Real right of conservation is a new institution of civil law that has been defined as the real right that consists of the power to conserve the environmental heritage of a property.[1].
The definition of the real right of conservation[2] focuses on or has as an essential element the 'power to conserve'[3] and this is what allows it to be distinguished from conservation easements - known mainly in North American law as conservation easements") - which are defined as restrictions and which in civil law are classified as an encumbrance.
In this regard, it is important to indicate that the main real rights - sometimes also called 'active' real rights - are those that consist of or have as an essential element certain main powers. The main traditional powers are, since Roman law, the power of use -ius utendi-, the power of enjoyment -ius fruendi- and the power of disposal -ius abutendi-. Therefore, the main real rights have traditionally been two: the right of ownership and the right of usufruct. The main real rights do not require another right to exist, and are traditionally considered economic or accounting assets. Passive or accessory real rights are those that depend on the existence of another main right to which they access - such as ownership over the dominant property in the case of easements or the credit right in the case of mortgages and pledges - and are not traditionally considered separately as economic or accounting assets.
The real right of conservation adds a new main faculty: the power to conserve -ius conservandi-.[4] In this way, the delineation of new attributes of the goods that come to constitute new wealth, sometimes called natural capital, is facilitated, and therefore, the circulation of this new wealth is facilitated.
In this sense, the 'form' of the real right of conservation focuses on the active aspect of the right (which allows this right to delineate new goods or new attributes of the goods) and not on the restriction of traditional property (see Theoretical Foundations below).
It is important to note that the real right of conservation, analyzed from the perspective of the right of ownership or domain, will certainly be considered as a limitation thereof, but it will be similar in character to the right of usufruct. This substantially differentiates it from encumbrances such as easements.
The various elements of the definition adopted by the Chilean law that establishes the real right of conservation were fundamentally discussed in the Constitution Commission of the Senate of the Republic of Chile.[5] In the work of the aforementioned commission, the Conservation Law Center of Chile had a substantial and permanent participation through its researchers Jaime Ubilla Fuenzalida and Francisco Solís - . The Conservation Law Center, through documents submitted to the aforementioned commission, suggested a new definition of this real right based on the 'power to conserve' and based the replacement of the definition contained in the project approved in the Chamber of Deputies precisely on the need to eliminate the notion of a real right as a lien or easement.[6] See also Ubilla (2015a).
Conservation Duty
Introduction
Real right of conservation is a new institution of civil law that has been defined as the real right that consists of the power to conserve the environmental heritage of a property.[1].
The definition of the real right of conservation[2] focuses on or has as an essential element the 'power to conserve'[3] and this is what allows it to be distinguished from conservation easements - known mainly in North American law as conservation easements") - which are defined as restrictions and which in civil law are classified as an encumbrance.
In this regard, it is important to indicate that the main real rights - sometimes also called 'active' real rights - are those that consist of or have as an essential element certain main powers. The main traditional powers are, since Roman law, the power of use -ius utendi-, the power of enjoyment -ius fruendi- and the power of disposal -ius abutendi-. Therefore, the main real rights have traditionally been two: the right of ownership and the right of usufruct. The main real rights do not require another right to exist, and are traditionally considered economic or accounting assets. Passive or accessory real rights are those that depend on the existence of another main right to which they access - such as ownership over the dominant property in the case of easements or the credit right in the case of mortgages and pledges - and are not traditionally considered separately as economic or accounting assets.
The real right of conservation adds a new main faculty: the power to conserve -ius conservandi-.[4] In this way, the delineation of new attributes of the goods that come to constitute new wealth, sometimes called natural capital, is facilitated, and therefore, the circulation of this new wealth is facilitated.
In this sense, the 'form' of the real right of conservation focuses on the active aspect of the right (which allows this right to delineate new goods or new attributes of the goods) and not on the restriction of traditional property (see Theoretical Foundations below).
It is important to note that the real right of conservation, analyzed from the perspective of the right of ownership or domain, will certainly be considered as a limitation thereof, but it will be similar in character to the right of usufruct. This substantially differentiates it from encumbrances such as easements.
Likewise, it has been on the basis of this new paradigm that focuses on the delineation of new goods and not on the restriction of traditional property that it has been possible - to argue the existence of circulation of new wealth and therefore - to argue for the possibility of establishing real rights of conservation in a perpetual or indefinite manner. In the case of Chile, the original project of the Chamber of Deputies had established a maximum duration limit for this right - 40 years -, but it was in the Senate where, under the understanding of the new paradigm - as proposed by the Conservation Law Center [7] - it distanced itself from the idea or concept of 'servitude', thus allowing the establishment of an indefinite duration in the real right of conservation. This is related at the same time to two principles of the system of real rights: the principle of circulation of wealth and the principle of restriction of restrictions. The latter implies that any restriction on the right of property must in turn be restricted since they hinder the circulation of wealth - which is promoted both in continental civil law and in common law. Therefore, because under this new paradigm the real right of conservation promotes the delineation and circulation of new wealth there is no reason to restrict its duration.[8].
The real right of conservation can be applied in both rural and urban areas, both to biodiversity in the strict sense and to other environmental, social or cultural elements, thanks to the breadth of the concept of environment adopted by Chilean legislation -Law 19,300-.
Theoretical Foundations.
The theoretical support of this new institution is found fundamentally in legal and social theory, and particularly in social systems theory[9] (the economic analysis of law has played a secondary although relevant role[10]).
If we understand that society is made up of various spheres of meaning - scientific, moral, political, aesthetic, economic, religious, legal, media, educational, etc. - and yet we notice that the legal structuring of the relationship with things (real rights) has been predominantly typified based on the structural coupling between law and economy (since the powers of use, enjoyment and disposal that constitute the right of ownership - and to which the limitations on ownership refer - are fundamentally related to the economic sphere - or with that the economic sphere observes or considers relevant[11]), then it can be concluded that traditional real rights are not socially responsive or reflective to other spheres of society -other than the economy-. In this context it can be understood that any real right that is conceived as a 'lien' is being typified from the perspective of the right of ownership, that is, from the perspective of the reduction of the economic valuation of the encumbered asset.
Consequently, the real right of conservation comes to reverse the consideration of what is valuable and makes it possible for observations and evaluations from other social spheres -i.e. the ecological, aesthetic valuation, etc. - (and the corresponding 'knowledge' coming from these social spheres) - are internalized in civil law and transformed or translated into legally valued elements in the relationship with things - or in the relationship with environmental heritage -. In simple terms, and as an example, scenic beauty will no longer be classified as a burden or restriction but as something valuable that is the object of the 'power to conserve'. This has transcendental consequences, among others: (i) with respect to what has been called the 'reflexive form of law'[12] which implies that certain forms of law have a greater capacity to internalize new social complexity;[13] (ii) with respect to the recognition of societal interests in civil law -the public sphere within civil law-; (iii) regarding the fact that this institution is not subject to traditional criticism of 'propertization', and others.[14].
References
[1] ↑ El primer país que ha adoptado este nuevo derecho real es Chile por medio de la nueva ley 20.930 promulgada con fecha 10 de junio de 2016 - la Ley que establece el Derecho Real de Conservación. Esta ley en su artículo 2 establece: ´El derecho de conservación es un derecho real que consiste en la facultad de conservar el patrimonio ambiental de un predio o de ciertos atributos o funciones de éste´.
[2] ↑ La denominación ´derecho real de conservación´se propuso originalmente en el año 2003 en Chile a efectos de diferenciar esta institución de las servidumbres de conservación, ver Ubilla, Jaime. La Conservación Privada de Biodiversidad y el Derecho Real de Conservación. Revista de Derecho Ambiental de la Universidad de Chile, Nº1, 2003. Sin embargo, en esa etapa de desarrollo conceptual la diferenciación entre ambas instituciones aún no estaba totalmente clara.
[3] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime (2014) Propuesta de Indicaciones al proyecto de Ley del Derecho Real de Conservación, remitido al Senado el 9 de junio de 2014. Estos conceptos se reiteran en el siguiente documento de estudio presentado a la Comisión de Constitución del Senado: Ubilla, Jaime (2015). La Titularidad del Derecho Real de Conservación. Propuesta de Modificación o Indicación a la Comisión de Constitución del Senado de la República de Chile. Centro de Derecho de Conservación, Chile, Mayo 2015;.
[4] ↑ Según se propuso en el documento: Op. Cit. Ubilla, Jaime (2014), remitido a Senadores Horvath y de Urresti y cuyo contenido fundamental fue discutido por la Comisión de Constitución del Senado de Chile.
[5] ↑
[6] ↑ Boletín No. 5.823-07 del Congreso Nacional de la República de Chile, Comisión de Constitución (2015). Segundo Informe de La Comisión de Constitución, Legislación, Justicia y Reglamento, Recaído En El Proyecto de Ley, En Segundo Trámite Constitucional, Que Establece El Derecho Real de Conservación.
[7] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime (2014). Propuesta de Indicaciones al proyecto de Ley de Derecho Real de Conservación, Centro de Derecho de Conservación.
[8] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime (2014), y Ubilla, Jaime (2015).
[9] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime. Reflexive Law and Reflexive Property Rights. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Law of the University of Edinburgh, 2016.
[10] ↑ Op.Cit. Ubilla (2003).
[11] ↑ Luhmann, Niklas (2015). El Origen de La Propiedad y Su Legitimación: Un Recuento Histórico. Original Title: Der Ursprung Des Eigentums Und Seine Legitimation. In: W. Krawietz et Al (Hrsg.), Technischer Imperativ Und Legitimationskrise Des Rechts, Rechtstheorie Beiheft 11, Berlin, 1991,” Revista MAD - Universidad de Chile 33.
[12] ↑ Op.Cit. Ubilla (2016). Chapter 7. The Reflexive and the Exclusionary.
[13] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime (2016).
[14] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime (2016).
The various elements of the definition adopted by the Chilean law that establishes the real right of conservation were fundamentally discussed in the Constitution Commission of the Senate of the Republic of Chile.[5] In the work of the aforementioned commission, the Conservation Law Center of Chile had a substantial and permanent participation through its researchers Jaime Ubilla Fuenzalida and Francisco Solís - www.centroderechoconservacion.org-. The Conservation Law Center, through documents submitted to the aforementioned commission, suggested a new definition of this real right based on the 'power to conserve' and based the replacement of the definition contained in the project approved in the Chamber of Deputies precisely on the need to eliminate the notion of a real right as a lien or easement.[6] See also Ubilla (2015a).
Likewise, it has been on the basis of this new paradigm that focuses on the delineation of new goods and not on the restriction of traditional property that it has been possible - to argue the existence of circulation of new wealth and therefore - to argue for the possibility of establishing real rights of conservation in a perpetual or indefinite manner. In the case of Chile, the original project of the Chamber of Deputies had established a maximum duration limit for this right - 40 years -, but it was in the Senate where, under the understanding of the new paradigm - as proposed by the Conservation Law Center [7] - it distanced itself from the idea or concept of 'servitude', thus allowing the establishment of an indefinite duration in the real right of conservation. This is related at the same time to two principles of the system of real rights: the principle of circulation of wealth and the principle of restriction of restrictions. The latter implies that any restriction on the right of property must in turn be restricted since they hinder the circulation of wealth - which is promoted both in continental civil law and in common law. Therefore, because under this new paradigm the real right of conservation promotes the delineation and circulation of new wealth there is no reason to restrict its duration.[8].
The real right of conservation can be applied in both rural and urban areas, both to biodiversity in the strict sense and to other environmental, social or cultural elements, thanks to the breadth of the concept of environment adopted by Chilean legislation -Law 19,300-.
Theoretical Foundations.
The theoretical support of this new institution is found fundamentally in legal and social theory, and particularly in social systems theory[9] (the economic analysis of law has played a secondary although relevant role[10]).
If we understand that society is made up of various spheres of meaning - scientific, moral, political, aesthetic, economic, religious, legal, media, educational, etc. - and yet we notice that the legal structuring of the relationship with things (real rights) has been predominantly typified based on the structural coupling between law and economy (since the powers of use, enjoyment and disposal that constitute the right of ownership - and to which the limitations on ownership refer - are fundamentally related to the economic sphere - or with that the economic sphere observes or considers relevant[11]), then it can be concluded that traditional real rights are not socially responsive or reflective to other spheres of society -other than the economy-. In this context it can be understood that any real right that is conceived as a 'lien' is being typified from the perspective of the right of ownership, that is, from the perspective of the reduction of the economic valuation of the encumbered asset.
Consequently, the real right of conservation comes to reverse the consideration of what is valuable and makes it possible for observations and evaluations from other social spheres -i.e. the ecological, aesthetic valuation, etc. - (and the corresponding 'knowledge' coming from these social spheres) - are internalized in civil law and transformed or translated into legally valued elements in the relationship with things - or in the relationship with environmental heritage -. In simple terms, and as an example, scenic beauty will no longer be classified as a burden or restriction but as something valuable that is the object of the 'power to conserve'. This has transcendental consequences, among others: (i) with respect to what has been called the 'reflexive form of law'[12] which implies that certain forms of law have a greater capacity to internalize new social complexity;[13] (ii) with respect to the recognition of societal interests in civil law -the public sphere within civil law-; (iii) regarding the fact that this institution is not subject to traditional criticism of 'propertization', and others.[14].
References
[1] ↑ El primer país que ha adoptado este nuevo derecho real es Chile por medio de la nueva ley 20.930 promulgada con fecha 10 de junio de 2016 - la Ley que establece el Derecho Real de Conservación. Esta ley en su artículo 2 establece: ´El derecho de conservación es un derecho real que consiste en la facultad de conservar el patrimonio ambiental de un predio o de ciertos atributos o funciones de éste´.
[2] ↑ La denominación ´derecho real de conservación´se propuso originalmente en el año 2003 en Chile a efectos de diferenciar esta institución de las servidumbres de conservación, ver Ubilla, Jaime. La Conservación Privada de Biodiversidad y el Derecho Real de Conservación. Revista de Derecho Ambiental de la Universidad de Chile, Nº1, 2003. Sin embargo, en esa etapa de desarrollo conceptual la diferenciación entre ambas instituciones aún no estaba totalmente clara.
[3] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime (2014) Propuesta de Indicaciones al proyecto de Ley del Derecho Real de Conservación, remitido al Senado el 9 de junio de 2014. Estos conceptos se reiteran en el siguiente documento de estudio presentado a la Comisión de Constitución del Senado: Ubilla, Jaime (2015). La Titularidad del Derecho Real de Conservación. Propuesta de Modificación o Indicación a la Comisión de Constitución del Senado de la República de Chile. Centro de Derecho de Conservación, Chile, Mayo 2015;.
[4] ↑ Según se propuso en el documento: Op. Cit. Ubilla, Jaime (2014), remitido a Senadores Horvath y de Urresti y cuyo contenido fundamental fue discutido por la Comisión de Constitución del Senado de Chile.
[5] ↑
[6] ↑ Boletín No. 5.823-07 del Congreso Nacional de la República de Chile, Comisión de Constitución (2015). Segundo Informe de La Comisión de Constitución, Legislación, Justicia y Reglamento, Recaído En El Proyecto de Ley, En Segundo Trámite Constitucional, Que Establece El Derecho Real de Conservación.
[7] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime (2014). Propuesta de Indicaciones al proyecto de Ley de Derecho Real de Conservación, Centro de Derecho de Conservación.
[8] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime (2014), y Ubilla, Jaime (2015).
[9] ↑ Ubilla, Jaime. Reflexive Law and Reflexive Property Rights. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Law of the University of Edinburgh, 2016.
[10] ↑ Op.Cit. Ubilla (2003).
[11] ↑ Luhmann, Niklas (2015). El Origen de La Propiedad y Su Legitimación: Un Recuento Histórico. Original Title: Der Ursprung Des Eigentums Und Seine Legitimation. In: W. Krawietz et Al (Hrsg.), Technischer Imperativ Und Legitimationskrise Des Rechts, Rechtstheorie Beiheft 11, Berlin, 1991,” Revista MAD - Universidad de Chile 33.
[12] ↑ Op.Cit. Ubilla (2016). Chapter 7. The Reflexive and the Exclusionary.