Notes on how Nature may be given a voice and a vote within the commission. Prepared for NICW by Simeon Rose
Nature on the Board: a background
In 2022, Faith In Nature (a natural personal care company of which I’m a director) became the first company in the world to appoint Nature to its board of directors — granting a voice and a vote to the natural world on all business decisions.
On launch, that model was open-sourced in the hope that other organisations would implement the model too and that, together, we could create a more Nature-centric form of governance to better recognise Nature as the major stakeholder it truly is. Although ‘Nature on the Board’ (NOTB) was initially conceived for the private sector, support for it has been wide ranging and Nature has already been made a director of other companies, charities, an arts organisation, a research group, volunteer groups, a trust and even the river Usk catchment partnership.
The move has already seen great interest from the world’s media, academic institutions and has featured at many major climate conferences — thanks, in part, to its inclusion within the 2024 film ‘Future Council’ which screened at New York Climate Week and at the UN’s ‘Summit of the Future’. One of the young stars of that film, Skye Neville, is a resident of Fairbourne — a Welsh coastal town that will be one of the UK’s first to disappear when sea levels rise — increasing the likelihood that she and many like her will become future climate refugees. It is especially fitting, therefore, that NICW’s report ‘Building Resilience to Flooding in Wales by 2050‘ recommends giving voice to Nature in its decision making.
Through sharing my own learnings of how NOTB works in practice, I hope to support the idea that the model might also work at NICW and serve as a useful tool for taking into account the needs and wants of the natural world — not just for altruism’s sake, but because we are all a part of the natural world. Biodiversity has plummeted 70% in the past 50 years and the suggestion that we might be facing ecological collapse must be taken seriously.
What impacts Nature also impacts us and so this wider perspective is necessary if we are to plan for a future in which all species — humans included — might also thrive.
The Rights of Nature
Whether in the private sector, the public sector or even in our personal lives, every decision we make impacts the natural world somehow. Yet when it comes to board decision making, the one voice always absent from that decision making process is Nature’s own. So the benefits of granting Nature a voice and a vote are two-fold:
- To help the board better understand the impact of its decisions upon the natural world in order to make better, more informed decisions going forward.
- To recognise Nature as a major stakeholder — not just symbolically, but in such a way that we might affect meaningful change.
The first of these points speaks to the idea that for any organisation to be successful in the long-term, it must better understand how it might exist in the long-term. The fragility of our ecosystems — and therefore of supply chains, industry as a whole, our services and the communities we serve — mean that expert, Nature-centric input is not just nice-to-have, but essential. This thinking aligns with the 2024 landmark legal opinion of the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative (CCLI), in collaboration with Pollination, that directors “should consider their company’s Nature related risks as part of their duties to promote the success of the company”.
The second of these points refers to the growing Rights of Nature movement, from which this idea is born. The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) defines the Rights of Nature as:
The recognition that our ecosystems – including trees, oceans, animals, mountains – have rights just as human beings have rights… It is the holistic recognition that all life, all ecosystems on our planet are deeply intertwined. Rather than treating Nature as property under the law, Rights of Nature acknowledges that Nature in all its life forms has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles
Although, historically, Nature has not had a seat at the boardroom table, the Rights of Nature movement has been advancing for some time now. A small number of countries (mostly Latin American) recognise the Rights of Nature at a national level. Elsewhere, aspects of the natural world have their rights recognised even if the countries within which they exist do not recognise those rights more broadly. Perhaps the most famous case of this is New Zealand’s River Whanganui being recognised as a legal person. ‘Environmental personhood’ is a framework that gives power to those features of the natural world, enabling the river Whanganui — and other rivers, mountains, parks, bays and even the waves in the Brazilian city of Linhares — to speak in their own best interest.
Initially, my thinking was that if such frameworks can exist within the wider world, why not also in business? Now those frameworks exist within business too. So why not also in the public sector?
Defining Nature
As alluded to in GARN’s definition of the Rights of Nature, when discussing ‘Nature’, we should bear in mind that this includes all life— of which humans are, of course, a part.
There is, however, a tension here. Until now, we have focussed solely on the interests of the human — and it is this one-eyed view that has threatened all life. So while the interests of the human appear well served, the interests of the non-human are not. In order to restore balance, we do need to shift some areas of the conversation to focus on the non-human. Or, to use a phrase coined by the philosopher David Abrams, the ‘more than human’ — which acknowledges that humans are also a part of that wider grouping to which we must turn our attention. ‘All life’ means ‘all life’.
The Guardianship Model
The River Whanganui is able to speak in its own best interest thanks to a framework known as the ‘guardianship model’. A useful comparison is to consider a child who must appear in court. A child cannot legally represent themselves so a responsible adult is needed to speak in their best interests. The ‘child’ in this case is Nature. The ‘responsible adult’ is a Nature Guardian. The one drawback of this comparison is that though it explains the mechanics perfectly well, it is not a true representation of the relationship between Nature and Nature Guardian. Nature, of course, is not mute nor immature — our human made systems have simply not allowed for more-than-human perspectives. But the guardianship model addresses this issue.
In the case of the Whanganui, the river’s guardians are one member of the Whanganui people working together with one member of the crown. In the case of Faith In Nature, ‘Nature’ is the director, represented by a rotating cast of Nature Guardians performing day-to-day duties.
The question then is: who speaks for Nature? And, in the case of NICW, should it be an existing member of NICW or an additional commissioner?
Firstly, the NOTB model does not expect that Nature Guardians know everything about Nature nor that they have all the answers. But they ought to be expert enough to ask the right questions. At Faith In Nature, the following guidelines are in place:
- A shared role
Although Nature is one director, two people share the role of Nature’s guardians. It is for those guardians to work together to come to a consensus view on what is in Nature’s best interests.
- The right to consult
When dealing with issues that neither guardian feels qualified to advise on, guardians have the right to throw their net wider and consult with whoever necessary. They also have a budget to pay for those expert views if needed.
- Short tenure
To encourage a diverse and evolving view of Nature’s needs, no guardian should be in place for longer than approximately two years.
NOTB’s Nature Guardians have, so far, tended to be a mix of earth lawyers, conservationists and scientists. But, ultimately, the point of the model is to bring forward perspectives that have, until now, not had a seat at the table. This should also extend to first nations people, poets, or anyone else passionate (and expert) enough to speak about a specific aspect of the natural world.
This is precisely how the guardianship model works in Ecuador, where anyone who feels compelled to speak in the interest of any specific aspect of the natural world is free to do so. If somebody is passionate enough to speak in the interest of, say, a stream, a lizard or a tree, then they are probably best placed to be its guardian. That they are able to is the result of the Rights of Nature being recognised at national level and the legal system therefore making space for such perspectives.
NOTB aims to create a similar space within a smaller board structure. Simon Armitage, the UK’s poet laureate, said recently in a BBC interview that “the role of the poet in the contemporary age (is) to speak up for Nature, not just use it in a poem”. Guardianship models allow poets (and anyone else) to do just that — in a hands-on, practical way.
Regarding whether or not NICW’s Nature Guardian should be an existing commissioner or whether a new role needs to be created, my view is that this should be a new role.
This is less to do with the expertise of current commissioners and more to do with the bigger, macro view of what this move aims to achieve. By appointing a director, or a commissioner, who has specific regard for the natural world, we are drawing a line in the sand. On the whole, it is very easy for boards to say that existing directors will speak in the interests of Nature — but all the evidence points to the fact they have so far failed to do so. Ironically, it is the insights of people who have not sought board positions — and have, more likely, spent their time ‘in the field’ — who are now needed on boards to offer this perspective.
Dr Juliet Rose is a plant scientist, horticulturist and Head of Development at Eden Project. She is also Nature Guardian at Faith In Nature. On this matter she had this to say:
I have heard people say that directors can be educated or educate themselves to represent Nature and that Nature doesn’t need to be represented as an entity. I don’t agree. Board directors should, of course, offer Nature-positive leadership, but giving Nature a face and voice in the room changes the dynamic. It helps ensure Nature is not forgotten, ignored, simplified or reduced in value. Instead, it increases accountability; Nature becomes something that people want to draw attention to…the role is evolving, it’s important not to see it not as an audit of Nature impact – these mechanisms already exist – but as a mechanism for ensuring a Nature-positive culture where there is always someone you can ask.
Frameworks, structure and aims
As mentioned above, embodying an ‘absent’ stakeholder in the room changes a dynamic. NOTB also moves organisations away from the accepted ‘ask forgiveness, not permission’ model of offsetting actions after the event, and towards an ‘ask permission, not forgiveness’ model where Nature is consulted before action is taken.
To make this workable, Nature Guardians have been granted not only the substantive rights of a voice and a vote, but many procedural rights necessary to do the job properly. Those rights include:
- The right to access information (in order to make better informed decisions)
- The right to time (to learn, understand and research)
- The right to consult (to gather whatever expert insights necessary)
- The right to a budget (to help with that consulting, or to use however the guardians see necessary)
- The right to attend meetings (to decide for themselves what issues they need to input on)
- The right to direct the actions of the organisation (by virtue of being director, or trustee, or commissioner…)
If these rights seem obvious or insignificant, it is because we (humans) take them for granted. But Nature has been denied these rights — along with the overarching right to to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles.That is to say that there are likely more rights enjoyed by current commissioners that are also overlooked and taken for granted, but that should also be granted to the Nature Guardians in order for them to perform their role properly.
In addition to being present at board meetings, ‘Nature Related Matters’ (NRM) meetings are an opportunity to bring to the Nature Guardians’ attention anything the commissioners might feel is relevant for discussion. At Faith In Nature, NRM meetings happen once fortnightly and each guardian spends two days/month in the business giving ample face-time to work with all other members of the team. A similar time commitment might work at NICW.
Although most decisions are arrived at through conversation and dialogue, occasionally matters might need voting upon. For equality’s sake — and to truly recognise this as a Rights of Nature based initiative — I would recommend granting Nature an equivalent vote to all other commissioners.
There is not yet a set protocol for the way Nature Guardians make their decisions — although it is something that those who have implemented the model might work towards creating together. For now, Nature Guardians present their perspectives in light of whether or not actions are Respectful, Regenerative and Reciprocal—and how they might become more Respectful, Regenerative and Reciprocal if they are not already.
The board as a whole — or the commission — is obviously still able to make whatever decision they choose, but they do so in fuller knowledge of the likely impacts upon the natural world.
I feel it is important here to address one common misconception. NOTB does not aim to appoint Nature as a ‘green police force’ or to stymy progress. Rarely are Nature based conversations about the What, but rather about the How.
In other words, implicit within NOTB is the assumption that those who adopt it should want to succeed and be successful. Nature’s guardians simply aim to bring a different lens to this. More often than not, they bring ideas of their own, rather than shutting down the ideas of others. Before implementing NOTB, some asked why I’d want a conservationist (or an environmentalist, or a zoologist, or, or, or…) serving on a board. Now in my third year of working with the model and having spoken to others working with it too, the more pertinent questions seems: why wouldn’tyou want those perspectives in the decision making process?
Time horizons and the scale of change
How quickly NOTB yields results depends on how many organisations adopt it, and how fast. Not all changes need be drastic and, in fact, many are likely to be smaller, micro- decisions.
Take for example the case of ‘Friends of Cave Creek Canyon’ (FOCCC), a small volunteer group in the Arizonan desert who have also adopted the NOTB model. FOCCC manage ‘Willow Tank’ — the only reliable source of water for birds and animals on the east side of the Chiricahua Mountains. Situated at the convergence of four ecozones — the Sonoran and Chihuahuan deserts, the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Madre Occidental — the Chiricahua Mountains constitute the largest biodiverse land area in North America with half of North American birds and bats, more than three-quarters of the lizards, and a large proportion of the ants.
Rene Donaldson of FOCCC describes NOTB in action:
“Cattails (Typha latifolia) have overrun Willow Tank with heavy rainfall last fall. Our president introduced the idea to import muskrats, native to Arizona. They occupy marshes, streams, ponds, and lakes with fresh and brackish water. They live in dens with tunnels built into riverbanks. They also eat cattails which is why the idea appealed. After this board meeting, Nature got on the stick and researched the problem, deciding that the rodents would undermine the integrity of the tank sides by burrowing into them for dry den sites. At the next meeting, Nature reported the research and the board immediately dropped the idea which never made it to a motion.”
This shows NOTB working not at an academic or a philosophical level but on the ground, where its effects can be immediately felt. That FOCCC’s actions weren’t radical does not diminish their importance.
Likewise, Rathlin — Northern Irelands’ only inhabited island — recently appointed Nature to its assembly, where other members of the assembly were chosen at random, but Nature was the only pre-selected member. Now, on an ongoing basis, Nature’s guardian(s) will input into day to day decisions that impact the community in a real and meaningful way.
Nature has also been a voting member at Faith In Nature throughout the redevelopment of its entire product range — informing not just the products, but the packaging and the wider approach to sourcing and NPD. This means that its entire product mix has now been voted on by Nature. In some ways, this isdramatic change. But in others, these decisions are as grass-roots to Faith In Nature as the decision not to introduce musk- rats was to FOCCC.
The point then is not to expect radical change within any one single organisation, but to ask instead how different the world might look today had NOTB been implemented at scale 50 years ago. That we will never know does not mean we shouldn’t implement such moves today — so that future generations may be better placed to answer that question in years to come.
Nature as a stakeholder
For a fairer, more equitable society, there are a great many stakeholders whose voices should be recognised. Why then do I specifically advocate for Nature’s voice to be heard?
Mainly because this is not about creating conflict between competing needs or recognising the needs and wants of the natural world at the expense of other marginalised stakeholders, but about recognising that when Nature thrives, we are all richer (and healthier and happier) for it.
To advocate for Nature as a stakeholder is to advocate for every one of us. It is to advocate for all of us in relation to one another, and also every one of us in relation to the world around us. If we see ‘Nature’ in the broadest possible sense, then there is no greater stakeholder in any of the decisions we make. This view is echoed in Seachange’s short film ‘Mother Nature in the Boardroom’. In it, Dr Jane Goodall gives voice to Nature, asking: “Do I have a seat at this table? I am, after all, the biggest shareholder.”
This is true even at the most rational level. According to the World Economic Forum, $44 trillion of economic value generation — over half the world’s GDP — is either moderately or highly dependent on Nature. And yet, biodiversity levels are in freefall.
In Wales, The Wellbeing of Future Generations Act has already paved the way for a more progressive conversation regarding ‘absent stakeholders’. So much of the groundwork has already been done that Wales might be uniquely placed to implement NOTB in ways other countries might not.
But whereas considering the needs of Future Generations requires imagining the lives of people yet to be born, considering the needs of Nature requires no such imagination. The House of Commons Library estimates that only 50.3% of UK biodiversity remains — which is not only a shocking figure in itself, but also shows we are able to measure the degree of biodiversity loss to the nearest 0.1%. This is real, and this is happening now.
And just because the act already asks us to consider Nature in relation to the needs and wants of Future Generations, that does not mean we should not also recognise Nature as a stakeholder in its own right — in relation to itself. We should see The Wellbeing of Future Generations Act as an opportunity to pursue this conversation further, not a reason to suggest we’re already ‘doing enough’ — when, given the severity of the crisis, there is no such thing as ‘enough’.
Giving specific regard to the natural world (through appointment of a Nature Guardian) increases the focus upon its needs and wants in a way that will not happen if such a move is not taken. By increasing this focus, it is inevitable that the guardians will introduce lines of thinking not yet considered.
Ultimately, the needs of Nature and of all other stakeholders — whether they are alive yet or not — are intertwined. If NOTB proves successful, then it will be future generations who benefit most — and not just future generations of humans, but future generations of many species.
But if we continue to view Nature only in relation to humans, then we have not transitioned away from anthropocentric thinking towards truer ecocentric thinking — which is the intention behind NOTB and also what the natural world so desperately needs.
Nature has intrinsic value of its own. To suggest otherwise, or to measure it only in relation to the needs and wants of another stakeholder, is not really to recognise it as a stakeholder at all.
A cultural fit for Wales
It is also worth mentioning that the Rights of Nature movement has gathered most momentum in countries with closest links to indigenous cultures. Although we do not have such links in Wales, our ancient culture still lives — thanks largely to the survival of the Welsh language, one of the remaining indigenous languages of Britain — and its continued transmittal of our folklore. I am no cultural historian, but as somebody who grew up speaking Welsh in Wales, I know that our myths and legends map to the land much as do those of indigenous cultures in other countries.
We can point to specific places as settings for the stories that bind us. The Mabinogion have survived nearly 1000 years in written form and some believe they carry memories much older — perhaps because they’re tied to the land itself. In this sense, Wales’ land is already seen as animate, in ways it might not be seen as being elsewhere in Western Europe. So perhaps it is only fitting that the land — Nature— should have its inalienable rights recognised and its voice heard in the decisions that impact all of us.