'Biodiversity, a 'regrettable' solution for climate change?' A discourse analysis on the governing of biodiversity by Transnational Climate Initiatives
Summary
The loss of biodiversity is argued to be among the largest environmental problems today as it impairs
the long-term viability of the world’s ecosystems. In order to halt this complex problem, it is
increasingly argued that there is a need to move away from ‘cockpit-ism’ and instead include a broader
range of actors. This recognized potential of non-state actors sheds light on another challenge, in
which there is increasingly attention drawn to nature by actors operating outside the biodiversity
domain – notably in terms of Nature-Based Solutions (NbS). Biodiversity or nature are here
constructed as potential ‘solutions’ for a range of issues, such as climate change. However, framing
nature or biodiversity as a ‘solution’ or ‘service’ for issues such as climate change, will result in certain
biodiversity aspects to be overlooked or downplayed. Nevertheless, there are notable gaps in the
understanding of framing and governing of biodiversity by actors operating outside the classic
biodiversity domain. Especially interesting are the actors who already derived ‘legitimacy to act’ for
being proactive on climate change and are increasingly entering the biodiversity arena - Transnational
Climate Initiatives (TCI). Therefore, this research aims to get a better understanding in how biodiversity
is framed and governed by TCI by performing a discourse analysis. This research draws on a
governmentality lens of Michel Foucault which assists in assessing how TCI define the problem of
biodiversity (so-called ‘rationalities') and how these are governed through techniques and accordingly,
how they generate the authority to exert their influence. This research reveals two overarching
rationales of biodiversity as a means to climate change and biodiversity loss as ‘risk’ which are
rendered governable through a myriad of techniques, such as standards, tools and guidelines. Through
the ‘taken-for-granted’ and habitual nature of these rationales and techniques, these TCI gain
authority to exert their influence. However, a governmentality lens points to several dangers in
constructing biodiversity as ‘extended administrative domain’ of climate change in which biodiversity
is reduced to their function or service they have for combatting climate change. Consequently, this
study argues that framing and constructing biodiversity in terms of ‘services’ or ‘solutions’ could turn
into a dangerous, ‘regrettable solution’.