At the beginning of January, news showed for the first time how we Norwegians treat nature. With the help of artificial intelligence and satellite imagery, we found: 44,000 interventions in nature in five years 79 square meters of nature lost per minute Even in the particularly valuable areas, such as bogs and reindeer areas, at least two football pitches of nature disappear a day Norwegian Institution for Human Rights (NIM) reacted to the findings. – The governing powers are mandated by law according to the constitution and have a duty to secure nature in an all-round and long-term way. To be successful with that, we need a comprehensive overview of the degradation of nature, but we haven’t had that, says Adele Matheson Mestad, director of NIM. Director of the Norwegian Institution for Human Rights, Adele Matheson Mestad, believes that the destruction of Norwegian nature may be in violation of the Constitution. Photo: The Norwegian institution for human rights Funna to news faces two problems in the Constitution, according to the director. The section in question is in the human rights chapter of the Constitution, which is why NIM makes a statement on the matter. Future generations Having a livable environment where diversity is preserved is a human right enshrined in section 112 of the Constitution. Mestad says that the right to have a livable environment applies not only to those living today, but also to future generations. The governing bodies have a duty to ensure this, says Mestad. – When you now see the ongoing and dramatic degradation of nature, despite serious reports from the National Audit Office, the question is whether this duty will be fulfilled, says Mestad to news. – Secondly, citizens have the right to environmental information. Then the governing authorities must have an overview of nature that can ensure citizens their rights. It is also a democratic point, says Mestad to news. The National Audit Office criticizes Allereie in 2007, and again in 2011, the authorities were criticized by the National Audit Office both for a lack of overview and for not preventing downsizing in important areas. news thus revealed that the overview is still lacking, and that thousands of interventions are still being made in these areas. The Storting and the government have a responsibility here, according to Mestad. But so do the municipalities, which are the ones who decide on local construction matters in nature. SV and MDG will now take that responsibility from them. – The municipalities are not in a position to look at health. Only the supreme governing authority can do that, says Mestad. Lack of overview can also be an offence. Secondly, the lack of overview can be an offense in itself. The Constitution gives the government a duty to provide citizens with an overview of the environment. Not just one operation, but the whole thing. And the authorities have not paid for it. Climate and Environment Minister Andreas Bjelland Eriksen admitted this last weekend, when he got to see news’s documentation. He said that the government hopes to have the first version of a nature account ready before 2026. Andreas Bjelland Eriksen looks at news’s mapping of nature loss. Photo: Snorre Tønset – This is no excuse. Now the tools are good for obtaining such an overview, says Ole Kristian Fauchald, professor of environmental law at the University of Oslo. – It is good that the government is working with a nature account, but it is overtime, replies Adele Matheson Mestad in NIM, and insists: – A minimum requirement for the governing authorities to succeed in securing nature for future generations is an overview of how nature are hit by constant individual interventions that may be understandable in isolation, but which collectively erode the protection nature has, bit by bit. State Secretary for Climate and the Environment Kjersti Bjørnstad wrote in an e-mail to news that the government takes its constitutional obligations very seriously and that they have started work on improving the system to take care of nature. “Our aim is for nature to be a framework for all politics, and we have started work on improving the system to take care of nature”, she writes further. – The legal protection of nature is too weak At the same time, Mestad believes that these are questions that are unlikely to be raised before the courts. It is difficult to promote lawsuits that look at these questions, she says. – Firstly, because the court can only deal with individual measures, and secondly, because it is difficult and expensive to go to trial. The legal protection of nature is too weak, she concludes. Ole Kristian Fauchald is head of department at the Department of Public Law at the University of Oslo (UiO) and is not surprised by news’s survey. Photo: Ronald Hole Fossåskaret Ole Kristian Fauchald agrees that the legal protection of nature is too weak. He teaches environmental law at the University of Oslo. – Each individual case does not violate the constitution. The sum of everything that happens over a long period of time can become a crime. Simply a systematic failure, he says. Fauchald says that in environmental decisions benefit-cost assessments can almost always be decisive. In such an assessment, the environment often comes out poorly. – The systems we have built to ensure that this is sustainable but also long-term are not good enough. – Norway is far behind when it comes to assessing the environmental consequences of the chosen one tek. It is quite serious when we have reached this point in the development of society. news has mapped 44,000 nature encroachments in five years. Photo: Alf Hartgen The courts will not deal with such a case The provisions of the Constitution are quite vague, and that makes it difficult to take such a case to court. Then it is perhaps the National Audit Office that is the most effective control body that can follow up the constitution, says Fauchald. The government has a responsibility here. The Control and Constitution Committee, the Storting’s own “court”, can take up the matter if they wish. – Now this is so recent that I can’t say anything about it. Storting representatives have the opportunity to ask the government questions about this. If it becomes a case, we can look at whether it is within or outside any legislation, says Svein Harberg, deputy head of the control and constitution committee. Lost nature while reading this case:
ttn-69
– Can show a breach of the Constitution – news Dokumentar
