The rights of nature movement argues that non-human natural entities and ecosystems, from rivers to woodlands and coral reefs to savannahs, are not mere property but rights holders in law.
Just as the human rights movement sets out the fundamental rights of people, the movement sets out the inherent right of natural entities and ecosystems to exist and thrive, irrespective of their usefulness to humanity.
- “The ultimate meddling”: What is assisted migration – and why is it so controversial among scientists?
- “People are cynical about making money out of nature.” We desperately need to rewild the world. But who’s going to foot the bill?
The movement dates back to the publication in 1972 of Should Trees Have Standing?, a legal paper arguing that nature possesses legal rights. That same year, the United States Supreme Court heard a case about the development of a ski resort in the Sierra Nevada mountains, in which one of the dissenting justices concluded that natural resources should be able to sue for their own protection.
The case brought the theory of rights of nature to the legal mainstream, but it took more than three decades before these ideas actually made it into law. In 2008, Ecuador ratified a new constitution that recognised the rights – known as Pacha Mama, or Mother Earth, in Andean Indigenous philosophy – to “integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes”.
Indeed, the success of the movement in recent years is reflective of a shift towards a greater understanding of and respect for First Nation culture and knowledge worldwide.
How does it work?
In practice, this means that citizens can file lawsuits on behalf of ecosystems, and courts have additional powers to block extractive projects and order the restoration of habitats. The constitution was vital in protecting the Los Cedros Biological Reserve, after a case was brought to court when a mining company began explorations in the site. In 2021, the judge ruled that mining would harm the biodiversity of the forest and violate the rights of nature.
The rights have also been conferred by courts in several nations and regions. For example, in 2019, in a case regarding pollution of the River Turag, the High Court of Bangladesh declared the waterway to be a living entity with legal rights. The ruling applies to the country’s other rivers, too. The court appointed the National River Conservation Commission as guardian of the river, using a legal framework familiar from cases where a court acts in the interests of a child.
Elsewhere, on the South Korean island Jeju, campaigners and environmentalists are seeking to have a pod of around 130 bottlenose dolphins recognised as a ‘legal person’, in an attempt to grant them further protection by law.
RoN in the UK
In the UK, there are no national laws relating to rights of nature. But in 2021, Derry City & Strabane District Council became the first council in the UK to pass a motion in support of such rights. Several councils in England have taken similar steps since, passing motions to grant their local rivers fundamental rights, including the right to be free from pollution.
While this action is largely symbolic – as council motions do not overrule national law in the UK – advocates of the movement are encouraged that such ideas are now part of mainstream politics.
It’s not just in the UK that this legislation remains complex. Central to most rights of nature laws is the idea of guardianship – that a person or organisation will represent the natural entity in court. Yet guardians tend to be underfunded, particularly in comparison with vested interests such as extractive industries or governments.
As a result, some experts believe that the rights themselves are less a tool for protecting nature and more a way of shifting the conversation towards legal frameworks that will ensure better protections in the future.
Top image: dolphins in the sea near Jeju island, South Korea. Credit: Getty
