History of Ecocentrism
- nina.sfgirl
- 1 day ago
- 6 min read
by Nina Munteanu
June 15, 2026 - 09
---------------
The Sustainability Thread is a thematic series of articles, curated by Canadian SF author Nina Munteanu and sponsored by Reality Skimming Press. Pieces in the series appear twice a month Query Nina Munteanu about appearing on the thread at nina.sfgirl@gmail.com
---------------
Doing the Sustainability Tango: The Evolutionary Dance of Ecocentrism
According to The Ecological Citizen, ecocentrism is a worldview that “sees the ecosphere as the matrix which birthed all life and as life’s sole source of sustenance.” Simply put, ecocentrism is a concept or value system that acknowledges the intrinsic existential value of all aspects of Earth’s many ecosystems to sustain all life. Proponents of ecocentrism—and I am one of them—hold that this worldview is critical to achieving a sustainable Earth.
Components of Ecocentrism
Ecocentrism incorporates ethical, evolutionary & ecological, and spiritual aspects:
Ethical: Ecocentrism expands the moral community (and ethics) by including all life that is interrelated. “There is compelling philosophical and scientific justification for extending moral concern to all of the ecosphere, both its biotic and abiotic components.” Ecocentrism is not only concerned with humanity; ecocentrism respects and cares for all life and all ecosystems—aquatic, terrestrial, other. By its inclusive nature, ecocentrism does not ‘other’ species or component of the natural world or prioritize one species (e.g. humans) over others.
Evolutionary & Ecological: ecocentrism acknowledges that Homo sapiens evolved from the legacy provided by a rich web of life on Earth over some 3.5 billion years. Ecocentrism recognizes an interdependent biological kinship among all species and need for biodiversity to maintain healthy functional ecosystems; this confers moral responsibilities toward all species and systems and emphasizes humanity’s dependency on global ecosystem processes.
Spiritual: Ecocentric values may be fused into nature-based spiritualities that hold ecosystems and parts of ecosystems sacred and worthy of reverent care and defense.
The History of Ecocentrism
International recognition for the intrinsic value of nature has had a mixed history and evolution, bouncing back and forth from a clear ecocentric view to a more utilitarian anthropocentric view—likely informed by global economic pressures and current geopolitics.
1972 to 1992: The 1972 Stockholm Declaration was anthropocentric, as was the World Conservation Strategy in 1980. However, in 1982, the World Charter for Nature in 1982 contained strong ecocentric principles; The charter stipulated that humanity and culture are part of nature. In 1987, the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future argued that development: “must not endanger the natural systems that support life on Earth: the atmosphere, the waters, soils, and living beings.” A little-noticed passage expressed the view that nature has intrinsic value, though this concept was not expanded on. The accompanying Tokyo Declaration was anthropocentric, as was the later Rio Declaration in 1992.
2000 to 2010: In 2000, the Earth Charter strongly advanced an ecocentric worldview, urging that humanity “recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human beings.” However the Johannesburg Declaration in 2002 did not endorse the Earth Charter. The UN Rio +20 Summit The Future We Want also did not recognize the nature’s intrinsic value. In 2008, Ecuador enshrined Rights for Nature as part of its new Constitution. And in 2010 Bolivia passed the Law of the Rights of Mother Earth..
2015 to Present Day: UN Sustainable Development Goals of 2015 failed to mention ecocentrism, the intrinsic value of nature, or even acknowledge the rights of nature.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022 at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15), was adopted by 196 countries with 23 targets to reverse habitat and species loss. Target 3, with the catchphrase “30 by 30” aims to protect and manage 30% of the world’s terrestrial, inland water, and coastal and marine areas by the year 2030; the goal now forms the cornerstone of Canada’s A Force of Nature strategy.
The most recent globally adopted framework for sustainability is the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, outlining 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) meant to eradicate poverty, fight inequality, and protect the planet. In the November 2025 COP 30 in Belem Brazil, the Rights of Nature was seriously discussed by various representatives and became a prominent theme, espoused by Indigenous groups and the Rights of Nature Tribunal, resulting in historic rulings from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, powerful new national and local laws, and three major sessions of the International Rights of Nature Tribunal. Despite lack of global consensus and framework, these developments signal a profound shift in jurisprudence globally, reports The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN).
According to GARN, a significant movement has accelerated across Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Serbia, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, France.
Highlights of ecocentric achievements include:
Brazil introduces a Constitutional Amendment to recognize Nature as a subject of fundamental rights.
Paris grant honorary citizenship to the Seine River, symbolically affirming its status as a living ecosystem deserving protection.
Ecuador holds a Local Tribunal on mining, and courts recognize the Irquis River and Lake San Pablo as subjects of rights.
Aotearoa/New Zealand grant Te Kāhui Tupua (Mount Taranaki and the surrounding landscape) legal personhood.
The UK sees historic motions across Hampshire, Lewes, Basingstoke and Deane, Southampton, and Test Valley recognizing the rights of rivers.
Serbia advances the world’s first national draft law for the Rights of Rivers.
Switzerland considers constitutional recognition for the Reuss River.
Colombia recognizes the Páramo de Santurbán and passed Law 2533, granting rights to the Aburrá River.
Peru recognizes Lake Titicaca and its tributaries as rights-bearing entities.
U.S. communities advance Rights of Nature legislation in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and celebrate the self-ownership of Pyramid Mountain in Colorado.
Canada sees Indigenous-led advances, including the Alderville First Nation declaring Rice Lake a legal person.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights issues Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, which affirms for the first time that Nature itself can hold rights—a legal milestone with hemispheric implications.
Ecocentrism: Anti-Human or Earth Jurisprudence?
Critics of ecocentrism have labelled it ‘anti-human’, or contrary to concerns for social justice. In fact, ecocentrism supports inter-species justice (ecojustice) by incorporating justice on a larger scale. Ecojustice casts a wider net for justice: not just for one group (humans) at the cost of other life. This form of justice integrates all life and life-support systems through a recognition that all systems—human and non-human—are interrelated and need each other long term. It’s really about playing the long-game to survive. Ecocentrism is rooted in the understanding that we are latecomers to what Leopold called “the odyssey of evolution.” This understanding leads to empathy for our fellow inhabitants and to humility, since in this process we are no different from many other species.
Humanity’s confusing dance between anthropocentric and ecocentric views reflects the continued tension between the hegemony of anthropocentrism (practiced by government, academia and religious communities in service to patriarchal capitalism) and the existential logic of ecocentrism. Unfortunately, domestic and international governments and even academia (all driven by corporate industry) march to the conceit of anthropocentric ideology and short-term thinking. Terms such as “ecosystem service”, “strong sustainability”, “sustainable development” and “new conservation” reflect a bias of productivity over sustainability, evident even within the so-called objective scientific community, whose research topics are not only driven by the capitalist machine through funding choices but may include compromised reporting by industry scientists in the scientific literature. I challenge my fellow scientists—ecologists and climate scientists—to remain not only objective in your work but to courageously speak out. As a scientist who has had her science oppressed, I understand what this means.
Without an ecocentric value shift that recognizes the intrinsic value of the natural world and a corresponding Earth jurisprudence, we will not achieve sustainability.
---------------
References:
Cryer, Paul, et al. 2017. “Why ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability.” MAHB, July 4, 2017.
Gray, Joe, Ian Whyte, and Patrick Curry. 2018. “Ecocentrism: What it means and what it implies.” The Ecological Citizen Vol 1 No 2: 130.
Haines, Arthur. 2014. “Qualities of Ecocentric Communities.” Arthur Haines.com. December 18, 2014.
---------------
Nina Munteanu is an Canadian ecologist, author, editor and writing coach, notably but not exclusively in the realm of Speculative Fiction (SF/F). In addition to nine published novels, Munteanu has written short stories, articles and non-fiction books, which have been translated into several languages throughout the world. Munteanu is a member of SF Canada.
Nina Munteanu on LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ninamunteanu/
Nina Munteanu Writing Coach. https://ninamunteanu.me/
Nina Munteanu (Wikipedia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Munteanu
---------------
References
NA
Image Credits
Munteanu, N. , 2026. Richmond sun on Fraser.