Reprising environmental personhood – representation and the construction of knowledge

Purpose The purpose of this analysis is to assess the concept of environmental personhood as a mechanism for the provision of rights for rivers. This paper aims to conceptualise personhood as one of the techniques of acknowledging and protecting river rights, noting the relationship between environmental personhood in the Australian context and some Indigenous ontologies. Design/methodology/approach Using a conventional legal case study methodology, the analysis considers the claims by environmental groups involved in proceedings that certain environmental features have significance to Indigenous groups as sacred and that they should be preserved from resource development, alongside the modern legitimising arguments supporting post-Enlightenment legal systems. Findings The case studies demonstrate the vulnerability of the complex translation of Indigenous spirituality to bureaucratic processes required by planning and environmental law and in litigation. Research limitations/implications These case studies are based on Australian law and focus on two events thirty years apart. The jurisdictional constructs of law, however, are one of the issues with the concept of environmental personhood. Practical implications These case studies are practical applications of a theoretical construct and so demonstrate a practical matter. However, they are highly place-based, both in terms of the environmental and Indigenous claims and in terms of the legal rules. Social implications These case studies demonstrate a set of serious ethical considerations in the translation and construction of environmental and Indigenous claims. Originality/value The analysis is an original contribution to the scholarship because it demonstrates the dangers of these multiple translation tasks in the processes of representation of both environmental and Indigenous interests.