Expanding the ethical envelope for a sustainable future

Contact

Professor Mark Everard

Expansion of the ethical envelope to humanity

Since Odysseus’ time, ethical envelopes have expanded and, in some cases, contracted. The abolition of slavery, the Suffragette movement in the UK, the wider Civil Rights movement, the collapse of apartheid in South Africa, and the achievement of Indian Independence all illustrate struggles to attain equal rights and to bring those previously treated principally as property into ethical consideration. This expansion reflects the demand for equal recognition by marginalised groups, as well as the growing recognition that all humans are part of larger and diverse communities across boundaries of race, geography and time, rather than selfish entities that consider ‘others’ unworthy of moral concern.

The ethical envelope can also be shrunk by repressive regimes when communities are denied participation in decision making, opponents to autocratic views are intimidated, and scientific objectivity is suppressed. Recent examples include the 2025 Trump presidency in the US defunding and repressing DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) and eliminating references to climate change on government websites as conflicting with a ‘reindustrialisation’ economic political diktat. Further examples include Taliban rule since 2021 in Afghanistan banning women from freedom of expression and education, and Russia’s expansion of ‘foreign agents’ legislation following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine to punish journalists, academics, NGOs and other critics of the government.

Expansion of the ethical envelope to ecosystems

Although conservation initiatives have a long history, the conflict between rapid post-war development and the natural world resulted in institution of multiple strands of nature conservation legislation that have continued to evolve. More recently, the UK’s Environment Act 2021 introduced Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) to create a statutory requirement for most built developments to leave biodiversity in a measurably better state than before the development occurred². The legislation requires most qualifying developments to deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value compared with the pre-development baseline, to be achieved through a combination of on-site habitat creation or enhancement, off-site biodiversity gains registered elsewhere, or payment of statutory biodiversity credits. The intent is to address the historic decline of habitats and species by ensuring that economic development contributes positively to nature recovery. In practice, BNG tends to reduce and partially reverse biodiversity loss, rather than guaranteeing ecological recovery. However, its principal strength is that it makes biodiversity measurable, mandatory and enforceable within the planning system, though the approach confronts the difficulty of reconciling complex ecosystems and uncertainty about long-term delivery with habitat metrics that fall well short of fully representing the multiple values of biodiversity³.

The contemporary Rights of Nature movement goes further by applying the logic of moral expansion to the non-human world, extending beyond Leopold’s framing of ethical responsibility to the entire ‘biotic community’ by translating moral standing into legal standing. It proposes assigning legal rights to natural entities, such as rivers, forests, ecosystems and species, enabling them to be represented in courts and governance processes. Rather than viewing them solely as resources for human use, Rights of Nature advocates argue that these attributes of nature possess intrinsic value and should be recognised as legal subjects with rights to exist, flourish, evolve and regenerate.

Ecuador became the first nation to embed rights of nature in its Constitution in 2008⁴. Bolivia followed in 2010 with legislation recognising rights to life, biodiversity, water and restoration⁵. A growing number of countries have subsequently recognised rights for specific rivers, forests and ecosystems^{6, 7}. Examples include rivers such as the Atrato River in Colombia in 2016⁸, the Whanganui River in New Zealand in 2017⁹, and the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers in India also in 2017¹⁰. Forests and other ecosystems have also been granted rights, including the Te Urewera Forest in New Zealand in 2014¹¹, the Los Cedros Cloud Forest in Ecuador in 2021¹², and the Colombian Amazon Rainforest in 2018¹³. The River Ouse in Sussex and the River Wye running between Wales and England have also since been recognised as legal entities by local authorities, albeit that the UK lacks legislation at national scale to make this enforceable.

At an international level, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) published a landmark Advisory Opinion on 23 July 2025 on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change¹⁴. Though the ICJ Opinion is not formally binding on states, it nonetheless affirms that states have obligations under international law to protect the climate system, prevent significant environmental harm, cooperate internationally, and respect the rights of present and future generations. The ICJ also stated that failure to fulfil these obligations may constitute an internationally wrongful act attracting legal consequences. This has increased momentum for proposals to recognise ecocide as an international crime, reflecting concerns that existing international environmental law lacks effective mechanisms to deter or punish severe environmental destruction.

A formal campaign to criminalise ecocide has focused primarily on amending the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to establish ecocide as a fifth core international crime alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. Supporters argue that recognition of ecocide would strengthen accountability and create a powerful deterrent against large-scale ecological harm, though critics raise concerns about legal uncertainty, evidential burdens and implications for economic development¹⁵. However, the US designation of the ICC as a sanctioned institution on 9 October 2026, following sanctions against its judges, prosecutors and other personnel, represents an unprecedented attempt by a powerful state to obstruct an international judicial body¹⁶. Considered alongside the United States’ earlier refusals to participate fully in, or comply with, adverse international adjudications, most notably in the 1986 Nicaragua v. United States¹⁷, it demonstrates the structural weakness of an international legal order that depends heavily upon voluntary state cooperation and lacks effective enforcement mechanisms against major powers. This is at a time when the major threats to continuing human and planetary wellbeing are well understood and global in scale, requiring mature, responsible and consistent intergovernmental approaches.

Nevertheless, despite retractions or rejection of international agreements by some pariah states, a growing number of countries are incorporating ecocide or comparable offences into their domestic legal systems:

France’s 2021 Climate and Resilience Law introduced an offence described as ecocide for the most serious environmental damage, committing the government to support international recognition of ecocide¹⁸;
Belgium became the first European Union Member State to formally criminalise ecocide in 2024, establishing one of the most advanced ecocide laws globally¹⁹;
Mauritius criminalised ecocide in 2026²⁰;
Other countries including the Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, Peru and the Dominican Republic, have considered or introduced ecocide legislation;
Ghana has recently seen parliamentary calls for criminalisation; and
Existing environmental crime provisions resembling ecocide are also found in jurisdictions such as Vietnam and Uzbekistan²¹.

The Rights of Nature movement represents a fundamental challenge to anthropocentrism, rejecting the idea that nature's value derives solely from its usefulness to humans. It instead recognises nature as a community, of which humans are members rather than owners. This wider conception of the values of nature has been adopted by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in its Values Framework, including three dimensions of human relationships with nature: instrumental values (the usefulness of nature as a means of achieving human ends); relational values (relationships between people and nature addressing aspects of identity, stewardship, responsibility, belonging, heritage and cultural connections); and intrinsic values²². Intrinsic values refer to the inherent worth of nature independent of human uses, benefits or perceptions, and includes the rights of species to exist, the inherent value of biodiversity and the moral importance of protecting ecosystems even if they provide no direct human benefit.

Rights of Nature and the concept of an expanding ethical envelope are closely related ideas, both challenging the traditional human-centred approach to identity and development. This wider perspective thereby reflects a more realistic eco-centric, sustainable relationship between people and the natural world that supports their needs. It also encourages long-term thinking and recognition of ecological limits in pursuit of a flourishing socio-ecological system within which humans are only one dependent part. This perspective aligns with the ‘strong sustainability’ concept that recognises the primacy of natural capital rather than the more common ‘weak sustainability’ approach in which natural capital can be replaced by human-made capital, implicitly if not explicitly, so long as the total capital stock does not decline.

Expansion of the ethical envelope to the future

The expanding ethical envelope for humanity and ecosystems includes an implicit duty to the future and the vast but voiceless constituency of future generations. Relative to the scale of threats posed by climatic destabilisation, degradation of biodiversity and rising concentrations of a diversifying array of pollutants – a triple planetary crisis – it is not merely illogical and a deep market failure but also deeply immoral that only slow progress has been made in arresting and reversing the pressures driving environmental degeneration.
Progress towards meeting obligations to future generations has accelerated over the past decade, although implementation remains uneven. Wales is widely regarded as a global pioneer through the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which places a legal duty on public bodies to pursue sustainable development, consider long-term impacts and work towards seven statutory wellbeing goals on behalf of present and future citizens²³. Several other countries have also enshrined institutional mechanisms to represent future interests, including Hungary’s Ombudsman for Future Generations charged with a constitutional mandate including scrutiny of legislation and policy affecting environmental and societal conditions for future generations²⁴. Internationally, the UN Declaration on Future Generations, part of the 2024 Pact for the Future, has increased momentum towards a global political commitment to intergenerational equity and long-term governance²⁵, albeit that wider uptake of the principle remains fragmented and minimal.

Then and now

The science and depth of consensus about the grave implications of unconstrained climate disruption are solidly rooted, despite contrary views including rejection by pariah states that these objective realities are a ‘hoax’ and inconvenient constraints on capital accumulation by already privileged elites. The dire consequences of ecological collapse are equally backed by strong evidence, not to mention already evident, as are the implications for human and environmental health and continued functioning through systematic accumulation of various types currently known and emerging pollutants.

In communicating to wider constituencies of society, the scientific community may have advocated action too narrowly in technical terms. What matters to most people are the diverse consequences of these worrying trends rather than the foundational science. Excessive and enduring temperatures accompanied by drought and episodic extreme storm event across Europe during the summer of 2026 have been a wake-up call as records have been set and real people have felt disparate, dire and continuing consequences. Examples range from an increase in excess deaths to the shutting down of power stations due to insufficient cooling water, halting of freight able to use rivers such as Germany’s Rhine and Italy’s Po, disruption of rail and other transport systems, crop failures and escalating food prices raising threats for food security, land slips through rewetting of desiccated soils, recreational fisheries drying up or closing, falling trees posing hazards, major wildfires, intense local flooding and the closures of schools and workplaces due to excess heat.

Acting now for future wellbeing

The implications for progress are therefore clear: governance, investment, law and social innovation will increasingly be judged in the future not by the wealth or growth they generate in the present alone, but by the extent to which they enhance human wellbeing, protect ecological integrity and safeguard opportunities for future generations. We need to bring younger and future generations, along with their needs and rights, into society’s ethical consideration. Expanding the ethical envelope is not an optional aspiration; it is a necessary and moral condition for achieving a resilient and flourishing future in a world of increasing interconnectivity and inevitable conflicts between human demands and resource availability.

With the projected global temperature in 2026 exceeding the record set in 2025, and the prognosis of an even hotter 2027 under a strong El Niño, I have been asked on TV and radio if this is a new normal. No, it is not. It is a foretaste of a worsening overall trend that was modelled as far back as the 1990s, and from which the consequences and costs – human, environmental, financial – are real and substantial.

This then should provide politicians, paid and entrusted to act in the best interests of the people who elected them, with the arguments and momentum to act boldly now to buffer the worst consequences of the pain already being inflicted on people in the present.

References

Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press, New York.
HM Government. (2021). Environment Act 2021 (c. 30). The Stationery Office, London. [Online.] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents, accessed 24 August 2026.
Marshall, C.A.M., Wade, K., Kendall, I.S., Porcher, H., Poffley, J., Bladon, A.J., Dicks, L.V. and Treweek, J. (2024). England's statutory biodiversity metric enhances plant, but not bird nor butterfly, biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 61(8), pp.1918-1931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14697.
Republic of Ecuador. (2008). Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. National Assembly of Ecuador, Quito.
Plurinational State of Bolivia. (2010). Law of the Rights of Mother Earth (Law No. 071). Government of Bolivia, La Paz.
Tănăsescu, M. (2023). The law of the river. 360info.org, 6 January 2023. [Online.] https://360info.org/the-law-of-the-river/, accessed 21 August 2026.
ClimaRevolt. (2026). The Rights of Rivers: A New Legal Shield. ClimaRevolt, 26 March 2026. [Online.] https://www.climarevolt.com/article/rights-of-rivers, accessed 21 August 2026.
Colombian Constitutional Court. (2016). Judgment T-622/16: Rights of the Atrato River. Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Bogotá.
New Zealand Government. (2017). Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017. New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office, Wellington.
Uttarakhand High Court. (2017). Mohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand and Others, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014. Uttarakhand High Court, India.
New Zealand Government. (2014). Te Urewera Act 2014. New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office, Wellington.
Constitutional Court of Ecuador. (2021). Los Cedros Protected Forest Case. Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, Quito.
Supreme Court of Colombia. (2018). Future Generations v Ministry of Environment and Others (STC4360-2018). Corte Suprema de Justicia, Bogotá.
ICJ. (2025). Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change: Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Hague. [Online.] https://www.icj-cij.org/case/187/advisory-opinions, accessed 24 August 2026.
Root, R. (2024). Climate crisis: push for ecocide to be added to Rome Statute. International Bar Association. [Online.] https://www.ibanet.org/ecocide-rome-statute, accessed 24 August 2026.
US Department of State. (2026). Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court. Office of the Spokesman, 9 October 2026. [Online.] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesman/2026/10/imposing-..., accessed 16 October 2026.
International Court of Justice. (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986. ICJ Reports 1986, p.14. [Online.] https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70, accessed 16 October 2026.
République Française. (2021). Loi no 2021-1104 du 22 août 2021 portant lutte contre le dérèglement climatique et renforcement de la résilience face à ses effets (1). Journal Officiel de la République Française, 24 août 2021. [Online.] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/download/pdf?id=x7Gc7Ys-Z3hzgxO5KgI0zSu1f..., accessed 24 August 2026.
Sands, P. and Savard, C. (2025). Criminalising ecocide. BMJ, 390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1715.
Stopecocide.earth. (2026). Mauritius criminalises ecocide. Stopecocide.earth, 18 April 2026. [Online.] https://www.stopecocide.earth/, accessed 24 August 2026.
Ecocidelaw.com. (2026). Ecocide / serious environmental crimes in national jurisdictions. Ecocidelaw.com. [Online.] https://ecocidelaw.com/existing-ecocide-laws/, accessed 24 August 2026.
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R.T., Dessane, E.B., Islar, M., Kelemen, E. and Maris, V. (2017). Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, pp.7-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.
Gov.Wales. (2025). Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015: the essentials. Welsh Government, Cardiff. [Online.] https://www.gov.wales/well-being-future-generations-act-essentials-html, accessed 24 August 2026.
Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights, Hungary. (2021). Introduction of the Hungarian Ombudsman for Future Generations. [Online.] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/HUNOmb2.pdf, accessed 24 August 2026.
United Nations. (2024). Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations (A/RES/79/1). United Nations. [Online.] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4061879, accessed 24 August 2026.

Professor Mark Everard is a former Chair of the IES, is Visiting Professor at Bournemouth University, Associate Professor of Ecosystem services at the University of the West of England (UWE Bristol) and has worked as an ecosystems/systems scientist in academic, NGO, public sector and consultancy roles progressing sustainable development schemes in both the developing and developed world. He is also a frequent contributor to scientific and popular media, TV and radio. | Mark.everard@uwe.ac.uk | +44-7747-120019