IHE Delft 💧Alumni online seminar Rights of Nature: Reflections of Possibilities

Welcome everybody to this IH Delumni online seminar that is created thinking in our alumni but open to all interested public. Today it will be my pleasure to give the floor or the mic to Gabriela Guadrad Cesada who is my colleague. She works at Taiichi Del as associate professor of water rights and justice and she will address this important topic rights of nature reflections of possibilities but after go giving the mic to her I would like to introduce myself I'm Maria Sentino and alumni relations advisor I organize with my team this type of seminars and I would like to give you some important tips. Please during the seminar keep your microphone muted and your camera so that not to have disturbance and of course there will be time for questions after the presentation of Gabriella. So write during the seminar all the questions that comes to your mind in the chat and at the end of the seminars I will read it for her to answer. Another important scene is that the seminar will be recorded. All the persons who have registered will get it by email and please it will be just for free access at IH Del YouTube and don't hesitate to share it to all the persons who can be interested in the topic and without further ado I would like to give the mic to our speaker of today Gabriella CuadraD Casada. Gabriella the mic is yours. >> Hello everyone. Marila asked me to present some of the recent work that I have been doing. So I told her let's take the opportunity to discuss rights of nature which is I would say one of the most interesting topics at the moment when you are talking with legal scholars right so this is a still an ongoing research that I'm doing with some colleagues here in IG but also in many different universities and also with collective with social movements in many different parts of of the world. So today I will be presenting what we have done so far, what have we learned and what are we expecting also to continue to learn and do with this with this topic. So that's why the title of the presentation is night rights of nature reflections on possibilities. So as you will see there is still a lot of things that we don't know what are they or how they can be implement enforced or how can they have an impact in addressing some of our socioecological problems. But we think some of us who are working on this topic that they can be possibilities to really re-engage with nature using the the learnings from rights of nature. So today's seminar is structured as follows four parts. So first I will present an introduction to rights of nature. Well I want to explain two things. The first one is to bring to the discussion indigenous worldviews, indigenous ontologies, indigenous epistemologies, ways to way to explain or engage with ways that many indigenous communities around the world have used for millennia to deal with with nature and how rights of nature is interlin or interconnected with these indigenous worldview. view then I will start talking about more from a western perspective. So what are rights of nature? How are we using them? How are we refraraming them in as I said in the more western context? And then the second part we will start analyzing rights of nature. So who has rights? What rights do they have? How can we enforce them? How can we implement them? and how can we really use them to have an impact or what is the impact so far of rights of nature and to do that we will go to the third part where I will mention this with some concrete examples from Ecuador, New Zealand, Colombia and Spain as I will present later on. There are many many different examples and the movement is growing and growing. So we have many different examples in many different countries around the world but I will focus on those four. So I can give a little bit of more detail explanation or discussion of how are we using implementing framing rights of nature and the last part I will hope that you have questions or reflection or maybe experiences working with this. So I'm also very looking forward to hear from everybody in the room your yeah your approaches to this or your experiences with this topic. So as I said first of all I wanted to start this seminar or this discussion on rights of nature bringing the the the pro the importance and the prominence of indigenous world's views indigenous ontologies indigenous epistemologies indigenous practices right because even though for us in the western world and I just mentioned that it's a very [snorts] yeah it's very I would say nowadays rights of nature is becoming more and more prominent and more and more popular and we are all talking about that and if you look at legal academic publications we have more and more legal academic publications on rise of nature maybe more than anything else at the moment so it's becoming a very very popular topic however when we talk about where what is the background of these ideas of of indi of rights of nature. We will see that through indigenous peoples they have long practice different understanding of nature that are related to rights of nature. So through their customs and legal knowledge systems, they have been already discussing that nature is not an object as we have it since always in western legal systems, right? That nature is an object that we can manage, that we can govern, that we can own, that we can sell in the market. So for these communities the nature has always been a living being and that means that their understanding or their relations with nature has been always very very different. So many indigenous peoples and cultures even though they are diverse because we will see that that is also one of the complexity complexities of these topics that we will have as many indigenous people as we can think of. There are many different ones and they are all diverse. However, they share an understanding that humans and nature are part of a family that shares ancestry and origins. So, if you see here on my on my slide, I have um uh a photo that is a very common say in many of the Mauies, the New Zealand indigenous people, they're saying I am the river, the river is me. So that means that for them this connection between us humans and nature is very very very prominent is is very much there to say I'm the river the river is me or treating rivers or other elements of nature as yeah ancestry as your mother as your grandmother as your sister. So that is all and as I said that many different communities have this in different ways but they all or most of them they share this ancestry and origins that we never had or we never got used to that when we are talking about western culture western ontologies or western epistemologies and from there from that part we have in our legal system conceptualize nature as something that is an object that we can as I said before we can manage we can govern we can sell in the market. So maybe the last thing that I would like to say about indigenous world views is that even though this interesting concept of rights of rights of nature is coming and is very interlinkable indigenous world views, they have been also certain instances where rights of nature have been used to reproduce colonial dynamics by simplifying indigenous worldviews or indigenous epistemologies or ontologies. So that's why we also need to be careful how we frame this. And also in some cases where indigenous people are actually not claiming or not demanding for rights of nature but other r other different different rights for example collective rights and they are more interested in having access to rights of land. [snorts] Right? So that is let's say some of the complexities that we have around indigenous worldviews and rights of nature. So now if I go back to what is rights of nature now more into how scholars from western universities, western legal systems are engaging with we see many different definitions here. Here I just have a few of them but of course there are many more of these and as I said now it's becoming a very popular topic that a lot of researchers are looking and exploring. So one of the definition of rights of nature is that is an alternative legal approach that recognizes nature as a subject of rights. So that is coming from stone from 1973 that is one of the most prominent let's say legalist scholars who has written on the topic of rights of nature. Then we also have from other fields of knowledge. So we have for philosophical approach that they say that rights of nature is a way of recognizing the interconnectedness of the world. So that we humans are completely interconnected with nature. So with rivers, with the air, with the oceans. So if we are damaging rivers or we are damaging nature, we are also damaging ourself. Right? So that's why we also need to have a relationship with nature in a very very different way that what we have been doing let's say historically again from a more western point of view. Then for many others is also a move from an anthropocentric perspective to a more echocentric view of the world. Right? So again to say instead of putting us humans in the center of the of the of the universe try to say okay the universe is very complex and we humans are just part of that and everything else is as important as as and the one of the the other views that I wanted to to discuss or present here is Calfman 2021 that for him when we talk about rise of nature. We are also talking about a transnational socological movement that here we include the work not only from researchers or legal scholars like in the other ones but it's more about the communities about organized movements about people artists women indigenous communities all that convening together as a transnational social ecological movement that are pushing for different ways to again engage with with nature. So now if we look at again coming back to rights of nature from a more legal perspective and how this movement as I say is growing and growing. This is just a research that I did with a student and and some colleagues where we try to trace okay where are where these rights of na nature have emerged. So we try to map and if you can see here we have many different countries like everywhere in the world. So we see in the Americas, we see in Europe, we see in Asia, we see in Africa, in Australia, more and more countries are recognizing this new paradigm, new legal paradigm of rights of nature. So that was the first question that we had. Okay, who is well first what or where where are these na these rights of nature being created? That was the first question. Then the second one is like okay how are they being created. So then we went to different countries that we trace and we wanted to understand okay how are they being created in all these different countries. So we found that the first or the most prominent way of creating rights of nature was by local legislation. That's the primary means of formalizing rights of nature. Then we found that the second one was through case law or court decisions where again here is a very important to mention the what I mentioned before the transnational movement that is pushing for this. So a lot of organized communities have gone to different courts in different parts of the world and they have said we want the recognition of nature as living beings. So that was the second one that we found through court decision. Then the third one was through national laws. So in some countries they have also done this. And the last one that we found was by constitutional reforms. Right? So in the constitutional reform one of the prominent case is the case of Ecuador that I will mention when we go to the cases. But that was a very and here is a photo of the constitution of Ecuador where they were recognizing and I will tell you a little bit of the story how they got they got there. So then the next question that we had is okay why are so many countries creating them? why they are becoming so popular. And then we realized that in many different cases it was just people trying different things because there is well something that all of you know there is a current deterioration of nature that is just being very very problematic and that where the legal systems that we have in place haven't been able to address these problems right so I try to also illustrate there with some photos. So all of these environmental problems that we have many people in different ways expressing in different shapes or forms they have said okay maybe rights of nature can help us to re-engage with the environmental disasters and we will try to use this this approach. So here again I I bring the sociological movement to the discussion because in so many cases I mentioned the the core cases was pushed for them but also at the local level the the different local ordinances or at the national level the the national laws that have been also very much pushed by these socological movements right to say in governments or to private companies or to many others that they need to re-engage with nature in different ways and in the end it's about rethinking the role of people and nature on planet earth. Right? So that is why of the many reasons that we found that many different countries around the world are engaging with with these rights of nature. So the next question that we asked of course what okay is this a possibility for rethinking environmental law and governance. And then we started thinking okay how this new approach of rights of nature is different to what we have because of course in so many or in some places not maybe not many but in some places when we were doing this research and try to understand why people are trying to develop and use and push for rights of nature we found that people were saying okay if we all if we already have good and sound environmental law we don't need this but And we started also seeing that even though we have a lot of environmental law first the environmental law is not working properly but also we started analyzing how environmental law was created and is very very different that the idea let's say of the origins of rights of nature. So environmental law just to start it was always very human- centric and then it was created within this progrowth movement and this idea already of private property ideas and always embedded in a capitalist modes of economic and social organization. Right? So from that the we can say the backgrounds of both are very very different. So that we realize that that matters. So environmental law just to briefly mention emerged in 1970s as the poor causing I will call it of the very wellestablished private law right and natural resources management law that again it was how we see nature and nature elements like river or forest as something that we can manage that we can govern that we can cut and we can put in the market and and sell it. That was let's say the main an environmental law was a little bit to regulate okay let's not cut too much so let's cut a little bit less or let's not pollute too much let's put caps to pollution but it was a very very different logic right so in the end we concluded that yeah there is the need for a new legal approach to relate with nature and again rights of nature presents this possibility So then we started engaging more okay what is rights of nature. So we wanted to understand at least four key question who and what has rights? So what rights does it have? How can these rights be enforced be implemented? And then so far what has been the impact right because that was another let's say criticism that we found along the way when we started doing this that they say well this is very nice it's a nice academic exercise or intellectual exercise but they have had zero impact. So we wanted to see if that was the case or not or if there are yeah there more nuances to to the answer of this question. So basically what we found that is like rights of nature again is a new paradigm and a new again coming from a western point of view a western legal system. So in in this photo what I want to illustrate is you know we have like a tree. So we can say that the the base of of the tree is that yes legal rights of nature represent this new legal status of nature in western law but there are different branches different ways of understanding this right so in some places we have rights of nature recognized in the in the entire jurisdiction so everything we will see in the case of Ecuador right so we have the the entire jurisdiction recognizing rights of nature. Then we have rights of nature to ecosystem more broadly. So to all rivers or to yeah more broadly and then we have rights of nature to a particular ecosystem. So that will be a cases where they wanted to protect a specific river. For example, we will see it in in the case of Colombia, the Atrata River that it was to give particular rights of nature to a particular ecosystem. And then the the more let's say common one that we found is the particular to a particular ecosystem and a particular right that it was the right of legal personhood. Right? So with legal personhood what I mean is that the the nature element the river or the mountain will have legal personhood like the same rights that I have as a as a human being. Right? And then there were different ways to to do that. Right? So this again is the four main ones that we have found so far. So in some cases we have as a living being or entity. So that is a little bit more broad. Maybe there are not a specific rights attached but it's just saying okay they are living beings so we need to respect them and we need to take care of that. Then we have a judicial person. So that means let's say putting it in the same category as a private company. I don't know let's think about Coca-Cola. A Coca-Cola has judicial is a judicial person. So they wanted to have something like that or subject of rights but they don't know they don't say in the law what rights so those rights need to be defined it and then they have laws or bylaws where they define that. And the last one is what I mentioned the legal personhood that that is just having all the rights as a human being has for example or including also that the river could sue somebody because somebody is polluting it. And of course then that also raised question okay maybe if the river h floods the community around along the river so then the community can sue the river. So of course that is also some of the discussions that we are still trying to find some answers to. So now in the rest of the time that I have I want to briefly discuss these four examples that I mentioned. So the first was is Ecuador where I have also worked with some colleagues there with some lawyers and some indigenous communities to try to understand what happened in in Ecuador. So Ecuador was the the first country in the world to recognize legally rights of nature and they did it through as I mentioned before the a new constitution that they created in 2008. So that was the first legal instrument worldwide that recognized rights of nature. And there is let's say it is well known that all these paths to the new constitution was pushed by indigenous movement activists, artists and so on support also from international networks. So that's why they they managed to do that. And of course there was also a very good political moment that it was happening in Ecuador when they was having a a leftwing uh president. So they started to to support that and then in the end they managed to pass this new constitution. However, while I was working with these indigenous communities from Ecuador, they were saying and mentioning once and again that rights of nature were not their primary concern. They actually were more concerned about collective rights and autonomy more than this idea of of rights of nature. Right? So for example, land rights was one of the primary concerns that they have and that was not really resolved in the in the constitution. And then another thing that we found that even though it was super important to have this in Ecuador as the first yeah legal instrument worldwide to recognize rights of nature, there were a lot of contradictions because at the same time they were saying okay we have rights of nature and we are going to engage with this. They were also continue with the way that Ecuador deals with natural resources or nature or rivers or with the same language as again not nature but natural resources and also with the same idea of extractives activities extractivism. So there was let's say a a very clear tension there between what they were doing as I said as country that works a lot in with destructivist activities like mining or oil and these ideas coming from indigenous ontologies and epistemologist that is more about bobbed inside. So those were some of the interesting thing that on one hand it was very positive but on the other hand they were also showing some some important tensions and there what it says in in Ecuador here on article 71 you can see they have the the the word of nature of Patchamama that it has the legal right to exist. So its existence should be fully respected and the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles. And then they also granted to all person it doesn't say citizens or anything. It says all persons can call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of nature. So again this is just one of the let's say examples that I wanted to briefly mention. Then another very interesting example is the case of New Zealand. I had the opportunity to to to be there in New Zealand when I was doing my my PhD and in New Zealand uh a lot of interesting things were were happening and some of the the communities were saying that for them they have two laws that they have passed recognizing rights of of nature. they have had for more than 150 years of a struggles to pass this law. So they were saying since the the colonization of New Zealand these people the Maui people the indigenous people of New Zealand they have been trying to push to have their world visions again their ontologies and epistemologies somehow incorporated in legal system. So it was until 20 2014 that it was the first law that passed the two ura act that recognized the rainforest the the ura rainforest as the first legal ecosystem in New Zealand to have legal personhood. And few years after that they did the same thing with now recognizing as a legal personhood the Wang Ganui River. and not just the legal personhood but I also brought the idea that the river for them is indivisible and it's a living hole. So when I was there and I had the chance to talk to some of the indigenous aboriginal they call it in Australia and New Zealand aboriginals they were saying that for them and this is a direct quote from one of the leaders there. They're saying we are not just talking about the physical dislocations or the destruction that they were doing with the forest or the pollution of the river but also a spiritual emotional and intellectual disconnection. Livelihood, language, cuisine, poetry, music, dance, dreams, names, everything about being to that is the their their ethnicity springs from the forest. So for them everything that they were destroying with the forest it was not just the physical destruction of the forest it was everything else right and and the interesting thing in my opinion in the case of New Zealand is that when they passed the law they not also passed the law but they also managed to establish certain legal instruments more than the law like plans and strategic erh yeah strategic plans and strategic ordinances and so on. So all these legal frameworks could really incorporate and try to embed all these yeah different ways that the Mori the indigenous people of New Zealand see in their customs and their practices and they managed to move this to mobilize this to the law. Right? So another important thing was that implementation of these acts were also supported by the allocation of funds. So there were also a public apology from the crown from the from the let's say yeah white western government that they were saying okay we are also apologized for all the wrongs that we did in the past and then they also allocated important amount of money so they could start working on these plans and these different strategies and they also created different decentralized decision makings with different roles and different responsibilities. So they could actually involve many of the mauies in decision making. Right? So they created a interesting figure that is called the guardians of the of the river the Wanganu River. So these guardians are now also responsible for the yeah for everything that needs to be done within the the river. And as they say for us the most important is to care for the river. caring about the river. So they are there to to do this. Then I would like to move now to the case of of Colombia and Colombia was also a a nice way because it was a different so I have talked about the constitutional reform. I have talked about laws that they have been you know in the making for many many years and now in the case of Colombia was through a constitutional decision. So many different communities, indigenous communities but also AfroColian people came together and they were very concerned and very worried about what was happening with the Atrat River. So they took the case to the constitutional court in Colombia. And interesting enough, when I was also having the opportunity to talk to different judges in in Colombia from the constitutional court, they explained that the communities were actually not asking for the figure of the rights of nature in this case. They were just actually asking for protection, for stop the pollution, for really try to yeah protect and conserve and manage in different ways in better ways the the the Atra River and try to stop all the differentist activities that they were happening along the the river. However, the constitutional court in their discussions and as I said this is through interviews that I have done with with some of the judges there they were saying that inspired by the case of New Zealand that it was just a few few years before that they thought okay why don't we try to engage with this idea of rights of nature giving legal personhood and maybe that will help to have a better relationship with the river. We can try to help the river to yeah to protect the river and to conserve the river. Right. And in doing all that the constitutional court also found support in the ontologies and epistemologist from indigenous and Afrooian Colombian people. So again, this is this is a very interesting case in the sense that even though that was not something that it was requested by the plaintiffs in this specific process, the judges inspired by what was going on around this topic, they decided to do that. And here is a quote from one of the judges, Achilles Arieta, that he said, "The court intended to bring justice and protection to the Atrata River while recognizing the culturally important connection that the river has with the people living along the river." Right? So that's how a little bit how how things went. And I mentioned before the the the figure of the guardians. So they also copy the figure of of what they did in New Zealand of the Guardians and try to implement it in Colombia. Of course the context is different, the situation is different. So I will have to say that some of the things that we found in New Zealand that they have been working, let's say to some extent in a good way in Colombia was was much more challenging, much more difficult, right? And then I would like to have to the the last case move to the last case. And this one is a also very interesting case in the sense that it was the first case in Europe that it was granted the the were recognized as a subject of rights. So that was the case of Marmen Lagoon in Morsium and that happened in well in 2022. However, then there was a lot of discussion and then it went to the constitutional court. Some people said no, this is unconstitutional and in the end the constitutional court resolved like many years after that. That was in 2024. Finally they say no we are going to recognize the marmenor as yeah that is a subject of rights and we are going also to grant the legal personhood to the lagoon. And it was interesting because in reading what the what the constitutional court was saying they said that because some people were saying okay this is unconstitutional because and that is also related to in the three other cases that I presented they were let's say well particularly in Ecuador and in New Zealand they were indigenous communities and they were activists and there was a social movement behind that already familiar with the idea of rights of nature and they were pushing for that. Right? In the case of Spain, they don't have this and they have never had this and there is no really um direct connection or learning or understanding of what this idea of rights of nature is. So some people were saying, okay, this is unconstitutional and this is not what we want to do and this is not something this is an idea that it was used in other places and we want to just put it and it just won't work. However, the and in the end the judges say that even though it's true that they didn't have any of this, it was a way to reframe environmental protection as a dynamic constitutional value and situates personhood within the framework of ecological constitutionalism. So in the end it was constitutional and they could do it. However, that was the case and they said okay we are going to to have this. However, it is still very contested because in the end what they try to do is again borrow or copy these ideas of rights of nature that in the culture and in the daytoday experience of people in in Morsia in Spain they just they just didn't have right. So it was also trying to yeah copy a cosmo vision that they didn't have. So in the end they were really struggling okay what is this this doesn't make sense for us and they really engage let's say the communities the people with this with this idea. So this whole structure has faced legitimacy concerns and also the way that they created the let's say the structure for the attrator river it was very confusing and they had a lot of overlapping institutions that they already existed and they created new ones with the same roles. So there were there was also a lot of confusion here and there's a lot of people saying that of course that will undermine the effectiveness of whatever they wanted to achieve with this with this law. So in that one I also we have managed to to publish with one of my PhD students and he was actually found that he's also from Spain and he was yeah doing trying to understand why people supported that and then we realized that a lot of people really didn't have clear what was the idea of rice of nature. So the importance of really trying to understand when you use a concept borrow from other places to really try to explain it what it is where is it coming from and what do we want to achieve with this right because then if not we will have problems to try to implement it in a place where it's completely different. So in in summary like context matters. So that's why in Spain even though again it is constitutional but there is a lot of problems with the implementation of of that law and the idea of rights of nature. So now I would like to as I said have these last 15 minutes to hear from questions and answer but maybe the the last thing that I would like to say is that in the end with this and that's how I frame it rights of nature um reflections on possibilities because I think rights of nature can help us to have more democratic and inclusive societies but also make law more democratic inclusive and sustainable right in the way that we can include and learn different worldviews and knowledge system. However, as I said, the indigenous communities are very diverse and they are very complex and just copying an idea and putting it is very tricky is very complex. So we really need to understand more and study more what exactly do we want to borrow and how can we borrow borrow and how can we really use it for improve or rethink or re-engage with our western legal system. Right? So and also some of the cases brought to the courts has advanced legal knowledge connecting the idea of rights of nature with indigenous social and cultural rights. So we thought that is also encouraging and there is some hope there to improve and move towards more yeah the social um inclusive societies and this is a big question but we hope that that is the case that these new laws with the ideas or the insights or the yeah reflections of rights of nature can support a new governance environment mental and water governance paradigm. Thank you very much. >> Well, thank you very much Gabriela for your dissertation on this important topic and uh now we are going to start with the questions. So please you are welcome to write the questions in the chat. And the first comment was from Joy Theman that uh she says that through UNESCO there is a forum called intangible cultural heritage NGO forum and they prepare a document which may be interesting for the group and she shared that and I would like to ask to Gabriella if you would like to comment on that. >> Yeah. I don't know. I would like just to say thank you. I I know the document and yeah, I think is is there's as I said there's so many things going on at the moment around this topic from different people and different points of view. So it's yeah it's very interesting to keep reading and keep learning and that's what I again mentioned this and at the beginning of the presentation and frame the presentation as this you know like the reflections on possibilities because I think there's a lot of things that we can do with this and yes thank you for sharing that and I think we need to yeah read more and try to yeah see if with all these we can really improve not just our legal system but actually engage in different ways or learn to engage in different ways with nature right the way that we use nature the way that we conserve nature the way that we protect nature so I think that is in the end what this is all about right engage in that in that process >> thank you Gabriella Anthony Yagman from Nigeria. He says, "We are working towards the establishment of the African River rights civil society action network. The aim is uh to create a crossborder coalition of civil society dedicated to securing legal personhood and fundamental rights for Africa's river system. We want to ensure their ecological health and protect the communities that rely on them. The objectives legal advocacy. We aim to push for the adoption of the universal declaration of river rights within the national and regional legal frameworks throughout Africa. Capacity building. We will empower local civil society organizations and indigenous guardians with the legal tools they need to advocate for rivers interests in courts and policy discussions. Knowledge sharing. Our plan includes establishing a centralized hub for research on river health, climate impacts and successful legal precedent presidents and such as the river Ethiop rights act regional integration. We want to encourage collaboration among SCOs in various repairarian estates to manage transboundary river basins with a share rightsbased vision. Thank you Anthony. The mic is yours Gabriella. >> Yeah well that that was more a comment right? I yeah it was more a comment. I don't know if you want to comment on that. Yeah. No, if you want maybe we can give the floor to to to the person. I think it's also nice to see other faces and hear other voices. So, if you want to explain a little bit where is what what is this coming from or tell us a little bit more and I can react on >> on whatever the the person says. >> Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. So, thank you very much for the presentation. In fact, I find it very uh interesting and we've been um following this movement of the rights to nature to enhance a um comprehensive conservation and respect for nature, you know, taking nature as a person, you know, and that's why I I I I ke to to participate in this webinar. So we've been trying to drive this uh the African continent generally and uh we've come up with this uh concept or a proposal uh which if I have your email I can also share with you. So we are seeking collaboration and partnership you know support to see how we can further um drive and advocate for these uh rights of nature and particularly rights of rivers on the African continent. So I will be interested in collaborating and working with you and others to promote this more in Africa. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you very much for the comment and yes, I will put the my email on the chat box because yeah, anybody that wants to and as I said this is an ongoing process and we have been working with many different people in New Zealand, in Australia, in Ecuador, in Colombia, now also in Ireland, in Spain through this brilliant PhD that I have. And all this is again a people trying to see okay how can we push from different ways from academia but also from legal practice but also from social movement from artists to try to engage in different ways with the way that we position ourselves in nature but also the way that we treat nature. Right? And also having these values that nature is not something that again we can just control and govern and cut in pieces and put in the market and sell but is much more than that right is having and and I'm not claiming that I feel like okay the river is my ancestor is my mother or my sister but really trying to see that it's also a living being and if I polluted it the river suffers And if the river is suffering and is polluted, I will also get sick because I'm drinking the water of the river. So trying just to have a more yeah relational understanding of how we are yeah connected and maybe with that we can move towards yeah different ways of development and different ways of dealing and governing. Thank you. Thank you Gabriella and Anthony always active and I have a question of Aean Bashir. Okay. How can right of nature develops in a business model and generate profits? What are the profits add to the nature? Yeah, I I think that question is complex in the sense that the idea is to have a different entry point from nature, right? So the idea that the first thing nature equal profit that's what exactly we want to change right the idea of rights of nature and that's what I tried to explain how this even though in the western world is very new concept and we are all excited about this and we are trying to make sense of this it has been practiced for millennia for many from many different indigenous communities where profit was not the main questions that they were having right there were other question like harmony and relationship and I don't know health of respect. Exactly. So yeah, maybe we need to I don't know re address or think about a different ways of asking that question and again where profit is not the entry point but it's something more important than than profit right because yeah we can have a lot of profit but in the end if we don't have rivers what are you going to do with the money right if you don't have water to drink there's very little that you can do with money. So I think yeah again it's a different way of a a different entry point. Thank you very much Gabriella. And yes sometimes in many countries people are so yeah devastated when they realize that there are a lot of people that do not understand the concept of nature and that they can do whatever. Yesterday, for example, there was in a newspaper of Argentina that in a priesting zone, well, there was a very well educated person with a pickup getting into a place that it was forbidden and he was well informed that it was forbidden everywhere. He didn't care. And now the damage will be there for hundred years. And people feel really yeah devastated with this type of scene. And one of the question could be how we can help to start to to to have another mentality in the common of the person. So nature is respect it. Do you have some comment for that? How we can help from our little space to do that? It's a question for you Gabriela. How we can help? Yeah, that is I think that that is the question right that we want to to address and I think one of the answers that I can give you is that with this paradigm we can at least allow ourself to think differently and again with the question that it was before and the prophet so let's try to think at something that is not that let's try to think about in the example that you gave right of course that person should have done that, right? I I think everybody should know that that why are you going to do something that's silly as that that can cause so much damage and the only answer that I have is you do that because you don't care, right? So, we need to start rethinking our relationship with nature and start being or stop sorry being so arrogant and think okay we are at the center of the universe. We are everything is for us and it's not we are sharing the planet we are sharing planet earth with other species with with many other living beings and we need to to find in our minds and our brains and our hearts I don't know a more humble position there and say okay we need to indeed become part of of that and not thinking that everything that is there is for us and for us to make profits and you know in the end buy things that probably we don't need and just to create more garbage and there's more problem and you know questioning our consumption patterns I think is very important too so I think that's what this approach of rights of nature give us I write a different entry point of how to position ourself our existence and that's what I talk about the ontologies of indigenous communities how do we understand who we are and where we are located in these you know planets on planet earth and and how can we be a little bit more humble we are part of it Francisco Periso thank you Gabriela s your present for your presentation and he said that as we already discussed for me the most valuable aspect of right of nature is the capacity to refrain our relation with nature in western legal system. However, is important to acknowledge where these ideas and movements come from because without that is really difficulties to implement. Would you like to comment Gabriella? Well, Francisco is the PhD that I was mentioning before. So maybe he can explain a little bit more his comment and contribute to the discussion because I'm sure I know Francisco has a lot of things to to say about this topic. So Francisco, please share your thoughts with us. Are you still around Francisco? Otherwise I go to the other question and you take the boys after. And Moses says indeed rights of nature are continually getting more global recognition. However, elite capture is becoming an inherent challenge. Powerful individuals within communities end up taking advantage of the marginalized indigenous resources users for their own selfish benefit. How can it be addressed under that legal I got lost? I got lost. Yes, Gabriella. I >> Yes. No, I think I I totally agree with with that comment and I think that is unfortunately not only happening with Rise of Nature that happens with absolutely everything. We have almost all the time some powerful individuals that they want to capture the not just the discussions and the discourses but also the benefits that we can get from this. So I agree that that is happening that that is a problem but again I think there are different ways that we can that we can address that. So in trying to answer your question how can it be addressed under the legal personhood framework I think with that what we can really try to do and again I would like to go back to the example that I gave from from New Zealand. So in now these legal frameworks that they have for legal personhood for the Wang Ganui River they have a very let's say people from their communities very important leaders now having a say having their voice their authority their expertise the indigenous the yeah the mi worldview put there and they are really trying to make sense of that and the law is backing them up. So they are really trying to yeah address some of the problems from there. So I think the the legal frameworks can if you create spaces for having these people that they should be there and not others, right? So we can try again to get inspired by what happened in in in New Zealand and the figure under the figure of the guardians of the river try to put these people and not others to take advantage of of that. Thank you very much Gabriella. I don't know if Francisco Oh, he's traveling so he has a bad connection. Thank you very much Francisco. So I will have to say thank you to Gabriella for this really important conversation and presentation that we had had today. Thanks to all the attendees that will receive the video of Gabriella in the in the coming days and please do not hesitate to share it as with [snorts] all the people that you think that is interesting in this topic and not interested in this topic too. Hoping to welcome you in another online alumni online seminar. The next one will be on the 3 September and it will be announced in the coming days. Thank you very much and I hope all of you have enjoyed this session of today. See you next time. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. Thank you everyone for joining. Bye. >> Bye.