Top Travel -Manu Reserved Zone – 7,6 ,5 Days / 6,5,4Night Bus / Flight
The Manu reserve is located in the Manu river basin, Cusco and Madre de Dios regions. It is a natural area that is protected and that houses an exquisite biodiversity of diversities and is recognized worldwide and protected from human impact. The Manu National Park not only protects a wide diversity of flora made up of 2,000 to 5,000 species; the fauna that is made up of more than 2000 species, including threatened species such as the Andean wild cat; It also safeguards cultural values expressed in the forms of human occupation adapted to the environment of this natural area in this part of the Peruvian Amazon, developed by indigenous peoples for centuries. Even many of these communities have had no contact with the world.
Top Travel – Manu Reserve Zone 7,6,5 Days Bus / Flight
Amazon Rainforest -Manu Reserved Zone – 7 Days
- Length: 7 Days /6 Nights .
- Type of service: Private and Group .
- Location: Southern Peru, Madre de Dios Department, Manu Tour, Manu National Park, Tours, Peruvian Amazon.
- Activities: Manu Tour, Flora & Fauna, Lake Salvador , Otorongo Lake , parrot clay-lick.
- Altitude: 600 – 4,000 m.a.s.l.
- Best time to visit: March – December.
- Departure: All Year.
- Minimum of participants: 2.
- Maximum of participants: 10.
- Price per person: USD.
Amazon Rainforest Manu Reserved 7 days/ Flight/ Bus .
Top Travel Day 01: Cusco – Manu Cloud Forest to Pilcopata Lodge.
We pick up from your hotel very early in the morning from 5:30 a.m. at 6:00 a.m. in our comfortable and private bus. On the way, we visit the funerary towers or Chullpas de Ninamarca at 3750 meters above sea level and a brief visit to Paucartambo, a folkloric town, a colonial bridge. We ascend to the upper area of Paucartambo, the Acjanaco sector. (4000 m.s.n.m) This is the point of entry to the Manu National Park. Then we descend through the mysterious cloud forest, which hosts a great variety of flora and fauna, full of beautiful orchids, heliconias and primitive ferns. We toke a walk to give you the opportunity to witness the Cock of the Rocks (Rupícola Peruviana) in the ritual of mating. There are also possibilities to observe Trogones (Trogon sp.), Quetzales (Pharomachrus sp.) In addition, much more and if we are lucky we can observe Spectacled Bear (Tremantus Ornatos). In the afternoon, we arrive at a village Pilcopata minutes by bus to watchtower port on the way we observe coca and fruit tree plantations, orchids, we embark on motorized boat by the Madre de God. On the way, we can see a variety of birds, such as herons, Kingfisher and always the presence of vultures of which the most spectacular is the condor of the jungle, the king of vultures (Sarcoramphus papa). The Jaguar (Panther Onca) we also have a stop in natural hot springs, to take medicinal baths, if we still have time we visit the Native community of Diamante to see their typical constructions of houses and see the wild fruits they have. In the afternoon we arrive at the village of Boca Manu (280 m.s.n.m.), where we have the accommodation. lodge with showers and bathrooms.
Top Travel Day 02 : Pilcopata Lodg Shintuya – Boca Manu to Cocha Otorongo .
After breakfast, we enter the reserve area where we will have a better opportunity to observe the biodiversity that the Manu offers, a brief stop in the rangers stations. The boat trip continues and one begins to realize why Manu is so famous for its wildlife. On the river, there are groups of turtles, white alligators (Cayman cocodrylus) or perhaps some ronsocos (Hydrochoerus, hydrochaeris) and many more. In the afternoon we arrived at our safari camp in Cocha Otorongo, (250 masl) (double beds inside platforms) shortly after we organized a walk to visit the lake and the observation tower of 30 meters from where we have the opportunity to observe the river giant otters. Here in the Manu the animals have never suffered hunting persecution by men. Night in safari camp, on platforms with roof double beds with mosquito net. Showers and shared bathrooms.
Top Travel Day 04 : Manu Biosphere -Cocha Otorongo – Cocha Salvador .
The group visits Cocha Salvador today, which is 30 minutes from Cocha Otorongo. Today, they explore walking in the virgin primary forest. We visit the lake to paddle silently in a catamaran that gives us the possibility to observe the giant otters of the river again and a great variety of strange birds. The sultana cock (Porphyrula Martinica or the Garga Agami ( Agamia) and monkeys of different species are almost certainly observed 9 species of the 14 species.We later walked on the main trails with the guide to learn the operation and secrets of the tropical forest. Brief visit to Casa Matchiguenka to buy some crafts in the afternoon we return to our camp in Cocha Otorongo. Night in camp on platforms with roof. Beds with mosquito net Showers and shared bathrooms available. Optional night walk.
Top Travel Day 05 : Manu Biosphere -Cocha Otorngo to Boca Manu .
After a delicious breakfast, we continue with our trip in the imposing MANU RIVER. Until arriving at the lodge. Night in lodge with bathrooms.
Top Travel Day 06 : Boca Manu – Colorado Port to Puerto City .
After a delicious and nutritious breakfast, we will continue with our itinerary traveling by boat to Colorado, then continue the trip by bus to Puerto Carlo where we will take the option to return by bus until Cusco. Approximately, at 9pm at night, on the way we make stops in interesting places to go through the pass near the snowy Ausangate, which reaches 6300 m.s.n.m. we leave at your lodgel. In addition, the other passengers who wish to take the flight from Puerto Maldonado continue the trip to the city of Puerto Maldonado. Night in hotel.
Top Travel Day 07 : Puerto Maldonado to Cusco .
Depending on the time of the flight. They usually arrive in Cusco at 1:00 p.m.
Fin de los servicios turisticos con Amazon-Travels.com
Included in the Top Travel Manu Park .
- A Naturalist Guide to Manu.
- Outboard boat for the jungle in Peru
- Private Land Vehicle;
- Entrance to the Manu National Park.
- A professional chef for travel Amazon Wildlife.
- Meals: 6 Breakfast 7 Lunch 6 Dinners (Note: vegetarian option at no additional cost);
- 5 Nights at the Amazon Wildlife Lodge manu park.
- 1 night hostal
- First aid kit,
- Communication radio ,
- Flight Ticket ,
Not Included in the Top Travel .
- Travel insurance from Amazon Wildlife;
- vaccination for the trip to Amazon Wildlife;
- Breakfast of the first day and the last dinner
What you Need to Take With You Top Travel Manu Park .
- Mosquito repellent (35% recommended).
- Original passport for Travel Amazon Wildlife.
- Small backpack for travel.
- Long-sleeved cotton shirts in green (preferably).
- Cotton long pants.
- Long cotton socks (that you put on your pants).
- Comfortable walking shoes
- Sandals Light Shoes.
- Rain gear (rain poncho).
- Swimwear .
- Binoculars (Binoculars).
- Camera and Batteries.
- Plastic bags for clothes and Camera.
- A hat as protection against sun or rain.
- Small towel .
- Toilet paper .
- Sunscreen .
- Sunglasses .
- Flashlight (Spare and Batteries).
- One bottle of water (1 liter minimum).
- Money in (soles) to buy drinks.
Fin de los servicios turisticos con Amazon-Travels.com
FORM BOOK NOW WITH AMAZON TRAVELS PERU[wpforms id="828"]
End of services with Amazon-Travels.com
Top Travel – Manu Reserve Zone 7,6,5 Days Bus / Flight
top amazon travel products , top amazon travel items , top travel accessories on amazon , top travel shows on amazon prime , top rated travel pillow amazon
amazon top travel books , amazon top travel gear , amazon top travel accessories
best travel backpack amazon , best travel bags amazon , best amazon travel buys
best travel books amazon , best travel bottles amazon , best travel blanket amazon , , best travel gifts amazon , best travel gadgets amazon , best travel gear amazon , best travel humidifier amazon , best travel hair dryer amazon , top travel items amazon , best travel mug amazon , best travel mug amazon uk , top travel items on amazon , top travel products on amazon , top selling travel items on amazon , best amazon travel products , best travel pillow amazon , best travel purse amazon , best travel pillow amazon uk , best travel shows amazon prime , best travel documentaries amazon prime , best travel pants amazon , amazon stop travel , did amazon stop travel , best travel tripod amazon , best travel totes amazon , best travel towel amazon ,
The Naturalization of Nature: Discourses and Conservation Policies in the Manu National Park
The Manu National Park (PNM) was founded in 1973 and is currently one of the most emblematic protected areas in Peru. The exuberant figures regarding the biodiversity it houses have earned it an almost legendary status among scientists, tourists and wildlife film producers (Shepard et al. 2010). It is common to see the Manu thought and re treated as a «living Eden» top travel manu reserve 2, a remote paradise free of human interference. Without However, nothing is further from reality than to say that it has remained «intact». The historical and archaeological research shows a sustained human presence of at least three thousand years old (Huertas and García 2003); while at the moment a dynamic occupation by at least five language groups is recognized top travel manu reserve – Arawakak, Pano, Harakmbut, Tacana and Quechua-, reaching approximately 2,300 people (Master Plan 2010-2014) who live within the limits of the Park.
The human presence within this «Eden» was not an unknown data at the time that
the area was reserved as a National Park. However, it was established that the main objective of the PNM was to conserve the ecological intangibility of this ecosystem and it seemed at the time that the presence of humans endangered its fulfillment. It was then decided to commission the resettlement of these populations outside the PNM area. This measure was never carried out and, rather, as time passed, new populations and settlements were discovered that have been increasing in number. If these populations were not resettled, why did Manu continue imagining himself as the archetype of that paradise whose rhythm is dictated? for an ideal of virgin nature
wild harmonica? It is this contradiction that drew my attention to this territory marked by the legend
. A crucial observation begins to emerge: there is a gap between the way in which the conservation of territories is thought on the one hand, and the social processes that take place within them on the other. It is within this panorama of problematic relationship between the establishment of this protected area and the indigenous populations that inhabit it that this research seeks to be framed. However, rather than focusing on the material dynamics of this conflictive relationship, this research seeks to focus on the link between conservation policies and environmental discourses, to see only from there how it is that they top travel manu reserve zone .
inserts the treatment of human presence in the park. So how do the conservation policies implemented in Manu National Park reflect broader and more general ideas / images / representations of nature? That is the question that guides this research. Why study imagery about nature? The way in which nature is understood has a profound political significance, since it is this underlying representation that, after all, justifies control over resources. The rules established by conservation policies are based on a particular imaginary about nature and not in the workings of nature itself
. In this research, I seek to place emphasis on this social construction of environmental knowledge that is produced by the State and that shapes, in this case, the conservation of the Manu National Park, hoping to contribute to an unfinished and constant debate on the nature relationship. / indigenous populations within this territory. To understand and make sense of this inquiry, the text will present its arguments from six sections. A brief general description of the process of formation and establishment of the PNM, as well as its central characteristics, is first drawn. Secondly, to locate ourselves theoretically, the concepts and debates that have guided the reflection in this work are exposed. In the third Part explores the premises and the development of the conceptualization of nature contained in the discourse and institutionality of conservation. The fourth This section gives an account of the relationship between these imageries and the conservation policies deployed in the PNM, seeking to problematize the limits of this relationship. Finally, a balance is made on the relationship between the PNM discourses and conservation practices and the development and sustainability discourse.
3 The Manu The project top travel manu reserve zone . The creation of the Manu National Park was part of an initiative that sought establish three “Great Parks
Nationals ”destined to conserve a sample of each of the natural regions (coast, mountains and jungle) of Peru. The Manu basin was reserved in 1967 as that great representative protection unit of the jungle, declaring its definitive limits as a National Park in 1973, and becoming the fourth
protected area top travel manu reserve zone to be created in the country. The 1,716,295.22 hectares of the PNM territory are distributed between the eastern sector of the Cordillera of the Andes, in Cusco , and the western edge of the Amazon basin, in Madre de Dios, where most of its territory is located. As in any protected area, the history of the Manu National Park has been linked to internal changes in the organization of the state’s national conservation system, as well as closely linked to the history of both the populations that border the area and the that inhabit it. The management of this area has gone from being characterized by hostility, to a stage of crisis, to a current period of negotiation that is not free of contradictions. In its beginnings it was understood that the conservation of the Manu passed first of all by the relocation of the populations that inhabited it. By then it was known of the existence of Tayakome-Machiguenga community located in the heart of its territory whose settlement it had been fostered by the missionaries of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) – and there had been a series of fortuitous encounters with indigenous people in isolation. Although the relocation never took place, it inspired a variant control policy: the expulsion of the ILV missionaries, a measure that had serious consequences for the Machiguenga population. to which the SIL provided education and health services around its missionary activity. In the same way, the first surveillance actions were articulated around the populations. There were two very specific threats depending on who built the first Surveillance and Control Posts
(PCV): the missionaries and the loggers. The first PCV was created in Tayakome to control the entry of ILV missionaries. The second PCV was that of Pakitza, built on the boundary that separated the newly created PNM from the Forest
Nacional del Manu – a logging concession – to control loggers’ access to PNM resources. The hostility that characterizes this initial period of management was further underlined by the militarized profile of the park rangers, immediate representatives of the state conservation institution. Towards the mid-eighties a crisis stage occurred that represented the transition towards the fundamental turn in the management of the area. A series of epidemic outbreaks reduced the population of Yaminahua – who lived between the Mishahua and Serjali rivers on the northwestern boundary of the PNM – forcing the survivors to furrow down the entire Manu and part of the Alto Madre de Dios to reach the Dominica Mission. from Shintuya, seeking medical support and treatment (Tello 2003). The frequency of these trips over a period of several years, and the problems they generated in their wake, forced the Headquarters to «open its doors». The entrance and exit of people sick she was constant it made it impossible to close her eyes to the fact that the Manu was a runner
with intense social dynamics inside. To deal with the crisis, a doctor and an anthropologist were hired directly, the only season being of the history of the Park in which it has been told with specialists of this type. At the beginning of the nineties, the Machiguenga populations that lived inside the Park, Tayakome and Yomibato, began to demand that the PNM Headquarters be allowed to take advantage of their resources economically. The Headquarters presented many resistance to these proposals, but finally the idea of developing tourism with the communities began to be incubated. This is how the construction of the House was conceived Machiguenga
, which has been the most serious attempt to generate material benefits for the populations of the interior of the Manu from the very existence of the Park, and the inauguration of a new stage of negotiation in the management of the PNM. Along the same lines, the strategy of allowing the use of certain resources (trunks at the mouth of the Manu river and pastures on the western border with the Andean communities) by the limiting populations of the area. On the other hand, in the desire to make management more participative, a Local Committee originated in the late eighties, in which different social organizations from the buffer zone of the PNM participated. This Local Committee manages towards the end of the nineties the Project
for the Use and Sustainable Management of the Manu Biosphere Reserve and National Park (PRO-MANU, 1998-2003). This project marks a milestone in the administration of the PNM. It not only meant the vast improvement of its infrastructure, but above all the consolidation of a management approach that recognizes the need to work on the «development» component with the communities inland and in the buffer zone. Thus, one of its five strategies for action was aimed at «improving the quality of life of the surrounding population of the PNM». Finally, I consider that in recent years we are witnessing a new period of crisis marked this time by the frequency of sightings of the mashco populations pyro in isolation that have traditionally circulated inside the Manu. At the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012 these meetings left as balance
an injured park ranger and the death of a native community comunero of Diamond. The anthropological policy of the PNM is again in trouble as this crisis puts contradictions in the treatment of social problems in the eye of the storm
. This new challenge should represent an opportunity for the reformulation of the management of this area.
Think nature top travel manu reserve zone . To understand the twists and turns through which the orientation of the policies taken in the PNM has passed, it is necessary to inquire about the representations of nature that have sustained them. The way in which nature is understood has a profound political significance, since it is this that justifies a certain type of control over resources. This idea goes hand in hand with the fact that this understanding represents a particular imaginary about nature and
not in the running of nature in itself. In this section I will give an account of the concepts and debates that have fueled this reflection on nature and conservation. When did nature become something that deserved to be preserved? What processes and theoretical frameworks have fueled conservation action? Marone (1988) considers that the development of biological conservation term with which the scientific discipline is recognized – it could only occur once that the ecological-evolutionary theory gave him the bases of support. The ecological-evolutionary theory can be
divided into two stages. A first stage of establishment during the 1950s; and a second stage towards the 1970s of harsh criticism of the very pillars of his theory. Basically, the foundations of this theoretical body lay on the theory of competition 4 , which postulates that the main process of community organization is that under which the segregation of potentially competing species is promoted throughout an ecological niche. This theory was closed by adding the concepts of equilibrium
5 and biological diversity
6: it is predicted that the communities in balance, through competition, reached their maximum diversity, and that the most diverse communities, being in balance, enjoyed greater stability. Biological communities are then understood as arrangements
orderly, stable and self-sufficient, but, at the same time, dependent on that delicate ecological balance. Thus began a stage of optimism among ecologists who believed they had found a general law on the organization of nature, a law that should serve as an effective tool to control human intervention in ecosystems: conserve Nature could only mean preserving the biological balance, a condition for these laws to be maintained. However, these principles -and the evidence used to support them – were harshly criticized in the mid-1970s (Wiens 1977, Haila 1982). The criticism focused, first of all, on the principle of Balance in the communities. Contrary to what you might expect it shows that communities top travel manu reserve zone rarely are they in balance
. Second, the validity of the statement that nature in equilibrium achieves greater diversity is also broken. Some studies showed that there was no causal relationship between the two; Rather, diversity was not maintained «thanks to» the balance, but «despite» it. It was suggested that systems more s complex – with more species and greater interdependence between them – they were dynamically more fragile, and it was also shown that the imbalance could lead to maximum levels of diversity. In light of the revision of its own principles, the ecological theory of the 1980s evolved to the understanding of a nature chaotic and pluralistic that incorporated the disturbances or natural changes as principles of organization of the communities. However, conservationist practice, thought out from the principles of order, stability and balance, and the interdependence between these and diversity, did not advance in tandem with ecological theory and led to a disciplinary gap that revealed a resistance to imagine biological communities like the dynamic entities that are
. Thus, the maintenance of «ecological balance» became practically the main dogma of conservation, despite the accumulation of evidence that questioned the relationship between the balance of an ecological system and the greater diversity of its elements. While the ideas of biodiversity and Balance They continue to be powerful forces in conservation initiatives; in recent years, concepts of a more pragmatic nature have begun to gain strength, such as the concepts of functional diversity and ecosystem services (Martinéz-López et al. 2007). These concepts work from the recognition that the mechanisms through which biodiversity can influence ecosystems have to do with characters functional of some species before with the «specific richness» in general
7 . These concepts have also incorporated the economization of nature through the establishment of monetary values of ecosystem services. Naturally, the dominant currents of thought that feed ecological action have enriched and complicated the notion of nature as time has passed, however, it has not
They have managed to get rid of certain strong ideas such as balance, stability and diversity. If these are not properly covered by scientific ecology, what is it that
has come into play in the definition of nature? What It is proposed from the social sciences (Buscher & Wolmer 2007, Adams & Huton 2007, Brosius 2006, Descola & Pálsson 1996, Spence 1999, Wägenbauer 1992, Grgas and Larsen 1994) is that conservationist discourse is permeable to values and representations that transcend the expert knowledge and involving, for example, moral and aesthetic issues. It is for this reason that in order to understand conservationist thought, it is necessary to anchor it in an ideological framework greater than scientific discourse, and thus see what are the conditions of production of both nature and conservation. Political ecology is the most recent discipline to assume a role in the discussion of nature (Leff 2003). From this, nature is understood as a social construct, produced through a double process (Castillo 2005): on the one hand, nature is a physical reality built and mediated by arrangements historical social, embedded in power relations, which define what natural resources can be extracted, by what groups, how they will be used, and for whose benefit. On the other hand, nature is culturally constructed as a
concept. Through certain representations, human groups classify, organize, understand and internalize this physical reality. Following Escobar (1999) ideas about nature, even those that result from scientific experimentation are formed, shared and explained in ways that are inherently political. In this same line, conservation is understood as a space practice that establishes certain arrangements
about control over resources . The creation of protected areas (APs
) is the result of the establishment of rules by the State or other actors on who can use nature’s resources and where, how and when they can do it (Adams & Hutton 2007). It is about the adaptation on the nature of a geographic project of the State that has an eminently political burden, while the fact that certain results on the control and management of resources are achieved is the product of certain arrangements
in the power dynamics existing in a society. In order for the achievement of these results to be legitimate, in the first instance, the representation that should be drawn up about nature as well as the position that society should be assume in front of it. Hence, it is the imaginary and the representations that draw the attention of this particular investigation. It has been said (Spence 1999, Adams and Hutton 2007, Descola and Palsson 2001) that the nature / society division is the main epistemological support of this state project. Nature has been thought of as a biological body that can be understood, manipulated, controlled for the benefit of man through the development of expert knowledge. The society instead, a continuous process of differentiation is considered outside of nature: the more advanced in evolution, the more complex the relations between nature became. society and environment, and the more delicate balance between them is precarious (Eder 1998). This in turn laid the foundation for the development of the idea of a destructive humanity categorized as
threat , analytically external to the natural world, which came to complement the ideas of pristine nature and human ‘ wilderness ’. This interpretation not only provides the state apparatus with lenses to look at nature, but also so that the conceptual nature / society division becomes get physical In the landscape. The history of protected areas is an example of this: before the ideal of pristine and wild nature can be protected, it had to be created . Thus, the creation of countless APs happened worldwide that required as an initial condition the displacement of the populations that inhabited them. Protected areas, in this sense, crystallize a particular idea of nature. A
» typologically correct nature
” (Albelda 1997) that deserves to be protected. Without falling into the vices of constructivism, this research seeks to understand the way in which the State imagines and reproduces nature in the specific case of the Manu National Park. In my opinion, to make evident the contingent and not definitive nature of these representations, as well as Establishing what the relationships are between these and the sustainable development discourse can contribute to understanding the problematic alliance between them. Thinking the Manu Despite being portrayed as a remote paradise free from human interference , the history of occupation of the territory covered by the PNM dates back at least 3 millennia ago (Llosa and Nieto 2003). Going through pre-Columbian times, the first foray attempts by missionaries and expeditionaries in the 17th century, the arrival of the rubber fever between the years 1895 and 1917, and the logging that began in the middle of the last century, the Manu has been a space of intense human displacement. In 1969 the expedition that was commissioned to continue with the work of recognition of what It would be the Manu National Park made a tour of the Manu Chico and Sotileja rivers. On the way, the expeditionaries met by chance with a group of yaminahua 8 . Not only was the existence of «uncontacted» populations known, such as was this yaminahua group, by then it was known of the existence of Tayakome, machiguenga community that had been established from the action of the SIL in the area
9 . However, as I said at the beginning of the text, to fulfill the objective of protecting the ecological intangibility of this protected area, the expulsion of this population was required. Article 2 of the Supreme Decree establishing the creation of the Park indicates that although this population was not expelled, the SIL did. The SIL had founded this village in the early 1960s. Although its main objective was religious, it had also built a school and a medical post to provide services. In addition, it introduced the use of weapons and ammunition. The Machiguenga they provided the missionaries with animal skins as a financial aid to the SIL project. Partly for this reason, the park administration expelled them (Shepard et al 2010). What was the objective? «Even their axes were taken from them,»
comments a tour operator when narrating this fact. It was sought that the populations in the interior stop having external influence on them and that they could vo
Somehow see a kind of «natural state», a harmonious coexistence that would prevent them from exerting negative effects on nature, configuring themselves as a threat. However, it was not possible to restore that imagined harmony. In fact, the effects on the Machiguenga population they were dramatic. Approximately half of the population left the Manu and settled on the Camisea River, founding the Segakiato community. Other families left the park for the communities of Palotoa, Shipetiari and Diamante, along the Alto Madre de Dios. On the other hand, due to the lack of missionary support, internal tensions and fear of attacks by the Yaminahuas, some families also withdrew from Tayakome to create new settlements in the upper part of Quebrada Fierro what than would later become the native community from Yomibato (Tello 2003). After more than ten years of influence, the departure of the SIL left a serious political, economic, educational and medical vacuum. The crisis that followed had its most serious expression in the health of the Machiguengas. There was a 50% decline in the population growth rate in the 1975-1984 decade; and between 1974 and 1980 the infant mortality rate was 60% (Shepard et al 2010). The PNM management was far from being able to fill this gap. On the contrary, the establishment of park rangers in the same community caused a series of conflicts that are Bitterly remembered to this day: abuse of authority, alcoholism, a heavy dependency on food in the community, and sexual relations with native women (Shepard et al 2010). What did the departure of the SIL mean for the communities, along with the arrival of the park rangers and the imposition of this sudden control over the use of their resources and ways of being? A story told by two Machigueng park rangers symbolically describes the effects of this encounter: Rather than giving elaborate interpretations of this story, given that the Machiguenga worldview It is not the focus of this investigation, it is evident that the establishment of the PNM implied breaking into not only the social order of the community (represented by the citizen sick), but, more interesting still, about the natural order as it is thought from the machiguengas (the death of the tunche and the cruelty with his body). Until the early 1990s, the Park was perceived as an oppressor, who without providing any assistance, imposed a series of restrictions and prohibitions that were read as arbitrary. The intention of the displacement of people as an initial policy by the PNM is not an isolated case, this measure is at the origin of many protected areas in the world. It responds to an ideal of pristine nature where man is thought of as a category external to it, as a threat to her . From this perspective, the management of a protected area basically consists of control of threats, that is, in neutralizing or regulating human activity on a state-owned territory, depending on the degree of ecological intangibility that it seeks to preserve. Nature cannot be thought of itself, but always in the nature / society relationship. Thus, the process of construction of the natural world encloses the way in which man is linked to it. In the case of the Manu National Park, throughout its history the construction of the natural world has been marked by the figure of the Eden. This figure is mainly supported by three basic characteristics: virginity, exuberance and wealth. The role of man within this figure has been ambiguously constructed from a basic division between the traditional and the modern. Chosen by Iam Grimwood as that shows representative of the jungle region, the Manu embodies the Amazon as that “geography that belongs to the field of the imaginary utopian cos ”(Pizarro 2009: 11). Although the policies in relation to the populations that inhabit it have been modified over time, the Manu continues to feed the imagery of exuberant and virgin nature . A tour operator working in the area comments: Not that the step is not recognized of man through the territory of the Park, however this acknowledgment is made after an initial affirmation about her virginity, as a «but» additional. This disturbance The history that it suffers is basically associated with the rubber era, which lasted a couple of decades between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. The existence of ancestral settlers in the area is not counted as a synonym for disturbance. This comes from outside and, when it leaves, it is considered that the ecosystem returns to its natural rhythm. The discourse on the ecological purity of the PNM comes to be complemented by its enormous biological wealth o
biodiversity. The PNM constitutes one of the most important mega-diversity areas on the planet. It contains more than 3,500 species of registered plants, its fauna is made up of at least 160 species of mammals, more than 800 species of birds.
210 fish , 50 species of snakes, 40 lizards, 6 turtles, and 3 alligators (APECO / Pro-Manu 2001). Since 2011, the PNM Headquarters started, hand in hand with the Society Frankfurt Zoo, a project to boost tourism in the area. Biodiversity is the central feature of this campaign. In fact, the slogan that the guide says the following:
«Manu National Park: Biodiversity to the Extreme». Inside the poster, which has as background the exuberance of the forest furrowed by a river, the most attractive animal species of the PNM are shown. One detail is striking, between the otorongo and the cock of the rocks there are two Machiguengan children. The Naturalization of Nature Sandra Rodríguez
Biodiversity to the extreme Tourism is in fact a significant source of image creation about the Park. Being a resource-generating activity for the PNM makes it of particular importance within the management of this area. In addition, it has the particularity of being an activity that links the PNM as an institution with the localities of the buffer zone and the native communities of the interior Santa Rosa de Huacaria, Tayakome and Yomibato. In this sense, it has the power to influence the perception that these localities have about the PNM, from feeling they are beneficiaries of it to seeing their possibilities cut due to restrictions imposed on the area. Although only nine companies can formally operate within the protected area, in the buffer zone
– which is understood by the Manu Biosphere Reserve, there are numerous operators and accommodations fed by – and responsible for reproducing certain images of the Manu. Walk Travel introduces us to Manu in the following way:
Articulated to tourism activity and scientific endeavors, wildlife media producers have played their role in producing images of the Manu. Manu was recently chosen among the 50 best nature destinations in the world by National Geographic
12 , the one that draws it like that «Untouched paradise of one’s dreams ”.
Being one of the protected areas on which more film production has been produced, the PNM stands out for its overwhelming biodiversity
13 . Likewise, the role of natural scientists in the creation and production of the Park is particularly relevant. In addition to having influenced its creation and delimitation of limits, throughout the history of the PNM the Cocha Cashu Biological Station
, one of the three best studied research centers in the tropics, has influenced the management of the Park from its particular focus. Among the many scientists who have visited it, John Terborgh , director of the Station for more than 20 years, stands out as the main figure of this project. In his book Requiem for Nature
(2004), Terborgh dedicates a chapter
– titled The Danger Within to argue why Machiguenga they represent a threat to the PNM. The search for Paititi inside the Manu National Park is another factor that adds to the construction of the Manu as a utopia. The search for this legendary Inca citadel
It has not been terminated, and the Manu has been a favorite speculation spot since colonial times. The most persistent explorers of its forests have been the doctor Carlos Nehuenshwander (1960s), the priest Argentine Juan Carlos Polentini (1990s), Gregory Deyermenjian (who has been exploring the area since 1984), and Thierry Jamin (1998 onward). The “Humanization” of the nature of the Park evoked by this search does not finish being complete. It is a humanity out of the present time, important as a landscape and deposit of wealth, but not as an operator of a social use of space: no
exists . This exuberant, inhospitable, and inaccessible geography is mythologized, it figures as a natural Eden that houses an old treasure
. Purity, virginity, exuberance, inaccessibility, adventure and ‘ wilderness ‘, with these characteristics he feeds Living Eden
14 which is the Manu. But how do the populations that inhabit it fit into it? There are three types of population living within the PNM: recognized communities, indigenous people in initial contact and indigenous people in voluntary isolation. Among the recognized communities are the Machiguenga communities Tayakome and The Naturalization of Nature Sandra Rodríguez
14 Yomibato -with its annexes Maizal and Kakaotal respectively-, the Quechua population of Callanga , and the Machiguenga community -huachipaeri Santa Rosa de Huacaria. Unlike the first two, Santa Rosa de Huacaria is formally recognized as a native community , but 60% of its territory is within the PNM. The populations in initial contact are Machiguenga populations that inhabit the headers del Sotileja, Alto Manu, Piñipiñi and Mameria, and maintain a stable, although not frequent, link with the neighboring communities of Yomibato and Santa Rosa de Huacaria, with which they even share kinship ties. Finally, the populations in voluntary isolation are of two types, the kugapakori or nanti (considered as a Machiguenga subgroup ) and mashco
pyros (from the Yine language family ). It should be noted that the populations in initial isolation make up around 50% of the total populations that live within the PNM, as you can see in the following table continues to appear as «A group of settlers not exceeding 180 people». The truth is that this settlement was the result of the division of land between the peons of the old hacienda from Callanga , when the last owner died in 1965. Part of the delivered land was left outside and others within the limits of the PNM (Álvarez 2010). Currently the existence of a Callanga Farmers Association is recognized which is allowed usufruct an extension of 3,300 ha, in which is basically dedicated to the production of coffee. Santa Rosa de Huacaria is registered as a native community in 1976, its delimitation of lands being approved in 1980. Apparently, as a result of a confusion with the names of the rivers and streams in the area and the geographical cartographic imprecision of the official map of the PNM of that time, of the 33 656 ha , 60% were inside the Park! In the first Master Plan, Santa Rosa de Huacaria appears as a problem of «Adjudication of lands belonging to the National Park to third parties», establishing later that, as part of its protection policy, this community «Must necessarily relocate» (Ríos et al 1886: 127). Tensions with this community were overcome with the design of the new zoning (recognizing the disputed area as a Wild Use Zone). The community develops subsistence activities (understood self-consumption) and ecotourism in this area. The conditions imposed by the PNM on the populations – after he gave up his «Relocation» – they are summarized in the following sentence: «It is intended that l The different native groups stay within the Park when they lead a life according to their traditional culture; those who choose to a “civilized” way, that is to say, of advanced acculturation, they will have to leave the limits of the Unit ”(Ríos et al 1986: 87 ). The Park, in this sense, is in charge of ensuring the non-assimilation of what than they understand “civilization” through, for example, the control of the “intervention of foreign elements”. When the Park is founded and the SIL is expelled from the area, the external elements linked to this idea of civilization are eliminated, such as shotguns
– which are prohibited to this day – and, they say, «Even their axes were taken from them» , in this desire to promote a process d and “traditionalization” of these populations, a kind of return to the natural state. Many things have changed in the management of the Park, it is true. However, the condition of living according to the «traditional» continues to define agreements with l as populations that inhabit the interior. A former PNM official explains it as follows: The actions of man are phrased in terms of interference, intervention, impact, disturbance about the natural environment. However, the argument that is tried in this text says that it is not the man to dry
. The principle that governs the management of the area is the conservation of a certain ecological intangibility. By having populations inland, this intangibility can only be protected as long as certain minimum «natural» living conditions are maintained by the first. This naturalness is defined by the idea of what traditional.
We thus have a conceptual alignment between what traditional and the natural.
The traditional ensures the preservation of the natural, while civilization is configured as a threat to said order. Of course, it is difficult in this conceptual separation and alignment to establish the limits between the traditional and the civilizing or modern. What tells us when something begins or stops being traditional? I suggest that this boundary, while traditional is not a culturally neutral category, is marked by a perception of otherness
. Not every man is synonymous with alteration, not every society is synonymous with threat. There are stages in this kind of cultural evolution that go from the relationship of harmony to that of destruction of nature. What’s interesting here are the effects this way of thinking has on how change is perceived within communities. The change
it is prefigured as external, the factors that promote it – be subjects, customs and objects foreign to the way of life «traditional» – they are read as symbols of interference and alteration of the natural world. The establishment of the PNM, in this sense, imposes restrictions not only on the use of space, but on time, in its sense of cultural change. Controlling the entry of certain aspects unrelated to the «traditional» life of the group was not p osible, nor is it now, as expected. It was not possible because even the same control policies established by the park implied the entry of external factors that were going to influence the dynamics of the communities. The State, however, did not read itself as influence, as a symbol of the entry of that civilization that was trying to avoid, but rather perceived itself as an entity capable of carrying out neutral control policies. Thus, for example, the ranger’s entry to the community was not read as a
influencing factor of “civilizational” change. Similarly, the presence in the Park of
scientists visiting the Cocha Cashu Biological Station (See Annex 1) and tourists who visit the Tourist and Recreational Use Zone del Parque is not being thought of in terms of a social use of the space, as factors of alteration and change of the populations that transit through it. The environmental impact they cause are measured and limits are established on what the Park can support, but there is not a full understanding of the interaction that they establish among themselves and with the populations of the Park. For example, the establishment of the Maizal community -annexed Tayakome- would be influenced in part by the relationship that was established between the inhabitants
Machiguengas with the Cocha Cashu Biological Station : hired to work as motorcyclists and guides, in addition to exchanging The Naturalization of Nature
Sandra Rodríguez 17 products (cassava , fish for packaged products). For their part, although tourists do not reach the communities 16 , home Machiguenga – The tourist hostel run by the Tayakome and Yomibato communities- allows a series of meetings and exchanges within the Park that, once more, they defy the maintenance of is
ta imagined «traditionality». Thinking of the populations within the Manu based on the division between the traditional and the modern obscures the understanding of the dynamics that occur within them. From the State one thinks of communities
s “traditional”, which lead a way of life based on self-subsistence. In reality, what
exists in the Manu – in recognized communities that are with whom the conflict basically exists – it’s a rural amazon it is home to productive populations linked to a market cycle (Barclay 1992). The conservation of this paradise turns out to be complex production cultural landscapes, into commercialized landscapes for tourist and scientific consumption, where the environment and society end up being artificially separated (Castillo 2011). This gap generates that the policies aimed at treating the indigenous population within the Manu are prone to unleash conflicts or generate unfortunate situations, as we will see in the next section. Nature conservation or population control What challenges does the conservation of inhabited areas pose to us? Where does the State look at them? Let us first review the basic organization of Manu National Park management. Manu is managed from Cusco , where its headquarters are located 17 , through the PNM Headquarters. Its structure includes a Chief as head of the area, 3 specialists (from Units of 1) Tourism and Environmental Education, 2) Research and GIS, and 3) Control and Surveillance) and between 30 and 40 park rangers, this in addition to purely administrative personnel . Currently, the Society Frankfurt Zoo 18 It has hired 3 other professionals to complement the work carried out by the specialists of the Headquarters, in addition to contributing to the payment of some community park rangers. Of the three areas in charge of operation
End of services with Amazon-Travels.com