We spoke, in the occasion of the World Environmental Protection Day, with Frane Staničić, Full Professor of the Zagreb Faculty of law who participates in the scientific project on the constitutional protection of the environment and the protection of future generations in the framework of the Central European Academy of the University of Miskolc, one of the biggest universities in Hungary.
In his research in the framework of this project which gathers scientists from seven countries from Central Europe Staničić deals with inadequate legal protection of environment in Croatia and the link between environmental protection and Christian values.
Is the environment sufficiently protected by the Constitution in Croatia, which largely lives on inherited natural wealth?
Environmental protection in Croatia is prescribed by Article 69 of the Constitution, which guarantees that „everyone has the right to a healthy life” and in paragraph 2, „the state ensures the conditions for a healthy environment”. However, already from the constitutional text that guarantees the right to a „healthy life”, doubts arise as to whether this is the same as the right to a „healthy environment”. In addition, our original Constitution from 1990 was more environmentally oriented because it prescribed the state’s obligation to ensure the right to a healthy environment, while the amendments to the Constitution in 2010 took a step back and now the state only „ensures the conditions for a healthy environment”.
Unlike, for example, the Slovenian, Slovak, Hungarian or Czech constitutions, our Constitution does not contain provisions, extremely important for environmental protection, on the need for sustainable development, which refer to the „polluter pays” principle or the need to protect the rights of future generations. All of the above shows that our constitution maker was relatively unaware of the need to protect the environment, although he prescribed that the right to entrepreneurial freedom and the right to property can be limited due to the protection of nature and the human environment, and he prescribed things of interest to the Republic of Croatia (natural resources, parts of nature and things specified by law) which the Republic of Croatia protects in particular. The aforementioned principles that we find in other constitutions are elaborated mostly in the Law on Environmental Protection, which is still a lower level of protection than the constitutional one.
Slovenia was the first in the EU to include in its Constitution that the right to drinking water is a fundamental human right of every citizen. Should Croatia, which ranks among the top European countries in terms of water wealth, also guarantee its citizens this right by the Constitution?
In principle, this is not necessary at the moment, because our legislative framework basically guarantees the right to water, exclusively through public water service providers. However, laws are relatively easy to change, and the pressure of privatization and the desire to give water services into a concession appear periodically when laws are changed. If this right were to become a constitutional right, then the possibility of privatization would practically disappear, which I see as a good thing. Of course, Slovenians even today, even though six years have passed since the introduction of this right into their Constitution, cannot solve a number of practical problems that arise due to the difficulties in implementing the right to water as a constitutional right (actual provision of water – especially, how much water?).
The Scientific Council for Tourism and Space, CASA[1], warned last year about the devastation of the area along the coast, the irreversible waste of national wealth due to real estate expansion and creeping colonization… How to put an end to this and the usurpation of maritime good, bearing in mind that due to poor standards, it is becoming more and more inaccessible to the majority of citizens enjoyment of national goods, summer holidays become a luxury?
It is, in reality, just our insufficient concern for future generations that causes the devastation of space, which is especially related to the lack of care and insufficient protection of the maritime good, which is our greatest and, I would say, most important resource. Space, although we often think the opposite, is a very limited resource and once we devastate it, it is almost impossible to „fix” it. When we talk about the maritime good and its protection, its devastation is a consequence of a bad legislative framework that favors „juggling” regarding jurisdiction, as well as the inertness of inspections that, simply put, do not do their job. And when they do, the matter is rarely brought to a logical end and the removal of illegal constructions and embankments on the maritime good.
Our famous architect and academic Nikola Bašić warns in vain that the space we inherited is, after our people, the greatest national wealth for which we are not to take credit and which should be preserved and handed over to future generations. But the consumer society only cares about quick earnings, and not about the rights of future generations?
Environmental protection is inextricably linked to the rights of future generations, which is something that is not discussed enough in our country. The key is that we „borrowed” the planet from future generations, which we must also normatively acknowledge and regulate. In this sense, our legislation, and especially the Constitution, does not sufficiently perceive the necessity of protecting future generations. We need to think more about the principle of sustainable development, including raising it to the constitutional level. Some countries, such as Germany and Hungary, have incorporated borrowing limits (the amount of public debt) into their constitutions. We regulated it by law and at the level required by the Maastricht criteria (60% of GDP), while Germany and Hungary have set stricter criteria. Namely, the development „now and immediately” can have serious long-term consequences for future generations who do not have an independent voice. Therefore, we must be their voice and we must work for their protection.
How is environmental protection related to Christian values?
The concept of „common good” in the teaching of the Catholic Church includes especially the climate and the environment, and the social teaching of the Church is aimed at preserving and protecting this common good. This was part of the Church’s mission even earlier than Paul VI, St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI especially in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate in 2009, and this was especially expressed in 2015 by Pope Francis in the encyclical Laudato Si. In it, the problem of climate change, the reduction of natural resources with particular reference to the lack of drinking water, the reduction of biodiversity, etc. is highlighted. All this causes a decrease in the quality of human life and the collapse of society. Therefore, it is everyone’s duty to fight for the preservation of the environment because „man is not God”. The Pope points out that the Earth was there before man and was given to us, but not as owners, but as caretakers. Therefore, we must use earthly goods responsibly and with respect for the fact that all living beings are valuable in God’s eyes. From all this follows the message that any ecological approach must also include a social perspective that takes into account the fundamental rights of the poor and deprived. This especially refers to the principle of sustainable development, which Pope Francis specifically points to in Laudato Si when he says that we must seek sustainable and integral development in order to succeed in protecting our common home – the Earth. Our use of the planet’s resources must be sustainable, taking into account the regenerative capacity of ecosystems. In addition, sustainable development, the pope states, must be such that it takes into account intergenerational solidarity because we must think about the kind of world we leave to future generations.
[1] Croatian Academy of Science and Arts
