The renaissance nature of Prof Oluoch Obura
Don was a consummate connoisseur of European literature, from Russia to the UK
2mon agoJUSTUS MAKOKHALifestyle
Kenya’s environmental landscape is under increasing pressure from economic activities like fish cage farming, destructions of wetlands, gold mining, pollution of rivers and lakes.
While these activities offer potential economic benefits, they also pose significant environmental and health risks.
Alarmingly, our courts seem to be prioritising extraneous interests over the long-term health of our environment and the well-being of our communities.
This must change.
Similarly, gold mining operations, illegal cage fish farming within Lake Victoria and the pollution of rivers and lakes all raise concerns about displacement of communities, neoliberalism, privatisation of community assets, lack of public participation and the potential for environmental degradation and health hazards associated with the extractive sector and sustainable use of our natural resources.
These cases exemplify the urgent need for our courts to take a more proactive and critical stance on environmental issues.
The judiciary should move beyond simply upholding existing environmental laws and regulations and, instead, actively interpret and apply these laws in a manner that prioritises the protection of our natural resources and the health of our ecosystems.
The judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding the environment.
By interpreting and enforcing environmental laws, the courts can hold polluters accountable and protect the environment.
This requires a shift in perspective.
Our courts must recognise the inherent rights of nature, acknowledging that ecosystems have intrinsic value beyond their economic utility.
This “rights of nature” approach would empower citizens to seek legal redress on behalf of the environment, challenging unsustainable practices and holding corporations and individuals accountable for environmental damage.
Furthermore, the judiciary must ensure that environmental impact assessments are comprehensive, transparent, and genuinely consider the long-term consequences of development projects.
Public participation must be prioritised, ensuring that communities affected by these projects have a voice in decisions that impact their livelihoods and environment.
Crucially, courts should consider adopting bio cultural protocols and community agreements as guiding principles in climate-sensitive cases.
These protocols recognise the interconnectedness of nature and culture, protecting not only biodiversity but also the traditional knowledge and practices of communities who depend on healthy ecosystems.
Community agreements can ensure that development projects respect local values and prioritise the wellbeing of those most directly affected by environmental change.
In addition to these considerations, it is crucial for courts to be aware of the concept of planetary boundaries.
These boundaries define the safe operating space for humanity within which we can avoid catastrophic environmental change.
The planetary boundaries include climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, and land-system change.
Judicial decisions should consider the potential impacts of development projects on these boundaries, ensuring that economic activities do not push the planet beyond its safe operating limits.
CHRIS OWALLA
Executive director, Community Initiative Action Group Kenya
