POLICY AND PRACTICE REVIEWS article
Front. Environ. Sci.
Sec. Environmental Policy and Governance
Rights of Nature in Global Perspective: Legal Pathways and Policy Implications
Provisionally accepted
Carmen Arreaga-Vicuña1María José Blum-Moarry2David Hoyos-Valarezo2José Diaz-Montenegro1
Javier Chiliquinga-Amaya1
Marco Faytong-Haro1*
Patricio Alvarez-Muñoz1- 1State University of Milagro, Milagro, Ecuador
- 2Universidad de Especialidades Espiritu Santo, Samborondon, Ecuador
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
This Policy & Practice Review maps the global evolution of Rights of Nature (RoN) frameworks, legal approaches that treat ecosystems as rights-bearing subjects rather than objects of regulation for human benefit. Using a structured scoping review of primary legal instruments (constitutional texts, statutes, and apex/high‑court decisions) and corroborated secondary sources (2005–2025; English and Spanish), we comparatively analyze six landmark jurisdictions (Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, India, New Zealand, and Spain) and situate them within broader regional trajectories. We identify three recurring pathways to RoN recognition: (1) constitutional entrenchment, (2) legislative/statutory enactment (often ecosystem‑specific), and (3) court‑driven recognition through public trust, parens patriae, and related doctrines. Across pathways, effective implementation depends less on the declaration of personhood alone than on institutional design, especially guardianship arrangements, procedural standing, and enforceable remedies. Comparative evidence shows persistent enforcement gaps where RoN norms collide with extractive political economies, fragmented sectoral laws, limited institutional capacity, and doctrinal ambiguity about the content of nature's rights. We synthesize practice‑oriented strategies that have emerged across cases, including integrating RoN into environmental impact assessment and licensing systems, establishing independent ecological ombuds/defender offices, funding and protecting guardians, and creating compliance and monitoring mechanisms for restoration orders. The review concludes that RoN can strengthen biodiversity and climate governance when embedded within existing environmental institutions and aligned with Indigenous relational worldviews and community participation.
Keywords: biocentrism, constitutional environmental law, Earth jurisprudence, ecocentrism, environmental governance, indigenous knowledge, Legal personhood, policy diffusion
Received: 15 Jun 2025; Accepted: 27 Jan 2026.
Copyright: © 2026 Arreaga-Vicuña, Blum-Moarry, Hoyos-Valarezo, Diaz-Montenegro, Chiliquinga-Amaya, Faytong-Haro and Alvarez-Muñoz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Marco Faytong-Haro
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.