134 Ingrid Hall
This kind of diplomacy, then, also questions the naturalist nature regime,
but in an indirect way. Through the scientific study of the link between nature
and culture, whose cornerstone is currently the fine-tuning of indicators that
integrate the viewpoint of IPLCs, this kind of diplomacy relates to a politics of
knowledge. Furthermore, by enhancing the participation of IPLCs in projects
carried out by the CBD, the position of IPLCs in their localities may be strengthened; at issue, therefore, is a politics of scale that allows IPLCs to strengthen their
role as protectors of the environment.
Finally, these two types of ontological diplomacy are complementary and
depend both, ultimately, upon a politics of nature. We can merely note that for
IPLCs the issue is not one of imposing a precisely defined, rigid, or fixed nature
regime that refers to a distant, idealized past. This diplomacy mobilizes various
actors, allies, and detractors; and it is in these interactions that zones of rupture
are constantly made and remade.
These two strategies are also complementary in jointly helping to develop the
concepts prevalent in global arenas of biodiversity governance. In fact, despite
incredible inertia, things seem to be moving forward bit by bit: the naturalist
nature regime is (beginning to be) overturned, and a hybrid nature regime is in
development. At the opening of the SBSTTA, Eduardo Brondizio (an anthropologist and co-chair of the IPBES) indicated that a “transformative change ‘of our
norms and values’ is needed for a meaningful post-2020 framework” (ISSD, 2019,
p. 8). The expression “transformative change” is now part of the IPBES’ vocabulary, an assessment is being prepared on the topic,
38 and although the negotiated
official definition remains relatively anchored in naturalism, Brondizio’s remarks
give a glimpse of the transformative potential held by the process of reflection
underway, which tends toward disputing the predominant naturalist/capitalist
nature regime. From a politics of culture, we move forward, with the burden
entailed by already ratified texts, to a politics of nature. Let us not cry victory
yet, however; at the SBSTTA, the use of the expression “significant change” was
not formally agreed to, and the term stayed “between brackets”. Let us hope that
these are taken out at COP 15.
Notes
1 See the Zero draft from January 2021, https://www.cbd.int/article/2020-01-10
-19-02-38. *All URLs retrieved on 1 September 2021.
2 Here, I am referring to the work of Stenger (2007) and Latour (2004) on cosmopolitics
that invokes a recomposition of worlds, as well as that of Tsing (2005, p. 270) who
speaks of “world making”; Haraway (Harvey & Haraway, 1995) also makes a plea for
this. This proposal generates debate on the very possibility of taking account of such
a diversity of perspectives (Blaser, 2016). Various authors insist on the fact that the
outcome cannot be known in advance (Blaser, 2004; Cadena, 2012; Cadena & Blaser,
2018), which pushes Stengers (2007) to say that the pluriverse should be understood as
“emergent” over time.
3 See https://www.cbd.int/tk/post2020.shtml.
4 See https://www.cbd.int/conferences/sbstta23-8j11/wg8j-11/documents.
This kind of diplomacy, then, also questions the naturalist nature regime,
but in an indirect way. Through the scientific study of the link between nature
and culture, whose cornerstone is currently the fine-tuning of indicators that
integrate the viewpoint of IPLCs, this kind of diplomacy relates to a politics of
knowledge. Furthermore, by enhancing the participation of IPLCs in projects
carried out by the CBD, the position of IPLCs in their localities may be strengthened; at issue, therefore, is a politics of scale that allows IPLCs to strengthen their
role as protectors of the environment.
Finally, these two types of ontological diplomacy are complementary and
depend both, ultimately, upon a politics of nature. We can merely note that for
IPLCs the issue is not one of imposing a precisely defined, rigid, or fixed nature
regime that refers to a distant, idealized past. This diplomacy mobilizes various
actors, allies, and detractors; and it is in these interactions that zones of rupture
are constantly made and remade.
These two strategies are also complementary in jointly helping to develop the
concepts prevalent in global arenas of biodiversity governance. In fact, despite
incredible inertia, things seem to be moving forward bit by bit: the naturalist
nature regime is (beginning to be) overturned, and a hybrid nature regime is in
development. At the opening of the SBSTTA, Eduardo Brondizio (an anthropologist and co-chair of the IPBES) indicated that a “transformative change ‘of our
norms and values’ is needed for a meaningful post-2020 framework” (ISSD, 2019,
p. 8). The expression “transformative change” is now part of the IPBES’ vocabulary, an assessment is being prepared on the topic,
38 and although the negotiated
official definition remains relatively anchored in naturalism, Brondizio’s remarks
give a glimpse of the transformative potential held by the process of reflection
underway, which tends toward disputing the predominant naturalist/capitalist
nature regime. From a politics of culture, we move forward, with the burden
entailed by already ratified texts, to a politics of nature. Let us not cry victory
yet, however; at the SBSTTA, the use of the expression “significant change” was
not formally agreed to, and the term stayed “between brackets”. Let us hope that
these are taken out at COP 15.
Notes
1 See the Zero draft from January 2021, https://www.cbd.int/article/2020-01-10
-19-02-38. *All URLs retrieved on 1 September 2021.
2 Here, I am referring to the work of Stenger (2007) and Latour (2004) on cosmopolitics
that invokes a recomposition of worlds, as well as that of Tsing (2005, p. 270) who
speaks of “world making”; Haraway (Harvey & Haraway, 1995) also makes a plea for
this. This proposal generates debate on the very possibility of taking account of such
a diversity of perspectives (Blaser, 2016). Various authors insist on the fact that the
outcome cannot be known in advance (Blaser, 2004; Cadena, 2012; Cadena & Blaser,
2018), which pushes Stengers (2007) to say that the pluriverse should be understood as
“emergent” over time.
3 See https://www.cbd.int/tk/post2020.shtml.
4 See https://www.cbd.int/conferences/sbstta23-8j11/wg8j-11/documents.