Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide 117
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological
Advice (SBSTTA)
The SBSTTA is a scientific advisory body of the COP whose creation relates to
Article 25 of the CBD.
10 The first meeting of the SBSTTA took place in 1995. It
is open to participation by all Parties and its aims are “providing assessments of
the status of biological diversity; providing assessments of the types of measures
taken in accordance with the provisions of the Convention; and responding to
questions that the COP may put to the body”.
11 The meeting in 2019 was the
23rd held by the SBSTTA.
The meetings of the SBSTTA are essential moments in the life of the CBD.
Organized every two years and alternated with the COPs, they allow for scientific and technical clarification of debates within the CBD, although numerous
debates are politically tinged. The items addressed during these meetings guide
the various negotiations underway, which are subject to vote at the COPs.
Given the fundamental importance of the natural sciences in this domain,
the default nature regime here is deeply naturalist. Nevertheless, the conception
of nature mobilized in this arena is more open than elsewhere. The CBD recognizes an intrinsic value to biodiversity, a value that is not entirely anthropocentric (Larrère & Larrère, 2015; Uggla, 2010; Ulloa, 2010) or instrumental. In
addition, the scientific approach put forward is systemic in the sense that it tries
to take account of the various factors that influence biodiversity conservation,
whether biological, human, or economic. Given the influence of the environmental sciences, one might call it ecosystemic.
This event brings together a thousand participants, mainly the r epresentatives
of various countries (State Parties) who are negotiators, but also representatives
from the private sector, the academic world, and various groups such as youth,
women, and IPLCs, the latter of whom are observers. The participation of
IPLCs, since 1996, is organized, thanks to a specific structure, the International
Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) formed in 1996 during the third COP
of the CBD (COP III, Buenos Aires, Argentina). The IIFB gathers representatives
from indigenous governments, indigenous non-governmental organizations, and
indigenous scholars and activists. They provide support in coordinating IPLC
strategies during important environmental meetings such as the CBD in order to
further the recognition and respect of indigenous rights and to influence debates
at international or national levels.
12
To express their positions, the IPLCs are organized into a specific group,
following the model of regional groups, a caucus whose representation is undertaken by the IIFB. At the SBSTTA meetings, however, the IPLCs are treated
like the other actors without decision-making powers: they cannot intervene
in the negotiations reserved for “decision-makers”, which basically means the
State Parties. In the context of plenary negotiations, they have the option of
sending comments written before the meeting, and they can also express their
positions during a period of time dedicated to non-decision-makers; they only
The Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological
Advice (SBSTTA)
The SBSTTA is a scientific advisory body of the COP whose creation relates to
Article 25 of the CBD.
10 The first meeting of the SBSTTA took place in 1995. It
is open to participation by all Parties and its aims are “providing assessments of
the status of biological diversity; providing assessments of the types of measures
taken in accordance with the provisions of the Convention; and responding to
questions that the COP may put to the body”.
11 The meeting in 2019 was the
23rd held by the SBSTTA.
The meetings of the SBSTTA are essential moments in the life of the CBD.
Organized every two years and alternated with the COPs, they allow for scientific and technical clarification of debates within the CBD, although numerous
debates are politically tinged. The items addressed during these meetings guide
the various negotiations underway, which are subject to vote at the COPs.
Given the fundamental importance of the natural sciences in this domain,
the default nature regime here is deeply naturalist. Nevertheless, the conception
of nature mobilized in this arena is more open than elsewhere. The CBD recognizes an intrinsic value to biodiversity, a value that is not entirely anthropocentric (Larrère & Larrère, 2015; Uggla, 2010; Ulloa, 2010) or instrumental. In
addition, the scientific approach put forward is systemic in the sense that it tries
to take account of the various factors that influence biodiversity conservation,
whether biological, human, or economic. Given the influence of the environmental sciences, one might call it ecosystemic.
This event brings together a thousand participants, mainly the r epresentatives
of various countries (State Parties) who are negotiators, but also representatives
from the private sector, the academic world, and various groups such as youth,
women, and IPLCs, the latter of whom are observers. The participation of
IPLCs, since 1996, is organized, thanks to a specific structure, the International
Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB) formed in 1996 during the third COP
of the CBD (COP III, Buenos Aires, Argentina). The IIFB gathers representatives
from indigenous governments, indigenous non-governmental organizations, and
indigenous scholars and activists. They provide support in coordinating IPLC
strategies during important environmental meetings such as the CBD in order to
further the recognition and respect of indigenous rights and to influence debates
at international or national levels.
12
To express their positions, the IPLCs are organized into a specific group,
following the model of regional groups, a caucus whose representation is undertaken by the IIFB. At the SBSTTA meetings, however, the IPLCs are treated
like the other actors without decision-making powers: they cannot intervene
in the negotiations reserved for “decision-makers”, which basically means the
State Parties. In the context of plenary negotiations, they have the option of
sending comments written before the meeting, and they can also express their
positions during a period of time dedicated to non-decision-makers; they only