Over the past decade, the discourse surrounding ‘climate crisis’ and ‘climate emergency’ has become increasingly prominent. Stemming from grassroots activism, the use of crisis framing can be seen in radical activist groups like Extinction Rebellion, and the declaration of a climate emergency by New Zealand’s Parliament in 2020 [1-2]. However, despite the pressure to use ‘crisis framing’, studies find that many people harbour doubts over its usage due to the possibility of unintentionally harmful consequences - statements can lack substance or induce anxiety [1]. More broadly, key researchers highlight how crisis framing could be used to reproduce ‘status quo’ politics and rationalise the overriding of processes and rights, especially those of indigenous communities [1, 3]. Moreover, as the ‘climate crisis’ becomes a household term, declarations of a ‘biodiversity crisis’ or ‘nature crisis’ have cropped up. However, the implications of these have yet to be fully explored. As such, over the summer, we took the first steps to understand crisis framing in New Zealand conservation.

We spoke to ten interviewees from a range of backgrounds, including conservationists, educators, activists, and researchers. Participants were initially identified in our research team’s network of contacts and were thereafter expanded using snowball sampling. Interviews were conducted both online and in-person, ranging from thirty minutes to an hour following a semi-structured approach which allowed participants to steer the discussion towards their areas of interest and expertise [4]. The resulting qualitative data then underwent inductive thematic analysis to draw out themes regarding the construction of crisis framing, its motivations, and the subsequent perceived consequences [5]. The following paragraphs explain the initial key themes that we identified throughout this process.

Constructing ‘crisis’ framing

The purpose of ‘crisis’ framing as cited by interviewees is to express the realities of biodiversity loss, invoke public action, and gain government funding. Interviewees spoke to the biodiversity crisis primarily in the context of invasive species, habitat loss, and the high proportion of threatened species in New Zealand. Crisis language is then seen as a responsive measure. As explained by one conservationist:

“Some of our species are in real trouble, and you know we’re talking about extinction within the next 40-50 years [...] so we’ve got to use that strong emotive language to try and get people to say that this is coming or this is happening.”

Consequently, crisis language is seen as a necessary tool in the context of government and activist circles:

“Activism and politics/decision-making are places where strong language needs to be used for challenges to be taken seriously. So often facts and science get misunderstood or diluted by politics/big business if the challenges don’t fit the agenda of the standing government party/parties.”

This particular finding in constructing the ‘biodiversity crisis’ mimics that found within the ‘climate crisis’, whereby biodiversity or climate is described as undergoing catastrophe and destruction unless urgent action is taken, leveraging a sense of disaster. The constructed ‘crisis’ frame can then take on a discursive authority, aligned with the use of scientific language [6-7].

Furthermore, interviewees positioned the biodiversity crisis against other notable crises such as the ‘cost of living crisis’, ‘housing crisis’, and ‘climate crisis’. To some, the use of crisis framing in the biodiversity context is an attempt to secure government funding and public interest amidst widespread ‘crisisification’. This highlights the concept of competing crises. One conservationist expressed that it was easier to justify biodiversity funding under the guise of climate change due to the dominance of the climate crisis label:

“We’ve had to change our framing in recent years to try and fit with this climate crisis because that seems to be getting more attention and funding.”

However, interviewees also stressed that the two crises are inherently interlinked. In this context, crisis language was seen to have some justification. Forest & Bird’s utilisation of the term ‘dual climate and biodiversity crises’, was seen as:

“appropriate given the work of the organisation in activism, lobbying and advocacy.”

Our interviewees provide insight into the extension of the crisis framing audience beyond the general public. We note that crisis framing is often directed towards positions of power in an attempt to break their complacency, which highlights emergency framing as a form of responsibility assignment [1].