124 Ingrid Hall
Moreover, the international arena has become a significant one for such
demands, as various writers have noted (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007; Escobar,
1999; Ulloa, 2010). This is especially the case in fields dedicated to environmental
and biodiversity issues (Aubertin, 2005; Boisvert & Caron, 2002; Escobar, 1997),
to the point where Ulloa (2010, pp. 216–217) speaks of an “ecological identity”
for IPLCs. As de Sousa Santos and his co-authors write (de Sousa S antos et al.,
2007, p. xli), biodiversity has become a “contentious area”.
Cultural politics is deployed in two different ways with regard to the CBD.
First, the central position given to the traditional knowledge of IPLCs in in situ
conservation of genetic resources has given rise to a specific form of cultural
politics. The naturalist vision of this knowledge tends to equate it to a kind of
cultural baggage that has the unique characteristic of helping to maintain biodiversity. A kind of cultural politics has therefore been developed, in and by the
processes of negotiation, around the valorization of this knowledge.
Yet, this gives rise to another form of cultural politics that is based upon the
figure of Mother Earth, which over the years has attained the status of an “icon
without cultural context” (Ulloa, 2010, pp. 199–200) and has established itself as
a reference point in institutions involved in the worldwide governance of genetic
resources (Escobar, 1999; Ulloa, 2010). The recognition of this figure, in its
Andean form of Pachamama, within the constitutions of two Andean countries –
Bolivia and Ecuador – in 2008 and 2009 has marked a turning point.
23 Poupeau
(2011), Bretón Solo de Zaldívar (2013), and Landivar and Ramillien (2015) all
highlight, as Gill (1991) did regarding the North American version, that the
emergence of Pachamama results from a complex process that indeed involves
indigenous peoples, but also numerous civil society actors,
24 as well as academics
such as anthropologists. By recognizing Pachamama in their constitutions, the
Andean countries have given a new legitimacy to the figure of Mother Earth,
which aims to embody nature and helps to elucidate the supposedly reciprocal
and harmonious relationship that the indigenous population of Andean countries
maintain with their environment. This opens up a reflection on the legal status
of nature, which may become a legal question (Hermitte, 2011) and allows us to
envision novel solutions such as the attribution of legal personality to elements
of nature. Demands formerly phrased in terms of cultural politics, therefore,
are evolving. By disputing the very status of nature, we proceed to a politics of
nature or, more generally, political ontology.
25
This has led to two different outcomes within the CBD. On the one hand,
the representatives of Andean indigenous peoples have made use of this figure –
as the Kichwa representative of the IIFB did during a side event in 2019 (mentioned earlier). On the other hand, in official negotiations and debates, the
Bolivian and Ecuadorian State Parties have repeated loud and clear the need to
rethink the rights of nature after the ratification of their new constitutions (i.e.
2008). At different meetings of the WG8j, different countries have defended
a similar position; in 2019, the Colombian and Mexican representatives were
the most active.
Moreover, the international arena has become a significant one for such
demands, as various writers have noted (de Sousa Santos et al., 2007; Escobar,
1999; Ulloa, 2010). This is especially the case in fields dedicated to environmental
and biodiversity issues (Aubertin, 2005; Boisvert & Caron, 2002; Escobar, 1997),
to the point where Ulloa (2010, pp. 216–217) speaks of an “ecological identity”
for IPLCs. As de Sousa Santos and his co-authors write (de Sousa S antos et al.,
2007, p. xli), biodiversity has become a “contentious area”.
Cultural politics is deployed in two different ways with regard to the CBD.
First, the central position given to the traditional knowledge of IPLCs in in situ
conservation of genetic resources has given rise to a specific form of cultural
politics. The naturalist vision of this knowledge tends to equate it to a kind of
cultural baggage that has the unique characteristic of helping to maintain biodiversity. A kind of cultural politics has therefore been developed, in and by the
processes of negotiation, around the valorization of this knowledge.
Yet, this gives rise to another form of cultural politics that is based upon the
figure of Mother Earth, which over the years has attained the status of an “icon
without cultural context” (Ulloa, 2010, pp. 199–200) and has established itself as
a reference point in institutions involved in the worldwide governance of genetic
resources (Escobar, 1999; Ulloa, 2010). The recognition of this figure, in its
Andean form of Pachamama, within the constitutions of two Andean countries –
Bolivia and Ecuador – in 2008 and 2009 has marked a turning point.
23 Poupeau
(2011), Bretón Solo de Zaldívar (2013), and Landivar and Ramillien (2015) all
highlight, as Gill (1991) did regarding the North American version, that the
emergence of Pachamama results from a complex process that indeed involves
indigenous peoples, but also numerous civil society actors,
24 as well as academics
such as anthropologists. By recognizing Pachamama in their constitutions, the
Andean countries have given a new legitimacy to the figure of Mother Earth,
which aims to embody nature and helps to elucidate the supposedly reciprocal
and harmonious relationship that the indigenous population of Andean countries
maintain with their environment. This opens up a reflection on the legal status
of nature, which may become a legal question (Hermitte, 2011) and allows us to
envision novel solutions such as the attribution of legal personality to elements
of nature. Demands formerly phrased in terms of cultural politics, therefore,
are evolving. By disputing the very status of nature, we proceed to a politics of
nature or, more generally, political ontology.
25
This has led to two different outcomes within the CBD. On the one hand,
the representatives of Andean indigenous peoples have made use of this figure –
as the Kichwa representative of the IIFB did during a side event in 2019 (mentioned earlier). On the other hand, in official negotiations and debates, the
Bolivian and Ecuadorian State Parties have repeated loud and clear the need to
rethink the rights of nature after the ratification of their new constitutions (i.e.
2008). At different meetings of the WG8j, different countries have defended
a similar position; in 2019, the Colombian and Mexican representatives were
the most active.