Everyone has the right to a clean and healthy environment, including water safe to drink, food safe to eat, and air safe to breathe. In addition, both for the benefit of future generations, and for the species themselves, there is also a right to the preservation of species and their habitat. All large-scale development projects shall prepare reports about the environmental and social impacts and provide the opportunity for public review and comment.
A Plan for our Human Family
Footer
Follow Us!
Everyone has the right to a clean and healthy environment, including water safe to drink, food safe to eat, and air safe to breathe. Moreover for the benefit of future generations of humanity, and for the fauna and flora, there is also a right to the preservation of species and their habitat. Governments are under an obligation to enact legislation to prohibit pollution, to protect and preserve the natural environment and to restore it when it has suffered because of human activity or natural disasters. Governments must ensure that environmental and social impact assessments are conducted before large-scale development projects are undertaken. Further impact assessments shall be made periodically, providing the opportunity for public review and comment.
This article is very interesting and covers the environment in a clear and comprehensive way.
I think the term of “land preservation/restoration” should be emphasised. In order to tackle climate change and contribute to a cleaner and safer environemnt, it is essential to re-think the way land is worked.
In this matter we have two potential arguments, land rights and protection of indigenous people and land restoration of soil, also called “regenerative agriculture”, which is an approach to farming.
First, indigenous peoples represent a 5% of all land globally, and by preserving their right to land and self-determination, we are not only protecting their environment but their cultural practices (which could be related to article 19). For Indigenous Peoples the preservation of the earth and mother nature is one of the most important things for cultural reasons and earth conservation.
Second, for “the benefit for future generations” is essential that this “new” concept or idea of regenerative agriculture and land restoration gets special focus. Thousands of environmental activists are lobbying farmers, and policy-makers to implement practices towards the regeneration of land. Consequently, biodiversity will increase, soil will be enriched, improving the food chain, animals habitat, and as a consequence it will contribute to a “clean and healthy environment”.
Lastly, climate change is one of the biggest threats the world (encompassing all species) encounters on a daily basis. Regenerative agriculture/land restoration aims to capture carbon in the soul and biomass reversing the trends of atmospheric accumulation, therefore climate change.
I believe that when talking about environmental and social impacts we have to take into account the contributions that ecofeminist theories provide. In this sense, I believe it is worth taking into account the gendered point of view they propose to analyse the relationships between humans and the natural world.
Specifically, when talking about this kind of impacts, we cannot forget that environmental problems affect women and other communities in different ways. Most of the times they are more vulnerable to them, and this is a factor worth taking into account more concretely when analysing and reviewing this kind of large-scale development projects.
It is important that the environment can be preserved and that everyone can have the opportunity to live in a clean environment as the articles says. So it would be very good to define a bit which initiatives can be taken to do so. In order to protect human beings as well as all species from the Earth.
Excellent point about whether humans should be included within species protection. Please provide specific wording changes you would make to the Article. The DC may vote on this.
First of all, I think it would be beneficial to introduce the element “safe” in the description of the right to a clean and healthy environment.
Furthermore, in the section on water safe to drink, food safe to eat, and air safe to breathe, perhaps it would be relevant to include: “safe land on which to stand” in order to represent and protect the rights of those people living in territories that are beginning to be affected by the consequences of climate change such as the melting of the poles (islands in the Pacific that are losing their homes and territories due to rising sea levels).
Similarly, for the benefit of future but also “current generations”, it may be relevant to include the “right to the preservation of natural spaces” just after the preservation of species and their habitats. This preservation of natural areas would refer both to those that are important for the development of life in some communities, such as the sacred lands of the indigenous people in the Amazon, and also to those that are part of the cultural life of a society, for example, Montserrat (a mountain in Catalonia where people go out for sport or for religious purposes, etc.). This right to preservation would aim to protect these natural spaces from exploitation by private economic interests, thus contributing to a real safe, clean, and healthy environment for everyone.
Your suggestion for “safe” is good and will be voted on by the Drafting Committee.
Hard to see how a judge would define “natural spaces.” Probably better to stick to “habitat” but this is worthy of more discussion.
Good suggestions with focus on wording. Well done.
I would recommend a special clause dedicated to animal rights, for the protection of the environment and the species, it is imperative to apply regulations that are based on the rights of animals. It is also convenient to note that indigenous people have a major (key) role in the protection of the environment and are often the ones suffering the worst consequences of it, not only environmental but are physically damaged and even killed by governments and companies.
This Article is extremely strong for animal rights. It creates an international endangered species act. If you have specific wording to make this even stronger, please let us know. Thanks!
Article 2 is inherently fundamental to be granted and respected by all generations. Nevertheless, the current situation regarding climate change entirely captures its meaning and importance. In addition to that, the article mentions “everyone” as having this right. In this regard, I consider that a special focus should be given to indigenous communities in order to raise awareness of their particular situation.
This Article is written to protect indigenous communities by creating the ability for them to go to court and stop the destruction of the environment. If you have a specific change in the wording, please let us know.
This is an important article, but I would question its placement at #2. There may be others more immediately pertinent to the global protection and promotion of human rights. (Although if something about climate change were added, and the notion of a “healthy” environment expanded also to a “safe” environment that did not pose an imminent threat to human life, then its placement near the top might be more compelling). I am also dubious about the statement regarding obligations imposed for the sake of the species themselves — is this meant to introduce the concept of animal rights? Finally, I am a bit dubious about introducing the notion of environmental impact statements, which may be more relevant to developed countries rather than those still in development.
EJ’s comment is well taken. It is true that environment has been placed high in the order of this list of rights. First, it’s important to note that regardless of its number, no right has any higher status than any other. IBOR Intentionally removes the generational hierarchy that has been used for human rights since the end of World War II.
Civil and political rights are not “first-generation” nor are economic and social rights “second generation” or environmental third. There should be no hierarchy, Rights are interdependent and have equal stature – all of them enforceable in courts of law.
Many young people, along with people of all ages, feel very strongly about environmental rights and recognize, as is true with other rights, they will never be fully realized less they become “juridical” that is, enforceable in courts of law. One of the reasons to support IBOR is to remove this out-dated hierarchy of generational rights.
Second, environment has been intentionally placed number two because environmental rights were omitted in the UDHR. This is understandable. The climate crisis and mass extinction underway on Earth at this moment where not as prevalent or understood at the time of the writing of the UDHR.
Third, it’s is also true that this Article is written so that cases may be brought on behalf a species that are being driven into extinction due to loss of habitat, or other reasons. It effectively creates an international Endangered Species Act. This sort of protection has proven to be very effective, not just for the endangered species, but because species tend to be part of a holistic environmental system, the preservation of one species tends to benefit others, including humans.
There are those who claim that human needs must come first, even at a cost to the environment. This is false dilemma. One of the reasons economic and social rights are intertwined with environmental rights is that if the preservation of habitat, the Amazon for example, creates financial hardship from the restriction of some economic activities, nations are required to contribute 1% of their GNP into a pool to be distributed for the realization of rights in all countries.
We never know where the next miracle drug will come from, or from where the next pandemic may arise. By ensuring rights, of all kinds, for all people in all countries, we prepare for well-being on Earth.
Fourth, while economic conditions must be taken into consideration, and environmental reports should be shortened or lengthened depending on factual circumstances, given that many large-scale projects involve investments funded by sources outside of the community where the project resides, it is important to allow for public community input.
All of the points are well taken. As with all suggestions, it is helpful when comments are accompanied by specific suggestions as to how the language in the Article should be written. This way suggested changes may be voted upon by the Drafting Committee.
Thank you for such detailed comments which deserve further discussion, and possibly a vote for changing of the wording of the Article.
Article 2 would create an International Endangered Species Act.