A few years ago, the city of Melbourne created 70,000 email addresses for its trees, to allow people to report on their condition. But, instead of bark updates, its officers received expressions of arboreal love from across the world. For these writers, trees were beings to be engaged with and cared for. In this, they echoed our ancient ancestors, many of whom considered themselves part of an animate world. The Prithvi Sukta, an ancient Indian Earth hymn, expresses deep reverence for our home planet:

‘We venerate Mother Earth, the sustainer and preserver of forests, vegetation, and all things that are held together firmly. She is the source of a stable environment.’

Many Indigenous Peoples remain embedded in deep interrelationship with the Earth. At the same time, modern scientific understanding increasingly recognises the planet ‘as one ecosystem, dependent on interacting species.’[1] However, philosophical and legal approaches which began to dominate Europe five hundred years ago saw nature as a resource, to be managed and exploited. Despite including a level of protection for nature and animals, many legal systems still consider them as ‘objects’ – there for the benefit of humans, rather than having any independent right to exist, let alone thrive or flourish. As a consequence, nature protection is discounted in favour of economic benefit to humans – and often only a small, privileged group of humans at that. The impact on our planet is clear: a devastating level of climate crisis; one million species threatened with extinction; and the disappearance of 85% of the world’s wetlands. The legal system has played its part in ecosystem decline, by enabling environmental protection to be sidelined. It could also play an important role in its resolution.

‘Rights of nature’ give non-human ecologies and their components their own legal rights to exist and thrive. They are protected in the constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia, as well as (for example) Ugandan legislation. Rights of nature have been legally acknowledged in India, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Bolivia, Columbia and New Zealand, among others. These jurisdictions often benefit from the presence of Indigenous Peoples, or other tradition-holders whose worldviews support nature rights. That said, there are hundreds of rights of nature initiatives all across the world, covering every continent except Antarctica.[2]

Nature rights could play a key role in protecting the Amazon rainforest, one of the planet’s most important plant-dominated ecosystems. Despite its critical role in regulating the global climate, the Amazon risks becoming a source of greenhouse emissions due to deforestation. In 2008, Ecuador, part of the Amazonia region, became the first country to protect rights of nature at the national level. Article 71 of the constitution grants nature – or Pachamamma, an Aymara and Quechua word for Mother Earth – ‘the right to exist, persist, maintain itself, and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.’ This enables people to petition on behalf of nature and for the government to pay reparations for harm to nature.

In 2021, Ecuador’s constitutional court ruled that mining in protected areas violated the rights of nature – in this case those of the Amazon rainforest. Judges found risks that were ‘not necessarily’ related to humans, ‘but to the destruction of ecosystems or the permanent alteration of natural cycles…’ In this, the court promoted a holistic view of nature, in contrast to the more fragmented approach of traditional environmental law. A later ruling highlighted the connection between nature rights and Indigenous Peoples, giving them the right to oversee the future of the majority of the Ecuadorian Amazon. It stated that ’under no circumstances can a project be carried out that generates excessive sacrifices to the collective rights of communities and nature.’ Voters have since rejected oil drilling in the Yasuni, the most biodiverse area of its Amazon region.

The practical impact of nature rulings is likely to vary according to the wider political, economic and social context in which they are applied. Research on the Atrato river in Columbia, which was awarded legal rights to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration, for example,[3] shows benefits in terms of community involvement and the formulation of environmental policies, but not, yet, in the river’s condition. This may be partly due to the fact that it will take time to reverse its decline. A separate study has shown that, despite challenges, nature rights have led to positive changes in the lives and environment of local human inhabitants (for example, through some community members reducing hunting and logging activities), although others said it made no difference to their existing approaches.[4]

Nature rights are also surfacing at the international level. The UN General Assembly has proclaimed the 22nd April as International Mother Earth Day, adopting a number of resolutions on Harmony With Nature. The preamble to the Paris Agreement describes biodiversity as ‘recognized by some cultures as mother earth’ and rights of nature/mother earth are described as an ‘an integral part of (the) successful implementation’ of the Global Biodiversity Framework in countries that recognise them.

European legal systems face challenges in incorporating nature rights as they are often deeply rooted in an anthropocentric approach, creating resistance. In Spain, an act granting legal personality to the Mar Menor lagoon – the first recognition of Rights of Nature in a European legal text – is being reviewed by the Spanish Constitutional Court. Nevertheless, ecosystems continue to be valued across Europe by ordinary people and a range of laws exist to protect it. In the UK, for example, tree-felling by Plymouth Council provoked a furious backlash, leading to an ongoing legal challenge and likely contributing to its Conservative-led Council losing power in local elections. Anthropocentric viewpoints are being challenged in the West, a phenomenon that runs alongside a rise in eco-spiritualities.

Opponents to legal rights for nature argue that personal rights can’t be given to an entity. It is true that the non-human world cannot speak for itself in a human governance system and would need representation. But this hasn’t stopped companies, charities, ships or a multitude of other entities from getting legal rights – even human rights. To an extent, ‘nature’ already has representation in some legal systems through NGOs and environmental protection agencies. The company ‘Faith in Nature’ requires one of its directors to be a ‘Nature Guardian,’ tasked with ensuring that the company considers the environmental impacts of its decisions. In order for fundamental transformation to take place, however, representatives of nature rights would need a demonstrated and deep relationship with the natural world general, as well as the specific ecological entities they represent. This could include living in clear, interconnected relationships with them. The views of these representatives would also need to be given sufficient weight in decision-making processes, including in legal cases.

Some regard humans as automatically existing in opposition to nature, pitting human rights against nature rights. Again, this is a matter of cultural perspective. As we have seen, respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Indigenous Peoples can include fostering rights of nature. Likewise, human rights to culture and religion can incorporate similar viewpoints. For instance, views held in the religious traditions of the East (such as Hinduism)  – on the sacrality of nature and the inherent equality of all living beings – form part of the context for Indian legal approaches recognising nature and species rights. Taking a global perspective, UN resolutions recognising the human right to a healthy environment have anthropocentric aspects, but also refer to the environment’s intrinsic value. Human rights to information, participation and access to justice also play an important part in protecting nature. As a result, developments in the relationship between human rights and rights of nature, as well as the evolving law of ecocide (or severe environmental destruction), have the real potential to be mutually supportive.

Legal systems must evolve to fully address the deepening polycrises of climate change and environmental degradation, as well as the development (or reassertion) of views about where and how humans fit into our wider ecosystems. Rights of nature could form part of a powerful reimagining of our legal frameworks, to truly reflect and protect our planet – and all who rely on it for their existence.

Footnotes:

[1] Sacha Vignieri & Julia Fahrenkamp-Uppenbrink, Ecosystem Earth, 2017.

[2] Alex Putzer et al., Putting the Rights of Nature on the Map. A Quantitative Analysis of Rights of Nature Initiatives Across the World, 2022. See also the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor.

[3] Dr Elizabeth Macpherson, Legal Rights for Nature: The Case of Rio Atrato, Colombia, 2017.

[4] Marie Meshe, There is nothing wrong with the Rights of Nature: They just need a supervisor, 2022.