Currents debates around the decommodification of nature

Dabel Leandro Franco, UNL

2024

Bolivian legislation stands out for incorporating the principle of nature’s decommodification within the legal framework of Buen Vivir (Good Living) and the recognition of nature’s rights. This principle is enshrined in Law 71 on Rights of Mother Earth of 2010 and Law 300 Framework Law on Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well of 2012.

The first regulation recognizes “Mother Earth” as a subject of rights and establishes a series of principles of mandatory achievement. Among them, the principle of non-commodification states that “life systems, and the processes that sustain them, cannot be commodified, nor become part of anyone’s private patrimony” (art. 2, clause 5). On the other hand, Law 300 reinforces this principle by stating that the “environmental functions and natural processes of the components and life systems of Mother Earth are not considered as commodities but as gifts from the sacred Mother Earth” (art. 4, clause 2).

The decommodification of nature in Bolivian legislation is based on the consideration of nature as a subject of rights and seeks to promote a harmonious relationship between humanity and nature by countering the process of commodification. In this sense, in a speech delivered in Rio de Janeiro on June 21, 2012, Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, denounced the commodification of nature as a form of environmental colonialism: “The environmentalism of the green economy is a new colonialism of double game, on the one hand it is a nature’s colonialism, by commodifying the natural sources of life and on the other hand it is a colonialism to the countries of the South that charge with the responsibility to protect the environment destroyed by the industrial capitalist economy of the North. This environmentalism commodifies nature, turning every tree, every plant, every drop of water, and every being of nature into a commodity subjected to the dictatorship of the market that privatizes wealth and socializes poverty”.

The process of commodification of nature dates back to the beginning of modern capitalism but has gained impulse in recent decades, especially with the consecration of the “green economy” at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012, known as “Rio+20”. This approach is part of a neoliberal globalization project that considers nature’s components as commodities with an assigned monetary value, promoting environmental management mechanisms based on property rights and the opening of new markets for environmental protection.

The process of commodification of nature manifests in three key legal aspects: status, valuation, and disposition of nature and its components. Legal status is the situation in which an entity finds itself in relation to the law. Legal valuation is the relevance that the law gives to an entity. Finally, legal disposition is the power to dispose of a thing, for example to engage in commercial transactions. Regarding the first, nature is considered as a “thing” or an “object” susceptible to appropriation or protection by humans, who are recognized, individually or collectively, as the sole holders of rights, that is, as “subjects of rights”. Regarding the second, nature is valued from a non-utilitarian, anthropocentric, or instrumental approach, which only recognizes human interests as valid, assigning a monetary value to its components and functions. Finally, the appropriation, use, circulation, and protection of nature and its components are generally governed by private law and the principle of autonomy of contractual will, implying that nature’s components can be objects of commercial transactions.

The decommodification of nature implies a series of transformations in the relationship between society and the natural world, promoting alternative ways of interaction that depart from market logic. Instead of considering nature as a mere exploitable resource, this approach searches for encouraging more harmonious relations between the human and non-human, as well as alternative methods to meet needs that surpass the view of nature as a mere commodity. This transformation affects the three mentioned aspects which intertwine legal discourses with the slogans of socio-environmental movements.

Firstly, restrictions are placed on the disposition of certain natural goods, classifying them as unable for disposition or applying limitations to the exercise of property rights. This idea that a certain natural good “is not available” appears, for example, in the slogan El Famatina no se toca (Don’t Touch Famatina), under which the inhabitants of the Argentine town of Famatina managed to stop different mining projects on the homonymous hill over time.

Secondly, from a non-utilitarian perspective, non-monetary values or interests in nature are recognized, or an attempt is made to overcome anthropocentrism by acknowledging intrinsic value or interests in certain natural entities, i.e., independent of the utility they represent for humans. El agua vale más que el oro (Water Is Worth More Than Gold) is a slogan that has accompanied the struggles against mega-mining in Latin America for years, in an attempt to reverse the logic of capitalism’s valorization and highlighting the importance of use value over exchange value.

Logo used by several Latin American environmental movements against open pit mega-mining

Thirdly, some decommodification proposals involve abandoning the conception of nature as a “thing” or an “object” and considering it as a “subject of rights”. This implies recognizing its own rights that must be respected and protected. An illustrative example of this perspective was evident in the Argentinian city of Rosario, during a demonstration against the fires in the wetlands of Delta of the Paraná River, where a flag displayed the slogan Somos Humedal (We are wetland), dismantling the dichotomies between thing and person, object and subject, nature and society, and incorporating us as part of an ecosystem.

The translations of the content of laws were made by the author of the entry.

Further reading and resources:

Berros, M. V. (2013). El estatuto jurídico de la naturaleza en debate (meulen en el mundo del derecho). Revista de Derecho Ambiental, 36, 133-151.

Franco, D. L., & Balaudo, C. (2019). El potencial desmercantilizador del derecho en las propuestas del Buen Vivir. SaberEs, 11(1), 21-39.

Gudynas, E. (2004). Ecología, economía y ética del desarrollo sostenible. CLAES.

Riechmann, J. (2013). La crítica ecosocialista al capitalismo. Integra Educativa, VI(3), 137-180.

Unceta, K. (2014). Poscrecimiento, desmercantilización y «buen vivir». Nueva Sociedad, 252, 136-152.