Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide 129
in related actions. These formulae are taken up by other participants, to the
extent that they are almost commonplaces. As is evident, in such a context, the
predominant nature regime is not contested. In fact, it appears uncontestable and
IPLCs do not take the risk of disputing it within the framework of the SBSTTA,
at least not directly.
32
Global Thematic Dialogue
It is in the report on the Global Thematic Dialogue, surprisingly, that acceptance
of the naturalist nature regime is most clearly manifest. Despite the position of
the Latin American group (placed at the end of the document and mentioned
earlier in this chapter) and despite invitations to take seriously the issue of the
relationship between nature and culture, the majority of the document drawn up
for the Post-2020 Strategic Plan is in continuity with debates taking place within
the CBD and the nature regime mobilized is one that enshrines the dichotomy
between nature and culture (CBD, 2019).
The five main messages identified in the document (CBD, 2019) are revealing
in this sense. IPLCs listed the following priorities: (1) use a human rights-based
approach, (2) implement equitable governance, (3) be evidence-based (IPBES
Global Assessment, Global biodiversity outlook – 5th edition – and Local biodiversity outlook – 2nd edition), (4) ensure coherence and synergy across the
United Nations system, and (5) align the structure of the Post-2020 Strategic
Plan with the Sustainable Development Goals. The way that these various objectives are then explained and developed is entirely compatible with the concepts
and vocabulary predominant at the CBD and in the SBSTTA. The use of the
adjective “harmonious” links to the leitmotiv of the CBD, “Live in harmony
with nature”, which became established after the Nagoya agreements in 2010;
in other words, this is a watered-down version of the “harmony” associated
with Mother Earth or Pachamama, a naturalist version whereby nature – easily
identifiable – provides for human needs in a satisfactory way. Once again, this
should be understood in relation to the fact that this text is part of a negotiation process: it is destined to send up the demands of IPLCs for the Post-2020
Biodiversity Framework to higher institutional levels, and beyond this for WG8j,
the SBSTTA and the COP. Even though the “main messages” are in no way
binding, the manner in which they are formulated responds to a pragmatic logic.
This pragmatism translates into numerous references to the rules of access and
benefit-sharing (APA/access benefit-sharing) written into the Nagoya Protocol.
The objective is clearly to ask that the redistribution mechanisms enshrined in the
CBD be implemented effectively. On this point, recall that Joji Carino N ettleton
at the WG8j highlighted a lack of political decisiveness in implementing the
measures voted for in the context of the CBD, including the Nagoya Protocol.
Moreover, the “full and effective participation” of IPLCs in negotiations is also
demanded with insistence. This document has therefore been drawn up in view
of the COP 15 to come.
in related actions. These formulae are taken up by other participants, to the
extent that they are almost commonplaces. As is evident, in such a context, the
predominant nature regime is not contested. In fact, it appears uncontestable and
IPLCs do not take the risk of disputing it within the framework of the SBSTTA,
at least not directly.
32
Global Thematic Dialogue
It is in the report on the Global Thematic Dialogue, surprisingly, that acceptance
of the naturalist nature regime is most clearly manifest. Despite the position of
the Latin American group (placed at the end of the document and mentioned
earlier in this chapter) and despite invitations to take seriously the issue of the
relationship between nature and culture, the majority of the document drawn up
for the Post-2020 Strategic Plan is in continuity with debates taking place within
the CBD and the nature regime mobilized is one that enshrines the dichotomy
between nature and culture (CBD, 2019).
The five main messages identified in the document (CBD, 2019) are revealing
in this sense. IPLCs listed the following priorities: (1) use a human rights-based
approach, (2) implement equitable governance, (3) be evidence-based (IPBES
Global Assessment, Global biodiversity outlook – 5th edition – and Local biodiversity outlook – 2nd edition), (4) ensure coherence and synergy across the
United Nations system, and (5) align the structure of the Post-2020 Strategic
Plan with the Sustainable Development Goals. The way that these various objectives are then explained and developed is entirely compatible with the concepts
and vocabulary predominant at the CBD and in the SBSTTA. The use of the
adjective “harmonious” links to the leitmotiv of the CBD, “Live in harmony
with nature”, which became established after the Nagoya agreements in 2010;
in other words, this is a watered-down version of the “harmony” associated
with Mother Earth or Pachamama, a naturalist version whereby nature – easily
identifiable – provides for human needs in a satisfactory way. Once again, this
should be understood in relation to the fact that this text is part of a negotiation process: it is destined to send up the demands of IPLCs for the Post-2020
Biodiversity Framework to higher institutional levels, and beyond this for WG8j,
the SBSTTA and the COP. Even though the “main messages” are in no way
binding, the manner in which they are formulated responds to a pragmatic logic.
This pragmatism translates into numerous references to the rules of access and
benefit-sharing (APA/access benefit-sharing) written into the Nagoya Protocol.
The objective is clearly to ask that the redistribution mechanisms enshrined in the
CBD be implemented effectively. On this point, recall that Joji Carino N ettleton
at the WG8j highlighted a lack of political decisiveness in implementing the
measures voted for in the context of the CBD, including the Nagoya Protocol.
Moreover, the “full and effective participation” of IPLCs in negotiations is also
demanded with insistence. This document has therefore been drawn up in view
of the COP 15 to come.