<%BANNER%>

Governance and Management of the Upper Acre River in Pando, Bolivia

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021111/00001

Material Information

Title: Governance and Management of the Upper Acre River in Pando, Bolivia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (144 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Stocks, Gabriela
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aquatic, bolivia, collective, cpr, governance, management, pando, riparian, water
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Tropical rivers in rural areas are likely to have good water quality, but current trends indicate that increasing development pressures could have a deleterious effect on these water systems. One potential strategy for counteracting these negative impacts is the devolution of watershed management into the hands of local users. However, it cannot simply be assumed that local communities naturally make effective resource managers. A careful examination of the presence or absence of social and institutional characteristics necessary for effective resource management must be carried out. The research presented in my thesis attempts to address this issue at a small scale by focusing on two neighboring Bolivian communities located on the Upper Acre River in the department of Pando. The objective of my research was to determine how these two culturally distinct communities utilize and manage river resources, including riparian areas, and to evaluate whether features favorable to collective action for the protection of these resources exist. Field work was conducted over a 12-week period. Principle methodologies employed included participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and participatory mapping. These methodologies were supplemented by the use of freelisting and Global Positioning System data. The results of my research indicate that neither community makes as extensive use of river resources as might be expected of Amazonian river-dwellers. Water quality in the Acre River was perceived to be poor by most households, and concern was expressed about the health impacts associated with coming into contact with river water. Households were generally conscientious about maintaining riparian buffers when creating agricultural fields near water bodies and expressed a clear understanding of the value of riparian areas. This individual consciousness had not coalesced into formal management rules in either community or between neighboring communities, however, and is unlikely to do so in the future without motivation by outside actors.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gabriela Stocks.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Oliver Smith, Anthony R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021111:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021111/00001

Material Information

Title: Governance and Management of the Upper Acre River in Pando, Bolivia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (144 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Stocks, Gabriela
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: aquatic, bolivia, collective, cpr, governance, management, pando, riparian, water
Anthropology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Anthropology thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Tropical rivers in rural areas are likely to have good water quality, but current trends indicate that increasing development pressures could have a deleterious effect on these water systems. One potential strategy for counteracting these negative impacts is the devolution of watershed management into the hands of local users. However, it cannot simply be assumed that local communities naturally make effective resource managers. A careful examination of the presence or absence of social and institutional characteristics necessary for effective resource management must be carried out. The research presented in my thesis attempts to address this issue at a small scale by focusing on two neighboring Bolivian communities located on the Upper Acre River in the department of Pando. The objective of my research was to determine how these two culturally distinct communities utilize and manage river resources, including riparian areas, and to evaluate whether features favorable to collective action for the protection of these resources exist. Field work was conducted over a 12-week period. Principle methodologies employed included participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and participatory mapping. These methodologies were supplemented by the use of freelisting and Global Positioning System data. The results of my research indicate that neither community makes as extensive use of river resources as might be expected of Amazonian river-dwellers. Water quality in the Acre River was perceived to be poor by most households, and concern was expressed about the health impacts associated with coming into contact with river water. Households were generally conscientious about maintaining riparian buffers when creating agricultural fields near water bodies and expressed a clear understanding of the value of riparian areas. This individual consciousness had not coalesced into formal management rules in either community or between neighboring communities, however, and is unlikely to do so in the future without motivation by outside actors.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Gabriela Stocks.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Oliver Smith, Anthony R.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021111:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101114_AAAAHB INGEST_TIME 2010-11-14T19:44:51Z PACKAGE UFE0021111_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 25025 DFID F20101114_AACNGO ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH stocks_g_Page_127.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
29b85b09d066faef945272c2fc509fef
SHA-1
c30592890bf8f3d67c320aa160411e0699bf230d
83277 F20101114_AACMDM stocks_g_Page_064.jpg
4263a0c67813546aa36841ef4ff06820
d5091c8f5d0e52ab0ed924635b7b811fd40ff230
76180 F20101114_AACMCY stocks_g_Page_050.jpg
3fea8cc025bddd1671a8021c83c0f495
e944d607ebb302e3cc0bbc8ca84eb8c0e27e0fc4
7023 F20101114_AACNHD stocks_g_Page_008.QC.jpg
02a81725e0325f1736208c72a31151f6
6e31e6c0d33619c1bf81263061a3ad50c229f2be
20811 F20101114_AACNGP stocks_g_Page_005.QC.jpg
8ed89323fe8a0f6b2eb54fa5f25212ca
076f2b9ab871f65e1abb10d49162f6076bc47820
73283 F20101114_AACMEB stocks_g_Page_081.jpg
06f1420c4da144d22e7b6a347964782c
675a84ed414dea7ae2f4771edd634ab0dc59bfb9
61021 F20101114_AACMDN stocks_g_Page_066.jpg
1dab0acfe390770e0a7abe184f6605f6
7f42cd5d8b32094265bd157e4e99491737765411
57310 F20101114_AACMCZ stocks_g_Page_051.jpg
8035d5f4e5834651c6c2b9d61afc3e72
fbf6a405e0eff4ca89bb2937d4a70bf79cc326c6
6196 F20101114_AACNHE stocks_g_Page_009thm.jpg
6d828444078caa46c8ed57a0b5e3569d
481447ea667888214b9df24228384f65fe7eb6eb
6612 F20101114_AACNGQ stocks_g_Page_039thm.jpg
fb85fe786b6ba813a1c9b34208095b3f
82eb512799c4b2b6f2bd5e4a9459bd6c4f94b124
61901 F20101114_AACMEC stocks_g_Page_082.jpg
b21ce881956acd7aaf7640fedf661d41
2ba2dad5bae91dbdc1f75d2b4b9dee98ccd014ef
60093 F20101114_AACMDO stocks_g_Page_067.jpg
016943bc0d0fc5522ae6f7d86a8be704
5f288d2b88ab8e37db1748155b068f740ec8ea56
6167 F20101114_AACNHF stocks_g_Page_034thm.jpg
9771f740dabfe3c1431640f21686a6a8
66d271e3e8dff11e26b2176fd425d0e8e86af986
5903 F20101114_AACNGR stocks_g_Page_068thm.jpg
369aced574a8c0f9b3c3b834eeccbe59
033553c1ec570140ea677fa9f01270dff7db12e9
69556 F20101114_AACMED stocks_g_Page_083.jpg
c6dfe6473a1d23ab03883766380bf4d2
f8542bb9026094d0279dbc1cf936445029518431
64148 F20101114_AACMDP stocks_g_Page_068.jpg
60a032c9ff24bbcfc7e0eed0bb8a2a4b
55d6f027e3289d224e1f9b27976c1d83a4ed1697
21526 F20101114_AACNHG stocks_g_Page_139.QC.jpg
81ee159331bb2444fb999e4cbdefc19a
df27b1f0badbd4c429e93ff3b4aa16c9d23e2ffa
6082 F20101114_AACNGS stocks_g_Page_073thm.jpg
d0483c08f1d2b56440eb754b3a66ba28
ad101b50d994dbe84c50234311466ec10a00f2c7
74219 F20101114_AACMEE stocks_g_Page_084.jpg
0da5879d515c9a87fe8f84a134adf724
562e08cca2b1f48437dfc4d193cad20d677e65bd
75642 F20101114_AACMDQ stocks_g_Page_069.jpg
81027f045e79f46844f9cab7bd8b7001
cb2443cbf7684fa3a8989519458f495c91b7e9e7
6198 F20101114_AACNHH stocks_g_Page_077thm.jpg
e3920144d5e8cccf088a7a798d61fae0
be9cbfdb0502395234a7e45aecc804838f5fd0a2
24363 F20101114_AACNGT stocks_g_Page_035.QC.jpg
5cba1672ce1cdbc33fbfbb33bbdc0345
6ebf2a7320b55550ca51d86b3b86d0fe8933d2f2
54224 F20101114_AACMEF stocks_g_Page_085.jpg
bd5afff3546a2560b7c207d04ea54409
89f38b64a97a3eb0eaa4aa3a4eee00b2ed3daf27
57210 F20101114_AACMDR stocks_g_Page_070.jpg
531073362b6c6c50503f9a98b4973fc4
9f84fec09028785cb166421ebb7c118c397889a6
19632 F20101114_AACNHI stocks_g_Page_067.QC.jpg
2c7a0fa90a60ee0ffd08bbd2d7490d70
17726c685db0225aafe5fd8c1744b49dc9effdea
7032 F20101114_AACNGU stocks_g_Page_129thm.jpg
d3c69ea52fbf2b4ae3a28dc5d940e849
470873d712787d085709e690d630e822beea0686
71305 F20101114_AACMEG stocks_g_Page_086.jpg
cc18b9f72044cf46675d96a0c2154ded
edc1870a4d382d065e8e2a7de04e1c071c67b7ad
53720 F20101114_AACMDS stocks_g_Page_071.jpg
e8b330f33e987dc4195c677d94b2f513
baf003c4fc9944b179d0c73dccffcc1c35fc60c3
7056 F20101114_AACNHJ stocks_g_Page_125thm.jpg
856d46e0e8f0115593b18c0e29f387b1
423cfea2f79046e1a83f37b235c3971b32a5bed7
6593 F20101114_AACNGV stocks_g_Page_111thm.jpg
47d970a83e3fe8e8d4fdf4b3c58d1d1d
ab3c6f7dabfec507cc0d8044c3e5ef29818f4791
79825 F20101114_AACMEH stocks_g_Page_087.jpg
45eab2440a598da60291097fcfa61a71
43c100dba1a10882e288c577dce30382aca1ee02
53248 F20101114_AACMDT stocks_g_Page_072.jpg
57064c71a5d0a819b2709777da272fae
152efbdbcc37228eb69183bd8c1a29832be79ca1
5229 F20101114_AACNHK stocks_g_Page_065thm.jpg
cc591ef4d2fdda5f3bc42669e2ae21e2
d55606451f77d08f3bca66bac0a199eefb210c78
7093 F20101114_AACNGW stocks_g_Page_089thm.jpg
3e6bd53ece243bd18979a7f2fee9c36e
ecd1a27f729db2cd43a49df343b79ed39d4123f6
78542 F20101114_AACMEI stocks_g_Page_088.jpg
8ca3884fe7dd93608e86989ba6a75e0c
1186565222e63e0caab9bef838470263c47a0bda
67150 F20101114_AACMDU stocks_g_Page_073.jpg
b1b63151f868445eb90843ae909d1f16
534e1f665bffad01ad1142a33e6f22796e9e4edf
23397 F20101114_AACNIA stocks_g_Page_121.QC.jpg
f7c14bee182b46b15f29c11f4258f57e
e37dcb277075979a7925f082931c1ef2f38ac23f
22834 F20101114_AACNHL stocks_g_Page_141.QC.jpg
ba388f9462bbd4d40620871cd6d50787
7c56a18e8cc0c2712998e847097932690fe2d82c
6536 F20101114_AACNGX stocks_g_Page_084thm.jpg
05879a730927e9da9d6c3b04c7c89238
b5198d66545728bf50dc95f94af5906f2ebf83c7
80565 F20101114_AACMEJ stocks_g_Page_089.jpg
62ae7496934862714de75afaaf401ca7
19e3748e60c3f84fb7335ba29de6e3af363870c8
74202 F20101114_AACMDV stocks_g_Page_074.jpg
d321effa1114fc1b816b081a124405fd
80cd25c0203af5580d15cea9ffb0b468d686c33f
20282 F20101114_AACNIB stocks_g_Page_044.QC.jpg
c50b85ed49653dfec4590d5c50ce869a
ecbe2d28d030be6d6e0fdc7e0ac38a561850eee3
20315 F20101114_AACNHM stocks_g_Page_082.QC.jpg
d14a2531140e8dcfa5eee3e2b27d7cc9
a3b1e94a9d02d29a0b48539999e23877ecb1cbc2
24163 F20101114_AACNGY stocks_g_Page_031.QC.jpg
df5965b851b2ddc67ad97c8c33877c51
12bb0b736a53e88fd8d13222426a7d0daefa1173
78434 F20101114_AACMEK stocks_g_Page_090.jpg
fff1383e2a78459936d554861fc84324
6b66d86ace7d2fbc70fd47e9202cab519193ea18
69823 F20101114_AACMDW stocks_g_Page_075.jpg
84c11e9eb1140afddcd31b63e5a5dddb
f5e1061645c812da473854bd666e9aba001bb394
26390 F20101114_AACNIC stocks_g_Page_026.QC.jpg
bebb089b590712c178cb944162b970e2
fae8f41993998ba0e1afb65d054d71a487ff742d
6556 F20101114_AACNHN stocks_g_Page_044thm.jpg
b4c79e8a1511705e39574ea49575faed
12e1eeba668e81849c4b039a575f6f0f354573a4
3615 F20101114_AACNGZ stocks_g_Page_010thm.jpg
4d893f9ed5cc6fde0cd6f8e892bb9e2d
e40fd3fb27de7a110e9c4cff4d230ca63b933f00
72861 F20101114_AACMEL stocks_g_Page_091.jpg
e19f43c2af247356046ec3dfa771ef82
706c48e2d0b459542e62366d1468fc71e6318d1b
77497 F20101114_AACMDX stocks_g_Page_076.jpg
160e62ec68c5c324c32eed3f378e807b
8d3114f0546584d36e4d5e4fa233aea71c19f21b
72184 F20101114_AACMFA stocks_g_Page_108.jpg
a044a327d3231b149bc53d68f9843fb2
3e793916af6b6c8373277a6e4795d033a60366ed
24854 F20101114_AACNID stocks_g_Page_025.QC.jpg
3a4b89dfa931e74e871c1766d1026684
7437f6af8cdf309fe2d48cac00e3311d2fade1a5
1402 F20101114_AACNHO stocks_g_Page_003thm.jpg
c411d339cc2ed6e2ff9f065282e28259
6b3ad7349e1299c57512e0e2667608ec5eb72697
76090 F20101114_AACMEM stocks_g_Page_092.jpg
b22b52d141737ad72d051db9800f109f
c19ea7800936fe780e267e6f2d7f31f78874fa2b
74378 F20101114_AACMDY stocks_g_Page_078.jpg
d540e737838d1839e15d4ca5c743012c
747851903801606d6209f09026a5d00c919274aa
F20101114_AACMFB stocks_g_Page_109.jpg
7ccdd03769bea96cc82c9217d5d89e6d
e3069d3d38683434e98073f1413b07f3d3eeeed8
6474 F20101114_AACNHP stocks_g_Page_038thm.jpg
a143cac540b2a8865b16ae390db7b092
0b1ca7f226736a023d92d1c8077f26ced8fe9857
75816 F20101114_AACMEN stocks_g_Page_093.jpg
7a3518434e68b9d4f54c28f4bfe41aa6
4cab5cd273f005fecf04f9bacbbd2cb86c495df0
74426 F20101114_AACMDZ stocks_g_Page_079.jpg
de5831268aea26c57833c8d08e1c0231
19587152a9953bb30df540e84d2af9a58b8f5c4a
24621 F20101114_AACNIE stocks_g_Page_049.QC.jpg
bc5ed7ab1ebf9e1c4dead2e9f0ca30e5
06c204921867314ae713a6c132190dd7f4188c31
6345 F20101114_AACNHQ stocks_g_Page_140thm.jpg
478863fe64011bfa00505d1dfe95b701
e0319c95410767927521d1be83543e7c43661bad
66619 F20101114_AACMEO stocks_g_Page_095.jpg
cbd9858e0a4edfb1da0fd6e0b5c72018
38821075e19eee3943e6a0a6242ab64b18c4dab1
72792 F20101114_AACMFC stocks_g_Page_110.jpg
bb0e7a7d5bdf3e5d6800e92f7fceb349
fac81b95dc82c485e075aae8c9edb928ef09a533
16299 F20101114_AACNIF stocks_g_Page_072.QC.jpg
26250afbe951e8218378565ade9a4b51
c7e096de55eadd1c972fd180a26146792f83174a
6831 F20101114_AACNHR stocks_g_Page_045thm.jpg
848e2af055636186b34ec213fa8c1dc9
85323162ff370bfb19eb2e4371f39f5c23f94fcc
73014 F20101114_AACMEP stocks_g_Page_096.jpg
f6073fb109bad51455f0c15a1ee98b34
93dccd34089d224c661d592d78691c2d4e165981
71963 F20101114_AACMFD stocks_g_Page_111.jpg
57bb6477be8ac47ae833b58cf00ad96c
27a22b1f726b9aa721503a8107b510075b30fb11
13654 F20101114_AACNIG stocks_g_Page_046.QC.jpg
607b8a9b113177ab67971e7509ea4c81
63f4628f393dc8ea64a872ff704bdcc21ace6a1e
6620 F20101114_AACNHS stocks_g_Page_025thm.jpg
805cae58b26ea0a28a4b7932a4a9ef33
226597c06bafbc18422a9350ea52d19d02207acd
67137 F20101114_AACMEQ stocks_g_Page_097.jpg
7de18978da81bde53551cb348257b7d0
8a145d75614626b0bbe81d8fe5015c8c4c8747db
83186 F20101114_AACMFE stocks_g_Page_112.jpg
5aa26b7c827c386885de2e72ee11f894
62ab696412275689767605fd33181ab3088fe46b
5930 F20101114_AACNIH stocks_g_Page_132thm.jpg
3ed3b944fdafe7e135ac04e1b8e52e16
1e7cd5d41ea4149084c137795bad56893daaeef4
18421 F20101114_AACNHT stocks_g_Page_051.QC.jpg
c174d435f9b7ce33f8302a72c0e8c63f
2bc90e9891a085ea8fc0b17fca81d121b909b3a2
76629 F20101114_AACMER stocks_g_Page_098.jpg
3aeb144f2990dea37e48b207bb307ea2
b85403dec5b4eaf00f46d1e3d06bc48190e153cd
77030 F20101114_AACMFF stocks_g_Page_113.jpg
2d00abc214bcafb30cac6cd32bcf0bc1
ff3144d114924577ded29d47f25479922d32ba17
7802 F20101114_AACNII stocks_g_Page_011.QC.jpg
ff0d714352c4410d31af6b224cb58561
2d822a5fb61e6557e43ccab408680345c48be089
6418 F20101114_AACNHU stocks_g_Page_060thm.jpg
0925c991717265fe9a3af0902509baca
0c912aa5f42a8d8e531320d5eaac328923428fcb
67077 F20101114_AACMES stocks_g_Page_099.jpg
95d31fd30ef3c6c4216022d9ec5eea87
d471baeaab6b2a4a67d46720a86753fa9791882a
52855 F20101114_AACMFG stocks_g_Page_114.jpg
fc1491f1108c72aa65892a2646d088e0
bd2c94069734a689a90942db1598ad3fd648f493
6511 F20101114_AACNIJ stocks_g_Page_079thm.jpg
66e178bcff1ce4ccb0c7cd340f0c694e
df20e4f6a1b3fbb34dc17f9236cc43025b099492
26242 F20101114_AACNHV stocks_g_Page_027.QC.jpg
27707a34cf5adb173f1a313ad642b375
d0d3afe17c381c6142f387b18064b8c9879fc22b
74276 F20101114_AACMET stocks_g_Page_100.jpg
8eeb8a3f973c20f42a82dd8805e06e3b
ba4cbb30b8945da446f7fc57aadc80707eff6b06
2375 F20101114_AACLZN stocks_g_Page_089.txt
9cfb56ad846904bae5b66ccd42c63d44
201b403c730365b41ddae69a49fb854e50f6740c
71615 F20101114_AACMFH stocks_g_Page_115.jpg
45b53ce29e4d614f64ddb132f0684727
164c834c243b797c807a40d0f8b78c8036a1808c
20081 F20101114_AACNIK stocks_g_Page_030.QC.jpg
b4c3ab2301377f14b1401c136719dcd7
4eaa329a95ade9c7e1c562f6deb9ac1b0a1f84f9
25107 F20101114_AACNHW stocks_g_Page_050.QC.jpg
ee79c46429a9dfa24a9233b098da1dc4
103e79d0c2663b195d2745386a718dad44482a51
81842 F20101114_AACMEU stocks_g_Page_101.jpg
a48fe3b2e6669f50e79170179638af10
01c375ab36277deb9579701c587a8b5f5a18e110
19284 F20101114_AACLZO stocks_g_Page_065.QC.jpg
7ce30306c0772bde1218d52d50ff6e2e
379460ca1594234835acd250695c2a0197e24474
72833 F20101114_AACMFI stocks_g_Page_116.jpg
b0bc9557a36950e94cf23bfc389f3fc0
21812a6c3fd4848ef33b687278be23f14f12689e
17964 F20101114_AACNJA stocks_g_Page_085.QC.jpg
c711eb17733fe2b79a9ff81ae501c788
248e053323c1886253f10f37b01d2600d0a33cb3
8371 F20101114_AACNIL stocks_g_Page_137.QC.jpg
4c268d738032e0c465190b2cb82edb14
dcdba80a725ee747e1fa5c617de2aecb78351424
4275 F20101114_AACNHX stocks_g_Page_046thm.jpg
5d59130fc67bf06d1ba8910cb4208c31
cc73bc8ab9e47fadec1ae8329e17d49b57407e7d
81755 F20101114_AACMEV stocks_g_Page_102.jpg
6f2394dd2bd198e688cba9895c80a977
5f41db0855145c321b6927939e0f35880bc0963c
19379 F20101114_AACLZP stocks_g_Page_053.QC.jpg
815f728a405eaa5e4891ebb5a85b0256
fc44ccf14c4019a20e81568d5afee46d42b1988f
72867 F20101114_AACMFJ stocks_g_Page_117.jpg
7c3ce6f557585be3535cca582188fbf8
6906334c6f95801dff373e0b5c8c044077b1de83
25163 F20101114_AACNJB stocks_g_Page_113.QC.jpg
4654f4b21ee79c052cf2b4358bbebe6d
cce99fc3ae49c214bad585cf7250867fa9be477b
6828 F20101114_AACNIM stocks_g_Page_098thm.jpg
bc453497c5105d07e41e89e53bdfb1f4
a069e9c79a46799a79bface37eec8954f611f577
3165 F20101114_AACNHY stocks_g_Page_032thm.jpg
91e48597a925454f15c76f13ce17ffd0
440573ff4bf7acfd5e4b416904069da1874eadba
65753 F20101114_AACMEW stocks_g_Page_103.jpg
7012c84e8e2480dd70b99eeef0d29573
649448b7cd80db4fb9346a860748b6e16a73f275
6143 F20101114_AACLZQ stocks_g_Page_006thm.jpg
92f607d4fb2d1b78909efcaf2fa75206
8801f1ebcc8f0807ef14c8671295bf88185ae478
71431 F20101114_AACMFK stocks_g_Page_118.jpg
1585fbe8385208c2e727948fc5c3fa8d
df27e0fa6359932632667982736577feaa3a871e
24819 F20101114_AACNJC stocks_g_Page_094.QC.jpg
6d7107f228d36aa0ba6305fa10c0a240
77252bdc9e7e6e43ec74e0bb9d8ce75642b3bb3b
7146 F20101114_AACNIN stocks_g_Page_043thm.jpg
b201f1fb7ac11419c221e4a56624da5b
f1f78995ab4d2811a0978499346bf09153d2ee45
5572 F20101114_AACNHZ stocks_g_Page_082thm.jpg
7d715213c39f7664a97160b6c1515323
eebe8e3de8ae94e4f6df613c34247081a1a5f7e1
83294 F20101114_AACMEX stocks_g_Page_104.jpg
cc956e8a54e29135b8b6f44aaec06b30
73d2c17fbd6d3b5c39cc7db4c0644528c13f41ea
5454 F20101114_AACLZR stocks_g_Page_066thm.jpg
1a8adb706925f77e2a43ee80103cd7af
32aceac55b90931cf549a02d354d1538d4de2184
92832 F20101114_AACMGA stocks_g_Page_135.jpg
9b1e8bca42ab4dc19b8b7a9f63cf31cb
5444effc10d65f1123e055979d4a002f36b6c5e8
77914 F20101114_AACMFL stocks_g_Page_119.jpg
676814810a81190d3049ab6b41ed3e88
2b86573fe6665c4a94d22cd02453a27aece03894
2428 F20101114_AACNJD stocks_g_Page_107thm.jpg
776995f7067ec6ba2195108ac3d32118
c96fd93813952a3222803e26f1b963bcff6c1b87
25188 F20101114_AACNIO stocks_g_Page_101.QC.jpg
c2dac863ebbf099853328bb121c3fbf7
005613c6f828dd8cfe4afd30e01ca6f07d3b839d
78302 F20101114_AACMEY stocks_g_Page_106.jpg
9b76da75a3aafff2313a5c6af36a93b3
dd1ec5ecc579a150e23c4d90d21cc8bd15d90f4e
1053954 F20101114_AACLZS stocks_g_Page_020.tif
dc1c73943ca02f66a8454e5f9bd59b0d
9233971e1adbc74911e28876169bcbdd4b07e3bb
40987 F20101114_AACMGB stocks_g_Page_136.jpg
fe9f032f50920b742396d76aaa90060d
a396076d6da0ed81b4deb9e01616c561c2009bd2
77812 F20101114_AACMFM stocks_g_Page_120.jpg
c61a9fbde72c77f4e3f9fe0d4be0e7fc
b7b99da63afd858efd37dbbddadf2bf5be72ee43
6902 F20101114_AACNJE stocks_g_Page_126thm.jpg
235db58d40e4cf35c91c1097fa41c258
b4f2919ba14666c63af3d5a696ef03077662d60c
6786 F20101114_AACNIP stocks_g_Page_113thm.jpg
b0af12a88811b1334974f7f6cb6891ca
5a2cc9c068841191dcbbec075ca767cc0858841e
22498 F20101114_AACMEZ stocks_g_Page_107.jpg
624f147de24baeb437c276b0d90b24a9
52e370b108decdd3dc274daa116626438895d26c
118541 F20101114_AACLZT stocks_g_Page_018.jp2
91524af59696778f3236c81386acf379
cef12efcb3937500ca9099fdaa94bcc9e1fc386f
27522 F20101114_AACMGC stocks_g_Page_137.jpg
61dd613ca2381858136fc6351582a206
b634ccc1c01e856cf1328d9e30d38ecc4406e10f
71668 F20101114_AACMFN stocks_g_Page_121.jpg
6ecc96eb483d3cf7f288d7574a2f15f4
e4d636fb886239fb3d8f82ce83a738edb400cb18
6874 F20101114_AACNIQ stocks_g_Page_058thm.jpg
886baa75f04ab1acd2e6aec0217fb77c
ae956145aa5369a12cb9fc54205a6c0ad583317f
2019 F20101114_AACLZU stocks_g_Page_091.txt
3030fa97c45379cc91ca1599c4fffe71
df5c0f4e00356b70b66b96ed8eb1185e74edc00a
81209 F20101114_AACMFO stocks_g_Page_122.jpg
fd732bc8feb0a380110f9aa671132816
dc881a07a1bf388eef946600ded72d1fcb68994f
26351 F20101114_AACNJF stocks_g_Page_104.QC.jpg
63cc0ef033161a8bc1fca988c5425249
a291ffd0bae42a5fc4bfd460d36db462ac598d9c
6862 F20101114_AACNIR stocks_g_Page_019thm.jpg
38f575c28ce040d5aaae1ad5b41f109c
8b5853aecaa7a4b8c6d74ad9a2c55d33d5bf6f88
59616 F20101114_AACLZV stocks_g_Page_065.jpg
3893a9e5d5a3ee90fd94c94e50b2b70e
4009877ff8425e9ae58ed821a6f08b7c53c9edec
30496 F20101114_AACMGD stocks_g_Page_138.jpg
81325b2f63875deba5b02cce132e5e6b
35f8654047797884963c766abd36838cb0a740d2
74467 F20101114_AACMFP stocks_g_Page_123.jpg
acb99a01174c29507ea83f0362b068ba
0cc5ec31227b3a4a3ad42fc54e604bae45ba2e76
24316 F20101114_AACNJG stocks_g_Page_041.QC.jpg
fbcbef1d25eea4fa19ac4cbc91feac79
d228d25918a88e5c025090e98486176d8f13e808
22889 F20101114_AACNIS stocks_g_Page_086.QC.jpg
629fa59c90f4ff2979f2b546f8c865b2
dd087ffac0a498ec61ad70e6e22d1f49e54b2029
54401 F20101114_AACLZW stocks_g_Page_130.pro
07dfd2cadec08474a25ee6d68fa47b63
1fcdc24d32163f73c698090d98bd629a2aacc0d5
75311 F20101114_AACMGE stocks_g_Page_139.jpg
08f246bb06b607e7d3b16c7cecd63f21
f9cfa87ece188fa49e12f4c6717f69168ec983c2
73859 F20101114_AACMFQ stocks_g_Page_124.jpg
20bf4d51bc44f4448b06b8aeb41c2278
e7012b794171db38f820b2fe64f34d42721e02db
26352 F20101114_AACNJH stocks_g_Page_131.QC.jpg
c579ae191fdd42ecf9e854134233420e
c6685ba3f24eb73b970a9f7241fe9d1b4c2fce09
6589 F20101114_AACNIT stocks_g_Page_078thm.jpg
a0e8e36e2635502924d84ddf1159764c
72bac13e34d0a6d63bd6ecaea56812380ed47117
73304 F20101114_AACMGF stocks_g_Page_140.jpg
def16280ccf8b3403eaa0b9de7800c06
1ac4f02cfedd2f8fd81f869fa7b72cc0794dc3e2
79807 F20101114_AACMFR stocks_g_Page_125.jpg
7692bcc8aed3edfc5aee51276ebfc1bd
a6a50ec7c47ee1b296bba30e49f09497accc1ad1
6592 F20101114_AACNJI stocks_g_Page_054thm.jpg
e4c334110c3c717773db3587f02c1748
d82f556df9acc701254e046205b406e48e08f7b9
6693 F20101114_AACNIU stocks_g_Page_057thm.jpg
c566973996a8b10528f68ea46bdcaf3a
d859723dbe276a2c977a6cbb78c8cb50a026b13f
F20101114_AACLZX stocks_g_Page_036.tif
f1f270c032cf95e6b5d181c2b3c8cdfa
19d826c4b3522fc2efc5436676cc90515166fd16
77255 F20101114_AACMGG stocks_g_Page_141.jpg
a8039ad448c5a2a92e0e441d16e1f74f
ce427820e19cb92f0c6942703b3277254c3a08e9
76646 F20101114_AACMFS stocks_g_Page_126.jpg
b229552e53c6ef1c5394039449968df7
375201521c2e11894d3168a535fc5b1edab668f9
11792 F20101114_AACNJJ stocks_g_Page_136.QC.jpg
89cded4ee49ef04002aa5dbc6fd86940
d82e5d476d920d81ebb23c2e84cf12ce3725dc37
23576 F20101114_AACNIV stocks_g_Page_009.QC.jpg
c3a153d98de173b4b5aedd75e1634d2e
8a06b52e28fc9b8250d4ac10a670503b10d8ff7d
50667 F20101114_AACLZY stocks_g_Page_091.pro
9a39081337a09b08ad922527fa178772
3947b6120ce94e9342b6dca4590a569dfe51f58a
75653 F20101114_AACMGH stocks_g_Page_142.jpg
b95a1b1dfee1e76715b89988a7fd4538
bd7d6ba795eca49089cbbeaeed573a3d7802a18f
75217 F20101114_AACMFT stocks_g_Page_127.jpg
f5d5d9f286f9fde7735c0eafef537a07
730d3018904e57cae73e1bd1c71bc8a0a9c73fc8
26372 F20101114_AACNJK stocks_g_Page_125.QC.jpg
0fab8ac92cd6f4c9e4616219e9d0dea1
7d9a24d318f5ad387a4d5de58943b54d8965171a
6109 F20101114_AACNIW stocks_g_Page_021thm.jpg
21a5950444a411c39089bd4b84989820
d0a4b07361bcbb4839169853327b2fe07f88f387
2205 F20101114_AACLZZ stocks_g_Page_139.txt
82814bfe7cbd4a063f628b78a21f596c
53172a3b08f3b7520e9d978aae5b3da55ca823d1
37842 F20101114_AACMGI stocks_g_Page_143.jpg
44791f42f9809b0e8d48baa6dcc2044c
e77cb46a68c3df2a7673323d088fab3de5ef8822
73616 F20101114_AACMFU stocks_g_Page_128.jpg
ef15fac69ce37aedf38da4c1a650b624
468e36500d74c87976244b8f35d4cbe78b15f5e8
7440 F20101114_AACNKA stocks_g_Page_012.QC.jpg
d34ba71b8f1523591a7067c9273a0b5c
cb502a8823dc7328d303548d8692529d02d1f9fb
6373 F20101114_AACNJL stocks_g_Page_118thm.jpg
65bd153f4d35e62c3b0c90113f53f8e6
e223433f852e6b244558aa804718900b439d40b9
22953 F20101114_AACNIX stocks_g_Page_033.QC.jpg
a3965919ff723fc98a9dcc95cb5245ad
fbfe8b3df2b3c3c510b5433a8d24882da1b61c63
27122 F20101114_AACMGJ stocks_g_Page_144.jpg
0d533f4201327d5e351eb9285d8b15c5
08671d570fdd9657a2271a152653c1f2461691e6
78319 F20101114_AACMFV stocks_g_Page_129.jpg
c779ea3ea233d59966d8f921214024e7
575a41fd8a67f6394c0e7e5b8d16dd05fec0fb83
23242 F20101114_AACNKB stocks_g_Page_036.QC.jpg
20aa344687d38d3aace73d30765d36ed
4c0a10187ed24dbf8379591c8e73896e457b1a0f
22449 F20101114_AACNJM stocks_g_Page_099.QC.jpg
f7b1dadd95ea3853990fd94a94f58f76
bfb0435a83a860cde32329441bf0ea7c923bd868
23882 F20101114_AACNIY stocks_g_Page_081.QC.jpg
a9bc1fb32cb67c948c07241f80053a7b
4c710c5ce5d2e075e8433285cd2c584e15e63699
23402 F20101114_AACMGK stocks_g_Page_001.jp2
57ef501843b0528c7d505715e831051c
a6c168e204a2e0480a8447e70f2ff8bbfa3167e8
75697 F20101114_AACMFW stocks_g_Page_130.jpg
4b31df3d3be864b3e3c044eac1c1769a
fc113c7dc6905f79f28815a577d8b8b8e8117403
2681 F20101114_AACNKC stocks_g_Page_011thm.jpg
42136d790fdf4a35fe91584061ff5ea1
773ef2196bae07537b86cd300b2de4d28329cf94
6643 F20101114_AACNJN stocks_g_Page_128thm.jpg
4ee8be4e46387e1bc8ab9d5f99a25d91
3d2bce4a01947cd1c1a9afe90beca6d4ecfed42b
17525 F20101114_AACNIZ stocks_g_Page_070.QC.jpg
5055d67a111baaf57a4c655b84645b7d
cd9a95e0a4ed31436b84bbc0426a55e92cf9155c
108582 F20101114_AACMHA stocks_g_Page_017.jp2
aa45476d348ae59392df2da245f5f6e0
62927a8f5e048aeae47ceef7670bb40eb371be97
5091 F20101114_AACMGL stocks_g_Page_002.jp2
23ffdc402c1d95fd3c572763f24d6cac
cde106e39194ce7b080f66d8fbc421983fd51108
78199 F20101114_AACMFX stocks_g_Page_131.jpg
aa63ed6622d4a05d86a28b454bd1da82
bd75b5371e4ba3044ce0d93ee9aaa5a153cc914e
6741 F20101114_AACNKD stocks_g_Page_133thm.jpg
165788411961807c231dbe2f436be0c0
fd25a17fdcd69cf20a4a134402a69c9eab4968da
6824 F20101114_AACNJO stocks_g_Page_081thm.jpg
1d04c9e990bc3f2c9839331a960da170
f7ac42b6fbb8611659747a03808b4a14f6590564
118907 F20101114_AACMHB stocks_g_Page_019.jp2
8de2adbd6e3613a924d19dce79562b0f
48962a12c012e4c3bf4c73d809bbf79af6b8b662
4915 F20101114_AACMGM stocks_g_Page_003.jp2
c7e34cd52eb2ec1e3f624b0a4b3afebd
a0ca61839039ef4e0a5f81bcc407aac42f75c312
75657 F20101114_AACMFY stocks_g_Page_132.jpg
800ec94076e1bc011404325893c6c9b4
94f0d43fe0b605d12bc82d4b839c6bf5d17e15fa
26040 F20101114_AACNKE stocks_g_Page_133.QC.jpg
488615136dea9b475266f3cca51e8dfa
7e2f01c533ed37b51e79032f7375adf652678660
F20101114_AACNJP stocks_g_Page_095thm.jpg
48d086afcd39fc018c495f9701fba670
e4e3eb2daf8e9c35e611fbb9341214024ec059a3
118382 F20101114_AACMHC stocks_g_Page_020.jp2
bda8ae1af611f754ba840a24444daa23
a8cd7f8dca9b13e0a5f7a7248d6e79244eaeb6c4
92695 F20101114_AACMGN stocks_g_Page_004.jp2
ddd1b36972de9b191b3b2562d36475df
4af47c5af0d7499897f6e817e9d5dbfdee4880e4
72441 F20101114_AACMFZ stocks_g_Page_134.jpg
c2ca268f8c5dd2672a15e16f5d98db97
26fe0fba6dd9abd3d0744fc96aebbc54f4dafd23
24351 F20101114_AACNKF stocks_g_Page_078.QC.jpg
11ca6aa77d3bd9b7501527139a98f2b6
4ec718edd260919636e5a12bf7667d2180fbfd68
26251 F20101114_AACNJQ stocks_g_Page_087.QC.jpg
009bc266947a20b8f5c429fdcdb6eae1
62759a558fb9569a690db0710583fbf890418a03
948139 F20101114_AACMHD stocks_g_Page_021.jp2
9463356214afb2543413890ab671ce4a
74b4b9e17ec1e9069e7bebc5c81a0fc6970bf7e5
1051980 F20101114_AACMGO stocks_g_Page_005.jp2
087bf67bc24e0a260999806da421f53d
82e3bfd840c7d42634d819010d372c49510f35c9
23764 F20101114_AACNJR stocks_g_Page_096.QC.jpg
3f305baf621c67932c48f68dda11bac2
3ac2386650c2ce92dc518fdb46e1003459b95811
1051981 F20101114_AACMGP stocks_g_Page_006.jp2
fa4e3a63a3ff583147e8f9564862d9db
d156d2be28707a6d49fa2d714e9f0fd6cc9c8afd
6531 F20101114_AACNKG stocks_g_Page_035thm.jpg
8ef4bcb580788669281c842fc61fafd4
70c7764310a2403b68039316116554878f6b558f
23372 F20101114_AACNJS stocks_g_Page_110.QC.jpg
d076d26542ab2884ad9a5085ecd68c28
8d8a170ce1a2018eeb40b16e0a420b0cfa9e01e0
111766 F20101114_AACMHE stocks_g_Page_022.jp2
733e65971234fee7af81316a652ca369
c6cc375f03a56cf20ba90b11de71eedba39fc0f5
334323 F20101114_AACMGQ stocks_g_Page_007.jp2
e0f4cef04b59de6efbc62edafefa05d6
79598ed0f42aceb8e5d0fc34015356800161a958
23486 F20101114_AACNKH stocks_g_Page_105.QC.jpg
418622e815d276d98cb112418dfa9c47
e61d2d60241f233017c2bbfcf77c9a1b599e471f
25872 F20101114_AACNJT stocks_g_Page_076.QC.jpg
7e04b916421a852008aec3439a3ef6bc
017d600e9ba03bbb3831932b0bf6551bd25f629f
1051969 F20101114_AACMHF stocks_g_Page_023.jp2
93a0f7d9f73475c6305e8c2202ae0595
8356f14bb647e88aa31a58a046370f0fc604ad31
420132 F20101114_AACMGR stocks_g_Page_008.jp2
0898f8c3c3d21d3b76e734a8d3ff16cb
4cb8a7a37a82205b8b153b905931d97c5f060039
6628 F20101114_AACNKI stocks_g_Page_116thm.jpg
e38a8979ec4586428f8ddc47f75c4b42
dd64962e30956885275384a28d998932442aff48
23907 F20101114_AACNJU stocks_g_Page_017.QC.jpg
894e1e77e819c1d1c3227c16e361c00c
6cf2747451e12fce1a13262438cf85fd6b7defac
112804 F20101114_AACMHG stocks_g_Page_024.jp2
ba5de16450672e4c969af64995b0855a
790c50c1d598dcfe6256915442c4aa230f168931
1051983 F20101114_AACMGS stocks_g_Page_009.jp2
300512875656a81d193b77291c5b101a
3172082c29285255432c797233b35fa7b650c48f
6807 F20101114_AACNKJ stocks_g_Page_109thm.jpg
53fa4fc90d5273aad3fb0ff53c440126
bad66513977ab160d66e7bc263e615c6e2036379
6307 F20101114_AACNJV stocks_g_Page_097thm.jpg
88b80a59706f8cddd1d08cdb69eade2e
4e0c763970e886238e9ea1e85ac2f9e57a5b54e4
119173 F20101114_AACMHH stocks_g_Page_026.jp2
a0613e6658a79e1433c2923b0530e1c0
16833361e287d5eb7b5a4ba8372931418d17ffe8
1051974 F20101114_AACMGT stocks_g_Page_010.jp2
2e83515ceb20f79955a4fda5f191a9b5
b310bc8cea0f676953a880892bbb150881c1af77
6738 F20101114_AACNKK stocks_g_Page_064thm.jpg
3d201c6e171c56a270a9ceb33b94c839
371c6331064d213df26d89c43a8a5ce81a64903b
10571 F20101114_AACNJW stocks_g_Page_143.QC.jpg
f298c18cf6a964aab58c7440c8629cc0
07d32a28f13b629881085a949319b82146936e3f
120363 F20101114_AACMHI stocks_g_Page_027.jp2
835dc5064fd91a6a29f825fe17c14a2e
eb49e8755252daf17d8abb5d3979567d4fe24225
26820 F20101114_AACMGU stocks_g_Page_011.jp2
84e9f335cc53d79194d12c53bb32f913
18725d2037e84bf48cfd61a391688c17d143f7be
5826 F20101114_AACNLA stocks_g_Page_004thm.jpg
4d92e944fbc00a5eae127c735c1e017d
194aded2fdfe5f6a440950e85884e4be745d14f9
24460 F20101114_AACNKL stocks_g_Page_023.QC.jpg
f6590354e8a33b35b3403e050cc0c745
6e7886c673f9c865c978fb253c2e46864a150083
25789 F20101114_AACNJX stocks_g_Page_106.QC.jpg
c311798454ea22511de2eb721c14d215
83c92e77881538c425a587580408e8b4477f2592
119466 F20101114_AACMHJ stocks_g_Page_028.jp2
bafe6c31db7841b7c1ab702cdd2aa57c
538729052734220355c2e4e9439d96cac2b4a22f
24975 F20101114_AACMGV stocks_g_Page_012.jp2
9d2e8194bfa384f25355222b83253146
d43f879a75cee0d23b9404e64d15ed41f47d68dc
24137 F20101114_AACNLB stocks_g_Page_006.QC.jpg
ee3ff7e953ec6a862144d43697798602
df4875e99defb94fff0cb49260a4ad94c11157d2
21131 F20101114_AACNKM stocks_g_Page_134.QC.jpg
2605d2c616564698fef6da6e947b245f
565639302269602ba2cc11cb487645dea45dff7f
6710 F20101114_AACNJY stocks_g_Page_100thm.jpg
25e3e157367a96d53b14c5bcf6efd008
d8a1e7b72230a9e698ddb0ffe111fb8f49a5c579
110931 F20101114_AACMHK stocks_g_Page_029.jp2
0b1a6970aaaf05ddcc69eb956bede30a
e4ea53c5c2f407e345d9be998b840feaaad1d73a
23210 F20101114_AACMGW stocks_g_Page_013.jp2
7b9a5122f36eab41085ad1d6ce4754cb
dd9c4a6e5e056b5d094a41187da88447265833b9
2312 F20101114_AACNLC stocks_g_Page_008thm.jpg
72d809921cf96d9e44415ed6200a8fb6
0a3a864c5b0067a781292bfa5003f4b79c0c2626
25392 F20101114_AACNKN stocks_g_Page_042.QC.jpg
b0cc946fb76fbff7c7a368c55733e0b1
dd3fc9c1d1b48fbfe8a3e6336ff5cb2fa3daeb3a
24393 F20101114_AACNJZ stocks_g_Page_116.QC.jpg
a8a8cbc083784b78a71fe01f762a81b6
aa9ce84203ca58b1a2f5c5eb8ec255efc3b11c9f
1009692 F20101114_AACMHL stocks_g_Page_030.jp2
1da97a75a30fd76c0da897cc516c0292
c4901465ecc995dc5c0d291e49401b1756608627
14544 F20101114_AACMGX stocks_g_Page_014.jp2
c8fe0d57c0a9565e009de85f8b08f56c
e3b49c176c96f112f18c72bf6a7665130b6cb5e3
531022 F20101114_AACMIA stocks_g_Page_046.jp2
a014ec71bd4a84333191450bb8af8d61
2e0a51453766c53f41e0282996bc2bbe806740f5
12078 F20101114_AACNLD stocks_g_Page_010.QC.jpg
6df083447c7f64c46f96e3c2a6536453
77550c4613509ca4e9294f57141179e66f5fdb3e
22335 F20101114_AACNKO stocks_g_Page_075.QC.jpg
e27c9210ac145416a3b98a4bf10f0d09
ef3751563b22f2911cf40c6ac308200b0421a7ed
111495 F20101114_AACMHM stocks_g_Page_031.jp2
04091c21539c989739b00454d9de1f38
c60581d80eca7ed094e7565f6e5a427fe406959f
96247 F20101114_AACMGY stocks_g_Page_015.jp2
41f7e18c91619edf41f06f4b53292947
8c185d9cbace3bf7685e565b4d0052ecd0b8cddb
480860 F20101114_AACMIB stocks_g_Page_047.jp2
a067204bf4a4614aa054fd713b02e142
1961a41096e8d2e10963034c6f7d12fdde85aa47
5133 F20101114_AACNLE stocks_g_Page_014.QC.jpg
3af329256c57b8a2800edb5036cdeacc
2fe0af338121031b923d8b1c37b27ebc4a7b81d4
F20101114_AACNKP stocks_g_Page_048thm.jpg
22fd5a8b648aadbc8c16ecfd4cd8d0e0
fd9a9bd674431eca107cc39d526172b8947fb418
42924 F20101114_AACMHN stocks_g_Page_032.jp2
94dd7ca95ab565c9374c6e3f3aabd32d
91bf34de3ca7138968f0acbb2231f9a08a482659
46509 F20101114_AACMGZ stocks_g_Page_016.jp2
1ce69d4ae0426390a93751cb58557d48
5fe1f6f390e30c4953a2a321b4a29a2588b9ed18
1051956 F20101114_AACMIC stocks_g_Page_048.jp2
7f5bfdb559b63affec4237fdcc333da5
00936d57d9060ec76fbe68a74307c028e9d715b3
1947 F20101114_AACNLF stocks_g_Page_014thm.jpg
b82e19cb6d3128d8f31d25d92e5baddb
a1caf48293d5998e08ce510d2af04cabde428f19
6988 F20101114_AACNKQ stocks_g_Page_027thm.jpg
5df0e5625e59e607d6c6411801c3afd3
58907088aacf88a6f0a14726bccaed4e12fe92a1
109949 F20101114_AACMID stocks_g_Page_049.jp2
2277c363c43c97b82b74116e09ea7d20
be2ec890d4fde9534921213107fbb58b10a721a3
104978 F20101114_AACMHO stocks_g_Page_033.jp2
4c0b4a85702c514ac804af7016541485
ca66b2b7011e7d9b0a4b69afcd7bfae024e8c37a
5828 F20101114_AACNLG stocks_g_Page_015thm.jpg
d1243ed0872c2a65b85ff079a146d176
3878d9644ab11846fe7c7ebfc40cc1c1b207e5fc
26376 F20101114_AACNKR stocks_g_Page_112.QC.jpg
e8b57e705ef8e9f2d01a081d54a71a4c
d8a036437c3fe5d2cb728c876d215b3bb6856ce5
114110 F20101114_AACMIE stocks_g_Page_050.jp2
627d40c87c4aba9b28a16f887ea1c7a8
ec411e0c29ce0694f1352f6ea286bbd4d8302052
101078 F20101114_AACMHP stocks_g_Page_034.jp2
6cc46e1bea8a87efbaffd400a2573416
13d463e06210903943e9cd2fae882676e32e86ae
6086 F20101114_AACNKS stocks_g_Page_103thm.jpg
46b6ffa1174596e63d1ddee672af6acc
3a6757b416cc281d7d6a6b89abfbde1526023eab
112042 F20101114_AACMHQ stocks_g_Page_035.jp2
c552cecace0916e807f7485712d7de40
0183e81627cd67fd2bcea0526b85782b36e7e879
10787 F20101114_AACNLH stocks_g_Page_016.QC.jpg
c3053103ae633654e988d2c1faeb8a11
fdf31f9b76b21b2a6bf981efc39f770423048551
6915 F20101114_AACNKT stocks_g_Page_062thm.jpg
534bacde3514d49835b70373b31e3876
2ac8d5ec52da647fed49e97f9ca7c8114023ed3d
993811 F20101114_AACMIF stocks_g_Page_051.jp2
e3ea1670070be8c2c3e0c18b6c164a3f
e640f91abb7f889f608fe00575246e7d6e8323a6
106237 F20101114_AACMHR stocks_g_Page_036.jp2
8525270ba6809c743f827fec8925e499
6e3b6306169f8e16415428f14fc97af80555af45
6996 F20101114_AACNLI stocks_g_Page_018thm.jpg
139478ebb23ee2ac7cec74fe60d8a099
130778eed691d84a81e30dd80aa2860fe3f809b8
26869 F20101114_AACNKU stocks_g_Page_122.QC.jpg
96a053c827be6dbb2552dd78ad2e587b
e24b81596a133ce3071edeaf324850fffe80fb31
108281 F20101114_AACMIG stocks_g_Page_052.jp2
e2d3922d7f47d62ff8eaa5bf403cc714
7f4b755bb1777258c2873d711e56cc792bc9c547
110403 F20101114_AACMHS stocks_g_Page_037.jp2
606f8ad888d88d40e10e13779fc19be1
8661afc7b99f2ec47b71592eabd8ab3e93b5880c
25234 F20101114_AACNLJ stocks_g_Page_019.QC.jpg
70de6604740006fa1fe470646859e6ac
b280788050c464415262fb2bac1693f867438f4c
21249 F20101114_AACNKV stocks_g_Page_103.QC.jpg
1fbdc1c532221e18d6d952d89545ddea
48d03c67928776deaa2df92f665f77d589426cd6
745354 F20101114_AACMIH stocks_g_Page_053.jp2
03b3554d4d9e7c9378c49464791c99f9
038cc0c1a2db977274dec62decc7c6dc9c2cfbd3
1051941 F20101114_AACMHT stocks_g_Page_038.jp2
949433f8e33b8b2b6dd25e9938316900
83751c9de7f51d8f9bbae2568dd5d468a8a60c98
24114 F20101114_AACNLK stocks_g_Page_029.QC.jpg
61a96283cb34efc318e2f30ba9dacae1
8e32861dcfdca414f8f6a391d2613d8a6f0a777b
22793 F20101114_AACNKW stocks_g_Page_038.QC.jpg
054996f521bedf5ebda014e9078cc75c
247266197b5139bf2d4eaebe4dcc947cf67f9d29
104121 F20101114_AACMII stocks_g_Page_054.jp2
beffc672300cf1e5744dd2283fff223f
ef2a891904c4e5602ffcbb1e2b12537f1b88e3ab
113123 F20101114_AACMHU stocks_g_Page_039.jp2
ad2afae8fb85db3efedb719ca94e039f
0f156839bfea25d14eea385060213bf1ba89e005
21286 F20101114_AACNMA stocks_g_Page_073.QC.jpg
b6b32d655148121e8a948a84b3a99c48
1a1a13c40757cc121da23609b9b1a2b6e1180be0
6860 F20101114_AACNLL stocks_g_Page_037thm.jpg
dc6320af59bc388ad91b75809cba973d
5347bf7b6efc13a90d5e1f8110636b5c418ac526
6889 F20101114_AACNKX stocks_g_Page_131thm.jpg
73a9419b8561e4947d506899ddcb8ac2
be6153699bf1805b06393edfb041a08e9308444e
101580 F20101114_AACMIJ stocks_g_Page_055.jp2
43aca8083c5d313008ba5db36183784a
77fff8da255b47f3d1aa467cd6e227e5deb21516
49199 F20101114_AACMHV stocks_g_Page_040.jp2
f8695652aece88f56a2648985a665106
069d13d0cb2ca5dd81e61d1a44849f308f26e769
5962 F20101114_AACNMB stocks_g_Page_080thm.jpg
6db74e5a4df7859f562de0870ab2a4b3
a11cd0ef9f20991a895294f390469af9e9376c20
24956 F20101114_AACNLM stocks_g_Page_039.QC.jpg
e58cb3b1eb8fd7c8b918af5ef65b998a
499626d5694c98aec637c59f56e3408b495eb9c1
6354 F20101114_AACNKY stocks_g_Page_142thm.jpg
8e1f4f549a6f6929c7eeb1e90525c936
f0bc4d79d83643a13fffc1be930ca0e72257d6af
830396 F20101114_AACMIK stocks_g_Page_056.jp2
eac88334dc10c4236b49b5ff6b4f5340
b8eec15f43ed1f332027be279f3328bfadc80588
115474 F20101114_AACMHW stocks_g_Page_042.jp2
050de3042e6438dfe8624645304b23e7
a1371479fe1a7a2ef147fc11caacbd9cf5f1ddbc
22733 F20101114_AACNMC stocks_g_Page_083.QC.jpg
e793c8e91d969c1403266debd715a41f
25c91c0b3530d27cc8d84473dece13a24f2e94fc
11534 F20101114_AACNLN stocks_g_Page_040.QC.jpg
1f03d2af0cf0fe2c45392a944ec991fd
c53567662727d9fe7ebef5fb59fe3afa08ce5533
215321 F20101114_AACNKZ UFE0021111_00001.xml FULL
9e234c1489209308d3d15e5b6d83cab8
45269f76706a48babe45f430c6ffb79dd57cc44f
783019 F20101114_AACMJA stocks_g_Page_072.jp2
e78fecdf35470eea6027fba18336f3cd
da9c9e2adddd14e3679f793bafa2d918995fbf22
111473 F20101114_AACMIL stocks_g_Page_057.jp2
709154f70df25d96310c9a5cd390aeb8
ada8146bc4be943269466aefe3f77714727d4f57
130639 F20101114_AACMHX stocks_g_Page_043.jp2
1cd114117cbf68144656a66be19bebc9
7cdff810cd3c446f7ff724afc2391dfca52dbd18
7001 F20101114_AACNMD stocks_g_Page_094thm.jpg
83d9765482f8ffe2a0091fcd8cdc88a5
b630ddbf7286fbc51e9af09f044f689ea60df32a
23987 F20101114_AACNLO stocks_g_Page_045.QC.jpg
7fa36c6ef1e5595374fb68cc76be3893
704b71b6793d4f52b7fdfffee4c4c89937f4539c
99703 F20101114_AACMJB stocks_g_Page_073.jp2
dcda5a175bf2456ebb390a26cf591a60
10095e93b515a22309f085dc615007b3b6396958
131867 F20101114_AACMIM stocks_g_Page_058.jp2
5b3ac8bc4cd64a51635f869d7f251d98
800c72326fa1a019baa0daddd9909c50de577863
1051975 F20101114_AACMHY stocks_g_Page_044.jp2
22bbb9de36d0bc2653eb902885f4e266
db3fdf08c95c0eedebebf943be2100dfe4d2074c
6560 F20101114_AACNME stocks_g_Page_096thm.jpg
328e51be9ae63c1c5982502e522d1534
d04016b1b6b6fdc81235e365894974856f3ac17a
23220 F20101114_AACNLP stocks_g_Page_048.QC.jpg
dd7c25f23cdad6974da610566dad89d2
757d78c768fc45273264c72b4eb8ed54a809d490
113180 F20101114_AACMJC stocks_g_Page_074.jp2
0790ac297223dc3fc6b3dacac59b5f1f
0062f0b46df61723d747e4ca16850be87a94b50e
652777 F20101114_AACMIN stocks_g_Page_059.jp2
52032a226a1c7846379055515a4eb417
2000224fe1c47d9ff1e9327cee6bf2110e86d710
111753 F20101114_AACMHZ stocks_g_Page_045.jp2
af5c3dd4fae88b7878ab15f440043604
0307a498c29e4a444ca5f3a6eb32b22b1d80b5f3
6884 F20101114_AACNMF stocks_g_Page_102thm.jpg
bc6203a37b34232e865fa5e275db5d39
b568477a56cfdb29352f769bfe1b8a26a8c43288
6837 F20101114_AACNLQ stocks_g_Page_050thm.jpg
6bd099c31b74c82d5e4bd5ba3d5200bb
d6625820176af61bba719aaaae22f60ca2c239aa
117722 F20101114_AACMJD stocks_g_Page_076.jp2
3aa32a7619f79af955b1c78ec388569f
18e3820efb2397240c8c2129e9e0be95a28d9dc5
115814 F20101114_AACMIO stocks_g_Page_060.jp2
7fd7d43429ddf5c88ca5661db6ad7fdc
231463e6380098283b13a032fd4d99b9f2f996b7
5280 F20101114_AACNMG stocks_g_Page_114thm.jpg
91b2931d3fe883f1d51d39d02dab00b0
235062a66a7b87b581c773019f9370035d64ece2
6332 F20101114_AACNLR stocks_g_Page_051thm.jpg
1641b12fbcaf6bdc908b7703c5ab8198
9be0d2de247122ede88b26bd5cdad7513d5f59a4
867210 F20101114_AACMJE stocks_g_Page_077.jp2
703f58f0fdf7d2e1f9dea0ce07e9c324
83a2b18daaa0ed3d5bdf87f740c1f9540df3f90b
107288 F20101114_AACMIP stocks_g_Page_061.jp2
d56b5a4117c36f4b7758285d77240c23
2289d45a761cabb6c0fe8bc1bcc9ba4f5455c173
6658 F20101114_AACNMH stocks_g_Page_115thm.jpg
216a0ff865bc9ed3215657842f9fae11
b404f993aa368fbe547ddde2af4f17d760846769
23733 F20101114_AACNLS stocks_g_Page_052.QC.jpg
5e0b6637d2f01f0eedc6f31c99fdb6b2
b797cf13ebce6c4b0bc871abb5e21f0573286e66
112467 F20101114_AACMJF stocks_g_Page_078.jp2
a15c5792023fa7fe8967638e2e3409d4
8e63386e53a52c1800694423eb15066c5eab1584
116981 F20101114_AACMIQ stocks_g_Page_062.jp2
9bc04e1d367e41f49541c6393ed11bfb
0d81d908616fd79a72973a1ccd9d1e71e27bb20a
F20101114_AACNLT stocks_g_Page_052thm.jpg
b88e63b53841615eebbef88ce150ead9
227e95bc591179c0247f32fce74b41e1c93f09dc
107210 F20101114_AACMIR stocks_g_Page_063.jp2
e2fbc618e14ba5436b251c074a028222
7f7faff71ca62d18f1e1e0541be4d9859bb10027
6420 F20101114_AACNMI stocks_g_Page_121thm.jpg
08053c9aaf22e17e5689bfb653f0faa8
b65dd00f666212325a06570bd554d36606968ec1
6348 F20101114_AACNLU stocks_g_Page_055thm.jpg
b9502a218045af38ab5c358e664e9b13
779520109d116e9fde152fa4936a4ecd043dd89a
110051 F20101114_AACMJG stocks_g_Page_079.jp2
cdb6b98aaf15838cfbdd7e6cca72f3c1
ca960b58f6d648e8c8cddc560cbd9d3ba51ace49
1051958 F20101114_AACMIS stocks_g_Page_064.jp2
ba66176450230c11139b1070b3823521
3944e861346425e5efd625c223c1d16c0dd70a3d
24603 F20101114_AACNMJ stocks_g_Page_123.QC.jpg
7e5cde68afa4aad7175807eff7a19a87
76e7acdca04479cfa51b3bb09d7e9e2188ef6f28
18667 F20101114_AACNLV stocks_g_Page_056.QC.jpg
e5bc04f6448c32bc69548130822e8093
809b858eaa7d732806d4d40a2538e886d45c4a15
896049 F20101114_AACMJH stocks_g_Page_080.jp2
bd91947aeb17eee643fbc0d1cb6f7d58
bafb1dfd909a98e0b22efe632e9888d549e1f2ef
814496 F20101114_AACMIT stocks_g_Page_065.jp2
53860ddb73a7f79586b882e5bcb21830
a304ad0fcf45204e0a0fe7a3ea594608274db6b9
6675 F20101114_AACNMK stocks_g_Page_123thm.jpg
1fd89df406905aed0d461f81424f5315
824ee77307267960fa608d8cd88e40f593229740
23975 F20101114_AACNLW stocks_g_Page_061.QC.jpg
1ca3fa430b05b6e9693b47f3c57f1484
0c2958e461ea6df525265edd983b101ecc6d2b0e
110665 F20101114_AACMJI stocks_g_Page_081.jp2
612e123dc8dba823bb8f04b1fea3649d
b3f7e9fce351e6f34db49ca2a90a73939ff51b56
828922 F20101114_AACMIU stocks_g_Page_066.jp2
a2e78aab3d8e4680b3916e1eb2db7100
f55576182b3beedd3caea421b79229d5bff1cda1
3363 F20101114_AACNML stocks_g_Page_136thm.jpg
0b81d1c88c9875eb2a84730c74ad70ba
e8c168860bb28ea12bee948d79ba35d6e8bf1ee0
5459 F20101114_AACNLX stocks_g_Page_067thm.jpg
afb4e0cf1537590450252acbadf79a09
f16445ca2ae2505f14ff8aa5479686267b781ec9
845233 F20101114_AACMJJ stocks_g_Page_082.jp2
82c385887b0c1cc90f519b97d155671e
1f4c41a057568c1e35a7e7d1ade8f36787353725
87766 F20101114_AACMIV stocks_g_Page_067.jp2
074bcdd2aef95dfd6e588954616be384
9ad90e339c97e225cc0c86ea6e5199f53f32264d
21056 F20101114_AACNLY stocks_g_Page_068.QC.jpg
b8fff655192dee410bbe1cbb0fb2685e
0c710473b3a5292751a7d0df5a0340024af6b78a
104683 F20101114_AACMJK stocks_g_Page_083.jp2
9d2f07fd9bc615d2201016c1c6faffbe
438ebbada52f36088c97af796208deff599faa77
94365 F20101114_AACMIW stocks_g_Page_068.jp2
3222ae716bd1f5e4cfac515d527fca1f
b07d1f8908ae9c51be5db891c68535816d819b75
24653 F20101114_AACNLZ stocks_g_Page_069.QC.jpg
f8e33f8e8b30f5b1988baaa989edefa9
cd188a51ced1d00f2ff6207b8cf9fec296fc2d17
109090 F20101114_AACMJL stocks_g_Page_084.jp2
ff977c0195effb0c7285fbbfe34a6111
6d4acc928769d52f5e1b133fc5fa9feaff445f6e
111881 F20101114_AACMIX stocks_g_Page_069.jp2
2eed151965289c2bef18dbb89fd19fb3
3e8dde6cd0598e03a74d50775496fbc08ed60fe2
101813 F20101114_AACMKA stocks_g_Page_099.jp2
452103702785e5a741ccee29f6f38e73
561890e54274dc3137b8f5fc9b1ff2e3a7feccd5
81718 F20101114_AACMJM stocks_g_Page_085.jp2
204ab7a195ce55778b529dc10b6a6e89
5a389703f29917555b95221ee658de0e6b5070fc
845158 F20101114_AACMIY stocks_g_Page_070.jp2
5d3e24d79fe2bb650b7177ddea8bff35
644f46c44f451bdbfb4a276307d1536e0bc3f42e
112899 F20101114_AACMKB stocks_g_Page_100.jp2
57e680cb890c4ec479df441fb97c8248
a50b4eebe05fac191d7612b131231c79c016212a
106805 F20101114_AACMJN stocks_g_Page_086.jp2
6697afa2414d2ca1a2c6267fc3135c73
c00c6aaa8b78558e270a0826e589eb10a4660de2
753774 F20101114_AACMIZ stocks_g_Page_071.jp2
668e94ff7ed328f69ef0814edf12fc14
dc997605ed58ecf30cb2b4d44ba62f3b768cb73b
122125 F20101114_AACMKC stocks_g_Page_101.jp2
51f70988e14fde05508af5bdd5d48f02
e5f206b27899a0468516bde7392034945b1280b1
121307 F20101114_AACMJO stocks_g_Page_087.jp2
b9b671a8c9caa6757ba0a9c105909e0c
750b3d585625728820576394d820da7f45777a88
122991 F20101114_AACMKD stocks_g_Page_102.jp2
bf735d5f6876f11a02fc6738ddd4b384
c3d2124a6fac0d714ae3d3b8b31741537dfb667f
121183 F20101114_AACMJP stocks_g_Page_088.jp2
caddb8bc33a85bb9e34dba86333a0012
32412d4e7c2e494e5f3c611d691b9c33c005b064
98122 F20101114_AACMKE stocks_g_Page_103.jp2
66b46f19a2b572b5534f9482515270a7
3820f754aa7b7a1331b8eb46fd029e0da84f359b
126161 F20101114_AACMJQ stocks_g_Page_089.jp2
ac3c467eb00c0d4bb8c610bb3535a546
901a9a66a6035dac04c613a16b6ee470189c59b2
125716 F20101114_AACMKF stocks_g_Page_104.jp2
8d4c29d0b179b26a05ce0472cacbd465
690054debbaa35d9883da696067831496b218c68
119557 F20101114_AACMJR stocks_g_Page_090.jp2
99d76f5bbed04ddac375b84cb3eb80b0
a908177a7383c93328bd4d4b46c97493cd92323b
108653 F20101114_AACMKG stocks_g_Page_105.jp2
2dc4f7358b594ea3ca332e2b9acf8441
6d689ae877051e5da469e5fdae687f2bd288ea34
108710 F20101114_AACMJS stocks_g_Page_091.jp2
376ea9c7a499354a1b3341d833d208f9
85441889d046154286417ee5eb106c1a27ce9b20
114897 F20101114_AACMJT stocks_g_Page_092.jp2
b071a54a1870d74e419fbf76d589a4c1
d5291c0ebc1b1a0e8609469d3c8087d9cc486212
118787 F20101114_AACMKH stocks_g_Page_106.jp2
a41c0674ff43badb03b4179b2661f579
6a97b318e3954d68d85e7dc85a170afffa319ff6
113637 F20101114_AACMJU stocks_g_Page_093.jp2
7364d3b2a94bb6ee9e6e1a30e4014297
db8ff320f6393691b6aa6afedfc6881177926f0d
27934 F20101114_AACMKI stocks_g_Page_107.jp2
d03d279ef13bc1297ff52fac74510acc
de60af0488917372820a48b80bd113d62a6d3e48
113772 F20101114_AACMJV stocks_g_Page_094.jp2
94f1c049a3b858e9358100d7aab6c7e4
20aa76e8d5b0eb0d0124022886b6276bfd9802f9
107317 F20101114_AACMKJ stocks_g_Page_108.jp2
3f55ed49bdf346c1690e65b3dbcfeb0e
3de9f9012add07d484f61e4713509f35640d5f3d
102262 F20101114_AACMJW stocks_g_Page_095.jp2
48aa7aebe7712d711bff61f462f5ba44
4d848c2ff4774600f3a6b249a3ac9f9d9ee93ae3
117602 F20101114_AACMKK stocks_g_Page_109.jp2
b4a2cdee959db6ac22e1ac101635e05e
fd67167d0b3087f17e149afeffdbf8d3328d4901
109748 F20101114_AACMJX stocks_g_Page_096.jp2
90c264e850a1c9c73ec4f840892c4519
186b8aba200fdc8ce5343b773406c944193312cc
116163 F20101114_AACMLA stocks_g_Page_126.jp2
6a304624ed486b93c11465facd0e7b2a
b36e11528c1a655c7d7d408debfb7ccfda74c96f
957322 F20101114_AACMKL stocks_g_Page_110.jp2
666a689b379871eca9d96227bfe1fe52
153d1efa735d1681ef2b31bf63b28c5d6432b3c6
101293 F20101114_AACMJY stocks_g_Page_097.jp2
cbd1c6a2aa14a0c398bef2a4c9970af0
a510374782c91b65b22b5ad8449153f9703c3d38
113935 F20101114_AACMLB stocks_g_Page_127.jp2
2382108420c5dd884953a6eb7cebaada
da33a535fc1cf677521f856a9c21dcb4abfab32e
108766 F20101114_AACMKM stocks_g_Page_111.jp2
90d083683399639c00192b2d9e5cd0e8
e4a09f0dbf90ade9ff33a8ceeac555f754fbb6ce
112916 F20101114_AACMJZ stocks_g_Page_098.jp2
4216b43b6549970244e2a3e3fa564b9e
f07aab2fcbb9e9682d52165fba6b0d873f751f9d
110054 F20101114_AACMLC stocks_g_Page_128.jp2
774abf613939f76230ecd6ed4d0b5d1a
ca240eda2f811bdf11e93ec3b5126f9c99b67328
122558 F20101114_AACMKN stocks_g_Page_112.jp2
e2d0db5eb6bef204ceb89dc8f62e4e23
f973a980b10ac455b5390cb94c9672340cdf1a94
119764 F20101114_AACMLD stocks_g_Page_129.jp2
3e3442639e586c2d98fadb48e9be92a9
88cca30d0477222f4ad440a90a8d2dfbd1bee6a3
117122 F20101114_AACMKO stocks_g_Page_113.jp2
32f49626822f11ad8303e0ac3fa2ccf6
f2a0711339538a89963dbd26816ccba2ad50326b
115599 F20101114_AACMLE stocks_g_Page_130.jp2
e540172fe39ab61924edc83a016a213e
99cde5e46435ad2d8aa42225cfb36fb145414549
810684 F20101114_AACMKP stocks_g_Page_114.jp2
78986edaff1772c899f84e738f3f85ec
7a2f0cc29cf140a1009f5d73039975deebef9fe1
119814 F20101114_AACMLF stocks_g_Page_131.jp2
6d27ea0802fe26453d8cd1a8a6ada067
20ca7d9b1cad57265339612669b824091528a778
107603 F20101114_AACMKQ stocks_g_Page_115.jp2
788121b69b66decaeb1b76a34c937e28
f5e103ce7c24613146dba3a6272d2b4777dd34ed
110133 F20101114_AACMLG stocks_g_Page_132.jp2
cbdd27c4d09dabf886ae4a48444b8c5e
d64981ba8679d40cc74f889b2c7499546d877463
108725 F20101114_AACMKR stocks_g_Page_117.jp2
055acdefcc77667b19d44fa35394f7fc
ecebd361c8aa54cc28b0b54c2b56f2e9f38071bb
136830 F20101114_AACMLH stocks_g_Page_133.jp2
b34e03756c5887bae6336f28b47ca4c5
5af3eb509cefdbe13bb1e0472e77b975cd262b10
108550 F20101114_AACMKS stocks_g_Page_118.jp2
0f9de3c28e9a4b41501bb7ed8621ab9c
99f4d25f7e248d04f2b477fd24144f1bb8e22091
117020 F20101114_AACMKT stocks_g_Page_119.jp2
6423b1975f334e901e44c46a4f748c69
095bb5270eb95c03bfbb022f1954f133c7ae0427
106634 F20101114_AACMLI stocks_g_Page_134.jp2
3430a6ac5c921567650e330cfeec2cea
34511a8a980812930aa457ee6fae9f436df6a1cd
117873 F20101114_AACMKU stocks_g_Page_120.jp2
64b29b3ad976526144c708e133443f8b
0afff2815dd232f604443746344447324ae6feb7
138972 F20101114_AACMLJ stocks_g_Page_135.jp2
6c0ba223d437d315c3c12903c60d647a
014f31680bfd290a21f5db4da9a91c941d5815f5
106746 F20101114_AACMKV stocks_g_Page_121.jp2
eee6d8db632df72f3f3e3fe27a5c6022
759451a9edc796c64974cb92e1129b6c7a616558
56234 F20101114_AACMLK stocks_g_Page_136.jp2
cd8385671a6d99b7cb8451998783b8d0
56c0f76e0a3bff48beb4975c53a2375c03f7208d
122686 F20101114_AACMKW stocks_g_Page_122.jp2
d4c4b0643fe9bc439a6e7e8abc99a61f
972de11595f9e68ccd42d80687499d113ab4190c
25271604 F20101114_AACMMA stocks_g_Page_008.tif
1a200ad19b0c949b2e7c8319a8100b6b
d50c740485d75cecb640eb50a990cfe40f3cd682
651400 F20101114_AACMLL stocks_g_Page_137.jp2
9260d0ded403770d8d6a1afc2f64a70a
df62574ca17f1af2db007a16d0a0c64000568da8
112016 F20101114_AACMKX stocks_g_Page_123.jp2
3fd6a2d88bd2b0b0de3af478bae4df52
1efe93ad7fdf7f6aa39054bf08893a8c8feebb74
F20101114_AACMMB stocks_g_Page_009.tif
582221926fd299e2ea335f141088f750
35eb63f21bfd15669a74db64116ef9f004533285
886150 F20101114_AACMLM stocks_g_Page_138.jp2
cf08534e954c769a931228e19b86c820
e4f453128dfb3aece6e071cfd83f09bee525d05c
111653 F20101114_AACMKY stocks_g_Page_124.jp2
a2841ed0735588439ef3a16818019505
19dae9a7efe9c2d4de48de6a60ab30e09133870b
F20101114_AACMMC stocks_g_Page_010.tif
6b803013b4f394a7cb242b4a7f905ff2
bb7190c69ce8c1be8f1a6f48ee6a33fe76270b58
110252 F20101114_AACMLN stocks_g_Page_139.jp2
9ecbbc2bc4f3d95931d986591d8f6ea6
499cc379fea4c4ca49aebb991ccb05842d4813b2
120816 F20101114_AACMKZ stocks_g_Page_125.jp2
65e0d5f69b6c62f40ce83529b138ac62
104f924cc9e98427cbf34e3443c553c44416ac1f
F20101114_AACMMD stocks_g_Page_011.tif
fdeb8dd8dabb447a664567657fecdc68
4b95210ca51166e58d5668529380374917957f43
108822 F20101114_AACMLO stocks_g_Page_140.jp2
79c921d4539fcf4a62f6f71f6e4a8b95
968f6a11456707b1e164b6ebe22d9c4e0338dbdf
F20101114_AACMME stocks_g_Page_012.tif
7a1c2c9208d2030e323ddb0de2054ead
099594f9223a621118dfd2fec80febb5d8fe4ec5
112918 F20101114_AACMLP stocks_g_Page_141.jp2
e4d0b39990e98618ae4df3950f85718b
58be59078c7f818d66dbb8777701b56cfe13b8be
F20101114_AACMMF stocks_g_Page_013.tif
f5f1cd4d6dbfd44db71b310f23343274
8e19e1dd0f68ba8cf131e757183360afda361ca1
113788 F20101114_AACMLQ stocks_g_Page_142.jp2
acb52e82f5c093bd89eda6109d22d2c5
005f7208d690b88c65de9a161a1877b928cd31d1
F20101114_AACMMG stocks_g_Page_014.tif
c294448e66c07e753f520a9f6d6e1974
d82ef62c14a8d1218fee71d32a182796aefe8c23
551734 F20101114_AACMLR stocks_g_Page_143.jp2
7441bbddc8dc9dd5a7ec005afa68fd2c
769dc54dae9cfa7dd2c3fc44b2251981ad08c3ab
F20101114_AACMMH stocks_g_Page_015.tif
357e6b546375ddfeaaebacccca91070d
9062cbb70e38b18ce4fa495c322f39c3938d05bb
33181 F20101114_AACMLS stocks_g_Page_144.jp2
50aede9cf4eb80f0afb3b46b9a4fc0b6
6b36af50b58af4c045bbb05ac2c5a61b8346b546
F20101114_AACMMI stocks_g_Page_016.tif
997840083584d687247a3735b41b6170
5587029aef50481ed0e702219dfeb01f7a6f18af
F20101114_AACMLT stocks_g_Page_001.tif
1589bd58b42f5c8393ec388533d06a66
35084882dd73e72f631cc49d55522114465bb68b
F20101114_AACMLU stocks_g_Page_002.tif
70ae990db7eef99f3d2a6396ac1f4b04
200973e0e5b81bef9d890165b299e0e62abc0996
F20101114_AACMMJ stocks_g_Page_017.tif
0f4944f162376b4b136ac4b3d4ab9dff
405cacb54e6835b8e3d8dcac2c1f9200779a0bdd
F20101114_AACMLV stocks_g_Page_003.tif
a24aab7dcb306365df299e15c1e9fd56
4b3740a9e8079db66ddbd90bc5298dca1a9a87fb
F20101114_AACMMK stocks_g_Page_018.tif
9ced5b99502efd500a9b46a26c294e11
29720c1547c1671d6dccf0fc1359cd74115442e1
F20101114_AACMLW stocks_g_Page_004.tif
9210184c512d3b9a60bd0ba64e807194
a9ce26e60cc67268688d3da0334979af24f3035b
F20101114_AACMLX stocks_g_Page_005.tif
76fbb2a941d4cb09341349d0b2070fd0
119c16abc3860d0d5fec52cca189f40d87434aad
F20101114_AACMNA stocks_g_Page_037.tif
7489096727733facb58bdf606795669f
eba4544ccb774b86e8ae6c208f54fa06a33fe4e1
F20101114_AACMML stocks_g_Page_019.tif
4be029b18143da31029d4bf603732f19
20c172261e96e3124d4b687389258838d3974c60
F20101114_AACMLY stocks_g_Page_006.tif
b681a5d099cd6fd7118a978e83fc2b1d
1a145876f0d64d35f2b46e90de73dadd94bf5b17
F20101114_AACMNB stocks_g_Page_038.tif
c5fa57a39e2f5fb951a3eed663b0d95a
0ceebcc7887786c806af46f2a72daff41c6e8b17
F20101114_AACMMM stocks_g_Page_021.tif
8b7d63cc856765a46ce665749b0cddb1
8bb6c69d02bb20970836b848a438427c5d2d57e6
F20101114_AACMLZ stocks_g_Page_007.tif
b7a9be03da35ef0c044058ca7e4202a9
955a4f7f099c3adf784c94a525fb40ee8d98d2f4
F20101114_AACMNC stocks_g_Page_040.tif
92610abc15994ab7e2b30b3eea83dd69
8416c4bf7068d97312473cd7e9f031d15057701f
F20101114_AACMMN stocks_g_Page_022.tif
f5ec5f71acfa0f400a7d2c3a6e30e55f
c9f21d3adc098ef9590cf3fc37ec9189a2c0bdfc
F20101114_AACMND stocks_g_Page_041.tif
f01f4b8d46edfca303bd679e68418fea
e83ce48d286e12a49beca69c6953df7d77280cc7
F20101114_AACMMO stocks_g_Page_023.tif
5ee1e2aed57bbec9e54023f38cfa1bc5
a1c764f73bfb4129b8beb5ee4e34921029f72d41
F20101114_AACMNE stocks_g_Page_042.tif
4840a6b3c3e955d45ec228d92169ca0d
bee65ea41424a8ddd6b35e860c33a6ab882504c3
F20101114_AACMMP stocks_g_Page_024.tif
2f1bdd0fc8ab01f3c9dd41c1bf5ab91e
fb200f54b592aa46497f8ee576b942d5fda07b31
F20101114_AACMNF stocks_g_Page_043.tif
73a8c1858c82f139b51283e7fdb2e8c6
9b9cb8c14ffa11891e76e2c7723dd7d6beb4578a
F20101114_AACMMQ stocks_g_Page_025.tif
6205c440cad2e6bd7e440a50f92b1e34
a5b880a08f053c6f3288c368fd94cfbdefb3da1b
F20101114_AACMNG stocks_g_Page_044.tif
203ecbb42d5a1a9feb95bcdbb5a6703f
8cd4e71f0bc48fa20d647b4a65a6ec0482db539e
F20101114_AACMMR stocks_g_Page_026.tif
c600a7f6c5dfb1e49a1d960ef3a328d9
b1a65bf95f1db187ce44c4b50cd4a0ee1d3d0523
F20101114_AACMNH stocks_g_Page_045.tif
5329713ffff354e3071b9e6476b11a01
6623de3e38154efc19e55832ada9e05ed86bdab0
F20101114_AACMMS stocks_g_Page_027.tif
a3079625305a4f3d10f724aef67ac718
753a9d0aff5133af1447e69a0d368c22b61c40e3
F20101114_AACMNI stocks_g_Page_046.tif
c75cb73bb9b329a7599813ae8dd85630
9a0dfe33e0aaa41dd94d487562b4da70f8f88493
F20101114_AACMMT stocks_g_Page_028.tif
7df667debba3eaf755baffa15bba67b4
d5ab913529f444ecff1150e8f52521f3c849493f
8423998 F20101114_AACMNJ stocks_g_Page_047.tif
52116b078a75519781247b1ee6bdd49e
e5def01c42a625fb6693752305628c3a6cca64ea
F20101114_AACMMU stocks_g_Page_029.tif
f02c728fcc81f61dc1113a0eb2ffe7d2
fc7bb63d242cfd3bef28fe28c6385ff0f930f20f
F20101114_AACMMV stocks_g_Page_030.tif
8157dd4ff4209c923c7f4871f1930bd6
e4375fea476dca532ffae62ab7590f3231ec7e2b
F20101114_AACMNK stocks_g_Page_048.tif
0ce9ec06da596ca7d923972988618ce7
eaa956eef7f1154aa74e7b482955b11eecd61c51
F20101114_AACMMW stocks_g_Page_031.tif
df36b0a66d43a92537d9051225758d4d
948c623526a11b9c745d086858536c66e5a6e40f
F20101114_AACMOA stocks_g_Page_064.tif
dc571626927efff2e7b9600bce154a8e
6a5d29d26eb7f3a782cf88f871fe1a7d701b6658
F20101114_AACMNL stocks_g_Page_049.tif
dc3161ca5c5758b734ba60290cbfcd38
ba13aee9faa80aae8b2d3d42189bec14ce00d794
F20101114_AACMMX stocks_g_Page_033.tif
e0ac514aaaabc36c983c0dfd269331d2
afef7e57cfa48703b23a60ddead2f0977cc21772
F20101114_AACMOB stocks_g_Page_065.tif
0c1fc84f118ad325a9e4bd620dedcd7e
cfa5db31b0a4bad0acc3386e47560ccb490fc0bb
F20101114_AACMNM stocks_g_Page_050.tif
60a92b76fa390db18e603088b750f0c2
9d2f9710ac01dc55271577d6fc3b4c6fc1c99325
F20101114_AACMMY stocks_g_Page_034.tif
0ca7f878a536aeb09f4b04f6b7d81007
89a983ec3ce04330d1df00dd4d608ec07305b3cd
F20101114_AACMOC stocks_g_Page_066.tif
9356d2b3213751f9bfe05409858a0e3c
e04c47c95ebd657a3912d77e57effabb0a8ada23
F20101114_AACMNN stocks_g_Page_051.tif
d6631d0af4c8de15e7e6a61f37480690
8c0525891f2f9e44779214d006402fbecac10da4
F20101114_AACMMZ stocks_g_Page_035.tif
02d4de0f7b2cea7cea5d2e1d87712c06
e9f4f6e1222932b6670a8e64f49a782f82fcc469
F20101114_AACMOD stocks_g_Page_067.tif
1cbca00f653e9115f4926890affd64d8
2a27f91ce2d087c49d93d6783e5708fa63dda9be
F20101114_AACMNO stocks_g_Page_052.tif
babd237fd7699ec01b0c06768ade3658
9120d5fe7f7fdb52f83ee97fa629dc03209fdf24
F20101114_AACMOE stocks_g_Page_068.tif
d1f20e22f4f83e7af9bcb84e0030601e
bf3000dc594ff5d1f51c21c4e29abea8678c17aa
F20101114_AACMNP stocks_g_Page_053.tif
dd616c92a892ebbfe3a52158fe6836cb
16816fc668fbc7be3850dc9c5953be9ad090a407
F20101114_AACMOF stocks_g_Page_069.tif
b1899208ab8cbf13b61eff4ca83fa8e3
f85570da6e685765106887d88661bc6553db2657
F20101114_AACMNQ stocks_g_Page_054.tif
7c65440946d66d717ea03bc11d8400c3
37eac5333536d59aad3c90cb08d3cc4585acd78f
F20101114_AACMOG stocks_g_Page_070.tif
1df2c16e8ebe6f402f3768f7debe6193
8ff33b14bc97ad3d9404739985e6cfb5403d3063
F20101114_AACMNR stocks_g_Page_055.tif
dce72b4adf01a614c509da2901a37a1f
41ee0abeeee0f3c2ff39defddb6cb5b261d75fbc
F20101114_AACMOH stocks_g_Page_071.tif
12081eebc0413868d781a306962d357c
d3988da2ea6800d02a1f0d0978c18f5b8d38fd2b
F20101114_AACMNS stocks_g_Page_056.tif
39b81a0971ee43649094de3ef43ad41c
232b86170ac2a6e3eb298491e658c91b7d6295f7
F20101114_AACMOI stocks_g_Page_072.tif
d99be35fb825fd5d2867c2c4d8eff284
f99a41cf4cf004fd42b70a33a8d8cddd23634ccd
F20101114_AACMNT stocks_g_Page_057.tif
7a8303d67ecf15e715867e4239f6eebd
80e340d672c66955395fa93c364d5498c721ce9c
F20101114_AACMOJ stocks_g_Page_073.tif
4be332a3f95e288a8c257eea453c9d91
60facffb9b4ddefb8c31c1ea5e566b5c83ee073f
F20101114_AACMNU stocks_g_Page_058.tif
23deddd72eb94b956e1a1258e197a5e4
d668801b650341a157b66134c44f70b8afc00376
F20101114_AACMOK stocks_g_Page_074.tif
9284c44f1c7d46e60c7c7a7736425aef
8ea859701ce51f18bc02d4cca92888f4ac93ca79
F20101114_AACMNV stocks_g_Page_059.tif
49ebf5251bca0712448cada235f35024
b816398f4c7de0674e4ba0ec3ad22746449551b5
F20101114_AACMNW stocks_g_Page_060.tif
b8bf002382fe22328df6005be2c4edad
705416de775c496b36e4339829eaf8a9184f05ca
F20101114_AACMOL stocks_g_Page_075.tif
1c16c69331db01f2f59284ff75c88665
ef4551b3e50d0841bd9ce167552eb1bae754c73a
F20101114_AACMNX stocks_g_Page_061.tif
7e72163d473ae536aed4177aa5b31579
a59bc7d1fba3e8172b751a1928ede16a6d100987
F20101114_AACMPA stocks_g_Page_090.tif
3c75248329c271f4ddf144938e1b1175
1f582f1ea45bdf803bc3248b77c2a3d390cf0ffb
F20101114_AACMOM stocks_g_Page_076.tif
f888465d3c278fbec004c83a66273a1e
94cc88103a02a4ee8163fc0be350bf2edcf1a62a
F20101114_AACMNY stocks_g_Page_062.tif
cb1accd25585349e9c435160e7d8e5ae
df35b528ec07686df236e9145e1ce7cb06c3b30b
F20101114_AACMPB stocks_g_Page_091.tif
afffa3c35fb1ef8288c68a4b5bb16817
39cabb4ca5aeb0b8a4aa83dd400d4f65357e565f
F20101114_AACMON stocks_g_Page_077.tif
9d3d97e6a30d6670d13fb54e3d881c70
f83bf2d8b8abbe8fd7edcf956445fa54c25170c5
F20101114_AACMNZ stocks_g_Page_063.tif
7a02f136ca86cdff306264e80341e052
287f0f73dcb0e03b414413af3ce49d87f9d8142f
F20101114_AACMPC stocks_g_Page_092.tif
d85ab360da7722f22a0a5ecf95e3fa62
0246f56fc7d266838d813df474e45dd07199a4b0
F20101114_AACMOO stocks_g_Page_078.tif
b561cd2d0e99dc133deebf17bae05f69
23faa2ef82d2b7e1469b137a7164509aed78f21d
F20101114_AACMPD stocks_g_Page_093.tif
9925f295ba40e41da7685afe66a48e05
70dd36acf6befd2b617cd1ae334ad56719d4fd01
F20101114_AACMOP stocks_g_Page_079.tif
e46c027e544b8bd1808a7b8fc5f2a601
52915fb7bdb051ecdbe951e8bab45a7c8de748a6
F20101114_AACMPE stocks_g_Page_094.tif
deee878e9f9fffa8885dba19447cdb0b
f4b85231636331191977d4195ba257523f59a171
F20101114_AACMOQ stocks_g_Page_080.tif
bbadaa84070dc4448360f91df7cc119c
eb041ecaea8e707b412620f23eba438b53684dec
F20101114_AACMPF stocks_g_Page_095.tif
1963ae2b5b2d133fe3da6a3f2aef02cd
96385bc6b4a2bbce37efe3667c1536a7919d9711
F20101114_AACMOR stocks_g_Page_081.tif
9b36b7c13ce07bab4acc0663191c2857
4fd9ddc33c13f3844558a9142ab49f2140296912
F20101114_AACMPG stocks_g_Page_096.tif
e896c90dc0c456732efa1cb29f957827
72f98e9ab808fdd7b1b782154f8b81a6cfc26894
F20101114_AACMOS stocks_g_Page_082.tif
94d07f04f79438baba42a2f2fc2d5c87
8427365c9fce1b49ae3a880db246409ed2a2dc06
F20101114_AACMPH stocks_g_Page_097.tif
363b62c9ff5a01ded43142ba5875ff88
abeef1690136a117388b90d6f21176e604594e26
F20101114_AACMOT stocks_g_Page_083.tif
83da28fd2081473bfc61b664b910f374
e79e24ccd7a9d41f3ea47238994569a2a1c53b8e
F20101114_AACMPI stocks_g_Page_098.tif
c88360f2b487f3a67bbef55951297090
ffca4d083eec1e80c7989ad2d9b6284822fd31dd
F20101114_AACMOU stocks_g_Page_084.tif
7270f945f83365158f55e40aa929d313
b0989604391a5339cb1cd9177e91dceecd574fa1
F20101114_AACMPJ stocks_g_Page_099.tif
eec7a7fe5636ed41753617d130339f96
790e241699a7b57fd0fbdc15da317faab0c30a15
F20101114_AACMOV stocks_g_Page_085.tif
b232b7659d26182782f5488ca3ac2aa7
128365afc477051890468c200d591b0644838e11
F20101114_AACMPK stocks_g_Page_100.tif
facc4cada6635b3d2a3ff540622734d5
4d92206618ebe601c00f16974588398f93f52cd2
F20101114_AACMOW stocks_g_Page_086.tif
2150ac35ee6f46ce2ae9891fbd559164
a4ed9476c5e5ade7181bf7176ef775ccbe0a68e1
F20101114_AACMPL stocks_g_Page_101.tif
046ddbd5b865577bc126f8af998c0a26
538388b5835beb4db09383ed642e433a8bf0fd18
F20101114_AACMOX stocks_g_Page_087.tif
10cefe376a2ddbd9fd5811471750086f
4ddff62d74dc15e2e7d67a163fbce3a1ea40a380
F20101114_AACMQA stocks_g_Page_117.tif
9b4e7a62e70702eb8cf488c54bb68876
fb6946c144781bec3dd3eb46e017e9b4156347ae
F20101114_AACMOY stocks_g_Page_088.tif
e5dcd3f910b5d047a665e525c02aa3e3
8b6d2132a59e3fdbdd561f86057ff235e04ecd40
F20101114_AACMQB stocks_g_Page_118.tif
96f700007f9e6bf7a8c86b6d107fbb08
f0d00b30c30b253416c5a17567d51cffaf6e4215
F20101114_AACMPM stocks_g_Page_102.tif
0fba2551abbf04b65c9f22e9755cb824
209bc84d084e8b46c11000a7b040de0bd39142c5
F20101114_AACMOZ stocks_g_Page_089.tif
8076916565ff42cd180cae075851e70a
0e61b7a951b41906ff127a507eb46e58fcbbab6c
F20101114_AACMQC stocks_g_Page_119.tif
278f5978fda58ffd53a2de8c3f50b96e
210089556691594cca6b6eba467dd4a4ea08d5c0
F20101114_AACMPN stocks_g_Page_103.tif
ef9c13a91fcd31b24140efbab645105f
7ce4001c3b17514f4c3f0f39f122b9f2c234f97e
F20101114_AACMQD stocks_g_Page_120.tif
55003fc5d1fe0b2551ed31ef3a05aaba
c8af2ae44b27ba26b9d865073c72a60637abe96c
F20101114_AACMPO stocks_g_Page_104.tif
174b6e8f104f7b63389cb40bb4c34a5f
4bd3ad53481a6f042ea7cff5393dd08b3d1949e1
F20101114_AACMQE stocks_g_Page_121.tif
6ce267534237d4a6919e29c42ee53f15
555d95762d60446612a07b2aab4321427e6f0691
F20101114_AACMPP stocks_g_Page_105.tif
167c9e4443cdac63c5edeef704254fec
5981ece62a8a64475166de9077afd73ed6909289
F20101114_AACMQF stocks_g_Page_122.tif
050737f65a86d5b2f7089a4aa7f3cf61
9b2b2c319872566f6001d8bde9305f438f4f90b2
F20101114_AACMPQ stocks_g_Page_106.tif
b55dc5d890fa99765f93ea3df79e5f4f
cde627aefb7856d8e226b3ec1be852db11680000
F20101114_AACMQG stocks_g_Page_123.tif
c8a1f3dc4e9142a3ec1ec95692f89aec
84ab910b8c4816f86690ec4ec9b6f3b8aa89fd04
F20101114_AACMPR stocks_g_Page_107.tif
b08723be009068e60509fb4ed4f1e768
fe95662eac869e4c109adafd88499c0835e4075c
F20101114_AACMQH stocks_g_Page_124.tif
07c23b31f066724d130301626079f913
dd431c7d9887421d90ac80ed286eb6f4f101f892
F20101114_AACMPS stocks_g_Page_108.tif
31c240d2b7e0bda97d29290d3c580c19
0192ceb36b55ec17de6b37a5da8ec910f144e0ef
F20101114_AACMQI stocks_g_Page_125.tif
fe8cfe7eef0ec84de451e0f2c954309f
cabe7c1aa0722b9bb7efc007697e37178dd82724
F20101114_AACMPT stocks_g_Page_109.tif
27adae29436cd329727186ea0d93f556
d79748c44a058ea41ea0c4ffd69fbdcf8e3df129
F20101114_AACMQJ stocks_g_Page_126.tif
c6e747c08b7d96b3d65ab429f0384d5f
7c278d125e72beed1866b61f6fe132919ffdd377
F20101114_AACMPU stocks_g_Page_110.tif
f858db3149db125157781d0cba70f853
7d510f704ada760cf7050ff105e5496f4c02851b
F20101114_AACMQK stocks_g_Page_127.tif
328f97871c2583ece63cc59c6d6ccfec
402159edcffe0244d62b7ca01b283ccd43c60b13
F20101114_AACMPV stocks_g_Page_111.tif
ca484918c59451823a2ba3271253f1d0
5e271c6400a508d5b4abb0ff3c1d7c8c4939c907
F20101114_AACMQL stocks_g_Page_128.tif
64981ffdc77725b7e8827790487250f4
82784eb909d302853f627d29c73184d753eac1ac
F20101114_AACMPW stocks_g_Page_112.tif
15815e249abec79aeea2077a342d1d3f
d70024b6f92f41ce6645762a263072743d631df8
F20101114_AACMRA stocks_g_Page_143.tif
034aa74b5ce5f72cc6d44ef7194bb03f
05b495ebf51b7f84a64a94d9f651600229857fe0
F20101114_AACMQM stocks_g_Page_129.tif
e15b5883457fdac57b16ca17df46c413
08c837038b05bceae45600b252c4460956192fd2
F20101114_AACMPX stocks_g_Page_114.tif
722476884a5c79736a93e4759a443f72
d995cd3f79661c3ac094d93073a06b6acc2a5330
F20101114_AACMRB stocks_g_Page_144.tif
ec240c00aafcae59bea740533efb337a
051625e8fe9a615ee488096c984a115092d218ad
F20101114_AACMPY stocks_g_Page_115.tif
dd7a1c8ac578f63e2149568d6d1019c6
17bb644c9bb126c54f531dde099e649518c2ad81
7308 F20101114_AACMRC stocks_g_Page_001.pro
da1b431bda69b9da3323041df1f404cd
2453f68c68a55d5979864b7ae85c9cf544890481
F20101114_AACMQN stocks_g_Page_130.tif
c9cb9a8d7998d7a3520e26479a368e11
cf114fc56a17af348f3d9c150f9ad2c9cc21ef16
F20101114_AACMPZ stocks_g_Page_116.tif
bfa74d5c8ecb3c5879329f0989353c40
d44836323bb958591ab7286e0ca9adc3bd391a8d
861 F20101114_AACMRD stocks_g_Page_002.pro
84744720d9b628722fe7be59fed69d40
e6bdbc5640db9820354e2ccace42e4e17531795c
F20101114_AACMQO stocks_g_Page_131.tif
e403960388148393ccd5521aee7ed8ad
e76a22c19664c4909a17e172465fb9f0a9220bdc
859 F20101114_AACMRE stocks_g_Page_003.pro
be9e427b533d9e86a6a4859de142e1cb
df3238b626b57c2443ec68603df92a513a340636
F20101114_AACMQP stocks_g_Page_132.tif
6e3bcc9a6a6aa9f0caf92cb2b24f5eb3
f4ab10a6c5ef66a62705548edc4e533fa67eb01b
41752 F20101114_AACMRF stocks_g_Page_004.pro
e145fac84b6046db11907752ff074c6e
d410566365e6339a65b883a479793daa74939d06
F20101114_AACMQQ stocks_g_Page_133.tif
a143fcf609bb3ab22f458e6091c17c45
3242b831ca05361b28f548a2921de1908f3178f4
89052 F20101114_AACMRG stocks_g_Page_005.pro
48fdb99388ed69e39330657347cfa774
e624adc0d292e23da9578b4cd9e38ce9bc37e342
F20101114_AACMQR stocks_g_Page_134.tif
72bd0f5188dc8d47a871a26517cc1158
4f6bb4b934ac02da4b94a8d2bf7f261920a0839e
113518 F20101114_AACMRH stocks_g_Page_006.pro
54b0933b6e4d30e04afe6c0ffd7cffe2
19d59d178ce2bd581169bf18ee8923e7e458b1b3
F20101114_AACMQS stocks_g_Page_135.tif
00777e0188d308ec71ae4f1ffb31c947
922d6f416a09d5cb35644eda884ad61fab89fafc
14697 F20101114_AACMRI stocks_g_Page_007.pro
e0ae1aaf1f5b828d05027dbe8f761bbe
85515fc03dc5b985be52abe34c890a09ed2c6b35
F20101114_AACMQT stocks_g_Page_136.tif
3cb41cc33f725e7b301dcda204787bd2
f545382b10c4e2da427c3d01e891a6a799b933ef
F20101114_AACMQU stocks_g_Page_137.tif
39633b7e9b447c6d949a2e196d9c8fc3
49a2f8cf03b5d88d1e6bcdb068d9e4ec1da86954
13698 F20101114_AACMRJ stocks_g_Page_008.pro
5a481e830858ef78be5bd6f9f2afee54
5957a2a398de9be9f79c0e1aeba6e83ca222d799
F20101114_AACMQV stocks_g_Page_138.tif
8a2d1c90920dd68dbdc5bb05e81ec8ea
062fc7e3b0823dc66a679f176c50c635960a0ef0
68758 F20101114_AACMRK stocks_g_Page_009.pro
a2fd91e47f8021143a263f5d7106ffbf
b77565dbfcfa06925da676628be0eb551ebec667
F20101114_AACMQW stocks_g_Page_139.tif
610614793bdadf5b4c48019415b3fd75
c28ceefd66ba4c69e2c3c7dc2a827bc44710263b
30110 F20101114_AACMRL stocks_g_Page_010.pro
5fdb4932b77eb05dcd17a1385e4a0721
4d1b94604654fcdadd7e9497c52293e38e0c1110
F20101114_AACMQX stocks_g_Page_140.tif
ef3af8000c7e8d62d04c78dcbff44c53
a91e398dc46774df95e990b751112ac5d5f01f26
30252 F20101114_AACMSA stocks_g_Page_025.pro
787e72b8c4d86604db621b5f2ae9b6c1
3a22d00cdf925ca0158b5f2601f09b276c082d45
10550 F20101114_AACMRM stocks_g_Page_011.pro
8766556475df470d6d51c31966b136da
65afac5a466f9978bee37ac5cf1544f2a22b4707
F20101114_AACMQY stocks_g_Page_141.tif
8851a346cd184b96078ed2982a2dd501
cad78f0cbbdd4272fa44c64c2cd8f340f40010d4
55816 F20101114_AACMSB stocks_g_Page_026.pro
dd36839faef245a376cdc7743772105a
025ce12ce220ebceaa4d5eef6c1d956074fe4c26
10329 F20101114_AACMRN stocks_g_Page_012.pro
7f6b7e3194534b4ec9519466a414ec56
06bf537feccbb6f076f984fa64f581bffa215b29
F20101114_AACMQZ stocks_g_Page_142.tif
098e8c8238e7bb4060e260e0b7630ceb
bc15e68ae163b751b3146f5f9b16bf6a8be584e8
56505 F20101114_AACMSC stocks_g_Page_027.pro
0dff783cb59a43b588ebf91eabd086e7
1bd4f9ce43c17c566908c50d6dba01b2357215a7
55821 F20101114_AACMSD stocks_g_Page_028.pro
98a36904b0cc1a0c8343867b8b5737b6
10fa7bde09dbba585cf73572a1f4a83c06ed6cdb
9513 F20101114_AACMRO stocks_g_Page_013.pro
0d4a9281a22f736668ea259856c96f0f
4c6827f65dda26e926fec63a2fa8e86f3f4828ad
50889 F20101114_AACMSE stocks_g_Page_029.pro
9dbac4d34e13877fa45aadd2048d6432
e4d82dba77147d24d1d51d26e93fbe97b03a3e35
5304 F20101114_AACMRP stocks_g_Page_014.pro
0deecd7de2aeefba969964c8e1b272bf
7cabb950888eb7e17c044ca0df864bb57fde2a7c
31513 F20101114_AACMSF stocks_g_Page_030.pro
f9a8f1e068c1ba0753e1f6ed74111752
31ca90fc5742d7db4f0f3839bea586eec586076b
43372 F20101114_AACMRQ stocks_g_Page_015.pro
01b8c0214870f978c2dfd37ac747659d
8d2db263e63e0e5a2856aa08d4677ffdee6dd66b
51858 F20101114_AACMSG stocks_g_Page_031.pro
65d02813972e0da3d65451f4f57c7845
3e629bfbd4e12d7752431c00a16694e590330fbe
19803 F20101114_AACMRR stocks_g_Page_016.pro
ebd68018caec349bdc81cbe319bbd9f9
2da66edd5c7721b052dc38902deeb40ac9623ac1
18488 F20101114_AACMSH stocks_g_Page_032.pro
efb25a49791e6e0b654e4e6ed5469249
4b8ebcb8830729f0c615e4a040123e09f596fa30
50351 F20101114_AACMRS stocks_g_Page_017.pro
431f4b1cbc61e9d7db3bcd910b47c73b
ceeda4f2e34c9e7a404a80aadc6a805289beed46
47889 F20101114_AACMSI stocks_g_Page_033.pro
7735c7381f4fb28641919647d86a9873
ab9393f4ec8409c96d970aaff5d3bf7fe6c62582
54376 F20101114_AACMRT stocks_g_Page_018.pro
12d4b644a1cc0eb6d98f8713e8b50b10
bf559d135098c9899a9ea2df13ae58198c4d92b6
46449 F20101114_AACMSJ stocks_g_Page_034.pro
fb2cd39a1ebea9e2f65dffa0d76d9cd4
edf051d83db6e5999a42377f0d5b8eae61117b8e
54545 F20101114_AACMRU stocks_g_Page_019.pro
468f364d81f26be1165d2eddb143544d
4fca6f3aecf2f1f152213d2a95790bea873426d0
52243 F20101114_AACMSK stocks_g_Page_035.pro
723386073f43a99db6fc0d69a14df1cd
35e6c6f8070c281f0dcf68117f9f22b045fd9e00
53591 F20101114_AACMRV stocks_g_Page_020.pro
736a0718c295cb0a15bc995d20c305cc
9b6c7ac9e37e29f1b79356eb666546394b2e6a69
48730 F20101114_AACMSL stocks_g_Page_036.pro
cc59bb9cd81609f69c9fa70eeac41e58
0c8191de64af009179dacc637e406d33f5484d36
41782 F20101114_AACMRW stocks_g_Page_021.pro
27836bba9ae15f8ded82d3a3433b239e
5d7dff4eb2ffe0db01f2628789da3172d84c8461
14981 F20101114_AACMTA stocks_g_Page_051.pro
ded3e0b0986bba2c341647eefdcac1b5
97b8e829a94f5a502c773690a7a331a6735ab9e1
51296 F20101114_AACMSM stocks_g_Page_037.pro
f4c032ca42018526a9afbbbd620b9af8
a53cf69a5d7d1d0708110392b477ac007191802a
52308 F20101114_AACMRX stocks_g_Page_022.pro
2795602aafc666e9d42ffe4b0f001f18
ca520f5bc485b5260f38ac40eb56e2cf91729ed2
50464 F20101114_AACMTB stocks_g_Page_052.pro
e64608f24a20699c011165dcbc972670
2f8ce98924e3740f3a602996042af75081e752d0
33805 F20101114_AACMSN stocks_g_Page_038.pro
ff80e4eb9808a16cb32e84b951409fb2
cc41e4dfec78b7b9fa73df9f1b8286e3bd1c5f87
F20101114_AACMRY stocks_g_Page_023.pro
f6e5a8a9f3c74024e1b97256d0a23943
0c3b6efb5091f59ef3f38921a9eb46b63a253ad0
32420 F20101114_AACMTC stocks_g_Page_053.pro
9e3549ddcb976aa49998d9cbeda53c3e
e6e96f2895366cc77662ae833fb4e0f06f3c13ee
52264 F20101114_AACMSO stocks_g_Page_039.pro
1f957f902c6f5e4c30279854882c4506
d1f8b44d340dca22636b49b5024b68abfcf967a8
52469 F20101114_AACMRZ stocks_g_Page_024.pro
91dc289a0c3822cad10a24c1625da6b5
b3d3d8ceaf01a2364cb3100282031a3fcb9ca5ae
48243 F20101114_AACMTD stocks_g_Page_054.pro
b3761c25cc2bd65aae7a22665bb9f9f6
7adaf34b1e0c6a333ab9755e6e0cf85600e7f7de
46146 F20101114_AACMTE stocks_g_Page_055.pro
dcafb68ff53a87fa8202d87e7c051694
fc910b7f2fb995d99a92c1115e911df563f9c2b0
21623 F20101114_AACMSP stocks_g_Page_040.pro
4d50f7a229cb538ba8eed7cdc24d6832
4beea8e698b5d3185db6bd0c253c6b582bf14911
43462 F20101114_AACMTF stocks_g_Page_056.pro
2fe3c8f862d170edc33295ddc6b6eec6
902469022ccadaa21360d0cf2e07d127f829fbbd
51076 F20101114_AACMSQ stocks_g_Page_041.pro
2a90c046afc32fb18991741407dbf402
193c2a167aad88e1c5eef476d1e0d2f0b9048916
51791 F20101114_AACMTG stocks_g_Page_057.pro
2f62d1d8680a775b49c2ff2936887440
dcf996f730600b7a3ebf448b15d94af09c1702c7
54974 F20101114_AACMSR stocks_g_Page_042.pro
cf07ea9ca7d09dc014fbcf6fc1fc17e5
fcab04b12d172c3f6e03ceddba0df724bf8d8481
71326 F20101114_AACMTH stocks_g_Page_058.pro
72739d8eb86928e18b9c74c979c71bdf
201bfb412c9ed6304f615b0af0835210bc8fdf69
65835 F20101114_AACMSS stocks_g_Page_043.pro
8c344d63be998592e3e0b94ad0d0e61a
843c108222e13db1cc7f26a421edf6b47d40dc6a
17533 F20101114_AACMTI stocks_g_Page_059.pro
3894790c2ab6885345dc80ea38d51060
6edd37d4456b120e0a1098ff8587285bc6895b61
19542 F20101114_AACMST stocks_g_Page_044.pro
e02919db7391cc65b756247462574493
ac48f3073efd6630a9d9da4d6cf9161fcf819432
58840 F20101114_AACMTJ stocks_g_Page_060.pro
6398845201592dc5b3ec92fabccafe6c
118bf0fee5b9318b7c24937b7c114afb03de0948
51835 F20101114_AACMSU stocks_g_Page_045.pro
0b30f72583d36c35e699a66aec08bc7a
b484e4bd57dc04e1d1e302417b8afb8f67634896
49639 F20101114_AACMTK stocks_g_Page_061.pro
b274774bd969a9918084daeac4b148f9
c9b8bb8bbae1fd0be82aaa48c197010e2bb7c5d0
24954 F20101114_AACMSV stocks_g_Page_046.pro
4882d812a4880254da1c7227496eb5ae
fc6ddaa4b56cade6341efa3f047be3bbae84b266
55047 F20101114_AACMTL stocks_g_Page_062.pro
a2670df770758f55494ff4d92347c300
12ad19db93578ef71c7014bd79ee15caa7b11576
16110 F20101114_AACMSW stocks_g_Page_047.pro
93fd9d2ab41b4801478c9b7bc4091156
fde931c73b413ad0a3a0c3e06ef3b01504202662
50648 F20101114_AACMTM stocks_g_Page_063.pro
f7c8d482761bac859bbca38a8c0833a4
2bd9a81b1a245101f037d292670e7bfab98f7f85
39355 F20101114_AACMSX stocks_g_Page_048.pro
0f43d54a5e655f085adaafd45ad024ea
b1bd9a8ad2ae355b92d0a6ebf91178ea966dd0e4
52971 F20101114_AACMUA stocks_g_Page_078.pro
2632069d82c965e473aa3c7a788cf1d3
b3ddaf7441edffa3f08858af1a7f1e1db53e9f9c
32834 F20101114_AACMTN stocks_g_Page_064.pro
3b65b203bed9e6adea0fd4c706adcca0
f41e1f03d0bb75f5f2bbc47ebacad828e699a1b6
50998 F20101114_AACMSY stocks_g_Page_049.pro
a46fc9a0857ff7143150f2c4446b45fc
994bae9b130c52e74795ecccb190d7cea7a9360b
51654 F20101114_AACMUB stocks_g_Page_079.pro
3f8123f7c61ef1233548dabb5119e5b7
3a7b9329d83ad6c41050aadbadad91e8af4760f0
32812 F20101114_AACMTO stocks_g_Page_065.pro
370a57e7c2abf4f7b3d56949de352c1e
c1069ea65fd84ae2ff7f469c63595365916f49a7
53933 F20101114_AACMSZ stocks_g_Page_050.pro
dfee722b141f25018d0a3abdef17ecb9
c16ea31adc46e47670c95d12637298bb6fc8fe5d
40507 F20101114_AACMUC stocks_g_Page_080.pro
bfbd526dedab473cebd2c2e971ebd748
22a89daa53e221b2f0ae819779b89f4d59324da0
34841 F20101114_AACMTP stocks_g_Page_066.pro
f4e721660e53738d7f3a59d7b3fdae1a
d3ee54ac3832aa3fcb8c61130de725dcb4537d63
51426 F20101114_AACMUD stocks_g_Page_081.pro
798546e4b523e3cabbfc8705131a05ee
083f5a367e458819f8a360da24f820ed16577448
31199 F20101114_AACMUE stocks_g_Page_082.pro
95c19bc968582770eac51f8d257aa3c0
f692359e40439aaae60cdb16a796823e2cc3bf17
52277 F20101114_AACMTQ stocks_g_Page_067.pro
aec69e90e0a2c6cf43de5962596d4699
01994e77c5c519fce5e228bd8b2749ce72e706f7
48377 F20101114_AACMUF stocks_g_Page_083.pro
1297aca10ef5d5f1ef750d5b9f1205e6
95ac3d82363cc2dccb1e6d04b78d983aced4fbd5
52612 F20101114_AACMTR stocks_g_Page_069.pro
552f4416d97c34201a52af0c52ce629e
6df8cf2367fbc5917ac29eb65dc77fbe42900a65
1915 F20101114_AACNAA stocks_g_Page_099.txt
00ad7a9ea836669aacad723c0d08da40
b5728bbf2231768560295c46802bd34412b7f2ca
50195 F20101114_AACMUG stocks_g_Page_084.pro
274c5178fd3ef2fb71f88fdd7d191505
6890d32a622fccc3d6e9ee593213dcf8f4d9df2c
20424 F20101114_AACMTS stocks_g_Page_070.pro
061750bd893f1ead4b73dad8641c5c23
9f5dac7ced6c335620fe3b2e7357bce3ad73075f
2047 F20101114_AACNAB stocks_g_Page_100.txt
9d5b8ceb0115c12341eb311edf7792c1
46d9d99be8e410c0507a51de16dcf763947323b1
36876 F20101114_AACMUH stocks_g_Page_085.pro
c506da37c3903f3f57bf6b29004073f0
09b9d1d6960c3659329f48cf666be94863244cef
28754 F20101114_AACMTT stocks_g_Page_071.pro
a033d563858bc75c6a08bf4b766e94eb
4247b8e6cfa21796b96eafb6de708c26a479f410
2334 F20101114_AACNAC stocks_g_Page_101.txt
42d047769ba27c2a4bb97971b99ca65a
694c39f8bb9c2eef47bb184a18569343d6fd5ce7
47660 F20101114_AACMUI stocks_g_Page_086.pro
3315c0854b77978673d7bcccedc3fb70
1965d4695aa91005c9735ac941c9ef49f3a00fb0
37589 F20101114_AACMTU stocks_g_Page_072.pro
510caa57c6dfbc4a6c16a165a3a26b03
b2abac22e83635c7eb076c964a67b5e5c4f9d440
2381 F20101114_AACNAD stocks_g_Page_102.txt
ee638a8e3530c96390d9b32b6c437502
788bbd8dbd8afd1411d0f77ff39070848647af31
57357 F20101114_AACMUJ stocks_g_Page_087.pro
ff05c99b40ee63b411169e1204a76e49
0c4547239da55d4a1f22f1015be7d11cf7335256
46629 F20101114_AACMTV stocks_g_Page_073.pro
018087c38c18ba67ada97968e18f6976
ef2ff9e971b1191ba7ec9e557c6fcad83a92bb30
1812 F20101114_AACNAE stocks_g_Page_103.txt
c743b33416e51d1924f5ce72f2acfaee
037ea0f5805f8e36d407bbd35c774118233cdcaa
58268 F20101114_AACMUK stocks_g_Page_088.pro
708251141548ccbdf4f06b74b505dd7e
67902bad483f67a5e3417f81fbf72f38f0615754
53060 F20101114_AACMTW stocks_g_Page_074.pro
83156d0d30150ce1348ec22b47066b00
35ce7e50a9f2645733873831abdc7575be6a9346
2329 F20101114_AACNAF stocks_g_Page_104.txt
660e5ac500b0c4f2b82fc798ff6ca09f
f32d242bd19a3efd50f7c53bf8a59559c76a729d
59487 F20101114_AACMUL stocks_g_Page_089.pro
9a0704d2876e299942a34cfea5553669
9a0b171207b6d9942f86f2b65a4f03ddbe214edb
50467 F20101114_AACMTX stocks_g_Page_075.pro
d6f539676e2e271aeeb4e053cf915bc8
9c9659fd2ba05a77b487b0986d50d317a67e5bba
1997 F20101114_AACNAG stocks_g_Page_105.txt
0f5170028a195bfe92a123f034cfc9c8
349d997574d40b4d19bc4554d23a4cbb6c2676a4
11267 F20101114_AACMVA stocks_g_Page_107.pro
5c21e00276d957c8c654a76468fbc75c
4d07514959bc71765a3f4ffe9e81847a13061e57
56639 F20101114_AACMUM stocks_g_Page_090.pro
24dce839d27689ccb5966c19c4b44bf3
af29fcc9e96cddd86d85f9277667997891546c95
55557 F20101114_AACMTY stocks_g_Page_076.pro
58ba60644c4051b8a9c1a460640eb69c
6e686917c28ce57ab57a816a58eae73b7812a7eb
2161 F20101114_AACNAH stocks_g_Page_106.txt
68aa8d5713d9cd8d41261a0bbfc095ba
1ee9e62a230424c0f81c719d10dbceb44230232f
49036 F20101114_AACMVB stocks_g_Page_108.pro
6c6b165da4d3a0eaf26fd0ee9104e5f8
50e3ac2dc9c1a8fccad0e7b27d6e8fbd5d58e4ee
54308 F20101114_AACMUN stocks_g_Page_092.pro
a1030c49d9645787eba689140271cb96
feac09f5f45851ee8ca26516492d2d6e975a7c15
38987 F20101114_AACMTZ stocks_g_Page_077.pro
0c5f3f713eb85bb87be556524cf7a1bd
5b788d5d03c45ae5e98c7203e730efa07987bca2
449 F20101114_AACNAI stocks_g_Page_107.txt
2632ead229581e9bcf54c2f80179b650
ea5415b9de97ed7938a5e227b2bf2bbc0a0e20a6
55756 F20101114_AACMVC stocks_g_Page_109.pro
67485a66ccc438fecfbeb57d6c592b2f
33e87be2d78852d58271a235631786c9bf13e086
53756 F20101114_AACMUO stocks_g_Page_094.pro
317cc64f0b43778a0593793c84a79e45
d021a766c984a5cff0074364b815cda55c7a88b6
1998 F20101114_AACNAJ stocks_g_Page_108.txt
70681ced93ac09d49221bd1be6967d4f
b57cf96203d299d4ab588991eb942532cb5e74fd
36152 F20101114_AACMVD stocks_g_Page_110.pro
9f27ae98f4e4127b4f4cd20572aa11fe
699e5eb3188445d1e250966346effd5c7b786590
47728 F20101114_AACMUP stocks_g_Page_095.pro
0ce189310a5a6999fbca7523c7a15c93
50ee49231112b0f0ae3c1d43d55e441f2b9eee17
2228 F20101114_AACNAK stocks_g_Page_109.txt
77c4a5a4245025d93da037a6b4dbd10e
0637aac0ba0824e22c52f6d81f58e9719dba3459
50955 F20101114_AACMVE stocks_g_Page_111.pro
0311c84dc60ed1cac09cadf1e3275932
8c35c62224f8cdee979ab80a8a4d96bdf11f839a
50414 F20101114_AACMUQ stocks_g_Page_096.pro
feaac4c0c37f66d21c531acfa421ec78
b715e857493df3bfad8746e1d57b07f9074c817d
1430 F20101114_AACNAL stocks_g_Page_110.txt
296e3b0027de5bf76e54bc197c31af61
34648a2a33ca49baa63d505ebe053797a746b14b
59047 F20101114_AACMVF stocks_g_Page_112.pro
e1c371ae7f50f51f1527febee5c4c5a4
cc957b6b6a493fac17603caa42fb30cf0fed337f
2030 F20101114_AACNAM stocks_g_Page_111.txt
47145df2964fa387ce2fc6a5bab6397d
532fff9014441d369fd49e0cd9b6fb2f739cf724
54388 F20101114_AACMVG stocks_g_Page_113.pro
cc28811086751f75c1a1e3c7deb25491
c498738df2817616cfb1e48e589c84eeb7497774
46656 F20101114_AACMUR stocks_g_Page_097.pro
120e478c43ea837b6d20745bd7c68fb6
f22d043ab537616635acdfe005ddb672fd0768e0
2113 F20101114_AACNBA stocks_g_Page_126.txt
9f147050ccb60195619d09686f08ef0e
a870cb886517ce2d7b90a81bc1fdfa575de97ee6
2342 F20101114_AACNAN stocks_g_Page_112.txt
e3cfdebe74aa7e108ebdd4d0c47ef2cd
5f0e0029f0f5e03ce44e69b45bfc5eb71943d28b
26098 F20101114_AACMVH stocks_g_Page_114.pro
91444df25f05258c20059fdf1c281edc
ce0e71c3a104b07e500d68bf0cb95b5adfbf9116
52685 F20101114_AACMUS stocks_g_Page_098.pro
19d6a4239ec82d23c67cc9e490ee8510
889fd394bc4ba7330b1151a65c72abffbd41f310
2108 F20101114_AACNBB stocks_g_Page_127.txt
b51afcb78ff137ff14f9b58a99adf15c
9841e5ddfd24bbfeb9067ba50ada54c318e95357
2135 F20101114_AACNAO stocks_g_Page_113.txt
22d07474570d6c8898b6bb2025fe9d04
fd6f4426342faf4fb07ad4159d36406c9751722d
50344 F20101114_AACMVI stocks_g_Page_115.pro
2646342cb12a8a7d10b4248180edfe39
469c41e67242d1e7220d9f4fdebb3063d03a9af8
47022 F20101114_AACMUT stocks_g_Page_099.pro
648ecc1bb1911d55e0c01734e015ae1f
313852b91be6a0109aae5da0069d43b992bbc880
2040 F20101114_AACNBC stocks_g_Page_128.txt
3d9cba224ff7537cf57e4e9c7a5de3ef
08bff47a62c5c38ee3c3d5175ac0e7d2e9f86571
1060 F20101114_AACNAP stocks_g_Page_114.txt
00d3de26dcdee83645e8a849de801f05
270c5b6fbfdd829b918a424f0660b523f46d5739
52068 F20101114_AACMVJ stocks_g_Page_116.pro
737f51ca91b153618293e283272d2aa3
6bb0d64f2dc5c70a9d79c3df2cc0ed991c55b197
51924 F20101114_AACMUU stocks_g_Page_100.pro
61eaeb7958c107c435f6200d6e44a0d2
4e54c25b60eb37ff1dc6d212aeca02ca01907f05
2211 F20101114_AACNBD stocks_g_Page_129.txt
10bede87f712a0a59112dc3aa27354a9
cde1f5107a70c5c4dde877986c8aedf072a94ef9
1990 F20101114_AACNAQ stocks_g_Page_115.txt
13647e95040ef748f9fc183cb0320eaf
a736fc906be1e4b46897a1ccc1bea697a9dde26e
50652 F20101114_AACMVK stocks_g_Page_117.pro
cdce206a7e9c068cb602f83362481cd8
994383c1a98ceaf6f6eceeeac5ad06c925831895
58335 F20101114_AACMUV stocks_g_Page_101.pro
2497330466b3c62636958d191d123665
bb9bdc66b0e9f6bdcce5606c4118529837268111
2142 F20101114_AACNBE stocks_g_Page_130.txt
fc4d85ce346ed940f29760685943152e
08e1638c400a48285a3eb3c4bddf24ea6db04169
2094 F20101114_AACNAR stocks_g_Page_116.txt
d7a0409d59ab36dae2a2bf5bb22c2adc
e1fbfc70a4907f208c22c8287856a8ccc9d323b9
50070 F20101114_AACMVL stocks_g_Page_118.pro
62cf8de93a22f2d5008c24a55865abc2
4244a44055921e44a25145c386e18cce7ec0a334
59185 F20101114_AACMUW stocks_g_Page_102.pro
b4fb07c286b626be99c5385658e73ed3
c4b520264591e21e28fbbba8f99187d860948812
2234 F20101114_AACNBF stocks_g_Page_131.txt
f08357b63ec01b5a3d2c4a56c59d7690
eda4f07ccade0f953b74512bd97a453ee716b065
50721 F20101114_AACMWA stocks_g_Page_134.pro
552be1030dcbddb04a986b575dc81abe
773070362094d96051d7407828da0331896dd0b4
2112 F20101114_AACNAS stocks_g_Page_117.txt
fcaf2cbd0350df1ead2f894fdfe3f775
b68ea4bfad90a3f2697f25370e3448ed18709a59
55330 F20101114_AACMVM stocks_g_Page_119.pro
30c88f90941a9f23f8dcae64024933b1
c86209e71cf3f960e6bd919e1e5016ed52c1b4e2
44871 F20101114_AACMUX stocks_g_Page_103.pro
65e471080b010ea6d9882815d440bf8b
0c18f40fe70668981b1fb1bcc795833dbf0d53d1
2286 F20101114_AACNBG stocks_g_Page_132.txt
85c1c127c77e951ba3f6382a57261df1
70c849a6635c98e2558a6c66911cbcb3e81abc43
68082 F20101114_AACMWB stocks_g_Page_135.pro
b1fe0173873a1ec04ca8c6949356279e
cb0e412597ba85e85151aedb7c5e5d4b6062e129
1972 F20101114_AACNAT stocks_g_Page_118.txt
28cd58c6fb574fc6a085b6db1ea5db42
b6b1169fc46a7096e95ce7f426dfe422b4f08a82
56242 F20101114_AACMVN stocks_g_Page_120.pro
b04e7e28ed1bab6cbf7d61c4866ac545
66b7300100cd4234110846e37b12d42d038a4789
59533 F20101114_AACMUY stocks_g_Page_104.pro
6ec5fc4e523fb3159e6efb5496d8ae7f
ba4a0dc1e6f144ca625183c54e51de7801debdd4
2806 F20101114_AACNBH stocks_g_Page_133.txt
204746dc55c7d356526b87be7179c06e
94b7e4749d808d86668f50ff398ed35cac6a924b
25941 F20101114_AACMWC stocks_g_Page_136.pro
f7adb9f02c144a0e198cd89d5a2b01cc
1a35d1171a61b2e524faece23cec66505ffc0e73
2169 F20101114_AACNAU stocks_g_Page_119.txt
4076d06b8b0efa574d2ea0392149212b
8fa3f98462f716472ea13383774db72e92fda1e8
50693 F20101114_AACMVO stocks_g_Page_121.pro
38a6a0b430676a68a350c37efeb89ee6
ba901519b668e7492dcec458f6d3953dfbfabc1f
50501 F20101114_AACMUZ stocks_g_Page_105.pro
05b9e85015d58a452fc2cdff0678593f
905ab61165bf60a506a0de46a27ba275aad5e906
2147 F20101114_AACNBI stocks_g_Page_134.txt
73c6857751b83063daab74970472d8e5
7a39a1fe7c5f9f9add4adeaa8a11bd118ce086d1
2706 F20101114_AACMWD stocks_g_Page_137.pro
2a5bfd19f9599ab290ab4ca8828220df
7a2f4fa5df9c29ae79889716ed838c60f5ee2aa4
2206 F20101114_AACNAV stocks_g_Page_120.txt
aabcd57db27763da5b48038d6c7cc372
762de703fe2c26383978256f9eb851e0cc98359a
57239 F20101114_AACMVP stocks_g_Page_122.pro
44b68389341b7717177b2bafe3a8f2ce
ab159954d3b66a6fbaa857b2f2e98cb4bcb0b851
2833 F20101114_AACNBJ stocks_g_Page_135.txt
e0477923dfcfb4ba2977220eb7c783d1
cfd65315444651403791569fa1a448591b7fcac0
4547 F20101114_AACMWE stocks_g_Page_138.pro
0524e836f2965d8c0f0cc9b12afcf09e
992b950c2f7c10addf270918bf48b5872045a126
2004 F20101114_AACNAW stocks_g_Page_121.txt
679585f9d9217507167d2ef2eb40c0ab
935ee301c1ddc63e315626f61c03fb0cf8f76665
52226 F20101114_AACMVQ stocks_g_Page_123.pro
3306e48749efc556d0c7de7e86e61715
65421fc1e958e6a2871eed0214ad97f344b32a4b
1093 F20101114_AACNBK stocks_g_Page_136.txt
c9867dc539bf9228bc9f06d511e22e94
6530d7864b8d1413a345454e2eaad8882cebc5a1
50410 F20101114_AACMWF stocks_g_Page_139.pro
d045d405b00c2d52e77b877d3abe1149
2b3e2c9227c027f4d4728f85219a5d0ac26617c3
2245 F20101114_AACNAX stocks_g_Page_122.txt
53aeefc677e1bb4c246cce13eae34bc2
625fd43a35bf3419500520e58eba5291cd74a359
52919 F20101114_AACMVR stocks_g_Page_124.pro
2fa0ba2850f4f33d86f6c11e877186b2
13e7312eceda322c30bc5a6182d0b5e15c7db72d
115 F20101114_AACNBL stocks_g_Page_137.txt
9ca3d5244bd100aaf3f8f3c9b7b6c5f9
4e6d84200928eb3150eb10a279e74a9245916466
2062 F20101114_AACNAY stocks_g_Page_123.txt
ca7cfbdf6a63e8fcb4c002fae9855aa2
12501ea2014169e48437108e1434b3f8e113165f
24459 F20101114_AACNCA stocks_g_Page_090.QC.jpg
10ca5cf1c976238716697e5ac8ee57b5
fd6d30bbb28e336a4095f6272ebcbffe970fbd9a
255 F20101114_AACNBM stocks_g_Page_138.txt
6cf2bfbc28f3bd61a250aae7cf59df78
d17d9dd19ad97cce0058f32a7515ef707f38addd
48209 F20101114_AACMWG stocks_g_Page_140.pro
de9de34e2c19efbf2c436aa719df5094
92c5229de96231e566d498fa5ccdbca2f890039f
2193 F20101114_AACNAZ stocks_g_Page_125.txt
162a28a6c9b7dccf0c56905eb66dea83
47896c5374ac14a31751739f6834d2c9fa86b0eb
55811 F20101114_AACMVS stocks_g_Page_125.pro
be9eefffc07f2686855326e28a9f7c23
7fd877b4c027495b2d0a7d6a4cdd6b198358beb1
23985 F20101114_AACNCB stocks_g_Page_063.QC.jpg
9872c396cb01c0d0990321b568514db1
4b9063da2a4bb83dd35a789a453d0b4b36b9026c
2120 F20101114_AACNBN stocks_g_Page_140.txt
805541675c85c8130346d8c16730dbac
701b783edec41b0b8aa282b1c23ef2ac1585e020
52092 F20101114_AACMWH stocks_g_Page_141.pro
e26030919fb9e54062f9b292b6366d53
a6e90e727825472ba3294b717a423314cf3df5e9
53793 F20101114_AACMVT stocks_g_Page_126.pro
292bb832d932f41d769833d349307e79
e77e2b764984181772a741fdf3f866f6cee86865
6892 F20101114_AACNCC stocks_g_Page_101thm.jpg
94a7da6c0bfdfb3a2a5d28bee57dec06
11a0ed86a9dcbf6cb9db016852d421eaac5a624b
2282 F20101114_AACNBO stocks_g_Page_141.txt
e2037c5b2bc5ac302bf4f98d1c6ac1eb
8871e95c157e68b793b7634e510b7e68d6523db5
51972 F20101114_AACMWI stocks_g_Page_142.pro
fcf62b170006f8eecc719216daff0ffc
7e66cc372578ff9b62cc74607a930baf9bec82d3
53716 F20101114_AACMVU stocks_g_Page_127.pro
bfbb861f1235297ce084da04ac452c1c
d766b21e0798eede26ff693d35e158ccb667fc87
23381 F20101114_AACNCD stocks_g_Page_118.QC.jpg
f6afacf900155d3ee093e4da7dc06582
6b1774904bad970248ceec2fd761e8bde2e0403b
2302 F20101114_AACNBP stocks_g_Page_142.txt
20065e0e0fe37ab4325548a45c079f4d
12b9bc9d4a346bbc9bb56109d3ceac3eeb7901b7
17732 F20101114_AACMWJ stocks_g_Page_143.pro
b7e2e1c09b7dad9c147c2f6759412b70
eb68b6383ff445b5fcdc0ce6512c8c178a32cefb
51535 F20101114_AACMVV stocks_g_Page_128.pro
0443e560c29cf7080252dc583c46f516
25256d016a30a9153f8ac2f02e0337c1bfa6cee8
3070 F20101114_AACNCE stocks_g_Page_002.QC.jpg
174d0f4d91521d6ef2b63811b1cdcb49
e65dd948e87484f4eec934b7bbfb41f4f999d44d
783 F20101114_AACNBQ stocks_g_Page_143.txt
401c32177362d09a939d58118f8a4c18
2db7715ff10a0ab18a6e8c183078a0ebe4ad13d4
13507 F20101114_AACMWK stocks_g_Page_144.pro
6e9ad80ec8f5a0d0b90c1c81b89d9b77
32a09d2032bfb9a1503b47520153e46b439940c4
56317 F20101114_AACMVW stocks_g_Page_129.pro
5426290fd9d1f3b9268cba407af62bb0
aae254ebaac7feb60a015300fc49a9cf98d26ffb
7040 F20101114_AACNCF stocks_g_Page_119thm.jpg
1caa2d0e62e5873fa5d5630c02748936
fd5a5850c198a702aa3fb5a1b49607ba256a0df3
577 F20101114_AACNBR stocks_g_Page_144.txt
08833d2dd0a3a6d0d94455dd12f577da
f69156f6898da95f1ee85137c9b8077b357ed59f
467 F20101114_AACMWL stocks_g_Page_001.txt
829bde38fe89c43962c7530af298b90c
3a71cbba3eabb55ad13c6c21546adf89ca655a88
56155 F20101114_AACMVX stocks_g_Page_131.pro
34440353b2c354c153cb56edf819f1b6
d4c361960323cc85283d2de6da890d0ddc39438c
6799 F20101114_AACNCG stocks_g_Page_090thm.jpg
73141d5842d0572b7d7912e890fa45ef
75bd4d1b763469dec3e3c07817d27507817c1a0d
793 F20101114_AACMXA stocks_g_Page_016.txt
1c316e4f2c35f653fecd0a943f60d333
15bbf4143f8c2aa7eb77187e3504508c64b9390c
1440029 F20101114_AACNBS stocks_g.pdf
e302eb266b8b7378dad50451491aaaeb
c6378f8ce94b41f611622886fa2acfe66a4a7b82
89 F20101114_AACMWM stocks_g_Page_002.txt
878203026f225c7464f27c8e4aeca952
20475228db1b633b9f16f3f766e78ae27b987566
53207 F20101114_AACMVY stocks_g_Page_132.pro
2ad18cf5223f5167ee361f2db6a28188
a833e6994d00cdbdea6f24857d725ce15d0b95ff
6679 F20101114_AACNCH stocks_g_Page_029thm.jpg
6f4aaccb878f95897e3085fe9060a14d
4daad8c1da6fcaa37425a0cebd26228a0b350112
2098 F20101114_AACMXB stocks_g_Page_017.txt
5c3b10c9fa8cdc2e3b4cbd434a67bbbb
10f3f31200866dd0c9118ca86156f02ea519b4ed
2604 F20101114_AACNBT stocks_g_Page_012thm.jpg
947845504740f77ab747b2ba2f067557
b8dc8712c2dc352cbb887666c81e655d94879d22
F20101114_AACMWN stocks_g_Page_003.txt
890fc7579c2d27b8053487ae1de7cbc0
4e700a4a159e25066fb82cd4a6ce4e81e1c81ec2
67062 F20101114_AACMVZ stocks_g_Page_133.pro
59051faf15dea51beeea7470dcf1a290
11a9ac4dcb8cdcf32e5ad944bc8b557717453e10
22480 F20101114_AACNCI stocks_g_Page_142.QC.jpg
4f6eb6eb03819feb1564e9609e690d79
a9418ede8e942a19ff9bf1b933c96102d8739cb7
2151 F20101114_AACMXC stocks_g_Page_018.txt
4ae7410f2eb675250a31a4b8c48d11fd
f897acc0555b04701d06ad2c74e9343d630340d7
6865 F20101114_AACNBU stocks_g_Page_093thm.jpg
e47ab4c6dc0236a7d7afc04d87b26ca4
3801fcd0c4ad0ec7f9688e4c569c66eabe69a782
1708 F20101114_AACMWO stocks_g_Page_004.txt
bd28914a7e19e57b6f1b2186f8f3429c
951d4a149f263d4557084371003ccee0fb9e8bcd
1324 F20101114_AACNCJ stocks_g_Page_002thm.jpg
49a4e8089d293a8fb1167bddd287dee2
cc7cc333beea7c61e80b58f2675c9f79c41f898c
2136 F20101114_AACMXD stocks_g_Page_019.txt
a797cd493aa64ef83ee24c9e142a83be
19984e0c93c68f33e425079e06fc3f936e7ca19a
F20101114_AACNBV stocks_g_Page_001thm.jpg
5f55daf6f92fda03f1162bf553230eeb
6c8cc7d4c7603940e0f85f023ff1ab1d53510e8a
3652 F20101114_AACMWP stocks_g_Page_005.txt
3686812fb31b14eb411aff90b7204dc1
652a405621c5646d927de075c30f407d8e205ff6
6615 F20101114_AACNCK stocks_g_Page_135thm.jpg
8a714c2a11094e6e7fc88430d978427a
ca7df6630994c0d5902d0af5189d730ef58225eb
2146 F20101114_AACMXE stocks_g_Page_020.txt
4a55533b17f2f4904140ae89d7e5d646
59fb5eb104a35b885542e0e26b8ff40c446545f0
20980 F20101114_AACNBW stocks_g_Page_004.QC.jpg
c8099a3addd2df95e275485cf74c6dfb
07bf027171aa91be596a350bdf47d7fcf71102ad
4710 F20101114_AACMWQ stocks_g_Page_006.txt
3742fafdece6bc5e716b47ca00cf9a07
8130a687a08747421e3742fc7f2a42ae76216125
10435 F20101114_AACNCL stocks_g_Page_032.QC.jpg
fca53d5f31dd5d657a9ff813b5f9eaf2
e800f9d1032878bf0a4fa3e074a8459d060a5bff
2128 F20101114_AACMXF stocks_g_Page_021.txt
b93d1a4719049b5b1b78d478b706b690
af4a1c9c260aac98a5ade6ba2ee51c120e1a4d62
5069 F20101114_AACNBX stocks_g_Page_071thm.jpg
ac82ac4150e67cea66702f72b69b954a
d02bbca766a0ca9349a702efeb17706875eb1862
714 F20101114_AACMWR stocks_g_Page_007.txt
ed1e89966e6c060a929897e254ef34b1
5b8b4a867618402fd74959f3d75801279cb27af3
23130 F20101114_AACNDA stocks_g_Page_060.QC.jpg
223c43f7b35d775ffd319441daf344d5
1bd02503e649981d91b4aafc1bc16c2e615fc939
25971 F20101114_AACNCM stocks_g_Page_062.QC.jpg
7b5d2d18b5d2b1c45341c857e718123f
4bf4428b853bf9e138945b547606e5615cef4944
944 F20101114_AACMXG stocks_g_Page_023.txt
dc7d62a9c8367b44821358ab6f1a27e9
4455c2c191b3729c440a9e3350e6b7364dd05eed
F20101114_AACNBY stocks_g_Page_020thm.jpg
f59875c5a1e244110155c0128bce94ff
3bcfbf47832225e097792d72546b82eec2b69ac7
619 F20101114_AACMWS stocks_g_Page_008.txt
fe90da1512404fd9346e620bd77ca96f
319e43c592a71ecb20402abe16364614ccfc17e5
25372 F20101114_AACNDB stocks_g_Page_093.QC.jpg
805f704d0175e044ecc6bae199f5e3da
29a98a358155eb5715e4560c636a758903a7ef85
6720 F20101114_AACNCN stocks_g_Page_031thm.jpg
e95cfabf837f41b4f865413994437701
02c6367088631fdf422a1d4f048b97b34721a20d
2063 F20101114_AACMXH stocks_g_Page_024.txt
407b0c79a0336b25beef826e9ef10564
30ea47b1c541f509c3807cbf73ff02dcbb27a575
6882 F20101114_AACNBZ stocks_g_Page_127thm.jpg
6487e4ea7847441157531370d0f0c231
6376db210ed490a0629b5d389f19bf4ccf252cdf
25520 F20101114_AACNDC stocks_g_Page_020.QC.jpg
f03c2e7775024ea121025b87f1c4a999
21c6cea08b5bb8856dd98e53930a0c7c14afff73
5128 F20101114_AACNCO stocks_g_Page_085thm.jpg
84e592094f11a9cd6317b8e40f6b8d99
9069ad6cc7fc2fcd34d83934f8cdf6ad3f281e7a
1162 F20101114_AACMXI stocks_g_Page_025.txt
9b500755d01b5006247bcfe253bb5aa1
0cb6200a84cabcfc33296b435c022c0cdd4be3f1
2744 F20101114_AACMWT stocks_g_Page_009.txt
97502471b98d86ace38af57abd2e9aa0
6d9e5b3d761744156ab8c3a27fddf469f3dcbbdb
53402 F20101114_AACMAA stocks_g_Page_068.pro
1243ea5b7c95ff440db7dc1db7cc0208
243dac94d20f47e8f15d12142ddb4caa9fa29ea0
21305 F20101114_AACNCP stocks_g_Page_080.QC.jpg
bf920f8af7731576dd00c5e81ef8fdf2
6faf63a6f0321c8742221bef943bce3b711426c5
F20101114_AACMXJ stocks_g_Page_026.txt
5a4c89364aa74160dd7658058f728b98
2ffbe76f7b01d1129f2eb09303a09c58dc732add
1211 F20101114_AACMWU stocks_g_Page_010.txt
93cd914288aff00250e02cb2add42263
e2f56f50e071bd9644debfb42a056761023aa9ea
F20101114_AACMAB stocks_g_Page_032.tif
5895064012cb7b34429504ae8b8fee91
c31e29e69ea87a6ab1a405bacce7c8051599bee3
21545 F20101114_AACNDD stocks_g_Page_132.QC.jpg
5ce032f02c4e9550e0e8103549ded683
789d00fe9d6759bc6b590a97e1dcee47eb7f2376
26133 F20101114_AACNCQ stocks_g_Page_135.QC.jpg
cbd0f47d009d5c5a048414d7da0a091b
8360e93272a28e0d2bdfff33a7b1bb9d382a151c
2216 F20101114_AACMXK stocks_g_Page_027.txt
936581b0b56cddc14754ab2048987028
77cb72069c4d350737d28f1239720ee4e209e79a
497 F20101114_AACMWV stocks_g_Page_011.txt
0e32c40500aa27c51bf8a583d299d4df
ac6cb4f92b436573e7ba16631c6e72d9c2161ccd
70325 F20101114_AACMAC stocks_g_Page_033.jpg
901d08ad7821f2c615c06e5f44ab1546
bf4f2d1a927085cd6cc1f17da2df55a7cac7eaad
5799 F20101114_AACNDE stocks_g_Page_007.QC.jpg
ea3b6e7b9ac7026a8e8aa753298ec768
f48de1f93b2c771ec407b9269d3214130c9791f5
26201 F20101114_AACNCR stocks_g_Page_058.QC.jpg
f0971a67026b336f11aafa21afdc8671
43d05cec0fd258c50835ca97fc94571480b6ff2f
2194 F20101114_AACMXL stocks_g_Page_028.txt
bbf1d34a1442f587a73ffa2d34a6bab7
fd571f3cf47078ab47bde49e8e75344fb6c114e0
494 F20101114_AACMWW stocks_g_Page_012.txt
13cc6af46cf6917a8ace436113f70bab
cb816b5415d68996be38876d9773e304f0b076c4
95792 F20101114_AACMAD stocks_g_Page_006.jpg
4689130c71f2d717cb1eac867f6e7ce4
f8910247a4ad807b5208cf2ea9c3fe946def7b04
5409 F20101114_AACNDF stocks_g_Page_056thm.jpg
fa8652fe24a7dfeccd1d40f760bc7004
2fa4b7e4d77cd187135d3dcfb45fe88f21058c0a
873 F20101114_AACMYA stocks_g_Page_044.txt
d6b14dfab19934144fc981246f5eea8f
426fdae24b4c0902b2b54c88b6dcb2230fec481c
7239 F20101114_AACNCS stocks_g_Page_122thm.jpg
365af7be144e66de666d9b420a11bedd
4bbf536e98c48dfeb7bab69e282201b350bede90
1301 F20101114_AACMXM stocks_g_Page_030.txt
45dc21465fe8044e18c92fab672f7853
4a6784203b9bb20c361fa493a8f53d8b93a83630
462 F20101114_AACMWX stocks_g_Page_013.txt
197140dfe92461455b43939ef37b3874
66a53a1169eee6d60f002d528517407b33c01a48
5616 F20101114_AACMAE stocks_g_Page_005thm.jpg
4443cdbc44e06373597085c99dae7437
159426e9c6dcd6d20f8f49ca5d0d5fc5f9782dc0
16745 F20101114_AACNDG stocks_g_Page_071.QC.jpg
6f6a5427362bab84e1482dca62a5318b
4ecd3f3bcd66f058a54e33295bb5eb9d244d5ffa
F20101114_AACMYB stocks_g_Page_045.txt
4a3801e24bc14f77cd14d664e2a309fd
fae6acb0a26b7b473502094c3cced4f7b3f446ba
21943 F20101114_AACNCT stocks_g_Page_140.QC.jpg
d27524c95e1b32277a8672e5887723bf
feeba36b412fa1497c15a6faabce0f11de6b4c30
2051 F20101114_AACMXN stocks_g_Page_031.txt
ff8fbb581e07b673a237be9e5d10c51f
41310114a2a98b2e3d261eb16177cfa0c05c8280
259 F20101114_AACMWY stocks_g_Page_014.txt
a7b13238b1f0f42d9bb903331ba3e0a2
21414d046441aa5c89f5d3cfe412d1c7c96294d3
21114 F20101114_AACMAF stocks_g_Page_015.QC.jpg
5432f566045b699860d3532e20e30706
ac574c1d95831b89413fff0979cd4955b742cc5d
5463 F20101114_AACNDH stocks_g_Page_053thm.jpg
a84911505a9da7d9985a480ff5c22f74
d7226aec9c338cf80d416fbd2321a869be53d2e2
1110 F20101114_AACMYC stocks_g_Page_046.txt
63020fde2b17eb12439d2e52f3ccbf5b
d8839ac99509b384290462020f9fe52921332e2b
18296 F20101114_AACNCU stocks_g_Page_114.QC.jpg
1dfdcd1edaaae262edd247497a1e428f
9d1953f6e99498f1c9c4f9ee53f650cdb2756b2f
734 F20101114_AACMXO stocks_g_Page_032.txt
08966dea93613e8243844471fbe17077
0728e6ed93189f5d3ade30ad96d33d1d3cccad85
1902 F20101114_AACMWZ stocks_g_Page_015.txt
66017a7172b47bf464c79016b79dbd0c
5e536886aa7a38f0f4c0ee0d8df711fee69f2d28
1313 F20101114_AACMAG stocks_g_Page_082.txt
5e6ffd5b853e5bfc1b8a187687a6b43e
ba98e87eb51afeae3fa4c2d9b5d49de07a62cb45
6969 F20101114_AACNDI stocks_g_Page_112thm.jpg
5188d46dfd3df4ac991736ec93e4bf65
f70f92a0f7f6809caaac876165e3e7539c0edfc7
840 F20101114_AACMYD stocks_g_Page_047.txt
fa58384710171eff10b827f2248b3084
de288b03b47a921e83ca6c7a1b6811a4368fa014
24197 F20101114_AACNCV stocks_g_Page_074.QC.jpg
8f3daf2d9f780289714a411020cc29c8
04ed06a7f34cd081811b6c6a43414cfbaabc41fa
1996 F20101114_AACMXP stocks_g_Page_033.txt
918bf382ca803db7bbc427bd087a65ee
80ab49a8922e18901cc7ed7c6480750d45c7f308
77143 F20101114_AACMAH stocks_g_Page_042.jpg
87e4c3a8e1f5d614fba8f4b59deef93d
ebbcd7bbed4a61026022b0e4ca6ca9dd67f05023
24073 F20101114_AACNDJ stocks_g_Page_111.QC.jpg
9007462bfdab60d879ef713cf3aa1db3
ce1c9bef36643f6425c942061b82adcc00dd9f2b
1573 F20101114_AACMYE stocks_g_Page_048.txt
13c40f21f22073dc72053fda8bd26cb0
6afcbfd35b32e4052781f8de72c27613c7748335
6980 F20101114_AACNCW stocks_g_Page_088thm.jpg
6e2a8ddd60160f7a9873212c570e2268
3cecd1e636257f0f4195db11722635afb0f0437e
1878 F20101114_AACMXQ stocks_g_Page_034.txt
a4e057e3aabbb150d8608dc11091a851
7f56ab93bfeb25fda024d6ce21da5e002ecd14a0
2090 F20101114_AACMAI stocks_g_Page_022.txt
5490d3132005d64641a76ac439e7fbac
37170a4038324e92eefced08c7c292428e460ab8
6920 F20101114_AACNDK stocks_g_Page_106thm.jpg
08eaad75ce1d41637146300ffc3ff517
995942cb67ff5684d81bfd2228970e74129d8564
2037 F20101114_AACMYF stocks_g_Page_049.txt
c310fc57b096149e23922e7ca31faa71
56a982314dfb181d3e5f114a9f2353e404d36d54
22032 F20101114_AACNCX stocks_g_Page_034.QC.jpg
2ad4f49e36c2f599bfef9e30e8799a74
a7440d4859cfefd7f9c2c229ef708d8e6cdf2ef2
2065 F20101114_AACMXR stocks_g_Page_035.txt
5bcdda3e286be3d0ec6d27e6cf4f971c
241715b81abe6648891c55b1eb1260d7e3c880d2
64966 F20101114_AACMAJ stocks_g_Page_077.jpg
a13996bd7f211602df3bc496fff3daef
eba59125b44f90f8f4b15ed86aa5c765a17e9ea2
26388 F20101114_AACNDL stocks_g_Page_028.QC.jpg
30fc78b75253236e65146f460abdd3f0
f43b83f2ca2169f72e0e03ce527dcc4449aea918
3056 F20101114_AACNEA stocks_g_Page_003.QC.jpg
b7a54d043be206081ddb10e6dafcbab0
778da297e79eedea51a2ffa8bb476906e6a37c4a
2124 F20101114_AACMYG stocks_g_Page_050.txt
f6f756798d7bef4a851cbbc696f6bfcb
4e3cf5b81cc344859e95fd82443ca6b921152bbd
2561 F20101114_AACNCY stocks_g_Page_013thm.jpg
13e39effda014ad5f3beb880db52d241
5fb05cc9170fbf71031d1bc5e64c288beb54ed83
1930 F20101114_AACMXS stocks_g_Page_036.txt
91d5933e38e8d295c103df247f25f185
2ab3d6eb0a5dcf3231f47822ee8b7dd0d7aa1560
F20101114_AACMAK stocks_g_Page_113.tif
c2bd5c20605ec346da513453cafd6639
7552e7d79d1546bad5ab9e13612a15c8befe9039
26435 F20101114_AACNDM stocks_g_Page_089.QC.jpg
1a95d7528cec4b0fdf1d7b324f252d46
bdbaffb9dff0cd268bc2ac7f9cb746337ca1400d
6369 F20101114_AACNEB stocks_g_Page_061thm.jpg
ac4dbe7362ecb3ca9dfdbdcd8f06f23c
c95466ceb9c922ca84d80cc4f886141364202152
758 F20101114_AACMYH stocks_g_Page_051.txt
7a835b4d5f32189ffbd4957bdc3a4975
d8b1dd8693dbc345d17215ae8d40da22f8916998
21012 F20101114_AACNCZ stocks_g_Page_021.QC.jpg
0d23b3f32f35bf567c6221f0dc3ddaaf
5ec3ecee32e498e06cf2a49c2b86aca57d5ce678
2117 F20101114_AACMXT stocks_g_Page_037.txt
44409b089cc317fe5bcaa26a12b45a3e
e7cb22082c85e3716a29029951b15e0b0d046ffc
2011 F20101114_AACMAL stocks_g_Page_029.txt
23771b453fc335bc0e1cfe0e286e1bee
cac3e8cfc8c773dff74f140239b331ec3d4d816e
24669 F20101114_AACNDN stocks_g_Page_124.QC.jpg
692673c312382cda5867c520b18212f7
84ad6b9041f297e5224159beb8813ba5eed623e2
3559 F20101114_AACNEC stocks_g_Page_040thm.jpg
85480b3f26e2122879319997c44ee448
26d15eaa4ea553b3899e5d54648be6af4d0f73a6
F20101114_AACMYI stocks_g_Page_052.txt
5d445f2b80352d78a6f6c811e18bf047
c404f9cf67d4391966835182069ca5c540fd014b
3002 F20101114_AACMBA stocks_g_Page_138thm.jpg
05bc34b257c2a6e54e04f290535ccbb9
101a1394b1550397e820f9445568f0b2352c94b5
74758 F20101114_AACMAM stocks_g_Page_024.jpg
873226fa0be86d1e6c3917f244b01e1e
0d3c202b03d862df5f9f11bf1961c56a27c51f74
8897 F20101114_AACNDO stocks_g_Page_144.QC.jpg
56a41d19deb60954998385c0ca6a97f0
1b3e8d60bdd16bef45f50eeb5dae575b22410891
25431 F20101114_AACNED stocks_g_Page_092.QC.jpg
1ed4f3bdedcdbc200462313016f6e2a6
2a7d18b73dbe445aa9b9cbfb449b6978f36993b6
1391 F20101114_AACMYJ stocks_g_Page_053.txt
55f1d0981716d31c4223cae88cb206f0
f854a432ae4e59c17abe436e0ad591d2bf719334
1340 F20101114_AACMXU stocks_g_Page_038.txt
b08fc934d32637941c02709f8332ad73
64a29828c754b6a5ee7202a3802f9f943f9f8ea7
89524 F20101114_AACMBB stocks_g_Page_133.jpg
5803cd08c35daf1d6bc3fab94e5c9e86
2fee41939d9ea03f9fbacc14e0d3e0200f151dc6
21941 F20101114_AACMAN stocks_g_Page_095.QC.jpg
9ab2add88e6dde035582f83e6b7672d2
85b7108ab85947a49fbacebee3b2a788d270b7a4
F20101114_AACNDP stocks_g_Page_119.QC.jpg
42629463f747202452f2903dfc34e914
66649c22ded92f0ec0f0e75ec05b0bebb08b84c2
24572 F20101114_AACNEE stocks_g_Page_024.QC.jpg
f1fae936e919840af74eb625ea958f7a
1c7fd2c3ca6e6326269e2559e705caac663c8027
1946 F20101114_AACMYK stocks_g_Page_054.txt
6e2efed0827a739375d87c92c2ff5f8c
ca23d7abf7de4871a7af8743ef28c9c52d0de99e
2123 F20101114_AACMXV stocks_g_Page_039.txt
21a4ceec334e09befd1b9f41046a92dc
4270746fa40dff22ea917c28e058a7c2b469ec91
74019 F20101114_AACMBC stocks_g_Page_045.jpg
f629a5c2bf38cd8f50e4730f2c8ed343
c49e7ba214da74d116622f4887684642a6b427e8
76910 F20101114_AACMAO stocks_g_Page_048.jpg
3952df6e32b5fff493c3244ba3cbb0e4
6694aab49322f047c7875a4a3b4500c28d061603
23677 F20101114_AACNDQ stocks_g_Page_117.QC.jpg
45620face971e3260e20af955fa111b5
8e05d130b142344907b30a6c7ee82091307532e6
23575 F20101114_AACNEF stocks_g_Page_115.QC.jpg
c1ee556d2f2b9909eda6cf9df3c5c4fd
d6d8c36f9a7273e5fdee5d0cc8d58794d193e6ae
1920 F20101114_AACMYL stocks_g_Page_055.txt
d1ae72a4014f16c639e43eacaf093ea5
bcbdfe61d3f4ed6c6f3387c59905d78afba13709
857 F20101114_AACMXW stocks_g_Page_040.txt
6228ae30bbc7bf59f54fceb7c8d00299
d4eff8d1f96eecd731007d6a6166dbc0706a560b
111355 F20101114_AACMBD stocks_g_Page_116.jp2
ad19c0b7c70fd5bbae1d78f16934bccc
8ae51bb8c26211d4780d4b6504de25424442ee92
53158 F20101114_AACMAP stocks_g_Page_093.pro
f2d22b3f988ad1c57ffbf8643bef3f61
eff60be41289c0c36e525fe36d169cbc92164a5f
25054 F20101114_AACNDR stocks_g_Page_126.QC.jpg
6642019516c344a11aa14aa9b8a336b4
bebdea93cb67d49cdadaeefed09dfa31da278d24
25797 F20101114_AACNEG stocks_g_Page_120.QC.jpg
4a070a304f80a8e4c6d8ce83e5b2abe4
af73bc89a5dd86893ded747ed831c9e7533cb9e6
2014 F20101114_AACMYM stocks_g_Page_056.txt
ea8e19490beb2c83abaf99b610004ac1
00ec8a91dacdd66f5623bd3b86e10510d38995b1
2096 F20101114_AACMXX stocks_g_Page_041.txt
cb3cfc1633fa258460ece9dbbba5126d
661571bae4acc0fb12f2ef994bf91ff0cf69d8ea
166105 F20101114_AACMBE UFE0021111_00001.mets
8ebfdbfd16aea65fc73ab5aa230974bb
a378b46daa3b43811e09521ed1d2888d90b4fd2f
74726 F20101114_AACMAQ stocks_g_Page_094.jpg
af180cd5e8081df44f79220609e15040
170e49a35e31111b3b0a53a295fd303caa4e54e8
943 F20101114_AACMZA stocks_g_Page_070.txt
1540dde100c04e41d4b0231afb4a016e
ab59689b0ab419686ea1f68759d5e49161887efb
6692 F20101114_AACNDS stocks_g_Page_117thm.jpg
8187acc27c9c8f770750136444e99a9e
a812bc495b9416b21ec4c0331abeb4296bb4a287
6285 F20101114_AACNEH stocks_g_Page_091thm.jpg
3d36d5b0ef5410468818dbc95283eb99
332bfb182af1bfe5d70ffd987c14632abf90246e
6674 F20101114_AACNDT stocks_g_Page_130thm.jpg
4c4dffdcf380cbd1c9fcd253c7931368
aa38156c2ab7110761955c899ee748154fe97cab
2049 F20101114_AACMYN stocks_g_Page_057.txt
5c6ca98e62cb546787896182f77fb272
05527e053944c0f485c0edfd88fcb960a5fac6c5
2157 F20101114_AACMXY stocks_g_Page_042.txt
da416ccbaa10c26ace676ff1bdfe8c1f
532b4527d17ab262db5eca502733827f18af06a5
110576 F20101114_AACMAR stocks_g_Page_041.jp2
cc56d42872f3340aba17dbfa04d19e46
d505ad547512db2f8e31ed8edc031a27e10338ef
F20101114_AACMZB stocks_g_Page_071.txt
691adc7832abfcc05b8091e968e18493
3ccbe28a72fb81eee09873498da2b893dc0123ec
6769 F20101114_AACNEI stocks_g_Page_023thm.jpg
16c16d42ad0a66e5eba285a8c1760f25
c573f298b161944451b59513c2fdee8f5c4c0b17
6580 F20101114_AACNDU stocks_g_Page_017thm.jpg
042d806e6ba5d2c6f90f0ffbb598f25b
a3ee03f2d0b8fb9f9e23720dee117e2d90236bc8
2735 F20101114_AACMYO stocks_g_Page_058.txt
21b4fb3e4b67aaa971c67045ce56b891
d22fdd2e1e8c44e11ef68cc004f29e2b40f33722
2537 F20101114_AACMXZ stocks_g_Page_043.txt
e7d98c5a5bb809f81423b1dbd28d063c
e32ca639d1315849b3836f867646771341bdfba6
72675 F20101114_AACMAS stocks_g_Page_105.jpg
c7a4dedaa9cdf79194302410b97eee04
75739060c8ca49e70c4eb7955f274b9f5920f4e4
2763 F20101114_AACMZC stocks_g_Page_072.txt
ab626afbff214b41056d9fdcde4a682f
6bf655d43a87c4b8ee3a0fc4c265b3516d4370b4
1959 F20101114_AACNEJ stocks_g_Page_007thm.jpg
8c2d067adb0289262de57617a8bb7984
99753411bd07ecd04efed61168c6edf59cb84253
14861 F20101114_AACNDV stocks_g_Page_047.QC.jpg
3fdba66b8f342d01ec26824be1f73846
655f841e00207a232d5afb756e9763dc3382c620
1023 F20101114_AACMYP stocks_g_Page_059.txt
a0788f4a818ed7d5a7ebcc77e66346be
bff044779115f1e7b961a97fb7f29c7879a12d0f
21870 F20101114_AACMBH stocks_g_Page_001.jpg
9d3493f163da73da7438d73293b7c222
707f094a4e44051980707e879b05a99063ce5151
2084 F20101114_AACMAT stocks_g_Page_124.txt
84978389391e630b816467c5a8b3c9fb
97011217f136c957ea236760031902efc3c08d81
2082 F20101114_AACMZD stocks_g_Page_073.txt
7cce998b85b1ca353435c4ec6a27b280
91085da6f18759a241d6c9296896df4de7d6b97e
7081 F20101114_AACNEK stocks_g_Page_069thm.jpg
500d57c2905378275476d5772d023a8a
afd96b42925ae1762557f7fd1ae087a062dbe7e0
25977 F20101114_AACNDW stocks_g_Page_129.QC.jpg
574d891db7688f79a921658ee0934bfd
4c66970a4554322644c9e20be3f3b9b0a918620a
2292 F20101114_AACMYQ stocks_g_Page_060.txt
f3450ea591f0313f74bd092ba6e1e45c
f6127704a53ca49a0097295e06755c724c7e4ed9
9909 F20101114_AACMBI stocks_g_Page_002.jpg
635f21abe5dc918e39b3fa9f8abd735f
8d504b9d2e6eb06ecacb3e202da79026df94be31
105847 F20101114_AACMAU stocks_g_Page_075.jp2
e60b92a9b787593b98828aa287ed98ec
b7cf6cb65e3a8705ee5a6d401796299a98e750c7
2101 F20101114_AACMZE stocks_g_Page_074.txt
72df9249adf5e20987838b743374beb8
1edf04a43736582ea3a827a5733ff187ac67a3f7
6600 F20101114_AACNFA stocks_g_Page_049thm.jpg
7c491d19cb2c6c9398ccf83f4fed5514
c22e88c4ba0549bf09731f537082a919fc1bcb68
6144 F20101114_AACNEL stocks_g_Page_075thm.jpg
af1ac33c42d5901b61e3a58ee66a2f3e
f244b3233da9a0351d0eade98be7d716c410015f
7099 F20101114_AACNDX stocks_g_Page_104thm.jpg
18326efb27c39042cd8f390e69fe17dc
08a2b5b539605d621289d3a8277147a1636bce54
1968 F20101114_AACMYR stocks_g_Page_061.txt
083333e343e1dd948fbf28d22443b177
99343a6621239cee5f73b582829032ee9d590876
9811 F20101114_AACMBJ stocks_g_Page_003.jpg
793322c5dc7f1531c1000d0dfb0861ec
c7a12d86dde2a0e132fc8ab9e767628aa7310b31
23412 F20101114_AACMAV stocks_g_Page_079.QC.jpg
9f2a61032fcb578fa2b274e840f0c2ae
859fd8717534e488e1a6ec68c88567fe091d6942
F20101114_AACMZF stocks_g_Page_075.txt
cbb8a86f4f355ef12da4ef6333484182
5467cc1075235b149df1bfafd1b0ab3630ebe118
6439 F20101114_AACNEM stocks_g_Page_141thm.jpg
d9792f4c6bcec89c0076edac4de2e91f
cc2444634b4a3c83d13366bcbfe83d7ff967aacc
14791 F20101114_AACNDY stocks_g_Page_059.QC.jpg
5cf26412bdba8084a7eabdc87fbef16d
5662358dccf64fdf7883e8647b26bf69b1012dd4
2172 F20101114_AACMYS stocks_g_Page_062.txt
6617c8405c2a6199c6913ea06c6018b2
8d46688725a23f952bd3d0ed67625e603946a3a7
63843 F20101114_AACMBK stocks_g_Page_004.jpg
fde7fa89028144cbc8d3a256a023bef8
f0981f2cd8f4d259e7ff2e3a12ea27b354ad3ceb
26995 F20101114_AACMAW stocks_g_Page_043.QC.jpg
3021f76e68f1b1d24af1c64e9feecc60
d7d064e4672133d1b600e537f5eda2ec3bb976d9
2185 F20101114_AACMZG stocks_g_Page_076.txt
613543bfadf98510f5a65f648a1534f6
3eee019492f257729a7a4030637f6cea7b8ad882
24465 F20101114_AACNFB stocks_g_Page_022.QC.jpg
0c5d59217c60b38ede1a10b06f4afdd9
d64f48a818f2cd435dfb1b2496a645829ca0bc4e
25134 F20101114_AACNEN stocks_g_Page_064.QC.jpg
fa3f1bf73db1a9957721a83d55547aaa
307715269100eb196c3c7ce1d305f7fb93f0db5c
22161 F20101114_AACNDZ stocks_g_Page_055.QC.jpg
87edc039c64817f86300a827f499e3bd
2cee73900789d71256d7c3a0122186668a9119f4
2005 F20101114_AACMYT stocks_g_Page_063.txt
d97a6e44cbeec405b973a125b81a8f93
0b62ed6d73d574b75d581694082a034731edc138
77992 F20101114_AACMBL stocks_g_Page_005.jpg
613ca2c2e29964e5662a0f34345187de
d6a5305311c984819ab74119c547e79466a2c28b
F20101114_AACMAX stocks_g_Page_039.tif
41a23cc39d89c6a7c2f7d1685f59468f
c8ceec1cce4401bfa5614fac89ae3b7fde3d9c24
1651 F20101114_AACMZH stocks_g_Page_077.txt
698b6d44b442f041ec7c3a483cb80744
07a3978caa47c8cd058e25aee6ab31ef9d37b89c
7109 F20101114_AACNFC stocks_g_Page_028thm.jpg
4c277c813e05add526fa42e115bf97e4
a56c5d757e2b0ccc19b27098e940e49f85f82f4c
2680 F20101114_AACNEO stocks_g_Page_144thm.jpg
612fdd7864fffb5ee6700b79c7674d04
7b4b55d3d86f5169d6325a828f195bef4e4ce162
1284 F20101114_AACMYU stocks_g_Page_064.txt
dcc3e3f61f1e3150522cb148893a616c
cd8494fcbc7fb608c0586cc64c73982de8d7b6ab
65952 F20101114_AACMCA stocks_g_Page_021.jpg
b053df46815849eee2e7cda7a95193b6
667b46175ee897dadb528285ca4f77f78e0372c4
18367 F20101114_AACMBM stocks_g_Page_007.jpg
abc2f67a56ff0f33bd30ba7fc20bcb6f
82fb5f0c3c7c3a0ea18fac4441025763d5b99999
55048 F20101114_AACMAY stocks_g_Page_106.pro
bf59f9fb029de747596bc75d13f552fe
c90e2e5c6ea8fe44e6e3407589a7699fab6552d1
2080 F20101114_AACMZI stocks_g_Page_078.txt
3bfd7bfef94988ae8ecd8821786cd415
71c232928263e5070338bd1d136c292d3095e82b
6344 F20101114_AACNFD stocks_g_Page_099thm.jpg
2c2feff42209900b53a4f59888cfaae2
6a162039111ffef514bf5c54a802a0c8a775e3b5
6878 F20101114_AACNEP stocks_g_Page_022thm.jpg
8fee63cb752d61a23c730ec873d095c6
b7c58b060131e1d72165e5155622d7dbe82a1cc9
73291 F20101114_AACMCB stocks_g_Page_022.jpg
860511a75895ddbd059ab526f2f712fa
49e9fd0c10cb249955663c2e8ce0bebab993404e
22936 F20101114_AACMBN stocks_g_Page_008.jpg
f3f35788129b2121c6a98a9dcd2c9872
3f92381470dbc488d522a2e3fe2d7389134d0418
1051982 F20101114_AACMAZ stocks_g_Page_025.jp2
c5eacfea4702b2d3726e0f3e42fd28d2
8d31bfb2fe22424ed84ab3557b580f819fd5395c
2048 F20101114_AACMZJ stocks_g_Page_079.txt
feee58af41f69619366ac195e6e08f93
363721fb6feaae505142c88bdb83b3375ea35a04
4897 F20101114_AACNFE stocks_g_Page_047thm.jpg
544f1a5330e73347d4715cc9a691319e
3d7b21afe0a36a280276e1277ade5a5eff0e6423
6280 F20101114_AACNEQ stocks_g_Page_108thm.jpg
730462ac30233c604cfb6db6c3677e7c
4e8ef77a66b4e96ea5123424562b20273052e3e1
1446 F20101114_AACMYV stocks_g_Page_065.txt
4a85461c25f4dfddc74f30ccae103af0
eac0bd19585ec2faf7d62d4036d6d645026e739b
76055 F20101114_AACMCC stocks_g_Page_023.jpg
f93bd8c0356d8c005c332f23db1554b3
378551d2e00eec536dfb71e5e9ba1e4c0d50c029
78108 F20101114_AACMBO stocks_g_Page_009.jpg
2d3f151f7992f7ddad0105080c9af585
a9de6a21fa4d9b238e91a394fbc384894e7090e0
1692 F20101114_AACMZK stocks_g_Page_080.txt
64f2a777b35ae0aa49887b3313c95a2c
cf97f0a52197d73b32365f844714b2b80d211acf
7108 F20101114_AACNFF stocks_g_Page_087thm.jpg
4efa22364fce413278eab74d929b2e42
cb5dde3eb34e6ea1066fbeaed496fe3999bcb79f
23081 F20101114_AACNER stocks_g_Page_054.QC.jpg
01b974164ae8db6c73f3aa81b2794e99
ee17206c711fe23fc84f03cd8e0e6d86812ecd92
1537 F20101114_AACMYW stocks_g_Page_066.txt
83764949e680643ef093800e9408447b
c58846b4b00d6aa43f289e52d8405f6eca0becd5
80823 F20101114_AACMCD stocks_g_Page_025.jpg
5d184471ca086e09710c0882bcfd11f1
392828c9204d692d4b5bd26d373a9ac393738539
42785 F20101114_AACMBP stocks_g_Page_010.jpg
e480620af9338f8f7c829fcdf893b59b
ec865010e7d11dd1b47a92c2c35f38dc75d6e022
2031 F20101114_AACMZL stocks_g_Page_081.txt
04af2190e67bb67a366eddc105e8062a
c4f155eeadd76ab8de51b99234b176508f8e476f
19887 F20101114_AACNFG stocks_g_Page_066.QC.jpg
ba1b94f1fe20f826f930fc3725367a59
27d7f93b28003722a8a909901aef9a1c2e582bdb
7090 F20101114_AACNES stocks_g_Page_026thm.jpg
b72e63768e250142aa29164b9568659f
7c8487f01e3deb33589947c324089c687bb3d978
2665 F20101114_AACMYX stocks_g_Page_067.txt
cc9806acedf8bcdff5239c03056b6d22
496fb2a7256d506582be7ef7544ce452e2eb737c
79139 F20101114_AACMCE stocks_g_Page_026.jpg
7ee33abac2897f478534ddc4c12ec57a
643494bf5a7b134a353e59dc91611bf4a95c6ce2
21905 F20101114_AACMBQ stocks_g_Page_011.jpg
243812ca03656e983448e41c4340b49f
c0bbb10a7d4c33f43926ac0697794759782b10cb
1926 F20101114_AACMZM stocks_g_Page_083.txt
ba7250f6e92de0676d824c8c481ad63f
d63e11479715d4ff5eed44d083d82a7c6d42b9d8
25654 F20101114_AACNFH stocks_g_Page_109.QC.jpg
f162de1520e6ff8b208791377d234ddb
a262c63127f54635334668e28bdb03ce19f1c575
6150 F20101114_AACNET stocks_g_Page_110thm.jpg
1e9a6916b28a58f8a7e6a8d61192950b
b0b0713091229469ea3ec0e953930c34e8eb1822
2600 F20101114_AACMYY stocks_g_Page_068.txt
eb72b66dac6e1d5a33ee400f50fd23b6
8e54540164ba933b210eace519433fed8153b17b
79810 F20101114_AACMCF stocks_g_Page_027.jpg
755075ac6d73a8fba12d9c7880dd0873
52b72d418ac3b19eab3dfc2f54978a9daf50ebb1
21763 F20101114_AACMBR stocks_g_Page_012.jpg
e5233454d1fe6d76227e799cd251cdfa
3c624f81b51e75253975d9ce48067406fab1f651
2104 F20101114_AACMZN stocks_g_Page_084.txt
885bce56da6be3543c7e14a34e17be9f
ba6fb8eaa5c00800f4898ad166a79675e5c823dd
6586 F20101114_AACNFI stocks_g_Page_063thm.jpg
11768d07e439748eb95713403570c377
10050c06bf6e225c6f615347f95bfbb6d6dd1a7a
2667 F20101114_AACNEU stocks_g_Page_137thm.jpg
10fbae66fe6803f90aa5665580332973
5de49a115b8c592ecb75456128b5bc605a894c96
2076 F20101114_AACMYZ stocks_g_Page_069.txt
32c064c2657f98d71088f56688784116
090903a4b16ecd268b9c5bf2fbb84e331812424c
79103 F20101114_AACMCG stocks_g_Page_028.jpg
776b64470d8881d44586dcd7b50ca53f
41bc6e8c06253d1a8ef41c4940e621bc24f70678
20820 F20101114_AACMBS stocks_g_Page_013.jpg
3207b8b654b15545919727ec7be7cc80
0fd5e51169fc05ea754d7de8edfad983aff889d7
1481 F20101114_AACMZO stocks_g_Page_085.txt
0b8c9390005b693208e3951f2c2f29d4
0cbe2ec140036148aa1c7f26ec61dcfab45bfa0c
6905 F20101114_AACNFJ stocks_g_Page_092thm.jpg
1e9b9cd4192a6cd01147d269eb0ee177
70a3eb04d1978c0d7d598cac110db999a79fbbdb
6485 F20101114_AACNEV stocks_g_Page_036thm.jpg
2cbd0b913713060f360cd5797866104d
3176c76b0232505711d24cc187fea124996cb2e5
73951 F20101114_AACMCH stocks_g_Page_029.jpg
72d7b1d687651cc57af51dd893f8d9ec
baacd4ab58815c362c65fd1ba3c8df7bed53dd30
15189 F20101114_AACMBT stocks_g_Page_014.jpg
42485d33caf32da2b206f5d5c52f5062
70cf303c973df740bd8a199b2244fa4ab4b08378
1977 F20101114_AACMZP stocks_g_Page_086.txt
7762207e320148fd7d5996061715edb3
d1ee1dac794204f5c9d09553fec63d51eee804d2
25391 F20101114_AACNFK stocks_g_Page_018.QC.jpg
4af69b9dc20684a30894d96a6eec720a
e6fe03a79a2af8f6bf66e368ea3b75bca397b952
6290 F20101114_AACNEW stocks_g_Page_083thm.jpg
395ed4d592e4810404852cc5de671c3a
4c13418eb0323d93a7a11d13a4cc6e723aaa10b0
61564 F20101114_AACMCI stocks_g_Page_030.jpg
3a6a49128feb7e7911c5e18311545301
37627556fd6b1040fccd957f155540e379ed04af
64660 F20101114_AACMBU stocks_g_Page_015.jpg
f1d7bd52be393693e783ff16e6836101
9fa054a695bb5670b97a457540d9509185353cc8
2242 F20101114_AACMZQ stocks_g_Page_087.txt
a046f2b50600e6747b41bb3ee7c3c609
96713cbd9365a240ee200c41acac2440a75685b3
24773 F20101114_AACNGA stocks_g_Page_100.QC.jpg
5b280ffd2643bb39d10193f9ea7084b2
0bd0b7cc24856bcf06a38ee4a5590767364f009f
25438 F20101114_AACNFL stocks_g_Page_088.QC.jpg
bd636bf3eeb5003a957fef4d2de82e0b
8c32e2c4bd569fbd6444f9b94902026a2006101b
F20101114_AACNEX stocks_g_Page_105thm.jpg
f4f275c0ced00c9bd42a01676da6b855
50bf8dd70ad413bb0f2cfe248742836865dd3e84
74560 F20101114_AACMCJ stocks_g_Page_031.jpg
3f34f12bd3afa56a5a2d8257102ed443
a6ee5cd052ac80ee74a9c376cc8844c3e41adc34
33114 F20101114_AACMBV stocks_g_Page_016.jpg
8a6be6291f10be949c940a5578c8bd1e
87be12ae3a0f840e71a7a0bf6bb2685a3568138e
2322 F20101114_AACMZR stocks_g_Page_088.txt
3e8eac6a398ac2150b482a0bc719ad7e
d78b96287d14d0b58cdf8bcb6332ad013b367eb2
3367 F20101114_AACNGB stocks_g_Page_016thm.jpg
30157b59dd2f360f94e4946e16f4012e
c5721e7b67893591b35258c43c488bb30dca99fd
25072 F20101114_AACNFM stocks_g_Page_130.QC.jpg
291798cc1bdce56a56dc4309d0d1d086
ff1522b8f2b0b29d389148744bd8a8279570b747
22783 F20101114_AACNEY stocks_g_Page_097.QC.jpg
e43474386344b84483838138088f26b1
b84c4767410b9622be10d1635fe27c112a2c83e7
31107 F20101114_AACMCK stocks_g_Page_032.jpg
07f61d753811582e85eef98610f3b056
385a83c2538b71af15dfcb604c84ceee985f6a83
72608 F20101114_AACMBW stocks_g_Page_017.jpg
30c239839e8cf0b7c6e3e3d1be8d2461
eda42b38a4fccfb7b6ccbb24a97b9e6b02494260
2268 F20101114_AACMZS stocks_g_Page_090.txt
78f59cd326e14c8d8ae30814529f264f
9241ad8f658ff566346d97f7866ec9ed760cfc26
6737 F20101114_AACNFN stocks_g_Page_074thm.jpg
9446d22130e653e8458f78e9f89f32cf
b66f9600b4f0cf1ec96bb44f9652ee76f64cb2f6
6977 F20101114_AACNEZ stocks_g_Page_076thm.jpg
b6c57623ef247c03800cb485bc6c9d9d
1cdb91a0aaf2f810b8a411e14626a761645e1004
67133 F20101114_AACMCL stocks_g_Page_034.jpg
50418721c24ae8d91ebd114a013c8995
aedaba8ea665428493f1a9af2b42dc9446f715e1
77590 F20101114_AACMBX stocks_g_Page_018.jpg
c10ccbd5b08c6ee8f9ec209384d0dc4a
2c6a48178c4bf24e648e4fc56419a8d46152c507
2133 F20101114_AACMZT stocks_g_Page_092.txt
25deedc0fea543e608c675883a62d39a
c637202c27e4beb606bda85cfaeca4b63418eb57
5150 F20101114_AACNGC stocks_g_Page_070thm.jpg
e260d50633af86124f073367b94148e6
6c74d405f17407a1f70db6158e168778123a2e4d
21687 F20101114_AACNFO stocks_g_Page_077.QC.jpg
7288db8392f47ad622aff4a0d6083424
3297e192a40120eb6c15ec48aac1a18762e64600
73995 F20101114_AACMCM stocks_g_Page_035.jpg
ce125632647ed31ae57e130061cfd2dc
f4278e617731b1551be4f8c800eb8c90a937ea60
77290 F20101114_AACMBY stocks_g_Page_019.jpg
b134db4fcecc067e9aeb175c556ea548
9ee5b4b7b80347930a56cd0704c372755d9cfd55
F20101114_AACMZU stocks_g_Page_093.txt
5dd9e58cf56d3c51972126056e482cb5
ea3586abace90c87e086af1a63663da4bf81b495
72400 F20101114_AACMDA stocks_g_Page_052.jpg
5ccc60ba4a90ae581ae1b17571278f77
addf4e43aa96d384f46b4fba33ab7a1d7077a111
23009 F20101114_AACNGD stocks_g_Page_091.QC.jpg
66177a98b43ca8202f8164f4899b4f32
49c9aed62ade6a1691d5cb22f83b6840513c5bb2
25820 F20101114_AACNFP stocks_g_Page_102.QC.jpg
6de3099d7af24581c1b5de51333c0c60
513269ee76c0bb2483f3e8c9cd76ce29e96f7d3a
69237 F20101114_AACMCN stocks_g_Page_036.jpg
c48e284851eb5fc6fd97a3b7fd60be6e
5333dbfe01b1343abd2c727e06e8c8a17932ae4b
77330 F20101114_AACMBZ stocks_g_Page_020.jpg
e7029b45d353865ce7ba9981e4df855f
34fe24728843cc3d9ba63e9161baa23f8d71d49c
2121 F20101114_AACMZV stocks_g_Page_094.txt
1628f46464b08f051e7b3d1bc8bf2431
182685c8fb4718b4adbd3c76046fde8665e7d709
57594 F20101114_AACMDB stocks_g_Page_053.jpg
ed4d911ac7b9e0cfeb06740ef71a2756
be49c5af77925c775cf80dc05e8905600ea2ef2c
22785 F20101114_AACNGE stocks_g_Page_084.QC.jpg
05482f675bb7a700de57979c649fd353
5089269e997b72f8d0d1cc91858f628dee5017e0
24297 F20101114_AACNFQ stocks_g_Page_098.QC.jpg
d738571752324b91cf22695e321e8a59
9adc18cf8a6828f27ca7cbb17c27f6f15648fdfd
73741 F20101114_AACMCO stocks_g_Page_037.jpg
2c890fed38d718a1b901737dd5c9ffa7
371685ecd914a5ad2819c2bd8482be1df771f64e
68713 F20101114_AACMDC stocks_g_Page_054.jpg
e979c1336e958b114cdbcd8044a55b38
46f32c90f2eab93b9b3b8755692b9b8616710b55
6483 F20101114_AACNGF stocks_g_Page_124thm.jpg
ef8d48406327144bb2b841fff10b2cc2
d18b800b15136df89c2a22c1583db79412130852
7068 F20101114_AACNFR stocks_g_Page_001.QC.jpg
184c79053a4d751f2093f721893b00a7
5f92d2d4d6621dac7778f22d8829aa72941b74e2
73105 F20101114_AACMCP stocks_g_Page_038.jpg
0db6e87ee489cbd3927434fb5ce57877
f1f8301c0ed2747a8b5e56c5b4c7c7b3b1899358
1933 F20101114_AACMZW stocks_g_Page_095.txt
d1853d3d82cba387ffc3f2e43aad2611
2200a3825bbd4d4c0c4dd04a414743bfedad32d7
67719 F20101114_AACMDD stocks_g_Page_055.jpg
51336cbf20b85f56e987d48288638397
1e6574d600ffd629ab6297deff7ca6f1879a64f9
5868 F20101114_AACNGG stocks_g_Page_030thm.jpg
ea49d4686a47394272ce7b25fdec799e
40c6ae83c4cf712645608ee0e6a6c64f6bb2231c
6535 F20101114_AACNFS stocks_g_Page_086thm.jpg
ccd19bfb0ae32e0665a5025024a4c35b
36efacc27fe7fb90b960283ba852c031d5cf9cec
75374 F20101114_AACMCQ stocks_g_Page_039.jpg
f7e75ec09e41528dbb8bd7030afbc031
5ddbbd8b8e1a6a16e723342836ca5cd81aa979a4
2023 F20101114_AACMZX stocks_g_Page_096.txt
c8209182515bc16c3c4905c16124a92e
49e4f16f890446847f78dd769a0ac9e7d7a00538
65411 F20101114_AACMDE stocks_g_Page_056.jpg
c0486e0b7f53052285fd690eb7e811a0
66a1b2508d137249be1ac6d5ada833564303317e
22968 F20101114_AACNGH stocks_g_Page_108.QC.jpg
21fd370eb04c4a238b8921272f78f6e9
8960d66a5dd5e7cdf4c8732fec8f96210df5a197
23612 F20101114_AACNFT stocks_g_Page_037.QC.jpg
01eb6a2a51be26da8eef194a61ee3b29
b2c84d1a34d00fd1cad62dab60719b66e3ddf5b0
1873 F20101114_AACMZY stocks_g_Page_097.txt
b4a097ae0e46a4f8398e1f5b51be8830
d143a93a2af94cff9db7769090cdd7335fda941d
73031 F20101114_AACMDF stocks_g_Page_057.jpg
f079b35c4b8ff56df3c48932fa85db5f
c0dfff50a34a613adccc8481487609b0b6860c89
35600 F20101114_AACMCR stocks_g_Page_040.jpg
67f56b0b67248a4d7c8dcc346556a7da
0814e4dbc0405dab3d8790e3e5859d75b03ac791
24544 F20101114_AACNGI stocks_g_Page_057.QC.jpg
c85668b85f473ae62fdcde920169804e
9ba5033f7be9dac890dfef5551a0f0db9b6b521d
F20101114_AACNFU stocks_g_Page_042thm.jpg
c30abcdc4c13c5ed6fa32bf65a69913d
fbdb2f8583149284ce848ce338c2fa10c28341b4
F20101114_AACMZZ stocks_g_Page_098.txt
ce5def9705c5b9d0c89f4e4f33d92c0f
8b80de0facb346c7aa78c7653e4abb2b06b2114c
84570 F20101114_AACMDG stocks_g_Page_058.jpg
37bc2234c784e13ada832c5a57707500
a71ecabd39b6582c0a88a63968aaaf827ff19009
74580 F20101114_AACMCS stocks_g_Page_041.jpg
b92baed9f8ccc9817bcb92bb3e4d99ff
dd0bcb9259fb1fdc66dfa752f642b320d0ac643b
4712 F20101114_AACNGJ stocks_g_Page_072thm.jpg
7f2a46fa97afbfce962ee05bca43d0a4
9cb1823fa0adc8a3bbf0e0d9d4df8656f7e28467
6464 F20101114_AACNFV stocks_g_Page_033thm.jpg
51f21479693aaeca62c5426db322a41d
9b9ff8c8cf5ea2cdef3f9fb1a44ca312feb1bd6c
44929 F20101114_AACMDH stocks_g_Page_059.jpg
47812872baaf74fb90f052bde9dee39b
fdd643868fb914992c16b46d33dc1a30fbab800d
85611 F20101114_AACMCT stocks_g_Page_043.jpg
cf5717ef8f697987803a003139d235df
97ec2fa9c7bb471b1b66a2f68cc11a5dc56898e1
F20101114_AACNGK stocks_g_Page_024thm.jpg
0e067bbbc966854385ec7e040ba2aa7d
e191404537206d62013552908687d3cbe4ac7715
9378 F20101114_AACNFW stocks_g_Page_138.QC.jpg
d376c75292c26bf9e39c1c1f74532470
7e30f76279ea68e6b99011069562e6537dd9b602
74324 F20101114_AACMDI stocks_g_Page_060.jpg
0ddf20756d1ea17d3d197378dc7f80e1
bddc80c3db490302fab483fdf47c26786963b2c5
62526 F20101114_AACMCU stocks_g_Page_044.jpg
9cc32be769b3806958b5a765a03d1508
f46ea383b0a445b05e6439eaf99899964fc50489
6709 F20101114_AACNHA stocks_g_Page_041thm.jpg
537ae76599f56dd6808b6d16b6ab378a
56344f6d9f7f2981e450661ff8889c2662a6cd42
23881 F20101114_AACNGL stocks_g_Page_128.QC.jpg
cb32d7fd0091871cf2232710f67c72e0
9cfa889a4e443d803124edd8b28fa2267fb89901
6347 F20101114_AACNFX stocks_g_Page_139thm.jpg
177ec4b7ce3b451d61cc2ccde75f3967
821ddd69c0749a4d3ce1cecd3c4622c3c8452699
71550 F20101114_AACMDJ stocks_g_Page_061.jpg
5ad5a8c1fafeaf8c44f4cb48efea5526
199661d426ea522f61c487b26bd99c4275a040ec
43332 F20101114_AACMCV stocks_g_Page_046.jpg
bc4c276fc448efe7f169d88c92348713
0fef5dea9e4fc2e0103b005262c6eab2c3a9ce9a
4709 F20101114_AACNHB stocks_g_Page_059thm.jpg
8d1eec7ce28e872d3802a4cc304a05a5
43a9313652331be5a116364709d10fa8fe5486ee
3258 F20101114_AACNGM stocks_g_Page_143thm.jpg
2185e7d7aff275d74ac932eb28baf558
3a3622a6dd40bad84165a76d1e65826c5bd970bb
7089 F20101114_AACNFY stocks_g_Page_013.QC.jpg
1e07436aac6af60b92dc861ea0303af3
f44bbe878284cb942beaf6b086a0c6a8889e05ac
78274 F20101114_AACMDK stocks_g_Page_062.jpg
df69098eb567cf19d8f5552b508f9634
757221190dbdf22878050469fcc0567b455d6d88
42484 F20101114_AACMCW stocks_g_Page_047.jpg
7e65a0fe0828692a356105db2368d191
9c475e82467506013257859eeb2d11bf0cf02408
7070 F20101114_AACNHC stocks_g_Page_120thm.jpg
83a069d5e5849a20e0973ae766ac958a
607d030bc7aa348c5fdce248f9430421a2204a1e
5834 F20101114_AACNGN stocks_g_Page_134thm.jpg
32be6592078a25e1eaa84eff14c3f1ed
8dc68acd2b78c0e13074de65c289b4f53c373b65
7353 F20101114_AACNFZ stocks_g_Page_107.QC.jpg
8d675601252bdb961d396c512182ab88
7c1500ff72edc47f240e61be740126b8aa150226
64847 F20101114_AACMEA stocks_g_Page_080.jpg
5027ee630953dee6bea16d6f8ec2e880
8409e3b653df5761e3b238c813a7c1eab8a97f12
72241 F20101114_AACMDL stocks_g_Page_063.jpg
ef8bd596437402a85fb0dbb54a4b93fd
72082065d44c18a5e5c6c208dbb643eeebd5f021
73301 F20101114_AACMCX stocks_g_Page_049.jpg
488e5defffc658f613ee2fef7dc2583a
89fc5c2a811f62ef64056c6589db50537ff12717







GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE UPPER ACRE RIVER IN PANDO,
BOLIVIA



















By

GABRIELA STOCKS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Gabriela Stocks


































In memory of Stephenie









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work would not have been possible without the guidance and support of Dr. Anthony

Oliver-Smith, whose patience throughout this process has been phenomenal. I would also like to

thank my committee members, Dr. Marianne Schmink and Dr. James Jawitz for their helpful

input. Dr. Peter Cronkleton of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Santa

Cruz, Bolivia was a key player in the selection of the research communities and in helping me

establish contacts in Pando. Without him and CIFOR staff member Rolando Haches, I would

have been lost. The staff of the Fundaci6n Jose Manuel Pando and the Centro de Investigaci6n y

Preservaci6n de la Amazonia at the Universidad Amaz6nica de Pando were also incredibly

helpful during my time in Cobija.

I would also like to thank NSF-IGERT Working Forests in the Tropics program at the

University of Florida for funding my research.

The love and support offered by both my academic and non-academic communities have

sustained me throughout this process. Thanks go to my parents, Kathleen and Tony, and friends

Elizabeth, Heather, and Kelly for being there at the beginning of my journey; to Isadora, Yael,

and Ava for being there in the middle; and to Lin, Kelly, Alfredo, and Franklin for being there at

the end. Most importantly, love and thanks go to Forrest, for being there always.

Last but not least, my great appreciation goes to the community members of San Pedro and

San Miguel for tolerating a stranger in their midst. Their willingness to participate in my research

went beyond the call of duty.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IS T O F T A B L E S ............. ..... ............ ............................................. ............... 8

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .9

L IST O F A B B R E V IA T IO N S .... ..... ............................... ............................... ... .................. 11

A B S T R A C T ......... ....................... ............................................................ 15

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......................................................... 17

State ent of the Problem .... ............. ............ ..... .... ............... ........ .. ............... .. ....17
Theoretical Framework: Common Property Resources and Collective Action ...................18
Research Objectives.......... .......... .................................. 20
R e search S ite ................................................................2 2
Site Selection ..................................... ...... ...................... ................... 22
The National Context for Human-Environment Relations in Pando............................26
The International Context for Human-Environment Relations in Pando........................28
Organization of Thesis ....................... ...... .............. .............. 31

2 R E SE A R C H M E TH O D S ............................................................................... ............... 33

Participant O observation ........................... .......................... .. .... ........ ........ 33
Household Interviews ................................ ...................... ..........34
F re e listing g .............. .... ...............................................................3 7
Participatory M apping .......................................................... .................. .. ........ .... 37
G lobal Positioning System (GPS) D ata............................................ ........... ............... 39
F ood L og ......... ................................................................. 39

3 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND LIVELIHOOD SYSTEMS ............................41

S an P ed ro d e B o lp eb ra ................................................................................. ....................4 1
San M iguel de M achineri.......... .................................................................. ......... ........ 49
C o n clu sio n ................... ...................5...................4..........

4 AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES.......................... ................................ 55

U se of A aquatic R esources.................................................................... ......................... ...... 55
Fishing as a Livelihood Strategy ............................................................................. 55
S an P edro ....................................................................................... .... 5 5
S a n M ig u e l ............................................................................................................... 5 7









Other U ses of W ater R esources........... ............ ..................................... ............... 61
U se of river for transportation.......................... .............................. ............... 61
Dom estic water supply ............... ........................ ................. 62
Conceptualization of Aquatic Resources............... ....... ...............64
Freelists as an indicator of familiarity with river and riparian resources.................64
Using non-metric multidimensional scaling to understand the cognitive domain
of river resources ......... .. ...... ... ... ..... ...... .... ........ .... ...... .. ............. .69
Conclusion................................................ ...............73
Land Use Practices and Strategies for Water Quality Protection ..................................74
U se of Riparian Areas ........... .. ................... ....... .. ............ ............... 74
S an P edro ....................................................................................... .... 74
S a n M ig u e l ............................................................................................................... 7 9
V alu e of R iparian A areas ..................................................................... .... ................... 8 1
W ater Quality Protection Strategies ........................................ .......................... 82
C o n c lu sio n ................................................................................................................. 8 4

5 NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE................................................................ 86

Intra-Community M management System s ........................................................... ............... 86
S a n P e d ro ................................................................................................................... 8 6
M anagem ent rules .......................................... ...... ........ ......... 86
P hy sical b ou n d aries......... ...... .......................................... ............ .. .... .. .. .. ..9 1
Sanction s ..........................................9 1
Conflict R solution M echanism s ........................................ ......... ............... 91
S an M igu el ....................................................94
M anagem ent rules .......................................... ...... ........ ......... 94
P hy sical boundaries......... ............................................................ .. .... ...... 97
Sanctions ..........................................97
Conflict R solution M echanism s ........................................ ......... ............... 98
Inter-Com m unity M anagem ent System s ........................................... ......................... 99

6 LOCAL PERCEPTIONS OF WATER QUALITY .................................. ...............108

S an P e d ro ................... ...................1.............................9
S an M ig u el ................... ...................1.............................4
C o n clu sio n ................... ...................1...................1.........6

7 C O N C L U S IO N S .......................................................................................................1 17

In tro d u ctio n ..................................................................................................................... 1 1 7
Revisiting the Research Objectives ............. .. ......... .... ........119
Use of River Resources ............................................. 119
Existing River Resource or Water Quality Protection Strategies.............................122
Local Opinions of W ater Quality ......... ................... ......... .........124
Governance of Riparian and Aquatic Resources ............................ ...................... 125
Social Organization and the Potential for Future Collective Action .......................127
F in al T h o u g h ts ............................ ......................................................... ..................... 13 1



6









APPENDIX

A IN TER V IEW PR O TO C O L .................................................................. ........................132

B PA R TIC IPA T O R Y M A P S ..................................................................... ........................137

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ..................................................................................... ..................139

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......................................................................... .. ...................... 144














































7









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 Top 25 freelisted item s in San Pedro. ..........................................................................67

4-2 Top 24 freelisted item s in San M iguel ........................................ .......................... 68

4-3 Summary of the use of aquatic resources in San Pedro and San Miguel......................73

4-4 Summary of the use of riparian areas in San Pedro and San Miguel ..............................84









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p e

1-1 A flowchart illustrating the organization of my research questions............. ..................21

1-2 The MAP region. ................................. ... .. .... .... ................ 23

1-3 A map of the Acre River watershed and its major population centers. ...........................25

1-4 Looking upstream on the A cre R iver...................................................................... ..... 30

2-1 A community member in San Pedro works on the participatory map............................. 38

3-1 Em ploym ent in San Pedro. ...................................................................... ....................44

3-2 Typical houses in San Pedro. ...................................................................... ..................44

3-3 Total area under agricultural production per household .................................................46

3-4 Number of households that grow each agricultural product in San Pedro. .......................47

3-5 Number of households that sell each agricultural product in San Pedro........................47

3-6 A picture of a m ain road in San Pedro.......................................... ......................... 48

3-7 Typical houses in San M iguel ........... ................. ................. ................... ............... 51

3-8 Number of households that grow each agricultural product in San Miguel ................. 51

3-9 Number of households that sell each agricultural product in San Miguel......................53

4-1 Species of fish caught by households in San Pedro................... ................ ............... 56

4-2 Fishing nets are the most commonly used fishing technology in San Miguel...................59

4-3 Species of fish caught by households in San Miguel ..................................................59

4-4 Each household in San Miguel has access to a small stream that is used for domestic
purposes ......................................................... .................................64

4-5 Freelisted item s (by total num ber). .......................................................... .....................65

4-6 Freelisted items (by percent of total). .................... ......... ........................ 66

4-7 Cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Pedro ......................................70

4-8 Cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Miguel.......................................71









4-9 Combined cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Pedro and San
M ig u e l ................... ........................................................... ................ 7 2

4-10 Relationship of width of riparian buffer to size of agricultural field in San Pedro. ..........77

4-11 Relationship of width of riparian buffer to size of agricultural field in San Miguel.........80

4-12 Perceptions of riparian area function. ............................................................................82

6-1 Perceived sources of water pollution in San Pedro and San Miguel. ............................1.10

6-2 Mancha blanca, a common skin problem attributed to contaminated river water in
San Pedro. ........... ... ..................... ......... ......... 114

6-3 Fungus, a common skin problem attributed to contaminated river water in San Pedro. .114

B -l Participatory m ap of San Pedro. ........................................................... .....................137

B-2 Participatory map of San M iguel. ...... ........................... .....................................138










LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


AEL Anguila electric

AGU Agua

ALO Alontra

ANG Anguila

ANT Anta

ARB Arboles

ARR Arroyos

ASA Asai

BAC Bacu

BAG Bagre

BOA Boa

BOC Boca chica

BOD Bodon

CAC Cachimbu

CAI Cairara (mono blanco)

CAN Sause (cafia)

CAO Cacao

CAP Capibara

CAR Caparari

CAS Castafia

CED Cedro

CEM Cedro macho

CHA Chancho

CHM Chancho del monte










CHT Chancho de tropa

CHU Chuchio (cafia brava)

CIC Cicuri

COB Cobra

COP Copaiba

CUY Cuyu

DEN Dentudo

DOR Dorado

GAR Garza

JAC Jacare

JCL Jochi colorado

JOC Jochi

JOP Jochi pintado (agouti)

JUB Jacareuba

JUN Jundia

LIM Limon

LON Lontra

LOR Loro

MAD Madera

MAJ Majo

MAN Mandarina

MAP Mapajo

MAR Mara

MAS Masaranduba

MAT Matrinchon










MDN Mandin

MGO Mango

MMN Mono maneche

MON Mono

NAR Naranja

PAC Pacu

PAJ Pajaro

PAL Palometa

PAP Papaya

PAT Pato

PAV Pava

PCY Pacay

PDO Pescado

PDP Pico de pato

PER Perdiz

PES Pescado perro

PET Peta

PIC Pichico (chichilo)

PIR Piranambu

PLA Platano

PLT Plantas

PNA Pirafia

RAY Raya

SAB Sabalo

SAP Sapo










SAR Sardina

SDA Sandia

SDG Sangre de grado

SIL Mono silvador

SOC Soc6

SUR Surubi

TAT Tatu

TIG Tigre

TOC Toco blanco

UDG Ufia de gato

VEN Venado

VIB Vibora

VTN Venton









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE UPPER ACRE RIVER IN PANDO, BOLIVIA

By

Gabriela Stocks

August 2007

Chair: Anthony Oliver-Smith
Major: Anthropology

Tropical rivers in rural areas are likely to have good water quality, but current trends

indicate that increasing development pressures could have a deleterious effect on these water

systems. One potential strategy for counteracting these negative impacts is the devolution of

watershed management into the hands of local users. However, it cannot simply be assumed that

local communities naturally make effective resource managers. A careful examination of the

presence or absence of social and institutional characteristics necessary for effective resource

management must be carried out.

The research presented in my thesis attempts to address this issue at a small scale by

focusing on two neighboring Bolivian communities located on the Upper Acre River in the

department of Pando. The objective of my research was to determine how these two culturally

distinct communities utilize and manage river resources, including riparian areas, and to evaluate

whether features favorable to collective action for the protection of these resources exist.

Field work was conducted over a 12-week period. Principle methodologies employed

included participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and participatory mapping. These

methodologies were supplemented by the use of freelisting and Global Positioning System data.









The results of my research indicate that neither community makes as extensive use of river

resources as might be expected of Amazonian river-dwellers. Water quality in the Acre River

was perceived to be poor by most households, and concern was expressed about the health

impacts associated with coming into contact with river water. Households were generally

conscientious about maintaining riparian buffers when creating agricultural fields near water

bodies and expressed a clear understanding of the value of riparian areas. This individual

consciousness had not coalesced into formal management rules in either community or between

neighboring communities, however, and is unlikely to do so in the future without motivation by

outside actors.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Tropical rivers in rural areas are likely to have good water quality (Goulding et al. 2003),

but current trends indicate that increasing development pressures could have a deleterious effect

on these water systems. One potential strategy for counteracting these negative impacts is the

devolution of watershed management into the hands of local users.

In the Amazon basin, local populations are often dependent upon resources provided by

rivers and streams, and water quality is of critical importance. With an average rainfall ranging

from 5000 mm/year in parts of the western Amazon to 2000 mm/year in eastern Brazil, there is

ample water to support human populations. The abundance of fresh water in this region has

resulted in a lifestyle among many indigenous and colonist communities that is strongly linked to

surface water for consumption, recreation, transportation, agriculture in riparian buffer zones,

and access to food sources such as fish and aquatic plants (McClain et al. 2001).

Protecting the water quality necessary to support these uses can be challenging, especially

in countries of the western Amazon like Peru and Bolivia. First, a severe shortage of state

financial resources limits water infrastructure development such as sewage and drinking water

treatment systems. Available financial resources are often used in more populated regions and

where water shortages are most likely to occur, such as in the higher elevations of Peru (McClain

et al. 2001). Second, the remoteness of much of the Amazon basin prohibits such infrastructure

development even if money were available. Finally, though many countries in the Amazon basin

have developed seemingly strong water policies, they often only apply to upland, water-scarce

regions. Even when policies do apply to lowland areas, they are rarely enforced (McClain 1999).









Given this combination of factors, the task of developing watershed management strategies that

protect water quality will most likely be left to local people.

McClain (1999) makes a convincing argument for proactively placing water resource

management in the Amazon basin into the hands of local people. In light of the problems

discussed above, intelligent use of natural features, including maintenance of riparian buffer

zones, wetlands and floodplains, could be the best option for watershed protection. Local

communities would seem to be the natural (and best) choice for resource managers because they

are dependent upon good water quality, are the end users of the resource, and have the capacity

to protect water quality at its source. On the other hand, there are also many cases in which local

management has not resulted in the protection of the resources in question, so it cannot simply be

assumed that local communities will naturally make good resource managers. Each situation

must be viewed independently through a careful examination of the presence or absence of the

social and institutional characteristics necessary for effective resource management.

Theoretical Framework: Common Property Resources and Collective Action

A popular framework for analyzing resource management is common property theory.

Since Garrett Hardin's pessimistic prediction in 1968 that all common property is doomed to

overuse and eventual destruction, theories on this subject have abounded. Over time, a

distinction has been made between open-access resources and common-pool resources.

Generally speaking, open-access resources are those to which anyone has access, whereas

"common-pool regimes" (McKean 2000) are those in which a group of people share rights to the

resource, the ability to exclude other users, and obligations to each other (Hall 1997; McKean

2000).

Shared access to a resource can suggest a need for collective action to manage that

resource. Collective action for resource protection depends on two structural features:









1) members' livelihoods must depend on access to a clearly defined stock of natural resources

and 2) long-term protection will depend on group solidarity (Hall 1997; Petrzelka and Bell

2000). The first of these features reflects the idea that people need to see a benefit to themselves

or to their community in order to act (Hall 1997). The second feature reflects the idea that

participants need assurance that there will be equal effort and reciprocity from other participants

in the common property resource (CPR) system (White and Runge 1994) and that features of

social organization outside the CPR system contribute to its successful implementation

(Petrzelka and Bell 2000; Trawick 2001). Ostrom (1990) has also outlined the principles that

make common property resource systems successful: an ownership arrangement with

management rules, clearly defined physical boundaries, sanctions to ensure compliance and

conflict-resolution mechanisms.

Water resources are somewhat unique with regard to systems of governance. Because they

come in a variety of forms (i.e., rivers, lakes, oceans, aquifers), there are also a number of ways

in which they can be managed, ranging from open access to common property regimes.

Biophysical scale is important in this context in that some water bodies, such as oceans, are

extremely difficult to manage collectively (Guest 2003), while others, such as lakes, are more

straightforward because they are geographically bounded. Rivers and watersheds can fall into

either of these categories, depending on their size and extent. While the body of literature that

discusses the communal management of water resources at the small scale (i.e. irrigation

systems) is large (see Hunt 1992; Kelly 1983; Kolavalli and Brewer 1999; Mitchell and Guillet

1994; Ostrom and Gardner 1993; Trawick 2001), some studies have also addressed the ways in

which groups communally manage water resources at the watershed scale (Lansing 1991;

Saravanan 2002; Steelman and Carmin 1998; White and Runge 1994). Most of these cases have









focused on small watersheds in which there is a limited group of relatively homogeneous users.

One exception is Bardhan and Dayton-Johnson's (2002) comparative study of large-scale

irrigation systems, in which they discuss the negative effects of income, wealth and ethnic/social

heterogeneity on cooperation around common property resources. Furthermore, they argue, the

upstream/downstream relationship of river users, particularly in larger systems, exacerbates

issues of"locational heterogeneity" (Bardhan and Dayton-Johnson 2002:103). In other words,

differential opportunities may be available to users at different locations in the watershed, thus

affecting their cooperative behavior.

Given the constraints imposed by landscape features and socio-political processes at

various scales, questions arise regarding how local watershed management should be

coordinated. A starting point could be to determine whether watershed management in specific

areas of the tropics can be conceptualized and implemented through a common-pool resources

regime. Is river resource use currently regulated by a common property resource system,

reflecting the features discussed by Ostrom (1990)? Is there a great enough dependence upon

river resources to stimulate protective action (Hall 1997)? Is there a great enough shared identity

among the residents of large watersheds to support the collective action necessary to manage

water resources effectively (White and Runge 1994)? Do existing forms of social organization

support and reinforce common property management (Petrzelka and Bell 2000; Trawick 2001)?

My research addresses these questions at a small scale by focusing on water resource use and

management in two neighboring Bolivian communities located on the Upper Acre River in the

department of Pando.

Research Objectives

The overall objective of my research was to determine how two culturally distinct Bolivian

communities in the Acre River basin utilize and manage river resources, including riparian areas,









and to evaluate whether features favorable to collective action for the protection of these

resources exist. Specific objectives were fivefold (Figure 1-1). First, my research investigated

how indigenous and colonist communities are currently utilizing river resources. Second, I

documented any existing strategies for protecting water quality or the abundance of aquatic and

riparian resources. Third, I investigated local opinions of water quality and of potential

conservation techniques. Fourth, I determined whether communities in this area viewed the river

and riparian areas as open-access resources or as common-pool resources. Finally, I analyzed

forms of social organization in the area that support or do not support common property resource

management.


Household use/management of aquatic and
riparian resources


Governance


1


Common property regime?

yes, how managed?
If yes, how managed?


Open access?


If yes, potential for future cooperative
management?

Dependence on aquatic
and riparian resources?

Local opinions of water quality?


Existing strategies for water quality or
river resource protection?
Social organization allows for
cooperative management? Shared identity?


Figure 1-1. A flowchart illustrating the organization of my research questions.

Based on my research objectives, a series of hypotheses emerged. It was expected that the

indigenous community would utilize river resources to a greater extent than the colonist

community (McClain et al. 2001). Due to the large size of the watershed and the diversity of


P


I


r


J









communities within it, it was expected that the river would be treated as an open-access resource

rather than a common-pool resource. It was expected that the more reliant people were upon

river resources for their livelihoods (i.e., the larger the percentage of subsistence products

acquired from the immediate area), the greater would be their concern and willingness to

participate in cooperative watershed management. Finally, it was expected that forms of social

organization in the indigenous community would better support current or future CPR regimes

than forms of social organization in the colonist community.

Research Site

Site Selection

The location for my research was chosen because the Bolivian department of Pando is part

of a tri-national region known as MAP, also composed of the Peruvian department of Madre de

Dios and the Brazilian state of Acre (Figure 1-2). The MAP region has been the subject of

discussions of tri-national resource management for a number of years, stimulated by the

impending paving of the Transoceanic Highway, which connects the Brazilian Amazon with

Peru's Pacific seaports. The Acre River runs through the middle of this region, making it an

interesting case for studying the relationship of diverse Amazonian communities to water

resources.

The Acre River watershed forms the border between Acre, Madre de Dios and Pando. The

river originates in northwest Acre, flows south into Peru, then east into Bolivia, finally turning

northeast into Brazil, where it continues through Acre's capital city, Rio Branco (Figure 1-3). It

eventually becomes the largest tributary of the Purus River, which itself is a major tributary to

the Amazon River. The Acre is considered a white water river, which in the Amazon stands in

contrast to black water rivers that tend to be a dark tea color, stained by tannins from organic

matter. During the dry season, the Acre's color is usually a dark brown-green. During times of









rain, however, the river becomes laden with silt, a natural condition that is exacerbated by

deforestation in the region. Local reports indicate that the river channel is being filled in by this

sediment.


Figure 1-2. The MAP region.

Terrestrially, most of Pando is considered lowland tropical forest. Much of it lies less than

500 meters above sea level and receives approximately 1950 mm of rainfall per year (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers 2004). Due to its relative isolation and lack of infrastructure, Pando has not

experienced the level of deforestation that has occurred elsewhere in lowland Bolivia (Pacheco

2002). In recent decades, however, the Bolivian government has attempted to integrate the

Amazon region into the national context through forestry programs and land-grants to

agriculturalists. Currently, the conversion of forests to agricultural use is the principal cause of









deforestation (Pacheco 2002). This trend will likely continue as the process of integration

proceeds.

I chose to work in Pando for three reasons. First, of the three countries that form the Acre

River basin, Bolivia contains the shortest stretch of river. This made it possible to more easily

access field sites by boat. The confined area also allowed me to experience the social interactions

that occur between neighboring Bolivian communities that are under similar socio-political

constraints. Second, the tri-national border area is essentially the first major population center in

the Acre River watershed (Figure 1-3). This meant that the impacts of upstream activities were

easily identifiable and relatively minor. Finally, the Yaminahua-Machineri indigenous territory

(legally termed a Tierra Comunitaria de Origen (TCO) in Bolivia) is located on the Bolivian

stretch of the Acre River. I realized that this would provide an opportunity to compare aquatic

resource management practices in two ethnically and socially distinct communities, as my other

research site was a community composed of settlers from the Bolivian highlands. This

comparison would also reveal whether upstream/downstream arrangements exist between

communities in this part of the watershed, particularly among those of different ethnic

backgrounds.

Upon my arrival in Cobija, the capital city of Pando, I met the staff of the Fundaci6n Jose

Manuel Pando and the Center for International Forestry Research's (CIFOR) local staff member,

Rolando Haches. Haches proved to be a critical player in my research, as it was through him that

I met Don Manuel Rodriguez, the leader of the Yaminahua-Machineri TCO and an important

representative at the Indigenous Center for the Original Villages of Amazonian Pando

(CIPOAP). After hearing about my intended research plan, Rodriguez granted me permission to

work in the TCO. Haches also introduced me to the mayor of the municipality of Bolpebra, in









which both of my research sites were located. The mayor is also a resident of the community of

San Pedro de Bolpebra and was therefore able to give me preliminary authorization to work in

his community. After receiving permission to work in each community, Haches and I visited San

Pedro during their Mother's Day celebration. I gave a short presentation to those present at the

celebration, answered any questions, and introduced myself personally to each person there.1 I

returned to San Pedro two days later to begin data collection.


Figure 1-3. A map of the Acre River watershed and its major population centers.

Approximately three weeks into my stay in San Pedro, I contracted a boat in order to visit

my second research site, the community of San Miguel de Machineri, located about an hour and

a half downriver from San Pedro. I was accompanied by the president of the community of San

1 Unfortunately, many of the men in the community were not present, which proved to be a minor problem later
when I was accused of having arrived to do research in the community without permission or introduction.









Pedro, who had some business to conduct in San Miguel and was on friendly terms with the

residents. On that trip, I was only able to meet women in two of the households and the school

teacher, but was successful in arranging lodging at the local school. I arrived in San Miguel

approximately two weeks later to begin data collection there.

The National Context for Human-Environment Relations in Pando

A detailed discussion of the characteristics and livelihoods systems of each research

community will be presented in Chapter 3. However, understanding the national political context

is critical to explaining the presence of these communities in Pando in the first place. Their move

from the Bolivian highlands and the Brazilian Amazon, respectively, to the Bolivian Amazon

was the product of larger-scale factors, including national agrarian reform, a growing indigenous

rights movement, and national development strategies.

Since the 1950s, much of Latin America has undergone agrarian reform, during which

agricultural land was expropriated from owners and redistributed to peasants (Kay 1998). Bolivia

is no exception. The 1953 Agrarian Reform focused on distributing land in western Bolivia,

namely the high plains and central valleys which were the most productive region of the country

(Urioste 2003). During that time, almost all available land in the Bolivian altiplano was

distributed, leaving future residents few options with regards to acquiring land. Furthermore, in

the eastern region of the country, the 1953 Agrarian Reform resulted in a system of land

concentration in the hands of large estate owners (Urioste 2003).

Between 1955 and 1994, the Bolivian government distributed three million hectares of

land in the Bolivian lowlands to colonist farmers (Pacheco 2002). In 1996, in response to

problems with corrupt land distribution in the eastern lowlands during the 1970s, the National

Agrarian Reform Institute (INRA) Act was passed. Its major function, under pressure from

national indigenous rights organizations, has been to achieve proper title to land in lowland









indigenous territories (TCOs) (Urioste 2003). Though some are unhappy with INRA's

requirements that all land be communally titled, forcing indigenous people into systems of

communal ownership, most agree that the creation of TCOs will help to stop colonization of the

lowlands by highland settlers (Urioste 2003). The agrarian reform beginning in the 1950s and its

more recent manifestation in the INRA Act, then, is at least partially responsible for the

migration of the residents of both San Pedro and San Miguel to the Bolivian Amazon.

In addition to agrarian reform, economic policies have also impacted human-environment

relations in the Bolivian lowlands. From 1952-1985, the Bolivian government adopted the

development model of Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI), in which incentives were

provided to domestic companies to produce goods that would otherwise have to be imported.

During this time, investments in the mining sector were used to generate capital that was later

invested in national infrastructure, including the construction of roads. The end goal was to open

up lowland areas to agricultural production in order to avoid the importation of agricultural

products. Colonization schemes were implemented in order to attract people to the lowland

regions, leading to increased rates of deforestation (Pacheco 2002). In the end, ISI was not

sufficient to support the national economy and Bolivia entered a severe economic recession.

During the 1980s and 1990s, national economic policy focused on a series of structural

adjustments that involved fiscal austerity, the reduction of public services, and the liberalization

of markets for goods, capital and labor (Gwynne and Kay 1999). The market for land was not

liberalized, however, and the Bolivian government continued to distribute land, particularly to

large agricultural enterprises. Though some argue that this system of land distribution, along

with the elimination of funds for colonization programs, resulted in the closing of frontier areas

to small farmers (Pacheco 2002), this was generally only the case in more integrated lowland









areas like the department of Santa Cruz. In Pando, colonization continued to occur (as shown by

the arrival of settlers in San Pedro), perhaps because it was one of the least populated and least

integrated lowland areas.

The International Context for Human-Environment Relations in Pando

Bolivian communities on the frontier with Peru and Brazil do not live an isolated

existence, nor do environmental impacts adhere to arbitrary political boundaries. In fact, with

regard to impacts on the shared Acre River watershed, activities spurred by both Peruvian and

Brazilian national policy have a greater negative effect than those in Bolivia.

Throughout its history, much of Brazil's colonization strategy has focused on integrating,

modernizing and developing the Amazon (Hall 1997; Hecht and Cockburn 1990). The most

recent and potentially long-lasting movement in that direction began in the 1960s and continues

today. Populating the far reaches of the basin was the military regime's strategy for alleviating

social tensions in other areas of Brazil, preventing incursion from other countries and regaining

power from regional politicians (Hall 1997). Settlement of the Amazon was encouraged through

a system of capital subsidies, which were mostly taken advantage of by entrepreneurs from the

southern states. These fiscal incentives resulted in an economic structure characterized by

capital-intensive industrial activity and, especially in frontier areas, land-intensive cattle ranches

(Maher 1979). Additionally, the government invested in transportation infrastructure,

constructing BR 364 to Rondonia and Acre and BR317, the Transoceanic Highway.

Though the ecological impacts of these development programs were varied and generally

negative, their primary impact was massive deforestation. By clearing land for cattle grazing,

land speculators could establish their claim and obtain legal title. Furthermore, the very nature of

cattle ranching necessitated large tracts of cleared land (Lifschitz 1994). Cleared land was also

thought to be less susceptible to invasion by squatters.









By the 1990s, government subsidy programs were being cut back because of domestic and

international criticism of their role in deforestation. Some tax benefits, credit systems and

loopholes still remain, however, and ranching is certainly not on the decline (Hall 1997).

Furthermore, increased demand from growing urban centers in the Amazon ensures a market for

livestock, thus making it a good investment (Faminow 1997).

In Acre, these policies have resulted in large-scale deforestation. By 1993, 7% of Acre had

been deforested (Fearnside 1993), mostly along roads (Malingreau and Tucker 1988). The

percentage is likely much greater today, as the Brazilian government has continued to invest in

infrastructural development, including highway paving. Along the stretch of the Transoceanic

Highway that parallels the Acre River from Assis Brasil to Brasileia, cattle ranches lie side by

side, virtually uninterrupted. From the river itself, on the stretch between San Pedro and San

Miguel, one can see that the Brazilian side of the bank has been almost entirely deforested

(Figure 1-4).

While the Brazilian Amazon has been the focus of national integration programs for

decades, it has been only recently that the Peruvian Amazon has been the subject of any

development efforts. Agriculture in Madre de Dios has been strongly influenced by national

agrarian policy (Alvarez and Naughton-Treves 2003). From 1985-1990, the agricultural frontier

expanded in the area around Puerto Maldonado due to the pro-agriculture policies of then

president Alan Garcia. These policies provided easy access to credit and land titles, promoted

farmer's cooperatives and offered guaranteed markets for staple crops. As in Brazil, the policies

were also part of a strategy to populate the Amazon region (Alvarez and Naughton-Treves 2003).

Immigrants from the highlands quickly arrived and settled along the roads and rivers of the









region. Deforestation was at its height during this period, concentrated along the road from

Cuzco and the road to Brazil.






















Figure 1-4. Looking upstream on the Acre River. To the left is Bolivia; to the right is Brazil.
Note that the Bolivian side remains largely forested, while the Brazilian side has been
deforested for cattle ranching.

This situation changed in 1990 when Alberto Fujimori came into office. His neoliberal

economic policies included an end to the credit and subsidy system, new taxes on agricultural

products, and a dismantling of the agrarian associations. Deforestation slowed as agricultural

credit dried up, and settlers who could no longer afford to farm along the roads moved to river

areas where more land was available. Interestingly, deforestation along rivers increased in only

some areas; in most locations deforestation rates stayed constant (Alvarez and Naughton-Treves

2003).

Wood (primarily mahogany) is the main product exported from the upper Madre de Dios

region. Loggers are now moving up tributaries of the Madre de Dios River in search of new

sources (Goulding et al. 2003). Though logging has not become a major issue in the border









region yet, it is only a matter of time before it does. Interestingly, Madre de Dios is the only

MAP department that is facing serious problems from commercial logging.

The planned paving of the Transoceanic Highway through Madre de Dios will have

enormous impacts in the MAP region. Easier access will ensure an influx of people from the

highlands and increasing deforestation rates can be expected (Alvarez and Naughton-Treves

2003).

Though it may seem contradictory to the bleak picture painted above, policies and

governance at various scales do not always result in environmental devastation. In a political

ecology analysis, both the good and the bad must be evaluated. A bright side to the growing

problems in the MAP region is the current administration in Acre, the self-titled "Forest

Government" (Kainer et al. 2003). Governor Jorge Viana is a forester with strong ties to the

rubber tapper movement via the Workers Party, which was formed by the tappers and others in

1990. The current Brazilian Minister of the Environment is the former Acrean senator Marina da

Silva, whose parents were rubber tappers. The administration is dedicated to alternative and

sustainable development, and has detailed plans to address pressures created by road

construction, expanded ranching and logging and conflicts over land and resource tenure (Kainer

et al. 2003). Furthermore, academics, NGOs, and local governments in the MAP region as a

whole have begun to meet on a regular basis to discuss cooperative management of the region's

resources. While it is still too early to tell, this effort could result in a functional plan to address

the future of human-environment relations in this area, including the protection of water

resources.

Organization of Thesis

Following this introduction, this thesis is presented in six chapters. In Chapter 2, I will

discuss the research methods employed. Chapter 3 provides a sketch of the research communities









including similarities and differences in livelihood systems. In Chapter 4, I will discuss the use

of aquatic resources, the conceptualization of river resources (defined hereafter as both aquatic

and riparian resources), and systems of riparian zone management in each community. Chapter 5

will discuss the existence of cooperative intra-community and inter-community resource

management strategies. Chapter 6 will focus on current and future perceptions of water quality,

and on the health impacts of contaminated water. In the final chapter, I will revisit my research

objectives with a focus on exploring the potential for future collaborative management of river

resources in the study area.









CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHODS

My research was conducted over a 12-week period during the summer of 2004. The

objective was to determine how two Bolivian communities in the Acre River basin utilize and

manage river resources (including riparian areas, wetlands and floodplains) and whether features

favorable to collective action for the protection of these resources exist. Specific research

objectives and hypotheses were discussed in the previous chapter. In order to address these

objectives and hypotheses, six research methodologies were employed.

Due to the small size of the communities in which research was conducted (22 households

and 5 households, respectively), I was able to easily contact each household multiple times. This

allowed for the use of various methodologies, which allowed me to approach my research

objectives from a variety of perspectives. Methodologies employed included participant

observation, household interviews, freelisting, participatory mapping, GPS data collection, and a

food log (in one community).

Participant Observation

Perhaps the most fundamental research technique to anthropologists is participant

observation, so I will begin with that. Much of my time in Bolivia was spent simply "hanging

out" (Bernard 2002), making my presence known and trying to understand the rhythm of life.

Upon arriving in each community, I spent the first week walking around, drawing informal

maps, talking to the residents, attending soccer games, and sitting by the river to watch the

children play. I did not take notes in public places, in order to not make people feel as though

they were being evaluated. When I had a private moment, I would jot a few key words down in a

notebook and later elaborate upon what I observed in my field notes or journal. Ultimately, the









data collected through participant observation allowed me to gauge the accuracy of the

information gathered through other methodologies.

Household Interviews

Within a week of arriving in each community, I conducted a census, which provided

demographic data and, more importantly, gave me an excuse to talk to someone in every

household. I was also able to explain the reason for my presence in the communities, which I

was asked to do rather frequently, particularly in San Pedro.

While I worked on the census of each community, I began to make appointments with

various households for what would become the centerpiece of my study in-depth semi-

structured interviews. I was as honest as possible about the estimated length of the interview (one

to two hours per household) because I wanted a full commitment to complete the interview from

both heads of household. I also told them that we could conduct the interview in multiple

sessions if they did not have one sufficient block of time (and indeed did so in a number of

cases).

My interview protocol (Appendix A) contained seven sections and was structured in a way

that addressed each of the objectives of my study. Additionally, I attempted to begin the

interview with easier questions, proceed to questions that required more detailed responses, and

conclude with questions that required longer answers but less detail. Questions were either open-

ended or required a yes/no response.

Before conducting any interviews, I first discussed the interview protocol with a local

informant who was not a community member and thus would not be a participant in my study.

She helped me both with translation and in wording questions in a way that would be

understandable to the interviewees.









Interviews were usually conducted at the homes of the participants (though four were

conducted at the locations at which I was living). If possible, both the male and female heads of

household were present and participated in the interview (exceptions included households with a

single head and households in which one of the heads was not present in the community). With

the permission of the interviewees, all interviews were recorded on a Sony minidisc recorder. In

total, I conducted interviews with every household but one in San Pedro (21 in total) and with

every household in San Miguel (five in total).

The first section of the interview dealt with questions regarding the history of each family:

when they arrived in the community, where they came from, why they chose to move to that

community. These questions were intended to put the participants at ease with the recording

device, get them talking about something with which they were familiar, and give me an idea of

the geographic diversity of each community and the factors that motivated them to settle in this

area of Bolivia.

Section two involved household structure and kinship networks: how many people

currently live in the household, whether there were adult children who did not live at home, and

familial relationships to other households in the community. These questions were intended to

address my fifth research objective in that they would give me a sense of the interconnectedness

of each community, which could be an indicator of the potential for people to work together to

collectively manage resources.

The third section of the interview focused on the socioeconomic status of each household

and contained questions about educational level, income generating activities, total annual

income, consumer items owned, livestock owned, access to water and electricity, and debts. The

intent of these questions was to form a complete picture of the demography and economic status









of each household. This was perhaps the most challenging section of the interview for the

participants, as it required a detailed breakdown of sources of income. In fact, in many cases,

despite my best attempts, it was impossible to arrive at a concrete estimate of annual income. In

cases where I could sense that the participants were becoming overly frustrated with my

persistent probing, I reverted to one of two tactics: 1) requesting an estimate of the amount of

money spent on a daily or weekly basis to support the family (which is a very rough equivalent

of total income in households that live at a subsistence level) or 2) abandoning the question

entirely.

Section four involved questions about livelihood systems and agricultural practices. This

was the longest and perhaps most important section of the interview, in the sense that it was

intended to promote an in-depth discussion about systems of agricultural production, use of

and/or protection of riparian areas (Objective 2), dependence upon river resources (Objective 1),

and household water use (Objective 1).

Section five of the interview contained questions about governance of natural resources

within and between communities in the watershed, and perceptions of upstream-downstream

connections among communities along the Acre River. These questions addressed Objectives 2,

4 and 5.

The sixth section addressed intra- and intercommunity dynamics. Questions focused on the

participants' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of their communities, mechanisms for

conflict resolution, types of community organizations, and relationships between communities.

The intent of this section was to provide a measure of community and regional cohesiveness

and/or solidarity that would promote or limit cooperative management of river resources

(Objective 5).









The final section of the interview dealt with perceptions of current and future water

quality, health problems, individual strategies for protecting water quality (including how to deal

with human waste and household garbage), perceptions of the importance of riparian areas, and

attitudes about a potential watershed management plant that might ask landowners to maintain

riparian buffer zones or engage in reforestation efforts (Objective 3).

Upon my return to the United States, I transcribed each interview and input the responses

by household and participant into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The resulting item by

respondent matrix allowed me to tabulate and summarize the key elements from each response.

Freelisting

A freelisting exercise was conducted with all but two adults (35 total) in San Pedro de

Bolpebra and with all available heads of household (seven total) in San Miguel de Machineri.

Freelisting is an anthropological technique designed to elicit a list of items that form a particular

cultural domain. In this case, each person was asked to list all of the natural resources that are

found in rivers, streams and riparian areas. The results from freelisting can provide a measure of

the familiarity with and importance of river resources to each community (Objective 1).

The original freelists were analyzed in Microsoft Excel. Further analysis was conducted in

Anthropac.

Participatory Mapping

One of the most interesting and entertaining methodologies employed was participatory

mapping. This technique is a popular tool in participatory rural appraisals and can generate

spatial information about resource use, land distribution, and agricultural activities (Nemarundwe

and Richards 2002) (Objectives 1 and 2).

The exercise was conducted with each household at a separate time from the interviews

and freelists. To begin, I solicited the help of three community members in San Pedro in drawing









a base map of the community that included each family's agricultural property. In San Miguel, I

was able to create the base map on my own because the land ownership is not as structured and

because the community is much smaller. Each base map included the Acre River and any other

major geographical features (roads, property lines, locations of houses, international borders). I

then visited each household and asked the head of household (in most cases male, but sometimes

female) to draw the rivers and streams on their property, where their agricultural fields were

located, where specific crops were planted, and any riparian buffers they had maintained near

water bodies (Figure 2-1). While they worked, I discussed their drawing with them and added

notes that quantified the number of hectares being drawn, meters of riparian buffers, and meters

of streams and rivers that flowed through their property. In addition to providing a visual

reflection of land-use patterns in these communities, these participatory maps were intended to

allow the verification of information collected during the semi-structured interviews. The final

participatory maps are included in Appendix B.


t 4 -


Figure 2-1. A community member in San Pedro works on the participatory map.









In creating the map for San Pedro, I encountered some difficulties and learned some

important lessons. My original intention was to call a community meeting and ask all of the

households to work collaboratively to create the map. However, due to a variety of

circumstances beyond my control, the meeting time was not communicated to the community,

nor was the importance of the attendance of the person in charge of agricultural production for

the household properly emphasized. When the meeting finally coalesced, therefore, it was late in

the evening and primarily attended by the female heads of household, who had very little

knowledge about the locations of streams and crops or the existence of riparian buffer zones, as

it was generally the men's area of expertise. I realized that it would be best to cancel the meeting

and to visit each house individually. While this was a frustrating experience for me and for the

attendees of the meeting, I learned a valuable lesson and approached the mapping process in San

Miguel differently.

Global Positioning System (GPS) Data

The use of GPS and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is becoming ubiquitous in

both the natural and the social sciences. I therefore decided to collect data on the locations of

each house and bathroom to determine how far from water sources these features were and

whether the potential existed for floods to cause contamination events (Objective 2). These data

were analyzed in ERDAS IMAGINE.

Food Log

As will be discussed in Chapter 3, the residents of San Pedro de Bolpebra have easy access

to the Brazilian city of Assis Brasil. They are therefore less dependent on river resources for

sustenance and are also accustomed to purchasing food by weight. When I asked families in San

Pedro to quantify the amount of various food items that they consume on a weekly basis, they

were easily able to answer the question. San Miguel, on the other hand, is a much more isolated









community and the residents are therefore more dependent on natural resources for food supply.

Hunting and fishing are almost daily activities, but conducted at random and only when

necessary. It proved difficult during my interviews to arrive at a concrete estimate of the amount

of fish or wild game consumed on a weekly basis. I arrived at the conclusion that creating a daily

food log for each family was my only option for this type of data collection. I visited three

families (the only ones that were available) once per day for eight days to record what they had

eaten for each meal on the previous day and how much of each type of food they had consumed.

Food data from both communities will be used to understand the extent to which each

community depends upon natural resources for survival (Objective 1).









CHAPTER 3
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND LIVELIHOOD SYSTEMS

The relationship between a local population and a natural resource of interest (in this case,

water) is only one part of the complex puzzle that forms a group's livelihood system. In light of

this fact, I will begin the presentation of my research results with an ethnographic sketch of each

community. I will attempt to demonstrate that the communities of San Pedro de Bolpebra and

San Miguel de Machineri are different in fundamental and important ways, a fact that has

implications both on their relationship to aquatic resources and on the potential for future

collaborative watershed management.

San Pedro de Bolpebra

San Pedro de Bolpebra is located, quite literally, at the northwestern tip of Bolivia. From

the banks of the Acre River, one can see and, in under 20 minutes, walk to the communities of

Ifiapari, Peru (reported population: approximately 1,000 people) and Assis Brasil, Brazil

(reported population: 6,000-12,000 people). San Pedro itself is inhabited by settlers from the

highland area of Bolivia. The community has a population of 102, residing in 22 households.2

On average, family size is relatively small, with a mean of 3.78 children (range of 0-8, median of

3). Adults in the community have an average of 7.38 years of education.

Approximately half (52.5%) of the households originate from the department of Tarija,

Bolivia's southernmost department. The remainder of the community is composed of families

from the highland departments of Oruro (5%), La Paz (15%), Chuquisaca (12.5%), and

Cochabamba (5%) and the lowland departments of Pando (7.5%) and Beni (2.5%). As recounted

to me by various community members, the original group often families arrived in San Pedro in

1992 after a failed attempt at settlement in another area of Pando. Leaders of the original group

2 Data for this study were collected from 21 households.









petitioned authorities in the nation's capital, La Paz, for a land grant in the Amazon region.

According to them, Tarija was experiencing a shortage of land and employment opportunities.

The settlers thought that they would fare better with land in the Amazon, even though most had

little experience with farming. In Tarija, many had been shopkeepers, taxi drivers, carpenters,

and other types of urban laborers.

The Bolivian government granted the settlers communal title to an area of approximately

30,000 hectares. According to requirements of the Bolivian agrarian law, each family was

allocated a territory of no more than 500 hectares. In order to maintain informal ownership of

their lot, each family has to make "productive" use of the land, meaning that it must fulfill its

social function by being used for agricultural purposes (for an historical perspective on the Social

Function Doctrine and its role in land reform in Latin America, see Ankersen and Ruppert 2006).

Any land that is unused for a period of more than three months can be taken away and

reallocated to another community member. Enforcement of this policy would be non-existent if

the community itself did not take it on, encouraged by individuals who either want the land for

themselves or are trying to punish families who have left the community to pursue work

elsewhere. While this procedure is not followed often, it has indeed occurred. In fact, an attempt

to reclaim a lot belonging to one of the original founders of the community was one of the major

conflicts that I witnessed during my stay in San Pedro.

Upon the founding of San Pedro, the community was not connected by road to the rest of

Bolivia. The settlers immediately began cutting a trail that would later become a poorly-

maintained dirt "highway" to the departmental capital, Cobija. From the other direction, tractors

were also cutting a road through the jungle. As is often the case, with roads come people, and

San Pedro lost approximately 8,000 hectares of its original territory to squatters. In addition, in









1993 a pro-indigenous national government came into power and, under pressure from a growing

indigenous rights movement, created a number of indigenous territories known as Original

Communal Lands (Tierras Comunitarias de Origen or TCOs) (Padwe 2001). During this time,

the Yaminahua-Machineri TCO was formed in Pando and allocated a territory of 22,000

hectares, approximately half of which was land that had originally been granted to the

community of San Pedro. Currently, the total territory of San Pedro is approximately 10,000

hectares.

The community of San Pedro is partially integrated into the market economy. Individuals

reported engaging in a variety of activities to earn a living (Figure 3-1). A number of community

members own stores for the purpose of selling inexpensive import goods (mainly electronics,

plastics, and clothing) to the nearby Peruvians and Brazilians. These stores are located on the

riverbank (el Puerto or the port) directly across the Acre River from Assis Brasil, making them

easily accessible to their Brazilian and Peruvian customers. The town center, containing the

majority of the planed timber and tin or thatch roof houses and the school (Figure 3-2), lies

approximately half a mile downstream from the port and slightly inland. Community members

who live in town make their living through a diverse set of strategies, including small-scale

agriculture and/or cattle ranching both for subsistence and for sale (sometimes in combination);

teaching in the local school; carpentry/handyman work (and were working on government

funded improvement projects in the community during the summer of 2004); and working as

street vendors in Assis Brasil.3 Community members who split their time between San Pedro and


3 Assis Brasil is connected to the rest of Brazil via the Transoceanic Highway, which runs across Brazil and over the
Peruvian Andes, terminating at the Pacific Ocean. In 2001, the Transoceanic Highway was paved as far as Assis
Brasil, which has facilitated in-migration leading to rapid population growth in the area. My informants estimated
that Assis Brasil currently has a population of between 6,000 and 12,000 people. The difference between the
communities on the Bolivian side versus those on the Brazilian side of the Acre River is stark. Assis Brasil has
restaurants, grocery stores, low-end hotels, telephone service, automobiles, and other amenities. San Pedro has none
of these things.











the departmental capital of Cobij a work as taxi drivers, restaurateurs, or serve in municipal


governmental posts. In addition to these activities, some community members also participate in


Brazil nut sales and illegal timber harvesting for supplemental income. The mean annual


household income is 14,601 Bolivianos (approximately US$1827), though the range is wide,


depending on type of employment (2,098 54,548 Bolivianos).


9
8
7
6

a
S5
4
3
E
S2


0


1
c1O d


0B`


0~


~tV
4o
/


0


Source of majority of annual income

Figure 3-1. Employment in San Pedro. Note that the category "Domestic" consists of non-
income generating stay-at-home wives and mothers


Figure 3-2. Typical houses in San Pedro.









Sixteen of the 21 households interviewed own livestock, including chickens, pigs, horses,

oxen, sheep, turkeys and ducks. Six households reported owning cattle, though herd size is

relatively small, with an average of 14 head. Livestock are used primarily for personal

consumption or, in the case of horses and oxen, for transportation. Some households reported

occasionally selling livestock, but this is not a frequent occurrence. As one community member

stated, "Twenty cows aren't worth selling. One sells one to cover expenses, but more than

anything they are for our own consumption... That's the only thing that a campesino has. Other

people have savings, banks but a campesino has his animals as savings."

As stated above, most community members receive informal ownership of a maximum of

500 hectares of land in addition to a small lot in the "urban area" upon which they can build their

house. Seventeen of the 21 households interviewed "owned" a lot that ranged in size from 270 to

500 hectares. One household owned 680 hectares because it had purchased land (albeit illegally)

from a former community member. Two of the remaining three households were not interested

in owning agricultural land and one was a new arrival and was waiting for land to become

available.

Though the total area of land owned per household is relatively large, only a small portion

of each household's lot has been cleared for agriculture or cattle ranching (Figure 3-3). Of the 17

households that own land and have cleared an area for agricultural use, the average total area

cleared was only 9.5 hectares per household, though this number is skewed by three households

that have cleared a large area for cattle pasture. If those households are eliminated from the

sample, the average cleared area drops to 4.9 hectares per household. Furthermore, the total area

cleared is often not contiguous, resulting in scattering of small fields. The average individual












field size, eliminating the three large cattle pastures, is 4.43 hectares with a range of 0.75-15


hectares.



40


25




_ 20

02


. 15

, ,-


' 10




5




0


A
A
A

A A
A A
A A
A
A A

San Pedro San M Iguel
Community


Figure 3-3. Total area under agricultural production per household.


Agriculturalists in San Pedro grow a variety of crops both for sale and for personal


consumption (Figures 3-4 and 3-5). The quantity of products sold varies from year to year,


depending on crop yield and household requirements. Watering needs are almost exclusively met


by rainfall, though three households reported occasionally using a community-owned pump to


water more delicate crops like tomatoes and peppers. To supplement their own production, every


household obtains much of its daily food supply, particularly meat, canned, and processed foods,


from merchants in Assis Brasil.














16

14

12

1 10
0
=
0
0 6

4


2

0






Agricultural product


Figure 3-4. Number of households that grow each agricultural product in San Pedro.



8 -I


7

6
U)
o0 5
A -


0
S3 -
02


=1








Agricultural product


Figure 3-5. Number of households that sell each agricultural product in San Pedro.


San Pedro is still undergoing a process of infrastructural development. While the standard


soccer field is present, the community still lacks a fundamental element of most Latin American


towns a central plaza. The three roads in the town are little more than wide grass paths (Figure









3-6), which is currently sufficient as no one owns a car and there are no local bridges that

connect Bolivia with Peru or Brazil. Recently, running water from a nearby spring was piped to

15 of the 16 houses in the main community. Due to a lack of funds for gasoline, however, the

pump is only run once per week for half an hour. The four houses located at the port do not have

running water and must retrieve their drinking water from Assis Brasil either by purchasing

bottled water or by filling their own jugs from the pipes that reach the river bank. Electricity for

the community is purchased from Peru and transported via a patchwork of cables. All but two

houses have access to electricity and there were immediate plans for connecting those remaining

houses. There is no phone service, thus all contact with the departmental capital is conducted via

radio. A new health center was being built during the summer of 2004 and is staffed by the

community nurse and occasionally visited by a doctor who divides his time among various rural

communities.

















Figure 3-6. A picture of a main road in San Pedro. The three roads in San Pedro are simply wide
grass paths. No households own cars.

Much of San Pedro's hope for future development rests on the highly anticipated

improvement of the road to Cobija. Currently, the residents feel deeply isolated. With little

access to markets in their own country, their only choice for long-term survival in the area is the









production of items desired by nearby consumers cattle and timber. Although cattle ranching

has not yet overtaken the area, many families in San Pedro hope to eventually own cattle or to

expand their herds.

A second issue that arises from the lack of reliable road access in San Pedro is that the

community members have difficulty reaching their 500 hectare properties. The lots begin about

two kilometers from town and flank either side of the currently unimproved road for as far as 22

kilometers, meaning that that many community members cannot access their land on a daily

basis. Eight households have resorted to farming in areas within the community's urban area,

with fields ranging in size from 0.25 to 6 hectares. Much of the urban area lies along the Acre

River, so many of the agricultural fields are, by default, directly adjacent to the river. Once the

road is completed, the residents of San Pedro anticipate better access to their land (via

automobile) and, more importantly, to regional and national markets for their agricultural

products.

San Miguel de Machineri

The second research community, San Miguel de Machineri, is located on the Acre River

approximately 1.5 hours downstream from San Pedro by motorized canoe (an estimated distance

of 16 kilometers) in the northwestern corer of the Yaminahua-Machineri TCO. Residents of San

Miguel are members of the Machineri indigenous group, originally from the Sena Madureira

region of Brazil (Herbas 2000). In 2004, the community had a population of 23 people in five

households, though this number (both of people and households) tends to vary from year to year.

Household size is small, with an average of 3.14 children (range of 1-10, median of 1), but each

household in San Miguel is related to the others by way of one of the heads of household.

Frequently, members of these families depart for extended periods of time and family members









who reside outside of the community arrive for lengthy visits. Adults in the community have an

average of 2 years of education; at least five (of nine) are illiterate or only partially literate.

Though the residents of San Pedro claim that upon their arrival to the area in 1992, San

Miguel was uninhabited, some residents of San Miguel state that they have lived in the area for

approximately 20 years. This time period is difficult to confirm, as the earliest migrants do not

remember the year in which they arrived in Bolivia. Based on oral histories regarding the number

of houses they have built and fields they have planted, however, a time-line of approximately 20

years seems feasible. Other residents have arrived more recently, particularly since the founding

of the TCO. All residents of San Miguel speak Portuguese, four adults speak Machineri (the

indigenous language), and one adult speaks some Spanish. With the exception of one, children

and young adults in the community do not speak Machineri, but all speak Portuguese and most

speak at least some Spanish, as the school teacher in the community is Bolivian and conducts

classes in Spanish.

Land in the TCO is communally owned and new residents must first seek permission from

the community before they settle there. While there may be federal restrictions as to the ethnic

origin of TCO residents, this did not seem to be the case at the local level. It seemed that anyone,

regardless of indigenous status, could be granted permission to settle in the community if they

met the community's approval. Practically speaking, as has been the pattern in the past it is likely

that new residents would be connected in some familial way to current residents and thus would

likely be Machineri. Houses, constructed of palm trunks and thatch (Figure 3-7), are relatively

distant from one another. Walking time varies from 5-15 minutes between households. Each

household simply chooses an area in the vicinity of their house in which to create their

agricultural fields.





























Figure 3-7. Typical houses in San Miguel.

Households depend upon subsistence agriculture (Figure 3-8), hunting, and fishing for


daily survival. In agriculture, families practice shifting cultivation. Once a field is harvested,


natural vegetation is allowed to regenerate for three to five years. After that time the soil is


fertilized by clearing and burning the field for reuse.









4
0
3-
0



z





Beans Rice Yuca Plantains Corn Sugarcane
Agricultural Product


Figure 3-8. Number of households that grow each agricultural product in San Miguel.









In comparison to San Pedro, both the total cleared agricultural area per household and the

individual field sizes are much smaller in San Miguel (see Figure 3-3). The average cleared area

for agricultural production is 2.44 hectares/household, and the average contiguous cleared area is

just 1.23 hectares.

As in San Pedro, each household owns some kind of livestock, though at a much smaller

scale. Each family owns a number of chickens, and some also own ducks and pigs. In contrast to

San Pedro, only one household owns cattle. However, the cattle are currently housed on a ranch

in Brazil and the owner had no immediate plans to transport them to San Miguel, though he did

have pasture planted in preparation for their arrival. One additional family hopes to own cattle in

the future.

To supplement subsistence activities, residents of San Miguel employ a number of other

livelihood strategies. Five men (one per household, though not necessarily the head of

household) occasionally work as day laborers in Brazil, earning an income of approximately

$3/day. Two households reported occasionally selling wild game and/or fish to their Brazilian

neighbors and at least four of the households sell a portion of their agricultural harvest (Figure 3-

9). In addition, during the early months of the year, every household collects Brazil nuts and sells

them to both Bolivian and Brazilian processors. Average annual household income in San

Miguel is 10,158 Bolivianos (approximately US$1,271). Although it cannot be argued, then, that

the residents of San Miguel are not integrated into the market economy, the extent to which they

engage and depend on outside forces for survival is much more limited than in San Pedro. For

this reason, the lack of road access is not as frequent a topic of conversation in San Miguel and

does not seem to cause the same feeling of isolation as it does in San Pedro.

















4-

0


.. 2
0

E
zl


0
Plantains Beans Rice Yuca Corn Sugar Sugar cane
Agricultural product


Figure 3-9. Number of households that sell each agricultural product in San Miguel.

San Miguel is substantially less infrastructurally developed than San Pedro. It does not

have electricity, running water, or telephone service. Discussions regarding the installation of

water pipes have occurred, though no immediate plans have been made. For now, each

household has access to a small stream near their house, which they use for bathing, cooking,

and washing clothes. In early 2004, the community was given a radio, powered by a combination

of solar energy and a car battery, which they use to communicate with other communities and

with the Indigenous Center for the Original Villages of Amazonian Pando (CIPOAP), located in

Cobija.

Despite its small size, it is clear that San Miguel functions as a community, a fact that

allows for a comparison of resource use and management efforts with the larger community of

San Pedro. First, the community is recognized as such by the government of Bolivia and has

received aid in the form of a primary school based on this designation. Second, like all other









official communities in Bolivia, under the Popular Participation Law the community has elected

a community council (Organizaci6n Territorial de Base), the president of which represents the

community at regional functions. It is also a member of CIPOAP, which represents all

indigenous communities in Pando. Finally, San Miguel has not always been as small as it is now.

In the mid-1990s, the community consisted of 16 households, many of which left the area due to

land conflicts with settlers from San Pedro (Herbas 2000). By 1998, the population had shrunk to

seven households. There is no indication that the community will retain its small size, however,

as the population has tended to grow and shrink over time.

Conclusion

As can be seen from the preceding discussion, San Pedro and San Miguel are distinct in

terms of their size, ethnic origins, social organization, and livelihood strategies. One is a colonist

community, composed of residents from many regions of Bolivia. While some kinship

connections exist, most households are relatively independent of each other in both personal and

practical matters. Households in San Pedro make a living in a relatively wide variety of ways

but, more often than not, not through the exploitation of natural resources. This variety of

livelihood strategies is made possible by San Pedro's location near population centers in Peru

and Brazil.

Households in San Miguel, on the other hand, are intricately connected via kin networks

and function in a more cooperative manner. Furthermore, due to their greater isolation from

major population centers, households in San Miguel tend to rely on natural resources for survival

to a greater extent. The following section will discuss additional differences in these

communities' use of aquatic resources and riparian areas.









CHAPTER 4
AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES

Use of Aquatic Resources

The dependence of indigenous and colonist Amazonian communities on freshwater

resources has been previously documented (McClain et al. 2001; McClain and Cossio 2003).

Therefore, the fact that San Pedro and San Miguel are located near a relatively major water body

might lead one to the conclusion that the use of aquatic resources would constitute a major

component of their livelihood systems. This did not prove to be the case. Though households in

these communities do make use of aquatic resources for drinking water, transportation and food

supply, they do not depend as heavily on these resources as one might expect. The following

section will discuss the use of aquatic resources, including fishing, transportation, and domestic

water supply in each community.

Fishing as a Livelihood Strategy

San Pedro

Households in San Pedro view fishing in much the same way as households in the United

States might view it. Fishing is considered an activity in which one might partake on the

weekends, for example, as a form of relaxation or to provide variety in the household menu.

Some households commented that fishing is not "their custom," meaning that fishing was not a

livelihood strategy in their highland departments of origin. Furthermore, a number of households

emphasized that fishing, when engaged in, is done solely for household consumption. No

households sell fish for profit, though they do occasionally purchase fish from Brazilian

fishermen who fish on a larger scale.

Of the 21 households interviewed, 18 reported fishing on occasion, with an average

frequency of 13.7 times per year. Some households reported fishing exclusively during the wet











season, as the river is higher and, as one informant stated, the muddy water obscures visibility


and prevents the fish from being frightened by the fishermen. All 18 households report fishing


with a hook and line, and three also reported fishing with a net on occasion.


In general, yields are small. Households reported catching an average of 2.4 kilos each


time they fish (usually less than five fish). Though households reported catching 19 different


species offish, some species are caught more frequently than others (Figure 4-1). Many


households also reported purchasing fish on occasion, bringing the total average annual fish


consumption to 41.5 kilos/year/household. When compared to previous studies, this quantity is


less than expected. For example, colonist households in the Peruvian Amazon reported


consuming 145.6 kilos/year of fish (McClain et al. 2001:406).


Bagre (Doradidae family)
Piranambu (Pinirampus piniramp)
Sabalo (Prochilodus spp.)
Surubi(Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum)
Pirana (Characidae family)
Palometa (Characidae family)
PacO (Characidae family)
Pescado Perro (Acestrorhynchus spp.)
.- Jundia Negro (Pimelodidae family)
Sardina (Characidae family)
0
u Denton (Leporinus obtusidens)
0 Raya (Potamotrygonidae family)
CO Anguila (Species unknown n)
Dorado (Pellona flavippinnis)
Embodoca (Species unknown n)
Jundia Amarillo (Pimelodidae family)
Curimatan (Prochilodus nigrans)
Dentudo (Cynodontidae family)
Lisa (Anostomidae family)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of households

Figure 4-1. Species of fish caught by households in San Pedro.









One measure of a population's dependence on fishing as a livelihood strategy could be the

proportion of their protein intake that is satisfied by fish in relation to other types of protein

consumed. To this end, households in San Pedro were also asked about hunting practices and

purchased meat.

Only four households reported hunting, and infrequently at that. Of the households that

hunt, most eat wild game (including deer, peccary, monkey, armadillo, turkey, paca, turtle, and

tapir) only a few times a year.

As stated previously, households in San Pedro rely on markets in Assis Brasil for much of

their meat supply. Beef and chicken are purchased almost exclusively in Assis Brasil (on

occasion a family will slaughter one of their own animals). Households reported consuming

approximately 5.6 kilos/week of beef and 6.7 kilos/month of chicken. Pork is reserved for special

occasions, such as community celebrations when a pig is slaughtered. Households reported

eating an average of 48.4 kilos of pork/year. Households also occasionally purchase processed

meats (canned meat and sausage) and many collect eggs from their chickens.

Ultimately, then, fish (including fish purchased from commercial fishermen) constitutes

only 9% of the major sources of protein (beef, chicken, pork and fish) consumed by households

in San Pedro. This indicates that this community is likely not dependent on river resources for

survival, at least with regard to food supply.

San Miguel

Households in San Miguel are more dependent on natural resources than their upstream

neighbors in San Pedro. Whether this pattern is explained by isolation from markets or by

cultural tradition was not determined through this study, though it seems that a combination of

both factors may be at work. Nevertheless, although they make more use of natural resources,

families in San Miguel are also less dependent upon fish as a food source than one might expect.









Of the five households in the community, all reported fishing. On average, households fish

2.9 times per week (almost 89 times more frequently than households in San Pedro). Yields are

about the same, however, with households reporting an average catch of 2.2 kilos on a good

day.4 As in San Pedro, when compared with previous studies, the quantity offish consumed in

San Miguel is less than expected. If a calculation is made based on data collected from the food

log, households in San Miguel consume an average of 189.15 kilos/year of fish. Meanwhile,

indigenous households in the Peruvian Amazon reported consuming 249.6 kilos/year of fish

(McClain et al. 2001:406).

All households reported fishing with a net (Figure 4-2), and three reported also fishing

with a hook and line. The decision to use one technique or the other is based on a number of

factors, including the size of the stream, efficiency and personal preference. Smaller streams

necessitate fishing with a hook and line because the net can get tangled in underwater logs. One

household believed that one can catch more fish with a net (and thus did not ever fish with a

hook and line), and one household would switch tactics depending on whether or not the fish

were responding to the initial strategy employed.

The species of fish that are caught in San Miguel are somewhat similar to those caught in

San Pedro (Figure 4-3). Interestingly, however, residents in San Miguel reported catching fewer

species, 14 in total.



4 It was difficult for households in San Miguel to estimate their weekly fish consumption because their livelihood
strategy involves a constantly varying combination of hunting and fishing. If, for example, a household is successful
in killing a wild animal, they have no need to hunt again or to fish for several more days. To compensate for these
difficulties, I collected data on food consumption for eight days from three of the five households (the other two
households were not available for interviewing). During the week that the data were collected, the total fish
consumption for the three households was only 2.5 kilos. The discrepancy between actual fish consumption and
estimates reported during semi-structured interviews might be attributed to memory errors (Bernard 2002) or to the
fact that during the week that food data were collected, a supply of staple food items arrived in San Miguel from the
Bolivian government as part of a flood relief plan (the community had been flooded in early 2004). These items
(noodles, flour, dried milk, etc.) supplemented, and partially substituted for, hunting and fishing during that week.





































Figure 4-2. Fishing nets are the most commonly used fishing technology in San Miguel.



Piranambu (Pinirampus piniramp)

Bagre (Doradidae family)

Piao (Species unknown n)

Surubi (Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum)

Curimatan (Prochilodus nigrans)

Sardina (Characidae family)

Bujurqui (Cichlidae family)
o Ahashua (Cichlidae family)

Piraha (Characidae family)

Co Matrinchao (Brycon spp.)

Cachimbo (Loricariidae family)

Cuyu (Oxydoras niger)

Jundia (Pimelodidae family)

Bodon (Species unknown n)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of households


Figure 4-3. Species of fish caught by households in San Miguel.









In addition to fishing more often than households in San Pedro, households in San Miguel

also hunt more frequently. All households reported hunting, though it was difficult for them to

estimate the average frequency. One household purchased meat from markets in Assis Brasil on

occasion because the head of household made frequent trips there to visit his ailing mother.

In total, households reported consuming an average of 7.3 kilos of wild game per week, of

which 0-6.4 kilos is composed of fish.5 Interestingly, without exception, households in San

Miguel reported a preference for hunting over fishing. While some households preferred to eat

wild game (including deer, monkey, peccary, paca, turkey, armadillo, turtle, tetitu) because of its

better flavor, others found hunting to be a more efficient means of providing meat for the

household. However, an important limiting factor in hunting is the availability of rifle

ammunition, which is expensive to purchase.

In comparison to San Pedro, then, households in San Miguel consume more fish. However,

the large majority of their diet is composed of wild game. This fact may indicate that the

dependence on aquatic resources for subsistence is not as strong as one might expect. However,

the dependence of game species on habitat provided by rivers, streams and riparian areas is an

important point to consider in that it establishes a second tier connection between communities

and river resources (McClain 1999).







5 According to the data gathered through the food log, the three families interviewed consumed an average of 4.4
kilos of wild game per household during the eight day period. Animals consumed included white monkey (Cebus
albifrons), red howler monkey (Alouatta spp.), turtle, paca ( l'. ,, paca), collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu), white
lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari), brown agouti (Dasyprocta variegate) and wild turkey. One household also killed
one of their chickens and was given a domestic pig head. A second household consumed a small quantity of dried ox
(charque de buey). According to these data, then, fish constituted 15% of the total protein intake during that period,
while wild game constituted 77%.









Other Uses of Water Resources

Amazonian river dwellers make use of aquatic resources for more than simply subsistence

purposes. Other important uses include transportation and water for domestic consumption. The

communities of San Miguel and San Pedro follow this pattern. However, mirroring the lack of

dependence on aquatic resources for food discussed above, residents in these communities seem

to rely on river resources for transportation and domestic use to a lesser extent than might be

expected.

Use of river for transportation

In San Pedro, only two households currently own a motorized canoe that enables them to

effectively use the Acre River for transportation. One of these households owns one of the local

stores and uses its boat to transport merchandise from Cobija, which is a one- to two-day trip by

river. Because of limitations placed on Bolivian citizens for travel and transportation of goods

through Brazil along the Transoceanic Highway, merchants in San Pedro have few options for

transporting goods other than by river.

The other household that currently owns a motorized canoe uses it exclusively to transport

the male head of household to his distant agricultural field and to transport agricultural products

back to San Pedro. This household is lucky in that they have access to their 500 hectare lot both

from the dirt "highway" and from the river. Lots located on the other side of the road do not have

river access, thus restricting the export of agricultural products.

Four households in San Pedro have owned canoes in the past, but have either sold them or

lost them to floods or rot. The floods of 2004 were particularly damaging, as they carried away

the canoes of two of these households. None of the households in San Pedro use canoes for

fishing purposes; if canoes are owned, they are used exclusively for transportation.









In San Miguel, only one household owns a dugout canoe, which is frequently used for

fishing. It does not have a motor, thus making it an ineffective means of long distance

transportation. The other community in the Yaminahua-Machineri TCO, Puerto Yaminahua, has

access to at least one motorized canoe that occasionally stops in San Miguel to pick up or drop

off passengers. Otherwise, residents of San Miguel walk to San Pedro or Assis Brasil via the

highway or along the river bank, a three to five hour trip.

Interestingly, McClain et al. (2001) found a greater use of rivers for transportation

purposes in the Peruvian Amazon. In their study, 54.6% of indigenous households and 37.7% of

colonist households reported using rivers for transportation. While it is not clear what proportion

of total transportation needs were fulfilled by river travel in their study site, it appears that a

greater number of households reported traveling by river than in my research communities.

Domestic water supply

As stated previously, most households in San Pedro (15 of 20) have access to running

water, which comes from a spring located just outside of town. However, the community

members have little money with which to purchase fuel for the water pump. Running water is

therefore available only about once per week for half an hour, and sometimes only once every

two weeks. Households collect this water in large containers and use it for cooking and drinking

throughout the week. Many households reported that the quantity of water that arrives during

that half hour period satisfies their weekly household requirement, which is an average of 263.2

liters/week or 37.6 liters/day. Interestingly, this quantity is less than predicted by previous

studies of colonist water usage. McClain et al. (2001:403) found that colonist in the Peruvian

Amazon reported using 88.7 liters/day/family.

If households need more water than that provided by the pump, they collect it in jugs or

buckets from another spring located about ten minutes from town by foot. This spring is also









used for washing clothes by some community members. This is all to say that most households

in San Pedro do not use the Acre River as a primary source of water for domestic consumption.

Bathing and washing clothes, on the other hand, are done almost exclusively in the river or

at the nearby spring. 81% of households (17 of 21) reported bathing primarily in the river. The

remaining households do not bathe in the river because they feel it is too dirty to bathe in, either

because of pollution from upstream communities or sediment. They collect rain water, go to the

spring, or use their stored potable water for bathing. Sixty-seven percent of households (14 of

21) reported washing clothes in the river. Those households that do not wash clothes in the river

wash them at the nearby spring. They also stated that the river was too dirty for washing clothes.

Perceptions of water quality will be explored in more detail in Chapter 6.

As in San Pedro, the Acre River does not serve as the primary source of water for domestic

consumption for residents of San Miguel. Unlike in San Pedro, however, it is also not used

frequently for bathing and washing clothes. This is due to the fact that each house in the

community is located next to a small stream, which they use to supply water for their household

needs (Figure 4-4). On occasion, families will bathe and swim in the river for recreation, but

most use their nearby stream almost exclusively. On average, households reported using 55.6

liters of water per day in the home, which is less than predicted by McClain et al.'s 2001 study.

In that study, indigenous households in the Peruvian Amazon reported using an average of 72.7

liters/day/family (McClain et al. 2001:403). When asked why the residents of San Miguel do not

use the river more often to fulfill household needs, two households stated that the river is further

from the house than the stream is.













. ....


Figure 4-4. Each household in San Miguel has access to a small stream that is used for domestic
purposes.

Conceptualization of Aquatic Resources

Freelists as an indicator of familiarity with river and riparian resources

As demonstrated by the discussion above, the residents of San Pedro and San Miguel

utilize aquatic resources differently. The discussion thus far has focused exclusively on fishing

and the use of water as proxies for aquatic resource use. To expand this discussion to the

communities' familiarity with other river resources, the results of the freelisting exercise will

now be discussed.

As stated previously, freelisting is an anthropological technique designed to elicit a list of

items that form a particular cultural domain. For this study, each person (18 men and 17 women

in San Pedro, and four men and three women in San Miguel) was asked to list all of the natural

resources that are found in rivers, streams and riparian areas. Two conclusions can be reached

from the responses. First, the results can indicate whether or not the resources in question

actually constitute a cultural domain. In other words, do the interviewees respond similarly to the










question? Second, through an analysis of list length and content, a rough idea of each

community's familiarity with and importance placed on river resources can be achieved.

The average length of freelists in San Pedro was 17 items. Men tended to list more items

than women, with 23 and 12 items, respectively. This can likely be explained by the fact that

most women do not take part in fishing, hunting, or working in the agricultural fields where they

would be exposed to species located in water bodies or riparian areas. The 35 respondents listed

a total of 264 unique items (Figures 4-5 and 4-6).

The largest category of items was terrestrial animals found in riparian areas (36%). These

included game species as well as birds, monkeys, insects and snakes. Also listed frequently were

trees found in riparian areas (both timber and non-timber species) (25%) and fish (16%). Only

6% of the items listed were inorganic substances. These included natural features such as lakes,

beaches, rocks, sand, and soil; minerals such as gold, iron, and aluminum; and spirits (listed by

only one person).


100
90
80
70
S 60
E
S 50
40
E 30
20
10
0






Category


Figure 4-5. Freelisted items (by total number).


mSan Pedro
OSan Miguel











40%

35%

30%

25%
m *San Pedro
E 20% -
20% o DSan Miguel
S 15%

10%

5%

0%






Category


Figure 4-6. Freelisted items (by percent of total).

In San Miguel, the lists were substantially longer, which could reflect that community's

stronger dependence on natural resource for their livelihoods. The average list length was 32

items, and 119 unique items were listed by the seven people interviewed (Figures 4-5 and 4-6).

As in San Pedro, men listed more items than women (39 and 23, respectively), but the difference

between male and female was proportionally smaller in San Miguel. This could reflect the fact

that in San Miguel, women are equally involved in almost all livelihood activities with the

exception of hunting. It is not uncommon for both the men and women in a household to go

fishing or work in the agricultural fields together.

As in San Pedro, terrestrial animals, trees, and fish were the categories into which the

majority of items fell, with 38%, 15%, and 28% of the items, respectively. Unlike in San Pedro,

however, more fish species than tree species were listed. Furthermore, terrestrial animal species

and fish species were listed with almost the same frequency, whereas in San Pedro, terrestrial

animals far exceeded the other categories.









The 25 most frequently listed items by all respondents in San Pedro appear in Table 4-1

(each item was listed by at least six respondents).Interestingly, the top three items listed are not

species that are consumed frequently. In fact, two of them,jacar and raya (caiman and ray) are

species from which attacks are feared. Peta (turtle) is a highly visible species along the river

banks. The following three items listed (sardina, surubi, and sabalo) are species of fish. The

remainder of the list is composed of a mixture of game species (6); other fish species (8); snakes

(2); and useful tree species like Brazil nut, asai (a species of palm used for its fruit), and pacay (a

fruit tree) (3).

Table 4-1. Top 25 freelisted items in San Pedro.
Frequency (# % of
Item Category of respondents) respondents
1 Peta Aquatic animal 17 49
2 Jacare Aquatic animal 17 49
3 Raya Aquatic animal 16 46
4 Sardina Fish 15 43
5 Surubi Fish 15 43
6 Sabalo Fish 12 34
7 Venado Terrestrial animal 11 31
8 Bagre Fish 10 29
9 Jochi pintado Terrestrial animal 9 26
10 Anta Terrestrial animal 9 26
11 Mono Terrestrial animal 9 26
12 Ciruri Snake 8 23
13 Piranambu Fish 8 23
14 Anguila Aquatic animal 8 23
15 Castafia Tree (Brazil nut) 7 20
16 Dorado Fish 7 20
17 Chancho del monte Terrestrial animal 7 20
18 Pacu Fish 7 20
19 Capibara Terrestrial animal 7 20
20 Pirafia Fish 7 20
21 Vibora Snake 7 20
22 Pacay Fruit tree 7 20
23 Palometa Fish 6 17
24 Asai Tree (Palm fruit) 6 17
25 Pescado perro Fish 6 17









The 24 items listed most frequently by all respondents in San Miguel appear in Table 4-2

(each item was listed by at least three respondents). The most frequently listed item (mandin) is a

common species of fish, while the following five equally popular items are a combination of

common fish species (2), game animals (2), and one non-game, but "menacing" animal (caiman).

The remainder of the list is composed of various fish species (7), game species (6), non-game

species (1), other aquatic animals (2), one generic "snake" category, and one tree species.

Table 4-2. Top 24 freelisted items in San Miguel.
Frequency (# % of
Item Category of respondents) respondents
1 Mandin Fish 7 100
2 Jundia Fish 6 86
3 Peta Aquatic animal 6 86
4 Jacare Aquatic animal 6 86
5 Jochi Pintado Game animal 6 86
6 Boca chica Fish 6 86
7 Bodon Fish 5 71
8 Cuyu Fish 5 71
9 Mono silbador Terrestrial animal 5 71
10 Sardina Fish 5 71
11 Bacu Fish 4 57
12 Pava Terrestrial animal 4 57
13 Mono blanco Terrestrial animal 4 57
14 Surubi Fish 4 57
15 Mono maneche Terrestrial animal 4 57
16 Vibora Terrestrial animal 4 57
17 Piranambu Fish 4 57
18 Raya Aquatic animal 4 57
19 Tatu Terrestrial animal 3 43
20 Anguila Aquatic animal 3 43
21 Jochi Colorado Terrestrial animal 3 43
22 Anta Terrestrial animal 3 43
23 Denton Fish 3 43
24 Pacay Tree (fruit) 3 43

In comparing the lists from both communities, the most striking feature is that they are

similar in composition, yet different in specifics. While the most salient elements in the cultural

domain of aquatic and riparian resources appear to be fish and game species, the lists overlap on









just over half of the items (27 out of 49). This could indicate that while consensus may exist

regarding important aquatic and riparian resources within each community, there may not be a

shared cultural domain among all residents of this portion of the watershed. This finding could

also reflect the different ways in which these communities use (or choose not to use) river

resources.

Using non-metric multidimensional scaling to understand the cognitive domain of river
resources

Through a process called non-metric multidimensional scaling, data from freelists can also

be used to create a map of the way people cognitively organize items in the cultural domain of

aquatic and riparian resources. This analysis was conducted on items that were listed by at least

three respondents in San Pedro and by at least two respondents in San Miguel, or by at least five

respondents in both communities combined. Multidimensional scaling measures both the

frequency with which items are listed and how often respondents list the same items together.

The cognitive maps (Figures 4-7 4-9) that emerge from this analysis contain useful

information. Items that appear close to each other are those that are listed most frequently

together, while distance between individual items or groups of items indicates that those items

are not frequently listed together. Items that appear near the center of the diagram tend to be

those most salient to the cultural domain, while items that appear toward the edges are less

salient.

The cognitive map for San Pedro (Figure 4-7) indicates that consensus exists with regard

to how people think about aquatic and riparian resources. Many fish species appear together, as

do fruits, game animals, and medicinal plants. Interestingly, fruits appear on the opposite side of

the diagram from game animals and fish. This is likely because women tended to list fruit

species, while men tended to list the other items that are more closely grouped.















































Figure 4-7. Cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Pedro (see List of
Abbreviations). Resources are color coded as follows: dark blue = fish, light blue =
other aquatic animals, yellow = fruits, brown = monkeys, dark green = trees/plants,
light green = snakes, orange = terrestrial/game species, pink = birds, gray = medicinal
plants, black = other.

The cognitive map for San Miguel (Figure 4-8) also indicates cultural consensus. Many of

the important fish species appear grouped toward the center of the diagram, while there are also

distinct groupings of fruits, monkeys, and tree species. Some game animals appear grouped

together, but a number are also spread throughout the diagram. As in San Pedro, gender appears


70













to influence the map. Fruit trees are located far from timber species, which are listed more


frequently by women and men, respectively. However, important fish species, located in the


center, were frequently listed by both genders.

Dim 2







1.41 A


CHT
PNA PIC VEN
PAC


NT
0.82 CHA





VTN MMN CAI JCL


CAC PAV PIR

BOC
OUR MDN
SAR CUY
JUN
D


RAY BAC







-0.93 M R CEM ASA



PAJ



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A
D1m I
Stress in 2 dimensions is 0.174

Tree species Monkey Fish Fruit Game

(primarily timber) species species species species




Figure 4-8. Cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Miguel (see List of

Abbreviations). Resources are color coded as follows: dark blue = fish, light blue =

other aquatic animals, yellow = fruits, brown = monkeys, dark green = trees/plants,

light green = snakes, orange = terrestrial/game species, pink = birds.














When the freelists from the communities are combined, the associations on the cognitive



map begin to weaken (Figure 4-9). While distinct groupings of tree species and fruit species are



apparent, there is also a substantial amount of scatter among the remaining groups. This



scattering mirrors the results of the freelists, in which there was a significant lack of overlap



among the most frequently listed items in each community


UAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAAAA AAA





CAS C E
PAL
0.83 DOR

CEM DEN

CAP BAG
PES

SAB s EN PAC
MON SR
0.13 GAR SAR PIC PDP
PAT PNA












































Figure 4-9. Combined cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Pedro and San
RAY P OP ANT
PIR


S^JUN TAT
MDN VTN
-0.57 B
SIL CAI
1 JCL
BOD
PAY
GO





















AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAA
-1.97 -1.24 -0.50 0.23 0.97
Dim 1

Fruit species Tree species




Figure 4-9. Combined cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Pedro and San

Miguel (see List of Abbreviations). Resources are color coded as follows: dark blue =

fish, light blue = other aquatic animals, yellow = fruits, brown = monkeys, dark green

= trees/plants, light green = snakes, orange = terrestrial/game species, pink = birds.









Conclusion

This section focused on the use and conceptualization of aquatic resources. Figure 4-10

summarizes the use of aquatic resources in each community. The results from the analyses of

fishing practices and freelists lead to two important points. First, residents of San Miguel are

more familiar with aquatic and riparian resources, and use them to a greater extent in their

livelihood strategy than residents in San Pedro. Second, while there is some consensus regarding

the constitution of the domain of aquatic and riparian resources, consensus is stronger within

each community than between communities. Both of these findings may impact the potential for

future collaborative management in that different levels of dependence upon and different ways

of conceptualizing these resources are reflective of social heterogeneity in the watershed that

may be difficult to overcome. This point will be discussed in greater depth in subsequent

chapters.

Table 4-3. Summary of the use of aquatic resources in San Pedro and San Miguel.
San Pedro San Miguel
Fishing
Percentage of households 86% 100%
that fish
Frequency 13.7 times/year 2.91 times/week
Total quantity offish 2.4 kilos 2.2 kilos (1.25 kilos
caught per time according to food log)

Transportation 2/21 households own canoe 1/5 households own canoe
(with motor) (without motor)
Domestic use
Drinking water source (% Spring (100%) Streams (100%)
of households)
Location for bathing (% Primary location: River (81%) Streams (100%)
of households) Secondary location: Springs

Location for laundry (% Primary location: River (67%) Streams (100%)
of households) Secondary location: Springs









Additionally, while the river acts as a source of transportation and water for domestic use

for some households, it is not relied upon to a great extent in either community. However, access

to other sources of water is critical to satisfy domestic needs. As will be discussed in the

following section, these smaller streams are subject to some degree of protection by many

households through the management of riparian areas.

Land Use Practices and Strategies for Water Quality Protection

Communities in riparian areas often benefit from having easy access to water and aquatic

resources, but they also have the added benefit of being able to engage in agriculture in relatively

fertile riparian areas. In the Peruvian Amazon, McClain and Cossio (2003) documented the

intentional use of riparian areas for agriculture and the preferential planting of certain crops in

them. They also documented a conscious valuing of riparian areas for the environmental services

that they provide. Are these findings consistent with activities in the communities of San Pedro

and San Miguel? The following section will discuss the use of riparian areas for agricultural

purposes, the preservation of vegetation in riparian zones as a strategy for water quality

protection, the reasons why riparian areas are valued by households, and the ways in which

households manage garbage and human waste.

Use of Riparian Areas

San Pedro

Of the 18 households that own land in San Pedro, 17 reported having access to at least one

stream or to the Acre River on their property. Five households have access to both the river and

at least one stream, 11 have access to only a stream, and one household has access to the river

but did not know whether they also have access to a stream because the informant does not visit

the property frequently. Of the 17 households that have access to a source of surface water on

their property, ten households reported clearing agricultural fields near this source, while six









households have not cleared agricultural fields near the water source and one household did not

provide this information.6

During the household interviews, nine of the 18 land-owning households reported leaving

a buffer of vegetation between their agricultural fields and the Acre River or tributary streams

when working in riparian areas (three of these households, however, do not currently have

agricultural fields in riparian areas so their responses were given in a hypothetical sense). Five

households stated that they do not leave a riparian buffer when engaging in agricultural practices

near surface water sources and four households are not currently working near a water source

and, therefore, did not respond to this question. On average, households reported leaving a buffer

of 18.9 meters. This figure includes households that leave no buffers. When households that do

not leave buffers are eliminated from the calculation, the mean buffer width increases to 30.7

meters. Reasons given for leaving riparian buffers included

* Providing shade so that the stream does not dry up
* Providing shade so that the water stays cold
* Preventing erosion
* Preserving the quantity of groundwater (that eventually emerges as springs)
* Preserving soil moisture
* Governmental regulations that prohibit the clearing of riparian areas

Reasons given for not leaving riparian buffers included

* Providing access to streams for cattle
* Reducing habitat for poisonous snakes and crocodiles
* "Cleaning" the landscape for aesthetic purposes





6 In addition to clearing land for agricultural purposes in their individually "owned" lots, some
community members also clear fields near town for more frequent use. While some of these
fields border the Acre River and other streams, detailed data on the use of these areas and the
management of riparian buffer zones are not available.









A common problem in social science research is the fact that people often inaccurately

report their own behavior (Bernard 2002). It therefore becomes important to verify information

collected in interviews through a process of triangulation. In the case of my research,

participatory mapping was a technique that allowed for the gathering of similar data regarding

land use strategies but with the added benefit of a visual element to stimulate informant recall.

Furthermore, more detailed information regarding field size, locations and types of crops, and

protection of riparian buffer zones could be collected while the map was being discussed.

Interestingly, participatory mapping revealed a slightly different system of land use than

that which emerged through the household interviews. According to the participatory map of

each land-owners property, 11 of the 18 land-holding households left a riparian buffer when

creating an agricultural field near the Acre River or a tributary stream, while seven households

did not leave a buffer on at least one of their fields. Two of these seven households, however,

had left buffers on one of their other fields. When compared with the information provided

during the semi-structured interviews, four households mapped larger buffers than they had

reported during their interview, four households mapped smaller buffers than they had reported

during their interview, and seven households mapped the same size buffers as they had reported

during their interview.

The participatory maps also revealed that 22 fields (out of a total of 29) have been cleared

within 100 meters of the Acre River or a tributary stream, of which 15, or 68%, have riparian

buffers. The remaining seven fields are directly adjacent to the river or a stream on at least one

side. When making a calculation using the narrowest width of buffer for each field (many fields

have streams on multiple sides or running through their centers), the mean buffer width is 45.6

meters, much wider than that reported during the semi-structured interviews (18.9). This number










is skewed, however, by the presence of three 100 meter buffer zones, which is wide enough to

cast doubt on their legitimacy as purposeful buffer zones. When these large buffers are removed

from the calculation, the mean width drops to 32.1 meters, or about the same average size as

reported during the semi-structured interviews.

A negative correlation, significant at the a = 0.05 level (Spearman's p = -0.484, p = 0.022,

n = 22) exists between the size of agricultural fields and the width of riparian buffer zones

(Figure 4-10). As the size of agricultural fields increases, the width of riparian buffer zones

decreases. This trend can be explained by analyzing the use of these fields. Smaller fields tend to

be used for growing food crops, which, in San Pedro, are generally not irrigated, thus eliminating

the need for access to a source of water. Larger fields, however, are used for growing pasture and

cattle ranching. Cattle need a source of drinking water; thus, areas along streams or rivers are

cleared in order to provide access for the animals.


120

100

S80
E *
60
*
.2 40


*I 0 **
05 20


0 10 20 30 40
Size of agricultural field (hectares)

Figure 4-10. Relationship of width of riparian buffer to size of agricultural field in San Pedro.

As stated above, some Amazonian communities preferentially grow certain crops in

riparian areas, namely corn, peanuts, and beans, manioc, and plantains (McClain and Cossio









2003). Whether this holds true in San Pedro is difficult to determine because agricultural fields

of all types tend to be grouped within close proximity to each other, and many fields (22) are,

indeed, located within 100 meters of a surface water source. However, with the exception of

delicate vegetables like tomato, cucumber, and peppers that require irrigation and thus must be

planted near a water source, and pasture for cattle grazing that also necessitates access to

drinking water, the decision about where to plant other staple crops appears to depend more upon

the type of soil that is present and the potential for rainfall to accumulate than upon distance

from a river or stream. For example, informants stated that rice grows best in low lying areas

where rainfall accumulates, while manioc is best grown in sandy soil where there are few

remaining tree roots. Corn grows best on higher land where some tree roots remain, peanuts

require loose soil, beans require moist soil, and plantains grow best in upland areas with sandy

soil. Of course, some individual variation in opinion exists. One informant stated that rice and

manioc grow better near a water source because the soil is more fertile from past agricultural

activities and because the river or stream keeps the soil moist after it rains. Another informant

stated that vegetables grow better along the river banks because of increased soil fertility after

flooding. On the whole, however, proximity to a water source does not appear to determine

where specific crops will be planted, particularly within fields in which a variety of crops are

present. When asked how one learns where to plant their crops, eight households stated that it

was through a process of trial and error, two households stated that they learned from older

generations, and two households pointed out the lack of technical assistance from the state with

regard to helping them learn about the most productive environments in which to plant their

crops.









San Miguel

All households in San Miguel have access to land for agricultural purposes. As stated

previously, the system of land distribution in San Miguel is less formal than in San Pedro.

Households are spread out over a larger area and each household simply chooses a location near

their house in which to create their agricultural field or fields.

Four of the five households reported clearing agricultural fields near the Acre River or a

tributary stream. The fifth informant stated that he intentionally creates fields away from surface

water bodies, but then stated that a minimum distance of 10-20 meters from a water body was

acceptable. All households reported leaving riparian buffer zones when working near bodies of

water. On average, households reported a mean riparian buffer width of 32.5 meters. Reasons

given for leaving riparian buffers included

* Preserving water quantity in the stream or river
* Preventing crop loss from flooding when the water rises
* Preventing ashes from burned fields from contaminating sources of drinking water
* Providing shade so that the stream does not dry up

There were no reasons given for not leaving riparian buffer zones.

As in San Pedro, participatory mapping revealed both more detailed and slightly different

information regarding land use patterns. Eleven fields (out of a total of 14) had been cleared

within 100 meters of the Acre River or a tributary stream. Of these 11 fields, a riparian buffer

existed along ten of them (90.9%). Again, using the narrowest width of buffer zone for each field

to make the calculation, the mean width of riparian buffers was 26.7 meters. If one 100 meter-

wide buffer zone is eliminated from this calculation, the mean buffer width drops to 18.5 meters.

It appears, therefore, that while a greater percentage of fields near the river or streams are

separated from these water bodies by riparian buffers in San Miguel than in San Pedro, the










buffers themselves are actually narrower, a finding that mirrors the pattern encountered by

McClain and Cossio (2003) in the Peruvian Amazon.

There is no statistical correlation (Spearman's p = 0.121, p = 0.724, n=l 1) between the size

of agricultural fields and the width of riparian buffers in San Miguel (Figure 4-11). However,

there is also much less variation with regard to the size of agricultural fields and the width of

riparian buffers in San Miguel than there is in San Pedro. This may partially explain the apparent

lack of correlation between these elements. Furthermore, no households in San Miguel currently

raise cattle, thus eliminating the need for large fields with no riparian buffers near streams.


120

100
(W
80

S60 -

40

20 ---


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Size of agricultural field (hectares)


Figure 4-11. Relationship of width of riparian buffer to size of agricultural field in San Miguel.

Agricultural practices in San Miguel are similar to those in San Pedro in that there appears

to be little preferential use of riparian areas for the planting of specific crops. When asked where

their crops were planted, informants responded by describing soil characteristics, much as they

did in San Pedro, rather than by referring to proximity to landscape features like rivers and

streams. According to responses given during the household interviews, manioc and beans are

best grown in sandy soils, manioc grows best in areas where there is no flooding and few tree









roots, and rice grows best in areas without sandy soil. No households mentioned the proximity of

a water source as a characteristic necessary for agricultural production, despite the fact that most

fields were located within 35 meters of a river or stream. Only one household planted crops

(watermelon) on land directly adjacent to the Acre River, but this was substantially downstream

from the community and was not included in the calculations above. When asked how one learns

where to plant their crops, two households stated that it was through a process of trial and error,

one household stated that they always clear fields in upland areas because the soil is better there,

and two household stated that they learned about the best locations for crops from experience.

Value of Riparian Areas

As discussed above, a majority of households in both San Pedro and San Miguel leave at

least a minimal forested buffer along the river and streams when clearing agricultural land.

However, regardless of whether or not people actually leave riparian buffers, they may place

importance on the ecological functions of riparian areas. In this spirit, households in both

communities were asked whether they thought riparian areas were important and, if so, why.

In both communities, all households responded affirmatively to this question. Figure 4-12

summarizes the results. In San Pedro, the most salient ecological functions of riparian areas had

to do with preventing erosion and maintaining the width and depth of the river channel. In San

Miguel, on the other hand, households placed importance on tree species that grow in riparian

areas and provide food for human consumption like asai, majo, mandarins, oranges, pacay and

papaya. This finding makes sense given households' greater dependence on natural resources for

daily survival. However, households in San Miguel also valued riparian areas for their role in

preventing soil erosion.









70%
60%
50%
0
40%
o 30%
S 20%
-
S 10%
0%


SSan Pedro
OSanMiguel


Function of riparian areas

Figure 4-12. Perceptions of riparian area function.

The origin of these value systems was not entirely clear. In both communities, various

informants referred to tecnicos (agronomists from the Ministry of the Environment, the

Universidad Amaz6nica de Pando, or the Fundaci6n Jose Manuel Pando) who visited the

communities to provide workshops on the protection of riparian areas. Some residents in San

Pedro were aware of governmental regulations that prohibited the clearing of riparian areas

within 100 meters of the Acre River.

Personal history, however, also played a role. Many informants had witnessed problems

with erosion in riparian areas along the Acre River, and the drying of streams and springs on

their lands. In San Miguel, some informants stated that the protection of riparian areas was

"Machineri custom."

Water Quality Protection Strategies
In addition to agricultural practices, systems for dealing with human waste and garbage

disposal in riparian areas can also impact water quality. The question, then, is whether the


111111..1....111









communities of San Pedro and San Miguel intentionally protect water quality by encouraging or

restricting certain activities.

Fourteen households in San Pedro have a personal outhouse. The remaining households

share a public toilet. All toilets in San Pedro are latrines. When the latrine is full, the household

simply covers it and digs a new pit. Though major floods have reached the latrines at times, this

is not a frequent occurrence. Latrines for houses at the port (directly across the river from Assis

Brasil) are located an average of 47 meters inland. For houses located closer to the town center,

the average distance from latrines to the river is 189 meters.

The community does not have an organized system for disposing of household garbage.

Each household collects its own waste, burns what it can, and buries the rest. All households

reported refraining from dumping garbage into the river, and many expressed negativity toward

upstream communities who do so.

Households in San Miguel do not have latrines. The location to be used as a bathroom is

selected by each family. On average, bathroom sites are located 477 meters inland from the Acre

River. The school in San Miguel does have a latrine, which is located 53 meters from the river.

Households reported that their toilets do not flood when the streams near their houses rise.

However, at least one household that I observed had located their bathroom area just uphill from

a small stream that was used for drinking water, bathing and washing clothes by a downstream

household. Human waste likely runs into the stream during rainstorms.

As in San Pedro, household garbage in San Miguel is burned or buried. While garbage was

not disposed of in the Acre River, the banks of the stream used by two households were

somewhat littered with household waste.









Conclusion

In the end, it is clear that land use practices in riparian areas differ between these

communities. Figure 4-14 summarizes the use of riparian areas in each community and provides

a comparison of data collected from interviews and data collected through participatory

mapping.

Table 4-4. Summary of the use of riparian areas in San Pedro and San Miguel. Note the
differences in data collected through interviews and data collected through
participatory mapping.
San Pedro San Miguel
Number of households that have 10/17 households (59%) 4/5 households (80%)
agricultural fields near riparian areas (%
of households)

Number of households that leave riparian 9/18 households (50%) 5/5 households (100%)
buffer when creating agricultural fields in
riparian areas (% of households)

Average reported buffer 18.9 meters 32.5 meters

Data from participatory mapping:
Number of households that leave riparian 11/18 households (61%) 4/5 households (80%)
buffer when creating agricultural fields in
riparian areas (% of households)

Proportion of individual fields with a 15/22 (68%) 10/11 (91%)
riparian buffer (% of fields)
45.6 meters 26.7 meters
Average mapped buffer

While households in both communities located some agricultural fields near surface water

bodies, only about half of the households in San Pedro reported preserving a buffer of vegetation

between their field and the nearest water body. Households in San Miguel, on the other hand, all

reported leaving such a buffer, though participatory mapping revealed that this was usually, but

not always, true. Interestingly, while more households in San Miguel preserved riparian buffer

zones, the average width of these zones was narrower. And, while individual households in each

community may possess knowledge or an ethic that leads them to protect these areas, this









management system is not formalized in either community. This idea will be discussed in

greater depth in the following chapter.

One interesting point of similarity between these communities, and one that stands in

contrast to previous findings (McClain and Cossio 2003) is that households do not appear to

consider proximity to a water source when making decisions about where to plant their crops.

However, it does appear that, more often than not, agricultural fields are created within 100

meters of a river or stream. Whether this location is due to soil characteristics or to issues

relating to personal comfort (e.g., providing a nearby source of drinking water when farming)

was not determined.

Riparian areas are valued for different reasons in each community, In San Pedro, the

general perception is that riparian areas serve a clear ecological purpose that of preventing

erosion, maintaining the depth of the river channel. In San Miguel, on the other hand, ecological

function was secondary to the material goods provided by these areas.

Finally, the communities were similar in their approach to dealing with household waste in

that neither community regularly used surface water bodies or riparian areas as a location for

garbage disposal. And, while their systems for dealing with human waste were different, neither

of them involved preferentially siting toilets near water bodies.









CHAPTER 5
NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE

Thus far, this discussion has addressed natural resource use at the individual or household

level. Decisions about resource management, however, often extend beyond the boundaries of

the home. This is particularly relevant to water because it flows through ecosystems and

communities and is thus a necessarily shared resource. It is, therefore, not uncommon for

cooperative management systems to emerge around water resources (see Acheson 1987; Adger

and Luttrell 2000; Berkes 1987; McGrath et al. 1993; Olsson and Folke 2001; Stocks 1987;

Taylor 1987; White and Runge 1994). These systems can involve both water resources with

natural boundaries, such as lakes, and more broadly shared marine and river systems. Is this the

case for the communities on the Acre River? Have inter- or intra-community management

systems been developed in order to govern access to and use of aquatic and riparian resources?

Ostrom (1990) has outlined the principles that make common property resource systems

successful. These include an ownership arrangement with management rules, clearly defined

physical boundaries, sanctions to ensure compliance, and conflict-resolution mechanisms. The

following sections will discuss the presence or absence of these features within the communities

of San Pedro and San Miguel. It will also discuss communication between neighboring

communities with regard to natural resource management, and how perceptions of upstream-

downstream connections influence decision-making at the household level.

Intra-Community Management Systems

San Pedro

Management rules

In order to promote a discussion of both formal and informal management systems, my

interview employed a hierarchy of increasingly weaker types of agreements. The inquiry began









with questions about the existence of formal limits on resource use and the existence of a person

(or group of people) that enforces those limits, proceeded to a review of informal agreements,

and finally on to whether casual discussions about resource use occur. In addition, the context in

which each of these discussions take place, if they do, was explored.

The community of San Pedro does not appear to have a formalized system for managing

access to aquatic resources. When asked whether limits on the use of aquatic resources exist

within the community, including limits on the quantity of items that could be harvested at once

or the timing of resource use, 12 households responded that there were no such limits, three

households responded that limits did exist, and six households did not know whether limits

existed. However, of the three households that responded that limits existed, one identified the

limits as originating from external sources including an international law that governed fishing

during the spawning season, national regulations that define the width of riparian buffer that

should be left on river banks, and restrictions to fishing during spawning season that are enforced

by Brazil's environmental enforcement agency, the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente

(IBAMA). Another household referenced laws implemented by the Bolivian National Agrarian

Reform Institute (INRA) that delimit community boundaries, while the third household claimed

that limits to resource use were self-imposed by each person in order to protect the populations

of those resources. No household, then, referred to any local rules governing resource use when

asked this question. In fact, a number of households stated that there was no need for rules to

govern resource use because households in San Pedro do not exploit natural resources to a great

extent and do not rely on fishing for survival. Furthermore, the resources that they do use are

limited to quantities appropriate for personal consumption. Interestingly, two households stated

that Brazilian fishermen and hunters represent a more serious threat to natural resources because









they fish and hunt for commercial purposes and without regard to the population sizes of those

resources. These households felt that there was little they could do to limit the exploitation of

aquatic resources by Brazilians because the river is equally shared by the two countries. As one

informant stated

The Brazilians [fish] frequently and no one can say anything because half the river is theirs
and half is ours. And you can't say anything. I don't know how much, but they take a lot of
fish. Big fish. It takes three people to lift them.

Another informant expressed a feeling of powerlessness with regard to illegal hunting

... mostly it is Brazilians that come here to hunt and it is them that exploit. We still don't
have laws that prohibit those things. And we, as civil citizens, can't say anything to the
Brazilians. They're vengeful, the Brazilians, they're mean. For that reason, we don't get
involved. We don't want problems with anyone.

Whether or not communities have formal rules governing resource use, there may be a

sense that an individual or group of individuals is managing access to natural resources in a de

facto sense. When asked whether there was someone who controlled access to riparian and

aquatic resources, 14 households stated that such a person did not exist, while seven households

stated that someone did, in fact, control access to these resources. Much like in the previous

responses, however, emphasis was placed on the role of external actors in resource management

rather than on intra-community agreements. Governing authorities included national

governmental agencies, such as the Ministry of the Environment or the Forestry Superintendent;

Bolivian military staff from the small military outpost located near the town; or Brazilian

authorities, such as IBAMA or the Brazilian military. According to these informants, agency or

military staff occasionally conducted river patrols, but not with enough frequency to effectively

control resource exploitation. Only one household stated that the community itself controlled

access to resources, but it did not identify a single individual or group within the community that

held management authority.









In addition to a lack of formal rules regarding resource use, San Pedro also lacks widely

accepted informal rules. When asked whether informal agreements regarding the use or

protection of aquatic resources existed within the community, 19 households stated that such

agreements did not exist. Only two households stated that there were such agreements. Of these

two households, one household felt that the community members understood and abided by rules

created at the level of the municipality, including prohibitions on the disposal of household

garbage and sewage in the river. This understanding was enhanced by conservation-oriented

training that have been conducted by non-governmental organizations in the community. The

second household stated that informal agreements sometimes arose in the context of community

meetings

There are talks Within the community. There are times when there is a meeting and for
a point of discussion someone says that in the time of making the chacos [agricultural
fields], we shouldn't clear close to the shore. We have a goal of reforesting here because
the river is eating the land up.

Two other households stated that informal discussions occasionally occurred among

community members regarding resource use. One of these households highlighted discussions

that take place regarding restricting deforestation near small streams so that water levels are

maintained within the streams. The second household, on the other hand, commented on the

ineffectiveness of discussions about community-initiated resource management because of the

resource exploitation that takes place by people from outside the community

Those kinds of talks exist, about not destroying, but they don't function because our
neighbors are those that cause the destruction of aquatic resources. What good does it do
us, as Bolivians, to claim to protect but the neighbors don't? ... The problem is that there
are people that enter and destroy.

Riparian areas, similar to aquatic resources, also lack a formal management system.

Nineteen households stated that there were no agreements regarding the use and protection of

riparian areas within the community, while two households stated that there were such









agreements. However, each of these two households commented that while some community

members discuss the protection of riparian areas, not everyone is of the same mindset and some

community members continue to deforest these areas when clearing land for agricultural

purposes. One respondent expressed the concern that agreements limiting the ways in which

people can use their land might have a negative impact on individual rights

The people that work in the field see the areas near streams as better and they make a
house or put an animal there. If those laws are against that, the campesino will be affected.
One part is the protection of the environment, the other is the rights of the campesino.

Another respondent felt that there were not formal agreements, but did comment on discussions

that take place when dealing with specific issues in riparian areas that affect the community as a

whole

... self-control exists. Many times, there is a stream or a source of water that supplies
various families. That small pond that we were making [for the potable water]? Someone
wanted to put an agricultural field there. In a meeting, we had to determine that he should
not touch that part. Even though it was part of his property, the community was going to
benefit from that pond so they stopped [the land clearing].

Ultimately, most households in San Pedro were in agreement that there are no formal rules

or informal agreements that govern the use and protection of aquatic or riparian resources. This

seems to be partially because community members look to governmental bodies for rules

regarding resource use. A common theme that arose during these discussions was that of the

existence of rules and regulations for resource use and protection created by external actors,

including national, departmental, and municipal governments. In addition, a lack of enforcement

was a concern given that officials from rule-making bodies did not visit the community due to its

distance from urban centers. In addition to affecting resource management, this pattern also

exacerbates the sense of isolation felt by the community of San Pedro.









Physical boundaries

Although this topic was not included in the semi-structured interviews, personal

observation indicates that physical boundaries that define the ownership of the river, either by

individuals or by the community as a whole, do not exist. Boundaries defining riparian areas

exist only to the extent that these areas fall within the agricultural lots used by community

members.

Sanctions

The lack of formal rules for aquatic and riparian resources precludes the development of

locally enforced sanctions for unsustainable uses. Continuing with the theme of dependence on

external actors for rules about resource management, three households stated that sanctions could

be imposed by institutions from outside of the community, such as the forest and wildlife

superintendencies. These institutions, however, only govern only terrestrial resources. In

addition, because of the geographic isolation of the community, representatives from these

institutions do not visit frequently enough to adequately enforce national laws.

No households identified any community-created sanctions for households or individuals

that violate informal resource management agreements. One informant stated that the small size

of the population made such rules unnecessary, but was also concerned that with future

population growth, such sanctions might become necessary. Another household felt that social

pressure made sanctions untenable

There aren't any sanctions. Here [referring to an agricultural field located directly adjacent
to the river, without a riparian buffer zone], nobody said anything. And they get annoyed
with the person who wants to take actions [against the landholder].

Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

As stated above, the final component to a common property management system is a

mechanism for the resolution of conflicts stemming from unacceptable resource use. As a first









step in determining whether this mechanism exists in San Pedro, I was curious about what types

of conflicts are most common within the community. If conflicts stemming from aquatic or

riparian resource use are uncommon, there would be little need for the community to develop a

conflict resolution mechanism for these issues.

The most common type of intra-community conflict reported by households was that

between individuals (n=7). This type of conflict stemmed from personality conflicts or small

misunderstandings. In second and third places (n=5 and n=4, respectively) were conflicts

stemming from families looking out for their own social and economic interests rather than

performing tasks for the good of the community, and from a general sense that factions within

the community cause it to function without unity. These factions ran along various lines,

including family, religion, and profession. Other sources of conflict included a lack of

participation by some in community projects, a lack of understanding due to cultural difference

between households from different regions of Bolivia, envy, corruption on the part of elected

officials, a lack of infrastructural development within the community over the long term, the out-

migration of established households, and a failure on the part of individuals to contribute

financially to the fulfillment of community needs, such as gas for the community water pump

and repairs for the community-owned rice husker.

During my field work, I observed two additional and ongoing conflicts. The first of these

revolved around the fact that prior to my arrival, the state government had provided funds for the

construction of six new houses in San Pedro that were intended to be given to families whose

main income was generated through agriculture. The actual allocation of these houses to

families, however, was not a transparent process and a number of families felt that they had been

unjustly denied a new home due to being out of favor with the community authorities. Suspicion









also arose from the fact that family members of the municipal mayor (a resident of San Pedro)

were given two of the six available houses when others felt that there were equally, or more,

needy families.

The second ongoing conflict observed was over land "owned" (recall that no households

hold individual land titles) by households whose members had left the community on a semi-

permanent basis. According to Bolivia's agrarian reform law, if land is not put to productive use

for a period of three months, it can be reclaimed by the community and redistributed to landless

families. During my fieldwork, this issue arose with a household whose elderly patriarch had left

the community, but whose land was being farmed by his middle-aged son because it was located

closer to the urban center than the son's lot was. Various community members objected to this

informal transfer of use rights and wanted to reclaim the father's land for redistribution. Over the

course of my fieldwork, this issue arose at various community meetings; each time, reclamation

was successfully resisted by the son. This resistance did not, however, prevent the issue from

arising again because lots close to the urban center are highly valued and thus watched carefully.

According to the community members, this was not the first time that struggles over access to

land had arisen in the community. In the community's relatively short history, transfers of lot

ownership had occurred a number of times. Interestingly, the conflict surrounding the new

houses was only identified by two households as a source of conflict while the issue surrounding

access to land was not reported by any households as a source of conflict. This was surprising

given that these issues were frequent topics of both casual conversation and community

meetings.

When asked how intra-community conflicts are resolved, most households stated that they

are resolved in community meetings or through individual interactions. In my estimation, the









mayor occasionally played a role in resolving conflicts, though it was not clear whether this was

his duty as mayor, despite the fact that his mayoral position was at the level of the municipality

and thus gave him limited local authority, or whether he took on the responsibility as an

individual and authoritative member of the community. No formalized process for resolving

conflict within the community was revealed during the interviews.

Only two households identified natural resource use as a point of conflict. The problems,

they claimed, stem from Brazilians and Peruvians illegally entering the community's territory to

hunt and log. As has been discussed previously, the community feels somewhat powerless to

stop the invaders. However, no intra-community conflicts over the use of aquatic or riparian

resources were identified. There has, therefore, been little need to establish a formal conflict

resolution mechanism to deal with this type of problem.

In conclusion, San Pedro lacks each of the four elements that characterize common

property management systems: management rules, clear physical boundaries, sanctions in case of

rule violations, and a clear conflict resolution mechanism. One can only conclude, therefore, that

aquatic and riparian areas near the community are treated as open access resources, or in some

cases as private resources if the areas fall within the lots managed by individual households.

San Miguel

Management rules

As in San Pedro, the community of San Miguel has not created management rules for the

use of aquatic resources. Four households stated that use of aquatic and riparian resources is not

limited by the community, while one household did not know whether limits to the use of aquatic

and riparian resources existed. Every household stated that the use of both aquatic and riparian

resources was determined individually based on subsistence needs. As one household stated

Household #3: We don't fish to catch a lot. Just a little, so we can eat for a day.









Interviewer: So a limit isn't necessary because you don't catch much?

HH3: Yes.

While some households based their harvest decisions only on the needs of the household,

one household paired its subsistence needs with an awareness of the reproductive needs of fish

populations

Household #4: You can't catch a lot because sometimes they [go extinct].

Interviewer: So it's a personal limit for you. You say I'm only going to catch what I need
to protect the fish so that there are always fish there?

HH4: Yes.

I: But there isn't a limit that is imposed by another person in the community?

HH4: There isn't one here.

Unlike in San Pedro, there was little discussion of the responsibility of outside actors in

resource management and the enforcement of management rules. This can perhaps be attributed

to the greater physical isolation of San Miguel, which creates a barrier both to information flow

about national resource laws and to the physical presence of agency officials. In addition, the

language barrier that exists in San Miguel, where most adults speak only Portuguese, creates

additional difficulty for Bolivian officials. Regardless of the reason, the fact remains that the

residents of San Miguel did not expect external actors to assume the responsibility for resource

management to the same extent as did those of San Pedro.

When asked whether a defacto manager of access to aquatic and riparian resources

existed, despite the absence of formally established limits to resource use, all households

responded in the negative. In addition, no informal agreements about aquatic and riparian

resource use or water protection exist in the community. One household, however, stated that a

talk on the protection of riparian areas was given by an outside group the previous month.









Though the informant could not recall who was responsible, it was likely that it was the

Fundaci6n Jose Manuel Pando, one of the environmental NGOs based in Cobij a that works on

forest issues in Pando. In addition, my field assistant informed me that previous training had

also been provided by the RIPUI (Relevamiento de Informaci6n Sobre Potencialidades y Usos

Integrales) project, a collaborative effort between the Universidad Amaz6nica de Pando and the

Field Museum in Chicago. So, while agreements may not exist, the community does have some

knowledge of riparian area protection.

While widely practiced management agreements have not been established, one informant

commented that informal discussions about protecting aquatic resources have occurred among

individual community members. This informant recalled having discussions with three other

households in the community about not trying to catch too many fish

Household #4: Sometimes, people talk that it isn't good to take a lot. You have to take a
little.

Interviewer: Who participates in those conversations? Are they informal conversations or
during community meetings?

HH4: Informal.

I: Who have you talked to about those things?

HH4: [Households 1, 2 and 5]

Interestingly, though perhaps not surprisingly, given the greater dependence of households

in San Miguel on terrestrial resources than on aquatic resources for subsistence, more households

recalled having discussions regarding the protection of riparian resources. These conversations

appear to have occurred in the context of workshops and during informal conversations both

between and within households. These conversations appear to have resulted in an ethic of

riparian area protection, as four households claimed that everyone was aware that riparian areas

should remain forested when clearing land for agricultural fields. Though there is no consensus









on the width of forest that should be left standing in riparian areas, all households were in

agreement that the protection of riparian areas was a common practice. The accuracy of this

attitude is supported by the land use practices discussed in the previous chapter.

Physical boundaries

As in San Pedro, personal observation indicates that physical boundaries defining the

ownership of a section of river or riparian zone do not exist. The community has a clearly

defined terrestrial boundary on one side, as it is directly adjacent to the boundary of the TCO.

However, this boundary does not seem to influence natural resource management decisions.

Households do not tend to farm land that is directly adjacent to the river, thus there is no

informal ownership of riparian land in the same way that there is in San Pedro, where many lots

are bounded on one side by the Acre River.

Sanctions

As in San Pedro, internal sanctions for unsustainable resource use have not been

developed, likely due to the fact that formalized rules for resource management do not exist.

Unlike in San Pedro, however, households in San Miguel made no reference to the role of

external actors in enforcing national laws. Again, this is likely explained by the greater social,

cultural and physical isolation of the community from mainstream Bolivia.

Interestingly, the homogeneity of the community is reflected in the response of one

household to the question of what a potential sanction might be if someone violated a resource

management agreement that had been created by the community

Household #5: Everyone is in agreement here

Interviewer: But the question is, if everyone wasn't in agreement, what would happen?

HH5: Everyone is in agreement. That has never happened.









Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

As stated previously, the community of San Miguel has a small population and is strongly

connected through a series of kin relations. There is therefore little readily observable conflict

and little need to develop a complicated structure for organizing activities within the community.

As elaborated in the Bolivian Popular Participation Law, San Miguel does have a governing

body, with an elected president, vice president, and secretary/treasurer. It is not terribly active,

however, and the elected representatives seem to defer to the defacto leader of the community,

who is a member of one of the founding households, for representation in local and regional

meetings.

When asked directly about the greatest source of conflict in the community, only one

household reported the existence of any conflict, and that response was limited to some

dissatisfaction with the capacity of the elected president to coordinate activities within the

community and with an unequal work ethic among members of the community, which made

cooperative agricultural work problematic. All other households responded that conflicts did not

exist within the community.

Given the lack of a strong governing body and a minimum level of conflict, no formalized

strategy for conflict resolution was identified by the residents of San Miguel. Rather, when

conflicts arise, they are resolved by simply talking to each other in informal settings and during

community meetings. For example, in addressing concerns about the contamination of a local

water source by one household, the following strategy was presented

Interviewer: Are there sanctions if someone breaks the rules? Do you talk to a person
who, for example, deforests everything?

Household #4: I think so because there is a lot of illness. Don Martin, all have to protect
the water, not throw garbage. We told him that it's not good to throw garbage [because it
contaminates the water for Don Manuel.]









I: What happens if he continues?

HH4: We could get sick from the water.

I: What would you say to him?

HH4: We just talk about it [not in a meeting]. And he says he'll control his family.

I: So you resolve those problems through talking among the community members. If
there's a problem, you talk and everything's ok?

HH4: Yes.

Ultimately, as in San Pedro, San Miguel lacks formalized resource management rules,

clear physical boundaries for the waterways in question, a system of sanctions for rule violations,

and a formalized conflict resolution mechanism. It must be concluded, therefore, that the water

bodies surrounding the community are managed as open access resources and are not subject to a

common property resource management system.

The lack of a management system for aquatic and riparian resources in both communities

has much do with the lack of dependence on these systems for subsistence. There is little

motivation to manage natural resources that are not critical to daily life. However, an additional

explanatory factor could be that, cognitively, the problems with water quality that are of concern

to these communities have very little to do with activities occurring in riparian areas. This idea

will be expanded upon in the following chapter.

Inter-Community Management Systems

As just discussed, the communities of San Pedro and San Miguel do not treat aquatic and

riparian resources as common property resources and therefore have not developed a formalized

system for managing their use. However, informal resource management discussions have

occurred within each community, and it is possible that similar discussions have occurred at a

broader scale among the communities located along the Rio Acre. To this end, households in









each community were asked about communication that has occurred with other communities

located both upstream and downstream.

In general, relationships between the communities along this short stretch of the Acre

River appear to be good, if somewhat superficial. In San Pedro, most households characterized

the community's relationship with Ifiapari and Assis Brasil as beneficial to the community in that

they communicate with each other about the provision of health services and educational

campaigns. Additionally, they each participate in each other's community celebrations and

soccer tournaments. Some concern was expressed about San Pedro's inability to provide

reciprocal help to its Peruvian and Bolivian counterparts due to its lack of development.

With regard to relationships between San Pedro and communities in the TCO, with the

exception of a few comments regarding some prejudice against indigenous peoples, households

in San Pedro characterized their relationships with communities in the TCO as good. They

reported that they traded visits to each other's communities for soccer tournaments and

community celebrations. A number of households also commented on the development of

personal relationships with residents of the TCO. However, one household reported difficulties

caused by the language barrier, as many residents of Puerto Yaminahua speak only their

indigenous language.

Households in San Miguel had a slightly different perspective on the quality of their

relationship with other communities along the river. While they characterized their relationship

with the other community in the TCO, Puerto Yaminahua, as strong and involving frequent

communication, it was clear that their relationship with upstream communities, including San

Pedro, Assis Brasil and Ifiapari was weaker. While they occasionally traveled to San Pedro for

community celebrations, this was not often the case with the other communities. Overall,









households reported that communication was limited with most communities other than their

TCO neighbors.

Despite the existence of friendly relationships, it does not appear that agreements regarding

aquatic and riparian resources are being created at the micro-regional level, nor are regular

discussions taking place. In San Pedro, when asked whether agreements with other communities

regarding the resource use or protection, 17 households stated that they did not exist, one

household said that agreements did exist, and two households did not know whether such

agreements existed. The single household that felt that agreements existed referred specifically to

discussions that have occurred between residents of San Pedro and residents of the neighboring

communities of Assis Brasil and Ifiapari, Peru, but pointed out problems with enforcement of

said agreements

Household #12: I think there are [agreements]. There are agreements. For example, with
Ifiapari and Assis Brasil, we talk about how we shouldn't throw certain things into the
river. It harms everyone. Perhaps a Peruvian could throw something, garbage, and hurt a
Bolivian, but at the same time they hurt their own people because their people are
circulating over here.

Interviewer: Do they follow the agreements?

HH12: I don't think that they follow them. It's hard because there are people who do it
secretly. For example, there are times that a chicken dies. And instead of digging a hole,
they throw it into the river secretly at night. Nobody can control that.

Whether or not the agreement to which this household is referring has been formalized into

an enforceable local regulation was not determined during this study. However, two additional

households reported similar discussions with neighboring communities. One household stated

that the residents of San Pedro are occasionally invited to participate in meetings held in Assis

Brasil, but that their participation is limited to listening rather than making a substantive

contribution. This informant also commented that he understood that discussions about

environmental issues took place in Cobija, but that residents from San Pedro did not attend those









meetings or receive information from them. The second household also reported attending

meetings on environmental matters in Assis Brasil, during which the participants were given tips

for keeping the river clean

Mostly we hear from Brazil that they come, invite us [to meetings] about ecology,
maintaining clean rivers, not throwing garbage into the river. Through them, sometimes we
do environmental preservation. Don't dirty the river, we don't contaminate, don't burn the
forests.

Finally, in San Pedro, one household specifically referred to the tri-national organizing

effort in the MAP region and reported that technical staff had visited the community to provide

instruction on protecting the Acre River and its tributary streams

That is what they are talking about with MAP. The three countries want to enter into an
agreement, how we can rescue [the Acre River]. The river is drying up, it won't serve
anyone. The technicians from MAP came and talked about the environment and how to
protect it. They talked about some activities, like what do to with the garbage. But no one
has done them. They talked specifically about how to protect the Rio Acre and the streams.

During the course of the interview, one informant explained why these types of agreements

did not exist or were not necessary. He stated that because the community is not composed of

fishermen, but rather agriculturalists, the need to control the use of aquatic resources like fish

was unnecessary, and that national laws for riparian zone protection, albeit widely ignored, were

already in existence. This statement reflects a common perception in San Pedro that because

most of the community relies on farming for subsistence and does not depend heavily on rivers

and streams for the provision of goods and services, the management of these natural resources is

not a high priority. This attitude was clearly present in many of the responses to other questions

during the interview.

Two important points emerge from the responses to this question. First, while the

community of San Pedro is not in frequent communication with other communities in the area

regarding natural resource issues, information is making its way to the community through the









work of NGOs and other partners in the MAP effort. Second, albeit at a limited level,

communication does occur between communities, which indicates that at least some community

members are becoming familiar with issues of resource management and protection in this

region and that relationships between communities are being formed.

In San Miguel, responses to the question were quite similar. Every household reported that

no inter-community agreements for resource management or protection existed. However, one

household did recall having discussions about resource management with other indigenous

communities in Brazil and Peru. Details of these discussions were not provided by the

respondent, but my understanding was that these discussions occurred at international meetings

of indigenous peoples

Household #4: We talk about everything.

Interviewer: What do you say about the protection of the water?

HH4: That you shouldn't throw garbage into the river. That you should protect it. In Assis
Brasil and [San Pedro de] Bolpebra, they throw garbage. That's not good.

I: Do you also talk about deforestation?

HH4: Yes, that you shouldn't deforest because... we talk about everything.

I: Is everyone in agreement?

HH4: Yes.

Other than this single household, all other households in San Miguel did not recall having

participated in discussions about resource management with other communities. However, as

discussed above, some households recalled various workshops regarding natural resource

management (including the protection of riparian areas) that had been held in the community,

likely by the Fundaci6n Jose Manuel Pando or researchers with the RIPUI project. Thus, as in









San Pedro, while information is not necessarily making its way between communities, at the very

least it is arriving to the community.

The lack of coordination between communities in the watershed with regard to the

protection of aquatic and riparian resource protection begs the question of whether the research

communities were aware of or concerned about the impacts on them of the activities of upstream

communities and, at the same time, aware of the impacts of their activities on downstream

communities. In other words, were the households in these communities thinking about

upstream-downstream connections and modifying their activities accordingly?

In San Pedro, when asked whether they felt that communities located upstream affected the

water quality of the Acre River, every household responded affirmatively.7 The most common

concerns were sewage from Assis Brasil and Ifiapari (18 households), and garbage (11

households) and dead animals (8 households) being disposed of in the river (11 households).

Other concerns included the impacts of cattle from upstream ranches (n=3), waste from the

hospital in Ifiapari (n=2), agricultural activities that cause the river to fill with sediment (n=2), oil

and gas pollution from outboard motors (n=2), grey water discharges from Assis Brasil (n=l),

pollution from the cemetery in Ifiapari (n=l), the town dump in Ifiapari that occasionally floods

(n=l), urine from livestock (n=l), and the poison Barbasco used in fishing (n=l).

Interestingly, when asked whether they felt that activities in San Pedro affected the quality

of the water used by downstream communities, the responses were more varied. Eleven

households responded that they did not feel that San Pedro affected the quality of waters flowing

7 The phrasing of this and the following question was purposefully left vague in order to
allow for responses that discussed activities that both improved and degraded water quality.
However, while no household provided a response that indicated that water quality was being
intentionally protected by activities in upstream communities, some responses indicated that the
protection of downstream water quality was a purposeful decision made by some households.









downstream, while ten households responded that they did feel that San Pedro affected the water

quality.

The most common explanations for San Pedro's lack of impact on water quality included

the fact that sewage did not enter the river because the community has no sewer system (n=8)

and that community members made a point of not disposing of their garbage in the river (n=4).

Other, less frequent, explanations included the burying of dead animals rather than throwing

them in the river (n=2), the fact that the community is located slightly inland and not directly on

the banks of the river (n=l), and that the small scale agriculture conducted in the community

does not cause a significant amount of erosion (n=l).

Ironically, in discussing San Pedro's negative impact on water quality, an equal number of

households (n=4) stated that one of the major problems is that households do dispose of their

garbage in the river. Other common explanations of impacts on water quality included washing

clothes in the river and nearby streams (n=3), disposing of dead animals in the river (n=2), cattle

ranching (n=l), and bathing domestic animals in the river (n=l). Obviously, due to the size of the

community, these impacts are relatively minor. The fact that community members are aware of

them, and of the impacts of upstream communities on them, however, indicates that they at least

some people are thinking about the upstream-downstream connections in a way that is critical if

any future cooperative management of the basin is to occur.

In San Miguel, responses were similar. When asked whether they thought that upstream

communities affected the water quality in San Miguel, three households responded affirmatively,

and two households responded that they did not know whether upstream communities affected

their water quality. The most common concerns in San Miguel mirrored those in San Pedro.









These included the disposal of dead animals and garbage in the river (n=3, respectively) and

sewage discharged by upstream communities (n=2).

When asked whether they felt that activities in San Miguel affected the quality of the water

used by people who live downstream, only one household responded affirmatively. Interestingly,

this was the only household in the community that shared a stream with another household. The

head of household, therefore, was very aware that laundry soap made its way to the downstream

household (though apparently this did not translate to concerns about human waste as this was

the household discussed previously that had located its designated bathroom area on the bank of

the stream). The households that did not feel that activities in San Miguel affected downstream

water quality stated that they only use the streams for bathing, which does not negatively affect

water quality (n=l), that toilets were not located near the streams (n=2), that they do not dispose

of garbage or dead animals in the river or streams (n=l, respectively), and that they do not have

nearby downstream neighbors to be concerned about (n=l). This last response was given by a

household that was located both at a substantial distance inland from the river and from other

households in the community, and therefore felt that the water from his stream had sufficient

time to dilute before reaching the Acre River.

In summary, inter-community management systems have not been established along this

stretch of the Acre River, nor are regular discussions about aquatic or riparian resource use and

protection occurring. This does not mean, however, that no communication is taking place. At

the very least, some discussions have occurred between communities and workshops have been

held in both research communities regarding the protection of riparian areas. In addition, there

appears to be an awareness of upstream-downstream connections in both communities. As might

be expected, households in each community were more aware with how the activities of









upstream activities were affecting them than with the potential impacts of their activities on

communities downstream. However, among at least a few households in each community, some

conscious decision-making about controlling certain activities, such as appropriate locations for

waste disposal, appeared to be in effect. This level of consciousness could be important to future

management activities in the watershed.









CHAPTER 6
LOCAL PERCEPTIONS OF WATER QUALITY

As demonstrated in the previous section, households in San Pedro and San Miguel have

not developed community-based management systems for governing aquatic and riparian

resource use, nor have these types of management systems emerged at the micro-regional level.

In both cases, however, informal discussions about the protection of these resources do

occasionally take place, which could eventually result in a more coordinated resource

management system. The potential for this type of collective management will be discussed in

more detail in the final chapter of this document.

In Chapter 3, it was established that the research communities are not as dependent upon

aquatic and riparian resources as one might expect, given their geographic location in a water-

rich area. This fact could partially explain the lack of a need for formalized management systems

to ensure that these resources are not overexploited. However, the lack of systems for resource

protection could also have to do with the fact that, particularly with regard to riparian areas,

households in these communities do not see local activities as having a major impact on water

quality, nor do activities conducted in riparian areas by upstream communities seem to be of

major concern. In other words, the ways in which riparian land is used are not strongly linked to

concerns about water quality, thus reducing the perceived need for managing these areas. Rather,

concerns about water quality focus on waste generated by the increasing urbanization of the

region, which creates water quality problems that are more difficult to manage through changes

in activities at the individual or household level. The following section will highlight the most

common concerns about water quality as reported during the household interviews.









San Pedro

Public opinion in San Pedro is that the water quality in the Acre River is below acceptable

standards. When asked whether they thought the Acre River was clean or dirty, every household

unequivocally stated that they felt it was dirty, which explains why most households do not use it

as a primary source of water for domestic use. Explanations for the poor water quality varied

(Figure 6-1), but all were related to activities conducted by upstream communities. The pollution

source of most concern was raw sewage (n=19), particularly that originating in urbanized areas

like Assis Brasil and Ifiapari. A number of households mentioned pipes that discharge directly

into the river. The use of the river as a place to dispose of garbage and dead domestic animals

(n=12 and n=l 1, respectively) by upstream communities was also a concern, perhaps because

these forms of pollution are highly visible as they are carried downstream.

Other sources of pollution seemed to be of less concern, accounting for only a small

proportion of the total responses. These included oil and gas discharges from outboard boat

motors (n=3); dead wild animals (n=2); and waste from the hospital, cemetery, and landfill in

Ifiapari (n=2, n=l, and n=l, respectively). As illustrated in Figure 6-1, very few households

reported concerns that linked land use with water quality. Two households reported that the river

is dirtied by erosion due to riparian agriculture, and one household reported that agriculture has a

negative effect on water quality but did not specify what that effect was. However, an equal

number of households (n=2) reported problems with turbidity and erosion that were not

attributed to human land use, but rather to rain and naturally loose soils. Two additional

households reported concerns with pollution from domestic activities (laundry, bathing, etc.) by

upstream communities. In general, then, pollution that could be sourced to urban areas was of

more concern than pollution from smaller communities or from the use of riparian areas for

agricultural or ranching purposes.











100%
90%
80%
70%
o 60%
i 50%
o
f 40%
0
" 30%
, 20%
10% I I
0%


mSan Pedro
SSan Miguel


Source of Pollution


Figure 6-1. Perceived sources of water pollution in San Pedro and San Miguel.

Interestingly, when discussing the water quality in streams and springs near the

community, most households felt that water from these sources was relatively clean. With regard

to streams, 14 households felt that they were clean; two households felt that they were cleaner

than the river but not perfect; and two households did not know whether the streams were clean

or did not answer the question. Only three households felt that the streams were dirty. This

perception of cleanliness seemed to originate from the fact that there are few people living along

the banks of smaller streams, therefore problems with garbage, sewage, and agriculture do not

exist, and because the distance from source to mouth is generally much shorter in streams than in

rivers, which reduces the opportunity for pollution. One household, however, pointed out that

streams in the area are currently threatened with contamination from cattle ranching and

agriculture. The few households that felt that local streams were contaminated attributed this

problem to the disposal of garbage in the streams by people within the community, free-roaming









domestic animals like pigs, organic material from the forest, and to the fact that they did not

know what activities were taking place upstream.

Public opinion was slightly more split about water quality in the springs that the

community uses for domestic purposes. Ten households felt that the springs were clean, while

nine households felt that they were dirty and one household felt that some springs were clean

(such as the one that the community uses for the potable water supply), while others were not as

clean (such as the spring that some households use for laundry and hand-collected water).

Explanations for poor water quality in the springs focused almost exclusively on natural

contaminants such as leaves, insects and other animals.

While the prevailing opinion about the good water quality in the springs was that it was

due to the fact that water was collected at the source and therefore did not have much

opportunity to become contaminated, two households explained the good water quality by

spontaneously referring to local agreements that prohibit deforestation around the most

frequently used springs. One informant stated that the community preserves a buffer of 80 meters

around the closest spring, which is used for laundry and hand-collected domestic water. The

same informant claimed that a 100-meter buffer is maintained around a more distant spring,

which supplies the community with its piped potable water. He stated that the community is in

agreement about protecting those areas. The household that "owns" the land on which the distant

spring is located was in agreement about the rule for protecting the area, though the informant

reported a slightly narrower buffer zone of 50 meters

Interviewer: Is that a community rule, that you won't touch it?

Household #29: No, it's among us. It's not imposed by anyone because it doesn't befit us.

I: And if someone wanted to cut the trees ...









HH29: In that case, since I'm the one who works that land, I wouldn't do it, much less let
anyone else touch it. If we deforest that, it would lose its natural state. There is a risk that
the water would lessen and lessen and dry up. In the future, we could use a stream, but we
would have water of perhaps lower quality.

Interestingly, when asked about local rules for resource protection (as discussed in the last

section), only one household noted that this agreement existed, but characterized it as informal

and discussed it in the context of the community putting a stop to the landower's desire to clear

the area around the spring for agricultural purposes. These differing explanations call into

question the extent to which this agreement is accepted by the community as a rule and the

extent to which the rule is abided by. On the other hand, it does indicate that at least some

community members consider the protection of areas around water sources to be necessary.

In addition to exploring perceptions of current water quality, the question of whether

households felt that the water quality had changed since they arrived in the region, and whether

they felt that it might change in the future also seemed relevant. This series of questions was

intended to reveal whether the community was concerned enough about past changes and future

threats to water quality to motivate them to participate in collective action to address these

issues.

Sixteen households stated that they felt that water quality had changed since their arrival to

the community, four households stated that water quality had not changed, and one did not know

due to the lack of scientific testing. Of the 16 households that felt that water quality had changed,

only two felt that it had improved, stating that there is now less garbage in the river due to

growing awareness of the negative impacts of this type of contamination. With the exception of

one respondent who chose to discuss changes in water quantity as opposed to water quality, the

remaining households felt that water quality had deteriorated. The principle cause for concern

appears to be population growth, as it is closely associated with greater amounts of sewage,









garbage and other contaminants. Additional, albeit less frequently mentioned, causes of

deterioration in water quality include increasing numbers of cars being washed in the river,

agriculture, ranching, and a general growth in the accessibility of the region via the Transoceanic

Highway. As mentioned above, some households also expressed concern about changes in water

quantity, stating that the river channel is becoming noticeably wider and shallower each year.

This change is affecting the use of the river for transportation.

As for the future, 12 households felt that water quality would continue to change, three

households did not think it would change, five households felt that it might change, and one

household did not know. Of those who thought that water quality would change, 11 households

felt that it would worsen if the population of the area continued to grow and if there was not a

method for increasing the awareness of the impacts of water contamination, particularly on the

parts of the more developed towns of Assis Brasil and Ifiapari. Additionally, concerns about

water quantity were brought up by a few of households. On the other hand, one household felt

that water quality could improve if an appropriate project was put into place. This was also the

general consensus for those households who were undecided. While they felt that water quality

would continue to worsen with population growth, the implementation of appropriate

development projects, environmental education, and stronger laws regarding water pollution

could counteract some of the current problems.

Finally, because people tend to react most strongly when their personal welfare is

threatened, informants were asked about health problems that they have experienced as a result

of water contamination. Seventeen households stated that at least one member of the household

had heath problems associated with water consumption or contact. Four households did not

report problems. The most common ailments reported were mancha blanca (n=8), a skin









condition that results in discolored patches of skin (Figure 6-2) and skin fungi (n=6) (Figure 6-

3). Other reported problems included skin rashes (n=4), urinary tract infections (n=3), diarrhea

(n=2), typhoid fever (n=l), stomach infections (n=l), and intestinal worms (n=l).


Figure 6-2. Mancha blanca, a common skin problem attributed to contaminated river water in
San Pedro.


Figure 6-3. Fungus, a common skin problem attributed to contaminated river water in San Pedro.

San Miguel

As in San Pedro, public opinion in San Miguel is that the Acre River is contaminated.

When asked whether they thought the river was clean or dirty, all households stated that they felt

it was dirty. Again, most households do not use the river as a primary source of domestic water,

preferring to construct their houses next to smaller streams. Perceived sources of contamination

were less varied than in San Pedro (see Figure 6-1), likely due to San Miguel's location









substantially downstream from Assis Brasil and Ifiapari, which shielded them from observing

many of the effects of urban development that were of concern further upstream in San Pedro.

However, like in San Pedro, concerns about water contamination were not linked to the use of

riparian areas. The most common sources of concern were those that are highly visible: garbage

and dead animals (n=4 and n=3, respectively). Sewage from Assis Brasil in particular was of

concern to two households.

With regard to local streams, all households felt that they were clean and, at the very least,

were cleaner than the river. Three households stated that the only source of contamination was

when animal died upstream, while two other households felt that the streams were clean because

there were no people living upstream to contaminate them with garbage. In addition, one

household stated that the streams were only dirty when it rained, but did not attribute the

turbidity to human activities that create problems with erosion.

Opinion in San Miguel was split regarding whether water quality had changed since their

arrival to the region. Three households stated that it had not changed, while two households felt

that it had. However, in further exploring the responses of those two households, it became clear

that they were referring to water quantity rather than water quality, stating that the river seems to

be drying up.

As for the future, four households stated that they believed water quality would change.

Interestingly, of these households, three thought that it could actually improve through public

education, better regulations, and reducing deforestation. The fourth household, however, felt

that the growing populations of Ifiapari, Assis Brasil and San Pedro would create more pollution

in the forms of garbage and sewage. The remaining household felt that water quality would not









change (meaning that it would not improve) unless a strong government existed in Assis Brasil

that could prevent the pollution problem that is sure to occur as its population grows.

As in San Pedro, households in San Miguel were also asked about health problems that

they associated with river water consumption or contact. Health problems appear to be less of an

issue in San Miguel than they were in San Pedro. Only two households (out of five) reported

health issues. One household reported skin rashes and the other reported fever, diarrhea, and

headaches when the children played frequently in the river.

Conclusion

Ultimately, in both communities, there appears to be consensus that the Acre River is

polluted to the extent that people often avoid using it for daily tasks like water collection,

bathing, and laundry. Fortunately, each community has an alternate water supply, which most

households are more confident is clean or, at the very least, cleaner than the river. Due to this

perception, very few households reported treating drinking water prior to consumption.

Households in San Pedro that reported treating their drinking water preferred to boil it, while

households in San Miguel preferred the use of chlorine.

Concerns about contamination are generally tied to problems with urban development in

the region, rather than to uses of riparian land (such as agriculture or cattle ranching). Most

households feel that problems with water pollution will continue to increase, particularly as

population centers grow due to better road access. Very few households discussed the existence

of local environmental education programs that could serve to counteract the effects of this

population growth. Health problems associated with water pollution do not seem to be serious in

the sense that people feel their lives are threatened, but they are common enough to warrant

further investigation and a focus on providing potable water systems.









CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

At its base, my research is rooted in three fundamental questions. First, how do two

culturally distinct Bolivian communities use aquatic and riparian resources? Second, do local

strategies for protecting these resources exist and, if they do, are they based in a common

property management system? Finally, if collective management is not currently taking place, do

features favorable to collective action to protect these resources exist, namely dependence on the

resource and group solidarity among residents of the watershed?

Given the speed with which development is occurring in Acre, Brazil and Madre de Dios,

Peru due to the paving of the Transoceanic Highway, these questions are extremely relevant to

the communities living on the banks of the Acre River, as water quality is likely to be affected.

Despite the rapid development of this region, however, it must be recognized that each

department that composes this tri-national area is located on the periphery of its respective

country, far from centers of commerce, wealth, and political power. McClain et al.'s (2001)

discussion about the challenges faced when attempting to protect water quality in remote regions

of the Amazon, discussed in the introduction to this thesis, are therefore highly applicable to the

MAP region.

In the absence of the money and political will to provide water treatment infrastructure and

technical support, it is likely that for the foreseeable future, water quality protection will be left

in the hands of local users. Restricting the use of water bodies for waste disposal and the

protection of riparian areas are potential strategies for achieving this goal. The management

structure under which protection could occur, ranging from ad hoc household strategies to micro-

regional cooperative management, will depend on the factors discussed above. How dependent









upon river resources are these communities, and do they conceptualize river resources in the

same ways? What is the relationship of this dependence, or lack thereof, to the potential for

conserving and managing these resources? Do local (or larger scale) management systems for the

protection of aquatic and riparian resources exist and, if so, what form have they taken? Are

resource stocks clearly defined and have formal rules regarding the use of these resources been

created and enforced? Are some potential users excluded based on these rules? Or is the

exploitation of aquatic and riparian resources uncontrolled, as it would be in an open-access

system? Is there a sense of urgency with regard to protecting these resources for future use? Are

concerns about water quality sufficiently strong to motivate watershed residents to take action?

Does enough group solidarity exist, either within the research communities or among

communities in the watershed, to facilitate collective action to manage these resources

sustainably?

The results of the research that attempted to answer these questions were presented in

Chapters 4-6 of this thesis. Chapter 4 focused on the use of aquatic resources (with a focus on

fishing practices and fish consumption), the conceptualization of aquatic and riparian resources,

and the use and protection of riparian areas. Chapter 5 investigated the existence of governance

structures under which the use of these resources occurs both within the research communities

and among communities in the area. Finally, Chapter 6 discussed current perceptions of water

quality, perceived sources of pollution, and health problems that households have experienced as

a result of contact or ingestion of contaminated river water. This discussion will attempt to

weave together the results presented in these chapters in order to address each research objective.









Revisiting the Research Objectives


Use of River Resources

As can be expected due to their location on the banks of the Acre River, the communities

of San Pedro and San Miguel both use river resources to a certain extent. These uses include

fishing, transportation, water for limited domestic purposes such as bathing and laundry, and the

use of riparian areas for agriculture and the provision of trees and plants for household use.

However, households in each of these communities also rely to a large extent on local streams

and springs for drinking water, as these are considered to be cleaner and, in the case of San

Miguel, are located closer to each house.

The extent to which these communities depend on river resources for daily survival,

however, is considerably different. In San Pedro, fishing is considered to be a recreational

activity. Most residents fish a few times per year at most and do so because they enjoy the

variety in their diet. On average, households reported eating approximately 41.5 kg of fish per

year (including fish purchased from commercial fishermen), a quantity that constitutes only 9%

of the major sources of animal protein consumed. In San Miguel, on the other hand, households

report fishing much more frequently. According to a brief log of daily diets over an eight day

period, fish constituted approximately 15% of their total animal protein intake (a total of only 2.5

kg for all three households surveyed, but it is important to note that this was an atypical week

due to the arrival of government-sponsored food as relief from flooding that had occurred earlier

in the year). However, while the residents of San Miguel clearly fish more frequently and

perhaps even consume more fish than residents of San Pedro, neither community relies on fish

protein to the extent predicted by previous studies of rural communities in the Amazon. McClain

(1999) reported that rural Amazonian communities have an annual per capital fish consumption

of 101 kg, while Pierret and Dourojeanni (1967) found that fish constituted 62% of animal









protein consumed by people in rural areas of the Ucayali River basin in Peru. Fish consumption

in my Bolivian research communities does not even begin to approach those figures.

With regard to the other uses of river resources, the picture is mixed. Most houses in San

Pedro are constructed of planed timber with tin roofs, thus eliminating the need for collecting

cane and palms that grow in riparian areas. While fruit, such as the palm fruit asai, is

occasionally harvested from trees growing in riparian areas, it does not constitute a critical

element of households' daily diet. There is also little to no familiarity with aquatic plants.

Though the use of these resources is minimal, however, the results of the freelisting exercise

indicate that individuals, particularly men, have some knowledge of animals, trees, fruits, and

other plants that exist in riparian areas. On the other hand, the value placed on riparian areas does

not appear to include the use of these products. No households listed the provision of plants for

consumption when asked about the importance of riparian areas, even though these plants (like

asai) are used on occasion. Additionally, households do not generally consume game species that

populate riparian areas. Most households use the river as the primary location for bathing and

laundry due to its proximity, though feelings about this use are mixed due to concerns about

contamination. Finally, the river's usefulness as a means of transportation is limited by the fact

that few households own canoes.

In San Miguel, both the freelists and interview questions about the perceived importance of

riparian areas indicated that this community has more familiarity with these resources and tends

to utilize them to a greater extent. Individual freelists of aquatic and riparian resources were

longer on average, and the content coincided with the value placed on riparian areas. For

example, tree and fruit species were frequently listed, and the provision of plants for household

consumption was the most valued aspect of riparian areas. Furthermore, houses are constructed









out of cane and thatch, resources that households reported gathering in riparian areas. On the

other hand, as in San Pedro, there was no reported use of aquatic plants, and the transportation

value of the river is limited, as no households own travel-quality canoes. Unlike in San Pedro,

households rarely use the river for bathing and laundry, preferring instead to use smaller streams

near their homes. While this is in part due to concerns about water quality in the Acre, it also

likely has to do with the more convenient location of the streams.

Riparian areas are used in both communities for agricultural purposes, with a majority of

fields located within 100 meters of a surface water body. However, given the fact that many of

these water bodies are small streams, the extent to which the surrounding area can be considered

to be part of the riparian zone is questionable. In general, proximity to a riparian area does not

appear to be a determining factor in the choice of crop location. That decision seemed to be more

influenced by soil type than by perceived soil fertility.

It was originally hypothesized that the indigenous community of San Miguel would utilize

river resources to a greater extent than the colonist community. While this hypothesis appears to

have been supported, the larger picture indicates that the dependence on river resources for

survival is not as strong in either community as was expected. In general, households rely on

alternative sources of drinking water and, in San Miguel, for domestic supply; depend upon

protein sources other than fish to a large extent, do not make extensive use of forest products

found in riparian areas, and do not use the river for transportation to a large extent. This is not to

say the Acre River is not important to these communities. The river clearly serves as a part,

albeit a small one, of livelihood systems in each research community.









Existing River Resource or Water Quality Protection Strategies

As stated above, most agricultural fields in San Pedro and San Miguel are located within

100 meters of a surface water body. This situation creates an ideal setting for analyzing the

maintenance of vegetation in riparian areas as a water quality protection strategy.

Households in both communities reported maintaining riparian buffers when creating

agricultural fields. A larger percentage of households in San Miguel reported maintaining

vegetation in these areas during the semi-structured interviews (100%, as opposed to 50% in San

Pedro), but participatory mapping revealed that 61% of households in San Pedro actually

preserved a buffer on at least one of their fields, while 80% of households in San Miguel did so.

According to the participatory maps, this practice resulted in the maintenance of a riparian buffer

on 68% of fields in San Pedro and on 91% of fields in San Miguel. Interestingly, according to the

participatory maps, the average width of riparian buffers was considerably narrower in San

Miguel than it was in San Pedro, a finding that mirrors the pattern encountered by McClain and

Cossio (2003) in their study of water use among indigenous and colonist communities in the

Peruvian Amazon. The reason for this difference was not determined by either McClain and

Cossio's study or by this one.

It is clear that the preservation of riparian buffer zones between agricultural fields and

surface water bodies is a strategic decision on the part of the households who do so. Households

in both communities had reasoned explanations for this practice, including providing shade in

order to maintain water quantity and a cool temperature, preventing erosion, preserving soil

moisture, preventing crop loss from flooding, and capturing ash from burned fields. On the other

hand, in San Pedro, the cultural norm of "cleaning" an area by removing all vegetation from it

for aesthetic reasons also exists, and is one of the reasons households choose to not leave riparian

buffers. Another reason reported for not maintaining riparian buffers is to provide access to









drinking water for cattle. This results in an inverse relationship between field size and the width

of riparian buffers in San Pedro. This issue could be an interesting hook for an education

program regarding alternative pasture systems because it is likely to be increasingly relevant in

the future as many households in San Pedro eventually hope to own cattle.

In general, the importance of riparian areas is recognized by households in both

communities, albeit for different reasons. In San Pedro, the ecological function of riparian areas

was highly valued, while in San Miguel, households placed more value on the forest products

located in these areas that could be used in the home for consumption and construction.

Regardless of the reason, the point remains that riparian areas are understood to be critical parts

of the river ecosystem, which bodes well for their long-term protection. And, as McClain and

Cossio (2003) argue, this value system is an excellent place to begin in terms of reinforcing good

practices, implementing education programs about the ecosystem services provided by these

areas, and strengthening the institutional framework for maintaining these practices.

Although important, the protection of riparian areas is only one strategy for the

maintenance of good water quality in tropical areas. Another strategy is the prevention of direct

forms of pollution, such as sewage and solid waste. In this aspect, households in San Pedro and

San Miguel are extremely conscientious. Neither community disposes of waste either on the river

banks or in the river itself, nor is sewage channeled to the river. However, while this may be the

case in the research communities, it is probably not the case for the communities upstream based

on accounts given by households in the San Pedro and San Miguel. The contamination that

reportedly flows downstream from Ifiapari and Assis Brasil is a source of considerable concern

to the research communities.









Ultimately, the protection of natural resources at the household level seems to be

occurring to some degree in both communities. While it is not a perfect system in its

implementation, there is a consciousness of the importance of maintaining good water quality

and actions that can be taken at the local level that make this possible. As will be discussed

below, however, the expansion of these principles to the community or micro-regional level in

the form of a common property management system has yet to occur.

Local Opinions of Water Quality

As noted above, the general perception in both San Pedro and San Miguel is that water

quality in Acre River is poor. While this perception does not prevent people from using it

entirely, especially in San Pedro, it does limit the amount of water contact that people are willing

to have. Fortunately, both communities have access to alternative sources of drinking water in

the form of springs and streams, which are perceived to be clean, or at least cleaner than the

river.

Major sources of pollution are thought to be tied to the relatively urban centers of Ifiapari

and Assis Brasil. Garbage and sewage rank high on the list of concerns, as does the disposal of

dead animals in the river. It is conceivable that these are the issues of most concern because they

are the most visible. Only a few households in San Pedro, and none in San Miguel, identified

sediment loads as a source of pollution. Of these, only two linked it to agricultural practices in

riparian areas that have led to increased deforestation (and none identified other forms of

agricultural pollution, such as fertilizers and pesticides, as a source of concern). This is an

important point, as it could have implications for future approaches to watershed management. If

households do not perceive erosion to be a major issue, they could be less likely to believe in the

effectiveness of a management plan that focuses on best management practices like preserving









vegetation in riparian areas. To be effective, a management plan may need to address a wider

spectrum of contamination sources.

With regard to the direct effects of poor water quality, most households in San Pedro

reported that at least one family member had experienced health problems as a result of contact

or ingestion of river water. Households in San Miguel had experienced fewer health problems,

likely due their downstream location, which allows for the dilution of contamination from Assis

Brasil and Ifiapari. However, despite reports of health problems, only a small number of

households reported treating drinking water before consumption. The most common technique in

San Pedro was boiling, and in San Miguel was chlorine. Ultimately, while health problems

associated with contaminated water do not appear to be life threatening, they are a source of

concern and should be addressed in any future management efforts in the watershed.

Governance of Riparian and Aquatic Resources

As stated above, despite the existence of household-level strategies for protecting riparian

areas and conscious decisions to minimize the direct contamination of water bodies with garbage

and sewage, these strategies have not coalesced into a formalized management plan at either the

community or the regional scale. The research presented in this thesis indicates that both San

Pedro and San Miguel lack all four features that define a functional common property resource

regime an ownership arrangement with management rules, clearly defined physical boundaries,

sanctions to ensure compliance, and conflict-resolution mechanisms (Ostrom 1990).

In addition to the lack of a formal management system, informal agreements about

resource management are also minimal. The only informal agreement that exists in either

community, as revealed during the household interviews, is one created by the residents of San

Pedro that restricts deforestation around the community's drinking water springs. Whether this

agreement is common knowledge is questionable, however, as only two households commented









on it. Informal discussions about resource management occasionally occur in both communities

(more frequently in San Miguel) but generally take place between individuals rather than in a

group setting. Some of these discussions seem to have been motivated by occasional training

given by staff from the Fundaci6n Jose Manuel Pando and by community meetings organized by

the Field Museum's RIPUI project.

One barrier to the creation of cooperative resource management systems within the

community of San Pedro, as expressed by a number of households, is the inability to control

access to those resources by individuals from Brazil and Peru. Residents of San Pedro question

the point of attempting to manage the community's use of natural resources when they are

unable to ensure that this management will have the intended effect due to forces beyond their

control. While this is an obvious source of frustration for the community, it also speaks to the

need for dialogue between residents of the countries in this tri-national area. As indicated by the

results of my research, no attempts at coordinating inter-community resource managements

systems have occurred, despite a basic level of communication about other issues among

communities along this stretch of the river and an awareness of upstream-downstream

connections as they relate to water contamination.

It was originally hypothesized that the river and riparian areas would be conceptualized as

open-access resources, rather than as common-pool resources. This hypothesis was supported by

my research results, but perhaps for slightly different reasons than originally predicted. While the

size of the watershed and the diversity of communities within it may be factors that limit the

potential for cooperative resource management (this idea will be discussed again below), an

equally important factor that emerged from my research was the lack of dependence upon

aquatic and riparian resources for daily survival. Given such a minimal level of dependence,









there is little urgency to manage these resources in a cooperative way. Furthermore, the sources

of pollution that are of most concern to the communities are extremely difficult to address

through the kinds of local-level efforts that are most viable in small communities. Raw sewage,

large quantities of garbage, and hospital waste, just to name a few, are issues that perhaps can

only be addressed through large financial investments in infrastructure, which are unlikely to

occur in this region. From a more optimistic angle, however, perhaps the fact that people are

concerned with water quality and tend to have good relationships with other communities along

the river could mean that some strategy for addressing these concerns might eventually be

devised.

Social Organization and the Potential for Future Collective Action

This research objective is perhaps the most difficult to address because it calls for the

researcher's impressions of each community. The following discussion should therefore be read

critically.

Overall, it seems that the hypothesis that social organization within the community of San

Miguel would be more likely to support future common property resource management than that

in San Pedro is correct for three reasons. First, as stated previously, every household in San

Miguel is related to every other household by way of blood ties. This alone creates a congenial

atmosphere and residents claim that conflicts in the community are rare. As far as I could

determine from my short stay in the community, this is an accurate statement. This lack of

conflict does not apply to San Pedro. Only six of the households in San Pedro are related; the rest

are not. More importantly, the fact that the households that are related include the mayor and his

family creates a tremendous amount of tension in the community, as other community members

feel that they mayor's family benefits disproportionately from opportunities provided by outside

actors, such as the government and NGOs.









Second, the level of socioeconomic stratification in San Miguel is much less severe than in

San Pedro. While differences in socioeconomic status are somewhat evident some homes have

more material goods than others, some families have more children to support than others they

are much more difficult to quantify than in San Pedro, where it is easier to determine the wealth

of each household based on consumer goods and the appearance of the home.

Finally, while cooperative work for the benefit of the community occurs more frequently

in San Pedro than in San Miguel, it is almost always a source of conflict. There exists within the

community a general feeling that community work is difficult to organize because people will

not arrive on time, or at all, when the time to work comes. This distrust of fellow community

members is an integral part of the social milieu in San Pedro and could have implications for

attempts at some form of organized resource management. In San Miguel, on the other hand,

cooperative work for the advancement of the community rarely occurs, but households also seem

to be willing to watch out for each other to a greater extent. The sharing of hunting catches, fish,

and agricultural harvests is a common occurrence.

In the end, San Miguel is a socially and ethnically homogenous community that, if

motivated to do so, could likely establish and abide by communal rules. It is also likely the

community will remain so in the future, as the pattern of expansion thus far seems to be based on

kin relations. San Pedro's population is more diverse, and conflicts based on socioeconomic

status, access to land, and political corruption are relatively common. The implications for

cooperative resource management are clear. In situations in which distrust exists and in which

people cannot depend on each other to work for the benefit of everyone involved, cooperative

resource management will be challenging.









If an attempt at collective resource management were to occur, however, it is likely that the

community council (the Organizaci6n Territorial de Base or OTB) in San Pedro could provide

the institutional structure for establishing resource management rules or resolving conflicts over

resource use. It is a relatively strong organization within the community, as indicated by the

good attendance at its meetings and the level of respect that its officers generate within the

community. In San Miguel, on the other hand, the OTB is not an active organization. This leaves

some question, therefore, about whether resource management decisions or conflict resolution

could be accomplished through this organization. It is likely that a different institutional structure

would be necessary in San Miguel.

With regard to the potential for collective action at the regional level, it seems unlikely

that this will spontaneously occur. While relationships between communities along this stretch of

the Acre River were characterized as good, they are also somewhat superficial. Outside of the

occasional meeting to discuss natural resource issues (at a basic level) and health and education

campaigns, attendance at community celebrations, and participation in soccer tournaments, there

seems to be very little cooperation between the community of San Pedro and its Peruvian and

Brazilian counterparts. This low level of contact applies to the communities within the TCO as

well. San Miguel and Puerto Yaminahua are on friendly terms, participate in the indigenous

center's (CIPOAP) activities together, and attend each other's celebrations, but do not seem to

have organized beyond that. The situation is even more extreme between the communities at the

tri-national border and communities in the TCO. While residents of San Pedro characterized their

relationship with the communities in the TCO as good, particularly on an individual basis,

residents of San Miguel did not feel that they had much communication with resident of San

Pedro or with the other border communities. The lack of communication between these groups









likely has to do with two factors. The first is simply geographic. The communities are located far

enough away from each other to restrict frequent contact. The second is cultural. Not only are the

residents of the TCO indigenous, and thus have a different lifestyle from the colonist

communities, but they also do not speak Spanish, which limits the amount and quality of

communication that can occur. Ultimately, there does not seem to be a shared identity among

these groups as residents of the same watershed.

The freelists and resulting non-metric multidimensional scales also indicate that there is

not a great deal of consensus about the resources that constitute the domain of river resources.

Consensus was much stronger within the research communities than between them. While this

finding does not in and of itself negate the possibility of collective resource management, it does

reflect a fundamental social heterogeneity a different way of looking at the world that should

be taken into consideration when evaluating the potential for cooperative resource management

or during the design of a watershed management plan.

Ultimately, however, the largest barrier to collective action at either the community or the

watershed scale seems to be the lack of motivation to participate in it. Without a high level of

dependence on aquatic and riparian resources to spark concern about the unsustainable use of

these resources (if that is actually the case), there is little sense of urgency to engage in the time

and labor intensive process of collective action.

Regardless of these barriers to collective action, it is a certainty that the tri-national portion

of the MAP region will continue to develop as the Transoceanic Highway attracts new settlers.

This development may have implications for the potential for collective watershed management.

At the community level, it is my opinion that development will discourage spontaneous

collective action in San Pedro and San Miguel. The greatest concerns of these communities with









regard to water quality have to do with activities far beyond their control. They are dealing with

water quality problems that are essentially urban in origin, rather than those that have to do with

the land use and management. This creates a situation in which the communities lack the power

to effect notable change. At the regional level, however, the picture may be brighter. As the tri-

national area urbanizes, water quality will likely become an increasingly important issue. This

may stimulate discussions between communities in the watershed. Resolving large scale water

quality problems requires large scale action.

Final Thoughts

By way of concluding, I would like to address my final hypothesis which was that the

more reliant people are upon river resources for their livelihoods (i.e., the larger the percentage

of subsistence products acquired from the immediate area), the greater will be their concern and

willingness to participate in cooperative watershed management. In the end, this hypothesis was

neither proved or disproved by my research, but does deserve some comment. Without

exception, all households interviewed expressed a willingness to participate in and abide by the

rules of a watershed management plan created with the input of the communities. For reasons

discussed above, including a lack of dependence upon aquatic and riparian resources, a sense of

dependence on outside actors for the creation and implementation of environmental policies, and

a lack of existing cooperative structures among the communities in the watershed, the likelihood

that this kind of plan will emerge spontaneously is slim. However, the fact remains that concerns

about water quality exist and addressing those concerns while simultaneously addressing the

protection of riparian areas may be a way to achieve local commitment to large-scale watershed

management. With increasing road access to the MAP region and the accompanying population

growth, water quality will only continue to deteriorate. It is therefore critical that a coordinated

effort at water quality protection be attempted.









APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

San Pedro

Part 1. Family History
1. When did you arrive in San Pedro?
2. Where did you come from?
3. Why did you want to move here? Why did you choose this place?
4. What is the story of your journey here?

Part 2. Household Structure
1. During the community census that I conducted, you told me that people live in this
household. Is that correct? Do you have children who don't live here? How many? Where
do they live?
2. Do you have family members in other houses in this community? Which ones? How are
you related?

Part 3. Socioeconomic Indicators
1. What is your level of education?
2. What is yourjob/profession?
3. From what source does the majority of your annual income come?
4. What is your annual (or monthly/weekly) income? From what sources?
5. Do you have electricity?
6. Do you have running water at your house?
7. What types of appliances and electronics do you own?
8. Do you own livestock (cattle, pigs, chickens, oxen, etc.)? How many of each? Are they
for your own consumption or for selling?
9. Are you in debt to anyone/any organization?

Part 4. Livelihood Systems
1. Freelisting:
a. Tell me all of the resources that there are in the Acre River, the streams, and in
riparian areas. Please be as specific as possible.
b. How are those resources used?
c. Of all the resources that you listed, which do you personally use? How much of
each do you use and for what purpose?
d. Tell me about how you spend your day.
2. What food items do you purchase?
3. Do you own the land that this house is built on? How many hectares do you have in the
urban area?
4. Do you own land in the monte (forest)? How many hectares do you have? How many
hectares do you use for agricultural purposes?
5. Do you own or have access to land along the river or streams? If so, how many hectares?
6. When you farm or harvest timber, do you leave a fringe of trees along the river or
stream? If so, how many meters wide?
7. Tell me about your crops.









a. What do you grow? How far from town are your fields? Where do you grow each
crop? How do you decide where to put your chacos? Which products do you sell?
b. Do you irrigate? If so, how?
8. Do you fish? If yes:
a. How often?
b. How (net or hook and line)?
c. What types of fish do you catch?
d. How many fish do you catch each day/week/year?
e. How much fish do you eat each day? How much of other kinds of meat do you eat
each day?
f. Do you own a boat?
9. How much time each day do you spend on or near the river/streams each day?
10. Where do you get your drinking water and water for cooking?
11. How much water do you use each day? For what?
12. Do you treat your water before consumption? How?

Part 5. Resource Governance
1. Is there a limit on the number of fish that you can catch or the quantity of other aquatic or
riparian resources that you can collect?
2. Does anyone control access to the river and streams and their resources?
3. Do you have any agreements within the community regarding the use of river resources
or the protection of water quality? Where do the agreements come from?
4. Do you have any agreements with other communities regarding the use of river resources
or the protection of water quality? Where do the agreements come from?
5. Are there agreements about riparian areas? Where do they come from?
6. What happens if someone doesn't follow the rules?
7. Do you think that communities upstream of San Pedro affect the water quality here?
8. Do you think that San Pedro affects the water quality downstream from here?

Part 6. Intra- and Inter-Community Dynamics
1. If a stranger/outsider asks you where you live, what do you tell them?
2. What values are most important in this community?
3. What types of conflicts or problems exist in this community? How are conflicts resolved?
4. What is the most important organization in this community?
5. What is the most effective organization in this community?
6. How would you characterize the relationships between San Pedro and other communities
along the Acre River?

Part 7. Water Quality and Resource Protection
1. Do you think the river water is clean or dirty? Why? What about the streams? Why?
What about the springs? Why?
2. Has the quality of the water changed since you arrived in San Pedro? If so, how? If not,
why not?
3. Do you expect the quality of the water to change in the future? Why or why not?
4. Have you or has anyone in your family experienced health problems that you think are
due to water contamination?









5. Do you think riparian areas are important? If so, why? If not, why not?
6. What kinds of things do you do to protect the river and streams and their surrounding
areas?
7. What do you do with your garbage?
8. Do you have a bathroom? Where does the human waste go?
9. Would you be willing to participate in a watershed management plan that called for:
a. Maintaining 100 meters of tree cover and vegetation along the river bank and 20
meters along streams?
b. Planting trees along the river bank or allowing natural regrowth?


San Miguel

Part 1. Family History
1. How long have you lived in San Miguel? Have you always lived where your house is
now?
2. Where did you come from? Where were you born?
3. Why did you want to move here? Why did you choose this place?
4. Where are you parents from?
5. Do you speak Machineri?

Part 2. Household Structure
1. How many people live in this house?
2. What are their names and ages?
3. Do you have children who don't live here? What are their names and ages? Where do
they live?
4. Do you have family members in other houses in this community? Which ones? How are
you related?
5. Where do your parents and siblings live?

Part 3. Socioeconomic Indicators
1. What is your level of education? Do you know how to read?
2. What is your job/profession?
3. From what source does the majority of your annual income come?
4. How much do you earn (or spend) in a month?
5. Do you have a radio? Bicycle? Flashlight?
6. Do you own livestock (cattle, pigs, chickens, oxen, etc.)? How many of each? Are they
for your own consumption or for selling?
7. Are you in debt to anyone/any organization?

Part 4. Livelihood Systems
1. Freelisting:
a. Tell me all of the resources that there are in the Acre River, the streams, and in
riparian areas. Please be as specific as possible.
b. How are those resources used?
2. What food items do you purchase? Where do you buy them?









3. How many hectares of land do you use for agricultural purposes?
a. What do you grow?
b. Where do you grow each crop?
c. How do you decide where to make your fields? Do you sell any of your products?
d. Do you irrigate? If so, how?
4. Are your fields close to the river or streams? If so, how many meters border the water?
5. When you farm or harvest timber, do you leave a fringe of trees along the river or
stream? If so, how many meters wide?
6. Do you fish? If yes:
a. How many times per week?
b. Do you use a net or a hook and line?
c. What types of fish do you catch?
d. How many fish do you catch each time you go?
e. Can you estimate how many kilos offish you eat each day/week?
7. What other types of meat do you eat? How much? How many times a week do you hunt?
8. How much time each day do you spend at your stream each day? At the river?
9. Where do you get your drinking water and water for cooking?
10. How much water do you use each day for cooking? For washing dishes?
11. Do you treat your water before consumption? How?

Part 5. Resource Governance
1. Is there a limit on the number of fish that you can catch or the quantity of other aquatic or
riparian resources that you can collect?
2. Does anyone control access to the river and streams and their resources?
3. Do you have any agreements within the community regarding the use of river resources
or the protection of water quality? Where do the agreements come from?
4. Are there agreements about riparian areas? Where do they come from?
5. What happens when someone doesn't follow the rules? What do other community
members do?
6. Do you have any agreements with other communities or people living along the banks of
the river regarding the use of river resources or the protection of riparian areas?
7. Do you think that communities upstream of San Miguel affect the water quality here?
8. Do you think that the people here in San Miguel do things that affect the water quality
downstream from here?

Part 6. Intra- and Inter-Community Dynamics
1. Describe where San Miguel is located.
2. Do you feel that San Miguel is a community that works together to improve, or is it
simply a group of relatives that live more separate lives?
3. What values are most important in this community? How is it a Machineri community?
4. Are there problems or conflicts in San Miguel? How are conflicts resolved?
5. What kinds of organizations exist here? What is the most important organization in this
community?
6. How are the relationships between San Miguel and the neighboring communities?









Part 7. Water Quality and Resource Protection
1. Do you think the river water is clean or dirty? Why? What about the streams? Why?
2. Has the quality of the water changed since you arrived in San Pedro? If so, how? If not,
why not?
3. Do you expect the quality of the water to change in the future? Why or why not?
4. Have you or has anyone in your family experienced health problems that you think are
due to water contamination?
5. Do you think riparian areas are important? If so, why? If not, why not?
6. What kinds of things do you do to protect the river and streams and their surrounding
areas?
7. What do you do with your garbage?
8. Do you have a bathroom? Where is it located? Where does the human waste go?
9. Would you be willing to participate in a watershed management plan that called for:
a. Maintaining 100 meters of tree cover and vegetation along the river bank and 20
meters along streams?
b. Planting trees along the river bank or allowing natural regrowth?







APPENDIX B
PARTICIPATORY MAPS


Figure B-1. Participatory map of San Pedro.


I:

i i:I:





















13 ~ -~ -


I


Fi


V

*1


,2 -


7l

YI

A'


/1


I I I '



I2

Figit




Figure B-2. Participatory map of San Miguel.


(
!
I


i


(i


I









LIST OF REFERENCES


Acheson, James M.
1987 The Lobster Fiefs Revisited: Economic and Ecological Effects of Territoriality in
Maine Lobster Fishing. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and
Ecology of Communal Resources. B. McCay and J.M. Acheson, eds. Pp. 37-65.
Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Adger, W. Neil and Luttrell, Cecilia
2000 Property Rights and the Utilisation of Wetlands. Ecological Economics 35:75-89.

Alvarez, Nora L., and Lisa Naughton-Treves
2003 Linking National Agrarian Policy to Deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon: A
Case Study of Tambopata, 1986-1997. Ambio 32(4):269-274.

Ankersen, Thomas T. and Thomas Ruppert
2006 Tierra y Libertad: The Social Function Doctrine and Land Reform in Latin
America. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 19:69-120.

Bardhan, Pranab and Jeff Dayton-Johnson
2002 Unequal Irrigators: Heterogeneity and Commons Management in Large-Scale
Multivariate Research. In The Drama of the Commons. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N.
Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich, and E.U. Weber, eds. Pp. 87-112. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.

Berkes, Fikret
1987 Common-Property Resource Management and Cree Indian Fisheris in Subarctic
Canada. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of
Communal Resources. B. McCay and J.M. Acheson, eds. Pp. 66-91. Tucson: The
University of Arizona Press.

Bernard, H. Russell
2002 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Faminow, Merle D.
1997 Spatial economics of local demand for cattle products in Amazon development.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 62:1-11.

Fearnside, P.M.
1993 Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: The Effect of Population and Land Tenure.
Ambio 22(8):537-545.

Goulding, Michael, Ronaldo Barthem, and Efrem Ferreira.
2003 The Smithsonian Atlas of the Amazon. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books.









Guest, Greg
2003 Fishing Behavior and Decision-Making in an Ecuadorian Community: A Scaled
Approach. Human Ecology 31(4):611-644.

Gwynne, Robert N. and Cristobal Kay
1999 Latin America Transformed: Changing Paradigms, Debates andAlternatives. In
Latin America Transformed: Globalization and Modernity. R. N. Gwynne and C.
Kay, eds. Pp. 2-30. London: Arnold.

Hall, Anthony
1997 Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots Action for Productive Conservation. Manchester,
NY: Manchester University Press.

Hecht, Susanna and Alexander Cockburn
1990 The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Destroyers and Defenders of the Amazon. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Herbas, Monica Amparo
2000 Diagn6stico Socioecon6mico del Nor Occidente de Pando TCO Yaminahua-
Machineri, Reserva de Vida Silvestre Tahuamanu. Universidad Amaz6nica de
Pando, Centro de Investigaci6n y Preservaci6n de la Amazonia.

Hunt, Robert C.
1992 Equality and Equity in Irrigation Communities. Paper presented at the Third
Common Property Conference of the International Association for the Study of
Common Property, Washington, D.C., September 17-20.

Kainer, Karen A., Marianne. Schmink, Arthur Cezar Pinheiro. Leite, and Mario Jorge da Silva
Fadell
2003 Experiments in Forest-Based Development in Western Amazonia. Society and
Natural Resources 16(10):869-886

Kay, Cristobal
1998 Latin America's Agrarian Reform: Lights and Shadows. Land Reform 2:8-31.

Kelly, William
1983 Concepts in the Anthropological Study of Irrigation. American Anthropologist
85:880-886.

Kolavalli, Shashi and Jeffrey D. Brewer
1999 Facilitating User Participation in Irrigation Management. Irrigation and Drainage
Systems 13:249-273.

Lansing, J.S.
1991 Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of
Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press.









Lifschitz, Suzana F.
1994 The State of Acre: A Discussion of Alternative Development Strategies. Master's
Thesis. Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia.

Maher, Dennis
1979 Frontier Development Policy in Brazil: A Study of Amazonia. New York: Praeger
Publishers.

Malingreau, Jean-Paul and Compton J. Tucker
1988 Large-Scale Deforestation in the Southeastern Amazon of Brazil. Ambio 17(1):49-
55.

McClain, Michael E.
1999 Water Resources Management in the Amazon Basin: Issues, Challenges, and
Opportunities. Proceedings of the International Conference "Great Rivers-99",
UNESCO.

McClain, Michael E., Luis Miguel Aparicio, and Carlos A. Llerena
2001 Water Use and Protection in Rural Communities of the Peruvian Amazon Basin.
Water International 26:400-410.

McClain, Michael E. and Rosa E. Cossio
2003 The Use of Riparian Environments in the Rural Peruvian Amazon. Environmental
Conservation 30:242-248.

McGrath, David G., Fabio de Castro, Celia Futemma, Benedito Domingues de Amaral, and
Juliana Calabria
1993 Fisheries and the Evolution of Resource Management on the Lower Amazon
Floodplain. Human Ecology 21(2):167-195.

McKean, Margaret
2000 Common Property: What Is It, What Is It Good for, and What Makes It Work? In
People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. C.C. Gibson,
M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom, eds. Pp. 27-56. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Mitchell, William P. and David Guillet
1994 Irrigation at High Altitudes: The Social Organization of Water Control Systems in
the Andes. Society for Latin American Anthropology Publication Series, 12.
Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.

Nemarundwe, Nontokozo and Michael Richards
2002 Participatory Methods for Exploring Livelihood Values Derived from Forests:
Potential and Limitations. In Uncovering the Hidden Harvest: Valuation Methods
for Woodland and Forest Resources. B.M. Campbell and M. K. Luckert, eds. Pp.
168-197. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.









Olsson, Per and Carl Folke
2001 Local Ecological Knowledge and Institutional Dynamics for Ecosystem
Management: A Study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4(2):85-
104.

Ostrom, Elinor
1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, Elinor and R. Gardner
1993 Coping with Asymmetries in the Commons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems
Can Work. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7(4):93-112.

Pacheco, Pablo
2002 Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Lowland Bolivia. In Land Use and
Deforestation in the Amazon. C. Wood and R. Porro, eds. Pp. 66-94. Gainesville:
University of Florida Press.

Petrzelka, Peggy and Michael M. Bell
2000 Rationality and Solidarities: The Social Organization of Common Property
Resources in the Imdrhas Valley of Morocco. Human Organization 59(3):343-
352.

Pierret, P.V. and M.J. Dourojeanni
1967 Importancia de la Caza para Alimentiacion Humana en el Curso Inferior del Rio
Ucayali, Peru. Revista Forestal del Peru 1:10.

Saravanan, V.S.
2002 Institutionalizing Community-Based Watershed Management in India: Elements of
Institutional Sustainability. Water Science and Technology 45(11): 113-124.

Steelman, Toddi A. and Joann Carmin
1998 Common Property, Collective Interests, and Community Opposition to Locally
Unwanted Land Uses. Society & Natural Resources 11(5):485-505.

Stocks, Anthony
1987 Resource Management in an Amazon Varzea Lake Ecosystem: The Cocamilla
Case. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal
Resources. B. McCay and J.M. Acheson, eds. Pp. 108-120. Tucson: The
University of Arizona Press.

Taylor, Lawrence
1987 "The River Would Run Red With Blood": Community and Common Property in an
Irish Fishing Settlement. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and
Ecology of Communal Resources. B. McCay and J.M. Acheson, eds. Pp. 290-
310. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.









Trawick, Paul
2001 The Moral Economy of Water: Equity and Antiquity in the Andean Commons.
American Anthropologist 103(2):361-379.

Urioste, Miguel
2003 Abandoned agrarian reform: Valleys and high plains. La Paz: Fundaci6n TIERRA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2004 Water Resources Assessment of Bolivia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Washington, D.C. http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/en/wra/Bolivia/FINAL
%20BOLIVIA%20WRA%20COMBINED%2013%20DEC%202004.pdf,
accessed May 12, 2007.

White, T. Anderson and C. Ford Runge
1994 Common Property and Collective Action: Lessons from Cooperative Watershed
Management in Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change 43(1):1-41.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Gabriela Stocks earned a B.A. with honors in anthropology from the University of Chicago

in 1998. After graduation, she worked for a non-profit organization dedicated to river

conservation for four years. She began her graduate studies in anthropology at the University of

Florida in 2003 as an Alumni Fellow. Her academic and professional interests focus on water

resource development in the tropics, a subject area she will continue to study during her Ph.D.

program in anthropology.





PAGE 1

1 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF TH E UPPER ACRE RIVER IN PANDO, BOLIVIA By GABRIELA STOCKS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Gabriela Stocks

PAGE 3

3 In memory of Stephenie

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have been possible w ithout the guidance and support of Dr. Anthony Oliver-Smith, whose patience thr oughout this process has been phe nomenal. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Marianne Schmink and Dr. James Jawitz for their helpful input. Dr. Peter Cronkleton of the Center for International Forest ry Research (CIFOR) in Santa Cruz, Bolivia was a key player in the selection of the research communities and in helping me establish contacts in Pando. Without him and CIFOR sta ff member Rolando Haches, I would have been lost. The staff of the Fundacin Jose Manuel Pando and the Centro de Investigacin y Preservacin de la Amazona at the Universi dad Amaznica de Pando were also incredibly helpful during my time in Cobija. I would also like to thank N SF-IGERT Working Forests in the Tropics program at the University of Florida for funding my research. The love and support offered by both my acad emic and non-academic communities have sustained me throughout this process. Thanks go to my parents, Kathleen and Tony, and friends Elizabeth, Heather, and Kelly for being there at th e beginning of my journe y; to Isadora, Yael, and Ava for being there in the middle; and to Lin, Kelly, Alfredo, and Franklin for being there at the end. Most importantly, love and thanks go to Forrest, for being there always. Last but not least, my great appreciation goes to the community members of San Pedro and San Miguel for tolerating a stranger in their midst. Their willingness to participate in my research went beyond the call of duty.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................11 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................17 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .17 Theoretical Framework: Common Propert y Resources and Collective Action.....................18 Research Objectives............................................................................................................ ....20 Research Site.................................................................................................................. ........22 Site Selection................................................................................................................. ..22 The National Context for Human-En vironment Relations in Pando...............................26 The International Context for Human-Environment Relations in Pando........................28 Organization of Thesis....................................................................................................31 2 RESEARCH METHODS.......................................................................................................33 Participant Observation........................................................................................................ ..33 Household Interviews........................................................................................................... ..34 Freelisting.................................................................................................................... ...........37 Participatory Mapping.......................................................................................................... ..37 Global Positioning System (GPS) Data..................................................................................39 Food Log....................................................................................................................... ..........39 3 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND LIVELIHOOD SYSTEMS............................41 San Pedro de Bolpebra.......................................................................................................... ..41 San Miguel de Machineri........................................................................................................49 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .........54 4 AQUATIC AND RIPARI AN RESOURCES.........................................................................55 Use of Aquatic Resources.......................................................................................................55 Fishing as a Livelihood Strategy.....................................................................................55 San Pedro..................................................................................................................55 San Miguel...............................................................................................................57

PAGE 6

6 Other Uses of Water Resources.......................................................................................61 Use of river for transportation..................................................................................61 Domestic water supply.............................................................................................62 Conceptualization of Aquatic Resources.........................................................................64 Freelists as an indicator of familiarity with river and riparian resources.................64 Using non-metric multidimensional scaling to understand the cognitive domain of river resources..................................................................................................69 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... ..73 Land Use Practices and Strategies for Water Quality Protection...........................................74 Use of Riparian Areas.....................................................................................................74 San Pedro..................................................................................................................74 San Miguel...............................................................................................................79 Value of Riparian Areas..................................................................................................81 Water Quality Protection Strategies................................................................................82 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... ..84 5 NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE...........................................................................86 Intra-Community Management Systems................................................................................86 San Pedro...................................................................................................................... ...86 Management rules....................................................................................................86 Physical boundaries..................................................................................................91 Sanctions..................................................................................................................91 Conflict Resolution Mechanisms.............................................................................91 San Miguel..................................................................................................................... ..94 Management rules....................................................................................................94 Physical boundaries..................................................................................................97 Sanctions..................................................................................................................97 Conflict Resolution Mechanisms.............................................................................98 Inter-Community Management Systems................................................................................99 6 LOCAL PERCEPTIONS OF WATER QUALITY.............................................................108 San Pedro...................................................................................................................... ........109 San Miguel..................................................................................................................... .......114 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .......116 7 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................117 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........117 Revisiting the Research Objectives......................................................................................119 Use of River Resources.................................................................................................119 Existing River Resource or Wate r Quality Protection Strategies..................................122 Local Opinions of Water Quality..................................................................................124 Governance of Riparian and Aquatic Resources...........................................................125 Social Organization and the Poten tial for Future Collective Action.............................127 Final Thoughts................................................................................................................. .....131

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL..................................................................................................132 B PARTICIPATORY MAPS...................................................................................................137 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................139 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................144

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Top 25 freelisted items in San Pedro.................................................................................67 4-2 Top 24 freelisted items in San Miguel...............................................................................68 4-3 Summary of the use of aquatic re sources in San Pedro and San Miguel...........................73 4-4 Summary of the use of riparian areas in San Pedro and San Miguel.................................84

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 A flowchart illustrating the organi zation of my research questions..................................21 1-2 The MAP region............................................................................................................. ...23 1-3 A map of the Acre River waters hed and its major population centers..............................25 1-4 Looking upstream on the Acre River.................................................................................30 2-1 A community member in San Pedr o works on the participatory map...............................38 3-1 Employment in San Pedro.................................................................................................44 3-2 Typical houses in San Pedro..............................................................................................44 3-3 Total area under agricultural production per household....................................................46 3-4 Number of households that grow each agricultural product in San Pedro........................47 3-5 Number of households that sell ea ch agricultural product in San Pedro...........................47 3-6 A picture of a main road in San Pedro...............................................................................48 3-7 Typical houses in San Miguel............................................................................................51 3-8 Number of households that grow each agricultural product in San Miguel......................51 3-9 Number of households that sell ea ch agricultural produc t in San Miguel.........................53 4-1 Species of fish caught by households in San Pedro...........................................................56 4-2 Fishing nets are the most commonly used fishing technology in San Miguel...................59 4-3 Species of fish caught by households in San Miguel.........................................................59 4-4 Each household in San Miguel has access to a small stream that is used for domestic purposes....................................................................................................................... ......64 4-5 Freelisted items (by total number).....................................................................................65 4-6 Freelisted items (by percent of total).................................................................................66 4-7 Cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Pedro.........................................70 4-8 Cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Miguel.......................................71

PAGE 10

10 4-9 Combined cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Pedro and San Miguel......................................................................................................................... .......72 4-10 Relationship of width of ri parian buffer to size of agri cultural field in San Pedro...........77 4-11 Relationship of width of ri parian buffer to size of agri cultural field in San Miguel.........80 4-12 Perceptions of riparian area function.................................................................................82 6-1 Perceived sources of water pollu tion in San Pedro and San Miguel...............................110 6-2 Mancha blanca a common skin problem attributed to contaminated river water in San Pedro...................................................................................................................... ...114 6-3 Fungus, a common skin problem attributed to contaminated river water in San Pedro..114 B-1 Participatory map of San Pedro.......................................................................................137 B-2 Participatory map of San Miguel.....................................................................................138

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AEL Anguila electrica AGU Agua ALO Alontra ANG Anguila ANT Anta ARB Arboles ARR Arroyos ASA Asa BAC Bacu BAG Bagre BOA Boa BOC Boca chica BOD Bodon CAC Cachimbu CAI Cairara (mono blanco) CAN Sause (caa) CAO Cacao CAP Capibara CAR Caparar CAS Castaa CED Cedro CEM Cedro macho CHA Chancho CHM Chancho del monte

PAGE 12

12 CHT Chancho de tropa CHU Chuchio (caa brava) CIC Cicur COB Cobra COP Copaiba CUY Cuyu DEN Dentudo DOR Dorado GAR Garza JAC Jacar JCL Jochi colorado JOC Jochi JOP Jochi pintado (agouti) JUB Jacareuba JUN Jundia LIM Limon LON Lontra LOR Loro MAD Madera MAJ Majo MAN Mandarina MAP Mapajo MAR Mara MAS Masaranduba MAT Matrinchon

PAGE 13

13 MDN Mandin MGO Mango MMN Mono maneche MON Mono NAR Naranja PAC Pacu PAJ Pajaro PAL Palometa PAP Papaya PAT Pato PAV Pava PCY Pacay PDO Pescado PDP Pico de pato PER Perdiz PES Pescado perro PET Peta PIC Pichico (chichilo) PIR Piranambu PLA Platano PLT Plantas PNA Piraa RAY Raya SAB Sabalo SAP Sapo

PAGE 14

14 SAR Sardina SDA Sandia SDG Sangre de grado SIL Mono silvador SOC Soc SUR Surubi TAT Tatu TIG Tigre TOC Toco blanco UDG Ua de gato VEN Venado VIB Vibora VTN Venton

PAGE 15

15 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts GOVERNANCE AND MANGEMENT OF THE U PPER ACRE RIVER IN PANDO, BOLIVIA By Gabriela Stocks August 2007 Chair: Anthony Oliver-Smith Major: Anthropology Tropical rivers in rural areas are likely to have good water qualit y, but current trends indicate that increasing development pressures could have a deleterious effect on these water systems. One potential strategy for counteracti ng these negative impacts is the devolution of watershed management into the hands of local us ers. However, it cannot simply be assumed that local communities naturally make effective resource managers. A careful examination of the presence or absence of social and institutional characteristics necessary for effective resource management must be carried out. The research presented in my thesis attempts to address this issue at a small scale by focusing on two neighboring Bolivian communities located on the Upper Acre River in the department of Pando. The objective of my resear ch was to determine how these two culturally distinct communities utilize and manage river res ources, including riparian areas, and to evaluate whether features favorable to collective action for the protection of these resources exist. Field work was conducted over a 12-week period. Principle methodologies employed included participant observation, semi-structure d interviews, and participatory mapping. These methodologies were supplemented by the use of freelisting and Global Positioning System data.

PAGE 16

16 The results of my research indi cate that neither community ma kes as extensive use of river resources as might be expected of Amazonian ri ver-dwellers. Water quality in the Acre River was perceived to be poor by most households, and concern was expressed about the health impacts associated with coming into contact wi th river water. House holds were generally conscientious about maintaining riparian buffers when creating agricultu ral fields near water bodies and expressed a clear under standing of the value of ripari an areas. This individual consciousness had not coalesced into formal mana gement rules in either community or between neighboring communities, however, a nd is unlikely to do so in the future without motivation by outside actors.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Tropical rivers in rural areas are likely to have good water quality (Goulding et al. 2003), but current trends indicate that increasing develo pment pressures could have a deleterious effect on these water systems. One potential strategy for counteracting these ne gative impacts is the devolution of watershed management into the hands of local users. In the Amazon basin, local populations are often dependent upon resources provided by rivers and streams, and water quality is of cri tical importance. With an average rainfall ranging from 5000 mm/year in parts of th e western Amazon to 2000 mm/year in eastern Brazil, there is ample water to support human populations. The a bundance of fresh water in this region has resulted in a lifestyle among many indigenous and co lonist communities that is strongly linked to surface water for consumption, recreation, transpor tation, agriculture in riparian buffer zones, and access to food sources such as fish a nd aquatic plants (McClain et al. 2001). Protecting the water quality necessary to suppor t these uses can be challenging, especially in countries of the western Amazon like Peru an d Bolivia. First, a severe shortage of state financial resources limits water infrastructure development such as sewage and drinking water treatment systems. Available financial resource s are often used in more populated regions and where water shortages are most likely to occur, such as in the higher elevations of Peru (McClain et al. 2001). Second, the remotene ss of much of the Amazon basin prohibits such infrastructure development even if money were available. Finally, though many countries in the Amazon basin have developed seemingly strong water policies, they often only apply to upland, water-scarce regions. Even when policies do apply to lowland areas, they are rarely enforced (McClain 1999).

PAGE 18

18 Given this combination of factor s, the task of developing waters hed management strategies that protect water quality will most likely be left to local people. McClain (1999) makes a convincing argumen t for proactively placing water resource management in the Amazon basin into the hands of local people. In light of the problems discussed above, intellig ent use of natural features, includ ing maintenance of riparian buffer zones, wetlands and floodplains, could be th e best option for watershed protection. Local communities would seem to be the natural (and be st) choice for resource managers because they are dependent upon good water qualit y, are the end users of the re source, and have the capacity to protect water quality at its source. On the other hand, there ar e also many cases in which local management has not resulted in th e protection of the resources in question, so it cannot simply be assumed that local communities will naturally make good resource managers. Each situation must be viewed independently through a careful examination of the presence or absence of the social and institutional characteristics necessary for effective resource management. Theoretical Framework: Common Property Resources and Collective Action A popular framework for analyzing resource management is common property theory. Since Garrett Hardins pessimistic prediction in 1968 that all common property is doomed to overuse and eventual destruction, theories on this subject have abounded. Over time, a distinction has been made between openaccess resources and common-pool resources. Generally speaking, open-access resources are those to which anyone has access, whereas common-pool regimes (McKean 2000) are those in which a group of people share rights to the resource, the ability to exclude other users, a nd obligations to each other (Hall 1997; McKean 2000). Shared access to a resource can suggest a ne ed for collective action to manage that resource. Collective action for resource pr otection depends on two structural f eatures:

PAGE 19

19 1) members livelihoods must depend on access to a clearly defined stock of natural resources and 2) long-term protection will depend on gr oup solidarity (Hall 1997; Petrzelka and Bell 2000). The first of these features re flects the idea that people need to see a benefit to themselves or to their community in order to act (Hall 1997). The second feature reflects the idea that participants need assurance that there will be equal effort and reciprocity from other participants in the common property resource (CPR) system (White and Runge 1994) and that features of social organization outside the CPR system contribute to its successful implementation (Petrzelka and Bell 2000; Trawick 2001). Ostrom (1990) has al so outlined the pr inciples that make common property resource systems su ccessful: an ownership arrangement with management rules, clearly defined physical bound aries, sanctions to ensure compliance and conflict-resolution mechanisms. Water resources are somewhat unique with rega rd to systems of governance. Because they come in a variety of forms (i.e., rivers, lakes, oc eans, aquifers), there are also a number of ways in which they can be managed, ranging fr om open access to common property regimes. Biophysical scale is important in this context in that some water bodies, such as oceans, are extremely difficult to manage collectively (Guest 2003), while others, such as lakes, are more straightforward because they are geographically bounded. Rivers and watersheds can fall into either of these categories, depending on their si ze and extent. While the body of literature that discusses the communal manageme nt of water resources at th e small scale (i.e. irrigation systems) is large (see Hunt 1992; Kelly 1983; Kolavalli and Brewer 1999; Mitchell and Guillet 1994; Ostrom and Gardner 1993; Trawick 2001), some studies have also a ddressed the ways in which groups communally manage water resour ces at the watershed scale (Lansing 1991; Saravanan 2002; Steelman and Carmin 1998; White and Runge 1994). Most of these cases have

PAGE 20

20 focused on small watersheds in which there is a limited group of relatively homogeneous users. One exception is Bardhan and Dayton-Johnsons (2002) comparative study of large-scale irrigation systems, in which they discuss the nega tive effects of income, wealth and ethnic/social heterogeneity on cooperation around common propert y resources. Furthermore, they argue, the upstream/downstream relationship of river users, particularly in larger systems, exacerbates issues of locational heterogeneity (Bardha n and Dayton-Johnson 2002:103). In other words, differential opportunities may be ava ilable to users at different lo cations in the watershed, thus affecting their coope rative behavior. Given the constraints imposed by landscape f eatures and socio-political processes at various scales, questions ar ise regarding how local wate rshed management should be coordinated. A starting point could be to determine wh ether watershed management in specific areas of the tropics can be conceptualized and implemente d through a common-pool resources regime. Is river resource use currently re gulated by a common prope rty resource system, reflecting the features discussed by Ostrom (1990)? Is there a gr eat enough dependence upon river resources to stimulate prot ective action (Hall 1997)? Is ther e a great enough shared identity among the residents of large watersheds to suppo rt the collective acti on necessary to manage water resources effectively (White and Runge 1994)? Do existing forms of social organization support and reinforce common property manageme nt (Petrzelka and Be ll 2000; Trawick 2001)? My research addresses these questions at a small scale by focusing on water resource use and management in two neighboring Bolivian commun ities located on the Upper Acre River in the department of Pando. Research Objectives The overall objective of my research was to determine how two culturally distinct Bolivian communities in the Acre River basin utilize and ma nage river resources, including riparian areas,

PAGE 21

21 and to evaluate whether featur es favorable to collective actio n for the protection of these resources exist. Specific objectives were fivefold (Figure 1-1). First, my research investigated how indigenous and colonist communities are currently utilizing ri ver resources. Second, I documented any existing strategies for protecting water quality or the abu ndance of aquatic and riparian resources. Third, I i nvestigated local opinions of water quality and of potential conservation techniques. Fourth, I determined whether communities in this area viewed the river and riparian areas as open-acce ss resources or as common-pool resources. Finally, I analyzed forms of social organization in the area that support or do not support common property resource management. Figure 1-1. A flowchart illustrating the or ganization of my research questions. Based on my research objectives, a series of hypotheses emerged. It was expected that the indigenous community would utiliz e river resources to a greater extent than the colonist community (McClain et al. 2001). Due to the larg e size of the watershed and the diversity of Household use/management of aquatic and riparian resources Governance Common property regime? If yes, how managed? Open access? If yes, potential for future cooperative management? Dependence on aquatic and riparian resources? Local opinions of water quality? Existing strategies for water quality or river resource protection? Social organization allows for cooperative management? Shared identity?

PAGE 22

22 communities within it, it was expected that the ri ver would be treated as an open-access resource rather than a common-pool resour ce. It was expected that th e more reliant people were upon river resources for their livelihoods (i.e., the la rger the percentage of subsistence products acquired from the immediate area), the greate r would be their concern and willingness to participate in cooperative watershed management. Finally, it was expected that forms of social organization in the indigenous community would better support current or future CPR regimes than forms of social organizat ion in the colonist community. Research Site Site Selection The location for my research was chosen because the Bolivian department of Pando is part of a tri-national region known as MAP, also composed of the Peruvian department of Madre de Dios and the Brazilian state of Acre (Figure 1-2). The MAP region has been the subject of discussions of tri-national resource management for a number of years, stimulated by the impending paving of the Transoceanic Highwa y, which connects the Brazilian Amazon with Perus Pacific seaports. The Acre River runs through the middle of th is region, making it an interesting case for studying the relationship of diverse Am azonian communities to water resources. The Acre River watershed forms the border be tween Acre, Madre de Dios and Pando. The river originates in northwest Acre, flows south in to Peru, then east into Bolivia, finally turning northeast into Brazil, where it c ontinues through Acres capital city, Rio Bran co (Figure 1-3). It eventually becomes the largest tributary of the Pu rus River, which itself is a major tributary to the Amazon River. The Acre is considered a whit e water river, which in the Amazon stands in contrast to black water rivers that tend to be a dark tea color, stained by tannins from organic matter. During the dry season, the Acres color is usually a dark brown-green. During times of

PAGE 23

23 rain, however, the river becomes laden with silt, a natural co ndition that is exacerbated by deforestation in the region. Local re ports indicate that the river cha nnel is being filled in by this sediment. ( ( ( ( ( ( (Brasil Bolivia Peruto Ilo PE to Porto Velho BR Interoceanic Highway Interoceanic Highway R R R! ( Capixaba BRCobija-Sena road Senador Guiomard BR! ( Xapuri BR! ( ( Assis BR Iapari PE ( Iberia PE Cobija BO El Sena BO Porvenir BO Rio Branco BR Puerto Maldonado PE Brasileia BR (Towns Primary Roads Trinational Boundaries Rivers Source: Matt Marsik and Karla Rocha, Department of Geography, University of Florida Enlarged Area RCapitalsAcre River I 0306090120150 15 Kilometers Figure 1-2. The MAP region. Terrestrially, most of Pando is considered lowl and tropical forest. Much of it lies less than 500 meters above sea level and receives approxima tely 1950 mm of rainfall per year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004). Due to its relative isol ation and lack of infrastructure, Pando has not experienced the level of defore station that has occu rred elsewhere in lowland Bolivia (Pacheco 2002). In recent decades, however, the Bolivian government has attempted to integrate the Amazon region into the national context thr ough forestry programs and land-grants to agriculturalists. Currently, the conve rsion of forests to agricultural use is the principal cause of

PAGE 24

24 deforestation (Pacheco 2002). This trend will likely continue as the process of integration proceeds. I chose to work in Pando for three reasons. Firs t, of the three countries that form the Acre River basin, Bolivia contains the s hortest stretch of river. This made it possible to more easily access field sites by boat. The confined area also allo wed me to experience the social interactions that occur between neighboring Bolivian commun ities that are under similar socio-political constraints. Second, the tri-nati onal border area is essentially th e first major popul ation center in the Acre River watershed (Figure 1-3). This meant that the impacts of upstream activities were easily identifiable and relatively minor. Fina lly, the Yaminahua-Machiner i indigenous territory (legally termed a Tierra Comunitaria de Origen (TCO) in Bolivia) is located on the Bolivian stretch of the Acre River. I re alized that this would provide an opportunity to compare aquatic resource management practices in two ethnically and socially distinct communities, as my other research site was a community composed of settlers from the Bolivian highlands. This comparison would also reveal whether upstr eam/downstream arrangements exist between communities in this part of the watershed, particularly among those of different ethnic backgrounds. Upon my arrival in Cobija, the capital city of Pando, I met th e staff of the Fundacin Jose Manuel Pando and the Center for International Fo restry Researchs (CIFOR) local staff member, Rolando Haches. Haches proved to be a critical play er in my research, as it was through him that I met Don Manuel Rodriguez, the leader of th e Yaminahua-Machineri TCO and an important representative at the Indigenous Center for the Original Villages of Amazonian Pando (CIPOAP). After hearing about my intended resear ch plan, Rodriguez granted me permission to work in the TCO. Haches also introduced me to the mayor of the municipality of Bolpebra, in

PAGE 25

25 which both of my research sites were located. The mayor is also a resident of the community of San Pedro de Bolpebra and was therefore able to give me preliminary authorization to work in his community. After receiving permission to work in each community, Haches and I visited San Pedro during their Mothers Day ce lebration. I gave a short presen tation to those present at the celebration, answered any questions, and introduc ed myself personally to each person there.1 I returned to San Pedro two days later to begin data collection. !(! (!( !( Assis Brasil Iapari Cobija Rio Branco Peru PeruAcre PandoBrazil BrazilMadre de DiosBolivia Bolivia Figure 1-3. A map of the Ac re River watershed and its major population centers. Approximately three weeks into my stay in Sa n Pedro, I contracted a boat in order to visit my second research site, the community of San Miguel de Machineri, lo cated about an hour and a half downriver from San Pedro. I was accompan ied by the president of the community of San 1 Unfortunately, many of the men in the community were not present, which proved to be a minor problem later when I was accused of having arrived to do research in the community without permission or introduction.

PAGE 26

26 Pedro, who had some business to conduct in San Miguel and was on friendly terms with the residents. On that trip, I was only able to meet women in two of the households and the school teacher, but was successful in arranging lodging at the local school. I arrived in San Miguel approximately two weeks later to begin data collection there. The National Context for Human-Environment Relations in Pando A detailed discussion of the characteristics and livelihoods systems of each research community will be presented in Chapter 3. Howe ver, understanding the national political context is critical to explaining the pr esence of these communities in Pando in the first place. Their move from the Bolivian highlands and the Brazilian Amazon, respectively, to the Bolivian Amazon was the product of larger-scale f actors, including national agrari an reform, a growing indigenous rights movement, and national development strategies. Since the 1950s, much of Latin America ha s undergone agrarian reform, during which agricultural land was expropriated from owners and redistributed to peasants (Kay 1998). Bolivia is no exception. The 1953 Agrarian Reform focu sed on distributing land in western Bolivia, namely the high plains and central valleys which were the most productive region of the country (Urioste 2003). During that time, almost all available land in the Bolivian altiplano was distributed, leaving future residents few options with regards to acquiring land. Furthermore, in the eastern region of the country, the 1953 Agrari an Reform resulted in a system of land concentration in the hands of larg e estate owners (Urioste 2003). Between 1955 and 1994, the Bolivian government distributed three million hectares of land in the Bolivian lowlands to colonist farmers (Pacheco 2002). In 1996, in response to problems with corrupt land distribution in the eastern lowlands duri ng the 1970s, the National Agrarian Reform Institute (INRA) Act was pa ssed. Its major function, under pressure from national indigenous rights organizations, has been to achieve proper titl e to land in lowland

PAGE 27

27 indigenous territories (TCOs) (Urioste 2003). Though some are unhappy with INRAs requirements that all land be communally titled, forcing indige nous people into systems of communal ownership, most agree that the creation of TCOs will help to stop colonization of the lowlands by highland settlers (U rioste 2003). The agrarian reform beginning in the 1950s and its more recent manifestation in the INRA Act, th en, is at least partially responsible for the migration of the residents of both San Pe dro and San Miguel to the Bolivian Amazon. In addition to agrarian reform, economic po licies have also impacted human-environment relations in the Bolivian lowlands. From 1952-1985, the Bolivian government adopted the development model of Import Substitution Industr ialization (ISI), in which incentives were provided to domestic companies to produce goods that would otherwise have to be imported. During this time, investments in the mining sector were used to generate capital that was later invested in national infrastructu re, including the construction of roads. The end goal was to open up lowland areas to agricultural production in order to avoid the importation of agricultural products. Colonization schemes were implemented in order to attract people to the lowland regions, leading to increased rates of deforestation (Pacheco 2002). In the end, ISI was not sufficient to support the national economy and Bolivia entered a severe economic recession. During the 1980s and 1990s, national economic po licy focused on a seri es of structural adjustments that involved fiscal austerity, the reduction of public services, and the liberalization of markets for goods, capital and labor (Gwynne and Kay 1999). The market for land was not liberalized, however, and the Boliv ian government continued to dist ribute land, particularly to large agricultural enterprises. Though some ar gue that this system of land distribution, along with the elimination of funds for colonization pr ograms, resulted in the closing of frontier areas to small farmers (Pacheco 2002), this was genera lly only the case in more integrated lowland

PAGE 28

28 areas like the department of Sa nta Cruz. In Pando, colonization continued to occur (as shown by the arrival of settlers in San Pe dro), perhaps because it was one of the least populated and least integrated lowland areas. The International Context for Human-Environment Relations in Pando Bolivian communities on the frontier with Peru and Brazil do not live an isolated existence, nor do environmental impacts adhere to arbitrary political boun daries. In fact, with regard to impacts on the shared Acre River wa tershed, activities spurred by both Peruvian and Brazilian national policy have a greater ne gative effect than those in Bolivia. Throughout its history, much of Brazils colo nization strategy has focused on integrating, modernizing and developing the Amazon (Hall 1997; Hecht and Cockburn 1990). The most recent and potentially long-lasting movement in that direction began in the 1960s and continues today. Populating the far reaches of the basin wa s the military regimes strategy for alleviating social tensions in other areas of Brazil, preventing incursion fr om other countries and regaining power from regional politicians (Hall 1997). Settlement of the Amazon was encouraged through a system of capital subsidies, which were mos tly taken advantage of by entrepreneurs from the southern states. These fiscal incentives result ed in an economic structure characterized by capital-intensive industria l activity and, especially in frontie r areas, land-intensive cattle ranches (Maher 1979). Additionally, the government i nvested in transportation infrastructure, constructing BR 364 to Rondonia and Acre and BR317, the Transoceanic Highway. Though the ecological impacts of these developm ent programs were varied and generally negative, their primary impact was massive defo restation. By clearing land for cattle grazing, land speculators could establish th eir claim and obtain legal title. Fu rthermore, the very nature of cattle ranching necessitated large tr acts of cleared land (Lifschitz 1994). Cleared land was also thought to be less susceptible to invasion by squatters.

PAGE 29

29 By the 1990s, government subsidy programs were being cut back because of domestic and international criticism of their role in defo restation. Some tax benefits, credit systems and loopholes still remain, however, and ranching is certainly not on the decline (Hall 1997). Furthermore, increased demand from growing urba n centers in the Amazon ensures a market for livestock, thus making it a good investment (Faminow 1997). In Acre, these policies have resulted in larg e-scale deforestation. By 1993, 7% of Acre had been deforested (Fearnside 1993), mostly along roads (Malingreau and Tucker 1988). The percentage is likely much greater today, as the Brazilian government has continued to invest in infrastructural development, including highway paving. Along the stretch of the Transoceanic Highway that parallels the Acre River from Assi s Brasil to Brasileia, cat tle ranches lie side by side, virtually uninterrupted. From the river it self, on the stretch between San Pedro and San Miguel, one can see that the Br azilian side of the bank has be en almost entirely deforested (Figure 1-4). While the Brazilian Amazon has been the fo cus of national integration programs for decades, it has been only recently that the Pe ruvian Amazon has been the subject of any development efforts. Agriculture in Madre de Dios has been strongly influenced by national agrarian policy (Alvarez and Naughton-Treves 2003). From 1985-1990, the agricultural frontier expanded in the area around Puerto Maldonado due to the pro-agriculture policies of then president Alan Garcia. These policies provided ea sy access to credit and land titles, promoted farmers cooperatives and offered guaranteed mark ets for staple crops. As in Brazil, the policies were also part of a strategy to populate the Amazon region (Alvarez and Naughton-Treves 2003). Immigrants from the highlands quickly arrived and settled along the roads and rivers of the

PAGE 30

30 region. Deforestation was at its height during this period, concen trated along the road from Cuzco and the road to Brazil. Figure 1-4. Looking upstream on the Acre River. To the left is Bolivia; to the right is Brazil. Note that the Bolivian side remains largely forested, while the Braz ilian side has been deforested for cattle ranching. This situation changed in 1990 when Alberto Fujimori came into office. His neoliberal economic policies included an end to the credit and subsidy system, new taxes on agricultural products, and a dismantling of the agrarian associ ations. Deforestation slowed as agricultural credit dried up, and settlers who could no longer afford to farm along the roads moved to river areas where more land was availa ble. Interestingly, deforestati on along rivers increased in only some areas; in most locations deforestation rate s stayed constant (Alvarez and Naughton-Treves 2003). Wood (primarily mahogany) is the main pr oduct exported from the upper Madre de Dios region. Loggers are now moving up tributaries of the Madre de Dios River in search of new sources (Goulding et al. 2003). Though logging has not become a major issue in the border

PAGE 31

31 region yet, it is only a matter of time before it does. Interestingly, Madr e de Dios is the only MAP department that is facing seriou s problems from commercial logging. The planned paving of the Transoceanic Highway through Madre de Dios will have enormous impacts in the MAP region. Easier acce ss will ensure an influx of people from the highlands and increasing defore station rates can be expected (Alvarez and Naughton-Treves 2003). Though it may seem contradictory to the bl eak picture painted above, policies and governance at various scales do no t always result in environmenta l devastation. In a political ecology analysis, both the good and the bad must be evaluated. A bright side to the growing problems in the MAP region is the current admi nistration in Acre, the self-titled Forest Government (Kainer et al. 2003). Governor Jorge Viana is a fore ster with strong ties to the rubber tapper movement via the Workers Party, wh ich was formed by the tappers and others in 1990. The current Brazilian Minister of the Environm ent is the former Acrean senator Marina da Silva, whose parents were rubber tappers. The administration is dedicat ed to alternative and sustainable development, and has detailed plans to address pressures created by road construction, expanded ranching a nd logging and conflicts over la nd and resource tenure (Kainer et al. 2003). Furthermore, academics, NGOs, and local governments in the MAP region as a whole have begun to meet on a regular basis to discuss cooperative management of the regions resources. While it is still too early to tell, this effort could result in a functional plan to address the future of human-environment relations in this area, including th e protection of water resources. Organization of Thesis Following this introduction, this thesis is pres ented in six chapters. In Chapter 2, I will discuss the research methods employed. Chapter 3 provides a sketch of the research communities

PAGE 32

32 including similarities and differences in livelihood systems. In Chapter 4, I will discuss the use of aquatic resources, the conceptu alization of river resources (def ined hereafter as both aquatic and riparian resources), and syst ems of riparian zone management in each community. Chapter 5 will discuss the existence of cooperative intra-community a nd inter-community resource management strategies. Chapter 6 will focus on current and future perceptions of water quality, and on the health impacts of contaminated water. In the final chapter, I will revisit my research objectives with a focus on exploring the potential for future collaborative management of river resources in the study area.

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODS My research was conducted over a 12-week period during the summer of 2004. The objective was to determine how two Bolivian co mmunities in the Acre River basin utilize and manage river resources (includi ng riparian areas, we tlands and floodplains) and whether features favorable to collective action for the protection of these resources exist. Specific research objectives and hypotheses were disc ussed in the previous chapter. In order to address these objectives and hypotheses, six rese arch methodologies were employed. Due to the small size of the communities in which research was conducted (22 households and 5 households, respectively), I was able to ea sily contact each household multiple times. This allowed for the use of various methodologies, wh ich allowed me to approach my research objectives from a variety of perspectives. Me thodologies employed in cluded participant observation, household interviews freelisting, participatory mappi ng, GPS data collection, and a food log (in one community). Participant Observation Perhaps the most fundamental research tec hnique to anthropologi sts is participant observation, so I will begin with that. Much of my time in Bolivia was spent simply hanging out (Bernard 2002), making my presence known and trying to understand the rhythm of life. Upon arriving in each community, I spent the fi rst week walking around, drawing informal maps, talking to the residents, attending socce r games, and sitting by the river to watch the children play. I did not take notes in public places, in order to not make people feel as though they were being evaluated. When I had a privat e moment, I would jot a few key words down in a notebook and later elaborate upon what I observed in my field notes or jo urnal. Ultimately, the

PAGE 34

34 data collected through participant observation allowed me to gauge the accuracy of the information gathered through other methodologies. Household Interviews Within a week of arriving in each comm unity, I conducted a census, which provided demographic data and, more importantly, gave me an excuse to talk to someone in every household. I was also able to explain the reason for my presence in the communities, which I was asked to do rather frequentl y, particularly in San Pedro. While I worked on the census of each comm unity, I began to make appointments with various households for what would become th e centerpiece of my study in-depth semistructured interviews. I was as hone st as possible about the estimated length of the interview (one to two hours per household) because I wanted a fu ll commitment to complete the interview from both heads of household. I also told them that we could conduct the interview in multiple sessions if they did not have one sufficient block of time (and indeed did so in a number of cases). My interview protocol (Appendix A) contained seven sections and was structured in a way that addressed each of the objectives of my study. Additionally, I attempted to begin the interview with easier questions, pr oceed to questions that require d more detailed responses, and conclude with questions that re quired longer answers but less deta il. Questions were either openended or required a yes/no response. Before conducting any interviews I first discussed the interv iew protocol with a local informant who was not a community member and thus would not be a pa rticipant in my study. She helped me both with translation and in wording questions in a way that would be understandable to the interviewees.

PAGE 35

35 Interviews were usually conducted at the hom es of the participants (though four were conducted at the locations at which I was living). If possible, both the male and female heads of household were present and participated in the interview (exceptions included households with a single head and households in which one of the heads was not present in the community). With the permission of the interviewees all interviews were recorded on a Sony minidisc recorder. In total, I conducted interviews w ith every household but one in San Pedro (21 in total) and with every household in San Miguel (five in total). The first section of the interview dealt with questions regarding the history of each family: when they arrived in the community, where they came from, why they chose to move to that community. These questions were intended to put the participants at ease with the recording device, get them talking about something with whic h they were familiar, and give me an idea of the geographic diversity of each community and the f actors that motivated them to settle in this area of Bolivia. Section two involved house hold structure and kinship networks: how many people currently live in the household, wh ether there were adult children who did not live at home, and familial relationships to other households in th e community. These questions were intended to address my fifth research objective in that they would give me a sense of the interconnectedness of each community, which could be an indicator of the potential for people to work together to collectively manage resources. The third section of the inte rview focused on the socioecono mic status of each household and contained questions about e ducational level, income gene rating activities, total annual income, consumer items owned, livestock owned, access to water and electricity, and debts. The intent of these questions was to form a complete picture of the demogra phy and economic status

PAGE 36

36 of each household. This was perhaps the most ch allenging section of the interview for the participants, as it required a deta iled breakdown of sources of inco me. In fact, in many cases, despite my best attempts, it was impossible to arrive at a concre te estimate of annual income. In cases where I could sense that the participan ts were becoming overly frustrated with my persistent probing, I reverted to one of two tactics: 1) requesti ng an estimate of the amount of money spent on a daily or weekly basis to support the family (which is a very rough equivalent of total income in households that live at a s ubsistence level) or 2) abandoning the question entirely. Section four involved questions about livelihood systems and agricultural practices. This was the longest and perhaps most important secti on of the interview, in the sense that it was intended to promote an in-depth discussion a bout systems of agricu ltural production, use of and/or protection of riparian areas (Objective 2), dependence upon river resources (Objective 1), and household water use (Objective 1). Section five of the intervie w contained questions about gove rnance of natural resources within and between communities in the waters hed, and perceptions of upstream-downstream connections among communities along the Acre Rive r. These questions addressed Objectives 2, 4 and 5. The sixth section addressed intraand inte rcommunity dynamics. Questions focused on the participants perceptions of th e strengths and weaknesses of their communities, mechanisms for conflict resolution, types of co mmunity organizations, and relationships between communities. The intent of this section was to provide a measure of community and regional cohesiveness and/or solidarity that would promote or limit cooperative management of river resources (Objective 5).

PAGE 37

37 The final section of the interview dealt with perceptions of current and future water quality, health problems, individu al strategies for protecting wate r quality (including how to deal with human waste and household garbage), perceptions of the im portance of riparian areas, and attitudes about a potential watershed management plant that might ask la ndowners to maintain riparian buffer zones or engage in re forestation efforts (Objective 3). Upon my return to the United States, I transcribed each interview and input the responses by household and participant into a Microsof t Excel spreadsheet. The resulting item by respondent matrix allowed me to tabulate and su mmarize the key elements from each response. Freelisting A freelisting exercise was conducted with all but two adults (35 total) in San Pedro de Bolpebra and with all available heads of household (seven total) in San Miguel de Machineri. Freelisting is an anthropological technique designed to elicit a list of items that form a particular cultural domain. In this case, each person was asked to list all of the natu ral resources that are found in rivers, streams and riparian areas. The re sults from freelisting can provide a measure of the familiarity with and importance of river resources to each community (Objective 1). The original freelists were analyzed in Micr osoft Excel. Further analysis was conducted in Anthropac. Participatory Mapping One of the most interesting and entertai ning methodologies employed was participatory mapping. This technique is a popular tool in participatory rural appraisals and can generate spatial information about resource use, land di stribution, and agricultura l activities (Nemarundwe and Richards 2002) (Objectives 1 and 2). The exercise was conducted with each househol d at a separate time from the interviews and freelists. To begin, I solicited the help of th ree community members in San Pedro in drawing

PAGE 38

38 a base map of the community that included each familys agricult ural property. In San Miguel, I was able to create the base map on my own becau se the land ownership is not as structured and because the community is much smaller. Each base map included the Acre River and any other major geographical features (roa ds, property lines, loca tions of houses, intern ational borders). I then visited each household and asked the head of household (in most cases male, but sometimes female) to draw the rivers and streams on thei r property, where their agricultural fields were located, where specific crops were planted, and a ny riparian buffers they had maintained near water bodies (Figure 2-1). While they worked, I discussed their drawing with them and added notes that quantified the number of hectares being drawn, mete rs of riparian buffers, and meters of streams and rivers that flowed through th eir property. In addition to providing a visual reflection of land-use patterns in these communiti es, these participatory maps were intended to allow the verification of information collected during the semi-structured interviews. The final participatory maps are included in Appendix B. Figure 2-1. A community member in San Pedro works on the participatory map.

PAGE 39

39 In creating the map for San Pedro, I encounter ed some difficulties and learned some important lessons. My original intention was to call a community meeting and ask all of the households to work collaborativ ely to create the map. Howe ver, due to a variety of circumstances beyond my control, the meeting time was not communicat ed to the community, nor was the importance of the a ttendance of the person in charge of agricultural production for the household properly emphasized. When the meeting finally coalesced, theref ore, it was late in the evening and primarily attended by the fe male heads of household, who had very little knowledge about the locations of st reams and crops or the existence of riparian buffer zones, as it was generally the mens area of expertise. I realized that it woul d be best to cancel the meeting and to visit each house individuall y. While this was a frustrating experience for me and for the attendees of the meeting, I learned a valuable lesson and approached the mapping process in San Miguel differently. Global Positioning System (GPS) Data The use of GPS and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is becoming ubiquitous in both the natural and the social sciences. I theref ore decided to collect da ta on the locations of each house and bathroom to determine how far fr om water sources these features were and whether the potential existed for floods to cause contamination events (Objective 2). These data were analyzed in ERDAS IMAGINE. Food Log As will be discussed in Chapter 3, the resident s of San Pedro de Bolpebra have easy access to the Brazilian city of Assis Brasil. They ar e therefore less dependent on river resources for sustenance and are also accustomed to purchasin g food by weight. When I asked families in San Pedro to quantify the amount of va rious food items that they consume on a weekly basis, they were easily able to answer the question. San Miguel, on the other hand, is a much more isolated

PAGE 40

40 community and the residents are therefore more dependent on natural re sources for food supply. Hunting and fishing are almost daily activit ies, but conducted at random and only when necessary. It proved difficult during my interviews to arrive at a concrete estimate of the amount of fish or wild game consumed on a weekly basis. I arrived at the conclusion that creating a daily food log for each family was my only option for th is type of data collection. I visited three families (the only ones that were available) once pe r day for eight days to record what they had eaten for each meal on the previous day and how much of each type of food they had consumed. Food data from both communities will be used to understand the extent to which each community depends upon natural res ources for survival (Objective 1).

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 3 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND LIVELI HOOD SYSTEMS The relationship between a local population and a natural resource of interest (in this case, water) is only one part of the complex puzzle that forms a groups livelihood system. In light of this fact, I will begin the presentation of my res earch results with an ethnographic sketch of each community. I will attempt to demonstrate that the communities of San Pedro de Bolpebra and San Miguel de Machineri are different in funda mental and important wa ys, a fact that has implications both on their relationship to aqua tic resources and on the potential for future collaborative watershed management. San Pedro de Bolpebra San Pedro de Bolpebra is located, quite litera lly, at the northwestern tip of Bolivia. From the banks of the Acre River, one can see and, in under 20 minutes, walk to the communities of Iapari, Peru (reported population: approxima tely 1,000 people) and Assis Brasil, Brazil (reported population: 6,000-12,000 peopl e). San Pedro itself is inhabi ted by settlers from the highland area of Bolivia. The community has a population of 102, resi ding in 22 households.2 On average, family size is relatively small, with a mean of 3.78 children (range of 0-8, median of 3). Adults in the community have an average of 7.38 years of education. Approximately half (52.5%) of the households originate from the department of Tarija, Bolivias southernmost department. The remainder of the community is composed of families from the highland departments of Oruro (5 %), La Paz (15%), Chuquisaca (12.5%), and Cochabamba (5%) and the lowland departments of Pando (7.5%) and Beni (2.5%). As recounted to me by various community members, the original group of ten families arrived in San Pedro in 1992 after a failed attempt at settlement in anot her area of Pando. Leaders of the original group 2 Data for this study were collected from 21 households.

PAGE 42

42 petitioned authorities in the na tions capital, La Paz, for a la nd grant in the Amazon region. According to them, Tarija was experiencing a shortage of land and employment opportunities. The settlers thought that they would fare better with land in the Amazon, even though most had little experience with farming. In Tarija, many had been shopkeepers, taxi drivers, carpenters, and other types of urban laborers. The Bolivian government granted the settlers communal title to an area of approximately 30,000 hectares. According to requirements of th e Bolivian agrarian law, each family was allocated a territory of no more than 500 hectares In order to maintain informal ownership of their lot, each family has to make productive us e of the land, meaning that it must fulfill its social function by being used for ag ricultural purposes (for an hist orical perspective on the Social Function Doctrine and its role in land reform in Latin America, see Ankersen and Ruppert 2006). Any land that is unused for a period of more than three months can be taken away and reallocated to another community member. Enforcement of this policy would be non-existent if the community itself did not take it on, encourag ed by individuals who either want the land for themselves or are trying to punish families who have left the community to pursue work elsewhere. While this procedure is not followed often, it has indeed occurred. In fact, an attempt to reclaim a lot belonging to one of the original founders of the community was one of the major conflicts that I witnessed during my stay in San Pedro. Upon the founding of San Pedro, the community wa s not connected by road to the rest of Bolivia. The settlers immediately began cuttin g a trail that would later become a poorlymaintained dirt highway to the departmental ca pital, Cobija. From the other direction, tractors were also cutting a road through th e jungle. As is often the case, with roads come people, and San Pedro lost approximately 8,000 h ectares of its original territory to squatters. In addition, in

PAGE 43

43 1993 a pro-indigenous national government came in to power and, under pressure from a growing indigenous rights movement, creat ed a number of indigenous te rritories known as Original Communal Lands ( Tierras Comunitarias de Origen or TCOs) (Padwe 2001). During this time, the Yaminahua-Machineri TCO was formed in Pando and allocated a territory of 22,000 hectares, approximately half of which was la nd that had originally been granted to the community of San Pedro. Currently, the total territory of San Pedro is approximately 10,000 hectares. The community of San Pedro is partially inte grated into the market economy. Individuals reported engaging in a variety of activities to ea rn a living (Figure 3-1). A number of community members own stores for the purpose of selling inexpensive import goods (mainly electronics, plastics, and clothing) to the nearby Peruvians and Brazilians. These stores are located on the riverbank ( el Puerto or the port) directly across the Acre River from Assis Brasil, making them easily accessible to their Brazilian and Peruvian customers. The town center, containing the majority of the planed timber and tin or that ch roof houses and the school (Figure 3-2), lies approximately half a mile downstream from th e port and slightly in land. Community members who live in town make their living through a di verse set of strategies including small-scale agriculture and/or cattle ranching both for subsistence and for sale (sometimes in combination); teaching in the local school; carpentry/ha ndyman work (and were working on government funded improvement projects in the community during the summer of 2004); and working as street vendors in Assis Brasil.3 Community members who split their time between San Pedro and 3 Assis Brasil is connected to the rest of Brazil via the Transoceanic Highway, which runs across Brazil and over the Peruvian Andes, terminating at the P acific Ocean. In 2001, th e Transoceanic Highway was paved as far as Assis Brasil, which has facilitated in-migration leading to rapid population growth in the area. My informants estimated that Assis Brasil currently has a population of between 6,000 and 12,000 people. The difference between the communities on the Bolivian side versus those on the Brazilia n side of the Acre River is stark. Assis Brasil has restaurants, grocery stores, low-end hotels, telephone serv ice, automobiles, and other amenities. San Pedro has none of these things.

PAGE 44

44 the departmental capital of Cobija work as taxi drivers, restau rateurs, or serve in municipal governmental posts. In addition to these activities, some community members also participate in Brazil nut sales and ill egal timber harvesting for supplemental income. The mean annual household income is 14,601 Bolivianos (approxim ately US$1827), though the range is wide, depending on type of employment (2,098 54,548 Bolivianos). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Agr iculture D o m e stic T e ac her Str ee t v endor S to r e own e r T a xi driv e r Gov t em p loye e Nurse Rest a ur a teu r Ma n ua l Labo r Un kn own Source of majority of annual incomeNumber of people Figure 3-1. Employment in San Pedro. Note th at the category Domes tic consists of nonincome generating stay-at-home wives and mothers Figure 3-2. Typical houses in San Pedro.

PAGE 45

45 Sixteen of the 21 households in terviewed own livestock, includ ing chickens, pigs, horses, oxen, sheep, turkeys and ducks. Six households reported owning cattle, though herd size is relatively small, with an average of 14 hea d. Livestock are used primarily for personal consumption or, in the case of horses and oxe n, for transportation. Some households reported occasionally selling livestock, but this is not a frequent occurrence. As one community member stated, Twenty cows arent worth selling. One sells one to cover expenses, but more than anything they are for our own consum ptionThat's the only thing that a campesino has. Other people have savings, banks but a campesino has his animals as savings. As stated above, most community members r eceive informal ownership of a maximum of 500 hectares of land in addition to a small lot in the urban area upon which they can build their house. Seventeen of the 21 households interviewed owned a lot that ranged in size from 270 to 500 hectares. One household owned 680 hectares b ecause it had purchased land (albeit illegally) from a former community member. Two of the re maining three households were not interested in owning agricultural land and one was a new arrival and was waiting for land to become available. Though the total area of land owned per household is relatively large, only a small portion of each households lot has been cleared for agricu lture or cattle ranching (Figure 3-3). Of the 17 households that own land and have cleared an area for agricultural use, the average total area cleared was only 9.5 hectares per household, though this number is skewed by three households that have cleared a large area fo r cattle pasture. If those house holds are eliminated from the sample, the average cleared area drops to 4.9 hect ares per household. Furthermore, the total area cleared is often not contiguous, resulting in scat tering of small fields. The average individual

PAGE 46

46 field size, eliminating the three large cattle pa stures, is 4.43 hectares with a range of 0.75-15 hectares. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 CommunitySize of agricultural field (hectares) .San PedroSan Miguel Figure 3-3. Total area under agri cultural production per household. Agriculturalists in San Pedro grow a vari ety of crops both for sale and for personal consumption (Figures 3-4 and 35). The quantity of products sold varies from year to year, depending on crop yield and household requirements Watering needs are almost exclusively met by rainfall, though three households reported occa sionally using a community-owned pump to water more delicate crops like tomatoes and pepp ers. To supplement their own production, every household obtains much of its daily food supply, particularly meat, canned, and processed foods, from merchants in Assis Brasil.

PAGE 47

47 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Pasture Yuca Rice Planta in Co r n B ean s Fr u it P e a n uts Vegetables Su gar Cane C as h e wAgricultural productNumber of households Figure 3-4. Number of house holds that grow each agricultural product in San Pedro. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8R ice Y u c a Beans Plai n tain Peanu t s Cor n Vegetable s Frui tAgricultural productNumber of households Figure 3-5. Number of house holds that sell each agricu ltural product in San Pedro. San Pedro is still undergoing a pr ocess of infrastructural deve lopment. While the standard soccer field is present, the comm unity still lacks a fundamental el ement of most Latin American towns a central plaza. The three roads in the town are little more than wide grass paths (Figure

PAGE 48

48 3-6), which is currently suffici ent as no one owns a car and th ere are no local bridges that connect Bolivia with Peru or Brazil. Recently, running water from a nearby spring was piped to 15 of the 16 houses in the main community. Due to a lack of funds for gasoline, however, the pump is only run once per week for half an hour. Th e four houses located at the port do not have running water and must retrieve their drinking water from Assis Brasil either by purchasing bottled water or by filling their own jugs from the pipes that r each the river bank. Electricity for the community is purchased from Peru and tran sported via a patchwork of cables. All but two houses have access to electricity and there were immediate plans for conne cting those remaining houses. There is no phone service, th us all contact with the departmental cap ital is conducted via radio. A new health center was being built during the summer of 2004 and is staffed by the community nurse and occasionally visited by a do ctor who divides his time among various rural communities. Figure 3-6. A picture of a main ro ad in San Pedro. The three road s in San Pedro are simply wide grass paths. No households own cars. Much of San Pedros hope for future de velopment rests on the highly anticipated improvement of the road to Cobija. Currently, th e residents feel deeply isolated. With little access to markets in their own count ry, their only choice for long-term survival in the area is the

PAGE 49

49 production of items desired by nearby consumer s cattle and timber. Although cattle ranching has not yet overtaken the area, many families in San Pedro hope to eventually own cattle or to expand their herds. A second issue that arises from the lack of reliable road access in San Pedro is that the community members have difficulty reaching thei r 500 hectare properties. The lots begin about two kilometers from town and flank either side of the currently unimproved road for as far as 22 kilometers, meaning that that many commun ity members cannot access their land on a daily basis. Eight households have reso rted to farming in areas within the communitys urban area, with fields ranging in size from 0.25 to 6 hectar es. Much of the urban area lies along the Acre River, so many of the agricultural fields are, by default, directly adjacent to the river. Once the road is completed, the residents of San Pedr o anticipate better acce ss to their land (via automobile) and, more importantly, to regional and national markets fo r their agricultural products. San Miguel de Machineri The second research community, San Miguel de Machineri, is located on the Acre River approximately 1.5 hours downstream from San Pedr o by motorized canoe (an estimated distance of 16 kilometers) in the northwes tern corner of the Yaminahua-M achineri TCO. Residents of San Miguel are members of the Machineri indigenou s group, originally from the Sena Madureira region of Brazil (Herbas 2000). In 2004, the comm unity had a population of 23 people in five households, though this number (bot h of people and households) tends to vary from year to year. Household size is small, with an average of 3.14 children (range of 1-10, median of 1), but each household in San Miguel is related to the othe rs by way of one of the heads of household. Frequently, members of these families depart for extended periods of time and family members

PAGE 50

50 who reside outside of the community arrive for lengthy visits. Adults in the community have an average of 2 years of education; at least five (of nine) are illiterate or only partially literate. Though the residents of San Pedro claim that upon their arrival to the area in 1992, San Miguel was uninhabited, some residents of San Migue l state that they have lived in the area for approximately 20 years. This time period is difficu lt to confirm, as the earliest migrants do not remember the year in which they arrived in Boliv ia. Based on oral histories regarding the number of houses they have built and fields they have planted, however, a time-line of approximately 20 years seems feasible. Other residents have arri ved more recently, partic ularly since the founding of the TCO. All residents of San Miguel speak Portuguese, four adults speak Machineri (the indigenous language), and one adult speaks some Spanish. With the exception of one, children and young adults in the community do not speak M achineri, but all speak Portuguese and most speak at least some Spanish, as the school teac her in the community is Bolivian and conducts classes in Spanish. Land in the TCO is communally owned and new residents must first seek permission from the community before they settle there. While th ere may be federal restri ctions as to the ethnic origin of TCO residents, this did not seem to be the case at the local level. It seemed that anyone, regardless of indigenous status, c ould be granted permission to settle in the community if they met the communitys approval. Prac tically speaking, as has been the pattern in the pa st it is likely that new residents would be connected in some familial way to current residents and thus would likely be Machineri. Houses, constructed of palm trunks and thatch (Figure 3-7), are relatively distant from one anothe r. Walking time varies from 515 minutes between households. Each household simply chooses an area in the vicin ity of their house in which to create their agricultural fields.

PAGE 51

51 Figure 3-7. Typical houses in San Miguel. Households depend upon subsistence agricultu re (Figure 3-8), hunting, and fishing for daily survival. In agriculture, families practi ce shifting cultivation. Once a field is harvested, natural vegetation is allowed to re generate for three to five year s. After that time the soil is fertilized by clearing and bur ning the field for reuse. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 BeansRiceYucaPlantainsCornSugar cane Agricultural ProductNumber of households Figure 3-8. Number of house holds that grow each agricultural product in San Miguel.

PAGE 52

52 In comparison to San Pedro, both the total clea red agricultural area per household and the individual field sizes are much smaller in San Miguel (see Figure 3-3). The average cleared area for agricultural production is 2.44 hectares/household, and the aver age contiguous cleared area is just 1.23 hectares. As in San Pedro, each household owns some kind of livestock, though at a much smaller scale. Each family owns a number of chickens, and some also own ducks and pigs. In contrast to San Pedro, only one household owns cattle. Howeve r, the cattle are current ly housed on a ranch in Brazil and the owner had no i mmediate plans to transport them to San Miguel, though he did have pasture planted in preparation for their arri val. One additional family hopes to own cattle in the future. To supplement subsistence activities, reside nts of San Miguel employ a number of other livelihood strategies. Five men (one per household, though not necessarily the head of household) occasionally work as day laborers in Brazil, earning an income of approximately $3/day. Two households reported occa sionally selling wild game a nd/or fish to their Brazilian neighbors and at least four of the households sell a portion of thei r agricultural ha rvest (Figure 39). In addition, during the early months of the y ear, every household collect s Brazil nuts and sells them to both Bolivian and Brazilian processo rs. Average annual household income in San Miguel is 10,158 Bolivianos (appr oximately US$1,271). Although it can not be argued, then, that the residents of San Miguel are not integrated in to the market economy, the extent to which they engage and depend on outside forces for survival is much more limited than in San Pedro. For this reason, the lack of road acces s is not as frequent a topic of conversation in San Miguel and does not seem to cause the same feeling of isolation as it does in San Pedro.

PAGE 53

53 0 1 2 3 4 5 PlantainsBeansRiceYucaCornSugarSugar cane Agricultural productNumber of households Figure 3-9. Number of house holds that sell each agricu ltural product in San Miguel. San Miguel is substantially less infrastructu rally developed than San Pedro. It does not have electricity, running water, or telephone service. Discussions regarding the installation of water pipes have occurred, though no immediat e plans have been made. For now, each household has access to a small stream near th eir house, which they use for bathing, cooking, and washing clothes. In early 2004, the community was given a radio, powered by a combination of solar energy and a car battery, which they use to communicate with other communities and with the Indigenous Center for the Original V illages of Amazonian Pa ndo (CIPOAP), located in Cobija. Despite its small size, it is clear that San Miguel functions as a community, a fact that allows for a comparison of resource use and mana gement efforts with the larger community of San Pedro. First, the community is recognized as such by the government of Bolivia and has received aid in the form of a primary school based on this designation. Second, like all other

PAGE 54

54 official communities in Bolivia, under the Popula r Participation Law the community has elected a community council ( Organizacin Territorial de Base) the president of which represents the community at regional functions. It is also a member of CIPOAP, which represents all indigenous communities in Pando. Fina lly, San Miguel has not always been as small as it is now. In the mid-1990s, the community consisted of 16 households, many of which left the area due to land conflicts with settlers from San Pedro (Herbas 2000). By 1998, the population had shrunk to seven households. There is no indication that the community will retain it s small size, however, as the population has tended to grow and shrink over time. Conclusion As can be seen from the preceding discussi on, San Pedro and San Miguel are distinct in terms of their size, ethnic origin s, social organization, and livelihood strategies One is a colonist community, composed of residents from many regions of Bolivia. While some kinship connections exist, most households are relativel y independent of each ot her in both personal and practical matters. Households in San Pedro make a living in a relatively wide variety of ways but, more often than not, not through the explo itation of natural resources. This variety of livelihood strategies is made po ssible by San Pedros location n ear population centers in Peru and Brazil. Households in San Miguel, on the other hand, are intricately connected via kin networks and function in a more cooperative manner. Furt hermore, due to their greater isolation from major population centers, households in San Miguel tend to rely on natural resources for survival to a greater extent. The following section wi ll discuss additional differences in these communities use of aquatic resources and riparian areas.

PAGE 55

55 CHAPTER 4 AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN RESOURCES Use of Aquatic Resources The dependence of indigenous and coloni st Amazonian communities on freshwater resources has been previously documented (M cClain et al. 2001; McClain and Cosso 2003). Therefore, the fact that San Pe dro and San Miguel are located n ear a relatively major water body might lead one to the conclusion that the use of aquatic resources would constitute a major component of their livelihood syst ems. This did not prove to be the case. Though households in these communities do make use of aquatic resour ces for drinking water, transportation and food supply, they do not depend as heavily on these re sources as one might expect. The following section will discuss the use of aquatic resources, including fishing, transportation, and domestic water supply in each community. Fishing as a Livelihood Strategy San Pedro Households in San Pedro view fishing in much the same way as households in the United States might view it. Fishing is considered an activity in which one might partake on the weekends, for example, as a form of relaxati on or to provide variet y in the household menu. Some households commented that fishing is not t heir custom, meaning that fishing was not a livelihood strategy in their highla nd departments of origin. Furthe rmore, a number of households emphasized that fishing, when engaged in, is done solely for household consumption. No households sell fish for profit, though they do occasionally purchase fish from Brazilian fishermen who fish on a larger scale. Of the 21 households interviewed, 18 repor ted fishing on occasion, with an average frequency of 13.7 times per year. Some households reported fishing exclusively during the wet

PAGE 56

56 season, as the river is higher and, as one info rmant stated, the muddy wa ter obscures visibility and prevents the fish from being frightened by the fishermen. All 18 households report fishing with a hook and line, and three also re ported fishing with a net on occasion. In general, yields are small. Households re ported catching an average of 2.4 kilos each time they fish (usually less than five fish ). Though households reported catching 19 different species of fish, some species are caught more frequently than others (Figure 4-1). Many households also reported purchasing fish on o ccasion, bringing the total average annual fish consumption to 41.5 kilos/year/household. When comp ared to previous studies, this quantity is less than expected. For example, colonist households in the Peruvian Amazon reported consuming 145.6 kilos/year of fi sh (McClain et al. 2001:406). 02468101214Lisa (Anostomidae family) Dentudo (Cynodontidae family) Curimatan (Prochilodus nigrans) Jundia Amar illo (Pimelodi dae family) Embodoca (Species unknown) Dorado (Pellona flavippinnis) Anguila (Species unknown) Raya (Potamotrygonidae family) Denton (Leporinus obtusidens) Sardina (Characidae family) Jundia Negro (Pimelodidae family) Pescado Perro (Acestrorhynchus spp.) Pac (Characidae family) Palometa (Characidae family) Piraa (Characidae family) Surub (Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum) Sbalo (Prochilodus spp.) Piranambu (Pinirampus piniramp) Bagre (Doradidae family)Species of fish .Number of households Figure 4-1. Species of fish caught by households in San Pedro.

PAGE 57

57 One measure of a populations dependence on fi shing as a livelihood strategy could be the proportion of their protein intake that is satisfied by fish in re lation to other types of protein consumed. To this end, households in San Pedro were also asked about hunting practices and purchased meat. Only four households reported hunting, and infr equently at that. Of the households that hunt, most eat wild game (including deer, pec cary, monkey, armadillo, turkey, paca, turtle, and tapir) only a few times a year. As stated previously, househol ds in San Pedro rely on markets in Assis Brasil for much of their meat supply. Beef and chicken are purchas ed almost exclusively in Assis Brasil (on occasion a family will slaughter one of their own animals). Households reported consuming approximately 5.6 kilos/week of beef and 6.7 kilos/ month of chicken. Pork is reserved for special occasions, such as community celebrations when a pig is slaughtere d. Households reported eating an average of 48.4 kilos of pork/year. H ouseholds also occasionally purchase processed meats (canned meat and sausage) and ma ny collect eggs from their chickens. Ultimately, then, fish (including fish purchas ed from commercial fishermen) constitutes only 9% of the major sources of protein (beef, chicken, pork and fish) consumed by households in San Pedro. This indicates that this community is likely not dependent on river resources for survival, at least with regard to food supply. San Miguel Households in San Miguel are more dependent on natural resources than their upstream neighbors in San Pedro. Whether this pattern is explained by isolation from markets or by cultural tradition wa s not determined through this study, though it seems that a combination of both factors may be at work. Nevertheless, alt hough they make more use of natural resources, families in San Miguel are also less dependent upon fish as a food source than one might expect.

PAGE 58

58 Of the five households in the community, all re ported fishing. On aver age, households fish 2.9 times per week (almost 89 times more frequently than households in San Pedro). Yields are about the same, however, with households re porting an average cat ch of 2.2 kilos on a good day.4 As in San Pedro, when compared with previous studies, the quantity of fish consumed in San Miguel is less than expecte d. If a calculation is made based on data collected from the food log, households in San Miguel consume an aver age of 189.15 kilos/year of fish. Meanwhile, indigenous households in the Peruvian Amazon reported consuming 249.6 kilos/year of fish (McClain et al. 2001:406). All households reported fishing with a net (F igure 4-2), and three reported also fishing with a hook and line. The decision to use one tec hnique or the other is based on a number of factors, including the size of the stream, effici ency and personal preference. Smaller streams necessitate fishing with a hook and line because the net can get tangled in underwater logs. One household believed that one can catch more fish w ith a net (and thus did not ever fish with a hook and line), and one household would switch t actics depending on whether or not the fish were responding to the initial strategy employed. The species of fish that are caught in San Mi guel are somewhat simila r to those caught in San Pedro (Figure 4-3). Interest ingly, however, residents in Sa n Miguel reported catching fewer species, 14 in total. 4 It was difficult for households in San Miguel to estimat e their weekly fish consump tion because their livelihood strategy involves a constantly varying co mbination of hunting and fishing. If, for example, a household is successful in killing a wild animal, they have no need to hunt again or to fish for several more days. To compensate for these difficulties, I collected data on food consumption for eigh t days from three of the five households (the other two households were not available for interviewing). During the week that the data were collected, the total fish consumption for the three households was only 2.5 kilos. The discrepancy between actual fish consumption and estimates reported during semi-structured interviews might be attributed to memory errors (Bernard 2002) or to the fact that during the week that food data were collected, a supply of staple food items arrived in San Miguel from the Bolivian government as part of a flood relief plan (the community had been flooded in early 2004). These items (noodles, flour, dried milk, etc.) supplemented, and partia lly substituted for, hunting and fishing during that week.

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4-2. Fishing nets are th e most commonly used fishi ng technology in San Miguel. 0123456Bodon (Species unknown) Jundia (Pimelodidae family) Cuyu (Oxydoras niger) Cachimbo (Loricariidae family) Matrincho (Brycon spp.) Piraa (Characidae family) Aashua (Cichlidae family) Bujurqui (Cichlidae family) Sardina (Characidae family) Curimatan (Prochilodus nigrans) Surub (Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum) Piao (Species unknown) Bagre (Doradidae family) Piranambu (Pinirampus piniramp)Species of fish .Number of households Figure 4-3. Species of fish caught by households in San Miguel.

PAGE 60

60 In addition to fishing more often than househol ds in San Pedro, households in San Miguel also hunt more frequently. All households repo rted hunting, though it was difficult for them to estimate the average frequency. One household purc hased meat from markets in Assis Brasil on occasion because the head of household made fre quent trips there to visit his ailing mother. In total, households reported consuming an av erage of 7.3 kilos of wild game per week, of which 0-6.4 kilos is composed of fish.5 Interestingly, without ex ception, households in San Miguel reported a preference fo r hunting over fishing. While some households preferred to eat wild game (including deer, monkey, peccary, paca, tu rkey, armadillo, turtle, tetitu) because of its better flavor, others found hunti ng to be a more efficient means of providing meat for the household. However, an important limiting factor in hunting is the av ailability of rifle ammunition, which is expensive to purchase. In comparison to San Pedro, then, households in San Miguel consume more fish. However, the large majority of their diet is composed of wild game. This fact may indicate that the dependence on aquatic resources for subsistence is not as strong as one might expect. However, the dependence of game species on habitat provided by rivers, streams and riparian areas is an important point to consider in that it estab lishes a second tier conn ection between communities and river resources (McClain 1999). 5 According to the data gathered through the food log, th e three families interviewed consumed an average of 4.4 kilos of wild game per household during the eight day period. Animals consumed included white monkey ( Cebus albifrons ), red howler monkey ( Alouatta spp. ), turtle, paca ( Agouti paca ), collared peccary ( Tayassu tajacu) white lipped peccary ( Tayassu pecari ), brown agouti ( Dasyprocta variegate ) and wild turkey. One household also killed one of their chickens and was given a domestic pig head. A second household consumed a small quantity of dried ox ( charque de buey). According to these data, then, fish constituted 15% of the total protein intake during that period, while wild game constituted 77%.

PAGE 61

61 Other Uses of Water Resources Amazonian river dwellers make use of aquatic resources for more than simply subsistence purposes. Other important uses include transpor tation and water for domestic consumption. The communities of San Miguel and San Pedro follow this pattern. However, mirroring the lack of dependence on aquatic resources for food discusse d above, residents in these communities seem to rely on river resources for transportation and domestic use to a lesser extent than might be expected. Use of river for transportation In San Pedro, only two households currently ow n a motorized canoe that enables them to effectively use the Acre River for transportation. One of these households owns one of the local stores and uses its boat to tran sport merchandise from Cobija, wh ich is a oneto two-day trip by river. Because of limitations placed on Bolivian citizens for travel and transportation of goods through Brazil along the Transoceanic Highway, merc hants in San Pedro have few options for transporting goods other than by river. The other household that curren tly owns a motorized canoe uses it exclusively to transport the male head of household to his distant agricultural field and to transport agricultural products back to San Pedro. This household is lucky in that they have access to th eir 500 hectare lot both from the dirt highway and from the river. Lots located on the othe r side of the road do not have river access, thus restricting the e xport of agricultural products. Four households in San Pedro ha ve owned canoes in the past, but have either sold them or lost them to floods or rot. The floods of 2004 were particularly damaging, as they carried away the canoes of two of these households. None of the households in San Pedro use canoes for fishing purposes; if canoes are owned, they are used exclusivel y for transportation.

PAGE 62

62 In San Miguel, only one household owns a dugout canoe, which is frequently used for fishing. It does not have a motor, thus ma king it an ineffective m eans of long distance transportation. The other community in the Yami nahua-Machineri TCO, Puerto Yaminahua, has access to at least one motorized canoe that occasionally stops in San Miguel to pick up or drop off passengers. Otherwise, reside nts of San Miguel walk to San Pedro or Assis Brasil via the highway or along the river bank, a three to five hour trip. Interestingly, McClain et al. (2001) found a greater use of rivers for transportation purposes in the Peruvian Amazon. In their st udy, 54.6% of indigenous ho useholds and 37.7% of colonist households reported using rivers for tr ansportation. While it is not clear what proportion of total transportation needs were fulfilled by rive r travel in their study site, it appears that a greater number of households repo rted traveling by ri ver than in my research communities. Domestic water supply As stated previously, most households in Sa n Pedro (15 of 20) ha ve access to running water, which comes from a spring located just outside of town. However, the community members have little money with which to purch ase fuel for the water pump. Running water is therefore available only about once per week fo r half an hour, and sometimes only once every two weeks. Households collect th is water in large containers a nd use it for cooking and drinking throughout the week. Many households reported that the quantity of wate r that arrives during that half hour period satisfies their weekly hous ehold requirement, which is an average of 263.2 liters/week or 37.6 liters/d ay. Interestingly, this quantity is less than predicted by previous studies of colonist water usage. McClain et al. (2001:403) found th at colonist in the Peruvian Amazon reported using 88.7 liters/day/family. If households need more water than that prov ided by the pump, they collect it in jugs or buckets from another spring locat ed about ten minutes from town by foot. This spring is also

PAGE 63

63 used for washing clothes by some community member s. This is all to say that most households in San Pedro do not use the Acre River as a prim ary source of water for domestic consumption. Bathing and washing clothes, on the other hand, are done almost exclusively in the river or at the nearby spring. 81% of households (17 of 21) reported bathing primarily in the river. The remaining households do not bathe in the river because they feel it is too di rty to bathe in, either because of pollution from upstream communities or sediment. They collect rain water, go to the spring, or use their stored potable water for ba thing. Sixty-seven percen t of households (14 of 21) reported washing clothes in the river. Those h ouseholds that do not wash clothes in the river wash them at the nearby spring. They also stated that the river was too di rty for washing clothes. Perceptions of water quality will be expl ored in more detail in Chapter 6. As in San Pedro, the Acre River does not serv e as the primary source of water for domestic consumption for residents of San Miguel. Unlik e in San Pedro, however, it is also not used frequently for bathing and washing clothes. Th is is due to the fact that each house in the community is located next to a small stream, wh ich they use to supply water for their household needs (Figure 4-4). On occasion, families will bathe and swim in the river for recreation, but most use their nearby stream almost exclusiv ely. On average, households reported using 55.6 liters of water per day in the home, which is le ss than predicted by Mc Clain et al.s 2001 study. In that study, indigenous households in the Pe ruvian Amazon reported using an average of 72.7 liters/day/family (McClain et al. 2001:403). When asked why the residents of San Miguel do not use the river more often to fulfill household needs, two households stated that the river is further from the house than the stream is.

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4-4. Each household in San Miguel has access to a small stream that is used for domestic purposes. Conceptualization of Aquatic Resources Freelists as an indicator of familiar ity with river and riparian resources As demonstrated by the discussion above, th e residents of San Pedro and San Miguel utilize aquatic resources differently. The discussi on thus far has focused exclusively on fishing and the use of water as proxies for aquatic re source use. To expand this discussion to the communities familiarity with other river resource s, the results of the freelisting exercise will now be discussed. As stated previously, freelisting is an anthropological technique designed to elicit a list of items that form a particular cultural domai n. For this study, each person (18 men and 17 women in San Pedro, and four men and three women in San Miguel) was asked to list all of the natural resources that are found in rivers, streams and ri parian areas. Two conclusions can be reached from the responses. First, the results can indicate whether or not the resources in question actually constitute a cultural domain. In other word s, do the interviewees respond similarly to the

PAGE 65

65 question? Second, through an analysis of lis t length and content, a rough idea of each communitys familiarity with and importance placed on river resources can be achieved. The average length of freelists in San Pedr o was 17 items. Men tended to list more items than women, with 23 and 12 items, respectively. Th is can likely be explained by the fact that most women do not take part in fishing, hunting, or working in th e agricultural fields where they would be exposed to species located in water bod ies or riparian areas. The 35 respondents listed a total of 264 unique items (Figures 4-5 and 4-6). The largest category of items was terrestrial animals found in riparian areas (36%). These included game species as well as birds, monkeys, insects and snakes. Also listed frequently were trees found in riparian areas (bot h timber and non-timber species) (25%) and fish (16%). Only 6% of the items listed were inorganic substances. These included natural features such as lakes, beaches, rocks, sand, and soil; minerals such as gold, iron, and aluminum; and spirits (listed by only one person). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Terrestrial animals Tre e s Fish Fruits Pla n ts N a t u ra l fe a tu re s Aqu a tic animals Minerals Vegetables S p rits Hon ey P eopleCategoryNumber of items San Pedro San Miguel Figure 4-5. Freelisted items (by total number).

PAGE 66

66 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%Terrestrial a nimal s Tree s F is h Fr u i t s P l a nt s Natura l f e at u res A qu a tic a n i m als M ine rals Vegetable s S pr it s H o n e y P e opleCategory% of items San Pedro San Miguel Figure 4-6. Freelisted items (by percent of total). In San Miguel, the lists were substantially longer, which could reflect that communitys stronger dependence on natural re source for their livelihoods. Th e average list length was 32 items, and 119 unique items were listed by the seve n people interviewed (F igures 4-5 and 4-6). As in San Pedro, men listed more items than wo men (39 and 23, respective ly), but the difference between male and female was proportionally smalle r in San Miguel. This could reflect the fact that in San Miguel, women are equally involved in almost all livelihood activit ies with the exception of hunting. It is not uncommon for both the men and women in a household to go fishing or work in the agricultural fields together. As in San Pedro, terrestrial animals, trees, and fish were the categories into which the majority of items fell, with 38%, 15%, and 28% of the items, respectively. Unlike in San Pedro, however, more fish species than tree species were listed. Furthermore, terrestrial animal species and fish species were listed with almost the same frequency, whereas in San Pedro, terrestrial animals far exceeded the other categories.

PAGE 67

67 The 25 most frequently listed items by all re spondents in San Pedro appear in Table 4-1 (each item was listed by at least six respondents) .Interestingly, the top three items listed are not species that are consumed fre quently. In fact, two of them, jacar and raya (caiman and ray) are species from which attacks are feared. Peta (turtle) is a highly visi ble species along the river banks. The following three items listed ( sardina surub and sabalo ) are species of fish. The remainder of the list is composed of a mixture of game species (6); other fish species (8); snakes (2); and useful tree species like Brazil nut, asa (a species of palm used for its fruit), and pacay (a fruit tree) (3). Table 4-1. Top 25 freelisted items in San Pedro. Item Category Frequency (# of respondents) % of respondents 1 Peta Aquatic animal 17 49 2 Jacar Aquatic animal 17 49 3 Raya Aquatic animal 16 46 4 Sardina Fish 15 43 5 Surub Fish 15 43 6 Sabalo Fish 12 34 7 Venado Terrestrial animal 11 31 8 Bagre Fish 10 29 9 Jochi pintado Terrestrial animal 9 26 10 Anta Terrestrial animal 9 26 11 Mono Terrestrial animal 9 26 12 Cirur Snake 8 23 13 Piranambu Fish 8 23 14 Anguila Aquatic animal 8 23 15 Castaa Tree (Brazil nut) 7 20 16 Dorado Fish 7 20 17 Chancho del monte Terrestrial animal 7 20 18 Pacu Fish 7 20 19 Capibara Terrestrial animal 7 20 20 Piraa Fish 7 20 21 Vibora Snake 7 20 22 Pacay Fruit tree 7 20 23 Palometa Fish 6 17 24 Asa Tree (Palm fruit) 6 17 25 Pescado perro Fish 6 17

PAGE 68

68 The 24 items listed most frequently by all re spondents in San Miguel appear in Table 4-2 (each item was listed by at least three respondents). The most frequently listed item (mandin) is a common species of fish, while the following five equally popular items are a combination of common fish species (2), game animals (2), a nd one non-game, but menacing animal (caiman). The remainder of the list is composed of various fish species (7), game species (6), non-game species (1), other aquatic animals (2), one generic snake category, and one tree species. Table 4-2. Top 24 freelisted items in San Miguel. Item Category Frequency (# of respondents) % of respondents 1 Mandin Fish 7 100 2 Jundia Fish 6 86 3 Peta Aquatic animal 6 86 4 Jacar Aquatic animal 6 86 5 Jochi Pintado Game animal 6 86 6 Boca chica Fish 6 86 7 Bodon Fish 5 71 8 Cuy Fish 5 71 9 Mono silbador Terrestrial animal 5 71 10 Sardina Fish 5 71 11 Bacu Fish 4 57 12 Pava Terrestrial animal 4 57 13 Mono blanco Terrestrial animal 4 57 14 Surub Fish 4 57 15 Mono maneche Terrestrial animal 4 57 16 Vibora Terrestrial animal 4 57 17 Piranambu Fish 4 57 18 Raya Aquatic animal 4 57 19 Tatu Terrestrial animal 3 43 20 Anguila Aquatic animal 3 43 21 Jochi Colorado Terrestrial animal 3 43 22 Anta Terrestrial animal 3 43 23 Denton Fish 3 43 24 Pacay Tree (fruit) 3 43 In comparing the lists from both communities, th e most striking feature is that they are similar in composition, yet different in specifics. While the most salient elements in the cultural domain of aquatic and riparian resources appear to be fish and game species, the lists overlap on

PAGE 69

69 just over half of the items (27 out of 49). This could indicate that while consensus may exist regarding important aquatic and riparian resources within each community, there may not be a shared cultural domain among all residents of th is portion of the watershed. This finding could also reflect the different ways in which thes e communities use (or choose not to use) river resources. Using non-metric multidimensional scaling to understand the cognitive domain of river resources Through a process called non-metric multidimensi onal scaling, data from freelists can also be used to create a map of the way people cogniti vely organize items in the cultural domain of aquatic and riparian resources. Th is analysis was conducted on items that were listed by at least three respondents in San Pedro a nd by at least two respondents in San Miguel, or by at least five respondents in both communities combined. Multidimensional scaling measures both the frequency with which items are listed and how often respondents list the same items together. The cognitive maps (Figures 4-7 4-9) that emerge from this analysis contain useful information. Items that appear close to each othe r are those that are listed most frequently together, while distance between individual items or groups of ite ms indicates that those items are not frequently listed together Items that appear near the ce nter of the diagram tend to be those most salient to the cultural domain, while items that appear toward the edges are less salient. The cognitive map for San Pedro (Figure 4-7) indicates that co nsensus exists with regard to how people think about aquatic and riparian re sources. Many fish species appear together, as do fruits, game animals, and medicinal plants. In terestingly, fruits appear on the opposite side of the diagram from game animals and fish. This is likely because women tended to list fruit species, while men tended to list the othe r items that are more closely grouped.

PAGE 70

70 Dim 2 CAN CHU 1.06 VTN MAD ARB BOC PDP JUN PES AEL SDG PLT PAT PNA 0.41 LOR PIR PAC COP MON CIC UDG BAG PDO PAL DOR SAB DEN RAY SUR MDN PET JAC JOP BOA PER VEN SAR ANT CHM -0.24 AGU NAR PLA CAP TAT MGO LIM MAN PCY ANG CED PIC MAR PAP VIB JOC ASA CAS MAJ MAS CEM -0.90 SAP GAR TIG SAN ARR -1.55 -1.56 -0.87 -0.18 0.50 1.19 Dim 1 Stress in 2 dimensions is 0.188 Figure 4-7. Cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Pedro (see List of Abbreviations). Resources are color coded as follows: dark blue = fish, light blue = other aquatic animals, yellow = fruits, br own = monkeys, dark green = trees/plants, light green = snakes, orange = terrestrial/game species, pink = birds, gray = medicinal plants, black = other. The cognitive map for San Miguel (Figure 4-8) also indicates cultural consensus. Many of the important fish species appear grouped toward the center of the diagram, while there are also distinct groupings of fruits, monkeys, and tree species. Some game animals appear grouped together, but a number are also spread throughout the diagram. As in San Pedro, gender appears Fruit s p ecies Game s p ecies Fish s p ecies Medicinal p lants

PAGE 71

71 to influence the map. Fruit trees are located far from timber species, which are listed more frequently by women and men, re spectively. However, important fish species, located in the center, were frequently listed by both genders. Dim 2 1.41 CHT PNA PIC VEN PAC ANT 0.82 CHA ANG CAR LON COB VTN MMN CAI JCL SIL 0.24 CAP CAC PAV PIR TAT JOP BOC PET SUR MDN SAR CUY CAO JUN PCY MAT JAC BOD -0.35 VIB RAY BAC MAJ -0.93 MAR CEM ASA SOC TOC ALO JUB PAT MAP GAR PAJ -0.94 -0.33 0.29 0.91 1.52 Dim 1 Stress in 2 dimensions is 0.174 Figure 4-8. Cognitive map of aquatic and riparian resources in San Miguel (see List of Abbreviations). Resources are color coded as follows: dark blue = fish, light blue = other aquatic animals, yellow = fruits, br own = monkeys, dark green = trees/plants, light green = snakes, orange = terre strial/game species, pink = birds. Tree species (primarily timber) Monkey species Game species Fruit species Fish species

PAGE 72

72 When the freelists from the communities are combined, the associations on the cognitive map begin to weaken (Figure 4-9). While distinct groupings of tree specie s and fruit species are apparent, there is also a s ubstantial amount of scatter am ong the remaining groups. This scattering mirrors the results of the freelists, in which there was a signif icant lack of overlap among the most frequently listed items in each community Dim 2 MAS CAS CED PAL 0.83 MAJ DOR MAR CHM ASA CEM DEN CAP BAG PES SAB VEN PAC MON SUR 0.13 GAR SAR PIC PDP PAT PNA JAC RAY PET JOP ANT PIR CIC ANG PCY JUN TAT MDN VTN -0.57 MGO BOC SIL CAI VIB JCL BOD NAR PAV MAN CUY LIM -1.26 PDO PAP -1.96 -1.97 -1.24 -0.50 0.23 0.97 Dim 1 Stress in 2 dimensions is 0.225 Figure 4-9. Combined cognitive map of aquatic a nd riparian resources in San Pedro and San Miguel (see List of Abbreviations). Resources are color coded as follows: dark blue = fish, light blue = other aquatic animals, yellow = fruits, brown = monkeys, dark green = trees/plants, light green = snakes, orange = terrestrial/game species, pink = birds. Tree species Fruit species

PAGE 73

73 Conclusion This section focused on the use and conceptua lization of aquatic re sources. Figure 4-10 summarizes the use of aquatic resources in each community. The results from the analyses of fishing practices and freelists lead to two impor tant points. First, residents of San Miguel are more familiar with aquatic and riparian resources and use them to a greater extent in their livelihood strategy than residents in San Pedro. Se cond, while there is some consensus regarding the constitution of the domain of aquatic and ripa rian resources, consensus is stronger within each community than between communities. Both of these findings may impact the potential for future collaborative management in that differe nt levels of dependence upon and different ways of conceptualizing these resources are reflective of social heterogeneity in the watershed that may be difficult to overcome. This point will be discussed in greater depth in subsequent chapters. Table 4-3. Summary of the use of aquatic resources in San Pedro and San Miguel. San Pedro San Miguel Fishing Percentage of households that fish 86% 100% Frequency 13.7 times/year 2.91 times/week Total quantity of fish caught per time 2.4 kilos 2.2 kilos ( 1.25 kilos according to food log) Transportation 2/21 households own canoe (with motor) 1/5 households own canoe (without motor) Domestic use Drinking water source (% of households) Spring (100%) Streams (100%) Location for bathing (% of households) Primary location: River (81%) Secondary location: Springs Streams (100%) Location for laundry (% of households) Primary location: River (67%) Secondary location: Springs Streams (100%)

PAGE 74

74 Additionally, while the river ac ts as a source of transporta tion and water for domestic use for some households, it is not relied upon to a great extent in either community. However, access to other sources of water is critical to satis fy domestic needs. As will be discussed in the following section, these smaller streams are s ubject to some degree of protection by many households through the management of riparian areas. Land Use Practices and Strategies for Water Quality Protection Communities in riparian areas often benefit from having easy access to water and aquatic resources, but they also have the added benefit of being able to engage in agriculture in relatively fertile riparian areas. In the Peruvian Am azon, McClain and Cosso (2003) documented the intentional use of riparian areas for agriculture and the preferential planting of certain crops in them. They also documented a conscious valuing of riparian areas for the environmental services that they provide. Are these findings consistent with activities in the communities of San Pedro and San Miguel? The following section will discus s the use of riparian areas for agricultural purposes, the preservation of vegetation in ripa rian zones as a stra tegy for water quality protection, the reasons why ripa rian areas are valued by house holds, and the ways in which households manage garbage and human waste. Use of Riparian Areas San Pedro Of the 18 households that own land in San Pe dro, 17 reported having ac cess to at least one stream or to the Acre River on their property. Fi ve households have access to both the river and at least one stream, 11 have access to only a st ream, and one household has access to the river but did not know whether they also have access to a stream because the informant does not visit the property frequently. Of the 17 households that have access to a sour ce of surface water on their property, ten households repo rted clearing agricultural fields near this source, while six

PAGE 75

75 households have not cleared agri cultural fields near the wate r source and one household did not provide this information.6 During the household interviews, nine of the 18 land-owning househol ds reported leaving a buffer of vegetation between thei r agricultural fields and the Ac re River or tributary streams when working in riparian areas (three of th ese households, however, do not currently have agricultural fields in riparian ar eas so their responses were give n in a hypothetical sense). Five households stated that they do not leave a ripari an buffer when engaging in agricultura l practices near surface water sources and four households are not currentl y working near a water source and, therefore, did not respond to this question. On average, hous eholds reported leaving a buffer of 18.9 meters. This figure includes households that leave no buffers. When households that do not leave buffers are eliminated from the cal culation, the mean buffer width increases to 30.7 meters. Reasons given for leaving riparian buffers included Providing shade so that the stream does not dry up Providing shade so that the water stays cold Preventing erosion Preserving the quantity of groundwater (that eventually emerges as springs) Preserving soil moisture Governmental regulations that prohib it the clearing of riparian areas Reasons given for not leaving riparian buffers included Providing access to streams for cattle Reducing habitat for poisonous snakes and crocodiles Cleaning the landscape for aesthetic purposes 6 In addition to clearing land for agricultural purposes in their individually owned lots, some community members also clear fields near town for more frequent use. While some of these fields border the Acre River and other streams, de tailed data on the use of these areas and the management of riparian buffer z ones are not available.

PAGE 76

76 A common problem in social science research is the fact that pe ople often inaccurately report their own behavior (Berna rd 2002). It therefore becomes im portant to verify information collected in interviews thr ough a process of triangulation. In the case of my research, participatory mapping was a techni que that allowed for the gather ing of similar data regarding land use strategies but with the added benefit of a visual element to stimulate informant recall. Furthermore, more detailed information regarding field size, locations and types of crops, and protection of riparian buffer zones could be collected while the map was being discussed. Interestingly, participatory ma pping revealed a slightly differe nt system of land use than that which emerged through the household intervie ws. According to the participatory map of each land-owners property, 11 of the 18 land-hold ing households left a riparian buffer when creating an agricultural field near the Acre Rive r or a tributary stream, while seven households did not leave a buffer on at least one of their fields. Two of th ese seven households, however, had left buffers on one of thei r other fields. When compared with the information provided during the semi-structured interviews, four hous eholds mapped larger buffers than they had reported during their interview, four households mapped smaller buffers than they had reported during their interview, and seve n households mapped the same si ze buffers as they had reported during their interview. The participatory maps also revealed that 22 fiel ds (out of a total of 29) have been cleared within 100 meters of the Acre River or a tribut ary stream, of which 15, or 68%, have riparian buffers. The remaining seven fields are directly ad jacent to the river or a stream on at least one side. When making a calculation using the narrowes t width of buffer for each field (many fields have streams on multiple sides or running throu gh their centers), the mean buffer width is 45.6 meters, much wider than that reported during th e semi-structured interv iews (18.9). This number

PAGE 77

77 is skewed, however, by the presence of three 100 meter buffer zones, which is wide enough to cast doubt on their legitimacy as purposeful buffer zones. When these large buffers are removed from the calculation, the mean width drops to 32. 1 meters, or about the same average size as reported during the semi-structured interviews. A negative correlation, significant at the = 0.05 level (Spearmans = -0.484, p = 0.022, n = 22) exists between the size of agricultural fields and the width of riparian buffer zones (Figure 4-10). As the size of agricultural fiel ds increases, the width of riparian buffer zones decreases. This trend can be expl ained by analyzing the use of thes e fields. Smaller fields tend to be used for growing food crops, which, in San Pedr o, are generally not irri gated, thus eliminating the need for access to a source of water. Larger fields, however, are used for growing pasture and cattle ranching. Cattle need a source of drinking water; thus, areas along streams or rivers are cleared in order to provide access for the animals. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 010203040 Size of agricultural field (hectares)Width of riparian buffer (meters) Figure 4-10. Relationship of width of riparian buffer to size of ag ricultural field in San Pedro. As stated above, some Amazonian communities preferentially grow certain crops in riparian areas, namely corn, peanuts, and b eans, manioc, and plantains (McClain and Cosso

PAGE 78

78 2003). Whether this holds true in San Pedro is diff icult to determine because agricultural fields of all types tend to be grouped within close prox imity to each other, and many fields (22) are, indeed, located within 100 meters of a surface water source. However, with the exception of delicate vegetables like tomato, cucumber, and pe ppers that require irriga tion and thus must be planted near a water source, and pasture for cattle grazing that also necessitates access to drinking water, the decision about where to plan t other staple crops a ppears to depend more upon the type of soil that is present and the poten tial for rainfall to accumulate than upon distance from a river or stream. For example, informants stated that rice grows best in low lying areas where rainfall accumulates, while manioc is best grown in sandy soil where there are few remaining tree roots. Corn grows best on highe r land where some tree roots remain, peanuts require loose soil, beans require moist soil, and plantains grow best in upland areas with sandy soil. Of course, some individual variation in op inion exists. One informant stated that rice and manioc grow better near a water source because th e soil is more fertile from past agricultural activities and because the river or stream keeps the soil moist after it rains. Another informant stated that vegetables grow better along the rive r banks because of increa sed soil fertility after flooding. On the whole, however, proximity to a water source does not appear to determine where specific crops will be plan ted, particularly within fields in which a variety of crops are present. When asked how one learns where to plan t their crops, eight hous eholds stated that it was through a process of trial and error, two hous eholds stated that they learned from older generations, and two households point ed out the lack of technical assistance from the state with regard to helping them learn about the most productive environments in which to plant their crops.

PAGE 79

79 San Miguel All households in San Miguel have access to la nd for agricultural purposes. As stated previously, the system of land distribution in San Miguel is less formal than in San Pedro. Households are spread out over a larger area an d each household simply chooses a location near their house in which to create their agricultural field or fields. Four of the five households reported clearing ag ricultural fields near the Acre River or a tributary stream. The fifth informant stated that he intentionally creates fields away from surface water bodies, but then stated that a minimum distance of 10-20 meters from a water body was acceptable. All households reported leaving ripari an buffer zones when working near bodies of water. On average, households reported a mean riparian buffer width of 32.5 meters. Reasons given for leaving riparian buffers included Preserving water quantity in the stream or river Preventing crop loss from flooding when the water rises Preventing ashes from burned fields from contaminating sources of drinking water Providing shade so that the stream does not dry up There were no reasons given for not leaving riparian buffer zones. As in San Pedro, participatory mapping revealed both more detailed and slightly different information regarding land use patterns. Eleven fi elds (out of a total of 14) had been cleared within 100 meters of the Acre River or a tribut ary stream. Of these 11 fields, a riparian buffer existed along ten of them (90.9%). Again, using th e narrowest width of buffer zone for each field to make the calculation, the mean width of ripa rian buffers was 26.7 meters. If one 100 meterwide buffer zone is eliminated from this calcul ation, the mean buffer width drops to 18.5 meters. It appears, therefore, that while a greater per centage of fields near the river or streams are separated from these water bodies by riparian bu ffers in San Miguel than in San Pedro, the

PAGE 80

80 buffers themselves are actually narrower, a fi nding that mirrors the pattern encountered by McClain and Cosso (2003) in the Peruvian Amazon. There is no statistical correlation (Spearmans = 0.121, p = 0.724, n=11) between the size of agricultural fields and the width of riparian buffers in Sa n Miguel (Figure 4-11). However, there is also much less variation with regard to the size of agricultural fields and the width of riparian buffers in San Miguel than there is in San Pedro. This may partia lly explain the apparent lack of correlation between these elements. Fu rthermore, no households in San Miguel currently raise cattle, thus eliminating the need for large fields with no riparian buffers near streams. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 00.511.522.533.5 Size of agricultural field (hectares)Width of riparian buffer (meters) Figure 4-11. Relationship of width of riparian buffer to size of ag ricultural field in San Miguel. Agricultural practices in San Mi guel are similar to those in Sa n Pedro in that there appears to be little preferential use of riparian areas for the planting of specifi c crops. When asked where their crops were planted, informan ts responded by describing soil characteristics, much as they did in San Pedro, rather than by referring to proximity to landscape features like rivers and streams. According to responses given during the household interviews, manioc and beans are best grown in sandy soils, manioc grows best in areas where there is no flooding and few tree

PAGE 81

81 roots, and rice grows best in ar eas without sandy soil. No house holds mentioned the proximity of a water source as a characteristic necessary for agricultural production, despite the fact that most fields were located within 35 meters of a ri ver or stream. Only one household planted crops (watermelon) on land directly adjacent to the Acre River, but this was substantially downstream from the community and was not included in the calculations above. When asked how one learns where to plant their crops, two households stated that it was through a proce ss of trial and error, one household stated that they always clear fields in upland areas because the soil is better there, and two household stated that they learned about the best locations for crops from experience. Value of Riparian Areas As discussed above, a majority of households in both San Pedro a nd San Miguel leave at least a minimal forested buffer along the rive r and streams when cl earing agricultural land. However, regardless of whether or not people actually leave riparian buffers, they may place importance on the ecological functi ons of riparian areas. In this spirit, households in both communities were asked whether they thought ripa rian areas were important and, if so, why. In both communities, all households responded affirmatively to this question. Figure 4-12 summarizes the results. In San Pedro, the most sa lient ecological functions of riparian areas had to do with preventing erosion and maintaining the width and depth of the river channel. In San Miguel, on the other hand, households placed import ance on tree species that grow in riparian areas and provide food for human consumption lik e asa, majo, mandarins, oranges, pacay and papaya. This finding makes sense given households greater dependence on natural resources for daily survival. However, households in San Miguel also valued riparian ar eas for their role in preventing soil erosion.

PAGE 82

82 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%M a i n t a i n r i v e r c h a n n e l P r e v e n t e r o s i o n P r o t e c t t h e r i v e r a n d s t r e a m s F o r e s t s p u r i f y t h e a i r P r o t e c t w a t e r f r o m e v a p o r a t i o n M a i n t a i n s o i l m o i s t u r e K e e p w a t e r c l e a n M a i n t a i n w a t e r c y c l e K e e p w a t e r c o l d W i n d b r e a k H ab i t a t f o r a n i m a l s I m p r o v e h e a l t h o f p e o p l e a n d a n i m a l s F e r t i l e s o i l f o r a g r i c u l t u r e W o o d / c a n e f o r h o u s e sP l a n t s f o r c o n s u m p t i o n A e s t h e t i c sFunction of riparian areasPercent of households San Pedro San Miguel Figure 4-12. Perceptions of riparian area function. The origin of these value systems was not en tirely clear. In both communities, various informants referred to tcnicos (agronomists from the Ministry of the Environment, the Universidad Amaznica de Pando, or the Fund acin Jos Manuel Pando) who visited the communities to provide workshops on the protection of riparian areas. Some residents in San Pedro were aware of governmental regulations that prohibited the clearing of riparian areas within 100 meters of the Acre River. Personal history, however, also played a role Many informants had witnessed problems with erosion in riparian areas along the Acre River, and the drying of streams and springs on their lands. In San Miguel, some informants stat ed that the protection of riparian areas was Machineri custom. Water Quality Protection Strategies In addition to agricultural pr actices, systems for dealing wi th human waste and garbage disposal in riparian areas can also impact water quality. Th e question, then, is whether the

PAGE 83

83 communities of San Pedro and San Miguel intenti onally protect water quality by encouraging or restricting certain activities. Fourteen households in San Pedro have a personal outhouse. The remaining households share a public toilet. All toilets in San Pedro are latrines. When the latrine is full, the household simply covers it and digs a new pit. Though major floods have reached the latrines at times, this is not a frequent occurrence. Latrines for houses at the port (directly ac ross the river from Assis Brasil) are located an average of 47 meters inland. For houses loca ted closer to the town center, the average distance from latrines to the river is 189 meters. The community does not have an organized sy stem for disposing of household garbage. Each household collects its own waste, burns wh at it can, and buries th e rest. All households reported refraining from dumping garbage into th e river, and many expressed negativity toward upstream communities who do so. Households in San Miguel do not have latrines. The location to be used as a bathroom is selected by each family. On average, bathroom s ites are located 477 meters inland from the Acre River. The school in San Miguel does have a latrin e, which is located 53 meters from the river. Households reported that their toilets do not flood when the streams near their houses rise. However, at least one household that I observed had located their bathroom area just uphill from a small stream that was used for drinking wate r, bathing and washing clothes by a downstream household. Human waste likely runs into the stream during rainstorms. As in San Pedro, household garbage in San Migu el is burned or buried. While garbage was not disposed of in the Acre River, the banks of the stream used by two households were somewhat littered with household waste.

PAGE 84

84 Conclusion In the end, it is clear that land use practices in ripari an areas differ between these communities. Figure 4-14 summarizes the use of riparian areas in each community and provides a comparison of data collected from intervie ws and data collected through participatory mapping. Table 4-4. Summary of the use of riparian ar eas in San Pedro and San Miguel. Note the differences in data collected through interviews and data collected through participatory mapping. San Pedro San Miguel Number of households that have agricultural fields near riparian areas (% of households) 10/17 households (59%) 4/5 households (80%) Number of households that leave riparian buffer when creating agricultural fields in riparian areas (% of households) 9/18 households (50%) 5/5 households (100%) Average reported buffer 18.9 meters 32.5 meters Data from participatory mapping: Number of households that leave riparian buffer when creating agricultural fields in riparian areas (% of households) 11/18 households (61%) 4/5 households (80%) Proportion of individua l fields with a riparian buffer (% of fields) 15/22 (68%) 10/11 (91%) Average mapped buffer 45.6 meters 26.7 meters While households in both communities located some agricultural fields near surface water bodies, only about half of the households in San Pedro reported preserving a buffer of vegetation between their field and the nearest water body. H ouseholds in San Miguel, on the other hand, all reported leaving such a buffer, though participator y mapping revealed that this was usually, but not always, true. Interestingly, while more households in San Mi guel preserved riparian buffer zones, the average width of these zones was na rrower. And, while individual households in each community may possess knowledge or an ethic that leads them to prot ect these areas, this

PAGE 85

85 management system is not formalized in eith er community. This idea will be discussed in greater depth in the following chapter. One interesting point of similarity between these communities, and one that stands in contrast to previous findings (McClain and Cosso 2003) is that households do not appear to consider proximity to a water source when ma king decisions about where to plant their crops. However, it does appear that, more often than not, agricultural fields are created within 100 meters of a river or stream. Whether this location is due to soil characteristics or to issues relating to personal comfort (e .g., providing a nearby source of drinking water when farming) was not determined. Riparian areas are valued for different reasons in each community, In San Pedro, the general perception is that riparian areas serv e a clear ecological purpos e that of preventing erosion, maintaining the depth of the river channel. In San Mi guel, on the other hand, ecological function was secondary to the material goods provided by these areas. Finally, the communities were similar in their ap proach to dealing with household waste in that neither community regularly used surface wa ter bodies or riparian areas as a location for garbage disposal. And, while their systems for d ealing with human waste were different, neither of them involved preferentially siting toilets near water bodies.

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 5 NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE Thus far, this discussion has addressed natura l resource use at the in dividual or household level. Decisions about resource management, ho wever, often extend beyond the boundaries of the home. This is particularly relevant to water because it flows through ecosystems and communities and is thus a necessarily shared resource. It is, therefore, not uncommon for cooperative management systems to emerge around water resources (see Acheson 1987; Adger and Luttrell 2000; Berkes 1987; McGrath et al. 1993; Olsson and Fo lke 2001; Stocks 1987; Taylor 1987; White and Runge 1994). These syst ems can involve both water resources with natural boundaries, such as lakes, and more broadl y shared marine and rive r systems. Is this the case for the communities on the Acre River? Have interor intra-community management systems been developed in order to govern access to and use of aquatic and riparian resources? Ostrom (1990) has outlined the principles that make common property resource systems successful. These include an ownership arrangeme nt with management rules, clearly defined physical boundaries, sanctions to ensure complia nce, and conflict-reso lution mechanisms. The following sections will discuss the presence or ab sence of these features within the communities of San Pedro and San Miguel. It will also discuss communication between neighboring communities with regard to natural resource management, and how perceptions of upstreamdownstream connections influence deci sion-making at the household level. Intra-Community Management Systems San Pedro Management rules In order to promote a discussion of both form al and informal management systems, my interview employed a hierarchy of increasingly weaker types of agreements. The inquiry began

PAGE 87

87 with questions about the existen ce of formal limits on resource us e and the existence of a person (or group of people) that enforces those limits, pr oceeded to a review of informal agreements, and finally on to whether casual discussions about resource use occur. In addition, the context in which each of these discussions take pl ace, if they do, was explored. The community of San Pedro does not appear to have a formalized system for managing access to aquatic resources. When asked whether limits on the use of aquatic resources exist within the community, including limits on the quanti ty of items that could be harvested at once or the timing of resource use, 12 households responded that there were no such limits, three households responded that limits did exist, a nd six households did not know whether limits existed. However, of the three households that responded that limits ex isted, one identified the limits as originating from extern al sources including an interna tional law that governed fishing during the spawning season, national regulations that define the wi dth of riparian buffer that should be left on river banks, and restrictions to fishing during spawning s eason that are enforced by Brazils environmental enforcement agency, th e Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente (IBAMA). Another household refere nced laws implemented by the Bolivian National Agrarian Reform Institute (INRA) that delimit community boundaries, while the third household claimed that limits to resource use were self-imposed by each person in order to protect the populations of those resources. No househol d, then, referred to any local ru les governing resource use when asked this question. In fact, a number of households stated that there was no need for rules to govern resource use because households in San Pedr o do not exploit natural resources to a great extent and do not rely on fishing for survival. Furthermore, the resources that they do use are limited to quantities appr opriate for personal consumption. In terestingly, two households stated that Brazilian fishermen and hunter s represent a more serious threat to natural resources because

PAGE 88

88 they fish and hunt for commercial purposes and without regard to the pop ulation sizes of those resources. These households felt that there was li ttle they could do to limit the exploitation of aquatic resources by Brazilians because the river is equally shared by the two countries. As one informant stated The Brazilians [fish] frequently and no one can sa y anything because half the river is theirs and half is ours. And you can't say anything. I don't know how much, but they take a lot of fish. Big fish. It takes three people to lift them. Another informant expressed a feeling of pow erlessness with regard to illegal hunting mostly it is Brazilians that come here to hunt and it is them that exploit. We still don't have laws that prohibit those things. And we, as civil citizen s, can't say anything to the Brazilians. They're vengeful, the Brazilians, they're mean. For that reason, we don't get involved. We don't want problems with anyone. Whether or not communities have formal ru les governing resource use, there may be a sense that an individual or group of individua ls is managing access to natural resources in a de facto sense. When asked whether there was some one who controlled access to riparian and aquatic resources, 14 households stated that such a person did not exist, while seven households stated that someone did, in fact, control access to these resources. Much like in the previous responses, however, emphasis was placed on the role of external actors in resource management rather than on intra-community agreements Governing authorities included national governmental agencies, such as the Ministry of the Environment or the Forestry Superintendent; Bolivian military staff from the small military outpost located near the town; or Brazilian authorities, such as IBAMA or the Brazilian milita ry. According to these informants, agency or military staff occasionally conducted river patrols, but not with enough frequency to effectively control resource exploitation. Only one household stated that the community itself controlled access to resources, but it did not identify a single individual or group within the community that held management authority.

PAGE 89

89 In addition to a lack of formal rules regard ing resource use, San Pedro also lacks widely accepted informal rules. When asked whether informal agreements regarding the use or protection of aquatic resources existed within the community, 19 households stated that such agreements did not exist. Only two households stat ed that there were such agreements. Of these two households, one household felt that the comm unity members understood and abided by rules created at the level of the municipality, including prohibi tions on the disposal of household garbage and sewage in the river. This unders tanding was enhanced by conservation-oriented trainings that have been c onducted by non-governmental organi zations in the community. The second household stated that informal agreements sometimes arose in the context of community meetings There are talks Within the community. Ther e are times when there is a meeting and for a point of discussion someone says that in the time of making the chacos [agricultural fields], we shouldn't clear close to the shore. We have a goal of reforesting here because the river is eating the land up. Two other households stated that informal discussions occasionally occurred among community members regarding resource use. One of these households highlighted discussions that take place regarding restri cting deforestation near small streams so that water levels are maintained within the streams. The sec ond household, on the other hand, commented on the ineffectiveness of discussions about community-initiated resour ce management because of the resource exploitation that takes pl ace by people from outside the community Those kinds of talks exist, about not de stroying, but they don't function because our neighbors are those that cause the destruction of aquatic resources. What good does it do us, as Bolivians, to claim to protect but the ne ighbors don't? The problem is that there are people that enter and destroy. Riparian areas, similar to aquatic resources also lack a formal management system. Nineteen households stated that there were no agreements regarding th e use and protection of riparian areas within the community, while tw o households stated th at there were such

PAGE 90

90 agreements. However, each of these two households commented that while some community members discuss the protection of riparian areas, not everyone is of the same mindset and some community members continue to deforest thes e areas when clearing land for agricultural purposes. One respondent expressed the concern that agreements limiting the ways in which people can use their land might have a negative impact on individual rights The people that work in the field see the ar eas near streams as better and they make a house or put an animal there. If those laws are against that, the campesino will be affected. One part is the protection of the environmen t, the other is the rights of the campesino. Another respondent felt that there were not form al agreements, but did comment on discussions that take place when dealing with specific issues in riparian areas that affect the community as a whole self-control exists. Many times, there is a stream or a source of water that supplies various families. That small pond that we we re making [for the potable water]? Someone wanted to put an agricultural field there. In a meeting, we had to determine that he should not touch that part. Even though it was part of his property, the community was going to benefit from that pond so they stopped [the land clearing]. Ultimately, most households in San Pedro were in agreement that there are no formal rules or informal agreements that govern the use and pr otection of aquatic or ri parian resources. This seems to be partially because community members look to governmental bodies for rules regarding resource use. A common theme that ar ose during these discussions was that of the existence of rules and regulations for resource use and protection creat ed by external actors, including national, departmental, and municipal governments. In addition, a lack of enforcement was a concern given that officials from rule-mak ing bodies did not visit the community due to its distance from urban centers. In addition to affecting resource management, this pattern also exacerbates the sense of isolation fe lt by the community of San Pedro.

PAGE 91

91 Physical boundaries Although this topic was not included in th e semi-structured in terviews, personal observation indicates that physical boundaries that define the owne rship of the river, either by individuals or by the community as a whole, do not exist. Bounda ries defining riparian areas exist only to the extent that these areas fall within the agricultural lots used by community members. Sanctions The lack of formal rules for aquatic and ripa rian resources preclude s the development of locally enforced sanctions for unsustainable us es. Continuing with the theme of dependence on external actors for rules about resource management, three househol ds stated that sanctions could be imposed by institutions from outside of th e community, such as the forest and wildlife superintendencies. These inst itutions, however, only govern on ly terrestrial resources. In addition, because of the geographic isolation of the community, representatives from these institutions do not visit frequently en ough to adequately enforce national laws. No households identified any community-creat ed sanctions for households or individuals that violate informal resource management agreem ents. One informant stated that the small size of the population made such rules unnecessary, but was also concerned that with future population growth, such sanctions might become necessary. Another household felt that social pressure made sanctions untenable There aren't any sanctions. Here [referring to an agricultural field located directly adjacent to the river, without a riparian buffer z one], nobody said anything. And they get annoyed with the person who wants to take actions [against the landholder]. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms As stated above, the final component to a common property management system is a mechanism for the resolution of conflicts stemmi ng from unacceptable resource use. As a first

PAGE 92

92 step in determining whether this mechanism exis ts in San Pedro, I was curious about what types of conflicts are most common within the comm unity. If conflicts stemming from aquatic or riparian resource use are uncommon, there would be little need for the community to develop a conflict resolution mechanism for these issues. The most common type of intra-community conflict reported by households was that between individuals (n=7). This type of conflic t stemmed from personality conflicts or small misunderstandings. In second and third places (n=5 and n=4, respectively) were conflicts stemming from families looking out for their own social and economic interests rather than performing tasks for the good of the community, and from a general sense th at factions within the community cause it to function without un ity. These factions ran along various lines, including family, religion, and profession. Othe r sources of conflict included a lack of participation by some in commun ity projects, a lack of understa nding due to cultural difference between households from different regions of Bo livia, envy, corruption on the part of elected officials, a lack of infrastructural developmen t within the community ove r the long term, the outmigration of established households, and a failure on the part of indivi duals to contribute financially to the fulfillment of community n eeds, such as gas for the community water pump and repairs for the community-owned rice husker. During my field work, I observed two additiona l and ongoing conflicts. The first of these revolved around the fact that prio r to my arrival, the state gover nment had provided funds for the construction of six new houses in San Pedro that were intended to be given to families whose main income was generated through agricultu re. The actual allocati on of these houses to families, however, was not a transparent process and a number of families felt that they had been unjustly denied a new home due to being out of favor with the community authorities. Suspicion

PAGE 93

93 also arose from the fact that family members of the municipal mayor (a resident of San Pedro) were given two of the six available houses when others felt that there were equally, or more, needy families. The second ongoing conflict observed was over land owned (recall that no households hold individual land titles) by households whose members had le ft the community on a semipermanent basis. According to Bolivias agrarian reform law, if land is not put to productive use for a period of three months, it can be reclaimed by the community and redistributed to landless families. During my fieldwork, this issue arose w ith a household whose elderly patriarch had left the community, but whose land was being farmed by his middle-aged son because it was located closer to the urban center than the sons lot wa s. Various community me mbers objected to this informal transfer of use rights and wanted to re claim the fathers land fo r redistribution. Over the course of my fieldwork, this issue arose at va rious community meetings; each time, reclamation was successfully resisted by the son. This resi stance did not, however, prevent the issue from arising again because lots close to the urban cen ter are highly valued and thus watched carefully. According to the community members, this was not the first time that struggles over access to land had arisen in the community. In the communitys relatively short history, transfers of lot ownership had occurred a number of times. Interestingly, the conf lict surrounding the new houses was only identified by two households as a source of conflict while the issue surrounding access to land was not reported by any households as a source of conflict. This was surprising given that these issues were frequent topics of both cas ual conversation and community meetings. When asked how intra-community conflicts are resolved, most households stated that they are resolved in community meetings or through individual interactions. In my estimation, the

PAGE 94

94 mayor occasionally played a role in resolving co nflicts, though it was not clear whether this was his duty as mayor, despite the fact that his mayoral position was at the level of the municipality and thus gave him limited local authority, or whether he took on the responsibility as an individual and authoritative me mber of the community. No formalized process for resolving conflict within the community was revealed during the interviews. Only two households identified natural resource use as a point of conflict. The problems, they claimed, stem from Brazilians and Peruvians illegally entering the co mmunitys territory to hunt and log. As has been discussed previous ly, the community feels somewhat powerless to stop the invaders. However, no intra-community c onflicts over the use of aquatic or riparian resources were identified. There has, therefore, b een little need to establish a formal conflict resolution mechanism to deal with this type of problem. In conclusion, San Pedro lacks each of th e four elements that characterize common property management systems: management rules, clear physical boundaries, sanctions in case of rule violations, and a clear conf lict resolution mechanism. One can only conclude, therefore, that aquatic and riparian areas near the community are treated as open access resources, or in some cases as private resources if the areas fall w ithin the lots managed by individual households. San Miguel Management rules As in San Pedro, the community of San Migue l has not created mana gement rules for the use of aquatic resources. Four househ olds stated that use of aquatic and riparian resources is not limited by the community, while one household did not know whether limits to the use of aquatic and riparian resources existed. Ev ery household stated that the us e of both aquatic and riparian resources was determined individually based on subsistence needs. As one household stated Household #3 : We don't fish to catch a lot. Just a little, so we can eat for a day.

PAGE 95

95 Interviewer : So a limit isn't necessary because you don't catch much? HH3 : Yes. While some households based their harvest decisions only on the n eeds of the household, one household paired its subsistence needs with an awareness of the repr oductive needs of fish populations Household #4 : You can't catch a lot because sometimes they [go extinct]. Interviewer : So its a personal limit for you. You say Im only going to catch what I need to protect the fish so that th ere are always fish there? HH4 : Yes. I : But there isn't a limit that is impos ed by another person in the community? HH4 : There isn't one here. Unlike in San Pedro, there was little discussion of the responsibility of outside actors in resource management and the enforcement of mana gement rules. This can perhaps be attributed to the greater physical isolation of San Miguel, wh ich creates a barrier both to information flow about national resource laws and to the physical presence of agen cy officials. In addition, the language barrier that exists in San Miguel, wh ere most adults speak only Portuguese, creates additional difficulty for Bolivian officials. Rega rdless of the reason, the fact remains that the residents of San Miguel did not e xpect external actors to assume the responsibility for resource management to the same extent as did those of San Pedro. When asked whether a de facto manager of access to aquatic and riparian resources existed, despite the absence of formally establ ished limits to resource use, all households responded in the negative. In addition, no inform al agreements about aquatic and riparian resource use or water protection exist in the community. One household, however, stated that a talk on the protection of ripa rian areas was given by an out side group the previous month.

PAGE 96

96 Though the informant could not recall who was responsible, it was likely that it was the Fundacin Jose Manuel Pando, one of the environm ental NGOs based in Cobija that works on forest issues in Pando. In addition, my field assi stant informed me that previous trainings had also been provided by the RIPUI (Relevamiento de Informacin Sobre Potencialidades y Usos Integrales) project, a collaborative effort be tween the Universidad Amaznica de Pando and the Field Museum in Chicago. So, while agreements may not exist, the community does have some knowledge of riparian area protection. While widely practiced management agreements have not been established, one informant commented that informal discussions about pr otecting aquatic resources have occurred among individual community members. This informant recalled having discussions with three other households in the community about not trying to catch too many fish Household #4 : Sometimes, people talk that it isn't good to take a lot. You have to take a little. Interviewer : Who participates in those conversations ? Are they informal conversations or during community meetings? HH4 : Informal. I : Who have you talked to about those things? HH4 : [Households 1, 2 and 5] Interestingly, though perhaps not surprisingl y, given the greater dependence of households in San Miguel on terrestrial res ources than on aquatic resources for subsistence, more households recalled having discussions regard ing the protection of riparian resources. These conversations appear to have occurred in the context of workshops and during informal conversations both between and within households. These conversations appear to have resulted in an ethic of riparian area protection, as four households claimed that everyone was aware that riparian areas should remain forested when clearing land for ag ricultural fields. Though there is no consensus

PAGE 97

97 on the width of forest that shoul d be left standing in riparian areas, all households were in agreement that the protection of riparian areas was a common practice. The accuracy of this attitude is supported by the la nd use practices discussed in the previous chapter. Physical boundaries As in San Pedro, personal observation indi cates that physical boundaries defining the ownership of a section of river or riparian zone do not exis t. The community has a clearly defined terrestrial boundary on one si de, as it is directly adjacent to the boundary of the TCO. However, this boundary does not seem to influe nce natural resource management decisions. Households do not tend to farm la nd that is directly adjacent to the river, thus there is no informal ownership of riparian land in the same way that there is in San Pedro, where many lots are bounded on one side by the Acre River. Sanctions As in San Pedro, internal sanctions for uns ustainable resource use have not been developed, likely due to the fact that formalized rules for resource management do not exist. Unlike in San Pedro, however, households in Sa n Miguel made no reference to the role of external actors in enforcing national laws. Again, this is likely explained by the greater social, cultural and physical isolation of the community from mainstream Bolivia. Interestingly, the homogeneity of the commun ity is reflected in the response of one household to the question of what a potential sanc tion might be if someone violated a resource management agreement that had been created by the community Household #5 : Everyone is in agreement here Interviewer : But the question is, if everyone wasn't in agreement, what would happen? HH5 : Everyone is in agreement. That has never happened.

PAGE 98

98 Conflict Resolution Mechanisms As stated previously, the community of San Miguel has a small population and is strongly connected through a series of kin relations. Ther e is therefore little re adily observable conflict and little need to develop a comp licated structure for organizing activities within the community. As elaborated in the Bolivian Popular Partic ipation Law, San Miguel does have a governing body, with an elected president, vi ce president, and secretary/treasur er. It is not terribly active, however, and the elected representatives seem to defer to the de facto leader of the community, who is a member of one of the founding househ olds, for representation in local and regional meetings. When asked directly about the greatest sour ce of conflict in the community, only one household reported the existence of any conflic t, and that response was limited to some dissatisfaction with the capacity of the elected president to coordinate activities within the community and with an unequal work ethic am ong members of the community, which made cooperative agricultural wo rk problematic. All other households responded that conflicts did not exist within the community. Given the lack of a strong governing body and a minimum level of conflict, no formalized strategy for conflict resolution was identified by the residents of San Miguel. Rather, when conflicts arise, they are resolved by simply talk ing to each other in informal settings and during community meetings. For example, in addressing concerns about the contamination of a local water source by one household, the following strategy was presented Interviewer : Are there sanctions if someone breaks the rules? Do you talk to a person who, for example, deforests everything? Household #4 : I think so because there is a lot of illness. Don Martin, all have to protect the water, not throw garbage. We told him that it's not good to throw garbage [because it contaminates the water for Don Manuel.]

PAGE 99

99 I : What happens if he continues? HH4 : We could get sick from the water. I : What would you say to him? HH4 : We just talk about it [not in a meeting] And he says he'll control his family. I : So you resolve those problems through ta lking among the community members. If there's a problem, you talk and everything's ok? HH4 : Yes. Ultimately, as in San Pedro, San Miguel lacks formalized resource management rules, clear physical boundaries for the waterways in questi on, a system of sanctions for rule violations, and a formalized conflict resolu tion mechanism. It must be conc luded, therefore, that the water bodies surrounding the community are managed as open access resources and are not subject to a common property resource management system. The lack of a management system for aquatic and riparian resources in both communities has much do with the lack of dependence on th ese systems for subsistence. There is little motivation to manage natural resources that are no t critical to daily life. However, an additional explanatory factor could be that, cognitively, the problems with water quality that are of concern to these communities have very little to do with activities occurring in riparian areas. This idea will be expanded upon in the following chapter. Inter-Community Management Systems As just discussed, the communities of San Pe dro and San Miguel do not treat aquatic and riparian resources as common pr operty resources and therefore ha ve not developed a formalized system for managing their use. However, info rmal resource management discussions have occurred within each community, and it is possible that similar discussions have occurred at a broader scale among the communities located alo ng the Rio Acre. To this end, households in

PAGE 100

100 each community were asked about communication that has occurred with other communities located both upstream and downstream. In general, relationships between the comm unities along this short stretch of the Acre River appear to be good, if somewhat superficia l. In San Pedro, most households characterized the communitys relationship with Iapari and Assi s Brasil as beneficial to the community in that they communicate with each other about the provision of health serv ices and educational campaigns. Additionally, they each participate in each others community celebrations and soccer tournaments. Some concern was expres sed about San Pedros inability to provide reciprocal help to its Peruvian and Bolivian c ounterparts due to its lack of development. With regard to relationships between San Pedro and communities in the TCO, with the exception of a few comments regarding some pr ejudice against indigenous peoples, households in San Pedro characterized their relationshi ps with communities in the TCO as good. They reported that they traded visits to each others communities for soccer tournaments and community celebrations. A number of househol ds also commented on the development of personal relationships with residents of the TCO. However, one household reported difficulties caused by the language barrier, as many reside nts of Puerto Yaminahua speak only their indigenous language. Households in San Miguel ha d a slightly different perspective on the quality of their relationship with other communitie s along the river. While they characterized their relationship with the other community in the TCO, Puer to Yaminahua, as strong and involving frequent communication, it was clear that their relationship with upstr eam communities, including San Pedro, Assis Brasil and Iapari was weaker. While they occasionally traveled to San Pedro for community celebrations, this was not often the case with the other communities. Overall,

PAGE 101

101 households reported that communication was limite d with most communities other than their TCO neighbors. Despite the existence of friendly relationships, it does not appear that agreements regarding aquatic and riparian resources are being created at the microregional level, nor are regular discussions taking place. In San Pedro, when as ked whether agreements with other communities regarding the resource use or pr otection, 17 households stated th at they did not exist, one household said that agreements did exist, a nd two households did not know whether such agreements existed. The single household that felt th at agreements existed referred specifically to discussions that have occurred between resident s of San Pedro and residents of the neighboring communities of Assis Brasil and Iapari, Peru, but pointed out problems with enforcement of said agreements Household #12 : I think there are [agreements]. Ther e are agreements. For example, with Iapari and Assis Brasil, we talk about how we shouldn't throw certain things into the river. It harms everyone. Perhaps a Peruvian could throw something, garbage, and hurt a Bolivian, but at the same time they hurt their own people because their people are circulating over here. Interviewer : Do they follow the agreements? HH12 : I don't think that they follow them. It's hard because there are people who do it secretly. For example, there are times that a chicken dies. And instead of digging a hole, they throw it into the river secretly at night. Nobody can control that. Whether or not the agreement to which this household is referri ng has been formalized into an enforceable local regulation was not determ ined during this study. However, two additional households reported similar discussions with neighboring communities. One household stated that the residents of San Pedro ar e occasionally invited to particip ate in meetings held in Assis Brasil, but that their participation is limited to listening rather than making a substantive contribution. This informant also commented that he understood that discussions about environmental issues took place in Cobija, but th at residents from San Pedro did not attend those

PAGE 102

102 meetings or receive information from them The second household also reported attending meetings on environmental matters in Assis Brasil, during which the particip ants were given tips for keeping the river clean Mostly we hear from Brazil that they co me, invite us [to meetings] about ecology, maintaining clean rivers, not throwing garbag e into the river. Thr ough them, sometimes we do environmental preservation. Don't dirty the river, we don't contaminate, don't burn the forests. Finally, in San Pedro, one household specifically referred to the tri-national organizing effort in the MAP region and re ported that technical staff had vi sited the community to provide instruction on protecting the Acre River and its tributary streams That is what they are talking about with MAP. The three countries wa nt to enter into an agreement, how we can rescue [the Acre River]. The river is drying up, it won't serve anyone. The technicians from MAP came and talked about the environment and how to protect it. They talked about so me activities, like what do to with the garbage. But no one has done them. They talked specifically about ho w to protect the Rio Acre and the streams. During the course of the interview, one inform ant explained why these types of agreements did not exist or were not necessa ry. He stated that because the community is not composed of fishermen, but rather agriculturalists, the need to control the use of aquatic resources like fish was unnecessary, and that national laws for riparian zone protection, albeit widely ignored, were already in existence. This statement reflects a common perception in San Pedro that because most of the community relies on farming for s ubsistence and does not depend heavily on rivers and streams for the provision of goods and services, the management of these natural resources is not a high priority. This attitude was clearly present in many of the responses to other questions during the interview. Two important points emerge from the res ponses to this question. First, while the community of San Pedro is not in frequent communication with other communities in the area regarding natural resource issues, information is making its way to the community through the

PAGE 103

103 work of NGOs and other partners in the MA P effort. Second, albeit at a limited level, communication does occur between communities, whic h indicates that at least some community members are becoming familiar with issues of resource management and protection in this region and that relationships between communities are being formed. In San Miguel, responses to the question were quite similar. Every household reported that no inter-community agreements for resource ma nagement or protection existed. However, one household did recall having discussions about resource management with other indigenous communities in Brazil and Peru. Details of these discussions were not provided by the respondent, but my understanding was that these di scussions occurred at international meetings of indigenous peoples Household #4 : We talk about everything. Interviewer : What do you say about the protection of the water? HH4 : That you shouldn't throw garbage into the ri ver. That you should protect it. In Assis Brasil and [San Pedro de] Bolpebra, they throw garbage. That's not good. I : Do you also talk about deforestation? HH4 : Yes, that you shouldn't deforest b ecause... we talk about everything. I : Is everyone in agreement? HH4 : Yes. Other than this single hous ehold, all other households in San Miguel did not recall having participated in discussions about resource mana gement with other communities. However, as discussed above, some households recalled va rious workshops regard ing natural resource management (including the protection of riparian areas) that had been held in the community, likely by the Fundacin Jose Manuel Pando or resear chers with the RIPUI project. Thus, as in

PAGE 104

104 San Pedro, while information is not necessarily making its way between communities, at the very least it is arriving to the community. The lack of coordination between communitie s in the watershed with regard to the protection of aquatic and riparian resource protection begs the que stion of whether the research communities were aware of or concerned about th e impacts on them of the activities of upstream communities and, at the same ti me, aware of the impacts of their activities on downstream communities. In other words, were the hous eholds in these communities thinking about upstream-downstream connections and modifying their activities accordingly? In San Pedro, when asked whether they felt th at communities located upstream affected the water quality of the Acre River, ev ery household responded affirmatively.7 The most common concerns were sewage from Assis Brasil a nd Iapari (18 households), and garbage (11 households) and dead animals (8 households) bein g disposed of in the river (11 households). Other concerns included the impacts of cattle from upstream ranches (n=3), waste from the hospital in Iapari (n=2), agricultural activities that cause the river to fill w ith sediment (n=2), oil and gas pollution from outboard motors (n=2), gr ey water discharges from Assis Brasil (n=1), pollution from the cemetery in Iapari (n=1), the town dump in Iapari that occasionally floods (n=1), urine from livesto ck (n=1), and the poison Barbasco used in fishing (n=1). Interestingly, when asked whether they felt that activities in San Pedro affected the quality of the water used by downstream communities, the responses were more varied. Eleven households responded that they did not feel that Sa n Pedro affected the qual ity of waters flowing 7 The phrasing of this and the following ques tion was purposefully left vague in order to allow for responses that discu ssed activities that both improve d and degraded water quality. However, while no household provided a response that indicated that water quality was being intentionally protected by activities in upstream communities, some responses indicated that the protection of downstream water quality was a pu rposeful decision made by some households.

PAGE 105

105 downstream, while ten households responded that they did feel that San Pedro affected the water quality. The most common explanations for San Pedros lack of impact on water quality included the fact that sewage did not enter the river b ecause the community has no sewer system (n=8) and that community members made a point of not disposing of thei r garbage in the river (n=4). Other, less frequent, explanati ons included the burying of dead animals rather than throwing them in the river (n=2), the fact that the commun ity is located slightly inland and not directly on the banks of the river (n=1), and that the small scale agricu lture conducted in the community does not cause a significant amount of erosion (n=1). Ironically, in discussing San Pedros negative impact on wate r quality, an equal number of households (n=4) stated that one of the major problems is that households do dispose of their garbage in the river. Other common explanations of impacts on water quality included washing clothes in the river and nearby streams (n=3), disposing of dead animals in the river (n=2), cattle ranching (n=1), and bathing domestic animals in the river (n=1). O bviously, due to the size of the community, these impacts are relatively minor. Th e fact that community members are aware of them, and of the impacts of upstream communities on them, however, indicates that they at least some people are thinking about the upstream-downstr eam connections in a way that is critical if any future cooperative management of the basin is to occur. In San Miguel, responses were similar. Wh en asked whether they thought that upstream communities affected the water quality in San Miguel, three households responded affirmatively, and two households responded that they did not know whether upstream communities affected their water quality. The most common concerns in San Miguel mirrored those in San Pedro.

PAGE 106

106 These included the disposal of dead animals a nd garbage in the river (n=3, respectively) and sewage discharged by upstream communities (n=2). When asked whether they felt that activities in San Miguel affected th e quality of the water used by people who live downstream, only one hous ehold responded affirmatively. Interestingly, this was the only household in th e community that shared a str eam with another household. The head of household, therefore, was very aware that laundry soap made its way to the downstream household (though apparently this did not translate to concerns about human waste as this was the household discussed previously that had locat ed its designated bath room area on the bank of the stream). The households that did not feel th at activities in San Miguel affected downstream water quality stated that they onl y use the streams for bathing, which does not negatively affect water quality (n=1), that toilets were not located near the streams (n=2), that they do not dispose of garbage or dead animals in the river or stream s (n=1, respectivel y), and that they do not have nearby downstream neighbors to be concerned about (n=1). This last response was given by a household that was located both at a substantial distance inland from the river and from other households in the community, and therefore felt th at the water from his stream had sufficient time to dilute before reaching the Acre River. In summary, inter-community management sy stems have not been established along this stretch of the Acre River, nor are regular discus sions about aquatic or riparian resource use and protection occurring. This does not mean, howeve r, that no communication is taking place. At the very least, some discussions have occurr ed between communities and workshops have been held in both research communities regarding the protection of riparian areas. In addition, there appears to be an awareness of upstream-downstr eam connections in both communities. As might be expected, households in each community were more aware with how the activities of

PAGE 107

107 upstream activities were affecting them than w ith the potential impacts of their activities on communities downstream. However, among at least a few households in each community, some conscious decision-making about cont rolling certain activities, such as appropriate locations for waste disposal, appeared to be in effect. This level of consciousn ess could be important to future management activities in the watershed.

PAGE 108

108 CHAPTER 6 LOCAL PERCEPTIONS OF WATER QUALITY As demonstrated in the previous section, households in San Pedro and San Miguel have not developed community-based management sy stems for governing aquatic and riparian resource use, nor have these types of management systems emerged at the micro-regional level. In both cases, however, informal discussions about the protection of these resources do occasionally take place, which could eventua lly result in a more coordinated resource management system. The potential for this type of collective management will be discussed in more detail in the final chapter of this document. In Chapter 3, it was established that the re search communities are not as dependent upon aquatic and riparian resources as one might expect, given thei r geographic location in a waterrich area. This fact could partially explain the l ack of a need for formalized management systems to ensure that these resources are not overexploited. However, th e lack of systems for resource protection could also have to do with the fact th at, particularly with regard to riparian areas, households in these communities do not see local activities as having a major impact on water quality, nor do activities conducted in riparian areas by upstream communities seem to be of major concern. In other words, the ways in which riparian land is used ar e not strongly linked to concerns about water quality, thus reducing the perceived need fo r managing these areas. Rather, concerns about water quality focus on waste ge nerated by the increasing urbanization of the region, which creates water quality problems that are more difficult to manage through changes in activities at the individual or household leve l. The following section will highlight the most common concerns about water quality as re ported during the house hold interviews.

PAGE 109

109 San Pedro Public opinion in San Pedro is that the water quality in the Acre Ri ver is below acceptable standards. When asked whether they thought the Acre River was clean or dirty, every household unequivocally stated that they felt it was dirty, which explains why most households do not use it as a primary source of water for domestic use. Explanations for the poor water quality varied (Figure 6-1), but all were related to activities conducted by upstream communities. The pollution source of most concern was raw se wage (n=19), particularly that originating in urbanized areas like Assis Brasil and Iapari. A number of house holds mentioned pipes that discharge directly into the river. The use of the river as a place to dispose of garbage and dead domestic animals (n=12 and n=11, respectively) by upstream communities was also a concern, perhaps because these forms of pollution are highly visi ble as they are ca rried downstream. Other sources of pollution seemed to be of less concern, accounting for only a small proportion of the total responses. These include d oil and gas discharges from outboard boat motors (n=3); dead wild animals (n=2); and waste from the hospital, cemetery, and landfill in Iapari (n=2, n=1, and n=1, respectively). As illustrated in Figure 6-1, very few households reported concerns that linked la nd use with water quality. Two hous eholds reported that the river is dirtied by erosion due to riparian agriculture, and one house hold reported that agriculture has a negative effect on water quality but did not specify what that e ffect was. However, an equal number of households (n=2) re ported problems with turbidity and erosion that were not attributed to human land use, but rather to rain and naturally loose soils. Two additional households reported concerns with pollution from domestic activ ities (laundry, bathing, etc.) by upstream communities. In general, then, pollution that could be sourced to urban areas was of more concern than pollution from smaller commun ities or from the use of riparian areas for agricultural or ranching purposes.

PAGE 110

110 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%S e w a g e G a rb a g e D e a d d o m e s t i c a n i m a l s U p s tre a m c a t tl e r a n c h i n g O i l / g a s fr o m b o a ts D e a d w il d a n i m a ls H o s p i ta l w a s te T u r b i d ity ( e r o sio n fr o m a g ric u ltu r e ) P o p u l a tio n g r o w th F i s h b a it (m e a t) G re y w a te r fr o m B r a z i l I a p a ri c e m e ta r y B a r b a s c o I a p a ri l a n d fi ll D o m e s ti c a c ti v i tie s o n u p str e a m trib u ta r i e s U p s tre a m i n d i g e n o u s c o m m u n iti e s S o il fr o m e ro s i o n fro m r a i n ( n o t li n k e d to a g ric u lt u r e ) T u r b i d ity ( c a u s e u n s p e c i fie d ) A g r ic u ltu r e (e ffe c t u n s p e c i fie d ) W il d a n i m a l fe c e sSource of PollutionPercent of households San Pedro San Miguel Figure 6-1. Perceived sources of water pollution in San Pedro and San Miguel. Interestingly, when discussing the water quality in streams a nd springs near the community, most households felt that water from these sources was relativ ely clean. With regard to streams, 14 households felt that they were cl ean; two households felt th at they were cleaner than the river but not perfect; and two households did not know whether the streams were clean or did not answer the question. Only three households felt that the streams were dirty. This perception of cleanliness seemed to originate from the fact that there are few people living along the banks of smaller streams, therefore problem s with garbage, sewage and agriculture do not exist, and because the distance from source to mout h is generally much shorter in streams than in rivers, which reduces the opportunity for pollu tion. One household, however, pointed out that streams in the area are currently threatened with contamination from cattle ranching and agriculture. The few househol ds that felt that local streams were contaminated attributed this problem to the disposal of garbage in the st reams by people within the community, free-roaming

PAGE 111

111 domestic animals like pigs, organi c material from the forest, and to the fact that they did not know what activities were taking place upstream. Public opinion was slightly more split about water quality in the springs that the community uses for domestic purposes. Ten house holds felt that the springs were clean, while nine households felt that they were dirty and one household felt that some springs were clean (such as the one that the community uses for the potable water supply), while others were not as clean (such as the spring that some househol ds use for laundry and hand-collected water). Explanations for poor water quality in the sp rings focused almost exclusively on natural contaminants such as leaves, insects and other animals. While the prevailing opinion about the good wate r quality in the springs was that it was due to the fact that water was collected at the source and therefore did not have much opportunity to become contaminated, two households explained the good water quality by spontaneously referring to local agreements that prohibit deforestation around the most frequently used springs. One informant stated th at the community preserves a buffer of 80 meters around the closest spring, which is used for la undry and hand-collected domestic water. The same informant claimed that a 100-meter buffe r is maintained around a more distant spring, which supplies the community with its piped potable water. He stat ed that the community is in agreement about protecting those areas. The house hold that owns the land on which the distant spring is located was in agreement about the ru le for protecting the ar ea, though the informant reported a slightly narrower buffer zone of 50 meters Interviewer : Is that a community rule that you won't touch it? Household #29 : No, it's among us. It's not imposed by anyone because it doesn't befit us. I : And if someone wanted to cut the trees

PAGE 112

112 HH29 : In that case, sinc e I'm the one who works that land, I wouldn't do it, much less let anyone else touch it. If we defore st that, it would lose its natura l state. There is a risk that the water would lessen and lesse n and dry up. In the future, we could use a stream, but we would have water of perhaps lower quality. Interestingly, when asked about local rules fo r resource protection (as discussed in the last section), only one household noted that this agre ement existed, but characterized it as informal and discussed it in the context of the community putting a stop to the landowers desire to clear the area around the spring for agricultural purpo ses. These differing explanations call into question the extent to which this agreement is accepted by the community as a rule and the extent to which the rule is abided by. On the other hand, it does indicate that at least some community members consider the protection of areas around water sources to be necessary. In addition to exploring per ceptions of current water qual ity, the question of whether households felt that the water quality had changed since they arrived in the region, and whether they felt that it might change in the future also seemed relevant. This series of questions was intended to reveal whether the community was co ncerned enough about past changes and future threats to water quality to motivate them to pa rticipate in collective action to address these issues. Sixteen households stated that th ey felt that water quality had changed since their arrival to the community, four households stated that wate r quality had not change d, and one did not know due to the lack of scientific te sting. Of the 16 households that fe lt that water quality had changed, only two felt that it had improve d, stating that there is now le ss garbage in the river due to growing awareness of the negative impacts of this type of contamination. With the exception of one respondent who chose to discuss changes in water quantity as opposed to water quality, the remaining households felt that wa ter quality had deteriorated. Th e principle cause for concern appears to be population growth, as it is clos ely associated with gr eater amounts of sewage,

PAGE 113

113 garbage and other contaminants. Additional, albeit less frequently mentioned, causes of deterioration in water quality include increasi ng numbers of cars being washed in the river, agriculture, ranching, and a general growth in the accessibility of the regi on via the Transoceanic Highway. As mentioned above, some households al so expressed concern about changes in water quantity, stating that the river channel is becoming noticeably wider and shallower each year. This change is affecting the use of the river for transportation. As for the future, 12 households felt that wa ter quality would conti nue to change, three households did not think it would change, five households felt th at it might change, and one household did not know. Of those who thought that water quality would change, 11 households felt that it would worsen if the population of the area continued to grow and if there was not a method for increasing the awarene ss of the impacts of water cont amination, particularly on the parts of the more developed towns of Assis Br asil and Iapari. Additionally, concerns about water quantity were brought up by a few of hous eholds. On the other hand, one household felt that water quality could improve if an appropriate project was put into place. This was also the general consensus for those households who were undecided. While they felt that water quality would continue to worsen with population growth, the implementation of appropriate development projects, environmental educati on, and stronger laws re garding water pollution could counteract some of the current problems. Finally, because people tend to react most strongly when their personal welfare is threatened, informants were asked about health pr oblems that they have experienced as a result of water contamination. Seventeen households stat ed that at least one member of the household had heath problems associated with water cons umption or contact. Four households did not report problems. The most common ailments reported were mancha blanca (n=8), a skin

PAGE 114

114 condition that results in discolor ed patches of skin (Figure 6-2) and skin fungi (n=6) (Figure 63). Other reported problems included skin rashes (n=4), urinary tract inf ections (n=3), diarrhea (n=2), typhoid fever (n=1), stomach infec tions (n=1), and inte stinal worms (n=1). Figure 6-2. Mancha blanca a common skin problem attributed to contaminated river water in San Pedro. Figure 6-3. Fungus, a common skin problem attributed to contaminated river water in San Pedro. San Miguel As in San Pedro, public opinion in San Miguel is that the Acre River is contaminated. When asked whether they thought the river was clean or dirty, all households stated that they felt it was dirty. Again, most households do not use the river as a primary source of domestic water, preferring to construct their houses next to sma ller streams. Perceived sources of contamination were less varied than in San Pedro (see Fi gure 6-1), likely due to San Miguels location

PAGE 115

115 substantially downstream from Assis Brasil and Iapari, whic h shielded them from observing many of the effects of urban development that we re of concern further upstream in San Pedro. However, like in San Pedro, concerns about wate r contamination were not linked to the use of riparian areas. The most common sources of con cern were those that are highly visible: garbage and dead animals (n=4 and n=3, respectively). Sewa ge from Assis Brasil in particular was of concern to two households. With regard to local streams, all households felt that they were clean and, at the very least, were cleaner than the river. Three households stated that the only sour ce of contamination was when animal died upstream, while two other hous eholds felt that the streams were clean because there were no people living upstream to contam inate them with garbage. In addition, one household stated that the streams were only di rty when it rained, but did not attribute the turbidity to human activities that cr eate problems with erosion. Opinion in San Miguel was split regarding wh ether water quality had changed since their arrival to the region. Three households stated th at it had not changed, while two households felt that it had. However, in further exploring the re sponses of those two households, it became clear that they were referring to water quantity rather than water quality, stating that the river seems to be drying up. As for the future, four households stated th at they believed water quality would change. Interestingly, of these households, three thought that it could actually improve through public education, better regulations, and reducing defo restation. The fourth household, however, felt that the growing populations of Iapari, Assis Brasil and San Pe dro would create more pollution in the forms of garbage and sewage. The remain ing household felt that water quality would not

PAGE 116

116 change (meaning that it would not improve) unle ss a strong government existed in Assis Brasil that could prevent the pollution problem that is sure to occur as its population grows. As in San Pedro, households in San Miguel we re also asked about health problems that they associated with river water consumption or contact. Health pr oblems appear to be less of an issue in San Miguel than they we re in San Pedro. Only two house holds (out of five) reported health issues. One household reported skin rashes and the other reported fever, diarrhea, and headaches when the children played frequently in the river. Conclusion Ultimately, in both communities, there appears to be consensus that the Acre River is polluted to the extent that people often avoid using it for daily tasks like water collection, bathing, and laundry. Fortunately, each community has an alternate water supply, which most households are more confident is clean or, at the ve ry least, cleaner than the river. Due to this perception, very few households reported treating drinking water prior to consumption. Households in San Pedro that reported treating their drinking water preferre d to boil it, while households in San Miguel preferred the use of chlorine. Concerns about contamination are generally ti ed to problems with urban development in the region, rather than to uses of riparian land (such as agricu lture or cattle ranching). Most households feel that problems with water pollutio n will continue to increase, particularly as population centers grow due to better road access. Very few households discussed the existence of local environmental education programs that could serve to counteract the effects of this population growth. Health problems associated with water pollution do not seem to be serious in the sense that people feel their lives are th reatened, but they are common enough to warrant further investigation and a focus on providing potable water systems.

PAGE 117

117 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS Introduction At its base, my research is rooted in three fundamental questions. First, how do two culturally distinct Bolivian communities use aqua tic and riparian resources? Second, do local strategies for protecting these resources exist and, if they do, are they based in a common property management system? Finally, if collectiv e management is not currently taking place, do features favorable to collective action to protect these resources exist, namely dependence on the resource and group solidarity among residents of the watershed? Given the speed with which development is occurring in Acre, Brazil and Madre de Dios, Peru due to the paving of the Transoceanic Highw ay, these questions are extremely relevant to the communities living on the banks of the Acre River, as water qua lity is likely to be affected. Despite the rapid development of this regi on, however, it must be recognized that each department that composes this tri-national area is located on the periph ery of its respective country, far from centers of commerce, wealth, and political power. Mc Clain et al.s (2001) discussion about the challenges face d when attempting to protect wa ter quality in remote regions of the Amazon, discussed in the in troduction to this thesis, are ther efore highly applicable to the MAP region. In the absence of the money and political will to provide water treatme nt infrastructure and technical support, it is likely that for the forese eable future, water quality protection will be left in the hands of local users. Restricting the use of water bodi es for waste disposal and the protection of riparian areas ar e potential strategies for achieving this goal. The management structure under which protection co uld occur, ranging from ad hoc household strategies to microregional cooperative management, will depend on the factors discussed above. How dependent

PAGE 118

118 upon river resources are these communities, and do they conceptualize river resources in the same ways? What is the relationship of this depe ndence, or lack thereof, to the potential for conserving and managing these reso urces? Do local (or larger scal e) management systems for the protection of aquatic and riparian resources exist and, if so, what form have they taken? Are resource stocks clearly defined and have formal rules regarding the use of these resources been created and enforced? Are some potential user s excluded based on these rules? Or is the exploitation of aquatic and ripa rian resources uncontrolled, as it would be in an open-access system? Is there a sense of urgency with regard to protecting these resources for future use? Are concerns about water quality suffi ciently strong to motivate waters hed residents to take action? Does enough group solidarity exist, either within the research communities or among communities in the watershed, to facilitate collective action to manage these resources sustainably? The results of the research that attempted to answer these questions were presented in Chapters 4-6 of this thesis. Chapter 4 focused on the use of aquatic resources (with a focus on fishing practices and fish consumption), the concep tualization of aquatic a nd riparian resources, and the use and protection of riparian areas. Ch apter 5 investigated th e existence of governance structures under which the use of these resour ces occurs both within the research communities and among communities in the area. Finally, Chapte r 6 discussed current perceptions of water quality, perceived sources of po llution, and health problems that households have experienced as a result of contact or ingestion of contaminat ed river water. This discussion will attempt to weave together the results presented in these chapte rs in order to address each research objective.

PAGE 119

119 Revisiting the Research Objectives Use of River Resources As can be expected due to their location on th e banks of the Acre River, the communities of San Pedro and San Miguel both use river reso urces to a certain extent. These uses include fishing, transportation, water for limited domestic purposes such as bathing and laundry, and the use of riparian areas for agricu lture and the provision of trees and plants for household use. However, households in each of these communities also rely to a large extent on local streams and springs for drinking water, as these are considered to be cl eaner and, in the case of San Miguel, are located closer to each house. The extent to which these communities depend on river resources for daily survival, however, is considerably different. In San Pedr o, fishing is considered to be a recreational activity. Most residents fish a few times per year at most and do so because they enjoy the variety in their diet. On aver age, households reported eating approximately 41.5 kg of fish per year (including fish purchased from commercial fishermen), a quantity that constitutes only 9% of the major sources of animal protein consumed. In San Miguel, on the other hand, households report fishing much more frequently. According to a brief log of daily diets over an eight day period, fish constituted approximate ly 15% of their total animal pr otein intake (a total of only 2.5 kg for all three households surveyed, but it is impor tant to note that this was an atypical week due to the arrival of government -sponsored food as relief from flooding that had occurred earlier in the year). However, while the residents of San Miguel clearly fish more frequently and perhaps even consume more fish than residents of San Pedro, neither community relies on fish protein to the extent predicted by previous st udies of rural communities in the Amazon. McClain (1999) reported that rural Amazonian communitie s have an annual per capital fish consumption of 101 kg, while Pierret and Dourojeanni (1967) found that fish constituted 62% of animal

PAGE 120

120 protein consumed by people in rural areas of the Ucayali River basin in Peru. Fish consumption in my Bolivian research communities does not even begin to approach those figures. With regard to the other uses of river resour ces, the picture is mixed. Most houses in San Pedro are constructed of planed timber with tin roofs, thus eliminating the need for collecting cane and palms that grow in riparian areas While fruit, such as the palm fruit asa is occasionally harvested from trees growing in ripa rian areas, it does not constitute a critical element of households daily diet. There is also little to no familiarit y with aquatic plants. Though the use of these resources is minimal, ho wever, the results of the freelisting exercise indicate that individual s, particularly men, have some know ledge of animals, trees, fruits, and other plants that exist in riparian areas. On th e other hand, the value placed on riparian areas does not appear to include the use of these products. No households listed the provision of plants for consumption when asked about the importance of riparian areas, even th ough these plants (like asa ) are used on occasion. Additionally, households do not generally consume game species that populate riparian areas. Most hous eholds use the river as the primary location for bathing and laundry due to its proximity, though feelings abou t this use are mixed due to concerns about contamination. Finally, the rivers usefulness as a means of transportation is limited by the fact that few households own canoes. In San Miguel, both the freelists and intervie w questions about the perceived importance of riparian areas indicated that this community has more familiarity with these resources and tends to utilize them to a greater ex tent. Individual freelists of aqua tic and riparian resources were longer on average, and the content coincided w ith the value placed on riparian areas. For example, tree and fruit species were frequently listed, and the provision of plants for household consumption was the most valued aspect of ripa rian areas. Furthermore, houses are constructed

PAGE 121

121 out of cane and thatch, resources that households reported gatheri ng in riparian areas. On the other hand, as in San Pedro, there was no reported use of aquatic plants, and the transportation value of the river is limited, as no households own travel-quality canoes. Unlike in San Pedro, households rarely use the river for bathing and la undry, preferring instead to use smaller streams near their homes. While this is in part due to concerns about water quality in the Acre, it also likely has to do with the more conveni ent location of th e streams. Riparian areas are used in both communities fo r agricultural purposes, with a majority of fields located within 100 mete rs of a surface water body. However, given the fact that many of these water bodies are small streams, the extent to which the surrounding area can be considered to be part of the riparian zone is questionable. In general, prox imity to a riparian area does not appear to be a determining factor in the choice of crop location. That decision seemed to be more influenced by soil type than by perceived soil fertility. It was originally hypothesized that the indigenous community of San Miguel would utilize river resources to a greater extent than the co lonist community. While th is hypothesis appears to have been supported, the larger picture indicates that the de pendence on river resources for survival is not as strong in ei ther community as was expected. In general, households rely on alternative sources of drinki ng water and, in San Miguel, fo r domestic supply; depend upon protein sources other than fish to a large extent do not make extensive use of forest products found in riparian areas, and do not use the river for transportation to a large extent. This is not to say the Acre River is not important to these communities. The river clearly serves as a part, albeit a small one, of livelihood systems in each research community.

PAGE 122

122 Existing River Resource or Water Quality Protection Strategies As stated above, most agricultural fields in San Pedro and San Miguel are located within 100 meters of a surface water body. This situation creates an id eal setting for analyzing the maintenance of vegetation in riparian areas as a water quality protection strategy. Households in both communities reported ma intaining riparian buffers when creating agricultural fields. A larger pe rcentage of households in Sa n Miguel reported maintaining vegetation in these areas during the semi-structu red interviews (100%, as opposed to 50% in San Pedro), but participatory mappi ng revealed that 61% of households in San Pedro actually preserved a buffer on at least one of their fields while 80% of households in San Miguel did so. According to the participatory maps this practice resulted in the maintenance of a riparian buffer on 68% of fields in San Pedro and on 91% of fiel ds in San Miguel. Intere stingly, according to the participatory maps, the average width of ripari an buffers was considerably narrower in San Miguel than it was in San Pedro, a finding that mirrors the pattern encountered by McClain and Cosso (2003) in their study of water use am ong indigenous and colonist communities in the Peruvian Amazon. The reason for this differenc e was not determined by either McClain and Cossos study or by this one. It is clear that the preserva tion of riparian buffer zones be tween agricultural fields and surface water bodies is a strategi c decision on the part of the households who do so. Households in both communities had reasoned explanations fo r this practice, including providing shade in order to maintain water quantity and a cool temperature, preventing erosion, preserving soil moisture, preventing crop loss from flooding, and capturing ash from burned fields. On the other hand, in San Pedro, the cultural norm of cleaning an area by removing all vegetation from it for aesthetic reasons also exists, and is one of the reasons households choose to not leave riparian buffers. Another reason reported for not maintaini ng riparian buffers is to provide access to

PAGE 123

123 drinking water for cattle. This resu lts in an inverse relationship be tween field size and the width of riparian buffers in San Pedro. This issue could be an interesting hook for an education program regarding alternative pasture systems because it is likely to be increasingly relevant in the future as many households in San Pedro eventually hope to own cattle. In general, the importance of riparian areas is recognized by households in both communities, albeit for different reasons. In San Pedro, the ecological function of riparian areas was highly valued, while in San Miguel, households placed more value on the forest products located in these areas that could be used in the home for consum ption and construction. Regardless of the reason, the point remains that ri parian areas are understood to be critical parts of the river ecosystem, which bodes well for th eir long-term protecti on. And, as McClain and Cosso (2003) argue, this value system is an exce llent place to begin in terms of reinforcing good practices, implementing educati on programs about the ecosystem services provided by these areas, and strengthening the institutional framew ork for maintaining these practices. Although important, the protection of ripari an areas is only one strategy for the maintenance of good water quality in tropical areas. Another strate gy is the prevention of direct forms of pollution, such as sewage and solid wast e. In this aspect, households in San Pedro and San Miguel are extremely conscientious. Neither co mmunity disposes of waste either on the river banks or in the river itself, nor is sewage channe led to the river. However, while this may be the case in the research communities, it is probably not the case for the communities upstream based on accounts given by households in the San Pedr o and San Miguel. The contamination that reportedly flows downstream from Iapari and Assi s Brasil is a source of considerable concern to the research communities.

PAGE 124

124 Ultimately, the protection of natural res ources at the household level seems to be occurring to some degree in both communities. While it is not a perfect system in its implementation, there is a consciousness of th e importance of mainta ining good water quality and actions that can be taken at the local level that make this possible. As will be discussed below, however, the expansion of these principles to the community or micro-regional level in the form of a common property management system has yet to occur. Local Opinions of Water Quality As noted above, the general perception in bot h San Pedro and San Miguel is that water quality in Acre River is poor. While this pe rception does not prevent people from using it entirely, especially in San Pedro, it does limit th e amount of water contact that people are willing to have. Fortunately, both communities have acce ss to alternative sources of drinking water in the form of springs and streams, which are percei ved to be clean, or at least cleaner than the river. Major sources of pollution are thought to be tie d to the relatively urba n centers of Iapari and Assis Brasil. Garbage and sewa ge rank high on the list of con cerns, as does the disposal of dead animals in the river. It is conceivable that these are the issu es of most concern because they are the most visible. Only a few households in San Pedro, and none in San Miguel, identified sediment loads as a source of pollution. Of thes e, only two linked it to agricultural practices in riparian areas that have led to increased defo restation (and none identified other forms of agricultural pollution, such as fertilizers and pesticides, as a source of concern). This is an important point, as it could have implications fo r future approaches to watershed management. If households do not perceive er osion to be a major issue, they coul d be less likely to believe in the effectiveness of a management plan that focuse s on best management practices like preserving

PAGE 125

125 vegetation in riparian areas. To be effective, a management plan may need to address a wider spectrum of contamination sources. With regard to the direct effects of poor water quality, most households in San Pedro reported that at least one family member had e xperienced health problems as a result of contact or ingestion of river water. H ouseholds in San Miguel had experienced fewer health problems, likely due their downstream location, which allows for the dilution of contamination from Assis Brasil and Iapari. However, despite reports of health problems, only a small number of households reported treating drinki ng water before consumption. The most common technique in San Pedro was boiling, and in San Miguel was ch lorine. Ultimately, while health problems associated with contaminated water do not appear to be life threateni ng, they are a source of concern and should be addressed in any future management efforts in the watershed. Governance of Riparian and Aquatic Resources As stated above, despite the existence of house hold-level strategies fo r protecting riparian areas and conscious decisions to minimize the dir ect contamination of water bodies with garbage and sewage, these strategies have not coalesced in to a formalized management plan at either the community or the regional scale. The research pr esented in this thesis indicates that both San Pedro and San Miguel lack all four features th at define a functional common property resource regime an ownership arrangement with manage ment rules, clearly defined physical boundaries, sanctions to ensure compliance, and conf lict-resolution mechanisms (Ostrom 1990). In addition to the lack of a formal management system, informal agreements about resource management are also minimal. The onl y informal agreement that exists in either community, as revealed during the household interviews, is one cr eated by the residents of San Pedro that restricts deforestation around the co mmunitys drinking water springs. Whether this agreement is common knowledge is questionabl e, however, as only tw o households commented

PAGE 126

126 on it. Informal discussions about resource mana gement occasionally occur in both communities (more frequently in San Miguel) but generally take place between individuals rather than in a group setting. Some of these discussions seem to have been motivated by occasional trainings given by staff from the Fundacin Jose Manuel Pando and by community meetings organized by the Field Museums RIPUI project. One barrier to the creation of cooperative resource mana gement systems within the community of San Pedro, as expressed by a numbe r of households, is the inability to control access to those resources by individuals from Br azil and Peru. Residents of San Pedro question the point of attempting to manage the community s use of natural resources when they are unable to ensure that this management will have the intended effect due to forces beyond their control. While this is an obvious source of frustration for the community, it also speaks to the need for dialogue between residents of the countries in this tri-national area. As indicated by the results of my research, no attempts at coor dinating inter-community resource managements systems have occurred, despite a basic leve l of communication about other issues among communities along this stretch of the river and an awaren ess of upstream-downstream connections as they relate to water contamination. It was originally hypothesized th at the river and riparian areas would be conceptualized as open-access resources, rather than as commonpool resources. This hypothesis was supported by my research results, but perhaps for slightly different reasons than originally predicted. While the size of the watershed and the diversity of commun ities within it may be factors that limit the potential for cooperative resource management (t his idea will be discussed again below), an equally important factor that emerged from my research wa s the lack of dependence upon aquatic and riparian resources for daily survival. Given such a minimal level of dependence,

PAGE 127

127 there is little urgency to manage these resources in a cooperative way. Furthermore, the sources of pollution that are of most concern to the communities are extremely difficult to address through the kinds of local-level e fforts that are most viable in small communities. Raw sewage, large quantities of garbage, and hospital waste, just to name a fe w, are issues that perhaps can only be addressed through large financial investments in infras tructure, which are unlikely to occur in this region. From a more optimistic angl e, however, perhaps the fact that people are concerned with water quality and tend to have good relationships with other communities along the river could mean that some strategy for a ddressing these concerns might eventually be devised. Social Organization and the Potential for Future Collective Action This research objective is perhaps the most difficult to address because it calls for the researchers impressions of each community. Th e following discussion should therefore be read critically. Overall, it seems that the hypothesis that soci al organization within the community of San Miguel would be more likely to support future common property resource management than that in San Pedro is correct for three reasons. Firs t, as stated previousl y, every household in San Miguel is related to every other household by way of blood ties. This alon e creates a congenial atmosphere and residents claim that conflicts in the community are rare. As far as I could determine from my short stay in the community, this is an accurate statement. This lack of conflict does not apply to San Pedro. Only six of th e households in San Pedro are related; the rest are not. More importantly, the fact that the households that are re lated include the mayor and his family creates a tremendous amount of tension in the community, as other community members feel that they mayors family benefits dispr oportionately from opport unities provided by outside actors, such as the government and NGOs.

PAGE 128

128 Second, the level of socioeconomic stratification in Sa n Miguel is much less severe than in San Pedro. While differences in socioeconomic st atus are somewhat evident some homes have more material goods than others, some families have more children to support than others they are much more difficult to quantify than in San Pe dro, where it is easier to determine the wealth of each household based on consumer goods and the appearance of the home. Finally, while cooperative work for the benefit of the community occurs more frequently in San Pedro than in San Miguel, it is almost always a source of c onflict. There exists within the community a general feeling that community work is difficult to organize because people will not arrive on time, or at all, when the time to work comes. This distrust of fellow community members is an integral part of the social milie u in San Pedro and could have implications for attempts at some form of organized resour ce management. In San Miguel, on the other hand, cooperative work for the advancement of the comm unity rarely occurs, but households also seem to be willing to watch out for each other to a greater extent. The sharing of hunting catches, fish, and agricultural harvests is a common occurrence. In the end, San Miguel is a socially and ethnically homogenous community that, if motivated to do so, could likely establish and ab ide by communal rules. It is also likely the community will remain so in the future, as the pattern of expansion thus far seems to be based on kin relations. San Pedros population is more di verse, and conflicts based on socioeconomic status, access to land, and political corrupti on are relatively common. The implications for cooperative resource management are clear. In situ ations in which distrust exists and in which people cannot depend on each other to work for the benefit of everyone involved, cooperative resource management will be challenging.

PAGE 129

129 If an attempt at collective resource management were to occur, however, it is likely that the community council (the Organizacin Territorial de Base or OTB) in San Pedro could provide the institutional structure for establishing resour ce management rules or resolving conflicts over resource use. It is a relativel y strong organization within the community, as indicated by the good attendance at its meetings and the level of respect that its officers generate within the community. In San Miguel, on the other hand, the OT B is not an active organization. This leaves some question, therefore, about whether resource management decisions or conflict resolution could be accomplished through this organization. It is likely that a different institutional structure would be necessary in San Miguel. With regard to the potential for collective action at the regional le vel, it seems unlikely that this will spontaneously o ccur. While relationships between communities along this stretch of the Acre River were characterized as good, they are also somewhat superficial. Outside of the occasional meeting to discuss natural resource issu es (at a basic level) a nd health and education campaigns, attendance at community celebrations, a nd participation in soccer tournaments, there seems to be very little cooperation between th e community of San Pedr o and its Peruvian and Brazilian counterparts. This low level of contact applies to the communities within the TCO as well. San Miguel and Puerto Yaminahua are on fri endly terms, participate in the indigenous centers (CIPOAP) activities together, and attend each others celebrations, but do not seem to have organized beyond that. The situation is even more extreme between the communities at the tri-national border and communities in the TCO. Wh ile residents of San Pedro characterized their relationship with the communities in the TCO as good, particularly on an individual basis, residents of San Miguel did not feel that they had much comm unication with resident of San Pedro or with the other border communities. The lack of communication between these groups

PAGE 130

130 likely has to do with two factors. The first is simply geographic. The communities are located far enough away from each other to restrict frequent contact. The second is cultural. Not only are the residents of the TCO indigenous, and thus have a different lifestyle from the colonist communities, but they also do not speak Span ish, which limits the amount and quality of communication that can occur. Ul timately, there does not seem to be a shared identity among these groups as residents of the same watershed. The freelists and resulting non-metric multidimen sional scales also indicate that there is not a great deal of consensus about the resources that constitute the domain of river resources. Consensus was much stronger within the resear ch communities than between them. While this finding does not in and of itself negate the possibi lity of collective resource management, it does reflect a fundamental social hete rogeneity a different way of l ooking at the world that should be taken into consideration when evaluating th e potential for cooperativ e resource management or during the design of a wa tershed management plan. Ultimately, however, the largest barrier to colle ctive action at either the community or the watershed scale seems to be the l ack of motivation to pa rticipate in it. Wit hout a high level of dependence on aquatic and riparian resources to spark concern a bout the unsustainable use of these resources (if that is actually the case), there is little sense of urgency to engage in the time and labor intensive process of collective action. Regardless of these barriers to co llective action, it is a certainty that the trinational portion of the MAP region will continue to develop as the Transoceanic Highway attracts new settlers. This development may have implications for th e potential for collective watershed management. At the community level, it is my opinion th at development will discourage spontaneous collective action in San Pedro a nd San Miguel. The greatest concer ns of these communities with

PAGE 131

131 regard to water quality have to do with activities far beyond their control. They are dealing with water quality problems that are essen tially urban in origin, rather th an those that have to do with the land use and management. This creates a situ ation in which the communities lack the power to effect notable change. At the regional level, however, the picture may be brighter. As the trinational area urbanizes, water quality will likely become an increasingly important issue. This may stimulate discussions between communities in the watershed. Resolving large scale water quality problems requires large scale action. Final Thoughts By way of concluding, I would like to addr ess my final hypothesis which was that the more reliant people are upon river resources for th eir livelihoods (i.e., the larger the percentage of subsistence products acquired from the immediat e area), the greater will be their concern and willingness to participate in cooperative waters hed management. In the end, this hypothesis was neither proved or disproved by my researc h, but does deserve some comment. Without exception, all households interviewed expressed a willingness to participat e in and abide by the rules of a watershed management plan created with the input of the communities. For reasons discussed above, including a lack of dependence upon aquatic and ri parian resources, a sense of dependence on outside actors for the creation and implementation of environmental policies, and a lack of existing cooperative structures am ong the communities in the watershed, the likelihood that this kind of plan will emer ge spontaneously is slim. However, the fact remains that concerns about water quality exist and addressing those concerns while simultaneously addressing the protection of riparian areas may be a way to ach ieve local commitment to large-scale watershed management. With increasing road access to the MAP region and the accompanying population growth, water quality will only continue to deteriorat e. It is therefore critical that a coordinated effort at water quality protection be attempted.

PAGE 132

132 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL San Pedro Part 1. Family History 1. When did you arrive in San Pedro? 2. Where did you come from? 3. Why did you want to move here ? Why did you choose this place? 4. What is the story of your journey here? Part 2. Household Structure 1. During the community census that I conducted, y ou told me that ___ people live in this household. Is that correct? Do you have chil dren who dont live here? How many? Where do they live? 2. Do you have family members in other houses in this community? Which ones? How are you related? Part 3. Socioeconomic Indicators 1. What is your level of education? 2. What is your job/profession? 3. From what source does the majority of your annual income come? 4. What is your annual (or monthly/week ly) income? From what sources? 5. Do you have electricity? 6. Do you have running water at your house? 7. What types of appliances and electronics do you own? 8. Do you own livestock (cattle, pigs, chickens oxen, etc.)? How many of each? Are they for your own consumption or for selling? 9. Are you in debt to anyone/any organization? Part 4. Livelihood Systems 1. Freelisting: a. Tell me all of the resources that there are in the Acre River, the streams, and in riparian areas. Please be as specific as possible. b. How are those resources used? c. Of all the resources that you listed, wh ich do you personally use? How much of each do you use and for what purpose? d. Tell me about how you spend your day. 2. What food items do you purchase? 3. Do you own the land that this house is bu ilt on? How many hectares do you have in the urban area? 4. Do you own land in the monte (forest)? How many hectar es do you have? How many hectares do you use for agricultural purposes? 5. Do you own or have access to land along the ri ver or streams? If so, how many hectares? 6. When you farm or harvest timber, do you l eave a fringe of trees along the river or stream? If so, how many meters wide? 7. Tell me about your crops.

PAGE 133

133 a. What do you grow? How far from town are your fields? Where do you grow each crop? How do you decide where to put your chacos? Which products do you sell? b. Do you irrigate? If so, how? 8. Do you fish? If yes: a. How often? b. How (net or hook and line)? c. What types of fish do you catch? d. How many fish do you catch each day/week/year? e. How much fish do you eat each day? How mu ch of other kinds of meat do you eat each day? f. Do you own a boat? 9. How much time each day do you spend on or near the river/streams each day? 10. Where do you get your drinking wa ter and water for cooking? 11. How much water do you use each day? For what? 12. Do you treat your water before consumption? How? Part 5. Resource Governance 1. Is there a limit on the number of fish that you can catch or the quantit y of other aquatic or riparian resources that you can collect? 2. Does anyone control access to the river and streams and their resources? 3. Do you have any agreements within the comm unity regarding the us e of river resources or the protection of water quality? Where do the agreements come from? 4. Do you have any agreements with other communities regarding the use of river resources or the protection of water quality? Where do the agreements come from? 5. Are there agreements about riparian areas? Where do they come from? 6. What happens if someone doesnt follow the rules? 7. Do you think that communities upstream of San Pedro affect the water quality here? 8. Do you think that San Pedro affects th e water quality downstream from here? Part 6. Intraand Inter-Community Dynamics 1. If a stranger/outsider asks you wh ere you live, what do you tell them? 2. What values are most important in this community? 3. What types of conflicts or problems exist in this community? How are conflicts resolved? 4. What is the most important organization in this community? 5. What is the most effective organization in this community? 6. How would you characterize the relationships between San Pedro and other communities along the Acre River? Part 7. Water Quality and Resource Protection 1. Do you think the river water is clean or di rty? Why? What about the streams? Why? What about the springs? Why? 2. Has the quality of the water changed since you arrived in Sa n Pedro? If so, how? If not, why not? 3. Do you expect the quality of the water to change in the future? Why or why not? 4. Have you or has anyone in your family expe rienced health problems that you think are due to water contamination?

PAGE 134

134 5. Do you think riparian areas are import ant? If so, why? If not, why not? 6. What kinds of things do you do to protect the river and streams and their surrounding areas? 7. What do you do with your garbage? 8. Do you have a bathroom? Where does the human waste go? 9. Would you be willing to partic ipate in a watershed manageme nt plan that called for: a. Maintaining 100 meters of tree cover a nd vegetation along the river bank and 20 meters along streams? b. Planting trees along the river bank or allowing natural regrowth? San Miguel Part 1. Family History 1. How long have you lived in San Miguel? Ha ve you always lived where your house is now? 2. Where did you come from? Where were you born? 3. Why did you want to move here ? Why did you choose this place? 4. Where are you parents from? 5. Do you speak Machineri? Part 2. Household Structure 1. How many people live in this house? 2. What are their names and ages? 3. Do you have children who dont live here? Wh at are their names and ages? Where do they live? 4. Do you have family members in other houses in this community? Which ones? How are you related? 5. Where do your parents and siblings live? Part 3. Socioeconomic Indicators 1. What is your level of educa tion? Do you know how to read? 2. What is your job/profession? 3. From what source does the majority of your annual income come? 4. How much do you earn (or spend) in a month? 5. Do you have a radio? Bicycle? Flashlight? 6. Do you own livestock (cattle, pigs, chickens oxen, etc.)? How many of each? Are they for your own consumption or for selling? 7. Are you in debt to anyone/any organization? Part 4. Livelihood Systems 1. Freelisting: a. Tell me all of the resources that there are in the Acre River, the streams, and in riparian areas. Please be as specific as possible. b. How are those resources used? 2. What food items do you purchase? Where do you buy them?

PAGE 135

135 3. How many hectares of land do you use for agricultural purposes? a. What do you grow? b. Where do you grow each crop? c. How do you decide where to make your fields? Do you sell any of your products? d. Do you irrigate? If so, how? 4. Are your fields close to the river or streams? If so, how many meters border the water? 5. When you farm or harvest timber, do you l eave a fringe of trees along the river or stream? If so, how many meters wide? 6. Do you fish? If yes: a. How many times per week? b. Do you use a net or a hook and line? c. What types of fish do you catch? d. How many fish do you catch each time you go? e. Can you estimate how many kilos of fish you eat each day/week? 7. What other types of meat do you eat? Ho w much? How many times a week do you hunt? 8. How much time each day do you spend at your stream each day? At the river? 9. Where do you get your drinking wa ter and water for cooking? 10. How much water do you use each day for cooking? For washing dishes? 11. Do you treat your water before consumption? How? Part 5. Resource Governance 1. Is there a limit on the number of fish that you can catch or the quantit y of other aquatic or riparian resources that you can collect? 2. Does anyone control access to the river and streams and their resources? 3. Do you have any agreements within the comm unity regarding the us e of river resources or the protection of water quality? Where do the agreements come from? 4. Are there agreements about riparian areas? Where do they come from? 5. What happens when someone doesnt follow the rules? What do other community members do? 6. Do you have any agreements with other commun ities or people living along the banks of the river regarding the use of river resour ces or the protection of riparian areas? 7. Do you think that communities upstream of San Miguel affect the water quality here? 8. Do you think that the people here in San Mi guel do things that a ffect the water quality downstream from here? Part 6. Intraand Inter-Community Dynamics 1. Describe where San Miguel is located. 2. Do you feel that San Miguel is a community that works together to improve, or is it simply a group of relatives that live more separate lives? 3. What values are most important in this community? How is it a Machineri community? 4. Are there problems or conflicts in Sa n Miguel? How are conflicts resolved? 5. What kinds of organizations ex ist here? What is the most important organization in this community? 6. How are the relationships between San Miguel and the neighboring communities?

PAGE 136

136 Part 7. Water Quality and Resource Protection 1. Do you think the river water is clean or dirt y? Why? What about the streams? Why? 2. Has the quality of the water changed since you arrived in Sa n Pedro? If so, how? If not, why not? 3. Do you expect the quality of the water to change in the future? Why or why not? 4. Have you or has anyone in your family expe rienced health problems that you think are due to water contamination? 5. Do you think riparian areas are import ant? If so, why? If not, why not? 6. What kinds of things do you do to protect the river and streams and their surrounding areas? 7. What do you do with your garbage? 8. Do you have a bathroom? Where is it lo cated? Where does th e human waste go? 9. Would you be willing to partic ipate in a watershed manageme nt plan that called for: a. Maintaining 100 meters of tree cover a nd vegetation along the river bank and 20 meters along streams? b. Planting trees along the river bank or allowing natural regrowth?

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX B PARTICIPATORY MAPS Figure B-1. Participator y map of San Pedro.

PAGE 138

138 Figure B-2. Participatory map of San Miguel.

PAGE 139

139 LIST OF REFERENCES Acheson, James M. 1987 The Lobster Fiefs Revisited: Economic a nd Ecological Effects of Territoriality in Maine Lobster Fishing. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. B. McCa y and J.M. Acheson, eds. Pp. 37-65. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Adger, W. Neil and Luttrell, Cecilia 2000 Property Rights and the Utilisation of Wetlands. Ecological Economics 35:75-89. Alvarez, Nora L., and Lisa Naughton-Treves 2003 Linking National Agrarian Policy to De forestation in the Peruvian Amazon: A Case Study of Tambopata, 1986-1997. Ambio 32(4):269-274. Ankersen, Thomas T. and Thomas Ruppert 2006 Tierra y Libertad: The Social Func tion Doctrine and Land Reform in Latin America. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 19:69-120. Bardhan, Pranab and Jeff Dayton-Johnson 2002 Unequal Irrigators: Heterogeneity a nd Commons Management in Large-Scale Multivariate Research. In The Drama of the Commons. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich, and E. U. Weber, eds. Pp. 87-112. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Berkes, Fikret 1987 Common-Property Resource Management and Cree Indian Fisheris in Subarctic Canada. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. B. McCay and J.M. Acheson, eds. Pp. 66-91. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Bernard, H. Russell 2002 Research Methods in Anthropology: Qu alitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Faminow, Merle D. 1997 Spatial economics of local demand for cattle products in Amazon development. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 62:1-11. Fearnside, P.M. 1993 Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: Th e Effect of Population and Land Tenure. Ambio 22(8):537-545. Goulding, Michael, Ronaldo Bart hem, and Efrem Ferreira. 2003 The Smithsonian Atlas of the Amazon. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books.

PAGE 140

140 Guest, Greg 2003 Fishing Behavior and Decision-Maki ng in an Ecuadorian Community: A Scaled Approach. Human Ecology 31(4):611-644. Gwynne, Robert N. and Cristobal Kay 1999 Latin America Transformed: Changing Paradigms, Debates and Alternatives In Latin America Transformed: Globalization and Modernity. R. N. Gwynne and C. Kay, eds. Pp. 2-30. London: Arnold. Hall, Anthony 1997 Sustaining Amazonia: Grassroots Acti on for Productive Conservation. Manchester, NY: Manchester University Press. Hecht, Susanna and Alexander Cockburn 1990 The Fate of the Forest: Developers, De stroyers and Defenders of the Amazon. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Herbas, Monica Amparo 2000 Diagnstico Socioeconmico del No r Occidente de Pando TCO YaminahuaMachineri, Reserva de Vida Silves tre Tahuamanu. Universidad Amaznica de Pando, Centro de Investigacin y Preservacin de la Amazona. Hunt, Robert C. 1992 Equality and Equity in Irrigation Co mmunities. Paper presented at the Third Common Property Conference of the International Asso ciation for the Study of Common Property, Washington, D.C., September 17-20. Kainer, Karen A., Marianne. Schm ink, Arthur Cezar Pinheiro. Le ite, and Mrio Jorge da Silva Fadell 2003 Experiments in Forest-Based Devel opment in Western Amazonia. Society and Natural Resources 16(10):869-886 Kay, Cristobal 1998 Latin Americas Agrarian Reform: Lights and Shadows. Land Reform 2:8-31. Kelly, William 1983 Concepts in the Anthropological St udy of Irrigation. American Anthropologist 85:880-886. Kolavalli, Shashi and Jeffrey D. Brewer 1999 Facilitating User Participation in Irrig ation Management. Irri gation and Drainage Systems 13:249-273. Lansing, J.S. 1991 Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

PAGE 141

141 Lifschitz, Suzana F. 1994 The State of Acre: A Discussion of A lternative Development Strategies. Masters Thesis. Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia. Maher, Dennis 1979 Frontier Development Policy in Brazil: A Study of Amazonia. New York: Praeger Publishers. Malingreau, Jean-Paul and Compton J. Tucker 1988 Large-Scale Deforestation in the Sout heastern Amazon of Brazil. Ambio 17(1):4955. McClain, Michael E. 1999 Water Resources Management in the Amazon Basin: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities. Proceedings of the Intern ational Conference "Great Rivers-99", UNESCO. McClain, Michael E., Luis Miguel Aparicio, and Carlos A. Llerena 2001 Water Use and Protection in Rural Co mmunities of the Peruvian Amazon Basin. Water International 26:400-410. McClain, Michael E. and Rosa E. Cosso 2003 The Use of Riparian Environments in the Rural Peruvian Amazon. Environmental Conservation 30:242-248. McGrath, David G., Fabio de Castro, Celia Fu temma, Benedito Domingues de Amaral, and Juliana Calabria 1993 Fisheries and the Evolution of Re source Management on the Lower Amazon Floodplain. Human Ec ology 21(2):167-195. McKean, Margaret 2000 Common Property: What Is It, What Is It Good for, and What Makes It Work? In People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. C.C. Gibson, M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom, eds. Pp. 27-56. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Mitchell, William P. and David Guillet 1994 Irrigation at High Altitudes: The Social Organization of Water Control Systems in the Andes. Society for Latin American Anthropology Publication Series, 12. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association. Nemarundwe, Nontokozo and Michael Richards 2002 Participatory Methods for Exploring Livelihood Values Derived from Forests: Potential and Limitations. In Uncovering the Hidden Ha rvest: Valuation Methods for Woodland and Forest Resources. B.M. Campbell and M. K. Luckert, eds. Pp. 168-197. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

PAGE 142

142 Olsson, Per and Carl Folke 2001 Local Ecological Knowledge and In stitutional Dynamics for Ecosystem Management: A Study of Lake Racken Wa tershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4(2):85104. Ostrom, Elinor 1990 Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, Elinor and R. Gardner 1993 Coping with Asymmetries in the Co mmons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems Can Work. Journal of Economi c Perspectives 7(4):93-112. Pacheco, Pablo 2002 Deforestation and Forest De gradation in Lowland Bolivia. In Land Use and Deforestation in the Amazon. C. Wood and R. Porro, eds. Pp. 66-94. Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Petrzelka, Peggy and Michael M. Bell 2000 Rationality and Solidarities: The Social Organization of Common Property Resources in the Imdrhas Valley of Morocco. Human Organization 59(3):343352. Pierret, P.V. and M.J. Dourojeanni 1967 Importancia de la Caza para Alimentiacion Humana en el Curso Inferior del Rio Ucayali, Peru. Revista Forestal del Peru 1:10. Saravanan, V.S. 2002 Institutionalizing Community -Based Watershed Management in India: Elements of Institutional Sustainability. Water Science and Technology 45(11):113-124. Steelman, Toddi A. and Joann Carmin 1998 Common Property, Collective Interests, and Community Opposition to Locally Unwanted Land Uses. Society & Natural Resources 11(5):485-505. Stocks, Anthony 1987 Resource Management in an Amazon Varzea Lake Ecosystem: The Cocamilla Case. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. B. McCay and J.M. Acheson, eds. Pp. 108-120. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Taylor, Lawrence 1987 The River Would Run Red With Blood : Community and Common Property in an Irish Fishing Settlement. In The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources. B. Mc Cay and J.M. Acheson, eds. Pp. 290310. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

PAGE 143

143 Trawick, Paul 2001 The Moral Economy of Water: Equity and Antiquity in the Andean Commons. American Anthropologist 103(2):361-379. Urioste, Miguel 2003 Abandoned agrarian reform: Valleys and high plains. La Paz: Fundacin TIERRA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004 Water Resources Assessment of Boliv ia. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C. http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/ en/wra/Bolivia/FINAL %20BOLIVIA%20WRA%20C OMBINED%2013%20DEC%202004.pdf accessed May 12, 2007. White, T. Anderson and C. Ford Runge 1994 Common Property and Collective Action: Lessons from Cooperative Watershed Management in Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change 43(1):1-41.

PAGE 144

144 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Gabriela Stocks earned a B.A. with honors in anthropology from the University of Chicago in 1998. After graduation, she worked for a non-profit organization dedicated to river conservation for four years. She began her graduate studies in anthropology at the University of Florida in 2003 as an Alumni Fellow. Her academ ic and professional interests focus on water resource development in the tropics, a subject ar ea she will continue to study during her Ph.D. program in anthropology.