Indigenous communities are world leaders in recognizing the “personality” rights of rivers, lakes and mountains. “Certainly, the most effective models require governance frameworks with appointed tutors or committees,” she says. “But we don`t have much data on their impact yet. If we find it strange to see nature as we humans see, it can only be because we grew up in an anthropocentric intellectual tradition that treats the natural world as an object to be studied and exploited for human use, rather than a subject to be communicated and respected. “Designating the river as a legal entity was the clearest message we could send,” Chief Jean-Charles Piétacho of the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit told us in an interview. “There will never be dams in this river. The river protects itself, we protect the river, we are all protected. I think the message is very clear. However, the idea of what these laws seek to achieve is where the similarities end, as their legal bases and the range of socio-environmental and economic problems they are supposed to address vary from country to country. Many laws have also faced opposition from industry, farmers and river communities, who claim that conferring the personality of nature violates their rights and livelihoods. Among other things, the resolution affirms the “right of the river to live, exist and flow”, to evolve naturally, to be protected from pollution, to preserve its integrity and to take legal action. It is said that soon “river guards” will be appointed to ensure that these rights are respected.

To protect the natural monument, the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit and Minganie Regional County Municipality declared Mutuhekau Shipu a legal entity in 2021. Now the river has nine rights, including the right to flow, preserve biodiversity, be pollution-free and sue. Despite the hustle and bustle of international activities around the environmental personality, it can be difficult to translate them into meaningful action. “The Wurundjeri Woiwurrung refer to the river as a living being that needs a voice,” says O`Donnell, a member of Birrarung Council. “Your leadership helps the rest of us understand how to reshape our relationship with the river. There have been many attempts over the last 30 years to find a new management agreement for the Yarra and so far this is the most promising. Because the law appoints two guardians to act on behalf of the river — one from the New Zealand government, the other from the Whanganui Iwi or Maori group — it is unique in that it legally ties the river to the tribe, Finlayson says. The philosophical underpinnings of the rights of nature can be traced back to Indigenous worldviews, which see man in relation to the natural world rather than being separated from it. This emphasis on interconnectedness and interdependence contrasts with the anthropocentric worldview that includes humans separately and in the domination of nature and animals. A National Review column criticizing the Orange County, Florida ordinance (see below) mockingly but rightly states that it — and similar laws — “dilutes human exceptionalism.” She said an overhaul is underway — and with each successful case, more and more communities are considering the idea. “We have become aware of the weaknesses in our system,” she told Al Jazeera.

“And if we don`t change now, when will we? We cannot wait any longer. Driven by widespread environmental degradation and growing movements for indigenous rights, indigenous communities around the world are leading the way in defending the rights of sacred and ancestral rivers. These include the tribal relationship of Maori with the Whanganui River in Aotearoa, New Zealand, the role of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities in the Atrato River in Colombia, and the granting by the Yurok Tribal Council of legal personality rights to the Klamath River through an ordinance in the United States. But standing to prosecute is in fact largely granted, and neither of the two court cases decided so far in Ecuador in favor of nature have been brought by an indigenous group. While there has been a movement to protect the environment for decades, the origin of the legal arm often goes back to Christopher Stone`s influential 1972 article, “Should Tress Have Standing?” 3 — The rights of nature approach has gained importance in recent years as a new instrument for combating environmental degradation where other approaches have failed. Speak Up Wekiva, which led the voting initiative, filed a federal lawsuit against the state law on constitutional grounds. 8 The group withdrew its complaint after the initiative was passed, as director Chuck O`Neal told WMFE: But when the construction company didn`t comply with the court`s ruling, “the NGO couldn`t afford to have a second case,” O`Donnell says. The movement for the recognition of the rights of nature corresponds to efforts to elevate the legal status of animals beyond mere ownership. Both are responses to the substantive and procedural shortcomings of existing environmental and animal welfare laws and to the misconception of nature and animals as goods or resources whose value is determined solely by their value to humans. A more just legal and social construct perceives nature and animals as entities with inherent value and their own rights to exist and thrive.

Specific rights granted to environmental characteristics generally focus on the absence of pollution and other ecological damage, as well as on the fundamental rights to exist, prosper and, in the case of rivers, flow. The granting of legal personality to rivers represents a seismic shift from Western society`s fundamental belief that man is at the top of the natural world. But for many indigenous peoples, the concept of nature as a sentient human being equal to man is not new. In Maori culture, for example, ancestors or tupuna are embodied in the landscape. The global “rights of nature” movement – which seeks to secure legal rights, including reputation, for environmental features such as rivers, forests and ecosystems – continues to advance with two important developments in North America. Standing, which requires a party to take legal action to demonstrate personal harm, can be a difficult and complicated procedural hurdle in the context of animal and environmental laws that many have failed to enforce. It is important to give legal status to nature and animal rights organisations – or their advocates – in order to achieve fair results, as laws are only effective if they are enforced. The Alliance for the Protection of the Elster River has granted the river the following rights in accordance with Innu habits and customs: 1) the right to flow; (2) the right to respect for one`s cycles; (3) the right to protect and preserve its natural development; (4) the right to preserve its natural biodiversity; (5) the right to exercise its essential functions within its ecosystem; (6) the right to maintain its integrity; (7) the right to be protected from pollution; (8) the right to regeneration and recovery; and (9) the right to take legal action. Florida`s regulations may face a more direct challenge.

Despite being passed by nearly 90 percent of voters across the political spectrum, WEBOR faces a potential right of first refusal through the Clean Waterways Act, a state law passed in July 2020 — during the campaign to get the WEBOR on the ballot — which includes a provision “prohibiting local governments from recognizing or granting certain legal rights to the natural environment.” The Magpie River meanders majestically through the forests of Quebec for nearly 200 miles.