Content uploaded by Josep Garí
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Josep Garí on Mar 21, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
BIODIVERSITY AND INDIGENOUS AGROECOLOGY IN AMAZONIA:
THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF PASTAZA
Josep A. Garí
School of Geography & the Environment, University of Oxford.
E-mail: jgari@nimbus.geog.ox.ac.uk
“Tarpunchi karan lumu kaspita manachingarichun nisha”
[We plant cuttings of every variety of cassava so that they do not disappear]
Verónica Andi, indigenous woman of the community of Curaray, Pastaza, Ecuador, 12 July 1999
Abstract
Amazonia is generally regarded as a wild region that contains abundant natural resources, such as oil and biodiversity.
The hegemonic development and environmental discourses enforce economic, productive and, more recently,
conservationist projects that expand aside of the indigenous peoples. Amidst strong development-ecology tensions, the
interface between biodiversity and indigenous lifestyles in Amazonia remains largely neglected. Field research on the
indigenous peoples of Pastaza, in Western Amazonia, undermines the global perception of wild Amazonia and supports
the indigenous context of Amazonian ecosystems and biodiversity. Indigenous communities conserve, use, cultivate,
manage and exchange biodiversity as fundamental component of their rural lifestyle. The indigenous agroecology
comprises the whole set of knowledge systems, agroecological practices and socio-cultural dynamics that shape
indigenous agriculture in the context of biodiversity. The indigenous agroecology provides food security, health care, and
ecosystem resilience through a local regime of biodiversity conservation and use. However, global development models
neglect and dislocate the indigenous context of biodiversity. In this impasse, the indigenous peoples of Pastaza are
advancing grassroots mobilisations to contextualise development in their ecological, epistemic, and cultural domain.
Biodiversity and the indigenous agroecology can launch an ethnoecological vision of development.
Resumen
La Amazonía se concibe como una región silvestre que contiene abundantes recursos naturales, tales como petróleo y
biodiversidad. Los discursos hegemónicos de desarrollo y ecología imponen proyectos económicos, productivos y, más
recientemente, conservacionistas que se expanden sin contar con los pueblos indígenas. En las fuertes tensiones entre
desarrollo y ecología, la intersección entre biodiversidad y modos de vida indígena en Amazonía permanece muy
ignorada. Investigación de campo sobre los pueblos indígenas de Pastaza, en la Amazonía occidental, cuestiona la
percepción global de una Amazonía silvestre y apoya el contexto indígena de los ecosistemas y la biodiversidad
amazónicos. Las comunidades indígenas conservan, utilizan, cultivan, manejan e intercambian la biodiversidad como
componente fundamental de su vida rural. La agroecología indígena comprende el conjunto de sistemas de
conocimiento, prácticas agroecológicas y dinámicas socio-culturales que rigen la agricultura indígena en un contexto de
biodiversidad. La agroecología indígena proporciona seguridad alimentaria, cuidado de la salud y robustez ecosistémica
a través de un régimen local de conservación y uso de biodiversidad. Sin embargo, modelos globales de desarrollo
ignoran y dislocan el contexto indígena de la biodiversidad. Ante esta crisis, los pueblos indígenas de Pastaza están
impulsando movilizaciones para contextualizar el desarrollo en su ámbito ecológico, epistémico y cultural. La
biodiversidad y la agroecología indígena pueden generar una visión etnoecológica del desarrollo.
Biodiversity crisis in Amazonia
Amazonia is a region of about 7 million km2 spreading over nine South American countries (Gómez et al., 1998). It
houses enormous biological diversity and unique cultural diversity: Amazonia is a leading biodiversity centre in the world,
as well as the home to about 400 indigenous peoples.
Since the 16th century, Amazonia has been subject to a process of colonisation which dramatically intensified and
expanded along the 20th century. The discourses of modernisation and sustainable development are currently the main
forces ambitioning the control of Amazonia. Since the 1960s, the modernisation paradigm enforces "development" in
Amazonia through land colonisation, road building, agricultural expansion, deforestation, and extraction of natural
resources. This discourse advocates and spreads the technology, resource use, production systems, market processes,
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
and urban values of Western societies, thus dismantling the traditional values and practices (Hoselitz, 1952). On the
other hand, since the 1980s, the sustainable development paradigm emerges to reconcile the dominant
developmentalism and an emerging environmentalism, thus feeding a sort of green developmentalism (WCED, 1987). In
the 1990s, the sustainable development school becomes obsessed with biodiversity, constructing Amazonia as the
world's leading reserve of wild biodiversity resources. Then, a myriad of scientific projects began to colonise Amazonia,
creating natural reserves, advancing North-based biological research, and even supplying genes to pharmaceutical
corporations. Biodiversity and the associated indigenous knowledge became desired commodities in global markets,
joining classic resources such as oil and timber (Garí, 2000). Thus, green developmentalism proposes to privatise and
sell biodiversity to preserve and value it (McAfee, 1999).
In essence, global actors regard Amazonia as a wild space with free resources to appropriate such as oil, timber, land,
and biodiversity. These forces that impose a materialist and extractivist view over Amazonia include development
discourses, state policies, agricultural expansion schemes, private corporations, research interests, conservationist
initiatives, biological-business partnerships, and global markets. The indigenous societies are often neglected or, at most,
incorporated as simple elements to these ambitious endeavours. Many of these activities in Amazonia advance under the
claims to foster the development of local people, though they rather seem to drive many socio-ecological conflicts
everywhere (e.g. Tassi, 1992; Varea et al., 1997). In fact, biodiversity loss accelerates, whilst the ecological, social and
cultural domain of the indigenous people becomes severely disrupted.
The values and roles of biodiversity at the indigenous grassroots attract much less interest and remain largely
neglected, though a growing evidence reveals how adequate coalitions between biodiversity and indigenous societies are
fundamental to both ecological integrity and rural survival in the South. Ecological research is illustrating the fundamental
roles of biodiversity in ecosystem resilience, ensuring countless ecological functions and services, whilst maintaining
stable and productive ecosystems (Perrings et al., 1995; Raven, 1990). Biodiversity sustains rural livelihoods, such as
providing nutritional and medicinal resources for poor communities. Since the 1980s, ethnoecological research indicates
the relevance of traditional ecological knowledge and practices in the use and conservation of native ecosystems
(Descola, 1986; Posey and Balée, 1989). The cultural and cosmological values of biodiversity at the indigenous and
peasant grassroots across the world are also increasingly recognised (Posey, 1999). On the other hand, grassroots
mobilisations and development discussions disclose alternative visions of Amazonia. Indigenous peoples struggle for
their territorial, ecological and cultural rights, advocating the crucial connections between biodiversity and indigenous
lifestyles (Garí, 2000). New ecological trends emphasise the conservation in-situ of biodiversity (Thrupp, 1998). The
increasing poverty and vulnerability of rural people encourage a struggle for local food security and livelihood. Some
innovative scholars discuss the need and potential of development alternatives (Peet and Watts, 1996). Overall, further
efforts are required to conciliate and empower the interface between biodiversity conservation and indigenous lifestyles.
This paper explores the indigenous context of biodiversity in Amazonia, addressing the ecological, epistemological,
livelihood, and cultural significations of biodiversity at the grassroots level. I conducted field research on the indigenous
peoples of Pastaza in 1998-99 to approach the human ecology of biodiversity in Amazonia, aiming at revealing the
connections between biodiversity and indigenous lifestyles.
The field research focused primarily on the biodiversity that the indigenous people cultivate, as well as on the
associated ecological knowledge system and cultural practices. The core of the ethnoecological field research was
conducted in the communities of Curaray and Mango Urco, inside the indigenous forests of Pastaza, but more extensive
field studies were done in other communities. I conducted informal interviews to both men and women, including old and
young people, as well as some indigenous leaders and healers [yachac]. Accurate translation for the interviews to
monolingual people was kindly provided by bilingual community fellows. Fundamental research was conducted in the
indigenous fields themselves, with the direct participation of their chief farmers, notably women. Visits to forests and
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
along rivers were also conducted with indigenous people to approach their wide ecosystem management strategies. The
Organisation of the Indigenous Peoples of Pastaza (OPIP), the main indigenous organisation in the region, provided
fundamental support, allowing access to indigenous territories, facilitating adequate contacts at the community level, and
providing valuable knowledge over important ecological, cultural and political issues of the indigenous society.
The indigenous peoples of Pastaza
Pastaza Province is a region of Western Amazonia, located in Ecuador (Figure 1). It comprises about 25,000 km2 of
native tropical rainforests and a Western colonised strip of around 5,000 km2. Most of Pastaza region is indigenous
forests, lacking roads, preserving significant ecosystem resilience, and housing a notable degree of indigenous
autonomy. The Western strip of the province is, however, notably affected by the colonisation process, which has
expanded deforestation, settlers, cash-crop agriculture, large pasturelands, biodiversity loss, and cultural erosion.
The Amazon Quichua, Shiwiar, and Zaparo peoples inhabit most of Pastaza region. They are sacha runa [forest
people] and they often regard themselves as "the indigenous peoples of Pastaza". They comprise about 150 indigenous
communities and around 25,000 people (OPIP, 1998). They are observant of their historical and current ethnic diversity,
asserting that they "descend from diverse peoples of the forest" (OPIP, 1992). They share a common indigenous identity,
a common ecological culture, and a leading indigenous political body: the Organisation of the Indigenous Peoples of
Pastaza (OPIP). They are politically innovative, especially since the OPIP is leading grassroots movements for their
territorial, ecological, and cultural rights. Most of the indigenous territory in Pastaza is the only Amazonian rainforest in
Ecuador that has not been massively disturbed by the industrial activities, the urbanisation processes, and the intensive
exploitation of natural resources (OPIP, 1996). In fact, the indigenous peoples of Pastaza are currently resisting the
threats of massive oil exploitation, deforestation, cultural erosion, biodiversity loss, and resource misappropriation in their
territories. Their struggles for Amazonia encompass a defence of the indigenous livelihood and identity, a commitment for
biodiversity conservation, and a claim for an indigenous-based development process.
In the indigenous society, nature comprises both sacha [forest] and chagra [cultivated fields]. Nature is simultaneously
wild and domesticated, source of knowledge and principle of fertility. The indigenous culture comprises ecological
knowledge, agricultural skills, hunting practices, and craft making, among others. These are not just material practices,
but they are embedded in cultural meanings that tie the human and the non-human, the wild nature and the cultivated
plants. Swidden farming, hunting, fishing, and fruit gathering are the main productive activities. Land tenure is
communitarian. Society is egalitarian and decision-making is rooted on the community. Women are in charge of family
fields [chagra]. Men also participate in the agricultural activities, but are rather responsible for hunting, which sometimes
bring them into the forest [sacha] for some days. The gender roles in food production convey a certain gender-based
knowledge of nature: women are deeply involved in the knowledge of crops and the chagra, whilst men in the knowledge
of hunting and sacha [forest]. However, there is not a gender border, since most significative variations in ecological
knowledge are found between families, rather than across gender or age.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
Figure 1. The indigenous forests of Pastaza in Amazonia
Ecosystem management
In Pastaza, indigenous people classify lands and landscapes in four main categories: llacta, purina, sacha and yacu.
This land-use classification is based on ecological conditions, indigenous land management strategies, ecological
practices involved, and diverse cultural and settlement criteria. Llacta [village] and purina [walking] are the main areas of
settlement and agriculture. They are forest areas where shifting agriculture is conducted. Llacta accommodates the
dispersed houses and the family fields of a community, while purina are areas for subsidiary residence that have isolated
houses and fields. Sacha [forest] comprises forest ecosystems under low human influence, where the main indigenous
activities are hunting, extraction of forest resources, and ritual practices. Sacha includes wildlife areas and game
reserves, whilst it is a sacred place for the indigenous society because of many cultural, ritual, and religious meanings
involved. Yacu [water] comprises the water ecosystems, like rivers and pools, that provide food, inter-ethnic natural
borders, and communication systems. Both sacha and yacu are shelter for mythic spirits and animals, and sacred home
for the ecological and spiritual training of the yachac [healer] and the young people.
The indigenous ecosystem management is connected to the indigenous ecological knowledge forms and practices,
which drive local land-uses and shape many ecological processes inside Amazonia. The creation of agricultural fields
and the delimitation of natural reserves are relevant examples of the indigenous ecosystem management. Indigenous
communities conserve and manage a diversity of ecosystems aiming at social, nutritional, medicinal, cultural, ritual, and
ecological objectives. In addition, their local ecosystemic practices are highly valuable for global biodiversity concerns,
since large areas of sacha and yacu are culturally defined as spaces under low-intensity use, where the wildlife can
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
reproduce and indigenous people can learn about their natural world. In essence, they constitute the indigenous version
of natural parks.
The indigenous ecosystem management suggests the extent of an indigenous Amazonia versus the global images of
wild Amazonia. A 3-day canoe journey with some local indigenous people along Villano River, downstream from Villano
to Curaray, enabled me to investigate the distribution of land-uses and, in particular, the indigenous management of
Amazonian ecosystems. The river distance between Villano and Curaray is about 180 km, including ample and
continuous river meanders in this Amazonian lowland area. This river segment has the following land-use sequence: 25
km of llacta of 4 communities, 20 km of the purina area of the Villano sector, 5 km of llacta of the small community of
Lipuno, 40 km of sacha that belongs to the communities of Villano, 75 km of the purina area of the Curaray sector, and
15 km of llacta of 2 communities in Curaray. In consequence, about 25% of the river length corresponds to main
indigenous settlement areas (llacta), more than 50% of the area is under lower-intensity cultivation and temporary
habitation (purina), and around 22% of the riverside ecosystems are regarded and maintained as what ecologists would
define as wild forests (sacha). In summary, the indigenous people manage, inhabit, and use for agriculture a large forest
area in Pastaza, under land-use regimes of either llacta or purina (about the 75% of the studied river region). These
areas are subject to a complex set of indigenous ecological practices that enable agricultural systems within the
rainforest. This ecological survey questions the Western perception of Amazonia as pristine ecosystems that are free of
human influence. Indigenous communities use wide forest areas as dwelling space and agricultural places, whithout
eroding biodiversity but integrating unique agrobiodiversity dynamics.
Cultivating biodiversity
In lands of llacta and purina, the indigenous people conduct agriculture, which is their main productive activity. The two
main systems for agriculture are fields and home gardens. Agricultural fields of about 1 hectare are created inside the
tropical forest. They are sometimes close to the houses, but often a few kilometres away. Soil conditions and other
ecological factors determine the location of the fields, sometimes in the riverbanks, other times far from the rivers.
Moreover, a garden belt around every house adds about 0.3 hectares of agricultural land to every household.
In both gardens and fields, the indigenous people cultivate more than 50 plant species (Table 1). This large
agrobiodiversity comprises plant species of nutritional, medicinal, ritual, and timber values, among others. The cultivated
biodiversity grounds both the food security and a primary health care system for the indigenous households.
The gardens look like an anarchic agricultural place, where plants are cultivated rather randomly, according to the
interests and needs of every household. The fields, however, are created, cultivated, managed, and abandoned under a
complex agroecological system. The agroecological cycle that shapes the forest-integrated agricultural ecosystems aims
at ensuring the ecosystem resilience, while maximising a diversified production of food, medicines and other resources.
The indigenous agriculture is based on shifting cultivation. It consists in a temporal and spatially cyclical agricultural
system that involves the clearing of land and subsequent phases of cultivation (Thrupp et al., 1997). In Pastaza,
indigenous agriculture is totally integrated into the forest ecology. It requires the clearing of about 1 hectare of forest, but
the indigenous agroecological practices themselves will grow a new forest ecosystem over the time. The overall
cultivation of biodiversity provides many ecological and social services, such as: (a) the creation of a series of
agroecological stages that manage a process of ecological succession in the forest, (b) the provision of a wide array of
food, medicines and other resources, and (c) the progressive cultivation of a new forest to maintain the ecosystem
resilience.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
Agriculture is rooted on biodiversity throughout a complex process, since some species are planted in the first period
of cultivation, while other species are adder later on. The management of agrobiodiversity, though flexible, is oriented
towards the stable supply of a diversified production, on the one hand, and towards the restoration of the forest
ecosystem, on the other. The two leading agroecological stages are chagra [field], followed by purun [mature field]. The
presence of cassava (Manihot esculenta), the leading indigenous crop, defines the chagra stage, whilst the substitution
of cassava by a diversity of crops indicates the subsequent purun stage.
The chagra [field] is the first agricultural stage, just after a field is cleared. Cassava is the leading crop, intercropped
with around other 20 plant species. Cassava dominates this agricultural stage because it is the primary staple crop for
most indigenous peoples in Amazonia. It comprises important nutritional, agroecological, gastronomic, and cultural
values at the indigenous level. Among tropical staple crops, cassava produces exceptional carbohydrate yields, much
higher than those of maize and rice (Jennings, 1995). Besides, cassava is particularly well adapted to the soil constraints
of large areas of Amazonia, particularly phosphorous deficiency, low potassium, aluminium toxicity, and very low pH
(Moran, 1989). Cassava ensures the local diet, while serves to produce the indispensable beverage chicha, which
grounds the social and cultural life of indigenous communities. In the symbolic culture of indigenous peoples, cassava
represents the fertility, both in the agricultural fields and in the indigenous lives. In essence, cassava is a fundamental
crop in agroecological, nutritional, social, and cultural terms.
When soil fertility starts dropping, after about 2-3 years or 3-4 cassava crops, the indigenous people do not plant
cassava any more. The field begins the stage that locally is named purun [mature field], which can be defined as "the
chagra after cassava crop". It is also characterised by its biodiversity component, since many diverse liana, shrubs and
fruit trees are planted in the space previously occupied by cassava, joining the other plants, shrubs and trees that were
planted in the previous chagra stage. The purun soon becomes a growing forest, an agroforestal ecosystem. The
indigenous people keep planting some shrubs and trees. During its first 2-4 years, the purun is also called llullu purun
[young purun]. The big fruit trees are still growing and provide no much food yet. However, smaller fruit trees and many
other cultivated plants keep producing abundant food and medicines. After about 4 years, the field becomes a rucu purun
[old purun], where the indigenous plants become tall trees, big shrubs, and high lianas that create a complex forest
ecosystem. The agroecosystem now produces plenty of fruits. The rucu purun has the ecological structure of a forest.
Indigenous people progressively cease cleaning activities, allowing many wild plants to grow together with the cultivated
species. The rucu purun keeps providing many fruits and other resources to the local people for a number of years. The
planted fruit trees attract fauna biodiversity, such as birds and mammals, which provide a valuable source of protein to
local people through hunting practices in the fields. Over time, the rucu purun becomes a dense forest, while cultivated
species progressively disappear, leaving their place to many wild species that colonise the land. A diluted transition from
an anthropogenic forest (purun) to a complex forest (sacha) happens. After about 20 years, the original field has become
a dense forest and has recovered its full systemic fertility. Then, a new field might be created again if needed.
The indigenous agricultural system is cyclic, integrated into the tropical forest ecology, and involving biodiversity as the
central component. The chagra is the initial open field, the llullu purun constitutes an agroforestry system, the rucu purun
becomes an anthropogenic forest, and sacha is the subsequent non-cultivated forest. The complete productive cycle
lasts about 15-20 years.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
Table 1. Agrobiodiversity of the indigenous peoples of Pastaza (Ecuadorian Amazonia)
Quichua
name
Spanish name English
name
Scientific name Main use Location
Achogcha Achogcha Achogcha Cyclanthera sp. Food C/P
Ajirinri Jengibre Ginger Zingiber officinale Medicinal/Ritual C/P/G
Anunas Chirimoya Cherimoya Annona cherimola Food P/G
Ayahuasca Ayahuasca Ayahuasca Banisteriopsis caapi Medicinal/Ritual C/P/G
Barbascu Barbasco Barbascu Lonchocarpus nicou Fishing C/P
Cacau Cacao Cacao Theobroma cacao Food P/RP/G
Cafe Café Coffee Coffea arabica Food P/RP
Cambi Cacao monte Cambi Herrania balaensis Food P/G
Canua ruya Cedro Cedar Cedrela odorata Construction P/G
Chili Fibra Fiber palm Aphandra natalia Food/Handicrafts P/RP
Chini Ortiga Nettle Urera caracasana Medicinal P/G
Chiricaspi Chiricaspi Chiricaspi Brunfelsia grandiflora Medicinal/Ritual C/P/G
Chivilla Piña Pineapple Ananas comosus Food C/P/G
Chunda Chonta Peach palm Bactris gasipaes Food/Construction P/RP/G
Cumal Camote Sweet potato Ipomoea batatas Food C
Guayaba Guayaba Guayaba Psidium guajava Food/Medicinal P/G
Guinia Guineo/Orito Banana Musa acuminata Food C/P/G
Hacha cebolla Cebolla Onion Allium cepa Food C
Hierba luisa Hierba luisa Hierba luisa Cymbopogon citratus Medicinal/Food C/G
Huachanso Maní de árbol Wild peanut Caryodendron
orinocense
Food P/RP
Huanduc Floripondio Huanduc Brugmansia suaveolens Medicinal/Ritual C/P/G
Huayusa Guayusa Guayusa Ilex guayusa Food/Medicinal P/G
Huiru Caña azúcar Sugar cane Saccharum officinarum Food C/P/G
Huituc Huituc Huituc Genipa americana Medicinal/Ritual P/RP
Inchig Maní Groundnut Arachis hypogaea Food C/P
Japiyu/Apiu Caimito Caimito Pouteria caimito Food/Construction P/G
Julun Granadilla Passion fruit Passiflora sp. Food C/P/G
Laranca Naranjilla Naranjilla Solanum quitoense Food C/P/G
Limun Limón Lemon Citrus limon Food P/G
Lumu Yuca Cassava Manihot esculenta Food C
Manduru Achiote Annatto Bixa orellana Ritual/Food P/RP/G
Pacay Guaba Guava Inga edulis Food P/RP/G
Palanda Plátano Plantain Musa sp. Food C/P/G
Palta Aguacate Avocado Persea americana Food P/G
Papa Papa jíbara Yam Dioscorea trifida Food C/P
Papachina Papachina Taro Colocasia esculenta Food C/P/G
Papamandi Papamandi Cocoyam Xanthosoma sp. Food C/P/G
Paparagua Frutipán Breadfruit Artocarpus altilis Food/Medicinal P/G
Papaya Papaya Papaya Carica papaya Food/Medicinal C
Pasu Paso Pasu Gustavia macaranensis Food P/G
Pilchi Calabaza Tree gourd Crescentia cujete Handicrafts P/G
Pitun Pitón Pitun Grias neuberthii Food/Medicinal P/G
Purutu Fríjol Bean Phaseolus sp. Food C
Quila Cacao blanco Wild cacao Theobroma bicolor Food P/RP/G
Runduma Piripiri Runduma Cyperus prolixus Medicinal C/G
Sara Maíz Maize/Corn Zea mays Food C
Shihua Ungurahua Ungurahua Oenocarpus bataua Food P/G
Tahuacu Tabaco Tobacco Nicotiana tabacum Ritual/Medicinal C/P/G
Tsicta Tsicta Tsicta Tabernaemontana
sananho
Food/Medicinal P/G
Uchu Ají Chili pepper Capsicum annum Food/Ritual C/G
Uvilla Uvilla Uvilla Pourouma tomentosa Food P/G
Verbena Verbena Verbena Verbena littoralis Medicinal P
Zapallu Zapallo Squash Cucurbita sp. Food/Handicrafts C/P
Comments: Location (main): C: chagra; P: purun; RP: rucu purun; G: garden. See text for details.
Source: Field research in the indigenous communities of Curaray and Mango Urco, Pastaza, Ecuador, 1998-99.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
The indigenous people manage agroecosystem diversity. The main agroecosystemic category is the aforementioned
chagra or lumu-chagra [cassava field], where cassava is intercropped with many other species. The diverse purun
[mature field] constitute a network of agroforestal ecosystems, housing a wide diversity of intercropped plants, including
many shrubs and fruit trees. In essence, chagra, purun, and rucu purun encompass agroecosystems, agroforestal
systems, and anthropogenic forests, respectively, inside Amazonia. Besides, there are variations in these leading
agroecosystems. The indigenous people create subsidiary fields that focus on fewer species, due to either fertility
constraints or particular food needs. For instance, a sara-chagra [maize field], a palanda-purun [plantain field], and a
cumal-chagra [sweet potato field] grow respectively maize (Zea mays), plantain (Musa sp.), and sweet potato (Ipomoea
batatas), which are intercropped with a few other species, often including cassava. On the other hand, according to
distinctive agroecological aspects in each river basin, fields can be either yacupata chagra [riverbank field] or urcu chagra
[inside field]. The diversity of agricultural and agroforestal ecosystems enable a broad indigenous management of the
forest ecosystems for the production of food, medicines and other resources.
Biodiversity characterises indigenous agroecological systems. According to the field research, every household
cultivates between 30 and 50 plant species at any given time, distributed as follows: 10-25 species intercropped with
cassava in the chagra, 16-40 different plant species cultivated in the diverse purun, and 10-32 species maintained in the
home gardens. Agrobiodiversity encompasses wide ecological and social values; in particular, it roots the food security,
health care, and ecosystem resilience of indigenous communities, as discussed next.
The indigenous agroecosystems house a large plant biodiversity that provide abundant and diversified food resources.
There are more than 40 main cultivated food plants in the fields and gardens of any particular household, which play a
relevant role in the food security of marginalised communities. Agrobiodiversity also embraces more than a dozen
medicinal crops that, together with many more wild medicinal plants, construct an indigenous primary health care system
inside Amazonia. It is worth to note that some cultivated plants play both nutritional and medicinal roles, illustrating that
nutrition and health care are connected in the indigenous culture. Nutrition is at the roots of health, since food plants do
not only feed people but also ensure their overall well-being.
On the other hand, biodiversity ensures a polyculture or intercropping process in most of the indigenous
agroecosystems. Such intercropping agroecosystems encompass many ecological and agricultural values (Altieri, 1995).
In particular, they provide diversified production, land-use efficiency, enhanced nutrient recycling, biological pest control,
efficient resource use, yield stability, soil conservation, and agroecosystem resilience, among other benefits. Wide
ecological research has shown that Amazonian ecology is unsuitable for monocultural cultivation and pastoralism, since
these practices cause severe ecosystem degradation (Hecht, 1985; Hemming, 1985; Herrera et al., 1978). Thus,
indigenous polycultures and intercropping systems ensure a resilient and integrated agroproductive system, while
maintaining the ecosystem functioning in Amazonia.
Biodiversity also ensures the indigenous agroecological cycle, aiming at restoring forest ecosystems through
biodiversity. Indigenous people cut down a piece of forest for agricultural activities, but they conduct particular
agroecological practices that soon lead to the growth of a new forest. Along their agroecological cycle, indigenous people
may plant around 20 trees, shrubs and lianas that will structure the growing forest. These cultivated plants form
anthropogenic forests, enriched with diverse species that will increasingly colonise the field. Biodiversity thus ensures the
ecosystem resilience and the recovery of the systemic fertility after agricultural activities.
In conclusion, biodiversity roots widely the food security, the health care, and the ecosystem resilience of the
indigenous communities. The knowledge systems and ecological practices of the indigenous people conserve and use
biodiversity while sustaining indigenous livelihoods inside Amazonian forests.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
Cultivating genetic agrobiodiversity
The indigenous people cultivate a wide genetic diversity for many of their agricultural plants. At the community level,
they cultivate 3 or more varieties for about 30 plants (over 50% of their main agricultural species). This rich genetic
agrodiversity is also present at the household level. For instance, the genetic diversity of cacao (Theobroma cacao),
sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), and yam (Dioscorea trifida) comprises an average of 5 varieties per community and
household. Indigenous people cultivate at least 10 varieties of chilli pepper (Capsicum annum) per community.
Concerning cassava, the leading crop, most fields grow about 15 varieties, while every community houses more than 18
different varieties.
Crop genetic diversity is connected to ecological, gastronomic, medicinal, and cultural values, among others. Let us
see some examples. Each one of most of the varieties of the medicinal plant ginger (Zingiber officinale) address a
particular kind of pain. In the case of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), the variety Asuana [making chicha] is particularly
valuable to make special kinds of the beverage chicha. In the case of huanduc (Brugmanisa suaveolens), the variety
Yacu [river] is particularly well adapted to riverbank fields, probably because it is the most resistant to water excess and
floods. Also in the case of huanduc, the varieties of this medicinal plant are used differently: some serve to prepare a
drinking liquid, while others are applied on the skin. The diverse varieties of nettle (Urera caracasana) have different
medicinal power and are used according to pain intensity. The indigenous people cultivate both bitter [auru] and sweet
[miski] varieties of naranjilla (Solanum quitoense). Some communities cultivate the Llambu variety of annatto (Bixa
orellana) because it is considered the best variety for the market in Puyo, while they keep the other varieties for their own
consumption. The diverse varieties of barbascu (Lonchocarpus nicou) yield diverse poisoning strength. Finally, the
diverse varieties of chilli pepper (Capsicum annum) have differences in taste, produce different spicy meals, and have
diverse gastronomic values.
The genetic diversity of cassava deserves special attention. Cassava is the main indigenous crop and it has the
largest genetic diversity. Indigenous people cultivate around 16 varieties of cassava per household on average. Every
community has generally more than 20 cultivated varieties of cassava. All cassava varieties are sweet in Pastaza region.
Every variety has often a particular value, and vernacular names sometimes tell either the physical distinctive traits or a
particular value of the particular variety. Some varieties are appreciated for the mild taste of their roots, such as Llauta,
Mikamama and Shihuamuyu. Other varieties render a high productivity, like Auca and Ucucha. Other varieties produce
large roots that are highly appreciated for special meals, such as Jatun [big]. Others have an early production, about 6
months instead of the average 9 months of cassava production in Pastaza, like Ichilla, so they are valuable in cases of
early need. Others like Sicuanga have a good ecological resistance, especially to floods, thus becoming an agricultural
advantage in riverbank fields with a risk of flood. Other varieties produce a strong fermented chicha beverage, which is
much appreciated in special celebrations, such as the varieties Huanduc [name of a medicinal tree that causes
hallucinations] and Mitsira [to-get-drunk]. Finally, some varieties produce roots with an intense white colour, which make
a very white and appreciated chicha, like the variety Ruyac [white].
The huge cassava biodiversity that the indigenous peoples of Pastaza cultivate, often involving almost 20 varieties in a
single 1-ha field, suggests a hypothesis that I propose for future ethnobotanical research in Amazonia: whether the
cultivation and consumption of cassava biodiversity encompasses a diversified nutritional supply on the basis of different
nutritional values among different varieties.
The culture-biodiversity connection
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
As explored by the field research, ecological practices and cultural meanings sustain the cultivation, conservation, and
management of biodiversity among the indigenous peoples of Pastaza. These relations between culture and biodiversity
are relevant for both conservation interests and development concerns.
The genetic diversity among the cultivated plant is variable. The leading indigenous crop, cassava, encompasses the
highest genetic diversity, with over 15 varieties per household and a higher amount at the community level. Indigenous
communities cultivate 1-2 varieties for a number of plants, about 3-6 varieties for other species, and over 10 varieties for
a few crops. This pattern is rather constant and widespread among the indigenous peoples of Pastaza inhabiting
indigenous forests, including both communities of River Curaray in northern Pastaza and communities in lower River
Bobonaza in southern Pastaza. Why is there such a differential and rather constant genetic agrobiodiversity at the
indigenous grassroots?
The wide variability in genetic agrobiodiversity among the different cultivated plants made me consider the hypothesis
of an underlying cultural reason. To investigate the hypothesis of a cultural root in the variable conservation and
management of genetic agrobiodiversity I conducted two parallel studies. On the one hand, an evaluation of the cultural
relevance of every cultivated species. On the other hand, an estimation of the average number of varieties of each
cultivated species at both community and household levels. I conducted the field research in some households of the
communities of Curaray (River Curaray) and Mango Urco (River Bobonaza), which are located in very distant areas
across the territory of the indigenous peoples of Pastaza. I defined 6 criteria of cultural value: agroecological (dominant
species in every agroecosystem type), cultivation (frequent or ubiquitous cultivation), medicinal (important or frequently-
used medicinal plants), nutritional (staple food plants), people's considerations (the cultivated species that constitute the
core of the crop system according to local people), and ritual (species of ritual values or associated cultural meanings).
Every criterion gives a particular species one point of cultural value. The criteria fulfilled accumulate and, adding one
point to every species for the fact of being cultivated (domestication criterion), we obtain a numerical value representing
the cultural relevance of every species. Genetic varieties and cultural relevance are then compared to each other, at both
community and household levels. The results indicate a correlation trend between cultural values and genetic
agrobiodiversity for the 53 main cultivated species in the indigenous agroecosystems of Pastaza. This suggests close
culture-biodiversity relationships, as illustrated by the resulting culture-biodiversity curve (Figure 2). In essence, the
indigenous cultural frame drives the conservation, use, selection, and production of biodiversity. Biodiversity conservation
and indigenous cultural systems are inextricable.
In addition, many cultural practices associated with biodiversity enhance the culture-biodiversity connections. In this
sense, indigenous people conduct particular practices: (a) they have a collective and open system of managing plant
biodiversity, (b) they exchange widely their plant genetic resources, (c) they regard fields and forests as simultaneously
germplasm banks, where biodiversity is preserved in-situ, (d) they possess a deep cultural interest in conserving
biodiversity, and (e) they continuously screen genetic resources in the forests, also observing and integrating new
varieties that naturally occur in their fields.
The exchange of plant varieties is a usual practice, both within and across communities. It has not only an agricultural
interest, but it also involves cultural meanings. The exchange of biodiversity resources enhances friendship bonds, feeds
social cohesion and reinforces the indigenous common regime over plant genetic resources. A simple look into the
vernacular names of the plant varieties suggests the significant degree of exchanging plant genetic resources in the
indigenous communities. For instance, a survey based just on the vernacular nomenclature in different communities
showed that approximately 20% of the growing cassava varieties come from outside the community. The exchange of
plant genetic resources has even expanded in recent years because grassroots movements such as indigenous
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
assemblies increase the visits to other communities and, therefore, promote a wider exchange of biodiversity resources
across the forests of Pastaza and beyond.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
123456
Cultur al value
Genetic agrobiodiversity
Community
Household
Figure 2. The culture-biodiversity curve
Comments: Cultural value and average number of plant varieties (genetic agrobiodiversity) are estimated for the 53 main cultivated
species. See text for details.
Source: Field research in the indigenous communities of Curaray and Mango Urco, Pastaza, Ecuador, 1999.
On the other hand, the agroecosystems are simultaneously germplasm banks, where the indigenous people conserve
their plant genetic resources in-situ and in-vivo. That ensures the reproducibility of the indigenous agroecological
practices. The sacred dimension of the fields as places of fertility and life enforces the respect for their inextricable
agrobiodiversity. Moreover, the indigenous people sometimes collect and integrate plant genetic resources during
journeys into the forest. Seeds and cuttings of at least 25 plant species are occasionally transplanted from the forests to
the indigenous gardens and fields, thus diluting the border between wild and cultivated plants. As a leading
anthropologist stated long time ago, "it is not always easy to distinguish between wild and cultivated plants in South
America" (Lévi-Strauss, 1963). The perception of the forest as a local germplasm bank enables the indigenous society to
rescue genetic resources that remain in the wild, and to incorporate new plant species and varieties. This biological and
cultural exchange between forests and indigenous agroecosystems accelerates biodiversity dynamics, fosters crop gene
flows, and provides the basis for informal agricultural innovation.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
Indigenous societies display deep cultural interests in biodiversity. Beyond the evident benefits of biodiversity,
indigenous people conserve biodiversity because they like it. Biodiversity is a fundamental component of the cultural
identity and the biological heritage of the indigenous society. Carmen Gualinga, an indigenous woman from the
community of Mango Urco, explains why she keeps agrobiodiversity in her fields with these words: "Tucuita sharinata
munani" [I like to have everything]. Verónica Andi, an indigenous woman of the community of Curaray, states: "Tarpunchi
karan lumu kaspita manachingarichun nisha" [we plant cuttings of every variety of cassava so that they do not
disappear]. In essence, a biodiversity-based culture conveys the indigenous agroecological practices. This cultural
dimension fosters the selection and maintenance of biodiversity, which is also associated to ecological, nutritional,
gastronomic, and medicinal values. Overall, the indigenous support to rich biodiversity dynamics provides them many
potential benefits and future opportunities. Maintaining an ample resource base enhances nutritional and health care
systems, empowers strategies to control agroecological risks, enriches local gastronomies, and allows agricultural
innovation, among other opportunities. In fact, the cultural value of biodiversity suggests the existence of cultural
codifications of deep ecological insights (Århem, 1996). Biodiversity is at the roots of the indigenous culture, rooting
successful ecosystem management and resilient livelihoods in Amazonia.
Finally, a last example of the unique indigenous management of biodiversity illustrates the integrated coupling of
forests and agroecosystems. When conducting research on the cassava varieties in the field of Carmela Dahua's family
in the community of Curaray, she and her husband were unable to recognise one particular cassava variety. She called it
muyu lumu [seed cassava], arguing that her mother probably cultivated this variety when she had a field in the same
place about 20 years earlier. Since new fields are sometimes opened in forest areas that were formerly fields, genetic
resources of cultivated plants may remain there and grow when a field is established again. The forest-agriculture
integration enables, in cases like that, the continuous enrichment of the genetic resource base.
The indigenous agroecology
In recent years, the science of agroecology has been established to address the agricultural ecosystems from both
ecological and social perspectives (Altieri, 1995). Agroecology discloses an innovative framework to analyse and design
agricultural activities, taking care not just in productivity maximisation, but addressing many other factors such as
ecological services, food supply, and social benefits.
The agroecological practices of the indigenous peoples of Pastaza meet the criteria of the modern science of
agroecology. In fact, the field research legitimates the concept of "indigenous agroecology", which I introduce to
emphasise the wholeness of the indigenous agroecological systems and practices in Pastaza. Indigenous agroecologies
are likely to be found among many native peoples around the world, as field research that I have conducted in the high
Andes also suggests (Garí, 2000).
The indigenous agroecology is based upon the indigenous ecological knowledge, coevolving with indigenous cultural
forms. It contributes fundamentally to the food security and the primary health care system of the indigenous people. It
provides a variety of ecological and social services, whilst integrating ecological concerns. Overall, the indigenous
agroecology shapes the conservation and use of biodiversity, rooting local livelihoods and ensuring ecosystem resilience.
In Pastaza, the indigenous agroecology comprises relevant processes such as follows: (a) the cultivation and
conservation of biodiversity, (b) the management of a diversity of agroecosystems and agroforestry systems, (c) the
cultivation of anthropogenic forests, (d) a rich culture-biodiversity dialogue, (e) a collective regime of plant genetic
resources, and (f) the role of agroecosystems as germplasm banks. The indigenous agroecology discloses the crucial
roles of biodiversity in food production, food security, community health care, and forest ecosystem resilience. In addition,
the indigenous agroecology ensures the conservation in-situ of biodiversity, at both agroecosystemic and forest levels.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
Ethnoecological visions of development
The colonised strip in Western Pastaza constitutes an empirical ground to assess the crucial values of the indigenous
agroecology versus the mainstream development dogmas. Agricultural development discourses expanding since the
1960s have spread tea plantations, cash-crop monocultures of naranjilla and sugar cane, and large cattle pasturelands
along the Western Pastaza strip. Deforestation is widespread. There, indigenous communities have become surrounded
by pasturelands, roads, and settlers' fields. State agricultural policies, increasing land loss, and deforestation have forced
the indigenous people to adopt the productive model of the colonisation, abandoning their agroecological practices and
driving a large biodiversity erosion. In consequence, current agricultural activities of indigenous communities inhabiting
the colonised strip are characterised by low agrobiodiversity use, high material inputs, cultural impoverishment, high
market dependence, crop vulnerability, food insecurity and ecosystem degradation. In particular, the agrobiodiversity
base of the colonised strip comprises less than 8 food plants and 3 cassava varieties, versus over 50 species and about
20 cassava varieties inside the indigenous forests. In addition, the indigenous agroecological cycle is mostly abandoned,
thus eroding the ecosystem resilience. This ethnoecological view reveals that indigenous agroecology and modern
farming systems are radically different, thus requiring new debates over the whole concept of rural development (Table
2).
Genetic diversity of chilli pepper in a single indigenous field
In addition to modern agricultural expansion, two new development endeavours threat both biodiversity conservation
and indigenous lifestyles in Pastaza region: oil production and bioprospecting activities. In the 1990s, the Ecuadorian
state granted oil concessions to international companies for about 12,000 km2 in Pastaza, affecting almost half of the
indigenous territory. In addition, some international biological research aims at intellectual property rights over the native
biodiversity of the indigenous peoples, while some bioprospecting activities have been already conducted in Pastaza
(Garí, 2000b). Besides, road building, introduced species, religious groups, military bases, and some ecotourism
programmes further threat and disrupt the indigenous lifestyle.
Amazonia thus faces a wide ecological and developmental impasse, where alien actors appropriate local resources
under global developmental discourses. The Organisation of the Indigenous Peoples of Pastaza (OPIP) is leading a
resistance against the mainstream development models that just focus on the exploitation of oil, land, and biodiversity.
The OPIP claims the indigenous context of Amazonia, in all territorial, ecological, and cultural terms. In the 1980s, the
OPIP struggled for the indigenous territorial and cultural rights, reaching its climax in a massive march in 1992 where
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
about 2,000 indigenous people walked from their rainforest communities to the capital city of Quito up in the Andes
mountains. Along the 1990s, the OPIP initiated an innovative struggle, aiming at grassroots development alternatives
based on the indigenous ecological knowledge and the native biodiversity. In particular, the OPIP is creating a network of
institutions and projects, which includes a wildlife farm to conduct research on Amazonian native animal species, the
Omaere Ethnobotanical Park to support ethnobotanical knowledge and training, the indigenous Palati Co-operative to
grant credits to family projects that are based on the traditional ecological systems, the Amasanga Institute for research
and advising on ecological and developmental issues, and the Nunguli Project to restore the indigenous agroecological
practices in the communities of the colonised strip (Báez and Castillo, 1997; Guardera and Jácome, 1997; OPIP, 1992;
OPIP, 1998). The indigenous peoples of Pastaza engage in cross-boundary alliances with non-governmental
organisations and international institutions to foster ethnoecological visions and development alternatives in their
territories.
Table 2. Agroecological comparison between indigenous Amazonia and colonised Amazonia
(Pastaza, Ecuador).
Indigenous Amazonia Colonised Amazonia
Agricultural model Indigenous agroecology Monocultural farming
Staple agrobiodiversity (No. species) 12 3
Agrobiodiversity (No. species) > 50 < 8
Cassava genetic diversity 15-20 2-3
Material inputs Low High
Cultural inputs High Low
Market dependence Low or almost non-existent High
Nutrition Fair Poor and irregular
Food security High Low
Ecosystem resilience High Low
Biodiversity conservation High Low
Main challenges Market integration
Cultural-ecological sovereignty
Food insecurity
Vulnerable crop production
Source: Field research in Pastaza, Ecuadorian Amazonia, 1998-99.
In summary, the indigenous peoples of Pastaza aim at an innovative development process in Amazonia where the
indigenous knowledge, the native biodiversity, and the cultural identity are leading forces. Simultaneously, they advance
transcultural alliances and adopt global concepts such as biodiversity conservation and ecological sustainability to
empower their local visions of social development and cultural autonomy. In 1996, the OPIP endorsed the Declaration of
the Indigenous Territories of Pastaza as Biodiversity and Cultural Heritage of the Quichua and Shiwiar Peoples (OPIP,
1996). This document illustrates the emergence of hybrid processes, where mainstream conservationist trends are
reconstructed within the indigenous ecological and cultural context. In essence, the indigenous peoples of Pastaza are
leading a pioneering grassroots mobilisation for livelihood and development alternatives in Amazonia on the basis of their
agroecological and cultural systems.
Concluding remarks
The indigenous peoples of Pastaza use, cultivate, conserve, manage, and exchange biodiversity at a large scale. In
their cosmos, biodiversity is simultaneously wild and cultivated, conserved and shared, sacred and manipulated, food
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
source and cultural script. The indigenous livelihood relies on the indigenous agroecology, embedded in both ecological
practices and cultural meanings. Biodiversity is thus a crucial component of indigenous lifestyles. However, global models
of resource use in Amazonia ignore and disrupt the indigenous context of biodiversity, threatening the well-being and
eroding the biodiversity of local communities. The historical trends of ecological disruption and cultural exclusion in
Amazonia are, however, starting to change through lucid resistances, mobilisations, and cross-cultural experiences that
emerge from the indigenous grassroots.
In 1972, the President of Ecuador visited the area of Puyo in Pastaza. In his speech, he emphasised that development
needed a modern land-use, the abandonment of the indigenous swidden agriculture, and the substitution of native crops
like cassava (Whitten, 1976). About 25 years later, the indigenous peoples of Pastaza are advancing innovative and
pioneering struggles for a development alternative based precisely on the native biodiversity, the indigenous
agroecological practices, and the cultural identity. In current times of major ecological threats and increasing social
vulnerability, biodiversity and indigenous agroecologies become crucial forces for the ecological integrity, the food
security, and the well-being of poor and marginalised communities inhabiting megabiodiversity centres. Recognising and
empowering the indigenous ethnoecological mobilisations can enhance both biodiversity conservation and rural
development in Amazonia.
Acknowledgements
This research is dedicated to the indigenous peoples of Pastaza and to all indigenous peoples that struggle for
biodiversity and cultural dignity in Amazonia. I wish to thank the backing of the Organisation of the Indigenous Peoples of
Pastaza (OPIP) and the generosity of the indigenous communities of Curaray and Mango Urco, among others. César
Cerda, OPIP's President, and Leonardo Viteri, Director of OPIP’s Amasanga Institute, provided unconditional support,
not only allowing me to access the indigenous homelands, but also involving me in indigenous life. I am finally very
grateful to all the indigenous people that shared with me their time, their knowledge, their food, their chicha, their chagra,
their forests, their songs, their dances, their struggles, and their hopes. Without their support this research would have
been impossible. With their generosity, this research has also become a unique journey into the dwelling lands of sacha
runa [the forest people].
References
Altieri, M.A. (ed.). 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press / ITP. Boulder, USA, and
London, UK. Second edition.
Århem, K. 1996. The cosmic food web: Human-nature relatedness in the Northwestern Amazon. In Descola, P. and
Pálsson, G. (eds.), Nature and Society: Anthropological perspectives, Routledge, London, UK.
Báez, S. and Castillo, M. 1997. San Jacinto del Pindo: Alternativas productivas eco-sostenibles y comunitarias para la
Amazonía. In CEA (ed.), Agroecología: Tres opciones sustentables, Quito, Ecuador, pp. 92-126.
Descola, P. (1986). La Nature Domestique: Symbolisme et praxis dans l'écologie des Achuar. Maison des Sciences de
l'Homme. Paris, France. English version: In the Society of Nature: A native ecology in Amazonia, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996.
Garí, J.A. 2000. The Political Ecology of Biodiversity: Biodiversity conservation and rural development at the indigenous
and peasant grassroots. D.Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, UK.
Garí, J.A. 2000b. Biodiversity conservation and use: Local and global considerations. Science, Technology and
Development Papers, No. 7, Center for International Development, Harvard University, USA. Available on the internet
at:
http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/dp
Gómez, D., Lebrun, L. and Flores, L.G. 1998. Un Paseo Cultural y Botánico en el Parque Omaere. Conservar y Educar
hacia el Futuro: Nuestra selva, nuestra cultura, nuestra vida. Fundación Omaere. Quito, Ecuador.
Guardera, L. and Jácome, I. 1997. Fauna Nativa Amazónica: Guía de los Animales del Centro Tecnológico de Recursos
Amazónicos de la OPIP, Centro Fátima. Centro Fátima de la OPIP. Puyo, Ecuador.
Hecht, S.B. 1985. "Environment, development and politics: Capital accumulation and the lievstock sector in Eastern
Amazonia." World Development, 13 (6): 663-684.
Hemming, J. (ed.). 1985. Change in the Amazon Basin. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.
Herrera, R., Jordan, C.F., Klinge, H. and Medina, E. 1978. "Amazon ecosystems: Their structure and functioning with
particular emphasis on nutrients." Interciencia, 3 (4): 223-231.
Hoselitz, B.F. 1952. Non-economic barriers to economic development. Economic Development and Cultural Change 1
(1): 8-21.
Jennings, D.L. 1995. "Cassava: Manihot esculenta." In Smartt, J. and Simmonds, N.W. (eds.), Evolution of Crop Plants,
Longman, Harlow, Essex, UK, 2nd edition, pp. 128-132.
Etnoecológica Vol. 5 No. 7, 21-37pp
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963. The use of wild plants in tropical South America. In Steward, J.H. (ed.), Handbook of South
American Indians, Volume VI, Cooper Square Publishers, New York, pp. 465-486.
McAfee, K. 1999. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and green developmentalism. Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 17: 133-154.
Moran, E.F. 1989. "Models of native and folk adaptation in the Amazon." In Posey, D.A. and Balée, W. (eds.), Resource
Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and folk strategies; Advances in Economic Botany, Volume 7, The New York
Botanical Garden, New York, USA, pp. 22-29.
OPIP (Organización de los Pueblos Indígenas de Pastaza). 1992. Plan Amasanga: Formas de manejo de los recursos
naturales en los territorios indígenas de Pastaza, Ecuador. An internal report commissioned by OPIP and written by A.
Viteri, M. Tapia, A. Vargas, E. Flores and G. González. OPIP. Puyo, Ecuador.
OPIP. 1996. Declaratoria a los Territorios Indígenas de Pastaza como Patrimonio de la Biodiversidad y Cultural de los
Pueblos Quichua y Shiwiar. OPIP. Puyo, Ecuador. Octubre 1996.
OPIP. 1998. Plan Integral de Autodesarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas de Pastaza. Internal working document. OPIP.
Puyo, Ecuador.
Peet, R. and Watts, M. (eds.). 1996. Liberation Ecologies: Environment, development social movements. Routledge.
London and New York.
Perrings, C., Mäler, K.G., Folke, C., Holling, C.S. and Jansson, B.O. (eds.). 1995. Biodiversity Loss: Economic and
ecological issues. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Posey, D.A. (ed.). 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. UNEP / ITP. London, UK.
Posey, D.A. and Balée, W. (eds.). 1989. Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and folk strategies. Advances
in Economic Botany, Volume 7. The New York Botanical Garden. New York, USA.
Raven, P.H. 1990. "Winners and losers in the twentieth-century struggle to survive." Population and Development
Review, Vol. 16, Supplement: Resources, Environment and Population: Present knowledge, future options; pp. 259-
267.
Tassi, G. (ed.). 1992. Náufragos del Mar Verde: La resistencia de los Huaorani a una integración impuesta. Abya-Yala /
CONFENIAE. Quito, Ecuador.
Thrupp, L.A. 1998. Cultivating Biodiversity: Agrobiodiversity and food security. World Resources Institute. Washington
DC, USA.
Thrupp, L.A., Hecht, S. and Browder, J. 1997. The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, realities, and
policy implications. World Resources Institute. Washington DC, USA.
Varea, A., Barrera, C., Maldonado, A.M., Endara, L., Real, B., Reyes, V. and Robalino, G. 1997. Desarrollo Eco-ilógico:
Conflictos socioambientales desde la selva hasta el mar. CEDEP / Abya-Yala. Quito, Ecuador.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
Oxford, UK.
Whitten, N.E. 1976. Sacha Runa: Ethnicity and adaptation of Ecuadorian Jungle Quichua. University of Illinois Press.
Urbana, USA. pp. 265-268.
