This article compares two knowledge systems: the one of indigenous communities living in the forests, and the one of forest government. We address this issue based on an approach that aims to go beyond the limits of the subjects and objects proper to the classical forest research. This is a critical reflection structured in three parts. After the Introduction and Methodology sections, the power asymmetries between the two knowledge systems are shown. Next, an analysis of the official definitions of forest is done; the ones most frequently used in the scenario of forest government are compared to those coming from the indigenous knowledge system. Finally, this article shows that the reductionism due to rationality in the forest policies during the last century results from a lack of opening to millenary conceptions used by the forest communities. A plural governance requires a dialog focused on rescuing the political impact of the local practices and how they can be the first steps to find alternatives, which will show how the forest management is not only related to reduce emissions but is also closely related to the food safety, agroforestry, and biodiversity protection