The World Charter for Nature

A phrase in Manhattan Principle 6 with which I really have struggled -

‘Seek opportunities to fully integrate biodiversity conservation perspectives and human needs (including those related to domestic animal health) when developing solutions to infectious disease threats‘

Because while it progressively appeared to me what the Manhattan Principles were actually saying, I found it very difficult to explain - in large part because I didn’t quite understand how ‘human needs’ factored in.

To understand, we need to go back to 1982.

-

I’ve covered One Health… rather a lot. But rather than spam link after link, allow me to just paste one - because it dives into the interpretation aspect -

Yet, it doesn’t clear up how ‘human needs’ factor in. However, the document over here does. By UN standards, it’s exceptionally brief, surprisingly honest, and doesn’t wrap every principle in odious verbiage about inclusion, human rights, justice, and so forth.

The document in question is the World Charter for Nature, and it was the outcome of the 48th plenary in late October, 1982.

Let’s get the mystery out of the way, because there are so many other things to address in this action packed two-pager. In fact, there are rather that many, I almost underlined half the document - which is somewhat of a rarity when it comes to UN documents.

And we, very appropriately, find the explanation similarly in the Implementation Principle 6 -

‘In the decision-making process it shall be recognized that man’s needs can be met only by ensuring the proper functioning of natural systems and by respecting the principles set forth in this Charter‘.

And there it is. The missing piece of the puzzle.

When the Manhattan Principles speak of ‘human needs’, what they are really saying is that our needs are met, by ensuring the proper functioning of the ecosystem. So let’s return, and fix Manhattan Principle 6 -

‘Seek opportunities to fully integrate biodiversity conservation perspectives and the proper function of the ecosystem (including those related to domestic animal health) when developing solutions to infectious disease threats‘

There. Now it makes more sense. Full integration of conservation perspectives with the proper function of the ecosystem. And what stops the ecosystem from functioning? Us. Our impact on said ecosystem is too large, and consequently, needs to be reduced. A similar statement was carried by the recent WHO pandemic treaty updates, for the record. But this one’s from 1982.

And as for the Manhattan Principles - ie, One Health - document from 2004? I’ll leave it an exercise for the reader, realising how principle 8 factors into all of this.

-

But in general, this is about conservation of nature. Failing to live in harmony with said must lead to the inescapable ‘biodiversity conservation perspective‘. It’s a moral call, after all. Especially given that we negatively affect it, and cause resource depletion through excessive consumption.

Failing to live in a way, guaranteeing our future leads to not peace (war), not forgetting that we must abandon armaments. This, ultimately, will lead to justice. Climate justice, I imagine, but this really is compound meaninglessness.

Or so the intro claims, anyway.

-

In the general principles we learn -

Nature shall be respected, the genetic viability not be compromised, habitats safeguarded, and these principles shall apply to both land and sea. We need to stop the degradation of nature, of the ecosystems, of the atmosphere. The lot, basically. Probably better if humans weren’t here at all.

-

Functions add more detail - they call for planning and implementation of conservation, through the application of science of technology, the sort which almost didn’t see us through C-19 anyway.

Natural resources shall not be wasted, living resource not utilised in excess, soils shall be maintained, water be re-used, and in general, any activity leading to a loss in the state of nature shall be either controlled or entirely stopped. And finally, pollutants must not be discharged into natural systems.

-

The final part is the more interesting one, it’s the one on implementation -

These principles shall be set out in law at national and international levels (hence, global), the future generation shall have this injected into their education.

We also need to take stock - create inventories - of ecosystems. How this is done is continues in item 19; ‘The status of natural processes, ecosystems and species shall be closely monitored to enable early detection of degradation or threat…‘

Does that remind you of something?

Oh and ‘authorities, international organisations, individuals, groups and corporations shall‘… ‘co-operate in the task of conserving nature through… information exchange‘, ‘implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment‘… thereby ensuring the response is centralised.

And finally, national governments shall ‘Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural system located within other States‘, which really translates to ‘be held responsible of any potential damage done to the environment or ecosystem internationally’, thereby creating an early mechanism of enforcement…

… and finally, you. Yes you. Your duty is also clear, and ‘in accordance to the provisions of the present charter’.

-

Now, it is said that one of the key differences between socialism and libertarianism is that in the latter, the state has limited duties, and work to serve the people in accordance.

But that attitute is most certainly not reflected by this document, released in 1982.

In fact, should you consider all these initiatives - water, soil, ecosystem, natural resources, pollutants, surveillance, information exchange, all within a global approach… you’ll find that you can find them all in a document from 1973, with roots tracing back to 1968.

And it directly drags in the UNEP.

-

See you soon.