Usar p⁄gs xvii-134 - ResearchGate

Change in Selected Indigenous Populations, 1982-1992 (Figure 24)Group 1982 1992 % change Data codeAkawaio 491 911 85.5 3Arahuaco 78 248 217.9 1Arutani 9 45 400 1Baniva 1,167 1,192 2.1 1Bare 1,265 1,226 -3.1 1Hiwi 7,256 11,608 60 3Hoti 398 643 61.6 3Kari’ña 6,849 11,141 62.7 3Kurripako 1,623 2,816 73.5 3Mapoyo 76 178 134.2 1Panare 2,379 3,314 39.3 3Pemón 11,464 19,129 66.9 3Piapoco 640 1,333 108.3 3Piaroa 7,030 11,539 64.1 3Puinave 491 774 57.6 3Sape 9 28 211.1 1Warao 19,573 24,005 22.6 2Warekena 316 428 35.4 3Yabarena 155 319 105.8 1Yanomami 12,082 15,012 24.3 2Ye’kwana 3,038 4,472 47.2 3Yeral Not counted 775 NA NAData codes: 1=Groups that were better counted in 1992 than in 1982; 2= Groups that presented problemsin the 1992 census count; 3= Groups that do not reflect any problems in the 1982 or 1992 censusesNote: There are no census numbers for the Yeral in 1982 as this group was not counted as a separategroup until 1992.Source: Mansutti Rodríguez, A. “Una mirada al futuro de los indígenas en Guayana.” BoletínAntropológico 29 (1993): 7-27.Map 12: Areas of High Population Pressure or Intensive Use in Guayana ForestsSources:• GFW Venezuela analysis (GPS coordinates for indigenous communities and expert consultation).• Mansutti Rodríguez, A. et al. Diagnóstico de los Conflictos Socio-ambientales en Imataca: LíneasEstratégicas de un Programa para el Resguardo y la Consolidación de los Asentamientos Humanos ubicadosen la Reserva Forestal Imataca (RFI), Final Report to the World Bank (Ciudad Bolívar, Venezuela:CIAG/UNEG, 1997).Methodology:• Based on the above-cited report to the World Bank, and expert opinion, polygons were delineated aroundsettlements known to have an impact on forests.111