The discussion of animal rights has garnered significant public attention over the years. The UK was the first country in the world to pass legislation aimed at protecting animals with ‘The Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822’. Two hundred years on, it is not just the rights of animals that seem to matter, but the rights of nature, too. Concerns regarding the human exploitation of nature and climate change are shifting the traditional, anthropocentric view that humans tend to take in matters relating to nature. Countries have taken steps in recent years to grant rights to nature in an effort to protect it from human misuse. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is an appropriate method of protecting nature and it may face legal difficulties.
Granting legislative rights to the natural environment is a relatively new concept that is gaining traction on different levels. For centuries, humans and nature have had a symbiotic relationship and this is still crucial today. Proponents of granting legislative rights to the natural environment believe that these political attitudes, combined with the prevailing sentiment that nature is the property of humans, have proven destructive to humanity’s own survival. One main argument in favour of granting rights to nature is that it could partially prevent or stop the exploitation of nature for the sole purpose of human use, thus protecting nature for future generations. An illustration of this would be climate change, which is primarily driven by human action. As a result, it is proving harmful to humanity in return. Many argue that modern environmental laws and international treaties, such as The Paris Agreement, are proving insufficient to tackle violations of nature, so granting rights remains the most feasible option.
Rights of nature can also arguably protect human rights. Many environmental disasters inevitably affect humans at large, and one could argue that providing rights to nature can prevent this from occurring. The Trafigura Scandal of 2006, in which toxic waste was dumped illegally in Côte d’Ivoire, resulted in people sustaining serious injuries and 15 tragically dying as a result. This scandal was a clear violation of not just nature, but human rights, too. By granting rights, human rights are also protected, and incidents like the Trafigura toxic waste dumps could possibly be prevented.
Despite growing support for the introduction of rights for nature, it is difficult to implement in the real world. As mentioned earlier, protection of nature is not always prioritised in politics. However, this is not to say that nature has never been protected in the eyes of the law. Courts in several countries have legally recognised the rights of nature, signalling a shift towards an ecocentric view that values and respects nature. It is also happening on a constitutional level, as countries are implementing laws giving nature rights similar to humans. In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to constitutionally recognise rights of nature. For example, it gave nature the right to be restored and to have its diversity protected. This historic step towards protecting nature resulted in changes to the country’s criminal code, making it a crime to violate such rights. In 2011, a case was brought to court against the Provincial Government of Loja, a city in Ecuador. It concerned a highway project which damaged the Vilcabamba River. The court, as a result of the law, ultimately ruled that the rights of the river had been violated and the government was required to restore it. This was one of the first successes of the law and demonstrates how granting rights to nature enables violations against the environment to come to court and, in some cases, even win. Bolivia soon followed in the footsteps of Ecuador and granted rights for nature. The first laws regarding rights of nature were passed in 2010. ‘The Law of the Rights of Mother Earth’, amongst other rights, gave nature the right to life and to not be polluted. Bolivian law is another example that shows that nature can be given legal rights, despite it being non-human.
Another aspect of giving rights to nature is recognising it as a legal person. In 2008, The Whanganui River in New Zealand became the first waterway in the world to be granted legal personhood. The idea of legal personhood is not new, as it has already been used in many contexts and nature is simply another setting that it could be used in. For example, corporations are treated as persons in the eyes of the law. The idea of legal personhood predates modern times. In the Middle Ages in Europe, cases against animals and trees were brought to court, thus implying that they had the status of a legal person. While some have criticised this approach, because it seems nonsensical, giving legal personhood makes it harder to destroy nature for human use, therefore providing the protection it seeks.
Despite the clear advantages of granting rights to nature, there are drawbacks to this concept. Firstly, giving nature rights is logistically difficult and it may be faced with legal barriers when trying to be solidified into national or international law. Opponents of granting legislative rights to the natural environment may feel that natural resources exist solely for human use. In addition, constitutional changes and passing new laws granting rights does not necessarily guarantee the protection of nature. Despite its historic laws, both Ecuador and Bolivia remain heavily reliant on natural resources, leaving the natural environments of both countries vulnerable to human exploitation. This clearly highlights the conflict between the need to use nature for human benefit and the need to protect it. The government of Ecuador controversially decided to drill for oil in Yasuni National Park, despite the laws in place and the area being home to uncontacted tribes. The shift from an anthropocentric to an ecocentric view proves difficult in society and is still out of reach. Changing attitudes towards nature and legislation relating to this faces many obstacles, even in the face of the threat of climate change.
Overall, it is theoretically possible for nature to have rights, just as animals do. There is evidence to show that it does influence humans’ relationship with nature and that giving rights to nature gives more protection for it than environmental laws currently do. However, the efficacy of this method is rightly questioned. Without a doubt, changing our symbiotic relationship with nature is a challenging process which will likely span many generations.
An Insight Into Society 