UNESCO Cultural and Biological Diversity

Research on the relationship between cultural and biological diversity is becoming increasingly pertinent. Findings point to the remarkable correlations between the world’s areas with high biological richness and those with high diversity of languages (the single best indicator of a distinct culture).

Based on the comparative analysis of eight main biological groups (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, butterflies, tiger-beetles and flowering plants), 12 ‘mega-diversity’ countries (hosting the largest numbers of species and endemic species) can be identifi ed, nine of which represent the countries with the highest number of languages: Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Peru, Philippines and Venezuela.

Thus, nine of the countries with the highest species richness and endemism are also in the list of the 25 nations with the highest number of endemic languages (Toledo, 2001). To exhibit such a correlation between the richness of some groups of organisms and the number of languages worldwide, an Index of Biocultural Diversity (IBCD) was created.

It represents the first attempt to quantify global biocultural diversity by means of a country-level index. The IBCD uses five indicators: the number of languages, religions and ethnic groups (for cultural diversity), and the number of bird / mammal and plant species (for biological diversity).

The application of this index revealed three ‘core regions’ of exceptional biocultural diversity. UNESCO recently addressed the biocultural diversity paradigm at an operational level, through its Main Line of Action on ‘Enhancing linkages between cultural and biological diversity as a key basis for sustainable biodiversity’).

Two parallel approaches have been used in developing this indicator:
¦ An informant-based survey of language vitality and endangerment was conducted through a Standardized Tool for primary data collection operationalized as a questionnaire entitled Linguistic Vitality and Diversity. The questionnaire was based on the framework developed by the UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages (2003b) to assess the degree of language vitality/endangerment.

¦ A desk study was conducted on the numbers of speakers of indigenous languages using national censuses and secondary sources. However, the low quality of available data development,’ including activities focused on traditional knowledge and indigenous languages. Of note are the efforts to develop an indicator of the status of and trends in tracking trends on the numbers of speakers of indigenous languages in the coming years.

Data from the third edition of UNESCO’s Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (2009) are also complementary to the data collected through the Linguistic Vitality and Diversity questionnaire and the information provided by national censuses. Increasingly, alliances are being established along these lines by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foundations, academic institutions and scholars to support language policies for indigenous languages, thereby linking language preservation to ecological conservation (see also chapter 7). Source: UNESCO.