The city of Brighton and Hove is shaped by nature. From the coastline and the sea that draws people here, to the downland fringe, urban green spaces and chalk grasslands that surround our city, our sense of place is inseparable from the living systems around us.
Yet those systems are under increasing strain. Sewage pollution, biodiversity loss and coastal erosion are no longer abstract environmental issues – they are visible and urgent.
Despite decades of environmental regulation, nature continues to decline. Current laws focus more on managing damage than preventing it, regulating how much harm is allowed rather than asking whether that harm should happen at all.
Councils are left reacting to problems they did not create, trying to mitigate impacts once ecosystems are already degraded. This is not always a failure of goodwill or effort but of the legal frameworks within which decisions are made.
That is why a growing international movement is calling for a rethink in how we relate to the natural world, one that recognises nature not as property or a resource to be used but as a living system with its own right to exist, thrive and regenerate.
This is the idea behind the Rights of Nature movement and, more essentially, the UK Rights of Nature Bill.
The movement is not about halting all development or turning back the clock. It is about setting clear ecological limits and making decisions within them for the equal benefit of all.
Human rights place boundaries on what governments and institutions can do if their plans directly or indirectly negatively impact fundamental human freedoms or entitlements.
In the same way, rights of nature establishes that there are some forms of harm we, as people, shouldn’t accept if they negatively impact the rights of nature, even if they deliver short-term economic gain.
Around the world, this approach is already being put into practice. In New Zealand, a river has been granted legal personhood, with guardians appointed to act in its interests.
In Colombia, courts have recognised rivers as rights-bearing entities, compelling the state to act to protect and restore them.
In Ecuador, Rights of Nature are enshrined in the constitution as a way of cementing the status of the forest as a living being.
Closer to home, the Scottish Parliament has been petitioned for rivers – including the Clyde – to be granted legal personhood.
These examples show that recognising nature’s rights can strengthen environmental governance, empower communities and shift decision-making away from constant trade-offs that leave ecosystems poorer.
Just up the road in Lewes, communities are developing a Rights of the River Ouse charter, setting out what the river needs to be healthy and how people, institutions and decision-makers should act as guardians of its wellbeing.
Rather than replacing existing regulation, the charter provides a shared ethical and legal framework that helps align planning, pollution control and land management with the river’s long-term health.
Residents, environmental organisations and local authorities came together around a common purpose: protecting the river as a living system, not merely managing its decline.
A similar approach for Brighton and Hove’s coastline could offer clarity, consistency and stronger community ownership of environmental decision-making.
In the UK, the Nature’s Rights Bill proposed in the House of Lords by Green peer Natalie Bennett offers a framework for doing this that could work within our legal system.
At its heart is the Integrated Rights Framework, which places the rights of nature above human and economic interests.
This does not mean people’s wellbeing is seen as less important – it instead recognises that human prosperity is reliant on healthy ecosystems if we are all to survive.
Local authorities have a crucial role to play. Councils are often the first to deal with the consequences of environmental harm: flooding, pollution, loss of green space. Yet they are constrained by national frameworks that prioritise short-term economic considerations.
By supporting the principles of Rights of Nature, councils can begin to shift how decisions are framed, even before national law changes.
That is why the Brighton and Hove Independent group of councillors and the Green group plan to ask Brighton and Hove City Council to support a joint motion calling for the city to recognise the growing Rights of Nature movement, endorse the principles of the Nature’s Rights Bill and work with local communities on a “Rights of the Coastline” charter.
This is a practical, bottom-up approach rooted in collaboration, not confrontation. It does not override existing law or create new liabilities. Instead, it signals intent: that this city is serious about protecting the ecosystems that sustain it.
Brighton and Hove has a long history of environmental leadership. Our communities are active, engaged and deeply connected to the places they live in.
A Rights of the Coastline charter would provide a shared framework for stewardship, bringing together residents, environmental groups and the council to articulate what protection, care and restoration should mean for our shore.
This is not a partisan issue. Caring for the places we depend on should unite us, not divide us. Supporting Rights of Nature principles does not conflict with existing climate or biodiversity commitments. It strengthens them by placing ecological integrity at the heart of decision-making.
At a time when national environmental protections are under strain, cities like Brighton and Hove can show leadership. By supporting the Rights of Nature, the council can help move us from managing decline to enabling recovery and sustaining life.
The question is simple: do we want to continue accepting environmental loss as inevitable or do we want to be a city that sets clear limits in defence of the living systems that make life here possible? Supporting the Rights of Nature would be a vital step towards the latter.
To help build a public mandate for the Nature’s Rights Bill and to show support, click here.
Councillor Kerry Pickett is a Green member of Brighton and Hove City Council.
I can’t afford a house and make a family, why I should care about the future?
You not being able to afford a house and make a family is a by-product of the degenerative cycle that is set in motion by a legal framework that prioritises economic interests over the wellbeing of human and non-human life. This is exactly what is proposed to be reset at consitutional level in the UK Nature’s Rights Bill – making economies serve life. This is why you of all people should care.
Sad to see the ‘hopelessness’ instilled by the system so if you can’t have a house and a family then to hell with the planet. That aside, I am angry that the CEO of water companies get thier big bonus because its still cheaper to pollute than not to. And this is the norm.
Reading the Cllr’s words, I reflect on a common theme of the Green Party in Brighton. Strong on a moral vision, weak on an actionable strategy, and often disconnected from the lived realities of communities, and when challenged, we often see what Mumta has conveniently demonstrated for me – prioritising structural analysis over empathy, and failing to ask the pragmatic question:
“How do we build environmental justice in a way that includes people who feel they’ve got nothing to lose?” – And that’s why any environmental strategy must start with dignity: secure homes, living-wage green jobs, clean streets. Not after the fact. First.
When such proposals come from a political group that has, over the years, failed to secure meaningful wins on sewage pollution, affordable housing, or green jobs, they just come across as unserious and performative. Especially when those failures are directly impacting the people of Brighton, to which Labour, Independants and even Conservative councillors are having to repair the damage.