Mountains and Biocultural Diversity

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

Introduction: Places with high species diversity have high linguistic diversity, whereas areas with low species diversity tend to have low linguistic diversity. Objective: To characterize the intriguing relationship between biological and cultural diversity, a correlation that has been discussed at a global scale, but here tested for the first time in Mexico. Methods: We compiled exhaustive databases on both endangered species and endangered languages, and reviewed available literature on Mexico’s biocultural diversity with a focus on endangered and critically endangered species and languages. Results: With 364 living languages, Mexico is the world’s fifth most linguistically diverse country, but 64 of these languages are facing a very high risk of disappearance and 13 have already disappeared. Mexico is also the fourth most biologically diverse country, but 1 213 species of its flora and fauna are threatened with extinction and at least 127 species were recently extinct. Conclusions: Indigenous peoples are custodians of much of the world’s biocultural diversity. As the world grows less linguistically and culturally diverse, it is also becoming less biologically diverse. Mexico’s biological and linguistic diversity show strong geographic overlap, with the states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz, Guerrero, and Michoacán harboring most species and most languages. Similarly, Mexico’s biodiversity hotspots mirror language hotspots, and areas with the highest number of endangered species overlap with areas where the endangerment of languages is also the highest.

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.

Simple SummaryBiocultural diversity espouses an inseparable link between biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity. Biocultural diversity is not alone in using the term ‘biocultural’. The term has been used in biocultural studies within anthropology decades ahead of biocultural studies. Both biocultural studies and biocultural diversity use the term ‘biocultural’ as adjective to generate new terminologies such as ‘biocultural approach’ with varying connotations. Such a confusing scenario might hinder theoretical advancements in biocultural diversity. Hence, I propose that proponents of biocultural diversity explore possibilities of adapting the term ‘ecoculture’ from cultural studies. Perhaps using the term ‘ecocultural’ instead of ‘biocultural’ as a descriptor to coin terminologies could solve confusions arising from the expanding usage of the term ‘bioculture’.Biocultural diversity has made notable contributions that have furthered our understanding of the human culture-nature interrelationship. However, the usage of the term ‘biocultural’ is not unique to biocultural diversity. It was first used in biocultural studies within anthropology decades ahead of biocultural diversity. The existing literature on biocultural diversity does not acknowledge the prior existence of biocultural studies, or provide a clear demarcation between usages of the two terms. In this article, I discuss the varying contexts in usage of the term ‘biocultural’ between biocultural diversity and biocultural anthropology. While biocultural diversity deals with the linkages between biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity, biocultural studies in anthropology deal with the deterministic influence of physical and social environment on human biology and wellbeing. In biocultural studies, ‘biocultural’ refers to the integration of methodically collated cultural data with biological and environmental data. ‘Bio’ in biocultural anthropology therefore denotes biology, unlike biocultural diversity where it refers to biodiversity. Both biocultural studies and biocultural diversity apply ‘biocultural’ as descriptor to generate overlapping terminologies such as ‘biocultural approach’. Such a confusing scenario is not in the interest of biocultural diversity, as it would impede theoretical advancements. I propose that advocates of biocultural diversity explore its harmonies with ecoculturalism and the possibilities of suitably adapting the term ‘ecoculture’ in lieu of ‘bioculture’. Using ‘ecocultural’ instead of ‘biocultural’ as a descriptor to coin terminologies could solve confusions arising from the expanding usage of the term ‘bioculture’.

The emerging concern in the last few decades for conserving 'diversity' is an impetus to conserve not only the whole spectmm of biota i.e. the total sum of genes, species and ecosystems but also indigenous culture, traditions, spiritual beliefs and values. This phenomenon is named Biocultural Diversity, which is a synthesis of both Biological Diversity (biodiversity) and Cultural Diversity. 1980 's was considered the decade of biodiversity, 1990's that of cultural diversity and 2000's a new field of Bio-Cultural diversity. In the first half of this paper the . interrelationship and interdependence between biodiversity and cultural diversity is discussed and in the second half how the modern global economic system is engulfing this diversity of life, knowledge, cultural heritage and practices are analysed The global distribution and patterns of biodiversity coincide with that of cultural diversity, therefore if languages and cultures disappear due to global pressure of homogenization we also lose knowledge about our environment leading to biodiversity depletion~ It is quite noticeable that the countries with people speaking largest number of languages; and countries with greatest number of traditional livelihoods and indigenous communities obviously have the greatest biological diversity. Thus only a sustainable approach can bridge the gap between modern visions of human beings and traditional cultural aspirations thereby ensuring holistic development.

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:

Summary It is well documented that large herbivores have pronounced effects on plant communities in grassland ecosystems, and the extent and course of their effects can largely depend on both plant and herbivore characteristics. Previous studies highlighted the importance of plant productivity in predicting the impact of herbivores on grasslands. Yet, there has been little consideration of how different herbivores affect plant communities that, in turn, differ in plant diversity. In a 2‐year grazing experiment, we tested the effects of large herbivores (cattle or sheep, or both together) on plant communities under high and low plant diversity levels in eastern Eurasian steppe. We found that, for high plant diversity grassland, mixed grazing by cattle and sheep significantly increases plant diversity, but we found no effect of grazing by cattle or sheep alone. Grazing by cattle or sheep alone or mixed grazing by cattle and sheep did not significantly affect plant biomass in the high diversity grassland. However, for low plant diversity grassland, grazing by cattle alone and mixed grazing by cattle and sheep significantly increased plant diversity, but significantly decreased plant biomass. There was no significant impact on both plant diversity and biomass from sheep grazing. Synthesis and applications. We conclude that the effects of grazing in grassland strongly depend on herbivore assemblages and pre‐grazing plant diversity. Herbivore grazing might contribute more to the maintenance of grassland structure and ecosystem functioning under high plant diversity compared with low plant diversity. Furthermore, our data suggest that multiple‐species mixed grazing regimes in grassland systems with high plant diversity could represent the optimal protocol for grazing management. This study emphasizes the importance of maintaining both plant and herbivore diversity to optimize ecosystem functioning.

Modern education has fostered universal forms of knowledge, practices, pedagogical paradigms, and infrastructure. Uniform educational models can overlook the richness of regional biological and cultural diversity, and their interactions (in short, biocultural diversity). The omission of vernacular forms of knowledge and also endemic biota and their interrelationships can indirectly drive biocultural diversity losses. At the same time, there is also a diversity of educational practices that promote the conservation of biocultural diversity. In this book, we present a novel educational methodological approach to appreciate local biocultural diversity. This methodology is called “field environmental philosophy,” because it integrates sciences, humanities, arts, and ethics to learn about biophysical, symbolic-linguistic, and political dimensions of biocultural diversity. A central goal of FEP is that students and other participants not only learn about biocultural diversity but also foster respectful ways of becoming responsible co-inhabitants. This book is organized into four parts that present: (1) concepts and practices of FEP; (2) a diversity of philosophical schools of thought and concepts and methods that inform FEP, and other complementary educational models; (3) case studies that exemplify valuable non-formal education initiatives for biocultural conservation; and (4) long-term research and education platforms that support field experiences that facilitate an understanding, valuation, and conservation of biocultural diversity. Our ultimate goal is to contribute to dynamic, intercultural, and interregional approaches to planetary stewardship initiatives. This book builds on more than 20 years of FEP activities that progressively have included (1) graduate students from different parts of the world, (ii) transdisciplinary approaches involving not only academia, but also public servants, members of indigenous and other local communities, as well as from the tourism sector, (iii) the integration of theory and practice into the creation of multiple-use protected areas, new tourism themes and activities, and biocultural conservation policy. Our goal is to offer educational concepts and practices that reconnect society with biocultural diversity for the well-being of both.

The diversity of life sensu lato comprises both biological and cultural diversity, described as "biocultural diversity." Similar to plant and animal species, cultures and languages are threatened by extinction. Since drylands are pivotal systems for nature and people alike, we use oases in the Sahara Desert as model systems for examining spatial patterns and trends of biocultural diversity. We identify both the underlying drivers of biodiversity and the potential proxies that are fundamental for understanding reciprocal linkages between biological and cultural diversity in oases. Using oases in Algeria as an example we test current indices describing and quantifying biocultural diversity and identify their limitations. Finally, we discuss follow-up research questions to better understand the underlying mechanisms that control the coupling and decoupling of biological and cultural diversity in oases.

BackgroundThe intensification of production and socio-economic changes have accelerated the loss of local traditional knowledge and plant resources. Understanding the distribution and determinants of such biocultural diversity is essential in planning efficient surveys and conservation efforts. Because the concept of biocultural diversity in socio-ecological adaptive systems comprises biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity, linguistic information should serve as a surrogate for the distribution of local biological and cultural diversity. In this study, we spatio-linguistically evaluated the names of local trees and rice landraces recorded in Ehime Prefecture, southwestern Japan.MethodsHierarchical clustering was performed separately for the names of local trees and rice landraces. By considering innate flora differences and species having multiple local names, a novel distance index was adopted for local tree names. For the names of rice landraces, Jaccard distance was adopted. V-measure and factor detector analysis were used to evaluate the spatial association between the isogloss maps of the folk nomenclature derived from the clustering and multiple thematic maps.ResultsLocal tree names showed stronger spatial association with geographical factors than rice landrace names. One folk nomenclature group of trees overlapped well with the slash-and-burn cultivation area, suggesting a link between the naming of trees and the traditional production system. In contrast, rice landraces exhibited stronger associations with folklore practices. Moreover, influences of road networks and pilgrimages on rice landraces indicated the importance of human mobility and traditional rituals on rice seed transfer. High homogeneity and low completeness in the V-measure analysis indicated that the names of local trees and rice landraces were mostly homogenous within current municipalities and were shared with a couple of adjacent municipalities. The isogloss maps help to illustrate how the biological and cultural diversity of wild trees and rice landraces are distributed. They also help to identify units for inter-municipal collaboration for effective conservation of traditional knowledge related to those plant resources and traditional rice varieties themselves.ConclusionsOur spatio-linguistic evaluation indicated that complex geographical and sociological processes influence the formation of plant folk nomenclature groups and implies a promising approach using quantitative lexico-statistical analysis to help to identify areas for biocultural diversity conservation.

Defining biocultural approaches to conservation

The conceptualization of interrelations between biological and cultural diversity since the 1980s indicates a biocultural turn in discourses and policies regarding nature conservation, sustainable development, and indigenous peoples. These interrelations frequently manifest as conflicts between local communities who derive their livelihoods and identity from their lands and resources, and external actors and institutions who claim control over these areas, invoking superior interests in nature conservation, development, and modernization. In these asymmetric conflicts over biocultural diversity, framed in discourses that demand the preservation of both biological and cultural diversity, the opportunities for local communities to assert their claims crucially depend on external discursive and legal frameworks.Based on a study of the Karen ethnic minority groups in the Thung Yai World Heritage Site in Thailand, this article explores challenges and chances for local communities to assert claims and rights to lands, resources, and self-determination in the context of the biocultural turn in environment and development discourses as well as heterogeneous legal frameworks. Human rights as individual rights are widely recognized, but may be difficult to enforce and of limited suitability in conflicts over biocultural diversity. Group rights like indigenous rights are increasingly devised to protect ethnic minorities and perpetuate cultural diversity, but are often disputed on the national level and may be ambiguous regarding heterogeneous communities. In Thailand and globally, community rights provide another promising framework with regard to conflicts over biocultural diversity if the claims of communities to livelihoods and self-determination are respected.

At the World Conservation Congress (WCC) 2012 of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the agendum of ‘Strengthening Biocultural Diversity and Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Asia-Pacific Island Regions’ was adopted as a resolution (IUCN Resolution 5.115). As a result, there is a need for the Ministry of Environment (Republic of Korea) to organize an aggressive implementation program for the realization of the agendum by cooperating with the IUCN according to the above results. In addition, there is a need to actively respond by possessing the international leadership regarding the related subjects in the future. Together with the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), the IUCN Resolution 5.115 widened the opportunities for the island countries in the surroundings of the Asia-Pacific to aggressively respond to the diverse issues regarding the preservation of the traditional, ecological knowledge of the biological culture, the preservation of the ecosystem, and the sustainable development by mutually cooperating. Especially, regarding Korea, as a country that possesses over 3,400 islands, the use of the resources by the global island residents, the maintenance of the cultural resources, the environmental protection, and the improvement of the quality of life are directly connected to the policies of Korea too. In the IUCN Resolution 5.115, the biocultural diversity, the use of the biological resources, and the contents of the traditional knowledge industry that are related to them, which not only the IUCN but, also, the CBD, the UNESCO, etc. are interested in, are included. In particular, at a time point when the interest in the island nations and the island regions that are very vulnerable to the rise of the seal level resulting from the changes of the earth environment has been heightening, the need for the preservation of the biological diversity regarding the islands and the need regarding the international interest and support for the traditional knowledge and the safety of the residents have been included. Because, although the level of interest regarding these have been getting heightened at the IUCN and the CBD already, the main activities have been concentrating on the marine biological diversity, the problems related to the islands on which the human beings reside. However, the indigenous biological resources of the islands, and the culture and the life of the islanders who have been using the indigenous biological resources have been considered in less. It is in this regard that the IUCN Resolution 5.115 has the purpose in overcoming such a viewpoint and intensively heightening the level of the international interest regarding the preservation of the biological resources of the islands and the culture and safety of the residents who use them and in expanding the support through a global network. An initiative regarding the biocultural diversity of the global islands for preserving the ecosystems and the biological diversities needed for the biological diversity, the governance, and the sustainability of the islands of the world, for the wise utilization of the ecological knowledge, for establishing an international network regarding the sustainability of the cultural diversity, and others of the like, and for playing the central role of developing, operating, and putting into practice the programs together with the IUCN is needed.

Education plays a major role in the formation of citizens and attitudes about biological and cultural (biocultural) diversity. Today, we are increasingly disconnected from everyday interactions with our environments and the living beings that inhabit them. To reorient this trend, we present a novel methodological approach, Field Environmental Philosophy (FEP), to reconnect students and other participants with biocultural diversity. This methodological approach is called “field environmental philosophy,” and not “field ecology” because it integrates epistemological, ontological, and ethical dimensions. Graduate students and other participants use methods from sciences humanities and arts. They combine analyses of philosophical, ethnographic, and ecological texts with field experiences to investigate biophysical, symbolic-linguistic, and political dimensions of biocultural diversity. The ultimate goal of FEP, however, is that participants do not limit themselves to only learning about biocultural diversity, but also propose and practice respectful, and responsible ways of co-inhabitation.