1 How Do Biodiversity and Culture Intersect? Jules Pretty 1 , Bill Adams 2 , Fikret Berkes 3 , Simone Ferreira de Athayde 4 , Nigel Dudley 5 , Eugene Hunn 6 , Luisa Maffi 7 , Kay Milton 8 , David Rapport 9 , Paul Robbins 10 , Colin Samson 1 , Eleanor Sterling 11 , Sue Stolton 5 , Kazuhiko Takeuchi 12 , Anna Tsing 13 , Erin Vintinner 11 and Sarah Pilgrim 1 1 University of Essex, 2 University of Cambridge, 3 University of Manitoba, 4 University of Florida, 5 Equilibrium, 6 University of Washington, 7 Terralingua, 8 Queen's University Belfast, 9 EcoHealth Consulting, 10 University of Arizona, 11 American Museum of Natural History, 12 University of Tokyo, 13 UC Santa Cruz Plenary paper for Conference “Sustaining Cultural and Biological Diversity In a Rapidly Changing World: Lessons for Global Policy”. Organized by American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, IUCN-The World Conservation Union/Theme on Culture and Conservation, and Terralingua. April 2-5th 2008 Introduction There is a common recognition around the world that the diversity of life involves both the living forms (biological diversity) and the world views and cosmologies of what life means (cultural diversity) (Posey, 1999; Berkes et al., 2000; Maffi, 2001; Harmon, 2002). The importance of this diversity is increasingly recognised, as is knowledge of this diversity, even in industrialised societies where it is often heavily depleted (e.g. Mabey, 1997; Cocker & Mabey, 2005), and in urban areas where people are often disconnected from their traditional natural resource base (Cocks & Dold 2000, 2004, 2006; Wiersum & Shackleton 2006). However the division commonly made between nature and culture is not universal, and, in many cases, is a product of modern industrialised thought shaped by our need to control, or ‘manage’ nature (Berkes, 2008). 1. Why do Cultural Diversity and Biological Diversity Matter? Our conceptualisations of the relationship between human societies and nature have historically shaped the way in which we see the world and our actions towards it. Berkes and Folke (2002) suggest that distinctions between social and natural systems are somewhat artificial and arbitrary. Traditional societies have, after all, interacted with biological diversity through adaptive and co- evolutionary processes for thousands of generations (Balée, 1994; Norgaard, 1994; Denevan, 2001; Toledo, 2001; Maffi, 2001; Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Harmon, 2002; Heckenberger et al., 2007). Berkes and Folke (2002) suggest that the term ‘social-ecological system’ helpfully refers to this integrated concept of humans and nature. A wide variety of sub-disciplines have emerged in recent years using many terms and definitions (see Box 1 and Annex A). These fields provide a kaleidoscope of perspectives on the many interactions between nature and culture, referring to historical, geopolitical, anthropological and resource management terms (Rapport, 2006). Some of these sub-disciplines are ‘bridging’ fields that explore the boundaries of different disciplines, particularly between the natural and social sciences (including biological, sociological, historical, economical and political sciences) to give rise to various possible combinations of theoretical assumptions, methods and applications (Berkes, 2004). One aim of this paper is to go beyond potentially divisive definitions and demonstrate that most of these fields are working largely towards the same ends. These are to formulate ideas on how to achieve a symbiotic relationship between biological and social systems in the hope of achieving a sustainable future for humans and the rest of nature (Rapport, 2006). While it is recognised that cross- and trans-disciplinary approaches are essential, at present there are no generally accepted and recognised methodologies for achieving this relationship (Somerville and Rapport, 2000). At the same