How to improve forest conservation by recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

Including the local in forest conservation

Recognizing plural knowledge and values, and building strategies that include everyone in the conservation of natural resources is an emerging topic in socio-environmental research. Since the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the importance of active local participation in maintaining ecological processes and balance has been highlighted, as well as recognizing the cultural and spiritual value of forests (Ros-Tonen et al., 2006). These efforts have been extended in recent years, stressing the importance of including Indigenous and local peoples in conservation processes following a human rights approach, and guaranteeing their participation as key actors due to their local knowledge and practices that make the conservation of forests and biodiversity viable in the long term [1].

However, in order to comply with international agreements, it is essential to know how to include these populations, their knowledge and forest use in conservation initiatives. Giving exclusive attention to extending natural protected areas without sufficient long-term social support or bypassing the Free, Prior and Informed Consultation with indigenous peoples, among other rights, can only lead to the failure of the processes. Along these lines, it is also unsustainable to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to reduce deforestation, conserve biodiversity and promote development (Sayer et al., 2013; Agrawal et al., 2011; Sayer, 2009). So, how can we ensure the inherent diversity of territory-based knowledge and forest use in the scientific rationalities of environmental conservation?

If we view conservation as a process of change and social engagement for environmental sustainability, a key indicator to consider in determining whether there is good faith consultation or effective participation is the quality of relationships built among stakeholders. Good faith consultation is underpinned by the active involvement of stakeholders and frequent - and respectful - dialogue about their concerns and aspirations. In this scenario, a genuine step towards good faith consultation is obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent as a fundamental right of Indigenous peoples to measures that affect their territories, livelihoods or ways of life, and where they have the right to deliberate about their participation, based on their self-determination, and according to their times and modes of organization.

In addition, it is important to visualize spaces of participation and consultation as dynamic spaces, and where conflicts and issues of power and trust often arise. In contexts where scientific knowledge attributes more authority to itself than other systems, co-production processes tend to fail (Yanou et al., 2021). Local knowledge is rendered invisible or treated as primitive or unsystematic, denying its status vis-à-vis a "uniquely scientific and universal" Western knowledge (Shiva, 1993). This situation is observed, for example, when communities are excluded from consultation spaces or from decision-making on forest management in protected natural areas, and more profoundly when their access to forests is restricted, affecting their traditional forms of subsistence and cultural expression. "The fate of local knowledge systems around the world, [...] [is] the politics of disappearance, not the politics of debate and dialogue" (Shiva, 1993).

Not allowing consensual decision-making in forest conservation turns consultation spaces into merely informative places where, contrary to the objective, effective participation is discouraged. Meanwhile, in extreme cases, decisions about who participates, delimited without a social perspective, contribute to violations of human and indigenous rights. Seen from this angle, there is an important challenge in balancing the asymmetries of power arising from historical processes, such as colonization or the expansion of the state and bureaucracy over indigenous territories, by making efforts to 'decolonize'[2] knowledge in forest management. If people are directly integrated into the dynamics of the processes, considering their concerns, values and initiatives in a true and transparent dialogue, trust is generated, a fundamental element for developing a shared vision of the landscape (Sayer et al., 2013), and a key element for conservation processes to be successful in the long term.

Current status of forest management in San Martin: the case of Kichwa people

Power imbalances affect the free agency of individuals, and especially that of the historically marginalized. In conservation projects that lack a people-centered approach, imbalances of power and trust contribute to the displacement and exclusion of communities with unclear tenure rights over land and natural resources.

In the San Martin region of Peru, for example, the creation of certain natural protected areas, such as the Cordillera Azul National Park (PNCAZ) and the Cordillera Escalera Regional Conservation Area (ACR-CE) has contributed to the displacement of Kichwa communities from their ancestral territories because they lack land titles and have been excluded from the participatory processes of these areas. That is to say, forest conservation initiatives have hindered the right to land ownership and resource use of Indigenous communities, affecting access to their livelihoods. Although there are claims of overlapping Indigenous territories or uses, the management of these areas is exclusionary or limited in terms of their participation. The technical and regulatory spaces generated by the related bodies (Sernanp, CIMA, Regional Government of San Martin) do not incorporate an intercultural approach, nor do they dialogue with claimant communities (Bernaola, 2022). Including the diversity of sustainable uses of forest opens up the possibility for bringing to life the diversity of land-based knowledge.

The changes in access to public forests that climate change policies are generating contribute to quantifying nature, which in some cases results in monetary benefits perceived in the form of carbon credits, purchased by corporations as a way to mitigate their polluting emissions. This mechanism established in the Kyoto Protocol (1997) as a way to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG), has been linked to conflicts with local populations (Dunlap and Fairhead, 2014). In the case of San Martín, the scarce information provided by the public administration on the perceived economic benefits of forest conservation is generating distrust among local populations (Bernaola, 2022). Considering the existing claims regarding land ownership and restrictions on access to the livelihoods of Indigenous peoples, the current situation tends to generate conflicts and social inequalities, which are contrary to global agreements between nations.

A substantial amount of research has recommended mechanisms and strategies to safeguard the interests of locals, Indigenous and forest-dependent groups. These recommendations range from opportunities for effective participation to greater transparency and improved access to financial benefits (Bernaola, 2022; Agrawal et al., 2011). In this line, the current controversy between the Kichwa people and the natural protected areas of the Huallaga river basin should be seen as an opportunity to test inclusive processes for conservation projects that allow for a cordial coexistence, and contribute to improving the human development indices of locals, rather than excluding them from their livelihoods for the ‘benefit of humanity’.

To prevent forest and biodiversity conservation from hiding or even fostering social tensions that amplify inequalities at the local level, it is necessary to identify the problems and social dynamics that generate them. Internationally agreed social safeguards must be translated into forest conservation practice. The public agenda to address climate change requires recognizing and integrating Indigenous peoples in transformative participatory processes that enhance their knowledge and practices. A conservation approach that integrates Indigenous and local knowledge into environmental governance can achieve more sustainable outcomes (Yanou et al., 2021; Somuah, 2018; Adom, 2016). While a flawed practice in forest conservation undermines commitments among nations to respect Indigenous and human rights.

by Diana Bernaola Regout 

Anthropologist and MSc in International Development. She has worked as a researcher and advisor on social impacts and human and indigenous rights according to international standards, to improve the social performance of various projects and policies associated with resource use and land management, located in Peru and other Latin American countries.

The content of this article is the responsibility of the Author.

References

• Adom, D. (2016). Inclusion of local people and their cultural practices in biodiversity conservation: lessons from successful nations. American Journal of Environmental Protection. Vol. 4, No. 3.
• Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D., Chhatre, A. (2011). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annual Reviews. Environment Resources 36:3.
• Bernaola, D. (2022). Decolonizing indigenous knowledge for forest conservation. A study on indigenous peoples' participation and knowledge’ inclusion in forest and biodiversity conservation for climate change mitigation in San Martin, Peru. MSc International Development Studies Thesis. Universiteit van Amsterdam. The Netherlands. July, 2022.
• Dunlap, A.; Fairhead, J. (2014). The militarisation and marketisation of nature: an alternative lens to ‘climate-conflict’. Geopolitics 00.
• Mignolo, W.D. (2009). Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory, Culture and Society, 26(7-8).
• Ros-Tonen, M., Van den Hombergh, H., Zoomers, A. (2006). Partnerships for sustainable forests and tree resource management in Latin America: The new road towards successful forest governance? In Partnerships in sustainable forest resource 82 management: learning from Latin America. CEDLA Latin American studies. Vol. 98.
• Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J., Sheil, D., Meijaad, E., Venter, M., Boedhihartono, A., Day, M., Garcia, C., Oosten, C., Buck, L. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. May, 2013.
• Sayer, J. (2009). Reconciling conservation and development: are landscapes the answer? Biotropica 1-4.
• Somuah, D. P. (2018). Empowerment through knowledge? A study of local spatialised knowledge production in Ghana, and its exchange and use for forest conservation and governance. PhD thesis. University of Amsterdam.
• Vandana, S. (1993) ‘Monocultures of the Mind’. Trumpeter, 10(4).
• Yanou, M., Ros-Tonen, M., Reed, J., Sunderland, T. (2021). Indigenous local knowledge and practices among Tonga people in Zambia and Zimbabwe: a literature review. Under review by Environmental Science and Policy.

 

[1] Examples of this recognition include the results of the 6th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022), which highlights the need to unify scientific and technical knowledge with indigenous and local knowledge in order to achieve more effective solutions to climate change.

[2] The concept of 'decolonizing' proposed by Mignolo (2009) seeks to make an epistemic change in the production of knowledge, in order to overcome the centrality of Western knowledge by trying to give voice to other local wisdoms.