The outcome of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) for the first time mentions the importance of ethics in the United Nations (UN) either on environment or development issues. Nevertheless, the Earth Charter, which could have provided them that opportunity remained unofficially recognized. The so-called ‘Rio+20’ conference in 2012 will form a new chance to lay the necessary ethical foundation for global governance. Because scientific knowledge can give us a clearer picture of the consequences of our choices. Yet, science cannot indicate right and wrong: ethics are therefore vital.

Already in 1987 the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) via the report ‘Our Common Future’ urged for the creation of a ‘new charter’ that ‘should prescribe new norms for state and interstate behaviour needed to maintain livelihoods and life on our shared planet’ [1]. Within a decade-long process the Earth Charter was composed by thousands of organizations and individuals from different world regions, religions and cultures, constituencies and disciplines. It became an inclusive ethical framework formed by a synthesis of values regarding ‘Respect and care for the community of life’, ‘ecological integrity’, ‘social and economic justice, and democracy, non-violence and peace’. [2]

The rhetoric often used to address ethical questions about the interaction of humans with their environment stems from: ‘Our Common Future’ that defines sustainable development as: ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ [3]. The focus is thus placed on humans and their future, and not on the future of other living creatures and the environment as such. Chapter six titled ‘species and ecosystems: resources for development’ is exemplary for the anthropocentric ethic [4] of the report, whereby species and ecosystems are of instrumental value to humans. [5]

Opposed to ‘Our Common Future’ the Earth Charter’s first principle and sub-principle are ‘Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.’ and ‘Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings’ [6]. As such the Earth Charter reflects biocentrist and ecocentrist views. Thereby biocentrism states that ‘all living creatures have a good of their own’ [7], which is reflected in the first sub-principle. Ecocentrism claims that ‘ecosystems have a good independent of that of their component individuals’ [8]. This is reflected in principle five: ‘protect and restore the integrity of Earth's ecological systems’ [9]. Predominantly, both value theories extent the realm of moral standing beyond humans.

If officially recognized at the Rio+20 conference, the Earth Charter could mark a shift in international politics and policies reflecting the interdependence of the community of life. Only by sharing common goals and values people can effectively work together, plus have an informed dialogue about the possible conflicts arising from the competing social, environmental and economic spheres. The Earth Charter will stimulate a more universal responsibility, since people and countries will identify themselves with more than solely human communities. Moreover, the intrinsic value of ecosystems and all life on earth will be recognized, including i.a. ecosystems and species less adaptable to change than humans. If this principle is truly taken up, it would mean a drastic shift in current environmental and development policies. Outcomes will not be watered down but will depict the highest shared denominator.

It is even confirmed by elaborate econometric models that global challenges like climate change can only be successfully tackled by global cooperation and treaties [10]. Although the Earth Charter is officially endorsed by thousands of people and organizations, currently the sole truly global arena are the UN.

[1] World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Chapter 12.
[2] The Earth Charter Initiative (2000) The Earth Charter: values and principles for a sustainable future. www.earthcharterinaction.org
[3] World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Chapter 2.
[4] Antropocentrism states that ‘moral standing can be restricted to humanity alone’, whereby ‘none but human interests or concerns matter’ (Attfield 2003: 9-10).
[5] Instrumental value is value ‘things have because of their actual or potential usefulness’, or ‘because people are benefited through appreciating them’ (Attfield 2003: 12).
[6] The Earth Charter Initiative (2000) The Earth Charter: values and principles for a sustainable future. www.earthcharterinaction.org
[7] Attfield, R. (2003) Environmental Ethics: An Overview for the twenty-first century. Cambridge, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. P. 10-11.
[8] idem
[9] The Earth Charter Initiative (2000) The Earth Charter: values and principles for a sustainable future. www.earthcharterinaction.org
[10] Bleischwitz, Raimund, Welfens, Paul J. J. , Zhang, ZhongXiang (eds.) (2011) International Economics of Resource Efficiency. Eco-Innovation Policies for a Green Economy. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.

About the Author

Maayke is a graduating student of the prestige research master Sustainable Development at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. She focuses on environmental governance and CSR. She is the former official youth delegate to the United Nations on sustainable development, the initiator of the Youth Copenhagen Coalition and has worked for MauritsGroen•MGMC and Lemnis Lighting. Currently she works for the Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Development where she accelerates projects that stimulate the transition towards a sustainable world. Moreover she is doing research at Ex’tent, green venture capital on the concept value extracted tax, Ex'tax in short.