Rights of nature

There is, however, a growing contemporary environmental movement that has had some successes in this regard. The movement may be traced back to 1972 and the influential essayist  Christopher Stone^[1] who asked the question whether trees should have rights?  Stone’s arguments at the time and since, were controversial but accepted in a dissent by Justice William Douglas in the United States Supreme Court who argued that personhood might be granted to rivers and other living things^[2]. In the 2000’s attempts to bring rights of nature into the legal mainstream  came from campaigners and various groups.  These efforts have had limited success but remain pertinent to how nature should be treated.  The rights of rivers has been particularly successful in some countries.  Animal rights have similarly gained some momentum. An all- encompassing rights of nature  has many supporters and has resulted in legal initiatives in many countries but has fallen short of  universal acceptance.  The Nature’s Rights Bill  is a private member’s Bill in the UK,  introduced in the House of Lords  by Baroness Bennet of Manor Castle a member of the UK Green Party. The Bill is a useful model that contains a detailed legal framework setting out how a rights approach to nature may have practical benefits in helping to protect nature. It has to be admitted that the chances of a House of Lord’s private member’s bill becoming law is small, but the Bill is a worthwhile effort in showing what might be possible, even if the prospect of legislation is at this time remote.  It is  more than pertinent  to consider the Bill at the moment. High temperatures experienced in Europe over the Summer may focus minds and indirectly make much of the Bill relevant to the present day, especially in Europe. It is an area of high population density, industrialisation and  is experiencing climate warming at a faster pace than many other regions.

Introduction

Rights of nature has attracted much attention in recent months. The argument  supporting a new legal framework for rights of nature is contained in the innovative   Nature’s Rights Bill. The premise of the Bill is to link  humans and multi-various activities to their dependency on nature.  This is aimed to support an influential movement that might  attract cross party support in Parliament and public support.  There are three parts in this short explanatory note. The first part provides a background to the Bill explaining the role of the House of Lords and the use of a private member’s Bill. The second part  summarises the main content of the Bill, its potential educative value in explaining what the rights of nature might mean in legal terms. The third part of the note  summarises examples from other jurisdictions outside the UK where the rights of nature in one form or another has been adopted^[3]. There is also some analysis of why the Nature’s Rights Bill may provide lessons for the future. The Bill may prove a turning point in how the UK views nature. Many people have some reticence in linking human activity to nature, fearful of unforeseen legal consequences and liabilities.

Background

The Rights of Nature Bill was introduced into the House of Lords in July 2026. The Bill was sponsored by Baroness Bennet of Manor Castle, a member of the Green Party. Nature’s Rights, a pressure group, drafted the Bill as a private member’s bill. It is  noteworthy that the  Bill  began life in the House of Lords. There is a ballot to determine the order in which a Bill is taken in debate. There is a limit to the number of private members’ Bills  to 25 Bills per session, although a Bill can be introduced at any time. Only a small minority of private member’s Bills introduced in the House of Lords becomes law. For example from session 2013-14 to session 2023-24 only  4 private members’ Bills were successful and received the royal assent after completing all their sessions^[4].

Since the 2000’s campaigns have been waged to include  the recognition of the rights of nature. Such campaigns were  parallel to the demand for the rights of animals. Various  legal initiatives can be traced in countries throughout the world. These have varied from constitutional amendments to  legal challenges and private sector initiatives. In the UK the main claim rests on the  necessity for legal voices to protect nature protecting the rights of nature.  There is  a view that without a legal voice there can be no effective policy making protecting the rights of nature A legal personam would make it easier for cases to be taken and the role of the courts would become paramount. One parallel  example is  the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Rivers (2017) developed by the Earth Law Centre. The Universal Declaration contains a number of rights for rivers, that are indicative of what might be possible.:

·       The right to flow;

·       The right to perform essential functions within its ecosystem;

·       The right to be free from pollution;

·       The right to native biodiversity;

·       The right to regenerate and restoration.

The concept of nature being treated as  a “legal person” is innovative and controversial.  There is no single or universally accepted way to protect nature. Different legal systems will adopt different approaches, take  different directions in granting legal rights which are often a reflection of their constitutional arrangements. In general over the last two decades, humans, animals and nature have formed a global unity in many countries because of the rights of nature agenda. Precisely how to express this in law is challenging. Examples  with different countries. Ecuador in 2008 amended its constitution to include the Rights of Nature giving citizens the right to sue. New Zealand the important milestone  was reached when in 2017 the Whanganui River in New Zealand was recognised, mainly through the  influence of the Māori who were  appointed as  a legal person and  guardians of the river. Columbia in 2016, the Supreme Court recognised the rights of the Ataro River basin. In 2026, Panama recognised nature as a unique living subject with legal rights. Into this mix is the UK’s Nature Rights Bill.

The rights centred approach in accepting rights to rivers may be the first step in acknowledging nature rights. It is legitimate to ask why is it that rights of nature has faced such opposition and concern?  The reluctance  for a large part is  a reticence to accept nature rights as equivalent to property rights or corporate rights. Historical legal traditions have found it hard to adapt to a new reality.  Concerns include that such a right would interfere with economic growth and increase corporate costs. Regulation through the rights to nature can be seen as a threat to laissez faire attitudes that are popular to- day   with opposition to regulation while seeking de-regulation. Degradation of the environment is often viewed as an acceptable “ trade- off” and has for years been accepted. Climate change  are frequently the new deniers, and are often influential in persuading the public that climate warming is simply part of a global cyclical experience that will pass. Legal discourse has often been in  a “ bunker,” focused on self- contained  rules with a reluctance to accept radical ideas through a profound professional conservatism.  This may seem hard to understand. The literature on nature and the environment is long standing and science has for many years warned about complacency about the way nature is taken for granted, misunderstood and seen as  capable of being exploited for short term gain will result in environmental degradation that  will have profound impacts on humans. The commercialisation of  nature is part to blame but the responsibility is on all of humanity^[5].The science of nature is a longstanding area of study but drawing on the science has proven to be very challenging in terms of adapting judicial and legal attitudes^[6].The history of environmental rights is found through a progressive integration of science, technology and philosophy^[7] and metaphysical influences^[8]. Montesquieu (1689-1755), writing during the 18^th century in De l’esprit des Lois made the important link between the environment, the evolution of human ideas and manmade institutions:

Mankind are influenced by various causes, by the climate, by the religion, by the laws, by the maxims of government, by precedents, morals and customs; from whence is formed a general spirit of nations^[9].

One conduit of such ideas came from paintings and illustrations that trace the pathway of nature and how nature is changing and the impact of industrialisation^[10]. Many contributors to this visual understanding of nature have given rise to idealistic notions of nature, agriculture and the natural order of life^[11].‍

The Bill’s Main Clauses

The educative value of the Bill becomes apparent through  the six parts of the Bill and its 50 clauses. A brief synopsis of the Bill encapsulates the main themes and ideas.

Part 1 sets out the Bill’s main characteristics and aims. The aim is to  give nature legal recognition through statutory intervention. which will oversee policy, regulation and public administration. Significantly it will apply to public and private decisions-making, economic and financial systems. In outline this means the following:

·       Stablishing a legal duty of care for public bodies, businesses and individuals;

·       Providing a framework of integrated rights;

·       Introducing mechanisms for dispute resolution and legal enforcement;

·       Establishing a nature guardianship council and bioregional councils and  a nature right’s rights tribunal;

·       Creating a governance structure  for implementation and integration.

These are ambitious aims and if accepted into law would represent a radical change to  the contemporary understanding  of nature.

Part 2 of the Bill contains instructions as to how rights should be interpreted. Significantly there is a duty of care to apply to public authorities, UK entities and relevant people. Reasonable steps would be needed to follow the law on  human rights and approaches to  economic rights. This is innovative in the sense that the Bill would seek to integrate and link different aspects of rights together. This requires a recognition of the hierarchy of rights.

Part 3 sets out how the rights and duties in the Bill might  be integrated into all aspects of policy making, including financial and economic policy. This is a powerful part of the bill because it is  intended to ensure that public authorities act within their functions, particularly the adoption of a duty of candour on public and private bodies. In such a scenario this puts nature and its protection at the apex of decision making. This includes an assessment of how a rights impact assessment could be triggered by policy or administrative decisions that would materially affect nature. This is potentially a significant  development if adopted into law.

Part 4 is vital if the Bill is to have any  possible traction in the practical world of decision-making. The Bill creates a new regulatory body to protect nature. Governance and implementation are twin pillars upon which a newly created Nature Guardianship Council ( NCC) would act as a regulatory body and set standards, monitor and implement. These are all necessary elements if the outcome is to make  a real change to how nature, rivers, woodlands and so on is regarded. Areas already designated as areas of habitat protection would remain but under the Bill more clearly protected than at present.

Part 5 contains a miscellaneous number of techniques and powers to support the right to nature. This includes the adoption of  dispute resolution, the use of tribunals and enforcement powers. The proposal is to set up a specific Nature Rights Tribunal with jurisdiction over the rights and remedies of enforcement. Significantly a new criminal offence would be created linked to the regulatory powers of the NCC to ensure enforcement. The scope of the legislation would apply to the UK as a whole.

Part 6 has  provisions covering definitions, the use of regulatory powers and how the Government might review the legislation.

This is a Bill that is distinguished by the  inclusion of many clauses with the ambition to achieve changes in public attitudes to nature. The Bill also stresses the role of law to act as a priority in regulating and overseeing how nature is treated. The Bill is an advance on past rhetorical claims and ambitions that have often lacked clarity and focus.

Conclusions

The Bill has drawn on a number of international examples of nature rights legislation has been accepted and passed into law^[12]. It is also a Bill that is incremental in planning and  draws on examples of how local government has developed  protection for nature such as the  protection of the River Ouse. The fact that the Bill is practical and well thought through and considered is an obvious step forward.

There have been some private members bills that have attempted to provide better protection for nature in a variety of ways^[13]. None have been successful, Yet their impact is cumulative – showing that pressure groups can achieve a voice. The hall mark of the Bill is to be found in the work of the pressure group Nature’s Rights^[14]. Their analysis is based on  the view that outdated systems should be upgraded to meet the crisis faced by ecological systems  across the world and the  implications of climate breakdown. Their conclusion  is that environmental law is insufficient and that an integrated rights framework is necessary to make nature a key part of a sustainable development and achieve UN Sustainable Development goals.

Concentrating on the success or failure of the Bill in  Parliament is to miss the main point of the Bill’s significance. It has to be appreciated that the Bill is likely to fail not on its own merits as such but because as a private members Bill it is statistically unlikely to become law. The Bill, however, is an important step whereby the future of  protection of the environment is given new impetus. The Bill marks a milestone that is significant^[15]. Politicians and governments tend to fluctuate in their support for climate change  initiatives as the debate about the climate enters a new phase of denial and counter factual  stories often linked to populist causes and opinions. It is hard to know how future political agendas will be set or indeed how far opinions will adapt to new experiences of hot summers, drought conditions and water shortages and floods. Much will have to be decided as current experiences in Europe have strengthened the need to  adapt to climate change which will require new approaches and ideas to better protect nature the environment and ultimately, ourselves^[16].

‍

^[1] Christopher Stone, “Should Trees have standing ?”  ( 1972) Southern California Law Review.

^[2] Sierra Club v Morton [1972] US Supreme Court  405 US 727,

^[3] There is a useful analysis in Celine Tan and Julio Faudez, Natural Resources and Sustainable Development Edward Elgar, London , 2017.

^[4] UK Parliament, HL Library, Private members’ bills in the House of Lords ( 13^th October 2025).

^[5] Peter Frankopan,   Earth Transformed: An untold story  London, Penguin 2023.

^[6] See: R (on the application of Amvac Chemical UK(Ltd.,) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2001] EWHC Admin 1011 is a good example. J. Vogler, The Global Commons: Environmental and Technical Governance Chichester, John Wiley, 2000., O. Young, “The Architecture of Global Environmental Governance: Bringing Science to Bear on Policy” (2008) 8 (no.1) Global Environmental Politics 14-33. Elizabeth Fisher, “ Precaution, Precaution Everywhere: Developing a “ Common Understanding” of the Precautionary Principle in the European Community” (2002) 9 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 7

^[7] See: J. F. McEldowney and S. McEldowney, “ Science and Environmental Law; Collaboration across the Double Helix”   Environmental Law Review (2011) Volume 13 issue 3,   pp 168-206

^[8] J. Greaves and W. Grant, “ Crossing the Interdisciplinary Divide: Political Science and Biological Science” (2010) Political Studies Vol. 58 no.2 pps. 320-339. R. Macrory, “Regulating in a Risky Environment” [2001] Current Legal Problems 619 R. Macrory, Modernising Justice: Regulation and the Role of an Environmental Tribunal March 2003 Centre for Law and the Environment. Faculty of Laws, University College, London ( available through Defra) R.Macrory,The Environmental Justice Report Environmental Law Foundation 2004 ( available through Defra).

^[9] Charles de Secondat Montesquieu, Baron de la Brede et de (1689-1755) French philosopher and author of De l’espirit des lois (1748) vol. 1 p. 435. See : George Monbiot, Regensis Penguin, London Alan Lane 2022.

^[10] Geoffrey Parker, Global Crisis, Yale University, 2013.

^[11] Charlotte Klonk, Science and the Perception of nature: British Landscape Art in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Yale and New Haven, London: The Paul Mellon centre for Studies in British Art, 1998.

^[12] Max Planck Institute Hamburg Germany 2022.  Rights of nature on the upswing.

^[13] See House of Commons Library,  Climate and  Nature Bill 2024-25 ( 7^th February 2025) Number 10176. House of Commons Library  Rights of Rivers  ( 31^st March 2026)  Number 10496.

^[14] Nature’s Rights Law for a living World, Integrated Rights Framework. London 2026.

^[15] See E.H Gombrich, A Little history of the World,  Yale University Press, 2008.Alan C. Jenkins. The Naturalists Book Club Associates  London 1978.

^[16] Marcelo Suarez -Orozco, Veerabhadran Ramanthan, From Climate Criss to Climate Resilience  ( 17^th May 2024) Vatican Publications.

‍