Negotiating the Futures of Nature and Cultures: Perspectives from Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities about the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
{"title":"Negotiating the Futures of Nature and Cultures: Perspectives from Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities about the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework","authors":"J. Cariño, M. F. Ferrari","doi":"10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. A post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is currently under negotiation under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This framework seeks to transform human-nature relationships towards its 2050 vision of “societies living in harmony with nature.” Global reports published to inform these negotiations include the second edition of Local Biodiversity Outlooks (LBO-2). In the context of ethnobiology, LBO-2 is particularly relevant because it features perspectives, experiences, and stories as told by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) about the global biodiversity crisis. Based on these perspectives, LBO-2 identifies six areas in need of urgent transformation (i.e., in culture, land, food, economies, governance, and financial incentives), analyzing how these relate to ongoing negotiations of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. In this article, we consider these transitions, as well as recommendations made by the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, and reveal critical weaknesses in the ways the Global Biodiversity Framework addresses the views and perspectives of IPLC. Such shortcomings include separation of nature and cultures in the framework's goals and targets, and failure to recognize and embed customary land tenure and territorial management as vital for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, and benefit-sharing. We make a series of recommendations to mainstream and prioritize support for the rights and collective actions of IPLC throughout the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"41 1","pages":"192 - 208"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.2.192","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
Abstract. A post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is currently under negotiation under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This framework seeks to transform human-nature relationships towards its 2050 vision of “societies living in harmony with nature.” Global reports published to inform these negotiations include the second edition of Local Biodiversity Outlooks (LBO-2). In the context of ethnobiology, LBO-2 is particularly relevant because it features perspectives, experiences, and stories as told by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) about the global biodiversity crisis. Based on these perspectives, LBO-2 identifies six areas in need of urgent transformation (i.e., in culture, land, food, economies, governance, and financial incentives), analyzing how these relate to ongoing negotiations of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. In this article, we consider these transitions, as well as recommendations made by the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, and reveal critical weaknesses in the ways the Global Biodiversity Framework addresses the views and perspectives of IPLC. Such shortcomings include separation of nature and cultures in the framework's goals and targets, and failure to recognize and embed customary land tenure and territorial management as vital for biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, and benefit-sharing. We make a series of recommendations to mainstream and prioritize support for the rights and collective actions of IPLC throughout the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
期刊介绍:
JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between.
Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology.
JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.