N for Nature

You may have noticed that in Regenera we refer to Nature with a capital N. I will try to explain why.

When we talk about “nature,” we tend to refer vaguely to the world outside our homes and cities, without really stopping to think about what we are referring to. Your idea of nature may be very different from mine. But when we capitalize the N, we create a name. And naming is in itself an act of creation. Naming makes something real. Suddenly, Nature is a specific entity, worthy of a proper name.

We name what we love

The act of naming invites us to reflect on what precisely we are naming. It confers identity. Nature with an N becomes a unique and indispensable individual, rather than a generic category that exists only to serve us and is easily substitutable. To name is to see. To see the beauty and vitality of Nature, yes, but also its suffering and struggle. The power of giving a voice to Nature is effectively illustrated in the video series Nature Speaks to Us of Conservation International (check out the one starring Salma Hayek).

We bond with, and protect, the entities we name, whether they are our cars, our cuddly toys, or our children. People tend to name the things they keep, and keep the things they name. Robert Macfarlane, co-author of The Lost Wordsexplains: “names, good names, well used, can help us see and they help us care. We find it hard to love what we cannot give a name to. And what we do not love we will not save.” His book of spells began as a protest against the removal of Nature words from a children’s dictionary, because today’s children no longer use those words.

Some might argue that naming is another form of control, of claiming dominion, of asserting that Nature exists only for us. But “our belongings can become valuable extensions of ourselves, if we treat them that way” (Source: The Atlantic). And although Nature is generally considered to belong to us (“our planet”, “our Earth” are oft-heard expressions), naming our possessions can create a sense of personal investment and responsibility, encouraging us to become guardians of Nature, acting on its behalf and in its interest.

Nature as a legal personhood

It could even encourage us to look for new and innovative ways to protect nature from threats such as deforestation, biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change. In 1972, Christopher Stone, a professor of law at the University of Southern California, proposed granting personhood status-that is, giving legal rights-to natural entities such as rivers, mountains, forests, and even entire ecosystems, in response to sustained pressure from urban, agricultural, and industrial economic activity. In fact, over the past 50 years, the “rights of Nature” movement has evolved “from a rare event of mere anecdotal significance into a proven legal strategy” (Source: Sigwatch).

Legal personhood makes it possible to protect Nature in court. This shift from protecting nature for the benefit of people to protecting nature for its own sake is now evident in several countries, including Colombia, Panama, India, Uganda, the United States, Canada and Spain. Citizens in France, Poland and the Netherlands are currently promoting initiatives for the recognition of the Loire River, the Oder River and the North Sea, respectively.

Conceptions of environmental personhood vary as to the specific status and rights granted to natural entities, either directly, or indirectly through the creation of legal persons to administer them without declaring the entities themselves as legal persons. For example, in 2008, Ecuador became the first country to enshrine rights of Nature in its Constitution. This represents a type of public guardianship in which every citizen has the right to take legal action on behalf of Nature.

In Bolivia, Indigenous people constitute the majority of the population. Respecting the majority view that Nature is Mother Earth, Bolivia passed the “Law for the Defense of Mother Earth” in 2010.

In New Zealand, after more than a century of resistance by the Indigenous Maori, the original status of the Urewera forest as a national park was removed and replaced by legal personhood. Two years later, the Whanganui River was also granted legal personhood rights.

Recently, in the face of constant oil spills from the Norperuano pipeline, a court in Nauta ruled that the Marañón River, in the northern Peruvian Amazon, be recognized as a legal person with inherent rights. This was achieved thanks to campaigns led by the Huaynakana Kamatahuara Kana Federation, a group of Kukama Indigenous women from the province of Loreto. The judge urged authorities to protect the rights of the Kukama people as representatives, guardians, and defenders of the Marañón River and its tributaries (Source: El Comercio, 19/03/2024).

The above examples demonstrate that the interests of local communities often conflict with external economic agendas and that Indigenous peoples, local communities, and NGOs often act as defenders of Nature. Why? Perhaps because they remain closely connected and interdependent with Nature. Their lives and values remain rooted in Nature.

The concept of Rights of Nature is even shaping the conversation around legal recognition of “ecocide”: “unlawful or wanton acts committed in the knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood that such acts will cause serious and widespread or long-term damage to the environment” (Source: Stop Ecocide International).

Critics fear that legal personhood will empower certain groups with their own agendas to decide what is good for a given environment. Another concern is that the status of legal person implies the right not only to sue, but also to be sued. A river cannot be held liable for the damage it causes in a flood, for example. So, would the guardians of that river be expected to pay for the damage? Lawsuits, too, are expensive. The often prohibitive cost of a lawsuit must be taken into account when it comes to environmental justice. Other problems may arise when natural entities exist beyond the limits of the jurisdiction that established the environmental personhood. There may also be cases where the rights of natural entities infringe on the rights and livelihoods of human beings, such as farmers.

Although the concept of legal personhood for natural entities in order to protect them remains controversial, and the debate about its limits and potential continues, it is now a force to be reckoned with, and by its very existence, forces us to think twice about what Nature really means to us.

So that, friends, is what we’re trying to do by giving Nature a capital N. To give Nature the meaning it deserves. To reconnect with Nature and explore new ways of living well. To inspire us to nurture Nature and imagine a world in which Nature thrives.

A world in which we are all guardians and custodians of Nature.