Economic Sustainability on the Rio Aguarico

Bethany Hoye & Andrew Glover

June 2006

Sources of Income

All communities currently have economies primarily based on western-style agriculture. This agriculture, in all cases, provides for more than subsistence living, it is also the source of income for families and their communities. The agricultural systems of some communities are more sustainable than others.

Colonists tend to practise “slash and burn” style agriculture, completely clearing large areas for single crops, or for grazing cattle. When this land is no longer productive they clear more forest and start again. Apart from leaching the land of fertility, these systems are large monocultures, which, through their size and homogeneity, are much more susceptible to disease and changes in climatic conditions. A single disease, or unusually wet/dry year could easily result in economic collapse.

Secoyas at San Pablo also had designated areas for cropping and for cattle. Even with the maintenance of the forest ecosystem nearby this land is also likely to become unproductive. However, their agriculture is solely for the purpose of feeding their population. As a result, they are growing a greater variety of crops, and on a considerably smaller scale, which should considerably prolong the fertility of their land. In terms of long term economic sustainability the palm plantations of San Pablo are more likely to provide a stable income, from one location, than the agriculture of the colonists. While there are the same problems of large scale homogeneity and disease susceptibility with the palm plantation, palms more closely resemble the native vegetation, and allow a variety of vegetation structure, enhancing biodiversity, and in turn the health of the soil.

Secoyas at Secoya Remolina on the other hand, are likely to have the most sustainable source of income. Despite cultivating at higher levels than needed for subsistence, their agriculture is far less susceptible to disease, failure, or degradation of the soil. In contrast to all other communities, these people maintain several relatively small plots of crops buried deep in unaltered forests, allowing the soil to be recharged, but also removing the chance of all of one crop being lost to a disease. Secoya Remolina were also were far less reliant on cattle, which are particularly ill-suited to this jungle ecosystem.

Ecotourism is at best only an option to supplement the income of some (definitely not all) of these communities. The colonist communities are unlikely to be able to attract tourists, as they are not native to the Amazon and hence are of no particular interest to tourists, lacking culture, traditions and a spiritual link with the forest. Further, they have placed little value on the aesthetics of the area, clear-felling large tracts of forest. This is in conflict with the principles on which ecotourism is founded. San Pablo has identified a large area of forest as conservation reserve, however, the surrounding palm plantations, and colonist communities have completely isolated this patch of forest. As a result, the community has noticed significant decreases in biodiversity, especially in large mammals and birds. Combined with the fact that the community was one of the most westernised we visited, with fashionable clothing, stereos, a satellite dish and even a motorbike, it again seems unlikely that they could attract tourists on the basis of their native environment or their heritage. Having stuck with its traditional agriculture, festivals, language and clothing (in part), combined with their integration with and knowledge of the forest, we feel that Siecoya Remolina is the only community likely to be able to benefit from ecotourism. They expressed interest in small scale, community driven ecotourism.

Expenditure

While we cannot expect these communities to live without money, we believe a number of their current expenditures could be significantly reduced through good planning.

Transportation is a major expenditure, based primarily on petroleum. With the price of this resource certain to perpetually increase in the future, some alternatives are required. Instead of simply looking for alternative fuels for the extended suburban lifestyle they are currently living, it may be best to look at ways the populations can be more self sufficient and thus use less transportation altogether.

Power generation for lighting, refrigeration and communication is a major expense in a number of the colonist communities, while considerably less so in the Siecoya populations. This is because electricity generation in all of the colonist communities currently relies entirely on fossil fuels, primarily in the form of family-owned petrol generators. Both Siecoya communities, on the other hand, relied on solar panels as their primary source of electricity. These were subsidized by the government, to the extent that each cell (one per family) only cost the community $3. However, these are not the only available options. Viable and sustainable power generation for these communities should meet the following criteria:

• Initial set up costs cannot be economically prohibitive for these communities, as they don’t have sufficient capital to invest in high cost infrastructure.
• After initial set up costs, power generation should have little, if any, ongoing costs associated with standard operation.
• The method of generation should be durable, and not require costly maintenance procedures.
• Power generation should not damage, contaminate or deplete the natural environment surrounding these communities.

We believe there are four possible methods of power generation: Fossil Fuel, Wind, Solar and Hydroelectric