November 9, 2022
By Allison Bramblett
Western Civilization has long considered nature as a resource for use rather than an entity of its own. However, in 2021 Orange County in Florida passed a law recognizing the Wekiva river’s rights “to exist, to flow, to be protected against pollution, and to maintain a healthy ecosystem” (Kaminski, 2021). This will allow for further protection of the site than if it was just viewed as a resource and gives the indigenous people of the area recognition of their traditions and cultural values. Although this concept may be new to the United States and to Western society as a whole, it is not a new concept to indigenous people around the world. New Zealand enacted a similar law in 2014, stating the Whanganui River is a living being; a concept that had been held by the Māori people for generations, and has been a point of controversy since British colonial times. This gives the river a right to all of the things any other living thing would have and designated people to speak for the river in legal processions. Similar legal actions have been taken in places such as Bolivia and Ecuador.
This brings to question how we, as humans view nature. Is nature a living entity? Is it a resource? It is somewhere in between?
These questions have been brought to light recently due to these new laws as well as the concept of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEC), which is the idea that we, as western societies, should look towards the indigenous populations for environmental solutions; and that through their generations of experience, they have seen the change in ecosystems unlike anyone else can, and that governments should use this to their advantage. Looking at nature as an entity of its own rather than a resource has its roots in TEC as well as cultural norms.
Bolivia has taken the concept to a whole new level, addressing the United Nations with the concept that in order to have human rights, nature must also have rights. These basic rights that were introduced include being uninterrupted by humans as well as not being structurally modified. This idea brings up the same questions as before, but on an international level rather than a local or national one.
Along with this international proposal, the legislation in Orange County, Florida has led to this topic coming to the forefront once again. Despite overwhelming acceptance and agreement in both New Zealand and the Orange County instance, there is controversy as to the long-term implications, especially regarding development.
New Zealand has seen significant progress since its legislation was passed, with cleaner water and general respectfulness for the environment and the river in particular. Since the legislation in Orange County is so new, it is unknown the progress that will be made in the coming months and years, but many are hopeful for significant progress, and that others may begin to follow suit. These laws have the potential to alter the views of the general public: viewing nature as a real entity, rather than just a resource brings a sense of commitment to conservation. If we take a minute to look at the implications of these laws, hurting nature may become a taboo just like hurting a pet or innocent animal is now, and society may realize the ethical implications behind damaging an ecosystem, not just the river itself, but the animals and people living in the area as well.
Works Cited
SALMOND, A. (2014). Tears of Rangi. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(3), 285–309. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau4.3.017
Kaminski, I. (2021, May 1). Streams and lakes have rights, a US county decided. Now they’re suing Florida. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/01/florida-rights-of-nature-lawsuit-waterways-housing-development
Cattelino, J. (2009). Florida Seminoles and the Cultural Politics of the Everglades. Florida Seminoles and the Cultural Politics of the Everglades. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.1051&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Burdon, P. (2010). The Rights of Nature: Reconsidered. Australian Humanities Review, 49. https://doi.org/10.22459/AHR.49.2010.04