Call to grant property rights to animals
Monique Ross
Giving animals legal ownership of their habitat and affording them
standing before the courts may hold the key to protecting biodiversity,
an Australian researcher says. Australia is one of only 17 countries
recognised as being mega-diverse, but it also has one of the highest
extinction rates, with around 126 species of plants and animals sent to
extinction in the past 200 years.
Doctor John Hadley from the University of Western Sydney says land
clearing is the leading cause of biodiversity loss. “We have this policy
that allows farmers to offset any habitat they destroy. So they are
allowed to remove habitat if they promise to restore habitat elsewhere,”
he said. “It is essentially saying [to animals] it’s OK if we destroy
your home because we will build you another one nearby, but in the
interim you have to fend for yourselves.”
Dr Hadley says under his idea, certain animals would be afforded
legal property rights, and human guardians would be appointed to
advocate for them in court. “We have a system in place now for human
beings that are unable to manage their property due to some sort of
mental impairment, known as guardianship,” he said. “So I was thinking,
could we extend this idea to animals and would this be a way of
bolstering protection for habitat?”
He says guardians would be registered with an independent tribunal
and people who wanted to modify habitat on their land would have to
negotiate with the guardians before taking any action. “I’m not saying
that this is something that animals are owed as a right. It’s not going
to apply to all animals everywhere,” he said.
“The idea would be that somebody comes forward - say an NGO or it
could even be a private individual - who agrees to represent a group of
animals whose home is impacted or potentially about to be impacted by
land clearing.”
Dr Hadley says there is a “groundswell around the world” to secure
legal rights for animals, including cases like ‘Cetacean Community v
George W Bush’ in the United States. In that 2004 case the whales,
porpoises and dolphins of the world sought the right to sue Mr Bush,
Donald Rumsfeld and the US Navy for destruction of habitat caused by the
Navy’s use of sonar as part of submarine navigation systems.
While the case was unsuccessful, Dr Hadley says the idea of property
rights for animals has been successfully floated in other parts of the
world. “In Austria there’s a system of animal solicitors where each
state has to have a designated solicitor representing animals,” he said.
He says is time to “think outside the square and do something
different”, but admits that for his idea to ever become reality, it will
take a “courageous government”. “Probably not in my lifetime, but I
think something like it down the track is inevitable,” he said. “Native
Title was similarly radical. 150 years ago people would have said that
that would never work,” he said.
March for progress
But Dr Malcolm Caulfield, the principal lawyer at the Animal Welfare
Community Legal Centre, says the legal system is highly unlikely to
recognise any push for property rights for animals. “I honestly think
it’s kind of out in the realms of silly legal academic points,” he said.
“The loss of biodiversity... is nothing to do with the rights of the
animals. It has to do with the respect for the environment and
biodiversity. “It’s the march for progress and the demand for
development that is the issue here, not the legal rights of animals.”
Dr Caulfield says the law is already clear that animals must be
considered before clearing land. “The Commonwealth Environmental
Protection and Biodiversity Act is a huge umbrella-type legislation that
makes huge references to animals, and animal welfare acts apply equally
to wildlife as to any other form of animal,” he said. “And I would argue
that animal guardianship is almost where we are anyway.”
Dr Hadley says he is working on a case study involving a dingo
population in Western Sydney. He hopes it will show that his idea can
mesh with existing laws. “Hopefully my framework will be practical and
useful enough for entertaining on a small scale and then it would grow
from there,” he said.
“This is an option, if we care about biodiversity and saving habitat,
that we might be interested in exploring.”
- ABC News |