The authors found that environmental concerns are not always the common driving force behind rights of nature processes, and Indigenous peoples and local communities are not universally advocates of the legal rights framework.
* 'Rights of nature' cases are growing worldwide, but perceptions of it as a revolutionary ecocentric movement are too simplistic, according to a recent study that identified nine patterns of its application in Ecuador, India, New Zealand and the U.S.
* The authors found that environmental concerns are not always the common driving force behind rights of nature processes, and Indigenous peoples and local communities are not universally advocates of the legal rights framework.
* At the same time, the interests of traditional communities are most affected by rights of nature reforms, and the rules surrounding the concept have created space to question the way nature is used for short-term human gain.
* Researchers suggest that a successful scenario is one where the rights of nature process align with the local context, addresses local issues, and engages with communities to prevent conflicts.
Cases granting nature and ecosystems legal rights are increasing worldwide, but perceptions of the rights of nature movement as a revolutionary ecocentric movement are too simplistic, according to the authors of a recent study published in Environmental Research Communications.
The study conducted an in-depth analysis of 78 peer-reviewed articles that focused on rights of nature case studies in Ecuador, India, New Zealand and the U.S. between 2012 and 2022. It identified nine patterns, among which were that environmental concerns were not the common driving force behind rights of nature (RoN) and that Indigenous peoples and local communities are not universally advocates of the legal rights framework -- contrary to conventional perceptions.
However, the interests of Indigenous and local communities are undoubtedly most affected by RoN, say the authors, and the rules surrounding the concept have created a space to question the way nature is used for short-term human gain when it lacks a platform to defend its own rights to exist.
"Not all or almost any of the rights of nature can solely be linked to protecting the environment," says Ilkhom Soliev, co-author of the study and head of the Department of Environmental Sociology at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). "It's more of a social, power-related process that questions the rights and ownership to land, forest, water or fishing and who should be owning these rights."
The study's findings supports those of other researchers, like one by Eden Kinkaid, from the geography department at the University of Arizona, U.S., who found the rights of nature concept to be "fuzzy" and "mobile" as various actors worldwide mobilized and understood the idea differently, instead of as a "global transnational movement."
While previous studies have defined RoN as a new ecocentric movement that aligns with Indigenous visions and worldviews, Soliev says the study challenges this statement based on the empirical evidence they found.
Even though the concept draws from various Indigenous philosophies, he asserts that it is more or less a Western legal concept that "brings nature to the same level as other actors that have rights, including people, corporations and other entities." This is contrary to many Indigenous and traditional spiritual concepts -- already quite distinct among themselves -- which tend to engage with spirituality and relational thinking between humans and nature (even placing species above people at times), rather than engaging with Western legal tools.
For example, in India, Soliev says, some people interviewed felt that granting rights to the Ganga River undermined the spiritual values of the community, which worships the river as an embodiment of a goddess, a divine force beyond human comprehension or legal definitions.
Although RoN affects Indigenous peoples and local communities, the authors found that they cannot be universally described as advocates for RoN, as reforms can affect their rights, political demands or interests. This pattern was evident in a case study from New Zealand, where the state granted legal personhood to the Te Urewera forest in 2014. While there was more agreement among Indigenous representatives around granting rights to the Whanganui River, the Te Urewera case caused more frustration as it ruled out the return of ancestral land and resources to Indigenous tribes.
But the rights of nature movements, and the engagement of various actors like a council member in the U.S. and judges in India, do help spark a change in how we relate to ecosystems, researchers say.
"The rights of nature center around who has the power to make the decisions," says Tish O'Dell, consulting director at Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). "It is really a power shift that is needed to go beyond the legal definitions and embrace the decolonized approaches to live as one with nature."
Soliev says the best-case scenario is when the RoN process fits the local context and addresses local issues. This is especially true when affected communities have access to resources and independent decision makers.
While some cases have shown that granting legal rights and personhood to nature can cause conflict with nearby communities, in other cases, Indigenous representatives have eventually come to support the framework when it aligns with their goals of restraining state power over natural resources, communities and their traditions.
"Our legal system is good at separating us from nature. The idea that we have regulations as to how much poison we can put in the water or in the soil is just regulating the harm rather than prohibiting it," O'Dell, who was not involved in the study, tells Mongabay. "It's time we realize the rights of nature that align with and safeguard the community's rights because we are connected, and what we do to nature, we do to ourselves."
A 2024 study found that, as of 2021, there were more than 400 adopted or pending RoN cases in 39 countries. Over the decades, the demand for extractive industries has increased, as have RoN initiatives aimed at combating environmental harm.
"To address environmental and social problems related to the environment, tweaking things on the technical level is not enough," Soliev tells Mongabay. "Many local initiatives, especially the ones that manage to take into account both human and environmental concerns, should be brought forward. We need to address issues on the fundamental levels through prioritizing communal values [and those of] individuals, using practical and political solutions, and [engaging] institutions, all at the same time."
Citations:
SolievI., Pirscher, F., & Schreiber, M. (2025). The making of rights of nature: nine patterns in a decade of empirical research on social-ecological drivers and actors. Environmental Research Communications, 7(7). doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ade5f2
Kahui, V., Armstrong, C. W., & Aanesen, M. (2024). Comparative analysis of Rights of Nature (RoN) case studies worldwide: Features of emergence and design. Ecological Economics, 221, 108193. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108193
Coombes, B. (2020). Nature's rights as Indigenous rights? Mis/recognition through personhood for Te Urewera. Espace Populations Sociétés, (2020/1-2). doi:10.4000/eps.9857
--
This post was previously published on Mongabay with a Creative Commons License.
***
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.
All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.
Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.