Sunday, February 26, The Press presented the backwaters caused by the GéoLAGON project in Petite-Rivière-Saint-François1. The case follows the outline of a scenario seen many times in Quebec.
A developer buys land from a local owner to build a vast recreational tourism complex. The elected officials of the MRC, faithful to the principle of precaution, adopt a resolution to prevent any large-scale project in the short term. The objective of this measure: to give time to study the proposed projects. Obviously, the owner of the land in question sees it as an infringement of his right to do business. The promoter having only paid a deposit, the owner fears a cancellation of the sale.
If the debate between economic interests and the environment comes to the fore in this case, the reaction of the owner suggests another issue. In retaliation for the MRC’s resolution, the owner decided to block access to a trail that crosses his land. From now on, the general public will no longer be able to take this path, which has been accessible for 15 years.
This reaction raises an important question: can access to nature be constrained by private property? A thorny issue little discussed in Quebec. Fortunately, the Scandinavians (again) have been discussing this subject for a long time.
From the second half of the twentiethe century, a new term appeared in Swedish legislation: allemansrätten. The term refers to a concept, namely the right of everyone to enjoy natural spaces and the environment, without taking into account the right to private property and the consent of the owner of the premises.
In other words, anyone can circulate – on foot, by bicycle or on horseback – in natural areas without having to ask the owner of the premises for permission. The recognition of nature and landscapes as collective heritage is at the heart of this right, as are civic responsibility and common sense.
Of course, with all rights come responsibilities. Respect for the environment and the tranquility of the owners constitute the main limits of this right.
Utopian law?
In most Nordic countries where access to nature is recognised, this right applies to clearly defined areas. In Sweden, the population can only access natural areas and the countryside; similarly, private spaces (buildings, gardens, plantations, etc.) are excluded from the exercise of this right. Thus, the swimming pool and the garden of others remain restricted spaces. The various Nordic legislations include a host of other details and specificities surrounding the application of this right.
The case ofAllemansrätten Swedish opens interesting perspectives. First, it calls into question the privatization of natural spaces in the hands of a limited number of people. Why could certain individuals be the only ones to benefit from nature if this use by other individuals is without prejudice to nature or the environment?
Then, the Swedish example presents us with a fait accompli. Access to nature without regard to private property is not a fantasy utopia. Such legislation exists, but above all works.
Note that theallemansrätten is a right recognized by the Swedish Constitution since 1994. Sweden is not the only place where access to nature is established in law: Norway (allemannsrett), Finland (jokamiehenoikeus) and Estonia (igameheõigus) have their own version of this right, not to mention other variants around the world.
Quebec spreads over a territory of great natural wealth. More than half a million lakes and 761,000 km2 of forest, much of which is subject to private ownership. Thus, a question remains unanswered: when will Quebec have a right of access to nature?