Interdependence and economic choice
Today’s society is based on a market economy which advocates unlimited growth. A growth which is very often detrimental to sustainable development. The negative consequences of this growth model on the environment, ecosystems, all animal species, and its harmful effect on climate change, have been indisputably proved by science. The reality of a world which continues to live, despite all the evidence, as if we have several at our disposal and whose natural resources are non-exhaustive leaves no doubt that a change of direction is necessary.
Time and again we see evidence of the consequences of certain events such as a famine in Africa or a drought in India on the stock market, as well as economic or financial crises provoked by catastrophes caused by climate change (floods, hurricanes, tsunamis). What does all of this mean?
More than ever, the effects of the globalisation of the Planet and the immediacy with which the consequences of conflicts in one place on the globe impacts all regions, shows the interdependence of the factors and actors of this globalisation. The deterioration of ecosystems, or of the biosphere, has repercussions on the economy of a country, and on the survival of species. The model of consumption in the West which is expanding to more and more regions of the world, such as Asia, involve the reinforcement of the agro-food industry which determines the disappearance of billions of animals every year due to a unbridled consumption of meat which in its turn contributes to a worsening in the health of the Earth’s inhabitants.
In what way does the new paradigm of interdependence show that today’s economy is not sustainable? Is a respect for Nature and animals possible without a global economic collapse? Is there an alternative to this market economy model which would be acceptable to the ruling economic powers?
Round table: Isabelle Cassiers, Dirk Holemans, Olivier De Schutter (moderator)
Interdependence and political choice
In our globalised world, the idea of interdependence is cropping up more and more in international relations. At least in relation to the great challenges of our times, politicians from the international community understand that the crises and conflicts are having more and more of a planetary impact as shocks which happen around the globe have immediate repercussions on all of us. Situations such as inequality, macroeconomic instability or crises caused by the drop in oil prices or the hike in food prices might be the cause of crises to which no-one is immune.
It is necessary that we accept that the interdependence which characterises our societies, and which each and everyone can understand, exists at every level of every being that exists on the planet whether ecosystems, the biosphere, tropical forests, animal species, humans.
Those who are the decision-makers must become more and more conscious of the fact that their political choices will have transcendental consequences not only for those that live on Earth now but also for future generations, animal species and the Planet itself.
How can we get our political decision-makers to understand this new paradigm which is already a reality and to which they have to adapt if we want to survive?
Round table: Carlo Di Antonio (Walloon Governement), Joëlle Maison (Brussels’ Parliament), Stefan Eck (European Parliament), Olivier De Schutter (moderator)
Interdependence and legal choice
In modern societies only human beings are entitled to defend their own rights. Other living beings such as the Earth, Mother Nature, the Ocean, Animals are not entitled to defend themselves when their rights or even their existence are threatened.
However, things are changing and there are increasing examples of non-human persons which have been recognised in legal texts as having rights or even a legal identity.
Ecuador’s Constitution – the country’s 20th – written in 2008 had a special component that made it different from any other constitution in the world as it was the first constitution to grant essential rights to Nature. Under Article 71 of the 2008 Constitution : “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.” Under this framework, Nature becomes a subject of rights and “any person will be able to demand the recognition of the rights of nature before public organizations.” Ecuador’s adoption of the Rights of Nature in the National Constitution was a revolutionary move, even if the implementation of the country’s new legal framework, including the Rights of Nature, is far from perfect and there is still much to be done to achieve full recognition of the intrinsic value of Nature.
Likewise, other countries such as India have recognised a legal status to a specific category of animals such as dolphins. Other countries such as France have recently changed the status of animals in the civil code in order to recognise them as live and sentient beings. Finally, private associations have used courts to recognise the right of an individual animal to be released (orangutan Sandra in Brazil).
What are the main legal obstacles? What are the most effective strategies? Can we maintain that those are not isolated cases and that the world is changing?
Round table: Jean-Pierre Marguénaud, Andrea Gavinelli (European Commission), Olivier De Schutter (moderator)