Taranaki Maunga’s personhood is far more than symbolic

New Zealand’s decision to give Taranaki Maunga legal personhood is far more than symbolic — it re‑writes how the state, courts, and communities can relate to the mountain as an entity with rights and duties. (The Guardian)
In parallel, Peru’s courts have done something similarly radical for a river: the Marañón River was recognized as a rights‑bearing being in March 2024, and that judgment was confirmed later in 2024. (Eco Jurisprudence Monitor)
Meanwhile, in India, a 2024 study comparing sacred groves with Prosopis‑invaded stands revealed that the sacred groves often outperformed invaded lands in many carbon, productivity, and nutrient metrics — reinforcing arguments about the ecological efficacy of culturally protected landscapes. (PMC)

---

Key elements & tensions

Taranaki Maunga (New Zealand)

• The law names the mountain and its environs collectively Te Kāhui Tupua as a “living and indivisible whole” with legal standing. (Eco Jurisprudence Monitor)
• Governance will be shared: half of the board appointed by Māori iwi, half by the Crown (Conservation Minister). (1News)
• It completes a multi‑year Treaty settlement process initiated in 2017. (Eco Jurisprudence Monitor)
• This is the third natural feature in New Zealand to receive personhood (following Te Urewera forest in 2014, Whanganui River in 2017). (Terrain.org)
• The change also formally restores its Māori name, retiring the colonial “Mount Egmont.” (The Guardian)

Marañón River (Peru)

• The 2024 ruling by the Superior Court of Justice of Loreto recognized rights such as: existence, flow, ecological functions, freedom from contamination, restoration, biodiversity, and regeneration. (elaw.org)
• The Kukama people were named guardians (representatives) of the river and its tributaries. (Eco Jurisprudence Monitor)
• The Civil Court of Loreto later upheld the decision in October 2024—solidifying legal backing. (Earth Law Center)
• That ruling responds to centuries of environmental harm (notably oil spills in the Amazon corridor) and contestations over state/industrial accountability. (Inside Climate News)

India sacred groves vs. Prosopis invasion

• The 2024 study sampled 50 sacred groves and 50 Prosopis (invasive) stands, comparing carbon stock, flux, functional diversity, nutrient stocks, and soil properties. (PMC)
• Findings: sacred groves maintained higher functional diversity, greater evenness in many cases, and stronger ecosystem function metrics overall. (PMC)
• The invaded stands (Prosopis) had higher photosynthetic rates in some cases, but they also showed tradeoffs (e.g. higher soil erosion in sacred groves under some conditions). (PMC)
• So while invasives can exhibit high productivity, they often lack the integrative functions and resilience of culturally maintained groves. (PMC)

---

Practical levers & what to watch for

• Co‑designed guardian boards: blending Indigenous and state roles is increasingly standard (as seen in Taranaki’s board).
• Impact statements for rivers/mountains: analogous to Environmental Impact Assessments, but tailored to the rights and duties of the natural entity.
• Rights‑of‑nature compliance frameworks: legal monitoring, enforcement, remedying violations, ensuring restoration.
• Watch for how courts handle conflicts of rights (e.g. development vs natural rights) and liability regimes when a “person” is harmed.
• Also important: how Indigenous epistemologies (spiritual, relational) are translated into secular law without being co‑opted or diluted.

WE&P by: EZorrillaMc.