Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 99–131 | Cite as

What Happens to Traditional Knowledge and Use of Natural Resources When People Migrate?

  • Ingrid NesheimEmail author
  • Shivcharn S. Dhillion
  • Kristi Anne Stølen
Article

The study investigates traditional knowledge of forest plants in a community (La Quetzal) inhabited by people who returned to Guatemala at the end of the civil war, after 10–12 years in exile in Southern Mexico, and now are in the process of constructing a new community in the Lacandon jungle in the Petén, Guatemala. We ask if the basis of knowledge and the use of natural resources change when people migrate. The relevance of vascular plant diversity for consumption and other daily needs of the population is explored. Relatively few species are presently used, with the exception of timber species, where knowledge seems to be increasing. Traditional knowledge has been maintained in certain areas such as medicine. Nature as such is regarded as important primarily as potential monetary capital and not for its subsistence capital. We find that the refugee situation has led to the introduction of global consumption patterns. Still there continues to be a dynamic local intuitive knowledge arising directly from practical experiences. Two interlinked factors have been the driving forces altering the knowledge and the use of natural resources by the people in La Quetzal: Change in the natural environment and change in the social and economic environment.

KEY WORDS

ethnobotany forced migration resettlement traditional ecological knowledge non-timber forest products Maya Biosphere Reserve 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the organization Centro Maya, the Biology Department at the University of San Carlo, and the Consejo Nacional de Areas protegidas, CONAP, for assistance and collaboration when in Guatemala. Thanks are also due to Robin Foster at the Field Museum in Chicago, Ron Liesner at the Missouri Botanical Garden, Caroline Withford at the Natural History Museum, London, for help with the identification of the plant collection, and Renske Ek at the University of Utrecht for valuable comments and support. Above all, the authors would like to thank the people in community La Quetzal (the cooperative Union Maya Itzá) for their hospitality and assistance during fieldwork. Without their collaboration this work could not have been done. This research is part of the Management of Biodiversity research group at The Centre for Development and The Environment, SUM University of Oslo. The project is financed by the Norwegian Research Council.

REFERENCES

  1. Ampornpan, L. A., and Dhillion, S. S. (eds.) (2003). The Environment of Na Haeo, Thailand: Biodiversity, Non-Timber Products, Land Use and Conservation, Craftsman Press, Bangkok.Google Scholar
  2. Anaya, J. (1996). Indigenous Peoples in International Law, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Atran, S., Medin, D., Ross, N., Lynch, E., Vapnarsky, V., Ucan Ek, E., Coley, J., Timura, C., and Baran, M. (2002). Folkecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons. Current Anthropology 43: 421–450.Google Scholar
  4. Begossi, A., Hanazaki, N., and Tamashiro, J. Y. (2002). Medicinal plants in the Atlantic Forest (Brazil): Knowledge, use and conservation. Human Ecology 30(3): 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkes, F. (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective. In Inglis, J. T. (ed.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, Canadian Museum of Nature and the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  6. Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred Ecology, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  7. Boom, B. M. (1987). Ethnobotany of the Chácobo Indians, Beni, Bolivia. Advances in Economic Botany 4: 1–68.Google Scholar
  8. Browder, J. O. (1992). Social and economic constrains on the development of market-oriented extractive reserves in Amazon rain forest. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 33–41.Google Scholar
  9. Byg, A., and Balslev, H. (2001). Traditional knowledge of Dypsis fibrosa (Arecaceae) in Easern Madagascar. Economic Botany 55(2): 263–275.Google Scholar
  10. Caballero, J. N., and Mapes, C. S. (1985). Gathering and subsistence patterns among the Púrhepecha Indians of Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 5(1): 31–47.Google Scholar
  11. Carr, D. L. (2004). Ladino and Qéqchí Maya land use and clearing in the Sierra de Lacandón National Park, Petén, Guatemala. Agriculture and Human Values 21: 171–179.Google Scholar
  12. Comerford, S. C. (1996). Medicinal plants of two Mayan healers from San Andrés, Peten, Guatemala. Economic Botany 50(3): 327–336.Google Scholar
  13. CONAP, Consejo Nacional de Areas protegidas (1989). Estudio Técnico: La Reserva de la Biósfera Maya, CONAP, Guatemala.Google Scholar
  14. DeeWalt, S. J., Genevieve, B., Chávez De Michel, L. R., and Quenevo, C. (1999). Ethnobotany of the Tacana: Quantitative inventories of two permanent plots of Northwestern Bolivia. Economic Botany 53(3): 237–260.Google Scholar
  15. Dennis, P., et al. (1988). Development under fire: The Playa Grande Colonization Project in Guatemala. Human Organization 47(1): 69–76.Google Scholar
  16. Dhillion, S. S., and Gustad, G. (2004). Local management practices influence the viability of the baobab (Adansonia digitata) in different land use types, Cinzana, Mali. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 101: 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellen, R. (2000). Local knowledge and sustainable development in veveloping countries. In Keekok, L., Holland, A., and McNeil, D. (eds.), Global Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 163–186.Google Scholar
  18. Emch, M. (2003). The human ecology of Mayan Cacao farming in Belize. Human Ecology 31(1): 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etkin, N. L. (2000). Local knowledge of biotic diversity and its conservation in rural Hausaland, Northern Nigeria. Economic Botany 56(1): 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Falla, R. (1992). Masacres en la selva: Ixcán, Guatemala (1975–1982), Editorial Universitaria, Guatemala.Google Scholar
  21. Ford, J., and Martinez, D. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge, ecosystem science, and environmental management. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1249–1250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., and Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151–156.Google Scholar
  23. Gadgil, M., Rao, S. P. R., Utkarsh, G., Pramod, P., and Chhatre, A. (2000). New meanings of old knowledge: The people's biodiversity program. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1307–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldman, E. A. (1951). Biological Investigations in Mexico, Smithsonian Institution, Publ. 4017, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Gomez-Pompa, A., and Kaus, A. (1990). Traditional management of tropical forest in Mexico. In Anderson, A. B. (ed.), Alternatives to Deforestation: Steps Toward Sustainable Use for the Amazon Rain Forest, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 43–60.Google Scholar
  26. Grenard, P. (1992). The use and cultural significance of the secondary forest among the Wayapi Indians. In Plotkin, M., and Famolare, L. (eds.), Sustainable Harvest and Marketing of Rain Forest Products, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 27–40.Google Scholar
  27. Gustad, G., Dhillion, S. S., and Sidibé, D. (2004). Local use, and cultural and economic value of products from trees in the parklands of the municipality of Cinzana, Mali. Economic Botany 58: 578–587.Google Scholar
  28. Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1270–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ibarra-Manriquez, G., Ricker, M., Angels, G., Colín, S. S., and Colín, M. A. S. (1997). Useful plants of the Los Tuxtlas Rain Forest (Veracruz, Mexico): Considerations of their market potential. Economic Botany 51(4): 362–376.Google Scholar
  30. ILO. (2003). http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/about/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  31. Lundell, C. L. (1937). Vegetation of Petén, Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  32. Momberg, F., Puri, R., and Jessup, T. (2000). Exploitation of Gaharu, and forest conservation efforts in the Kayan Mentarang National Park, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. In Zerner, C. (ed.), People, Plants and Justice, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 259–284.Google Scholar
  33. Mutchenick, P. A., and McCarthy, B. C. (1997). An ethnobotanical analysis of the tree species common to the subtropical moist forests of the Petén, Guatemala. Economic Botany 51(2): 158–183.Google Scholar
  34. Nations, J. D. (1992). Xateros, chicleros, and pimenteros: Harvesting renewable tropical forest resources in the Guatemala Petén. In Redford, K. H., and Padoch, C. (eds.), Conservation of Neotropical Forests: Working from Traditional Resource Use, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 208–219.Google Scholar
  35. Nepstad, D. C. (1992). Conclusions and recommendations, the challenge of non-timber forest product extraction. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 143–146.Google Scholar
  36. Nesheim, I., Dhillion, S. S., and Stølen, K. A. (2003). Traditional knowledge of plant resourses in a resettelment community, La Quetzal, Petén, Guatemala. SUM Working Paper 2003/1, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  37. Padoch, D. (1992). Marketing of non-timber forest products in Western Amazonia: General observations and research priorities. Advances in Economic Botany 9: 43–50.Google Scholar
  38. Phillips, O. (1991). The ethnobotany and economic botany of tropical vines. In Putz, F. E., and Mooney, H. A. (eds.), The Biology of Vines, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 427–475.Google Scholar
  39. Phillips, O. L., and Gentry, A. H. (1993). The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I. Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47: 15–32.Google Scholar
  40. Prance, G. T., Balée, W., Boom, B. M., and Carneiro, R. L. (1987). Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1: 296– 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reining, C., and Heinzman, R. (1992b). Nontimber forest products in the Petén, Guatemala: Why extractive reserves are critical for both conservation and development. In Plotkin, M., and Famolare, L. (eds.), Sustainable Harves and Marketing of Rain Forest Products, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 110–117.Google Scholar
  42. Reining, C. C. S., Heinzman, R. M., Madrid, M. C., López, S., and Solórzano, A. (1992). Non Timber Products of the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala, Conservation International Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. Salafsky, N., Dugelby, B. L., and Terborgh, J. W. (1993). Can extractive reserves save the rainforest? An ecological and socioeconomic comparison of nontimber forest product extraction systems in Petén, Guatemala, and East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conservation Biology 7 (1): 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwartz, N. B. (1990). Forest Society, a Social History of Petén, Guatemala, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  45. SEGEPLAN (Secretaria General del Consejo de Planificación Economica Nacional) (1992). Region VIII. APESAR, Santa Elena, Petén, Guatemala.Google Scholar
  46. Salazar, M. E., and Cancino J. C. M. (1998). Plan de manejo forestal ``Cooperativa Union Maya Itzá'' La Libertad, Petén, Guatemala. Proyecto Centro Maya, Petén, Guatemala.Google Scholar
  47. Shrestha, P. M., and Dhillion, S. S. (2003). Traditional medicinal plant use and diversity in the highlands of Dolakha district, Nepal. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 86: 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shriar, A. J. (2001). The dynamics of agricultural intensification and resource conservation in the buffer zone of the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Petén, Guatemala. Human Ecology 29(1): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stølen, K. A. (2000). Creating a better life: Participatory communitarian development among Guatemalan returnees, SUM Working Paper 2000, 3, University of Oslo, Oslo.Google Scholar
  50. Stølen, K. A. (2003). Constructing the future: Experiences of Guatemalan returnees. In Shanmugaratnam, N., et al. (eds.), In the Maze of Displacement. Conflict, Migration and Change, Norwegian Academic Press, Kristiansand.Google Scholar
  51. Stølen, K. A. (2004). The reconstruction of community and identity among Guatemalan returnees. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 77.Google Scholar
  52. Toledo, V. M., Batis, A. I., Becerra, R., Martínez, E., and Ramos, C. H. (1992). Products from the tropical rain forests of Mexico: An ethnoecological approach. In Plotkin, M., and Famolare, L. (eds.), Sustainable Harvest and Marketing of Rain Forest Products, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 99–109.Google Scholar
  53. Tabuti, J. R. S., Dhillion, S. S., and Lye, K. A. (2003). Traditional medicine in Bulamogi County, Uganda: Its practioners, uses and viability. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 85: 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turner, N. J., Ignace, M. B., and Ignace, R. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1275–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. United States Agency for International Development /Government of Guatemala (1991). Plan de acción forestal para Guatemala, Republica de Guatemala.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid Nesheim
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Shivcharn S. Dhillion
    • 1
  • Kristi Anne Stølen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Development and the Environment (SUM)University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Centre for Devlopment and the Environment (SUM)University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations