Could “Harmony with Nature” Overtake “Sustainable Development” as the UN’s Primary Environmental Ideal?

Written By Earth Law Center

By Vishnu Bharathram

The United Nations (UN) stands at a critical juncture as the world faces unprecedented environmental crises including mounting pollution, species decline and extinctions, and climate change. The guiding principle of “Sustainable Development,” while praiseworthy, increasingly appears insufficient to confront the ongoing catastrophe. A more transformative vision is needed.

The UN should make the non-anthropocentric ideal of “Harmony with Nature,” which it has already nurtured as a concept, its guiding principle in environmental matters. This would reflect a deeper commitment to environmental stewardship and help ensure the survival and flourishing of all life on Earth. 

History of “Sustainable Development” in the UN

The principle of “Sustainable Development” entered UN discourse with the 1987 Brundtland Report, which spoke of charting a path “towards sustainable development.” This was followed by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which set out a concrete plan of action to implement the Brundtland Report’s vision on a global scale. It was attended by 117 heads of state. Shortly afterwards, the UN began working on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which were adopted by 189 countries in 2000. “To ensure environmental sustainability” was one of the eight goals, but no more than that; it was by no means an overall guiding principle. 

With the Brundtland Report and the UNCED, however, the UN had laid the groundwork for a more substantive engagement with sustainability. And when the MDGs expired in 2015, they were replaced with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which currently guide the organization’s work. 

It is now time for the UN to further ramp up its commitment to our planet; just as it moved from the MDGs to the SDGs, so it should move from the SDGs to “Harmony with Nature.” 

History of “Harmony with Nature” in the UN

In 1982, the UN World Charter for Nature declared that “living in harmony with nature gives man the best opportunities for the development of his creativity, and for rest and recreation.” The charter received overwhelming support, with 111 votes in favor and only one (the United States) against. This foundational document set the stage for future initiatives. 

In 1993, 196 countries signed the UN-backed Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which aims to conserve biological diversity, use its components sustainably, and share the benefits of genetic resources equitably. While initially anthropocentric, emphasizing sustainable use for human benefit, the Convention has since moved in an Earth-centric direction.

In 2022, its signatories almost unanimously ratified the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which—inspired by Indigenous spiritual traditions—envisions humans “living in harmony with nature, and living well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth.” Its passage suggests that Western countries, including the United States, are at least in some instances willing to endorse “Harmony with Nature” principles on the international stage. 

Furthermore, in 2009, the UN General Assembly marked April 22 as International Mother Earth Day. That December, the General Assembly adopted its first Resolution on Harmony with Nature, and continued to do so annually until 2023. Additionally, the UN hosted twelve Interactive Dialogues on Harmony with Nature between 2011 and 2023, centering on various aspects of Earth jurisprudence and ecological economics, and thus demonstrating a sustained commitment to integrating “Harmony with Nature” principles into its agenda.

Compared with the 75-year process to adopt the “Right to Healthy Environment,” which finally occurred in 2022, the non-anthropocentric approach to Harmony with Nature has advanced in record time. 

Why “Harmony with Nature?”

Unlike a government, the UN cannot raise taxes or command troops. Its power is largely moral—the power to legitimize new or unpopular ideas on the international stage, from whence they stand a greater chance to influence powerful entities to adopt and implement them.

For example, scholars agree that the UN played an important role in ending apartheid in South Africa. This is largely because, as a UN website puts it, its anti-apartheid resolutions “dr[ew] world attention to the inhumanity of the system [and] legitimiz[ed] popular resistance.” At the time of the first such resolution (1962), many Western powers were reluctant to take action. The UN’s work helped change that. It now has a chance to produce similar change on another critical front: the fight for our planet. Adopting “Harmony with Nature” as its guiding principle would be a bold move in that direction. 

The current goal, “Sustainable Development,” fails to fully harness the organization’s transformative potential. It seems safe to say that few governments are in danger of forgetting about “development.” The entire world economic system is built to sustain it. For the UN to trumpet “development” in any form in its agenda is like a person setting “breathing” as their goal for the month. By contrast, many governments indeed are in danger of forgetting about humanity’s interdependence with Nature, Nature’s vulnerability to further degradation, and Nature’s intrinsic value—and an international vision of “Harmony with Nature” might prompt them to start remembering. 

One might ask, doesn’t the current goal already address environmental concerns? It aspires to achieve sustainable development. While this is laudable, it is not enough. The phrase “sustainable development”—unlike, say, “making development sustainable”—puts the emphasis on “development” rather than on sustainability. Sustainability is presented as a quality of development—an ideal to be integrated into the current economic system—rather than something that in itself demands our attention and, potentially, the transformation of “development” as we know it. From an ecocentric perspective, “Sustainable Development” fails to acknowledge the extent and severity of the ongoing crisis and the radical solutions it demands.

Some might worry that “Harmony with Nature” as a guiding principle would suggest a disregard for human problems such as poverty and hunger. However, interpreted fully, the principle of “Harmony with Nature” entails deep respect for human rights and human dignity. Thomas Berry, one of the primary conceptual founders of Earth jurisprudence, wrote, “Every component of the Earth community, living and non-living, has three rights: the right to be, the right to habitat or a place to be, and the right to fulfill its role in the ever-renewing processes of the Earth community.” This includes humans. 

Where there is environmental degradation, co-violations of human rights are often found. Poverty, hunger, and other social ills violate the right of every human being to “be” and “fulfill [their] role in the ever-renewing processes of the Earth community.” Thus, adopting a principle of “Harmony with Nature” that includes human rights would allow the UN to articulate the inherent interrelatedness, interconnectedness, and interdependence between a healthy Earth system, human rights, and human well-being. Such a radical shift could harmonize policies across multiple UN conventions that often contradict each other, as well as galvanize the UN’s work on poverty, hunger, and other social ills in the world. 

Can it be done? 

Make no mistake—many obstacles stand in the way. In theory, only a simple majority vote in the General Assembly would be required to change the guiding mission to “Harmony with Nature.” In practice, however, the General Assembly—whose effectiveness depends on an image of universal legitimacy—operates primarily on consensus. A UN website explains that “roughly 80% of General Assembly resolutions are adopted by consensus”—that is, with no votes against. The Assembly would almost certainly want its guiding principle to be adopted by such a consensus. This is how the Sustainable Development Goals were adopted. It is hard to foresee a consensus vote on “Harmony with Nature” in the near future. 

The US has systematically voted against pro-Nature resolutions in the General Assembly (for example, as noted above, supplying the only vote against the 1982 World Charter for Nature). It is also the UN’s largest funder and most important supporter. The General Assembly cannot feasibly adopt a guiding principle that the US opposes—and it seems more likely than not to oppose “Harmony with Nature.”  

But there are hopeful signs. American support for the “Harmony with Nature”-oriented Kunming-Montreal framework is one. The tenth report of the Secretary-General is another, speaking as it does of “a paradigm shift from a human-centered to an Earth-centered society in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” 

The time to act is now. From 22-23 September, 2024, the UN will host the landmark Summit of the Future, which will build on the 2023 SDG Summit. It should make the most of this opportunity. It should urge member states to consider a bold new vision to save the future for all life on Earth. 

Sources: 

Earth Law Center
Previous

Food Sovereignty, Indigenous Practices, and Ecocentric Law
Next

ELC’s Latin America Program Advances Rights of Nature Strategic Litigation via Amicus Curiae Briefs