1, 1-45.
[115] United Nations, above n 59, 2-5 paragraph 8.9.
[116] The Earth Charter, above n 87.
[117] World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, 26 August - 4 September 2002 <http://www.un.org/events/wssd/>.
[118] The third edition of the Draft Covenant, drafted in March 2003 in Bonn was published in 2004 as a joint initiative of the International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature-Centre for Environmental Law.
[119] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Preamble.
[120] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Principle I (3).
[121] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Principle I (1).
[122] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Principle I (2)(b).
[123] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Principle II (5)(b).
[124] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Principle IV (14).
[125] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Principle IV (13).
[126] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Principle I (4).
[127] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Principle II (7).
[128] The Earth Charter, above n 87, Preamble.
[129] Maurice Strong, ‘The Struggle Between Ecosystems and Egosystems’ cited in Earth Charter + 5 Report, (Paper produced at Earth Charter + 5 Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 7-9 November 2005) 17 <http://www.earthcharter.org/files/resources/ Final%20Report% 20EC+5%20(w-links).pdf> 14 October 2006.
[130] Ibid 1.
[131] Alan AtKinsson, ‘AtKisson Findings and Recommendations’, Report on the Earth Charter Initiative, cited in Earth Charter + 5 Report, above n 129; Steven Rockefeller, ‘Report from the Earth Commissioner Steven Rockefeller, cited in Earth Charter + 5 Report, above n 129.
[132] Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, Introduction, paragraph 2, cited United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIChapter1.htm 14 October 2006.
[133] Ibid, Introduction, paragraph 4.
[134] Ibid, Chapter II.
[135] Jeffery Michael, ‘Environmental Ethics and Sustainable Development: Ethical and Human Rights Issues in Implementing Indigenous Rights’ (2005) 2(1) Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law 110.
[136] Personal communication with Michael Jeffery.
[137] The Earth Charter, above n 87, 2-34.
[138] World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-20.
[139] Roe, IIED, Elliott, above n 67, 2-27.
[140] The Earth Charter, above n 87, 2-36.
[141] Millennium Development Goals in Roe, IIED, Elliott, above n 67, 2-27-28, 2-31.
[142] Millennium Development Goals in Roe, IIED, Elliott, above n 67, 2-28; Robinson, above n 7, 2-42.
[143] Which includes economic, environmental and social considerations, John Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business (1998).
[144] Roe, IIED, Elliott, above n 67, 2-32.
[145] United Nations, above n 59, 2-5.
[146] Hardin, above n 97, 1-48-49.
[147] World Commission on Environment and Development, above n 52, 2-23.
[148] Such as the World Conservation Union/ International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources – IUCN.
[149] Robinson, above n 7, 2-46.
[150] Robinson, above n 7, 2-43.
[151] Leopold, cited by LaFollette, above n 33, 631.
[152] Leopold, cited by LaFollette, above n 33, 633.
[153] Jeffery, above n 117, 107.