114 Ingrid Hall
does not consist of simply proposing to replace one nature regime with another.
According to context, IPLCs will in fact defend quite different positions. Escobar
states that:
The nature regimes can be seen as constituting a structured social totality
made up of multiple and irreducible relations […]; there is a double articulation, within each regime and between one and another. The identity
of each regime is the result of discursive articulations—with biological,
social, and cultural couplings—that take place in an overall field of discursivity wider than any particular regime (Laclau & Mouffe, 1990 [1985]).
(1999, p. 5)
This concept thus helps us to understand the way that certain actors conceive
nature, culture, and the relationship between them, while at the same time
placing this analysis in a broader discursive framework. These tools allow us
to contemplate the contribution of IPLCs to the formulation of hybrid nature
regimes, together with other actors, taking inspiration from work carried out in
science and technology studies (Callon, 2013; Mol, 1999), especially the works
of Vadrot (2014), which deals with a similar topic and field-site. This contributes
to a reflection on the possibility of taking account of the diversity of worldviews
– that some call the “pluriverse” (Cadena & Blaser, 2018; Latour, 2007; Mignolo,
2013) – and of the potential remaking of a “common world” (Latour, 2007;
Stengers, 2005), whose architecture we do not know and whose emergence we
should be attentive to.
2
The CBD is a particularly interesting space to investigate this question, even
though opinions on it in the literature diverge. If we take account of the measures put in place since 1992 and the creation of the CBD for the recognition
of IPLC rights (especially the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) mechanisms of
the Nagoya Protocol in 2010), or the specificity of IPLCs’ relationship with the
world, concrete results have been limited. In fact, a highly economic and naturalist logic still predominates (Bellier, 2015; Foyer, 2015; Reimerson, 2013;
Thomas & Boisvert, 2015; Uggla, 2010). Nonetheless, this institution seems to
be one of the spaces where a rearticulation of nature and culture is beginning to
be worked out (Parks, 2020, p. 4), especially if compared to other legal instruments as Uggla has done (2010). This is linked to various factors. First, the term
“biodiversity” has emerged on the public stage as a social issue (Aubertin, 2005;
Hannigan, 2014) and indigenous peoples have taken it up to support identitybased demands both nationally and internationally (Tsing, 2007), especially in
Latin America (Escobar, 1998; Ramos, 1994; Ulloa, 2010). Moreover, with its
Working Group on Article 8j (WG8j), the CBD is one of the United Nations
institutions that has a mode of governance particularly favorable to the participation of IPLCs (Friis, 2020). Thus, certain spaces within the CBD seem to be
privileged sites for globalized demands from below (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007;
Kurasawa, 2004; Ulloa, 2010).
does not consist of simply proposing to replace one nature regime with another.
According to context, IPLCs will in fact defend quite different positions. Escobar
states that:
The nature regimes can be seen as constituting a structured social totality
made up of multiple and irreducible relations […]; there is a double articulation, within each regime and between one and another. The identity
of each regime is the result of discursive articulations—with biological,
social, and cultural couplings—that take place in an overall field of discursivity wider than any particular regime (Laclau & Mouffe, 1990 [1985]).
(1999, p. 5)
This concept thus helps us to understand the way that certain actors conceive
nature, culture, and the relationship between them, while at the same time
placing this analysis in a broader discursive framework. These tools allow us
to contemplate the contribution of IPLCs to the formulation of hybrid nature
regimes, together with other actors, taking inspiration from work carried out in
science and technology studies (Callon, 2013; Mol, 1999), especially the works
of Vadrot (2014), which deals with a similar topic and field-site. This contributes
to a reflection on the possibility of taking account of the diversity of worldviews
– that some call the “pluriverse” (Cadena & Blaser, 2018; Latour, 2007; Mignolo,
2013) – and of the potential remaking of a “common world” (Latour, 2007;
Stengers, 2005), whose architecture we do not know and whose emergence we
should be attentive to.
2
The CBD is a particularly interesting space to investigate this question, even
though opinions on it in the literature diverge. If we take account of the measures put in place since 1992 and the creation of the CBD for the recognition
of IPLC rights (especially the access and benefit-sharing (ABS) mechanisms of
the Nagoya Protocol in 2010), or the specificity of IPLCs’ relationship with the
world, concrete results have been limited. In fact, a highly economic and naturalist logic still predominates (Bellier, 2015; Foyer, 2015; Reimerson, 2013;
Thomas & Boisvert, 2015; Uggla, 2010). Nonetheless, this institution seems to
be one of the spaces where a rearticulation of nature and culture is beginning to
be worked out (Parks, 2020, p. 4), especially if compared to other legal instruments as Uggla has done (2010). This is linked to various factors. First, the term
“biodiversity” has emerged on the public stage as a social issue (Aubertin, 2005;
Hannigan, 2014) and indigenous peoples have taken it up to support identitybased demands both nationally and internationally (Tsing, 2007), especially in
Latin America (Escobar, 1998; Ramos, 1994; Ulloa, 2010). Moreover, with its
Working Group on Article 8j (WG8j), the CBD is one of the United Nations
institutions that has a mode of governance particularly favorable to the participation of IPLCs (Friis, 2020). Thus, certain spaces within the CBD seem to be
privileged sites for globalized demands from below (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007;
Kurasawa, 2004; Ulloa, 2010).