Content uploaded by Catarina Casanova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catarina Casanova on Apr 28, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARE ANIMALS AND FORESTS FOREVER?
PERCEPTIONS OF WILDLIFE AT CANTANHEZ
FOREST NATIONAL PARK, GUINEABISSAU
Catarina Casanova 1,2
Cláudia Sousa 3,4
Susana Costa 1
1 CAPP – Centro de Administração e Políticas Públicas, School of Social and Political Sciences
University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
2 Department of Anthropology, School of Social and Political Sciences,
University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
3 CRIA – Centro em Rede de Investigação em Antropologia, Lisboa, Portugal.
4 Department of Anthropology, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas,
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
ABSTRACT
e world’s natural forests, whose rich ecosystems support wildlife and
human populations, are declining and facing unprecedented changes. As
human population rises and globalization disrupts local and more traditional
communities around the planet, the fate of biodiversity seems condemned.
It is people’s behaviour and the economic and political factors (ethnosphere)
who will determine the survival of wildlife and forests. We assessed how local
communities living inside the Cantanhez Forest National Park (hereafter
CFNP) in Guinea-Bissau Republic (hereafter GB) perceived their faunal and
oral millieux. We provide a background context of GB and our study site.
During data collection we used both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Survey questionnaires and interviews were conducted. Regarding the way
individuals perceive other animals, we found that aesthetical values of animals
overlap survival/economic concerns being the most beautiful animals (e.g.
gazelle) simultaneously the most edible. Chimpanzees are considered to be
ugly, non-edible and are seen as the non human most similar to humans. Many
respondents can not conceive the notion of extinction (of forests and wildlife).
Reasons for this will be discussed and nal remarks presented.
Key-words: Guinea-Bissau; human dominated landscape; non human
primate conservation, local perceptions of wildlife;
1. INTRODUCTION
e world’s natural forests, whose rich ecosystems support wildlife and
human populations, are rapidly declining (Brooks, Mittermeier, Fonseca,
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
70
Gerlach, Homann, Lamoreux, Mittermeier, Pilgrim e Rodrigues 2006).
Forest ecosystems are facing unprecedented changes. e biggest challenges
currently imposed on wildlife and biodiversity 1 occur in the realm of the
larger and complex domain of relationships between ecosystems and human
cultures (Davies-Case 2001): ethnosphere (Sheridan and Nyamweru 2008).
Ethnospheres are dened as political, religious, economical, and normative
perceptions and attitudes towards ecosystems and its wildlife (Sheridan and
Nyamweru 2008). Ethnosphere may be seen as the sum of all thoughts, beliefs,
myths and institutions made manifest today by the myriad cultures of the world
(Davis 2001:8). Such thoughts incorporate the complex web of human-
ecosystem relationships (Garibaldi and Turner 2004) which include human
perceptions of wildlife. Humans perceive and value biodiversity and wildlife
elements dierently (Davis 2001, Casanova 2008). While some animal species
may be positively perceived because they can be eaten and do not damage crops
or do not compete over natural resources with human populations, others,
due to their behaviour (e.g. crop-raiding) may be seen as pests (Davies 2001,
Garibaldi and Turner 2004, Gillingham and Lee 2003).
Specic trees may be valuable to humans. For instance, in our study site
(CFNP) in GB, kapok trees or poilão (Ceiba pentandra) are seen as valuable
because these are used to produce traditional soap. Poilão is also perceived as a
ceremonial tree not only in GB but also in other African countries due to its
majestic size and roots, and the shadow its foliage produces. Animistic ritual
practices are performed underneath the shadow of poilões. Formal traditional
power ceremonies may also take place under the shadow of kapok trees or other
majestic trees. Palm trees (Elaeis guineensis) are also perceived as valuable. ese
trees are not only used to produce soap but also to produce wine, to build
houses, to build small basket containers and to eat (e.g. chabéu 2), among other
uses 3.
Ethnosphere knowledge is also important for conservation purposes as it
may help to better understand the relationships between humans, ecosystems
and wildlife thus allowing for the design of appropriate environmental
protection actions (Newmark and Hough 2000). Human cultures are crucial
components of nature and wildlife conservation and restoration (Garibaldi and
Turner 2004). Both social and ecological dimensions within ecosystems have
co-evolved in a balanced way. e maintenance of wildlife and biodiversity by
1 Animal and plant biodiversity
2 Typical traditional dish from GB consisting of the rice plus some vegetable items with smoked sh dressed
with palm oil previously grinded and cooked
3 Dierent attributes and signicances can also be given to dierent landscapes (Casanova 2008).
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
71
native communities, for example, has been well documented (Blackburn and
Anderson 1993, Anderson 1996, Gadgil, Herman and Reddy 1998, Turner
1999, Minnis and Elisens 2000). Traditional conservation practices are unlikely
to be accidental artifacts of specic cultures: they are more likely to be the
result of long series of reciprocal evolutionary interactions between ecologically
intimate organisms (humans included) over long time spans (Gadgil and
Berkes 1991).
Over the years forest perceptions in industrialized countries have changed
radically. Post World War II forests were seen as industrial plantations and
wood production infrastructures. Between the 50’s and the 70’s this post war
views were began to be seen as ethnocentric (e.g. Eurocentric), derived mostly
from capitalist-like economies and lacking in integration of both local and
native knowledge (Davies-Case 2011). After the seventies the complexity and
resilience of ecosystems were considered but only within the boundaries of the
present dominant economic and political, market- and prot-oriented systems
(Dowie 2005, Castree 2008, Igoe and Brockington 2007, Fletcher 2010).
Wildlife conservation views can be traditional or new (e.g. Campbell 2000,
2002). While the former is exclusive and deals with conservation in parks and
protected areas, the latter is inclusive, taking into account land use patterns and
sustainable use of wildlife (see Western and Wright 1994 for an example). New
conservation (the counter narrative) argues that wildlife conservation must be
a bottom-up process (controlled and managed by the communities acting as
stakeholders 4) while the traditional conservation is a top-down process [under
institutional/state control (Campbell 2000, 2002)].
As human population rises and globalization disrupts local and more
traditional communities around the globe, the fate of biodiversity seems to be
doomed in a prot driven global economy. Today the threats to biodiversity
and wildlife conservation are stronger and broader than even before (Brooks et
al. 2006), as diculties in providing well-being to many human communities
increase in spite of humanity’s many achievements. Consequently, human–
wildlife conicts are on the rise across Africa (Hill 1998, Madden 2004,
Browne-Nuñez and Jonker 2008) as human population rises and demand
for land intensies throughout the continent. Conict between people and
wildlife has become an increasingly important issue for conservationists over
the last 30 years, as the need for cultivated land continues to increase rural
Africa (Lee et al. 1986, Lee 2010). Much of this conict takes the form of crop-
4 A village, group of villages, an individual or group of individuals with shared interests in the resources
are considered stakeholders
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
72
raiding by wild species. Such conicts are only predicted to increase further,
decreasing land availability for other animals (Lee 2010). Forest systems will
likely to be dependent on more and more fragmented patches of land, often
already occupied by people.
In addition, many national parks lack funding and law-enforcement.
With decreasing budgets and amidst increasing criticism regarding fortress
conservation approaches (Campbell 2000, 2002; Brockington and Igoe 2007),
some protected areas are increasingly adopting community-based conservation
approaches (Adams & McShane 1992, Adams & Hulme 2001, Bauer 2003,
Campbell 2002). Nowadays, even national park managers collaborate with local
communities in order to improve conservation eectiveness, with approaches
ranging from park outreach to co-management (Barrow & Murphree 2001,
Bauer 2003). e concept of conservation implies protection, maintenance,
rehabilitation, restoration, enhancement and sustainable use of populations
and ecosystems (IUCN 1991). e conservation narrative includes several
dimensions that range from the ethics of using wildlife as a resource to the
ability of a free market economy to adequately regulate wildlife use. Promoting
the sustainable use of wildlife by conservation organizations is in part based on
the perceived need to give wildlife an economic value (Roe 1991). However,
giving wildlife a market value without implementing control regimes might
encourage unsustainable exploitation of species (Freese 1996). Furthermore, it
has often been assumed - particularly in developing countries - that economic
benets are key to gaining support for conservation. However, this assumption
has proven false in some situations (Roe 1991). If economic benets are not
perceived or valued as signicant by its users, conservation will not be suciently
supported.
Ultimately, it is people’s behaviour towards wildlife that will determine
the survival of biodiversity (Lee 2010). Biodiversity, wildlife and human
cultures are linked since the decline of biological diversity often means
the loss of cultural diversity (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). Understanding
the relationships between human settlements, ecosystems, hunting and
agricultural patterns is fundamental for predicting the viability of wildlife
populations. Positive attitudes towards nature and wildlife may act as good
indicators for conservation. Biodiversity conservation works where people
have a positive attitude towards nature. Also, if there is a territory rich in
biodiversity and where people have positive attitudes towards nature, such area
may be a good place to start to conserve. An attitude is a relatively enduring
organization of beliefs about an object or a situation predisposing one to
respond favourably or unfavourably to a commodity, person, institution or
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
73
event. Hence, attitude is an antecedent or determinant of behaviour (Ajzen
and Peterson 1988, Rokeach 1966).A positive attitude regarding a specic
species may determine its survival 5.
Perceptions (and attitudes) are partly
6 culturally constructed and are
inuenced by several variables such as age, gender, religious aliation and ethnic
identity (Aslin and Bennett 2000; Bauer 2003; Browne-Nuñez & Jonker 2008;
Casanova 2008; Dougherty, Fulton and Anderson 2003; Gillingham and Lee
2003; Hill 1998, 2004; Ineld and Namara 2001; Ite 1996; Kuriyan 2004; Lee
and Graham 2006; Manfredo and Dayer 2004; Miller and McGee 2000; Noss
and Cuéllar 2001; Oba and Kaitira 2006; Oba and Kotile 2001; Sarfo-Mensah
and Oduro 2010; Sekhar 2003; Soto et al. 2001; White 1967; Zinn and Pierce
2002).
In this article we examine local perceptions and attitudes towards wildlife
and conservation - focusing mainly on non human primates (hereafter NHP) -
among local communities living inside a recently created national Park in GB,
the CFNP. NHP are of special importance given their IUCN conservation
status: for example chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) are endangered, Guinea
baboons (Papio hamadryas papio) are near threatened, black and white western
colobus monkeys (Colobus polykomos) are considered vulnerable, western red
colobus (Procolobus badius temminckii) are categorized as endangered and the
sooty mangabey (Cercocebus atys) is classied as vulnerable. Many of these NHP
can be seen in the CFNP. Also, NHP play a special role in the park because one
species (the chimpanzee) was chosen as a ag-species by the main local NGO
to represent the park (Costa 2010).
e CFNP is an important biodiversity hotspot (Guinean Forest) where other
animals are also reported: for example the forest elephants (Loxodonta africana
cyclotis), leopards (Panthera pardus) and manatees [Trichechus senegalensis (for a
mammal overview in GB see Reiner and Simões 1999)].
e CFNP was established by the governmental organization IBAP
(Instituto da Biodiversidade e das Áreas Protegidas), some NGO’s (e.g. AD,
Tiniguena, etc.) and several communities living inside the CFNP. Part of the
CFNP territory (which encompasses ~ 1067.67 km2) borders with the Republic
of Guinea. In the CFNP decision-making processes are in the hand of local
traditional authorities. But in the last decades the declining power of traditional
5 International conservation organizations and NGO’s have already understood the importance of perceptions
and attitudes and have tried to inuence these via “traditional conservation” and “new conservation” narratives
[(Campbell 2000, Bauer 2003) but see also Roe (1991) and Hoben (1996) for examples of dierent views].
6 Individual experience also shapes perceptions and attitudes.
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
74
institutions has been accompanied by a weakening authority over forests and
its resources (Casanova and Sousa 2006 and 2007; Temudo 2009a, 2011).
Yet, institutions (traditional and “modern”) play a key-role in maintaining
the condition of the forests and ecosystem resources by indirectly mediating
the eects of social and cultural norms, state policies, technological variables,
market levels and demographic pressures (Agrawal 1995, 1996). Local rules
and regulations designated by local traditional institutions can be eective in
natural resource management because they are considered to be more relevant
to local situations and are considered as legitimate by the local communities.
On the other hand these regulations and rules are not always combined with
eective monitoring and enforcement (Ostrom 2000). Some even argue that
traditional institutions are relics of the past and are too weak to mediate the
underlying drivers of forest and biodiversity degradation today (McKean 2000).
e weakening of the culturally-based institutions has been attributed to the
adoption of Western religious beliefs, the erosion of traditional environmental
knowledge systems, the ethnic diversity and the increased inequality of its users
(Fortmann and Nihra 1992).
With this article we aim to provide an overall view of the main variables
inuencing wildlife perceptions in the CFNP.
e present work is an exploratory and descriptive study of our sample with
four major aims:
i) To characterize socio-demographic and economic data (e.g. income and
household features, trends between certain variables, material possessions and
main income-earning activities);
ii) To characterized diet and nutritional data (e.g. hunting habits inside the
CFNP and potential bushmeat practices);
iii) To assess attitudes towards forests and wildlife (e.g. how locals classify
wildlife), and to characterized the aesthetical perceptions of wildlife along with
the connotations associated with specic species (e.g. pests) and;
iv) To understand if the notion of extinction (wildlife and forest extinction)
is present in the communities living inside CFNP.
We expect to nd a correlation between the economic data collected (e.g.
wealth) and perceptions and attitudes towards the forest and its wildlife.
Economic data, especially those regarding wealth, are not easy to measure in
some rural African settings as it is the case here. In some of the villages visited
(Casanova and Sousa, personal observation 2007) products are exchanged
instead of money. us, some of the indicators used in industrialized countries
(e.g. salary, bank account, etc) were not applicable to this context. On the other
hand, the existence of products, material possessions and its circulation can be
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
75
seen. For example, in GB not everybody has money to buy houses with zinc
roofs but buying a radio or a ashlight does not imply such a great nancial
burden (as buying a house with zinc roong). Dierent degrees of wealth can
be identied according to the amount of money needed to acquire material
possessions. e amount of material possessions an individual of family has
maybe a good indicator of cash crop existence or of other activities that generate
economic feedback.
We expect hunting to be common, although not at a professional level. We
expect bushmeat practices to be infrequent and a rare phenomenon since we
are conducting this study inside a protected area.
We expect to nd positive attitudes towards wildlife with the exception
of species that crop-raid or may constitute a danger to humans. Regarding
NHP, we predict that specic species will be perceived as pests due to stronger
crop-raiding behaviour, while others - such as the chimpanzee - although also
involved in crop-raiding incidents, may be seen in a more positive way due
to (a) their similarity to humans and (b) the fact that crop-raiding damage by
them is not as serious as in other NHP 7.
Finally, since we are collecting data in a protected area, we expect the idea of
wildlife extinction and forest degradation to be present and to have inuence
over local attitudes.
Results are expected to vary across ethnic groups and religious aliation
as in other similar conservation settings (Browne-Nuñez & Jonker 2008;
Gillingham and Lee 2003; Hill 1998, 2004; Ineld and Namara 2001; Ite
1996; Kuriyan 2004; Lee and Graham 2006; Manfredo and Dayer 2004;
Noss and Cuéllar 2001; Oba and Kaitira 2006; Sekhar 2003; Zinn and Pierce
2002).
Such hypothesis and predictions are important as these have implications for
conservation (Lee 2010).
2. METHODS
2.1 Study area: background and context
Guinea-Bissau is one of the smallest countries in the western coast of Africa,
with a total area of 36.120 km2. It shares its northern border with Senegal
and its south-east border with the Republic of Guinea. It is located at 10°55’–
12°40’N and 13°38’–16°43’W. e country is made up of the mainland and
several oshore islands (Bijago´s Archipelago). e Guinea-Bissau islands are
7 When crop-raiding on cashew eld plantations, chimpanzees are not negatively perceived since they do not
eat the nut but only the fruit (Casanova and Sousa, personal observation 2005, Hockings and Sousa 2012).
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
76
almost linked to the continent by wide intertidal mud ats. e topography
of the country is low-lying, rising eastwards from sea level (highest point at
260m). Small areas of primary subtropical forest (the Guinean Forest which
constitutes a biodiversity hotspot) are found in the south-west (Tombali and
Quínara regions) and in the north-west (Cacheu region). e biologically
richest area of this country, with extensive mangroves, mudats and sub-humid
forest fragments is located on the basin of the Tombali, Cumbija and Cacine
rivers, and where the CFNP is located. e CFNP was created in 2007 and is
the most recent protected area in GB.
While some advocate that the CFNP is a set of several forest fragments that
were once a continuous forested area (e.g. Cleaver 1992), other argue that some
forests are the by-product of human communities, created and maintained events
for several reasons: protection during colonial wars, protection against re,
economic benets, etc. (Fairhead and Leach 1995, Sheridan and Nyamweru
2008). Since the 15th Century (see D’Almada 1594 or Casanova 2012 for a
review of early descriptions of GB) that many parts of Africa have become
humanized dominated landscapes with numerous villages, roads, paths, water
holes, crops and other signs of human activity.
e Park is composed of a mosaic of dierent ecosystems. Mangrove swamp
rice areas occupy around 8959.499 ha of the CFNP while other food crops
occupy ~ 7319.236 ha (Simão et al 2004).
e CFNP is composed of a mix of dierent forest fragments (ranging from
sub-humid forests to dry and disturbed forest), dierent savannah types and it
also contains mangrove. Most questionnaires were conducted in villages near
important forest fragments [Amidara fragment (~ 2.507,5 ha), Cambeque
fragment (~1.285,5 ha), Canamina fragment (~ 1.067,5 ha), Cibe de Cadique
(~ 552,5), Cafatche fragment (~ 457,5 ha), Caghode fragment (~ 442,5 ha),
Catomboi fragment (~437,5 ha), Lautchande fragment (~ 405 ha), Madina
fragment (~ 402,5 ha), Caiquéne fragment (~ 362,5), Cabum fragment (~
232,5 ha), Muna fragment (~ 102,5 ha), Cungha fragment (~ 75 ha) and
Capicada fragment (~ 47,5 ha)]. ese fragments are located in the Central
and Southern areas of the CFNP (Simão et al. 2004).
e 2007 population census (INEP/INEC 2007) states that more than
25.000 people living in the CFNP. However, most censuses conducted after
colonial times are not considered reliable (Costa 2010). Regardless, it is
widely accepted that human populations living inside the CFNP boundaries
are rising, hindering conservation.
Several growing settlements near the border with Guinea are mainly inhabited
by citizens of Guinea and they are suspiciously looked upon by GB locals.
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
77
e CFNP houses a complex mix of many ethnic groups (e.g. Fulbe, Nalu,
Susu, Balanta, Tanda, among others).
e diverse range of ethnic groups engage in dierent agricultural practices
ranging from cultivating specialized mangrove swamp rice/paddy rice
(performed mainly by Balanta), to rain-fed rice in the uplands (see Temudo
2011 for more details on rice crops)]. e latter implies yearly clearing of forest
areas (shifting/swidden cultivation). Fulbe, Nalu and other ethnic groups use
such technique (Casanova 2008). Rice is the major food item in the diet of the
communities living in GB 8. Large cashew-nut plantations are found across the
park along with several fruit crops (orchards with orange, lemon, pineapple
and other fruits). Some of these cashew-nuts plantations, fruit orchards and
rain fed rice plantations (along with cassava, sweet potato and other crops) are
located within forest fragments. Apart from protected forest fragments, the
CFNP also encloses buer zones. Very small areas within forest fragments are
considered sacred 9 since several ceremonial rituals often take place there. Only
certain people are allowed to enter these sacred spaces. We were often told by
many villagers that people who enter without permission will never come back
because the irãs10 may get upset and punish the intruders. Physical access to the
dierent parts of a forest fragment is based on dierent degrees of behavioural
freedom.
Some of the crops inside the CFNP (e.g. cashew-nut) are mainly cash-crops
(Temudo 2011). As a highly fragmented habitat, the CFNP can be characterized
as a human dominated landscape, where both wildlife and humans share and
compete for natural resources (Casanova 2008).
e basic social unit in the CFNP (and GB) is the morança, a residential
area composed of one or more houses and households. Villages in rural areas
(tabancas) are usually made up of several moranças.
e rst settlers and traditional owners of CFNP territory (which mainly
occupies a large peninsula) are the Nalu and they named the area Cubucaré
[Cubucaré Peninsula (CP)]. All other ethnic groups who subsequently settled
there are considered guests. Although collective use of land occurs in the CP,
land use in GB has been suering under the inuence of countless individual
and State-driven land processes. During colonial times, specic models were
imposed to exploit the land. Today land exploitation continues as a results
8 When rice is not available, even with other food items available, villagers speak of hunger (Costa 2010).
9 Sacred-forest is a highly dynamic concept (see also Sheridan and Nyamweru 2008). Additionally, spatially
speaking, the territory occupied by sacred-forests also changes.
10 Irãs are magical and religious entities that live in the forest. As expected, in many African communities
due to marked age roles, elder people can provide more information regarding the irãs than young people.
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
78
of globalization and neo-colonial impositions [e.g. in the 1980’s structural
adjustment programs and the market economy were adopted (Temudo 2011)].
In CFNP, resistance to such inuences can only be seen in some traditional
and local/regional authorities: the regulados (chieftaincies). Regulados are
acknowledged by GB formal and national authorities (e.g. regional and
national governments) and pay an important role in decision-making processes
regarding land use. Régulos (chieftains who have several villages under their
authority) and tabanca chefes (village chiefs) are the ones who can decide the
location of a new morança, where crops may be cultivated, the specic kapok
(or other) trees that can be cutted and the areas of the forest fragment to be
cleared. Social acceptance is often the main technique used to enforce this type
of local power. e establishment of CFNP changed some of these rules but law
and enforcement by governmental authorities are not present in the territory
(such control is achieved by co-operation between local authorities and sta
from NGO’s). e decisions of local authorities are sometimes combined
with legal land-possession where administrative processes may contribute to
strengthen traditional decisions. us, in most of the CP, access to the forest
and its resources are still mediated by traditional gures of power.
To certain extend the colonial land reform and “modern” land “rationalization”
diminished the importance of traditional rules. e communities within and
around the CFNP have been exposed to the erosion of the globalization process
and to the market economy values (e.g. forest and wildlife are perceived as
products that have specic prices). In most African countries, common-access
forests are frequented by many groups - such as nomadic herders and villagers
– who have free access and rights to much of the forest land as long as certain
rules are adhered to. Even if local governments state that free access is illegal,
the practice is tolerated because it is impossible to police the forest and its
borders or because there is an implicit approval (Davies-Case 2011) sometimes
even by some State agents. us, tribal lands are owned communally and to
which usufruct rights are granted to local populations by traditional authorities
such as régulos and chefes. is is the case of the CP where traditional power is
recognized and shapes many interactions between the ecosystem and its human
communities. Nonetheless the inuence of local NGO’s in the traditional
decision-making processes and its connection to local authorities (Costa 2010,
Temudo 2009a) is contributing to the shift in perceptions and attitudes.
In CFNP there are more than thirty sacred sites valued and protected by
local people (Costa 2010). Chimpanzees and most NHP can be found in most
of CFNP (e.g. colobus monkeys, green monkeys, Guinea baboons, etc.). Other
mammals such as bualos (Syncerus caer namus), Roan antelopes (Hippotragus
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
79
equinus), warthogs (Phacochoerus), bush pigs (Potomochoerus porcus) and duikers
(Cephalophus) can also be seen. Biodiversity is also rich regarding plant species
(e.g. Anisophyllea laurina, Parinari excelsa, Dialium guineense, Alstonia congensis,
Albizia gummifera, etc.) and as mentioned previously, some of these oral
species are consumed by both humans and wildlife.
e degradation of numerous forest fragments in the CFNP (Casanova &
Sousa 2005, 2006 and 2007), including sacred-forests11, has led us to think that
“traditional” rules and regulations alone are not sucient to mediate the eect
of the increasing demographic and market pressures on local natural resources
(Casanova e Sousa 2005, 2006 and 2007).
Swidden (itinerant) cultivation implies that large portions of forest are being
cleared every year. e generalized use of ries for hunting (used also to feed
the bushmeat market in the urban areas) is an additional threat to CFNP’s
wildlife (Casanova & Sousa 2007). Snares can be easily found within CFNP
(Casanova & Sousa 2007).
2.2 Data collection
Between 2007 and 2010 we used attitudinal questionnaires (with both
open-ended and closed questions) to gather data from villagers belonging to
two major ethnic groups living inside the CFNP territory: the Balanta and
the Nalu. ese two ethnic groups were chosen for specic reasons: the Nalu
are the oldest group living in the CP (D’Almada 1594) and thus its people
are fairly represented inside the Park and in our sample. Although the Balanta
have been present within park boundaries for a lesser time than the Nalu,
the Balanta present a very dierent identity and way of life in comparison to
most other ethnic groups living in GB (Cardoso 1996, Pélissier 1989, Temudo
2009b, van Gent and Ukkerman 1993). e Balanta seem to be less aected by
external inuences [e.g. globalization, Muslim inuence, agricultural practices,
etc. (Lundy 2012, Temudo 2009b)]. us their perceptions towards wildlife
and the forest are important to understanding a signicant part of the sample
population living inside the park and with a dierent religious aliation.
Most questionnaires were conducted in villages near important forest
fragments (see section 2.1). Surveys were not self-administered since most of
our respondents were illiterate. All surveys were conducted by interviewers.
Although the present study was conducted with IBAP’s authorization,
permission was also sought from the traditional power institutions (régulos and
chefes) and the respondents. Interviewers (N=271) belong to dierent villages
11 e today’s concept of sacred-forest is not immune to external variables.
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
80
(tabancas) to ensure that answers would not represent specic villages and to
reach as many as dierent areas of the park as possible.
e surveys focused on the four major dimensions previously mentioned.
Control questions were used to triangulate information and to check the
reliability of the data provided by respondents. Due to the ethnic diversity
within CFNP where many respondents do not speak Creole (the national
language), we used both wild and domestic local animal photographs to make
sure that both interviewers and respondents were referring to the same animals.
Wild and domestic species were randomly selected from a set of reported
animals for the region. A control photo with an American mammal (capuchin
monkey, Cebus apella) was also used. Interpreters were used, especially, but not
limited to, when individuals did not speak Creole. Interpreters were instructed
on how to ask the questions and all the goals and meanings of each question
(and specic words) were previously given.
Our survey sample (N=271) was composed of individuals of both sexes and
of dierent age groups (non-probabilistic quota and multiphase sampling)12.
e age groups chosen for our study were: 14-19; 20-39 and 40 years old or
more (Table 1). e wide intervals between age groups were adopted because
many respondents did not know their exact age. Most knew only that they
were born in the dry or wet season. Our multiphase sample was a non random
procedure which means that our conclusions can not be generalized to the rest
of the population living inside CFNP.
As some practices are illegal inside the park territory (hunting specic animals
and NHP bushmeat trade) we also conducted semi-structured interviews with
local hunters to gather more information on these practices. e interviews
(N=32) took place between 2007 and 2010. During this period we went to
the eld every year and we remained in the eld between three weeks to three
months, during the dry season (from October to May). Interview scripts were
based on topics connected with hunting, bushmeat trade, domestic animals,
law enforcement and other park rules. We asked regulos and chefes to identify
the hunters to be interviewed.
2.3 Data analysis
We computed Kolmogarov-Smirnov Z to test for data normality and the result
was signicant (p=0.03) which meant the data were not normally distributed.
12 We chose a non-probabilistic sample because the total N of people living inside the park was not available.
As previously mentioned, current censuses are not reliable and thus probabilistic sample could not be used.
ough we did interview respondents of both sexes and of dierent group ages, we did not match correspon-
dent proportions of the sample population strata with the universe (all people living inside CFNP).
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
81
us, non parametric tests were used. e Wilcoxon Mann Whitney-U test was
computed to test for a signicant dierence between two samples of independent
observations. We also computed the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance
for comparing if three or more samples were independent. Results were considered
signicant when p≤0.05.
Table 1. Features of non random sample
AGE Ethnic Group: Nalu Ethnic Group: Balanta
SEX SEX
Male Female Male Female
14-19 25 20 25 20
20-39 30 20 31 20
40 and + 20 20 20 20
Totals 75 60 76 60
3. RESULTS
3.1 Socio-demographic and economic data
Here we present a gure which provides a general overview of the sample
population.
Figure 1 presents information about the religious aliations of the respondents.
Contrary to variables such as ethnic group (p=0.07) or age (p=0.09) belonging to
a specic religious aliation did have a signicant statistical correlation (p=0.03)
with specic answers regarding the way animals are classied and perceived. us,
Figure 1: Distribution of Nalu and Balanta per major religious groups (N=271)
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
82
all results presented here are mainly connected with the signicant statistical
dierences between the variable religious aliation and a specic variable of
our study (e.g. aesthetic value of animals, hunted species, beliefs of forest and
animal survival/conservation, etc.). Most responses had a signicant statistical
correlation with religious aliation [and gender (although gender issues will be
discussed in a future publication)].
Most Nalu are Muslim while most Balanta are Catholic or Animists.
Although most Nalu, identify themselves as Muslims, they also engaged in
animistic practices and beliefs, such as various irãs. Irãs are animistic magic and
religious entities. e same was true for most Catholic Balanta. is religious
syncretism has been previously described by many authors for this country
(e.g. Dias 1956; Gonçalves 1958, 1961; Harrison 1998; Mota 1954). Our data
suggests that there may be dierent Muslim categories because when discussing
practices such as eating specic food items and/or earning money from specic
activities which are considered inappropriate or unethical according to Islamic
principles, while some Muslims were named pure, other were called impure.
Many Muslim respondents draw a straightforward and clear separation between
pure and impure (Casanova and Sousa, in preparation). Pure Muslims do not
drink alcohol, do not eat warthogs, bush pigs and NHP and are not involved
in the bushmeat trade of these species. e impure Muslims, however, drink
alcohol, eat and/are involved in the bushmeat trade of such species, and such
behaviours are tolerated (Casanova 2008).
Figure 2 represents the Nalu’s main income-earning activities. Respondents
were asked which activity brought the most income to the household. Most
Figure 2: Income per activity among Nalu (n=135)
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
83
individuals stated that their crops (e.g. cassava, sweet potato, peanuts, cashew
plantation, orchards, etc.) represented the highest income activities earned and
owed evenly by rice crops (mangrove and rain fed) and oil palm production.
Forest clearing13, commercial trade and hunting also represent important
activities (time-consuming) for the Nalu.
Swamp rice (30%) and palm oil production (24%) followed by other food
crops provide the most income to the Balanta (Figure 3). Rain fed rice and
shing are also an important source of income for the Balanta. e Balanta
rely more on mangrove swamp rice while the Nalu rely on other food crops.
Some of these food crops are cash-crops: that is the case of cashew or peanuts
(Temudo 2011).
To measure wealth among both ethnic groups, we asked questions regarding
material possessions, such as houses with zinc roofs, the ownership of radios,
bicycles, motorbikes, mobile phones or ashlights.
Dierences between Nalu and Balanta are signicant for almost all items
(p≤0.05). Flashlight ownership represents the most signicant dierence
between both groups (p=0.031). Nalu respondents appear to have more material
possessions than the Balanta [with the exception of the ashlight which is the
only that is better represented among the Balanta (see Figure 4)].
Figure 3: Income per activity among Balanta (n=136)
13 Some farmers pay individuals to clear specic forested areas so that they can, later, plant crops. is activity
is named pabi (Creole).
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
84
3.2 Diet, hunting habits and bushmeat practices
We asked respondents to look at the photographs previously selected and
to point to the animals that were edible and non edible. Answers varied
with religious aliations but not with ethnicity. Gazelles are the preferred
wild animal to eat for all religious aliations followed by other animals such
as warthog or bush pigs. Muslims (pure) are an exception to this trend for
obvious religious reasons. us a statistical dierence was found between
Muslims, Catholics and Animists (p=0.004). NHP are considered edible
animals but mainly by Animists (see Figure 5).
Figure 4: Wealth in both ethnic groups (N=271)
Figure 5: Edible animals per religious group (N=271)
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
85
Turtles (e.g. Kinixys belliana nogueyi) and pangolins (Manis tetradactyla) are
also edible options but to a lesser extent than the previously mentioned
animals (there were no signicant dierences for both turtles and pangolins
regarding the three religious aliations).
Chimpanzees and hyenas (lobo in Creole) seem to be the less preferred wild
animals to eat, as indicated by all respondents, from all religious aliations
(see Figure 6). Snakes are mostly perceived by Catholics as inedible.
Interesting information that emerged from the interviews with hunters is that
domestic animals (e.g. pigs, goats or cows) are, where possible, kept as protein
reservoirs for harsh periods in contrast with what happens with wild animals.
Figure 6: Inedible animals per religious group (N=271)
Figure 7: Why do locals hunt? (N=271)
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
86
Figure 7 clearly shows that although Muslims may not eat certain animals
(e.g. NHP) on a regular basis, they do hunt and/or sell these animals. People
who described themselves as animists say they hunt mainly to provide food. In
all other religious aliations reasons given for hunting are commercial activities
and defense against crop-raiders.
Animists (mainly the Balanta) have little involvement in commercial
hunting. In fact, when asking which type of weapons are used during hunting,
some Balanta did not have any weapons and reported to hunt with the help of
dogs (n=2/45 or 4.4%/100%). Catholics and Muslims always used rearms.
us, there were signicant dierences in the way the three religious aliations
hunted for food (p=0.026) and their reasons for hunting [commercial purposes
(p=0.039)].
3.3 How locals see wildlife
Wildlife was perceived in dierent ways according to its features: from
crop raiding and having a negative impact on economic feedback (and other
utilitarian dimensions of wild species), to harmless wild animals that do not
compete for resources with humans. Several characteristics were considered
by locals to classify an animal: the aesthetic dimension of animals represented
one category. Aesthetic perceptions were related to animal edibility for many
animals [e.g gazelle (see Figure 8)]. Some domestic animals are perceived as
equally beautiful. Such visions of biodiversity organisms are highly utilitarian
(Casanova 2008) where aesthetic values are generally, but not always, linked
to daily food safety concerns (Casanova 2008; see Roque de Pinho 2009 for
interesting data on aesthetic values for Maasai).
Animals perceived as ugly are mainly the chimpanzee, other NHP and
the hyena. But there are dierences since Muslims are much more adverse to
NHP (at least 60% of these respondents’ perceived chimpanzees as the ugliest
animal and exhibited disgust in reference to NHP). NHP are considered to be
similar to humans but chimpanzees are seen as being more similar to humans
than any other animal, especially by Animists and by Muslin (see Figure 10).
3.4 Local perceptions of sustainability
Regarding perceptions of forest resource sustainability [forests and wildlife
(Figures 11 and 12)] it is clear that the notion of extinction is hard to imagine
for some respondents (although the same was not true for all the hunters
interviewed – see also Casanova 2008). When interviewed, villagers appear
to understand the concept of extinction: they would mention examples of
animals that have disappeared from GB (e.g. lion). However, for some it
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
87
Figure 8: Beautiful animals per religious group (N=271)
Figure 9: Ugliness in animals per religious group (N=271)
Figure 10: Perceptions of species’ similarity with humans (N=271)
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
88
was quite dicult to apply this notion to daily-living contexts. Although
many respondents understood that forests could disappear [pointing out
the most frequent reasons (e.g. deforestation and other human activities)],
some respondents could not even consider such a notion. People in CFNP
are completely dependent on forest resources to survive (see Figure 13) and
therefore may take forest existence for granted.
e same is true for the notion of wildlife extinction. Many respondents said
that it is a possible outcome resulting from human activities (e.g. deforestation
or hunting). e notion of extinction appears to be stronger when talking
about wildlife (see Figure 12) rather than forests (see Figure 11).
Figure 11: Forest conservation and sustainability (N=271)
Figure 12: Wildlife conservation and sustainability (N=271)
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
89
Why did not some respondents consider the extinction of both forests
and wildlife possible? e answers were very similar across the main religious
aliations. Some thought the forests were too big and therefore an impossible
commodity to run out of. Other though, mentioned that forests would never
end because these were protected by the State (forest are protected areas where
specic rules imposed by the State apply).
Many respondents belonging to the three main religious groups felt that forests
would never become extinct because they provide the basic needs for survival.
When exploring the reasons why some of the respondents mentioned
that wildlife would never become extinct, it is important to mention that
Figure 13: Reasons why forests will never become extinct (N=271)
Figure 14: Reasons why animals/wildlife will never become extinct (N=271)
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
90
almost 95% of the respondents of both ethnic groups stated that they see
fewer animals now than they used to (Casanova 2008). is is surprising
given some of the data presented in Figure 12.
Figure 14 shows the main reasons why - according to the respondents
perceptions - wild animals will never disappear. ere are signicant dierences
(p=0.03) between the way all religious groups see wildlife as “protected”. e
same is true for the notion that the birth of too many ospring will never allow
for that to happen (p=0.03) or that species were created by God (p=0.04).
4. DISCUSSION
Characterizing our sample, the majority of Muslims (mainly the Nalu)
had more material possessions than the other ethnic group in the sample
population. is reects the existence of cash ow most likely due to cash crops
(see Temudo 2011) but also due to illegal hunting to feed the bushmeat market
(Casanova & Sousa 2007, Starin 2010). ough Nalu owed more material
possessions overall, Balanta respondents had more ashlights than Nalus. is
is understandable since Balantas live in more isolated environments, often
in their own tabancas. While Nalu people (mainly Muslims) are generally
concentrated in large tabancas where there may be electricity and other energy
source such as small generators (Iemberém, Madina, Guiledge, among other
tabancas), Balanta tabancas are located along rivers (sometimes by the sea) and
away from the rest of most ethnic groups. Balanta are more reserved and may
be seen as more environmental-friendly rice growers (according to our data, they
cultivate more swamp rice than rain fed rice – see also van Gent, and Ukkerman
1993 and Temudo 2011). us, the entrepreneurship that characterizes Muslims
(mainly Nalu people from our sample) can be seen through their involvement
in commercial trading via cash crops and the bushmeat market. is allows
them to have more material possessions (such as a higher percentage of mobile
phones, radios, houses with zinc roofs, bicycles and motorbikes). Similar results
were found by Amador, Casanova and Lee (2012) between Balanta and Beafada
in Cufada Lagoon Natural Park (also in GB) where Beafada (Muslims) seem to
have more money than Balanta. In Cufada Lagoon Natural Park the latter also
live more isolated from the main villages and therefore need ashlights when
they want to move at night. e prices of ashlights are not as high as the price
of most other items. Such data show us that Nalu [and Beafada (Amador et al.
2012)] are richer than Balanta if only cash ow is considered.
e perceived existence, by Muslims, of two types of Muslim (the pure
and the impure), seems to have negative eects for NHP (and biodiversity)
conservation because the impure Muslims, although they do not eat NHP,
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
91
warthogs and bush pigs, they do hunt and trade them. And within the
impure Muslims, some even eat such wild animals during bafatório. Bafatório
is known as the practice of drinking alcohol accompanied with bushmeat
(usually some kind of NHP stew). Such practice is common amongst many
Muslim respondents. While these argued that the NHP stew is consumed
to evade the smell of alcohol, others (those describing themselves as pure
Muslims) perceive it as “double sin”. Pure Muslims argue that the money
earned via bushmeat (NHP, warthog or bush pig) is dirty. For them, living
from that money will pollute households. However, several Muslims who
stated that they did not eat NHP meat during the survey, later (during
the interviews that focused on hunting) admitted consuming such species.
Nevertheless, Muslims hunt mainly for commercial reasons since they are
involved in the bushmeat trade.
Our data show that in many villages domestic animals are primarily eaten
during important celebrations such as toca-choros (day and night long funeral
ceremonies) or village celebrations. Wild animals are perceived as usable on
a daily basis, while domestic animals are seen as safety nets for war times or
famine. However, in cities (e.g. Bissau), eating domestic animals is more
common than eating wild species. For instance, during specic periods of
the year (e.g. Easter) the price of NHP meat is much higher than livestock
meat, and thus becomes too pricey for most families to buy (Casanova,
personal observation 2007).
In two of the 17 tabancas visited in the South of CFNP (Casanova 2009 and
2010, personal observation), 2 professional hunters (one from each tabanca)
were spotted. ese individuals did not have any rice plantation (though one
did have a cashew eld) and made a living from hunting. Such a situation
is highly unusual since most people living in rural areas own some kind of
subsistence crop(s). e fact that a signicant part of our sample was Muslim
did not confer any advantage for biodiversity conservation (mainly NHP).e
protable gain from bushmeat market is appealing to Muslims.
Bushmeat routes cross the country from the South (Tombali region) to the
North. Bushmeat routes coincide with most of the main roads that lead to
cities such as Quebo, Buba and the capital city, Bissau (Casanova & Sousa
2005, 2006 and 2007; Starin 2010). Bushmeat cadavers are transported in
3 dierent contexts: i) by car/van/truck which carry passengers and/or crops
and where drivers are involved in the trade – veihicles transport coal, oranges,
pineapples or other crops and carry bushmeat in hidden parts of the vehicles
and under the main cargo; ii) by passenger vans or cars where drivers may
not be aware that the passengers are carrying bushmeat since they are often
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
92
carried by bideiras, women who serve as intermediaries between hunters and
buyers and iii) by people who are not frequently involved in the trade but
who sometimes hunt and travel to Bissau and other cities to sell the carcases
and earn some money. In the latter case young adult males or teenagers may
be involved in bushmeat selling. While hunting is a male activity, selling is
more exible, allowing for the participation of women as bideiras. Nonetheless,
bushmeat is a predominantly male-based business. Women mainly cook the
meat according to the traditional African gender roles (or act as intermediates
within informal economy networks). When the main roads are being watched
by policemen (from the Forestry Department or other governmental divisions)
illegal traders drop their cargo directly to Bissau Port via sea. Bushmeat is sold
in a reserved and out of sight way (when compared with livestock) but it is
relatively easy to buy carcases in one of the major Bissau markets (e.g. Chapa,
among other markets – see Casanova & Sousa 2007).
Gazelles are the preferred wild animal to eat but NHP are also popular.
e political and military turmoil that the country has suered since the
liberation war (from the Portuguese colonialist government) in the 60’s to
the present may explain the need of maintaining a secure protein source
(domestic animals) that provides nutrients only in special occasions of if war
comes back again. In rural areas, while there is no war and there are no special
celebrations, wild animals provide the necessary proteins. Civil wars, coup
d’états or highly violent political assassinations of rivals are common in GB.
e almost non-existence of the State is marked by a strong dependency for
foreign aid, by the use of the country as a cocaine/drug platform (Ellis 2009,
Felbab-Brown 2010) which acts as an intermediary for shipping prohibited
substances to Europe, and, by the bribe culture well ensconced in the country
(e.g. Ellis 2006, Temudo 2009a). As a result of such turmoil, domestic
animals in rural areas are perceived as safety protein reservoirs. However,
cash crops may also be perceived as safety reservoirs which, when under
attack (crop-raiding by wildlife), must be defended. Animals that crop-raid
are immediately perceived as having negative qualities (although these may
be capitalized via bushmeat to provide economic feedback). Food security
was the main concern of most respondents where aesthetic values of wildlife
overlap with the preferred animals to eat: the gazelle, is, simultaneously the
most beautiful animal and the preferred animal to eat. Beautiful was explained
to respondents as something that is attractive to the eye but does not have to
be good to eat. Still, the classication of animals seems to be built around
principles such as food security and economic feedback (an Occidental and
market economy vision). e fact that several domestic animals were also
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
93
perceived as beautiful (and edible) conrms such rational behind the local
classication. erefore, non edible wildlife is perceived as ugly (e.g. hyenas,
chimpanzees, among other). Chimpanzees represent a contradiction to this
line of thought, mainly due to their similarity to humans. Chimpanzees were
perceived as the animal most similar to humans but also as the ugliest one.
is is not to say that humans are ugly but that chimpanzees are perceived
as imperfect (regarding humans) or almost perfect (since they are the most
similar to humans). is notion is conrmed in another study where most
respondents answered that, if they could not be humans, they would choose
to be chimpanzees (Casanova 2008, Costa 2010).
As for resource sustainability, the strong dependence of natural resources
inside CFNP may suppress a real acceptance of extinction: the dependency
is so strong that some respondents can not imagine that wildlife and
forests may not exist as this would deny their own existence (self-centred
perspective). Respondents clearly stated that one of the reasons why forests
would never disappear was because these provided the basic needs for
their survival. Some of these respondents also saw the forest as something
very variable [e.g. disturbed forest fragments or primary forests were both
perceived as forests (the word mato was used)]. e scientic classication of
forest is not as plastic as the local one. Scientically, forests are classied into
dierent types or categories but for locals these types did not exist as such.
Implications of this for forest and wildlife conservation can be negative since
some species can not easily survive in disturbed or too fragmented forests.
e idea of wildlife extinction appears to be more generally accepted than
forest disappearance.
Our data also show that Occidental-based concepts such as protected
species (or protected areas) may be wrongly perceived when introduced in
dierent cultural contexts. e notion of protection is perceived by many
as an approval given by the State to allow further exploitation of certain
species/areas (without so many restrictions). According to the respondents,
these species are not protected from humans but by humans for the benet of
people. Simplistic transpositions of concepts amongst very dierent cultural
contexts such as these may have many negative impacts on biodiversity
conservation. e State attributes the category of protected and the State is a
category immediately below God (Temudo 2009a).
Cross-questioning conrmed that locals were aware of the concept of
animal abundance. When asked if they used to see more animals in the past
than in the present, most respondents said that in the past animals were
more abundant.
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
94
However, the inuence of God(s) in human lives also seems to be present in
many answers. Respondents sometimes reply that somehow divine gure(s)
created wildlife and therefore wildlife can only disappear via God(s).
Our results can not be generalized beyond the sample used. Multiphase
sampling was a non random procedure which did not allow for extrapolations
even within the entire CFNP. Furthermore, individuals and communities
can not necessarily be considered as homogeneous categories with respect
to their understanding, perceptions, expectations and behaviours towards
biodiversity conservation, which could have implications for the success or
failure of conservation programmes.
e extrapolations presented by some works (Ite 1996, Bollig and Schultez
1999, Hill 1998) may be incorrect from a methodological point of view since
random sampling was not possible in many studies (or no information was
provided regarding the target population, the sample type and the sample’s
representativeness). As such, the conclusions of a specic sample can not always
be generalized for the rest of the population. ere are standard protocols in any
survey questionnaire used in social sciences (Sampieri et al 2007), which are not
followed by many authors dedicated to the human-non human interface. General
trends must be used with precaution (or taken with a grain of salt). Researchers
face several diculties when conducting social surveys in Africa. ey battle
with language barriers, cultural dierences between themselves and local people,
nomadicism, a lack of reliable census information, transport and other logistic
concerns and many other issues. Some of these diculties will naturally aect the
methods (and techniques) used by researchers.
5. FINAL REMARKS
Perceptions and attitudes are good indicators of behaviours (Ajzen and
Peterson 1988, Rokeach 1966), which ultimately will determine biodiversity
sustainability (Davies-Case 2001, Lee 2010).
Traditional perceptions of nature and wildlife in Africa have been exposed
to the erosion of the globalization process, to market economy values (Kuriyan
2004, Casanova 2008) to centuries of religious intervention and thought
orientation (Harrison 1988; Gonçalves 1958, 1961; Mota 1954; Pélissier 1989).
Religious aliation is thus of great importance when considering perceptions
of wildlife; religion aects the way people perceive other animals (Browne-
Nuñez & Jonker 2008, Hill 2004, Ite 1996, Manfredo and Dayer 2004, Noss
and Cuéllar 2001, Sekhar 2003).
Local beliefs and practices towards wildlife are changing. For some (e.g.
Soto, Munthali and Breen 2002) acknowledging the fragility of certain local
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
95
practices and changing behaviours may be decisive for conservation. ese
argue that foreign intervention is needed (Schaller 2002).
Human communities have been adopting environmental friendly practices
across time with both social and ecological ecosystem dimensions evolving
in a balanced way14 (Anderson 1996; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Elisens
2000; Gadgil and Berkes 1991; Gadgil, Herman and Reddy 1998; Turner
1999). Local taboos (Colding and Folke 1997, 2001), environmental-
friendly practices, forest-friendly traditional management systems and other
phenomenon are not new and may be considered as conservation tools since
they play an important role in sustainability (Casanova 2008). Whether such
phenomenon will resist the changes provoked by globalization and the market
philosophy is subject to debate, since traditional beliefs are not immune
to external inuences. Resilience to western-like values such as the market
economy in the way livelihoods sustain themselves is still to be seen. In fact,
traditional societies are suering the erosion of destructive forces (e.g. market
economy and globalization via the presence of NGOs with the traditional or
new conservation speech, the State institutions and various other enculturation
agents and organizations). In narratives (traditional and new conservation),
wildlife and forests are threatened by extinction being the crisis context
always present (Temudo 2009a). Along with such narrative, comes the free
market speech to regulate the use of ecosystems and it’s services. Nevertheless,
there is little argument against the fact that the forests of the world (and
the wildlife they sustain) are declining. e main debatable point seems to
be the rate or intensity of this decline. e ecosystems that have supported
the earth’s diverse and complex social systems are facing unprecedented
changes (Garibaldi and Turner 2004). Some authors (e.g. Schaller 2002)
argue that local control over resources alone will not assure sustainability and
that communities need technical assistance to determine biological limits to
harvesting resources and for monitoring and managing such resources (op.
cit.). is is a rather interventionist (named by some as “neo-colonialist”)
perspective. Others argue that local communities must be left alone, without
any kind of interference.
e support of national parks by local people comes from the perception of
costs and benets against the backdrop of social, political, cultural and economic
considerations (Ite 1996, Freese 1998). e protection of biodiversity is seen
within a global market economy framework (Freese 1998) where everything is
14 See also Temudo (2009a) that argues that was the case of the Nalu people and their natural resource
management system.
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
96
associated to costs and benets. Guinea-Bissau does not seem to be exempt to such
inuence. is is a time of change for forests, wildlife and for forest communities.
Acknowledgments
e authors would formally like to thank to IBAP, AD, Alacabum from
Madina de Cantanhez and to others who were important during and/or after
data collection (Sónia Frias, Alexandra Serangonha, Ana Costa, André Barata,
Rui Sá and Pastor Américo and Sílvia). e authors would also like to thank
to Joana Roque de Pinho and Michelle Klailova for the rst comments on the
manuscript and for feedback provided. During data collecting the authors were
supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia Research and Development
Projects POCI/ANT/57434/2004 and PTDC/CS/ANTl099184/2008.
REFERENCES
Abel, T. and JR. Stepp 2003. A New Ecosystems Ecology for Anthropology. Conservation
Ecology, 7 (3):12 [Online] URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art12
Agrawal, A. 1995. Population pressure = forest degradation: An oversimplistic equation?
Unasylva 181(46):50-58.
Agrawal, A. 1996. e community vs. the markets and the state: Forest use in Uttarakhand
in the Indian Himalayas, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(1):1-15.
Ajzen, I. and GL. Peterson 1988. Contingent value measurement: the price of everything
and the value of nothing. In Peterson, GL, BL Driver and R Gregory (Eds.), Amenity Resource
Valuation: Integrating Economics with Other Disciplines. Venture: State College. Pp. 65-76.
Amador, R.; C. Casanova and PC. Lee 2012. Ethnic Speeches on Non-Human Primate
Bushmeat at Lagoas de Cufada Natural Park (LCNP), Guinea-Bissau, Folia Primatologica,
Abstracts of the 4th Congress of the European Federation for Primatology and 3rd
Iberian Primatological Congress, Almada, Portugal, September 14–17, 2011, Editor:
Casanova,C.; S. Sousa and F. Peléaz, Lisboa, Portugal - DOI: 10.1159/000337909); 39.
Anderson, MK. 1996. Tending the wilderness. Restoration and Management Notes, 14
(2):154-66.
Armitage, DR. 2003. Traditional agroecological knowledge, adaptive management
and the socio-politics of conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Environmental
Conservation 30:79–90.
Aslin, HJ. and DH. Bennett 2000. Wildlife and world views: Australian attitudes
toward wildlife, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5(2):15-35.
Barrow, E.; P. Bergin; M. Ineld and P. Lembuya 1995a. Community conservation –
Lessons from benet sharing in East Africa. In Bissonette and Krausman eds. Integrating
People and Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. Maryland: e wildlife Society.
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
97
Barrow, E.; P. Bergin; M. Ineld and P. Lembuya 1995b. e peoples’ voice: partnership
and community conservation. In Bissonette and Krausman eds. Integrating People and
Wildlife for a Sustainable Future. Maryland: e Wildlife Society.
Barraclough, S. and KB. Ghimire 1996. Deforestation in Tanzania: beyond simplistic
generalizations, Ecologist, 26(3):126-35.
Bassi, M. 2003. Enhancing equity in the relationship between protected areas and local
communities in the context of global change – Horn of Africa and Kenya. TILCEPA
report. IUCN/CEESP.
Bauer, H. 2003. Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon,
Environmental Conservation, 30:175-181.
Blackburn, TC. and K. Anderson 1993. Before the wilderness: environmental
management by native Californians. Menlo Park, California: Ballena Press.
Becker, CD. and K. Ghimire. 2003. Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge
and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Ecology
8(1):1. [Online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss1/art1/
Bennett, EL. and JG. Robinson 2002. Hunting of wildlife in Tropical Forests:
Implications for Biodiversity and Forest People. Washington DC: e World Bank.
Berkes, F, J. Colding and C. Folke. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management, Ecological Applications, 10:1251-1262.
Bollig, MI. and A. Schultez 1999. Environmental Change and Partoral Perceptions:
Degradation and Indigenous Knowledge in Two African Partoral Communities,
Human Ecology, 27(3):493-514.
Brickington, D. and J. Igoe 2007. Eviction for Conservation, Conservation and Society,
4(3):424-470.
Brohman, J. and J. Brohman. 1961. Popular development: rethinking the theory and
practice of development. Cambridge Mass, USA: Blackwell.
Brown, K. 2003. ree challenges for a real people-centred conservation, Global Ecology
and Biogeography, 12:89–92.
Browne-Nuñez, C. & SA. Jonker 2008. Attitudes Toward Wildlife and Conservation
Across Africa: A Review of Survey Research, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13(1):47-70.
Campbell, LM. 2000. Human need in rural developing areas: perceptions if wildlife
conservation experts, Canadian Geographer, 44(2):196-81.
Campbell, LM. 2002. Conservation Narratives in Costa Rica: Conict and Co-
existence, Development and Change, 33:29-36.
Cardoso, C. 1996. Classe Política e Transição Democrática na Guiné-Bissau. In
Koudawo, F. and PK. Mendy (Eds.). Pluralismo Político na Guiné-Bissau: Uma Transição
em Curso. Bissau: INEP.
Casanova, C. e C. Sousa. 2005. Relatório de Missão Distribuição das Comunidades de
Chimpanzés (Pan troglodytes verus) na Região Costeira da República da Guiné-Bissau e a
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
98
sua Relação com as Comunidades Humanas Locais. Direcção-Geral de Florestas e Caça e
Ministério da Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural.
Casanova, C. e C. Sousa. 2006. Relatório de Missão Distribuição das Comunidades de
Chimpanzés (Pan troglodytes verus) na Região Costeira da República da Guiné-Bissau
e a sua Relação com as Comunidades Humanas Locais. Ministério da Agricultura e
Desenvolvimento Rural, Instituto da Biodiversidade e das Áreas Protegidas (IBAP),
Direcção-Geral de Florestas e Caça, Direcção-Geral do Ambiente, IUCN e AD.
Casanova, C. e C. Sousa. 2008. Relatório de Missão Distribuição das Comunidades
de Chimpanzés (Pan troglodytes verus), Cólobos Vermelhos (Procolobus badius
temminckii), Cólobos brancos e negros (Procolobus polykomos) na República da Guiné-
Bissau e a sua Relação com as Comunidades Humanas Locais. Ministério da Agricultura
e Desenvolvimento Rural, Instituto da Biodiversidade e das Áreas Protegidas (IBAP),
Direcção-Geral de Florestas e Caça, Direcção-Geral do Ambiente e AD.
Casanova, C. 2008. Viagem ao Lugar do «Outro», In Frias, S. (Ed.). Etnograa e
Emoções. Lisboa: ISCSP/UTL. Pp. 19-33.
Casanova, C. 2012. O papel de Mendes Côrrea enquanto referência na Antropologia
Biológica em Portugal: Caminhos e percursos. In Martins, A. (org.) - A. E. MENDES
CÔRREA (1888-1960), entre a ciência, a docência e a política. Lisboa: ACD Editores.
Pp. 85-127.
Costa, S. 2010. Social Perceptions of Nonhumans in Tombali (Guinea-Bissau, West
Africa): a contribution to chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus) conservation. Department
of Psychology, University of Srtirling (PhD esis).
Castree, N. 2008. Neoliberalizing Nature: e Logics of deregulation and re-egulation,
Environment and Planning, 40(1):131-152.
Cleaver, K. 1992. Deforestation in the Western and Central African Forest: the
agricultural and demographic causes, and some solutions. In Cleaver, K.; M.
Munashighe, M. Dyson, N. Egle, A. Peuker and F. WencClius (Eds.), Conservation of
West and Central Africa’s Rainforests, Environment Paper nº 1. Washington DC: World
Bank. Pp. 65-78.
Colding, J. and C. Folke 1997. e relations among threatened species, their protection
and taboos. Conservation Ecology [on line] 1 (1): 6. (URL: http://www.consecol.org/
vol1/iss1/art6)
Colding, J. and C. Folke 2001. Social taboos: “Invisible” System of local resource
management and biological conservation, Ecological Applications, 11(2):584-600.
D’Almada, A. A. 1594. Tratado Breve dos Rios de Guiné do Cabo-Verde; Desde o Rio de
Sanagá até aos Baixos de Stª Ana; de todas as Nações de Negros que há na dita Costa, e de
seus Costumes, Armas, Trajes, Juramentos e Guerras. Lisboa: Ocina Gráca Limitada.
Davis, A. and JR. Wagner. 2003. Who knows? On the importance of identifying experts
when researching local ecological knowledge, Human Ecology 31:463–489.
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
99
Davis-Case, DA. 2001. e Reective Practitioner: Learning and Teaching in
Community-based Forest Management, Conservation Ecology 5(2):15.
Dias, J. (1956). Minorias étnicas nas províncias ultramarinas. Lisboa: Centro de Estudos
Políticos e Sociais (Relatório condencial).
Dietz, T.; E. Ostrom and PC. Stern 2003. e struggle to govern the commons. Science,
302:1907–12.
Donovan, D. and R. Puri. 2004. Learning from traditional knowledge of non-timber
forest products: Penan Benalui and the autecology of Aquilaria in Indonesian Borneo.
Ecology and Society 9(3):3. [Online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/
art3/
Dougherty, EM.; DC. Fulton and DH. Anderson. 2003. e Inuence of Gender on
the Relationship Between Wildlife Value Orientations, Beliefs, and the Acceptability of
Lethal Deer Control in Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Society and Natural Resources,
16(7):603-623.
Dowie, M. 2005. Conservation Refugees: when protecting nature means kicking
people out, Orion, 1-12.
Ellis, S. 2006. e Roots of African Corruption, Current History, 203-208.
Ellis, S. 2009. West Africa’s International Drug Trade, African Aairs, 108(431):171-196.
Fabricius, C. and E. Koch 2004. Rights, resources and rural development: community-
based natural resource management in Southern Africa. London: Earthscan.
Fairhead, J. and M. Leach 1995. False Forest History, Complicit Social Analysis: Rethinking
Some West African Environmental Narratives, World Development, 23(6):1023-1035.
Felbab-Brown, V. 2010. e West African Drug Trade in Context of the Region’s Illicit
Economies and Poor Governance. Presentation to Conference on Drug Tracking
in West Africa, Arlington, VA, October 14, 2010 [Online] URL: http://www.
brookings-tsinghua.cn/~/media/Files/rc/speeches/2010/1014_africa_drug_trade_
felbabbrown/1014_africa_drug_trade_felbabbrown.pdf
Fletcher, R. 2006. Neoliberal Environmentality: Towards a Poststructuralist Political
Ecology of Conservation Debate, Conservation and Society, 8(3):171-181.
Folke, C. 2004. Traditional knowledge in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society,
9(3):7. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7/
Fortmann, L. and C. Nihra 1992. Local management of trees and woodlands Resources in
Zimbabwe: A tenurial Niche Approach (OFI Occasional Paper No. 43, Oxford Forestry
Institute - OFI, UK).
Freese, C. (compiler). 1996. e commercial, consumptive use of wild species: managing
it for the benet of biodiversity. Washington: WWF-US; Gland: Switzerland: WWF
International. 60 pp.
Freese, CH. 1998. Wild Species as Commodities. Managing Markets and Ecosystems for
Sustainability. Washington: Island Press.
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
100
Gadgil, M. and F. Berkes 1991. Traditional resource management systems, Resource
Management and Optimization, 8:127-41.
Gadgil, M.; NS. Heman and BM. Reddy 1998. People, refugia and resilience. In
Berkes, F. and C. Folke (Eds). Linking social and ecological systems: management practices
and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pp.:30-47.
Gadgil M., PR. Seshagiri Rao, G. Utkarsh, P. Pramod and A. Chatre 2000. New
meanings for old knowledge: the people’s biodiversity registers programme, Ecological
Applications, 10:1307-1317.
Garibaldi, A. and N. Turner 2004. Cultural Keystone Species: Implications for
Ecological Conservation and Restoration. Ecology and Society, 9(3):1.
Groffman, PM. and ML. Pace 1998. Synthesis: what kind of a discipline is this anyhow?
In Pace, ML. and PM. Groman (Eds.) Successes, Limitations, and Frontiers in Ecosystem
Science. New York: Springler-Verlarg. Pp.:437-481.
Gillingham, S. and PC. Lee 2003. People and protected areas: a study of local
perceptions of wildlife crop-damage conict in an area bordering the Selous Game
Reserve, Tanzania, Oryx, 37: 316-325.
Gonçalves, JJ. 1958. O mundo árabo-islâmico e o ultramar português. Lisboa: Ministério
do Ultramar – Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, Centro de Estudos Políticos e Sociais.
Gonçalves, JJ. 1961. O islamismo na Guiné Portuguesa (Ensaio sociomissionológico).
Lisboa: Agência Geral do Ultramar.
Hackel, JD. 1999. Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife,
Conservation Biology, 13(4):726-734.
Hill, CM. 1998. Conicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest
Reserve, Uganda, Environmental Conservation, 25(3):244-250.
Hill, CM. 2004. Farmers’ Perspectives of Conict at the Wildlife–Agriculture Boundary:
Some Lessons Learned from African Subsistence Farmers, Human Dimensions of Wildlife
(9)4:279-28.
Infield, M. and A. Namara 2001. Community attitudes and behaviour towards
conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake
Mburo National Park, Uganda, Oryx, 35(1):48-60.
Harrison, C. 1988. France and Islam in West Africa, 1860-1960. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hoben, A. 1996. e cultural construction of environmental policy: paradigms
and politics in Ethiopia, In M Leach, M and R Mearns (Eds.) e Lie of the Land:
Challenging Received Wisdom about the African Environment. Oxford: e International
African Institute. Pp.186-208.
Hockings KJ, Sousa C. 2012. Dierential utilisation of cashew - a low-conict crop - by
sympatric humans and chimpanzees, Oryx 46(3):375-381.
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
101
INEP/INEC, 2007. Recenseamento e Estudo Sócio-económico e Ambiental das Áreas
Protegidas. Bissau: INEP e INEC.
Igoe, J. and D. Brockington 2007. Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction,
Conservation and Society, 5(4):432-449.
Ite, UE. 1996. Community perceptions of the Cross River National Park, Nigeria,
Environmental Conservation, 23:351-57.
Kellert, SR., JN. Mehta, SA. Ebbin and LL. Lichtenfeld 2000. Community natural
resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality, Society and Natural Resources
13:705–715.
Kiss, A. 1990. Living with wildlife – Wildlife Resource Management with local participation
in Africa. World Bank Technical paper #130. Africa Technical Department Series.
Kuriyan, R. 2004. Linking local perceptions of elephants and conservation: Samburu
pastoralists in northern Kenya, Breslauer Symposium on Natural Resource Issues in Africa
(Breslauer Symposium on Natural Resource Issues in Africa, Center for African Studies,
UC). [Online] URL: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1wf778kk
Lee, PC. 2010. Sharing Space: can Ethnoprimatology Contribute to the Survival
of Nonhuman Primates in Human-Dominated Landscapes? American Journal of
Primatology, 72(10):925-931.
Lee, PC. and MD. Graham. 2006. African elephants Loxodonta africana and human-
elephant interactions: implications for conservation, International Zoo Yearbook,
40(1):9-19.
Lewis, DM.; A. Mwenya and GB. Kaweche 1990. African solutions to wildlife problems
in Africa: Insights from a community-based project in Zambia. Unasylva, 161 (41).
FAO-Rom.
Levin, SA. 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems, Ecosystems
1:431–36.
Little, P. 1994. e link between local participation and improved conservation: a review
of issues and experiences. In Western, D and R Wrights (Eds.), Natural Connections:
Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation, Washington: Island Press. pp.: 347-372.
Lundy, BD. 2012. Ethnic encounters and everyday economics in Kassumba, Guinea-
Bissau, Ethnopolitics, 1-20.
MacDonald, KI. 2003. Community-based Conservation: a Reection on History.
IUCN/CEESP; Gland. [Online] URL: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/
TILCEPA/CCA-KMacDonald.pd
Manfredo, MJ. & AA. Dayer 2004. Concepts for Exploring the Social Aspects of Human–
Wildlife Conict in a Global Context, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(4):1-20.
McKean, MA. 2000. Common Property: What is it, What is it good for, and What
Makes it Work? In Gibson, CC.; MA. McKean & E. Ostrom (Eds.), People and forests:
communities, institutions, and governance Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp. 1–26.
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
102
Miller, KK. and TK. McGee 2000. Sex dierences in values and knowledge of wildlife
in Victoria, Australia, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5(2):54-68.
Minnis, P. and W. Elisens (eds.) 2000. Biodiversity and native North American.
Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Moller, H.; F. Berkes, PO. Lyver and M Kislalioglu. 2004. Combining science and
traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology
and Society 9(3):2. [Online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2/
Mota, AT. 1954. Guiné Portuguesa (Vol. 1). Lisboa: Agência Geral do Ultramar.
Nelson, J. and N. Gami 2003. Enhancing equity in the relationship between protected
areas and indigenous and local communities in Central Africa, in the context of global
change. TILCEPA report. [On line] URL:http:/www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/
TILCEPA/community.htm.
Newmark, WD. and JL. Hough 2000. Conserving wildlife in Africa: integrated
conservation and development projects and beyond, Bioscience 50, 585-92.
Noss, AJ. and RL. Cuéllar. 2001. Community attitudes towards wildlife management
in the Bolivian Chaco, Oryx, 35(4)292-300.
Oba, G. and LM. Kaitira. 2006. Herder knowledge of landscape assessments in arid
rangelands in northern Tanzania, Journal of Arid Environments, 66:168–186.
Oba, G. and DG. Kotile. 2001. Assessments of Landscape Level Degradation in
Southern Ethiopia: Pastoralists vs. Ecologists, Land Degradation and Development
Ostrom, E. 2000. Reformulating the commons. Swiss Political Science Review 6(1): 29-52.
Pélissier, R. 1989. História da Guiné: Portugueses e Africanos na Senegâmbia, 1841-
1936. Lisboa: Editorial Estampa (2 volumes).
Pimbert, MP. and JN. Pretty 1997. Diversity and sustainability in community-based
conservation. UNESCO – IIPA. Paper for the UNESCO – IIPA. regional workshop on
community-based conservation.
Reiner, F. e P. Simões 1999. Mamíferos Selvagens da Guiné-Bissau. Lisboa: Projecto
Delm – Centro Português para o Estudo dos Mamíferos Marinhos.
Robertson, SA. and WRQ. Luke 1993. Kenya Coastal Forests: the report of the NMK/
WWF Coast Forest Survey. WWF Project 3256, Coast Forest Status, Conservation and
Management. Kenya: WWF.
Roe, EM. 1991. Development narratives or making the best of blueprint development,
World Development, 19:287-300.
Roe, D.; J. Mayers; M. Grieg-Gran; A. Kothari; C. Fabricius and R. Hughes 2000.
Evaluating Eden: Exploring the myths and realities of community-based wildlife
management. Evaluating Eden Series, 9. IIED.
Rokeack, M. 1966. Attitude change and behavioural change, Public Opinion Quarterly,
30(4):529-550.
Roque de Pinho, J. 2009. “Staying together”: People-wildlife relationships in a pastoral
Are Animals and Forests Forever? Perceptions of Wildlife at Cantanhez Forest National Park, Guinea-Bissau
103
society in transition, Amboseli ecosystem, southern Kenya. Ph.D., Colorado State
University, Fort Collins.
Sarfo-Mensah, P. and W. Oduro 2010. Changes in Beliefs and Perceptions about Natural
Environment in the Forest-Savanna Transitional Zone of Ghana: e Inuence of Religion.
Nota di Lavoro 08.2010. Global Challenges Series, Otavianno, GIP (Eds.). Pp.1-21 [Online]
URL: http://www.feem.it/userles/attach/201023103594NDL2010-008.pdf
Schaller, GB. 2000. Foreword. In Robinson, JG and L Elisabeth (Eds.) Hunting for
sustainability in Tropical Rainforests. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sekhar, NU. 2003. Local people’s attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism
around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India, Journal of Environmental Management, 69(4):339-347.
Scoones, L. 1999. New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful
engagement? Annual Review of Anthropology, 28:479-507.
Sheridan, MJ. and C. Nyamweru (Eds.) 2008. African Sacred Groves: Ecological Dynamic
and Social Change. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Siegel & Castellan 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for e Behavioral Sciences. New-York:
McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences.
Simão, A. et al. 2004. Identicação das Futuras Zonas de Conservação da Área
Protegida Transfronteiriça da Guiné – Guiné-Bissau. Bissau, Ministério de Agricultura
e Desenvolvi mento Rural, UICN.
Soto, B.; SM. Munthali and C. Breen 2001. Perceptions of Forestry and Wildlife
Policy by local Communities living in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique,
Biodiversity and Conservation, 10:1723-1738.
Starin, D. 2010. Revealed: How Corruption and Deforestation fuel Horric Trade in
West-African Primates, e Ecologist, 16:7-7.
Temudo, MP. 2009a. A narrativa da degradação ambiental no Sul da Guiné-Bissau:
uma desconstrução etnográca, Etnográca, 13(2): 237-264.
Temudo, MP. 2009b. From the Margins of the State to the Presidential Palace: e
Balanta Case in Guinea-Bissau, African Studies Review, 52(2):47-67
Temudo, MP. 2011. Planting knowledge, Harvesting Agro-Biodiversity: A Case Study
of Southern Guinea-Bissau Rice Farming, Human Ecology, 39(3):309-321.
Turner, NJ. 1999. “Time to burn”: traditional use of re to enhance resource production
by Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. In Boyd, R (Ed.) Indians, re and the land in
the Pacic Northwest, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. Pp.:185-218.
van Gent, PAM. and HR. Ukkerman 1993. e Balanta rice farming system in Guinea-
Bissau. In Dent, D. and M. van Mensvoort (Eds.), Selected papers of the Ho Chi Minh
City Symposium on Acid Sulphate Soils, Wageningen: ILRI. Pp. 103-112.
Vogl, KA.; JC. Gordon; JP. Wargo; DJ. Vogl; H. Asbjornsen, PA. Palmiotto; HJ. Clark;
JL. O’Hara; WS. Keeton, T. Patel-Weynand and E. Witten (Eds.) 1997. Ecosystems:
Balancing Science with Management. New York: Spinger-Verlarg.
Sociedade de Geograa de Lisboa
104
Western, D. and R. Wright (Eds.) 1994. Natural connections: perspectives in community-
based conservation. Washington: Island Press.
White L. 1967. e Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science,155:1203-1207.
Zeba, S. 1988. Community wildlife management in West Africa – a regional review.
IIED – Evaluating Eden Series. Working paper #9. IIED.
Zinn, HC. and CL. Pierce 2002. Values, gender, and concern about potentially
dangerous wildlife, Environment and Behaviour, 34(2):239-256.
