Environmental Rights (and Responsibilities)?

'Rights' are a rightly valued human concept. Countries, such as Ecuador and Bolivia have, however, gone as far as to enshrine 'rights' for the natural world. The UK's Law Society seem to broadly support this approach. A report entitled 'Law in the Emerging Bio Age', maintains that legal frameworks have key roles to play in governing human interactions with the environment and biotechnology (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/10/give-legal-rights-to-animals-trees-and-rivers-say-experts). This Law Society report argues that giving legal 'rights' to animals, trees and rivers, could facilitate effective prosecutions for e.g. 'ecocide' (destruction of whole ecologies). Whilst favouring increased environmental protections, I'm unsure that confirming rights on non-human animals, vegetation and geographical features is the best way to go. Rights always imply responsibilities. Humans have a 'right' (often violated) not to be killed by another human. They also, however, have a responsibility not to kill their fellow folk. Non-human animals, however, can't be held responsible for their actions. Are you going to prosecute a river for flooding and/or drowning someone? What about a tree dropping its leaves dangerously onto a railway track? It's also obvious that animals, trees and rivers are unable to instigate legal actions, when their 'rights' are violated. They have to rely on human advocates. Personally, I think that beefing up legal protections is the way to improve environmental protections. It's good, however, that environmental issues are receiving wider attention from legal folk.