Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses

TLDR

International and national environmental policy has been dominated by global environmental problems over the past decade. The article identifies the main discourses linked to deforestation, desertification, biodiversity use, and climate change. The authors analyze the discourses by examining messages, narrative structures, and policy prescriptions, and present location‑specific evidence that challenges both managerialist and populist frameworks. The study finds that managerial discourses dominate across all four issues, yet populist, heterodox, and denial narratives also shape policy, and local management operates independently of policy institutions and follows distinct dynamics.

Abstract

In the past decade international and national environmental policy and action have been dominated by issues generally defined as global environmental problems. In this article, we identify the major discourses associated with four global environmental issues: deforestation, desertification, biodiversity use and climate change. These discourses are analysed in terms of their messages, narrative structures and policy prescriptions. We find striking parallels in the nature and structure of the discourses and in their illegibility at the local scale. In each of the four areas there is a global environmental management discourse representing a technocentric worldview by which blueprints based on external policy interventions can solve global environmental dilemmas. Each issue also has a contrasting populist discourse that portrays local actors as victims of external interventions bringing about degradation and exploitation. The managerial discourses dominate in all four issues, but important inputs are also supplied to political decisions from populist discourses. There are, in addition, heterodox ideas and denial claims in each of these areas, to a greater or lesser extent, in which the existence or severity of the environmental problem are questioned. We present evidence from location‐specific research which does not fit easily with the dominant managerialist nor with the populist discourses. The research shows that policy‐making institutions are distanced from the resource users and that local scale environmental management moves with a distinct dynamic and experiences alternative manifestations of environmental change and livelihood imperatives.