RIGHTS OF NATURE’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-DIMENSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND A NEW CIVILIZATIONAL PARADIGM

Abstract

This article reflects on the rights of nature’s contribution to the construction of multidimensional development and a new civilizational paradigm. To do so, it presents a discussion about the origin of the rights of nature; a legal panorama of the rights of nature in Latin America, as well as a reflection on environmental neoconstitutionalism; the legal guarantees on the right to development; and the converging aspects between the rights of nature and multidimensional development. The choice of theme is justified by the fact that the effective protection of nature has a close relationship with the analyzed development in a variety of ways. As a result, it is possible to infer that the effective guarantee and regulation of the rights of nature can in fact establish a paradigm shift in society and contribute to the composition of a new civilizational framework, in which nature will be seen as a subject of law and not as a mere generator of resources for economic exploitation, as well as being able to contribute, in a sustainable and balanced way, to a multidimensional, holistic development. To achieve this objective, inductive methods will be used, supported by bibliographical and documentary research.

Keywords:
civilizational paradigm; environmental neoconstitutionalism; multidimensional development; rights of nature

Resumo

Este trabalho reflete sobre a contribuição dos direitos da natureza para a construção do desenvolvimento pluridimensional e de um novo paradigma civilizatório. Para tanto, apresenta uma discussão acerca da origem dos direitos da natureza; um panorama legal dos direitos da natureza na América Latina, bem como uma reflexão sobre o neoconstitucionalismo ambiental; as garantias legais sobre o direito ao desenvolvimento e os aspectos convergentes entre os direitos da natureza e o desenvolvimento pluridimensional. A escolha do tema se justifica pelo fato de que a proteção efetiva da natureza tem estreita relação com o desenvolvimento analisado de maneira plural, levando em consideração a concepção de ecologia profunda. Como resultado, é possível inferir que a efetiva garantia e regulação dos direitos da natureza poderá estabelecer, de fato, uma mudança de paradigma na sociedade e contribuir para a composição de um novo marco civilizatório, no qual a natureza passará a ser vista como sujeita de direito e não como mera geradora de recursos para exploração econômica, bem como poderá contribuir, de modo sustentável e equilibrado, para um desenvolvimento pluridimensional, em uma dimensão holística. Para alcançar esse objetivo, serão empregados métodos indutivos, apoiados por pesquisa bibliográfica e documental.

Palavras-chave:
desenvolvimento pluridimensional; direitos da natureza; neoconstitucionalismo ambiental; paradigma civilizatório

Resumen

Este trabajo reflexiona sobre la contribución de los derechos de la naturaleza a la construcción de un desarrollo pluridimensional y de un nuevo paradigma civilizatorio. Para tal fin, se presenta una discusión sobre el origen de los derechos de la naturaleza; un panorama jurídico de los derechos de la naturaleza en América Latina, así como una reflexión sobre el neoconstitucionalismo ambiental; las garantías jurídicas sobre el derecho al desarrollo y los aspectos convergentes entre los derechos de la naturaleza y el desarrollo pluridimensional. La elección del tema se justifica por el hecho de que la protección efectiva de la naturaleza está estrechamente relacionada con el desarrollo, analizado de forma plural, teniendo en cuenta el concepto de ecología profunda. En consecuencia, es posible inferir que la efectiva garantía y regulación de los derechos de la naturaleza podría, de hecho, establecer un cambio de paradigma en la sociedad y contribuir a la composición de un nuevo marco civilizatorio, en el que la naturaleza sea vista como sujeto de derecho y no como mera generadora de recursos para la explotación económica, además de poder contribuir, de forma sostenible y equilibrada, al desarrollo pluridimensional, en una dimensión holística. Para alcanzar ese objetivo, se utilizarán métodos inductivos, apoyados en la investigación bibliográfica y documental.

Palabras clave:
desarrollo pluridimensional; derechos de la naturaleza; neoconstitucionalismo ambiental; paradigma civilizatorio

Introduction

Starting in the 1970s, discussions surrounding the rights of nature and development from a legal perspective became more profound. Since then, these issues have become increasingly prominent due to the severe environmental issues faced by humankind, particularly in recent decades. Given their interdependence, these themes require integrated analysis, which calls for an approach that brings them together. When approached from a multidimensional perspective, the development highlights this interdependence.

The proposal herein outlined seeks to examine the extent to which the rights of nature can contribute to constructing a model of multidimensional development and a new civilizational paradigm.

Based on this proposal, the first section will analyze the rights of nature as a cornerstone for civilizational construction, tracing the historical progression of this approach from anthropocentric and utilitarian views to the more modern biocentric conception and examining how these theories have influenced discussions on the rights of nature in Brazil.

The next section will focus on the legal landscape concerning the rights of nature and environmental neoconstitutionalism while addressing not only the regulation of rights of nature in Latin America and Brazil, but also official documents issued by the United Nations (UN) and Brazilian courts.

The final section will address the converging aspects of multidimensional development and the rights of nature. It will analyze the dependent relationship among all dimensions of development and the environment, emphasizing the need for preservation to prevent endangering all living species within the biosphere.

Supported by official documents on the subject, this study employs an inductive method and draws on contributions from both national and international authors.

1 The rights of nature: a civilizational construct

In the 1970s, discussions on the rights of nature initially took place within academic, philosophical, and environmentalist circles; however, they soon expanded to international organizations and the realm of foreign policy. Consequently, independent of ideology-whether progressive or conservative-governments worldwide inevitably confront pressing environmental issues.

This urgency is intrinsically connected to changes in production processes since the Industrial Revolution, which have been intensified by technological advancements, transnationalization, and the political, economic, and cultural phenomenon of globalization. Such transformations have influenced extractive and exploitative production processes of finite natural resources, often disregarding the preservation of human and other life forms.

Self-preservation within a systemic world context concerns not only the individual but also collective human communities, the collective of other species, future generations, the environment, and Earth itself, underscoring the necessity for economic systems that honor the sustainability of these systemic collectives. The urgency of abandoning this exploitative, utilitarian modus vivendi is paramount (Oliveira, 2021, p. 14, free translation)¹.

According to Gudynas (2019), these lifestyle changes within the society’s way of life affect both developed, industrialized, and emerging nations as well as poorer countries.

Beneath the diversities and disparities, foundational principles emerge that shape cultural attitudes toward the role of the environment, with foundations typically characterized by an anthropocentric approach aimed at controlling and manipulating the environment for its economic utility (Gudynas, 2019, p. 20, free translation)².

The anthropocentric perspective, which places humankind at its core, reinforces strong incentives for consumption-based on notions of utility and necessity-promoted both by corporations and economic policies that provide tax incentives for acquiring goods and services, fueling the accelerated product demand and, correspondingly, maximizing natural resource exploitation, yet it failing to foster an equivalent level of environmental concern.

The recognition of the rights of nature is not a recent movement. Rooted in a paradigm shift from anthropocentric thinking, this doctrine positions humans as part of the ecosystem rather than as protagonists or proprietors of natural resources (Santiago & Silva, 2021, p. 56, free translation)³.

In line with the anthropocentric perspective, the environment is not viewed holistically or pluralistically; rather, it is treated as a collection of objects available for human appropriation and valuation, allowing humans to enjoy, dispose of, control, or manipulate nature without adequate consideration for the finite nature of available resources.

On the other hand, the utilitarian perspective advocated by Bentham (1984) asserts that utility lies in ensuring that benefits, whatever they may be, are distributed to everyone; if this is not feasible, they should then be made available to the greatest number of people possible. He argues that utilitarianism provides the moral foundation necessary for legislators when considering the regulation of specific issues. However, the focus must always be both environmental and social well-being, leading us to consider how this school of thought contributes to reflections on environmental issues. It enables a view of nature grounded in environmental ethics-an ecological ethic focused on a different perspective, one that rejects human supremacy over nature and recognizes the interconnection between humankind and nature.

Similarly, Mulgan (2012), when discussing utilitarianism, argues that it relates to the utility of actions, while concern for well-being is not confined to humans but extends to all sentient beings-those capable of feeling pain, pleasure, and sensations-, implying that well-being should also be extended to non-human animals, achievable through the effective enforcement of rights of nature.

If we are sure of our theory of well-being for humans, then we can extend it to non-human animals to discover how we should treat them. On the other hand, if we are more sure of our beliefs about the relationship between humans and non-humans, we can use those beliefs to test our theories of well-being (Mulgan, 2012, p. 174).

This concern for the integration and welfare of all living beings has paved the way for biocentrism. According to Stoppa and Viotto (2014, p. 123, free translation)⁴, biocentrism is “a new orientation in legal thought connected to environmental ethics, which has emerged in recent decades to challenge anthropocentrism”.

The biocentric perspective posits that humans have direct obligations toward nature, including solidarity with all forms of human and non-human life, arguing that non-human beings “should be recognized as subjects with intrinsic values, not merely derived from human existence or for human benefit” (Baratela, 2014, p. 73, free translation)⁵. This idea aligns with the biocentric environmental ethic advocated by Taylor (1986), who argues that human civilization must abandon the anthropocentric tradition, which views nature as an object to be used and destroyed, except when such actions conflict with human interests. Thus, a biocentric ethic is necessary-one that is “centered on life, independent of categorizations, encompassing all living beings, extending beyond the criterion of sentience, affirming that every living being has intrinsic, inherent, and not merely instrumental value” (Oliveira, 2017, p. 132, free translation)⁶.

Biocentrism opposes anthropocentrism by asserting that concern for well-being should not be restricted to humankind but include all forms of life. It contends that, like humans, the environment and nature are also subjects of rights, thereby affirming their relevance within the legal sphere and reinforcing the need to regulate the rights of nature.

In Brazil, from the latter half of the 20th century, Environmental Law, influenced by debates on anthropocentric, utilitarian, and biocentric views, as well as by UN resolutions-particularly the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm-began to safeguard certain environmental areas, which included the passage of Law No. 6,938/81, establishing the National Environment System (Sistema Nacional do Meio Ambiente, Sisnama), perceived as a significant step in environmental protection policy. It consisted of public bodies tasked with creating mechanisms and specific policies for environmental preservation.

Following the Stockholm Conference, initiatives were proposed to create environmental policies, legislation, and Public Ministries worldwide to promote behavioral changes at global, local, and regional levels. The environmental footprint on the planet begins, reinforcing concerns over industrialization processes, land use practices, deforestation, and pollution, and generating a number of important recommendations for all signatories (Rocha, 2021, p. 29, free translation)⁷.

According to Rocha (2021), this conference sparked a global outcry for the adoption of environmental protection legislation at local levels. Initially, environmental protection was discussed lato sensu, yet without recognizing the environment as a legal subject.

However, in the face of the global environmental crisis-largely driven by neoliberal capitalism’s pursuit of increased production and profit, which assumes that the negative externalities of environmental exploitation can be offset by job creation-the international debate has emerged over the possibility of granting rights to nature. This perspective recognizes nature as having intrinsic values, thereby framing it as a subject of rights.

This shift has significantly expanded environmental protection policies and heightened the frequency of discussions on environmental issues, including the key obstacles to sustainable development that transcends economic concerns and prioritizes the sustainability of life and the planet with the goal of establishing a civilizational pact that fosters the creation of new societal paradigms.

Published in 1987, the Brundtland Report, also known as Our Common Future (CMED, 1991), highlighted several barriers to achieving sustainable development, notably global warming, and ozone layer depletion. Since then, numerous environmental issues have been recorded and reported daily worldwide, driven by human activity and the lack of robust environmental public policies and regulatory bodies that could prevent environmental disasters like those in Mariana (2015) and Brumadinho (2019), both in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, as well as the fires that have consumed a significant portion of Brazil’s Pantanal and Amazon rainforest since 2019 and the high rates of deforestation recorded in the Amazon.

According to Technical Note No. 01/21 (Libonati et al., 2021), produced by the Laboratory for Environmental Satellite Applications (Laboratório de Aplicações de Satélites Ambientais, Lasa) at the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, fires consumed 3,903 hectares in 2019 and 1,621 hectares in 2020, totaling 5,524 hectares. This environmental disaster-widely reported in the national media as human-caused (Léon, 2020)-resulting from wildfires caused irreparable damage to the Pantanal biome and to the numerous people who rely on the affected communities for survival.

In 2024, Lasa projected that the combined effects of climate crisis and human activity could lead to burned areas exceeding 3 million hectares.

As Oliveira (2021) points out, the intensity of human intervention in nature, reflected in excessive production and consumption activities, can be perceived as a form of violence against nature itself, based on the idea that violence is not solely an act committed between humans. This newer perspective on the rights of nature also considers violence against sentient beings and other forms of life.

In this sense, the concept of environmental justice emphasizes the right

[…] to a safe, healthy, and productive environment for all, where “environment” is regarded in its entirety, encompassing ecological, physical, built, social, political, aesthetic, and economic dimensions. It, therefore, refers to the conditions under which such a right can be freely exercised and preserved, fully respecting and realizing individual and group identities, as well as the dignity and autonomy of communities (Acselrad, Mello & Bezerra, 2009, p. 16, free translation)⁸.

According to Oliveira (2021), this cycle of environmental violence could be overcome if humankind re-establishes a connection with nature, aiming toward planetary dignity rather than seeking to reject or subordinate it to human needs and/or desires.

The world does not inherently satisfy human beings, who, in turn, have sought to transform them through their actions. Humankind actively influences nature, compelling it to change and adapt. It is their one and only means of subsistence, encapsulating the essence of the human-nature relationship. In this relationship, in the words of a wise man, there operates a continuous “metabolism”. In the wake of this metabolism, humans’ appropriate natural substances, using them for their purposes and personal benefit (Pisarzhevsky, 1970, p. 15, free translation)⁹.

It is therefore essential to understand that humans are an integral part of nature, not separate from it, just like all forms of life. Thus, it is essential to recognize that all beings have equal rights to balanced survival, respecting the limits that nature imposes on each species, highlighting the urgent need to construct a new paradigm in the human-nature relationship.

The new paradigm may be called a holistic worldview, seeing the world as an integrated whole rather than a dissociated collection of parts. It may also be called an ecological view, if the term “ecological” is used in a much broader and deeper sense than usual. Deep ecological awareness recognizes the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena and the fact that, as individuals and societies, we are all embedded in (and ultimately dependent on) the cyclical processes of nature (Capra, 2000, p. 25).

This new perception underscores the urgency of environmental concerns, as issues related to the biosphere and the conditions of life have worsened over recent decades. The shift in understanding regarding these issues-which, with rare exceptions, are human-caused-has effectively contributed to the growing recognition of the rights of nature in legislation and judicial decisions across various countries, particularly in Latin America.

2 Legal landscape of rights of nature and environmental neoconstitutionalism

For many, elevating nature to the status of a rights-bearing entity represents a radical shift, sparking debate around the formalization of such rights. However, as mentioned, since the 1970s, this discussion has gained prominence, with some countries amending their Constitutions to include rights of nature in alignment with Environmental Law, while acknowledging their principled nature in legal terms.

Freeing nature from the status of mere property under human ownership has called for-and still requires-a substantial political effort to recognize it as a subject of rights. Accepting that all beings have equal ontological value does not imply they are identical (Acosta, 2016, p. 123, free translation)¹⁰.

The recognition of rights of nature must be universal, allowing the global human community-given its international focus-to invoke it as a foundation for the unwavering defense of all forms of life, wherever they exist.

The use of the term “rights” may give the impression that this is an essentially normative, legal proposal. However, it goes far beyond the need for a new legal framework that takes nature into account. Integrating the rights of nature into the legal system of a municipality, state, country, or international body is an essential step, yet it is merely the beginning of a long process aimed at moving beyond anthropocentrism. The ultimate goal is building up an Earth community: a society that views humankind and nature as an integrated whole (Solón, 2019, p. 145, free translation)¹¹.

It is essential, therefore, to highlight the historical period during which the most significant environmental initiatives and debates took place-covering sustainable development and the green economy-and culminating in the current discussion on rights of nature. Besides being pivotal to advancing environmental discourse, such events also included notable constitutional amendments in certain countries, with particular emphasis on Brazil’s 1988 Federal Constitution, which, in Article 225, enshrined environmental protection (Brasil, 1988).

However, “the internalization of environmental protection into legislation” (Oliveira, 2021, p. 186, free translation)¹² is largely due to discussions promoted by the UN, which in recent decades has promoted several conferences to debate the most varied topics related to the environment. environment, seeking to strengthen initiatives and projects whose focus is environmental preservation, such as the World Conference on Human Beings and the Environment, in Stockholm, in 1972. A significant milestone was the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, which, as mentioned, marked a turning point in the conversation on the rights of nature.

The UN has set the pace for humankind, advancing critical proposals to achieve the paradigm shift needed for the planet to continue supporting life and for human beings to attain the level of peace necessary for their well-being. However, negotiations are advancing slowly; while the rate of overwhelming destruction imposed by humankind, to which nature responds reflexively, is exponentially faster (Oliveira, 2021, p. 187, free translation)¹³.

According to the author, in an effort to amplify environmental discussions, the UN has held other significant events, such as a 1982 meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Known as ECO-92, it led to Agenda 21, which aimed to integrate environmental policy with sustainable economic practices and social justice, and established the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an essential UN treaty that took effect in 1993 and was ratified by 179 countries, was also signed during the event in Rio. This international instrument is foundational to environmental discussions.

The CBD presupposes the recognition of the importance of synthesizing the value of traditional ways of life, advocating for traditional knowledge that enables the combination of biological diversity conservation with the sustainable use of its components (Florit, 2017, pp. 132-133, free translation)¹⁴.

Another significant mechanism was the World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002, known as Rio+10. This event brought together representatives from 189 countries and hundreds of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to collectively define not only environmental policies but also global social policies.

In the past decade, the UN and its member countries have established several key commitments from an environmental policy perspective. In 2012, the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development was held in Rio de Janeiro. Its goal was to discuss sustainable development and poverty eradication through a green economy agenda, as well as to explore how institutions could effectively support sustainable development implementation. At the conference, according to Oliveira (2021), the international community recognized Earth as a life-supporting entity, acknowledging the urgent need to restore ecosystem health and integrity.

Reflecting this recognition and the need to transcend an anthropocentric worldview, the UN General Assembly established International Mother Earth Day in 2009 through Resolution A/RES/63/278 (UN, 2009a) and the first Resolution on Harmony with Nature A/RES/64/196 (UN, 2009b), thus setting new paradigms in humankind’s relationship with nature. According to Moraes (2018), the intent is to recognize nature as an equal partner to humankind.

Resolution A/RES/64/196 gave rise to the Harmony with Nature program (UN, 2024), a platform that has enabled numerous actions, awareness campaigns, and both in-person and virtual dialogues with experts from various countries on the subject of harmony with nature. This shift is crucial due to the “global emergency that demands the transition from an anthropocentric to a non-anthropocentric paradigm to ensure the continuity of human life on this planet and of life in general” (Oliveira, 2021, p. 16, free translation)¹⁵, highlighting the increasing necessity of maintaining these communication channels.

Another critical initiative by the UN is the 2030 Agenda-Transforming Our World-which set a new timeframe for achieving the SDGs, agreed upon by the organization’s 193 member countries, from 2016 to 2030. “The preamble highlights the five main pillars-people, prosperity, planet, partnership, and peace-and announces the multidimensionality of development pursued by these objectives” (Olsson & Kruger, 2021, p. 13, free translation)¹⁶. The development highlighted in the Agenda is not only multidimensional and intrinsically linked to the environment but also emphasizes the importance of cross-cutting relevance, addressing a range of themes from diverse fields of knowledge.

Additionally, the Agenda introduced 17 SDGs to be achieved within a 15-year timeframe. Notably, Goal 15 places special emphasis on Earth: “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss“ (Objetivo…, 2024). Each goal in this document explicitly references a paradigm shift regarding humankind’s relationship with nature.

It is also important to note that the 17 SDGs are interconnected, as highlighted in the encyclical Laudato Si’ (Francisco, 2015) when discussing integral ecology.

It is essential to continually emphasize that everything is interconnected. Time and space are not independent of each other; even atoms and subatomic particles cannot be considered separately. Just as the various components of the planet-physical, chemical, and biological-are interconnected, so too do living species form a web that we will never fully isolate and comprehend (Francisco, 2015, p. 85, free translation)¹⁷.

This concept of interconnectedness reinforces the idea that multidimensional development cannot be approached without considering all its implications-not only economic but also social, environmental, cultural, and historical. Together, these factors are intrinsically linked to human evolution and its interaction and interdependence with other life forms.

Concern for this interdependence has led some Latin American countries to adopt progressive environmental legislation, granting rights to nature and inaugurating a new form of constitutionalism.

The first example came from Ecuador, which in 2008 enshrined rights of nature (rights of Pachamama) in its Constitution, specifically in Articles 71 and onward, ensuring, among other rights, that any person, community, or people can demand that public authorities uphold rights of nature. By acknowledging them, Ecuador marked a shift “from anthropocentrism to a biocentric stance” (Rocha, 2021, p. 63, free translation)¹⁸, recognizing the rights of all ecosystems and living beings. Furthermore, it affirms that nature has the right to be fully restored in cases of environmental degradation and ensures that individuals, communities, and people have the right to benefit from the environment and natural resources for their well-being.

Buen Vivir-or rather, harmonious ways of living-represents an opportunity to build a different world, one that cannot be achieved through empty rhetoric disconnected from practice. Another world is possible if envisioned and constructed democratically, grounded in both Human Rights and the Rights of Nature (Acosta, 2016, p. 21, free translation)¹⁹.

According to the author, this conception of Buen Vivir (or harmonious living) is tied to a new way of life built collectively, involving shifts and ruptures from paradigms tied to the unchecked exploitation of the environment to support a life model based on consumption, possession of goods, and accumulation: “it is not a formula contained in a few constitutional articles, nor is it a new development regime. Buen Vivir is, essentially, a process arising from the communal matrix of peoples living in harmony with Nature” (Acosta, 2016, p. 24, free translation)²⁰. In this sense, it values the knowledge accumulated by traditional peoples, offering a broad perspective on diverse issues, especially on development and its multiple expressions. Acosta further asserts that the rights of nature must not become a subject of commodification.

In Ecuador, Rights of Nature are embedded as part of an emancipatory merge that has produced a “legal hybrid”, recovering elements from various indigenous-and even some “Western”-cultures unified by the concept of life and which rightly understand that Mother Earth, or Pachamama, as a territorial, cultural, and spiritual entity, must not be used as an excuse for commodification or exclusion (Acosta, 2022, p. 425, free translation)²¹.

Ecuador’s example is paradigmatic, as its model for defending the rights of nature has fostered a broad network of protection and an awareness of the necessity for such protection. Numerous cases in the country involve individuals pursuing legal action to uphold rights of nature, such as the case advocating for the Rio Blanco, the lawsuit to prevent road expansion in the Galápagos, and an action in defense of the Vilcabamba River, among others (Garzón, 2017). Such actions highlighted the economic interests tied to the violation of the rights of nature.

In 2009, the Plurinational State of Bolivia incorporated Buen Vivir as an ethical and moral principle of its pluralistic society into its Constitution, “reflecting an Amerindian worldview, a reclamation of Indigenous knowledge and culture on the continent, in critique, opposition, or dialogue with Eurocentric, colonial, modern epistemology” (Oliveira, 2017, p. 130, free translation)²². However, this normative shift did not recognize nature as a rights-bearing entity, “it mandates that the State pursue Buen Vivir, a good life, a life in harmony; although nature is still viewed through an objectified lens, halfway between anthropocentrism and biocentrism” (Rocha, 2021, p. 69, free translation)²³. Nonetheless, rights were ascribed to the diversity of life, and the environment was elevated to a social right.

It is worth noting, however, that the new Constitution, “by advocating for the industrialization of natural resources, remains bound to classical ideas of progress, rooted in the appropriation of nature” (Acosta, 2016, p. 28, free translation)²⁴. The author argues that we are amid a civilizational crisis and must construct alternative ways of life, thus, Buen Vivir can serve as a mobilizing force for society to embrace the paradigm shifts necessary to guarantee the rights of nature.

In Brazil, discussions around rights of nature remain modestly present in academic circles, supported by certain municipal organic laws. In the municipality of Bonito/PE, through Amendment to the Organic Law No. 01/2017 (Bonito, 2017), the City Council approved a modification to Article 236, expressly recognizing the rights of nature. Also, the municipality of Bonito had previously enacted Law No. 1,085/2016 (Bonito, 2016), a municipal law focused on the protection and welfare of domestic animals in Bonito/PE. In 2018, the municipality of Paudalho/PE amended its Organic Law through Amendment No. 03/18 (Paudalho, 2018), adding item VIII, Paragraph 1 to Article 181, recognizing the rights of nature to thrive and evolve.

Rights of nature were also embraced by the municipality of Florianópolis, in the state of Santa Catarina, with PEL 0089/2018 (Florianópolis, 2018), which amended Article 133 of the Municipal Organic Law to affirm nature’s legal standing, significantly expanding the legal foundations and movements supporting this subject.

In the state of Mato Grosso, known for its agribusiness sector, rights of nature were initially recognized in the municipality of Cáceres, located in the southwest region of the state, via the amendment bill to the Organic Law No. 03/23 (Cáceres, 2023a), which was unanimously approved on 07/17/23. However, following requests from local farmers, this amendment was repealed on 08/14/23 through Amendment No. 06/23 (Cáceres, 2023b), with thirteen votes in favor and two against, demonstrating the dominance of economic over environmental and collective interests.

This debate over securing rights of nature is being proposed in numerous other Brazilian municipalities and has reached the higher courts. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in its judgment of REsp. 1.797.175/SP, presided over by Justice Og Fernandes, extended the concept of human dignity, granting dignity and rights to non-human animals and nature.

The relationship that should be established between humankind and nature is one of interdependence rather than domination of humans over other beings in the planetary community. Thus, a reflection within the scope of infraconstitutional legislation is necessary, aiming to explore paths toward advancing the discussion on recognizing the dignity of non-human animals and, consequently, acknowledging the rights and revising the way people interact with one another and other living beings (Brasil, 2019, free translation)²⁵.

Justice Og Fernandes’s ruling highlighted the challenge of effectively ensuring the rights of animals and nature more broadly. It points to a potential paradigm shift in the human-nature relationship and, also, a new biocentric legal framework: “the decision explicitly recognizes the interdependence between humans and Nature, rejecting the dominance of humans over the ‘other beings of the planetary community’” (Sarlet & Fensterseifer, 2019).

This ruling has served as a benchmark for other rulings in Brazilian courts, particularly due to its expansion of the concept of human dignity. In 2020, the São Paulo State Court of Justice ruled on Civil Appeal No. 1002508-07.2017.8.26.0615 (São Paulo, 2020), presided over by Judge Alfredo Attié, which recognized the rights of nature, specifically in relation to bees. This decision was grounded in the STJ’s judgment in REsp. 1797175 SP 2018/0031230-0 (Brasil, 2019) and Advisory Opinion No. 23/17 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2017).

Both the STJ and São Paulo court decisions attribute rights to animals, aligning with Solón’s (2019) perspective, which advocates for recognizing non-human beings inhabiting the planet as subjects of rights.

This recognition represents a significant milestone and will contribute to fostering a form of development that harmonizes human activities with nature.

3 Convergent aspects between multidimensional development and the rights of nature

Given its relevance, development “began to be observed in the international context after World War II, coupled with the effects of economic globalization. It was essential to understand the real needs of humankind within this context” (Silva, 2022, p. 115, free translation)²⁶. The goal was to protect human rights and human dignity.

Starting in the 1970s, development began to be framed as a right, supported by various UN resolutions, culminating in the Declaration on the Right to Development in 1986, with the endorsement of 146 countries.

In Brasil, development is considered a fundamental right enshrined in various articles of the Federal Constitution and addressed in multiple aspects, notably economic, social, technological, and scientific. These “impact the quality of life and the human dignity of individuals, binding both the public sector, by defining the responsibilities of government entities in upholding the right to development, and the private sector” (Silva, 2022, p. 121, free translation)²⁷.

Development is a topic that, due to its significance in the current stage of human evolution, has become indispensable and has been studied from various perspectives and approaches. It is embedded in discussions across various scientific fields, each with a focus that is best suited to its discipline, making it a topic for cross-disciplinary and multidimensional analysis.

In this sense, addressing development from a multidimensional perspective involves exploring both the conceptual and legal aspects of the term to understand it lato sensu.

It is important to note that the terms development and growth are often used interchangeably, but, according to Barbosa (2008), these terms no longer overlap, “because [development] should be seen as a structural transformation” (Benfatti, 2014, p. 21, adapted), as it encompasses numerous social variables and is therefore viewed through a multidimensional lens.

For some authors, the term ‘growth’ encompasses all forms of economic progress, while for others, it implies structural transformations, with countries at different stages of development and possessing diverse economic, social, and political structures (Rister, 2007, p. 1, free translation)²⁸.

Similarly, Rister states that “the development process could lead to a leap from one social structure to another, accompanied by an elevation in economic and community cultural-intellectual levels” (Rister, 2007, p. 2, free translation)²⁹. In this regard, it is essential to recognize that this development process, as described, requires a symbiosis with the workforce “next to nature, which supplies it with the material that it converts into wealth” (Engels, 2020, p. 337). This is because, according to Engels (2020), labor is more than just a source of wealth; it is an essential condition for human life, without which individuals, theoretically, could not survive.

The post-World War II approach to development focused primarily on economic growth and was treated in a unidimensional manner, as it did not extend to other sectors of society and failed to consider the environmental costs involved.

Such development was primarily economic and quantitative, with key indicators based on metrics like gross domestic product, per capita income, or export volume, which offered limited insight into social or political conditions, and even less into environmental aspects, such as social inclusion, unemployment rates, democratic participation, or air and water quality (Olsson & Kruger, 2021, p. 7, free translation)³⁰.

However, with the UN Declaration on Development in 1986, the concept expanded to include political-institutional, cultural, environmental, sustainable, and social dimensions, enhancing its multidimensional nature and imbuing it with a subjective aspect that affects human well-being, to be addressed at both national and international levels.

The UN has since played a pivotal role in international discussions on pluralistic development, with a particular focus on the environment, treating it as an essential ally, with particular emphasis on intergenerational rights, fostering a commitment between present and future generations, which Sachs (2009) describes as an imperative ethics of solidarity. According to the author, there must be an ethical principle of responsibility that encompasses all living species on Earth, so that the social contract is complemented by a natural contract.

In a similar vein, Gudynas (2019) asserts that ethical perspectives have substantially advanced in recent years, particularly with the recognition of nature rights in Latin America.

In this context, the 2030 Agenda, “an instrument that updates and operationalizes the possibilities for realizing the right to development-now qualified as sustainable and multidimensional” (Lavall, 2021, p. 105, free translation)³¹, has given greater prominence to the idea of “multidisciplinary, integrated, economic, social, environmental, and cultural” development (Barbosa, 2008, p. 111, free translation)³².

From this perspective, development underscores the necessity of examining it with close adherence to environmental considerations in all its dimensions. As demonstrated, development cannot exist independently of the environment; the relationship between development and nature manifests through unity, requiring “the emergence of a more embodied, corporeal, and sensitive relationship that values fragility over strength and is connected to care more than to the infinite production of toxic and degrading objects” (Azam, 2020, p. 139, free translation)³³. In its multidimensional aspect, development appropriates natural and cultural resources and modifies them, to varying extents, solidifying this relationship in a continuous, dialectical manner. However, this appropriation is not always conducted rationally, thoughtfully, or sustainably, nor does it acknowledge that other life forms also rely on the environment.

Final considerations

Both the right to development and Environmental Law in Brazil gained prominence in the national legal framework with the 1988 Federal Constitution. However, in response to environmental changes and their implications for various aspects of human life, sentient beings, and other forms of life, several countries have made significant amendments to their legal systems, recognizing nature as a rights-bearing entity-a trend that has, in turn, influenced countries like Brazil.

By studying the rights of nature and multidimensional development from the perspective of establishing a new civilizational framework, it becomes evident that true development cannot occur without acknowledging nature as a rights-holder, ensuring, at least in an initial stage, the regulation of basic life guarantees for all beings within the biosphere.

The notion of the right to individual or collective development, already safeguarded by national or international legislation, should not prevent legislators from expanding its concept to include the effective guarantee of the rights of nature as a means of preserving human life and all other life forms.

It is evident that expanding the guarantee of nature’s rights faces obstacles due to various interests, especially economic ones, from individuals or corporations who, in their eagerness to protect their ventures and “profits”, cause environmental harm that affects society as a whole.

Notably, the provisions regarding development in the 1988 Federal Constitution align with human dignity and the possibility of life in a just, dignified, fraternal, and supportive society. This alignment imposes a duty on public authorities to act and implement public policies, while the private sector is obligated to adopt measures that effectively uphold these principles in practice-a goal that will, in fact, be achievable only with concurrent respect for the environment.

In conclusion, building a new civilizational paradigm fundamentally depends on both regulatory and behavioral changes that produce effects on both individual and collective levels, aiming to foster new perspectives in the respectful relationship between humans, the environment, and other forms of life, consolidating the awareness that, without natural resources, survival cannot be guaranteed.

References

• ACOSTA, A. Sin derechos de la naturaleza la libertad es una ilusión. Revista Argumentum, Marília, v. 23, n. 1, p. 425-427, jan./abr. 2022. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://ojs.unimar.br/index.php/revistaargumentum/article/download/1698/1002 Acesso em: 27 jun. 2022.
  » http://ojs.unimar.br/index.php/revistaargumentum/article/download/1698/1002
• ACOSTA, A. O bem viver: uma oportunidade para imaginar outros mundos. Tradução Tadeu Breda. São Paulo: Autonomia Literária; Elefante, 2016.
• ACSELRAD, H.; MELLO, C. C. A; BEZERRA, G. N. O que é justiça ambiental. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond, 2009.
• AZAM, G. Carta à Terra: e a Terra responde. Tradução Adriana Lisboa. Belo Horizonte: Relicário, 2020.
• BARATELA, D. F. Ética ambiental e proteção do direito dos animais. Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal, Salvador, v. 9, n. 16, p. 73-93, 2014. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/RBDA/article/view/12119 Acesso em: 22 set. 2022.
  » https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/RBDA/article/view/12119
• BARBOSA, C. M. Reflexões para um Judiciário socioambientalmente responsável. Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR, Curitiba, n. 48, p. 107-120, 2008. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://revistas.ufpr.br/direito/article/view/15744/10449.%20A Acesso em: 6 out 2022.
  » https://revistas.ufpr.br/direito/article/view/15744/10449.%20A
• BENFATTI, F. F. N. Direito ao desenvolvimento. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2014.
• BENTHAM, J. Uma introdução aos princípios da moral e da legislação. Tradução Luiz João Baraúna. 3. ed. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1984.
• BONITO. Lei n. 1.085, de 02 de agosto de 2016. Institui a Lei Municipal de Proteção e Bem-Estar de Animais Domésticos do Município do Bonito/PE. Bonito: Prefeitura Municipal de Bonito, 2016. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://transparencia.bonito.pe.leg.br/uploads/5110/2/atos-oficiais/2016/leis/1675103333_1085201618042022121812.pdf Acesso em: 27 jun. 2022.
  » https://transparencia.bonito.pe.leg.br/uploads/5110/2/atos-oficiais/2016/leis/1675103333_1085201618042022121812.pdf
• BONITO. Emenda à Lei Orgânica n. 01/2017. Altera o art. 236, caput e seu parágrafo único, da Lei Orgânica do Município de Bonito/PE. Bonito: Câmara Municipal de Bonito, 2017. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://mapas.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Lei-Bonito.pdf Acesso em: 19 out. 2024.
  » https://mapas.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Lei-Bonito.pdf
• BONITO. Lei Orgânica. Bonito: Câmara Municipal de Bonito , 2020. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://transparencia.bonito.pe.leg.br/uploads/5110/2/atos-oficiais/2020/lei-organica-municipal/1674738778_leiorganica.pdf Acesso em: 19 out. 2024.
  » https://transparencia.bonito.pe.leg.br/uploads/5110/2/atos-oficiais/2020/lei-organica-municipal/1674738778_leiorganica.pdf
• BRASIL. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Lei n. 6.938 de 31 de agosto de 1981. Dispõe sobre a Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente, seus fins e mecanismos de formulação e aplicação, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União: seção 1, Brasília, DF, ano 119, n. 167, p. 16509, 2 set. 1981. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l6938.htm Acesso em: 19 out. 2024.
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l6938.htm
• BRASIL. [Constituição (1988)]. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Diário Oficial da União : seção 1, Brasília, DF, ano 174, n. 191-A, p. 1-32, 5 out. 1988. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm Acesso em: 11 set. 2024.
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
• BRASIL. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. (2. Turma). REsp: 1797175 SP 2018/0031230-0. Administrativo. Ambiental. Recurso Especial. Não configurada a violação do art. 1.022 do CPC. Inexistência de omissão, obscuridade ou contradição. Multa judicial por embargos protelatórios. Inaplicável. Incidência da Súmula 98 do STJ. Multa administrativa. Rediscussão de matéria fática. Impossibilidade. Súmula 7 do STJ. Invasão do mérito administrativo. Guarda provisória de animal silvestre. Violação da dimensão ecológica do princípio da dignidade humana […]. Recorrente: Maria Angélica Caldas Uliana. Advogados: Adelina Hemmi da Silva - SP107502. Barbara Aparecida de Jesus - SP296261. Bruno Hemmi Pereira - SP337999. Recorrido: Fazenda do Estado de São Paulo. Procurador: Jaques Lamac e outro(s) - SP057222. Relator: Min. Og Fernandes. Data de julgamento: 21 mar. 2019. Diário de Justiça Eletrônico, 28 mar. 2019. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=201800312300&dt_publicacao=13/05/2019 Acesso em: 20 out. 2024.
  » https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=201800312300&dt_publicacao=13/05/2019
• CÁCERES. Projeto de Emenda à Lei Orgânica n. 3/2023. Os vereadores Cézare Pastorello (PT), Pedrinho do Sindicato (PT), Eng. Celso Silva (Republicanos), Lacerda do AKI (PRTB), Valdeníria (PSB), Professor Leandro (UB), Franco Valério (Pros), Marcos Ribeiro (PSDB) e Luiz Landim (PV). Propõe a inclusão dos Direitos da Natureza na Lei Orgânica Municipal. Cáceres: Câmara Municipal de Cáceres, 2023a. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://sapl.caceres.mt.leg.br/materia/6694 Acesso em: 14 out. 2024.
  » https://sapl.caceres.mt.leg.br/materia/6694
• CÁCERES. Projeto de Emenda à Lei Orgânica n. 6/2023. Revoga na sua totalidade a Emenda à Lei Orgânica n. 03, de 06 de junho de 2023, que “Propõe a inclusão dos Direitos da Natureza na Lei Orgânica Municipal”, e concede o efeito repristinatório aos dispositivos que foram alterados pela referida emenda. Cáceres: Câmara Municipal de Cáceres , 2023b. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://sapl.caceres.mt.leg.br/materia/7035 Acesso em: 14 out. 2024.
  » https://sapl.caceres.mt.leg.br/materia/7035
• CAPRA, F. A teia da vida: uma nova compreensão científica dos sistemas vivos. Tradução Newton Roberval Eichemberg. São Paulo: Cultrix, 2000.
• COMISSÃO MUNDIAL SOBRE O MEIO AMBIENTE E DESENVOLVIMENTO. Nosso Futuro Comum. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 1991.
• CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS. Opinião Consultiva n. 23/17, de 15 de novembro de 2017. Meio Ambiente e Direitos Humanos. San José: Corte IDH, 2017. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.mpf.mp.br/atuacao-tematica/sci/dados-da-atuacao/corte-idh/OpiniaoConsultiva23versofinal.pdf Acesso em: 19 out. 2024.
  » https://www.mpf.mp.br/atuacao-tematica/sci/dados-da-atuacao/corte-idh/OpiniaoConsultiva23versofinal.pdf
• ENGELS, F. Dialética da Natureza. Tradução Nélio Schneider. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2020.
• FLORIANÓPOLIS. Lei Orgânica do Município de Florianópolis. Edição atualizada até a Emenda à Lei Orgânica n. 051, de maio de 2024. Florianópolis: Câmara Municipal de Florianópolis, 1990. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.cmf.sc.gov.br/proposicoes/Lei-Organica/1990/1/0/87987 Acesso em: 19 out. 2024.
  » https://www.cmf.sc.gov.br/proposicoes/Lei-Organica/1990/1/0/87987
• FLORIANÓPOLIS. Proposta de Emenda à Lei Orgânica n. 0089/18. Altera o art. 133 da Lei Orgânica do Município de Florianópolis para incorporar titularidade de direito para a natureza, em consonância com a plataforma “Harmony of Nature”, aprovada pela 71ª Sessão da Assembleia Geral da ONU. Gabinete do Vereador Marcos José de Abreu - Marquito (PSOL). Florianópolis: Câmara Municipal de Florianópolis , 2018. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.cmf.sc.gov.br/proposicoes/Propostas-de-Emendas-a-Lei-organica/0/1/0/58434 Acesso em: 19 out. 2024.
  » https://www.cmf.sc.gov.br/proposicoes/Propostas-de-Emendas-a-Lei-organica/0/1/0/58434
• FLORIT, L. F. Ética ambiental ocidental e os direitos da natureza. Contribuições e limites para uma ética socioambiental na América Latina. Revista Pensamiento Actual, San Ramón, v. 17, n. 28, p. 121-136, 2017. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6053590.pdf Acesso em: 25 jun. 2022.
  » https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/6053590.pdf
• FRANCISCO. Carta Encíclica Laudato Si’ do Santo Padre Francisco sobre o cuidado da casa comum: Documentos do Magistério. São Paulo: Loyola, 2015.
• GARZÓN, R. P. B. Aplicação dos Direitos da Natureza no Equador. Veredas do Direito - Direito Ambiental e Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Belo Horizonte, v. 14, n. 28, 2017. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://revista.domhelder.edu.br/index.php/veredas/article/view/1038/627 Acesso em: 14 out. 2024.
  » https://revista.domhelder.edu.br/index.php/veredas/article/view/1038/627
• GUDYNAS, E. Direito da Natureza: ética biocêntrica e políticas ambientais. Tradução Igor Ojeda. São Paulo: Elefante, 2019.
• LAVALL, T. P. Novos horizontes do direito ao desenvolvimento: desenvolvimento sustentável, Agenda 2030 e a atuação dos movimentos sociais econômicos locais. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2021.
• LEÓN, L. P. Ação humana e seca histórica explicam grandes incêndios no Pantanal. Agência Brasil, 6 out. 2020. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/radioagencia-nacional/meio-ambiente/audio/2020-10/acao-humana-e-seca-historica-explicam-grandes-incendios-no-pantanal Acesso em: 21 out. 2024.
  » https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/radioagencia-nacional/meio-ambiente/audio/2020-10/acao-humana-e-seca-historica-explicam-grandes-incendios-no-pantanal
• LIBONATI, R. et al. Nota Técnica 01/2021 Lasa/UFRJ queimadas Pantanal 2020. Área queimada - Pantanal 2020. Sistema ALARMES, Rio de Janeiro, p. 1-12, 16 mar. 2021. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11629.51687/1 Acesso em: 17 out. 2024.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11629.51687/1
• LOURENÇO, D. B. Qual o valor da natureza? Uma introdução à ética ambiental. São Paulo: Elefante , 2019.
• MORAES, G. O. Harmonia com a natureza e direitos de Pachamama. Fortaleza: UFC, 2018.
• MULGAN, T. Utilitarismo. Tradução Fábio Creder. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2012.
• OBJETIVO de Desenvolvimento Sustentável 15. Vida terrestre. Nações Unidas Brasil. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/sdgs/15 Acesso em: 20 out. 2024.
  » https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/sdgs/15
• OLIVEIRA, F. C. S. Direitos da Natureza: Biocentrismo? Revista Direito e Desenvolvimento, João Pessoa, v. 8, n. 2, p. 128-142, 2017. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://periodicos.unipe.br/index.php/direitoedesenvolvimento/article/view/553/432 Acesso em: 27 set. 2022.
  » https://periodicos.unipe.br/index.php/direitoedesenvolvimento/article/view/553/432
• OLIVEIRA, V. H. Direitos da Natureza. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris , 2021.
• OLSSON, G.; KRUGER, S. D. Governança corporativa e externalidades: um olhar sobre o desenvolvimento pluridimensional na Agenda 2030. Revista Eletrônica do Curso de Direito da UFSM, Santa Maria, v. 16, n. 2, e39752, 2021. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufsm.br/revistadireito/article/view/39752/46031 Acesso em: 5 out. 2022.
  » https://periodicos.ufsm.br/revistadireito/article/view/39752/46031
• ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS. Resolución aprobada por la Asamblea General el 22 de abril de 2009. 63/278. Día Internacional de la Madre Tierra. Nova York: ONU, 2009a. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/487/50/PDF/N0848750.pdf?OpenElement Acesso em: 20 out. 2024.
  » https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/487/50/PDF/N0848750.pdf?OpenElement
• ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS. Resolución aprobada por la Asamblea General el 21 de diciembre de 2009. 64/196. Armonía con la Naturaleza. Nova York: ONU , 2009b. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/473/62/PDF/N0947362.pdf?OpenElement Acesso em: 20 out. 2024.
  » https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/473/62/PDF/N0947362.pdf?OpenElement
• PAUDALHO. Emenda à Lei Orgânica n. 03, de 5 de janeiro de 2018.Altera a redação do art. 181, cria o inc. VIII, do parágrafo 1º, da Lei Orgânica , e dá outras providências. Paudalho: Câmara Municipal de Paudalho, 2018. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload720.pdf Acesso em: 20 out. 2024.
  » http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload720.pdf
• PAUDALHO. Resolução n. 21, de 15 de outubro de 2020. Dispõe sobre a Lei Orgânica Municipal e dá outras providências. Paudalho: Câmara Municipal de Paudalho , 2020. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://transparencia.paudalho.pe.gov.br/uploads/5310/2/importar/2020/Resolucao/Resolucao-21-2020.pdf Acesso em: 19 out. 2024.
  » https://transparencia.paudalho.pe.gov.br/uploads/5310/2/importar/2020/Resolucao/Resolucao-21-2020.pdf
• PISARZHEVSKI, O. N. A conquista da natureza. Tradução Maria Sylvia Yolanda Guaspari. Rio de Janeiro: Laemmert, 1970.
• RISTER, C. A. Direito ao desenvolvimento: antecedentes, significados e consequências. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 2007.
• ROCHA, L. R. L. Direito da Natureza: uma visão biocêntrica. Curitiba: CRV; Brasília: CEUB, 2021.
• SACHS, I. Caminhos para o desenvolvimento sustentável. 4. ed. Tradução de José Lins Albuquerque Filho. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond , 2009.
• SANTIAGO, M. R.; SILVA, R. C. O. A. A efetiva proteção dos direitos da natureza a partir da superação do paradigma antropocentrista. Revista Latino-Americana de Direitos da Natureza e dos Animais, Salvador, v. 4, n. 1, p. 54-65, jan./jun. 2021. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://periodicos.ucsal.br/index.php/rladna/article/view/895 Acesso em: 22 jun. 2022.
  » https://periodicos.ucsal.br/index.php/rladna/article/view/895
• SÃO PAULO (Estado). Tribunal de Justiça. Apelação Cível n. 1002508-07.2017.8.26.0615. Dano ambiental por ricochete e uso anormal da propriedade. Apicultura e uso de defensivos agrícolas. Ação indenizatória. Sentença de improcedência que deve ser anulada. Controvérsia envolvendo a morte de enxames de abelhas em pequena propriedade rural em que se realizava atividade de apicultura, pela pulverização por avião de defensivos agrícolas pela ré. Estado Socioambiental de Direito e Constitucionalismo Ecológico […]. Relator: Des. Alfredo Attié. Data de julgamento: 5 jul. 2020. Data de publicação: 5 jul. 2020. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/cjsg/getArquivo.do?cdAcordao=13719479&cdForo=0 Acesso em: 20 out. 2024.
  » https://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/cjsg/getArquivo.do?cdAcordao=13719479&cdForo=0
• SARLET, I. W.; FENSTERSEIFER, T. STJ, a dimensão ecológica da dignidade e direitos do animal não humano. Conjur, 10 maio 2019. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-mai-10/direitos-fundamentais-stj-dimensao-ecologica-dignidade-direitos-animal-nao-humano Acesso em: 17 out. 2024.
  » https://www.conjur.com.br/2019-mai-10/direitos-fundamentais-stj-dimensao-ecologica-dignidade-direitos-animal-nao-humano
• SILVA, M. O. C. A Constituição Federal de 1988 e a Economia de Francisco: reflexões sobre o direito fundamental ao desenvolvimento. São Paulo: Dialética, 2022.
• SOLÓN, P. Direitos da Mãe Terra. In: SOLÓN, P. (org.). Alternativas sistêmicas: bem viver, decrescimento, comuns, ecofeminismo, direitos da Mãe Terra e desglobalização. Tradução João Peres. São Paulo: Elefante , 2019. p. 145-175.
• STOPPA, T.; VIOTTO, T. B. Antropocentrismo × biocentrismo: um embate importante. Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal , Salvador, v. 9, n. 17, 2014. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/rbda/article/view/12986 Acesso em: 17 out. 2024.
  » https://periodicos.ufba.br/index.php/rbda/article/view/12986
• TAYLOR, P. W. Respect for Nature: a theory of environmental ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
• UNITED NATIONS. General Assembly. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: United Nations, 1987. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://ambiente.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/brundtland-report-our-common-future.pdf Acesso em: 22 jun. 2022.
  » https://ambiente.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/brundtland-report-our-common-future.pdf
• UNITED NATIONS. Harmony With Nature. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/ Acesso em: 20 out. 2024.
  » http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org/

• 1
  From the original: “A autopreservação, considerando o mundo sistêmico, é tema que percorre o indivíduo, a coletividade de indivíduos, a coletividade de outros seres, das gerações futuras, o meio ambiente e a própria terra, e que deve ser invocado no estabelecimento dos regimes econômicos que respeitem a preservação destes coletivos sistêmicos. Urge o tempo e a necessidade de abandonar este modus vivendi exploratório, utilitarista”.
• 2
  From the original: “Por trás das diversidades e diferenças, encontramos o que poderia ser qualificado como os alicerces do comportamento cultural sobre o papel que o meio ambiente desempenha. Tais fundamentos podem ser caracterizados por serem antropocêntricos e orientados a controlar e manipular o meio ambiente em função de sua utilidade econômica”.
• 3
  From the original: “O reconhecimento dos direitos da natureza não é um movimento recente. Fundado na mudança de paradigma do pensamento antropocêntrico, tal doutrina coloca o ser humano como parte do ecossistema e não como protagonista ou proprietário dos recursos naturais”.
• 4
  From the original: “uma nova corrente de orientação do pensamento jurídico que traz conexão com a ética ambiental, e que surgiu nas últimas décadas, a fim de contestar o antropocentrismo”.
• 5
  From the original: “devem ser reconhecidos como sujeitos de valores próprios, e não derivados da existência do homem, ou para o homem”.
• 6
  From the original: “centrada na vida independente de categorizações, abrange todos os seres vivos, expandindo, portanto, para além do critério da senciência, de maneira a asseverar que todo vivente tem valor em si, intrínseco/inerente, e não mero valor instrumental”.
• 7
  From the original: “A partir da Conferência de Estocolmo, propõe-se a criação de políticas ambientais, legislação ambiental e Ministérios Públicos em todos os países, visando [a] uma mudança de comportamento global, local e regional. Inicia-se a pegada ambientalista no planeta, reforçando as preocupações com processos de industrialização, com os processos de usos da terra, com a derrubada de florestas, com a poluição, e cria-se um número de recomendações importantes para todos os signatários”.
• 8
  From the original: “[…] a um meio ambiente seguro, sadio e produtivo para todos, onde o “meio ambiente” é considerado em sua totalidade, incluindo suas dimensões ecológicas, físicas construídas, sociais, políticas, estéticas e econômicas. Refere-se, assim, às condições em que tal direito pode ser livremente exercido, preservado, respeitando e realizando plenamente as identidades individuais e de grupo, a dignidade e a autonomia das comunidades”.
• 9
  From the original: “O mundo não satisfaz a criatura humana e esta resolveu transformá-lo com as suas ações. Influi ativamente sobre a natureza e obriga-a a mudar, a se alterar. Extrai da natureza - e tão somente dela - os seus meios de subsistência. E nisso reside a quintessência das relações entre o homem e a natureza. Opera-se em ambos - no dizer de certo sábio - um “metabolismo” contínuo. No decurso dêsse metabolismo, o ente humano se apropria das substâncias naturais, usa-as para os seus fins e em benefício próprio”.
• 10
  From the original: “Para libertar a natureza da condição de mero objeto de propriedade dos seres humanos, foi - e continua sendo - necessário um grande esforço político para reconhecê-la como sujeito de direitos. É preciso aceitar que todos os seres têm o mesmo valor ontológico - o que não significa que são idênticos”.
• 11
  From the original: “O uso do termo “direitos” faz parecer que se trata de uma proposta essencialmente normativa, jurídica. Porém, vamos muito além da necessidade de um novo marco legal que contemple a natureza. A incorporação no ordenamento jurídico de um município, estado, país ou órgão internacional é um passo muito importante, mas apenas um dos primeiros no longo processo de abandonar o antropocentrismo. O objetivo final é construir uma comunidade da terra: uma sociedade que compreende o humano e a natureza como um todo”.
• 12
  From the original: “a internalização da proteção ambiental às legislações”.
• 13
  From the original: “A ONU vem marcando o passo da humanidade e caminhando com proposições de relevância à consecução da mudança paradigmática de que o planeta necessita para permanecer como suporte da vida e para que o ser humano alcance os níveis de paz suficientes ao seu aproveitamento. Entretanto, a marcha das negociações é lenta, ou por outra, a velocidade da destruição avassaladora imposta pela humanidade à qual a natureza responde reflexamente, é exponencialmente maior”.
• 14
  From the original: “A CDB pressupõe o reconhecimento da importância da valoração sintética dos modos de vida tradicionais na medida em que advoga pelos conhecimentos tradicionais que viabilizam a conjunção da conservação da diversidade biológica com a utilização sustentável de seus components”.
• 15
  From the original: “emergência global que demanda a transição do paradigma antropocêntrico para um não antropocêntrico, no afã de assegurar a continuidade da Vida humana sobre este Planeta, e, da Vida, de modo geral”.
• 16
  From the original: “já no seu preâmbulo, ele indica os cinco principais pilares (pessoas, prosperidade, planeta, parceria e paz), e anuncia a pluridimensionalidade do desenvolvimento perseguido por esses objetivos”.
• 17
  From the original: “Nunca é demais insistir que tudo está interligado. O tempo e o espaço não são independentes entre si; nem os próprios átomos e as partículas subatômicas se podem considerar separadamente. Assim como os vários componentes do planeta - físicos, químicos e biológicos - estão relacionados entre si, assim também as espécies vivas formam uma trama que nunca acabaremos de individuar e compreender”.
• 18
  From the original: “antropocentrismo para uma postura biocêntrica”.
• 19
  From the original: “O Bem Viver - ou melhor, os bons conviveres - é uma oportunidade para construir um mundo diferente, que não será alcançado apenas com discursos estridentes, incoerentes com a prática. Outro mundo será possível se for pensado e erguido democraticamente, com os pés fincados nos Direitos Humanos e nos Direitos da Natureza”.
• 20
  From the original: “não se trata de uma receita expressa em alguns poucos artigos constitucionais e tampouco de um novo regime de desenvolvimento. O bem viver é, essencialmente, um processo proveniente da matriz comunitária de povos que vivem em harmonia com a Natureza”.
• 21
  From the original: “En el caso ecuatoriano, los Derechos de la Naturaleza se inscriben como parte de un mestizaje emancipador que provocó un “híbrido jurídico”, donde se recuperan elementos de todas aquellas culturas indígenas - y también algunas “occidentales” - emparentadas por la vida, que entienden con sobradas razones que la Madre Tierra o Pachamama, como un espacio territorial, cultural y espiritual, no puede ser motivo de mercantilización ni de exclusión”.
• 22
  From the original: “que denota cosmovisão ameríndia, um resgate do saber, da cultura de povos originários do continente, em crítica, contraposição ou diálogo com a (uma) epistemologia eurocêntrica, colonial, moderna”.
• 23
  From the original: “todavia, estabelece que o Estado deve buscar o bem viver, uma vida boa, uma vida [em] harmonia; embora a natureza ainda seja tida dentro do viés de objeto, de coisificação, apresentando um meio caminho entre o antropocentrismo e o biocentrismo”.
• 24
  From the original: “ao defender a industrialização dos recursos naturais, ficou presa às ideias clássicas do progresso, baseadas na apropriação da natureza”.
• 25
  From the original: “A relação que se deve estabelecer entre o ser humano e a natureza é muito mais uma inter-relação marcada pela interdependência do que uma relação de dominação do ser humano sobre os demais seres da coletividade planetária. Portanto, faz-se necessária uma reflexão no campo interno das legislações infraconstitucionais, na tentativa de apontar caminhos para que se amadureça a discussão acerca do reconhecimento da dignidade aos animais não humanos e, consequentemente, do reconhecimento dos direitos e da mudança da forma como as pessoas se relacionam entre si e com os demais seres vivos”.
• 26
  From the original: “começou a ser observado no contexto internacional a partir da Segunda Guerra Mundial, aliado aos efeitos da globalização econômica. Era necessário compreender as reais necessidades do ser humano nesse cenário”.
• 27
  From the original: “repercutem na qualidade de vida e na dignidade humana dos indivíduos, vinculando tanto o setor público, apontando as competências dos entes em seu papel na observância da garantia ao desenvolvimento, quanto o setor privado”.
• 28
  From the original: “A palavra crescimento abrange, para alguns autores, todas as formas de progresso econômico, para outros, implica sempre transformações estruturais, havendo apenas países em fases de desenvolvimento diferentes e com diversas estruturas econômicas, sociais e políticas”.
• 29
  From the original: “processo de desenvolvimento poderia levar a um salto, de uma estrutura social para outra, acompanhado da elevação de nível econômico e do nível cultural-intelectual comunitário”.
• 30
  From the original: “O desenvolvimento assim demarcado era precipuamente econômico e quantitativo, no sentido de que seus principais indicadores repousavam em dados como o produto interno bruto, a renda per capita ou o volume de exportações, que, por sua vez, pouco diziam sobre as condições sociais ou políticas, tampouco as ambientais, como a inclusão social, o grau de desemprego, a participação democrática ou a qualidade do ar e da água”.
• 31
  From the original: “instrumento que atualiza e operacionaliza as possibilidades de realização do direito ao desenvolvimento - agora qualificado como sustentável e pluridimensional”.
• 32
  From the original: “multidisciplinar, integrado, econômico, social, ambiental e cultural”.
• 33
  From the original: “o surgimento de uma relação mais encarnada, corpórea, sensível, que cultiva a fragilidade em vez da força, ligada ao cuidado mais do que à produção infinita de objetos tóxicos e degradantes”.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  16 Dec 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  04 Apr 2024
• Accepted
  24 Oct 2024