interactions between indigenous and non...
TRANSCRIPT
INTERACTIONS BETWEEN INDIGENOUS AND NON-INDIGENOUS
POPULATIONS AND THEIR USE OF TROPICAL FOREST
Running title: Interactions between native and non-native peoples
Word count: 2,909 (from abstract to references, inclusive)
Victoria Reyes-Garcíaa*
, Juan Carlos Ledezmab, Jaime Paneque-Gálvez
c, Martí Orta
c, Maximilien Gueze
c,
Agustín Loboc,d
, Daniel Guinarte,
and Ana Catarina Luzc
a ICREA and Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193
Bellatera, Barcelona, Spain
b Conservation International - Bolivia, Calacoto Calle 13, 8008 La Paz, Bolivia
c Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellatera,
Barcelona, Spain
d Institut de Ciències de la Terra “Jaume Almera”, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
e Oficina Técnica de Parcs Naturals, Diputació de Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain.
* Corresponding author:
Victoria Reyes-García ICREA Researcher
Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
08193 Bellatera, Barcelona, Spain
Tel. + 34 (93) 581 4218
Fax: + 34 (93) 581 3331
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Researchers have highlighted the role of non-indigenous populations in forest clearance, but
have overlooked the synergistic relations between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in their use of
forests. We analyzed data from a household survey (n=780) conducted in 87 villages of a foraging-
horticulturist society in the Bolivian Amazon, the Tsimane’. We assessed the entrance of traders, loggers,
cattle ranchers, and colonist farmers in Tsimane’ villages settled in parks, forest concessions, indigenous
territories, and private lands. Interactions between Tsimane’ and non-Tsimane’ were frequent, mostly
non-hostile, and had an economic basis. Tsimane’ reported the entrance of non-Tsimane in 87% of the
villages, mostly to trade agricultural and forest products. Tsimane’ only expressed hostility to the
entrance of colonist farmers. We discuss our findings in the context of research on the role of indigenous
peoples on conservation: Indigenous peoples might reject the entrance of non-indigenous who encroach
their lands, thus potentially inhibiting large-scale deforestation; but indigenous people might engage in
economic interactions that draw on the use of forest resources with non-indigenous peoples, potentially
increasing forest disturbances.
Key Words: Tsimane’; Bolivian Amazon; indigenous territories; encroachment; territorial rights.
1.- Introduction
Tropical forests host most of the biological diversity of the planet and are also home to millions
of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples –including cattle ranchers, loggers, road builders, oil firms,
and colonist farmers (Mittermeier et al., 2003; Sunderlin et al., 2005). The spatial overlap between
tropical forests and human populations raises the question of the impact of humans on forests.
Researchers agree that non-indigenous peoples have been responsible for most forest clearance and forest
disturbances in the Amazon through the opening of new roads and the spread of cash cropping, cattle
ranching, and logging (Hecht and Cockburn, 1989; Painter and Durham, 1995; Wood and Porro, 2002;
Kometter et al., 2004). But researchers debate the past and present role of indigenous peoples in forest
clearance and forest disturbances. Archeological research suggests that the pre-contact (1492) Amazon
forest was transformed by sedentary, large-scale indigenous populations who used sophisticated
technologies to achieve high levels of land productivity without destroying the forest biomass
(Heckenberger et al., 2007). After centuries of contact, lands inhabited by Amazonian indigenous
peoples still have an inhibitory effect on deforestation (Nepstad et al., 2006), although indigenous
territories experience more forest disturbances (e.g., selective logging) than parks (Oliveira et al., 2007).
Despite the past protective role of indigenous peoples for biological conservation, native Amazonians are
increasingly engaging in wage labor, tourism, commercial agriculture, cattle ranching, and the sale of
timber and non-timber forest products (Godoy et al., 2005; Lu, 2007; Rudel et al., 2002; Stronza, 2001),
activities that presumably damage the tropical forests more than traditional subsistence practices do.
Furthermore, the integration of indigenous peoples into the market economy potentially boosts
interactions between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples and the entrance of non-indigenous peoples
in lands inhabited by indigenous peoples, with potential implications for the use of the forest.
In this paper we use data from a large survey conducted among an indigenous Amazonian society, the
Tsimane’, to describe the level to which non-indigenous people enter indigenous villages and the type of
interactions between indigenous and non-indigenous populations. Since indigenous peoples provide the
socio-political conditions that facilitate or constraint any conservation strategy in their lands,
understanding the type and frequency of interactions between indigenous and non-indigenous populations
should help design better conservation strategies in areas inhabited by indigenous peoples.
2.- The Tsimane’ and their context
The Tsimane’ are the third largest ethnic group in Bolivia’s lowlands with about 8,000 people
living in less than 100 villages. The Tsimane’ inhabit an area that lies mostly in the province of Beni,
extending from the foothills of the Andes to the Moxos savanna. The Tsimane’ remained relatively
isolated until the 1950s when the arrival of highland colonist farmers, the opening of new roads, and the
logging boom put them in continuous contact with other segments of the Bolivian society, a process that
transformed their lands and their land tenure system.
Tsimane’ traditionally lacked a system of individual land tenure and considered land and natural
resources a common property (Godoy et al., 2001). In 1979 Tsimane’ ancestral lands were affected by a
colonization project that gave several hundreds of hectares to highland colonists in private property
(Pacheco, 2002). Soon after, during the 1980’s, the Bolivian government granted long-term commercial
forest concessions to logging companies and established two protected areas (Pilón-Lajas and Beni
Biological Station) in the territory inhabited by the Tsimane’. Only during the 1990’s the Bolivian
government started a land titling process –yet to conclude- that recognizes the Tsimane’ demand over part
of the land they had traditionally occupied (Chicchon, 1992).
As a consequence of changes in traditional Tsimane’ land tenure system, nowadays Tsimane’
villages are settled in protected areas, forest concessions, indigenous territories, and private lands which
include (but are not limited to) colonization areas (Fig. 1). Rights to use natural resources by Tsimane’
and non-Tsimane’ vary by land tenure type. Tsimane’ indigenous peoples have the right to hunt, clear
land, and extract timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for consumption in protected areas,
indigenous territories, and forest concessions. Under approved management plans, Tsimane’ can extract
timber from indigenous territories and authorized logging companies can extract timber from forest
concessions (Decreto Supremo Nº 22611, Ley Forestal Nº 1700). Intensive land uses (cattle ranching,
commercial agriculture, non-planned logging) by non-Tsimane’ is legally limited to private lands.
FIGURE 1
Tsimane’ interact with non-Tsimane’ entering their villages in different ways. In villages on indigenous
territories far from towns, Tsimane’ work for illegal loggers and barter surplus crops and NTFPs with
traveling traders. In forest concessions, Tsimane’ work for logging companies and barter with traveling
traders. In villages on indigenous territories or private lands close to towns, Tsimane’ work for colonist
farmers and cattle ranchers or increase forest clearing to plant cash crops that they sell in local towns
(Vadez et al., 2008).
3.- Methods
A team working in the area since 2001 collected data for this study during 2007.
The Great Tsimane’ Council (Tsimane’ umbrella government) approved the study and
we obtained consent from each respondent.
3.1.- Sample
We visited all Tsimane’ villages with at least ten households, except for three
villages that were excluded for logistic reasons (n=87). We retrieved information on the
legal land tenure status of each village by cross-checking the geographical position of
the village (collected during fieldwork) with the geographical database of the Instituto
Nacional de Reforma Agraria. Our sample includes villages in parks (n=17), logging
concessions (n=11), indigenous territories (n=45), and private lands (n=14). 20% of the
villages had road access throughout the year. The percentage of villages in logging
concessions (36%) and private lands (36%) with year-round road access was higher than
the percentage of villages with year-round road access in indigenous territories (18%)
and parks (5%). The average number of households across villages was 20.6
(SD=18.2).
Upon arrival at each village we randomly selected 10 households out of a list provided by the highest-
ranking authority in the village and interviewed the male household head (or the female if the male was
absent). In villages with less than 10 households we interviewed all the available household heads. Our
final sample (n=780) represents 43% of all Tsimane’ households.
3.2.- Survey
We asked every person in the sample three questions referring to traders, loggers, cattle ranchers, and
colonist farmers. We first asked respondents to report the entrance of traders in the village during the 30
days previous to the interview. If the interviewee reported entrance of traders, we asked about the
trader’s intention and the respondent’s response to the trader’s entrance. We recorded the textual answers.
We then repeated the questions for loggers, cattle ranchers, and colonist farmers.
3.3.- Variables
We constructed individual-level variables capturing reported a) entrances, b) intentions, and c) responses
to traders, loggers, ranchers, and colonist farmers. For each actor, the variable entrance took the value of
1 if the respondent reported one or more entrances and 0 otherwise. We coded responses to the question
regarding intentions into a) trade of crops and NTFPs, b) logging (e.g., timber extraction and purchase), c)
land encroachment, and d) other (e.g., social visits). We coded answers to the question about Tsimane’
response into a) actively rejected (e.g., told the outsider to leave), b) passively accepted (e.g., did not
interact), c) engaged in economic activities (e.g., buying or selling products), or d) engaged in social
activities (e.g., chatting).
3.4.- Data analysis
We used descriptive statistics to analyze data by land tenure type. We first calculated the number of
entrances reported by all the respondents in villages settled in a given land tenure system. The variable
should be interpreted with caution as there may be overlap between reports from respondents in a village.
We calculated intentions and responses as a percentage of the number of entrances reported.
4.- Results
We found that at least one respondent in 87% of all the villages in the sample
reported the entrance of traders, loggers, cattle ranchers, or colonist farmers during the
30 days before the day of the interview. Traders entered 75% of the villages, loggers
54%, ranchers 18%, and colonist farmers 15% (data not showed). Overall, 63% of
interviewees reported at least one entrance during the 30 days previous to the interview.
Tsimane’ perceived that most entrances in their villages were related to the trade of
crops and NTFP (54%) and to logging (33%). Only 9% of respondents reported land
encroachment.
The percentage of informants reporting entrances was similar across the four
land tenure types, although we found variation in reported intentions (Table 1). Non-
Tsimane’ reportedly entered indigenous territories, parks, and logging concessions to
barter commercial goods for crops and NTFPs, but they entered Tsimane’ villages
settled on private lands mostly for logging. Land encroachment was very marginal in
indigenous territories and more common in private lands and parks.
TABLE 1
Interviewees mostly accepted the entrance of non-Tsimane’ in their villages,
more often engaging in economic activities (e.g., barter, sale, and wage labor) than
rejecting the entrance of non-Tsimane’ (Table 1). Tsimane’ passively accepted 49% of
the entrances and engaged in economic and social activities in 32% and 5% of the
reported entrances. About 14% of Tsimane’ reporting the entrance of outsiders actively
rejected them. Tsimane’ living in private lands rejected 23% of the entrances, as
opposed to Tsimane’ living in forest concessions who only rejected 6% of the entrances.
Only Tsimane’ living in indigenous lands reported engaging in social activities with
non-Tsimane’ entering their villages.
The analysis of data by actors entering Tsimane’ villages showed that 46% of
the Tsimane’ who reported the entrance of traveling traders bartered with or sold goods
to them, 42% did not have any interaction, 6% engaged in social activities, and another
6% actively rejected the entrance of traders in their villages (data not shown). A low
percentage of interviewees worked for loggers and ranchers (18% and 25%) or rejected
their entrance (21% and 14%), whereas most interviewees reporting entrance passively
accepted the entrance of loggers and ranchers in their village (57% and 58%). Only the
entrance of colonist farmers was mostly rejected: 52% of those who reported the
entrance of colonist farmers actively rejected them. None of the respondents engaged in
economic or social activities with colonist farmers.
5.- Discussion
Three main findings stem from this research. First, interactions between Tsimane’ and non-
Tsimane’ are frequent and mostly non-hostile. Second, the Tsimane’ do express hostility to the entrance
of colonist farmers in their villages. And third, Tsimane’ interactions with non-Tsimane’ have an
economic basis, mostly through trade of crops, timber, and NTFPs.
First, we found that –independently of land tenure system- interactions between Tsimane’ and
non-Tsimane’ are frequent and mostly non-hostile. Previous descriptive accounts report hostility in the
interactions between Amazonian indigenous and non-indigenous peoples (Alston et al., 2000, Schmink
and Wood, 1992), but we found that about one third of Tsimane’ households engaged in economic
activities with traders and loggers and half of the sample passively accepted their entrance in the village.
Moreover, in a previous study on the region, Godoy and colleagues (1998) found that 69% of the
households reported conflicts with loggers, whereas we found that only 21% actively rejected their
entrance. Assuming comparability between the two studies, the level of Tsimane’ acceptance to non-
Tsimane’ might be growing.
What might explain growing acceptance to non-Tsimane’? A possible explanation for Tsimane’
increasing acceptance to non-Tsimane’ who visited their villages lies on the ongoing process of
integration into the market economy. As mentioned, Tsimane’ are increasingly engaging in the market
economy through wage labor and the sale and barter of crops, timber, and NTFPs. As Tsimane’ abandon
their autarkic way of life and engage in economic activities that provide them cash income and access to
market goods, they might become more dependent and more tolerant to non-Tsimane’, with whom they
interact through market-based economic activities.
Second, we found that the Tsimane’ do express hostility to the entrance of colonist farmers in
their villages, a finding that echoes the thesis that indigenous peoples reject economic activities that
undermine the natural environment that constitutes the basis of their subsistence (Martínez-Alier, 2002).
The entrance of colonist farmers in Tsimane’ villages is now rare, probably because the Tsimane’ live far
from the agricultural frontier in Santa Cruz. However, the combination of three ongoing processes makes
one expect increasing encroachment in the area on a near future. First, as mentioned, the land titling
process that recognizes the Tsimane’ demand over the land they had traditionally occupied remains
unfinished. Insecurity of land rights and rules makes it easy for outsiders to gain access to indigenous
peoples’ communal lands (Albó, 2002; Stocks, 2005). Second, the current government is planning a new
agrarian reform to encourage the migration of highland colonists to the lowlands by granting them access
to public lands. Third, the transport system in the area is improving both at the local and at the
interdepartmental level. Local roads to Tsimane’ villages are being planned and built and the
interdepartmental road that links the town of San Borja with the capital city of La Paz will be partially
paved soon. Land insecurity, the new colonization policy, and a better transport system might increase
the pressure of highland colonist farmers on Tsimane’ lands thus potentially boosting the number of
conflicts over land and natural resources on the area.
One last finding merits discussion. Our data suggest that –across the four types of land tenure
systems- Tsimane’ interactions with non-Tsimane’ have an economic basis. Economic interactions center
on the trade of crops and NTFPs in villages on indigenous lands and parks and on timber extraction in
villages on forest concessions and private lands. Although our data do not allow for a formal test, it poses
the question of the impact on Amazonian forests generated by the synergistic relations between
indigenous and non-indigenous populations. For example, encouraged by the presence of itinerant
traders, Tsimane’ willing to raise their sources of income increase the area of forest cleared to plant cash
crops (Vadez et al., 2008). As it has been the case somewhere else (Arnold and Pérez, 2001), Tsimane’
seem to be over-harvesting NTFPs with commercial value, such as Geonoma deversa, a thatch palm
highly appreciated in the area (Hinojosa, com. pers.) Also, loggers might be more prone to work in areas
inhabited by indigenous peoples because indigenous peoples provide cheap labor and have expertise in
locating fine woods (Watson, 1996). The first type of interaction might increase the total area of forest
cleared for agriculture (Vadez et al., 2008); the second type of interaction might degrade natural resources
(Arnold and Pérez, 2001); and the third could favor the spread of selective logging, a practice that has
been blamed for up to 50% of total forest damage in some Amazonian states (Asner, 2005).
6.- Conclusion
Researchers have found that lands inhabited by indigenous peoples have an inhibitory effect on
deforestation (Nepstad et al., 2006) but suffer more forest disturbances than inhabited parks (Oliveira et
al., 2007). Results presented here provide a testable social interpretation of those findings: indigenous
peoples might reject the entrance of non-indigenous who encroach their communal lands, thus potentially
contributing to inhibit large-scale deforestation; but indigenous peoples living under land tenure systems
that grant them rights to use land and natural resources (e.g., indigenous territories, forest concessions,
and parks in the present case study) might engage with non-indigenous peoples in economic activities that
draw on the use of forest resources, thus potentially contributing to increase forest disturbances.
The success of biodiversity conservation on areas inhabited by indigenous peoples might depend
on successfully finding protective measures that address the nature of the new economic interactions
between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples and the synergetic impact of those actors on tropical
forests.
Acknowledgments
Research was funded by a grant from the BBVA Foundation (IV Convocatoria de
Ayudas a la Investigación en Ecología y Biología de la Conservación). We thank the
Gran Consejo Tsimane’ for their support, the Tsimane’ Amazonian Panel Study
Bolivian research team for help collecting the information, R. Godoy and K. Demps for
comments to a previous version of the article, and ICRISAT-Patancheru for providing
V. R.-G. with office facilities.
LITERATURE CITED
Albo X. 2002. Bolivia: from Indian and Campesino leaders to councillors and deputies. In:Sieder R,
editor. Multiculturalism In Latin America: Indigenous Rights, Diversity and Democracy.
Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; p 74-102.
Alston, L., G. Libecap, and B. Mueller. 2000. Land reform policies, the sources of violent conflict, and
implications for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Environmental Economic
Management 39;162-188.
Arnold, J.E.M., and M.R. Perez. 2001. Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest conservation
and development objectives? Ecological Economics 39; 437-47.
Asner, G. 2005. Selective logging 'doubles Amazon forest loss'. Science 310; 480.
Chicchon, A. 1992. Chimane Resource Use and Market Involvement in the Beni Biosphere Reserve,
Bolivia [dissertation]. University of Florida.
Godoy, R., M. Jacobson, J. DeCastro, V. Aliaga, J. Romero, and A. Davis. 1998. The role of tenure
security and private time preference in neotropical deforestation. Land Economics 74; 162-170.
Godoy, R., K.N. Kirby, and D. Wilkie. 2001. Tenure security, private time preference, and use of natural
resources among lowland Bolivian Amerindians. Ecological Economics 38; 105-118.
Godoy, R., V. Reyes-García, E. Byron, W. Leonard, and V. Vadez. 2005. The Effect of Market
Economies on the Well-Being of Indigenous Peoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural
Resources. Annual Review of Anthropology 34; 121-138.
Hecht, S., and A. Cockburn. 1989. The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Destroyers, and Defenders of the
Amazon. Harper Perennia, New York.
Heckenberger, M.J., J.C. Russell, J.R. Toney, and M.J. Schmidt. 2007. The legacy of cultural landscapes
in the Brazilian Amazon: implications for biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B-Biological Sciences 362; 197-208.
Kometter, R., M. Martinez, A. Blundell, E. Gullison, M.K. Steininger, and R.E. Rice. 2004. Impacts of
unsustainable mahogany logging in Bolivia and Peru. Ecology and Society 9; 12.
Lu, F. 2007. Integration into the Market among Indigenous Peoples: A Cross-Cultural Perspective from
the Ecuadorian Amazon. Current Anthropology 48; 593-602.
Martínez-Alier, J. 2002. The Environmentalism of the Poor. A Study of Ecological Conflicts and
Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Mittermeier, R., C. Mittermeier, T. Brooks, J. Pilgrim, W. Konstant, G. da Fonseca, and C. Kormos.
2003. Wilderness and Biodiversity Conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 100; 10309-10313.
Nepstad, D.C, et al. 2006. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands.
Conservation Biology 20; 65-73.
Oliveira, P.J.C., G.P. Asner, D.E. Knapp, A. Almeyda, R. Galvan-Gildemeister, S, Keene, R.F. Raybin,
R.C. Smith. 2007. Land-use allocation protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science 317; 1233-6.
Pacheco, P. 2002. Deforestation and forest degradation in lowland Bolivia. Pages 66-84 in C. Wood and
R. Porro, editors. Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville.
Painter, M., and W. Durham. 1995. The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in Latin America.
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Rudel T, Bates D, Machinguashi R. 2002. A Tropical Forest Transition? Agricultural Change, Out-
migration, and Secondary Forests in the Ecuadorian Amazon. ANNALS OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS 92(1); 87-102.
Schmink M, Wood C. 1992. Contested Frontiers in Amazonia. New York: Columbia University Press.
Stocks A. 2005. Too much for too few: Problems of indigenous land rights in Latin America. Annu Rev
Anthropol 34; 85-104
Stronza A. 2001. The Anthropology of Tourism: Forging new Ground for Ecotourism and Other
Alternatives. Annu Rev Anthropol 30; 261-83
Sunderlin, W.D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, P. Burgers, R. Nasi, L. Santoso, and S. Wunder. 2005.
Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing Countries: An Overview. World
Development 33; 1383-1402.
Vadez, V., V. Reyes-García, R. Godoy, W. Leonard, T. Huanca, and E. Byron. 2008. Income
diversification of rural households: What role for agriculture? Household evidence from the
Tsimane' Amerindians of the Bolivian Amazon. Human Organization. 67, 384-396.
Watson, F. 1996. A view from the forest floor: The impact of logging on indigenous peoples in Brazil. Is
there a future for mahogany? Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 122, 75-82.
Wood, C., and R. Porro. 2002. Deforestation and Land Use in the Amazon. University of Florida Press,
Gainesville.
Table 1. Entrance, intention, and Tsimane’ response to traders, loggers, cattle ranchers, and colonist
farmers
Tsimane’ villages settled in:
Parks
Logging
concessions Indigenous
territories
Private
lands
Total
N villages
(N respondents)
17
(148)
11
(78)
45
(429)
14 (125) 87
(780)
% Villages reporting
entrances
76.5 72.7 93.3 92.8 87.3
% respondents reporting
entrances
60.8 66.7 65.7 52.0 62.7
N entrances 120 100 393 83 696
Intentiona
Trade (crops and NTFP
b) 48.3 48.0 64.6 20.5 54.2
Logging 30.0 35.0 30.3 49.4 33.2
Land encroachment 18.3 13.0 3.3 20.5 9.3
Other 3.3 4.0 1.8 9.6 3.3
Tsimane’ responsea
Actively rejected 16.7 6.0 13.7 22.9 14.2
Passively accepted 42.5 68.0 44.8 53.0 48.7
Engaged in economic activities 40.8 26.0 33.1 24.1 32.3
Engaged in social activities 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 4.7 a: Figures are percentages referred to the total number of entrances reported
b: Non-timber forest products