Download Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Forest Management in Chile

Diane Cooper
April 29, 2010
World Forestry- FOR 595
Indigenous Knowledge and Sustainable Forest Management in Chile
Introduction
Indigenous knowledge may often contribute to the conservation and the enhancement of
biodiversity (Gadgil 1993). However, indigenous communities tend to be left out of the
conservation management process, even though many indigenous groups not only live in the
forest, but also rely on the forest ecosystem for subsistence. Indigenous communities may be
best suited for conservation management as they depend of the resources of the forest, and
therefore have a clear incentive to manage the forest sustainably (Ascher 1995). In this paper, I
will discuss indigenous knowledge of resources and strategies for sustainable forest
management in Chile. I will also explore why indigenous knowledge tends to be disregarded in
conservation policy decisions.
The research question I intend to answer is: how do indigenous people and their knowledge
contribute to sustainable forest management in Chile? And if the contribution of knowledge to
forest management is evident, why is traditional conservation knowledge not implemented into
governmental forest policy? In order to answer this question I will be focusing on the Mapuche,
an indigenous group in Chile.
I will begin the paper with a basic overview of Chile and the Mapuche. I will highlight ecological
values, uses and management of the forest by the Mapuche in order to better understand the
benefits and potential disadvantages of traditional management strategies. After discussing
contributions of traditional knowledge, I will address difficulties of implementing indigenous
Cooper
knowledge into government policy. I will explain the situations in which indigenous knowledge
should be the main determinant of forest management and in what situations it should not be.
Possible solutions depending on the circumstances will be addressed and by the conclusion of
this paper, I hope to provide information to the reader about the costs and benefits of comanagement and will provide possibilities of future cooperation between traditional
knowledge and modern forest management strategies, particularly in Chile.
Terminology
Sustainable Forest Management
Sustainable forest management is understood to be a forest system which aims for sustainable
yields of various products from the forest and is secondary to complete protection (Peace et al.
2001). Previous scholars have made the argument that outright protection is difficult in practice
in that it is hard to ensure permanence and is often achieved at extremely high costs (Vanclay
2001). Sustainable forest management may be the only viable option of sustaining forests for
biodiversity (Whitmore 1999).
Indigenous Knowledge
Indigenous knowledge is defined by Gadgil et al. (1993) as “a cumulative body of knowledge
and beliefs handed down through generations by cultural transmission about the relationship
of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment.” There is
previous evidence throughout the literature of indigenous knowledge increasing biodiversity at
a local level (Gadgil 1993).
2
Cooper
Forest of Chile
Approximately 26 percent of Chile is covered with forest (Herrmann 2006 ), while 80 percent of
these are native forests (Cartwright 2001). Chile has suffered from much deforestation in the
past, mostly due to the expansion of agriculture and commercial timber plantations. Over
120,000 hectares of native forests are either degraded or deforested annually (Lara 1996).
Forests tend to be the focus of disagreement in land management in that they provide a variety
of services to local inhabitants (Schulze et al. 2000).
Mapuche of Chile
The Mapuche, which are people of indigenous ancestry, make up about 10 percent of the total
population in Chile and currently number over one million (Herrman 2005). Mapuche
translates to “people of the land”, which is ironic considering the long history of the Mapuche
being driven off their own lands to unfertile areas with low productivity or urban areas.
Mapuche is a general term with many subgroups including the Pewenche and Huilliche, which
still live in “close association with the forest” (Armesto 2001, Silva 2004). The Mapuche have an
economic, spiritual, and cultural relationship with the forest and a traditional working
knowledge of the ecosystem. As an example of this operational knowledge, the Mapuche
groups Pewenche and Huilliche, have uses for 78 to 95 percent of local plants in Southern Chile
(Smith Ramirez 1996, cited in Armesto 2001). However the knowledge of the Mapuche
indigenous communities have been excluded from conservation management policies in Chile
(Aagesen 1998).
3
Cooper
Araucaria
The Araucaria araucana tree, also known as the monkey- puzzle tree, is native to the temperate
forests of South America. The tree is valued for its high-quality and durable timber yet also
holds economic and spiritual significance to the Mapuche people. One Mapuche group, known
as the Pewenche, translates to ‘people of the monkey tree’. The Pewenche regard the araucaria
as being sacred and considered a human being (Herrmann 2005). The seed of the araucaria,
the piñon, is a staple food of this Mapuche group. The Mapuche participate in local
conservation activities to preserve species. For example, if a member of the community is
caught harvesting green cones from the araucaria, they are ostracized from the community as
this process is culturally condemned (Herrmann 2005). Herrmann (2006) found that the
traditional harvest practices of the piñon by the Mapuche actually increase regeneration of the
araucaria.
The Mapuche have begun to practice agro forestry by inter-planting araucaria trees with quinoa
and corn (Herrmann 2006). They also plant native trees to prevent soil erosion and to reforest
logged areas. These practices demonstrate that the community is still developing new methods
of forest management and is open to change regarding conservation practices (Herrmann
2006).
However, the araucaria was listed as a vulnerable species on the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) endangered species list in 1985. The tree was also declared a
national monument of Chile in 1990 and cutting down the tree is currently prohibited. In some
4
Cooper
areas, the government has placed limits on the number of piñones the Mapuche could collect,
further escalating the conflict between the Mapuche and the government (Hermann 2006).
There has been much disagreement between various stakeholders including the Mapuche,
timber companies, and environmentalists, about how to best manage araucaria (Aagesen
1999). And although the Mapuche appear to have managed the forests sustainably, the group
has never had official authority to oversee protection of the tree.
Alerce
Felling of alerce (Fitzroya cupressoides) trees is currently prohibited because all living alerce
trees were declared a natural monument in 1977. Alerce was harvested for many years both by
local indigenous groups and logging companies. After industrial exploitation and European
settlement, the large scale logging operations led to the banning of the harvesting of green
alerce, leaving the resource unavailable to local people (Armesto, 2001). Smith-Ramirez (1996)
(cited in Armesto 2001) found that regeneration of alerce harvested by indigenous peoples was
twice as abundant as those harvested by industrial operations. This is due to the fact that the
Huilliche tend to harvest less trees and industrial operations harvest young alerce as firewood
for mill operation, which decreases regeneration of the species.
Vocqui Fuco
Berberidopsis Corallina is a vine found in Chilean coastal forests that is currently endangered.
Huilliche families have traditionally used this plant for making trays and baskets to sell on the
local and international market. Indigenous people traditionally harvest the top part of the plant
5
Cooper
and it can be harvested again in three to five years. This practice is said to act as a pruning
process, which stimulates growth of the plant (Armesto 2001). However, the long term survival
of the plant has suffered from the large scale loss of forest habitat and expansion of
commercial plantations (Armesto 2001). It is difficult for vocqui fuco to survive in timber
plantations and the vines become unsuitable for weaving baskets (Smith Ramirez 1996, cited in
Armesto 2001).
The unavailability of the aforementioned forest resources of the Mapuche has lead to various
detrimental effects on the local indigenous economies as well as cultural practices and
traditions. These trends in land management are mostly an outcome of the expansion of
commercial plantations which are backed by governmental policy. There is much evidence that
shows that in areas where the state “claims controls or manages land-based resources”, the
state and the main actors involved have “strong vested interests in the commercial exploitation
of resources” (Peluso 2004). In other words the state prefers timber plantations over local land
management by indigenous communities due to cost effectiveness decisions.
However, the previous examples of the araucaria and alerce trees and the vocqui fuco illustrate
how the Mapuche strive to practice sustainable forest management. Furthermore, there
should not be hesitation in change of policy, as was shown in the case of the Araucaria
plantings; the management strategies of the Mapuche are not static and are open to change.
Chile Indigenous Law
After Mapuche territory became property of the state at the end of the 1800’s, the Mapuche
have not had rights to their ancestral land. In 1993, Chile’s indigenous Law was established,
6
Cooper
which distributed land to the Mapuche. However, this act has been criticized because of the
distribution of unfertile and degraded property (Meza 2009). The indigenous law also and
allowed indigenous people to organize and elect leaders who would be recognized by the
government. Previously, the Mapuche were excluded from the government decision making
process. Corporación Nacional de Desarrollo Indígena (CONADI) was also established as part of
the indigenous law, which is an institute that promotes the economic development of
indigenous people in Chile.
Land Conflicts
As mentioned previously, there has been much conflict between the Mapuche, government
and timber companies, regarding land management. There is a long history of regional disputes
and the Mapuche have previously been driven off their productive land to marginal areas which
has resulted in overgrazing and extreme soil erosion (Aravena 1995, cited in Armesto 2001).
Disputes over land have also caused a “cultural and social” crisis for the Mapuche (Catalan and
Ramos 1999, cited in Armesto 2001).
Plantations were expanded throughout Chile, beginning in the 1970’s and much of the native
forest was replaced with plantations because site preparation, planning, and thinning costs
were heavily subsidized by the government (Lara and Veblen 1993). Armesto (2001) notes that
exporting timber from plantations remains a large party of gross national income, however, this
is mostly due from the heavy subsidies of exotic plantations as well as the indigenous territories
and large public landholdings that were acquired by private investors at prices well below the
market price.
7
Cooper
Programs aimed at promoting conservation frequently fail because professionals from outside
the region attempt to teach the local people how to approach their issues. This is known as a
top down approach and does not consider indigenous knowledge (Armesto 2001). This is similar
to what is occurring in the Chilean political sector. “Current forest policy *in Chile+ although
successful for generation of income for commercial plantations causes the breakdown of rural
communities, local subsistence economies, and the loss of biodiversity” (Lara and Veblen 1993).
Co-Management of Natural Resources
Mapuche hold ecological knowledge and conduct practices to manage the forest in a balanced
and sustainable way. They currently conserve and use forest biodiversity and understand how
the ecosystem works. In theory, this traditional knowledge of the Mapuche can contribute and
enhance modern management strategies; however this is not the case in practice.
A solution to conflict of land management must be both economically and operationally
feasible and must help indigenous people conserve their culture and forests (Armesto 2001).
An optimal forest management plan would include rather than exclude indigenous people and
regard stakeholders as equal. A possible solution to land conflicts that incorporates this idea
would be a co-management approach- the combination of top down and bottom up
approaches to land management with cooperation between the government and local people.
However, co-management agreements may actually increase natural resource conflicts or
cause new conflicts (Castro 2001). Although the objective of co-management may be
widespread cooperation, sometimes indigenous communities are marginalized rather than
regarded as equals in the long run (Castro 2001).
8
Cooper
As Castro (2001) points out, the state is frequently the entity that manages forest reserves,
parks and protected areas and there is usually a great deal of political and personal interests
held up in these land holdings. From a practical standpoint, the state is not eager to adopt comanagement strategies because the outcome may be a loss in power and a decline in authority,
leading to shrinking budgets and overall influence.
The Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1997) identified three co-management
categories: (1) crisis based co-management, which is an unplanned situation which serves as a
temporary solution in response to a crisis. (2) Claims based co-management which arises out of
legal actions, and thirdly, (3) community-based resource management which has occurred from
the pressures of widespread movements, causing the state to act in response (Castro 2001). In
terms of community management, sometimes negotiating agreements for property and
management rights by the local people is a grueling challenge due to the costs, distances, and
lack of expertise by indigenous people (Castro 2001) which result in an uneven playing field,
regardless of the degree of cooperation.
These examples show that co-management can occur at many different stages in a political
setting and will have varying permanence and results. Castro (2001) explains a number of
variables that must be considered when implementing co-management arrangements
including, the “intent and content” of the agreement at hand, the method of implementation,
the continued cooperation and participation of co-management participants, and the validity
and strength of contractual agreements.
9
Cooper
Constraints of Collaborative Management
Traditional practices of sustainable forest management can only be useful if implemented by
current government conservation policies on a national scale. There has recently been a
paradigm shift in conservation, moving away from complete protection to more “peoplecentered approaches” and community based conservation projects (Jeanrenaud 2002).
However, in Chile, this idea has not been backed by the government of by conservation
organizations Meza 2009). There is currently only one public protected area which grants land
rights to indigenous communities.
Many scholars have found that indigenous cultures do not always show concern for the natural
environment (Redman and Stearman 1993) and some researchers have discussed examples of
indigenous communities using natural resources unsustainably (Alcorn 1993). Consequently,
sometimes natural resource management by the local community may result in undesirable
conservation outcomes (Leach et al. 1999, Smith 2000).
Although indigenous communities may have a wealth of information of biological conservation,
sometimes indigenous knowledge is difficult to transfer to the framework of western science
(Gadgil 1993). One particular problem, as was mentioned previously, is native populations not
having the power or education to initiate the transfer process. Another important point to note
is that there is not a single “Mapuche movement” since the group is widespread geographically,
which makes it extremely difficult to manage land claims (Sword 2001, cited in Meza 2009).
10
Cooper
Indigenous Reserves
Often an indigenous reserve is established to protect the biodiversity of the forest and can
serve as a conservation mechanism, while allowing the indigenous community to have control
over management strategies. However, an indigenous community usually does not have the
financial resources to establish a protected reserve and independent government agencies or
NGOs must step in to provide financial support. There has recently been an increase in private
protected areas in Chile which are managed by NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund, Nature
Conservancy, and a number of other organizations. Yet only a small number of these areas are
located in Mapuche territory. Private reserves could possibly provide a source of income to the
local people and allow the indigenous people to have a claim to their land. But indigenous
reserves tend to be owned by a single indigenous person rather than a group which makes
establishing protected areas less likely. A particular NGO representative noted that his/her
organization preferred to establish protected areas on large tracts of land, therefore potentially
showing favor to larger landowners rather than indigenous communities with small pieces of
land that are likely to have low productivity levels (Meza 2009). One interviewee involved in
Meza’s (2009) research stated “A lot of private landowners think of conservation in an
exclusionary way; it means that only rich people do conservation.” Meza (2009) notes that
there is not inherent conflict between conservation and indigenous rights, however, when one
of these options is shown priority, conflict is inevitable.
One indigenous park, “Mapu Lahual”, in Southern Chile, is a community based conservation
project which was started by the indigenous community, although the World Wildlife Fund
11
Cooper
currently provides financial support for operation. Meza (2009) states that even if the
community may be committed to conservation, it is difficult to ensure the permanence of this
type of agreement because the legal status of indigenous lands cannot be labeled as protected.
More specifically, the indigenous law has a provision in which makes it difficult for these lands
to be sold or traded. Therefore, if the local indigenous community chooses not to conserve or
manage sustainably, the long term responsible management of the land is not certain.
Extractive Reserves
An additional solution to land management conflict, particularly between the government and
the Mapuche is the implementation of extractive reserves open to tourism. Extractive reserves
are multiple use areas that may include low level harvesting activities, payments for extractive
reserves and areas reserved for eco-tourism. Extractive reserves can improve the lives of local
people by providing them with revenues from ecosystem services- such as provisioning,
regulating, cultural and supporting services. This system also encourages sustainable
management since income depends on conservation of the natural resources. Additionally, by
allowing low level, managed harvesting, this may counteract shifts towards commercial
plantations.
Eco-tourism is another option of land management for reducing conflicts over forests. Ecotourism been successful in areas such as Costa Rica and Chile could benefit from an increase of
the tourism industry, providing incentive to conserve the forests while contributing to the local
economy. However, it does depend on whether or not money from eco-tourism and extractive
reserves is enough to ensure the protection of forest resources for the long term.
12
Cooper
Conclusions
The Mapuche have shown that they currently practice sustainable forest management
strategies; however, the Chilean government does not currently represent the indigenous,
minority community. The creation of policy regarding stakeholders (including indigenous
people) as equals and the combination of scientific forest management with traditional
knowledge is imperative. In order for successful reform to occur, conflicts between local
people and the Chilean government will probably need to be addressed as a social justice issue.
Assistance is also needed from various NGOs to allow indigenous groups to become part of the
decision making process. Co-management strategies regarding natural resources have many
disadvantages and are likely to arise out of conflict, but land use policy must be improved to
regard local rights and practices. There is also a responsibility of public and private entities to
demand the sustainable management of forests to protect both biodiversity and the local
communities. Perhaps in the future, the Chilean government will increase their support in
conservation of not only the forest but also of indigenous communities and the traditional
culture of Chile.
Word Count: 3167
13
Cooper
References
Aagesen David L. 1998. Indigenous Resource Rights and Conservation of the Monkey-Puzzle
Tree (Araucaria araucana, Araucariaceae): A Case Study from Southern Chile. Economic
Botany, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 146-160
Alcorn, J.B. 1993. Indigenous peoples and conservation. Conservation Biodiversity. 7(2): 424426.
Ascher, W. 1995. Communities and sustainable forestry in developing Countries. Oakland CA.
Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Armesto, J., Smith-Ramírez, C. and Rozzi, R. 2001. Conservation strategies for biodiversity and
indigenous people in Chilean forest ecosystems. Journal of the Royal Society of
New Zealand, 31(4): 865-877.
Gagdil M., Berkes F. and Folke C. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.
Ambio 22: 151–156.
Herrmann, Thora Martina. 2006. "Indigenous Knowledge and Management of Araucaria
Araucana . Forest in the Chilean Andes: Implications for Native Forest Conservation".
Biodiversity and Conservation (0960-3115), 15 (2): 647-662.
Jeanrenaud, S. 2002. People-Oriented Approaches in Global Conservation: Is the Leopard
Changing its Spots? London: International Institute for Environmental and
Development (IIED) and Brighton: Institute for Development Studies.
Lara A, Veblen T T. 1993. Forest Plantations in Chile. A successful model? In A. Mather, (ed)
Afforestation policies, planning and progress. London Belhaven Press. Pp 119-139.
Leach M., Mearns, R. and Scoones, I. 1999. Enviornmental entitlements: dynamics and
institutions in community based natural resource management. World Development.
(27) 225-247.
Meza, Laura E. 2009. Mapuche Struggles for Land and the Role of Private Protected Areas in
Chile. Journal of Latin American Geography, 8 (1): 149-163
Musters, C J M; Graaf, H J; Keuers, W J. 2000. Can protected areas be expanded in Africa?
Science. (287) 1759-1760.
Pearce, David; Putz, Francis E.; Vanclay, Jerome K. 2001. Sustainable forestry in the tropics:
panacea or folly? Forest Ecology and Management. (172) 229-247.
14
Cooper
Peluso, Nancy Lee. 2004. Coercing Conservation. Green Planet Blues: Environmental Plitics from
Stockholm to Johannesurg. Westview Press, Oxford. pp. 346-357.
Schulze, ED; Wirth, C.; Hermann, M. 2000. Managing Forest after Kyoto. Science. (289) 20582059.
Smith, E.A. 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Annual Review of
Anthropology. (29) 493-524
Vanclay, J. K. 2001. The Effectiveness of Parks. Science. 293. no. 5532, p. 1007
Whitmore, T.C. 1999. Arguments on the forest frontier. Biodiversity Conservation. (8) 865-868.
15