Legal Pluralism, Forest Conservation, and Indigenous Capitalists: The Case of the Kalanguya in Tinoc, the Philippines

Abstract

The Philippines is one of the many countries that currently acknowledge the presence of indigenous peoples (IPs) within their territories. This acknowledgment often comes with a formal recognition of the rights of IPs, including the right to practice their customary laws. Because of the equal existence of overarching state laws, this formally leads to a situation of legal pluralism for IPs. For many forest conservation advocates, legal pluralism for IPs, particularly with regard to land ownership and forest management, is expected to help conserve forests. This expectation, however, is founded on the erroneous assumption that the traditional land use of IPs is nondestructive and that traditional land ownership is communal. Using a relatively long historical perspective, this article demonstrates that these assumptions do not apply to the Kalanguya of Tinoc, the Philippines. In contrast to the notion of IPs being market-averse, this article further demonstrates that many Kalanguya have been and remain "capitalists". The article favors the inclusion of a market-based forest conservation policy, which is arguably consistent with the reality of value pluralism.

Conflicting Sovereignties: Global Conservation, Protected Areas, and Indigenous Nations in the Peruvian Amazon

“…In this view, market mechanisms aligned with economic incentives ensure conservation; otherwise, Indigenous Peoples would join those who exploit the forest without environmental concern (Lu Holt 2005). For instance, Albano et al (2015), using a long historical perspective, found that the Kalanguya people in the Philippines have practiced both destructive and nondestructive land use, acting as market players (Albano et al 2015).…”

“…The gap between global discourses and actual conservation arrangements responds to the different images of Indigenous Peoples' relationship with nature deployed by international actors, Indigenous movements, and national authorities. These images navigate between conceiving Indigenous communities as market players (Albano et al 2015) who need economic incentives to keep them from joining illegal loggers (Zaitchik 2018) and conceiving them as forest stewards whose interests align with environmental protection (De Bont 2015;Lu Holt 2005;Reimerson, 2013).…”