That period was important to .... macaco soldado. LC ...... http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80229/CNUC_JUL18%20-%20B_Cat.pdf [Accessed 29 ..... as perguntas foram previamente elaboradas no sentido de não causar desconforto,.
An Investigation into Primate Diversity and Livelihoods of the Maraguá people in Central Amazonia, Amazonas, Brazil
Final dissertation of the MSC Primate Conservation 2017-2018 Oxford Brookes University
Simon Benjamin Knoop
Title: An Investigation into Primate Diversity and Livelihoods of the Maraguá people in Central Amazonia, Amazonas, Brazil Student number: 17038994 Surname: Knoop Forenames: Simon Benjamin Course for which applicable: MSC Primate Conservation Date of submission: Sep. 7th 2018 Word count: 16.219
This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the regulations for an MSc degree.
Cover illustration: Yaguarê Yamâ (untitled). With friendly permission of the artist Cover frame: Maraguá flag
ABSTRACT The Amazon basin is one of the most important ecosystems for the sustenance of biodiversity on the planet. This biodiversity is threatened by large-scale deforestation and hunting. Effective planning, monitoring, and management of protected areas are needed to effectively preserve species on the long-term. This requires a detailed understanding about local biodiversity and how it is influenced by humans as well as about the significance of wildlife for local people. The present study was conducted along the lower Abacaxis, Urariá and Marimari rivers in the Brazilian state of Amazonas, Central Amazon. Semi-structured interviews and display of primate pictures were used to access local and traditional ecological knowledge (LEK and TEK) of the indigenous Maraguá people about primate diversity and their use of primates, the role of wildlife for people’s sustenance and threats to biodiversity in the study area. The study confirms the presence of 13 species of primates in the study region, three of which are Endangered (Ateles chamek, Lagothrix cana and Chiropotes albinasus). It furthermore reveals the influence of food taboos associated with Adventist religion on hunting. Adventists focused on different target species than nonAdventists. Maraguá livelihoods were found to depend mainly on fishing, agriculture and hunting. Commercial hunting was identified as the most important threat to local biodiversity. The study sites are situated within the area proposed as indigenous Maraguá land. The legal demarcation process is pending. In the light of the results, the conservation potential of the study area as indigenous land is discussed.
i
Acknowledgements First and most of all, I want to thank the Maraguá people for receiving me with overwhelming hospitality. From all Maraguá, the most special thank-you goes to my “local facilitator” Uziel Guaynê Oliveira. His invitation was an essential starting point of this project. His devoted engagement and his generosity constituted a major base of the success of the project and my confidence and wellbeing during field work. I am grateful for the friendship resulting from our common ventures. I also would like to express my great gratitude to Yaguarê Yamã. As their main cultural ambassador, he opened the doors into the Maraguá community. Honourable acknowledgements go to the tuxawas Maraguá Salim of Kayauézinho, Quimim, and tuxawa geral1 Jair, as well as to tuxawa Sateré Mawé Marciel of Vila Batista for permitting field research and acknowledging its importance. Special thanks go to Elias Yaguakãg for his spiritual support in the Maraguá land and to Egidia Reis for her motherly care. Paula, Paola and Jonas Oliveira, Lia Minapoty, Geisa, Wesley and Jeremias Mattos were essential forces for making me feel at home in the field. Jaider Esbell, Luan Caja and Gabriel Knoop paved the way from the “concrete jungle” of Manaus into the forest. I feel strong gratitude for Jordi Salmona and Lounès Chikhi who guided my first steps into the field of primatology and conservation research. Very cordial thanks go to my supervisor Susan M. Cheyne. Her consent to supervise me from abroad and her flexibility regarding project changes immensely facilitated the eventual realization of the project in the most convenient way. Her important advice essentially improved earlier drafts of this work. Introducing me to Adrian Barnett was the beginning of it all.
1
Tuxawa= chief, tuxawa geral=general chief
ii
I also would also like to cheerfully thank all my other teachers of Oxford Brookes University plus Magdalena Svensson and Giuseppe Donati for their professional but light-hearted inspiration and support. My flatmates Hans Schreier, Ildiko Kovacs, Ana Rodiriguez Romani, and especially Krisztián Mihalyi deserve the honorably mention since they gave me the comfort of a family and made my Oxford-life so much more joyful. I received very important emotional and professional support for the preparation of the project by Dayse Ferreira. Her infectious enthusiasm for conservation research helped me overcome the difficult phase of finding a research project and her valuable advice contributed essentially to the quality of this work. I received Indispensable help also by Thays Queiroz Morcatty, a passionate conservationist who showed dedicated helpfulness during all phases of the project. This work benefitted from her technical support. I warmly thank Adrian Barnett for his invitation to the INPA. Acknowledgements also go to Wilson Spironello for specialist advice. Furthermore, I would like to thank Jonas Gonçalves, Diogo Alexandre de Souza, André Luis, Tainara V. Sobroza, and Natalia Pimenta of the INPA for their sacrificing support during the time in Manaus. A very special thank-you goes to Jen Muir for her true fellowship since the Oxford times and for her indestructible humor. I feel inexpressible gratitude for the love and unconditional confidence of my parents Juliane Knoop and Pari Schneider and my beloved siblings Surya Wittig and Gabriel Knoop. I am grateful to my aunts Dorothea Knoop, Veronika Knoop and Eva Wittke and my uncle Jürgen Hort for their love and their global support of my adventures. The gratitude I feel for my wife Flora Suzuki lies beyond the scope of words. Making the plan to join the MSC in Primate Conservation; keeping up the time in Oxford; travelling to the Amazon; iii
making the way from the city into the forest; living in the communities; conducting field work; and finally doing the write-up- during all these stages, I was blessed by Flora’s constant intellectual, practical, and emotional support. Our love was the driving force for the realization of this fruitful project and will be for future adventures to come.
Financial support for this project was granted by the Gesellschaft für Primatologie (German Primatological Association).
iv
Table of contents
ABSTRACT..…………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………..i Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..ii Table of contents…….…….………………………………………………………………………………………...…….v List of tables and figures……………………………………………………………………………..……….……….vii List of abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………..…………………………viii
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………1 2. BACKGROUND …………………………………………………….…………………………………….………..3 3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES …………………………………………………………………………….………….5 4. MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………………………………………………….…………6 4.1. Study site……………………………………………………………......……………..………………………6 4.2. Introduction into communities and gathering of preliminary information...........……9 4.3. Selection of participants and interview procedure……………………………….…….……..10 4.4. Collected data……………………………………………………………………..…………………………11 4.4.1. Livelihoods………………………………….……………………………………………………..11 4.4.2. Primates………………………………………………………………………………….………..13 4.4.3. Collection of supplementary data……………………………………………………..…….17
4.5. Data analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 4.6. Permits and permission, ethics approval…………………………………………………..………17
5. RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………..………18 5.1. Primates……………………………..............................................................................18 5.1.1. Diversity and abundance……………………………………………………………………….18 5.1.2. Primates and people…………………………………………………….……………..……….25
5.2. Livelihoods..……………………………………………………………………..………..………………….34 5.2.1. Agriculture………………………….…………………………..……………..………………….34 v
5.2.2. Fishing ………………………………….……………………………………………..……………36 5.2.3. Hunting ………………………………………………………………………………………….….37
5.3. Other use of wildlife……………………………………………………………………….……………....40 5.4. Wildlife use and religion……………………………………………………………………………….….40 5.5. Commercial activities impacting biodiversity……………………………………………………..42 5.6. Rare species…………………………………………………………………………………………..………43
6. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………………………………….45 6.1. Primates …………………………………………………………………………………………….……..….45 6.1.1. Diversity and abundance………………………………………………………………….…….45 6.1.2. Primates and people………………………………………………………………………….….49
6.2. Biodiversity conservation and indigenous livelihoods………………………….………………50 6.2.1. Current impact on wildlife diversity- and abundance ………………………………..….50 6.2.2. Hunting and indigenous livelihoods………………………………………………………….51 6.2.3. Local incentives for conservation………………………………………………..……………52 6.2.4. Approaches for mitigating subsistence hunting impact on wildlife……….….………53
6.3. Adventism and wild meat taboos……………………………….………………………….………….57
7. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK.................................................................................58 8. LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................61
APPENDICES A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.
Animals used for medicinal purposes………………………………………………………………...67 Animals used for spiritual purposes……………………………………………………………….…..68 Animals used for artwork……………………………………………………………………………………69 Questionnaire.........................................................................................................70 Primate images.......................................................................................................75 Ethics form Oxford Brookes University……………………………………………………………….83 Research authorization of ASPIM………………………………………………..……………………..84 Consent form interviewees…………………………………………………………………………………85
vi
List of tables and figures Tables Table 1: Overview on study sites…………………………………………………………………………….………………….7 Table 2: Overview on participants………………………………………………………………………………..…………..11 Table 3: Primate species displayed………………………………………………………………………………………..….16 Table 4: Primate species identified in the study area …………………………………………………………..…..24
Figures Figure 1: Maraguá elders with traditional headdresses of macaw (Ara sp.) feathers…………..………5 Figure 2: Study area and location within the Amazon and within South America…….….………………8 Figure 3: Conducting an interview in Terra preta……………………………………………………………………...11 Figure 4: “Primate talk” in Terra preta………………………………………………………………………………………15 Figure 5: Primate species confirmed to be present in the study area…………………………………..……23 Figure 6: Primate species hunted for food………………………………………………………………………………..26 Figure 7: A golden-white tassel-ear marmoset kept as a pet………………………………………………………29 Figure 8: A Maraguá wearing a collar with tufted capuchin’s teeth…………………………………………….30 Figure 9: A juvenile white-nosed saki kept as a pet in Nova Olinda do Norte……………………………….31 Figure 10: A duster made from a tail of a Miller’s saki in Vila Batista……………………………..…………….32 Figure 11: Slash-and burn agriculture in Vila Batista…………………………………………………………….…….35 Figure 12: Farinheira in Vila Batista where farinha is produced…………………………………..……………..36 Figure 13: Preparing fish in Kayauézinho………………………………………………………………………….………..37 Figure 14: Meat of a lowland paca in Terra preta ………………………………………….……………………………38 Figure 15: Animals reported to be most hunted by more than 5 participants………………………..……39 Figure 16: Consumption of game species by religious group…………………………………..………………….41 Figure 17: Rare species………………………………………………………………………………………………………………44
vii
List of abbreviations ASPIM- Associação do povo indígena Maraguá (Association of the indigenous Maraguá people)
FNPR- Floresta Nacional Pau-Rosa (Pau-Rosa National Forest)
FUNAI- Fundação Nacional do Índio (Brazilian foundation for indigenous people)
IBAMA-Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources)
INPA- Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (Brazilian national Institute of Amazon studies)
IUCN- International Union for the conservation of nature
LEK- Local ecological knowledge
NON- Nova Olinda do Norte
TEK- Traditional ecological knowledge
TP-Terra preta
VB-Vila Batista
viii
1. INTRODUCTION As the largest forested area in the tropics, the Amazon basin is one of the most important natural environments for both climate regulation (Malhi et al. 2008) and the sustenance of biodiversity at a global scale (Pimm et al. 2014). The Amazon hosts the world’s largest diversity of primates. Ninety-two species of all five families of Neotropical primates are present alone in the Brazilian part of the biome (Paglia et al. 2012, Campbell et al. 2016) 2. Owing to the large area and the low accessibility of the Amazonian biome, combined with the manifold threats they are facing (see below), estimating the diversity, abundance and conservation status of Amazonian primates poses a challenge to primatologists (Michalski et al. 2017). Although the Amazon, compared to other tropical regions, still contains large areas of undisturbed forest, human impact is severe. Between 1970 and 2017, 769.000km 2 of forest has been removed alone in the Brazilian part of the basin Amazon3 (Butler 2017, MMA 2018), an area more than three times larger than the size of the UK and Ireland. Deforestation and forest fragmentation, mainly owing to cattle ranching (responsible for about 80% of deforestation) and soybean cultivation are the main threats posed to this ecosystem (Nepstad et al. 2009). Aside from deforestation, an additional critical threat to biodiversity in the Amazon and elsewhere in the tropics is overhunting (Milner-Gulland and Bennett 2003, Vié et al. 2009, Parry et al. 2014). Whereas the scope of deforestation and fragmentation is relatively easy to be estimated using satellite data (Turner et al. 2003), the estimation of hunting impact on biodiversity poses a major challenge to conservationists as it requires intensive on-ground effort (de la Montaña et al. 2015, Parry and Peres 2015). From a holistic ecological perspective (Osborne 2000), providing food for forest dwellers is a main ecological function of larger vertebrates (Peres 2000a, Milner-Gulland and Bennett 2003, Leroy and Praet 2015). This is particularly prevailing in Amazonia, where indigenous livelihood strategies are more preserved than elsewhere in the world and thus, still depend mainly on forest resources
2 3
Of a total of 118 Brazilian primate species recognized in 2012 (Paglia et al. 2012) The Brazilian part of the Amazon represents about 60% of the total area of the biome (Butler 2017).
1
(Ayres et al. 1991, Shepard Jr. et al. 2012). Furthermore, hunting is an essential cultural pillar of Amazonian tribes (Fausto 2007, Shepard Jr. et al. 2012). Human encroachment since Amazonian colonization by non-indigenous people, however has threatened many Amazonian species with extinction. During the last century, commercial hunting of large mammals for the international fur trade significantly diminished populations, also in remote areas (Antunes et al. 2016). Today, large scale illegal commercial hunting in the Amazon is predominantly supplying regional wild meat4 markets (van Vliet et al. 2014). The facilitated accessibility due to the expansion of road networks and infrastructure projects, combined with illegal colonization and urban population growth are the most important drivers for the depletion of animal populations by commercial hunting (Peres and Lake 2003, Laurance and Balmford 2013, Laurance et al. 2015). In the light of this situation, and taking into consideration that Amazonian populations are growing and the use of firearms for hunting is widespread, the sustainability of subsistence hunting by forest-dwelling people is controversial (Redford and Sanderson 2000, Schwartzman et al. 2000, Moller et al. 2004). Despite of threatening species with extinction, hunting may have serious detrimental effects on ecosystems (Fa et al. 2002). Most primate species, for example, are important seed dispersers and food for specialized predators (Terborgh et al. 2008, Barnett et al. 2011)). This process in turn poses a threat to the cultural integrity and food security of indigenous and other forest dwelling people who directly depend on functioning ecosystems for subsistence (de la Montaña et al. 2015). The situation described above urges the need for effective conservation measures. Although not undisputed (Oates 1999, Terborgh 1999), it is widely accepted in the literature that integrating local people into conservation processes is crucial for effective long-term conservation (Brechin et al. 2002, Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003, Adams 2004). In the Amazon, indigenous lands exceed the area of all environmental conservation units (CNUC/MMA 2018, FUNAI 2018), highlighting their enormous conservation potential. The full exploitation of this potential,
4
Throughout this study, the term “wild meat” and not “bush meat”, often associated with criticism on poaching in Africa (Milner-Gulland and Bennett 2003) will be applied for a more neutral approach.
2
however, depends on the understanding of how these people impact biodiversity, how their livelihoods depend on and how they perceive their environment (Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003, Berkes 2012, Morsello et al. 2015). Accordingly, studying knowledge systems of people inhabiting conservation priority areas constitutes an important field of conservation research (Moller et al. 2004, Anadón et al. 2009, Parry and Peres 2015). It can be distinguished between two major knowledge systems that are of particular value for conservationists: Local ecological knowledge (LEK) and Traditional ecological knowledge (herein abbreviated as TEK). LEK can be defined as the current knowledge of individuals about their environment (Moller et al. 2004, Gilchrist et al. 2005). It may be used for obtaining information on the presence and the abundance of species as well as to obtain qualitative population trends and information on population threats (Moller et al. 2004, Gilchrist et al. 2005, Anadón et al. 2009). Against this, TEK can be understood as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission”, as defined by Berkes (1999, p. 9). Studying TEK can allow insights about the traditional role and perception of the environment and the species present therein, such as about how species are traditionally used and which role they play in belief systems, as well as about how humans perceive themselves within their environment (Gadgil et al. 1993, Moller et al. 2004). In this way, on-ground research focusing on people can help identifying appropriate conservation measures and contribute to efficient conservation planning, monitoring and management (Brook and McLachlan 2008, Anadón et al. 2009, Parry and Peres 2015).
2. BACKGROUND The present study focuses mainly on indigenous Maraguá communities, although research was also conducted in a Sateré-Mawé village (see chapter 4.1). The Maraguá tribe is originated from the today extinct Aruak people. The first historical quote of the tribe was made by the missionary Samuel Fritz in 1700. Because of their small population (less 3
than 500 people, Y. Yamã, personal estimation) and their close geographic and cultural relation with the Sateré-Mawé people, very few anthropologic studies explicitly focusing on the tribe have been conducted (Yamã et al. 2014; see Teixeira 2005 for detailed information about Sateré-Mawé livelihoods and culture). Different waves of Christian proselytizing, starting from around 1700, persecution by and assimilation with white settlers encroaching the area in the course of the rubber boom from the middle of the 19th century (Weinstein 1983, Yamã et al. 2014) lead to the partly deterioration of the Maraguá culture, most importantly to the loss of their traditional language, nheengatu, and the replacement of traditional animistic religion with Christian belief. Today, besides Catholicism, Seventh-day Adventism is the predominant confession of the Maraguá, resulting from recent proselytizing in the middle of the 20th century (Yamã et al. 2014). Seventh-day Adventism is a Protestant denomination, characterized by sabbatarianism (the observance of Saturday) and meat taboos derived from the Hebrew bible which forbid the consumption of meat other than that of birds and ruminants (Queen et al. 2009). Despite the partial cultural deterioration, traditional livelihoods of the Maraguá remain largely unchanged until today, depending mainly on fishing, hunting, and cassava (Manihot sp.) cultivation (see chapter. 5.2). However, traditional hunting methods (mainly bow and arrow, spears, and different kinds of traps) have been mostly replaced by firearms (Yamã et al. 2014). As most other Amazonian tribes (Fausto 2007, Shepard Jr. et al. 2012), wild animals play an important role for Maraguá cultural identification and representation. Parts of different animal species are used for the production of headdresses, bracelets, and collars, etc. that are worn on tribal festivities and cultural representation events (figure 1) (Yamã et al. 2014). Since decades, the Maraguá have been claiming the legal recognition of their land (Yamã et al. 2014). In 2012, the FUNAI identified the area of the lower Abacaxis river as Terra indígena Maraguá (Maraguá indigenous land). The homologation process is still pending (FUNAI 2018).
4
Figure 1: Maraguá elders with traditional headdresses of macaw (Ara sp.) feathers during a tribal gathering. Photo: F. Suzuki
3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The present work presents the results of a two-month field expedition into the area of the lower Abacaxis5, Urariá and Marimari rivers in the Eastern part of the Brazilian state of Amazonas, Central Amazonia (figure 2). The objective of the study is to provide a preliminary assessment of livelihoods, biodiversity, and conservation issues (with a focus on primates) in the study area, using LEK and TEK of local indigenous people. The concrete aims of the study are 1) Gaining insights into the diversity of primate species in the study area 2) Assessing local indigenous people’s use of and attitudes towards primates
5
Abacaxis [ɑːbʌkʌʃíːs] is Portuguese for pineapple
5
3) Exploring hunting customs by the local indigenous people, including definition of main target species, factors influencing hunting behaviour and the importance of hunting for subsistence and culture 4) Learning about the influence of religion on hunting behaviour 5) Identifying local threats to biodiversity 6) Discussing the potential of indigenous reserves for wildlife conservation and evaluating
consequential implications for the present case study.
4. MATERIALS AND METHODS 4.1. Study site The study was conducted within the Madeira-Tapajós interfluvium in the municipalities of Nova Olinda do Norte (NON) and Borba, located in the Central Amazon in the eastern part of the state of Amazonas, Brazil. The municipalities are situated on the eastern side of the Madeira river, approximately 200km southwest from Manaus, the capital of Amazonas (figure 2). The population density of NON is 6.38 and that of Borba 0.9 inhabitants per km2. The HDI of both NON and Borba is 0.6 (“low”) (PNUD Brasil 2018). The main vegetation types in the area are lowland terra firme rainforest and igapó (seasonally inundated forest) (INPA 2018). The region is characterized by pronounced seasons. During the rainy season (December to April), monthly precipitation averages up to 320mm. During the dry season, monthly rainfall decreases to as low as 65mm (INMET 2018). Field research for this project was conducted by the beginning of the dry season, in June and July 2018. Data collection for this research project was conducted in four indigenous communities: Terra Preta (TP) and Pilão are located at the lower Abacaxis6 river (municipality of NON), Kayauézinho
6
Abacaxis [ɑːbʌkʌʃíːs] is Portuguese for pineapple
6
at the lower Urariá river (NON) and Vila Batista (VB) at the lower Marimari river (municipality of Borba) (figure 2). TP, Pilão and Kayauézinho are communities of the Maraguá people. The villages are not located in any reserve but are situated within the area proposed as indigenous Maraguá land. VB is populated by the indigenous Sateré-Mawé people and located within the indigenous reserve (terra indígena) Coatá-Laranjal. The nearest biodiversity conservation unit is the Floresta Nacional de Pau-Rosa (FNPR, see figure 2). The selection of the study area is based on three main reasons: Firstly, no published research has so far been conducted on Maraguá hunting and livelihood strategies. Secondly, the Maraguá territory is not yet demarcated. This research project aims to evaluate the potential effects of demarcation on wildlife. The community VB was selected as a reference. Thirdly, except from an expedition by Noronha and colleagues in 2004, focusing on callitrichids (Noronha et al. 2007, 2008), no research primarily focusing on primates in the present study area has been published. This project aims to provide a preliminary overview on the diversity and abundance of primates in the area. A short overview on the research effort in each community is presented in table 1. Table 1: overview on study sites Village Ethnic group Families TP Pilão Kayauézinho VB
Maraguá Maraguá Maraguá Sateré-Mawé
19 6 13 54
Interviews (Adventist) 13 (9) 6 (0) 7 (0) 5 (4)
Days spent 12 1 10 2
Latitude/ longitude coordinates -4.374/ -58.640 -4.399/ 58.602 -3.8751/ -58.752 -4.0378/ -58.934
Table 1: Study villages including ethnic group, number of families living in each village, number of interviews conducted and proportion of Adventist participants, days spent in village and geographic position in latitude/longitude format (from GPS waypoints).
7
Figure 2: Study area (a) and location within the Amazon (b) and within South America(c). V.Abacaxis= Vila Abacaxis. FNPR= Floresta Nacional Pau-Rosa. Basemap obtained from www.googlemaps.com. Map of South America obtained from www.worldatlas.com.
8
4.2. Introduction into communities and gathering of preliminary information Introduction to the indigenous communities was enabled by the local facilitator. He is the vice chief of the Maraguá community at the Urariá river and is descendant of both the Maraguá and the Sateré-Mawé people. Therefore, he is well respected in all visited villages and known by most habitants. The local facilitator also rendered transportation between the villages and organized accommodation. Before starting data collection in a community, it was necessary to get the authorization of the respective tuxawa. My local facilitator introduced me to the tuxawa of each village and helped explain my intention and the purpose of my research. The chiefs of all four communities showed concern about overexploitation of wildlife. They were happy to authorize the project; under the condition that I would send a résumé of my results to them. None of the members of the visited villages had ever before experienced the presence of any researcher before. I participated in every-day activities (such as fishing, cassava harvesting and playing soccer) to promote familiarization and trust on both sides. Informal conversations with village members during this “introduction phase” helped to gain preliminary information about hunting customs and about the scope of wildlife exploitation. Also, these conversations helped to identify potential interview participants. In the study villages, most men were engaged in hunting activities. Hunting (especially of prominent species such as jaguars (Panthera onca), pumas (Puma concolor) and tapirs (Tapirus terrestris) is considered a prestigious activity and hence, especially older hunters were generally happy to share their success stories and their adventures in the forest. On the other hand, younger hunters who had hunted “only” smaller and more common species were often reluctant to tell about their hunting activities. It was therefore necessary to explain that the main focus of my research was not to gather the most exciting stories but to gain a realistic image about wildlife and hunting behaviour.
9
4.3. Selection of participants and interview procedure In order to prevent bias resulting from interviewee selection, it should be ensured that participants either represent the whole population or are randomly selected (Martin 1983). In case of this project, it was not possible to guarantee these requirements due to the lack of socioeconomic data for the visited communities. Due to the broad research topic and the limited time available for field research, I selected participants towards their knowledge about -
wildlife and past development of species diversity and abundance
-
Current importance of hunting for livelihoods and species hunted
-
Influence of religion on hunting and consumption of wildlife
Only men were interviewed since I get to know no women engaging in hunting activities. Generally, older men were most knowledgeable about wildlife. Those were insofar eligible as they could provide information about past hunting practices, the development of wildlife abundance and diversity during the last decades and about traditional use of wildlife for medicine and crafts. Older men, however, usually hunted less than younger men. In order to more accurately represent the actual situation, I aimed for a balanced representation of age groups (table 2). Another criterion for selection of participants was their religious affiliation. I tried to represent Catholics and Adventists as balanced as possible (table 1). In total, 31 semi-structured interviews in four indigenous communities were conducted (tables 1, 2). Interviews were held with 1 to 3 participants at a time and were recorded with a voice recorder with the agreement of the interviewee. Additionally, notes of all key information were taken. Before starting the interview, I introduced myself to the participant and explained the aims of my research. Generally, an informal chat followed the introduction. That period was important to familiarize both parties with each other. In several occasions, the facilitator was present during interviews. His light-hearted attitude helped to create an entertaining and pleasant atmosphere, enhancing the interviewees’ and the researcher’s comfort and motivation. All interviews were conducted in Portuguese. No translator was needed.
10
Table 2: Overview on participants 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 3 8 7 4 7 Table 2: Number of participants for each age group
70-79 2
80-83 2
Figure 3: Conducting a semi-structured interview in TP. Photo: F. Suzuki
4.4. Collected data 4.4.1. Livelihoods To meet the diverse objective of this research project (see aims and objectives), a multidisciplinary approach of data collection was chosen. Interviews consisted of two different phases. Phase 1 had the character of a structured interview and served for collection of quantitative data, e.g., socioeconomic information about the participant’s household, frequency of hunting, etc.
11
Phase 2 was designed as a semi- structured interview. Semi-structured interviews are considered a powerful tool for the exploration of attitudes, knowledge and behaviour of people (Gray 2004). As a qualitative method of data collection, semi-structured interviews focus on individuals’ perceptions and experiences (gathered in form of text or voice recording) rather than on quantitative data for the production of numeric figures. This approach meets the comprehension that conducting research about the reality of people’s lives is challenging for various reasons: First of all, the perceived reality of an individual is a product of social construction. Secondly, variables influencing the reality are complex and interwoven and therefore difficult to measure, and, thirdly, the gathered data are to some extant product of the relationship and the interactions between the researcher and the participant (Russell 1940, Glesne and Peshkin 1992). The use of semi-structured interviews allowed exploration about information beyond the scope of quantitative data and, hence, helped to gain a more holistic image about peoples’ reality. Also, it allowed room for discussion between all people present during the time of the interview (interviewee(s) and friends or family members, researcher and research assistant), facilitating exploration of unforeseen aspects of the topics. Based on the abovementioned nature of qualitative data, it is difficult to draw a representative image of a whole population by extrapolating statements of individuals. Therefore, the qualitative results of this research may be interpreted as a preliminary exploration of local knowledge, customs and behaviours in the study area, based on the individuals’ perceptions of their reality. The interview topics can be roughly divided into the following categories (see Appendix D for the questionnaire A) General information about participant and socioeconomic data about household: Name, age and origin of participant, ethnic group, time living in community, religion, number of people in the household, main sources and value of income, type and value of subsidies B) Agriculture Agricultural activities, including keeping of domestic animals as protein source (selfsubsistence/commerce) 12
C) Information about hunting activities and use of wild animals: Hunting technique, number of hunting activities per month, main hunting season, main target species, distance of hunting ground from village, keeping of wild animals, purpose of hunting (self-subsistence, commerce), value and destination of sold bush meat, protein preference (bush meat, domestic meat, fish), adherence to meat taboos, species used for medicinal, decorative and spiritual purposes D) Conservation issues Presence of activities detrimental to biodiversity in the area, presence/absence of environmental law enforcement, opinion about necessity of environmental law enforcement, identification of animal species that became rare during lifetime of participants and suspected reasons for rareness
4.4.2. Primates Primate diversity and abundance In order to learn about primate diversity and abundance, I selected 25 of the 31 participants to participate in “primate talks” (figure 4). Participants were chosen according to their disposition and interest in participation. At first, images of primates were presented to the participants (Appendix E). All primates present in the Madeira-Tapajós interfluvium, according to IUCN (2018) were represented in the set of pictures (n=19). Those included species that, according to current knowledge, are restricted to a small area within the interfluvium, also if not congruent to the study area, in order to possibly contribute to a more exact delineation of species’ distribution areas. Photographs of species were retrieved from https://www.arkive.org/ and google images search engine. Photographs were selected in a way that showed species-specific characteristics in the best possible way. As this criterion could not be fulfilled for the genus Plecturocebus, illustrations were shown for this group. The black-headed night monkey (Aotus nigriceps) was represented by a photo of the Spix’s night monkey (A. vociferans) because of lack of an appropriate image. 13
Participants were asked to answer the following questions about each species -
Do you recognize this species? If yes, what is its name?
-
Have you seen this species in the wild in this area? If yes, can you estimate the abundance of the species (rare, abundant)? If not, is this species present in other areas? Where?
-
Was this species more abundant in the past? If yes, can you estimate why it has become rarer?
If images were shown to several participants at a time, results were noted for each participant separately. A potential problem is that participants may confirm the presence or the absence of a species without feeling certain because they feel uncomfortable to say that they do not recognize a specific species. In order to minimize risks arising from discomfort, it was made clear that the purpose of the method was not to test participants and that non-recognition or reporting absence of a species was as valuable as recognition or reporting presence of a species. To test reliability of participants, photographs of primates not present in the area were shown together with potentially present species (Cebuella pygmaea and Pithecia crysocephala, table 3, Appendix E). Clearly, the presence of the local facilitator also was a major asset enhancing the comfort and reliability of participants.
14
Figure 4: “Primate talk” in TP. Photo: F. Suzuki
Table 3: Primate species displayed Family
Scientific name
English name
Local name
IUCN status
Aotidae
Aotus nigriceps
Black-headed night monkey
Macaco da noite
LC
Atelidae
Alouatta nigerrima
Black howler
Guariba preta
LC
Ateles chamek
Black-faced spider monkey
Coatá
EN
Lagothrix cana
Peruvian woolly monkey
Barrigudo
EN
Cebuella pygmaea
Pygmy marmoset
na
LC
Mico acariensis
Rio Acari marmoset
Chuim
DD
Mico chrysoleucos
Golden-white
tassel-ear
Chuim branco
DD
tassel-ear
Chuim
DD
Callitrichidae
Marmoset Mico humeralifer
Black-and-white marmoset
Mico mauesi
Maués marmoset
Chuim
LC
Mico saterei
Sateré marmoset
Chuim
LC
15
Cebidae
Cebus albifrons
Humboldt’s
white-fronted
Caiarara
LC
capuchin Sapajus apella
Black-capped capuchin
Macaco prego
LC
Saimiri sciureus
Common squirrel monkey
Macaco de cheiro,
LC
macaco soldado Pitheciidae
Chiropotes albinasus
White-nosed saki
cuxiú
EN
Pithecia crysocephala
Golden- faced saki
Macaco velho
LC
Pithecia milleri
Miller’s saki
Macaco velho
DD
Plecturocebus baptista
Baptista lake titi monkey
Zogue-zogue
LC
Plecturocebus bernhardi
Prince Bernhard’s titi monkey
Zogue-zogue
LC
Plecturocebus
Ashy black titi monkey
Zogue-zogue
LC
Hoffmann’s titi monkey
Zogue-zogue
LC
Milton’s titi monkey
Zogue-zogue
na
cinerascens Plecturocebus hoffmannsi Plecturocebus miltoni
Table 3: Primate species represented in the pictures displayed to participants. Conservation status: EN= Endangered, NT= Nearly threatened, LC= Least concern, DD= Data deficient. Species marked with a yellow background are “test species” and not present in the study area. na= no data available.
Use of primates In order to find out which species were used with which frequency and for which purpose, all 31 interview participants were asked to answer the following questions about primates (cf. questionnaire, Appendix D): -
Which species of monkeys do you hunt or capture? How often? (often, sometimes, rarely, formerly)
-
If you hunt or capture this species, for what purpose?
-
Have you ever kept this species as a pet?
-
Is this species being commercialized in the area? If yes, by whom? Which value?
16
4.4.3. Collection of supplementary data During my stay in the communities, I had the chance to enter into dialogue with people from different sexes, ages and positions. These conversations emerged naturally and were not part of a planned methodology. Yet, they were an important component to gain a more comprehensive understanding of wildlife as part of the indigenous reality that would not have been gained through the mere conduction of interviews and helped to contextualize the results. The insights gained from this experience were registered in a field diary. Additionally, one unstructured interview was conducted with a former participant of environmental law enforcement ventures at the Abacaxis river.
4.5. Data analysis Recorded interviews were transcribed. Qualitative data from interviews and field diary were organized by topics in Microsoft Word (Microsoft 2010a). For organization and descriptive statistics of quantitative data Microsoft Excel (Microsoft 2010b) was used.
4.6. Permits and permission, ethics approval Ethical approval for this research project was provided by Oxford Brookes University (see Appendix F). A standardized consent form of the Ethics committee of the INPA for research on human subjects was delivered to all participants, which they were required to sign (Appendix H). It was countersigned by the researcher. The form includes information about the purpose of the research, and informed participants that participation was voluntary and that they could retrieve from the interview at any time during or after the interview. The form also included the researcher’s contact address and the contact of the local facilitator who is in regular contact with
17
both the researcher and the villagers. The content of the consent form was explained to illiterate people. Illiterate participants were asked to sign with their fingerprint. I received a research permit from the association of the Maraguá people (ASPIM) which was signed by the main chief (tuxawa geral) of the Maraguá people and all local chiefs of the villages where research were conducted, including the chief of VB (Appendix G).
5. RESULTS 5.1. Primates 5.1.1. Diversity and abundance Ten participants from TP, and 5 from the other three villages, respectively, participated in “primate talks”. None of the participants reported the presence of the “test species”. Hence, all interviews were incorporated in the dataset. Most of the displayed species were recognized. Species of the genera Mico and Plecturocebus were not recognized or confused with sister species most often. It is assumed that this is due to the fact that species of these genera are small, often cryptic and of low importance for use by humans. Not recognized species and species reported as absent were pooled together for better overview. Not all species confirmed to be present could be defined as abundant or rare by all participants. From the 19 species displayed, 13 could be confirmed in the study area (cf. table 4, figure 5). Only two callitrichid species (Mico mauesi and M. saterei) were confirmed in proximity of study villages and one (M. chrysoleucos) on the Northern bank of the Urariá. The presence of titi monkeys could be confirmed, without defining the exact species. The two species most frequently confirmed to be present were the Miller’s saki (Pithecia milleri), the tufted capuchin (Sapajus apella) (21 interviewees, respectively), and the black-headed night monkey (19 interviewees) (table 4, figure 5). The species which were least recognized or reported to be present are the Maués marmoset (3 interviewees) and the Peruvian woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana) (4 interviewees). The highest 18
diversity of species was recorded in TP and Pilão (11 species, respectively, followed by VB (10 species). The lowest diversity was recorded in Kayauézinho (table 4, figure 5). The overall number of population estimates as “abundant“ was higher than the number of “rare” estimates. The ratio of “abundant” estimates was highest for Sapajus apella (n=15 for “abundant”/n=0 for “rare”), Alouatta nigerrima (7/0), and Cebus albifrons (7/1). The ratio of “rare” estimates was highest for Lagothrix cana (n=4 for “rare” and n=0 for “abundant”) and for Ateles chamek (3/2) (table 4, figure 5). The main reason why some species have become rare, according to the participants, is subsistence hunting by native people (10 participants), selective logging, mostly by non-residents (n=4), and commercial hunting, exclusively by non-residents (n=1). The species-specific results on diversity and abundance are presented below (confer to table 4 and figure 5 for overview). Aotidae, Aotus nigriceps (Black-headed night monkey) The black-headed night monkey was confirmed as present by participants of all villages (n=19). Five participants defined the species as abundant. None of the participants defined it as rare. Atelidae, Alouatta nigerrima (Black howler monkey) The presence of black howler monkeys was confirmed by participants from all villages. None of the participants stated the absence of the species. The species was described as abundant in TP and in VB. Howlers were heard by the researcher almost daily in TP and Kayauézinho. Atelidae, Ateles chamek (Black-faced spider monkey) The black-faced spider monkey was not recognized or was confirmed as absent by all participants in TP and by 4 of 5 participants in Kayauézinho and VB, respectively. In Pilão, 3 of 5 participants described the species as present. Most participants from the Abacaxis river (Terra preta and Pilão, n=11) confirmed the presence of this Endangered species (Wallace et al. 2008) along the upper Abacaxis, about 120 to 240km from TP. Participants from VB confirmed the presence of the species along the upper Marimari and along the Canumã river (see figure 2 for location). 19
Summarizing, the species is apparently absent or very rare in the study area. One older participant from Kayauézinho (78 years) stated that A. chamek had never been present in the proximity of the village as far back as he can remember but confirmed its presence along the Abacaxis. According to two participants, the species was still abundant in the area of the lower Abacaxis river about 10 years ago and disappeared because of hunting and selective logging. Atelidae, Lagothrix cana (Peruvian woolly monkey) The Peruvian woolly monkey was reported as absent from the proximity of all villages, (except from Pilão and TP, 3 and 1 participant(s), respectively confirming its presence, although defining it as rare). Five participants of TP stated that woolly monkeys had been present in the area in the past and are now found only at least 3 days upriver (approximately 240km, most likely in the Acari National park) but are relatively abundant along the Canumã river (see figure 2 for location). The present data suggest that the Endangered Peruvian woolly monkey (Boubli et al. 2008) is absent or extremely rare in the proximity of the study villages. However, the high identification score of the species (21 of 25 participants), together with reports of two individuals being kept as pets in one of the neighbour villages of TP, the indications of the species being present at the higher Abacaxis, and probably the Canumã river, are most likely to be valid. Callitrichidae, Mico chrysoleucos (Golden-white tassel-ear marmoset) Three participants from Kayauézinho stated the occurrence of Golden-white tassel-ear marmosets (categorized by the IUCN as Data Deficient) on the other (north) bank of the Urariá river and one individual was kept as a pet in the proximity of Kayauézinho (confer to section 1.2, this chapter). Callitrichidae, Mico mauesi (Maués marmoset) The Maués marmoset was confirmed to be present by participants from TP (n=2) and VB (n=1).
20
Callitrichidae, Mico saterei, (Sateré marmoset) In VB, the Sateré marmoset was confirmed as present by the majority of participants (4 of 5, respectively). In Pilão, the species was described to be present at the other (western side) of the river. In both communities, it was described as abundant in the area where it occurs. Cebidae, Cebus albifrons (White-fronted capuchin) Participants of all villages confirmed the presence of white-fronted capuchins (TP: 6, Kayauézinho: 5, Pilão: 3, and VB: 2). Cebidae, Sapajus apella (Tufted capuchin) The presence of tufted capuchins was reported by the large majority of participants in all communities. Only 4 of 25 participants did not define the species as present. The presence of tufted capuchins in Kayauézinho could be further confirmed by the researcher as one group was observed in proximity of the village. The species was defined as abundant by most participants at all sites. Cebidae, Saimiri sciureus (Common squirrel monkey) The proportion of participants confirming the presence of common squirrel monkeys in proximity of their villages was highest in Kayauézinho and Pilão (3 of 5 participants, respectively). No record for the species was made in VB. Six participants (from TP and VB) alluded that the species would exclusively occur along whitewater-rivers and could therefore be found only along the Urariá. The majority of participants confirming the presence of squirrel monkeys defined the species as abundant. Pitheciidae, Chiropotes albinasus (White-nosed saki) White-nosed sakis were reported to be present by villagers of all communities (TP: n=7, VB: n=4 and Pilão: n=). In VB, most participants reporting its presence defined the species as abundant in the mata fechada7. Participants from TP and Pilão confirmed the species to be abundant along
7
Literal translation: “closed forest”. Can be understood as primary forest.
21
the upper Abacaxis. According to one older participant, the species had been more abundant in the past but its population had declined due to hunting and selective logging. Pitheciidae, Pithecia milleri (Miller’s saki) Miller’s saki was reported as present by the majority of participants of all villages (TP: n=10, Pilão and VB: n=4, respectively, and Kayauézinho: n=3). In TP and VB, the majority of participants reporting the species’ presence defined it as abundant (n=6 and 4, respectively). In Kayauézinho, it was defined as rare (n=2) and in VB, estimations about its abundance were mixed (2 defining it as abundant and 2 as rare, respectively). Two villagers reported the presence of the Miller’s saki along the Uruçacanga river, close to NON. Pitheciidae, Plecturocebus sp. (Titi monkeys) Twelve participants confirmed the presence of titi monkeys in the study area (TP and VB: n=4, Pilão: n=3, Kayauézinho: n=1). Two participants (from TP) reported the presence of P. hoffmansi. Three participants (from VB) confirmed the presence of P. cinerascens. The rest of the participants (n=7) reported a dark form to be present in the area without being able to define the exact species. Mixed reports about the abundance of the species were given in all communities.
Figure 5: Primate species confirmed to be present in the study area, divided by families. Bars represent total number of participants confirming species as present, including the proportion of participants defining their abundance 22
Local differences of primate diversity and abundance The diversity of primates was highest in TP and Pilão. Twelve of a total of 13 species identified in the study area were reported to be present at these sites. In TP, Ateles chamek was the only species that could not be confirmed. Pithecia milleri was the species most often identified as abundant in TP (n=6). Lagothrix cana, Chiropotes albinasus and Plecturocebus sp. were identified as rare, although with low sample sizes (n=1, respectively). In Pilão, the only species for which no presence could be confirmed was Mico mauesi. Sapajus apella and Aotus nigriceps appeared to be the most abundant species (n=4, respectively). Lagothrix cana was most often identified as rare. In VB, all species, except from Lagothrix cana and Saimiri sciureus were present. Except from Ateles chamek, Cebus albifrons, and Mico mauesi, all species were reported as abundant by the majority of participants (n=4, respectively). Ateles chamek was the only species identified as rare. From all study sites, primate diversity was lowest in Kayauézinho. Four of the 13 identified species appear to be lacking from the site. Those are Lagothrix cana, Mico mauesi, Mico saterei and Chiropotes albinasus. Sapajus apella was the most abundant species in Kayauézinho (n=3).
23
Table 4: Primate species identified in the study area, listed by families. TP Family
Species
Present
Pilão A
R
(n of 10)
Kayauézinho
Present
A
R
(n of 5)
Present
VB A
R
(n of 5)
Present
Total A
R
(n of 5)
Present
A
R
(n of 25)
Aotidae
Aotus nigriceps
9
0
0
5
4
0
1
1
0
4
0
0
19
5
0
Atelidae
Alouatta nigerrima
5
3
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
4
0
17
7
0
Ateles chamek
0
0
0
3
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
1
5
2
3
Lagothrix cana
1
0
1
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
Callitri-
Mico chrysoleucos
0
0
0
(2)
(2)
0
3*
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
chidae
Mico mauesi
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
2
0
Mico saterei
1
1
0
4
2
0
NA
0
0
4
1
0
9
4
0
Cebus albifrons
6
5
0
3
0
0
5
1
1
2
1
0
16
7
1
Sapajus apella
9
5
0
4
4
0
4
3
0
4
3
0
21
15
0
Saimiri sciureus
2
2
0
3
2
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
8
5
1
Chiropotes albinasus
7
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
4
3
0
14
4
2
Pithecia milleri
10
6
0
4
2
2
3
0
2
4
4
0
21
12
4
Plecturocebus sp**.
4
2
1
4
2
2
1
0
1
4
0
0
13
4
4
Cebidae
Pitheciidae
NOTES: Table shows numbers of participants from each village confirming the presence of the respective species, as well as their abundance (A= abundant, R= rare). Numbers in brackets correspond to doubted results. *=confirmed at Northern bank of the Urariá river. **= Presumedly Pleucturocebus cinerascens
24
5.1.2. Primates and people Use of primates All thirty-one interview participants were asked about their use of primates. The main purpose why primates were hunted in the study area was for food. However, none of the primate species was amongst the preferred game species defined by the interviewees (confer to section 2.3, this chapter). All in all, seven participants (22% of all interviewees) were presently hunting primates, although none of them reported to hunt primates often. In Pilão, none of the participants reported primate hunting. Eleven interviewees formerly hunted primates but stopped to do so, due to different reasons. The main reason for stopping hunting primates was conversion to Adventism (n=5, cf. section 3, this chapter). Three participants stated that they had stopped to hunt primates because of compassion or affection and 2 interviewees stopped because of their age (they generally hunted less than formerly and were now focusing on other species). One participant reported that he had stopped hunting monkeys because they were rare and had to be protected. The primates most often reported to be hunted were Alouatta nigerrima, Sapajus apella (5 participants, sometimes, respectively), and Pithecia milleri (4 participants, sometimes and 1 participant, rarely). Neither Aotus nigriceps nor any of the callitrichid species showed any hunting reports (figure 6). During field research, no hunting of primates was witnessed. All species of primates had been used as pets in the communities, except from Aotus nigriceps, Cebus albifrons, Lagothrix cana, and Saimiri sciureus. Sapajus apella (n=7), Alouatta nigerrima (n=4) and Chiropotes albinasus (n=3) are the most frequently used pet species. All in all, 8 participants had been keeping monkeys as pets in the past. None of the participants stated pet use as the primary reason for hunting monkeys. Besides these purposes, howlers and tufted capuchins primates are used as traditional medicine (see below). No indications were found for any commercial use of primates by the inhabitants of the study area. Different species of primates are of different importance for local people. The purpose and frequency of use, as well as local beliefs and perceptions towards the respective species are 25
presented below. For better overview, only species reported to be used by more than one participant are represented.
Figure 6: Primate species hunted for food. Bars represent number of participants who currently hunt or used to hunt the respective species
Aotus nigriceps Black-headed night monkeys had been killed by four participants. The reason for killing was that night monkeys were reported to suck blood of people sleeping in the forest. The individuals were, according to interviewees, killed for defense. All participants reporting killing of A. nigriceps were from TP, although participants from all other communities shared the belief. There is lack of biological evidence for this behaviour and in fact none of the participants had in fact ever experienced or witnessed an attack by this species. The stories of night monkeys attacking humans told by villagers had the character of fairy tales. All respective interviewees had killed the species on one occasion only and no participants had ever persecuted night monkeys due to the abovementioned belief. In fact, night monkeys were, according to interviewees, considered as mystical animals which are generally avoided. One participant defined night monkeys as one of the few mammal species he had never killed. No 26
consumption of night monkeys was reported by any interviewee. Hence, night monkey populations in the study area are unlikely to be markedly impacted by humans. Alouatta nigerrima Participants of all communities, except from Pilão, confirmed to rarely or sometimes hunt howler monkeys (total n=7). The ratio of participants hunting this species was highest in VB (3 of 5). The main factor influencing the hunting of howlers was the fact of the species being relatively abundant. Four participants had kept howler monkeys in the past. Those individuals were infants of female adults killed for food. The participants confirmed that no howlers were killed for the purpose of pet use. One participant reported loss of crops (mangos) because of howler monkeys. This was, however, no reason for killing them. Howler monkeys were the most commonly primates found to be used for medicine. Six participants reported the use of howlers’ hyoid bones8 as a cure against tosse de guariba (“howler coughing”, referring to pertussis) in the past. According to them, drinking water from the cupshaped bone would heal the disease. However, none of the participants, and none of the other villagers asked about this practice had been practicing this method recently or were in possession of the bone, although all knew about the method and confirmed its efficiency. Hence, the use of howler bones as a cure for pertussis seems to be rare at present, although it was common in the past. The reasons for the decline of the practice remain to be investigated. One of the participants stated that it was due to the general decline of the disease. Three participants reported that howler fat would be used as a remedy against wounds, as well as against bone and muscle problems. The fat of several animal species primarily hunted for food is used as medicine for external use (see Appendix A). No medicinal properties exclusively attributed to howler fat were reported.
8
The hyoid bone is essential part of the resonating mechanism; responsible for vocalization (Schön 1971).
27
Ateles chamek Except from one participant of VB, nobody had ever hunted spider monkeys due to the remoteness of the area of its occurrence. One Adventist participant reported that he would never consume the meat of spider monkeys because it would be “reimoso” (cf. section 3, this chapter). Two participants reported that the species had been used as a pet in the community in the past (TP and VB). Lagothrix cana None of the participants was currently hunting woolly monkeys, although former hunting was reported. According to 5 participants from TP, the reasons for disappearance of the species from the proximity of villages were subsistence hunting and selective logging. None of the participants had been used woolly monkeys as pets in the past. However, one participant from TP confirmed that two individuals are currently being kept as pets in a neighbour village. Participants related that woolly monkeys are popular pets because of their intelligence and their gentle character. One participant reported that woolly monkeys are particularly soughtafter in the neighbouring state of Pará (figure 2) where one individual they could generate about 1000R$9 (equivalent to ca. 200GBP)10. No interviewee, however, reported pet trade of the species within the study area. Mico chrysoleucos The species was kept as a pet in a neighbour community of Kayauézinho, on the south bank of the Urariá river. The donor stated that he had captured the animal on the other side of the river (figure 7). One other interview participant of Kayauézinho had kept this species in the past.
9
This is a high value, regarding that the monthly GDP in the municipality of NON is approximately 390R$ and that outside of the city of NON, it can be assumed to be generally lower. 10 From XE Currency Converter - Live Rates’, 2018
28
Figure 7: A golden-white tassel-ear marmoset kept as a pet in the Maraguá community São Pedro, in proximity of Kayauézinho, Urariá river. Photo: S. Knoop
Sapajus apella Tufted capuchins were hunted sometimes for their meat by 4 participants, 3 of which were from VB. Seven participants (6 from TP and 1 from VB) stated that they had stopped to hunt this species as they became Adventist. Four participants defined tufted capuchins as the “tastiest monkey”. Seven participants had been keeping capuchins as a pet in the past. During field research, one infant of a tufted capuchin was observed to be kept as a pet in the village of São Pedro in proximity of Kayauézinho. Besides of the use of their meat and as pets, tufted capuchins were reported to be used for medicinal and spiritual purposes (Appendices A, B,). The fat of the animal is used for wound healing. The teeth of tufted capuchins are used in collars and bracelets and are reported to serve for spiritual protection (figure 8). The hairs of tufted capuchins are burnt at the borders of crops to chase away crop-eating animals. 29
Figure 8: A Maraguá wearing a collar with tufted capuchin’s teeth and a tie of macaw (Ara chloroptera) feathers during a tribal gathering. Photo: F. Suzuki.
Chiropotes albinasus One participant (from Kayauézinho) reported to sometimes hunt this species. Three interviewees from TP had formerly hunted this species before they converted to Adventism. Pet use of whitenosed sakis was reported by three participants. One juvenile individual being kept as a pet was observed in NON; originated from the upper Abacaxis river (figure 9). According to the owner, he had received the monkey as gift from a relative.
30
Figure 9: A juvenile white-nosed saki kept as a pet in Nova Olinda do Norte. Photo: S. Knoop.
Pithecia milleri Two participants reported to sometimes hunt this species (n=1 in VB and Kayauézinho, respectively). No current hunting was reported from TP and Pilão. One participant (from TP) had used the species as a pet in the past. One participant used a tail of a Miller’s saki as a duster in his household (figure 10). According to him, the animal had been killed for its meat and the duster was a “secondary product”.
31
Figure 10: A duster made from a tail of a Miller’s saki in VB. Photo: S. Knoop
Plecturocebus sp. Two interviewees from VB stated to sometimes hunt titi monkeys. One participant had been hunting titis in the past. Two participants from TP had been keeping titi monkeys as pets.
Attitudes towards primates Attitudes towards primates varied between interviewed villagers and between different species. As stated above, the main purpose for hunting monkeys was sustenance. Although none of the participants mentioned any primate species as a preferred game animal, the main reason for killing monkeys for food was taste (n=5 of 18 participants currently or formerly hunting primates). The species most often identified as tasty were Sapajus paella (n=4) and Alouatta nigerrima (n=3).
32
Four participants consumed monkeys only when no other meat was available or as a “quick meal” during forest expeditions when it was inconvenient to hunt larger animals. Reasons for hunting a specific primate species for food were their abundance and size (A. nigerrima, n=2, respectively). The main reason against the consumption of primates was religion. Twelve of the 13 Adventist participants confirmed to never consume primates since their conversion. Only two Adventist interviewees stated to sometimes consume primates, if no other meat was available (see section 3, this chapter for further discussion). As availability and size were drivers for hunting a species (see above), these factors also influenced consumption negatively. Particularly spider monkeys and woolly monkeys were reported to not being hunted because they were rarely available. Callitrichid species were reported to be spurned because of their small size. Primates were also reported to be reprieved from hunting for emotional reasons. Three participants related that they did not like to hunt primates because they were “human-like” or “wise” animals (Quote 1). Two interviewees reported that tufted capuchins use to protect their head by approach of a hunter and that this behaviour would inspire compassion. One interviewee stated that he refused to kill primates because they were lovely (Quote 2). In total, eight participants (both Catholics and Adventists) had been using monkeys as pets. Reasons for pet use were cuteness and intelligence. The main reported reason against keeping primates as domestic animal was that they would be “cheeky” and “break everything”. Quote 1: Salim, age 64, tuxawa of Kayauézinho11
“The tufted capuchin is a very smart guy. He makes a batuque 11 in the forest. Sometimes he gives a party in the forest. Once I saw them and observed them. I remained quiet so they wouldn’t perceive me. He also takes his wife and gives her a kiss on the mouth.”
11
A traditional Brazilian type of percussion, the term may also refer to a party on the street.
33
Quote 2: Coatí12, age 62, resident of Pilão
“We don’t hunt monkeys because they are lovely. They come to sing in the garden in the morning. They are part of this garden. So why should we kill them?”
5.2. Livelihoods The three major livelihood activities of the Maraguá and Sateré Mawé people in the visited villages are farming (slash and burn agriculture and poultry farming), fishing and hunting. These three activities were practiced by all interviewees. The main source of monetary income of participants was from child benefit (between 85 and 195R$ per month for each child enrolled in school, equivalent to ca. 17 to 39GBP, XE Currency Converter - Live Rates 2018). Seven participants benefitted from this program. Participants from the age of 65 (n=6) received pension (varying between 130 and 450R$ per month, equivalent to ca. 26 to 91GBP (XE Currency Converter - Live Rates 2018). Besides these sources, some participants gained income from sporadic freelance activities (woodwork: n=4, groceries commerce, n=2, mining, crafts, and selling of copaiba oil13, n=1, respectively). The monthly value gained from these activities was highly variable. 5.2.1. Agriculture The main crop, planted by all participants, was cassava (Manihot sp.). Other frequently cultivated plants used for subsistence are yam (Dioscoreaceae), banana and other fruits (predominantly pineapples, inga14, and cashew).
12
English: coati An oleoresin from trees of the genus Copaifera. It is used for medicinal purposes. 1L of copaiba oil gained income of R$25, equivalent to 5GBP (XE Currency Converter - Live Rates’, 2018). 14 The mimosoid genus Inga comprises approximately 300 species. The tree is used to enhance soil fertility and for its fruits (Elkan 2005). 13
34
In all visited villages practice shifting cultivation is practiced (figure 11). Generally, one area is cultivated for one year, and is laid idle for three to five years before being cultivated again. Each family is responsible for planting its own crops. Harvesting and preparation of cassava products is shared between all community members. The main product deriving from cassava is farinha (English: ‘flour’), a dry granule (figure 12).
Figure 11: Slash-and burn agriculture in VB with Bananas (middle foreground) and Açaí palm cultivation (middle background). Photo: S. Knoop.
Most participants cultivate plants exclusively for their own use. Only four participants (12.5%) were selling agricultural products. Those were Guarana (Paullinia cupana, used in energizing soft drinks and as food supplement), Brazilian rosewood (Aniba rosodora, formerly exploited for its wood but now exclusively used for the production of essential oils), Açaí (Euterpe sp., fruit pulp locally used as accompaniment and exported as a kind of ice cream), pineapples, and watermelon. Half of the participants (n=18) kept poultry. One participant from Kayauézinho additionally farmed cattle (9 cows). The consumption of domestic meat was not quantified. However, 35
according to conversations with locals, poultry was not a preferred source of protein and kept predominantly as a food security in case of emergency and for the production of eggs. Only one case of poultry consumption was witnessed while in the field. In TP, an aquaculture project for farming fish for subsistence, organized by the community, has started recently.
Figure 12: Farinheira in VB where farinha is produced. Photo: F. Suzuki
5.2.2. Fishing In terms of diet, cassava products and fish constitute the main food resources of the people in the studied villages. Fishing was practiced by all participants at least four times a week. During the time of research (beginning of dry season), the most exploited fish species were piranhas (Serrasalmidae) and species of the genus Pterophyllum, amongst others (figure 13). Half (n=16) of the participants preferred eating fish to wild meat.
36
Figure 13: Preparing fish (Pterophyllum sp. in the foreground) in Kayauézinho. Photo: F. Suzuki
5.2.3. Hunting Frequency of hunting After fish, the second-most important source of protein was wild meat. The frequency of hunting was more variable between participants than that of fishing. Participants hunted between 1 and approximately 25 times per month. Almost half of the participants (n=15) hunted only 1 to 5 times per month. The average frequency of hunting was 9.7 times per month. Only one fifth (n=6) of participants preferred wild meat to fish. About one third (n=10) liked both fish and wild meat equally. Villagers related that fishing would be more lucrative during the dry season because the fish would be more “concentrated” and some species would migrate upriver for reproduction. Hence, fishing would be the dominant extraction practice during the dry season whereas during the rainy season, hunting and fishing would be more balanced. 37
Game species The most hunted animals were deer (Cervidae, n=25), predominantly red brocket deer (Mazama Americana). The second most-hunted species was lowland paca (Cuniculus paca: n=20, figure 14). Other animals frequently reported to be hunted often were peccaries (white-lipped peccary, Tayassu pecari: n=8 and collared peccary, Tayassu tajacu: n=6), Brazilian lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris: n=11), armadillos (Order Cingulata: n=9), and agoutis (Dasyprocta sp.: n=8) (figure 14). Animals less often mentioned were birds (curassows, subfamily Cracinae; dark-winged trumpeters, Psophia viridis; and tinamous, Crypturellus sp.: n=2, respectively) and tortoises (testudines: n=2) (figure 15). No primates were among the species reported to be hunted often. There was no apparent difference between study village and hunted game species.
Figure 14: Meat of a lowland paca in TP. Photo: S. Knoop
38
Figure 15: Animals reported to be most hunted by more than 5 participants. Chart represents number of mentions for each animal. Tayassu pecari (p) is represented in black and T. tajacu (t) in grey.
Hunting techniques Almost all participants used guns for hunting (n=29). Several participants also used bow and arrow (exclusively: n=2, sporadically: n= 8). Most of the older participants stated to having used bow and arrow for hunting in the past. The interviewees hunting with bow and arrow stated the advantage of this technique as it was silent and hence, it was easier to harvest more than one individual animal during one hunting event within a small radius. The use of traps to hunt rodents was reported by few participants but could not be quantified. The majority of interviewees (n= 22) possessed hunting dogs. The use of dogs depended on the target species. Deer was always hunted with the help of dogs, whereas pacas, for example, were mostly reported to be hunted without dogs. Hunting grounds The distance to the hunting grounds varied, according to the disposition of the hunter and the target species. Agoutis and armadillos, for example, were often encountered by hunters along the forest edge, close to their plantations. Also peccaries and deer were reported to feed on plantations and being hunted there. Tapirs, however, according to participants, are shy and only 39
found at larger distances from villages. Most participants defined the distance of the hunting grounds lying between a few hundred metres to up to 6km, approximately. Only 4 participants reported distances of 10km or more. The highest mentioned distance was 15km. There was no apparent variation in distance of hunting grounds between different sites, indicating that availability of game species is relatively balanced.
5.3. Other use of wildlife Besides for their meat, wild animals are used for medicine, spiritual purposes and for the production of crafts which are important components of the indigenous culture in the study area (figures 1, 8). An overview on the animals used and the respective purposes is presented in Appendices A, B, and C.
5.4. Wildlife use and religion Interviews with participants revealed that the diet of Adventists is restricted due to their belief, limiting the diversity of animal species consumed, whereas Catholics did not mention any religious dietary restrictions. According to the Adventist participants, animals allowed to be consumed are fish (except from fish without scales) and birds (domestic duck and chicken as well as wild bird species). The only mammals exempt from the taboo were deer. Of the 31 people interviewed, 18 were Catholics and 13 were Adventists (table 1). Kayauézinho and Pilão are Catholic communities, whereas TP and VB is predominated by Adventists. In TP, 9 of the 13 interviewees were Adventists and in VB, 4 of 5. Eleven of the 13 interviewed Adventists stated to strictly adhere to the food taboo and to don’t ever hunt other species than those being consumed by themselves or their families. Two participants adhered to the taboo most of the time but also consumed other meats “from time to time”, including primates. One participant adhered to the food taboo but sometimes hunted other species for sale.
40
All in all, seven participants of the field study hunted primates, of which five were Catholics and two were Adventists. The species most often identified as favourite game by Adventists was deer (92%), whereas the species most hunted by Catholics was paca (84%). Most species mainly hunted by Catholics were also hunted by Adventists, although to a lower proportion (except from deer, see figure 16). The proportional difference between religious groups was most pronounced for tapirs (53% of Catholics vs. 8% of Adventists) and least pronounced for deer (92% of Adventists vs. 68% of Catholics). Only Adventists identified birds as their main target species. The proportional differences between hunted animal species were more balanced for Catholics than for Adventists (figure 16). Adventists, when referring to animal species that they were not allowed eating, often used the term “reimoso”. This adjective was used for animals whose meat could easily cause inflammations or provoke allergic reactions. Animals most often defined as reimoso were the Brazilian lowland tapir, and, for primates, the black-faced spider monkey.
Figure 16: Consumption of game species by religious group. Proportion of participants (Adventists and Catholics) for the animals identified as most hunted species. Tayassu pecari and T. tajacu are pooled together for better overview. Confer to section 2.3., this chapter, for English names. 41
5.5. Commercial activities and biodiversity
Local commerce of wild meat Three participants (TP: n=1 and VB: n=2) reported to sell wild meat sporadically. One participant from TP reported to sell wild meat “often” (more than once a week). All these participants reported that generally only one individual (to a maximum of three, in the case of agoutis) individual(s) was sold at a time. The meat was sold within the own or in one of the neighbour villages. Only one participant stated to sporadically sell meat in the city (NON). Most sold species were paca (all 4 interviewees), peccary and deer (n=3, respectively). The price per paca was defined by approximately 30 to 50R$ (equivalent to 6-10 GBP, XE Currency Converter - Live Rates 2018). The price of deer and peccary was between 100 and 130R$ (equivalent to 20-26GBP, XE Currency Converter - Live Rates 2018) per individual. No reports of selling of primate meat were made. Interviewees stated that generally, the purpose of going for a hunt was subsistence and that, if available, additional animals were hunted for sale. All of the respective participants stated that selling of game meat was a secondary source of income. One participant stated to occasionally exchange wild meat with other goods (e.g., petrol). Commercial hunting by non-residents According to interviewees, commercial hunting by non-residents was present in the surroundings of all villages, except from VB. According to the residents of TP and Pilão, large numbers of commercial hunters exploit the area around the respective villages and further upriver. Main target species of hunters would be paca, peccary, and chelonians which are being sold in the cities15. Commercial hunters would mainly origin from Vila Abacaxis, situated at the inflow of the Abacaxis into the Urariá river and Nova Olinda do Norte (figure 2), but also from further cities, such as Maués and Manaus. According to villagers, most of the organizers of hunting ventures are businessmen and known by the locals. Most affected by commercial exploitation, as reported by participants, are peccaries and
15
Commercial hunting of primates was reported by one villager but lacks confirmation.
42
chelonians. Populations of both animal groups would have dramatically diminished within the last ten years, as a result of overexploitation. Participants reported cases of commercial hunters killing more peccaries than they were able to transport. No commercial hunting of animals for other purposes than selling for food was mentioned. In Kayauézinho, commercial hunting and exploitation of chelonians was also reported. However, the consensus about the frequency and the impact of this practice was not as pronounced as along the Abacaxis river. Only three of eight participants desired stronger enforcement of environmental law in the area. In VB, all participants confirmed that no commercial hunting was practiced in the area.
Other activities Besides of commercial hunting, numerous other illegal commercial activities reported to affect biodiversity are present along the Abacaxis river. Those are logging of hardwood species (Hymenolobium sp. and Mezilaurus itauba16, amongst others), gold mining, removal of gravel and sand for construction, fishing, and cannabis farming. At Kayauézinho, the main commercial activities impacting biodiversity are fishing and logging, according to residents. Also, cattleranching is common in the area. It remains beyond the scope of this study to quantify these factors towards their impact on the abundance and diversity of wildlife in the area . The participants of VB reported the absence of any commercial extractive activities.
5.6. Rare species The animal species most often reported to have become rare during the lifespan of participants were the jaguar (Panthera onca) and the Brazilian lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris), followed by white-lipped peccaries, chelonians, small felids (ocelots, Leopardus pardalis, LC; margays, L.
16
Defined as Vulnerable by the IUCN (1998)
43
wiedii, NT; and oncilla, L. tigrinus, VU)17, spider monkeys and woolly monkeys. Miller’s saki and White-nosed saki were also reported as rare (figure 17). According to participants, the only wild animals with growing populations are caimans (Caimaninae, n=3 participants), due to the ban of commercialization and the low importance for subsistence hunting.
Figure 17: Rare species. Bars represent number of participants mentioning the respective species as an answer to the question: “Which species’ population(s) has or have most declined in this area during your lifespan? Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris: capybara (LC), Speothos venaticus: bush dog (NT), Trichechus inunguis: Amazonian manatee (VU).
17
These species were not differentiated by participants but equally named as gato maracajá.
44
6. DISCUSSION 6.1. Primates 6.1.1. Diversity and abundance This study provides first insights into the overall primate diversity of the lower Abacaxis, Marimari and Urariá rivers. The presence of 13 species of primates could be confirmed in the study area (chapter 5.1.1). Two of these species are categorized as ‘Data deficient’ by the IUCN (Mico chrysoleucos and Pithecia milleri). For those species, virtually very little or no information is available in the literature concerning their distribution ranges (Marsh and Veiga 2015, Rylands and Silva Jr 2015). Three species categorized as Endangered by the IUCN (Ateles chamek, Wallace et al. 2008; Lagothrix cana, Boubli et al. 2008; and Chiropotes albinasus, Veiga et al. 2008) were identified as present. The remaining species confirmed are Aotus nigriceps (LC), Alouatta nigerrima (LC), Mico mauesi (LC), Mico saterei (LC), Cebus albifrons (LC), Sapajus apella (LC), and Saimiri sciureus (LC). The presence of titi monkeys, most likely Plecturocebus cinerascens (LC), could be also confirmed, although further studies are needed to confidently identify the exact species. This study thereby contributes to the knowledge gain about Central Amazonian primate species’ distribution. Furthermore, it identifies the study region as an important area for the conservation of Endangered species and for further research on Data deficient species. One weak point of exploring wildlife diversity via display of photographs is that reliability of answers cannot always be guaranteed. For example, sister species of the same genus may not be differentiated by participants because of their resemblance. Also, cryptic species and species that are not of primary importance for humans may not be recognized (cf. discussion for Plecturocebus sp. below). The information of species abundance was based on interviewees’ categorization of the respective species as “rare” or “abundant”. Interpretation of this information must take into consideration that these are subjective categories. In order to confidently estimate animal abundance from interviews, quantitative data are required (e.g., how often the animal has been 45
seen within a defined timeframe) and about sampling effort (how often and for how much time has the interviewee spent in the habitat of the species?) (Moller et al. 2004, Anadón et al. 2009). The estimations from this study may serve to assess the relative abundance between the identified species. Taking into consideration the natural abundance variance between different species, these estimations may indicate which populations are most likely affected by humans. The results indicate that the most abundant species are S. apella, A. nigerrima and C. albifrons and the rarest species are L. cana and A. chamek (see chapter 5.1.1. for ratios). Given that ateline species (genera Ateles and Lagothrix), compared to most other primates naturally occur at low densities (Iwanga and Ferrari 2002), the abundance results alone do not necessarily indicate human impact on these species. Qualitative interview data, however, indicate that A. chamek, L. cana and C. albinasus are now mostly restricted to the upper Abacaxis and Marimari rivers, owing to hunting in the past. (cf. section 2.1., this chapter for further discussion). In the following, the most important species-specific results and local differences of diversity are discussed. Ateles chamek Given the results for the black-faced spider monkey, the species is absent or very rare at all study sites. It is very likely to be present along the upper Abacaxis and Marimari rivers and in the Acari National park18. However, the exact location of the species’ occurrence still needs to be confirmed. Lagothrix cana The Peruvian woolly monkey occurs only in fragmented populations within its distribution range. The study area is located within the range of the species, as identified by Iwanga and Ferrari (2002) and Fooden (1963). To the knowledge of the author, the present study is the first to confirm the presence of the Peruvian woolly monkey along the Canumã and the higher Abacaxis
18
The Acari National park is located south of the study area in proximity to the city of Apuí (6.305°S 59.293°W). It has a size of 896.410,95 ha and was inaugurated in 2016.
46
rivers. This result is based on interviews and no sightings of this species were made during field work. Mico chrysoleucos The results confirm the consensus in the literature (Hershkovitz 1977, Ferrari 2008) of the species being present only along the Northern bank of the Urariá river. Mico mauesi Mittermeier et al. (1992) defined the distribution of M. mauesi to be restricted to the AbacaxisMaués interfluvium (at the Eastern bank of the Abacaxis). This assumption was confirmed by Noronha (1995) and Noronha et al. (2008). The results support these findings. The confirmation of the species in VB (on the left bank of the Abacaxis) needs to be confirmed by future field studies. Mico saterei According to Silva Jr and Noronha, (Silva Jr and Noronha 1998), the distribution range of M. saterei is delineated by the rivers Canumã in the west and Abacaxis in the east. The results of this study confirm the presence of this species in the area described by the authors. Saimiri sciureus Considering the results, it is unlikely that this species occurs along the Abacaxis and Marimari or has been present there in the past. Hence, its presence is most possibly restricted to the Urariá. Chiropotes albinasus The data suggest that the species is present but rare along the Abacaxis and Marimari rivers. The presence along the Urariá remains questionable. White-nosed sakis are specialized seed predators and generally require large areas of continuous forest with high fruit productivity (Pinto and Setz 2005). Hence, besides of hunting, the population is likely to be sensitive to selective logging, which is particularly common along the Urariá and Abacaxis rivers. Pithecia milleri Very few data on the distribution and abundance of Miller’s sakis are available in the literature (Marsh and Veiga 2015). The data of this study constitute a solid base to confirm the presence of 47
the species in the study area. Numbers indicate that P. milleri is somewhat abundant (compared to woolly monkeys, spider monkeys and white-nosed sakis, figure 5) and apparently experiences low hunting pressure in the area. Further studies, however, are needed to investigate the actual abundance of Miller’s saki and the scope of threats the species is facing. Plecturocebus sp. The study confirms the presence of titi monkeys in the study area. Considering the low proportion of participants being able to define the exact species, it is very likely that all reports may refer to the ashy black titi monkey (P. cinerascens) as this is the only species confirmed to be directlty present in the study area by the literature (Van Roosmalen and Mittermeier 2002, Noronha et al. 2007). A possible reason for the low recognition rate of titi monkeys may be that for this genus; only illustrations were shown to participants (chapter 4.4.2, Appendix E) because no suitable photos for all species were available. Future studies may focus on comparing the suitability of photographs and illustrations for the applied method.
Local differences in primate diversity With respect to the fact that no physical barrier between Kayauézinho and TP and Pilão is present, it is expected that all three study sites would show the same primate assemblage under natural conditions (Rylands et al. 1993, Peres and Janson 1999). The fact that Kayauézinho appears to host a lower diversity of primates than the other sites may be due to different reasons. Firstly, the area is subject to small-scale cattle farming, and therefore, forest cover is lower. Another potential reason could be higher hunting pressure. The results of this study indicate that primate hunting by local people is most common in Kayauézinho (see chapter 5.1.2.). Hunting may have affected especially the larger species absent from the area, Chiropotes albinasus and Lagothrix cana. However, the variance between villages was too low and sample size was too small to prove this assumption. Apart from these factors, Kayauézinho is located relatively close to the city of NON and to Vila Abacaxis (see figure 2), with about 130 families the largest village within the study area. Therefore, Kayauézinho is potentially stronger impacted by hunting and selective logging than the other sites. As stated by villagers, very few economically valuable hardwood 48
trees are now remaining in the area. This circumstance might have been particularly impacted the populations of Chiropotes albinasus and Lagothrix cana, as these species are canopy-dwelling and specialized in seed predation (Peres 1994, Pinto and Setz 2005).
6.1.2. Primates and people The present study reveals that primates are used by indigenous communities in the study area. Primates are hunted for food, kept as pets and used for medicinal, spiritual, and decorative purposes. The estimation of primate extraction rates was beyond the scope of this study. Assessment of primate hunting frequency was limited to interviewees’ statements that may be subjective. For a more precise quantification of primate hunting, participants could have been asked to estimate the number of primates hunted within a specific period instead of using the categories ‘rarely’, ‘sometimes’, and ‘often’ (Anadón et al. 2009). The data of the study suggest that primates, although hunted, play a minor role for the subsistence of local people. Less than a third (n=7) of participants sometimes hunted primates. Hunting occurs predominantly opportunistically when other wild meat is unavailable. Interviews with older participants revealed that primates used to be hunted more in the past than they are today. This finding is most likely to be a result of conversion to Adventism (chapter 5.3 and section 3, this chapter). No commercial hunting of primates could be detected by the study. Two species of primates were reported to find medicinal and spiritual use (Alouatta nigerrima and Sapajus apella). The current medicinal importance of A. nigerrima is apparently low (see chapter 5.1.2.). The spiritual use of S. apella was observed in two cases. Participants reported that the primary reason for hunting the species was for food and that the teeth for the production of spiritual craft were of secondary importance. The results suggest that neither of the two species are likely to be affected by this use in their abundance in the study area. The results of the study reveal the vital significance of primates for indigenous folklore. Local people share a variety of perceptions of primates that differ between interviewed individuals and primate species. Whereas night monkeys are perceived as evil animals and occasionally are killed
49
for “defense”, other species, such as tufted capuchins, are reprieved from hunting by some individuals due to their similarity to humans.
6.2. Biodiversity conservation and indigenous livelihoods The present study provides a first insight into indigenous livelihoods along the lower Abacaxis, Marimari and Urariá rivers and how these are interwoven with the local fauna. Also, it outlines the human impact on biodiversity- and abundance in the study area. The results indicate different challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation, which are discussed below.
6.2.1. Current impact on wildlife diversity- and abundance The results clearly show that the abundance of wildlife in the study area is impacted by hunting. Older participants of all villages witnessed wildlife population decreases during their lifespan, most markedly of jaguars and tapirs. Both species are hunted by locals. Tapirs are hunted for their food (chapter 5.2.3.), whereas jaguars are not chased but mostly killed for defense when encountered, as reported consensually by all participants19. Although no indications for current commercialization of these species were found, the diminution of these animals (and others, such as Leopardus sp.) may have been affected by large-scale commercial exploitation for the fur trade, which particularly impacted the study region until the 1970s (Antunes et al. 2016). For whitelipped peccaries and chelonians, interviews suggest current commercial hunting (during the last decade until present) as the main factor for depletion (see depletion susceptibility for chelonians in Morcatty and Valsecchi, 2015 and for peccaries in Parry and Peres, 2015). Commercial hunting was found to be very frequent along the Abacaxis river but absent along the Marimari river. It is present along the lower Urariá, although the scope of this activity could not be estimated there.
19
Although no interview participant had ever been attacked by a jaguar, they are perceived as a threat to humans and domestic animals, especially dogs.
50
The overall results accord with the finding that larger species are more susceptible to depletion than smaller species cf. (Novaro et al. 2000, for commercial and Bennett et al. 2002, and Jerozolimski and Peres 2003 for subsistence hunting). This assumption applies equally to mammals in general as within the order of the primates, as found by Peres and Dolman (2000) and confirmed by this case study. Populations of both species of atelines present in the study area (Ateles chamek and Lagothrix cana), have declined during the last few decades in the study area. Additional to their larger body size, which makes them a preferred target by selective hunters (Peres 1990, Peres and Dolman 2000), ateline primates have the lowest fecundity rate of Neotropical primates and have therefore been driven to local extinction in many areas of the Amazon (Peres and Dolman 2000, Levi et al. 2009, Peres et al. 2016). The finding of the medium-bodied primate species Ateles nigerrima and Sapajus apella being the most-hunted species in the study area (cf. chapter 5.1.2.) is probably the result of the near depletion of atelines in the proximity of villages. There are no indications for former or current commercial hunting of primates in the study area. Hence, the decline of ateline populations may be solely attributed to subsistence hunting. All in all, the current situation of wildlife diversity and abundance along the lower Abacaxis and Urariá rivers, as well as in most other regions in the Amazon, must be interpreted as a result of an interaction between former and current commercial and subsistence hunting (Antunes et al. 2016). Although other factors potentially influencing the abundance of wildlife are present (see chapter 5.5), these are the most important drivers impacting biodiversity in the study area. This finding accords with results from other studies from the Central Amazon (Parry and Peres 2015, Antunes et al. 2016).
6.2.2. Hunting and indigenous livelihoods Results show that livelihoods depend mainly on fishing and agriculture. All interview participants engaged in these activities several times a week. Although only one fifth of participants preferred wild meat to fish, meat from wild animals constitutes an important part of people’s diet. Furthermore, wild animals provide indigenous people with medicine and their body parts 51
constitute the foundation of traditional artwork, used to reinforce cultural identity and unity and to reflect hierarchies within the community (figures 1, 8, Appendices A, B, C). Based on the data, it is estimated that males in the visited communities hunted about ten times per month. Although according to Yamã et al. (2014), Maraguá hunting is not restricted to men, no extractive activities by women were observed or reported during field work. Interviewees were asked how many times a week they generally hunted. Asking participants about hunting frequency within a limited time frame (e.g. “last week”) would have probably yielded a more exact estimation for the study period. However, as hunting frequency varies throughout the year, the former approach was chosen. The study shows that the main purpose of hunting by indigenous people in the study area is subsistence. Even if assuming that mentions of wild meat sale were biased by the fact that people knew the conservation background of the principal researcher, i.e., real numbers might be slightly higher, selling of wild meat remains a sporadic activity that serves to guarantee the supply of commercialized foods (rice, salt, sugar, vegetable oil, etc.) and other basic goods (petrol, fishing equipment, etc.). Wild meat is one of the few resources that can be sold by locals in the area (chapter 5.2). Against this background, the hunting practice found in the study area may be categorized as subsistence hunting, even though wild meat is being locally sold by individuals.
6.2.3. Local incentives for conservation As a response to extraction of natural resources by non-residents, mainly commercial hunting, the villagers of TP and Pilão, with support of executive forces of the IBAMA and FUNAI had been conducting numerous monitoring cruises and several hunters had been sanctioned. This measure, according to interviewees, helped to temporarily diminish the problem. The last monitoring action took place in 2014 and to date, commercial hunting ventures are reported to become more frequent again. All 19 interview participants from the Abacaxis river were aware of the problem and desired stronger environmental law enforcement. In view of this problem, the residents of the Abacaxis river are concerned about their future sustenance (Quotes 3, 4). Although all abovementioned activities are illegal, law enforcement is 52
weak and villagers frequently come into conflict with non-residents when trying to prevent access into the area on their own account. The residents of the Abacaxis river regularly denounce illegal commercial activities in the area. They however claim that denouncements would not change the situation because fees would be only awarded to executors of explorative ventures and not to organizers. The solution for protection of the land projected by villagers is the establishment of a control point to regularize entry and leaving of boats. Legal support for access restriction, however, is only guaranteed in reserves, including indigenous lands. TP and Pilão are situated within the area proposed as Terra indígena Maraguá (Maraguá indigenous area) by the FUNAI in 2012. The legalization process, however, is still pending. Quote 3: Jair, age 47, resident of TP tuxawa geral of the Maraguá of the Abacaxis about the situation of commercial hunting20
“We must get legal support at all costs. If not, sustenance will become difficult for us and also for them20”. Most of the participants emphasized the differing attitudes between locals and non-resident hunters. They criticized that the heads of commercial hunting operations would not care about the sustenance of local people and would kill more animals than being reproduced (Quote 4). Quote 4: Jair
“No one of the community should kill juvenile animals. People know that they cannot kill the young ones. Because like this, one day, there won’t be any of these animals any more. But those guys don’t. They kill everything they find and take them for good!”.
6.2.4. Approaches for mitigating subsistence hunting impact on wildlife As presented above, commercial and subsistence hunting are the most important factors influencing the diversity and abundance of wildlife in the study area. In the following section, 20
Referring to commercial hunters
53
different approaches for mitigating the effects of subsistence hunting on wildlife are presented and discussed towards their significance for the present case study.
Domestic animals One important approach for reducing hunting of wildlife by forest dwellers is the creation of food alternatives. Farming of domestic animals, ideally species with low space requirements, such as poultry, pork or aquatic cultures has the potential to reduce pressure on wildlife (Milner-Gulland and Bennett 2003, Levi et al. 2009). In the studied villages, keeping of poultry is relatively common (chapter 5.2.2). However, poultry constitutes rather an “insurance” to guarantee food security in case of scarcity than a frequently consumed protein source. This tactic is also found elsewhere in the world (Wilkie and Carpenter 1999). An important factor influencing the feasibility of animal farming is alimentation of the livestock. Poultry farmers in the study villages feed maize to their animals because organic waste is not sufficiently available. However, communities had stopped planting maize because only hybrid seeds, limited to the cultivation of one generation are available. Hence, poultry farming requires constant economic investment. The successful realization of the approach outlined above also depends on local habits and attitudes. As shown in this study, people may prefer wild to domestic meat and therefore hunt despite the availability of domestic meat. Also, hunting may play a role for the cultural identity and wild animals may be hunted not only for food but also for other purposes (see Appendices A, B, C). Hence, switching from wild to domestic meat may be a complicated process; as long as wild meat is available (Morsello et al. 2015).
Economic factors Several studies have investigated the relationship between subsistence hunting and economic parametres in the Amazon (e.g. Godoy et al. 2010, de la Montaña et al. 2015) and elsewhere (cf. 54
Fa et al. 2002 for international comparison). According to a model by de la Montaña et al. (2015), a 50% wage increase resulted in a >50% decrease in biomass harvesting by indigenous people in Ecuador. In the case of the present study, paid labour was found to be almost absent. Hence, wage policies for the regulation of subsistence hunting would not be applicable. Apart from this, the effects of economic development on the prevalence of hunting may be ambiguous. Godoy et al. (2010) showed that in fact, economic development and concomitant rural-urban migration can work as drivers for wildlife consumption, as exemplified by the prospering wildlife markets in urban centers across Amazonia (Parry et al. 2010, Wilkie et al. 2011, van Vliet et al. 2014) Another economic measure potentially limiting wild meat hunting is to increase hunting costs, e.g. by increasing munition prices (de la Montaña et al. 2015). In the present context, this method would likely affect livelihood security of local people since wild meat is a vital, although not the primary source of protein and economic income is very low. Against this, it would most likely have only a minor regulating effect on commercial hunting, given the economic power of organizers. Economic policies reducing the prices of wild meat, however, have the potential to reduce commercial hunting while not affecting livelihoods of subsistence hunters, as proposed by Damania et al. (2005). Although the economic approaches described above represent potential solutions for diminishing wild meat hunting, they miss to take into consideration the importance of cultural aspects and local attitudes for hunting behaviour (Morsello et al. 2015).
Local management of protected areas Protected areas are of essential importance for biodiversity conservation in the Amazon (Walker et al. 2009, Nolte et al. 2013). Different governance regimes of protected areas are present in the basin. The importance of strictly protected, uninhabited areas for effective biodiversity conservation is often emphasized in the literature. The principal arguments for exclusion of people from protected areas are local population growth and the prevalent adoption of firearms
55
for subsistence hunting, even by indigenous peoples (Redford and Sanderson 2000, Terborgh 2000). Reserves permitting anthropogenic use, however, are of important value for conservation. In the Brazilian Amazon, the area of indigenous lands exceeds the area of all environmental conservation units (CNUC/MMA 2018, FUNAI 2018), highlighting the enormous conservation potential of these areas. The understanding that reserves allowing anthropogenic use are valuable for biodiversity conservation is based on the findings that mammal populations generally show higher densities inside than outside of reserves (Benítez-López et al. 2017) and that deforestation rates in all categories of environmental conservation units and indigenous reserves are significantly lower than outside of reserves in the Amazon (Nepstad et al. 2006). Yet, in order to more effectively preserve wildlife in protected areas that allow anthropogenic use, improved management and monitoring of wildlife extraction rates are required. This is more likely to occur if local stakeholders are equally enabled to participate in this process and actively engage in decision-making (Brook and McLachlan 2008, Jones 2011, Antunes et al. 2016). Several advantages may arise from the participation of local people: First of all, the presence of forestdwelling people in low governance regions, such as Amazonia, has the potential to inhibit largescale forest clearings and commercial resource extraction as well as to serve as a political force against environmentally detrimental legislation and infrastructure projects (Zimmerman et al. 2001, Nepstad et al. 2006, Shepard Jr. et al. 2012). In the case of the present study, this potential was exemplified by the differing situations of VB (located in an indigenous reserve) and the Abacaxis river (outside of any protected area). Along the Abacaxis, different types of encroachments for commercial purposes were present, whereas none of these activities are practiced in VB. Another important asset of local peoples’ involvement in the conservation process is their “inherent knowledge of natural systems” (Antunes et al. 2016), based on their constant interaction with wildlife habitat. This “local ecological knowledge” (LEK) (Brook and McLachlan 2008, Parry and Peres 2015) allows for effective monitoring of wildlife populations, population threats and rapid translation of these results into management action (Gadgil et al. 1993, Danielsen et al. 2005). 56
Despite these potentials, subsistence hunting may be unsustainable, as found by Peres (2000b) and Robinson and Bennett (2000), amongst others. The apparent near depletion of ateline primates in the study area supports this statement. Therefore, the involvement of local people in the conservation process may require legal regulations mitigating the impact of subsistence hunting towards biodiversity. For example, the establishment no-take zones (National System of Protected Areas 2000, National Policy for Environmental and Territorial Management of Indigenous Lands 2012), regulation of settlements (Levi et al. 2009) or prohibition of firearms (Heckenberger et al. 2008, Levi et al. 2009). For the present case, the actual impact of subsistence hunting in the study area needs to be further investigated and interpreted in the context of historic and current commercial hunting (Antunes et al. 2016) in order to define appropriate management measures.
6.3. Adventism and wild meat taboos The present study reveals that religion is an important factor influencing the use of wildlife by local indigenous people in the study area. Indigenous food taboos and their implications for biodiversity have been widely studied (e. g. McDonald 1977, Cinner and Aswani 2007, and Colding and Folke 2001 for review). However, few studies are available focusing on Christianity-based diet proscriptions and their implication for biodiversity conservation in Amazonia (Luzar et al. 2012). Most Adventists in the study area consume different animal species than Catholics (figure 14). The level of strict adherence to Adventist food taboos was found to be high (11 of 13 Adventist participants). The results suggest that conversion to Adventism may relief pressure on species susceptible to overhunting, such as tapirs (Novaro et al. 2000) (figure 16), as confirmed by Luzar et al. (2012), but also on primates (chapter 5.4.). Cultural changes, such as acceptance of differing forms of Christianity are complex and dynamic and may have unexpected implications for wild game consumption (Luzar et al. 2012). For example, species despised for consumption may still be hunted for sale by Adventists, as exemplified in this study and highlighted by Luzar et al. (2012). Also, a trade-off between nonhunted and hunted species may occur, amplifying hunting pressure on species consumed by 57
Adventists. The finding of deer being the only mammal that is not forbidden by Adventists and the overall most hunted species in the study area (figure 16) indicates the probability of this mechanism. Sabbatical religions are of growing importance throughout the Amazon (Luzar and Fragoso 2013). The findings of this study underline the potential of Christianity-based food taboos for helping reducing over-harvesting of wild animals despite the ongoing deterioration of traditional indigenous belief systems and associated taboos (Luzar et al. 2012). Future research is required to better investigate the relationship between Sabbatical religions and hunting behaviour.
7. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK The present study provides a first insight into the livelihoods of the Central-Amazonian Maraguá people and into the primate diversity of the lower Abacaxis, Marimari and Urariá rivers. It identifies the conservation importance of the upper Abacaxis, Marimari and Canumã rivers for three Endangered species of primates, Ateles chamek, Lagothrix cana and Chiropotes albinasus. Another important finding is that wildlife consumption is influenced by Adventism, an issue which so far has been poorly studied in the Amazon (Luzar et al. 2012). The study reveals that the study area is impacted by both subsistence hunting by locals and commercial hunting by non-residents. Data on medicinal, spiritual and decorative use of wild animals gathered during field work for this study (Appendices A, B, C) indicate that the importance of wildlife to local people goes beyond mere sustenance. The focus of this work lies on a preliminary investigation on the abovementioned topics. Statistical analyses further assessing the factors influencing hunting behaviour, however, are at hand and may be serve in a future publication based on this thesis. The study is limited to the indigenous Maraguá and Sateré-Mawé communities. For a more integral image of livelihood strategies and impact on wildlife in the study area, it would be necessary to additionally focus on non-indigenous residents of the study area. 58
This case study exemplifies the complex pattern of the chances and challenges of biodiversity conservation in the Amazon. It confirms the value of LEK and TEK for the estimation of animal species diversity as well as for the assessment of human impacts on biodiversity, their drivers and their possible solutions. Another key insight resulting from this work is that indigenous reserves can act as an impediment for commercial hunting. Considering the strong presence of commercial hunting and other activities detrimental to biodiversity along the lower Abacaxis river, the demarcation of the Maraguá indigenous land has the potential to alleviate hunting pressure in that area. This conclusion is reinforced by the current engagement of the community of TP against commercial hunting (chapter 6.2.3). However, the current impact of indigenous people in the study area remains to be investigated in order to more accurately identify the potential biodiversity conservation value of the area as an indigenous reserve and eventual regulations to be implemented to meet biodiversity conservation goals. In any case, the Maraguá indigenous land could work as a buffer zone for the two nearest conservation units FNPR and Acarí National park. The results of the study show that wild meat is not the primary source of protein. The assessment of more quantitative data on hunting pressure, however, would be necessary to estimate the sustainability of hunting, for example by calculating the Robinson-Redford index (cf. Robinson, 2000; Robinson and Redford, 1991). In the face of proceeding threats to biodiversity in the Amazon (Nepstad et al. 2001, Fearnside 2005, Malhi et al. 2008), the establishment of new and effective management of existing protected areas becomes more and more important (Terborgh 2000, Laurance et al. 2012, Benítez-López et al. 2017). In order to guarantee the long-term sustainability of hunting in protected areas, source-sinks dynamics must be intact, i.e., wildlife refuges where hunting is absent must be present for the recuperation of animal populations (Novaro et al. 2000, Antunes et al. 2016). The extension of the indigenous reserve network in the Amazon, including preservation of refuge areas between human settlements where hunting is absent constitutes a promising model for cost effective hunting management (Nepstad et al. 2006, Antunes et al. 2016). In many areas, however, deforestation, forest fragmentation and hunting have already disrupted the dynamics of source 59
systems, and resilience of populations to subsistence hunting cannot be longer ensured (Antunes et al. 2016). Concluding, expansion of the network of protected areas of all categories, combined with stronger environmental law enforcement stemming the major threats to Amazonian biodiversity, namely large-scale deforestation and commercial hunting, are the most promising incentives for the long-term preservation of biodiversity and livelihoods in the Amazon.
60
LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, W.M., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, 306 (5699), 1146– 1149. Anadón, J.D., Giménez, A.S., Ballestar, R., and Pérez, I., 2009. Evaluation of local ecological knowledge as a method for collecting extensive data on animal abundance. Conservation Biology, 23 (3), 617– 625. Antunes, A.P., Fewster, R.M., Venticinque, E.M., Peres, C.A., Levi, T., Rohe, F., and Shepard Jr, G.H., 2016. Empty forest or empty rivers? A century of commercial hunting in Amazonia. Science Advances, 2: e1600936, 1–14. Ayres, J.M., de M. Lima, D., Martins, E. de S., and Barreiros, J.L.K., 1991. On the track of the road: Changes in subsistence hunting in a Brazilian Amazonian village. Neotropical wildlife use and conservation, 82, 92. Barnett, A.A., Schiel, V., Deveny, A., Valsko, J., Spironello, W.R., and Ross, C., 2011. Predation on Cacajao ouakary and Cebus albifrons (Primates: Platyrrhini) by harpy eagles. Mammalia, 75 (2), 169–172. Benítez-López, A., Alkemade, R., Schipper, A.M., Ingram, D.J., Verweij, P.A., Eikelboom, J.A.J., and Huijbregts, M.A.J., 2017. The impact of hunting on tropical mammal and bird populations. Science, 356 (6334), 180–183. Bennett, E.L., Eves, H.E., Robinson, J.G., and Wilkie, D.S., 2002. Why is eating bushmeat a biodiversity crisis. Conservation Biology, 3, 28–29. Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred ecology, traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Philadelphia, USA: Taylor and Francis. Berkes, F., 2012. Sacred ecology. 3rd ed. New York, USA: Routledge. Boubli, J.-P., Di Fiore, A., Rylands, A.B., and Wallace, R.B., 2008. Lagothrix cana. The IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature [online]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39925/0 [Accessed 29 Aug 2018]. Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L., and West, P.C., 2002. Beyond the square wheel: Toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Society &Natural Resources, 15 (1), 41–64. Brook, R.K. and McLachlan, S.M., 2008. Trends and prospects for local knowledge in ecological and conservation research and monitoring. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17 (14), 3501–3512. Butler, R., 2017. Calculating Deforestation Figures for the Amazon [online]. Available from: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/deforestation_calculations.html [Accessed 29 Aug 2018]. Campbell, G., Head, J., Junker, J., and Nekaris, K.A.I., 2016. Primate abundance and distribution: Background concepts and methods. In: S.A. Wich and A.J. Marshall, eds. An introduction to primate conservation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1–12. Cinner, J.E. and Aswani, S., 2007. Integrating customary management into marine conservation. Biological Conservation, 140 (3–4), 201–216. CNUC/MMA, 2018. Unidades de Conservação por Bioma. Cadastro Nacional de Unidades de Conservação and Ministério do Meio Ambiente [online]. Available from: http://www.mma.gov.br/images/arquivo/80229/CNUC_JUL18%20-%20B_Cat.pdf [Accessed 29 Aug 2018]. Colding, J. and Folke, C., 2001. Social taboos: “Invisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation. Ecological applications, 11 (2), 584–600. 61
Damania, R., Milner-Gulland, E.J., and Crookes, D.J., 2005. A bioeconomic analysis of bushmeat hunting. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B (272), 259–266. Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., and Balmford, A., 2005. Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14 (11), 2507–2542. Elkan, D., 2005. The Rainforest Saver. The Ecologist, 35 (1), 56–63. Fa, J.E., Peres, C.A., and Meeuwig, J., 2002. Bushmeat explotation in tropical forests: An intercontinental comparison. Conservation Biology, 16 (1), 232–237. Fausto, C., 2007. Feasting on people: Eating animals and humans in Amazonia. Current Anthropology, 48 (4), 497–530. Fearnside, P.M., 2005. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology, 19 (3), 680–688. Ferrari, S.F., 2008. Gênero Mico Lesson 1840. In: N.R. dos Reis, A.L. Peracchi, and F.R. Andrade, eds. Primatas Brasileiros. Londrina, Paraná, Brazil: Technical Books, 59–75. Fooden, J., 1963. A revision of the woolly monkeys (genus Lagothrix). Journal of Mammalogy, 44 (2), 213–247. FUNAI, 2018. Terras Indígenas [online]. Available from: http://www.funai.gov.br/index.php/indios-nobrasil/terras-indigenas [Accessed 29 Aug 2018]. Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., and Folke, C., 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22 (2), 151–156. Gilchrist, G., Mallory, M., and Merkel, F., 2005. Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society, 10 (1), 20. Glesne, C. and Peshkin, A., 1992. Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York, USA: Longman White Plains. Godoy, R., Undurraga, E.A., Wilkie, D., Reyes-García, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W.R., McDade, T., Tanner, S., Vadez, V., and TAPS Bolivia Study Team, 2010. The effect of wealth and real income on wildlife consumption among native Amazonians in Bolivia: Estimates of annual trends with longitudinal household data (2002-2006): Wildlife consumption, wealth and income. Animal Conservation, 13 (3), 265–274. Gray, D.E., 2004. Theoretical perspectives and research methodologies. In: D.E. Gray, ed. Doing research in the real world. Thousand Oakes, USA: SAGE, 15–38. Heckenberger, M.J., Russell, J.C., Fausto, C., Toney, J.R., Schmidt, M.J., Pereira, E., Franchetto, B., and Kuikuro, A., 2008. Pre-Columbian urbanism, anthropogenic landscapes, and the future of the Amazon. Science, 321 (5893), 1214–1217. Hershkovitz, P., 1977. Living New World monkeys (Platyrrhini), with an introduction to primates. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press. Hutton, J.M. and Leader-Williams, N., 2003. Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: Realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx, 37 (02). INMET, 2018. INMET - Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia [online]. Available from: http://www.inmet.gov.br/portal/ [Accessed 7 Aug 2018]. INPA, 2018. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia - Inpa realiza expedição para inventário da biodiversidade em rios entre Nova Olinda do Norte e Maués, no Amazonas [online]. Available from: http://portal.inpa.gov.br/index.php/ultimas-noticias/2231-inpa-realiza-expedicao-parainventario-da-biodiversidade-em-rios-entre-nova-olinda-do-norte-e-maues-no-amazonas [Accessed 7 Aug 2018]. IUCN, 1998. Mezilaurus ita-uba: Americas Regional Workshop (Conservation & Sustainable Management of Trees, Costa Rica, November 1996): The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 1998: e.T32486A9704031. IUCN, 2018. The IUCN red list of threatened species [online]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/ [Accessed 8 Aug 2018]. 62
Iwanga, S. and Ferrari, S.F., 2002. Geographic distribution and abundance of woolly (Lagothrix cana) and spider (Ateles chamek) monkeys in southwestern Brazilian Amazonia. American Journal of Primatology, 56, 57–64. Jerozolimski, A. and Peres, C.A., 2003. Bringing home the biggest bacon: A cross-site analysis of the structure of hunter-kill profiles in Neotropical forests. Biological Conservation, 111 (3), 415–425. Jones, J.P., 2011. Monitoring species abundance and distribution at the landscape scale. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48 (1), 9–13. Laurance, W.F. and Balmford, A., 2013. Land use: A global map for road building. Nature, 495 (7441), 308. Laurance, W.F., Carolina Useche, D., Rendeiro, J., Kalka, M., Bradshaw, C.J.A.,..., and Zamzani, F., 2012. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature, 489 (7415), 290–294. Laurance, W.F., Peletier-Jellema, A., Geenen, B., Koster, H., Verweij, P., Van Dijck, P., Lovejoy, T.E., Schleicher, J., and Van Kuijk, M., 2015. Reducing the global environmental impacts of rapid infrastructure expansion. Current Biology, 25 (7), R259–R262. Leroy, F. and Praet, I., 2015. Meat traditions. The co-evolution of humans and meat. Appetite, 90, 200– 211. Levi, T., Shepard Jr, G.H., Ohl-Schacherer, J., Peres, C.A., and Yu, D.W., 2009. Modelling the long-term sustainability of indigenous hunting in Manu National Park, Peru: Landscape-scale management implications for Amazonia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46 (4), 804–814. Luzar, J.B. and Fragoso, J.M.V., 2013. Shamanism, christianity and culture change in Amazonia. Human Ecology, 41 (2), 299–311. Luzar, J.B., Silvius, K.M., and Fragoso, J.M.V., 2012. Church affiliation and meat taboos in indigenous communities of Guyanese Amazonia. Human Ecology, 40 (6), 833–845. Malhi, Y., Roberts, J.T., Betts, R.A., Killeen, T.J., Li, W., and Nobre, C.A., 2008. Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science, 319 (5860), 169–172. Marsh, L.K. and Veiga, L.M., 2015. Pithecia milleri. The IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature [online]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/17407/0 [Accessed 29 Aug 2018]. McDonald, D.R., 1977. Food taboos: A primitive environmental protection agency (South America). Anthropos, 72, 734–748. Michalski, F., Michalski, L.J., and Barnett, A.A., 2017. Environmental determinants and use of space by six Neotropical primates in the Northern Brazilian Amazon. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 52 (3), 187–197. Microsoft, 2010a. Microsoft Word. Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft, 2010b. Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Corporation. Milner-Gulland, E.J. and Bennett, E.L., 2003. Wild meat: The bigger picture. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 351–357. Mittermeier, R.A., Schwarz, M., and Ayres, M., 1992. A new species of marmoset, genus Callithrix Erxleben, 1977 (Callitrichidae, Primates) from the Rio Maués region, state of Amazonas, central Brazilian Amazonia. Goeldiana, Zoologia, 14, 1–17. MMA, 2018. Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal [online]. Available from: http://www.mma.gov.br/mmaem-numeros/desmatamento [Accessed 1 Sep 2018]. Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P.O., and Kislalioglu, M., 2004. Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: Monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and society, 9 (3), 2. de la Montaña, E., Moreno-Sánchez, R. del P., Maldonado, J.H., and Griffith, D.M., 2015. Predicting hunter behavior of indigenous communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Insights from a household production model. Ecology and Society, 20 (4), 30. Morcatty, T.Q. and Valsecchi, J., 2015. Social, biological, and environmental drivers of the hunting and trade of the endangered yellow-footed tortoise in the Amazon. Ecology and Society, 20 (3). 63
Morsello, C., Yagüe, B., Beltreschi, L., van Vliet, N., Adams, C., Schor, T., Quiceno-Mesa, M.P., and Cruz, D., 2015. Cultural attitudes are stronger predictors of bushmeat consumption and preference than economic factors among urban Amazonians from Brazil and Colombia. Ecology and Society, 20 (4), 21. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A., and Kent, J., 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403 (6772), 853–858. National Policy for Environmental and Territorial Management of Indigenous Lands, 2012. Brazilian federal law 7747. National System of Protected Areas, 2000. Brazilian federal law 9985. Nepstad, D., Carvalho, G., Barros, A.C., Alencar, A., Capobianco, J.P., Bishop, J., Moutinho, P., Lefebvre, P., Silva Jr, U.L., and Prins, E., 2001. Road paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of Amazon forests. Forest ecology and management, 154 (3), 395–407. Nepstad, D., Schwartzman, S., Bamberger, B., Santilli, M., Ray, D., Schlesinger, P., Lefebvre, P., Alencar, A., Prinz, E., Fiske, G., and Rolla, A., 2006. Inhibition of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous lands. Conservation Biology, 20 (1), 65–73. Nepstad, D., Soares-Filho, B.S., Merry, F., Lima, A., Moutinho, P., Carter, J., Bowman, M., Cattaneo, A., Rodrigues, H., and Schwartzman, S., 2009. The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science, 326 (5958), 1350–1351. Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K.M., and Soares-Filho, B.S., 2013. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (13), 4956–4961. Noronha, M.A., Silva Junior, J., Spironello, W.R., and Ferreira, D.C., 2008. New occurrence records of Maués marmoset, Mico mauesi (Primates, Callitrichidae). Neotropical Primates, 15 (1), 24–26. Noronha, M.A., Spironello, W.R., and Ferreira, D.C., 2007. New occurrence records and eastern extension to the range of Callicebus cinerascens (Primates, Pitheciidae). Neotropical Primates, 14 (3), 137– 139. Novaro, A.J., Redford, K.H., and Bodmer, R.E., 2000. Effect of hunting in source‐sink systems in the Neotropics. Conservation Biology, 14 (3), 713–721. Oates, J.F., 1999. Myth and reality in the rain forest: How conservation strategies are failing in West Africa. Berkeley, USA: University of California Press. Osborne, P.L., 2000. Tropical Ecosystems and Ecological Concepts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Paglia, A.P., da Fonseca, G.A., Rylands, A.B., Herrmann, G., Aguiar, L.M., Chiarello, A.G., Leite, Y.L., Costa, L.P., Siciliano, S., and Kierulff, M.C.M., 2012. Lista anotada dos mamíferos do Brasil 2a Edição/ Annotated checklist of Brazilian mammals. Occasional papers in conservation biology, 6, 76. Parry, L., Barlow, J., and Pereira, H., 2014. Wildlife harvest and consumption in Amazonia’s urbanized wilderness. Conservation Letters, 7 (6), 565–574. Parry, L. and Peres, C.A., 2015. Evaluating the use of local ecological knowledge to monitor hunted tropical-forest wildlife over large spatial scales. Ecology and Society, 20 (3), 15. Parry, L., Peres, C.A., Day, B., and Amaral, S., 2010. Rural-urban migration brings conservation threats and opportunities to Amazonian watersheds: Rural-urban migration in Amazonia. Conservation Letters, 3 (4), 251–259. Peres, C.A., 1990. Effects of hunting on western Amazonian primate communities. Biological Conservation, 54 (1), 47–59. Peres, C.A., 1994. Diet and feeding ecology of gray woolly monkeys (Lagothrix lagotricha cana) in central Amazonia: Comparisons with other atelines. International Jounral of Primatology, 15 (3), 333– 372. Peres, C.A., 2000a. Effects of subsistence hunting on vertebrate community structure in Amazonian forests. Conservation Biology, 14, 240–253. 64
Peres, C.A., 2000b. Evaluating the impact and sustainability of subsistence hunting at multiple Amazonian forest sites. In: G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. New York, USA: Columbia University Press, 31–57. Peres, C.A. and Dolman, P.M., 2000. Density compensation in neotropical primate communities: Evidence from 56 hunted and nonhunted Amazonian forests of varying productivity. Oecologia, 122 (2), 175–189. Peres, C.A., Emilio, T., Schietti, J., Desmoulière, S.J.M., and Levi, T., 2016. Dispersal limitation induces long-term biomass collapse in overhunted Amazonian forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113 (4), 892–897. Peres, C.A. and Janson, C.A., 1999. Species coexistence, distribution, and environmental determinants of neotropical primate richness: A community-level zoogeographic analysis. In: J.G. Fleagle, C.A. Janson, and K.E. Reed, eds. Primate communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 55–74. Peres, C.A. and Lake, I.R., 2003. Extent of nontimber resource extraction in tropical forests: Accessibility to game vertebrates by hunters in the Amazon basin. Conservation Biology, 17 (2), 521–535. Pimm, S.L., Jenkins, C.N., Abell, R., Brooks, T.M., Gittleman, J.L., Joppa, L.N., Raven, P.H., Roberts, C.M., and Sexton, J.O., 2014. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science, 344 (6187), 1246752–1246752. Pinto, L.P. and Setz, E.Z.F., 2005. Ecologia alimentar do cuxiú-de-nariz-branco Chiropotes albinasus (I. Geoffroy e Deville, 1848) em uma área de mata primária na Floresta Nacional do Tapajós, PA. In: Livro de Resumos. Presented at the XI Congresso Brasileiro de Primatologia, Porto Alegre, Brazil: Pogonias Press, 151. PNUD Brasil [online], 2018. Available from: http://www.br.undp.org/content/brazil/pt/home/ [Accessed 4 Aug 2018]. Queen, E.L., Ponthero, S.R., and Shattuk, G.H., eds., 2009. Seventh-day Adventist church. In: Encyclopedia of American religious history. New York, USA: Infobase Publishing. Redford, K.H. and Sanderson, S.E., 2000. Extracting humans from nature. Conservation Biology, 14 (5), 1362–1364. Robinson, J.G., 2000. Calculating maximum sustainable harvests and percentage offtakes. In: J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. New York, USA: Columbia University Press, 521–524. Robinson, J.G. and Bennett, E.L., 2000. Carrying capacity limits to sustainable hunting in tropical forests. In: J.G. Robinson and E.L. Bennett, eds. Hunting for sustainability in tropical forests. New York, USA: Columbia University Press, 13–30. Robinson, J.G. and Redford, K.H., 1991. Sustainable harvest of Neotropical forest animals. In: J.G. Robinson and K.H. Redford, eds. Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press, 415–429. Russell, B.H., 1940. The foundation of social research. In: B.H. Russell, ed. Research methods in anthropology : Qualitative and quantitative approaches-4th ed. 28–68. Rylands, A.B., Coimbra-Filho, A.F., and Mittermeier, R.A., 1993. Systematics, distributions, and some notes on the conservation status of the callitrichidae. In: A.B. Rylands, ed. Marmosets and tamarins: Systematics, behaviour and ecology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 11–77. Rylands, A.B. and Silva Jr, J.S., 2015. Mico chrysoleucos. The IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature. [online]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39910/0 [Accessed 29 Aug 2018]. Schön, M.A., 1971. The anatomy of the resonating mechanism in howling monkeys. Folia Primatologica, 15 (1–2), 117–132. Schwartzman, S., Moeira, A., and Nepstad, D., 2000. Rethinking tropical forest conservation: Perils in parks. Conservation Biology, 14 (5), 1351–1357. 65
Shepard Jr., G.H., Levi, T., Neves, E.G., Peres, C.A., and Yu, D.W., 2012. Hunting in ancient and modern Amazonia: Rethinking sustainability. American Anthropologist, 114 (4), 652–667. Silva Jr, J.S. and Noronha, M.A., 1995. A new record for Callithrix mauesi Mittermeier, Schwarz and Ayres, 1992. Neotropical primates, 3 (3), 79–81. Silva Jr, J.S. and Noronha, M.A., 1998. On a new species of bare-eared marmoset, genus Callithrix Erxleben, 1777, from central Amazonia, Brazil (Primates: Callitrichidae). Goeldiana, Zoologia, 21, 1–28. Teixeira, P., 2005. Sateré-Mawé: Retrato de um povo indígena. Manaus, Brazil: Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Fundação Estadual de Política Indigenista do Amazonas, Secretaria de Educação do Estado do Amazonas, Fundação Joaquim Nabuco, Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira. Terborgh, J., 1999. Requiem for Nature. Washington D.C., USA: Island Press. Terborgh, J., 2000. The fate of tropical forests: A matter of stewardship. Conservation Biology, 14 (5), 1358–1361. Terborgh, J., Nuñez-Iturri, G., Pitman, N.C., Valverde, F.H.C., Alvarez, P., Swamy, V., Pringle, E.G., and Paine, C.T., 2008. Tree recruitment in an empty forest. Ecology, 89 (6), 1757–1768. Turner, W., Spector, S., Gardiner, N., Fladeland, M., Sterling, E., and Steininger, M., 2003. Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18 (6), 306–314. Van Roosmalen, M.G.M. and Mittermeier, R.A., 2002. A taxonomic review of the titi monkeys, genus Callicebus Thomas, 1903, with the description of two new species, Callicebus bernhardi and Callicebus stephennashi, from Brazilian Amazonia. Neotropical Primates, 10 (supplement), 1–52. Veiga, L.M., Pinto, L.P., Ferrari, S.F., Rylands, A.B., Mittermeier, R.A., and Boubli, J.-P., 2008. Chiropotes albinasus. The IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature [online]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4685/0 [Accessed 29 Aug 2018]. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Vié, J.-C., Hilton-Taylor, C., Stuart, S.N., IUCN- The World Conservation Union, and IUCN Species Survival Commission, eds., 2009. Wildlife in a changing world: An analysis of the 2008 IUCN red list of threatened species. Gland, Switzerland; Barcelona, Spain: IUCN; Lynx Editions. van Vliet, N., Quiceno-Mesa, M.P., Cruz-Antia, D., Neves de Aquino, L.J., Moreno, J., and Nasi, R., 2014. The uncovered volumes of bushmeat commercialized in the Amazonian trifrontier between Colombia, Peru & Brazil. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 3 (7), 1–11. Walker, R., Moore, N.J., Arima, E., Perz, S., Simmons, C., Caldas, M., Vergara, D., and Bohrer, C., 2009. Protecting the Amazon with protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (26), 10582–10586. Wallace, R.B., Mittermeier, R.A., Cornejo, F., and Boubli, J.-P., 2008. Ateles chamek. The IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature [online]. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41547/0 [Accessed 29 Aug 2018]. Weinstein, B., 1983. The Amazon rubber boom, 1850-1920. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press. Wilkie, D.S., Bennett, E.L., Peres, C.A., and Cunningham, A.A., 2011. The empty forest revisited. Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1223 (1), 120–128. Wilkie, D.S. and Carpenter, J.F., 1999. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: An assessment of impacts and options for mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, 927–955. XE Currency Converter - Live Rates [online], 2018. Available from: https://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/ [Accessed 16 Aug 2018]. Yamã, Y., Yaguakãg, E., Guaynê, U., and Guará, R.W., eds., 2014. Maraguápéyára: História do povo Maraguá. Manaus, Brazil: Valer. Zimmerman, B., Peres, C.A., Malcolm, J.R., and Turner, T., 2001. Conservation and development alliances with the Kayapó of South-Eastern Amazonia, a tropical forest indigenous people. Environmental Conservation, 28 (1), 10–22. 66
Appendix A: Species used for medicinal purposes
English name Green anaconda Snakes South american bushmaster South american bushmaster South american bushmaster Boa constrictor Howler monkey Howler monkey Howler monkey Tufted capuchin Tortoise Tortoise Tortoise Caiman Caiman Amazon river dolphin Capybara Capybara Harpy eagle Deer American opossum Electric eel Brazilian lowland tapir
Local name Sucurijú Cobras Surucucú Surucucú Surucucú Jibóia Guariba Guariba Guariba Macaco prego Jabutí Jabutí Jabutí Jacaré Jacaré Boto Capivara Capivara Gavião real Veado Mukúra Poraquê Anta
Scientific name Eunectes murinus Serpentes Lachesis muta Lachesis muta Lachesis muta Boa constrictor Alouatta sp. Alouatta sp. Alouatta sp. Sapajus apella Chelonoidis sp. Chelonoidis sp. Chelonoidis sp. Caiman sp. Caiman sp. Inia geoffrensis Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris Harpia harpyja NA Didelphis sp. Electrophorus electricus Tapirus terrestris
Order Squamata Squamata Squamata Squamata Squamata Squamata Primates Primates Primates Primates Testudines Testudines Testudines Crocodylia Crocodylia Odontoceti Rodents Rodents Acciptriformes Cervidae Didelphimorhia Gymnotiformes Perissodactyla
NOTE: Results are organized regarding the number of mentions for Orders
67
Part used fat fat fat fat fat fat hyoid bone fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat talon fat fat fat fat
Purpose wound healing wound healing wound healing cancer intoxication wound healing pertussis ("howler coughing") cure for bones and muscles wound healing wound healing wound healing internal infections contraceptive wound healing asthma wound healing asthma wound healing pertussis ("howler coughing") wound healing contraceptive coughing wound healing
# of Mentions 14 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Appendix B: Animals used for spiritual purposes
English name Amazon river dolphin musician wren tufted capuchin tufted capuchin South american coati
Local name boto uirapurú macaco prego macaco prego coatí
Scientific name Inia geoffrensis Cyphorhinus arada Sapajus apella Sapajus apella Nasua nasua
Part used part of genitals, fat whole animal (dried) fur teeth fur, fat, body parts
68
Purpose seduction seduction burned to chase away crop raiding animals spiritual protection for child and protection against accidents spiritual protection for child
Appendix C: Animals used for artwork Local name jacaré ariranha gavião real gavião onça arara macaco papagaio pirarucú maracajá tucano
English name caiman giant otter harpy eagle hawk jaguar macaw monkeys parrots pirarucu small felids toucan
Scientific name Caimaninae Pteronura brasiliensis Harpia harpyja Accipitriformes Panthera onca Arini Primata Arinae Arapaima gigas Leopardus sp. Ramphastidae
Part teeth, hide, bones hide, bones, teeth feathers, beak, claws feathers teeth, hide, claws feathers teeth, nails feathers bones skin, bones, teeth, hide, nails feathers, beak
NOTE: Animals for which use was reported or observed. Teeth and bones were mostly for the production of collars (figure 8) and bracelets; feathers for headdresses (figure 1), ties (figure 8) and earrings; and skins as decoration in houses or for production of bags.
69
Appendix D: Questionnaire
Interview #:_________ Coordinates:_________________________
A) GENERAL DATA Date: __/__/__ Community: _________________________ Age: _______ Time living in community: ___________ Origin: ____________________________ Etnic group: ___________________________________________ Religion:____________________________________ Profession: _______________________ Number of people in household: ___________ Principal source of household income: ___________________________ Approximate value of income/month: R$__________________ Receiving state subsidies: Bolsa família ( ); Bolsa floresta ( ); Others: _____________
70
B) AGRICULTURE 1. Do you keep domestic animals?
Species
Number
Purpose (subsistence/ commerce
2. Do you practice agriculture?
Species planted
Purpose (subsistence/ commerce
C) HUNTING AND USE OF WILDLIFE
3. Do you practice fishing? ( ) Yes; ( ) No If yes, how many times a week? ___________________________________
4. Do you hunt? ( ) Yes; ( ) No If yes, how many times a week? ___________________________________ 71
5. Hunted species Most hunted species (general
Most hunted primates
Number of animals hunted per hunting event
Purpose (subsistence/ commerce
If commercialized, price/ individual or kg
If commercialized, destination of sale
6. How many times per week do you hunt? ______________________
7. What hunting techniques are you using for which species?
8. What is the approximate distance of the hunting ground?
9. Which is the best time of the year for hunting? ( ) Summer
( ) Winter ( ) Always
( ) Other: ________________
10. Do you prefer wild meat, domestic meat or fish?
11. Are there any animals that should not be consumed according to your belief?
1. ___________; 2. ___________;
Reason: ____________ Reason: ____________ 72
3. ___________; 4. ___________; 5. ___________;
Reason: ____________ Reason: ____________ Reason: ____________
12. Do you obey these restrictions? ( ) Always
( ) Mostly ( ) Never
13. Are there any animal species that have become rare during your lifetime? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, Species
Reason
14. Do you keep any wild animal? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, Species (general)
Primates
number
Purpose (subsistence/ commerce
15. Have you ever hunted any animal for medicinal or spiritual purposes? ( ) Yes ( ) No 73
If yes, Species (general)
Primates
Part used
Purpose
16. Have you ever hunted any animal for crafts? ( ) Yes ( ) No If yes,
Species
Primates
Part used
Purpose
D) CONSERVATION
17. What are the main problems animals are facing in this area?
18. Have you ever experienced environmental law enforcement in this area?
19. Do you think there should be more environmental law enforcement in this area?
74
Appendix E: Primate images
Aotus vociferans (representing A. nigriceps)
75
Ateles chamek Ateles chamek
Lagothrix cana
Alouatta nigerrima
76 Alouatta nigerrima
Cebus albifrons
Sapajus apella
Saimiri sciureus 77 Saimiri sciureus
Cebuella pygmae
Mico acariensis
Mico chrysoleucos Mico humeralifer 78
Mico saterei
79
Chiropotes albinasus Pithecia milleri Pithecia milleri
Pithecia crysocephala
Chiropotes albinasus
Pi
80
Pithecia crysocephala
81
Appendix F : Ethics form Oxford Brookes University
82
83
Appendix G: Research authorization of ASPIM
84
Appendix H: Consent form for interviewees
Comitê de Ética em Pesquisas Envolvendo Seres Humanos INSTIUTO NACIONAL DE PESQUISAS DA AMAZÔNIA TERMO DE CONSENTIMENTO LIVRE ESCLARECIDO Eu, o pesquisador Simon Knoop, vim me apresentar ao(s) senhor(es), como responsáveis pelo desenvolvimento do projeto de pesquisa intitulado “O uso de bens florestais e percepções da vida silvestre por comunidades tradicionais Amazônicas”, e pedir a sua participação no referido projeto. Vamos lhe apresentar a pesquisa. Esta pesquisa se faz necessária em função da necessidade de um uso sustentável de vertebrados pelos moradores da região. Ressalto que sua participação é de grande relevância pelo seu conhecimento sobre a biodiversidade local assim sua colaboração nos auxiliará a ter melhores resultados. Este trabalho tem o objetivo de avaliar como fatores relacionados ao ambiente e a presença humana influenciam a fauna de animais e compreender como se estrutura a dinâmica da caça na região. Para obter informações sobre a atividade de caça realizarei entrevistas para o preenchimento de um formulário contendo perguntas socioeconômicas e informações sobre as espécies caçadas. Também usarei fichas de monitoramento para cada evento de caça realizado. Ressalto que apesar dos riscos serem mínimos, em razão de serem aplicadas apenas entrevistas ou questionários, as perguntas foram previamente elaboradas no sentido de não causar desconforto, constrangimento ou mesmo danos físicos, psíquicos ou psicológicos, morais, intelectuais, sociais, culturais ou espirituais ao ser humano que, mesmo com todo esse cuidado, o(a) senhor(a) poderá retirar-se da pesquisa a qualquer momento. Informo que sua participação é voluntária, e que a mesma não lhe implicará em nenhuma despesa ou recebimento de proventos. Consequentemente os benefícios de sua participação é de caráter científico e de colaboração no provimento de informações para um futuro plano de monitoramento da fauna. Mas, caso o(a) senhor(a) tenha algum tipo de despesa ou dano por conta do projeto, o(a) senhor(a) será devidamente ressarcido(a) desde que apresente documentos comprobatórios do mesmo. Deixo claro que mesmo após sua autorização, o senhor(a) tem o direito e a liberdade de retirar seu consentimento em qualquer fase da pesquisa, independente do motivo e sem qualquer prejuízo a sua pessoa. Também informo que em toda e qualquer etapa desta pesquisa sua identidade será mantida em sigilo permanentemente e sempre que necessário poderá entrar em contato o pesquisador: (92) 993974338. Comunico que o(a) senhor(a) está recebendo uma via deste Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido que está devidamente assinado e que deverá guarda-lo para qualquer eventualidade.
85
Consentimento após informação Eu, ___________________________________________________________________, por me considerar devidamente informado e esclarecido sobre o conteúdo deste documento e da pesquisa a ser desenvolvida, livremente dou meu consentimento para inclusão como participante da pesquisa e atesto que me foi entregue uma cópia desse documento assinado e que o guardarei.
___________________________________________________ ou Assinatura do participante
Data: ____/____/____
Impressão do dedo polegar caso não saiba assinar
_________________________________________________ Assinatura do pesquisador
Data: ____/____/____
86
