In this piece Sam Lewis reflects on the idea of Rights for Nature. He argues that, whilst there are reasons to be sceptical of the idea, it is one that should be taken seriously. This is as it is both a useful way of respecting the ideas of first nation communities and rethinking our relationship with nature. For too long nature has been abused for human needs and it is about time that we rethink that.
What Are Rights of Nature?
Rights of Nature is an idea that has been growing in popularity. It has been recognised in the law by over 35 countries and has seen the release of Robert Macfarlane’s bestselling book Is a River Alive?. It is the idea that the discussion on rights has been too human focused. Instead, proponents claim, rights should also apply to nature. In practice this has taken two different forms:
- The first has been to grant nature certain rights. The most famous example of this is seen in Ecuador. Articles 71 to 74 of the 2008 Ecuadorian constitution provide certain rights for nature. This led to the landmark Constitutional Court ruling in 2021 which argued that mining of Los Cedros forest violated these rights. This is an idea that has since been adopted by the likes of Brazil who proposed their own constitutional amendment in 2025.
- The second has been to give some river and forests ‘legal personhood’. This is seen with the 2017 Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui river claims settlement) in New Zealand. This act stated that the Whanganui river was a living non human being. Meanwhile, Paris has since granted honorary citizenship to the river Seine.
Are They Necessary?
Just because the idea is growing in popularity does not mean that it is commonly accepted. Whilst there are case studies from around the world some 75 percent of court rulings on Rights of Nature globally have been issued in Latin America. Whilst the idea is becoming more popular in Europe it is still not commonly accepted, and in some cases even mocked.
The main concern is that the idea is unnecessarily complicated. Nature cannot speak for itself, at least in the same way that a human can. Therefore, if nature’s rights are being violated, who represents it in court? Even if we grant nature certain rights they will still need to be represented by humans. If it is still humans suing humans then why do we need to claim that nature has certain rights or even legal personhood?
It is therefore worth asking whether this idea is necessary to achieve what campaigners want. There do seem to be plenty of ways of combatting issues such as deforestation and river pollution without having to grant nature certain rights. For example, one could simply argue that people have a right to fresh air and clean water.
An Important Way of Rethinking Politics
Just because the idea is unusual for Europeans does not mean it is invalid. Rights of nature campaigns around the world have been driven by first nation communities. The clearest example of this is in New Zealand where, in 2014, the Tuhoe people were granted legal guardianship of the Te Urewera forest.
Not only does this solve the issue of who represents nature in court but it is also a way of taking first nation beliefs seriously. For Maori people rivers are not just bodies of water but are living ancestors. The Whanganui river for instance is considered an ancestor of the Whanganui tribe. As the Whanganui saying states: ‘I am the river, the river is me’.
The granting of the river the rights of a legal person is therefore not some abstract idea but instead a way of legally acknowledging the beliefs and costumes of the Whanganui people.
Taking these concepts seriously also requires people to rethink our own relationship with nature. For too long we have ignored the fact that we depend on nature to survive. We need fresh air, clean water and fertile land. In order to get these things nature demands a respect that we have completely ignored. We have poisoned its water, polluted its skies and drained its resources.
Whilst the idea is not perfect the idea of rights for nature may help us to rethink this abusive relationship that we have with our environment. In fact if we think of nature as a legal person it may be possible to think of climate change as a form of revolution: an entity tired of being harmed and therefore lashing out violently at its oppressors.
Whilst it may seem a novel idea it is one that should be taken seriously both as a way of embracing other cultures and as a way to rethink the limitations of our own beliefs about nature.
The forthcoming NCF conference has a session on climate change
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons
