Perceptions of biodiversity and related concepts. Report No D1.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B

1.1.5 2 PLANET4B receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101082212. This project is funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee. This work has received funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions are of those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland. The European Union, the European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland cannot be held responsible for them. iii Key deliverable information Deliverable number D1.1 Deliverable title Perceptions of biodiversity and related concepts Task leader Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) Corresponding author Mirjam Schleiffer Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description This report is the result of a systematic analysis of recent academic and grey literature, including images and posters, and print and digital media, and identifies the relationships between different social groups’ worldviews, values, ideologies, politics their discourses on biodiversity, its communication and achieved impacts. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 19/04/2023 Authors: Mirjam Schleiffer (FiBL); Barbara Smith (CU); Rebekka Frick (FiBL); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Donna Udall (CU); György Pataki (ESSRG); Grania Cooke; Frode Singsaas (NINA); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Carmen Czett (ESSRG); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI); Linda Fitzka (IFZ); Blanka Loučková (CG); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Robert Home (FiBL) 0.2 Draft 21/04/2023 Reviewers: Alex Franklin (CU); Agnes Zolyomi 0.3 Draft 26/04/2023 Authors: Mirjam Schleiffer (FiBL); Barbara Smith (CU); Rebekka Frick (FiBL); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Donna Udall (CU); György Pataki (ESSRG); Grania Project acronym PLANET4B Project title understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making Starting date 01st November 2022 Duration 36 months Website https://planet4b.eu/ Project coordination and scientific lead team Ilkhom Soliev; Alex Franklin; Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler iv Cooke; Frode Singsaas (NINA); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Carmen Czett (ESSRG); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI); Linda Fitzka (IFZ); Blanka Loučková (CG); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Robert Home (FiBL) 0.4 Draft 28/04/2023 Reviewers: Alex Franklin (CU); Agnes Zolyomi 1.0 Final 30/04/2023 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Alex Franklin (CU); Sebastien Kaye; Torsten Wähler (MLU); Agnes Zolyomi Recommended citation Schleiffer, M., Smith, B., Frick, R., Bredin, Y., Sabir, G., Udall, D., Pataki, G., Cooke, G., Singsaas, F., Soliev, I., Czett, C., Bonetti, M., Villa, M., Fitzka, L., Loučková, B., Mendes, V., & Home, R. (2023). Perceptions of biodiversity and related concepts. Report No D1.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14865522 Rights and license This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all PLANET4B partners for their support and contribution to this task. Their knowledge of the local situation in each partner country was invaluable for collecting the materials and for validating the findings. v List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition AT Austria CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CH Switzerland CU University of Coventry DHA Discourse Historical Analysis ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung FDP Freisinnig-Demokratische Partei FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FPÖ Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs FT Financial Times HN Hospodarske noviny IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture IT Italy MDG Miljøpartiet de Grønne MLU Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg M5S Movimento 5 Stelle NGO Non-governmental organisation NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research NO Norway NZZ Neue Zürcher Zeitung ÖVP Österreichische Volkspartei RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RU Radboud University SLS Stiftung Landschaftsschutz Schweiz SP Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz SPÖ Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs SVP Schweizerische Volkspartei SZ Süddeutsche Zeitung TA Tages Anzeiger UNIPI University of Pisa WBSCD World Business Concil for Sustainable Development WEF World Economic Forum WWF World Wide Fund for Nature 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information .................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. iv List of abbreviations and acronyms ....................................................................... v Executive summary .................................................................................................. 2 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2 1.1 Overview of the deliverable ........................................................................................ 3 1.2 Theoretical background: discourse historical approach ......................................... 4 1.3 Operationalising the discourse historical approach ................................................ 6 2 Academic literature review ................................................................................... 8 2.1 Method .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Results .......................................................................................................................... 9 3 Biodiversity discourse in news outlets ............................................................. 22 3.1 Method ........................................................................................................................ 22 3.2 Results ........................................................................................................................ 24 4 Biodiversity discourse of political parties ........................................................ 34 4.1 Methods ...................................................................................................................... 34 4.2 Results ........................................................................................................................ 36 5 Biodiversity discourse of environmental NGOs ............................................... 44 5.1 Method ........................................................................................................................ 44 5.2 Results ........................................................................................................................ 46 6 Biodiversity discourse in business and industry ............................................. 51 6.1 Method ........................................................................................................................ 51 6.2 Results ........................................................................................................................ 52 7 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 58 7.1 Plural values of biodiversity ..................................................................................... 59 7.2 Rhetoric function ....................................................................................................... 60 7.3 Country specific observations ................................................................................. 62 7.4 Initial reflections on and some limitations of the work .......................................... 68 8 Conclusion and outlook ...................................................................................... 69 References .............................................................................................................. 71 Statement on data availability ............................................................................... 75 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................ 75 Annexes ................................................................................................................... 76 Annex 1. Overview of discourses in academic articles ............................................... 76 Annex 2. Full list of reviewed academic articles ........................................................... 78 2 Executive summary • This report provides insight into the biodiversity discourse by biodiversityrelevant actor groups in Europe. • The absence of a common understanding of biodiversity allows actor groups to choose rhetoric strategically. • Biodiversity discourse is used strategically to persuade, gather custom or support, or justify action or inaction. • Anthropocentric values are mostly used when arguing both for and against biodiversity conservation. • The biodiversity discourse is dominated by rhetoric of warning, persuading, calling for action, accusing, and informing. • The rhetoric used in biodiversity discourse differs between countries. • Knowledge of societal discourses are valuable to tailor interventions to promote biodiversity, such as those in PLANET4B case studies. 1 Introduction “Don’t know what biodiversity is? You can’t. Perhaps biodiversity is an appropriate term. The confusion it conveys reveals our pathetic weakness in thinking we can define, know, and control a nature that will always dance just beyond our grasp.” (David Takacs, 1996, p. 341) The meaning we assign to the world around us influences the way we behave and treat things. Therefore, it is of great importance to better understand how society views and understands fundamental challenges of our time, such as biodiversity loss. This knowledge will help to make social, political, or economic interventions more effective in preserving and enhancing biodiversity and also help communicate adequately about the issue of biodiversity loss. What is biodiversity? The term: ‘biodiversity’ is attributed to Walter G. Rosen who coined the term in 1986 at the conference of The National Forum on Biodiversity. It was an attempt to attract attention to the mass decline of species and destruction of natural ecosystems by humans (Jetzkowitz et al., 2012, Töpfer, 2019). Rosen intended to create room for ‘emotion and spirit’ in the scientific concept of ‘biological diversity’, so used a play on words by removing the ‘logical’ and merging the parts; thus ending up with the term ‘biodiversity’ (Rosen 1992, in Takacs 1996). Nowadays, the definitions given to the term are less emotionally loaded. For example, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services (IPBES) defines biodiversity as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. This includes variation in genetic, phenotypic, phylogenetic, and functional attributes, as well as changes in abundance and distribution over time and space within and among species, biological communities and ecosystems.” However, since 1986 the term biodiversity has massively gained prominence in public, policy and science. Biodiversity has become a rather fuzzy term; being used in various 3 contexts and relations, serving as an umbrella term for anything related to nature conservation or nature protection (Töpfer, 2019), or even as a “scientizied synonym for nature” (Takacs, 1996, p. 106). Whether such vagueness is powerful can be debated. Certainly, it has supported the term in becoming prominent (Töpfer, 2019). What is a discourse? The issue of biodiversity loss, like most environmental issues, is complex, with many associated factors including habitat destruction and degradation, agricultural intensification, climate change, urbanisation, pollution, and introduced species and interconnected with all facets of modern life (Wagner, 2020). In order to deal with such issues, humans build their own understanding of the situation and try to make meaning of things (Dryzek, 2005). These meanings are socially constructed and also expressed in language as a discourse. A discourse contains “representations and systems of meaning” (Howarth, 2010, p. 311), is intersubjective, and reproduced and transformed by those who subscribe to it. Therefore, discourses are highly dependent on the context and subjective experiences of their meaning-making actors (Dryzek, 2005). Analysing discourses provides insight into how a group of people understand a certain issue and reveals a common worldview, the values and often beliefs that are attached to the problem, and potential solutions (Adger et al., 2002; Dryzek, 2005, Dryzek, 2013). Thereby discourses can coordinate the actions of large groups of people who subscribe to a shared understanding of the world. Why do discourses matter? Discourses matter because they embody power relations by implying values and thereby can support or suppress the interests of actors (Foucault, 1980). Proponents of discourses strive to make their understanding of a phenomenon the dominant story or the only true story, the latter being known as discursive hegemony (Hajer, 1995). When discourses become dominant, their understood power relations manifest in the real world through structuration and institutionalisation. Structuration describes the process when a certain phenomenon, and how it relates to the world, is repeatedly conceptualised in the same way (e.g. the reference of biodiversity as ecosystem services). Institutionalisation happens when understandings are further manifested in laws, policies, or institutions (Hajer, 2006). The availability of discourses in society influences our perception of what is possible and acceptable (Spash and Aslaksen, 2015). The analysis of dominant and alternative discourses in society help to understand why certain measures are taken and fostered or not. 1.1 Overview of the deliverable Aim With this analysis of the societal discourse on biodiversity, we aim to gain an understanding of how different social groups perceive and communicate about biodiversity, the worldview this implies, and how perceptions, communication, and worldviews intersect with values. In order to do so, we start by reviewing the existing academic literature on biodiversity discourses and identify the main discourses and implied values (section 2). Based on this we conduct discourse analysis using a Discourse-Historical Approach (the approach described in detail in subsection 1.2) on materials produced by four different biodiversity-relevant actor groups in Europe (news outlets, political parties, environmental NGOs, and business and industry leaders). The exact procedure for the analysis within each of these groups is described in the respective sections (3–6). Ultimately, the results of the different sub-analyses are discussed jointly, and the discourses within actor groups are discussed in relation to 4 the scientific literature identified in the systematic review (section 7). We investigate whether the term biodiversity is understood in the wider community and whether lack of understanding may leave the term open to use, or perhaps abuse, by actor groups to further their agenda. We hypothesise that the language used in the biodiversity discourse can be chosen by actor groups strategically with the intention of persuading an audience to take action or inaction, with influences on biodiversity outcomes, or to justify or explain their own action or inaction. When considering societal discourse on biodiversity, it is important to remember that Europe is not homogenous but rather contains a wide variety of cultures who may understand, and use, the term ‘biodiversity’ differently. With consideration of the resource constraints of PLANET4B, we differentiate our analysis between European countries. Project partners from Italy, U.K., Switzerland, Czech Republic, The Netherlands, Hungary, Germany, Norway, and Austria each collected data that enabled the analysis of the discourse used by news outlets. Financial resources and the associated time restrictions did not allow data on political parties and environmental NGOs to be collected from every partner country, so these analyses are restricted to Italy, Switzerland, Norway and Austria for the analysis of the publications from political parties; and to the U.K., Switzerland, and Norway for the analysis of publications by NGOs. The specific focus on the four actor groups in different national contexts enables us to deepen our knowledge of the PLANET4B target groups (civil society, policy makers, and business representatives), which will be used to inform the next steps within the project, and contribute to the Expected Outcome 1: “Conceptual understanding of how the terms biodiversity, ecosystem services and nature-based solutions are perceived by and communicated to the key target groups”. In this study, we chose to focus on biodiversity, rather than ecosystem services and nature based solutions, because these are anthropocentric ways of evaluating biodiversity (along with intrinsic and science-centric). In that way, gaining an understanding of how biodiversity is perceived, valued, and communicated inherently includes an understanding of the roles of these anthropocentric perspectives. This report covers extensive research work in four identified actor groups: news outlets, political parties, environmental NGOs, and business and industry leaders along with a review of academic literature on the topic of the biodiversity discourse. It is therefore extensive. However, we anticipate that some readers will only be interested in the discourse among specific actor groups, so each section is structured as a stand-alone text. We have therefore included methodological information for each of these groups in their respective sections, which may lead to some repetition. 1.2 Theoretical background: discourse historical approach This study applies a discourse historical approach (DHA), which provides a structured way of identifying the values and rhetoric functions that are expressed within the texts that are analysed (Reisigl, 2017). Firstly, we use the DHA to identify the plurality of values of biodiversity. The DHA facilitates the identification of the argumentative or strategic use of language by actor groups, which we refer to as “rhetoric function” (Lönngren & van Poeck, 2010), and how the actor groups enlist values to enhance the functions. Finally, we use the DHA to guide the selection of actor groups from which the documents were sourced: namely academia, news outlets, environmental NGOs, business and industry, and political parties. 11 The analysis of the retrieved academic articles revealed nine different types of biodiversity discourses; some with their sub-discourses. These discourses and their sub-discourses are depicted in Figure 5 below, while Table 3 provides a description of the discourses. There appeared to be a value-based range of discourses, illustrated graphically in Figure 5, from totally “uninvolved”, a term suggested by Takala et al. (2022a, pp. 5– 8), and separate from biodiversity, through viewing nature as a repository of resources to be utilised by humans, up to viewing nature as above humanity encompassing all creatures regardless of what properties they possess. There are also discourses that expand across a number of these views and some, such as transcendence, that are conceptually quite distinct and detached from this range of views. Figure 5. Main biodiversity-related discourses and their sub-discourses in academic literature. Table 3. Types of discourses and their popularity within the analysed academic articles. Discourse type Brief Description Nr. of articles referring to discourse type (*) Utilitarian Utilitarian Anthropocentric discourse focused on the utility of biodiversity and ecosystem services’ provision for the benefit of humans. Examples: “[…] nature as a resource to be managed for social welfare” (Lee et al., 2021, p. 2); 28 12 “[…] regulating or supporting [services] as defined in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Examples: pollination, pest control, seed dispersal […] climatic regulation service[, p]rotection against invasive species[, and so on]” (Howard et al., 2018, p. 1568). Economic development “Economic development [discourse…] sees biodiversity as an incoherent sum of natural resources to be extracted, and is reluctant to further biodiversity conservation” (Chalaye, 2022, p. 2). Example: “[…] when diving into ‘non-environmental’ policies, such as transport or agriculture, economic perspectives are almost hegemonic and reference to biodiversity is often completely absent” (Chalaye, 2022, p. 13). 7 Sceptical Whatever needs to get done for biodiversity is already being done. Example: “The sceptical discourse avoids defining the term biodiversity and merely reminds us that high-quality silviculture and forestry ensures that all is well” (Takala et al., 2022, p. 6). 3 Nature as caring and providing Nature is viewed as a nurturing entity that continues providing. 2 Ecological modernisation Nature is viewed as a source of ecological resources that humans utilise efficiently. Examples: “[…] nature is represented in terms of its excellence (I make air) and generosity (I gave it all to them)” (Olausson & Uggla, 2021, p. 362). “[…] nature would be applied and incorporated into existing business models. Emergent concepts in the blend such as ‘green development’, ‘green recovery’ and ‘nature-based solutions’ were commonly used to index this position” (Drury et al., 2022, p. 49). “The concepts of sustainable development and ecological modernization bear a close resemblance to each other, even though both have been interpreted in various ways. […] What we have seen at a rhetorical level is a shift in emphasis from conflicts to consensus, to the reconciliation of economic and environmental considerations” (Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002, p. 238–9). 12 Obligations 13 Moral and Political obligations This discourse relates to humans’ obligations towards biodiversity. It is divided into two streams: 1) Moral obligations: refers to the need to preserve biodiversity out of moral obligation and/or obligations to future generations (e.g. in Blicharska & Grandin, 2013). 2) Political obligation: Humans are politically or legally bound to protect biodiversity. a. Cosmopolitics: “A politics rooted in acknowledgement of the multiple, diverse and constantly transforming beings that constitute the cosmos” (Isabelle Stengers, 2005, in Mitchell, 2016, p. 32). b. Rights: discourse on rights to biodiversity benefits (e.g. knowledge/science) and political recognition and power to control in decisions related to biodiversity. Examples: Moral obligations: “[…] biodiversity conservation was a moral matter” (Blicharska & Grandin, 2015). “Time may be ripe for contemporary environmentalism to move from a morality founded on utility to a morality founded on care” (Muradian & Gomez, 2021, p. 6). Political obligations: “At the local level the arguments related to legal duties to comply with international and national biodiversity legislation and obligations to comply with national and local biodiversity relevant policies” (Carmen et al., 2018, p. 1607). 12 Nature conservation discourses Interventionist This discourse sees intervention in nature and protected areas by humans as necessary to increase and manage biodiversity. It is focused on actions that have the potential to contribute to addressing the issue of biodiversity loss. Example: “Humans were ecosystem engineers that have evolved together with the landscapes that they shape, thus creating niches and habitats that promote higher biodiversity, and cultural and provisioning ES [ecosystem services], especially as represented by traditional sheep husbandry and life styles” (Bredin et al., 2015, p. 204). 4 14 Preservationist This discourse is aims to preserve 'untouched' nature via nature conservation and perceives human interference as harmful for the preservation of biodiversity. Example: “[…] then associating priority conservation value with biodiversity and specifically species protection: ‘a pristine feel can obviously be possible to re-create in a few decades, while a lost species is gone forever’ […]. Many opinions thus emphasized the risks of inaction more than the risks of action” (Steinwall, 2015, p. 8). 11 Responsibility This discourse is concerned about the agents that are responsible for intervening in the issue of biodiversity. Example: “Concerning responsibilities, in the frames of government and civil society the key-role is attributed to business. Although it is recognised that other actors play their part, their role is mainly to support the initiatives taken by the business-community. Businesses themselves do recognise their pivotal role in the protection of biodiversity and are more outspoken about the roles of other actors, in particular governments” (van den Burg & Bogaardt, 2014, p. 183). 4 Solutions and issues with them Solutions and potential issues with the solutions to the issue of biodiversity are discussed and debated in this discourse. Example: “Despite the recognition of the importance of integrating biodiversity in EIA [environmental impact assessment…], there is a lack of transparency regarding EIA documentation among development cooperation actors. There is also a lack of systematic consideration of biodiversity issues, as well as a lack of consensus on how to consider, frame and evaluate the quality of biodiversity integration. Moreover, the position of EIA within decisionmaking and the wider set of processes and tools focusing on biodiversity & development is often not sufficiently clear” (Huge et al., 2017, p. 100). 2 Solidarity Cultural solidarity and values Solidarity or connectedness of humans to nature via culture and identity Example: “At the national level this included biodiversity contributing to ‘‘our national identity and the distinct character of our local communities’’ (Natural England 2011). At a local level 11 15 arguments related to local character and pride were also used, together with the conservation of local industrial heritage” (Carmen et al., 2018, p.1606). Ecological solidarity Ecological solidarity, which considers human emancipation and healthy ecosystems as interdependent, and aims to cultivate reciprocal relationships between them (Chalaye, 2022). Examples: “The distinguishing statements in P4 had metaphorical language and referred to spirit, meaning and systemic connection with nature […], which is why we labelled the perspective Connection. The argument that nature and its diversity make our lives meaningful appealed to the P4 respondents because ‘if we want a healthy environment, we need to stress the inter-connectedness of it all” (Primmer et al., 2017, p. 598). “This indicates that the relationship between farming and biodiversity is understood as intertwined. Both production and biodiversity objectives should be considered in a sustainable balancing act (#31) and biodiversity conservation should not just focus on areas that are unsuitable for production (#14)” (Schaal et al., 2022, p. 6). 9 Holistic (Mother earth) Holistic (Mother Earth) This view places humans as part of nature and nature as a caregiver to all creatures that are equally important. Example: “In response to the ‘‘western view’’, Bolivia proposed an alternative framework that of living-well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth. This position mirrors a law which has been adopted in Bolivia, the ‘‘Law of the Rights of Mother Earth’’ which attributes rights to nature (Bolivia, Law 071, 2010)” (Bonie & Hulme, 2015, p. 492). 6 Biocentric The stance that gives equal intrinsic value to all living things. Example: “Biocentrism argues that all animals and plants possess intrinsic value. In practice this means a biocentric value system requires equal moral consideration to all living things, from a single cell organism to a human being” (Aggestam, 2015, p. 1054). 1 Ecological collapse The view that nature has intrinsic value and humans’ activities are responsible for ecological collapse. Example: 3 16 “[…] Myers (1993) used the metaphor of a “biotic holocaust” in his article “For Dear Life” to describe the irreversible nature of the environmental crisis. […] The metaphors of a library and a museum concretize biodiversity loss, and when connected to the powerful image of uncontrolled fire, they call for immediate action” (Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002, p. 237). Nature as eternal and magnificent Nature’s imagery discourse portrays nature as eternal and magnificent. Example: “[...] pronounced feature of the campaign is that nature, through strategies of nomination, is constructed in terms of what it is, an eternal, magnificent being, rather than in terms of what it does” (Olausson & Uggla, 2021, p. 359). 1 Nature as mighty but delicate Nature needs to be protected by humans (among others through finance and political will). Example: “[…] nature is metaphorically constructed by visual attributes such as thunder storms, calving icebergs and breaking waves, accompanied by the sound of thunder, as well as in verbal statements of what nature is able to accomplish” (Olausson & Uggla, 2021, p. 363). 2 Non-grouped discourses Scientific Specimen logic Biodiversity is valued for it is a repository of scientific knowledge. “In biodiversity images it is individuals and species that are appreciated in the first place, whereas their interactions with their environment and each other are pushed into the background. This decontextualizing, egalitarian logic […] is essential for understanding our conceptualization and appreciation of biodiversity” (Toepfer, 2019, p. 346). 14 Uninvolved “Uninvolved discourse distanced itself from the whole issue [of biodiversity]” (Takala et al., 2022, p. 5). Example: “[…] distancing from the reported impacts implies the recognition, albeit indirect, of negative impacts on biodiversity […]. Nevertheless, these impacts are minimized and seem disconnected from current corporate activities. This distancing can be based on two main approaches: contextualizing the impacts and emphasizing the uncertainties surrounding them” (Boiral, 2014, p. 761). 6 Concerned Concerned discourse showed worry about the loss of biodiversity. 8 17 Example: “In 2019 and 2020, ‘crisis’, which was not used as often in previous years, was increasingly used with ‘biodiversity’” (Ohtani, 2022, p. 371). Transcendence Humanity is not equivalent to Homo Sapiens; thus transcending the biological body. Example: “[…] human and artificial intelligence would merge to produce increasingly powerful and resilient minds unhindered by fleshy bodies vulnerable to biological extinction. Bostrom’s prognoses are permeated with the fear of destruction, but also the techno-millenarian yearning for the transcendence of currently-existing ‘humanity’. Indeed, although they may converge and condition one another, the extinction of Homo sapiens and the extinction of ‘humanity’ are not identical phenomena – a point that Bostrom (2013) himself stresses” (Mitchell, 2016, p. 28). 1 Note: (*) the full list of articles referring to each discourse types can be found in Annex 1. From Uninvolved to Concerned Discourse The uninvolved discourse was reported prominently in the case of Finnish forest owners (Takala et al., 2022) entailing removal of agency or responsibility and either did not recognise biodiversity or placed it distantly: feeling unaffected by it. The discourse has been criticised by Valiverronen & Hellsten (2002) for using uninvolved metaphors or linguistic descriptors for biodiversity, such as “web of life”, and by Drury et al., 2022), for using process nouns such as overconsumption or overfishing. This rhetoric has robbed biodiversity issues of their urgency and removed governments, the public or any other actors from being active agents in this regard. Concerned discourse stands in contrast to uninvolved discourse and recognises biodiversity loss as both a serious issue and a threat. These concerns have been expressed by relating biodiversity protection as a priority for farmland (Schaal et al., 2022), and by viewing loss of biodiversity as the loss of happiness as per the analysis of a politician’s public speech in Norway (Bjærke, 2019). Other popular metaphors used to communicate the issue of biodiversity loss include destruction of the “library of life” (Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002, pp. 229, 231, 234) or a museum of valuable items. The word “crisis” has been coupled with biodiversity, with the coupling becoming prominent (Ohtani, 2022) as concerned voices have risen to overcome the uninvolved discourse. The transcendence discourse is uninvolved in the sense that it deems issues of biodiversity to be irrelevant to the essence of humanity, which is understood as human intelligence transcending the biological human. However, critique over loss of language and culture, which has a relationship to biodiversity, has been noted as inevitably influencing humanity in its abstract sense. 18 Utilitarian Discourse The utilitarian understanding of biodiversity appeared as a deeply anthropocentric approach by putting human benefit at the centre of the biodiversity discourse. The core of this discourse lies in the idea that natural resources are to be utilised for economic development believed to be of utmost benefit to humans. This discourse is prolific and recurrent and commonly reduces biodiversity to its economic value in terms of its potential to generate income. This was expressed not only by forest owners in Finland (Takala et al., 2019) but also by nature conservation professionals in Poland (Blicharska & Grandin, 2015). Despite the ubiquity of the economic valuation of biodiversity, ecosystem services are also commonly related to the social and physical well-being of individuals and society, such as providing opportunities for recreational, new drug development or educational material (Berry et al., 2018; Carmen et al., 2018; Howard et al., 2018; Primmer et al., 2017). Nonetheless, it is the economic value of nature that has allowed the issue to grain traction in political decision-making into four types: namely “economic (expressed as natural resource outputs such as agriculture, forestry, commercial hunting and fishing, and tourism), aesthetic, historic, and educational” (Brunet et al., 2020, p. 1661). The analysis of the articles yielded two sub-categories of the utilitarian discourse: sceptical and economic modernisation. The sceptical discourse refers to Chalaye’s (2022) “ecological urgency scepticism” (p. 14) pointing to economic agents’ efforts in denying the urgency of biodiversity conservation, which is echoed by forest owners (Takala et al., 2022). This branch of biodiversity discourse includes proposes that biodiversity conservationists spread erroneous information and claims that protected species are a “nuisance” (Takala et al., 2022) detrimental to the economy, as they constrain the full potential of the market” (Chalaye, 2022). This sceptical discourse has gained support in public opinion (Takala et al., 2022) as utilitarian arguments that value biodiversity in terms of what it can give to people are more attractive for many people than arguments for the intrinsic value of biodiversity, which often call for compromises or restrictions to stop species loss (Troumbis, 2017). Ecological modernisation is an upgraded version of the economic development discourse, and has the term “natural capital” at its core (Chalaye, 2022). Value is allocated to biodiversity based on its potential contribution to production (Chalaye, 2022) so preservation is supported when the future production makes economic sense. The uptake of this discourse in government policies has been pointed out in schemes or approaches that relate to biodiversity protection such as “no net loss” or payment of ecosystem services (Chalaye, 2022), sustainable development goals (Carmen et al., 2018), and increasing yields while reducing risks (Howard et al., 2018). The utilitarian discourse has been criticised such as amounting to “hegemonic capitalism” (Bonie & Hulme, 2015). Several authors point out that species who currently have no or little economic value, or are considered “ugly” are at risk to be deprived of protection or even eliminated if they are assessed as being harmful to economic outcomes (Kusmanoff et al., 2017; Turnhout et al., 2013). Furthermore, in support of the utilitarian discourse, an efficient artificial alternative to current biodiversity conservation measures will be rapidly adopted in a capitalist market-based political system (Drury et al., 2022). Another criticism of the utilitarian discourse is the issue of “biopiracy”, which is defined as “the commercial collection, development and patenting of modern medicines from biodiversity and traditional knowledge in the South” (Adger et al., 2001). Biopiracy has been described as yet another form of neo-colonialism where the developed take 19 control of traditional knowledge of biodiversity, making it practically unavailable to the local communities through levying of patents. The biopiracy discourse is prevalent among indigenous people, traditional healers and peasants (Adger et al., 2001) and, although it was not discussed in any other analysed articles, may well grow in the future. From Scientific to Spiritual Discourse The scientific discourse revolves around the value of biodiversity for scientific knowledge (Blicharska & Grandin, 2015; Howard et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021). Although, this discourse is in many ways a facet of utilitarian discourses, the value of knowledge for the sake of knowing is what distinguishes this discourse from the latter. In analysing political speeches, Lee at al. (2021) reveal how nature was viewed as “repository of scientific knowledge” (p. 7) in the context of examining fireflies’ use of energy. Scientific biodiversity discourse has been seen as neutral evidence-based and universal (Turnhout et al., 2013) granting it an advantage in influencing policies. An example for this argument is the Nature Index in Norway (Spash & Aslaksen, 2015). The scientific approach claims to provide “objective truth, separation of facts from values and designation of expert judgement as independent from political process” (Spash & Aslaksen, 2015, p. 247). However, the scientific approach dismisses biodiversity’s normative character (Jetzkowitz et al., 2018) as well as the effect of science on policy formation (Turnhout et al., 2013; Primmer et al., 2017). A less prominent, yet value-laden view of biodiversity, is the view of nature being holistic and having intrinsic value (Berry et al., 2018; Bonie & Hulme, 2015; Brunet et al., 2020; Carmen et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021; Spash et al., 2015). This discourse, also referred to as ecocentric (Lee et al., 2021), is represented in Table 3 by the label Holistic (Mother Earth). This stands in contrast to the scientific and utilitarian discourses as it does not objectify nature and gives value to nature and its biodiversity without being subjected to humans. Buijs et al. (2022) adds relational value, related to the interaction of humans with nature, in addition to the intrinsic value of biodiversity assumed by active citizens. Interestingly, this discourse was more prominent in policy documents compared to scientific discourse as noted by Aggestam (2015) and demonstrated by Anquet & Girard (2022). The biocentric view also fits in the holistic discourse as it claims value for all living beings; regardless of their morphology or genetic composition (Aggestam, 2015). Nonliving things are not valued within this discourse unless they provide habitats or other resources for living beings. Scrutinising images of nature in a biodiversity campaign, Olausson & Uggla (2021) argue that the images of nature’s strength, as in the image of crushing waves, portray nature as mighty and eternal, while the harm inflicted upon it by human action portrays nature as delicate. The latter imagery in the campaign ‘others’ humans in relation to nature, which does not fit perfectly within the holistic/mother earth discourse. Nonetheless the value and characteristics attributed to nature in this discourse give nature an aura of spirituality and power on its own. To stimulate action to halt the loss of biodiversity, alarming terms and metaphors are used. The term ‘ecological collapse’ (Chalaye, 2022; Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002) gives a sense of urgency to halt the loss of biodiversity. While the uptake by civil society has been effective, it has had little effect on governmental policies: at least in the French political context (Chalaye, 2022). On another note, metaphors such as burning the library of life (Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002) have been used in the holistic discourse to stimulate biodiversity protective action. Such metaphors assume intrinsic 20 value of nature, but position humans as agents responsible for the collapse and capable of amending, or at least preventing, further biodiversity loss. Obligations and Solidarity Inspiring Action In congruence with the spiritual discourse, the intrinsic value of nature obliges humans morally to preserve biodiversity (Mitchell, 2016) as an obligation to future generations (Blicharska & Grandin, 2013). Proponents of the obligations discourse point out that humans are not entitled to make decisions about the life of other beings in nature. Anchored in morality, this discourse also entails religious beliefs and ethics that highlight the obligations to other people (Howard et al., 2018). Gustafsson (2013) points out that the moral obligation towards biodiversity preservation is one of the three most prevalent biodiversity discourses; the other two being nature as an object of knowledge (science-centred) and as a resource for society (anthropocentric). Nature’s dependence on humans further highlights the obligation of humans towards biodiversity preservation (Drury et la., 2022). However, this anthropocentric stance has been criticised as supporting the arguments of those who propose that technological advancements, as opposed to natural methods, provide the solutions to halt biodiversity loss (Drury et al., 2022). Utilitarian morality, on the other hand, refers to the moral obligation towards biodiversity because of the benefits of biodiversity for humans (Muradian & Gomez, 2021). The utilitarian discourse encourages the anthropocentric view of nature as a provider for human needs that we must protect so that it can keep giving. The “othering” of humans is viewed as separating nature from humans, while simultaneously placing humans at the centre of the biodiversity discourse (Olaussan & Uggla, 2021). This stance that has been likened to the recommendation put forward by a Jesuit priest regarding the treatment of slaves, which was not to hit the slaves when one is angry as this could render a slave useless (Muradian & Gomez, 2021). Political obligations towards biodiversity stem from the argument of rights of nature and include recognition of the rights of Indigenous populations whose cultural identity and values are closely connected to nature. For governments, institutions, and individuals, policies and actions to preserve biodiversity can be seen as an opportunity to gain popularity and claim national or global leadership (Carmen et al., 2018) or to enhance their reputation (Howard et al., 2018). An interesting proposition in relation to political influence is presented in an article by Mitchell (2016) that describes the effect of bringing living and non-living entities into the political arena, which is termed as “cosmopolitics”. Cosmopolitics is defined as “a politics rooted in acknowledgement of the multiple, diverse and constantly transforming beings that constitute the cosmos” (Isabelle Stengers, 2005 in Mitchell, 2016, p. 32). This orientation according to Mitchell (2016) may create an open access and demand for rights, by all beings that are affected by a political decision. The disruptions that this may bring into the political arena is welcomed by this orientation as providing an opportunity for “creative political action” (Mitchell, 2016, p. 33). This discourse, however, is marginal and has not received much attention in the articles analysed for this report. The discourse of rights of nature and those of Indigenous populations, on the other hand, have a longstanding existence. Indigenous people and local communities have often been called “premodern” or even “enemies of nature”, a view still pervasive in parts of Africa (Anquet & Girard, 2022), which is criticised as post-colonial scripts “to justify forced displacements or encroachments upon indigenous territories and lands in the name of economic development.” (Anquet & Girard, 2022, p. 281). However, the lack of access to the legal system by these communities is a challenge to bring 27 When articles defined biodiversity some of these definitions were implicit – e.g. by saying that biodiversity is the opposite of uniformity (Il Manifesto, R163). The explicit definitions usually mention aspects of variety and variability, for example: “It's about the diversity of life, different species of animals and plants, but also ecosystems” (Trouw, R239) or are more all-encompassing e.g. “the totality of all living things on earth and their diverse interconnections” (NZZ, R138). Often definitions also include a value judgement or explanation why biodiversity is relevant to humans at all by saying, e.g. “It is the infrastructure that sustains all life on Earth” (Il Fatto Quotidianio, R155). Interestingly it was news outlets in the UK that most frequently defined biodiversity. In some articles this was done by offering links to other articles which investigate the term. The outlet most attentively to define “biodiversity” was the BBC (which is the national broadcaster for the UK). Of the 10 analysed articles from the BBC, six defined biodiversity. As an example of such a definition: “Biodiversity is the sum of all living things on the planet and the way they are connected in a complex web of life that we rely upon for food, clean air and water” (BBC, R248). In contrary, news outlets in Hungary never and in the Czech Republic and Austria only once defined biodiversity. The one article in the Czech Newspaper Lidove noviny defined “biodiversity” with “the variety of life” (Lidove noviny, R28). No pattern could be observed in the occurrence of biodiversity definitions among news outlets with different political stances. Striking was however, that biodiversity was not defined in any article of the news outlets associated with far right political parties. Values Biodiversity’s value, by which we mean why it is worth protecting or preserving, was discussed in terms of its value to humans (anthropocentric) in almost half of the articles (n=175, 45 %). Anthropocentric values are the most frequently mentioned values compared to ecocentric and science-centred in all countries except in the Netherlands. Ecocentric values were assigned only in 124 articles (32 %) and science-centred values only in 9 % of the articles (n=34). It should be noted, that one article can refer to more than one value category. During the analysis it also became clear that some articles made no value statements related to biodiversity. However, as we did not code for the absence of any value statement, the number of articles concerned by this cannot be quantified. Anthropocentric The identified anthropocentric value statements of biodiversity differ considerably in describing how tangible and fundamental the value of biodiversity for humanity is. Less tangible but more fundamental values are: “Biodiversity is the basis of our existence.” (FAZ, R87) or that “Humanity relies on the healthy functioning of all ecosystems to survive” (The Guardian, R283). In other instances, anthropocentric values describe very tangible outcomes by stating that biodiversity is important for food production for example: “ecosystem services provided by birds, such as pollination of crops, seed dispersal or pest control” (Právo, R38), for medicines and clean air for example: “we need plants and biodiversity just to breathe. About two thirds of our medicine cabinet is made up of medicines that are based on nature” (Lidove noviny, R24) or protection against natural forces “Natural habitats […] offer protection against storms and floods and regulate the climate” (FAZ, R91). In fewer instances, educational and aesthetic values of biodiversity are mentioned, for example by arguing biodiversity is important 28 so that “we don't have to go to the zoo to see rabbits, larks and other animals” (Diary, R9). Some of the less fundamental and less emotional value statements concentrate on economic consequences of biodiversity loss. These include monetary valuations: “If we had to do the pollination work of the insects on our plantations ourselves, it would cost 150 to 600 billion euros per year” (Bild, R72), the value of biodiversity for the economy “An intact nature is essential for a permanently successful economic system.” (FAZ, R89) or references to prosperity by stating that “the world's prosperity is at stake” (Le Matin, R114). News outlets associated with the right ideology perception spectrum such as the UKs Financial Times, the Swiss NZZ, the German FAZ or the Italian Il sole 24 ore seem to use economic values of biodiversity more often: “Biodiversity is key to a new vision of natural capital as the ultimate source of all growth, security and fulfilment for humanity” (Financial Times, R274) or “the value of biodiversity is estimated at 33 trillion dollars per year” (NZZ, 134). Ecocentric Ecocentric values of biodiversity, by which we mean that nature has intrinsic value, were less frequently mentioned in the analysed articles (n=124, 32 %). Such valuations ranged from statements talking about the disappearance of species. This includes statements saying that even though the COP15 was postponed for two years due to the pandemic “Meanwhile, a million species, mainly insects, are in danger of disappearing forever” (Avvenire, R187). In another article, the German Bild talks about “a catastrophe” which is taking place and that “every day, about 150 species become extinct in this world. Animals and plants that never return. 150 times a day, the history of a species, millions of years of evolution, is destroyed” (Bild, R72). Ecocentric values can also make an appeal to moral obligations, for instance: “there are areas with species for which Switzerland has a special responsibility because they are rare” (NZZ, R155). Others highlighted that humans share the planet with other species: “Because no animal or plant lives alone in the world. All living creatures are connected to each other and to inanimate nature via often complicated networks” (TA, R111) Interestingly, few news articles also refer to religious values when talking about biodiversity. As the argumentation for the religious values was along the narrative of intrinsic value of nature, we classified such statements as ecocentric. A good example provides the Italian, catholic-inspired, newspaper Avvenire: This news outlet uses also quite emotional language for example talking about “mother earth” (R193) or in the following statement: “let us weep with the bitter cry of creation, let us listen to it and respond with deeds so that we and future generations may still rejoice with the creatures' sweet song of life and hope" (R193). Also, one article of the German Die Welt was written by a catholic priest (R97) who strongly appealed to moral and religious obligations to preserve biodiversity by citing Pope Francis: “It is not enough to think of the various species only as possible usable 'resources' and forget that they have intrinsic value. Every year thousands of species of plants and animals that we can no longer know, that our children can no longer see, disappear lost forever.” Interestingly these two newspapers are categorised with completely different political stances: Avvenire (left) and Die Welt (far-right). Ecocentric value statements of other 29 news outlets prominent with far right such as the Hungarian Index or Telex are rather factual, reporting on the upcoming extinction of some species: “Warming and changes in hydrology are also affecting flora and fauna, with up to 84% of endemic mountain species threatened with extinction. Many species have migrated to higher altitudes in recent decades, but this cannot continue indefinitely, as there is no higher ground after a limit, says Anna Kis.” (Index, R48) Statements from news outlets associated with the left seem a bit more emotional: “We should remember, for example, that more than 85% of the planet’s wetlands have been lost since 1700. We have more than a million species at risk of extinction and we’re seeing extinction rates that are at their highest since the loss of the dinosaurs. Yet we’re still seeing drivers of biodiversity loss, like land clearing, continue.”(The Guardian, R284) Science-centred Science-centred statements were only found in 34 instances of the analysed articles. These articles supported their arguments by citing scientific studies or advances; thereby placing the measurement of biodiversity in the scientific realm and implying the value of scientific work, either 1) to understand the natural world and celebrate scientific advancement: “Globally representative data on the number of species in plant communities in small areas have not been available before” (Právo, R35) or 2) as support in persuading or warning their readers: In one article a scientist explains the findings of a biodiversity study in the Swiss alps and continues to state that "The unique biodiversity of the Alps is therefore under considerable pressure” (Bild, R101). In another article, reference to science has an emotional tone: “We know about two million species, but it is estimated that the planet is inhabited by more than eight million species. As a zoologist, I fully agree with these warnings, and have drawn up long lists of species that may be gone” (Il Fatto Quotidiano, R153) These examples illustrate that science is used to support the credibility of an informing function, which may even be sometimes value free, with the scientific support used as a mechanism for the author of the article to distance themselves from valuation by portraying that they are simply reporting scientific facts. Together, these results suggest that the discourse includes a valuation of science, rather than a sciencecentered valuation of biodiversity. Rhetoric function Informing Informing statements reported on the biodiversity topic but did not try to convince the reader of its relevance or persuade them to act. Articles with such statements (n=136) usually dealt with updating the readers on any political development (e.g. regarding the COP15) or included interesting snippets of information about some species or ecosystems: “German researchers have even observed how, after a termite-hunting expedition, the "ambulance service" of one species of African ants carries an injured comrade back to the nest for treatment and convalescence. He does this, however, not for any noble reasons, but simply because it benefits the colony. Recovered warriors remain valid members of society and participate in future war expeditions.” (R28) 30 Some tabloid news outlets, such as the UK Metro or The Sun had articles with more informing rhetoric than others. Those were usually quite short articles. No pattern was observed related to political stance of the news outlets. Persuading Persuading elements (found in 119 articles) usually involved a call to action which could be rather general, for instance: (“We have to fix the world we have."(Die Zeit, R86). In other instances, such calls specifically targeted the reader, for example by convincing them to plant native species in the garden (e.g. TA, R108), or governments: "This summit is a chance the world must not miss, probably the last chance for governments to turn the tide and save our precious life support system," said Bernadette Fischler Hooper” (Le Matin, R115). Other persuading rhetoric provided a proposition of what ought to be done: “We need richer and more diverse forests” (Nationen, R321). Other articles used biodiversity to argue for food democracy (Die Welt, R100) flowering strips (SZ, R93), metrics to assess corporate action (FAZ, R89), reduced meat consumption (FAZ, R87) or sufficiency (Die Zeit, R83)). Only in very few articles were there persuading rhetoric against the biodiversity crisis. In one example from Switzerland, the newspaper Le Matin cited a biodiversity loss denier of a right political party: "The population has other problems than a biodiversity crisis that does not exist. Once again the Federal Councillor is in the pocket of an extremist group. Stop being naive like with the Glacier initiative. [..] "Let's make laws that address human beings... We are overpopulated because of immigration and that is why we have a biodiversity problem in our country. [said Michael Graber, SVP]” (Le Matin, R113) Accusing Accusations were identified in 30 % of the articles (n=117). Such statements either blame other actors of inaction or wrong priorities to preserve biodiversity loss. Such accusations in many cases target the political sphere (public administration, politicians, government) by saying certain policies are “irresponsible” (Nationen, R322) or that politics lacks action: “[the current Italian government] has always opposed any measure in Europe that went in the direction of protecting biodiversity, including agricultural biodiversity” (Il Manifesto, R167). In other instances accusations are less specific, targeting politics or business, for example” Switzerland has not done much in the last ten years” (Le Matin, R133) or “Climate change and intensive agriculture have already almost halved the numbers of insects in the most impacted parts of the world” (The Metro, R288). Entertaining Eight of the 11 entertaining articles were found in tabloid news articles, especially the German Bild, The Norwegian Dagbladet and the Swiss 20 Minuten. Entertaining elements used biodiversity relevant topics to entertain readers. For example, by reporting about a bird travelling by public transport to be released in a nature reserve (Bild, R74), portraying King Charles as an “eco-entrepreneur” (Dagbladet, R311) or Sebastian Vettel’s biodiversity friendly side projects: “He is the fastest environmental activist in the country. Sebastian Vettel (34) not only drives Formula 1, but is also committed to biodiversity”, (Bild, R81). 31 Othering Othering rhetoric was only identified in 17 of the analysed articles. It was especially dominant among news outlets prominent in the right political spectrum of Hungary where othering rhetoric targeted the European Commission, left-wing politicians or “radical environmentalists” (Magyar Nemzet, R56) (see Section 7.3 for more information). In Norway the tabloid news outlets VG and Dagbladet also had a few articles with othering elements. However, these elements were less strong than in Hungary. Raising hope Hope raising elements were present in 110 of the analysed articles. Such statements either diminished the severity of the biodiversity crisis by reporting about the reintroduction or halting decline of certain species, for example “halting bird population decline in Europe. This is good news” (Il Sole 24 ore, R), or showing efforts actors are already investing in biodiversity “‘farmers are doing everything they can to increase biodiversity on their land” (Algemeen Dagblad, R201). One article in the German Bild talks of "winning" and "loosing" animal species due to the global changes (R77). This framing obscures the real complexity of species extinction, by saying that there will just be a change in composition of the species inhabiting our planet. In other instances, hope raising elements acknowledged the severity of the situation, but expressed hope after the agreement was reached at COP15, or conveyed in general that we can still turn the course of action: “The decline of Earth’s biodiversity is not inevitable. Several studies show that the continued loss of wildlife around the world can be prevented” (The Guardian, R277) Hope raising rhetoric seemed to be more prevalent among right and center news outlets such as the Norwegian VG, the Italian Il Sole 24 ore, the UK BBC or the Hungarian Magyar Nemzet and Index. Warning Of all rhetoric elements analysed within this study, warning rhetoric’s were the most frequently used (n=161, 41 %). The warning rhetoric was often quite emotional mentioning the situation is “terrifying” (Avvenire, R189), “frightening” (TA, R106) and that the earth faces a “mass extinction” (Daily Mail, R262). Also, many news outlets mention the status of biodiversity as a “crisis”, some even speak of “collapse” (e.g. The Guardian, R279), “apocalypse” (Avvenire, R187) or a “nightmare” (Corriere della sera, R184). Also warning statements issued by NGOs or world leaders are often cited: “We are losing this war, added Mark Wright of WWF's UK office” (HN, R23). “Our planet is in mortal danger. Its lungs, our nature, forests and lakes are failing, said Scholz” (Die Zeit, R84) Often warning about biodiversity loss is combined with discourse persuading stakeholders to protect it. Also hope raising elements are often in the same articles. The following example illustrates the combination of warning and hope raising elements within the same article: “Will it be different this time? According to environmental NGOs, the Montreal agreement is a step forward, but at the same time it contains a number of compromises compared to the original draft text. For example, it does not name harmful activities that should be excluded from protected areas. "There is a danger that real protection will remain on paper, Greenpeace said.” (Právo, R40) 32 Role of external actors The most frequently mentioned actors in the biodiversity discourse of the news outlets are governmental actors (191), followed by scientists (136), NGOs (128) and business (115). Government Governmental actors seem to be mentioned more frequently among newspapers with a left and center political stance (mentioned on average 4.8 times among left news outlets, while only 3.9 or 3 times among news outlets popular among the right or farright). This includes statements that report about certain political developments related to biodiversity protection or that accuse politics of inaction. Also, such discourse clearly puts governments in responsibility to act: “world governments have not yet succeeded in slowing the decline of wildlife” (Il Fatto Quotidiano, R154) It is not surprising, that among the political right news outlets, less responsibility is attributed to governments. Scientists In the statements about scientists, this actor group is repeatedly referred to as a trusted source for information on biodiversity or as the ones warning of the biodiversity crisis: “Scientists agree on the urgency to act” (Avvenire, R). In other instances, scientists or scientific projects are described that proved detailed information on the status of biodiversity or the effects of certain interventions. Only in a few instances do scientists get ascribed an active role in the preservation of biodiversity such as by preserving seeds of rare plant varieties (Il Manifesto, R163) or by contributing to innovations (Il Sole 24 ore, R172). NGOs NGOs seem to be mentioned more frequently among newspapers with a left and center political stance. Newspapers popular among the left, mention NGOS in 4.3 articles, whereas right and far-right leaning newspapers talk about NGOs only in 2.2 and 1.8 articles respectively. Similar to scientists, they are referred to as a trusted source for information on biodiversity or as the ones warning of the biodiversity crisis: “Environmental Alliance, an alliance of several environmental associations, is sharply critical. [...]. "We don't need new paper tigers, but effective measures." (TA, 107) In few articles, the activities of NGOs in contributing to nature protection or public awareness campaigns are mentioned. Business The role of industry and business in contributing to or tackling the biodiversity crisis is mentioned more or less equally among news outlets with different political stances (see Table 6). However, the newspapers differ in the exact role they attribute to business. Newspapers of the political left, see business as perpetrators of the biodiversity crisis: “the expansion and intensification of agriculture is the greatest threat to the world's birds” (TA, 112). “Business groups block action that could help tackle biodiversity crisis” (The Guardian, R280). 33 On the other hand, in most statements the right news outlets either see business as vectors of innovation that support the fight against biodiversity loss, for example “the commitment of the Sanpellegrino group is virtuous” (Il sole 24 ore, R174), or business as being affected by the decline in natural diversity: “A 2020 report by the World Economic Forum (WEF) found that more than half of global gross domestic product (GDP) – $44 trillion – was potentially at risk due to economic dependence on nature. Construction, agriculture, and the food and beverage industries were the three most nature-dependent economic sectors.” (NZZ, 134) General public The role of the general public and citizens in relation to biodiversity is only mentioned in 74 of the analysed articles. Surprisingly, in 14 of the news outlets the general public is not mentioned at all. The news outlets of Italy, Switzerland and Norway mention the public frequently. This is usually by giving advice on what citizens can do to halt the loss of biodiversity, for example by adopting a certain type of diet (Nationen, R317) or garden management (TA, 136). In other cases, efforts of citizens to raise awareness of the biodiversity crisis or act upon it are mentioned: “Many families with children, residents of the neighbouring neighbourhoods, but also activists and sympathisers from all over the city marched to ask the Region to extend the natural protections.” (Il Manifesto, R168) In addition, the general public is mentioned implicitly by blaming the behaviour of society for the current situation: “It is therefore on our over-consumption that we must question ourselves” (Avvenire, R186) Only in few instances do articles discuss how people will be affected by the loss of biodiversity. Finance The role of the financial sector is discussed in 62 articles. Not surprisingly the UK FT mentions the finance sector most often (in seven out of the 10 analysed articles). The role of finance for biodiversity is either discussed in terms of funds needed to finance nature conservation projects, especially in the global South or as the impact of biodiversity loss on the finance sector. The FT, the Swiss NZZ and the German FAZ mainly devote segments to describe how the finance sector has started to consider biodiversity in their operations: “The impact of ecosystems is firmly rooted in our financial system” (NZZ, R134). “Biodiversity has also played a rather minor role in the financial sector so far. When people talk about sustainable financing, they are essentially talking about the fight against climate change” (FAZ, R89) “As a result, biodiversity is “now the fastest developing ESG theme in global capital markets […]. In just three years, the issue has moved from being virtually ignored by mainstream institutional investors to being acknowledged by all.” (FT, R268) 34 4 Biodiversity discourse of political parties Author: Rebekka Frick, Mirjam Schleiffer, Frode Singsaas, Yennie Bredin, Marta Bonetti, Matteo Villa, Linda Fitzka, Robert Home 4.1 Methods Collection of documents The document analysis was carried out for four countries: Austria, Italy, Norway, and Switzerland. Each of the partners from the respective countries followed a predefined procedure to collect the documents. First of all, the five most important national political parties were selected according to their relative importance at the latest elections. For each party, the website address was identified and the term “biodiversity” was translated to the local language. A Google News search was conducted using the search command “biodiversity site: www.yourParty.com” or “biodiversity site: yourParty.com”. In countries, where several words are used for the concept of biodiversity such as in Austria with the terms “Biodiversität” and “Artenvielfalt”, the search command was adapted accordingly by using both terms (e.g. “biodiversität OR artenvielfalt site:www.övp.de”). The first 10 returns were translated into English using the translation tool Deepl.com. Description of Political Parties We use a classification for the political parties developed by ParlGov – a data infrastructure for political science, containing information for all EU and most OECD democracies (https://www.parlgov.org/). Political parties are assigned to eight different party families using a two-dimensional perspective of political competition (Döring, 2016): state vs. market (economic) and liberty vs. authority (cultural). ParlGov identifies eight party family categories that can be placed into such a two-dimensional space: Communist/Socialist, Green/Ecologist, Social democracy, Liberal, Christian democracy, Agrarian, Conservative, and Right-wing. The ninth category, “no family”, includes special issue parties without a clear left/right position. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the 20 analysed parties among the party families. Figure 6. Distribution of parties to party families according to ParlGov classification (Döring, 2016). 0 1 2 3 4 5 Agrarian Christian democracy Conservative Green/Ecologist Liberal Right-wing Social democracy no family 35 Table 7. Political Parties by country and party family according to the ParlGov database. Country Party name English name Party family Austria (AT) Die Grünen The Greens Green/Ecologist Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) Freedom Party of Austria Right-wing NEOS NEOS – The New Austria Liberal Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) Austrian People's Party Christian democratic Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) Social Democratic Party of Austria Social democratic Italy (IT) Fratelli d’Italia Brothers of Italy Right-wing Partito Democratico Democratic Party Social democratic Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S) Five Star Movement No family Lega per Salvini League for Salvini Right-wing Forza Italia Go Italy Conservative Norway (NO) Arbeiderpartiet Labour Party Social democratic Fremskrittspartiet Progress Party Right-wing Høyre Conservative Party Conservative Miljøpartiet de Grønne (MDG) Green Party Green/Ecologist Senterpartiet Centre Party Agrarian Switzerland (CH) Die Mitte The Centre Christian democratic FreisinnigDemokratische Partei (FDP) Free Democratic Party of Switzerland Liberal Grüne Greens Green/Ecologist Sozialdemokratische Partei der Schweiz (SP) Social Democratic Party of Switzerland Social democratic Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP) Swiss People's Party Agrarian 36 Document analysis Out of the 20 parties, there were three parties (Italy – Forza Italia, Norway – Fremskrittspartiet, Austria – ÖVP) for which we did not find any press releases dealing with the concept of biodiversity using our search strategy. The documents were imported to the software MaxQDA for qualitative content analysis. Of the 10 documents, at least six documents per party were coded. The analysis was guided by the theoretical and methodological concept of Discourse Historical Analysis (see section 1.2 and 1.3). 4.2 Results Values Overall, all parties have mainly an anthropocentric perspective on biodiversity. They refer to the utility of biodiversity for humans and the superiority of humans to nature. There were, however, also a few statements indicating a rather ecocentric perspective taken on the topic. Below, the different positions are described in more detail. Anthropocentric values Parties from all party families refer to various benefits that biodiversity provides for humans. Seven parties highlight the role of biodiversity as the basis for our existence and livelihoods. “Landscapes, habitats, biodiversity: they are not only a prerequisite for our quality of life, they are our livelihood," Balthasar Glättli stressed in his speech to the delegates“ (CH_Grüne, Pos. 80) “Biodiversity provides the basis for human life on Earth”. (Arbeiderpartiet, NO, Pos. 23) Five parties refer to the need of promoting biodiversity for future generations and express their concerns about future livelihoods. “Conservatives want future generations to inherit a planet that is in better condition than it is now” (Høyre, NO, Pos. 6) Concretely, parties refer to the role of biodiversity in maintaining good quality of water, air, and soils and to produce food. Further, the role of biodiversity in providing space for recreation is highlighted. Perceptions of biodiversity promotion as an opportunity for value and job creation as part of a green development strategy did not appear to be attached to a particular party family. Apart from these more fundamental anthropocentric values of biodiversity, parties from different families discuss the economic value of biodiversity. Green/Ecologist and Social democratic parties in Norway and Switzerland call for the calculation of the economic value of biodiversity. They claim that those who damage biodiversity do not pay for the costs and that there are no financial incentives to conserve and promote biodiversity. Therefore, they call for a price to be allocated to biodiversity and for internalisation of external costs. “A large part of the benefits of biodiversity is available free of charge as a public good. The lack of a price contributes to the fact that there are hardly any incentives for its conservation and promotion. Those who damage biodiversity often do not pay for the costs. At the same time, those who take protective measures lack the money. This 43 family of parties, but other parties call for similar expansion based on economic interests: as illustrated by the statement of the Italian Social democrats: “New and simpler management models for our protected areas, treatment of land disruption and water and air pollution, protection of fauna and flora, and sustainable management of ecosystems are crucial tools in the fight against the climate crisis, capable of guaranteeing significant economic benefits, especially in marginal areas, and new jobs". (Partito Democratico, IT, Pos. 37–43) Carrots – Market interventions Another approach to promoting biodiversity is to provide financial incentives in order for companies or private households to voluntarily take measures. Liberal and conservative parties from different countries highlight the need for intervention to be voluntary and market-based. Parties from all family types emphasise the need to combine biodiversity promotion with economic growth. There is no party that challenges the concept of economic growth. An example of such a measure is the internalisation of external costs so that the market prices display the real costs that occur for society. Such an internalisation may be achieved by the introduction of taxes, such as the nature tax suggested by the Norwegian Greens, or the pesticide tax suggested by the Swiss Greens. In addition, the Swiss social democrats and the Norwegian Greens advocate for the polluter-paysprinciple: “A large part of the benefits of biodiversity is available free of charge as a public good. The lack of a price contributes to the fact that there are hardly any incentives for its conservation and promotion. Those who damage biodiversity often do not pay for the costs. At the same time, those who take protective measures lack the money. This imbalance must be addressed through the internalisation of external costs and the targeted management of financial resources.” (SP, CH, Pos. 25) The Norwegian and Swiss Green parties also ask for biodiversity-damaging incentives to be abolished. In particular, in Switzerland and Austria, the role of agricultural subsidies is emphasised. The Swiss Christian democratic party highlights the need to compensate farmers for their efforts for biodiversity. The Austrian Greens acknowledge the need to compensate farmers for loss of agricultural animals due to wild animals. The same parties emphasise the need to financially support the management of mountain pastures for it to be continued. Sermons – Information measures Among the sermons, the most prominent measures were statements about biodiversity targets. Various parties highlight the importance of defining clear targets for biodiversity. One example is area targets where a certain percentage of the area per country needs to serve biodiversity promotion. This seems to be a controversial topic, especially in Switzerland. The Swiss liberals ask for all types of areas to be eligible to be counted in, including agricultural biodiversity promotion areas of all quality levels. The Swiss Agrarian party and the Christian democrats are against the introduction of an area target for biodiversity. They highlight that agriculture already promotes biodiversity on a considerable portion of its land. In Norway, the Green party calls for the introduction of a zero net loss target of nature, using the term ‘land-neutrality’. Moreover, parties ask for concrete targets related to species diversity (AT-Die Grünen; NO-Arbeiderpartiet; NO-MDG; CH-FDP). 44 The Italian right-wing party Fratelli d’Italia emphasises the need to set goals but highlights that these goals must be realistic and should not harm companies or the economy: “Today the challenge we face is to combine environment and economic growth. We believe that companies must be accompanied towards an ecological transition. It is right to set goals, even ambitious ones, provided, however, that those goals are realistic. The transition must be gradual, and imposing new burdens on companies is a mistake that leads to further poverty and job losses.” (Fratelli d’Italia, IT, Pos. 18). Various parties (different party families) highlight the need to have a comprehensive perspective on land use and that land should be available for biodiversity promotion. The Swiss liberal party emphasises the need for habitat connection and a comprehensive perspective on the “ecological infrastructure” (FDP, CH, Pos. 65). Informing and awareness raising measures are only suggested by a few parties. Three parties (one Conservative, one Green/Ecologist, one Social democratic) emphasise the need to map habitats and the state of biodiversity. These parties call for an inventory, repository, register, or map on ecosystems, biodiversity, habitats, species, etc. One Liberal party very specifically asks for more research to be conducted on genetic engineering: “Genome editing can lead to more resistant varieties that are better able to cope with periods of heat and drought. In addition, they are more resistant to potential pests, require less pesticides and thus better protect biodiversity.” (FDP, CH, Pos. 117) The Austrian Greens, which themselves are actively engaged in the organisation of awareness-raising events, call for efforts to raise awareness about biodiversity loss among citizens. 5 Biodiversity discourse of environmental NGOs Author: Rebekka Frick, Mirjam Schleiffer, Barbara Smith, Frode Singsaas, Yennie Bredin, Robert Home 5.1 Method Collection of documents The document analysis was carried out for three countries: United Kingdom, Switzerland and Norway. Each of the partners from the respective countries followed a predefined procedure to collect the documents. Firstly, five environmental NGOs were selected by the research team to be those, in their own country, with the highest visibility, activity, and influence within the national context (see Table 8). The NGOs were selected based on an informed, but subjective, evaluation of the NGOs by the research teams in each country, who collectively have many years of experience working within the field of biodiversity research in their respective countries. For each NGO, a Google search was conducted for “biodiversity” and “press release” (translated to the local language) using the following search command “biodiversity AND “press release” site: www.<NGO’s web address>”. In countries, where several words are used for the concept of biodiversity, such as in Austria with the terms “Biodiversität” and “Artenvielfalt”, the search command was adapted accordingly by using both terms. The search was not restricted to particular years and the first ten returns, which were listed 45 in the sequence as returned by the google algorithm (see section 7.4 on limitations), were collected in a document and translated to English using the translation tool Deepl.com. Table 8. Overview of selected environmental NGOs by country. Country NGO United Kingdom (UK) Butterfly Conservation Plantlife Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) The Wildlife Trusts World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Switzerland (CH) Birdlife Greenpeace ProNatura Stiftung Landschaftsschutz Schweiz (SLS) World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Norway (NO) Bellona Natur og Ungdom (Nature and Youth, NU) Friends of the Earth Norway (Naturvernforbundet, NVF) Sabima World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Document analysis The documents were imported to the software MaxQDA for qualitative content analysis. Of the 10 documents, at least five documents were coded per NGO. Articles that were off-topic or didn’t provide enough insight on the position towards biodiversity and news memos were excluded. The analysis was guided by the theoretical and methodological concept of Discourse Historical Analysis (see sections 1.2 and 1.3). The focus was on understanding how the NGOs frame the concept of biodiversity. The press releases often included statements by actors outside the NGO (e.g. government officials or scientists). These citations were not coded unless they conveyed information on a meta-level so that it became clear how the NGO is using the citation for their argument. 46 5.2 Results Values Anthropocentric values The analysed documents predominantly make anthropocentric arguments for the value of biodiversity and nature. The NGOs repeatedly state that biodiversity is the “basis of our existence” (SFS, CH) or of our “livelihood” (e.g. Sabima; NO, Birdlife, CH). In few cases biodiversity is framed as of less fundamental importance when saying that it is necessary for human well-being (WWF, UK) or that people (elsewhere) are suffering because of degraded nature (Sabima, NO). The NGOs further argue for biodiversity by referring to specific ecosystem services, especially regulating and provision services, such as: • Carbon sequestration of moors, marshes, wetlands and forests (Pro Natura, CH, WWF, CH; Sabima, Norway; NU, NO) • Storage and purification of water (ProNatura, CH; WWF, CH; NU, NO) • Protection against extreme weather events such as heat, drought or flooding (ProNatura, CH; WWF, CH; NU, NO; Sabima, NO) • Protection against erosion (NU, NO; ProNatura, CH; WWF, CH) • Provision of food, either via pollinating insects (Greenpeace, Switzerland; WWF, CH) or directly from an ecosystem (NU, NO) • Medicine (NU, NO) • Raw materials (Sabima, NO) Cultural ecosystem services, such as recreation or aesthetics, are less frequently mentioned. Only one example figured among the analysed press releases: “Access to unspoiled nature, biodiversity and a sustainable environment is of great importance for our physical as well as mental health and thereby the quality of life of future generations.” (NVF, NO) Ecocentric values The NGOs rarely argued for biodiversity from an ecocentric perspective and the only NGO to do so was WWF. In the UK WWF used ecocentric statements by referring to the world as “our home” (WWF, UK) or calling for “A change from viewing nature as something that’s optional or ‘nice to have’ to the single greatest ally we have in restoring balance to our world” (WWF, UK). In Norway, WWF state that: “In the debates about where to draw the line, it is easy to forget what this is really about: The large and small animal species that live in the ice edge zone and the renewable fisheries resources. For the species that live here, there is nowhere else to live on the planet.” (WWF, NO) Rhetoric function The analysed press releases show that environmental NGOs from the UK, Switzerland and Norway use their texts to warn readers about the severity and effects of biodiversity loss, persuade them of the need to be concerned about biodiversity decline, and call for action. Warning The warning rhetoric in the UK is more alarming and emotional than in Norway or Switzerland. The organisations from the UK warn of an “ecological emergency” (RSPB, 47 UK) with “catastrophic consequences for the planet” (WWF, UK) given the “freefall” in wildlife which is in a “catastrophic decline […] showing no signs of slowing” (WWF, UK) or of “nature’s extreme declines” (Wildlife Trusts, UK). Additionally, the decline in local wildlife and the framing of the UK as “nature depleted” is a unique narrative (Wildlife Trusts, UK). In Switzerland and Norway, the most emotional language is used by WWF. However, most press releases are less confrontational than in the UK, for example: “The year 2022 was not a good year for biodiversity in Switzerland and globally. The biodiversity crisis is still not taken seriously enough, especially in politics” (Birdlife, CH). Persuading A strategy by the UK, Swiss, and Norwegian NGOs is to use the increased awareness about climate change to draw attention to the problem of biodiversity loss and persuade readers to consider them as interrelated. They highlight that “biodiversity loss is as acute a crisis as the climate crisis” (Sabima, NO) framing them as the “twin crises” (Plantlife, UK). Such statements are sometimes given further external justification, with the NGOs referring to publications or statements of trusted institutions, such as the COP to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (e.g. Birdlife, CH) or the World Biodiversity Council (WBC) (e.g. SFS, CH). Biodiversity loss and climate change is understood as being interrelated, with climate change proposed as a major cause for biodiversity loss by “accelerat[ing] species extinction” (WWF, CH), while functioning ecosystems are “the most important insurance against the consequences of climate change” (Sabima, NO). WWF Switzerland explains the relation between climate change and biodiversity as follows: “Climate change is a financial risk that is recognised as such by a growing number of financial actors and regulators. A related but unrecognised environmental risk is the rapid loss of global biodiversity. Climate change further accelerates species extinction and leads to rapid changes in ecosystems. This drastically limits the natural carbon sequestration of ecosystems, which in turn exacerbates climate change. This negative spiral has so far been virtually ignored by decision-makers, the financial sector, and its regulators.” (WWF, CH) Therefore, some NGOs argue for the need to tackle climate change and the biodiversity crisis jointly and not “play […them] against each other” (WWF, CH). Calling for action The calls for action by the UK, Swiss, and Norwegian NGOs adopt an alarming and emotional tone, with claims that “The facts are clear. Nature is in crisis” (Butterfly Conservation, UK) and that “we must do everything we can to halt its decline now” (Plantlife, UK). The WWF even uses war-like allegories: “We are in a fight for our world: we now know what needs to be done, and paper promises won’t be enough.” (WWF, UK) The UK, Swiss, and Norwegian NGOs have hopes for the international negotiations, as part of the Conference of the Parties (COP) on Biodiversity, to halt the loss of global biodiversity. In the majority of the calls for action, the NGOs address politicians or urge the governments to take the degradation of biodiversity seriously and implement effective measures to halt further losses. Other actors are barely addressed specifically. Usually the general term “we” is used to describe measures to be taken by politicians, governments or the international community. The Norwegian NGO 48 Sabima stood out with its call for citizens to consider biodiversity in the upcoming national elections. Role of external actors When discussing responsibilities to act for biodiversity, the NGOs mentioned government actors (including politicians and public administration) most frequently, followed by industries and citizens. The role of science, NGOs or finance is less discussed. Government When speaking of the government actors, the NGOs frequently use ‘accusing rhetoric’, criticising the government for a lack of action in general, failure to reach targets or comply with regulations (Birdlife, CH; Pro Natura, CH; SFS, CH; NVF, NO; Wildlife Trusts, UK), developing vague, non-rigorous or unambitious strategies (Greenpeace, CH; WWF, CH; Wildlife Trusts, UK), or favouring other short-term interests (in agriculture or energy) and thereby weakening environmental protection (WWF, CH; Bellona, NO). In this line, governments are repeatedly accused of being too influenced by business interests in forestry (NVF, NO) or agriculture (Greenpeace, CH). Statements like the following are exemplary of the accusing tone: “[…] it is high time that the conservation of biodiversity is taken seriously by those who govern the country. Nature needs no more big words. The knowledge of what needs to be done is in place. It is the action and investment that is lacking.” (Sabima, NO) To justify the accusations the NGOs use a variety of instruments. On some occasions, the NGOs refer to public opinion, stating that the public expects more action from the government (Sabima, NO; Wildlife Trusts, UK). In other instances, well-established institutions, who criticise the country, are cited (NU, NO). NGOs in the UK (RSPB, UK, Wildlife Trusts, UK) were found to remind governments of promises that they have made. Another instrument to underline the poor performance is the comparison with other countries. “Today, forests cover 40% of the country's [Norway] land area. Of this, just over 3% is protected areas. However, Russia and our neighbours on the Scandinavian peninsula have higher figures to show, although even they are not on target in a long-term perspective.” (NU, NO) Non-accusatory rhetoric regarding government action is seldomly found. Apart from informing the readers about recent development in biodiversity politics, some statements highlight windows of opportunity to improve biodiversity protection (WWF, CH; RSPB, UK). Only in two instances have governments been praised for actions taken or progress made (RSPB, UK; NU, NO). Business The role of business and industry in contributing to the biodiversity crisis has much less accusatory notions than for the government actors. Accusations were mainly about environmental impacts of agricultural activities (ProNatura, CH), forestry (NVF, NO) and oil extraction (Bellona, NO). Interestingly the discussion about the roles of industries was framed in the sense that governments need to better regulate industrial activities, for example in oil extraction or forestry, rather than pushing for industries to become more considerate themselves (Bellona, NO; NVF, NO). On one occasion, an NGO also highlighted the potential that businesses can have to promote nature friendly projects (Plantlife, UK). 49 Citizens and the general public The ability of citizens or the general public to halt the loss of biodiversity is regularly addressed. The NGOs mention the role of citizens concretely in contributing to biodiversity mapping through citizen science (Butterfly Conservation, UK), volunteering with the organisation (Birdlife, CH), creating natural areas in their neighbourhood (Wildlife Trusts, UK) or in home gardens (SFS, CH), in raising awareness about the issue: “Be the voice of biodiversity when it needs it most.” (Sabima, NO) In addition, citizens are urged to influence the trajectory of biodiversity policy through voting in elections (WWF, NO; Sabima, NO). NGOs call on citizens to adapt their (consumption) behaviour by “flying less, eating less meat and reducing consumption” (WWF, NO). Ultimately, another way to support biodiversity protection is to donate money to the organisation (WWF, NO). Science Apart from referring to information describing (the loss of) biodiversity in numbers or citing reports to make an argument, the role of science is barely mentioned in the documents. An exception is the case of Norway, where biodiversity policy follows “knowledge-based management” (NVF, NO). Norwegian NGOs raise the need for further mapping of ecosystems (Sabima, WWF and NVF). In addition, there seems to be a dispute about having the right kind of knowledge: “We would also like to emphasize that the accuracy and knowledge base for identifying new and important candidates for protection is not yet good enough. The forest industry's own environmental mapping (MiS environmental mapping in forests) has proved to be very inadequate. They capture only 14% of what independent professional biologists record“ (NVF, NO). NGOs When the NGOs discuss their own role in contributing to biodiversity, the discourse is praising. In such statements the NGOs mention their efforts in mapping rare species (NVF, NO), manage protected areas or nature reserves (Birdlife, CH) or awareness raising campaigns (Birdlife, CH; Wildlife Trusts, UK) “With these activities, the BirdLife family is making a major contribution to combating the biodiversity crisis in our country," says Raffael Ayé, Executive Director of BirdLife Switzerland. (Birdlife, CH) Finance Only one press release by WWF Switzerland mentions the role of the finance sector in overcoming the biodiversity crisis: “Central banks and financial regulators have a critical role to play in the transition to a more sustainable financial system that benefits people, the climate and nature. Climate-related risks are increasingly being considered, but those related to biodiversity loss, such as forest degradation or overfishing, are still largely ignored. There is an urgent need to address this shortcoming." (WWF, CH) Calls for action A large proportion of the NGO press releases deals with argumentations for or against certain policy measures. As part of these, the NGOs call for increased funding by their governments for biodiversity protection, to fill the “biodiversity finance gap” (WWF, UK), 50 both nationally and for developing countries. Some calls are more specific to increase financial resources for protected areas (SFS, CH; Wildlife Trusts, UK), scientific studies (WWF, NO), or environmental authorities (WWF, NO). For the further discussion we classify the policy measures into ‘carrots’, ‘sticks’ and ‘sermons’ based on Bemelmans-Videc et al. (2011) (see also section 1.3). Carrots – Market interventions Few of the discussed policy measures fall under the category of ‘carrots’. The removal of biodiversity-damaging subsidies, such as subsidies for oil and gas, or the sales of animal products, play a major role here (Birdlife, CH; Sabima, NO; WWF, NO). “[Biodiversity damaging subsidies] are one of the main causes of our country's serious biodiversity crisis and at the same time undermine all efforts to protect nature and species.” (Greenpeace, CH) As an alternative, measures according to the polluter-pays principle are advocated for. However, with no concrete proposal on its design. Sticks – Regulatory measures Among the discussed regulatory policy measures, three types of ‘sticks’ are frequently encountered. First, the NGOs call for the establishment of additional protected areas or for introducing greater restrictions in protected areas (WWF, CH; RSPB, UK; NU, Norway; WWF, NO; Plantlife, UK). Second, they advocate for certain bans on harmful practices, such as burning peat (RSPB, UK; Wildlife Trusts, UK), using pesticides in agriculture (Greenpeace, CH) or gravel gardens, where gardens are covered with gravel to reduce maintenance (SLS, CH). Third, the organisations call for stricter legislation, to make biodiversity measures binding (WWF, CH), define “powerful, legally-binding environmental targets” (Wildlife Trusts, UK), and to implement legislation across sectors (WWF, NO). In addition, we also found country specific regulatory measures. Documents from the UK highlight the role of peatlands and call for the restoration of damaged land (Wildlife Trusts, UK; RSPB, UK). Furthermore, the UK NGOs praise recent developments in the permission to reintroduce wildlife such as beavers, wildcat or the golden eagle. In Switzerland the conflict between other environmental goals and biodiversity protection is discussed. Greenpeace Switzerland criticises the relaxation of environmental regulations to speed up renewable energy expansion. And in Norway NGOs call for stricter requirements for risk and impact assessment related to oil spill (Bellona, NO) and other projects (WWF, NO). Sermons – Information measures The most prominent measures among the discussed ‘sermons’ are international cooperation and specifically international agreements as part of the COP. Some environmental NGOs call on their governments to push for an ambitious international agreement (WWF, UK; WWF, NO) to “set the world on a new course” (WWF, CH). “The time for pure national interests has passed, internationalism has to be our approach and in doing so bring about a greater equality between what nations take from the world and what they give back. The wealthier nations have taken a lot and the time has now come to give.” By Sir David Attenborough (WWF, UK) Mixed with the high hopes for the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Targeting Framework is the criticism that the agreement is non-binding and has loopholes, and that the Montreal treaty does not properly address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss 51 (WWF, UK). Furthermore, Friends of the Earth, Norway warns of a strong focus on percentage targets as the regional distribution – for example of protected areas – also plays an important role. After the COP15, the NGOs call for the implementation of the treaty (Birdlife, Switzerland; NVF, NO). The following statement is exemplary: “Some of the targets are good and ambitious, others are rather nice declarations of intent, and a minority are even insufficient. Overall, the adoption of the KunmingMontreal Biodiversity Targets Framework is an important step in the right direction. The community of states thus recognises even more clearly than before that the world is facing a serious biodiversity crisis. Now the appropriate measures must be taken quickly and decisively so that we do not end up empty-handed in 2030.” (Birdlife, CH) In Switzerland, the national biodiversity strategy is highly criticised as the government is failing to achieve the defined goals (Birdlife, CH) because strategies are “toothless” (SFS, CH) and implementation is missing (Pro Natura, CH; WWF, CH). Apart from international agreements and national strategies, other ‘sermons’ or policy measures are barely mentioned. The exceptions are an urge for the Norwegian government to monitor the state of biodiversity and map vulnerable areas (Sabima, Norway; NVF, NO) and a call for the Swiss government to disseminate more information regarding biodiversity (Birdlife, CH). 6 Biodiversity discourse in business and industry Author: György Pataki 6.1 Method Collection of material In order to explore the business and industry discourse on biodiversity, two lines of inquiry were chosen: timeliness and relevance. First, we searched for relevant audiovisual material to be analysed from the 53rd Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland having taken place in January, 2023. According to the official website of the event, “the Annual Meeting 2023 will bring together more than 2,700 leaders from government, business and civil society, at a pivotal time for the world.” We used the search engine of the WEF webpage2, initiating a search for the term “biodiversity” and identified other potentially relevant programme items by reading through the programme. This search resulted in seven videos that were all watched and the session3 “Business Action in Nature” was identified and chosen for analysis as the most relevant to explore a business perspective on biodiversity. Although the participants on stage represented diverse groups (incl. agricultural and mining companies, finance sector, NGO sector, and government), the language used by participants referred frequently to “business”, with key expressions and terms used such as “the value of nature in terms of money”, “assets”, “demand”, “nature is profitable” and many more. 2 https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2023/programme 3 https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2023/sessions/investing-innature 52 Second, we analysed two documents by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD). As to the relevance of this choice, the official website4 claims the following: “WBCSD is the premier global, CEO-led community of over 200 of the world’s leading sustainable businesses working collectively to accelerate the system transformations needed for a net-zero, nature positive, and more equitable future.” One of the documents is the flagship initiative VISIONS 2050: Time to Transform (WBSCD, 2021), which puts the term “transformation” into the focus. The other one is a practitioner guide on the meaning of nature positive business (WBSCD, 2021). It claims “nature positive” as being a rallying term to take transformative action in all sectors of economy and society. Document analysis The analysis was guided by the theoretical and methodological concept of DiscourseHistorical Analysis (see section 1.2 and 1.3). 6.2 Results World Economic Forum session The setting The video is about a panel discussion. The moderator is a chief executive officer (CEO) of an international conservation non-governmental organisation (NGO). The four members of the panel consist of representatives of the agricultural sector, the mining sector, finance and investment sectors, and NGO sector. Interestingly, the government sector is also represented by an initial speech of one of the ministers of Ecuador who, after his short speech, left the discussion. The event was scheduled on the fourth day of WEF 2023 and its video lasted 45 minutes 44 seconds. Summary of the specific contributions The moderator has set the stage for discussion by a short introduction that started with the achievements of COP15 in Montreal after the pandemic: the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the 30-by-30 target (protecting 30% of land and water by 2030 agreed by all parties of the international meeting). The moderator called this a “massive ambition” and directed the audience to “get to the business of how we make this happen?” Then, he introduced the Ecuadorian minister as a “real champion for nature” and gave him the floor. The first speaker representing the public sector (government) has chosen to focus his talk on his own business experience and what lessons he has learnt from “25 years in the business of saving the Planet.” His job, as he explained, was to advise the private sector on how to move towards being a sustainable company. His line of argument was that he had spent the first 15 years of his consultancy work by referring to “climate change, floods, temperature, losing biodiversity” but – most probably – without much effect since he had changed his argumentation. In the last decade, he – more effectively – used another line of argument that rests on the monetary value of nature. Rhetorically, he used the example of Costa Rica, as opposed to Ecuador, in order to 4 https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/About-us 59 and business leaders), the values that are evident within them (anthropocentric, ecocentric, and science-centric), and the rhetoric functions they use (warning, calls for action, informing, persuading, accusing, entertaining, othering, and raising hope). The results were structured according to actor group, so in this discussion section, we will examine the values and rhetoric functions between actor groups including within national contexts. We have shown that the term biodiversity is rarely understood, which leaves it open to use, or perhaps abuse, by actor groups to further their agenda. We hypothesised that the language used in the biodiversity discourse can be chosen by actor groups strategically with the intention of persuading an audience to take action or inaction or to justify or explain their own action or inaction. The results from the news outlets, political parties, and NGOs, at least implicitly, support this premise while the results from the business actor group support it explicitly. 7.1 Plural values of biodiversity Anthropocentric value We hypothesised that participants in the anthropocentric discourse around biodiversity frame their values of biodiversity in terms of the contribution it can make to people. This set of anthropocentric values was found to be ubiquitous in publications by all of the actor groups. This result is understandable for the news outlets, who have an interest in connecting their content with the lives of their readers so that the readers will continue to subscribe to the news outlet. It is also understandable from the point of political parties, who seek to gain or maintain power by representing the population, so are served by connecting their position with the everyday life of their constituents. From a business point of view, taking an anthropocentric view of biodiversity might be used to gain customers by demonstrating corporate social responsibility. However, it was less intuitive for environmental NGOs, many of whom perceive an intrinsic value of nature, including biodiversity, as central to their identity. Ecocentric (intrinsic) value We hypothesised that a range of actors perceive biodiversity to have intrinsic values and assume the role speaking on its behalf, with this role taken predominantly by environmental NGOs. Overall, the analysis shows that the NGOs included in this study mainly use anthropocentric values to argue for biodiversity protection, which is surprising because they simultaneously, or more prominently, argue for recognition that biodiversity has intrinsic values. Essentially, they face "the Environmentalists' Dilemma" (Norton, 1991) of whether our obligation is to save natural resources for future consumption, or to save nature from consumption, which is solved by arguing for the former to achieve the latter. This result suggests that the environmental NGOs are pragmatic in their operationalisation of the biodiversity concept, and use it to motivate participation and action by connecting it to the well-being of the people they are targeting. However, we did not find any statements expressing monetary values of biodiversity or its services. This clearly sets the biodiversity discourse of environmental NGOs apart from discourses in news outlets, business, and political parties. Science centric value We also hypothesised that participation in this science-centric discourse on biodiversity leads to biodiversity being valued in terms of its potential contribution to scientific endeavour. Indeed, this rhetoric was found in 13 scientific articles but rarely in publications by the other actor groups. Exceptions include some examples of rhetoric 60 indicating science centric values that were found in publications by political parties and by business, although both of these results might be explained by derived anthropocentric values in that they wish to support scientists. Although science-centric values of biodiversity have been found in academic papers that analyse biodiversity discourses (such as Blicharska & Grandin, 2015; Howard et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021; Mitchell, 2016; and Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002), we argue that science-centric is a specific example of an anthropocentric perspective in that scientists, who are the usual participants in the scientific discourse, are interested in preserving a biodiversity as a resource that is useful to them. Table 9 provides an overview of the value domains of biodiversity in the discourse of the different actor groups analysed within this work. Table 9. Overview of the apparent prevalence of the value domains of biodiversity in the publications from the different actor groups. Actor groups Value of biodiversity Academic literature News outlets Political parties NGOs Business Anthropocentric ++ +++ +++ +++ +++ Science-centric +++ + + Intrinsic + + + 7.2 Rhetoric function We hypothesised that rhetoric about biodiversity is used by individuals or groups to be argumentative or strategic and to persuade in order to further their agendas. The rhetoric functions discussed in this work were inductively identified, which means they were driven by the data and used to generate theory. We acknowledge the subjectivity of such inductive work, but some comparison with the results of previous study adds plausibility to the interpretations. The depth of rhetoric functions identified in the review of the 64 relevant articles, which is described in detail in section 2, could be reduced to three major functions of rhetoric: Warning, Calling for Action, and Informing. The warning rhetoric in the academic literature is based around two dominant value domains: intrinsic and anthropocentric. 1) The intrinsic value of biodiversity, as a part of nature, that is under threat, such as Bjærke (2019) who equated losing biodiversity with losing happiness and Blicharska, and Grandin (2015) who reported a discourse that all species have a right to exist, even if they have no clear benefit for humans; and 2) The anthropocentric value of nature as a vital resource, with human existence inextricably tied to the preservation of biodiversity. This discourse was identified in 28 papers that have analysed the discourse on biodiversity. Similarly, warning was identified as a main stream of rhetoric function in the public discourse in each of the four actor groups. Although there were differences found in the sensationalism in which warnings were presented, this rhetoric function was used extensively by news outlets. Muradian and Gomez-Baggethun (2021) point out a 61 strategy to use rhetoric function to create a connection between the audience and the phenomenon by anchoring experience in analytical categories, establishing causal relationships, and conveying symbolic meaning. Indeed, the warning rhetoric used by news outlets commonly had an anthropocentric focus, with warnings typically framed in terms that connect them with the individual reader, which are intended to motivate them to consume media as a strategy of avoiding the consequences of biodiversity loss. Similarly, warnings in the rhetoric used by environmental NGOs were also framed with an anthropocentric focus to motivate the audience to change behaviour, contribute to the NGO, or both. Warning rhetoric by political parties and by business was framed in such a way that the actors placed themselves as part of the solution, which could encourage votes or custom, respectively. The Calling for Action rhetoric is primarily based on the anthropocentric arguments that we have: 1) A moral obligation to preserve biodiversity as a resource for future generations, in 10 papers, including Valiverronen and Hellsten (2002) who identified discourse around “green medicine” and Muradian and Gomez-Baggethun (2021) who identified a narrative in which nature and biodiversity are represented as domains that are external to human societies and from which a positive flow of benefits emerge. 2) A political obligation to preserve biodiversity to enable economic development, in five papers, including Serrano et al. (2019) who identified a discourse that sees biodiversity as a product of histories that shows the interconnection between nature and society with diverse global contexts, such as culture, science, and economy. 3) A solidarity based obligation to preserve biodiversity to respect the cultural ties with biodiversity held by others, with 11 papers identifying this discourse, including Bjærke, (2019), Blicharska and Grandin (2015), and Serrano et al. (2019). Arguments to preserve biodiversity based on its scientific value as a store of scientific knowledge were present, but less common, in the academic literature. Exceptions include Valiverronen and Hellsten (2002) who identified the description of biodiversity as the “library of life”. Sceptical arguments that enough is already being done to preserve biodiversity, were also found, for example, by Takala et al. (2022a), but were even rarer. Calling for Action was identified as dominant discourses in all analysed materials. The informing function of rhetoric appears to be the exclusive domain of news outlets and academic literature, with most academic articles adopting a neutral tone when describing a particular biodiversity issue. While most uses of the concept of biodiversity in publications in the other actor groups included some information function, it was almost always attached to another rhetoric function. However, away from the academic discourse, in the realm of public discourse, a range of other rhetoric functions were identified. These included 1) persuading: particularly by NGOs and political parties, but also news outlets; 2) accusing: particularly by NGOs political parties, and news outlets; 3) entertaining, which was exclusively the domain of news outlets; 4) othering: which was found in political parties and news outlets; and 5) raising hope, which was commonly found in business and political parties who each tried to represent the optimistic future. An overview of the occurrence of the identified rhetoric functions in publications by the respective actor groups is shown in Table 10. 62 Table 10. Overview of rhetoric function used in relation to biodiversity by different actor groups. Actor groups Rhetoric function Academic literature News outlets Political parties NGOs Business Warning +++ +++ + +++ Calls for action +++ ++ ++ +++ Informing ++ ++ ++ + Persuading +++ +++ +++ +++ Accusing ++ +++ + Entertaining + Othering ++ +++ Raising hope + + ++ 7.3 Country specific observations Discourse and especially conflicts in biodiversity relevant topics tend to be locally relevant. Most of the conflicts that we identified, in all of the actor groups, were primarily relevant at the national level, or even more locally. For example, many were related to the intensity of agricultural production to ensure food production, herd protection from wild animals, or the production of renewable energy (namely water and wind power). There are also conflicts with local cultural values as illustrated by the Norwegian example of weekend cabins. This suggests the value of looking at national contexts individually. The following national portraits are intended to give an overview of each participating country with the perspectives of the actor groups that were analysed within that country (see also Table 11). Table 11. Overview of the type actor groups materials analysed per country. Actor groups Countries News outlets Political parties Environmental NGOs Italy + + U.K. + + Switzerland + + + Czech Republic + Netherlands + Hungary + Germany + Norway + + + 63 Austria + + Italy In general, the biodiversity rhetoric among Italian news outlets seems more emotional than in countries such as Germany. There is more accusing, warning or hope raising language using sometimes quiet drastic expressions. For example, accusatory segments include: “five horsemen of the apocalypse” (Il Manifesto, R164) or “Excessive consumption by the rich is a danger to living species” (Avvenire, R186). Also, accusations of the government are quite serious. The warning rhetoric is equally emotional. Interestingly, among the Italian news sample hope raising language is rather frequent. Particularly striking is the language in Il sole 24 ore, who raise hope in 7 of the 10 articles analysed. In their article’s humanity is already successfully reversing the trend of biodiversity loss. Also, regarding the role of actors, the Italian newspaper Il sole 24 ore is interesting. This newspaper has a very neoliberal discourse and portrays big industries as saviours of biodiversity. They seem to question scientific evidence by stating that "the scientific community believes […]" (R173) and frequently cite scientific outputs generated by business or financed by business. The discourse in Corriere della sera is similar, regarding the role of industries as a generator of solutions to the biodiversity crisis. In contrast, the newspapers Il Manifesto and Avvenire portray industries rather as the perpetrators of biodiversity loss, with statements like the following: “I want to ask, in God's name, the big extractive companies – mining, oil, forestry, real estate, agribusiness – to stop destroying forests, wetlands and mountains, to stop polluting rivers and seas, to stop intoxicating peoples and food.” (citing The Popoe in Avvenire, R193) In the biodiversity discourse among the political parties, the position of the Fratelli d’Italia is particularly interesting. On the one hand, this right wing party clearly identifies itself as protectors of nature: Natural heritage conservation is a fundamental element of the political identity of us conservationists. […] there is nothing more 'right-wing' than ecology. The Right loves the environment because it loves the land, the identity, the homeland. Preserving the environment means preserving and passing on to our children the places where they were born, making them known and defending them. (Fratelli d’Italia, IT, Pos. 15) However, in their view there is no need to protect nature from humans, since they “do not consider the presence of man and his activities to be at odds with environmental protection. (Fratelli d’Italia, IT, Pos. 16). Instead, this party uses the biodiversity discourse as an argument for nationalist politics: In our vision, man is the custodian of Creation, who enjoys the beauty in which he is immersed and feels an existential duty to protect it and hand it over to those who will survive him. Ours is a pragmatic and realistic attitude that holds together love for Nature, the defence of our landscapes and the sustainability of ecosystems with human activities. (IT_Fratelli d’Italia) Some topics seemed to be particularly relevant to the Italian biodiversity discussion: reduction of plastic waste in the environment, preservation of agricultural variety and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). 64 UK In the UK, overall, the biodiversity discourse seems quite emotional. This became evident in the type of language the NGOs use to persuade readers of the severity of biodiversity loss. Also, in the news outlets – except for the Metro – the articles were frequently anthropocentric and often accusatory in nature. 17 of the 60 articles analysed had an accusatory tone with comments such as “Observers have slammed the "snail's pace" of negotiations and are pressing for a strengthening of ambitions” (BBC, R248). Outlets such as the BBC often issued a warning with regard to biodiversity decline with comments like the following being common place: “Scientists have issued repeated warnings about threats to nature driven by human actions, including chopping down forests and turning natural land over to farming” (BBC, R248). Switzerland In the Swiss media articles persuading rhetoric was very frequent. Certain topics stood out in the Swiss discourse such as private gardening (TA, R108; Le Matin R122; 20 Minuten; Blick R125), renewable energy projects (TA, R103 and R104; Blick R131) or invasive species (20 Minute, R144, R146). Accusations have been identified in around 20 articles of the Swiss sample, most of them targeting public administration, politicians or “Switzerland” in general. In addition, a particular accusatory discussion is currently taking place related to biodiversity. In response to the energy crises, there are a variety of proposals in the Swiss parliament to speed up the construction of big solar or hydropower plants. In this matter some blame environmental associations to be “sabotaging the compromise” (Blick, R124) while others accuse politicians: “What is happening in politics at the moment is irresponsible. Principles of the rule of law are being thrown overboard. It is not necessary to relax environmental regulations and massively damage biodiversity in order to advance renewable energies” (TA, R106). The newspaper Le Matin stood particularly out, as it was characterised by a populistic reporting style, with only seldom reference to the value of biodiversity. In one article the newspaper cited a biodiversity loss denier among the right political party SVP. Also, other newspapers have articles criticising biodiversity protection as being in conflict with other environmental goals (e.g. renewable energy production), food sovereignty or tourism. In rather populistic newspaper 20 Minuten, the return of threatened species is portrayed as controversial as it often implies problems for the local populations (e.g. beavers in urban areas). Agriculture seems to be an emotional topic in the Swiss biodiversity discourse. Among the political parties and the NGOs, there is dispute about the role of farmers in contributing to biodiversity loss or preserving the latter, the type of (agricultural) areas eligible for protection and calls from NGOs, left and green parties to abolish “harming” subsidies. Also, wild predators are discussed frequently. The Christian democratic party highlight the need for controlling populations of predators such as wolves and ibex to prevent them from reproducing uncontrollably especially in protected areas. The Greens on the other side, ask the parliament not to allow more and more protected species such as the wolf or the swan to be shot. Czech Republic In general, the tone of many news outlet articles is hopeful and the EU laws are described in positive terms: 65 “The most effective tools for protecting species are EU-level laws, such as directives on environmental protection, land use or species diversity. The expansion and linking of protected areas, the managed return of species to the wild and efforts to improve the natural environment, among other things, are working.” (Právo, R39) On balance ‘raising hope’ is a common rhetoric function used where articles warn they frequently raise hope as a counter balance. Although there are accusatory statements in Czech news outlets, such as: “The main reasons for the dramatic decline in the numbers of these birds, according to her, are the ever-increasing intensity of agriculture” (Právo, R38) and “Unlike breeding in zoos, the purpose of which is to preserve biodiversity and protect endangered species, circuses breed animals just for entertainment and profit” (Lidove noviny, R25). In general, the tone of articles presents biodiversity as interesting in itself, as well as a topic of concern that needs addressing. Netherlands Overall, news outlet articles in the Netherlands were less accusing and negative compared to articles from other countries, such as the UK. Many articles in the Netherlands reported reasons for hope, with 13 articles including statements such as “farmers are doing everything they can to increase biodiversity on their land” (Algemeen Dagblad, R201) and “Fortunately, there are now also positive developments at COP27. Thanks in part to the Brazil of future president Lula da Silva (who was welcomed like a pop star in Sharm el-Sheikh on Wednesday)” (De Volkskrant, R221). Actually, hope raising rhetoric (n=14) were more often observed than warning elements (n=12). Although some scientific articles were evident, most articles were concerned with the discussion around government level response. Hungary Only a few of the Hungarian news outlet articles address biodiversity as a central topic. Hungarian articles are characterised by the use of biodiversity as a supporting argument, to persuade and argue for other interventions including: cleaning up water courses (Index, R43), forest management (Index, R44), reducing nutrient enrichment from dog faeces (Magyar Nemzet, R52), reduction of chemical production and pollution (Index, R42), and addressing the issue of microplastic in coastal waters (Origo, R59). The discourse In Hungary includes a negative response by business and the national government to EU attempts to protect biodiversity and considers it a threat to agricultural sector profits. This is evidenced in accusatory statements and warnings: “The National Chamber of Agriculture is fighting to the last on the battlefield in Brussels. Balázs Győrffy, president of the public body, told our newspaper that the European Commission would rather use political capital to force unrealistic expectations on farmers in the Green Deal than the interests of agriculture and environmental protection” (Magyar Nemzet, R54) “Almost all the studies we have seen agree that the measure would not only harm the livelihoods of farmers, but that consumers would also pay a high price for the inability to feed the agri-food industry.” (Magyar Nemzet, R49) Biodiversity and allied topics are used in political point-scoring through othering: “This is the classic left-wing tempo: tax everyone, tax the farmers, the dominant social stratum of the countryside. […] However, what we are seeing is that the Timmermans team is not approaching the issue from an economic point of view, nor are they even 66 driven by environmental concerns. I am firmly convinced that they are making politics out of this too.” (Magyar Nemzet, R54) The arguments around biodiversity are politicised from both sides with accusation and counter accusation: “Former employees of BirdLife Belarus (APB) are suspected of trying to destabilise the country's political life under the guise of bird protection. After 24 years of work, the organisation was ordered to close down by the court” (Index, R46)), with the argument bringing in conflict that extends beyond the Hungarian border. Despite this tension in the discourse, hope is raised in several cases although, for the most part, it is a celebration of the national government projects or praise for the action of the Hungarian people. Germany In Germany, a bit less than half of the news outlet articles had persuading elements within them. Usually this involved a call to action (“We have to fix the world we have."(Die Zeit, R86) or a proposition of what ought to be done (“Less money for catch crops and a regionally adapted subsidy for fallow land would therefore be much more clever” (Die Welt, R96). Other articles used biodiversity to argue for food democracy (Die Welt, R100) flowering strips (SZ, R93), metrics to assess corporate action (FAZ, R89), reduced meat consumption (FAZ, R87) or sufficiency (Die Zeit, R83)). Accusations or warning rhetoric was also used in nine and eight articles respectively. Accusations were mainly inexplicit and blamed humanity in general. In two articles the UN Secretary-General António Guterres was quoted, calling humanity a "weapon of mass destruction" (Die Zeit, R83; Die Zeit, R86). Few articles voiced more explicit accusations towards the agricultural lobby (Die Zeit, R83), industrialised countries (Die Zeit, R84), China (FAZ, R91) or big companies such as Coca-Cola or Nestlé (Die Welt, R100). The Bild newspaper stands out by being the only newspaper from the analysed five with entertaining and hope raising messages. Warning rhetoric were especially frequent in Die Zeit (three out of five articles) and used drastic statements by world leaders such as Olaf Scholz or Justin Trudeau. Actors frequently referred to were scientists (19 articles) and governments (18 articles). Interestingly the majority of references to business actors refers to farmers and agricultural companies. NGOs were mentioned in all articles of Die Zeit, while being less present in the reporting of the other newspapers. Norway A vast majority (28 of 37) of Norwegian news articles contained anthropocentric value statements, often referring specifically to the monetary value of biodiversity: “If we do not put a price in kroner on nature, the value is in practice zero, it is claimed.” (Klassenkampen, R334) The rhetoric around biodiversity was largely warning of the risk in its loss, accusing either business or the government for not protecting biodiversity well enough, or persuasive in an attempt to increase biodiversity’s perceived value. In comparison to other countries, more news articles focussed on action carried out by the general public or were somehow directly relevant to the general public than relating to business impacts. In Norway a particular biodiversity relevant topic seems to be the use of cabins. This has become evident in the analysis of political parties and the news outlets. The Norwegian Greens ask for a limitation to the construction and expansion of cabins. The Conservatives are clearly against such limitations as cabin culture is an important Norwegian value. The conflict is also evident in the news: 67 “We rant about the loss of biodiversity, but politicians continue to allow the construction of cabins. It's hard to see the connection," (Aftenposten, R299) Remarkable is also a particular discourse on the “right” type of knowledge related to nature management in Norway. On various occasions the actors refer to the aspiration for Norway to follow a “knowledge based politics or management”. However, whether the relevant knowledge already exists and which kind of knowledge is the right one, seems to be under dispute. Among the political parties, the Norwegian Centre party highlights the role of knowledge about biodiversity. They state that once we have a good knowledge base, conflicts about resource use can be solved. There is no agreement between parties to what extent we already have enough knowledge or still need to acquire knowledge. One liberal and one conservative party perceive that we already do have all the knowledge that is needed to take measures. On another occasion, one of these two parties call for more transparency on the loss of biodiversity. This is in line with the statement of the Norwegian Social democratic party where they highlight a need for better understanding the causes of biodiversity loss and the effectiveness of measures to support biodiversity. In this dispute, uncertainty in science is thus used to argue for specific management decisions and different groups call on different scientific results. In a way the discussions thus become power struggles over knowledge. Austria The biodiversity discourse in all analysed Austrian news outlets seems generally informing, with less emotional language compared to other countries such as the UK or Norway. Such informing segments are often about places that are rich in biodiversity, or about scientific discoveries. The Kurier presents biodiversity as something to be inspired by, for example, one article presents a long list of animals, plants, fungi and minerals of the year 2023 with description of these species (R360). However, except for a few hints, the article does not provide any suggestions to support these species. Accusing rhetoric is only found in a few articles (n=7, 15 %). For example, one article on COP15 reported on an accusation by Greenpeace "Greenpeace has harshly criticised the outcome of the summit, saying that the goal of protecting at least 30 percent of land and marine areas by 2030 has "significant gaps" (Kronen Zeitung, R352). Where articles are warning, it is usually a factual warning about biodiversity loss such as "Reptiles, amphibians, birds and insects in particular are struggling with dramatic population declines" (Heute, R338). In contrary the warnings in the Kleine Zeitung are starker: “Human activity, such as the destruction of natural habitat, has disastrous consequences for the diversity of life on our planet” (Kleine Zeitung, R376). In the Kurier warnings were only detected in one article. Ecocentric (n=17) and anthropocentric (n=18) values were balanced among the Austrian news outlets. However, Kleine Zeitung tended to focus on more anthropocentric consequences such as “Among other things, biodiversity offers us food security and can be used for advances in medicine” (Kleine Zeitung, R376), whereas in Heute ecocentric values were mentioned more frequently than anthropocentric values. In the Kurier, values of biodiversity are mentioned only in three instances. In Austria the biodiversity discourse among the analysed political parties seems to be strongly dominated by the party “Die Grünen” who accounted for the majority of statements that were coded within the respective press releases. The FPÖ, NEOS and 68 SPÖ seem to be much less involved in biodiversity politics and for the ÖVP, we did not find any press release mentioning the word biodiversity or ‘Artenvielfalt’. Some topics seemed to be particularly relevant to the Austrian biodiversity discussion: alpine pasture management, promotion of predators and other wild animals (especially wolves), patents on plants and animals, ban on pesticides, expansion of organic farming. Interestingly, the FPÖ uses biodiversity policy to argue for a dissolution of political power towards the national level. They call to stop the “dictate from Brussels” as “The conditions in the nation states are far too different”. 7.4 Initial reflections on and some limitations of the work The approach applied within this study has overall proven as efficient and easy to use and has provided a structured way to analyse discourses from a range of actor groups in different European countries. For future studies we recommend removing the ‘science-centric’ value category when studying biodiversity values and instead think of science-centred discourse as a variation of anthropocentric values (see section 7.1). A limitation of this work is that there was no time restriction for publications from NGOs and political parties, and that the news outlet articles were sourced from 2022. While this approach gives an informative snapshot of the societal discourse on biodiversity, it is limited in the ability to track the development of discourses over time. The extensive picture of the current societal discourse places future research in the position to add to this knowledge with snapshots from other time periods that would allow conclusions to be drawn as to changes in the discourse. A further limitation is that the research was limited to four actor groups from a limited number of countries for in depth analysis. Although these actor groups were selected according to the DHA, as outlined by Reisigl (2017), and combined with categorisations suggested by Lee et al. (2021) and Bemelmans-Videc et al. (2011), there are other fields, such as education or health, that may be informative to understanding the societal discourse on biodiversity. Time and resource constraints did not allow the inclusion of countries in the analysis of the discourse in news outlets other than the partner countries in PLANET4B, while the analysis of the discourse in political parties and NGOs was limited to four and three countries respectively. The inclusion of further countries in the analysis may have gained additional insights and remains the challenge of future research. Such future research will also be faced with methodological challenges, as this study was, such as inter-coder reliability and the potential for nuance to be lost due to translation. The search strategy was also a limitation to this research. Although the search strategies for each field of interest were as systematic as possible within our available resources, some pragmatic decisions had to be made. For example, the NGO study was limited to press releases because they were deemed to be a good way of learning the individual NGO’s perspectives, but other document types, such as speech and/or interview transcripts, might also have been informative. Although the “site” query in Google is well suited to return results from one specific domain, the query is not meant to be complete and therefore also not suitable for diagnostic purposes. Instead of providing information on how many pages exist on a given domain that match with the search query, it returns documents based on a google algorithm to evaluate relevance. 75 Väliverronen, E. & Hellsten, I. (2002). From “Burning Library” to “Green Medicine”: The Role of Metaphors in Communicating Biodiversity. Science Communication, 24(2). 229–245. DOI: 10.1177/107554702237848 Wagner, D. (2020). Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Annual Review of Entomology, 65, 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011019025151 WBCSD (2021). What does nature-positive mean for business? World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Available at: https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Food-and-Nature/Nature/NaturePositive/Resources/What-does-nature-positive-mean-for-business (accessed March 25, 2023). WBCSD (2021). Vision 2050 – Time to Transform. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Available at: https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/11765/177145/1 (accessed March 25, 2023). Williams, T. (2021). Advancing business understanding of “nature positive. Available at: https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/News-Insights/WBCSDinsights/Advancing-business-understanding-of-nature-positive (accessed March 25, 2023). Wodak, R. (2015). Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In: The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. K. Tracy, C. Ilie & T. Sandel (eds.), Hoboken: JohnWiley & Sons, pp. 1–14. Wodak, R. & Reisigl, M. (2015). Discourse and Racism. In: The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn. D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 576–596. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch27 Statement on data availability All of the data that were used to generate this report are publicly available online, with detailed descriptions of the search methodologies explained in each of the actor group sections (2–6). These descriptions will allow ready replicability of the study using the same date that were used in this analysis. In addition, the full collection of analysed materials can be found on PLANET4B’s community in publicly accessible data repository Zenodo (www.zenodo.org/communities/planet4b). Statement on ethics This work exclusively used published material that was freely available on the Internet. No personal data were collected, so no ethical issues are apparent. The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest. 76 Annexes Annex 1. Overview of discourses in academic articles Table A1. Types of discourses that emerged from the analysis of academic articles and the articles where the discourses were presented. Discourse type Occurrence across articles Utilitarian Utilitarian (Adger et al., 2001; Aggestam, 2015; Berry et al., 2018; Bjærke, 2019; Blicharska & Grandin, 2015; Bonie & Hulme, 2015; Bredin et al., 2015; Brunet et al., 2020; Buijs et al., 2022; Carmen et al., 2018; Drury et al., 2022; Gustafsson, 2013; Howard et al., 2018; Huge et al., 2017; Jetzkowitz et al., 2018; Jinnah, 2011; Kusmanoff et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2021; Mitchell, 2016; Muradian & Gomez-Baggethun, 2021; Primmer et al., 2017; Schaal et al., 2022; Serrano et al., 2019; Takala et al., 2019; Troumbis, 2017; Turnhout et al., 2013; Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002; van den Burg & Bogaardt, 2014) Economic development (Chalaye, 2022; Howard et al., 2018; Muradian & Gomez-Baggethun, 2021; Serrano et al., 2019; Spash & Aslaksen, 2015; Blicharska & Grandin, 2015; Carmen et al., 2018) Sceptical (Chalaye, 2022; Takala et al., 2019, 2022a) Nature as caring and providing (Bjærke, 2019; Olausson & Uggla, 2021) Ecological modernisation (Adger et al., 2001; Aggestam, 2015; Anquet & Girard, 2022; Bredin et al., 2015; Carmen et al., 2018; Chalaye, 2022; Drury et al., 2022; Howard et al., 2018; Spash & Aslaksen, 2015; Turnhout et al., 2013; Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002; van den Burg & Bogaardt, 2014) Obligations Moral and Political obligations (Anquet & Girard, 2022; Bjærke, 2019; Blicharska & Grandin, 2015; Gustafsson, 2013; Howard et al., 2018; Mitchell, 2016; Muradian & Gomez-Baggethun, 2021; Primmer et al., 2017; Sebastiao and Soares, 2022; Spash & Aslaksen, 2015; van den Burg & Bogaardt, 2014) Nature conservation discourses Interventionist (Bredin et al., 2015; Mitchell, 2016; Serrano et al., 2019; van den Burg & Bogaardt, 2014) Preservationist (Anquet & Girard, 2022; Berry et al., 2018; Bjærke, 2019; Blicharska & Grandin, 2015; Bredin et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2018; Huge et al., 2017; Mangachena & Pickering, 2021; Mitchell, 2016; Steinwall, 2015; Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002) Responsibility (Huge et al., 2017; Takala et al., 2019; van den Burg & Bogaardt, 2014 ; Zemanek, 2022) Solutions and issues with them (Huge et al., 2017; van den Burg & Bogaardt, 2014) Solidarity Cultural solidarity and values (Anquet & Girard, 2022; Mitchell; Anquet & Girard, 2022; Austen et al., 2023; Bjærke, 2019; Blicharska & Grandin, 2015; Bredin et al., 2015; Buijs et al., 2022; Carmen et al., 2018; Howard et al., 2018; Serrano et al., 2019; Takala et al., 2019), 2016) 77 Ecological solidarity (Anquet & Girard, 2022; Bjærke, 2019; Chalaye, 2022; Drury et al., 2022; Howard et al., 2018; Jinnah, 2011; Primmer et al., 2017; Schaal et al., 2022; Serrano et al., 2019) Holistic (Mother earth) Holistic (Mother Earth) (Berry et al., 2018; Bonie & Hulme, 2015; Brunet et al., 2020; Carmen et al., 2018; Howard et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021) Biocentric (Aggestam, 2015) Ecological collapse (Anquet & Girard, 2022; Chalaye, 2022; Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002) Nature as eternal and magnificent (Olausson & Uggla, 2021) Nature as mighty but delicate (Olausson & Uggla, 2021; Zemanek, 2022) Non-grouped discourses Scientific Specimen logic (Bjærke, 2019; Blicharska & Grandin, 2015; Boiral, 2016; Gustafsson, 2013; Howard et al., 2018; Jetzkowitz et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2021; Mitchell, 2016; Primmer et al., 2017; Spash & Aslaksen, 2015; Toepfer, 2019; Turnhout et al., 2013; Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002) Uninvolved (Adler et al., 2017; Boiral, 2016; Drury et al., 2022 ; Ibouroi et al., 2021 ; Takala et al., 2022b; Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002) Concerned (Bjærke, 2019; Boiral, 2016; Carmen et al., 2018; Ibourio et al., 2021; Ohtani, 2022; Schaal et al., 2022; Takala et al., 2022b; Valiverronen & Hellsten, 2002) Transcendence (Mitchell, 2016) 78 Annex 2. Full list of reviewed academic articles Adger, W. N., Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K. & Svarstad, H. (2001). Advancing a political ecology of global environmental discourses. Development and Change, 32(4), 681–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00222 Adler, R., Mansi, M., Pandey, R. & Stringer, C. (2017). United Nations Decade on Biodiversity A study of the reporting practices of the Australian mining industry. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(8), 1711–1745. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-04-2015-2028 Aggestam, F. (2015). Framing the ecosystem concept through a longitudinal study of developments in science and policy. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1052–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12516 Anquet, R. & Girard, F. (2022). Biocultural Community Protocols and the Ethic of Stewardship: The Sovereign Stewards of Biodiversity. In: Biocultural Rights, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Protecting Culture and the Environment. F. Girard, I. Hall, & C. Frison (eds.), London: Routledge, pp. 271– 313. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003172642-14 Apostolopoulou, E., Bormpoudakis, D., Paloniemi, R., Cent, J., Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Pietrzyk-Kaszynska, A. & Pantis, J. D. (2014). Governance rescaling and the neoliberalization of nature: the case of biodiversity conservation in four EU countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 21(6), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.979904 Austen, G. E., Dallimer, M., Irvine, K. N., Fisher, J. C., Fish, R. D. & Davies, Z. G. (2023). The diversity of people’s relationships with biodiversity should inform forest restoration and creation. Conservation Letters, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12930 Austen, G. E., Dallimer, M., Irvine, K. N., Maund, P. R., Fish, R. D. & Davies, Z. G. (2021). Exploring shared public perspectives on biodiversity attributes. People and Nature, 3(4), 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10237 Barnaud, C., Fischer, A., Staddon, S., Blackstock, K., Moreau, C., Corbera, E., Hester, A., Mathevet, R., McKee, A., Reyes, J., Sirami, C. & Eastwood, A. (2021). Is forest regeneration good for biodiversity? Exploring the social dimensions of an apparently ecological debate. Environmental Science & Policy, 120, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.012 Barrios-O’Neill, D. (2021). Focus and social contagion of environmental organization advocacy on Twitter. Conservation Biology, 35(1), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13564 Benjaminsen, T. A., Kepe, T. & Brathen, S. (2008). Between global interests and local needs: Conservation and land reform in Namaqualand, South Africa. Africa, 78(2), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.3366/e0001972008000144 Berry, P. M., Fabok, V., Blicharska, M., Bredin, Y. K., Llorente, M. G., Kovacs, E., Geamana, N., Stanciu, A., Termansen, M., Jaaskelainen, T., Haslett, J. R. & Harrison, P. A. (2018). Why conserve biodiversity? A multi-national exploration of stakeholders’ views on the arguments for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(7), 1741–1762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1173-z 79 Beumer, C. & Martens, P. (2013). IUCN and perspectives on biodiversity conservation in a changing world. Biodiversity And Conservation, 22(13–14), 3105–3120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0573-6 Bjærke, M. R. (2019). Making invisible changes visible: Animal examples and the communication of biodiversity loss. Culture Unbound, 11(3), 394–414. https://doi.org/10.3384/CU.2000.1525.191127 Blicharska, M. & Grandin, U. (2015). Why protect biodiversity? Perspectives of conservation professionals in Poland. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 11(4), 349–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1050969 Boiral, O. (2016). Accounting for the Unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and Impression Management. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(4), 751–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2497-9 Bonie, M. & Hulme, M. (2015). Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.009 Bredin, Y. K., Lindhjem, H., van Dijk, J. & Linnell, J. D. C. (2015). Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis. Ecological Economics, 118, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.005 Brunet, N. D., Dagenais, D., Breux, S. & Handa, I. T. (2020). A characterization of media representation of biodiversity and implications for public perceptions and environmental policy: the case of Quebec, Canada. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1655–1669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0244-6 Buijs, A., Kamphorst, D., Mattijssen, T., Kuindersma, W., Bouwma, I. & van Dam, R. (2022). Policy discourses for reconnecting nature with society: The search for societal engagement in Dutch nature conservation policies. Land Use Policy, 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105965 Carmen, E., Watt, A. & Young, J. (2018). Arguing for biodiversity in practice: a case study from the UK. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(7), 1599–1617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1264-x Chaigneau, T. & Brown, K. (2016). Challenging the win-win discourse on conservation and development: analyzing support for marine protected areas. Ecology and Society, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08204-210136 Chalaye, P. (2022). The discursive sources of environmental progress and its limits: biodiversity politics in France. Environmental Politics, 32(1), 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2022.2034411 Damiens, F. L. P., Porter, L. & Gordon, A. (2021). The politics of biodiversity offsetting across time and institutional scales. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00636-9 Dempsey, B. (2021). Understanding conflicting views in conservation: An analysis of England. Land Use Policy, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105362. Drury, M., Fuller, J. & Keijzer, M. (2022). Biodiversity communication at the UN Summit 2020: Blending business and nature. Discourse & Communication, 16(1), 37– 57. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813211043720 80 Durand, L. & Vazquez, L. B. (2011). Biodiversity conservation discourses. A case study on scientists and government authorities in Sierra de Huautla Biosphere Reserve, Mexico. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.04.009 Espinosa, C. (2013). The riddle of leaving the oil in the soil-Ecuador’s Yasuni-ITT project from a discourse perspective. Forest Policy and Economics, 36, 27– 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.012 Gustafsson, K. M. (2013). Environmental discourses and biodiversity: the construction of a storyline in understanding and managing an environmental issue. Journal Of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 10(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2013.769455 Howard, B., Braat, L. C., Bugter, R. J. F., Carmen, E., Hails, R. S., Watt, A. D. & Young, J. C. (2018). Taking stock of the spectrum of arguments for biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(7), 1561–1574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1082-1 Huge, J., Rochette, A. J., de Bisthoven, L. J., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Koedam, N. & Vanhove, M. P. M. (2017). Utilitarian framings of biodiversity shape environmental impact assessment in development cooperation. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.003 Ibouroi, M. T., Dhurham, S. A. O., Besnard, A. & Lescureux, N. (2021). Understanding Drivers of Unsustainable Natural Resource Use in the Comoro Islands. Tropical Conservation Science, 14. https://doi.org/10.1177/19400829211032585 Jetzkowitz, J., van Koppen, C. S. A., Lidskog, R., Ott, K., Voget-Kleschin, L. & Wong, C. M. L. (2018). The significance of meaning. Why IPBES needs the social sciences and humanities. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31, pp. 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2017.1348933 Jinnah, S. (2011). Marketing Linkages: Secretariat Governance of the ClimateBiodiversity Interface. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00067 Joutsenvirta, M. (2009). A Language Perspective to Environmental Management and Corporate Responsibility. Business Strategy and The Environment, 18(4), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.574 Kelemen, E., Nguyen, G., Gomiero, T., Kovacs, E., Choisis, J. P., Choisis, N., Paoletti, M. G., Podmaniczky, L., Ryschawy, J., Sarthou, J. P., Herzog, F., Dennis, P. & Balazs, K. (2013). Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity: Lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study. Land Use Policy, 35, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.005 Kusmanoff, A. M., Fidler, F., Gordon, A. & Bekessy, S. A. (2017). Decline of “biodiversity” in conservation policy discourse in Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 77, 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.016 Lee, S. H., Kang, Y. H. & Dai, R. (2021). Toward a More Expansive Discourse in a Changing World: An Analysis of Political Leaders’ Speeches on Biodiversity. Sustainability, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052899 Lindstrom, K. (2019). Classic and cute: Framing biodiversity in Japan through rural landscapes and mascot characters. Popular Communication, 17(3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2019.1567735 81 Mangachena, J. R. & Pickering, C. M. (2021). Implications of social media discourse for managing national parks in South Africa. Journal of Environmental Management, 285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112159 Maroun, W., Usher, K. & Mansoor, H. (2018). Biodiversity reporting and organised hypocrisy: The case of the South African food and retail industry. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 15(4), 437–464. https://doi.org/10.1108/qram-07-2017-0066 Mitchell, A. (2016). Beyond Biodiversity and Species: Problematizing Extinction. Theory Culture & Society, 33(5), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276415619219 Morris, C. & Wragg, A. (2003). Talking about the birds and the bees: Biodiversity claims making at the local level. Environmental Values, 12(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327103129341234 Muradian, R. & Gomez-Baggethun, E. (2021). Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecological Economics, 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107038 Neumann, R. P. (2004). Moral and discursive geographies in the war for biodiversity in Africa. Political Geography, 23(7), 813–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2004.05.011 Ohtani, S. (2022). How is People’s Awareness of “Biodiversity” Measured? Using Sentiment Analysis and LDA Topic Modeling in the Twitter Discourse Space from 2010 to 2020. SN Computer Science, 3(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01276-w Olausson, U. & Uggla, Y. (2021). Celebrities celebrifying nature: the discursive construction of the human-nature relationship in the “Nature Is Speaking” campaign. Celebrity Studies, 12(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2019.1626749 Parajuli, P. (1997). Discourse on knowledge, dialogue and diversity: Peasant worldviews and the science of nature conservation. Worldviews: Environment, Culture, Religion, 1(3), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853597X00128 Primmer, E., Termansen, M., Bredin, Y., Blicharska, M., Garcia-Llorente, M., Berry, P., Jaaskelainen, T., Bela, G., Fabok, V., Geamana, N., Harrison, P. A., Haslett, J. R., Cosor, G. L. & Andersen, A. H. K. (2017). Caught Between Personal and Collective Values: Biodiversity conservation in European decision-making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), 588–604. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1763 Sandroni, L. T. & Carneiro, M. J. T. (2016). “Biodiversity conservation” in Brazilian social sciences: A systematic review from 1992 to 2010. Ambiente e Sociedade, 19(3), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1590/18094422ASOC130181V1932016 Schaal, T., Jacobs, A., Leventon, J., Scheele, B., Lindenmayer, D. & Hanspach, J. (2022). “You can’t be green if you’re in the red”: Local discourses on the production-biodiversity intersection in a mixed farming area in south-eastern Australia. Land Use Policy, 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106306 Sebastiao, S. P. & Soares, I. (2022). Environmental diplomacy: from transnational policies to the role of ambassadors – the contribution of David Attenborough 82 (2018–2020). Journal Of Communication Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2022-0030 Serrano, J. V, Gelisan, L. A., Lacaste, A. V, Muyco, P. G. M., Alazada, N. D. S. & Marasigan, S. B. (2019). Discourse analysis of indigenous women’s construct on biodiversity and sustainable development. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 10(4), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSESD.2019100103 Spash, C. L. & Aslaksen, I. (2015). Re-establishing an ecological discourse in the policy debate over how to value ecosystems and biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Management, 159, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.049 Steinwall, A. (2015). Naturalness or Biodiversity: Negotiating the Dilemma of Intervention in Swedish Protected Area Management. Environmental Values, 24(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327115X14183182353791 Takala, T., Brockhaus, M., Hujala, T., Tanskanen, M., Lehtinen, A., Tikkanen, J. & Toppinen, A. (2022). Discursive barriers to voluntary biodiversity conservation: The case of Finnish forest owners. Forest Policy And Economics, 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102681 Takala, T., Hujala, T., Tanskanen, M. & Tikkanen, J. (2019). Competing discourses of the forest shape forest owners’ ideas about nature and biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(13), 3445–3464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01831-7 Tancau, M. M. (2011). Crafting wild nature in south-west Uganda: rich communities, happy tourists? Journal of Eastern African Studies, 5(3), 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/17531055.2011.611669 Toepfer, G. (2019). On the Impossibility and Dispensability of Defining “Biodiversity”. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, 24, 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10991-2_16 Troumbis, A. Y. (2017). Declining Google Trends of public interest in biodiversity: semantics, statistics or traceability of changing priorities? Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(6), 1495–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1294-z Turnhout, E., Waterton, C., Neves, K. & Buizer, M. (2013). Rethinking biodiversity: from goods and services to “living with.” Conservation Letters, 6(3), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00307.x Valiverronen, E. & Hellsten, I. (2002). From “burning library” to “green medicine” – The role of metaphors in communicating biodiversity. Science Communication, 24(2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554702237848 van den Burg, S. W. K. & Bogaardt, M. J. (2014). Business and biodiversity: A frame analysis. Ecosystem Services, 8, 178–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.04.005 Zemanek, E. (2022). Between fragility and resilience: Ambivalent images of nature in popular documentaries with David Attenborough. Anthropocene Review, 9(2), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196221093477 Zinngrebe, Y. M. (2016). Conservation narratives in Peru: envisioning biodiversity in sustainable development. Ecology and Society, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08512-210235