Defining Nature: Who’s Talking? The concept of nature in legal cases with Rights of Nature in Ecuador : a frame/framing analysis of interpretations of nature, underlying factors and recommended actions

Sammanfattning: Since 2008, the Ecuadorian constitution grants intrinsic rights to nature. However, scholars highlight the stark contrast between the intended philosophy of rights of nature (RoN) and its implementation. The concept of “nature” in the constitution is left relatively undefined, hence open for interpretation of any actor in court. Departing from social constructivism, nature is being defined and possibly legally determined by involved actors through every legal case, resulting in different socially constructed realities with differing representations of nature. Exploring these different frames/framing of nature in the context of RoN is valuable seeing their potential impact as jurisprudence, and can contribute to constructive future policy improvement (Van Hulst & Yanow, 2016). Furthermore, recommendations of actors, involved in RoN, on subsequent courses of action teaches us about concrete possibilities for improvement of RoN implementation. In 14 semi-structured interviews with various actors involved in Ecuadorian RoN cases, information was gathered to ultimately answer the research question: “Which interpretations of “nature” can be distinguished in the context of legal cases with Rights of Nature in Ecuador, what are they based on and which recommended subsequent courses of action are part of these frames?”. Frame- and framing analysis was used to explore different frames, including understanding why actors define nature as they do and why they recommend certain subsequent courses of action. The analysis aims to “translate back” the definitions of nature within cases and recommended subsequent actions expressed during the interviews, to their underlying reasonings that influence actors’ sense-making. It is shown how four definitions of nature and two recommendations subsequent courses of action are underpinned by worldviews, beliefs, legislative articles, identities and roles and power relations, perceived by interviewees based on their experiences, emotions, expectations and personal backgrounds (Van Hulst & Yanow, 2016). Resulting are four frames prevailing in Ecuadorian RoN rulings, based on the definitions of nature as 1) constitutional article 71; 2) only air, water and soil; 3) something irrelevant; and 4) resources to be exploited. These definitions are coupled to underlying factors, including i.a. a focus on restauration in trials, limited knowledge of judges and an occidental background with anthropocentric worldview. Influenced by these and other factors, interviewees also recommended 1) defining nature’s standards with an interdisciplinary group of experts and 2) educating the juridical community. Furthermore, which frames actually prevail in rulings as well as the frames themselves, is highly influenced by unequal power relations between the juridical community and the government. Economic interests of the government indirectly cause judges, who tend to feel governmental pressure, to favor interests of extractive sector companies over the RoN, so governmental frames of nature dominate the rulings. However, this is the current situation; diminishing governmental influence could lead to different frames appearing in future rulings. Exploring these frames is recommended for future research.