❈ ❈ ❈

The Rights of Nature: A Redefinition of Human-Nature Relations

Imke Horstmannshoff and Barbara Unmüßig

We have long since exceeded the planetary boundaries: the climate catastrophe is a reality, ecosystems and biodiversity sustained lasting damage, we are overexploiting soils, deforesting the land and overfishing the oceans, and microplastics can be found in every part of the planet. All of this has devastating consequences for the lives and health of humans, plants and animals, and is happening in the context of extreme social inequality and poverty.

For a long time it has been clear: to face these challenges, profound economical social, institutional and cultural changes are needed. The climate catastrophe and the massive loss of biodiversity are the most striking expression of massively disturbed human-nature relations in all parts of the world.

The ‘Rights of Nature’ are one of several responses to these challenges, with a potentially transformative impact on the relationship between humans and nature.

Around the world, a wide range of actors from the Global South and North are campaigning for this idea at local to global levels: representatives of indigenous peoples and activists, scientists, lawyers and judges. Their ‘clients’: rivers, mountain peaks and other ecosystems, from the Ecuadorian cloud forest to New Zealand’s Whanganui River to the Mar Menor salt lagoon in the Spanish province of Murcia.

What are the ‘Rights of Nature’?

The idea of recognising nature as a whole and non-human elements such as rivers, forests and various ecosystems as legal entities and thus ‘granting’ them rights is not new. Christopher Stone, US American legal scholar, argued in favour of it as early as the 1970s in his much-cited work ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’. The legal status of a ‘natural subject’ would create a symmetry of power and possibilities that does not currently exist in law.

Compared to existing environmental ethics and legislation, the Rights of Nature thus take it one step further: Within human legal systems, nature is recognised as a subject with intrinsic value and rights of its own. The Rights of Nature call into question no less than the anthropocentric world view, which regards humans as fundamentally separate from nature, considering nature a property as well as a resource to be exploited at human will – and to be protected (if at all) only due to its benefit to humans.

Treat nature as a person…

…and let ‘it’ go to court? To many, this idea seems absurd at first. However, major changes in jurisprudence – such as the abolition of slavery or the introduction of women’s suffrage – have always seemed utopian to contemporaries. They resulted from intense, long-term struggles. Moreover, if companies or even infants, not able to ‘speak for themselves’ either, have long been recognised as legal subjects and represented in courts, why not natural entities?

This is meant to counteract the existing, legally underpinned imbalance of power between human economic interests and the needs of natural ecosystems. A more effective legal lever is supposed to guarantee better protection of ecosystems – ‘on their own terms’ and doing justice to those who live closest to and with them: indigenous and local communities.

Upswing for a global movement

What may seem utopian at first is already legal practice in many countries around the world. Since the 2000s, the debate and practice has gained momentum again, this time initiated in Latin America: In 2008, Ecuador was the first country in the world to recognise the rights of Nature or Pacha Mama in its constitution, followed by Bolivia in 2010 with its own legislation.

For decades, indigenous movements and politicians in particular had been campaigning in both countries to incorporate the Andean concept of a ‘living environment’ (‘Pacha Mama‘, often translated as ‘Mother Earth’) and the pursuit of ‘Buen Vivir‘ (or ‘sumak kawsay‘, ‘Good Life’) into the political and legal systems. These are based on a holistic world view, in which humans are seen as part of nature and all living beings as interconnected.

The current movement and debates on the Rights of Nature are therefore rooted in the efforts of progressive forces in the Global South and in indigenous cosmologies, which are being linked to legal concepts with origins in the West.

A decade and a half later, the Rights of Nature are legal practice in many countries, and actors around the world are campaigning for them at different levels – from local initiatives to recognise and protect individual ecosystems to transnational organisations such as the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN). With international commissions of enquiry and the International Rights of Nature Tribunals, GARN creates spaces to renegotiate environmental court cases on the grounds of the Rights of Nature and the so-called ‘Earth Jurisprudence’, giving voice to those affected. Since 2009, with the Harmony with Nature programme, the UN has been initiating dialogues and resolutions in this regard, led by indigenous actors, and countries such as Bolivia.

Implementation

How are the Rights of Nature enshrined in legislation? What exactly should be recognised as a legal entity? And who is authorised to represent nature, in the courtroom and beyond? The concrete implementation and embedding of the Rights of Nature is subject to debates in civil society, politics and academia. Crucial requirements and frameworks include an independent judiciary, functioning national legislation and spaces for manoeuvre for civil society and parliaments. Issues and demands, implementations and forms of representation depend to a large extent on local actors and, above all, political, social and cultural contexts – thus, very human factors.

In 2017, the New Zealand Whanganui River (Māori: Te awa tupua) was declared a legal entity in a ground-breaking Settlement Act – as part of post-colonial conflict resolution and restitution processes between indigenous Māori and the New Zealand government. In Colombia, the Río Atrato was recognised as a legal entity in the context of violent conflicts over illegal mining and the endangered living conditions of local indigenous and Afro-American communities.

Meanwhile, the Rights of Nature have also arrived in Europe. After years of damage to the ecosystem, ecological and economic crises and a successful petition, Spain’s constitutional court confirmed the Mar Menor salt lagoon in the province of Murcia to be a ‘legal person’. However, the state of the ecosystem remains critical, and the consequences of this legislation are politically and socially contested.

Besides, the rights of rivers are at the centre of attention in many places in Europe, such as in the UK and France, where a variety of initiatives are working to protect local river ecosystems. In Germany, efforts are being made to amend legal texts at federal state level in the light of nature’s rights, or indeed to ‘ecologise’ the country’s Basic Law.

Tensions and conditions

The Rights of Nature are not only in tension with a human anthropocentric world view and economic interests, but also with other jurisdictions, such as property rights and human rights.

Moreover, in order to effectively implement the Rights of Nature in a human-made system, it takes both people who demand these rights and the will to implement them, as well as political and legal systems in which they can unfold their full impact.

In other words, power relations are required, which allow, uphold and protect the rule of law, the separation of powers and the independence of courts. Around the globe, these conditions are becoming increasingly fragile: Scope for political action is shrinking or disappearing, political and environmental activists are in mortal danger in many places, opportunities to express political demands are being criminalised, while fundamental principles of the rule of law are being suspended.

In the midst of this situation, debates and campaigns for the Rights of Nature are in full swing.

[Imke Horstmannshoff is a researcher, writer and activist for social-ecological change in Germany and the wider European context. Barbara Unmüßig is a political scientist and publicist, and co-founder of numerous networks and organisations (German Institute for Human Rights, Forum Environment & Development). Courtesy: The Heinrich Böll Foundation.]

❈ ❈ ❈

The Recognition of Rights of Nature: A Global Paradigm Change

Pranom Somwong (Bee)

Human-Nature Relations: Transitioning from Lore to Law

The shift from customary lore to modern legal systems represents a profound evolution in our relationship with nature. The introduction of capitalism and industrialisation shifted humans role from guardians with a duty of care to owners with the right to control, exploit, and, at times, harm the environment. This transformation saw the replacement of age-old lore with modern laws that uphold the notion of nature as property.

Today, a growing movement is advocating for the recognition of “Rights of Nature”, marking a paradigm shift in our approach to environmental protection. The concept of the Rights of (Mother) Nature is more than just a term; it embodies an endeavor to reintegrate this ancestral wisdom into contemporary legal frameworks. The Rights of Nature are a way to enable nature to have a legal hearing, to sue, and to have the right to seek redress.

This approach diverges from the current conventional viewpoint by acknowledging that human needs do not hold a central position, but instead recognises that humanity is an integral part of nature.

It highlights the inherent value of all life and underscores the interdependence that characterises our environmental relationships.

International Frameworks: The Evolution of Environmental Law

On the international stage, the recognition of nature’s rights has made significant strides. In 1982, the UN World Charter for Nature emphasised the unique value of every form of life, irrespective of its value to humans. This landmark declaration laid the foundation for later developments, including the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (UNDMRE) in 2010. The UN Environment Assembly of 2014 further underscored the importance of strengthening the environmental rule of law.

While these international mechanisms highlight the need for environmental protection, they do not grant nature any legal rights against exploitation. Market logics and the human right to development often remain a priority, when in fact many activities defined as ‘development‘ cause devastation to people and the environment.

Pioneering Examples of Rights of Nature in Law

Several countries have taken concrete steps towards recognising nature’s rights. Ecuador, in 2008, became the world’s first nation to grant nature such rights in its constitution, acknowledging its right to exist as well as to regenerate its life cycles and structure. Moreover, it permits anyone, regardless of their connection to a specific part of nature, to go to court to protect it.

Bolivia introduced the ‘Law of the Rights of Mother Earth’ in 2010, recognising seven fundamental Rights of Nature. In Uganda, the National Environmental Act of 2019 grants nature the right to exist, persist, maintain, regenerate its vital cycles and structure. New Zealand, on the other hand, is awarding juristic personhood to nature one entity at a time, such as in the cases of Te Urewera national park and the Whanganui River.

Challenges and Debates

Despite the legal recognition of nature’s rights, numerous challenges persist. Extractive industries and powerful groups continue to thrive in countries like Ecuador and Bolivia, posing a threat to the environment under the flag of development, when in fact, many of these highly exploitative activities do not benefit anyone but the winners of capitalism, such as large corporations, investors, and corrupt government officials and elites.

Nonetheless, there is in fact a real dilemma when trying to balance human development with respect for nature’s rights. This remains a formidable task for the courts.

Even in countries with a more progressive legislation like Colombia and despite legal victories, the enforcement of rulings can be challenging.

On the other hand, a significant challenge persists: Many countries have yet to formally recognise the Rights of Nature, still prioritising human interests over ecological considerations. For instance, countries like Thailand often seem more inclined to grant permissions for extractive industries, such as potash mining, rather than bestowing legal Rights of Nature.

Meanwhile, the dangers faced by those defending nature’s rights are a stark reminder of the resistance against this legal shift: In 2022, 177 environmental activists were killed globally, most of them in Latin America. In Thailand, an exhibition and documentation titled ‘For Those Who Died Trying’, organised by Protection International, illuminates the stories of over 62 human rights defenders who fearlessly exposed corruption, advocated for fair land rights, safeguarded the environment from illegal deforestation and land encroachments, and resisted poorly-conceived development projects.

Additional Debates and Initiatives

Besides the above, many debates remain unsolved: For example, when it comes to guardianship and representation for nature in legal cases, to unambiguous language in legal frameworks for nature’s rights, as well as to the evident need of harmonising conflicting rights – especially when human development and environmental protection collide. Moreover, it remains unclear how the implementation of Rights of Nature can be safely guaranteed within existing centralised political and legal systems, and which role nature can play in international development.

Questions concerning nature or natural elements holding the status of juristic persons and having the legal right to access redress represent an emerging legal field around the world. It is interesting that this is mostly happening in countries where indigenous and local people still have a caring relationship with nature and are connected to customary lore and traditions. People here have direct experience of environmental devastation and climate change.

Countries who are pioneering the Rights of Nature in their laws and constitutions also offer these considerations as examples for other countries.

Conclusion

The global recognition of the Rights of Nature represents a significant paradigm shift in how we view and interact with the environment. It is a crucial step in re-establishing the harmonious relationship between humans and nature that our ancestors practised for centuries. It is imperative to acknowledge that although there has been notable progress, we are still facing significant challenges on various sides. These challenges encompass a period of political instability, economic hardships, environmental degradation, and the dominance of authoritarian regimes in many parts of the world. Balancing human development and environmental preservation is a major pressing concern.

As the world confronts the urgent imperative to tackle the climate crisis and ecological deterioration, embracing the concept of granting rights to nature can present a viable route towards a more sustainable and just future.

[Pranom Somwong is a feminist lawyer with Protection International in Thailand, dedicated to empowering women, land, and climate justice defenders, along with young activists. Courtesy: The Heinrich Böll Foundation.]