IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v118y2020ics1389934119305118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The potential of Amazon indigenous agroforestry practices and ontologies for rethinking global forest governance

Author

Listed:
  • González, Nidia Catherine
  • Kröger, Markus

Abstract

This article explores the potential of Amazon indigenous agroforestry practices and forest understandings for making global forest governance more nuanced and thus rethinking the value of forests in the context of multiple global crises. Indigenous forest practices and their inherent knowledge are included in current global governance in very limited ways. Onto-epistemological openings in forest policies are needed in the face of converging climate, food and health crises. The indigenous forest relations and practices analyzed here may offer possibilities for such onto-epistemological openings. The current FAO and UNFCCC forest definitions are contrasted with indigenous forest understandings. While the current national and global definitions of forests contain a wide range of discrepant definitions, making the application of a shared forest policy difficult and even impossible, most institutional definitions share a positivist and technical approach to forest defining and governance. National and global discrepancies in definitions exist within the politics-as-usual process of forest defining, politics that could be challenged by the political ontology of forests that questions the deeper level of how forests should be conceptualized, placing greater emphasis on care, reciprocity, and the type of relational approach present among Amazon indigenous communities.

Suggested Citation

  • González, Nidia Catherine & Kröger, Markus, 2020. "The potential of Amazon indigenous agroforestry practices and ontologies for rethinking global forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119305118
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119305118
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102257?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brockhaus, Maria & Di Gregorio, Monica & Mardiah, Sofi, 2014. "Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 23-33.
    2. Eduardo Gudynas, 2016. "Beyond varieties of development: disputes and alternatives," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 721-732, April.
    3. De Vos, A. & Cumming, G.S. & Roux, D.J., 2017. "The relevance of cross-scale connections and spatial interactions for ecosystem service delivery by protected areas: Insights from southern Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 133-139.
    4. Markus Kröger & Rickard Lalander, 2016. "Ethno-territorial rights and the resource extraction boom in Latin America: do constitutions matter?," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 682-702, April.
    5. Andrea J. Nightingale & Hemant R. Ojha, 2013. "Rethinking Power and Authority: Symbolic Violence and Subjectivity in Nepal's Terai Forests," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 44(1), pages 29-51, January.
    6. Antoinette WinklerPrins & Narciso Barrera-Bassols, 2004. "Latin American ethnopedology: A vision of its past, present, and future," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 21(2), pages 139-156, June.
    7. Schroeder, Heike & González P., Nidia C., 2019. "Bridging knowledge divides: The case of indigenous ontologies of territoriality and REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-206.
    8. Arora-Jonsson, Seema, 2016. "Does resilience have a culture? Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 98-107.
    9. Diver, Sibyl, 2017. "Negotiating Indigenous knowledge at the science-policy interface: Insights from the Xáxli’p Community Forest," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-11.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nathan Einbinder & Helda Morales & Mateo Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho & Bruce G. Ferguson & Miriam Aldasoro & Ronald Nigh, 2022. "Agroecology from the ground up: a critical analysis of sustainable soil management in the highlands of Guatemala," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 979-996, September.
    2. Latorre, Sara & Malo-Larrea, Antonio, 2019. "Policy-making Related Actors' Understandings About Nature-society Relationship: Beyond Modern Ontologies? The Case of Cuenca, Ecuador," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 387-396.
    3. Schroeder, Heike & González P., Nidia C., 2019. "Bridging knowledge divides: The case of indigenous ontologies of territoriality and REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 198-206.
    4. Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Gallemore, Caleb & Dwisatrio, Bimo & Maharani, Cynthia D. & Muharrom, Efrian & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2020. "REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    5. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    6. Cicelin Rakotomahazo & Jacqueline Razanoelisoa & Nirinarisoa Lantoasinoro Ranivoarivelo & Gildas Georges Boleslas Todinanahary & Eulalie Ranaivoson & Mara Edouard Remanevy & Lalao Aigrette Ravaoarinor, 2021. "Community Perceptions of a Payment for Ecosystem Services Project in Southwest Madagascar: A Preliminary Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Tschakert, Petra, 2016. "Shifting Discourses of Vilification and the Taming of Unruly Mining Landscapes in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 123-132.
    8. van der Hoff, Richard & Rajão, Raoni & Leroy, Pieter & Boezeman, Daan, 2015. "The parallel materialization of REDD+ implementation discourses in Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 37-45.
    9. Wehkamp, Johanna & Aquino, André & Fuss, Sabine & Reed, Erik W., 2015. "Analyzing the perception of deforestation drivers by African policy makers in light of possible REDD+ policy responses," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-18.
    10. Muok, Benard Oula & Mosberg, Marianne & Eriksen, Siri Ellen Hallstrøm & Ong'ech, Dennis Onyango, 2021. "The politics of forest governance in a changing climate: Political reforms, conflict and socio-environmental changes in Laikipia, Kenya," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    11. Fischer, Harry W. & Ali, Syed Shoaib, 2019. "Reshaping the public domain: Decentralization, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and trajectories of local democracy in rural India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 147-158.
    12. Dobrynin, Denis & Smirennikova, Elena & Mustalahti, Irmeli, 2020. "Non-state forest governance and ‘Responsibilization’: The prospects for FPIC under FSC certification in Northwest Russia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Qamer Ridwan & Zishan Ahmad Wani & Mohd Hanief & Shreekar Pant & Ali Asghar Shah & Sazada Siddiqui & Saad Alamri, 2023. "Indigenous Knowledge and Perception of Local People towards Biodiversity Conservation in Rajouri District of Jammu and Kashmir, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin & Phin, Sopheap, 2017. "Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD+ policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 10-21.
    15. Omkar Joshi & Rajan Parajuli & Gehendra Kharel & Neelam C Poudyal & Eric Taylor, 2018. "Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Tegegne, Yitagesu T. & Ramcilovic-Suominen, Sabaheta & FOBISSIE, KALAME & Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. & Lindner, Marcus & Kanninen, Markku, 2017. "Synergies among social safeguards in FLEGT and REDD+ in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-11.
    17. Susanne Moser & Sara Meerow & James Arnott & Emily Jack-Scott, 2019. "The turbulent world of resilience: interpretations and themes for transdisciplinary dialogue," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 21-40, March.
    18. Rahman, Md Saifur & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Formal and Informal Interests of Donors to Allocate Aid: Spending Patterns of USAID, GIZ, and EU Forest Development Policy in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 250-267.
    19. Kim, Yeon-Su & Bae, Jae Soo & Fisher, Larry A. & Latifah, Sitti & Afifi, Mansur & Lee, Soo Min & Kim, In-Ae, 2016. "Indonesia's Forest Management Units: Effective intermediaries in REDD+ implementation?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 69-77.
    20. Zambrano-Cortés, Darío Gerardo & Behagel, Jelle Hendrik, 2023. "The political rationalities of governing deforestation in Colombia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:118:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119305118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.