Open Access Repository

Rights of nature versus conventional nature conservation: international lessons from Australia’s Tarkine wilderness


Downloads per month over past year

Richardson, BJ ORCID: 0000-0002-3249-5648 and Hamasaki, N 2021 , 'Rights of nature versus conventional nature conservation: international lessons from Australia’s Tarkine wilderness' , Environmental Policy and Law, vol. 51, no. 3 , pp. 159-173 , doi: 10.3233/EPL-201066.

PDF (Author manuscript)
145838 - Rights...pdf | Download (5MB)

| Preview


The rights-of-nature model is gaining traction as an innovative legal approach for nature conservation. Although adopted in several countries, it remains in its infancy, including in Australia. An important research question is whether rights of nature will offer superior environmental outcomes compared to traditional nature conservation techniques including creation of protected areas. This article investigates that question through a case study of the Tarkine wilderness, in the Australia state of Tasmania. It first identifies key lessons from existing international experience with affirmation of rights of nature, such as in New Zealand and Ecuador. The article then explores how rights of nature could apply in Australia’s Tarkine region and their value compared to existing or potential protected areas and other nature conservation measures under Australian or Tasmanian law. Affirming rights of nature represents a major conceptual shift in how people via the law relate to the natural world, but whether the model offers practical benefits for nature conservation depends on a variety of conditions, in addition to the need to address broader societal drivers of environmentaldegradation.

Item Type: Article
Authors/Creators:Richardson, BJ and Hamasaki, N
Keywords: nature rights, environmental law, Tasmania
Journal or Publication Title: Environmental Policy and Law
Publisher: IOS Press
ISSN: 1878-5395
DOI / ID Number: 10.3233/EPL-201066
Copyright Information:

© Benjamin J. Richardson and Nina Hamaski, 2021. The definitive, peer reviewed and edited version of this article is published in Global law and policy, 51, 3, 159-173, 2021, 10.3233/EPL-201066

Related URLs:
Item Statistics: View statistics for this item

Actions (login required)

Item Control Page Item Control Page