Biodiversification as an historical process: an appeal for the application of historical ecology to bio-cultural diversity research

The International Conference on Biological and Cultural Diversity held in Montreal on June 2010, produced the Declaration on Biocultural Diversity and the UNESCO-SCBD Joint Programme on the linkages between cultural and biological diversity. The first meeting for the implementation of the Joint Programme was held in Florence (Italy) in April 2014. The scientific and policy dimensions of the linkages between cultural and biological diversity are of utmost importance in Europe where policies are devoted to the conservation of biodiversity and cultural heritage, but rarely focused on the result of interactions between nature and culture expressed by the rural landscape. The Florence Conference gathered scientists from different disciplines considering biocultural diversity as a good example of a topic requiring a transdisciplinary approach not always supported by university and research. This not only for an effective understanding of the biodiversity associated with landscapes shaped by the man, but also for the further development of the Joint Programme in terms of research and political implementation. The meeting was organized into a scientific part and a workshop for the drafting of a declaration on biocultural diversity. The declaration states that the European rural landscape (about 80 % of the European Union territory) is predominantly a biocultural multifunctional landscape, while the current state of biological and cultural diversity in Europe results from the combination of historical and ongoing environmental and land-use processes and cultural heritage. This book shows the existence and the importance of biocultural diversity associated to European landscape. This heritage should be studied, preserved and valorized by public policies.

Karim-Aly S. Kassam: Biocultural Diversity and Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Human Ecology in the Arctic

Original Nation Approaches to 'International' Law (Onail): Decoupling of the Nation and the State and the Search for New Legal Orders

There is an emerging recognition that the diversity of life comprises both biological and cultural diversity. In the past, however, it has been common to make divisions between nature and culture, arising partly out of a desire to control nature. The range of interconnections between biological and cultural diversity are reflected in the growing variety of environmental sub-disciplines that have emerged. In this article, we present ideas from a number of these sub-disciplines. We investigate four bridges linking both types of diversity (beliefs and worldviews, livelihoods and practices, knowledge bases and languages, and norms and institutions), seek to determine the common drivers of loss that exist, and suggest a novel and integrative path forwards. We recommend that future policy responses should target both biological and cultural diversity in a combined approach to conservation. The degree to which biological diversity is linked to cultural diversity is only beginning to be understood. But it is precisely as our knowledge is advancing that these complex systems are under threat. While conserving nature alongside human cultures presents unique challenges, we suggest that any hope for saving biological diversity is predicated on a concomitant effort to appreciate and protect cultural diversity.

Patterns of biological diversity have been shaped by cultural practices in the past, while in turn, cultures and languages have evolved in close interaction with local species and ecosystems. However, in the Anthropocene, human activities are putting increasingly diverse pressures on ecosystems and cultures, resulting in accelerating threat levels on both. Understanding where biological and cultural diversity is threatened globally, and how far current and historical anthropogenic drivers such as colonialism shape their distribution is crucial for pinpointing hotspots and prioritizing efforts to counter these threats. We use global data on biological diversity (using amphibians, birds, mammals and reptile diversity as a proxy) and linguistic diversity (using as a proxy for cultural diversity) to estimate their current threat levels using the Red List Index framework. Using this data, we identify hotspots and coldspots of threat to both biological and linguistic diversity as well as a combined threat (here termed biocultural diversity threat). In a second step, we identify global drivers of biological, linguistic and biocultural diversity threat using beta‐regression models. We find that the spatial patterns of the erosion of biological diversity and linguistic diversity are only weakly congruent on a global scale and that they are driven by differential sets of mechanisms. These include the level of urbanization in the case of linguistic diversity threat and roughness, per capita GDP and the proportion of intensive agriculture for biological diversity. The only common driver of biocultural, linguistic and biological diversity threat was the increasing occupation time of European colonial powers. Hence, our results show that the European colonial expansion has left long‐lasting imprints on both biological and cultural diversity. This highlights substantial time‐lags of human past actions and can be readily translated to today where the globe is more connected than ever, illustrating the importance of understanding and alleviating contemporary anthropogenic pressures. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Indigenous Zuni farming, including cultural values, ecological and biological diversity, and land distribution and tenure, appears to have been quite productive and sustainable for at least 2000 before United States influence began in the later half of the 18th century. United States Government Indian agriculture policy has been based on assimilation of Indians and taking of their resources, and continues in more subtle ways today. At Zuni this policy has resulted in the degradation and loss of natural resources for farming, reduction in the number of Zuni farmers and their control over farming resources, individualization of rights in farmland, consolidation of farm fields, and declining biological diversity in agriculture. The Zuni Sustainable Agriculture Project with the Zuni Irrigation Association and the Zuni community, are now working to revitalize sustainable Zuni farming, based on traditional values, knowledge, and technology, combined with modern knowledge and technology where appropriate. The United States government can support these efforts through appreciation of the need for Zuni control and the potential value of cultural and biological diversity.

Biological and cultural diversity in the context of botanic garden conservation strategies

Local and indigenous knowledge is being transformed globally, particularly being eroded when pertaining to ecology. In many parts of the world, rural and indigenous communities are facing tremendous cultural, economic and environmental changes, which contribute to weaken their local knowledge base. In the face of profound and ongoing environmental changes, both cultural and biological diversity are likely to be severely impacted as well as local resilience capacities from this loss. In this global literature review, we analyse the drivers of various types of local and indigenous ecological knowledge transformation and assess the directionality of the reported change. Results of this analysis show a global impoverishment of local and indigenous knowledge with 77% of papers reporting the loss of knowledge driven by globalization, modernization, and market integration. The recording of this loss, however, is not symmetrical, with losses being recorded more strongly in medicinal and ethnobotanical knowledge. Persistence of knowledge (15% of the studies) occurred in studies where traditional practices were being maintained consiously and where hybrid knowledge was being produced as a resut of certain types of incentives created by economic development. This review provides some insights into local and indigenous ecological knowledge change, its causes and implications, and recommends venues for the development of replicable and comparative research. The larger implication of these results is that because of the interconnection between cultural and biological diversity, the loss of local and indigenous knowledge is likely to critically threaten effective conservation of biodiversity, particularly in community-based conservation local efforts.

The Polish rural cultural landscape is inherently linked to a special, centuries-old system that combines agricultural tradition and biodiversity. One of such environmentally, ecologically, agriculturally, historically, and culturally unique areas is the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland. Home to small agricultural holdings, this diversified mosaic is where agricultural, husbandry, craft, and local industry experience is handed down the generational chain. Developmental changes and progress are becoming the gravest threats to the area. The purpose of the paper is to assess traditional agricultural systems in the Lesser Poland part of the Kraków-Częstochowa Upland considering landscape features, agricultural biodiversity, food and livelihood security, traditional local knowledge systems, cultural values—in particular, systems of values—and social organisations that promote them. The research shows that biodiversity is entwined with cultural diversity. The vanishing of agricultural systems due to changed socio-economic conditions and environmental overprotection is a serious threat to the biological and cultural diversity in the upland. The authors employed a SWOT analysis—a tool that can investigate interactions and determine the best development strategy—to identify relationships between cultural and biological diversity.

With the convention on biological diversity (CBD) office in UNEP acting as global focal point for biodiversity, and UNESCO acting as global focal point for cultural diversity, the two institutions launched in 2010 the Joint Programme on the Links between Biological and Cultural Diversity (JP-BiCuD) to strengthen the linkages between biological and cultural diversity initiatives, and to enhance the synergies between interlinked provisions of conventions and programmes dealing with biological and cultural diversity at relevant scales. The first meeting for the implementation of the Joint Programme was held in Florence (Italy) in April 2014 and produced a declaration to promote the Joint Program in the European Continent. The scientific committee received 165 paper proposals. The selection operated by the Steering Committee accepted 63 papers considered highly relevant for the topic of the conference and also 11 posters, from 25 countries. The expert meeting for the drafting of the final declaration was attended by 42 experts from 14 countries and about 33 organizations, including FAO, ICOMOS, IUCN, and IUFRO among others. The Florence Declaration (UNESCO and SCBD 2014) was drafted taking into account the results of the conference works, and has not only produced political indications for the implementation on the Joint Programme, but also indicated some of the most important issues concerning research activities for the promotion of the concept of biocultural diversity:

As the world grows less biologically diverse, it is becoming less linguistically and culturally diverse as well. Biologists estimate annual loss of species at 1,000 times or more greater than historic rates, and linguists predict that 50-90% of the world's languages will disappear by the end of this century. Prior studies indicate similarities in the geographic arrangement of biological and linguistic diversity, although conclusions have often been constrained by use of data with limited spatial precision. Here we use greatly improved datasets to explore the co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in regions containing many of the Earth's remaining species: biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas. Results indicate that these regions often contain considerable linguistic diversity, accounting for 70% of all languages on Earth. Moreover, the languages involved are frequently unique (endemic) to particular regions, with many facing extinction. Likely reasons for co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity are complex and appear to vary among localities, although strong geographic concordance between biological and linguistic diversity in many areas argues for some form of functional connection. Languages in high biodiversity regions also often co-occur with one or more specific conservation priorities, here defined as endangered species and protected areas, marking particular localities important for maintaining both forms of diversity. The results reported in this article provide a starting point for focused research exploring the relationship between biological and linguistic-cultural diversity, and for developing integrated strategies designed to conserve species and languages in regions rich in both.

INTRODUCTIONThe knowledge related to fish names is an integral part of being a fisherman and considered as a proof of competence within fishermen communities. This local knowledge is designated as folk taxonomy, and is in some ways predictably similar to the scientific (Linnaean) naming system (Berkes et al. 2001; Berlin 1992; Jernudd and Thuan 1984). Such knowledge is local in scope and thus highly variable by geographic region, language, and ethnic group depending on local culture, biodiversity patterns, and fishing practices. It is also assumed to vary in time. Due to widespread anthropogenic pressure causing the collapse of fishing stocks and local extinctions of species, young fishermen will have had little probability to meet as many species and in such numbers as have their predecessors. This folk taxonomy knowledge in its different dimensions is intimately associated with Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK), and its description is often a prerequisite to gather local biological and ecological knowledge (Berkes et al. 2001; Eugene Hunn 2011; Freire and Pauly 2003; Haggan et al. 2007). The relevance of ecological information is likely to be anecdotal if the accuracy of taxonomic identification is not guaranteed (Albuquerque et al. 2014). Local ecological knowledge has become an essential source of information for conservation ecology (Ruddle and Davis 2013), especially in data-poor ecosystems.Morocco presents an interesting case for examining variability in fish naming due to great diversity of species, as well as long and varied sociolinguistic traditions. Bordered by both Mediterranean and Atlantic coastlines of Northwestern Africa, Morocco is the center of the transition zone between temperate and tropical waters, populated with diverse species communities (Masski and Tai 2014; Tai et al. 2013). For bony fish alone, FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2011) lists more than 766 species for Morocco. Fishing activity is widespread along the Moroccan coast, involving culturally diverse populations. Cultural diversity, an additional variable to consider, has its origin in the geopolitical situation of the country, which has always put indigenous people in close interaction with the people of Europe, Africa, and Arabia.What is considered by one as a diversity of local knowledge is seen by others as a variability in seafood labelling and represents a central issue in trade control and regulation, and in fisheries science and conservation (Fraser 2012; Leunda Urretabizkaia et al. 2009). In developing countries, where the adoption of a standard for naming fish is uncommon, vernacular (folk) and common names are also used in national fisheries statistics systems (Previero et al. 2013). Due to the high variability in folk taxonomy, the same fish species can be named differently in different regions, and one name can be attributed to different fish species (Berlin 1973, 1992). Furthermore, the use of fishery statistics databases for scientific purposes is therefore restricted to well-identified species, which impedes fisheries management procedures (Kifani et al. 2008). The usual answer to such a situation is the adoption of a standard, which is the goal of the Moroccan fisheries management agencies.The success of the targeted standardization is, in our opinion, dependent on the strength of reflection and research previously conducted. Thus, and far from wanting to carry out a comprehensive inventory of vernacular names, the present study aims to 1) build correspondence lists between folk and scientific names for a set of species in different locations along the Moroccan coast and, on this basis, 2) to analyze the structure and variability of the Moroccan folk taxonomic system. We hope that the results from our study will help to improve the use of folk taxonomy in formal management procedures, facilitate local ecological knowledge gatherings, and clarify the view for the ways to achieve a standardization process. …

Questions concerning cultural and biological diversity, cultural homogeneity versus heterogeneity, and biological homogeneity versus heterogeneity are critical to both cultures and biological species. Of the 8 million biological species found on earth, it is hypothesized that 1 million species will become extinct before the year 2000 A.D. Different societies also face a similar threat of cultural extinction. With increasing international, national, regional, and state demands for the preservation of existing habitats in the form of protected reserves, indigenous peoples surrounding or in parks, such as the Navajo at Canyon de Chelly National Monument, are often confronted with rapid change. A conflict exists between the preservation of cultural diversity on the one hand and biological diversity on the other. At Canyon de Chelly National Monument, cultural diversity over time, inclusive of the Anasazi, Navajo, Ute, Spanish, and U.S. cultures, is explored. The management of Canyon de Chelly Nationa...

Anthropology is too broad a field for the generalizations in the Beller et al. (BBM) paper (2012) to apply across the board. Furthermore, BBM's suggestion that “anthropologists tend to concentrate on one specific group” (p. 348) is easy to dismiss. Thus, the commentary by Barrett et al. (2012) notes both the discipline's rich and productive history of cross-cultural comparisons and the fact that some anthropologists continue to develop and test theories about cognitive universals today. However, the research interests of individual anthropologists do not necessarily reflect disciplinary emphases, and I would argue that North American anthropology, at any rate, is indeed currently focusing on cultural particulars and minimizing, if not rejecting, its traditionally concomitant emphasis on comparative, cross-cultural research. For example, while anthropologists interested in cross-cultural work often participate in small, multidisciplinary organizations such as the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, their work appears to be dramatically underrepresented in annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, the discipline's largest and most important organization (particularly for cultural anthropology). Online programs for the 2009 and 2010 meetings list papers for over 550 and 800 multiple paper sessions, respectively. However, the term “cross-cultural” is found in titles or abstracts of only 47 papers in 2009 and 70 in 2010. More recent full programs are not yet available online, but the list of paper titles for 2011 and 2012 suggests the same pattern. Another indication of the trend toward the particular are definitions of anthropology found on the web pages of anthropology departments of the first 100 “Top North American universities 2011–2012” listed by Times Higher Education (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk). This list ranks schools on the basis of “teaching,” “international outlook,” “industry income,” “research,” and “citations,” and so presumably includes the institutions most well known to potential collaborators in other disciplines, as well as most of the best anthropology departments. Seven of the 100 universities listed lack anthropology departments and/or web pages, and 12 others lack a definition of the discipline in their web pages. Of the 81 available definitions, 28 do not relate to the issue (typically, variants of “Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present”), but 53 focus on the exploration of diversity (34), variety (5), or difference(s) (14). Only 16 of these also discuss similarities or its synonyms (unity, commonalities, universals), and none discuss only similarities. Thus, almost half of the departmental website definitions of anthropology describe only diversity as the subject matter for disciplinary exploration. Examples include the following: “Anthropology involves the study of human biological and cultural diversity, across time and space”; “At the heart of anthropology research, theory and practice lies a shared appreciation of and commitment to understanding all aspects of human difference” and “The goal of anthropology is to understand and interpret cultural and biological differences among human societies, both past and present.” Even when the term “comparative” is part of a department's definition of the discipline (21), it is rarely (4) associated with the goal of exploring similarities. Department web page materials, although obviously brief, are typically agreed upon by faculty, and so likely consist of uncontroversial statements about disciplinary pursuits and teaching priorities. And they suggest that anthropology is currently defined as primarily interested in exploring human cultural and biological diversity. It is therefore not surprising that this view is reflected in the BBM paper and some of its commentaries (e.g., Levinson, 2012). But, of course, cultures exhibit some combination of cognitively driven similarities and differences that anthropology has productively explored for a very long time, with theory and methods that are of particular relevance to cognitive science. Cognitive science does need anthropology but, given current trends, it seems unlikely that many anthropologists will be contributing to future research in this field.

To explain becoming human, becoming a member of a culture and society, and becoming a unique human being calls upon diverse theoretical resources in the biological and social sciences. To integrate such diverse concepts requires the umbrella of evolutionary theory, which alone can encompass so many levels of analysis. I present an elaboration of the theory sketched in my presidential address to SRCD in the hope that a more thorough understanding of the theoretical framework and the implications of cultural and biological diversity will enrich and enliven developmental research. Debates with colleagues of different persuasions are always welcome and often fruitful.