Within our work at the Australian Earth Laws Alliance (AELA), we’re often asked how people and organisations can implement ecocentrism and/or Rights of Nature in practice. There are many approaches that can be used, to highlight, promote and ‘centre’ the non-human living world within human governance systems. In this blog, I discuss two connected ideas: eco-democracy and eco-representation, and I welcome your comments on any of the ideas discussed in this blog.
Eco-democracy & eco-representation in political processes
Eco-centric democracy or eco-democracy refers to a legal and political system in which non-humans and their habitats are represented and their rights to survive and flourish can be accounted for democratically in human society’s decision-making processes.[1]
One of the ways to achieve eco-democracy, is by creating ‘eco-representation’ within human political systems. “Eco-representatives” and “eco-proxies” are people who speak on behalf of, and advocate for, the interests of plants, animals and the non-human living world. Positions are created within a system, and the people acting as ‘eco-proxies’ are required to participate on behalf of non-human species and habitats, in accordance with agreed rules.[2]
Kopnina argues for eco-representation at various scales (individual animals, a population, species, communities) and at all governance levels.[3]
The responsibilities of eco-proxies would include representing their best-informed understanding of the interests of the non-humans to whom they were assigned. These types of “proxy-expressed interests” of non-humans can be weighed up alongside human interests through discursive processes or voting-based mechanisms. Other options could include public processes for democratic deliberation or an institutional ‘watchdog’ that could be employed to ensure that the representation-by-proxy was placed under scrutiny and processes used ethically and appropriately.[4]
To achieve political representation, Lundmark (1998)[5] and Dobson (2010)[6] both suggest a form of proxy representation in parliament. Lundmark suggests one way forward as being “a random sample of people from the ‘ordinary’ electorate act on behalf of non-humans.”[7] According to O’Neill (2006),[8] the legitimacy of representation should arise through the possession of specific knowledge concerning the interests of non-human stakeholders.
Another way of achieving political representation for non-human representatives, would be to reserve places for non-human reps based on existing electorates and as mandated requirements or quotas. Proxy representation raises questions about how individuals will be elected, whom they will represent, and how representation will be balanced with existing anthropocentric politics. To ensure democratic legitimacy for eco-centric policies, proportionate representation (number of individuals within a species, or the significance of species for the flourishing of other species) might be possible. However, as a global census of species is impossible, marginal geographies and their species may remain unknown. [9]
Mathews (2016)[10] proposes the “bio-proportionality principle”, seeking not merely viable but optimal population of all species. Allowing all species to flourish has specific policy implications and strengthens the case for increasing the extent of protected areas[11] with minimal intervention, while also considering the ethical reduction of human populations.[12]
Eco-representation within organisations and groups – corporations, cooperatives, associations and informal community groups. Is it possible?
While eco-representation in politics is one option (and one which may seem out of our reach in Australia’s current political climate), another way that people can create eco-representation is within their own organisations or groups, either formally or informally.
In Australia, when creating legal entities such as associations, cooperatives, not-for-profit and for-profit companies, people are legally required to create and lodge a foundational document or constitution with relevant regulatory authorities. The constitution usually sets out the purpose and objectives of the organisation, as well as the processes for managing the organisation, including electing a management committee or Board of Directors. It is in this document – the constitution of a legally incorporated entity – that eco-representation is being considered by a number of emerging entities in Australia at present.
AELA is exploring the possibilities and legal barriers to enshrining eco-representation in organisational constitutions, and welcomes any comments or input by lawyers and governance experts.
In addition to – and/or instead of – creating eco-representation in the founding constitutions themselves, there’s certainly nothing stopping organisations from creating operational structures, principles and policies that include requiring the perspectives of non-human nature in their day to day work.
Within formal and informal approaches, creative approaches such as a Council of All Beings or Parliament of Things, or even a mock trial or tribunal representing the interests of non-human nature, can also play an invaluable role in helping co-workers explore and respect the rights of nature to exist, thrive and evolve.
If you’d like more information about eco-representation, or have your own views to share with AELA, we’d love to hear from you. Please get in touch anytime: aela@earthlaws.org.au
References
[1] Stone, 2010; Gray & Curry, 2016; 2020).
[2] Treves, A., Santiago-Avila, F.J., & Lynn, W.S (2019) ‘Just Preservation’ Biological Conservation 229, 123-141.
[3] Kopina,Helen et al, ‘Ecodemocracy in Practice: Exploration of Debates on Limits and Possibilities of Addressing Environmental Challenges within Democratic Systems’ (2021) Visions for Sustainability https://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/5832 2.
[4] Gray, Joe, (2020) ‘What is Non-Humans had a Political Voice’ Millennium Alliance for Humanity and Biosphere https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/what-if-non-humans-had-a-political-voice/#disqus_thread
[5] Lundmark,C.(1998).Eco-democracy: A Green Challenge to Democratic Theory and Practice.Umeå Universitet, Doctoral dissertation.
[6] Dobson,A.(2010).Democracy and Nature: Speaking and Listening 58(4) Political Studies 752–768.
[7] Lundmark,C.(1998).Eco-democracy: A Green Challenge to Democratic Theory and Practice.Umeå Universitet, Doctoral dissertation 52.
[8] O’Neill,J.(2006).WhoSpeaksforNature?InHaila,Y.andDyke,C.(eds.),How Nature Speaks: The Dynamics of the Human Ecological Condition. Duke University Press Books.
[9] Kopina,Helen et al, ‘Ecodemocracy in Practice: Exploration of Debates on Limits and Possibilities of Addressing Environmental Challenges within Democratic Systems’ (2021) Visions for Sustainability https://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/5832 7.
[10] Mathews,F.(2016).From Biodiversity-Based Conservation to an Ethic of Bio-proportionality 200 Biological Conservation 140-148.
[11] Mathews,F.(2016).From Biodiversity-Based Conservation to an Ethic of Bio-proportionality 200 Biological Conservation 140-148.
[12] Crist, E., Mora, C. &Engelman, R. (2017). The interaction of the human population, food production, and biodiversity protection 356(6335) Science 260-264.