Rights of Nature is the recognition that our ecosystems have rights just as human beings have rights, according to the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN), a diverse network of scientists, attorneys, economists, Indigenous leaders, business leaders, politicians and activists from over 100 countries.

The concept of nature rights recognises that ecosystems have an inherent right to exist, flourish and regenerate and that these rights should be legally protected and enforced. This concept involves granting legal personhood to natural entities, such as species and ecosystems, similar to how corporations, schools and law firms are treated as singular legal entities.

The concept of nature rights mirrors how many Indigenous and traditional cultures have long recognised the intrinsic value and inter- connectedness of the living world. The health and functioning of human society are inextricably linked to the health and functioning of living systems. However, in almost every country worldwide, the living world is considered “property” under the law. Rights of Nature looks to upend this. In doing so, it hopes to shift our relationship with the living world away from one of domination and exploitation and toward one of respect, stewardship and coexistence.

In 2008, Ecuador set an incredible precedent by becoming the first country in the world to formally recognise and implement nature rights in its constitution. Bolivia, Mexico and Colombia followed suit by establishing similar legal mechanisms for the protection of the living world. In 2011, a groundbreaking legal ruling by a provincial court in south Ecuador was made, recognising the rights of the Vilcabamba River, which were being violated by road construction. Within a few years, more rivers were being legally recognised: the Rio Atrato in Colombia, the Whanganui River in Aotearoa New Zealand, the Klamath River in the USA (recognised as a legal person under tribal law), the Birrarung/Yarra River in Australia (recognised as a living entity but not a legal person), and the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India (the original ruling from the High Court in Uttarakhand held that the Ganges and Yamuna rivers were legal persons but that was later overruled by the Indian Supreme Court), and the Magpie River in Canada. In 2019, all rivers in Bangladesh became legal persons.

Around the world, people are pushing for legal personhood for ecosystems as well as legal frameworks for environmental justice. However, the topic is complex. Cultural mindsets play a big role. In places where nature rights have been successfully enshrined into law, there is often an influential Indigenous population who view the living world as having inherent value and rights matched to those of humans. Cultures defined by anthropocentrism may struggle to incorporate the idea of nature rights into exist- ing legal frameworks, which prioritise human interests and economic growth. This can lead to ideological conflicts and legal obstacles that make it challenging to fully recognise and protect the rights of nature.

For example, in the USA, the Lake Erie Bill of Rights – voted in democratically by the City of Toledo and designed to protect Lake Erie from pollution – has faced opposition and criticism because it conflicts with the economic interests of businesses and industries that use the lake for their operations. The US legal system is primarily based on the concept of private property; an agricultural company argued that the Lake Erie Bill of Rights infringed on its right to operate its business and use its property as it sees fit and stated that the bill violated the company’s constitutional rights. The Lake Erie Bill of Rights was subsequently struck down by a district judge.

This begs the questions: Are legal rights for natural entities compatible with Western-style legal systems? If granted, are nature rights practical or enforceable, or would other means of protection and preservation be more effective? Who would have grounds to stand on behalf of natural entities? But this is the point: Campaigns for nature rights open up conversations and lines of questioning. They get to the heart of the crises we face today by asking how do we value and relate to the world around us?, and who deserves rights and justice? These inquiries can transform the way in which we value natural entities, including rivers, lakes and all ecosystems, and in doing so, transform how we connect to them. They can inspire ideological and cultural shifts and lay the ground for legal change in the future. In the context of water, they can empower people to become guardians of water, standing up for the rights of water and representing water within our legal systems.

It’s exciting to think that today rivers and lakes can hold legal rights and so might our great ocean in the future – which legal groups around the world are currently exploring. Our legal systems and cultural paradigms are malleable and dynamic. It was once inconceivable for women to have rights, for people of colour to have rights, for Indigenous peoples as well as other marginalised people to have rights. It was also once inconceivable for corporations to be considered legal entities. But the world changes and so do our laws, this time to allow for water bodies and other natural entities to be protected so we all may thrive.

References upon request.