Upload
others
View
4
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
75 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88
Fishing territoriality and diversity betweenthe ethnic populations Ashaninka and Kaxinawá,Breu river, Brazil/Peru.
Benedito Domingues do AMARAL1
ABSTRACTThis study describes the diversity and the subsistence fishing territoriality of traditional populations of an Ashaninka and twoKaxinawá villages living at the margins of the Breu river (Brazil/Peru). In general, samplings in the dwellings were carried outlate in the afternoon, as the fishermen arrived in the village. The data were analysed in an exploratory way through the indexof pondered dominance (ID%), by analysis of variance and by a correspondence analysis in order to determine the associationsof the fish species and the fishing spots between the villages of the Indigenous Reserve. The results of the analysis of variancedemonstrated that differences exist between the fish diversities of the catches. However, post-hoc tests only detected differencesin diversities between the hand fishhook and the other fishing gears (bow and arrow, castnets and rotenone tingui). Althoughthe use of bow and arrow resulted in a low capture (Kg), this fishing strategy is associated with a high fishing diversity, interms of number of species. These results demonstrate that there is no overlap in the frequency of the visits to the fishingspots between the Ashaninka and Kaxinawá populations. This pattern is the same found for the correspondence analysis forthe fish species, which describes the relationship between the deep pools environments exploited by the fishermen Ashaninkaand Kaxinawá of Mourão. These ethnic populations still continue to maintain a strong cultural and cosmological traditionwith their territories defined in an informal way of the upper Juruá area.
KEY WORDSAmazonia, Indigenous fisheries, Ashaninka, Kaxinawá, Breu river.
Diversidade e territorialidade pesqueira entre aspopulações étnicas Ashaninka e Kaxinawá, rio Breu,Alto Juruá, Brasil/Peru.
RESUMOEste estudo tem o objetivo de descrever a diversidade e a territorialidade pesqueira de subsistência das populações tradicionaisde uma aldeia Ashaninka e duas Kaxinawá vivendo à beira do rio Breu. Elas se situam no alto rio Juruá acima de MarechalTaumaturgo (AC, Brasil/Peru) num complexo de unidades de conservação e territórios de diversas populações étnicas. As casasdos moradores das aldeias e as pescarias coletivas são as unidades amostrais nesse estudo. De modo geral, as amostragens nascasas foram realizadas nos fins de tarde, conforme a chegada dos pescadores à aldeia. O monitor de pesca fez a coleta dasinformações sobre a pescaria e a pesagem do pescado capturado. Os dados foram analisados de maneira exploratória atravésdo índice ponderal de dominância (ID%), pela análise de variância para as diversidades das capturas nas aldeias e pelaanálise de correspondência para determinar as associações das espécies de pescado e os pontos pesqueiros entre as aldeias daReserva Indígena. Os resultados das análises de variância demonstraram que existem diferenças entre as diversidades dascapturas. No entanto, os testes a posteriori de comparações somente detectaram diferenças de diversidades entre o anzol de mãoe os outros aparelhos (arco/flecha, tarrafa e tingui). Apesar do arco/flecha apresentar baixa captura (kg), sua estratégia depesca gera alta diversidade de espécies. Os resultados demonstram que não há freqüência de sobreposição das visitas aospontos pesqueiros entre as etnias Ashaninka e Kaxinawá. Esse padrão é o mesmo encontrado para a análise de correspondênciapara as espécies de pescado, que descreve a semelhança entre os ambientes de poços explorados entre os pescadores Ashaninkae Kaxinawá do Mourão devido a sua proximidade de localização na Reserva Indígena, mas não há sobreposição na exploraçãodos recursos pesqueiros. Essas populações étnicas ainda continuam a manter uma forte tradição cultural e cosmológica, comseus territórios definidos de maneira informal e com respeito aos que habitam a região do Alto Juruá.
PALAVRAS-CHAVEAmazônia, pescarias indígenas, Ashaninka, Kaxinawá, rio Breu.
1 Geociências e Meio Ambiente. IGCE-UNESP, 13506-900 – Rio Claro (SP), Brasil. e-mail: [email protected]
76 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
INTRODUCTION
In the area known as the Brazilian Legal Amazônia thereare about 364 indigenous territories, with the Juruá riverstanding as one of the most complexes areas. The upperJuruá river encompass a suite of conservation units withseveral territories of traditional human populations, likevillages of workers exploring rubber trees and the ethnicAshanikawa, Kaxinawá, Manchineri, Kulina, Katukina,Nukuni, Jaminawá, Arara, Poyanawá, Yawanawá, amongothers, that has no contact with occidental civilizations.
However, the future of this area still depends on thedemarcations of 21 indigenous territories which areconnected to three Extrativist Reserves and with the Serrado Divisor National Park, an extension of continuous landwith an area of about 2.839.850 ha harbouring a populationaround 15 thousand inhabitants, corresponding to 18.6%of the State of Acre. The ecosystem in the area of the upperhigh Juruá river still maintains its structures and naturalfunctions, mainly because it possesses a low demographicdensity, low gold mining, low farming activity and low useof hydroenergetic resources. An exception to this is theconstruction of the highway BR-364, which will link the citiesof Rio Branco and Cruzeiro do Sul, in Brazil, with possibleexpansions to the Pacific Ocean, after joining theTransamerican highway in Peru (Aquino, 1997).
In agreement with the Pilot Project for theConservation of the Tropical Forests - PPG7of the Ministry of the Environment - MMA/Indigenous National Foundation - FUNAI, itexpects to identify of 42 indigenous territoriesand demarcate another 58 areas in theAmazon. However, once the demarcations ofthese territories are completed, it will still benecessary to demarcate another 111 territoriesin the area. Thus, it is expected that theoptimization in the use of the available socio-economicresource to accomplish this work should contemplate thelongings established in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988(GTA & Friends of the Earth, 1997). The objective of thisstudy is to determine the fishing territoriality amongfishermen and to compare the diversities of catches in theAshaninka/Kaxinawá Indigenous Reservation of the Breuriver (AC, Brazil/Peru).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The Ashaninka-Kaxinawá Indigenous Reservation liesin the middle and upper Breu river, with an area of23.840 hectares in the municipality of Taumaturgo (AC),with a population estimated as having 350 inhabitants(Aquino & Iglesias, 1992). The Reservation lies adjacentto the Extrativist Reservation of Upper Juruá, with theIndigenous Reservation Kaxinawá Jordão river and,along with the Breu river, with the Peruvian Amazonforest (Figure 1).
The regional physiography has a landscape predominatelydissected and undulated, encompassing lower plateaus coveredby open tropical forest and spots of dense tropical forest. TheBreu river is a third-order affluent of the alluvial basins of theJavari and upper Juruá Rivers. The regional climate is definedas having rainy (November to May) and dry (June to November)periods, with annual precipitation around 2220mm(RADAMBRASIL, 1977; Emperaire et al. 1992).
Fisheries data sampling in the Indian Reserveencompassed a complete hydrological cycle, and weremonitored by an interviewer (November 1995 and September1996) and by the first author (September 1995 and April1996). Fishermen dwellings in the villages and the collectivefisheries were the sampling units in this study. In general,dwelling samplings were carried out late in the afternoon, asthe fishermen arrived in the village. The interviewer sampledthe information about the fishery, weighed and counted thefish caught. The inventory of fish species caught in the basinof the Breu river was performed in the summer (August 1995)and winter (April 1996). Species collected were identifiedand voucher specimens were deposited in the ZoologicalMuseum of the University of São Paulo (MZUSP). Taxonomicidentification of specimens caught in the villages, but absentin the inventory, were made with the aid of a list of speciesfor the studied area (Silvano et al. 2001).
Figure 1 - Study area in the Ashaninka/Kaxinawá IndigenousReservation. Fonte: RADAMBRASIL, (1977).
77 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
The fixation of geographical co-ordinates of the mainfishing spots in the Indigenous Reserves was accomplishedin the last field trip (September 1996). The GPS was with theconfiguration in the system UTM, plan, meters and true north.
The index of pondered dominance, ID% = [(Ni*P
i)/
S(Ni*P
i)]*100, where P
i is the weight (Kg) of the species
caught and Ni is the number of species caught in the fishingspots, was used to obtain data on the main fish speciescatches as well on the main fishing spots in the IndigenousReservation (Beaumord, 1991).
The diversity of the species caught (weight and numberof individuals) was calculated for each fishing gear used bythe Shannon-Wiener H’ index (Krebs, 1989). Calculationsof the analysis of variance model were accomplishedbetween the diversity presented by the different fishinggears, following the equation Y
i = m + a
i + e
i, where: Y
i is
the diversity measure H’; m is a constant; ai identifies the
fishing gear with i = 1, 2, 3 and 4, where 1=hand fishhook,2=bow and arrow, 3=net and 4= rotenone “tingui”; and e
iis the random error N(0, s2). The residual analysis was carriedout by plotting studentizated residuals and the estimatedvalues, with the random observation of the distributions ofvalues close to zero, that is, the evaluation of the occurrenceof tendencies and outliers. Asymmetry (g
1) and kurtosis (g
2)
were also calculated. Whenever ANOVA was significant,Tukey test was used a post-hoc test (Sokal & Rholf, 1995).
The correspondence analysis (CA) was used to describethe fisheries between the villages, specially to obtain dataon the overlap in the use of fishings spots and on theterritorial relationships between the villages (Manly, 1986;Ludwig & Reynolds, 1988).
RESULTS
Description of the fisheries in theIndigenous Reserve.
In the inventories realized at the Indigenous Reserve,41 species of fishes were collected. Other 27 species thatwere not collected during the sampling period are describedin the fish list of the Extrativist Reserve of the Upper Juruá(Silvano et al. 2000; Silvano et al. 2001). Thus, catches inthe Ashaninka/Kaxinawá Indigenous Reservation encompass59 species plus one species of crab (Sylviocarcinus devillei).The fish species belong to the Order Characiformes, with 6families, Siluriformes, with 3 families, Gymnotiformes andPerciformes, with 2 families each and Rajiformes with thefamily Potamotrygonidae.
Village fisheries took place in 78 encompassing differentfishing spots such as creek mouths, creeks, deep pools, andlakes. The fishermen of the village Ashaninka visited 18spots, the fishermen of Kaxinawá of Mourão visited 48 andKaxinawá of Japinim 31.
Total fish production in the Indigenous Reservationwas 2,895 kg with a capture of 44,583 specimens of
several species. A total of 359 fishing activities weresampled in the Indigenous Reservation, where 96, 176and 87 trips occurred between the villages. The mostcommon fish species were the “mandi” (35%, Pimelodussp.), armoured catfishes (25%, Hypostomus sp.),curimatã (9%, Prochilodus sp.) , “saburu” (8%,Curimatidae), among others.
Fisheries in the villages of the Indigenous Reservationshave dominance in catches closely tied to the fishing gearsand with the typology of the exploited fisheriesenvironments. In the fishhook (average=0.086 kg/fishermen) fisheries used by Kaxinawá fishermen, therewas a dominance of fish species caught such as the“mandi”, the “pintadinha”, the “piau” and the “piaba”which, in turn, are caught in habitats close to the villageharbours. Armoured catfishes were more efficiently caughtwith bow and arrow. The Ashaninka and Kaxinawá ofMourão fishermen use this gear to exploit rapids habitats,while the Kaxinawá of Japinim fishermen use bow andarrow in the igarapés, as they live near the head streams.
Catching with bow and arrow (average=0.116 kg/fishermen/village) in different habitats are associated withmarked differences in the composition catch of fishspecies. In general, armoured catfishes dominate catches.However, there were subtle differences in speciescomposition and, in fact, the use of bow and arrow isassociated with a higher diversity in species. For example,in rapids habitats, male painted and big armoured catfishesare the dominant species caught by bow and arrow, whilein creeks the dominant species are the yellow and blackarmoured catfishes. The use of bow and arrow also favourcatch, during the summer, of several other species ofarmoured catfishes (Loricariidae) and of the crabSylviocarcinus devillei.
In fisheries with castnets (average=0.437 kg/fishermen/village) carried out in deep pools in Ashaninkaand Kaxinawá of Mourão villages, the most commonspecies were male catfishes and species of the genusPimelodus sp. (“mandi”) and Prochilodus sp.(“curimatã”). In the village Kaxinawá of Japinim, fisherieswith castnets were associated with igarapés and lakes,with a dominance of species such as armoured catfishes,“piaba” “curimatã” (Prochilodus sp.) and “saburu”. Itshould be pointed out that the use of castnets wasassociated with a high kg/fisherman.
The fisheries carried out with the use of rotenone“tingui” (average=0.240 kg/fishermen/village) stands outamong Kaxinawá fishermen. Fishermen at the village ofMourão catch several species of Curimatidae andLoricariidae in deep pools during the winter, with adominance of “piabas” when this gear is used in“igarapés” during the dry period. Fisheries in the villageKaxinawá of Mourão had satisfactory catches (in termsof kg/fisherman) with the use of the rotenone, which isthe most common fishing gear among the fishermen ofKaxinawá of Japinim village (Table 1).
78 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
Diversity (H’) of the catches amongdifferent fishing gears.
The calculated values of the diversity indexes (H’) canbe interpreted for each of the fishing gears according totheir strategies of resource allocation (Table 2). Theresults of the analysis of variance for the diversities ofspecies, calculated in the number of individuals andweight are show in Tables 3a and b and 4a and b. Thepost-hoc Tukey test of comparisons only detecteddifferences of diversities between the hand fishhook andthe other gears (bow and arrow, net and rotenone“tingui”). Residual analysis indicated that there was noinconvenience in these results.
Fishing territoriality between the villages.
Fishing spots with larger dominance in catches were theAlgodão deep pool (46%) in Kaxinawá of Mourão village,the Mulateiro (16%) and Alho deep pool (4%) used by thefishermen of Kaxinawá of Mourão and Japinim villages, whilethe Cuchirir deep pool (6%) was more frequented by theAshaninka fishermen. Overlap in the use of spots between
the fishermen of Ashaninka and Kaxinawá villages onlyoccurred at the Pedra, Cuchirir and Passarinho deep pools.The visits to the spots with higher overlap in their useoccurred between the Kaxinawá of Mourão and Japinimvillages in 18 of the fishing spots.
The first factor in the correspondence analysis (CA) wasrelated to the associations of fish species with higherdominances that were caught between villages Kaxinawá ofMourão and Ashaninka (Figure 2 and Table 5). These valuesexcluded those related to extreme associations (> 2.5),which were related only to fish caught by the village.
It is suggested that the number of species associationsin this factor is larger between those two villages, due tothe exploitation of fishing resources in similar environments,such as deep pools. The second factor describes theassociations of species of fish that were caught between thevillages Kaxinawá of Mourão and Japinim. It can be noticedthat the extreme values of the associations are due to thespecies caught exclusively in the village Kaxinawá of Japinim.The associations of the second factor describe the fishspecies that were caught jointly in the villages Kaxinawá,with a predominance of catches in the deep pools, creeksand lakes (Figure 2 and Table 5). Table 6 shows the
sraeG/segalliVkooH worrA/woB stentsaC enonetoR
’H W ’H N ’H W ’H N ’H W ’H N ’H W ’H N
akninahsA 286.3 517.3 698.3 662.3 573.3 063.3
oãruoModáwanixaK 544.2 863.2 512.4 206.3 111.4 677.3 003.4 687.3
minipaJodáwanixaK 050.2 219.1 901.3 462.3 275.3 762.3 356.3 123.3
naeM 742.2 041.2 866.3 135.3 538.3 636.3 877.3 635.3
noitaiveDdradnatS 791.0 822.0 154.0 591.0 591.0 462.0 483.0 662.0
)%(noitairaVfotneiciffeoC 67.8 56.01 92.21 25.5 80.5 62.7 61.01 25.7
Table 1 - Demographic and fishery characteristics of Ashaninka and Kaxinawá villages.
Table 2 - Shannon-Wiener H’ diversity index, base 10, based on the number of individuals (H’N) and in weight (H’W/kg) of fish catches.
segalliV akninahsA oãruoModáwanixaK minipaJodáwanixaK
scitsiretcarahC
stnatibahniforebmundetamitsE 44 96 011
eganaeM sraey62 sraey43 sraey93
ezisylimaFegarevA 4 5 6
namrehsiF/sraeggnihsiF/gK
”iugniT“ 090.0 245.0 880.0
gnihsifteN 665.0 885.0 951.0
gnihsiflaudividnI 780.0 312.0 050.0
kooh-hsifdnaeniL nwonknu 130.0 241.0
79 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
associations between the villages as a function of the catchesof fish species. It can be seen that in the first factor thehighest association is related to the Ashaninka village, whilein the second axis the highest association is related to theKaxinawás village.
This pattern describes the similarity between the deeppools exploited by fishermen of both villages (Ashaninkaand Kaxinawá of Mourão), due to their proximity in theIndigenous Reservation. Nevertheless, there was notoverlap in the use of fisheries resources and of frequencyof visits to the spots between these two villages (seeFigure 3). For example, in Figure 3, the first factor makesthe distinction between the spots visited by the villageAshaninka with high negative associations loads. Thesecond factor demonstrates the spots visited by theKaxinawá fishermen, with elevated positive associations’loads for the village Kaxinawá of Japinim. The Kaxinawáof Mourão fishermen were more active in the exploitationof the fishery resources, overlapping with their closeneighbours near the heads of the Breu river (Table 7).The results displayed in Table 8 described a similarpattern as those presented in Table 6.
There was a division of fishing territory, as well as adistinction in the fish species caught and fishing spots visitedbetween the fishermen of the villages Ashaninka andKaxinawá of Japinim. The fishermen of the village Kaxinawáof Mourão present a more active foraging behaviour of thefishery resources as they devoted a portion of their time toother activities such as agriculture. The use of the fisheryresources was a more efficient and fast way to obtain thenecessary protein, at least when compared to the time thatwas devoted to obtaining the same protein by otheractivities, such as hunting.
Figure 3 - Correspondence analysis factors of the fishing spots(mass > 0.01) for the Indigenous Reservation villages.
Figure 2 - Correspondence analysis factors of the species weight(mass > 0.01) for the Indigenous Reservation villages.
Table 3 - Analysis of Variance with the factor fishing gears for thediversity of fishes species:
Table 4 - Probability of the post-hoc test of multiple comparisonof Tukey between the diversities of species:
sraeG kooH /woBworrA stentsaC enonetoR
kooH 1
worrA/woB 400.0 1
stentsaC 500.0 679.0 1
"iugnit"enonetoR 400.0 899.0 599.0 1
naeMdetsujdA 041.2 725.3 634.3 094.3
a) number of individuals (H’N) and
b) in weight (H’W/kg) of fish catches.
sraeG kooH /woBworrA stentsaC enonetoR
kooH 1
worrA/woB 330.0 1
stentsaC 810.0 549.0 1
"iugnit"enonetoR 420.0 989.0 599.0 1
naeMdetsujdA 842.2 966.3 068.3 677.3
'H=elbairaVtnednepeD gk/W R2 947.0=noitairaVfoecruoS QS LG QM F P
sraeGgnihsiF 938.3 3 082.1 659.6 710.0rorrE 882.1 7 481.0
b) in weight (H’W/kg ) of fish catches.
'H=elbairaVtnednepeD N R2 158.0=noitairaVfoecruoS QS LG QM F P
sraeGgnihsiF 079.2 3 099.0 672.31 300.0rorrE 255.0 7 570.0
a) number of individuals (H’N ) and
80 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
N0
redrO
ylimaF
ylimaf-buS
seicepS/areneG
nom
moCeseugutroP
eman
nom
moCe
manakninahs
Ano
mmoC
eman
áwanixaK
1rotcaF
2rotcaF
1se
mroficarahCeadi
motsonA*suttaicsaf
nodozihcSúcara
uaipanaok
utabekup
683,0-641,0-
2suniropeL
1ps*
uaipn
wonknue
manutab
uhsum
683,0-321,0-
3suniropeL
2ps**
odarvaluaip
nwonknu
eman
utab702,0
752,0-
4*sutonolespyh
setimarbA
ardeped
uaipn
wonknue
manast
astuksi
093,0-412,0-
5suniropeL
3ps**
agietnam
uaipn
wonknue
manutab
564,0-229,2
6suniropeL
4ps**
aierauaip
nwonknu
eman
utab583,0-
404,0-
7eadicarahC
eanicarahC*siniffa
sediobeoRanelada
mirikaht
awatehs
427,1120,0-
8eanitnodonyC
*sunipluv.ffa
nodoihpahRoãrrohcac
ikemiri
wasã
mak082,0-
912,0-
9*sedioreb
mocssucylordyH
,atsebleonam
orrohcacanassa
uahs001,0-
321,0
01*sicul
alleregneluoBahluga
nwonknu
eman
astast
unip524,0-
952,1
11eaniretponogarteT
*sutalucamib
xanaytsAatahc
abaipekatsista
mapay
434,0-558,1
21**suetnegra
suretponogarteTiripata
mn
wonknue
manurutapat
193,0-671,0-
31eaniehtropirT
suehtropirT.ps*
ahnidrasonarapak
ayutetapay491,0-
170,0-
41eani
mlasarreSsu
mlasarreSps*
ahnaripa
moreka
m016,0
032,0-
51eanini
mlaS*iiralih
sunimlaS
anarabutn
wonknue
manã
wãwãhs
583,0-404,0-
61eadiceleporetsa
G*sutallets
xarahcacorohTahnidahca
mn
wonknue
manutetapehs
934,0-058,1
71eadita
miruC/**ataluca
mmi
alletamiruC
anirenhcadnietS1ps*
urubasohtôht
eub583,0-
081,0
81anirenhcadnietS
2ps*
abaipotere
mapay
224,0-813,1
91anirenhcadnietS
3ps*
adirpmoc
abaipekatsista
mn
wonknue
man235,2
160,0
02*acinoza
matlaanihro
matoPahnico
mikorina
mihsákut
321,0802,0
12**acinoza
maretsagortcesP
assorgacsac
nwonknu
eman
ãwureb
315,2850,0
22eadinirhtyrE
*sucirabalam
.ffasailpoH
aríartirokext
ukhsem
193,0-081,0-
32eaditnodolihcorP
*snacirginsudolihcorP
ãtamiruc
amihs
ãmirpak
673,0-591,0
42se
mrofiruluSeadyhthcillaC
**ellarotilmunretsolpoH
átaubmat
nwonknu
eman
uhsab583,0-
404,0-
52eadiiraciroL
eanimotsopyH
*sutatcnupsyhthcyrepotpyl
Golera
maedob
otomas
upiixat892,0
221,0
62**specibbig
syhthcyrepotpylG
ednargedob
nwonknu
eman
upi633,0-
073,0-
72**siladrap
sucrasopiLarieugnires
edobn
wonknue
manupi
ãi886,0
332,0-
82su
motsopyH1ps*
onaiarpedob
istnehtupi
ãhsam
483,0-711,0-
Tabl
e 5
- As
soci
atio
n lo
ads
betw
een
the
fish
spec
ies
in th
e In
dige
nous
Res
erva
tion.
cont. >
81 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
N0
redrO
ylimaF
ylimaf-buS
seicepS/areneG
nom
moCeseugutroP
eman
nom
moCe
manakninahs
Ano
mmoC
eman
áwanixaK
1rotcaF
2rotcaF
92se
mrofiruluSeadyhthcillaC
sumotsopyH
2ps**
odahcam
edobirepassarik
erekãsam
596,1126,0
03eadiiraciroL
eanimotsopyH
sumotsopyH
3ps**
oterpedob
okomextnext
ikhsi361,0-
242,0
13su
motsopyH4ps**
aiarraedob
nwonknu
eman
êtinak983,0-
732,0-
23su
motsopyH5ps**
odatnipedob
nwonknu
eman
upiukub
602,0982,0-
33eaniiraciroL
airaciroL1ps
airacirolutapS/*
syhthcilutamiL
/**iisnave**sutatcnup
obmihcac
edoboripoht
ãphsuk583,0-
331,0-
43airaciroL
2ps**.
obmihcac
.baiera
oripohtixa
m712,0
962,0-
53/**
mutsubora
mosirutS*sutaluca
msyhthciiraciroL
onifocib
edoba
wihsokaituat
597,1650,0-
63*susotne
malifsyhthcitno
maLarieohcac
edobirana
mn
wonknue
man235,2
160,0
73eanirtsicnA
surtsicnA
.pseuqanaP
/**1ps
anoã
medob
açebacip
mihsn
wonknue
man064,2
940,0
83euqanaP
.2ps*
abrabedob
nwonknu
eman
ukhseh393,0-
780,0-
93euqanaP
.3ps**
ohnipseedob
nwonknu
eman
upi683,0-
073,0-
04eadidole
miPeanidole
miPsudole
miP*1ps
surecoriehC
/1ps
anidolemiP
/**..1ps
/**alledole
miP.1ps**
idnam
oirókunut
593,0-710,0
14sudole
miP.2ps**
éparagiidna
mihsanoko
uby203,0
042,0
24sudole
miP.3ps**
orudidna
mn
wonknue
manunut
883,0-103,0-
34**iihcolb
sudolemiP
odartsilidna
mn
wonknue
manhsixi
583,0-404,0-
44**silicarg
alledolemiP
elom
idnam
nwonknu
eman
uby024,0-
950,1
54*seuqe
surecoriehC
osilidna
mistnerossot
amuy
661,0191,0
64**suretporca
msusyhpolla
Cahnidatnip
atom
utut593,0-
443,0
74*up
maniripsup
mariniP,ub
manaripodadurg
nwonknu
eman
nwonknu
eman
235,2160,0
84eani
miburoSsunaurep
sunitalapouD
**/iitnalliav
amotsytalpyhcarB
,abatumarip
atom
nwonknu
eman
iabutsihc783,0-
723,0-
94**snacivalf
amotsytalpyhcarB
adaruodn
wonknue
manuxtahs
564,0-229,2
05**
mutaicsafa
motsytalpoduesPmiburus
owaraht
iab372,1
041,0-
cont. >
Tabl
e 5
- Ass
ocia
tion
load
s be
twee
n th
e fis
h sp
ecie
s in
the
Indi
geno
us R
eser
vatio
n. (
cont
.)
82 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
Tabl
e 5
- Ass
ocia
tion
load
s be
twee
n th
e fis
h sp
ecie
s in
the
Indi
geno
us R
eser
vatio
n. (
cont
.)
N0
redrO
ylimaF
ylimaf-buS
seicepS/areneG
nom
moCeseugutroP
eman
nom
moCe
manakninahs
Ano
mmoC
eman
áwanixaK
1rotcaF
2rotcaF
15*suhcnyhrytalp
miburosime
Haço
med
oçarbanarik
iirab
101,0213,0-
25eadiiraciroL
eanimotsopyH
**sutabrabsurulisytalP
emara
edabrab
nwonknu
eman
iabutxib
483,0-
304,0-
35*a
milmiburoS
otaped
ocibirata
wasuhsuk
053,0-812,0-
45se
mrofitonmy
GeaditonoretpA
*iitrapanobsutonoretp
Aaios
nwonknu
eman
upahsi564,2
050,055
eadigyponretS*sporca
mainna
mnegiEóparas
oriweht
amix
781,0780,0
65*sururca
msugyponretS
mutum
óparasn
wonknue
mana
mixisah583,0-
404,0-75
semroficreP
eadineaicSnoicsoigalP
.ps**
adacsepn
wonknue
manuahsixa
m768,1
290,085
eadilhciC
snediuqeA
.ps*
áracotyâ
miã
m630,0-
893,095
semrofijaR
eadinogyrtomatoP
nogyrtomatoP
.ps*
aiarraate
wisti
172,0410,0-
06oecátsur
C**iellived
sunicracoivlySojieugnarac
istnoreouxtahs
863,0-250,0
**** * In
vent
ory
in A
shan
inka
/Kax
inaw
á R
eser
ve a
t Bre
u ri
ver.
******** ** S
ilvan
o, e
t al.,
(200
1)
DISCUSSION
Catch Diversity in the Indigenous Reservations
The wealth of fish species caught and the number offishery habitats visited by the fishermen in the IndigenousReservation were high. The use of bow and arrow entailsa high diversity in number of species, which is the same asthe values associated with the use of more generalists’ gearssuch as castnets and rotenone. Use of hand fishhook entailslower diversity, as this gear is somewhat more specialistsin terms of type of species caught. Castro & Begossi (1995)mentioned that the strategies in the use of different fishinggears vary with the objectives of the fishermen. Theseauthors studied the ecology of a community of artisanfishermen in the Grande river (SP/MG) and concludedthat the diversity of fish species varied in agreement withthe fishery patterns adopted during the hydrologicalcycle. The subsistence fisheries in the period of low-productivity using castnets leads to higher diversity valuesin relation to commercial catches, which seeks specificschools during the crop, high-productivity, period. Thus,a gradient can be described in catch diversity among thelevels of subsistence fisheries, where the diversity ishigher than that of commercial fisheries. A commercialfishery usually catches fish species that have a betteracceptance in local markets, and consequently, isassociated with a larger income (Petrere, 1978). Thesubsistence fishermen tend to exploit a larger numberof species of fish in the trophic chain, except those relatedto certain local taboos (Begossi & Braga, 1992; Aquino& Iglesias, 1992; Begossi et al., 1999).
In the Indigenous Reservation, fisheries are subordinatedto cultural habits. The perceptions of these traditionalhuman populations about the natural resources come in aholistic approach. The knowledge and utilization of naturalresources are taught through parental relationships and bythe diffusion of information shared by these populations.Many of these perceptions are related to the functionalcharacteristics of the resources. Thus, the inhabitants of theupper Juruá river (AC) classify the rays, snakes and wasps,among other animals that possess poisons, as insects. Forcenturies, this functional vision has facilitated the sustainedcoexistence of these traditional populations with theecosystems of the upper Juruá river. That coexistence isdemonstrated by a relationship of respect and adoration,through strong mythological and cosmological traditionswith the natural environments (Eid, 1994; Aquino & Iglesias,1992; Costa, 1995; Begossi, et al., 1999).
Posey (1983) suggested that popular knowledge and the dailypractices of traditional populations, coupled with managementstrategies could be preponderant for the best use andconservation of natural resources. The management of naturalresources by traditional populations is an important experiencein the Amazon basin, and this experience should be used as amodel for the sustainable development and for the maintenanceof the biotic integrity of the area (Petrere, 1992).
83 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
Territoriality between traditional populations
The traditional populations use the fishing resources in acommon way, respecting the fisheries territories of each other.In the case of the populations Ashaninka and Kaxinawá,differences exist in the frequency of use of the different fishingspots. This low frequency of overlap in the use of fishingspots is probably due to the usual trade and war relationshipsbetween sub-Andean Arawak and the Panos (Eid, 1994).
Although the property is of common use between thetwo ethnics, territory delimitation is important as it gives abase for the restriction to the regime of the common property,regulating the transfer, use and distributions of the rights ofthe common resources (McCay & Acheson, 1987; Berkes,1985; Begossi, et al., 1995). The territory distinction betweenthe two ethnics is rooted in history. The Ashaninkas are knownin the area as possessors of great warring ability, their territoryof domain are of difficult access and their organization are inthe form of small nomadic groups of high mobility,denominated in the past as “ Anti “ by the Inca that dominatedthe oriental areas and its sub-Andean people. Like the sub-Andean Arawak, the Inca Empire (Century XI to XV)maintained exchange relationships without having vassalagepower. The ancestors of the Ashaninkas had certain autonomyin the Incan relationships of conquests, or against their mainenemies, the ethnics of the language Pano. However, inremote times, the Arawak and the Pano had already possessedalliances in relation to the Spanish expansions in the area,and they blocked the attempts of the colonial conquesttowards the oriental forests of Peru. After the onset of therubber trade, this fact started to exercise strong pressure onthe cultural and territorial patterns of the Arawak and Panopopulations in the forests of the Amazon area (Eid, 1994).
Nowadays, these populations still continue tomaintain a strong tradition of their cultures, with theirterritories informally and legally defined among theethnics that inhabit the area of Upper Juruá. However,the definition of territories between traditionalpopulations is a dynamic process, because some ethnicgroups are nomadic and the populational growths ofthese ethnics, as well as of the rubber-gathers, areincreasing on the border of the Brazilian/PeruvianAmazon (Eid, 1994; Aquino & Iglesias, 1992).
Management of free-access fisheries resources can includethe following vulnerabilities: a low control of the resources bythe community, the increase in the fisheries trade, the strongincrease in the use of the resources, and the fast changes intechnologies (Berkes, 1985). Hames (1982) analyzed theconservation of the exploitation of free-access resourcesthrough optimum foraging and conclude that the indigenoushunters of the Amazon area are not concerned withconservation, as they only seek an increase in the efficiency inthe way by which animal protein is obtained. Peres (1993)characterized the Kaxinawá of the Jordão river as opportunistfishermen, as they carefully observed the movements of fishesduring the reproductive season (“piracema”), placing a strong
demand on daily catches in order to supply the necessary intakeof animal protein (Begossi & Richerson, 1992; Begossi, 1996).Roberts & Baird, (1995) showed that the Khone fishermen ofMekong river possess fishery areas for generations in thedomain of local families.
The possibility of conflicts in the future is the new regionaldynamics of territory restriction and the growth of thetraditional human populations. Aquino & Iglesias (1992)mentioned that the incorporation of the rubber-gatheres farmsIndependence and Altamira to the Indigenous Area of Kaxinawáof the Jordão river occurred in order to absorb part of thepopulational contingent that inhabit the eight rubber-gatheresfarms in the area. During 18 years, the population Kaxinawátriplicated. In 1975 the natives were 383 people but in 1992this number increased to 1.085 in the Kaxinawá villages. In thefirst ten months of 1993, 63 children were born and only threeadults died. Thus, the increase of the traditional populations,and the changes in the patterns of the regional economies,can constitute a greater pressure upon the fishery resources,which are the basic subsistence food for these populations.Eventually, this fact may lead to conflicts in the exploitation offishing territories, implying tragedy of the commons (Hardin,1968) on the fishery resources.
McGrath, et al., (1994) mentioned that free-access fisheryresources lack any sort of regulation, and only exploitationrights exist in such systems. This type of system is confusedwith the regime of common property and the term“common” used by Hardin (1968) refers to the regime offree-access (McCay, 1996). However, and much on thecontrary, the notion of common property rights excludesand defends the local resources from other exploiters,regulates the number of users and the techniques ofresource allocation. The common property systems adoptedby the fishermen in the lakes of the Lower Amazon contradictthe thesis of Hardin (1968) of the tragedy of the commons,because the dynamics of free interest reconciled withresponsibilities in avoiding the “tragedy” is the powerunderpinning the success of the collective management ofthe fishery resources.
Hilborn et al., (1995) emphasized that most of theinstitutional successes in the maintenance of the sustainabilityof the fishery resources has been happening in communitiesof traditional fishermen or in private properties. Begossi
edoC segalliV -MTUsteW
-MTUhtroN
rotcaF1
rotcaF2
1 akninahsA 582327 60829 660,2 810,0
2 áwanixaKoãruoMod 799227 90929 413,0- 911,0-
3 áwanixaKminipaJod 530227 22139 083,0- 068,0
Table 6 - Association loads between the villages for theIndigenous Reservation.
84 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
edoC)eseugutroP(
stopsgnihsiF
)akninahsA(
stopsgnihsiF
stopsgnihsiF
)áwanixaK(
tseW
MTU
htroN
MTU
1rotcaF
2rotcaF
1akninahsA
aiedlAenyakniriK
nwonknu
ema
N582327
60829464,2-
770,0-2
oãruoM
odá
wanixaKaiedlA
nwonknu
ema
NayaK
79922790929
814,0283,0-
3minipaJ
odá
wanixaKaiedlA
nwonknu
ema
Nirikãna
mayaK
53022722139
413,0369,2
4oãçaraV
adacoB
nwonknu
ema
Na
wunaek
apaK859227
68829413,0
369,25
oãçalavAad
acoBn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N413,0
369,26
oãiluJod
acoBn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N413,0
369,27
arieohcaC
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
413,0369,2
8aoB
atsiVoãçacolo
Cn
wonknue
maN
emaraT
413,0369,2
9asa
Cad
oãritsEn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N814,0
283,0-01
abíapoC
adoãritsE
nwonknu
ema
Na
wunuxuB
814,0283,0-
11acasseR
adoãritsE
nwonknu
ema
Na
wunuxuB
814,0283,0-
21a
múamaS
adoãritsE
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
814,0283,0-
31aiarrA
edoãritsE
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
814,0283,0-
41ura
muC
odoãritsE
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
55822752929
814,0283,0-
51ailátI
éparagiod
oãritsEn
wonknue
maN
awun
ayauN
413,0369,2
61oãiluJ
odoãritsE
nwonknu
ema
Nayeket
uxuB039227
47829814,0
283,0-71
oteNleugi
Mod
oãritsEn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N814,0
283,0-81
orO
odoãritsE
nwonknu
ema
Naun
uxuB814,0
283,0-91
adaxieuQ
odoãritsE
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
814,0283,0-
02arierreFleona
Mod
oãritsEn
wonknue
maN
awun
akseteD
37022742039
413,0369,2
12lavsnarT
odetneulfa
éparagIn
wonknue
maN
axubiA814,0
283,0-22
oralednaC
éparagIn
wonknue
maN
ayautukhsaP
413,0369,2
32aiarP
adéparagI
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
814,0283,0-
42aiarrA
adéparagI
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
814,0283,0-
52ori
misaC
odéparagI
nwonknu
ema
Nay
atuB663,0
192,162
oãiluJod
éparagIn
wonknue
maN
ayeketa
waN
64922728829
283,0087,0
72ote
NleugiM
odéparagI
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
12132761139
593,0063,0
82áotaP
odéparagI
áotapenetah
Nn
wonknue
maN
03232760829
464,2-770,0-
92arib
macaM
adéparagI
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
413,0369,2
03aneca
Mod
éparagIn
wonknue
maN
axema
ukhsaP700127
36139504,0
720,013
egrameR
éparagIn
wonknue
maN
ayawan
ukhsaP490227
21039413,0
369,223
lavsnarTéparagI
nwonknu
ema
Naix
atixtureB
44022754039
413,0369,2
Tabl
e 7
- Ass
ocia
tion
load
s be
twee
n th
e fis
hing
spo
ts fo
r th
e In
dige
nous
Res
erva
tion.
cont. >
85 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
pg
edoC)eseugutroP(
stopsgnihsiF
)akninahsA(
stopsgnihsiF
stopsgnihsiF
)áwanixaK(
tseW
MTU
htroN
MTU
1rotcaF
2rotcaF
33ogaL
nwonknu
ema
Nãi
uxeM
413,0369,2
43anagi
Cad
ogaLuaht
iracnEn
wonknue
maN
79132774829
464,2-770,0-
53lisarB
odogaL
nwonknu
ema
Nãy
ukhseM
77922769829
204,0021,0
63ureP
odogaL
nwonknu
ema
Nãi
auhS404,0
840,073
aterPara
Cad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N673327
87729464,2-
770,0-83
aiarrAad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N814,0
283,0-93
ariednaBad
oçoPnorednab
ahtomo
Hn
wonknue
maN
71332710829
464,2-770,0-
04arierraB
adoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Na
wune
wem
awaB
51012722139
814,0283,0-
14mibuju
Ced
arierraBad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
awunene
mahsuK
504,0140,0
24ahleV
asaC
adoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Na
wunaxtatuhsA
28022741039
543,0649,1
34abíapo
Cad
oçoPéuc
ahtomo
Hn
wonknue
maN
93132741929
464,2-770,0-
44abujarapa
Mad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N814,0
283,0-54
adasuaPad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N642227
60929814,0
283,0-64
ardePad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
awun
hsahsaM
32032740929
502,0470,1
74odace
MardeP
adoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
65822729829
814,0283,0-
84arierdeP
adoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Na
wunhsahsa
M840227
65039114,0
771,0-94
aiarPad
oçoPikienap
miahto
moH
nwonknu
ema
N563327
28729464,2-
770,0-05
acasseRad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
awun
utãP718227
21929114,0
971,0-15
ednarG
atloVad
acasseRad
oçoPéropato
anagnauH
nwonknu
ema
N464,2-
770,0-25
orimisa
Cod
acasseRad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
awun
upaM
91032720929
814,0283,0-
35áotaP
odacasseR
adoçoP
áotapanagnau
Hn
wonknue
maN
42232701829
464,2-770,0-
45ohniu
Qod
acasserad
oçoPohniuq
anagnauH
nwonknu
ema
N464,2-
770,0-55
ednarG
atloVad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N571327
78829464,2-
770,0-65
orO
odoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Nau
N689227
40929014,0
521,0-75
oãdoglAod
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
awun
upahsia
N814,0
283,0-85
ohlAod
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
awun
astiauB827227
44929593,0
063,095
ógirAod
oçoPógira
ahtomo
Hn
wonknue
maN
33232771829
464,2-770,0-
06oiagapaP
edorierraB
odoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Na
wune
wem
awaB
473,0910,1
16refroB
odoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
814,0283,0-
26aço
Med
oçarBod
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
awun
iiraB
814,0283,0-
36mipa
Cod
oçoPraseneb
mihsahto
moH
nwonknu
ema
N123327
60829464,2-
770,0-46
ririhcuC
odoçoP
ririhcucahto
moH
awun
ririhcuC
86332772829
204,2-900,0-
56ura
muC
odoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Na
wunã
muK717227
00929814,0
283,0-
Tabl
e 7
- Ass
ocia
tion
load
s be
twee
n th
e fis
hing
spo
ts fo
r th
e In
dige
nous
Res
erva
tion.
(co
nt.)
cont. >
86 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
edo
C)eseugutr
oP(st
opsgnihsiF
)akninahsA(
stops
gnihsiFst
opsgnihsiF
)áwanixa
K(tse
WM
TU
htro
NM
TU
1r
otcaF2
rotcaF
66lote
God
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
awun
iakiaB169227
28829814,0
283,0-76
orietaluM
odoçoP
nwonknu
ema
Na
wunuhsA
90722741929
714,0853,0-
86ohnirassaP
odoçoP
iremist
ahtomo
Hn
wonknue
maN
534,2-440,0-
96sogaL
sodoçoP
iracneahto
moH
nwonknu
ema
N961327
30929464,2-
770,0-07
ednarG
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N539227
28829413,0
369,257
abúabmE
.Tad
oçoPn
wonknue
maN
axtatúkuB
84022770139
243,0050,2
17abailiga
Mad
aiarPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N182227
41929814,0
283,0-27
ópaC
odaiarP
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
814,0283,0-
37orietalu
Mod
aiarPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N814,0
283,0-47
ahniarPn
wonknue
maN
nwonknu
ema
N912327
53829464,2-
770,0-67
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
awun
upI814,0
283,0-77
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
awun
ibuhS814,0
283,0-87
nwonknu
ema
Nn
wonknue
maN
awun
araT024,0
973,0-
Tabl
e 7
- Ass
ocia
tion
load
s be
twee
n th
e fis
hing
spo
ts fo
r th
e In
dige
nous
Res
erva
tion.
(co
nt.)
(1996) defined that the property rights or uses of theresources varies in agreement with the different scales ofhuman behavior, with territoriality in its exploitation in anindividual, familial way, ghetto, clan, communities, villas,societies, among others. The evolution in the change of theterritoriality and the rights of fishing spots are related to thedensities of local fisheries, outsiders and sporting fishermen,to the diversities and availability of fishing spots and to thecapacity of the fishing technologies.
In the complex of conservation units and indigenousterritories in the area of Upper Juruá, there is the need ofimplementation of management plans for the sustaineddevelopment of the natural resources of the area. Whenconsidering the indigenous area of common use betweentwo populations with different habits, we have to define thepriorities that minimize the conflicts between the parts andthe gradual retraction of the fishing practices that depreciatethe stocks of the river Breu. The maintenance of thebiodiversity and the sustained use of the biologicalproductivity of these ecosystems for the traditionalpopulations should constitute the goals of the managementto be established in the area. However, the future of thesetraditional populations depends on its cultural resiliency(Begossi, 1995), that is, of their functional structures, of theexploitation and the conservation of the natural resourcesand of their cultural habits, of the dissipation of the conflictsand the invigoration of the tribal community organization.Thus, the management of the common resource should besupported by a more realistic and effective co-operationbetween traditional populations and the western societyrepresented by government and NGOs.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To the Ashaninka/Kaxinawá communities for theirunderstanding and wisdom. CNPq for the grant, USP andNCI – Indigenous Culture Centre and Austrian Governmentfor the financial support for this study, and to Dr. Oswaldo T.Oyakawa, from the Zoological Museum of the University ofSão Paulo, for helping with taxonomic identification of thefish species. Dr Keith Brown Jr. and Dr. Miguel Petrere Jr. fortheir kindness in inviting us to participate in a pioneer projectin Acre which opened the opportunity for the present work.
Table 8 - Associations loads between the villages for theIndigenous Reservation.
edoC segalliV -MTUtseW
-MTUhtroN
rotcaF1
rotcaF2
1 akninahsA 582327 60829 834,2- 250,0-
2 áwanixaKoãruoMod 799227 90929 314,0 752,0-
3 áwanixaKminipaJod 530227 22139 113,0 499,1
87 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
LITERATURE CITED
Aquino, T. T. V.; Iglesias, M. P. 1992, Kaxinawá do Rio Jordão.História, Território, Economia e DesenvolvimentoSustentado. Comissão Pró-Índio do Acre, Setor Gráfico, RioBranco, Acre. 231pp.
Aquino, T. T. V. 1997. Índios nos corredores ecológicos daAmazônia. Unidades de conservação contínuas. Folha do MeioAmbiente. Brasília (DF). p. 7-8.
Beaumord, A. C. 1991. As Comunidades de Peixes do Rio Manso,Chapada dos Guimarães, MT: uma Abordagem EcológicaNumérica. MSc Tese de Mestrado. UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro (RJ),Brasil, 108pp.
Begossi, A.; Braga, F. M. S. 1992. Food taboos and folk medicineamong fishermen from the Tocantins river. Amazoniana, xii(1):101-118.
Begossi, A.; Richerson, P. J. 1992. The animal diet of families fromBúzios island (Brazil): An optimal foraging approach. Journalof Human Ecology, 3(2): 433-458.
Begossi, A. 1995. Cultural and ecological resilience among caiçarasof the Atlantic forest coast and caboclos of the Amazon (Brazil).In: Fifth Annual Common Property Conference, IASCP,“Reinventing the commons”. Bodo. Norway. 27pp.
Begossi, A.; Amaral, B. D.; Silvano, R. A. M. 1995. Reserva Extrativistado Alto Juruá: Aspectos de Etnoecologia In: Barbosa, S. R. C.S. (eds.). A Questão Ambiental: cenários de pesquisa. Aexperiência do Ciclo de Seminários do NEPAM. Textos NEPAM.Série “Divulgação Acadêmica”. Número 3. 95-106. UNICAMP.Campinas (SP).
Begossi, A. 1996. Property rights at different scales: applicationsfor conservation in Brazil. In: European Social Science FisheriesNetwork. Seville. Spain. 18pp.
Begossi, A.; Silvano, R. M.; Amaral, B. D.; Oyakawa, O. T. 1999.Uses of Fish and Games by Inhabitants of an Extractive Reserve(Upper Juruá, Acre, Brazil). Environment, Development andSustainability, 1: 73-93.
Berkes, F. 1985. Fishermen and the Tragedy of the Commons.Environmental Conservation, 12(3): 199-206.
Castro, F.; Begossi, A. 1995. Ecology of fishing on the Grande river(Brazil): technology and territorial rights. Fisheries Research,23: 361-373.
Costa, P. Jr. 1995. Uma breve introdução as práticas de pescafrente á ordem natural e a cosmológica na sociedadeenawenw-nawe. GERA. UFMT. Cuiabá (MT).
Eid, A. S. F. 1994. Ashaninka do rio Amônia, Ashaninka do rioBreu, Kaxinawá do rio Breu. Núcleo de Cultura Indígena,Centro de Pesquisa Indígena. São Paulo (SP). 24pp.
Emperaire, L.; Delavaux, J. J. 1992. Relatório de campo: Projeto“Enciclopédia do Seringueiro”. Reserva Extrativista do AltoJuruá (Acre). Etnobotanica.
GTA & Friends of the Earth. 1997. Políticas Públicas Coerentes.Para uma Amazônia Sustentável: O Desafio da Inovação e oPrograma Piloto. Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico. Friends ofthe Earth - Amigos da Terra Programa Amazônia. p. 189.
Hames, R. 1982. Proteína y Cultura en la Amazonía. AmazoníaPeruana., 3(6): 127-143.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Hilborn, R.; Walters, C. J.; Ludwig, D. 1995. Sustainable exploitationof renewable resources. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26: 45-67.
Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Haper & Row, N.Y.
Ludwig, J. A.; Reynolds, J. F. 1988. Statistical Ecology. A Primeron methods and computing. A Wiley-intercience PlubicationJOHN WILER & SONS. U.S.A. 338pp.
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement.Groom Helm, London.
Manly, B. J. 1986. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer,London: Chapman & Hall. 159pp.
McCay, B. J.; Acheson, J. M. 1987. The Question of the commons:the culture and ecology of communal resources. Universityof Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona.
McCay, B. J. 1996. Participation of Fishers in Fisheries Management,In: Meyer, R. M.; Jhang, C.; Windsor, M. L.; McCay, B. J.; Hushak,L. J.; Muth, R. M. (eds.). Fisheries resource utilization and policy.Preceeding of the World Fisheries Congress, Theme 2. Oxford &IBH Publishing CO. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
McGrath, D. G.; Castro, F.; Camara, E.; Futemma, C. 1994.Community management of floodplain lakes and thesustainable development of Amazonian fisheries. In: “Diversity,Development and Conservation of the Amazon Floodplain”.Macapá. Amapá, Brazil. p. 27.
Meyer, R. M. 1994. Theme 2. Fisheries Resource Utilization andPolicy. In: Voigtlander, C. W. (eds). Condition of the world’saquatic habitat. Proceedings of the World FisheriesCongress, Plenary Session. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Muth, R. M. 1996. Subsistence and Artisanal Fisheries policy: AnInternational Assessment. In: Meyer, R. M., C. Jhang, M. L.Windsor, B. J. McCay, L. J. Hushak & Muth, R. M. (eds.).Fisheries resource utilization and policy. Proceeding of theWorld Fisheries Congress, Theme 2. Oxford & IBH PublishingCO. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Peres, C. A. 1993. Biodiversity Conservation by Native Amazonians:a Pilot Study in the Kaxinawá Indigenous Reserve of Jordãoriver, Acre, Brazil. A project report submitted to the WorldWildlife Fund, Washington D.C. p. 47.
Petrere, M. J. 1978. Pesca e esforço de pesca no Estado deAmazonas. II-Locais, arreios de pesca e estatísticas dedesembarque. Acta Amazonica 8, Suppl. 2(3). p. 54.
Petrere, M. J. 1992. As comunidades humanas ribeirinhas daAmazônia e suas transformações sociais. In: Diegues, A. C. (ed.)VI Encontro de Ciências Sociais e o Mar no Brasil. São Paulo.Coletâneas de Trabalhos Apresentados. São Paulo - Programade Pesquisa e Conservação de Áreas Úmidas no Brasil, IOUSP/F. Ford, UICN.
Posey, D. A. 1983. Indigenous knowledge and development:an ideological bridge to the future. Ciência e Cultura, 35(7):877-894.
88 VOL. 34(1) 2004: 75 - 88 • AMARAL
FISHING TERRITORIALITY AND DIVERSITY BETWEEN THE ETHNICPOPULATIONS ASHANINKA AND KAXINAWÁ, BREU RIVER, BRAZIL/PERU
RADAMBRASIL, 1977. Folhas SB/SC, 18 Javari/Contamana;geologia, geomorfologia, pedologia, vegetação e uso potencialda terra. Departamento Nacional da Produção Mineral.Levantamento dos Recursos Naturais.Ministério das Minas eEnergia. Rio de Janeiro. 420pp.
Roberts, T. R.; Baird, I. G. 1995. Traditional fisheries and fishecology on the Mekong river at Khone waterfalls in southernLaos. Nat. Hist. Bull. Siam. Soc., 43: 219-262.
Silvano, R. A. M.; Amaral, B.D.; Oyakawa, O.T. 2000. Spatial andtemporal patterns of diversity and distribution of the UpperJuruá river fish community (Brazilian Amazon). EnvironmentalBiology of Fishes, 57: 25-35.
Silvano, R. A. M.; Oyakawa, O. T.; Amaral, B. D.; Begossi, A. 2001.Peixes do Alto Rio Juruá (Amazonas, Brasil). FAPESP. Editorada Universidade de São Paulo. Imprensa Oficial do Estado.São Paulo. 304pp.
Sokal, R. R.; Rohlf, F. J. 1995. Biometry. 3nd ed. Freeman SanFrancisco. C. A.
WCED, 1988. Nosso futuro comum. Comissão Mundial sobre MeioAmbiente e Desenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro: Editora daFundação Getulio Vargas. 430pp.
RECEBIDO EM 16/10/2001ACEITO EM 12/12/2003