Slaughter and Processing Infrastructure in Context of Wildlife Harvesting in the State of Amazonas, Brazil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12970/2310-0796.2021.09.08Keywords:
Protected areas, slaughterhouse, processingAbstract
In Brazil, legal extensive wildlife management systems can only be developed by traditional communities in Protected Areas (PAs). Licensed slaughterhouses are mandatory for extensive management products to reach the formal market and this can be a problem if there are few processing options. Thus, this work aimed to evaluate the infrastructure for slaughter and processing of animal products in the state of Amazonas and its potential for use in extensive animal management in PAs. A documentary analysis of environmental laws for harvesting of wildlife in PAs, licensing of slaughterhouses and processing facilities and inspection of animal products were carried out, as well as a survey of existing establishments and PAs in the state of Amazonas. Currently, there are norms only for extensive management of arapaimas and caimans in PAs in the state of Amazonas, and specific sanitary requirements only for fishing products (fish, mollusks, frogs, caimans and freshwater turtles). There are 94 slaughtering and processing facilities of animal products in Amazonas, and 32% of the state municipalities have some facility. There are 50 state and federal PAs for the categories that permit extensive wildlife management in Amazonas, and 58% of the state municipalities have at least one PAs in their areas. Of the total municipalities in Amazonas, 22.5% have PAs and establishments. However, a great number of establishments are located in the state capital, making unfeasible their use for slaughter in extensive animal management, requiring support places for storage and later processing of animal products.
References
Chardonnet P, Clers BD, Fischer J, Gerhold R, Jori F, Lamarque, F. The value of wildlife. Revue scientifique et technique-Office international des épizooties 2002; 21(1): 15-52. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.21.1.1323
Nogueira SSC, Nogueira-Filho SLG. Wildlife farming: an alternative to unsustainable hunting and deforestation in Neotropical forests? Biodiversity and Conservation 2011; 20(7): 1385-1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0047-7
Freitas CT, Lope PFM, Campos‐Silva, JV, Noble, MM, Dyball R, Peres CA. Co‐management of culturally important species: A tool to promote biodiversity conservation and human well‐being. People and Nature 2019; 2(1): 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10064
Ranzi TJD, Fonseca R, Da Silveira R. Uso e Manejo de Fauna Silvestre em Resex, RDS e Flona Federais. Biodiversidade Brasileira 2018; 8(1): 35-52.
Franco DL, Botero‐Arias R, Vital TW. Evolução das políticas para o uso sustentável da fauna no Brasil: o caso do manejo comunitário de jacarés no Amazonas. Brazilian Journal of Development 2019; 5(9): 16319-16339. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv5n9-184
Berkes F. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 2004; 18(3): 621-630. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x
Humavindu MN, Stage J. Community‐based wildlife management failing to link conservation and financial viability. Animal Conservation 2015; 18(1): 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12134
Turine JAV, Macedo MLR. Direitos Humanos, Comunidades tradicionais e Biodiversidade: Desafios para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Revista Direito UFMS 2017; 3(2): 175-194. doi: 10.21671/rdufms.v3i2.5313
Marioni B, Barão‐Nóbrega JAL, Botero‐Arias R, Muniz F, Campos Z, Da Silveira R, Villamarín F. Science and conservation of Amazonian crocodilians: a historical review. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2021; 1(1): 1-12.
Lopes GP, Valsecchi J, Vieira TM, Do Amaral PV, Da Costa EWM. Hunting and hunters in lowland communities in the region of the middle Solimões, Amazonas, Brazil. UAKARI 2012; 8(1): 7-18. https://doi.org/10.31420/uakari.v8i1.120
El Bizri HR, Morcatty TQ, Valsecchi J, et al. Urban wild meat consumption and trade in central Amazonia. Conservation Biology 2019; 1(1): 1-1.
Zylbersztajn D. Agribusiness systems analysis: origin, evolution and research perspectives. Revista de Administração (São Paulo) 2017; 52(1): 114-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.10.004
Kellert SR, Mehta JN, Ebbin SA, Lichtenfeld LL. Community natural resource management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society & Natural Resources 2000; 13(8): 705-715. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419200750035575
Amaral ESR. A comunidade e o mercado: os desafios na comercialização de pirarucu manejado das Reservas Mamirauá e Amanã, Amazonas-Brasil. UAKARI 2007; 3(2): 7-17. https://doi.org/10.31420/uakari.v3i2.27
Mesquita GP, Barreto LN. Evaluation of mammals hunting in indigenous and rural localities in Eastern Brazilian Amazon. Ethnobiology and Conservation 2015; 4(1): 1-14.
Joppa LN, Pfaff A. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PloSone 2009; 4(12): e8273.
Calegare MGA, Higuchi MIG, Forsberg SS. Desafios metodológicos ao estudo de comunidades ribeirinhas amazônicas. Psicologia & Sociedade 2013; 25(3): 571-580. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-71822013000300011
Palomo I, Montes C, Martin-Lopez B, González JA, Garcia-Llorente M, Alcorlo P, Mora MRG. Incorporating the social–ecological approach in protected areas in the Anthropocene. BioScience 2014; 64(3): 181-191. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bit033
Drummond JA, Franco JLA, Oliveira D. Uma análise sobre a história e a situação das unidades de conservação no Brasil. In: Conservação da Biodiversidade: Legislação e Políticas Públicas. Brasília: Editora Câmara 2010; 341-385.
