**3. Claimants: Biodiversity as political discourse**

From the conservation biologists to policy makers to the general public the currency of the term biodiversity mutates in unimaginable forms. The concept has become a buzzword that serves to promote the various political, economic and cultural agenda of scientists and decision-makers as well as of individuals, communities, institutions and nations (Escobar 1999). With its usurpation by these new sets of articulators came newer modes of discourse, hence a whole new array of meanings and usage. Biodiversity has become a *masterframe* used by the epistemic communities of various stakeholders. As a masterframe from where all sides draw meanings, biodiversity looses its '*signature meaning'*.6 A fascinating consequence of this development is the blurring of the distinction between the scientific discourse (of the experts) and the popular discourse (of lay or non-expert) (Haile 1999; Nieminen 2001, Dwivedi 2001). As Eder (1996: 183) observed:

*"Biodiversity becomes a collectively shared ideology undermining the hegemony of science and at the same time seriously weakening the position of traditional environmental organizations and movements as primary mouthpiece of the environment."* 

At this juncture I would like to showcase three of these epistemic communities – the ecofeminist group, indigenous ecology movement, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Each offers a distinctive perspective using equally distinctive sets of categories and claims. It is not my purpose to present an exhaustive description of each of these epistemic communities, except inasmuch as they relate to the purpose of current discussion.
