For the German context, this has been a unique opportunity to bring together 30 activists, academics, journalists, representatives of NGOs and further experts on nature protection, human rights and environmental law from Europe, Latin America and Africa, thus creating a space for exchange, networking and discussion of some of the pressing questions around RoN:

What is the grand vision behind the concept, and how does it travel between different contexts?

What are promising approaches, relevant factors, and big challenges?

How do RoN relate to human rights, and to property? Where next on the path towards RoN and an "ecologisation of law"?

Grand vision, tough realities, creative approaches

As manifest in the workshop’s kick-off talk (by Vanessa Hasson, MAPAS Brazil) as well as in a first round of flashlights on cases, struggles and initiatives around the world, RoN serve as an umbrella term for a diversity of actors and approaches – from local and indigenous communities via public sector institutions to transnational organisations – , uniting around the common idea of changing jurisdiction towards a paradigm more inclusive of the non-human world.

The Rights of Nature are being called for, existing on paper or already put into practice in diverse ways. Among those discussed are

• municipal and regional legislations recognising individual ecosystems as legal subjects, such as, most prominently, water bodies (Rio Atrato/Colombia, Whanganui River/Aotearoa New Zealand, Mar Menor/Spain; next to the Yamuna and Ganges Rivers/India, the recognition of which has been stalled; as well as intiatives for several European rivers),
• the acknowledgment of sacred natural sites as bearers of rights (Uganda), as well as
• granting rights to Pachamama (Ecuador, Bolivia), or
• to Nature as a whole in state constitutions (new initiatives: Republic of Ireland, Bavaria and other German federal states, as well as on a state level).

Depending on the respective conditions, diverse, sometimes creative, approaches are employed in campaigning for RoN. These include, amongst others,

• community mobilisation,
• artistic interventions,
• scientific research,
• calls for corporate responsibility,
• direct democratic tools,
• municipal motions,
• national citizen assemblies,
• EU-level reports and proclamations (EESC/Carducci et al. 2020; Proclamation European Waters to the People of Europe), as well as
• transnational initiatives and declarations (Universal Declaration of Rights of Mother Earth; calls for a UN Earth Assembly or a UN Declaration of Rights of Nature).

Legal, political, social and cultural frames differ, of course, substantially, and so do the challenges and opportunities actors face. Indigenous communities are all too often forced to defend their territories and sites against destruction caused by extractivist resource politics and global industrial demands. Environmental activists are facing persecution and threats to their lives in many parts of the world. In Western contexts, environmental laws are oftentimes losing out against corporate interests and deeply rooted anthropocentric beliefs prevent more systemic change.

Making nature’s voice heard and ultimately aiming to tip the balance of legal power in its favour, RoN extend the spectrum of strategies to counter current power asymmetries favoring human and corporate interests.

Their effectiveness, however, crucially depends on functioning state and legal systems, notably on independent courts and judicial procedures, which is not a given reality in many authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes.

RoN and Human Rights: clash or synergy?

To a certain degree, the actions and interests of humans are at the roots of much environmental damage around the world, and thus seemingly in constant contradiction with the needs and interests of the environment. Moreover, Human Rights (HR), despite their role as one of the most influential principles of international law, are still and again violated and endangered in far too many contexts. So why bring up another rights discourse that might even contradict or weaken HR compliance?

Discussants, as much as speakers and commentators (Heiner Bielefeldt, FAU Erlangen-Nuremberg – Jérémie Gilbert, University of Roehampton – Lotte Leicht, Climate Rights International) were challenging the notion of an ‘abstract antagonism’ between HR and RoN. Pointing to the value of ecosystems for human life and to the role of humans in upholding biodiversity in many contexts (eg, indigenous guardianship, cultural landscapes) as well as to the increasingly desastrous consequences of environmental damage for human and non-human life, they emphasised the entanglement of both nature and humans.

Even more so, it was argued that, considering the synergies between RoN perspectives and HR (Right to Food, Right to Water, Right to a Healthy Environment) and the possibility to extend HR towards including RoN, contrary to widely held opinions, RoN are likely to have strengthening effects on the role and implementation of HR overall.

Nevertheless, as much as humans’ and nature’s interests among themselves, HR and RoN might conflict in many cases and have to be balanced carefully. However, as human rights expert Jérémie Gilbert pointed out, this need for balancing and testing has been inscribed in the HR framework from the very start, with most HR not being formulated as absolute, but as subject to proportionality (thus to restriction in the face of conflicting interests). Moreover, within their fundamentally universalist framing, HR have been shown to tolerate (eg, cultural) diversity to a certain degree.

Among workshop participants, the debates around HR and RoN also allowed for a more thorough discussion of the relation between humans and nature, thus shedding light on slightly different understandings and ‘grand visions’ behind. While some speakers were focusing on the synergies of HR and RoN when placed on equal footing in the context of current legal frameworks, others insisted on the grand vision of interconnectedness in which humans are viewed as part of nature, thus emphasising that a consequent, holistic RoN approach would have to include (and thus, according to some, placed above) HR.

Meanwhile, drawing on the anthropocentric roots of the rights framework itself, Heiner Bielefeldt in his talk argued for an ‘anthropocentrism of responsibility’: Interpreting, claiming and expanding rights, human beings are the only ones bearing an ‘active rights holdership’: HR thus entail very specific bonds and features, and should include the responsibilities and duties for humans to take care of interests and rights beyond their own.

Nature as property, or the risk of "translation"

Property rights are at the basis of jurisdictions, economic and political systems around the world. In many cases, promoting RoN means to confront the conventional framework of property, leading to seemingly unresolvable conflicts. Workshop discussions, however, provided a more complex picture.

Many once again argued in favour of the grand visions of RoN (originating in indigenous lifeworlds), according to which nature can neither be objectified nor subjected to ownership. Others argued on the basis of more pragmatic, functional approaches.

German philosopher Tilo Wesche (University of Oldenburg) had agreed to contribute an initial input but unfortunately had to cancel his participation, which is why the thematic block on RoN and property was subject to improvisation: Barbara Unmüßig summarised Wesche's main points, Hermann Ott (Client Earth) commented, and Elisabeth Weydt (author and journalist) and Christian Hönig (BUND) spontaneously provided short inputs.

As Hermann Ott emphasised in his contribution, "property" at the level of private law (as well as "sovereignty" at the level of constitutional and international law) is the pillar of the capitalist economic order.

A 21st century law, however, should aim for a co-operative order based on solidarity between humans and with other living beings on our planet.

In some cases, outlined by Lotte Leicht, property acts as a tool to protect of environmental and human rights, eg when it forms the basis for compensation claims around impacts of climate change and environmental destruction. Adding up to the complexity, in several RoN legislations, ecosystems themselves are declared as property holders, as legal subjects ‘owning themselves’ (as part of post-colonial conflict resolution, eg in the case of Whanganui River, ANZ).

Property thus figures as a barrier and opportunity to implement RoN and the individual relation requires discussion on a case-to-case basis. Historically as much as in present times, as Irish legal scholar Peter Doran (Queen’s University Belfast) pointed out, private property has been at the roots of processes of enclosure and exclusion. Here, RoN could benefit from stronger connection to debates on the ‘commons ’, including their focus on shared governance, thus allowing for a rethinking of state protection and promotion of other types of property.

Property is thus both an obstacle and an opportunity for the realisation of RoN: the individual relation varies from case to case. In his recent work, Tilo Wesche even proposes a justification of RoN through property: with ecosystems and people as bearers of common property rights based on the joint production of resources and ecosystem services by humans and nature.

As market-based solutions such as ecosystem services already play an important role in the context of international climate and environmental protection, Wesche's contribution opened the door to a broader discussion and a general critique of the increased commodification and monetisation of nature. Here, RoN - with their insistence on nature as non-commodifiable and inherently valuable, regardless of its provision of services or benefits to humans - generally offer a strong counter-perspective.

Wesche's contribution certainly represents a "translation" of the RoN to the context of strong property rights concepts in Europe.

Here, too, it can be seen that, although it is possible to transfer the concept to different cultural, social and legal contexts, such translations harbour the risk of robbing the idea of its potential for more radical paradigm shifts.

To what extent and in what way RoN can and should be adapted to different contexts and conditions certainly requires further discussion, even more so (though not only) in a Western / European context.

Where next for RoN?

Finally, in a debate on outlooks, collaborations and ideas for further promoting RoN, participants were discussing ideas and demands on political and conceptual levels. These included strategy-building, communication, linking to new allies, discourses and international fora, as well as further theoretical clarification.

For realising RoN around the world, the aforementioned diversity and flexibility in application is certainly an asset, as it allows to transfer and translate the concept to diverse contexts as well as to come up with tailored approaches pushing for change on many levels. However, as a “movement” that includes manifold, more or less connected initiatives, it was mentioned that RoN might benefit from a common frame and  strategic outlook in campaigning, communicating and lobbying, as much as from bringing together existing networks and structures. Transnational organisations such as the Global Alliance for Rights of Nature (GARN) are paving the way in this regard and need further strengthening.

In a European context, promoting RoN might include strategic lobbying for including such perspectives in national and EU-level policy-making, via the filing of reports and proposals. In the international sphere, RoN are already present in the UN Harmony with Nature programme. With major international summitssuch as COP CBD 16 in Colombia and the UN Future Summit upcoming, a targeted strategy including the organisation of side events and discussion fora was proposed.

Linking RoN to other highly relevant thematic areas was a major concern. Discussants mentioned linkages to actors, policies and discourses in the field of human rights, environmental organisations and movements, as much as debates on ecocide, extractivism and the ‘green transition’, degrowth, collective resource governance and the “commons”. Moreover, RoN would benefit from being brought into conversation – and controversy – with the currently dominant, market-based paradigms of sustainability and ‘green deals’, such as the ecosystem services framework and carbon pricing.

RoN could thus be more clearly positioned as an alternative to a commodification and monetarisation of nature.

As RoN are only about to gain attention in many contexts, communication and raising awareness for the idea itself certainly remains a key point.

Finally, further discussion fora, research and creative approaches are required, allowing for more conceptual clarity and linkages to other actors, ideas and initiatives.

Warm thanks to everyone contributing to this workshop. Hoping to continue the discussion soon. --

Imke Horstmannshoff & Barbara Unmüßig

Imke Horstmannshoff is a researcher, writer and activist for social-ecological change in Europe. Her work around Rights of Nature includes workshop design, coordination and facilitation of workshops, as well as of the online dossier on Rights of Nature. With degrees in Cultural and Global Studies, she is currently preparing for a PhD on Rights of Nature in Europe.

Barbara Unmüßig is a political scientist and publicist, and co-founder of numerous networks and organizations (German Institute for Human Rights, Forum Environment & Development). As a board member of the Heinrich Böll Foundation (affiliated with the German Green Party), she has been shaping the foundation's international and feminist work for over two decades until 2022.