Multiple conceptualizations of nature are key to inclusivity and legitimacy in global environmental governance

Abstract

Despite increasing scientific understanding of the global environmental crisis, we struggle to adopt the policies science suggests would be effective. One of the reasons for that is the lack of inclusive engagement and dialogue among a wide range of different actors. Furthermore, there is a lack of consideration of differences between languages, worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement across the science-policy interface can be strengthened by being mindful of the breadth and depth of the diverse human-nature relations found around the globe. By examining diverse conceptualizations of "nature" in more than 60 languages, we identify three clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an integral component of nature; non-inclusive conceptualizations where humans are separate from nature; and deifying conceptualizations where nature is understood and experienced within a spiritual dimension. Considering and respecting this rich repertoire of ways of describing, thinking about and relating to nature can help us communicate in ways that resonate across cultures and worldviews. This repertoire also provides a resource we can draw on when defining policies and sustainability scenarios for the future, offering opportunities for finding solutions to global environmental challenges.

The future of ocean governance

“…Adoption and implementation of place-based management and precautionary approaches, together with increased public awareness of ocean overexploitation, will lead to improvements in managing resource use and impacts. A realisation of the need to address social inequity will lead to transformations in cooperation on ocean issues and capacity to adapt to changes in the ocean (Coscieme et al 2020 ; Díaz et al 2019 ).…”

“…In particular, ocean stewardship needs to address social inequity (Actions 24, 27) (Allison 2001 ; Bennett 2019b ). This approach can offer many opportunities that are supportive of current institutional processes (Action 2), adopt meaningful co-designed governance principles, and have great potential for transformative change (Coscieme et al 2020 ; Díaz et al 2019 ). For example, moving away from the practice of trading-off ecosystem services such as prioritising fish harvesting over environmental damage by fishing gear (Clark et al 2016 ; Kaiser et al 2000 ) can help account for the unequal distribution of costs and benefits across society (Costanza et al 1998 ; Daw et al 2011 ).…”

“…Understanding and achieving equity, alleviating poverty, and enhancing human resilience are required to foster cooperation. This can be done by designing and implementing context-relevant ocean governance policies that consider the marginalised, disenfranchised, and landlocked communities (Bennett 2019a ; Coscieme et al 2020 ). These communities often lack information, power and influence, a platform, and representation (Actions 29, 30) and are thus less proactive in addressing ocean governance issues (Actions 27, 31, 32, 33, 40).…”

Draagt maatschappelijke betrokkenheid bij aan de legitimiteit van het natuurbeleid? : Inventarisatie van beleidsverwachtingen en review van literatuur

“…Als men vanuit dit concept redeneert en die conceptualisering in dat beleid vervat, dan wordt automatisch dat beleid legitiem. Coscieme et al (2020) vonden dat beleid dat goed paste bij de lokale conceptualisering van natuur leidde tot allerlei nieuwe en ondersteunende initiatieven door de lokale Maja's in Peru.…”

A review of ecosystems services trade-offs, synergies and scenarios modelling for policy development support

“…As ES is a global approach, another important aspect is related to differences between worldviews, cultures and languages in achieving fruitful engagement and dialogue in different contexts. The research developed by Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), for example, stresses the importance of integrating a range of mixed worldviews and practices regarding multiple values of nature, as highlighted by Coscieme et al (2020).…”