Natural Resources and the Principle of Non-Injury

While a person may be considered to have an inherent right of ownership over him- or herself and the products of his or her own creation, the Natural Resources pose a different problem.

The Natural Resources are natural. By their very definition they are not man-made, and are therefore not automatically associated with or attributable to any individual. But people need to use natural resources for food, shelter, raw materials and recreation and must therefore make claims upon resources which are not inherently theirs. Thus it is clear that rights to the use of Natural Resources must be created or apportioned.

The existing pressures on land-use can only increase, as the traditional claims we make upon land - for housing, industry and commerce, transport routes and harbours, agriculture and mining - are now being extended by increased demands for greater leisure access to countryside, preservation of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and a greater respect for the environment.

How does the Principle of Non-Injury apply to the apportionment and guidance of resources use?

We begin with the Principle of Non-Injury itself, the essence of which is: liberty, until that liberty infringes the liberty of others. On a basis of presumed liberty, the duty of government is to identify and prevent through legislation those actions which are harmful or injurious to others.

In order to establish a basis for fair, equitable and responsible resources use, the Principle of Non-Injury would require three steps:

First, as a working foundation, the formulation of an overall Landplan based on a full inventory of natural resources; second, estimates of current and future demands; and third the institution of a Resources-use Forum in which availability can to the best extent possible be reconciled with actual and anticipated demands.

Land has its own inherent potentialities. Certain areas may offer excellent agricultural soil while others conceal significant mineral deposits. Some areas are outstanding in natural beauty, while certain forest or river systems make their own demands for special treatment on ecological grounds. Clearly Government cannot fulfil its role as adjudicator unless and until it is fully informed as to the detailed nature of the nation's total natural resources.

The inventory of availability would take the form of a national map on which every kind of resource is clearly indicated.

The duty of those concerned with the provision of availability data must be to provide a detailed, continuously updated - and publicly accessible - inventory showing the location, extent and nature of all resources.

The Inventory would show, for example: mineral deposits, water supplies, agricultural land graded as to quality and suitability for different crops, areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas suitable for urban settlement, as well as those areas or resources which should be handled with especial sensitivity as being appropriate for wildlife preserves or necessary for environmental wellbeing.

The second stage requires the preparation of an ongoing assessment of demands upon the resources both current and anticipated, based on a thorough and fundamental analysis.

As a basis the analysis begins objectively by looking at populations and their broad, predictable needs for urban living, trade and cultural facilities, agriculture, minerals, recreation and retreat. Individuals and special-interest groups as "consumers" will then fill out the picture with additional needs and ideas such as wilderness homes or specific recreation facilities.

The two banks of resources data: the Availability Inventory, and the assessment of actual and anticipated demands, can then be coordinated by a Natural Resources and Land-use Forum to produce an overall ongoing National Resources Plan.

On this basis, clear guidelines can be established for such broad national uses as major agricultural needs, recreation, mining, transport and urban development.

The Land-use Forum has its purpose and procedures clearly set out in its own Articles of Constitution. Its members represent every aspect of land and resources use; its deliberations, as well as the data on which they are based, must be open at all times to public scrutiny and input.

Its object is an ongoing National Landplan, representing the continuing definition of zoning and planning guidelines and restrictions at national level, from which local level plans can then be made.

But it is not only our human requirements that we must consider.

We need to use the Natural Resources, certainly. But we must do so within the limitations of environmental responsibility, and we must give back the equivalent of what we take through our stewardship and enhancement of our environment.

This necessary approach to our relationship with our environment is formalized and brought into the overall resources-use planning process by the simple expedient of according to the Environment the status of a legal entity having its own rights, defined in law, to respectful and responsible treatment and to good stewardship, rights which must stand as equals in law to our own competing human claims. Just as minors are represented by Counsel in courts of law, so our environment is permanently represented by an Environmental Protection Council operating under Constitutional authority.

Some environmental objectives might be listed as follows: zero land/water/air pollution; zero garbage, achieved by eliminating garbage at source through recycling and increased use of reusable containers; promotion of organic farming; identification and protection of all significant natural ecosystems and major wildlife habitats.

Under the Principle of Non-Injury broad planning guidelines are based on objective data providing accurate information on availability and informed estimates of present and future needs, formulated with the widest possible input. It is a continuing challenge and responsibility challenge incumbent upon all, planners and users alike, to use our resources wisely and responsibly, minimizing waste, providing for as many needs as possible, and reaching decisions in the common interest with the minimum of misinformation and acrimony. A similar policy of land-use has historically been applied in the United States to the administration of that country's surprisingly vast area of Public Lands. It is little known outside the United States that some 270 million acres, about one-eighth of the USA, is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - in addition to land already set aside for National and State forests, parks, and wildlife refuges.

The BLM has been mandated by Congress to manage Public Lands on a continuing basis for multiple use and sustained yield, taking into consideration the reconciliation of the varied demands made upon the land, as well as concepts of stewardship and husbandry.

A significant area of forward planning in resources-use lies in the development of urban areas.

And here there is more at stake than simple land-use issues; for the town or city is a service in itself, a machine which must be properly designed and maintained if it is to function efficiently and fulfil the demands of its residents, its customers.

Homes, jobs, shops, market gardening, leisure facilities, all of these and the many other needs of a civilized society are part of what may be called community.

An efficiently functioning community offers a wide variety of facilities and opportunities in pleasant surroundings, with easy and convenient movement between them. Needless to say, the kind of sprawling city served by traffic-clogged streets so familiar in the past would not be described as functioning efficiently.

The ideal town or city plan requires minimum footprint, offers walking-distance convenience between home, work or shops, and facilitates the provision of fast, clean, frequent and cost-effective shared transportation. An example of such an urban planning concept is described in the article Hillhome: Minimal Footprint, Minimal Energy.