132 Ingrid Hall
2019, IPLCs, together with the CBD Secretariat, favored a rapprochement with
the IPBES and UNESCO. The conceptual tools developed by these institutions
are often ambiguous; one notices the pervasive influence of naturalism, but also
the way that certain openings are facilitated at certain moments,
36 openings
which IPLCs seek to exploit. Accepting the terms of reference and using the
tools available allow for the creation of equivalences or synergies that can have
positive outcomes.
37
This type of diplomacy builds not only upon a politics of nature, but also
upon what Campbell and her co-authors (2014) identify as a politics of knowledge and a politics of scale. These negotiations aim to build upon science while
also insisting on the need to take account of indigenous knowledge in the production and publicization of data. In this way, IPLCs build networks of allies
according to the context and the occasion. This allows IPLCs to negotiate what
Povinelli (1997, p. 20) calls identification, namely the concrete place attributed
to a group in relation to others and the rights attributed to it.
Conclusion
Unsurprisingly, the nature regime that predominates within the CBD is n aturalist
(or capitalist). Nature and culture remain two distinct concepts and, at the meetings mentioned that took place in 2019, the questions asked concern the “link”
that joins them. Although the importance of culture is by now widely recognized, its integration with nature remains difficult to conceptualize for most of
the participants, especially from Western countries.
In analyzing the way that IPLCs mobilized themselves at meetings taking
place in Montreal in 2019, it appears that disputing this nature regime is not
an easy task. In this chapter, I have shown that IPLCs do not operate together
as a bloc or in a strictly defined way in favor of an organic nature regime alternative to naturalism. In fact, the standpoint taken by these actors, especially
through their representation in the IIFB, is much more nuanced and strategic.
Their argumentation is adapted to the meeting, to the mode of participation that
IPLCs are allowed, to the exact type of space in which they express themselves,
to the concepts held by the other participants present, to the alliances that can be
mobilized, and to specific issues.
I have identified two types of standpoint that build upon two different
nature regimes: non-naturalist/organic and naturalist/capitalist. These two
nature regimes correspond to two distinct strategies, one relating to a politics of nature, the other to a politics of culture. The first nature regime,
non-naturalist, has to do with the valorization of a “holistic” worldview, which
disputes the distinction between nature and culture and valorizes indigenous
“cosmovisions”. In 2019, the non-indigenous participants tended to call this
approach “integration”. This position is mostly defended by the delegations
from the Americas, especially by the Latin American delegation, and more
specifically still by the Andean countries. Pachamama – the Andean version of
2019, IPLCs, together with the CBD Secretariat, favored a rapprochement with
the IPBES and UNESCO. The conceptual tools developed by these institutions
are often ambiguous; one notices the pervasive influence of naturalism, but also
the way that certain openings are facilitated at certain moments,
36 openings
which IPLCs seek to exploit. Accepting the terms of reference and using the
tools available allow for the creation of equivalences or synergies that can have
positive outcomes.
37
This type of diplomacy builds not only upon a politics of nature, but also
upon what Campbell and her co-authors (2014) identify as a politics of knowledge and a politics of scale. These negotiations aim to build upon science while
also insisting on the need to take account of indigenous knowledge in the production and publicization of data. In this way, IPLCs build networks of allies
according to the context and the occasion. This allows IPLCs to negotiate what
Povinelli (1997, p. 20) calls identification, namely the concrete place attributed
to a group in relation to others and the rights attributed to it.
Conclusion
Unsurprisingly, the nature regime that predominates within the CBD is n aturalist
(or capitalist). Nature and culture remain two distinct concepts and, at the meetings mentioned that took place in 2019, the questions asked concern the “link”
that joins them. Although the importance of culture is by now widely recognized, its integration with nature remains difficult to conceptualize for most of
the participants, especially from Western countries.
In analyzing the way that IPLCs mobilized themselves at meetings taking
place in Montreal in 2019, it appears that disputing this nature regime is not
an easy task. In this chapter, I have shown that IPLCs do not operate together
as a bloc or in a strictly defined way in favor of an organic nature regime alternative to naturalism. In fact, the standpoint taken by these actors, especially
through their representation in the IIFB, is much more nuanced and strategic.
Their argumentation is adapted to the meeting, to the mode of participation that
IPLCs are allowed, to the exact type of space in which they express themselves,
to the concepts held by the other participants present, to the alliances that can be
mobilized, and to specific issues.
I have identified two types of standpoint that build upon two different
nature regimes: non-naturalist/organic and naturalist/capitalist. These two
nature regimes correspond to two distinct strategies, one relating to a politics of nature, the other to a politics of culture. The first nature regime,
non-naturalist, has to do with the valorization of a “holistic” worldview, which
disputes the distinction between nature and culture and valorizes indigenous
“cosmovisions”. In 2019, the non-indigenous participants tended to call this
approach “integration”. This position is mostly defended by the delegations
from the Americas, especially by the Latin American delegation, and more
specifically still by the Andean countries. Pachamama – the Andean version of