Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide 125
Various writers, including Ulloa (2010, pp. 199–200), highlight how nebulous
the figure of Mother Earth is. It has a spell-binding power over non-indigenous
populations through its link to the figure of the noble savage or “ecological
native” as clearly shown by Ulloa (2010, on the same topic, see also Fabricant
& Postero, 2018; Hall, 2022; Igoe, 2010; Ramos, 1994). These images tend to
reproduce the subaltern position of indigenous populations, as reflected by the
frequent reference to a feminine figure (given gender-based asymmetries in
power relations). Thus, while potentially emancipating, this figure and its feminine allegory contribute to reproducing a colonial heritage (Ulloa, 2010, p. 201).
Yet in my opinion, the mobilization of the Mother Earth figure, especially
by reference to Pachamama, marks a turning point in the strategy of indigenous peoples. Having been legally recognized, Pachamama – and Mother
Earth – has acquired a new status and has become a powerful discursive
weapon that helps to underscore the need to dispute the naturalist (or capitalist) regime, and thus also the need to integrate nature and culture. The issue
is no longer, as it was in the 1990s, one of demanding respect for cultural
differences, but one of having ontological differences recognized. It is about
moving from cultural politics to political ontology, which, in the particular
context of the CBD, takes the form of a politics of nature. The reference
to Mother Earth and her Andean personification might make us think of a
“return” to an organic nature regime, but let us not deceive ourselves. For
IPLCs, it is not about going back in time, but about negotiating contemporary
and future issues. This paradigm shift entails the formalization of a hybrid
nature regime in line with the current context.
As Parks (2017, pp. 16–17) shows by analyzing texts produced by the CBD,
this vision is making headway within the CBD, where it is now in principle
accepted – at least on a rhetorical level. In the report of the 2019 WG8j and
SBSTTA meetings provided in the Earth negotiation bulletin,
26 one finds a tendency to present transformative change as expected and it is mentioned that
“many [state parties and observers] supported the draft recommendations [of
the Global Thematic Dialogue] […] highlighting that nature and culture are
deeply integrated” (2019, p. 13). Yet in the final recommendations relating
specifically to this point,
27 the term integration only appears in the title of
the document, and in the body of the text the discussion is carefully restricted
to the “link” between nature and culture, with the integration of nature and
culture largely left out.
Global Thematic Dialogue
The report of the first Global Thematic Dialogue also highlights the need to
rethink the connection between nature and culture (CBD, 2019).
28 In this way,
the importance of adopting a “nature-culture approach”, which should help to
establish a more “harmonious” relationship with nature, is underlined. Yet, contrary to my expectations, given that it is a group where IPLCs can speak freely,
Various writers, including Ulloa (2010, pp. 199–200), highlight how nebulous
the figure of Mother Earth is. It has a spell-binding power over non-indigenous
populations through its link to the figure of the noble savage or “ecological
native” as clearly shown by Ulloa (2010, on the same topic, see also Fabricant
& Postero, 2018; Hall, 2022; Igoe, 2010; Ramos, 1994). These images tend to
reproduce the subaltern position of indigenous populations, as reflected by the
frequent reference to a feminine figure (given gender-based asymmetries in
power relations). Thus, while potentially emancipating, this figure and its feminine allegory contribute to reproducing a colonial heritage (Ulloa, 2010, p. 201).
Yet in my opinion, the mobilization of the Mother Earth figure, especially
by reference to Pachamama, marks a turning point in the strategy of indigenous peoples. Having been legally recognized, Pachamama – and Mother
Earth – has acquired a new status and has become a powerful discursive
weapon that helps to underscore the need to dispute the naturalist (or capitalist) regime, and thus also the need to integrate nature and culture. The issue
is no longer, as it was in the 1990s, one of demanding respect for cultural
differences, but one of having ontological differences recognized. It is about
moving from cultural politics to political ontology, which, in the particular
context of the CBD, takes the form of a politics of nature. The reference
to Mother Earth and her Andean personification might make us think of a
“return” to an organic nature regime, but let us not deceive ourselves. For
IPLCs, it is not about going back in time, but about negotiating contemporary
and future issues. This paradigm shift entails the formalization of a hybrid
nature regime in line with the current context.
As Parks (2017, pp. 16–17) shows by analyzing texts produced by the CBD,
this vision is making headway within the CBD, where it is now in principle
accepted – at least on a rhetorical level. In the report of the 2019 WG8j and
SBSTTA meetings provided in the Earth negotiation bulletin,
26 one finds a tendency to present transformative change as expected and it is mentioned that
“many [state parties and observers] supported the draft recommendations [of
the Global Thematic Dialogue] […] highlighting that nature and culture are
deeply integrated” (2019, p. 13). Yet in the final recommendations relating
specifically to this point,
27 the term integration only appears in the title of
the document, and in the body of the text the discussion is carefully restricted
to the “link” between nature and culture, with the integration of nature and
culture largely left out.
Global Thematic Dialogue
The report of the first Global Thematic Dialogue also highlights the need to
rethink the connection between nature and culture (CBD, 2019).
28 In this way,
the importance of adopting a “nature-culture approach”, which should help to
establish a more “harmonious” relationship with nature, is underlined. Yet, contrary to my expectations, given that it is a group where IPLCs can speak freely,