Resumen El manejo de la fauna silvestre como ciencia aplicada es nuevo en América Latina. Aunque hubo algunos casos pioneros previos, como en el caso de las aves guaneras en el Perú, la mayor parte de los programas y proyectos fueron iniciados apenas en las décadas de 1960 y especialmente de 1970, cuando también se inició la formación académica especializada. Actualmente hay muchas operaciones de manejo de fauna en todos los países de la región. Pero, en su inmensa mayoría tienen fines de conservación, es decir se hacen para recuperar las poblaciones de especies raras o amenazadas y/o para estimular el turismo. No son realizados para estimular el desarrollo económico y social a través de la producción de carne y otros productos que pueden comercializarse, aunque en algunos casos eso pueda ocurrir. Una de las pocas excepciones es el ya bastante generalizado manejo de las tortugas de río amazónicas que sirve para mejorar la alimentación de las poblaciones ribereñas. Otra es la caza deportiva que aún es tolerada en unos pocos países, como en Argentina. El principal obstáculo para la aplicación del manejo de fauna convencional es la información ambiental distorsionada que la sociedad recibe y su consecuente fuerte oposición a la caza, a la que considera inhumana y peligrosa para las especies. De otra parte, influenciadas por la actitud de la sociedad, las políticas y leyes referidas a la fauna silvestre son deficientes e ineficientes, siendo generalizada la caza ilegal y el tráfico de fauna. El futuro para el manejo de la fauna con fines económicos directos en la región no se muestra favorable. Sus mayores posibilidades se dan principalmente en las porciones de ecosistemas naturales poco habitados, especialmente bosques tropicales, para beneficio de las poblaciones indígena y rurales, donde hoy se practica la caza para sustento en forma desordenada.

Abstract Wildlife management as an applied science is new in Latin America. Although there were some previous pioneering cases, as in the case of guano birds in Peru, most programs and projects were initiated only in the 1960s and especially in the 1970s, when specialized academic training also began. Currently, there are wildlife management operations in all countries of the region. However, the vast majority of them have conservation purposes, i.e. they are carried out to recover populations of rare or endangered species and/or to stimulate tourism. They are not done to stimulate economic and social development through the production of meat and other products that can be marketed, although in some cases this may occur. One of the few exceptions is the already widespread management of Amazonian River turtles, which serves to improve the food supply of riverine populations. Another is sport hunting, which is still tolerated in a few countries, such as Argentina. The main obstacle to the application of conventional wildlife management is the distorted environmental information that society receives and its consequent strong opposition to hunting, which it considers inhumane and dangerous for the species. On the other hand, influenced by the society´s attitude, wildlife policies and laws are deficient and inefficient, and illegal hunting and wildlife trafficking are widespread. The future of wildlife management for direct economic purposes in the region does not look favorable. Its greatest possibilities are found mainly in portions of natural ecosystems that are not very inhabited, especially tropical forests, for the benefit of indigenous and rural populations, where hunting for sustenance is currently practiced in an unregulated manner.

Abstract A paper published in 2019 in the journal Science concludes that Peru starred in 61 events to reduce the level of protection and size as well as to eliminate protected areas (events known by the acronym PADDD). That would place the country among those that most mistreat their protected areas. But, in Peru only one case is known. When reviewing the study methodology, it is confirmed that the authors misinterpreted the information, especially referring to national forests that in Peru have never been considered protected areas. It´s seems the authors exaggerated the arguments to demonstrate the significance of PADDD.

Resumen En un artículo publicado en el 2019 en la revista Science, un grupo de científicos llega a la conclusión que el Perú protagonizó 61 eventos de reducción del nivel de protección y del tamaño, así como de eliminación de áreas protegidas (eventos conocidos en inglés por las siglas PADDD). Eso lo colocaría al país entre los países que peor trata a sus áreas protegidas. Pero, en el Perú solo se tiene conocimiento de un caso. Al revisar la metodología del estudio se confirma que los autores mal interpretaron la información, en especial la referida a los bosques nacionales que en el Perú nunca han sido considerados áreas protegidas. Al parecer, los autores exageraron los argumentos para demostrar la importancia de los PADDD.

During the past three decades the portion of the Amazon biome included in protected areas and indigenous territories has more than doubled. Today it covers 51% of the Amazon. New protected areas are biologically more representative than in the past thanks to improved scientific tools such as rapid biological assessments and prioritization based on systematization of records. Insects were often considered in these studies. However, not all protected areas have equal value for conservation. Also, most invertebrate species in protected areas as in the Amazon are still unknown. The situation in the still forested non-protected Amazon is worsening. Agriculture and mining are rapidly growing as well as selective logging, especially impacting in endemic insect species in isolated valleys in the Andes-Amazon portion and in general, in Amazon’s periphery. Additionally, the consequences of border effects are worsening as forest fragments multiply. Climate change will have an enormous impact. Water pollution is a growing but little measured impact in aquatic invertebrates. Taxonomy, especially in the Amazon countries, continues not being attractive to young entomologist nor to scientific institutions. The whole issue of systematics is worsening despite new trends such as DNA bar codes. Biopiracy susceptibilities are increasing obstacles for research. The overall balance for insect conservation is still more positive than negative as it can be assumed that the entomofauna is as protected as any other animal or plant. A few alternatives to improve insect conservation in the region are discussed.

La porción del bioma amazónico incluida en áreas protegidas y territorios indígenas se ha duplicado durante las últimas tres décadas. Hoy cubre el 51% de la Amazonia. Los insectos a menudo se consideraron en los estudios previos. Sin embargo, la mayoría de las especies de invertebrados en áreas protegidas de la Amazonía son desconocidas. La situación de las especies en la parte no protegida empeora a medida que se expande la agricultura, la minería y la tala selectiva, especialmente impactando en especies endémicas en valles aislados en la porción andino-amazónica y en la periferia de la Amazonía. Además, las consecuencias del efecto de borde empeoran a medida que se multiplican los fragmentos forestales. El cambio climático tendrá graves consecuencias. La contaminación del agua tiene un impacto creciente poco medido en los invertebrados acuáticos. La taxonomía, especialmente en los países amazónicos, sigue sin ser atractiva para los entomólogos jóvenes o para las, cada día más pobres, instituciones científicas. Así, el ya difícil tema de la sistemática está empeorando a pesar de nuevas tendencias, como los códigos de barras de ADN. La preocupación por la biopiratería aumenta los obstáculos que los gobiernos imponen para la investigación científica. A pesar de todo, el balance general para la conservación de insectos es más positivo que negativo, ya que se puede asumir que la entomofauna está tan protegida en áreas protegidas como cualquier otro animal o planta. Se discuten algunas alternativas para mejorar la conservación de insectos en la región.

Peru protects 23.4 percent of its Amazon under several categories of protected areas. The protected area belonging to categories that allow human population and economic uses has increased significantly, reaching 55.3 percent. Available data on the use of the protected land confirms studies carried out in the Brazilian Amazon and in other tropical regions showing that deforestation in protected areas has, in general, not been significant (0.54 percent) while total deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon is officially estimated to be 11 percent. Deforestation in protected areas for direct-use (with people) in the five Amazon departments is 1.15 percent while in those for indirect-use (without people) is 0.11 percent or ten times less. This occurs despite human pressure is higher in buffer zones of indirect-use areas (10.31 percent deforested) than in direct-use areas (7.42 percent deforested). Deforestation, as well as forest degradation in protected areas can be extremely significant and occur even in locations which should be preserved according to the zoning in management plans.

El Perú protege 23.4% de su territorio amazónico bajo diversas categorías de áreas protegidas. La proporción de áreas que pertenece a categorías que permiten la presencia de poblaciones humanas en ellas ha aumentado mucho alcanzando el 55.3 % del área protegida. Un análisis simple de datos disponibles sobre uso de la tierra protegida confirma estudios hechos en la Amazonia brasileña y otros previos en el Perú mostrando que la deforestación en áreas protegidas ha sido en general poco significativa (0.54%). La deforestación total en la Amazonia peruana es oficialmente estimada en 11 %. La deforestación en áreas protegidas de uso directo (con gente) en los cinco departamentos amazónicos es de 1.15% mientras que en las de uso indirecto (sin gente) es de 0.11%, es decir diez veces menor. Eso ocurre pese a que la presión humana es mayor en las zonas de amortiguamiento de las de uso indirecto (10.31% deforestado) que en las de uso directo (7.42% deforestado). La deforestación y la degradación del bosque en áreas protegidas, que pueden ser extremamente significativas, ocurren inclusive en las zonas que deberían ser preservadas de acuerdo al plan de manejo.

A DESTRUIÇÃO DOS recursos naturais da Amazônia continua aumentando, especialmente o desmatamento, apesar de a retórica dos últimos 50 anos ter mudado de conquista e exploração para desenvolvimento sustentável. Entretanto, mudanças positivas são percebidas, ainda que pequenas: o crescimento da participação popular nas decisões; o Tratado de Cooperação Amazônica, que começa a dar resultados práticos; o interesse internacional melhor orientado; existem experiências bem-sucedidas e melhor documentadas sobre desenvolvimento sustentável; e muitos dos antigos mitos sobre a realidade amazônica estão sendo abandonados. O crescimento da população urbana é uma das principais mudanças percebidas. Hoje, mais de 60% de sua população é urbana e tem grande influência nas decisões políticas, ainda que não necessariamente favorável para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Neste trabalho explora-se algumas das razões pelas quais o desenvolvimento amazônico não é sustentável: entre outras, um paradigma de desenvolvimento sustentável mal definido, a persistente deficiência na identificação dos atores amazônicos e na solução de seus conflitos no planejamento regional, a fragilidade crescente das instituições públicas, a aplicação do simples crescimento econômico como estratégia dominante de desenvolvimento, o limitado acesso à educação, a desordem social. Duas ações estratégicas, que não constituem novidade, são consideradas essenciais para mudar gradativamente o padrão do desenvolvimento na região: a intensificação do uso da terra e a elevação da produtividade nas áreas já desmatadas (acima de 100 milhões de hectares na Amazônia produzem pouco ou nada); a avaliação e o pagamento em escala nacional e internacional dos serviços ambientais fornecidos pela floresta. Esses dois requisitos deverão ser acompanhados pela adoção outras estratégias bem conhecidas, como o manejo sustentável da floresta natural, o reflorestamento de áreas desmatadas não-aproveitáveis na agricultura, estabelecimento de áreas protegidas efetivamente manejadas, entre várias mais.

AMAZON NATURAL resources destruction trends continues to increase, especially deforestation, despite changes in rethoric that during the last 50 years moved from conquest and exploitation to sustainable development. However, a few positive changes are noticeable: Amazon people's participation in decision making increased, the Amazon Treaty is starting to produce practical results, the international concerns are better oriented, there are more and better documented success stories to replicate and, several pervasive and prejudicial myths about the Amazon are being lost. Urban population growth is one of the principal changes in the Amazon. Over 60% of the Amazon population are urban and its influence in policy making is very high and not necessarily favorable to sustainable development. In this paper are explored some of the reasons for which development is not sustainable in the Amazon: a sustainable development paradigm ill defined and poorly understood, a persistent lack of identification of actors and their conflicts in most planning exercises, growing fragility of states to organize and provide the rules of the game for development and, of course, the application of the economic growth as dominant strategy combined with lack of education and social order, corruption and other associated evils, are briefly discussed. Two strategic actions, that are not new, are considered central to gradually change the pattern of development in the Amazon: intensification of the use of the land and productivity elevation in already deforested areas (well over 100 million hectares that currently produce very little or nothing); the valuation and payment, at national and international scale, of the environmental services of the forests. These two central requirements are coupled by several other well-known and complementary possibilities such as natural forest management; establishment and management of protected areas, redefinition of success indicators for the Amazon, ecotourism etc. Education, information and participation are essential to allow democracy to play its role in sustainable development.