Codebook

The Eco Jurisprudence Monitor (EJM) includes initiatives aiming to adopt or implement legal provisions grounded in ecological jurisprudence. This term refers to a contemporary global movement in legal theory and practice that challenges traditional anthropocentric legal frameworks. Instead, ecological jurisprudence centers the interdependence, intrinsic value, and relationships among all beings and the ecosystems of which they are a part, and draws on a wide range of intellectual and legal traditions. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Rights of Nature and environmental personhood
• Earth Jurisprudence, Earth Law, and Wild Law
• Ecocide law
• Ecological constitutionalism and ecological civilization
• Earth System Law and Earth System Governance
• Ecological Law and Governance
• Ecofeminist legal thought
• Indigenous and non-Western legal traditions that frame Nature as relational, living, and possessing agency or spirit
• Place-based and relational governance approaches
• Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

Amongst all these frameworks is a shared effort to move beyond human-centered assumptions and reorient law toward the conditions necessary for ecological integrity and just relationships among all members of the Earth community.

---

The EJM uses the initiative as its primary unit of analysis. An initiative is defined as a process aimed at adopting or implementing a legal provision that reflects ecological jurisprudence.

Because ecological jurisprudence efforts often unfold over time, a single initiative may involve multiple attempts, drafts, or proposals. For example, a community group may submit several ballot proposals before one is accepted. These are treated as one initiative if they pursue substantially the same legal provision. Only when there is a meaningful shift in the substance or purpose of the proposed legal change, or a change in the type of legal provision pursued, do we classify the effort as a separate initiative.

---

An initiative is included in the EJM when it meets both (1) the ecological jurisprudence criteria and (2) the legal explicitness requirement described below.

1. Ecological Jurisprudence

An initiative must demonstrate the following two principles (adapted from The Lens of Ecological Law, Carla Sbert, 2020).

1.1 Transcending Anthropocentrism – An initiative must explicitly or implicitly move beyond a human-centered worldview, such as:

• Recognizing the intrinsic value and agency of nonhuman beings or ecosystems;
• Acknowledging and emphasizing the interconnectedness of all life;
• Promoting equitable consideration of the interests of both human and nonhuman members of the Earth community.

1.2 Ecological Primacy – An initiative must situate social, political, and economic systems within ecological limits, such as:

• Respecting planetary boundaries and ecosystem carrying capacity;
• Ensuring that governance systems operate within ecological constraints;
• Advancing ecological justice: ensuring equitable access to Earth’s sustaining capacity for present and future generations (human and nonhuman), and preventing disproportionate or inequitable ecological harms across communities.

2. Legal Threshold

An initiative must be legal in nature. This includes both formal and soft law—which we include to track legal developments promulgated by civil society. For example, we do not include general statements in support of ecological law, conferences or events, publications, artistic projects, or campaigns without a drafted legal proposal. To be included, it must:

• Propose or enact a legal provision.
• Initiate a legal process or formal administrative procedure mandated by a pre-existing legal provision.
• Originate from or be submitted to a body with some kind of formal decision-making authority.
• Exceptions: citizen tribunals and civil society soft law (as defined in this codebook) which are included because of their demonstrated influence on normative development and formal legal change.

Ex. What is Included

• Rights of nature
• Rights of animals
• Ecocide as a crime
• Rights of future generations, when including nonhuman generations, to healthy ecosystems
• Provisions applying Traditional Ecological Knowledge, relational worldviews, or spiritual recognition of nature as a living entity
• Provisions establishing obligations to ensure the functioning of ecological systems, live within planetary boundaries, and prevent ecological degradation. These typically frame Nature as a community of life, emphasize scientific understandings of ecological limits, and foreground responsibilities to uphold ecological integrity and justice, often expressed through concepts like:
  • Earth System Governance
  • Earth Democracy
  • Ecological Civilization
  • Ecological Governance
• Initiatives by Indigenous peoples even if their authority or sovereignty is not recognized by governments that are part of the Westphalian state system. Under International Customary Law any entity that identifies as Indigenous Peoples is presumed to have a right to self-determination to execute their own legal initiatives. See, for example, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Principles (A/RES/61/295), 2007, Articles 3-5.

Ex. What is Excluded

• Speeches, NGO statements, action campaigns, or advocacy documents not associated with a legal proposal or process by some decision-making body;
• Public trust doctrine cases or provisions without ecological jurisprudence elements;
• Provisions involving payment for ecosystem services and other market-based mechanisms that commodify nature, unless they explicitly incorporate ecological jurisprudence principles;
• Provisions affirming only human environmental rights, with no ecological rights, duties, or relational emphasis.

---

The goal of the naming system is to ensure clarity, consistency, and comparability across all initiative types. Each initiative is given a standardized name following the protocol below.

General Naming Format: Location + (Country) + Legal Provision Type : subject/description

• Location is the city/municipality, state/province, country, or place associated with a court or entity
• Legal provision type is the constitution, law, ordinance, court case, declaration, etc.
• Subject/description is a short descriptive phrase; always lower-case

Formatting Rules:

• Use the most relevant jurisdictional place name (city, region, or country)
• Parentheses around the country are required at local and provincial-level (except for court cases)
• Do not put the country in parentheses at national and international-level
• Do not include location for non-country-specific entities
• Do not include location for international initiatives unless they are regionally-specific
• Provision types such as Law, Ordinance, or Amendment are capitalized
• Include the year after provision type for national legislation or to differentiate a series of provisions
• Include the court descriptor or jurisdiction level for court cases

Examples Across Governance Levels and Legal Provisions:

• Local: Satipo (Perú) Municipal Ordinance: rights of the amazonian stingless bee
• Provincial: North Carolina (USA) State Law: rights of the Haw River ecosystem
• National: Uganda National Environmental Act of 2019
• International: Nordic Council Recommendation: criminalizing ecocide
• Indigenous Law: White Earth Nation (USA) Tribal Resolution: rights of Manoomin
• Court Case: Kerala (India) High Court Case: legal personhood of the Bharathapuzha River
• Policy: India Ministry of Environment & Forests Policy: prohibiting dolphinariums
• Declaration: UN General Assembly Resolution (2011): harmony with nature
• Civil Society Declaration: Woodbridge (England) Citizen Declaration: rights of the River Deben
• Private Sector Governance: Faith in Nature (UK) Nature Governance Policy: nature on the board
• Citizen Tribunal: International Rights of Nature Tribunal, 5th International Hearing: Glasgow 2021

---

Map Locations (GPS)

We use Google Maps to identify the GPS coordinates of the exact location where the initiative was submitted/adopted. This generates the geolocated dot representing the initiative on the global map.

For local level initiatives, the coordinates correspond to the town or city. For state- or provincial-level initiatives, the coordinates correspond to the capital of the state or province. For national-level initiatives, the coordinates correspond to the location of the ecosystem or the capital of the country. For initiatives by international organizations, the coordinates correspond to the city where the organization’s headquarters is located, where the proceedings were held or where the agreement was signed/adopted, or the location of the ecosystem being referred to (whichever is most appropriate). For transnational initiatives among two or more countries, the coordinates for the location where the agreement was signed/adopted or the location of the ecosystem being referred to (whichever is most appropriate).

Region

• Africa: North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa (Egypt is included in this category)
• Asia: Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia, and Russia.
• Europe: For the purposes of this dataset, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan define the eastern boundary of Europe.
• Latin America & Caribbean: Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.
• North America: United States, Canada, and Greenland (we acknowledge that Central America and the Caribbean are geographically part of North America, but they are included in the Latin America & Caribbean category).
• Oceania: Australia, New Zealand, Micronesia, Samoa, Kiribati, Tonga, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, and Fiji.
• International: Initiatives that exist at the international level. For international initiatives that apply specifically to one region (e.g., the European Union, African Union, Inter-American Court of Human Rights), the relevant region is recorded rather than coding them as International.

Country

This category identifies the politically recognized states (countries) and territories that the initiative was submitted/adopted. This includes initiatives by Indigenous nations that exist within the borders of these countries. For initiatives that are adopted by the governments of multiple countries (e.g., international treaties) or by international organizations, this is recorded as “International”.

Location 

This category identifies the specific location where that initiative exists. For local and provincial level initiatives, this refers to the district, province, or state, along with the country where the initiative or ecosystem is situated. For national-level initiatives (those applying to the whole country), only the country is recorded. For Indigenous initiatives, the location is listed as the Indigenous nation or territory, followed by the Westphalian state in parentheses. The Westphalian state is provided solely for contextual purposes and does not imply any position regarding sovereignty, jurisdiction, or territorial authority.

---

This category records the most recent status of an initiative. Each initiative is assigned a primary status and corresponding year. We create a chronological record of an initiative’s progression over time, updating the entry each time the status changes.

Primary Status

Every initiative must receive one primary status, selected from the following four categories. Primary statuses are used in filters, statistics, and data visualizations. Primary status include:

Drafted – initiatives have been written or formally prepared but have not yet been submitted to the relevant decision-making authority for consideration.

Submitted – initiatives have been formally submitted to the relevant decision-making authority and are awaiting a decision. It has not yet been approved or rejected.

Approved – initiatives have been formally approved by the relevant decision-making authority. Common examples include legislation that is passed or adopted, resolutions signed or enacted, treaties ratified, or judicial decisions recognizing Rights of Nature or other forms of ecological jurisprudence.

Failed – initiatives have been formally rejected or otherwise not accepted by the relevant decision-making authority after submission. This includes:

• Legislative initiatives (bills, referendums, amendments) that are put to a vote and do not pass.
• Judicial actions that are dismissed or denied and not appealed.
• Appeals that are rejected, dismissed, or denied review, thereby affirming a lower-court decision.
• Initiatives halted or stayed by a higher authority, preventing further progress.
• Initiatives overturned, repealed, revoked, or otherwise rescinded by a legislative body or higher court.

Secondary Status

Some initiatives may also receive an optional secondary status, which provides additional nuance when an initiative does not yet have a definitive outcome. Secondary statuses are not applied to every initiative and are not used in filters or visualizations; they serve as contextual metadata. Secondary status include:

• Ongoing – the initiative is still active (being revised, appealed, or preparing for resubmission).
• Dormant – the initiative has not progressed in a significant period of time.

Dormancy and Default Failure Rules

• A drafted or submitted initiative that has not changed status in 5 years is automatically assigned the secondary status dormant.
• If a drafted or submitted legislative or constitutional initiative does not reach a definitive primary outcome (e.g. vote or decision) within 5 years, its primary status defaults to failed.

---

Governance level refers to the scale of decisionmaking that is reviewing an initiative. Initiatives are categorized into one of five governance levels: local, provincial, national, international, or Indigenous territory. If an initiative, such as a court case, is considered at multiple governance levels, then the initiative denotes the highest governance level that reviewed the measure. 

Local – initiatives are proposed to and considered by the most immediate governance structures, often within cities and municipalities. Depending on the country, these localities may be referred to as: town, parish, municipality, canton, borough, district, county, etc. Local initiatives include council ordinances, decrees, charters, resolutions, motions, first-instance courts, and local administrative divisions.
 Alexandria (USA)Town Ordinance: right to a sustainable energy future and rights of nature

Provincial – initiatives are proposed to and considered by regional governance structures (i.e., subnational jurisdictions that exist between the local and national levels), often with jurisdiction over multiple local decision-making bodies. Provincial initiatives include state-level constitutions, legislation and policies, regional and territorial governments, High Courts, District Courts, etc. Oaxaca (Mexico) State Constitutional Amendment: rights of nature

National – initiatives are proposed to and considered by governing authorities that have jurisdiction over an entire country and its population. National initiatives include national-level court cases, legislation, constitutional amendments, government policies, etc. Mexico Federal Constitutional Amendment: rights of nature

International – initiatives are proposed to and considered by decision making bodies that comprise multiple national constituencies. Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth

Indigenous Territory – initiatives are proposed to and considered by Indigenous decision making bodies, including tribal councils and tribal courts. Indigenous Territory can coexist with other (Westphalian) governance levels. Ho-Chunk Nation (USA) Constitutional Amendment: rights of nature

---

This variable identifies the type of legal provision that contains ecological jurisprudence. Legal provision categories fit into two groups: formal law and soft law. Formal laws are legal provisions considered by a decision making body with formal authority in a given jurisdiction. Soft law refers to legal provisions that are not binding for a community but are adopted to establish norms governing behavior. For each initiative, one of the following categories is selected based on the coding criteria detailed below.

– Formal Laws –

Constitution – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed in a fundamental law governing the political and legal organization of a country (e.g., Federal Constitution) or of a State, Territory, or Province within a federal country (e.g., State Constitution). Ecuador Constitution of 2008: rights of nature

Legislation – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed through laws enacted by a legislative body at the local, provincial, or national level, as well as binding legal instruments issued by the executive branch that carry the force of law. This includes statutory laws adopted by a country’s primary legislative body, such as a Parliament, Congress, or Assembly, as well as local legislation, which may take the form of municipal ordinances, bylaws, charters, or other legal measures adopted by city, municipality, district, or county governments. Terminology varies across legal systems but commonly includes laws, statutes, bills, Acts, organic laws, environmental codes, regulations, and other forms of primary legislation. It is important to note that these terms vary depending on the legal tradition in which they are located (for example, common law or civil law). This category also includes binding legal instruments issued by the executive branch that carry the force of law, such as decrees (typical of civil law countries) and Presidential Executive Orders (in the USA). Wales (USA) Town Ordinance: protection of natural resources

Court Case – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed through a decision by judges, courts, or tribunals on any topic, or is expressed if claimants invoke ecological jurisprudence (e.g., rights of nature or other principle associated with ecological jurisprudence) in a lawsuit filed with a court. Oregon (USA) Court Case: State v. Nix

Policy – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed through a policy, which is a guidance document formally adopted by a governmental authority that provides enforceable rules to government regulators, entities being regulated, and the general public. Policies outline how, when, and where to implement legislation and other legal mandates (i.e., how discretion should be exercised when legislative mandates are vague). Note: In the “legislation” category, the term “regulations” refers to administrative rulemakings with the force of law. In this category, the term “regulations” refers to protocols and guidelines that are not inherently legally binding, but constitute enforceable rules for government employees. It is used as a synonym for policies and guidelines. Ecuador Management Plan for Protected Areas of Galapagos Good Living 

Declaration – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed through a non-binding statement of intent issued by a governing body with formal decision-making authority. Declarations may take the form of official statements, recommendations, resolutions, motions, or proclamations adopted by government entities, such as municipal and city councils, or intergovernmental bodies like the Nordic Council or United Nations. Local-level instruments such as council resolutions, motions, and proclamations are included when they articulate ecological jurisprudence principles and, while non-binding, represent formal expressions of ecological governance intent or commitment. Such provisions are intended to outline expectations, facilitate exploration, or serve as a blueprint for a future law that will secure firm commitments and obligations. Langley (USA) Proclamation: rights of southern resident orcas

• Resolution: A resolution is a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent issued by a governing body. Resolutions generally take effect immediately and do not establish binding or permanent rules of conduct. Ex. An IUCN Resolution is a non-binding instrument that shapes practice and policy. The IUCN is a hybrid union (states + NGOs), so its resolutions are adopted by a body with formal internal decision-making procedures, but it does not create binding public law.
• Motion: A motion is a proposal made by a member of a governing body during a meeting for the body to take a specific action or express a particular position. Once adopted and entered into the official record, a motion functions as a resolution. Ex. An IUCN Motion is a proposal put to the IUCN membership. It only becomes a formal instrument once adopted as a Resolution or Recommendation. On its own, the motion is pre-decisional and not yet a formal provision.
• Proclamation: A proclamation is a broad, symbolic statement expressing government support for a particular issue or value. It does not create legal obligations and is primarily ceremonial or declaratory in nature.

Indigenous Law – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed in the constitution or any piece of legislation passed by the legislative body of an Indigenous Nation (e.g. Tribal Nation, First Nation, etc.). The terms commonly used to refer to these pieces of legislation are constitution, tribal council resolution, band council resolution, tribal codes/ordinances, etc. It is important to note that these terms vary depending on the legal tradition in which they are located and regional legal plurality (e.g. Oceania, North America, etc.). Nez Perce Tribal Resolution: Rights of the Snake River

– Soft Laws –

Soft law generally refers to non-binding instruments, principles, or commitments that have some degree of formal or institutional authority but do not create legally binding obligations. While conventional understandings of soft law typically emphasize instruments issued or endorsed by governments, intergovernmental organizations, or other bodies with formal authority, the EJM uses a broader definition that also includes certain civil society initiatives that contribute to the development of ecological legal norms. Civil society initiatives are not included solely because they advocate for ecological jurisprudence. To qualify, an initiative must demonstrate broader normative or procedural significance, such as receiving support or endorsement from multiple organizations or communities, or initiating a formal legislative, administrative, or other institutional process. This broader approach recognizes the role that civil society can play in developing emerging legal norms before they receive formal state or institutional recognition.

Civil Society Declaration – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed through a non-binding declaration developed by civil society actors functioning independently of state authorities. These declarations serve as draft law or articulate principles intended to influence or guide the development of domestic or international ecological law. They may be developed by individual citizens, local communities, NGOs, other civil society organizations, or in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples. To qualify, civil society declarations must have entered a formal legislative, administrative, or other institutional process, or received documented support or endorsement from multiple organizations or communities and generated public participation beyond its initiating actors. The Earth Charter

Civil Society Tribunal – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed through a decision by a citizen tribunal. A citizen tribunal is a civil society body functioning independently of state authorities that applies either recognized or novel law and policy to cases brought before it, often focusing on the violations of human rights, rights of Indigenous peoples, rights of future generations, and rights of Nature. Citizen tribunals’ decisions are not binding legally, but can have significant value in terms of legal and factual analysis and findings. Examples include the Permanent Peoples Tribunal, and the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature’s local, regional, state, and international Tribunals. Note: we count one meeting/convening of a tribunal (e.g., the 2015 International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature or the 2016 Australian People’s Tribunal) as a single initiative, regardless of which or how many cases are addressed in that tribunal. Australia People’s Tribunal for Community and Nature’s Rights (2016)

Indigenous Declaration – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed through a proclamation or resolution issued by an Indigenous Nation, community, or council. Indigenous Declarations are not necessarily legislation but may carry legal or cultural authority within the Indigenous Nation or council. Assembly of First Nations (Canada) Resolution: rights and legal personhood of the St. Lawrence River

Private Sector Governance – initiatives in which ecological jurisprudence is expressed through a natural entity in a governing position of a private organization. Previous initiatives in private sector governance include appointing natural entities to an organization’s governing board. Faith in Nature (UK) Nature Governance: nature on the board

Position Statement – a position statement is a formal, non-binding statement or recommendation issued by a government entity (such as a ministry, agency, legislative body, or government official), an intergovernmental organization (such as the UN, IUCN, or IPBES), or a political institution acting in a public governing capacity. Position statements cannot originate from private actors, as they do not constitute acts of public authority. Position statements typically arise through an administrative or institutional process and may occur at any level of governance – national, provincial, municipal, or intergovernmental. They do not create new law or policy. Instead, they emerge when a submission or procedural trigger activates an existing administrative mandate, prompting a formal institutional response. The submission itself is not the initiative; the initiative is the administrative response. As with certain court cases, ecological jurisprudence arises (or not) through the institution’s reasoning – its acceptance, rejection, interpretation, or evaluative treatment of the ecological reference. Position statements articulate normative commitments, values, or interpretive positions that may inform future policy development, administrative decisions, or legal action. In the EJM, position statements are coded as non-binding, process-based soft law instruments that signal political will or institutional alignment with ecological jurisprudence. Position statements can also include official political party platforms. Examples:

• Parliamentary scrutiny instruments: An instrument that enables Members, including the opposition, to question the ruling party government and deliberate on issues in Parliament. We code the official response, not the questions posed.
• UN Secretary-General Report: An official UN document articulating normative positions, interpretations, or recommendations. These reports are not adopted by states as a decision. It does not create law or policy on its own, but it can guide states and institutions and signal alignment with ecocentric principles.
• Bern Convention Standing Committee Recommendation: An outcome (e.g. Standing Committee recommendation) issued in response to a complaint – a submission by an actor to an intergovernmental mechanism. The complaint itself is not coded as the primary initiative because it is not a legal instrument issued by a decision-making body; rather, it is the trigger for an institutional response.
• IPBES Summary for Policymakers: An intergovernmental negotiated text that is approved by member states and provides authoritative, normative guidance and can strongly influence policy and jurisprudence.
• Parliamentary Petition Response (ex. Germany): A formal response to a written request or complaint (petition) by individuals to authorities and the legislature. The submission initiates a formal process of review by the parliamentary body, and the Petitions Committee issues recommendations that carry weight. The Petitions Committee’s response is coded as the initiative, not the submission itself.

---

This section categorizes different expressions of ecological jurisprudence in order to be able to analyze broad patterns and trends. We recognize that any categorization scheme has flaws given the tremendous diversity in approaches to ecological jurisprudence, but we believe that being able to track patterns across different types of ecological jurisprudence has many benefits. We note that individual context and the unique aspects of each individual initiative is captured through other materials available on the Eco Jurisprudence Monitor.

Rights of Nature – this category identifies initiatives that explicitly recognize any non-human element of Nature (e.g., ecosystems, plant species, animal species) or Nature in general as a subject with rights.

• Personhood – this sub-category identifies initiatives that explicitly recognize any non-human element of Nature (e.g., an ecosystem, plant species, animal species) as possessing legal personhood. Legal personhood is specific legal status that gives an entity the ability to enjoy rights and participate in legal proceedings in court. The initiative must explicitly articulate personhood as a legal status. This does not include framing nature as a living entity or sentient being. Note: all initiatives coded as Personhood are also Rights of Nature. However, not all Rights of Nature initiatives are coded as Personhood initiatives.

• Animal Rights – this sub-category identifies initiatives that explicitly recognize an animal or species of animal as a legal subject with rights or personhood. This does not include framing animals as sentient beings or provisions on animal cruelty unless there is specific language articulating fundamental rights or legal standing as individuals. Note: all initiatives coded as Animal Rights are also Rights of Nature, but not all Rights of Nature initiatives are coded as Animal Rights.

Indigenous Model – this category identifies initiatives that are: (1) Indigenous-led and/or co-developed, and (2) applies Indigenous ways of knowing and positioning such as relationality and responsibilities to an entity of Nature, recognizing it as living and possessing spirit. An initiative is considered Indigenous-led and/or co-developed when one or more of the groups involved in the initiative self-identifies as Indigenous.

Local Ecological Knowledge – this category identifies initiatives that are: (1) led and/or co-developed by one or more non-Indigenous community/campesino groups, and (2) applies their traditional ecological knowledge and relationality in recognition of Nature. An initiative is considered locally-led and/or co-developed when one or more of the groups involved in the initiative explicitly self-identifies as a local group living in close proximity to the ecosystem/element of Nature addressed by the initiative.

Eco Governance Systems –this category identifies initiatives that apply ecological jurisprudence in a way that is not rights based and does not adopt an Indigenous model, but emphasizes the need (and responsibility) to maintain the functioning of ecological systems and prevent actions that threaten their ability to function. These initiatives tend to frame Nature as a community of life and emphasize ecological science, the need to live within ecosystem/planetary boundaries, the responsibility of individuals and/or states to ensure the functioning of ecological systems, and the importance of social justice.

Ecocide – this category identifies initiatives that recognize ecocide or substantively incorporate its core legal principles. Ecocide establishes legal responsibility for environmental harm of a particular scale and severity. The 2021 Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide proposed defining ecocide as “unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.” This definition has become a prominent international reference point for the development of ecocide law. Unlike environmental crime more broadly, ecocide is a specific legal concept concerned with severe, widespread, or long-term environmental harm. Initiatives do not need to explicitly use the term “ecocide” to be included, but must establish substantially equivalent provisions consistent with the core elements of the 2021 formulation. Ecocide may be recognized through penal codes, criminal legislation, or other legal provisions.

Some categories are mutually exclusive but others are not:

• Rights of Nature, Personhood, and Animal Rights (rights-based categories) can be co-labeled.
• Indigenous Model and Local Ecological Knowledge may co-exist with rights-based approaches and can be co-labeled with these categories.
• Indigenous Model and Local Ecological Knowledge are mutually exclusive, unless the initiative was jointly created by an Indigenous group and a non-Indigenous local community and draws on the traditional knowledge of both groups. “Local Ecological Knowledge” only applies to initiatives in which the ecological knowledge comes from and is applied by non-Indigenous communities.
• Eco Governance System cannot be co-labeled with any rights-based category or Indigenous Model. The Eco Governance category applies only to initiatives that are not rights-based or Indigenous.
• Ecocide can be co-labeled with all categories.

---

This category identifies the natural entity that is the subject of the initiative, recorded exactly as it appears in the relevant legal document. It is intended to capture the name of the natural entity as it is understood and expressed in its local, legal, or cultural context. When the subject is a specific ecosystem, animal, or plant, the name of the ecosystem or species is provided. When the subject is Nature in the abstract, the term used to name Nature in the legal text is recorded (e.g., “Pachamama” in Ecuador’s Constitution; “Natural communities and ecosystems” in Grant Township’s Home Rule Charter).

---

This category identifies the type of natural entity that is the subject of the ecological law initiative. We recognize that Nature is composed of nested and interconnected systems, making the identification of boundaries and categories problematic from a scientific perspective. Consequently, we code Nature Type based on how the initiative frames Nature as its subject.

The categories operate at different ecological scales. Some identify individual entities or species, while others identify ecosystems composed of multiple species and ecological processes. For example, Plant captures Nature at the individual or species level, while Forest captures Nature at the ecosystem level. Similarly, although a particular river or lake may be understood as a singular entity because it has a distinct name or geographic identity, it is categorized at the ecosystem level because it encompasses multiple species, habitats, and ecological functions. An initiative’s Nature Type may include one or more of the following categories:

All Nature – when a specific natural entity or ecosystem is not identified, but rather the initiative refers to all of Nature in general (e.g. law recognizing rights for all of Nature). Bolivia Law: Rights of Mother Earth 2010

Animal – when the nature identified in the ecological law is an individual animal, species, or animals in general. Philippines court case: Resident Marine Mammals of Tañon Strait v. Secretary Angelo Reyes

Arctic Ecosystem – when the nature identified in the ecological law initiative is framed as an Arctic,  Antarctic, or tundra ecosystem, or as a component of the Arctic or Antarctic cryosphere (e.g. glaciers, sea ice, or permafrost). Initiatives concerning individual Arctic or Antarctic animal species are categorized as Animal unless the initiative also encompasses the broader ecosystem or habitat. Declaration of the Rights of Antarctica

Climate – when the nature identified in the ecological law initiative is the Earth’s atmosphere, climate system, or atmospheric and climatic processes (e.g., climate change, air quality, or atmospheric cycles). Asheville (USA) City Ordinance: climate bill of rights and rights of nature

Desert Ecosystem – when the nature identified in the ecological law is framed as a desert ecosystem. Hopi Tribe (USA) Proclamation: preserve and protect Sípàapu

Freshwater Ecosystem – when the nature identified in the ecological law initiative is framed as a freshwater ecosystem (e.g. river, lake, watershed, and wetlands such as páramos, marshes, swamps). Ponca Nation (USA) Resolution: rights of rivers

Forest Ecosystem – when the nature identified in the ecological law is framed as a forest ecosystem or refers collectively to trees. For the purposes of the EJM methodology, initiatives concerning trees collectively are categorized at the ecosystem level, while initiatives concerning an individual tree or specific tree species are categorized as Plant. Kawsak Sacha Declaration: The Living Forest

Fungi – when the nature identified in the ecological law is a fungal species or fungi in general.

Grassland Ecosystem – when the nature identified in the ecological law initiative is framed as a grassland ecosystem (e.g. steppes, prairies, meadows, Argentine pampas, Andean paramo, and African savannas). Colombia court case: rights of Los Nevados National Park

Marine Ecosystem – when the nature identified in the ecological law initiative is framed as a marine or coastal ecosystem or component of that system (e.g., salt marshes, estuaries, lagoons, mangroves, or coral reefs). Initiatives concerning individual marine animals or species are categorized as Animal unless the initiative also encompasses their broader marine ecosystem or habitat. Spain Law 19/2022: rights of the Mar Menor lagoon

Mountain – when the nature identified in the ecological law is framed as an individual mountain or specific mountain range. This category does not include initiatives framed around a species or ecosystem that is located in a mountain zone. New Zealand Taranaki Maunga Record of Understanding

Plant – when the nature identified in the ecological law initiative is an individual plant, plant species, or plants in general. For example, an individual tree or tree species (e.g., an oak) is categorized as Plant, not Forest Ecosystem; manoomin (wild rice) is categorized as Plant, not Grassland Ecosystem. White Earth Nation (USA) Tribal Resolution: rights of manoomin

Space – when the nature identified in the ecological law initiative is a celestial body or other natural entity in outer space (e.g., the Moon or another planet). Citizen Declaration of the Rights of the Moon

Urban Ecosystem – when the nature identified in the ecological law initiative is situated within an urban area with a population above 50,000, and its urban context is a substantive component of the initiative. Urban is a cross-cutting category and is coded alongside other Nature Types depending on the natural entity involved. Mexico City Environmental Law of 2024; Honorary Citizenship of the Seine River; Declaration of the Rights of the Venice Lagoon; Curridabat urban policy on pollinators

– Specific Categorizations –

Mangroves – are categorized as both Marine Ecosystem and Forest Ecosystem. Mangroves function primarily as coastal wetland ecosystems. Ecologically and legally, they broadly belong to the wetland classification, but botanically and visually, they are referred to as forests. ¹

Paramos – are categorized as both Grassland Ecosystem and Freshwater Ecosystem. ² Although páramos occur in high-altitude mountain environments, they are not categorized as Mountain because the EJM reserves that category for initiatives concerning a specific mountain or mountain range

Trees – when an initiative concerns trees collectively, it is categorized as Forest Ecosystem. Initiatives concerning an individual tree or specific tree species are categorized as Plant.

Urban – when an initiative concerns nature within a city or urban area, it is categorized as both Urban and the relevant Nature Type of the initiative. For example, a river may be categorized as both Freshwater Ecosystem and Urban, while an initiative concerning Nature generally within a city may be categorized as both All Nature and Urban.

— Data Visualization Categories —

These five overarching categories are used for data visualization purposes only. They group the more detailed Nature Types into broad categories that allow patterns across the dataset to be visualized and compared. They are not intended to represent scientific or taxonomic classifications. For example, fungi belong to their own separate biological kingdom and are neither plants nor animals, but are grouped with Plant for visualization purposes.

Because an initiative may be coded with more than one Nature Type, each initiative is assigned to a single visualization category based on its primary Nature Type, meaning the natural entity or ecological system most central to the initiative.

Nature – All Nature; Urban; Climate; Space

Plant – Plant; Fungi; Forest

Animal – Animal

Land – Desert; Grassland; Mountain

Water – Freshwater; Marine; Arctic

---

This category identifies the primary actor(s) responsible for initiating or advancing the ecological jurisprudence within an initiative. The Initiating Actor is the individual, organization, or institution that initiates the action establishing ecological jurisprudence. This can include:

• the individual(s), organization(s), or groups who drafted, proposed, or submitted the initiative, including any sponsoring elected official;
• the governing body that adopted the initiative;
• the official(s), office(s), or institution(s) issuing the statement or declaration;
• the claimant(s) or petitioner(s) who filed the lawsuit;
• the judge, judicial panel, or court issuing the ruling, in judicial cases where ecological jurisprudence is established sua sponte (by the court).

---

This category identifies the demographic and legal characteristics of the primary actor(s) responsible for initiating or advancing the ecological jurisprudence of an initiative. Initiating actors are the individuals, groups, or institutions that identify the ecological problem as requiring a legal response and actively organize efforts to develop, propose, or advance new legal approaches, rules, or frameworks. This category focuses on leadership in the legal framing and mobilization of the initiative, not merely involvement in addressing an ecological issue. One or more of the following categories may apply:

Indigenous – when an initiative is led or co-developed by one or more individuals or groups who explicitly self-identify as Indigenous.

NGO – when one or more initiating actors is a non-governmental organization whose NGO status can be verified through a reliable public source (e.g., organizational website, registry, or media report). If the group cannot be verified as an NGO, do not select this label (and assume they are a civil society or community organization).

Civil Society – when one or more initiating actors is a community group, grassroots collective, movement-based organization, or other civil society entity that is not a formally recognized NGO. These actors may be place-based or organized around a common issue or movement.

International – when one or more initiating actors is an intergovernmental organization (IGO) or an official representative of such an entity.

Government – when one or more initiating actors is a government body at any level (municipal, provincial, state, or national), within the executive or legislative branches. (Note: court-initiated actions are coded under Court, not Government.)

Court – when the initiative results from a judicial ruling in which ecological jurisprudence principles are invoked solely by the judges in a case, not by the claimants or defendants. Examples include the Biodigestor case (Ecuador) and the Ganga River ruling (India).

Youth – when an initiative is significantly and meaningfully led or co-developed by individuals who identify as youth (under 30 years of age). This category applies where youth play a primary role as problem identifiers, legal innovators, or organizers of the ecological jurisprudence effort, rather than serving solely as participants or supporters. Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Declaration: rights of herring 

Women – when an initiative is significantly and meaningfully led or co-developed by one or more women or women-led groups, where women play a primary role in identifying the legal problem and organizing the effort to advance ecological jurisprudence. This category may be applied when:

• the leading organization explicitly self-identifies as a women’s organization; or
• the leading organization is predominantly composed of women (at least 70%) and is led or co-led by a woman.
• This category should not be selected solely because women were involved or participated in the initiative; women must play a central leadership or organizing role in advancing the ecological jurisprudence. Peru court case: rights of the Marañón River

---

Legal Documents

The associated legal documents are provided for each initiative in its original language. Occasionally, official translations are included if they are available. If original documents are not publicly available, we will not publish them without the permission of the owners of these documents. When collecting original documents. Until we are able to get permission, the document will not be available on the front end.

Media

When available, links to online resources that provide additional information and context about the initiative, including videos, news articles, press releases, podcasts, etc are provided.

Rules for Addressing Indigenous and Local Community Initiatives Based on Oral Knowledge:

When we identify an initiative based on ecological jurisprudence (e.g., through a secondary source) for which there appears to be no formally written document (e.g., it is based on customary law rooted in oral knowledge), follow the procedure below:

• If we have enough information to determine that the initiative fits our definition of ecological jurisprudence, we create an entry in the EJM and then contact members of the Indigenous group involved to obtain more information (but keep initiative as a “Draft” – do not publish yet – until we obtain the relevant information and permission to share);
• In the “Initiating Actor” window, we provide the name of the Indigenous group behind the initiative (if known) followed by “(under review)”;
• If the Indigenous group responds to our request for information with a written explanation (e.g., via email), we will use this information to code the initiative and include that written statement along with citation following the Template for Citing Indigenous Oral Knowledge as an original document. Before posting, we share the draft of this statement with the Indigenous representation for their confirmation of accuracy and permission to post;
• When we reach out to an Indigenous group to confirm the initiative and gather information necessary to code, we explain that we recognise the value of oral tradition and would like to provide a space for oral tradition to be included in the EJM. A representative will be invited to participate in an interview (e.g., via zoom) in which we can help them record a short description of the initiative and explain the oral tradition (with either a video recording or audio recording). We explain that we would like to post this recording on the EJM website linked to the relevant initiative so that visitors to the site can learn about it.
• If the Indigenous group agrees to do a recording, we will upload this recording as the original document in the EJM
• If the Indigenous group agrees to an interview, but declines to be recorded, we will use the info from the interview to code, then create a word document that explains that the information entered for this initiative was gathered through personal communication with Indigenous representative and then cite the Indigenous Oral Knowledge using a Template for Academic Citations Using Indigenous Oral Knowledge.

For more information, see our Data Ethics Statement.