Fishing territoriality and diversity between the ethnic ... · 75 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 Fishing...

75 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88

Fishing territoriality and diversity betweenthe ethnic populations Ashaninka and Kaxinawá,Breu river, Brazil/Peru.

Benedito Domingues do AMARAL1

ABSTRACTThis study describes the diversity and the subsistence fishing territoriality of traditional populations of an Ashaninka and twoKaxinawá villages living at the margins of the Breu river (Brazil/Peru). In general, samplings in the dwellings were carried outlate in the afternoon, as the fishermen arrived in the village. The data were analysed in an exploratory way through the indexof pondered dominance (ID%), by analysis of variance and by a correspondence analysis in order to determine the associationsof the fish species and the fishing spots between the villages of the Indigenous Reserve. The results of the analysis of variancedemonstrated that differences exist between the fish diversities of the catches. However, post-hoc tests only detected differencesin diversities between the hand fishhook and the other fishing gears (bow and arrow, castnets and rotenone tingui). Althoughthe use of bow and arrow resulted in a low capture (Kg), this fishing strategy is associated with a high fishing diversity, interms of number of species. These results demonstrate that there is no overlap in the frequency of the visits to the fishingspots between the Ashaninka and Kaxinawá populations. This pattern is the same found for the correspondence analysis forthe fish species, which describes the relationship between the deep pools environments exploited by the fishermen Ashaninkaand Kaxinawá of Mourão. These ethnic populations still continue to maintain a strong cultural and cosmological traditionwith their territories defined in an informal way of the upper Juruá area.

KEY WORDSAmazonia, Indigenous fisheries, Ashaninka, Kaxinawá, Breu river.

Diversidade e territorialidade pesqueira entre aspopulações étnicas Ashaninka e Kaxinawá, rio Breu,Alto Juruá, Brasil/Peru.

RESUMOEste estudo tem o objetivo de descrever a diversidade e a territorialidade pesqueira de subsistência das populações tradicionaisde uma aldeia Ashaninka e duas Kaxinawá vivendo à beira do rio Breu. Elas se situam no alto rio Juruá acima de MarechalTaumaturgo (AC, Brasil/Peru) num complexo de unidades de conservação e territórios de diversas populações étnicas. As casasdos moradores das aldeias e as pescarias coletivas são as unidades amostrais nesse estudo. De modo geral, as amostragens nascasas foram realizadas nos fins de tarde, conforme a chegada dos pescadores à aldeia. O monitor de pesca fez a coleta dasinformações sobre a pescaria e a pesagem do pescado capturado. Os dados foram analisados de maneira exploratória atravésdo índice ponderal de dominância (ID%), pela análise de variância para as diversidades das capturas nas aldeias e pelaanálise de correspondência para determinar as associações das espécies de pescado e os pontos pesqueiros entre as aldeias daReserva Indígena. Os resultados das análises de variância demonstraram que existem diferenças entre as diversidades dascapturas. No entanto, os testes a posteriori de comparações somente detectaram diferenças de diversidades entre o anzol de mãoe os outros aparelhos (arco/flecha, tarrafa e tingui). Apesar do arco/flecha apresentar baixa captura (kg), sua estratégia depesca gera alta diversidade de espécies. Os resultados demonstram que não há freqüência de sobreposição das visitas aospontos pesqueiros entre as etnias Ashaninka e Kaxinawá. Esse padrão é o mesmo encontrado para a análise de correspondênciapara as espécies de pescado, que descreve a semelhança entre os ambientes de poços explorados entre os pescadores Ashaninkae Kaxinawá do Mourão devido a sua proximidade de localização na Reserva Indígena, mas não há sobreposição na exploraçãodos recursos pesqueiros. Essas populações étnicas ainda continuam a manter uma forte tradição cultural e cosmológica, comseus territórios definidos de maneira informal e com respeito aos que habitam a região do Alto Juruá.

PALAVRAS-CHAVEAmazônia, pescarias indígenas, Ashaninka, Kaxinawá, rio Breu.

1 Geociências e Meio Ambiente. IGCE-UNESP, 13506-900 – Rio Claro (SP), Brasil. e-mail: [email protected]

76 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL

FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU

INTRODUCTION

In the area known as the Brazilian Legal Amazônia thereare about 364 indigenous territories, with the Juruá riverstanding as one of the most complexes areas. The upperJuruá river encompass a suite of conservation units withseveral territories of traditional human populations, likevillages of workers exploring rubber trees and the ethnicAshanikawa, Kaxinawá, Manchineri, Kulina, Katukina,Nukuni, Jaminawá, Arara, Poyanawá, Yawanawá, amongothers, that has no contact with occidental civilizations.

However, the future of this area still depends on thedemarcations of 21 indigenous territories which areconnected to three Extrativist Reserves and with the Serrado Divisor National Park, an extension of continuous landwith an area of about 2.839.850 ha harbouring a populationaround 15 thousand inhabitants, corresponding to 18.6%of the State of Acre. The ecosystem in the area of the upperhigh Juruá river still maintains its structures and naturalfunctions, mainly because it possesses a low demographicdensity, low gold mining, low farming activity and low useof hydroenergetic resources. An exception to this is theconstruction of the highway BR-364, which will link the citiesof Rio Branco and Cruzeiro do Sul, in Brazil, with possibleexpansions to the Pacific Ocean, after joining theTransamerican highway in Peru (Aquino, 1997).

In agreement with the Pilot Project for theConservation of the Tropical Forests - PPG7of the Ministry of the Environment - MMA/Indigenous National Foundation - FUNAI, itexpects to identify of 42 indigenous territoriesand demarcate another 58 areas in theAmazon. However, once the demarcations ofthese territories are completed, it will still benecessary to demarcate another 111 territoriesin the area. Thus, it is expected that theoptimization in the use of the available socio-economicresource to accomplish this work should contemplate thelongings established in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988(GTA & Friends of the Earth, 1997). The objective of thisstudy is to determine the fishing territoriality amongfishermen and to compare the diversities of catches in theAshaninka/Kaxinawá Indigenous Reservation of the Breuriver (AC, Brazil/Peru).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The Ashaninka-Kaxinawá Indigenous Reservation liesin the middle and upper Breu river, with an area of23.840 hectares in the municipality of Taumaturgo (AC),with a population estimated as having 350 inhabitants(Aquino & Iglesias, 1992). The Reservation lies adjacentto the Extrativist Reservation of Upper Juruá, with theIndigenous Reservation Kaxinawá Jordão river and,along with the Breu river, with the Peruvian Amazonforest (Figure 1).

The regional physiography has a landscape predominatelydissected and undulated, encompassing lower plateaus coveredby open tropical forest and spots of dense tropical forest. TheBreu river is a third-order affluent of the alluvial basins of theJavari and upper Juruá Rivers. The regional climate is definedas having rainy (November to May) and dry (June to November)periods, with annual precipitation around 2220mm(RADAMBRASIL, 1977; Emperaire et al. 1992).

Fisheries data sampling in the Indian Reserveencompassed a complete hydrological cycle, and weremonitored by an interviewer (November 1995 and September1996) and by the first author (September 1995 and April1996). Fishermen dwellings in the villages and the collectivefisheries were the sampling units in this study. In general,dwelling samplings were carried out late in the afternoon, asthe fishermen arrived in the village. The interviewer sampledthe information about the fishery, weighed and counted thefish caught. The inventory of fish species caught in the basinof the Breu river was performed in the summer (August 1995)and winter (April 1996). Species collected were identifiedand voucher specimens were deposited in the ZoologicalMuseum of the University of São Paulo (MZUSP). Taxonomicidentification of specimens caught in the villages, but absentin the inventory, were made with the aid of a list of speciesfor the studied area (Silvano et al. 2001).

Figure 1 - Study area in the Ashaninka/Kaxinawá IndigenousReservation. Fonte: RADAMBRASIL, (1977).

77 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


The fixation of geographical co-ordinates of the mainfishing spots in the Indigenous Reserves was accomplishedin the last field trip (September 1996). The GPS was with theconfiguration in the system UTM, plan, meters and true north.

The index of pondered dominance, ID% = [(Ni*P

i)/

S(Ni*P

i)]*100, where P

i is the weight (Kg) of the species

caught and Ni is the number of species caught in the fishingspots, was used to obtain data on the main fish speciescatches as well on the main fishing spots in the IndigenousReservation (Beaumord, 1991).

The diversity of the species caught (weight and numberof individuals) was calculated for each fishing gear used bythe Shannon-Wiener H’ index (Krebs, 1989). Calculationsof the analysis of variance model were accomplishedbetween the diversity presented by the different fishinggears, following the equation Y

i = m + a

i + e

i, where: Y

i is

the diversity measure H’; m is a constant; ai identifies the

fishing gear with i = 1, 2, 3 and 4, where 1=hand fishhook,2=bow and arrow, 3=net and 4= rotenone “tingui”; and e

iis the random error N(0, s2). The residual analysis was carriedout by plotting studentizated residuals and the estimatedvalues, with the random observation of the distributions ofvalues close to zero, that is, the evaluation of the occurrenceof tendencies and outliers. Asymmetry (g

1) and kurtosis (g

2)

were also calculated. Whenever ANOVA was significant,Tukey test was used a post-hoc test (Sokal & Rholf, 1995).

The correspondence analysis (CA) was used to describethe fisheries between the villages, specially to obtain dataon the overlap in the use of fishings spots and on theterritorial relationships between the villages (Manly, 1986;Ludwig & Reynolds, 1988).

RESULTS

Description of the fisheries in theIndigenous Reserve.

In the inventories realized at the Indigenous Reserve,41 species of fishes were collected. Other 27 species thatwere not collected during the sampling period are describedin the fish list of the Extrativist Reserve of the Upper Juruá(Silvano et al. 2000; Silvano et al. 2001). Thus, catches inthe Ashaninka/Kaxinawá Indigenous Reservation encompass59 species plus one species of crab (Sylviocarcinus devillei).The fish species belong to the Order Characiformes, with 6families, Siluriformes, with 3 families, Gymnotiformes andPerciformes, with 2 families each and Rajiformes with thefamily Potamotrygonidae.

Village fisheries took place in 78 encompassing differentfishing spots such as creek mouths, creeks, deep pools, andlakes. The fishermen of the village Ashaninka visited 18spots, the fishermen of Kaxinawá of Mourão visited 48 andKaxinawá of Japinim 31.

Total fish production in the Indigenous Reservationwas 2,895 kg with a capture of 44,583 specimens of

several species. A total of 359 fishing activities weresampled in the Indigenous Reservation, where 96, 176and 87 trips occurred between the villages. The mostcommon fish species were the “mandi” (35%, Pimelodussp.), armoured catfishes (25%, Hypostomus sp.),curimatã (9%, Prochilodus sp.) , “saburu” (8%,Curimatidae), among others.

Fisheries in the villages of the Indigenous Reservationshave dominance in catches closely tied to the fishing gearsand with the typology of the exploited fisheriesenvironments. In the fishhook (average=0.086 kg/fishermen) fisheries used by Kaxinawá fishermen, therewas a dominance of fish species caught such as the“mandi”, the “pintadinha”, the “piau” and the “piaba”which, in turn, are caught in habitats close to the villageharbours. Armoured catfishes were more efficiently caughtwith bow and arrow. The Ashaninka and Kaxinawá ofMourão fishermen use this gear to exploit rapids habitats,while the Kaxinawá of Japinim fishermen use bow andarrow in the igarapés, as they live near the head streams.

Catching with bow and arrow (average=0.116 kg/fishermen/village) in different habitats are associated withmarked differences in the composition catch of fishspecies. In general, armoured catfishes dominate catches.However, there were subtle differences in speciescomposition and, in fact, the use of bow and arrow isassociated with a higher diversity in species. For example,in rapids habitats, male painted and big armoured catfishesare the dominant species caught by bow and arrow, whilein creeks the dominant species are the yellow and blackarmoured catfishes. The use of bow and arrow also favourcatch, during the summer, of several other species ofarmoured catfishes (Loricariidae) and of the crabSylviocarcinus devillei.

In fisheries with castnets (average=0.437 kg/fishermen/village) carried out in deep pools in Ashaninkaand Kaxinawá of Mourão villages, the most commonspecies were male catfishes and species of the genusPimelodus sp. (“mandi”) and Prochilodus sp.(“curimatã”). In the village Kaxinawá of Japinim, fisherieswith castnets were associated with igarapés and lakes,with a dominance of species such as armoured catfishes,“piaba” “curimatã” (Prochilodus sp.) and “saburu”. Itshould be pointed out that the use of castnets wasassociated with a high kg/fisherman.

The fisheries carried out with the use of rotenone“tingui” (average=0.240 kg/fishermen/village) stands outamong Kaxinawá fishermen. Fishermen at the village ofMourão catch several species of Curimatidae andLoricariidae in deep pools during the winter, with adominance of “piabas” when this gear is used in“igarapés” during the dry period. Fisheries in the villageKaxinawá of Mourão had satisfactory catches (in termsof kg/fisherman) with the use of the rotenone, which isthe most common fishing gear among the fishermen ofKaxinawá of Japinim village (Table 1).

78 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


Diversity (H’) of the catches amongdifferent fishing gears.

The calculated values of the diversity indexes (H’) canbe interpreted for each of the fishing gears according totheir strategies of resource allocation (Table 2). Theresults of the analysis of variance for the diversities ofspecies, calculated in the number of individuals andweight are show in Tables 3a and b and 4a and b. Thepost-hoc Tukey test of comparisons only detecteddifferences of diversities between the hand fishhook andthe other gears (bow and arrow, net and rotenone“tingui”). Residual analysis indicated that there was noinconvenience in these results.

Fishing territoriality between the villages.

Fishing spots with larger dominance in catches were theAlgodão deep pool (46%) in Kaxinawá of Mourão village,the Mulateiro (16%) and Alho deep pool (4%) used by thefishermen of Kaxinawá of Mourão and Japinim villages, whilethe Cuchirir deep pool (6%) was more frequented by theAshaninka fishermen. Overlap in the use of spots between

the fishermen of Ashaninka and Kaxinawá villages onlyoccurred at the Pedra, Cuchirir and Passarinho deep pools.The visits to the spots with higher overlap in their useoccurred between the Kaxinawá of Mourão and Japinimvillages in 18 of the fishing spots.

The first factor in the correspondence analysis (CA) wasrelated to the associations of fish species with higherdominances that were caught between villages Kaxinawá ofMourão and Ashaninka (Figure 2 and Table 5). These valuesexcluded those related to extreme associations (> 2.5),which were related only to fish caught by the village.

It is suggested that the number of species associationsin this factor is larger between those two villages, due tothe exploitation of fishing resources in similar environments,such as deep pools. The second factor describes theassociations of species of fish that were caught between thevillages Kaxinawá of Mourão and Japinim. It can be noticedthat the extreme values of the associations are due to thespecies caught exclusively in the village Kaxinawá of Japinim.The associations of the second factor describe the fishspecies that were caught jointly in the villages Kaxinawá,with a predominance of catches in the deep pools, creeksand lakes (Figure 2 and Table 5). Table 6 shows the

sraeG/segalliVkooH worrA/woB stentsaC enonetoR

’H W ’H N ’H W ’H N ’H W ’H N ’H W ’H N

akninahsA 286.3 517.3 698.3 662.3 573.3 063.3

oãruoModáwanixaK 544.2 863.2 512.4 206.3 111.4 677.3 003.4 687.3

minipaJodáwanixaK 050.2 219.1 901.3 462.3 275.3 762.3 356.3 123.3

naeM 742.2 041.2 866.3 135.3 538.3 636.3 877.3 635.3

noitaiveDdradnatS 791.0 822.0 154.0 591.0 591.0 462.0 483.0 662.0

)%(noitairaVfotneiciffeoC 67.8 56.01 92.21 25.5 80.5 62.7 61.01 25.7

Table 1 - Demographic and fishery characteristics of Ashaninka and Kaxinawá villages.

Table 2 - Shannon-Wiener H’ diversity index, base 10, based on the number of individuals (H’N) and in weight (H’W/kg) of fish catches.

segalliV akninahsA oãruoModáwanixaK minipaJodáwanixaK

scitsiretcarahC

stnatibahniforebmundetamitsE 44 96 011

eganaeM sraey62 sraey43 sraey93

ezisylimaFegarevA 4 5 6

namrehsiF/sraeggnihsiF/gK

”iugniT“ 090.0 245.0 880.0

gnihsifteN 665.0 885.0 951.0

gnihsiflaudividnI 780.0 312.0 050.0

kooh-hsifdnaeniL nwonknu 130.0 241.0

79 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


associations between the villages as a function of the catchesof fish species. It can be seen that in the first factor thehighest association is related to the Ashaninka village, whilein the second axis the highest association is related to theKaxinawás village.

This pattern describes the similarity between the deeppools exploited by fishermen of both villages (Ashaninkaand Kaxinawá of Mourão), due to their proximity in theIndigenous Reservation. Nevertheless, there was notoverlap in the use of fisheries resources and of frequencyof visits to the spots between these two villages (seeFigure 3). For example, in Figure 3, the first factor makesthe distinction between the spots visited by the villageAshaninka with high negative associations loads. Thesecond factor demonstrates the spots visited by theKaxinawá fishermen, with elevated positive associations’loads for the village Kaxinawá of Japinim. The Kaxinawáof Mourão fishermen were more active in the exploitationof the fishery resources, overlapping with their closeneighbours near the heads of the Breu river (Table 7).The results displayed in Table 8 described a similarpattern as those presented in Table 6.

There was a division of fishing territory, as well as adistinction in the fish species caught and fishing spots visitedbetween the fishermen of the villages Ashaninka andKaxinawá of Japinim. The fishermen of the village Kaxinawáof Mourão present a more active foraging behaviour of thefishery resources as they devoted a portion of their time toother activities such as agriculture. The use of the fisheryresources was a more efficient and fast way to obtain thenecessary protein, at least when compared to the time thatwas devoted to obtaining the same protein by otheractivities, such as hunting.

Figure 3 - Correspondence analysis factors of the fishing spots(mass > 0.01) for the Indigenous Reservation villages.

Figure 2 - Correspondence analysis factors of the species weight(mass > 0.01) for the Indigenous Reservation villages.

Table 3 - Analysis of Variance with the factor fishing gears for thediversity of fishes species:

Table 4 - Probability of the post-hoc test of multiple comparisonof Tukey between the diversities of species:

sraeG kooH /woBworrA stentsaC enonetoR

kooH 1

worrA/woB 400.0 1

stentsaC 500.0 679.0 1

"iugnit"enonetoR 400.0 899.0 599.0 1

naeMdetsujdA 041.2 725.3 634.3 094.3

a) number of individuals (H’N) and

b) in weight (H’W/kg) of fish catches.

sraeG kooH /woBworrA stentsaC enonetoR

kooH 1

worrA/woB 330.0 1

stentsaC 810.0 549.0 1

"iugnit"enonetoR 420.0 989.0 599.0 1

naeMdetsujdA 842.2 966.3 068.3 677.3

'H=elbairaVtnednepeD gk/W R2 947.0=noitairaVfoecruoS QS LG QM F P

sraeGgnihsiF 938.3 3 082.1 659.6 710.0rorrE 882.1 7 481.0

b) in weight (H’W/kg ) of fish catches.

'H=elbairaVtnednepeD N R2 158.0=noitairaVfoecruoS QS LG QM F P

sraeGgnihsiF 079.2 3 099.0 672.31 300.0rorrE 255.0 7 570.0

a) number of individuals (H’N ) and

80 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


N0

redrO

ylimaF

ylimaf-buS

seicepS/areneG

nom

moCeseugutroP

eman

nom

moCe

manakninahs

Ano

mmoC

eman

áwanixaK

1rotcaF

2rotcaF

1se

mroficarahCeadi

motsonA*suttaicsaf

nodozihcSúcara

uaipanaok

utabekup

683,0-641,0-

2suniropeL

1ps*

uaipn

wonknue

manutab

uhsum

683,0-321,0-

3suniropeL

2ps**

odarvaluaip

nwonknu

eman

utab702,0

752,0-

4*sutonolespyh

setimarbA

ardeped

uaipn

wonknue

manast

astuksi

093,0-412,0-

5suniropeL

3ps**

agietnam

uaipn

wonknue

manutab

564,0-229,2

6suniropeL

4ps**

aierauaip

nwonknu

eman

utab583,0-

404,0-

7eadicarahC

eanicarahC*siniffa

sediobeoRanelada

mirikaht

awatehs

427,1120,0-

8eanitnodonyC

*sunipluv.ffa

nodoihpahRoãrrohcac

ikemiri

wasã

mak082,0-

912,0-

9*sedioreb

mocssucylordyH

,atsebleonam

orrohcacanassa

uahs001,0-

321,0

01*sicul

alleregneluoBahluga

nwonknu

eman

astast

unip524,0-

952,1

11eaniretponogarteT

*sutalucamib

xanaytsAatahc

abaipekatsista

mapay

434,0-558,1

21**suetnegra

suretponogarteTiripata

mn

wonknue

manurutapat

193,0-671,0-

31eaniehtropirT

suehtropirT.ps*

ahnidrasonarapak

ayutetapay491,0-

170,0-

41eani

mlasarreSsu

mlasarreSps*

ahnaripa

moreka

m016,0

032,0-

51eanini

mlaS*iiralih

sunimlaS

anarabutn

wonknue

manã

wãwãhs

583,0-404,0-

61eadiceleporetsa

G*sutallets

xarahcacorohTahnidahca

mn

wonknue

manutetapehs

934,0-058,1

71eadita

miruC/**ataluca

mmi

alletamiruC

anirenhcadnietS1ps*

urubasohtôht

eub583,0-

081,0

81anirenhcadnietS

2ps*

abaipotere

mapay

224,0-813,1

91anirenhcadnietS

3ps*

adirpmoc

abaipekatsista

mn

wonknue

man235,2

160,0

02*acinoza

matlaanihro

matoPahnico

mikorina

mihsákut

321,0802,0

12**acinoza

maretsagortcesP

assorgacsac

nwonknu

eman

ãwureb

315,2850,0

22eadinirhtyrE

*sucirabalam

.ffasailpoH

aríartirokext

ukhsem

193,0-081,0-

32eaditnodolihcorP

*snacirginsudolihcorP

ãtamiruc

amihs

ãmirpak

673,0-591,0

42se

mrofiruluSeadyhthcillaC

**ellarotilmunretsolpoH

átaubmat

nwonknu

eman

uhsab583,0-

404,0-

52eadiiraciroL

eanimotsopyH

*sutatcnupsyhthcyrepotpyl

Golera

maedob

otomas

upiixat892,0

221,0

62**specibbig

syhthcyrepotpylG

ednargedob

nwonknu

eman

upi633,0-

073,0-

72**siladrap

sucrasopiLarieugnires

edobn

wonknue

manupi

ãi886,0

332,0-

82su

motsopyH1ps*

onaiarpedob

istnehtupi

ãhsam

483,0-711,0-

Tabl

e 5

- As

soci

atio

n lo

ads

betw

een

the

fish

spec

ies

in th

e In

dige

nous

Res

erva

tion.

cont. >

81 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


N0

redrO

ylimaF

ylimaf-buS

seicepS/areneG

nom

moCeseugutroP

eman

nom

moCe

manakninahs

Ano

mmoC

eman

áwanixaK

1rotcaF

2rotcaF

92se

mrofiruluSeadyhthcillaC

sumotsopyH

2ps**

odahcam

edobirepassarik

erekãsam

596,1126,0

03eadiiraciroL

eanimotsopyH

sumotsopyH

3ps**

oterpedob

okomextnext

ikhsi361,0-

242,0

13su

motsopyH4ps**

aiarraedob

nwonknu

eman

êtinak983,0-

732,0-

23su

motsopyH5ps**

odatnipedob

nwonknu

eman

upiukub

602,0982,0-

33eaniiraciroL

airaciroL1ps

airacirolutapS/*

syhthcilutamiL

/**iisnave**sutatcnup

obmihcac

edoboripoht

ãphsuk583,0-

331,0-

43airaciroL

2ps**.

obmihcac

.baiera

oripohtixa

m712,0

962,0-

53/**

mutsubora

mosirutS*sutaluca

msyhthciiraciroL

onifocib

edoba

wihsokaituat

597,1650,0-

63*susotne

malifsyhthcitno

maLarieohcac

edobirana

mn

wonknue

man235,2

160,0

73eanirtsicnA

surtsicnA

.pseuqanaP

/**1ps

anoã

medob

açebacip

mihsn

wonknue

man064,2

940,0

83euqanaP

.2ps*

abrabedob

nwonknu

eman

ukhseh393,0-

780,0-

93euqanaP

.3ps**

ohnipseedob

nwonknu

eman

upi683,0-

073,0-

04eadidole

miPeanidole

miPsudole

miP*1ps

surecoriehC

/1ps

anidolemiP

/**..1ps

/**alledole

miP.1ps**

idnam

oirókunut

593,0-710,0

14sudole

miP.2ps**

éparagiidna

mihsanoko

uby203,0

042,0

24sudole

miP.3ps**

orudidna

mn

wonknue

manunut

883,0-103,0-

34**iihcolb

sudolemiP

odartsilidna

mn

wonknue

manhsixi

583,0-404,0-

44**silicarg

alledolemiP

elom

idnam

nwonknu

eman

uby024,0-

950,1

54*seuqe

surecoriehC

osilidna

mistnerossot

amuy

661,0191,0

64**suretporca

msusyhpolla

Cahnidatnip

atom

utut593,0-

443,0

74*up

maniripsup

mariniP,ub

manaripodadurg

nwonknu

eman

nwonknu

eman

235,2160,0

84eani

miburoSsunaurep

sunitalapouD

**/iitnalliav

amotsytalpyhcarB

,abatumarip

atom

nwonknu

eman

iabutsihc783,0-

723,0-

94**snacivalf

amotsytalpyhcarB

adaruodn

wonknue

manuxtahs

564,0-229,2

05**

mutaicsafa

motsytalpoduesPmiburus

owaraht

iab372,1

041,0-

cont. >

Tabl

e 5

- Ass

ocia

tion

load

s be

twee

n th

e fis

h sp

ecie

s in

the

Indi

geno

us R

eser

vatio

n. (

cont

.)

82 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


Tabl

e 5

- Ass

ocia

tion

load

s be

twee

n th

e fis

h sp

ecie

s in

the

Indi

geno

us R

eser

vatio

n. (

cont

.)

N0

redrO

ylimaF

ylimaf-buS

seicepS/areneG

nom

moCeseugutroP

eman

nom

moCe

manakninahs

Ano

mmoC

eman

áwanixaK

1rotcaF

2rotcaF

15*suhcnyhrytalp

miburosime

Haço

med

oçarbanarik

iirab

101,0213,0-

25eadiiraciroL

eanimotsopyH

**sutabrabsurulisytalP

emara

edabrab

nwonknu

eman

iabutxib

483,0-

304,0-

35*a

milmiburoS

otaped

ocibirata

wasuhsuk

053,0-812,0-

45se

mrofitonmy

GeaditonoretpA

*iitrapanobsutonoretp

Aaios

nwonknu

eman

upahsi564,2

050,055

eadigyponretS*sporca

mainna

mnegiEóparas

oriweht

amix

781,0780,0

65*sururca

msugyponretS

mutum

óparasn

wonknue

mana

mixisah583,0-

404,0-75

semroficreP

eadineaicSnoicsoigalP

.ps**

adacsepn

wonknue

manuahsixa

m768,1

290,085

eadilhciC

snediuqeA

.ps*

áracotyâ

miã

m630,0-

893,095

semrofijaR

eadinogyrtomatoP

nogyrtomatoP

.ps*

aiarraate

wisti

172,0410,0-

06oecátsur

C**iellived

sunicracoivlySojieugnarac

istnoreouxtahs

863,0-250,0

**** * In

vent

ory

in A

shan

inka

/Kax

inaw

á R

eser

ve a

t Bre

u ri

ver.

******** ** S

ilvan

o, e

t al.,

(200

1)

DISCUSSION

Catch Diversity in the Indigenous Reservations

The wealth of fish species caught and the number offishery habitats visited by the fishermen in the IndigenousReservation were high. The use of bow and arrow entailsa high diversity in number of species, which is the same asthe values associated with the use of more generalists’ gearssuch as castnets and rotenone. Use of hand fishhook entailslower diversity, as this gear is somewhat more specialistsin terms of type of species caught. Castro & Begossi (1995)mentioned that the strategies in the use of different fishinggears vary with the objectives of the fishermen. Theseauthors studied the ecology of a community of artisanfishermen in the Grande river (SP/MG) and concludedthat the diversity of fish species varied in agreement withthe fishery patterns adopted during the hydrologicalcycle. The subsistence fisheries in the period of low-productivity using castnets leads to higher diversity valuesin relation to commercial catches, which seeks specificschools during the crop, high-productivity, period. Thus,a gradient can be described in catch diversity among thelevels of subsistence fisheries, where the diversity ishigher than that of commercial fisheries. A commercialfishery usually catches fish species that have a betteracceptance in local markets, and consequently, isassociated with a larger income (Petrere, 1978). Thesubsistence fishermen tend to exploit a larger numberof species of fish in the trophic chain, except those relatedto certain local taboos (Begossi & Braga, 1992; Aquino& Iglesias, 1992; Begossi et al., 1999).

In the Indigenous Reservation, fisheries are subordinatedto cultural habits. The perceptions of these traditionalhuman populations about the natural resources come in aholistic approach. The knowledge and utilization of naturalresources are taught through parental relationships and bythe diffusion of information shared by these populations.Many of these perceptions are related to the functionalcharacteristics of the resources. Thus, the inhabitants of theupper Juruá river (AC) classify the rays, snakes and wasps,among other animals that possess poisons, as insects. Forcenturies, this functional vision has facilitated the sustainedcoexistence of these traditional populations with theecosystems of the upper Juruá river. That coexistence isdemonstrated by a relationship of respect and adoration,through strong mythological and cosmological traditionswith the natural environments (Eid, 1994; Aquino & Iglesias,1992; Costa, 1995; Begossi, et al., 1999).

Posey (1983) suggested that popular knowledge and the dailypractices of traditional populations, coupled with managementstrategies could be preponderant for the best use andconservation of natural resources. The management of naturalresources by traditional populations is an important experiencein the Amazon basin, and this experience should be used as amodel for the sustainable development and for the maintenanceof the biotic integrity of the area (Petrere, 1992).

83 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


Territoriality between traditional populations

The traditional populations use the fishing resources in acommon way, respecting the fisheries territories of each other.In the case of the populations Ashaninka and Kaxinawá,differences exist in the frequency of use of the different fishingspots. This low frequency of overlap in the use of fishingspots is probably due to the usual trade and war relationshipsbetween sub-Andean Arawak and the Panos (Eid, 1994).

Although the property is of common use between thetwo ethnics, territory delimitation is important as it gives abase for the restriction to the regime of the common property,regulating the transfer, use and distributions of the rights ofthe common resources (McCay & Acheson, 1987; Berkes,1985; Begossi, et al., 1995). The territory distinction betweenthe two ethnics is rooted in history. The Ashaninkas are knownin the area as possessors of great warring ability, their territoryof domain are of difficult access and their organization are inthe form of small nomadic groups of high mobility,denominated in the past as “ Anti “ by the Inca that dominatedthe oriental areas and its sub-Andean people. Like the sub-Andean Arawak, the Inca Empire (Century XI to XV)maintained exchange relationships without having vassalagepower. The ancestors of the Ashaninkas had certain autonomyin the Incan relationships of conquests, or against their mainenemies, the ethnics of the language Pano. However, inremote times, the Arawak and the Pano had already possessedalliances in relation to the Spanish expansions in the area,and they blocked the attempts of the colonial conquesttowards the oriental forests of Peru. After the onset of therubber trade, this fact started to exercise strong pressure onthe cultural and territorial patterns of the Arawak and Panopopulations in the forests of the Amazon area (Eid, 1994).

Nowadays, these populations still continue tomaintain a strong tradition of their cultures, with theirterritories informally and legally defined among theethnics that inhabit the area of Upper Juruá. However,the definition of territories between traditionalpopulations is a dynamic process, because some ethnicgroups are nomadic and the populational growths ofthese ethnics, as well as of the rubber-gathers, areincreasing on the border of the Brazilian/PeruvianAmazon (Eid, 1994; Aquino & Iglesias, 1992).

Management of free-access fisheries resources can includethe following vulnerabilities: a low control of the resources bythe community, the increase in the fisheries trade, the strongincrease in the use of the resources, and the fast changes intechnologies (Berkes, 1985). Hames (1982) analyzed theconservation of the exploitation of free-access resourcesthrough optimum foraging and conclude that the indigenoushunters of the Amazon area are not concerned withconservation, as they only seek an increase in the efficiency inthe way by which animal protein is obtained. Peres (1993)characterized the Kaxinawá of the Jordão river as opportunistfishermen, as they carefully observed the movements of fishesduring the reproductive season (“piracema”), placing a strong

demand on daily catches in order to supply the necessary intakeof animal protein (Begossi & Richerson, 1992; Begossi, 1996).Roberts & Baird, (1995) showed that the Khone fishermen ofMekong river possess fishery areas for generations in thedomain of local families.

The possibility of conflicts in the future is the new regionaldynamics of territory restriction and the growth of thetraditional human populations. Aquino & Iglesias (1992)mentioned that the incorporation of the rubber-gatheres farmsIndependence and Altamira to the Indigenous Area of Kaxinawáof the Jordão river occurred in order to absorb part of thepopulational contingent that inhabit the eight rubber-gatheresfarms in the area. During 18 years, the population Kaxinawátriplicated. In 1975 the natives were 383 people but in 1992this number increased to 1.085 in the Kaxinawá villages. In thefirst ten months of 1993, 63 children were born and only threeadults died. Thus, the increase of the traditional populations,and the changes in the patterns of the regional economies,can constitute a greater pressure upon the fishery resources,which are the basic subsistence food for these populations.Eventually, this fact may lead to conflicts in the exploitation offishing territories, implying tragedy of the commons (Hardin,1968) on the fishery resources.

McGrath, et al., (1994) mentioned that free-access fisheryresources lack any sort of regulation, and only exploitationrights exist in such systems. This type of system is confusedwith the regime of common property and the term“common” used by Hardin (1968) refers to the regime offree-access (McCay, 1996). However, and much on thecontrary, the notion of common property rights excludesand defends the local resources from other exploiters,regulates the number of users and the techniques ofresource allocation. The common property systems adoptedby the fishermen in the lakes of the Lower Amazon contradictthe thesis of Hardin (1968) of the tragedy of the commons,because the dynamics of free interest reconciled withresponsibilities in avoiding the “tragedy” is the powerunderpinning the success of the collective management ofthe fishery resources.

Hilborn et al., (1995) emphasized that most of theinstitutional successes in the maintenance of the sustainabilityof the fishery resources has been happening in communitiesof traditional fishermen or in private properties. Begossi

edoC segalliV -MTUsteW

-MTUhtroN

rotcaF1

rotcaF2

1 akninahsA 582327 60829 660,2 810,0

2 áwanixaKoãruoMod 799227 90929 413,0- 911,0-

3 áwanixaKminipaJod 530227 22139 083,0- 068,0

Table 6 - Association loads between the villages for theIndigenous Reservation.

84 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


edoC)eseugutroP(

stopsgnihsiF

)akninahsA(

stopsgnihsiF

stopsgnihsiF

)áwanixaK(

tseW

MTU

htroN

MTU

1rotcaF

2rotcaF

1akninahsA

aiedlAenyakniriK

nwonknu

ema

N582327

60829464,2-

770,0-2

oãruoM

odá

wanixaKaiedlA

nwonknu

ema

NayaK

79922790929

814,0283,0-

3minipaJ

odá

wanixaKaiedlA

nwonknu

ema

Nirikãna

mayaK

53022722139

413,0369,2

4oãçaraV

adacoB

nwonknu

ema

Na

wunaek

apaK859227

68829413,0

369,25

oãçalavAad

acoBn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N413,0

369,26

oãiluJod

acoBn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N413,0

369,27

arieohcaC

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

413,0369,2

8aoB

atsiVoãçacolo

Cn

wonknue

maN

emaraT

413,0369,2

9asa

Cad

oãritsEn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N814,0

283,0-01

abíapoC

adoãritsE

nwonknu

ema

Na

wunuxuB

814,0283,0-

11acasseR

adoãritsE

nwonknu

ema

Na

wunuxuB

814,0283,0-

21a

múamaS

adoãritsE

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

814,0283,0-

31aiarrA

edoãritsE

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

814,0283,0-

41ura

muC

odoãritsE

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

55822752929

814,0283,0-

51ailátI

éparagiod

oãritsEn

wonknue

maN

awun

ayauN

413,0369,2

61oãiluJ

odoãritsE

nwonknu

ema

Nayeket

uxuB039227

47829814,0

283,0-71

oteNleugi

Mod

oãritsEn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N814,0

283,0-81

orO

odoãritsE

nwonknu

ema

Naun

uxuB814,0

283,0-91

adaxieuQ

odoãritsE

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

814,0283,0-

02arierreFleona

Mod

oãritsEn

wonknue

maN

awun

akseteD

37022742039

413,0369,2

12lavsnarT

odetneulfa

éparagIn

wonknue

maN

axubiA814,0

283,0-22

oralednaC

éparagIn

wonknue

maN

ayautukhsaP

413,0369,2

32aiarP

adéparagI

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

814,0283,0-

42aiarrA

adéparagI

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

814,0283,0-

52ori

misaC

odéparagI

nwonknu

ema

Nay

atuB663,0

192,162

oãiluJod

éparagIn

wonknue

maN

ayeketa

waN

64922728829

283,0087,0

72ote

NleugiM

odéparagI

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

12132761139

593,0063,0

82áotaP

odéparagI

áotapenetah

Nn

wonknue

maN

03232760829

464,2-770,0-

92arib

macaM

adéparagI

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

413,0369,2

03aneca

Mod

éparagIn

wonknue

maN

axema

ukhsaP700127

36139504,0

720,013

egrameR

éparagIn

wonknue

maN

ayawan

ukhsaP490227

21039413,0

369,223

lavsnarTéparagI

nwonknu

ema

Naix

atixtureB

44022754039

413,0369,2

Tabl

e 7

- Ass

ocia

tion

load

s be

twee

n th

e fis

hing

spo

ts fo

r th

e In

dige

nous

Res

erva

tion.

cont. >

85 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


pg

edoC)eseugutroP(

stopsgnihsiF

)akninahsA(

stopsgnihsiF

stopsgnihsiF

)áwanixaK(

tseW

MTU

htroN

MTU

1rotcaF

2rotcaF

33ogaL

nwonknu

ema

Nãi

uxeM

413,0369,2

43anagi

Cad

ogaLuaht

iracnEn

wonknue

maN

79132774829

464,2-770,0-

53lisarB

odogaL

nwonknu

ema

Nãy

ukhseM

77922769829

204,0021,0

63ureP

odogaL

nwonknu

ema

Nãi

auhS404,0

840,073

aterPara

Cad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N673327

87729464,2-

770,0-83

aiarrAad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N814,0

283,0-93

ariednaBad

oçoPnorednab

ahtomo

Hn

wonknue

maN

71332710829

464,2-770,0-

04arierraB

adoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Na

wune

wem

awaB

51012722139

814,0283,0-

14mibuju

Ced

arierraBad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

awunene

mahsuK

504,0140,0

24ahleV

asaC

adoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Na

wunaxtatuhsA

28022741039

543,0649,1

34abíapo

Cad

oçoPéuc

ahtomo

Hn

wonknue

maN

93132741929

464,2-770,0-

44abujarapa

Mad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N814,0

283,0-54

adasuaPad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N642227

60929814,0

283,0-64

ardePad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

awun

hsahsaM

32032740929

502,0470,1

74odace

MardeP

adoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

65822729829

814,0283,0-

84arierdeP

adoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Na

wunhsahsa

M840227

65039114,0

771,0-94

aiarPad

oçoPikienap

miahto

moH

nwonknu

ema

N563327

28729464,2-

770,0-05

acasseRad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

awun

utãP718227

21929114,0

971,0-15

ednarG

atloVad

acasseRad

oçoPéropato

anagnauH

nwonknu

ema

N464,2-

770,0-25

orimisa

Cod

acasseRad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

awun

upaM

91032720929

814,0283,0-

35áotaP

odacasseR

adoçoP

áotapanagnau

Hn

wonknue

maN

42232701829

464,2-770,0-

45ohniu

Qod

acasserad

oçoPohniuq

anagnauH

nwonknu

ema

N464,2-

770,0-55

ednarG

atloVad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N571327

78829464,2-

770,0-65

orO

odoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Nau

N689227

40929014,0

521,0-75

oãdoglAod

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

awun

upahsia

N814,0

283,0-85

ohlAod

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

awun

astiauB827227

44929593,0

063,095

ógirAod

oçoPógira

ahtomo

Hn

wonknue

maN

33232771829

464,2-770,0-

06oiagapaP

edorierraB

odoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Na

wune

wem

awaB

473,0910,1

16refroB

odoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

814,0283,0-

26aço

Med

oçarBod

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

awun

iiraB

814,0283,0-

36mipa

Cod

oçoPraseneb

mihsahto

moH

nwonknu

ema

N123327

60829464,2-

770,0-46

ririhcuC

odoçoP

ririhcucahto

moH

awun

ririhcuC

86332772829

204,2-900,0-

56ura

muC

odoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Na

wunã

muK717227

00929814,0

283,0-

Tabl

e 7

- Ass

ocia

tion

load

s be

twee

n th

e fis

hing

spo

ts fo

r th

e In

dige

nous

Res

erva

tion.

(co

nt.)

cont. >

86 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


edo

C)eseugutr

oP(st

opsgnihsiF

)akninahsA(

stops

gnihsiFst

opsgnihsiF

)áwanixa

K(tse

WM

TU

htro

NM

TU

1r

otcaF2

rotcaF

66lote

God

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

awun

iakiaB169227

28829814,0

283,0-76

orietaluM

odoçoP

nwonknu

ema

Na

wunuhsA

90722741929

714,0853,0-

86ohnirassaP

odoçoP

iremist

ahtomo

Hn

wonknue

maN

534,2-440,0-

96sogaL

sodoçoP

iracneahto

moH

nwonknu

ema

N961327

30929464,2-

770,0-07

ednarG

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N539227

28829413,0

369,257

abúabmE

.Tad

oçoPn

wonknue

maN

axtatúkuB

84022770139

243,0050,2

17abailiga

Mad

aiarPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N182227

41929814,0

283,0-27

ópaC

odaiarP

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

814,0283,0-

37orietalu

Mod

aiarPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N814,0

283,0-47

ahniarPn

wonknue

maN

nwonknu

ema

N912327

53829464,2-

770,0-67

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

awun

upI814,0

283,0-77

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

awun

ibuhS814,0

283,0-87

nwonknu

ema

Nn

wonknue

maN

awun

araT024,0

973,0-

Tabl

e 7

- Ass

ocia

tion

load

s be

twee

n th

e fis

hing

spo

ts fo

r th

e In

dige

nous

Res

erva

tion.

(co

nt.)

(1996) defined that the property rights or uses of theresources varies in agreement with the different scales ofhuman behavior, with territoriality in its exploitation in anindividual, familial way, ghetto, clan, communities, villas,societies, among others. The evolution in the change of theterritoriality and the rights of fishing spots are related to thedensities of local fisheries, outsiders and sporting fishermen,to the diversities and availability of fishing spots and to thecapacity of the fishing technologies.

In the complex of conservation units and indigenousterritories in the area of Upper Juruá, there is the need ofimplementation of management plans for the sustaineddevelopment of the natural resources of the area. Whenconsidering the indigenous area of common use betweentwo populations with different habits, we have to define thepriorities that minimize the conflicts between the parts andthe gradual retraction of the fishing practices that depreciatethe stocks of the river Breu. The maintenance of thebiodiversity and the sustained use of the biologicalproductivity of these ecosystems for the traditionalpopulations should constitute the goals of the managementto be established in the area. However, the future of thesetraditional populations depends on its cultural resiliency(Begossi, 1995), that is, of their functional structures, of theexploitation and the conservation of the natural resourcesand of their cultural habits, of the dissipation of the conflictsand the invigoration of the tribal community organization.Thus, the management of the common resource should besupported by a more realistic and effective co-operationbetween traditional populations and the western societyrepresented by government and NGOs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To the Ashaninka/Kaxinawá communities for theirunderstanding and wisdom. CNPq for the grant, USP andNCI – Indigenous Culture Centre and Austrian Governmentfor the financial support for this study, and to Dr. Oswaldo T.Oyakawa, from the Zoological Museum of the University ofSão Paulo, for helping with taxonomic identification of thefish species. Dr Keith Brown Jr. and Dr. Miguel Petrere Jr. fortheir kindness in inviting us to participate in a pioneer projectin Acre which opened the opportunity for the present work.

Table 8 - Associations loads between the villages for theIndigenous Reservation.

edoC segalliV -MTUtseW

-MTUhtroN

rotcaF1

rotcaF2

1 akninahsA 582327 60829 834,2- 250,0-

2 áwanixaKoãruoMod 799227 90929 314,0 752,0-

3 áwanixaKminipaJod 530227 22139 113,0 499,1

87 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


LITERATURE CITED

Aquino, T. T. V.; Iglesias, M. P. 1992, Kaxinawá do Rio Jordão.História, Território, Economia e DesenvolvimentoSustentado. Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre, Setor Gráfico, RioBranco, Acre. 231pp.

Aquino, T. T. V. 1997. Índios nos corredores ecológicos daAmazônia. Unidades de conservação contínuas. Folha do MeioAmbiente. Brasília (DF). p. 7-8.

Beaumord, A. C. 1991. As Comunidades de Peixes do Rio Manso,Chapada dos Guimarães, MT: uma Abordagem EcológicaNumérica. MSc Tese de Mestrado. UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro (RJ),Brasil, 108pp.

Begossi, A.; Braga, F. M. S. 1992. Food taboos and folk medicineamong fishermen from the Tocantins river. Amazoniana, xii(1):101-118.

Begossi, A.; Richerson, P. J. 1992. The animal diet of families fromBúzios island (Brazil): An optimal foraging approach. Journalof Human Ecology, 3(2): 433-458.

Begossi, A. 1995. Cultural and ecological resilience among caiçarasof the Atlantic forest coast and caboclos of the Amazon (Brazil).In: Fifth Annual Common Property Conference, IASCP,“Reinventing the commons”. Bodo. Norway. 27pp.

Begossi, A.; Amaral, B. D.; Silvano, R. A. M. 1995. Reserva Extrativistado Alto Juruá: Aspectos de Etnoecologia In: Barbosa, S. R. C.S. (eds.). A Questão Ambiental: cenários de pesquisa. Aexperiência do Ciclo de Seminários do NEPAM. Textos NEPAM.Série “Divulgação Acadêmica”. Número 3. 95-106. UNICAMP.Campinas (SP).

Begossi, A. 1996. Property rights at different scales: applicationsfor conservation in Brazil. In: European Social Science FisheriesNetwork. Seville. Spain. 18pp.

Begossi, A.; Silvano, R. M.; Amaral, B. D.; Oyakawa, O. T. 1999.Uses of Fish and Games by Inhabitants of an Extractive Reserve(Upper Juruá, Acre, Brazil). Environment, Development andSustainability, 1: 73-93.

Berkes, F. 1985. Fishermen and the Tragedy of the Commons.Environmental Conservation, 12(3): 199-206.

Castro, F.; Begossi, A. 1995. Ecology of fishing on the Grande river(Brazil): technology and territorial rights. Fisheries Research,23: 361-373.

Costa, P. Jr. 1995. Uma breve introdução as práticas de pescafrente á ordem natural e a cosmológica na sociedadeenawenw-nawe. GERA. UFMT. Cuiabá (MT).

Eid, A. S. F. 1994. Ashaninka do rio Amônia, Ashaninka do rioBreu, Kaxinawá do rio Breu. Núcleo de Cultura Indígena,Centro de Pesquisa Indígena. São Paulo (SP). 24pp.

Emperaire, L.; Delavaux, J. J. 1992. Relatório de campo: Projeto“Enciclopédia do Seringueiro”. Reserva Extrativista do AltoJuruá (Acre). Etnobotanica.

GTA & Friends of the Earth. 1997. Políticas Públicas Coerentes.Para uma Amazônia Sustentável: O Desafio da Inovação e oPrograma Piloto. Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico. Friends ofthe Earth - Amigos da Terra Programa Amazônia. p. 189.

Hames, R. 1982. Proteína y Cultura en la Amazonía. AmazoníaPeruana., 3(6): 127-143.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.

Hilborn, R.; Walters, C. J.; Ludwig, D. 1995. Sustainable exploitationof renewable resources. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26: 45-67.

Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Haper & Row, N.Y.

Ludwig, J. A.; Reynolds, J. F. 1988. Statistical Ecology. A Primeron methods and computing. A Wiley-intercience PlubicationJOHN WILER & SONS. U.S.A. 338pp.

Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement.Groom Helm, London.

Manly, B. J. 1986. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer,London: Chapman & Hall. 159pp.

McCay, B. J.; Acheson, J. M. 1987. The Question of the commons:the culture and ecology of communal resources. Universityof Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona.

McCay, B. J. 1996. Participation of Fishers in Fisheries Management,In: Meyer, R. M.; Jhang, C.; Windsor, M. L.; McCay, B. J.; Hushak,L. J.; Muth, R. M. (eds.). Fisheries resource utilization and policy.Preceeding of the World Fisheries Congress, Theme 2. Oxford &IBH Publishing CO. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

McGrath, D. G.; Castro, F.; Camara, E.; Futemma, C. 1994.Community management of floodplain lakes and thesustainable development of Amazonian fisheries. In: “Diversity,Development and Conservation of the Amazon Floodplain”.Macapá. Amapá, Brazil. p. 27.

Meyer, R. M. 1994. Theme 2. Fisheries Resource Utilization andPolicy. In: Voigtlander, C. W. (eds). Condition of the world’saquatic habitat. Proceedings of the World FisheriesCongress, Plenary Session. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Muth, R. M. 1996. Subsistence and Artisanal Fisheries policy: AnInternational Assessment. In: Meyer, R. M., C. Jhang, M. L.Windsor, B. J. McCay, L. J. Hushak & Muth, R. M. (eds.).Fisheries resource utilization and policy. Proceeding of theWorld Fisheries Congress, Theme 2. Oxford & IBH PublishingCO. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Peres, C. A. 1993. Biodiversity Conservation by Native Amazonians:a Pilot Study in the Kaxinawá Indigenous Reserve of Jordãoriver, Acre, Brazil. A project report submitted to the WorldWildlife Fund, Washington D.C. p. 47.

Petrere, M. J. 1978. Pesca e esforço de pesca no Estado deAmazonas. II-Locais, arreios de pesca e estatísticas dedesembarque. Acta Amazonica 8, Suppl. 2(3). p. 54.

Petrere, M. J. 1992. As comunidades humanas ribeirinhas daAmazônia e suas transformações sociais. In: Diegues, A. C. (ed.)VI Encontro de Ciências Sociais e o Mar no Brasil. São Paulo.Coletâneas de Trabalhos Apresentados. São Paulo - Programade Pesquisa e Conservação de Áreas Úmidas no Brasil, IOUSP/F. Ford, UICN.

Posey, D. A. 1983. Indigenous knowledge and development:an ideological bridge to the future. Ciência e Cultura, 35(7):877-894.

88 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL


RADAMBRASIL, 1977. Folhas SB/SC, 18 Javari/Contamana;geologia, geomorfologia, pedologia, vegetação e uso potencialda terra. Departamento Nacional da Produção Mineral.Levantamento dos Recursos Naturais.Ministério das Minas eEnergia. Rio de Janeiro. 420pp.

Roberts, T. R.; Baird, I. G. 1995. Traditional fisheries and fishecology on the Mekong river at Khone waterfalls in southernLaos. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam. Soc., 43: 219-262.

Silvano, R. A. M.; Amaral, B.D.; Oyakawa, O.T. 2000. Spatial andtemporal patterns of diversity and distribution of the UpperJuruá river fish community (Brazilian Amazon). EnvironmentalBiology of Fishes, 57: 25-35.

Silvano, R. A. M.; Oyakawa, O. T.; Amaral, B. D.; Begossi, A. 2001.Peixes do Alto Rio Juruá (Amazonas, Brasil). FAPESP. Editorada Universidade de São Paulo. Imprensa Oficial do Estado.São Paulo. 304pp.

Sokal, R. R.; Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry. 3nd ed. Freeman SanFrancisco. C. A.

WCED, 1988. Nosso futuro comum. Comissão Mundial sobre MeioAmbiente e Desenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro: Editora daFundação Getulio Vargas. 430pp.

RECEBIDO EM 16/10/2001ACEITO EM 12/12/2003

Fishing territoriality and diversity between the ethnic ... · 75 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 Fishing...

Documents

Transcript of Fishing territoriality and diversity between the ethnic ... · 75 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 Fishing...