{"title":"最(非)通缉:解释“外来入侵”物种与动物治理之间的新关系","authors":"Cebuan Bliss, I. Visseren-Hamakers, D. Liefferink","doi":"10.1162/glep_a_00715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Invasive alien species (IAS) contribute to biodiversity loss, yet animals deemed invasive are both part of biodiversity and individuals themselves. This poses a challenge for global environmental politics, as governance system goals for biodiversity conservation and animal protection can conflict. Using an integrative governance (IG) framework, we map global and European Union IAS and animal governance instruments and systems, and relationships between them. Relationships are explained by actors’ unequal power dynamics, prioritization of human and environmental health, hegemonic anthropocentric discourses, and trade globalization. These factors encourage valuing certain animals—native and domestic—above others. Relationships between the governance systems have been limited. However, integration is deepening because of the transnational and interlinked nature of biodiversity loss and other issues, such as climate change and biosecurity. Nevertheless, as engagement with nonhuman entities brings new challenges, practicing greater IG could go further than this, as acknowledgment of animals’ interests is lacking in IAS governance.","PeriodicalId":47774,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Most (Un)wanted: Explaining Emerging Relationships Between “Invasive Alien” Species and Animal Governance\",\"authors\":\"Cebuan Bliss, I. Visseren-Hamakers, D. Liefferink\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/glep_a_00715\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Invasive alien species (IAS) contribute to biodiversity loss, yet animals deemed invasive are both part of biodiversity and individuals themselves. This poses a challenge for global environmental politics, as governance system goals for biodiversity conservation and animal protection can conflict. Using an integrative governance (IG) framework, we map global and European Union IAS and animal governance instruments and systems, and relationships between them. Relationships are explained by actors’ unequal power dynamics, prioritization of human and environmental health, hegemonic anthropocentric discourses, and trade globalization. These factors encourage valuing certain animals—native and domestic—above others. Relationships between the governance systems have been limited. However, integration is deepening because of the transnational and interlinked nature of biodiversity loss and other issues, such as climate change and biosecurity. Nevertheless, as engagement with nonhuman entities brings new challenges, practicing greater IG could go further than this, as acknowledgment of animals’ interests is lacking in IAS governance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47774,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Environmental Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Environmental Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00715\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00715","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Most (Un)wanted: Explaining Emerging Relationships Between “Invasive Alien” Species and Animal Governance
Invasive alien species (IAS) contribute to biodiversity loss, yet animals deemed invasive are both part of biodiversity and individuals themselves. This poses a challenge for global environmental politics, as governance system goals for biodiversity conservation and animal protection can conflict. Using an integrative governance (IG) framework, we map global and European Union IAS and animal governance instruments and systems, and relationships between them. Relationships are explained by actors’ unequal power dynamics, prioritization of human and environmental health, hegemonic anthropocentric discourses, and trade globalization. These factors encourage valuing certain animals—native and domestic—above others. Relationships between the governance systems have been limited. However, integration is deepening because of the transnational and interlinked nature of biodiversity loss and other issues, such as climate change and biosecurity. Nevertheless, as engagement with nonhuman entities brings new challenges, practicing greater IG could go further than this, as acknowledgment of animals’ interests is lacking in IAS governance.
期刊介绍:
Global Environmental Politics examines the relationship between global political forces and environmental change, with particular attention given to the implications of local-global interactions for environmental management as well as the implications of environmental change for world politics. Each issue is divided into research articles and a shorter forum articles focusing on issues such as the role of states, multilateral institutions and agreements, trade, international finance, corporations, science and technology, and grassroots movements.