Monkey, fish, bird and tourists: local actors and global contexts related to conservation in the Amazon

Mono, pez, pájaro y turistas: actores locales y contextos globales asociados a la conservación de la Amazonía

Abstract

The Amazon has increasingly become a terrain of intense and distinct local and transnational disputes. In the interior of its forests, cut by myriads of rivers, inhabit a variety of peoples that depend on it for their survival. This work analyses the ways in which some local groups deal with issues assigned by global agendas focused on the preservation of the forest. Through the relationship between three species of fauna and tourism, it seeks to understand how these groups locally develop their processes of negotiation and conflict resolution to practice their forms of conservation and development. Years of field research in two protected areas of the Brazilian Amazon provide a reflection on how the forest is inhabited and managed, revealing the ways in which communities and institutions negotiate conflicts of interests regarding conservation and use of the environment.

Keywords:
Amazon; Uakari; Arapaima; Nunlet; Tourism

Resumen

La Amazonía se ha convertido cada vez más en un terreno de intensas y distintas disputas locales y transnacionales. En el interior de sus bosques, cortados por miríadas de ríos, habitan pueblos de diferentes matrices étnico-culturales que dependen del ambiente para su supervivencia. Este trabajo analiza las formas en que grupos locales tratan los temas asignados por las agendas globales enfocadas en la preservación de la selva. A través de la relación entre tres especies de fauna con el turismo, se busca comprender cómo estos grupos desarrollan localmente sus procesos de negociación y resolución de conflictos para practicar sus formas de conservación y desarrollo. Años de investigación de campo, en dos áreas protegidas de la Amazonía brasileña, brindan una reflexión sobre la forma en que se habita y maneja el bosque, y revelan como las comunidades e instituciones negocian intereses en conflicto sobre conservación y uso del ambiente.

Palabras-clave:
Amazonia; Uacari; Paiche; Monjilla; Turismo

Resumo

A Amazônia tem se tornado cada vez mais um terreno de intensas e variadas disputas locais e transnacionais. No interior de suas matas, recortadas por miríades de grandes rios, paranãs e igarapés, habitam diversos povos de distintas matrizes étnico-culturais que dela dependem para sua sobrevivência. Este trabalho lança um olhar sobre as formas como alguns grupos locais lidam com questões atribuídas por agendas globais voltadas para a preservação da floresta. Através da relação entre três espécies da fauna e o turismo, busca compreender como esses grupos desenvolvem localmente seus processos de negociação e resolução de conflitos para praticar suas formas de conservação e desenvolvimento. Anos de pesquisa de campo, em duas áreas protegidas da Amazônia Brasileira, proporcionam a reflexão sobre as maneiras como a floresta é habitada e manejada, e revelam as formas como comunidades e instituições negociam interesses conflitantes sobre a conservação e o uso do ambiente.

Palavras-chave:
Amazônia; Uacari; Pirarucu; Freirinha; Turismo

Introduction

In the twenty-first century, the Amazon has projected an image as a scenario of the most intense and varied geopolitical disputes over conflicting local and global interests (BECKER, 2005), embodying the nostalgia of a harmonic balance between human beings and nature (DESCOLA, 1997). Since the first European invasions, which began more than five centuries ago, the thick forest has been coveted by foreigners who seek to colonize it, leading to disastrous results for local populations (CARNEIRO DA CUNHA, 1994). Mainly the Spanish and Portuguese, but also the English, French and Dutch, fought fierce battles to control parts of the forest (GADELHA, 2002) where the “Eldorado” and the tribe of the Amazonas were supposedly hiding (LANGER, 1997).

Throughout five centuries of exploration, different interests have guided the actions of those who still desire the riches of the forest. Starting with expeditions motivated by the golden city of Eldorado myth (LANGER, 1997), witnessing missionary and scientific efforts, the European imaginary - based on fantastic conceptions about the Indies (SILVEIRA, 2018) - projected to these new territories the idea of ​​‘Nature’ as the space not dominated by Europeans (PRATT, 1999). Hence the need to investigate the natural riches of the Amazon, in which scientific expeditions were idealized under an imperialist logic (ALMEIDA, 2017), whereby the imperial character of the travelers produced useful information for European projects of domination through their reports (CARNEIRO, 2017). This is how renowned naturalists - such as Bates, Wallace, Martius and Spix, among others - made an effort to familiarize themselves with the ‘sertões’ (wilderness) in Brazil, inhospitable environments that were on the frontier of colonization (MIRANDA, 2009).

Throughout the exploratory cycles of the riches of the Amazon, ‘drogas do sertão’ (drugs of the backlands) - wild species such as cloves, sarsaparilla, cocoa, copaiba, etc. - represented the first effort to make a profit from the forest during the colonial period (GOMES, 2018). At the end of the nineteenth century, rubber emerged as the new promise of enrichment for the Amazonian hinterland, providing an ephemeral growth that contrasted urban prosperity with abuse and misery in the rubber fields (SOUZA, 2019). In the second half of the twentieth century, fires and logging symbolized the destruction process of the forest, while raising concerns about its protection under the logic of sustainable development (ZHOURI, 2006).

In recent decades, cattle ranching has become the main cause of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon region (RIVERO et al, 2009), while soybean planting imposes the advance of the agricultural frontier by occupying pasture areas, forcing the expansion of new areas to being deforested for cattle ranching (BARONA et al, 2010) and contributing to the increase in rural exodus (DOMINGUES; BERMANN 2012). As a result, traditional populations were prevented from reproducing their ways of life, both by the predatory occupation pattern and by the excluding environmental conservation model (ARRUDA, 1999).

As a reflection of the increase in the loss of vegetation cover and threats to human cultures, the struggle for forest preservation combined with the fight for traditional peoples´ rights intensified in the Amazon, culminating in the organization of important social movements, “which found the necessary support for their social demands in the environmentalist discourse” (LIMA; POZZOBON, 2005, p. 61). From the struggles of riverine people to protect lakes (CASTRO; MCGRATH, 2001) and rubber tappers to create the first Extractive Reserves, forest peasants moved from a position of social invisibility to become role models of sustainable development with popular participation (ALMEIDA, 2004).

Interest in nature preservation, as well as sustainable development discourse, has been aided by large banks and international Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) (RANDERIA, 2007). Concomitant to these movements, the stimulus of ecotourism gained ground (GOODWIN, 1996; PINTO, 2017) and, more recently, community-based [eco]tourism (KISS, 2004). Innumerous examples of communities that have organized themselves to work with tourism in their areas are emerging throughout the Amazon (COELHO, 2013, REYES et al, 2015; PERALTA, 2016; PINTO, 2017), combining environmental conservation, development, cultural valorization and local empowerment. This is the case of communities that inhabit the two protected areas that are the focus of this analysis, where one monkey species, one fish species and one bird species invoke several issues associated with conservation and forest use.

Study area

The regions presented in this study are located in the central part of the Amazon, close to the Solimões River. Over the centuries, the regional landscape and its inhabitants have witnessed numerous historical events that have strongly influenced the local social and political landscape. Currently, an important reality is the existence of legally protected areas, such as Extractive Reserves (RESEX), National Forests (FLONA) and Sustainable Development Reserves (RDS)¹. If, today, these Protected Areas (PA) symbolize the attempt to reconcile protection and use, in the past, the unbridled exploitation of natural resources altered the relationship between human populations and the environment, giving rise to local and international movements to preserve the Amazon Forest. This was the case with the rubber tappers when the first RESEX was created in Acre (CALEGARE et al, 2014), and the same with the riverine people who helped creating the first RDS in Brazil - Mamirauá and Amanã (LIMA; PERALTA, 2017).

Local activities such as the extraction of rubber, wood and other forest products, cattle ranching, fishing and agriculture, were already part of regional uses and exchange networks, before the establishment of Mamirauá and Amanã Reserves. The Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) is a natural area that shelters traditional populations, where the use of natural resources in sustainable ways is allowed, performing the function of protecting nature and maintaining biological diversity, in addition to ensuring the conditions for reproduction and improvement of the quality of life of its inhabitants (BRASIL, 2000). Seeking to enter into dialogue and negotiation between the actors involved, this model of protected area that has become widely replicated in the Amazon was conceived in the region.

The Mamirauá Reserve and the Amanã Reserve were created from processes and claims assumed and organized by the actions of those who form their human contingent. Leaders, communities, political sectors, assemblies and councils; managing, inspecting and financing bodies; residents, users, researchers and tourists - all these groups bring together a network of social and political actors who have transformed the ways in which processes are conducted through decision-making forums. From the institution of the ‘Reserve’ entity, a new scenario was constituted in the region, with new political dynamics, which are now incorporated by its residents and users. Notions such as wilderness, biodiversity, natural resources, management and sustainable development, often implicated in asymmetrical relations of power, have become part of the local populations´ daily lives (RANDERIA, 2007; GISSIBL, 2016).

Established in 1996 with 1,124,000 hectares, the Mamirauá RDS was the first protected area in this category; created through joint efforts between several actors, especially its residents who, supported by the Catholic Church, organized themselves into communities to fight for the preservation of their areas against predatory fishing (PERALTA; LIMA, 2015). After the biologist José Marcio Ayres arrived in the region in the 1980s to research the primate that had been studied in the previous century by Henry Bates (AYRES; JOHNS, 1987), the Mamirauá Lake region also became a target of scientific and preservationist interest. A team of researchers² began to work in the region, also acting politically to ensure the preservation of the Mamirauá floodplains (várzea).

In 1990, a different format of Protected Area - Ecological Station (Estação Ecológica) - was decreed, which did not allow residents to stay or use the area (LIMA; PERALTA, 2017). Six years later, amid new debates on conservation and development (CALEGARE et al., 2014), the RDS model was instituted, which aims to harmonize local and global interests, reconciling traditional and scientific knowledge, in order to achieve the sustainable development that typifies the reserve. In 1998, the idea of ‘Reserve’ crossed the Japurá River, reaching the floodplains (várzea) and uplands (terra firme) of what would become the Amanã RDS. Accounting for 2,348,962 hectares, the reserve forms, alongside Mamirauá and other protected areas, an enormous mosaic in the Central Amazon Corridor (AYRES et al. 2005).

Since the creation of the reserves, the pre-existing economic activities in the region were maintained, but focusing on sustainable management through a technical-scientific approach. The Mamirauá Sustainable Development Institute (IDSM in Portuguese) carries out research and outreach work and is well known for the actions developed together with the local residents in matters of fisheries management and (community/eco) tourism³. Both Reserves have a complex political structure and strong social participation with different decision-making bodies. Its areas are subdivided into sectors, which group geographically close communities. Each community chooses its representatives, who participate in sector meetings, thematic groups and general assemblies. The sectors also elect their representatives and have chairs in the deliberative councils of the reserves. This study focuses on the Mamirauá and Amanã Lake sectors (Figure 1). In the first one, there has been an [institutional / community] tourism initiative since 1998 and another [community] since 2014; while, in the second, extension works and research on the subject have been taking place since 2007, but a local tourism initiative has not yet been established.

Figure 1
Mamirauá and Amanã Reserves, highlighting the areas where tourism takes place

This study aims to analyze how issues related to global strategies and agendas for the preservation of the Amazon Forest are incorporated and re-signified by the populations that inhabit rural areas transformed into protected areas, as well as the ways in which the negotiation processes of interests and practical applications of the mechanisms are assigned to environment management. To do this, we carried out a literature review on the topic, especially in the region studied, and we made use of in-depth field knowledge, acquired over more than a decade of research in the region.

The first author of this study was granted a CNPq scholarship from the IDSM from 2009 to 2012, investigating community-based tourism (CBT) in both Mamirauá and Amanã Lake sectors. During the three years he lived in the city of Tefé, he often traveled to the reserves for one or two weeks a month, where he was in touch with the local reality, built up relationships of trust with the main actors and envisaged some possibilities for tourism in the Amanã RDS.

Afterwards, the researcher returned independently, between 2014 and 2016, to live at Amanã Lake and support the Amanã Tourism Group, comprising residents of three communities that sought to consolidate tourism autonomously. In the successive months, he was able to follow the planning processes of the communities, which were articulated together and sought to form partnerships with other institutions and with the residents of the Mamirauá Reserve, who already had experience in providing tourism services.

Since 2017, both authors⁴ have investigated the ‘Community bases for a Liberating Tourism’, in which they aim to understand the local forms of organization for tourism in both Reserves. During field research, staying for a year at the Amanã Lake, and shorter periods at Uakari Lodge (in the Mamirauá Reserve), led to the understanding of socioeconomic processes and seasonal dynamics, which vary immensely in the dry and rainy seasons, and how tourist activity is related to the everyday activities.

Thus, between comings and goings, over eleven years of research in the Amazon - of which more than three years the author lived intermittently in communities⁵, especially in the Amanã Reserve - the main research strategy was participant observation, through close contact, involvement in residents’ activities and accompanying tourism trips (COELHO, 2013; COELHO; GONTIJO, 2021a, 2021b).

Investigations were based on frequent participation in the daily life of the communities, following tasks associated with agriculture, fishing, extractivism and political organization, and were combined with informal interviews conducted with the main actors in the local communities. Thus, adopting an ethnographic approach, in these two case studies, several issues related to tourism activity were analyzed, which concern the forms of community organization, the mechanisms of access to rights and negotiations between the multiple local actors. It was then possible to understand the various layers that permeate the internal and external relationships between communities and institutions.

Global contexts, local disputes

Riverine people, caboclos⁶, indigenous people and colonizers; Bates, Ayres and the uakari monkey; extractive cycles, deforestation and fishing conflicts; the Catholic Church, communities and environmental NGOs; reserves, scientific research, sustainable management and community-based tourism. It is in this tangle of actors, interactions and events that the facts narrated below unfold. We have previously outlined some of the main global issues that have permeated the history and geography of Amazonian landscapes and territories. In this context, we analyze how the Amazon and its peoples are inserted in world politics, incorporating, interpreting and producing their forms of engagement and resistance.

Two examples that cover global and local issues are described below. They concern themes associated with the sustainable management of resources, involving community organization, collective decision-making forums, conflicts of interest and negotiations between leaders. Community management programs in the Amazon presuppose that the communities involved are interested in the sustainability of their resources and have greater knowledge of ecological processes and traditional use practices (BENATTI et al, 2003). The first case deals with a symbolic dispute between monkey, fish and tourism, while the second unfolds to a backdrop of territoriality processes and use of the landscape, including a bird as an element of tourist interest.

Monkeys, fish and tourists

The setting is the then created Mamirauá Reserve, in its namesake political sector, where Bates had studied the uakari monkey and Ayres had continued the studies over a century later. This would culminate in protecting the primate’s area of occurrence, creating an Ecological Station, transforming it into a Sustainable Development Reserve, categorizing the Mamirauá as a preservation lake, establishing a research institute and implementing the Uakari Lodge⁷, which would inherit, in addition to the name of the monkey, all the historical burden related to the protection of the fish that inhabit the Mamirauá waters. The pirarucu (Arapaima gigas, Schinz, 1822), giant of the Amazonian waters, and the white uakari monkey (Cacajao calvus calvus, I. Geoffroy, 1847), would trigger disputes that, in conjunction with tourists, would bring together a whole transnational logic built on a divergent discourse of preservation versus use, which was materialized in this rural Amazonian environment.

Growing contradictions stem from when the area became legally protected, therefore, work needed to be done with the local populations, who obtained the right to reside and maintain their way of life in the RDS. The intention was, in fact, to include them in the process and help them to become protagonists, as they would be the biggest beneficiaries in the struggle for protecting the resources on which they still depend - especially fish - and that had been depredated by external agents⁸. As Queiroz and Peralta (2006) point out, the way in which residents were included took place by setting up forums for debates and negotiations, efforts to train leaders and introduce sustainable management practices, all anchored in research processes, participatory diagnoses, transnational financing, and motivated by global interests regarding the positive results concerning the preservation of the Amazon. However, as demonstrated by Peralta and Lima (2017), among community and institutional representatives there were different opinions and interests regarding the uses of Mamirauá lake.

The breaking point was when a local leader, imbued with his attributions and responsibilities, and that had been trained by the institutional actors that represented these global interests, acted - in a legitimate decision-making forum, as a representative of its community and political sector - to rule in favor of interests that were divergent from those who had trained him. The specific scene was a meeting of the deliberative council of the Mamirauá RDS in 2011, and the topic voted on was the modification in the protection category of the Mamirauá Lake, which would change from a breeding (or preservation) lake to a management (or commercialization) lake. This would enable the residents of the sector to apply the protocols developed by the research institute to harvest the pirarucu.

The council’s decision was favorable to the community leader who had taken the issue to a vote, thus changing the lake’s protection category, which would trigger a series of reactions from other social actors⁹. Technicians and researchers from the Mamirauá Institute - who were against changing the lake’s protection status - tried to show the need to maintain full protection of the lake because of its ecological importance for the Reserve (PERALTA, 2016). This is when (community-based) ecotourism - represented by the Uakari Lodge - and the pirarucu management, started to compete locally for a political-institutional-territorial legitimacy, as mechanisms to defend the riverine people´s interests for the use and conservation of the environment.

While some residents of the communities wanted to manage fishing, others were interested in maintaining ecotourism as an economic activity. According to some institutional actors, it was one or the other: the Mamirauá lake could not then - according to technical and scientific arguments - support both economic activities. For years, a group negotiated to change the category of the Mamirauá Lake, when the issue was reduced to a mere choice between using the lake for fishing or for tourism, which was clearly reflected in the agenda of a meeting to discuss the topic: “fishing or ecotourism” (PERALTA, 2016, p. 181).

Determining issues, such as the coloniality of knowledge (MALDONADO-TORRES, 2007), marginalization of ‘local knowledge’ and the claim to scientific rationality (RANDERIA, 2007), could be observed in the facts, when researchers tried to prove (in decision-making environments) that the pirarucu management at Mamirauá lake would lead to reducing fish stocks until the species’ local extinction, which, as they argued, needed the protected environment of the lake to breed and colonize other areas. However, despite important researches¹⁰ pointing out the need to protect the species and its habitats, a series of travel reports¹¹ demonstrate that prior to the studies carried out by Bates until those conducted by Ayres, and even with all the protection¹² mechanisms created from the ‘time of the Reserve’, the Mamirauá lake continues to be a space of disputes, and occupied by ‘invader’ fishermen - whereby pirarucu¹³ is the main target of fishing. Figures 2 and 3 show, on the one hand, the fruits of pirarucu fishing and, on the other, the Uakari Lodge.

Figures 2 and 3
The Arapaima salting and drying. The Uakari Lodge

What issues laid below the troubled waters of local and international negotiations, in terms of disputes to dominate knowledge, being, fishing, in the Amazon? Fisheries management systems have changed the way fishermen deal with lake environments (FERREIRA et al, 2015), but this very system developed in partnership between fishermen and researchers indicates the recovery of stocks (CAMPOS-SILVA et al, 2019), also ensuring communities’ access to fish (as a source of protein and income), in addition to improving the lake protection system (QUEIROZ; PERALTA, 2006, AMARAL, 2013). Why not combine ecotourism and fisheries management, which can even represent a differential attraction, as a traditional form of fishing? In addition, harvesting according to management protocols takes place only for a short period of the year (two or three weeks), which would not be an ‘inconvenience’ for the regular use of the lake as an ‘(eco)tourist attraction’.

In conclusion, fisheries management took place in Mamirauá lake only in 2012, but was not sustained, as technical and political issues evolved into other resolutions. The same leaders who wanted to organize fisheries management began to demand sport fishing for pirarucu and other species in the very Mamirauá lake itself, which was greatly appreciated by institutional leaders. It appears that the symbol¹⁴ of the research institute, which bears the name of the lake and the Reserve, should actually remain with the fish (which gives life to this symbol) under the waters. Therefore, pirarucu remained - at least in the institutional and political context - without being fished, in that lake in particular. If so and at most, removed from the waters for a short time, as fishing was only allowed for the pleasure of catching and releasing it (for sport), but not for the need to eat or sell it - unless ‘illicitly’, by an (illegal) fisherman who then assumes the identity of an ‘offender’.

To top this scenario of disputes and negotiations, in 2014, the interests of one of the communities that has worked with the Uakari Lodge tourism project since the beginning came to fruition. However, it was not just ‘one’, but perhaps ‘the’ community that represents ‘the’ historical context of the relationship between monkeys, pirarucu and tourists. The community is called Boca do Mamirauá, which is located at the mouth of the watercourse that leads to Mamirauá lake; a region where the research conducted by Bates and Ayres was based, and where the main community leader¹⁵ and local partner in the research lived at the time. His family still lives there, whose members decided to build a community lodge supported by the community and external agents.

The lodge is called ‘Casa do Caboclo’ and it was inaugurated during the World Cup in 2014. It churned up the already turbulent waters, and tried to reconcile local interests with external desires, in what turned out to be a complex scenario of disputes and negotiations to define conducts, attributions, and residents’ and institutional actors’ rights. Kent (2003) explains that ecotourism has become articulated with environmental policies, especially the creation of protected areas, privileging those environments that are of interest to the ecotourism industry and restricting competing forms of resource use while limiting local populations their access to natural resources diminished.

The current tourist set-up [2022] in the Mamirauá sector includes a community lodge - Casa do Caboclo - in Boca do Mamirauá, and the institutional/community lodge - Uakari Lodge - which will soon be community only, as a transfer management plan is underway (PERALTA et al, 2015). In addition, two other communities - Vila Alencar and Caburini - have been planning to develop their own initiatives. Since 2015, in the dry season (September to November), sport fishing has been practiced at Mamirauá lake, when an independent activity is carried out at Uakari Lodge. Counting on their own organization (and logistical support from the lodge), business partners operate there bringing fishermen, and using the Mamirauá lake for sport fishing.

Long negotiation processes, aimed at reconciling conservation and use, materialize in the form of tourists, who travel to the Amazon in search of nature experiences - such as seeing monkeys or fishes. The range of possibilities that intensify disputes and trigger a game of power and interests demonstrates how the discourse and practice of CBT are subject to issues arising from global movements for different forms of access to the Amazon, considering that the control of community tourism by external organizations, can be considered a form of neocolonialism (MANYARA et al, 2006).

Birds and tourists

We then move on to the second example that takes place in Amanã RDS, where themes related to global interests and local governance, sustainable management and tourism are interspersed with issues related to territory and locally appropriate forms of territoriality. The region is close but is a very different reality from that of Mamirauá. In this specific location, the environment comprises a huge, black water lake, surrounded by terra firme (upland) and igapós (blackwater-flooded forests) supplied by streams, where communities are scattered sparsely. At the headwaters of Amanã lake, two neighboring Amazon watercourses - Baré and Ubim - are steeped in the history of the homonymous communities, which will be referred to here.

The histories of recent occupation of the streams are similar and relatively contemporary, associated with the rubber cycle. The former patriarchs of the communities even worked together to collect latex, Brazil nuts and other forest products in several watercourses of the lake, including those where they have settled. But that was before the ‘time of the Reserve’. Institutionalizing territorialities brought other configurations, based on different norms and other behaviors on how to ‘preserve’ and ‘manage’ the ‘natural resources’. In the relationship with new institutional actors, a technical mistake was decisive in terms of aggravating disputes and tensions between the families living in the communities. We will discuss this next, extending the analysis of the disputes, negotiations and agreements that continue to be established locally to the topic of community tourism, regarding community and tourist spaces.

Alencar (2009) talks about the ‘time of the angry bosses’, when rubber and Brazil nut placements were still commanded by the ‘bosses’, who shipped industrialized items brought from the city in exchange for forest products, at the cost of an ever-increasing debt that the ‘customer’ had to commit to paying with more forest products (MCGRATH, 1999). This was the ‘aviamento’¹⁶ system, which prevailed in the Amazon for a long time and which, in Amanã, was responsible for the influx of recent occupation of the territory, both during and after the decline of the rubber economy (ALENCAR, 2009).

This is how the scenario of disputes was created: two communities, located on two neighboring watercourses, and inhabited by two families whose patriarchs had worked together in collecting forest products during the period of ‘aviamento’, began to dispute control over the territories used. The reason for the conflict was the arrival of new regional actors, representatives of rationalities based on laws applicable to conservation and on agreements regarding management norms. Thus, a peculiar characteristic of the Ubim community should be described: the multi-locality (PINEDO-VASQUEZ, 2008).

When the reserve was created, the current residents of Ubim inhabited the Bom Socorro community, on the várzea of the Tambaqui River (near the mouth of Amanã lake) and, at the same time, looked after the terra firme of the Ubim watercourse, where they maintained plantation areas, habitats where rubber grows, Brazil nut groves and temporary residences. The then patriarch of the community¹⁷ had inherited the lands of the várzea (Bom Socorro) from his parents and, from his father-in-law, the terra firme in the lake (Ubim), maintaining the dynamics of use of both environments for decades. While Alencar (2009) admits that the extractivists in the region were true nomads, as they moved around according to the harvest period, Peralta (2008) explains that the ownership and right to use the land are determined by the work invested in it.

Therefore, the occupation dynamics of multiple territories proves to be legitimate and the work on the land confirms its ownership. In the case in question, over time, the descendants settled in both communities and, at different times of the year, they still resort to strategies to use both places. During the flooding season, and during the Brazil nut harvesting, the inhabitants of the várzea move to the terra firme, where they also maintain their crops; contrary to that, in the dry season, the inhabitants of the terra firme go to the várzea, where fish are more available. Thus, they maintain control over territories in different environments, ensuring access to the resources needed for survival.

Once again, there are growing disputes here, when new political-institutional actors start to act in the region, considerably altering the territorial dynamics. The community place-territory also becomes a State space-landscape-territory, where the entire area is transformed into a state reserve. Two co-managers¹⁸, with different attributions, are now responsible for managing the area, carrying out, among other actions, a survey on human occupation (ALENCAR, 2009).

In this complex process, full of nuances, historical details, disputes and interests, two situations generated conflict between the communities. In the first diagnosis, the area of the Ubim watercourse (where there were already crops and houses) was not identified as a community¹⁹, that is, the right of use was not attributed to the residents who had occupied it for years. To top the territorial disputes, in a later survey²⁰, the Ubim watercourse was designated as an area of use by the Baré community (which legitimately held the right to use the Baré watercourse).

A series of relationships that were based on distant kinship, Godparenthood, friendship, collegiality and neighborhoods, began to be reconfigured by a territorial dispute for control of access to resources. The patriarch of Baré - once a co-worker of the patriarch of Ubim - who could help to resolve the conflicts, had already passed away. Therefore, a series of events involving the members of the following generations began to occur and lead to instability in the conviviality between the communities. The indignation of the residents of Ubim was due to the excessive use of fishing resources by the Baré residents. Other issues such as Brazil nut harvesting and hunting also strained tensions. The dispute over territory (which includes water and land) became the new rationality that emerged in community negotiations, aggravated by the participation of external organizations that legitimized or invalidated local actions.

In this scenario, issues such as the coloniality of power (QUIJANO, 2005) help to make interpretations about local conformations. As Quijano states, the perspective of knowledge and the way of producing knowledge - in this case, applied to the forms of natural environment protection and management - was confronted with local interpretations and negotiations, based on previously established agreements, thus altering power relations. Pre-existing usage agreements were reconfigured, when access to territory and power relations began to be mediated and redefined by external actors. The greater presence of the managing body (CEUC - Conservation Unit State Center) and the emergence of a new institutional actor, FAS - Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (Sustainable Amazonas Foundation) helped to reshape relationships at different levels.

To top the troubled environment of disputes and negotiations, local interests and external interference, the topic of community-based tourism began to be addressed by the Mamirauá Institute in the Amanã lake region from 2007 onwards. Among the nine communities involved, there were the two that were having the disagreement over the territory. However, tourism is an activity that appropriates the landscape, building new territorialities on the places inhabited by different populations (RODRIGUES, 2006). How, then, can another proposal be included that involves new tensions and negotiations, in a terrain already marked by disagreements? The result may be transferring disputes to the planning environment of community-based tourism, which may incorporate and exacerbate conflicts, as the territory starts to have one more use value - tourism.

From 2007 to 2012, several works and research were carried out with the communities, aiming to involve them in the planning process (COELHO; GONTIJO, 2021a), promoting exchanges and experimental trips (COELHO; GONTIJO, 2021b), defining areas of the greatest interest and identifying the viability of CBT. In 2014, the Amanã Tourism Group was created, when the communities themselves began to plan activities, eventually counting on technical support from partner institutions. Ubim and Baré were the most participatory communities throughout the process, but territorial disputes also affected the progress of activities related to tourism planning.

To add another element to the controversy that arose over land use rights - which alternated moments of greater resolution and understanding, with moments of greater tensions - we highlight the sudden external interest in a specific bird. Among the landscape elements, especially the fauna, which constitute the tourist attraction of Amanã lake, are the birds, which arouse the fascination of a specialized group, the birdwatchers. This segment has always presented great potential for the development of tourism in the Amanã region, as the place offers considerable diversity and endemism of species (BERNARDON; BERNARDON, 2011).

In 2019, while the process of community organization for tourism planning was underway, spontaneous demands emerged from two groups of birdwatchers interested in visiting Amanã lake (COELHO; GONTIJO, 2021b). A contact was made by a leader from Baré, while the other group was addressed by a leader from Ubim, both of whom were especially interested in one species: a small bird, which lives in the flooded forests, known as Chestnut-headed Nunlet (Nonnula amaurocephala, Chapman, 1921), with only two records in the Amanã RDS. Endemic to the region, the bird (Figure 4) has a distribution restricted to the area between the right bank of the lower Negro River and the left bank of the Solimões River, and Amanã lake (Figure 5) is the most westerly record ever made (BORGES; SILVA, 2012).

Figures 4 and 5
The nunlet. The Amanã lake

During the birdwatchers’ trip, there was noticeable accumulating tension surrounding the visit, but there was no escalation of conflicts, which were already minimized. The group that visited Ubim did not manage to see the bird, but they did not leave there unhappy. The group that stayed in Baré the following month managed to find the little bird, on the two watercourses. When visiting the Ubim watercourse, the Baré guide complied with the necessary procedures to ensure that there were no more misunderstandings between community members, visiting the leaders and requesting authorization to guide the tourists. One of them noticed the necessary movement, as the planning and organization processes continue to evolve. He realized that for tourism to run smoothly, all agreements must be pre-established, as animals do not respect political boundaries, and tourists are not interested in having their encounters with wildlife affected by territorial disputes.

This whole situation shows the complexity of developing rules and arrangements for tourism activities in protected areas (BALLESTEROS; BRONDIZIO, 2013), especially when they involve communities and their local rules. Community-based tourism initiatives associated with rural spaces and protected areas where traditional populations live have been growing throughout Brazil and, for the activity to generate social, economic and environmental benefits, planning must ensure that communities define and regulate the use of their territories (BURGOS; MERTENS, 2015).

Final considerations

We aimed to present, through two specific and emblematic examples, some of the numerous issues that permeate the relationship between global agendas and local negotiations, involving protected areas, traditional populations, natural resource management and conservation institutions. We consider that other allusive cases should continue to be studied, as the Amazon has increasingly become a scenario of disputes between the most varied interests that include economic development, environmental preservation and the protection of rights of the human populations that depend on it.

On a global scale, the political game is played out between regional and international governments, organizations linked to environmental conservation and human rights, and private companies interested in the different possible uses, ranging from wood, soil, and biodiversity to traditional knowledge and the preserved landscape. Behind these actors, there are also banks and financing agencies (ZHOURI, 2006; RANDERIA, 2007) and their various interests. On a local scale, different peoples, with different histories of use and occupation of space, build their survival strategies based on territorial dynamics that are affected by global discourses and practices.

These were the issues discussed from the cases of Mamirauá and Amanã reserves, where community tourism was confronted with community-based resource management and territorial disputes, forming examples of how gather and apply multiple notions and opportunities in everyday practical models. The purpose of this analysis was to recognize that the partnership process between the most different social actors that work in the field is necessary and respectable, whereas mistakes and successes may occur along the way. The main purpose of this reflection is to consider that the field of action of researchers and technicians in the (Pan-)Amazon is vast and still in need of more support, given the enormous pressures imposed on the area that harbors the greatest diversity of life and human cultures known on the planet.

In both cases, we aimed to make a constructive reflection on institutional procedures, without belittling any reputable organization that proposes to work in direct contact with the traditional populations of the Amazon, and that genuinely seeks the objective of preserving the forest and improving the communities´ quality of life. However, we must always be attentive to our procedures, as technicians and researchers, because, as people coming from realities external to those we intend to analyze or intervene, we must have, in addition to unconditional respect, self-criticism to reflect on whether our performance is in fact positive for the communities, or if we would not be the biggest beneficiaries ourselves. For, as Garland (2008) argues, the value created by conservation processes is appropriated by external agents, as scientists obtain their degrees, jobs and funding, while local people are not a central part of the narrative that makes nature valuable in the global scheme.

Thus, we recognize that local populations hold the most valuable knowledge for any management practice, and that external agents play an important role as mediators and facilitators in the processes of strengthening, negotiating and resolving conflicts. In this context, community-based tourism should be seen as a means of empowering communities, giving them a sense of pride to take control of their lands and resources, so that they can harness their potential and acquire the skills necessary for their own development (STRYDOM et al, 2018).

Acknowledgment

We are immensely grateful to all the residents of the communities visited during the many years of this research in the Amanã and Mamirauá Reserves. Without the presence, knowledge and support of these forest peoples, neither this nor the majority of any research that actually intends to unveil and understand what has been happening for centuries in the region would be possible.

Referências

• ALENCAR, E. O tempo dos patrões “brabos”: fragmentos da história da ocupação humana da Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Amanã, AM. Amazônica, Belém, v. 1, n. 1, p. 178-199, 2009.
• ALMEIDA, F. Viagens. 2017. Tese (Doutorado em Geografia) - Instituto de Geociências, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2017.
• ALMEIDA, M. Direitos à floresta e ambientalismo: seringueiros e suas lutas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, v. 19, n. 55, p. 33-53, 2004.
• AMARAL, E. (org.) Biologia, conservação e manejo participativo de pirarucus na Pan-Amazônia. Tefé: IDSM, 2013.
• ARRUDA, R. “Populações Tradicionais” e a proteção dos recursos naturais em Unidades de Conservação. Ambiente & Sociedade, São Paulo, v. 2, n. 5, p. 79-92, 1999.
• AYRES, J., FONSECA, G., RYLANDS, A., QUEIROZ, H. PINTO, L., MASTERSON, D., CAVALCANTI, R. Os corredores ecológicos das florestas tropicais do Brasil. Belém, PA: Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, 2005.
• AYRES, J.; JOHNS, A. Conservation of white uacaries in Amazonian várzea. Oryx, Cambridge, v. 21, n. 2, p. 74-80, 1987.
• BARONA, E.; RAMANKUTTY, N.; HYMAN, G.; COOMES, O. The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters, Berkeley, v. 5, p. 1-9, 2010.
• BECKER, B. Geopolítica da Amazônia. Estudos Avançados, São Paulo, v. 19, n. 53, p. 71-86, 2005
• BENATTI, J.; MCGRATH, D.; OLIVEIRA, A. Políticas Públicas e Manejo Comunitário de Recursos Naturais na Amazônia. Ambiente & Sociedade, São Paulo, v. 6, n. 2, p. 137-154, 2003.
• BERNARDON, B.; BERNARDON, G. Estudo sobre potencialidade para o turismo de observação de aves nas RDSs Mamirauá e Amanã, Amazonas, Brasil: Relatório técnico. Tefé: IDSM, 2012.
• BORGES, S.; SILVA, J. A New Area of Endemism for Amazonian Birds in the Rio Negro Basin. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, v. 124, n. 1, p. 15-23, 2012.
• BRASIL. Lei nº 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 19 jul. 2000.
• BRUM, E. Banzero Okoto: uma viagem a Amazônia centro do mundo. São Paulo: Cia das Letras, 2021.
• BURGOS, A.; MERTENS, F. Os desafios do turismo no contexto da sustentabilidade: as contribuições do turismo de base comunitária. Pasos, v. 13, n. 1, p. 57-70, 2015.
• CALEGARE, M.; HIGUCHI, M; BRUNO, A. Povos e comunidades tradicionais: das áreas protegidas à visibilidade política de grupos sociais portadores de identidade étnica e coletiva. Ambiente & Sociedade, São Paulo, v. 17, n. 3, p. 115-134, 2014.
• CAMPOS-SILVA, J.; HAWES, J.; PERES, C. Population recovery, seasonal site fidelity, and daily activity of pirarucu (Arapaima spp.) in an Amazonian floodplain mosaic. Freshwater Biology, p. 1-10. 2019.
• CARNEIRO DA CUNHA, M. O futuro da questão indígena. Estudos Avançados, São Paulo, v. 8, n. 20, p. 121-136, 1994.
• CARNEIRO, H. O múltiplo imaginário das Viagens modernas: ciência, literatura e turismo. História: Questões & Debates, Curitiba, n. 35, p. 227-247, 2001.
• CASTRO, F.; MCGRATH, D. O manejo comunitário de lagos na Amazônia. Parcerias Estratégicas, Brasília, n. 12, p. 112-126, 2001.
• COELHO, E. Refletindo sobre turismo de base comunitária em Unidades de Conservação através de uma perspectiva amazônica. Revista Brasileira de Ecoturismo, São Paulo, v.6, n.1, p.313-326, 2013.
• COELHO, E.; GONTIJO, B. Viagens ao Amanã: experiências, relatos e propostas para o turismo de base comunitária na Amazônia. Revista Brasileira de Ecoturismo, São Paulo, v 14, n.4, p. 472-496, 2021b.
• _________. O processo de organização para o turismo nas comunidades ribeirinhas da Reserva Amanã, AM. Turismo e Sociedade, Curitiba, v. 14, n. 3, p. 20-41, 2021a.
• DESCOLA, P. Ecologia e cosmologia. In. CASTRO, E.; PINTON, F. (orgs) Faces do Trópico úmido: conceitos e questões sobre desenvolvimento e meio ambiente. Belém: UFPA-NAEA, 1997, p. 243-261.
• DOMINGUES, M.; BERMANN, C. O arco de desflorestamento na Amazônia: da pecuária à soja. Ambiente & Sociedade, São Paulo, v. 15, n. 2. p. 1 -22, 2012.
• FERREIRA, J.; PERALTA, N.; SANTOS, R. “Nossa Reserva”: redes e interações entre peixes e pescadores no médio rio Solimões. Amazônica,. v. 7, n. 1, p. 158-185, 2015.
• GADELHA, R. Conquista e ocupação da Amazônia: a fronteira Norte do Brasil. Estudos Avançados, São Paulo, v. 16, n. 45, p. 63-80, 2002.
• GARLAND, E. The Elephant in the Room: Confronting the Colonial Character of Wildlife Conservation in Africa. African Studies Review, v. 51, n. 3, p. 51-74, 2008.
• GISSIBL, B. The Nature of German Imperialism - Conservation and the Politics of Wildlife in Colonial East Africa. Berghahn Books: New York, 2016.
• GOMES, C. Ciclos econômicos do extrativismo na Amazônia na visão dos viajantes naturalistas. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi - Ciências Humanas, Belém, v. 13, n. 1, p. 129-146, 2018.
• GOODWlN, H. In pursuit of ecotourism. Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 5, p. 277-291, 1996.
• KENT, M. Ecotourism, environmental preservation and conflicts over natural resources. Horizontes Antropológicos, Porto Alegre, v. 9, n. 20, p. 185-203, 2003.
• KISS, A. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v.19, n. 5, p. 232-237, 2004.
• LANGER, J. O mito do eldorado: origem e significado no Imaginário sul-americano (século XVI). Revista de História, São Paulo, n. 136, p. 25-40, 1997.
• LIMA, D.; PERALTA, N. Developing Sustainability in the Brazilian Amazon: Twenty Years of History in the Mamirauá and Amanã Reserves. Journal of Latin American Studies, Cambridge, p. 1-29, 2017.
• LIMA, D.; POZZOBON, J. Amazônia socioambiental. Sustentabilidade ecológica e diversidade social. Estudos Avançados, São Paulo, v. 19, n 54, p. 45-76, 2005.
• MALDONADO-TORRES, N. On the coloniality of being. Cultural Studies, London, v. 21, n. 2-3, p. 240-270, 2007.
• MANYARA, G.; JONES, E.; BOTTERILL, D. Tourism and poverty alleviation: the case for indigenous enterprise development in Kenya. Tourism, Culture & Communication, v. 7, p. 19-37, 2006.
• MARCOY, P. Viagem pelo rio Amazonas. Manaus: Editora da UFAM, 2006.
• MCGRATH, D. Parceiros no crime o regatão e a resistência cabocla na Amazônia tradicional. Novos Cadernos NAEA, Belém, v. 2, n. 2, p. 57-72, 1999.
• MIRANDA, L. O Deserto dos Mestiços: O Sertão e seus Habitantes nos relatos de viagem do início do Século XIX. História, São Paulo, v. 28, n. 2, p. 621-643, 2009.
• PERALTA, N. Impactos do ecoturismo sobre a agricultura familiar na Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá, AM. UAKARI, v. 4, n.1, p. 29-40, 2008.
• PERALTA, N. Ecoturismo como incentivo à conservação da biodiversidade: o caso da Pousada Uacari. In. OZORIO, R.; PERALTA, N.; VIEIRA, F. (orgs.) Lições e reflexões sobre o turismo de base comunitária na Reserva Mamirauá. Tefé: IDSM, 2016, p. 168-186.
• PERALTA, N.; LIMA, D. “Guardar é para tirar depois”. Disputas territoriais e conceituais em uma unidade de conservação: o caso da Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável Mamirauá (Amazonas - Brasil). Rev. Hist. UEG, Anápolis, v.4, n.2, p. 114-138, 2015.
• PERALTA, N.; VIEIRA, F.; OZORIO, R. Gestão participativa da Pousada Uacari: um processo em construção. Revista Brasileira de Ecoturismo, São Paulo, v.8, n.1, p. 115-133, 2015.
• PINEDO-VASQUEZ, M. Urbano e rural: famílias multi-instaladas, mobilidade e manejo dos recursos de várzea na Amazônia. Novos Cadernos NAEA, Belém, v. 11, n. 2, p. 43-56, 2008.
• PINTO, P. Ecoturismo na fronteira pan-amazônica: possibilidades de gestão local em áreas protegidas do Brasil, Colômbia e Peru. Revista Brasileira de Ecoturismo, São Paulo, v. 9, n. 6, p.638-656, 2017.
• PRATT, M. Os olhos do Império: relatos de viagem e transculturação. Bauru: EDUSC, 1999.
• QUEIROZ, H.; PERALTA, N. A Reserva de Desenvolvimento Sustentável: Manejo Integrado dos Recursos Naturais e Gestão Participativa. In: GARAY, I.; BECKER, B. (orgs). Dimensões humanas da biodiversidade. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2006, p. 447-476.
• QUIJANO, A. Colonialidad del poder, eurocentrismo y América Latina. In: LANDER, E. (Org). La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo y ciencias sociales Perspectivas latinoamericanas. Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2005, p. 201-246.
• RANDERIA, S. Global Designs and Local Lifeworlds Colonial Legacies of Conservation, Disenfranchisement and Environmental Governance in Postcolonial India. Interventions, London, v. 9, n. 1, p. 12-30, 2007.
• REYES, M., MACHADO, E. Y ORTEGA, A. Evaluación de territorios para desarrollar el turismo comunitario en la región amazónica del Ecuador. Turismo y Sociedad, Bogotá, v. 17, p. 39-62, 2015.
• RIVERO, S.; ALMEIDA, O.; ÁVILA, S.; OLIVEIRA, W. Pecuária e desmatamento: uma análise das principais causas diretas do desmatamento na Amazônia. Nova Economia, Belo Horizonte, v. 19, n 1, p. 41-66, 2009.
• RODRIGUES, A. Turismo e territorialidades plurais - lógicas excludentes ou solidariedade organizacional. In: LEMOS, A.; ARROYO, M.; SILVEIRA, M. (orgs). América Latina: cidade, campo e turismo. São Paulo: CLACSO, 2006, p.297-315.
• RUIZ-BALLESTEROS, E.; BRONDIZIO E. Building Negotiated Agreement: The Emergence of Community-Based Tourism in Floreana (Galápagos Islands). Human Organization, Oklahoma City, v. 72, n. 4, p. 323-335, 2013.
• SILVEIRA, S. América: projeção da geografia fantástica das Índias. In: CASTRO, E.; PINTO, R. (orgs). Decolonialidade e sociologia na América Latina. Belém: NAEA: UFPA, 2018, p. 53-80.
• SOUZA, M. História da Amazônia: do período pré-colombiano aos desafios do século XXI. Rio de Janeiro: Record, 2019.
• STRYDOM, A.; MANGOPE, D.; HENAMA, U. Lessons learned from Successful Community-Based Tourism Case Studies from the Global South. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, v. 7, n. 5, p. 1-13, 2018.
• WALLACE, A. Viagem pelo Amazonas e Rio Negro. Brasília: Senado Federal, 2004.
• ZHOURI, A. O ativismo transnacional pela Amazônia: entre a ecologia política e o ambientalismo de resultados. Horizontes Antropológicos, Porto Alegre, v. 12, n. 25, p. 139-169, 2006.

• 1
  - Formal names designated by the Brazilian law (BRASIL, 2000), and their acronyms in Portuguese.
• 2
  - The ‘Mamirauá Project’, developed by the ‘Mamirauá Civil Society’, gave rise to the ‘Mamirauá Sustainable Development Institute’ (IDSM in Portuguese).
• 3
  - The studies related to pirarucu management and the ecotourism initiative at the Uakari Lodge have received several national and international awards.
• 4
  - The first author is a doctoral student in Geography at the Federal University of Minas Gerais and the second author is a professor and research advisor.
• 5
  - Long-term stays were frequent in the Amanã RDS communities - especially Ubim, Baré and Sitio São Miguel do Cacau - and in the Uakari lodge, as well as shorter periods of stay in other communities of Lake Amanã and in the Mamirauá sector communities.
• 6
  - The ‘caboclo’ is a specific social category associated to the typical Amazonian, which is essentially rural and riverine (LIMA, 1999).
• 7
  - Institutional / community lodge built between 1998 and 2001 with resources from a British funder - the DFID (Department for International Development). Please see Peralta et al (2015) for a detailed description.
• 8
  - Before the protection of the area, large fishing boats represented a huge challenge for local populations (LIMA; PERALTA, 2017).
• 9
  - For a description of these events, see Peralta and Lima (2015) and Peralta (2016).
• 10
  - The source-sink relationship is used to prove the importance of lake protection, as well as the effectiveness of the application of pirarucu management in stock recovery (CAMPOS-SILVA et al, 2019), including in the region of Mamirauá and Amanã Reserves (AMARAL, 2013).
• 11
  - Nineteenth-century travelers and naturalists such as Paul Marcoy (2006) and Alfred Wallace (2004), among others, pointed out the high consumption of pirarucu, both by indigenous populations and commercially.
• 12
  - One of the conditions for pirarucu management is the guarantee of lake protection. In the case of Mamirauá, surveillance has been carried out for decades, but always with numerous reports of encounters with fishermen or showing traces of their constant presence.
• 13
  - A note of regret is in order here regarding the murders of the Brazilian indigenist Bruno Pereira and the British journalist Dom Philips: even though it is clear that several other political-ideological issues influenced attitudes that legitimize the violence and neglect that led to the death of the two men who were involved in the protection of the Amazon, it should be noted that it was the dispute over fishing territories - where the (illegal) pirarucu fishing stands out - that put the two in the dangerous situation that culminated in their regrettable deaths.
• 14
  - The IDSM logo is formed by an image of the piracuru below the ‘water’ represented by the characters of Mamirauá.
• 15
  - The late ‘Mr. Joaquim’ (Martins), was Marcio Ayres’ field assistant and an important local leader who helped to materialize the efforts to create the Mamirauá Reserve.
• 16
  - The ‘aviamento’ was an economic phenomenon that constituted the classic model of work in the rubber plantations and was responsible for the indebtedness of the rubber tapper and his consequent enslavement to his boss (GUILLEN, 2007).
• 17
  - ‘Mr. Mimi’, the late Otílio Feitosa, an important leader of the Amanã reserve, passed away at the end of 2020.
• 18
  - DEMUC (Departamento de Mudanças Climáticas e Gestão De Unidades de Conservação - Department of Conservation Unit Climate Change and Management) - at the time CEUC (Centro Estadual de Unidades de Conservação - Conservation Unit State Center) - is the managing body of the Amazonas Protected Areas, while IDSM was then the co-manager of both PA.
• 19
  - Studies carried out by IDSM researchers did not consider the existence of the community, which became institutionally accepted.
• 20
  - Carried out by CEUC - the Protected Area managing body.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  04 Nov 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  04 Aug 2021
• Accepted
  15 Mar 2022