| This study addresses the importance of factors in the natural and economic environment and broader regional context, and those differentiating social groups within communities, that affect wildlife resource use and the potential for sustainable management by local people. The study compares livelihood strategies of two communities near protected areas in the northeastern Peruvian Amazon, one of which participates in resource management planning. Members of the participating community were found to have significantly greater awareness and understanding of conservation issues and regulations, and to express greater willingness to organize around conservation issues. However, their actual resource use patterns, as measured by the amounts of fish and wild game harvested for sale, were higher than those in the other community. Findings of the study suggest that besides natural habitat differences, market influences in the participating community, which is more accessible to local markets, may override their greater conservation awareness. The unfavorable terms of exchange faced by both communities limit the viability of innovative conservation approaches to influence resource use patterns. Within each community, differences were found both among and within families in the amount of fish and game they harvest to sell and in their attitudes toward conservation. Men who have access to tools for commercial extraction, and cash to finance hunting and fishing expeditions, and whose participation in agriculture is limited, harvest more wildlife resources. The wealthiest families, however, are not the commercial extractivists, unless they have additional sources of cash. Poverty seems to be a factor inhibiting over-use of resources. Skills and preferences are also factors behind the choices of hunters to be heavily involved in hunting. While women do not participate directly in hunting and fishing, they are knowledgeable about these activities and often participate in decisions about resource use. They appear to be more concerned than men about conservation. However, female subordination is expressed in their lack of control over income generated by commercial extraction, affecting the purchase of food and basic goods for family needs, and the food security and well being of these families. These findings suggest that conservation programs might focus-their efforts on improving agriculture and other alternatives for income and should work with specialized hunters and fishermen, incorporating women into designing management efforts. |
