El bosque más allá del capitalismo: un contraste entre sistemas de conocimiento

dc.creatorGonzález Piñeros, Nidia Catherine
dc.creatorKröger, Markus
dc.date20 de febrero de 2020
dc.date4 de junio de 2020
dc.date2020-10-20T07:00:00Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-13T14:55:39Z
dc.date.available2022-10-13T14:55:39Z
dc.identifierhttps://ciencia.lasalle.edu.co/eq/vol1/iss36/4
dc.identifierhttps://ciencia.lasalle.edu.co/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=eq
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/4177133
dc.descriptionEste artículo contrasta dos sistemas de conocimiento: el de las comunidades indígenas habitantes del bosque y el de la gobernanza forestal. Nuestra aproximación parte de un enfoque que pretende trascender los límites de los sujetos y objetos de la investigación forestal clásica, se trata de una reflexión crítica estructurada en tres partes. Luego de la introducción y del apartado metodológico, se ilustran las asimetrías de poder entre estos dos sistemas de conocimiento. Posteriormente, se hace un análisis de las definiciones oficiales de bosque, más frecuentemente utilizadas en el escenario de la gobernanza forestal, y se les compara con aquellas provenientes del sistema de conocimiento indígena. Finalmente, el artículo demuestra que el reduccionismo de la racionalidad de las políticas forestales del último siglo es producto de una falta de apertura hacia concepciones milenarias usadas por las comunidades del bosque. Una gobernanza plural requiere diálogo focalizado en rescatar el impacto político de las prácticas locales y cómo estas pueden representar los primeros pasos hacia la generación de alternativas, en las cuales se aprecie cómo la gestión forestal no solo se relaciona con la reducción de emisiones, sino que también está íntimamente ligada a la seguridad alimentaria, la agroforistería y la protección a la biodiversidad
dc.descriptionThis article compares two knowledge systems: the one of indigenous communities living in the forests, and the one of forest government. We address this issue based on an approach that aims to go beyond the limits of the subjects and objects proper to the classical forest research. This is a critical reflection structured in three parts. After the Introduction and Methodology sections, the power asymmetries between the two knowledge systems are shown. Next, an analysis of the official definitions of forest is done; the ones most frequently used in the scenario of forest government are compared to those coming from the indigenous knowledge system. Finally, this article shows that the reductionism due to rationality in the forest policies during the last century results from a lack of opening to millenary conceptions used by the forest communities. A plural governance requires a dialog focused on rescuing the political impact of the local practices and how they can be the first steps to find alternatives, which will show how the forest management is not only related to reduce emissions but is also closely related to the food safety, agroforestry, and biodiversity protection
dc.formatapplication/pdf
dc.format89 - 110
dc.languagespa
dc.publisherUniversidad de La Salle. Ediciones Unisalle
dc.relationAgrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. En T. B. Zilber, J. M. Amis y J. Mair, Development and Change. Den Haag: International Institute of Social Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x
dc.relationAnaya, J. (2009). The right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination in the postdeclaration era. En C. Chartres y R. Stavenhagen, (Eds.), Making the declaration work: UNDRIP (184-199). Copenhagen: IWGIA
dc.relationAndoque, I. y Castro H. (2012). La vida de la chagra: saberes tradicionales y prácticas locales para la adaptación al cambio climático. Comunidad indígena El Guacamayo, Araracuara, Colombia. Bogotá: Tropenbos Colombia
dc.relationArdila, R., Montalvo, R. y Montalvo. A. (2012). Conocimiento de las chagras según la etnia Desana. Comunidad Timbó de Betania; Mitú, Vaupés. Bogotá: Tropenbos Colombia
dc.relationBerkes, F. (2009). Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510568
dc.relationBerkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. Nueva York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203123843
dc.relationBlaser, M. (2013). Notes towards a political ontology of ‘environmental’conflicts. En L. Green (Ed.), Contested ecologies: Dialogues in the South on nature and knowledge (pp. 13-27). Cape Town: HSRC Press
dc.relationCarranza, M. L., Frate, L., Acosta, A. y Hoyos, L. (2014). Measuring forest fragmentation using multitemporal remotely sensed data: Three decades of change in the dry Chaco. European Journal of Remote Sensing, 47(1), 793-804. https://doi.org/10.5721/EuJRS20144745
dc.relationCraig, D. (2002). Recognising indigenous rights through co-management regimes: Canadian and Australian experiences. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 6, 199-254. https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:12744
dc.relationDavis, C., Daviet, F., Nakhooda, S. y Thuault, A. (2009). A review of 25 readiness Plan Idea Notes from the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. https://www.wri.org/publication/review-25-readiness-plan-idea-notes-world-bank-forest-carbon-partnership-facility
dc.relationDe Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Another knowledge is possible. Beyond Northern epistemologies. Nueva York: Verso
dc.relationDe Vos, A., Cumming, G. S. y 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, 28(part B), 133-139. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.014
dc.relationDietz, K. (2014). Researching inequalities from a socio-ecological perspective. En E. Jelin, R. Motta y Costa, S. (Eds.), Global entangled inequialities: Conceptual debates and evidence from Latin America. Nueva York: Routledge
dc.relationDiver, S. (2017). Negotiating Indigenous knowledge at the science-policy interface: Insights from the Xáxli’p Community Forest. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.001
dc.relationEhrenstein, V. y Muniesa, F. (2013). The conditional sink: Counterfactual display in the valuation of a carbon offsetting reforestation project. Valuation Studies, 1(2), 161-188. https://doi.org/10.3384/vs.2001-5992.1312161
dc.relationEklund, J. y Cabeza, M. (2017). Quality of governance and effectiveness of protected areas: Crucial concepts for conservation planning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1399(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13284
dc.relationEscobar, A. (2014). Territorios de diferencia: lugar, movimientos, vida, redes. Popayán: Universidad del Cauca. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpv504m
dc.relationGilbert, J. (2006). Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights under International Law. Nueva York: Transnational Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9781571053695.1-352
dc.relationGlobal Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI) (2016). Integration of remote-sensing and ground-based observations for estimation of emissions and removals of greenhouse gases in forests: Methods and Guidance from the Global Forest Observations Initiative (ed. 2.0). https://www.reddcompass.org/forest-definition?fid=%2Fmgd%2F2.3.1yver=
dc.relationGonzález, N.C. (2006). Colombia hacia una democracia participativa, contribución indígena 1990-2003. Cali: Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
dc.relationGonzález, N. C. (2018). Explorando la innovación local como proceso clave en la transformación de las instituciones del nuevo milenio. Revista Cuadernos de Gobierno y Administración Pública, 5(1), 49- 66. https://doi.org/10.5209/CGAP.60610
dc.relationGonzález, N. C. y Kröger, M. (2020). The potential of Amazon indigenous Agroforestry practices and ontologies in rethinking forest global governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 118, 102257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102257
dc.relationGrassi, G., House, J., Dentener, F., Federici, S., Elzen M., y Penman, J. (2017). The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 7(3), 220-226. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3227?proof=trueMay%252F https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3227
dc.relationGudynas, E. (2016). Beyond varieties of development: Disputes and alternatives. Third World Quarterly, 37(4), 721-732. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1126504
dc.relationGudynas, E. (2017). Deep ecologies in the highlands and rainforests: finding Naess in the Neotropics. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 21 (3), 262-275. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685357-02103005
dc.relationInman, D. M. K. (2015). From the global to the local: The Development of Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights Internationally and in Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of International Law, 6(1), 46-88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S204425131400035
dc.relationInoue, C. Y. A. (2018). Worlding the study of global environmental politics in the Anthropocene: Indigenous voices from the Amazon. Global Environmental Politics, 18(4), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00479
dc.relationJenkins, J. (2017). Contested terrain of extractive development in the American West: Using a regional political ecology framework to understand scalar governance, biocentric values, and anthropocentric values. Journal of Political Ecology, 23, 182-196. https://doi.org/10.2458/v23i1.20189
dc.relationKawagley, A. O. y Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education indigenous to place: Western science meets native reality. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Articles/BarnhardtKawagley/EIP.html
dc.relationKrause, T., Collen, W. y Kimberly, N. (2013). Evaluating safeguards in a conservation incentive program: Participation, consent, and benefit sharing in indigenous communities of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05733-180401
dc.relationKröger, M. (2020). Deforestation, cattle capitalism and neodevelopmentalism in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve, Brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(3), 464-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2019.1604510
dc.relationKröger, M. y Raitio, K. (2017). Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability? Forest Policy and Economics, 77, 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.003
dc.relationLajó, J. (2006). Qhapaq Ñan: La ruta de la sabiduría Inca. Quito: Ediciones Abya Yala
dc.relationLee, E. (2016). Protected areas, country and value: The nature-culture Tyranny of the Iucn’s Protected Area Guidelines for Indigenous Australians. Antipode, 48(2), 355-374. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12180
dc.relationLohmann, L. (2009). Neoliberalism and the calculable World – The rise of carbon trading. Londres: Zed Books
dc.relationMatapí, C. y Matapí, U. (1997). La historia de los Upichia. Bogotá: Tropenbos Colombia
dc.relationMatapí, U. y Yucuna, R. (2012). Cartografía ancestral yucuna-matapí: conocimiento y manejo tradicional del territorio. Bogotá: Mincultura, Patrimonio Natural y Tropenbos Colombia
dc.relationMistry, J., Bilbao, B. A. y Berardi, A. (2016). Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: Case studies from Indigenous communities of South America. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1696). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0174
dc.relationNel, A. (2017). Contested carbon: Carbon forestry as a speculatively virtual, falteringly material and disputed territorial assemblage. Geoforum, 81, 144-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.007
dc.relationNepal, S. K. y Weber, K. E. (1995). Managing resources and resolving conflicts: National parks and local people. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 2(1), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.1995.10590662
dc.relationOrganización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO) (2018). The State of the World’s Forests 2018 - Forest pathways to sustainable development. http://www.fao.org/3/ca0188en/ca0188en.pdf
dc.relationOrganización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) (2009). Los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y tribales en la práctica: una guía sobre el Convenio Núm. 169 de la OIT. Ginebra: OIT
dc.relationParrotta, J. A., Wildburger, C. y Mansourian, S. (2012). Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: The key to achieving REDD+ objectives. https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/47822
dc.relationPerlin, J. (2005). A forest journey: The story of wood and civilization. Nueva York: The Countryman Press
dc.relationPosey, D. A. (1985). Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems: The case of the Kayapó Indians of the Brazilian Amazon. Agroforestry System, 3(2), 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122640
dc.relationPosey, D. A. (2002). Upsetting the sacred balance: Can the study of indigenous knowledge reflect connectedness? En P. Sillitoe, A. Bicker y J. Pottier (Eds.), Participating in development: Approaches to Indigenous knowledge (pp. 24-42). Londres: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203428603_chapter_2
dc.relationRadkau, J. (2012). Wood: A History. Cambridge: Polity
dc.relationRappaport, J. (2005). Cumbre renaciente. Bogotá: ICANH
dc.relationReichel-Dolmatoff, G. (1976). Cosmology as ecological analysis: A view from the rainforest. Man, 11(3), 307-318. http://web.mnstate.edu/robertsb/380/cosmologyecological.pdf https://doi.org/10.2307/2800273
dc.relationRodríguez Fernández, C. A., Quiceno Mesa, M. P. y Vargas Tovar, C. (Eds.) (2011). Incentivos a la conservación en territorios colectivos. Visión de algunas comunidades indígenas de la Amazonia colombiana. Bogotá: Tropenbos Colombia y Fondo Patrimonio Natural
dc.relationRodríguez, A. (2013). Las plantas cultivadas por la gente de centro en la Amazonia colombiana. Bogotá: Tropenbos Colombia
dc.relationRodríguez, G. A. y González, N. C. (2019). Retos en la gestión de los recursos en áreas protegidas, gobernanza y extractivismo en zona del Yaigojé-Apaporis, Amazonía colombiana. Confluenze. Rivista di Studi Iberoamericani, 11(1), 271-292. https://confluenze.unibo.it/article/view/9570/9335
dc.relationSabaíni, J. C., Jiménez, J. P. y Morán, D. (2015). El impacto fiscal de la explotación de los recursos naturales no renovables en los países de América Latina y el Caribe. Santiago de Chile: Cepal y Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de Noruega
dc.relationSchoene, D., Killmann, W, Von Lüpke, H. y LoycheWilkie, M. (2017). Definitional issues related to reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries (vol. 5). Roma: FAO
dc.relationSchroeder, H. y González, N. (2019). Bridging knowledge divides: The case of indigenous ontologies of territoriality and REDD+. Forest policy and economics, 100, 198-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.12.010
dc.relationShedoe, R. S. (2011). Tracking effective indigenous adaptation strategies on impacts of climate variability on food security and health of subsistence farmers in Tanzania. https://www.africaportal.org/publications/tracking-effective-indigenous-adaptation-strategies-on-impacts-of-climate-variability-on-food-security-and-health-of-subsistence-farmers-in-tanzania-2/
dc.relationSimula, M. (2009). Towards defining forest degradation: Comparative analysis of existing definitions [Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper, 154]. Roma: FAO. http://www.fao.org/tempref/docrep/fao/012/k6217e/k6217e00.pdf
dc.relationTemper, L., Bene, D. y Martínez-Alier, J. (2015). Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22, 255-278. https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21108
dc.relationToledo, V. M. (2002). Ethnoecology: A conceptual framework for the study of indigenous knowledge on nature. En J. R. Stepp, F. S. Wyndham, and R. Zarger (Eds.), Ethnobiology and Biocultural Diversity: Proceedings of 7th International Congress of Ethnobiology. Athens
dc.relationTrines, E. (2002). Second Expert Meeting on harmonizing forest-related definitions for use by various stakeholders. http://edepot.wur.nl/144587
dc.relationTuhiwai Smith, L. (2013). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books
dc.relationUNFCCC (2003). Modalities and procedures forest afforestation and reforestation activities under the clean development mechanism in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, Decision 19/CP.9, draft decision CMP1 (Land use, land-use change and forestry) UNFCCC/SBSTA 19, 2003
dc.relationUN-REDD+ (2015). Seventh Consolidated Annual Progress Report of the Un-Redd Programme Fund. Report of the Administrative Agent of the UN-REDD Programme Fund for the period 1 January – 31 December 2015. R https://www.unredd.net/documents/programme-progress-reports-785/2015-programme-progress-reports/2015-annual-report/15468-2015-annual-report-the-seventh-consolidated-annual-progress-report-of-the-un-redd-programme-fund.html
dc.relationUribe, M., Uribe. J. (2012). Manejo de las chagras y sus especies. Comunidad Ceima Cachivera, Mitú, Vaupés. Bogotá: Tropenbos Colombia
dc.relationVan Cott, D. L. (2000). The Friendly Liquidation of the Past. The Politics of Diversity in Latin America. Pittsburgh University Press
dc.relationVan der Hammen, M. (1992). El manejo del mundo: Naturaleza y Sociedad entre los Yucuna de la Amazonía. Bogotá: Tropenbos Internacional Colombia
dc.relationVan Der Hammen, M. y Rodríguez, A. (2001). Manejo indígena de la fauna en el medio y bajo rio Caquetá (Amazonia colombiana). Tradición, transformaciones y desafíos para su uso sostenible. Fundación Natura, selección de trabajos V Congreso Internacional de Manejo de fauna silvestre en Amazonia y Latinoamérica
dc.relationVasco, L. (1990). Los embera-chami en guerra contra los cangrejos. La selva humanizada: ecología alternativa en el trópico húmedo colombiano. Bogotá: ICAHN/FEN/CEREC
dc.relationVira, B. et al. (2015). Forests, trees and landscapes for food security and nutrition. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0085.01
dc.relationViveiros de Castro, E. y Danowski, D. (2017). The Ends of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rightsAcceso abierto
dc.rightshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.subjectbosque
dc.subjectcapitalismo
dc.subjectgobernanza
dc.subjectsistemas de conocimiento
dc.subjectindígena
dc.subjectForest, capitalism, governance, knowledge system, indigenous
dc.titleEl bosque más allá del capitalismo: un contraste entre sistemas de conocimiento
dc.typeArtículo de investigación
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.19052/eq.vol1.iss36.4
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
dc.type.contentText
dc.type.coarversionVersión publicada
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.relation.citationstartpage89
dc.relation.citationendpage110
dc.identifier.instnameinstname:Universidad de La Salle
dc.identifier.reponamereponame:Ciencia Unisalle
dc.identifier.repo.urlrepourl:https://ciencia.lasalle.edu.co/
dc.relation.ispartofcitationissue36
dc.relation.ispartofjournalEquidad y Desarrollo
dc.title.translatedThe Forest beyond the Capitalism: A Contrast between Knowledge Systems


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución