By Gray Merriam
EcoLandscapes: Natural Riches & Ecological Treasures
02 March 2019
Some acquaintances react rather badly when they hear “first nations and settlers”. They don’t like being called “settlers”. Their reaction reflects a widespread failure to accept the fact that the lands, that we now call “our lands”, were previously called “our lands” by other folks who were here before our ancestors.
When our ancestors invaded these lands, they did not grasp the concept that the land was shared among many groups across communities. It was held as ‘common property’ and cared for under community-based resource management. Instead, our ancestors imported and adopted the concept that each piece of the land was owned by someone. If not held by individuals, that ownership fell to the governing body and the government could transfer ownership to individuals. Everything had to be owned absolutely by someone. Just sharing the use of the land among many was not part of the history of the colonial powers and not understood by them.
Many decades later, the notion of absolute ownership has been found wanting. Several of the benefits that settlers wished to derive from their land clearly were not supplied by individual properties. Water flowed across property boundaries. So did the air above. If “owners” polluted the water or the air, the consequences fell on others. A basic violation of morality. So gradually we frayed the edges of absolute ownership toward community responsibilities.
Nature forced some acceptance of sharing because the benefits that were desired often were available only by sharing.
We are neighbours to a culture that tends strongly toward capitalism – the ownership of material goods. How can we believe in ownership of material goods and not believe ownership of the land is absolute?
These two questions of ownership – of the land and of material goods – flow together naturally and easily become a criterion of societal success. Own it and flaunt it and you gain status. This force makes sharing the uses and the values of lands more difficult.
Economic models built on profit, consumption and flow-through of goods and money do not accommodate community property and sharing.
Indigenous peoples left us many examples of “common property” cultures. Without any legislation, since about 1200 ‘allemansraat’ has given Swedish people the right to hike across and to camp on private property as long as no damage is done. It is usual today to cross property of others in Newfoundland, even the front porch. In Nova Scotia’s Cape Breton along the Margaree River and others, you need only a fly rod, to be welcome along a riverside path and there are benches for your relaxation and your appreciation of the beauty.
England and Wales probably gave us our colonial guidance on trespass. In those lands, it is an offence to damage anything on the property of others including plants but there is a right to collect fruit, flowers, foliage and fungi as long as they are not for sale. If you go on land without the owner’s permission, you are trespassing but this does not apply on public footpaths. Trespass in Scotland was amended in 2003 to give the public the right to walk on private land to get exercise.
At one time, most unenclosed and undeveloped land was open to public access for hunting, gathering kindling and berries and for walking. Those rights have been lost. Private property is zealously guarded and it is reported that trespass has been prevented at gunpoint.
In 2008, Ecuador rewrote its constitution to include the “rights of Nature’ in Chapter 7. It says ” Nature, or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes. All person, communities, peoples and nations can call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of nature.”
The first cases have been brought to court in Ecuador and the Rights of Nature were affirmed. In the first case the Vilcabamba River was the plaintiff. The court found in favour of the river and against a government road-widening project that would impact the river. Reparation of the impact was ordered.
In 2010, Bolivia hosted the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. A Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth was presented to the U.N. General Assembly.
In February of 2016, the Green Party of England and Wales developed a Rights of Nature Policy.
In India, Nepal, Australia, Cameroon, Columbia and U.S. there is ongoing work toward Rights of Nature.
Societal needs have made ownership of lands and waters less than absolute in order to safeguard community and even global processes. And climate change will force us to regulate and manage other aspects of ownership to protect and benefit the common good.
Economic and business models are poorly suited to guide stewardship of global forces that control our living conditions. belief in absolute ownership of land inhibits progress in development of community behaviours that would adapt us to our changing global forces.
The other side of ownership is responsibility.
How do we share responsibilities and values of the lands and waters?
Fundamentally, if the public wishes private owners to steward their lands and waters and to allow public access to them, then there should be some contribution from the public toward the care of those lands and waters.
Properties of multiple owners may also be required to deliver the benefits expected by the human community. For example, the benefits to our community from a healthy forest can be assured only by managing many hectares of forest, commonly involving many owners. To learn whether our forest is declining or is capable of a steady rate of production of forest products can only be answered by monitoring across multiple woodlots. Similarly, managing the black bear population or the deer population must be done on multiple properties.
If the public wants all the owners in one of these areas to manage natural riches professionally, either a government agency must do it with tax dollars or we must find a way to compensate the property owners for the resources they put into the management. For example, if we want harvestable forests to be well managed, we should supply the owner with forestry consultants and professional tree markers to designate the trees to be harvested.
Now economic constraints have forced government agencies to retain only responsibilities that are required by enacted legislation. For example they regulate game populations and harvesting but are not responsible for the habitats that are required by those populations.
Environmental and social sustainability both require a new community-based belief system to replace the dysfunctional belief in absolute ownership of natural riches and their support base of lands and waters.
There are many refereed articles on “common property”. Here is a sample:
Berkes, Fikret, Feeny, David, McCay, Bonnie J. and Acheson, James M. (1989), ‘The Benefits of the Commons’, 340 Nature, 91-93.
Hanna, Susan and Munasinghe, Mohan (eds) (1995c), Property Rights in a Social and Ecological Context; Case Studies and Design Applications, Stockholm and Washington, DC, The Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and The World Bank
Ostrom, Elinor and Schlager, Edella (1996), ‘The Formation of Property Rights’, in Hanna, Susan, Folke, Carl, and Mäler, Karl-Göran (eds), Rights to Nature, Washington, DC, Island Press, 127-156.