Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide 113
(Cadena, 2012; Latour, 2007; Stengers, 2005), otherwise known as “political
ontology” (Blaser, 2009; Müller, 2014). Together, these two kinds of politics
entail a reflection upon what nature and culture represent, and contribute to a
rethinking of the naturalist ontological regime that is predominant. The title
chosen for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, “Living in Harmony
with Nature”, partly reflects the great hopes that are held in this regard (although
the Nagoya Protocol does not necessarily live up to these, as Harrop (2011) indicates). At the same time, with the recognition of biocultural rights, it seems that
a space is being created that might allow for ontologies alternative to naturalism
within the CBD (Bavikatte, 2014, p. 6; Hermitte, 2009; Parks, 2017). Parks, who
has tracked the main topics addressed within the CBD across time, shows that
this opening up is reflected especially in the increasingly frequent use of terms
such as “worldviews” or “cosmologies”, with a peak in 2007 (Parks, 2020, p. 4).
Hopes are high, and not only for IPLCs: what is at stake is the (re)creation of a
more “harmonious” world for everyone – indigenous or otherwise – as Escobar
explains in the quotation at the beginning of this chapter. Engal Anderson, who
represented the UNEP (United Nation Environmental Program) at the opening
of the meeting of the Working Group on Article 8( j) (WG8j) in 2019, explained
this position in an exemplary manner, stating that the IPLCs should help us “to
close the divide between n ature and culture”, regretting that “we pay too little
attention to these voices” (20 November 2019). In this chapter, I focus on how
IPLCs call into question the nature-culture dualism at the heart of the CBD,
despite significant resistance, which still has plenty of life left in it if the formulation of the Zero draft of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is
anything to go by.
1 In this document, the importance of IPLCs is recognized and
their “full and effective participation” is enshrined; yet, the IPLCs themselves
judge that their demands have been given little consideration in the negotiations
within the group dedicated to the elaboration of this strategic plan (CBD, 2021).
Some observers also point out that the consideration of IPLCs is too restricted
(Reyes-García et al., 2021). Thus, I concentrate on the meetings that mobilize
IPLCs in preparation for the COP of the CBD. During the meetings, the IPLCs
have varying degrees of influence, which calls for a qualitative analysis of the
spaces that are available for IPLCs to express themselves, and of the way that
IPLCs use such spaces.
To this end, I will make use of the concepts of “ontological diplomacy”
developed by Latour (2004, pp. 275–285) and “nature regime” developed by
Escobar (1999, p. 5). The concept of ontological diplomacy allows us to address
the way in which IPLCs negotiate the recognition of a non-naturalist ontological regime – a regime which Escobar calls “organic”, distinguishing this from
a “capitalist” (i.e. naturalist) nature regime. At stake here is a questioning of the
“nature” of both culture and nature, as well as the relationship between the two.
Under ontological diplomacy, I include both politics of culture and politics of
nature. Nevertheless, as we will see, for IPLCs, the issue is not one of defending their relationships to their world in an unequivocal manner; this diplomacy
(Cadena, 2012; Latour, 2007; Stengers, 2005), otherwise known as “political
ontology” (Blaser, 2009; Müller, 2014). Together, these two kinds of politics
entail a reflection upon what nature and culture represent, and contribute to a
rethinking of the naturalist ontological regime that is predominant. The title
chosen for the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, “Living in Harmony
with Nature”, partly reflects the great hopes that are held in this regard (although
the Nagoya Protocol does not necessarily live up to these, as Harrop (2011) indicates). At the same time, with the recognition of biocultural rights, it seems that
a space is being created that might allow for ontologies alternative to naturalism
within the CBD (Bavikatte, 2014, p. 6; Hermitte, 2009; Parks, 2017). Parks, who
has tracked the main topics addressed within the CBD across time, shows that
this opening up is reflected especially in the increasingly frequent use of terms
such as “worldviews” or “cosmologies”, with a peak in 2007 (Parks, 2020, p. 4).
Hopes are high, and not only for IPLCs: what is at stake is the (re)creation of a
more “harmonious” world for everyone – indigenous or otherwise – as Escobar
explains in the quotation at the beginning of this chapter. Engal Anderson, who
represented the UNEP (United Nation Environmental Program) at the opening
of the meeting of the Working Group on Article 8( j) (WG8j) in 2019, explained
this position in an exemplary manner, stating that the IPLCs should help us “to
close the divide between n ature and culture”, regretting that “we pay too little
attention to these voices” (20 November 2019). In this chapter, I focus on how
IPLCs call into question the nature-culture dualism at the heart of the CBD,
despite significant resistance, which still has plenty of life left in it if the formulation of the Zero draft of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is
anything to go by.
1 In this document, the importance of IPLCs is recognized and
their “full and effective participation” is enshrined; yet, the IPLCs themselves
judge that their demands have been given little consideration in the negotiations
within the group dedicated to the elaboration of this strategic plan (CBD, 2021).
Some observers also point out that the consideration of IPLCs is too restricted
(Reyes-García et al., 2021). Thus, I concentrate on the meetings that mobilize
IPLCs in preparation for the COP of the CBD. During the meetings, the IPLCs
have varying degrees of influence, which calls for a qualitative analysis of the
spaces that are available for IPLCs to express themselves, and of the way that
IPLCs use such spaces.
To this end, I will make use of the concepts of “ontological diplomacy”
developed by Latour (2004, pp. 275–285) and “nature regime” developed by
Escobar (1999, p. 5). The concept of ontological diplomacy allows us to address
the way in which IPLCs negotiate the recognition of a non-naturalist ontological regime – a regime which Escobar calls “organic”, distinguishing this from
a “capitalist” (i.e. naturalist) nature regime. At stake here is a questioning of the
“nature” of both culture and nature, as well as the relationship between the two.
Under ontological diplomacy, I include both politics of culture and politics of
nature. Nevertheless, as we will see, for IPLCs, the issue is not one of defending their relationships to their world in an unequivocal manner; this diplomacy