The Rights of the River Ouse Charter

The River Ouse is a 56km river in Sussex. Since 2017, the Council has worked with organisations such as the Sussex Wildlife Trust, Ouse & Adur Rivers Trust and others to improve and protect the water quality of the river.

In 2022, Love Our Ouse, a community interest company, led a discussion at the River Festival which led to a proposal for a draft charter of rights for the river (see, here). This led to a motion being approved by the Council in February 2023 to explore the implementation of rights of rivers along the River Ouse and the production of a declaration within two years.

The Council, with Love Our Ouse and other stakeholders, worked to develop the Rights of the River Ouse Charter over the next two years. In February 2025, the Council voted to support the principles in the Charter.

The Rights of the River Ouse Charter sets out the case for the Charter before detailing the rights of the river. Whilst recognising the effort that has already gone into improving the health of the river, the document notes that, “there is a need to increase this effort if we are to see improvement which matches the ambition of those at the frontline of positive change especially as the river faces increasing threats across a number of areas. The Charter and its implementation seek to tackle these threats with a partnership framework that recognises the river as its own entity - promoting good practice and identifying where more needs to be done; what action can be taken to restore the Ouse’s ecological and chemical health, recognising that we all have responsibilities to fulfil the river’s rights.”

The rights in the Charter contains the following 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

Lewes District Council’s Decision

On 24 February 2025, Lewes District Council adopted a decision “To support the principles within the Rights of Rivers Charter…”. As noted above, the decision follows at least two years of work by the Council, in conjunction with groups such as Love Our Ouse, following the motion of the Council in February 2023.

It is noteworthy that in its 2025 decision, the Council used the phrase “to support the principles within the Rights of River Charter” (emphasis added). This language is softer than a full recognition of legal personality of the River Ouse. Such language appears to have been intentional. The Lead Member Report for the meeting on the 24 February 2025, discusses the legal implications for the Decision and notes, “Supporting the principles within the Rights of River Charter and the rest of the work outlined in this report highlights the Council’s support for the natural environment. Support does not bind the Council or fetter its discretion.”

The concern regarding fettering discretion seems to have also been at the forefront of the Councils mind in 2023 when it passed the motion to explore a rights of river charter. Thus, page 10 of the minutes of that meeting (20 February 2023) state the following: “It was suggested that the Council could commit to endorsing the declaration when produced, but Officers clarified that the Council could not agree to do so at this point, as that would be binding a future Council’s decision.”

In addition, the minutes note the concerns of some councillors as to how the rights of the river would be enforced (see, p. 9). This question does not seem to have been fully resolved. As the Environmental Law Foundation, which supported in the preparation of the Rights of the River Ouse Charter, note in its press release “the next stage of the campaign will involve the implementation of the River Ouse Rights Charter for interested organisations and governance design that sees the river’s voice articulated”.

Both the comments regarding fettering discretion, and the concerns of the councillors as to how the rights of the river charter were to be enforced, demonstrate some of the difficulties that arise when trying to grant nature legal rights. Whilst the relationship between public law duties on public authorities and rights of nature is an interesting question, the rest of this blog will focus on the difficulty in effectively implementing and enforcing the ‘rights of nature’.

Implementation and enforcement

The difficulty in implementing and enforcing the rights of nature is shared across the world. Different countries have taken a range of approaches to protecting and enforcing recognised rights of nature. Two different approaches to enforcing the rights of nature are discussed below.  

Any individual can enforce the rights of nature

Both Ecuador and Spain have granted rights of nature and enabled any individual to enforce the rights granted.

In 2008, when adopting its new constitution, Ecuador recognised the right of nature to have its existence respected (Article 71 – for an English translation of the Constitution, see here) and its restoration (Article 72). The Constitution enables all individuals, communities, peoples and nations to call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of nature (Article 71). This is an expansive approach to the enforcement of the rights of nature and has led to a number of cases before the Ecuadorian courts seeking to uphold the rights of nature. (For discussion of some of the recent cases, see M. Tănăsescu, E. Macpherson, D. Jefferson, J. Torres Ventura, ‘Rights of nature and rivers in Ecuador’s Constitutional Court’ [2024] IJHR 1).

In 2022, Spain granted legal personality to the Mar Menor, Europe’s largest saltwater lagoon. This validity of the relevant law (Law 19/2022) was challenged for its constitutionality. In 2024, the Spanish Constitutional Court found the law to be constitutional. Law 19/2022 enables any person to enforce the rights granted to the lagoon (for a discussion of the decision, see here). Thus, like the Ecuadorian Constitution, it adopts an expansive approach to the enforcement of the rights. 

Guardianship approach

Whereas Ecuador and Spain have granted any individual the ability to enforce the relevant rights of nature, New Zealand and Colombia have adopted a guardianship approach in order to give practical effect to the rights of nature.

New Zealand passed the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 in 2017. This Act protects the rights of the Whanganui River by appointing guardians for the river. Article 18 of the Act establishes the Te Pou Tupua (guardian) for the Whanganui River. The functions of the Te Pou Tupua are set out in Article 19 and include acting and speaking on behalf of the river, to uphold its status, as well as taking any other action reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose and perform its functions (see here). The persons appointed to the Te Pou Tupua are not personally liable “for any action taken or omission made in their capacity as Te Pou Tupua, but only if the action or omission relates to their powers and functions under this Act and they have acted in good faith” (Article 21). Thus, the relationship is similar to a fiduciary one found in trusts.

In Colombia the Atrato River was recognised as a legal subject by the Constitutional Court in 2016. This ruling also mandated the creation of a commission of guardians to protect the river. (For discussion on this, see P. Wesche, Rights of Nature in Practice: A Case Study on the Impacts of the Colombian Atrato River Decision, (2021) 33(3) JEL 531). A commission of Guardians was established following the Constitutional Court decision. The Commission includes both representatives of the Government and communities of the region.

In addition to these formal guardians established by the State, there has been a move in the context of private and public organisations to making ‘Nature’ a Director of their board (see here). For instance in June 2024, the Usk Catchment Partnership, announced the appointment of ‘We are Nature Based CIC’ to act as Nature Guardian to the core group of the Partnership. The aim of appointing ‘Nature’ as a board member is to give ‘Nature’ a voice in the running of the organisation in a similar way to how the guardianship model creates a body to give ‘Nature’ a voice and hold governments to account.

Concluding remarks

As the minutes of the Council’s meeting show, there is still ambiguity as to how the ‘rights of the River Ouse’ will be implemented going forward, not least as the Council cannot and has not granted the River Ouse legal personality (in contrast to the international examples). 

Given the status of the Charter, it seems there are currently questions over ‘who’ will be able to enforce the Charter, and ‘how’ the Charter will be enforceable.

On the ‘who’ question, the international examples suggest two approaches. The first approach is that ‘any’ person ought to be able to enforce the rights on behalf of nature. On the one hand, such an approach seems unlikely to materialise in England and Wales without Parliamentary intervention given the traditionally narrow standing rules in public law. However, the UK Supreme Court has indicated a willingness to show a more relaxed approach to standing in the environmental context (Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44, per Lord Hope at [152]). Given the community involvement in creating and promoting the Rights of the River Ouse Charter, it is conceivable that organisations such as Love Our Ouse which have already taken it upon themselves to promote the well-being of the river would have ‘sufficient interest’ to bring a judicial review in relation to the Charter.

The second approach identified from the international examples is a form of guardianship. Arguably there are a couple of options open to the Council to introduce a form of ‘guardian’ of the River Ouse. One option would be to create an informal role within the Council of ‘champion’ of the River Ouse. This person’s role could be to promote within Council decision-making the Rights of the River Ouse Charter. Such an informal role would not have any legal responsibilities but be a way for the Council to give practical effect to their decision to support the principles in the Charter. Inspiration as to how the role could take effect could be drawn from the movement to make ‘Nature’ a board member.

An alternative option would be for the Council to establish a body or a charity whose purpose is to promote the Rights of the River Ouse Charter and act akin to a ‘guardian’ of the River. Such a body could be established using the ‘general competence power’ under s. 1(1) Localism Act 2011 which grants a “A local authority [the] power to do anything that individuals generally may do”. As noted in this parliamentary briefing paper, the general competence power has attracted relatively little attention and it is uncertain whether it could be used for these purposes. It may, however, be worth exploring.  

On the ‘how’ question, the Rights of River Charter for the River Ouse does not go as far as granting the River Ouse legal personality as in the international examples. This is clear from the language of the Council’s decision which, as set out above, is framed as ‘supporting’ the principles of the Charter. Thus, it would not be possible to challenge a public authority or private individual’s acts or omissions on the basis that they were a breach of the ‘rights’ expressed in the Charter. In other words, if the River Ouse is affected by a significant increase in pollution, it would not be possible to bring a legal action claiming breach of the River’s “right to be free from pollution”.

However, in relation to Lewes District Council, it is arguable that the Rights of River Charter for the River Ouse is now a ‘material consideration’ that should be taken into account in decision-making. Thus, it is arguable that the Charter ought to be considered by Lewes District Council when it formulates new planning policy or takes planning decisions that may affect the River Ouse. If Lewes District Council fail to do this, it is possible that a judicial review could be brought on this basis (subject to the ‘who’ question above).

In addition to the more formal legal mechanisms considered above, the approval of the Charter, is arguably likely to have a symbolic impact on Lewes District Council and how it approaches decision-making affecting the River Ouse. The very act of approving the Charter, and particularly being the first Council to do so, creates a political impetus to consider the rights expressed in the Charter when making decisions.

Clearly there is still much uncertainty as to the practical and legal implementation of the Rights of the River Ouse Charter. However, what is clear is that if the rights of nature movement continues to gain momentum in the UK, questions surrounding the best way to give practical effect to the rights of nature will continue to arise and need to be resolved. Looking for inspiration from other countries is likely to be a fruitful source of investigation.

Emma Rowland is a pupil at Francis Taylor Building.