What the human right to a healthy environment means for addressing wildlife crime
By Tamara Léger and Rob Parry-Jones
Today, on the 8 October, UN Member States decide on whether or not to formally recognize the human right to a healthy environment. This provides us with an opportunity to reflect on what exactly this right means for environmental protection work tackling wildlife crime.
The right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment — or in short, the right to a healthy environment (RTHE) — is the recognition that intact ecosystems and animal and plant populations, as well as a stable climate, underpin all human rights: “All human rights depend on a healthy biosphere !” — as the UN Special Rapporteur for the Environment and Human Rights, David Boyd, pointed out. The rights to life, to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, our right to food, water, and hygiene, livelihoods and to participation in cultural life, and so forth, are as important as — and interdependent on — the right to a healthy environment.
What does the RTHE mean for tackling wildlife crime? Here are the three main takeaways:
1. Wildlife crime poses a serious threat to a healthy environment
Firstly, let’s state the obvious: we are in the midst of a global environmental crisis, of which the Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT), also known as Wildlife Crime, is an important element. The latest IPBES report suggests that around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of drivers of biodiversity loss, and wildlife crime is a key driver. Put simply, illegal offtake of wild fauna and flora undermines the integrity of ecosystems, and a healthy and sustainable environment. Illegal logging for example, undermines a wide range of ecological benefits — in addition to the social ones. It causes deforestation and forest degradation, impoverishes biodiversity, increases carbon emissions while reducing carbon storage, thereby playing a significant role in global warming and climate change.
2. Wildlife crime undermines human rights
The RTHE recognizes that environmental harm interferes with the enjoyment of human rights. Illegal wildlife trade is among the most lucrative forms of transnational organized crime, undermining communities by depleting the natural resources they depend on, worsening poverty and contributing to corruption, threatening governance and security, and strengthening criminal networks that risk engaging in activities that further contribute to human rights abuses. It also poses health risks, as three-quarters of all emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic, and threatens the principle of intergenerational equity, where future generations risk living in an ecologically impoverished world, void of rhinos, elephants, mountain gorillas or snow leopards.
The decline or disappearance of a particular species could have a devastating impact on an indigenous community, their rights, and the rights of future generations. Let’s take Devil’s Claw (Harpagophytum procumbens) as an example. This medicinal plant grows in the savannah on the dry margins of the Kalahari, in Southern Africa, and has anti-inflammatory properties used to treat arthritis and rheumatism. The plants are collected by Kalahari bushmen (San and Damara) for use in traditional medicine and for sale; this is often the only source of cash income for these once nomadic and today socially severely disadvantaged communities, whose right to food and healthcare are at stake. The right to a healthy environment clarifies that it is states’ responsibility to take effective steps to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of the ecosystems and biological diversity on which the full enjoyment of human rights depends.
3. The convergence of the environment and human rights enables mutually-supportive approaches
While a healthy environment is crucial for the fulfilment of human rights, the way we protect the environment matters, and the RTHE articulates clearly that in all our efforts to ensure our environment remains healthy, we must respect and protect human rights. It is the only way forward if we are to effectively, equitably, and sustainably protect nature.
As with most environmental damage, the consequences of wildlife crime are felt most acutely by people who are already in vulnerable situations. Building equitable and effective responses to wildlife crime requires us to ensure the “do no harm” principles are at the heart of IWT responses, and that we adopt inclusive and holistic approaches. For example, we must pay more attention to the way in which women are impacted by wildlife crime — but also, by responses to it — and to empowering indigenous peoples to shape their own responses to wildlife crime. It also means ensuring that any support to law enforcement helps strengthen the rule of law, addresses impunity, and promotes international human rights laws and standards. The human right to a healthy environment provides that, while governments have the duty to protect the human right to a healthy environment, they must do so by respecting human rights, including procedural rights, by ensuring meaningful participation in environmental decision-making through freedom of expression and association, for example, and providing environmental education.
By articulating clearly the convergence of the environment and human rights, the human right to a healthy environment helps pave the way forward for those working on protecting the environment, by identifying entry points such as the Universal Periodic Review under the Human Rights Council through which specific environmental issues can be highlighted for remedial action, or specific issues requiring more attention, such as the protection of Environmental Human Rights Defenders.
Understanding the RTHE through the angle of wildlife crime reminds us that tackling wildlife crime through a rights-based approach contributes to the fulfilment of human rights, and that protecting human rights can contribute to effectively and equitably addressing wildlife crime.
