Ben Cohen, Tex Dworkin, Kevin Danaher, Jerry Greenfield Photo Credit: Natalie Mottley

The Ninth Annual Human Rights Awards was a great success!  The sold out event included inspirational speeches by three incredible honorees, witty banter by event emcees Ben & Jerry (in tuxedos!), and the participation of the entire Global Exchange staff, board, and community.

Since 2001, the Human Rights Awards Gala has brought together activists, supporters, and friends to recognize the efforts of exceptional individuals and organizations working for human rights from around the country and around the world.

Guests in attendance this year included folks from Ben & Jerry’s, CODE PINK, Dr. Bronner’s, Drug Policy Alliance, Fair Trade USA, Harrington Investments, Sungevity, The Pachamama Alliance, Thanksgiving Coffee, and a whole lot more!

Fair Trade models Jocelyn Boreta, Rae Abileah, Zarah Patriana

Fair Trade models donned Fair Trade outfits & accessories with “Ask Me About My Outfit” sashes or swatches. They strutted their stuff on the big stage to showcase some of the Fair Trade goodies being auctioned off during the silent auction, while guests enjoyed Fair Trade Certified Ben & Jerry’s ice-cream.

Thank you to everyone who joined us June 1, 2011, as we honored the work of:

  • Gulf Coast Activist Wilma Subra (Domestic Honoree).  Wilma  is an accomplished environmental scientist who has been on the frontlines fighting for the rights of local communities in Louisiana following the Gulf Spill. Watch her speech at the HRA here.
  • U.N. Ambassador for Bolivia Pablo Solón (International Honoree), a strong proponent of climate justice and the Rights of Nature.View his speech at the HRA here.
  • Javier Sicilia (People’s Choice Honoree) , a poet building a movement to free Mexico from the spiraling violence of the ‘war on drugs.’ Watch his speech here.

Photographer Natalie Mottley

All in all, the 9th annual Human Rights Award Gala was a great time. If you weren’t able to make it, we hope to see you there next year!

The event was photographed and filmed by pros, and we’ll be sharing some of those clips n pics down the road a bit.

In the meantime, I brought my camera along to snap a few pics on my own during the event. Below are a few of them, plus one from photographer Natalie Mottley. Hope you enjoy!

2011 Human Rights Awards Gala Photos

Liza Gonzales and Medea Benjamin

Jason Mark, Antonia Juhasz, and Wilma Subra

Beth Rogers-Witte Garriott and Ashley Cline

Wanda Whitaker checking out the silent auction

Walter Turner and Pierre Labossiere

Kylie Nicole-Nealis and Cheryl Meeker

Mary & Mike Murphy and Kevin Danaher

Kevin Danaher and Jeff Furman

Javier Sicilia and Ted Lewis Photo Credit: Natalie Mottley

Pablo Solón and Carleen Pickard

The following originally appeared on Alternet.


Our environmental laws and regulations, rather than put in place protections for the environment, instead seem to be written to exploit it. Here’s what can we do about it.

The following is excerpted from the recently released book, The Rights of Nature: The Case for a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth, produced by the Council of Canadians, Global Exchange and Fundacion Pachamama. This book reveals the path of a movement driving transformation of our human relationship with nature away from domination and towards balance. This book gathers the wisdom of indigenous cultures, scientists, activists small farmers, spiritual leaders and US communities who seek a different path for protecting nature by establishing Nature’s Rights in law and culture. In addition to this excerpt, the book includes essays from Vandana Shiva, Desmond Tutu, Thomas Goldtooth, Eduardo Galeano, Maude Barlow and many others.

Two ways to order your copy of the book:

1) Contact Kylie Nealis – kylie@globalexchange.org. The book price is $15 including shipping within the US. (For international orders email Kylie Nealis for shipping price) or…

2) Donate $50 or more to the Community Rights campaign, and receive your own signed copy of the book.

Excerpts from Rights of Nature: The Case for a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth:

It takes thousands of years for individual drops of rain to maneuver through silent passages and gently accumulate into underground aquifers. Purified and enriched over the millennia by mineral deposits deep in the earth, groundwater is the sacred lifeblood of local watersheds upon which all life — including human communities — depend. Yet it takes no time at all to destroy this delicate balance. In fact, all it takes is a simple piece of paper.

Steeped in colonial history, Nottingham, New Hampshire, could be a picture postcard of quaint village life in New England. Yet in 2001, this tiny rural village of 4,000 residents became the poster child for too familiar “site-fights” between small towns seeking to protect local water and large multinational corporations seeking to extract it. It was then that the USA Springs Corporation applied to the state for a permit to extract more than 400,000 gallons of water a day from Nottingham’s local aquifer to bottle and sell overseas.

Corporate water withdrawals — siphoning off hundreds of thousands of gallons a day from local aquifers — impact both surface and groundwater resources. They deplete drinking water and can contaminate aquifers and wells. In addition, withdrawals dry up streams, wetlands, and rivers, as well as reduce lake levels, damaging habitat and harming wildlife.

For seven years the community of Nottingham came together to stop their water from being mined. Upon discovering that our own laws forbid communities from saying “no” to the wide array of dirty, destructive and unwanted practices allowed by law, they attempted to protect their local groundwater using all the tools available under the law. They did everything “right” by traditional, conventional environmental activism. They lobbied their state legislature, petitioned their government, testified at hearings, protested, rallied, educated and organized their neighbors and filed lawsuits. But as is so often the case, it just wasn’t enough.

When the people of Nottingham beseeched their state environmental agency, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, to take effective action and protect the aquifer, their requests went unmet. Instead of helping them protect their water, the agency was in fact responsible for issuing permits to the corporation to take it.

Is the system broken or working perfectly?

The experience of Nottingham is shared by thousands of communities across the United States and around the world that discover that their government officials and agencies — ostensibly in place to protect them — are, in practice, serving other interests.

The question that the people of Nottingham were forced to ask is, “why?” Why are corporations allowed to override community concerns and put destructive projects in our midst? Why do our environmental laws and regulations, rather than put in place protections for the environment, instead seem to be written to exploit it? And why is our government helping a corporation to extract water from a community and sell it for profit, when the impacts from such projects are so significant?

These are the questions that people and communities find themselves asking when they face the threat of water extraction, mining, drilling, or a range of other activities. Based on the assumption that environmental legislation was in earnest set up to protect Nature, much of our environmental activism has logically been spent trying to “fix” what appears broken; seeking to improve the types of laws and regulations that Nottingham ran into.

But what if the system was never designed to put Nature first?

Under New Hampshire’s Groundwater Protection Act — initially lauded as an important legislative tool, corporations are awarded permits by the state to siphon off water from local aquifers. Thus, despite the Act’s title, the law in fact authorizes the exploitation of water within the State of New Hampshire. It is much like the federal Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which govern how much pollution of our air and water can occur.

This is not a mistake or somehow unique, and it is not about corruption within a generally functioning system. Rather, the major environmental laws in the United States, which have now been exported and adopted around the world, are laws not borne of protection, but of exploitation.

Although it’s rarely said out loud, it is often the industry to be regulated that creates the laws we ask our legislators to enforce. And when it becomes too expensive to comply with the regulations, corporations are often exempted from them, or the regulations are simply rewritten. By design our environmental laws place commerce above nature, and in so doing they legalize certain amounts of harm to ecosystems. And by design regulatory agencies administering these laws are in place to operationalize that exploitation.

This isn’t to say we haven’t protected anything while toiling within this system of law. Whatever limits to damage have been achieved have come from dedicated vigilance by the hands of caring and concerned people. But taking a step back to look at the big picture, we must also recognize what has been lost.

By almost every measure, the environment today is in worse shape than when the major U.S. environmental laws were adopted nearly 40 years ago and replicated worldwide. Global species decline is increasing exponentially, global warming is far more accelerated than previously believed, deforestation continues unabated around the world, and overfishing in the world’s oceans are pushing many fisheries to collapse. With so much at stake, the question is — why haven’t we been successful at ending this destruction?

It certainly is not from lack of effort by communities or activists. Rather, the system of law within which their efforts are taking place is based on entirely the wrong premise — that Nature is property.

The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and similar state laws legalize environmental harms by regulating how much pollution or destruction of Nature can occur. Rather than preventing pollution and environmental destruction, these laws instead codify it. How else could we justify the damming of rivers, the blowing off of mountaintops for coal or fishing to extinction?

We codify our values in law, and thus for time immemorial we have treated nature in law, as well as in culture, as a “thing” — as amoral, without emotion or intelligence, without any connection to or having anything in common with us. In this way we justify and rationalize our exploitation, our destruction, our decimation. It is the long history of humankind’s relationship with Nature as a possession, rather than as a system governing our own well-being.

So when the people of Nottingham asked state agencies for help that was not forthcoming, the lack of assistance was not sheer unwillingness; rather the state agency was simply carrying out the law of the land in assisting the corporation to take their water.

The nature of property: Is Nature a slave?

In the United States, title to property carries with it the legal authority to destroy the natural communities (which include human communities and ecosystems) that depend on that property for survival. In fact, our environmental laws were passed under the authority of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants exclusive authority over “interstate commerce” to Congress. The migration of birds, rivers flowing to the sea, or almost any natural process you can name is, or can be classified as interstate commerce. Treating Nature as commerce has meant that all existing U.S. environmental law frameworks are anchored in the concept of Nature as property.

But history shows that with enough will, unjust laws that deny rights can change. Slaves and women were once considered property, but through massive shifts in law and culture they moved from being “right-less” to being rights-bearing.

During slavery in the United States, the economies of both the North and South were based on slavery. Slaves provided the labor force upon which the new country depended. Slaves were the property of the slave master and a series of “slave codes” were put in place to regulate the treatment of slaves. Slave codes in South Carolina required the whipping of a slave who left his master’s plantation without permission. In Louisiana, any slave who hit his master was to be punished by death. In Alabama, teaching a slave to read was illegal and violators were required to pay a fine.

Many advocates of slavery argued that the slave codes would somehow lead to a gradual end of the slave system; that slaves themselves did not “need” legal rights in order to be sufficiently protected. It is easy from today’s vantage point to see that this regulatory framework did not and could never protect the slaves or end slavery. To the contrary, it codified, enforced and upheld the system of property and the continued enslavement of human beings. Today in the United States and in much of the world, Nature is treated in the same way, and laws and regulations have been put in place to regulate ecosystems as property.

What does it mean to recognize the Rights of Nature?

If we believe that rights are inherent, then Nature’s rights already exist, and any law that denies those fundamental rights is illegitimate.

Under existing environmental laws, a person needs to prove “standing” in order to go to court to protect Nature. This means demonstrating personal harm from logging, the pollution of a river, or the extraction of water. Damages are then awarded to that person, not to the ecosystem that’s been destroyed. Women were once considered the property of their husbands or fathers, and as such had no legal standing. Prior to the 19th Amendment, if a married woman was raped, it was considered a property crime and damages were awarded to her husband. In the wake of the BP oil spill, the only damage deemed compensable by the legal system is the financial damage caused to those who can’t use the Gulf ecosystem anymore.

Communities in the United States are turning their backs on a system that cannot provide true environmental protection. They are beginning to craft and adopt new laws that recognize that natural communities and ecosystems possess an inalienable and fundamental right to exist and flourish. Residents of those natural communities, as stewards of the place where they live, possess the legal authority to enforce those rights on behalf of those ecosystems. In addition, these laws require local governments to remedy violations of those ecosystem rights.

Under a rights-based system of law, a river has the right to flow, fish and other species in a river have the right to regenerate and evolve, and the flora and fauna that depend on a river have the right to thrive. It is the natural ecological balance of that habitat that is protected. Just as the lion hunts the antelope as part of the natural cycle of life, recognizing Rights of Nature does not put an end to fishing or other human activities. Rather, it places them in the context of a healthy relationship where our actions do not threaten the balance of the system upon which we depend.

In essence, these laws represent fundamental changes to the status of property in the United States. While not eliminating property ownership, they do eliminate the authority of a property owner to destroy entire ecosystems that exist and depend on that property. These laws do not stop development; rather they stop the kind of development that interferes with the existence and vitality of those ecosystems.

This represents a true paradigm shift, one that recognizes that we can no longer tinker at the margins of a legal system that places property at the apex of civilization. It makes no apologies for recognizing that a linear system of development cannot be sustained on a finite planet and that we enslave Nature to our own demise.

Building a movement for the Rights of Nature

Environmental and community rights attorney Thomas Linzey has been known to say that, “There has never existed a true environmental movement in this country” because movements drive rights into fundamental structures of law, which environmentalists have never sought to do. It’s a provocative statement sure to raise the ire of many an advocate for Nature.

On September 19, 2006, the Tamaqua Borough Council in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, became the first municipal government in the United States to recognize legally enforceable Rights of Nature. Working with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, they drafted and adopted a local ordinance recognizing that natural communities and ecosystems have a legal right to exist and flourish, that individuals within the community have the authority to defend and enforce the rights of those natural communities and ecosystems, and that the Borough government has a legal duty to enforce the ordinance.

Over a dozen more communities in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, and Virginia have now adopted ordinances recognizing legally enforceable Rights of Nature. Communities in California, New Mexico and elsewhere are in the process of adopting similar laws. The people of Nottingham adopted an ordinance in 2008 that recognizes the inalienable Rights of Nature and bans corporate water extraction.

That same year Ecuador became the first country in the world to recognize the Rights of Nature in its constitution; after generations of watching its fragile ecosystems destroyed by corporate mining, drilling and other practices. The new constitution was approved by an overwhelming margin through a national referendum on September 28, 2008. With that vote, Ecuador became the first country in the world to codify a new system of environmental protection based on rights, leading the way for countries around the world to make this necessary and fundamental change in how we protect Nature. The constitution reads, “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain itself and regenerate its own vital cycles, structure, functions and its evolutionary processes.”

In 2009, international leaders that gathered in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference predictably failed to reach an agreement to save humanity from its own destruction. In response, the World People’s Summit on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth convened in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Some 32,000 people from around the world attended and, led by indigenous communities of Latin America, proposed the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth.

This work is now expanding as people and communities and governments conclude that we have pushed the Earth’s ecosystems to the brink and that our existing frameworks of environmental laws are not only inadequate to reverse this destruction, but were never intended to do so.

In September 2010, an international gathering was held in Tamate, Ecuador, to develop a strategy for building an international movement on Rights of Nature. The gathering brought together individuals and organizations from South Africa, Australia, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, and the United States. The outcome of the meetings was the formation of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature. Key areas of work will be education and outreach, as well as assisting local, state, and national governments around the world to put Rights of Nature laws in place and to build and support a global movement for the Rights of Nature.

A new cultural context for Nature supported by law

How different would our world look if the Amazon could sue oil companies for damages, or if those responsible for the oil spill could be forced to make the Gulf of Mexico “whole”? What if communities could be empowered to act as stewards for their local environments and say “no” to massive groundwater extraction?

As a species we have come to value “endless amounts of more” to our own detriment, and we have codified that value into law. Of course it is up to us to begin the process of deprogramming our society and dispelling our arrogant belief that the Earth “belongs” to humans. Like all successful movements for rights, the cultural change necessary needs only be enough to change the law ¬- the law itself forces the larger cultural change that must take place. However, both are needed in order to truly recognize rights for the right-less.

In 1973, Professor Christopher Stone penned his famous law review article, “Should Trees Have Standing?”. He wrote, “The fact is, that each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new ‘entity’ the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or laughable. This is partly because until the right-less thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of ‘us’ — us being, of course, those of us who hold rights.”

This is the challenge that every rights-based movement comes up against — not only an illegitimate structure of law that defines a living being as property, but also the culture which is built upon this concept.

The Abolitionists faced this — with slavery not only providing the labor force in the South, but being the driving engine of the economy of the North. Abolishing slavery meant abolishing a way of life. Most said it could not and must never be done. That is the argument we hear and face now. But it can, and we must.

Shannon Biggs directs Global Exchange’s Community Rights Program, working to place citizen and Nature’s legal rights above corporate interests. She is the author of Building the Green Economy: Success Stories from the Grassroots (PoliPoint Press, 2007), a former senior staffer at the International Forum on Globalization and a lecturer of International Relations at San Francisco State University.

Mari Margil is the Associate Director of the U.S.-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund where she conducts campaign and organizational strategy, media and public outreach and leads the organization’s fundraising efforts. She is a co-author of the recently published The Public Health or the Bottom Line (Oxford University Press, 2010).

Its been a whirlwind of activity since we launched the book The Rights of Nature: The Case for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, during Earth Day week with our partners at the Council of Canadians and Fundacion Pachamama, in time for the first ever United Nations dialog including Rights of Nature. The emerging conversation around nature’s rights was elevated to a whole new level.

Introducing the UN all-day dialog was Bolivian Ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solon, who we are so proud to announce is our 2011 Human Rights Award International Honoree. He along with Domestic Honoree Wilma Subra and People’s Choice Honoree Javier Sicilia will be honored June 1 at our awards gala in San Francisco.

To catch up on the book launch, and the historic events at the UN (including Amb. Solon’s inspiring speech), check out this blog post. The book launch event in New York was attended by 450 people, and in San Francisco, although much smaller, was covered by 5 separate media outlets. The book, with contributions from Vandana Shiva, Desmond Tutu, Maude Barlow and our own Shannon Biggs, among many others has sparked a whole new conversation.

In the book, Ambassador Solon writes:

We are facing a debate in the United Nations among those who believe we need to strengthen the capitalist logic as it relates to Nature, and others that suggest we should recognize Rights of Nature. … The future of humans and Nature depends on the path humanity chooses.

For more information about our 2011 Human Rights Awards Gala and the honorees, and to purchase tickets to the Gala, please visit the Human Rights Awards website.

Don’t miss out on receiving your own copy of The Rights of Nature: The Case for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth! To order your copy and make a much-appreciated donation to Global Exchange, please visit our online action center or contact Kylie Nealis.

The following video originally aired April 20th on GRITtv. In it, Shannon Biggs & Maude Barlow speak about recognizing the Rights of Nature:

 


More GRITtv

Yesterday, nature had a voice at the United Nations in a first of its kind dialogue about what it will take to live in harmony with nature, and what role the United Nations must play.

The all-day interactive dialogue, sponsored by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, was packed with global UN delegates. In his opening remarks, Bolivian Ambassador to the UN (and 2011 Global Exchange Honoree), Pablo Solon said,

“Humanity finds itself at a crossroads: Why should we only respect the laws of human beings and not those of nature? Why do we call the person who kills his neighbor a criminal, but not he who extinguishes a species or contaminates a river? Why do we judge the life of human beings with parameters different from those that guide the life of the system as a whole if all of us, absolutely all of us, rely on the life of the Earth System? Is there no contradiction in recognizing only the rights of the human part of this system while all the rest of the system is reduced to a source of resources and raw materials – in other words, a business opportunity?”

Leading civil society thinkers, activists Martin Khor, Vandana Shiva, Cormac Cullinan and others spoke about the need to promote a holistic approach to sustainable development in harmony with nature. Scientists also shared their national experiences on criteria and indicators for measuring sustainable development in harmony with nature.

This dialogue stands as the first step toward what many believe will culminate in the adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth, and as Maude Barlow, water activist and Chairperson for the Council of Canadians says, history will serve as “a companion piece to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as one of the guiding covenants of our time.”

The Council of Canadians, Global Exchange, and the Fundacion Pachamama also released our book The Rights of Nature: The Case for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. Copies were made available to all UN missions.

Contact Global Exchange for your own copy of the book: Rights of Nature. Or make a donation of $50 or more to Global Exchange, and received your own signed copy of the book.

By Maude Barlow and Shannon Biggs

This Earth Day, we need to start envisioning a future based not on exploiting nature but on recognizing that nature has inherent rights.

Ironically, this week also marks the one-year anniversary of the BP oil spill, the worst one in U.S. history.

Beyond headline-grabbing catastrophes, every day we dump 2 million tons of toxic waste into the world’s water, the equivalent of the weight of the entire human population.

Every day we literally blow the tops off of mountains to release hidden coal.

And it’s all legal, because under current law, nature is nothing more that human property, like a slave.

But thanks to some innovative thinking by governments, municipalities and indigenous peoples, a wiser mindset is taking hold. And the United Nations has also begun to consider the rights of nature.

This may be the first step toward the adoption of a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth. A companion piece to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, this emerging declaration — which would be backed by enforceable laws around the world — seeks to redefine our human relationship with all other species from one of dominance to one of harmony.

Many places have already begun to change their laws in accordance with this new way of thinking.

On November 16, 2010, Pittsburgh became the first major U.S. city to recognize the legally enforceable rights of nature. Faced with dangerous “gas-fracking,” Pittsburgh’s city council unanimously passed a cutting-edge law that stops gas-shale drilling by elevating the rights of communities and nature above the interests of energy corporations.

Nearly two-dozen other U.S. municipalities have passed similar ordinances, finding that existing laws cannot protect their local ecosystems and, by extension, their human health, safety and welfare.

Canadian communities are also wondering if legally recognizing rights for nature can stop the privatization of their public water systems and halt dangerous tar-sands drilling in the fragile Alberta region.

And these bold municipalities are not alone.

In 2008, Ecuador became the first nation in the world to rewrite its constitution to include rights for nature to exist, flourish and evolve.

This year, Bolivia is set to pass 11 separate laws recognizing the rights of Mother Earth.

These laws do not give rights to individual bugs or trees. Rather, they stop the kind of development that interferes with the existence and vitality of local ecosystems.

A worldwide movement, led by indigenous peoples, has emerged to support this cultural and legal shift.

Einstein said that problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.

Every now and then in history, the human race takes a collective step forward in its evolution. The earth, and all its inhabitants, urgently needs this to be one of those times.

Maude Barlow is chairperson of the Council of Canadians. Shannon Biggs is director of the community rights program at Global Exchange. Both are contributors to the forthcoming book, The Rights of Nature: The Case for a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth.
—-
This article also appeared in The Progressive, The Miami Herald, The Bellingham Herald, The Kansas City Star, The Olympian, and The Sacramento Bee.

The following is written by Shannon Biggs, Director of the Global Exchange Community Rights Program. She will be at the United Nations on Thursday for a conversation about the rights of nature.

This week, at the apex of the anniversary of the Gulf oil disaster and Earth Day, a bold question is being asked at the United Nations for the very first time: What if nature had rights?

How different would our world look if Mother Nature could hire a lawyer and take polluters to court for full restoration of damaged ecosystems? Under current law, nature is nothing more that human property, like a slave. Property can’t have rights, and only rights-holders can sue for damages.

From major cities like Pittsburgh, PA to the politically conservative rural heartland, where nearly two-dozen US communities have passed local laws recognizing nature’s rights to “exist, flourish and evolve”, the movement for nature’s rights is growing. And of course its not just bold US municipalities seeking to protect their local ecosystems (and by extension, their own health safety and welfare.) The nations of Ecuador and now Bolivia have passed laws recognizing nature’s rights.

Wednesday, April 20 marks the United Nations debate on nature’s rights, put forward by Bolivia, and is the first step toward what many believe will culminate in the adoption of the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth in the months to come. A companion piece for the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, this emerging Declaration — backed by enforceable laws around the world — seeks to wholly redefine our human relationship with all other species from one of dominance to one of harmony.

Speakers in this historic debate include:

Global Exchange will be at the United Nations to blog live on the happenings, and along with our esteemed colleagues Vandana, Cormac, Pablo Solon and Maude Barlow, will be discussing the Rights of Nature, the United Nations debate as well as launching our new book, aptly called Rights of Nature: The Case for the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.

As Earth Day approaches, can we envisage for ourselves a future based not on exploiting nature as property but upon recognizing that nature has inherent rights to exist, thrive, and evolve? A growing number of people in the Rights of Nature movement are saying, “yes, we can – and we must! “

Global Exchange is excited for the release of a new book next week, Rights of Nature: Making a Case for the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, co-developed by Global Exchange, the Council of Canadians, and Fundacion Pachamama. This revolutionary new book reveals the path of a movement that is driving the cultural and legal shift that is necessary to transform our human relationship with nature away from being property-based and towards a rights-based model of balance. The book gathers the unique wisdom of indigenous cultures, scientists, environmental activists, lawyers, and small farmers to make a case for how and why humans must work to change our current structures of law to recognize that nature has inherent rights.

New Book: Rights of Nature

The question of Rights for Mother Earth will be introduced to the United Nations on April 20th in New York during a session on ‘Harmony with Nature’.  Put forward by Bolivia, it is the first step toward what many believe will culminate in the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth in the months to come. At the U.N., Speakers including Dr. Vandana Shiva, Maude Barlow, Cormac Cullinan, Martin Kohr, Ambassador Pablo Solon, among others, will be making a case for nature’s rights. A companion piece for the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, this emerging Declaration – backed by enforceable laws around the world – seeks to wholly redefine our human relationship with all other species from one of dominance to one of harmony.

Please join us for two very special book launch events around the Rights of Nature coming up this month, in New York and in San Francisco. Both events will also feature the launch of the 2nd edition of Cormac Cullinan’s cutting-edge book, Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Join esteemed environmental activists and co-authors of the book including Maude Barlow, Bill Twist, Pablo Salon, Vandana Shiva, Cormac Cullinan, and Shannon Biggs for a conversation around the emerging Rights of Nature movement at these East and West coast launches:

New York book launch: Nature Has Rights

  • When: Wednesday, April 21st 6:30-8 p.m.
  • Where: CUNY Graduate Center, Proshansky Auditorium, 656 5th Ave (corner of 34th street) New York, NY.

San Francisco book launch: Nature Has Rights

  • When: Wednesday, April 27th 7:00-9:00 p.m.
  • Where: The First Unitarian Universalist Church – located at 1187 Franklin Street (at Geary) San Francisco, CA

Both events are free and open to the public.

For more information or to order a copy of the book:

Contact Kylie Nealis – kylie@globalexchange.org. The book price is $15 including shipping within the US. For international orders email Kylie Nealis – kylie@globalexchange.org for shipping price.

Does a river have a right to flow? What if the Gulf could sue BP for the damages to its ecosystem that have been caused as a result of the oil spill disaster? Entire human societies, our global economic system and indeed our structures of law, have been built from a colonial mindset that places humans not just apart from, but actually above nature. But there is a movement emerging today that is shifting the way we view our relationship with nature from being property-based to rights-based. By working to change our existing structures of law and culture, a new framework has emerged recognizing that nature itself actually possesses rights.  And this movement is starting to gain some serious momentum.

From this new paradigm questions are emerging before us: can we envisage for ourselves a future based not on exploiting nature but instead recognizing that nature has inherent rights to exist, thrive, and flourish? How different would our human societies, economies, and structures of law look as part of a connected, earth-centered community? And, how do we get there?

Global Exchange is pleased to announce the upcoming release on April 21st of a new book that explores these questions and more.  Co-developed by Global Exchange, Council of Canadians and Fundacion Pachamama, the book titled Rights of Nature: Making a Case for the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, begins to reveal the path of a movement that is driving the cultural and legal shift that is necessary to transform our human relationship with nature away from being property-based and towards a rights-based model of balance.

The book gathers the unique wisdom of indigenous cultures, scientists, environmental activists, lawyers, and small farmers in order to make a case for how and why humans must work to change our current structures of law to recognize that nature has inherent rights.  It includes essays and interviews from esteemed thought leaders such as Maude Barlow, Vandana Shiva, Desmond Tutu, Cormac Cullinan, Edwardo Galleano, Nimo Bassey, Thomas Goldtooth, and Shannon Biggs.

The proposed Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth (a companion to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) around which the book is written will be presented to the UN General Assembly by the Bolivian Ambassador to the UN, during a session on creating ‘harmony with nature’ on April 20th in New York.

In the face of corporate power today, the struggle for real, lasting change and the efforts to assert real people’s rights over  corporation’s ‘personhood’ rights is being championed by some very special communities throughout the US.

These communities describe to a different approach to the traditional regulatory system, one that says plainly and clearly: NO, we do not want corporations to have the right to make the decisions where we live! Rather, that right is reserved exclusively for us, the people.

We get frequent calls from citizens across California asking us for help in asserting their communities’ rights. They want to know how to take the right to decision making in their community away from profit-driven corporations and put it back into the hands of the people.

We figure, what better way to help those wondering than to share what a handful of communities are doing to assert their rights? So below are two excellent pieces published this week that highlight some of the cutting-edge work being done to change the rules for corporations and empower people to get what they want in the places they call home.

For a look at how citizens are standing up to corporate power in real and meaningful ways, check out these articles from YES! Magazine and AlterNet: