'Implementing Rights of Nature: An EU Natureship to Address Anthropocentrism in Environmental Law' by Niels Hoek, Ivar Kaststeen, Silke van Gils, Eline Janssen, and Marit van Gils in (2023) 19(1) Utrecht Law Review 72–86 comments
Transboundary issues – from (chemical) pollution, land-use change to unsustainable levels of exploitation – have been eroding natural sites across Europe, reducing biodiversity in the process. In light of this, this paper analyses the comprehensiveness of EU environmental law, appraising its underlying ethos in the process. Additionally, it explores whether a Natureship Framework Directive at the European Union (EU) level, which establishes legal personality for natural sites, can deliver a ‘change of course’ with respect to the anthropocentric view underpinning environmental law as a pressing thought experiment. It constructs a (fictive) law which grants natural sites substantive and procedural rights, conceptualising how such an instrument may take shape. One finding is that an EU Natureship may be a robust tool to address flaws within EU environmental law. For example, the attribution of legal personality to natural sites alongside the appointment of formal representatives can significantly relieve the burden for NGOs and the European Commission, which may suffer from limited resources when it comes to judicial enforcement of environmental norms (or, alternatively, ecological rights). Other benefits pertain to nature management, which may be less complex and more politically stable under the approach put forward in this paper. An EU Natureship, therefore, may provide a vehicle to shift EU environmental law from the anthropocentric to the ecocentric.
The authors consider 'Rights of Nature (RoN) as a response to failing protection', stating
The degradation of natural ecosystems continues, as confirmed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), despite the adoption of a wide degree of national, regional, and international nature conservation instruments. Against this backdrop of continuing ecological decay, new forms of protection have been proposed by international lawyers, NGOs, and academics, which challenge existing environmental laws. One such regulatory approach is the assignment of legal personhood to natural sites, which directly grants standing in court and, perhaps more pressingly, confers substantive and procedural rights to said natural sites. In a general sense, the rights of nature movement mirrors how the law confers rights (but not obligations) to individuals, companies, or institutions. This controversial yet much-cited idea was first put forward by Christopher Stone in 1972. Fundamentally, it represents a shift from a view of nature as an object before the law to a view of nature as a subject of the law. This movement has gained prominence, given the pressures which natural ecosystems face. A practical case of ecological decline can be found in the Dutch, German and Danish Wadden Sea, where climate change, pollution, and large-scale mining activities are causing irreversible damage to the natural site, with modern-day legal instruments seemingly unable to halt this decline. For example, in 2022, a permit for mining was issued in the Netherlands, approving the further exploitation of the Wadden Sea, despite a backlash from a plethora of NGOs and local residents.
In light of these pressures, the case for assigning legal personhood to the Wadden Sea was made by Lambooy and others in 2019. In their article, the authors argued in favour of adopting legal personhood for the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea. In this context, they put forward the idea of a ‘Natureship’. Linguistically speaking, a Natureship places the focus on the underlying entity, namely, the natural site. The suffix -ship implies a position held and/or created, a grammatical feature common in both Dutch and English. Their article defines a Natureship as a ‘public law person’ that combines the power of a public institution, such as environmental management, with private powers, such as the ability to own assets or claim reparations. The statutory purpose of the Natureship would be to ‘protect and support the ecological coherence’ of a specified geographical area, with significant independence from external governmental interference. Lambooy and others argue that, under Dutch law, legal personhood can be granted to natural sites in this form. Here lies the relevance of this contribution: the concept of a Natureship implements the Rights of Nature movement in practical terms. The idea has received traction in the Netherlands, where the ‘rights for the Wadden Sea’ has been transformed from a foreign concept into an issue seriously contemplated within the national Parliament.
However, while this paper by Lambooy and others is a highly valuable contribution to legal scholarship, it does not take into account the transboundary nature of most ecosystems. The Wadden Sea, for example, spans three different EU Member States, namely, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark. Biodiversity does not inherently subscribe to the idea of human-made borders; thus, a Natureship grounded in EU law is a proposition that needs further exploration. An EU approach may tackle transboundary issues more effectively than a purely national one since the latter cannot reach the desired spatial scope nor guarantee uniform protection throughout all the concerned Member States. This paper will explore the merits of an EU approach to Natureships by engaging in a thought experiment, conceptualising how such an instrument may take shape at the EU level. It refers to the German, Dutch and Danish Wadden Sea as an example to reflect on the potential merits of this approach, when needed.
Overall, this will inform the question of whether an EU Natureship law may act as a ‘remedy’ for anthropocentrism within EU environmental law. As an ethos underpinning the law, anthropocentrism takes a human-centred approach to legislation. This is the antithesis of an EU Natureship. In contrast, an ecocentric ethos subscribes intrinsic value to nature as a collective. An ecocentric law, as such, provides a holistic perspective towards environmental protection, including non-human interests within the scope of consideration. An EU Natureship, in essence, is a proposition aimed to achieve such holistic protection.
This paper hosts several methodologies to unpack the research statement as outlined above. The primary method deployed consists of doctrinal research, initially taking an ‘internal’ perspective of the legal system. However, from the normative premise that the law may be failing the environment, a critical analysis will be undertaken, exploring the possible routes ahead in order to close the perceived gap between law and ecology. This article will highlight anthropocentrism within modern-day EU environmental law in Section 2.1 and 2.2, thus analysing its failures. In the following Sections 3.1, 3.2 3.3 and 3.4, the concept of an EU Natureship is set out as a thought experiment, taking the Wadden Sea wetland as an example. In doing so, concrete provisions are suggested in the context of a (fictive) EU Natureship Regulation and/or Framework Directive. The paper ends with a brief conclusion, in Section 4, on the merits of such an EU-wide approach. It should be noted that this paper does not review international obligations derived from the Ramsar Convention, the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, or the Convention on Biological Diversity. Whilst international instruments are essential components of the legal framework that governs wetland protection, given the EU-specific proposition being put forward, the scope of this paper will primarily be limited to the supranational.
