Unmaking the Nature/Culture Divide 131
forward negotiations: it is in this sense, moreover, that we should understand
the mention made, within the Global Thematic Dialogue report, of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an institution linked to the CBD, and the mention of the publications Global Biodiversity Outlook and Local Biodiversity Outlook (CBD, 2019).
The IPBES was modeled upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in 2010. It is independent of the CBD, although closely linked
to it, and situates itself at the interface between science and politics, as its name
indicates (Le Prestre, 2017, p. 115; Vadrot, 2016). Yet, the mission of the IPBES
is also to recognize and valorize the traditional knowledge of IPLCs and to fill
a knowledge gap: in 2016, the IPBES positioned itself in favor of taking account
of the cultural dimension of biodiversity,
33 setting itself the goal of better understanding other knowledge systems by adopting a scientific approach that would
inform the decisions taken at the CBD. Moreover, in decision IPBES-7/1 (May
2019), the Plenary extended the mandate of the existing task force on indigenous knowledge in order for it to work on the implementation of objective 3
(b) “Enhanced recognition of and work with indigenous and local knowledge
systems” of the rolling work program of IPBES up to 2030.
34
In this sense, within the Global Thematic Dialogue report, one finds a
great degree of reflection on the indicators that account for IPLC perspectives
and strengthen their participation in gathering data. The importance of these
indicators was highlighted at the WG8j meeting by Eleanor Sterling, Chief
Conservation Scientist of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation of the
American Museum of Natural History, as she presented results in a plenary session and during a side event organized by the Secretariat and the IUCN.
In addition, this reflection on indicators helps to further “the human rights
approach”, also mentioned in the Global Thematic Dialogue report. In this
document, a more integrated approach is taken, one which takes into account
the various human components involved in the management and conservation
of natural resources; components that are recognized by the other instruments
developed regarding human rights, specifically those dedicated to the recognition of indigenous rights (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP) – 2007).
This multifactorial approach also resonates with the “holistic approach”
developed within the FAO,
35 which aims to take account of the e cological,
economic, and social dimensions of organic agricultural production. It is
noteworthy that the term “holistic”, which has become so common nowadays, is
here used in the context of a naturalist nature regime, where its meaning differs
from the meaning given to it by IPLCs who use it instead to dispute the naturalist
nature regime.
During negotiations, although IPLCs leave out demands framed in terms of
a non-naturalist nature regime, they develop nuanced strategies that respond
to a complex (and dynamic) interplay of elements and that allow them to take
advantage of texts favorable to them or to establish alliances with institutions. In
forward negotiations: it is in this sense, moreover, that we should understand
the mention made, within the Global Thematic Dialogue report, of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), an institution linked to the CBD, and the mention of the publications Global Biodiversity Outlook and Local Biodiversity Outlook (CBD, 2019).
The IPBES was modeled upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) in 2010. It is independent of the CBD, although closely linked
to it, and situates itself at the interface between science and politics, as its name
indicates (Le Prestre, 2017, p. 115; Vadrot, 2016). Yet, the mission of the IPBES
is also to recognize and valorize the traditional knowledge of IPLCs and to fill
a knowledge gap: in 2016, the IPBES positioned itself in favor of taking account
of the cultural dimension of biodiversity,
33 setting itself the goal of better understanding other knowledge systems by adopting a scientific approach that would
inform the decisions taken at the CBD. Moreover, in decision IPBES-7/1 (May
2019), the Plenary extended the mandate of the existing task force on indigenous knowledge in order for it to work on the implementation of objective 3
(b) “Enhanced recognition of and work with indigenous and local knowledge
systems” of the rolling work program of IPBES up to 2030.
34
In this sense, within the Global Thematic Dialogue report, one finds a
great degree of reflection on the indicators that account for IPLC perspectives
and strengthen their participation in gathering data. The importance of these
indicators was highlighted at the WG8j meeting by Eleanor Sterling, Chief
Conservation Scientist of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation of the
American Museum of Natural History, as she presented results in a plenary session and during a side event organized by the Secretariat and the IUCN.
In addition, this reflection on indicators helps to further “the human rights
approach”, also mentioned in the Global Thematic Dialogue report. In this
document, a more integrated approach is taken, one which takes into account
the various human components involved in the management and conservation
of natural resources; components that are recognized by the other instruments
developed regarding human rights, specifically those dedicated to the recognition of indigenous rights (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP) – 2007).
This multifactorial approach also resonates with the “holistic approach”
developed within the FAO,
35 which aims to take account of the e cological,
economic, and social dimensions of organic agricultural production. It is
noteworthy that the term “holistic”, which has become so common nowadays, is
here used in the context of a naturalist nature regime, where its meaning differs
from the meaning given to it by IPLCs who use it instead to dispute the naturalist
nature regime.
During negotiations, although IPLCs leave out demands framed in terms of
a non-naturalist nature regime, they develop nuanced strategies that respond
to a complex (and dynamic) interplay of elements and that allow them to take
advantage of texts favorable to them or to establish alliances with institutions. In