Indigenous forestry: How to turn localised knowledge into a relevant forestry science

I have worked for the last 17 years on local knowledge related to forest use, managementand domestication by farmers in Congo and Indonesia. I have learned a lot from thesefarmers and I have been struck by the sterile confrontation between them and professionalforesters in the field of local forest management. I have tried my best to promote ideasfor an alternative forestry based on the validation of local rights, practices and knowledge.I am therefore convinced that there is a profound need for renewal of the forestryapproach and that this renewal should start from local bases and use local knowledgeand practices as its foundation. However, the following contribution is written as a noteof caution.Recently, probably as a consequence of the worldwide promotion of ‘sustainability’and ‘equitability’ in the development business, some changes have occurred in the attitudeof foresters towards local knowledge: forest development now seems to attach greatimportance to ‘indigenous people’ and their ‘traditional knowledge’. These changes,which touch research as well as action forestry, have often been more superficial andfashionable than carefully thought-out. Many scientists from various disciplines, aswell as many professional foresters, have been stimulated to learn more about localknowledge. However, these people often proceed without the relevant intellectual,methodological and theoretical background, and contribute to the reduction of localknowledge into a set of utilitarian practices. In development, this often translates intostandardisation of ‘local knowledge’ where policy-makers and development agenciesretain one or two simple local techniques of forest production and drop the wholesocio-ecological context that sustains it. An illustration of this is seen in the proposedextension of local agroforestry practices from southern Sumatra to the whole provinceby the regional forestry services (Dinas, 1995; Michon et al., 2000).The main question that should lead our reflection in this volume is the following: arewe looking for a catalogue of attractive knowledge and practices, or for a revolution ofour own forestry science My preference is clearly for the second, but if this is to be aviable and really successful enterprise we need to shape it into a solid science. In thisrespect, my contribution aims at pointing out the dangers, and proposing relevantalternatives, in this foundation of a new field in forestry.

---

• View source