Lindsay Branham is an environmental psychologist, Emmy-nominated filmmaker, and founder of NOVO and The Heartwood Institute, initiatives that address ecological and human rights crises through film, culture, and community engagement. With a PhD in Psychology from Cambridge, her work explores how humans can restore a sense of kinship with the living world, weaving together environmental psychology, storytelling, spirituality, and ecology.

Earth Law Center has been collaborating with Lindsay on initiatives related to the rights of rivers and broader efforts to reimagine our legal and cultural relationship with nature.

Lindsay’s new book, released on March 10, 2026, is The Wisdom and Healing Kinship of Trees (Hachette).

***

Interview by Earth Law Center intern Isabel Fluckiger

Part I. Who Is Lindsay Branham?

Q: You developed a chronic illness during wildfire season. Can you share what drew you specifically to the forests and the natural world as a place of solace and learning?

A: Like all good things in my life, my relationship with trees is mostly a mystery. But it also feels like a miracle. I can't explain why I was drawn to trees, exactly, except that they captured my full attention. And while living within a very sick body, I was more willing to let what drew my presence be a guiding compass. The wonderful mystic Simone Weil famously said that “prayer is unmixed attention.” Perhaps the trees prayed me into noticing them, in some ways, for the first time. Practically how that unfolded is that during lockdown, my parents had surprisingly decided to move from California to the edge of the White River National Forest in Colorado. I was not traveling internationally for work due to the global pause, and I was also really struggling with a cacophony of difficult physical symptoms. While visiting them, I started going on very long wanders throughout the White River National Forest. I quite quickly became entranced, enchanted, and entwined into their embrace. The trees cast a spell on me. And an odyssey of relationship unfolded between us.

Q: Your background in film has taken you around the globe, witnessing some of humanity’s most pressing challenges. How has that shaped your understanding of humans not as separate from nature, but as an enmeshed facet of it?

A: I’ve reported on some of the most complex human rights challenges around the world. From children in armed conflict in DR Congo to conflict minerals, the last and largest elephant population in Central Africa, bonded labor in India and more. I have witnessed first hand that the wellbeing or flourishing of people is linked to people around the world and to the environments we tend to or neglect. The fact that my ability to breathe clean air in the United States is influenced by the boreal forest fires in the Amazon is one example of how our health is intertwined. But deeper than that, our emotional, spiritual understanding of living, purpose and community is also connected. I will never forget what a community leader in a small village in the northeastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo told me. I was asking him about how his community members were doing after a wave of recent violence. He held up his hand to me and said, there is no “one” there is “us.” 

Worldviews within societies that value nature often reflect such an interconnected view of all of life. I have learned so much from these people whose lives depend on their environment and so they prioritize a value-based, reciprocal relationship with nature. In the West, our lives are also dependent on nature, but we have forgotten that fact. This is why it is a great task of Western people to unlearn separation from nature. It is a myth. And a dangerous one.

Q: When readers pick up Heartwood, what is the central lesson or takeaway you hope they carry with them?

A: I hope people are inspired and re-enchanted to fall in love with the living world and realize that the forest has wisdom for us to learn from. They already embody mutuality, creativity, sharing, surprise and know how to take care of their neighbors. We also can learn these lessons if we slow down and remember how to speak with nature. This is a voice always inside of every human that can be revived. The multi-voiced world is speaking and we can learn to hear them.

Part II. On the Rights of Nature

Q: Earth Law Center works on initiatives that grant entire forests legal rights. How might this approach change the way people relate to trees and the natural world?

We need a drastic paradigm shift so that we remember the dignity, vitality and life of the living world. Granting forests the same rights a person has provides a helpful framework for people to reimagine that the forest is alive, and secondly, is worthy of love and care. This shift grounds the relating to the forest in relationship of kinship instead of a transaction of extraction.

Q: You’ve been involved with efforts around the rights of the Roaring Fork in Aspen. How did you first become engaged with this local movement?

A: I came across the Rights of Nature movement in my writing for Heartwood and included it as I think it is a fabulous step toward right relationship with nature. In the Roaring Fork Valley, where we have rising drought levels and low snowpack, I wanted to initiate that movement here to protect the rivers and watershed. But more broadly, it fits with my core aim of restoring kinship between humans and the living world. I am hopeful that the Rights of Nature will pass here at the county level and provide more protections for the rivers as well as invite the public into a deeper connection with the living world. The movement has a freshness and a vitality to it. I believe that is because it centers the dignity of nature. It helps us remember that the Earth is a living, breathing being. 

Part III. Forests and Planetary Health

Q: You explain that trees embody the idea that everything of the Earth naturally belongs. What do you see humanity losing as we continue to lose forests?

A: We are losing the lungs of the planet. We are indeed losing the core of what makes our planet livable. Breathable air. If we lose forests, we will also lose the biological world the forests support, and the invaluable complex biodiversity these places nurture. We also lose our engine of carbon sequestration and the balance of our atmosphere. Trees are and always have been great friends to humans. They are in every religious folklore and hold mythic importance. To lose the trees is to lose ourselves.

Q: You mention needing to turn away from Western healing frameworks to fully understand human and planetary health. What other aspects of these frameworks cloud our relationship with nature?

A: Western imperialism, colonialism, patriarchy and more have been an overlay of cultural and societal norms that value extraction, domination and ownership. These qualities are in direct contradiction to the values of the living world: symbiosis, mutuality, sharing, restraint even. I see Western notions of individualism, supported by Caresian dualism with roots in Judeo-Christianity as a primary driver of our separation from nature today. We need to forget and unlearn these paradigms. In contrast, cosmologies like entanglement and interbeing, put forward by Buddhist monk and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh and others, which are closer to the biological living world, understand that everything is connected and so returning to nature is also returning to ourselves. We are also nature. The beautiful irony is that interbeing is our actual nature. Our bodies are made of stardust. We are the Earth. So a cosmology that values that truth is going to bring about the most flourishing possible for all of life.

Part IV. Nurturing Our Relationship with Nature

Q: From your perspective, what shifts does US culture need to make to recognize nature as a birthright, in a way that could help mitigate climate collapse?

A: Without returning to nature we will continue to extract and take from nature until there is nothing left. Or at least until the planet has become unviable for human life. We need to curb our consumerism and our hallucination that there are bottomless resources. There are not. But this is not so much an individual problem as it is a corporate and systemic one. To reduce carbon emissions at scale requires divesting from fossil fuels. If we believed we were part of nature and wanted to care for and protect nature, we would not participate in behaviors that harm the Earth. That is why we need sweeping individual consciousness shifts, from the heart, as well as large-scale systemic change. As rev. Angel Kyodo Williams says, “Love and Justice are not two. Without inner change, there can be no outer change. Without collective change, no change matters.”

Q: Your book also addresses “eco-grief.” How can readers navigate this grief in a way that motivates action rather than causing paralysis?

A: Joanna Macy, the Buddhist teacher and environmentalist, spent her life teaching grief work as a necessary and critical piece of environmental activism. Feeling the pain of a suffering world becomes the alchemical material to fuel an engine of love and care in response. Avoiding the grieving process is a mistake because our grief actually brings us very close to what we love. These exist side by side. The book offers different tools and practices to work with ecological grief. We don’t have cultural practices to hold this and yet its necessary in order for us to have tender and receptive hearts to a changing world. To move from love on their behalf. We can do this together with the Earth side by side.

Q: For urban readers, who make up  80% of the U.S. population, what are practical ways to cultivate a reciprocal relationship with trees and the living world, even in cities?

A: There is nature within urban areas, although that varies and there are systemic differences in greenspace access. We need more tree cover in neighborhoods where Black and Brown communities live. But just because someone lives in an urban area does not mean they can not return to nature. Los Angeles, for example, has a thriving urban forest. I developed a deep bond with the trees in Griffith Park and as I did, started to notice the nature all around me. Urban environments are not devoid of nature. But the harshness, pace and rush of these places can make it difficult to slow down and open the heart. Start with a house plant, with a tree on your block. Pay close attention to that being and build a relationship with one tree to start. Just like getting to know a human being, when we spend enough time together we begin to notice their particularities, idiosyncrasies and personalities. The same with a tree. As you do, you might be surprised by the depth that begins to be uncovered there.

Q: You propose an “eighth sense” that allows humans to perceive the “sensuous language of the Earth.” How can readers begin to integrate this into everyday life?

A: Interoception is technically our eighth sense. As we become more attuned and in tune to our bodies, I argue, we can learn to speak the language of the Earth. The Earth is felt within our sensuous terrain. Beating heart, buzz in our fingertips, the swell of breath in the chest connected to awe. This is the language of sensation. Each chapter of the book includes an interoception skill. By the end of the book readers will be equipped with a quiver of practices to deepen their own interoceptive skills and likewise, their fluency to speak the language of the land.

By Victoria Lu

Rivers are guardians of ecological health, yet they are among the least protected ecosystems in the United States. Crossboundary disputes, interagency regulations and statutes, and the vast ecological diversity of rivers make conservation extremely difficult. Land conservation faces numerous difficulties as well, yet the free-flowing nature of rivers and the transience of their inhabitants often lead to uniquely challenging legal disagreements. 

A 2026 study published in Nature Sustainability reveals a startling statistic: only 11.7 percent of river lengths in the contiguous United States are adequately protected. Meanwhile, less than 19.3 percent of American waterways are protected at a level deemed viable by the National Protected Rivers Assessment of the United States. Despite over fifty years of federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, the vast majority of these ecological lifelines are legally vulnerable and inadequately protected or unprotected.

The persistence of this gap in water protection suggests a fundamental flaw in how the American legal system categorizes Nature. Current U.S. law primarily views rivers and other elements of Nature as “natural resources” to be managed, rather than entities with independent value. This framework of object ownership has contributed to many arbitrary political boundaries that dissect rivers while ignoring watershed dynamics. It gives legal standing only to human entities, meaning rivers have no basis to sue for their own protection. In contrast, many Indigenous Peoples and Tribal Nations have long subscribed to a distinct worldview that treats rivers not as mere property, but as relatives or kin. As emphasized by tribal leaders and scholars, regarding rivers and other elements of nature as relatives creates a reciprocal obligation of care that is absent in modern American statutory law. 

The U.S. failure to bridge these views has material consequences. Current river fragmentation leaves rivers vulnerable to deforestation, damming, pollution, extraction, and more. Stripping rivers of their ability to act as refuges for the health of our planet holds dire consequences for biodiversity, carbon sinks, and life on Earth. 

This protection gap is a symptom of anthropocentric law. If our current regulatory framework were sufficient to halt river degradation and actively nurture conservation, fifty years of application of our landmark environmental statutes would have yielded better results. To secure the future of American rivers, we must be willing to test new legal frameworks. One is already waiting in the wings: Earth law, or ecojurisprudence.

Our Current Laws Are Failing Rivers

The United States features a complex overlay of federal, state, tribal, and private river protections. Ideally, these overlapping mechanisms would create a safety net for water systems. However, the 2026 study reveals that nearly two-thirds of U.S. rivers have zero formal protection. Current law overwhelmingly focuses on terrestrial governance rather than specifically targeting freshwater. Even in the sphere of international law, discussion of freshwater protection only appeared in the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2022.

In the U.S., land-based river protection manifests under the auspices of wilderness areas, national parks, and research natural areas. Meanwhile, the most effective systems are specifically targeted for rivers, such as Wild and Scenic Rivers designations. The 2026 study found that 47.1 percent of protected river lengths display more than one mechanism of protection—on average, 1.6 types—with river conservation systems being essential to the number. 

Moreover, these gaps disproportionately affect specific types of waterways. While high-elevation rivers in iconic national parks often enjoy robust defense, low-elevation headwaters and intermittent streams (streams that do not flow year-round) are consistently underprotected. Statistically, intermittent streams are three times less likely to be protected than perennial (year-round) ones. Intermittent streams feed larger water bodies, particularly during springtime snow melt, and are essential for nutrient cycling and sediment transport. Such processes maintain wetland health, biodiversity, and ecosystem functions. They also aid in recharging underground aquifers, which are crucial for drinking water.

Below is a brief overview of major protected area types and statutes:

Protected water categories

Many U.S. environmentalists consider the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (1968) to be the nation’s strongest tool for river conservation. It explicitly prohibits the federal government from supporting actions that would modify a river’s free-flowing condition and protects “outstanding remarkable values” including scenic, recreational, and geological values. It is, however, very selective and requires an Act of Congress or Secretary of Interior approval, making for a slow process to approve new rivers. 

The Clean Water Act (1972) is the primary federal statute governing water pollution. It utilizes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate point source pollution into “navigable waters.” Recent Supreme Court rulings such as Sackett v. EPA have narrowed the definition of “Waters of the United States,” leaving many intermittent streams and isolated wetlands without federal protection.  

Protected land categories

National Parks offer the highest level of preservation, “unimpaired for future generations.” However, rivers often originate outside park boundaries and are vulnerable to pollution, dams, or extraction occurring upstream. 

National Forests and Bureau of Land Management Lands are managed for “multiple uses,” meaning conservation competes with timber, grazing, and mining. Protection is often subject to administrative changes. 

Riparian and floodplain mechanisms rely on fragmentation of FEMA standards that usually prioritize flood insurance and voluntary tools like conservation easements. 

Current statutory tools are insufficient to close the protection gap. The Clean Water Act, while pivotal in environmental law, protects only about 2.7 percent of river miles in terms of strict conservation standards, while the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act covers roughly 2 percent. Even in states such as Alaska, which is ranked in the 2026 article as among the highest for “viable protection,” statistics mask the reality of threats from extractive projects like Pebble Mine and the collapse of chum salmon in the Yukon. 

Even where protections exist, they often suffer from the “paper park” problem. This term, coined in a 1999 World Wildlife Fund report, describes legally established protected areas where experts believe current actions are insufficient to halt degradation. Because water flows across boundaries, “paper rivers” are only as protected as far as the laws are enforced. 

The Inadequacy of Anthropocentric Law

The inability of the current legal system to close protection gaps for rivers is not merely a failure of enforcement—it is one of design. U.S. environmental law is anthropocentric, case-based, and largely reactive rather than preventative. It is designed to manage how humans use Nature rather than support Nature’s legal standing itself. Modern environmental law stems from public nuisance law, defined as significant interference with public health, safety, and comfort; illegal activity; or of a continuing nature that has a lasting effect on public rights. Only after industrial pollution brought major cases to court did the earliest forms of legal environmental protection form. But these laws seldom originated from a desire to protect Nature. Major statutes like the Clean Water Act oftentimes simply regulate harm rather than prohibit it. For instance, permits for specific amounts of pollution legalize the degradation of a river within human-defined limits. 

Additionally, arbitrary political boundaries slice rivers into disparate segments. Rivers are holistic and connected systems, yet they are privy to private property rights and differing boundary laws. Case law highlights this fragmentation. In Missouri v. Illinois (1906), the Supreme Court established a high burden of proof for states suing over interstate pollution. The ruling affirmed the treatment of rivers as conduits for waste, as well as making it difficult for future cases to be brought against upstream polluters. Later, LA County Flood Control District v. NRDC ruled that the flow of pollutants within a single water body is not a “discharge” requiring a permit, further limiting the law’s ability to address internal degrading. 

Only in exceptional cases does environmental protection take precedence over economic development. In the landmark Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978) case, the Supreme Court halted the nearly completed Tellico Dam to protect the endangered snail darter, a small fish species. The decision, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, emphasized that the Endangered Species Act intended to place the survival of species above economic considerations. Chief Justice Burger famously wrote that "the plain intent of Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." This stance, where a species’ right to exist trumps even millions of dollars in construction costs, remains anomalous in U.S. law.

More commonly, American water law falls victim to the “tragedy of the commons,” a term coined by ecologist and microbiologist Garret Hardin in 1968. In this model, individuals acting in their own rational self-interest will inevitably deplete a shared resource, even if it is against the long-term interests of the group. Under current law, the "river" is the commons, and the state acts as the regulator trying to manage competing interests in the river. However, because the river lacks standing, it is often carved up by private property rights and state lines that prevent conservation management.

Political scientist Elinor Ostrom later challenged Hardin’s analysis, writing that communities can and do successfully manage common-pool resources without top-down state control or privatization. In her seminal work Governing the Commons (1990), Ostrom argued that sustainable management occurs when local communities have a direct stake in the resource and the authority to create their own rules for its care, what she called polycentric governance.

This is where Earth law offers a bridge. Our current regulatory agencies are often too distant and fragmented to act as effective stewards. By granting rivers legal rights and appointing appropriate local guardians (a model supported by Ostrom’s findings on community stewardship), we can shift from a tragedy of open access to relationships of reciprocal care.

How Ecocentric Law Can Be A Solution

A rights-based model could be the solution to America’s flawed resource-based model. Earth law moves from regulating property to recognizing the inherent rights of natural entities to exist, flourish, and regenerate.

In 2017, Earth Law Center released the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Rivers. This declaration creates a baseline of fundamental rights, including the right to flow, the right to perform essential ecosystem functions, the right to be free from pollution, and the right to restoration.

Operationally, this can be achieved through different means as is appropriate to a culture and jurisdiction, including Indigenous customary governance, a well-considered statutory scheme implemented by an informed guardianship body, or legal personhood. Just as a corporation or a ship can have legal standing in court represented by human attorneys, a river with legal personhood can be represented by human guardians. This grants the river "standing," allowing it (via its guardians) to sue polluters directly for violating its rights, rather than relying on a human to prove they were personally harmed by the pollution.

While Earth law is often viewed as a radical departure from Western law, it is actually the logical extension grounded in the work of law professor Christopher Stone and “geologian” Thomas Berry. In his seminal 1972 essay, “Should Trees Have Standing?,” Stone dismantled the argument that Nature could not hold rights simply because it could not speak. He drew a parallel to other voiceless entities, such as corporations, which the law had by then long recognized as "persons" capable of having legal standing. In The Great Work (1999), Berry argued that the root of our ecological crisis is a crisis of perception: we view the universe as “it” rather than “thou.” As long as the law categorizes a river as an object, it will be used for utility. 

It is crucial to acknowledge that while Earth law is framed in Western legal terms, it draws upon Indigenous worldviews with centuries of continuity. Tlingit and Athabascan Peoples, for example, record long oral histories of glaciers as sentient beings that actively respond to human actions—for instance, taking offense at fat being cooked nearby. In mid-2025, the Yurok Tribe reclaimed its sacred lands around the Klamath River and immediately designated it as a salmon sanctuary and community forest. Many Indigenous Nations have passed resolutions and legal documents recognizing the right of Nature to exist, which are documented on the Ecojurisprudence Monitor. For instance, the Ponca Nation passed a 2022 resolution recognizing the immutable Rights of the Ní'skà and Arkansas Rivers. 

What Are the Potentials of Earth Law?

Skeptics of Earth law say that there are so few long-term examples of Rights of Nature in the U.S. that we lack substantive data to prove this legal framework yields better environmental outcomes than mainstream regulation. This argument is valid, yet it ignores the information we do have regarding the status quo. 

We have over fifty years of data on the current regulatory system. Despite the Clean Water Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and billions of dollars in agency spending, only 11.7 percent of US rivers are adequately protected. In scientific terms, the control group (anthropocentric regulation) has demonstrated a failure rate of nearly 90 percent. If a medical treatment failed 90 percent of the time after 50 years, we would not hesitate to run a clinical trial on a new approach. It is time to treat Earth law not as a radical ideology, but as a necessary paradigm shift.

And it may not be much longer until the movement begins to have the data to back up its claims.

In the northwest U.S., the Klamath River, after being reclaimed by the Yurok Tribe, has shown significant improvements in water quality and ecological health after the removal of four dams opened up over 400 miles of habitat. The Yurok Tribe reported that major decreases in toxins such as heavy metals, microcystin, and suspended sediments have been observed since 2024. Fish populations are also expected to recover over time, and will continue to be monitored by the Yurok Tribe Environmental Department. In late 2024, more than 7000 Chinook salmon were recorded swimming upriver to access habitat previously blocked off by dams. As more time passes for scientists to measure trends, it is expected that the Klamath River will continue improving in its health. 

Internationally, the Whanganui River in New Zealand provides a governance template. Since the passage of the Te Awa Tupua Act in 2017, the river has not only gained legal personhood but has operationalized it through Te Pou Tupua (a human face for the river). This has shifted the power dynamic. Agricultural and hydroelectric interests can no longer merely consult a regulator. They must negotiate with the river as an equal stakeholder. 

Organizations like Ecoforensic are additionally creating the methodology to support these legal frameworks, training local para-ecologists to collect the biological and hydrological data needed to defend rivers’ rights in court.

In the United States, an increasing number of rights of rivers initiatives are being led by Tribal Nations. On January 8, 2026, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) Tribal Council unanimously passed a historic Rights of Nature resolution for the Longperson (Ganvhidv Asgaya, the Oconaluftee River and its interconnected water system). Stretching over 790 miles from the Great Smoky Mountains to the sea, the Longperson is the longest river system east of the Mississippi to have its rights formally recognized. The resolution was drafted and presented by the North American Indian Women’s Association (NAIWA) Daughters and marked the first all-women-led Rights of Nature resolution passed in the United States. 

Rather than framing the river as a "resource" to be managed, the Cherokee youth anchored the legislation in the understanding that the Longperson is a living entity and a relative who provides physical and spiritual health to the community. Recognizing that they could not have a discussion about their relative without their relative present, the NAIWA Daughters gathered water from the Longperson in traditional clay pots and brought the river into the council chambers. Following the unanimous vote, the water was returned to the Oconaluftee River in a traditional ceremony.

The resolution explicitly recognizes, among others, the Longperson's inherent rights to:

• Exist, persist, and regenerate its vital cycles free from negative human disturbance

• Be free from pollution, contamination, and non-native invasive species

• Serve as a home and habitat for non-human relatives

• Maintain free-flowing conditions, including strict protection from damming, obstruction, or flow alteration.

The NAIWA Daughters did not stop at a symbolic declaration. The group is collaborating with the Tribal Council to establish a formal Tribal Rights of Nature Task Force, which will be charged with actively monitoring the Longperson's health and guiding the implementation of the resolution. 

Examining this as a case study illustrates the core of Earth jurisprudence. By shifting the legal framework from objectified property extraction to one of reciprocal relationship and guardianship, we can create stronger protections for America's rivers.

Implementation

Growing Earth law from its roots in tribal resolutions and local ordinances all the way to enforceable state and federal law requires navigating a complex system of corporate pushback and legal standing.

The largest hurdle is preemption. When local communities pass Rights of Nature ordinances, often with the help of groups like the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), they routinely face aggressive pushback. In Florida, after Orange County voters overwhelmingly passed the Wekiva and Econlockhatchee River Bill of Rights, the state legislature swiftly passed a preemption law banning localities from granting legal rights to Nature.

It is important to acknowledge the historical nuance of preemption: local authority is not always historically benign (as seen in the "states' rights" arguments used to defend slavery). Earth law must navigate this complicated relationship, and it can offer a balancing mechanism. By establishing that Nature possesses inherent and unalienable rights, a Rights of Nature framework dictates that higher courts should step in not to defend corporate exploitation, but to prevent local or state actors from violating fundamental ecological rights.

For the movement to survive this pushback, it must achieve broader systemic recognition. State legislatures should consider affirming local RoN ordinances to build regional coalitions. To track success and prove viability, human guardians appointed to represent rivers should consider adopting the five ecological indices from the 2026 Nature Sustainability study—hydrologic regime, connectivity, water quality, habitat, and biotic composition—as their standard metrics for assessing whether a river's rights are being upheld.

As states stall, Tribal Nations are filling the void. In late 2025, the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) designated the Colorado River as a "living being" with legal rights. As CRIT Chairwoman Amelia Flores noted, "We must think beyond terms of what it can provide to us; we must think of what we can provide to it." The Tribe’s senior water rights on the lower Colorado River, recognized by the Supreme Court Decree Arizona v. California, gives this designation profound legal weight in the drought-stricken Southwest. Outside entities such as nearby Phoenix would be obligated to sign agreements that acknowledge the importance of the river before leasing water. Moreover, unlike town ordinances that often incite legal backlash, tribal ordinances may be perceived differently because they focus on human relationships with Nature, not pure legal rights. The future intersections of tribal law and outside players stand to be heavily influenced by CRIT’s efforts. 

Ultimately, federal law must evolve. A practical entry point is amending the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542). Shifting the Act from a static preservation model to a rights-based model would automatically grant legal standing and guardianship councils to America's waterways, providing a federal testing ground for Earth law.

The 11.7 percent protection rate of U.S. rivers is not just a statistic; it is an indictment of a legal system that views the natural world as a warehouse instead of a living entity. By embracing Earth jurisprudence, we can experiment with a promising new approach to closing the river protection gap. The legal mechanisms—guardianship, legal personhood, and constitutional rights—already exist. The ecological metrics to track their success are readily available. What remains is a shift in perspective. To secure the future of our rivers and home, we must recognize that the river is not a "what," but a "who."

Sources

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) | Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2026, February 17).https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/agricultural-conservation-easement-program

An Update on the Yukon River Salmon Crash. (n.d.). Alaska Public Media. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://alaskapublic.org/programs/trouble-at-sea/yukon-river

Anderson, B. (2026, January 9). A first-of-its-kind assessment asks: How protected are America’s rivers? - Conservation Science Partners.https://csp-inc.org/a-first-of-its-kind-assessment-asks-how-protected-are-americas-rivers/

Bioneers. (2026, January 23). Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Pass Historic Youth-Led Rights of Nature Resolution. Bioneers.https://bioneers.org/eastern-band-of-cherokee-resolution/

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) | USAGov. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.usa.gov/agencies/bureau-of-land-management

celdf. (2020, November 4). CELDF Statement on Orange County, FL ‘Rights of Nature’ Law. CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.https://celdf.org/2020/11/celdf-statement-on-orange-county-fl-rights-of-nature-law/

CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers—Protecting Nature and Communities. (n.d.). CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://celdf.org/

Christopher Stone. (2010). Should Trees Have Standing?: Law, Morality, and the Environment (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1972)

Comte, L., Olden, J. D., Littlefield, C., Dickson, B. G., Zablocki, J., & Moryc, D. (2026). National assessment of river protection in the United States. Nature Sustainability, 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01693-8

Dudley, N., & Stolton, S. (1999). Threats to forest protected areas: Summary of a survey of 10 countries carried out in association with the World Commission on Protected Areas.https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/12594

Earth Law Center and Rights of Nature Timeline. (n.d.). Earth Law Center. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.earthlawcenter.org/timeline

Earth Law Center FAQ | Understanding The Fight For Nature. (n.d.). Earth Law Center. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.earthlawcenter.org/faq

Eastern Band of Cherokee Tribal Resolution: Rights of the Longperson Water System. (n.d.). Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/eastern-band-of-cherokee-usa-tribal-resolution-rights-of-the-longperson-watersytem/

Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://ecojurisprudence.org/?map-style=political

ecoforensic_admin. (n.d.). Ecoforensic – Defending Rights of Nature. Ecoforensic. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://ecoforensic.org/

Elinor Ostrom. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763 (Original work published 1990, Cambridge University Press)

Floodplains and Wildlife Conservation | FEMA.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.fema.gov/floodplain-management/wildlife-conservation

Groundbreaking Women-Led Rights of Nature Resolution Passed by Eastern Band Cherokee. (n.d.). Earth Law Center. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.earthlawcenter.org/blog-entries/2026/1/groundbreaking-women-led-rights-of-nature-resolution-passed-by-eastern-band-cherokee

Hofschneider, A. (2025, June 5). In California’s largest landback deal, the Yurok Tribe reclaims sacred land around Klamath River. Grist.https://grist.org/indigenous/in-californias-largest-landback-deal-the-yurok-tribe-reclaims-sacred-land-around-the-klamath-river/

Klamath River Runs Free for First Time in a Century as Largest Dam Removal in US History Nears Completion. (2024, August). Native Fish Society.https://nativefishsociety.org/news-media/klamath-river-runs-free-for-first-time-in-a-century-as-largest-dam-removal-in-us-history-nears-completion

KUNC, B. A. H. (2025, August 26). The Colorado River Is This Tribe’s ‘Lifeblood,’ Now They Want To Give It the Same Legal Rights as a Person. Inside Climate News.https://www.kunc.org/news/2025-08-20/the-colorado-river-is-this-tribes-lifeblood-now-they-want-to-give-it-the-same-legal-rights-as-a-person

Looks Good on Paper: Addressing the Problem of “Paper Parks” – WildAid Marine. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://marine.wildaid.org/looks-good-on-paper-addressing-the-problem-of-paper-parks/

Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. V. NRDC, 568 U.S. 78 (2013). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/568/78/

Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/200/496/

Mitch Distin. (n.d.). The Indigenous Notions of Kincentricity and Reciprocity: The Keys To Sustainability and Climate Change. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.prosocial.world/posts/the-indigenous-notions-of-kincentricity-and-reciprocity-the-keys-to-sustainability-and-climate-change

Movement Rights—Indigenous Led Rights of Nature. (2022, June 28).https://movementrights.org/

National Park System (U.S. National Park Service). (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.nps.gov/aboutus/national-park-system.htm

National Protected Rivers Assessment Explorer. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.americanrivers.org/npra-explorer/

NPS Organic Act | U.S. Department of the Interior. (2015, December 10). [Site page].https://www.doi.gov/ocl/nps-organic-act

Olden, J. D., Comte, L., Littlefield, C., Dickson, B. G., Zablocki, J., & Moryc, D. (2026). Safeguarding, strengthening and expanding river protections for nature and people. Nature Sustainability, 1–2.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01722-6

Orange County (USA) Ordinance: Rights of the Wekiva and Econlockhatchee Rivers. (n.d.). Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/wekiva-and-econlockhatchee-river-bill-of-rights-right-to-clean-water-charter-amendment/

Pebble Mine. (n.d.). Bristol Bay Native Corporation. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.bbnc.net/about/pebble-mine/

Ponca Nation (USA) Resolution: Rights of rivers. (n.d.). Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/ponca-nation-statute-recognizing-rights-of-rivers/

Public nuisance. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_nuisance

Ranjan, R., & Borchgrevink, A. (2025). Riverine rights: Tracing the currents and consequences of legal innovations in the rights of rivers. The International Journal of Human Rights, 0(0), 1–5.https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2025.2519590

September 27, U., December 18, 2023 •, & 2008. (n.d.). States’ Rights. American Battlefield Trust. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/states-rights

Staff, K. G., CalTrout. (2025, October 9). A River Reborn: One Year After Klamath River Dam Removal. California Trout.https://caltrout.org/news/1-year-anniversary-klamath-dams/

Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 No 7 (as at 27 August 2025), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/whole.html

Tennessee Valley Auth. V. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978). (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/437/153/

The National Wild & Scenic Rivers System | Rivers.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://rivers.gov/about

The New Zealand river that became a legal person. (2020, March 20).https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200319-the-new-zealand-river-that-became-a-legal-person

Thomas Berry. (1999). The Great Work: Our Way Into The Future. Harmony/Bell Tower.

Tragedy of the Commons: Examples & Solutions | HBS Online. (2019, February 6). Harvard Business School.https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impact-on-sustainability-issues

Unit, B. (2024, October 1). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.https://www.cbd.int/gbf

Universal Declaration of River Rights | Earth Law Center. (n.d.). Earth Law Center. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.earthlawcenter.org/river-rights

US EPA, O. (2013, February 22). Summary of the Clean Water Act [Overviews and Factsheets].https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

US EPA, O. (2015, October 28). Learn About Streams [Overviews and Factsheets].https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/learn-about-streams

What are the differences between National Parks and National Forests? (n.d.). National Forest Foundation. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.nationalforests.org/blog/what-are-the-differences-between-national-parks-and-national-forests

World Wildlife Fund International. (2004). How effective are protected areas? A preliminary analysis of forest protected areas by WWF – the largest ever global assessment of protected area management effectiveness.

Yurok Tribe. (n.d.). Yurok Tribe—Water quality in the lower Klamath River has... | Facebook. Facebook. Retrieved February 27, 2026, fromhttps://www.facebook.com/TheYurokTribe/posts/pfbid0BC7cNqmojDGf1FjFo63q5YMq9N9X3PwFfcRALurndG6o4qjVvxNf3hkMYcobqsyvl?rdid=SPJKZou30mi9iTrK#

Legal cases

Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906)

Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. NRDC, 568 U.S. 78 (2013)

Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978)

"Verte Volar" is a new composition honoring the sacred relationship between humanity and stingless bees through an interdisciplinary partnership bridging ecology, law, poetry, and Indigenous ancestral knowledge. This spoken word and musical piece emerges from an unprecedented collaboration between Indigenous wisdom keepers, scientists, legal advocates, artists, and educators, weaving together diverse ways of knowing into a unified homage to Amazonian stingless bees. It was created by Carine Gibert, founder of Grounded In Motion, composed with Jacinta Clusellas, and produced by Benjamin Furman. 

Safeguarding Amazonian Stingless Bees: A Collaboration Between Indigenous Wisdom, Education, Legal Advocacy, Science—and Now Arts Activism

The project “Safeguarding Amazonian stingless bees” serves to bridge science, the traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples, and the transformative framework of the Rights of Nature to support the conservation of Amazonian species of native stingless bees and their ecosystems. It also seeks to strengthen sustainable development for Indigenous communities, in harmony with Nature, restoring a relationship of balance, respect, and mutual care.

The project’s core objective is to make the invisible visible. In the face of widespread lack of awareness among society and environmental authorities, population mapping shows where these key Amazonian pollinators are, how many exist, and their conservation status. These efforts have been reinforced by concrete normative advances—including Reform No. 32235 (2025) and the municipal ordinances of Satipo (33-2025-CM/MPS)  and Nauta (N°17-2025-MPL-N)—which are generating legal, institutional, and cultural transformations. Bees are no longer treated solely as producers of honey but are recognized as beings with intrinsic value, ecological importance, and inherent dignity. This paradigm-shifting project seeks to recover an ancestral, sacred relationship between humanity and stingless bees, grounded in reciprocity, balance, and care. 

This ongoing project is built on the foundation of strong partnerships between Earth Law Center, Amazon Research International, Eco Ashaninka, Ashaninka Communal Reserve (SERNANP), Association of Stingless Beekeepers of Loreto, the Kukama communities of Nauta, the provincial municipalities of Satipo and Nauta, and the Peruvian Amazon Research Institute. It represents a historic milestone, with the power to inspire new generations. And a crucial part of this project is to help preserve Amazonian communities’ traditional knowledge about biodiversity management. 

These legislative transformations emerge from grassroots community work, through which the Declaration of the Rights of Stingless Bees was created and later adopted by local governments. The recognition of minimum rights for native bees includes fundamental protections such as the right to exist and maintain healthy populations, the right to a pollution-free environment, the right to be free from invasive species, and the right to access native flora to sustain their symbiotic relationship with ecosystems. It also includes the right to perform essential ecological functions and the right to restoration, supported by practices such as meliponiculture and reforestation.

We are at a key moment in the legal recognition of Nature, and this crucial legal shift needs cultural support in the form of increased emphasis on feeling into our sensorial connections. Poetry and music can support a shift in the perceived status of these essential pollinators—from being overlooked in environmental policy to being recognized and honored as pillars of biodiversity and indispensable agents in ecosystem health. 

“Verte Volar” Brings the Stingless Bees Project into Art-based Education and Storytelling

In 2026, in partnership with Grounded In Motion, this collaboration will expand to explore new pathways for raising awareness through art-based education and storytelling. Grounded In Motion, led by interdisciplinary educator, activist, and artist Gibert, weaves this collaboration into embodied ecological education and curated experiences that awaken reverence for the living world.

Grounded In Motion brings these sessions into academic institutions and cultural spaces, creating installations that offer venues to process ecological degradation while co-creating pathways toward ecological regeneration and stewardship. 

“Verte Volar offers an immersion into the reverence we hold for the more than human, honoring this sacred relationship, one grounded in reciprocity, while reminding us to make the invisible visible. To hold space where science, law, Indigenous cosmology, our educational philosophy, and sensory experience can meet,” said Gibert. “The piece is an acknowledgement of the protective governance systems of the Asháninka Communities of the Satipo Province, Perú and their ancestral wisdom that have sustained Nature for generations.”

In collaboration with  the Latin American Legal team of the Earth Law Center, key partner organizations, and an extraordinary alliance of ecological defenders, Gibert and Clusellas have created “Verte Volar” as an homage to the stingless bees. 

Help us expand our global impact. Sign our petition and support the protection of stingless bees and the communities that care for them.

Be our partner. Everything we do is made possible through collaboration. Your support can make a real difference. Donate to our Latin America Legal Program here.

Feel inspired and want to learn more? If you are interested in immersive experiences connected to our work, contact gibertcarine@gmail.com  to explore opportunities to collaborate.

By Cecilia Mittone

The Ocean is the largest ecosystem on Earth. Its well-being is inextricably linked with all life on the planet, as it generates oxygen, regulates climate, and provides food to millions of people and countless marine species. Notwithstanding its crucial role in Earth’s life system, it remains underrepresented in the environmental movement, which, compared to terrestrial issues, spends a relatively small amount of time and resources on the Ocean.

The Rights of Nature (RoN) movement, through the legal and ethical framework of Ocean Rights, is exploring the role of normative systems in fostering a new relationship between people and the Ocean. Drawing inspiration from Indigenous governance frameworks and the environmental advocacy of coastal communities, the cause of Ocean Rights was initiated by Earth Law Center (ELC) in 2017 to support awareness, research, advocacy, and legal developments, and ultimately to call for recognition of the Ocean as a living entity with intrinsic rights. A better relationship with the Ocean is envisioned in the document “We Are The Ocean and The Ocean is Us,” produced by a partnership between The Ocean Race, Ocean Vision Legal, ELC, and others, which lays out the underpinning principles of the movement.

ELC and partners are seeking to bring the Ocean Rights movement to bear on international discussions and negotiations, while holding as a goal the adoption of a Universal Declaration of Ocean Rights by the United Nations by 2030. Recent developments in international law reflect encouraging trends: raising standards, filling regulatory and interpretative gaps in environmental protection, and growing advocacy are opening the door for the introduction of Earth law and ecocentric principles in international environmental law.  Meanwhile, the RoN movement is gaining experience across many levels of governance. An increasing number of place-based and ecosystem-based initiatives are being implemented, testing the potential of ecocentric legal protection in practice (see ELC’s Ocean Program Awareness and Impact Report 2025). 

With the RoN movement gaining momentum in Ocean governance, here are five of the most exciting Ocean-related developments to keep an eye on in 2026: 

1. The entrance into force of the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ)

2. International Seabed Authority negotiations about deep-sea governance

3. Coral reefs rights developments

4. Lawsuits from Ocean guardians using Advisory Opinions in different courts

5. The Republic of Panama continues leading the way in Ocean protection 

1. The Entrance into Force of the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ)

After almost two decades of negotiation, on the 7th of January 2026, a very ambitious and wide-reaching international agreement officially came into force. Formally known as the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, or simply the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ Agreement), it is considered a major achievement for the international community. Its purpose is to strengthen environmental obligations and to protect biodiversity in the High Seas, namely areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), essentially meaning the Ocean outside of countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones (200 nautical miles off the coast).

The High Seas constitute more than two-thirds of the world’s Ocean and host a great part of marine biodiversity, which is increasingly exposed to major human-driven threats. For decades, governance in these waters has been fragmented, with different institutions regulating isolated sectors without coordination. This generated endless gaps in regulation, monitoring, and enforcement that now stand to be better addressed by the Treaty. 

Since its entry into force, states are legally bound to implement the Treaty’s provisions. The upcoming Preparation Commission and the first Conference of the Parties will take place in the course of 2026 to decide the institutional set up and rules of procedure of the newly established Convention-system. In the meantime, parties can begin by checking the consistency of existing national laws with the BBNJ, enacting relevant measures and fostering capacity-building.

The BBNJ Agreement imposes obligations under four main areas: Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs), including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits; Area-based Management Tools (ABMTs); Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs); and capacity building. States must put in place mechanisms to collect and share information about biodiversity in the High Seas, as well as instruments to manage specific geographical areas (such as Marine Protected Areas, MPAs) and processes to conduct EIAs and the transfer of marine technology. Beyond these baselines, the Treaty opens the door to new possibilities such as multinational collaborations on MPAs in the high seas, well-resourced and organized enforcement and monitoring networks, and so forth.

Most importantly, the High Seas Treaty represents the possibility of a shift from a purely human-centered perspective toward an integrated approach to Ocean governance. It adopts an ecosystem-based view and recognizes the interconnectedness of all Earth components as well as the “inherent value of biological diversity.” Earth law could provide a strong legal and ethical foundation to strengthen this new holistic approach, marking a critical step towards recognizing the Ocean as a right-bearing ecosystem. This year, 2026, affords the chance to build on the momentum of the BBNJ, including through the first Ocean Conference of the Parties, international collaboration on BBNJ implementation, and more.

2. The International Seabed Authority Negotiations on Deep-Sea Governance 

The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is conducting negotiations to develop a regulatory framework for the exploitation of resources in international deep seabed areas. Established in 1982 under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international organization is tasked with the responsibility to administer activities in the seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). In doing so, the body must balance commercial interests with the effective protection of the marine environment. 

Negotiations for the Mining Code to regulate deep-sea mining have been ongoing since 2017. Deep-sea mining involves extracting mineral deposits at depths of 2000 to 6000 meters. The process has been recognized to have devastating environmental costs, among which are ecosystems suffering disruption through pollution, underwater noise, and sediment plumes. While the private sector is in favor of an early start to mining, several state and environmental organizations called for a moratorium or precautionary pause in negotiations, advocating against deep-sea mining permits. During the 30th session of the Assembly (July 2025), a second reading of the Revised Consolidated Text of the Draft Exploitation Regulations was completed, but no final agreement was reached. The next session of the Assembly is scheduled for July 2026, and the outcomes will be fundamental to determine the future of the deep seas. 

The ISA is a promising negotiating forum to advance Ocean Rights proposals at the international level, and shift how we relate to and view the Ocean and its inhabitants, especially those we cannot see. With partners, ELC is advocating to introduce a new seat at the ISA Council, currently composed of 36 seats rotating between member states. The 37th seat would be for a Guardian of the Deep – legal guardians or proxies with expertise in deep-sea ecology, ecocentric law, and environmentalism to formally advocate for the interests of the deep sea.

An alternative proposal provides for the inclusion of an additional seat at the Assembly, which includes all ISA members. This would allow legal guardians to advocate for the interests of currently voiceless ecosystems in the proceedings where policies and work plans are decided. 

With the support of international advocacy and public awareness building, as well as national legislation and corporate governance reforms, giving a voice to the deep sea would represent an incredible step forward in the protection of the planet’s largest biome. To make this happen, ELC is also working to advance the Declaration of Rights for Deep-sea Species and Ecosystems, calling for international actors to recognize these intrinsic rights though a nonbinding legal instrument.

You can support the deep-sea rights declaration right now by signing this petition and sharing it with your networks.

3. Applications of Coral Reefs Rights 

Coral reef ecosystems are extremely important to the health of the Ocean, yet without a change in course for human greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and industrial Ocean activity, nearly all reef systems are predicted to die by 2050. Recognizing their right to exist, thrive, regenerate, and evolve can better protect their ecological integrity, enhance restoration, and improve our relationship with them. 

ELC published a three-part toolkit, A Voice for Coral Reef Ecosystems Through the Rights of Nature and Ecocentric Law, designed to equip policymakers and communities with legal strategies to recognize the intrinsic value and voice of coral reefs. The toolkit, launched at the UN Ocean Conference in Nice (June 2025), includes model legislation to advance Earth law principles in different jurisdictions, applying a transformative, ecocentric approach. The first part delves into the idea that coral reefs are not merely resources but living beings deserving inherent rights. The second part reflects on the broader application of ecocentric law to marine environments. The third part provides adaptable legislation to operationalize coral reefs rights in practices. The key strategy requires granting legal personality and representing coral reefs through guardianship councils. 

Model language for the establishment of a Coral Reef Guardianship Council:

The Council shall consist of [e.g., 7-11] members appointed by [Appointing Authority, e.g., Head of State on recommendation of a multi-stakeholder panel]. Nominees shall be selected based on their demonstrated expertise, commitment to coral reef conservation, and ability to act in the best interests of Designated Coral Reef Ecosystems. The Council shall reflect a balance of scientific expertise, community representation, and legal acumen, and, where applicable to the national context and the specific coral reef ecosystems, Traditional Ecological Knowledge. 

ELC is partnering with Healthy Reefs for Healthy People to draft a report that explores possible bioregional RoN applications in the Mesoamerican Reef across Belize, Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. A recent webinar drew 80+ participants, with several expressing interest in piloting ecocentric approaches within their local context while in parallel exploring a coordinated bioregional approach. 

ELC is also working with partner organizations Ecoforensic and OurConservaSea to embed community-led scientific research and Earth law into reef protection in West Papua. The project includes providing Earth law training to strengthen and codify Sasi Laut, a traditional governance system that regulates fishing closures, while also piloting model legislation for a new Marine Protected Area. This coalition project seeks to integrate ancestral stewardship, scientific monitoring and reporting, and legal recognition in a way that could provide a replicable model for reef protection in the region and beyond. 

4. Three Landmark Advisory Opinions 

During the past two years, three international courts delivered landmark Advisory Opinions on environmental and Ocean justice. The increasing use of this legal instrument to seek clarifications about international environmental commitments shows an unprecedented interest in environmental and Ocean protection.

Advisory Opinions are requests made to international courts about the application of international law. Despite their non-binding nature, they carry legal and moral authority and can influence the development of international rules and the conduct of states, especially over time.

Requested by the Commission of Small Island States (COSIS), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered an important opinion in May 2024 (Advisory Opinion). The question regarded the specific obligations of State parties in relation to climate change. The decision categorized greenhouse gas (GHGs) as a form of marine pollution under Art.1 (1) (4) UNCLOS, reaffirming the obligations to take “all necessary measures” to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment, as required by Art. 194(1) UNCLOS. This decision connected climate change to ocean conservation, providing a legal basis to coordinate the efforts in the two areas.

In July 2025, Chile and Colombia requested the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR)  to clarify when climate inaction represents a human rights violation (Advisory Opinion). The opinion recognized the existence of a right to a healthy climate as deriving from the right to a healthy environment, restating the obligations of States to prevent, mitigate, and remedy the human rights harms caused by the climate emergency. This includes adopting science-based mitigation and adaptation measures. Importantly, it noted that the recognition of Nature and its components as subjects of rights provides a framework to advance environmental objectives. 

Lastly, a coalition of activists and States led by Vanuatu requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clarify the duties of states to protect current and future generations from climate harm (Advisory Opinion). The ICJ affirmed that all States have binding obligations to limit emissions under existing international and customary international law, as well as liability for climate harm in case of failure to take appropriate action.  

By clarifying norms, Advisory Opinions provide legal certainty and translate abstract principles into concrete legal obligations. In the last few years, more and more courts have been called to decide environmental claims at the national and international levels. At the international level, these opinions have been seen to encourage young guardians to bring cases to court, seeking the enforcement of commitments and the gradual advancement of international environmental law as a whole. 

5. The Republic of Panama Continues Leading the Way in Ocean Protection 

In March 2023, the Republic of Panama became the first country in the world to pass a species-specific national Rights of Nature law, Law 371 for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles and their Habitats. This law supplemented Panama’s national Law 287 of 2022, which recognized Nature as a subject of rights, including the right to exist, regenerate, and be restored. Introduced by Congressman Gabriel Silva, and drafted with the help of the The Leatherback Project and ELC, Law 287 was named winner of the 2025 World Future Policy Award (WFPA) for Living in Harmony with Nature and Future Generations. It was recognized to promote a social and cultural change in human relationship with Nature, through the recognition of the interconnectedness of human beings and natural entities.

To complement legislative action Panama implemented the Saboga Wildlife Refuge, the first protected area in the world created to support RoN initiatives in collaboration with the local community, governments, and organizations. This initiative is an instance of the importance of parallel action to support and implement ecocentric legislation. 

From Panama, inspiring advocacy is being carried out at international conferences by Congressman Juan Diego Vásquez Gutierrez, a former civil society activist and the youngest candidate nationwide.  

“This law aims, first and foremost, to acknowledge Nature as a subject of law, therefore redefining its legal scope of protection and guaranteeing an inherent list of rights to be safeguarded,” said Congressman Vásquez. “It also creates a normative framework that enhances and complements the legal and judicial means, resources and arguments available for environmental lawyers and activists.”

Panama is leading the way in Ocean protection and Ocean Rights, and its experience provides important historical data useful to evaluate the impact of RoN legislation and foster its application in other jurisdictions. 

At the closing statements of the 2025 UN Ocean Conference in Nice, Congressman Vásquez called for more ambitious action by governments and international organizations in all fields related to Ocean protection – from the need to conclude the Global Plastic Treaty negotiations to efficiently regulate plastics, to the necessity to set global standards to stop underwater noise, and the imperative for decisive action toward a precautionary pause of deep-sea mining. Furthermore, he asked for more access to civil society and young people to intervene at international conferences, recalling that what is at risk is our own future. 

The year 2026 will illuminate further how Panama’s progressive RoN laws are being implemented in the country and, we hope, emulated in other countries.

Conclusion

From the entry into force of the High Seas Treaty to Panama’s national legislation implementing the Rights of Nature, we are witnessing the international community begin to acknowledge the intrinsic value of the Ocean and the interconnectedness of all Earth’s ecosystems. These developments provide an opportunity to continue advancing the Rights of Nature at the national and international level. The journey toward the Universal Declaration of Ocean Rights by 2030 is underway, and these five things to watch in 2026 are among the developments offering hope for a brighter future for the Ocean and ourselves.

By Francesca Norrington

As of January 17, 2026, the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), or High Seas Treaty, is in force as a legally binding international agreement. As it begins to go into effect, this treaty lays the foundation for multilateralism in Ocean stewardship—an area that, so far, has been ruthlessly governed by industrial interests. The outcome of the BBNJ remains to be seen: if the treaty gets co-opted by industry, that will be a tragedy. Yet its passage offers a new opening to imagine how we might improve our relationship with the Ocean by enacting a paradigm shift toward ecocentrism.

The Ocean as a nation offers a provocative, albeit purely fictional, thought experiment designed to challenge stagnant conservation policies and stimulate alternative conceptualizations of harmony with the Ocean. Though anthropomorphizing the Ocean may seem contradictory to its fluid, non-human “nature,” this framing materializes abstract ideas into something legible within rigid human systems. The Ocean Nation is not intended as a literal proposal but as a tool to disrupt entrenched narratives of the Ocean as merely a “resource” or “untapped frontier.”

If envisioned as a country, the Ocean Nation would rank as the world’s fourth-largest economy, valued at approximately $24 trillion, and would exercise sovereignty over 70 percent of global territory. The High Seas alone, covering 64 per cent of the Ocean’s surface—and 43 per cent of the Earth’s surface—remain beyond any single nation’s jurisdiction, spanning an estimated 57.1 million square miles (148 million square kilometers). This imagined Ocean Nation controls the arteries of globalization: 90 percent of global trade traverses its waters, and beneath its surface lie over 550,000 miles (885,000 kilometers) of fibre-optic cables enabling internet connectivity, data storage, and international communication. 

The Ocean is the largest source of oxygen in the atmosphere through photosynthesis by marine organisms, particularly phytoplankton. And yet, today, only 8.3 percent of the world’s seas are designated as marine protected areas (MPAs), 2.8 percent of which are protected “effectively” under the broad definition of MPAs. Within that 8 percent, only 1 percent is in the High Seas (marine territory beyond Exclusive Economic Zones).

The High Seas nourish an extraordinary diversity of life, from the largest animal ever to have lived—the blue whale—to vast migratory populations. In the deep sea, hydrothermal vents host microorganisms that form the base of entire food chains, independent of sunlight. Nearer to shore, coral reefs teem with fish and invertebrates, forming ecosystems as complex and vital as rainforests. Seagrass meadows and kelp forests stabilize coastlines and provide nurseries for countless species.

The open Ocean, once thought to be a watery desert, is, in fact, oozing with life. 

This biological abundance supports not only marine food webs but also the global systems that regulate climate and sustain life on land. What then explains the profound discrepancy between the Ocean’s physical, chemical, and biological centrality to life and the prevailing human treatment of the Ocean as something removed, even inert? 

I began the exploration of the Ocean Nation during a Capstone Course in Design in my Bachelor’s program. The initial project, then limited to a research design inquiry, was to use stories and illustration to visualize the origins of the Ocean as a mythological subject present across the globe. I found that this living subject had been gradually molded into an object through means of human intervention and industrialization. Across this historical process, the seas came to be thought of as a soup of material resources rather than any fearful god or goddess. In erasing the Ocean as a subject, we also erase valuable lessons in respecting the more-than-human.

In the years since the design project began, it has evolved into a one-of-a-kind book that tells various stories from around the world and traces the transitions between Then, Now, Soon, and Next. The “Next” in question draws from the Rights of Nature (RoN) movement and suggests that, through legal language, the Ocean’s subjectivity might be restored. The various visualizations throughout this article are samples from that as-yet-unfinished book, which will more thoroughly explore the idea of an Ocean Nation—a government of representatives selected through expertise rather than nationality, a transboundary bioregion that can activate hard-fought Earth (and marine) law.

The Crisis Facing Our Ocean

Ocean acidification, overfishing, bottom trawling, and deep-sea mining are not the crises; rather, they are outcomes. The crisis facing our global seas is not even that they are dying; it is that they have not died yet, so they are still an economic opportunity for people. The economic value of the Ocean has increased as the rest of the world’s “resources” diminish.

Over one-third of the world’s fish stocks are overexploited. If current trends continue, plastic pollution will outweigh fish by mass in the Ocean by 2050. Meanwhile, vast swaths of the seafloor are scraped bare by bottom trawling every year, equivalent to clearing forests with bulldozers, destroying habitats that may take centuries to recover, if they ever do. 

And now, commercial attention is turning to the deep seabed. Alongside an astonishing array of marine life at depths of thousands of meters below the surface are significant reserves of copper, cobalt, nickel, zinc, silver, gold, and rare earth elements. Exploitation of international waters, where the bulk of the Ocean's critical minerals are found, awaits regulations from the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA). The ISA council and assembly are holding sessions throughout 2026 as negotiations continue. As terrestrial mineral reserves decline, deep-sea mining is increasingly framed as the solution to powering the “green transition.” In the U.S., signals from the Trump-aligned political wing suggest potential support for bypassing international governance altogether and issuing unilateral permits. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has already begun the process to lease parts of the seafloor in American Samoa. With the closure of the ISA’s 30th convention, neither those opposed to mining nor those in favor saw any written regulation or vote. 

The crisis, then, is not purely one of environmental degradation; it is a crisis of imagination and governance. It would be naive to ignore that amazing advances in science, as well as much of the material support for the everyday lives of Western and other industrialized peoples, has been made possible through minerals such as those listed above: the laptop on which I’m writing, and likely the device on which you’re reading, depend on them. How can a formulation such as more-than-human rights value both the tens of thousands of species that have been found in the deep Ocean and a laptop? (Or the electric car we excitedly describe as “green”?)

By continuing to view the Ocean as a reservoir of commodities, the deep sea may become the next—and possibly the ultimate—sacrifice zone. No matter how important a product may be to the everyday life of a consumer, the RoN movement posits that those marine species—and the many other human and more-than-human lives which are linked to their survival—inherently deserve the right to live and thrive. We do not accept the premise that human economic well-being and growth is categorically more important than the continued well-being, or simply existence, of wild ecosystems and species. We call instead for meaningful representation of Nature in our discussions of what harmony with Nature could, and should, entail.

Vivifying the Language of Conservation

Conservation biology is a vital and growing discipline that contributes to solving environmental problems and real-world changes, such as revising economic theory. This vitality relies, in part, on the recognition of intrinsic natural value. Recognizing this value entails an obligation to do what is right, namely, to protect the good. Addressing the current crises facing the Ocean requires new ways of thinking, conceptualizing it as a unit that we live as part of and not despite. 

Western conservation efforts, limited by a lack of language, have yet to build a sufficient discourse on harmony with Nature. Too often, discussions about environmental conservation adopt language consonant with—if not borrowed from—the discourse of natural resources and economics.

‘Do Glaciers Listen?’ (2005) by Canadian anthropologist Julie Cruikshank, which resonates with some Aboriginal Canadian cultures, does not translate as easily into contemporary Western discourse. Likewise, the celebrated environmentalist Aldo Leopold’s mandate to “Think Like a Mountain” (1949) would strike many as unrelatable. In the language of the market, all objects, things, and people can be allocated a value, reducing everything to an equivalence.

To take a particular example, environmental governance scholar Jennifer E. Telesca challenges the term stock and its commonplace in today’s policy and conservation frameworks. Over time, fisheries experts have used statistical measures as their primary tool of authority, representing the object of marine conservation not as fish in being but as stock (Telesca, 2017, p. 145; my emphasis). To commodify a body by categorizing it according to weight, age, gender, or energy output eliminates any subjectivity, rendering “biological beings—slave and animal, chattel and beast—into populations capable of being pledged as assets appropriate for absolute possession and therefore for trade.” (Telesca, 2017, p. 145)

In the treaty for the ‘International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling’ (IWC) (1946), the preamble states the convention’s purpose as “safeguarding for future generations the great natural resources represented by whale stocks” (IWC, p. 1; my emphasis). And indeed, in its provision on the “Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction,” the BBNJ Agreement of 2023 refers to the more-than-human as “marine genetic resources” (my emphasis). This logic has designed a hierarchy of value, from the origins of slavery to the classification and quantification of complex species, which has led to their inevitable demise.

The point is not to mistake language for reality: I’m sure individual fish and fish populations would rather be referred to as stock while remaining alive than be properly addressed while being pushed to the brink of extinction. Yet language matters precisely because it shapes how we perceive and interact with the more-than-human world. Anthropocentric and resource-oriented legal language is often the best we have to work with until such time as truly ecocentric language adoption and lawmaking become much more widely possible.

Likewise, making compromises on language is crucial for passing major legislation. This is not to say that advances in treaty design are not well-intended; rather, it is to acknowledge the limitations of these treaties in an industry-led environment, where they are often rendered redundant by economic incentives. With every step forward in the application of conscious law comes compromise whereby the needs of humans have to also be met to the degree that these laws do not jeopardize genuine economic need. Strict all-out bans are likely to be met with strong resistance, causing further friction rather than much-needed conversation. The industrial bias that tends to characterize international treaties suggests that the direction for the RoN movement may be toward bioregions and species-based efforts. Or, in supporting localized efforts with legal language that might validate and empower their campaigns. 

Liquid Cartography 

In modern Western discourse, the term territory is central to discussions of “natural” space, and the Ocean has increasingly felt the pressure of such territorial delineations, for instance as imposed by Exclusive Economic Zones and poorly governed Marine Protected Areas. Treating the sea as a zone to be contained has led to what anthropologist Gísli Pálsson (1998), drawing on Michel Foucault, describes as “the birth of the aquarium”—an enclosure predicated on a separation of “nature” and “culture,” carefully obscuring the remnants of these separations. As an unbounded nature, the Ocean is connected to colonial projects of keeping the high seas “free,” outside sovereign territorialization. Nature, however, must be confronted as an artefact of empire, one whose definition within a Western (or Eurocentric) context cannot entirely be trusted. The Ocean must be understood as emergent with—and not merely as an underlying context for—human activities. The human mind cannot truly visualize the expansive oceanic realm; a Westernized perspective thus pollutes any alternative design.

The Spilhaus projection, developed by Athelstan Frederick Spilhaus in 1979, breaks the convention of a humanized Ocean, depicting the Ocean instead as a single unbroken water body bounded by continental landmasses. This projection swaps out the familiar prominent representations of land in favor of the all-important oceanic interchange, showing the Ocean as a continuous unit. The title of this study is especially intriguing: “To see the Oceans, slice up the Land” (Spilhaus, A., 1979).

The Spilhaus projection connects to the decolonizing vision of Tongan and Fijian writer and anthropologist Epeli Hau‘ofa’s “Oceanic Identities.” Hau’ofa critiques dominant colonial and postcolonial representations of the Pacific Islands as empty, small, and lacking true value. Western epistemological cartography portrays the Ocean as limiting and isolating those who live in the Pacific, as if their location put them in a position of weakness.

In contrast to the distancing implications of such physical maps, Ocean advocates have offered an intimate ontological view of humans and the Ocean, characterized by salty water. The late American marine biologist Rachel Carson writes: “Fish, amphibian, and reptile, warm-blooded bird and mammal—each of us carries in our veins a salty stream in which the elements […] are combined in almost the same proportions as in seawater” (1991, p. 20). Banaban poet Theresa Teaiwa, as quoted by Epeli Hau’ofa, echoes this sentiment: “We sweat and cry salt water, so we know that the ocean is really in our blood” (1998,  p. 392). Although we find ourselves detached from our ancient birthing grounds, our lives and existence are nonetheless determined by the life therein. Realizing this makes the idea of an Ocean Nation seem closer to home. 

The Ocean Nation and Ocean Rights

I conceive of the Ocean Nation partly in light of historian Dipesh Chakrabarty’s United Organisation for Multi-Species Governance (2021), a framework through which the Rights of Nature could be accessed and realized. The terms country or nation, both as words and as material delineations, are deeply entrenched in the legacies of globalization, imperialism, and colonialism. Chakrabarty warns that confronting these mechanisms requires “work[ing] towards a planet that no longer belongs to the human-dominant order” (2021, p. 203; as cited in Epstein, 2023). Embracing species' legal identity may be one practical step toward withdrawing from that order.

Rights of Nature in practice is shaped by the biases of state sovereignty, while simultaneously emerging in postcolonial states as a strategy to assert sovereignty over land and its more-than-human population, including as a means of environmental agency for Indigenous Peoples. Rights of Nature scholar Mihnea Tănăsescu (2020), for example, has pointed out that the arrangements arrived at in two of the most prominent examples of Rights of Nature, those in Ecuador and New Zealand, were principally inspired not by environmental concerns but by power relations between state governments and Indigenous Peoples.

How might the Ocean Nation draw knowledge from these conversations? Voices like those of the Ocean advocates cited in this article can inform an oceanic parliament or government, reforming these structures to consolidate human and more-than-human agency in pursuit of the right to a healthy planet. Human bias is pervasive; this framework provides a potential means of granting political agency to voices whose biases may be less detrimental than those of industry representatives currently dominating the High Seas. 

Rights of Nature has been proposed as a legal mechanism to “dampen the threat of the Anthropocene to non-human species” (Seth Epstein, 2023, p. 416). Establishing rights for Nature requires addressing human limitations in our ability to represent non-humans. Ocean Rights lawyer Michelle Bender explained to me some time ago something seemingly obvious yet commonly overlooked: oceanic creatures have different needs than humans. I take as a corollary that Ocean Rights cannot be a simple projection of human rights onto Ocean creatures and ecosystems. Philosopher Thomas Berry (1914-2009), believing that all beings are unique in their ecosystems, depending on their characteristics, writes that humans have human rights, fish have fish rights, trees have tree rights. An insect would hold different rights than a river based on its particular role within a functioning system.

Marine ecosystems thrive within their own design, one that has evolved over millennia. However good the intent, a humanized approach to “protect” an ecosystem would be entirely to our own reference points. This may explain why some Indigenous Peoples, through long and unbroken relationship with their lands and waters, have proven the most effective guardians and stewards of wild places. The Western RoN movement likely has a long way to go to achieve similar depths of understanding. Nonetheless, passing laws that acknowledge Ocean species and ecosystems as rights-holders may prove an imperfect but still useful step toward their more meaningful representation in the human legal systems that hold so much power over them. The idea of an Ocean Nation can contribute a north star for such efforts—do we even dare imagine that degree of sovereignty for our wild kin?

Francesca Norrington is an environmental journalist and writer with a background in design research. She holds a Master of Science from the University of Edinburgh, where she specialised in environmental ethics and the socio-political implications of space expansionism. More recently, she has worked as a freelance editor and writer, supporting research on nature rights and ocean rights, while reporting on the everyday lives of those most affected by the climate crisis. She also works as an illustrator and sketch artist.

Sources

Carson, R. (1991). The sea around us. Oxford University Press.

Chakrabarty, D. (2021). The Climate of History in a Planetary Age. University of Chicago Press.

Epstein, S. (2023). Rights of nature, human species identity, and political thought in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review, 10(2), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196221078929

Hau‘ofa, E. (1998). The ocean in us. The Contemporary Pacific, 10(2), 392–410. University of Hawai‘i Press.

Pálsson, G. (1998). The birth of the aquarium: The political ecology of Icelandic fishing. In T. Gray (Ed.), The politics of fishing (pp. 209–227). Macmillan.

Piccolo, J. J. (2017). Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.007

Spilhaus, A. (1979). To see the oceans, slice up the land. Smithsonian, 10, 116–122.

Telesca, J. E. (2017). Accounting for loss in fish stocks. Environment and Society, 8(1), 144–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/26661567.

On January 8th, 2026, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Tribal Council unanimously approved a Rights of Nature (RoN) resolution for the Longperson, a 790 mile interconnected water system whose headwaters begin in the Great Smoky Mountains and whose feet stretch to the sea. 

The resolution was presented by the North American Indian Women’s Association (NAIWA) Daughters, an all-female, youth-led group of Indigenous environmental protectors and advocates. NAIWA Daughters shared a moving testimonial to the council as the culmination of 18 months of community outreach, research, prayer, and hard work. This historic event marks the first all-women-led RoN resolution passed in the United States.

Junior NAIWA Daughters stand with the Longperson (in clay pot) before the Eastern Band of Cherokee Council. Back row: Janée Smith, Zailiana Blythe, Laila Crowe-Taylor, Misha Slee. Second row: Kyndra Postoak, Marijane Tafoya. Front row: Kimberly Smith (mentor), Jasmine Smith, Malia Crowe (mentor).

Reciprocity and Honoring of the Longperson

The Longperson, also known as Ganvhidv Asgaya, is a being who provides spiritual and physical health to the Cherokee people. The Longperson holds significance in many cultural rituals and in supporting the tribe’s emotional wellbeing. Since 2021, Eastern Band Cherokee have recognized a day each year on which they specially honor Longperson. This day serves as an opportunity to reconnect with the land, clean up the river, and experience cultural reawakening. Reciprocity to Earth systems is instilled as a core value for the Eastern Band Cherokee—understanding that it is the responsibility of the Eastern Band Cherokee to protect Longperson, as it protects them.  

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians are one of three federally recognized Cherokee tribes. They are a sovereign nation with powers of self determination. The NAIWA Daughters’ goal is to empower and inspire Indigenous women, promote intertribal communications, and enhance cultural enrichment.

Rights of Nature Is Not New 

Rights of Nature is a legal and cultural movement that strives to harmonize the relationship between humans and the more-than-human world. It recognizes that in order to address environmental issues, Nature needs a seat at the table—in courts, legislation, administrative bodies, and beyond. Indigenous worldviews and leadership have proven central to the movement’s success.

The NAIWA Daughters offered their protection to Longperson through RoN by applying an ecocentric framework to environmental law and conservation. The effort was collaborative and deeply rooted in Indigenous knowledge. In its early January meeting, NAIWA Daughters shared powerful and moving statements to the council. A press release from the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature says the meeting attracted a virtual audience of around 10,000 onlookers and filled the building with supporters. 

At the meeting, Jasmine Smith, Chair of NAIWA Daughters said, regarding RoN, “This is not new . . . this is memory, this is identity, this is Cherokee.”

Kendra Posthoke, another member of NAIWA Daughters, emphasized that the resolution would contribute to a larger effort of maintaining and rebuilding the relationship between humans and non-human entities. 

The NAIWA Daughters recognized that the conversation they had that day would only feel right if Longperson was present in the meeting. Members gathered Longperson in two clay pots, returning them to the Oconaluftee River later that day in a water ceremony.

An important part of the process was to ensure that the community felt the work they were doing was accessible and relatable. Their outreach included educational efforts, informing tribal members about RoN. Smith says the resolution reflects deep personal connections to Longerson. Not only for current individuals within the community but also for their ancestors, who advocated for the Longperson and understood its interconnectedness to Cherokee identity.

The resolution recognizes five inherent rights of the Longperson:

1. To exist, persist, and regenerate its vital cycles, structures, functions, and processes free from negative human disturbance, alteration, or destruction.

2. To maintain and restore its natural state and integrity, including the right to be free from pollution, contamination, nonnative invasive species, and other environmental degradation.

3. To serve as a home and habitat for non-human relatives, consistent with the ecological relationships established through time.

4. To access and maintain free-flowing conditions, including protection from damming, obstruction, or any alteration that impedes the natural flow of water.

5. To be protected by the Eastern Band of Cherokee under the laws, customs, and traditions of the Eastern Band of Cherokee, and to have its rights enforced by the appropriate authorities.

After compelling and poignant testimonies from members of the NAIWA Daughters, emotions swelled in the chamber room as the council was asked to vote. All members stood and applauded, unanimously passing the resolution. 

As youth, the NAIWA Daughters acknowledge that the world they inherit is one with a multitude of ecological challenges. Accessible, clean, and free-flowing water is an inherent right, essential not only for ecosystems but for human survival. Following the resolution, NAIWA Daughters plan to collaborate with the Tribal Council to create a task force charged with monitoring the Longperson’s health. They hope that the resolution can inspire other Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups to implement their own RoN initiatives in other regions.

Lake Titicaca, a large mountain lake on the border of Perú and Bolivia, is sacred to the Aymara and Quechua peoples.[1] Known as “Mama Qota” or “Qota Mama” in the Aymara language, signifying the goddess of water in Andean cultures, the lake faces a serious environmental crisis that threatens its balance and the culture that has nurtured it for generations. In response, Earth Law Center's Latin America Legal Program is collaborating with Indigenous communities to defend the lake's rights, strengthen leadership—especially among women and youth—and support legal actions aimed at protecting the lake. Their work shows that recognizing the lake as a subject of rights is crucial for healing its waters and safeguarding the life, culture, and future of the Altiplano.

About ELC’s Latin America Legal Program

The Latin America Legal Program at Earth Law Center (ELC) supports environmental defenders, particularly Indigenous Peoples and their women defenders who sustain their territories. Through one of the pillars of our work, “Empowering women, youth, and defenders of Nature,” we provide legal advice, support in legal proceedings, and tools to enhance capacities in environmental governance and the exercise of fundamental rights.

We work closely with communities, building strategies rooted in their territories and worldviews. We are committed to their leadership; our role is to be strategic allies who amplify their voices and empower them in the defense of their ecosystems.

We are active throughout Latin America and currently have a strong presence in Perú, focusing significantly on Lake Titicaca.

Why Lake Titicaca Matters

Lake Titicaca is the largest freshwater lake in South America. Located in the heart of the Andean Altiplano at 3,810 meters (12,500 feet) above sea level, it is the highest navigable lake in the world. The lake ecosystem is home to rich biodiversity, including the parihuanas (Andean flamingos) and the greatest variety of endemic fish in the Altiplano, primarily from the genera Orestias and Trichomycterus, with notable species like the Mauri and the Suche.[2-3]

“Since the time of our ancestors on Lake Titicaca, there were Carachi, Mauri, Suche, and Pejerrey fish, as well as birds such as Keñola and Parihuana, and we fed on them during times when there was no chakra (farmland) up above, far from the lake, and we would come down and eat,” said Marcela González, president of the Puno Departmental Women's Association. “For me, there is nothing more sacred than Lake Titicaca.”[4-6]

Geographically, the lake is a natural wonder spanning a basin shared by Bolivia and Perú, with the cities of Copacabana and Puno as its most popular bays. This vast basin, surrounded by mountain ranges and plateaus, covers 70% of the Puno departmental area and integrates a water system of more than 50 lagoons and 300 rivers. Its unique biodiversity combines high Andean grasslands with jungle ecosystems, including tropical forests, wetlands, and savannas.

The lake is home to the Titicaca water frog, the world's only fully aquatic frog, which is endemic to the Altiplano.[7] Listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and classified as Critically Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), it is also recognized as a threatened species in Perú.[8] This amphibian serves as an indicator of ecosystem health and faces multiple threats, including habitat destruction, invasive species, amphibian-specific fungal diseases, climate change, and water pollution.[9]

Threats Affecting the World's Highest Navigable Lake

Like its emblematic water frog, Lake Titicaca is under threat. The lake and its biodiversity face multiple challenges: wastewater discharges, heavy metals from tributary rivers, invasive species, solid waste pollution, and the impact of tourism on its bays and recreational areas.

The lake has become increasingly vulnerable due to human activity that has polluted its waters. Key threats documented in government reports and specialized research include wastewater from population growth in surrounding towns such as Puno and Juliaca.[10] This growth has heightened the demand for water and sewage services. However, over half of the riverside inhabitants lack sewage systems, and the few existing wastewater treatment plants cannot handle the volume.

Additionally, solid waste management poses another critical challenge. Urban expansion has generated waste exceeding collection capacity, leading to inadequate disposal and subsequent pollution of the lake. The impact of industrial mining activity is also significant, with numerous mines in the basin's upper reaches using toxic substances like mercury to process gold and silver ore. Studies have recorded high levels of heavy metals, including iron, lead, arsenic, barium, and zinc, in key tributaries such as the Ramis and Coata Rivers, which carry these pollutants into Lake Titicaca.

Finally, oil pollution affects the lake ecosystem. Oil emissions from wells and wastewater loaded with carbonates and chlorides flow directly into the lake. This phenomenon has led to the formation of salt crusts that kill surrounding vegetation, a visible testament to the toxicity affecting this invaluable water body.

“Like our mother, Grandmother Qota Mama or Lake Titicaca, for us children of the sun, like Lupijaquess [“people of the sun's warmth”], the lake is sick, it is crying out for help so that we can save it,” said Yolanda Flores, a women's rights activist from the town of Yunguyo and member of Human Rights and Environment Puno. “In the lake's basin are several towns and cities that are connected to the sewage system, and all of them are directed to Lake Titicaca. Where there are towns there is pollution . . . [and] there are mining concessions in our watershed headwaters that are exploiting mining and gold with cyanide and mercury, and all of that pollutes us. It is a cry from Mama Qota that we can save ourselves from pollution together.”

Scientific research has confirmed that, although Lake Titicaca is home to unique species, their populations are alarmingly declining, putting them at risk of extinction.[11] In addition to the Titicaca water frog, a prime example is the Puno flamingo, whose numbers are decreasing due to the impact of mining on their nesting areas.[12] This migratory species is listed on the IUCN Red List and in Appendix II of CITES.[13-14]

Culture and Nature: The Struggle for Identity in Titicaca

The Indigenous Peoples of Lake Titicaca have expressed deep concern about the impact of biodiversity loss on their culture and ways of life. They note that medicinal plants that once flourished in the Puno Valley are becoming scarce and that fish that were essential to their ancestral diet are disappearing due to the introduction of foreign species and overfishing. Members of these communities, trained in water monitoring, have documented a worrying decline in the lake's level, which has fallen by up to 40 centimeters (15.7 inches) during periods of severe drought over the last two decades.

This environmental degradation directly affects their cultural traditions. Among younger people, ancestral practices such as giving thanks to Mama Qota have been lost, while many avoid visiting the lake due to the sewage dumped into its basin. Coastal pollution, exacerbated by unregulated urbanization, hinders annual spiritual gatherings and community cleanups.

For the Aymara people, Lake Titicaca is a living being that communicates with them. Those with ancestral knowledge interpret the winds and the behavior of the waters to predict the weather, know when the rains will come, and identify the right time for planting. Mama Qota signals these cycles through signs such as the green grass growing on the rocks along its shores.

"Qota Mama is what we call her in our Aymara language. She is a young maiden in our culture. She speaks with the achachilas [protective spirits that inhabit the hills and mountains of Andean culture], and we ask her to grant us a good harvest. Many brothers make offerings to her and ask her to make their projects successful,” said Soraya Poma Cotrado, president of the Network of Women Leaders in Defense of Water and Lake Titicaca. “Qota Mama is also a healer. I had a nice experience: at one point, I had pimples on my face, but I was told that I should go to the Lake at 3 a.m. I went early to Qota Mama and was cured.”

The defenders of the Lake recall how, in childhood, it was easier to maintain a harmonious relationship with their cultural heritage. They made offerings of gratitude to the lake and collected eggs from its shores, and their parents fished with their hands on the banks. Today, areas like the Capachica peninsula show clear signs of decline: the llasca [Cladophora crispata, a species of green algae native to the Puno region] have disappeared, root gathering has become dangerous due to pollution, and during carnivals and rituals, the black waters affecting Lake Titicaca become visible.”

Despite the serious pollution problems affecting Lake Titicaca, its beauty and bounty endure, captivating both locals and visitors. From the center of Puno, with its colorful displays of traditional dances and festivals, to the city of Ilave and the mystical portal of Aramu Muru (Ajayu Marka in Aymara) to the west of the lake,[15] the region sustains a rich cultural heritage. Here, the Aymara and Quechua cultures, deeply connected to water and Nature, base their traditional knowledge and community practices on a harmonious relationship with the environment.

In the Chucuito province, the shores of San Juan beach contrast sharply with Puno Bay. This area, renovated in 2024, has clearer waters and less urban sprawl, highlighting the white sand and surrounding greenery. It is one of the best-preserved areas of the lake, cared for by the Lupakas, descendants of the Aymara people who inhabit the region.[16-17]

From this point, you can admire the immensity of Mama Qota, whose waters merge with the sky on the horizon, creating the illusion of an inland sea, the “Sea of Puno.” Although this place remains one of the most beautiful in the Titicaca basin, its landscape too is at risk due to multiple environmental challenges facing the lake and its inhabitants, threatening to erode this priceless natural beauty.[18]

“Walking alongside the sisters and brothers who defend the lake, in the Apus Mountains area affected by mining in Juli, I observed how they collected plants from the wetlands,” said Javier Ruiz, a lawyer with the Earth Law Center. “I immediately asked the sister what the plants were used for, and she replied, ‘We collect these plants to cure headaches and stomachaches. We are taking advantage of this trip to the higher altitudes because they are no longer found in the lower areas near the Lake.’”

Defending the Rights of Lake Titicaca

To protect their culture and the biodiversity of Lake Titicaca, many groups have taken legal action and promoted the creation of public policies that recognize the lake’s intrinsic rights.

“What we are witnessing in Lake Titicaca is a monumental paradigm shift. It is not just a legal battle against pollution; it is the vindication of an ancestral worldview that is finally finding its place in modern law,” said Bastián Núñez, legal advisor to ELC.

The Puno Human Rights and Environment Organization (DHUMAP) and the Legal Defense Institute (IDL), along with the Association of Indigenous Conservationists, filed a lawsuit to recognize the rights of Lake Titicaca and initiate its decontamination. They supported their case with technical reports showing that ecosystem degradation is due to inadequate wastewater treatment, solid waste leakage, and mining activities. After an unfavorable first ruling in 2024, the Superior Court of Puno declared that ruling null and void in October of this year, restarting the legal process and providing a new opportunity for the defense of Lake Titicaca.

Simultaneously, the Network of Women Leaders in Defense of Water and Lake Titicaca, consisting of 60 Indigenous women from 13 districts in Puno and Bolivia, successfully urged the Regional Government of Puno to issue an ordinance in August 2025 recognizing the lake and its tributaries as subjects of rights.[19] The ordinance establishes five fundamental rights:

• the right to existence and maintenance of ecological integrity

• the right to natural regeneration of hydrological cycles and biodiversity

• the right to freedom from pollution and disruptive activities

• the right to restoration in the event of environmental damage

• the right to representation by protective entities.

Recognizing the lake as a legal entity—following precedents like the Marañón River in Perú, the Aquepi River in Ecuador, Laguna Francia in Argentina, and Lake Tota in Colombia—would enable the enforcement of pollution controls on wastewater discharges and mining tailings in Lake Titicaca by imposing protection obligations on both the state and private actors.[20-23]

Incorporating the Rights of Nature into the management of the Titicaca basin clarifies the ecological needs of the Lake and defines the obligations of the State and other actors for its protection. This approach promotes preventive and restorative measures from a systemic perspective, enhancing ecosystem resilience and aligning human decisions with ecological integrity. Implementing the Rights of Nature is a gradual and transformative process that starts with recognizing the intrinsic value of Mama Qota in regulations, judicial decisions, and public policies, and progresses towards a binding framework that requires the application of ecocentric principles such as precaution, prevention, in dubio pro natura, and the use of the best available science.

In the context of Lake Titicaca, integrating the Rights of Nature into environmental decision-making could lead to stricter environmental impact assessments; modifications of existing human activities, including extractive ones that jeopardize ecosystem health; and the review, adaptation, or revocation of concessions causing significant harm. It may also involve the obligation to restore contaminated areas, enhance wastewater management, and strengthen the protection of key tributaries and wetlands.

Ultimately, a Rights of Nature framework could guide the governance of the lake toward a balance between ecological limits and human well-being, ensuring that Titicaca continues to provide ecosystem services, cultural identity, and spiritual life to the communities that protect it. Its implementation requires not only substantive new tools but also a cultural and procedural transformation that places Nature at the center of all public and private decisions affecting the basin. This ecocentric paradigm, endorsed by constitutional jurisprudence, would institutionalize the participation of Indigenous and local communities as legitimate guardians of water bodies, laying the foundation for a structural transformation in watershed management.

The Regional Ordinance, which recognizes Lake Titicaca and its tributaries as subjects of rights of preferential regional interest, is a legal milestone. It establishes that the lake's rights are based on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and guarantees their effective participation in the lake's management. This action helps close inequality gaps in decision-making regarding its protection and decontamination.

“Water is life, my water, water, water from Titicaca, my water, how could I not take care of you, oh, oh, oh, knowing that you are life, my water.”—Popular composition about Lake Titicaca, inspired by the song “Agüita de Putina” by Los Uros de Titicaca

Between November 2024 and June 2025, ELC's Latin America Legal Program traveled to Puno, Perú, to support initiatives by the Aymara and Quechua communities aimed at protecting and decontaminating Lake Titicaca.

Through workshops and activities with local groups, we identified a collective concern about the environmental decline of the lake. Negative ecological impacts on the lake not only damage the region’s main environmental landmark but also profoundly affect the social and cultural life of its inhabitants. For this reason, our work has focused on highlighting the ancestral link between the Aymara and Quechua cultures and the lake.

We have developed a specific methodology to strengthen the cultural aspects linked to Titicaca and its path toward the recognition of rights. This responds to the historical neglect of Indigenous Peoples' worldviews in decision-making about the conservation of the Lake, weakening efforts for its comprehensive protection.

“What we are witnessing in Lake Titicaca is a monumental paradigm shift,” said says Bastián Núñez, legal advisor to ELC. “It is not just a legal battle against pollution; it is the vindication of an ancestral worldview that is finally finding its place in modern law.”

Ultimately, the fight for Lake Titicaca goes beyond protecting Nature; it is essential for cultural preservation and environmental justice. Acknowledging the rights promoted by Indigenous Peoples is crucial for healing the lake’s waters and for honoring and preserving the ancient worldview that sees it as a living mother, Mama Qota, whose well-being is inseparable from that of all beings dependent on her.

Notes

[1] The Lake Titicaca basin is also home to the Uros, a people located from Puno Bay to the interior of the Lake. Its population has settled on floating islands and rafts made of totora reeds, which they traditionally used to navigate the waters of Titicaca https://bdpi.cultura.gob.pe/pueblos/uro. ELC Latin America Legal Program’s fieldwork has focused on a phase of coordination with the Aymara and Quechua populations of Puno.

[2] Parihuana or Puno flamingos. Phoenicoparrus jamesi, a bird endemic to Puno.

[3] Mauri or suche. Trichomycterus rivulatus, a fish endemic to Lake Titicaca.

[4] Carachi or karache. Orestias agassizii and Orestias luteus, fish endemic to Lake Titicaca.

[5] Argentine fish species (Odontesthes bonariensis) introduced into Lake Poopó in Bolivia, which migrated to Lake Titicaca in 1955 via the Desaguadero River.

[6] Titicaca Zampullín or Keñola. Rollandia microptera, a bird endemic to the Andean highlands.

[7] Giant Titicaca frog or Telmatobius culeus, a species of giant anuran amphibian endemic to Lake Titicaca.

[8] DS N°004-2014-MINAGRI.

[9] RAMOS RODRIGO, Víctor Enrique; QUISPE COILA, Jhazel Arnold, and ELIAS PIPERIS, Roberto Kosmas. Assessment of the relative abundance of Telmatobius culeus in the coastal zone of Lake Titicaca, Perú.

[10] Peruvian University of the Union. Condori Huancapaza Maritza, Ascencio Pacho Juan, Paucar Ginez Margot Yeny. Determination of the extinction factors of the giant frog of Lake Titicaca.

[11] Ramos Rodrigo, Victor Enrique, Jhazel Arnold Quispe Coila, and Roberto Kosmas Elias Piperis. 2019. “Evaluation of the Relative Abundance of Telmatobius Culeus in the Coastal Zone of Lake Titicaca, Peru.” Revista Peruana de Biología 26 (4): 475-80. https://doi.org/10.15381/rpb.v26i4.17216.

[12] Derlindati, Enrique J. Flamingos of the Andes. Nature Conservation Series 24: The Argentine Puna: Nature and Culture (2018). Online. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Enrique-Derlindati-2/publication/336967273_Los_flamencos_de_los_Andes/links/5dbc684e92851c818021069c/Los-flamencos-de-los-Andes.pdf.

[13] IUCN Red List. Online. Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/es.

[14] CITES. Appendices I, II, and III effective as of February 7, 2025. Online. Available at: https://cites.org/esp/app/appendices.php.

[15] Pari Yenny. Experiences of the Energetic Tourist on the Vibrational Frequencies Emitted from the Aramu Muru Portal, Province of Chucuito-Puno, 2019. National University of the Altiplano. Pp. 19-20. Online. Available at: https://files.core.ac.uk/download/587975713.pdf.

[16] The Lupaca, an ancient people who lived near Lake Titicaca, are the ancestors of the Aymara.

[17] Provincial Municipality of Chucuito Juli. Grand Opening. San Juan Beach. Online. Available at: https://www.gob.pe/institucion/munichucuitojuli/noticias/993840-gran-inauguracion-playa-de-san-juan.

[18] Tumi Jesús. Attitudes of the population towards sanitation, environmental management, and coastal pollution in the district of Juli-Puno, Peru. Espacio Abierto, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 150-163, 2022. University of Zulia. Online. Available at: https://www.redalyc.org/journal/122/12273665008/html/.

[19] Regional Ordinance No. 000011-2025-GRP.

[20] Case No. 00010-2022-0-1901-JM-CI-01. Action for protection. Resolution No. 14 dated March 15, 2024. Nauta I Mixed Court. First instance.

[21] Case No. 1185-20-JP. Judgment No. 1185-20-JP/21. Quito, December 15, 2021. Action for Protection. Constitutional Court of Ecuador.

[22] Case 4085-2019-1-C. Judgment dated November 29, 2024. Action for protection. 21st Civil and Commercial Court of Resistencia.

[23] Case No. 157593153001-2020-00081-00. Judgment ST-0047 dated December 1, 2020. Action for protection of constitutional rights. First Civil Court of the Oral Circuit of Sogamoso.

The world is experiencing an unprecedented moment of judicial involvement with the climate crisis. Within the span of 14 months, three international courts responded to requests to clarify states’ legal obligations on climate change:

1. The Commission of Small Island States (COSIS) requested the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to give an interpretation of obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

   - Request (December 2022)

   - Advisory Opinion (May 2024)

2. Chile and Colombia requested the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) to clarify how climate inaction may violate human rights.

   - Request (January 2023)

   - Advisory Opinion (May 2025)

3. A coalition of youth activists and states led by Vanuatu requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an authoritative statement on states’ duties to protect current and future generations from climate harm.

- Request (March 2023)

- Advisory Opinion (July 2025)

Together, these efforts and the courts’ opinions mark a turning point for environmental governance. They suggest that climate action is no longer just a political choice but a legal duty. This emerging legal wave could strengthen accountability and bridge the gap between environmental principles and practice. Because the health of the ocean underpins the planet’s climate stability, these advisory opinions may also reinforce a new legal and moral framework for ocean protection.

I. What Is an Advisory Opinion?

An advisory opinion is a formal legal clarification issued by an international court at the request of states or international organizations. While not legally binding in the same way as a judgment between parties, advisory opinions carry significant moral and interpretative authority.

They clarify existing treaty obligations and customary international law, guide states’ behavior, inform negotiations and litigation strategies, and provide moral and legal support to domestic courts and civil society organizations seeking to hold governments or corporations accountable.

The current wave of advisory opinions represents a coordinated global effort to define the boundaries of lawful conduct in an era of climate crisis. For the first time, international courts are being asked to spell out, in legal terms, what states must do to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, protect the ocean, and safeguard the rights of future generations.

II. Climate Obligations Beyond Politics

a) The Ocean–Climate Connection

The ocean covers more than 70 percent of Earth’s surface and is the planet’s largest climate regulator. It absorbs over 90 percent of the excess heat generated by human-caused emissions and around a quarter of our carbon dioxide output. Yet these services come at a cost: the ocean is warming, acidifying, losing oxygen, and nearing ecological tipping points.

Rising sea temperatures drive coral bleaching and biodiversity collapse. Melting ice and thermal expansion cause sea levels to rise, threatening the very existence of island nations. Ocean acidification undermines shellfish, plankton, and coral, the foundations of marine food webs.

In legal terms, this ecological reality translates into obligation. Protecting the ocean is not simply an act of environmental benevolence, it is integral to fulfilling states’ climate and human rights duties. As the ITLOS request argues, GHG emissions constitute a form of marine pollution under UNCLOS, a groundbreaking assertion that places ocean protection squarely within the framework of international law.

This linkage between the ocean and climate has also entered the public imagination. The recent documentary Ocean, featuring David Attenborough, has helped transform people’s perceptions of the ocean from a distant resource into a living system central to Earth’s stability. By documenting destructive practices previously hidden from public view, such as bottom trawling, the film brings into focus how “out of sight, out of mind” activities are degrading marine ecosystems. It illustrates how science and storytelling can converge with law, and shows that safeguarding the ocean is essential to sustaining life itself.

b) Advisory Opinions: Elevating Climate Beyond Politics

For decades, international climate action has been trapped in the realm of voluntary pledges, political negotiation, and uneven implementation. Under the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to substantially reduce GHG emissions to enable the long-term global average surface temperature increase to be kept well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. The advisory opinions offer an important reframing. They affirm that limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C is not just a policy goal but a legal requirement grounded in human rights, environmental law, and the law of the sea.

The IACHR request positions climate inaction as a violation of rights to life, health, food, and culture, especially for Indigenous and coastal communities. The ICJ request extends this reasoning globally, asking the Court to clarify how states’ obligations under existing law, such as the duty to prevent transboundary harm and to act with due diligence, apply to GHG emissions.

By treating climate protection as a duty, the resulting opinions could reshape how international law is interpreted and enforced. They strengthen the normative foundation for ambitious national policies—for example, the IACHR opinion marked the first time an international court recognized the Rights of Nature—and support domestic courts seeking to hold states and corporations accountable.

Equally important, they embed the principle of intergenerational justice, the idea that states owe a duty of care not only to present citizens but also to future generations. This is a moral and legal evolution long championed by youth activists and small island nations that face existential threats.

c) The Broader Influence: From Treaties to Transformation

The waves of consequences of these advisory opinions are likely to extend far beyond the courtroom. Their influence could reach into international negotiations, national policymaking, and the implementation of existing treaties.

At COP30 in Brazil and subsequent climate COPs, the opinions should encourage states to strengthen their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and align them with clarified legal obligations. NDCs, which represent each country’s self-determined climate action plan under the Paris Agreement, outline the measures through which states intend to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Such alignment would mark a significant shift in the tenor of international climate diplomacy, transforming it from a process based on voluntary ambition to one grounded in legal compliance and accountability.

They could also provide an incentive for countries to enhance their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. NBSAPs are national plans for protecting and sustainably managing biodiversity, setting country-specific targets and actions, and outlining how progress will be tracked. While NBSAPs focus on biodiversity and ecosystems, NDCs are centered on cutting greenhouse-gas emissions and adapting to climate change. By incorporating ocean protection measures into these strategies, states can demonstrate that biodiversity and climate are interconnected responsibilities rather than separate agendas.

In the negotiations for a Global Plastics Treaty, the opinions lend legal and moral weight to the argument that plastic pollution and GHG emissions are part of the same systemic challenge. Both originate largely from fossil fuel production and both undermine the health of the ocean. Recognizing this interconnection could amplify calls for a binding global commitment to phase out fossil-based plastics and reduce emissions across the plastics lifecycle.

Finally, the advisory opinions can guide the implementation of the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty (BBNJ), which has now been fully ratified and enters into force on January 17, 2026. They clarify how states’ obligations to protect marine biodiversity intersect with climate and human rights law. This guidance could shape conservation measures, benefit-sharing frameworks, and environmental impact assessments under the new treaty, ensuring that implementation aligns with broader principles of ocean stewardship and climate justice.

Taken together, these developments demonstrate that advisory opinions are not isolated exercises in legal interpretation. They are catalysts for transforming how the global community governs the relationship between people, the ocean, and the climate.

III. Oceans as a Legal and Ecological Anchor

The ITLOS advisory opinion request by COSIS represents a landmark shift. By framing GHGs as a form of marine pollution, ITLOS recognizes that climate change directly violates obligations under UNCLOS to protect and preserve the marine environment. This interpretation elevates ocean protection from a peripheral issue to the heart of global climate accountability.

Meanwhile, the IACHR and ICJ advisory proceedings expand the conversation by linking ocean degradation and climate harm to human rights violations. For millions of coastal and island residents, climate impacts are not abstract; they threaten homes, livelihoods, and cultural survival.

Beyond the courts, a growing movement is pushing to recognize the ocean as a rights-bearing entity. Earth Law Center’s Ocean Program, alongside global partners, advocates for a Universal Declaration of Ocean Rights by 2030. This initiative builds on existing Earth law principles that recognize ecosystems as subjects of law with inherent rights to exist, thrive, and regenerate.

Practical steps toward this vision include legal toolkits for recognizing ecosystem rights and campaigns like A Voice for the Deep, which elevate the perspective that the ocean is not property but a living system that sustains all life.

At the national level, countries from Ecuador to New Zealand have already embedded Rights of Nature into constitutional or statutory frameworks. These approaches complement the advisory opinions’ logic: if states have a duty to prevent harm to the environment for the sake of human rights, extending recognition to the rights of ecosystems themselves is simply the next step forward.

Together, these developments are driving a transformation from governing the ocean as a “resource” to acknowledging it as a legal and ecological community with intrinsic value and standing.

Conclusion: The Legal Wave for Ocean Care

Advisory opinions do not create new laws, and the danger remains that these recent landmark opinions will not achieve the conservation and humans rights effects we so desperately need. The opinions do, however, clarify and strengthen the ones we already have. They illuminate how existing human rights, environmental, and maritime obligations intersect, and they redefine climate and ocean protection as enforceable duties.

For advocates, policymakers, and courts, these opinions provide a powerful toolkit for accountability. They can inform stronger NDCs, reinforce biodiversity and plastics negotiations, and inspire domestic recognition of ecosystem rights.

Most importantly, they signal a deeper cultural shift. The law is beginning to echo what science and Indigenous worldviews have long communicated: the ocean is alive, and our fate is bound to its wellbeing.

This emerging legal wave is not just about compliance; it is about transformation. By grounding climate and ocean care in legal obligation and moral responsibility, the world’s courts are helping humanity take a historic step toward a truly Earth-centered governance system.

The ocean, once treated as the planet’s silent absorber of excess heat and harm, is now finding its voice in law. As that voice grows stronger, it calls us toward a future where care for the blue planet is our collective legal and ethical duty.

In a world of buying and selling at the highest price possible, we don’t often stop to think about the little gifts that surround us. Such reflection is exactly what bestselling author Robin Wall Kimmerer invites us to do in her most recent book, The Serviceberry: Abundance and Reciprocity in the Natural World.

Kimmerer is a professor of Environmental Biology at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York, a mother, a scientist, enrolled member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation, and an incredibly talented writer. Her book Braiding Sweetgrass, published in 2013 by a small publisher in Minneapolis, rode on the power of steady word-of-mouth recommendations to eventually become a bestseller, read and cherished by people across the globe. Her other works include Gathering Moss (2003) and The Democracy of Species (2021). Her most recent book, The Serviceberry, published in 2024, grew out of an essay published in Emergence Magazine in 2022. 

Serviceberries, the book’s protagonist and central metaphor, are a delicious little fruit native to North America. As anyone who's ever tried them would know, they are a gift. The Serviceberry is a delightful book filled with gifts of its own. The book builds on many of the ideas in Braiding Sweetgrass, which applies Indigenous knowledge and ideas about reciprocity to ecology and science. In The Serviceberry, Kimmerer expands these notions to consider abundance and reciprocity in relation to scarcity in economics. 

In a little over 100 pages, including several beautiful illustrations by John Burgoyne, Kimmerer explores what it would mean to practice a gift economy in the United States, and especially in the context of tight knit communities. She does not shy away from acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of our current economic system and gift economies alike. 

What Is a Gift Economy?

To Kimmerer, a gift economy is one in which we do not reduce the things that we use—food, textiles, tools, books, and so on—to their simple monetary value, and instead remain aware of their inherent value as parts of the Earth. Building on Charles Eisenstein's book Sacred Economics, she writes, “A gift economy includes a system of social reciprocity, rather than a direct exchange.” She argues that “gratitude and reciprocity are the currency of a gift economy, and they have a remarkable property of multiplying with every exchange, their energy concentrating as they pass from hand to hand, a truly renewable resource.” 

Kimmerer’s understanding of a gift economy also connects to Lewis Hyde's in The Gift, which includes that monetizing works of art can have the effect of diminishing their value in other, perhaps more important ways. Kimmerer expresses this understanding by saying, for example, that a large portion of the benefits of a gift economy come from the relationships they create and sustain. Hyde writes, “[A] gift exchange tends to be an economy of small groups, of extended families, small villages, close knit communities,” and Kimmerer emphasizes that gift economies are possible in these spaces because of the trust established within them. While the term “gift economy” has been used by many writers, essential to Kimmerer’s argument is that there is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to alternative economic models, because they already exist within many Indigenous cultures and knowledge systems.

Topics and Themes in The Serviceberry

Kimmerer begins The Serviceberry by telling a story of her joy as she picks serviceberries from a neighbor’s bush along with the birds and considers all of the possible uses she has for the delicious berries. She describes them as tasting like “a blueberry crossed with the satisfying heft of an apple, a touch of rosewater, and a minuscule crunch of almond-flavored seeds.”

As she considers the serviceberries’ roles in her life, she explores their many names in different languages, including Saskatoon, Juneberry, and their Potawatomi name, Bozakmin, which translates to “the best of berries.” She writes that the root word min appears in many other words for food, and is also the root word for gift. In this way, the Potawatomi language has long recognized the inherent gifts of the Earth in the form of food. “If our first response to the receipt of gifts is gratitude,” writes Kimmerer, “then our second is reciprocity: to give a gift in return.”

She discusses why and how serviceberries are able to offer abundance in so many ways: providing pollen and fruit for the bees and the birds respectively, serviceberries also ensure their own survival. This connects to her work as a biologist, in that the relationship between serviceberries and bees is a mutually beneficial one, something she has seen widely in her study of Nature. She contrasts this state affairs to that seen so commonly in groups of people. In a Western worldview, creating more than what you need is associated with overconsumption and waste, whereas for Nature, creating abundance means having gifts in which excess is shared.

In the next section of the book, Kimmerer explores the capitalist concept “scarcity” in contrast to the abundance created within a gift economy. Here, she introduces ideas from Lewis Hyde’s The Gift regarding the “problem” of dealing with abundance. The linguist Daniel Everrett, discussed by Hyde, asks a hunter from a community in the Brazilian rainforest what he will do with excess meat, to which the hunter says, “I store my meat in the belly of my brother.” Later on in the book, Kimmerer likens this idea to the birds eating the abundant serviceberries, and thereby the serviceberries storing themselves in the belly of their brother. Kimmerer argues, “In a gift economy wealth is understood as having enough to share, and the practice for dealing with abundance is to give it away.” Drawing on Rebecca Solnit’s A Paradise Built in Hell, Kimmerer also points out that in times of crisis, humans come together, and people with plenty give to those in need. She further discusses the Honorable Harvest, an Indigenous idea that she introduces in Braiding Sweetgrass, which outlines how to harvest “with restraint, respect, reverence, and reciprocity.”

It is clear, then, that many cultures and societies practice gift economies, and yet she emphasizes that economic theorists too often still believe that the “rational economic man” is a “greedy, isolated individual acting purely in self-interest to maximize return on investment.” She goes on to demonstrate the many ways in which people care for each other in reciprocity, with examples like free swaps on college campuses, and even online tools such for sharing recipes and skills on social media so that other people can benefit.

Kimmerer differentiates between true and artificial forms of scarcity. In her view, true scarcity isn’t typically created by economies but by events like drought. She argues that while the capitalist economies create artificial scarcity, they also create true scarcity because of perpetual growth that is characterized by over consumption and that despoils ecosystems around the globe. Cleverly naming the billionaires who contribute to scarcity and to environmental destruction “Darrens,” after the EXXON Mobil CEO Darren Woods, Kimmerer puts a face and a name to such exploitation. She argues that this “small number of individuals” who created and continue to perpetuate “the System” that the Western world (and by default, much of the rest of the world) must live by are tremendously powerful. Importantly, Kimmerer argues that “Darrens” knowingly commit ecocide.

Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of gift economies, Kimmerer notes that an obvious strength is that they build and reinforce community because of their inherent orientation toward sharing. One of their weaknesses, however, is that gift economies rely on trust, which severely complicates their implementation in larger settings like modern cities and complex, geographically extended societies. For this reason, she concedes that while gift economies are incredibly beneficial, and could be implemented alongside a capitalist economy, they are unlikely to ever fully replace it. Gift economies are about communities caring for each other without expecting anything in return—and yet, being able to trust that if, down the line, they have a need, that need will be met by others in their community. 

Do Kimmerer’s Ideas Apply to Earth Law?

In an interview with Yale Environment, Kimmerer discussed the Rights of Nature, specifically the rights of the Whanganui River, which in 2017 was “declared a legal person with fundamental rights” in Aoteroa New Zealand. She said:

“The notion that a river, who the Maori consider to be their ancestor, should have rights of self-determination, that the river ought to decide whether it’s going to be dammed or whether it’s okay to spew toxins into it, oughtn’t the river to have a voice? So rights of nature is an acknowledgement and pathway to hearing the voices of self-determination by other beings who have an intrinsic right to live their lives. And I’m very excited about it. To me, the rights-of-nature movement is a political and legal flowering of this notion of kin-centric relations and the intelligence of nature.

I do have some questions, though, in that rights of nature is very much framed in Western legal frameworks. Whereas in my experience, what we’re really talking about is not much rights but mutual responsibilities. So I have a little reluctance in centering Western legal thinking rather than sort of a reciprocal justice framing.”

The ideas of mutual responsibility and reciprocity are essential to the gift economy described in The Serviceberry, and they can be more fully woven into the nascent and growing field of Earth Jurisprudence. In ecocentric law, it is essential that humans recognize themselves as one part of a whole ecosystem, and practice respect and reciprocity within that ecosystem. If gift economies depend on abundance and create community and trust, can ecocentric law find ways to acknowledge and respect the currencies that flow within a gift economy?

Celebrating the 34th year of the River Ethiope Trust Foundation, as well as the fourth anniversary of the Stakeholders Declaration for River Ethiope Rights, the week featured events to raise public awareness about the rights of River Ethiope through community storytelling, arts, clean-up drives, and educational activities. It celebrated the spiritual and ecological value of the river and sought to foster deeper community connections.

This year’s theme for World Rivers Day was “Clean Rivers, Healthy Communities,” and an opening ceremony was held at the offices of the Federal Ministry of Water Resources and Sanitation in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria.

“Protecting our rivers is safeguarding our health, livelihoods, and economy,” said Professor Joseph Terlumun Utsev, FNSE, the Honourable Minister of Water Resources and Sanitation.

In a goodwill message, Mr. Dafe applauded Nigeria’s rich network of rivers while also warning of threats such as pollution, deforestation, and climate change. He called for stronger water governance, river restoration, environmental enforcement, and sustained public education, stressing that the health of Nigeria’s rivers reflects the health of its people, economy, and environment.

Mr. Dafe will host a two-day capacity-building workshop for members of the River Ethiope Guardian Council (REGC) in early November. This workshop will provide intensive training on environmental legal rights, guardianship responsibilities, ecological monitoring, and Indigenous knowledge systems. It aims to empower REGC members with the tools and legal understanding necessary to protect River Ethiope in line with Earth law principles.

In addition to the ongoing campaign for ecological health and legal personhood for the River Ethiope, Mr. Dafe is launching the “Save Katampe Mountain and Waterfalls Abuja” initiative, promoting a Rights of Nature framework, as well as research and restoration efforts for this beautiful area that lies at the geographic center of Nigeria. This new campaign aims to initiate public and policy advocacy for the recognition and protection of Katampe Mountain and Waterfalls as a natural sacred site. A launch event on October 24, 2025 includes a public hike, community dialogue, and campaign branding.

To learn more about Earth Law Center Africa, please visit the Africa Program page.

As a response to intensifying climate risks, biodiversity loss, and increased scrutiny of corporate accountability, businesses are now reconsidering their governance structures. Historically, corporate governance has prioritized the profits of shareholders, often neglecting, or even coming at the expense of, ecological sustainability. However, the integration of Nature as a stakeholder within corporate decision-making is emerging as both a responsible and strategic move. The Nature Governance Agency (NGA), a program of Earth Law Center (ELC), is helping organizations embed Nature’s voice into governance through practical legal tools, learning facilitation, and tailored ecological training.

What You Need to Know

• Nature can be formally represented in the boardroom and decision-making through the appointment of a Nature “proxy”—a human being designated to represent the interests of Nature, to advocate for Nature’s rights, and to promote the agency of Nature as her voice.

• Corporate governance documents (e.g., bylaws, operating agreements, or nomination policies) can be amended to explicitly recognize Nature as a stakeholder and to formally grant her rights (e.g., right to vote).

• Listening to Nature’s voice in corporate settings can become standard business practice, ensuring environmental impacts are systematically considered in corporate decisions as we strive for regeneration over merely sustainability.

• Ecological literacy and leadership training helps to create an organizational culture committed to environmental accountability and complementing structural governance reforms.

The Big Picture: Why Incorporate Nature into Corporate Governance?

Incorporating Nature into governance structures and practices represents a foundational shift in corporate personhood, which can create powerful ripple effects in corporate strategy and responsibility. For much of history, organizations have evaluated their success primarily through economic growth and shareholder returns. However, mounting evidence shows that corporate longevity, resilience, and even profitability are increasingly tied to environmental stewardship and a decentering of shareholder profit. Research demonstrates, for example, that robust environmental practices positively correlate with long-term corporate performance and stability (Clark et al., 2014; Friede, Busch & Bassen, 2015). 

The Onboarding Nature Toolkit, developed by B Lab Benelux (BLB), ELC, and Nyenrode Business University, outlines four models for incorporating Nature into corporate governance: 

• Nature as Inspiration 

• Nature as Stakeholder 

• Nature as Board Advisor

• Nature as Director 

Through the Nature Governance Agency, ELC has already supported organizations in implementing these models in practice. One such example is, with our partner Lawyers for Nature, helping the UK-based natural products company Faith in Nature amend its Articles of Association to appoint Nature as a Board Director with equal voting rights to other members—a historic step that it took in late 2022. The Toolkit, as well as NGA as a whole, offer organizations a step-by-step process to governance with ecological responsibility. 

Investors, stakeholders, and regulators are collectively starting to recognize the interdependence of ecological health and business success. Companies that proactively integrate Nature within governance position themselves to increase their resilience, reduce their risks, and improve their stakeholder relationships.

Nature on the Board: Appointing a Nature Proxy / Earth Trustee

One way to structurally embed Nature into corporate governance is by appointing a formal representative for Nature on corporate boards, a role termed “Nature Proxy.” This position can be filled by an environmental scientist, Earth law practitioner, Indigenous ecological knowledge holder, sustainability expert, or anyone who wishes to fulfill the role of speaking for, with, and as Nature. This role can then be supported by a network of other proxies and knowledge holders to allow for the flow of wisdom into decision-making spaces. 

This representative’s role is not merely symbolic. It comes with duties and fiduciary responsibilities. A Nature Proxy is empowered to raise questions about decisions, highlight environmental risks, propose ecologically responsible policies, and hold fiduciary responsibility to the organization. Companies have already experimented successfully with stakeholder representation models, including community voices or sustainability officers, suggesting that formally representing Nature is both feasible and strategically beneficial. 

Organizations such as Faith in Nature and US-based Patagonia, which created a Nature as Shareholder role, are pioneers of the growing movement to onboard Nature as a Stakeholder. Another standout example is Tony’s Chocolonely, which adopted a Golden Shareholder model. Under this innovative approach, Tony’s Chocolonely granted a special "Golden Share" to an independent foundation (Tony’s Mission Lock) explicitly tasked with safeguarding the company’s ethical mission, which includes environmental sustainability. The foundation holds veto rights over crucial business decisions that may negatively impact the company's mission-driven objectives, thereby structurally embedding ecological and social responsibility into corporate governance. Giving Nature a “seat on the board” isn’t done at the expense of profits and traditional corporate gains; it’s a win-win scenario in which everyone (including our planet) wins.  

Three Additional Methods to Incorporate Nature in Corporate Governance

1. Amend Governance Documents to Recognize Nature’s Rights

Companies can explicitly recognize Nature as a rights-bearing entity in foundational corporate documents such as bylaws, operating agreements, or corporate charters. These clauses formally acknowledge the organization’s responsibility to protect and regenerate ecosystems impacted by its operations. Although these amendments may not always create enforceable legal obligations, they establish norms and guidelines for corporate decision-making. 

NGA has supported organizations in implementing the Toolkit’s Nature as Inspiration and Nature as Stakeholder models by providing guidance through charter revisions, such as with Faith in Nature. Such clauses align with the international Rights of Nature movement, which has achieved legal wins in jurisdictions including Ecuador,  Spain, New Zealand, and several US municipalities (Kauffman & Martin, 2017).

2. Institutionalize Ecological Impact Assessments

Another method involves the routine use of Ecological Impact Assessments (EIAs). EIAs systematically identify, evaluate, and manage ecological risks associated with corporate activities. These assessments ensure environmental considerations are formally and regularly integrated into the decision-making process, from strategic planning at the board level to everyday operations.

While EIAs are a key tool, they are part of a much broader field of Nature-based practices that should be adopted and bolstered across corporate systems. These can include (but are not limited to) regenerative land use, biodiversity stewardship, ecosystem restoration, and Nature-positive procurement strategies. Maximizing the impact of these practices requires strategic alignment and organizational support.

The Toolkit emphasizes that embedding Nature into corporate governance requires going beyond compliance-driven EIAs and moving toward a model of Nature-positive accountability across functions.  NGA’s approach has the potential to complement these practices by helping organizations move from reactive environmental assessments to proactive and holistic ecological integration across various operations. 

3. Build Ecological Literacy and Leadership Through Training

Structural governance changes should be complemented with a parallel cultural shift that everyone in an organization can get behind. Training, guidance, and facilitation centered around deepening ecological literacy, promoting Earth-centered ethics, and embedding Nature's voice into everyday practice have the potential to build the strong foundational knowledge-base and skillset necessary for effective governance.

As detailed in the Toolkit, onboarding Nature requires internal mapping and assessment of current practices, stakeholder engagement, and participatory workshops. NGA facilitates this onboarding through visioning sessions, theory of change co-design, and reflective leadership training. This includes guided dialogue around values, accountability, and emotional connection to place and ecosystem. 

Such training includes working within NGA’s process for onboarding Nature and creatively engaging in visioning and mapping a theory of change around the legal elements. This training helps to foster emotional connections and deeper understandings of ecological issues, which research has linked to greater organizational adaptability, stakeholder trust, and long-term resilience (Kanter, 2011). Being a steward of Earth is much easier when one understands the gravity and impact of their actions and their personal and organizational role as a part of Nature, as opposed to following a checklist of tasks.  

Conclusion

Embedding Nature into corporate governance is not merely symbolic. It is a critical shift in business responsibilities toward the ecological foundations of a more inclusive and regenerative future. Companies embracing these structural and cultural changes today not only safeguard ecological health but also proactively secure their long-term viability, resilience, and stakeholder trust, ultimately putting themselves ahead of competitors that may be less inclined to adapt. 

For more on the legal foundations and strategy behind Nature-inclusive governance, see the complementary Litepaper developed by ELC’s Nature Governance Agency. 

Definitions

• Nature Proxy: A formally designated representative who advocates specifically for Nature's interests in corporate decision-making.

• Rights of Nature: Legal frameworks recognizing ecosystems or natural features (like rivers and forests) as rights-bearing entities, allowing their interests to be represented legally and politically.

• Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA): Structured evaluations identifying potential ecological impacts associated with proposed corporate actions, analogous to financial risk assessments.

• Ecological Literacy: Understanding ecological processes, interconnections between human and natural systems, and the principles underlying ecosystem health and resilience.

References

• Clark, G. L., Feiner, A., & Viehs, M. (2014). From the Stockholder to the Stakeholder. University of Oxford.

• B Lab Benelux, Earth Law Center & Nyenrode Business University. (2024). Nature Governance Toolkit. Earth Law Center

• Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment.

• Kauffman, C. M., & Martin, P. L. (2017). Can Rights of Nature Make Development More Sustainable? World Development.

• Kanter, R. M. (2011). How Great Companies Think Differently. Harvard Business Review.

By Darcy Hitchcock

Lough Neagh (the Anglicized version of the Irish name, Loch nEachach, pronounced “lock nay,”) is the largest lake in the United Kingdom, an important resource for drinking water and the local fishing and farming economies.

But it’s in trouble.

Raw sewage and agricultural runoff have harmed the lake. In 2023 and 2024, the cyanobacteria algae blooms were so bad, they could be seen from space. International media picked up the demonstrations, mock funereal wakes for the lough, and the biodiversity loss.

Spurred by the crisis, a coalition of Earth law experts (principally Lawyers for Nature, Earth Law Center, Queen’s University Belfast School of Law, and a corporate law advisor from Pillsbury) outlined several options for the community, including transfer pathways that would result in the lough’s self ownership. 

The situation is complicated. The bed and soil is owned by Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, the 12th Earl of Shaftesbury. Historically, sewage has been piped into the lake, a practice only allowed through Crown immunity. Farming practices also have contributed to the excessive nutrients. The Earl has expressed an openness to transfer the bed and soil to a charity or similar private ownership, but not without compensation. He has said:

“I have always understood the sensitivities of my ownership in Northern Ireland. Since inheriting in 2005, I have repeatedly stated my willingness to explore different options for ownership as part of ongoing efforts to ensure a secure and sustainable future for Lough Neagh. . . . I would like to transfer the ownership of the Shaftesbury Estate of Lough Neagh Ltd into a charity or community trust model, with Rights of Nature included, as I think that this could be the best way to support the long-term future of Lough Neagh.”

The lough’s situation thus presents a remarkable opportunity to explore the creative development of private law as it relates to the Rights of Nature.

Three Possible Earth Law Solutions

In the case of Lough Neagh, momentum is building toward the creation of a citizens’ assembly, intended to provide important direction regarding the community’s evolving relationship with the lough.

If it comes to pass, the citizens’ assembly will be an important step forward in establishing the lough’s legal situation going forward. Such an assembly, however, is just one among many ways to promote innovative ecocentric governance structures. In its memorandum, the coalition identifies three Earth law solutions that could be applied to virtually any body of water:

• Legal personhood. Recognizing a water body as a living, sacred entity that owns itself allows it to fight for its rights. A legal guardianship body represents the river or lake’s interests in law, policy, and public hearings. While this is the strongest option legally, it requires legislative or constitutional reform to allow an ecosystem to have personhood.

• Set up a Nature Guardianship Company or Trust. Private law can be used in situations when the national or regional laws do not recognize the Rights of Nature. The stakeholders in and around a water body can form a company or trust to legally own it and then incorporate Earth law principles and practices into their governance. To be successful in creating a holistic, just transition, private law mechanisms will also rely on third party experts such as Involve (a public participation charity).

• Approve non-binding resolutions or declarations. This option provides the weakest legal protection but can still be meaningful. The regional government or local body can approve a resolution declaring that a water body has legal rights and propose a process for governance. These declarations can enhance public awareness of the issues and build a platform for future legal reforms.

How Can I Help?

Earth Law Center (ELC) will continue to support ecocentric legal innovation for Lough Neagh as legal advisors, sharing best practices, resources, and international networks. You can support ELC’s work with the lough, and advocating for the rights of ecosystems around the world, by following our work or donating.

By Aitana Rosas Linhard and Earth Law Center

On July 3, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its historic Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, declaring that the climate crisis has escalated into a “climate emergency” and affirming for the first time that States have clear obligations under human rights law to confront it. The opinion also marked the first time an international court has formally recognized Nature as a subject of rights.

Just weeks after the IACtHR issued its opinion, the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) released its own advisory opinion about climate change. The request, brought forward by a group led by the small Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, was for the Court to define States’ obligations to prevent climate change. In response, the ICJ declared that climate change is an “existential threat”—similar to the IACtHR’s declaration of a “climate emergency”—and affirmed that States’ failures to take action to protect the climate system could be violations of international law. 

July 2025 thus saw two major supranational courts release landmark opinions that signal meaningful progress in mobilizing international law to confront the climate crisis. And the IACtHR went a step further by explicitly recognizing the Rights of Nature, marking a significant development in ecocentric jurisprudence.

In this blog post, we explore the IACtHR’s recognition of the Rights of Nature (including pertinent excerpts from the opinion), the Court’s role in international law, the key 2017 precedent it set building to this recent advisory opinion, and how its landmark incorporation of the Rights of Nature might influence future decisions by States and other courts. (For more on the ICJ ruling, check out this Inside Climate News article.)

Rights of Nature in the IACtHR advisory opinion

The IACtHR’s advisory opinion came in response to a joint request from Chile and Colombia, two countries increasingly vulnerable to the devastating effects of climate change, including floods, droughts, landslides, and fires. Their request sought legal clarity on States’ responsibilities in confronting these escalating ecological threats. 

The opinion, spanning over 200 pages, sets out a detailed interpretation of States’ legal duties to prevent, mitigate, and address the impacts of climate change. Grounding the protection of the environment in States’ legal responsibility to protect the rights of their inhabitants, the opinion frames the climate crisis in part as a human rights obligation rather than merely an issue of politics and policy. Drawing on principles of international human rights law, it synthesizes legal principles with fundamental human rights, integrating concepts such as sustainable development and planetary boundaries, and, for the first time, affirming the Rights of Nature.

Here are the critical excerpts (Section B.1.2. and paragraph 315) from the body of the opinion that address Earth jurisprudence and the Rights of Nature—citations are here omitted, please visit the original opinion to see them for greater understanding of the Court’s sources.

THE COURT . . . IS OF THE OPINION

By a vote of four in favour and three against, that:

7. The recognition of Nature and its components as subjects of rights is a normative development that reinforces the protection of the integrity and functionality of ecosystems in the long term, providing effective legal tools in the face of the triple global crisis and facilitating the prevention of existential damage before it becomes irreversible. This conception represents a contemporary manifestation of the principle of interdependence between human rights and the environment, and reflects a growing trend at the international level to strengthen the protection of ecological systems from present and future threats, in accordance with paragraphs 279-286.

. . .

B.1.2. The protection of Nature as a subject of rights

279. Ecosystems are complex and interdependent systems, in which each component plays an essential role for the stability and continuity of the whole. Degradation or alteration of these elements can cause cascading negative effects that affect both other species and humans as part of these systems. Recognition of Nature's right to maintain its essential ecological processes contributes to the consolidation of a truly sustainable development model that respects planetary boundaries and ensures the availability of vital resources for present and future generations. Moving towards a paradigm that recognises the rights of ecosystems is essential for the long-term protection of their integrity and functionality, and provides coherent and effective legal tools in the face of the triple planetary crisis to prevent existential damage before it becomes irreversible.

280. This recognition makes it possible to overcome inherited legal conceptions that conceived of nature exclusively as an object of property or an exploitable resource. Recognising nature as a subject of rights also implies making visible its structural role in the vital balance of the conditions that make the habitability of the planet possible. This approach strengthens a paradigm centred on protecting the ecological conditions essential for life and empowers local communities and indigenous peoples, who have historically been the guardians of ecosystems and possess deep traditional knowledge about their functioning.

281. The Court further emphasizes that this approach is fully compatible with the general obligations to adopt domestic law provisions (Article 2 common to the American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador), as well as with the principle of progressivity that governs the realization of economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (Article 26 of the Convention and Article 2 of the Protocol of San Salvador). Indeed, the protection of Nature, as a collective subject of public interest, provides an enabling framework for States - and other relevant actors - to advance in the construction of a global normative system oriented towards sustainable development. Such a system is essential to preserve the conditions that sustain life on the planet and to ensure a dignified and healthy environment, indispensable for the realisation of human rights. This understanding is consistent with a harmonious interpretation of the pro-nature and pro-person principles.

282. Likewise, the Court recalls that, according to Article 29 of the American Convention, the interpretation of the rights protected in the inter-American system must be guided by an evolutionary perspective, in line with the progressive development of international human rights law. In this sense, the recognition of Nature as a subject of rights does not introduce a content alien to the inter-American corpus iuris, but rather represents a contemporary manifestation of the principle of interdependence between human rights and the environment. This interpretation is also in line with advances in international environmental law, which has affirmed structural principles such as intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle and the duty of prevention, all of which are aimed at preserving the integrity of ecosystems in the face of current and future threats.

283. From this understanding, the Court underlines that States must not only refrain from acting in ways that cause significant environmental harm, but have a positive obligation to adopt measures to ensure the protection, restoration and regeneration of ecosystems (infra paras. 364-367 and 559). These measures must be consistent with the best available science and recognise the value of traditional, local and indigenous knowledge. They must also be guided by the principle of non-retrogression and ensure full procedural rights (supra para. 240 and infra paras. 468, 478 and 480).

284. The Court highlights the efforts made at the international level to promote an inclusive approach to the protection of nature. In this regard, it notes that the 1982 World Charter for Nature affirms that "[t]he human species is part of nature and life depends on the uninterrupted functioning of natural systems which are a source of energy and nutritive materials", and that "[e]very form of life is unique and deserves to be respected, whatever its usefulness to man and in order to recognise the intrinsic value of other living beings, man must be guided by a code of moral action". This instrument also states that "[n]ature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be disturbed". For its part, the Convention on Biological Diversity recognises in its preamble the "intrinsic value of biological diversity and the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components". Further to this Convention, the Kunming-Montreal Global Framework for Biological Diversity states that "[b]oth nature and nature's contributions to people are essential to human existence and a good quality of life [. . .]". Likewise, the Court underlines that the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity in Areas beyond National Jurisdiction has as one of its purposes to ensure "the sound management of the ocean in areas beyond national jurisdiction, on behalf of present and future generations [. . .] conserving the inherent value of biological diversity".

285. This Court notes the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of fifteen resolutions and thirteen reports evidencing the growing recognition of Earth jurisprudence and the rights of Nature at the global level. Complementarily, the Compact for the Future adopted by UN Member States in 2024 declares "the urgent need for a fundamental change in [their] approach in order to achieve a world in which humanity lives in harmony with nature".

286. Finally, the Court observes a growing normative and jurisprudential trend that recognises Nature as a subject of rights. This trend is reflected in judicial decisions at the regional and global levels, as well as in the domestic legal systems of various countries in the Americas, such as Canada, Ecuador, in some states of the United States of America, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Panama, and Peru.

. . .

315. Thus understood, the right to a healthy climate projects its effectiveness not only on current and future generations of human beings, but also on Nature, as the physical and biological sustenance of life. The protection of the global climate system requires safeguarding the integrity of ecosystems and the living and non-living components that make up and sustain them. In turn, the preservation of climatic conditions compatible with life is essential to maintain the balance and functionality of these ecosystems. This reciprocal interdependence between climate stability and ecological balance reinforces the need for an integrative legal approach, capable of articulating the protection of human rights and the rights of Nature in a normative framework consistent with the harmonious interpretation of the pro persona and pro natura principles (supra para. 281).

Nestled within an opinion concerned with tackling the climate crisis, this fulsome recognition of the Rights of Nature is a notable victory for the Earth law movement. 

Before further exploring this opinion, including how it attempts to balance the right to development, other human rights, and the Rights of Nature, we next look at the place the IACtHR holds in international human rights jurisprudence as well as the key precedent on which this new advisory opinion builds.

What is the Inter-American Court of Human Rights?

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court) is one of the world’s three major regional human rights tribunals, alongside the European and African human rights courts. Based in San José, Costa Rica, it serves as the judicial organ of the Organization of American States (OAS), a regional body founded in 1948 to promote peace, justice, and cooperation across the Americas.

The Court, together with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, is tasked with ensuring State compliance with the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), also known as the Pact of San José. As stated in its preamble, the ACHR was created “to consolidate in this hemisphere, within the framework of democratic institutions, a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man.” This foundational treaty commits States to respect, protect, and fulfill a wide range of civil, political, social, and cultural rights. 

The Court exercises contentious (dispute-resolving) and precautionary (preventive) powers. Yet it is a third category of issuances, its non-binding advisory opinions, that have in particular become powerful tools for legal innovation. These opinions guide national courts, lawmakers, and civil society in advancing rights-based approaches to urgent regional and global challenges, including climate change. The Court has exercised significant influence on the application and implementation of constitutional law across Latin America, particularly through its progressive interpretation of the ACHR.

The 2025 opinion’s key precedent: IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-23/17

The Court is no stranger to addressing environmental issues from a human rights perspective. In 2017, it issued Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, a foundational decision that laid the groundwork for an evolving climate jurisprudence. The opinion, requested by Colombia, concerned how new infrastructure projects would negatively affect the marine environment of the wider Caribbean Region, and, by extension, human life. Colombia also asked the Court for clarification regarding how the ACHR should be interpreted in conjunction with other environmental treaties, such as the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean Region.

Although the request stemmed from Colombia’s location-specific concern, the Court broadened its interpretation, acknowledging that environmental degradation poses a serious threat to the rights of individuals everywhere. 

The ruling reads, in part:

“The Court considers it important to stress that, as an autonomous right, the right to a healthy environment, unlike other rights, protects the components of the environment, such as forests, rivers and seas, as legal interests in themselves, even in the absence of the certainty or evidence of a risk to individuals. This means that it protects nature and the environment, not only because of the benefits they provide to humanity or the effects that their degradation may have on other human rights, such as health, life or personal integrity, but because of their importance to the other living organisms with which we share the planet that also merit protection in their own right. In this regard, the Court notes a tendency, not only in court judgments, but also in Constitutions, to recognize legal personality and, consequently, rights to nature . . . .

Furthermore, in the specific case of indigenous and tribal communities, the Court has ruled on the obligation to protect their ancestral territories owing to the relationship that such lands have with their cultural identity, a fundamental human right of a collective nature that must be respected in a multicultural, pluralist and democratic society.”

OC-23/17 thus became one of the Court’s first explicit assertions that States have human rights obligations to prevent environmental harm. Specifically, it recognized the human right to a healthy environment and presaged its future support for the Rights of Nature. The advisory opinion established a range of obligations States have to ensure within and beyond their territory, including: 

• Regulating, supervising, and monitoring activities within their jurisdiction that could cause significant environmental harm

• Conducting environmental impact assessments when projects pose a significant risk of environmental harm to ecosystems or communities

• Preparing contingency plans to minimize the likelihood of major environmental accidents and mitigate any damage

• Mitigating existing environmental damage

• Acting in accordance with the precautionary principle by protecting the rights to life and personal integrity, regardless of the existence scientific certainty that there is a plausible risk of serious harm

• Cooperating in good faith with other States to ensure protection against significant transboundary harm to environments

• Notifying other potentially affected States about planned activities that could result in transboundary harm

• Ensuring the right to public participation in decision-making, and the right of access to justice in environmental matters.

In this progressive advisory opinion, the Court affirmed that Nature holds intrinsic value independent of its utility to human beings. Although the opinion’s language left the Court at one remove from fully endorsing Rights of Nature (“the Court notes a tendency . . . to recognize legal personality and, consequently, rights to nature” [emphasis added]), it nevertheless has served as a key endorsement for the Rights of Nature movement, providing judges, lawyers, and advocates with a highly relevant legal instrument to promote progressive interpretations in the region’s courts. These include the recognition of the Rights of Nature and the effective application of principles such as precaution and prevention.

Did the 2017 advisory opinion inspire real change in subsequent cases?

In a landmark 2020 decision in Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina, the IACtHR held that Argentina had violated several interdependent rights of Indigenous communities, including their rights to a healthy environment, community property, cultural identity, food, and water. It was the first time in a contentious case that the Court recognized these rights autonomously under Article 26 of the American Convention, which obliges States to progressively realize economic, social, and cultural rights. Drawing heavily from its earlier Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, the Court established that the right to a healthy environment protects ecosystems such as forests and rivers not only for their utility to humans but also as entities of intrinsic value. The Court ordered Argentina to adopt specific reparations, including access to food and water, recovery of forest resources, and restoration of Indigenous cultural practices.

Another concrete example is the 2024 ruling that recognizes the Marañón River (Peru) as a subject of rights. In that case, the Peruvian court explicitly invoked Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 as part of its legal reasoning, reaffirming the decisive impact of the Court’s interpretation of the ACHR.

Ultimately, Colombia’s request for Advisory Opinion OC-23/17, which initially concerned local marine development and the obligations of the State to confront climate change, was successful in advancing its own environmental jurisprudence. In Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment and Others, the Colombian Supreme Court recognized the Colombian Amazon as a subject of rights. A group of youth plaintiffs argued that State inaction on deforestation and climate change violated their constitutional rights to a healthy environment. Drawing on reasoning set forward in the 2017 Advisory Opinion, the Court ordered the government to implement short, medium, and long-term action plans to protect the Amazon, and to create an “Intergenerational Pact for the Life of the Colombian Amazon” in consultation with affected communities, climate scientists, research groups, and plaintiffs. However, the pact has yet to be created, and efforts to do so appear to be stalled.

Despite the important precedent set by the 2017 advisory opinion, the intervening years have made it clear that even stronger measures and more expansive legal frameworks are needed to address the climate emergency. Recognizing the right to a healthy environment is an increasingly popular legal strategy, as evidenced by the rise of “Green Amendments” in state constitutions across the United States and the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion. However, recognizing this critical and fundamental right may not be sufficient in the face of escalating ecological collapse. The continued inability of anthropocentric legal frameworks to adequately address planetary environmental crises has contributed to the developmental momentum of alternative ecocentric approaches.

The IACtHR’s 2025 advisory opinion reflects this shift from a focus on environmental protection for the sake of humans to the protection of Nature for its intrinsic value. Though the opinion also retains language on people’s economic rights, it affirms Nature as worthy of legal protection to a degree never before seen by an international court.

Rights of Nature in the context of the 2025 advisory opinion

Requested by Chile and Colombia, the Court’s 2025 advisory opinion regarding climate change emerges in a time of intensifying global climate pressures. As record-breaking floods sweep through unprepared regions, and rising temperatures spike heat-related death tolls, many people—and especially high percentages of youth—are terrified of what the future holds. Humans feel their fundamental right to a healthy environment has been violated and that the biosphere itself is a victim of unprecedented risks. In such a context, what difference will the IACtHR opinion make? 

In their joint request, Chile and Colombia asked the Court to clarify how the ACHR obliges member States to respond to climate change. Framing climate change as a threat to fundamental human rights, the opinion outlines States’ obligations to mitigate GHG emissions, regulate corporate activities, create climate impact assessments for proposed projects, and actively work to protect ecosystems.

The prevailing issue addressed in the opinion is the climate emergency, which the Court situates within the context of the “triple planetary crisis” of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. It outlines the causes of climate change and its current and potential impacts, assesses international responses, and explores related domestic regulatory developments in OAS member States. A significant portion of the text aims to resolve why the current context should be understood as a “climate emergency” requiring immediate action. 

In addition to recognizing that environmental degradation constitutes a violation of human rights, the Court affirms the human right to “participate in, contribute to and enjoy development” (paragraphs 211, 243, 370). It clarifies that such development must be sustainable, defined by a balance between the social dimension, economic growth, and environmental protection.

Notably, the Court frames both the right to a healthy environment and the right to development as fundamental. Yet in practice, these rights often stand in opposition. Development has historically come at the expense of wild ecosystems, and environmental protection is frequently sidelined in the name of economic progress. By affirming both as fundamental rights, the Court mandates States to reconcile economic development with the protection of Nature under a unified legal framework. Its direct affirmation of the Rights of Nature helps give greater credence to Nature as part of this balance, suggesting a reimagining of what development means in the face of the climate emergency.

The opinion’s recognition of the intrinsic legal value of ecosystems opens the door to increased recognition of the autonomy of rivers, forests, and other natural entities.

As seen in the excerpts above, the Court notes the UN General Assembly’s growing attention to and interest in the Rights of Nature, observes its growth as a “normative and jurisprudential trend” at the regional and global levels and in domestic legal systems. It articulates that the interests of humans and the interests of Nature must now be reconciled within a unified legal framework. Though the tension is not yet resolved, the advisory opinion legally recognizes the necessity of this integration. 

The IACtHR’s explicit recognition of the Rights of Nature will hopefully stimulate the creation of an adequate legal framework in which a stable global climate system, thriving ecosystems, humans' right to a healthy environment, and development in harmony with nature can each be achieved. The Court stressed the need for a sustainable development model, as defined by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, where human activity is harmonious with the ecological limitations of the planet. Following this claim, the Court writes, “This requires adopting a systemic and integrating perspective, which is seen as an essential element for the protection of the right to a healthy climate” (paragraph 316). 

While sustainable development has often been framed in terms of balancing economic growth with responsible resource use, an ecocentric legal approach brings a concurring perspective that reinterprets development through the lens of Nature’s intrinsic value. Rather than standing in opposition, ecocentric law can serve as a complementary framework that ensures the voices of Nature are included in legal and policy decisions. Instruments like the Sustainable Development Goals and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework reflect this synthesis, pointing toward a future in which development is redefined in alignment with both human rights and the Rights of Nature.

Conclusion

The IACtHR’s 2025 advisory opinion on climate change builds on a legal path first illuminated in 2018, when the Colombia Amazon ruling first linked the Rights of Nature to climate litigation. Since then, ecocentric principles have emerged as powerful tools to confront environmental collapse. This new judgment affirms that without a transformative paradigm shift—one that places Nature at the center—States will fail to meet their climate obligations.

The Rights of Nature are essential not only in defining the substantive duties of States but also in ensuring the procedural mechanisms required to address the global environmental emergency. Thus, by recognizing the Rights of Nature in addition to the right to healthy climate, the opinion compels States to take specific action to protect the climate system and ecosystems. By holding governments accountable for protecting the rights of their inhabitants, human and non-human, the IACtHR’s advisory opinion offers us an important guide in the face of the triple planetary crisis.

Is a River Alive? by Robert Macfarlane, W. W. Norton & Company, May 2025, 384pp. 

In his latest offering, renowned English nature writer Robert Macfarlane takes readers on a winding journey along three rivers in widely distant parts of the world. He does so in an effort to answer the question posed by the book’s title: Is a river alive? His young son offers the intuitive response: “Well, duh, that’s going to be a short book then, Dad, because the answer is yes!” But as Macfarlane shows across this lovely book’s length, the answer is far from simple.

Macfarlane’s most recent offering joins his others including Mountains of the Mind: Adventures in Reaching the Summit, The Wild Places, The Old Ways: A Journey on Foot, and Underland. The New York Times described Macfarlane as “a naturalist who can unfurl a sentence…with the breathless ease of a master angler.” His writing invites readers to simultaneously feel the stillness of Nature and the urgency of the environmental crisis.  

Woven throughout Macfarlane’s river journeys is an exploration into the Rights of Nature movement, which advocates for granting legal rights to rivers and other natural entities, often drawing inspiration from Indigenous worldviews and legal systems. Given Macfarlane’s literary pedigree and broad readership, Is a River Alive? thus marks a milestone in bringing the Rights of Nature (RoN) movement to a broader audience. In an interview with the Guardian, Macfarlane explains, “I wanted to immerse myself in the sheer tumbling vigour of the young rights-of-nature movement, which is one of the running currents in the book.” And immerse himself he does, exploring the intricacies, challenges, and implications of the RoN movement, especially for river ecosystems and the many species, including humans, who depend on them. 

The book is set against the backdrop of three distinct river systems: the River of the Cedars in an Ecuadorian cloud forest; the severely polluted waterways of Chennai, India, on the brink of ecological collapse; and the Mutehekau Shipu, or Magpie River, located about 600 miles northeast of Montreal. Each river faces a different form of existential threat: mining, pollution, and hydroelectric development, respectively. 

Threaded through these global journeys is Macfarlane’s return to a drought-stricken river near his home in Cambridge, where he often walks with his son. During one such walk, the boy wonders aloud whether their local river has died. This moment echoes the book’s larger focus on the relationship between children and the natural world, and what kind of world those children will inherit. “Children are born as animists and then they lose that power . . . or rather it is taken from them,” Macfarlane writes. 

A significant proportion of the initiatives, ordinances, and court decisions stemming from the RoN movement have involved rivers, and for good reason. Human civilizations have long formed along riverbanks, relying on these life-giving beings who nourish, cleanse, and support life. “You kill the river — and all life leaves,” Macfarlane writes. His choice to refer to the river as who rather than which or that is deliberate. The language we use reflects how we relate to the natural world. Naming rivers as subjects, not objects of human use or domination, aligns with what Robin Wall Kimmerer calls a “grammar of animacy,” or a way of speaking that honors the aliveness of the more-than-human world.

The first of Macfarlane’s riverine journeys takes readers to an Ecuadorian cloud forest, Los Cedros. Accompanying him are mycologist Giuliana Furci, musician Cosmo Sheldrake, and attorney and professor César Rodríguez-Garavito. The cloud forest is under threat from oil and mining companies following concessions granted by the Ecuadorian government, often without adequate consultation or consent from affected communities. These mining concessions mark the beginning of what Macfarlane calls an “anti-trophic cascade”: “You raze the forest, you lose the cloud and the rain. You lose the rain and cloud, you kill the river.” As extractive activities in the Amazon have intensified, the resistance movement known as Kawsak Sacha, meaning “living forest” in Kichwa, has spread. This movement is rooted in the belief that every part of the rainforest, no matter how small, is alive and possesses its own consciousness.

Macfarlane returns throughout the book to the parallel between the anatomy of a river and that of the human body, each carrying its own internal waterways. “We are all bodies of water, receiving, circulating, giving onwards; all participants in the hydrosphere, with the flow of the wet world running through us,” he writes. Our arteries transport oxygen and nutrients just as rivers nourish surrounding landscapes, and our capillaries mirror streams and tributaries feeding a larger whole.

“When we sit, we are ponds; when we walk or run, we are rivers,” remarked Macfarlane at a book launch event at NYU School of Law, perhaps as an attempt to demonstrate our connectectness—even embeddedness—within the natural world. He writes that rivers are everywhere—beneath our feet, within our bodies, and even above us in what he calls the “sky river,” or the atmospheric system moving water from the sea to the tops of mountains and back down again as rain. 

“Has the water died?” Macfarlane’s nine year old son wonders when exploring the chalk creek near their home in England. This question is central to the second section of the book, “Ghosts, Monsters, and Angels,” in which Macfarlane explores dead or nearly dead rivers in Chennai. He also poses more troubling questions, such as: What does it mean for a river to be murdered, displaced, or disappeared? He works with a close friend, Yuvan, an environmental activist and scientist, as they visit rivers that have been severely polluted since the fifteenth century. Macfarlane finds that rivers can, in fact, be murdered, disappeared, or displaced, strengthening the argument for recognizing them as living beings. Writing about these Indian rivers, he also further emphasizes the necessity of recognizing rivers’ inherent rights, discussing legal precedents in the country.

The story of Briij Khandelwal, an Indian environmental journalist, highlights one such legal precedent. Khandelwal reported the murder of a river, in March of 2017, shortly after a ruling by the Uttarakhand High Court, in Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, on illegal construction along the Ganges river. The court ruled that the Ganges and Yamuna rivers should be recognized as “living entities,” thereby affirming their inherent rights. This ruling, however, was overturned by the Indian Supreme Court in July of 2017. Khandelwal thought that if the rivers have rights, then their continuous pollution and degradation should be reported as crimes, and he was empowered to do so—albeit briefly.

While many rivers in the Chennai area are now considered biologically dead, others have simply disappeared from the map even while their waters still run. For example, Macfarlane explores Ennore Creek, a 400-meter long, 2.6 kilometer-wide backwater located just north of Chennai. Despite its continued physical presence, it was erased from a 1997 government map. Located in an industrial zone, Ennore Creek has long been used to dump wastewater used for cooling for power plants. However, new zoning laws introduced in the late twentieth century prohibited industrial processes within a certain distance of the water. To circumvent this law, government officials created a map that completely disappeared all of the surrounding waterways. Through this act of bureaucratic manipulation, there was no legal obligation to move the power plants from the area, and the creek remained a dumping zone. 

The Ennore Creek story highlights the interconnection between human rights and Nature’s rights. Macfarlane writes that “the poorest of Chennai have been systematically shunted” as oil spills, gas leaks, and “other forms of industrial violence” disproportionately occur in the ecosystems they inhabit. Had the zoning laws been enforced, local communities and the ecosystem could both have been protected. But since the laws were ignored, “their children now play in pools of toxic fly ash.” Macfarlane recounts a conversation in which community members discussed their hopes for the future of the ecosystem. One responds bitterly that it would be nice to just get asthma rather than cancer. The exchange demonstrates the difficulty in maintaining hope in some of the most ecologically precarious regions of the world, while also highlighting the central truth that human rights are inseparable from the Rights of Nature.   

While these anecdotes exemplify the challenges of implementing legal frameworks that uphold RoN, the work of Yuvan and many other local activists remains a cause for hope and reflects a paradigm shift that is underway in many countries. 

The third and final section of the book, set in Eastern Canada and entitled “The Living River,” follows the course of the Mutehekau Shipu (or Magpie River), which was granted legal personhood in a 2021 declaration. This section raises challenging questions: What does a river want? Who are we to determine its needs, and how might we even begin to do so? As Macfarlane draws the book to a close through these large philosophical questions, he becomes more introspective and poetic than in the preceding sections. 

He and four other men paddle about 100 miles down the Mutehekau Shipu, from Magpie Lake to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, immersing themselves in the aliveness of the river. The river is scheduled to get two more dams put in, which would make a riverine journey such as Macfarlane undertook impossible. 

Having begun exploring the strength and power of rivers in the second section, Macfarlane dives more deeply into the topic in this third section. The Mutehekau Shipu flows through the oldest and hardest exposed rock in the world, slowly degrading it to create its path. He writes, “What is stronger than Mountain?/ Me, obviously, says River./ Who is older than death?/ Me of course says River.” Macfarlane has a profound moment at a part of the river called “the Gorge,” the location where one of the dams is scheduled to be built. There, he witnesses the river’s undeniable power, perceiving its mouth, tongue, and voice, and feeling its aliveness. 

Central to this section is a revisiting of the Rights of Nature, including asking what success in the movement would mean for a river like the Mutehekau Shipu. Macfarlane and his friend Wayne discuss what the river itself might actually want. Macfarlane makes an essential distinction that acknowledging the fundamental rights of the river does not mean that the river must be a living and decision-making entity identical to a human. Rather, it means allowing the river to do what it has done for a very long time: flowing in its own way. “A god. For now I want to call the river a god,” he writes. “And why should a god make choices we would recognize as choices?”

Personifying the river helps humans to understand and grant it rights, but an entity need not have anthropogenic traits to be recognized. Rivers deserve rights simply because they are rivers. As Thomas Berry would say, rivers should have river rights, which can be distinctly different from human rights or animal rights, yet are no less important, and are intertwined with them all.

Through his riverine journeys, Macfarlane finds that the answer to his question, “Is a river alive?”, is a resounding “yes.” Rivers are born and die, and they can be disappeared, displaced, and even murdered. Each river that he explores reveals this truth in a distinct and powerful way. In Los Cedros, he finds a river protected, at least for now. In Chennai, he finds rivers polluted, displaced, and even murdered—and hope in their surrounding communities all but dried up along with them. The Mutehekau Shipu in Canada exists in between, not yet harmed to the point of death, but still vulnerable and without robust legal protections. While each river exists in a different state of being, each is undoubtedly alive. Recognizing that aliveness is a crucial step humans can take to better listen to rivers, defend them from harm, and learn to live in greater harmony with Nature. 

Earth law comprises many approaches to a reorientation of traditional environmental law, including standing issues, a variety of human environmental rights, and the Rights of Nature—of which Ocean Rights is a more recent and rapidly growing example. Earth law also incorporates various kinds of private law, including corporate governance. International shipping and related commercial marine industries, like marine salvage​​—the field responsible not only for salvaging shipwrecks but also for mitigating marine pollution and similar environmental disasters—may be seen to have dim reputations for not incorporating the  ecocentric principles or practices espoused by Earth law advocates. But this need not paint such enterprises with a hopeless complexion. In fact, Nature has a potentially powerful advocate in the marine salvage industry.

It is possible to normalize considerations of harm to Nature by accounting not only for the property and monetary losses related to a marine incident but also the intrinsic value and interests of marine ecosystems damaged in such incidents. In fact, governance within an industry such as marine salvage can help lead the way to a more ecocentric relationship with the ocean. We see such caretaking examples of industry behavior elsewhere as well—in forestry and fire management, for example—demonstrating clear potential alignment in this context with Earth law principles. Evidence of financial institutions similarly considering and evaluating such relationships with Nature includes products enabling risk management and eco-restoration.

This blog piece explores salvors (those who practice marine salvage) as ocean protectors on the front line of Nature conscious governance in the marine context.

By Nature conscious governance, we refer to “the inclusion of the representation, the voice, the vote and the interests of Nature as stakeholder, in the decision-making processes, governance structures and systems of corporate and business entities.”[1] (See the Onboarding Nature Toolkit for much more on this topic.) Though salvage does not as yet exemplify all of these facets, in this piece we explore the extent to which the marine salvage industry has embraced complex issues of Nature inclusive decision-making and has sought, in its campaign for greater recognition and profitability, forms of Nature inclusivity in its governance structures. In particular, this piece explores the role of Nature conscious and Nature inclusive governance from the perspective of salvage remuneration.

What is marine salvage?

Marine salvage is a centuries-old industry concerned with rescuing vessels, property, and lives at sea in the wake of marine incidents like collision, fire, or wreck. From the merchant traders of the ancient Mediterranean to the impacts of twenty-first-century global supply chains, this has been a human-focused enterprise, and salvor remuneration for such risky and highly sensitive work has been predicated on the value of property. That is, payment is based on the financial value of property salvaged rather than the environmental or social goods conferred. This has begun to change within the industry itself; here we explore why that change is necessary, yet so far inadequate, and how the interests of Nature and salvors converge in ways that justify revisiting current law and practice.

To warrant a salvage action, affected property must be in peril, the salvor’s service must be voluntary, and it must be in some way successful: if there is no “cure,” there is no pay.[2] Private salvors, historically independent or even family-owned businesses, have deployed their skills in expectation of fair remuneration in financial accord with the property restored, but in recent decades contractual regimes have become complex and the role of pollution even more so. According to the International Salvage Union (ISU),[3] recent revisions to the law have reprioritized the significance of the environment in relation to property, and such changes can help to shift marine vessel-based businesses toward sustainable practice. Indeed, salvage has been said by some to demonstrate that a cultural shift in commerce can yield profound mutual benefit and facilitate more peaceful and sustainable coexistence between Nature and business.[4] Others have even called it “an inflexion point in maritime law due to its response to marine protection,”[5] the turning point in an ongoing arc towards progress.

It is noteworthy that, despite a history in some jurisdictions of state-sponsored naval salvage, and pressures on States from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and others to develop coordinated responses in marine management, successful salvage remains predominantly a private enterprise due to the “inability of the majority of coastal states to train, equip, and maintain a domestic salvage capacity.”[6] This means that salvage operators feel, perhaps even more acutely than other contractors, the commercial changes driven by international conventions on climate change and the environment,[7] biodiversity,[8] and ecocide.[9] The law of salvage has accordingly responded to these interests and pressures with the reformation of salvage effectively beginning in the late twentieth century.[10]

Why salvage is needed: significant incidents

The modern era has seen significant marine damage due to oil pollution; the most familiar incidents include the Torrey Canyon (The English Channel, 1967), Amoco Cadiz (Brittany, 1978), Exxon Valdez (Alaska, 1989), and Deepwater Horizon (Gulf of Mexico, 2010). Long term studies of these spills show how they have been more or less damaging, depending on where they occurred and how the ocean absorbed or dissipated the oil. Meanwhile, regulators and unions have negotiated an industry response through legislation and regulation in this area. There is also a developed oil spill management industry.[11] However, the harms of fossil fuel spills are only one type of pollution wrought by ocean-going vessels,[12] and marine salvage is placed to manage many kinds of accidents.

The most recent Annual Pollution Prevention Survey (2024) of the ISU includes figures for prevention of pollution by bunker fuel, crude oil, refined oil products, chemicals, bulk polluting or hazardous materials, and other pollutants, as well as wreck removal.[13] According to this survey, the marine environment was protected from 2.4 million tonnes of potentially polluting cargo by voluntary salvage services.[14] This reflects a relatively consistent level of protection since 2019, despite declining numbers of services rendered and variable levels of pollutants in different categories each year. These numbers reflect the necessity of the salvage industry,[15] not only for Nature’s purposes but also mitigation of commercial risk.

While a major financial settlement (e.g., Deep Water Horizon) may assuage commercial interests, such an approach is not an efficient mode of managing accidents in shipping or other marine vessel-based industries where various forms of pollution may occur. While air pollution and decarbonization are at the forefront of responses to climate change, including recent maritime regulation to tackle these,[16] the ocean is an underappreciated and extraordinary force in carbon management, and protecting the whole system is essential to overall decarbonization and reduction of GHGs.[17] Indeed, 16 Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas[18] have been identified for avoidance of shipping activities in general, not just GHG emissions.

The law of salvage

The International Convention on Salvage 1989 (ICS) (in force 1996) recognizes the issue of marine environmental management in the shipping context through a split concept of remuneration:

●      standard compensation to reflect property value salved

●      special compensation to reflect exposure to environmental risk.

However, neither this law nor the contractual regimes, insurance mechanisms, or case law developments have honored the central fact that salvors themselves have long known, and have more recently begun to campaign on: salvage is not merely a service situated in the environment, or which is exposed to the risks of the environment; it is a service to the environment, and in support of a biocentric view of law.

Though salvage remuneration is payable without contract under freestanding maritime law and under the ICS also applicable through national laws, its principle means of taking effect is through salvage contracts between property interests and salvors. The balancing act therefore between property and environment takes effect through commercial arrangement, and thereby the salvage award. The common approach here—represented most by the near-ubiquitous Lloyds’ Open Form (LOF),[19] an English law agreement which reproduces the ICS’ aforementioned remuneration model—disadvantages the environmentally conscious salvor by making more than merely proprietary efforts a risk to payment. For example, in the case of The Renos, the UK Supreme Court upheld the distinction between environmental contributions and rescue and repair (to property) to the detriment of the salvors’ ultimate award.

The Lloyds’ market and IMO both claim that this disadvantage is contrary to the aims of the law, a fact which led the industry to introduce an addendum clause which has itself now become near-ubiquitous—the Special Compensation Protection & Indemnity Clause (SCOPIC).[20] SCOPIC’s popularity has not altogether prevented the decline of the LOF, however, arguably due to its lack of enabling salvage to realize its Nature conscious potential.[21]

There are, under this regime, two forms of compensation for one comprehensive service. Under Clause 5 of SCOPIC, shipowners owe salvors “special compensation” through liability insurers and standard compensation through property insurers as a matter of payment for salvage services. In other words, there are two bases of the salvors’ reward and so two bases of liability to expenditure for the shipowner: one based in Article 13 of the Convention concerning property, and the other based in Article 14 concerning the environmental contributions made by salvors. Yet under SCOPIC, both are assessed and owed together.

This co-extensive aspect to the compensation provides an argument made by most leading commentators on the law of marine salvage that the environmental and proprietary aspects are joint purposes of the venture. This position supports a strong relationship to concepts of sustainability, and some relationship to Nature conscious governance. Regrettably, this position has been rejected in the UK by the Supreme Court, which asserts a kind of primacy for property as a sole purpose, with environmental contributions subordinated, or at least sidelined, for the purposes of assessment.[22]

The Renos: Legal tensions between commerce and Nature

On The Renos’ maiden voyage, a destructive engine fire caused “significant” damage and forced the vessel to dock in Arabiya and then Suez on the Egyptian coast. Its owners some time later decided to issue a notice of abandonment (NOA) in order to recover through insurance the substantial value of their investment. An intense flurry of activity and heavy involvement of insurers ensued, and might fairly have led a passing observer to assume that whether the vessel was a partial or total loss would have been one of the earliest determinations made. In fact, this question was only resolved through litigation.

The Renos case was primarily concerned with the legal question of constructive total loss (CTL) and whether insurance payment, based on the time of notification, was appropriate. Secondarily, but more significantly for present purposes, it addressed the SCOPIC question of environmental compensation for salvage. When, some five and a half years after the initial fire, the case reached the UK Supreme Court on June 12, 2019, it was decided that the vessel had been a CTL. In determining this, however, the UKSC broached a question of much wider significance for the second point to be answered—what was included in the “cost of repairing the [vessel’s] damage”?

For the UKSC, the answer was that environmental contributions were not part of that cost. Despite his holistic description of SCOPIC Clause 5 remuneration (“the totality of the services provided, including those required for the protection of the environment,”[23]) Lord Sumption’s view was that the environmental contributions of salvors were practically distinct, as responsibilities and as costs for the shipowner, from their efforts to rescue and “repair” the vessel’s damage. A vessel must be rescued to be repaired, he argued, but it need not necessarily be rescued in a manner that respects Nature for that to occur.

That position has a practicality and commerciality to it which is understandable, but it is plainly inadequate, and from more than just the ecological point of view. It is arguable that the total damage done in such an accident includes both the harm to property and the consequent harm inflicted by the property upon other interests, including Nature’s. For example, in a car accident, the fire caused by the accident damages or destroys the car and injures passengers and other road-users, but may also ignite brush on the side of the road, causing ecological catastrophe. How these discrete yet related harms are valued is thus at issue in Nature conscious assessment and contracting, as the Renos case illustrates. Though some of that harm may be more or less remote, it is ascertainable in reasonable degrees, as we can see in any insurable accident that may involve different agents and potential caretakers whose interests will anticipate various types of harm.

The circumstance of a car moving along a road is analogous to that of a ship moving through the ocean, where negligence may be involved. Who is liable for harm to the commons, whether because they owe a duty of care or by virtue of strict liability (that is, legal culpability without a “mental component” such as negligence), may become a relevant question where there exists a claim or right on the part of Nature (or in this case, more specifically, the ocean). Such obligations, increasingly recognized under convention, statute, and custom, are easily borne and mitigated by the salvage process because marine incidents or conditions require intervention in Nature’s interests, not just the interests of property. Wreck removal, for example, is a problem not only for shipping safety and inshore state waters, but for the health and safety of the ocean ecosystem.[24]

The degree of risk incurred in such cases where lawful activity is undertaken must therefore be pre-emptively measured to determine the scope of duty, and thus ways to mitigate said risk. This is a central difficulty for salvors, who face at once a minimization of the environmental goods they confer by inadequate remuneration, and a costly punishment of the impacts they must contend with through civil and criminal liability. To be paid for the environmental services they conduct, and to minimize risks (not just of lost reward, but of liability), salvors must embrace and center Nature. By letting Nature inform their decisions and obligations, salvors, shipowners, and cargo owners can bring Nature onto their side in their endeavors, enabling more appropriate financialization of their work. Modern, profitable salvage, which rewards rather than punishes environmental contributions, is salvage that brings into decision-making both risk evaluation and (crucially) compensation for protection of that very environment. It is, in other words, Nature conscious salvage.

Nature governance in salvage

The environmental protection advocated for in salvage at present is not absolutely defined: the salvor’s obligation to protect Nature is confined to the time and, in a vaguer sense, activities that make up pursuit of property salvage (see Clause 10 SCOPIC; Clause A LOF 2024). These factors contribute to the salvor’s decision-making when assessing risk, setting priorities, and anticipating reward. ICS and SCOPIC have attempted to improve the way this equation prejudices property over Nature. Yet, at worst, this was never successful; at best, it has been outpaced by new environmental liability risks of the kind salvors and property interests both wish to avoid, including those which arise as a result of bad actors and environmental harms that are less foreseeable.

The conferral of environmental protections, including through the intended use of the SCOPIC clause in salvage, is the conferral of a form of rights that need not require personification. Rather, the correlative of protection, if we look at human law from the opposite end, if you will, is wellbeing. That wellbeing is potentially an arguable right.[25] That Nature’s wellbeing is affected negatively in the case of a marine casualty, the prerequisite of a salvage operation, raises the question of the interrelationship between the property owned by humans and the arguable rights and welfare of the environment through which that property moves. Ocean shipping uses and damages Nature, causing disruption to systems and life both known and unknown. The protection of Nature’s autonomy in decision-making processes is essential to reconceptualizing what the law has presumed to be “of use” or “useless” in salvage.

The Nature conscious governance approach, alongside other Earth law approaches which seek to introduce representation or rights for the ocean, can help align commercial ventures more harmoniously and sustainably with choices made by natural beings and systems. In doing so, these approaches advantage Nature’s interests and salvors’, but also those of shipowners, cargo owners, and their insurers. This is so because, as a matter of reducing future expenditure, insurers’ interests weigh in favour of salvors acting so as to minimize the need for latter environmental services (whether their own, or those of wreck removal specialists and state authorities). Because Nature conscious governance encourages pre-emptive risk management when it comes to Nature impact[26] so as to prevent harm to Nature’s wellbeing or rights, it mitigates both this possibility and insurers’ liability for other damage to property as well.[27]

Commercial interests are deeply invested in Nature, and marine salvage, in its ability to protect Nature from human harms arising from said interests, can serve a noble purpose by alleviating the potential for an antagonistic relationship between the ocean and the ships that use and exist within it. In doing so, salvage provides an acute illustration of the interrelationships between the human commercial and material enterprises which can collaboratively evaluate and mitigate risk, and Nature. The field of marine salvage has an opportunity to re-envision and realize such interdependency to mutual benefit.

If you are an individual or organization looking to learn more about the Nature conscious governance concepts mentioned in this article, you can get in touch with the Nature Governance Agency at https://www.naturegovernance.org/contact.

Pursuant to developing this work regarding insurance and decision making in a future piece, we thank Jason Bennett of ABL for providing illuminating insights on the role of Special Casualty Representatives (SCRs) and for helping to put the industry in context from a practitioner’s perspective.

Citations

[1] B Lab Benelux, Earth Law Center Nature Governance Agency, Nyenrode Business Universiteit, ‘Onboarding Nature Toolkit’ (2024) Nature Governance Agency. <https://www.naturegovernance.org/onboarding-nature-toolkit> last accessed 07 June 2025.

[2] Brussels Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules with Respect to the Assistance of Salvage at Sea, 1910; Kennedy and Rose, The Law of Salvage (2002) Sweet and Maxwell, 21, 26, 28, 827.

[3] Capt. Mark Hoddinott, ‘Reformation of the Marine Salvage Industry’ (2016) International Salvage Union: www.marine-salvage.com/media-information/conference-papers/reformation-of-the-marine-salvage-industry/ last accessed 24 May 2025; see also United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (Articles 192 and 194 in particular) and ‘International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Advisory Opinion on Climate Harm and the Marine Environment: A Summary’ (24 May 2024): <www.justiceinitiative.org/newsroom/itlos-advisory-opinion-on-climate-harm-and-the-marine-environment-a-summary> accessed 5 June 2025.

[4] Durand M. Cupido, “The Environment in Shipping Incidents” in Onyeka Osuji, Franklin N. Ngwu and Dima Jamali, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development Country Cross-Studies’ (2019) Institutions, Actors and Sustainable Development, Cambridge University Press. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/corporate-social-responsibility-in-developing-and-emerging-markets/environment-in-shipping-incidents-salvage-contracts-and-the-public-interest/93FD78F87E776BC2EFF7C30B842F476B> last accessed 29 May 2025.

[5] Paula Saez Alvarez, ‘From maritime salvage to IMO 2020 strategy: two actions to protect the environment’ (2021) Marine Pollution Bulletin Vol. 170, September 2021, 112590. Science Direct, Elsevier <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112590> last accessed 29 May 2025.

[6] Jasenko Marin, Miso Mudric and Robert Mikac, “Private Maritime Security Contractors and Use of Lethal Force in Maritime Domain” in Gemma Andreone (Ed.), The Future of the Law of the Sea: Bridging Gaps Between National, Individual and Common Interests (2017) Springer Nature, 194.

[7] See, e.g., International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), 1973; International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (INTERVENTION), 1969. More generally, see, e.g.: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992; Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, 1989; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973.

[8] See, e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992.

[9] See, e.g., Directive of the European Parliament and Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law and replacing Directives 2008/99/EC and 2009/123/EC (Environmental Crimes Directive), 2024.

[10]Capt. Mark Hoddinott, ‘Reformation of the Marine Salvage Industry’ (2016) International Salvage Union: www.marine-salvage.com/media-information/conference-papers/reformation-of-the-marine-salvage-industry/ accessed 21 May 2025.

[11] A general introduction can be found at the International Tanker Owner Pollution Federation (ITOPF) website < https://www.itopf.org/about-us/> last accessed 29 May 2025.

[12] For an introductory overview of harms done by oil spills, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Oil spills <https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/oil-spills> last accessed 29 May 2025. For a more thorough exploration, see Mace G Barron et al, ‘Long-term ecological impacts from oil spills: comparison of Exxon Valdez, Hebei Spirit and Deepwater Horizon’ (2020) PMC: <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7397809/> accessed 29 May 2025.

[13] ‘Pollution Prevention Survey Shows Importance of Sustainable Salvage Industry’ (15 April 2025) Maritime Fairtrade: <https://maritimefairtrade.org/pollution-prevention-survey-shows-importance-of-sustainable-salvage-industry/> accessed 21 May 2025.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Jim Elliott, ‘The Marine Salvage Industry: Proven in Preventing Oil Spills’ (3 December 2021) 1 International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings 684710: <https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/cad48555-8474-3fba-836e-4edc5c769f6d/> accessed 10 July 2025.

[16] Hamilton Locke, ‘What the IMO’s 2025 reforms mean for global shipping’ (13 May 2025): <www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=229544f9-571f-44d0-8b8a-04f3a0d011b9> accessed 25 May 2025.

[17] NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information, ‘Quantifying the Ocean Carbon Sink’ (26 August 2022, updated 19 July 2024):<https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/quantifying-ocean-carbon-sink> accessed 4 June 2025; Wang, Quang; Ren, Feng; Li, Rongrong, ‘Uncovering the world’s largest carbon sink – a profile of ocean carbon sinks research’ (20 February 2024) 31 Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20362–20382.

[18] IMO, ‘Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas’ <www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/PSSAs.aspx> accessed 1 June 2025.

[19] Lloyds of London, Lloyds Standard Form of Salvage Agreement 2024 – No Cure, No Pay “LOF 2024”. https://assets.lloyds.com/media/fea54e1f-eb76-497b-95dd-d2bee685ff85/LOF%202024%20-%20For%20website%20-%2022.05.2024.pdf [PDF].

[20] Lloyds of London, SCOPIC Clause “SCOPIC 2020”. https://assets.lloyds.com/media/d948a2b7-ad5c-4794-93bc-e508085b5fd5/SCOPIC-2020.pdf [PDF].

[21] Alvares (2021).

[22] Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and others v Connect Shipping Inc and another, The Renos [2019] UKSC 29 (12 June 2019). <https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2018_0054_judgment_a034d4b867.pdf> accessed 24 May 2025.

[23] Ibid., [22].

[24] IMO, Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (adopted 18 May 2007, entered into force 14 April 2015): (text; not in force in UK) <www.gov.uk/government/publications/ts-no302016-the-nairobi-international-convention-on-the-removal-of-wrecks> accessed 1 June 2025.

[25] Charles Reich begins to describe this logic in the context of government largess and individual rights as forms of wealth: ‘The New Property’ (1964) 73(5) Yale LJ 733-87, 739.

[26] In the United Nations Environment Programme ‘Insuring a Nature Positive Future’ (December 2024) report, the UNEP Finance Initiative highlights the role that proactivity and preemptive action in risk management can play in enhancing effective partnership between insurers and businesses when it comes to impact of commercial activity on Nature, with a particular view to the Global Biodiversity Framework. You can download and read the full report here: <https://www.unepfi.org/industries/insurance/insuring-a-resilient-nature-positive-future-global-guide-for-insurers-on-setting-priority-actions-for-nature/> (last accessed 7 June 2025).

[27] The ITC Hulls 1/10/83 clauses stipulate that an H&M insurance policy covers a range of losses which are mitigated by salvage. These include: ‘loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured caused by accident in loading, discharging or shifting cargo or fuel [...] negligence of repairers …. [who are] not an Assured hereunder … provided that such loss or damage has not resulted from want of due diligence by the Assured, Owners or Managers or Superintendents or any of their onshore management’ (Clause 6.2) and ‘loss of or damage to the vessel caused by any government authority acting under the powers vested in it to prevent or mitigate a pollution hazard, or threat thereof, resulting directly from damage to the Vessel for which the underwriters are liable…’ (Clause 7).

Hello, would you like to start by introducing yourself?

My name is Doris Ragettli, and I am the co-founder of Rights of Mother Earth, which started with a global petition asking the United Nations to adopt a Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth (RoME declaration).

In your bio on the Rights of Mother Earth website, you talk about taking cycling trips across the Rocky Mountains and witnessing the logging taking place there. This led to the moment you decided you wanted to “stand up for the protection of trees, waters, animals, the soil, the air and all living beings.” Before your trips, had you considered or participated in work or projects within environmental/biodiversity protection?

I had not directly participated in such projects, other than that I was a volunteer for a humanitarian organisation for many years. There, I saw the hard labour of people stuck in circumstances of hunger and whose lives were over and over and over destroyed by natural catastrophes. I volunteered for the Hunger Project, which made it their goal to end hunger in harmony with nature, which made complete sense to me.

After deciding you wanted to pursue environmental protection, what kind of work did you imagine undertaking, and where did you start in order to make that a reality? Did you anticipate that you would be campaigning for the adoption of a UN treaty that would establish rights for Mother Earth?

When I was still working with the Hunger Project, we did a campaign at the university in Zurich toward the end of the 1990s. It was called “Earth Summit in Rio—What Can We Do Here?” and that remained on my mind.

On that bike ride, when we saw those logging trucks coming down the mountains with tree trunks on them, and we were so sad that we cried at one point, it was like watching a funeral. It was then I decided I had to do something for Earth. I knew it had to be something that did not cost a lot of money. I had been thinking of doing something for a long time, and I’d thought I would need to start up an organisation, which of course would require money, staff, and so on, and this did not really go anywhere.

So instead I decided to start a petition because it was during the time that online petitions were becoming the fashion. I thought, “I could finance that, that shouldn't cost too much.” Then I thought I would take it to the second Earth Summit and deliver the signatures as the voice for Mother Earth. In my mind, every signature is like a declaration of love for our planet, and each one plants a seed of the Rights of Mother Earth in that person's heart.

In 1948, after World War II, the UN adopted the Human Rights Declaration (HRD) because humanity was suffering greatly at that time. The HRD became a milestone for the well being of humanity and informed many laws and education programs around the world. Today, Mother Earth is suffering great loss of natural habitats. We need the same commitment for the protection of Mother Earth. Human rights without the rights of the Earth are not sustainable.

It was in 2011 that you initiated the global signature campaign to get the United Nations to adopt the Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. When initiating the campaign, what were your expectations? Did you anticipate that it would reach over 300,000 signatures?

Well our goal was one million—we just made the figure up. We had almost 117,000 signatures when we went to Rio for the Earth Summit, and we even kept collecting signatures when we were there. Obviously at that point we didn’t have anything close to a million yet, but the figure gave us something to go for, it gave us a game to play. We figured we would just go with what we had, and still this gave us a really strong drive. And then, after a while I was sort of thinking, “Oh dear, we promised we would have a million signatures but we haven't reached that goal.” But then we just decided, “Let’s just keep going.”

Upon reaching the goal of 1,000,000 signatures and delivering these to the United Nations, how do you think they will be received? What hurdles do you expect from this point?

My dream is for UN member states to put forward this call for a Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, and then the signatures would back up that call from member states as the voice of civil society. Because we as civil society cannot put a declaration forward to the UN General Assembly. It has to be a UN member State.

So that’s my dream, and as you and many others will know, Bolivia already presented such a call in 2010. The country had drafted a Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, which came out of the People’s Summit in Cochabamba. It was signed by 34,000 people including Indigenous Peoples, lawyers, organisations, and members of civil society. And this is now the declaration we are proposing as a document to inspire the UN when it commits to draft an official Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth.

Do you have any specific plans or goals for the advancement of the RoME declaration before or during COP-30 (the next climate change COP)? If so, are there any significant focus areas of the upcoming climate change talks you feel will be significant for achieving these plans or goals? 

I am planning to go—that’s the first thing—and hoping to go with the Earth Law Center as well. This way we come with a common drive amongst our group of organisations. My dream is to have a voice within the official part of the conference. Usually the activism takes place outside the official summit meetings. I think it would be very impactful if we could have, like we did at the first summit, an opportunity to deliver at the final stakeholder meeting. If we could have such an opening again at the upcoming COP-30 in Belem, Brazil, that would be ideal.

What do you see happening in the next 5 years in the Rights of Nature movement? In addition to the RoME declaration, do you have any dreams for a future in harmony with nature?
The UN Harmony with Nature Program is working on the Earth Assemblies, which is very promising.

And then there are many, many more lawyers getting involved to work on really evolving the law. As has generally been the case, as society has evolved, law adapts to reflect this. As the law stands currently, Nature doesn’t have legal standing—and that is what needs to evolve. Then Nature will be included as a rights-holding entity, so we can defend Nature legally. When that happens, I think it will also function to prevent harm, because once corporations know they can be sued for harming Nature, they will hopefully take precautions to ensure they avoid such harms.

By Kellianne Elliott

Alessandro Pelizzon’s Ecological Jurisprudence is a landmark contribution to the Rights of Nature movement. With remarkable depth and robust research, Pelizzon outlines the many different theories that have contributed to the anthropocentric worldview that dominates the Western world and its institutions. 

A crucial component of developing any theoretical framework is to have clearly defined terms, and, in one of the most informative components of this book, Pelizzon clearly outlines thirty-one distinct yet related beliefs that come together to create an anthropocentric narrative. These include, for example: 

• the belief in the necessity or appropriateness of hierarchies 

• the belief that continued consumption of goods and services is an inherent good to be actively pursued 

• the belief that interests of the individual have primacy over that of any social group 

• the belief that a de-physicalized economy can grow endlessly because of new and more efficient technologies.

After outlining these interrelated ideas undergirding anthropocentrism, Pelizzon scrutinizes some of their theoretical underpinnings. For instance, he includes scholarship pointing out that even the most miraculous technology is likely to “fail to halt the rate of over-consumption of Earth’s resources,” (pg. 145) and that we should be wary of over-relying on notions of technological advancement to mitigate the harms of rapid climate change. 

He instead points to environmental ethics as an important vessel for changing the way that humans think about the natural world. He argues that this field has expanded ecology into a multidisciplinary undertaking through the development of disciplines such as bioethics, ecofeminism, social ecology, ecotheology, and environmental history. 

Alongside a thorough exploration of anthropocentric ideas and their consequences, Pelizzon goes to great lengths to outline the many historical and current alternative ways of being in the world that reject anthropocentrism. He emphasizes that the current environmental predicament is not one brought on by human actions at large, but rather “the specific actions that some cultures and some worldviews have engendered” (pg. 92). And he frames climate breakdown as the result of “specific imperial projects” (pg. 93) that have been carried out by these cultures. 

Having established this backdrop, Pelizzon outlines the normative, regulatory, and legislative regimes that have made the current state of the Earth possible. As he demonstrates, it is anthropocentric legal systems that have made it possible for the land itself to be shaped according to individual human desires. Even so, damages to the Earth and its ecosystems have long been rendered “legally irrelevant” (pg. 99) in legal systems that are entangled with an anthropocentric worldview. 

This reality makes a new legal framework—ecological jurisprudence—a necessity. Indeed, as the author points out, the law must be “observed in light of its evolutionary adaptability” (pg. 170), as legal systems that cannot adapt to environmental conditions necessarily become obsolete and, historically, have been replaced by more adaptive systems.  

As Pelizzon demonstrates, it is the currently developing ecological jurisprudence—which he depicts more as a spectrum of theoretical possibilities than a single, unified approach—that provides our current legal institutions an alternative framework for engaging with Nature. This spectrum is broad enough to include the advances for Nature made by classic environmental laws, the additional protections afforded to other species through Rights of Nature initiatives, and the activism that has grown up alongside ecological jurisprudence. 

Pelizzon rounds out his research by analyzing the different phases of the global Rights of Nature movement, leading into the current state of this movement as a host of nuanced theoretical scholarship. He also outlines distinct and highly varied trends within the movement (as well as their various ethical underpinnings) as it is growing in a wide array of cultures and legal institutions, such as the emphasis on local, municipal ordinances in the United States, and the top-down approach to enshrining Rights of Nature that is embodied in Ecuador’s laws. 

While Pelizzon’s research and analysis primarily seeks to advance ecological jurisprudence, he concludes the book with a broad invitation for humanity to reacquaint itself with the places it inhabits and to embrace our “global nature as veritable children of the winds and seas” (pg. 392). It is this reorientation, even more than ecological jurisprudence, that will open us up to a renewed respect, awe, and gratitude toward the rest of the cosmos, and that leads to empathy, sympathy, and even compassion for all that exists. 

This book will serve as an especially important tool to advocates for the Rights of Nature because it has been offered as a gift for all to read at no cost. In order to circumvent the inaccessibility of academic publishing, Pelizzon has made the book available to the public by publishing it as an open-access resource. 

On August 2, 2024, Germany’s Erfurt Regional Court found that rights of nature can be derived from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The court ruled that Nature is not an object but, rather, a subject with its own right to protection. This decision may mark a new era in both climate change litigation and the Rights of Nature (hereafter RoN) movement.

The German ruling stands on over a decade of litigation that has pushed the boundaries of how we understand victimhood and culpability in climate litigation. Increasing global temperatures and governments’ failures to curb emissions have led to a flood of climate-related cases as advocates turn to the courts for climate action. Many of these cases have highlighted a moral dimension to the climate crisis by invoking rights—both human rights and RoN. 

These two litigation strategies offer contrasting, yet complementary, visions of climate-related harm. Cases based on human rights argue that the effects of climate change negatively impact human wellbeing to the point of violating fundamental rights. Cases based on RoN hold that the natural world has a right to protection, regardless of people’s dependence on it.

While human rights-based climate litigation has paved the way for the RoN movement in some ways, its strict anthropocentrism may ultimately prove to be at odds with the RoN movement’s ecocentric approach. These two legal movements thus have the potential to both mutually reinforce and conflict with one another.

The Rise of Human Rights-Based Climate Litigation

Climate cases based on human rights argue that the impacts of climate degradation violate people's rights, including rights to life, health, food, water, and liberty. Litigants demand that governments and corporations protect human rights by taking steps to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, support efforts to adapt to climate change impacts, and provide reparations for losses and damages caused by climate change.

Since 2015, advocates have filed over 400 human rights-based climate cases in courts and tribunals around the world. This trend is accelerating, as more than two thirds of these human rights-based cases were filed in just the past five years. Litigants have filed cases before international bodies, regional courts, and domestic courts in 51 different countries. Employing a diverse range of strategies, advocates rely on rights enshrined in constitutions, international treaties, and domestic law (including both statutes and judge-derived common law).

While most of these cases seek more aggressive action on climate change and its impacts, some challenge climate action in an effort to protect fossil fuel profits or ensure a more just transition. In other words, climate cases based on human rights do not always seek to protect Nature, but they do always seek to protect human interests.

International Cases

In 2019, a group of children filed a petition with the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, arguing that their governments had violated their rights by failing to cut GHG emissions and lobby other nations to take aggressive environmental action. Two years later, the Committee ruled against the children on procedural grounds, despite affirming the substance of their claims. It found that the countries had violated the rights of the children by failing to curb emissions, but that child petitioners had failed a procedural requirement to “exhaust” domestic remedies in domestic courts. As a result, the Committee deemed their complaint inadmissible.

The following year, the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC) delivered a landmark decision in Billy v. Australia. In this case, Indigenous residents of four low-lying Australian islands argued that changing weather patterns and sea level rise had harmed their traditional lifestyle and culture. The plaintiffs argued that Australia, by failing to adapt to climate change, had violated the human rights commitments codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The HRC sided with the plaintiffs, concluding that by failing to protect Indigenous islanders from increasingly violent storms and rising tides, Australia had violated the islanders’ rights to enjoy their culture and live free from interference with private life, family, and home.

Regional Cases

In 2019, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued an advisory opinion in which it concluded that the right to a healthy environment is a human right under the American Convention on Human Rights. The opinion noted that climate change is widely understood to interfere with the enjoyment of human rights and articulated that States have a responsibility to mitigate environmental damage and climate change.

In a crucial nod to the RoN movement, the IACtHR observed:

[The right to a healthy environment] protects nature and the environment, not only because of the benefits they provide to humanity or the effects that their degradation may have on other human rights . . . but because of their importance to the other living organisms with which we share the planet that also merit protection in their own right. (¶62)

This language is evidence of a potential relationship between human rights-based litigation and RoN. It marked a key step toward recognition of RoN at the regional level and provided a foothold for RoN litigation, as we explore below.

In 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) built on the IACtHR Advisory Opinion in its own groundbreaking opinion on climate change and human rights. In the case KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, a group of senior women sued the Swiss government for failing to adequately curb climate change and mitigate its effects. They argued that this inaction threatened their lives and health by increasing the frequency and intensity of heat waves. The Swiss courts summarily rejected the senior women’s claims on the basis that climate change had not affected their individual rights. The women appealed to the ECtHR, arguing that Switzerland’s inaction had violated their rights to life and respect for private and family life. The ECtHR found that the right to respect for private and family life includes protection by the State from “serious adverse effects of climate change on . . . life, health, well-being and quality of life.” The court ruled that Switzerland failed to comply with its obligations under the convention by failing to effectively set and meet its GHG emissions reduction targets.

Domestic Cases

Domestic courts around the world have also found that climate change poses a threat to human rights. In Neubauer v. Germany, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that Germany’s Federal Climate Protection Act was incompatible with constitutional rights to life and health because it did not include sufficient rules for emissions cuts after 2030. The court found that Germany was offloading emissions reductions to future generations, thereby violating their fundamental freedoms. The court reasoned that the government was unfairly burning through the country’s “carbon budget”—the share of GHGs that the country can emit while keeping the world below agreed upon temperature targets. In other words, by over-polluting, the German government violated the freedom of future generations, limiting their ability to “safely” pollute the atmosphere.

In Belgium’s Klimaatzaak case, the Brussels Court of Appeal and the Brussels Court of First Instance held that the Belgian authorities had violated the plaintiff citizens’ rights to life and respect for private and family life, as well as their duty of care under the Belgian Civil Code, by failing to limit GHG emissions. The Court of Appeal ordered the defendant governments to reduce GHG emissions by at least 55% compared to 1990 levels by 2030.

Notably, two lawyers asked the court for permission to join this case on behalf of 82 specific trees with long lifespans. They argued that the trees were legal subjects in need of protection from the harms threatened by climate change. The lawyers’ request stated that the intervening trees “must be respected throughout their lives, with the right to develop and reproduce freely, from their birth to their natural death.” However, the Brussels Court of First Instance rejected the request. The court held that “trees are not ‘subjects of rights’, i.e. beings capable of having and exercising rights and obligations . . . only [human] interests are subject to the regulations established by law . . . [thus] trees have no standing to bring a claim.”

The United States has also been a site of rights-based climate litigation. In Held v Montana, sixteen youths challenged Montana’s fossil fuel policy, claiming that it violated their right to a clean and healthful environment. They challenged a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act that “forbids the State and its agents from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change.” The youth plaintiffs argued that this provision violates Montana’s state constitution, which guarantees “the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” In its decision, the Montana District Court determined that the plaintiffs’ injuries—which would not have occurred if the state considered GHG levels in its permitting practices—were “inconsistent with protecting Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.” The decision marked the first time in which an American court decided on the merits that a law promoting the use and consumption of fossil fuels infringed upon constitutional rights by contributing to climate change.

Rights of Nature

Advocates have also turned to a new area of law to meet today’s environmental crisis: Rights of Nature (RoN). RoN holds that Nature itself—including animals, rivers, and entire ecosystems—bears legal rights. This body of law positions itself as an ecocentric critique of anthropocentric legal systems. Under this view, Nature is entitled to legal protections regardless of whether those protections also benefit humans.

The RoN movement has gained legal traction in recent years. Numerous jurisdictions have codified RoN in statutes. In 2008, Ecuador became the first country to include RoN in its constitution. The constitution states that Nature “has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.” More recently, Spain, New Zealand, Panama, U.S. municipalities, and other locations have passed laws recognizing that specific ecosystems or bodies of water hold legal rights. These laws have faced legal challenges, as well as criticism for lacking enforcement mechanisms; however, they illustrate the growing breadth and legitimacy of RoN as a movement and legal theory.

Advocates have also brought a number of RoN court cases over the past two decades, with some key victories. And in recent years, RoN advocates and judges have begun to draw connections between the RoN worldview and climate change.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of Colombia made history by applying RoN to climate change in Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment. This case, brought by a group of young Colombians, argued that their rights were threatened by climate change and the deforestation of the Amazon. In siding with the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court recognized the Colombian Amazon as a “subject of rights,” entitled to protection, conservation, and maintenance. The court arrived at this conclusion by noting that the plaintiff’s human rights were “substantially linked [to] and determined by the environment.” In this way, the court presented human rights as the basis and justification for RoN.

In 2021, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court issued a landmark RoN ruling in the Los Cedros case. The court prohibited mining in the protected forest of Los Cedros on the basis that the mining would violate the forest’s rights. The court cited the IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion on the right to a healthy environment, thus tying in a human rights precedent in its decision. The ruling determined that economic activity violates the Rights of Nature if it risks severe, irreversible damage to Nature, even if there is scientific uncertainty about the potential harm. The court also specified that the RoN extend to all areas of the country, not just protected areas. This case has been hailed as one of the strongest rulings on Nature’s rights.

In 2024, Peruvian courts adopted a similar approach to that taken by the Supreme Court of Colombia in Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment, albeit with a bolder RoN interpretation by the Peruvian judges. In March of that year, the Mixed Court of Nauta recognized that the Marañón River is a subject of rights. The court held that the river, which had been contaminated by numerous leaks from an oil pipeline, is entitled to a number of specific rights, including the right to biodiversity, the right to flow freely, and the right to protection and restoration. The case was brought by the Federation Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana, an Indigenous women’s association (this case was supported by Earth Law Center). The court appointed the Indigenous communities and the Peruvian state as co-guardians of the river and ordered the Petroperu company to take steps to prevent oil contamination of the Marañón River.

The Peruvian court relied on human rights law to reach its decision. The ruling drew on cultural and territorial rights for Indigenous peoples, which have long been recognized in the international system. As in the Los Cedros case, the court cited the IACtHR’s Advisory Opinion on the right to a healthy environment and a decision from the Constitutional Court of Peru recognizing the constitutional validity of biocentric and ecocentric approaches to protecting Nature.  Weaving these precedents together, the judge concluded that human rights law provided a basis for recognizing RoN, and the ruling was upheld upon appeal.

Also in 2024, as noted above, the Erfurt District Court in Germany became the first European court to affirm that climate change adversely impacts RoN. The case concerned a claim for damages caused by an illegal, emissions-defeating device that the defendant manufacturer had installed in the plaintiff’s RV. In calculating the damages owed to the plaintiff, the court considered RoN on its own accord. The judge held that the emissions-defeating device had violated RoN by emitting pollutants beyond the legal limit. The court recognized RoN by reinterpreting the original German text of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The charter uses the term “personne” to refer to rights-holders. “Personne” was later taken to mean “person.” However, the judge determined that this interpretation is incorrect, and it would be more accurate to translate the term to mean “everyone” or “anyone,” including non-human entities. According to the court, if the drafters of the document had been referring exclusively to humans, they would have used the word “mensch.” This seemingly innocuous case thus became the first in Europe to establish that carbon emissions can violate RoN.

Several other RoN climate cases are still being litigated. For example, in Asociación Civil por la Justicia Ambiental v. Province of Entre Ríos, a group of plaintiffs, including a class of children, are challenging an Argentinian province and municipality for failing to safeguard the Delta del Paraná, a wetland that experienced extensive fires throughout 2020. Citing human rights and Argentina's commitments under the Paris Agreement, the plaintiffs seek recognition that the ecosystem has an independent right to exist because of its role in climate mitigation and adaptation. Similarly, in Alvarez v. Peru, a group of Peruvian youth are challenging the government for insufficient action on climate change. They seek recognition of the Peruvian Amazon as a subject of rights and a governmental plan of action to reduce deforestation.

The Rights of Future Generations as a Potential Bridge to RoN

A number of recent cases have recognized that climate change threatens the rights of future generations of humans—rulings that seem to bring human rights and RoN discourse even closer together. For example, the plaintiffs in the groundbreaking climate case Urgenda v. The Netherlands argued that failure to reduce GHG emissions violated the human rights of future generations. The court agreed, deciding that the government must significantly cut emissions to protect future generations' right to a stable climate.

While grounded in longstanding legal principles, the Urgenda holding, and others like it, are helping to establish a newly broad view of rights and rights-holders. The recognition that governments and corporations have an obligation to protect future humans could lend strength to the RoN argument that they also have an obligation to protect Nature. Indeed, there are conceptual similarities between future generations and the more-than-human world. “Future generations” is a fluid and boundless category that does not refer to any specific individual or entity. Like Nature, future generations are unable to directly advocate for themselves. Instead, they must rely on representatives, or guardians, who can only provide a logical approximation of their interests. These similarities provide openings for RoN advocates.

The Impacts of Human Rights-Based Litigation on the RoN Movement

Cases based on the Rights of Nature and those based on human rights frequently share the common objective of protecting the environment from pollution and human activities. These cases frame harm to Nature in moral terms, challenging the long-held view that humans are distinct from Nature. While human rights cases have thus paved the way for the RoN movement in some ways, the tradition of human rights can also come into tension with the ecocentrism embodied in RoN, and it remains to be seen whether that tension will prove productive or inhibitory to the RoN movement over time.

As described above, several courts have already recognized RoN by drawing on human rights frameworks. These courts reason that human interests are served by recognizing the legal personhood of Nature. This approach of leveraging human rights in RoN litigation may be critical in countries that have not passed an explicit constitutional or statutory basis for RoN. The success of cases that combine human rights with RoN underscores the potential for human rights-based cases to support RoN litigation.

Cases based on human rights, however, also have the potential to limit RoN-based climate litigation by further binding environmental protection to its implications for human well-being. Human rights-based cases focus on how environmental crises—desertification, biodiversity loss, sea level rise—affect humans. In this way, human rights-based litigation favors protecting species or specific environmental conditions that most directly or evidently impact humanity. It can be difficult, if not impossible, to predict how harm to Nature will impact humans.

The RoN movement aims to escape this anthropocentric paradigm; it seeks to protect the biosphere not only because of how it exists in mutual reciprocity with humanity but also because of its intrinsic value. In this regard, RoN cases are not hindered by scientific uncertainty about the interrelations between humans and Nature. RoN advocates argue that humans (and our long-term interests) are interwoven with Nature, much like a cell thrives within a larger, interconnected body. With this understanding, protecting Nature becomes synonymous with protecting human rights, and the differences between RoN litigation and human rights litigation appear in a totally new light.

Human rights cases can provide a foundation for recognizing RoN by establishing a moral interest in environmental protections and expanding the category of rights-holders. Yet, these cases could also foreclose RoN litigation by winning similar, but lesser, environmental protections. Cases like Klimaatzaak in Belgium—in which the court ordered the State to reduce GHG emissions while excluding Nature’s interest (in the form of the lawyers who sought to have 82 trees join the case as plaintiffs)—illustrate that courts are likely to avoid recognizing RoN if they can limit climate pollution through more conventional, anthropocentric means. More fundamentally, these approaches present contrasting grounds for environmental protection. Cases based on a narrow framing of human rights could actually permit dangerous climate pollution and harm to the environment by limiting the inquiry to normative human interests.

Conclusion

By litigating on behalf of future generations, human rights-based climate cases have helped to expand the definition of rights holders and build momentum in environmental litigation. However, while human rights-based cases have opened the door for RoN litigation in certain ways, the anthropocentrism embedded in human rights law remains in tension with the ecocentrism of the RoN movement.

If advocates keep this tension in mind, these two litigation strategies can complement and build on each other. Human rights cases can set valuable precedent for RoN cases by underscoring Nature’s intrinsic value and the complex, interdependent relationship between humans and Nature. In turn, RoN litigation can achieve long-term environmental protections that uphold human rights in cases where human interests are more obscure or unknown.

But human rights litigation can also undermine the RoN movement. A narrow conception of human rights and our relation to Nature can lead to insufficient environmental protections. Indeed, anthropocentrism gave us the grave ecological crises we face today. Neubauer illustrates this danger: the German Constitutional Court reasoned that human rights protect a future human interest in polluting the atmosphere with GHGs. Under this logic, human rights justify pollution up to the perceived limit where that pollution would impose severe harms on humans. If advocates aren’t careful, human rights litigation could preserve an anthropocentric frame that risks dangerous harm to Nature.

The recent Erfurt Regional Court decision that RoN can be derived from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights illustrates both the overlap and the tension between the RoN movement and human-rights based climate litigation. The court ruled that the Charter, a document meant to protect human rights, can also be leveraged to protect non-human beings. While this ruling may support initiatives based on the RoN, it also contains the idea that environmental preservation is valuable only because it is necessary for the preservation of human rights. For now, the conundrum of anthropocentric legal worldviews lives on even as advocates and judges bring RoN more and more into mainstream legal discourse.

“May all people become more humane, more respectful of Nature. That is the message of buen vivir—of good living—for both the present and the future.” – Marí Luz Canaquiri Murayari

Marí Luz Canaquiri Murayari, a Kukama leader from Perú’s Loreto region, has won the 2025 Goldman Environmental Prize, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of environmentalism.” As president of the Federation of Kukama Indigenous Women — Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana (HKK) — Canaquiri has spent decades defending her people, their culture, and the sacred Marañón River that sustains them.

“It's incredible to receive this news—and even more so for the value accorded to us as women,” said Canaquiri in an interview with Earth Law Center (ELC). 

Her leadership has culminated in a historic legal victory: in 2024, the Peruvian judiciary recognized the Marañón River and its tributaries as living beings with legal rights – including the rights to exist, flow, and remain free from contamination – and ordered Indigenous co-guardianship of the watershed.

This is the first time a Peruvian court has affirmed such recognition, and it stems from a groundbreaking lawsuit filed in 2021 by HKK on behalf of the River. Representing 28 Kukama communities, the Federation argued that the River’s health is inseparable from the wellbeing of the people who have lived alongside it for generations. 

“For the Kukama people, the River is sacred. It is like a father who nourishes us. The stones are the mother of the River, and its spirit is a being, a person, to us Kukama. That’s why we asked that it be recognized and respected as a person,” said Canaquiri.

The Cost of Contamination: Oil, Injustice, and Indigenous Lands

For decades, the Northern Peruvian Oil Pipeline has carved a toxic path through the Amazon, leaving behind a trail of spills and suffering. In just the years between 1997 and 2022, according to OSINERGMIN data, 87 oil spills were documented. These have contaminated the Marañón River and surrounding ecosystems, turning a once-thriving lifeline for the Kukama people into a source of illness, displacement, and despair. Children have bathed in oil-slicked waters, families have watched as fish stocks collapsed, and communities have faced skyrocketing rates of miscarriages and chronic illness—yet rarely seen accountability or remediation.

“Early on, I worked on health issues, supporting children and pregnant women through community programs,” said Canaquiri. “And that concern for human life was connected to my desire to defend the rivers from oil pollution.”

The despoiling of the Marañón River is not an isolated incident. Across South America, Indigenous territories are disproportionately affected by extractive industries, from oil and gas to mining and logging. The Amazon basin, home to hundreds of Indigenous Peoples, is one of the most ecologically rich and politically vulnerable regions on Earth. Despite international agreements protecting Indigenous rights and the environment, weak enforcement and powerful corporate interests often mean that these communities bear the brunt of pollution and exploitation.

In Perú and beyond, Indigenous Peoples are frequently excluded from decision-making processes that directly impact their lands and waters. Environmental regulations are poorly enforced, cleanup efforts are minimal, and the burden of proof falls unfairly on communities already stretched thin. The Marañón case is thus not just about one river—it is emblematic of a broader pattern of environmental injustice. But it also signals a turning point, as Indigenous voices rise to demand recognition and a future in which their rights—and the Rights of Nature—are fully upheld.

From Resistance to Legal Revolution: The Rise of the Kukama Women’s Federation

Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana (HKK), the Federation of Kukama Indigenous Women, was born out of necessity and courage in the early 2000s. At a time when oil spills were becoming a grim routine and government institutions turned a blind eye, Kukama women—led by Marí Luz Canaquiri—came together to protect their families, territory, and culture. “Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana” means “Our Women Are Strong” in Kukama, a name that reflects both the urgency and resilience of their mission. 

Canaquiri was born in the Kukama Indigenous community of Shapajilla along the Marañón River in Perú’s northern Amazon. After spending time working in Iquitos, the capital city of Perú's Maynas Province and Loreto Region, she returned to her village and became a mother and community activist. She describes the history of the founding of HKK:

“There was a major oil spill in 2000, and we protested. At that time, Huaynakana didn’t yet exist as an organization, but we were sent to Iquitos to protest the spill and confront the company that was responsible, Pluspetrol. While I was there, the media interviewed me, and that moment changed everything.

People in our community were suffering from illnesses—that’s what drove me to help form the organization. . . . What motivated me most, what really made me act, was the role women play in caring for our families. We’re the ones most concerned about food, about our children’s health, about our families’ well-being. That’s where it all began: the need to organize so our voices could be heard, so we would be respected, and so no one could come and destroy our home—our habitat of life.”

What began as a grassroots effort to speak out against contamination and neglect eventually evolved into one of the Amazon’s most influential Indigenous women’s organizations.

After years of documenting environmental damage, advocating for healthcare access, and defending land rights, in 2014 HKK met Dr. Juan Carlos Ruiz, a lawyer at Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL), and began to consider filing lawsuits as part of its strategy. The first case, related to the governmental budget for the people of Parinari, was filed in 2017, and a second case came soon thereafter. Canaquiri says that though both cases were won, her community is still awaiting their implementation.

HKK took an even bolder legal step in 2021, filing its lawsuit to recognize the Marañón River as a living being with inherent rights. Representing 28 Kukama communities, the lawsuit argued that the River’s spiritual and ecological value entitled it to legal standing—and that its degradation violated both Nature’s rights and Indigenous rights. The case broke new ground by combining Perú’s commitments to international human rights law, Indigenous autonomy, and emerging Rights of Nature frameworks.

The lawsuit also made a powerful case for Indigenous guardianship, demanding that the River’s rights be protected by those who have lived alongside and cared for it for generations. Represented by IDL, and with Earth Law Center and other allies providing legal support, the suit navigated a complex judicial path before ultimately prevailing in Perú’s Mixed Court of Nauta in March 2024 and being upheld by the Civil Court of Loreto in October of that year. It was a landmark win—not only for HKK and the Kukama people, but for Indigenous river defenders, in the Amazon and beyond, who are transforming grief into justice and resistance into rights.

Canaquiri and other HKK members are now working to spread word of the ruling to communities all along the Marañón River by holding informational workshops in collaboration with IDL, Forum Solidaridad Perú, and the Water Committee of Iquitos. The objective is to raise awareness that the River has been recognized as a subject of rights and that leaders from these Indigenous communities can monitor the river’s well-being and take action in its defense.

The 2025 Goldman Prize is the most prominent, but not the first, international award won by Canaquiri for her work: in 2023, she was recognized with the Terre de Femmes International Award, celebrating women dedicated to environmental protection.

“I want to share this message with all women activists—of all ages, whether mothers or young women: We must unite in this great struggle to defend our territories and our rivers, because for us—and for all of humanity—they are part of our lives. . . . We also have a responsibility to set an example for future generations. We must leave behind something good, something positive. Let’s keep encouraging one another, committing ourselves fully, because defending life—our water and our land—is essential,” said Canaquiri.

Latin America is the most active region in the world for the Rights of Nature, including globally recognized firsts such as Ecuador’s incorporation of Nature’s rights in its 2008 national constitution, as well as innovative national RoN legislation in Bolivia and Panama. But what about Rights of Nature in Latin America’s largest country in terms of both population and geographic size—Brazil?

Brazil indeed has its own Rights of Nature (direitos da natureza) movement, including such highlights as the passage of a 2023 law recognizing the rights of the Amazonian Komi Memen River and the 2024 passage of a bill establishing the rights of the Linhares waves.

“Today, Brazil has three rivers that are recognized as the subject of rights, one of them an Amazonian river, and additionally we have three states that have decided to amend their state constitutions,” said Vanessa Hasson, Executive Director of MAPAS (Methods of Support for Environmental and Social Practices), an NGO that helps lead the Rights of Nature movement in the country. “We have more than 23 cases of the Rights of Nature in Brazil, some of which have already been approved, others are in the process of articulation.”

In this blog post, we begin with a brief look at the history of environmental protection in modern Brazil. We then examine the current cases and approvals of Rights of Nature in the country, ending with a consideration of the future of the movement and the potential for a constitutional amendment to codify the recognition of Nature’s rights in the country. 

A Brief History of Modern Environmental Policy in Brazil

Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world and is home to the world's largest rainforest, four and a half thousand miles of coastline, and more than 10% of all species worldwide.[I] An outstanding environmental feature of the country is the Amazon, one of the most environmentally and biologically important areas in the world, and although the forest straddles many South American countries, 70% of it lies in Brazil.[II] Given this ecological richness, the country has a long and active history pertaining to its environmental policy. 

In 1978, Brazil signed the Amazon Cooperation Treaty as a means of addressing international pressure to protect the environmentally vital area of the Amazon.[III] In the 1988 Federal Constitution of Brazil, the country acknowledged environmental protection and marked an important moment by guaranteeing a "healthy and stable environment to all Brazilian citizens.”[II] The document also created penal sanctions for violations; divided environmental protection in the country among federal, state, and municipal bodies; and described the country’s forests as “national patrimony.”[II] In some ways, Brazilian environmental laws are advanced. Scholars have noted that the country even has “unlimited shareholder liability for environmental harm” and that Brazilian politics has a progressive streak that has “historically materialized in progressive laws.”[III] 

From the years of 1964 to 1985, however, Brazil was under a military dictatorship that sought for the country to undergo rapid economic development. To do so, it “embarked on a series of road building and colonization enterprises designed to integrate the Amazon region with the rest of Brazil.”[II] This resulted in the building of the Trans-Amazonian highway in the 1970s, which opened the region to new levels of development, land-grabbing, deforestation, and ecocide.[​​IV] 

After the end of the dictatorship period, there continued to be failures in Brazilian environmental regulation and enforcement. One scholar has noted, for instance, that during the 1997 Kyoto Convention on Climate Change, “Brazil refused to recognize publicly the critical role that rainforests play in storing carbon dioxide and the direct impact their destruction has in contributing to global warming.”[II] 

Over two decades later, during Jair Bolsonaro's first campaign for the presidency, he argued that protected lands were causing obstacles to economic growth – a view harkening back to the developmental spirit the country saw in the dictatorship. He also promised that, during his time in office, there wouldn't be a "square centimeter demarcated as an indigenous reserve.”[V] Additionally, with regard to the courts, it has been noted that the country’s “traditional legal culture,” alongside insufficient public education and awareness about environmental matters, have led to difficulties for those trying to create “lasting environmental reform.”[II] These difficulties notwithstanding, progressive environmentalism is alive in Brazil, including via the RoN movement.

The Rights of Nature Movement in Latin America and Brazil

The Rights of Nature (RoN) movement aims to include ecosystems and animal species in the legal system, seeking to recognize that Nature has intrinsic value and its own right to exist.[VI] The movement also aligns with many Indigenous Peoples’ conceptions of living in harmony with Nature. 

Latin America has long been the most active region in the world in terms of creation and implementation of Rights of Nature laws. Ecuador famously recognized RoN in its constitution in 2008 (and, as of 2025, remains the only country to have done so), noting that Pachamama, or Mother Earth, "has the right to integral respect for its existence.” Similarly, Bolivia has a Law of the Rights of Mother Earth.[VII]

What about the RoN movement in Brazil? The remainder of this blog post covers the two main ways that Brazilian activists, lawyers, and organizations have gone about working towards the RoN: 1) municipal amendments to organic laws and 2) recognition of rights for specific natural features. We also consider the future of the movement, especially as regards a proposed amendment to Brazil’s Federal Constitution. 

Amendments to Municipalities’ Organic Laws

One of the most prevalent ways that the RoN movement has progressed in Brazil is through the introduction and passing of amendments to municipalities’ organic laws. Organic laws are the governing legal framework of municipalities, which were given the right to govern given each area’s internal affairs by article 29, chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Brazil.[VIII][IX]

Bonito and Paudalho – municipalities in the state of Pernambuco – approved amendments to their municipal organic laws that adopted RoN as early as 2017 and 2018, respectively. Bonito’s article 236 approved the recognition of RoN to exist, prosper, and evolve, and that people should act in ways that ensure all members of the community, human and nonhuman, have the right to a healthy and balanced ecological environment, for present and future generations.[X] Both the Bonito and Paudalho amendments additionally mention necessary ecosystem services, as well as the municipal and community importance of  defending and preserving nature.[X][XI] Florianópolis, Santa Catarina followed in 2019, recognizing that both humans and nonhumans are guaranteed quality of life, as did the municipality of José de Freitas, Piauí in 2023, noting that Nature has rights.[XII][XIII]

The state of Mato Grosso, in central Brazil, saw three municipalities propose amendments to their respective organic laws in 2023. In December, Alto Paraguai approved an amendment recognizing the Rights of Nature (RoN) and the intrinsic rights of bodies of water.[XIV] Earlier, in June, the municipality of Rondonópolis passed an extensive bill focused on its environmental code. While the document does not explicitly mention “rights of nature” (direitos da natureza), it names harmony with nature as a guiding principle and spans 183 articles covering a wide range of environmental concerns. These include emissions control, pollution, hazardous activities and substances, incentives for environmental action, monitoring systems, and penalties. The law also includes distinct sections addressing flora, fauna, air, and water, along with discussions of legal reserves, Indigenous lands, and Quilombola territories.[XV] 

In June 2023, the municipality of Cáceres in Mato Grosso, located on the border with Bolivia, approved an amendment to its organic law. The amendment acknowledged Bolivia’s influence—particularly its 2011 national Mother Earth Law, which recognizes the rights of Mother Earth—and also recognized the Matogrossense Pantanal, a unique wetland spanning parts of Mato Grosso do Sul, Bolivia, and Paraguay that fluctuates with seasonal changes.[XVI][XVII] Like other municipal RoN amendments, the Cáceres amendment emphasized the importance of harmony with nature.[XVIII][XIX] However, in August 2023, just two months after its approval, the amendment was repealed in full, revoking the rights of nature previously recognized.[XX]

Specific Bodies as Rights Bearers 

A second major trend in Brazil’s RoN movement has likewise taken place primarily at the municipal level, but instead of granting rights to Nature broadly, it focuses on recognizing specific natural features as rights-bearing entities.

For example, in 2023, the Komi Memen River—known outside the Indigenous region as the Laje River—in Guajará-Mirim, Rondônia, was proposed as a subject of rights in a bill introduced by Francisco Oro Waram, an Indigenous council member of the Oro Waram subgroup of the Wari’ people.[XXI] The Oro Waram are a subgroup of the Wari’ people who live in this area, part of the Western Amazon, and rely on the river heavily for their livelihoods. The Wari’, like many Indigenous groups in Brazil, face ongoing threats from land grabbing and deforestation driven by soybean and cattle industries. The Komi Memen River was not only the first river in Brazil to be granted legal personhood in Brazil but also the first such river in the Amazon as a whole.[XXII] 

The law begins by acknowledging the river as essential to food and water security not only for the Indigenous population but for all beings dependent on its course. As the river originates in the Igarapé Laje Indigenous Territory—currently under threat from invasions and illegal land grabbing—the law affirms the efforts of Indigenous peoples to protect the surrounding forest and river in order to preserve its ecological balance.[XXIII]

The legislation recognizes the river’s intrinsic rights, including the right to maintain its natural flow and quantity, be nourished by nearby forests, and engage with humans through spiritual and cultural practices, such as traditional fishing. It also establishes a guardian committee to defend the river’s rights. While community members can be nominated and elected to serve, several positions are mandatory, including a representative from the Oro Wari’ people and one from the Federal University of Rondônia. The committee meets annually to report on the river’s health to the local community and municipal authorities.[XXIII]

Following this, two more rivers in Brazil—the Mosquito River in Minas Gerais and the Vermelho River in Goiás—were also granted legal personhood in 2024.[XXIV] The bill for the Vermelho River drew inspiration from the Laje River legislation, likewise establishing a guardian committee and outlining the river’s rights to maintain its flow, remain ecologically balanced, and sustain its relationships with human communities.[XXV] 

Councilwoman Elenízia da Mata de Jesus, who introduced the Vermelho River bill, saw it pass unanimously with nine votes in favor. Like the Laje River, the Vermelho has been damaged by human occupation, agricultural expansion, and commercial infrastructure. While the legislation marks a significant step, Elenízia has emphasized the importance of extending protections across the river basin, potentially through partnerships with other municipalities in Goiás.[XXVI] 

Other natural features in Brazil have also been recognized as rights-bearing entities. In the municipality of Santo Antônio do Itambé, Minas Gerais, an amendment to the organic law not only acknowledged RoN but also designated January 21 as Pico do Itambé Day. The amendment celebrates the state park and its rivers, as well as the significance of the surrounding mountains that form part of the Serra do Espinhaço, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, underscoring their connection to Itambeana cultural identity.[XXVII]

Also in 2024, a groundbreaking law in Linhares, Espírito Santo, recognized the rights of a set of ocean waves at the mouth of the Doce River. These waves, prized by surfers, had stopped breaking properly following the 2015 Mariana dam collapse, which released mining waste and altered the river’s flow. The silt and mud “built up over time, shifting the river’s flow, reducing its power, and eventually weakening the waves at its mouth,” and returned in 2022 only after a flood.[XXVIII] 

The new law mandates the preservation of the river’s natural flow, ecological balance, and protection from pollution—not only for the waves themselves but also for the connected water systems.[XXVIII][XXIX] It also created a guardian committee to represent the waves’ interests, with members including local Indigenous leaders, the founder of the Doce River Alliance, and others with deep ties to the area. The aim is to blend traditional ecological knowledge with contemporary conservation efforts.[XXX][XXVIII] 

According to Vanessa Hasson of MAPAS, the Doce River initiative is one of the most emblematic RoN cases in Brazil. She noted that, despite ongoing spiritual and socio-cultural impacts—such as a continued ban on fishing—the river is “starting to recover.”

Conceição Lagoon Case as Precedent for Courts’ Role in Brazilian RoN Movement 

The Brazilian judiciary has also begun to engage with the RoN framework. In 2021, a lawsuit in Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, claimed that the Conceição Lagoon, protected under a 2019 organic law amendment, was suffering due to mismanagement and ecological harm.[XXXI] The case, filed by Costa Legal, UFECO, and Associação Pachamama, sought a formal “declaration of the Lagoon as a natural entity with specific rights” and the creation of a governance system to monitor and protect it.[XXXII] The case is notable as it referenced the amendment to Florianopolis's organic law in 2019, thus showing how such municipal amendments can influence court decisions. 

An injunction established an advisory group, the CJ-PLC, tasked with recommending ways to measure and maintain ecological balance. Although a later ruling clarified that the CJ-PLC does not hold the same authority as a state agency and lacks decision-making power over other parties, the group’s creation and its role in the process were ultimately upheld.[XXXII][XXXIII]

State and Federal Constitutional RoN Efforts

In some cases, a groundswell of municipal-level RoN initiatives has led to broader efforts at the state level. In Minas Gerais, for instance, Councilwoman Karine Roza de Oliveira Santos of Serro worked with the NGO MAPAS to pass a local organic law amendment recognizing the Rights of Nature and explicitly promoting the protection and revitalization of the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest (Mata Atlântica).[XXXIV] Hasson emphasized that both biomes are “very important for the production of water in the Amazon.” 

Elsewhere in the state, a commemorative law in Belo Horizonte noted that the Serra do Curral park is recognized as a subject of rights.[XXXV] Building on these local developments, a Workers’ Party legislator proposed a constitutional amendment to the Minas Gerais state assembly in 2023 that would enshrine the intrinsic and perpetual Rights of Nature. The proposal remains pending.[XXXVI][XXXVII] 

Santa Catarina also saw a proposed constitutional amendment in 2023.[XXXVIII][XXXIX] The proposal notes that the federal constitution’s article 225, which is devoted to the environment, states that “all have the right to an ecologically balanced environment” and that the “Government and the community shall have the duty to defend and preserve it.”[VIII][XL] Under this claim, the amendment to Santa Catarina’s constitution proposed an inclusion of recognition for RoN; however, a legal conflict arose, and the proposal has not advanced further.

The most ambitious effort to date is a proposed federal constitutional amendment introduced in 2024 by Representative Célia Xakriabá, an activist, educator, and member of the Xakriabá people from Minas Gerais.[XLI][XLII] The amendment would recognize Nature as a subject of rights and additionally recognize the role of Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities as interrelated to Nature, and granting them a “guaranteed right to maintain their ways of life.”[XLIII] 

According to Hasson, the amendment is grounded in a framework that centers Indigenous Peoples, Quilombolas (descendants of Afro-Brazilian slaves who escaped from slave plantations that existed until abolition in 1888), and other traditional communities. While agribusiness and other dominant influences in Brazil’s current Congress are likely to resist the proposal, MAPAS and allied organizations are prepared to wait for a more favorable political climate—a time, as Hasson put it, when there is a more “conscious Congress.”

Citations: 

I - Brazil’s Geography and Biodiversity

II - The Brazilian Legal Tradition and Environmental Protection: Friend or Foe

III - Threats to the Brazilian Environment and Environment Policy

IV - Brazil Seeks to Privatize Key Stretches of Amazon Highways

V - Threats to the Brazilian Environment and Environment Policy

VI - What are the Rights of Nature?

VII - The Rights of Nature Movement 

VIII - CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERATIVE  REPUBLIC OF BRAZIL

IX - The Forum of Federations Handbook on Local Government in Federal Systems 

X - Câmara Municipal do Bonito/PE

XI - Câmara Municipal de Paudalho/PE

XII - Câmara Municipal de Florianópolis 

XIII - Câmara Municipal de José de Freitas, Piauí

XIV - Câmara Municipal de Alto Paraguai
XV - Município de Rondonópolis

XVI - Presidente Constitucional del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia

XVII - The Pantanal  

XVIII - Câmara Municipal de Cáceres

XIX - Cáceres City Council, in English 

XX - Cáceres Repeal 

XXI - Câmara Municipal de Guajará-Mirim

XXII - Indigenous leader inspires an Amazon city to grant personhood to an endangered river

XXIII - Câmara Municipal de Guajará-Mirim, Rio Laje

XXIV - Câmara Municipal de Porteirinha/MG

XXV - Municipality of Goiás law on the rights of the Vermelho River 

XXVI - Vermelho River in Brazil is now a subject of rights

XXVII - Câmara Municipal de Santo Antônio do Itambé-MG

XXVIII - For the First Time, Part of the Ocean Has Been Granted Legal Personhood

XXIX - In a First, Brazilian City Grants Legal Rights to Waves

XXX - Municipality of Linhares Law on the Rights of the Waves

XXXI - Florianópolis Brazil court case on the rights of the Conceição Lagoon

XXXII - Sabin Center, November 2023 Updates

XXXIII - ONG Costa Legal and others vs. Municipality of Florianópolis and others

XXXIV - Lei Organica de Serro - MG

XXXV - Lei N 11.397 Belo Horizonte

XXXVI - Proposta de Emenda à Constituição n. 12/2023

XXXVII - State of Minas Gerais proposed constitutional amendment

XXXVIII - State of Santa Catarina proposed constitutional amendment

XXXIX - Santa Catarina Constitution Amendment in English

XL - Santa Catarina Amendment Proposal Portuguese

XLI - Célia Xakriabá Amendment Proposal 

XLII - Célia Xakriabá

XLIII - Brazil Proposed Federal Constitutional Amendment