The interface between human rights and ecosystem services

Stephen J. Turner

doi:10.1017/CBO9781316178904.020

19 - The interface between human rights and ecosystem services

from Part IV - Broadening the perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015

Stephen J. Turner

Edited by

Julia Martin-Ortega ,

Robert C. Ferrier ,

Iain J. Gordon and

Shahbaz Khan

Show author details

Stephen J. Turner: Affiliation:
Lincoln University
Julia Martin-Ortega: Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Scotland
Robert C. Ferrier: Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Scotland
Iain J. Gordon: Affiliation:
The James Hutton Institute, Scotland
Shahbaz Khan: Affiliation:
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), France

Book contents

Get access

Summary

19.1 INTRODUCTION

Ecosystem services and human rights are usually discussed separately. The development of theory and practice in the field of ecosystem services has generally been the domain of ecologists, economists, and policy makers; lawyers have also engaged in the dialogue and development, but to a lesser extent (Mertens et al. 2012, p.31). The purpose of this chapter is to play a part in the development of a deepening dialogue between ecologists, economists, and lawyers by discussing the integral links between ecosystem services and human rights. It draws from references relating to water ecosystem services and the use of human rights to protect them, but these examples provide an illustration of a wider relationship that exists between human rights and ecosystem services generally.

The chapter is divided into two main sections. The first section considers the conceptual and practical relationships between ecosystem services and human rights. It therefore considers the human rights that can be impacted through the loss of ecosystem services and also the practical relationships between certain rights and ecosystem services. The requirement of brevity does not allow an exhaustive examination of all of the human rights that are affected, but those that are selected represent some of the core issues. Therefore, it includes the rights to life, health, water, food, and property. In addition, it considers the role of procedural environmental rights in enabling citizens to become involved in decision-making processes related to the environment and also the role of those rights designed to set specific environmental standards (substantive environmental rights). The crucial role that work within the United Nations has had in developing the understanding of the links between human rights, the environment, and ecosystem services is integrated within the discussion.

The second section discusses possible ways that human rights can be further developed to operationalize ecosystem services-based approaches.

Type: Chapter
Information: Water Ecosystem Services
A Global Perspective
, pp. 163 - 169

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316178904.020 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achterman, G. L. & Mauger, R. (2010). The state and regional role in developing ecosystem service markets. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 20, 291–337.Google Scholar

Anton, D. K. & Shelton, D. L. (2011). Environmental Protection and Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Barbier, E. B. (2013). Wealth accounting, ecological capital and ecosystem services. Environmental & Development Economics 18, 133–161.Google Scholar

Bates, G. (2001). A duty of care for the protection of biodiversity on land. Consultancy Report, Report for the Productivity Commission, Ausinfo, Canberra.

Bell, S., McGillivray, D., & Pedersen, O. W. (2013) Environmental Law, . Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bishop, J. (2010). TEEB: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Report for Business (Executive Summary). Earthscan, New York.

Blanco, E. & Razzaque, J. (2009). Ecosystem services and human well-being in a globalized world: assessing the role of law. Human Rights Quarterly 31, 692–720.Google Scholar

Botkin, D. B. & Keller, E. A. (2003). Environmental Science. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Boyd, D. R. (2012). The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights and the Environment. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.Google Scholar

Daily, G. C., Alexander, S. E., Ehrlich, P. R., et al. (1997). Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues in Ecology 2, 1–18.Google Scholar

Davis, A. I. (2010). Ecosystems services and the value of land. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 20, 339–384.Google Scholar

Eves, C. & Blake, A. (2013). Assessing the long-term viability of leasehold rural land in Queensland. 19th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Conference, Melbourne. Available at: www.prres.net/papers/Eves_Assessing_The_Long_Term_Viability_Of_Leasehold_Rural_Land_In_Queensland.pdf (accessed 19 May 2014)

Fabra, A. & Arnal, E. (2002). Review of jurisprudence on human rights and the environment in Latin America. Joint UNEP–OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment – Background paper No. 6. Available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/environment/environ/bp6.htm (accessed 2 August 2013).

Ferraro, P. J. (2001). Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conservation Biology 15(4), 990–1000.Google Scholar

Gathii, J. & Hirokawa, K. H. (2012). Curtailing ecosystem expropriation: ecosystem services as a basis to reconsider export driven agriculture in economies highly dependent on agricultural exports. Virginia Environmental Law Review 30(1), 1–27.Google Scholar

Geneletti, D. (2013). Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessments Review 40, 1–2.Google Scholar

Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. (2010). Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division. United Nations. ESA/STAT/AC.217UN CEEA/5/7/BK. Available at: www.nottingham.ac.uk/cem/pdf/UNCEEA-5–7-BK1.pdf (accessed 19 December 2013).

Landsberg, F., Ozment, S., Stickler, M., et al. (2011). WRI : ecosystem services review for impact assessment (Working Paper). World Resources Institute.

Lele, S. (2009). Watershed services of tropical forests: from hydrology to economic valuation to integrated analysis. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1(2), 148–155.Google Scholar

Lugo, E. (2008). Ecosystem services, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, and the conceptual differences between benefits provided by ecosystems and benefits provided by people. Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 23, 1.Google Scholar

McAfee, K. (2012). The contradictory logic of global ecosystem service markets. Development and Change 43(1), 105.Google Scholar

McGillivray, D. (2012). Compensating biodiversity loss: the EU Commission's approach to compensation under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Journal of Environmental Law 24(3), 417–450.Google Scholar

Mertens, K., Cliquet, A., & Vanheusden, B. (2012). Ecosystem services: what's in it for a lawyer? European Energy and Environmental Law Review 21(1), 31–40.Google Scholar

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Ojea, E., Martin-Ortega, J., & Chiabai, A. (2012). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for economic valuation: the case of forest water services. Environmental Science & Policy 19–20, 1–15Google Scholar

Razzaque, J. (2002). Human rights and the environment: the national experience in South Asia and Africa. Joint UNEP–OHCHR Expert Seminar on Human Rights and the Environment – Background paper No.4. Available at: www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/environment/environ/bp4.htm (accessed 2 August 2013)

Salzman, J. (2005). Creating markets for ecosystem services: notes from the field. New York University Law Review 80, 870–961.Google Scholar

Salzman, J., Thompson, B. H., & Daily, G. C. (2001). Protecting ecosystem services: science, economics and law. Stanford Environmental Law Review 20, 309–332.Google Scholar

Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, Communication 155/96 (African Commission of Human and Peoples’ Rights, 27 October 2001).

TEEB. (2010). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers. TEEB, London.

ten Brink, P., Russi, D., Farmer, A., et al. (2013). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. Executive Summary. TEEB, London.

Tongson, E. & Balasinorwala, T. (2010). Payment for Ecosystem Services, Sibuyan Island, Philippines. Available at: www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Payment-for-Ecosystem-Services-Sibuyan-Island-Phillipines.pdf (accessed 10 August 2013).

Turner, S. J. (2009). A Substantive Environmental Right. Wolters Kluwer, Leiden.

Turner, S. J. (2014). A Global Environmental Right. Routledge, Abingdon.

Book contents

19 - The interface between human rights and ecosystem services

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive