Show simple item record

dc.rights.licenseCC-BY-NC-ND
dc.contributor.advisorBulkeley, Harriet
dc.contributor.authorFransen, A.
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-02T18:00:13Z
dc.date.available2021-09-02T18:00:13Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.urihttps://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/939
dc.description.abstractThe 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’.
dc.description.sponsorshipUtrecht University
dc.format.extent2725631
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.title'Biodiversity, a 'regrettable' solution for climate change?' A discourse analysis on the governing of biodiversity by Transnational Climate Initiatives
dc.type.contentMaster Thesis
dc.rights.accessrightsOpen Access
dc.subject.keywordsBiodiversity; Governmentality; Transnational Governance; Transnational Climate Initiatives (TCI); Discourse Analysis
dc.subject.courseuuSustainable Development


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record