Philosopher Tilo Wesche focusses on the rights of nature. In this interview, he talks about the ownership of natural resources, a failed understanding of sustainability - and a river in New Zealand that points the way out.

Mr Wesche, as a practical philosopher, what do you understand by nature?

For me, nature is three things. Firstly, everything that is not man-made, that produces itself. Secondly, something that I can perceive, be it through taste, the beauty of a landscape or warmth and cold. And nature is something that deserves protection. Nature has rights that protect it.

How does nature get these rights?

In many traditions, there is the idea that nature does not belong to humans, but to the gods or God. It is something that we are not allowed to use, transfer and exploit at will. However, in modern societies it is very difficult to uphold these legal claims to nature on the basis of religious certainties.

How could it work instead?

In fact, some courts or legislatures around the world have ruled that nature is a subject of law and therefore has rights to protect it from harm. One example is the Whanganui River in New Zealand, the subject of an ancient dispute: the Maori said the river belongs to the gods and no one else - the government said the river, like any other asset, is something that can be turned into property. The judges then made the Solomonic decision that the river belonged to themselves. This is a good example of nature owning its resources.

How can nature enforce these rights?

These are rights that are exercised in a representative manner. For example, state institutions as well as civil society actors represent the rights of children, for example. This can be easily transferred.

What does this mean for the sustainable use of nature?

Experience shows: Protecting nature out of human interests - because of future generations or because pollution affects our health - has achieved little to nothing. The only way out is not to subordinate nature to human interests, but to recognise it as a legal subject in its own right.

And this brings us to the logic of property as the basis for sustainability?

Property rights ensure that no one is allowed to violate other people's property. Anyone who contributes to value creation has such a right to ownership of the corresponding value - including nature. Its ecosystem services must be regarded as the property of nature, which as such is worth protecting. This gives rise to sustainability obligations: We may use nature, utilise it and trade with it - but only under the proviso of sustainability, for example a balanced ecological footprint.