In 1993, Chile adopted an Indigenous Law that allowed land restitution; By 2023, more than 510,000 acres had been returned to Mapuche communities, but native forest cover had barely changed
In 1993, Chile passed an important Indigenous Law that created a formal process to return ancestral lands to indigenous communities. Over the next 30 years, more than 510,000 acres were returned to the Mapuche, Chile’s largest indigenous group. However, a long-term study found that the native forest cover on these lands has changed very little. Researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and the University of Talca studied 1,577 plots returned to Mapuche ownership between 1994 and 2023. The study, published in Nature Sustainability, found that non-native commercial forest plantations decreased by 18%, while agricultural pastures increased by 4.5%. However, there was no statistically significant improvement in biodiversity, carbon storage or soil erosion control. The findings challenge the idea that returning land to indigenous communities automatically leads to environmental restoration.
Traditional land use shapes outcomes
The Mapuche resisted Spanish colonial forces for centuries and maintained control over their territory until military campaigns by Chile and Argentina between 1860 and 1881 took control of their lands. The Mapuche population was eventually confined to about 3,000 small reserves. After decades of conflict, Chile’s 1993 Indigenous Law created a system by which the government could purchase land from private owners and return it to Mapuche communities. To study the environmental effects of the program, researchers used satellite images and government data. They compared land that had already been returned with similar parcels that were still awaiting restitution. The results showed that land use after restitution was mainly influenced by traditional economic activities rather than by large-scale efforts to restore native forests. Dany Jaimovich, lead author of the study and professor of economics at the University of Talca, explained that the increase in pastures was consistent with traditional Mapuche agricultural practices. “Livestock has been fundamental to the Mapuche economy for centuries,” said Jaimovich. He noted that horses, firearms and livestock became important to the Mapuche and helped them maintain their independence before the military campaigns of the 19th century. The researchers were surprised that native forest cover did not increase. Felipe Jordán, assistant professor at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and former UCSB postdoctoral researcher, said they expected native forests to expand because forests have great cultural importance to the Mapuche.
Land rights and environmental restoration are different goals
The researchers emphasized that the primary goal of land restitution is to address historical injustice and restore indigenous communities’ control over their lands. It should not automatically be treated as an environmental restoration program. Robert Heilmayr, lead author of the study and associate professor at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, said land rights give communities the power to decide how their land should be used. Those decisions may not always match external environmental expectations. He said claims that indigenous land reforms will always produce environmental benefits are too simple. According to Heilmayr, the primary goal of restitution should be to restore rights and address historical dispossession. If governments also want environmental restoration, they may need to provide direct financial support so communities can afford costly conservation projects. Jaimovich said the findings add further detail to the common belief that Indigenous land ownership automatically produces better environmental outcomes.
A different situation from that of virgin indigenous lands
The researchers noted that the returned lands in Chile are different from many indigenous territories discussed in other environmental studies. Unlike some land titling programs in relatively undisturbed parts of the Amazon, many of the Chilean properties had already undergone major changes from decades of commercial forestry and agriculture before being returned. Some lands also lacked a continuous history of traditional management and were located far from where current Mapuche communities live. Heilmayr said these differences can lead to very different environmental outcomes from those seen in studies of indigenous communities receiving land in less developed regions. Researchers are now examining another part of Chile’s Indigenous Law: restrictions that prevent communities from selling, renting or mortgaging restituted land. They are studying how these rules affect long-term economic development and conservation as Chile and other countries continue to align their policies with international frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Ultimately, the study shows that land restitution and environmental restoration are not necessarily the same. Returning land can restore ownership, rights and self-determination, while improving damaged ecosystems may require additional funding, planning and long-term conservation support.
Source link
