Volume 22

The biodiversity regime has attempted to navigate conflicting
conceptualisations of human–nature relations, straddling instrumental,
intrinsic and relational valuations of Nature. Yet, from the inception of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, instrumental value has been given
primacy, shaping not only the goals of the regime but also the tools it uses
for implementation. Against this backdrop, this article traces the doctrinal
emergence of biocultural rights within the Convention on Biological Diversity’s
traditional knowledge architecture, focusing on Article 8(j) and the ‘family’
of related decisions as governance conditions. The article then examines the
regime’s instrumentalist hegemonic valuation of Nature in practice. Access
and Benefit Sharing act as one of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s main
goals, while translating biodiversity governance into transactions organised
around access, consent and benefit flows. Ecosystem services underpin
the science–policy interface of the regime, and turn entire ecosystems
into market mechanisms while rendering biodiversity governable through
measurements and indicators. The result is a pattern in which relational
commitments are repeatedly acknowledged while being filtered through
economic and technocratic logics, risking performative pluralism. Finally,
reading the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework as a critical
moment, the article argues that its implementation considerations must
operate as a cross-cutting constraint on targets, indicators and finance,
and that community protocols and mutually agreed terms can function as
interfaces for legal and value pluralism. The key point is that resolving the
regime’s tensions is less about choosing between diverse value systems,
and more about clarifying how these value systems are meant to interact in
practice.