The Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity: Towards Integration

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

In the context of recent appeals for the adoption of historical perspectives emerging in environmental and conservation studies, ‘biodiversification processes’ would be considered as specific historical and historiographical topics. However, as highlighted in this paper, a broader discussion of the biodiversification processes as historical processes is needed. This paper discusses some consequences that are presented during the study of biodiversification processes when focusing on the links between cultural and biological diversity at the individual landscape level rather than on an overview of the current literature on the subject. In this discussion, we briefly underline dissimilarities in the methods adopted in historical ecology to those in the conventional historical approach nurtured in global environmental history where biodiversification processes, as subjects of historical study, are largely ignored or subsumed into general observations concerning global change or embedded in presumed ahistorical ‘traditional’ economies and practice systems. Such a broad reassessment is required before multi- or inter-disciplinary applications seek to answer ‘common questions’ (Szabo, Environ Conserv 37:380–387, 2010) in the field of environmental and cultural conservation studies. This paper comments on field and documentary evidence collected during multidisciplinary historical ecology approaches to research in the Northern Apennines (Italy) and Pyrenees (Franco-Spanish) sites. These site-level investigations suggest that medieval and post-medieval changes in local practices and systems of environmental resource production and activation appear to have been key drivers in co-related variations observed in the past biodiversity dynamics of the sites. In order to corroborate the sedimentary evidence (or traces of evidence) concerning taxonomic and habitat changes, historical ecology has proposed the adoption of a local approach in which a specific historical analysis and use of documentary and archival sources—as well as the archaeological and sedimentary evidence—has posed a number of new questions to the traditional use of archival and textual sources by professional historians. In doing so, it becomes clear that when observed at a local, topographical site-scale or on an individual landscape-scale, the links between biological and cultural diversity appear more clearly as historical products, rather than broad co-evolutionary issues relating to the ‘co-evolution of nature and culture’. These historically produced links between biological and cultural diversity—identified as biodiversification processes that can be uncovered and explored through the adoption of approaches from historical ecology—are the driving forces that ‘generate’ processes of circulation in local ecological knowledge and its related practices.

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:

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.

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.

Salmon problems in the Pacific Northwest have an important cultural as well as biological dimension. Economic growth is a dominating cultural goal. Social and political units do not match well with ecosystems. Authority is fragmented, and local, state, and federal agencies have conflicting mandates. To achieve biological diversity, a suggestion is to use adaptive management, taking major subbasins as bio-regions. Using cooperative management a planning unit in each subbasin would determine the qualities of a long-term experiment that best assures biological and cultural diversity. An organization overseeing the whole region would coordinate activities among subbasins.

Defining biocultural approaches to conservation

Combined approaches to conserve both biological and cultural diversity are seen as an alternative to classical nature conservation instruments. The objective of this study was to examine the influence of urbanization coupled with exclusive conservation measures, on land use, local knowledge and biodiversity in two Quechua speaking communities of Bolivia located within the Tunari National Park. We assessed and compared the links between land use, its transformation through conservation practices, local institutions and the worldviews of both communities and the implications they have for biodiversity at the level of ecosystems. Our results show that in both communities, people’s worldviews and environmental knowledge are linked with an integral and diversified use of their territory. However, the community most affected by urbanization and protected area regulations has intensified agriculture in a small area and has abandoned the use of large areas. This was accompanied by a loss of local environmental knowledge and a decrease in the diversity of ecosystems. The second community, where the park was not enforced, continues to manage their territory as a material expression of local environmental knowledge, while adopting community-based conservation measures with external support. Our findings highlight a case in which urbanization coupled with exclusive conservation approaches affects the components of both cultural and biological diversity. Actions that aim to enhance biocultural diversity in this context should therefore address the impact of factors identified as responsible for change in integrated social-ecological systems.