Target 2: Biodiversity values integrated

“Biological and cultural diversity are not only closely linked but also mutually reinforcing. As such, an effective mainstreaming of biodiversity into different sectors in society would also need mainstreaming culture – taking into consideration that there is diversity of culture, values and worldviews.”

— International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity¹

IPLCs have been clear that effective, sustainable implementation of development goals, and mainstreaming of biodiversity values, requires being mindful of diverse cultural value systems and going beyond monetary measures of wellbeing.²

Assessments of poverty reduction strategies highlight continuing marginalisation of the poor, including IPLCs in policy- and decision-making processes on sustainable development.³ To mainstream biodiversity values and human wellbeing across government, economic sectors and society, at all stages of planning, implementation and reporting, the empowerment of IPLCs—men and women, elders and youth—as holders of knowledge and agents of change, innovation and transformation needs to be prioritised. Including IPLCs in planning and decision-making contributes to holistic and culturally appropriate sustainable development processes and policies.

Such calls to mainstream biodiversity and cultural values in national and local planning, management and reporting processes have led to the development of various systems and frameworks aiming to facilitate this process; these, in turn, have helped to shape the regulatory policies that guide planning processes.⁴ At present, however, they do not adequately integrate the broader social and cultural values of biodiversity,⁵ and, more specifically, the value systems of IPLCs are still largely absent.⁶

For example, poverty reduction strategies continue to highlight the marginalisation of the “poor”, including IPLCs⁷, but for many IPLCs the threshold poverty line of an income of US$1.90 per day per person⁸ is far less salient to wellbeing than secure rights to lands, territories and resources.

Similarly, most planning processes focus on a narrow monetary approach to biodiversity values. This is often justified on the basis that monetary valuations have the most influence with decision-makers. However, this approach risks strengthening a worldview based overwhelmingly on commodity values and can deny or marginalise the importance of cultural values.⁹ Such a worldview is at odds with the much broader holistic values placed on nature by IPLCs and by the wider public.¹⁰

Including IPLCs, and particularly women, girls and marginalised actors, throughout the strategic planning cycle mitigates the risk of projects perpetuating inequalities and leading to unsustainable outcomes, and the risk of conflicts and harm to communities. Engaging them as partners also opens democratic space for building partnerships, ownership and legitimacy for sustainable development plans. Participatory economic, environmental, social and cultural assessments, rather than purely expert technical exercises, are able to take into account the diverse values, rights and perspectives of IPLCs, for whom material and spiritual worlds are often interwoven and imbued with use and meaning.

IPLCs have proactively used existing planning frameworks and monitoring approaches to integrate their perspectives and values. For example, the Indigenous Navigator (see Box 4) has been developed to capture relevant, culturally sensitive data relating to both national policy commitments and local outcomes on the ground. These data can be used to highlight community needs and priorities and to ascertain whether development initiatives and planning processes are inclusive, are sensitive to context, and incorporate IPLCs’ diverse biodiversity values.

IPLCs have also been involved in incorporating broader values into existing and widely adopted assessment processes. For example, several Inuit communities have helped to reshape environmental impact assessments (EIAs) in the Arctic through their involvement in the Arctic Council (see Box 5 for a specific case developed in this way). Models that have been identified for meaningful engagement with indigenous peoples include indigenous-led impact assessments; impact assessments based on indigenous knowledge; and a range of thematically specific assessments, including in relation to impacts on health and ethnology, cumulative impacts, and collaborative risk mitigation. Box 5 outlines a successful example of this approach.

• IPLCs should continue to create and restore mechanisms to widely transmit their value systems that are based on relational values and worldviews such as a quality life.
• Governments and multilateral organisations should institutionalise improved mechanisms for meaningfully engaging and including IPLCs in all phases of development interventions, with full respect for and protection of their individual and collective rights, including the right to free, prior and informed consent.
• Governments and other actors should recognise and build on local and indigenous knowledge in the design, development and implementation of programmes related to: poverty and wellbeing; environmental assessment and management; and environmental and social monitoring of outcomes.

• Sangha, Kamaljit, K., Russell-Smith, J. and Costanza, R. (2019) ‘Mainstreaming indigenous and local communities’ connections with nature for policy decision-making’, Global Ecology Conservation (19). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235198941930229X
• Arctic Council, Sustainable Development Working Group (2019) ‘Good practices for environmental impact assessment and meaningful engagement in the Arctic – Including good practice recommendations, Arctic Environmental Impact Assessment project’. Arctic Council.