126 Ingrid Hall
the promotion of this nature regime does not take center stage in demands made
in the document. If the Latin American delegation defends an approach that
explicitly challenges the dominant nature regime in demanding “respect and
recogni[tion for] the sacred and holistic approach that indigenous peoples have
to nature and biodiversity”, this section seems to have been added in a rather
contrived manner at the end of a table synthesizing the main messages that IPLCs
wish to convey to other institutions. Not only is the content quite different, but
one also notices that the passage is specifically raised by indigenous peoples (and
not local communities) of the Latin American delegate. This is significant, given
that not all IPLCs agree to the promotion of this nature policy, especially as far
as local communities, and even non-Latin American indigenous peoples, are
concerned.
29
Alliances and Spaces for Expression
Some non-indigenous agents position themselves favorably regarding this type
of nature regime. The Secretariat of the CBD, and especially the “people and
biodiversity” unit that coordinates the WG8j (Friis, 2020, p. 13) actively contribute to creating spaces for IPLCs to express themselves at various meetings,
not only at the WG8j. In 2019, the Secretariat – and this unit in particular – was
particularly active in bringing the CBD closer to the IUCN and UNESCO,
and this was supposed to result in the creation of a Nature-Culture Alliance
(the modalities of which should have been detailed at the IUCN congress in
September 2021 and which should have been be officially ratified during the
COP 15 of the CBD planned in October 2021). This builds upon a dynamic
that has existed for several decades through the LINKS program dedicated to
Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems; more recently, in 2019, the North
American Declaration on biocultural rights has also positioned itself in continuity with this.
30 Some programs (such as LINKS, mentioned above) and units
(people and diversity) have a mandate to push for the development of these
issues. They thus draw on the strong standpoints taken by IPLCs. N evertheless,
in the discourses produced by these non-indigenous actors, however, one perceives the valorization of a nature regime relating to integration that is not fully
complete. The texts produced by these various institutions remain dependent
on the same concepts of nature and culture, which contributes to maintain a
naturalist nature regime. This is largely because they have to take into account
the institutional language adapted to the various institutions they represent in
line with inter-institutional dynamics. In this context, the creation of specific
spaces of expressions is in itself a way to contribute to the reflection on the
nature regime.
IPLCs exercise, therefore, a “politics of nature” in spaces that are largely marginal to negotiations. This allows them to display a collective identity that rests
mostly on the image of the “ecological native” and quite often also on the image
of Mother Earth. This allows IPLCs to join forces under the same flag and to make
the promotion of this nature regime does not take center stage in demands made
in the document. If the Latin American delegation defends an approach that
explicitly challenges the dominant nature regime in demanding “respect and
recogni[tion for] the sacred and holistic approach that indigenous peoples have
to nature and biodiversity”, this section seems to have been added in a rather
contrived manner at the end of a table synthesizing the main messages that IPLCs
wish to convey to other institutions. Not only is the content quite different, but
one also notices that the passage is specifically raised by indigenous peoples (and
not local communities) of the Latin American delegate. This is significant, given
that not all IPLCs agree to the promotion of this nature policy, especially as far
as local communities, and even non-Latin American indigenous peoples, are
concerned.
29
Alliances and Spaces for Expression
Some non-indigenous agents position themselves favorably regarding this type
of nature regime. The Secretariat of the CBD, and especially the “people and
biodiversity” unit that coordinates the WG8j (Friis, 2020, p. 13) actively contribute to creating spaces for IPLCs to express themselves at various meetings,
not only at the WG8j. In 2019, the Secretariat – and this unit in particular – was
particularly active in bringing the CBD closer to the IUCN and UNESCO,
and this was supposed to result in the creation of a Nature-Culture Alliance
(the modalities of which should have been detailed at the IUCN congress in
September 2021 and which should have been be officially ratified during the
COP 15 of the CBD planned in October 2021). This builds upon a dynamic
that has existed for several decades through the LINKS program dedicated to
Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems; more recently, in 2019, the North
American Declaration on biocultural rights has also positioned itself in continuity with this.
30 Some programs (such as LINKS, mentioned above) and units
(people and diversity) have a mandate to push for the development of these
issues. They thus draw on the strong standpoints taken by IPLCs. N evertheless,
in the discourses produced by these non-indigenous actors, however, one perceives the valorization of a nature regime relating to integration that is not fully
complete. The texts produced by these various institutions remain dependent
on the same concepts of nature and culture, which contributes to maintain a
naturalist nature regime. This is largely because they have to take into account
the institutional language adapted to the various institutions they represent in
line with inter-institutional dynamics. In this context, the creation of specific
spaces of expressions is in itself a way to contribute to the reflection on the
nature regime.
IPLCs exercise, therefore, a “politics of nature” in spaces that are largely marginal to negotiations. This allows them to display a collective identity that rests
mostly on the image of the “ecological native” and quite often also on the image
of Mother Earth. This allows IPLCs to join forces under the same flag and to make