In 2008 Ecuador became the first country to put Rights of Nature into its constitution. But what is Rights of Nature and what role does it play in achieving environmental goals and human wellbeing? In this episode, Kelly, Elizabeth, and Cole explores the concept of Rights of Nature and how it has been implemented in Ecuador by following the landmark case of Los Cedros Protected Forest. It will then look at examples from Bolivia and the U.S. to consider if Rights of Nature can be a solution to the conflict and connection between conservation and development. Part of the Conservation and Development Series.
Episode Host
Kelly Gallagher is a Masters of Environmental Management Student at Duke University focusing in coastal and marine systems and economics and policy. Her thesis work focuses on sea turtle nesting behavior and light pollution, but her interests vary widely to encompass marine policy issues and restoration efforts as a whole. She is particularly interested in the intersection of science and policy to build effective management tools for marine ecosystem protection.
Elizabeth Kroger is a Master of Environmental Management student at Duke University. Her work focuses on preserving marine biodiversity and ecosystems while increasing food and economic security in coastal communities in Latin America and the Caribbean. She earned a bachelor’s degree from Middlebury College in conservation biology, during which she studied in Ecuador and researched the potential of avitourism as an alternative to mining concessions in the Río Manduriacu Reserve, the neighboring reserve to Los Cedros.
Cole Roxbury is a Master of Environmental Management student at Duke University. He has experience in cold water macroalgal aquaculture and fisheries policy implementation and is currently researching the sustainability status of mid-level U.S. aquaculture companies.
EPISODE 50: Giving Mother Nature a Seat at the Table
[soft cloud forest sounds in background]
Hi everyone, today you’re listening to Giving Mother Nature a Seat at the Table, a podcast about the Rights of Nature with Kelly, Cole, and Elizabeth
Section I: Introduction: Los Cedros Case Study
Time Stamp: 00:00-4:40
Cole:
You are currently listening to the call of the Andean cock of the rock. An interesting name for an interesting bird. There are many such birds in Ecuador’s Los Cedros Cloud Forest – a protected nature reserve cradled in the Northwestern Andes mountains of Ecuador.
In fact, this high altitude rainforest hosts over 300 types of birds, including several other threatened and critically endangered species. If you were to hike up the ascending slopes of the la playa range, through the Madronal, Copal, and Strangler Fig trees, you would encounter butterflies, frogs, hummingbirds, snakes, spiders, and even spider monkeys. Many of the species you would see are endemic, meaning they only exist in the Los Cedros Cloud Forest. Los Cedros lies within the Tropical Andes Biodiversity Hotspot, and is considered by many scientists to be the most biologically diverse of all hotspots in the world.
If you were to climb one of the fig trees, you would be able to look out at the rest of the landscape. You would see 6000 hectares of thick forest, with blue veins of streams spreading throughout, giving life to plants, animals, and nearby human settlements. You would feel the cool, humid air on your face – a feature unique to cloud forests, and a key cause of the biodiversity featured in the area. If you were to sit there for long enough, some of the humidity would even turn into water droplets on your face. The cloud forest provides water for four major watersheds in this way. It is unique, it is beautiful, and it is fragile, as many organisms rely on these specific conditions to thrive.
<<forest noises fade out>>
What could go wrong?
<<mining noises>>
<<mining fades as speaker begins>>
In 2017, Ecuador’s Ministry of the Environment granted the Ecuadorian mining company ENAMI EP and its Canadian partner, Cornerstone Capital Resources, permits for the Rio Magdalena mining exploration project in Los Cedros. This was done despite the fact that the forest has been a protected reserve since 1988 to prevent logging and unregulated land clearing.
ENAMI EP’s mining exploration concession covered around 68% of the Los Cedros Forest. Mining in a forest of such ecological and cultural importance would result in water pollution, deforestation, and the fragmentation of critical habitats. The sprawling green forest of Los Cedros was in danger of being erased. The four watersheds the forest feeds were in danger of becoming poisoned and unusable. The communities that depended on the forest for sustainable agriculture and eco-tourism risked losing their livelihoods. The Andean cock of the rock would no longer make its call through its native habitat. Millions of years of growth and evolution were threatened by open pit gold and mineral mining.
Environmental impact assessments in the area indicated that in addition to large-scale deforestation, pollution of rivers with mercury and cyanide, desertification and changes to the local climate, about one hundred families would have to be relocated. This was not the first time mining threatened Los Cedros. The surrounding local communities had fought for years against mining exploration. ENAMI EP is actually the third concession holder for mining exploration in Los Cedros. In 2007, the Ecuadorian government revoked mining concessions from the company Ascendant Copper after local people took security personnel hostage in a church. Later, in 2014, two local community members in the nearby town of Junin were arrested by the Ecuadorian government for rebelling against a second mining concession. Mining companies along with the state then effectively occupied the area with security and military forces, intimidating local people and suppressing physical rebellion.
In light of this history, many Ecuadorians were determined to continue to fight back. They expressed outrage over the government’s decision to empower foreign mining companies at the expense of the ecosystem that they had preserved and connected with for generations.
But what would they do this time against the power of the government and foreign economic interests?
What would you do if it was your town about to be destroyed by mining?
<<Dramatic music>>
Section II: Explanation of Rights of Nature and Incorporation in Ecuadorian Law
Time Stamp: 4:40-12:50
Elizabeth:
Well, the local people went to their constitution for the answer, where you’ll find article 71 stating:
“Nature or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and created, has the right to integral respect for its existence and the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, function, and evolutionary processes”
This phrase begins a constitutional chapter called “Rights of Nature,” an amendment approved by the majority of Ecuadorians in 2008. But, what does it mean for a forest or any other ecosystem to have rights?
According to the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, the rights of nature broadly is the recognition that our ecosystems have rights just like human beings have rights. With a Rights of Nature law, the people have the ability and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of nature. An ecosystem itself can be named as the injured party, with its own legal standing. It’s about balancing what is good for human beings with what is good for other species, and what is good for the planet as a whole.
The rights of nature movement aims to provide an alternative philosophy and political proposal to the conservation practices that lie within our current western legal and financial structures. Proponents of rights of nature voice that these systems have often failed in preventing the destruction of nature, and have not ensured indigenous inclusion in decision-making or protected human rights.
Rights of Nature recognizes that all life, all ecosystems, are deeply intertwined. Rights of Nature originated from and is consistent with indigenous cultural traditions of living in harmony with Nature. This indigenous worldview is ecocentric rather than anthropocentric. Ecocentrism means people are a part of nature, and anthropocentrism means people are apart from nature.
Other host: “Wait – Isn’t that the same thing?”
It’s actually not! Ecocentrism is the view that people are a part of nature, two words. People are equal with all other species. Anthropocentrism, on the other hand, is the view that people are apart from nature, one word. This view puts people on the top of the hierarchy of nature and does not see them as equal with other species.
Ecuador’s concept of rights of nature is derived from the Ecuadorian indigenous philosophy of “sumak kawsay.” In Spanish, this is often interpreted as “buen vivir,” or “living well”, “a good life.” But some quichua people say the translation is closer to “a beautiful life” or “a full life.” Let’s hear from Carlos Larrea Maldonado, a professor at Simon Bolivar Andean University in Ecuador, and Rosa Canelos, an indigenous quichua activist, about Sumak Kawsay:
“In the Sumak Kawsay philosophy there is, first, the need for human beings to maintain harmony with nature. And second, harmony between a person and their community, and harmony between different communities. So it’s based on the notion of harmony. We cannot have wellbeing if there is no harmony between us, at the community level, and with nature”
<<Music>>
“Sumak kawsay for us is having a healthy territory, with abundant resources, good soil where we can farm and eat healthfully, and live together with nature.”
<<Music>>
This principle promotes living in harmony with nature to achieve wellbeing for all. It is exhibited in the final clause of Ecuador’s Rights of Nature constitutional chapter:
“Las personas, comunidades, pueblos, y nacionalidades tendrán derecho a beneficiarse del ambiente y de las riquezas naturales que les permitan el buen vivir.” / “Individuals, communities, people, and indigenous groups will have the right to benefit from the environment and from natural wealth that will allow them to live well…”
Implementing Sumak Kawsay into law as the Rights of Nature was revolutionary. Ecuadorian indigenous people had proposed a different type of “development” model. Historically, conservation has often clashed with human development initiatives. But through Rights of Nature, Ecuadorians demonstrated a different way of thinking about the conflict and connection between conservation and development. The indigenous people, environmental advocates, and lawyers who mobilized this philosophy into law emphasized “living well” rather than “living better,” deemphasizing economic growth and the need for development to revolve around capitalism. Instead, sumak kawsay focuses on harmony and respect for nature as its own entity, rather than as an object for exploitation or property under law.
Monica Chuji Gualinga, a quichua woman, a director for Indigenous Peoples Rights International, and a Constituent Assembly Member for Ecuador is a strong proponent of the incorporation of the sumak kawsay practice in national and international policies. She explains sumak kawsay as an alternative to development during Climate Week in New York City in 2024.
[Duration: 00:24, 57:10-57:34]
“This concept was born as a way to counteract the concept of development, because development… proposes dominating and exploiting nature, while Sumak Kawsay proposes something different, a different philosophy of relating to our mother nature.”
[Duration: 00:36, 58:15 – 58:51]
“The philosophy of Sumak Kawsay is deeply related to and connected with caring for the rainforests, forests, rivers, mountains, and seas, all the different biomes that exist on our planet. In contrast, the development model is based on selfishness, competition, and a constant struggle between human beings and between companies. It places more value on capital, driving economic growth and accumulation.”
<<music>>
As we heard from Monica, Sumak kawsay disrupts narratives that we must commodify and financialize nature in order to save it. Rights of Nature advocates are worried that financializing nature may further promote our alienation from nature and even our communities. On the other hand, they believe that rights of nature will deepen our connection to nature and each other.
While sumak kawsay and Rights of Nature provides a re-imagining of human development, in practice, social welfare reforms and poverty reduction efforts, like improved health, education, and infrastructure, often push countries to lean on extractivist industries to fund these changes. Even with a Rights of Nature law, countries and communities might encounter contradictions and tensions between supporting human wellbeing and protecting nature. Still, Rights of Nature and sumak kawsay challenge dominant understandings of what wellbeing and development mean.
Could recognizing the Rights of Nature balance both environmental issues and human wellbeing? Our case of Los Cedros can help us answer this question.
Section III: Conclusion of Los Cedros case
Time Stamp: 12:50-16:30
Cole:
In 2019, a former mayor and trustee from Santa Ana de Cotacachi filed a protective action against the Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment and ENAMI EP. They argued that the constitutional rights of nature and rights to water, a healthy environment, and prior consultation had been violated.
After two years, the Constitutional Court of Ecuador selected the Los Cedros case. Their goal was to establish a principle for how Rights of Nature should be considered in the courts. The Constitutional Court ruled that the issuing of permits for the Rio Magdalena mining project threatened Los Cedros forest’s right to exist, stating that the company had violated the precautionary principle and the rights of nature. They could not prove that their actions within Los Cedros could be conducted without causing harm to the environment and its biodiversity. With that, the court revoked the permits.
The forest had won.
Los Cedros was the first case that successfully put Ecuador’s Rights of Nature chapter to the test. This case was seen to set the precedent for how Rights of Nature would be interpreted and enforced by the courts in Ecuador, acting as the first of many Rights of Nature cases in the country.
<<music transition>>
A second case occurred in 2022 – when the constitutional Courts ruled that the urban Rio Monjas River’s rights to exist, function, and regenerate were violated due to uncontrolled wastewater and stormwater which had eroded the river’s walls. The case was brought to court by owners of a historic homestead near Quito, the capital of Ecuador. As a result, the government of Quito started a restoration project for the river to minimize erosion. There have been a number of other successful cases in Ecuador to prevent extractivist development or human rights abuses in ecosystems from mangroves to rivers. These cases demonstrate the strength of Ecuador’s RoN constitutional chapter.
Carla Cardenas, an Ecuadorian Policy Lead at the United Nations Development Program, spoke about the success of Ecuador’s Rights of Nature law at the Earth Law Symposium in 2023:
“After 15 years, we can say in Ecuador that the rights of nature have been the most powerful tool to fight against the extractivist mining and oil industry. It has not been easy, but it has been effective in the courts and in the national system.”
Globally, Ecuador has been a success story, acting as a signal for change in international, terrestrial, and marine policy. Many western scholars and indigenous people have begun to call for stronger RoN framework implementation. According to Craig Kauffman, a Rights of Nature scholar, Ecuador’s constitutional chapter for RoN has been relied upon in the country’s judicial decisions 55 times since the landmark case of Los Cedros (Kauffman, 2023). Ecuador has been studied by many scholars to try to understand what has made it successful and why it is different from other nations’ efforts to apply Rights of Nature. While ~30 other countries have also adopted RoN frameworks, Ecuador remains a powerhouse for transforming the concept into actionable legislation.
Section IV: Other Rights of Nature cases and critiques/questions
Time stamp: 16:30-24:00
Kelly:
<<music transition>>
The story of Los Cedros is an inspiring success story of Rights of Nature, and Ecuador is in the spotlight. But, Ecuador is not the only case, and Dr. Laura Affolter, a social scientist that studies Rights of Nature in Ecuador, identified over 400 rights of nature initiatives around the world (Affolter, 2024). Places like Bolivia, New Zealand, Brazil, India. There are even some cities in the U.S. that have implemented some form of rights of nature. Initiatives have included constitutional provisions, national and subnational legislation, local ordinances, Indigenous and tribal codes, and judicial decisions. But what has been successful for some countries, like Ecuador, has not necessarily been successful in other places. Scholars and activists looking at other cases in different countries have identified concerns about Rights of Nature.
<<music transition>>
“What happens if Rights of Nature are in law, but haven’t actually been used?”, “What if the human wellbeing aspect of Rights of Nature is used to justify harmful development?” and “What if Rights of Nature are used to harm human rights or well being?”
<<music transition>>
Let’s talk about Bolivia and the U.S. These are some places where these questions have been raised.
We’ll start in Bolivia.
<<plane sounds>>
Bolivia is an interesting case because the Indigenous groups there share the same sumak kawsay belief as Ecuador and it has implemented Rights of Nature into their national legal system as well. However, unlike Ecuador, it has not been implemented to the same extent. Let’s explore why.
In 2009, former President Evo Morales of Bolivia saw an opportunity to shift the world’s perspective on Bolivia’s environmental practices and took it. He encouraged the UN to designate an International Day of Mother Earth and promoted environmental well being into the Rio +20 Conference of Sustainable Development. He was highly regarded for his actions and efforts to protect Mother Earth. Although Bolivia has put a big foot forward to recognize Mother Earth in the international space, this pledge does not seem to be mirrored in their country.
Bolivia does recognize the importance of Mother Earth in their Framework Law of Mother Earth established in 2012. However, as Craig Kauffman, the Rights of Nature scholar mentioned earlier, states, there’s been little effort to implement Rights of Nature in Bolivia (Kauffman, 2019). According to legal researcher, Paola Calzadilla, and law professor, Louis Kotze, Bolivia does not give nature explicit rights. Instead, it gives the right to its people to defend environmental rights on behalf of the Earth. But even with these laws, there has been little effort to implement new laws that align with the statutes and little action to repeal acts that contradict the new statutes.
To date, Rights of Nature in Bolivia have not been used in court. It’s as if the Framework was never created. Kauffman believes this is likely because Rights of Nature laws in Bolivia are weaker than they are in Ecuador (Kauffman, 2019). In Bolivia, Rights of Nature laws require that human rights and socio-economic factors be considered. For example, in Bolivia, the notion of “well being” has been invoked to support development rather than conservation. Oftentimes resource extraction has been prioritized over conservation to help relieve poverty. Paola Calzadilla, and Louis Kotze additionally mention that Rights of Nature cases are often lost in the piles of court cases and are not seen as a priority. There is just little grounds for Rights of Nature to win cases in Bolivia.
So, despite recognizing rights of nature in their legal system like Ecuador, Bolivia has never used its Rights of Nature framework to make decisions in practice; it has not really been implemented. This is at least in part because the social and economic benefits of development for human wellbeing continue to take precedence over the Rights of Nature.
In contrast, in the U.S., scholars are concerned that Rights of Nature could be used to undermine human wellbeing. Let’s head over to the U.S.
<<plane sounds>>
You might think that the U.S. does not have many policies informed by Rights of Nature. But the U.S. actually has a lot of Rights of Nature examples. In fact, the Global Alliance for Rights of Nature (https://www.garn.org/) recognizes over 170 initiatives in the U.S., mainly at the local and city level. But balancing conservation and human wellbeing in the U.S. might prove difficult.
<<music>>
The U.S. offers an interesting case as we have a lot of laws, like the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act that sort of function like substitutes for rights of nature. These Acts allow people to bring companies to court on the basis of polluting or destroying nature, similar to how Rights of Nature allows people to represent nature in court. In some cases, acts like the Endangered Species Act have been used by environmental organizations to prevent development that could have positive outcomes for people. Noah Sachs is a professor of environmental law at the University of Richmond. He studies rights of nature and offers a few critiques on the philosophy as it pertains to U.S. law. Sachs discusses how Rights of Nature may have similar outcomes as the Endangered Species Act has. He suggests that Rights of Nature could be used to prevent development of things like affordable housing. People who are opposed to development might enact the rights of nature to keep lower income housing out of their neighborhoods ,with a “Not in My Backyard” mentality. This is all relatively hypothetical, but it’s not completely unreasonable.
Patricia Seiman, a lawyer who fights for human rights, talks about the conflict between the Endangered Species Act and human development in a TED talk. Before she recognized the importance of fighting for nature’s rights, as well as human rights, she was working to build affordable housing in Florida in the endangered Scrub Jay habitat.
“Some years ago I was working for a not for profit housing Corporation and we were going to build affordable housing for migrant Farm Workers working in South Florida and as we looked at the land that we were going to purchase some people told us that it was an occasional habitat for the endangered Florida scrub jay now I kept walking that land and saying Over My Dead Body is some bird going to stop our building housing for people in need and so several days later when the state inspector came to look at the at the landscape I said to him you know even if the Scrub says do Nest here I’ve been praying that Over my dead body is some bird going to stop our building housing for people in need.”
This story shows the potential for Sach’s argument to be valid… just like the Endangered Species Act almost prevented the building of affordable housing, rights of nature could be used in a similar way. It also could inadvertently present a case where humans are pinned against nature, thereby perpetuating the narrative that we are separate from nature. This is the exact notion that rights of nature advocates want to avoid.
<<music>>
Section V: Conclusion
Time Stamp: 24:00 – 25:26
Kelly: These cases beg the final questions:
Elizabeth: Is rights of nature a solution to the conflict and connection between conservation and development? Can it support human wellbeing and indigenous rights while protecting the environment from harm?
Cole: In some cases, like Ecuador, we can see that Rights of Nature has had many successes for both the environment and people. In other cases, like Bolivia, and the U.S., the results are more mixed. Maybe what we can take away from this is that there is no single blueprint on how to do Rights of Nature properly. Ecuador’s story gives hope for success elsewhere and a model to build from, but Rights of Nature will likely look different in different contexts. Regardless of the outcome of the various efforts of the Rights of Nature global movement, rights of nature gives us a different approach to think about nature, and our place in it, which right now is what we really need.
<<Music>>
Cites Sources
Affolter, Laura. “Humans as Those Who Must Care and Act: The Mobilizing Rights of Nature in Anti-Mining Struggles in Ecuador.” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie/Journal of Social and Cultural Anthropology, vol. 149, no. 2, 2024.[media.hugendubel]
Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. 2008. Constitución de la República del Ecuador 2008. Organización de los Estados Americanos, www.oas.org/juridico/pdfs/mesicic4_ecu_const.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan. 2026.[oas]
“Ecuador: 2008 Constitution in English.” Political Database of the Americas, Georgetown University, pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html. Accessed 26 Jan. 2026.[pdba.georgetown]
“Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN).” Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, www.garn.org. Accessed 26 Jan. 2026.[garn]
Guayasamin, J. M., Vandegrift, R., Policha, T., Encalada, A. C., Greene, N., Ríos-Touma, B., … & Roy, B. A. (2021). Biodiversity conservation: local and global consequences of the application of “rights of nature” by Ecuador. Neotropical Biodiversity, 7(1), 541-545. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23766808.2021.2006550?src=recsys#abstract
Kauffman, Craig M. “Why Rights of Nature Laws Are Implemented in Some Cases and Not Others: The Controlled Comparison of Bolivia and Ecuador.” Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Conference, Toronto, 29 Mar. 2019.
Kauffman, Craig, Catherine Haas, Alex Putzer, Shrishtee Bajpai, Kelsey Leonard, Elizabeth Macpherson, Pamela Martin, Alessandro Pelizzon & Linda Sheehan. Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. V2. 2025. Distributed by the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor. https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/los-cedros/
Lalander, R. (2014). Rights of nature and the indigenous peoples in Bolivia and Ecuador: A Straitjacket for Progressive Development Politics?. Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies, 3(2), 148-172. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2554291
Kauffman, Craig M., and Pamela L. Martin. “How Ecuador’s Courts Are Giving Form and Force to Rights of Nature Norms.” Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 12, no. 2, 2023, pp. 366–395, doi:10.1017/S2047102523000080.[scholarsarchive.library.albany]
Sachs, Noah M. “A Wrong Turn with the Rights of Nature Movement.” Georgetown Environmental Law Review, vol. 36, no. 1, 2023, pp. 39–84.[papers.ssrn]
Villavicencio Calzadilla, Paola, and Louis J. Kotzé. “Living in Harmony with Nature? A Critical Appraisal of the Rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia.” Transnational Environmental Law, vol. 7, no. 3, 2018, pp. 397–424, doi:10.1017/S2047102518000201.[cambridge]
Consulted Sources
Bender, M., Slobodian, L., Gjerde, K. M., Cullet, P., Singh, P., & Olsen, C. (2025). The Rights of Nature and Legal Personhood in an Ocean Context. Ocean Yearbook Online, 39(1), 79-117. https://brill.com/view/journals/ocyo/39/1/article-p79_5.xml
Bookman, S. (2022). Rights of nature in comparative perspective. Nat. Resources & Env’t, 37, 4. https://heinonline-org.proxy.lib.duke.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/nre37&id=210&men_tab=srchresults
Boyd, D. R. (2018). Recognizing the rights of nature: lofty rhetoric or legal revolution?. Natural Resources & Environment, 32(4), 13-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26418846?casa_token=0x7nKBrBh8MAAAAA%3AXauNFMtkx8dmbg7XqcVpwUD3W8uODG8qcuCYk48Xl8i7AH5cl0ZX-AJPPoCTSXPDg3hWhK9tTxREEFFSbfZdbYr34XXVqOT9-D_Erktk0tol7MzoN3K5&seq=1
Greene, Natalia, et al. “Why Rights of Nature Laws Are Implemented in Some Cases and Not Others: The Controlled Comparison of Bolivia and Ecuador.” Preprints, 2023, www.preprints.org/manuscript/b3e801e5aabcac795c668c800d76d47c. Accessed 26 Jan. 2026.[scholarsarchive.library.albany]
Lustgarten, Abrahm. “Natalia Greene Helped Make Ecuador a Pioneer in the ‘Rights of Nature.’ Now It’s under Threat.” Inside Climate News, 14 May 2024, insideclimatenews.org/news/14052024/natalia-greene-ecuador-rights-of-nature. Accessed 26 Jan. 2026.[news.pachamama]
Schilling-Vacaflor, Almut. “Bolivia’s Mother Earth Laws: Is the Ecocentric Legislation Misleading?” ReVista: Harvard Review of Latin America, revista.drclas.harvard.edu/bolivias-mother-earth-laws-is-the-ecocentric-legislation-misleading. Accessed 26 Jan. 2026.[cambridge]
Tănăsescu, M., Macpherson, E., Jefferson, D., & Torres Ventura, J. (2024). Rights of nature and rivers in Ecuador’s Constitutional Court. The International Journal of Human Rights, 1-23. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2024.2314536?src=recsys#abstract
Audio Credits
Armand Amar. (2013) Greenland [Song]. On Planet Ocean (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) [Album].
ArtMusic. (2025). Forest Song [Song]. Single.
Earth Law Center. (2024, November 27). Rights of Nature in Ecuador [Video]. Youtube. youtube.com/watch?v=rF0mUFDVsGg&si=Jkisi8gqKYUaveaD
Everyday Cinematic Sounds (2021, October 30). Mining Operation and Plant: HQ Sound Effect [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3gJ1IhxzbM
Fantasy Music Archives. (2025). Winds of the Andes [Song]. On Spirit of the Andes [Album].
Fantasy Music Archives. (2025). Charango Sunrise [Song]. On Spirit of the Andes [Album].
Idokay (2023). Life’s Journey Begins [Song]. On Natural Habitat [Album]
Rainforest Concern. (2021, March 16). Cock-of-the-Rock Call. [Audio file]. https://soundcloud.com/user-983832551/cock-of-the-rock-call
Sound Effect by freesound_community from Pixabay “Plane” https://pixabay.com/sound-effects/search/plane/
Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (2022, August 30). Paraecologists for the Rights of Nature [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSdRFXTGrC4
Ted. (2013, December 11). The rights of nature: Patricia Siemen [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EPnSw0j5Go
Unknown. (n.d.). Tungahua I – Bosque Protector Los Cedros [Recording]. On Sounds of Nature: Extended Field Recordings from the Andean Cloud Forest [Album]. https://www.insituplants.com/blog/sounds-of-nature-extended-field-recordings-from-the-andean-cloud-forest/
Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International. (2024, October 2). Transforming Global Economies: From Extraction to Regeneration in a Just Transition [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKkvsvkRJj0
