Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide 127
themselves identifiable in a context where they are an overwhelming minority.
Moreover, these two images have a power of attraction for non-indigenous actors
that is not to be underestimated. This strategy thus depends on what Campbell
and her co-authors (2014, p. 6) call a politics of performance: in other words, it is
through performance that diplomacy operates. This resonates with the concept
of recognition put forward by Povinelli (1997, p. 20) insofar as IPLCs perform a
certain self-image that positions them with regard to other actors. Recourse to
this nature regime thus allows IPLCs to join together under a unifying discourse,
to reinforce their collective identity in the framework of negotiations, and to
establish alliances despite the flaws inherent to this strategy. In the performance
of this collective identity, the IIFB plays an essential role and this has the consequence of over-valorizing the indigenous element, to the disadvantage of the
local communities.
31
“Articulating” Nature and Culture: A More Pragmatic Vision
Over the course of the different meetings, the IPLCs do not always keep to a
discourse that highlights the integration of nature and culture (i.e. a non-naturalist
ontological regime) or plays on the image of the ecological native. As we will
now see, in the spaces for expression linked more directly to negotiations – as
can be seen in the recommendations for the SBSTTA and the WG8j, or the
main messages for the Global Thematic Dialogue – the naturalist nature regime
is generally not called into question. This should be considered in relation to
the fact that most non-indigenous actors are deeply committed to a naturalist
regime that separates nature and culture. In 2019, most passages of text that spoke
too openly of “significant change”, as mentioned above regarding the SBSTTA,
were fiercely contested during negotiations, which led to a “bracketing” of this
expression until the next COP planned in 2021 (consensus is necessary for a text
to be definitively approved (Maljean-Dubois, 2021, pp. 111–112)). This nature
regime is linked to economic interests, central in the global neoliberal governance of biodiversity. It is in order to underscore the importance of these interests
that Escobar (1999) proposes the term capitalist nature regime, rather than naturalist nature regime.
Given the forces of resistance at work, and insofar as it is necessary to establish
dialogue with the various actors present to be able to negotiate, the acceptance
of this dominant nature regime, naturalist and capitalist, seems to be a pragmatic
and realistic choice. This is even more the case, given that outside of the WG8j,
the spaces available for IPLCs to express themselves are reduced and constrained
(as a reminder: IPLCs can send a commentary beforehand; otherwise, they only
have two minutes, at most, to speak at the close of official debates). In the IPLC
caucus, too, this is a handicap; with such constraints, IPLCs necessarily have to
speak with a single voice. A need for efficiency thus imposes itself on IPLCs. In
the following section, I will focus on the ways that IPLCs deal with these various
constraints.
themselves identifiable in a context where they are an overwhelming minority.
Moreover, these two images have a power of attraction for non-indigenous actors
that is not to be underestimated. This strategy thus depends on what Campbell
and her co-authors (2014, p. 6) call a politics of performance: in other words, it is
through performance that diplomacy operates. This resonates with the concept
of recognition put forward by Povinelli (1997, p. 20) insofar as IPLCs perform a
certain self-image that positions them with regard to other actors. Recourse to
this nature regime thus allows IPLCs to join together under a unifying discourse,
to reinforce their collective identity in the framework of negotiations, and to
establish alliances despite the flaws inherent to this strategy. In the performance
of this collective identity, the IIFB plays an essential role and this has the consequence of over-valorizing the indigenous element, to the disadvantage of the
local communities.
31
“Articulating” Nature and Culture: A More Pragmatic Vision
Over the course of the different meetings, the IPLCs do not always keep to a
discourse that highlights the integration of nature and culture (i.e. a non-naturalist
ontological regime) or plays on the image of the ecological native. As we will
now see, in the spaces for expression linked more directly to negotiations – as
can be seen in the recommendations for the SBSTTA and the WG8j, or the
main messages for the Global Thematic Dialogue – the naturalist nature regime
is generally not called into question. This should be considered in relation to
the fact that most non-indigenous actors are deeply committed to a naturalist
regime that separates nature and culture. In 2019, most passages of text that spoke
too openly of “significant change”, as mentioned above regarding the SBSTTA,
were fiercely contested during negotiations, which led to a “bracketing” of this
expression until the next COP planned in 2021 (consensus is necessary for a text
to be definitively approved (Maljean-Dubois, 2021, pp. 111–112)). This nature
regime is linked to economic interests, central in the global neoliberal governance of biodiversity. It is in order to underscore the importance of these interests
that Escobar (1999) proposes the term capitalist nature regime, rather than naturalist nature regime.
Given the forces of resistance at work, and insofar as it is necessary to establish
dialogue with the various actors present to be able to negotiate, the acceptance
of this dominant nature regime, naturalist and capitalist, seems to be a pragmatic
and realistic choice. This is even more the case, given that outside of the WG8j,
the spaces available for IPLCs to express themselves are reduced and constrained
(as a reminder: IPLCs can send a commentary beforehand; otherwise, they only
have two minutes, at most, to speak at the close of official debates). In the IPLC
caucus, too, this is a handicap; with such constraints, IPLCs necessarily have to
speak with a single voice. A need for efficiency thus imposes itself on IPLCs. In
the following section, I will focus on the ways that IPLCs deal with these various
constraints.