Content uploaded by Wendy R. Townsend
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wendy R. Townsend on Jun 28, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cofa
´n Indians’ monitoring of freshwater turtles
in Za
´balo, Ecuador
WENDY R. TOWNSEND
1,
*, RANDALL BORMAN A.
2
,
EDUARDO YIYOGUAJE
2
and LUIS MENDUA
2
1
The Field Museum, Chicago, Ill, Casilla 6266, Santa Cruz, Bolivia;
2
Cofa
´n Survival Fund, Domingo
Refingo, Quito, Ecuador; *Author for correspondence (e-mail: wtownsend@fieldmuseum.org; fax:
+591-3-355-6925)
Received 2 April 2004; accepted in revised form 18 October 2004
Key words: Amazon river turtles, Cofa
´n, Community-based monitoring, Ecuador, Freshwater
resources, Locally-based monitoring, Podocnemis expansa,Podocnemis unifilis,Za
´balo River
Abstract. The Cofa
´n Indians of Aguarico and Za
´balo Rivers in Ecuador in 1990 began a turtle
recuperation effort by raising turtle hatchlings (Podocnemis expansa and P. unifilis) in small pools.
To evaluate the effectiveness of this program, the Cofa
´n developed and tested three methods to
document changes in the populations of turtles. The first method consisted of interviews with
people from neighbouring communities about their perceptions of changes in turtle abundance.
The second method was a direct count of turtles observed along the rivers from canoe. The third
method was an indirect count, involving turtle nest censusing along community beaches. Two of the
methods yielded numerical, statistically positive turtle population trends. The turtle program has
influenced the community’s perception of turtle conservation issues so that, instead of hunting the
adults and eggs, they now protect them. The training in record-keeping permits them to make a
transparent history of the equitability of access to the turtle egg resource. The Cofa
´n monitoring
experience strengthened their successful petition to the Ecuadorian government for the rights to
manage their territorial lands within the Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve, and to receive protected area
status and management rights to other ancestral lands. The experience gained by the Za
´balo
monitors is now serving as a model for the design and implementation of the park monitoring
system of the newly-established Cofa
´n Park Ranger Corps, which will be patrolling three Ecu-
adorian Ecological Reserves which overlap Cofa
´n inhabited areas.
Introduction
Early explorers of the Amazon were astounded by the large populations of
Amazon river turtles, (Podocnemis expansa and P. unifilis), and often described
their pleasure at consuming the meat and eggs of these species (Medina 1934;
Smith 1974). These turtles also served as food reserves for riverine peoples such
as the Cofa
´n of the Aguarico River Basin of eastern Ecuador. The turtles were
captured alive and kept in corrals; and the eggs, an important source of fats in
an extremely low fat diet, were salted, dried, and used throughout the year.
Populations of these two species have declined dramatically over all of their
range, with the larger of the two, P. expansa, now close to extinction in the
Aguarico River (Velasco 1994), and the smaller P. unifilis declared vulnerable
by the IUCN (2003). Population declines stem from over-hunting of adults and
Biodiversity and Conservation (2005) 14:2743–2755 Springer 2005
DOI 10.1007/s10531-005-8410-1
eggs, an activity that accelerated with the influx of petroleum workers from
other parts of Ecuador to the Aguarico River basin. By the time the Cofa
´n
village of Za
´balo was established on the lower Aguarico River in 1979, neither
species of turtle was common. Shortly thereafter, the community began to
control turtle harvesting activities by its own initiative after suggestions from
conservation minded tourists and scientists. It was not until 1990 that, together
with a local conservation organization, they began a proactive program di-
rected at the recuperation of the populations of river turtles. The Cofa
´n began
with population monitoring, beach protection, and raising hatchlings in small
pools, a process called ‘head-starting’ (Acosta 1996).
The decline of freshwater turtles and other threatened species of wildlife in
Amazonia is difficult and costly to assess when research is limited to expedi-
tion-led monitoring because most remaining populations are far from aca-
demic centers. Monitoring by scientists can fail to include training of local
people or leave appropriate infrastructure behind so that the locals can con-
tinue the monitoring (Danielsen et al. 2003). In the scientific literature there are
few examples of environmental monitoring systems implemented by indigenous
communities (but see, Noss et al. 2005 (this issue)). While volunteer-based
monitoring of freshwater resources are undertaken in several northern coun-
tries (e.g., Bray and Schramm 2001; Fore et al. 2001), there are relatively few
documented examples of community-based monitoring of freshwater habitats
and wildlife populations from developing countries (see Andrianandrasana
et al. 2005 (this issue) for an example from Lac Alaotra, Madagascar). This
paper examines the freshwater turtle monitoring system of the Cofa
´n and
discusses the benefits from this monitoring activity for the Cofa
´n and for the
populations of river turtles.
Description of Za
´balo environment
The Cofa
´n village of Za
´balo was established at an elevation of about 250 msl,
on the banks of the Aguarico River, which is one of the main white water
Amazon tributaries draining the eastern Ecuadorian Andes (Figure 1; Sioli
1984; Prance 1978; Pires and Prance 1985). The surrounding vegetation in-
cludes both inundated and non-inundated tropical forest, with a dominance of
trees from the following families: Arecaceae, Mimosaceae, Moraceae, Caesal-
piniaceae, Lauracea, Myristicaceae; in their turn, lianas are represented in
particular by the Araceae, Loranthaceae and Polypodiaceae families (Cero
´n
1995). The upland forests grow predominantly along the ridges parallel to the
Aguarico behind the community. The village takes its name from the Za
´balo
River, a black-water river system (Sioli 1984) that enters the Aguarico River
about 1 km downstream from the community.
The aquatic environment of the Amazon river turtle is one of substantial
seasonal change. During the rainy season, the rivers overflow into the forest,
and the turtles disperse under the trees to compete with the large fish such as
2744
Colossoma sp., Myleus sp., Mylosommasp., Triportheus sp. and Brycon sp. for
the forest fruits, such as Mauritia flexuosa (Goulding 1985). When the dry
season arrives, the swamps and oxbow lakes begin to dry by as much as 6–8 m
(deVries et al. 1995), and the turtles return to the major watercourses to lay
their eggs on the newly exposed white water-beaches.
History of the Cofa
´n people
The Cofa
´n culture probably has its roots in proto-Chibchan hunters who
wandered down from the Colombian highlands near the present border of
Colombia and Ecuador (Borman 2001). The Cofa
´n were warriors, but they
were also traders, embarking on long and dangerous voyages down to the
Amazon River and back up its tributaries in search of cloth, salt, and sea shell
beads. They resisted the Spanish settlers with a ferocity that culminated in the
burning of the town of Mocoa and the siege of Pasto in what is now southern
Colombia. Every campaign aimed at subduing the Cofa
´n ended in defeat until
1602, when a Jesuit priest, Rafael Ferrer, made peaceful contact with the
Aguarico Cofa
´n (Gonzalez 1982).
In more recent times, the Cofa
´n have witnessed the effects of poor envi-
ronmental protection controls by oil companies and have fought to remain free
from contamination by oil extraction activities. To this day, no damages have
been paid for the pollution from two oil wells that operated within the Cofa
´n
territory until the Cofa
´n forced the oil companies to abandon them. The Cofa
´n
Figure 1. Location of freshwater turtle census areas in the Cofa
´n sector of the Cuyabeno Wildlife
Reserve, Za
´balo, Ecuador.
2745
have also watched the influx of settlers into their territory, with subsequent
forest destruction, wildlife over-hunting, poisoning of streams, and other
negative consequences. Extensive agricultural activities have turned a once
productive forest into a landscape of poor farms, with only scraps of forest
remaining outside the limits of Cofa
´n territories. Satellite imagery of the area
shows that the Dureno Cofa
´n territory is the only native forest left for kilo-
meters around (Pitman et al. 2002).
At present, the Cofa
´n people are represented by seven communities in
Ecuador, with a total of about 1000 people. In addition, an unknown number
live in Colombia, where there are at least four culturally intact communities
and several other groups in various states of acculturation. In Ecuador, the
Cofa
´n generally understand rudimentary Spanish, although the majority can-
not express themselves comfortably in that language. Education is state-run
and available in the communities until about third or fourth grade, but the
Fundacio
´n Sobrevivencia Cofa
´n has arranged high school opportunities for
some Cofa
´n students in Quito, and one student is completing high school in the
USA. Education is considered an important survival strategy for the Cofa
´n.
In the face of the negative environmental impacts during the late 1970’s and
early 1980’s, Cofa
´n from many communities, with a predominance of people
from Dureno, decided to move farther down the Aguarico River to a tradi-
tional summering ground. The new community became known as Za
´balo
(021¢N and 7540¢W). There the Cofa
´n people subsist by gardening, pro-
ducing plantains, bananas, and manioc, and supplementing their diet by
hunting and fishing. Cash is earned through guiding tourists, folk crafts sales,
and wage labour.
Freshwater turtle management
By the time Za
´balo was established, the river had already been affected by oil
exploitation, and the turtle populations had been reduced by commercial egg
harvesting. Since the 1970’s, when the Cofa
´n formed their own tourism busi-
ness, their contact with conservationists has stimulated local awareness of these
issues. Cofa
´n concern for the diminishing turtle population moved them to ban
hunting of adult turtles, in the hope that population trends would reverse and
they could once again use the resource. During the 1980’s the Cofa
´n joined a
collaborative effort for turtle management with local NGO’s and in 1990, the
Cofa
´n formed a research alliance with an Ecuadorian university (La Catolica),
and with the Fundacio
´n Herpetolo
´gica Gustavo Orces operators of the
Vivarium of Quito. Their early evaluations suggested there remained only a
small nesting populations of P. unifilis and almost no P. expansa (Velasco 1994,
1995) in the area of Za
´balo.
As a result of this collaboration, a complete ban on the hunting of adult
turtles was established by community initiative. A reduction of the egg harvest
was stimulated by monetary incentives to produce hatchlings ($0.25 each)
2746
destined for a community ‘head-starting’ program. This program provides for
the purchase of hatchlings that are maintained in pools for a year. By this time
they are large enough to escape from most predators (Acosta 1996). It soon
became important to the Cofa
´n to evaluate the results of the ‘head-starting’
program. In 1998, The Field Museum of Chicago formed a partnership with
the Cofa
´n as a part of its Environmental and Conservation Programs, and
provided technical guidance to facilitate the development, together with Cofa
´n,
of a systematic method of monitoring the turtle population. From that year
forward, the Cofa
´n have recorded all nests on the community-controlled
beaches. In 1999, a visual turtle census was initiated with five Cofa
´n monitors
recording turtle sightings along the parts of the Aguarico and Za
´balo rivers
under Cofa
´n control.
Freshwater turtle monitoring methods
The Cofa
´n were enthusiastic assistants for the early studies by Velasco (1994,
1995). They began their own experiments with growing turtle hatchlings in
old canoes. The new partnership with The Field Museum promoted greater
participation in the research by the Cofa
´n and provided scientific advice on
design and analysis, as well as funding allowances for Cofa
´n monitors ($100/
month) and coordinators ($150/month), and the economic incentives for the
hatchling program. Cofa
´n monitors and coordinators collect the data, are
taught to enter data into computers, participate in the analysis and design of
their programs, and present the results to the community for decisions
affecting the turtle harvest.
The objective of the monitoring is to assess the size of the turtle population
and to document population trends that could result from Cofa
´n turtle
conservation efforts. To this end, the Cofa
´n experimented with three methods:
interviews with local people from other communities, a turtle census along the
river; and an indirect method to assess the turtle population by counting
turtle nests on the community controlled beaches. The indirect method is
based on the fact that each adult female lays only one clutch per year
(Hildebrand et al. 1988). Each of these methods is described briefly below and
in Table 1.
The first method involved 20 interviews with neighbouring colonists and
other indigenous people undertaken by a professional anthropologist and two
Cofa
´n coordinators. These interviews were based on a semi-structured inter-
view guide and focused on documenting perceptions about recent river turtle
population trends.
The second method comprised turtle visual census which was undertaken
every 10–14 days by five Cofa
´n monitors paddling in small canoes from which
they counted the number of turtles they observed. On sunny days the river
turtles, mostly P. unifilis, haul themselves out of the water to bask on over-
hanging tree branches. Monitors count them in three size categories and also
2747
Table 1. Comparison of methods used for monitoring freshwater turtle populations in the Cofana
´n territory of Za
´balo, Ecuador.
Field method Formal and non-formal interviews River census. Paddling along river
counting basking turtles
Nest monitoring. Censusing, marking
and following of turtle nests
Who compiles data Anthropologist and Cofa
´n coordinators Cofa
´n monitors and Cofa
´n
coordinators
Cofa
´n monitors and community members
Who analyses data Anthropologist Scientists Cofa
´n monitors
Population estimate Qualitative estimates only (‘more
turtles seen than previously’)
Quantitative estimates (Table 2) Quantitative estimates (Figure 2)
Limitations Information is not objective Results depend on weather and
availability of log jams for basking
Exact boundary of census area unknown
Frequency of data
collection
Occasionally 2–3 times per month all year Daily during turtle nesting and hatching
seasons (4 months/year)
Costs Limited costs, except for time and gasoline $12,000/year (2003) Hatchling incentive $2000/year (2003)
Recommendations Expand the scope of the interview to include
socio-economic data
Reduce sampling period
to dry season
Expand nest monitoring to neighbouring
communities
Extra benefits Improved awareness among Cofa
´non
turtle conservation; strengthened inter-
community alliances
Data on turtle habitat use and other
valuable ecological information
Increased community involvement in
resource management and conservation
2748
report on the relative height of the river. The information is entered on Excel
spreadsheets and basic analysis is performed using Excel version XP. Since
these repeated efforts are ‘true’ counts over a known area (the turtles do not
live away from the water), we can consider the maximum counts as being
minimum estimates of the turtles in the river.
The third method, counting the number of turtle nests on the community
beaches, was an indirect tool for recording change in the turtle population. By
carefully searching the nesting beaches, community members identify P. unifilis
nests, which are marked and credited to the finder. These nests are followed
until hatching occurs, whereby the finder receives a small compensation for
each hatchling ($0.25). These young turtles are then transferred to pools where
they are fed the entire year, and then released into local oxbow lakes. In recent
years, as the number of nests has increased, some nests have been harvested by
community members for consumption. This decision is freely made, but the
user forgoes the economic incentive of selling the hatchlings to the program.
During a community meeting, Cofa
´n families are assigned specific days to
search for nests on specific beaches. If they find a nest, they can choose whether
to harvest the eggs or protect them for the hatchlings and receive the economic
incentive. The nest searcher may also decide to harvest the eggs instead of
risking their loss from flooding. The number of nests harvested, the number of
eggs in each nest, and the beach where they were found are all reported by the
nest finder to the monitors. The Cofa
´n coordinator gathers the information
from the different monitors into a single report which is analyzed with M.S.
Excel. The hatchling incentives are distributed by the coordinators.
Six monitors and two coordinators are presently paid through donations
from conservation foundations. In the beginning, the project cost as little as
$2000 per year to operate; currently, the paid monitors raise expenses to about
$12,000. In addition, The Field Museum has purchased computers and mem-
brane liners for turtle pools. The full-time monitoring costs could not be met
without external economic inputs. The monitors presently census 10 days per
month and coordinators tend turtle hatchlings daily. During the turtle nesting
season from October–March, beach monitoring and protection tasks increase
the monitors’ and coordinators’ time commitment at least two-fold.
Results
The results of all three community-based monitoring methods suggest that the
populations of freshwater turtle P. unifilis are increasing in the Za
´balo area.
The methods varied from each other with respect to their usefulness and to the
type of data they generated (Table 1).
The least effective method for evaluating the freshwater turtle population
was the interviews of neighbours about their perception of population trends.
Although the interviewers received prior training and practice in interviewing
skills, and interviews were done with the support of a professional
2749
anthropologist, interviewees had difficulty answering the questions about the
turtle population trends. The method was abandoned after 20 interviews
because it was also costly in terms of time and gasoline. The main benefit of
this method was the basic communication skills obtained by the Cofa
´n
coordinators from the anthropologist’s training. The coordinators also had the
opportunity to share their experiences in turtle conservation with others with
their newly learned Spanish terminology. However, they were generally
uncomfortable with the task, being insecure about their Spanish language
skills. Although the interview method proved imprecise as a population
monitoring tool, experiences from other areas (e.g., van Rijsoort and Jinfeng
2005 (this issue)) suggest that this method can yield useful information on
perceived population trends of wildlife. The immediate benefit of the inter-
viewing effort in Za
´balo was a strengthened alliance with two neighbouring
communities which led to extension of the freshwater turtle recuperation
programme to their areas of the rivers.
The river census provided numerical data on turtle population which indi-
cate a significant increase in the numbers of P. unifilis in the Za
´balo area
(Pearsons’ correlation, p< 0.05; Table 2). Since these figures are maximum
counts for the 28 km of the Aguarico River and about 20 km of the Za
´balo
River, the highest numbers each year or month could be considered as a
minimum figure for the turtle population. This field method is straightforward
for the Cofa
´n to use, but the data were difficult to interpret because the figures
varied substantially from month to month. The Cofa
´n monitors gained con-
siderable experience from the turtle river censuses. The variations in numbers
have stimulated discussions about adjusting the census periodicity to focus
only on the dry season when more sunning logs are exposed, and turtle sunning
Table 2. Number of Amazon river turtles (Podocnemis expansa and P. unifilis) sighted during the
Cofa
´n Indians’ turtle monitoring of the Aguarico and Za
´balo rivers, Ecuador, January 1999–April
2003.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Aguarico
1999 12 140 63 70 43 82 83 50 158 98 115 5
2000 94 77 20 56 80 31 37
2001 196 111 38 115 45 99 96 186 84 83 111
2002 136 196 157 82 69 107 108 108 140 136 127 147
2003 121 190 138 73
r= 0.8779, df = 3, p< 0.05
Za
´balo
1999 75 30 158 90 62 62 97 200 50 75 105
2000 51 156 60 31 35 60
2001 115 261 212 138 159 291 222 225 267 199
2002 207 172 160 99 258 140 178 178 146 174 161
2003 200 277 411 258
r= 0.8747, df = 3, p< 0.05
2750
behaviour is at its maximum prior to egg laying (Hildebrand et al. 1988).
Monitoring costs could then be reduced while the method could still provide
other social benefits like patrolling the rivers for turtle poachers and potential
intruders to the territory of the Cofa
´n. Territorial protection is particularly
important during the turtle nesting season to keep outsiders from pilfering the
marked nests on the beaches.
The river census of turtles fits into what the Cofa
´n like to do and do well:
navigate rivers and find the best turtle sunning areas. This local experience and
ability to paddle small canoes increased the efficiency of the monitors in sys-
tematically recording turtle sightings into notebooks.
The third monitoring method provided data on the number of turtle nests on
the communal beaches. The findings from this method suggested a significant
increase in the nesting population of P. unifilis on the Za
´balo beaches (Pearson
Correlation: r= 0.94011, df = 3, p< 0.05), Figure 2. This method requires
full-time attention for half of the year, during the turtle nesting season from
late October until early March. The method is culturally relevant to the Cofa
´n
because they traditionally searched for turtle eggs as a food source. The
method encourages participation of all segments of the Za
´balo community
because the hatchling incentives are distributed to all the Cofa
´n families in-
volved. For the participants in the nest identification and hatchling registry,
turtles have taken on an important new economic value from which they
benefit directly. By identifying the nests on their beaches, the Cofa
´n get a fairly
direct understanding of the turtle population trends and can adapt the man-
agement and adjust their harvesting behaviour accordingly. In parallel with
monitoring the fate of the nests, the Cofa
´n have rescued 100 of eggs that would
have normally been lost to flooding. This experience suggests a change in
Cofa
´n awareness of conservation; prior to the establishment of the turtle
program, finding but not collecting eggs would never have been considered.
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
700
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
Cohort
NUMBER OF NEST
Figure 2. Number of nests of Amazon river turtle Podocnemis unifilis on the communal beaches of
Za
´balo, Aguarico River, Ecuador, 1998–2003, based on counts made by the Cofa
´n Indians.
2751
However, the real test of this will come when the conservation incentives are
stopped.
Discussion
In the 1980s, the Cofa
´n joined with national and international academic
institutions and conservation organizations who are vocal stakeholders in
freshwater turtle conservation. As a result of this alliance they began the
present turtle recuperation effort. The increase in the local nesting population
of the vulnerable species P. unifilis may reflect female migration into the area,
especially since the beaches of the Cofa
´n Territory of Za
´balo are now protected
and thus left undisturbed during the nesting season. On the other hand, the
rapid increase in number of nests that occurred from 1999 to 2000 (see Fig-
ure 2) was made up of small clutches (unpublished data), suggesting that the
eggs were laid by young females (Hildebrand et al. 1988). The increase in the
population may therefore be a direct result of the head-starting activities ini-
tiated 7 years earlier (Velasco 1994, 1995), especially since it coincides with the
age of sexual maturation for the species.
Aside from important census results achieved through the Cofa
´n monitoring
efforts, the program also raised awareness of freshwater turtle conservation
issues among the Za
´balo community. A complete ban on the killing of adult
turtles has been introduced, and access to eggs is now controlled. The ban has
been effective for over 10 years so that a generation of Cofa
´n children do not
now consider turtle meat edible. Nest counting has permitted a mechanism for
equitably dividing access to the limited resource of turtle eggs. Because this
system is culturally relevant, it is becoming an accepted community responsi-
bility, with sanctions and fines applied to those who do not comply with the
turtle bans and egg hunting schedules. Nests have only been harvested after
their numbers began to increase in 2001. The financial incentive for producing
hatchlings may be a factor in the recuperation of the nesting populations. We
therefore suggest that this very low cost ($2000/year) incentive system be
supported by conservation organizations until the freshwater turtle popula-
tions have further recuperated.
Training in specific observation techniques such as the proper use of bin-
oculars has helped monitors improve their accuracy in reporting and distance
estimating. It is to be expected that the precision of the turtle counts will
increase with the improved observation skills. The Cofa
´n have learned skills
that have allowed them to prove their abilities before the Ecuadorean Envi-
ronmental Ministry and obtain management rights over their territories when
these overlap with ecological reserves. Along with the responsibility of man-
agement of their territories comes the implementation of a Cofa
´n Park Ranger
program that is following examples and experiences from the Za
´balo fresh-
water turtle monitoring system in the design of a coordinated monitoring
system for the three protected areas under Cofa
´n management. The park
2752
ranger monitoring program uses simple, low cost techniques with minimum
equipment and a schedule that can be locally implemented without having to
wait for an outside expert to oversee the project. The Cofa
´n Park Rangers will
eventually be responsible for the freshwater turtle monitoring, especially if
outside funding for a specific turtle project becomes a limitation.
The Cofa
´n have proven to be capable environmental monitors. By recording
their observations in a rigorous manner, they obtained useful estimates of the
turtle population and reproduction in the Za
´balo area. An academic moni-
toring team might obtain a more precise population estimate, but Cofa
´n
monitoring was able to cover more area and more seasons. For the price of five
years of Cofa
´n monitoring ($60,000), perhaps one academic expedition could
have taken place to undertake a one-time assessment. The Cofa
´n contribution
to the scientific knowledge of P. unifilis is already substantial (Mendua et al.
2004; Yiyoguaje et al. 2004). There is still considerable research needed for
efficient management of these vulnerable freshwater turtles. It is necessary to
understand survival and migration rates as well as other ecological questions
on diet and reproduction. Most future research questions on Amazonian river
turtles will require more sophisticated tracking equipment, but the Cofa
´n are
willing to expand their experience.
The overall incentive for the Cofa
´n to develop and engage in these various
conservation measures is complex and stems mainly from their experience with
oil contamination in their communities, encroaching colonization of their
territories, and an overall degradation of the forests of the Aguarico River
Basin. Since 1964, when the oil companies began their operations, the Cofa
´n
have seen graphic examples of what western development has to offer. In
contrast, conservation oriented activities ranging from the turtle project to
tourism proved to be more compatible with the survival of the Cofan culture.
Moreover, the community members are seeing how the results of their moni-
toring program can support the local knowledge in contamination disputes.
Years of struggling against oil polluters have shown them how the environ-
mental changes must be documented to be useful in legal demands. Learning to
monitor their environment is a useful tool to substantiate future Cofa
´n claims
against environmental degradation. The two successful monitoring methods
help calibrate and translate local perceptions of change into what an experi-
enced biologist can understand and interpret to the courts.
The turtle monitoring system thereby offers more than just numerical pop-
ulation estimates, it provides – what is probably much more important from a
conservation perspective – a way for the entire community to integrate into
conservation efforts.
Acknowledgements
This paper is an expanded version of a presentation we were invited to make at
a symposium on locally-based monitoring in Denmark in April 2004
2753
(www.monitoringmatters.org). The symposium was organized by the Nordic
Agency for Development and Ecology (NORDECO, Denmark), and the
Zoology Department of Cambridge University (UK). The authors would like
to thank A. M. Velasco for pioneering the Aguarico turtle work and the
Za
´balo monitors for their diligence: C. M. Yiyoguaje, A. Yiyoguaje, A. Ag-
uinda, B. Criollo, A. Lucitante, A. Lucitante, B. Machoa, and R. Criollo. In
addition, we would like to thank the anthropologist who guided the interviews,
M. L. Cepek. We would also like to thank the community of Za
´balo for their
participation in the turtle project as part of their interest in the conservation of
their natural resources and the management of their territory. Our gratitude is
also for A. M. Paredes who entered the data and E. Topp-Jørgensen who’s
statistical help was invaluable. We owe our thanks also to F. Danielsen,
M. Funder, A. Stearman, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful
guidance. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has funded The Field
Museum work with the Cofa
´n.
References
Acosta J. 1996. Proteccio
´n y manejo de la tortuga charapa en la amazonia ecuatoriana: el caso de la
Reserva de Produccio
´n Faunistica Cuyabeno. In: Campos Rozo C., Ulloa A. and Rubio Torgler
H. (eds), Manejo de fauna con comunidades rurales. Fundacio
´n Natura, Santa Fe de Bogota
´,
Bogota
´, Colombia, pp. 119–131.
Andrianandrasana H.T., Randriamahefasoa J., Durbin J., Lewis R.E. and Ratsimbazafy J.H.
2005. Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetland in Madagascar. Biodivers.
Conserv. 14: 2757–2774.
Borman R. 2001. History of the Cofa
´n people. www /cofan.org
Bray G.S. and Schramm H.L.Jr. 2001. Evaluation of a statewide volunteer angler diary program
for use as a fishery assessment tool. N. Am. J. Fisheries Manage. 21: 606–615.
Cero
´n C.E. 1995. Ethnobiologia de los Cofanes de Dureno. Publicaciones del Museo Ecuatoreano
de Ciencias Naturales Serie: Mono
´grafia An
˜o 10: 3. Herbario Nacional, Quito, Ecuador.
Danielsen F., Mendoza M.M., Alviola P., Balete D.S., Enghoff M., Poulsen M.K. and Jensen A.E.
2003. Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve? Oryx 37:
407–409.
DeVries T., Campos F., De la Torre S., Asanza E., Sosa A.C. and Rodrı
´guez F. 1995. Investigacio
´n
y conservacio
´n en la reserva de produccio
´n funı
´stica Cuyabeno. In: Mena P. and Suarez L. (eds),
Investigacio
´n para la conservacio
´n de la diversidad biolo
´gica del Ecuador: Memorias del
simposio llevado a cabo del 10 al 12 de Junio de 1992. Quito, Ecuador, pp. 167–221.
Fore L.S., Paulsen K. and O’Laughlin K. 2001. Assessing the performance of volunteers in
monitoring streams. Freshwater Biol. 46: 109–123.
Gonzalez J.R. 1982. La regio
´n amazonica del Ecuador en el siglo XVI. Banco Central del Ecuador,
Editorial Graficos San Pablo,Quito, Ecuador.
Goulding M. 1985. Forest fishes of the Amazon. In: Prance G.T. and Lovejoy T.E. (eds), Key
Environments: Amazonia. IUCN and Pergamon Press, New York, USA, pp. 267–277.
Hildebrand P., Saenz C., Pen
˜uela M.C. and Caro C. 1988. Biologı
´a y conservacio
´n de la tortuga
charapa Podocnemis expansa en el Rı
´o Caqueta en Amazonas, Colombia. Fundacio
´n Puerto
Rastrojo, Bogota
´, Colombia.
IUCN. 2003. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.redlist.org
Medina J. 1934. The discovery of the Amazon according to the account of Friar Caspar de Carvajal
(Oveido’s version). In: Heaton H.C. (ed.), American Geographical Society Special Publication
17. Washington DC, USA.
2754
Mendua L., Yiyoguaje E., Borman R. and Townsend W.R. 2004. El programa de adelantamiento
‘‘head-starting’’ de neonatos de Charapa (Podocnemis unifilis) de la comunidad Cofa
´ndeZa
´balo,
Ecuador. In: VI Congreso sobre manejo de fauna silvestre en la amazonia y Latinoame
´rica 5–10
September 2004. Iquitos, Peru.
Noss A.J., Oetting I. and Cue
´llar R.L. 2005. Hunter self-monitoring by the Isosen
˜o-Guaranı
´in the
Bolivian Chaco. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2679–2693.
Pires J.M. and Prance G. 1985. The vegetation types of the Brazilian Amazon. In: Prance G.T. and
Lovejoy T.E. (eds), Key Environments: Amazonia. IUCN and Pergamon Press, New York,
USA, pp. 109–145.
Pitman N., Moskovits D.K., Alverson W.S. and Borman R. 2002. Ecuador: Serranı
´as Cofa
´n-
Bermejo, Sinango
¨e. Rapid Biological Inventory No. 3. The Field Museum, Chicago, USA.
Prance G.T. 1978. The origin and evolution of Amazonian flora. Interciencia 3: 207–222.
van Rijsoort J. and Jinfeng Z. 2005. Participatory resource monitoring as a means for promoting
social change in Yunnan, P.R. China. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2543–2573.
Sioli H. (ed.) 1984. The Amazon: Limnology and Landscape Ecology of a Mighty Tropical River
and its Basin. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Smith N.J.H. 1974. Destructive Exploitation of the South American River Turtle. Yearbook of the
Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, Vol. 36. Oregon State University Press, Ogden, USA.
Velasco A.M. 1994. Proteccio
´n de la tortuga charapa en la Amazonia Ecuatoriana: Informe Final
del proyecto de estudio. Fundacio
´n Hertetologica Gustavo Orces, Quito, Ecuador.
Velasco A.M. 1995. Proteccio
´n de la tortuga Charapa en la Amazonia Ecuatoriana: II Fase.
Pontifica Universidad Cato
´lica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.
Yiyoguaje E., Mendua L., Borman R. and Townsend W.R. 2004. La tasa de eclosio
´n de la Charapa
(Podocnemis unifilis) del rı
´o Aguarico, Za
´balo, Ecuador. In: VI Congreso sobre manejo de fauna
silvestre en la amazonia y Latinoame
´rica. 5–10 Sept. 2004. Iquitos, Peru.
2755
