Spaces for local voices? A discourse analysis of the decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity
Louisa ParksAssociate Professor in Political Sociology, School of International Studies and Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Italy

Search for other papers by Louisa Parks in
Current site
Google Scholar
Restricted access

This article discusses the existence and shape of a discursive space for local and indigenous voices in the arena of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Critical literature on global environmental governance argues that dominant or hegemonic discourses shape international-level decision making on environmental protection, and delimit the boundaries of possible policy choices. These discourses are identified by such scholarship as reflecting a dominant worldview stemming from a capitalist view of value and a dichotomous view of nature as separate from culture, which precludes discursive spaces for worldviews based on different conceptions of value and more holistic views of nature as inextricably bound up with culture. Such worldviews are often held by indigenous peoples and local communities considered to be crucial in protecting the environment and natural resources. The present article aims to contribute to this debate by looking in detail at decisions of the parties to the CBD, which is an arena argued by some to be more open to local and indigenous voices. The article presents a discourse analysis of the CBD's decisions since its creation and up to its most recent meetings held in late 2016. The analysis applies the arguments of the critical literature to the decisions of the CBD in order to investigate how far they conform to the critical view of them, or whether, and if so to what extent, they host spaces for local and indigenous voices.

Contributor Notes

The research for this article was carried out for the BeneLex project (Benefit-sharing for an equitable transition to the green economy – the role of law) funded by the European Research Council (grant 335592). Research assistance and invaluable input was provided by Mika Schröder. My thanks to Alberto Negro for technical assistance, to BeneLex PI Elisa Morgera, BeneLex research fellow Elsa Tsioumani, and Saskia Vermeylen for comments on previous drafts, and to the editors of the Journal and two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions for improvements to the article. Mistakes and misunderstandings are my own.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.


Pay to Access Content (PDF download and unlimited online access)

Other access options

Redeem Token

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institutional Access

Personal login

Log in with your Elgar Online account

Login with your Elgar account
Since 2022 Since May 2022 Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 121 121 11
Full Text Views 10 10 2
PDF Downloads 14 14 2