Learnings

Inspiration from the Rights of Nature movement

In the article ‘Rethinking Nature Rights’, Camilo Bustos analyses the legal and political challenges and developments in the field of the rights of nature.
The Rights of Nature movement has emerged as a result of a wide variety of developments, with the loss of biodiversity or the resulting environmental crises often playing a role. The legal systems that have emerged from this are correspondingly diverse.
Governments have recognised nature as a legal entity, with legal personality and its own rights – in particular, a right to exist.

This is also what the Reuss Initiative in the canton of Lucerne calls for. It is therefore fascinating to apply Camila Bustos’s insights to the Reuss Initiative.

Democratic process
Criticism of the rights of nature arises above all when these rights are merely symbolic, difficult to enforce and undemocratic. The Reuss Initiative addresses these three obstacles by enshrining the rights of nature in the constitution through a democratic process. This makes protection a reality rather than merely a symbolic gesture. By granting legal personality to water bodies in the canton of Lucerne, they are able to enforce their rights.
The formulation of these rights varies greatly around the world. For the Reuss Initiative, this is both an opportunity – as it allows mistakes to be avoided – and a risk, as Parliament may attempt to water down the constitutional mandate when transposing the constitutional article into law.
Bustos raises concerns primarily regarding unclear terminology and the practical implementation of the rights of nature. There are even critics who believe that nature cannot exercise rights in the same way as people or companies, a view which has been demonstrably refuted in practice and is also theoretically unfounded. Where a legal entity cannot speak for itself – be it a person, a company or nature – a representative is appointed to fulfil this function. This is also what the Reuss Initiative provides for.
Experience shows that the legal foundations must be enshrined at constitutional level, as the Reuss Initiative proposes; otherwise, enforcement becomes more difficult. Furthermore, this ensures legitimacy, for where the rights of nature are merely derived by the courts from existing laws, tensions with the legislative bodies are inevitable. There is a risk that court rulings will be perceived as undemocratic, which undermines acceptance.

A change of perspective
Looking at developments in South America – with Ecuador, a country that enshrined the rights of nature in its constitution as early as 2008; Colombia, which recognised the rights of the Atrato, Amazon and Páramos rivers; or Peru, where the Marañón River was recognised as a legal entity in 2024, experience raises the question: does this merely – albeit to some extent – shift the anthropocentric viewpoint in favour of indigenous peoples, or is a shift towards an ecocentric perspective taking place?
To achieve a clear shift towards an ecocentric perspective, the Reuss Initiative attaches great importance to the quality and independence of the representation of water bodies. If the institution of representation were to be misused to bring in representatives and interests from Parliament, the Government, agriculture, industry, etc., this would be unconstitutional and contrary to the intentions of the initiators.
The more mafia-like the political structures, the greater the risk of abuse.


Conclusion
Laws should create a clear framework for the recognition and implementation of the rights of nature. Enshrining this in the Constitution is crucial.
Implementation – another insight from Bustos – often fails due to a lack of resources. In contrast to the proposal of the Reuss Initiative, the rights of nature have not been consistently implemented in these cases. Independent and professionally competent representation, as provided for by the constitutional article, is the be-all and end-all of effective representation and, consequently, implementation. By ensuring that it is not cantonal representatives acting in the interests of lobbyists and political parties, but the water bodies themselves that represent their rights, not only are administrative costs saved, but the water bodies’ own resources are also available to fund their own representation.

Source:
Camila Bustos, Rethinking Nature Rights, Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol. 50/2, 2026, pp. 307–364