Change Initiative, in collaboration with the Maleya Foundation, hosted the session “Sovereignty of Nature: Economics, Politics, and the Financing Mechanism of Natural Rights-Led Governance” yesterday (12 November), the fourth day of COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye.
The keynote set out four tests of natural rights-led governance (NRLG) at the national, cross-boundary and global level: the economy, shared rivers, employment and finance, reads a press release.
A panel of ethnic minority and traditional leaders from Bolivia, the Philippines, Nepal and Malawi then took the discussion to the ground, before delegates, including government representatives from Malawi and participants from Bangladesh.
Their shared message: nature is a rights-holder, not a commodity, and its rights cannot be protected without the people who belong to it.
Natural rights-led governance recognises nature as a rights-holder and requires governance to respect ecological limits and safeguard future generations.
Building on the question Change Initiative raised at COP30 in Belém, who is sovereign, the Antalya session asked what that answer is worth in practice.
Opening the keynote, Samira Basher Roza, research analyst, Change Initiative, framed the stakes from her home delta. “I come from Bangladesh, a delta where rivers shape where people live, what they grow and whether they can stay in their homes.
“For us, the question of who speaks for a river is a practical one. Governments can negotiate a water allocation, but the river still needs enough water to stay alive.”
She showed how today’s economic accounting rewards destruction.
Change Initiative estimates that the August glacier-collapse flood in Nepal’s Langtang Valley caused about$1.95 billion in damage and losses, some 4.3% of Nepal’s GDP. The rebuilding will be counted as growth, while the loss of ecological wealth is not counted at all.
In 2023, for every dollar spent protecting and restoring nature, more than $30 went to activities that harm it.
In the 44 least developed countries, disaster losses average about 3.2% of GDP a year, cancelling out roughly 92% of their economic growth, yet only about 50 cents of every$100 in international disaster aid goes to prevention.
In Bangladesh, the press release says, nearly 70% of the estimated human cost of disasters comes from recurring small and medium events.
The natural rights-led governance rule, Samira explained, is to set aside what an ecosystem needs to stay healthy first, then let people use only what nature regrows above that reserve.
Delivering the main keynote, M Zakir Hossain Khan, co-founder and chief executive of Change Initiative and proponent of the natural rights-led governance model, presented the evidence behind four hypotheses.
According to the keynote, in Bangladesh’s Hail Haor wetland, protection under co-management is worth about$59 million in today’s value, against$33–41 million for converting it to rice or overfishing it, at the government’s official 12% discount rate.
On shared rivers, he pointed to the Senegal River, where Mali, Mauritania and Senegal co-own their dams under a fixed cost-and-benefit formula, arguing that a renewed Ganges treaty, which expires in December, should reserve a minimum flow for the delta and the Sundarbans before dividing water.
Change Initiative’s analysis finds that every$100 billion a year spent on caring for nature could pay for 7–17 million jobs, and that charging those who damage nature could raise$442–892 billion a year once fully in place, without adding new debt.
“Nature does not recognise political boundaries, nor does it operate by man-made governance systems,” said Zakir.
“Nature does not care what we negotiate in COP summits unless we align with natural systems, natural laws and natural science. Oxygen and fresh water are non-negotiable. Protecting nature is not only a survival lifeline for the planet; it is the foundation for sustainable employment, genuine peace and human well-being.”
Change Initiative’s asks at COP31 include a minimum ecological flow in the renewed Ganges treaty and in national climate plans, joint river funds for the Ganges–Sundarbans and Indus deltas, a planetary stewardship corps offering paid work to young people who look after nature, polluter-pays levies earmarked for ecosystems and their caretakers and guardian seats for ecosystems and future generations on climate-fund boards.
Wara Iris Ruiz Condori, Aymara youth leader from Bolivia, challenged the language of “natural resources” itself.
“For some, nature is something we possess, something we use, manage, protect or finance. For many Indigenous peoples, nature is someone we belong to. The Earth is my mother, the river is my brother and the mountain is my grandfather. As we discuss economics, politics and financing here at COP31, let us move from recognition to the redistribution of power, from commitments to implementation, and from consultation to genuine self-determination.”
Helen Biangalen-Magata, indigenous leader from Mountain Province, Philippines, raised the practical question of who speaks for nature.
“If nature has rights, who represents nature? We cannot establish the rights of nature while disregarding the rights or customary governance systems of the Indigenous peoples who have sustained these relationships for generations. If we do not place human rights at the centre of financial mechanisms, the rights of nature can easily turn into another tool for commodification.”
Sharana Sherpa, indigenous leader from Nepal and communication executive, Center for Indigenous Peoples’ Research and Development (CIPRED), described customary systems that already govern nature in Nepal, from the Tharu community’s Badghar for water and local disputes, to Kipat in the mid-hills and the Sherpa Shinggi Nawa in the high mountains.
She cited the case of sisnu, the stinging nettle, which began to disappear once protected-area rules stopped communities harvesting it. “Restricting indigenous access undermines conservation rather than helping it. Discussions on nature sovereignty must centre Indigenous peoples’ rights, free, prior and informed consent, and customary governance.”
Adding to her remarks, Pasang D Sherpa, executive director, CIPRED, said, “Human rights form the baseline of environmental protection. Rights-based conservation succeeds only through formal legal recognition of customary Indigenous institutions.”
Ngwenyama Inkosi ya Makhosi Gomani V (Willard Mswati Gomani), king of the Maseko Ngoni, Malawi, described a tree-planting project near a village that failed within a year because the community was neither consulted nor given ownership.
“If we were to hold a conversation with nature, nature would say, ‘I am because you are, and you are because nature is.’ Without genuine community partnership, substantial financial resources will be spent with nothing lasting achieved. We do not view ourselves as owners of nature, but as its keepers and trustees. What we decide today is not just for ourselves, but for generations to come.”
In a closing intervention from the floor, a participant from Bangladesh pointed to the Karnaphuli and Halda rivers, whose sources in the Chittagong Hill Tracts are protected by upstream ethnic minority communities, and urged that the value of that stewardship be counted alongside downstream water use.
About The Author
