Rights beyond humans

10 Mar 2025

For centuries, the concept of ‘rights’ has been reserved for people. However, the 21st century is broadening that horizon, and nature is beginning to be recognised as a subject of rights. This change, which may seem symbolic, represents a true legal, ethical and political revolution. It means moving from protecting the environment ‘for utility’ to recognising its intrinsic value and capacity for existence.

The starting point is a pioneering case: Law 19/2022, which granted legal personality to the Mar Menor and its basin. This experience has opened up a broader debate: what does it mean to recognise the rights of an ecosystem? What changes in environmental management when the territory ceases to be an object and becomes a subject?

The Mar Menor precedent: when nature speaks for itself

Law 19/2022, passed by the Congress of Deputies in 2022, made the Mar Menor the first European ecosystem to be recognised as a subject of rights. This historic step was inspired by international models, such as the Whanganui River in New Zealand and the Atrato River in Colombia, where communities and lawyers had argued that ecosystems should have their own legal mechanisms of defence.

Under Spanish law, the Mar Menor has four fundamental rights:

1. Right to exist and evolve naturally

This implies respecting the ecological laws that sustain its balance. It is not just a question of ‘conserving’ the lagoon, but of allowing it to regenerate and evolve according to its natural dynamics, free from excessive human pressure.

2. Right to protection

This means stopping or not authorising activities that pose a risk to its integrity, such as dumping, construction or overexploitation.

3. Right to conservation

This requires active measures to preserve species, habitats and protected areas associated with the lagoon and its basin.

4. Right to restoration

This requires the repair of damage caused, restoring the ecosystem’s functionality and the natural services it provides to society.

To enforce these rights, the law created a system of institutional representation: a Committee of Representatives, a Monitoring Commission and a Scientific Committee. Together, they act as the ‘voice’ of the Mar Menor before the authorities and the courts.

With this structure, the lagoon ceases to be a mere natural space managed by sectoral policies and becomes a political and legal entity with its own legitimacy.

From protection to coexistence: towards a new legal culture

The recognition of rights for entities other than humans marks a radical shift in how we understand the relationship between society and nature. Until now, environmental legislation has focused on regulating the use of resources: how much can be extracted, dumped, occupied or transformed. But in the context of climate crisis and ecological collapse, this model has shown its limitations.

Recognising an ecosystem as a subject of rights means overcoming the instrumental view—nature as ‘property’ or ‘resource’—and placing it as part of the community of life, with dignity and a voice of its own.

This change has profound consequences:

• It introduces new ethical criteria into public decision-making.

• It reinforces the ecological responsibility of institutions and companies.

• It allows legal action to be taken on behalf of the ecosystem, even when there is no direct impact on people.

• It broadens the notion of justice to an ecological and collective level.

The concept of ‘more than human entities’ encompasses not only rivers and lakes, but also forests, mountains, soils, wetlands and key species that sustain life in a region. Each of these could, under certain conditions, be recognised as a subject of ecological law, especially those that are essential for climate adaptation.

This change is also supported by a deeper understanding of nature itself. Ecosystems are not simply aggregates of biological or geographical elements, but complex systems with emergent properties (such as self-regulation, resilience, or adaptability) that allow them to maintain their balance and sustain life. These properties arise from the interaction between their components and cannot be understood from the sum of their parts. Thus, these new rights not only expand the legal framework, but also reflect an evolution in the scientific and ethical understanding of the planet: recognising nature as a set of interdependent beings, endowed with responsiveness and intrinsic value.

Climate adaptation with rights

The inclusion of formal recognition of the rights of more-than-human entities in climate change adaptation policies could ensure a more just, durable and biophysically coherent adaptation. For example, granting rights to strategic ecosystems—such as wetlands, rivers or forests—would make it possible to:

• Establish automatic legal defence mechanisms against threats.

• Ensure ecological priority in planning processes.

• Encourage co-management between institutions and local communities.

• Promote an integrated territorial vision that transcends administrative divisions.

In this way, climate change adaptation would cease to be merely a technical policy and become a matter of ecological justice.

A growing global trend

The recognition of rights to nature is not an isolated anomaly. In recent years, this trend has spread throughout the world:

• Ecuador was the first country to enshrine the ‘rights of nature’ (Pachamama) in its Constitution (2008).

• Bolivia passed the Mother Earth Law (2010), recognising its intrinsic value.

• In Colombia, the Constitutional Court declared the Atrato River a subject of rights.

• In New Zealand, the Whanganui River and Mount Taranaki have legal personality and designated guardians.

• In India, the Ganges and Yamuna rivers were given similar status (although with subsequent legal disputes).

Towards a more than human democracy

Ultimately, exploring and recognising new rights for more than human entities is a way of democratising our relationship with ecosystems, which cease to be mere settings for human life and become actors with their own agency and vulnerability.

Recognising the complexity of ecosystems implies accepting their responsiveness and their role in the planet’s balance. From this perspective, more than human democracy is understood as a form of co-responsibility with everything that makes life possible.

Furthermore, incorporating this vision into climate and adaptation policies is a necessary step to ensure the integration of resilience and sustainability into the legal and institutional framework.

The Mar Menor has paved a very useful path for climate change adaptation to be as efficient as possible and form a central part of security and welfare policies.

P. Cotarelo and O. Mayoral

The DANA as an integrating factor in research at the Albufera Natural Park

The DANA of October 29, 2024 not only altered the territory of the Albufera Natural Park (PNA), but also transformed its research ecosystem. The increase in studies, the broadening of approaches, and the emergence of new collaborations reveal a drive toward more integrated forms of research. In a context where the Scientific Commission already articulates the knowledge of the PNA, the value of moving toward a multidimensional vision to improve the understanding and management of the territory is evident. The DANA has acted as an integrating factor in the research ecosystem linked to the PNA. It has driven an evolution in the scientific community, motivating groups traditionally focused on specific areas to broaden or redefine their objects of study to incorporate dimensions that were previously outside their focus. At the same time, it has increased the social and institutional visibility of research activity, reinforcing recognition of its public value. This process has resulted in new hires, interdisciplinary collaborations, and meeting spaces between teams and actors that previously operated in a fragmented manner. This emerging dynamic suggests the possibility of a paradigm shift: moving from fragmented knowledge production to more comprehensive, coordinated research focused on land management. However, doubts remain as to whether this trend is merely a temporary reaction to the seriousness of the event or whether it marks the beginning of a more structural transformation in the organization of research in the PNA. In a scenario where the evolution were temporary, the effects would be limited to resolving specific problems arising from the episode, with no lasting implications. On the other hand, if this is the beginning of a phase of profound change, the benefits of moving towards greater integration would be broader and more sustained. These benefits are consistent with the revised conceptual frameworks on comprehensive and interdisciplinary research, highlighting the advantages of a coordinated approach over the partial studies carried out to date. The new emerging trend described above raises two challenges: Moving in this direction would make it possible to build a robust infrastructure of applied knowledge, strengthen the resilience of the Natural Park, and provide a model that can be replicated in other territories exposed to complex climate risks. To consolidate this transition towards more integrated research, the coordinating role of existing structures, such as the Scientific Commission of the Albufera Natural Park and the Albufera Biological Station (EBA), would be key. These structures act as stable platforms for articulating, providing continuity, and facilitating the transfer of scientific knowledge to land management. O. Mayoral and P. Cotarelo Summary of a poster presented at the Second Conference of the Scientific Committee of the Governing Board of the Albufera Natural Park, entitled “L’Albufera. I ara què?” (The Albufera. What now?), held at the Botanical Garden of the University of Valencia on November 26 and 27, 2025.

Climate change as an indicator of teacher training quality

The climate crisis represents one of the most urgent and complex challenges of our time, with environmental, social, political, and ethical implications. This chapter argues that climate change should not be addressed solely as curricular content but, due to its particularities, can be used as a multidimensional and cross-cutting indicator to evaluate the quality of teacher training. To this end, it focuses on the purpose of the training process, how it is constructed, and how it is pursued in the context of today’s reality. In particular, it analyzes the notion of political agency as the purpose of climate competence, which is still underrepresented in initial teacher training. It proposes that this competence should not be limited to transmitting scientific information or encouraging individual behaviors, but should include the development of capacities to intervene in decision-making processes and in the design of public responses to the climate crisis. The text is structured around three main objectives: to examine the current shortcomings of training programs in relation toclimate literacy; to argue why political agency should underpin the purpose and form part of the core teaching competencies; and to propose conceptual and methodological tools for its integration into the curriculum. Throughout the chapter, analytical frameworks, training needs maps, and active methodologies are presented that enable progress toward critical and situated literacy. Finally, possible lines of research aimed at diagnosing and improving the incorporation of this competence at different levels and in different areas of the education system are outlined. O. Mayoral and P. Cotarelo The above text is part of the summary of an article published in spanish at the following link: https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/ceneam/grupos-de-trabajo-y-seminarios/investigacion/XVIII%20Seminario%20Investigaci%C3%B3n%20Educacion%20Ambiental%20y%20

Creation of a composite indicator to measure university performance in implementing the Agenda 2030

The United Nations has highlighted the role of universities in promoting and implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) defined in the Agenda 2030. University education and research, their capacity for innovation, social leadership, and privileged position for forging intersectoral alliances make them essential actors in the eco-social transition. In the context of a project to create and develop a university observatory to monitor the implementation of the SDGs of the Agenda 2030 at the UCM, a system is being created to measure the university’s performance in implementing the 2030 Agenda, in line with social concerns, the concerns of the university community, and the institutional statements of the representatives of the entity itself. The methodology used was based on the OECD and JRC’s “Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators” to create a composite indicator that would allow complex phenomena to be summarized in a simple way, enable easy comparison between similar actors, and provide representative information. The data sources used were diverse: online sources; direct consultations through the channels offered by the University; interviews with relevant actors from the University with different profiles, experiences, and approaches to the subject; direct data collection through on-site observation; and a survey conducted through the University’s Student Observatory. To define the indicators, a group of 30 researchers from different faculties used three levels of analysis of university activity: campus, teaching and research, institutional discourse and practices. As a result, indicators were established for each of these three levels of analysis in relation to all the SDGs. After the normalization, weighting, and aggregation process, a composite indicator was consolidated from more than 400 indicators, divided equally across the three levels of analysis. Reliable data was obtained for only one-third of these indicators in the first year of application (2024). The result of the composite indicator under these conditions gave the University a medium-low performance rating. Although the number of indicators used to construct the composite indicator is sufficient to give value to the university’s medium-low rating, these results must be corroborated in subsequent years with data collection work to achieve degrees of representativeness closer to 100%. On the other hand, it should be noted that both the number of indicators that make up the composite indicator and their standards are also part of a living process that will be fed each year from the initial results. The review of the system’s indicator standards will set progressively more ambitious targets until the optimum is reached for each of them and as a whole in 2030. P. Cotarelo The above text is part of the summary of an article published in spanish at the following link (pp. 349-358): https://www.miteco.gob.es/content/dam/miteco/es/ceneam/grupos-de-trabajo-y-seminarios/investigacion/XVIII%20Seminario%20Investigaci%C3%B3n%20Educacion%20Ambiental%20y%2

The need for a National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction

In a context marked by climate change and growing social, economic and environmental exposure to risk, disaster risk reduction (DRR) has become a strategic priority. We are no longer talking only about specific emergencies, but about a structural phenomenon that affects human security, economic stability and sustainability. Disasters, which are becoming increasingly frequent and complex, are the visible symptom of a system that needs anticipation, cooperation and shared knowledge. In this regard, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 was adopted by UN Member States on 18 March 2015 at the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in the Japanese city of Sendai, Miyagi Prefecture. The overall objective of this framework is to achieve a substantial reduction in disaster risk and losses in terms of lives, livelihoods and health, as well as in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of individuals, businesses, communities and countries over the coming years. Its specific targets are as follows: Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction The Global Platform is a forum for exchanging information, discussing the latest developments, sharing knowledge and establishing partnerships between different sectors, with the aim of increasing the implementation of disaster risk reduction through better communication and coordination between different stakeholder groups. This platform allows governments, NGOs, scientists, professionals in different fields, and United Nations organisations to share experiences and agree on strategic guidelines for the implementation of the Sendai Framework. Regional Platforms are multisectoral forums that reflect the commitment of governments to improve coordination and carry out activities for disaster risk reduction, while establishing links with national and international initiatives. Similarly, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) promotes the establishment of multisectoral coordination mechanisms for DRR, such as National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction, in order to highlight the relevance, added value and cost-effectiveness of a coherent and coordinated approach to disaster risk reduction at the national level. In Spain, the creation of this National Platform would not start from scratch, as the National Disaster Risk Reduction Plan already exists. This plan, which forms part of the National Civil Protection System, already establishes the necessary strategic architecture to either be used directly as the space from which to direct DRR research and actions, or as an inspirational model for creating an ad hoc body specifically dedicated to this mission. The urgency of creating this Platform Anticipating risk is now a matter of public and collective responsibility. The increasing frequency of extreme events, the exposure of critical infrastructure and the inequality in response capacity require a stable coordination structure that operates on a permanent and cross-cutting basis. Only an integrated vision, combining science, territorial planning and institutional cooperation, can offer a coherent response to the challenges of this new reality. The creation of this Platform is a strategic necessity. The justification is based on two interconnected pillars: 1. The new reality of disasters: the complexity, intensity and frequency of some disasters are increasing, very often due to climate change. Extreme weather events, increasingly linked to this phenomenon, know no administrative boundaries or sectoral competences. Today’s disasters are not isolated events, but interconnected crises. A forest fire is not just a problem for firefighters; it affects biodiversity, air quality, public health, the local economy and infrastructure. Understanding this network of interdependencies is key to anticipating and reducing impacts before they turn into disasters. Managing it effectively requires a comprehensive vision that can only be achieved through ongoing multisectoral coordination. 2. Consistency and efficiency: acting in isolation and in a fragmented manner is inefficient and costly. A National Platform enables a consistent and coordinated approach. This means: – Avoiding duplication between different administrations. – Sharing information: creating a flow of data and intelligence on risks that benefits all stakeholders. – Optimising resources: investing more intelligently in prevention, preparedness and response, obtaining a greater return in terms of safety for citizens. – Giving relevance: raising disaster risk reduction to the highest political priority, recognising its crucial value for the country’s sustainable development. Towards a Culture of Prevention The true value of a National Platform for DRR goes beyond emergency management when disaster has already struck. Its most important mission is to foster a culture of prevention. Instead of simply being reactive—waiting for the worst to happen before acting—this Platform would enable proactive work to identify risks before they materialise, strengthen critical infrastructure, educate the population, plan land use more safely, and ensure that our early warning systems are as robust as possible. Promoting a culture of prevention also promotes equity. Disasters hit the most vulnerable communities hardest (those living in precarious housing, in risk areas or with less access to information). A National Platform can become an instrument for strengthening territorial and social justice, ensuring that no one is left behind in the face of climate and environmental impacts. Anchored in existing structures such as those derived from the National Disaster Risk Reduction Plan, and backed by the National Civil Protection Council, the Platform would have the authority and capacity to drive this change in mindset, moving risk reduction from the technical sphere to the heart of the country’s strategic planning. P. Cotarelo and O. Mayoral

Governing the city beyond the city

The large urban areas of the 21st century no longer fit within the boundaries of their municipalities. The expansion of cities, daily mobility between localities and shared challenges — from housing to climate change — require metropolitan governance capable of coordinating decisions that affect millions of people and interconnected territories. Thinking on a metropolitan scale Today’s cities function as living networks. People live in one municipality, work in another, consume resources that come from a third, and generate environmental impacts that extend far beyond their administrative boundaries. In this context, urban problems—mobility, pollution, housing, water or waste management—can no longer be solved in isolation. Climate change further exacerbates this situation. Emergencies associated with extreme phenomena, such as DANA (isolated high-altitude depressions) that repeatedly affect the Mediterranean, or fires, reveal the limitations of fragmented management. When each local council acts on its own, the response is slowed down and valuable resources are lost. Managing climate risks such as floods, heat waves and forest fires requires a vision that transcends municipal boundaries and addresses phenomena on a territorial scale. Decisions on urban development, infrastructure and land use in one municipality can have direct effects on neighbouring territories. Metropolitan planning allows for a broad vision of land use, ensuring an adequate proportion of permeable surfaces and infrastructure capable of absorbing and retaining water, securing spaces for flood control and drainage, and reviewing supra-municipal infrastructure that can act as barriers or flood traps. At the same time, this scale of management makes it easier to coordinate the availability of different types of climate shelters, organise networks of health and logistics centres to care for displaced populations, and plan for storage and distribution of aid in large-scale emergencies. This comprehensive approach broadens the focus of land management and allows for a more effective and equitable response to the complexity of contemporary risks. A metropolitan body provides a common institutional framework for coordinating policies, sharing infrastructure, optimising services and anticipating climate risks, with a view to governing the actual territory, and not just the administrative level. Barcelona as a benchmark: integrated management The Barcelona Metropolitan Area (AMB) is the most advanced example of this type of governance in Spain. It brings together 36 municipalities and manages a wide range of areas, from urban planning to mobility, housing, the environment and economic development. Some of its key areas are as follows: • Land use planning and urban planning: it plans urban growth based on criteria of sustainability, social balance and territorial efficiency. • Transport and mobility: it coordinates buses, the underground and metropolitan networks, promoting intermodality and reducing emissions. • Environment and sustainability: manages the water cycle, waste and environmental protection and biodiversity programmes, including a metropolitan plan to combat climate change. • Renewable energies: promotes sustainable facilities and supports the energy transition of municipalities. • Housing and social cohesion: acts on behalf of local councils to ensure a solidarity-based land policy between municipalities. • Economic development and employment: promotes innovation, business creation and regional competitiveness. This model demonstrates that institutional cooperation expands the capacity for action in the face of challenges that no municipality can solve on its own, even if the capital is as important as Barcelona. An opportunity to be seized in the face of current challenges The contrast between AMB and existing associations of municipalities shows how a metropolitan body integrates strategic planning and coordinates resources, while current associations are limited to the management of specific services, which does not reach the strategic scale necessary to address the major urban and environmental challenges of the region they cover. Cities such as Valencia and its surroundings form one of the most dynamic metropolitan areas in the Mediterranean, with an integrated social metabolism: flows of people, resources, energy and waste circulate daily between municipalities. However, it lacks a political body capable of coordinating this metabolism and transforming it towards sustainability. Something similar is happening in other metropolitan areas, which exist in socio-economic reality but not in administrative terms. Creating a metropolitan management body—with clear powers in mobility, housing, territorial planning and climate adaptation—would improve institutional efficiency, reduce duplication and anticipate environmental risks such as those arising from climate change. Adapting to climate change: an integrated approach The creation of metropolitan bodies is not just a question of governance, but also a climate adaptation strategy. Urban agglomerations concentrate population, critical infrastructure and emissions, but they also concentrate capacity for innovation and collective action. A well-designed metropolitan system can: • Coordinate emergency and civil protection plans in the event of extreme events, integrating climate risk management (floods, heat waves, fires, etc.) through shelter infrastructure, early warning systems, and supra-municipal assistance and support networks. • Manage the water and waste cycle in an integrated manner. • Reduce emissions through public transport and clean energy. • Plan urban expansion avoiding climate risk areas. • Boost economic and social resilience, ensuring territorial equality. In short, it enables a shift from reaction to strategic prevention, with decisions based on data and cooperation, and to a culture of resilience, with structures and mechanisms designed to ensure the capacity to withstand. P. Cotarelo and O. Mayoral

Knowledge of the territory in the face of the climate crisis

Current events present us with apparent paradoxes, such as the fact that we live in a world of global connections with vast amounts of information available on any subject almost in real time, but we are often unaware of the details of the place we live in and on which we depend for the most basic activities. We may know more about the capitals of the Western world than we do about the geological history of our valley, river or mountain, and we may be more familiar with international trends than with rainfall patterns, prevailing winds or the processes of regression or advancement of our coastline after storms. However, in the context of climate change, this lack of knowledge about our territory has become a very risky luxury. Beyond the map: living, multidimensional knowledge However, knowing a territory is not just about being able to point out its borders on a map. It means understanding its ecology, history, culture and human relationships. It means understanding, for example, why one ecosystem is resilient to fire and another is not, or how past land management conditions present risks. It is about appreciating its anthropology, its collective memory and its stories, which have been able to read the signs of the climate over generations. Knowing the territory also involves recognising the different types of ‘situated knowledge’ that explain it: scientific, technical, peasant, traditional or emotional knowledge. Situated knowledge, which arises from direct experience with the environment, complements academic science and enriches local decision-making. All of these contribute essential pieces of the same reality, where daily observation and direct experience are as valuable as satellite data or technical reports. The aim of gaining a better and more comprehensive understanding of the territory is to provide people with a ‘territorial lens’ through which to interpret their reality, understanding, for example, that a neighbourhood built on a dry riverbed is not just an urban planning fact, but a future flood risk. This ‘lens’ allows us to connect knowledge and responsibility, and to understand that every local decision is part of an interconnected system. Tools for a local educational revolution The need for a ‘territorial lens’ to interpret reality challenges society as a whole. Therefore, knowledge about the local environment must be based on an educational ecosystem adapted to social and generational realities. In this context, the development of ‘climate-territorial competence’ becomes key. This competence can be defined as the ability to understand the territory in which one lives, identify climate-related risks and vulnerabilities, and act individually and collectively to prevent, mitigate and adapt, participating in local management and governance. The European GreenComp framework on sustainability competences provides a useful reference for guiding this competence. Among its 12 competences, systemic thinking, contextualisation of problems and collective action stand out, all of which are closely linked to territorial knowledge. The integration of these elements into the educational curriculum ensures that anyone who passes through our education system acquires a solid foundation in landscape reading, risk analysis and commitment to their environment. This type of teaching approach should include elements such as: Knowledge as an antidote to vulnerability Although it may be uncomfortable to admit, it is necessary to recognise that vulnerability is unevenly distributed. Vulnerability to the effects of climate change or other phenomena is not the same for all people or at all stages of life. It depends on social, economic and gender factors. For example, an elderly person living alone on the ground floor, without a family network and with reduced mobility, is inherently more vulnerable to flooding than a young person on a high floor. Knowledge of the territory is a ‘critical equaliser’ as it empowers the most vulnerable people, giving them the cognitive and practical resources to understand their risk and know how to act. Climate justice begins by recognising that not all communities face the same threats or have the same resources to deal with them. Knowing the territory, then, is not only an educational issue, but also an ethical and political one. Towards an informed and resilient citizenry An integrated plan for knowledge of the territory is a fundamental strategy for adapting to climate change and building social resilience. It is the difference between being passive spectators of disasters and being active agents of our own safety. It is a profoundly democratic initiative that returns the power of knowledge to society. It does so because it fosters a ‘rooted’ citizenry, with deep roots in understanding their environment, capable of enjoying it and reading the warning signs, participating in solutions and caring for the place they consider their home. Feeling that the territory is our own is the first step towards caring for it collectively, towards recognising it as an extension of our own history and our shared life. In a world of climate emergency, hyperlocal knowledge, acquired by walking, observing and listening, becomes the first line of defence, the basis of our safety. O. Mayoral and P. Cotarelo

Adapting the territory to its limits: a new look at regional sustainability

In the context of climate change, where human development is increasingly pushing biophysical limits, thinking about the territory in terms of its carrying capacity is no longer an academic question, but an urgent necessity. Cities and regions must learn to function as sustainable organisms, capable of maintaining their vitality without depleting natural resources or damaging the environment on which they depend. Social metabolism: understanding the life of the territory Just as an organism needs energy and nutrients to survive, human societies also have a metabolism: they extract resources, transform them, produce goods and generate waste. This constant flow of matter, energy and information constitutes what is known as social metabolism. Applying this approach to the territory allows us to measure its carrying capacity, that is, to determine the extent to which it can withstand a certain amount of human pressure without deteriorating. By identifying regional metabolic units, we can analyse the exchanges between nature and society and, on that basis, guide public policies towards realistic adaptation. The goal is to align the functioning of society with the rhythms and limits of the ecosystem. When a region consumes more than its environment can regenerate, it weakens in the long term. Conversely, planning that respects its metabolism builds resilience and lasting well-being. Beyond classical urban planning Traditional urban design has tended to focus on the relationship between population and built-up land, but it has done so in a partial way. Cities grow driven by demographic, economic or political needs, and this expansion often generates environmental and social impacts that are difficult to reverse. The history of recent centuries is one in which urban development and population distribution are deeply intertwined. It is not just a question of where people live, but also of how the functions of the territory are distributed, what mobility they require, what energy consumption they involve and how they transform the landscape. Urban systems are complex combinations of economic, social, ecological and cultural factors. Understanding their sustainability requires viewing them as a whole, not as separate parts. In this sense, the metabolic approach allows us to integrate this complexity: measuring flows, understanding their interactions and designing policies that are consistent with the material reality of each region. Urbanisation and resilience The way in which a territory is urbanised defines its resilience to disruptive phenomena such as climate change. While scattered expansion increases energy consumption and habitat fragmentation, excessive densification can overwhelm basic services. At both extremes, the balance of the urban metabolism is disrupted. On the contrary, analysing the relationship between population and built-up land allows us to detect these tensions and redesign occupation patterns, for example, in relation to reducing dependence on motorised transport, promoting energy self-sufficiency or integrating green spaces into the urban structure. The result of incorporating a resilient vision into urban planning allows us to move from cities that consume land to cities that coexist with it. Towards a new territorial pact Adapting to carrying capacity essentially means redefining the relationship between society and its environment. It involves recognising that human well-being does not depend on dominating it, but on coexisting with it within sustainable limits. This approach gives rise to what we might call a metabolic pact. That is, an implicit agreement between the population and its territory to maintain a functional balance. When that pact is broken—through overexploitation, pollution, or territorial inequality—the system enters into crisis. Adopting a methodology based on social metabolism allows us to rebuild that pact on solid scientific and political foundations, orienting it towards functional sustainability, where prosperity is measured not only in terms of economic growth, but also in terms of ecological stability, social equity and quality of life. A practical methodology The specific way of incorporating social metabolism into territorial and climate planning could be based on four essential steps: 1. Delineate regional metabolic units Spaces where energy, water, material and population flows behave in a coherent manner. These units allow each territory to be analysed as a living system. 2. Assess carrying capacity Determine the point at which human pressure—urban, industrial, agricultural or tourist—exceeds the environment’s capacity to regenerate. This calculation integrates ecological, social and economic factors. 3. Adjust public policies Translate the results of the analysis into concrete decisions: where to expand or densify, how to plan mobility, which land uses to prioritise, or what limits to impose on resource consumption. 4. Monitor and adapt Territories change, and policies must change with them. This is why a continuous monitoring system is necessary, with indicators that allow strategies to be adjusted in real time. P. Cotarelo and O. Mayoral

Towards recognition of the right to a healthy environment

We are living in times of profound transformation. While the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly palpable in our daily lives – from more intense heat waves to extreme weather events – a silent transformation is taking place in the field of law that seeks to answer the fundamental question of whether we have a right to a healthy environment. The affirmative answer to this question has set in motion an international legal and political movement that is redefining the obligations of states and the rights of citizens. The climate emergency as a human rights issue Traditionally, climate change has been conceptualised as an environmental, energy or economic problem. However, this perspective is falling short. The climate crisis is, above all, a human rights crisis, and social perception of it is gradually moving towards this interpretation. This is because a stable environment and climate are the foundation on which all other rights are based. Without them, the right to health is compromised by diseases spread by heat or pollution; the right to housing is threatened by forced evictions after flooding; the right to life is at risk from the violence of extreme weather events; the right to food, besieged by droughts that destroy crops; and the right to equality, in critical condition because it is the most vulnerable – the impoverished, the elderly, indigenous peoples – who suffer disproportionately from the effects of an unstable climate. The scientific community has long pointed out that ecosystem degradation, deforestation and biodiversity loss have direct consequences on human health by altering the ecological balances that sustain us. It is not just a matter of avoiding the damage that befalls us, but of understanding that we are part of the same living system. This understanding challenges the traditional anthropocentric paradigm, which has historically placed humanity above the rest of nature. This comprehensive view, supported by the One Health approach promoted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the scientific community, reminds us that human health, animal health and ecosystem health are closely interrelated, and reinforces the need for policies that recognise the continuity between human health, ecosystem health and the right to a healthy environment. Research and science have worked over the last few decades to prove this connection between climate change and the violation of rights through its impacts. The next step in protecting these rights lies in the legal sphere, which must translate this challenge into enforceable rights and specific obligations. It is at this point that Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) marks a turning point. The ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: a new legal paradigm In May 2025, at the request of Chile and Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled on the obligations of States in the context of the Climate Emergency. Its opinion is not a mere recommendation; it is a detailed and binding legal roadmap for the countries that are part of the inter-American system. The Court breaks down the obligations of States into four fundamental pillars: 1. General obligations in the context of the climate emergency The Court makes it clear that States have a duty to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change. This is no longer a political choice, but a legal obligation. Governments must take all necessary measures – legislative, administrative, judicial – to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction do not cause significant transboundary harm. Inaction, or insufficient action, may constitute a violation of human rights. 2. Obligations arising from substantive rights The Court explicitly links the climate emergency to established rights, such as the right to life and personal integrity. A healthy environment is an essential condition for the enjoyment of these rights. In practice, this could mean that an individual or community could sue the state if, for example, air pollution from a nearby thermal power plant is seriously affecting their health, arguing that the state’s failure to adequately regulate that source of emissions violates their right to personal integrity. 3. Procedural obligations: transparency and participation States must not only act, but they must do so in a specific manner. This includes: a. Access to information: ensuring that citizens have access to clear, timely and understandable information on climate impacts and policies to address them. b. Public participation: allowing people to participate meaningfully in environmental decision-making, such as the approval of a project with a high carbon footprint. c. Access to justice: ensuring that accessible judicial or administrative mechanisms are in place to challenge actions or omissions that affect the environment. 4. The principle of equality and non-discrimination The Court is unequivocal in its assertion that the climate crisis is a crisis of inequality. State obligations must be applied with a perspective of equity, prioritising the protection of vulnerable groups that are disproportionately affected. Climate policies must be designed to protect them specifically, preventing the burden of climate change from falling on those who have contributed least to causing it. Towards a new social contract The exploration of including these rights implies a profound change in the relationship between citizens, the State and the environment. For citizens: it would mean having a legal tool that would allow individuals and groups to take legal action against their governments to demand that they meet their climate targets, halt polluting projects, or implement plans to adapt to climate change and its effects. For society as a whole: it represents an opportunity to forge a new social contract that places sustainability and intergenerational justice at its core. For states: it would mean much stricter accountability at different levels of government. From climate agreements at international summits to local government resolutions, all would become legally enforceable commitments. Urban planning, energy policy and water management, for example, would inevitably have to pass through the filter of human rights. P. Cotarelo and O. Mayoral