The Rights of Nature is a new paradigm shift which holds that Nature has fundamental rights. Proponents claim that this new form of ecological governance will create sustainable solutions for...Show moreThe Rights of Nature is a new paradigm shift which holds that Nature has fundamental rights. Proponents claim that this new form of ecological governance will create sustainable solutions for environmental degradation as well as expand the cultural heritage and rights of indigenous peoples. However, there lacks sufficient transparency to what extent these claims are accurate. The goal of this thesis is to investigate the Rights of Nature from a cultural heritage perspective in order to create greater understanding and clarity. The core of the research is to look at the interrelation between the Rights of Nature, landscape protection and heritage studies. In turn, this interrelation can reveal to what extent the Rights of Nature truly expands the cultural heritage and rights of indigenous peoples as well as promotes environmental protection. The research focuses on the parallel cases of Ecuador and New Zealand where the Rights of Nature are legally recognised but approached in different ways. First, the research takes a closer look at the origins, developments and characteristics of the Rights of Nature movement, including the interrelated expansion of the human rights development. Second, the heritage focus reveals that western and indigenous heritage values have a different conception of the human-Nature relationship. Indigenous heritage values reflect an intimate relation with Nature where both humans and the natural world are equally interconnected. In contrast, western heritage values reflect a dualistic perspective on the human-Nature relationship, where human culture is separated from Nature and often in dominion over Nature. These contrasting conceptions, in turn, shape the way cultural landscape protection as well as the Rights of Nature is defined and expressed. From a pure theoretical framework, the Rights of Nature carries both elements of western and indigenous heritage values, however, this is not straightforward and remains ambiguous. The case studies show that Ecuador and New Zealand carry both strong and weak elements in how the implement their Rights of Nature. As a result, the countries have a different outcome in how they protect their cultural landscapes in relation to environmental challenges as well as to what extent they expand the cultural heritage and rights of indigenous peoples. The research presents a variety of conclusions, but the main point is that the Rights of Nature can be regarded as a small step forward in the recognition of Nature’s right, however, it is not the end-solution. So far, the Rights of Nature does not sufficiently expand the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples as well as provides straightforward solutions to environmental degradation. Alternatively, when the western legal system changes its fundamental normative rules that define the principles of rights to a relationship framework, indigenous people’s rights and cultural traditions can be easier embraced. We need a language of law that brings to light the patterns of relationship rather than hides it in structures of hierarchies, boundaries and competing interests. When relationship patterns become the intention within the legal framework, the Rights of Nature can become more effective in bringing about its aim.Show less
Today, we still live in a world of colonisers and colonised. The colonising mentality is still very much present even if most of us are oblivious of it. Some minority groups are vulnerable to this...Show moreToday, we still live in a world of colonisers and colonised. The colonising mentality is still very much present even if most of us are oblivious of it. Some minority groups are vulnerable to this philosophy as they can get assimilated or oppressed by larger groups of people. Indigenous Peoples, which is a broad term used to unify all Peoples native to a land which was colonised by foreigners, continue to be under threat of losing cultural traits from an undesired assimilation. This MA thesis explores the relations between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional knowledge on plants with foreign corporations and states and their medicinal knowledge. It is common for states to fund research on Indigenous lands in order to acquire their knowledge on medicinal plants. This is part of the larger type of research which we call bioprospecting. This process becomes problematic because the approach can infringe Indigenous Peoples rights. Biopiracy, which involves the theft of Indigenous knowledge on biological materials, is common within bioprospecting. The early 1990’s had seen a legal turn which was favorable for Indigenous Peoples in defending their rights against this said biopiracy. By combining many international legal instruments, it is possible to frame unlawful behavior by foreign corporations, but it seems very difficult to do so with one single instrument. So, this young legal framework still needs to be developed. After reviewing a handful of cases, some of which happened before the implementation of law on this topic, a few things were more obvious than others. First, the new legal instruments made a difference as we saw a change towards a respectful approach in more recent years. Second, although benefits are not explicitly displayed by the case studies, which were all ultimately failures, all parties involved should have access to equitable benefits if all laws and ethics are followed. One of the most important steps to follow in order to respectfully carry on with a bioprospecting project is the concept of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). The latter is imperative for a peaceful and respectful relationship between the parties involved, whether it is the foreign visitors or the native Peoples. Finally, the most important insight which is understood by the comparison of these cases is the prominent clash between “Western” philosophy and Indigenous philosophies. This brings us back to the colonial mindset most of us still have today. Many take their lifestyle for granted and assume that everyone has the same way of life. Evidently, the cases disprove this claim, as Indigenous knowledge is often assumed to be the same as science, which it is not. It is by acknowledging this that on-site practices must be changed. Indigenous knowledge and science can work together in the same realm only if no party assumes that their ways are better than the other’s.Show less
