Biocultural Diversity and Sustainability

18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 267

18 Biocultural Diversity and Sustainability

Luisa Maffi

with the environment and thus of the relationships INTRODUCTION between the state of the environment, the threats or pressures on it, and the response options to Conventional approaches to environmental con- counter or alleviate the threats. Three will be men- servation have tended to consider the role of tioned here in particular. humans only or mostly in terms of the threats that In the natural sciences, the field of ecosystem the intensification of human extractive and trans- health (Rapport, 1998, 2007) embraces a formative activities poses for the environment. “humans-in-environment” approach which, while From this perspective, finding solutions to envi- acknowledging that the global commons are ronmental problems largely means seeking to put severely imperiled by human action, takes as its a halt to those activities by “taking human hands main goal to address Aldo Leopold’s challenging off ” what is seen as the last remaining pristine question: how can we humanly occupy the Earth environments on the planet (Terborgh, 1999). without rendering it dysfunctional? In the social Underlying this perspective is a philosophical sciences, the field of biocultural diversity (Maffi, view that depicts humans as external to, and sepa- 2001a, 2005) Ð drawing from anthropological, rate from, nature, and interacting with it mostly in ethnobiological, and ethnoecological insights an effort to establish dominion over it (Eldredge, about the relationships of human language, 1995). Complementarily, nature is seen as sepa- knowledge, and practices with the environment Ð rate from humans and as existing in a primordial, takes as its fundamental assumption the existence “virgin” state unless and until they are encroached of an “inextricable link” between biological and upon by humans. cultural diversity. And in the realm of policy, the That the exponential increase in the pace and sustainable development paradigm that emerged scale of human activities has come to constitute in the 1980s proposes that the key to sustainabil- the prime threat to the environment is undeniable Ð ity resides in balancing three “pillars:” environ- both through the direct effects of extraction and ment, society, and economy (Bruntland, 1987). transformation of natural resources, and through The documents spawned by the 1992 Rio Summit the indirect effects of these activities (such as on Environment and Development (Rio global climate change). It is now widely recog- Declaration, Agenda 21, Convention on Biological nized that we have entered an era in which mas- Diversity) also recognize the relevance of traditional sive species extinctions, habitat deterioration, and environmental knowledge for the conservation of loss of ecosystem functions are all due principally biodiversity. to human intervention (Millennium Ecosystem This chapter reviews the field of biocultural Assessment, 2005). From the 1980s onwards, diversity, its history and main contributions thus however, several paradigms have challenged the far, as well as the gaps and needs for future philosophical perspective described above, pre- research and application. It then explores this senting a different view of human relationships field’s relationships to the idea of sustainability 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 268

268 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY

and points to its current and future opportunities husbandry, etc.). This countered the image of to contribute to achieving a sustainable world. “pristine” environments, unaffected by humans, that could be brought back to their “original” state by fencing them off to protect them from human SOME HISTORY AND DEFINITIONS activity. (See, e.g. Heckenberger et al., 2003, for recent evidence about the anthropogenic nature of The idea of an “inextricable link” between even parts of so-called “virgin” tropical rainforests.) biological and cultural diversity was perhaps These findings suggested the following conclu- first expressed in those terms in the 1988 sion: the sum total and cumulative effect of the Declaration of Belém of the International variety of local interlinkages and interdependen- Society of Ethnobiology (http://ise.arts.ubc.ca/ cies between humans and the environment world- declareBelem.html). Several decades of ethnobio- wide means that at the global level biodiversity logical and ethnoecological work had accumu- and cultural diversity are also interlinked and lated evidence about the depth and detail of interdependent, with significant implications for indigenous and local knowledge about plants and the conservation of both diversities. Pioneering animals, habitats, and ecological functions and global cross-mappings of the distributions of bio- relations, as well as about the low environmental diversity and linguistic diversity (taken as a proxy impact, and indeed sustainability Ð historically for cultural diversity as a whole) provided inde- and at present Ð of many traditional forms of pendent support for this conclusion, revealing sig- natural resource use. The evidence also pointed to nificant geographic overlaps between the two a variety of ways in which humans have main- diversities, especially in the tropics, and a strong tained, enhanced, and even created biodiversity coincidence between biologically and linguisti- through culturally diverse practices of manage- cally megadiverse countries (Harmon, 1996). Map 1 ment of “wild” resources and the raising of shows some of these correlations, with a focus on domesticated species (such as the use of fire, pro- endemism in both languages and higher vertebrate tection and dissemination of culturally important species (languages and species only found within “wild” species, agroforestry, horticulture, animal the borders of an individual country).

Map 1 Endemism in language and higher vertebrates: comparison of the top 25 countries Source: Harmon (1996), based on data from Groombridge (1992) (pp. 139–141, for species) and Grimes (1992) (for languages). Figures for Ethiopia include Eritrea. Higher vertebrates include mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians; reptiles not included for USA, China, and Papua New Guinea because the numbers were not reported in the source table. 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 269

BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY 269

Interest in this topic grew through the 1990s, generally used by its proponents. Biocultural drawing from a variety of sources in the natural, diversity might be defined as follows. social, and behavioral sciences, humanities, Biocultural diversity comprises the diversity of applied sciences, policy, and human rights. Out of life in all of its manifestations: biological, cultural, these converging interests, a new field of research and linguistic, which are interrelated (and possibly and applied work has emerged that has been coevolved) within a complex socio-ecological labeled “biocultural diversity” (Posey, 1999; adaptive system. The above definition comprises Maffi, 2001a, 2005; Harmon, 2002; Stepp, et al., the following key elements: 2002; Carlson and Maffi, 2004). This label is actu- ally a short form for “biological, cultural, and lin- 1 The diversity of life is made up not only of the guistic diversity.” Proponents of this field argue diversity of plants and animal species, habitats, that the diversity of life is comprised not only of and ecosystems found on the planet, but also of the variety of species and cultures that have the diversity of human cultures and languages. evolved on earth, but also of the variety of lan- 2 These diversities do not exist in separate and guages that humans have developed over time. parallel realms, but rather they interact with and This approach also highlights the role of language affect one another in complex ways. as a vehicle for communicating and transmitting 3 The links among these diversities have developed cultural values, traditional knowledge and prac- over time through mutual adaptation between tices, and thus for mediating humanÐenvironment humans and the environment at the local level, interactions and mutual adaptations. (On the possibly of a coevolutionary nature. specific aspect of linguistic diversity, see Maffi, 1998, 2001b; Maffi et al., 1999; Harmon, 2002.) A possible representation of these complex rela- Although the theoretical and methodological tionships at different scales is suggested by the bases of the field of biocultural diversity are still diagram in Figure 18.1. being refined, and an explicit, agreed-upon con- Taken together, the above assumptions raise ceptual framework has not been fully worked out important issues of history, pattern, and causality: yet, it is possible to glean some definitions and how have the links among diversities developed key elements based on how the concept has been and changed over time, how are the relationships

GLOBAL, REGIONAL, OR NATIONAL LEVEL CORRELATIONS BIODIVERSITY AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Ecosystem, species & Languages and cultures genetic richness

CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS AT LOCAL LEVEL

BIODIVERSITY LOCAL CULTURES

Ecosystem, species & Ecological knowledge, genetic richness practices, beliefs, language

Figure 18.1 Relationship between national/regional/global correlations of cultural and biological diversity and causal relationships between cultures and biodiversity at the local level Source: original figure by Ellen Woodley, 2005. 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 270

270 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY

manifested today, and how does one form of modifying it as they adapted to it and developing diversity affect the others? Is local biodiversity, at specialized knowledge of it, as well as specialized least to some extent, culture specific? These ways of talking about it. Thus, the local languages, assumptions also raise significant issues of scale through which this knowledge was encoded and and levels of analysis: how do these diversities transmitted, would in turn have become molded by and the relationships among them manifest them- and specifically adapted to their socioecological selves and play out at different degrees of resolu- environments. tion, from the local to the global, and how are On the other hand, Mühlhäusler (1996) called patterns and processes connected across scales? attention to the fact that linguistic and cultural dis- This stresses the need for, on the one hand, in- tinctiveness can develop also in the absence of depth studies of the global distributions of biologi- mutual isolation: for example, among human cal, cultural, and linguistic diversity, both currently groups who belong to the same broadly defined and over time; on the other, detailed case studies of cultural area (i.e. groups sharing many cultural the links between the environment and language, traits), or whose languages are considered to be cultural beliefs, knowledge, and practices at historically related or to have undergone extensive regional and local levels. mutual contact, and who occupy the same or A corollary of the definition of biocultural contiguous ecological niches. Such circumstances Ð diversity is that the trends in biological, cultural, high concentrations of linguistically distinct com- and linguistic diversity are also interrelated, munities coexisting side by side in the same areas potentially with mutual beneficial or detrimental and communicating through complex networks of effects. This corollary points to the importance of multilingualism Ð appear to have occurred fre- having tools, or indicators, to measure and com- quently throughout human history (Hill, 1997), pare the state and trends in these diversities glob- and still exist today in many parts of the world ally and regionally, in order to assess whether the (the Pacific being a prime example). This points to current and historical status of one is mirrored by the role of sociocultural factors, along with biogeo- the current and historical status of the others.Work graphic factors, in the development of linguistic carried out from a biocultural perspective diversity. during the past decade has sought to tackle some Numerous other researchers, using databases of of the questions and needs mentioned above. A the world’s languages or the world’s cultures, review of the key literature follows, along with a have sought to correlate the global or regional dis- discussion of some of the gaps that call for further tribution of linguistic or cultural diversity with study. both environmental and social factors (Nichols, 1990, 1992; Chapin, 1992 [2003]; Mace and Pagel, 1995; Wilcox and Duin, 1995; Nettle, ADVANCES AND GAPS IN BIOCULTURAL 1996, 1998, 1999; Oviedo et al., 2000; Lizarralde, DIVERSITY RESEARCH 2001; Smith, 2001; Collard and Foley, 2002; Moore et al., 2002; Manne, 2003; Skutnabb- The main lines of work that have so far been Kangas et al., 2003; Sutherland, 2003; Stepp developed in this field can be grouped under three et al., 2004, 2005). Some of the same geographic headings: global and regional analyses of the corre- and climatic factors, such as low latitude, higher lations between linguistic and biological diversity; rainfall, higher temperatures, coastlines, and tools for measuring and assessing the state of bio- mountains, have been repeatedly identified as pos- cultural diversity; and studies about the persistence itively correlated with both high linguistic diver- and loss of biocultural diversity. sity and high biological diversity. Higher latitudes, Harmon’s initial work on global biodiversityÐ plains, and drier climates tend to correlate with linguistic diversity correlations (Harmon, 1996) lower diversity in both realms. pointed to several large-scale biogeographic fac- One of the social factors that have been invoked tors that might account for these correlations, in to account for these patterns is the difference in that they might comparably affect the develop- modes of subsistence (more localized versus rang- ment of both biological and linguistic diversity ing over larger territories) influenced by how (such as extensive land masses with a variety of geography and climate affect the carrying capac- terrains, climates, and ecosystems; island territo- ity of a given area and access to resources for ries, especially with internal geophysical barriers; human use. Ease of access to abundant resources tropical climates, fostering higher numbers and found in place seems to favor localized boundary densities of species). In addition, Harmon hypoth- formation and diversification of larger numbers of esized a process of coevolution of small human small human societies (and languages). Where populations with their local ecosystems. Such a resources are scarce, the necessity to have access process would have developed over time, as to a larger territory to meet subsistence needs humans interacted closely with the environment, favors smaller numbers of widely distributed 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 271

BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY 271

Map 2 Plant diversity and language distribution Source: from Stepp et al. (2004), based in part on data from Barthlott et al. (1999).

populations (and languages). The development of perspective both on processes of environmental complex societies and large-scale economies, change and on human population movements and which tend to spread and expand beyond their bor- expansions and other social, economic, and politi- ders, has also been found to correlate with a low- cal factors that may have affected the location and ering of both linguistic and biological diversity. numbers of human populations and their relation- There is a significant overlap between the location ships with and effects on the environment. Other of threatened ecosystems and threatened lan- critical issues highlighted by this research are the guages (Skutnabb-Kangas et al., 2003). On the need for a better understanding of how environ- other hand, low population density, at least in mental factors may similarly or differentially tropical areas, seems to correlate positively affect cultural groups and species, and the role of with high biocultural diversity. Map 2 shows the scale and degree of resolution in the analysis of overlap of global language distribution and plant biodiversityÐcultural/linguistic diversity correla- biodiversity zones. tions. Advances in the use of GIS as a research It is important to note that, while the correla- tool promise to propel this agenda forward in new tions in the distribution of biological and linguis- and insightful ways (Stepp et al., 2004, 2005). tic/cultural diversity show clear patterns at the Issues of scale and level of analysis also arise in global level, analysis at smaller scales reveals sig- another realm of the field of biocultural diversity, nificant variation from region to region and some- that related to the development of indicators for times presents a mixed picture in terms of the the joint measurement and assessment of global patterning of these diversities. While Central and conditions and trends of biodiversity and cultural South America, West and Central Africa, South diversity. The earliest efforts to develop such tools and Southeast Asia, and the Pacific consistently were carried out by David Harmon in the early stand out as “hotspots” of biocultural diversity, 1990s (Harmon, 1992). Indicators of biodiversity even in these regions these correlations may were by then commonly used to monitor the state occasionally weaken or even disappear when of the natural world. Harmon set out to identify “zooming in” at higher degrees of resolution. indicators that might allow for gauging the state of Researchers involved in these studies point to cultural diversity in relation to the state of biodi- the need for finer-grained analyses that will be versity, and thus for determining whether cultural more sensitive to the role of local biogeographic diversity is indeed diminishing Ð as various and sociocultural factors in producing deviations reports were suggesting (e.g. Krauss, 1992; from global patterns of diversity. More detailed Miller, 1993) Ð and whether it is diminishing in studies on a regional scale will improve our abil- tandem with biodiversity. He proposed a number ity to identify correlations and mutual influences of aspects of culture for which indicators might be and perhaps to discern causal factors that link developed: from language, ethnicity, and religion cultural diversity with biodiversity and affect the to diet, crops, land management practices, med- development, maintenance, and loss of biocul- ical practices, social organization, and forms of tural diversity. Especially needed is a historical artistic expression. 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 272

272 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY

The ability to develop indicators depends, of for a country’s human population and thus measures course, on the availability of reliable data sets on biocultural diversity in relation to a country’s popu- the entity to be measured, at whatever scale is lation size. For each country, the overall IBCD then appropriate. In order to match biodiversity data on aggregates the figures for these three components, a global scale, therefore, the choice for cultural yielding a global picture of the state of biocultural indicators had to fall on those aspects of culture diversity in which three areas emerge as “core for which global data exist: languages (Grimes, regions” of exceptionally high biocultural diversity: 2000; now see Gordon, 2005), and ethnicities and the Amazon Basin, Central Africa, and Indomalaysia/ religions (Barrett et al., 2001). In a collaborative Melanesia (see Map 3). This largely confirms the effort, Harmon and Loh (Harmon and Loh, 2004; geographical correlations found in other work Loh and Harmon, 2005) developed the blueprint reviewed above, in which only either languages or for an Index of Biocultural Diversity (IBCD), ethnicities were used as proxies for cultural diversity. whose purpose is to measure the condition and Harmon and Loh point to a number of limita- trends in biocultural diversity on a country-to- tions of the IBCD and caveats concerning its use. country basis (the level at which the available data They make it clear that this index, like any index, sets are organized). This is accomplished by should only be used to measure general conditions aggregating data on the three cultural indicators and trends and should not be expected to provide with data on the diversity of bird/mammal species an in-depth analysis of the phenomenon at hand, and plant species as indicators for biodiversity particularly as concerns within-country variation (also selected on the basis of global data availability). in biocultural diversity. They also point out that, in The IBCD features three components: a “biocultural its current version, the IBCD only provides a diversity richness” component (IBCD-RICH), “snapshot” of the state of biocultural diversity at which is the sheer aggregated measure of a coun- the beginning of the 21st century, while data on try’s richness in cultural and biological diversity; trends are as yet missing and are the object of an “areal” component (IBCD-AREA), which future research (see below). They conclude that adjusts the indicators for a country’s land area and these latter data, used in conjunction with careful thus measures biocultural diversity relative to the qualitative analyses, will ultimately provide a country’s physical extent; and a “population” com- more adequate and accurate picture of the global ponent (IBCD-POP), which adjusts the indicators state of biocultural diversity. At the same time,

Map 3 The “core areas” of global biocultural diversity Source: Loh and Harmon (2005). 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 273

BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY 273

they acknowledge that the main value of such an and transmission of ethnobotanical and ethnoeco- index will be largely practical and political, such logical knowledge and for the identification of as to raise awareness about biocultural diversity factors (such as age, formal education, bilingual among decision-makers, opinion-makers, and the ability, length of residency, change in subsistence general public, and promote needed action for its practice, and so forth) that may affect the main- protection and restoration. tenance or loss of TEK. Also, an expert group on It is in fact notable that the Convention on language endangerment and language mainte- Biodiversity (CBD) has recently set a goal to nance gathered by UNESCO has put forth a set of develop indicators to monitor progress toward its recommendations for the assessment of linguistic “2010 Target” of significantly reducing the loss of vitality (UNESCO, 2003) that should provide use- biodiversity by the year 2010 (Balmford et al., ful guidance also for the development of linguistic 2005), and among these indicators has included diversity indicators. They point out that sheer one of the status and trends of linguistic diversity. trends in “language richness” (number of different This is because the CBD has within its mandate languages) are not a fully adequate indicator of the protection and promotion of indigenous and the state of languages. Better data on numbers of local knowledge relevant to the conservation of speakers over time and other sociolinguistic “vital biodiversity. Global data on the status and trends statistics,” particularly on intergenerational lan- of traditional knowledge do not currently exist. guage transmission, contexts of use, availability of Because of the close link between language and mother tongue education, and so forth, will be knowledge, the status and trends of languages is to needed for this purpose. A methodology has be used in this context as a proxy for the status and recently been developed for testing linguistic trends of traditional knowledge. Efforts are vitality at the local level and identifying the fac- now underway to develop time-series data on lin- tors (such as age, gender, special roles, etc.) that guistic diversity, as well as the methodology for a affect linguistic ability (Florey, 2006). locally appropriate, globally applicable indicator Last but not least, explaining the links between directly focused on trends of retention or loss of language, knowledge, beliefs, practices, and the traditional environmental knowledge (TEK) over environment at the local level also requires delv- time (Terralingua, 2006). Both of these indicators ing into indigenous and other local societies’ might contribute to the needs of the CBD and understandings of humanÐenvironment relation- other stakeholders, and will illuminate one of the ships. A view of humans as part of, rather than basic questions in the field of biocultural diver- separate from, the natural world is pervasive in sity: is the world’s cultural diversity indeed in indigenous societies, and so is the perception of a decline, and, if so, how fast? Correlated with time- link between language, cultural identity, and land series data on biodiversity, these new indicators (rather than an abstract notion such as “nature;” will also show whether trends in cultural diversity see e.g. Blythe and Brown, 2004). It is no surprise, and biodiversity mirror each other. then, that many of the most explicit efforts to Cultural indicators that provide valuable infor- jointly maintain and revitalize cultural resilience, mation at global, regional, or country levels need linguistic vitality, and biological diversity are to be complemented by others that will be useful grassroots efforts, whether entirely endogenous or in elucidating the relationships among language, promoted and assisted by national and interna- culture, and the environment at local scales. tional organizations. Learning about these world- Indicators that will be relevant here include ones views and efforts and making the lessons as for measuring persistence and resilience of institu- widely available as possible is one of the goals of tions for knowledge transmission and language ongoing work in biocultural diversity (Maffi and vitality, livelihoods and subsistence practices, Woodley, in preparation). resource use and management practices, land and Such studies of the factors of persistence or loss resource tenure, social organization and decision- of local languages and traditional knowledge and making capacity, and so forth. The development practices, and of how these dynamics relate to the of such indicators is still in its infancy, but there is maintenance or erosion of biodiversity locally, are a growing interest in this endeavor in both aca- increasingly needed to ground the conceptual demic and international circles. framework of the biocultural diversity field. They Very relevant in this connection is some of the will significantly help address the many open recent quantitative work carried out by ethnobiol- questions of causality, history, scale and levels of ogists to measure the retention and loss of TEK. analysis, as well as means of representation, Researchers such as Zent (1999, 2001), Lizarralde measurement, and assessment, that confront this (2001), Ross (2002), Zarger and Stepp (2004), field. Undoubtedly, they will also contribute to a Zent and López-Zent (2004), and others are new generation of biocultural studies at the global contributing to the development of quantitative level, injecting bottomÐup data into what so far methods for the investigation of the acquisition has been largely, due to the nature of available data, 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 274

274 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY

a topÐdown approach. This should in turn promote the rights of humans. The ethical stance of the a better understanding of the nature, state, and field of biocultural diversity posits that, when trends of biocultural diversity, and thus foster the doubts arise about potential damage to the web of development of better policies in support of bio- biocultural diversity, a precautionary approach cultural diversity nationally and internationally. ought to be taken. Ultimately, the most fundamental impetus for the protection and maintenance of biocultural diversity can only come not from topÐdown BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY FOR efforts, but from the groundÐup action of indige- SUSTAINABILITY nous and other societies worldwide whose languages, cultural identities, and lands are being This ethical component aligns the biocultural threatened by national and global forces. Wilhelm diversity field with other paradigms such as Meya, Director of the Lakota Language Consortium ecosystem health and sustainable development in (Meya, 2006), puts it eloquently, speaking of the terms of a shared perception of the relevance of situation in his country, the USA Ð but his words seeking directly to influence policy and public have universal applicability: opinion. This approach gives these paradigms a characteristic mixture of theory and practice, In the same way that a healthy planet requires bio- research and advocacy, knowledge production and logical diversity, a healthy cultural world requires knowledge dissemination. The common goal, of linguistic diversity. Yet, language is also an elabo- course, is to help achieve (or recover) a sustainable rate phenomenon tied to real people and cultures. world for the sake of future generations. Language loss threatens a fundamental human From the perspective of biocultural diversity, a right – that of expression of the life and life ways sustainable world means a world in which not of a people. only biological diversity, but also cultural and linguistic diversity thrive, as critical components of Each language relates ideas that can be the web of life and contributing factors in the expressed in that language and no other. Thus, vitality, organization, and resilience of the ecosys- when an indigenous community is no longer tems that sustain life. Harmon (2002) points to the allowed to pray, sing, or tell stories in its language, interwoven (and possibly coevolved) diversity in it is denied a fundamental human right. nature and culture as the “preeminent fact of exis- Unfortunately, linguistic rights have been seri- tence,” the basic condition of life on earth. The ously abused for hundreds of years by banning continued decrease of biocultural diversity, he specific languages and indirectly by assaulting warns, would “staunch the historical flow of being language-support structures such as land, itself, the evolutionary processes through which economies, and religions. the vitality of all life has come down to us through the ages” (Harmon, 2002, p. xiii). ... Languages today are the next frontier in setting Others have similarly stressed the evolutionary the country [indeed the world] into moral and significance of diversity not only in nature but environmental symmetry (Meya, 2006). also in culture and language, as a way of “keeping options alive” for the future of humanity and the In this connection, the field of biocultural diver- Earth (Maffi, 1998, 2001a). Bernard (1992, p. 82) sity has not adopted the conventional academic has suggested that “[l]inguistic diversity ... is at “neutrality.” From its inception, it has embraced a least the correlate of (though not the cause of) strong ethics and human rights component, and diversity of adaptational ideas” and that therefore has promoted a vision in which the protection of “any reduction of language diversity diminishes human rights (both individual and collective) is the adaptational strength of our species because it intimately connected to the affirmation of human lowers the pool of knowledge from which we can responsibilities toward and stewardship over draw.” Mühlhäusler (1995, p. 160) has argued that humanity’s heritage in nature and culture convergence toward majority cultural models (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000; Maffi, 2001c; Posey, increases the likelihood that more and more 2001; Harmon, 2002). In this view, the biocultural people will encounter the same “cultural blind diversity of life has intrinsic value, as diversity is spots” – undetected instances in which the prevailing the expression of life’s evolutionary potential, and cultural model fails to provide adequate solutions it ought to be protected and maintained. Any dam- to societal problems. Instead, he proposes, “[i]t is age to it ought to be remedied, and any further by pooling the resources of many understandings damage ought to be prevented. This requires a that more reliable knowledge can arise;” and complex but necessary, and ultimately winning, “access to these perspectives is best gained through balance between nature conservation and human a diversity of languages” (p. 160). Along similar development, and between the rights of nature and lines, Krauss (1996) has proposed that global 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 275

BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY 275

linguistic diversity constitutes an intellectual trenches” can have access to the conceptual web of life, or “logosphere,” that envelops the and political tools they need, and if a new genera- planet and is as essential to human survival as the tion of people can be raised with a firm biosphere Ð a concept of course reminiscent of understanding that, as Harmon (2002) puts it, Teilhard de Chardin’s “noosphere” and of the “diversity in nature and culture makes us human,” classic notion of the Logos. Over the past decade, then humanity will have a chance to pull back international organizations concerned with the from the brink of the abyss and go on to chart conservation of biodiversity and cultural heritage a new path toward ecological and cultural have begun to listen. In particular, UNESCO, the sustainability. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the CBD, and IUCN Ð The World Conservation Union, have variously included in their priorities ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and action plans the improved understanding of the links and synergies between biological diver- This paper is based in part on materials prepared sity and cultural diversity, as well as the role of by the author for the workshop “Gaps and Needs culture and traditional knowledge and local lan- in Biocultural Diversity Research? ,” co-organized guages in the conservation of biodiversity. We are by Terralingua and the University of Florida and perhaps approaching a stage at which it will be held in Gainesville, Florida, USA, on April 21Ð22, recognized that the traditional “three-legged 2005, with support from The Christensen Fund stool” of sustainable development Ð environment, (TCF). It benefited from discussions with and society, and economy Ð should be turned into a contributions by the participants. These inputs and four-legged one by the addition of a fourth TCF’s support are gratefully acknowledged. “pillar” culture. These are significant achieve- ments for a field like that of biocultural diversity, that is barely more than a decade old. Yet, there is REFERENCES no singing victory. The momentum may be building in some quarters, but the global political will Balmford, A. et al. (2005) The convention on biological diver- to act to protect and restore biocultural diversity sity’s 2010 target. Science 307: 212–213. has yet to materialize. Even within conservation Barrett, D.B., G.T. Kurian, and T.N. Johnson (2001) World and other international organizations that have Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches adopted the topic, the idea that the conservation of and Religions in the Modern World, 2nd edn, 2 vols. Oxford: biodiversity should go hand in hand with support Oxford University Press. for the maintenance and revitalization of local cul- Barthlott, W., N. Biedinger, G. Braun, F. Feig, G. Kier, and tures and languages remains sometimes contro- J. Mutke (1999) Terminological and methodological aspects versial. And many countries still balk at the of the mapping and analysis of global biodiversity. Acta very idea of acknowledging the cultural and Botanica Finnica 162: 103–110. linguistic diversity within their borders, or Bernard, R. (1992) Preserving language diversity. Human are only prepared to celebrate it as a treasure Organization 51: 82–89. from the past, disconnected from present realities Blythe, J., and R. McKenna Brown (eds) (2004) Maintaining the and irrelevant to issues of environmental protec- Links. Language, Identity and the Land. Proceedings of the tion and sustainability (if such issues are on the 7th Conference of the Foundation for Endangered Languages, agenda at all, in a world that continues to be dom- Broome, Australia. Bath, UK: Foundation for Endangered inated by materialism and the pursuit of unbridled Languages. economic growth). The general Zeitgeist also Borrini-Feyerabend, G., K. Macdonald, and L. Maffi (2004) causes public opinion Ð the key to political will Ð History, culture and conservation. Policy Matters 13 to continue to be largely unaware or even oblivious (special issue). of the growing deterioration of our biocultural Bruntland, G. (ed.) (1987) Our Common Future. The World world. Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: If there is hope that the efforts of grassroots Oxford University Press. communities and of those researchers, practition- Carlson, T.J.S. and L. Maffi (eds) (2004) Ethnobotany and ers, and activists who embrace a biocultural per- Conservation of Biocultural Diversity, Advances in Economic spective will be more broadly supported, this hope Botany Series, Vol. 15. Bronx, NY: New York Botanical resides in capacity building and education about Garden Press. conservation in both nature and culture. “[The Chapin, M. (1992) The co-existence of indigenous peoples and concept of ] conservation reminds us of our duties environments in Central America. Research and Exploration to nature and to the future, without which the pace 8(2), inset map. [Revised as: Chapin, M. (2003) Indigenous of economic growth will merely be a measure of peoples and natural ecosystems in Central America and the speed at which we approach the abyss” (Sacks, Southern Mexico, Map insert. National Geographic 2002, p. 174). If people “in the biocultural Magazine, February 2003.] 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 276

276 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY

Collard, I.F. and R.A. Foley (2002) Latitudinal patterns and Maffi, L. (2001c) Language, knowledge, and indigenous her- environmental determinants of recent human cultural diver- itage rights. In On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, sity: Do humans follow biogeographical rules? Evolutionary Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington, DC: Ecology Research 4: 371–383. Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 412–432. Eldredge, N. (1995) Dominion. New York: Henry Holt and Co. Maffi, L. (2005) Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Florey, M. (2006) Assessing linguistic vitality in Central Maluku. Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 599–617. Paper presented at the Tenth International Conference on Maffi, L. and E. Woodley (in preparation) Global Source Book Austronesian Linguistics, Palawan, Philippines, 17–20 on Biocultural Diversity. Progress report available at January 2006. http://www.terralingua.org/GSBBCD.htm Gordon, R.G. (ed.) (2005) Ethnologue: Languages of the Maffi, L., T. Skutnabb-Kangas, and J. Andrianarivo (1999) World, 15th edn. Dallas: SIL International. Linguistic Diversity. In Posey, D.A. (ed.) Cultural and Spiritual Grimes, B.F. (1992) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 12th Values of Biodiversity. London and Nairobi: Intermediate edn. Dallas: SIL International. Technology Publications and UNEP, pp. 21–57. Grimes, B.F. (2000) Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 14th Manne, L.L. (2003) Nothing has yet lasted forever: current and edn. Dallas: SIL International. threatened levels of biological diversity. Evolutionary Groombridge, B. (ed.) (1992) Global Biodiversity: Status of the Ecology Research 5: 517–527. Earth’s Living Resources. London: Chapman & Hall. Meya, W. (2006) Letter to The Financial Times, London, Harmon, D. (1992) Indicators of the World’s Cultural Diversity. March 11, 2006. Presented at the 4th World Congress on National Parks and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Protected Areas. Caracas, Venezuela. Human Well-Being: Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Harmon, D. (1996) Losing species, losing languages: connec- Island Press. tions between biological and linguistic diversity. Southwest Miller, M.S. (ed.) (1993) State of the Peoples. A Global Human Journal of Linguistics 15: 89–108. Rights Report on Societies in Danger. Boston: Beacon Press. Harmon, D. (2002) In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity Moore, J.L., L. Manne, T. Brooks, N.D. Burgess, R. Davies, et al. in Nature and Culture Makes Us Human. Washington, DC: (2002) The distribution of cultural and biological diversity in Smithsonian Institution Press. Africa. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Harmon, D. and J. Loh (2004) The IBCD: A measure of the Biological Sciences 269: 1645–1653. world’s biocultural diversity. Policy Matters 13: 271–280. Mühlhäusler, P. (1995) The interdependence of linguistic and Heckenberger, M., A. Kuikuro, U.T. Kuikuro, J.C. Russell, biological diversity. In Myers, D. (ed.) The Politics of M. Schmidt, et al. (2003) Amazonia 1492: Pristine forest or Multiculturalism in the Asia Pacific. Darwin: Northern cultural parkland? Science 301: 1710–1714. Territory University Press, pp. 154–161. Hill, J.H. (1997) The meaning of linguistic diversity: knowable Mühlhäusler, P. (1996) Linguistic Ecology: Language Change or unknowable? Anthropology Newsletter 38(1): 9–10. and Linguistic Imperialism in the Pacific Rim. London: Krauss, M. (1992) The world’s languages in crisis. Language Routledge. 68(1): 4–10. Nettle, D. (1996) Language diversity in West Africa: An ecolog- Krauss, M. (1996) Linguistics and biology: threatened linguis- ical approach. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: tic and biological diversity compared. In CLS 32, Papers 403–438. from the Parasession on Theory and Data in Linguistics. Nettle, D. (1998) Explaining global patterns of linguistic Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 69–75. diversity. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17: Lizarralde, M. (2001) Biodiversity and loss of indigenous lan- 354–374. guages and knowledge in South America. In Maffi, L. (ed.) Nettle, D. (1999) Linguistic Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, Press. and the Environment. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Nichols, J. (1990) Linguistic diversity and the first settlement of Institution Press, pp. 265–81. the New World. Language 66: 475–521. Loh, J. and D. Harmon (2005) A global index of biocultural Nichols, J. (1992) Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. diversity. Ecological Indicators 5: 231–241. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press. Mace, R. and M. Pagel (1995) A latitudinal gradient in the den- Oviedo, G., L. Maffi, and P.B. Larsen (2000) Indigenous and sity of human languages in North America. Proceedings of the Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 261: 117–121. Conservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving the Maffi, L. (1998) Language: A resource for nature. Nature and World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity. Gland, Resources: The UNESCO Journal on the Environment and Switzerland: WWF-International and Terralingua. Natural Resources Research 34(4): 12–21. Posey, D.A. (ed.) (1999) Cultural and Spiritual Values of Maffi, L. (2001a) On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Biodiversity. London and Nairobi: Intermediate Technology Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington, DC: Publications and UNEP. Smithsonian Institution Press. Posey, D.A. (2001) Biological and cultural diversity: The inextri- Maffi, L. (2001b) Linking language and environment: A cable, linked by language and politics. In Maffi, L. (ed.) On co-evolutionary perspective. In Crumley, C.L. (ed.) New Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections. the Environment. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Press, pp. 379–396. 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 277

BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITY 277

Rapport, D.J. (2007) Healthy ecosystems: An evolving para- Terborgh, J. (1999) Requiem for Nature. Washington, DC: digm. In Pretty, J. et al. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Society Island Press. and Environment. London: Sage. Terralingua (2006) Global Indicators of the Status and Trends Rapport, D.J., R. Costanza, and A. McMichael (1998) Assessing of Linguistic Diversity and Traditional Knowledge. Project ecosystem health: Challenges at the interface of social, nat- funded by The Christensen Fund (2006–2008). ural, and health sciences. Trends in Ecology and Evolution UNESCO (2003) Language Vitality and Endangerment. 13(10): 397–402. International Expert Meeting of the UNESCO Intangible Ross, N. (2002) Cognitive aspects of intergenerational change: Cultural Heritage Unit’s Ad Hoc Expert Group on Mental models, cultural change, and environmental Endangered Languages, UNESCO, Paris-Fontenoy,10–12 behavior among the Lacandon-Maya of southern Mexico. March 2003. The recommendations approved by the partic- Human Organization 61: 125–138. ipants are available at http://www.unesco.org/culture/ Sacks, J. (2002) The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the heritage/intanglible/meetings/paris_march2003.shtml. The Clash of Civilizations. London and New York: Continuum. document “Language Vitality and Endangerment” is avail- Skutnabb-Kangas,T. (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education – able at http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID= Or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights? Mahwah, NJ: 135848&URL_D0=D0_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Lawrence Erlbaum. Wilcox, B.A. and K.N. Duin (1995) Indigenous cultural and bio- Skutnabb-Kangas, T., L. Maffi, and D. Harmon (2003) Sharing logical diversity: Overlapping values of Latin American a World of Difference: The Earth’s Linguistic, Cultural, and ecoregions. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18(4): 49–53. Biological Diversity and map The World’s Biocultural Zarger, R.K. and J.R. Stepp (2004) Persistence of botanical Diversity: People, Languages, and Ecosystems. Paris: knowledge among Tzeltal Maya children. Current UNESCO. Anthropology 45(3): 413–418. Smith, E.A. (2001) On the coevolution of cultural, linguistic, and Zent, S. (1999) The quandary of conserving ethnoecological biological diversity. In Maffi, L. (ed.) On Biocultural Diversity: knowledge: A Piaroa example. In Gragson, T.L. and Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment. Blount, B.G. (eds) Ethnoecology: Knowledge, Resources, and Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 95–117. Rights. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, pp. 90–124. Stepp, J.R., F.S. Wyndham, and R. Zarger (eds) (2002) Zent, S. (2001) Acculturation and ethnobotanical knowledge Ethnobiology and Biocultural Diversity. Athens, GA: loss among the Piaroa of Venezuela: Demonstration of a University of Georgia Press. quantitative method for the empirical study of TEK change. Stepp, J.R., S. Cervone, H. Castaneda, A. Lasseter, G. Stocks, In Maffi, L. (ed.) On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, and Y. Gichon (2004) Development of a GIS for global bio- Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington, DC: cultural diversity. Policy Matters 13 (special issue): Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 190–211. 267–270. Zent, S. and E. López-Zent (2004) Ethnobotanical convergence, Stepp, J.R., H. Castaneda, and S. Cervone (2005) Mountains divergence, and change among the Hoti of the Venezuelan and biocultural diversity. Mountain Research and Guayana. In Carlson, T.J.S. and Maffi, L. (eds) Ethnobotany Development 25(3): 223–227. and Conservation of Biocultural Diversity, Advances in Sutherland, W.J. (2003) Parallel extinction risk and global Economic Botany Series, Vol. 15. Bronx, NY: New York distribution of languages and species. Nature 423: Botanical Garden Press, pp. 37–78. 276–279. 18-Pretty-Ch18 6/22/07 3:18 PM Page 278