Forest Developers, Forest Protectors:Commercial Agroforestry by the Chiripa of ParaguayRichard Reed

Richard Reed is associate professor of anthropology atTrinity University.

Indigenous Agroforestry

In Amazonia, the term "agroforestry" has been used todescribe a variety of production systems. Some ambitious entre-preneurs have replaced native flora and fauna with importedspecies of trees, pasture, and cattle. These efforts have at-tempted to create artificial ecosystems with little resemblanceto the original tropical forest (Goodland 1980). One suchproject, Ford Motor Company's massive rubber plantation ofthe 1930s (Fordlandia), hoped to clear the Amazon Basin andcultivate rubber trees. A more recent scheme, called the "JariProject," tried to replace the Brazilian forest with importedfast-growing pines to produce pulp for the internationalpaper market. Most of these agroforestry projects were finan-cial and technical failures, however. Poorly adapted to thetropical environment, they foundered as the weak topsoil wasquickly washed into the Amazon (Hecht and Cockburn 1989).

A second form of agroforestry is practiced by groups in-digenous to these regions. This agroforestry imposes far lessenvironmental management on the forest. It promotes thegrowth of valuable local plants within the context of theextant system (e.g., Redford and Richards 1987; Denevan andPadoch 1988; Posey and Balee 1989). Although not immedi-ately obvious to the untrained eye, this cultivation system hasaffected the so-called "natural" plant and animal populationsthroughout tropical regions.1

Indigenous agroforestry can be characterized as "sustain-able land use management systems that combine the produc-tion of crops including tree crops, forest plants and/or ani-mals simultaneously or sequentially on the same unit of land,applying management techniques that are compatible with thecultural practices of the local population" (King and Chandler1978). Thus, agroforestry integrates conventional silviculture(tree cultivation) with sustainable agriculture, horticulture,and animal raising.

Indigenous agroforestry protects the fragile tropical re-sources of the Amazon basin. Tropical ecosystems are amongthe most diverse on earth (Prance 1990), but the profusion of

plant and animal life rest on a very thin soil base. Soils lackthe exchangeable bases to capture nutrients and, when theforest canopy is broken, rain quickly washes and leachesfertility away. Agroforestry practiced by native populationsadapts to this environment by mimicking tropical ecosystemsin both space and time. By integrating productive activitiesthat make use of soils, undergrowth, and canopy, agrofor-estry recreates a spatial distribution of life forms like that ofthe tropical biome (Hart 1980). In addition, agroforestry oftenintegrates different activities as a series of stages in a produc-tion cycle, replicating the natural succession of tropical eco-system (Balee 1992; Opler et al. 1980). In horticulture, forexample, gardens give way to fallows that are managed forfoods, and are finally replaced by tree crops that imitate thetropical forest.

Indigenous agroforestry suggests a model of Amazoniandevelopment that both uses and preserves forest ecosystems.Until recently, it was the large-scale, capital intensive, andhighly managed agroforestry projects that attracted attentionof developers of the Amazon. But recent research challengesthe idea that capital intensive, highly focused agroforestryreturns greater profits than more diverse traditional systems.Peters et al. (1989), for example, documents the value of forestproducts in the Ecuadorian Amazon, many which were con-sidered "minor" commodities, and shows that the net reven-ues from less-intensive agroforestry are two to three timesthose of forest conversion2. Therefore, models for sustainableprofits from the forest are being drawn increasingly fromthese labor-intensive agroforestry systems (e.g., Salick 1992;May 1992).

As attention turns to sustainable small-scale agroforestry,the importance of indigenous peoples' production systems isbeing recognized (Posey 1983; Posey et al. 1984), Studies car-ried out in the 1960s emphasized the rationality of the indig-enous practice of shifting garden plots in the infertile soils ofthe moist tropical zones (e.g., Geertz 1963; Wolf 1966). Today,it is recognized that this indigenous horticulture is not simplygardening, but integrates fallows and forest management intocomplex agroforestry systems (Denevan and Padoch 1987;Redford and Padoch 1992). As fallow plots grow to forestunder the management of indigenous gardeners, human in-tervention affects so-called "natural" areas. Thus, not only isagroforestry adapted to the existing forest, it manages thatforest (Gordon 1982; Alcorn 1984; Posey 1985; Posey and Balee

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 22 No. 1 Spring 2D00

1989). Guarani gardening and commercial collecting activities,for example, have subtly, but pervasively, transformed thetropical ecosystem of eastern Paraguay (also see Balee 1992:38-47).

Research has detailed commercial agroforestry amongpeasant groups (e.g., Schwartzman 1986) and agroforestry byindigenous groups who are isolated from the market (Nigheand Nations 1980). The following study builds on this pre-vious work by focusing on commercial agroforestry by an in-digenous group. It explores the sustained market agroforestry ofthe Chiripa of the Mbaracayu hills of eastern Paraguay.Following Ramos (1980,1984), this study suggests that indig-enous groups not only acquire cash through commercial ag-roforestry, they are empowered as a distinct ethnic group inthe process.

The Mbaracayu Region

The Chiripa occupy the low, rolling hills between theParaguay and Parana Rivers. This region is one of the lastlarge tracts of Paraguay's previously vast forests. In manyrespects, it differs little from the Amazon drainage basin thatit borders. The specific ecotypes of the study area are similarto those defined by Hames (1980) in southern Venezuela; thebasic distinction between floodplains (varzea) and uplands(terra firme) is of principal importance. River floodplains arecharacterized by ox-bow lakes and almost impermeable un-dergrowth that extend several hundred meters or many kilo-meters inland. Bamboos predominate as arboreal growth isinhibited by poor soil drainage.

Primary forests above flood levels cover the greatestportion of the region. As the land area increases in height andrelief, the forest canopy rises to almost 30 m with some hard-woods (e.g., Tecoma spp. and Tabebnia ipe) reaching 40 m. Sea-sonal variation distinguishes weather conditions in this re-gion from more tropical systems of equatorial zones. Temper-atures range between February highs of 40QC and July lowsof 16QC in a single annual seasonal cycle. Yearly rainfall var-ies between 1500 and 1700 mm a year; fluctuating from theMarch rainy season average of 180 mm, to the August dryseason average of 50 mm (Bertoni 1972[1906]).

The heavy undergrowth of eastern Paraguay's forestsprovides debris for a considerable layer of litter. In contrast tothe lateritic soils of heavily leached regions, the temperate rainand temperature allow organic material to accumulate underthe canopy forest. The loam averages .5 m and in low areas itoften accumulates to over 1 m. Where the canopy is broken,however, the detritus layer is rapidly destroyed by sunlightand leaching. Residual soils vary from sand to clay andgenerally lack the exchangeable bases necessary foragriculture.

Chiripa Social Organization and History

The Chiripa are remnants of a Guarani population thatonce dominated the region from the Paraguay River to theAtlantic Ocean. The total Chiripa population numbers 5,175,dispersed in 22 communities throughout the departments ofCanendiyu, Alto Parana, and San Pedro from the westernedge of the Parana Plateau to Brazil (INDI1982).3 Social rela-tions in these communities are structured through bilateralkin ties, but without the complex kin-ordering systems ofmany South American forest groups. Lines of descent andmarriage are the structures through which communities areintegrated. Nuclear family households are the primary unit ofproduction and consumption among the Chiripa. Until re-cently, there has been an abundance of forest resources ineastern Paraguay and, especially in this region, communitymembers have had free access to them. Land pressures havenot limited mobility of families or relations between them.4

The forests are extensive, but the Chiripa of easternParaguay have not been isolated. Their communities haveexisted within the matrix of the national economy and societyfor over four centuries. As early as 1530, priests and conquis-tadors explored the rivers of Mbaracayu in search of souls forthe church and goods for international markets. They discov-ered yerba mate (Ilex paraguayensis) and put the Guarani towork harvesting the leaf. Throughout the region's history,yerba mate production, lumber harvesting, and petit graindistillation,5 dominated the region's economy and society.

Extractive industries created a series of economic "booms"in Mbaracayu that reached their peak in the first half of thiscentury. A consortium of powerful Paraguayans purchasedalmost half the country's territory and reduced it to a privatefief. Ports were opened on the rivers and ox-cart tracks cutthrough the forests. Teams of yerbateros, often called "mineros,"were brought into the region, and set to work in the remoteyerbales. They cut their way into the very heart of the desiertoand sent valuable commodities down river to Asuncion andBuenos Aires.

Mestizo colonization in Mbaracayu has been organizedaround powerful caudillos. These power brokers have con-trolled the marketing of produce from the forests and usedtheir economic position to dominate the region's workers andpolitical machinery. The best of Paraguayan literature detailsthe brutality of the feudal estates, where workers toiled indebt-bondage under the watchful eye of the bosses' privatearmies (Barrett 1912; Roa Bastos 1986).

From the first years of the conquest, the Chiripa wereintegrated into the extractive economies. After the demise ofthe Spanish encomiendas they went to work for wages in thedense yerbales. They purchased machetes, axes, salt, and soapwith the cash they earned, becoming consumers of goodsfrom around the world. Even as extractive industries have

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 22 No. 1 Spring 2000

become less important in the national economy, the commer-cial agroforestry it has engendered has remained importantfor the Chiripa economy.

Inter-ethnic contact has not assimilated the indigenouspeoples into the national society. Indigenes have not adoptedthe authoritarian and hierarchical relations of mestizo societynor do they subscribe to its Christian religion. Chiripa haveretained autonomous communities with their distinct kinstructures. Supernatural communication continues to be theprimary source of power for the leaders of Chiripa communities.

Elder family members, called "grandfather" (tamoi), serveas leaders in Chiripa communities. Tamoi organize religiousceremonies and are the primary mediators of relations be-tween the community and the supernatural. They translatetheir religjous understanding into guidance and direction forthe group. Tamoi lack the power to assert their will over thekin group, however, and leaders who advocate unpopularpositions find that their followers quickly disperse to other kingroups.

The ethnic autonomy of the Chiripa stems from economicindependence. They retain their capacity to produce theirsubsistence, even while producing commodities for the mar-ket. Commercial forest crops do not inhibit their subsistenceactivities of gardening, hunting, and gathering. The followingdata point out that the independence of the two productivesystems results from their distinct demands for physical re-sources and labor. The concluding discussion argues that,with simultaneous access to both subsistence and commercialproduction, the Chiripa are not vulnerable to coercion by thefrontier society.

Chiripa Agroforestry

Chiripa agroforestry is similar to that of other forest peo-ples in integrating hunting, fishing, gathering, and farminginto a complex system that provides a dependable subsis-tence throughout the year.6 Unlike many groups however, theChiripa supplement their subsistence production with com-mercial extraction.

The Chiripa have been known primarily as horticultural-ists (Cadogen 1962). This ignores the importance of huntingand fishing to Chiripa subsistence, however, and suggeststhat commercial activity is an aberration from the indigenouseconomy. A survey of family labor shows hunting, fishing,and commercial extraction to be major components of theChiripa economy. Gardening, subsistence foraging and com-mercial extraction occupy roughly equal quantities of Chiripatime. In fact, Table 1 shows that gardening demands slightlyless than a third of the average household's labor, with a thirdor more of their labor time devoted to each of the two otheractivities.7

Table 1Gardening

EconomicCategory

GardeningFishingHuntingCommercial

Extraction

and Labor

LaborTime

31%16%17%

36%

Expenditure

Sexual Divisionof Labor

men and womenmenmen

men

Types ofHabitat

Primary forestsOx-bow lakesWet lowlands

Wet lowlands

The Chiripa contend that they are first and foremost sub-sistence horticulturalists. Every household maintains a gardenplot (chacra in Spanish or a kokue in Guarani) that providesbasic food crops. Chiripa farming is typical slash-and-burnhorticulture, as described by Johnson (1983). In 1982, eco-nomic activities of 27 Chiripa households in Mbaracayii weremonitored over the course of an agricultural cycle. Chiripagardens average just over half a hectare, with an assortmentof crops that satisfies many of the basic needs of the family.These include non-bitter manioc, sweet potato, corn, peanuts,beans, squash, bananas, and melon.

Hunting and fishing provide families with needed pro-tein to supplement garden produce. Almost a third of men'snon-household labor was devoted to these activities, provid-ing fish or meat to each household approximately 60 percentof the days. Most small game, such as the capybara (Hydro-choerus hydrochaeris) and paca (Cuniculus paca), is killed intraps and snares fashioned from twigs, tree trunks, palmfronds, and vines set near communities and gardens. Largergame, such as tapir (Tapirus terrestrius), deer {Mazamaamericanus), white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari), and col-lared peccary (Tayassu tajacu), is trapped farther from thecommunity. Hunting on foot by day, a strategy called marika,is less common. Guns have largely replaced bows. Althoughonly three of the 27 households of the primary research sitehad guns, men will time their hunting to when they can bor-row one of these dilapidated Brazilian shotguns. Chiripa fishfor minnows (piky) in the many streams and eels or large fish(surubf) in the rivers and ox-bow lakes of the region. Mostcommonly, hook and vegetable poisons are used to harvestfish from ox-bow lakes.

Commercial Extraction

The Chiripa engage in a variety of extraction activitiesthat include collecting leaves from yerba and orange trees,hunting pelts,8 harvesting timber, and producing fence posts.The commercial extraction of forest products began in easternParaguay in the 16th century and, although it has declined in

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 22 No. 1 Spring WOO

the last three decades, it remains important for the regionaleconomy.9 Yerba is the focus here, it has provided a sustain-able yield over centuries of harvesting, and remains the dom-inant source of cash for the Chiripa.

Yerba agroforestry differs from systems that depend onintensively managed artificial communities of mixed-speciestree crops (e.g., Goodland and Irwin 1975). The Chiripa sim-ply nurture and harvest the foliage of naturally occurringplants.10 Rather than plant and tend cultivated tree stands, theChiripa search out young saplings in the forest and removeobstacles to their sunlight and growth. Consequently, thedensity of yerba plants in the region increases without cul-tivation. The yerba groves of eastern Paraguay have beenextensively harvested and, as commercial collecting beganalmost four centuries ago, the existing plantations cannot beconsidered "natural." On the contrary, they are the result ofan extensive program of agroforestry.

Yerba trees grow best in caatinga, the moist transitionalzone between the floodplains (varzea) and highlands (terrafirme).u Yerba trees are usually interspersed among taller treesthat provide partial shade and, even in the areas of densestgrowth, yerba constitutes no more than 10 percent of thecover. Areas of dense yerba growth are called yerbales.Processed yerba is the dried fiber of the leaves and twigs ofthe tree. To harvest the product, a minero climbs the tree witha machete and collects all twigs less than 1 cm in diameter,taking care not to detach the leaves from the twigs. Theamount of production of each tree depends on its size and thelength of time since last harvested. Most trees, however, yield10 to 25 kg of green leaves each harvest. These are dried on awooden platform (called barbakua) over a slow-burning fire. Itis possible for a Chiripa to harvest 60 kg of fresh leaf a day, aquantity that yields less than half its weight in dried leaf. Thisallows a man to produce over 200 kg of dried yerba in 10 days.In 1982 the return per kilo was 35 Guarani, leading to a dailyearnings of 700 to 875 Guarani. This sum would purchase 12kilos of salt, 5 kilos of rice or beans, or 5 liters of cooking oil.12

Yerba production cycles are timed to the plants' annualgrowth. The plant puts out leaves in September and Octoberafter the passing of the hot season. These leaves reach theirfull weight in March or April, when harvesting is most profit-able. Thus, the harvest begins in May and extends throughthe year's coolest months.

Yerba collecting depends on a multi-year cycle as well.After harvesting, it is necessary to allow the plant to rest twoyears as it replaces its foliage. Each yerba stand is exploitedevery three years. Collectors move throughout the forest, ex-ploiting different areas each year. This distinguishes yerbacollection from rubber collecting, where individual rubbertappers occupied forest avenidas that were continuouslyharvested.

Yerba groves are considered community resources, notsubject to tenure claims of individuals or families. A com-munity member has the right to collect foliage from a grovenear his community, but doing so does not confer preferencefor future harvesting at the site. Given the extensive growthof yerba trees in the area, conflict over specific harvestingareas is rare.

Resource Allocation Between Production Activities

The Chiripa combine production for food and cash with-out the commercial economy dominating and supplantingsubsistence production. Producers shift emphasis betweenthe two, but are never totally dependent on one system or theother. By maintaining a mixed economy that includes com-mercial gathering, but is not dominated by it, the indigenouspopulation has been able to engage in commercial activitieswithout becoming tied to the exploitative relations they oftenengender.

How have the Chiripa integrated commercial agrofor-estry and subsistence production without the dominance ofthe former and the degradation of the latter? The answer liesin the compatibility of their demands for two primary re-sources, physical materials and labor. (Capital is only a minorfactor in these productive activities.) The following surveysthe allocation of these two resources between productionspheres.

Physical ResourcesChiripa agroforestry does not degrade the viability and

biological diversity of the forest. More than simply sustainingforests, resource demands of yerba production in easternParaguay integrate with those of other ecologically sustain-able production systems of the Chiripa, notably hunting, fish-ing, and horticulture. Extractive activities do not depend onthe soils and forest resources used in Chiripa subsistenceproduction.

Even when commercial extraction increases and intensi-fies, it does not degrade the resources of other subsistenceactivities.13 The growth of the commodity market causes moreextensive production, but not more intensive production inpreviously exploited areas. As the trunk and larger branchesprovide no usable fiber, there is no incentive to destroy theproductive base of the yerba economy. Rather than cause de-structive harvesting, higher prices drive commercial activitiesfarther into the forest, giving collectors incentive to exploitnew and less dense yerbales.

Labor ResourcesLabor is the second critical resource being allocated

between the diverse activities.14 Households engage in variousproduction strategies using limited labor resources. As

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 22 No. 1 Spring 2D00

production activities change, workers must move back andforth between the different activities. If production cycles ov-erlapped, labor demands in market work might conflict withsubsistence production. This would force the dislocation ofone sector. For example, if commercial agroforestry restrictedthe labor flow to subsistence production, indigenous groupscould be forced farther and permanently into the larger econ-omy and society.

The following analyzes men's labor allocation betweenthe three general types of production: horticulture, forest sub-sistence activities (hunting and fishing), and commercial gath-ering. For the purposes of identifying the integration of sys-tems of resource exploitation, it is useful to define severalcycles for labor allocation: seasonal changes, members' lifestages, and commercial cycles. Given the purpose of thispaper, I will restrict my focus to the first of these cycles, thatof the annual pattern of labor allocation. This yearly cycle oflabor allocation within household economies has been di-vided into four periods, beginning with the start of the horti-cultural year.15

The technical aspects of the various productive processeslargely define the yearly labor cycle. The rhythm of clearing,planting, and harvesting determines the periodicity of laborin and production from horticulture. Similarly, hunting andfishing is improved or impeded by seasonal changes. Evenwage labor and commodity production activities vary pre-dictably throughout the year.

During the first period, from 1 July until 30 September,gardening labor consumes over a third of men's labor time.Mid-July marks the beginning of the horticultural cycle, andthere is considerable pressure on men to clear the fields sothey may be burned during the August dry period. This isalso the time of greatest protein scarcity. In 1983, men spent22.1 percent of their time hunting and fishing, primarily trap-ping. Wage labor is also an important source of food in thisearly part of the annual cycle. Men devoted 43.5 percent oftheir labor to commercial work. Over half of this wage laborwas for fence-post cutting in the forests, reflecting high pricesand that, in this season, new yerba leaves are low in alkaloids(Table 2).

The second period, from October through December,shows less labor demand in horticulture and an increase inthe amount of work in wage labor and hunting. In 1983, theaverage amount of men's labor devoted to horticulture droppedas forest subsistence work climbed to almost a third of themen's work activities. In a seasonal survey of meals, 20 per-cent included meat from hunting or trapping. Forty-threepercent of men's total working time in this period was de-voted to wage labor. This increased rate evinces the freedomthat men have acquired from horticulture, combined with theshortage of foodstuffs and a lack of fishing opportunitiescaused by high water. In a trend that continued throughoutthe remaining research period, prices of fence poles droppedand men began to abandon post production.

The third period is characterized by fishing and com-mercial forest work. Chiripa men allocate little labor to horti-culture, and fishing increases in importance as waters recedeto allow access to ox-bow lakes. Freed from horticulture, wagelabor plays a greater role in men's time, climbing to almosthalf of the men's labor.

Forest subsistence and wage labor also characterize thefinal period in the seasonal pattern of production, with verylittle horticulture by men. Forest subsistence activities, mostlyfishing, continue to demand considerable labor. In 1983, men'swage labor decreased, but as leaves matured and prices forposts declined, yerba gathering became the principal cashearner. In a trend that increased throughout the remainingresearch period, prices of fence posts dropped and yerbabegan to replace fence post production as a means to cash.

In sum, the coordinated resource demands of these activi-ties allow Chiripa freedom in choosing productive activities.First, men allocate labor to and have returns from two andpossibly three different activities at any time. They are neverdependent on a single source for subsistence. Second, in anannual cycle, producers move between activities that pre-dominate during specific seasons, spending a greater amountof time first in horticulture, then fishing and hunting, andfinally in wage labor.

Conclusion

TableMen's

Period

1 7/1 -2 10/13 1/1 -4 4/1 -

2Annual

Date

9/28- 12/303/15/30

Labor Allocation

Gardening

34.3%28.115.014.1

(1983)

Hunting

22.1%28.637.348.7

Forestry

43.5%43.047.737.2

The agroforestry practiced by the Chiripa provides a modelfor tropical forest development throughout the Amazon,which both protects the forest biome and empowers indig-enous groups. Extractive economies have provided sustainedprofits without destroying the tropical environment. For cen-turies, Chiripa have promoted the growth of wild yerba seed-lings and harvested the product. The exploitation of the forestcanopy has not removed critical cover, but has preserved andpromoted its growth. With the forest intact, undergrowth,soils, and hydraulic systems have been protected as a series of

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 22 No. 1 Spring 2D00

integrated systems. Although the biome has been clearlyaffected by the activity, its diversity and viability have re-mained intact.

The present case emphasizes important social effects ofthese systems: commercial extraction preserves human eco-logical relations that have allowed indigenous groups relativeindependence in the larger society and economy. The inte-grated productive strategies in this agroforestry system haveallowed the indigenous groups access to cash income, with-out forcing them to abandon subsistence activities. With ac-cess to subsistence production from both gardens and theforest, Chiripa households have more than one alternative towage labor. This allows them to engage in agroforestry whenprices are high and abandon it if prices fall or merchants payunsatisfactory rates. They can become involved in the com-mercial agroforestry without submitting to exploitation asitinerant wage laborers or debt-bondage peons. Thus, ratherthan having the effect of dispersing the Chiripa throughindividual ties to the larger society, commercial extraction hasempowered indigenous communities to remain intact withinthe context of the national system.

Critical analysis, both basic and applied, is needed if weare to generalize from cases such as the Chiripa. Research isdesperately needed concerning indigenous ethno-ecologicalknowledge. Forest societies provide new information aboutthe tropical environment. The Chiripa, for example, point outthat hunting by mestizos is destroying the ground birdsneeded to germinate yerba. Further research is needed to doc-ument environmental models of other indigenous peoples.Posey (1983, 1984) began this work with the Kayapo, and ithas been continued by a variety of studies (e.g., Posey andBalee 1989). Without a full understanding of these models, wewill be forced to continue our present series of trials and thecostly errors they entail.

Notes

1. Working among the Kayapo of central Brazil, Darrell Posey hasanalyzed a variety of aspects of indigenous activities in tropical for-ests; two are important to this research. First, Posey points out thatindigenous peoples' perceptions of tropical ecosystems are moredetailed and often more accurate than those of developers and col-onists. Second, he proposes that indigenous peoples have activelymanaged their forests by manipulating regrowth in fallows andgrowth in natural areas.

Posey's model of indigenous management of the forest has comeunder criticism from Parker (1992, 1993). Parker claims that Poseyexaggerated the extent and intensity of Kayapo manipulation of thenatural world. He argues that forest islands in savanna areas are notcreated by humans, but are naturally occurring. The difference is inboth data and interpretation. Posey reported that Kayapo trans-planted the majority of plants in these forest islands. Parker's re-analysis of Pose/s research site suggested the majority occurred insurrounding ecozoncs. Posey suggested that native informants used

almost all the plants; Parker's interviews with Kayapo sug-gestedthey found less than half useful.

More important than resolving this particular disagreement, thedifference between Parker and Posey raises important issues. First,it calls attention to the paucity of data about tropical micro-ecozones.Posey's argument and Parker's critique rest on analysis of only twosmall islands surrounding one Kayapo community. One can onlyhope that the attention that the conflict attracts will foster additionalresearch that will contribute to a better understanding of the di-versity of tropical habitats. Second, the debate emphasizes the im-portance of indigenous conceptualization of the ecological world.Both Posey and Parker depend on indigenous people's own defi-nition of plant species and uses and, in fact, much of the disagree-ment revolves around the differing responses of only two informants.This points out not simply the complexity of cultural research, but theproblems inherent in reducing it to scientists' objective reality.

2. Returns per hectare from marketing latex, fruits, nuts, and selectedhardwoods are four times those from cattle ranching on the sameland. The long-term profits from this sustained harvesting of treecrops not only surpasses the profits from clear cutting, but the aver-age annual returns from one hectare of tree crops approximate theimmediate profits from logging that land.

3. Data concerning land use and labor patterns were gathered in fiveChiripa communities along the Jejui River between November 1981and October 1983. In total, 14 months were spent with the Chiripa.The National Science Foundation and the Inter-American Foundationsupported research.

4. At present, the communities within the study region each haveunrestricted control over approximately 1500 hectares and have ac-cess to additional land for gathering, hunting, and fishing in the vastforests that remain throughout the region. These communities havebeen provided status as Colonias Nacionales by the Paraguayan na-tional agency of land reform. The government has restricted the saleor private development of these lands, leaving the indigenous resi-dents to do all but massive clear cutting of the forests. Only one ofthe communities studied has significantly less land, having lost 700hectares to an unscrupulous military officer. Since this research, thecommunities have acquired inalienable title over their lands.

5. Petit grain is the oil of the wild orange plant (Citrus Vidgaris),which grows throughout eastern Paraguay. It is distilled from thefoliage and used for perfumes and flavoring.

6. This does not suggest that some periods are not characterized bymore hunger and others by more abundance, rather that the Chiripaperceive their food resources to be adequate for subsistence.

7. Labor allocation was determined by random visits to householdsover a period of eleven months in 1982, with a total sample size ofadult labor activities of 1475 time points. The research design isoutlined by Johnson (1975).

8. Most of the animal skins sold by hunters of the primary researchsite in 1983 were from collared peccary. They comprised 65 percentof all skins sold and accounted for 90 percent of the total earnings.Until international restrictions destroyed the market for cat skins,these pelts were also important sources of income.

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 22 No. 1 Spring 2000

9. Day labor in commercial agriculture and ranching has recentlybecome another means by which the Chiripa earn cash, comprising28 percent of their work for cash. As the social implications of thiswork differ from extraction, it is dealt with elsewhere (Reed 1994).

10. Few individuals are willing to invest the considerable energynecessary to cultivate plants over which they have little control.Cultivating yerba is difficult, as the seeds' hard pericarp is only per-meable after passing through the digestive track of the Jacu (Aburriajacuiinga). Furthermore, it is difficult to defend one's labor invest-ment in the forest. Chiripa consider the forest to be free from indi-vidual tenure claims; there is no mechanism that allows a silvi-culturalist to restrict others from cultivated yerba stands.

11. This zone, classified as ka'ati by the Chiripa, is more thoroughlydescribed by Moran (1993).

12 In 1982, $1.00 officially equaled 126 Guaranis, the parallel mar-ketoffered 300-400 Guaranis. Daily earnings amounted to $5.50-$7.00.

13. Extraction responds quickly to international price fluctuations,which make manufactured goods more or less accessible. Climbingyerba prices draw Chiripa into commercial gathering and bring newforested areas into production.

14. Labor allocation was determined by a stratified sample of visits tohouseholds during daylight hours (twelve hours from April throughSeptember and thirteen hours from October through March) over aperiod of eleven months in 1982, with a total sample size of adultlabor activities of 1475 time-points. The sample has been weighted tocompensate for different sample sizes when cross-tabulated by hourand date. The research design is outlined by Johnson (1975). "Labor"is defined as the non-leisure activities that men perform outside thehouse lot, including horticulture, forest subsistence production(hunting, fishing, and gathering), and wage labor. This labor ac-counts for 27.6 percent of the total daylight hours and 65 percent ofmen's total active time. For purposes of highlighting the flow of laborbetween productive spheres, women's labor is ignored (womenrarely hunt, fish, or practice agrofores try). Household food prepara-tion and family care (termed "domestic labor") are also excluded, asthey are performed by women 80 percent of time.

15. Given the diversity of the Chiripa economic activity, dividing thecycle into periods is inevitably arbitrary. These periods are chosen toshow the yearly changes in the primary economic activities, be-ginning with the start of the year's gardening cycle. The periods arenot determined by specific seasons.

References Cited

Alcorn, J.1984 Huastec Mayan Ethnobotany. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

Balee, W.1992 People of the Fallow. In Conservation of Neotropical For-

ests: Working from Traditional Resource Use. K. Redfordand C. Padoch, eds. New York: Columbia University Press.

Balick, M.1985 Useful Plants of Amazonia: A Resource of Global Impor-

tance. In Amazonia. G. Prance and T. Lovejoy, eds. Pp. 46-64. New York: Pergamon.

Bertoni, M.1972[1926] El mentor agricola. Puerto Bertoni, Paraguay: Ex

Sylvis.

Clay,J.1988 Indigenous Peoples and Tropical Forests: Models for Land

Use and Management From Latin America. Cambridge,MA: Cultural Survival.

Davis, S.1977 Victims of the Miracle: Development and the Indians of

Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Denevan, W., and C. Padoch1987 Swidden-Fallow Agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon.

New York: New York Botanical Gardens.

Geertz, C.1963 Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change

in Indonesia. Berkeley. University of California Press.

Goodland, R., and H. Irwin1975 Amazon Jungle: Green Hell to Red Desert? Amsterdam:

Elsevier Publishing.

Haney, E.1968 The Nature of Shifting Cultivation in Latin America. Land

Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin 45:1-29.

Hart, Robert1980 A Natural Ecosystem Analog Approach to the Design of a

Successional Crop System for Tropical Forest Environ-ments. Tropical Succession 1980:73-82.

Hawkes, K., and K. Hill1983 Neotropical Hunting Among the Ache of Eastern Paraguay.

In Adaptive Responses of Native Amazonians. R. Hamesand W. Vickers, eds. Pp. 102-120. New York: AcademicPress.

Hecht, S., and A. Cockburn1989 The Fate of the Forest. New York: Verso.

Hecht, S., and A. Anderson, and P. May1988 The Subsidy from Nature: Shifting Cultivation, Successional

Palm Forests and Development. Human Organization 47(1):25-35.

Johnson, A.1975 Time Allocation in a Machiguenga Community. Ethnology

14(3) :301 -310.1983 Machiguenga gardens. In Adaptive Responses of Native

Amazonians. R. Hames and W. Vickers, eds. Pp. 142-157.New York: Academic Press.

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 22 No. 1 Spring 1000

King, K., and M. Chandler1978 The Wasted Lands. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF.

Leon, L., and R. Reed1987 Cultural Survival Projects. Cultural Survival Quarterly 9:4.

Linares, O.1976 Garden Hunting in the American Tropics. Human Ecology

4:331-349.May, P.

1992 Common Property Resources in the Neotropics In Conser-vation of Neotropical Forests: Working from TraditionalResource Use. K. Redford and C. Padoch, eds. Pp. 359-379.New York: Columbia University Press.

Padoch, C. et. al.1985 Amazonian Agroforestry: A Market Oriented System in

Peru. Agroforestry Systems 3(l):47-58.

Parker, E.1992 Forest Islands and Kayapo Resource Management in

Amazonia: A Reappraisal of the Apete. American Anthro-pologist 94(3):406-427.

1993 Fact or Fiction in Amazonia: The Case of the Apete.American Anthropologist 95(4):715-723.

Peters, C, A. Gentry, and R. Mendelsohn1989 Valuation of an Amazonian Rainforest. Commentary 339:

655-656

Posey, D.1983 Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Development of the

Amazon. In The Dilemma of Amazonian Development. E.Moran, ed. Pp. 225-257. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Posey, D., et al.1984 Ethnoecology and Amazonian Development. Human

Organization 43(2):94-107.

Posey, D., and G. Balee1989 Resource Management in Amazonia. New York: New York

Botanical Gardens.

Prance, G.1990 Fruits of the Rainforest. New Scientist 13 January.

Ramos, A.1984 Frontier Expansion and Indian Peoples in the Brazilian

Amazon. In Frontier Expansion in Amazonia. M. Schminkand C. Wood, ed. Pp. 233-267. Gainesville: University Pressof Florida.

1980 Development, Integration and the Ethnic Integrity ofBrazilian Indians. In Land, People and Planning in Con-temporary Amazonia. F. Barbira-Scassachio, ed. Pp. 176-192.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Redford, K., and C. Padoch, eds.1992 Conservation of Neotropical Forests: Working from Tradi-

tional Resource Use. New York: Columbia University Press.

Redford, K., and J. Richards1987 The Game of Choice. American Anthropologist 87:650- 665.

Reed, R.1995 The Prophets of Agroforestry: Guarani Communities and

Commerical Harvesting. University of Texas Press.

Salick, J.1992 Amuesha Forest Use and Management. In Conservation of

Neotropical Forests: Working from Traditional Re-sourceUse. K. Redford and C. Padoch, eds. Pp. 305-333. New York:Columbia University Press.

Schwartzman, S.1986 Seringueiros Defend the Rainforest in Amazonia. Cultural

Survival Quarterly 10(2):22-25.

Schwartzman, S., and M. Allegretti1989 Extractive Production in the Amazon and the Rubber

Tappers Movement. In Deforestation Processes and Alter-natives. S. Hecht and J. Nations, eds. Pp. 77-92. Cambridge,MA: Schenkman Press.

Schmink, M., and C. Wood, eds.1984 Frontier Expansion in Amazonia. Gainesville: University

Press of Florida.

Treachy, J.1982 Bora Indian Agroforestry: An Alternate to Deforestation.

Cultural Survival Quarterly 6(2):16-17.

Vickers, W.1983 Development and Amazonian Indians: The Aguarico Case

and Some General Principles. In The Dilemma of Amazon-ian Development. E. Moran, ed. Pp.25-51. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Wolf, E.1966 Peasants. New York: Prentice Hall.

Culture & Agriculture Vol. 22 No. 1 Spring 2000