Rights of Nature 2018 Information for Australian communities

Transcription

1 Rights of Nature 2018 Information for Australian communities Blue Mountains, Australia By Michelle Maloney, Australian Earth Laws Alliance 20 June

2 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Understanding the Rights of Nature... 4 Summary... 4 Learning from First Nations People - Earth centred culture and laws that respect the rights of nature... 4 What are Rights of Nature?... 4 Acknowledging that all life on Earth has a right to exist, thrive and evolve... 4 Valuing and protecting nature for its inherent worth... 5 Challenging the idea that nature is property... 5 How are Rights of Nature laws different to current environmental laws?... 6 What rights do Rights of Nature laws recognize?... 6 Rights of Nature laws put the health of the natural world at the centre of human decision making... 6 Does recognising the Rights of Nature stop human activity?... 6 What s the difference between Rights of Nature laws and Legal Personhood for Nature laws?... 7 Does this difference matter? (Yes it does)... 8 Rights of Nature laws and Legal Personhood for Nature laws around the world... 9 Rights of Nature Laws... 9 Legal Personhood Laws... 9 Rights of Nature Declarations, Policies and Advocacy... 9 International Documents and International Organisations... 9 Rights of Nature Tribunals Permanent Peoples Tribunal (PPT) International Rights of Nature Tribunal Rights of Nature Australia (RONA) Peoples Tribunal Rights of Nature Tribunal, Bay Area, California (USA) Different ways that Rights of Nature laws can be created in Australia Examples of how Rights of Nature laws could be adopted in Australia Example 1: Rights of Nature laws for the Great Barrier Reef Example 2: Linking First Nations Peoples laws and cultural worldview, with rights of nature laws 12 Example 3: Rights of Nature laws at the Local Council level Strategies for communities interested in Rights of Nature laws

3 Introduction Climate change, biodiversity loss and the global ecological crisis are forcing many people to rethink the legal, economic and governance structures underpinning industrialised societies. People around the world are exploring innovative ways to use the law to better support the health of the living world. Rights based approaches ( rights of nature laws) and more recently, legal personhood for nature laws, aim to shift the legal status of the natural world from being human property, or merely objects in the law, to being recognised as living entities in their own right and subjects of the law. These legal approaches are seen by many as a way for human-centred western laws to be transformed towards Earth centred law and governance. Rights of Nature laws now exist in Ecuador, Bolivia and the USA, and legal personhood for nature laws and cases have emerged in New Zealand, India and Colombia. In Australia and the USA, the creation of environmental water managers in domestic law has seen legal rights to water allocated to rivers and wetlands. But are these rights of nature and legal personhood laws able to transform industrial societies and their legal relationship with the living world? In Australia, and around the world, First Nations Peoples have practiced ancient first laws since time immemorial; laws which have enabled them to care for land and sea country and maintain ecological health for millennia. These governance systems have much to teach the emerging efforts to build ecological laws in the 21st Century. Some First Nations Peoples have used legal personhood laws to create a more pluralist legal framework; others remain concerned that these concepts further separate nature from people. In Australia, we need to explore how ancient and emerging ecological law and governance systems are working in the 21st century and work together to see how to strengthen ecological governance in the coming decades. The Australian Earth Laws Alliance (AELA) is part of the global movement of people exploring ways to create systemic change in modern law and governance. Rights of Nature laws offer a way to change the system, and to re-align power structures in western law; but we need to understand how they might work in Australia. This guide is designed to give people in Australia a brief introduction to the complex area of emerging law around Rights of Nature and legal personhood for nature. For more information, please visit the Australian Centre for the Rights of Nature website: or please us anytime: convenor@earthlaws.org.au Dr Michelle Maloney Australian Earth Laws Alliance 20 June

4 Understanding the Rights of Nature Summary The rights of nature movement is growing world wide. Recognising the rights of nature in law, means that we reject the notion that nature is human property and we legally recognise the rights of the natural world to exist, thrive and evolve. Recognising that the natural world is just as entitled to exist and evolve as we are, necessarily changes the way humans act. Rights of nature is grounded in the recognition that humanity is just one member of the wider Earth community, and that we have evolved with, and are dependent upon, a healthy, interconnected web of life on Earth. Rights of Nature laws create guidance for actions that respect this relationship. Learning from First Nations People - Earth centred culture and laws that respect the rights of nature The rights of nature movement acknowledges, respects and is inspired by the ancient wisdom of First Nations peoples around the world. As an organisation dedicated to shifting the legal system from being human centred, to being Earth centred, AELA acknowledges the profound Earth centred culture that the First Nations Peoples of the continent now known as Australia have had since time immemorial, and which continues today AELA acknowledges that the sovereignty of the First Nations people of the continent now known as Australia was never ceded by treaty nor in any other way. AELA also acknowledges First Nations peoples laws and ecologically sustainable custodianship of Australia, which has continued for tens of thousands of years through land and sea management practices that continue today. What are Rights of Nature? Acknowledging that all life on Earth has a right to exist, thrive and evolve The health of ecological communities around the world is deteriorating. The United Nations has warned that we are heading toward "major planetary catastrophe." There is a growing recognition that we must fundamentally change the relationship between humankind and the natural world. Making this fundamental shift means recognising our dependence on nature and respecting our need to live in harmony with the natural world. It also means securing the highest legal protection for ecological health. Advocates for the Rights of Nature argue that as all life on earth - and life supporting ecosystems - have evolved together during the long history of the universe and the planet, and as human beings are just one part of this larger, interconnected web of life (and are completely interdependent on the rest of the natural world for our very existence), the non-human world has just as much right to exist as humans do. Or, using the language of Earth advocates: the Earth community should be recognised as having the right to exist, thrive and continue its evolutionary journey into the future. 4

5 From an Earth jurisprudence perspective: where life exists, the right to life exists. Valuing and protecting nature for its inherent worth From this view, nature deserves to be valued for its own inherent worth. Legally recognising the rights of nature is not about conferring rights on nature, but giving legal recognition to what is already there. Recognising that the natural world is just as entitled to exist and evolve as we are, necessarily changes the way humans act. We can refer to Earth-centred cultures around the world for guidance as to how humans treat the natural world when they see themselves as merely part of it rather than the masters of it. Many indigenous cultures see plants and animals as relatives, members of an interconnected community of life that is self-sustaining and deserves respect. They draw from the natural world to live, but do not take more than the natural system can sustainably provide. This contrasts with the culture and legal system that is dominant in western industrialised nations today, which treats plants, animals and entire ecosystems, as objects that are human property. Our current legal system allows humans to destroy ecosystems in the name of material development and only grants rights to humans and human-created constructs such as corporations and nation-states. Legally recognising the rights of nature has a number of significant flow-on effects. In simple terms, it does two things: first, it pro-actively changes the way humans interact with and impact upon the nonhuman world and second, it changes the way citizens can defend and restore nature. Challenging the idea that nature is property Under the current system of law in almost every country, nature is considered to be property. Something that is considered property confers upon the property owner the right to damage or destroy it. Thus, those who own wetlands, forestland, and other ecosystems and natural communities, are largely permitted to use them however they wish, even if that includes destroying the health and well-being of nature. When we talk about the Rights of Nature, it means recognising that ecosystems and natural communities are not merely property that can be owned. Rather, they are entities that have an independent and inalienable right to exist and flourish. Laws recognising the Rights of Nature change the status of ecosystems and natural communities to being recognised as rights-bearing entities. As such, they have rights that can be enforced by people, governments, and communities on behalf of nature. Rights of Nature laws prohibit human activities that would interfere with the ability and rights of ecosystems and natural communities to exist and flourish. These laws transform the status of nature from being regarded as property to being rights-bearing. In fact, these laws change the status of property law. Rights of Nature laws eliminate the authority of a property owner to interfere with the functioning of ecosystems and natural communities that depend upon that property for their existence. They do not stop development; rather, they stop development and use of property that interferes with the existence and vitality of those ecosystems. Under Rights of Nature laws: Nature is empowered to defend and enforce its own rights; People are empowered to defend and enforce the Rights of Nature; and Governments are required to implement, defend, and enforce the Rights of Nature. 5

6 How are Rights of Nature laws different to current environmental laws? Current environmental regulatory structures are mostly about permitting human centred, material development at the cost of allowing harm to occur to the natural world. For example, our current legal system allows unconventional gas/fracking, mining, logging and factory farming to destroy ecosystems and communities of plants and animals. They act more to legalise the harmful activities of corporations and other business entities than to protect our natural and human communities. Laws recognising the rights of nature are different. They establish a basic principle of rights for the non-human world, which requires laws and regulations to work within that framework to uphold those rights. In turn, rights of nature laws create duties requiring people to consider, defend and speak on behalf of, the non-human world. For example, communities that have enacted rights of nature laws in the USA are empowered - indeed, they have a duty - to reject governmental actions permitting unwanted and damaging development which would violate nature's rights to exist and thrive. Rights of nature laws enable people, communities, and ecosystems themselves to defend and enforce such rights. Without the ability to do so, those ecosystems would be destroyed. What rights do Rights of Nature laws recognize? The earliest Rights of Nature laws recognised the right of ecosystems to exist and flourish. Others, including the Ecuadorian constitutional provisions promulgated in 2008, recognise the right of nature to exist, persist, evolve, and regenerate. These laws also recognise the right of any person or organisation to defend, protect, and enforce those rights on behalf of nature, and for payment of recovered damages to government to provide for the full restoration of nature. The Universal Declaration for the Rights of Mother Earth (UDRME), a civil society declaration created by 30,000 people in 2010, sets out a full statement of what the rights of nature are, and can be a helpful document to draw on. Rights of Nature laws put the health of the natural world at the centre of human decision making The simplest way to understand the different framework that Rights of Nature laws offer, is that they aim to change human interaction with the natural world. Rights of Nature laws enable the non-human world to be 'seen' in the eyes of the law and to 'have a voice', rather than to be invisible or secondary to human centred objectives. When we talk about the Rights of Nature, it means recognising that ecosystems and natural communities are not merely property that can be owned. Rather, they are entities that have an independent and inalienable right to exist and flourish. Does recognising the Rights of Nature stop human activity? No, it doesn't. But they are designed to help us rethink some of our activities - and industrial societies need to rethink our attitude about what we can demand from our finite planet. Recognizing Rights of Nature does not put an end to human activities, rather it places them in the context of a healthy relationship where our actions do not threaten the balance of the system upon which we depend. Further, these laws do not stop all development, they halt only those uses of land that interfere with the very existence and vitality of the ecosystems which depend upon them. 6

7 Mari Margil, Building an International Rights of Nature Movement in M.Maloney and P.Burdon (eds) Wild Law in Practice (Routledge, 2014) What s the difference between Rights of Nature laws and Legal Personhood for Nature laws? Rights of Nature laws Rights of Nature laws have emerged from the theory of Earth jurisprudence, articulated by geologian Thomas Berry. Earth jurisprudence is a theory of law and governance that argues that the current ecological crisis climate change, biodiversity loss and other impacts has been created by industrial society s exploitation and destruction of the natural world, and we must transform the underpinning governance structures of industrial society, so that we nurture rather than destroy the living world. Earth jurisprudence draws on First Nations wisdom and the field of deep ecology, to argue that modern governance systems must be transformed, to reflect and support the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life on Earth. Rights of Nature is just one of many Earth centred concepts within the field of Earth jurisprudence. It s important to note that from an Earth jurisprudence perspective, rights of nature laws aim to create radical, systemic change to the legal system, so that the health of the living world is the primary priority of our governance system and laws. Rights of Nature laws do two main things: (i) they recognise that the living world has a right to exist, thrive and evolve and is a subject of the law (not an object; not just human property) and (ii) very importantly, these laws recognise that nature has nature rights. As stated by Thomas Berry: The rights of nature are not the same as human rights. Bees have bee rights, trees have tree rights and rivers have river rights. Rights of Nature laws acknowledge nature as primary, as the very foundation of human society. In other words, it acknowledges nature as it is it doesn t try to squeeze nature into existing human laws, or human constructs. It builds on the concepts of interconnectedness and the unique relationship-based manner in which all of the living world interacts. Legal Personhood for Nature laws Legal personhood for nature laws are different to rights of nature laws. They have some similarities with rights of nature laws, because they both aim to respect and recognise nature as a subject of law. Legal personhood for nature laws (i) make certain elements in the living world, such as rivers and mountains and forests, a subject of the law (they are not an object; not just human property) and (ii) they give nature the same rights as a legal person. What does it mean to give nature, or natural systems, legal personhood rights? It means that: Nature has legal rights of its own 7

8 Its rights are the same as for a legal person (or a natural person ) This is similar to how western legal systems give legal personhood rights to corporations Therefore legal personhood rights give a natural system the right to stand in a court of law and speak for its own rights; to own property; to sue and be sued By giving nature legal personhood rights, we are putting nature on an equal legal footing to a human being. While this is a step forward for protecting nature, it also has downsides. Legal personhood, by its very definition, is extending the human-centred notion of personhood to nature, which by its very definition, is not human. It has been argued that using legal personhood constructs to protect nature misses the point of changing the legal system to respect nature, and simply tries to extend the same rights to nature that people have. Further, declaring legal personhood for nature can mean that, in legal terms, nature has legal rights and legal liabilities. Legal liabilities mean that nature can be held responsible (liable) for anything it does to other legal subjects, like people. This is an issue being discussed regarding the court cases in India and Colombia, and the new systems in place in New Zealand. Technically speaking, legal personhood for nature means that nature is liable for damage to others, just as a human or corporation might be. AELA sees this legal issue as a significant problem. Nature, the living world, is not just another stakeholder in the legal system; we shouldn t waste time identifying nature s liabilities as if it were just a corporation or another human being. The main purpose of rights of nature laws is to respect and protect the living world, our home. If legal personhood for nature laws lead to a focus on what nature s liabilities are, then we will end up with a very flawed legal approach to protecting nature. Does this difference matter? (Yes it does) The differences between Rights of Nature laws and Legal Personhood for Nature laws do matter. Rights of Nature laws aim to make the living world primary. They aim to shift the legal system from a human-centred way of thinking and acting, towards an Earth centred way of thinking and acting. Rights of Nature laws fundamentally aim to transform the governance system that the laws are created within. Legal Personhood for Nature laws aim to ensure the natural world is treated equally to human beings. This is still an important shift in a legal system. However, as modern science has made all too clear through Earth Systems Science, Planetary Boundaries and climate science nature is not just an equal partner in a human system. Nature is THE source and foundation of all life and is the system within which humans must fit their own activities. Rights of Nature laws aim to reflect this. In addition, legal personhood for nature laws also recognise that nature has the same liabilities as a person or corporation, and can technically be sued for damage it causes etc. The Rights of Nature movement does not see placing liabilities on the natural world as a useful way forward. This is one of the many reasons we prefer to advocate for Rights of Nature laws. AELA supports Legal Personhood for Nature laws when (i) they are the only way to increase the legal status of the living world and (ii) they provide greater protection for it, and (iii) where those Legal Personhood for nature rights do not also include liabilities for nature. But we first and foremost advocate for Rights of Nature laws. 8

9 Rights of Nature laws and Legal Personhood for Nature laws around the world Rights of nature laws and policies now exist in many countries around the world. The rights of nature were enshrined in Ecuador s 2008 Constitution, Bolivia s 2010 Rights of Mother Earth Act and are now present in more than three dozen local laws in the USA. In New Zealand, several ecosystems now have Legal Personhood rights, including the Whanganui River, the Urewera Forest and Mount Taranaki. And courts in India and Colombia have also recognised legal personhood for nature rights in their jurisdictions. Attachment 1 sets out a detailed list of all the laws currently in operation around the world. This section provides a summary list of all initiatives around the world at present. Rights of Nature Laws Ecuador 2008 Constitution + 6 successful court cases finding for nature Bolivia 2010 National legislation USA dozens of community ordinances since 2002 USA Ho Chunk Tribunal Council incorporated Rights of Nature in their constitution Legal Personhood Laws New Zealand Legislation enacted by the Government, under negotiations and settlements relating to the Treaty of Waitangi. Under this process, the Whanganui River, Urewera Forest, and Mount Taranaki now have legal personhood rights (the same rights as a person) India Court decisions stating that rivers and glaciers have the same legal rights as a person Colombia 2017 and Court decision stating that the Atrato River has legal rights, and the Amazon Basin/bioregion in Colombia has legal rights Rights of Nature Declarations, Policies and Advocacy Greens Party of Scotland - official adoption of Rights of Nature policy Greens Party of England and Wales - official adoption of Rights of Nature policy Sami Parliament 2018 adopted the Universal Declaration for the Rights of Mother Earth International Documents and International Organisations Universal Declaration for the Rights of Mother Earth (2010) this is a civil society agreement, created by 30,000 people in Cochabamba in This is seen as the key international civil society statement about the rights of nature. UN Harmony with Nature Initiative this initiative is leading the way in advocating for Earth jurisprudence and the rights of nature to the UN IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature) - Work Program IUCN Ethics Working Group - Oslo Manifesto 2016 The Pope s Encyclical Laudato Si 9

10 Rights of Nature Tribunals Peoples Tribunals are used when State centred or Government laws are seen as unjust or not achieving justice. Rights of Nature Tribunals now exist in several places around the world, and this year (2018), the Permanent Peoples Tribunal (PPT) featured for the first time, Rights of Nature cases about fracking and unconventional coal and gas exploration. Permanent Peoples Tribunal (PPT) 2018 PPT into Fracking included, for the first time in the 40 year history of the PPT, cases examining the Rights of Nature. To view the recordings of the cases, visit this website: xxxx International Rights of Nature Tribunal The International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature was created by the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature in January The Tribunal has been created as a permanent tribunal and it will hear cases from around the world on an ongoing basis. The Tribunal was created by leaders of the Rights of Nature movement in response to concerns that current national and international legal systems do not protect the natural world. The Tribunal aims to create a forum for people from all around the world to give a voice to protest the destruction of the Earth destruction that is often sanctioned by Governments and Corporations and to make recommendations about Earth s protection and restoration. The Tribunal also has a strong focus on enabling indigenous people to share their unique concerns and solutions about land, water and culture with the global community. Learn more about the International Rights of Nature Tribunal, and read about Australia's participation in the International Rights of Nature Tribunal, including AELA's Great Barrier Reef Case. Rights of Nature Australia (RONA) Peoples Tribunal In 2016, AELA created a permanent Rights of Nature Tribunal for Australia. This Tribunal is a Regional Chapter of the International Rights of Nature Tribunal. The next RONA Peoples Tribunal will be held in Brisbane on 27 October 2018 and people are invited to attend the 1 day hearing. Rights of Nature Tribunal, Bay Area, California (USA) The Bay Area Rights of Nature Alliance (BARONA), in California, has held two People's Tribunals for the Rights of Nature: A Tribunal for the Bay Area Delta and waterways Chevron Refinery and the Fossil Fuel Industry 10

11 Different ways that Rights of Nature laws can be created in Australia AELA is currently exploring a range of ways that rights of nature laws could be created in Australia. The Rights of Nature Australia (RONA) Peoples Tribunal (held every two years since 2016) also aims to examine law reform proposals for creating rights of nature laws in the Australian context. Shifting the Australian legal system so that it recognises the rights of nature will not be an easy task. Rights of Nature laws would limit the ongoing exploitation and abuse of the land and living systems, and would fundamentally change our legal and economic system in this country. But the challenges involved in having these important conversations about societal and law reform will not deter advocates for the Rights of Nature. As the state of the environment declines every year, we must work towards transforming the system and increasing the status of the living world in Australian law. In legal terms, there are a number of ways that Rights of Nature laws could be introduced in Australia: Constitutional reform at the Federal and State Government level in Australia. View an overview of how Ecuador created Constitutional recognition of the rights of nature. Transform federal and state environmental laws to explicitly recognise the rights of nature. See an example of how Bolivia created national laws and institutions to recognise and support the legal rights of nature. Community local law making - Local governments offer an important place for creating long term systemic change. Read about communities in the USA who have acknowledged the legal rights of nature in local laws and ordinances, and challenged corporate and Federal government power in the process. Legal mechanisms for First Nations People to enshrine their ancient first laws in modern legal instruments, which include recognising that nature is a living entity, deserving legal protection. The Yarra River Act has enshrined Indigenous Peoples cultural values relating to the Yarra River and although it doesn t change the legal status of the river from an object to a subject, it shows how legislation can be created that respects the holistic, natural and cultural values of an ecosystem. Read an example of how a First Nations community in the USA has acknowledged rights of nature in its Constitution. Learn more about how Maori people in New Zealand have used legal personhood for nature laws to enshrine their cultural and legal values relating to the non-human world. Creating rights of nature for iconic ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef, the Mardoowarra/Fitzroy River and other major ecosystems and landmarks. o This area of law creating legal rights for ecosystems is where Legal Personhood for Nature laws has also developed. 11

12 Examples of how Rights of Nature laws could be adopted in Australia Example 1: Rights of Nature laws for the Great Barrier Reef One way that Australia could make Rights of Nature laws, is to legislate for iconic ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef - and reform our laws to recognise the inherent rights of such ecosystems to exist, thrive and evolve. Passing Rights of Nature laws for such ecosystems would increase concerned citizen s capacity to defend the rights of nature and demand that harmful practices stop, and restoration be undertaken. There are a number of different ways the Australian legal system could be changed to acknowledge the rights of the Great Barrier Reef, including: The Great Barrier Reef is in Commonwealth waters, so we could recognise the rights of the Reef by amending the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. We could also recognise the inherent rights of the Great Barrier Reef by holding a referendum and amending the Federal Constitution. Given the Reef is adjacent to the State of Queensland, and land based activities in Queensland directly impact the health of this marine community, we could amend the Queensland Constitution to recognise the rights of the GBR. Finally, local communities could begin a wave of local law making similar to that seen in the USA, which recognises the rights of nature and (at present at least) defies any State and Federal laws to the contrary. Example 2: Linking First Nations Peoples laws and cultural worldview, with rights of nature laws Rivers have become high profile examples of legal personhood for nature laws around the world since 2017, with developments in New Zealand, India and Colombia attracting global attention. In New Zealand, it has been Indigenous peoples relationship with the Whanganui River that has forged the new legal status of the ecosystem. In Australia, we have a modified version of this type of approach, which is an important development. In 2017, a new law was passed for the Yarra River, which recognised the river is a living entity and recognised that First Nations Peoples have a special obligation and right to speak for and protect the river. The Yarra River legislation is an excellent example of how State Governments can pass legislation that changes how an ecosystem is managed. While the Yarra River Act is not a Rights of Nature law and does not change the legal status of the river itself (the river is still an object in the law) it s an excellent example of what s possible when local indigenous and non-indigenous communities work to change the legal protections for an ecosystem. To create a Rights of Nature law for a river, a draft law can be created by a concerned community, and they can advocate to the local and State Governments (and where the river systems cross State jurisdictions, they can lobby the Federal government too). The Murray-Darling Basin and its tributaries is an obvious example of a river system under extreme pressure, and which would benefit from becoming its own legal entity. 12

13 Example 3: Rights of Nature laws at the Local Council level One of the most powerful examples of Rights of Nature law making is that advocated for by the Community Environmental Legal Defence Fund (CELDF), in the United States. CELDF has worked with local communities for more than a decade, to help them pass blanket Rights of Nature laws that cover all of the natural world in a local council jurisdiction. These laws are introduced by local communities to stop unwanted developments and exploitation of their local ecosystems, and to declare their own rights as guardians and protectors of their local communities. Local governments offer an important place for creating long term systemic change. Communities who wish to undertake long term advocacy for the protection of their local environment can create model legislation and advocate to Local Councils that the symbolic, and eventual legal, impact of such laws offers both important conversations in the community and important ways to reform the legal system over the longer term. Strategies for communities interested in Rights of Nature laws Community groups interested in changing the legal status of the living world can explore a range of strategies. AELA sees different approaches as representing a different type of strategy: Rights of Nature laws offer the most promising way to transform our legal system and governance structure, and open up new ways of prioritising the health of the living world; legal personhood for nature laws offer some limited ways to change the legal system to respect nature; laws that recognise the intrinsic value of an ecosystem, and aim to promote the holistic environmental, cultural and social management of the ecosystem, are also a step in the right direction, but have less capacity to transform the legal system and create the change we need. 1. To develop Rights of Nature laws: a) Work with local First Nations Peoples to support their efforts to be recognised as custodians of their traditional estates and other initiatives that recognise sovereignty. Find out what initiatives are already underway to care for country and build self-determination, and see if you can become an ally of their work. If your community group is planning a Rights of Nature campaign, take the time to discuss your ideas with the local First Nations Peoples and where possible, get their guidance and work together. b) Community Declarations and Statements. Communities can begin conversations in their communities about Rights of Nature for local ecosystems and declare that their local ecosystems deserve to have the highest form of legal protection and must be changed from property to subjects of the law. Communities can create statements, declarations and petitions, to have new conversations and gather support to show other decision makers in their communities. Communities can also offer to create guardianship structures that would see the new legal rights for local ecosystems, embedded in long term guardianship and protection arrangements. Having local communities step up and take greater responsibility for their local ecosystems is one of the great benefits of the Rights of Nature movement. 13

14 c) Campaign to get Rights of Nature laws passed for a specific local ecosystem. Connected to declarations and statements, communities can draft their own Rights of Nature model laws for local ecosystems and generate meetings, discussions, petitions and other activities to support these initiatives. These approaches would involve long term advocacy strategies to local and State Governments for law reform. d) Campaign to get Local Councils to declare Rights of Nature and Community Rights in their local council jurisdiction. Similar to the point above, communities are fully within their rights as concerned citizens, to present model laws and strategies to their Local Councils and discuss the long term work involved with transformative law reform. e) Campaign to get State Government to recognise Rights of Nature in State Constitution. This approach would be beneficial particularly if a number of groups, across a number of ecosystems in a State, wanted to join together for a long term State Constitution campaign. f) Campaign to get Federal Government to recognise Rights of Nature in Federal Constitution. This approach will be important, to pressure the Federal Government to think about its obligations to the living world, and eventually, could create significant pressure from communities around Australia, wishing to transform the law and increase the status of the living world in our legal system. 2. Another way of advocating for increased legal rights for local ecosystems is to explore ways to create legal personhood for nature laws for ecosystems. Community groups can draft model laws and advocate to their State Governments for law reform. However as noted in this paper (above) legal personhood for nature laws are more limited than Rights of Nature laws and should be drafted to ensure that (i) nature is respected as the source of life, and not just another stakeholder and (ii) there are no liabilities created for the natural ecosystems involved. 3. Community groups can advocate for new laws that recognise the intrinsic value of their local ecosystem similar to that done in the Yarra River Legislation. This Act is important because it recognises the Yarra River as a holistic, living entity and it incorporates Indigenous language and cultural values in the legislation. However it doesn t change the status of the river (ie the river is still an object in the law, owned and controlled by the Government, with Indigenous guardians working in partnership with the Crown). This approach can be a first step for some communities, to move towards greater rights for, and protection of, their local ecosystems. For more information about any of the issues raised in this paper, please convenor@earthlaws.org.au 14