The Rights of Nature movement represents a transformative paradigm shift to support the elevation from a global story of separation and ‘othering’ to one of interconnection, in order to appreciate that our ecological, climate and related social crises did not arise randomly. These are linked to human systems – including economics, politics, agriculture, health and others – which operate in the context of exponential technology and, at present, are based on unreasonable expectations of endless economic growth on a finite planet, treatment of the world’s resources as fungible, practices of commodification and privatization, and the corporate capture of governmental decision-making — which all rely on perceiving humans as separate from the rest of the natural world and our environments as merely passive backdrops for the human experience.

“Deep ecology is based on two basic principles: one is a scientific view that all life systems on Earth are interrelated and that anthropocentrism or human centrism is a wrong way of looking at things. Deep ecologists say that an eco-centric attitude is more consistent with the reality of the Nature of life on Earth. The second component of deep ecology is what Arne Næss calls the need for human self-actualization (‘reconnecting with the Earth’). Instead of identifying with our egos or closest relatives, we should learn to identify with the trees, animals, plants and the entire biosphere. This would bring about a very radical change in our consciousness that would make our behavior more consistent with what science tells us is necessary for the well-being of life on Earth. If we ‘reconnected with the earth’ we would not do things that harm the planet, just as we would never cut off our own finger.” (Michael E. Zimmerman, 1989).

While the practice of granting Rights to Nature has existed for a very long time in Indigenous traditions that perceive Nature as a living entity with inherent rights, the Western World was unfamiliar with the concept of Rights of Nature until Southern California Law Review published law professor Christopher Stone’s seminal article, “Should Trees Have Standing?”. Published in 1972, Stone described how Nature was considered right-less under the existing structure of law, having no legally recognized rights to defend and enforce. In 1989, Professor Roderick Nash published a book that traces the evolution of ethics as applied to the environment through historical environmentalists. Nash asserts that the formation of the scientific pursuit of ecology was the beginning of the widening of the ethical circle away from anthropocentrism.

In 2006, Cormac Cullinan made a convincing argument for the Rights of Nature to be recognized by stating that throughout history, the oppressed and right-less (slaves, women, marginalized groups) have struggled to expand the body of legal rights to include themselves when being exploited by the groups that held the power to choose who should or shouldn’t have the privilege to be a right bearer. To paraphrase, just as slaves were formerly not considered legal subjects, Nature too has been deprived of legal protection and rights; hence the legal system needs to evolve. Read more about the game-changing importance of Stone’s and Cormac’s ethical arguments for the Rights of Nature here.

While this discussion began circulating in academic circles, no legal recognition had yet been given until 2008 when Ecuador became the first country to explicitly recognize the Rights of Nature in its Constitution. Its constitutional articles reflect Indigenous beliefs and principles of “Buen Vivir” (well living). This constitutional recognition marked a paradigm shift in environmental law, asserting that Nature can possess inherent rights to exist, flourish, and evolve. Read more about the context of this landmark precedent in Question 14. 

In 2010, the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth was adopted at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia. This Declaration articulated the ethical and legal principles underpinning the Rights of Nature, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all living beings and the imperative to protect Earth’s ecological systems.

In 2017, the Whanganui River in New Zealand was granted legal personhood, recognizing it as an indivisible and living whole with protection rights. India’s High Court of Uttarakhand followed suit in 2018, granting legal personhood to the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers to safeguard their environmental integrity. In 2019, Toledo, Ohio, USA, passed the Lake Erie Bill of Rights, granting legal rights to the Lake Erie ecosystem amidst concerns over industrial pollution. Colombia’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Atrato River in 2020, affirming its rights to protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration. 

Access our Rights of Nature timeline here.

Access our Rights of Nature map here.

View all global cases here in the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. 

View landmark cases in more detail in Question 7.

These milestones illustrate an evolving global movement that seeks to reframe environmental protection by acknowledging Nature’s intrinsic value and rights. 

Despite the rapid increase in the amount of environmental laws and regulations globally, the state of the planet continues to deteriorate at an accelerating rate. This paradox — the simultaneous increase in environmental regulations and worsening environmental conditions — raises mass questioning about the effectiveness of existing environmental legal frameworks. 

Environmental Protection Law often consists of long-term targets, governmental laws, and corporate contracts which are often conceived in confidential negotiations between governments and corporations. These targets are rarely reached and are immensely difficult to enforce. Without disclosure and transparency, Environmental Protection Laws serve to appease the public by lowering the amount of environmental harm that occurs without solving the much larger issue at hand: that ecological harm is even legal in the first place. 

Environmental Protection Law allows ecological harm to continue and prioritizes the interests of corporations and their profit margins over that of environmental welfare. 

And due to the partisan political landscape where law takes place, many other factors hinder the ability for laws to adequately solve ecological problems and protect environmental ecosystems in the long term:

Short-Term Political Incentives

Environmental laws are undermined by the short-term focus of political systems. Politicians are typically elected on short-term cycles and are motivated to prioritize issues that yield immediate, tangible benefits for their constituents. Environmental protection, however, often requires long-term planning and investment, with benefits that may not be realized until far into the future. This temporal disjunction between political incentives and environmental needs means that when environmental laws are made, they often lack the necessary ambition and scope to effectively address the long-term needs of ecological challenges.

Misalignment with Human and Natural Realities

Environmental laws often rely on outdated and unrealistic models of both human behavior and natural processes. Traditional environmental regulations are based on the “homo economicus” model, which assumes that humans are rational, self-interested actors primarily motivated by economic incentives. This model leads to laws that focus on prohibiting certain harmful behaviors rather than promoting positive actions that support ecological integrity. However, human behavior is far more complex, influenced by a variety of social, cultural, and psychological factors that these laws do not adequately consider. Similarly, environmental laws often simplify Nature as a stable, self-regulating system that requires minimal human intervention. This view fails to account for the complexity of natural systems, which are dynamic, adaptive, and often unpredictable. As a result, laws based on this oversimplified understanding of Nature are ill-equipped to address the multifaceted and interconnected challenges of environmental degradation.

Temporal and Spatial Challenges: Country Borders & Cost

Environmental damage often unfolds over long periods and across vast geographical spaces, making it difficult to trace direct cause-and-effect relationships. Habitats and its damage exist across the borders of countries. This temporal and spatial dispersion complicates the creation and enforcement of laws, as it requires regulating actions in one time and place for the benefit of people and ecosystems: requiring countries to come together which is not how law is used to functioning. Such laws are inherently redistributive, often imposing immediate costs on certain groups while the benefits may only be realized far in the future or in distant locations. This mismatch between the immediate costs and delayed benefits of environmental protection creates significant political and legal obstacles, as lawmakers are often reluctant to impose burdens on current constituents for the sake of future or distant populations.

Political Polarization and Fragmentation

Recently, environmental causes have been ideologically oriented as a liberal cause, limiting the breadth of resolution—this is a modern phenomenon of disenfranchisement as conserving Nature used to be a celebrated conservative value. Moreover, the structure of lawmaking authority in many countries, particularly in federal systems like the United States, further exacerbates the challenges of environmental law. Lawmaking power is often fragmented both horizontally (across different branches and levels of government) and vertically (between national and subnational governments). This fragmentation makes it difficult to enact comprehensive environmental laws that address the full scope of environmental issues. Environmental laws must navigate complex legal and political landscapes, where the need for broad, integrative approaches clashes with the fragmented and siloed Nature of governmental authority.

Anthropocentric Focus

Lastly, a primary reason environmental laws are failing is their deeply rooted anthropocentrism. Most environmental regulations are designed with the explicit goal of benefiting human beings. For instance, many laws aim to control pollution or manage natural resources in ways that maximize human welfare, but they often neglect the intrinsic value of the environment and the complex interdependencies within ecosystems—neglecting that human life also can benefit from ecosystemic support. This anthropocentric bias undermines the effectiveness of environmental laws by failing to address the systemic and holistic needs of the natural world.

Read the Harvard Law Review article ‘Why is it so hard to make Environmental Law?’ here. 

The Rights of Nature movement represents a profound departure from traditional environmental conservation efforts, including those embodied in environmental protection law. At its core, the movement seeks to shift the dominant Western paradigm from viewing Nature as mere property or a resource to be exploited, towards recognizing Nature as a rights-bearing entity with intrinsic value. This conceptual shift has significant implications for how we approach environmental protection, conservation, and our broader relationship with the natural world. 

It may appear unconventional to name Nature a rights-holder. However, the law is simply a formal agreement about how we choose to live together. And actually, we already recognize non-human entities as rights-holders, notably corporations. If corporations exploiting Nature have legal standing, it is time we leveled the playing field and allowed Nature, their victim, to have its voice heard in law.  

Rights vs. Regulations

Traditional environmental conservation efforts, including environmental protection law, are largely rooted in an anthropocentric worldview. These laws are designed primarily to protect the environment for human benefit, often treating Nature as a resource that requires management or regulation to ensure its sustainable use. The underlying assumption is that humans are stewards of the environment, with the right to exploit natural resources, provided that they do so within certain limits to avoid environmental degradation.

In contrast, the Rights of Nature movement is founded on an ecocentric worldview, which recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and ecosystems, independent of their utility to humans. This perspective asserts that Nature, much like humans, should be afforded legal rights that recognize its inherent dignity and worth. Under this framework, Nature is not merely an object or property but a subject with rights, capable of holding those rights against human interference. This shift from regulation to rights fundamentally alters the legal and ethical landscape, challenging the traditional notion of human dominance over Nature.

Property vs. Personhood

Traditional environmental laws are typically based on property rights and the regulation of human activities to minimize environmental harm. For example, laws may limit pollution, protect endangered species, or regulate land use to prevent habitat destruction. However, these laws still treat Nature as property, focusing on mitigating human impacts rather than recognizing Nature’s own rights or legal standing. Under this framework, Nature is protected as long as it benefits human interests, whether those are economic, recreational, or aesthetic.

The Rights of Nature movement, however, seeks to grant legal personhood to natural entities — rivers, forests, ecosystems — recognizing them as legal subjects rather than objects regardless of their ability to serve humans. This recognition of Nature’s personhood shifts the focus from human-centered conservation to the protection of Nature’s own rights, thereby transforming the legal landscape in ways that challenge conventional property-based legal doctrines.

Prevention vs. Restoration

Traditional environmental laws are often reactive, designed to prevent or mitigate environmental damage after it has occurred. For example, laws may require companies to limit emissions, clean up pollution, or restore damaged habitats. These efforts are crucial but are generally focused on minimizing negative human impacts rather than fostering the conditions for Nature to thrive independently of human intervention.

The Rights of Nature movement, however, emphasizes restoration and the active promotion of natural systems’ health and vitality. By recognizing Nature’s right to regenerate and evolve, this approach advocates for proactive measures that go beyond mere damage control. Legal frameworks inspired by the Rights of Nature might, for example, require the restoration of a river’s natural flow, the protection of an ecosystem’s biodiversity, or the cessation of activities that fundamentally disrupt natural processes. This shift from prevention to restoration reflects a deeper commitment to the long-term flourishing of Nature, recognizing that humans are part of a larger ecological community with mutual responsibilities.

Granting legislative protections to Nature akin to human rights ensures the long-term survival and resilience of ecosystems we are destroying. Traditional environmental laws often focus on regulating human activities rather than protecting ecosystems themselves. Rights of Nature laws recognize that ecosystems have intrinsic value independent of human use.

Legal Perspective: 

It may appear unconventional (at least within the current dominant Western culture) to name Nature a rights-holder. However, the law is simply a formal agreement about how to choose to live together, as influenced by our current knowledge, power dynamics and the values we hold collectively. Which entities we pay attention to and invite into the law directly affects the information we gather, how we make decisions, and how we shape other laws, policies and practices. And actually, we already recognize non-human entities as rights-holders, notably corporations. If the corporations exploiting Nature have legal standing, it is time we leveled the playing field and allowed Nature, their victim, to have its voice heard in law. The recognition of corporations in law permits their active inclusion and participation via human proxy in legal contexts. It has contributed to current power imbalances and the privileging of corporate interests over those of humans and other living entities. Legal protections ensure that ecosystems can be defended in courts of law, allowing environmental advocates to challenge activities threatening their rights to exist and thrive.

Human Rights Perspective: 

By strengthening the human rights framework, an expanded interpretation of existing human rights that extends to Nature can easily be made. For example, the human right to a healthy environment, which emphasizes the connection between the well-being of humans and the rest of the natural world, is already recognized in the constitutions or laws of numerous countries and is being relied upon increasingly in rights-based climate and biodiversity litigation and advocacy. To fully understand what action might be needed to ensure a ‘healthy environment’ we must think holistically about what the immediate environment in question looks like. In order to have a ‘healthy environment’ for humans, the environment of the species and ecosystems must also be healthy, given the intrinsic reciprocity of everything. Similarly, Rights of Nature can contribute to the realization of human rights to life, food, water, housing, and education, among others, in ways that acknowledge our perspectives and those of future generations and the more-than-human world. Just as humans have rights to life, liberty, and security, recognizing Nature’s rights ensures that future generations inherit a planet capable of sustaining human life. It underscores the ethical imperative to protect biodiversity and ecosystems as essential components of human rights.

Indigenous Wisdom Perspective: 

Many Indigenous cultures have viewed Nature as a living entity with its own rights and responsibilities for a very long time. For Indigenous cultures worldwide, recognizing the Rights of Nature is consistent with their traditions of living in harmony with Nature. All life, including human life, is deeply interconnected. Decisions and values are based on what is good for the whole. In Ecuador, this Indigenous ideology is called ‘Buen Vivir’ and, in essence, translates to harmonious well-being. It is about changing our relationship with Nature and recognizing that Nature has limits that cannot be exceeded. The concept of the Rights of Nature is not new.

Over the past 14 years, GARN has helped win over 70 incredible cases, in over 47 countries—here are some especially momentous global cases:

• Atrato River and the Amazon Rainforest, Colombia: The Atrato River in Chocó, Colombia, is a vital waterway that supports the livelihoods of thousands of people but has suffered extensive environmental damage due to unregulated gold mining, deforestation, and pollution. The accumulation of toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and other pollutants has devastated the river’s ecosystem, severely impacting local communities and biodiversity. In 2016, Colombia’s Constitutional Court granted legal rights to the Atrato River, recognizing it as a legal entity entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration. Similarly, in 2018, the Amazon Rainforest was granted legal personhood, acknowledging its importance in sustaining global biodiversity and Indigenous cultures. These legal recognitions were pivotal in shifting the focus from exploitation to the restoration and preservation of these critical ecosystems, ensuring their health and resilience for future generations. Read more here.

• Los Cedros Reserve, Ecuador: Los Cedros Biological Reserve in Ecuador, a sanctuary for countless species, including several critically endangered ones, faced significant threats from proposed mining activities that would have led to deforestation, habitat destruction, and pollution. The mining projects posed a direct risk to the reserve’s rich biodiversity, including its rare orchids, endemic species, and diverse fauna. In 2021, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court recognized the rights of Los Cedros as an ecosystem, effectively halting mining activities within its boundaries. This legal victory reinforced the concept that natural reserves have an intrinsic right to exist and thrive, free from human exploitation, and set a precedent for the protection of other ecologically sensitive areas in Ecuador. Read more here.

• Mar Menor, Spain: Mar Menor, a coastal saltwater lagoon in southeastern Spain, has long been an ecological treasure but has suffered severe degradation due to agricultural runoff, urban development, and tourism. These pressures led to nutrient pollution, which caused frequent algal blooms and hypoxia, devastating marine life and threatening local economies dependent on the lagoon’s health. In 2022, in response to mounting public concern and environmental crises, Mar Menor was granted legal personhood, becoming the first ecosystem in Europe to be recognized as a rights-holding entity. This legal status allows for more robust legal protections and accountability measures, ensuring that Mar Menor can be defended in court against further degradation and actively restored to its natural state. Read more here.

• Mining Intag Frogs Case, Ecuador: The Intag Valley in Ecuador is a biodiversity hotspot, home to several endangered frog species, including the critically endangered Longnose Harlequin Frog. However, these species faced extinction due to proposed mining projects that threatened to destroy their habitats through deforestation, water pollution, and soil degradation. In 2020, Ecuadorian courts recognized the rights of these frog species and their habitats, leading to a landmark decision that halted the mining project. This case highlighted the importance of preserving biodiversity and the natural environments that sustain it, affirming that species have the right to exist in their natural habitats without the threat of human-caused extinction. Read more here.

• Quito Sin Mineria, Ecuador: The Chocó Andino de Pichincha Biosphere Reserve near Quito, Ecuador, faced imminent danger from planned mining activities that threatened to disrupt its rich biodiversity and water resources. The region, known for its vast cloud forests and diverse ecosystems, was at risk of deforestation, habitat loss, and water contamination from mining operations. In 2020, the “Quito Sin Minería” movement successfully campaigned for the prohibition of mining within the biosphere reserve. This legal victory was a significant affirmation of the Rights of Nature in Ecuador, ensuring that the area’s ecosystems could continue to flourish without the destructive impacts of extractive industries. Read more here.

• Rights of Whales, New Zealand: New Zealand’s marine ecosystems, including its whale populations, have long been threatened by human activities such as commercial shipping, fishing, and pollution. Whales, as migratory species, were particularly vulnerable to ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear, and the impacts of ocean noise and pollution. In 2019, New Zealand recognized the rights of whales within its waters, integrating their protection into environmental and maritime regulations. This recognition has led to the implementation of measures aimed at reducing threats to whale populations, ensuring that these majestic creatures have the right to live and thrive in their natural habitats, free from human-induced harm. Read more here.

• Rhône River, France: The Rhône River, one of Europe’s major rivers, flows through France and has been heavily impacted by industrialization, agriculture, and urbanization. These activities have led to significant pollution, habitat destruction, and disruption of natural water flows, severely affecting the river’s biodiversity and ecological balance. In response to these environmental challenges, the initiative “L’Appel du Rhône” was launched on 18 September, advocating for the legal recognition of the Rhône River’s rights. The campaign seeks to grant the river a legal personality, which would entail recognizing its rights to exist, be preserved, regenerate, and evolve. This legal framework aims to ensure the protection and restoration of the river’s environment and biodiversity, safeguarding it for current and future generations. By recognizing the river’s rights, advocates hope to shift legal and societal approaches towards a more respectful and sustainable interaction with this vital waterway. More information here.

   

• Shark Finning, Panama: Shark populations worldwide have been severely depleted due to the practice of shark finning, where sharks are captured, their fins removed, and the rest of the body discarded. This practice has led to a drastic decline in shark numbers, threatening marine ecosystems where sharks play a critical role as apex predators. In Panama, the government responded to this crisis by enacting strict regulations against shark finning, recognizing the rights of sharks to exist and the necessity of preserving marine biodiversity. These legal protections aim to halt the decline of shark populations and ensure the health of Panama’s marine ecosystems, setting an example for other nations in the fight against illegal and unsustainable fishing practices. Read more here.

• Whanganui River, New Zealand: The Whanganui River in New Zealand, central to the cultural and spiritual identity of the Whanganui iwi (Indigenous Māori people), had long suffered from environmental degradation due to agriculture, industrial activities, and damming. The river’s health deteriorated, impacting the livelihoods and well-being of the iwi and the broader ecosystem. In 2017, after decades of advocacy by the Whanganui iwi, the river was granted legal personhood, recognized as “Te Awa Tupua”, with its own rights and interests protected under the law. This legal status ensures that the river is treated as an indivisible and living whole, allowing for the restoration of its ecological and cultural significance. Read more here.

• Wave Rights, Brazil: Brazil’s coastal ecosystems, particularly its world-renowned surf breaks, have been increasingly threatened by coastal development, pollution, and climate change, which disrupt the natural dynamics of wave formation. These waves, vital not only for the environment but also for local economies and cultural practices, faced degradation from unchecked human activities that altered coastlines and water quality. In response, the concept of “Wave Rights” emerged, advocating for the recognition of legal rights for waves and surf breaks in Brazil. This innovative legal framework seeks to protect these natural phenomena by recognizing their intrinsic value and ensuring their preservation. By granting legal rights to waves, Brazil aims to safeguard its coastal ecosystems from further harm, maintaining the integrity of surf breaks as vital components of both the environment and the cultural identity of coastal communities. This approach highlights the importance of integrating environmental, cultural, and economic considerations in the stewardship of natural resources. Read more here.

• Yasuní National Park, Ecuador: Yasuní National Park, located in the Amazon Rainforest of Ecuador, is one of the most biodiverse places on Earth. However, this rich ecosystem has been under constant threat from oil extraction activities that risked causing irreversible damage to its flora, fauna, and Indigenous communities. In 2019, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court ruled in favor of recognizing the rights of Yasuní National Park, prioritizing its conservation over the economic interests of the oil industry. This decision reinforced the importance of protecting biodiversity hotspots and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands, ensuring that Yasuní can continue to thrive as a critical component of global biodiversity. Read more here.

Check out our Rights of Nature timeline here.

Access our Rights of Nature map with all initiatives worldwide.

Explore all compiled global cases here in the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor .

Read every legal avenue (laws, resolutions, and court decisions) protecting the Rights of Nature Law that exists globally in chronological order.

The Rights of Nature is founded on an ecosystemic perspective, which in essence means that we target large breaches of law that incite ecosystemic collapse. For instance, the practice of shark finning which incites the extinction of sharks and greatly damages the entire marine ecosystem is an action that invades the Rights of Nature and as an organization we act on. Unlike the case of one dog being abused or neglected — even though this too is obviously appalling — is not our focus. We concentrate on species being pushed to complete extinction (since within the Rights of Nature law, every species has the right to exist in abundance) and human practices that are inciting the mass degradation of an ecosystem (since within the Rights of Nature law, every ecosystem has the right to maintenance and preservation).

The Rights of Nature movement is led by a diverse coalition of Indigenous communities, environmental activists, legal scholars, and grassroots organizations globally.

Indigenous Communities: 

• Even though Indigenous communities comprise less than 5% of the world’s population, Indigenous people protect 80% of global biodiversity. This is not a coincidence. Indigenous peoples have long been at the forefront of advocating for the Rights of Nature, and the framework of the movement draws heavily on Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices that emphasize harmonious relationships with the natural world and have been successful in such pivotal conservation efforts. 
• At GARN we consult Indigenous communities in our Indigenous Council to recognize the importance of Indigenous leadership and guidance so that these voices remain at the forefront of the Rights of Nature movement as it grows. GARN Executive Committee members, Tom Goldtooth and Casey Camp Horinek, have put forward a plan to build a global Indigenous Council that will invite Indigenous leaders from around the globe working on Earth jurisprudence to join together and have a leading voice at GARN. The Council offers member and member communities learning opportunities, tools and legal support appropriate to the Indigenous and Tribal context, as well as having a leadership role in guiding GARN’s global work.

Environmental NGOs: 

• As outlined in Article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, every people, person, or community has the right to demand the recognition of rights for Nature before the law. This article gives every citizen the legal authority and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of ecosystems. The ecosystem itself can be named as the injured party or victim, with its own legal standing rights, and we act as its defense lawyers. NGO’s play pivotal roles in representing Nature; safeguarding its inherent rights in places that have granted them and fighting for the Rights of Nature in places yet to grant it.
• At GARN, we join forces with many incredible global organizations around the world. View all of our member organizations here. 

Legal Scholars: 

• We work in tandem with academics and legal experts to contribute to the movement by researching legal frameworks, advocating for policy reforms, and providing expertise in Rights of Nature litigation. 
• At GARN, our legal hub is a steering committee that provides us with legal guidance, support and training for GARN members. For example, the hub will take the lead on relevant GARN Amicus Curiae, finalize and publish Tribunal verdicts, respond to community or member inquiries on legal Rights of Nature questions and undertake the development of legal toolkits.

Every natural entity has the right to demand the recognition of rights for Nature before the law. This article gives every citizen the legal authority and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of ecosystems. The ecosystem itself can be named as the injured party or victim, with its own legal standing rights, and we act as its defense lawyers. 

The Ecuadorian Constitution extends the ability to “every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognition of rights for Nature before the public organisms”. By extending the guardianship role broadly, anyone in Ecuador is allowed to take action to enforce and interpret the rights, regardless of their relationship to a particular part of the land or ecosystem. This also supports the public legitimacy of environmental rights defenders, who — like in many parts of the world — have been subjected to intensive threats, violence and repression in connection with their activities. 

This utilizes the same legal tool of guardianship that already exists for parents to represent a minor; we can represent Nature, and act as its guardian — on behalf of the ecosystems themselves. 

This means that these natural entities can hold the right to have legal representation to defend these rights in court. For instance, if a corporation or government agency threatens the health of a river, legal action can be taken on behalf of the river itself, independent of any human claimants. Once a country enacts the recognition of the Rights of Nature at a constitutional/national level or for an individual natural entity, like the Rhône River in France, then (since the entity has granted legal rights and standing) local communities and environmental groups are empowered to defend it in court and act on its behalf when it faces exploitation and injustice: ensuring its long-term protection and sustainability.

Rights of Nature can be recognized through various legal mechanisms.

There is no one-size-fits-all legal avenue for recognizing the Rights of Nature — through different mediums whether at the national level, state level, local eco-jurisprudence and lawsuits we can (and are) implementing the Rights of Nature in whatever way makes the most sense for each country and each case. We have to adapt the framework in each circumstance in order to find innovative ways to make the changes we want to make. We make strides through legal cases, local laws, statutory laws, declarations, International documents, Constitutions, soft law, citizen tribunals, Indigenous law, and through policy.

At the National Level, countries like Ecuador and Bolivia have enshrined the Rights of Nature in their constitutions, providing strong legal protections that apply to every single natural entity in the country. Read the Ecuadorian Constitution here — these are the foundational and seminal protections for Nature that we are fighting to enshrine globally.

At the State level, many jurisdictions have adopted Rights of Nature laws at the state, provincial, or local levels to address specific environmental challenges and protect critical ecosystems. These take the form of Statutory Laws and Local Ordinances.

And, at the International level, declarations such as the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth serve as global frameworks for advocating Nature’s rights and influencing international environmental policies.

Read every legal avenue (laws, resolutions, and court decisions) protecting the Rights of Nature Law that exists globally in chronological order here. 

In 2010, the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth was adopted at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia. This Declaration articulated the ethical and legal principles underpinning the Rights of Nature, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all living beings and the imperative to protect Earth’s ecological systems. 

The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is not legally binding and in terms of prevailing notions of international law, it will not become an international legal instrument until it is formally adopted by every country. 

The Declaration articulates, in the legal language of the international community, an entirely different worldview from that which informs almost all contemporary governance systems. This worldview understands human beings as members of a great community of life and as having distinct responsibilities to that community and to other beings within it. This understanding is not only reflected in the cosmologies of Indigenous peoples throughout the world but is also consistent with contemporary scientific understandings regarding the interrelated Nature of the cosmos and the functioning of natural systems. The Declaration is also an expression of the legal philosophy known as “Earth jurisprudence” which advocates an ecocentric approach to law and governance in order to ensure that human governance systems are consistent with natural systems of order.

Access the declaration.

Legal case for the Declaration.

This Declaration has not yet been passed.

Context: 

• Rivers are essential to all life forms and support a remarkable diversity of species and ecosystems, feeding wetlands and other aquatic habitats. Rivers deliver nutrients that give life to coastal estuaries and oceans, transporting sediments to delta rivers and performing other essential ecological functions in the Earth’s hydrological cycle. 
• We must recognize the absolute dependence of people on rivers and aquatic systems to support human life with clean and abundant water for drinking and sanitation, fertile soil, food sources for billions of people, recreation, cultural uses and food for the human spirit, as they have done since the beginning of human civilization.
• Humans have caused significant pollution of rivers around the world, including with organic matter from wastewater and sewage, plastic waste, pathogens and nutrients from agriculture, and pollutants from industry as well as many other forms and sources of pollution, with the consequent decrease in aquatic health and biodiversity as well as impacts on human health. Excessive waterway deviations and groundwater extractions have significantly destroyed flows in rivers around the world, with many waterways now operating completely dry, despite the scientific consensus that adequate flows are critical to the survival of rivers ecosystems and serve as the soul of many riverside and freshwater ecosystems that depend on rivers.
• The degradation and exploitation of rivers is not only an environmental problem but also a rights concern for Indigenous peoples and other local communities since the destruction of waterways threatens the very existence and way of life of those who depend on river systems for their well-being.
• National and international waterway laws are very inadequate to protect the comprehensive health of rivers and basins and that these laws also do not ensure current and future generations of humans and other species, as well as ecosystems with drinking water supplies to meet their basic needs.

Main Articles:

• All rivers are living entities that possess legal standing in a court of law.
• All rivers shall possess, at minimum, the following fundamental rights: 

1. The right to flow.
2. The right to perform essential functions within its ecosystem.
3. The right to be free from pollution.
4. The right to feed and be fed by sustainable aquifers.
5. The right to native biodiversity.
6. The right to regeneration and restoration.

Access the declaration.

Sign the declaration here!

Context:

Ecuador is the most biodiverse region globally. This includes over 1,600 bird species (15% of the world’s known bird species), over 16,000 species of plants, 106 endemic reptiles, 138 endemic amphibians, and 6,000 species of butterfly. 7.7% of the Ecuadorian population is Indigenous and  77.5% is mixed with Indigenous and white heritage.  

Ecuador has a long history of exploitation by corporations engaged in natural gas extraction, oil drilling and banana growing, resulting in significant pollution and socio-economic damage. Notably, the country has been engaged in a 15-year-long battle against USA oil multinational, Chevron, which is accused of dumping billions of gallons of crude oil and toxic waste into the Amazonian rainforest over decades, resulting in high rates of child leukemia and other cancers in people living nearby, as well as environmental devastation connected with deforestation, water pollution and soil contamination. 

Prior to the 2006 general election in Ecuador, the Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de Ecuador (CONAIE) proposed the development of a new constitution that recognized Indigenous rights. This proposal was adopted by candidate Rafael Correa, which won him the crucial support of CONAIE and much of the Indigenous population of Ecuador. Following his election as President of Ecuador, Correa called for a referendum on establishing a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution for the country. The assembly began this process in November 2007 and was given six months to draft a new Constitution. In late July 2008, the assembly approved a draft constitution consisting of 494 articles, which was then approved in a constitutional referendum in September 2008. The process was supported by international allies. At the instigation of the Pachamama Alliance, a San Francisco-based citizen NGO dedicated to preserving the earth’s tropical rainforests by empowering local Indigenous people, the Constituent Assembly asked the Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Law Defense Fund (CELDF) to help it draft environmental provisions, including Rights of Nature provisions, in the country’s new Constitution. 

Significance:

The Ecuadorian Constitution is the first in the world to enshrine the Rights of Nature or Pacha Mama – extending to the whole of Nature and highlighting its rights to integral respect for its existence, maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions, evolutionary processes and restoration. Notably, the Constitution guarantees the right of Nature to restoration in terms that are connected with its inherent value and explicitly not dependent on damage being suffered by humans. This marks a shift from anthropocentric legal systems which generally connect compensation to harm suffered by humans, for example, in relation to property destruction or violation of human rights as a result of environmental degradation. The Constitution represents a significant codification in a national legal system of Indigenous law and customs. 

Interpretation of the Rights of Nature and the constitution more broadly are to be guided by key principles, including the stated intention in the preamble to “…build a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with Nature, to achieve the good way of living, the sumak kawsay”. The term sumak kawsay, which comes from the Amerindian Quechua language, reflects a cosmovision of interconnection and harmony with self, community and most importantly, the rest of the natural world. Its prominence in the Constitution illustrates both the centrality of Indigenous philosophy and the plurinternationality of the state as made up of various Indigenous communities and others. 

The passing of these Constitutional Amendments marks a necessary and definite shift towards a way of living that prioritizes ecological balance over the pursuit of profit and endless economic growth.

Implementing Rights of Nature laws faces challenges such as legal complexities, resistance from industries, and differing cultural perspectives on Nature’s rights. Critics argue about the practicality of granting legal standing to ecosystems and potential conflicts with existing property rights and economic interests.

Legal Challenges: 

• The largest legal challenge we confront is negotiating with environmental lawyers because applying Rights of Nature is a completely different system compared to traditional Environmental Protection Law. The Rights of Nature movement is still very new and some traditional legal conservationists are apprehensive about joining. 
• Other difficulties include defining legal standing for ecosystems and determining how the Rights of Nature intersect with human rights and property laws. Legal precedents and case studies can guide in addressing these complexities. For instance, even though Ecuador has ratified the Rights for Nature to every natural entity, we still face challenges winning court cases when Nature’s rights have been violated. However, this does not worry us as even though the UN has existed for 75 years, rights of people are still being violated. GARN and the larger Rights of Nature movement is not perfect. But the amount of incredible change we have accomplished in the past 14 years is absolutely worth it: we have accomplished so much, grown insurmountably, moved forward, and progressed — and we’re not slowing down any time soon.

Indigenous Apprehension: 

• Initially, Indigenous populations were apprehensive about involving Nature in the law. Especially considering that the law is a device historically used to abuse and take advantage of Indigenous peoples and their territories. Understandably, many tribes were nervous that granting Rights of Nature would only result in grander external imposition in their land due to the misuse of government, company, or NGO actions if they were given all legal power regarding Nature. This hasn’t been the case. We work hand in hand with Indigenous Elders to understand their concerns and how to best support them in our battles against corporations and governments. 
• As a fundamental part of the GARN board we have an Indigenous Council — read more about it here.

Economic Criticism: 

• Critics argue that the Rights of Nature laws impose additional costs on businesses and hinder economic development. However, proponents argue that sustainable practices can lead to long-term economic benefits when sustainable development is employed. 
• It all comes back to the following questions: How do you want the economy to thrive? Which economy do you want: a sustainable economy or a thriving economy based on the destruction of Nature where a few shareholders get to be rich in a country that is otherwise entirely devastated?

As of right now, we don’t have a legally binding universal document because it has not been accepted by every country. Even so, through different mediums whether at the national level, state level, local eco-jurisprudence, lawsuits we can (and are) implementing the Rights of Nature in whatever way makes the most sense for each country and each case. This is not a one-size-fits-all solution: we have to adapt the framework in each circumstance in order to find innovative ways to make the changes we want to make. 

Moreover, we believe that Nature has inherent rights and we are simply recognizing their rights in varying legislatures around the world. So, we play with the system of each of our projects and cases to find the judges and the circumstances which will recognize the Rights of Nature. And with every single case we win, we are getting closer to winning the recognition and therefore the enforcement of the Rights of Nature at a global level.

The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) protects and defends the Rights of Mother Earth. GARN is a global network of people and organizations working together to pass and uphold laws that recognize the Rights of Nature. Together we are building a movement to return balance to the biosphere.

GARN was founded in 2010 with the most outstanding experts on the Rights of Nature, with leadership and membership from all over the world and from diverse disciplines. We mobilize action through grassroots-level hubs and work with communities that are leading cases as guardians of Nature. We educate through tribunals, our membership, website, hubs, newsletters and various other audiovisual and academic resources.

GARN’s mission is to serve as a global hub for connecting and fostering relationships, exchanging knowledge, building an intersectional movement, and nurturing collaboration to advance the understanding and implementation of Rights of Nature. 

When GARN started out, the Rights of Nature was a vanguard idea — despite its existence for millennia in Indigenous wisdom and culture. Over the last decade, the Rights of Nature movement has expanded rapidly across the globe. The first expression of the Rights of Nature in law began at the regional level in the U.S. in 2006. Since then, Ecuador has adopted it into their Constitution; Bolivia has enacted it into national law; New Zealand, Colombia and India have granted personhood status to culturally and environmentally significant river systems; and it is currently part of numerous other national, regional, and municipal initiatives in 39 countries around the world. This momentum and shift cannot come fast enough, as the world faces the growing crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Read more and access GARN’s Constitution.

In 2018, GARN established regional and Theme-Based Rights of Nature Hubs in an effort to deepen localized grassroots engagement and increase networking opportunities for the organizations, communities, and individuals working on Rights of Nature campaigns and cases in different parts of the world. Thematic hubs are being developed to support deeper global collaboration on core themes, such as legal advancement, youth engagement, Indigenous-led Rights of Nature actions, and academic research. 

To date, GARN has established five regional hubs in Latin America, Africa, Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific Hubs, as well as three global thematic hubs: the Academic, Legal and Youth Hubs, and an Indigenous Council.

Read more about our hubs.

Read our strategic plan for 2024-26 here.

1. As members of an indivisible, living community of interrelated and interdependent beings, we each have a responsibility to contribute to the health and integrity of the whole Earth community, including future generations.
2. In order to achieve our vision of societies that flourish in harmony with other beings, that are socially just and spiritually fulfilling, we must recognize, respect and defend the rights of all beings.
3. We will work in solidarity with one another to promote the recognition by all people that all beings are subjects with rights, to ensure that humans respect, uphold and guarantee those rights in law and elsewhere, and reject the commodification of Nature.
4. We will integrate practices into our work that strengthen our connection to, and respect for, the Earth community and that evoke gratitude and humility regarding our place within the universe.
5. We recognize the special contribution of Indigenous Peoples who have maintained cultures that respect Mother Earth and acknowledge their wisdom and leadership within the Alliance.

Becoming a GARN member is an opportunity to be an active part of the growing Rights of Nature movement in the world. Being a member is completely free and it unlocks a wide range of exclusive benefits that foster collaboration, connection, and amplification of your impact.

You can participate and become a voting member of GARN’s Assembly: play an active role in shaping GARN’s direction and decision-making processes by taking part in our General Assemblies. Become a member now so you can participate in our next Assembly coming up in November 2024!

You will receive incredible networking opportunities: Connect and collaborate with a global network of organizations, activists, lawyers, and like-minded individuals from around the world who are dedicated to recognizing and defending the Rights of Nature. 

Share your Rights of Nature work with our network: host or support local or regional Rights of Nature Tribunals to speak on behalf of Nature, protest the destruction of the Earth and make recommendations about Earth’s protection and restoration.

Participate in GARN events: co-organize and actively participate in GARN events, gaining invaluable opportunities to connect with global experts and movement leaders in the Rights of Nature community, such as webinars and listening circles.

Be a part of GARN’s map of members: if you are part of an organization, your organization’s logo will be on GARN’s website as a member. Display your logo and information will also be part of an interactive map that will showcase your organization’s advances in the Rights of Nature together with other esteemed allies.

Become a member here!

You can support us by becoming a member, donating, joining our newsletter, and spreading the word on social media!

Newsletter: Subscribe to our newsletter here! (Scroll to the bottom of the webpage.)

• Once a month, you will receive the latest advances in the Rights of Nature around the world and the different ways in which you can collaborate with us and contribute to the movement. 
• For free our Newsletters provide you with the most noteworthy and latest information concerning the movement in an incredibly thoughtful medium — we spend lots of time crafting each letter and it would mean the world to us for you to receive one each month.

Donations: Donate here!

• Support the Rights of Nature by making your contribution to the movement by donating to the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature! Together, we are building a powerful global movement to recognize, respect and defend the Rights of Nature.
• Your donation will help accelerate the worldwide adoption of the Rights of Nature by funding strategic work and global action. We will put your gift immediately to work expanding the movement, supporting frontline communities, and shining a light on environmental destruction. We are so grateful for every donation we receive and use 100% of it to meaningfully further our work.

Membership: Become a member here! 

• Becoming a GARN member is an opportunity to be an active part of the growing Rights of Nature movement in the world. Being a member is completely free and it unlocks a wide range of exclusive benefits that foster collaboration, connection, and amplification of your impact.
• You can participate and become a voting member of GARN’s Assembly: play an active role in shaping GARN’s direction and decision-making processes by taking part in our General Assemblies. Become a member now so you can participate in our next Assembly coming up November 2024!
• You will receive incredible networking opportunities to connect and collaborate with a global network of organizations, activists, lawyers, and like-minded individuals from around the world who are dedicated to recognizing and defending the Rights of Nature. 
• Share your Rights of Nature work with our network: host or support local or regional Rights of Nature Tribunals to speak on behalf of Nature, protest the destruction of the Earth and make recommendations about Earth’s protection and restoration.
• Participate in events: co-organize and actively participate in GARN events, gaining invaluable opportunities to connect with global experts and movement leaders in the Rights of Nature community, such as webinars and listening circles.
• Be a part of GARN’s map of members: if you are part of an organization, your organization’s logo will be on GARN’s website as a member. Display your logo and information will also be part of an interactive map that will showcase your organization’s advances in the Rights of Nature together with other esteemed allies.

• Movement Building: 

GARN works to enhance new and existing opportunities to improve the building of the Rights of Nature movement globally, as we seek to transform our human relationship with our planet. We are working on strengthening the participation and involvement of the 3 thematic (Youth, Academic, and Legal) and 3 regional hubs (Latin America, Europe and Africa), and creating solid foundations for 2 new hubs (North America and Asia-Pacific). By 2026, GARN will have 9 active and functioning hubs, including a new thematic hub focused on working alongside scientists within the movement. 

• Education & Awareness—through Tribunals: 

GARN works to educate and raise awareness about the work of the International Rights of Nature Tribunal and about the generation of products and knowledge from each of the Hubs. By the end of 2024, the Tribunal will have a complete website that includes the homologated verdicts for all the Tribunals (regional and global) and detailed information for each session, as well as an updated toolkit of RoN Tribunals. Also, GARN has held 2 Tribunal Delegations to Tren Maya and Vaca Muerta. As a result, by 2026, Tribunal verdicts and judgments will be widely known and used as tools to advance Rights of Nature law and campaigns (taking Tribunal verdicts to ground) and GARN will strengthen and increase the standing and authority of international and regional RoN tribunals.

• Advancing Law

GARN works directly with the International Rights of Nature Tribunal and the Global Parliamentary Front for the Rights of Nature. By the end of 2024, GARN will build an active community of former Tribunal judges that will meet monthly to approve new Tribunals, to support creating and developing verdicts and to move forward with rules of procedure of the Tribunal and the relationship with the People’s Tribunal. By 2026, the Judges’ Assembly will be an independent and active body of judges that will decide upon new tribunals, appointment of judges and verdict decisions, while GARN will manage the logistics of the Tribunal. By the end of 2024, the Global Parliamentary Front will have met at least 2 times and will strengthen its membership. By 2026, the Parliamentary Front will be a network of government authorities around the world that will promote exchanges and will pass laws for the Rights of Nature in their territories, denounce the violations of RoN and promote Rights of Nature laws. Moreover, GARN will actively search for funding for the development of Indigenous Jurisprudence and Traditional Indigenous Knowledge-based Legal frameworks in 2024, and by 2026, GARN will develop a project together with our Indigenous partners to explore the benefits, opportunities, and challenges of Traditional Indigenous Knowledge-based legal frameworks and the Rights of Mother Earth, with a focus on legal applications by Indigenous Nations.

• Indigenous Knowledge & Spirituality

Our fourth pillar recognizes the pivotal role of Indigenous leadership in advancing the Rights on Nature movement. By the end of 2024, GARN, through its Indigenous Council, will have  visibilized the different existing initiatives around spirituality and the Rights of Nature. By 2026, GARN — through its members, and especially through its Indigenous Council — will promote lifestyle changes in harmony with Nature through concrete projects and model initiatives. GARN will have a strong working Indigenous Council that engages Indigenous leaders around the world in 2024. By 2026, GARN will connect deeper perspectives and inherent relationships with Indigenous Peoples through their active participation as GARN members, in GARN’s Hubs, Advisory Council and Executive Committee.

• Biocultural Restoration

Finally, our fifth and final pillar of biocultural restoration recognizes the interdependence between biological and cultural diversity, promotes environmental and social justice, strengthens local communities, and fosters the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and human societies. By the end of 2024, Garn will have started a biocultural restoration working group, researched Rights of Nature cases and violations, identified those in which it can get involved for its restoration, and developed a workshop with paraecologists and paralegals to engage them actively with Rights of Nature cases. By 2026, GARN will have promoted a biocultural restoration platform for governments, civil society and companies, engaged in a restoration project on a damaged river—Ecological restoration of biological cycles — Cultural/spiritual restoration (reconnect through Rituals & education) — Rhine, Po in Europe; Chad & Kenya in Africa, and established paraecologist programs globally (empower local people to collect local data for cases and/or restoration).

For Indigenous cultures worldwide, recognizing the Rights of Nature is consistent with longstanding structural traditions of living in harmony with Nature. All life, including human life, is deeply interconnected. Decisions and values are based on what is good for the whole. This Indigenous ideology is called Sumak Kawsay or ‘Buen Vivir’ and, in essence, translates to harmonious well-being. It is about changing our relationship with Nature and recognising that Nature has limits that cannot be exceeded. Otherwise, humans will be the next extinct species. 

Even though Indigenous communities comprise less than 5% of the world’s population, Indigenous people protect 80% of global biodiversity. This is not a coincidence. In order to protect global diversity, it is tantamount that we work with and learn from Indigenous communities who have been successfully putting into practice the Rights of Nature for a very long time.

We use the language of both ‘Nature’ and ‘Mother Earth’ depending on the country, their native language, and what type of document it is. We have decided, for simplicity’s sake, that the two are synonyms, but in general we prefer to reference ‘Nature’ as it is a more global and easily understood term. However, in essence, Rights of Nature are the same as the Rights of Mother Earth — especially since in Ecuador’s Constitution there is an article granting the spiritual cosmos legal protection under the Indigenous regard for Mother Earth. So, all the protections we have for Nature equally apply to the protections for Mother Earth — as outlined in the Universal Declaration for the RIghts of Mother Earth, linked here.

Rights of Nature initiatives challenge industrial practices and development projects that threaten ecosystems and biodiversity. By legally recognizing Nature’s rights, these initiatives require industries and developers to consider the environmental impacts of their activities and adopt practices that respect the rights of ecosystems to exist and thrive.

Rights of Nature initiatives promote sustainable development practices prioritising environmental stewardship and long-term ecological health. Investment in clean technologies and renewable energy sources that minimize environmental impacts is vital for the long term existence of humans on our planet.

We are starting from the understanding that every natural entity has inherent rights. So, anyone can go to court as the guardian for the natural victim. This then depends a lot on the judges and if they choose to recognize its rights or not — but, many cases have been won this way. For instance, the Kukama Indigenous women of Peru won a historic case this way which ultimately recognized the rights of an Amazonian river which had been suffering from oil spills for over a decade. Read more about the case here.

In countries without explicit constitutional protections for Nature’s rights, advocates often pursue legal strategies tailored to existing environmental laws, human rights principles, and international agreements. This approach involves building alliances with affected communities, leveraging scientific evidence of ecological harm, and challenging regulatory frameworks prioritising economic interests over environmental conservation.

Environmental lawyers may argue cases based on existing legal doctrines, such as public trust principles, which assert that governments hold natural resources in trust for the public and future generations.

It all comes back to the following questions: How do you want the economy to thrive? Which economy do you want: a sustainable economy, or a thriving economy based on the destruction of Nature where a few shareholders get to be rich in a country that is otherwise entirely devastated? 

Recognizing the Rights of Nature can have profound economic implications by influencing development practices, resource management strategies, and investment decisions. Proponents argue that protecting ecosystems can lead to sustainable economic benefits, such as enhanced ecosystem services, increased resilience to climate change impacts, and opportunities for eco-tourism and green technologies.

Sustainable development practices that respect Nature’s rights can foster green job creation, promote biodiversity conservation, and reduce long-term costs associated with ecosystem degradation. Recognizing the Rights of Nature acknowledges the ecological services and values that ecosystems provide to human societies, such as clean water, air, and biodiversity. Protecting these services can provide long-term economic benefits through sustainable resource management and resilience to climate change impacts. While this practice may be more expensive in the short term; there is no economy on a dead planet. Compromises must be made in order to ensure future industry for generations to come. 

Moreover, local communities dependent on natural resources for livelihoods benefit economically from improved environmental health and ecosystem stability, supporting sustainable agriculture, fisheries, and ecotourism industries.

It is important to recognize that the first Western form to recognize the Rights of Nature were academic philosophy professors—the roots of this movement in the Western world resides in the work of nuanced academic articles and papers discussing the ethical debates surrounding our relationship to Nature and the discussions if our relationship needs to evolve away from Anthropocentrism towards Ecocentrism. 

Traditionally, Western ethics prioritize human interests and welfare over environmental concerns. The ethical framework we follow has an insurmountable effect on our viewpoint and relation to the topic—in law and in Nature. So, when we view our human species as above Nature, we permit ecological degradation and biodiversity loss—this is referred to as Anthropocentrism, and is the main philosophical system of thought that underscores traditional environmental protection law—which is a considerable reason explaining why Environmental Protection Law is failing and not enough. Read more in Question 4

Instead, ecological ethics prioritize the interconnectedness of all living beings and ecosystems, advocating for sustainable practices that enhance biodiversity, mitigate climate change impacts, and ensure intergenerational equity. Ecocentrism and Biocentrism are the schools of ethics that the Rights of Nature Movement is founded upon — and why this movement is so revolutionary and exciting. By cementing the Rights of Nature we ensure that in legal frameworks the environment is not powerless and able to be exploited at will but instead has power and rights that cannot be infringed whilst maintaining the viewpoint of ecocentrism.

Rights of Nature laws promote environmental justice and community empowerment by recognizing the rights of marginalized communities, Indigenous peoples, and future generations to a healthy environment, clean water, and sustainable livelihoods. These laws challenge environmental racism, inequitable resource distribution, and disproportionate environmental burdens on vulnerable populations. Alongside the articles granting Nature its own legal standing must follow articles which grant any citizen the right to enforce and advocate for the preservation of these rights. This empowers local communities to advocate for Nature’s rights, in turn giving them the power to stand up against any ecological degradation that infringes on their human rights too. 

For instance, in war, the loss of biodiversity is a constant. The fragmentation, degradation and even the disappearance of jungles, forests, rivers, moors, wetlands, mangroves, salt marshes and other ecosystems, which affect their ecosystem functions, is a constant and alongside it the accelerated disappearance of species. Devastating fires, as well as gigantic floods caused by climate change, desertification of the land by monocultures, agrochemical spraying, oil extraction, mega-mining or monocultures, devastate entire territories. The ecological footprint of the human species—unequally distributed—exceeds the Earth’s biological capacity and inherently its consequences disproportionately affect the already most impoverished social groups. 

In addition to all this, there are the conflagrations themselves: between peoples or against peoples, genocides and wars devastate not only humans but also Nature itself. And in this context, the Rights of Nature and ecological justice, walk hand in hand with Human Rights and social justice, giving us the solution to face eco-social collapse by building the alternatives that guarantee a dignified life for all beings on Earth.

We have assembled a highly comprehensive list of books both the seminal historical reads that started the movement as well as recent modern books covering in detail recent wins, challenges, and accomplishments of the larger movement here!

We have assembled a super comprehensive supply of various global informative articles, documents, case studies, and reports here!

• Access our Rights of Nature 101 video! 
• Podcast with Natalia Greene, the Founder of GARN: Acupuncture for Mother Earth
• GARN’s entire record of Webinars, Live Streams, Press Conferences: GARN’s Youtube
• Panel Discussion: The Rights of Nature Movement in Indian Country and Beyond: From Grassroots to Mainstream – Bioneers
• Ted Talk style presentation: Casey Camp-Horinek: Aligning Human Law with Natural Law – Bioneers
• Mumta Ito’s Ted Talk on Rights of Nature
• Panel Discussion: Indigenous Forum – International Perspectives on Rights of Nature in Tribal Law – Bioneers
• Short film: Does Nature have the right to be protected?
• Webinar: Towards a UN Declaration of Rights of Mother Nature
• Maude Barlow on environmental System Change
• Feature Documentary: The Rights of Nature: A Global Movement
• Short animated video: Ponca Tribe & Fighting to Protect the Rights of Nature
• Introductory video: Rights of Nature Champions
• Green Justice, quand la Nature porte plainte
• Podcast: The Rights of Nature – It’s weird not to acknowledge them
• Podcast with Michelle Maloney: Reflections on the Rights of Nature, Earth Laws, and Earth-centred Governance