STATUSOF WILDANDEANBEARS AND POLICIESFORTHEIRMANAGEMENT
BERNARD PEYTON, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Valley Life Sciences Building, Berkeley, CA, 94720,
USA, email:[email protected]
EDGARDYERENA,ProyectoAmbientalBanco Andino,Apartado68409 Altamira,Caracas 1062, Venezuela,email:
[email protected]
IGNACIORUMIZ,Casilla5300, Santa Cruz, Bolivia,email:[email protected]
DAMIAN
JEFFREYJORGENSON,Departamentode Biologia,Facultadde Ciencias PontificiaUniversidadJaveriana,Carrera7 NOmero
43-82 Edificio53 Oficina502, Santafe de Bogota, DC, Colombia,email:[email protected]
JORGEOREJUELA,Avenida8 Numero24-118, Cali,Valle,Colombia
Abstract: No reliable estimates exist for populationsof Andeanbears (Tremarctosomatus). They occupy >260,000 km2in 5 Andeancountries,
and if their densities are comparableto those of North Americanblack bears (Ursus americanus),the total populationmay be >20,000. Unbroken
tractsof the Andes stretching more than 200 km and extending over 3000 m of elevation exist for this species in Peri and Bolivia, where
over2/3 of the bear's rangeoccurs. Approximately18.5%of the rangeis containedwithin 58 protectedareas. Althoughthe species probablyis not
on the brink of extinction in the wild, serious threats exist. Hunting may now be as importanta factor in bear populationdecline as habitat
destruction. Lack of land ownershipand credit combined with increasedroad access has precipitatedthe spreadof informaleconomic activities
(e.g., shifting agriculture,grazing, mining, narcoticproductionand trafficking,timberharvest, and huntingfor animalparts)in bear strongholds.
Drug traffickershave infiltrated 16 parks occupied by bears; this number is triple what it was 15 years ago. Internationaltrade in bear gall
bladdershas been confirmed in Ecuador. The future existence of wild Andean bears depends on linking conservationwith benefits that have
meaningto local communities. The potentialroles of government,communities,and privateorganizationsin managingnaturalresourcesfor both
bears and humanprosperityare discussed.
Ursus 10:87-100
Key words: Andean bear, Andes, conservation,policy, South America, status, threats, Tremarctosornatus.
Andeanbearsarepartof a diverseSouthAmericanlandscape that struggles with the same problems sharedby
developing countriesthroughoutthe world. The disparity of resourceownershipbetween rich and poor, which
is larger than on other continents (LaFeber 1986), perpetuatesa situationwhere landless farmershave increasing access to bear habitatthat they develop to support
themselves. Resourcepolicies can be imposedby central
authorities(top-down approach)or decided at the community level (bottom-up). We argue the need for both
approachesto addressthreatsfaced by Andeanbears.
Most rural communities do not own land; thus, they
lack the authorityand will to preventthe destructionof
forests. Agencies withinAndeangovernmentsface similarproblems. Ministriesthatoversee extractivelanduses
and colonization are typically better funded than agencies dedicatedto preservingnaturalresources. The national parks these agencies establishedwith the help of
privateorganizationsarebeing invadedby industriesand
colonists, andthe agencies have little meansto preventit.
However, governments,communities,and privateorganizationsare redefiningtheirroles in ways thatmay prevent the destructionof Andean watersheds.
We summarizethe statusand majorthreatsto Andean
bearpopulationsand theirhabitatand place these threats
in a broadersocial, economic, and political context. We
discuss what can and should be done by social institu-
tions and governmentagencies to preserveresourcesfor
both people and Andeanbears.
We gratefully thank 59 individuals who contributed
theirknowledgeto a draftAndeanbearactionplan which
this papersummarizes. We also thankD. Garshelis,M.
Munson-McGee,A. Grajal,C. Canizales,and an anonymous reviewer whose comments greatly improved an
earlierdraftof this paper.
STATUSOF ANDEANBEAR
POPULATIONS
Andean bears occupy about 260,000 km2 of forested
habitatin Venezuela, Colombia,Ecuador,Peru, and Bolivia (Table 1). This estimate was obtainedby drawing
boundarieson topographicmapsaroundareaswherefield
expeditionsconfirmedthepresenceof bears(Peyton1980,
Brown and Rumiz 1988, Suarez 1989). Roadless areas
that were not surveyed for bears were included in these
boundariesif they were adjacentto surveyed areas and
containedhabitattypes thatbearsoccupied elsewhere on
the same Andeanrange. Boundariesof unsurveyedareas
were drawn from configurationsof these habitat types
depictedon governmentvegetationmaps. We estimated
the size of these areasby superimposinga grid on them
(1 cell = 100 km2)andthen summingthe partsof the grid
within theirboundaries. If densities of Andeanbearsare
88
Ursus 10:1998
Table 1. South American protected areas (categories I-V of
Int. Union Conserv. Nat. [1984]) that have Andean bears.
Contributors to a draft Andean Bear Action Plan estimated
the amount of habitat occupied by bears (bear area). Area
statistics are rounded off to the nearest 10 km2. Asterisks (*)
indicate World Heritage Sites.
(no.of parks)
Country
Conservation
unita
Venezuela (13)
SierraNevada NP
YacambdNP
TerepaimaNP
PerijaNP
Tami NP
GuaramacalNP
Dinira NP
Batall6n y La Negra NP
ChorroEl Indio NP
Sierrade La CulataNP
El GuacheNP
Tapo CaparoNP
Teta de Niquitao NM
Year
Parkarea
established
(km2)
1952
1962
1976
1978
1978
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
1992
1993
1993
Parks subtotal
Unprotectedforests
Total
Colombia (20)
Farallonesde Cali NP
Los Katios NP
Los Nevados NP
Las OrquideasNP
El Cocuy NP
Las HermosasNP
Nevado de Huila NP
MunchiqueNP
ParamilloNP
CordilleraLos Picachos NP
Pisba NP
PuraceNP
SumapazNP
Tama NP
ChingazaNP
Macizo de TatamaNP
CatatumboBari NP
La MacarenaNP
Tinigua NP
Guanenta-AltoRio Fonce NS
Parks subtotal
Unprotectedforest
Total
1968
1973
1974
1974
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1978
1987
1989
1989
1989
1993
Beararea
(km2)
2,760
150
190
2,950
1,390
210
420
950
110
2,000
200
2,700
200
90
60
60
80
250
<10
20
180
<10
100
20
100
30
14,230
1,000
20,410
21,410
1,500
720
380
320
3,060
1,250
1,580
440
4,600
4,390
450
830
1,540
480
500
520
1,580
6,290
2,080
100
380
180
30
80
770
380
400
110
1,150
1,100
110
210
390
120
130
130
400
1,580
500
100
32,610
8,250
21,830
30,080
Table 1. Continued
(no.of parks)
Country
Conservationunita
Ecuador(10)
Cotacachi-CayapasER
Cayambe-Coca ER
Sangay NP*
Cajas NP
PodocarpusNP
El Angel ER
AntisanaER
Sumaco Napo-Galeras NP
LlanganatesNP
Illinizas ER
Year
Parkarea
Beararea
established
(km2)
(km2)
1968
1970
1975
1979
1982
1992
1993
1994
1996
1996
Parks subtotal
Forest Reserves (5)
Unprotectedforest
Total
Peru (6)
HuascardnNP*
Mani NP *
Machu Picchu HS *
Rio Abiseo NP *
YanachagaChemillen NP
Tabaconas-NamballeNS
1975
1980
1981
1983
1986
1988
Parks subtotal
Unprotectedforest
Total
Bolivia (9)
Isiboro-SecureNP, IT
Ulla-Ulla NR
Ambor6 NP, NAIM
Pil6n-Lajas NP, IT
CarrascoNP
TariquiaNRFF
Eva-Eva BPA, IT
CotapataNP, NAIM
Alto Madidi NP
Parks subtotal
Forest reserves (4)
Unprotectedforest
Total
Total Andes
1965
1972
1973
1977
1988
1989
1990
1993
1995
2,040
4,030
5,180
290
1,460
300
1,200
2,050
2,200
1,500
300
2,000
2,000
30
1,100
150
600
2,050
?
?
20,250
8,230
3,920
16,660
28,810
3,400
15,330
330
2,750
1,220
300
150
2,300
90
1,920
1,000
300
23,330
5,760
76,440
82,200
12,000
2,400
6,380
4,000
6,230
2,490
1,350
400
18,960
3,300
300
4,100
1,000
3,000
1,700
1,350
400
10,000
54,210
25,150
4,970
68,070
98,190
144,630
260,690
a BPA = Basin ProtectedArea, ER = Ecological Reserve, HS =
HistoricalSanctuary,IT = IndigenousTerritory,NAIM = Natural
Area of IntegratedManagement,NM = National Monument,NP =
National Park,NR = National Reserve, NRA = National Recreation
Area, NRFF = National Reserve of Flora and Fauna,NS = National
Sanctuary.
ANDEANBEAR STATUSANDMANAGEMENT
POLICIES* Peyton et al.
like those of NorthAmericanblack bears,most of which
are hunted (low = 7/100 km2, median = 25/100 km2,
Garshelis 1994), the total world population would be
18,000-65,000. Because these estimates are for adult
bears, we believe there are >20,000 total bears in the
Andes.
STATUSOF PROTECTEDAREAS
Approximately 18.5% of the Andean bear's range
(48,390 km2)is legally protected. Most of the protected
range is in Bolivia (52%), followed by Ecuadorand Colombia (17% each), Peru (12%), and Venezuela (2%).
These protectedareasinclude58 nationalparks,reserves,
or sanctuaries;all but 3 were establishedsince 1968, and
12 were establishedin the 1990s (Table 1). Eight areas
consisting of either a single parkor interconnectedones
have >1,900 km2of bear-occupiedhabitat(Fig. 1, areas
4-6 and 8-12). This was the mediansize of 41 parksthat
were believed to supporta stable or increasingpopulation of Andean bears in 1988 (Peyton 1988), and thus
representsa possible targetsize for populationviability.
Four more areas could have >1,900 km2 of bear-occupied habitatif bearsexpandtheirrangewithinthem (Fig.
1, areas 1-3 and7). Humanactivities(e.g., grazing,shifting agriculture,and illegal mining) inhibit bears from
occupying habitatthatcould supportthem in these areas.
Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador,and Bolivia have enlarged and connected parks during the last 15 years to
protect bears and increase the biodiversity within the
parks. INPARQUES,the governmentagency that manages Venezuela's parksand naturalresources,is encouraging range expansion by creating new parks that
connectedmost of its conservationunits in the Cordillera
Merida (Fig. 1, area 1; see Yerena and Torres 1994,
Yerena 1998). The result has been the creation of a
complex of 5 national parks (e.g., Sierra Nevada,
Batallon y la Negra, Chorroel Indio, Potosi, and Tapo
Caparo) that includes 5,030 km2 of potential habitat
for Andean bears.
In 1989 the ColombiangovernmentaddedTiniguaand
Los Picachos National Parksto the NationalParkSierra
de la Macarenafor a combined area of 12,710 km2(Fig.
1, area4). In 1993 and 1994 the Ecuadoriangovernment
added the AntisanaEcological Reserve and the Sumaco
Napo-GalerasNationalParkto the Cayambe-CocaEcological Reserve in northernEcuador (combined area =
7,280 km2,Fig. 1, area 5). The World Heritage Site of
Sangay in centralEcuadorwas almost doubledin size in
1992 from 2,719 to 5,177 km2to protectthe PauteRiver
drainage,an importantwatershedfor urbanresidents in
89
the mid-Andeanrange (Fig. 1, area6). These recentEcuadorian park developments also protect woolly tapir
(Tapiruspinchaque), an endangeredanimal that lives in
approximately20% of the Andeanbear's range(Downer
1996).
Approximately10,000 km2of bear-occupiedhabitatin
northernBolivia was legally protectedwhen Alto Madidi
National Park(Fig. 1, area 10) was establishedin 1995.
The park connects the national parks of Ulla-Ulla and
Pilon-Lajas (Ribera 1996). Amboro National Park (establishedin 1973) andits adjacentmanagementareacontain over 4,000 km2of occupied bear habitat. When an
adjacent area was declared CarrascoNational Park in
1988, 12,610 km2of Andean bear habitathad protected
statusin centralBolivia (Eulert 1995; Fig. 1, area 12).
The creationof parkson countrybordershas been an
effective tool in defusing political conflict and promoting cooperative resource management (McNeil 1990).
There are 3 Colombianparksthat are paired with parks
across borders: El Tama and Tama (Venezuela),
CatatumboBari and Perija(Venezuela), and Los Katios
andDarien(Panama).Othercorridorscould be protected
that would link Ecuador'sparkswith those of its neighbors. Thecorridorenvisionedfor EcuadorandPeruwould
join PodocarpusNational Parkto Tabaconas-Namballe
National Sanctuaryin Peru and extend 200 km to the
northeastto include the Cordilleradel Condor. Another
corridorcould link the Awa ForestReserve andEl Angel
Ecological Reserve in Ecuadorwith the La PlanadaNatureReserve in Colombia. Measuressuch as these maintain large areasof cloud forestfor Andeanbearsand give
the species a more hopeful future.
THREATSTO ANDEANBEARSAND
THEIRHABITAT
Access to Bear Habitatand Land Reform
The dominantthreatto Andean bear populationsis a
growing population of landless peasants that have increased road access to cloud forests (Suarez and Garcia
1986). Currently,10%of the humanpopulationin these
5 Andeannationslive in the cloud forest and their numbers are increasing at an annual rate of 1.5% (Young
1992).
Roadsenablemigrantfarmersto establishillegal settlements in bear habitatand are the axes from which agriculture expands and fragments bear populations. The
primaryaxes of fragmentationare the roads in the interAndean valleys. Humansettlementsand degradedland
here prevent bears from moving between the 3 Andean
90
Ursus 10:1998
720
Fig. 1. Range of the Andean bear in South America's protected (black shaded) and unprotected (gray shaded) parts of the
Andes, 1995. Numbers denote parks or reserves that contain >1,900 km2 of habitat occupied by or available for Andean bears.
ANDEANBEARSTATUS
ANDMANAGEMENT
POLICIES* Peyton et al.
ranges, especially in Colombia and Peri where the 3
ranges are most distinct. Andean bears have been displacedby people in almost all valleys <1800 m elevation
with the exception of roadless areason the easternslope
of the OrientalAndes.
The second axes of fragmentationis along roads that
cross the Andes. Typically, these roads pass through
mountainsaddles;scatsandfeedingsign suggestthatbears
use these saddles to cross sides of a mountain range
(Peyton,unpubl.data). As humansettlementsproliferate
along these roads,bear populationsbecome increasingly
isolatedin a processthatcan occurrapidly. In the Yungas
regionof Bolivia, Liberman(1991) foundeffects on large
mammalssuch as Andeanbearsthatextended2 km from
roads duringthe initial stages of road construction.
The conditions that forced farmersto move into bear
habitatwere lack of land ownership and failure of land
reform measures to redistributeland to them (Peyton
1994). By the 1950s, 2-5% of the humanpopulationin
the Andean nations owned 60-80% of the arable land
(Eckstein 1983, Gradwohland Greenberg 1988). This
inequitable land distributionand the increased peasant
population forced families to abandonfields that were
too small to supportthem. In Peru23%of the population
(2 million people) were migrantin 1962. Most of these
farmerswent to urbancenters seeking educationand entrance to the industrialclass of society. These emigrations combinedwith high urbanbirthrates (e.g., 4.5-5%
annuallyin the 1960s; LaFeber 1986) explain why 5191%(Bolivia-Venezuela)of the humanpopulationis now
urbanin the 5 countrieswith bears (WorldResour. Inst.
1992). South American countrieshave the most urban
populationsof all developingpartsof the world(Gonzalez
1991). This places tremendouspressureon governments
to provide employment and on bear habitatto provide
resources.
Peasantsleft overpopulatedurbancenterson theirown
once accessto morepromisingemploymentwas provided.
Governmentsthreatenedwith social unrestfrom unemployed urbanpeasantsbuilt roads over the Andes to the
Amazon basin. Colonizationprogramswere initiatedat
the ministerial level to encourage migration over the
Andes for otherreasons. Oligarchiescould retainpower
andnot be forcedto distributetheirland. The statecould
populateits remoteregions to defend bordersand to provide labor to producefood and exportproducts(e.g., oil
and timber). The latterwas consideredcollateralby the
developedcountriesfor theirbilateralaidthathelpedbuild
the roads. During20 yearsof roadbuildingin Peru(196080), huntersandfarmersestimatedthatPeru'sbearpopulation declined by a third (Peyton 1981). The Bolivian
91
road system increasedby 70% following the 1952 AgriculturalRevolution. In Colombia73,000 km2have been
clearedin government-sponsoredcolonizationprograms,
an area equivalentto 28% of the Andean bear's present
range.
Deforestation
and Informal
Agriculture
An estimate of the rate of deforestationin the entire
Andean mountainrange does not exist, but it is severe.
In Ecuadorthe forests between the Andean ranges is almost gone, and only 4% remainson the westernAndean
slope (DodsonandGentry1991). Hendersonet al. (1991)
estimated that <10% of the Andean forest remains in
Colombia. Most deforestationof Andeanbearhabitatis
theresultof slashandbum agriculture.Typically,a farmer
clears 1-3 ha of cloud forest, burnsit in the dry season,
and plants corn, beans, and squash. When soil nutrients
areexhaustedafter3-4 years,the farmercuts a new field,
usuallyup-slopefromthe old one, andplantsthe old field
in rhizomatousgrass for cattle. In this fashion the forest
edge recedes approximately100 m every crop rotation.
Most of the cloud forest habitatfor Andeanbears below
1800 m elevation has been replacedby agriculture.
Cattle grazingalso damageshabitatfor Andeanbears.
Peasantsuse cattle as a hedge againstlean times caused
by events such as crop failures;cattle can be tradedfor
other goods. One of the ways the aristocracymaintains
tight controlof the peasantcommunitieson their land is
by employing cattle rustlers to steal peasant livestock.
Practicessuch as these encouragepeasantsto thrusttheir
cattle deeper into bear habitatwhere they are harderto
find. Favored grazing sites are on grasslands above
the forest and in the mosaic of abandoned cornfields
at the lower forest edge. Cattle knock over trees and
trample soil. After a decade cattle can reduce an intact cloud forest to bare pasture with deep eroded gullies.
Unfortunately the best areas for crops and grazing
coincide with the best food-producing habitat for
Andean bears. These are the grasslands above cloud
forests (generally above 3,000 m, depending on latitude) that provide bears with berries (Ericaceae spp.),
terrestrial bromeliads (Puya spp.), and frailejon
(Espeletia spp.), and the cloud forests below 2500 m
where Andean bears eat tree fruit, palm leaf petioles,
and epiphytic bromeliads (Tate 1931, Peyton 1980,
Goldstein 1988, Suarez 1989). Andean bear populations are increasingly restricted to the area between
these agriculturalbands; this area is characterized by
steep slopes (50?-70?) covered with bamboo
(Chusquea spp.), which Andean bears do not eat.
92
Ursus 10:1998
Hunting
Illegal huntingappearsto be more widespreadthan it
was 15 years ago, partly because increased fragmentation of bear habitatand its conversion to humanhabitation has exposed more bears to hunters. Hunting is
consideredto be the greatestproblemfor bears in Venezuela (Yerena 1998). Venezuela has the most urban
populationof all SouthAmericannations(WorldResour.
Inst. 1992) and has lost a greaterpercentageof its cloud
foreststhanany of the other4 Andeannationswith bears.
Farmerswho for centuries revered the Andean bear
(Randall 1982) increasinglyregardthe animal as a pest
and threat to their livelihood. They enlist the help of
hunters (e.g, military, civil police, the aristocracy,and
foreign sporthunters)who find the bear easy to shoot in
the cornfields. Formerly,huntershad limited success in
finding Andean bears in the cloud forest, even with the
use of dogs to tree them (Peyton 1980). Now, bears are
attractedto cornfields at the forest edge. Farmersfrom
the eastern slope of the OrientalAndes in northernEcuador,Perui,and southernBolivia say that annually 1-3
bearsarekilled/valleyin theircornfields(Peyton,unpubl.
data). Although all 5 Andean countrieshave laws that
prohibithuntingAndeanbears,the laws are not enforced
due to lack of trainedpersonneland funds to operatean
enforcement program (Marconi and Donoso 1992,
Young 1992), reluctanceof governmentsto place armed
forestrypolice in areascontrolledby terroristsand drug
lords, suspicion that armedmembersof the forestrypolice might become terrorists(Peru), and illegal hunting
done by those who are chargedto prevent it.
TradeBarriers,
CommercialAgriculture,
and Drugs
Commercialagriculture,worldtradeissues (e.g., sanctions and price competition),and subsidies on domestic
food productionnow adverselyaffect an estimated20%
of the Andean bear's range, and their impacts are increasing. The following example from Colombia illustrates how government policies designed to improve
agriculturaloutput tend to fail and increase the illicit
economy.
In 1971 a consortiumof internationalagriculturalresearch centers developed a new rice variety in Colombia thatcould increaseyield by as much as 40% (Hansen
1986). However, governmentpolicies did not provide
owners of small farms (1-5 ha) access to credit, technology, andequipmentto take advantageof the new rice.
Colombia's governmentfavored the industrialagriculturalistby extending them low interest loans and training. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, 88% of the
financialcreditin the agriculturalsectorwent to the 0.7%
of farmsthat were >500 ha (Hansen 1986). The interest
rates on loans to small farmswere higher. Additionally,
farmers with small land holdings could not obtain the
fertilizers and pesticides that the new rice variety required. Consequentlymany farmerswith small plots of
land left their fields, which were acquiredby ranchers
and farmers with large land holdings (Hansen 1986).
Migrantsenteredthe cloud forestillegally. During 195570, the numberof rice farms diminishedfrom 97,000 to
39,000. In the upland sector nearestthe nationalparks
with the most bear habitatin Colombia (e.g., Chingaza,
Sumapaz,Tinigue, Los Picachos, and La Macarena),the
numberof small (<5 ha) to medium-sizedfarms (5-50
ha) declined by 55% and 59% respectively during this
period (Scobie and Posada 1977). The consolidationof
rice holdings in the Meta region was representativeof
the patternof colonization seen throughoutCentraland
South America: pioneers arrived and cleared the land
that was absorbedinto large ranches (latifundia),while
small farms (minifundia)proliferatedon unstablehighland soils.
Many displaced farmersnow grow narcotics near or
within national parks with Andean bears. Coca
(Erythroxylum coca) and heroin poppy (Papaver
somniferum)productionis 2-5 times more lucrativeto
these farmersthan subsistence crops (Lee 1989). Consequently more land is being converted to agriculture
than would be converted for subsistence use. An estimated 425-510 km2 of forest is cleared each year in
Colombiafor the productionof heroin(CavelierandEtter
1995). In 1987 an estimated 7,000 km2 of coca fields
occupied the Chapareregion of Cochabamba(Bolivia)
wherethereonce were bears. The 2 oldest nationalparks
in Peruwith bears,CutervoandTingo Maria(established
in 1961 and 1965, respectively)have been destroyedby
the expansion of coca production from the Huallaga
Valley where half the world's supply of cocaine originates (Garcia 1991). Coca field eradicationfrom the
HuallagaValley has precipitatedthe spreadof coca productionto bearhabitatin the ProtectedForestof MatiasSan Carlos and the Cordillerade Sira, (A. Brack-Egg,
Ecodesc, Oxapampa,Peru,pers. commun., 1994). Presently 16 parks, most of them in Colombia, have been
infiltratedby narcotictraffickers.This representsa threefold increase since 1970.
Finally, tradepolicies of foreign governmentshave increased the presence of social unrestand drugs in areas
occupiedby bears (Peyton 1994). After Colombiancoffee growersmoved farmersoff theirlandin the Santander
Provincesduringthe early 1900s,foreignnationsimposed
ANDEANBEAR STATUSANDMANAGEMENT
POLICIES
tradebarriersand stiff tariffsthat still preventColombia
from exportingprocessed coffee. The industrialcoffee
growerswho could not penetrateworld marketschanged
their productionto drugs. They and their descendants
control the drug trade in places like Medellin and Call.
The dangerof the drugtradehas preventedfield research
and meetings aboutbear conservationfrom occurringin
most of the centralandeasternAndeanrangesof Colombia. For the same reasons little is known aboutbears in
the CordilleraPerija(Venezuela-Colombia),several areas in Peru (e.g., the coastal Andes north of Chota, the
upperApurimacRiver Valley in the CentralAndes, and
the Province of La Convenci6n in the southernOriental
Andes), and the northernhalf of the Andean bear range
in Bolivia.
Soil Erosionand Mining
The combined effects of land strippedfor crops and
overgrazingon steep Andeanslopes erodedsoil. Most of
the top soil in cloud forests in the easternAndes is lost
immediatelyafterthe forest is cleared (Liberman1991).
The total effect of many such small clearings is enormous. For example the sediment load of the Beni River
in Bolivia indicated a mechanical erosion of 3,000
tons/km2/year, or 27 times the rate of topsoil erosion
in the Amazon Basin (Goodlandand Irwin 1975). The
Cauca watershedlost 4,000 tons of topsoil/km2duringa
10-monthperiod,mostly due to farmingon 1-3-ha plots
on erosion-pronebear habitat(Hansen 1986). In 1983
the culminationof a decade of deforestationin the highlandsabove AmboroNationalParkresultedin floods that
destroyed2/3 of the arableland thatsustainedthe inhabitantsof SantaCruz, Bolivia (Clarke 1983).
Increased sediment loads in rivers from erosion has
encouragedminersto enterbearhabitatin pursuitof gold
(Cifuenteset al. 1989). Minerspenetratefartherinto bear
strongholdsthan subsistencefarmers. Their land clearing threatensforests of many parksin the Andes including Perijain Venezuela, most of the parksin the Central
Andes in Colombia,Podocarpusin Ecuador,YanachagaChemillenandManuiin Peru,andall the parkswith bears
in Bolivia.
Tradein BearPartsand LegalProtection
Illegal trade in Andean bear gall bladdersby Korean
businessmen was confirmed in Cayambe-Coca and
Cotacachi-Cayapas (Ecuador; M. Castillo, Fundacion
Natura,Quito, pers. commun., 1993). Domestic tradein
bear parts has a long history in the Andes (Baumann
1963), but evidence of demand from Asian marketsis
recent. Farmers were offered $115/bear gall bladder,
Peyton et al. 93
which is many times the monthly wage. The spreadof
the narcoticindustrymentionedearlierand its associated
violence could provide an impenetrableprotectivecover
for full-scale traffickingin Andeanbears and theirparts.
Forestrylaws in each of the 5 Andeannationsprohibit
the hunting of Andean bears and trade of their parts.
During 1992-93, Peruenactedlaws thatallowed the governmentto collect a fee for the transferof endangered
wildlife bredin captivity(Andeanbearsincluded)to other
captive breedingcenters, creatinga loophole in the prohibition.Transferof Andeanbearsunderthese provisions
cost $1,000 (D. AguilarandM. Leo, Asociaci6n Peruana
parala Conservacionde la Naturaleza,Lima, Peni, pers.
commun., 1993). The laws do not provide for adequate
backgroundchecks on either the source of the wildlife
(captive bred or wild caught), the integrity of the
recipient'sclaim as a captivebreeder,or the fate of bears.
The laws thus provide a legal cover for the sale of bears
for parts. Similarlaws of 1990 now compromiseAndean
bears in Bolivia.
CONSERVATION
POLICY
What should be done to maintainAndeanbears in the
wild? We present a threefold message. First, design
projects that address the problems of lack of resource
ownership,unemployment,and lack of political empowerment. Second, ensure that projectsare commensurate
with their location and the capacity of the people who
undertakethem. Third, intend for those who are most
adverselyaffectedby conservationactionto benefit from
projects. Implementingprojects is not so much about
achieving biological targets,but a social activity. With
that in mind, we will examine the role governments,
communities,and privatenon-governmentorganizations
play and how to improvethem.
Roleof Government
Strengthsand weaknesses.-The government'sresponsibility is to ensurethat resourceuse at local levels does
not compromisethe nationalinterest. The main attraction of administeringprojectsfrom the top-down is efficiency. Directivescan takeplace overnightandbuy time
for bottom-up(locally initiated)measuresto have an effect. Of the 5 countrieswith Andeanbears, Venezuelan
land managershave been the most successful at employing a top-down approachto protectingwatershedsand
Andean bears. With the use of state-of-the-arttechnology (e.g., satellite imagery, geographicinformationsystem mapping, and computer models that included
biological concepts of population viability),
94
Ursus 10:1998
INPARQUES technicians were able to estimate how
much forest cover they had in Venezuela and how many
Andean bears each forest fragment contained (Yerena
and Torres 1994). They determinedthat forests were
vulnerableto fragmentationand too small to maintain
viable bear populationsif surroundedby human settlements. Their analyses prompted officials to triple
Venezuela's national park system, now at 15% of the
nationalland area (Colombia has 17%and Ecuadorhas
>17%of its landareadesignatedas parks). Whenthe new
park of Tapo Caparo has its boundariesfinalized and
GuaracamalNationalParkis connectedto otherparksin
the CordilleraMerida (e.g., Sierra Nevada, La Culata,
GuirigayandParamosdel Batallony la Negra,andChorro
El Indio)thejoint parkareawill be approximately10,230
km2(Yerenaand Torres1994).
Peru'sbearswould benefitfrom Venezuela's approach
by creatingprotectedbridgesbetweenconservationunits.
AlthoughPeri has >30% of the totalrangeof the Andean
bearin SouthAmerica,only 7% of thatrangeis included
withinparkboundaries.In contrastBolivia has 3.6 times
as much of this bear range underprotectedstatus. Only
5% of the montaneforest above 1,500 m on the eastern
slope of the CordilleraOrientalis included within the
boundariesof Perui's3 largest parks with bears (Young
1992), and these parksare separatedfrom each otherby
>250 km of unprotectedforest. Six potentialpark candidatesexist in PeruandBolivia where2/3 of the Andean
bear's range is found. These corridorshave roadless
cloud forest extending for >3,000 m of elevation; these
areas, stretchingfor >200 km along the OrientalAndes
(facing Brazil), have habitatand elevational conditions
that are likely adequateto sustain bears (Peyton 1988).
The main weakness of top-downpolicies is the inability of governments to enforce them locally (Bodmer
1994). Top-down implementationis capital intensive
and relies on stronginstitutions. AlthoughVenezuela is
currentlyundergoinga bankingcrisis, its financial ability to implement top-down approachesto conservation
is betterthan that of the other 4 Andean countrieswith
bears. A consolidationand decentralizationof resource
managementagencies occurredin Peri in the late 1980s
and is now occurring in Colombia (since December
1993), severely straining these countries' abilities to
implementpolicies. For example, there is only 1 park
guard/5,700km2of Andeanbear habitatin Peru (Young
1992), and no vehicles for transportation. With few
guards,forestrylaws that protectbears and their habitat
tend to be ignored. The situation is similar in Bolivia
where only 3 of 36 parks had guardsin 1991 (Marconi
and Donoso 1992).
Solutions.-Lack of people and capitalresourceshave
promptedAndean nations to initiate management-sharing programs,which have benefited both wildlife and
indigenouspeople. Collectively, these programsinvolve
the decentralization of authority. One of these is
privatization,where governmentsrelinquishthe authority to manage naturalresourcesto privategroups. This
approachhas been developed to the greatest extent in
Colombia, but is increasingly popular throughoutthe
Andes. Power-sharingmechanisms exist in Colombia
to manageparks and unprotectedforests. For example,
regional corporationsand utility companies manage approximately25,000 km2of bear habitatoutside national
parks. They are well-funded and capable of protecting
habitatfrom development. Another example of decentralizationis the creationof park buffer zones that supportindigenousgroups. Extractiveor biospherereserves
that also preserveindigenouscultureexist for many ethnic groupswho sharelandwith bears:Paez, Inga,Ingano,
Sibundoy,andKamsa,in Colombia;the Awa andCofane
on the border of Colombia and Ecuador, Quechua of
Ecuadorto Bolivia, the Amuesha in Peru, and Aymara
in Bolivia. More of these kinds of programswill exist
in the future as the budgets of resource management
agencies get tighter.
A conditionfor verticalcontrolof policies is their coordinationhorizontallyacrossministriesanddepartments.
Policy contradictionsat the ministeriallevel harmcompliance with policies at lower levels. For example
Ecuador's concession of 6,000 km2 for petroleum explorationwithin days of declaringpart of the same area
a nationalpark (Sumaco Napo-Galeras)reinforceddistrust of governmentpolicies in the region's communities (Wray and Alvarado 1996).
Finally, to provide communities with incentives to
move toward sustainable resource use, governments
must ensure that local people achieve legal ownership of land and have a principle role in decisionmaking (Hill and Press 1994). Lack of enforcement
and the vague terms of ownership that characterize
much of the bear habitat in the Andes have left communities with little authority to prevent its destruction (Brown and Wyckoff-Baird 1992). In some cases
governments encourage the destruction of forests.
Government recognition of land ownership in communities adjacent to 2 Ecuadorean parks with bears
(Sumaco Napo-Galeras National Park and CayambeCoca Ecological Reserve) was conditional on the inhabitants converting 50-60% of the forest into cattle
pasture, an inefficient way to use land (Wray and
Alvarado 1996).
ANDEANBEAR STATUSANDMANAGEMENT
POLICIES*
Roleof Communities
Strengths and weaknesses.-Communities provide 3
things most projectsrequire:knowledge, labor, and administrativecapabilitiesbeyond the capacity of outsiders. Local people have more experience with bears and
their habitatthan most project planners,particularlyin
remote tropicalareas where little is known about bears.
Plannersareoftenignorantof the ways communitiesmake
decisions and allocate resources,yet such knowledge is
essential for projectsuccess. For example contributions
of labor in returnfor state taxes and tangible goods has
existed since pre-Colombiantimes in the Andes and is
knownby a varietyof names (mita,minga). Use of mitas
could greatlyimprovethe implementationof projectsthat
requirelocal labor. To capturelocal labor,plannersshould
base project tasks on currentskill levels (Peyton 1994)
and not let dependence on outside specialists undercut
local administrativeinstitutions(Lewis andCarter1993).
Many communities do not have institutionsthat can
simultaneouslyprovidelocal needs, controlthe behavior
of their own members, and interactwith outside groups
(Brandon 1996). Where these exist, the centralgovernment should empower them with the authorityto stop,
and notjust monitor,resourcedegradation(Poffenberger
1994). When possible, projectmanagersshould use existing institutionsratherthan creatingnew ones. Communities that cooperate on irrigationprojects, markets,
and sharedcropfields generallyhave capable leadership
to undertakeprojects.
Solutions.-Successful projectsat the communitylevel
balance costs with benefits. Costs include foregoing income generatedby harvestingforestproductsand killing
bears, providinglabor to projectsinstead of to more securemeansof livelihood,reducedagriculturaloutput,and
crop depredation. Project planners should try to minimize these costs. For example, if the project goal is to
increase a bear population,funds should be secured to
employ communalcropguardsto scarebearsout of cornfields.
Benefits must be realistic. People tend not to leave
bears and theirhabitatalone if the benefit does not compensatetheirlost opportunities.Privateconservationorganizations in the Andes that promote environmental
educationby itself, without including more meaningful
benefits, fail to compensatepoor farmers. For example,
18 Andeanbearswere killed in the CapazRiver drainage
(Stateof Mrida, Venezuela)despiteeducationprograms
duringthe same period (1988-96) that taughtlocal residents about the need to protect Andean bears (Garcia,
1996). Local inhabitantsgenerallydo not thinktheir future livelihood will be compromisedwhen bears are ex-
Peyton et al. 95
tirpatedandthe forestis replacedwith pasture.They tend
to discountfuturereturnson resourceswhen they need to
harvestresourcesto feed themselves (Ostrum1990), and
they rarelyvalue biodiversityintrinsically. Instead,they
often experiencebiodiversityin a negative sense, such as
an increasedvarietyof pests that attacktheirfood crops.
A betterway to create a cooperativeincentive for improvingbear populationsis to link the adoptionof costs
to the provisionof benefitsthathave the most meaningto
people. In descending orderthe benefits with the most
value to Andeanfarmersare land tenure,access to capital (creditandemployment),politicalempowerment,technical assistance, and training opportunities. However,
these are interrelated.Withouttenurelocal farmerscannot borrow money because banks do not recognize untitled land as collateralfor loans. Withoutloans farmers
can not invest in the means that make their agriculture
more permanent(e.g., irrigation,fertilizers, pesticides,
etc.). Withoutpoliticalempowerment,communitieshave
little incentiveto invest in permanentagriculturebecause
the centralgovernmentor otheroutsiderscould taketheir
investment away. Land tenure, access to capital, and
political empowermentare not sufficient to secure bear
habitat,but are essential parts of a package of benefits
that can be linked to slowing down deforestation. The
existence of these benefits does not guaranteesuccess,
but their absence is often why community-basedconservation efforts fail (Wells and Brandon1992).
Finally, technical assistance and trainingare often required to enable local participantsto use resourcesin a
sustainable way that minimally harms bears. The
Amuesha who live in and aroundYanachagaChemillen
NationalPark(Peru)were taughtto harvesttrees in bear
habitatusing a strip clear-cut method. The method allows the soil to retainnutrients,and forest regeneration
occursrapidlyfromexistingseed stocks(Hartshorn1989).
Unsoldtimberis madeinto charcoalwhich is used to bake
potteryfor sale. Otherrevenuegeneratingactivities that
can be less damaging to bear habitatthan grazing and
shifting agricultureinclude tourism, alternativeagriculture (palm oil and fronds for festivals, orchids, and medicinal plants), and education.
The Toroche-Protoprojectto provide irrigationwater
to farms on the borderof PodocarpusNational Park in
southernEcuadoris an example of how technical assistance and trainingcould be combinedto benefit Andean
bears inside the park. Food productionin fields bordering the parkdeclined,forcinginhabitantsto cut new fields
out of the forest above. The continuedexistence of bears
in Podocarpusmay depend on increasingcrop yields on
existing land. A new irrigationcanal built with technical
96
Ursus 10:1998
assistance from the park's bordermay double the yield
on surroundingfarms (Knapp 1991). The link between
improvedagriculturaloutputandsustainedforestrycould
be improved by authorizingproject leaders to create a
cooperativelyowned fund from the sale of excess production and using part of the fund to employ and train
local people as parkguards. Similar funds and systems
for managingthemhave been successfully establishedin
Costa Rica (Donovan 1994) and Surinam(Thomsenand
Brautigam 1991), where a portion of the interest is income to local farmersand the rest is reinvestedto ensure
the sustainabilityof local resourceuse. Trainingin basic
skills, such as recordkeeping, will be requiredto enable
residentsto managethis fund.
Some skillscouldbe learnedby participatingin research
andmonitoringprojectsof Andeanbearpopulations.With
training,Andean peasantscould learn to record data on
habitatuse from bear sign, take measurementsof habitat
variables such as food abundance,and gather information on humanuse of bear habitatand local attitudestowards bears. Project managerswould need to develop
methods to ensure the accuracyof these data. As skill
levels increased,local residentscould participatein more
sophisticatedaspects of projects such as mapping bear
and humanuses of landscapes. A productof such participation could include a better understandingof the
community's present and estimated future use of resources. Armed with this information, communities
would become more able to respond to their resource
needs andto outsiderdemands. The incentivecommunities have to achieve this goal is to receive recognition
fromthe centralgovernmentof theirauthorityto regulate
local resourceuse.
Roleof Nongovernmental
Organizations
Strengthsand weaknesses.-Nongovernment organizations (NGOs) are catalysts and facilitatorsof projects.
Projectsoften originatefrom NGOs because they are not
inhibitedfrom brainstormingsolutions by rigid bureaucracies, and they often know more about the biological
and social systems thancentralauthorities.Theirknowledge helpsplannersto use existingculturaltraditionswhen
designing projects,and thus enables project goals to be
understoodby communitymembers.
NGO ability to mobilize humanand capital resources
enables them to respondrapidly to a situation. For example Arco Iris was able to stop miners from entering
PodocarpusNationalParkin 1994, a year afterits founding. The marketingandcapitalmanagementskills NGOs
have enablethemto analyzeresource-useoptionsfor their
sustainability(May 1992).
NGOs can be perceived to be politically independent.
This enables them to monitorand evaluate projects and
serve as intermediariesbetween central and peripheral
authorities. NGO knowledge of rights and responsibilities help governmentsandcommunitiessortout landtenure and otherpropertyissues.
NGOs are stronglyinfluencedby their donors' political interests which may not be what wild bear populations need. For example in 1995 the World Society for
the Protection of Animals reintroduced 3 orphaned
Andean bears into the MaquipucunaNatureReserve in
northernEcuador. Althoughreintroductionsmay be useful vehicles to call attentionto species needs, this case
was guided by what was perceived to be good for the
individualbears,not the wild population.No studieswere
made prior to the release on the reserve's capability to
providefor the needs of wild or captivebears. Therewas
no clear justification to augmentthe local bear population. NGOs need to supportfield research. In the absence of field knowledge, managementis guided more
by humanvalues than the needs of bears.
LastlyNGO's such as the InternationalAssociationfor
BearResearchand Managementhave technicalexpertise
and knowledgeto help SouthAmericansfocus theirland
managementon the needs of Andeanbears. Lackingare
knowledge of distributionand degreeof populationfragmentation,populationsize, habitatrequirements,andthe
effect of humanson bears and theirhabitat. Most of the
technicalabilityto achieve this understandingis in North
AmericaandEuropewherethereis a strongemphasison
using scientific researchto managebearpopulationsand
humanbehavior. In contrast,AndeanNGOs emphasize
the social aspectsof management(e.g., dialogue,achieving consensus, promotingself-determination,etc.) more
than their northerncounterparts. They are wary about
allowing foreign experts to supplantthe leadershipand
institutionsof the hostcountry.Thishas inhibiteda northsouth dialogue that would benefit both parties.
Solutions.-NGOs can help understaffedgovernment
agencies achieve their objectives. For example,
Fundacion Natura and Ecociencia in Ecuador help the
government manage 3 parks with bears (e.g.,
Podocarpus, Cotacachi-Cayapas, and CayambeCoca). The Wildlife Conservation Society helped the
Bolivian Forestry Department in 1996 to design timber harvest techniques that maintain long-term productivity of tropical forests and wildlife populations
such as Andean bears. Andean governments should
not become so dependent on NGOs' abilities to explore solutions and rapidly apply resources that they
abandontheir decision-making functions to them. Gov-
ANDEANBEARSTATUS
ANDMANAGEMENT
*
POLICIES
ernmentagencies should continuouslymonitorNGO actions to ensurethatthese actions do not conflict with national policies.
AlthoughNGOs arewell suitedto providestart-upcapital and technical help to community-basedprojects,the
effect of these resourcesis slight if the local institutions
of authorityare weak. If they are weak, a priorityNGO
action should be to strengthentheir ability to controlthe
behavior of community members, and to articulatethe
community'sconcernsto outside groups. Steps Andean
NGOs can take in this regardare to deal separatelywith
leadership and technical issues (Wray and Alvarado
1996). NGOs should be careful not to usurplocal leadershipor fosterdependencyrelationswith theirdonations
(Murphree1994). ForeignNGOs need to de-emphasize
regulationin favor of assistanceto local NGOs, governments, and communities(Stearman1996). By doing so
NGOs build stewardshipfor bears where it counts the
most and improve the skills of ruralresidents to adapt
and manage their own development(Wright 1994).
DISCUSSION
Futureexistence of wild bears in the Andes depends
on limitinghumaneffects on bearsand bearhabitat. The
era of designatingparksfor bears in areasof low human
habitationis rapidlyclosing. In its place is a rising human populationthat threatensto consume the resources
both in and outside parks. Currently,Andean governments are strugglingto accommodatetheir swelling labor force, and increasedcapitalinvestmentis requiredto
createjobs in resourcemanagementas well as manufacturingsectors (Glade 1991). The consequenceof unemployment is the huge rise of the informal economy,
includingdrugtraffickingand illegal mining in protected
bear areas (estimated at 39% of Peru's gross domestic
product,De Soto 1989). This raises several questions.
Whatis the purposeof Andeanbearconservation? How
much resourcesshould we allocate to save them in light
of the needs of Andean people?
While the conservation community is searching for
answersto these issues, we point out thatwild bear conservationin South Americacan help slow environmental
degradation,perhapsenoughto enableeffective solutions
to evolve. While debate continues about whetherproblems of bears and sustainedhuman use of their habitat
can best be solved by a centralized authorityor at the
communitylevel (Wells and Brandon1992), some roles
and proceduralstrategiesare becoming clearer.
The existence of a home for wild Andean bears will
dependon coordinationof action,particularlyat the gov-
Peyton et al.
97
emnmentlevel. Governmentsmust accept the responsibility of what happens to resources and not release that
responsibilityto lower organizationallevels of society or
to outsiders. The questionis: how best can governments
preservewatershedsthatAndeancivilizationsdependon,
and simultaneouslyconserve bears?
The short-termanswer may include tough top-down
measureswhere governmentsretainownershipand control. Partof Venezuela's policy to ensurethe integrityof
nationalparks in the CordilleraMerida against agriculturalexpansionwas to relocate communities. However,
the risks of not sharing ownership and managementof
naturalresources with rural inhabitantsinclude losing
controlover theiruse and having to secure them militarily. Resource managers in Venezuela and elsewhere
know thatpeople with the least access to resourcesoften
ignore authoritiesand take mattersinto theirown hands.
In the 1940s investorsof Venezuela's oil wealthacquired
large coffee plantationsand cattle ranches aroundLake
Maracaibo. They pushed farmerswith small land holdings off theirland. The displacedfarmersmoved up the
slopes of the Vertientedel Llano into Andeanbearhabitat,destroying2/3 of the originalcloud forestin the 1950s
(Veillon 1977), a loss (12,890 km2)equal to 60% of the
remainingAndeanbear distributionin Venezuela. They
became violent and engaged in guerrilla activities and
drug trafficking. The drug traffickingand illegal immigrationthatcame from the Colombianside of the border
added to the government's difficulties to manage resources in the Perija region. By the mid 1980s,
INPARQUEScalled on Venezuela's militaryto control
naturalresourceuse in PerijaNationalPark(IUCN 1986,
Fuerzas Armadasde Cooperaci6n 1987, Yerena 1998).
Similarsocial conditionsprecipitatedthe Colombiangovernmentto use its militaryin 1994 to defend the dam in
ChingazaNationalParkwhenterroriststhreatenedto blow
it up. Chingaza'swatershedsupplies waterand electricity to approximately6 million residents of Santaf6 de
Bogota, the capitalcity. These examples emphasizethat
resource issues become national security issues unless
policies enable a more equitabledistributionof income
andopportunityto those on the bottomrungof the socioeconomic ladder. In the Andes these measuresare revision of policies thatlimitland,credit,technology,markets,
education, and skills to poor people; the empowerment
of local institutionsto play a majorrole in implementing
these changes. These are the long-termsocial solutions
to maintainbears.
Thereis no guaranteethatlocal participationwill save
wild bears; however, it is essential given the apparent
trends in the status of Andean bear habitat(Brown and
98
Ursus 10:1998
Wyckoff-Baird 1992). The insecuritypoor people feel
aboutobtainingbasic needs (e.g., food, clean water,shelter, clothing, health services, etc.) make it difficult for
them to make bear conservationa priority. We believe
the best approachis to take care of humanneeds where
the most bears live and explore ways to link development with bear conservation. The degree to which the
benefitsof conservationarecapturedby those who experience most of the costs will determinehow stronga link
can be made. Communitieswith stronginstitutionsthat
arein andaroundthelargestprotectedareas(Fig. 1) should
be given priorityfor projects(see Glick andWright 1992
for criteriafor choosing sites and planningbenefits).
There is also no guaranteethat donors who supported
NGO efforts to keep people out of biodiverse areaswill
now supportsome rural development. Foreign NGOs
(e.g., World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy,
Wildlife Conservation Society, Conservation International) and nationalNGOs (e.g., Fondo Andino para la
Conservaci6nde los AnimalesSalvajesandFundacondor
in Venezuela,Fundaci6nparala EducacionSuperiorand
Fundaci6nNaturain Colombia,EcocienciaandFundaci6n
Naturain Ecuador,ProNaturalezain Peru,andFundacion
Amigosde NaturalezaandtheBolivianConservationData
Centerin Bolivia) increasinglypromotethe concept that
morebiodiversitywill remainif theyencouragesome local
development. To appeal to donors, NGOs use Andean
bears to symbolize biodiversity. An estimated 76% of
South America's mammalianspecies occur in the 3.2%
of the continent'sareaon the easternslope of the Oriental Andes (Mares1992), wheremost of the Andeanbear's
range exists. The northernAndes have a greaterfloral
diversity(30,000-40,000 spp.) thanwhatis estimatedfor
the Amazon Basin, and far greaterthan that of Europe
andNorthAmerica(Gentry1982, 1991; Hendersonet al.
1991). The cloud forest above 1,500 m in Peru where
bears live contains an estimated 15% of vertebratesand
vascularplantsand32%of Peru'sendemicspecies in only
5% of its landmass. On a unit area basis, that level of
endemismis 5.75 times greaterthan it is in Peru's Amazonian forests (Leo 1993).
The next decade will be characterizedby the building
of more efficient and cooperativeinstitutionsto address
the problems mentioned in this paper. Currentlythese
issues are being discussed in regionalmeetings throughout the Andeanrange. To the extent thatthese dialogues
result in capable partnershipsto implement action, the
Andeanbear faces a brighterfuture.
LITERATURE
CITED
H. 1963. Gold andgods of Peru. PantheonBooks,
BAUMANN,
New York, N.Y. 218pp.
R.E. 1994. Managingwildlife with local communities
BODMER,
in the PeruvianAmazon: the case of the Reserva Comunal
Tamshiyacu-Tahuayo.Pages 113-134 in D. Western,R.M.
Wright, and S.C. Strum, eds. Natural connections,
perspectivesin community-basedconservation.IslandPress,
Washington,D.C.
K. 1996. Traditionalpeoples, nontraditionaltimes:
BRANDON,
social change and the implications for biodiversity
conservation. Pages 219-236 in K.H. Redford and J.A.
Mansour, eds. Traditional peoples and biodiversity
conservationin large tropicallandscapes.AmericanVerde
Publ., The NatureConservancy,Arlington,Va.
A., ANDD.I. RUMIZ.1988. Habitatand distributionof
BROWN,
the spectacledbear(Tremarctosornatus)in the southernlimit
of its range. Pages 93-103 in M. Rosenthal,ed. Proc. First
Int. Symp. on the Spectacled Bear. Lincoln Park Zool.
Gardens,Chicago, Ill.
1992. Designingintegrated
BROWN,
F., ANDB. WYCKOFF-BAIRD.
conservation and development projects. Biodiversity
Support Program of the World Wildl. Fund, The Nat.
Conservancy,andtheWorldResour.Inst.,Washington,D.C.
62pp.
J., ANDA. ETTER. 1995. Deforestationof montane
CAVELIER,
of opium
forestsin Colombiaasa resultof illegalplantations
(Papaver somniferum). Pages 541-550 in S.P. Churchill,
H. Balslev, E. Forero, and J.L. Luteyn, eds. Biodiversity
montaneforests.NewYork
of neotropical
andconservation
BotanicalGarden,Bronx, N.Y.
J.
M., A. PONCE,F. ALBAN,P. MENA,G. MOSQUERA,
CFUENTES,
A. TOBAR,ANDJ. TORRES.
L. SUAREZ,
D. SILVA,
RODRIGUEZ,
1989. Estrategiaparala sistemanacionalde areasprotegidas,
II fase. Ministeriode Agriculturay Ganaderiay Fundacion
Natura,Quito, Ecuador.196pp. (In Spanish.)
R.O.S. 1983. Final report. British TropicalAgric.
CLARKE,
Mission, SantaCruz, Bolivia. 83pp.
H. 1989. The other path. Harperand Row, Publ.,
DE SOTO,
New
York, N.Y. 271pp.
Inc.,
A.H. GENTRY.1991. Biological extinctionin
DODSON, C., AND
western Ecuador. Annals of the Missouri Bot. Garden
78:273-295.
DONOVAN,R. 1994. BOSCOSA: forest conservation and
managementthroughlocal institutions(Costa Rica). Pages
215-233 in D. Western,R.M. Wright,and S.C. Strum,eds.
Natural connections, perspectives in community-based
conservation.IslandPress, Washington,D.C.
C. 1996. Themountaintapir,anendangered"flagship"
DOWNER,
species of the high Andes. Oryx 30:45-58.
S. 1983. Revolution and redistributionin Latin
ECKSTEIN,
America. Pages 347-386 in C. McClintock and A.F.
Lowenthal, eds. The Peruvian experiment reconsidered.
* Peyton et al.
ANDEANBEARSTATUS
ANDMANAGEMENT
POLICIES
PrincetonUniv. Press, Princeton,N.J.
C.F. 1995. Evaluaci6ndel estado actualdel jucumari
EULERT,
(Tremarctosomatus Cuvier)en el ParqueNacionalAmboro,
Santa Cruz, Bolivia. LicenciaturaThesis, Univ. Aut6noma
Gabriel Rene Moreno, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. 89pp. (In
Spanish.)
DECOOPERACIN.1987. Los parques
ARMADAS
FUERZAS
nacionales hacia el tercermilenio-aspectos estrat6gicosde
la guarderiaambiental(ponenciainstitucional),Caracas,2227 February.InstitutoNacional de Parques,United Nations
Educ.,Sci., andCult.Org.Manandthe Biosphere,Int.Union
Conserv. Nat. Nat. Resour., Ministerio del Ambiente y de
los Recursos Naturales Renovables. Caracas, Venezuela.
51pp. (In Spanish.)
J.Z. 1991. Peru and Bolivia. Pages 448-470 in J.K.
GARCIA,
Black, ed. Latin America: its problems and its promise.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
M.M. 1996. Refuerzo Espafiol para Cuidar al Oso
GARCIA,
Frontino.Frontera,14 Aug: B (In Spanish.)
D.L. 1994. Density-dependentpopulationregulation
GARSHELIS,
of black bears. Pages 3-14 in M. Taylor, ed. Densitydependentpopulationregulationin black, brown, and polar
bears. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. Monogr. Series
No. 3.
GENTRY,A.H. 1982. Neotropical floristic diversity:
phytogeographicalconnections between Centraland South
America, Pleistocene climatic fluctuations,or an accident
of the Andeanorogeny? Annalsof the MissouriBot. Garden
69:557-593.
1991. Tropical forest biodiversity: distributional
patternsand their conservation significance. Oikos 62:110.
W.P. 1991. Economicaspectsof LatinAmerica. Pages
GLADE,
141-156 in J.K. Black, ed. Latin America: its problems
and its promise. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
1992. The wildlands and human
GLICK,
D., ANDM. WRIGHT.
needs program: putting rural development to work for
conservation. Pages 259-275 in K.H. Redford and C.
Padoch,eds. Conservationof neotropicalforests. Colombia
Univ. Press, New York, N.Y.
I. 1988. Distribution and food habits of the
GOLDSTEIN,
spectacledbearin Venezuela. Pages 2-16 in M. Rosenthal,
ed. Proc. First Int. Symp. on the SpectacledBear. Lincoln
ParkZool. Gardens,Chicago, Ill.
A. 1991. Physicallandscapeandsettlementpatterns.
GONZALEZ,
Pages 19-38 in J.K. Black, ed. LatinAmerica:its problems
and its promise. Westview Press, Boulder, Colo.
GOODLAND,
R.J., ANDH.S. IRWIN.1975. Amazonjungle: green
hell to red desert? An ecological discussion of the
environmentalimpactof the highway constructionprogram
in the Amazon Basin. LandscapePlanning 1(2-3)123-245.
1988. Savingtropicalforests.
GRADWOHL,
J., ANDR. GREENBERG.
Island Press, Washington,D.C. 214pp.
99
E. DEG.R. 1986. Let them eat rice. Pages 100-151 in
HANSEN,
A. Maguire and J.W. Brown, eds. Bordering on trouble,
resourcesand politics in Latin America. Adler and Adler,
Publ. Inc., Bethesda, Md.
G.S. 1989. Applicationof gap theory to tropical
HARTSHORN,
forest management:naturalregenerationon stripclear-cuts
in the PeruvianAmazon. Ecology 70:567-569.
AND J. LUTEYN. 1991.
HENDERSON,
A.S., S.P. CHURCHILL,
Neotropicalplant diversity. Nature351:21-22.
HILL,M.A., ANDA.J. PRESS.1994. KakaduNational Park:an
Australianexperiencein comanagement.Pages 135-157 in
D. Western, R.M. Wright, and S.C. Strum, eds. Natural
connections,perspectivesin community-basedconservation.
Island Press, Washington,D.C.
INTERNATIONAL
NATURE.1984. Categories
UNIONCONSERVATION
andcriteriaforprotectedareas. Pages47-53 in J.A.McNeely
and K.R. Miller, eds. National parks, conservation, and
development. The role of protected areas in sustaining
society. SmithsonianInst. Press, WashingtonD.C.
. 1986. Perspectivas econ6micas de los parques
nacionalesvenezolanos.27a Sesionde trabajode la Comisi6n
de Parques Nacionales y Areas Protegidas (CNPPA),
Bariloche, Argentina.16pp. (In Spanish.)
KNAPP,G. 1991. Andean ecology: adaptive dynamics in
Ecuador.DellplainLatinAm. Stud.,No. 27, WestviewPress,
Boulder, Colo. 220pp.
W. 1986. The alliancesin retrospect.Pages 338-388
LAFEBER,
in A. Maguireand J.W. Brown, eds. Borderingon trouble,
resourcesand politics in Latin America. Adler and Adler,
Publ. Inc., Bethesda, Md.
LEE,R.W. 1989. The white labyrinth:cocaine traffickingand
political power in the Andeancountries.TransactionPubl.,
New Brunswick,N.J. 263pp.
LEO,M.L. 1993. The importanceof tropical montane cloud
forest for preservingvertebrateendemism in Peri: the Rio
Abiseo National Park as a case study. Pages 198-211 in
L.S. Hamilton,J.O. Juvik, and F.N. Scatena,eds. Tropical
montanecloud forests. Springer-Verlag,New York, N.Y.
EDITORS.
1993. Voices from Africa:
LEWIS,D., ANDN. CARTER,
local perspectives on conservation. World Wildl. Fund,
Washington,D.C. 216pp.
M. 1991. Evaluaci6n del impacto ambientalde la
LIBERMAN,
carretera Cotapata-Santa Barbara. Centro de Estudios
Ecol6gicos y DesarrolloIntegral(CEEDI),La Paz, Bolivia.
340pp. (In Spanish.)
1992. Bolivia, habitantesen las
MARCONI,
M., ANDS. DONOSO.
areasprotegidas.Pages 53-79 in S. Amend and T. Amend,
eds. Espaciossin habitantes?Parquesnacionalesde America
del Sur. Int. Union Conserv. Nat. and Editorial Nueva
Sociedad, Caracas,Venezuela. (In Spanish.)
M.A. 1992. Neotropical mammals and the myth of
MARES,
Amazoniandiversity. Science 255:976-979.
MAY,P.H. 1992. Commonpropertyresourcesin the neotropics:
100
Ursus 10:1998
theory, managementprogress,and an action agenda.Pages
359-378 in K.H. RedfordandC. Padoch,eds. Conservation
of neotropicalforests. Colombia Univ. Press, New York,
N.Y.
McNEL,R.J. 1990. Internationalparksfor peace. Pages 23-38
in J. Thorsell, ed. Parks on the borderline:experience in
transfrontier
conservation.ProtectedAreaProgrammeSeries
No. 1., Int. Union Conserv.Nat., Gland, Switzerland.
M.W. 1994. The role of institutionsin communityMURPHREE,
based conservation. Pages 403-427 in D. Western, R.M.
Wright, and S.C. Strum, eds. Natural connections,
perspectivesin community-basedconservation.IslandPress,
Washington,D.C.
E. 1990. Governingthe commons: the evolution of
OSTRUM,
institutionsfor collective action. CambridgeUniv. Press,
Cambridge,Mass. 280pp.
B. 1980. Ecology, distribution,and food habits of
PEYTON,
spectacledbears (Tremarctosoratus) in Perui.J. Mammal.
61:639-652.
1981. Spectacledbears in Peru. Oryx 16:48-56.
1988. The ecology of conservation:a case for an
ecosystemapproach.Pages 75-92 in M. Rosenthal,ed. Proc.
FirstInt. Symp. on the SpectacledBear. LincolnParkZool.
Gardens,Chicago, Ill.
1994. Conservationin the developingworld:ideas on
how to proceed. Int.Conf. BearRes. andManage.9(1):115127.
M. 1994. The resurgence of community forest
POFFENBERGER,
managementin easternIndia. Pages 53-79 in D. Western,
R.M. Wright, and S.C. Strum, eds. Natural connections,
perspectivesin community-basedconservation.IslandPress,
Washington,D.C.
R. 1982. QoyllurRit'i, an Incanfiesta of the pliedes:
RANDALL,
reflections on time and space in the Andean world. Bull.
Inst. Francaisd'Etudes Andines 11:37-81.
M.O. 1996. Guiaparala categorizacionde vertebrados
RIBERA,
amenazados.Centrode Datos parala Conservacion,La Paz,
Bolivia. 105pp. (In Spanish.)
SCOBE, G., ANDR. POSADA.1977. The impact of high yielding
rice varieties in Latin America with special emphasis on
Colombia. Cent. Int. de Agric. Tropical, Cali, Colombia.
10pp.
A.M.
STEARMAN,
1996.
On common ground: The Nature
Conservancy and traditional peoples: the Rio Chagres,
PanamaWorkshop.Pages 237-250 in K.H.RedfordandJ.A.
Mansour, eds. Traditional peoples and biodiversity
conservationin large tropicallandscapes.AmericanVerde
Publ., The NatureConservancy,Arlington,Va.
L. 1989. Seasonal distributionand food habits of the
SuAREz,
spectacled bear, Tremarctosoratus, in the highlands of
Ecuador.Stud.NeotropicalFaunaandEnviron.23:133-136.
, AND M. GARCIA.1986. Extinci6n de animales en el
Ecuador. Fundaci6nNatura,Quito, Ecuador.153pp.
TATE, G.H.H. 1931. Randomobservationson habits of South
Americanmammals.J. Mammal. 12:248-256.
THOMSEN,
J.B., ANDA. BRAUTIGAM. 1991. Sustainable use of
neotropicalparrots. Pages 359-379 in J.G. Robinson and
K.H.Redford,eds. Neotropicalwildlife conservation.Univ.
Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.
VEILLON,J.P. 1977. Las deforestaciones en los Llanos
Occidentalesde Venezuela, desde 1950 a 1975. Pages 97110 in L. Hamilton, ed. Conservacion de los bosques
humedos de Venezuela. Ministeriodel Ambiente y de los
Recursos NaturalesRenovables, Caracas,Venezuela. (In
Spanish.)
WELLS, M., AND K. BRANDONWITHL. HANNAH. 1992. People
and parks: linking protected area managementwith local
communities. World Bank, World Wildl. Fund, and U.S.
Agency for Int. Dev., Washington,D.C. 99pp.
WORLDRESOURCES
INSTITUTE.1992. World resources 1992-
1993. Reportby the World Resour. Inst. in collaboration
with the United Nations Environ.Programand the United
NationsDev. Program.OxfordUniv. Press,New York,N.Y.
385pp.
1996. Sumaco National Park,
WRAY,N., ANDJ. ALVARADO.
Ecuador:change and continuityin the indigenouseconomy
and the challenges of biodiversityconservation. Pages 93113 in K.H. Redford and J.A. Mansour, eds. Traditional
peoples and biodiversity conservation in large tropical
landscapes.AmericanVerdePubl.,TheNatureConservancy,
Arlington,Va.
R.M. 1994. Recommendations.Pages 524-535 in D.
WRIGHT,
Western, R.M. Wright, and S.C. Strum, eds. Natural
connections,perspectivesin community-basedconservation.
Island Press, Washington,D.C.
YERENA,E. 1998. The protected areas for Andean bear
(Tremarctosornatus)in SouthAmerica.Ursus 10:101-106.
, ANDD. ToRREs.1994. Spectacledbear (Tremarctos
ornatus)conservationand dispersalcorridorsin Venezuela.
Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1):169-172.
K.R. 1992. Biogeographyof the montaneforest zone
YOUNG,
of the easternslope of Peru. Pages 119-140 in K.R. Young
andN. Valencia,eds. Biogeografia,ecologia y conservacion
del bosque montano en el Peri. Memoriasdel Museo de
HistoriaNaturalNo. 21. Lima, Peru.