Could the present rupture in the meaning of the natural lead to a new art
of living in society/nature?
(Escobar, 1999, p. 15)
A variety of writers agree on the idea that a naturalist ontology (Descola, 2005),
resting upon a distinction and opposition between that which pertains to n ature
and that which pertains to culture, is the dominant paradigm in the realm of
global biodiversity governance (Aubertin et al., 2007; Bonneuil Christophe, 2011;
Büscher et al., 2012; Escobar, 1999; Ulloa, 2010). This opposition is increasingly
criticized, especially by the Indigenous Peoples and Local C ommunities (IPLCs)
who have taken advantage of these spaces in order to formulate broader demands
for political recognition (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007; Escobar, 1998; Ulloa,
2010). This phenomenon is particularly noteworthy in the field of biodiversity,
where the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), signed in 1992, is one
of the central institutions. Thus, following the 10th Conference of the Parties
(COP) of the CBD (2010), which coincided with the creation of a stronger participation mechanism for IPLCs, the relationship between nature and culture
became an important issue, one linked to the recognition of biocultural diversity although not reducible to it (Bavikatte, 2014; Dunbar, 2019; Foyer, 2011).
Since the Nagoya Protocol (2010), notably, traditional knowledge has been at
the center of debates regarding the rights of IPLCs (Aubertin & Filoche, 2011;
Reimerson, 2013, p. 215). This had led to the emergence of “cultural politics”
(Escobar, 1999) based on the valorization of culture. Yet, the chain of logic has
been extrapolated further still and the very meaning of nature has begun to be
debated (Foyer, 2015, p. 15; Parks, 2020, p. 110; Uggla, 2010, p. 87), which
gives rise to a “politics of nature” (Escobar, 1999) dependent upon cosmopolitics
4
UNMAKING THE NATURE/CULTURE
DIVIDE
The Ontological Diplomacy of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities at the CBD
Ingrid Hall
DOI: 10.4324/9781003172642-5
of living in society/nature?
(Escobar, 1999, p. 15)
A variety of writers agree on the idea that a naturalist ontology (Descola, 2005),
resting upon a distinction and opposition between that which pertains to n ature
and that which pertains to culture, is the dominant paradigm in the realm of
global biodiversity governance (Aubertin et al., 2007; Bonneuil Christophe, 2011;
Büscher et al., 2012; Escobar, 1999; Ulloa, 2010). This opposition is increasingly
criticized, especially by the Indigenous Peoples and Local C ommunities (IPLCs)
who have taken advantage of these spaces in order to formulate broader demands
for political recognition (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007; Escobar, 1998; Ulloa,
2010). This phenomenon is particularly noteworthy in the field of biodiversity,
where the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), signed in 1992, is one
of the central institutions. Thus, following the 10th Conference of the Parties
(COP) of the CBD (2010), which coincided with the creation of a stronger participation mechanism for IPLCs, the relationship between nature and culture
became an important issue, one linked to the recognition of biocultural diversity although not reducible to it (Bavikatte, 2014; Dunbar, 2019; Foyer, 2011).
Since the Nagoya Protocol (2010), notably, traditional knowledge has been at
the center of debates regarding the rights of IPLCs (Aubertin & Filoche, 2011;
Reimerson, 2013, p. 215). This had led to the emergence of “cultural politics”
(Escobar, 1999) based on the valorization of culture. Yet, the chain of logic has
been extrapolated further still and the very meaning of nature has begun to be
debated (Foyer, 2015, p. 15; Parks, 2020, p. 110; Uggla, 2010, p. 87), which
gives rise to a “politics of nature” (Escobar, 1999) dependent upon cosmopolitics
4
UNMAKING THE NATURE/CULTURE
DIVIDE
The Ontological Diplomacy of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities at the CBD
Ingrid Hall
DOI: 10.4324/9781003172642-5