ABSTRACT

Integrating Local Knowledge About Into Conservation Practice In Dominica,

by Swetha Peteru

Much debate exists about whether scientific and local priorities complement each other or are mutually exclusive, with conservation policies and practices raising questions about whose knowledge counts. In Dominica, West Indies, conservation is highly important because of its large tracts of diverse forest and accordingly its image as the “Nature Island.” This research, conducted near Morne Trois Pitons National Park, adopts a stakeholder approach to compare local views on five of global (IUCN -listed) and three trees of national (Forestry Division) importance in relation to trees local villagers view as important resources for their livelihoods. Results from interviews and transect walks show that residents can recognize trees by pictures or local names. They add to existing knowledge on global-national rare trees and broaden the conservation agenda to recognize 36 native and 19 non-native trees. The study complies a new guide that exemplifies how local knowledge and local priorities contribute to scientific understanding of plant conservation.

INTEGRATING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PLANTS INTO CONSERVATION PRACTICE IN DOMINICA, WEST INDIES

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts Department of Geography by Swetha Peteru Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2010

Co-Advisor: ______(Dr. Thomas Klak)

Co-Advisor: ______(Dr. Kimberly Medley)

Reader: ______(Dr. Charles Stevens)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables iv List of Boxes v List of Figures vi Acknowledgements vii

Introduction 1

Research Context - Literature review 5 Political Ecology as a Theoretical Framework in Conservation Research 5 A Stakeholder Approach and Analysis 6 Ethnobotany as Participatory Learning about Plants 7

Geographical Context: The Nature Island of Dominica 8 Conservation Planning and Protected Area Management in Dominica 10 The Study Area - Morne Trois Pitons National Park 12

Data and Methods 13 A Stakeholder Analysis 13 What is locally known about the trees? 14 Hardwood selection and evaluation 14 Gaining local viewpoints 15 What trees are recognized as locally important? 15

Results 17 What is locally known about the trees? 17 Hardwood tree selection and evaluation 17 Gaining local viewpoints 17 Internationally important trees 18 Cedrela odorata L. 18 Guaiacum officinale L. 22 Inga dominicensis Benth. 22 Swietenia macrophylla King. and Swietenia mahagoni (L.) Jacq. 23 Nationally Important trees 26 Hymenaea courbaril L. 26 Phoebe elongata Nees. 28 Sabinea carinalis Griseb. 29 Summary 30 What trees are recognized as locally important? 31 New plant guide 35

Discussion: Comparing and integrating knowledges 36 Assessing the local knowledge 36

ii

Extra-local vs. local 36 Among local stakeholders 37 Within stakeholder groups 39 Integration of local concerns 40

Conclusion 41 Limitations 41

References 42

Appendix I: Human Subjects Application approved by Miami University’s IRB 48

Appendix II: Research permit from Dominica 51

Appendix III: Plant Guide 53

Appendix IV: Sample page of trail guides given to tour guides during training 61

iii

LIST OF TABLES*

Table 1. Historic events influencing human-resource relations and conservation 10 Table 2. Predominant species in vegetation zones of Morne Trois Pitons National Park 12 Table 3. Stakeholder groups and their interests 13 Table 4. Guiding questions used in semi-structured interviews and focus groups 15 Table 5. Local stakeholders and number interviewed 17 Table 6. List of species investigated in the study and their status 17 Table 7. The known local uses of Cedrela odorata 20 Table 8. The known local uses of Swietenia spp. 25 Table 9. The known local uses of Hymenaea courbaril 27 Table 10. The known local uses of Phoebe elongata 28 Table 11. The known local uses of Sabinea carinalis 30 Table 12. Locally important trees mentioned by the various stakeholders 32

*Note: All tables were created by author unless otherwise mentioned.

iv

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1. How to protect trees according to local stakeholders 21 Box 2. Quotes from participants on what trees they think are important 35

v

LIST OF FIGURES*

Figure 1. A conceptual map 3 Figure 2. Map of Dominica in the Eastern Caribbean 8 Figure 3. Map of southern half of the island of Dominica 12 Figure 4. Example of a plant guide 14 Figure 5. Picture of Cedrela odorata 18 Figure 6. Percent of recognition of the Cedrela odorata by participants 18 Figure 7. Pictures of Guaiacum officinale 22 Figure 8. Pictures of Inga dominicensis 22 Figure 9. Pictures of Swietenia macrophylla and Swietenia mahagoni 23 Figure 10. Participant recognition of Swietenia macrophylla and Swietenia mahagoni 24 Figure 11. Pictures of Hymenaea courbaril 26 Figure 12. Participants‟ recognition of Hymenaea courbaril 26 Figure 13. Pictures of Phoebe elongata 28 Figure 14. Participants‟ recognition of Phoebe elongata 28 Figure 15. Picture of Sabinea carinalis 29 Figure 16. Recognition of Sabinea carinalis by participants 29 Figure 17. Cover of the integrated plant guide booklet 35 Figure 18. “Layers” of knowledge 39 Figure 19. Farm located within the Morne Trois Pitons National Park boundaries 39 Figure 20. Visualizing the relationship between scientific and local knowledges 41

*Note: All maps, figures, and pictures were created/taken by author unless otherwise mentioned.

vi

ACKNOLOWDEGEMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the guidance of my advisors, Dr. Thomas Klak and Dr. Kim Medley and reader Dr. Charlie Stevens. Dr. Klak and Dr. Medley worked with me as I explored the findings and helped me transition raw material into a written thesis. Dr. Stevens along with Dr. Klak guided me through an independent study on understanding political ecology. Without the guidance and advice from all three of my committee members over the past two years, this research would not have been possible or complete. I would like to thank the William S. Turrell Herbarium at Miami University for funding the fieldwork for this thesis (Grant #210) and for holding the voucher specimens. And the Department of Geography for the funding for the fieldwork and the Sustainable Development and Ecotourism in the Eastern Caribbean (GEO 599.7) course. And finally the Center for the Enhancement of Learning, Teaching, and University Assessment (CELTUA) for funding the camera to record and take pictures of trees in the field. I would like to thank my family for supporting me and my friends for helping me remain calm during the process of writing this thesis. I would especially like to thank Rashesh Shrestha for always helping me with proof reading and being my sounding board. I would most of all like to thank Professor Maureen Hays-Mitchell (Colgate University) for helping me realize my potential and in helping me get to graduate school.

vii

Introduction

Much debate exists as to whether scientific-based conservation can integrate local knowledge and concerns or if the two are mutually exclusive (Mauro and Hardison 2000). First, conservation research, based on scientific (Western) knowledge, too often focuses on habitat loss (fragmentation), ecosystem degradation, and the consequent loss of biodiversity (Chapin III et al. 2000). Many call conservation a “crisis discipline” as it substantiates threats that demand urgent actions (Salafsky et.al. 2002, Pullin 2002, Wilson 2002). Conservation science gained momentum in the 1970s because of the documented threats to biodiversity and from a growing global community that gained awareness and concern for the projected declines (Doak and Mills 1994, Drew and Henne 2006). Conservation research problems are often extra-locally defined and focused on already established hypotheses of negative human-resource relations. Second, in response to crisis narratives of biodiversity loss, extra-locally defined conservation practices establish fenced-off protected areas that marginalize local participation and the needs and livelihoods of the people and communities living nearby (e.g., Gezon 2006). Prohibiting human interaction in these protected areas serves as a primary agenda for biodiversity conservation (Pimbert & Pretty 1995). The effects of conservation management practices particularly manifest in the communities that are within or near the boundaries of protected areas. In contrast, other scholars stress the need to consider local knowledge, issues, and concerns when making decisions regarding conservation (Pierotti and Wildcat 2000, Terer et al. 2004). The process of establishing and managing protected areas should be more participatory to involve local communities (Ghimire et al. 2004). Brown and Lomolino (2000) indicate a need for a new theoretical framework for conservation that is closer to what is happening on the ground. Many times conservationists, ecologists, and policy makers are forced to make decisions in haste and without adequate data and information about the species or communities in concern (Doak and Mills 1994, Drew and Henne 2006). Due to limited data, conservationists and ecologists compensate by depending heavily on theory. Though theories have a lot to offer, they are over- generalized and have little to do with practical conservation decisions (Doak and Mills 1994). By integrating „scientific‟ knowledge with „local‟ knowledge, conservation research could achieve a more holistic framework. Mauro and Hardison (2000, 1267) state “[i]t is not wise, or right, to save pages from the book of life while recklessly discarding pages from the book of culture, especially when these contain vital lessons for us all.” Local knowledge is based on situated interactions with the local environment and surroundings over a long period of time (Berkes 2008). Scientific and local knowledges come from different sources and require different methods in order to be incorporated into biodiversity research (Berkes et al. 2000, Huntington et al. 2004). Though people have realized conservation has ecological, financial, political and social contexts, there is little agreement on how to integrate local communities into conservation conceptually and methodologically (Berkes et.al. 2000, Berkes 2004, Huntington et.al. 2004). Political ecology becomes an important and useful framework to understand conflicts and extra- local and local stakeholder interests, such as those of international organizations and institutions, the state, and communities (Adams and Hutton 2007, Neumann 2005). Political ecology addresses relevant issues such as the conception and definition of relationships between society and nature, access to and control over land and resources, and the distribution of environmental benefits and costs (Neumann 2005). Political ecology recognizes pluralities of knowledge and

1

truth, meaning that there is more than one way to understand nature and the environment (Escobar 1996). Studies in political ecology validate relating local knowledge to extra-local knowledge, and applying multiple scales of analysis toward understanding nature-society relations (Gezon 2006, Neumann 2005, Zimmerer & Bassett 2003). A stakeholder analysis can help better understand these relations by moving from a dichotomous understanding of knowledge to one where the viewpoints of extra-local to local interest groups are identified, compared, and included in conservation research. Stakeholder analysis provides an opportunity to consider simultaneously scientific knowledges gained from research by extra-local authorities and situated local knowledges gained over time at a place. The construct of local knowledge provides important ways to understand environments and human-resource relations that represent local people‟s understandings of ecological processes and their relationships with the environment (Becker and Ghimire 2003, Berkes 2008). Local knowledge describes information gathered through observations and learning over a lifetime, including some historical information gained from elders. The way local knowledges are acquired and their purpose is very different from scientific knowledge (Huntington 2000). There has been much debate about whether local knowledges can be used in a cohesive and productive manner with the conservation priorities of the scientific community. There is a need to compare local and scientific knowledges and better explore how they can support and deepen each other (Huntington et al. 2004). There is potential for scientific knowledge to learn from local knowledges and political ecology provides a framework to examine and validate the possibilities. A good case example to look at the integration between „scientific‟ and „local‟ knowledges is the Eastern Caribbean island nation of The Commonwealth of Dominica. Known as the “Nature Island,” Dominica is recognized for its vast tracts of intact primary forests (CANARI and FAO National Forest Programme Facility 2006). Much of the island, about 20%, has been set-aside as national parks to preserve its biodiversity (Conservational International 2009). The island is home also to the Kalinago (the indigenous group also known as the Caribs) and to the descendants of the African slaves brought to the island by the Europeans. Most people on the island have a close relationship with the land and are thereby possessors of localized „situated‟ knowledges. Recognizing the potential importance of this knowledge to local conservation, Dominica’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan: 2001- 2006 includes the “protection, enhancement and encouragement of traditional knowledge, culture and values” (2001, 1). The report states that one of the biggest threats to biodiversity is presented by loss of traditional knowledge and that a guiding principal for “conservation, management, and sustainable use of biological resources should be based on an ecosystem approach, mediated by the best knowledge available and refined as new knowledge is gained” (2001, 10). This study looks at the compatibility of scientifically based knowledge and the knowledge of local communities as they contribute to the conservation management of the World Heritage Site, Morne Trois Pitons National Park (MTPNP) located in the south-central interior of Dominica. The study focuses on knowledge about tree species. Due to the close nature of the relationship between people and plants in Dominica, ethnobotanical or local knowledge of trees is part of everyday life. Employing a political ecology framework and a stakeholder approach, the study considers different stakeholders, their interests, power relations and different forms of knowledge about important trees (Figure 1). The extra-local „scientific‟ stakeholder groups include the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), acting as the

2

institution that ranks the conservation importance of tree species, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which is responsible for the conservation management of the World Heritage Site. The local stakeholder groups are ecotourism workers and tour guides who work near and in association with the protected area, and local residents who live in the surrounding villages. The Forestry and Wildlife Division in Dominica is another stakeholder, which sits in between the scientific and local knowledges.

Figure 1. A conceptual map tracing the knowledges of stakeholders to address the overall research question.

In attempting to compare and integrate the two different knowledges, it is important to first assess the local knowledge and then understand local priorities for conservation. Thus, the study focuses on the relationship between extra-local (scientific) and local knowledge about trees among these stakeholder groups through two research questions:

1. What are the locally known uses, locations of, and interests in tree species valued for their importance to biodiversity conservation? For this question, eight hardwood trees were selected from two different levels of priorities: five from the 2009 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List and three species of national concern, identified by the Dominican Forestry and Wildlife Division. All eight of the trees are believed to be decreasing in numbers due to various reasons, such as deforestation or over harvesting y these authorities. These trees are also a significant part of the Dominican landscape, contributing to the ecosystem in 3

many ways. The question focused on what scientific knowledge can learn from local knowledges about these trees by using semi-structured interviews and transect walks to learn what the stakeholders know about the attributes and spatial distribution of these trees.

2. Which hardwood trees do local stakeholders identify and describe as important and necessary to protect? This question investigates the conservation priorities for tree species recognized by the local stakeholders. Local community participants, ecotourism workers, and tour guides were asked to free list the hardwood species they think are important to protect during semi-structured interviews with focus groups. Transect walks, field observations and collection of botanical samples were used to identify the trees and confirm their identification.

This study contributes to applied research on the role of local knowledge in conservation planning and management. The stakeholder approach in this study links together the extra-local and local, to create a set of groups that all have an interest in MTPNP. The first research question allows for additional information regarding the trees of concern from the various stakeholders to be compiled and used to make more informed decisions regarding the conservation and management of these trees. The latter research question considers local conservation priorities, which add another dimension to establishing conservation priorities for hardwood species in Dominica, allowing for the possibility of local communities‟ priorities to be incorporated into conservation practices. Locally-defined conservation priorities will also help the Forestry and Wildlife Division on potentially identifying trees important to communities in surrounding areas of the national park. Overall, this research should increase sensitivity to the needs of the local communities, thus having a potential for the creation of a management plan that better includes local communities in plant conservation.

4

Research Context - Literature review

Political Ecology as a Theoretical Framework in Conservation Research

Political ecology (PE) is a scholarly field that emerged in the 1980s among geographers and anthropologists in United States, Britain and Australia. This interdisciplinary field falls into the broad category of human-environment/nature-society relations studies. PE draws on and incorporates concepts from other related disciplines, including anthropology, environmental history and ecology, while maintaining a distinct geographical perspective (Neumann 2005, Wolford 2005). It is an alternative to the allegedly apolitical ecologies that came before it, such as Malthusianism, cultural ecology, and human ecology. Placing issues in a broader political, economic, historic and ecological context, PE allows for analysis of power relations surrounding issues (Gezon 2006, Robbins 2004, Adams and Hutton 2007). Generally, many political ecologists see political ecology as a short hand for the combination of political economy and ecology, as stated in the seminal text Land Degradation and Society by Piers Blaikie and Harold Brookfield (1987). Robbins (2004) states there are four theses of political ecology that connect the diverse work done in this field: degradation and marginalization, environmental conflict, conservation and control, and environmental identity and social movement. Two themes frame this study: environmental conflict; and conservation and control. Environmental conflict research tries to explain who has access to and benefits from environmental resources and why, while conservation and control research tries to explain how and why conservation decisions can lead to political and economic exclusion. The latter theme states that the control of resources and landscapes are taken from local groups for the purpose of achieving sustainability or preserving nature. The state generally establishes control over the area, claiming that local groups‟ practices are unsustainable. Because of the state taking control, the livelihoods, production, and socio- political organization of the affected groups are disturbed and sometimes destroyed, and their access to historical resource areas closed off. These practices territorialize conservation space and control surrounding communities; this has been the general historic trend of environmental conservation (Bryant 2002, Robbins 2004). Social capital is believed to disintegrate under this thesis as the trust, expectations, and bonds that people build over long periods of time are broken due to changes in state policy and the implementation of new conservation regimes. In addition, when the existing value systems in the local area are ignored, the newly established rules and regulations are often not followed or respected by the locals (Robbins 2004). In this situation, there is a loss of local knowledge since there is no incentive to carry this knowledge forward when it is not being used. The thesis of conservation and control also encompasses the understanding that creating a “fence” around an area is a problem. Social effects of conservation fortresses have been linked to poverty and loss of livelihood practices, such as space for livestock and grazing, which are at times referred to as unintended consequences (Robbins 2004, Zimmerer 2006, see Roe 2008 for a review). Zimmerer and Carter (2002) state that the “new conservation geographies” in Latin America and the Caribbean call for micro-scale studies, involving individuals and communities associated with the conservation sites, and for macro-scale studies, involving institutions and other “global environmental managers,” including market based initiatives. Without a full and deep understanding of the environment/nature, management practices are more likely to harm

5

biodiversity rather than help conserve them. As Zimmerer (2006, 327) states, the “„[m]icrologics‟ of farmer and other resource users, both as individuals and small groups, are one of the most useful perspectives for understanding the immediate or „on-the-ground‟ interface of global conservation efforts with agricultural activities.” Farmers and other local resource users provide a viewpoint from which the reality on the ground could be understood. A fundamental understanding in political ecology is that nature is socially constructed and understood, including conservation views and goals. In conservation, there is a need to return the landscape to a “natural” state and protect the wildlife. However, the concept of “natural” is very much socially created (Robbins 2004). This is not only understood among political ecologists but it is also debated among ecologists and conservationists. Post-structural political ecology, as defined by Arturo Escobar (1996), also helps in understanding situated knowledges and that there is no absolute truth but rather many truths. This means that there is not only one way of looking at or understanding nature but rather many ways, and no one way is necessarily more valid than another. Local knowledge is another valid truth and, working in combination with scientific ecology/knowledge, it can significantly improve conservation practices. This supports Brown‟s (2003) statement that indigenous or traditional knowledge should not be valued less than other forms of knowledge. Also, political ecologists like Gezon (2006) and Robbins (2004) recognize the work of Foucault, where he states that knowledge is a form of power. Though PE lends itself to the understanding and valuing of extra-local and local knowledges, these are only two extremes of the spectrum of knowledge that exist and not always as distinct as they are characterized (Agrawal 1995). To understand better different knowledges, a stakeholder approach proves to be invaluable. Generally, ecological knowledge is gathered through interviews documenting knowledge that has been gained over a person‟s lifetime, making it current local knowledge (Gilchrist et al. 2005). However, it is important to note that ecological knowledge can change as the local people react to their changing environment and resources. It can also be different among different groups based on their positions in society. It is possible to separate local knowledges to reflect the variations within a community and still be able to respect local identity (Perramond 2005). Local knowledge is the term used throughout this paper as it applies directly to multiple local knowledges that can be gained regarding trees in Dominica. The various groups in this plurality of knowledges are identified in this study as stakeholders.

A Stakeholder Approach and Analysis

A stakeholder approach helps to identify individuals who can affect or are affected by a conservation project. The approach is consistent with the pluralistic views of conservation, distinguishing the different positions of groups with “different values, objectives, and knowledges,” and recognizing that each group perceives the conservation project differently (De Lopez 2001, 48, Grimble et al. 1995). Furthermore, a stakeholder analysis can help better understand the objectives and interests of the identified groups and potentially recognize conflicts before they occur and their consequences (Grimble et al. 1995, Grimble 1998). Data collection of stakeholder interests can be conducted in different manners. Informal semi-structured interviews with individuals or multiple persons representing groups is a useful technique in the field, providing qualitative (e.g., oral case histories) and sometimes quantitative

6

viewpoints (Grimble 1998). A stakeholder analysis can be participatory when it tries to recognize the interests of the disadvantaged and the less empowered groups of people (Grimble et al. 1995).

Ethnobotany as Participatory Learning about Plants

Anthony Cunningham (2001) notes that problems encountered in conservation might seem huge when viewed by outsiders. These problems range from the effects on local communities to the concerns about edge effects (juxtaposition of completely different environments, e.g., meadow and forest, on an ecosystem) on species of conservation value. Efforts to solve these problems have been from “outside” forces and these efforts have failed. There is a new push to decentralize these efforts and make them more local. Ethnobotany is a field that has made an effort to include methods that account for local knowledge and document local knowledges. Martin (2004) says that ethnobotanical methods could be used for improving conservation practices, because, according to Cunningham (2001, xviii) they allow “people to contribute to solutions in a resourceful way” and be a part of the solution rather than being considered as contributing to the problem. Ethnobotanical methods allow for the collection of a broad range of information on the interactions between the natural environment and people (Martin 2004). Ethnobotany can add valuable local knowledge regarding the environment and local resource management that can only be gained after living and experiencing a region for long periods of time (Berkes et al. 2000, Martin 2004). This sort of understanding should underpin all conservation efforts since local long-term understandings can contribute greatly to the knowledge of ecosystems that are very dynamic. Berkes (2000) points out that local knowledge can be viewed as a “library of information” on how to deal with dynamic changes in complex systems (ecosystems). The knowledge held by the local people is different from the scientific knowledge and it is also important how this knowledge is understood and gained. Bringing together local and scientific knowledge can increase their depth and can decrease uncertainties of each individual form of knowledge. Combining them will allow for “taking advantage of their differences” (Huntington et al. 2004). Participatory research allows for learning between the researcher and the local people, through a cooperative process of knowledge creation and sharing (Berkes 1999, Cunningham 2001, LaRochelle & Berkes 2003). A participatory approach can better ensure the integration of the local concerns. Participatory practices embody an innate reflexivity that considers power dynamics in interactions between the researcher and the researched (Brenner 1985, Huntington 2000, Longhurst 2003, Martin 2004, Sultana 2007). There are safeguard for standards, practices, abuse or exploitation as there are on going dialogues about the quality, validity, and ethics (Sultana 2007). The validity of data collected increases by using multiple participatory methods. Guiding questions keep the semi-structured interviews and focus group conversations consistent, while allowing for free-conversation with the participants and ensuring that important concerns/questions are addressed. Rigor and validity can be promoted by use of several methods, and by maintaining transparency to the participants regarding the purpose of the research, and explaining why certain decisions were made regarding the methods that were used and how the methods were conducted (Berg and Mansvelt 2000).

7

Geographical Context: The Nature Island of Dominica

Conservation International (CI) classifies the Caribbean as a biodiversity hotspot and a priority for conservation because of its high species richness and species endemism (Conservational International 2009). The Caribbean Islands (also referred to as the West Indies) are divided into the Lesser Antilles and the Greater Antilles. The islands cover about 230,000 km2 of land area and support many different kinds of environments, ranging from dry evergreen bushland and thicket, to cactus shrub and spiny shrub, to moist tropical forests, to mangroves (Conservational International 2009). These different environments support high flora and fauna diversity and high species endemism. The Caribbean has about 13,000 species of plants (of which about 6,550 of the species are endemic), as compared to around 14,000 in all of North America. That makes the Caribbean five times more biodiverse as the equivalent area of North America (Barker 2004). Currently, about 13% or 30,000 km2 of the land area in the Caribbean Islands is protected and only about 10% of the original vegetation remains. Within the Islands, there is much variation in the total area protected: (15%), Dominican Republic (15%), Dominica (20%), and Haiti and Grenada (less than 2% each) (Conservational International 2009).

Figure 2. Map showing location of Dominica in the Eastern Caribbean Islands. Dominica map shows the Morne Trois Pitons National Park and the locations mentioned in the study. 8

Dominica is important for conservation because it is an island within the larger Caribbean hotspot, which also has high amounts of biodiversity. Conservation becomes all the more important in Dominica because of its diverse topography and intact species assemblages. Dominica is located in the Lesser Antilles and is the northernmost Windward Island, covering an area of about 750 km2 (Figure 2; Conservation International 2009, Ministry of Agriculture 1995). Nine active volcanoes make Dominica the country with the highest density of volcanoes (Lindsay et al. 2004). Dominica is the only island in the Caribbean with significant tracts of intact forest remaining (about 65% of the landscape is forested, Commonwealth of Dominica 2001). The island receives an average annual rainfall of about 6,350-7,620 mm (250-300 inches) in the interior and 1,270-1,780 mm (50-70 inches) in the coastal lowlands; some areas in the center of the island receive 10,160 mm (400 inches) (Commonwealth of Dominica 2001, Ministry of Agriculture 1995). Most of the population lives in villages and in the capital of Roseau along the coast (Commonwealth of Dominica 2001). Given the steep and rugged terrain and the coastal settlement pattern, most of the inner parts of the island are intact mature forests. About 160 km2 of land in Dominica are protected as either a national park or forest reserve (Commonwealth of Dominica 2001). There is also significant amount of privately owned forested land. Dominica is the only island in the Caribbean that has a terrestrial United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site, Morne Trois Pitons National Park (MTPNP), recognized because of its outstanding natural features (Allen and Lines 2001). The forests in Dominica support high plant (and animal) diversity. There are about 1226 species of plants (Commonwealth of Dominica 2001, Conservational International 2009). Due to the many mountains, there is significant microclimate variability, creating six natural vegetation zones on the island. The natural vegetation zones consist of elfin/cloud forest occurring above about 900 m; montane thicket (a transitional forest occurring between elfin and montane forests); montane rain forest which occurs above 600 m; mature rain forest which grows between 300 m and 600 m; the secondary rain forest; and dry scrub land (UNEP-WCMC 2008). The island is home to nine species of palms, 81 species of orchids (11 are terrestrial orchids), 181 species of ferns and 90 species of mosses in the wild. There are 68 species of trees growing more than 100 feet tall (Jno-Baptiste 2009). The island also supports 11 endemic plants, including the Dominican National , Bwa Kwaib (Sabinea carinalis; Commonwealth of Dominica 2001). Dominica is recognized as a Small Island State rich in biodiversity (Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment 2002). Throughout the Dominican history, the people inhabiting the island have had a close connection to the land. Humans arrived sometime around 5000 BC and then were integrated and taken over by the “peaceful Arawaks” and then by the “warlike Caribs” (Honychurch 1995). The European influence started with the sighting and naming of the island by Columbus in 1493, and colonization of the island in 1763 by the British. From about 1748 to1784, there was a constant struggle between the British and the French to gain control of the island. Both transported slaves to Dominica to work on the plantations. The slaves outnumbered the colonizers about twenty to one (Honychurch 1995). Many of them escaped and started revolting and attacking the Europeans. For protection, the slaves fled to the densely forested landscapes of the mountains. Though it might seem obvious for the Caribs and the Maroons (the escaped slaves) to form an alliance and fight the colonizers, they never did and the descendents of the groups remain largely separated.

9

Dominica gained independence from Britain in 1978. Subsistence living remains a big part of people‟s lives in Dominica (Honychurch 1995), partly because there were no paved roads connecting different parts of the island until the 1950s, and some parts of the island were not connected until the 1990s (Honychurch 2009). The distance “as the crow flies” might not be large between two villages; however, given the mountainous terrain, the villages were historically very isolated. This isolation forced the villages to depend on their subsistence farming and connected them to their land.

Table 1. A summary of the important historic events that have influenced human-resource relations and conservation in Dominica (Allen and Lines 2001, Honychurch 1995, Honychurch 2009). First humans ~5000 BC Pre- “Peaceful Arawaks” arrive ~3000 BC Settlement “Warlike Caribs” (Kalinago) arrive ~1000 AD Columbus arrives and names it, beginning the European influence 1493 Transportation of slaves to work on plantations began 1600s British and French struggle over island 1748-1784 Formal colonization by British 1763 Escaped slaves (Maroons) revolt and fled to densely forested landscapes of the 1785-1814 mountains for protection European Slavery abolished 1834 Colonization Forestry Service formed 1949 Bananas become the main source of income 1950s Central Forest Reserve established 1952 Pesticide runoff from banana farms damage offshore coral reefs 1960s Morne Trois Pitons National Park established 1975 Northern Forest Reserve established 1977 Independence from the British 1978 Hurricane David ravages island 1979 Cabrits National Park established 1986 European Union quota system created for banana importation from former 1993 colonies Post- Colonization World Trade Organization (WTO) rules the EU quota system has to be abolished 1997 leading to the decline of the industry in the Caribbean Morne Trois Pitions National Park enlisted as a UNESCO World Heritage Site 1998 Atherton Martin, head of Dominica Conservation Association, received the 1998 Goldman Environmental Prize Morne Diablotin National Park established 2001

Conservation Planning and Protected Area Management in Dominica

The Forestry Service was formed in Dominica in 1949 (Table 1). It is the predecessor to the current Forestry, Wildlife, and Parks Division (referred to as Forestry Division from here on), operating today under the Ministry of Agriculture, Planning, and the Environment. The Forestry Division was established to protect natural resources, including watersheds, parks, forests, soils and wildlife (Allen and Lines 2001). In 1975, under the National Parks and Protected Areas Act No.16, Morne Trois Pitons National Park was established and accordingly fell under management by the Forestry Division (Ministry of Agriculture 1995). While there have been many studies done on medicinal plants, including various indigenous uses of plants by the Kalinago people (e.g., Quinlan 2000, Quinlan et al. 2002, DeFillips 1998, Honychurch 1986), the 10

conservation interests and priorities of the local population have yet to be taken into consideration under a community based or more participatory management conservation plan. However, community participation was identified as a strategy when Dominica joined the Convention on Biological Diversity (Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment 2002). The Forestry Division tries to work with the local communities, particularly those that reside close to forests, mainly through education efforts, such as Project Sisserou in 1989 and Year of Environment and Shelter in 1989-1990 (Allen & Lines 2001, Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment 2002, Osler 2009). Recently, the Forestry Division has also had to deal with external forces also influencing established protected areas in addition to local forces, such as development of hydroelectric plants and an increased extraction of trees due to the availability of chain saws since Hurricane David (Allen & Lines 2001). There has been concern about encroachment by farmers on protected areas due to the collapse of the banana industry in 2001. Bananas accounted for more than half of all export earnings and more than a third of the national labor force. Dominica, like other Windward Islands, depended on bananas for economic stability, especially since the British market for Dominican bananas dates back to the 1950s. In 1993, the European nations created a system of quotas for the importation of bananas into the European Union. This system was mainly to benefit the former European colonies in the Caribbean and ; it secured about 20% of the European market for the former colonies and the rest was open to supply from Latin America. It was a system based on the mutual understanding that small-scale farmers in the Caribbean and Africa would not be able to compete with large plantation style farms in the mainland portion of the Americas (Allen & Lines 2001). The bananas coming into Europe from the Caribbean made up only a small portion of the market (though a quota of 20% was allocated, the Caribbean used only 6% in 1998) but that very same small portion dictated the source of income for more than a third of Dominica‟s labor force. Because of the World Trade Organization‟s (WTO) ruling to eradicate quotas, small farmers have suffered. This increases pressure on the protected areas; they become increasingly vulnerable to encroachment from subsistence framers, the tourism industry, and extractive industries (Allen & Lines 2001). The past few years have also seen many proposals by foreign investors for development projects that would be environmentally damaging. Among these was a proposal from an Australian mining company to establish a copper mine in the island‟s interior forests that would have covered about 10% of Dominica‟s land surface area. The Dominica Conservation Association and other conservationists led by Atherton Martin responded with a local and international campaign to stop the initiative. Atherton Martin received the Goldman Environmental Prize in 1998 for his efforts on the campaign (Allen & Lines 2001). Given the exploitation history of the Caribbean and the constant presence of external interests (Allen & Lines 2001), having people be involved in any conservation practice and protected area establishment and management can only be beneficial. In general, most Dominicans are supportive of conservation (Allen & Lines 2001). But, having local people be involved could also increase the trust of the people in conservation and its advantages to the island. Looking at the local knowledges these communities have to offer is a way not only to help empower the local people and legitimize the knowledge they hold, but also recognize the deep relationship they have with the land. This will also help gain the further support of the people as well as add information to scientific ecology and can lead to a more collaborative, participatory, and community-based conservation.

11

The Study Area - Morne Trois Pitons National Park

The study focuses on Morne Trois Table 2. Predominant species present in the five vegetation Pitons National Park (MTPNP), the World zones found in Morne Trois Pitons National Park (UNESCO Heritage Site in southern Dominica 1997). (Figure 3). The montane park receives Vegetation Type Predominant species Clusia venosa approximately 7000 mm of rainfall Elfin/cloud forest Lobelia cirisifolia annually, is 6,875 ha in size, and is coriaceus Montane thicket centered around the Morne Trois Pitons caribaea volcano (1,342 m). Five volcanoes with Similar to mature rainforest but Montane rainforest many examples of active volcanism make non-vascular epiphytes are present up the park, such as fumaroles, the world‟s Dacryodes excels second largest boiling lake (James 2008), Mature rainforest Sloanea spp. and hot springs. Multiple waterfalls and Licania ternatensis three freshwater lakes can also be found Cyathea spp. Miconia guianensis Secondary rainforest within the park. Five types of vegetation Simarouba amara are within the park, elfin/cloud forest Chimarrhis cymosa (above 914 m), montane thicket (transition forest), montane rainforest (above 610 m), mature rainforest (below 460 m), secondary rainforest, and even some agricultural fields (see Table 2 for predominant species in each vegetation zone). Most of the 5000 species of vascular plants recorded for the island can be found in the park along with the island endemics (UNESCO 1997). Morne Trois Pitons National Park is the largest of eight national parks in the Windward and Leeward Islands and has the most forest cover, which is rare in the heavily settled islands of the Lesser Antilles. The effects of conservation and development in the park most influence communities living closest to the protected area. For example, the development of hydroelectric power infrastructure adversely impacted the park and the surrounding watersheds (UNESCO 1997). For this study, I selected three study villages: Delices and Petite Savanne are located on the southeastern coast while Laudat is located in the interior of the island (Figure 3). Like most of the population on Dominica, the people in these villages are nearly all of Afro-Caribbean decent. Forestry workers, tour guides, ecotourism workers, and village residents from these three villages were the targeted „local‟ population for this study. Figure 3. Southern part of Dominica. Study villages of Delices, Petite Savanne and Laudat are highlighted in . 12

Data and Methods

This study employed qualitative methods (Cameron 2005, Longhurst 2003, Martin 2004) while following a participatory approach (Sultana 2007) to gain an understanding of local knowledge in relation to selected hardwood trees, locally important trees to protect, and local perceptions on tree conservation. I used semi-structured interviews and transect walks to gain local knowledges. Miami University‟s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the research protocol employed in the study (Appendix 1, approved April 2009) and a permit for conducting research was obtained from the Dominica Forestry, Wildlife and Parks Division (Appendix 2, obtained May 2009). The participants were given information about the topic of the questions, goals of the research, affiliation with Miami University, and contact information (phone number and email address) to use if they have any questions or wished to withdraw from the study. They provided a verbal consent to participate.

A Stakeholder Analysis Table 3. Stakeholder groups and their interests identified for Dominica‟s MTPNP. Six major interest groups or Stakeholder Groups Interests at stake stakeholders were identified in this study Conserving nature; protection of IUCN as they have a “stake” and are tied to the endangered species Maintenance and preservation of the park (Table 3). The IUCN and UNESCO UNESCO are extra-local stakeholders interested in World Heritage Site (MTPNP) conserving biological resources on the Management and sustainable use of Forestry Division the island‟s forests and national parks, island. While not directly participating representative of the state in the study, IUCN publishes the Red National parks and tourist attractions Tour guides List – a list of prioritized species for are a source of income and livelihood conservation, and UNESCO is the Indirectly depend on national parks authority that establishes World Ecotourism workers and tourist attractions for income and Heritage Sites, including MTPNP. In livelihood Depend on forests for various Village residents Dominica, the local participants resources included Forestry Division officials and rangers, tour guides (private and employed by tour guiding companies), employees of a premier ecolodge, and residents of the three villages selected as study sites. The groups were distinguished by the position each participant identified with at the beginning of the interview. For example, private and company employed tour guides were categorized as such if the participant depended on this for his/her livelihood. Ecotourism workers were drawn from an ecolodge that promotes itself as highly integrated in the local villages and economy. Forestry Division employees who participated were forest rangers, doing mostly fieldwork and reporting, or were officials who did trainings, fieldwork, and office/paper work. Employees at the Forestry Division and contacts at Springfield Guesthouse, a research station located near Roseau, helped identify contacts in the three villages of Delices, Petite Savanne and Laudat.

13

What is locally known about the trees?

Hardwood tree selection and evaluation

First, hardwood trees of international significance were selected from the IUCN Red List (2009). These trees were listed as native to Dominica and either vulnerable or endangered. Second, employees from the Forestry Division of Dominica identified tree species with declining populations as trees of national concern during my initial visit in March 2009 and through follow-up conversations via email. Plant guide sheets were created to help the participants recognize the selected trees. Pictures and drawings of various tree characteristics, such as leaves, branches, bark, fruits, seeds, and the entire tree were put together and laminated to function as the plant guide for each tree (Figure 4). The guide-sheets were compiled prior to the field visit, using the Internet as a source of photos and/or scans from herbarium specimens and in one instance a picture provided by a forest ranger. These guide-sheets provided a way to explore local recognition of tree species and gain information on their local ethnobotany (see Cunningham 2001, Ghimire et al. 2004, Huntington 2000, Martin 2004, and Voeks 2007 for methods in ethnobotany). In addition to the plant guide, local names provided by the Forestry Division were also provided to participants who did not recognize the tree from the pictures.

Figure 4. The plant guide sheet for Swietenia mahagoni prepared prior to the field visit. Source of pictures clockwise starting from top left: http://www.rain-tree.com/Plant-Images/mahogany-pic.htm; http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/7127983; http://www.rain-tree.com/Plant-Images/mahogany-pic.htm

14

Gaining local viewpoints

Semi-structured interviews with individuals and, when possible, focus groups were conducted with the local stakeholder participants in order to learn what they knew about the selected tree species. These interviews were held at locations and times chosen by the participants. The interviews with the tour guides and Forestry officials were conducted in Roseau, the capital, either in their respective offices or locations of their choice, and the villagers were interviewed mainly in their homes or on their farms. The participants guided discussions about each of the eight trees in response to open- ended questions. However, during discussions it was important to ensure that the atmosphere was calm and relaxed to allow for open discussion, that everyone was participating (by encouraging shy ones) and that the group stayed on topic and addressed the key concerns. Focus groups can allow for new ideas to come forward; however, there is a potential problem that people might just agree with something said before and not state what they actually believe (Longhurst 2003). By having smaller sized focus groups, people generally had a chance to express their views and knowledge. All participants were asked to discuss what they knew about the selected trees and to create a map of the known locations of the selected trees (Table 4). The participants generally discussed the locations, size, names, uses, and any concerns they had for a selected tree. The interviews helped in understanding what the local stakeholders knew, how much they knew, and the kinds of values participants placed on the trees. The data collected were analyzed for consistency within and across the stakeholder groups for the uses, locations of the trees, and the importance placed on protecting the trees.

Table 4. Guiding questions used in semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Do you recognize this tree? (First show the plant guide, then if needed mention the local name Forestry Division provided) Do you have any names for the tree? Local names? Or alternative names? Local What do you know about the locations where this tree can be found? - including habitat type and Knowledge: specific locations. Using the Do you have any uses for this tree? Do you have any preference for specific parts of the tree? Can Plant Guide you talk about status of the tree? (in terms of its distribution – is it declining or increasing and any known reasons for this change) Should the tree be protected? Why or why not? (What do you think should be done to protect the tree?) Locally Can you name any hardwood trees that are important to you and what you use each of the trees Important for? Trees How would you protect these trees?

What trees are recognized as locally important?

The study then directed the interviews and focus group discussions toward what trees they thought were important and their local conservation priorities and concerns (Table 4). The participants were asked to free list species of hardwood trees they think are important to protect. They also identified why the species are important and their uses. Voucher specimens of most of these trees were collected and later confirmed and deposited at the Miami University Willard S. Turrell Herbarium (MU). Three transect walks were conducted during the study, one in the village of Delices, one in LaRoche Forest near Delices, and one in Laudat. Each transect walk took several hours and the participants (two volunteers who were identified by villagers as 15

knowing a lot about trees, one was a tour guide from Laudat and the other was a villager from Delices) were compensated for their time. The walks were used to identify tree species of significance and/or elaborate on the tree species listed as important to the local stakeholders.

16

Results

The fieldwork for this study was carried out in Table 5. Local stakeholder groups and the Dominica during the months of May and June 2009. number interviewed in each group. Local Stakeholders Number Interviewed A total of 46 participants across four local stakeholder Forestry Division 5 groups were interviewed (Table 5). All the Tour guides 7 participants except two foresters were interviewed for Ecotourism workers 7 the first research question. Two foresters were asked Villagers 27 only the second research question due to time Delices 11 constraints. The interviews were conducted in a Laudat 7 variety of locations picked by the participants, such as Petite Savanne 9 on farms, in houses, workshops, cafes and restaurants. Total Interviewed 46 The interviews varied from one to four participants, though most interviews were conducted with two participants. Responses in one-on-one interviews as well as in focus groups were treated the same, being separated based on who stated what. The interviews generally lasted from 45 minutes to a few hours depending on what the participants had to say.

What is locally known about the trees?

Hardwood tree selection and evaluation

Hardwood trees were selected Table 6. List of species investigated in the study and their from two different levels of extra-locally status. recognized concern: international and Scientific Name Status* national. Five species of trees were Cedrela odorata L. Vulnerable selected of international concern and International Guaiacum officinale L. Endangered three species were selected of national concern Inga dominicensis Benth. Vulnerable concern from the IUCN Red List (found Swietenia macrophylla King. Vulnerable at www.iucnredlist.org) and the Swietenia mahagoni (L.) Jacq. Endangered Dominica Forestry Division, respectively Hymeneae courbaril L. Threatened National Phoebe elongata Nees. Endangered (Table 6). Hymeneae courbaril and concern Sabinea carinalis are species the Sabinea carinalis Griseb. Threatened Division listed as decreasing due to *Status based on the IUCN Red List habitat loss, human encroachment and ** Status based on information from Forestry Division over harvesting. Phoebe elongata is believed to be endangered in the wild and the Forestry Division believes there are none or very few of the large trees alive. They have been unable to figure out the reason the trees are dying. They believe that the species is producing saplings but young trees cannot be found in the forests. The plant guide created for each of these trees helped the participants recognize the species in question (Appendix 3).

Gaining local viewpoints

Many people made initial remarks when asked to participate after the general project description. Foresters and tour guides agreed to help without stating anything else prior to the interview. The Forestry Division teaches information about trees and wildlife and other notable

17

environmental features on local tourist sites to the tour guides. Discover Dominica Authority has tourism standards that require the tour guides to go through training and acquire a new license every 1-3 years. Part of getting a license is to prove that you know the information regarding the trees along trails and other tourist sites. The Division has guides with the information for individual tourist areas (a sample page from the guide of Flora and Fauna of The Syndicate Nature Trail can be found in Appendix 4). Often times during the interviews, tour guides would pull out these guides to look for information regarding the trees in question, not wanting to give any “wrong” or misleading information. The ecotourism workers and villagers also agreed to help, however, some of these participants were doubtful on how much they would be able to help. Many (63% of females and 22% of males), stated that they do not know much about trees but will try to help. The females stated that they know more about vegetables or medicinal plants rather than big trees. Below is the information gathered for each of the five internationally and three nationally selected species.

Internationally important trees

Cedrela odorata L.

Figure 5. A close up of C. odorata. Figure 6. Recognition of C. odorata by interviewed participants. Cedrela odorata is a species listed as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List because “large individuals have become scarce, especially in Amazonia” (IUCN 2009). It is recognized as one of the most valuable species of timber in the world, having a natural habitat of both humid and dry lowland forests and ranging from countries in Central America, the Caribbean, and . The species is protected in national parks and planted in some agricultural areas. Moreover, the establishment of plantations across the tropics is being used to promote the species (IUCN 2009). Of all the participants (n= 44) across the four stakeholder groups, 38 participants (about 86%) were able to recognize the tree, either after looking at the plant guide or after hearing a local name that was provided by the Forestry Division. All the Forestry employees were able to recognize the tree from the plant guide, while approximately 60% of tour guides and ecotourism workers were able to recognize the tree based on the plant guide. All the tour guides recognized the tree from the guide or by its name while about 15% of the ecotourism workers did not 18

recognize the tree at all (Figure 6). Of the villagers, residents of Delices (all participants) and Petite Savanne (all participants except one) were more readily able to identify the tree compared to residents of Laudat. In Delices, all women except one were able to identify the tree after the local name was mentioned. One woman was able to recognize the tree directly from the plant guide and she was able to do so because her husband used to cut down trees (locally known as a chainsaw man). She stated that on occasion he would point out specific trees to her and tell her about those trees. Participants who recognized the tree knew it as “akajou,” “red cedar” or “cedar.” With the exception of three (3) tour guides and one (1) Petite Savanne villager (who prefaced the interview by saying “I don‟t know much about trees”), all the participants knew the Patios (the local French-based Creole language) name “akajou.” Only three tour guides had mentioned the name “cedar” and most likely did not know the Patios name because they lived near Roseau, where the language is not spoken as much. Furniture was mentioned most often as a use for the tree followed by its more general use, “it is used to make boards,” meaning it is sawed into planks that are used to build various things (Table 7). Some people stated that even though the can be used in buildings, it is generally not. Also, the wood from this tree is used as firewood or charcoal only if it is not growing straight or if there are small branches that cannot be used to make boards or posts. Villagers generally have wood stoves in addition to the gas stoves they have indoors. Most of them go into the forest to retrieve fuel wood for their stoves, since it is less expensive than cooking many of the traditional ground provisions (such as dasheen, tanya, and cassava) on the gas stove. In the forest villagers might pick up small fallen branches of trees such as C. odorata to use as fuel wood. Most participants decribed C. odorata wood as “good wood,” “nice wood,” and “expensive wood, because of color and it lasts long.” Residents of Delices and some residents of Petite Savanne who had the trees close by to their homes knew of the strong smell when the tree flowered. One resident from Delices stated: The from the trees smell like high seasoning and [the smell is] very [strong] and would prefer to have [the tree] further from my house. In the early part of the year the tree has no leaves (like dead), in late April and May, it is with leaves. Very tall trees, the ones close to home are not growing straight, I think because of the other plants that are close to it - competition or may be bad infection of roots or does not have enough water. When I was living in Petite Savanne it was small, four years ago, now it is big and green. Another resident from Petite Savanne, a “joiner” or furniture maker, also spoke about the smell when working with the wood, referring to it as a “strong and bitter” smell that often stays on clothing for a while.

19

Table 7. The known local uses of C. odorata mentioned by the different stakeholders. Stakeholders (%)* Uses Forestry Tour Guides Ecotourism Villagers (n = 3) (n = 7) (n = 6) (n = 22) Furniture 100 43 50 82 “Boards”/Lumber 67 57 67 36 Firewood/Charcoal 33 43 33 10 Houses 67 29 50 41 Windbreaks 33 0 33 10 Kids play 0 43 17 0 Jewelry/souvenirs 33 57 0 0 Other 0 0 0 10 Don't Know 0 14 33 32 *Percentages calculated based on the number of participants in each stakeholder group that recognized the tree.

Most participants recognized the tree as naturally growing in the dry forest. Most of the villagers, tour guides and ecotourism workers referred to these dry forest areas as “hot areas.” Many villagers came to this conclusion by first mentioning specific locations of the tree. In Delices and to an extent in Petite Savanne, C. odorata is planted along roadsides, along farms, or in backyard gardens. In Delices, the species has naturalized and is a part of the landscape; this might be a reason why all participants from this village were able to recognize this species. A few residents of Delices were also part of the reforestation program after Hurricane David in 1979 in La Roche Forest located west of the village and thus knew that the tree was present in dry forests nearby. Most of the participants not only recognized the value of the wood and the tree but also said they would like to protect the tree. All the foresters agreed that the tree should be protected because “it is being used faster than it can grow” and “it can go extinct if people cut it down.” There was one forester who stated that the tree should be protected “but to a certain extent because it is merchantable - if the [amount of trees] is [enough to support use] don't protect so nothing can be done - should be able to be used.” The forester was referring to the protection of the trees used by locals as a source of income. He stated that he would like to see those trees protected but not in ways where it would restrict locals from using it, especially if the population of individual species is not vulnerable to extinction. All villagers except one believed that the tree should be protected with reasons that included: “it makes good furniture,” it is “good lumber” and “it is a money tree.” Most of the villagers that recognized the tree said it is important to protect as it provides people with income in addition to the ecological services (e.g., water conservation, acting as windbreaks, and providing shade) it provides. One villager (a woman from Delices) who stated that there is no need to protect trees in Dominica said it was because trees (this species and all species in general) will always grow in Dominica. She was very weary of the Forestry Division trying to tell her what she would be able to do or not do with trees on her land. All of the tour guides and ecotourism workers who recognized the tree also agreed that the tree should be protected. Both groups provided similar reasons as the villagers with the addition of the need to care for the future (one ecotourism worker) and the need to preserve the island for visitors (3 tour guides). Overall, the local stakeholders believe this species is important and should be protected, but in ways that also allow the tree to still be used. See Box 1 for how the participants would protect any tree.

20

Box 1: How to protect trees.

The participants had different reasons for why they would protect any given tree species, however their methods to protect the trees were the same for all species. The local idea of “protecting” is very different from that of the IUCN and even the Forestry Division to an extent. It is an idea and understanding based on sustainable use of the trees. Though some people value a tree for its age, the participants valued the presence of a species more. The most resonating ideas among the local stakeholders (tour guides, ecotourism workers and villagers) were:  Protect the trees from being cut down randomly, use them carefully and to make use of all parts  Raise awareness about trees by posting signs and educating the public, especially children in school  Plant a tree when cutting one down  Trim and weed around it so it can reach its potential growth (and can have greatest potential use).

Participants stated:

…don't cut down, informing the public to protect. – Ecotourism worker, Age: 27

…protect those that grow naturally by weeding, removing competitors, avoid cutting into trees because can cause defect and poison them, tying animals can girdle them and remove bark, problems with vandalism and companies. – Villager – Petite Savanne, Age: 42

…if use the trees, do not waste, should not cut indiscriminately. – Villager – Delices, Age: 66

When foresters were asked about how they would protect the trees, they spoke about selective utilization, complete protection of trees in national parks, and about the limits of the Division in trying to protect trees on private land. Though some villagers were very particular in mentioning that they did not want Forestry to control what happened on their land, they believed that protecting a tree by tending to it and making sure it reached it full potential growth was important as it ensured being able to obtain maximum income or benefits from the tree. All the participants also stated that protecting the trees and water catchments through the establishment of the national park was a good thing. They believed that this protected the resources from the whims of people wanting to just ct down trees. They said they support the national park even though it sometimes hampers their livelihoods. They went further to state that national parks were good for Dominica because they attract tourists and bring money into their economy.

21

Guaiacum officinale L.

Figure 7. A planted G. officinale near the University of West Indies campus in Roseau, Dominica (left). Flowers of G. officinale, also the Jamaican national flower (right). Guaiacum officinale, or commonly known as lignum vitae according to IUCN, is believed to be native to Dominica and listed as endangered by the IUCN (Figure 7). The IUCN Red List (2009) states that the number of mature individuals is declining in the wild. However, only five participants (11%, 2 foresters, 1 tour guide, 1 ecotourism worker, and 1 villager from Petite Savanne) were able to recognize the species either from the plant guide or by its name. One ecotourism worker and one villager recognized and identified the tree only as the national flower of Jamaica. The foresters and one tour guide who were able to identify the species also mentioned they had never seen it in the wild and knew only of planted locations near human settlements. Known locations included the parking lot at Cabrits National Park, the University of West Indies campus, the Botanical Garden, Bathe Estate, Portsmouth, and near some hotels in Roseau. None of the five participants knew of any local names or uses for this tree. Because the tree is known to be only around human settlements (planted by humans) and not in the wild, the local stakeholders believe that this tree does not exist naturally in Dominica. These findings suggest that this tree was introduced and mistaken by the IUCN for a native species.

Inga dominicensis Benth.

Figure 8. An I. dominicensis tree found near the Freshwater Lake (left), a close up of the leaves – many eaten by insects (right). 22

Inga dominicensis is an endemic tree species found only in Dominica (Figure 8). The IUCN recognizes it as vulnerable due to its “restricted area of occupancy,” which can be “prone to the effects of human activity” (IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, 2001: 23). Only one participant, a tour guide, was able to recognize this species by name or the plant guide. None of the foresters and other participants were able to identify the species. Nine participants (6 Delices residents, 2 ecotourism workers and 1 tour guide) thought the species looked like Inga laurina or Inga ingoides, which are present along roadsides in Delices. Including I. dominicensis, these are the three species of Inga found in Dominica. I. laurina and I ingoides are used as firewood (especially by the bay oil cooperatives in Delices and Petite Savanne) and used to make charcoal. The participant that was able to recognize the species was able to do so only because he has spent a significant amount time training himself and studying all the species that have been recorded for Dominica. He has also spent time exploring the forests (all vegetation types) and has been recording locations of species for several years. He stated that the species has no local (Creolé patios) name and it can be found growing in the montane thicket, between the rainforest and the elfin forest, where it is windy. He also stated that he “could see it being used for animal huts, posts and fencing. Some people might use it without knowing what species it is and mistaking for Inga ingoides if seen it in its natural habitat.” The natural habitat of I. dominicensis limits its contact and familiarity by local residents, as there are no settlements close to the vegetation zone in which this species is found and thus limiting the information gathered regarding this species. Though a few people travel (e.g., along the water pipe near Freshwater Lake) through the natural habitat of this species, the area is protected and embedded within MTPNP and where no cutting or damaging of trees is tolerated. A Forestry ranger often monitors which persons enter and exit the park, ensuring that resources are not extracted or damaged in the protected area.

Swietenia macrophylla King. and Swietenia mahagoni (L.) Jacq.

Figure 9. Swietenia macrophylla (left) and Swietenia mahagoni (right).

Two Swietenia species, Swietenia macrophylla and Swietenia mahagoni, were included in this study, each with its own plant guide (Figure 9). Swietenia macrophylla is listed as vulnerable by the IUCN Red List since the commercial importance of the species has led to exploitation, especially by logging. It has an extensive natural distribution and is native to 23

Dominica. Swietenia mahagoni is listed as endangered by the IUCN Red List as: “[n]atural stands are extensively exhausted and the species exhibits high levels of genetic erosion” (IUCN 2009). It is found in dry and moist forests of the Caribbean Islands and Florida, but has also been widely cultivated. Most participants were able to recognize Swietenia mahagoni (37 or about 85%) and Swietenia macrophylla (30 or about 70%) (Figure 10). However, 17 (38%) of these participants (12 village residents and 5 tour guides) thought S. macrophylla and S. mahagoni were the same species. Most of the participants who were able to recognize them as different species were not able to offer any species specific information, including the foresters who were only able to identify the trees as two different species. Foresters knew S. macrophylla as “large leaf mahogany” and S. mahagoni as “small leaf mahogany.” However, on a transect walk, the guide – a chainsaw man from Delices – stated that the wood from S. mahagoni is better than wood from S. macrophylla, though both trees are good wood.

Figure 10. Graphs showing the participant recognition of S. macrophylla (left) and S. mahagoni (right). All participants that recognized these trees knew them as “mahogany.” Two villagers from Delices provided other local names for these species, for S. mahagoni it was “petite-feye mahogany” and for S. macrophylla it was “grand-feye mahogany” or “gwen-feye mahogany.” Although the names described differences between the trees, these participants were not able to distinguish them by location or uses. Out of the four ecotourism workers who recognized S. mahagoni after the name, two believed there were no local names for the trees, referring to any names in Patios. Of the three ecotourism workers who recognized S. macrophylla, two did not know of any local names (in Patios), while one of them considered “mahogany” as the local name. Among tour guides, “red mahogany,” “small leaf mahogany,” “mahogany ti-feye,” (meaning small leaf) and “grand-feye mahogany” (meaning large leaf) were mentioned as local names. The uses listed for both the trees were the same, with many participants stating “same as small leaf mahogany” after recognizing S. macrophylla. Thus, only the uses mentioned for S. mahagoni are listed here (Table 8). Similar to C. odorata, participants mentioned that the wood from these species is mainly used in furniture and buildings and only its branches are used as firewood. It is also valued for the “nice design and color” the wood has once it has been

24

seasoned (dried). Two farmers (older farmers), the chainsaw man and the joiner (all men) stated that mahogany is fast growing compared to other trees and it could be harvested in 15-20 years.

Table 8. The known local uses of Swietenia spp. mentioned by the different stakeholders. Stakeholders (%)* Uses Forestry Ecotourism workers Tour guides Villagers (n=3) (n=5) (n=5) (n=17) Furniture 67 60 100 76 “Boards”/Lumber 67 0 80 24 Firewood 33 0 60 18 Souvenirs/Craft 33 20 20 6 Homes/Building 33 40 40 35 Windbreak 33 0 0 0 Don‟t know 0 40 0 0 *Percentages calculated based on the number of participants in each stakeholder group that recognized the tree.

The natural distribution or locations mentioned by participants were similar to those of C. odorata. All foresters stated that the trees can grow generally everywhere and that most of the locations where these species are present are because they were planted. In some locations, forester stated, such as near Cabrits National Park, the trees have naturalized. When the Forestry Division carried out reforestation programs in the 1970s and 1980s, they planted species like S. macrophylla, S. mahagoni and elatum (a tree native to Jamaica). They recognized that S. macrophylla and S. mahagoni grow slower in the rainforest but are taller and grow faster on the coast and in dry areas. All tour guides recognized that the trees were found in the “Mahogany Alley” at the Botanical Gardens in Roseau and some said that they grew in the “heights of forests,” meaning at higher elevations. None of the ecotourism workers were able to give a general natural distribution of the species but were able to give a few examples of trees located in Petite Savanne and La Plaine (a village further north of Delices). The villagers said that the Forestry Division and International Labour Organization (ILO) planted trees in the damaged forests after Hurricane David. One villager considered the tree to be “imported” implying that the tree was not native to the country, but the tree was cultivated widely for its uses. All foresters believed both trees should be protected because it is merchantable, fast growing – allowing for quick coverage and protection from soil erosion, and can raise the land value. Tour guides promoted protecting the trees because they are a source of income, have ecological importance (providing shelter to wildlife), and are declining. One said that it was “one of the best trees to save.” The ecotourism workers want to protect the tree because of its highly valued wood, wildlife and ecological services, and its demand worldwide. The villagers want to protect the tree because of its economic importance as a source of income and also because they considered it to be unique to Dominica.

25

Nationally important trees

Hymenaea courbaril L.

Hymenaea courbaril is a tree species recognized by the Forestry Division as declining and possibly in the danger of becoming extinct on the island (Figure 11). This species is not on the IUCN Red List but is of concern to the Forestry Division not only for its biological/ecological value but also for its cultural value. The tree is indigenous and found mainly along the west coast and is a very slow growing tree with not many individuals left. The tree is valued for its fruit, seeds for jewelry, wood, and is culturally valuable (it was used by the past generations and was/is greatly valued) for furniture, which is being sold to the French off the island.

Figure 11. H. courbaril tree found along a roadside in Figure 12. Participants‟ recognition of H. courbaril. Delices.

Most of the participants (39 or about 89%) were able to recognize H. courbaril (Figure 12). The five participants that were not able to recognize the species were all females and with the exception of one, all were young (in their 20s). The participants identified the tree mainly by the fruit/seed pod, which is usually cracked open by children for the edible white (sweet) powdery pulp inside. All the foresters knew the tree as “kubawi” and one even knew the scientific name. All seven tour guides knew the tree was “kubawi,” one (who grew up in Marigot) identified it as “locust” (a local name common in Marigot and other northwest parts of the island), and three as “kas” and “pum stink” (a name referring to the smell of the fruit of the tree, especially used by children). Of the five ecotourism workers who recognized the tree, 60% knew the tree as “pan kaka” and everyone knew it as “kubawi”. Among the villagers, only “kubawi” was the name recognized by all, two villagers also mentioned “pan kaka” and “locust” as local names. There were regional differences in the local name for the tree. Most of the participants who recognized the tree thought back to their childhood and recalled memories of climbing the tree for the fruit or remembered its wood for its use in making beds.

26

The tree is mostly used for making furniture, especially four-poster bed frames and cabinets. Many people recognized the cultural/heritage value this species carries. Many villagers in their 30s and 40s mentioned either their parents or grandparents having beds made of this wood. They said the tree made “very strong beds.” Unfortunately, many also stated that they had to sell these beds due to financial and space constraints to the willing French buyers from the nearby islands of and . All the stakeholders recognized this tree as having strong and valuable wood, and as a tree that needs to be protected since it has been exploited to make four-poster beds in the past. The chainsaw man, joiner and a few of the older men (all villagers) stated that this species takes about 30-40 years and sometimes even 50 years to be ready for harvesting but that people do not always wait that long. But that this species take a long time to get the most amount of income from it after harvesting. Table 9. The known local uses of H. courbaril mentioned by the different stakeholders. Stakeholders (%)* Forestry Ecotourism workers Tour guides Villagers Uses (n=3) (n=5) (n=7) (n=24) Furniture 100 40 43 96 “Boards”/Lumber 33 60 14 17 Edible fruit 67 60 71 43 Firewood 33 0 0 17 Kids play 33 20 0 17 *Percentages calculated based on the number of participants in each stakeholder group that recognized the tree.

Foresters stated that the tree can be found in dry coastal areas but can also grow in other areas. One forester stated that the tree has been planted in the interior of the island and it has been doing well. The tour guides mentioned seeing the tree in Delices and generally near dry coastal areas. One tour guide from Laudat mentioned that the tree grows “very big” and that many have not been seen since Hurricane David. All the ecotourism workers who recognized the tree knew it was slow growing and found in dry areas or in the “heights of the forest” (at higher elevation), mentioning specifically a few trees located in Delices and Petite Savanne. Villagers mentioned similar locations as ecotourism workers for where the tree occurs, but in addition stated that stands of H. courbaril could be found near Grand Bay, Pointe Michel, Soufriere, and Pointe Mulâtre. Some villagers from Laudat who recognized the tree stated not only that the tree grows in coastal “hot areas” but that it generally is not present in or near Laudat. All foresters and tour guides believed that the tree should be protected because it is a source of income, it is rare, or because the natural habitat of the tree is being reduced. A forester also said that the tree “helps wildlife and water production” and that the Forestry Division encourages farmers to plant the trees on their farms and in their backyards. All ecotourism workers stated that the tree should be protected because it is declining, only knew of one tree, or because it reminded them of their childhood. The villagers also agreed on protecting the tree because it is in high demand, exploited, and valued for its wood design and color. They also said that it the tree also can serve as an attraction to tourists (because of its fruits and wood), acts as windbreak, and is an important source of income.

27

Phoebe elongata Nees.

Phoebe elongata is a tree species recognized by the Forestry Division as endangered and possibly facing extinction (Figure 13). No individual young trees can be seen in the rainforests (its natural habitat) and only old tree stumps (some as tall as 10 feet) can generally be found despite the tree being indigenous to the island. Similar to H. courbaril, P. elongata is not on the IUCN Red List.

Figure 13. P. elongata branch with fruit. Figure 14. Participants‟ recognition of P. elongata.

Of all the participants, only two were able to recognize the tree using the plant guide, however, 22 participants (50%) were able to recognize the tree after the name was mentioned (Figure 14). None of the villagers were able to identify the tree using only the plant guide. Many participants after learning the name of the tree would recall seeing or knowing of the tree‟s stumps in the forests. Only one ecotourism worker recognized the tree, but could not provide any information. All the participants who were able to recognize the tree knew it only as “lowye di woz,” including the foresters. The use of the tree for furniture was known only among the villagers and some tour guides (Table 10). They stated that it was mainly used to create wardrobes and cupboards, which would be able to scent the clothes. Foresters also mentioned the tree‟s use as a perfume or insect repellant.

Table 10. The known local uses of P. elongata mentioned by the different stakeholders. Stakeholders (%)* Forestry Ecotourism workers Tour guides Villagers Uses (n=3) (n=1) (n=5) (n=15) Furniture 0 0 20 73 Perfume/repellant 67 0 0 13 “Boards”/lumber 33 0 20 27 Houses 0 0 0 67 Souvenirs 0 0 20 0 Don‟t know 0 100 60 0 *Percentages calculated based on the number of participants in each stakeholder group that recognized the tree. 28

The foresters mentioned that the tree could be found in the forest surrounding the Boiling Lake, and that it usually grows in rainforest. They also knew of many tree stumps near Cochrane, but do not know why the tree is dying. Freshwater Lake, Middleham trail, and Carlhom (near Layou) were also other places that the foresters mentioned for possible locations of the tree. The tour guides agreed that the species was rare in Dominica and called for protection of the tree. One tour guide stated that many people do not know what the tree or the leaves of the tree look like (including foresters) because only stumps are usually seen rather than live trees. None of the ecotourism workers were able to recall any known locations of this tree. Almost no villagers had seen a live tree for a long time, and some conjectured that the trees might have been destroyed by hurricanes or some disease early in the 1900s. A joiner from Petite Savanne mentioned that the crowns of these trees were probably damaged by hurricanes and the trees started to rot from the inside when the water seeped inside. Many (86%) villagers who recognized the tree, however, fondly remembered the smell of the wood and praised the hard wood and furniture that resulted. All of the participants agreed that the tree must be protected. The main reasons given were because it helped soil erosion, had top quality wood, was rare and endangered, and sustained wildlife. The villagers said that the tree produced good wood, and protection was also good for the environment. One villager mentioned that the tree was already under protection in the national parks since that is where it is mainly found.

Sabinea carinalis Griseb.

Figure 15. The flowers of Sabinea carinalis near a school Figure 16. Recognition of S. carinalis by participants. in the village of Scotts Head. Sabinea carinalis is a species of concern for the Forestry Division because its natural habitat is being reduced by human land development (Figure 15). The natural habitat for this species is along the west coast, and this area is under high pressure for housing developments. The species is endemic to Dominica and is also the national flower of the country. Like the previous two species, it is not listed in the IUCN Red List. All the foresters, tour guides and ecotourism workers were able to recognize the tree and with the exception of one, who recognized the species after the name, all were able to identify the species based on the pictures in the plant guide (Figure 16). There were six villagers who did 29

not recognize the tree. Many villagers also misidentified the tree as “flamboyant” (Delonix regia), an introduced ornamental tree species that grows much bigger than S. carinalis and flowers at the same time. Two villagers even believed that flamboyant was another name for this tree. Of the participants who recognized the tree, about 95% (18 participants) of the villagers stated “Bwa Kwaib” as the local name, while only one villagers listed “carib wood” as another local name. All foresters, tour guides and eco tourism workers stated “Bwa Kwaib” as a local name, however half of the tour guides and one ecotourism worker also stated “carib wood” as an alternative local name. The uses of this tree were different from the other seven species. The most mentioned uses for this tree were beautification of the landscape; most participants in all stakeholder groups reported its status as the national flower of Dominica. These responses were generally followed by the comment that there are no other uses for the tree (see Table 11). Three villagers stated that some Kalinago people use the flowers from this tree to decorate their boats and four villagers also stated that kids play games (such as “cock fighting” in which the anthers of the flowers are used to fight much like the way swords are used, to see whose anther breaks first) with the flowers. Many tour guides, ecotourism workers and villagers believed the tree was part of their national pride. Table 11. The known local uses of S. carinalis mentioned by the different stakeholders who recognized the tree. Stakeholders (%)* Uses Forestry Tour Guides Ecotourism Villagers (n = 3) (n = 7) (n = 7) (n = 19) Beautification 33 17 29 42 National flower 33 50 57 47 None 67 50 0 11 Kids play 0 0 0 21 Other 0 17 14 16 Don‟t know 0 17 0 21 *Percentages calculated based on the number of participants in each stakeholder group that recognized the tree. All the foresters and tour guides knew that the tree naturally occurred in the dry coastal regions of the west coast. Of the ecotourism workers and villagers, 2 (29%) and 8 (42%) participants from each respective category knew the tree‟s natural habitat. The rest of the participants knew the tree from in front of schools, “important buildings” (referring to government buildings), some homes or gardens, and the Botanical Gardens. A few villagers and ecotourism workers, and most tour guides knew that this tree did not grow naturally in the rainforest as the species prefers dry areas. Three tour guides said that the tree flowers less when rain is abundant and more when rain is less. All participants who recognized the tree agreed the tree has to be protected and that currently no one is allowed to cut the tree because of its status as the national flower; “it should be respected” and protected for future generations. All foresters, 4 tour guides and 1 ecotourism worker knew this species was endemic to Dominica. There was one forester who believed the species should have legal protection; the Forest Act should be amended to protect this species.

Summary

These results show what the local stakeholders knew about the selected trees. It provides an understanding for the local knowledge held by the stakeholders. The foresters held not only 30

local knowledge regarding specific locations of trees, some local uses (based on their village experience and knowledge), and local names, but also knew scientific information such as the scientific names, IUCN status of trees and what species have been recorded for the island. The tour guides sometimes would share the information they knew from their village experiences but would be hesitant and would double check with information from their trail guides provided by forestry. The ecotourism workers were not able to share much information, and were similar in knowledge to young villagers. However, they did show a great concern for the environment. The villagers shared the information they knew about the trees if they recognized them. However, many villagers would state that they might have been able to recognize a species if they could actually see instead of the plant guide. The villagers that were able to recognize the trees were ones who interacted with the tree (in the village or nearby). The local stakeholders did not have different types of information for the internationally and nationally important trees. The difference in knowledge mainly was based on whether the trees was present in the participants‟ sense of place (for most villagers it was their farm and village, sometimes surrounding villages, while for foresters and tour guides it was the island).

What trees are recognized as locally important?

The local stakeholders interviewed in the study listed a total of 55 trees they believed to be important and wanted to protect on the island (Table 12). Of these trees, 19 species are non- native and 36 are indigenous to the island. To be able to incorporate the conservation interests of the local stakeholders, they were asked to describe the uses for these trees in relation to why they mentioned each tree for the list (Table 12). The villagers mentioned a total of 51 different species as important, while foresters mentioned 14, ecotourism workers mentioned 13 and tour guides mentioned 11 species as important (the variation in numbers because of the high number of villagers interviewed (27) versus the smaller (5-7) groups for the other stakeholders). Of these species, three IUCN red-listed species were mentioned as important by local stakeholders, Cedrela odorata, Swietenia macrophylla and Swietenia mahagoni. All of the species mentioned by foresters overlapped with those listed by the villagers and either tour guides or ecotourism workers. Some (23) of these tree species had voucher samples collected (see Table 12) and deposited at the Turrell Herbarium at Miami University and at Springfield Guesthouse herbarium.

31

Table 12. Locally important trees mentioned by the local stakeholders. Tree Material Uses° Indigenous/ Mentioned † Kids Decorative/ Local Name* Scientific Name Family Introduced by Food Wood Medicinal play Other Apricot, Mammea Clusiaceae Introduced V, E ● Mamee Apple Americana L. Avocado, Persea Lauraceae Introduced V, T ● pear* Americana Mill. Pseudophoenix Buccaneer sargentii H. Areaceae Indigenous V ● palm Wendl. ex Sarg. Manilkara Balata* bidentata (A. Sapotaceae Indigenous V ● DC.) A. Chev. Talipariti elatum Blue mahoe Introduced V, F, E ● (Sw.) Fryxell Bòdimè or Lòwyé Lauraceae spp. Lauraceae Indigenous V ● bòdimè* grandis Bwa bandé* Indigenous V, F ● ● M.Vahl. Simarouba Bwa blan* Simaroubaceae Indigenous V, F, E ● amara Aubl. Pimenta Bwa denn, Bay racemosa (Mill.) Myrtaceae Indigenous V, E ● ● ● leaf J. W. Moore Licania Bwa dyab, ternatensis Duss Rosaceae Indigenous V, F ● Devilwood* ex Hook. f. Sabinea Bwa kwaib Fabaceae Indigenous T, E ● carinalis Griseb. Chimarrhis Bwa riviere* Rubiaceae Indigenous V ● cymosa Jacq. Bwa tan, Bwa Byrsonima Malphighiaceae Indigenous V ● marie* coriacea Sw. Pithecellobium Bwa sisserou, jupunba (Willd.) Mimosaceae Indigenous V ● Pipiri* Urb. Artocarpus Breadfruit, altilis Moraceae Introduced V, E ● ● Yampen (Parkinson) Fosberg Breadnut, Artocarpus Moraceae Introduced V ● Gwennpen camansi Blanco Crescentia Calabash tree Bignoniaceae Indigenous T ● cujete L. Carambola, Averrhoa Oxalidaceae Introduced V ● Star apple carambola L. Anacardium Cashew Anacardiaceae Indigenous V ● occidentale L. Chatannyé* Sloanea spp. Tiliaceae Indigenous V, F, T ● Theobroma Cocoa Rubiaceae Introduced V, T ● cacao L. Cocos nucifera Coconut Lauraceae Indigenous V, E ● L. Coffee Coffea spp. Rubiaceae Introduced V, T ● Calophyllum Galba* Clusiaceae Indigenous V, F ● ● calaba L. 32

Gliricidia Glory Cedar* sepium (Jacq.) Fabaceae Indigenous T ● ● Kunth Dacryodes Gommier Burseraceae Indigenous V, F, T ● ● excels Vahl. Citrus paradise Grapefruit Rutaceae Introduced V ● Macfad. Adenanthera Gwenn légliz Fabaceae Indigenous V ● ● pavonina L. Kaklen, Lagali Clusia major L. Clusiaceae Indigenous V ● Kakoneyé* Ormosia spp. Leguminosae Indigenous V ● ● Amanoa Karapit caribaea Krug Euphorbiaceae Indigenous V, F ● & Urban Koubawi, Hymenea Leguminosae Introduced V, F, E ● ● ● Locust* courbaril L. Citrus aurantifolia Lime Rutaceae Indigenous V ● (Christm.) Swingle Lòwyé Various species Lauraceae Indigenous V, F ● Phoebe elongata Lòwyé di wòz* Lauraceae Indigenous V Nees. Beilscheria Lòwyé kaka* Lauraceae Indigenous V ● sericea Sterculia Maho kochon Steruliaceae Introduced V ● caribaea R. Br. Daphnopsis Maho pimet* Thymeleaceae Indigenous V ● americana Swietenia macrophylla King. and Mahogany* Meliaceae Indigenous V, T, E ● Swietenia mahagoni (L.) Jacq. Mangifera Mango Anacardiaceae Introduced V, E ● indica L. Garcinia Mangosteen Clusiaceae Introduced V, E ● ● mangostana L. Azadirachta Neem Meliaceae Introduced V ● indica A. Juss. Citrus sinensis Rutaceae Introduced V ● (L.) Osbeck Inga laurina Pwa Dou* Leguminosae Indigenous V, T ● ● (Sw.) Willd. Inga ingoides Pwa Dou Gwi* Leguminosae Indigenous V ● ● (Rich.) Willd. Pouteria Penny piece multiflora (A. Sapotaceae Indigenous V, E ● DC.) Eyma Spondias dulcis Pomsite, Sol. ex Anacardiaceae Introduced V ● golden apple Parkinson Red cedar, Cedrela odorata Meliaceae Indigenous V, F ● akajou* L. Samanea saman Saman Mimosaceae Introduced V, F ● (Jacq.) Merr. Annona Soursop Annonaceae Introduced V ● muricata L.

33

Cinnamomum Spice tree, zeylanicum Lauraceae Introduced V, E ● Cinnamon Blume Ilex macfadyenii Ti siton* Aqufoliaceae Indigenous V ● (Walp.) Rehder Tabebuia pallida (Lindl.) Miers, and White cedar Bignoniaceae Indigenous V, F ● Tabebuia heterophylla (DC.) Britton Zamann, Terminalia Combretaceae Indigenous V, F ● ● Almond* catappa L. * All trees denoted with this symbol have voucher specimens deposited at the Turrell and Springfield Guesthouse herbarium † V = Villagers; F = Foresters; T = Tour guides; E = Ecotourism workers ° Most trees were noted to have ecological uses, as they protect the rivers from drying out, soil erosion and also act as windbreaks during hurricanes

Most participants (ecotourism workers, tour guides and villagers) mentioned fruit, nut, or food related trees as being locally important and necessary to protect. Trees used to make planks (“boards”) or for construction were mentioned when the villager had experience with the tree or if it was a tree that was well known through the area for a specific characteristic. For example, H. courbaril carries a historic and cultural value along with being one of the most expensive sold on the island. Trees were also mentioned for their unique coloring, design and strength of the wood (e.g., Talipariti elatum, Licania ternatensis, Amanoa caribaea). Trees were also mentioned as important for medicinal (e.g., , Gliricidia sepium) and decorative/jewelry (e.g., seeds of Ormosia spp. are often called “jumbi beads” and used in necklaces and earrings because of their bright red color) uses. Many participants also recalled playing with various parts of trees (seeds, seed pods, flowers, anthers, etc.) as kids and said these trees were important because they would like their kids to have similar experiences as them (see Box 1 for local participants‟ views on how to protect these trees). Overall, 22 species were mentioned for food, 32 for wood, 7 for decorative/other (windbreaks, landscaping) and 5 for medicinal by all the participants. The trees foresters mentioned were mainly hardwood trees found in the forests and not cultivated (for fruits and produce) trees when asked what are important trees. The trees mentioned as important by the chainsaw men and joiners were also mainly hardwood trees used mostly for their wood. The chainsaw men and joiners also knew that certain species of trees needed longer time to dry before it can be used, such as Simarouba amara Aubl. (bwa blan) and Dacryodes excels Vahl. (gommier). There were some participants (about 40%) who would say, “all trees are important” as they provide ecological services, such as keeping forests lush and rivers full, providing shade, and acting as a windbreaker during hurricane season (Box 2). Trees, when used as windbreaks can protect crops and houses from the damaging effects of hurricanes. People stated that palms and some other species were good as windbreaks because they could bend without breaking during the strong winds of hurricanes. Stating that all trees are important was especially true of the younger participants (in their 20s or 30s). The younger participants (all ecotourism workers, 57% tour guides and one villager) showed a more general concern/love for the environment by stating things like how much they like trees or how important trees are. If a person was tied in anyway to the tourism industry (tour guides, foresters, ecotourism workers, etc.) they were more likely to state their liking of the environment. Forestry workers (80%) stated that “many trees” or “all trees” are important to protect as they provide various and different services. Protecting the 34

rivers and water catchments was also a point of major worry for many participants (more than 50% across the stakeholder groups). It was mentioned by the villagers, ecotourism workers and tour guides as a reason for having the national park and not allowing anyone to cut down trees.

Box 2: Quotes from participants on what trees they think are important.

All trees are important, I just like trees… they keep Dominica unspoiled. – Ecotourism worker, Age: 22 Love to see all trees. – Ecotourism worker, Age: 36 All trees are important, they enhance the area. I love plants and they give fresh air, keep area cool, keep island green, forest trees provide protection of soil and water, maintain soil fertility. Fruit trees are important, lot and lots of fruit trees, mostly for shade and personal consumption. – Delices resident, Age: 27 Trees mean a lot to use, because can use to make coals, houses, buildings and for fruits. – Laudat resident, Age: 57 I know how important trees are to man’s survival, so all trees are important. Petite Savanne resident, Age: 42 … I value all trees but do not keep track of names, etc. – Tour guide, Age: 28 All trees are important, even trees with out commercial value have value as feed or fruits and can be used for shade, windbreaks. – Retired forester, Age: 58 Trees make island green, unique, pretty; protects water catchments; protects from erosion; food and home for birds and wildlife; provide oxygen and take carbon dioxide; act as windbreaks; provide for local living (BBQ, charcoals, firewood); provide edible fruits to humans and animals. – Forester, Age: 50

New plant guide

The scientific and local knowledges collected on 55 locally important trees were combined with the original plant guide to create a booklet of important trees for the island (Figure 17). These booklets were distributed to Springfield Guesthouse (where it would be accessible to current and future researchers and scientists), the village councils in each village (except for Laudat, whose copy resides with Forestry as they do not have a village council due to their small size) and the Forestry Division in March 2010.

Figure 17. Cover of booklet distributed in Dominica containing important trees from tour guides, ecotourism workers, foresters, villagers and the IUCN.

35

Discussion: Comparing and integrating knowledges

The goal of comparing and integrating scientific and local knowledges of “important” trees in this study was achieved by firstly assessing what local stakeholders knew about trees selected as important by extra-local stakeholders and by the Forestry Division (the first research question) and secondly by asking local stakeholders what trees they see as important (second research question). Sufficient data were collected to compare the knowledges and integrate the local knowledge with scientific knowledge for better conservation practices.

Assessing the local knowledge

The local participants had much knowledge about the trees, however knowledges differed by stakeholder groups. Thus, knowledges can be compared at not only the extra-local versus local level, but also among the local stakeholder groups and within local stakeholder groups.

Extra-local vs. local

It has been stated that there is potential benefit to comparing and integrating scientific and local knowledges (Huntington 2000, Huntington et al. 2004, Ghimire et al. 2004, Veitayaki 2002) but the problem lies in how to do so. Examples can been seen in the various fisher communities where ecological information regarding fishes was gathered and used to deepen the scientific understanding of population fluctuations and distribution of species (Olsson & Folke 2001, McCay Acheson 1987). This study shows integration of scientific knowledge with local knowledge for conservation purposes. Information gathered shows that in Dominica, G. officinale is a tree believed to be native and present in Dominica by IUCN but the locals do not recognize this tree and its few known locations are around human settlements. This adds species- specific information to scientific knowledge regarding the spatial distribution of this species, much like fishermen show the locations where certain fish (or lobster) species can be found. Similarly, the participants knew of only planted locations for the Swietenia macrophylla and Swietenia mahagoni and some (including foresters) even stated that the species were introduced and are starting to become naturalized. Villagers and foresters also recalled Swietenia spp. and other species being promoted to be planted along the edges of farms, in forests after Hurricane David and near farms that were within national parks during the 1950s and 1960s. These three examples of trees shows that local participants are more familiar with the environment and can contribute more information regarding the distribution patterns of species, which are difficult to assess solely through scientific knowledge. Much like the way analysis of ecological knowledge of floral harvesters from the Olympic Peninsula, Washington in the Pacific Northwest suggests their knowledge could be valuable to “public and private land managers as well as ecologists” (Huntsinger & Ballard 2006), the knowledge of local stakeholders in Dominica could be valuable to the Forestry Division, the IUCN, and UNESCO to establish better and more informed conservation practices. In particular, local knowledge regarding G. officinale and Swietenia spp. suggests that conservation policies need to be cautious on the rules and restrictions placed on these species. For example, planting G. officinale in the forests of Dominica, is not returning the species to where it belongs (as IUCN suggests through its Red List). And in the case of Swietenia spp.,

36

these species were introduced as a way for the Forestry Division to reforest the Dominican landscapes after hurricanes and damaging agricultural practices. Allowing these species to be become naturalized in Dominica would counter conservation efforts that prioritize indigeneity. Local knowledge would thus sufficiently help address the gap that many conservation practitioners face in trying to apply the internationally generated IUCN Red List to specific regions and areas (IUCN 2001). Mutual interest was seen in some species, such as C. odorata, S. macrophylla, S. mahagoni, H. courbaril, P. elongata, and S. carinalis. Both the IUCN and local stakeholders (forestry, tour guides, ecotourism workers, and village participants that were able to recognize these trees) value these species for their uses. Local participants added information about the values they place on the species and about the diversity of resources based on use (in addition to biological diversity and uniqueness). However, as Huntsinger & Ballard (2006) state, it is important for holders of local knowledge to have opportunities to communicate their knowledge, whether it is to scientists, managers or other local residents. Scientific and local knowledge, despite having originated for different purposes, are similarly based on making observations and interpreting patterns and trends (Agrawal 1995, Agrawal 2002, Davis 2006). Similar to the separation of different vegetation and habitats in scientific knowledge, local participants also distinguished areas, such as “hot areas,” “coastal areas,” “heights,” “wet areas,” and “dry areas.” Ghimire et al. (2004) found through interviews that their participants in the Nepalese Himalayas knew not only about environmental requirements for plant species but also had perceptions about the species‟ life cycle, growth stages, variation in populations growing in different habitat and preferences in harvesting based on morphological traits. Participants in this study in Dominica had local knowledge about the locations of the trees (stating that some species of concern can do well outside of their natural range and habitat, e.g., H. courbaril), time periods for optimal harvesting, and environmental requirements (e.g., water needs). Also, participants had different ideas on how to protect the trees – they consider tending to the needs of the tree so it can grow as protecting it. They believed that as long as a tree is planted for everyone that is cut down, then the species is protected because then the future generation could see and use the tree. This shows that the local knowledge serves to manage the tree species for production. The participants were aware that the trees would need to be taken care of in certain ways and used in ways that would allow for optimal results when harvesting.

Among local stakeholders

Variations in local knowledge has not been given much attention in the literature. Generally, local knowledge has been treated as a unified category (Coomes & Burt 2001, Ghimire et al. 2004, Ross 2002). Seeing the local communities in Dominica as one unit is not helpful in understanding what various groups within the community know. In designing management and conservation practices that are sustainable, considering these variations and complexities in knowledge along with their contexts within an area is important (Ghimire et al. 2004). As seen in the medicinal plant knowledge in the Nepalese Himalayas and in the wild chili knowledge in Sonora, Mexico, the amount of knowledge held by the participants depend on various factors, such as the extent of interaction with the resource, age, dependence on the resource, and the individual‟s background (Ghimire et al. 2004, Nazarea 1999, Perramond 2005). Local knowledge in Dominica varied between the identified stakeholders, with the position/job

37

(amount of interaction/dependence with the resource) they held and their village experience and background being the two major distinguishing factors in the variation between the stakeholder groups. Villagers‟ knowledge was mostly just from direct experience with the trees, whether it was in the forests or on their farms, whereas the knowledge shared by tour guides was based on their training and studies associated with becoming a certified tour guide. Participants, particularly villagers, valued both native and non-native species on the island as important trees for their various uses (ecological services, wood, food, medicine). The villagers do not see landscapes as either “natural” or modified, but rather as a landscape of production, where their various needs are met by resources that have to be properly managed and protected (see Box 2). However, most of the tour guides would benefit from drawing more on the situated knowledges they have acquired from their villages. Though most tour guides had a difficult time learning and saying the scientific names, some, especially those that lead tours for the more scientifically-oriented tourists, knew these names. The foresters generally knew details about the locations and growth conditions of the trees. However, they did not generally know all the local uses of the trees that were listed by the villagers (especially those mentioned by Delices or Petite Savanne villagers as none of the foresters that were interviewed were from these villages). The tour guides presented themselves as an intermediate between the villagers and foresters in terms of knowledge about the trees and situated themselves much like the commercial harvesters of medicinal plants as seen by Ghimire et al. (2004). They would often times know information they learned in their villages but also knew more detailed information regarding the distribution of the trees. Meanwhile most ecotourism workers displayed great concern regarding the environment (much like foresters and tour guides), but they were not able to share as much information regarding the trees. Foresters display hybrid knowledge (a combination of scientific and local knowledge) and attempt to pass on the scientific knowledge to the tour guides. Foresters in many ways were locally viewed as authoritative holders of knowledge, and they would sometimes draw information from the IUCN and UNESCO. The foresters were responsible for training the tour guides and had put in place educational programs for the local residents to learn about the trees and wildlife. Often these educational programs occurred in schools and through the community groups‟ councils (Charles 2008). For example, the information regarding the national flower, S. carinalis, is taught in schools and parents would learn about this tree from their children. Another example is the knowledge that trees are important for water conservation; some villagers pointedly stated they knew this because of Forestry, but also because they had experienced drops in the water level of rivers when there was lots of tree cutting in the forests. The foresters in Dominica are in a unique position where because of their hybrid knowledge they would function well as the integrators of scientific and local knowledge for conservation policies. In comparing the local stakeholders‟ knowledge, “layers” of knowledge become apparent. The layers of knowledge are a result of the occupation and experiences of individuals in the stakeholder groups. These layers in combination make up an individual‟s knowledge. Raffles (2002), expanding on Agrawal‟s (1995) claim that the boundary between scientific and local knowledge is not clear, argues that a person‟s knowledge does not necessarily need to be completely local, that there are outside influences that come into play; therefore local knowledge can be better termed “intimate knowledge.” Nevertheless, the knowledge from the village experience (where the individual grew up) forms the core of a person‟s local knowledge,

38

followed by knowledge gained through education and the last layer is the position/occupation of the individual in the larger society (Figure 18). Also, in talking about the important trees, participants would mention trees they saw as “local” and “important” to them. For foresters and tour guides, trees found anywhere on the island were considered as local, indicating they have a broader sense of place than just their home villages. They did not need to have had direct experiences or interactions with the trees. Ecotourism workers and villagers listed trees that were more likely to be found in their surroundings and villages, showing their sense of place was more localized (based on their village, farms and nearby areas). Figure 18. “Layers” of knowledge for any individual in Dominica. Within stakeholder groups

Not all members of a community with local knowledge hold the knowledge equally, however their knowledge can be substantial (Ghimire et al. 2004, Nazarea 1999, Perramond 2005). Initiatives aimed at a community with local knowledge that does not consider the differences within the group can become difficult to successfully complete (Coomes & Burt 2001). Perramond (2005) states that the separation of local knowledge into different groups based on age or gender can “minimize the „essentialist‟ arguments” commonly found in ethnoecology. Nazarea (1999) goes further to state that it is best to considered knowledge as situated and gendered, with variations based on age, class, gender and social position in society. Stakeholders interviewed for this study also showed variation within each group based largely on age and gender. Younger participants, especially the ecotourism workers (who were all young and about 20-30 years old), were not able to give much information regarding the trees. Several villagers (especially females) claimed at the beginning of interviews to have very little or no knowledge about trees. Generally, men knew more about trees than the women did. This was because historically, men were the ones who would go into the forest to cut trees and farm while women would be home to manage the backyard gardens Figure 19. One of the few farms that exist within the boundaries of Morne Trois Pitons National Park. with fruits and vegetables, similar to the

39

gendered division of labor in Zambrana-Chacuey, Dominican Republic (Rocheleau et al. 1996). Not many farms exist in forests anymore because some farmers were displaced when national park boundaries were drawn from crown land (land owned by the government) and also because some farmers gave up traveling far from their homes to farm (see Figure 19 for an example of a farm in MTPNP near Petite Savanne). However, it is men who know about the trees in the backyard gardens and on the boundaries of farms. Also both men and women (villagers and ecotourism workers) consider older men and more so chainsaw men and joiners as local experts on trees. There have been suggestions to focus on these local experts to better understand local environments, ecosystems, and resources and to collaborate with them for better management practices (Davis & Wagner 2003). In efforts to integrate knowledge and conservation concerns including the chainsaw men in these efforts could help tremendously, especially since it can reduce resistance (against new conservation policies) from this group within the community that depends on the trees.

Integration of local concerns

This study also allows scientific knowledge to learn about and integrate into conservation policies the local stakeholders‟ conservation concerns. The tree species listed by the participants are important for their livelihood (e.g., for food or income, see Table 12). The species mentioned by the various stakeholder groups overlapped across groups and with the IUCN Red List, creating even a stronger need for integrating local concerns into broader conservation efforts. The overlap indicates a similar desire to protect the species, while also offering a knowledge base that has been accumulated over a long period of time and many experiences that could be used for conservation. Integrating these species into island wide conservation priorities would protect the interests of the local stakeholders and also would help involve locals in monitoring the species that overlap in interest and eventually broader conservation efforts (Huntsinger & Ballard 2006). This sort of information from local knowledge could help in develop more integrative and informed management and conservation practices (Berkes et al. 2000, Ghimire et al. 2004).

40

Conclusion

The overall question of this study has been how to compare and Scientific knowledge integrate scientific and local knowledge to achieve better conservation practices. This study shows that by moving away from characterizing knowledge as a dichotomy between scientific and local, the ability to see the various knowledges becomes possible. The Local knowledge broad single category of local knowledge is not able to capture and convey what is present among Figure 20. Visualizing the relationship between scientific and local the local stakeholders in Dominica. knowledges. Local knowledge is more dynamic and is varied across groups of people. This research shows that the local knowledge is based on experiences, education, the occupation of the individual, and their sense of place; residents of a region or even a village do not hold the same knowledge. By recognizing the various local knowledges and stakeholders, a wider range of conservation interests can be taken into account and also more information about the resource to be conserved can be gathered from long time residents of the environment. Local knowledge can form an important foundation (like roots of a tree) for expanding scientific understanding (the crown of a tree) of rare and endangered species (Figure 20). As the various trees in this study show, local knowledge can help and support scientific knowledge for conservation purposes. The additional and integrated knowledge gained from combining scientific and local knowledge can be used to alleviate conflicts between the local people trying to maintain their livelihoods and institutions like the IUCN interested in conserving species and landscapes. Also, recognizing that local knowledge can support scientific knowledge is a way to validate that knowledge for the purpose of collaborative conservation planning. This study identifies knowledge as power and validating knowledge can empower the local people.

Limitations

Like many studies, this study has limitations in its application. Though the study shows the possibilities for integration between local knowledge and scientific knowledge, the integration is valid only for the villages that were included in this study. As stated in earlier sections, the local knowledge in Dominica is highly localized and the landscape allows for microclimates along the coast where most of the people live. Given the higly-localized nature of local knowledge in Dominica, the list of locally important trees would most likely be very different if residents from other villages around the island were interviewed. However, this study illustrates that there are overlaps between the concerns based on scientific knowledge and those based on local knowledge. It is important to recognize the differences between knowledges within a community to be able to integrate knowledges in a coherent manner, but integration is possible.

41

References

Adams, W. M. and Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society, 5(2): 147-183.

Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and Change, 26: 413-439.

Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and politics of classification. International Social Science Journal, 54(173): 287-297.

Allen, B. and Lines, L. (2001). External economic pressures and park planning: a case study from Dominica. In Harmon, D. (ed.) Crossing Boundaries in Park Management: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. Hancock, Michigan: The George Wright Society.

Barker, D. (2004). Caribbean natural landscapes. In Robert Potter, David Barker, Dennis Conway and Thomas Klak (eds.), The Contemporary Caribbean (pp.3-47). Essex, UK: Prentice Hall & Pearson.

Becker, C. D. and K. Ghimire. (2003). Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservation Ecology, 8(1): 1-12.

Berg, L. and Mansvelt, J. (2000). Writing in, speaking out: Communicating qualitative research findings. In Hay,I. (ed.) Qualitative research methods in human geography (pp. 161-182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621- 630.

Berkes, F. (2008). Sacred Ecology. Second Edition. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, 10(5): 1251-1262.

Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. (1987). Land Degradation and Society. New York: Methuen.

Brenner, M. (1985). Intensive Interviewing. In Brenner, M., Brown, J., & Canter, D. V. (Eds.). The research interview, uses and approaches (pp.147-161). London: Academic Press.

42

Brown, K. (2003). Three challenges for a real people-centered conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12: 89-92.

Brown, J. and Lomolino, M. (2000). Concluding remarks: historical perspective and the future of island biogeography theory. Global Ecology & Biogeography. 9: 87-92.

Bryant, R. L. (2002). “Non-governmental Organizations and Governmentality: „Consuming‟ Biodiversity and Indigenous People in the Philippines.” Political Studies, 50(2): 268-292.

Cameron, J. (2005) „Focusing on the Focus Group‟. In Hay, I. (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (2nd ed., pp. 156-174). Oxford University Press: Melbourne.

CANARI (Caribbean Natural Resources Institute) and FAO National Forest Programme Facility. (2006). Participatory forest management project: Improving policy and institutional capacity for development - National review of opportunities and constraints for stakeholder participation – Dominica. Accessed July 20, 2010.

Chapin III, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L., Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., Hooper, D. U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O. E., Hobbie, S. E., Mack, M. C., and Díaz, S. (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405: 234-242.

Charles, R. (2008). Forestry! In Our Face; All The Time!. Accessed August 5, 2010. < http://www.dominica.gov.dm/cms/?q=node/521>

Commonwealth of Dominica. (2001). Dominica‟s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan – 2001- 2005. Roseau, Dominica.

Conservation International. (2009). Biodiversity Hotspots. Accessed April 11, 2009.

Coomes, O. T. and Burt, G. J. (2001). Peasant Charcoal Production in the Peruvian Amazon: Rainforest Use and Economic Reliance. Forest Ecology and Management, 140(1): 39-50.

Cunningham, A. B., UNESCO. (2001). Applied Ethnobotany: People, Wild Plant Use and Conservation. London: Earthscan.

Davis, A. and Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying “Experts” When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge. Human Ecology, 31(3): 463-489.

Davis, M. (2006). Bridging the Gap or Crossing a Bridge? Indigenous Knowledge and the Language of Law and Policy. In Fikret Berkes, Doris Capistrano, Walter V. Reid, and Tom Wilbanks (eds). Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessments. Washington DC: Island Press.

43

De Lopez, T. T. (2001). Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of Ream National Park. Cambodia. Environmental Management, 28: 47-60.

DeFilipps, R. A. (1998). Useful plants of the Commonwealth of Dominica, West Indies. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Doak, D. F. and Mills, L. S. (1994). A useful role for theory in conservation. Ecology, 75: 615- 626.

Drew, J. A. and Henne, A. P. (2006). Conservation Biology and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Integrating Academic Disciplines for Better Conservation Practice. Ecology and Society, 11(2): 34-42.

Endress, B. A., Gorchov, D. L., and Peterson, M. B. (2004). Harvest of the Palm Chamaedorea Radicalis, Its effects on leaf production, and implications for sustainable management. Conservation Biology, 18(3): 822-830.

Escobar, A. (1996). “Constructing Nature: Elements for a Post-Structural Political Ecology.” In: Peet, R., Watts, M. (Eds.), Liberation Ecologies: Environment Development and Social Movements. New York: Routledge.

Gezon, L. L. (2006). Global Visions, Local Landscapes: A Political Ecology of Conservation, Conflict and Control in Northern Madagascar. Plymouth, UK: AltaMira Press.

Ghimire, S., McKey, D. and Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y. (2004). Heterogeneity in ethnoecological knowledge and management of medicinal plants in the Himalayas of Nepal: implications for conservation. Ecology and Society, 9(3): 6-25.

Gilchrist, G., Mallory, M., and Merkel, F. (2005). Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society, 10(1): 20.

Grimble, R. (1998). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management. Socioeconomic Methodologies. Best Practice Guidelines. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. Accessed July 22, 2010. < http://www.nri.org/publications/bpg/bpg02.pdf >

Grimble, R., Chan, M. K., Aglionby, J. and Quan, J. (1995). Trees and trade-offs: A stakeholder approach to natural resource management. IIED Sustainable Agriculture, Gatekeeper Series No. SA52. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Accessed July 22, 2010. < http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/6066IIED.pdf>

Honychurch, L. (1995). The Dominica Story: A History of the Island. Oxford: Macmillan U.K.

Honychurch, L. (2009). Personal Communication – March 7, 2009 – National Historian.

44

Honychurch, P.N. (1986). Caribbean Wild Plants and Their Uses: An Illustrated Guide to Some Medicinal and Wild Ornamental Plants of the West Indies. London: Macmillan Caribbean.

Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications. Ecological Applications, 10(5): 1270-1274.

Huntington, H. P., Callaghan, T. V., Gearheard, S. F., and Krupnik, I. (2004). Matching traditional and scientific observations to detect environmental change: a discussion on arctic terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio Special Report, 13: 18-23.

IUCN. (2001). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.: IUCN.

James, A. (2008). Between Two Reunions: Boiling Lake, 1988 to 2008. Accessed August 5, 2010. < http://www.dominica.gov.dm/cms/index.php?q=node/520>

Jno-Baptiste, B. (2009). Personal Communication – March 8, 2009 – Forest Ranger.

LaRochelle, S. and Berkes, F. (2003). Traditional ecological knowledge and practice for edible wild plants: Biodiversity use by the Rarámuri in the Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico. International Journal for Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 10(4): 361-75.

Lindsay, J., Smith, A.L., Roobol, M.J., and Stasiuk, M. (2004). Dominica. In Lindsay J., Roberstson, R., Ali, S., and Shepherd, J. (eds.). Volcanic Hazard Atlas of the Lesser Antilles. University of the West Indies.

Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In N. J. Clifford and G. Valentine (Eds.), Key Methods in Geography (pp. 117-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Martin, G. J. (2004). Ethnobotany: A methods manual. London: Earthscan.

Mauro, F. and Hardison, P. D. (2000). Traditional Knowledge of Indigenous and Local Communities: International Debate and Policy Initiatives. Ecological Applications, 10(5): 1263-1269

Ministry of Agriculture. (1995). Dominica: Country Report to the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. Roseau.

Ministry of Agriculture and the Environment. (2002). Dominica‟s First National Report to the Conference of Parties - Convention on Biological Diversity. Roseau, Dominica.

Nazarea, V. D. (ed.) 1999. Ethnoecology: Situated knowledge/Located lives. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

45

Neumann, R. P. (2005). Making Political Ecology. New York, NY: Hodder Education.

Osler, N. (2009). Personal Communication – March 8, 2009 – Director of Springfield Guesthouse (ATREC).

Perramond, E. P. (2005). The Politics of Ecology: Local Knowledge and Wild Chili Collection in Sonora, Mexico. Journal of Latin American Geography, 4(1): 59-75.

Pierotti, R. and Wildcat, D. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative (Commentary). Ecological Applications, 10(5): 1333-1340.

Pimbert, M. P. and Pretty, J. N. (1995). Parks, People and Professionals: Putting `Participation' into Protected Area Management. United Nations Research Institute For Social Development, International Institute For Environment And Development, World Wide Fund For Nature Discussion Paper No 57, February 1995. UNRISD, Geneva.

Pullin, A. S. (2002). Conservation biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Quinlan, M. B. (2000). Bush Medicine in Bwa Mawego: Ethnomedicine and Medical Botany of Common Illnesses in a Dominican Village. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri.

Quinlan, M. B., Quinlan, R., and Nolan, J. (2002). Ethnophysiology and Botanical Treatments of Intestinal Worms in Dominica, West Indies. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 80: 75-83.

Raffles, H. (2002). Intimate Knowledge. International Social Science Journal, 54(173): 325-335.

Robbins, P. (2004). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Malden, MA; Blackwell Publishers.

Roe, D. (2008). The origins and evolution of the conservation poverty debate: A review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx, 42(4): 491-503.

Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., Redford, K. H., and Robinson, J. G. (2002). Improving the Practice of Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for Conservation Science. Conservation Biology, 16(6): 1469-1479.

Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, Positionality and Participatory Ethics: Negotiating Fieldwork Dilemmas in International Research. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3): 374-385.

Terer, T., Ndiritu, G. G., and Gichuki, N. N. (2004). Socio-economic values and traditional strategies of managing wetland resources in Lower Tana River, Kenya. Hydrobiologia, 527: 3-14.

46

UNESCO. (1997). World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Technical Evaluation: Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica). Accessed May 5, 2010. < http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/814.pdf>

UNEP-WCMC. (2008). Morne Trois Pitons National Park, Commonwealth of Dominica. Accessed April 16, 2009.

Veitayaki, J. (2002). Taking advantage of indigenous knowledge: the Fiji case. International Social Science Journal, 54(173): 395-402.

Voeks, R. A. and Nyawa, S. (2006). Dusun Ethnobotany: Forest Knowledge and Nomenclature in Northern Borneo. Journal of Cultural Geography, 23(2): 1-31.

Voeks, R. A. (2007). Medicinal Plant Erosion in Eastern Brazil: Are Women Reservoirs of Traditional Plant Knowledge?. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 28(1): 7-20.

Wilson, E. O. (2002). The Future of life. New York, NY: Knopff.

Wolford, W. (2005). Book Review: Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Paul Robbins. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. Annals of the Association of American Geographers , 95 (3): 717-719.

Zimmerer, K. S. and Bassett, T. J. (2003). Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment-Development Studies. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Zimmerer, K. S. (2006). Globalization & new geographies of conservation. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Zimmerer, K. S. and Carter, E. D. (2002). Conservation and sustainability in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Knapp, G. (ed.) Latin America in the 21st Century: Challenges and Solutions. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

47

Appendix I

MIAMI UNIVERSITY APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION

1. Purpose This research project will examine the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and conservation priorities of communities living near the Morne Trois Pitons National Park in the Eastern Caribbean nation of Dominica. This national park was established in 1997 as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and has very strict regulations on the activities that can be conducted in the national park. There has been much debate over whether TEK and conservation priorities of the scientific communities can be integrated in a cohesive and productive manner. This study addresses the problems associated with the implementation of conservation goals, which are the subject of increasing public concerns and to which this study will add significant local perspective. The effects of conservation practices have generally been thought to have detrimental impacts on the communities that reside next to protected areas. However, the understanding of TEK and the local community‟s conservation priorities is limited, especially in Dominica where extensive studies in this area have not been conducted. This study will combine ecological and social analysis to answer the following research questions: 1. Are the conservation priorities of the local communities in Dominica compatible with those of the scientific community? 2. Can the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) about selected trees be used to integrate the priorities and interests of local communities and the scientific community? The data collected will be used for my Master‟s thesis at Miami University and possibly in some publications in peer reviewed journals. However, the names of participants and villages in publications will be kept confidential.

2. Subject Population People that live in the two villages near the National Park will participate in the study. About 25-30 people will be asked to participate from each village. One of the villages is a main source of employees for the premier ecotourism resort on the island, called Jungle Bay. Tour guides (about 6) and few (3-4) officials from the Forestry Division of Dominica will also be asked to participate in the study. Participants will include both men and women who are least 18 years old. The ethnic background of the participants will be the same as virtually everyone else in the country of Dominica, which is Afro-Caribbean. The health status of people in Dominica is generally very good.

3. Recruitment and Selection of Subjects Traditional ecological knowledge and local conservation priorities will be recorded using semi-structured interviews, focus groups, transect walks, and participatory mapping exercises. Members of two communities living in a village next to the World Heritage Site will be invited to participate. Focus groups will be conducted with the villagers in order to encourage dialogue and create the opportunity for shared memories and knowledge about the local trees. The collective recognition of trees will also help in determining the distribution, locations, uses and the community‟s conservation priority of the various trees species. I will recruit participants using the snowball sampling technique in the villages by stating that I am looking to understand what people know about specific trees and what they think about conservation. I will use my contacts in Dominica to recruit tour guides and Forestry Division officials for the semi-structured interviews. Everyone will also be asked to complete the participatory mapping exercise; the focus group participants will collectively draw one map. The transect walks will be done with some of the participants from the villages. All participation will be voluntary. These interviews along with the focus groups will help in completing a stakeholder analysis of all the groups that are interested in and affected by conservation implementation at the Morne Trois Pitons National Park.

48

4. Potential Risks and Discomforts Physical, psychological, social, legal, or other risks are not anticipated in the proposed study. The informants‟ participation in the study will be voluntary and they will not be recognized by their name or actual location of residence. No coercion will be involved in the selection of participants.

5. Potential Benefits The potential benefit of this research to the participants is that their (and the local community‟s) priorities and concerns can be specifically recognized. The research findings will be made available to the national government and to the villages. This study focusing on humans and their relationship to the environment has the potential to contribute to information sharing between the various stakeholders and may lead to positive collaboration between conservation interests. Applying the results of this study could carry the possibility of improving the implementation of conservation strategies and move more towards community-based conservation.

6. Informed Consent I would like to request exemption from obtaining signed consent under the cross-cultural criteria. Having the participant sign a formal document has the potential to create tension or unnecessary stress during the interview and could create a reluctance to participate. I will obtain verbal consent by reading and then giving each participant the informed consent form. I will make it clear that participation is voluntary and anyone can withdraw at anytime. The informed consent forms are attached.

7. Exempt Status Request Not applicable. Please advice.

8. Research Procedures/Methods

a. Nature of activities in which the subjects will be engaged – The tour guides and Forestry Division officials will be engaged in semi-structured interviews and undertake a mapping exercise with me. The villagers will participate in focus groups and the mapping exercise. Some of the participants (volunteers) from the focus groups will also go on transect walks through the rain forest to locate tree species of interest. b. Data gathering instruments, including copies of questionnaires or interview questions – Focus group guiding questions and semi-structured interview questions for tour guides: Give plant guide with drawings and pictures of different trees to participants – and for each tree (all trees are hardwood trees species): a. Do you recognize this tree? b. Do you have any names for the tree? Local names? Or alternative names? c. What do you know about the locations where this tree can be found? - including habitat type and specific locations (Please indicate on your map – Creation of maps – participatory mapping exercise) d. Do you have any uses for this tree? Do you have any preference for specific parts of the tree? e. Can you talk about status of the tree? (in terms of its distribution – is it declining or increasing and any known reasons for this change) f. Should the tree be protected? Why or why not? (What do you think should be done to protect the tree?) g. Do you have any management practices in relation to this tree? – do you cultivate this tree? Do you harvest it from the wild? h. Can you talk about how hurricanes, flooding and other such events affect this tree? I will also ask general questions about what they think about the National Park, especially since it has become a World Heritage Site in 1997. The questions for the Forestry Division officials will be similar but will also have some questions about international and national policies regarding specific trees and the strategies for conservation.

49

c. Frequency and length of time involved in each activity and the overall length of participation – The semi- structured interviews will last from 30-60 minutes. The focus groups will last about 90-120 minutes. The semi-structured interview and focus group lengths include the time for the participatory mapping exercise. Transect walks with few of the participants could take a few hours (about 3) to complete. Each person will participate only once unless they volunteer to participate in the transect walk. d. Training of persons administering the treatment or collecting the data – I will be the only one collecting the data. e. Compensation to subjects for their participation – There will be no compensation for the participation. I hope that the potential to contribute to greater understanding of issues between stakeholders will be incentive for people to participate.

9. Research Location. The research will be conducted in the villages of Laudat, Petit Savanne and Delices, located on the southern half of Dominica. Both villages are close to the national park. Permits are currently being obtained to do research in the country.

10. Procedures for Safeguarding Confidentiality of Information I will be the only one with access to the data that is collected. The data will be kept until May 31, 2010 and will be stored under lock and key. Only the original sheets where the participants‟ responses are recorded will have the participant names. There after the responses will be transcribed into digital files and each participant will be assigned a code. The code sheet with the names will be stored separately from the interview responses. The participants will not be identified specifically in any publication that results from this study.

11. Deception - This research does not involve any deception. ______

Interview Participation and Informed Consent

Hello ______,

My name is Swetha Peteru. I am a geography graduate student at Miami University of Ohio. I would like to invite you to participate in a research study about local knowledge regarding some trees and conservation issues. For this research study, I would like to ask you a few questions about what you know about some trees and what you think about the conservation of Morne Trois Pitons National Park and how it has affected your ability to make a living. I would also like to ask you to draw a map of the region and where you know certain trees can be found. Your answers will be confidential. Only I will have access to the responses. For the purpose of analyzing and publishing the results, I will assign a code number to your responses. Your name will not be associated with your responses in any published reports from the research. Our discussion should take less than 1 hour. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the discussion at any time or refuse to answer any questions that make you uncomfortable. You will not be asked to do anything that exposes you to risks beyond those of everyday life. The benefit of the study, scientifically, is that it can lead to a better understanding of the conservation issues and what local communities, tour guides, and officials think about conservation and how it should be approached. Are you willing to be interviewed in this research study? (Yes or No) If you have further questions about the study, please contact me, Swetha Peteru at (513) 529 - 5010 or email me at [email protected]. You can also contact my advisor Professor Thomas Klak at (513)-529-4049 or [email protected]. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please call the Office of Advancement of Research and Scholarship at 513-529-3600 or email: [email protected]. Thank you for your participation. I am very grateful for your help and hope that this will be an interesting discussion for you. You may keep this page.

50

Appendix II: Research Permit

Research permit obtained from Dominica Forestry and Wildlife Division prior to start of fieldwork.

51

52

Appendix III: Plant Guide

Cedrela odorata

Source of pictures clockwise starting from top left: http://www.authenticmaya.com/images/arboles/cedro.jpg, Accessed, May 2009. http://zongolica.net/jardin.html, Accessed, May 2009. http://plants.usda.gov/java/largeImage?imageID=ceod_001_ahp.tif, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.backyardnature.net/n/w/cedro.htm, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.nybg.org/bsci/belize/Cedrela_odorata.html, Accessed, May 2009.

53

Guaiacum officinale

Source of pictures clockwise starting from top left: http://www.virtualherbarium.org/horticulture/saleplants.php?type=shrub/tree, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.stjohnbeachguide.com/Lignum%20Vitae.htm, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.stjohnbeachguide.com/Lignum%20Vitae.htm, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.stjohnbeachguide.com/Lignum%20Vitae.htm, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.flickr.com/photos/40295335@N00/3119720490, Accessed, May 2009.

54

Inga dominicensis

Source of picture: http://insects.oeb.harvard.edu/caribbean/mantisweb/FMPro?-db=species.drd&-format=description_dr.htm&- lay=web&=inga&Species=dominicensis%20&-max=10&-recid=48942&-find=, Accessed, May 2009.

55

Swietenia macrophylla

Source of pictures clockwise starting from top: http://www.da-academy.org/dagardens_mahogany2.html, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.da-academy.org/dagardens_mahogany1.html, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.flickr.com/photos/10335017@N07/3441769930/in/photostream/, Accessed, May 2009.

56

Swietenia mahagoni

Source of pictures clockwise starting from top left: http://www.rain-tree.com/Plant-Images/mahogany-pic.htm, Accessed, May 2009. http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/7127983, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.rain-tree.com/Plant-Images/mahogany-pic.htm, Accessed, May 2009.

57

Hymenaea courbaril

Source of pictures clockwise starting from top left: http://www.rain-tree.com/Plant-Images/jatoba-pic.htm, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.centraldassementes.com.br/popup_image.php?pID=58, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.rain-tree.com/Plant-Images/jatoba-pic.htm, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.iflorestal.sp.gov.br/institucional/dasonomia/silvicultura_produtos.asp, Accessed, May 2009.

58

Phoebe elongata

Source of pictures left to right:

Jno-Baptiste,B. (2009). Personal Communication – Picture taken in St. Lucia– Forest Ranger.

U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE COLLECTION: Roena, H. J., Accession number: 6725.2206, Accessed, May 2009.

59

Sabinea carinalis

Source of pictures clockwise starting from top left: http://www.da-academy.org/dagardens_kwaib1.html, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.dominica.gov.dm/cms/?q=node/84, Accessed, May 2009. http://www.lennoxhonychurch.com/national_symbols.cfm, Accessed, May 2009.

60

Appendix IV: Sample page of a trail guide given to tour guides during training

Sample page from Flora and Fauna of The Syndicate Nature Trail – issued by the Dominica Forestry and Wildlife Division to tour guides during training.

61