Should Nature Have Legal Rights?
An essay on zoos and sanctuaries, the conservation of endangered species, and the personhood of great apes
Introduction
With animal cruelty now considered a federal crime in the U.S. (EcoWatch; USA Today), I feel inspired to sum up here my thoughts on endangered and vulnerable species. Are there ways other than zoos to maintain our planet’s biodiversity? Should animals or ecosystems receive more legal protection or personhood?
Conservation of endangered species
Out of 105,732 assessed species, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified 28,338 species of fungi, plants, and animals as threatened (see Table 1b in its final 2019 report).
These numbers are increasing every year.
In fact, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ has been established to map the extinction-rate trends for each species, with the most rapid rate attributed to the reef-forming corals. All kingdoms are impacted since as early as the 1500s.
According to a report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), approximately one million species are facing extinction (p. 12, IPBES’ summary for policymakers, 2019).
The authors attribute the decline in biodiversity to a number of direct (society-, economy-, conflict-, and epidemics-related) and indirect (exploitation, pollution, climate crisis) causes, as summarised by National Geographic.
In times like these, news about re-discovered species are encouraging. As reported in the November 2019 issue of Nature Ecology & Evolution, a colony of chevrotains (mouse-deer, Tragulus versicolor), believed to be extinct, has now emerged in the wild in Vietnam (CNN).
These promising news prompt a question: have we got the right to maintain vulnerable or endangered species in captivity?
Off-site (‘ex-situ’) conservation
Profit-oriented zoos or drive-through safaris are often criticised for (1) sacrificing surplus animals in order to make room for other ones; (2) maintaining limited enclosures for predominantly free-roaming animals such as elephants; and (3) removing the animals from their natural habitats, as exemplified by overheating polar bears (National Geographic, Open Democracy).
Moreover, scientist-led captive breeding programmes may prove helpful to ensure the survival of a species but its genetic diversity may be lost in the process. Writing in the Journal of Applied Ecology in 2015, a team of ecologists argued that in the case of the critically-endangered great Indian bustard (Ardeotis nigriceps), in-situ breeding was superior to ex-situ breeding.
Yet zoological gardens, aquaria, botanical gardens, rescue or rehabilitation centres, or cutting-edge research centres may play a pivotal role in the conservation of critically-endangered species. It cannot be underestimated that the Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), extinct in the wild in the1970s, was successfully reintroduced into a number of countries only a decade afterwards due to an international effort of ex-situ conservation.
Other species were brought back to the wild, too. For further details, consult this article on the ten most prominent species that were reintroduced (here is a Medium re-print of the same content from the Taronga Conservation Society Australia).
When captivity is concerned, my thoughts gravitate towards a particular form of animal enclosure more optimal than zoos — open-air sanctuaries. Their birthplace. Their home. Think open-ocean whale sanctuaries off the coast of California, U.S., or the Everglades National Park in Florida, U.S. Not only are protection and a natural environment provided, they also allow for tourist access in order to promote education and raise awareness.
Are human rights only our own?
Efforts to maintain biodiversity cannot solely be based on reproductive research and conservation.
Let us talk law.
Dame Jane Goodall has advocated for endowing great apes with personhood and thus legal recognition and protection, primarily within the Nonhuman Rights Project.
What if it were instituted nature-wide? Could we apply these new laws to all species, as well as forests, rivers, and lakes? What would the legal ramifications be? This November, a book review by the Guardian has outlined an interesting legal challenge:
‘If a river may bring an action against a factory for polluting it, may a developer in turn sue that river when flood water damages the housing stock?’
That is indeed a fair point.
Yet, I believe that nature has the unalienable right to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’, as stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, originally dedicated to protect these values among humans, and humans only.
If companies can enjoy a legal status similar to people (i.e., they can attain a corporate personhood), why not extend that protection towards great apes, elephants, dolphins, whales, plants, or ecosystems?
Open questions
Will we witness a major change in how personhood and animal rights are viewed and defined? Will great apes become humans, legally speaking? Will we grant legal rights to rivers, canyons, or primordial forests? Should giant redwoods at the Muir Woods National Monument be the first ones to enjoy such protection?
