Ethnoecology, Resource Use, Conservation And Development In A Wapishana Community In the South Rupununi, Guyana Thesis submitted for the degree of Ph.D. in Environmental Anthropology by Thomas B. Henfrey Department of Anthropology and Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent at Canterbury March 2002 ABSTRACT Anthropological work in human ecology and ethnobiology supports the greater involvement of indigenous and other non-western peoples in development and conservation. However, there is still a shortage of data that can form the basis of practical action in these respects. A case study of Guyana confirms this, showing that debate over indigenous involvement in national development is largely rhetorical. Field research on Wapishana ethnoecology and cultural ecology was undertaken in Guyana over twenty-two months in 1997-1998 and 1999-2000. Wapishana people in Guyana collectively occupy a variety of habitat types within the forest-savannah ecotone, mostly maintaining subsistence based lifestyles which entail high levels of dependence on local biodiversity and ecological processes. There is evidence for regulation of human exploitation of the natural environment via symbolically encoded restrictions on behaviour. Wapishana hunters collectively demonstrated a broad and detailed knowledge of the ecology of several animal species and other aspects of the local ecology. Comparison of ethnoecological data with the ecological literature showed them to be largely compatible and correspond closely in detail. Limitations of the ethnoecological data set included incomplete lists of food species for particular animals, and a shortage of useful information in subject areas such as population dynamics and social behaviour. Ethnoecology thus can complement, but not replace, conventional scientific approaches to the study of ecology. Ethnoecology has current applications in subsistence, can generate hypotheses concerning human effects on local ecology relevant to management planning and amenable to testing by scientific methods, and also incorporates practical skills that can be applied to the collection of biological data. Wapishana thus have an interest in, and possess a body of skills and knowledge that may be applied to, biological conservation. Ethnoecology provides a methodology whereby equitable and mutually beneficial relationships may be formed between indigenous groups and the scientific community. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been completed without the co-operation, help and support of a great many people, to each one of whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. I am not able to name individually everyone who has fed, sheltered, advised or otherwise assisted me over the past few years, and I hope that any ommissions from the following list will be forgiven. Thanks go in the first instance to the people of Maruranau, who agreed to host and participate in the study and who, between them, have provided the majority of the field information upon which this dissertation is based. In particular, I would like to mention Lawrence David, Laura David, Moses David, Felix Perry, Theo Isaacs, Martin Pablo, Amy Pablo, Claudette Pablo, Cateri Pablo, Leo Gomes, Celine Gomes, Laura Gomes, Gina Gomes, Hilda O'Connell, Roy O'Connell, Vybert George, Juliet George, Rex Perry, Muriel Perry, Stanley O'Connell, Nita O'Connell, Lloyd Ritchie, Petronella O'Connell, Gerald O'Connell, Olaf Claude, Josephine Claude, Alma Shook, Mike Shook, Ursula Gomes, Patrick Gomes, Andrea Gomes, Robert McCracken, Daniel Aguilar, Mureen Aguilar, Bernard Bernard, Ivor Paulin, Trevor George, Noel David, Yvonne David, Michael Thomas, Clement Thomas, Ignace Thomas, Cleonis Edward, Bennet James, Zelita James, Claudia Joseph, Peter Lanis, Joe Marco, Mary Marco, Tyrone Marco, Christian Louis, Nigel Marco, Valentine Pablo, Thomas O'Connell, Lucita O'Connell, Godfrey Sandy, Odo Simon, Edna Simon, Alexis Mandokin, Oscar David, Roderick Perry, Dennis Marcello, Imelda Marcello, Hercules Pablo, Lionel Simon, Elenore Simon, Lionel Steven, Leo Smithette, Victor Edward, Lyndon Claude, Hilary Thomas and Sylvan Edward. Many people elsewhere in the Rupununi provided invaluable assistance, especially Justin de Freitas, Cheryl, Duane de Freitas, Sandy de Freitas, Leroy Ignacio, Andy, Pip, Richard Wilson, Brown Fredericks and family, Louise Ramadan, Dorothy Farrier, Eugene Andrew, Fred Atkinson, Shirley Melville, Peter McClachlan, Jem McChlaclan, Vincent Henry, Sana Ranatunga and Valentine Wilson. Thanks goes to the Government of Guyana for providing permission to remain in the country and conduct research. Staff in many government departments gave me valuable assistance, including Denise Fraser and Vimla Roopchand of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Vybert de Souza, Lloyd Andrew and George Simon at the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs. Many University of Guyana staff also went out of their way to help me, including Desrey Fox, Janette Forte, Lorraine Pierre, Patrick Williams, and John Caesar. Invaluable personal assistance was extended by iii Terence Fox Junior, Cathy Thomson, Richard Phipps-Brown, Lee Scholey, Ivelaw King and Russell Tuncastle. In Orealla, Joe Peneux, Janet and Naomi Hendricks, Stanley and Annie Herman, and Alan Henry all assisted greatly in various ways. Thanks also to Graham Watkins, Macsood Hussein and Shyam Nokta, now all at Iwokrama, and Bernard DeSouza and Neville Waldron of Conservation International Guyana. Outside Guyana, I benefitted from assistance from many colleagues at the University of Kent. Thank you to Rajindra Puri for supervisory assistance in the writing-up stage, and Laura Rival for supervising earlier stages. Valuable assistance was also provided by Steve Wilson, Roy Ellen, Simon Platten, Helen Newing, Holly Harris, Jan Horn, Joan England, Shelley Roffey, Nicola Kerry, Christine Eagle, Rick Bodmer, Richard Griffiths, Nick Ryan, Mike Fisher and David Zeitlyn. Thank you to my father, Colin Henfrey, who first introduced me to Guyana and helped to direct my academic interests towards the subject matter of this work, and to my brothers Steve and Neil. I am also fortunate to have had the support of a great number of kind and dear friends, of whom I would particularly like to thank Bill Hodgson, Lorraine White, Lee Taylor, Graham Rosenburg, Adam O'Brien, Becky Tunstall, Mark Campbell, Rob Carter, Caroline Bennett, Matthew Falk, Zoe Falk, Chris Stewart, Graham Hemson, Claire McCormack, Kevin Smith, Jake Elster, Steve McGuiness, Lizzie McGuiness, Ben East, Hugh Arnold, Sara Martin Pérez, Concepion Pérez Alonso, Cesar Martin Adánez, Matt Osborn, Scott McLean, Christie Odhams, Colin Awen, Molara Awen, Finn Awen, Nathan, Dave Tench, Victoria Crumblehume, Sarah Gress, Simon Longmoor, Samir Okasha and Emma Caddy. Research was conducted as part of the APFT research programme, funded by EC DG VIII. Financial support was provided by an APFT studentship, a USS pension and a grant from the Allcorn-Box Memorial Fund. iv CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................. II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................ III CONTENTS..............................................................................................V LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................VII LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................VII CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS ..........................................................................................1 1.2 THESIS STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................1 1.3 THE WAPISHANA PEOPLE ................................................................................................... 17 1.4 METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 19 1.5 OVERVIEW OF THESIS........................................................................................................ 22 CHAPTER 2: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND DEVELOPMENT IN GUYANA .....................23 2.1 INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS IN GUYANA ................................................................................. 23 2.2 AMERINDIAN RELATIONS WITH WIDER GUYANESE SOCIETY ..................................................... 25 2.3 AMERINDIAN LAND RIGHTS AND LAND SECURITY IN GUYANA. ................................................... 28 2.4 AMERINDIAN PEOPLE AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE INTERIOR OF GUYANA: THE IMPACTS OF INDUSTRIAL LOGGING AND MINING. ............................................................................................................ 30 2.5 OTHER USES OF THE FOREST: COMMERCIAL EXTRACTION OF NON-TIMBER FOREST PRODUCTS OF PLANT AND ANIMAL ORIGIN................................................................................................................ 38 2.6 CONSERVATION INTEREST IN GUYANA .................................................................................. 47 2.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 52 CHAPTER 3: THE RUPUNUNI REGION AND THE WAPISHANA PEOPLE ......................54 3.1 ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMICS IN THE RUPUNUNI ................................................................