Considering the Rights of- and to- Nature movements to understand where and when to take practical action within communities, and whether nature is indeed a human right.

Another edition of The Garden of Tomorrow festival in London, was hosted by House of Hackney on 13th-15th June 2024. This one had many sessions entitled ‘Nature the…” and “Nature is…” to consider nature’s many roles — or archetypes maybe. Client, rightsholder, artist, human right, teacher, stakeholder, muse and designer. I attended a noontime session on ‘Nature is a Human Right’ with a panel of activist organisations.

The panel included: Mark Craig from National Park City, Amy-Jane Beer from the Right to Roam and Pam Warhurst from Incredible Edible. [Kalpana Arias from Nowadays On Earth wasn’t there as advertised.]

I wanted to attend the festival, though as it was cost-prohibitive for a full day, only the £10 fee for a single session was manageable. Turns out there was also an art exhibition to view — Nature the Artist — which actually was a lovely addition, and it was all housed in the majestic St. Michael + All Angels church where House of Hackney had adorned the place with their signature furnishings. But did I actually find it a useful discussion? I think I came away without any answers or actions. I examine that feeling here in this article.

Images: 1. The Garden of Tomorrow Festival sandwich board with list of panel discussions; 2. One of the St.Michael + All Angels church’s outbuildings; 3. Inside the church in Hackney with stained glass window and House of Hackney signature floral furnishings, with panellists; 4. The floral velvet chair outside the bathroom in the House of Hackney showroom.

Defining ‘nature’.

Inspired by the recent #WeAreNature campaign, where we are petitioning to change all major UK dictionary definitions of ‘nature’ to include humans, the festival hopes to bridge the gap between ourselves and the natural world. The aim is to help co-create a vision for a Nature-centric society which benefits all. Through panels, workshops, spoken word, art and music, it will inspire and incubate collaborative ideas and collective impact which will be translated into practical ways to move towards this societal shift.

That’s from The Garden of Tomorrow’s event blurb.

I can appreciate how definitions may have impact down the line, like for kids wanting confirmation when writing an essay, for instance. But honestly, I already find this petition jarring. Why not put efforts into something practical? The dictionary is known now for removing words that are no longer in common parlance, which yes is an issue for future generations. (Continuing to physically make the books is another thing).

Yet, I can’t fathom how removing a word or changing a word’s definition has clout on if it’s remembered or not. Why not simply just talk to each other more about how we are part of a system and not this heirarchical being — which ultimately I feel would occur if humans are outrightly named. Are you going to insist every animal is named, or microbe, or lichen? We are after all, just a somewhat intelligent and conscious animal, so why is everything else not stated?

The campaign began with Lawyers for Nature, and arguably updating the definition may hold significance for court cases, legislation and education. This is the current [Oxford English] definition”:

Nature — [mass noun] the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

‘As opposed to humans or human creations’ is obviously the phrasing they want altered, which makes more sense when this context is given. The term ‘man-made’ is the opposite: “made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made naturally)”.

I’m still iffy about how these terms are so binary. Man-made products can still be made from natural materials, it’s just that human consciousness devised and designed it into a ‘thing’ so it’s no longer natural. If we take a rock, place it on a plinth — no other alterations — and call it art, is this natural or is this man-made? The definition of ‘animal’ is: “a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli”. So why not simply remove that last bit about humans from the definition of nature, and ensure humans continue to be defined and included as animals? It feels overly complicated.

Perhaps I’ve digressed. But someone — the panel moderator I think — said “access to nature is our birthright” and I’m like, woah, hang on.

Images: 1. House of Hackney footballs repurposed as strawberry planters; 2-3. Artists on show at the Nature the Artist exhibition: Simon Liddement wood etching / Calum Storrie drawings on paper.

Access to nature.

The three panellists did crossover in some respect, but were distinct in what they were introducing and exploring.

• Incredible Edible was about our right to grow food and accessing marginal land to do so.

• Right To Roam was about increasing our legal access to land and changing our England-specific responsible outdoor code.

• National Park City more on collaboration in urban areas to increase community.

Each looked also to themes of biodiversity, mental and physical health, cost of living, though the key connecting theme was legislation — i.e. why ‘right’ over ‘permission’.

With the activities of each of these organisations, rights rather than permission only was integral. A change in council comes and those permissions may no longer be permissable, but a right is entrenched in law.

In England we have a right to access only 8% of land, and undisputed access to only 3% of our rivers. 1% of major landowners own 50% of the country.

There is a lot of land that obviously needs to stay as private e.g. personal gardens, though for the remainder there is a push for responsible access. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code proffer guidelines that govern ‘right of responsible access’ across most of Scotland’s land. It’s not just about visitors basically using respectful common sense, but about land managers ensuring that visitors can responsibly access the land and water anyway (e.g. not blocked up). It’s a reciprocal relationship, in a way. England has no such code.

• In April 1932, activists gathered up Kinder Scout in the Peak District to highlight that walkers were denied access to areas of open countryside that had been fenced off by wealthy landowners.

• In 1949, an act was passed to establish National Parks allowing for public recreational activities within the boundaries.

• The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) normally gives a public right of access to land mapped as ‘open country’ (mountain, moor, heath and down) or registered common land; areas are known as ‘open access land’. But, this act excludes the right of access to land known as ‘excepted land’ even if it appears as open access land on maps.

There’s an argument that ‘right of way’ allows you access of some kind, yes, but only to move along and not to do anything else. ‘Access’ gives you more opportunity to engage and connect with where you are. National Park City was essentially established so that access was more obvious in cities; rather than it being a metropolis of guarded off spaces, it is made up of little pockets of accessible greenery. Incredible Edible’s Right To Grow campaign similarly asks that all marginal land is recognised as useful.

Our access to nature can be something on as grand a scale as the Right To Roam campaign is working towards (England matching the outdoor access guidelines that Scotland and Wales have), yet can also be about working towards access of the smaller spaces we’re around every day.

Community.

In order to be respons-able for something, then we need a thing in the first place. If we don’t have access or feel connected to where we are, then why would we give it respect? Since the pandemic, studies have shown that of course access to nature makes us feel better; that during Covid we were all so much healthier despite the virus, because we were getting outside more, or at least had a greater awareness of improvement to our wellbeing with just an hour of outdoor time.

Activity outside boosts mental and physical health (for most folk), and so focussing attention here will release some burden elsewhere i.e. on health services. Being around one another develops relationships that otherwise may not have occurred, and so on top of good vibes from the other nature, we’re recognising too that our nature is to be social. Double benefits. This still isn’t confirming if we are nature though; we’re still this being going out into another being, unintegrated, disconnected.

Selfish activities aside — of doing something so we feel better — it is difficult not to notice more and more stuff outside of ourselves when we put down tech. A panellist mentioned that a study in Sweden found participants had a higher baseline knowledge of ecology due to their outdoor access rights (allemansrätten). We can actually be useful for conservation — if we’re responsible. The argument is that if people are given access, they can increase their knowledge, nurture the outdoors, it improves for others, they consequently increase their knowledge… ripple effect.

However, because there’s always someone who takes more than their fair share (including those landowners we speak of), I’m not convinced stating nature as a human right will improve our connection. With rights we are empowered and entitled, embittered if we don’t receive what is “rightfully” ours. If we’re to see nature as a human right, then community development needs to develop alongside it.

I think this is where shared food growing spaces can, for the most part, increase this willingness to interact, share and nurture. From experience, here too is where some will do more work than others, but the rewards seem far greater for the rest of the community so it somewhat balances. It’s about partnership, not competition. A National Park City example was the Crane Valley Partnership, a project that crosses boroughs in line with the River Crane catchment and so collaboration was required.

Also, read my article on “what is nature connection?” with references to papers on nature connectedness.

Images: Artists on show at the accompanying Nature the Artist exhibition: Polly Fleury quilt, Kelly Hill & Michael Pawlyn / Linda Felcey, This Ain’t Rock n Roll / Adam Dant.

Limitations.

Obviously, a change to legislation like this requires people power — in contacting MPs, in voting, in boycotting companies. So people do need to feel they have power, first and foremost. And therefore they need to know what they’re fighting for. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg then isn’t it; access to nature requires access to nature. Realistically the only way that behaviour can change (such as hoards of visitors to Yr Wydffa leaving litter and parking on verges), is through education. If adults won’t change their ways, then kids need to be encouraged in school — food growing, forest activities, bug identification, bird spotting etc. Yet, adults can be encouraged into food growing or other nature connection activities (like the ones I do using textiles).

It doesn’t have to be as dramatic as climbing a mountain; it can simply be about opening yourself up to your local environment. The Wild City Studio restoration of an area of Markfield Park in North East London is one such endearing project, and Cordwainers Grow’s maps of walks through Hackney green spaces is another. These small wins provide connection, but ultimately it is about legislation and money.

Community gardens established on marginal land throw up barriers in terms of even finding out who owns the land e.g. council, Network Rail, private owner, and both honesty and investment then impact information exchange — as shown with the East London Waterworks Project, and the initial site move of the Garden of Earthly Delights. You’ve then got access to commonland and the history of enclosures, which blockades via nuances. And even insurance impeding a project, such as flowers being ok to grow on public land but not food.

Images: 1. Garden of Earthly Delights community garden on marginal land in East London; 2. The in-development Markfield Park urban community garden space in North East London.

There are many intricacies to our access to nature. On the one hand there needs to be grassroots action to change the system, and on the other hand there needs to be personal action to change the perspective. If we’re only looking at wide open outdoor spaces as nature, and not at the very possessions we hold and consume each day (food, clothing, water, air) then we’ll forever be wasting time and chance to connect.

If we want to acknowledge that nature is around us and in us, then we need to see that we are nature — and from that very argument know that nature is not a human right, but that simply, nature is nature. We cannot redefine or claim something that is not ours to take in the first place, for we’ll just be moving our very selves from one place to… where? We stay embroiled in nature, so what we’re really arguing and fighting for with rights is a recognition that we’re here, we’re part of the system, and can we please stop being treated as just an economy, just as everything else in and of nature is exploited and extracted.

I guess it’s not, nature is a human right, but humans are nature and we have rights.

Biographies from Garden of Tomorrow:

About Nowadays On Earth

Kalpana Arias is a technologist, guerrilla gardener, urban greening activist, food growing educator, and the founder of Nowadays On Earth, a social enterprise advocating for nature in urban spaces. Alongside Nowadays On Earth, Kalpana campaigns for nature access and nature rights through urban greening projects and tech policy reforms, has been researching technological ecologies for over 7 years, delivered a global TED talk, spoken at the United Nations and The Eden Project, and is a trustee for GROW charity. Kalpana is currently an environmental consultant for corporations and governments and works with leading charities, institutions, brands and grassroots change-makers.

About Right to Roam

Right to Roam is a campaign aiming to bring a Right to Roam Act to England so that millions more people can have easy access to open space, and the physical, mental and spiritual health benefits that it brings. Right to Roam was founded in 2020 by Nick Hayes and Guy Shrubsole and has since grown into a small and feisty organisation of campaigners, writers, artists and ecologists and nature connectors.

They have local groups all around the country and are part of a growing alliance of ramblers, wild swimmers, paddle-boarders, kayakers, authors, artists and activists who want to see our exclusionary laws of access changed.

About National Park City

London National Park City is a unique long-term grassroots movement for everyone making London greener, healthier and wilder. London became the world’s first National Park City in July 2019, launched by the National Park City Foundation with the support of the Mayor of London and 260 partner organisations.

About Incredible Edible

In 2012 the Incredible Edible Network started to support the work of the Incredible Edible groups across the UK. The Incredible Edible Network seeks to engage and inspire new groups who have decided to take up the challenge of creating kinder, more confident, more connected communities through the power of food. They aim to build up, empower and connect existing groups to help them continue to deliver ever increasing impact in their own communities.They act to amplify our grassroots actions in order to inform and influence national and local policy in order that these policies might create kinder communities.

Find all the artists on show as part of the Nature the Artist exhibition.