META DATA

Title: Survey of human-wildlife conflict, resource use and attitudes towards conservation and sustainable development in the , Rupununi,

Principal Investigator: Matthew T. Hallett1,2

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Affiliations: 1. Miami University Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 254 Upham Hall, Oxford, OH, USA 45056 2. University of Florida School of Natural Resources and Environment, 103 Black Hall, Gainesville, FL, USA, 32611

Permissions:  IRB: Exempt research certification #E00547 received from Miami University Institutional Review Board  IACUC: Project certification #870 received from Miami University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee  Research Permit: Permission to conduct biodiversity research permit #230512 BR 017 received from Guyana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Focus of observations: Human-wildlife conflict, subsistence and commercial resource use, and attitudes of indigenous communities towards conservation and sustainable development

Project Description: Understanding the relationship between people and the environment is central to successful conservation and management. The Kanuku Mountains are considered one of the most biodiverse areas of Guyana and as a result were targeted by the Government of Guyana for the development of a protected area through a partnership with Conservation International (Conservation International 2009). Community Resource Evaluations (CREs) were conducted as part of a participatory process for developing the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area, covering a variety of topics related to resource use and economic activities (Stone 2002). This project deployed surveys to supplement CREs and gather data specific to human-wildlife conflict and attitudes towards wildlife, research and conservation in six indigenous communities (Yupukari, Katoka, Nappi, Moco Moco, Shulinab and Sand Creek villages) surrounding the Kanuku Mountains (Figure 1). Data collection took place in the form of surveys and was part of a larger project focused on developing a population estimate of (Panthera onca) in the region using camera traps and spatially explicit capture-recapture analysis (Hallett et al. 2015). Survey data was intended to provide insights into possible causal factors driving spatial variations in the abundance and distribution of jaguars and their prey observed in the camera trap data, and to help begin a dialogue regarding mitigating any negative effects of human activity on populations specifically. Surveys were developed by the primary investigator, tested by local collaborators and deployed to 102 households in the six communities around the Kanuku Mountains at central village meetings following presentations of preliminary camera trap results between February and August 2013.

Geographic coverage: The Rupununi (Region 9), Guyana, is named for the river, savannas and wetlands that bear its name, but the region is actually an ancient rift valley, the Takutu Basin, that is bordered by the Pakaraima and Kanuku mountains (Crawford et al. 1985). The floor of this rift valley consists of ecologically significant cerrado savanna, gallery and savanna forests, rivers, creeks and seasonally flooded wetlands bordered by large, undeveloped tracts of lowland and montane tropical deciduous and evergreen forests. The Kanuku Mountains are divided into western and eastern ranges by the north-south course of the Rupununi River and are drained by the Takatu River to the west and the Rewa/Kwitaro Rivers to the east (Montambault & Missa 2002). The Rupununi savannas, which border the western slopes of the Kanukus, are ecologically connected to Brazil’s Branco River savanna system (Montambault & Missa 2002). To the east, the Kanukus join a vast expanse of intact Guiana Shield forest shared with Brazil, Surinam and (Mittermeier et al. 1998). Indigenous communities have long revered mountainous areas in Guyana as ‘places of refuge’; thus they have never hosted permanent residents and remain in relatively pristine condition.

The Kanuku Mountains are made up of pre-Cambrian sediments (4-590 million years old) of one of the oldest rock formations on earth (Montambault & Missa 2002). The two main ecotones in the Kanuku Mountains (savanna and moist forest) are largely determined by soil conditions (Montambault & Missa 2002). Savanna habitat primarily occurs where a hard clay layer underlying weathered white sands limits penetration and access to ground water by tree roots (Montambault & Missa 2002). Moist forest occurs on porous substrates along the slopes of hills and mountains, along rivers and in scattered “bush islands” where the underlying clay layer has been penetrated (Clarke et al. 2001). The highest peak in the eastern Kanukus is at 900 m with an average elevation of about 450 m, and the tallest peak in the western range is 1,067 m with a number of minor peaks above 900 m; the surrounding Rupununi savannas sit at 120-150 m above sea level (Montambault & Missa 2002). The Kanuku Mountains Protected Area is composed of roughly 99% forest and <1% savanna (Conservation International 2009). The Rupununi Region experiences average temperatures between 25.9°C-27.5°C, a long dry season (September to April), and a single rainy season (May-August) with the heaviest rainfall in May and an average annual rainfall between 1,500-2,000 mm per year (Conservation International 2009). During the height of rainy season, the main rivers raise by as much as 15 m flooding low-lying forests and/or inundating adjacent savannas.

The Rupununi Region is widely considered one of the most ecologically diverse areas in Guyana, supporting populations of many regionally and globally important species (Montambault & Missa 2002; Hallett et al. 2015). The Kanuku Mountains are home to 70% of the mammal diversity (158 species, Engstrom & Lim 2008) and 53% of bird diversity of Guyana (including 400+ species and 17 of 25 avian Guiana Shield endemics, Braun et al. 2007), 324 species of reptiles and amphibians (including 15% endemism, Cole et al. 2013) and one of the highest freshwater fish diversities in the world (433 species, DeSouza et al. 2012). The forests of this region represent 4% of the total forested area of Guyana and limited surveys have documented 1,577 plant species (Diaz 2002). The Rupununi is popularly known as the “Land of Giants,” as it is home to the largest individual species from a number of taxonomic groups, including the jaguar (Panthera onca), giant river otter (Pteronura brasiliensis), black caiman (Melanosuchus niger), giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla), giant Amazon water lily (Victoria amazonica), giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus), green anaconda (Eunectes murinus), goliath bird- eating spider (Theraposa blondii), arapaima (Arapaima gigas), giant Amazon river turtle (Podocnemis expansa), lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris), Amazonian giant centipede (Scolopendra gigantean), jabiru stork (Jabiru mycteria), Gladiator treefrog (Hypsiboas boans) and Harpy eagle (Harpia harpyja). The Kanuku Mountains provide critical habitat that support populations of these charismatic megafauna and megaflora, many of which are threatened elsewhere.

Human population density in the Rupununi is very low. Communities are typically small to medium in size (few containing >1,000 residents), totaling ~10,000 people spread across 46 indigenous communities (Stone 2002). The notable exception is Lethem, Region 9’s booming border town with Brazil. The region also contains a number of privately held cattle ranches, a pair of large-scale agricultural operations, and a few terrestrial mining operations. The Kanuku Mountains support the subsistence activities of 18 indigenous communities (now organized as the Kanuku Mountains Community Representative Group, KMCRG), 11 of which are made up of predominantly indigenous Makushi people, 5 of indigenous Wapichan people and 2 of mixed populations (Stone 2002). Makushi people are of Carib descent, inhabit villages on the northern and western sides of the Kanukus, and number ~7,750 in Guyana (NDS 1996). Wapichan people are of Arawak descent, inhabit villages on the southern side of the Kanukus, and number ~6,900 in Guyana (NDS 1996). Each Kanuku Mountain community ranges in size from ~120-615 people, and subsistence fishing, farming and hunting are the primary means of livelihood (Stone 2002). Kanuku Mountain communities vary in their distances to the mountains, so residents of some communities must routinely travel a long way to access its resources (Stone 2002). This study surveyed residents of six Kanuku Mountain communities (Figure 1) regarding human-wildlife conflict, resource use, attitudes towards wildlife and conservation, agricultural and livestock management practices, regional demographics, and important social and economic issues.

Figure 1: Map of the Kanuku Mountains region with village survey participants (Image courtesy of Google Earth) Sampling procedures: Data provided here was collected using survey methodology that was largely dictated by the type of data needed and logistical constraints on data collection. A ‘Toshao Survey’ (Appendix IV) was developed to provide an overview of demographics, social and economic issues, history with conservation and agricultural and livestock practices for each village. In the Rupununi, a Toshao is equivalent to a chief or mayor. He/she represents the village in political and administrative capacities and plays a central role in decision making. Toshaos are democratically elected by the people of each village through secret ballot conducted every three years (Government of Guyana 2006). Following elections, each Toshao has the right to appoint a ‘Village Council’ to assist with governance and decision making processes (Government of Guyana 2006). In this study, surveys were provided to the Toshao of each village individually with the primary investigator explaining the context and purpose of participation. Each Toshao survey was completed with the assistance of the members of each village council and returned to the primary investigator for analysis.

Village surveys were developed to gauge the impact of key activities on wildlife with questions structured so that respondents would provide their opinions of activities at the village level, rather than focusing on individual behavior. A test survey (Appendix II) was developed and given to ten local collaborators at Caiman House Research Station in Yupukari Village. Each participant was interviewed following completion of the test survey, and survey questions were altered to improve readability, comprehension, efficiency and effectiveness based on feedback. The resulting ‘Final Village Survey’ (Appendix III) was used to collect the data presented here. A ‘Survey Consent Form’ (Appendix I) was provided to each survey participant to inform participants about the purpose and application of the research they were participating in, as well as explaining their rights as participants. The initial sampling effort involved random sampling of village households in each participating village. The primary investigator utilized a random number generator to determine the direction of travel from the center of each village and would attempt to facilitate surveys at alternating households in the corresponding direction. This method showed limited success, as village residents were busy with subsistence activities during daylight hours and did not want to be disturbed during evening hours. In either case, soliciting the completion of surveys house to house proved unsuccessful, with only 27 of the 102 households surveyed facilitated in this manner.

As an alternative method, surveys were distributed at central village meetings held in each village. Central village meetings are regularly held and organized by the village council to discuss village issues, promote upcoming events/opportunities and update villagers on regional news, activities and ongoing efforts. These meetings are valued by village residents and are well attended in each village. Towards the end of the camera trap study, the primary investigator facilitated presentations of preliminary results during central village meetings in each village. Following each presentation, the primary investigator explained the purpose of collecting survey data and the potential application of this type of information, along with circulating consent forms within the group. Nuclear families were asked to complete surveys as a unit in an effort to circumvent issues related to literacy and language barriers. Families were asked to group their chairs, so that they would not be influenced by the responses of other participants. Surveys were completed independently and then submitted to an envelope placed at the front of the room. Every completed survey presented here was facilitated by the primary investigator. Responses to survey questions were anonymous (participants were only asked to provide the age of the oldest participant in the group and the village they were affiliated with) and participants were informed that they would not be questioned further regarding individual responses. Interviewer Guide: Survey questions were developed to complement a camera trap study of jaguar populations in the Kanuku Mountains (Hallett et al. 2015 Unpublished Data). Participants provided insights into issues impacting wildlife via surveys completed as a family unit. Logistical constraints related to literacy and language barriers, as well as the difficulty of singling out individual participants from a larger family group led to the process of surveying households rather than individuals. Participants were instructed to discuss questions with their nuclear families only and to reach consensus for each question that best characterized the opinions of the group. Questions were structured to ask for the view of the household on the actions of the broader community rather than individual actions. It was believed that this strategy would be more likely to result in reliable data, as it would not ask people to report their own behavior, which could have elicited fear of repercussions resulting from reporting illegal and/or socially inappropriate behavior.

Coding Instrument: Survey responses were coded for relevant information using key words in the data. Information on human-wildlife conflict, resource use, attitudes towards wildlife, research and conservation, agricultural and livestock management practices, social and economic issues and regional demographics are highlighted here, as these areas are believed to have the greatest potential to contribute to conservation and management. The full dataset is also included here as text files. Statistical analyses were not applied to the data, as they are not believed to be sufficient to characterize differences between individual villages, nor are they completely representative of this region as a whole. Although a relatively high number of samples were collected, the scope of data collection was limited to attendees of central village meetings at six villages and therefore should be combined with data collected from additional locations in the future.

Variables: Human-wildlife conflict; subsistence and commercial resource use; attitudes towards wildlife, research and conservation; knowledge of regional wildlife; agricultural and livestock management practices; regional demographics; regional social issues

References: Braun, M. J., D. W. Finch, M. B. Robbins and B. K. Schmidt. 2007. A Field Checklist of the Birds of Guyana, 2nd Ed. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Clarke, H.D., V.A. Funk, and T. Hollowell. 2001. Using checklists and collection data to investigate plant diversity: A comparative checklist of the Plant Diversity of the Iwokrama Forest. SIDA, Botanical Miscellany 21. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas. 86 pp.

Cole, C.J., C.R. Townsend, R.P. Reynolds, R.D. MacCulloch, A. Lathrop. 2013. Amphibians and reptiles of Guyana, South America: illustrated keys, annotated species accounts, and a biogeographic synopsis. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 125(4): 317- 578.

Conservation International Foundation, Inc. 2009. Delineating the boundaries of the proposed Kanuku Mountains Protected Area (KMPA) using community participatory approaches and GIS tools: Final Report. Conservation International, Georgetown, Guyana.

Crawford, F.D., Szelewski C.E. & Alvey, G.D. 1985. Geology and Exploration in the Takutu Graben of Guyana Brazil. Journal of Petroleum Geology. 8 (1): 5-36.

De Souza, L., J.W. Armbruster, D.C. Werneke. 2012. The influence of the Rupununi portal on distribution of freshwater fish in the Rupununi district, Guyana. Cybium. 36 (1): 31-43.

Diaz, W. 2002. The Vegetation Along the Lower Kwitaro River on the Eastern Edge of the Kanuku Mountain Region, Guyana. In: Montambault, J.R., O. Missa. 2002. A Biodiversity Assessment of the Eastern Kanuku Mountains, Lower Kwitaro River, Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 26. Conservation International, Washington, DC.

Engstrom, M., B. Lim. 2008. Checklist of the Mammals of Guyana. http://www.mnh.si.edu/biodiversity/bdg/guymammals.html. Accessed online on 9/22/2013.

Government of Guyana. 1996. National Development Strategy. http://www.ndsguyana.org/more.asp. Accessed online on 12/12/2014.

Government of Guyana. 2006. Amerindian Act. http://www.amerindian.gov.gy/legislation.html Accessed online on 9/23/2013.

Hammond, D.S. 2005. Tropical Forests of the Guiana Shield: Ancient Forests in a Modern World. CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Hallett, M.H., A.R. Roberts, A. Jackman, M. David, A. Holland. 2015. Population estimate of jaguars in the Kanuku Mountains, Guyana using camera traps and spatially explicit capture-recapture methodology. Unpublished Data.

Mittermeier, R.A., N. Myers, J.B. Thomsen, G.A.B. da Fonseca, O. Silvio. 1998. Biodiversity Hotspots and Major Tropical Wilderness Areas: Approaches to Setting Conservation Priorities. Conservation Biology. 12 (3): 516–520.

Montambault, J.R., O. Missa. 2002. A Biodiversity Assessment of the Eastern Kanuku Mountains, Lower Kwitaro River, Guyana. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 26. Conservation International, Washington, DC.

Stone, S. 2002. Kanuku Mountains Protected Area Process: Community Resource Evaluation Master Report. Conservation International, Georgetown, Guyana.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the Guyana Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, Protected Areas Commission and the Kanuku Mountain Community Representative Group for permission to work in the Kanuku Mountains region, as well as the leadership and residents of the villages of Yupukari, Kaicumbay, Katoka, Nappi, Parishara, Hiowa, Moco Moco, Shulinab, Quiko, Meriwau and Sand Creek for their overwhelming kindness, generosity, cooperation and support. I am also grateful to Evi Paemelaere (Panthera), Rene Edwards (Conservation International- Guyana), Raquel Thomas & Samantha James (Iwokrama), Nicholas & Fey Fredericks (South Central People’s Development Association), Duane & Justin DeFreitas (South Rupununi Conservation Society), Fernando Li, Anthony Roberts, Mike Martin, Rudolph Roberts (Caiman House Research Station), Alice Layton (Rupununi Learners), Guy Fredericks (Maipaima Lodge), Maj. Gen. Joseph Singh (Office of the President), and Diane McTurk and Salvador DeCaires (Karanambu Trust) for their support throughout our time in Guyana. Additionally, we would like to give special thanks to Tom and Juli Hallett, Tom Crist, Adam Berland, Chris Myers and John Blake for all their support and guidance along the way. We are ever grateful for funding support provided by the Phoenix Zoo, Project Dragonfly, the Miami University Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, the Graduate School at Miami University and the Novy Family Foundation. APPENDIX I: Data Collection Instrument – CONSENT FORM

Kanuku Mountains Jaguar Project Survey Participant Consent Form

Dear Participant:

I, along with the Miami University Institute for the Environment and Sustainability (IES) and project partners, would like to thank you for taking part in this survey. Your feedback will provide valuable insight into community interaction with wildlife in and around the newly formed Kanuku Mountains Protected Area (KMPA). In this survey you will be asked to provide honest feedback with regard to your opinions and previous experience with the interaction between your village and local wildlife, as well as to share any ideas that you may have for the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area (KMPA) in the future. If needed, you will be offered language assistance from the project’s local collaborator.

Your input from this focus group may be utilized directly to inform planning and management of KMPA in the future. Please feel confident to speak freely at all times during this session, as any feedback you provide will not be associated with your name so that your responses cannot be held against you personally. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the sessions at any time or decline to answer any questions

The goals of today’s meeting are the following: 1) To document your community’s experience interacting with local wildlife; 2) To document your community’s experience interacting with resources in the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area (KMPA) 3) To gather your input on the future of the KMPA; 4) To document your community’s interest in participation in activities related to science, conservation and natural resource management.

Thank you for your participation. I am grateful for your support and hope that this will be an interesting experience for you.

Sincerely, Matt Hallett, Principal Investigator, Miami University Institute for the Environment and Sustainability

The purpose of this consent form is to inform you about the survey process and your rights. Your input may be used by project partners to inform research and management in the KMPA, but your personal information will not be disseminated. Survey participants will not be photographed or videoed at any time. Every effort will be made to ensure that survey responses are not associated with individual identities. In accordance with Miami University’s policies, the project research plan, including the above described events, has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board in Miami University’s Office for the Advancement of Research and Scholarship. Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the sessions at any time or decline to answer any questions. You will not be asked to do anything that exposes you to risks beyond those of everyday life.

If you have further questions about the focus group or this planning session, please contact Principal Investigator, Matt Hallett, at +1 (708) 710-7054 [email protected]. If you have questions about this research project, please contact the Project Advisor, Tom Crist, at +1 (513) 529-6187 or [email protected] OR In-country Advisor Evi Paemelaere at [email protected] or via radio. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please call the Office of Advancement of Research and Scholarship at +1 (513) 529-3600 or email: [email protected].

APPENDIX II: Data Collection Instrument – TEST SURVEY

VILLAGE:______AGE:______

1) What benefits does the village hope to see from the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area?

2) Is there an interest in the village in developing eco-tourism in the Kanukus?

3) Is there an interest in the village in learning about and conducting research?

4) Is the village currently or has it in the past participated in natural resource management planning? What about training courses in research/management/tourism?

5) Do people in the village use land/waters in the Kanukus? For what purpose?

6) Please list the first ten animal species that you can think of living around your village?

7) Identify the following animals (name in both English and Makushi/), determine whether or not it exists around your village and characterize each as either ‘No Problem’, ‘Small Problem’, or ‘Big Problem’ for your community: Jaguar Brazilian Tapir Giant anteater Capybara Ocelot Brocket Deer Tamandua Paca Margay White-tailed deer Giant Armadillo Agouti Oncilla White-lipped peccary Nine-banded armadillo Tayra Puma Collared peccary Long-nosed armadillo Bush dog Jaguarundi Crab-eating fox Crab-eating raccoon Coati

(Pictures of each species to be included in final survey, participants will identify by images)

8) Which of the species listed above are hunted for food in the village? Please characterize each food species as ‘Never’, ‘Sometimes’ or ‘Often’ in terms of how often your community utilizes these species for food. Which species is/are the most common?

9) How much (what percentage) of food in the village comes from wild (game) meat?

10) How do people in the village feel about jaguars? Do people like having them around? Are there positive/negative attitudes towards other species?

11) Has anyone in the village had conflict with jaguars? How often? In the last month? 6 months? Year? Is there conflict with other species? Which? How Often?

12) What is usually lost in conflict with jaguars? What is the response in the village? How do people generally feel about other species that cause conflict? What is the result?

APPENDIX III: Data Collection Instrument – VILLAGE SURVEY

VILLAGE:______AGE:______

1) How often does your family visit the Kanukus? (CIRCLE ONE)

A. WEEKLY B. MONTHLY C. YEARLY D. RARELY E. NEVER

2) What do people in your village think about the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area? (CIRCLE ONE)

A. LIKE IT B. DON’T LIKE IT C. IT’S JUS DEH

2a) Why do you think people like, don’t like or don’t care about the KMPA?

3) Is your village doing eco-tourism? YES NO (CIRCLE ONE)

3a) How do people think eco-tourism has impacted your village?

A. VERY POSITIVE B. MOSTLY POSITIVE C. MOSTLY NEGATIVE D. COMPLETELY NEGATIVE

4) In what areas would people in your village like to see more training (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

A. TOURISM B. RESEARCH C. BUSINESS D. AGRICULTURE E. RESOURCE MANGEMENT

4a) Any others? ______

5) In what areas would people in your village like to see more research? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

A. LARGE CATS B. GAME ANIMALS C. HERPS D. BIRDS E. FISH F. INSECTS

G. ENDANGERED SPECIES H. MEDICINAL PLANTS I. HISTORY K. CULTURE

5a) Any others? ______

6) Do people in the village use land/waters in the Kanukus? For what purpose?

6) How many people in your village use resources from the Kanuku Mountains? (CIRCLE ONE)

A. ONLY A FEW B. LESS THAN HALF C. ABOUT HALF D. MORE THAN HALF E. ALL

7) What animal damages crops at village farms? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

A. DEER B. TAPIR C. WILD HOG D. ACOURI

E. LABBA F. ARMADILLO G. BIRDS H. MONKEYS

8) Which species is eaten often in your village? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

A. DEER B. TAPIR C. WILD HOG D. ACOURI

E. LABBA F. ARMADILLO G. BLACK CURASSOW

9) How often do people in your village eat wild meat? (CIRCLE ONE)

A. EVERY DAY B. A FEW TIMES/WEEK C. A FEW TIMES/MONTH D. A FEW TIMES/YEAR

9) When was the last time that you saw the large type of wild hog around your village? (CIRCLE ONE)

A. THIS MONTH B. SOMETIME THIS YEAR C. SOMETIME IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO

D. IN THE LAST 2-3 YEARS E. IN THE LAST 4-5 YEARS F. IT’S BEEN MORE THAN 5 YRS.

9a) If you have not seen the large wild hog in a while, what do you think happened to them?

10) Which animals causes problems for livestock around your village? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

A. TIGER B. DEER TIGER C. TIGER CAT D. YOWARIE E. FOX F. CAIMAN

11) How do people in your village feel about tigers (jaguars)? (CIRCLE ONE)

A. LIKE THEM B. DON’T LIKE THEM C. THEY JUS DEH

12) How often do tigers (jaguars) cause problems for livestock in your village? (CIRCLE ONE)

A. EVERY DAY B. A FEW TIMES/WEEK C. A FEW TIMES/MONTH D. A FEW TIMES/YEAR

13) Which animal is usually killed by tigers (jaguars)? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)?

A. COWS B. PIGS C. SHEEP D. DOGS E. HORSES F. CHICKENS

14) How do people in our village know if it is the tiger (jaguar) that was killing livestock? (CIRLCE ONE)

A. SEEING TRACKS/SIGNS NEAR KILL B. SEEING THE ANIMAL FEEDING C. JUST ASSUME

15) What do people in your village usually do if they think a tiger (jaguar) has been killing livestock? (CIRCLE ALL THE APPLY)

A. IGNORE IT B. MOVE ANIMALS INTO PENS/CORRALS C. TRY TO FIND TIGER AND KILL IT

APPENDIX IV: Data Collection Instrument – TOSHAO SURVEY

NAME OF VILLAGE______

NAME OF SATELLITE VILLAGES______

Village Population Size______

Main Village Ethnic Group______

Other Ethnic Groups Residing in Village______

Top Issues Facing Village Residents: 1) ______

2) ______

3) ______

Top Needs of the Village: 1) ______

2) ______

3) ______

Tourism lodge in Village? YES / NO

Village Internet Access? YES / NO

Estimated Number of Households with farms______

Estimated number of Households with farms in the Kanuku Mountains______

Main crops grown in village farms______

______

Estimated Amount of Villager Income Resulting from Farming______

Estimated Loss of Crops from Conflict with Animals______

Estimated Number of Households keeping livestock______

Estimated Amount of Villager Income Resulting from keeping Livestock______

______

Estimated Number of Cattle______

Estimated Number of Pigs______

Estimated Number of Sheep______

Estimated Number of Horses______

Estimated Number of Chickens______

Estimated Number of Dogs______

Estimated Amount of Livestock Lost to predators per Year______

Estimated Economic Loss per Livestock Animal______

Estimated Village Benefit from Tourism/Conservation______

Estimated Number of Jaguars Killed by Villagers per Year______

Estimated Number of People Killed/Injured by Jaguars per Year______

Subsistence Level Extractive Activities Carried on by Villagers______

______

Commercial Level Extractive Activities Carried on by Villagers______

______

Benefits Sought by Villager from Protected Area Created in Kanuku Mountains______

______DATA SUMMARY Table 1: Total number of households surveyed by village

Village # of surveys NAPPI 14 YUPUKARI 24 SAND CREEK 15 SHULINAB 20 KATOKA 13 MOCO MOCO 16 TOTAL 102

Table 2: Population and demographic information (by village, provided by Toshaos)

Village Name Satellite Villages Pop. Size Main ethnicity Other ethnic Nappi Parishara, Hiowa 1,200+ Makushi Wapichan, Wai-Wai, Akawio, Patamona Yupukari Quatatta, Kaicumbay, Fly Hill 732 Makushi Wapichan, East Indian Sand Creek N/A 900 Wapichan Afro-Guyanese, East Indian, Makushi Shulinab Meriwau, Quiko 675 Makushi Wapichan, Arawak, Mixed Katoka Simoni 632 Makushi Wapichan Moco Moco N/A 609 Makushi Afro-Guyanese, East Indian, Wapichan, Arawak, Mixed

Table 3: Most important issues facing communities (as identified by village Toshaos)

Village Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Request for land extension not Bad roads (limit transport of produce and Nappi Lack of employment opportunities granted guests) Youth leaving village to pursue opportunities Yupukari Lack of employment opportunities Land extension not granted in town/Brazil Lack of experience/expertise within No access to technology and communication Sand Creek Lack of employment opportunities village leadership (internet/cell phone) Security of individual property Lack of job opportunities for youths within Shulinab Lack of proper water system (farms/livestock) from animals the community No access to internet or Katoka Loss of livestock to predators communication technology Physical access - no/bad roads in rainy season Lack of opportunities for regular Influence of national politics on Youth leaving to seek opportunities in Moco Moco employment village operation town/mines/Brazil

Table 4: Top needs of communities (per village, as identified by Toshaos)

Village Need 1 Need 2 Need 3 Internet? Cell phone? Marketing for eco-tourism Nappi Income generating activities lodge Internet access NO YES Improvements for education - Support for tourism business teacher training, school Yupukari (marketing/management) resources Support in acquiring land title YES NO Access to farming equipment Training for village leaders in Sand Creek (heavy machinery) Internet access management, administration NO NO Chain link fencing for individual Access to support for job NO - One Shulinab Proper village water system farms creation within the village YES place, Quiko NO - Used Katoka Internet/cell phone access Better roads to access Lethem Fencing to from CI NO Funding available not sufficient to Opportunities for regular Support for efforts in Moco Moco support village initiatives employment commercial scale agriculture NO YES Table 5: Quantity of livestock and loss per village

# of Houses Village w/ # of Name Livestock Cattle # of Pigs # of Sheep # of Horses # of Chickens # of Dogs Loss of Livestock to Predators Nappi 30 1300 100 100 40 1000 100 ~25% of total stock Yupukari 10 150 10 to 15 50 20 320 80 ~5 or less/year - sometimes none Sand Creek 60 1500 400 1200 200 500 100 ~6 per month Shulinab 75-90 700 150 100 150 300 150 ~8 per year Katoka 10 300 10 24 20 200+ 100 ~4-5 per year Moco Moco 15 160 20 30 15 800 150 ~15% of total stock

Table 6: How often does your family go to the Kanuku Mountains?

Weekly Monthly Yearly Rarely TOTAL NAPPI 4 2 5 10 21 YUPUKARI 0 8 7 9 24 SAND CREEK 3 6 5 1 15 SHULINAB 5 6 7 5 23 KATOKA 4 2 3 7 16 MOCO MOCO 9 5 4 2 20 TOTAL 25 29 31 34 119

Table 7: What do people in your village think of the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area (KMPA)?

Like it Don't Like It Neither Like or Dislike TOTAL NAPPI 5 3 6 14 YUPUKARI 18 3 1 22 SAND CREEK 11 3 1 15 SHULINAB 13 5 3 21 KATOKA 11 0 2 13 MOCO MOCO 15 0 1 16 TOTAL 73 14 14 101

Table 8: Benefits sought from Kanuku Mountains Protected Area (per village, as identified by Toshoas)

Village Benefits Sought from Protected Area Nappi Employment opportunities, promotion of tourism Tourism destination, secure source of non-timber subsistence resources, small scale mining opportunities, Yupukari protect house materials you can't find in savanna Sand Creek Source of income both paid directly to communities and through the development of tourism Shulinab Assistance with gaining land title, research, tourism and more consultation Katoka Create more job opportunities (tourism, research, enforcement) Employment (rangers, guides, etc.), research and opportunities for learning, training opportunities, improved Moco Moco resource management

Table 9: Does your village have an eco-tourism business? If so, how do people in your village view the impact of this business?

Involved? Very positive Mostly Positive Completely negative TOTAL NAPPI YES 6 4 0 10 YUPUKARI YES 21 2 1 24 SAND CREEK NO N/A N/A N/A N/A SHULINAB YES - LIMITED 11 2 0 13 KATOKA YES - LIMITED 11 2 1 14 MOCO MOCO YES 14 2 0 16 TOTAL N/A 63 12 2 77

Table 10: Financial benefits attributed to eco-tourism (per village, estimated by Toshaos)

Village Village benefit from tourism Nappi ~10% of total village income Yupukari ~$1000 USD+/year direct to village, much more to individual guides ($3,000 GYD/ day) Sand Creek N/A Shulinab ~$3,000 GYD per visitor to various sites near Shulinab Katoka $3,000 GYD per visitor to Mapari (~50 visitors per year) Moco Moco ~$1,000 GYD to village per guest + payment to guides

Table 11: In what areas would your village like to see more training?

Tourism Research Business Agriculture Resource Management TOTAL NAPPI 10 7 3 5 11 36 YUPUKARI 17 16 8 10 20 71 SAND CREEK 8 6 3 4 7 28 SHULINAB 13 11 7 6 14 51 KATOKA 12 7 1 1 7 28 MOCO MOCO 8 12 2 6 5 33 TOTAL 68 59 24 32 64 247

Table 12: In what areas would your village like to see more research?

Large cats Game animals Herps Birds Fish Insects NAPPI 0 11 0 7 12 6 YUPUKARI 11 7 7 8 5 3 SAND CREEK 2 6 1 6 3 1 SHULINAB 4 7 3 7 3 1 KATOKA 6 6 3 7 3 2 MOCO MOCO 8 5 5 8 3 6 TOTAL 31 42 19 43 29 19

Endangered Species Forestry Medicinal Plants History Culture TOTAL NAPPI 5 6 4 4 2 57 YUPUKARI 8 8 16 5 13 91 SAND CREEK 4 6 10 1 5 45 SHULINAB 7 6 13 2 7 60 KATOKA 6 7 6 3 1 50 MOCO MOCO 10 3 7 2 2 59 TOTAL 40 36 56 17 30 362

Table 13: What do people in your village use the Kanuku Mountains for?

Farming Fishing Hunting Craft Materials House Materials Medicinal Plants NAPPI 5 10 11 10 7 6 YUPUKARI 21 14 15 18 16 7 SAND CREEK 13 4 11 6 10 7 SHULINAB 18 11 17 13 14 13 KATOKA 10 6 5 5 5 2 MOCO MOCO 13 5 15 8 16 8 TOTAL 80 50 74 60 68 43

Tourism Small-scale Mining Canoes/paddles Holiday/Enjoyment TOTAL NAPPI 2 5 2 2 60 YUPUKARI 9 3 7 4 114 SAND CREEK 2 3 4 1 61 SHULINAB 12 4 2 5 109 KATOKA 10 0 2 1 46 MOCO MOCO 12 9 0 4 90 TOTAL 47 24 17 17 480

Table 14: Subsistence and commercial activities conducted in the Kanuku Mountains (per village, identified by Toshaos)

Village Subsistence activities Commercial activities Nappi Hunting, fishing, farming, collection of house/craft materials Farming, small scale mining Farming, fishing, hunting, egg harvest, collection of house/craft Yupukari materials Some fishing, small scale mining, some lumbering Hunting, fishing, farming, egg (turtle) harvest, collection of Some dry season logging, cattle rearing, farming, Sand Creek house/craft materials small scale mining

Shulinab Hunting, fishing, farming, collection of house/craft materials Bird trapping, cattle rearing Katoka Hunting, fishing, farming, collection of house/craft materials Fishing, small scale mining, small scale lumbering Moco Moco Hunting, fishing, farming, collection of house/craft materials Agriculture, (former) hydro project, some timber Table 15: How many people in your village use the resources of the Kanuku Mountains?

Only a few Less than half About half More than half All TOTAL NAPPI 0 4 0 2 1 7 YUPUKARI 10 5 2 2 5 24 SAND CREEK 1 0 1 3 10 15 SHULINAB 1 1 3 7 9 21 KATOKA 7 0 2 2 2 13 MOCO MOCO 3 0 2 2 9 16 TOTAL 22 10 10 18 36 96

Table 16: Rotational agriculture, income from farming and crop loss to wildlife (per village, as estimated by Toshaos)

# of Houses w/ # of Farms in Crop Loss from Village farms the Kanukus Main Crops Produced Farming Income wildlife Cassava, bananas, eddoes, citrus, Nappi ~115 ~20+ legumes 50% of crops cultivated are sold ~5% Additional cassava products (farine, Yupukari ~75 ~15 Cassava, yams, banana, citrus kari) sold for village use $4k/can ~15% Cassava, bananas, eddoe, yam, A couple thousand GYD/month per ~10-15% average but Sand Creek ~100 ~12 peppers, greens (leafy and legumes) family sometimes can be all Cassava, bananas, pumpkin, corn, ~25% of each farming Shulinab ~85 ~15 peas, watermelon No answer plot Katoka ~95 ~8 Cassava, banana, eddo, sugar cane Excess farine sold for profit ~10% Banana, cassava, rice, greens/beans, Moco Moco ~55 ~10 plantain, yams, peanuts No answer ~5%

Table 17: What species cause damage to crops at village farms?

Deer Tapir Peccary Agouti Paca Armadillo Birds Monkeys TOTAL NAPPI 8 0 13 7 0 0 2 1 31 YUPUKARI 5 16 17 15 11 0 3 0 67 SAND CREEK 11 3 12 12 3 2 5 0 48 SHULINAB 17 8 11 19 7 0 5 0 67 KATOKA 5 8 5 10 6 2 0 1 37 MOCO MOCO 0 1 3 9 2 1 3 2 21 TOTAL 46 36 61 72 29 5 18 4 271

Table 18: Which species is eaten most often in your village?

Deer Tapir Peccary Agouti Paca Armadillo Black Curassow TOTAL NAPPI 7 11 8 4 0 1 0 31 YUPUKARI 24 4 17 18 22 19 3 107 SAND CREEK 15 5 6 9 10 4 3 52 SHULINAB 20 11 10 17 15 14 7 94 KATOKA 6 4 4 5 12 5 0 36 MOCO MOCO 10 2 7 14 13 12 1 59 TOTAL 82 37 52 67 72 55 14 379

Table 19: How often do people in your village eat wild game?

Every day Few times/week Few times/month Few times/year TOTAL NAPPI 0 7 4 0 11 YUPUKARI 0 0 11 13 24 SAND CREEK 1 9 7 2 19 SHULINAB 3 9 10 3 25 KATOKA 0 2 5 7 14 MOCO MOCO 1 9 4 1 15 TOTAL 5 36 41 26 108

Table 20: When was the last time that people have seen white-lipped peccaries in your village?

This month Sometime this year Last year/two 2-3 years 4-5 years More than 5 years TOTAL NAPPI 2 3 0 1 13 0 19 YUPUKARI 0 4 4 0 1 1 10 SAND CREEK 1 5 4 4 0 3 17 SHULINAB 1 1 3 2 3 9 19 KATOKA 2 3 6 0 0 2 13 MOCO MOCO 0 1 3 3 4 5 16 TOTAL 6 17 20 10 21 20 94

Table 21: Which species causes the most conflict with livestock and people in your village?

Jaguar Puma Ocelot Common Opossum Crab-eating Fox Black Caiman TOTAL NAPPI 5 3 2 0 4 0 14 YUPUKARI 19 10 7 8 15 8 67 SAND CREEK 15 8 3 2 6 1 35 SHULINAB 19 12 3 1 4 1 40 KATOKA 9 2 3 1 8 1 24 MOCO MOCO 15 3 0 0 0 0 18 TOTAL 82 38 18 12 37 11 198

Table 22: How do people in your village feel about jaguars?

Like them Don't like them Neither like or dislike TOTAL NAPPI 3 5 4 12 YUPUKARI 8 18 7 33 SAND CREEK 2 14 1 17 SHULINAB 3 16 3 22 KATOKA 5 7 5 17 MOCO MOCO 0 8 5 13 TOTAL 21 68 25 114

Table 23: How often do jaguars cause conflict in your village?

Every day Few times/week Few times/month Few times/year TOTAL NAPPI 0 0 3 11 11 YUPUKARI 0 0 2 22 24 SAND CREEK 0 5 9 5 19 SHULINAB 0 6 9 9 24 KATOKA 0 2 5 8 15 MOCO MOCO 0 3 9 3 15 TOTAL 0 16 37 58 74

Table 24: Livestock loss attributed to depredation by jaguars (as estimated by Toshaos)

Loss of Livestock to People Village Predators Economic loss/animal Jaguars killed/year killed/injured Nappi ~25% of total stock No answer ~3 per year (includes puma) None Yupukari ~4-5 per year ~$200-300 GYD/pound of beef Generally 0, but occasionally 1 - more puma None ~5 or less/year, sometimes ~$25-30k GYD per average sized Sand Creek none animal ~2 per year (sometimes more, 3 this year) None Shulinab ~6 per month ~$1.5 million GYD/year ~1 per year (sometimes more, sometimes none) None Katoka ~8 per year ~$150k+/year Generally 0, People don't really kill them None Loss of subsistence food, some Moco Moco ~15% of total stock mutton that would be sold Generally 0, People don't really kill them None

Table 25: What species is depredated by large carnivores most often in your village?

Cows Pigs Sheep Dogs Horses Chickens TOTAL NAPPI 0 0 14 10 0 2 26 YUPUKARI 19 11 2 3 9 1 45 SAND CREEK 15 8 1 2 7 0 33 SHULINAB 20 19 2 2 2 0 45 KATOKA 12 2 2 1 6 0 23 MOCO MOCO 10 9 11 14 10 0 54 TOTAL 76 49 32 32 34 3 226

Table 26: How do people identify the cause of livestock deaths?

From tracks/trails Seeing the animal Just assume it’s a jaguar TOTAL NAPPI 5 6 7 18 YUPUKARI 6 9 7 22 SAND CREEK 6 7 5 18 SHULINAB 16 8 3 27 KATOKA 9 2 5 16 MOCO MOCO 12 7 1 20 TOTAL 54 39 28 121

Table 27: How do people in your village react to a perceived depredation event by large predators?

Ignore it Move livestock to pens Try to kill problem animal TOTAL NAPPI 0 5 4 9 YUPUKARI 10 4 12 26 SAND CREEK 2 4 11 17 SHULINAB 3 3 17 23 KATOKA 6 8 3 17 MOCO MOCO 7 3 7 17 TOTAL 28 27 54 109