Can we all learn to get on with nature before nature learns to get on without us? Existing policies don’t fix our broken relations to nature.
6.1 This One’s Finished, Can We Have a New Planet Please?
A study involving more than 1,360 experts worldwide over four years warned of an “increasing likelihood of nonlinear changes in ecosystems including accelerating, abrupt, and potentially irreversible changes” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The latest international scientific synthesis report about climate (International Alliance of Research Universities, 2009) warns of “an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts”. This means that humanity is undefended against the day when critical ecosystem services are no longer available and not replaceable at any cost. If so, people will have won every individual battle against nature and then suddenly, tragically lost the war. Nature would endure but civilisation would not.
6.2 Valuing Nature?
Pavan Sukhdev, author of the EU-commissioned study The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB, 2008) reports that the world is losing more wealth from the disappearance of forests than from the credit crunch, “…at today’s rate we are losing natural capital at least between US$2-$5 trillion every year.” The relentless conversion of nature to cash provides only a facade of wealth-creation that masks the reality of collective impoverishment. Historically much effort has been devoted to nature conservation but action is now needed with unprecedented speed and effectiveness. Schemes to value nature by paying for it (including the above precycling insurance) can help but they risk reinforcing the commodification of the Earth. All such schemes are up against continuing large-scale exploitation and destruction that excuses itself very simply by saying, “It’s mine”.
6.3 Belonging
“A person lives on the land for a brief time and is gone, but the land endures. So people must be careful to preserve it – to live by the old Native saying that, ‘The real owners of the land have not been born yet.” Among Native people, the land and all that grows upon it is treated with the greatest respect. It, and everything in it, is sacred, and it’s up to the people who use it to protect it as well.” (Gale, 2002). This native Canadian quote is typical of indigenous cultures’ views on ‘belonging’. Any serious attempt at prospering in partnership with nature requires a rapid switch of emphasis from assumed ownership of the Earth to a sense of belonging to the Earth. A culture of belonging and guardianship is equally suited to private, state and commons areas of the Earth. Such a culture is a precondition for reversing the loss and degradation of the ecosystems on which everyone’s life and livelihood depends.
6.4 Ownership can Evolve From Mastery to Guardianship
Existing practices of ownership of the Earth’s surface haven’t worked since they rely on every individual owner respecting a rarely observed line between natural capital and the sustainable ‘interest’ of renewable harvests. This line and a sense of belonging to the Earth can be restored with a policy switch within the cultural and legal meaning of ownership. Ownership of a piece of the Earth can be reinterpreted by international treaty as a duty of care to future generations. All land, sea and non-renewable resource ownership title can be interpreted as a title of guardianship of ecological capital. All rights for access and use of natural resources can be interpreted as applying only to the renewable harvest, to diminish neither biological diversity nor ecosystem services. Use of non-renewable resources can encompass a compensating expansion in ecosystems and a guarantee (such as precycling insurance) of protecting the resources within circular flows.
6.5 Let’s try Forward Gear
Reversing the loss of nature is not a bad deal for owners, as can be explained by farmers of barren lands and fishermen of barren seas. Making this switch is like finding a car rolling back towards a cliff edge and helping the sleepy driver to locate forward gear. Although the driver may be startled by the intrusion, they would be pleased to be able to move on safely. Society would discover that abundance and prosperity accord with an expansion of nature, rather than its subjugation. The battle with nature can be ended quickly and permanently. One class of owner will remain unhappy; the minority with no intention other than to convert their corner of the world into private profit. The political choice is between catering for this exploitive minority or expanding nature’s abundance for the benefit of all.
6.6 Compensation
This policy switch effectively gifts the world to the unborn future. In compensation, the present gets to have a future. Nations would gain new reasons to co-operate more and fight less. Populations characterised by separateness would learn to create and share abundance. Depleted soils and waters would be restocked with diverse life. For those with less interest in such tangible compensations there are more direct options. Those who have degraded ecosystems may be relieved of the privilege of ownership. Those without an interest in guardianship could bid for funds to compensate them for the transfer of title to a community-based trust of landless people. Funds could also be provided for bids to permanently leave undisturbed high-risk non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels and heavy metals.
References
- International Alliance of Research Universities, 2009. Richardson, K., Chair of the Scientific Steering Committee and Synthesis Report; Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions. http://en.cop15.dk/files/pdf/iaru_synthesis_report_2009_press_release.pdf
- Gale, T. 2002. Guardians of the land. 2002 Canada And the World. Thomson Corporation May 2002 pp3.
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.
- Island Press, Washington, DC.
- The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB) 2008. Sukhdev, P. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/, reported at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7662565.stm
This text is part 6 of 8 of my Advanced Research Workshop paper, Seven Policy Switches for Global Security, for the NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme. Please see the abstract, full list of parts and downloads here. Comments welcome below.
Help me to do more!
Get in touch with your ideas. The world urgently needs new ways to leverage fast global change so please support more blindspotting on Patreon or Paypal.
@JoeBillionz @AnitaCasalina For #WorldEnvironmentDay we should #saveallnature not just some trees! https://t.co/iPgz9p1pVl #planetlevers
@lionharp @amazon_voices Loss of nature can be stopped – and reversed. But not with regular conservation.… https://t.co/4pdvsuEseE
Ownership necessitates responsibility. 5th Policy Switch: Guardianship within Ownership | @blindspotting | BlindSpot https://t.co/TwDydasqrN
Thinking on our relationship w/ #earth, valuing #nature & #inclusive growth – evolution from mastery to guardianshi… https://t.co/6cHw2qog6i
“Ownership can evolve from Mastery to Guardianship” https://t.co/FOurLGe7KT
Popular #capitalism says i can own another at their expense and profit limitlessly. Change that rule https://t.co/TPeXUrz5nu @blindspotting
Fifth Policy Switch: Including Guardianship within Ownership of the Earth https://t.co/uOw7ycilnb
Haida Nation tribe point the way to #globalpolicy for ecosystem & forest guardianship. http://t.co/ouD8h0trOk @tsrjournal @RnfrstAlliance
Fifth Policy Switch: Including Guardianship within Ownership of the Earth http://t.co/ngcGR7djoM via @blindspotting
Fifth Policy Switch: Including Guardianship within Ownership of the Earth @houseofcommons @theinnertemple http://t.co/ezJKqZe7w1 #cop21
Tree cutting is ok within restorative carbon-negative system. http://t.co/ouD8h0trOk MT @TamilAir: @blindspotting We will cut minimum trees.
Let’s build nature’s CO2 uptake with new policy to expand, not lose, nature. http://t.co/iPgz9pj13p @csageland @ProjectDrawdown @nijhuism
Fifth Policy Switch: Including Guardianship within Ownership of the Earth http://t.co/aKP4CWQnYk via @blindspotting
Fifth Policy Switch: Including Guardianship within Ownership of the Earth http://t.co/qEo0GZooPl
Perhaps due to Green’s “perspective”, I think something important has been missed – a blindspot perhaps.
I like the way Green’s are building a beautiful vision, so I’ll try to explain the view from a different standpoint. I think what I see is a flaw in the foundations which, if not repaired, could make any beautiful building almost worthless.
“The Greens” is a western political movement so that tends to be its perspective. As such it tries to address the western “numbers” & its policies are developed by people from within that set. It aims to be “holistic”, but imagine how different the policies & priorities might be if “the numbers” it addressed were global – the perspective would be much more that of the poor who make up the vast bulk of Earth’s population.
The hot issues wouldn’t be how to maintain our lifestyle using solar technologies, but how to put food on the table & keep a secure roof overhead. The solution for them isn’t money which they’ll never have, but land.
Perspectives can create blindspots, just as the drawing of a tree from where you stand will be quite different than from where I stand.
This perspective problem can be aggravated even if we try to “get” the view from another perspective – for example from a homeless person. If you ask them what they want you can be pretty sure they’ll say money, because that’s something they know you can give, but no street dweller LIKES to take money from you – it’s not what they really want to have to do.
Greens “graduated UBI” responds to such matters in a compassionate way, & a graduated UBI is a measure that would certainly redistribute more wealth to the WHOLE society that created it … so it’s just & compassionate.
But like the request of the street person, & from that perspective, it’s a “trickle down” benefit, not the sovereignty & self determination they really want. It’s an especially galling thing to have to rely such payments for your very life when you know that so much of the value trickling down has come from your own exploitation by more “successful” others – from the historic & ongoing denial of what is rightfully yours in the first place – LAND ACCESS – a place to be.
Of course it will be said that redistributed wealth is one way of being able to buy back land access, but why should anyone have to buy back what is theirs by right – their birthright of free access to enough land where they can build secure shelter & grow some food & be part of the community is a right they were born into. Land for that purpose is also their guaranteed source of secure work & responsibility & a sure way of connecting with others!
Greens policies should define these matters clearly & then build them into the foundations AND into the design of all their structures, to support & protect that right & responsibility. With such a foundation in rights, their building could be furnished with the benefits of a UBI at a globally sustainable amount. That would be a policy giving global holistic’ness’ to the Green’s subsequent policies. The question then is how would the Greens meet that right?
As it stands, it seems it is hoped by Greens that the land issue will be dealt with, not as a primary issue but as a consequence of appeals to those in the middle class who see the need for some ill defined change. As it stands, the Greens would try to build more cooperative & inclusive arrangements so some of the landless poor might start to benefit from what they had built – trickle down benefits.
Too few among the middle class will make the big changes really needed, especially as the only security they cling to is their property – to cling to that they have to compete successfully for the term of a 20 year mortgage. Meanwhile they may put solar panels on the roof, but they can’t give up in the competitive job market without becoming homeless.
Of course change does need to be worked on from all angles, but if we believe rapid global change is needed, the poor are ready right now.
I believe the move from competition to cooperation is key to our future & that the poor are ready for that if it would get them a secure roof, but the middle class is locked into competition to maintain a secure roof.
For cooperation to begin with the landless poor, they not only need secure land access (urban commons, public housing) but a way they can successfully cooperate so as to make their access to that land not only viable for their own needs, but attractive to their immediate neighbours who, in the west, together make up the voting majority who control what happens with public land. In regard to public housing for example, that would mean voters would need to see something very different happening to what happens now where public housing is seen as welfare, a taxpayer liability & often as a blight populated by lazy & anti social bludgers.
So the elements to support the poor in establishing the deep change we all hope for are
• urban land access (as a right, not as welfare),
• responsibilities associated with that right to sustainably live there & work COOPERATIVELY with that right on their shelter & food
• improving social value leading to greater society support for this right
• a formal recognition that the use of public land for this cooperative purpose is a valuable contribution to society as a whole. This would be done by paying either a graduated UBI … or perhaps more immediately achievable politically, a change to mutual obligations conditions for receiving unemployment benefits. That immediate change would be to recognise a new option – “earn, learn OR PARTICIPATE” – which would effectively redefine “work”.
These elements would be needed in the reverse order – so unemployed people would first need to be recognised for any formal participation in community development. Government would need to see such participation as a new way to fully meet the “mutual obligation” conditions for receiving unemployment benefits.
Initially, participation would mostly be at neighbourhood centres or other established places for voluntary work, but with that formal recognition in place, unemployed people in public housing could, for example, initiate projects like a community garden under the auspices of their neighbourhood centre.
Establishing & running a successful community garden is a major management challenge normally requiring skillful paid staff. For tenants to manage that for themselves, they‘d need to share responsibilities, & that would require a new non hierarchical process for collaboration – a process which itself required no skills they don’t already have, & be as convenient as clicking mouse. (Developing that process has been my work over several years.)
A tried & proven collaborative process would be essential in the Green’s vision of a more cooperative future.
If a small prototype, which essentially only relied on land rights & responsibilities, could work for the urban unemployed poor in the west it could work anywhere there is land and unemployed poor. If successful it would multiply & become a driver for cooperation & sustainability which would be seen as an asset in any neighbourhood wanting vitality & diversity.
Importantly having neighbourhoods that work this way would meet the challenges for housing, participation, sustainability & social inclusion which globalisation & technological job replacement is only just starting to throw up for the west.
This perspective is not covered in the Greens, although the vision & many elements are very complimentary.
Thanks Chris, a great comment that responds both to my policy switches and the discussion about Green Party policy that we’ve had on twitter. In fact it’s such a great contribution I wonder would you mind quickly copy-pasting it into this other convo? https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/ian-sinclair/joinedup-policies-of-green-party
Your proposals fit well with my policy #5 above where land title would be transferred from owners with a history of non-guardianship to to a community-based trusts of landless people. My other paradigm-shufting policies also work in support I think. For example #7 ends austerity and makes ambitious public projects possible again, #6 opens up trickle-down to a flood.
Thanks James – done.
@blindspotting Can we learn to get on with nature before nature learns to get on without us? http://t.co/WYqpWyqsuI
Re-learning to respect life will be key to our future: http://t.co/ZHhHfOCIZ2. #planetdriver5
@Climate_Rescue We can relearn to respect life with #planetlever 5, http://t.co/ui6WG9RFbe @GAPMarilyn @Willcoxrm @WorthWild_LLC
We can relearn to respect life with #planetlever 5, http://t.co/iPgz9p1pVl @veerle_ronsse @GAPMarilyn @Willcoxrm @WorthWild_LLC
@NafeezAhmed @tomzellerjr Abbott& Hunt should note especially 6.1 Valuing nature http://t.co/eZhaCA9W7F #climatesolutions
“This One’s Finished, Can We Have a New Planet Please?” http://t.co/f0MnCCHCW6 #guardianship #planetlever 5 @tomzellerjr
@blindspotting @dr_mark13 is a new human-nature relationship http://t.co/Sp8w1iuyut feasible for #7billion? @paulkingsnorth @PaulREhrlich
@blindspotting’s 5th #planetlevers: Cater 4 exploitive minority or expand nature’s abundance 4 all?: http://t.co/7SnShYMyoB @CarolineLucas
Including Guardianship within Ownership of the Earth http://t.co/tHtkn0GpUG
We are losing valuable natural capital – guard the earth for generations to come http://t.co/eouuqMjDSZ #naturalcapital
Excellent #longread! We must switch from owning nature to belonging to it: http://t.co/bfqsscDa5I
This One’s Finished, Can We Have a New Planet Please? via @ClimateRescue http://t.co/wSxRjCVpqu
Can we all learn to get on with nature before nature learns to get on without us? http://t.co/iPgz9oKmTl @Odie34306156 #biodoiversity
Can we all learn to get on with nature before nature learns to get on without us? http://t.co/6lf4sR2hWu
Guardianship = stewardship RT @blindspotting: Can finance engage with policies beyond its comfort zone? http://t.co/fmSZ54okFz
BlindSpot Think Tank – Fifth Policy Switch: Including Guardianship within Owner… http://t.co/Ag1s6fAL01, see more http://t.co/uqvC0LL550
Want to remove the #sustainability #blindspot? #Policy #Switch #5: Guardianship: http://t.co/jI0KuaIlZm… … … by @blindspotting
By bold systemic action, not targeted patchwork policy. http://t.co/iPgz9p1pVl MT @undp: How to curb #deforestation? http://t.co/iXMe6uMxdm