130 Ingrid Hall
As we have seen, in this document, a “nature-culture approach” is foregrounded,
and the document requests that such an approach be a “cross-cutting element” in
the context of the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework and later negotiations. Yet,
the reach of this argument is limited, since this approach is immediately associated with “cultural diversity”, which identifies a cultural component considered
separately from nature. It is then requested that “measures [be taken] to promote
the respect and recognition for the value of traditional cultures to biodiversity”;
the definition of that which relates to culture is therefore restricted to that which
is relative to biodiversity.
This argumentation tends to envisage the conceptual differences regarding the
relationship between nature and culture in cultural terms, as an issue of c ultural
politics. With regard to culture, the universality of nature – mononaturalism – is
taken for granted. This is fiercely criticized by writers such as Viveiros de Castro
(2014), Escobar (1997), and de la Cadena and Blaser (2018), who militate in favor
of a multinaturalism that cross-cuts the cosmopolitical considerations of Stengers
(2005) and Latour (2007). In other words, while IPLCs tend to forgo cultural
politics in favor of nature politics, the international texts are still stuck in a naturalist nature regime, which IPLCs must take account of if they wish to position
themselves favorably.
Yet, the document makes a call for “build[ing] understanding on the links
between nature and culture”. If we dig a bit deeper on this point, we see that
the line of argument chosen rests not on advocacy for an organic nature regime,
but on the deepening of scientific knowledge (a science-based approach). As
such, there is a request to carry out studies that would help to better understand
IPLCs’ relationship to “nature” and, more specifically still, to develop indicators
that would reflect “Nature-Culture values”. This comes down to a politics of
knowledge (Campbell et al., 2014, p. 5; de Sousa Santos et al., 2007). The valorization of IPLCs’ knowledge is linked to a demand in terms of production,
sharing, and access to scientific knowledge. Concretely, the establishment of
“Community-based Monitoring and Information Systems (CBMIS)” is invoked,
and these are presented as “indispensable tools for equitable and transparent environmental governance at all levels”. Ferrari et al. (2015) show the potential of
this approach, which in their study helps to strengthen IPLC participation and
fine tune local-level strategies. By participating in the production of specific
criteria adapted to their conceptions and realities, IPLCs contribute to influencing future policies: they produce knowledge with a political application, which
allows the implementation (or otherwise) of broad objectives such as the Aichi
Targets to be measured. Furthermore, IPLCs have recourse to what Campbell
and her c o-authors (2014) call a “politics of scale”, which allows them to make
use of effects of scale, being part of the production of information which can
translate into actions.
This argumentation is very skilled: it builds upon the fact that it is nowadays
morally impossible for others to stand against the recognition of IPLC rights, as
Parks (2020) shows clearly. It is science that has been mobilized in order to push
As we have seen, in this document, a “nature-culture approach” is foregrounded,
and the document requests that such an approach be a “cross-cutting element” in
the context of the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework and later negotiations. Yet,
the reach of this argument is limited, since this approach is immediately associated with “cultural diversity”, which identifies a cultural component considered
separately from nature. It is then requested that “measures [be taken] to promote
the respect and recognition for the value of traditional cultures to biodiversity”;
the definition of that which relates to culture is therefore restricted to that which
is relative to biodiversity.
This argumentation tends to envisage the conceptual differences regarding the
relationship between nature and culture in cultural terms, as an issue of c ultural
politics. With regard to culture, the universality of nature – mononaturalism – is
taken for granted. This is fiercely criticized by writers such as Viveiros de Castro
(2014), Escobar (1997), and de la Cadena and Blaser (2018), who militate in favor
of a multinaturalism that cross-cuts the cosmopolitical considerations of Stengers
(2005) and Latour (2007). In other words, while IPLCs tend to forgo cultural
politics in favor of nature politics, the international texts are still stuck in a naturalist nature regime, which IPLCs must take account of if they wish to position
themselves favorably.
Yet, the document makes a call for “build[ing] understanding on the links
between nature and culture”. If we dig a bit deeper on this point, we see that
the line of argument chosen rests not on advocacy for an organic nature regime,
but on the deepening of scientific knowledge (a science-based approach). As
such, there is a request to carry out studies that would help to better understand
IPLCs’ relationship to “nature” and, more specifically still, to develop indicators
that would reflect “Nature-Culture values”. This comes down to a politics of
knowledge (Campbell et al., 2014, p. 5; de Sousa Santos et al., 2007). The valorization of IPLCs’ knowledge is linked to a demand in terms of production,
sharing, and access to scientific knowledge. Concretely, the establishment of
“Community-based Monitoring and Information Systems (CBMIS)” is invoked,
and these are presented as “indispensable tools for equitable and transparent environmental governance at all levels”. Ferrari et al. (2015) show the potential of
this approach, which in their study helps to strengthen IPLC participation and
fine tune local-level strategies. By participating in the production of specific
criteria adapted to their conceptions and realities, IPLCs contribute to influencing future policies: they produce knowledge with a political application, which
allows the implementation (or otherwise) of broad objectives such as the Aichi
Targets to be measured. Furthermore, IPLCs have recourse to what Campbell
and her c o-authors (2014) call a “politics of scale”, which allows them to make
use of effects of scale, being part of the production of information which can
translate into actions.
This argumentation is very skilled: it builds upon the fact that it is nowadays
morally impossible for others to stand against the recognition of IPLC rights, as
Parks (2020) shows clearly. It is science that has been mobilized in order to push