Giving rights to nature: A new institutional approach for overcoming social dilemmas?

Giving rights to nature

A new institutional approach for overcoming social dilemmas?

Julia Talbot-‐Jones PhD Candidate

The Australian National University -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐

julia.talbot-‐[email protected]

Time for little data!!!

Time for little data!!!

But why?

Outline of presentation


Background: Social dilemma institutions

– Introduce common institutional arrangements for transcending social dilemmas

– A new approach?



Legalising nature

Case study: Whanganui River, NZ


– A new approach?

– Background – Legal Framework – Analysis of old and new

governance arrangement using IAD Framewor



Legalising nature

Case study: Whanganui River, NZ

Conclusion: Outcomes


– A new approach?

– Background – Legal Framework – Analysis of old and new

governance arrangement using IAD Framewor

– Identify changes resulting from the new arrangement

Social di lemma institutions

• Centralised governance; privatisation; community governance; co-‐management – Differentiate through ownership of property rights (property rights are considered a bundle of

rights)

• Use Schlager and Ostrom’s (1992) five characteristics of property rights-‐in-‐use: 1) Entry – the right to enter a resource; 2) Withdrawl – the right to harvest and take some resource units out of the resource system; 3) Management – the right to change the physical structures in a resource system or develop a variety of

physical infrastructures for any particular resource; 4) Exclusion – the right to determine who else could use the resource and what their specific rights would

be; and 5) Alienation – the right to sell one or more of the first four rights permanently or for a given time period

Comparison

Entry Withdrawl Management Exclusion Alienation Centralised governance

Government Government Government Government Government

Privatisation Individual Individual Government (Individual)

Individual Individual

Community governance

Community Community Community Community Community

Co-management

Government Government Community Government Government

!

Comparison







Co-management


!Definitions Government: the collection of elected public officials designated to make decisions at the executive and legislative levels of a Government system Community: a group of people who interact directly, frequently, and in multi-‐faceted ways Individual: just one person or organisation

Entry Withdrawl Management Exclusion Alienation

Centralised governance






Co-management


!

Comparison







Co-management


!Definitions Government: the collection of elected public officials designated to make decisions at the executive and legislative levels of a Government system Community: a group of people who interact directly, frequently, and in multi-‐faceted ways Individual: just one person or organisation

Entry Withdrawl Management Exclusion Alienation

Centralised governance






Co-management


!

Also, can’t forget the importance of social capital, transaction costs, and leadership influencing the success (or failure) of institutional arrangements

A new approach?

“I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers, and other so-‐called “natural objects” in the environment – indeed to the natural environment as a whole.”

-‐ Stone C. 1972. Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450.

Case Study: The Whanganui River, NZ



Ecological perspective: The river is ecologically unhealthy (Sunde, 2003)

Tikanga perspective: “Physical pollution of the Whanganui River affects its soul, its wairua; its supernatural and divine power, its mana; and, through the sacred affinity of this sacred place to our people, affects us, mentally, physically, and spiritually. No chemical combatants will reduce or eliminate this effect, nor will it alter the breach of tapu.” (Hikaia Amohia, 1988)


Ecological perspective: The river is ecologically unhealthy (Sunde, 2003)

Tikanga perspective: “Physical pollution of the Whanganui River affects its soul, its wairua; its supernatural and divine power, its mana; and, through the sacred affinity of this sacred place to our people, affects us, mentally, physically, and spiritually. No chemical combatants will reduce or eliminate this effect, nor will it alter the breach of tapu.” (Hikaia Amohia, 1988)

à Social dilemma – “river health and wellbeing” is not being provided for -‐ how can we address these issues?

Let ’s make the river own itself!


But how?!


But how?!

1. “Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating its tributaries and all its physical and metaphysical elements.” [s2.1]


But how?!


2. “Te Awa Tupua is a legal person” [s2.2] with “…the same rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” [s2.3]


But how?!


2. “Te Awa Tupua is a legal person” [s2.2] with “…the same rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” [s2.3]

3. Title of the river bed will be vested away from the Crown and placed in the name of Te Awa Tupua itself. [s6.1]

New legal framework

New legal frameworkRuruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement

New legal frameworkRuruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement

Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework

New legal framework

Te Awa Tupua

Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement


New legal framework

Te Awa Tupua Represented by: Te Pou Tupua

Two guardians acting as one - one nominated by the Crown - one nominated by Iwi



New legal framework




Advised by: Te Karawao One person each from: - Nga Tangata Tiaki o Whanganui - iwi with other interests in the River - local authories


New legal framework





Strategy group: Te Kopuka na Te Awa Tupua 17 representatives of local community groups


New legal framework






Strategy document: Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua


New legal framework








New legal framework

Guided by Tupua te Kawa (four intrinsic values): 1. Ko te Awa te mātāpuna o te ora - the River is the source of spiritual and physical sustenance 2. E rere kau mai te Awa nui mai te Kahui Maunga ki Tangaroa – the great River flows from the mountains to the sea 3. Ko au te Awa ko te Awa ko au – I am the River and the River is me 4. Ngā manga iti, ngā manga nui e honohono kau ana, ka tupu hei Awa Tupua – the small and the large streams that flow

into one another and form one River








How might this new institutional arrangement affect the governance structure of the Whanganui River/Te Awa Tupua?

The nested nature of rules and incentives using the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework Source: Adapted from McGinnis, 1999

Meta-‐constitutional choice

Governance of the WR + Actors

National statutes

Monitoring + Sanctioning

Management of the WR + Actors

District and Regional Plans

Working rules-‐in-‐use


Bio-‐physical conditions

Community attributes

Rules-‐in-‐use

Use of the WR + Actors

‘Mana’ of Iwi damaged; poor river health

Constitutional choice level

Collective choice level

Operational choice level

Anthropocentric worldview Tikanga worldview

The nested nature of rules and incentives influencing governance of the the Whanganui River/Te Awa Tupua analysed using the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework Source: Adapted from McGinnis, 1999

The Whanganui R iver/Te Awa Tupua governance st ructure

Meta-‐constitutional choice level

Governance of the WR + Actors

National statutes


Management of the WR + Actors

District and Regional Plans

Working rules-‐in-‐use


Bio-‐physical conditions

Community attributes

Rules-‐in-‐use

Use of the WR + Actors

‘Mana’ of Iwi damaged; poor river health

Constitutional choice level

Collective choice level

Operational choice level


The nested nature of rules and incentives influencing governance of the the Whanganui River/Te Awa Tupua analysed using the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework Source: Adapted from McGinnis, 1999

The Whanganui R iver/Te Awa Tupua governance st ructure

Te Ruruku Whakatupua

Meta-‐constitutional choice level

Outcome: Three major changes


1. Introduces a new actor – “Te Awa Tupua” represented by “Te Pou Tupua”



2. Changes the property rights structure

Entry Withdrawal Management Exclusion Alienation

Legalising nature Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)

Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)

Te Awa Tupua (Community)






3. Formalises “informal” Maori worldview








Constitutional choice

Collective choice

Operational choice




3. Formalises “informal” Maori worldview








Constitutional choice

Collective choice

Operational choice

Conclusion

• New property rights arrangement only worthwhile if benefits > costs

• Will take several years to determine the effectiveness of this change

• Already being replicated for the governance of Te Urewera National Park, New Zealand

Conclusion




Thank you.Questions and comments welcome.

Conclusion




Thank you.Questions and comments welcome.

julia.talbot-‐[email protected]

Environment

Giving rights to nature: A new institutional approach for overcoming social dilemmas?