The document discusses the environmental conflict surrounding fire management in Canaima National Park, Venezuela, especially focusing on the Pemon indigenous people's ancestral fire practices, which have been labeled as destructive. It critiques the failure of external fire control programs and highlights the need for integrating Pemon knowledge and methods into fire management strategies to achieve sustainability. The emergence of a counter-narrative around fire management underscores the importance of dialogue between marginalized views and scientific interpretations to resolve conflicts and improve management outcomes.

1. Reframing the fire narrative
in Canaima National Park,
Venezuela
__________________________________
Roles of science transforming an environmental conflict
“Pathways to Sustainability:
Agendas for New Politics of Environment, Development and Social Justice” Conference
STEPS Centre, Sussex University,
Brighton, September 23-24, 2010
Iokiñe Rodriguez, Bibiana Bilbao, Isabelle Sanchez-Rose and Alejandra Leal
Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research (IVIC) and Simon Bolivar University

2. Canaima National Park
• 3 million hectares Caribean Sea
• Ancestral Pemon
indigenous homelands
Canaima
• Population: approximately National Park
20.000 Pemon Colombia
Guyana
• Since 1994 UNESCO World Brazil
400 km
Natural Heritage Site

3. STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE
OF CANAIMA NATIONAL PARK’S FORESTS
GURI DAM:
Production of 77% of country’s electricity
400 km

4. THE FOREST-SAVANNAH MOSAIC

5. DOMINANT FIRE NARRATIVE
• An area originally covered by forests has been converted mostly to savannahs
by fire.
• The Pemon use of fire is responsible for a gradual savannization process
and a reduction of forests area.
• The Pemon have no knowledge of sustainable use of fire
(stigmatised as pyromaniacs, “Los Quemones” (the burners), attributed among
others, to the belief that they are resent arrivals to the area.
• If actions are not taken the Gran Sabana will be turned into the Great Dessert
in a matter of one or two centuries.
•Need to create a fire control programme in the area.

6. FIRE CONTROL PROGRAMME
Foto:Bjorn Stleto
Foto:Bjorn Stleto
MAIN FEATURES OUTCOME
• Technology-dependent way to control •Great investment in fire control
fires ($500.000 annualy)
• External control •Failure achieving a reduction in the
use of Pemon fires.
• Exclusion of Pemon ancestral fire
management methods. •Pemon silent resistance.

7. ROLE OF SCIENCE REPRODUCING
THE FIRE NARRATIVE
• Environmental practitioners and researchers view fire as
an external component of the landscape.
• Emphasis on explaining ecological fragility of the area
and not the fire regimes.
• Partial explanations of forest-savannah dynamics and
environmental change which are generalised.
• Short term ecological studies.

8. PEMON USES OF FIRE
•For cleaning and maintaining paths clean.
•To maintain the landscape “tidy” and
“attractive”
•To Prevent large catastrophic fires.
• For communication
• Hunting (rampūn)
• Slash and burn agriculture (in forest areas)
• To keep themselves warm
• To scare dangerous animals away
• As a cure of diseases (fire has magical
properties)
• To catch grasshoppers
• To dry wood
• To help fishing

9. ACTORS UNESCO
Internacional
National Environment
Ministry
Regional
Local UCV:
Estación Científica CENDES
Instituto
Botánico de Parupa IZT
UNEG:
de Centro de
Barcelona, Investigaciones
España Ecológicas Pemon Bolivar State
de Guayana Elders Indigenous
ONGs Federation TNC
IVIC: Young
Ecology Pemon
Centre,
INPARQUES
Social
Studies of
CORPOELEC
Science
Centre (formerly EDELCA)
USB, Laboratorio de Dinámica de Comunidades
y Procesos Ecológicos
Texas University, USA

10. CHALLENGE TO ACHIEVE
A TRANSFORMATION
OF THE FIRE CONFLICT
CHANGE IN POWER
RELATIONS IN KNOWLEDGE
PRODUCTION SYSTEM
COUNTER NARRATIVE
OF FIRE
Develop plural environmental policies that represent
FINAL AIM different viewpoints of fire, its use and its impacts

11. THROUGH......
● Generation of new scientific knowledge
● Giving more visibility to marginalised knowledge
● Public confrontation of weak aspects of the narrative (scientific
controversies)
● Catalysing processes of collective deliberation and analysis.
COUNTER NARRATIVES CAN.......
• Help build scenarios or arguments that people find more convincing than the
narrative (Roe 1991).
• Help re-focus the narrative so that it becomes less questionable (Roe 2004).
• Play an important role helping a conflict over different forms of knowledge
transcend from a latent state to a manifested one so that its substantives
issues can be understood and addressed.

12. ROLES FOR “EXPERTS”
• Carry out research
BUT ALSO:
• Strengthen vulnerable actors, help to clarify local views
• Create interactive process of research and action
• Trigger open confrontation of views (publish research
results, give rise to controversies)
• Mobilise support- build coalitions between experts and
practitioners
• Facilitation-catalyse public discussions

13. EVOLUTION OF THE FIRE
COUNTER NARRATIVE IN
CANAIMA NATIONAL PARK

14. STAGES
STAGE 1 STAGE 2
(1999-2007) (2007- to present)
Spontaneous, un- Coordinated efforts with
coordinted efforts by an institutional base
different actors. acting as dialogue
and coalition builder
(Risk Project)

15. “RISK FACTORS IN THE REDUCTION OF HABITATS IN CANAIMA NATIONAL
PARK: VULNERABILITY AND TOOLS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT”
PROJECT
Universidad
Simón Bolívar (USB) RESEARCH Ecologists
TEAM
Instituto Venezolano Engineers
de Investigaciones Agronomy/
Científicas (IVIC) Forestry
Estación Científica
de Parupa-CVG INTERINSTITUTIONAL MULDISCIPLINARY Mathematicians
Universidad Experimental Sociologists
de Guayana (UNEG)
Centro de Estudios para Anthropologists
el Desarrollo (CENDES-UCV)
KNOWLEDGE ARTICULATION
(RESEARCH APPROACH)
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PEMON
PRACTITIONERS PRACTITIONERS

16. GENERAL OBJECTIVE
Evaluate the ecological and socio-institutional
vulnerability of the park at different spatial and time
scales, with the aim of developing indicators and tools
for the management of risks and for sustainable
development of the area.
RESEARCH APPROACH
Plural and participative (allowing to take into account in
a broad way the different perspective and interests at
stake in the search for viable and sustainable solutions
to the existent problems)

17. THE COUNTER NARRATIVE
PROCESSES

18. 1. ALTERNATIVE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES
OF FIRE

19. DATE DISCIPLINARY AREA OF RESEARCH
FIELD
1999 Social Studies Different perspectives of fire, with
emphasis on Pemon views/knowledge
(Iokine Rodriguez)
1999-2009 Ecological Studies Ecological behaviour of fire and its impacts,
in long term experiments (10 years)
(Bibiana Bilbao)
2002-2006 Social studies Power relations in the production of
knowledge over fire. Effects of cultural
change in Pemon use of fire (Bjorn Sletto)
2005 to Socio-ecological studies Scientific validation of Pemon fire
present management system based on long term
fire experiments (Bibiana Bilbao, Alejandra
Leal, Carlos Mendez)
Social perception of fire by different park
actors as a risk factor (Isabelle Sanchez-
Rose-Hebe Vessuri)
Paleo-ecological reconstruction of fire in
the Gran Sabana landscape (Alejandra
Leal, Bibiana Bilbao)

20. MAIN FINDINGS
PEMON VIEW OF FIRE AND OF ECOLOGICAL BEHAVIOUR OF FIRE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
Fires do not take place in the same place
In the “traditional” Pemon world-view fire is annually.
an integral part of the landscape and of Savannah vegetation in the area takes 2, 3
Pemon cultural identity. to 4 years to recover.
Pemon use of fire is based on an ancestral This generates a savannah mosaic with
cooperative system of savannah patch different fire histories.
mosaic burning (prescribed burning). By increasing fuel accumulation
One of the main reasons to use fire is to discontinuity and its characteristics, it
prevent large forest fires. Fire is should be possible to reduce fires in high
controlled with fire. risk areas (ecological base for patch
Rather than many fires, the problem is lack mosaic burning)
of sufficient fires. Fuel build-up in 10 km
perimeters of communities subject to
greater cultural change.
Noticeable difference in the knowledge of
young Pemon about ancestral system of
fire management in communities subject
to greater cultural change.
DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS OF FIRE AS A RISK FACTOR
Achieving a sustainable management of fire requires greater discussion about: what the
fire problem is? how it is interpreted? how are its impacts viewed and ¿how fire affects
the interests of different actors?

21. PEMON SAVANNAH PATCH BURNING

22. NARRATIVE
• An area originally covered by forests
has been converted mostly to COUNTER-NARRATIVE
savannahs by fire.
• Savannahs been the predominate
• The Pemon use of fire is responsible vegetation in the areas for thousand of
for a gradual savannization process years.
and a reduction of forests area.
• Fire is an integral component of the
• The Pemon have no knowledge of Gran Sabana landscape.
sustainable use of fire (stigmatised as
piromaniacs,“Los Quemones” (the • Fire has to be considered one of a
burners), attributed among others, to variety of factors that could be
the belief that they are resent arrivals contributing to vegetation change in
to the area. the area.
• Fire is an external component of the • The Pemon have an ancestral system
Gran Sabana Landscape. of fire management that, if widely
supported, could help reduce fires in
• If actions are not taken the Gran high risk areas.
Sabana will be turned into the Great
Dessert in a matter of one or two • Rather than controlling fires, fire
centuries. policies should aim to manage fires,
using the ancestral Pemon prescribed
• Need to create a fire control patch burning-system.
programme in the area.

23. 2. SCIENTIFIC
CONTROVERSY

24. Año Autores Referencia Visión Posición
Disciplinar Representada
2004 Rodríguez, I. Conocimiento indígena vs. científico: el conflicto Social Sciences Counter-narrative
a por el uso del fuego en el Parque Nacional
Canaima, Venezuela. Interciencia. 29 (3): 121-
129.
2004 Dezzeo, N., H. Folster & El fuego en la Gran Sabana, Interciencia, 9(8): Ecology Narrative
L. Hernandez 409-410
2004 Rodríguez, I. El fuego en la Gran Sabana, Interciencia, 9(9): Social Sciences Counter-narrative
b 481
2007 Rodríguez Pemon perspectives of fire management in Social Sciences Counter-narrative
Canaima National Park, Venezuela. Human
Ecology. 35(3):331-343
2008 Sletto, B. The knowledge that counts: institutional Social Sciences Counter-narrative
identities, Policy Science, and the Conflict Over
Fire Management in the Gran Sabana, Venezuela.
World Development 36(10): 1938-1955.
2009 Bilbao B., A. Leal, C. The Role of Fire in Vegetation Dynamic of Upland Ecology Counter-narrative
Mendez y M. D. Savannas of the Venezuelan Guayana in M.A.
Delgado-Cartay Cochrane, ed. Tropical Fire Ecology: Climate
Change, Land Use and Ecosystem Dynamics.
Springer-Praxis, Heidelberg, Germany.
2009 Rull, V. On the use of paleoecological evidence to assess Ecology Narrative
the role of humans in the origin of the Gran
Sabana (Venezuela). Human Ecology
2009 Rodríguez I., A. Leal, B. Facing up to the challenge of interdisciplinary Mixted (Socio- Counter-narrative
Bilbao, I. Sanchez, H. research in the Gran Sabana (Venezuela), Human ecological)
Vessuri Ecology, 37(6), December 2009.
2009 Rodríguez, I. y B. Apok hace feliz a Pata: desafíos y sugerencias Social Science Counter-narrative
Sletto para una gestión intercultural del fuego en la
Gran Sabana. Antropologica 52 (111-112).
2010 Bilbao, B, A. Leal & C. Indigenous use of fire and forest loss in Canima Ecology Counter-narrative
Mendez National Park Park, Venezuela. Assesment of and
tools for Alternative Strategies of Fire
Management in Pemon Indigenous Lands. Human
Ecology. Published on line-28 August 2010.

25. RESULTS
• Controversy maked the conflict visible
• Different views of fire have started to become discussed
in scientific forums, protected area management training
courses, among practitioners, etc.
• Public acknowledgement of more than one side of the
“story”.
The New York Times, by Simon Romero,
In Venezuela’s Savanna, Clash of Science and Fire
23 April 2010.

26. 3. DIALOGUE, PUBLIC
DELIBERATION PROCESSES

27. DIFFICULTIES FOR DIALOGUE
AND DELIBERATION
• Pemon in a vulnerable position to participate in dialogue with others
actors. Feeling of disrespect and lack of understanding of their
perspectives. Internal conflict about the subject (elders vs. young
Pemon).
• Historically a subject of great friction and tension among the park
actors.
CALLS FOR
• Creating the conditions for dialogue: helping the Pemon articulate their
views
• An actor that is perceived by all actors as “neutral” in order to be able
to facilitate dialogue and public deliberation (Risk Project)

28. 1999 INTRA-COMMUNITY DIALOGUE
PARTICIPATORY COMMUNITY RESEARCH ON PEMON MEANINGS
OF FIRE, KUMARAKAPAY
OBJECTIVE:
Help the Pemon articulate their views of fire and its
impacts
CARACTERISTICS
Part of a series of participatory workshops on local
perceptions of socio-environmental change
29 interviews with young Pemon and elders
In situ analysis of research findings
Community meeting to discuss research results.
OUTCOMES
Young Pemon legitimized the knowledge of elders.
Elders acknowledged their responsibility in loss of
local knowledge.
Young Pemon and elders express their commitment
to learn
and teach about the use of fire.
Subsequently some young Pemon have shown
more confidence to debate with experts and
researchers about the Pemon use of fire.

29. 2007 MULTI-ACTOR DIALOGUE
VII NATIONAL ECOLOGY CONGRESS
ACTIVITY CARACTERISTICS PARTICIPANTS
Symposia “Institutional, Ecological and Public event Congress participants
Socio-cultural perspectives for the
management of fire in Canaima National 10 minutes Speakers:
Park”. presentations • Pemon representatives
(Bolivar State Indigenous)
Federation- FIEB)
• Scientists
• Practitioners (EDELCA,
INPARQUES, Parupa
Scientific Station)
Workshop “Joining perspectives for the Closed event Speakers in the previous
creation of an effective and legitimate event.
management of fire in Canaima National
Park”. Environmental and Fire
Open discussion
Managers at the National
and Regional Level

30. OBJETIVES
To develop a concerted environmental policy for
the management of fire in Canaima National
Park.
ACHIEVEMENTS
•Fist time main actors of the conflict exchange
views of the problem in an atmosphere of respect
un mutual understanding.
•EDELCA and FIEB participated as convenors,
together with the Risk Project.
•Agenda discussed and agreed among the three
convenors.
•Success in building coalitions between experts
and practitioners to further a contested agenda
(fire management instead of fire control)
•Shared interest to continue dialogue
LIMITATION
Lack of continuity lack due to institutional
changes

31. 2008-TO PRESENT INTER-CULTURAL DIALOGUE
AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL, KAVANAYEN
OBJETIVE:
Exchange of ecological and Pemon perspectives of fire, its impacts
and management.
CARATERISTICS:
Part of a community self-reflection process of socio-environmental
change with view of contributing to the development of a
community “life-plan” (Plan de Vida).
Two workshops: one with young Pemon and one with elders.
Fire discussed by young Pemon and elders as one of the different
factors of environmental change.
Results of ecological research on fire behaviour were shared with the
community.
OUTCOMES
Elders felt that their knowledge and livelihood practices legitimised
by ecological research.
Opened up to talk about changes in the landscape due to historical
events: inter-ethnic wars, 19th century slave trade.
Triggered local discussion about the need to maintain traditional
prescribed burning practices. Areas of risk due to lack of
systematic burning.

32. CONCLUSIONS
• A counter-narrative of fire has started to emerge, but it is still in its initial stages.
• The Pemon have had little participation in the evolution of the counter-narrative.
Process lead by scientists who have the power resources to transform the
conflict: financial resources and technical know-how to produce a change in the
knowledge production system.
• The different counter narrative processes have been successful in helping the
conflict over the use of fire become more public so that its substantive issues can
be discussed and addressed.
• More public discussion about: what the fire problem is? how it is interpreted? how
are its impacts viewed? and, how fire affects the interests of different actors? is
still necessary among the different park actors.
• Favourable conditions to carry out an in depth community dialogue about this
issue has been created in one community, Kavanayen.
• Conditions to open up the discussion in institutional settings was favourable in a
given moment in time (2006, 2007), but do not seem to exist in present, perhaps
due to resistance to change, institutional inertias, etc.