Environmental rights protect the right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for human beings. Over 100 countries around the world, from France to Argentina, have incorporated environmental rights into their constitution. Canada is not one of these countries. In the following essay I will outline some of the arguments for and against having environmental rights in our constitution, and argue we should consider this strategy to protect both people and nature. 

 

The first argument in favour of this debate is that environmental rights guarantee further environmental protection. As David Boyd indicates, “constitutional environmental rights and responsibilities are a catalyst for stronger environmental laws.” (1) Aside from protecting nature, these rights would also protect people. As framed by Ecojustice Canada in “A Tale of Two Valleys” (2), human well being depends on the health of the natural setting that surrounds us, whether is the water that we drink, the air that we breathe, or the soil in which we grow food. In this line of thought, the recognition of environmental rights gives individuals and communities a chance to fight on legal grounds for a safe, clean environment. Boyd’s and Ecojustice Canada’s arguments are mostly centered around safeguarding the interests of human beings, but incorporating environmental rights in the constitution could also advance the interest of animals, plants, and ecosystems.

 

On the other hand, the arguments against environmental rights point out that constitutional rights aren’t the best way to prevent the degradation of nature and human health. In “Parliament, not the courts, should decide” (1), Emmett MacFarlane argues that the court system isn’t well equipped to solve environmental problems because the climate crisis demands greater public participation and debate. In his words, “rather than mobilizing for constitutional change, environmentalists should focus their energies on convincing governments, political parties and the public to commit to the pursuit of policies that will ensure environmental protection.” MacFrarlane’s second argument is that environmental rights would add to the inflationary call for the expansion of rights such as social welfare rights, property rights and animal rights. 

 

With regards to this last argument, the case of Whanganui River in New Zealand (3) gives an interesting example of the expansion of rights to non-human entities. Here, a river was granted legal personhood after decades of conflict between settlers and indigenous communities, who recognized the river as paramount to their lives and the wellbeing of the whole ecosystem. Around the world, there are similar examples where lakes, mountain ranges, or animal species are granted legal rights. Unlike MacFarlane, I consider this to be a positive achievement, especially in a time of global ecological crisis. Granting environmental rights to human beings, or personhood rights to non-human entities recognizes that the wellbeing of people and natural ecosystems is interconnected. This understanding is rooted in ecocentrism, an ethical framework that sees ecosystems as entities deserving moral considerability. From this approach, it is evident that human societies cannot prosper without the stability of the natural environment. 

 

Currently, our economic system prioritizes profits and economic growth over social and environmental stability. In this context, environmental rights are an important step towards considering the good of ecosystems in themselves, not just as functions of anthropogenic interests. In the words of Aldo Leopold, “a system of conservation based solely on economic self interest assumes falsely that the economic parts of the biotic system will function without the uneconomic parts” (4). 

 

Taking MacFrarlane’s position into account, it is important to realize that solely incorporating environmental rights into our constitution isn’t going to provide the necessary social change to tackle the environmental crisis. However, it is a good place to start. It signals that the government does care about the interests of people and nature beyond immediate economic or political benefit. As framed in BILL C-438 of the House of Commons of Canada (5), environmental rights would provide a balanced environment for all, which means “an environment of a quality that protects human and cultural dignity and human health and well-being and in which essential ecological processes are preserved for their own sake, as well as for the benefit of present and future generations.” This holistic approach of recognizing the value of ecosystems in themselves is related to the ecocentrist ethical framework of Aldo Leopold, who sees ecosystems (the Land) as a collective organism whose integrity and stability should be preserved. 

 

In conclusion, environmental rights should be recognized in the constitution of Canada because they would guarantee greater environmental protection and give people the opportunity to demand a clean, safe environment in which to live. Granting personhood rights to non-human entities such as rivers and mountains can also improve the living conditions for humans and non-humans across the country. At the same time, it is important to keep open the channels of public debate and participation on this issue, so that the courts aren’t the only responsables of regulating environmental protection. Lastly, environmental rights (specially as framed in Bill C-438) are a good opportunity to recognize the good of ecosystems in themselves, which makes this policy favorable from both an anthropocentric and an ecocentric framework. 

 

~Monica

 

References:

1. David R. Boyd, E. M. (n.d.). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? 3 March 2014. Retrieved from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/
2. Ecojustice Canada (2012). “A Tale of Two Valleys”. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/g1m1k8uCsa0
3. David Freid (2018) The River Is Me. MEL Films. https://vimeo.com/288119812
4. Aldo Leopold (1948). “The Land Ethic” from A Sand County Almanac. http://www.neohasid.org/pdf/landethic.pdf
5. House of Commons of Canada (2019). Bill C-438. An Act to enact the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights and to make related amendments to other Acts. First Session, 42th Parliament, 64-65-66-67-68 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016-2017-2018-2019