Back in October 2025, 4,000 local residents filed court proceedings involving the River Wye. They seek damages against three companies alleged to have polluted the river. This, and many other cases of human-perpetrated environmental damage, beg the question should nature have rights enshrined in law just as do humans?
Rights of nature
Christopher Stone argued that natural objects like rivers or mountains should be granted legal personality, with rights and responsibilities managed by statutory guardians or trustees. If the natural world does not have directly enforceable rights, its protection must inevitably link it to protecting a human right, which by implication is more important. This focus is anthropocentric.
In contrast, an ecocentric perspective recognises that nature has its own rights, separate from human rights. This natural world is not seen as merely serving human needs; instead, nature shouldn’t just be managed for human benefit.
The ‘rights of nature’ movement counters the anthropocentric focus. The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature asserts that a sustainable future requires humans to shift from exploiting nature to recognising it as a rights-bearing entity, rather than mere property.
Nature and legal personality
Giving legal personality to natural objects is a relatively recent concept, but the recognition of non-human entities as legal persons is well-established. Corporations, for instance, possess legal identity separate from their controllers, who must act in the corporation’s best interests.
Similarly, in principle, trustees or guardians could represent natural objects granted legal personality. And this has happened. For example, in the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017, the New Zealand Parliament recognised the sacredness of the Whanganui River to Māori people and gave it legal personality, operated through a guardianship body. The law created is bespoke and a more generalised and adaptable legal regime is also required, such as is found in Ecuador.
Los Cedros case
Ecuador has legally recognised the rights of nature. Under Article 71 of its constitution:
“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.
All persons, communities, peoples, and nations can call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of nature…”
This grants the natural world legal status and enforceable rights. Anyone can advocate for these rights, and the state is obliged to uphold them.
In the 2021 Los Cedros case, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court: recognised rights of nature and linked them to the human right to a healthy environment; gave legal protection to the Los Cedros cloud forest; banned mining there; and cancelled mining licences. In doing so, the court affirmed the forest’s right to protection for its own sake irrespective of the linked human rights.
Although the constitution recognises that ‘nature’ has rights, the constitutional court was able to give practical manifestation to ‘nature’ in the form of the Los Cedros cloud forest. Therefore, ‘nature’ is an abstract legal personality, but can have a practical manifestation in relation to a case.
Rights of nature in the UK
Rights of nature are not part of UK law, but Ecuador shows that they could be. There was an attempt to introduce legislation in October 2025, the Nature’s Rights Bill; a private member’s bill supported by former Green Party Leader, Baroness Natalie Bennett. It did not proceed but it is a marker for future action.
The River Wye case
Nearly 4,000 people are suing Avara Foods Limited (Avara), Freemans of Newent Limited (Freemans), and Welsh Water Dŵr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Dŵr Cymru) for allegedly polluting the Rivers Wye and Lugg. Dŵr Cymru is additionally alleged to have polluted the River Usk. Avara and Freeman are accused of polluting rivers via chicken production, while Dŵr Cymru is alleged to have contributed through sewage discharges.
The claimants say that the pollution has harmed their legitimate interests and there has been, in consequence, severe adverse impact on businesses, recreation, tourism, and property values. They are claiming substantial compensation for their losses and are also asking that the three companies be ordered to clean up the rivers.
The claims reflect the current anthropocentric law focus. River pollution is ancillary. It is only relevant to the extent that it affects a claimant’s interest, thereby grounding a claim in law such as in nuisance or negligence. Therefore, an order to clean a river would be issued to prevent further violation of a claimant’s rights, not simply because an unpolluted river is a good thing. Giving nature enforceable legal rights corrects that position.
But if the river gets cleaned, why is rights of nature law needed? I suggest three reasons.
First, there is the deterrent effect. A potential polluter is less likely to start polluting if the potential liability extends to the whole natural area, rather than to the extent of a claimant’s loss.
Second, any anthropocentric claim is dependent on affected individuals acting. They may not do that for various reasons such as those related to outcome uncertainty, potential cost, or health. For best effect, related claims need to be coordinated, which involves huge effort. With nearly 4,000 claimants, the River Wye case must be exceptional. Sometimes it won’t happen.
Third, if the court considers the interests of the natural object directly, rather than as secondary to a person’s interest, it is more likely to conduct a broader and deeper investigation into what serves that object’s best interests.
Making it happen
The rights of nature movement has shown how rights of nature law can have practical application. Hopefully, consideration of rights of nature law and the River Wye case has shown how it could be a useful addition to the UK legal landscape, alongside (and not instead of) resourced environmental protection enforcement and anthropocentric law. But before that is to happen there is work to be done: first, to persuade policy makers that this is the right course of action and, second, to settle the detail for a coherent legal regime.
Comments? We want to hear them. Please write to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
