At the end of the day on Tuesday, April
23, 2013 I had the honor of reading a statement we prepared on Environmental
Crime from a Human Rights Perspective.
This is the statement:
Dear Mr. Chair
The
Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers) has a concern for the health
of the environment, and the impact of environmental crime on our fragile
systems of life.
We are
particularly concerned with the way environmental crimes disproportionately
harm minorities, vulnerable communities, and indigenous peoples and jeopardize
basic human rights. Even when their
voice is necessary to reach a just resolution of environmental crimes,
vulnerable groups are likely to be excluded from justice processes and their
rights and needs are not recognised.
We
note that Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples sets out the right to the protection of their environment
without discrimination, and protection against the disposal of hazardous wastes
without their free, prior and informed consent.
We
believe restorative justice and reconciliation practices provide mechanisms for
States to address these kinds of crimes. Restorative justice practices offer a
participatory process that gives voice to vulnerable communities, and
identifies and repairs the harm of environmental crime. States should employ
restorative justice practices to set policy, enforce environmental laws, and
shape responses to violations of environmental law.
As
Quakers we believe that humankind must preserve the ecological integrity and
the sacredness of the natural world. People must choose activities, create
institutions, and establish policies and laws that respect all people and the
planet we share.
The statement went through multiple
draft stages and input and approval was received from a variety of prominent
Quaker organizations around the world.
In preparation for this moment, I
learned a little about the history of the environmental justice movement and
Quaker perspectives on environmental advocacy.
The term "environmental
racism" can be traced to opposition to the placement of a PCB landfill in
the poor and predominantly African American county of Warren, North Carolina in
1978. The Research Triangle Park was generating this toxic waste and needed to
dispose of them. Warren County was identified as the site. Attorney Travis Payne
and his firm challenged selection of the site as a civil rights violation, and
the NAACP organized protests. When the first truckloads of contaminated soil
arrived, demonstrators lay down in the road and there were over 500 arrests.
Continued advocacy led to detoxification of landfill which was completed in
2003. The discriminatory placement of waste in poor and minority communities
violates human rights and requires special attention.
I remembered that about ten years ago
the youth in my Quaker Meeting (Durham Friends Meeting) wrote an alternative
Query on the Environment for our consideration.
As Quakers we do not have creeds, doctrines, or required beliefs. We do have a set of Queries or “Questions” we
consider collectively and individually at least once a month at our Meeting for
Worship with Attention to Business.
One of our traditional Queries is “Do we endeavor to live in harmony with
nature? Are we careful in our
stewardship of the world's irreplaceable resources?”
In 2002, the Youth in our Meeting
revised the query as follows, “Do we
sincerely seek to understand our place in the universe and our purpose here on
earth? Are we willing to make sacrifices
and to ask others to join us in changing the things we use and the way we use
them in order to preserve life everywhere?
Are we willing to persist gently in persuading others, not giving up,
but being receptive to other's needs as we strive to establish lifestyles
dedicated to the preservation of all life?
Are we open to the strength, the purpose, the joy, the desire within and
beyond ourselves as a resource in truly living in and genuinely loving the
world?”
My own yearly Meeting, the North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative), his published a journal on "Caring for Creation" with articles on our spiritual relation to the enviornmental crisis. (http://www.ncymc.org/journal/ncymcjournal5.pdf ). EarthCare and the Great Commandments, By Lloyd Lee Wilson; Listening to the Earth, by Nan Bowles, and Reverence for God's Creation, by Charles Ansell. Lloyd Lee wrote in his article on EarthCare that
We
humans can no longer act as if the rest of creation were a commodity: a pool of
natural resources through which we can move once, use as we wish, and dispose
of with abandon. The tragic consequences of this type of behavior are becoming
all too clear to even the most skeptical of observers. Christians are given a
radically different model and precept for living in and with creation, valuing creation
as God’s beloved work, not as a potentially useful commodity. Christ has shown
us the way to live out this new understanding: the servant. By thinking and
acting as the Christian servant of all of creation, we carry out our role of
being Christ’s hands and feet in this world, and do our part to restore and
sustain the gospel order which has always been God’s intention for everything.
Other Quaker organizations have made
important statements about the environment.
The Friends Committee on National
Legislation (FCNL) has statement on the environment which is currently
under consideration for revision and updating.
FCNL
Statement on Earth Care:
The
health of the earth's ecosystems and their ability to support life has been and
is being seriously impaired by human activities. We deplore the pollution of
the earth's land, water, and atmosphere; the decline in biodiversity and
nonrenewable resources; and the increase in deforestation and desertification.
The world is in the midst of a mass extinction of species, primarily human in
cause.
We
urge that national legislation promote ecologically sound and safe
agricultural, extractive, industrial, and commercial enterprises. Ways must be
found to meet the needs of human beings without doing violence to the rest of
creation. Specifically we advocate that the U.S. government develop policies
that encourage regional and international cooperation for solutions to
environmental problems, including environmental standards in trade agreements
that assure nations and local governments of their right to establish more
stringent environmental protections and standards. (for more … (http://fcnl.org/about/govern/policy/earth_restored/ )
Quaker
Earthcare witness (QEW)
Quaker Earthcare Witness (QEW) is a
network of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in North America and
other like-minded people who are taking spirit-led action to address ecological
and social crises from a spiritual perspective, emphasizing Quaker process and
testimonies, including continuing revelation. The work of QEW includes:
·
Engaging and
Connecting stems from a desire to create larger community in this action
·
Deepening
Spirituality stems from a conviction and consciousness that the global crisis
of ecological sustainability is at root a spiritual crisis.
·
Living our
Testimonies stems from the need to change what we do and how we do it to get in
right relationship with Earth.
·
Speaking Out to
local, national and international audiences that Creation is to be held in
reverence in its own right, and that human aspirations for peace and justice
depend upon restoring Earth's ecological integrity.
Here is a statement from QEW regarding
its vision:
WE
ARE CALLED to live in right relationship with all Creation, recognizing that
the entire world is interconnected and is a manifestation of God.
WE
WORK to integrate into the beliefs and practices of the Religious Society of
Friends the Truth that God's Creation is to be respected, protected, and held
in reverence in its own right, and the Truth that human aspirations for peace
and justice depend upon restoring the earth's ecological integrity.
WE
PROMOTE these Truths by being patterns and examples, by communicating our
message, and by providing spiritual and material support to those engaged in
the compelling task of transforming our relationship to the earth.
The British Yearly Meeting has issued an
important Minute 36 on sustainability and the Environment as follows:
“Sustainability
is an urgent matter for our Quaker witness. It is rooted in Quaker testimony
and must be integral to all we do corporately and individually.”
(A
framework for action 2009-2014)
A
concern for the Earth and the well-being of all who dwell in it is not new, and
we have not now received new information which calls us to act. Rather we are
renewing our commitment to a sense of the unity of creation which has always
been part of Friends’ testimonies. Our actions have as yet been insufficient.
John
Woolman’s words in 1772 sound as clearly to us now:
“The
produce of the earth is a gift from our gracious creator to the inhabitants,
and to impoverish the earth now to support outward greatness appears to be an
injury to the succeeding age.” … see more (http://www.quaker.org.uk/minute-36)
With these values in mind, I learned
about the framework of “Environmental Crime.”
In this report, environmental crime was
defined as “violation of laws that are put into place to protect the
environment. In the broad sense, environmental crime is understood to include
all illegal acts that directly cause environmental harm.”
The conceptual framework identifies five
specific types of environmental crimes:
·
the dumping of
industrial wastes into water bodies, and illicit trade in hazardous waste (examples:
waste oils, nuclear waste, e-waste);
·
unreported,
unregulated, and illegal fishing (examples: illegal whaling, illegal use of driftnets,
fishing beyond quota);
·
the buying and
selling of endangered species (examples: ivory, rhino horn, tiger bones,
sturgeon eggs – basically many commodities with a high value, but with a low
bulk, thus making smuggling relatively easy and highly profitable);
·
smuggling of
ozone-depleting substances (related substances include chemicals, pesticides
and persistent organic pollutants); and
·
illegal logging
and trade in stolen timber.”
This paper identifies reasons why
environment crimes remain unreported and un-measurable. It is a paradox that
the most visible part of our world, ‘the environment’ can be “invisible.”
a)
countries differ
in the extent to which deliberate or negligent conduct harming the environment
is illegal. Conduct that endangers the environment may be covered by criminal
law, administrative law or civil law. What is met in one jurisdiction by penal
sanctions may be met in another by administrative measures, and in a third by
civil penalties;
b)
many
environmental crimes remain undetected. For example, it is often difficult to distinguish
between legal and illegal fishing, and the activity itself may take place far
away from watching eyes;
c)
lack of detection may also be due to the fact
that the harm caused to the environment may be gradual (as with the slow
despoliation of a river) or minute (as with the disappearance of individual
parrots from the wild);
d)
the impact may be
seen only far from the source (as is often the case with the dumping of
industrial wastes), possibly across international borders, and it may be
difficult to identify the source;
e)
in the case of
the dumping of industrial wastes, the definition of illegal conduct may depend
on measurement, which in turn is prone to error (especially if the industry itself
is responsible for self-monitoring and/or for record-keeping);
f)
much
environmental crime affects remote areas of developing countries (illegal
logging, poaching of wildlife, dumping of hazardous waste), that are relatively
unpopulated and where people may not be used to thinking in legal categories,
and thus would not report the conduct;
g)
even if the conduct is identified as illegal,
people may be unaware of to whom the activity can be reported;
h)
the conduct may
not be identified as illegal, but seen by the local population as a “necessary
evil”, as a cost of employment and industrialization; and
i)
many in the local
population may be aware that the conduct is illegal, but they themselves
benefit from it (as is often the case in respect of illegal fishing, illegal
logging, and the buying and selling of endangered species).
Sometimes discussions about environment
focus on the non-human living beings out of the context of human rights. Other
times, we discuss human policies without considering the inter-relationship
with the environment. What we must realize is that all of our human political,
economic, and social activities are embedded in the fragile living system of
life on our planet. To survive we must
begin to always think in terms of how these systems interrelate, and each
decision must be understood in a holisitic way.
One part of this re-visualization of
human and environment interconnectedness is to understand how environmental
decisions impact human rights.
In March of 2013 the United Nations Independent
Expert on human rights and environment, John Knox, highlighted the urgent need
to clarify the human rights obligations linked to the enjoyment of a safe,
clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Such clarification, he said, “is
necessary in order for States and others to better understand what those
obligations require and ensure that they are fully met, at every level from the
local to the global.”
“Human rights and the environment are
not only interrelated, they are also interdependent,” Mr. Knox noted during the
presentation of his preliminary report* to the Human Rights Council. “A healthy
environment is fundamentally important to the enjoyment of human rights, and
the exercise of human rights is necessary for a healthy environment.”
“All human rights are vulnerable to
environmental degradation, in that the full enjoyment of all human rights
depends on a supportive environment,” underscored the Independent Expert.
The Quaker UN office (QUNO), issued a
letter to Mr. Knox welcoming his report. QUNO welcomed the portions of the
report mentioning the impact of environmental crimes on vulnerable indigenous
peoples. QUNO asked (1) “Do you have any plans to consider the role that
peacebuilding approaches can play in realizing procedural rights and therefore
in helping to achieve both substantive rights and effective environmental
policy? And, (2) have you considered looking at how groups such as small
farmers, rural communities and marginalised sections of society, can
effectively participate in consultation and decision-making processes that
relate to their environment?”
These discussions led me to reflect on
our environmental crisis and our legal system in ways that I have not before.
It made me think of one of my favorite Quakers, John Woolman. In the 18th Century, John Woolman
worked for the abolition of slavery, and to have just and fair relationships
with Native Americans. He viewed the world as a sacred space connected by
relationships among human and non-human beings. He understood that a “right
relationship” with nature, animals, work, rest, play, prayer, and other human
beings was essential to a life in harmony with creation. Exploring this concept
of “Right Relationship” more deeply, Peter Brown and Geoffrey Garver say “Right
relationship provides a guiding ethic for people wishing to lead fulfilling
lives as creative and integrated participants in a human society and the
commonwealth of life as a whole. It is akin to what some would call
"sustainability" though it goes much deeper. Right relationship
offers a guidance system for functioning in harmony with scientific reality and
enduring ethical traditions.” (Right Relationship: Building a Whole Earth
Economy, by Peter G. Brown and Geoffrey Garver)
Striving to live in a right relationship
with other people and our environment is challenging in a world that is so
focused on short term, disconnected, self gratification. However, it is only in
living in this relationship that we are free to be our true selves and
experience to deepest love of God.
The idea of an “Environmental Crime”
includes a fundamental disturbance to the right relationship with our shared
planet. It is a violation of that which
gives and sustains life. It violates both human beings and non-human beings,
and jeopardizes our continued existence. If we do not change our lifestyles
radically and a collective way, we will experience a devastating punishment.
The idea of “Environmental Crime” also
expands the legal framework to include non-human “victims.” It creates the problem
of a multi-national jurisdictional problem. It bends our boxes and
classifications which place human beings and nations at the center of the
Universe. The very idea is constitutes a Copernican revolution, radically
challenging our notions of national sovereignty and human primacy. Our only
path to survival will require adaptation to this global reality that we are
dependent upon our surroundings and we are connected to each other as a
planet. National boundaries will have to
relax, people will have to take responsibility for each other and their
environment. The alternative is extinction.
The discussions in the Plenary sessions
on environmental crime mostly consisted of each state agreeing that it is a
serious problem, and then summarizing all of their environmental laws
addressing the problem. Both the problem, and its solutions were stuck in a box
that will not lead to a right relationship.
But, the discussion itself is a radical and liberating act in that these
people from all these countries at least understand that we need to be having
global conversations over this global problem.
I nearly fell out of my chair when I
heard the Chariman from South Africa say, “The Chair will now recognize the
State of Palestine.” Wow. I thought the
earth might stop. But no one batted an eye, and we all understand that we can
change.
After I read our statement to the
plenary session, I rushed across town on the subway to the Musikverein to hear
the Vienna Symphony play Holleger and Bruckner. The Musikverein is one of the
best music halls in the world, acoustically speaking – even though it was built
before high-tech acoustical measurements.
The Holleger was very modern and
impressionistic. It was like he was writing a movie score to a movie that could
never live up to his idea. The Bruckner
included a large chorale and four vocal soloists. I felt chills every time the chorus sang
together quietly – it was like a smoldering fire about to erupt into flame at
any moment.
We joined our friend Oliver who is on the
Quaker team for ice cream after, and made it home just before midnight. It was
quite a day.
