Quercus
Information
  • Date submitted: 1 Nov 2011
  • Stakeholder type: Major Group
  • Name: Quercus
  • Submission Document: Download
Keywords: Growth (3 hits),

Full Submission

6

7

proponents

QUERCUS - Associação Nacional de Conservação da Natureza

FCSH - Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa

UTAD - Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro

CEDOUA - Centro de Estudos de Direito do Ordenamento, do Urbanismo

e do Ambiente da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra

CIGEST - Centro de Investigação em Gestão ISG/INP

CRE Porto - Centro Regional de Excelência

- Educação para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Área Metropolitana do Porto

UNEB - Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Centro de Pesquisa em Ecologia

e Conservação da Natureza, Condomínio da Terra

Câmara Municipal da Guarda

Câmara Municipal de Baião

The proposal is still signed

individually by:

Adilva de Souza Conceição, Universidade do Estado da Bahia

Alexandra Aragão, Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra

Alexandre Júlio Machado Leite, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto

Carmen Silvia da Silva Sá, Departamento de Ciências Exatas e da Terra, UNEB

Casimiro Balsa, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Eduardo Manuel Machado de Moraes Sarmento Ferreira, Universidade Lusófona

de Humanidades e Tecnologias

Fernanda Maria Grácio Delgado, Esc. Sup. Agrária do Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco

Gonçalo Filipe Ferreira Amaral, Câmara Municipal da Guarda

Hélder Spínola, Universidade da Madeira

Iva Pires, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

José Pedro Fragoso Almeida, Esc. Sup. Agrária do Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco

Maria Amélia Martins-Loução, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa

Maria Cristina da Costa Vila, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto

Maria João Burnay, Fundo para a Conservação da Natureza e da Biodiversidade

Maria Manuel Pedrosa, Steinbeis University Berlin

Maria Raquel de Almeida Graça Silva Guimarães, Faculdade de Direito da Univ. do Porto

Martí Boada i Juncà, Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA)-UAB

Nuno Gaspar de Oliveira, Instituto Superior de Gestão

Viriato Soromenho-Marques, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa

índice


01

Global Juridic Support


The need to evolve from the concept of ?Common Concern of Mankind?_3

A Common Heritage to overcome the ?market group?_3

Immaterial Natural Heritage_5

Common Metric

The need for a Common Metric_6

The Global Hectare, the Ecological Footprint and the Biocapacity_6

A green economy that produces biocapacity_6

Common Value

The need for a common value_7

The Ecological Fiscal Reform_8

Governance of a Common Heritage

Settlement of accounts of a limitless Common Heritage_9

01.1

01.2

01.3

02

02.1

02.2

02.3

03

03.1

03.2

04

04.1


abstract

The proposal of thinking the Earth as an immense condominium, mainly aims to take advantage of that already widely tested legal tool of individual and collective interests conciliation, in order to supply a global legal basis capable of globally placing and contextualising instruments and structures that can sustain a new framework of harmonisation between the individual interests of each State and the superior claims of all Humanity.


To achieve a green economy, the constitution of a global common heritage is proposed, which would be managed by an entity capable of accounting for each State?s contributions towards the maintenance of the global natural systems. These contributions must be evaluated by a common metric, translatable into a common monetary value.

Using, as a starting point, the proposal to make the climatic system a Common Heritage of Humanity, the intention is to build a global juridic support from which will spring rights and duties that can sustain the construction of a green economy capable of producing environmental services.


The setting up of this heritage aims to solve several complex structural and operational problems, such as the dispersion of benefits and obligations throughout the planet, which originates the ?market gap.? In order to make the settlement of accounts and the institutionalisation of a common interest management operational, an agreement must be reached as to the use of a metric that will translate into units the consumption and supply of collective benefits, also deciding on the common value of each unit.

01

Global Juridic Support

01.1 The need to evolve from the concept of Common Concern of Mankind

The UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6/12/1988, ?recognizes that climate change is a common concern of mankind, since climate is an essential condition which sustains life on Earth.? The Resolution appeared as a response to the impossibility of applying the classic solution of the ?tragedy of the commons? on this subject, usually obtained by dividing the common assets and privatisation. It indicated a new approach to the Common Heritage of Humanity regime through the concept Common Concern of Mankind. This concept has common roots with the concepts common interest, global commons, and even intergeneration equity/responsibility/rights.

The option of juridic consecration of a problem or concern, such as the Common Concern of Mankind, simultaneously means the identification of the problem and the official appeal to its resolution, but it is still not an instrument able to implement solutions. The need to truly address this concern, demands a definition of the generic and undetermined concept of Common Concern of Mankind, something rather more palpable than a mere concern existing only in the spirit of human beings.

The evolutionary transformation from a simple proclamation of concern or interest to the construction of juridic objects capable of managing the rights and duties related to the pursuit of the common interests of Humanity has become a pressing need, without which the Law cannot fulfil its primary duty of organisation.

01.2 A Common Heritage to overcome the ?market gap?

The dispersion of the majority of environmental benefits and costs throughout Humanity is identified by the economy as a market gap, since ?there is no trade institution where one affecting positively another (or others) receives compensation for it or one affecting negatively another (or others) pays the respective cost.? 1

Concerning the common assets, and specially the global ones, the rights of property are under-defined. The existence of many agents using one resource in these conditions, leads to a market gap, to the inefficient use of that resource and to a special propensity to the excessive use of it.

Carbon or biodiversity green markets are interesting conceptual and experimental labs for the construction of a green economy, but do not respond to the global dimension of benefits and costs diffusely spread throughout the global natural systems. ?One global solution to the challenge of sustainability is a prerequisite to a sustainable life, locally and regionally.?2 From the UNGA Resolution 43/53?s recognition of climate change as a common interest, we may apprehend that the system where these changes take place, in this case, the climatic system, can no longer be consider res nullius, i.e., it no longer has an absence of interest over it and, therefore, it can no longer be freely used.

?The notion of common interest leads to the creation of a legal system whose rules impose duties on society as a whole and on each individual member of the community.?3

In this context, the Common Heritage of Humanity regime remains the only one capable of supplying an international legal framework suitable to the regulation of goods, which summon us to other dimensions of the Human condition, no longer in the strictly material sense but rather in the qualitative sense, concerning Humanity?s well-being.

José Manuel Sobrino comes forward with a concrete proposal: ?A formal legal approach to the notion of Common Heritage of Humanity would certainly exclude the vital resources as well as the climatic system itself. However, in my opinion, the evolution of the international community, the patrimonial dimension of these goods, the need for transmission, would allow the application of the fundamental principles of Common Heritage of Humanity, and thus, make them free from any private or State appropriation, accessible to all and managed by an international institution, particularly taking into account the unequal development of the States. In this sense, it can be argued that the climatic system has the dimension of a legacy for Humanity, which involves the idea of transmission of a climate suitable to life, to our generation and future generations.? 4

This option of configuring a global natural system as a res communis omnium, i.e., as a common property extended to all Humanity, may become the ground work that will allow the resolution of a series of complex problems, such as the space-time inadequacy of the Law to the new global phenomena and the inevitable ?market gaps? resulting from the undefined property of these global environmental goods. It may also allow the quantification of this common interest, opening doors to the creation of an accounting system of the rights and duties related to this common heritage.

?The environmental wellness is not suitable to a function of exchange and alienation, but rather a function of collective fruition.?5 Many attempts have been made to use market tools to promote the organisation of a function of ?exchange and alienation,? aiming to reach optimum ecological and social levels, integrating the economy and the environment. The fact that no one can be excluded from this ?global collective fruition,? means that all will have access to the improvements introduced in the global common system without paying. In the same way, all are faced with the possibility of bearing with the usage costs of the global natural systems incurred by others. This fact precludes the ?function of exchange and alienation? of a traditional market. The solution lies elsewhere. What is then the part played by the Law in this context? One of the main functions of the Law ought to be organising the collective fruition of goods or global natural systems, which several agents are entitled to use, without any right of excluding other agents.

01.3 Immaterial Natural Heritage?

The difficulty of delineating a juridic object related to the interest/concern of Humanity, does not lie with the natural asset intended to be preserved, but rather with the difficulty of defining that asset without clashing with the physical and geographical spaces of the different sovereignties. On the one hand, it is known that the ?laws of nature? exist, that the natural cycles and the global natural systems work, but the discoveries that revealed their global functioning are recent and the mental shift needed to separate these systems from the sovereign spaces has not yet been achieved. On the other hand, there is no juridic object, suitable to the characteristics of that ?environmental wellness? of diffuse and intangible character, that can go beyond concern without overstepping sovereignty. As a result of the chemical composition changes of the atmosphere, changes occur in the oceans; from the interaction between these two systems, changes occur in the dynamics of temperature and energy transmission and distribution and in all the complex network of balances and unbalances that ensure the environmental conditions needed for human well-being. This notion of functional processes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere or the oceans, is never to be confused with the geographical notions of national territory, airspace, exclusive economical zone or even the geographical space of an ecosystem.

Therefore, we are not in the spatial dimension of the State territories, but rather of ?functional systems? whose dimension is always global. The maintenance of these equilibriums, which are the support of human welfare, is the so-called Common Interest of Mankind, and its unbalance the so-called Common Concern of Mankind. Simone Borg6 identifies this common interest as a legal status of an intangible common resource encompassing the global common goods.

Thus it seems an immaterial dimension of nature exists, which although existing within a geographical space of the planet, is beyond the physical space of the sovereignties and of the physically appropriable material goods.

The assignment of a patrimonial dimension to the climatic system, as proposed by Sobrino7, not only allows the deterritorialisation of nature, but also the individualisation of the natural function, isolating it from the concept of sovereignty, since the functional dimension goes beyond the notion of aerial, maritime or terrestrial space and enters the intangible realm of nature, which, for all effects and purposes, is where we find the Common Concern of Mankind. This ?immaterial? nature, because it unites us all, is the essence and the true Common Heritage of Humanity.

1 Cit. por Soares, C.A Dias ? O imposto ecológico. Contributo para o estudo dos instrumentos económicos de defesa do ambiente.

Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra/Coimbra Editora, 2001.

2 Costanza, R. et al. 2011. How Defining Planetary Boundaries Can Transform Our Approach to Growth, The Solutions Journal.

Available at: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/935 (consulted on 06/06/2011).

3 Shelton, Dinah, Common Concern of Humanity, Iustum Aequum Salutare, V2009/1.33-40

4 Sobrino, José Manuel, ? Hácia um património ecológico comum de la humanidad?, 4 fev.2011, 21ª Jornal Estado de Direito.

5 Reported by, Amado Gomes, Carla, Textos Dispersos de Direito do Ambiente, Associação Académica da Faculdade Direito de Lisboa,

Lisboa 2005, p 22.

6 Borg, Simone, Climate Change as a Common Concern of Humankind, Twenty Years Later... From UNGA to UNSC

http://www.diplomacy.edu/conferences/climatechange/papers/borg.pdf

7 Sobrino, José Manuel, ? Hácia um património ecológico comum de la humanidad?, 4 fev.2011, 21ª Jornal Estado de Direito.

02

Common metric

02.1 The need for a common metric

The first step towards this integrated management will be finding a measure, acceptable to all, that can translate into units the consumption and the availability of the collective welfare achieved through the several global natural systems. For that, it is fundamental to previously solve the problems of using various methodologies, of the biological and spatial differences between distinct geographical units, and of the differences between the several ecological services provided by the different ecosystems. A system is also needed that can solve the problems of the services appropriation impossibility and of the free access and non-exclusion with regard to the whole human community.

02.2 The global hectare, the ecological footprint and the biocapacity

The Global Hectare, by the Global Footprint Network, has not only the virtue of including, in the same metric, the different impacts on the ecological system through the ecological footprint (debit), but also of incorporating the benefits of the ecological services through biocapacity (credit). This tool is already accepted and recognised today as a metric being used internationally. It is already being used as a tool for the implementation of public policies, as it happens in the European Union. It is a metric usable on the local, regional or global scale, allowing the interchange of information. The global hectare, as the measuring concept it is, has not only the advantage of compatibility with an Immaterial Natural Heritage of Humanity, but it can also obtain balances that may enable the settlement of accounts.

02.3 A green economy that produces biocapacity

In this factual process of globalisation, it is pressing to reach a consensus on the need to develop an economy that can operate in harmony with the ?common home,? thus serving human beings. It is expected that the Rio+20 Summit will be the beginning of an accelerated but thorough process of global transition towards an economy that generates Growth, generates employment and eradicates poverty, by investing on and preserving the natural capital upon which our long-term survival is based.

?Considering, however, the state of degradation the environment has reached, intergenerational responsibility should go further: it is no longer sufficient to leave the environment to future generations as it was received, it is necessary to recover the quality of the environment, reaching close to optimal levels.? 8

Ultimately, building a green economy is more than reducing pollution, developing green technologies, improving ecoefficiency and trying to organise the ?function of exchange and alienation? of the rights of pollution, with all its perverse effects. Building a green economy is also maintaining and recovering the natural capital, introducing in the international relations accounting and in the GDPs, the positive contributions of each intervener in the global system, allowing, in this way, the existence of incentives to the recovery of the planet?s biodiversity to sustain human life.

We know that, at this point, we would need 1.5 planets to ensure the replenishment of resources consumed, which means that the demand for these environmental services is 0.5 times higher than the supply. If the environmental services are vital for Humanity?s welfare, why is this economy incapable of producing and distributing them according to demand?

8 Aragão, Maria Alexandra de Sousa, O princípio do poluidor pagador, pedra angular da politica comunitária do ambiente, Boletim

da Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra Editora, Coimbra 1997, p-31

03

Common value

03.1 The need for a common value

The option of using the same metric for demand and supply, which allows a reading of the local contributions to the planet, makes it possible to declare that each biocapacity unit (global hectare) made available by the common natural systems, provides equal benefits to all Humanity. Therefore, the economic compensation awarded to cover the provision costs of each global hectare must be identical all over the planet. This is also key for the building up of trust and reciprocity.

While it is true that a value for the vital services is being sought after, despite its incalculable value, it is also true that ?the perception of the lack of correspondence between the derisory market value and the supreme real value, must be seen as an incentive to reach a value closer to reality, rather than as a hindrance towards valuation, for fear that the calculated value will fall short of the real one. (...) In short, the timidity in assigning a monetary value to the elements of nature has as consequence the continued exploitation of resources at zero or close to zero cost, which, from a resource preservation point of view, is certainly worst than the assignment of a price, no matter how low or sloppy it may be.? 9

How can a value be found to compensate those who provide ecological services of common interest?

Concerning the supply of environmental services, what is proposed is the quantification of the provision costs for the indirect benefits performed by the common natural systems. We wish to know how much it costs to offer a biocapacity unit, which is a benefit used by all at a global level, and that is directly related with the maintenance/recovery of the ecosystem?s good condition.

As a starting point, that value should be obtained from several ecosystems in different countries, and that should be the key data for the political process of reaching a price. Since we understand from the start that the payment of the ecosystem?s services will never cover their real value, what must be aimed at, is finding a more adequate value to perform a compensation for the services of common interest.

Plus, given the economic and exchange differences between countries, the common value may also be an appropriate tool to respond to the historical differences between countries with regard to the consumption and use of the global natural systems. It may also provide a more balanced distribution of the financial resources between the rural and the urban worlds.

03.2 The Ecological Fiscal Reform

The compensation for the benefits performed in the common natural systems, implies a broader view on economy and on the tax system itself, since this new financial compensation cannot be achieved by adding new taxes to the existing ones. The transition to a green economy entails the construction of a fiscal system that ensures a redistribution of profits based on each one?s positive and negative contributions towards the common interest. In other words, that on the one hand, it penalises the impacts on the environment, on the other hand, it encourages the performance of collective benefits. These proposals are based on the conviction that there must be a decrease of taxes on labour and an increase of taxes on the impacts on the environment, i.e., on the consumption which translates into the ecological footprint.

9 Aragão, Alexandra, A natureza não tem preço... mas devia. O dever de valorar e pagar os serviços de ecossitemas. Estudos de

Homenagem ao Professor Jorge Miranda. Outubro 2011.

04

Governance of a Common Heritage

When speaking of assigning an economic value to the ecological services, the immediate association is that it will be necessary to transform them into tradable products and that a conventional market will have to be created. This is not the correct approach because we are speaking of free-access goods and a conventional market cannot be used to manage goods of which consumption no one can be excluded. Since all countries consume and provide ecological services that are reflected on the global natural systems, only by obtaining the balance between the total supply and consumption, can an agreement be reached where everyone?s interests are safeguarded. A permanent supply and demand management will be necessary, and it ought to be performed by an institution within the United Nations. The environment is not a tradable product, but rather an asset to be maintained.

04.1 Settlement of accounts of a limitless common heritage

Nowadays it is already possible to define those limits within which the conditions for human life are maintained and which boundaries should not be overcome. This limit of the Earth?s natural system itself must be understood as ?a specific point related to a global-scale environmental process beyond which humanity should not go.?10 This notion of boundary will be a normative judgement, informed by science, but greatly based on the human awareness of risk. If the value of this heritage is measured by the capacity of the Earth?s natural system to ensure human living conditions for the future generations, in this case the climatic system, the safe and proper value of the inherited heritage would correspond to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. A heritage with an appropriate value would be 350ppm.

The Earth Condominium, by juridically separating the sovereignty of each State from the common natural systems, proposes a global juridic support that will allow the creation of an accounting of each one?s contributions towards the regular functioning of these systems and the creation of a management system, which we consider to be the best structural conditions to overcome this ?social trap.?

With this theoretical/conceptual scenario as a starting point, we propose the structured combination of the various existing solutions, to which some improvements and adaptations would be made, giving them the integrated dimension of a necessary path of structural reform to build a human green economy.

10 COSTANZA, R. et al. 2011. How Defining Planetary Boundaries Can Transform Our Approach to Growth, The Solutions Journal.

Available at: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/935 (consulted on 06/06/2011)

Copyright (c) United Nations 2011 | Terms of Use | Privacy Notice | Contact | Site Map | New