From theory to practice: How to give a river rights?

This article will explore why RoN is so important for our society, demonstrate a real-life example of RoN in action through the River Ouse Charter decision and outline the student takeaways of the conference. The day consisted of deep discussions of why and how nature should have inherent rights equal to those of humans, if we are to have any real impact on the Climate and Nature Crisis.

Introduction to Rights of Nature and the River Ouse Charter

Rights of Nature is a philosophical and legal concept that asserts that natural entities such as rivers, forests and different species to have inherent legal rights to exist and thrive. Ecuador serves as an example of a country that has engrained these rights into their Constitution. There are also different international organisations and initiatives that help integrate rights of nature into law and governance, including Global Alliance for The Rights of Nature (GARN - https://www.garn.org/). This organisation is a great starting point to learn everything there is to know about RoN.

The River Ouse Charter was developed collaboratively by different partners including Love our Ouse and the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF), as a statement of the legal rights of the River Ouse in West and East Sussex. The Lewes District Council unanimously adopted the decision to support the principles of this Charter, a groundbreaking and positive decision for the RoN movement, which has since taken route around the UK. It takes a rights-based approach to nature giving a voice to the river, hoping to serve as a framework in local governance that focuses on the river’s intrinsic value and not just being seen as for human benefit and utility.

The River Ouse Charter contains the rights:

· The right to exist in its natural state

· The right to flow

· The right to perform essential natural functions within the river catchment

· The right to feed and be fed from sustainable aquifers

· The right to be free from pollution

· The right to native biodiversity

· The right to regeneration and restoration

· The right to an active and influential voice

In the morning session groups brainstormed how rights of nature could be tackled by going through the three stages of Triggers, Representation and Enforcement. Triggers referred to different triggers that should activate the river’s voice, examples being lack of water, a planning permission or pollution. Representation looked at how the river will speak through different models including human guardianship, interspecies councils or the emerging concept of digital/AI based voices. Lastly, enforcement looked at how river decisions can be enforced and implemented across communities through policy, legal and community actions.

In the afternoon each student was allocated a case study to tackle and a group to work with. The River Ouse Charter flowed alongside the relevant case study as an important tool in negotiation and we debated how it could be used to make a difference to various situations concerning nature.

View from Clara Smith (Law MSc Student, HRE Student Advisor)

My day started with discussing how the triggers looked at must be responsive but also proactive by addressing urgent challenges like droughts and pollution when they arise whilst keeping ongoing dialogue through assemblies/councils about different situations to be addressed. We decided representation should combine ecological, human and possibly digital voices to avoid overreliance on a single model. Currently the UK’s government with help of DEFRA are experimenting with the concept of an interspecies council as a way to represent nature, assigning roles such as a bat, otter, bee or a river itself to volunteers. Participants will then have meetings embodying these roles to discuss important decisions that concern nature alongside policymakers, in hopes that an interspecies council will provide more insight and care for nature in decision-making. It is one way representation can be showcased in an ecological way but in my view with technological advances in the modern-day world, we must shift our thinking to combine an innovative approach that incorporates technology when addressing the climate crisis. However, not solely relying on this avenue because human input is still highly valuable.

Finally, my group tackled the issue of enforcement which collectively we thought spreading awareness through education at various institutions and gaining wider community participation was an important place to start. Another option we thought that would help enforce change was to tackle current policy structures particularly the planning system which sadly often overrules local environment concerns and favours developments, the question of how this may be achieved was pondered on. We questioned who might enforce river decisions (possibly water companies, local councils, regulators?) and how mechanisms could be put in place with the existing systems. Overall, our morning discussions were very thought provoking and left a lot of questions open for reflection, which in my opinion is very positive as there are many routes that can be taken to get the natural world to be heard. With the right backing and a bit of trial and error we can achieve this.

Case Study 2: Planning Permission putting Sea Trout at risk

The afternoon session involved a case concerning a planning permission application for a large development in an impactful location based in a National Park. It had little to no regard of the River Ouse and the detrimental impact it would have on the surrounding environment, including compromising the native sea trout population in the area. We discussed that the Charter acts as a helpful tool in negotiations when implemented correctly and when paired with strong evidence to support different environmental points, like evidencing biodiversity being very present in that specific location.

The right to native biodiversity was particularly important in this case given the native sea trout population and all the other unique wildlife sitting in this National Park. The development’s documents never even considered the wildlife or habitats as a factor in the development, demonstrating that if the Charter or a conversation about the environmental implications was had, it might have considered the severe consequences such as the destruction of the river's ecosystem.

Importantly the point was raised that the local council unanimously agreed to sign Charter so they should be bound it. Furthermore, it was mentioned that it would be very beneficial for the Charter to be used as supplementary planning guidance, so it would be considered throughout the planning permission process, demonstrating its practical benefit in decision-making.

View from Nauman Nadeem (3^rd Year PPL Student, HRE Student Director)

During the morning session, council members noted that an inter-species governance framework would suffer from the same lack of resources and paralysing political environment as existing anthropocentric frameworks. I thought they seemed eager to direct discussion away from the more radical ecocentric elements of the Charter. Instead, they emphasised its potential to address democratic deficit in local planning applications through greater use of citizens’ assemblies. Throughout the discussion, I observed that the councillors were very careful in their language, stressing that the full extent of their commitment was to support the “principles behind the Charter.” They had concerns that the Charter’s language, being both “vague, yet absolute” would not translate well to policy or law. Instead, they proposed the Charter should be leveraged as a political tool against the private sector, which is not currently shouldering enough responsibility. Conveniently, this perspective does not require them as elected representatives to take any action.

Case Study: Nature Restoration

Later we discussed how the Charter could facilitate consultation with local residents on a hypothetical nature restoration project. A recurring theme was whether rights of nature on one hand and rights of humans on the other could be clearly distinguished as separate. Even if they were, competing interests can exist within these separate groups. As one attendee put it: “ecology without class struggle is just gardening”. Participants did not believe the Charter would make it simpler to balance competing interests. Rather, it would add another seat to a crowded table. Here again, participants felt it was necessary to moderate the Charter’s language tobetter reflect the aim of striking a partnership between humans and nature. I believe the response to this view should be an acknowledgment that the natural word has long been disenfranchised from rights-basedframeworks. It follows then that corrective justice demands its rights be affirmed in plain terms. Only then can we have partnership.  

View from Bobby Mahoney (2^nd Year LLB Student, HRE Student Advisor)

Driving over 100 miles from Stevenage to New Haven, I admired the English countryside and considered my preparatory research. I felt very doubtful of the practicality of the Charter and my head filled with questions as I zoomed through the valleys of Sussex. My scepticism fed an eagerness to learn more and upon arrival at the workshop my growing intrigue was fed immediately. I met the eclectic mix of diverse perspectives I would be accompanied by for the morning workshop. Whilst my doubts were not erased, they were counterbalanced and complicated by the rich contributions provided by the activists, scientists, locals and lawyers who surrounded me. With wider direction from the Love Our Ouse team and Emma Montlake, the Co-Director of the Environmental Law Foundation, we passionately discussed the operationalization of the charter.

The group considered contemporary examples of River Rights in practice and the issue of balancing rights. Attendees raised concerns for the legal and political frameworks which would impede and counteract the application of the Charter. Many topics tended to be controversial, such as when a divisive debate occurred over whether the Charter should be protected by a technocratic minority, democratic delegates or through procedures, which would allow for wider representation such as by lottery or compulsory participation. 

This contention supported the scepticism I had for the charter, but the discord was met by a constructive approach. Through identifying areas of disagreement, the group considered a wider list of solutions. This includedpolitical procedures, the creation of a citizen's assembly, employing local partnerships and enforcing the charter without legal footing by using the means in their possession.

Case Study: The Railway Land Wildlife Trust

With focus on clearer aims, my afternoon workshop considered the application of the charter in commercial contexts. I was more confident in the practicality of this workshop, and this was partially due to the tripartite framework the group were directed to apply. The group were asked to consider solutions which would create change in company policy, in professional practice and in a broader cultural sense. This led to the discussion of more realistic reforms. The group were asked how the Charter Rights and ideas in its ambit could be applied to employees, company aims and influencing the wider public. The attendance of Helen Meade, the CEO of The Railway Land Wildlife Trust, allowed for a deep discussion of how environmental values can conflict with the realities of business management. 

In relation to changing public attitudes, the concept of using psychological models to encourage sustainability were well supported. In relation to business strategies, attendees suggested finding practices which symbiotically fulfilled corporate and environmental incentives. Examples such as pro bono projects and team building exercises found wide approval. Regarding employees, the group had a keen interest in the use of psychometric testing and performance metrics in relation to sustainability whilst adopting language that promotes environmental consciousness across companies. Whilst I thought these contributions were valuable there was an evident overlooking of the many conflicting interests which arise in commercial settings such as profitability and investor confidence.

View from Hoi Mok (2^nd Year LLB Student, HRE Student Advisor)

We began the conference by designing an inter-species council model informed by international case studies. The group agreed that access to the council should remain active until the river reaches a healthy ecological baseline, supported by real-time data allowing the river to “speak” to its condition. A Professor of Ecology proposed that community members and scientists jointly represent species along different stretches of the River Ouse, adopting a “river continuum” model to reflect its varied ecological conditions. While I recognise the importance of inclusive representation, I stressed that appointing community members drawn at random from the public would require careful training and support to ensure the model’s effectiveness. Without sufficient structure and accountability, stewards may struggle to interpret complex ecological data or conduct rigorous research; yet relying solely on scientists or elected members also risks vested interests. This discussion highlighted, for me, the challenge and opportunity of designing representation that is both democratic and credible.

Enforcement is another crucial consideration. I found the proposal of a trustee-style model, independent of political and corporate influence, particularly promising in its potential to strengthen decision-making and ensure outcomes are upheld in practice. While local councillors raised important questions about the authority and influence of an inter-species council, these concerns reinforced my view that any new governance model can succeed if it is supported by sustained funding, training, and political commitment. With the right backing, such a framework could translate the river’s rights into meaningful action.

Case Study: Drought

After a year of exceptionally low rainfall, a drought was declared in East and West Sussex, prompting a permit allowing South East Water to abstract from the River Ouse to refill the local reservoir, then at 27.6% capacity. In my view, authorising early abstraction is fundamentally at odds with the Charter’s Right to Flow, as reduced river levels concentrate pollutants and drive oxygen to levels that endanger wildlife. It also directly undermines the Right to Feed and Be Fed from Sustainable Aquifers, as extraction continues despite recharge failing to keep pace with demand.

This case made clear to me that a cultural shift is demanded. We cannot continue to assume an “unlimited human right to water,” even where it comes at the expense of the river itself. I support the suggestion of public campaigns that portray the river as a “living actor” through ambassadors, media, and creative storytelling, not as symbolic messages but as a necessary reframing of how water is valued and treasured.

While education initiatives are important, it alone cannot deliver change quickly enough. I therefore argued that funding mechanisms are immediately impactful. A “river tax” on industries such as agriculture and water companies, proportionate to their benefit of profits from abstraction, should fund a dedicated river restoration fund. Most compellingly, granting the river “company status,” conferring legal and financial personhood, would adapt existing legal tools to give real and enforceable effect to the Rights of Nature.

Final thoughts

The Rights of Nature Movement is really taking off but we found that the local councillors who passed the River Ouse Declaration were negative about its impact. We felt that work is needed to raise the public awareness of the River’s rights. If the broad principles were linked to concrete policy proposals people could see what an ecocentric approach would look like in practice. RoN continues to make strides across the globe and the necessity for reframing our relationship with nature is more pressing than ever. The very fact that community stakeholders are willing to interrogate the movement in good faith demonstrates it has a foot in the door in the UK. (Nauman Nadeem)

Ultimately, the Charter reframes our relationship with the Ouse, asserting the River’s rights and compelling us to act as partners and stewards to safeguard our natural resources. (Hoi Mok)

It was so exciting to see how many environmentally passionate people can be in one room to discuss RoN and its practicality, with so many creative ways of tackling the current UK system and changing the picture to put nature on the same playing board as humans in decision-making. (Clara Smith)

Whilst I remain sceptical of the Charter’s logistics, it is a trailblazing concept and a promising vessel through which the new frontier of River Rights may be explored. (Bobby Mahoney)