Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 The views and opinions expressed in this program do not necessarily represent those of natural Bridges, media or kss Qds staff, volunteers or underwriters.
Speaker 1 00:00:10 K SS Q D. Thanks. Sustainable Systems Research Foundation for supporting sustainability. Now, ss, SS r F provides education, research, and advocacy for regional environmental quality and sustainability related problems and solutions. For information, visit sustainable systems foundation.org. And thank you SS, s R F for supporting Community radio. K Squid 90.7 fm.
Speaker 3 00:00:47 Good planets, A zone of tropic climbs, thriving, wind blowing some breathing trees,
Speaker 2 00:01:05 Sunshine.
Speaker 4 00:01:14 Hello, K Squid listeners. It's every other Sunday again, and you're listening to sustainability Now, a biweekly K squid radio show focused on environment, sustainability and social justice in the Monterey Bay region, California and the world. I'm your host, Ronnie Lipschitz. Longtime listeners will recall my interview a year ago with Professor Matthew Lieman at the University of San Francisco, who focuses on the rights of animals, especially in legal matters more than 50 years ago, the late Christopher Stone, then a U C l A law professor wrote a groundbreaking law journal article called Should Trees Have Standing in which he argued for the right of trees to be represented in courts of law when under threat from human activities. His article launched the Rights of Nature Movement, which since then has taken the world by storm. There are many advocacy organizations for rights of nature, and some cities, counties, and countries have encoded such rights into their charters, law and constitutions.
Speaker 4 00:02:12 But what does it mean to say that trees, rivers, and animals have rights? Does the rights of nature make any practical sense? And how can such rights be implemented and practiced? My guest today is Katie Sermo, a reporter at Inside Climate News. She's been covering international environmental law and justice issues, including the Rights of Nature Beat for I C N since 2021 and has written extensively on the topic. SMA has a master's degree in investigative journalism from Arizona State University's, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, an L l M in International Rule of Law and Security from a U'S Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, and a JD from Duquesne University. Katie Sermo, welcome to Sustainability Now.
Speaker 5 00:02:59 Oh, thank you for having me.
Speaker 4 00:03:01 Um, well, let's begin at the beginning. Prior to joining Inside Climate News, you specialized in commercial law, as I understand it. How did you get from the practice of commercial law to environmental journalism? Why did you make that pivot?
Speaker 5 00:03:16 Yeah, I get asked this question often, <laugh>, I'm sure. Uh, and I wish I had a very snappy response, but the real answer is that it was a very long, um, process. I came out of law school in the aftermath of the financial crisis and Uhhuh <affirmative>, you know, went to work for a firm and found myself a number of years later questioning what I was doing, how I ended up here, and deciding to go back and get another law degree that was focused on international law and democracy and human rights, and was going to make that pivot when I was offered a fellowship to study, uh, investigative journalism. And, uh, you know, a few few months later here I am at, at Insight Climate News and, and really love the work that I'm doing now.
Speaker 4 00:04:13 I mean, tell me, tell me a little bit about the fellowship. Uh, did you apply for it or was it when you say it was offered to you?
Speaker 5 00:04:19 Yeah, so, uh, I did not apply. Um, I was finishing up my coursework for that other law degree. Uh, it's called an L l m and the, um, Arizona's, uh, school of journalism was rolling out this new master's program, and they were looking for mid-career people, Uhhuh <affirmative>, and they approached me about it. And I, you know, if I could have done my academics all, all over again, I would've probably gone into journalism. So it was sort of like this divine intervention for me, and, um, I just, I made the jump.
Speaker 4 00:04:57 Yeah. My observation, and this is completely off the cuff, is that those who major in journalism have a much more difficult time of getting into journalism. Um, that, that, you know, the experience is probably really, really important. Maybe you can describe for our listeners what Inside Climate News is, and, you know, what does it do and who is it for
Speaker 5 00:05:19 Sure. Yeah. So Inside Climate News, we are a nonprofit nonpartisan newsroom. We are digitally based, so we have our, our website inside climate news.org. Uh, but we also partner with many other organizations. So you'll see our work, um, on N B C or A B C or N P R stations, um, different partners. We give our work away for free. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, we also like to tell people we've won a Pulitzer Prize <laugh>. Yeah, okay. We are the ones who broke Exxon new, um, you know, investigating that, uh, Exxon scientist knew the science of climate change a long time ago, and obfuscated that, you know, through millions of dollars that confusing the public about the science. Um, and I have about 25 colleagues. We cover the whole gamut around climate change, the environment and energy. Um, and, you know, I'm biased, but I think my colleagues are some of the best in the business at, at what we do.
Speaker 4 00:06:23 Yeah, I mean, it's, it's interesting. I mean, I remember years and years ago there were, I think, commercial newsletters like insight, you know, the nuclear industry and things like that. Um, you know, and that was, that was sort of much more, not gossipy, but, but, uh, you know, who has been saying things to whom and, and the like. Anyway, um, so, you know, coverage of climate change has proliferated over the last couple of decades. I, I mean, if you, you know, if you do a search, uh, a Google search, you get millions of hits. So what do you think ICS comparative advantage is and what is a really crowded publishing niche?
Speaker 5 00:07:06 Yeah, I mean, I agree with you. It coverage has exploded around climate change, and that's great. I mean, we, we are not competing with other organizations in that way, but we definitely bring, you know, an extra bit of light to our coverage. My colleagues are all, um, really experienced on the beats that they're on. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, um, they've been doing this for a long time before reporting on this stuff was cool or mainstreamed. So our stories tend to have just that extra context that you, you walk away feeling like, you know, something a little bit deeper. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, but also, um, I would say because we're a nonprofit, we are not held to the, you know, you have to produce stories every day for cliques or, or whatever. We, we are not driven by that. We're very mission driven. We have a public interest, and we can take the time to really report out stories. Like, for instance, I've had a story that's been in the works for over a year. Um, you know, I got sent to, to Ecuador for a month to, to do work on it. So we have those opportunities, um, and that, I think, sets us apart.
Speaker 4 00:08:20 Yeah. That's pretty remarkable that, um, and I mean, it's investigative journalism, right? Basically. Um, or it's a form of, I guess,
Speaker 5 00:08:29 Yeah, yeah. A a lot of what we do has an investigative edge to it. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:08:34 So let's turn to the rights of nature since that's the ostensible topic of, of our inter, you know, of our show. So by my count, about a quarter of your articles for I C N have addressed rights of nature, law, and legal action. So how would you define the rights of nature are, and are there any legal definitions? I'm, I'm also assuming you keep up with, uh, some of the law journal stuff. Um, but you can just abuse me of that if it's <laugh> if you want to.
Speaker 5 00:09:02 Yeah, yeah. Well, um, so it can sound like a strange idea to folks who've never heard of this phrase before, but I usually like to explain it by saying, you know, there's this philosophical side to it, and there's a legal side to it, and the legal side is grounded in the philosophy. So the, the philosophy really is that nature is not an object. It's not a thing like a pen or your computer. It is, uh, you know, a web of life of living beings that has intrinsic value and deserves to exist in its own right. And so the, the legal part aims to enact, you know, legislation or get judicial decisions that recognize that nature has inherent rights. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> and the legal definitions vary depending on who's enacting the legislation, but they tend to be, the rights tend to be tailored to the entity that is an issue. So if, um, a court is recognizing the rights of a river, it may say the river has the right to flow or to have clean water, um, generally the rights sort of emanate around something to the fact of the right to restore itself and the right to natural cycles, the right to exist, those sorts of things.
Speaker 4 00:10:31 Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, do rivers have rights, the right to flood?
Speaker 5 00:10:36 So that's actually contested. That was a, it came up in cases in India, um, where, you know, question was like, okay, well if a river floods, can we sue it for damages? And advocates say, you know, it doesn't work that way. It's not, you know, nature has rights, but nature doesn't owe us duties. It's not a human being. It can't make decisions about about those things. So that's sort of answered the question on that, but I, I think that's where a lot of people's minds go when they start thinking about this.
Speaker 4 00:11:12 Well, you know, I mean, it's, when you're talking about the rights of animals, right? It's do, do mosquitoes have rights? It's that kind of, that kind of question, right. Which, which ultimately relies on some degree of utilitarianism, of some degree of use value. Um,
Speaker 5 00:11:28 Yes. Yes. And so you're hitting on, I think, what is a big misconception about the movement. Okay. You know, people will say, okay, so if a mosquito then has rights, like we, we can't kill the mosquito, which sounds insane. Um, you know, this is more about integrity of ecosystems to mm-hmm. <affirmative> continue to regenerate, right. In the cultures that this idea comes from. Right. A lot of indigenous cultures or traditional cultures, they are hunters, they're fishermen, right? They, they use nature as much as anyone. I mean, I guess that's sort of a false equivalency, <laugh>, I don't mean it that way, but they, you know, they, they kill animals. Um, but they live in such a way that nature can regenerate. It, it, there's a sustainable ness to what they do. So, um, saying nature has rights does not mean you can't kill a mosquito <laugh>. Um,
Speaker 4 00:12:31 No, I, I realize that's an extreme example, right? Yeah. I mean, I, I, I reference this in the introduction, but, um, I had a, a guest on last year who had been involved No. And we talked about court cases involving elephants and horses, right? Yeah. And of course, they're charismatic and, and, uh, and, and individuals. I mean, that's of course the other, other issue, right? Is that you're talking about ecosystems. And yet our legal system is premised on the idea of individuals and not of systems. Um, and, uh, I'm lecturing you now, and I don't want to do that, but
Speaker 5 00:13:14 No, I, this is, it's a great conversation. Please, please go.
Speaker 4 00:13:18 Well, okay. So, you know, rights of nature are, are modeled on the concept and practice of human rights. Okay. I mean, I think that's, that's pretty clear. Um, but human rights can be understood, at least from my perspective, as a form of property in the, in individual self, and basically our society's mechanism for protecting the individual from encroachment by governments and businesses. Alright? So, uh, that's a mouthful, but, you know, that's sort of the, the premise. But for the most part, or for in large part, nature, uh, is treated instrumentally and as a form of state or private property, right? So, so property rears its, its head, whether it's ugly or not in the discussion. So how is this tension resolved by rights of nature, law, and practice?
Speaker 5 00:14:11 Yeah. And so if I'm understanding the question correctly, I mean, tell me if I'm not being responsive, but a lot of my sources, people I talk to in this movement say that the rights of nature is sort of a bridge between these two different worlds. It's, you know, the human rights, you're right, it comes from a lot of, you know, western ideas, individual rights, um, and, you know, the, the rights of nature comes from a completely different, you know, set of cultures. And it does not, those cultures do not see the natural world as things or objects, um, property. Uh, but it, it, um, it, it's not incompatible. The two worlds aren't incompatible, and the rights of nature movement seems to show that. Um, when I, when I think about these two sort of parallel tracks, I, I always like to go over, um, you know, the way human rights developed, right?
Speaker 5 00:15:19 It was born out of one of the worst atrocities the humankind has ever known, the Holocaust. And, you know, I think it was 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was enshrined mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And we had this whole body of, of human rights law explode out of that. And then in the 1970s, you know, we had the environmental movement and the laws that came out of that were very, like regulatory. It, it regulates the pace and the amount of pollution. Um, and we know that, you know, conventional laws are one rung on the ladder, and, you know, the protection of rights is a much higher protection. And so what the rights of nature movement is doing is saying, you know, we're making a moral argument that nature also deserves this higher level of protection mm-hmm. <affirmative>, because, uh, you know, it's a moral, it's a philosoph philosophical argument very much in the same way that, you know, those arguments underpinned the creation of human rights laws. Um, I don't know if I'm getting off base or if that's
Speaker 4 00:16:30 No, no, I mean, that's, that's a, that's a good point. But, but, you know, the way that that one can think about it is, um, the right to one's labor, right? That's, that's, again, I, I think that's in the convention. Um, but of course that involves then the selling or the commodification of, of work, right. And, and pay. So, I mean, in a sense it's a, it's a right of property in the self, you know, it's a protection against the depredations of the market. And I mean, we see this argument now in terms of intellectual property rights and the internet, right? Do we as internet users own our data?
Speaker 5 00:17:14 Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:17:14 Right. The data that we produce, even though we have no way of capturing that data, right. But we would say we have a right to, that's, you know, I don't know if that's a human right, but we certainly have the claim is we have a right, right. To data. So, um, and the fact is that a lot of, of the, of of things in nature, I'm using the term things are owned either privately or by states.
Speaker 5 00:17:43 Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:17:44 Right? And so once you start to, uh, recognize rights of nature, you're also infringing on this foundational principle of liberal society, which is the right to property and the protection of property. Right. And that's really what I'm, what I'm trying to get at is that we live in this utilitarian society, right? The legal system. Uh, there are ethical elements to it, but the legal system is largely premised really on property. Um, and, and, you know, and protection against external issues. I'm just trying to trouble this because, you know, we've seen these court cases, and I want to get to those in a, in a couple of minutes. Um, and, you know, the basis for court decisions, you know, gets, gets kind of convoluted. And this leads then Katie again, you know, I apologize if I, if I'm lecturing, uh, and as you've mentioned, right, the, the other source of rights of nature is indigenous worldviews, right? The cultural notion that amongst indigenous societies, there's no distinction between humans and nature in terms of their place in the world, right? In terms of their relationships. So if we are going to fully internalize this idea of rights of nature, we also have to change our understanding, our worldviews, our, you know, understandings of our place, place in the world. Do you have any ideas about how we could do that? So this is not just legal, right? This is also cognitive, I suppose.
Speaker 5 00:19:31 Yeah. Yeah. So what my reporting has found, I mean, the first thing I should say is, I mean, there's a lot of diversity within this movement, but also within different indigenous communities, um, you know, a lot of, a lot of differences and uniqueness, um, among them. But we can draw out some commonalities and, you know, beyond the sort of legal aspect of this, um, there seems to be broad agreement among people that, uh, a couple things can, can or should be done to help progress this idea that, you know, we are interconnected with nature as a source of mind, likes to say human beings are one, one leaf on a tree of life. Um, and, uh, number one is empowering indigenous and traditional communities, right? Um, empowering them to have sovereignty over themselves and their territories, and not to, to get back into property rights, but getting them secure land title. So they have legal security over their territories, um, is number one, right? Um, empowering their voices, um, so that they're heard from directly and not through intermediaries. Um, and also getting them a seat at the table in the rooms where decisions are made. You know, we exist in a world that is based on state nation, state sovereignty, and first nations, um, indigenous communities are, are relegated to the sidelines. And so, you know, pushing for these, you know, advocates are pushing for more indigenous voices at these decision tables, um, is a place to start.
Speaker 4 00:21:32 Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. But my, my question has more to do with how do we in the, in the north, the global north, right, who live in this liberal society, essentially, how do we begin to internalize this, this different Vean Chang, if I can use that term, right? Which, which includes our relationships, our relations with nature. And I know, I mean, you know, I'm kind of fishing here, not, not that I necessarily you've thought about it, I'm sure you have, but do you, do you know, have you run into any, any ideas about how we we move in that direction?
Speaker 5 00:22:14 Yeah. Well, I mean, I should say my reporting is, has been focused on, you know, communities, that this is their culture and also on the legal aspect. So, you know, not so much advocacy outside of that. Um, so I mean, I have a hard time answering that question besides just, you know, opining about people connecting with nature more, that sort of thing. Um, so someone else may be better placed to answer that, but I mean, from the, I can say that, you know, the legal side of this, people who push for these laws, they'll argue that law affects society, right? Like, if, if we enact a law that prohibits jaywalking, uh, eventually, you know, we, we internalize that jaywalking is bad, uh, so we can be influenced by, by the law. And so that is sort of one outcome that they, they say might happen if we start recognizing legally mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, the rights of nature. Mm-hmm.
Speaker 4 00:23:25 <affirmative>. So my, my impression is that the, the concept of rights of nature elicits a fairly positive response when people first learn about it, even though it sounds pretty radical. So, so you have written that in the United States rights of Nature laws have taken root in more than 30 localities across the country, and in Ohio, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. So maybe you can tell us one or two stories about, you know, how this has happened and what happened.
Speaker 5 00:23:52 Yeah. Um, so the United States is really interesting. Um, it is the birthplace of the first rights of written rights of nature law that happened in Qua Pennsylvania, which is like a rural conservative town in, in Pennsylvania. And that case is sort of emblematic of a lot of the rights of nature ordinances in the US because it's a community that was beset by pollution. Companies were dumping toxic coal ash in the area. There was sewage sludge, people were getting sick. Um, cancers, like rare cancers were popping up in clusters. And so, a, a woman, if I rem remember her name, it was Kathy Morelli. Um, she ran for city council, and she had attended this community rights workshop with, um, two men who have been very active in the movement ever since. And she learned about this idea of the rights of nature, um, and also about community rights.
Speaker 5 00:25:02 In the United States, communities have very little power, um, over law making. So if a community wants to restrict to dumping of toxic sludge, the state legislature can say, no, you can't do that. Um, and so what Kathy Marelli did was, was she ran with this idea and got the law passed. Now, it's, it's still in the books, I think, but it would not be enforceable because state law would preempt it. Um, I believe Pennsylvania has something to that effect. Uh, and that's the case <laugh> across most, I mean, all of the country. That's why none of these laws have, have really taken hold here. Um, for that to happen, uh, something would have to happen at the state level. So a state constitutional amendment recognizing the rights of nature or state legislation of some sort.
Speaker 4 00:25:59 So basically what what happens is there's pushback, right? There's pushback from the interests who would be affected, which gets back to that notion of, you know, intru intrusion on property, rights of property, um, right. And legislatures are beholden to business interests, you know, and, and, and funders. Right? Uh, there is this case about the rice in Minnesota. How did that, how does that one go?
Speaker 5 00:26:27 Yeah. Uh, the rights of Mahnomen, um, which is wild rice that is sacred to the, um, so forgive me because I didn't look at this case closely to refresh my recollection. Um, that's okay. But it is, it's a, a law that was enacted, uh, by a tribal nation, and they were seeking, I believe, to apply it ex outside the, the territory of the tribe, because it gets a little legally complicated. Um, the tribe holds treaty rights mm-hmm. <affirmative> to hunt, fishing, gather right. On their traditional lands, which are off the reservation. And so, uh, Enbridge, which was building a pipeline, was pumping water, was the middle of a drought, and this rice grows on water. And so what, what the tribe was saying was that, you know, this violates the rights of mahnomen. They had legally recognized the, the rights of the rice. It's a sacred plant to them. And the litigation sort of bounced back and forth, but it, it hasn't gone anywhere. I, I, I would have to check up on it, but, um, there were two other rights of nature enforcement actions in the United States as well. There's been three, and none of them have outright one, um, one came to a settlement that was a advantageous decision for the rights of salmon. Um, dams are being removed as a result of the lawsuit, but there was no legal recognition of the rights of nature in that case.
Speaker 4 00:28:06 Um, in that, I was actually gonna re refer to that, the salmon case. Right. That's in, where is that? That's in, where
Speaker 5 00:28:12 It's in Washington state.
Speaker 4 00:28:14 In Washington state. Right. But it also has to do with, with certain, I think with certain treaty rights that the Native Americans have to, to fish for salmon. Right. And if the salmon disappear.
Speaker 5 00:28:28 Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:28:28 Right. So it's it's not just for the salmon. Um, yeah,
Speaker 5 00:28:33 That's, that's correct. And, um, you know, it's one of the outcomes of the rights of nature movement, which tends to grab attention, um, is that hopefully, it, it draws people into the state of, uh, you know, it's called Indian Law in the United States, and there are a lot of legal doctrines, supreme court cases that are still the law of the land that are based on doctrines, like the doctrine of discovery. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, which, you know, basically it was a issued from the Vatican that gave cover to Right, right. Colonizers to come and legally take the land of indigenous people who, who lived here. So, you know, we still have a lot of those threads in our, in our legal system.
Speaker 4 00:29:26 Yeah. And, um, do they, do they come up? I mean, I don't, I don't know. Do, does the doctrine, does the doctrine of discovery come up in cases like this?
Speaker 5 00:29:36 Well, it's, it's certainly not talked about <laugh>.
Speaker 4 00:29:39 Oh, okay. Okay.
Speaker 5 00:29:40 But we, we have juris, you know, jurisprudence that has been built on the foundation of those, those bedrock principles. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, um, there's a great book about this, um, it's called in the Courts of the Conqueror that I highly recommend, and it walks through this. And, you know, interesting fact is that Pope Francis <laugh> recently rescinded the doctrine of discovery. So it was just within the last few months. And, um, he has also in his encyclical, you know, recognized that nature has rights, which is fascinating. Um, he's been pretty outspoken on that, although I don't think his leadership on that has per permeated the American <laugh> Catholic Church, which is much more conservative.
Speaker 4 00:30:29 Yeah. If, as, as an encyclical, I don't know that it has, uh, it's binding on the church. Right. If it were a papal bull. And the doctrine of Discovery was a papal bull, right? That's right. Dividing, dividing the, uh, western hemisphere between Spain and Portugal, as I recall. Um, which is why Brazil is Portuguese speaks Portuguese, and the rest of the continent speaks Spanish. Well, um, a little history lesson there. Um, but it's interesting that, you know, that it's kind of like an onion law is kind of like an onion. If you drill down deeply enough, you find all kinds of fascinating and contradictory things. Yeah,
Speaker 5 00:31:12 Yeah. Um,
Speaker 4 00:31:14 Go on.
Speaker 5 00:31:15 No, no. I, I mean, I, I could definitely go on beg will not <laugh> not take us off on a tangent.
Speaker 4 00:31:21 Well, we can go off on tangents. Tangents are always interesting. <laugh>. Um, well, so let's take a, a typical suit. Okay. Let's take, um, I know that was recently, uh, there was a suit about the rights of the Colorado River, I think that was thrown out of court. Uh, do, are you familiar with that one?
Speaker 5 00:31:41 Um, only it's been a while since I looked at it. Uhhuh <affirmative>. Um, I think, I mean, there was like the threat that the attorney who brought it, I believe was threatened with <laugh>, uh, professional, like being professionally reprimanded for bringing a
Speaker 4 00:31:57 A
Speaker 5 00:31:59 I'm thinking about the same one.
Speaker 4 00:32:00 Well, it may have been, but, but my, my question is, um, how does representation take place, right? Because obviously the river, the river could flood the courthouse, I suppose, but, um, the river doesn't speak for itself in, in, uh, oral terms. Right? So how does that work? Mm-hmm.
Speaker 5 00:32:19 <affirmative>? So in, in jurisdictions where there is a law on the books that gives or recognizes nature's rights, um, it usually specifies who has standing to go to court on the entity's behalf or nature's behalf. And most of those laws say any citizen can come into court. Um, I should know what I mean. Opponents of the rights of nature movement say this will just lead to an explosion of litigation. Um, it hasn't, uh, it's very expensive to bring lawsuits, <laugh>. Right. Um, but it does open the aperture up, um, in other places like New Zealand, um, the rights of the Wang Newi River, it's a very unique situation for the, you know, in relation to the Maori people. And they are the ones who are able to, uh, I believe, stand in the place of the river, or there's like a special counsel set up mm-hmm. <affirmative>. So, you know, who can go to court on behalf of nature. It varies by whatever the law says, but generally, you know, the lawmakers that open it up to anyone who wants to come and assert the rights of nature.
Speaker 4 00:33:36 Um, I, I wanted to actually, you know, get you to talk about other countries where this concept has taken deeper root. And you, you mentioned New Zealand. Is, is that encoded in the Constitution, or is that legislation?
Speaker 5 00:33:52 It's legislation.
Speaker 4 00:33:54 Okay. So in theory, someone could take it to their, I suppose there's higher courts, right? And, and challenge it if in Ecuador though, it's, it's in the, um, it's in the Constitution.
Speaker 5 00:34:08 That's right. Can
Speaker 4 00:34:09 You talk about that
Speaker 5 00:34:11 For a Absolutely. Yeah. Uh, and Ecuador is, it's the place in the world where the jurisprudence is the most advanced. So it's really interesting to look at what's happened there, um, because this was sort of an unknown quantity until it's been put into practice mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And so in 2008, you know, Ecuador, uh, enacted a new constitution. It was led by a citizen referendum. It's considered an ecological constitution 'cause it's chock-full of, you know, the rights of nature, uh, right. To a healthy environment for humans, et cetera. But it, you know, the, the law was sort of up in the air until 2021 when a big case came out of the, the constitutional court there called Los SROs. And the court struck down a, um, permit to mine in a protected cloud forest. Uh, a lot of people don't know what a cloud forest is.
Speaker 5 00:35:14 Um, it is one of the most beautiful places you will ever see. So rainforests are very low lying. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, um, they tend to have the same floor and fauna, although it's extremely diverse, um, cloud forests are, uh, at much higher elevation and the forms of life change, you know, by elevation. So it's, it's beautiful. I highly recommend Ecuador's, just amazing, if you ever have the chance to go. So, um, so this case, um, the Constitutional Court said that the laws that were on the books, so the permitting laws that this mining company had to, uh, comply with to get a license were insufficient to protect the rights of nature. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, um, one of the big outcomes of the case was that it shifted the burden that typically applies in these situations. So normally, you know, if I wanna go to court to say this mining activity, it harms the environment.
Speaker 5 00:36:20 I have the burden of proof to show that something wrong is happening. Um, what the court in Ecuador said was, it is, you know, on the government, on the mining company or whoever wants to engage in these ecologically harmful practices to prove that they will not do irreparable harm to an ecosystem. Uh, and that's a big deal. Um, the court also ordered the government to change those permitting laws to amp them up to that higher rung on the ladder that will protect a right. Versus, you know, the conventional environmental laws. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, um, and it's ca I mean, it's, it, it's catalyzed a number of, of lawsuits since, um, so the, the jurisprudence is building, but Ecuador is not, you know, this environmental legal paradise. I mean, you go, uh, east into the Amazon and oil production is rampant. Um, people's rights are routinely violated, not to mention nature's rights. Um, so it's a very, you know, it's messy, but, um, that's, that's the law that's sort of, you know, the reality of the circumstances. But you have these very strong court decisions, and it is catalyzing, uh, a lot of
Speaker 4 00:37:48 Change. Do, do the, uh, communities have to, I mean, go to, are they the, the plaintiffs in these cases? How, how does do they, or do they work with local lawyers or, or international organizations? And for instance, it in this case is Lara's case?
Speaker 5 00:38:07 Yeah, so usually it's, it's local communities that are named plaintiffs, also the natural entity that will be in, so they're bo they'll both be named plaintiffs mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And, um, the Ecuadorian, you know, legal community is some of the most brilliant folks in this area that are pushing this area of law. A lot of, uh, amic amicus briefs will, you know, friends of the court briefs will come in from outsiders. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, a lot of organizations in the US will try to help educate the court or, or steer the court. Um, but yeah, I mean, highly have, have, have only great things to say about the, the legal community in Ecuador. A mm-hmm. <affirmative>, a lot of really bright people.
Speaker 4 00:38:55 Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, so what else is going on around the world in these terms in other countries?
Speaker 5 00:39:01 Yeah. We're seeing an explosion of things happening. Yeah. Um, Panama recently enacted a, a national law, recognizing the rights of nature has subsequently separately recognized the rights of sea turtles. Um, Aruba is on the cusp of amending its constitution to recognize the rights of nature. Um, I mean, there's, there's dozens of these laws. Uh, something else that's interesting to watch is, um, sort of the central hub organization in the world for the rights of nature is called the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature or Garn. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, and Garn has an arm that does, um, sort citizens tribunals, where they will gather a group of experts, scientists, lawyers, rights activists, and they'll go to parts of the world where economic, or excuse me, ecological destruction is happening. And they apply, you know, this framework of rights of nature laws and issue judgements. They're obviously non-binding. There's no authority to this body. But it's interesting in, you know, raising awareness about, um, this other way of seeing the world, right. That, that we can apply a different legal framework, uh, if we want to.
Speaker 4 00:40:31 Yeah. I, there there've been examples of these kinds of, of citizens tribunals in the past. And, and I, I think there was one which, which, uh, tried George Bush and Don Rumsfeld as war criminals. Um, it didn't, it didn't get very far right. Um, and certainly it wasn't recognized. Has anybody tried to do that in the United States? Do a tribunal
Speaker 5 00:40:55 For the rights of nature? Yeah.
Speaker 5 00:40:57 Uh, I don't, gosh, okay. I'd have to go look at the website. I don't, I don't believe so. But I mean, there was the Chevron Ecuador case that they did, which obviously involved an American company, um, and the rights of nature, they're, I, I believe that Garn is just starting a hub here in the US mm-hmm. <affirmative>, so they have regional hubs where people interested in the movement can gather. And they've started doing like monthly meetings here in the us. Um, and so it's other regions in the world are much more, um, have taken off much more, uh, the US is just kind of getting started.
Speaker 4 00:41:42 Yeah. Are are there any examples in, in Europe, and I know a and Asia and India, there have been cases, but in Europe. Yeah.
Speaker 5 00:41:52 Yes. So, uh, Mar Manure, which is a, um, saltwater lagoon. It's, it's a giant saltwater lagoon, Spain, uh, recognized in national legislation, the rights of the Lagoon to I exist and persist. It's been hit with a lot of like mass eutrofication events, like loads of dead fish. Yeah. Um, and there are efforts in the UK and Ireland and Germany that I know of. Um, and so these things are kind of on the cusp of breaking through.
Speaker 4 00:42:26 You. You mentioned that, um, you got sent to Ecuador for a month, and I saw there was a long article about, about the Amazon. I, I, I think it must describe your trip there. Um, is that right?
Speaker 5 00:42:41 Well, so that was a trip last year. So I've, I've gone to South America twice now in my two years of Oh, wow. Journalism.
Speaker 4 00:42:48 Wow. Uhhuh
Speaker 5 00:42:49 <affirmative>. I'm a very lucky, lucky person. That's why I, one of the reasons why I love inside climate news, um, that they allow me to do that. But I did do one story, um, on one of those rights of Nature tribunals that went to the Amazon in Brazil, so the Brazilian <inaudible>. And then, uh, the, the story I did on Ecuador last year was not about the rights of nature. Right. Yeah. It's about oil pollution. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>, the story I'm working on now, um, uh, I don't wanna say too much, but, uh, you know, it's, it's about, I call it the most important human rights court cases that no one in the United States has ever heard of. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Um, and it says a lot about sort of who we are, I think as, as humanity. Yeah. I'll teach it that way. But, um, yeah, it's, it's, uh, um, I'm very excited to publish it.
Speaker 4 00:43:50 Well, I, I wanted to ask you, you know, that what, when you went to, to South America, what did you do there when you were going on these trips?
Speaker 5 00:44:02 Uh, yeah. Well, so I, you know, in, in Brazil, um, I tagged along with the tribunal, so we stayed with local communities throughout most of the, of the trip. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> we're hosted by local communities, and we were in the northern part of Brazil, so the state of op mm-hmm. <affirmative>, and, um, you know, went to see things in person, saw a lot of environmental destruction, um, listened to the experiences of local communities, so not just indigenous communities, Ebola communities, um, like Riverside communities, people who have lived there for a very long time, um, and got a real education, um, about the history of, of what's happened in Brazil and, and what is happening. Um, seeing firsthand to the, the militarization of the Amazon mm-hmm. <affirmative>, um, there are a lot of, uh, there's a lot of legal activity that that happens there. Um, so that was, that was sort of the Brazil part.
Speaker 5 00:45:10 Um, and in Ecuador, uh, this last trip I went into the forest for a little bit, was hosted by, uh, a community of, recently contacted, uh, indigenous people. Huh. Wow. And, um, also spent time in, in keto and the sort of Amazonian city of Coca as well. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Um, and so, yeah, it just depends. I, I, they sent me to Argentina this, this year as well, um, and did some reporting in an area called VA Erta. Um, I haven't published the story on that yet, so I don't wanna say too much, but that is, uh, sort of the fracking epicenter of South America Uhhuh <affirmative>. It's just taking off. And it's interesting 'cause I live in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, um, where fracking has gone on here for a very long time. And, um, it's interesting seeing it in the, the initial stages in Argentina, and there's a whole lot of complexity to that. Um, Argentina's a really interesting country with a fascinating and, and complex history. So, um, yeah. So story to come on that <laugh>. Okay.
Speaker 4 00:46:23 Okay. Well, we'll, we'll, we'll come back, we'll promote those at the end of the, at the end of the show. Um, so this tribunal is going, went from community to community to take testimony rather than having people come to the tribunal,
Speaker 5 00:46:37 Right? That's right. That's right. They, they take invitations from communities all over the world. Uhhuh, <affirmative>, actually, from what I understand, they're quite overwhelmed. So many people want them to come.
Speaker 4 00:46:49 I can imagine. Um,
Speaker 5 00:46:50 Which says a lot about access to justice, right. Um, how difficult it is for certain people to have access to justice. And the next best thing is a tribunal that has no, you know, power in the sense they can't order, you know, uh, remedies of some sort, but they can issue sort of moral judgments. Right. Um, uh, yeah.
Speaker 4 00:47:18 Did, did I read about a case in Mexico that you wrote about that's,
Speaker 5 00:47:22 Yeah, I, I, I did a story just before they went, but the tribunal actually issued their verdict just days ago. Um, and it, it was, uh, Lopez Obrador, um, AMLO as he is, you know, called usually the president of Mexico. Mm-hmm. <affirmative> big development project is to create, you know, a train trains that will go all throughout the Yucatan Peninsula mm-hmm. <affirmative>, so the Cancun area. And it is to bring tourists essentially from Cancun more inland. Um, and it is being built across all of these Mayan rooms, uh, that we don't even know <laugh> really exists. So it's, it's devastating some of that. And it's also going straight through communities that have existed there for a very long time. Um, no consultation, uh, that sort of thing. Uh, I didn't get to go on that trip. Um, but it's worth checking out. If you're interested. You can go to Garns website and, and look what they have to say. And it, I should note that I believe the tribunal always invites, um, you know, the, the company or the government to come in and, and give their side as well. But usually that is, um, declined, so mm-hmm. <affirmative>, you're not getting that argument, um, often of, of whatever that other side's argument would be. Um, so I should just note that, ha
Speaker 4 00:48:54 Have you read the decision of the tribunal or the, the report of the tribunal on the trans, not
Speaker 5 00:48:59 The, not the Mayan one yet. No.
Speaker 4 00:49:02 Oh, okay. It,
Speaker 5 00:49:03 I, it's on my list to do mm-hmm. <affirmative>. Um, yeah.
Speaker 4 00:49:07 Well, you mentioned a couple of things that you're working on. What else might you be thinking about writing about?
Speaker 5 00:49:13 Yeah, I, well, so I mean, I, my beat is kind of this intersection of the environment and law mm-hmm. <affirmative> and human rights. Nature's rights. Yeah. Yeah. One of the things I'm tracking, uh, right now is there are three efforts to get what are called advisory opinions. Um, again, they're non-binding opinions, but, um, they're being pursued from three international courts, one of which is the International Court of Justice. It's known as the World's Court. Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:49:46 Yeah. Right.
Speaker 5 00:49:47 And its decisions, um, are used by national courts. So what, what the I C J says, uh, usually national courts follow and what these advisory opinions are about climate change and what are the responsibilities, the legal duties of governments, um, for climate change, you know, extra territorially, intergenerationally. Um, and we haven't answered these questions because they're tough political questions. I mean, the, the whole COP process, um, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,
Speaker 4 00:50:28 That's conference of the parties for those of you Yes. Who, who haven't been listening to sustainability now. Yes. Come on. Yes.
Speaker 5 00:50:35 You know, it, it, it doesn't get at these questions. Um, it, it, it sort of sidesteps that. And so what, what the I C J says, the other one is before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And the third one is before the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea. Um, and so that's something I'll be, be following up on. I've written about it, um, before mm-hmm. <affirmative> mm-hmm. <affirmative>, uh, but anywhere there's an intersection of human rights in the environment, I'm always looking to cover those stories. Um, I like to take a ground's eye view as much as I can. So going to where things are happening and, and putting a face or, you know, context to these sort of what can be ambiguous ideas or, or terms. Hmm.
Speaker 4 00:51:27 Um, well, you know, last question is what can our listeners do if they're supporters of the rights of nature to push for local, state, and national laws?
Speaker 5 00:51:37 Yeah. Uh, so there's a, a handful of organizations in the us I assume most of your listeners are in the United States. Um, uh, you know, just from memory, I don't wanna leave anyone out 'cause there are a lot of good, good places. And, and I also wanna say a caveat, I mean, I'm a journalist, I'm an advocate, so I'm, I'm telling you these places 'cause they're, they're who are making the news. Um, earth Law Center, uh, I mentioned the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, um, suff, um, C E L D F I believe is the acronym. Yeah. And Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights. And, and those are just a handful. But I'll also circle back to what I, what I said sort of in the, the middle or the beginning. I mean, um, you know, elevating the voices of our First Nations, um, learning about their histories, um, that is a big part of, of all of this mm-hmm. <affirmative>. And, um, it's fascinating. You know, uh, it's, it's, it's good to learn all of that and, and, um, that's sort of like a first step, I think, to, to get initiated into understanding this movement. Mm-hmm. <affirmative>
Speaker 4 00:52:57 And how can our listeners sign up for Inside Climate News?
Speaker 5 00:53:01 Yeah, thank you for asking that. Um, you can go to inside climate news.org and, um, we have, uh, no pay paywall, but you'll be prompted eventually to put your email in and our newsletters are fabulous. Um, you know, please follow us. We're also on all the socials, um, so please follow us there and, you know, thanks for reading us.
Speaker 4 00:53:26 Okay. Well, Katie Erma, thanks for being my guest on sustainability now.
Speaker 5 00:53:31 Oh, my pleasure. Thank you for having me.
Speaker 4 00:53:34 If you'd like to listen to previous shows, you can find them at k squid.org/sustainability now and Spotify, Google Podcasts and Pockets amongst other podcast sites. So thanks for listening and thanks to all the staff and volunteers who make K squid and k squirt your community radio station and keep them going. And so until next, every other Sunday, sustainability now
Speaker 3 00:54:07 Good Planet. It's a hard find out tempera zones of tropic climbs through current and thriving seas. Winds blowing some breathing trees and.
