1. INTRODUCTION - Tropenbos International

1. Introduction

12

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF NTFPS IN FOREST MANAGEMENT

Tropical rainforests are not only the most biodiverse ecosystems known on earth,they also play a vital role in stabilising the world climate, fixing carbon dioxide, andprotecting against soil erosion (Jacobs, 1981; Prance and Lovejoy, 1985). Yet mosteconomic appraisals of tropical forests have focused exclusively on timber resourcesor the possible creation of agricultural land (Peters et al., 1989a). Meanwhile,thousands of plant and animal species in tropical regions have been providing avariety of non-timber products that are used by billions of people all over the world(Nepstad and Schwartzman, 1992; Balick and Mendelsohn, 1992; Hall and Bawa1993). Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are defined here as all wild plant andanimal products harvested from the forest or other natural and man-made vegetationtypes, except for industrial timber (Ros-Tonen et al., 1995).

The importance of NTFPs tends to be underestimated, because the majority are nottraded through established market channels and do not appear in national economicstatistics (de Beer and McDermott, 1996). As a result, NTFPs often remain beyondthe vision of policy makers and development planners (Ros-Tonen et al., 1995). Butfor the subsistence economy of forest-dwelling people, NTFPs offer a great sourceof food, shelter, household equipment, forage, and medicine. Furthermore,commercial exploitation of NTFPs offers cash income for the (mostly indigenous)people that are engaged in their extraction, processing, and/or trading. The labour-intensive, capital-extensive aspect of NTFP harvesting is often well-suited to localconditions in many tropical countries (Plotkin and Famolare, 1992). NTFPextraction has also been mentioned as a viable alternative to commercial logging andslash-and-burn agriculture (Peters et al., 1989a; LaFrankie, 1994). Several scientistshave stressed that NTFPs can be harvested without much destruction of the forest,while maintaining essential environmental functions and preserving biologicaldiversity (Anderson, 1990; Plotkin and Famolare, 1992; Richards, 1993). It hasoften been stated that marketing of NTFPs could add substantial economic value tothe forest and thus provide economic incentives for conservation and sustainableresource management (Vasquez and Gentry, 1989; FAO, 1991; Clay, 1992; Hall andBawa, 1993; Broekhoven, 1996). In other words, the sustainable expansion ofcommercial NTFP extraction is generally viewed as a promising conservationstrategy (Duke, 1992; Richards, 1993; Ros-Tonen et al., 1995).

However, uncontrolled extraction or low prices for NTFPs may causeoverharvesting, forest degradation, and even local depletion of species (Nepstad andSchwartzman, 1992; Richards, 1993; Boot, 1997). As a result, extractors may shiftagain to less-sustainable land uses like logging or cattle ranging. Conservation andlong-term utilisation of forest products require that they be harvested on anecologically sustainable basis. The extraction of NTFPs is considered sustainable ifit has no long-term deleterious effect on the regeneration of the harvestedpopulation, and when the yield remains more or less constant throughout the years

Non-Timber Forest Products of the North-West District of Guyana Part I

13

(Strudwick, 1990; Hall and Bawa, 1993; Pollak et al., 1995). The ecological impactof NTFP extraction, however, depends on the nature of the harvested product. Itmakes a difference if entire individuals are harvested or only parts (e.g., leaves,fruits, or eggs). Extraction of the latter might not kill the species, but could slowdown its growth or reproduction. The different effects of harvesting on individualspecies affect the size and structure of the population, which ultimately determinesthe availability of the resource (Boot, 1997). The question remains whether naturalpopulations are adequate to provide such a regular harvest (LaFrankie, 1994).

To be economically successful, a NTFP must have a lasting market appeal.Harvesters should receive a good price for the product in order to avoid destructiveextraction techniques or abandoning the product altogether (Pollak et al., 1995).Therefore, it is necessary to assign an economic value to NTFP-producing forests, toweigh their advantages against alternative land uses (McNeely, 1988; Peters et al.,1989a; Godoy and Lubowski, 1992). Middlemen must be guaranteed a consistentsupply of the product and therefore, the harvest should also be ecologicallysustainable (Pollak et al., 1995). But successful NTFP extraction should not onlycontribute to the conservation of forests and stimulate the economic development ofthe country, it should also offer an increased income to local forest-dwelling people(de Beer and McDermott, 1996). Commercial extraction of NTFPs depends for agreat deal on the knowledge and skills of local people, as well as on theirpossibilities and willingness to engage in the collection and trade of NTFPs (Ros-Tonen et al., 1995). Posey (1992) and Hall and Bawa (1993) stressed that ruralcommunities, which have been relying on a variety of plant and animal species fortheir livelihoods, should have a direct stake and interest in the sustainable extractionand conservation of tropical biodiversity.

The usefulness of forests as confirmed by indigenous peoples who rely on them, isoften cited as a reason for rain forest conservation (Myers, 1982; Prance et al., 1987;Phillips, 1996). However, with the continuing destruction of tropical forests and theconsequent erosion of indigenous, forest-dependent cultures, much of the traditionalknowledge about the natural environment is being lost (Plotkin and Famolare,1992). In some areas, the knowledge of useful plants is disappearing even morerapidly than the plant species themselves (Arvigo and Balick, 1993; Slikkerveer,1999). If no efforts are made to conserve this biological and cultural diversity, apotential source of new medicines for human diseases, food crops for internationaltrade, and indigenous management systems will disappear together with the forestand its people. A thorough knowledge of the economic potential of the diverse forestproducts and a better understanding of how mankind can profit from their existenceis a prerequisite for forest conservation (Posey, 1983; Milliken et al., 1992).Ethnobotany, defined by Schultes (1992: 7) as ‘the complete registration of the usesand concepts about plant life in primitive societies’, can play a key role in therevitalisation and revaluation of indigenous knowledge (Martin, 1995; Posey, 1999).Although the western science is generally aware of the urgency of ethnobotanicalconservation, the pace of research into indigenous plant uses and vegetationmanagement processes that could offer alternatives to the destruction is dwarfed bythe accelerating rates of cultural and biological extinction (Phillips and Gentry,1993).

1. Introduction

14

1.2 TROPENBOS RESEARCH STRATEGY ON NTFPS

With its international programme for multidisciplinary research, training, andinformation, the Tropenbos Foundation aims to contribute to the conservation andwise use of tropical forests. From this objective, it shares the interest with manyorganisations in promoting the extraction of non-timber forest products as a strategyfor conservation and sustainable use of tropical forest. By means of scientificresearch in various tropical countries, Tropenbos aims to develop an exploitationsystem for NTFPs which is ecologically sound, economically viable, and sociallyacceptable (Ros-Tonen et al., 1995). Within the framework of the Tropenbosprogramme, research programmes on indigenous forest use and NTFPs were carriedout in Cameroon (van Dijk, 1999), Ivory Coast (Bonnéhin, 2000), Colombia (vander Hammen, 1992; Duivenvoorden et al., 1999), Indonesia (van Valkenburg, 1997),and Guyana (this study; Reinders, 1996; Forte, 1997; Sullivan, 1999).

In the second phase of the Tropenbos-Guyana Programme, various research projectswere started to obtain more insight in the economy, ecology and floristic diversity ofNTFPs, as well as the social and cultural factors influencing their trade and use (vanAndel and Reinders, 1999). The present PhD research on the use of NTFPs in theNorth-West District of Guyana was started in June 1995. This project was carriedout by the Utrecht branch of the National Herbarium of the Netherlands, one of themajor herbaria world-wide storing Neotropical biodiversity reference collections,and with a long time experience in the flora and biodiversity of the Guianas. Thetraining of MSc students from the Netherlands was an essential part of the project.

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THIS RESEARCH

In the present study, the term NTFPs comprises wild plant products found in forestsand other natural and man-made vegetation types (e.g., secondary forest), includingwood products used by indigenous peoples. The term ‘non-wood forest products’,frequently used in international projects (FAO, 2000), will not be used in thisresearch, since it excludes the variety of wood products used by forest-dwellingpeoples for tools, canoes, house construction, fuel, crafts, poison, and medicine.Including these aspects in an ethnobotanical survey gives a more realistic view ofthe importance of a tropical forest to its native inhabitants (de Beer and McDermott,1996).

Products of animal origin (pets, meat, hides, honey, eggs, etc.) form an importantproportion of the NTFPs harvested in many tropical countries (Godoy andLubowski, 1992). Guyana is no exception to this (van Andel, 1998), but sincewildlife falls outside the scope of this research, it is only mentioned in a few wordsin chapter 6. Non-tangible services from tropical rain forests that are often viewed asNTFPs (e.g., watershed and soil protection, aesthetic and spiritual values,ecotourism and climate control) were also excluded from this study.


15

The main objectives of the present research can be summarised as follows:

1. To make a complete survey of the NTFP-producing plant species and their uses.2. To study the harvest and processing methods used by local communities.3. To understand the role of these plants in the local economy.4. To assess the abundance and diversity of NTFPs in different forest types.5. To compare the above-mentioned data between different locations within the

study area.

This project aims to assess the importance of non-timber forest products to theindigenous peoples of the North-West District (Figure 1.1). Differences in plant usewill be discussed for Amerindian communities that vary in ethnicity, surroundingvegetation types, distance to the market, and level of acculturation. One wouldexpect that relatively isolated communities have a greater traditional knowledge ofplants than more westernised groups, because there is a greater need to practise it,since the access to market and health facilities is more limited. The results of thisstudy may contribute to a better understanding of the floristic diversity in northwestGuyana, and the traditional and (potential) commercial use of this resource. Thisresearch will also provide baseline data necessary for subsequent ecological andeconomical studies on NTFP extraction as a sustainable forest management system.

The present research was carried out in co-ordination with several anthropologicaland socio-economical PhD studies conducted in the North-West District. Theseincluded the study of M.A. Reinders (Utrecht University) on indigenous agriculturalmanagement systems in relation to gold mining activities, the research of J. Forte(University of Guyana) on adaptive strategies of Kariña (Carib) people, the study ofC. Sullivan (Keele University) on the economical valuation of NTFP resources, andthe research of G. Ford (Free University of Brussels, Belgium) on food and nutritionamong Amerindians in Koriabo, Barima. This multidisciplinary research teamoffered an opportunity to underpin the socio-economic and cultural factorsdetermining indigenous forest use and their participation in the market economy(van Andel and Reinders, 1999). The researchers co-ordinated fieldwork and sharedinformation and experience in the framework of the Carib Studies Group, acollaborative research effort within the Tropenbos-Guyana Programme. Resultsfrom these studies will lead to recommendations for the Guyanese government,(inter-) national NGOs, institutions involved in forest research and management, andlocal communities themselves.

1.4 NTFP HARVESTING IN GUYANA

1.4.1 From early Amerindian trading systems to colonialismGuyana, a poor and sparsely populated country suffering under a heavy debt burden,harbours one of the world’s last large undisturbed tracts of tropical rain forest. Witha population of less than 800,000, of which the great majority lives on a narrowcoastal strip, the country has allowed the preservation of the interior rain forest formany years. An estimated 80 to 86% of the land is covered with forest, and much ofthis is still in a pristine state (Flaming et al., 1995; Sizer, 1996; ter Steege, 2000).

1. Introduction

16

Figure 1.1 Map of Guyana. The North-West District is indicated in the rectangle. Drawing by H.R.Rypkema.


17

Guyana’s interior is sparsely populated by nine Amerindian tribes: the Arawak,Akawaio, Arekuna, Carib, Macushi, Patamona, Wai-wai, Wapishana, and Warao.Their total population is now estimated at around 40,000 (Forte, 1988), but mayhave been much greater in the past (Davis and Richards, 1934; Whitehead, 1988;Benjamin, 1992).

Guyanese Amerindians have traded forest products among each other since the earlyages (Im Thurn, 1883; Butt, 1973). Indian merchants were allowed to passunmolested through hostile territories in order to exchange their valuable products;the enmity between tribes never disrupted mutual trade (Boomert, 1984). Each tribehad its own speciality: the Warao and Wapishana, for example, were masters incanoe building, while the Macushi were the chief makers of arrow poison and cottonhammocks. The Arekuna were specialised in blowpipes, the Wai-wai were famousfor their cassava graters and hunting dogs, the Caribs were skilful potters, and theArawaks made ingenious fibre hammocks (Im Thurn, 1883). These intertribaltrading links also created a medium for the dissemination of ethnobotanicalknowledge (Matheson, 1994).

Soon after the discovery of Guyana in the early 16th century, the Dutch found theirway into the existing trade channels. By 1653, they were already engaged in large-scale bartering activities with Amerindians along the Guyana coast (Simmons,1991). From their fortified trading posts, the Dutch exchanged axes, machetes,knives, beads, mirrors, earthenware, cloth, and alcohol for wildlife, cassava,tobacco, Indian slaves, hammocks, canoes, anatto dye (Bixa orellana), crab oil(Carapa guianensis), copaiba balsam (Copaifera spp.), and other timber and non-timber forest products (Benjamin, 1988, 1992; Simmons, 1991; Colchester, 1997).One of the early European adventurers in Guyana who explicitly reported the valueof non-timber forest products was Sir Walter Raleigh (1596). He was among the firstto mention the existence of curare, a paralytic arrow poison based either on thegenus Strychnos or various Menispermaceae, used for hunting by Amerindians insouthern Guyana (DeFilipps, 1992). Raleigh was followed by many other naturalist-explorers and ethnologists like Charles Waterton (1825), the Schomburgk brothers(1835-1844), Everard Im Thurn (1883), and Walter Roth (1924), who all wereattracted by the riches of plants, animals and indigenous cultures of the land behindthe ‘Wild Coast’.

Since the 18th century, Guyana’s economy has become dependent on the exports ofprimary commodities: bauxite, sugar, and rice, supplemented by minerals (gold,diamonds) and timber (Sizer, 1996; Colchester, 1997). Only from 1859 to the 1920s,during the boom of the balata industry, the trade in NTFPs was once again the mostimportant economic activity in Guyana (Fanshawe, 1948). The world market forbalata, the rubber-like latex of Manilkara bidentata, collapsed in the 1930s, after thediscovery of synthetic substitutes (Pennington, 1990). In the 1940s, the bark of thered mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), used for leather tanning, and bartaballi gum(Ecclinusa spp.), a chewing gum base, were important NTFPs exported fromGuyana (Fanshawe, 1948).

1. Introduction

18

Figure 1.2 Map of the North-West District and Pomeroon region. Drawing by H.R. Rypkema.


19

1.4.2 Present-day NTFP harvesting in GuyanaTo address its present need for economic development, the Guyanese governmenthas recently stimulated the utilisation of natural resources by allocating large areasas concessions to foreign logging and mining companies (Sizer, 1996). Once basedon sustainable management systems, Guyana will benefit from the continuedpresence of a permanent forest cover, which can provide services and products forthe future (Tropenbos, 1991; ter Steege, 2000). However, some of these foreigncompanies have questionable environmental and social track records (Sizer, 1996;Colchester, 1997). Several international NGOs and research institutes (e.g., WorldResources Institute, Conservation International, Tropenbos, IUCN) haverecommended that Guyana should try to diversify the forest-based portion of thenational economy, instead of focusing primarily on the production of a few valuabletimber species. Commercial exploitation of NTFPs is viewed as one opportunity tobenefit from Guyana’s tropical forests without plundering them (Ziegler and Zago,1993; Sizer, 1996; Tropenbos, 1999; IUCN, 1999; Iwokrama, 1999). Furthermore,the country should take up the challenge to safeguard its natural and cultural heritagebefore it is too late.

Prior to this study, very little research on NTFPs had been carried out in Guyana.Although substantial amounts of forest products were said to be sold on local villagemarkets (Atkinson, 1990; Forte, 1996c), quantitative information on traded goods onthe domestic market was scarce (Sizer, 1996). Recent information on the role ofNTFPs in indigenous society or the availability of these products in different foresttypes is virtually absent. The only more extensive literature available, thepublication on ‘minor forest products’ by Fanshawe (1948), based on recordscompiled by the Forestry Department of British Guiana, is rather out of date and insome aspects incomplete. As Austin and Bourne (1992: 293) put it: “Guyana has yetto receive the ethnobotanical attention that many of its smaller neighbours havehad”. The few detailed studies for Guyana have focused on medicinal plants(Lachman-White et al., 1992; Austin and Bourne, 1992; Reinders, 1993). Severalethnographical studies have been conducted on the country’s indigenous tribes (e.g.,Im Thurn, 1883; Roth, 1924; Gillin, 1936; Yde, 1965; Coles et al., 1971; Adams,1972; Butt, 1973, 1976, 1977; Forte, 1988; Forte et al., 1992; Mentore, 1995).Unfortunately, the researchers have put little emphasis on verifying the scientificnames of plant species used by their Amerindian informants.

1.5 STUDY SITES

1.5.1. The North-West DistrictTogether with the Rupununi savannas in the southern part of the country, the North-West District forms the main Amerindian region in Guyana. This administrativedivision, also known as Region 1, stretches from the Venezuelan border to thewatersheds of the Barama and Waini Rivers (Figure 1.2). The region’s 20,117square kilometres are largely forested, and inhabited by some 20,000 people, ofwhich some 75% are Amerindians, belonging to the Arawak, Carib or Warao tribes(Forte, 1997). The North-West District is one of the most important areas in Guyana

1. Introduction

20

for commercial extraction of NTFPs, and Amerindians are the main people involvedin the harvesting and processing of these products (Forte, 1995; van Andel, 1998).Most indigenous people in the area make a living by subsistence activities, such ashunting, fishing, slash-and-burn agriculture, and the gathering of NTFPs forhousehold purposes. Recent regional developments in the area include Guyanese andCanadian gold mining activities, Asian logging companies, and a French palm heartprocessing factory (Colchester, 1994; Forte, 1995). Many Amerindians now earncash income by small-scale (independent) gold mining, wage labour in the loggingand mining industry, and commercial NTFP extraction.

The adjacent Pomeroon River is geographically not included in the North-WestDistrict, but belongs to the Essequibo District (Region 2). However, the Pomeroonarea is economically en ethnically strongly connected with the North-West Districtand acts as a major centre for the harvesting and marketing of NTFPs from thatregion. Therefore, the Pomeroon River was included in this research, together withthe regional market of Charity, a strategically located trading point where the roadfrom Georgetown ends and transportation continues by boat.

The exact research locations were determined after consultation with J. Forte of theAmerindian Research Unit (University of Guyana), official counterpart of this studyand co-ordinator of the Carib Studies Programme. Fieldwork was carried out in theperiod 1995-1998 and was concentrated in two regions: the community of Kariako,Barama River (central North-West District), and the Santa Rosa Mission, MorucaRiver (coastal North-West District). Additional research was carried out along thePomeroon River, Koriabo (middle Barima River), and the coastal wetlands along theWaini, Baramanni, lower Kaituma, and lower Barima Rivers (Figure 1.2). Surveyswere held at the regional markets of Charity, Mabaruma and Georgetown, and atlocal Amerindian markets (Santa Rosa, Kariako) and craft shops (Santa Rosa,Hossororo, Kabakaburi, and Haimaracabra). To compare plant use and marketing ofNTFPs between a remote, traditional community and a relatively ‘westernised’Amerindian settlement, ethnobotanical research focused on the fairly isolatedBarama Caribs (Kariako) and the largely acculturated Arawaks (Moruca River).

1.5.2. The Barama River CaribsThe central and western parts of the North-West District are inhabited by CaribIndians, who constitute ca. 6% of the total Amerindian population in Guyana (Forte,1990b). Their settlements are mainly located along the Barama River, which has itsorigin in the Imataka Mountains near the Venezuelan border and flows into theWaini River. Since the discovery of gold in the early twentieth century, the Caribs inthe upper Barama region (Baramita) have experienced the negative influence ofmining activities, including heavy malaria epidemics and the loss of their arts, crafts,and language (Peberdy, 1948; Adams, 1972; Forte, 1990a). The lower Baramaregion, however, has been relatively ‘untouched’ and remained unnoticed, since theriver is hardly navigable during the dry season due to rapids and fallen treesblocking the waterway (Sanders, 1972; Forte, 1994). This isolation is the reasonwhy, outside the ethnography of Gillin (1936), there is very little informationavailable on the lower Barama Caribs, their numbers, the location of theirsettlements, and their way of living.


21

Research in the Barama region was concentrated in the community of Kariako (7º23' N, 59º 43' W), consisting of approximately 334 persons, nearly all Caribs(Reinders and van Andel, 1996). Although many Carib families along the upper andmiddle Barama still seem to live a migratory life (Forte, 1993, 1997), the village ofKariako was already mentioned by Schomburgk (1842), and a century later again byGillin (1936). Prior to this study, the most recent news of Kariako was given byForte (1994), who briefly visited the village that year. According to herobservations, the Kariako Caribs still largely depend on subsistence agriculture,hunting, fishing, and gathering. Cash is obtained by means of small-scale goldmining and labour in the larger gold mines. They interact only with outsiders whenthey want to sell gold or excess game and make purchases. They have a high proteinintake, because wild life is still abundant. Nearly all the villagers speak their nativelanguage and many old people (especially women) know little or no English. Theaccess to health facilities and regional markets is very limited (Forte, 1994). It isexpected that, because of their traditional lifestyle and isolation, the Kariako Caribsstill rely heavily on the surrounding forest for their primary needs. Therefore, thevillage will be suitable to study the role of NTFPs in subsistence activities, andsubsequent comparison with communities deeply involved in commercial NTFPharvesting.

Another reason for choosing Kariako as one of the research sites was the generallack of information about its inhabitants and their uncertain position concerning thenear future. Unlike other groups of Barama River Caribs, Kariako villagers do nothave legal land titles. The settlement is situated within the 1.67 million hectaretimber concession of the Asian logging operation Barama Company Ltd. (BCL).Logging is supposed to start in the area within a period of 10 years. This may offerprospects of employment opportunities and improved health and education services,but may also bring a disruption of the traditional subsistence economy in the area, aswell as a possible increase of venereal diseases and AIDS (ECTF, 1993). Moreover,the Geology and Mines Department has given out several gold claims covering thevillage and the surrounding forest. There is a steady influx of (mostly Afro-Guyanese) miners from the coast. A number of shops have been established near thevillage, selling a limited number of highly priced food items, clothes, tools, andalcohol (Forte, 1994). Although the BCL management plans state that timberextraction on Amerindian lands should not be encouraged (ECTF, 1993, 1995),Kariako was not clearly mentioned in the list of indigenous settlements in theconcession area. The village was either omitted or considered part of the KokeriteReserve, which is in fact located some 40 km down river. Forte (1994) reported thatthe majority of the Kariako inhabitants were not aware of the existence of theCompany. The Guyanese law obviously states that concessions for mining andlogging cannot interfere with officially recognised Amerindian lands (Sizer, 1996),but communities without title to their lands seem rather powerless against loggingand mining activities in their homelands (Colchester, 1997). The researchers of theCarib Studies Group try to raise awareness from (inter-) national organisations forthe fragile situation of the Barama River Caribs, by documenting their dependencyon their traditional culture and surrounding forest for their survival, and support theirrecent petition to the Guyanese government for title to their traditional lands.

1. Introduction

22

1.5.3 The Santa Rosa ArawaksThe coastal part of the North-West District is inhabited by Arawak and WaraoIndians, who account for respectively 33% and 10% of the total Amerindianpopulation of Guyana (Forte, 1990b). The (predominantly Arawak) Santa RosaAmerindian Reserve (7º 38' N, 58º 56' W) is the largest Amerindian village inGuyana. It is not a compact settlement, but rather a conglomerate of about 10satellite settlements, spread out along the Kumaka-Kwebanna road and the manysmall islands that lay in the flooded savanna along the Moruca River (Figure 2.2). Itis generally assumed that the village was founded by ‘Spanish Arawaks’, catholicIndians who migrated from Venezuela at the beginning of the 19th century (Hilhouse,1825; Pierre, 1988). They intermarried with local Arawaks, who had been occupyingthe lands along the Moruca River since 1560, as indicated by the earliest maps of theregion (Benjamin, 1988). At the end of the 17th century, Moruca had become one ofthe most important trading posts for anatto and boats, and served as a suitable point forintercepting runaway slaves (Pierre, 1988). When Schomburgk visited Moruca for thefirst time, he was impressed by the high level of civilisation of the Moruca Indians,as compared to neighbouring Amerindian tribes (Schomburgk, 1847).

Nowadays, the population of the Santa Rosa Amerindian Reserve is estimated to bebetween 3,500 (Forte, 1995) and 10,000 (Jara and Reinders, 1997). The number ofresidents is still increasing, which can be explained by the attractiveness of SantaRosa as a centre of government, commerce and religion. Facilities like a hospital anda secondary school are also contributing to the growing population (Jara andReinders, 1997). The population of the reserve is somewhat divided into a poor,more traditional class that combines cash crop agriculture (peanuts, copra, coffee,citrus fruit) with commercial fishing and subsistence activities, and a more‘modern’, richer class with salaried jobs (e.g., teachers, government officers, andshopkeepers). The settlements in the periphery of the reserve are inhabited by Caribsand Warao. These groups often belong to the lower agricultural class (Jara andReinders, 1997; van Breugel, 1998). The main language in Moruca is English.Although the descendants from the Spanish Arawaks still speak some Spanish, only afew elder people are able to speak Arawak, Warao, or Carib. The loss of thetraditional Arawak culture, caused by a long history of contact with outsiders, wasalready noted by Im Thurn (1883: 272). He stated that ‘they (the Arawaks) havebecome so far civilised, and have so far adopted habits similar to those of thecolonists that they no longer have need of much interaction with other Indians’.

Santa Rosa has a small weekly market and a relatively easy access to the largerregional market of Charity. There have been various cooperative agricultural andmarketing ventures, but few of them have been successful over the medium or longterm. High transportation costs from the shallow Moruca River to the Essequibocoast still seem to be a major problem (Forte, 1995; van Breugel, 1998; Sullivan,1999). Integration into the national market economy (Georgetown) is even morelimited. Farming among the young people of Moruca is declining. During the lastdecade, the Moruca River has become an important gateway for gold miners and otherpeople travelling to the Waini and Barama River further inland. Many young men andwomen from Santa Rosa are working in the gold mines and logging companies inthe interior (Forte, 1995). Commercial NTFP extraction also provides an income fora substantial number of Amerindians in the coastal area. Products include palm


23

heart, wildlife, roof thatch, craft work, and raw material for the furniture industry(Forte, 1995; Jara and Reinders, 1997). It was expected that due to the better marketaccess the Santa Rosa Arawaks had more opportunities to commercialise their forestproducts than inhabitants of remote communities like Kariako. On the other hand,one might assume that the availability of synthetically manufactured goods and theloss of traditional Amerindian culture would reduce the need to use NTFPs forsubsistence purposes.

1.5.4 The WaraoThe majority of the Warao communities are found in the Orinoco delta inVenezuela, the Mabaruma-Hossororo area and the coastal swamplands of the North-West District. Since the early ages, the Warao have been swamp-dwellers, who haveadapted themselves to surviving in areas where no other tribe would live (Benjamin,1988; Wilbert, 1993). In the beginning, they did not practice agriculture, but reliedtotally on hunting, gathering, fishing and the collection of shellfish. Prehistoric shellmounds have been found near several coastal communities (e.g., Assakata,Waramuri, Warapoka). These mounds consist of huge deposits of the remainders ofmollusks, periwinkles and bones of fishes and mammals (Williams, 1989).Occasionally, stone axes, pieces of Delft blue pottery and human skeletons are foundin these shell mounds (Poonai, 1992). Lacking dry land for agriculture, the Waraoobtained their starch from the pith of Mauritia flexuosa and Manicaria sacciferapalms (Heinen and Ruddle, 1976; Wilbert, 1976). They exchanged their excellentcanoes with the Dutch for manufactured trade goods (Schomburgk, 1842;Colchester, 1997). Nowadays, most Warao have engaged in cassava cultivation orbuy rice and flour in shops, but they are still famous for their canoes (Wilbert,1993).

Additional information on NTFP use and marketing was gathered in cooperationwith anthropologist Ford in the mixed Arawak/Warao/Carib village of Koriabo, theArawak/Warao community of Assakata (in cooperation with Sullivan), the Waraovillage of Warapoka, and the predominantly Arawak community of Kabakaburi(Figure 1.2). Since detailed research had been done by Reinders (1993) on medicinalplant use among the Warao, most of the time spent at Warao communities wasreserved for research on palm heart harvesting (Chapter 5) and less attention waspaid to the local pharmacopoeia. Regular market surveys on NTFPs were held at theGeorgetown markets.

1.6 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

This PhD thesis consists of two parts. In Part I, a general analysis is made of thepresent status of NTFP harvesting in the North-West District and Pomeroon region.Research is focused on the availability of NTFPs in different forest types and theirimportance for forest-dwelling peoples, both concerning subsistence and commercialuse. Special attention is paid to the harvesting, processing, and marketing of themain commercial NTFPs. Part II of this thesis, published in a separate volume, is afield guide of useful plants of the North-West District. It contains scientific andvernacular plant names, short botanical descriptions and uses of 471 NTFP-

1. Introduction

24

producing species. For the 85 NTFPs of major importance, detailed species and usedescriptions are provided, as well as illustrations and information on habitatpreference and seasonal availability.

For the design of appropriate conservation and management plans, quantitativeinformation is required on the diversity, population structure, and distributionpatterns of useful (and non-useful) species. A total of seven hectare plots were laidout in the major forest types of northwest Guyana: mixed primary forest, secondaryforest, Mora swamp forest, manicole swamp forest, and quackal swamp forest.

In chapter 2 of this volume, a vegetation description is made for mixed primaryforest and secondary forest in the Barama and Moruca regions. The followingquestions are addressed:

1. Which plant species are characteristic and/or abundant in these forest types?2. Do these forest types correspond to earlier classifications?3. How does the regeneration proceed from secondary to primary mixed forest?4. What are the patterns of species diversity in these forests?

Swamp forests cover a large proportion of Guyana’s North-West District. They arealso the major vegetation types used for commercial NTFP extraction. In chapter 3,the floristic composition, structure, and diversity of three swamp forest types aredescribed. The main questions addressed in this chapter correspond with those listedfor chapter 2 (except for question No. 3).

Forests with high species diversity may contain more useful plants than low-diversity forests, but they generally contain low densities of conspecific adults.Forests dominated by a few, economically important species have been mentionedas very suitable for sustainable NTFP extraction (Peters et al., 1989b; Johnston,1998). Chapter 4 provides a quantitative assessment of the useful species in theseven hectare plots and concentrates on the following questions:

1. What are the most important NTFPs in the different forest types and howabundant are these species?

2. Which plant families provide most NTFPs and which have the largest usevalue?

3. What percentage of the total number of species in a forest is utilised by localAmerindians?

4. Are there differences in plant use between Arawaks and Caribs?5. Which forest types offer the best opportunities for commercial NTFP harvesting?

Palm heart from Euterpe oleracea is the most important commercial NTFP ofnorthwest Guyana, with an annual export revenue of US$ 2 million. In chapter 5,the impact of the current palm heart extraction on E. oleracea populations iscompared between areas with a high and those with a low harvest pressure. Ageneral overview is given of the socio-economic aspects of palm heart harvesting,which is an important source of income for local Amerindians. This leads to thefollowing questions:


25

1. What is the extent and ecological impact of palm heart harvesting in the North-West District?

2. Are their significant differences in population structure, reproduction, yield andmortality of E. oleracea between sites with different harvest pressures?

3. Can the current harvesting methods be considered sustainable?4. Is a five-year fallow period sufficient for the regeneration of Euterpe

populations?5. What is the socio-economic importance of palm heart harvesting for

Amerindian communities?6. Which are the underlying causes for overharvesting of palm hearts?

Guyana’s vast potential of NTFPs has only partly been developed commercially.Many plant and animal products are gathered from the country’s extensive forests,but the majority are used only for subsistence purposes. Just a few NTFPs areextracted on a commercial basis and even fewer are harvested for export purposes.The lack of information on export and domestic markets obstructs the involvementof NTFPs in land use and economic planning. In chapter 6, a general impression isgiven of the main commercial NTFPs of the North-West District and Pomeroonregion. The questions addressed in this chapter include:

1. Which NTFPs are actually being marketed and at what prices?2. Which NTFPs are exported and which have only local or regional commercial

value?3. What are the main problems in commercialising NTFPs?4. Do these NTFPs have a potential for sustainable harvesting?5. Can these NTFPs contribute to forest conservation and improve local people’s

livelihood?

Although prohibited by law, fish poison plants are still widely used by indigenoustribes in Guyana. Chapter 7 attempts to clarify the taxonomy and ethnobotany ofthe fish poisons used in the North-West District, in particular those speciescontaining rotenone. Fish poisons not only serve as a quick method of providingfood in times of shortage, they also play an important role in magic rituals andtraditional medicine. Particularly striking is the use of these plants in the treatmentof cancer and AIDS.

Medicinal plants form an important proportion of the NTFPs used in the study area.The health situation in Guyana’s interior is generally poor. Many Amerindians haveto rely on traditional medicine, since nothing else is affordable or available.Chapter 8 deals with the variety of medicinal plants and their uses recorded duringthis study. General aspects of present-day traditional health care and the role ofmedicinal plants in this system will be discussed. The main research questions withregard to the use of herbal medicine were:1. Which plant species are being used for which diseases?2. What is the present role of herbal medicine in the health care system of

indigenous communities?3. Are there differences in medicinal plant use between the two ethnic groups

studied (Carib and Arawak)?4. In what ways are medicinal plants commercialised in Guyana?

1. Introduction

26

Finally, the implications of the obtained results for the sustainable management ofNTFPs will be discussed in chapter 9. The importance of non-timber forestproducts to the indigenous peoples of the North-West District is highlighted.Comparisons are made with other NTFP studies within and outside the Tropenbosprogramme. General theories on the role of NTFPs in sustainable forest managementwill be reviewed with regard to their relevance for Guyana.

10. References

294

10. REFERENCES

Acevedo-Rodriguez, P. 1990. The occurrence of piscicides and stupefactants in theplant kingdom. Advances in Economic Botany 8: 1-23.

Adams, K.M. 1972. The Barama River Caribs of Guyana restudied: forty years ofcultural adaptation and population change. PhD thesis, Case Western ReserveUniversity, Cleveland, USA.

Aide, T.M., Zimmerman, J.K., Rosario, M. and Mercano, H. 1996. Forest recoveryin abandoned cattle pastures along an elevational gradient in Northeastern PuertoRico. Biotropica 28 (4): 537-548.

Alder, D. and Synott, T.J. 1992. Permanent sample plot techniques for mixedtropical forest. Oxford Forestry Institute. Dept of Plant Sciences, TropicalForestry Papers 25, Oxford, UK.

Andel, T.R. van. 1998. Commercial exploitation of Non-Timber Forest Products inthe North-West District of Guyana. Caribbean Journal of Agriculture andNatural Resources 2 (1): 15-28.

Andel, T.R. van and Reinders, M.A. 1999. ‘Non-timber forest products in Guyana’sNorth-West District: potentials and pitfalls’, pp. 47-62 in M.A.F. Ros-Tonen(ed.), Seminar Proceedings NTFP Research in the Tropenbos Programme:results and perspectives, 28 January 1999. The Tropenbos Foundation,Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Andel, T.R. van, Huyskens, P.E. and Bröker, K.C.A. 1998. Palm heart harvesting inGuyana’s North-West District: exploitation and regeneration of Euterpeoleracea swamp forests. Tropenbos-Guyana Interim Report 98-1. UtrechtUniversity, the Netherlands.

Anderson, A.B. (ed.) 1990. Alternatives to deforestation in Amazonia: steps towardsustainable use of the Amazonian rainforest. Columbia University Press, NewYork, USA.

Anderson, A.B. 1988. Use and management of native forests dominated by açaipalm (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) in the Amazon Estuary. Advances in EconomicBotany 6: 144-154.

Anderson, A.B. and Jardim, M.A.G. 1989. ‘Costs and benefits of flood plain forestmanagement by rural inhabitants in the Amazon Estuary: a case study of açaipalm production’, pp. 114-129 in J.O. Browder (ed.), Fragile Lands of LatinAmerica: Strategies for Sustainable Development. Westview Press, Boulder,USA.

Anderson, C.W. 1912. The forests of the North West district of the country ofEssequibo. Forests of British Guiana, Detail reports, Series 1. Department ofLands and Mines, Georgetown, Demerara.

Archer, W.A. 1934. Fish poison plants of British Guiana, a preliminary list.Agricultural Journal of British Guiana 5 (3): 204-206.

Arkcoll, D.B. and Clement, C. 1989. ‘Potential New Crops for the Amazon’, pp.150-165 in G.E. Wickens, N. Haq and P. Day (eds.), New Crops for Food andIndustry. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Arvigo, R. and Balick, M.J. 1993. Rainforest remedies: one hundred healing herbsfrom Belize. Lotus Press, Twin Lake, USA.


295

Assies, W. 1997. Going nuts for the rainforest. Nontimber forest products, forestconservation and sustainability in Amazonia. Thela Latin America Series, ThelaPublishers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Atkinson, H. 1990. The history of the Catholic Church in Santa Rosa in the North-West District of Guyana: 1817-1990. Unpublished manuscript. AmerindianResearch Unit, University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Attisso, M.A. 1983. ‘Phytopharmacology and phytotherapy’, pp: 194-206 in R.H.Bannerman (ed.), Traditional medicine and health care coverage: a reader forhealth administrators and practitioners. World Health Organization, Geneva,Switzerland.

Austin, D.F. and Bourne, G.R. 1992. Notes on Guyana’s medical ethnobotany.Economic Botany 46 (3): 293-298.

Balée, W. 1986. Análise preliminar de inventário florestal e a etnobotânica Ka’apor(Maranhâo). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 2 (2): 141-167.

Balée, W. 1987. A etnobotânica quantitativa dos índios Tembé (Rio Gurupi, Pará).Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 3 (1): 29-50.

Balée, W. 1994. Footprints of the forest: Ka’apor Ethnobotany- the historicalecology of plant utilization by an Amazonian people. Colombia University Press,New York, USA.

Balick, M.J. 1988. The Palm-Tree of life: biology, utilization and conservation.Advances in Economic Botany 6. New York Botanical Garden, USA.

Balick, M.J. and Mendelsohn, R. 1992. Assessing the economic value of traditionalmedicines from tropical rain forests. Conservation Biology 6: 128-130.

Beer, J.H. de and McDermott, M.J. 1996. The Economic Value of Non-TimberForest Products in Southeast Asia. Netherlands Committee for IUCN,Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Benjamin, A.J. 1988. ‘The Guyana Arawaks in the 16th and 17th centuries’, pp. 5-21in Amerindian Research Unit (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on theArawaks of Guyana. October 14-15, 1987. University of Guyana, Georgetown,Guyana.

Benjamin, A.J. 1992. A preliminary look at the free Amerindians and the Dutchplantation system in Guyana during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.Guyana Historical Journal IV and V: 1-21.

Berlin, B., Breedlove, E.D. and Raven, P.H. 1966. Folk taxonomies and biologicalclassification. Science 154: 273-275.

Bisnauth, A. 1993. Closure of wildlife trade hurting Amerindians. Stabroek News,Thursday 16 December.

Boggan, J., Funk, V., Kelloff, C., Hoff, M., Cremers, G. and Feuillet, C. 1997.Checklist of the plants of the Guianas (Guyana, Surinam, French Guiana), 2nd

Edition. ORSTOM, Smithsonian Institution and Centre for the Study ofBiological Diversity, University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Bonnéhin, L. 2000. Domestication paysanne des arbres fruitiers forestiers.Tropenbos-Côte d’Ivoire. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.

Boom, B.M. 1987. Ethnobotany of the Chácobo Indians. Beni, Bolivia. Advances inEconomic Botany 4: 1-68.

Boom, B.M. 1990. Useful plants of the Panare Indians of the Venezuelan Guayana.Advances in Economic Botany 7: 78-96.

Boomert, A. 1984. The Arawak Indians of Trinidad and coastal Guyana, ca. 1500-1600. Journal of Caribbean History 19 (2): 123-188.

10. References

296

Boot, R.G.A. 1997. Extraction of non-timber forest products from tropical rainforests. Does diversity come at a price? Netherlands Journal of AgriculturalScience 45: 439-450.

Breugel, W. van 1998. Development along the road: the influences of anagricultural development project on social relationships in an Amerindiancommunity. MSc thesis, Dept. of Cultural Anthropology, Utrecht University, theNetherlands.

Broekhoven, G. 1996. Non-Timber Forest Products: ecological and economicaspects of exploitation in Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. Utrecht Universityand IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Browder, J.O. 1992. The limits of extractivism: Tropical Forest Strategies beyondExtractive Reserves. Bioscience 42: 174-182

Brown, R.G. 1992. The future of the wildlife trade in Guyana. Sunday Chronicle, 26July 1992.

Butt, A.J. 1973. Intertribal trade in the Guiana highlands. Anthropologica 34: 5-70.Butt, A.J. 1976. ‘Binary oppositions and the treatment of sickness among the

Ackawaio’, pp. 422-499 in J.B. Loudon (ed.), Social Anthropology andmedicine. Academic Press, London, UK.

Butt, A.J. 1977. ‘Land use and social organization of tropical peoples of theGuianas’, pp. 1-17, in M.P. Garlick and R.W. Keay (eds.), Human Ecology in theTropics. Symposium of the Society for the study of Human Biology. Taylor andFrancis Ltd., London, UK.

Calzavara, B.B.G. 1972. As possibilidades do açaizeirio no estuário amazônico.Boletim Falculdade de Ciencais Agrárias do Pará, Belém 5: 165-230.

Carter, K. 1993. AIDS: dying to make a living. Guyana Review 7, August.Castro, A. de. 1993. ‘Extractive exploitation of the açai, Euterpe precatoria, near

Manaus, Amazonia’, pp. 779-782 in C.M. Hladik, A. Hladik, O.F. Linares andH. Pagezy (eds.), Tropical Forests, People and Food: Biocultural Interactionsand Applications to Development. MAB Series Vol. 13. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Catholic Standard 1992. ‘Guyana wildlife industry threatened’. Sunday 15 March.Catholic Standard. 1993a. ‘Heart of palm project strongly criticised.’ Sunday 6

June.Catholic Standard. 1993b. ‘Heart-of-palm company scares Morucans.’ Sunday 25

April.Chazdon, R.L. 1991. Effects of leaf and ramet removal on growth and reproduction

of Geonoma congesta, a clonal understorey palm. Journal of Ecology 79: 1137-1146.

Chevalier, A. 1925. Sur les Légumineuses de la Tribu des Téphrosiées cultivéesdans les pays tropicaux pour capturer le poisson: leurs usages et leur distributiongéographique. Comptes Rendus l’Académie de Sciences de l’U.R.S.S. CLXXX:1520-1523.

Christenhusz, M.J.J. 1999. The genera Euphorbia, Pedilanthus and Macaranga inthe Guianas. Internal report Herbarium Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

CITES. 1973. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora: Appendices I, II and III. Available on the Internet: www.wcmc.org.uk/CITES/english/eappendic

CITES. 1999. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora. Implementation of the Convention of individual countries,


297

implementations of decisions 10.18 and 10.64. 42nd meeting of the StandingCommittee, Lisbon, Portugal 28 September-1 October 1999.

Clark, E.P. 1929. The occurrence of rotenone in the Peruvian fish poison ‘cube’.Science 70: 478-479.

Clay, J. 1992. ‘Some general principles and strategies for developing markets inNorth America and Europe for Nontimber forest products’, pp: 302-309 in M.J.Plotkin and L. Famolare (eds.), Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forestproducts. Conservation International. Island press, Washington DC., USA.

Clement, C.R. 1999. 1492 and the loss of Amazionian crop genetic resources I: therelation between domestication and human population decline. Economic Botany53 (2): 188-202.

Colchester, M. 1994. The new sultans: Asian loggers move in on Guyana’s forests.The Ecologist 24 (2): 45-52.

Colchester, M. 1997. Guyana-Fragile frontier: loggers, miners and forest peoples.Latin American Bureau, London, UK.

Coles, B., Croft, P., Dunkley, M., Readings, D., Hardy, T. and Gatrell, P. 1971.Cambridge expedition to Baramita. Cambridge University, UK.

Comiskey, J.A., Aymard, G. and Dallmeijer, F. 1994. Structure and composition oflowland mixed forest in the Kakwani region of Guyana. Biollania 10: 13-28.

Connel, J.H. and Lowman, M.D. 1989. Low-diversity tropical rain forests: somepossible mechanisms for their existence. The American Naturalist 134: 88-119.

Conservation International. 1998. Guyana. www.conservation.org/web/fieldact/regions/guianreg/ Guyana.htm.

Cottam, G. and Curtis, J.T. 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociologicalsampling. Ecology 47 (3): 451-460.

Dallmeijer, F. and Comiskey, J.A. (eds.) 1998. Forest Biodiversity in North, Centraland South America, and the Caribbean: research and monitoring. MAB Series,Vol. 21. UNESCO, Paris, France.

Dallmeijer, F., Kabel, M. and Foster, R.B. 1996. ‘Floristic composition, diversity,mortality and recruitment of different substrates: a lowland tropical forest,Pakitza, Río Manu, Peru’, pp. 61-76 in D.E. Wilson, and A. Sandoval (eds),Manu: the biodiversity of Southeastern Peru. Smithsonian Institution,Washington DC., USA.

Dance, C.H. 1881. Chapters from a Guianese log-book. Demerara, Guyana.Davis, T.A.W. 1929. Some observations on the forests of the North West district.

The Agricultural Journal of British Guiana 11: 157-167.Davis, T.A.W. and P.W. Richards. 1933. The vegetation of Moraballi Creek, British

Guiana: an ecological study of a limited area of tropical rain forest, Part I.Journal of Ecology 21: 350-384.

Davis, T.A.W. and P.W. Richards. 1934. The vegetation of Moraballi Creek, BritishGuiana: an ecological study of a limited area of tropical rain forest, Part II.Journal of Ecology 22: 106-155.

De Souza, B. 1997. Towards a methodology for the economic valuation of Non-timber Forest Products: a view from Guyana. Guyana Natural ResourcesAgency, Georgetown, Guyana.

DeFilipps, R.A. 1992. ‘The history of Non-Timber Forest Products from theGuianas’, p. 73-89 in M.J. Plotkin and L. Famolare (eds.). Sustainable harvestand marketing of rain forest products. Conservation International. Island press,Washington DC., USA.

10. References

298

Dijk, J.F.W. van and Wiersum, F. 1999. ‘NTFP resource management as an optionfor multiple-use forest management in South Cameroon’, pp. 115-122 in: M.A.F.Ros-Tonen (ed.) Seminar Proceedings NTFP Research in the TropenbosProgramme: Results and Perspectives, 28 January 1999. The TropenbosFoundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Dijk, J.F.W. van. 1999. Non-timber forest product resources in the Bipindi-Akom IIarea, South Cameroon: an economic and ecological assessment. Tropenbos-Cameroon Series 1, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Dubois, J.C.L. 1996. Uses of wood and non-wood forest products by Amazon forestdwellers. Unasylva 186 (47): 8-15.

Duivenvoorden, J.F., Balslev, H., Cavalier, J., Grández, C., Tuomisto, H. andValencia, R. 1999. ‘Non-timber forest plant resource assessment in NWAmazonia’, pp. 81-93 in M.A.F. Ros-Tonen (ed.), Seminar Proceedings NTFPResearch in the Tropenbos Programme: Results and Perspectives, 28 January1999. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Duke, J.A. 1992. ‘Tropical Botanical Extractives’, pp. 53-62 in M.J. Plotkin and L.Famolare (eds.), Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products.Conservation International. Island press, Washington DC., USA.

Dutfield, G. 2000. ‘Between a rock and a hard place: Indigenous peoples, nationstates and the multinationals’, pp: 24-33 in G. Dutfield (ed.), IntellectualProperty Rights, Trade and Biodiversity. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London,UK.

ECTF (Edinburgh Center for Tropical Forests). 1993. Environmental and SocialImpact Assessment. Barama Company Ltd. North West Guyana SustainableTimber Production Programme. Draft report, Georgetown, Guyana.

ECTF (Edinburgh Center for Tropical Forests). 1995. Second annual report on itsProgramme of Monitoring and Research for the Barama Company Ltd. NorthWest Guyana Sustainable Timber Production Programme. Georgetown, Guyana.

Edwards, S.R., Allen, C. and Lambert, F. 1994. Management Framework forsustainable harvests of wild species in Guyana. IUCN, Guyana Ministry ofAgriculture, Georgetown, Guyana.

Ek, R.C. 1990. Index of Guyana plant collectors. Flora of the Guianas.Supplementary Series 1.

Ek, R.C. 1997. Botanical diversity in the Tropical Rain Forest of Guyana. PhDthesis, Utrecht University. Tropenbos-Guyana Series 4. Georgetown, Guyana.

Ek, R.C. and ter Steege, H. 1998. The flora of the Mabura Hill area, Guyana.Botanisher Jahrbucher der Systematik 120: 461-502.

Ellen, R. and Harris, H. 1999. ‘Embeddedness of indigenous environmentalknowledge’, pp: 180-184 in D.A. Posey (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values ofBiodiversity. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

Elliot, S. and Brimacombe, J. 1986. The medicinal plants of Gunung LeuserNational Park, Indonesia. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Fee Structure For BiodiversityResearch and Bioprospecting. www.sdnp.org.gy/epa/index.html

Falconer, J. and Arnold, J.E.M. 1989. Household food security and forestry: ananalysis of socioeconomic issues. Community Forestry Note 1. FAO, Rome,Italy.

Fang N. and Casida, J. E. 1998. Anticancer action of cube insecticide: correlation forrotenoid constituents between inhibition of between inhibition of NADH:


299

ubiquinone oxidoreductase and induced ornithine decarboxylase activities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 (7): 3380-3384.

Fanshawe, D.B. 1948. Forest products of British Guiana, part II. Minor ForestProducts. Forestry Bulletin No. 2. Forestry Department, British Guiana.

Fanshawe, D.B. 1949. Glossary of Arawak names in Natural History, BritishGuiana. International Journal of American Linguistics 15 (1): 57-74.

Fanshawe, D.B. 1952. The vegetation of British Guiana. A preliminary review.Imperial Forestry Institute, University of Oxford. Institute Paper 29, Oxford, UK.

Fanshawe, D.B. 1953. Fish poisons of British Guiana. Kew Bulletin 239-240.Fanshawe, D.B. 1954. Forest Types of British Guiana. Caribbean Forester 15: 73-

111.FAO. 1989. Household, food security, and forestry: and analysis of socio-economic

issues. Rome, Italy.FAO. 1991. Non-wood forest products: the way ahead. FAO Forestry Paper 97.

Rome, Italy.FAO. 1992. Forests, Trees and Food. Rome, Italy.FAO. 2000. Non-wood news 7, an informative bulletin on Non-Wood Forest

Products. FAO, Rome, Italy.Farnsworth, N.R., Bingel, A.S., Fong, H.H.S., Saleh, A.A., Christenson, G.M. and

Saufferer, S.M. 1976. Oncogenic and Tumor-Promoting Spermatophytes andPteridophytes and their active principles. Cancer Treatment Reports 60: 1171-1214.

Farnsworth, N.R., Akerele, O., Bingel, A.S., Soejarto, D. and Guo, Z. 1985.Medicinal Plants in Therapy. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 63 (6):965-981.

Ferreira, L.V. and Prance, G.T. 1999. Ecosystem recovery in terra firme forests aftercutting and burning: a comparison on species richness, floristic composition andforest structure in the Jaú National Park, Amazonia. Botanical Journal of theLinnean Society 130: 97-110.

FIDS (Forest Industries Development Surveys). 1970. Forest type map of the NorthWest district inventory area. Government of Guyana, UNDP, Guyana ForestDepartment and FAO, Georgetown, Guyana.

Fisher, A.A., Corbet, A.S. and Williams, C.B. 1943. The relation between thenumber of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of ananimal population. Journal of Animal Ecology 12: 42-58.

Flaming, L., Cassels, D. and Godoy, R. 1995. An economic analysis of the timberindustry in Guyana. Harvard University, Cambridge, USA.

Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana. 1995-1999. Vol 1-4. Missouri Botanical Garden,St. Louis, USA.

Forte, J. 1988. ‘Guyanese Arawaks today’, pp. 51-58, in Amerindian Research Unit(ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on the Arawaks of Guyana. October 14-15,1987, University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Forte, J. 1990a. The case of ‘the Barama River Caribs of Guyana restudied’. Socialand Economic Studies 39 (1): 203-217.

Forte, J. 1990b. The populations of Amerindian settlements in the 1980s.Amerindian Research Unit, University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Forte, J. 1993. ‘Caribs will be affected by Barama operations’. Stabroek News, 24September.

10. References

300

Forte, J. 1994. The Barama River Caribs: between the rain forest and the worldsystem. Stabroek News, August 21: 1A-11A.

Forte, J. (ed.) 1995. Indigenous use of the forest. Situation analysis with emphasis onRegion I. Amerindian Research Unit, University of Guyana, Georgetown,Guyana.

Forte, J. (ed.) 1996a. Macushi Women Ethnobotany and Ethnomedicine. IwokramaInternational Rainforest Programme and Amerindian Research Unit, Universityof Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Forte, J. 1996b. About Guyanese Amerindians. Amerindian Research Unit,University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Forte, J. (ed.) 1996c. Macushi Lifestyle and Biodiversity Use. IwokramaInternational Rainforest Programme and Amerindian Research Unit, Universityof Guyana. Georgetown, Guyana.

Forte, J. 1997. Amerindians of Region 1. Paper presented at workshop: Comparativestudy of socio-economic variables affecting the success of commercial NTFPextraction in North-West Guyana and South Cameroon. November 27.Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Forte, J. 1999a. ‘Emerging local and global discourses on NTFP use and study: aview from Guyana’, pp. 33-42 in Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. (ed.), Proceedings of theSeminar NTFP Research in the Tropenbos Programme: Results andperspectives. 28 January 1999, The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, theNetherlands.

Forte, J. 1999b. Karikuri: the evolving relationship of the Karinya people of Guyanato gold mining. New West Indian Guide 73 (1/2): 59-82.

Forte, J., Pierre, L. and Fox, D. 1992. The Material Culture of the WapishanaPeople of the South Rupununi Savannahs in 1989. Occasional Publications of theAmerindian Research Unit, University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Fournet, A., Angelo, A. and Muñoz, V. 1994. Leishmanicidal and trypanocidalactivities of Bolivian medicinal plants. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 41: 19-37.

Freese, C.H. 1998. Wild species as commodities: managing markets and ecosystemsfor sustainability. Island Press, Washington DC., USA.

Galetti, M. and Aleixo, A. 1998. Effects of palm heart harvesting on avianfrugivores in the Atlantic rain forest of Brazil. Journal of Applied Ecology 35:286-293.

Gentry, A.H. 1988. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic compositionon environmental and geographical gradients. Annals of the Missouri BotanicalGardens 75: 1-34.

Gentry, A.H. 1992. ‘Nontimber forest products from Western South America’, pp.125-136 in M.J. Plotkin and L. Famolare (eds.), Sustainable harvest andmarketing of rain forest products. Conservation International. Island press,Washington DC, USA.

Gentry, A.H. and Dodson, C.H. 1987. Contribution of non-trees to species richnessof a tropical rain forest. Biotropica 19 (2): 149-156.

GFC (Guyana Forestry Commission). 1998. Code of Practice for ForestManagement (2nd edition). Georgetown, Guyana.

GFC (Guyana Forestry Commission). 2000. Quarterly reports. Georgetown,Guyana.


301

Gillin, J. 1936. The Barama River Caribs of British Guiana. Papers of the Peabodymuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 14 (2).

Godoy, R. and Lubowski, R. 1992. Guidelines for the economic valuation ofNontimber tropical forest products. Current Anthropology 33 (4): 423-433.

Godoy, R., Brokaw, N., Wilkie, D., Colón, D., Palermo, A., Lye, S. and Wei, S.1998. Of trade and cognition: markets and the loss of folk knowledge among theTawahka Indians of the Honduran rain forest. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 54: 219-233.

Gosalvez, M. and Merchan, J. 1973. Induction of rat mammary adenomas with therespiratory inhibitor rotenone. Cancer Research 33: 3047-3050.

Goulding, M., Lean Carvalho, M. and Ferreira, E.G. 1988. Rio Negro: rich life inpoor water. SPB Academic Publishing BV, the Hague, the Netherlands.

Government of Guyana. 1995. Statistical Bulletin 4. Statistical Bureau, Georgetown,Guyana.

Government of Guyana. 1996. Proceedings of the workshop on the establishment ofa National Protected Areas System in Guyana, Paramakatoi, February 5-8.GEF/World Bank, Georgetown, Guyana.

Grenand, P. 1992. ‘The use and cultural significance of the secondary forest amongthe Wayapi Indians’, pp. 28-40, in M.J. Plotkin and L. Famolare (eds.),Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. ConservationInternational. Island press, Washington DC, USA.

Grenand, P., Moretti, C. and Jacquemin, H. 1987. Pharmacopées traditionelles enGuyane: Créoles, Palikur, Wayãpi. Collection Mémoires, No. 108. ORSTOM,Paris, France.

Guy, R.P. 1993. We have 25 years experience in wildlife shipment. Stabroek News,Tuesday 20 July.

Haden, P. 1999. Forestry issues in the Guiana Shield region: a perspective onGuyana and Suriname. European Union Tropical Forestry Paper 3. OverseasDevelopment Institute and European Union, Brussels, Belgium.

Hall, P. and Bawa, K. 1993. Methods to assess the impact of extraction of non-timber tropical forest products on plant populations. Economic Botany 47 (3):234-247.

Hallé, F., Oldeman, R.A.A. and Tomlinson, P.B. 1978. Tropical Trees and Forests.An Architectural Analysis. Springler Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

Hamid, A. 1999. ‘Derris Lour.’, pp: 234-242 in L. S. de Padua, N.Bunyapraphatsara and R. H. M. J. Lemmens, (eds.), Plant Resources of South-East Asia 12 (1): medicinal and poisonous plants 1. Backhuys Publishers,Leiden, the Netherlands.

Hammen, M.C. van der. 1992. El manejo del mundo: naturaleza y sociedad entre losYukuna de la Amazonia Colombiana. Estudios en la Amazonia Colombiana IV.Tropenbos-Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia.

Hammond, D.S. and ter Steege, H. 1998. Propensity for fire in Guianan rainforests.Conservation Biology 12 (5): 944-947.

Hart, T.B. 1990. Monospecific dominance in tropical rain forests. Trends in Ecologyand Evolution 5: 6-11.

Hartwell, J.L. 1967-1971. Plants used against cancer: a survey. Lloydia 30: 379-436,and ten additional instalments ending with 34: 386-437.

Hartwell, J.L. 1976. Types of anticancer agents isolated from plants. CancerTreatment Reports 60: 1031-1067.

10. References

302

Heath, D. 1995. An introduction to experimental design and statistics for biology.UCL Press, London, UK.

Heinen, D.H. and Ruddle, K. 1976. Ecology, Ritual, and Economic Organization inthe distribution of palm starch among the Warao of the Orinoco Delta. Journal ofAnthropological Research 30: 116-138.

Henderson, A. and Galeano, G. 1996. Euterpe, Prestoea and Neonicholsonia(Palmae). Flora Neotropica Monograph 72. New York Botanical Garden, USA.

Henderson, P.A. and Robertson, B.A. 1999. On structural complexity and fishdiversity in an Amazonian floodplain. Advances in Economic Botany 13: 45-58.

Hilhouse, W. 1825. Indian notices. National Commission for the recovery andacquisition of research materials, Georgetown, Guyana.

Hiraoka, M. 1999. Miriti (Mauritia flexuosa) palms and their uses and managementamong ribeirinhos of the Amazon Estuary. Advances in Economic Botany 13:169-186.

Hoffman, B. 1997. The biology and use of nibbi, Heteropsis flexuosa (Araceae): Thesource of an aerial root fibre product in Guyana. MSc thesis, FloridaInternational University, Miami, USA.

Hout, P. van der. 1999. Reduced impact logging in the tropical rain forest ofGuyana: ecological, economic and silvicultural consequences. PhD thesis,Utrecht University. Tropenbos-Guyana Series 6, Georgetown, Guyana.

Howes, F.N. 1930. Fish Poison Plants. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information, RoyalBotanic Garden, Kew 4: 129-153.

Howitt, D. and Cramer, D. 1996. A guide to computing statistics with SPSS forWindows. Prentice Hall, New York, USA.

Huber, O. 1995a. ‘Vegetation’, pp. 97-160 in J.A. Steyermark, P.E. Berry and B.K.Holst (eds.), Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana 1. Missouri Botanical Garden, St.Louis, USA.

Huber, O. 1995b. ‘Geography’, pp. 1-61. in J.A. Steyermark, P.E. Berry and B.K.Holst (eds.), Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana 1. Missouri Botanical Garden, St.Louis, USA.

Huber, O., Gharbarran, G. and Funk, V. 1995. Vegetation Map of Guyana.Preliminary version. Centre for Study of Biological Diversity, University ofGuyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Huston, M.A. 1994. Biological Diversity. The coexistence of species in changinglandscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development). 1994. The hiddenharvest: the role of wild foods in agricultural systems. Research Series 3 (1).London, UK.

Im Thurn, E.F. 1883. Among the Indians of Guyana. Kegan Paul, Trench and Co,London, UK.

IUCN. 1999. The Guiana shield initiative: 1999-2002. Project proposal. Netherlandscommittee for IUCN, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Iwokrama. 1998. Community-based Wildlife Management in the North Rupununi.Proceedings of the workshop held at the Iwokrama field station 2-6 April 1998.North Rupununi District Development Board and Iwokrama International Centrefor Rain Forest Conservation and Development, Georgetown, Guyana.

Iwokrama. 1999. International Centre for Rain Forest Conservation andDevelopment, Guyana. www.gold.sdnp.org.gy/iwokrama/


303

Jacobs, M. 1981. The Tropical Rain Forest: a first encounter. Springer Verlag,Berlin, Germany.

Janssen, J.J. 1974. ‘Suriname’s Amerindians. Who were they and where did theycome from?’, pp. 10-20 in J. Fontaine (ed.), From Suriname’s History.Fragments of a stirring past. Suralco, the Walburg Pers, Paramaribo, Suriname.

Jara, F. and Reinders, M.A. 1997. ‘Kin and Cash. Ecological and socialconsequences of the changes in the sexual division of labour in Santa Rosa, anAmerindian village in the Northwest District of Guyana’, pp. 49-67, in M. deBruijn, I. van Halsema and H. van den Hombergh (eds.) Gender and Land Use.Thela Publishers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Jessup, T.C. and Peluso, N.L. 1985. Ecological patterns and the property status ofminor forest products in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Paper presented at theBOSTID-NRC Conference in Common Property Resource Management,Annopolis, USA.

Johnson, D.V. 1995. ‘Report on the palm cabbage industry in Northwest Guyana’,pp: 62-67 in J. Forte (ed.) Indigenous Use of the Forest. Situation Analysis withemphasis on Region 1. Amerindian Research Unit. University of Guyana,Georgetown, Guyana.

Johnston, M. 1998. Tree population studies in low-diversity forests, Guyana. II.Assessment on the distribution and abundance of non-timber forest products.Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 73-86.

Johnston, M. and Culquhoun, A. 1996. Preliminary Survey of Kurupukari: anAmerindian Settlement of Central Guyana. Economic Botany 50 (2): 182-194.

Johnston, M. and Gillman, M. 1995. Tree population studies in low-diversity forests,Guyana. I. Floristic composition and stand structure. Biodiversity andConservation 4, 339-362.

Kahn, F. and de Granville, J.J. 1992. Palms in Forest Ecosystems of Amazonia.Ecological Studies 95. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

Kasparek, M., Gröger, A. and Schipmann, U. 1996. Directory for Medicinal PlantsConservation. IUCN/SSC Medicinal Plants Specialist Group. German FederalAgency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany.

Kekem, A.J. van, Pulles, J.H.M. and Kahn, Z. 1996. Soils of the rainforest in centralGuyana. Tropenbo-Guyana Series 2. Georgetown, Guyana.

Killip, E.P. and Smith, A.C. 1935. Some American Plants used as fish poisons. U.S.Dept. of Agriculture, New York Botanical Garden, New York, USA.

King, S.R., Meza, E.N., Carlson, T.J.S., Chinnock, J.A., Moran, K. and Borges, J.R.1999. Issues in the commercialisation of medicinal plants. Herbal Gram 47: 46-51.

Klooster, C.I.E.A. van ‘t. 2000. Medicinale planten gebruikt door Surinamers inAmsterdam. MSc thesis, Herbarium Utrecht University and Free University ofAmsterdam, the Netherlands.

Kosteletzky, B.F. 1831-1836. Allgemeine Medizinisch-Pharmazeutische Flora, Vol.1-6. Borrosch and André, Prague, Czechoslovakia.

Krukoff, B.A. and Smith, A.C. 1937. Rotenone-yielding plants of South America.American Journal of Botany 24 (9): 573-587.

Kubitzki, K. 1989. The ecogeographical differentiation of Amazonian inundatedforests. Plant Systematics and Evolution 162: 285-304.

La Rotta, C. 1992. ‘Lecythidaceae and Myristicaceae: two tropical familiesproviding important secondary forest products’, pp. 63-72 in M.J. Plotkin and L.

10. References

304

Famolare (eds.), Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products.Conservation International. Island press, Washington DC., USA.

Lachman-White, D.A., Adams, C.D. and Trotz, U.O. 1992. A guide to the medicinalplants of Coastal Guyana. Commonwealth Science Council, TechnicalPublications Series, No. 225. London, UK.

LaFrankie, J.V. 1994. Population dynamics of some tropical trees that yield non-timber forest products. Economic Botany 48: 301-309.

LaRose, M. 1999. AMCAR asked to develop management plan, sponsor research oncabbage regrowth. Stabroek News, Wednesday October 27.

Leslie, A.R. (ed.) 1994. Handbook of Integrated Pest Management. LewisPublishers Inc., Washington DC., USA.

Lindeman, J.C. and Moolenaar, S.P. 1959. ‘Preliminary survey of the vegetationtypes of northern Suriname’, pp. 2-45 in I.A. de Hulster and J. Lanjouw (eds.),The vegetation of Suriname. Mededelingen van het Botanisch Museum enHerbarium van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht 159, the Netherlands.

Martin, G.J. 1995. Ethnobotany. A methods manual. WWF, UNESCO and RoyalBotanic Gardens, Kew. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Martyn, E.B. and Follett-Smith, R.R. 1936. The fish poison plants of British Guiana,with special reference to the genera Tephrosia and Lonchocarpus. AgriculturalJournal of British Guiana 7 (3): 154-159.

Matheson, N. 1994. Ethnobotany of the Ackawaio Amerindians of Guyana. BScHonours thesis Tropical Environment Sciences. University of Guyana,Georgetown, Guyana.

Matsumura, F. 1985. Toxicity of insecticides. Plenum Press, New York, USA.McNeely, J.A. 1988. Economic and Biological Diversity: Developing and using

economic incentives to conserve biological resources. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.Mead, R., Curnow, R.N. and Hasted, A.M. 1995. Statistical methods for agriculture

and experimental biology. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Mendelsohn, R. 1997. Valuing undiscovered pharmaceuticals in tropical forests.

Notes on Economic Plants. Economic Botany 51(3): 328.Mendelsohn, R. and Balick, M.J. 1995. The value of undiscovered pharmaceuticals

in tropical forests. Economic Botany 49: 223-228.Mennega, E.A., Tammens-de Rooij, W.C.M. and Jansen-Jacobs, M.J. (eds.) 1988.

Check-list of woody plants of Guyana. Tropenbos Technical Series. TheTropenbos Foundation, Ede, the Netherlands.

Mentore, G. 1995. Peccary meat and power among the Wai-wai Indians of Guyana.Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology 10: 19-33.

Milliken, W. 1997. Traditional anti-malarial medicine in Roraima, Brazil. EconomicBotany 51 (3): 212-237.

Milliken, W. and Albert, B. 1997. The use of medicinal plants by the YanomamiIndians of Brazil, Part 11. Economic Botany 51 (3): 264-278.

Milliken, W., Miller, R.P. and Pollard, S.R. 1992. Ethnobotany of the WaimiriAtroari of Brazil. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, UK.

Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: thecontingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC., USA.

Moretti, C. and Grénand, P. 1982. Les nivrées ou plantes ichthyotoxiques de laGuyane Française. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 6: 139-160.


305

Mori, S.A. 1992. ‘The Brazil Nut Industry: Past, present and future’, pp 241-251 inM.J. Plotkin, and L. Famolare (eds.), Sustainable harvest and marketing of rainforest products. Conservation International. Island press, Washington DC., USA.

Myers, N. 1982. ‘Deforestation in the tropics: who wins, who loses’, pp. 1-24 inM.D. Zamora, V.H. Sutlive and N. Altshuler (eds.), Where have all the flowersgone? Deforestation in the Third World. Studies in Third World Societies, No.13. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, USA.

Nasir, N., Funk, V., Waldron, N. and Famolare, L. 1997. Biodiversity and Land useInformation for the Guyana National Protected Area System Study. Centre forthe Study of Biological Diversity, University of Guyana and ConservationInternational, Georgetown, Guyana.

NCTR (National Center for Toxicological Research). 1999. Tumorogenic potentialof rotenone and its specificity for mammary tissue, experiment No. 216.www.ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/LT-Studies/TR320.html.

Nepstad, D.C. and Schwartzman, S. (eds.) 1992. Non-timber forest products:evaluation of a conservation and development strategy. Advances in EconomicBotany 9. New York Botanical Garden, USA.

NGMC. 1996. New Guyana Marketing Corporation, Annual Report 1995.Georgetown, Guyana.



Overman, H. and Demmer, J. 1999. ‘The effects of wealth on the use of forestresources: the case of the Tawahka Amerindians, Honduras’, pp. 107-113 inM.A.F. Ros-Tonen (ed.) Proceedings of the Seminar ‘NTFP Research in theTropenbos Programme: Results and perspectives’. 28 January 1999. TheTropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Padoch, C. 1987. The economic importance and marketing of forest and fallowproducts in the Iquitos Region. Advances in Economic Botany 5: 74-89.

Padoch, C. 1988. Aguaje (Mauritia flexuosa) in the economy of Iquitos, Peru.Advances in Economic Botany 6: 214-224.

Padoch, C. and Pinedo-Vasquez, M. 1999. Farming above the flood in the várzea ofAmapá: some preliminary results of the Projeto Várzea. Advances in EconomicBotany 13: 345-354..

Padoch, C. and de Jong, W. 1989. ‘Production and profit in agroforestry: an examplefrom the Peruvian Amazon’, pp. 102-113 in J.O. Browder (ed.), Fragile Lands ofLatin America: Strategies for Sustainable Development. Westview Press,Boulder, USA.

Panayotou, T. and Ashton, P. 1992. Not by timber alone: the case for multiple usemanagement of tropical forests. Island Press, Covelo, USA.

Parker, T.A., Foster, R.B., Emmons, L.H., Freed, P., Forsyth, A.B., Hoffman, B. andGill, B.D. 1993. A biological assessment of the Kanuku Mountain region ofsouth-western Guyana. Conservation International, RAP Working Papers 5.Washington DC., USA.

Pearce, K.G. 1989. Conservation status of palms in Sarawak. Malayan Naturalist 43(1 and 2): 20-36.

10. References

306

Peberdy, P.S. 1948. British Guiana: report of a survey on Amerindian affairs in theremote interior. Colonial Development and Welfare, Scheme number D 246,Georgetown, Guyana.

Peckolt, T. 1868. Analyses de Materia Medica Brasileira. E. and J. Laemmert, Riode Janeiro, Brazil.

Peña, M. and Zuidema, P. 1999. Limitaciones demográficas para elaprovechamiento sostenible de Euterpe precatoria para producción de palmitoen dos tipos de bosque de Bolivia. Ecología en Bolivia 33: 3-21.

Pendelton, L.H. 1992. ‘Trouble in Paradise: practical obstacles to NontimberForestry in Latin America’, pp. 252-262, in M.J. Plotkin, and L. Famolare (eds.),Sustainable harvest and marketing of rain forest products. ConservationInternational. Island press, Washington DC., USA.

Pennington, T.D. 1990. Sapotaceae. Flora Neotropica, Monograph 52. New YorkBotanical Garden, USA.

Pennington, T.D. 1997. The Genus Inga: Botany. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK.Persaud, D. 1997. ‘Policies, legislation and organisational structure for protected

areas in Guyana’, pp. 2-5 in M. Hoosein (ed.), Guyana National Report. EPA,Georgetown, Guyana.

Peters, C.M. 1989. ‘Population ecology and management of forest fruit trees inPeruvian Amazonia’, pp. 86-98 in A.B. Anderson (ed.), Alternatives todeforestation in Amazonia: steps toward sustainable use of the Amazonianrainforest. Columbia University Press, New York, USA.

Peters, C.M. 1994. Sustainable harvest of non-timber plant resources in tropicalmoist forest: An ecological primer. Biodiversity Support Program, WashingtonDC., USA.

Peters, C.M. 1996. The ecology and management of non-timber resources. WorldBank Technical Paper 322. The World Bank, Washington DC., USA.

Peters, C.M. and Hammond, E.J. 1990. Fruits from the flooded forest of PeruvianAmazonia: yield estimates for natural populations of three promising species.Advances in Economic Botany 8: 159-175.

Peters, C.M., Gentry, A.H. and Mendelsohn, R.O. 1989a. Valuation of anAmazonian rainforest. Nature 339: 655-656.

Peters, C.M., Balick, M.J., Kahn, F. and Anderson, A.B. 1989b. Oligarchic forestsof economic plants in Amazonia: utilization and conservation of an importanttropical resource. Conservation Biology 3 (4): 341-349.

Phillips, O.L. 1993. The potential for harvesting fruits in tropical rainforests: newdata from Amazonian Peru. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 18-38.

Phillips, O.L. 1996. ‘Some quantitative methods for analysing ethnobotanicalknowledge’, pp. 171-197 in M.N. Alexiades (ed.), Selected Guidelines forethnobotanical research: a field manual. New York Botanical Garden, USA.

Phillips, O.L. and Gentry, A.H. 1993. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: I.Statistical hypotheses test with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany47 (1): 15-32.

Phillips, O.L., Hall, P., Gentry, A.H., Sawyer, A.S. and Vasquez, R. 1994.Dynamics and species richness of tropical rain forests. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, USA 91: 2805-2809.

Pierre, L. 1988. ‘The ‘Spanish Arawaks’ of Moruca’, pp: 44-50 in AmerindianResearch Unit (ed.) Proceedings of the Conference on the Arawaks of Guyana.October 14-15. University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.


307

Pierre, L. and Marco, G. 1992. Communities and livelihoods around the great fallsarea. Draft report for Iwokrama, the commonwealth rain forest programme inGuyana, phase 1: site resources survey, Georgetown, Guyana.

Pinedo-Vásquez, M., Zarin, D., Jipp, P. and Chonta-Inuma, J. 1990. Use-values oftree species in a communal forest reserve in Northeast Peru. ConservationBiology 4 (4): 405-416.

Plotkin, M.J. and Famolare, L. (eds.) 1992. Sustainable harvest and marketing ofrain forest products. Conservation International. Island press, Washington DC.,USA.

Polak, A.M. 1992. Major timber trees of Guyana: a field guide. Tropenbos Series 2.The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Pollak, H., Mattos, M., and Uhl, C. 1995. A profile of the palm heart extraction inthe Amazon Estuary. Human Ecology 23 (3): 357-385.

Poonai, N.O. 1992. The periwinkle eaters of Pomeroon. Stabroek News, Sunday 19April.

Posey, D.A. (ed.). 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. UNEP,Nairobi, Kenya.

Posey, D.A. 1983. ‘Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Development of theAmazon’, pp: 225-257 in E.F. Moran (ed.), The Dilemma of AmazonDevelopment. Westview Special studies on Latin America and the Caribbean.Westview Press, Boulder, USA.

Posey, D.A. 1992. ‘Traditional knowledge, conservation and ‘the rain forestharvest’, pp. 46-50 in M.J. Plotkin and L. Famolare (eds.), Sustainable harvestand marketing of rain forest products. Conservation International. Island press,Washington DC., USA.

Posey, D.A. and Dutfield, G. 1996. Beyond intellectual property rights: towardinternational resource rights for indigenous peoples and local communities.IDRC, Ottawa, Canada.

Prance, G.T. 1972. Ethnobotanical Notes from Amazonian Brazil. Economic Botany26 (3): 221-237.

Prance, G.T. 1979. Notes on the vegetation of Amazonia III. The terminology ofAmazonian forest types subject to inundation. Brittonia 31 (1): 26-38.

Prance, G.T. and Lovejoy, T.E. (eds.) 1985. Key environments: Amazonia.Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford, UK.

Prance, G.T., Balee, W., Boom, B.M. and Carneiro, R.L. 1987. QuantitativeEthnobotany and the Case for Conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology1 (4): 296-310.

PROMAB (Programa Manejo de Bosques de la Amazonía Boliviana) 1998.Producción de palmito: Limitaciones del manejo sostenible de poblacionesnaturales de asaí (Euterpe precatoria), y el potencial del cultivo de tembe(Bactris gasipaes) como fuente alternativa. Riberalta, Beni, Bolivia.

Raghoenandan, U.P. 1994. Ethnobotanisch onderzoek bij de hindustaansebevolkingsgroep in Suriname. Nationaal Herbarium van Suriname, Universiteitvan Suriname, Paramaribo, Suriname.

Raleigh, Sir W. 1596. The discoverie of the large, rich, and beautiful empire ofGuiana. Hakluyt Society Publishers, Vol. 3 (1848). London, UK.

Ramdass, I. 1990. A definition of priority conservation areas in Amazonia. GuyanaCountry Paper. Conservation International. Manaus, Brazil.

10. References

308

Redford, K.H. and Robinson, J.G. 1987. The game of choice: Patterns of Indian andcolonist hunting in the Neotropics. American Anthropologist 89: 650-667.

Rehm, S. and Espig, G. 1991. The cultivated plants of the tropics and subtropics.Institute of Agronomy in the Tropics. Verlag Josef Margraf, Göttingen,Germany.

Reinders, M. 1993. Medicinal plants and their uses and the ideas about illness andhealing among the Warao of Guyana. MSc thesis, Dept. of CulturalAnthropology, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Reinders, M.A. 1996. Amerindians as Consumers, Producers and Manipulators intheir Natural Environment: a research in ethnobotany and resource use amongthe Carib Amerindians in Guyana. Workplan (unpublished). Dept. ofAnthropology, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Reinders, M.A. and van Andel, T.R. 1996. Preliminary report on first visit toKariako, Barama River. Unpublished internal report, Tropenbos-GuyanaProgramme, Georgetown, Guyana.

Ricci, J.P. 1987. Placette experimentale d’études de la croissance du palmier pinot(Euterpe oleracea). Office National des Fôrets. Direction Regionale pour laGuyane, Subdivision de Cayenne, French Guiana.

Ricci, J.P. 1989. Les pinotières. Revue Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 220: 55-63.Richards, E.M. 1993. Commercialization of non-timber forest products in Amazonia.

Natural Resource Institute, ODA. NRI-Socio-Economic Series. Chatham, UK.Rijsoort, J. van 1999. Non-timber forest products (NTFPs): Hun rol bij duurzaam

bosbeheer in tropische bossen. Werkdocument IKC Natuurbeheer No. W-172.Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Wageningen, theNetherlands.

Riley, M. 1998. Traditional Remedies, Indigenous knowledge and Intellectualproperty rights: the current status and possible future of the ethno-medicine ofthe Makushi Amerindians. Paper for workshop Carib studies in the Guianas:ethnobotany, language and culture. 31 Aug.–1 Sept. 1998. Amerindian ResearchUnit and Tropenbos-Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Rivière, P. 1984. Individual and society in Guiana: a comparative study onAmerindian social organisation. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 51.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Romero, G. 1993. Biología del Mamure, Heteropsis spruceana Schott (Araceae).Informe final. Servicio Autonomo de Desarollo Ambiental del EstadoAmazonas. Ministerio del Ambiente y de Recursos Renovables, Caracas,Venezuela.

Roopnaraine, T. 1998. The Social and Economic Conditions of AmerindianCommunities on the Barima River, Guyana. Unpublished report for APFT(Avenir des peuples des Forêts Tropicales). University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.

Rosales Godoy, J., Petts, G. and Salo, J. 1999. Riparian flooded forests of theOrinoco and Amazon basins: a comparative review. Biodiversity andConservation 8: 551-586.

Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. 1999. ‘Introduction’, pp. 15-32 in M.A.F. Ros-Tonen (ed.),Proceedings of the Seminar ‘NTFP Research in the Tropenbos Programme:Results and perspectives’. 28 January. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen,the Netherlands.

Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Dijkman, W. and Lammerts-van Bueren, E. 1995. Commercialand sustainable extraction of non-timber forest products. Towards a Policy and


309

Management Oriented Research Strategy. The Tropenbos Foundation,Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Roth, W.E. 1924. An introductory study of the arts, crafts and customs of theGuiana Indians. 38th Annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnology.Smithsonian Institute. Washington DC., USA.

Salafsky, N., Dugelby, B.L. and Terborgh, J.W. 1993. Can extractive reserves savethe rain forest? An ecological and socioeconomic comparison of non-timberforest product extraction systems in Peten, Guatemala and West Kalimantan,Indonesia. Conservation Biology 7: 39-52.

Salo, J., Kalliola, R., Häkkinen, I., Mäkinen, Y., Niemelä, P., Puhakka, M. andColey, P.D. 1986. River dynamics and the diversity of Amazon lowlandrainforest. Nature 322: 254-258.

Sanders, A. 1972. Amerindians in Guyana: a minority group in an multi-ethnicsociety. Caribbean studies 12 (2): 31-51.

Sarmiento, G. 1983. ‘Savannas of tropical America’, pp. 267-269 in F. Bourlière(ed.), Tropical Savannas. Ecosystems of the world 13. Elsevier ScientificPublishing Company, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Schomburgk, M.R. 1847. Reisen in Britisch-Guiana in den Jahren 1840-1844, Teil I.Leipzig, Germany.

Schomburgk, M.R. 1848. Reisen in Britisch-Guiana in den Jahren 1840-1844, TeilII. Leipzig, Germany.

Schomburgk, R.H. 1842. Expedition to the lower parts of the Barima and GuianiaRivers in British Guiana. Journal of the National Geographic Society 12. 169-196.

Schultes, R.E. 1992. ‘Ethnobotany and Technology in the Northwest Amazon: apartnership’, pp. 7-13 in M.J. Plotkin and L. Famolare (eds.), Sustainable harvestand marketing of rain forest products. Conservation International. Island press,Washington DC., USA.

Schwartzman, S. 1990. Marketing of extractive products in the Brazilian Amazon.Environmental Defense Fund. Mimeo, New York, USA.

Sheldon, J.W., Balick, M.J. and Laird, A. 1997. Medicinal plants: Can Utilizationand Conservation Coexist? Advances in Economic Botany 12.

Simmons, T. 1991. Dutch-Indian trade. Chronicle, Friday 1 November.Sizer, N. 1996. Profit without plunder: reaping revenue from Guyana’s tropical

forests without destroying them. World Resources Institute, Washington DC.,USA.

Slikkerveer, L.J. 1999. ‘Ethnoscience, ‘TEK’ and its Application to Conservation’,pp: 169-180 in D.A. Posey (ed.), Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity.UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

Slikkerveer, L.J. and Slikkerveer, M.K.L. 1995. ‘Taman Obat Keluarga (TOGA):indigenous Indonesian medicine for self-reliance’, pp: 13-34 in D.M. Warren,L.J. Slikkerveer and D.W. Brokensha (eds.), The cultural dimension ofdevelopment: Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Intermediate TechnologyPublications, London, UK.

Sokal, R.R. and Rolf, F.J. 1995. Biometry. Freeman & Company, New York, USA.Spjut, R.W. and Perdue, R.E. 1976. Plant Folklore: A tool for predicting sources of

antitumor activity? Cancer Treatment Reports 60: 979-985.Stabroek News. 1993. CITES to recommend lifting ban on caiman trade.

Wednesday 4 August.

10. References

310

Stahel, G. 1944. De nuttige planten van Suriname. Dept. Landbouwproefstation inSuriname. Bulletin No. 59, Paramaribo, Suriname.

Steege, H. ter, Ek, R.C., van Andel, T.R. 2000a. ‘A comparison of diversity patternsof tree and non-tree groups’, pp. 131-138 in H. ter Steege (ed.), Plant Diversityin Guyana. Tropenbos Series 18, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Steege, H. ter. (ed.) 2000. Plant Diversity in Guyana. Tropenbos Series 18,Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Steege, H. ter. 1993. Patterns in tropical rain forest in Guyana. PhD thesis, UtrechtUniversity. Tropenbos Series 3, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Steege, H. ter. 1998. The use of forest inventory data for a National Protected AreaStrategy in Guyana. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 1457-1483.

Steege, H. ter., Jansen-Jacobs, M.J. and Datadin, V.K. 2000b. Can botanicalcollections assist in a National Protected Area Strategy in Guyana? Biodiversityand Conservation 9: 215-240.

Steege, H. ter., Lilwah, R., Ek, R.C., van Andel, T.R., van der Hout, P., Thomas, R.van Essen, J. and Ramdass, I. 2000c. ‘Diversity at different scales: a comparisonof large-scale forest inventories and smaller plots’, pp. 117-130 in H. ter Steege(ed.), Plant Diversity in Guyana. Tropenbos Series 18, Wageningen, theNetherlands.

Steege, H. ter., Sabatier, D, Castellanos, H., van Andel, T.R., Duivenvoorden, J.F.,Adalardo De Oliveira, A., Ek, R.C., Lilwah, R., Maas, P.J.M. and Mori, S.2000d. ‘A regional perspective: analysis of Amazonian floristic composition anddiversity that includes the Guiana Shield’, pp. 19-34 in H. ter Steege (ed.), PlantDiversity in Guyana. Tropenbos Series 18, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Steege, ter H., Lilwah, R., Ek, R.C., van der Hout, P., Thomas, R., van Essen, J. andJetten, V. 2000e. Composition and diversity of the rain forest in Central Guyana.Tropenbos-Guyana Reports 2000-1. Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Stoffle, R.W., Halmo, D.B., Evans, M.J. and Olmstedt, J.E. 1990. Calculating thecultural significance of American Indian plants: Paiute and Shoshoneethnobotany at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. American Anthropologist 92: 416-432.

Strudwick, J. 1990. Commercial Management for Palm Heart from Euterpe oleraceaMart. (Palmae) in the Amazon Estuary and Tropical Forest Conservation.Advances in Economic Botany 8: 241-248.

Strudwick, J. and Sobel, G.L. 1988. Uses of Euterpe oleracea Mart. in the AmazonEstuary, Brazil. Advances in Economic Botany 6: 225-253.

Sullivan, C. 1997. Calculating the Gross Village Product of an Amerindian Village:the example of Assakata, N.W. Guyana, with particular reference to thecontribution of GVP made by NTFP from the forest. Tropenbos Interim report97-4. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Sullivan, C. 1998. Forest resource use in Amerindian villages in Guyana:Implications for development policy. Paper presented to the Conference onresources, planning and environmental management, Mona, Jamaica, July 1998.University of the West Indies and Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.

Sullivan, C. 1999. Valuation of non-timber forest products: a case study for threeAmerindian villages in Guyana. PhD thesis, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK.

Sunday Chronicle. 1993. Team dispatched to check heart of palm company. Friday21 May.

Swerdlow, J.L. 2000. Nature’s medicine: plants that heal. National GeographicMagazine, April.


311

Theunissen, P.A. 1993. ‘Vegetation and vegetation succession of the freshwaterwetlands’, pp. 77-98 in P.E. Ouboter (ed.), Freshwater ecosystems of Suriname.Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

Thomas, C., Forte, J., Culpepper, D., Campbell, S., and Rutherford-Rodrigues, B.1996. Guyana: Human Development Report 1996, University of Guyana,Georgetown, Guyana.

Toppin-Allahar, C. 1995. A report on Forestry Law and Policy. Government ofGuyana, Guyana Forestry Commission and Rapid Environmental AssessmentsLtd. Georgetown, Guyana.

Tropenbos. 1991. Guyana and Tropenbos. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen,the Netherlands.

Tropenbos. 1999. Proposal Phase III. Tropenbos programme 2000-2004.Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Turner, N.J. 1974. Plant taxonomic systems and ethnobotany of three contemporaryIndian groups of the Pacific Northwest (Haida, Bella Coola and Lillooet). Syesis7: Supplement 1.

Turner, N.J. 1988. The importance of a rose. Evaluating the cultural significance ofplants in Thompson and Lillooet Interior Salish. American Anthropologist 90:272-290.

Valkenburg, J.L.C.H. van. 1997. Non-timber forest products of East Kalimantan:potentials for sustainable forest use. Tropenbos Series 16. PhD thesis,Wageningen University, the Netherlands.

Valkenburg, J.L.C.H. van. 1999. The potential for commercial NTFP extraction inEast Kalimantan’, pp. 131-143 in M.A.F. Ros-Tonen (ed.), Seminar Proceedings‘NTFP Research in the Tropenbos Programme: Results and Perspectives’, 28January 1999. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

VanDamme P., van den Eynden, V. and Vernemmen, P. 1992. The Ethnobotany ofthe Topnaar. University of Gent, Belgium.

Vasquez, R. and Gentry, A.H. 1989. Use and misuse of forest-harvested fruits in theIquitos area. Conservation Biology 3 (4): 350-361.

Verheij, B. 1998. Ethnicity and economic integration of Amerindians on a marketplace in Guyana: An analysis of present ethnicity in exchange relationshipsbetween Guyanese Amerindians and traders. MSc thesis, Dept. of CulturalAnthropology, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

Verheij, B. and M.A. Reinders. 1997. The Status of the Extraction and Marketing ofTimber and Non-Timber Forest Products by Amerindians in the Guyanesecontext. Bos Newsletter 16 (1): 15-22.

Veth, B. and Reinders, M.A. 1995. Planten zijn als mensen: genezen met medicinaleplanten bij de Warao en de Wayana in de Guyana’s. Indigo 5: 4-7.

Waterton, C. 1825. Wanderings in South America. London, UK.Wessels Boer, J.G. 1965. The indigenous palms of Suriname. E.J. Brill, Leiden, the

Netherlands.Whitehead, B.W. and Godoy, R. 1991. The extraction of rattan-like lianas in the

New World tropics: a possible prototype for sustainable forest management.Agroforestry Systems 16: 247-255.

Whitehead, N.L. 1988. Lords of the tiger spirit: a history of the Caribs in colonialVenezuela and Guyana, 1498-1820. Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal- enVolkenkunde, Carribean Series 10. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, theNetherlands.

10. References

312

Whitmore, T.C. 1980. Potentially economic species of Southeast Asian forests. TreeCrops Journal 1: 171-181.

WHO (World Health Organisation). 1993. Implementation of the Global Strategy forHealth for All by the Year 2000. Eighth Report on the World Health Situation.Geneva, Switzerland.

Wieren, S. van. 1999. ‘Towards the sustainable use of wildlife in tropical forests’,pp. 175-178 in M.A.F. Ros-Tonen (ed.), Seminar Proceedings ‘NTFP Researchin the Tropenbos Programme: Results and Perspectives’, 28 January 1999. TheTropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Wiersum, F. 1999. ‘Understanding diversity in NTFP management: a neglectedissue in NTFP research’, pp. 161-165 in M.A.F. Ros-Tonen (ed.), SeminarProceedings ‘NTFP Research in the Tropenbos Programme: Results andPerspectives’, 28 January 1999. The Tropenbos Foundation, Wageningen, theNetherlands.

Wilbert, J. 1970. Folk literature of the Warao Indians. Narrative material and motifcontent. Latin American Studies 15. University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

Wilbert, J. 1976. Manicaria saccifera and its cultural significance among the WaraoIndians of Venezuela. Botanical Museum Leaflets, Harvard University 24 (10):275-335.

Wilbert, J. (ed.) 1993. Mystic Endowment: Religious Ethnography of the WaraoIndians. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.

Wilbert, J. and M. Layrisse (eds.) 1980. Demographic and biological studies of theWarao Indians. Latin American Studies 45. University of California, LosAngeles, USA.

Williams, D. 1989. The Archaeic of north-western Guyana. History Gazette 7.University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

World Bank. 1995. Technical Report: Guyana environmental management projectpreparation mission. Sustainable financing options for the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA). Environmental Resources Management, WashingtonDC., USA.

Yde, J. 1965. Material culture of the Wai wai. National Museum of Copenhagen.Nationalmuseets skrifter Ethnografik Roekke X, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ziegler, A.P. and Zago, S. 1993. Preparatory Study for the Creation of a ProtectedArea in the Kanuku Mountains Region of Guyana. Agriconsulting and EuropeanUnion, Rome, Italy.


313

11. SUMMARY

This thesis describes the use of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) by theindigenous peoples of northwest Guyana. It provides a complete survey of theNTFP-producing plant species and their uses, the harvest and processing methodsused by local communities, the role of these plants in the local economy and theirabundance in different forest types. This thesis consists of two parts. In Part I, ageneral analysis is made of the present status of NTFP harvesting in the North-WestDistrict and Pomeroon region. Part II is a field guide of the useful plants in thestudy area and is published in a separate volume.

In Part I, the variations in plant use among Amerindian groups are discussed, whichcan be ascribed to differences in ethnicity, surrounding vegetation types, distance tomarket and health facilities, and level of acculturation. It was expected thatrelatively isolated communities had a greater traditional plant knowledge than morewesternised groups. This study may contribute to a better understanding of thefloristic diversity in northwest Guyana, and the traditional and (potential)commercial use of this resource. It will also provide baseline data for subsequentecological and economical studies on NTFP extraction as a sustainable forestmanagement system.

The adequate protection and management of a tropical rain forest requires a goodknowledge of its biodiversity. Considerable parts of Guyana’s North-West Districthave been allocated as logging concessions, but little has been published on theforest types present in this region. Chapter 2 reviews the floristic composition,vegetation structure, and diversity of well-drained mixed and secondary forests innorthwest Guyana. Trees, shrubs, lianas, herbs, and hemi-epiphytes were inventoriedin four hectare plots: in primary forest, 20-year-old secondary forest, and 60-year-old forest. The primary forests largely corresponded with the Eschweilera-Licaniaassociation described by Fanshawe (1952, 1954), although there were substantialvariations in the floristic composition and densities of dominant species. The latesuccession forest had the highest number of species and was not yet dominated byLecythidaceae and Chrysobalanaceae. There is a great need for updating the existingvegetation maps of the region. Previous studies based on large-scale forestinventories predicted a general low diversity for the North-West District, but thepresent forest plots turned out to rank among the most diverse studied in Guyana sofar. These results are important for the planning of protected areas in the country.

Flooded forests cover a considerable part of Guyana, but little is known of thedifferent types of swamp vegetation present in the North-West District. Chapter 3reviews the floristic composition, vegetation structure, and diversity of three types ofswamp forests. Trees and smaller life forms were inventoried in three hectare plotsin Mora forest, quackal and manicole swamp. The Mora forest, flooded annually bywhite water, was dominated by Mora excelsa. The quackal swamp, almostpermanently flooded by black water, was characterised by Tabebuia insignis andSymphonia globulifera and contained few Mauritia flexuosa palms. The manicoleswamp, flooded regularly by brackish water, was distinguished by large numbers of

11. Summary

314

the palm Euterpe oleracea. Although the three swamps showed little overlap infloristic composition and densities of dominant species, they represent some of thelowest diversity forests in the Neotropics. These low-diversity wetlands are quiteimportant for the extraction of commercial NTFPs. Furthermore, they form the laststretch of natural coastline in Guyana and play an important role in the protection ofriverine ecosystems. Adequate management and conservation strategies musttherefore be developed for the area.

The usefulness of a forest for indigenous peoples is a strong reason for itsconservation. For the design of appropriate management plans, however,quantitative data are needed on the population densities and distribution patterns ofuseful species. They can also be used for calculating the forest’s economic value.Chapter 4 provides a quantitative assessment of the useful species in the sevenhectare plots, of which the vegetation was described in chapters 2 and 3. Thenumbers and percentage of NTFPs are given in the different use categories (food,construction, technology, medicine, firewood, etc.). A total of 616 species werefound in the seven plots, of which 357 (58%) were utilised. Between 20 and 60% ofthese NTFPs were found in the understorey.

Species with the highest use-value included Carapa guianensis, Hymenaeacourbaril, Symphonia globulifera, Mauritia flexuosa, and Inga alba. The mostimportant NTFP-producing families were Mimosaceae, Guttiferae, Annonaceae, andPalmae. Variations in the number of useful species between the plots were caused byfloristic diversity, socio-economic and cultural differences. The species-rich mixedforests contained more useful species and had a higher overall use value than thespecies-poor swamp plots. High floristic diversity, however, is not a prerequisite foreconomically and ecologically sustainable NTFP extraction. Craft-producing hemi-epiphytes are among the few species that have a potential to preserve this diverseforest, as standing forest is needed for the required products. The low-diversityforests, in particular the manicole swamp, offered the best opportunities forsustainable NTFP harvesting, since the vegetation was dominated by economicallyimportant species.

All forest types were of great importance to the local residents. High use percentages(especially in the tree layer) indicated that people had a great knowledge of theirsurrounding forest. Since several of the sampled forest types are threatened bytimber harvesting, slash-and-burn agriculture, mining or forest fires, there is anurgent need for protection measurements and sustainable management plans. Someof the highly valued NTFPs were produced by commercial timber species. Selectivelogging of these species would deprive local Amerindians from these products.

Chapter 5 deals with the most important vegetal NTFP of Guyana: palm heartsfrom the multi-stemmed Euterpe oleracea. Supporting a canning industry worthUS$ 2 million annually in export value, the harvesting of palm hearts is the principalsource of income for Amerindian communities in the coastal wetlands. To assess theimpact of the current extraction on Euterpe populations, population structure,regeneration, and clump mortality were compared between areas with a high andwith a low harvest pressure. An undisturbed area was used as a control. Extractors,factory personnel and canning company staff were interviewed to get a general idea


315

of the socio-economic aspects of palm heart harvesting. The study revealed that,after several years of exploitation, Euterpe populations showed a steady decline inheight and diameter of stems, clump vitality, reproduction, and expected palm heartyield. It was suggested that the main reason for this is that harvesting took place atmuch shorter intervals than the generally recommended four to five years. Thepresent extraction procedures will lead to severe problems with future yields,because the palm populations are not given sufficient time to regenerate.

Neglect of traditional farming and total dependency on the palm heart industry haveled to high pressure on the forest and to socio-economic problems in severalcommunities. In areas where extraction was combined with subsistence farming,however, fallow periods appeared to be longer and Euterpe populations were subjectto lower extraction intensity. Maintaining a minimum diameter for palm heartsprevented the extraction of immature stems to a certain extent. A management planis needed to ensure the future supply of palm hearts, since the sustainable harvest ofthis resource is of vital importance to the country’s well being. Not only are large-scale rotation plans necessary to allow adequate regeneration, community-basedrotation systems should also be encouraged. Subsistence agriculture should bestimulated to guarantee food security. The abundance and rapid growth of E.oleracea offer good opportunities for sustainable extraction and the potential forconflictive land uses is minimal.

Non-timber forest products still remain a neglected natural resource in Guyana. Thelack of information on export and domestic markets obstructs the potential role ofNTFPs in land use and economic planning. In chapter 6 an overview is given on thepresent commercial extraction of the major NTFPs in the region: palm hearts,wildlife, craft fibres, palm leaves and mangrove bark. Total export revenues wereestimated at US $4.2 million per year. Most products have an ecological potentialfor commercial extraction, but more studies on the impact of harvesting on the forestand monitoring of harvested quantities are needed to develop sustainablemanagement policies.

Commercial NTFP extraction offers indigenous peoples an income without havingto move far from home. Harvesting can be combined with subsistence activities andhelps to maintain the social cohesion and indigenous culture, although the low socialstatus of Amerindians in the Guyanese society prevents them to fully benefit fromthe available resources. Low prices for the raw material, insecure land tenure, littleorganisation among harvesters, high transport costs and unequal participation in themarket economy are the main problems in commercialising their NTFPs. Anotherkey factor for a successful NTFP trade is the improvement of the institutional andlegal base for the management of NTFPs. Community-based management plansshould be designed for NTFPs. To minimise the chances of exploitative contractsbetween companies and indigenous communities, training is needed in villageadministration, law and marketing. Additionally, diversification of the trade andcertification of responsibly harvested products could enhance the potential of NTFPsto improve local people’s livelihood in the region.

Although prohibited by law, fish poison plants are still widely used by indigenoustribes in Guyana. Chapter 7 attempts to clarify the taxonomy and ethnobotany of

11. Summary

316

the fish poisons, in particular those containing rotenone, currently used in northwestGuyana. Specimens were collected from 11 species known to be ichthyotoxic, bothfrom wild and cultivated sources. It was found that fish poisons not only serve as aquick method of providing food in times of shortage, but also play an important rolein magic rituals and traditional medicine. Particularly striking was the use ofLonchocarpus spp. and Tephrosia sinapou in the treatment of cancer and AIDS.Further ethnobotanical and pharmacological research should focus on the medicinalapplications of rotenone-yielding plants.

The importance of herbal medicine for the indigenous communities in the study areais further highlighted in chapter 8. The general health conditions in the study areaare discussed, as well as the local attitude towards medicinal plants and traditionalhealing practices. A total of 294 medicinal plant species were found, used in morethan 800 recipes. Many of these species have not previously been reported asmedicinal or have uses distinct from those of other indigenous groups. Some 80% ofthese species were harvested from the wild. The highest number of plants (48 spp.)was used to treat common colds and coughs, followed by skin sores (38) and malaria(30), the latter being a major health problem in the area. The most common methodof preparing a medicine was boiling the ingredients as a tea. Leaves were by far themost used plant organs, followed by bark, the whole plant (e.g., herbs) and roots.

Although quite some medicinal species are being sold in the capital, very few arecommercialised within the interior. Nevertheless, many indigenous communities arealmost completely dependent on medicinal plants for their health care, since modernhealth facilities are limited and prescription medicine is unavailable or expensive.Community health workers should cooperate with traditional healers, becausemedicinal plants have a great potential for rural health care improvement.

Since indigenous tribes in Guyana are under great pressure from the westernsociety, the present knowledge of herbal medicine may rapidly be lost.Documentation and revitalisation of indigenous knowledge may help to preserveboth cultural and biological diversity. The great variety of Guyanese medicinalplants could have a much larger potential for the (inter-) national market than it hastoday, if it would be processed in a more sophisticated manner and collected in asustainable way, while respecting traditional resource rights.

In chapter 9, the main outcomes of this study are discussed. The efficacy of the tworesearch methods (‘walk-in-the woods’ and hectare plots) is compared. It appearedthat 39% of the NTFPs were found outside the plots. Most of these grew insecondary shrubland, an important habitat for NTFP collection and enrichmentplanting. It can be concluded that a combination of the two methods provides themost accurate picture of local plant use.

From the large numbers of useful plants and the high use percentages in the plots, itcan be concluded that the Amerindian communities rely heavily on their surroundingforest for subsistence. An easier connection with the coastal market enhances thepossibilities for the marketing NTFPs, but the influx of luxury goods does notnecessarily reduce the need to harvest NTFPs, as was assumed in the introduction ofthis thesis. Even when synthetic alternatives are available, indigenous people


317

(especially the poorer households) continue to use foods and material from theforest, as they are free, easily available, and culturally more accepted than industrialsubstitutes.

The species-poor swamp forests have the highest potential for large-scale single-species extraction. For the highly diverse mixed forests, commercial extraction canonly become successful if several products are harvested simultaneously. With thehelp of external subsidies, NTFPs from remote forests may be able to compete withsimilar products harvested closer to the capital. Another conclusion of this study isthat extractivism can only act as a potential saviour of the rain forests if it is able toprevent or reduce deforestation. However, extractors need to combine NTFPharvesting with subsistence agriculture in order to guarantee their food security.

Part II of this thesis contains scientific and vernacular plant names, short botanicaldescriptions and uses of 471 NTFP-producing species. For the 85 NTFPs of majorimportance, detailed species and use descriptions are provided, as well asillustrations and information on habitat preference and seasonal availability.

12. Samenvatting

318

12. SAMENVATTING

Dit proefschrift beschrijft het gebruik van niet-hout bosproducten (bosbijproducten,NTFPs) door de inheemse bevolking van noordwest Guyana. Het bevat eencomplete inventarisatie van nuttige plantensoorten en hun gebruik, en verstrektbovendien informatie over de plaatselijke oogsten verwerkingsmethoden, de rolvan bosbijproducten in de lokale economie en hun voorkomen en dichtheden inverschillende bostypes. Dit proefschrift bestaat uit twee delen. In Deel I wordt dehuidige situatie wat betreft de oogst van NTFPs in het Noordwest District en dePomeroon regio geanalyseerd. Deel II is een veldgids voor de nuttige planten in hetonderzoeksgebied en wordt apart gepubliceerd.

In Deel I wordt nagegaan of het verschil in plantgebruik tussen Indianengroepen kanworden toegeschreven aan de etniciteit, de plaatselijke vegetatie, de toegang tot demarkt en de moderne gezondheidszorg en/of de mate van acculturatie. Verwachtwerd dat bij relatief geïsoleerde groepen meer traditionele kennis van plantenaanwezig zou zijn dan bij de meer ‘verwesterde’ groepen. Dit onderzoek draagt bijaan de kennis van de floristische rijkdom van noordwest Guyana, alsmede van hettraditionele en (toekomstig) commercieel gebruik van deze diversiteit. Deze studielevert de basisgegevens voor verder ecologisch en economisch onderzoek naar deexploitatie van NTFPs als duurzaam systeem voor bosbeheer.

Voor de adequate bescherming en het beheer van tropisch regenwoud is een goedekennis van de lokale biodiversiteit essentieel. Grote delen van Noordwest Guyanazijn uitgegeven als kapconcessie, maar er is weinig bekend over de bostypen in deregio. Hoofdstuk 2 behandelt de floristische samenstelling, de vegetatiestructuur ende diversiteit van goedgedraineerde primaire en secundaire bossen in noordwestGuyana. Bomen, struiken, lianen, kruiden en hemi-epiphyten zijn geïnventariseerdin vier hectare plots in primair bos en secundair bos van 20 en 60 jaar oud. Hetprimaire bos kwam grotendeels overeen met de Eschweilera-Licania associatiebeschreven door Fanshawe (1952, 1954), ondanks de variatie in floristischesamenstelling en dichtheden van dominante soorten. Het laat-secundaire bos had hethoogste aantal soorten en werd nog niet gedomineerd door Lecythidaceae enChrysobalanaceae. Het is noodzakelijk de bestaande vegetatiekaarten van de regio teherzien. Eerdere studies, gebaseerd op grootschalige bosinventarisaties, voorspeldeneen lage diversiteit in het Noordwest District. De huidige onderzoeksplots behorenechter tot nog toe tot de meest soortenrijke van Guyana. Deze resultaten zijn vanbelang voor het plannen van beschermde gebieden in het land.

Vloedbossen beslaan een groot deel van Guyana, maar er is weinig bekend over deverscheidene types moerasbos in het Noordwest District. Hoofdstuk 3 behandelt defloristische samenstelling, de vegetatiestructuur en de diversiteit van driemoerasbossen. Bomen en kleinere planten zijn geïnventariseerd in drie hectare plots:in Mora bos, ‘quackal’ en ‘manicole’ moeras. Het Mora bos, jaarlijks overstroomddoor sedimentrijk (‘wit’) water, werd gedomineerd door Mora excelsa. Het quackalmoeras, bijna permanent geïnundeerd door voedselarm (‘zwart’) water, werdgekarakteriseerd door Tabebuia insignis en Symphonia globulifera en een enkele


319

Mauritia flexuosa palm. Het manicole moeras, regelmatig overstroomd door brakwater, werd gekenmerkt door grote aantallen Euterpe oleracea palmen. Hoewel dedrie moerasbossen weinig overeenkomsten vertoonden op floristisch gebied,behoren ze wel tot de minst soortenrijke bossen in de Neotropen. Deze soortenarmebossen zijn vrij belangrijk voor commerciële NTFP exploitatie. Bovendien vormenze het laatste stuk natuurlijke kustlijn van Guyana en spelen ze een belangrijke rol inde bescherming van het delta ecosysteem. Een adequaat beheersplan is van grootbelang voor dit gebied.

De bruikbaarheid van een bos voor de inheemse bevolking is een belangrijkargument voor de bescherming ervan. Voor het ontwerpen van aangepastebeheersplannen zijn echter kwalitatieve gegevens nodig over de populatiedichthedenen verspreiding van nuttige planten. Met deze gegevens kan ook de economischewaarde van het bos berekend worden. Hoofdstuk 4 bevat een kwantitatieve analysevan de nuttige soorten in de zeven hectare plots, waarvan de vegetatie is beschrevenin de hoofdstukken 2 en 3. De aantallen en percentages NTFPs zijn berekend voorde verschillende gebruikscategorieën (voedsel, constructie, technologie, medicinaal,brandhout, etc.). In totaal zijn er 616 soorten in de zeven plots gevonden, waarvan er357 (58%) als bruikbaar werden geregistreerd. Zo’n 20 tot 60% van deze plantenkwamen alleen voor in de struiken kruidlaag. Soorten met de hoogstegebruikswaarde waren Carapa guianensis, Hymenaea courbaril, Symphoniaglobulifera, Mauritia flexuosa en Inga alba. De belangrijkste NTFP families warende Mimosaceae, Guttiferae, Annonaceae en Palmae. Het aantal bruikbare planten perplot werd bepaald door de floristische diversiteit, maar ook door de sociaal-economische en culturele achtergrond van de lokale gebruikers.

Het rijke, primaire bos bevatte meer nuttige soorten en had een hogeregebruikswaarde dan de armere moerassen. Een hoge diversiteit is echter geenvoorwaarde voor een economisch en ecologisch duurzame oogst van NTFPs. Deluchtwortels van hemi-epiphyten, gebruikt in de meubelindustrie, zijn één van deweinige producten die de potentie hebben dit diverse bos te beschermen, aangeziendeze wortels alleen in hoge bomen voorkomen. De soortenarme moerasbossen (metname het manicole moeras) bieden de beste mogelijkheden voor duurzame NTFPoogst, omdat de vegetatie gedomineerd wordt door economisch belangrijke soorten.

Alle bostypes zijn van groot belang voor de lokale bevolking. De hogegebruikspercentages (vooral in de boomlaag) duiden op een grote lokale kennis vanhet bos. Aangezien verscheidene van de bestudeerde bossen bedreigd worden doorhoutkap, landbouw, mijnbouw en bosbranden, zijn beschermingsmaatregelen enduurzame beheersplannen op korte termijn gewenst. Een aantal belangrijke NTFPsis afkomstig van commerciële hardhoutsoorten. De selectieve kap van deze bomenzou de lokale Indianen van deze producten beroven.

Hoofdstuk 5 gaat in op het belangrijkste plantaardige bosbijproduct van Guyana: depalmhart van de klonale palm Euterpe oleracea. Jaarlijks wordt voor 2 miljoendollar aan geconserveerde palmharten geëxporteerd. Het oogsten van palmhartenvormt de belangrijkste inkomstenbron van Indianen in het noordwestelijkedeltagebied. Om de impact van deze oogst op de Euterpe populaties te meten, zijnde populatiestructuur, de regeneratie en mortaliteit van de palmen vergeleken tussen

12. Samenvatting

320

gebieden met een hoge extractiedruk en gebieden die minder vaak werden geoogst.Een ongestoord moeras diende als controle. Verzamelaars, fabriekspersoneel enbedrijfsleiders zijn geïnterviewd om een idee te krijgen van de sociaal-economischeaspecten van de palmhartindustrie. Het onderzoek wees uit dat de gemiddeldehoogte, diameter, vitaliteit en reproductie van palmen steeds verder daalde naarmateer langer achtereen werd geoogst. De belangrijkste reden hiervoor is het feit dat derotatieperiodes veel korter waren dan de aanbevolen vier tot vijf jaar. Het huidigekapregime zal leiden tot ernstige problemen met de toekomstige opbrengst,aangezien de palmen te weinig tijd krijgen om te herstellen van de kap.

Het verwaarlozen van de traditionele landbouw en de totale afhankelijkheid van depalmhartindustrie heeft in een aantal gebieden geleid tot een hoge kapintensiteit ensociaal-economische problemen. Daar waar men extractie afwisselde metkleinschalige landbouw werden de Euterpe populaties minder intensief geoogst. Dekap van juveniele palmen werd tot op een zekere hoogte voorkomen door dehandhaving van een minimum diameter voor palmharten. Toch is een beheersplannoodzakelijk om de toekomstige aanvoer van palmharten te verzekeren, aangezieneen duurzame productie van groot belang is voor de werkgelegenheid en het welzijnvan de bevolking van Noordwest Guyana. Er is behoefte aan grootschaligerotatiesystemen, waarin de moerassen voldoende tijd krijgen om te regenereren.Kleinschalige, door de gemeenschap zelf gecontroleerde rotatiesystemen zouden ookmoeten worden gestimuleerd. Het aanleggen van landbouwgrondjes zouaangemoedigd moeten worden om voedselzekerheid te garanderen. De abundantieen snelle groei van E. oleracea bieden goede mogelijkheden voor duurzameexploitatie, ook omdat de potentie voor ander landgebruik (commerciële landbouw,houtkap en mijnbouw) minimaal is.

Bosbijproducten blijven een ‘verwaarloosde’ natuurlijke hulpbron in Guyana. Hetgebrek aan informatie over de export en de nationale markt belemmeren de rol dieNTFPs zouden kunnen spelen in de economische landgebruiksplanning. InHoofdstuk 6 wordt een overzicht gegeven van de huidige handel in de belangrijkstecommerciële NTFPs in de regio: palmharten, wilde dieren, vlechtvezels, palmbladeren en mangrove bast. De jaarlijkse exportopbrengsten zijn geschat op 4.2miljoen dollar. De meeste producten hebben de ecologische potentie voorcommercieel gebruik, maar er is meer onderzoek nodig naar het effect van de oogstop het bos. Bovendien moeten de geoogste hoeveelheden geregistreerd worden omeen duurzaam beheersplan te ontwikkelen.

Commerciële extractie van NTFPs biedt de inheemse bevolking een inkomen in hundirecte woonomgeving. Het verzamelen kan worden gecombineerd metzelfvoorzienende landbouw, vissen en jagen, wat bijdraagt aan de sociale cohesie engoed past binnen de Indiaanse cultuur. De lage status van Indianen binnen deGuyanese samenleving belemmert hen echter om optimaal gebruik te maken van deaanwezige hulpbronnen. De belangrijkste obstakels voor de marketing van NTFPszijn de lage prijzen voor de producten, de onzekere landrechten, de hogetransportkosten, het gebrek aan organisatie onder verzamelaars en hunongelijkwaardige positie in de markteconomie. Een andere voorwaarde voor desuccesvolle handel in bosbijproducten is de verbetering van de institutionele enwettelijke basis voor het beheer van deze natuurlijke hulpbron. Gemeenschappen


321

zouden zelf kleinschalige beheersplannen moeten opzetten voor NTFPs. Hiervoor istraining op dorpsniveau nodig op het gebied van administratie, marketing enwettelijke aangelegenheden, zodat de kans op wurgcontracten tussen bedrijven enIndianengemeenschappen beperkt blijft. Bovendien zou de productdiversificatie ende certificering van duurzaam geoogste NTFPs de levensomstandigheden van lokalebewoners kunnen verbeteren.

Hoewel het bij de wet verboden is, wordt visgif nog steeds regelmatig gebruikt doorIndianen in Guyana. In Hoofdstuk 7 wordt een uiteenzetting gegeven van detaxonomie en de ethnobotanie van de voor vissen giftige planten die vandaag de dagin noordwest Guyana worden gebruikt, met name de soorten die rotenon bevatten.Elf soorten visgif werden verzameld, zowel wilde planten als gecultiveerde. Hetbleek dat visgif niet alleen dienst doet als een snelle manier van voedsel verzamelenin tijden van schaarste, maar dat visgif ook een rol speelt in magische rituelen en detraditionele geneeskunst. Opvallend was het gebruik van Lonchocarpus spp. enTephrosia sinapou in de behandeling van kanker en AIDS. Toekomstigethnobotanisch en farmacologisch onderzoek zou zich moeten richten op demedicinale toepassing van rotenon-houdende planten.

Het belang van medicinale planten voor inheemse volkeren in noordwest Guyanawordt verder belicht in Hoofdstuk 8. De algemene gezondheidstoestand in hetonderzoeksgebied wordt besproken, alsmede de lokale houding ten opzichte vanmedicinale planten en traditionele geneeswijzen. In totaal werden er 294 medicinaleplantensoorten gevonden, die in meer dan 800 recepten werden verwerkt. Veel vandeze soorten waren nog niet eerder als medicinale plant vermeld in de literatuur, ofze werden op een andere manier gebruikt. Ongeveer 80% van de planten werd uithet wild geoogst. Het grootste aantal planten werd gebruikt tegen verkoudheid enhoesten (49 soorten), gevolgd door huidzweren (38) en malaria (30), een van deernstigste gezondheidsproblemen in de regio. Meestal werd een medicijn bereid dooreen thee te trekken van de ingrediënten. Bladeren werden het vaakst gebruikt,gevolgd door de bast, de hele plant (in het geval van kruiden) en de wortel.

Hoewel een flink aantal geneeskrachtige planten in de hoofdstad te koop is, wordenze in het binnenland nauwelijks verhandeld. Veel inheemse gemeenschappen zijnniettemin grotendeels afhankelijk van medicinale planten voor hungezondheidszorg, aangezien moderne faciliteiten en medicijnen ontbreken of te duurzijn. Lokaal ziekenhuispersoneel zou meer moeten samenwerken met traditionelegenezers, omdat medicinale planten de mogelijkheid bieden voor het verbeteren vande gezondheid op het platteland. Aangezien de inheemse volkeren van Guyanaonder grote druk staan zich aan te passen aan de westerse maatschappij, kan dehuidige kennis van medicinale planten snel verloren gaan. Het documenteren enherwaarderen van deze kennis zou kunnen bijdragen tot de bescherming van zowelbiologische als culturele diversiteit. De enorme variëteit aan medicinale soorten inGuyana zou een veel grotere rol kunnen spelen op de (inter-) nationale markt, als deplanten enigszins verder verwerkt zouden worden en op een duurzame manierzouden worden geoogst, met respect voor de traditionele eigendomsrechten.

In Hoofdstuk 9 worden de belangrijkste resultaten van dit onderzoek besproken. Deefficiëntie van de twee onderzoeksmethoden (gewoon door het bos lopen en

12. Samenvatting

322

verzamelen versus hectare plots) wordt vergeleken. Het blijkt dat 39% van deNTFPs buiten de plots zijn gevonden, vooral in secundair struikgewas, wat kennelijkeen belangrijke habitat is voor het verzamelen en aanplanten van NTFPs. Deconclusie is dat de combinatie van de twee methoden het meest complete beeld geeftvan het lokale plantgebruik.

Gezien het grote aantal nuttige planten en de hoge gebruikspercentages in de plots,mag er geconcludeerd worden dat de lokale Indianen in hoge mate afhankelijk zijnvan het hun omringende bos. Een betere integratie in de markteconomie biedt demogelijkheid tot het verkopen van bosproducten, maar de aanwezigheid vanluxegoederen heeft niet automatisch een verminderd gebruik van NTFPs tot gevolg,zoals werd verwacht in het begin van dit onderzoek. Zelfs als er synthetischealternatieven voor handen zijn, blijven vooral de armere huishoudens gebruik makenvan bosbijproducten. Die zijn immers gratis, makkelijk verkrijgbaar en cultureelverantwoord.

De soortenarme moerasbossen bieden de beste mogelijkheid voor de grootschaligeoogst van één bepaald product. In de zeer diverse bossen kan commerciëleexploitatie van NTFPs alleen succesvol zijn als er verscheidene producten tegelijkgeoogst worden. Alleen met behulp van externe subsidies kunnen bosbijproductenvan verafgelegen bossen concurreren met soortgelijke producten die dichter bij dehoofdstad geoogst worden. Een andere conclusie van dit onderzoek is dat decommerciële extractie van bosbijproducten alleen ‘het regenwoud kan redden’ alshet de ontbossing werkelijk voorkomt of vermindert. Verzamelaars moeten echterhun activiteiten combineren met kleinschalige landbouw voor hun voedselzekerheid.

Deel II van dit proefschrift bevat de wetenschappelijke en lokale namen, kortebotanische en gebruiksbeschrijvingen van 471 soorten. Van de 85 meest belangrijkebosbijproducten wordt een gedetailleerde beschrijving en een illustratie gegeven,alsmede informatie over habitat preferentie en bloei- en vruchtseizoenen.


27

2. FLORISTIC COMPOSITION AND DIVERSITY OFMIXED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FORESTS INNORTHWEST GUYANA1,2

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Although the Guyanese government has handed out large forested areas asconcessions to foreign timber and mining companies (Sizer, 1996), the country hasalso set up a National Protected Area System (NPAS) to ensure the protection andsustainable use of its natural resources. Some of the objectives of this system includethe preservation of viable examples of the different natural ecosystems in Guyanaand the protection of areas of particular biological significance (Persaud, 1997).However, for the conservation and wise use of these forests, a good understanding oftheir biodiversity is needed (Ek and ter Steege, 1998). Unfortunately, there are stillmany gaps in this knowledge that need to be filled in order to develop a soundprotected-area system (Nasir et al., 1997; ter Steege, 1998).

Forest inventories in Guyana have mainly focused on the timber-producing region inthe central part of the country (Davis and Richards, 1934; ter Steege, 1993, Johnstonand Gillman, 1995; Ek, 1997; van der Hout, 1999; ter Steege et al. 2000e). Incontrast, little (published) quantitative information is available on the forest types inthe North-West District, even though a substantial part of this region has beendesignated as logging concessions. Moreover, the area has not been of major interestto plant collectors (ter Steege et al., 2000b). One of the first general accounts of thevegetation of northwest Guyana was given by Anderson (1912), who distinguishedtwo major forest categories: ‘forests of the swamp lands’ and ‘forests on the slightlyelevated or hilly lands’, the latter being characterised by Lecythidaceae,Chrysobalanaceae, and Alexa imperatricis. More than a decade later, Davis (1929)divided the vegetation of the North-West District into swamp forests, Mora forests,and mixed forests. These mixed forests, whether primary or secondary, were allfound on higher ground and were dominated by Lecythidaceae, Chrysobalanaceae,Alexa imperatricis, and Catostemma commune. The frequency data, collected on thetrees in plots of one square mile in the mixed forests along the Barama, Barima, andAruka Rivers, suggested that these forests were of “rather poor quality” (Davis,1929: 126).

1. This chapter was accepted in a slightly different form by Biodiversity and Conservation.2. Data from this chapter have been published in ter Steege et al. (2000a, 2000c, and 2000d).

2. Floristic composition and diversity of mixed primary and secondary forests

28

In 1968-1969, the Forest Industries Development Surveys (FIDS) sampled a totalarea of 23.6 hectares, divided over 14 different locations in the North-West District.Although all field and location data were lost, a summary was recaptured by terSteege (1998). It revealed a forest type with high numbers of Eschweilera, Moraexcelsa, Alexa, Eperua, Licania, and Protium, but lower in species diversity thansouthern Guyana (ter Steege, 1998). In the early 1990s, numerous permanent sampleplots were laid out by the logging company Barama Company Ltd. (BCL) and theEdinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests (ECTF). These plots also showed adominance of Lecythidaceae, Chrysobalanaceae, Alexa imperatricis, and Protiumsp. (ECTF, 1995). Unfortunately, all of the above-mentioned inventories were basedon vernacular (Arawak) plant names. One name is often used for different species.Reliable scientific names were only provided for the major commercial species.Plant collection and subsequent scientific identification during those surveys wasminimal. Trees of different size classes were counted in the ECTF plots, while theother surveys only included trees larger than 30.5 cm (FIDS) or even 40 cm indiameter (Davis, 1929).

The only detailed vegetation study of the North-West District was published byFanshawe in the early 1950s (1952, 1954). He provided exhaustive information onthe structure, physiognomy, and floristic composition of various forest types andcomplemented his findings with extensive plant collections in the region (Ek, 1990).Fanshawe established a plot in mixed forest along the Moruca River, which heclassified as the Alexa imperatricis faciation. This forest type belongs to theEschweilera-Licania association, a type of rain forest typical of the Guyanalowlands (Fanshawe, 1954). Various authors have suggested that this well-drainedmixed forest growing on brown sands represents a late successional stage of aclimax forest dominated by only few species, since it is generally favoured byAmerindians for their swidden agriculture (Davis, 1929; Fanshawe, 1954;Hammond and ter Steege, 1998). Very little, however, has been documented aboutsuccession in Eschweilera-Licania forests after slash-and-burn agriculture. Incontrast, long-term monitoring of species composition in disturbed and undisturbedprimary forests has been done for greenheart forests (van der Hout, 1999; Ek, 1997)to measure the (selective) logging damage by timber companies.

The FIDS surveys resulted in a vegetation map, based their own forest plots, aerialphotographs, and Fanshawe’s forest classifications (FIDS, 1970). The mapdistinguished a mosaic of vegetation types, although no details were given onspecies composition. The vegetation map drawn by Huber et al. (1995) was alsomainly based on Fanshawe’s work. The mixed forest type on that map, coveringalmost half of the North-West District, was thus based on the single plot of 2.1 hamade by Fanshawe in 1954. Ter Steege (1998) concluded from the FIDS results thatthe forests of the North-West District are quite different from those of centralGuyana: because of its lack of legume dominants and the high occurrence of Alexa,the district had to be classified as a separate forest region. Such large inventories,however, tend to be crude and underestimate biodiversity (ter Steege et al., 2000b,2000c). In general, hectare plots give the best estimates of local species diversity andhave emerged in the past few years as a popular standard for forest surveys (Martin,1995). Nevertheless, a few plots do not cover the total spatial variation within aforest type. This lack of quantitative data on the distribution and abundance of tree


29

species is one of the main limitations in understanding tropical forest dynamics(Johnston and Gillman, 1995).

For the design of appropriate conservation and management plans, quantitativeinformation is required on the diversity, population structure, and distributionpatterns of useful (and non-useful) species. Some of the results of an extensiveinventory of the major forest types of northwest Guyana will be presented in thischapter. Floristic composition, vegetation structure, and diversity are comparedbetween two well-drained mixed primary forests and two stages of succession forest.Information on the swamp forests of the North-West District will be published in thefollowing chapter. The vegetation descriptions presented here should contribute to abetter understanding of the forests of northwest Guyana, which may in turn be usefulin the NPAS programme. It is further hoped that the results of this research willprovide baseline data for future sustainable exploitation of both timber and non-timber forest products.

2.2 METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 Study areaThe climate of the North-West District is tropical, with a mean annual temperature of26.5 ºC. The average precipitation is 2750 mm per year (Ramdass, 1990). There is adistinct dry season from February to April and a less obvious dry period from Augustto November. Rainfall is at its highest from May to July, with another small peakoccurring in December and January. There is little indication of climate differenceswithin the district.

The first study site was located at the remote village of Kariako on the Barama River,a few days’ journey by boat from the Atlantic coast (Figure 1.2). The settlement isinhabited by Carib Indians. The Barama is a strongly meandering white-water river,with its origin in the Imataka Mountains near the Venezuelan border and its mouthin the Waini River. At Kariako, situated some 80 km from its mouth, the Barama hasa width of about 50 meters (Figure 2.1). The riverbank collapses in the convexbends, while sediments are deposited in the concave curves. In the dry season, thewater level in the river drops significantly, so that the Barama is barely navigabledue to fallen trees blocking the waterway. During the rainy season, the forestadjacent to the river is flooded. Behind this floodplain forest, which is dominated byMora excelsa, the vegetation gradually changes into a mixed forest growing on well-drained, sandy-loamy, lateritic soils (Ferralsols or ferralic Arenosols) (Fanshawe,1952; van Kekem et al., 1996). There is no real dominance of a single species in thismixed forest. The primary forest in the periphery of the village had been replaced bysecondary vegetation as a result of shifting cultivation, while the first long stretchesof undisturbed forest were found at a distance of only five km inland. Occasionally,higher terraces occur directly along the river. Amerindian villages are often built onthese cliffs, since they do not flood during the rainy season, facilitate watertransport, and offer good agricultural soil. As a consequence of this human activity,the well-drained forest close to the river has been replaced by secondary vegetation.


30

Figure 2.1 Map of Kariako and surrounding forest, indicating the plots in mixed, Mora and secondaryforests. Drawing by H.R. Rypkema.


31

The second study site was the Santa Rosa Mission, located along the Moruca Riverin the coastal swamplands (Figure 1.2). The Moruca is a black-water river that flowsinto the Atlantic Ocean. It is linked to the Waini River by a network of smaller rivers.The Moruca is flanked on both sides by a flooded savanna, in which many small sandyislands arise. Moving inland, these islands gradually merge into a mainland of well-drained, brown loamy sands and red lateritic soils (Ferralsols or ferralic Arenosols,Fanshawe, 1952; van Kekem et al., 1996), covered with secondary and primary forest(Figure 2.2). Due to Santa Rosa’s growing population and the activities of theMazaharally logging company at Kwebanna (Waini), the area of undisturbed primaryforest is decreasing rapidly. Santa Rosa itself is fringed by a wide zone of disturbedvegetation, varying from shrubland to late secondary forest.

2.2.2 Layout of hectare plotsFrom July to October 1996, two hectare plots (10 x 1000 m) were laid out atKariako: one in mixed primary forest (7º 25' N, 59º 44' W) and one in a 20-year-oldsecondary forest (7º 24' N, 59º 43' W). From July to October 1997, two plots of asimilar size were made at Santa Rosa: one in mixed primary forest (7º 36' N, 58º 57'W) and one in a 60-year-old secondary forest (7º 38' N, 58º 54' W). All plots werelaid out in areas accessible to local Amerindians, to be sure that these forests weresubject to NTFP collection. Information about the age and boundaries of thesecondary forests was obtained from the former ‘owners’ of the abandoned farms.

Although neglected in most studies, the undergrowth generally contains between 25and 46% of the species found in wet tropical forests (Gentry and Dodson, 1987), andharbours many useful species as well. Because of this, a nested sampling methodwas used in the present study, including trees, shrubs, lianas, and herbs (Alder andSynott, 1992; Hall and Bawa, 1993; Ek, 1997). Each plot was systematicallysurveyed by identifying, measuring, and tagging all trees with a diameter at breastheight (DBH) > 10 cm, and estimating their height. Every 100 m, species with aDBH < 10 cm and a height > 1.5 m (‘shrub layer’) were sampled in a subplot of 10 x10 m (Figure 2.3).

Herbs and seedlings smaller than 1.5 m were sampled in quadrates of 2 x 2 m.(Hemi-) epiphytes were counted only if they occurred within reach on lower trunksor on the forest floor, or when their aerial roots had a DBH > 10 cm.

Care was taken that the hectare plots covered a homogeneous forest area and did notinclude transitions in vegetation. This was particularly the case in the secondaryforests, since the original ‘farms’ had a circular size rather than an elongatedrectangular shape. Creeks lined with Mora forest frequently traversed the mixedforests. When the vegetation changed along the kilometre line, the shape of the plotwas altered (smaller plots were laid out next to each other), in order to still achieve atotal surface of one hectare. Natural gaps were included in the plots.


32

Figure 2.2 Map of Santa Rosa, indicating the plots in secondary forest (Blanco), mixed forest(Kabrora) and swamp forest (Quackal). Drawing by H.R. Rypkema.


33

2.2.3 Plant collectionPlant collections, fertile ones whenpossible, were made of all speciesoccurring in the plots. In addition,flowering and fruiting material wascollected outside the plots to match thesterile specimens in the plots. Althoughthis procedure required a great deal oftime, it definitely decreased the numberof unidentified plants. This ‘additionalcollection’ method was alsosuccessfully implemented inbiodiversity studies conducted in theMabura Hill area (Ek, 1997).

22

10

10

100 m

10 m

1 km

Figure 2.3 Layout of a hectare plot.

Flowering and fruiting material is particularly important in the study of usefulplants, as correct identifications are essential. Duplicates were deposited at theHerbarium of the University of Guyana (BRG) and the Utrecht branch of theNational Herbarium of the Netherlands (U). A full list of the identifiable speciesfound in the four hectare plots is given in the Appendix of this chapter.

2.2.4 Data analysisThe Importance Value index (I.V.) of Cottam and Curtis (1956) was used to describeand compare the species composition of the plots. This method has been employedin various quantitative studies on vegetation structure and NTFP (Balée, 1994;Comiskey et al., 1994; van Valkenburg, 1997; Dallmeijer and Comiskey, 1998;Ferreira and Prance, 1999). The I.V. of a species is defined as the sum of its relativedominance (Rdom), its relative density (Rden), and its relative frequency (Rfreq):i.e., I.V. = Rdom + Rden + Rfreq.

The last three indices are calculated using the following equations:

Rdom = total basal area for a species / total basal area for all species x 100%

(basal area = π * (DBH/2)²)

Rden = number of individuals of a species / total number of individuals x 100%

Rfreq = frequency of a species / sum frequencies of all species x 100%


34

The frequency of a species is defined as the number of subplots (100 x 10 m) inwhich it is present. The theoretical range for Rdom, Rden, and Rfreq is 0-100%.Thus, the I.V. of a species may vary between 0 and 300%. According to Johnstonand Gillman (1995), a dominant species in the vegetation is defined as a singlespecies accounting for > 20% of the total number of individuals. Co-dominance isdefined as two or more taxa each representing 10-20% of the trees. To see whether aplot size of one hectare was sufficient to cover the major variety of species in aparticular forest type, species-area curves were drawn for trees with a DBH > 10 cm ineach of the four plots. To compare the results of the study plots with other foresttypes, species richness was quantified using the Fisher’s α diversity index (Fisher etal., 1943). Fisher’s α is relatively insensitive to sample size and is calculated withthe formula: α - (α + N) e(-S/α) = 0; where N is the number of individuals in thesample, S the number of species in the sample, and α = Fisher’s α.

2.3 RESULTS

2.3.1 General forest compositionA total of 462 plant species (including 10 unidentified specimens) were found in thefour one-hectare plots (see Appendix). A summary of the findings in the four plots isshown in Table 2.1. The number of tree species and families in 60-year-oldsecondary forest equalled that of primary forests. However, even though tree densitycame within the range of the undisturbed forest, the mean diameter, basal area, andcanopy height were lower in the secondary forest. Moreover, there were obviousdifferences in species composition between the primary and late secondary forests.The 20-year-old forest had the lowest tree diversity, but, due to its open canopy, thelower strata contained many more species than the other plots. Because of the denseundergrowth, both secondary forest plots had a higher number of species per hectarethan the primary plots. Lianas were particularly common in the succession forests,but most species were < 10 cm DBH. True herb species were rare in all plots. It canbe deduced from Table 2.1 that the understorey harboured 41% (Moruca mixed) to60% (Barama secondary) of the total number of species in the plots. Trees > 10 cmDBH represented 40% (Barama secondary) to 59% (Moruca mixed) of the totalnumber of species. These figures illustrate the importance of nested sampling whenstudying vegetation structure and species richness in a tropical rain forest.

Lecythidaceae and Chrysobalanaceae clearly co-dominated the canopy of bothprimary plots (Table 2.2), representing over 34% of the total number of trees inBarama and almost 49% in Moruca. Chrysobalanaceae were more abundant thanLecythidaceae in Barama, and vice versa in Moruca. Papilionaceae ranked third inBarama, but were less abundant in Moruca. Sapotaceae occupied the third place inMoruca, while only 1.4% belonged to that family in Barama. After 60 years of forestsuccession, Lecythidaceae and Chrysobalanaceae were still of minor importancecompared to Mimosaceae. The high percentage of the latter family can be ascribedto the abundance of Pentaclethra macroloba and various Inga species, of which I.alba was the most common in both secondary plots. The canopy of the 20-year-oldforest was dominated by pioneer families, such as Araliaceae, Malpighiaceae,Melastomataceae, and Cecropiaceae. These families had lost most of their


35

importance in the 60-year-old forest and were either absent or rare in the primaryforests. The high score for Euphorbiaceae in the 60-year-old forest was largely dueto the abundance of Mabea piriri. Families like Burseraceae, Celastraceae, andSapotaceae seemed to appear late in the succession stage. Not one plant familydominated all four study plots; however, if the three subfamilies were summed,Leguminosae had a higher overall score than Lecythidaceae and Chrysobalanaceae.

Table 2.1 Summary of the floristic composition of four hectare plots in mixed and secondary forests inBarama and Moruca. The second number in the range of species and families includes thenumber of unidentified species, regarded as a previously unrecorded species or family. Lianaspecies include hemi-epiphytes and climbing ferns.

Forest typeBaramamixed

Morucamixed

Baramasec. for.

Morucasec. for.

Floristic composition primary primary 20 years 60 years

TREE LAYER > 10 cm DBH

Number of individuals in 1 ha 496 550 657 528

Number of species in 1 ha 92-93 94-95 78 95

Number of families in 1 ha 39-40 37-38 35 38

Mean diameter trees > 10 cm DBH [cm] 23.6 23.6 18.8 21.0

Canopy height [m] 20-40 30-40 15-20 15-25

α-diversity 28.2 28.6 21 31.2

SHRUB LAYER < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m

Number of individuals in 0.1 ha 524 716 590 870

Number of species in 0.1 ha 88 91 139 137

Number of families in 0.1 ha 49 42 57 53

HERB LAYER < 1.5 m

Number of individuals in 4*10-3 ha 268 536 431 588

Number of species in 4*10-3 ha 50-55 66-68 75-77 65

Number of families in 4*10-3 ha 28-33 34-36 40-42 36-41

Total no. of tree species > 10 cm DBH 82-83 86 73 90

Total no. of liana species > 10 cm DBH 10 9 5 5Total no. of shrub/small tree species < 10 cmDBH

27 27 56 46

Total no. of liana species < 10 cm DBH 31 27 38 43

Total no. of species only found in herb layer 17 12 25 20

True herb species 2 0 5 4

Total no. of species found in 1 ha plot 168 161 197 204

Total no. of families found in 1 ha plot 59-62 54 65 61-66


36

Table 2.2 Family dominance by tree density (percentage of individuals > 10 cm DBH) for the 15 mostcommon families in the four forest hectare plots.

Forest typeBaramamixed

Morucamixed

Baramasec. for.

Morucasec. for.

Families primary primary 20 years 60 years

Lecythidaceae 12.7 31.6 2.3 6.3

Leguminosae-Mimos. 5.8 5.1 14.6 23.0

Chrysobalanaceae 21.6 16.9 6.5 1.9

Euphorbiaceae 4.0 2.5 3.3 14.2

Leguminosae-Papil. 11.3 3.3 2.4 5.9

Annonaceae 4.4 1.6 7.2 4.2

Sapotaceae 1.4 10.0 - 1.9

Araliaceae - 0.2 10.0 1.1

Malpighiaceae - - 10.5 0.2

Leguminosae-Caesalp. 3.2 0.9 4.7 1.5

Burseraceae 4.4 1.6 0.9 2.8

Celastraceae 2.8 2.4 0.5 4.2

Melastomataceae - - 7.8 1.1

Guttiferae 1.2 3.8 3.2 0.4

Cecropiaceae 0.8 - 6.4 0.9

Unidentified 0.2 - 0.2 -

Total of other families 26.2 20.0 18.7 30.5

2.3.2 Barama mixed forestThe mixed forest in Barama was characterised by the abundance of Couepia parillo(Table 2.3). Other species with a high I.V. were Eschweilera wachenheimii, Licaniaalba, and Alexa imperatricis. Except for a few 40-m-tall emergent trees (mostlyGoupia glabra or Inga alba), the height of the canopy varied between 20 and 30 m.The crown layer was closed except for an occasional gap caused by a fallen tree.Dense clusters of secondary species were found in these openings (e.g., Sennamultijuga subsp. multijuga, Posoqueria longiflora, and Olyra longifolia). Thelargest diameter (133.5 cm) was recorded for Goupia glabra.

The few small depressions in the landscape were occupied by some large Moraexcelsa trees, which, in spite of their low density, attributed to a high basal area.Lianas were common and attained rather large diameters, particularly Pinzonacoriacea and to a lesser extent Bauhinia scala-simae and Dioclea scabra.


37

Table 2.3 Density, basal area, and importance value of the 20 most common species of trees > 10 cmDBH in one hectare of mixed forest, Barama. Species are ranked in order of decreasingimportance value. * Liana.

Barama mixed forestTree layer

Absolutedensity

Basal areaImportance

valueRelativedensity

Relativedominance

Relativefrequency

Species [# ind./ha] [m2/ha] [%] [%] [%] [%]

Couepia parillo 89 6.00 40.23 17.94 18.24 4.05

Alexa imperatricis 43 3.06 22.03 8.67 9.31 4.05

Eschweilera wachenheimii 45 1.70 17.87 9.07 5.16 3.64

Mora excelsa 8 3.86 14.57 1.61 11.74 1.21

Goupia glabra 6 2.79 10.90 1.21 8.47 1.21

Licania alba 16 1.35 10.57 3.23 4.11 3.24

Protium decandrum 17 0.74 8.90 3.43 2.23 3.24

Neea cf. constricta 14 0.57 8.20 2.82 1.73 3.64

Inga alba 7 1.56 8.17 1.41 4.74 2.02

Inga rubiginosa 12 0.76 7.97 2.42 2.32 3.24

Catostemma commune 15 0.80 7.89 3.02 2.44 2.43

Eschweilera pedicellata 14 1.08 7.74 2.82 3.29 1.62

Unonopsis glaucopetala 15 0.38 7.00 3.02 1.15 2.83

Mabea piriri 12 0.31 5.37 2.42 0.93 2.02

Paypayrola longifolia 9 0.09 4.91 1.81 0.26 2.83

Pinzona coriacea * 8 0.11 4.39 1.61 0.35 2.43

Myrcia graciliflora 7 0.13 4.22 1.41 0.38 2.43

Sloanea grandiflora 6 0.22 3.89 1.21 0.66 2.02

Tetragastris altissima 4 0.57 3.74 0.81 1.72 1.21Aspidosperma sp.(TVA1583)

2 0.83 3.73 0.40 2.52 0.81

Total of other species (73) 147 6.01 97.69 29.64 18.26 49.80

Total 496 32.91 300.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

The shrub and herb layers of this forest were quite open and hardly formed well-marked strata. Although some true shrub species were common (Tabernaemontanaundulata, Psychotria astrellantha), most individuals in the shrub layer were saplingsof the canopy species (Table 2.4). Understorey palms like Bactris humilis and B.oligoclada were found every now and then. Common hemi-epiphytes includedEvodianthus funifer subsp. funifer and the climbing fern Cyclodium meniscioidesvar. meniscioides. Their seedlings were also frequent on the forest floor (Table 2.5).Occasional hemi-epiphytes were Heteropsis flexuosa, Thoracocarpus bissectus, andClusia grandiflora. The long aerial roots of these species often reached the forestfloor.


38

Table 2.4 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m in height in0.1 ha of mixed forest, ‘shrub layer’, Barama. Species are ranked in order of decreasingnumbers. * Liana.

Barama mixed forestShrub layer

Absolute density Relative densityRelative

frequencySpecies [# ind.] [%] [%]

Tabernaemontana undulata 45 8.59 4.27

Paypayrola longifolia 41 7.82 3.85

Protium decandrum 37 7.06 2.99

Quiina guianensis 36 6.87 3.42

Alexa imperatricis 32 6.11 3.42

Psychotria astrellantha 26 4.96 3.85

Couepia parillo 20 3.82 3.42

Anaxagorea dolichocarpa 19 3.63 3.42

Paullinia cf. rufescens * 19 3.63 2.14

Myrcia graciliflora 11 2.10 2.99

Total of other species (78) 238 45.41 66.23

Total 524 100.00 100.00

Although tree seedlings were locally abundant (Eschweilera wachenheimii, Quiinaguianensis, Paypayrola longifolia), the herb layer was poor in true herbaceousspecies (Table 2.5). This group was represented by only two species: Costuserythrothyrsus and the fern Triplophyllum funestum var. funestum. The loweststratum further consisted of shrub and liana seedlings.

Table 2.5 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 1.5 m in height in 4*10-3 ha of mixedforest, ‘herb layer’, Barama. Species are ranked in order of decreasing numbers. * Liana; •hemi-epiphyte.

Barama mixed forestHerb layer

Absolutedensity

Relativedensity

Relativefrequency

Species [# ind.] [%] [%]

Paypayrola longifolia 28 10.45 5.31

Psychotria apoda 23 8.58 1.77


Triplophyllum funestum var. funestum 18 6.72 3.54

Protium decandrum 13 4.85 3.54

Bauhinia guianensis * 12 4.48 3.54

Cyclodium meniscioides var. meniscioides • 12 4.48 3.54

Psychotria astrellantha 11 4.10 5.31

Philodendron rudgeanum • 10 3.73 4.42

Eschweilera wachenheimii 10 3.73 3.54


Total 268 100.00 100.00


39

2.3.3 Moruca mixed forestThe primary forest in Moruca showed a strong dominance of Lecythidaceae andChrysobalanaceae, in particular large numbers of Eschweilera sagotiana, E.wachenheimii, and E. decolorans (Table 2.6). The canopy of this forest was ca. 30 mhigh, with a few emergents growing to 45 m (Aspidosperma excelsum,Hymenolobium flavum, and Peltogyne venosa subsp. venosa). The latter species(purpleheart) had the largest diameter (159.7 cm). Purpleheart was quite rare in theBarama region. The mean diameter of trees > 10 cm DBH was the same in the twostudy sites (23.6 cm). Couepia parillo, which was abundant at Barama, was totallyabsent at Moruca, not only from the plot but also from the surrounding area. Incontrast, E. sagotiana, dominant in Moruca, was infrequently collected in the mixedforest in Barama and was not found in the hectare plot.

Table 2.6 Density, basal area and importance value of the 20 most common species of trees > 10 cmDBH in one hectare of mixed forest, Moruca. Species are ranked in order of decreasingimportance value.

Moruca mixed forestTree layer

Absolutedensity



Relativedominance

Relativefrequency


Eschweilera sagotiana 62 3.66 25.67 11.27 10.58 3.82


Licania alba 49 1.83 16.88 8.91 5.30 2.67

Eschweilera decolorans 28 2.06 14.86 5.09 5.96 3.82

Pouteria durlandii 17 1.55 11.02 3.09 4.50 3.44Licania heteromorpha var.perplexans

24 0.53 9.33 4.36 1.53 3.44

Peltogyne venosa subsp.venosa

3 2.66 9.00 0.55 7.69 0.76


Goupia glabra 9 1.54 7.61 1.64 4.45 1.53

Pentaclethra macroloba 14 1.00 7.34 2.55 2.89 1.91

Tovomita cf. schomburgkii 17 0.25 7.25 3.09 0.72 3.44

Aspidosperma excelsum 6 1.00 5.90 1.09 2.90 1.91

Pouteria cf. coriacea 11 0.29 5.90 2.00 0.84 3.05

Licania sp. (TVA2332) 13 0.43 5.89 2.36 1.23 2.29

Inga alba 6 0.83 5.40 1.09 2.41 1.91

Pouteria guianensis 11 0.59 5.24 2.00 1.72 1.53Jacaranda copaia subsp.copaia

7 0.75 4.96 1.27 2.16 1.53

Quiina guianensis 10 0.16 4.95 1.82 0.46 2.67

Lecythis sp. (TVA2380) 8 0.47 4.72 1.45 1.35 1.91Trattinickia cf. lawranceivar. boliviana

9 0.40 4.31 1.64 1.15 1.53


Total 550 34.55 300.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


40

The importance of Sapotaceae was noticeable in Moruca, represented by sixdifferent species of Pouteria, with P. durlandii being the most common. Alexaimperatricis played a less important role in Moruca, while late secondary specieslike Goupia glabra, Jacaranda copaia subsp. copaia, and Inga alba were commonin both primary plots. Large lianas were less frequent in the mixed forest in Moruca.Tetracera volubilis subsp. volubilis was present with five individuals over 10 cm; ofthe six other large climbing species, only Dicranostyles guianensis was representedby more than one individual. Some of the large hemi-epiphytes (Clusia palmicidaand C. grandiflora) had aerial roots with a diameter greater than 10 cm.

The shrub layer in this forest was denser and richer in species than in Barama: 716individuals belonging to 91 species in 0.1 ha, vs. 524 individuals and 88 species inBarama. The most abundant species in the understorey, the small tree Quiinaguianensis and the shrub Tabernaemontana undulata, accounted for only 17.7% ofthe individuals (Table 2.7). The small palm Bactris oligoclada was rather common.Major hemi-epiphytes in this stratum included Clusia palmicida and C. grandiflora.Connarus perrottetii var. rufus was the most important woody climber (n = 30) inthe shrub layer, followed by Tetracera volubilis subsp. volubilis with ten individuals.

Table 2.7 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m in height in0.1 ha of mixed forest, ‘shrub layer’, Moruca. Species are ranked in order of decreasingnumbers. * Liana.

Moruca mixed forestShrub layer






Licania alba 32 4.47 4.00

Trichilia schomburgkii subsp. schomburgkii 32 4.47 3.60

Licania heteromorpha var. perplexans 31 4.33 3.20

Bactris oligoclada 31 4.33 2.80

Connarus perrottetii var. rufus * 30 4.19 1.20

Duguetia pauciflora 22 3.07 2.80

Tovomita cf. schomburgkii 20 2.79 3.20


Total 716 100.00 100


41

No true herb species were found in the herb layer, just seedlings of trees, shrubs, andlianas (Table 2.8). Juveniles of Eschweilera wachenheimii were the most abundant,followed by the hemi-epiphyte Thoracocarpus bissectus and the liana Roureapubescens var. spadicea. Seedlings of more than 20 liana species were found in theherb layer.

Table 2.8 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 1.5 m in height in 4*10-3 ha of mixedforest, ‘herb layer’, Moruca. Species are ranked in order of decreasing numbers. * Liana; •hemi-epiphyte.

Moruca mixed forestHerb layer

Absolutedensity

Relativedensity

Relativefrequency


Eschweilera wachenheimii 129 24.07 4.64

Thoracocarpus bissectus • 61 11.38 0.66

Rourea pubescens var. spadicea * 60 11.19 5.30


Eschweilera cf. sagotiana 20 3.73 2.65


Paypayrola longiflora 16 2.99 1.99

Trattinickia cf. lawrancei var. boliviana 14 2.61 3.31

Licania heteromorpha var. perplexans 12 2.24 3.97

Unidentified liana seedling (TVA2394) * 11 2.05 1.99


Total 536 100.00 100.00

2.3.4 20-year-old secondary forest (Barama)The young secondary forest plot in Barama had an irregular, open canopy of 15-20m high, with several emergents of Schefflera morototoni, Miconia fragilis, andJacaranda copaia subsp. copaia (Table 2.9). The tree layer was mainly composed ofsecondary pioneer species (e.g., S. morototoni, Byrsonima stipulacea, Cecropiasciadophylla, and J. copaia subsp. copaia), and other light-demanding species likePentaclethra macroloba, Inga alba, and Bellucia grossularioides. The largestdiameter recorded was 47.5 cm for Tapirira guianensis, while the mean diameterwas only 18.8 cm. Because of their valuable bark, some of the large I. alba trees hadbeen spared when the original primary forest was felled, thus attributing to therelatively high basal area. Some of the dominant species in the Barama primaryforest (Couepia parillo, Alexa imperatricis) were already common in the 20-year-oldforest, while other typical species of the mature forest (Eschweilera wachenheimii,Licania alba) were only represented by a few individuals, three and onerespectively. No large palms were found. Only five liana species were present in thissize class, of which only Bauhinia guianensis was represented by more than oneindividual. Large hemi-epiphytes were absent.


42

Table 2.9 Density, basal area, and importance value of the 20 most common species of trees > 10 cmDBH in one hectare of 20-year-old forest, Barama. Species are ranked in order of decreasingimportance value.

Barama secondary forestTree layer

Absolutedensity



Relativedominance

Relativefrequency


Schefflera morototoni 66 2.96 27.40 10.05 13.85 3.50

Byrsonima stipulacea 69 2.18 24.20 10.50 10.20 3.50

Cecropia sciadophylla 35 1.63 17.27 5.33 7.66 4.28


Couepia parillo 41 1.16 14.78 6.24 5.43 3.11


Inga alba 22 1.37 12.48 3.35 6.41 2.72Jacaranda copaia subsp.copaia

29 1.10 12.30 4.41 5.17 2.72

Bellucia grossularioides 25 0.70 10.19 3.81 3.27 3.11

Miconia fragilis 18 0.44 7.92 2.74 2.07 3.11

Tapirira guianensis 16 0.67 7.92 2.44 3.15 2.33Hyeronima alchorneoidesvar. stipulosa

15 0.37 7.13 2.28 1.74 3.11

Xylopia aff. surinamensis 15 0.36 6.31 2.28 1.69 2.33

Cordia tetrandra 15 0.24 6.14 2.28 1.13 2.72

Vismia guianensis 18 0.25 5.47 2.74 1.18 1.56

Apeiba petoumo 7 0.35 5.42 1.07 1.63 2.72

Clathrotropis brachypetala 10 0.28 5.18 1.52 1.33 2.33Pourouma guianensissubsp. guianensis

9 0.38 4.73 1.37 1.80 1.56

Xylopia sp. (TVA1176) 9 0.17 4.52 1.37 0.81 2.33

Catostemma commune 7 0.30 4.43 1.07 1.42 1.95


Total 657 21.33 300.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Although the shrub layer did not contain that many individuals, it was very densebecause of the numerous lianas (38 species < 10 cm), impenetrable patches ofrazorgrass (Scleria secans), and Melastomataceae shrubs (Table 2.10). The mostcommon small tree was Couepia parillo, a species that was dominant in the primaryforest (Table 2.3). The highest diversity was scored by the genus Inga with eightspecies, of which I. umbellifera was the most abundant. The families Rubiaceae andMelastomataceae were also represented by eight species. Hemi-epiphytes wereoccasionally found, mainly Evodianthus funifer subsp. funifer and Philodendronrudgeanum.


43

Table 2.10 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m in height in 0.1 ha of 20-year-old forest, ‘shrub layer’, Barama. Species are ranked in order of decreasing numbers. * Liana.

Barama secondary forestShrub layer

Absolute density Relative density Relative frequency


Couepia parillo 36 6.10 3.51

Scleria secans 36 6.10 0.70


Inga umbellifera 23 3.90 1.40

Pentaclethra macroloba 18 3.05 1.75

Neea cf. floribunda 15 2.54 2.11

Aciotis sp. (TVA1384) 14 2.37 1.40

Bactris humilis 14 2.37 3.16


Dioclea cf. scabra * 13 2.20 1.75


Total 590 100 100.00

The most common species in the herb layer are listed in Table 2.11. This stratumwas characterised by liana seedlings, large patches of the herb Leandra divaricata,and juveniles of trees and shrubs typical of a secondary forest (e.g., Pouroumaguianensis, Miconia spp., and Inga spp.). Five true herb species were recorded.

Table 2.11 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 1.5 m in height in 4*10-3 ha of 20-year-old forest, ‘herb layer’, Barama. Species are ranked in order of decreasing numbers. *Liana; • hemi-epiphyte.

Barama secondary forestHerb layer



Pourouma guianensis subsp. guianensis 64 14.85 3.23

Leandra divaricata 61 14.15 3.23


Triplophyllum funestum var. funestum 16 3.71 2.42

Miconia ceramicarpa var. ceramicarpa 16 3.71 0.81

Selaginella parkeri 15 3.48 0.81

Psychotria poeppigiana var. barcellana 14 3.25 4.03


Inga melinonis 12 2.78 1.61

Piper nigrispicum 11 2.55 2.42


Total 431 100.00 100.00


44

2.3.5 60 year-old secondary forest (Moruca)The canopy of the late secondary forest plot in Moruca was more closed than that ofthe younger forest in Barama. The crown layer was 15 to 25 m high, with severallarge emergents (Simarouba amara, Pentaclethra macroloba, and Inga alba).Although diversity, density, and mean diameter of trees in this late secondary forestwere almost equal to that of the primary forest, the floristic composition was verydifferent (Table 2.12). Mabea piriri had the greatest number of individuals, but dueto its much larger trunks, Pentaclethra macroloba had the highest I.V. score. Amaximum diameter of 67.8 cm was recorded for Goupia glabra, while the meandiameter was 21 cm.

Table 2.12 Density, basal area, and importance value of the 20 most common species of trees > 10 cm DBH in one hectare of 60-year-old forest, Moruca. Species are ranked in order of decreasing importance value.

Moruca secondary forestTree layer

Absolutedensity



Relativedominance

Relativefrequency



Mabea piriri 62 1.28 20.01 11.74 5.31 2.95

Goupia glabra 22 1.87 15.69 4.17 7.73 3.80

Inga alba 13 1.85 12.24 2.46 7.67 2.11


Lecythis cf. chartacea 19 0.84 9.63 3.60 3.50 2.53

Laetia procera 12 0.89 8.89 2.27 3.67 2.95

Inga cf. acreana 23 0.41 7.74 4.36 1.70 1.69

Cordia sericicalyx 13 0.65 6.84 2.46 2.69 1.69

Cupania hirsuta 20 0.30 6.72 3.79 1.24 1.69Jacaranda copaia subsp.copaia

9 0.59 6.25 1.70 2.44 2.11

Protium unifoliolatum 7 0.66 5.77 1.33 2.75 1.69

Schefflera morototoni 6 0.66 5.55 1.14 2.73 1.69

Brosimum guianense 10 0.22 5.35 1.89 0.93 2.53

Carapa guianensis 8 0.37 5.15 1.52 1.52 2.11

Clathrotropis brachypetala 5 0.61 5.15 0.95 2.51 1.69

Rollinia exsucca 9 0.27 4.94 1.70 1.12 2.11

Aniba cf. riparia 9 0.16 4.91 1.70 0.67 2.53

Parinari rodolphii 3 0.58 4.25 0.57 2.42 1.27Hyeronima alchorneoidesvar. stipulosa

7 0.36 4.08 1.33 1.49 1.27


Total 528 24.14 300.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


45

Several large palms were present: Jessenia bataua subsp. oligocarpa, Maximilianamaripa, and Astrocaryum aculeatum; the latter being a sign of previous humanoccupation (Wessels Boer, 1965). Except for Alexa imperatricis, characteristicspecies of the mature mixed forest (Eschweilera spp., Licania spp.) were eitherabsent or present with very few individuals. Just five woody climbers over 10 cmDBH were present, of which Tetracera volubilis subsp. volubilis was the largest.

The shrub layer in the 60-year-old forest was very dense (with 870 individuals in 0.1ha) and mainly composed of small trees (Paypayrola longiflora and Mabea piriri)and the shrub Tabernaemontana undulata (Table 2.13). Lianas were common (43species), both as saplings in the shrub layer and as seedlings on the forest floor.However, apart from Bauhinia spp. and Dichapetalum pedunculatum, most climbingspecies were only represented by few individuals. Six species of the genus Ingawere noted. Except for Alexa imperatricis and Pentaclethra macroloba, saplings oftrees common in primary forests were not abundant in the shrub layer.

Table 2.13 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m in heightin 0.1 ha of 60-year-old forest, ‘shrub layer’, Moruca. Species are ranked in order ofdecreasing numbers. * Liana.

Moruca secondary forestShrub layer




Mabea piriri 79 9.08 2.32



Lecythis corrugata subsp. corrugata 30 3.45 0.87


Protium unifoliolatum 20 2.30 0.87

Dichapetalum pedunculatum * 19 2.18 2.32

Duguetia pauciflora 19 2.18 2.03

Trichilia schomburgkii subsp. schomburgkii 18 2.07 0.58


Total 870 100.00 100.00


46

Mabea piriri was again numerous in the herb layer, followed by juveniles ofTabernaemontana undulata (Table 2.14). Numerous Inga seedlings were found, butmany were impossible to identify to species level at this early stage. Lianas andhemi-epiphytes were particularly common. Only four true herbs were found, ofwhich the small fern Triplophyllum funestum var. funestum was the most frequent.Just a few seedlings of primary tree species were found in the herb layer.

Table 2.14 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 1.5 m in height in 4*10-3 ha of 60-year-old forest, ‘herb layer’, Moruca. Species are ranked in order of decreasing numbers. *Liana; • hemi-epiphyte.

Moruca secondary forestHerb layer



Mabea piriri 182 30.95 5.13


Inga spp. (various) 30 5.10 5.77


Philodendron surinamense • 24 4.08 2.56


Rourea surinamensis * 17 2.89 3.21

Virola elongata 12 2.04 2.56

Paullinia cf. rufescens * 10 1.70 1.92

unidentified seedling (TVA2160) 10 1.70 0.64


Total 588 100.00 100.00

2.4 DISCUSSION

2.4.1 Classification of mixed forestAlthough no more than 10 km apart as the crow flies, the hectare plot in the Morucamixed forest and the mixed forest plot of Fanshawe (1954) differed in several ways.The latter was laid out on a sandy island at the headwaters of the Moruca River,probably near the village of Kamwatta (Figure 1.2). As stated above, the Morucamixed forest plot was established on the brown loamy sands and lateritic soils of themainland. Alexa imperatricis was the second most abundant tree species inFanshawe’s plot (with a relative density of 13%), while it ranked eighth in theMoruca plot (Rden = 2.73%). Eschweilera wachenheimii was an important speciesin the plots of this study (ranking second in Moruca and third in Barama), but wasunnoticed by Fanshawe. Licania heteromorpha var. perplexans was a commonspecies in Moruca, but was absent in the Kamwatta plot. Interestingly, this specieswas noted earlier by Fanshawe (1952) to occur in every known faciation of theEschweilera-Licania association. Fanshawe also did not mention Licania alba in hisdescriptions, while it was quite common in both the Moruca and Barama mixed


47

forests. In contrast, Hebepetalum humiriifolium, a tree common in Fanshawe’s plot,was not observed anywhere in the study area.

The Barama plot, located almost 100 km further inland, differed from the Morucaand Kamwatta plots by the abundance of Couepia parillo (number one in the treelayer of the mixed forest and also frequent in the young secondary forest). Alexaimperatricis ranked second in Barama mixed forest, following Fanshawe’sdefinition of the faciation named after that species. Eschweilera sagotiana andLicania heteromorpha var. perplexans were both present, but not common, inBarama primary forest.

Much of the rain forest in Guyana remains to be explored, and as Fanshawe (1952)already noted, each faciation tends to be divided into smaller floristic groups.Species are restricted by their natural range, limits not yet fully known for many taxain the Guianas. Davis (1929) and Anderson (1912) mentioned earlier that densitiesof dominant taxa are quite variable, even over small areas with apparently similarconditions. This proves again that a few plots are not sufficient to define a particularforest type. Apart from the geographical variations in floristic composition anddensities of dominant species, the two mixed forest plots showed a substantialoverlap with Fanshawe’s plot (1954). Therefore, it is very likely that both theBarama and the Moruca mixed forests are members of the same Alexa imperatricisfaciation, and consequently correspond with the Eschweilera-Licania association,although ‘Lecythidaceae-Chrysobalanaceae association’ would be a better term forthis vegetation type. No direct comparisons could be made with Fanshawe’s plot, asthe islands behind Kamwatta had been transformed into coconut plantations.

Chlorocardium rodiei (greenheart) was not found in any of the plots nor in theirsurroundings, although it was noted by Huber et al. (1995) on their vegetation mapas growing in the mixed forests of the North-West District. Fanshawe (1952) hadcited the northern limit of greenheart around the Pomeroon River, even though itwas found by Davis (1929) and Anderson (1912) around St. Bedes (lower Barama)and the Aruka River. There is a great need for updating the existing vegetation mapsof northwest Guyana, as they were based on limited information.

In general, the plots of this study seem to correspond with the mixed forest asdescribed by Davis (1929), even though many of the scientific names used in hisarticle have changed and many trees were listed by family or local names only. Lessoverlap was found between the plots of the North-West District and the mixed forestin central Guyana (Davis and Richards, 1934; ter Steege, 1993; Johnston andGillman, 1995; Ek, 1997; ter Steege et al., 2000c). The forest in Barama, inparticular, differed substantially in floristic composition and species dominance. Thecentral Guyana mixed forest is dominated by other species of Chrysobalanaceae andLecythidaceae; E. wachenheimii and Couepia parillo play a much less prominentrole in the canopy. The Eschweilera-Licania dominance also seems to change inspecies composition along the geographical range (ter Steege et al., 2000b). Forexample, mixed forests dominated by Chrysobalanaceae and Lecythidaceae continuefar into Venezuelan Guayana, but E. decolorans, Gustavia poeppigiana, and Licaniadensiflora take over the leading part there (Huber, 1995a).


48

2.4.2 Disturbance and successionIf the mixed forests in Barama and Moruca are regarded as the same forest type,putting aside some regional differences like the abundance of C. parillo, then thesecondary plots may be considered as two stages of succession. This being the case,we then see that 60 years since abandonment is not long enough for Lecythidaceaeand Chrysobalanaceae to become dominant. The canopy of the late succession forestwas occupied by different species and families than the primary forest, while pioneerspecies were present in much lower numbers than in the early secondary forest. Thebasal area of the 60-year-old forest (24.1 m2/ha) was much lower than that found inthe Moruca primary plot (34.6 m2/ha), indicating that after 60 years of succession theforest still has not attained a forest structure similar to that of a primary forest. Thisdoes not quite correspond with the conclusions of Aide et al. (1996), who suggestedthat 60 years was sufficient for abandoned pastures to regain a basal areacomparable with that of primary rain forest. In fact, with regard to floristiccomposition, it may take more than a century before a secondary forest resemblesthe surrounding primary forest (Ferreira and Prance, 1999).

The Moruca area has a long history of Amerindian occupancy (Schomburgk, 1848;Benjamin, 1988). The frequent findings of stone axes and potsherds in the primaryforest in Barama also point towards an early presence of humans. The largeindividuals of late successional species (Goupia glabra, Inga alba) further suggestthat both areas of mixed forest were subjected to disturbance in the past, althoughlocal Amerindians considered the forest as ‘high bush’ or primary forest. Fanshawediscovered charcoal traces at a depth of 30-70 cm in the soil of his Kamwatta plot,which he related to prior slash-and-burn cultivation. He concluded that: “With theevidence of a once numerous Amerindian population and consequent widespreadshifting cultivation, it is extremely difficult not to be suspicious of the primeval stateof any forest type encountered” (Fanshawe, 1954: 80). He assumed that theEschweilera-Licania association represented a late stage of succession to the climaxrain forest, ‘more or less indistinguishable from primary forest’, but he did not givean example of how this undisturbed forest should look. No soil samples were takenduring the present study, so verification of whether burning had occurred in the pastwas not possible. Nevertheless, it is to be expected, since charcoal has even beenfound in the little-disturbed forests in central Guyana (Hammond and ter Steege,1998). Furthermore, there is evidence that the North-West District has acted as animportant centre for pre-Columbian peoples (Williams, 1989).

In comparison to the Moruca plot, the mixed forest in Barama contained fewerEschweilera, but more Alexa imperatricis, Goupia glabra, and Mabea piriri, andmore large lianas (29 vs. 17 individuals over 10 cm). The overall dominance ofLecythidaceae and Chrysobalanaceae in Barama was a bit lower than in Moruca.Following the theory of Hart (1990), who proposed that high species dominancemight be achieved during early and late successional stages and co-dominanceduring mid-successional stages, this might indicate that the Barama forest representsa slightly earlier stage of succession than the Moruca forest. Davis (1929) stated thatthe abundance of Sapotaceae (as was the case in Moruca) almost certainly indicatesprimary forest. However, the present data offer only a snapshot in forest succession.The real patterns of regeneration can only be assessed after long-term monitoring ofregrowth in permanent sample plots.


49

2.4.3 Efficacy of one-hectare plotsThe question remains whether a one-hectare sample is large enough to detect mostof the variation in a particular vegetation type. Looking at the species-area curvesfor trees > 10 cm DBH in the four hectare plots, we see that the slopes of the curvesfor each plot decline as the sample area increases (Figure 2.4). The curves of theprimary forest plots begin to level off at one hectare, which means that enlarging thesample area will yield just a few more species. The curves of the secondary plots,especially the one of the 60-year-old forest, however, have not started flattening outat 1 hectare. This means that increasing the sample area would bring about aconsiderable increase in species numbers. Therefore, hectare plots may give a fairestimate of the local diversity, but one plot is certainly not enough to classify anentire vegetation community.

0102030

405060

7080

90100

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Area [ha]

Number of species

Barama mixed

Moruca mixed

20 y sec for

60 y sec for

Figure 2.4 Species-area curves of trees > 10 cm DBH in the four hectare plots.

2.4.4 BiodiversityExcept for the 20-year-old secondary forest, the study plots appeared to have arelatively high diversity when comparing their Fisher’s α values with those of moreor less similar forest types in Guyana (Table 2.15). Plant diversity and forestcomposition strongly correlate with geographical location, soil type, and disturbance(ter Steege, 1998). The high species-richness of the forest plots in Moruca andBarama might be explained by the fact that the North-West District has beensubjected to extensive and frequent human disturbance (Williams, 1989). Accordingto the intermediate-disturbance theory, a high dominance of species indicates a lowrate of disturbance (Hart, 1990; Huston, 1994). Short intervals between slash-and-burn cultivation certainly reduce species-richness, but a longer return time betweenfire events may promote diversity by facilitating a re-establishing process driven bycolonisation rather than competition (Hammond and ter Steege, 1998). The 60-year-old secondary forest plot had the highest alpha diversity of all plots studied inGuyana so far. Since it was surrounded by both older and younger forests, the plotcontained elements from early and late secondary forests, as well as from primaryforests. Comparisons with similar succession forests could not be made, since noother plots of secondary forest have yet been studied in Guyana.


50

Table 2.15 Comparison of density and diversity (Fisher’s α) of trees > 10 cm DBH in forest plots inGuyana and Peru: 1) This study; 2) Fanshawe (1954); 3) Johnston and Gillman (1995); 4)Davis and Richards (1934); 5) Ek (unpublished data, cited in ter Steege, 2000); 6) Comiskeyet al. (1994); 7) Philips et al. (1994).

Location Forest type No. ofplots

Plot size[ha]

No. ofindividuals

No. ofspecies

Fisher’salpha

Northwest Guyana1 mixed 2 1 467-533 83-86 28.2-28.6Northwest Guyana1 20 year old 1 1 650 73 21Northwest Guyana1 60 year old 1 1 524 90 31.2

Northwest Guyana2 mixed 1 2.1 744 52 13.1

Iwokrama3 mixed 1 1 459 71 23.5Moraballi4 mixed 1 1.5 644 91 28.9Mabura Hill5 mixed 1 1 459 71 23.5

Kwakwani6 mixed 1 1 493 59 17.5Kwakwani6 mixed 1 1 504 85 29.3

Tambopata, Peru7 tierra firme 1 1 575 172 83.1

The central Guyana forests have only recently been disturbed by logging andmining. Because of their low soil fertility, the white sands in this region are lessfavoured for shifting cultivation. Perhaps for this reason, the region was neverinhabited by a substantial Amerindian population. The low rate of large-scaledisturbances may have led to competitive exclusion and to the higher dominance offew, often Caesalpinoid, species (Hammond and ter Steege, 1998). In contrast, themixed forest in Moraballi Creek had an alpha diversity comparable to thenorthwestern forests (Table 2.15). According to Davis and Richards (1934), therewas reason to believe that the indigenous population of that area was once greaterthan at the time of their research. The mixed forest plots in Kwakwani, also an areawith a long history of human intervention, were even more species-rich than those inthe North-West District, but they were different in species composition and lessdominated by Lecythidaceae and Chrysobalanaceae (Comiskey et al., 1994). Itremains unclear, then, why Fanshawe’s mixed forest in Kamwatta had such aconspicuous low diversity when compared to the nearby plots on the Morucamainland. One explanation might be a low level of colonisation through inadequateseed dispersal. Studies have shown that the distance from a primary forest is animportant factor of forest regeneration (Ferreira and Prance, 1999). Fanshawe’smixed forest plot was laid out on a relatively small island, surrounded by a wide areaof marsh forest. Moreover, the islands in the vicinity of Fanshawe’s plot werealready cultivated at the time of his research (1954) and the first patch of well-drained primary forest was situated several kilometres away.

Ter Steege (1998, 2000) suggested a geographical decline in tree alpha diversityfrom southern Guyana northward, implying that the forests of the North-WestDistrict were among the most species-poor of the country. The results of this study,however, contradict that hypothesis, since the Barama and Moruca plots rank among


51

the most diverse in Guyana so far. One reason might be that although ter Steege leftout two coastal swamp forest plots in his analysis of the FIDS inventories, he mayhave included the extremely species-poor Mora forests, thus reducing the overalldiversity in the northwestern region. Another explanation for the suggested lowdiversity in northwest Guyana might be the FIDS’ inclusion of only those treeslarger than 30.5 cm DBH. The mean diameter in the Barama mixed plot was 23.6cm: only 22% of the individuals and 31% of the total number of species had a DBH> 30.5 cm. Thus, 78% of the individuals and 69% of the tree diversity at that sitewere represented by species with a DBH below the diameter threshold of the FIDSinventories.

The large-scale inventories of Barama Company Ltd. and FIDS also underestimateddiversity as they were based on vernacular (Arawak) plant names, which oftenincluded several species within one name (ECTF, 1995; ter Steege, 1998). Althoughmany commonly used vernacular names in forestry come from Arawak, thelanguage itself is hardly spoken anymore (Fanshawe, 1949). Enumeration by nativenames is not a rigidly accurate nor an absolutely satisfactory method of working outthe floristic composition of a tropical forest, but it is often the only method availableto third-world forestry officers (Davis and Richards, 1934). This system can giveuseful results as long as the indigenous tree spotters are familiar with the particularforest region. However, if Arawak plant names are used for species identification inremote interior (non-Arawak) areas, this might lead to unreliable results, especiallywhen the different species of a genus are barely distinguishable in the field (e.g.,Licania, Swartzia, Protium, and Pouteria). This has become obvious from thesample plots of the BCL, where Licania species were listed as either ‘kauta’ or‘kairiballi’, all Inga species were summed as ‘waikey’, and various Eschweileraspecies were called ‘kakaralli’ (ECTF, 1995).

During the fieldwork of this research, it was discovered that the Barama Caribs hadseparate names for 19 different Inga species. They also made a clear distinctionbetween the various Licania and Eschweilera species in their homeland.Unfortunately, Carib names are hardly ever used in forestry in Guyana. Caribinformants are less familiar with Arawak and Creole names, as these are not theirnative languages. Moreover, many species restricted to remote (Carib) areas do noteven have an Arawak name. These aspects may also have played a role in the lowestimation of plant diversity of the northwest forests. Therefore, forest inventoriesshould always be combined with plant collection and local indigenous informantsshould be involved as much as possible.

The forests of the North-West District are nevertheless poor in species whencompared to similar vegetation types in western Amazonia (Philips et al., 1994;Table 2.15). With markedly fewer than 100 species > 10 cm DBH per ha, the forestsin Guyana may have the lowest diversity in Neotropical forests. This may be causedby low soil fertility, low rates of disturbance, and a relative isolation (Connel andLowman, 1989; Johnston and Gillman, 1995; ter Steege, pers. comm.).

Except for a small fringe of mangrove forest, none of the NPAS’ existing proposalsfor protected areas include a significant portion of the North-West District (Persaud,1997). Ter Steege (1998) has already recommended that rapid action should be taken


52

to preserve a portion of the northwest forest, which is possibly unique to SouthAmerica. Moreover, the forests in this region are under serious threat from loggingand mining concessions (Sizer, 1996; Nasir et al., 1997). The fact that these forestsrank among the most species-rich of Guyana should also influence the planning ofprotected areas in Guyana. The long-term protection of the forest of northwestGuyana requires the maintenance of the conditions of low disturbance under whichthey have evolved (ter Steege, 2000). This offers the opportunity for indigenousmanagement, instead of strict protection measures.

2.5 CONCLUSIONS

The forests of the North-West District largely corresponded with the vegetationtypes described by Fanshawe (1952; 1954), although there were substantialgeographical variations in floristic composition and densities of dominant species.There is a great need for updating the existing vegetation maps of northwestGuyana, as they were based on very limited information.

Large scale forest inventories (FIDS, BCL) provide a fair indication of speciesdominance and forest composition, but do not give a reliable insight in floristicdiversity. To produce trustworthy results, quantitative forest inventories shouldalways be combined with plant collection. Hectare plots give a fair estimate of localdiversity, but enlarging the sample area in well-drained forest (especially in latesecondary forest) would substantially increase the total number of species.

The mixed forests plots of this research ranked among the most diverse plots studiedin Guyana so far, a result that should have its influence in the planning of protectedareas in Guyana.


53

2.6 APPENDIX

Species identified in four hectare plots of well-drained forest, North-WestDistrict, Guyana.

Specimens unidentified at the family level (n = 10) have been omitted

Barama Moruca Barama Morucamixed mixed sec. for. sec. for.

ACANTHACEAEMendoncia hoffmannseggiana Nees x

ANACARDIACEAEAstronium cf. lecointei Ducke x xTapirira guianensis Aubl. x x xTapirira cf. obtusa (Benth.) J.D. Mitch. x

ANNONACEAEAnaxagorea dolichocarpaSprague & Sandw.

x x

Annona symphyocarpa Sandw. xBocageopsis multiflora (Mart.) R.E. Fr. xDuguetia calycina Benoist xDuguetia megalophylla R.E. Fr. xDuguetia pauciflora Rusby x xDuguetia pycnastera Sandw. xDuguetia yeshidan Sandw. x xGuatteria schomburgkiana Mart. xGuatteria sp. (TVA1127) xRollinia exsucca (DC. ex Dunal) A. DC. x x x xUnonopsis glaucopetala R.E. Fr. x x x xXylopia cayennensis Maas xXylopia aff. surinamensis R.E. Fr. xXylopia sp. (TVA1176) xXylopia sp. (TVA1165) x

APOCYNACEAEAmbelania acida Aubl. xAspidosperma excelsum Benth. xAspidosperma marcgravianum Woodson x xAspidosperma sp. TVA1583 xForsteronia guyanensis Müll. Arg. xForsteronia sp. (TVA2460) xHimatanthus articulatus (Vahl) Woodson x xOdontadenia puncticulosa (Rich.) Pulle xOdontadenia sp. (TVA1401) xOdontadenia sp. (TVA2178) xParahancornia fasciculata (Poir.) Benoist xTabernaemontana heterophylla Vahl x xTabernaemontana aff. siphilitica (L.f.)Leeuwenb.

x x

Tabernaemontana undulata Vahl x x x x

2.6 Appendix

54


ARACEAEHeteropsis flexuosa (Kunth) G.S. Bunting x xPhilodendron fragrantissimum (Hook.)Kunth

x

Philodendron rudgeanum Schott x x xPhilodendron scandens K. Koch & Sello x xPhilodendron surinamense (Schott) Engl. x xPhilodendron spp. (unidentified seedlings) x

ARALIACEAEDendropanax sp. (TVA2414) xSchefflera morototoni(Aubl.) Maguire, Steyerm. & Frodin

x x

ARISTOLOCHIACEAEAristolochia daemoninoxia Mast. x

BIGNONIACEAEAnemopaegma sp. (TVA1661) xArrabidaea sp. (TVA2357) xClytostoma binatum (Thunb.) Sandw. xDistictella magnoliifolia (H.B.K.) Sandw. xJacaranda copaia (Aubl.) D. Don ssp. copaia x x xJacaranda copaia ssp. spectabilis(DC.) A. H. Gentry

x x

Memora flavida (DC.) Bureau & K. Schum. x xMusatia prieurei (DC.) Bureau ex K. Schum. xParabignonia steyermarkii Sandw. xTabebuia insignis (Miq.) Sandw. var.monophylla Sandw.

x

Bignoniaceae sp. (TVA2099) x

BOMBACACEAECatostemma commune Sandw. x x x xPachira aquatica Aubl. x xPachira insignis (Sw.) Savigny x

BORAGINACEAECordia nodosa Lam. x x x xCordia sericicalyx A. DC. x xCordia tetrandra Aubl. x x x

BURSERCEAEProtium decandrum Marchand x x xProtium guianense Marchand x x xProtium heptaphyllumMarchand ssp. heptaphyllum

x

Protium sp. (TVA931) xProtium unifoliolatum Engl. xTetragastris altissima (Aubl.) Swart x x


55


BURSERCEAETrattinnickia cf. lawranceivar. boliviana Swart

x

Burseraceae sp. (TVA1464) x

CECROPIACEAECecropia peltata L. x xCecropia sciadophylla Mart. x x xPourouma guianensis Aubl. ssp. guianensis x x x

CELASTRACEAEGoupia glabra Aubl. x x x xMaytenus cf. guyanensis Klotzsch exReissek

x x x

Maytenus sp. (TVA958) x x

CHRYSOBALANACEAECouepia parillo DC. x xHirtella racemosa L. var racemosa xLicania alba (Bernoulli) Cuatrec. x x x xLicania cf. divaricata Benth. xLicania heteromorpha Benth.var. perplexans Sandw.

x x x

Licania kunthiana Hook.f. xLicania micrantha Miq. xLicania persaudii Fanshawe & Maguire xLicania sp. (TVA2324) xLicania sp. (TVA2332) xParinari rodolphii Huber x x

COMBRETACEAECombretum laxum Jacq. xCombretum rotundifolium Rich. xTerminalia cf. amazonia (J.F. Gmel.) Exell x xTerminalia dichotoma G. Mey. x

COMPOSITAEMikania cf. psilostachya DC. x

CONNARACEAEConnarus perrottetii var. rufus Forero xConnarus sp. (TVA2350) xPseudoconnarus cf. macrophyllus Radlk. x xRourea pubescens (DC.) Radlk. var. spadicea(Radl) Forero

x x x x

Rourea surinamensis Miq. x x x

CONVULVULACEAEDicranostyles ampla Ducke xDicranostyles guianensis Mennega xDicranostyles sp. (TVA2364) xDicranostyles sp. (TVA2407) x

2.6 Appendix

56


CONVULVULACEAEMaripa scandens Aubl. xMaripa sp. (TVA2009) x

COSTACEAECostus erythrothyrsus Loes. xCostus scaber Ruiz & Pav. x

CUCURBITACEAECayaponia jenmanii C. Jeffrey xHelmontia leptantha (Schltdl.) Cogn. x

CYCLANTHACEAEEvodianthus funifer (Poit.) Lindm. ssp.funifer

x x

Thoracocarpus bissectus (Vell.) Harling x x x xCyclanthaceae sp. (TVA2471) x

CYPERACEAEScleria secans (L.) Urb. x x

DICHAPETALACEAEDichapetalum pedunculatum (DC.) Baill. x x x xTapura guianensis Aubl. x x x

DILLENIACEAEDavilla kunthii A. St. Hil. x x xDoliocarpus brevipedicellatus Garcke ssp.brevipedicellatus

x x

Doliocarpus cf. dentatus (Aubl.) Standl. xPinzona coriacea Mart. & Zucc. xPinzona sp. (TVA2509) xTetracera volubilis L. ssp. volubilis x x x x

DIOSCOREACEAEDioscorea pilosiuscula Bert. ex Spreng. x

DRYOPTERIDACEAECyclodium meniscioides (Willd.) C. Preslvar. meniscioides

x x x

Polybotrya caudata Kuntze x x

EBENACEAEDiospyros cf. ierensis Britton xDiospyros tetrandra Hiern x x x

ELAEOCARPACEAESloanea grandiflora Sm. x xSloanea cf. guianensis (Aubl.) Benth. x x xSloanea latifolia (Rich.) K. Schum. x xSloanea obtusifolia (Moric.) K. Schum. xSloanea cf. parviflora Planch. ex Benth. x


57


ELAEOCARPACEAESloanea cf. schomburgkii Benth. x xSloanea aff. synandra Spruce ex Benth. x xSloanea sp. (TVA2006) xSloanea sp. (TVA2195) x

ERYTHROXYLACEAEErythroxylum macrophyllum Cav. x x x

EUPHORBIACEAEAlchornea schomburgkii Klotzsch xAlchorneopsis floribunda (Benth.) Müll. Arg. xChaetocarpus schomburgkianus (Kuntze)Pax & Hoffm.,

x x x

Conceveiba guianensis Aubl. x xDrypetes fanshawei Sandw. xHyeronima alchorneoides Allemao var.stipulosa Franco

x x x

Hyeronima oblonga (Tul.) Müll. Arg. x x xMabea piriri Aubl. x x x xMaprounea guianensis Aubl. xPausandra hirsuta Lanj. xPausandra sp. (TVA2058) xPera glabrata (Schott) Baill. xSandwithia guyanensis Lanj. x x x xSapium jenmanii Hemsl. xSenefeldera sp. (TVA1621) xSenefeldera sp. (TVA1369) x

FLACOURTIACEAECasearia aff. acuminata DC. xCasearia aff. arborea (Rich.) Urb. xCasearia javitensis Kunth x x x xCasearia cf. ulmifolia Vahl ex Vent. xCaesearia sp. (TVA1522) xCaesearia sp. (TVA2334) xLaetia procera (Poepp.) Eichl. x xFlacourtiaceae sp. (TVA2448) x

GESNERIACEAEParadrymonia maculata (Hook. f.) Wiehler x

GNETACEAEGnetum sp. (TVA1612) x

GRAMINAEOlyra longifolia Kunth x x

GUTTIFERAEClusia grandiflora Splitg. x xClusia palmicida Rich. ex Planch. & Triana x x xSymphonia globulifera L.f. x x

2.6 Appendix

58


GUTTIFERAETovomita cf. brevistaminea Engl. x xTovomita calodictyos Sandw. xTovomita cf. choisyana Planch. & Triana xTovomita cf. obscura Sandw. x x xTovomita schomburgkii Planch. & Triana xVismia guianensis (Aubl.) Choisy xVismia macrophylla Kunth x

HERNANDIACEAESparattanthelium guianense Sandw. x

HIPPOCRATEACEAEHippocratea volubilis L. xSalacia sp. (TVA1498) xSalacia sp. (TVA1584) xTontelea coriacea A.C. Sm. xTontelea cf. glabra A.C. Sm. x x

HUMIRIACEAEHumiria balsamifera (Aubl.) A. St. Hil. var.balsamifera

x

Sacoglottis aff. cydonioides Cuatrec. xSacoglottis guianensis Benth. var. guianensis x

ICACINACEAECasimirella ampla (Miers) R.A. Howard xDiscophora guianensis Miers x xLeretia cordata Vell. x

LACISTEMATACEAELacistema aggregatum (Bergius) Rusby x x

LAURACEAEAniba cf. guianensis Aubl. x xAniba hostmanniana Mez xAniba cf. kappleri Mez xAniba cf. riparia (Nees) Mez x xAniba sp. (TVA988) xNectandra cf. cuspidata Nees xNectandra sp. aff. xOcotea cernua (Nees) Mez x xOcotea schomburgkiana (Nees) Mez x x xOcotea splendens (Meisn.) Mez x xOcotea tomentella Sandw. x x xOcotea sp. (TVA2111) xOcotea sp. (TVA2710) x


59


LECYTHIDACEAEEschweilera alata cf. A.C. Sm. xEschweilera decolorans Sandw. xEschweilera pedicellata (Rich.) S.A.Mori xEschweilera sagotiana Miers x xEschweilera wachenheimii (Benoist) Sandw. x x x xEschweilera sp. (TVA2144) xLecythis cf. chartacea Berg x xLecythis corrugata Poit. ssp. corrugata x x xLecythis zabucajo Aubl. x x x xLecythis sp. (TVA2380) xLecythidaceae sp. (TVA1348) x

LEGUMINOSAE-CAESALPINIACEAEAlexa imperatricis (R.H. Schomb.) Baill. xBauhinia guianensis Aubl. var. guianensis x x x xBauhinia scala-simiae Sandw. x xBrownea latifolia Jacq. xDicorynia cf. guianensis Amshoff xEperua falcata Aubl. xHymenaea courbaril L. var. courbaril xMora excelsa Benth. x xPeltogyne venosa (Vahl) Benth. ssp. venosa xSclerolobium micropetalum Ducke x xSenna bacillaris (L.f.) H.S. Irwin & Barneby xSenna multijuga(Rich) H.S. Irwin & Barneby var. multijuga

x x

Tachigali paniculata Aubl. x

LEGUMINOSAE-MIMOSACEAEAbarema jupunba var. trapezifolia (Vahl)R.C. Barneby & J.W. Grimes

x x x

Hydrochorea cf. corymbosa (A. Rich.)Barneby & J.W. Grimes

x

Inga cf. acreana Harms xInga cf. acrocephala Steud. x xInga alba (Sw.) Willd. x x x xInga capitata Desv. x x xInga edulis (Vell.) Mart. x xInga graciliflora Benth. x x x xInga huberi Ducke x x xInga lateriflora Miq. x xInga leiocalycina Benth. xInga marginata Willd. xInga melinonis Sagot x xInga pezizifera Benth. xInga rubiginosa (Rich.) DC. x x xInga splendens Willd. xInga thibaudiana DC. ssp. thibaudiana xInga umbellifera (Vahl) Steud. ex DC. xInga sp. (TVA1352) xInga sp. (TVA1535) x

2.6 Appendix

60


LEGUMINOSAE-MIMOSACEAEInga sp. (TVA2463) xInga sp. (TVA920) xInga spp. (unidentified seedlings) x x x xPentaclethra macroloba (Willd.) Kuntze x x x xZygia cataractae (Kunth) L. Rico x

LEGUMINOSAE-PAPILIONACEAEAlexa imperatricis (R.H. Schomb.) Baill. x x xClathrotropis brachypetala (Tul.)Kleinhoonte var. brachypetala

x x x x

Clitoria sp. (TVA2008) xDioclea scabra (Rich.) R.H. Maxwell x xDiplotropis purpurea (Rich.) Amshoff x xDipteryx odorata (Aubl.) Willd. xHymenolobium flavum Kleinhoonte xLonchocarpus cf. heptaphyllus (Poit.) DC. xLonchocarpus negrensis Benth. x xLonchocarpus sp. (TVA2113) xMachaerium ferox Ducke x xMachaerium kegelii Meisn. xMachaerium madeirense Pittier x x x xMachaerium myrianthum Spruce ex Benth. x xMachaerium quinata (Aubl.)Sandw. var. quinata

x x

Machaerium sp. (TVA2072) xMachaerium sp. (TVA2082) xMachaerium sp. (TVA2172) xOrmosia nobilis Tul. xPterocarpus officinalis Jacq. ssp. officinalis xPterocarpus cf. rohrii Vahl xSwartzia arborescens (Aubl.) Pittier x xSwartzia grandifolia Bong. x xSwartzia guianensis (Aubl.) Urb. x xSwartzia sp. (TVA1654) x

LOGANIACEAEStrychnos glabra Sagot ex Progel xStrychnos cf. melinoniana Baill. xStrychnos mitscherlichiiM.R. Schomb. var mitscherlichii

x x

Strychnos sp. (TVA2479) x

MALPIGHIACEAEBanisteriopsis sp. (TVA2132) xByrsonima aerugo Sagot xByrsonima stipulacea A. Juss. xHeteropterys multiflora Hochr. xHiraea affinis Miq. x xHiraea sp. (TVA1534) xMezia cf. includens (Benth.) Cuatrec. x xTetrapterys crispa A. Juss. x


61


MALPIGHIACEAEMalpighiaceae sp. (TVA2360) x

MARANTACEAEIschnosiphon arouma (Aubl.) Körn. x xIschnosiphon foliosus Gleason x x x xMaranta sp. (TVA2217) xMonotagma spicatum (Aubl.) J.F. Macbr. x

MELASTOMATACEAEAciotis sp. (TVA1384) xBellucia grossularioides (L.) Triana xClidemia japurensis DC. var. japurensis xHenriettea cf. multiflora Naudin xLeandra divaricata (Naudin) Cogn. x xLoreya mespiloides Miq. xMiconia ceramicarpa(DC.) Cogn. var. ceramicarpa

x

Miconia fragilis Naudin xMiconia hypoleuca (Benth.) Triana xMiconia nervosa (Sm.) Triana xMiconia plukenetii Naudin xMiconia punctata D. Don. xMiconia cf. racemosa (Aubl.) DC. xMiconia cf. ruficalyx Gleason x xMiconia cf. traillii Cogn. xMiconia sp. (TVA1752) xMelastomataceae sp. (TVA1130) x

MELIACEAECarapa guianensis Aubl. x x x xCedrela odorata L. xGuarea cf. guidonia (L.) Sleumer xGuarea sp. (TVA1125) xTrichilia schomburgkii C. DC. ssp.schomburgkii

x x x

Trichilia sp. (TVA2116) x

MENISPERMACEAEAbuta barbata Miers xAnomospermum grandifolium Eichler xCissampelos cf. andromorpha DC. xCurarea candicans (Rich.) Barneby &Krukoff

x

Odontocarya sp. (TVA1545) xTelitoxicum krukovii Moldenke xTelitoxicum sp. (TVA1265) x

MONIMIACEAESiparuna guianensis Aubl. x x

2.6 Appendix

62


MORACEAEBrosimum guianense (Aubl.) Huber xFicus broadwayi Urb. xHelicostylis tomentosa(Poepp. & Endl.) Rusby

x

Naucleopsis cf. guianensis(Mildbr.) C.C. Berg

x

Pseudolmedia laevis(Ruiz & Pav.) J.F. Macbr.

x

Sorocea hirtella ssp. oligotrichaAkkermans & C.C. Berg

x x

MUSACEAEHeliconia acuminata Rich. var. acuminata x x

MYRISTICACEAEIryanthera juruensis Warb. xVirola calophylla Warb. xVirola elongata (Benth.) Warb x xVirola sebifera Aubl. x xVirola surinamensis (Rol.) Warb. xMyristicaceae sp. (TVA956) x

MYRSINACEAECybianthus cf. surinamensis (Spreng.) G.Agostini

x

Stylogyne surinamensis (Miq.) Mez x

MYRTACEAECalycolpus goetheanus (Mart. ex DC.)O. Berg

x

Eugenia patrisii Vahl x xMarlierea schomburgkiana O. Berg x x xMyrcia graciliflora Sagot xMyrcia cf. guianensis (Aubl.) DC. var.guianensis

x

NYCTAGINACEAENeea cf. constricta Spruce ex J.A. Schmidt xNeea cf. floribunda Poepp. & Endl. x

OCHNACEAEOuratea guianensis Aubl. x

OLACACEAEMinquartia guianensis Aubl. x

PALMAEAstrocaryum aculeatum G. Mey. xAstrocaryum gynacanthum Mart. x xBactris humilis (Wallace) Burret x x x xBactris oligoclada Burret x x x x


63


PALMAEBactris simplicifrons Mart. xEuterpe oleracea Mart. xEuterpe precatoria Mart. xGeonoma maxima (Poit.) Kunth x xJessenia bataua (Mart.) Burret ssp.oligocarpa (Griseb. & H. Wendl.) Balick

x x

Maximiliana maripa (Correa) Drude x x

PASSIFLORACEAEPassiflora nitida Kunth x

PIPERACEAEPiper adenandrum (Miq.) C. DC. x x xPiper aequale Vahl xPiper arboreum Aubl. x xPiper avellanum (Miq.) C. DC. xPiper hostmannianum (Miq.) C. DC. xPiper vs. humistratum Görts & K.U. Kramer xPiper nigrispicum C. DC. xPiper vs. oblongifolium (Klotzsch) C. DC. xPiper sp. (TVA2098) xPiper sp. (TVA2170) x

POLYGALACEAEMoutabea guianensis Aubl. x x

POLYGONACEAECoccoloba gymnorrachis Sandw. xCoccoloba cf. lucidula Benth. xCoccoloba marginata Benth. xCoccoloba cf. parimensis Benth. x

PTERIDOPHYTAETriplophyllum funestum (Kunze) Holttumvar. funestum

x x x

QUIINACEAEQuiina guianensis Aubl. x x x xQuiina indigofera Sandw. x x x xQuiina obovata Tul. xQuiina sp. (TVA1360) x

RUBIACEAEAmaioua corymbosa Kunth xAmaioua guianensis Aubl. x xFaramea aff. guianensis Bremek. (poss. sp.nov.)

x x

Faramea quadricostata Bremek. xFaramea sp. (TVA1380) xPalicourea crocea (Sw.) Roem. & Schult. xPalicourea cf. guianensis Aubl. x

2.6 Appendix

64


RUBIACEAEPosoqueria longiflora Aubl. x xPsychotria apoda Steyerm. x x xPsychotria astrellantha Wernham xPsychotria brachybotrya Müll. Arg. xPsychotria poeppigiana Müll. Arg. var.barcellana (Müll. Arg.) Steyerm.

x

Psychotria sp. (TVA1368) xRubiaceae sp. (TVA1173) xRubiaceae sp. (TVA1416) xRubiaceae sp. (TVA1440) xRubiaceae sp. (TVA1476) xRubiaceae sp. (TVA1618) x xSabicea glabrescens Benth. xUncaria guianensis (Aubl.) J.F. Gmel. x x

RUTACEAEZanthoxylum sp. (TVA2333) x x

SAPINDACEAECupania hirsuta Radlk. x x xCupania scrobiculata Rich. var. reticulata(Cambess.) Radlk.

x x

Matayba guianensis Aubl. xPaullinia cf. capreolata (Aubl.) Radlk. x x x xPaullinia cf. rufescens Rich. ex Juss. x xPaullinia sp.(TVA2131) xTalisia cf. guianensis Aubl. x xTalisia hexaphylla Vahl x x

SAPOTACEAEChrysophyllum pomiferum(Eyma) T.D. Penn.

x x

Chrysophyllum sanguinolentum(Pierre) Baehni

x

Micropholis venulosa(Mart. & Eichler) Pierre

x x x

Pouteria bilocularis (Winkl.) Baehni xPouteria caimito (Ruiz & Pav.) Radlk. x xPouteria cf. coriacea (Pierre) Pierre xPouteria cuspidata (A. DC.) Baehni xPouteria durlandii (Standl.) Baehni xPouteria guianensis Aubl. x x x xPouteria hispida Eyma xPouteria sp. (TVA1525) xPouteria sp. (TVA2151) xPouteria sp. (TVA2359) xPouteria venosa (Mart.) Baehni ssp.amazonica T.D. Penn.

x

SCHIZAEACEAELygodium volubile Sw. x


65


SELAGINELLACEAESelaginella parkeri (Hook. & Grev.) Spring x

SIMAROUBACEAESimarouba amara Aubl x x x

SMILACACEAESmilax cumanensis Willd. xSmilax schomburgkiana Kunth xSmilax syphilitica Willd. x

SOLANACEAEMarkea sp. (TVA2466) x x

STERCULIACEAEHerrania kanukuensis R.E. Schult. xSterculia pruriens (Aubl.) K. Schum. x xSterculia sp. (TVA1753) x xSterculia sp. (TVA2372) xSterculia sp. (TVA2709) x x

TILIACEAEApeiba petoumo Aubl. x x x

TURNERACEAETurnera aff. rupestris Aubl. x

VERBENACEAEPetrea bracteata Steud. xVitex compressa Turcz. x x x

VIOLACEAEPaypayrola longifolia Tul. x x x x

VITACEAECissus descoingsii Lombardi x

ZINGIBERACEAECurcuma cf. xanthorrhiza Roxb. xRenealmia alpinia (Rottb.) Maas xRenealmia orinocencis Rusby x x

3. Floristic composition and diversity of swamp forests

66

3. FLORISTIC COMPOSITION AND DIVERSITY OFTHREE SWAMP FORESTS IN NORTHWESTGUYANA1

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Amazonian flooded forests have been the focus of increasing interest in recent times.The reasons for this scientific attention are the importance of flooded forests forconserving biodiversity and protecting river quality (Rosales Godoy et al., 1999),their suitability for agriculture due to the constant process of soil enrichment throughsedimentation (Prance, 1979; Padoch and Pinedo-Vasquez, 1999), and theirsignificance to local fish ecosystems (Goulding et al., 1988; Henderson andRobertson, 1999). Furthermore, the general low diversity of Amazonian swampforests has been mentioned as a great advantage for the sustainable extraction ofnon-timber forest products (Peters et al., 1989b; Johnston, 1998). The managementof forests dominated by economically important species could be a viable enterpriseif product value is high and the potential for conflicting land uses is minimal(Anderson, 1988).

Although floodplain forests cover extensive areas in the deltas of Guyana’smagnificent rivers, they have not yet received much scientific attention. Forestinventories have mainly focused on the timber-producing region in central Guyana(Johnston and Gillman, 1995; Ek, 1997; van der Hout, 1999; ter Steege et al.,2000e). In fact, only the riparian Mora forest, dominated by the commercial timberspecies Mora excelsa, has been described in detail (Davis and Richards, 1934;Polak, 1992; ter Steege, 1990, 1993; Johnston and Gillman 1995). Few surveys havebeen conducted in the coastal peat swamps, because of the rather high costs ofsurvey work and ‘the forest being of little economic importance’ (Davis, 1929: 159).

Recently, the Guyanese Government developed its National Protected Area System(NPAS), to guarantee the protection and wise use of its natural resources (Persaud,1997). Some of the objectives of this programme are:

1) Preservation of viable examples of all natural ecosystems in Guyana2) Protection of areas of particular biological significance3) Protection of key watersheds and provisions of buffer zones to mitigate the effects of climate change and natural hazards.

For the conservation of tropical forests and the establishment of protected areas,however, a good understanding of their biodiversity is needed (Ek and ter Steege,1998). Moreover, in order to design adequate management plans, quantitativeinformation is needed on the diversity, population structure, and distribution patternsof useful (and non-useful) species in these vegetation types.

1. This chapter was submitted in a slightly different form to Plant Ecology.


67

This is especially true for the coastal wetlands of Guyana’s North-West District(Figure 5.1), which are subject to the extraction of palm heart, one of the maincommercial NTFPs of the country (see chapter 5 of this thesis).

Little has been published on the swamp forests of the North-West District, althoughsome general accounts of dominant swamp species were given by Anderson (1912)and Davis (1929). The only detailed quantitative study of the coastal wetlands wasprovided by Fanshawe (1952, 1954), who described several different plantassemblages and communities based on species composition, soil type, seasonalflooding, and palm dominance. Fanshawe based his swamp forest classifications ona few study plots of 1.5 to 2.1 hectares, but stated that “the formation is socomplicated and obscure that only a complete study of the whole complex will bringout the dominant vegetation trends. Localised studies are of little value for theunderstanding of the whole” (Fanshawe, 1952: 41). The few existing vegetationmaps of the North-West District (FIDS, 1970; Huber et al., 1995), are largely basedon Fanshawe’s forest classifications and provide few details on species composition.

This chapter compares the floristic composition, structure, and diversity of threeswamp forest types in Guyana’s North-West District, to provide baseline data for thefuture sustainable exploitation of NTFPs. The vegetation descriptions presented herewill hopefully contribute to a better understanding of the structure and floristicdiversity of the forests of the North-West District and may be useful in the NPASprogramme. Information on the well-drained primary and secondary forests is givenin the previous chapter.

3.2 STUDY SITES

The first study site was located near the village of Kariako, Barama River (Figure 1.2and 2.1). Like many meandering rivers, the riverbank collapses in the convex bends,while sediments are deposited in the concave curves. Although the forest adjacent tothe river is flooded only during the rainy season, the heavy clay soils (districFluvisols) remain swampy for most of the year (Fanshawe, 1952; van Kekem et al.,1996). This floodplain forest is dominated by Mora excelsa and is therefore known asMora forest. This forest gradually gives way to mixed forest on the higher, well-drained soil behind the floodplain. However, large Mora trees can be found alongcreeks traversing the mixed forest.

The second study site was located in the coastal swamplands in the vicinity of theSanta Rosa Amerindian Reserve, (Figure 2.2). The Moruca River is flanked on bothsides by an open flooded savanna, in which many small sandy islands arise, remnantsof ancient sand dunes (Anderson, 1912). Individual homesteads, cultivated fields, andentire villages can be found on these islands. Moving inland, these sandy islandsgradually merge into a mainland of well-drained secondary and primary forest (chapter2). The soil of the savanna is largely organic, consisting of a thick layer of decayedvegetative matter, also known as ‘pegasse’ (Histosol) (Fanshawe, 1952; van Kekem etal., 1996). The acid peat is underlain with alluvial and marine clay at a depth ofsometimes more than 4 m. This clay layer impedes drainage and keeps the soil


68

waterlogged most of the time. Only in the dry season can these soils be walked on.Moving towards the coast beyond the savanna, one encounters a dense swamp forestthat has been given the name ‘quackal swamp’ because of the abundance of the smalltree Marlierea montana, locally known as ‘quackoo’. It was in such a forest that thesecond plot was laid out.

Moving up the Moruca River towards the Baramanni River (Figure 1.2), thesavannas change into dense swamp forest, in which Euterpe palms (manicole) aredominant. The third study site was located in a manicole swamp near the mouth ofthe Assakata Creek, which leads to a village by the same name. In the wet season,both the quackal and manicole swamps are heavily flooded and can only be enteredby canoe.

3.3 METHODOLOGY

The first hectare plot was laid out in August-September 1996 in Mora forest nearKariako (7º 23' N, 59º 43' W). The second plot was established in September 1997 ina quackal swamp near Santa Rosa (7º 41' N, 58º 55' W), while the third plot was laidout in November 1997 in a manicole swamp near Assakata (7º 44' N, 59º 04' W). Allplots were located in areas accessible to Amerindians of nearby villages to be surethat these forests were subject to NTFP collection. The same nested samplingmethod was used as in the better-drained forests. In paragraph 2.2.4 of chapter 2, adetailed account of the methodology used for plant collection and data analysis ispresented.

3.4 RESULTS

3.4.1 General forest compositionA total of 228 species (including three unidentified specimens) were found in thethree hectare plots (see Appendix) and a summary of these findings is presented inTable 3.1. One remarkable aspect is that the Mora forest plot contained an rathersmall number of trees. Mean diameter and canopy height, however, were the highestof all plots, indicating that the Mora forest was composed of a few number of largetrees. In contrast, the other two swamp forests consisted of many thin-stemmedtrees. The α-diversity was generally very low. The manicole plot had the lowestnumber of tree species, but a richer understorey than the other two plots.

The shrub layer of the quackal swamp was less dense than that of the Mora andmanicole forests. Lianas and hemi-epiphytes were relatively common in all threeplots. It can be deduced from Table 3.1 that the understorey harboured 45.3%(quackal) to 69.6% (Mora) of the total number of species in the plots. These figuresillustrate again the importance of nested sampling when studying vegetationstructure and species richness of tropical rain forests.


69

Table 3.1 Summary of the floristic composition of three hectare plots in swamp forests in Barama,Moruca and Assakata. The second number in the range of species and families includes thenumber of unidentified species, regarded as a previously unrecorded species or family. Lianaspecies include hemi-epiphytes and climbing ferns.

Forest typeFloristic composition

BaramaMora

Morucaquackal

Assakatamanicole

TREE LAYER > 10 cm DBH

Number of individuals in 1 ha 321 946 664

Number of species in 1 ha 31 41 30

Number of families in 1 ha 21 24 18

Mean diameter trees > 10 cm DBH [cm] 29.0 17.2 20.8

Canopy height [m] 30-45 12-15 15-25

α-diversity 7.4 8.0 5.7

SHRUB LAYER < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m

Number of individuals in 0.1 ha 1594 720 1603

Number of species in 0.1 ha 63 49 82

Number of families in 0.1 ha 34 29 37

HERB LAYER < 1.50 m

Number of individuals in 4 *10-3 ha 407 481 548

Number of species in 4 *10-3 ha 47 34 47-48

Number of families in 4 *10-3 ha 29 21 27-28

Total no. of tree species > 10 cm DBH 28 38 27

Total no. of liana species > 10 cm DBH 3 2 3Total no. of shrub /small tree species < 10 cmDBH

31 13 24

Total no. of liana species < 10 cm DBH 22 15 37

Total no. of species only found in herb layer 18 7 7

True herb species 9 2 4

Total no. of species found in 1 ha plot 102 75 98

Total no. of families found in 1 ha plot 49 36 43

The three swamp forest plots clearly differed in family composition (Table 3.2). Theonly common aspect in the three plots seemed to be the abundance of Mimosaceae.The Mora forest was obviously dominated by Caesalpiniaceae (Mora excelsa).Papilionaceae and Lecythidaceae were also more important in the Mora forest thanin the two pegasse swamps. In contrast, Guttiferae, Bignoniaceae, Ebenaceae, andMyristicaceae were typical aspects of the pegasse swamps, although somewhat moreof the quackal than of the manicole swamp. The quackal forest was furthercharacterised by the high presence of Humiriaceae and Myrtaceae, an aspect notshared with the others.


70

The manicole swamp was the only forest dominated by Palmae. Mimosaceae andCaesalpiniaceae were the second and third most important families in that plot.

Table 3.2 Family dominance by tree density (percentage of individuals > 10 cm DBH) for the 15 mostcommon families in the three swamp forest plots.

Percentage of trees > 10 cm DBH perplant family

BaramaMora

Moruca quackalAssakatamanicole

Leguminosae-Caesalp. 57.9 0.3 13.1

Leguminosae-Mimos. 10.0 13.5 20.0

Palmae - 0.6 30.4

Guttiferae 0.9 17.0 9.8

Bignoniaceae - 12.9 6.0

Leguminosae-Papil. 11.5 2.4 3.8

Ebenaceae - 8.9 5.4

Humiriaceae - 11.3 -

Myristicaceae 0.3 7.4 3.5

Sapotaceae 1.6 4.8 0.8

Myrtaceae - 6.6 -

Lecythidaceae 6.5 - -

Anacardiaceae 0.6 1.6 3.5

Sapindaceae 0.3 2.6 0.6

Lauraceae 0.3 2.4 0.3

Unidentified - - 0.2

Total of other families 10.0 7.6 2.7

3.4.2 Mora forestThe Mora forest in Barama is a tall, riparian forest with an average height of 30-45m. Table 3.3 shows the I.V. scores of the 20 most common tree species. The forest isheavily dominated by Mora excelsa, accounting for more than 56% of the trees. Allindividuals with a DBH > 65 cm belonged to this species as well. The toweringMora trees have large buttresses, but are not deeply rooted. They were often felledby rainstorms or by the force of the meandering river. Apart from these natural gaps,the canopy was more or less closed. Several creeks traversed the plot. The clay soilremained swampy for months after the annual flooding in June-July. Mora fruitedmassively in December, as made evident by a carpet of seeds on the forest floor.Other common trees were Pterocarpus officinalis subsp. officinalis, Pentaclethramacroloba, and Eschweilera wachenheimii: the latter was also a characteristicspecies of the mixed forest further inland. Species like Zygia latifolia var.communis, Spachea elegans, Ficus spp., Inga spp., and Spondias mombin werecommon directly on the waterfront, but their importance gradually decreased furtherfrom the river.


71

Likewise, curtains of lianas covered the riverbanks, while they were less abundantmore inland. Uncaria guianensis was the most common woody liana in Mora forest.

Table 3.3 Density, basal area and importance value of the 20 most common species of trees > 10 cmDBH in one hectare of Mora forest, Barama. Species are ranked in order of decreasingimportance value. * Liana.

Mora swamp forestTree layer

Absolutedensity

Basalarea

I.V.Relativedensity

Relativedom.

Relativefrequency


Mora excelsa 182 28.44 152.81 56.70 84.49 11.63Pterocarpus officinalis subsp.officinalis

27 1.41 20.75 8.41 4.20 8.14



Zygia latifolia var. communis 16 0.27 13.93 4.98 0.80 8.14

Licania persaudii 5 0.14 7.79 1.56 0.42 5.81

Spachea elegans 4 0.17 6.40 1.25 0.51 4.65

Brownea latifolia 4 0.05 6.05 1.25 0.15 4.65


Uncaria guianensis * 5 0.05 5.20 1.56 0.15 3.49Chrysophyllum argenteum subsp.auratum

4 0.06 4.91 1.25 0.18 3.49

Vitex compressa 3 0.11 4.76 0.93 0.34 3.49

Trichilia rubra 3 0.05 4.58 0.93 0.16 3.49

Tovomita sp. (TVA1020) 3 0.03 3.36 0.93 0.09 2.33

Duguetia pycnastera 3 0.03 3.35 0.93 0.09 2.33

Spondias mombin 2 0.09 3.21 0.62 0.26 2.33Clathrotropis brachypetala var.brachypetala

2 0.10 2.08 0.62 0.30 1.16

Carapa guianensis 2 0.02 1.86 0.62 0.07 1.16Hyeronima alchorneoides var.stipulosa

1 0.03 1.56 0.31 0.09 1.16

Ficus maxima 1 0.02 1.54 0.31 0.07 1.16


Total 321 33.66 300.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Mora excelsa regenerated abundantly in the understorey. The thin saplings occupiedmost of the shrub layer (Table 3.4), leaving little space for other small trees likeDuguetia spp. and Tovomita sp. (TVA1020). True shrubs were represented byGustavia augusta and Psychotria bahiensis var. cornigera. Geonoma baculifera wasfrequently present in large quantities in Mora forest, but only two individuals werefound in the plot. This may have two explanations. This clustered palm has a ratherpatchy distribution and, because its leaves are used as roof thatch, the species tendsto be scarce around Amerindian settlements (van Andel, 1998). The same applies toEuterpe oleracea, which also has an irregular distribution in Mora forests: it wasonly found in juvenile stages along small streams outside the plot. Hemi-epiphytes,such as Philodendron rudgeanum and the climbing fern Cyclodium meniscioides


72

var. meniscioides, were common. The most frequent liana was Dioclea scabra,followed by Paullinia caloptera. The broad crowns of the Mora trees were coveredwith epiphytes (mostly bromeliads and orchids); however, these plants fell outsidethe scope of this inventory.

Table 3.4 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m in height in0.1 ha (‘shrub layer’) of Mora forest, Barama. Species are ranked in order of decreasingnumbers. * Liana; • hemi-epiphyte.

Mora swamp forestShrub layer

Absolutedensity

Relativedensity

Relativefrequency


Mora excelsa 1330 83.44 6.34

Duguetia pycnastera 31 1.94 5.63

Tovomita sp. (TVA1020) 19 1.19 4.23

Duguetia yeshidan 16 1.00 4.23


Gustavia augusta 10 0.63 2.82


Psychotria bahiensis var. cornigera 10 0.63 2.82

Zygia latifolia var. communis 10 0.63 4.23

Dioclea scabra * 9 0.56 2.11


Total 1594 100.00 100.00

Table 3.5 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 1.5 m in height in 4*10-3 ha (‘herblayer’) of Mora forest, Barama Species are ranked in order of decreasing numbers. • Hemi-epiphyte.

Mora swamp forestHerb layer

Absolutedensity

Relativedensity

Relativefrequency


Adiantum latifolium 148 36.36 8.64

Mora excelsa 96 23.59 11.11

Philodendron sp. (TVA1362) • 19 4.67 1.23


Pterocarpus officinalis subsp. officinalis 14 3.44 4.94

Hyeronima oblonga 13 3.19 2.47

Olyra longifolia 13 3.19 4.94

Hymenocallis tubiflora 10 2.46 1.23

Celastraceae sp. (TVA1364) 5 1.23 1.23



Total 407 100.00 100.00


73

The lowest stratum contained several true herb species, such as Hymenocallistubiflora, Hypolytrum longifolium subsp. longifolium, and Calathea cf. micans. Thefern Adiantum latifolium was the most numerous plant in the herb layer, followed byrecently germinated Mora seedlings (Table 3.5).

3.4.3 Quackal swampThis dense swamp forest beyond the Moruca savannas continues towards the AtlanticOcean, where it gradually changes into mangrove forest. The soil consists of a pegasselayer several meters thick. In the wet season, the water level rose to 2 m above the soil,so that the area could only be entered by boat. Access to the forest was easier in thedry season. The canopy was low (12-15 m), with a few emergent Mauritia flexuosapalms and Calophyllum brasiliense trees (20-25 m tall).

Table 3.6 Density, basal area and importance value of the 20 most common species of trees > 10 cmDBH in one hectare of quackal swamp forest, Moruca. Species are ranked in order ofdecreasing importance value.

Quackal swamp forestTree layer

Absolutedensity

Basalarea

Importancevalue

Relativedensity

Relativedominance

Relativefrequency


Tabebuia insignis var.monophylla

122 3.20 30.98 12.90 12.79 5.29

Symphonia globulifera 104 3.63 30.80 10.99 14.52 5.29Macrosamanea pubirameavar. pubiramea

123 3.02 30.38 13.00 12.09 5.29

Humiriastrum obovatum 76 2.61 23.25 8.03 10.46 4.76Diospyros guianensis subsp.guianensis

84 1.68 20.91 8.88 6.74 5.29

Pradosia schomburgkianasubsp. schomburgkiana

40 1.54 15.69 4.23 6.17 5.29

Virola elongata 57 1.36 15.68 6.03 5.42 4.23

Marlierea montana 59 0.84 14.89 6.24 3.36 5.29Humiria balsamifera var.balsamifera

31 1.59 13.89 3.28 6.38 4.23

Clusia fockeana 50 0.70 12.85 5.29 2.81 4.76

Pachira aquatica 21 0.47 8.33 2.22 1.87 4.23

Trattinnickia burserifolia 20 0.26 7.91 2.11 1.04 4.76

Matayba camptoneura 25 0.33 7.68 2.64 1.33 3.70

Tapirira guianensis 15 0.41 6.95 1.59 1.66 3.70

Dulacia cf. guianensis 12 0.25 5.45 1.27 1.00 3.17

Calophyllum brasiliense 7 0.35 5.32 0.74 1.41 3.17

Mauritia flexuosa 6 0.46 4.04 0.63 1.82 1.59

Macoubea guianensis 5 0.18 3.89 0.53 0.72 2.65

Ormosia coutinhoi 13 0.50 3.89 1.37 1.98 0.53

Iryanthera juruensis 10 0.17 3.87 1.06 0.70 2.12


Total 946 24.99 300.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


74

The most common woody species were Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla,Symphonia globulifera, Macrosamanea pubiramea var. pubiramea, Clusiafockeana, and Humiriastrum obovatum (Table 3.6). Marlierea montana,characteristic of this forest type, was also frequent. Large lianas were rare; the onlytwo individuals > 10 cm DBH were Machaerium myrianthum and Noranteaguianensis.

The shrub layer was characterised by clustered palms, including the spiny Bactriscampestris and the unarmed Euterpe oleracea (Table 3.7). Neither palms producedstems > 10 cm DBH. Cassipourea guianensis and Marlierea montana were commonin the understorey, as was the shrub Ischnosiphon obliquus. Hemi-epiphytes grewabundantly on the lower tree trunks; however, apart from some fertile specimens ofPhilodendron fragrantissimum and P. linnaei, most individuals were sterile andcould not be identified to species level. Saplings of the common canopy speciesfurther typified the shrub layer. Tetracera volubilis subsp. volubilis was one of thefew lianas.

Table 3.7 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m in height in0.1 ha (‘shrub layer’) of quackal swamp forest, Moruca. Species are ranked in order ofdecreasing numbers. • Hemi-epiphyte.

Quackal swamp forestShrub layer

Absolutedensity

Relativedensity

Relativefrequency


Bactris campestris 214 29.72 5.92

Philodendron spp. • 52 7.22 2.96

Cassipourea guianensis 44 6.11 5.33

Marlierea montana 34 4.72 3.55

Euterpe oleracea 29 4.03 2.37

Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla 28 3.89 4.14

Diospyros guianensis subsp. guianensis 26 3.61 4.73

Asplundia cf. gleasonii • 24 3.33 2.96

Humiriastrum obovatum 23 3.19 2.96

Macrosamanea pubiramea var. pubiramea 22 3.06 2.96


Total 720 100.00 100.00

The quackal swamp had a dense ground cover of Rapatea paludosa subsp. paludosa(Table 3.8). Seedlings of various Philodendron species were also common.Juveniles of the common canopy species further occupied the herb layer. Seedlingsof Euterpe oleracea and Bactris campestris were found in small quantities, whileseedlings or saplings of Mauritia flexuosa were rare.


75

Table 3.8 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 1.5 m in height in 4*10-3 ha (‘herblayer’) of quackal swamp forest, Moruca. Species are ranked in order of decreasingnumbers. • Hemi-epiphyte.

Quackal swamp forestHerb layer

Absolutedensity

Relativedensity

Relativefrequency


Rapatea paludosa var. paludosa 134 27.86 11.76

Marlierea montana 64 13.31 7.06

Asplundia cf. gleasonii • 58 12.06 7.06

Diospyros guianensis subsp. guianensis 53 11.02 7.06

Philodendron spp. • 38 7.90 5.88


Humiriastrum obovatum 13 2.70 5.88

Symphonia globulifera 11 2.29 4.71

Philodendron lanceolatum • 9 1.87 2.35



Total 481 100.00 100.00

3.4.4 SavannasResidents along the Moruca River have been burning the quackal swamp forest fordecades. In prolonged dry periods, the pegasse dries out and is easily set on fire. FromAugust 1997 to March 1998, when Guyana suffered from the El Niño droughts,large stretches of savanna were set on fire (Figure 3.1). The reasons for burningswamp forests and the consequences for the collection of NTFPs are discussed in thefollowing chapter. Half-burnt pieces of quackal forest were observed, with Mauritiaflexuosa being the only surviving species among the dead stumps. After several fireevents, most shrubs and stumps disappear and the vegetation is transformed into anopen plain with Mauritia flexuosa palms and a ground cover of grasses and sedges(e.g., Oryza rufipogon, Rhynchospora spp., Fuirena umbellata, and Cyperus haspan).

These extensive, ‘man-made’ savannas are found alongside the Moruca andneighbouring rivers. Similar savannas are occasionally found deeper in the interior, butalways close to Amerindian settlements (e.g. Assakata, Koriabo). Since juveniles of M.flexuosa do not survive repeated burning, the palms gradually disappear from thesavannas which are directly surrounding human settlements. The few herbaceousplants that withstand fire very well (e.g., Eleocharis mitrata, Nephrolepis biserrata,and Ludwigia nervosa) are dominating these treeless plains.


76

Figure 3.1 Burning savanna along the Moruca River, with the quackal swamp and Mauritia flexuosapalms on the background.

In the wet season, Nymphaea ampla, Nepsera aquatica, Xyris laxiflora, Crinumerubescens, Habenaria longicauda, and Utricularia foliosa flower in the floodedsavannas. Remnants of tree trunks are found in the pegasse layer. Riverbanks andother parts of savanna that have escaped annual burning quickly become invaded by adense shrubland of Montrichardia arborescens, Chrysobalanus icaco, saplings ofTabebuia insignis var. monophylla, and Virola surinamensis.

3.4.5 Manicole swampAs its name suggests, the multi-stemmed manicole palm (Euterpe oleracea) was themost numerous tree species in the manicole plot (Table 3.9). In fact, more than 30%of the individuals > 10 cm DBH were palms. However, since the manicole stems didnot attain a diameter over 18 cm, the basal area and importance value of this specieswere lower than those of Pentaclethra macroloba and Symphonia globulifera. Thecanopy of the swamp forest was 15-25 m high, with a few emergents of Iryantherajuruensis and Virola surinamensis. The latter species achieved a maximum diameterof 153.5 cm, while the mean DBH of all trees was only 20.8 cm. Other commontrees included Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla, Diospyros guianensis subsp.guianensis, and Eperua falcata. The single-stemmed palms Euterpe precatoria andJessenia bataua subsp. oligocarpa were also frequent. A few scattered individuals ofMora excelsa were found; their diameters were not larger than 63 cm. Lianas werepoorly represented: Machaerium myrianthum and Sapindaceae sp. (TVA3056) wereamong the few large species encountered in the plot.


77

Table 3.9 Density, basal area and importance value of the 20 most common species of trees > 10 cmDBH in one hectare of manicole swamp, Assakata. Species are ranked in order of decreasingimportance value. * Liana.

Manicole swamp forestTree layer

Absolutedensity

Basalarea

Importancevalue

Relativedensity

Relativedominance

Relativefrequency



Symphonia globulifera 65 4.96 30.11 9.79 13.82 6.49

Euterpe oleracea 124 1.37 28.99 18.67 3.82 6.49

Virola surinamensis 7 7.58 26.08 1.05 21.12 3.90Tabebuia insignis var.monophylla

40 2.84 19.79 6.02 7.92 5.84

Diospyros guianensis subsp.guianensis

36 2.04 17.61 5.42 5.70 6.49

Eperua falcata 49 2.03 16.29 7.38 5.66 3.25Macrolobium cf.angustifolium

32 1.48 14.80 4.82 4.14 5.84

Iryanthera juruensis 16 2.67 14.41 2.41 7.45 4.55

Euterpe precatoria 45 0.86 14.36 6.78 2.39 5.19Pterocarpus officinalis subsp.officinalis

21 1.56 13.35 3.16 4.35 5.84

Jessenia bataua subsp.oligocarpa

33 0.61 12.52 4.97 1.71 5.84

Tapirira guianensis 23 0.83 11.63 3.46 2.32 5.84

Alchorneopsis floribunda 12 0.87 9.43 1.81 2.42 5.19

Inga marginata 13 0.30 7.99 1.96 0.84 5.19

Mora excelsa 6 0.54 3.70 0.90 1.49 1.30

Micropholis venulosa 4 0.11 3.51 0.60 0.31 2.60

Ficus gomelleira 1 0.88 3.26 0.15 2.46 0.65

Sapindaceae sp. TVA3056 * 4 0.05 2.70 0.60 0.14 1.95

Inga cf. java 3 0.04 2.50 0.45 0.10 1.95


Total 664 35.88 300.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

The understorey was characterised by saplings of Macrosamanea pubiramea var.pubiramea, Euterpe oleracea, and Pentaclethra macroloba (Table 3.10). Largenumbers of hemi-epiphytes grew on the lower tree trunks, from the giantPhilodendron melinonii to the delicate P. surinamense. Tococa aristata was one ofthe few true shrubs. Lianas were common in the lower strata (37 species), especiallythe vigorously climbing palm Desmoncus polyacanthos. Other climbers includedMaripa scandens, Machaerium spp., and Marcgravia coriacea.


78

Table 3.10 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 10 cm DBH and > 1.5 m in heightin 0.1 ha (‘shrub layer’) of manicole swamp, Assakata. Species are ranked in order ofdecreasing numbers. * Liana; • hemi-epiphyte.

Manicole swamp forestShrub layer

Absolutedensity

Relative densityRelative

frequency




Euterpe oleracea 170 10.61 3.40


Philodendron scandens • 57 3.56 2.64

Philodendron linnaei • 54 3.37 1.89

Desmoncus polyacanthos * 39 2.43 2.26

Evodianthus funifer subsp. funifer • 39 2.43 1.89

Ischnosiphon obliquus 34 2.12 2.26



Total 1603 100.00 100.00

The fleshy herb Dieffenbachia paludicola formed a dense ground cover in themanicole swamp (Table 3.11). Juveniles of hemi-epiphytes and lianas were alsonumerous in the herb layer. The seedling density of Euterpe oleracea was not veryhigh; this was probably caused by the selective cutting of mature individuals forpalm heart (chapter 5). Other herb species were Rapatea paludosa var. paludosa andSpathiphyllum cannifolium. The most common tree seedlings were Pterocarpusofficinalis and Macrosamanea pubiramea var. pubiramea.

Table 3.11 Density and frequency of the 10 most common species < 1.5 m in height in 4*10-3 ha (‘herblayer’) of manicole swamp forest, Assakata. Species are ranked in order of decreasingnumbers. * Liana; • hemi-epiphyte.

Manicole swamp forestHerb layer


frequency


Dieffenbachia paludicola 83 15.15 8.62

Sapindaceae sp. (TVA3056) * 59 10.77 0.86


Spathiphyllum cannifolium 44 8.03 3.45


Machaerium myrianthum * 29 5.29 1.72


Philodendron scandens • 22 4.01 3.45

Pterocarpus officinalis subsp. officinalis 21 3.83 2.59

Monstera adansonii var. klotzschiana • 20 3.65 0.86


Total 548 100.00 100.00


79

3.5 DISCUSSION

3.5.1 Classification of Mora forestAs previously reported by Davis (1929) and Anderson (1912), the Mora forest alongthe Barama and Barima Rivers have only developed fully above the tidal influence.Going upriver, the numbers of Euterpe oleracea decreased, as did typical brackishswamp species like Symphonia globulifera, Pterocarpus officinalis, and Pachiraaquatica. For a geographical distribution of Mora forest within the North-WestDistrict, see Figure 5.1, where Mora forest is indicated along the major rivers as‘swamp with fewer E. oleracea, dominated by other species’. Fanshawe (1952) didnot include Mora forest in his inventories, but did briefly mention that this forestwas co-dominated above the tidal limits by Carapa guianensis, Clathrotropisbrachypetala, and Eschweilera sagotiana. The Barama plot, however, was notconsistent with this description, as C. guianensis and C. brachypetala were onlyrepresented by two individuals per ha, and E. wachenheimii, not E. sagotiana, wasthe third most important species. The low density of C. guianensis (crabwood) mightbe attributed to a patchy distribution (Davis, 1929) or to past logging activities.Before gold mining became their major source of income a few decades ago (Forte,1999b), local Amerindians used to float crabwood logs down the Barama to asawmill along the Waini. At the beginning of the previous century, almost allcrabwood in the riverine forest along the Barama and Barima Rivers had been felledfor timber (Anderson, 1912).

Pterocarpus officinalis and Pentaclethra macroloba ranked as second and thirdcanopy species in the central Guyanan Mora forest studied by Davis and Richards(1934). They ranked second and fourth in the present study. Moreover, variousAnnonaceae were present in the understorey of both forests. Even though Moraexcelsa accounted for only 24% of the species in central Guyana and several minortree species (e.g., Aldina insignis and Eschweilera pedicellata) were not found in theNorth-West District, the central Guyanan Mora forest (sensu Davis and Richards,1934) seemed to correspond better with our Mora forest plot. The Mora forest inIwokrama (Johnston and Gillman, 1995) also had much less in common with theBarama plot than the central Guyanan forest. There, M. excelsa made up only 20%of the species, and Eperua spp. and Myrcia phaeoclada were sub-dominant.Fanshawe (1952) described another Mora forest co-dominated by E. wachenheimiialong the Mazaruni River. The densities of other common trees in that forest,however, differed again from those in the forest in Kariako. Nevertheless, sincemore than 56% of the individuals > 10 cm DBH in the Barama plot were M. excelsa,there is no doubt that this vegetation type belongs to the Mora excelsa consociation(Fanshawe, 1952). Mora-dominated forest occurs from Venezuelan Guayana toWestern Suriname (Lindeman and Moolenaar, 1959; Huber, 1995a), but there seemsto be a substantial geographical variation in species composition and density.

3.5.2 Classification of manicole swampForests dominated by Euterpe oleracea are widely distributed in swamplands innorthern South America and attain their greatest concentration in the AmazonEstuary (Henderson and Galeano, 1996). The vegetation of the manicole swamp in


80

this study was quite consistent with Fanshawe’s description of the ‘palm marshforest on pegasse’ (Fanshawe, 1952). This climax swamp forest, 30-40% of whichwas made up of palms, is typical of the delta area of the North-West District andbelongs to the Symphonia-Tabebuia-Euterpe association. Fanshawe sketched severalsubdivisions of this vegetation type: his Pentaclethra macroloba communitycorresponded best with our manicole swamp in Assakata as this species had thehighest in I.V. in the plot. Fanshawe (1952) also noted a manicole swamp withVirola surinamensis as the characteristic emergent along creeks in the Courantyne-Canje district. That particular forest had more aspects in common with the Assakataplot, such as the abundance of Diospyros guianensis and Macrosamanea and aground cover of Dieffenbachia paludicola and Rapatea paludosa.

Not a single individual of Manicaria saccifera (troolie) was found in the Assakataplot, while the species was very abundant (ca. 120 mature palms per ha) in otherEuterpe swamps in the North-West District (van Andel et al., 1998). Except for theabsence of troolie, however, the species composition of the Assakata plot did notdiffer much from the other coastal Euterpe swamps. Troolie swamp has beenclassified as the Manicaria saccifera faciation, occurring in narrow belts alongrivers where alluvial silt mixes with pegasse. Fanshawe (1952: 96) noted that “forsome obscure reasons, this faciation only occurs in patches along the lower Waini,instead of in a solid belt as it does on other rivers”. Along the middle and lowerBarima, the majority of Euterpe oleracea was found just behind the mangrove beltto about 100 m inland. In contrast, troolie grew up to 300 m from the river, afterwhich the vegetation changed to a dense, thin-stemmed swamp of Macrosamaneapubiramea var. pubiramea and Symphonia globulifera, probably a form of quackalforest. Deeper inland, the swamps gave way to well-drained mixed forest. Thiszonation from riverbank to watershed did not quite correspond with the transitionreported for this region by Fanshawe (1952).

3.5.3 Classification of quackal swampThe quackal swamp showed traits common to several of Fanshawe’s forest types, butdid not fully coincide with one particular community or assemblage. For example,Fanshawe (1952) described a ‘manni-dalli swamp’ along the Moruca River, which heclassified as the Symphonia globulifera community within the Symphonia-Tabebuia-Euterpe association. That community also contained Clusia fockeana and Pradosiaschomburgkiana, with Euterpe oleracea as canopy dominant. It belonged, therefore, tothe palm marsh forests. In contrast, Euterpe was only present in the understorey in ourquackal swamp. Moreover, less than one percent (six individuals) of the tree layerwere occupied by palms (Mauritia flexuosa). The quackal swamp, therefore, boremore resemblance to a marsh forest, in which palms only account for 5% of thestand, lianas are few, and epiphytes frequent (Fanshawe, 1952).

The Iryanthera-Tabebuia assemblage, with a few scattered Mauritia palms, has beensaid to cover most of the pegasse forest behind the riverine palm swamps along thelower Barima (Davis, 1929; Fanshawe, 1954; Ramdass, 1990). This assemblage,especially the Iryanthera macrophylla facies or ‘kirikaua forest’, had severalfeatures in common with our quackal swamp. They both contained Diospyrosguianensis, Humiriastrum obovatum, Humiria balsamifera, Bactris sp., Tapirira


81

guianensis, and Marlierea montana. However, the Myristicaceae species typical of akirikaua forest were missing from the quackal forest. Instead of Iryantheramacrophylla and I. lanceifolia, I. juruensis and I. sagotiana, Virola surinamensis,and V. elongata were found in Moruca. None of them, however, were dominant. TheArawak name ‘kirikaua’ was not used in the Moruca area, while it is used elsewherein the country for I. sagotiana and I. macrophylla (Mennega et al., 1988).

Fanshawe (1952) and Davis (1929) also described a ‘palm marsh woodland’occurring contiguous to the flooded savannas. It was a small-stemmed, dense forest,with Mauritia as sole emergent along with Tabebuia, Ilex martiana, Pradosiaschomburgkiana, and Marlierea montana, species also common to our quackalswamp. Their forest, however, was consistently dominated by Clusia fockeana, atree that ranked only tenth in the Moruca swamp plot (Table 3.6). A ‘kwakocommunity’ was also found in a few places on the Essequibo, with a couple ofMauritia palms towering over a 5 m high shrub layer of M. montana, Tabebuia,Bactris, and Symphonia (Fanshawe, 1952). This community seems to be a less-developed stage of the quackal forest in Moruca. Then again, the marsh forest onpegasse was said to vary from place to place in floristic composition, dominants, andphysiognomy (Fanshawe, 1954).

The composition of our quackal swamp coincided with the ‘flooded shrublands ofthe coastal plains’, with Mauritia flexuosa, Clusia, and Pradosia distinguished byHuber et al. (1995) as small patches on their vegetation map. In contrast, the swampwoodland containing Bombax, Pterocarpus, Croton, and Inga that covers the entireMoruca area on the map was not found in the present study. The marsh forest alongthe Surinamese coast, described by Lindeman and Moolenaar in 1959, also had severalspecies in common with our quackal forest (e.g., M. flexuosa, Virola surinamensis,Tabebuia insignis, and Symphonia globulifera), but differed substantially in otheraspects. The ‘permanently flooded swamp and palm forests’ found by Huber (1995a)along the lower Orinoco delta were not treated in such detail that an adequatecomparison could be made.

3.5.4 SavannasFanshawe (1952) mentioned that the pegasse of the kirikaua forest could dry out tothe underlying clay pan during severe periods of drought and easily start to burn.Although the vast savannas between the Essequibo and the Courantyne Riversprobably have an edaphic-biotic origin, there are signs that fire has been partlyresponsible for their development along the Moruca River. Besides the fires duringthe latest El Niño droughts, when rainfall was the lowest in over a century(Hammond and ter Steege, 1998), large forest fires are known to have occurredaround Moruca in 1898, 1912, 1926, and 1940 (Fanshawe, 1954). When M.R.Schomburgk visited the Moruca area, he also noted the occurrence of extensivesavanna fires (Schomburgk, 1847). Moving from the populated islands towards the(uninhabited) coast, the swamp vegetation in Moruca seems to follow a man-madezonation: aquatic swamp � flooded savanna � palm marsh � marsh forest(quackal) � mangrove forest. This sequence is slightly different from the transitionfound by Fanshawe (1952) in the delta area of the North-West District.


82

The savannas of the North-West District do not appear on the vegetation map byHuber et al. (1995). As there are clear indications that most of them are of recent,man-made origin, one should wonder if they should be called ‘savannas’ at all. Theydo not form part of the coastal savanna belt of the Guianas, which stretches from theBerbice River to Amapá (Brazil) and consists mostly of coarse (white) sands(Sarmiento, 1983). Vegetation types similar to the Moruca savanna, with extensivecolonies of Mauritia flexuosa towering over a thick, floating peat layer ofCyperaceae, are also found in coastal Suriname. These open swamps are sometimesthought to have resulted from peat fires, initiated by lightning, excessive droughts,and human activities (Lindeman and Moolenaar, 1959; Theunissen, 1993). As thegermination of M. flexuosa is enhanced in open fields (Hiraoka, 1999) and adultpalms are fire-resistant, burning may ultimately result in pure stands of the species.However, M. flexuosa does not tolerate even periodic brackish conditions(Theunissen, 1993), which may explain its absence in the Euterpe-dominatedswamps bordering the nearby brackish rivers. The lowland plains of the Orinocodelta have a similar appearance: large Mauritia colonies standing out above aherbaceous layer with flood-resistant grasses and sedges (Huber, 1995a). Thespecies in the herb layer, however, were different from the Moruca savanna. Huber(1995a, 1995b) did not mention the role of fire in this vegetation type, although theOrinoco savannas have long been inhabited by Arawak and Warao Indians and peatfires are thought to have taken place at least since the arrival of Amerindians inSouth America (Janssen, 1974; Theunissen, 1993).

3.5.5 Comparison with other Amazonian floodplain forestsThere is a considerable variation in Amazonian forest types subject to inundation(Prance, 1979). Not only the length and frequency of flooding, but also waterchemistry and acidity are very important for the floristic differentiation of theseforests (Kubitzki, 1989; Rosales Godoy et al., 1999). Following the terminology ofPrance (1979), a Mora forest can be classified as a seasonal várzea, i.e., a forestflooded by regular annual cycles of white-water rivers. The Mora plot in this studycontained typical seasonal várzea species like Gustavia augusta and Carapaguianensis. A manicole swamp, on the other hand, represents a tidal várzea,inundated and drained twice daily, as high tides temporarily block the flow of therivers in the estuarine region. Typical species of this forest type, such as Virolasurinamensis, Euterpe oleracea, and Manicaria saccifera, were also commonelements in the plots in the North-West District. Finally, a quackal forest can beconsidered as a permanent swamp forest, occurring behind the main riverbanks indepressed areas that rarely fully drain in the dry season (Prance, 1979). In thepresent study, the quackal swamp was flooded by excessive rain or black water fromthe Moruca River. For this reason, the quackal swamp shows some traits similar tothe Amazonian igapó forest, e.g., the abundance of Virola elongata. In addition, itshares a few species with extremely nutrient-poor white sand forests, such asHumiria balsamifera (Kubitzki, 1989) and Pradosia schomburgkiana (ter Steege,1998). That Mauritia flexuosa more or less replaced E. oleracea may also beexplained by the fact that M. flexuosa can withstand a terrain with poorer drainagebetter than E. oleracea (Hiraoka, 1999).


83

3.5.6 Usefulness of one-hectare plotsThe question remains whether a one-hectare sample is sufficient to detect most ofthe variation in a particular vegetation type. Looking at the species-area curves fortrees > 10 cm DBH in the three hectare plots (Figure 3.2), we can see that the curvesof the three swamp plots soon level off, more quickly than those of the betterdrained forest types (Figure 2.4, chapter 2). This means that one hectare gives arather complete view of the tree diversity in these swamp forests. Increasing thesample area would yield only a few more species. Therefore, hectare plots may givea fair estimate of the local diversity, but one plot is certainly not enough to classifyan entire vegetation community.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Area [ha]

Number of species

Mora

quackal

manicole

Figure 3.2 Species-area curves of trees > 10 cm DBH in the three one-hectare plots.

3.5.7 Biodiversity

When the Fisher’s α values of the three study plots were compared with more or lesssimilar forest types in Guyana, the Barama Mora forest emerged as extremelyspecies-poor (Table 3.12). In addition, the plots of Johnston and Gillman (1995) andDavis and Richards (1934) in central Guyana were much less dominated by Moraexcelsa than the Barama plot. Mora forests are considered to represent relativelyestablished forests (Davis and Richards, 1934; Hammond and ter Steege, 1998),although little is known about their succession. Data from this research offer nofurther explanation for the striking differences in diversity and species compositionbetween northwest and central Guyanan Mora forests.

With regard to species richness, all three swamps in the North-West District wereclearly much poorer in species than the better-drained forests described in theprevious chapter. The two swamp plots on pegasse were comparable to the swampplots studied by Fanshawe (1954).


84

Table 3.12 Comparison of density and diversity of trees > 10 cm DBH in 1 ha study plots in Guyana andPeru. (1) This study; 2) van Andel (chapter 2); 3) Fanshawe (1954); 4) Johnston andGillman (1995); 5) Davis and Richards (1934); 6) ter Steege et al. (2000e); 7) Dallmeijer etal. (1996); 8) Philips et al. (1994).

Location Forest type No. ofplots

Plot size[ha]

No. ofindividuals

No. ofspecies

Fisher’salpha

Northwest Guyana1 Mora 1 1 314 28 7.4

Northwest Guyana1 quackal 1 1 942 39 8.2

Northwest Guyana1 manicole 1 1 657 27 5.7

Northwest Guyana2 mixed 2 1 467-533 83-86 28.2-28.6

Northwest Guyana3 kirikaua 1 1.5 1034 29 5.6

Northwest Guyana3 troolie 1 1.5 1057 30 5.8

Central Guyana

Iwokrama4 Mora 1 1 357 64 22.7

Moraballi5 Mora 1 1.5 462 60 18.4

Mabura Hill6 palm swamp 6 - - - 12.6

Manu, Peru7 swamp 1 1 668 73 20.9

Tambopata, Peru8 swamp 1 1 713 60 15.6

Low diversity is a general pattern in Neotropical swamp forests, since livingconditions are quite extreme in seasonally and permanently flooded habitats(Hiraoka, 1999). Inundated forests are exposed to severe oxygen stress in the rootzone, especially when the duration of the annual flood lasts up to 10 months.Moreover, one must keep in mind that the water quality of a river can change duringthe course of a year (Kubitzki, 1989). This is particularly important in the delta ofthe North-West District, where the salt content of the large rivers rises not onlytwice a day during high tide, but also throughout the year in periods with lowrainfall. These severe conditions may possibly explain the exceptionally lowdiversity of the manicole swamp: it ranked among the least diverse of all swampforests studied in Guyana so far (Table 3.12).

According to Prance (1979) and Kubitzki (1989), local species diversity in várzeas ishigher than in igapós, because soils frequently inundated by sediment-rich whitewater are supposedly relatively richer in nutrients than those of forests flooded bynutrient-poor black water. The results of the present study, however, do not agreewith this theory, since the nutrient-poor quackal plot had a higher tree diversity thanthe Mora and manicole plots, which were both flooded by relatively nutrient-richwhite water. Fanshawe’s kirikaua forest was indeed quite species-poor, but thetroolie swamp (inundated by brackish water) had a similar low diversity (Fanshawe,1954). Another reason for the low species diversity in the swamp forests in Guyanamay be that they form a heavily fragmented habitat (ter Steege, pers. comm.). Incontrast, the swamp and floodplain forests in Western Amazonia generally have ahigher diversity than those in the North-West District (Philips et al., 1994;


85

Dallmeijer et al., 1996). This could be because these forests are less fragmented, butit might also be linked to a higher habitat complexity, such as oxbow lakes,floodplain depressions, ridges, and river terraces (Salo et al., 1986). To date, theunderlying causes of diversity and vegetation gradients in the North-West Districtremain poorly understood. More quantitative data on swamp forest communities,flood periods, and nutrient contents of soils and rivers are needed to fullycomprehend the conditions which lead to the formation of a particular kind ofswamp forest.

3.5.8 Conservation prioritiesThe NPAS is aspiring to protect key watersheds and buffer zones in order tomitigate the effects of climate change and natural hazards (Persaud, 1997).However, except for a small fringe of mangrove forest, none of the existingproposals for protected areas include a significant portion of northwest Guyana.Although poor in plant species, the wetlands of the North-West District form the laststretch of natural coastline in Guyana and play an important role in the protectionagainst spring tides, rising seawater levels, and other natural hazards. This fact aloneshould be of influence in the planning of protected areas in Guyana. In addition,protected areas should aim at conserving representative examples of all forestregions in the country, so the northwestern swamp forests should be included as well(ter Steege, 2000). Furthermore, the actual and future commercial value of theseforests for the extraction of non-timber forest products should also promote thedevelopment of adequate management and conservation strategies.

3.6 Appendix

86

3.6 APPENDIX

Species identified in three hectare plots of swamp forest in the North WestDistrict, Guyana.

Species unidentified at the family level (n = 3) have been omitted

Barama Moruca AssakataMora quackal manicole

ADIANTACEAEAdiantum latifolium Lam. x

AMARYLLIDACEAEHymenocallis tubiflora Salisb. x

ANACARDIACEAESpondias mombin L. xTapirira guianensis Aubl. x x

ANNONACEAEAnaxagorea dolichocarpa Sprague & Sandw. xDuguetia megalophylla R.E. Fr. xDuguetia pycnastera Sandw. xDuguetia yeshidan Sandw. xGuatteria schomburgkiana Mart. xGuatteria sp. (TVA666) x

APOCYNACEAEMacoubea guianensis Aubl. xMalouetia flavescens (Willd.) Müll. Arg. xTabernaemontana disticha A. DC. xTabernaemontana sp. (TVA1593) xApocynaceae sp. (TVA3045) x

ARACEAEDieffenbachia paludicola N.E. Br. xMonstera adansonii Schottvar. klotzschiana (Schott) Madison

x

Philodendron cf. brevispathum Schott xPhilodendron fragrantissimum (Hook.) Kunth xPhilodendron lanceolatum (Vell.) Schott xPhilodendron linnaei Kunth x xPhilodendron megalophyllum Schott x xPhilodendron cf. melinonii Brongn. ex Regel xPhilodendron pedatum (Hook.) Kunth x xPhilodendron quercifolium Engl. xPhilodendron rudgeanum Schott x xPhilodendron scandens K. Koch & Sello xPhilodendron surinamense (Schott) Engl. x xPhilodendron spp. (unidentified seedlings) x xPhilodendron sp. (TVA1362) xPhilodendron sp. (TVA3007) xSpathiphyllum cannifolium Schott x xSyngonium sp. (TVA1447) x


87


ASPLENIACEAEAsplenium serratum L. xAsplenium sp. (TVA3058) x

BIGNONIACEAEAnemopaegma paraense Bureau & K. Schum. xAnemopaegma sp. (TVA1394) xCeratophytum tetragonolobus(Jacq.) Sprague & Sandw.

x

Mansoa kerere (Aubl.) A.H. Gentry xSchlegelia violacea (Aubl.) Griseb. xTabebuia insignis (Miq.) Sandw.var. monophylla Sandw.

x x

Bignoniaceae sp. x

BOMBACACEAEPachira aquatica Aubl. x

BORAGINACEAECordia nodosa Lam. x

BROMELIACEAEAraeococcus sp. x

BURSERCEAETrattinnickia burserifolia Mart. x

CECROPIACEAECecropia peltata L. x

CELASTRACEAECelastraceae sp. (TVA1364) x

CHRYSOBALANACEAELicania alba (Bernoulli) Cuatrec. xLicania heteromorpha Benth. var. perplexans Sandw. xLicania incana Aubl. xLicania persaudii Fanshawe & Maguire xParinari rodolphii Huber x

COMBRETACEAECombretum cacoucia Exell x

COMPOSITAEMikania gleasonii B.L. Rob. x

CONVULVULACEAEMaripa scandens Aubl. x

COSTACEAECostus arabicus L. x

3.6 Appendix

88


CUCURBITACEAECucurbitaceae sp. (TVA1696) x

CYCLANTHACEAEAsplundia cf. gleasonii Harling x xEvodianthus funifer (Poit.) Lindm. ssp. funifer x xThoracocarpus bissectus (Vell.) Harling x x x

CYPERACEAEHypolytrum longifolium (Rich.) Nees ssp. longifolium xRhynchospora gigantea Link x

DENNSTAEDTIACEAELindsaea lancea (L.) Bedd. var. lancea x

DICHAPETALACEAETapura sp. (TVA1466) x

DILLENIACEAETetracera volubilis L. ssp. volubilis x

DIOSCOREACEAEDioscorea amazonum Mart. ex Griseb. x

DRYOPTERIDACEAECyclodium meniscioides (Willd.)C. Presl var. meniscioides

x x

Elaphoglossum sp. (TVA2309) x

EBENACEAEDiospyros guianensis (Aubl.) Gürke ssp. guianensis x xDiospyros tetrandra Hiern x

ELAEOCARPACEAESloanea grandiflora Sm. x

EUPHORBIACEAEAlchorneopsis floribunda (Benth.) Müll. Arg. xAmanoa guianensis Aubl. xHieronyma alchorneoides Allemão var. stipulosa Franco xHieronyma oblonga (Tul.) Müll. Arg. x xMabea piriri Aubl. xSandwithia guyanensis Lanj. xEuphorbiaceae sp. (TVA1481) x

FLACOURTIACEAECasearia guianensis (Aubl.) Urb. xHomalium guianense (Aubl.) Oken x

GESNERIACEAECodonanthe crassifolia (Focke) C.V.Morton x


89


GRAMINAEOlyra longifolia Kunth x

GUTTIFERAECalophyllum brasiliense Cambess. xClusia fockeana Miq. xClusia grandiflora Splitg. x x xClusia palmicida Rich. ex Planch. & Triana x xClusia sp. xSymphonia globulifera L.f. x xTovomita schomburgkii Planch. & Triana xTovomita sp. (TVA1020) x

HAEMODORACEAEXiphidium caerulum Aubl. x

HIPPOCRATEACEAECheiloclinium cognatum (Miers) A.C. Sm. x

HUMIRIACEAEHumiria balsamifera (Aubl.) A. St.-Hil. var. balsamifera xHumiriastrum obovatum (Benth.) Cuatrec. x

LAURACEAEAniba cf. guianensis Aubl. xAniba jenmanii Mez x xAniba cf. terminalis Ducke xLicaria sp. (TVA2251) xOcotea schomburgkiana (Nees) Mez x xOcotea splendens (Meisn.) Mez x

LECYTHIDACEAEEschweilera wachenheimii (Benoist) Sandw. xGustavia augusta L. x

LEGUMINOSAE-CAESALPINIACEAEBauhinia guianensis Aubl. var. guianensis xBrownea latifolia Jacq. xEperua falcata Aubl. xEperua rubiginosa Miq. var. rubiginosa xMacrolobium cf. angustifolium (Benth.) Cowan xMora excelsa Benth. x xSclerolobium sp. (TVA2282) x

LEGUMINOSAE-MIMOSACEAEAbarema jupunba var. trapezifolia(Vahl) Barneby & J.W. Grimes

x

Inga capitata Desv. xInga edulis (Vell.) Mart. xInga cf. java Pittier xInga marginata Willd. x xInga splendens Willd. x

3.6 Appendix

90


LEGUMINOSAE-MIMOSACEAEInga thibaudiana DC. ssp. thibaudiana xInga sp. (TVA2283) xMacrosamanea pubiramea (Steud.)Barneby & J.W. Grimes var. pubiramea

x x

Pentaclethra macroloba (Willd.) Kuntze x x xZygia latifolia (L.) Fawc. & Rendlevar. communis (Benth.) Barneby & Grimes

x x

LEGUMINOSAE-PAPILIONACEAEAlexa imperatricis (R.H. Schomb.) Baill. xClathrotropis brachypetala (Tul.)Kleinhoonte var. brachypetala

x x

Crudia sp. (TVA1468) xDioclea scabra (Rich.) R.H. Maxwell xDioclea sp. (TVA3064) xMachaerium leiophyllum var. leiophyllum (DC.) Benth. xMachaerium myrianthum Spruce ex Benth. x xMachaerium quinata (Aubl.) Sandw. var. quinata x xOrmosia coccinea (Aubl.) Jackson xOrmosia coutinhoi Ducke xPterocarpus officinalis Jacq. ssp. officinalis x xSwartzia guianensis (Aubl.) Urb. xVatairea guianensis Aubl. xLeguminosae-Papil. sp. (TVA1426) xLeguminosae-Papil. sp. (TVA1444) xLeguminosae-Papil. sp. (TVA2276) xLeguminosae-Papil. sp. (TVA2302) x

LOGANIACEAEStrychnos mitscherlichii M.R. Schomb. varmitscherlichii

x

MALPIGHIACEAEHiraea affinis Miq. xMezia cf. includens (Benth.) Cuatrec. xSpachea elegans (G. Mey.) A. Juss. xTetrapterys crispa A. Juss. xMalpighiaceae sp. (TVA2277) x

MARANTACEAECalathea cf. micans (Mathieu) Körn. xIschnosiphon foliosus Gleason xIschnosiphon obliquus (Rudge) Körn. xIschnosiphon sp. (TVA3016) x

MARCGRAVIACEAEMarcgravia coriacea Vahl xMarcgravia sp. (TVA3061) xNorantea guianensis Aubl. x


91


MELASTOMATACEAEBellucia grossularioides (L.) Triana xClidemia japurensis DC. var. japurensis xMiconia serrulata (DC.) Naudin xMiconia sp. (TVA3053) xTococa aristata Benth. x x

MELIACEAECarapa guianensis Aubl. x xTrichilia rubra C. DC. xTrichilia sp. (TVA3046) x

MENISPERMACEAEOrthomene schomburgkii (Miers) Barneby & Krukoff x

MORACEAEFicus maxima Mill. xFicus paraensis (Miq.) Miq. xFicus vs. roraimensis C.C. Berg xSorocea hirtella Mildbr. ssp. oligotrichaAkkermans & C.C. Berg

x

MYRISTICACEAEIryanthera juruensis Warb. x xIryanthera sagotiana (Benth.) Warb. xVirola elongata (Benth.) Warb x xVirola surinamensis (Rol.) Warb. x x

MYRSINACEAECybianthus aff. surinamensis (Spreng.) G. Agostini xStylogyne surinamensis (Miq.) Mez x

MYRTACEAECalyptranthes sp. (TVA2239) xMarlierea montana (Aubl.) Amshoff x

OCHNACEAEOuratea guianensis Aubl. x

OLACACEAEDulacia cf. guianensis (Engl.) Kuntze xHeisteria cauliflora Sm. x

ORCHIDACEAECatasetum sp. (TVA1927) xEpidendron anceps Jacq. x

PALMAEBactris campestris Poepp. ex Mart. x xDesmoncus polyacanthos Mart. x xEuterpe oleracea Mart. x xEuterpe precatoria Mart. x

3.6 Appendix

92


PALMAEGeonoma baculifera (Poit.) Kunth xJessenia bataua (Mart.) Burret ssp. oligocarpa (Griseb.& H.Wendl.) Balick

x

Mauritia flexuosa L. x

PASSIFLORACEAEPassiflora garckei Mast. xPassiflora cf. laurifolia L. x

PIPERACEAEPeperomia glabella (Sw.) A. Dietr. xPeperomia rotundifolia (L.) Kunth xPiper vs. berbicense Miq. xPiper nigrispicum C. DC. xPiper sp. (7M4H7) x

POLYGALACEAEMoutabea guianensis Aubl. x

POLYGONACEAECoccoloba densifrons Mart. ex Meisn. x x

POLYPODIACEAECampyloneurum repens (Aubl.) C. Presl x

RAPATACEAERapatea paludosa Aubl. var. paludosa x x

RHIZOPHORACEAECassipourea guianensis Aubl. x x

RUBIACEAEAlibertia acuminata (Benth.) Sandw. xDuroia eriopila L.f. var. eriopila x xGeophila repens (L.) L.M. Johnst. xGonzalagunia dicocca Cham. & Schltd. xPalicourea sp. (TVA3012) xPsychotria bahiensis DC. var. cornigera (Benth.)Steyerm.

x

Randia armata (Sw.) DC. xRubiaceae sp. (TVA1651) xRubiaceae sp. (TVA2257) xSchradera polycephala A.DC. xUncaria guianensis (Aubl.) J.F. Gmel. x

SAPINDACEAEAllophylus racemosus Sw. xMatayba camptoneura Radlk. xPaullinia caloptera Radlk. xSapindaceae sp. (TVA3056) x


93


SAPOTACEAEChrysophyllum argenteum Jacq.ssp. auratum (Miq.) T.D. Penn.

x

Micropholis guyanensis (A.DC.) Pierre ssp. guyanensis xMicropholis venulosa (Mart. & Eichl.) Pierre x xPouteria bilocularis (Winkler) Baehni xPouteria cuspidata (A. DC.) Baehni x xPouteria guianensis Aubl. xPouteria sp. (TVA3070) xPradosia schomburgkiana(A. DC.) Cronq. ssp. schomburgkiana

x

SCHIZAEACEAESchizaea fluminensis Miers ex J.W. Sturm x

SMILACACEAESmilax syphilitica Willd. x

STERCULIACEAESterculia sp. (unidentified seedling) x

VERBENACEAEVitex compressa Turcz. x

VIOLACEAEPaypayrola longifolia Tul. x xRinorea cf. flavescens (Aubl.) Kuntze x

4. Useful plant species in the seven hectare plots

94

4. USEFUL PLANT SPECIES IN THE SEVEN FORESTHECTARE PLOTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4.1.1 Quantitative ethnobotanyThe sustainable harvest of non-timber forest products is assumed to play a crucialrole in the conservation of tropical forests and the well-being of indigenous peoplesrelying on these resources (Nepstad and Schwartzman, 1992; Balick andMendelsohn, 1992; Hall and Bawa, 1993). A thorough knowledge of the economicpotential of the diverse forest products and a better understanding of how mankindcan profit from their existence is a prerequisite for forest conservation (Posey, 1983;Milliken et al., 1992). For the design of appropriate conservation and managementplans, information is required on the population dynamics and distribution patternsof useful species. Quantitative data are needed to estimate the feasibility ofcommercial NTFP exploitation, and the effect of harvesting on the long-termviability of natural populations (Hall and Bawa, 1993; Peters, 1994; Boot, 1997).

Various researchers have quantified useful plants in Amazonian forests (Boom,1987; 1990; Prance et al., 1987; Peters et al., 1989a; Pinedo-Vásquez et al., 1990;Milliken et al., 1992; Phillips, 1993; Balée, 1994). Counting and identifying all treeswith a DBH > 10 cm per hectare was the commonly used method in theseinventories. Hectare plots have emerged as a popular standard, not only for rapidinventories of useful species, but also for long-term monitoring of forest dynamics(Martin, 1995). Trees > 10 cm may provide a fair image of the structure andcomposition of a forest (Gentry, 1988; ter Steege et al., 2000c), and possibly accountfor a large percentage of the useful species (Prance et al., 1987). However, thismethod has the limitation that it does not take into account shrubs, small trees,herbs, lianas, or epiphytes used by local people. For this reason, it does not give acomplete picture of the available NTFPs in a certain forest type. If the aim is toconduct a general ethnobotanical survey, a broad range of useful plants needs to besampled (Martin, 1995). For future sustainability assessments it is also important tosample individuals of all age/size classes. In this way the recruitment ofeconomically important species can be estimated (Hall and Bawa, 1993; Peters,1996). It was shown in the previous chapters that in northwest Guyana, theunderstorey held 41 to almost 70% of the total number of species in the sampleplots. NTFPs produced by these smaller species would have been overlooked if onlytrees > 10 cm DBH had been considered.

Most quantitative inventories have focused on well-drained, primary ‘terra firme’forest, usually characterised by high species diversity and low densities ofconspecific trees. Such a great species-richness would automatically have itsreflection on the variety of indigenous uses (Milliken et al., 1992). Although muchof this forest is presently being disturbed, only few quantitative ethnobotanicalsurveys have included secondary forest (Pinedo-Vásquez et al., 1990; Grenand,


95

1992; Balée, 1994; van Dijk, 1999). Swamp forests have neither been a favouritesubject of NTFP studies, even though they cover several millions of hectares inAmazonia and are often dominated by economically important species (Peters et al.,1989b).

4.4.2 Valuation of forestsQuantitative ethnobotany has been used to indicate that tropical forests can generatesubstantial benefits if their non-timber forest products are marketed and properlymanaged. Especially in the long term, revenues earned by commercial NTFPexploitation are thought to be much higher than those resulting from timberharvesting or conversion of the forest into pasture or agricultural land (Peters et al.,1989a). Quantitative techniques have also been developed to analyse patterns ofplant use knowledge among indigenous informants (Phillips and Gentry, 1993).Quantitative ethnobotany has furthermore been used to evaluate the degree to whichtraditional people use their forest environment. According to Phillips (1996), thepaper of Prance et al. (1987) is considered a bench mark study in this field, being thefirst to systematically address the question: How important is the forest toindigenous people?

There are several, often complicated, methods to calculate the economic value of aforest. In the past, this was done by simply measuring the volumes of commercialtimber (Panayotou and Ashton, 1992). Since NTFPs became a research topic, thevalue of forests needed reassessment. This was done by just counting the numbers ofuseful species in a forest plot (Balée, 1994; Johnston, 1998), or summing up thepotential or actual market prices of plant products (Peters et al, 1989a). Prance et al.(1987) designated useful plants as ‘minor’ or ‘major’ and gave them a symbolicvalue. The sum of these values was then used as an indication of the usefulness ofthe forest. Other researchers have quantified the importance of forest resources byputting arbitrary prices on forest-derived subsistence goods (Sullivan, 1997), or bymeasuring local people’s agreement on the utility of various species (Phillips andGentry, 1993). Calculating the use value of biological resources will continue to be acontroversial aspect of ethnobotanical methodology (Martin, 1995), but thesemethods do shed a light on the importance of the forest for its local inhabitants andtheir cultural survival (Prance et al., 1987; Phillips, 1996).

4.4.3 Quantitative NTFP studies in GuyanaVery little quantitative studies on useful plants have been done in Guyana. Matheson(1994) carried out an ethnobotanical inventory in three forest plots in upperDemerara, while Johnston (1998) assessed the relative abundance of potentiallyuseful species of several forest types around Kurupukari and Moraballi. In these twocentral Guyana studies only trees over 10 cm DBH were taken into account. TheNorth-West District is much more important for commercial NTFP extraction thancentral Guyana. It is a major Amerindian area, where various enterprises areprocessing and marketing local forest products. But apart from a study by Hoffman(1997), who calculated the density of the commercial craft fiber Heteropsis flexuosain the lower Pomeroon, virtually nothing is known about the abundance anddiversity of NTFPs in the forest types of the North-West District. During a shorteconomic study in three northwestern villages, Sullivan (1997) estimated the


96

contribution of NTFPs to the gross village product on the basis of interviews withlocal villagers.

This chapter provides a quantitative assessment of the useful species in seven one-hectare plots in northwest Guyana. The following questions will be addressed:

• What are the most important NTFPs in the different forest types studied and howabundant are they?

• Which plant families provide most NTFPs and which have the largest use value?• What percentage of the total number of species in a forest is utilised by local

Amerindians?• Are there differences in plant use between Arawaks and Caribs?• Which forest types offer the best opportunities for commercial NTFP harvesting?

The aim of this research is to determine quantitatively the degree to whichAmerindians in the North-West District utilise their surrounding forest resources.With the figures of diversity and abundance of useful species, this study hopes toprovide baseline data for future sustainable management of non-timber forestproducts. The strong dependence of local Amerindians on the floristic diversity oftheir environment may have its influence on the decision-making process in theallocation of forested land for self-sustaining Amerindian Reserves.

4.2 METHODOLOGY

Seven one hectare plots were sampled in the major forest types of Guyana’s North-West District. Exact locations, vegetation descriptions, and forest classifications aregiven in chapters 2 and 3. The plots were carefully selected to represent theparticular vegetation types: their exact location was chosen with the help of peoplefamiliar with the topography and recent history of land use. In these plots, trees > 10cm DBH, as well as shrubs, small trees, lianas, hemi-epiphytes and herbs werecollected, counted and identified. Plant uses were recorded with the assistance oflocal informants.

Three plots were established near the small, traditional Carib settlement of Kariako,Barama River: in mixed forest, seasonally flooded Mora forest, and 20-year-oldsecondary forest. Kariako is located a couple of days travelling by boat to the nearestregional market of Charity. Although very few NTFPs are commercialised atpresent, the Kariako Caribs heavily depend on forest products, since luxury goodsare expensive or unavailable. Another three plots were laid out in the vicinity ofSanta Rosa, Moruca River: in mixed forest, 60-year-old secondary forest andquackal swamp. This large Amerindian village with its predominantly Arawakpopulation is much more integrated in the coastal Guyanese market economy.Several NTFPs are commercially harvested and traded among villagers and at theCharity market. A seventh plot was made in a brackish manicole swamp near thesettlement of Assakata. The region is inhabited by Arawak and Warao Indians, butsince the informants that were involved in the plant identification were Arawak,plant uses in the plot largely reflect their cultural preferences. Although located


97

further away from the market than Santa Rosa, most Assakata residents had directaccess to commodity items by bartering palm hearts from Euterpe oleracea (seechapter 5).

To cover the widest variety of plants used by the Amerindian communities, thebotanical inventories in the plots were combined with interviews and the ‘walk-in-the-woods’ method, as described in Prance et al. (1987). As the expertise of a fewfield assistants is often not representative for the knowledge of the wholecommunity, various residents of the same village were asked to identify the speciesencountered during the surveys. In case of doubt, voucher specimens were carriedfrom house to house to broaden and crosscheck ethnobotanical information.Additional collecting of fertile specimens outside the plots (with differentinformants) was carried out to increase the number of identified species and to yieldsupplementary information on their utilisation. In this chapter, only useful plantsfound in the seven one-hectare plots will be discussed. Except for 22 species used asminor fuel source, all useful species are listed in the Appendix of this chapter.Detailed use descriptions are given in Part II of this thesis.

Plants were divided in six use categories that largely corresponded with those ofPrance et al. (1987):

a) food: any plant or plant part (fruits, seeds, bark, leaves, or latex) used for humanconsumption;

b) construction: all roundwood and sawn boards used for permanent and temporaryAmerindian dwellings, canoes and bridges, leaves for roof thatch, and lianas fortying rafts and house frames;

c) technology: lashing material, dyes, poisons, glues, craft fibers, householdequipment (sifters, baskets) and tools (arrows, paddles);

d) medicine: plants used to treat or prevent illnesses and physical afflictions;e) other: plants with miscellaneous uses (wrapping material, (fish) bait, toys,

ornamental, magic);f) firewood: all plants that are used as fuel.

These categories are artificial and do not necessarily reflect the classification of theindigenous people themselves (Prance et al., 1987). Plants with multiple uses fall inmore than one category. The categories were principally used to facilitatecomparison with the various other studies that have adapted this method (Boom,1987; Pinedo-Vásquez et al., 1990; Grenand, 1992; Milliken et al., 1992; Johnston,1998). It was not possible to make a sharp distinction between ‘timber’ and ‘non-timber’ species, as the same wood species used for canoes and house frames wereusually sawn into boards for house construction, particularly in Moruca. To give anoverall impression of the forest use by local Amerindians, it was decided to includesawn boards in this chapter. The number and percentage of species in the differentuse categories (food, medicine, etc.) was calculated for each forest type.

Local informants clearly considered some plants ‘more useful’ than others. Forexample, small Melastomataceae berries were often eaten by children, but generallyneglected or considered insignificant by adults, while fruits such as Spondiasmombin were much sought after and sold at local markets. In order to quantify the


98

relative importance of NTFPs, plant uses were classified as minor or major withinthe different categories, following Prance et al. (1987). Each major use wasindicated in the Appendix with a capital letter and given a use value of 1.0, whileminor uses were indicated with a small letter and counted as 0.5. When productswere irreplaceable or the object of intensive gathering and economic exchange, theywere given a major score (1.0). In most cases, informants gave their own account ofthe importance of a NTFP by emphasising the strength of a certain fibre or theeffectiveness of a medicine. Although the significance of a specific plant was alsoinfluenced by the number of informants who independently reported knowledge ofits use, this was not categorically measured. Thus, the relative importance of eachuse was subjectively assigned by the researcher.

The difficulty with this technique is that it does not allow for more than one usewithin each category. In this study, a category was also given a major score if morethan one use was mentioned within this group. For example in the case of Protiumheptaphyllum, of which the Barama Caribs eat both the fruit and the exudate, thefood category was given a score of 1.0. All scores were summed for each species tocalculate its use value. To calculate relative family use values, species’ use valueswere summed within each plant family, and divided by the total number of speciesof that family occurring in the plot. The most important multi-use species were listedfor each forest type, with their numbers of individuals > 10 cm DBH per hectare, theamounts below 10 cm, found in the shrub layer (subplots of 0.1 ha) and herb layer(subplots of 4 * 10-3 ha, see chapter 2).

The Kariako Caribs used several species in a different way than the Santa RosaArawaks did and vice versa. For instance, Barama Caribs mixed the seeds of Moraexcelsa with cassava flour in times of scarcity, while this practice was unknown toinformants in Santa Rosa. The uses given in the Appendix thus indicate local usesonly. To give a realistic image of present indigenous plant utilisation in the forestplots, uses mentioned in literature were left out. However, when a plant was notfound within a plot, this did not mean that the species was absent from the region orremained unutilized. For a complete account of plant uses in northwest Guyana, thereader should consult Part II of this thesis.

Canopy hemi-epiphytes like Heteropsis flexuosa, Thoracocarpus bissectus andClusia spp. were barely visible from below, but their aerial roots often reached theforest floor. As these roots were intensively used in craft production, the numbers ofroots were counted throughout the seven hectare plots. The total use value wasdetermined by summing all species’ use values per forest plot. Finally, the usepercentage per forest type was calculated by dividing the number of useful speciesby the total amount of species encountered in the plot.

4.3 RESULTS

A total of 616 species (including unidentified specimens) were found in the sevenone-hectare plots (see chapters 2 and 3), of which 357 species (58%) were utilised inone way or another. Of these useful species, 61% (216 spp.) were trees with a DBH


99

> 10 cm in one of the plots. The remaining 39% included trees < 10 cm DBH, lianas,hemi-epiphytes, shrubs, and herbs. In Table 4.1 the numbers and percentages ofuseful plants in the different categories are shown for the seven plots. Firstly, someimportant examples for each use category will be discussed in more detail.Secondly, the most important multi-use species will be listed for each forest types.All species are listed with their use categories and minor and major uses in theAppendix of this chapter.

Table 4.1 Numbers and percentages of useful plant species in the different categories for the sevenhectare plots in northwest Guyana. The three plots in Barama are the homeland of Caribs,while Arawaks are the predominant user group of the plots in Moruca and Assakata. Note thatspecies > 10 cm may include large lianas, unless mentioned otherwise; fw = firewood.

Barama Barama Barama Moruca Moruca Moruca Assakatamixedforest

20-yearsecondary

Moraforest

mixedforest

60-yearsecondary

quackalswamp

manicoleswamp

No. of useful species(firewood only)

113 (17) 136 (13) 66 (6) 103 (3) 124 (3) 51 (2) 71 (3)

Food 32 41 19 29 36 17 16

Construction 40 54 23 58 59 23 24

Technology 31 43 19 47 53 17 28

Medicine 35 44 23 34 39 20 26

Other 20 26 15 8 16 5 14

Firewood 38 54 17 13 15 8 4

Food [%] 28.3 30.1 28.7 28.2 29.0 33.3 22.5

Construction [%] 35.3 39.7 34.8 56.3 47.6 45.1 33.8

Technology [%] 27.4 31.6 28.8 45.6 42.7 33.3 39.4

Medicine [%] 31.0 32.4 34.8 33.0 31.5 39.2 36.6

Other [%] 17.7 19.1 22.7 7.8 12.9 9.8 19.7

Firewood [%] 33.6 39.7 25.8 12.6 12.1 15.7 5.6

No. of species > 10 cmDBH (trees only)

93 (83) 78 (73) 31 (28) 95 (86) 95 (90) 41 (38) 30 (3)

No. of useful species> 10 cm (fw only)

77 (17) 70 (12) 29 (6) 80 (3) 86 (3) 34 (2) 27 (3)

Use % of species > 10cm DBH (excl. fw)

83 (65) 90 (74) 94 (74) 84 (81) 91 (87) 83 (78) 90 (80)

% of useful indiv.> 10 cm DBH

92 90 94 94 97 90 99

Total no. of species 168 197 102 161 204 75 98

No. of useful species< 10 cm DBH

36 66 37 23 38 17 44

Use percentageof species < 10 cm

51 55 53 35 35 50 65

Total use value 128 161.5 s 129.5 143.5 60 71

Use percentage ofall plants [%]

67.3 69.0 64.7 64.0 60.8 68.0 72.4


100

4.3.1 FoodOf the 113 useful species found in the Barama mixed forest, local Caribs considered28.3% as a major or minor food source. The more important edible products includethe seeds of Lecythis zabucajo, the red berries of Eugenia patrisii and highlyesteemed juicy fruits of Pouteria guianensis, only fruiting once every few years. Inthe young secondary forest, 41 species were categorised as food, of which 11 speciesbelonged to the genus Inga. Some of them (I. edulis and I. pezizifera) produce largefruits and are preferred above others. Other notable fruit trees are Byrsonimastipulacea, Bellucia grossularioides and Astrocaryum gynacanthum. The shoots ofCostus scaber are boiled and fermented into a strong alcoholic beverage. Thecoagulated resin of Protium heptaphyllum is used as a sort of chewing gum. TheMora forest is poorer in wild fruits, although Spondias mombin ranks among themost appreciated fruits in the region. In times of plenty, the pulp is made into analcoholic drink and sold in the village. The barks of Brownea latifolia and Clusiagrandiflora are boiled into a hot beverage resembling chocolate milk.

Ambelania acida, Maximiliana maripa and several Pouteria species produce themost esteemed fruits in the Moruca mixed forest. The watery sap of Tetraceravolubilis subsp. volubilis is drunk to quench thirst. In the 60-year-old secondaryforest, 36 edible species were found. A notable species is Hymenaea courbaril var.courbaril, of which the fruit pulp is consumed and a beverage is produced from thebark. Again, the main fruit-producing genus is Inga (8 species). Other favourites areAstrocaryum aculeatum (probably a relic of human occupancy), Jessenia batauasubsp. oligocarpa, and Maximiliana maripa. Fruits of these three palms are sold atthe local market. Curcuma xanthorrhiza, an herb of which the rhizome is as aningredient for curry, is another remnant of a once abandoned farm. No more than 17edible species were found in the quackal swamp. Fruits of importance are Pouteriacuspidata and Marlierea montana, the latter made into an alcoholic drink. Lessesteemed, but present in large quantities is Humiriastrum obovatum, of which thefruits are pounded in hot water to make a beverage. The manicole swamp does notcontain many edible species, but J. bataua subsp. oligocarpa, of which the fruits areboiled into a popular beverage, occurs frequently in the plot. Euterpe oleracea isharvested commercially for its edible palm heart (chapter 5). Fruits of Euterpe spp.are not much liked by the locals.

4.3.2 ConstructionIn general, the Barama Caribs used fewer species for construction or timber than theMoruca Arawaks (Table 4.1). Traditional Carib dwellings are constructed of aroundwood frame tied together with lianas and a thatched roof. They lack walls andfloors and hardly contain any furniture. In the deep interior, few people possesschain saws, so boards are rarely used and quite expensive. Because of their flexiblewood, Vismia guianensis and various Annonaceae (often harvested from secondaryforest) are used as roof rafters and ridges.


101

Figure 4.1 Schematic drawing of a Carib house. Drawing by H.R. Rypkema.

Most roofs were thatched with Geonoma baculifera, a small palm irregularlydistributed in Mora forest. A layer of Euterpe leaves always covered the ridge(Figure 4.1). Trunks of Eschweilera spp., Lecythis spp., Mora excelsa and Trichiliaschomburgkii subsp. schomburgkii were favoured for house post, because of theirstrong and rot-resistant wood. Canoes were principally made from Carapaguianensis, Inga alba, Hyeronima alchorneoides var. stipulosa, and variousLauraceae species. As some of the valuable wood species were only found inprimary forest, dragging a canoe or a house post through the forest was an arduous


102

task. Therefore, large trunks were preferably cut near the village in Mora orsecondary forest.

Arawak houses are mostly build on stilts, with floors and walls of industriallyprocessed wood, bought from a nearby sawmill or from one of the various localchain saw operators. Frames and posts are often made of Eschweilera spp., Lecythisspp., Carapa guianensis, and Peltogyne venosa subsp. venosa. Roofs are eitherthatched with Manicaria saccifera or Maximiliana maripa, or made from corrugatediron. Less-privileged house owners make their walls in the traditional Arawak‘wattle and stave’ style, in which young stems are woven between a horizontalframe (see plate 29, Part II). Flexible saplings are needed for this construction, suchas Cupania spp. and several Flacourtiaceae, abundant in secondary forest. BothArawak and Caribs beat the bark of Catostemma commune with an axe into largeslabs, which are spread out as floors and walls. The most durable canoes in Morucaare made from Diplotropis purpurea, Peltogyne venosa subsp. venosa, Hymenaeacourbaril var. courbaril, Hyeronima alchorneoides var. stipulosa, variousBurseraceae and Lauraceae. These trees do occur in secondary forest, but largeindividuals are only found in primary forest. Unfortunately, the area of undisturbedmixed forest is rapidly disappearing around Santa Rosa, as many large trees arefelled for commercial timber and large forested areas are burned for agriculture. Asa result, good quality house material and canoes is quite expensive in Moruca. Forthis reason, people shift to less durable timber species, such as Tapirira guianensisand Simarouba amara. Both Caribs and Arawaks use the strong aerial roots ofThoracocarpus bissectus and Heteropsis flexuosa, as well as the stems of variousBignoniaceae lianas to tie the frames of temporary and permanent dwellings.

The pegasse swamps yield fewer species for construction (Table 4.1). In the quackalswamp, Calophyllum brasiliense, Symphonia globulifera, and Macoubea guianensiswere mentioned to yield good material for houses and canoes. Makeshift walls aremade by tying the petioles of Mauritia flexuosa together. People living in themanicole swamps make their floors from the split trunks of Euterpe spp. Leaves ofManicaria saccifera, a palm dominating the manicole swamps around the WainiRiver, but absent from Assakata and Moruca, are shipped towards these villages forroof thatch and walls. The leaves are stitched on the roof with strips of the splitstems of Ischnosiphon arouma, a species common in secondary forest. Holes in oldroofs are patched with the giant leaves of Philodendron melinonii. The wood ofIryanthera juruensis and Virola surinamensis is used as a minor timber source andto build low-grade canoes.

4.3.3 TechnologySpecies used for technology in Barama ranged from 19 (28.8%) in Mora forest to 43(31.6%) in the young secondary forest. Inga alba is important tree to the Caribs, as ablack dye is made from the bark to strengthen clay pottery (see Part II of this thesis).Individuals are often spared from felling when clearing forest for agriculture, whichexplains the presence of large individuals in secondary forest (Table 4.3). The mixedforest provides hard wood for cotton spindles (Eugenia patrisii), arrow sockets, andsifter frames (Quiina guianensis). Both indigenous groups make tool handles fromPouteria guianensis, Carapa guianensis, and Cedrela odorata. The valuable wood


103

of the latter is used for music instruments as well. The hemi-epiphytesThoracocarpus bissectus and Heteropsis flexuosa furnish the major craft fibresfound in the Barama and Moruca mixed forest. Their aerial roots are woven intoburden baskets, carried with head straps from bark strips of Sterculia pruriens var.pruriens, and sold in nearly all Amerindian communities. In the Pomeroon forestsand to a lesser extent in Moruca, H. flexuosa, Clusia grandiflora, and C. palmicidaare commercially exploited for the furniture industry (chapter 6). The numbers ofaerial roots of these species per plot are presented in Table 4.9. The fine basketryused in processing bitter cassava (Manihot esculenta) is made from Ischnosiphonarouma, a major craft fibre present in both types of secondary forest.

In Mora swamp forest, the main technology species is Duguetia pycnastera,preferred above other Duguetia species for fishing rods, because its wood is thestrongest and most flexible. Stems of D. megalophylla and Anaxagoreadolichocarpa are carved into blunt arrow points to shoot birds. Occasionallyoccurring in Mora forest, but much more common in pegasse swamps, is Symphoniaglobulifera (Tables 4.7 and 4.8). The yellow latex of this tree is made into a tar-likesubstance to fasten arrow points in their sockets. This so-called ‘karaman wax’ is amajor NTFP in areas where hunting is still done with bow and arrow. In the quackalswamp, the young shoots of Mauritia flexuosa yield a soft fibre used in commercialbasketry and hammocks. Ischnosiphon obliquus is harvested as a craft fibre tosubstitute I. arouma. In the whole coastal swamp region, paddles from the wood ofTabebuia insignis var. monophylla are an important trading item.

4.3.4 MedicineBetween 31.0 and 39.2% of the species in the plots was used as major or minorremedy. The Barama Caribs recognise 35 medicinal species in the mixed forest.Most remedies are prepared from the bark of trees and lianas. The watery sap fromseveral Dilleniaceae is drunk by snakebite victims and to provoke abortions.Throughout Guyana, the wood of these lianas is boiled into an aphrodisiac. Womenuse the bark of Inga alba to induce permanent sterility. The leaves of Philodendronscandens are placed on skin sores, while the same leaves are applied on ant bites inAssakata. The highest number of medicinal species (44) are found in the 20-year-oldsecondary forest. The important ones include Cecropia peltata, the leaves of whichare boiled as tea for kidney disorders and back pain, and Cordia nodosa, preparedsimilarly to alleviate headache and high blood pressure. The Mora forest yieldsfewer medicinal species (23). A major remedy is prepared from the poisonous barkof Clathrotropis brachypetala var. brachypetala, applied externally on swellingsand bush yaws.

Both Amerindian groups consider the bark of Unonopsis glaucopetala the bestremedy for snakebites. Roots of Bauhinia spp. are used in the deep interior againstdiarrhoea, while the wood of these lianas is known as an aphrodisiac in the coastalregion. The only commercially traded medicine in the central North-West District iscrabwood oil, extracted from the seeds of Carapa guianensis and used externally torepel insects and disinfect skin wounds. The oil is taken orally for malaria,whooping cough and colds. In the Moruca mixed forest, the bark of Aspidospermaspp. and the wood of Curarea candicans are said to be effective against malaria as


104

well. In the late secondary forest, 39 species are used medicinally. Piper avellanumis pointed out as a miracle plant, as its sap is administered to patients suffering fromsevere stomach cramps, unconsciousness, blocked jaws, and snakebites. In Assakata,P. horstmannianum is recommended for scorpion and snakebites. The milky bark ofPradosia schomburgkiana subsp. schomburgkiana from the quackal swamp ismentioned as an effective cure for cough and tuberculosis. The bark is occasionallytraded around Santa Rosa. Other significant medicinal species of pegasse swampsare Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla, the bark of which is boiled and taken formalaria. The latex of Symphonia globulifera is rubbed on abscesses to make them godown. The bark of Pachira aquatica, a small tree common in the brackish manicoleswamps, is taken against dysentery. More herbal remedies and differences inmedicinal plant use between indigenous groups will be discussed in chapter 8.

4.3.5 Other usesSpecies used for miscellaneous purposes in the Barama mixed forest accounted for17.7% of the total uses. An example is Alexa imperatricis, of which the poisonousbark and seeds are thrown in armadillo holes. The venom kills the animal, butapparently does not make the meat inedible. In the early secondary forest, 26 species(19.1%) fall in this category. For instance, the bark of Lecythis corrugata subsp.corrugata is beaten with a club and split in numerous thin layers, which are used ascigarette paper. When a baby is born, the fresh, smelly leaves of Jacaranda copaiasubsp. copaia are thrown in the fire to ward off evil spirits that could attack thenewborn. Children gather the hard berries of Siparuna guianensis for slingshotammunition. Fewer species (15), but a relative larger percentage (22.7%) of specieswith a miscellaneous use were found in Mora forest, represented by various fruitsand seeds used as fish bait (Ficus spp., Brownea latifolia, Spachea elegans, andCarapa guianensis). The large leaves of Sloanea grandiflora, present in all foresttypes in Barama, are used to wrap up the piles of cassava bread that are carried intothe gold mines for sale.

In the Moruca mixed forest, just eight species (7.8%) are found in the miscellaneouscategory. An example is the bark of Humiria balsamifera var. balsamifera, stuffed inroofs to chase away insect larvae feeding on the thatch. In the 60-year-old forest, 16species (12.9%) are employed for ‘other’ uses, such as the saplings of Licaniakunthiana, which are decorated with light bulbs during Christmas. Only five speciesin the quackal plot fall within this group. People believe that if they beat a fruit treewith a twig of Macrosamanea pubiramea var. pubiramea or Pentaclethra macroloba,it produces a good crop the following year. Peperomia rotundifolia, a delicate vinefrom the manicole swamp, is said to have magic properties. A love charm is made bymixing the pounded leaves with perfume and rubbing this on the body. The belovedone will now follow this person everywhere.


105

4.3.6 FirewoodTable 4.1 shows that not all woody species are used as fuel. Some types of wood areavoided, like Alexa imperatricis and Clathrotropis brachypetala var. brachypetala,since their poisonous sap produces an acrid smoke. The various Chrysobalanaceaefrom the mixed forests are highly valued as firewood, because their wood is easilysliced into small sticks and quickly lit, even when wet. In Barama, these trees areeven cut down for fuel, as the wood is preferred for the small fires under the circulariron plates used for baking cassava bread, the staple food in Barama. Wood is stillthe only fuel source in Barama, which is illustrated by the high number of species(54) harvested for this purpose in secondary forest. Tapirira guianensis andByrsonima stipulacea are also mentioned as good quality fuel. Much fewer speciesare harvested for firewood in Mora forest. Several trees are said to yield potentialfuel, but due to the swampy soil the fallen trees are wet and muddy. Firewood ismostly harvested from the secondary forest surrounding the village and from thecharred trunks lying in the cultivated fields.

Wealthy Moruca residents use gas stoves, but the poorer section of the communitystill depends on firewood. In the more traditional villages, all households use andcollect firewood. Chrysobalanaceae wood is sold at the Moruca market for cassavabaking, although cassava bread is no longer the main staple food. Commercialcharcoal is produced from Aspidosperma excelsum and traded at the Charity market.Fewer species (resp. 13 and 15) are harvested for firewood from the mixed andsecondary forest. Apart from some Myrtaceae and Chrysobalanaceae, few speciesare used for fuel in the waterlogged quackal and manicole swamps. Occasionally,dry leaves and waste of Mauritia flexuosa straw is used to burn out and widen theopening of new canoes. In the old days, twigs of Tabernaemontana disticha, aspecies frequent in manicole swamp, were rapidly swizzled together to start a fire.

4.3.7 Differences in forest useAlthough differences in useful plants between the seven hectare plots and the twoindigenous groups were not statistically tested, several trends could be distinguished.In Table 4.1, it can be seen that the number of useful species in the swamp forestwas much lower than that of the better-drained forests. This was caused by their lowfloristic diversity, as the percentage of useful plants was not lower than in foresttypes. One of the poorest forest plots, the manicole swamp, had even the highest usepercentage for the understorey. This might be explained by the familiarity of thelocals with these swamps as they were frequently visited to harvest palm hearts.Thus, the number of useful species in a forest does not depend entirely on itsfloristic diversity, but it is also influenced by the knowledge of local informants. Themore traditional Amerindians (such as the Assakata Arawaks and the BaramaCaribs) seemed to spend more time in the forest and had a better knowledge ofindigenous plant names and uses than the Moruca Arawaks, who had been stronglyinfluenced by the ‘western’ society. This possibly explains the higher numbers ofuseful plants in the Barama mixed and young secondary forest plots, although theirfloristic diversity was comparable to the well-drained plots in Moruca.


106

4.4 USE VALUES AND ACTUAL NTFP HARVESTING IN THEDIFFERENT FOREST TYPES.

4.4.1 Barama mixed forestThe well-drained mixed forest in Barama, called ‘ituru’ or ‘high bush’ by the Caribs,was frequently visited to harvest forest products. Most species were extracted forsubsistence only. The total use value of this forest type was 128 (Table 4.1). Of the113 useful species, 77 (including species used for firewood) had a DBH over 10 cm,accounting for 92% of the individuals in the tree layer. This high percentageindicates that the forest was extremely useful to the local Amerindians. The mostimportant multi-use species are listed in Table 4.2. Inga alba and Carapa guianensishad the highest use values and were indeed important NTFPs in the mixed forest.The seeds of Lecythis zabucajo were much liked, but they were only produced oncevery few years and then the majority was consumed by monkeys and birds beforethey could be collected from the forest floor. Despite its high use value, the specieswas just an occasional product. Other species with less-varied uses (and a lower totaluse value) were more important, like Heteropsis flexuosa and Thoracocarpusbissectus, present with 105 resp. 32 mature roots in the plot (Table 4.9). The heavyduty baskets (‘warishis’) woven from these roots were one of the few regularlytraded NTFPs in Kariako. Five more species had a use value of 2, but since theywere not very abundant, they were omitted from Table 4.2. The most common treespecies in the plot (Couepia parillo, Eschweilera wachenheimii, and Alexaimperatricis, see Table 2.3) all had indigenous uses, but were no important NTFPs.

Table 4.2 Most important multi-use species in 1 ha of mixed forest, Barama (with use values > 2) andtheir abundance in tree layer and undergrowth.

Species Use value # individuals> 10cm DBH

# individualsunderstorey

Inga alba 3.5 7 1Carapa guianensis 3.5 4 0Unonopsis glaucopetala 2.5 15 7Lecythis zabucajo 2.5 4 0Catostemma commune 2.0 15 6Protium decandrum 2.0 17 50Tovomita cf. brevistaminea 2.0 3 5Mora excelsa 2.0 8 13Pentaclethra macroloba 2.0 4 1Myrcia graciliflora 2.0 7 13

4.4.2 Young secondary forestA total of 136 species (69%) in the 20-year-old forest plot was used by the BaramaCaribs, of which 70 had a DBH over 10 cm (Table 4.1). Thus 97.3% of the trees inthe plots were used, representing 90% of the species in the tree layer. If firewoodwas excluded, 74% of the species > 10 cm were considered useful. The canopy ofthe young secondary forest, called ‘mainyapo’ by the Caribs, was less diverse than


107

the those of mature mixed forest, but fewer species were unknown to the informants.Due to the open canopy, the shrub and herb layer contained more species than thosein the mature forest. Consequently, more species (66) in these strata were utilisedthan in the other forest plots. The species-rich understorey attributed to a total usevalue of 161.5, the highest of all plots. The largest variety of edible fruits was foundin this young secondary forest. Generally neglected by their parents, the fruits ofByrsonima stipulacea, Inga spp. and various Melastomataceae were collected dailyby children walking through this forest on their way to school. As trees were lowand fruit producing shrubs abundant, their berries were easily accessible comparedto the mature forest. Fruits from young secondary forest almost certainly played animportant role in the diet of young children.

The most important multi-use species are listed in Table 4.3. Inga alba wasabundant and its bark was often harvested for the manufacturing of clay pots.Carapa guianensis and Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla were present with toofew individuals to produce a substantial part of the NTFPs collected in this foresttype. Essential species with less diverse uses but frequently harvested from thisforest were Ischnosiphon arouma, Costus scaber, Schefflera morototoni,Pentaclethra macroloba and Protium heptaphyllum subsp. heptaphyllum. Firewoodwas also an important product collected from secondary forest.

Table 4.3 Most important multi-use species in 1 ha of 20-year-old fallow, Barama (with use values> 2.5) and their abundance in tree layer and undergrowth.



Inga alba 3.5 22 4Carapa guianensis 3.5 1 0Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla 3.0 0 1Unonopsis glaucopetala 2.5 5 6Lecythis zabucajo 2.5 3 1Duguetia megalophylla 2.5 1 1Xylopia sp. (TVA1165) 2.5 1 0Smilax schomburgkiana 2.5 0 6

4.4.3 Mora forestThe Mora forest along the Barama riverbanks was dominated by towering Moraexcelsa trees. It was called ‘parakuwa patï’, translated as ‘Mora’s hammock’ or‘Mora’s home’, as in the Carib world the place where you hang your hammock isyour home. The total use value of this plot was rather low (69.5), which correspondswith the low diversity of this forest. Nearly all trees over 10 cm were considereduseful (94% of the species and 99% of the individuals), but then again, most wereMora trees (Table 4.4). Other multi-use species were Carapa guianensis, presentwith few individuals, Pentaclethra macroloba and Duguetia spp., Spondias mombindid not have many different uses, but its edible fruits were highly esteemed.Geonoma baculifera, the principal source of roof thatch in Barama, was ratherscarce, with only two individuals. This was probably the result of overharvesting, aslarge populations of this understorey palm were found further away fromsettlements. The same applies to Euterpe oleracea, of which the leaves were used to


108

cover the ridge of the roofs. Palm leaves and canoes made of Mora and Carapa werethe main objects commercialised from Mora forest. No cultivated fields were madein this seasonally flooded forest, as cassava generally requires well-drained soils.

Table 4.4 Most important multi-use species in 1 ha of Mora forest, Barama (with use values > 1.5) andtheir abundance in tree layer and undergrowth.



Carapa guianensis 3.5 2 0Duguetia megalophylla 2.5 0 5Pentaclethra macroloba 2.0 15 2Bellucia grossularioides 2.0 0 1Duguetia pycnastera 2.0 3 31Mora excelsa 2.0 182 1426Duguetia yeshidan 1.5 0 19Eschweilera wachenheimii 1.5 21 3Clathrotropis brachypetala var. brachypetala 1.5 2 0Dioclea scabra 1.5 0 9Brownea latifolia 1.5 4 1Zygia latifolia var. communis 1.5 16 14Pterocarpus officinalis subsp. officinalis 1.5 27 17Geonoma baculifera 1.5 0 2

4.4.4 Moruca mixed forestThe mixed forest plot of this study was probably one of the last pieces of primaryforest in the vicinity of Santa Rosa village. Although located far away from thesettlement, the mixed forest was frequently visited to collect NTFPs, to work on thecultivated fields in the surroundings, to saw wood or build canoes from large trees(Diplotropis purpurea, Peltogyne venosa subsp. venosa). The total use value (129.5)was comparable to that of the mixed forest in Barama, just like the percentage ofuseful species over 10 cm DBH (84%), accounting for 94% of the individuals in thetree layer. A total of 26 species had a use value of more than 2, but only those with asignificant number of individuals are mentioned in Table 4.5.

Carapa guianensis and Symphonia globulifera had the highest use values, but werepresent with few individuals. Fruits of Pouteria spp. were cherished, but seldomavailable. Jessenia bataua subsp. oligocarpa and Maximiliana maripa were fruitingat more regular intervals. Tool handles were carved from the spurs at the stem baseof Pouteria spp. and the fluted stem of Aspidosperma spp., a practice that did notseem to harm the trees. Several people gathered medicinal barks and lianas (e.g.,Bauhinia guianensis, Aspidosperma spp., Curarea candicans, Dilleniaceae spp.).Heteropsis flexuosa was an important craft fibre in this forest, but only immatureroots were found in the plot (Table 4.9). Firewood was not often collected from theprimary forest itself, but from the Chrysobalanaceae trunks felled in the cultivatedfields. The most common tree species (Eschweilera spp.) were primarily used forhouse frames and boards.


109

Table 4.5 Most important multi-use species in 1 ha of mixed forest, Moruca (with use values > 2) andtheir abundance in tree layer and undergrowth.



Carapa guianensis 3.0 1 0Symphonia globulifera 3.0 0 8Unonopsis glaucopetala 2.5 4 12Lecythis zabucajo 2.5 5 0Lecythis corrugata subsp. corrugata 2.5 4 0Maximiliana maripa 2.5 0 3Cupania scrobiculata var. reticulata 2.5 3 15Alexa imperatricis 2.0 15 59Pouteria durlandii 2.0 17 4Pouteria guianensis 2.0 11 6Eschweilera sagotiana 2.0 62 28Aspidosperma excelsum 2.0 6 6

4.4.5 Late secondary forestThe 60-year-old plot in Moruca contained the most species of all forest plots (204),but had the lowest overall use percentage (60.8%). This low percentage must besought in the high numbers of unknown species in the understorey, as 91% of thetrees species and 97% of the individuals in the tree layer were utilised. Only 38undergrowth species were used, much less than in the young secondary forest. Still,this area was subject to frequent NTFP harvesting and the overall use value of theplot was high (143.5). The most important multi-use species are listed in Table 4.6.Cupania scrobiculata var. reticulata and other tree saplings were collected to buildkitchen walls. These species also grew in mixed forest, but people preferred toharvest their products close to home.

Fruits of Hymenaea courbaril var. courbaril, Maximiliana maripa, Pouteria spp.,and especially Astrocaryum aculeatum were harvested when ripe. Several Ingaspecies were present, but they were less consumed by Arawaks than by Caribs.Fishing rods (Duguetia pauciflora) and craft fibres (Ischnosiphon arouma) werefrequently taken from this forest. Timber harvesting was also a common activity;species like Simarouba amara and various Lauraceae were sawn into boards in theforest surrounding the plot. Bark of Brownea latifolia, Astronium cf. lecointei, andseveral Burseraceae were gathered for medicinal purposes. This late successionforest was already considered suitable for establishing cultivated fields. As a result,much of this forest had already been converted to agricultural land again.


110

Table 4.6 Most important multi-use species in 1 ha of 60-year-old fallow, Moruca (with use values > 2)and their abundance in tree layer and undergrowth.



Hymenaea courbaril var. courbaril 3.5 1 0Symphonia globulifera 3.0 0 1Carapa guianensis 3.0 8 2Ischnosiphon arouma 3.0 0 3Unonopsis glaucopetala 2.5 5 8Lecythis zabucajo 2.5 2 1Lecythis corrugata subsp. corrugata 2.5 2 31Maximiliana maripa 2.5 3 7Cupania scrobiculata var. reticulata 2.5 1 25Astrocaryum aculeatum 2.5 7 3Pentaclethra macroloba 2.0 55 76Pouteria guianensis 2.0 5 3Marlierea schomburgkiana 2.0 2 2Davilla kunthii 2.0 0 5Brownea latifolia 2.0 4 2Hyeronima alchorneoides var. stipulosa 2.0 7 0

4.4.6 Quackal swampExcept for the quackal forest, named after the abundance of ‘kuaku’ or ‘quackoo’(Marlierea montana), no traditional Arawak names were given to forest types inMoruca. The quackal swamp had the lowest number of species per hectare (75) andalso the least useful species (51), of which two-third was present in the tree layer(Table 4.1). The total use value was the lowest of all plots, but still 83% of thespecies > 10 m DBH (90% of the individuals) were mentioned as useful. Most partsof the year, the peat soils were flooded and the swamp had to be entered by canoe.Few people felt like walking or paddling the large distance over the flooded savannato harvest NTFPs in the quackal swamp, especially if these products could be foundcloser to home. The most important multi-use species are presented in Table 4.7.

Symphonia globulifera and Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla had high use valuesand were present with large numbers of individuals. Wild fruits were occasionallyharvested, mostly the berries of Marlierea montana and Humiriastrum obovatum,which were made into an alcoholic ‘wine’. Palm heart had been harvested from thequackal swamp in the past. Boats would come down the Santa Rosa market to buypalm hearts, probably to sell them again to AMCAR agents along the Biara River(see chapter 5). This resource must have depleted quickly, as neither mature Euterpeoleracea palms or signs of harvesting were observed. Valuable species occurringexclusively in this forest were Calophyllum brasiliense, favoured for canoe makingand Pradosia schomburgkiana subsp. schomburgkiana, of which the bark was areputed medicine against tuberculosis. Both species were commercialised on a smallscale. People living on the islands close to this forest were cutting Ischnosiphonobliquus for craft production. Firewood was seldom harvested in this swamp forest.


111

Table 4.7 Most important multi-use species in 1 ha of quackal forest, Moruca (with use values > 1.5) andtheir abundance in tree layer and undergrowth.



Symphonia globulifera 3 104 31Mauritia flexuosa 3 6 1Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla 2.5 122 29Pentaclethra macroloba 2 2 2Humiria balsamifera var. balsamifera 2 31 0Pouteria cuspidata 2 2 0Marlierea montana 2 59 98Tapirira guianensis 1.5 15 8Macoubea guianensis 1.5 5 1Pachira aquatica 1.5 21 18Parinari rodolphii 1.5 0 8Humiriastrum obovatum 1.5 76 36Ocotea schomburgkiana 1.5 8 6Macrosamanea pubiramea var. pubiramea 1.5 123 31Euterpe oleracea 1.5 0 34

4.4.7 Ité savannasAlthough Mauritia flexuosa, known locally by its Arawak name ‘ité’, was a majorNTFP-producing species in the quackal swamp, it was seldom harvested from thisforest. The young shoots of this palm, processed into ‘tibisiri’ fibre and used incommercial craft production, were mostly cut from the individuals growing on theadjacent savanna. As was described in chapter 3, large tracts of swamp forest havebeen burned and transformed into savannas, in which M. flexuosa occurs as singletree species above a waterlogged herb layer. The reason for this annual burning didnot become totally clear. The ité savanna is not suitable for cattle grazing, as theanimals sink down in the pegasse. Few people keep cows in Moruca anyway. Elderpeople said that in their youth the savanna was much smaller and the swamp forestalmost extended till the village edge. Some persons said they burned the vegetationto keep open the channels for canoe transport. The population of the Santa RosaAmerindian Reserve has grown substantially in recent years (Forte, 1990b; Jara andReinders, 1997). Amerindian communities no longer have to hide themselves in theforest like in the past, when violent encounters between tribes were common (Brett,1868, cited in Benjamin, 1988). More of the ancient sand dunes, visible as hills inthe flooded savanna, became inhabited and traffic between these islands intensified.From the air, the savanna appeared to be crisscrossed by a network of ‘short cuts’,used at different times of the year, depending on the water level.

It is also possible that the quackal swamp was initially burned to facilitate the accessto Mauritia flexuosa palms and to enhance their growth. Juveniles of M. flexuosawere rare in the quackal plot, but seemed to be more abundant in the open plainsadjacent to the swamp forest that had been burned only once or twice. According toHiraoka (1999), the palm is an early successional species, germinating on openground and able to colonize open wetlands and gaps along stream banks. In therecent past, coastal Amerindians were much more dependent on the ité palm than


112

they are today. Ité fruits and the starch from the pith of the trunk provided the staplefood for the Warao (Wilbert, 1976), while the Arawaks made fermented beveragesfrom the fruits and boiled down the sap from the trunks into a sugar substitute. Bothgroups relished on palm grub larvae found in the notches of fallen trunks (Forte,1988). Nowadays, the palm is mainly used for its fibre. In the wet season, shoots areharvested from the savanna by approaching the palms by boat, which is moredifficult in the dense swamp forest. In Suriname, similar herbaceous swamps andsavannas have been set to fire to keep the areas accessible to man and attractive towildlife (Theunissen, 1993). Hunting is easier in the open field as the visibility isbetter, but people said the wildlife on the Moruca savanna had decreasedsubstantially in the last decades, probably due to overharvesting. According toJanssen (1974), peat fires must have taken place at least since the arrival ofAmerindians in Suriname, some 10,000 years before present.

Except for the ité palm, few useful plants were found in the open savanna. SomeMoruca residents admitted they burned the savanna because they thought it was‘fun’ and enjoyed the cool breeze of the northeastern trade winds blowing over theopen plains. However, ité seedlings apparently do not survive repeated burning, sincethe palms had gradually disappeared from the savannas near human settlements.Tibisiri harvesters complained that they could not approach the palms during theannual fires and had to travel further each year to obtain their raw material. Althoughprobably beneficial at first, the burning of the savanna will eventually become fatal toone of the most valuable NTFP resources in Moruca.

4.4.8 Manicole swampThe Euterpe-dominated forest had a low floristic diversity, with just 30 species > 10cm DBH in one ha and a total use value of only 71 (Table 4.1). Local residentsrecognised 71 useful species, of which 27 were found in the tree layer and 44 (62%)in the lower strata. Still 90% of the trees (over 99% of the individuals in the treelayer) were considered useful. The most important multi-use species are listed inTable 4.8. In spite of their low species-richness, the manicole swamps are probablythe most important forests for commercial NTFP extraction in Guyana. Euterpeoleracea (manicole) is harvested for its palm heart and sold to a canning companylocated at the Barima River. Since the opening of the factory, palm heart harvestinghas become the main source of income for Amerindians in the coastal swamps of theNorth-West District. The impact of this palm heart extraction is discussed in thefollowing chapter.

Except for palm heart, the palm was also used for roof thatch, construction, and asminor food source. E. precatoria was used similarly, although its palm heart wasonly consumed for subsistence and rarely traded, since it was too large for the cans.Other important plants were Jessenia bataua subsp. oligocarpa, frequentlyharvested for its edible fruits, and Eperua falcata (wallaba), cut into poles and soldto construction workers in Santa Rosa. Near the Waini River, the palm Manicariasaccifera suddenly became an important canopy element in the manicole swamp. Itsgiant leaves were used as roof thatch and commercialised throughout the North-West District. In the past, Iryanthera juruensis and Virola surinamensis were felledfor timber, but logging activities in the coastal swamp area have now ceased.


113

Frequently gathered medicinal species in this swamp forest were Tabebuia insignisvar. monophylla, Schlegelia violacea, Philodendron scandens, Pentaclethramacroloba, and Symphonia globulifera. In the wet period the swamps had to beentered by canoe, but soils remained swampy the rest of the year. Consequently,firewood was just a minor NTFP in these forests.

Table 4.8 Most important multi-use species in 1 ha of manicole swamp, Assakata (with use values > 1.5)and their abundance in tree layer and undergrowth.



Euterpe oleracea 3.5 127 184Symphonia globulifera 3.0 65 11Carapa guianensis 3.0 1 0Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla 2.5 40 12Pentaclethra macroloba 2.5 116 98Jessenia bataua subsp. oligocarpa 2.5 33 4Euterpe precatoria 1.5 45 14Tapirira guianensis 1.5 23 25Macrosamanea pubiramea var. pubiramea 1.5 0 328Mora excelsa 1.5 6 0Micropholis venulosa 1.5 4 3

4.4.9 Most important NTFP species from the seven hectare plotsAlthough most culturally important species had multiple uses, some plants withfewer uses produced quite essential NTFPs as well. The most important NTFPsfound in the seven hectare plots, both for commercial and subsistence purposes,were: Euterpe oleracea, Heteropsis flexuosa, Clusia spp., Geonoma baculifera,Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla, Carapa guianensis, Mauritia flexuosa,Hymenaea courbaril var. courbaril, Ischnosiphon arouma, and Inga alba. Hemi-epiphytes in the canopy were not covered in the nested sampling method, but someof the species had a substantial commercial value. Heteropsis flexuosa (‘peelingnibi’), Clusia grandiflora, and C. palmicida (‘kufa’) were commercially exploitedfor the furniture industry, while Thoracocarpus bissectus (‘scraping nibi’) wasmostly used for heavy duty baskets, often traded with gold miners in the interior(chapter 6). Nibi and kufa plants were patchily distributed throughout the region, butseemed to have a preference for well-drained primary forest (Table 4.9). They weremuch more abundant in Barama than in Moruca. It takes long before these plantshave settled in the canopy, as only after 60 years of succession the first harvestableroots were found. Harvestable roots are mature and straight; young roots lack therequired strength. Unsuitable roots may be mature, but contain many knots or wraparound the tree trunk. Nibi and kufa were rare in swamp forest on pegasse, butseemed to be somewhat more frequent in Mora forest. Most of the raw material forthe furniture industry was harvested around the Pomeroon area. However, ifoverharvesting would cause a scarcity of roots in that region, or if a similar cottageindustry would be set up in Moruca, there might be a chance that these roots will beharvested to a greater extent in the future.

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

115

Tab

le 4

.9N

umbe

rs o

f ae

rial

roo

ts o

f he

mi-

epip

hyti

c sp

ecie

s us

ed i

n co

mm

erci

al c

raft

pro

duct

ion.

Num

bers

indi

cate

the

am

ount

of

mat

ure

and

youn

g or

uns

uita

ble

root

s fo

und

in o

ne h

ecta

re i

n ea

ch o

f th

ese

ven

plot

s.

Spec

ies

Typ

e of

aer

ial r

oots

Bar

ama

mix

edfo

rest

Bar

ama

20-y

ear

sec.

for

Bar

ama

Mor

afo

rest

Mor

uca

mix

edfo

rest

Mor

uca

60-y

ear

sec.

for

.

Mor

uca

quac

kal

swam

p

Ass

akat

am

anic

ole

swam

p

Het

erop

sis

flex

uosa

harv

esta

ble

105

--

--

--

Het

erop

sis

flex

uosa

youn

g or

uns

uita

ble

87-

-7

--

-

Tho

raco

carp

us b

isse

ctus

harv

esta

ble

32-

1618

--

-

Tho

raco

carp

us b

isse

ctus

youn

g or

uns

uita

ble

676

85

221

1

Clu

sia

gran

difl

ora

harv

esta

ble

43-

76

--

1

Clu

sia

gran

difl

ora

youn

g or

uns

uita

ble

10-

514

-3

-

Clu

sia

palm

icid

aha

rves

tabl

e-

--

323

7-

Clu

sia

palm

icid

ayo

ung

or u

nsui

tabl

e1

--

212

32


116

4.4.10 Commercialisation of NTFPsBecause of their limited access to the market, the Barama Caribs commercialisedfew plant species. Of the 213 species harvested from the three hectare plots, ca. 42species (20%) were traded within the region. Raw plant products were occasionallysold, like in the case of Geonoma baculifera leaves. Most species had an indirectcommercial value, since they were processed into sawn wood (27 species) orhousehold equipment (e.g., clay pots treated with Inga alba bark). No more than sixspecies were sold on a regular basis: Heteropsis flexuosa, Ischnosiphon arouma,Quiina guianensis, I. alba, G. baculifera, and Carapa guianensis.

If we assume that most sawn boards in the Arawak region were subject to economicexchange, about 32% (73 species) of the 229 useful species in the Moruca andAssakata plots were commercialised. Most of these (54 species) were sold aslumber. Since timber harvesting was not the subject of this research, the exactamount of wood species sawn into boards was not verified. Nine species of NTFPswere sold on a regular basis: Euterpe oleracea, Duguetia pycnastera, Heteropsisflexuosa, Ischnosiphon arouma, I. obliquus, Carapa guianensis, Mauritia flexuosa,Tabebuia insignis var. monophylla, and Astrocaryum aculeatum.

4.4.11 Most important NTFP familiesThe relative use value of each plant family was calculated for both indigenousgroups. The major family use values of the Barama plots are listed in Table 4.10,adjusted to their number of species occurring in the plots. The Meliaceae had thehighest importance, which resulted from the various uses of Carapa guianensis,such as medicinal oil, bark, seeds, canoes, and household equipment. However, thespecies was not very abundant, since it was frequently logged for its valuable wood.

Table 4.10 Most important multi-use families in the Barama plots (mean use value > 1), adjusted for thenumber of species per family.

Families Barama Barama Baramamixed forest 20-year secondary Mora forest

Meliaceae 2.33 2.00 2.25Annonaceae 1.67 1.72 1.50Costaceae 1.50 2.00 1.00Tiliaceae 2.00 2.00 -Bombacaceae 2.00 2.00 -Cyclanthaceae 1.25 2.00 2.00Guttiferae 1.60 1.50 1.25Myrtaceae 2.00 1.75 -Lecythidaceae 1.00 2.00 0.75Leguminosae-Mimos. 1.10 1.13 1.50Myristicaceae 0.75 1.25 1.50Anacardiaceae 0.50 2.00 1.00Zingiberaceae 1.50 1.75 -Cecropiaceae 0.75 1.00 1.50Chrysobalanaceae 1.13 1.00 1.00Monimiaceae 1.50 1.50 -


117

The Annonaceae, of which most members stayed below the 10 cm DBH, was quite auseful family, because of its strong and flexible wood. The importance of Costaceaeindicates that species present in the shrub and herb layer were also producingessential NTFPs. The relative high value of the Cyclanthaceae illustrates thecontribution of useful hemi-epiphytes.

Palmae, Guttiferae and Anacardiaceae came out as most important multi-usefamilies in the Moruca and Assakata plots (see Table 4.11). Meliaceae had lessdiversified uses than in Barama, but Myrtaceae were somewhat more importantbecause of the various species with edible fruits. Again several families with onlysmaller species (Marantaceae, Cyclanthaceae) produced important NTFPs. Just likein the Barama plots, the swamp forest plots contained less multi-use families thanthe better-drained forests.

Table 4.11 Most important families in the Moruca and Assakata plots (mean use value > 0.75), adjustedfor the number of species per family.

Family Moruca Moruca Moruca Assakatamixedforest

60-yearsecondary

quackalswamp

manicoleswamp

Guttiferae 2.00 1.75 1.50 2.25Palmae 1.00 1.43 1.67 1.80Anacardiaceae 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.50Meliaceae 2.00 1.33 - 1.50Myrtaceae 2.00 1.67 1.00 -Chrysobalanaceae 1.07 1.00 1.17 1.00Lauraceae 1.17 0.88 0.83 1.13Bignoniaceae 0.17 0.13 2.50 1.17Marantaceae 1.50 1.67 - 0.75Myristicaceae 2.00 0.25 0.63 1.00Bombacaceae 1.00 1.33 1.50 -Dilleniaceae 1.13 1.17 1.50 -Leguminosae-Mimos. 0.82 0.73 0.92 1.08Lecythidaceae 1.75 1.80 - -Leguminosae-Caesalp. 1.00 1.31 - 1.17Cyclanthaceae 1.25 1.50 1.17 1.17Sapotaceae 1.00 0.58 1.00 0.63Apocynaceae 0.75 0.43 1.50 0.50

The present valuation method, deduced from Prance et al. (1987), favours familiespresent that have a few species with multiple uses. For instance, the family Tiliaceaewas represented by a single species (Apeiba petoumo) with minor uses in fourcategories, but these were in reality not very important forest products. If we justlook at the mean family use values for all plots, calculated from the summed usevalues of NTFP species, but not divided by the number of species in the plots, wesee a quite different list (Table 4.12). Mimosaceae now are in first place, because ofthe numerous edible Inga species. Guttiferae, Annonaceae and Palmae remainedimportant families, but Araceae and Euphorbiaceae ranked higher than before, as


118

these families had large numbers of species with few uses each. This new valuationmethod is clearly related to the species diversity of the various families.

Table 4.12 Most important NTFP-producing families in northwest Guyana, averaged over the sevenhectare plots (mean use value > 2.50).

Family Mean usevalue

Family Mean usevalue

Leguminosae-Mimos. 9.43 Lauraceae 4.00

Guttiferae 7.21 Sapotaceae 3.79

Annonaceae 6.36 Chrysobalanaceae 3.50

Palmae 5.50 Euphorbiaceae 2.93

Lecythidaceae 5.21 Araceae 2.93

Leguminosae-Papil. 4.71 Dilleniaceae 2.50

Leguminosae-Caesalp. 4.21 Myrtaceae 2.50

Meliaceae 4.07

4.5 DISCUSSION

4.5.1 Nested sampling and plot sizeThe use of the nested sampling method revealed that 35 to 65% of the speciespresent in the lower forest strata were utilised by the local population. Some of theseplants were saplings of canopy trees, but others were herbs, shrubs, lianas, or hemi-epiphytes. Above all in the young secondary forest and the manicole swamp, moreuseful species were found in the understorey than in the tree layer. These resultspoint out that those inventories that only count trees > 10 cm DBH may overlook atleast 20% and sometimes even more than 60% of the useful species. If this methodwas followed in the present study, important NTFPs such as Geonoma baculiferaand Ischnosiphon arouma would have been overlooked. Lianas, usually left out offorest hectare inventories, also provided essential products, often with medicinalproperties (e.g., Curarea candicans, Dilleniaceae spp.). The nested sampling methodstill does not cover all useful species, as was shown by the craft-producing hemi-epiphytes.

The question remains if seven hectare plots are sufficient to cover all the useful plantspecies in the different forest types. The species-area curves in chapter 2 and 3(Figure 2.4 and 3.2) suggest that, especially in the secondary forests, the number oftree species would increase considerably if the sample area would be enlarged. Asup to 91% of the trees in secondary forest were utilised, more plots in fallow forestwould almost certainly yield ‘new’ NTFPs. The same applies to the primary forests,although to a lesser extent, as their species-area curves were already levelling off.Establishing plots in similar vegetation types elsewhere in the North-West Districtwould probably bring even more previously unrecorded species. Collection effortsoutside the plots indeed yielded several other useful species not found within theplots, of which some were valuable NTFPs. Most of these species were quite rare,such as Lonchocarpus spp., renowned fish poisons and Anacardium giganteum, a


119

locally marketed fruit species (see Part II of this thesis). Abandoned farms and openshrub lands also contained numerous useful plants. The species-area curves for theswamp forests had flattened considerably, so one hectare was likely to cover themajority of the species. Just a few useful species were collected in swamp forestsoutside the plots. In chapter 9, the effectiveness of the hectare plots versus the‘walk-in-the woods’ method will be discussed further.

4.5.2 Arawak vs. Carib plant usePrance et al. (1987) reasoned that differences in plant use between indigenousgroups might be more a reflection of plant endemism within the tropical forest thanintercultural differences per se. This makes sense when Amerindians from distinctAmazonian countries are evaluated, but seems less valid when plants uses arecompared between groups spaced just a few hundred kilometres apart. Severaluseful plants were found in Barama that were not encountered in Moruca and viceversa, but the overlap in species and uses was still rather large. There certainlyexisted cultural differences in plant use. Moruca Arawaks, for example, did not eatthe fruits of Astrocaryum gynacanthum, which were favoured by Caribs. In the moretraditional Arawak-Warao village of Assakata, however, people did consume thesepalm fruits. Recipes for medicinal plants varied among communities and evenamong households. It was hard to pinpoint which uses were ‘typical Arawak’ or‘typical Carib’, although informants often characterised them as such.

Except for cultural heritage and traditional ways of living, plant use may also becorrelated with poverty. The richer inhabitants of Santa Rosa (mostly of SpanishArawak or mixed origin) lived in the village centre and seemed much less dependenton NTFPs than the ‘lower class’, formed by Carib, Warao and Arawaks living in theforested periphery of the settlement. Basketry on the Santa Rosa village market wasfor the most part made and sold by Caribs from these ‘outskirts’, while Warao camepaddling from far to trade their fish and wildlife. This in accordance with the theorythat integration through the market for crops and labour signals a shift away fromextractivism, and consequently implies that people will probably lose knowledge ofwild plants and animals because they spend less time foraging in the forest (Godoyet al., 1998). However, data from this study do not allow for the statistical testing ofdifferences in useful plants (and/or animals) between ethnic groups and forest types.More quantitative data on local plant availability and the loss or retention ofknowledge would be needed for such an analysis, but this was somewhat outside thescope of this research.

4.5.3 Valuation of forestsThe valuation method of Prance et al. (1987) underestimates species with fewer usesthat might be of great importance for subsistence and commercial use (e.g.,Geonoma baculifera). Furthermore, it does not differentiate between abundant andrare species. Carapa guianensis ranked among the most important NTFPs in nearlyeach forest type, while the density of this species remained low in all plots. To get acomplete picture of actual NTFP harvesting, one should make long-timeobservations at the forest gate, in stead of focusing on (hypothetical) use valuesalone. In addition, the valuation method was less practical in nested sampling plots,


120

as adults and juveniles of useful species were counted equally. Some trees alreadyproduce NTFPs in their juvenile stage (such as bark or leaves), but canoes or houseposts can only be made from adult individuals. Another difficulty with the techniqueof Prance and co-workers is that is does not allow for more than one use within eachcategory; a species either has a major or a minor use. This problem could be solvedby introducing more levels of cultural significance, as was done by Berlin et al.(1966) and Turner (1974), or by using complex models composed of useimportance, intensity, and exclusivity (Turner, 1988; Stoffle et al, 1990). However,the outcomes all rely on posterior subjective decisions by the researcher about therelative importance of a species, and it is unlikely that these concepts are appliedconsistently by different researchers (Phillips, 1996).

Simply totalling the number of uses, treating minor uses equivalent to moreimportant forest uses, as was done by Johnston (1998), does not differentiate therelative importance of the various uses. The sheer quantity of uses may overwhelmthe reality of NTFP importance in the field (Phillips, 1996). In a forest near Iquitos,Peters et al. (1989a) just summed the existing market prices for the volumes ofNTFPs that could possibly be harvested per hectare. This method was heavilycriticised, since it yielded extraordinary high values per hectare, but did not includefluctuations in price and demands, nor actual extraction volumes (Padoch and deJong, 1989; Piñedo-Vasquez et al., 1990; Godoy and Lubowski, 1992). This methodwas less useful in the Guyanese context, as few of the NTFPs present in the forestplots were actually marketed. And even if all available commercial NTFPs would beharvested from a forest, the price per item would drop substantially.

In spite of these unfavourable aspects, this method was used by Sullivan (1999) tocalculate the economic value of NTFPs in three Amerindian villages in the North-West District. On the basis of single interviews, held during two weeks of fieldworkper village, she calculated the total volumes of NTFPs collected per week andsimply extrapolated this to one year, assuming that the seasonal variety in availableplants and animals was of minor importance. The monetary value of the NTFPs waseither based on existing or hypothetical market prices for these goods, or on theamount of time spent on collecting these items, by taking a shadow wage based onthe earnings obtained during palm heart harvesting. But it is shown in chapter 5 thatthis shadow wage was not representative for the actual revenues earned by cabbagecutting, since wages varied substantially throughout the study area. Furthermore, themajority of NTFPs were used for subsistence, since the nearest market was locatedas far as six hours away from the villages studied by Sullivan. Especially in the dryseason, when transport costs are high, the commercialisation of NTFPs is stronglylimited in this region. Finally, several of the marketed ‘forest fruits’ in her study(e.g., Maximiliana maripa, Astrocaryum aculeatum) were probably coming fromcultivated sources. This misinterpretation led to a rather high contribution of ‘wildfoods’ in the income of local people.

Similarly, the value of medicinal plants used in the villages was based on a figure ofUS$ 0.70 per lbs., derived from the local price of crabwood seeds (Carapaguianensis). Strangely, none of the informants in the present study ever mentionedcrabwood seeds as a commercial item. Crabwood oil, however, was regularly sold inthe interior for US$ 3.50 a litre, for which 20 lbs. of seeds were needed. Using


121

Sullivan’s seed price, a bottle of oil would then cost $ 14, excluding the (substantial)labour costs. In the end, Sullivan calculated the imputed annual value of medicinalplants at $ 78 to $ 131 per household. By keeping in mind that crab oil is the mostexpensive herbal medicine in the country, and that other medicinal plants are seldomcommercialised within Amerindian communities and cost only $ 0.10 per bundle inGeorgetown (chapters 6 and 8), these figures are clearly exaggerated. Through acomplicated series of formulas, Sullivan calculates that the total value of forestinputs used per capita in the three villages amounts to US$ 357 per year. She thenmultiplies this with the number of Amerindians in the North-West District (14,075)and divides this by the surface of land (20,117 km2), and concludes that the use-value of NTFPs by Amerindian forest-dwellers in the region is US$ 2.25 per hectare.She thereby assumes a total homogeneity in the distribution of Amerindianhouseholds, equal marketing opportunities, and similar forest types throughout theregion.

Putting hypothetical monetary values on species used for subsistence, also known as‘contingent valuation’, is a rather arbitrary method. Although this technique mightencourage researchers and policy makers to reflect on the total value of forests, it isimpractical to apply them in most ethnobotanical studies (Martin, 1995). It assumesthat the value people say they are willing to pay is the value they would actually pay,while in remote areas the willingness to pay for goods than can be freely collected inthe forest is likely to be zero (Mitchell and Carson, 1989; Godoy and Lubowski,1992). Although it is important to show that NTFPs have an economic value, thequality of data is crucial to the reliability of the results. By using inaccurate pricesand false assumptions from the beginning, the final outcomes will have a limitedcredibility. Sullivan’s data are therefore only used in this study when they seemedtrustworthy.

Only in the manicole swamp plot in Assakata, where NTFPs were directly sold ‘atthe forest gate’, the potential harvest of palm heart (Euterpe oleracea) could beestimated at US$ 27.6 per ha (chapter 5). Hoffman (1997) estimated the revenues ofHeteropsis flexuosa extraction in the lower Pomeroon mixed forest at US$ 2.4 perha (62 mature roots/ha). This would result in US$ 4.1 per ha for the Barama mixedforests (105 mature roots/ha), but such an estimate is of little use as these forests arelocated far away from the Pomeroon market. Because of the high transportationcosts, roots from Barama have little chance to compete with those extracted near themarket. The large amount of taxa evaluated in this study, the low percentage ofcommercialised species, and the focus on indigenous plant use made the forestvaluation method of Prance et al. (1987) the most appropriate for this study.

4.5.4 Use percentages and categoriesWhen we look at other quantitative NTFP inventories, percentages of useful treesover 10 cm DBH are quite variable among Amazonian forests. Researchers thatincluded the categories firewood and game animal food came to use percentages of100% (Balée, 1986, 1987) and 94.8% (Grenand, 1992). According to Prance et al.(1987), any tree could be burned as fuel or eaten by animals, so they omitted thesecategories from their calculations. Not all woody species in northwest Guyana wereused as fuel, but including firewood also resulted in high percentages of useful trees


122

in (83-94%). Animal food was left out from this inventory, but plant productsdeliberately used by humans to catch game (bait) were included in the ‘other’category. Use percentages without firewood varied between 65% (Barama mixedforest) and 87% (60-year-old forest), more or less comparable to those found byPrance et al. (1987) for other Amazonian groups. In northwest Guyana, a lowerpercentage of tree species was used for food and a higher percentage for medicinethan in the plots surveyed by Prance and co-workers in Brazil, Venezuela andBolivia.

The use percentage of a particular forest is determined both by local plant diversityand by the level of acculturation or specialisation of its indigenous users. Prance etal. (1987) stated that different sets of species within the Amazonian forests do nothave to affect the utility of these forests per se to comparable indigenous groups.Still, comparisons between use categories are difficult to make, since the floristiccomposition of the forest types in central and western Amazonia are quite differentfrom those in Guyana.

In one of the few quantitative NTFP studies in Guyana, Matheson (1994) found thatan average of 84% (65% excluding firewood) of the trees > 10 cm DBH in Mora,mixed and wallaba forest was used by local Akawaio in upper Demerara. She statedthat the species-poor wallaba and Mora forest had a higher usefulness than thediverse mixed forest, but these values were based of the number of individuals ratherthan the number of species. She mentioned the Palmae as the most useful family, butmany of these palm species in her report were cultivated and none occurred in theplots. The percentage of useful individuals in the northwest plots was much higher,ranging from 90 to 99% of the trees > 10 cm DBH. Further comparisons wereimpractical, as Matheson’s plots were smaller (0.64 ha), and many trees were notfully identified.

In his assessment of NTFP availability in central Guyana, Johnston (1998) madehectare plots in Mora, morabukea, mixed, wallaba, and greenheart forest inKurupukari (Iwokrama Reserve). He compared them with similar vegetation plotsmade by Davis and Richards (1933, 1934) in Moraballi Creek. The number of usefultrees found in the two localities (112 species > 10 cm DBH in 9 ha), was muchlower than in the present study (216 useful tree species in 7 ha). Some of the mostimportant NTFP-producing families in central Guyana were similar to those in thenorthwest (Mimosaceae, Palmae), while other widely utilised families(Caesalpiniaceae, Bombacaceae and Chrysobalanaceae) were less important in thepresent study. Annonaceae and Guttiferae, important NTFP families in the northwestplots, seemed to be less significant in central Guyana, probably because attentionwas only paid to trees > 10 cm DBH.

The mixed forest plots in Kurupukari, described in detail by Johnston and Gillman(1995), had a lower tree diversity than the mixed plots in this study. In chapter 2, wehave seen that the species-richness of the Moraballi mixed forest plot (Davis andRichards, 1933) was similar to those of the North-West District (Table 2.15).However, the Mora forest in the two central Guyana locations was much morediverse than the one in Barama (chapter 3, Table 3.12). Thus, the general lowernumber of useful trees in central Guyana cannot be explained by a lower tree


123

diversity. It seems to be caused by the fact that many of Johnson’s plant uses werebased on the survey of Fanshawe (1948), which is by no means exhaustive and inmany cases outdated in its botanical names and uses. Moreover, the plots of Davisand Richards were made in the 1930s. Johnston apparently assumed that the forestcomposition in Moraballi was still the same in the 1990s, but according to H. terSteege (pers. comm.), the area has been repeatedly logged since the 1930s. On-the-spot surveys of these forest plots with present inhabitants of Moraballi creek wouldprobably have yielded more accurate results. Thus, Johnston’s forest valuations werelargely based on the potential availability of NTFPs, rather than on the actual forestutilisation by local Amerindians. This makes a comparison between use categorieswith this study not very relevant.

4.5.5 Forest diversity and marketing of NTFPsMany of the quantitative NTFP inventories were made in well-drained terra firmeforest in western and central Amazonia. These forests were usually characterised bya high species diversity, which was often reflected by a large variety in indigenoususes (Peters et al, 1989a; Milliken et al., 1992; Phillips et al., 1994). But such lowdensities of conspecific trees may result in low quantities of specific harvestableproducts per hectare and high extraction costs (Peters et al, 1989b; Johnston, 1998).Commercial extraction of NTFPs from diverse forests is further complicated by adiscontinuous product supply and an unknown sustainability as populations aresmall (Richards, 1993). The only viable option for these forests would be multiple-species extractivism (Johnston, 1998). Low-diversity forests seem to offer muchbetter possibilities for sustainable single-species harvesting (Salafsky et al., 1993).Johnston (1998) assumed that Mora, wallaba and greenheart-dominated forests werelikely to produce economically sustainable NTFPs, provided that the fewdominating species generated valuable products. Unfortunately, these canopydominants are also being exploited on a large scale by logging companies. Althoughthey yield some subsistence products that could be harvested without killing the tree(e.g., a decoction of Mora bark is used against diarrhoea), their timber is also highlyvalued by Amerindians for canoes and house post.

Looking at the present-day NTFP extraction in Guyana, we see that the least diverseforests are the main areas for commercial harvesting. Mangrove bark is collectedfrom the tidal forests dominated by Rhizophora mangle. Troolie leaves (Manicariasaccifera) and palm hearts (Euterpe oleracea) are extracted in substantial volumesfrom manicole swamps. The great economic potential of permanently flooded,species-poor swamp forests was already brought up by Peters et al. (1989b). Theseso-called oligarchic forests cover over several millions of hectares in Amazonia andoften are dominated by few, economically important species. With 490 harvestablestems per ha (E. oleracea develops a mature palm heart at a DBH of ca. 8.4 cm), themanicole swamp is an example of an oligarchic forest in Guyana. The quackalswamp is a less prominent case, as the major commercial species (Mauritiaflexuosa) does not occur in such high densities, but the ité savanna can definitely beconsidered an oligarchic vegetation type.


124

These ‘natural monocultures’ produce large volumes of fruits, but unfortunately, fewGuyanese value this abundant resource. In Brazil and Peru, hundreds of tons of E.oleracea, M. flexuosa and Jessenia bataua fruits are processed annually into juices,ice creams and preserves (Peters et al., 1989b; Richards, 1993). If an export marketfor these products could be developed or local consumption would be stimulated inGuyana, the swamp forests of the North-West District would bring in even moreeconomic revenues than they do today.

Fruit collection does little damage to the forest ecosystem (Peters, 1989), but palmheart harvesting may have a serious impact on Euterpe populations. Programmes forcontrolled extractivism and non-destructive harvesting techniques should thereforebe implemented. This would imply a ban on the annual burning of ité savanna andquackal forest, in order to increase the survival chances of Mauritia flexuosa.Recommendations for sustainable palm heart extraction are given in chapter 5.According to Anderson (1988), in-situ management of forests dominated byeconomically important species could be a viable enterprise when product value ishigh and the potential for conflictive land uses is minimal. Increased utilisation ofthe oligarchic northwestern swamps seems to be a feasible development option, asthese areas are less suitable for agriculture, mining, or timber harvesting.

4.5.6 Secondary forestIn Barama as well as in Moruca, the highest numbers of species and the greatesttotal use values were found in secondary forest. The large amount of useful speciesin succession forest might have two causes: a general floristic diversity and thephenomenon that local plant knowledge is likely to decrease if moving away fromthe village. The plants most utilised are generally found close to home, withintensity of use decreasing at greater distances (Martin, 1995). The lower usepercentages of the two mixed forest plots and the quackal plot could possibly beexplained by the fact that these plots were located further from the villages and lessoften visited than the other plots. The succession forest plots in the North-WestDistrict also contained more fruit species than the other plots. Smaller trees andabundant fruit-producing shrubs further facilitated the gathering of edible berries.Balée (1994: 136) called the exceptionally rich 40 to 100-year old secondary forestin Brazil ‘an indigenous contribution to regional biodiversity’. The high percentageof fruit species made him consider these fallow forest as ‘indigenous orchards,whether consciously planted or not’. Results of this study seem to confirm the theorythat secondary forest is most intensively used and best known since it is alwayssurrounding the settlements (Martin, 1995).

High densities and short distances are very decisive factors in plant collection(Grenand, 1992). This means that if useful products occurring in primary forest alsogrow in old fallows, they are much likely to be harvested from there. For instance,the bark from Inga alba was more often collected in secondary than in primaryforest in Barama, although the species was present in both forest types (chapter 2).Commercial NTFP exploitation is often believed to be able to ‘save’ the forest, as itmay yield more revenue than other land uses (Peters et al, 1989a). But this can onlybe achieved if NTFPs are able to prevent or reduce deforestation.


125

In the case of the quackal swamp, we have seen that fibre extraction from Mauritiaflexuosa is not capable of preserving the forest. On the contrary, the natural habitatis destroyed in order to harvest the desired product. NTFPs that also occur insecondary forest have a limited potential to conserve the primary forest. The aerialroots of nibi and kufa, used in the commercial furniture industry, are examples ofNTFPs with an actual market value in Guyana that are only present in standingprimary forest. Given their economic importance, their possibilities for sustainableharvesting and their potential for forest conservation, there is an urgent need fordeveloping adequate management plans for these species (see chapter 6).

According to Prance et al. (1987), the well-drained terra firme forest with its largenumbers of species and useful plants should have a high conservation priority. Thesuccessful marketing of NTFPs from these forests is obstructed by high transportcosts and low densities of commercial species. These problems could be solved onlyif external subsidies would be introduced for NTFPs from remote forests, orproducts would be processed locally (Hall and Bawa, 1993; Richards, 1993;Johnston, 1998). Precisely these species-rich forests in northwest Guyana are mostthreatened by mining and logging activities (ter Steege, 1998).

Large tracts of relatively undisturbed primary forest can still be found along theBarama, as the Carib villages are rather small and scattered over a large area (Forte,1995). But this might change in the near future, as several communities within theBCL logging concession have not (yet) been granted official land rights (Forte,1994). Although BCL’s management plan states that timber extraction onAmerindian lands should not be encouraged (ECTF, 1993), Kariako and severalother Barama Carib communities were omitted from the list of indigenoussettlements in the concession area. As the company reports remain vague about thetime schedule of their logging operations, urgent action is needed to ensure that theirdiverse and intensively used forest is still available to the Barama Caribs in thefuture.

The mixed forest in Moruca is officially included in the Santa Rosa AmerindianReserve, but this does not automatically imply that local authorities follow sufficientprotection measurements. Adequate management plans for the remaining forest inthis area are needed on a short term, to guarantee the availability of forest productsfor the future generations of Moruca. These plans should include the quackalswamp. This forest forms an important buffer zone between the seacoast and thedensely populated Moruca area, but it is severely threatened by annual burning.

Finally, one should consider that plants alone do not make up the total value ofNTFPs in a forest. Wildlife is by far the most important NTFP in Guyana, both forsubsistence use and for commercial trade (van Andel, 1998). Hunting is done in allforest types, but primary forest may harbour different species than open fallows.Dense swamps offer an important refuge for animals, and provide food and shelterto fishes during the seasonal flooding (Goulding et al., 1988). This was illustrated bythe fishing activities in the inundated swamps and the variety of seeds and fruitsused as bait. As was already stressed by Godoy and Lubowski (1992), a completevaluation of NTFPs in a particular forest type should include both flora and fauna.


126

4.6 CONCLUSIONS

Although not covering every single species, nested sampling gave a fairly goodpicture of the useful plants in the seven forest hectare plots. Between 20 and 60% ofthe useful species in the plots was found in the understorey.

Variations in the number of useful species between the hectare plots seem to becaused by floristic diversity, socio-economic and cultural differences. The species-rich mixed forests contained more useful species and had a higher overall use valuethan the species-poor swamp plots. High floristic diversity, however, is not aprerequisite for economically and ecologically sustainable NTFP extraction. Craft-producing hemi-epiphytes are among the few species that have a potential topreserve this diverse forest, as standing forest is needed for the required products.The low-diversity forests, in particular the manicole swamp, offered the bestopportunities for sustainable NTFP harvesting, since the vegetation was dominated byeconomically important species.

Except for regional differences in species and use techniques, we can conclude thatall forest types sampled in this study were of great importance to their localinhabitants. High use percentages (especially in the tree layer, in which up to 99% ofthe individuals were considered useful) indicated that people had a great knowledgeof their surrounding forest.

Many highly valued NTFPs were produced by commercial timber species (e.g.,Carapa guianensis, Aspidosperma spp., Hymenaea courbaril var. courbaril,Brosimum guianense, and Inga alba). Selective logging of these species woulddeprive local Amerindians from these products, of which some are essentialelements in their daily lives.

Since several of the sampled forest types were threatened, either immediately bylocal timber harvesting and slash-and-burn agriculture (Moruca), or in the nearfuture by logging and mining (Barama), there is an urgent need for protectionmeasurements and sustainable management plans in the region.

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

127

4.7

AP

PE

ND

IX

Use

ful s

peci

es in

the

sev

en o

ne-h

ecta

re f

ores

t pl

ots

in n

orth

wes

t G

uyan

aU

se c

atog

orie

s: A

= m

ajor

foo

d, a

= m

inor

foo

d, B

= m

ajor

con

stru

ctio

n m

ater

ial,

b =

min

or c

onst

ruct

ion

mat

eria

l, C

= m

ajor

tec

hnol

ogy

prod

uct,

c =

min

orte

chno

logy

pro

duct

, D =

maj

or m

edic

ine,

d =

min

or m

edic

ine,

E =

maj

or o

ther

use

, e =

min

or o

ther

use

, F =

maj

or f

irew

ood

spec

ies.

? =

occ

urri

ng in

the

plot

but

not

use

d in

this

reg

ion.

, **

= c

omm

erci

al ti

mbe

r sp

ecie

s in

Guy

ana

(Pol

ak, 1

992)

, * =

loca

l com

mer

cial

tim

ber.

Lif

e fo

rms:

H =

her

b,T

= tr

ee, S

= s

hrub

, HE

= h

emi-

epip

hyte

, L =

lian

a. M

inor

fir

ewoo

d sp

ecie

s (2

2 sp

p.)

are

omit

ted

from

the

tabl

e.

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

a

Mix

edfo

rest

20-y

ear

seco

ndar

yM

ora

fore

stM

ixed

fore

st60

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Qua

ckal

swam

pM

anic

ole

swam

pC

arib

Car

ibC

arib

Ara

wak

Ara

wak

Ara

wak

Ara

wak

Am

aryl

lidac

eae

Hym

enoc

alli

s tu

bifl

ora

Hd

s

Ana

card

iace

ae A

stro

nium

cf.

leco

inte

iT

?D

Spo

ndia

s m

ombi

nT

A

Tap

irir

a gu

iane

nsis

*T

bcF

abd

abd

abd

abd

T. c

f. o

btus

aT

F

Ann

onac

eae

Ana

xago

rea

doli

choc

arpa

Tbc

bcbc

Ann

ona

sym

phyo

carp

aT

cf

Boc

ageo

psis

mul

tiflo

raT

c

Dug

uetia

cal

ycin

aT

c

D. m

egal

ophy

lla

Tab

Cd

abC

d

D. p

auci

flor

aT

cdcd

D. p

ycna

ster

aT

BC

BC

4.7

App

endi

x

128

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Ann

onac

eae

Dug

uetia

yes

hida

nT

bcd

bcd

bcd

Gua

tter

ia s

chom

burg

kian

a *

Tb

b

Gua

tter

ia s

p. (

TV

A11

27)

Tbf

Gua

tter

ia s

p. (

TV

A66

6)T

b

Rol

lini

a ex

succ

aT

cDf

cDf

cece

Uno

nops

is g

lauc

opet

ala

*T

BcD

BcD

BcD

BcD

Xyl

opia

cay

enne

nsis

Tb

X. a

ff. s

urin

amen

sis

*T

bf

Xyl

opia

sp.

(T

VA

1165

) *

TB

cF

Xyl

opia

sp.

(T

VA

1176

)T

Bc

Apo

cyna

ceae

Am

bela

nia

acid

aT

A

Asp

idos

perm

a ex

cels

umT

cdF

A. m

arcg

ravi

anum

TcD

cD

For

ster

onia

guy

anen

sis

Ld

Him

atan

thus

art

icul

atus

TB

B

Mac

oube

a gu

iane

nsis

*T

Bc

Mal

ouet

a fl

aves

cens

Se

Tab

erna

emon

tana

dis

tich

aS

de

T. u

ndul

ata

Sd

dd

d

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

129

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Ara

ceae

Die

ffen

bach

ia p

alud

icol

aH

e

Het

erop

sis

flex

uosa

HE

BC

BC

Mon

ster

a ad

anso

nii v

ar. k

lotz

schi

ana

HE

D

Phi

lode

ndro

n cf

. bre

visp

athu

mH

Ed

P. d

efle

xum

HE

cd

P. f

ragr

anti

ssim

umH

Ece

P. l

inna

eiH

Ed

d

P. m

elin

onii

HE

ce

P. r

udge

anum

HE

cc

cc

c

P. s

cand

ens

HE

cDcD

D

P. s

urin

amen

seH

Ec

cc

c

Spa

thip

hyllu

m c

anni

foli

umH

e?

Ara

liace

ae S

chef

fler

a m

orot

oton

i **

Tbc

dfbd

f

Ari

stol

ochi

acea

e A

rist

oloc

hia

daem

onin

oxia

Ld

Big

noni

acea

e C

erat

ophy

tum

tetr

agon

olob

usL

b

Jac

aran

da c

opai

a su

bsp.

spe

ctab

ilis

**T

bce

bce

bb

Man

soa

kere

reL

b

Par

abig

noni

a st

eyer

mar

kii

Lb

4.7

App

endi

x

130

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Big

noni

acea

e S

chle

geli

a vi

olac

eaL

d

Tab

ebui

a in

sign

is v

ar. m

onop

hyll

a **

TB

CD

bCD

bCD

Bom

baca

ceae

Cat

oste

mm

a co

mm

une

**T

Bcd

Bcd

Bc

Bc

Cei

ba p

enta

ndra

Tce

Pac

hira

aqu

atic

aT

cDcD

cD

Bor

agin

acea

e C

ordi

a no

dosa

SaD

aDd

dd

C. s

eric

ical

yxT

acac

C. t

etra

ndra

Tac

acac

Bur

sera

ceae

Pro

tium

dec

andr

um *

*T

bcde

bcde

bc

P. g

uian

ense

*T

bb

bc

P. h

epta

phyl

lum

ssp

. hep

taph

yllu

m *

TA

bc

P. u

nifo

liol

atum

*T

bc

Tet

raga

stri

s al

tiss

ima

**T

abf

abf

Tra

ttin

nick

ia c

f. la

wra

ncei

v. b

oliv

iana

*T

bc

T. b

urse

rifo

lia

Tc

Cec

ropi

acea

e C

ecro

pia

pelta

taT

cDcD

D

C. s

ciad

ophy

lla

Tce

ceD

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

131

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Cec

ropi

acea

e P

ouro

uma

guia

nens

is s

ubsp

. g

uian

ensi

sT

cc

c

Cel

astr

acea

e G

oupi

a gl

abra

**

Tbd

bdbd

bd

May

tenu

s cf

. guy

anen

sis

Td

??

Chr

ysob

alan

acea

e C

ouep

ia p

aril

loT

bFbF

Hir

tella

rac

emos

a va

r. r

acem

osa

*T

b

Lic

ania

alb

a **

TF

FF

FF

L. h

eter

omor

pha

var.

per

plex

ans

TF

Fbd

FF

L. i

ncan

aT

F

L. k

unth

iana

Te

L. m

icra

ntha

Tbf

L. p

ersa

udii

Tbf

bf

Lic

ania

sp.

(T

VA

2324

)T

F

Lic

ania

sp.

(T

VA

2332

)T

F

Par

inar

i rod

olph

ii *

*T

dFdF

dF

Com

bret

acea

e C

ombr

etum

cac

ouci

aL

c

Ter

min

alia

cf.

am

azon

ia *

*T

bb

T. d

icho

tom

a **

Tb

4.7

App

endi

x

132

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Con

volv

ulac

eae

Mar

ipa

scan

dens

L?

a

Cos

tace

ae C

ostu

s ar

abic

usS

De

Cos

tus

eryt

hrot

hyrs

usS

aD

Cos

tus

scab

erS

AD

Cyc

lant

hace

ae A

splu

ndia

cf.

gle

ason

iiH

Ec

c

Evo

dian

thus

funi

fer

ssp.

funi

fer

HE

cc

cc

Tho

raco

carp

us b

isse

ctus

HE

BC

BC

BC

BC

eB

Ce

BC

eB

Ce

Cyp

erac

eae

Scl

eria

sec

ans

He

e

Dic

hape

tala

ceae

Tap

ura

guia

nens

isT

??

b

Dill

enia

ceae

Dav

illa

kun

thii

LaD

aDe

aDe

Dol

ioca

rpus

cf.

den

tatu

sL

aD

Pin

zona

cor

iace

aL

D

Pin

zona

sp.

(T

VA

2509

)L

DD

Dill

enia

ceae

Tet

race

ra v

olub

ilis

ssp

. vol

ubil

isL

aDaD

aDaD

aD

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

133

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Dry

opte

rida

ceae

Cyc

lodi

um m

enis

cioi

des

var.

men

isci

oide

sH

Ed

dd

dd

Dry

opte

rida

ceae

Pol

ybot

rya

caud

ata

HE

dd

Ebe

nace

ae D

iosp

yros

gui

anen

sis

subs

p. g

uian

ensi

s *

Tac

c

D. t

etra

ndra

T?

??

a

Ela

eoca

rpac

eae

Slo

anea

gra

ndif

lora

Te

ee

S. c

f. g

uian

ensi

sT

?c

c

S. l

atif

olia

Tf

c

S. o

btus

ifol

ia *

Tbc

Ery

trox

ylac

eae

Ery

trox

ylum

mac

roph

yllu

mT

bb

?

Eup

horb

iace

ae A

lcho

rneo

psis

flor

ibun

da *

Tf

b

Cha

etoc

arpu

s sc

hom

burg

kian

us *

Tb

bdf

bdf

Hye

roni

ma

alch

orne

oide

s va

r. s

tipu

losa

**T

BB

BB

C

H. o

blon

ga *

T?

?b

bb

Mab

ea p

irir

iT

dd

dbc

bc

Map

roun

ea g

uian

ensi

sT

d

4.7

App

endi

x

134

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Eup

horb

iace

ae P

era

glab

rata

*T

b

San

dwit

hia

guia

nens

is *

T?

??

bcbc

Sap

ium

jenm

anii

Te

Sne

feld

era

sp. (

TV

A13

69)

Tb

Flac

ourt

iace

ae C

asea

ria

aff.

acu

min

ata

Td

C. j

avit

ensi

sT

??

bfbf

Lae

tia

proc

era

**T

Fb

Ges

neri

acea

e C

odon

anth

e cr

assi

folia

HE

d

Gra

min

ae O

lyra

long

ifoli

aH

ee

?

Gut

tife

rae

Cal

ophy

llum

bra

sili

ense

*T

B

Clu

sia

gran

difl

ora

HE

acD

eac

De

aCD

aCD

aCD

C. p

alm

icid

aH

Eac

DaC

DaC

DaC

DaC

D

Sym

phon

ia g

lobu

life

ra *

*T

BC

DB

CD

BC

DB

CD

Tov

omit

a cf

. bre

vist

amin

eaT

abef

abef

T. c

alod

icty

los

Tcf

T. c

f. o

bscu

raT

acf

acf

c

T. s

chom

burg

kii

Tbc

bc

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

135

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Gut

tife

rae

Vis

mia

gui

anen

sis

TB

V. m

acro

phyl

laT

Df

Hae

mod

orac

eae

Xip

hidi

um c

aeru

leum

Hd

Hum

iria

ceae

Hum

iria

bal

sam

ifer

a va

r. b

alsa

mif

era

**T

Bef

Bef

Hum

iria

stru

m o

bova

tum

*T

abf

Hum

iria

ceae

Saco

glot

tis

aff.

cyd

onio

ides

Td

Lau

race

ae A

niba

cf.

gui

anen

sis

*T

BB

B

A.h

ostm

anni

ana

*T

B

A. j

enm

anii

*T

BB

A. c

f. k

appl

eri *

TB

A. c

f. r

ipar

ia *

TB

B

A. c

f. te

rmin

alis

*T

B

Ani

ba s

p. (

TV

A98

8) *

TB

Nec

tand

ra c

f. c

uspi

data

*T

Bf

Oco

tea

cern

ua *

TB

B

O. s

chom

burg

kian

a *

Tf

Bc

Bc

Bc

Bc

4.7

App

endi

x

136

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Lau

race

ae O

. sp

lend

ens

*T

Bf

BB

O. t

omen

tell

a *

TB

BB

Lec

ythi

dace

ae E

schw

eile

ra a

lata

**

TB

E. d

ecol

oran

s **

TB

c

E. s

agot

iana

**

TB

ceB

C

E. w

ache

nhei

mii

**

TB

cB

cB

cB

cB

c

Esc

hwei

lera

sp.

(T

VA

2144

.)T

B

Lec

ythi

s cf

. cha

rtac

ea *

TB

cB

c

L. c

orru

gata

sub

sp. c

orru

gata

**

TB

EB

cde

Bcd

e

L. z

abuc

ajo

**T

AB

eA

Be

AB

cA

Bc

Lec

ythi

s sp

. (T

VA

2380

) *

TB

c

Leg

.- C

aesa

lp.

Bau

hini

a gu

iane

nsis

LD

DD

DD

B. s

cala

-sim

aeL

DD

Bro

wne

a la

tifo

lia

Tae

fab

D

Dic

oryn

ia c

f. g

uian

ensi

sT

c

Epe

rua

falc

ata

**T

BB

E. r

ubig

inos

a va

r. r

ubig

inos

a **

TB

Hym

enae

a co

urba

ril *

*T

AB

cD

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

137

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Leg

.- C

aesa

lp.

Mac

rolo

bium

cf.

ang

usti

foli

um *

Tbc

Mor

a ex

cels

a **

TaB

daB

dB

cB

c

Pel

togy

ne v

enos

a su

bsp.

ven

osa

**T

Bc

Scl

erol

obiu

m m

icro

peta

lum

**

Te

e

Sen

na m

ulti

juga

var

. mul

tiju

gaT

efef

Tac

higa

li p

anic

ulat

a *

Tb

Leg

.- M

imos

. A

bare

ma

jupu

nba

v. tr

apez

ifoli

a **

Tbc

bcbc

bc

Hyd

roch

orea

cf.

cor

ymbo

saT

bf

Ing

a cf

. acr

eana

Ta

I. c

f. a

croc

epha

laT

aa

I. a

lba

**T

aBC

deaB

Cde

bcbc

I. c

apit

ata

Ta

aa

a

I. e

duli

sT

Af

Af

Af

I. g

raci

lifl

ora

Taf

afa

a

I. h

uber

iT

aab

ab

I. c

f. ja

vaT

a

I. l

ater

iflo

raT

acd

acd

I. l

eioc

alyc

ina

Taf

I. m

argi

nata

Ta

aa

I. m

elin

onis

Taf

af

4.7

App

endi

x

138

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Leg

.- M

imos

. I

. pez

izif

era

TA

f

I. r

ubig

inos

aT

afaf

a

I. s

plen

dens

Taf

af

I. t

hiba

udia

na s

ubsp

. thi

baud

iana

Taf

a

I. u

mbe

llif

era

Taf

Ing

a sp

. (T

VA

2283

)T

a

Ing

a sp

. (T

VA

2463

)T

a M

acro

sam

anea

pub

iram

ea v

ar.

pub

iram

eaT

cde

cde

Pen

tacl

ethr

a m

acro

loba

TbD

fbD

fbD

fbD

ebD

ebD

ebD

ef

Zyg

ia c

atar

acta

eT

cd

Z. l

atif

olia

var

. com

mun

isT

bdf

d

Leg

.- P

apil.

Ale

xa im

pera

tric

is *

*T

dede

debd

bd C

lath

rotr

opis

bra

chyp

etal

a v

ar. b

rach

ypet

ala

**T

bDbD

bDbd

bdbd

Dio

clea

sca

bra

Lcd

ecd

ecd

e

Dip

lotr

opis

pur

pure

a **

TB

B

Dip

tery

x od

orat

a **

Tc

Hym

enol

obiu

m fl

avum

**

Td

Mac

haer

ium

qui

nata

Lc

c?

?

Orm

osia

coc

cine

a **

Tbe

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

139

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Leg

.- P

apil.

O. n

obil

isT

e P

tero

carp

us o

ffic

inal

is s

ubsp

. o

ffic

inal

isT

cde

cde

ce

Sw

artz

ia g

uian

ensi

sT

bfbf

bf

Vat

aire

a gu

iane

nsis

**

Td

Log

ania

ceae

Str

ychn

os m

itsc

herl

ichi

i var

. m

itsc

herl

ichi

iL

adad

D

Mal

pigh

iace

ae B

yrso

nim

a ae

rugo

TaF

Byr

soni

ma

stip

ulac

eaT

AF

Spa

chea

ele

gans

Te

Mar

anta

ceae

Isc

hnos

ipho

n ar

oum

aS

Ce

BC

de

I. f

olio

sus

Sce

cece

cde

cde

I. o

bliq

uus

Sce

Isc

hnos

ipho

n sp

. (T

VA

3016

)S

e

Mar

anta

sp.

(T

VA

2217

)H

e

Mon

otag

ma

spic

atum

He

Mar

cgra

viac

eae

Mar

cgra

via

cori

acea

Ld

Nor

ante

a gu

iane

nsis

Ld

4.7

App

endi

x

140

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Mel

asto

mat

acea

e B

ellu

cia

gros

sula

rioi

des

TA

cfA

cf

Cli

dem

ia ja

pure

nsis

var

. jap

uren

sis

Sa

a

Hen

riet

tea

cf. m

ulti

flor

aT

a

Lea

ndra

div

aric

ata

Hae

?

Lor

eya

mes

pili

oide

st

a

Mic

onia

cer

amic

arpa

v. c

eram

icar

paS

a

M. f

ragi

lis

Tbf

M. n

ervo

saS

a

M. c

f. r

acem

osa

Sa

Mel

iace

ae C

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

**

TB

CD

eB

CD

eB

CD

eB

CD

BC

DB

CD

Ced

rela

odo

rata

**

TB

C

Gua

rea

cf. g

uido

nia

TdF

Tri

chil

ia r

ubra

Tac

T. s

chom

burg

kii s

ubsp

. sch

ombu

rgki

iT

BC

bcbc

Men

ispe

rmac

eae

Cur

area

can

dica

nsL

D

Ort

omen

e sc

hom

burg

kii

La

Tel

itox

icum

sp.

(T

VA

1265

)L

d

Mon

imia

ceae

Sip

arun

a gu

iane

nsis

SD

eD

e

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

141

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Mor

acea

e B

rosi

mum

gui

anen

se *

TC

Fic

us m

axim

aT

e

F. p

arae

nsis

Tcd

e

F. v

s ro

raim

ensi

sT

cd

Mus

acea

e H

elic

onia

acu

min

ata

var.

acu

min

ata

Se

e

Myr

isti

cace

ae I

ryan

ther

a ju

ruen

sis

*T

bdbd

bd

Vir

ola

calo

phyl

la *

Tbd

V. e

long

ata

*T

bdf

bdf

bb

V. s

ebife

raT

bdbd

V. s

urin

amen

sis

**T

bdbd

bd

Myr

sina

ceae

Cyb

iant

hus

cf. s

urin

amen

sis

*T

b

Sty

logy

ne s

urin

amen

seT

ac

Myr

tace

ae C

alyc

olpu

s go

ethe

anus

Tad

f

Cal

yptr

anth

es s

p. (

TV

A22

39)

Taf

Eug

enia

pat

risi

iT

AC

AC

Mar

lier

ea m

onta

naT

AF

M. s

chom

burg

kian

aT

aCab

cfab

cf

4.7

App

endi

x

142

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Myr

tace

ae M

yrci

a gr

acil

iflo

raT

abcf

M. c

f. g

uian

ensi

s va

r. g

uian

ensi

s *

Tab

f

Nyc

tagi

nace

ae N

eea

cf. c

onst

rict

aT

a

Nee

a cf

. flo

ribu

nda

Taf

Och

nace

ae O

urat

ea g

uian

ensi

sT

bb

Orc

hida

ceae

Epi

dend

rum

anc

eps

Ee

Palm

ae A

stro

cary

um a

cule

atum

TA

Ce

A. g

ynac

anth

umT

Ad

ac

Bac

tris

cam

pest

ris

Tc

c

B. h

umil

isS

bcbc

cc

B. o

ligo

clad

aS

aa

aa

B. s

impl

icif

rons

Sa

Des

mon

cus

poly

acan

thos

Lac

c

Eut

erpe

ole

race

aT

Ab

Ab

AB

cde

E. p

reca

tori

aT

aBab

e

Geo

nom

a ba

culi

fera

SaB

G. m

axim

aS

b?

Jes

seni

a ba

taua

sub

sp. o

ligo

carp

aT

Ab

Ab

Abc

e

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

143

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Palm

ae M

auri

tia fl

exuo

saT

aBce

f

Max

imil

iana

mar

ipa

TA

bce

Abc

e

Pass

iflo

race

ae P

assi

flor

a ga

rcke

iL

a

P. c

f. la

urif

olia

LD

P. n

itid

aL

ad

Pipe

race

ae P

eper

omia

rot

undi

foli

aH

Ee

Pip

er a

vell

anum

SD

P. v

s. b

erbi

cens

eS

d

P. h

ostm

anni

anum

SD

P. n

igri

spic

umS

?D

Poly

gona

ceae

Coc

colo

ba d

ensi

fron

sS

aa

C. m

argi

nata

Sad

Qui

inac

eae

Qui

ina

guia

nens

isT

aCaC

??

Q. i

ndig

ofer

aT

bcf

bcf

bb

Rap

atea

ceae

Rap

atea

pal

udos

a va

r. p

alud

osa

Hbd

d

4.7

App

endi

x

144

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Rub

iace

ae A

mai

oua

cory

mbo

sa *

Ta

A. g

uian

ensi

sT

abf

abf

Dur

oia

erio

pila

var

. eri

opil

aS

aa

Far

amea

aff

. gui

anen

sis

Sa

a

Geo

phila

rep

ens

Hd

Gon

zala

guni

a di

cocc

aS

a

Pos

oque

ria

long

iflo

raT

?be

Psy

chot

ria

bahi

ensi

s va

r. c

orni

gera

Sa

P. p

oepp

igia

na v

ar. b

arce

llan

aS

d

Sab

icea

gla

bres

cens

Lad

e

Unc

aria

gui

anen

sis

La

d

Rub

iace

ae s

p. (

TV

A11

73)

Sa

Sapi

ndac

eae

Allo

phyl

us r

acem

osus

Tb

Cup

ania

hir

suta

Tf

fbF

C. s

crob

icul

ata

var.

ret

icul

ata

TaB

FaB

F

Mat

ayba

cam

pton

eura

Tb

M. g

uian

ensi

s *

Tb

Pau

llin

ia c

f. c

apre

olat

aL

dd

??

Tal

isia

cf.

gui

anen

sis

Tc

?

T. h

exap

hyll

aT

c?

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

145

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Sapi

ndac

eae

Sap

inda

ceae

sp.

(T

VA

3056

)L

c

Sapo

tace

ae C

hrys

ophy

llum

arg

ente

um s

ubsp

. a

urat

umT

a

C. s

angu

inol

atum

Tc

Mic

roph

olis

ven

ulos

a *

Taf

afaf

?ab

c

Pou

teri

a bi

locu

lari

sT

aa

P. c

aim

itot

aa

P. c

f. c

oria

cea

TA

P. c

uspi

data

**

TA

BA

Ba

P. d

urla

ndii

Tab

cd

P. g

uian

ensi

s **

TA

bA

bA

bA

bcA

bc

P. h

ispi

daT

ac

P. v

enos

a su

bsp.

am

azon

ica

TA

Pra

dosi

a sc

hom

burg

kian

a su

bsp.

sch

ombu

rgki

ana

TD

Schi

zaea

ceae

Lyg

odiu

m v

olub

ile

LD

Sela

gine

llace

ae S

elag

inel

la p

arke

riH

e

Sim

arou

bace

ae S

imar

ouba

am

ara

TB

4.7

App

endi

x

146

Fam

ilies

Spec

ies

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Bar

ama

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Mor

uca

Ass

akat

aM

ixed

fore

st20

-yea

rse

cond

ary

Mor

afo

rest

Mix

edfo

rest

60-y

ear

seco

ndar

yQ

uack

alsw

amp

Man

icol

esw

amp

Car

ibC

arib

Car

ibA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

akA

raw

ak

Smila

cace

ae S

mil

ax s

chom

burg

kian

aL

aDce

Ster

culia

ceae

Her

rani

a ka

nuku

ensi

sS

A

Ste

rcul

ia p

ruri

ens

var.

pru

rien

s **

TC

C

Ste

rcul

ia s

p. (

TV

A17

53)

TC

Ste

rcul

ia s

p. (

TV

A23

72)

Tc

Tili

acea

e A

peib

a pe

toum

oT

bdef

bdef

f

Ver

bena

ceae

Vit

ex c

ompr

essa

Tf

fc

Vio

lace

ae P

aypa

yrol

a lo

ngif

olia

Tbf

bfbf

??

?

Zin

gibe

race

ae C

urcu

ma

cf. x

anth

orrh

iza

HA

d

Ren

ealm

ia a

lpin

iaS

cDe

R. o

rino

cenc

isS

cde

cde


147

5. COMMERCIAL EXTRACTION OF PALM HEARTS1

By T.R. van Andel, K.C.A. Bröker and P.E. Huyskens

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Palm heart from Euterpe oleracea Mart. is the most important non-timber forestproduct of vegetal origin in Guyana. This multi-stemmed palm species, knownlocally as ‘manicole’, grows in large numbers in the brackish coastal wetlands ofGuyana, and particularly in the country’s North-West District. The heart of this palmconsists of the young, rolled leaves in the crownshaft that have not yet been exposedto sunlight. This palm heart or ‘cabbage’ is consumed raw or cooked and isconsidered a delicacy in both Europe and the United States. Although several palmspecies have edible hearts, E. oleracea is the world’s main source (Strudwick, 1990).This species is widely distributed in the swamplands of northern South America andattains the greatest concentrations in the Amazon estuary (Henderson and Galeano,1996). Because of its frequency and clonal, self-regenerative habit, E. oleracea isable to support a large palm heart industry in Brazil, worth US$ 120 million annuallyin domestic consumption and export value (Strudwick and Sobel, 1988).

An individual clump (genet) of E. oleracea may have up to 25 stems (ramets) ofdifferent ages, each of which can attain a height of 20 m and a diameter of 18 cm. Aprominent crownshaft is formed when a stem reaches maturity. Young shoots sproutfrom buds in the clump (Wessels Boer, 1965; Henderson and Galeano, 1996). Thisclustered growth form is characteristic of palms growing in wet or saline conditions(Hallé et al., 1978). E. oleracea becomes dominant in hydrologically stressedbiotopes that are subject to periodic, tidal-driven inundation (Anderson and Jardim,1989). Even when a stem is felled for its palm heart, the individual clump willsurvive. The basal sprouts eventually grow into harvestable stems in about fouryears. Since E. oleracea is locally abundant and regenerates quickly after harvesting,it is relatively easy to extract palm hearts in an ecologically sustainable way(Calzavara, 1972; Anderson, 1988; Strudwick, 1990; Pollak et al., 1995). Theextraction of palm hearts (and other NTFPs) is considered sustainable if it has nolong-term deleterious effect on the regeneration of the population and the yieldremains more or less constant throughout the years. Sustainability involves anequilibrium between harvesting and growth (Strudwick, 1990; Hall and Bawa, 1993;Pollak et al., 1995).

1. A more extensive version of this chapter was published as a Tropenbos-Interim report: van Andel, T.R.,Huyskens, P.E. and K.C.A. Bröker. 1998. Palm heart harvesting in Guyana’s Northwest District:Exploitation and Regeneration of Euterpe oleracea swamp forests. Tropenbos-Guyana Interim Report98-1. Utrecht University.

5. Commercial extraction of palm hearts

148

However, repeated harvesting with short rotation periods (high harvest pressure) maylead to the weakening of the individual clump and a slower regeneration (Pollak etal., 1995). These authors found that harvesting at short intervals (1-2 years) in Brazilcaused clump mortality and a steady decline in production, while harvesting atlonger intervals (4-5 years) caused less damage to the Euterpe population andproduced a higher palm heart yield. The felling of mature stems may also affect thefish and bird populations that depend on Euterpe fruits for food (Johnson, 1995).

The study was carried out in the only concession for palm heart in Guyana. In 1990,the Company obtained a concession of 47,935 hectares for a period of 20 years fromthe Guyana Forestry Commission (G. Marshall, pers. comm.). They set up a canningfactory at Drum Hill, Barima River, (7° 52' N, 59° 25' W), located in the centre of theEuterpe-dominated swamp forests of the North-West District (Figure 5.1). TheCompany started with commercial production in 1989 and established a network ofagents in the areas where harvesting takes place. Independent ‘cabbage cutters’ selltheir harvest to these agents, who then pile up the palm hearts on makeshift platformson the riverbanks and sell them to the Company for a slightly higher price. TheCompany operates several boats, which travel along the main rivers according to awell-known schedule to collect palm hearts from the agents’ camps (Figure 5.1).Euterpe is not cultivated anywhere in Guyana; all extraction takes place in naturalvegetation. Extractors are given the choice to either sell their palm hearts orexchange them for food and basic commodities (e.g., soap, machetes, kerosene,clothes, and cigarettes). As the Company supplies these goods at prices much lowerthan the local shops, bartering is very inviting. Commodities are transported bycompany boats and distributed among the agents when cabbage is collected. Peoplenot involved in palm heart harvesting are not allowed to buy these subsidisedprovisions (Johnson, 1995).

In 1994, the Company processed about 20,000 palm cabbages per day, six days aweek. More than six million stems were felled that year. In 1995, export revenueswere just over US$ 2 million (NGMC, 1996). The estimated number of cutters thatyear was about 600. All worked on a freelance basis, as the Company did not employpeople to harvest palm hearts. The average cutter was estimated to produce 90 to 100cabbages a day. At the factory, there were approximately 150 employees, 80 ofwhom were directly employed in the processing plant (Johnson, 1995). The majorityof the palm hearts was (and still is) exported to France (NGMC, 1996, 1997).

Over the past decade, several researchers have started to question the ecologicalsustainability of palm heart harvesting in Brazil (Anderson and Jardim, 1989; Peterset al., 1989; Kahn and de Granville, 1992; Pollak et al., 1995). Furthermore, theyhave recommended several protection measures to guarantee a continuous supply ofpalm hearts in the future. For example, Euterpe populations should be allowed toregenerate for no less than four years between subsequent harvests (Calzavara,1972), and at least one mature stem per cluster should be left intact to increase thechances of survival and the growth of new stems (Anderson, 1988). Other measuresinclude careful cutting techniques to protect young stems and suckers (Calzavara,1972), selective thinning of forest competitors (Anderson, 1988), minimum sizeregulations (Pollak et al., 1995), and sufficient control over harvested areas,following a strict management plan (Strudwick, 1990). It seems, however, that only a


149

handful of factories in Brazil have adapted their extraction techniques according tothese recommendations (Anderson, 1988; Pollak et al., 1995).

After a one-week field study on the ecological impact of palm heart harvesting inGuyana, Johnson (1995) recommended several of the above-mentioned measures tothe Company. He further urged for a ban on the extraction of the single-stemmedEuterpe precatoria, a palm at first glance very similar to E. oleracea. Not only is E.precatoria unable to produce new shoots from its root system after being felled, butit also grows very slowly and takes more than 50 years to reach maturity (Peña andZuidema, 1999). The Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC) has repeatedly asked theCompany to conform to the policy of sustainable harvesting (Sunday Chronicle,1993; Forte, 1995), but to date no management plan has been published.

The successful commercial extraction of NTFPs (including palm hearts) should notonly be ecologically sound and economically viable, but also socially and politicallyacceptable (Ros-Tonen et al., 1995). Previous research in the North-West Districtsuggested that socio-economic conditions determine the underlying driving factors ofpalm heart harvesting (Forte, 1995; G. Ford, pers. comm.). The Company wasfrequently blamed in the Guyanese media for ‘indiscriminate cutting practices’,‘destruction of manicole swamps’, and ‘low rates of pay’ (Catholic Standard, 1993a,1993b; Sunday Chronicle, 1993). Extractors have complained that they have to travellonger distances every day to collect sufficient manicole to earn a living, while theprice per cabbage remains the same. In certain areas, people have even considered tocease cutting as it is no longer economically viable (Johnson, 1995).

Palm heart harvesting is one of the main sources of income for Amerindians in theNorth-West District. In fact, many villages depend almost entirely on the factory fortheir cash income and food supply, as few other economic opportunities exist in thearea (Forte, 1995; van Andel, 1998). Surpluses from subsistence agriculture arerarely sold, since low market prices seldom cover the transportation costs. Wildlifetrapping provides some additional income, but then only during the official seasonfrom July to December (van Andel, 1998). Other employment options (gold mines,logging operations) are situated deep in the interior, requiring workers to stay awayfrom their families for months (Forte, 1995).

Despite its economic significance, no in-depth scientific research has yet beenconducted on palm heart harvesting in Guyana. In order to learn more about theecological impact of current extraction methods and the socio-economic importanceof the palm heart industry, we carried out a four-month field study in the manicoleswamps of the North-West District. The objective of this pilot study was to obtain ageneral overview of the importance of palm heart harvesting in the region and toprovide baseline data for further research. Specific objectives were not only to assessthe regeneration ability and mortality of E. oleracea under different harvestpressures, but also to identify the main ecological and socio-economic problemsconcerned with the sustainability of the current harvesting system, and to providerecommendations to improve its management.


150

Figure 5.1 Distribution of manicole swamps (dominated by Euterpe oleracea) in the North-West District.Drawing by H.R. Rypkema.


151

The research questions of this pilot study were:

1. What is the extent and ecological impact of palm heart harvesting in the North-West District?

2. Are their significant differences in population structure, reproduction, yield andmortality of Euterpe oleracea between sites with different harvest pressures?

3. Can the current harvesting methods be considered sustainable?4. Is a five-year fallow period sufficient for the regeneration of Euterpe

populations?5. What is the socio-economic importance of palm heart harvesting for Amerindian

communities?6. Which are the underlying causes for overharvesting of palm hearts?

The first findings of the pilot research were published in an interim report (van Andelet al., 1998). The contents of this report were discussed with the Tropenbos-GuyanaProgramme, Utrecht University, the Company and the Guyana Forestry Commission.The majority of their comments have been included in this chapter, which firstlygives an overview of the socio-economic aspects of the palm heart industry, andsecondly elaborates on the ecological impact of harvesting on Euterpe populations.Finally, some recommendations are given for a better management of this valuableresource.

The present study is intended to provide a source of information to Governmentagencies, the Company, (indigenous) NGOs, Amerindian village leaders, and thecabbage cutters themselves. As the reader will discover, the results challenge allparties to improve the conditions for successful palm heart extraction in such a waythat the conservation of the coastal swamps is guaranteed, while ensuring a steadyincome for the people of Guyana’s northwestern forests.

5.2 METHODOLOGY

5.2.1 Climate and topography The climate of the North-West District is wet tropical with an average precipitationof 2750 mm per year and a mean annual temperature of 26.5 ºC (Ramdass, 1990).There is a distinct dry season from February to April, while rainfall is at its greatestfrom May to July. The coastal area is characterised by extensive brackish swamps,which are subject to both seasonal and diurnal flooding. These swamps arecomposed of palm marsh forests dominated by Euterpe oleracea. These forests growon peat soils underlain by a clay layer that inhibits drainage. These so-called‘pegasse’ soils fluctuate in moisture and salt condition, but remain waterlogged formost of the year. Detailed descriptions of the floristic composition and the usefulplants of Euterpe–dominated swamps are given in chapter 3.

5.2.2 Field inventoriesEcological aspects The four-month pilot study was carried out from November 1997 to February 1998.To assess the ecological impact of palm heart extraction on Euterpe populations, we


152

compared vegetation structure, regeneration, and presence of dead clumps betweenareas with high and those with low harvest intensity. Our methodology was based ona study by Pollak et al. (1995), who compared sites with a harvesting cycle of 1-2years (high harvest pressure) to sites with a fallow period of 4-5 years (low harvestpressure) on the island of Marajó in the Brazilian Amazon. Areas with fallow periodslonger than two years were not found in Guyana, because extractors usually returnedto the same part of the forest after one or two years to harvest again. Therefore, alow-pressure site (LP) was defined as an area that had been harvested once or twice,while a high-pressure site (HP) was an area where extraction had taken place morethan two times. In other words, the number of consecutive harvests (the history ofextraction) defined the harvest pressure, instead of the length of the fallow periods. A total of nine plots were laid out, distributed over the coastal swamp region (Figure5.1). The names and locations of the sites are given in Table 5.1. The plots wereestablished near seven Amerindian villages where palm heart harvesting was the mainsource of income. The villages were selected according to their history of involvementwith the palm heart industry, after consulting the Company and local cabbage cutters,and studying the existing literature (Forte, 1995; Johnson, 1995). On two occasions,more than one plot was established per village (Koriabo and Lower Kaituma),because both high and low harvest pressure areas were present. Plot sites werechosen in areas where people had recently been harvesting. Each plot had beenharvested shortly before the measurements were taken. A previously undisturbedmanicole swamp (Bullet Tree, no pressure, NP) was used as a control.

To get an idea of the amount of palm hearts extracted from a virgin swamp undernormal circumstances, an area of 200 x 10 m was experimentally harvested in thecontrol plot after the measurements had been taken on the undisturbed vegetation.Cutters were asked to fell palms as if they were working for themselves, and wereobserved during their work. The weight and size of harvested palm hearts weremeasured and the yield was extrapolated to one hectare.

Table 5.1 Location and size of the nine plots and number of consecutive harvests.

Harvest pressure Siteno.

Village River Location No. of harvests

Plot size [ha]

No Pressure 1 Bullet Tree Waini 8° 05’ N 59° 21’ W 0 0.3

Low Pressure 2 Assakata Assakata 7° 44’ N 59° 04’ W 2 0.3

Low Pressure 3 Koriabo Barima 7° 37’ N 59° 38’ W 1 0.3

Low Pressure 4 Warapoka Waini 7° 48’ N 59° 15’ W 2 0.3

Low Pressure 5 Lower Kaituma Kaituma 8° 07’ N 59° 40’ W 1 0.15

High Pressure 6 Lower Kaituma Kaituma 8° 07’ N 59° 40’ W 3 0.15

High Pressure 7 Red Hill Barima 7° 52’ N 59° 26’ W 6 0.3

High Pressure 8 Black Water Barima 8° 05’ N 59° 28’ W 6 0.3

High Pressure 9 Koriabo Barima 7° 37’ N 59° 38’ W 3-4 0.3


153

Seven of the nine plots had a surface area of 3000 m2 (300 x 10 m) and two a size of1500 m2 (150 x 10 m, see paragraph 5.3.8). The total area sampled was 2.4 hectares.The following measurements were taken in each plot:

• Diameter at breast height (DBH) of all stems ≥ 2 m.• Diameter of harvested stems.• Number of E. oleracea clumps with at least one living stem ≥ 2 m.• Number of dead clumps.• Height of living clumps (from forest floor to stem base).• Number of reproductive stems of E. oleracea and E. precatoria.• Number of living and dead suckers per clump.

The height of living stems ≥ 2 m was estimated. Stems below 2 m were consideredsuckers. Similar measurements were carried out in a nursery owned by the canningfactory. This nursery had been planted five years previously to study the growth anddevelopment of E. oleracea in cultivation. Data were taken from about half thenursery, with a total of 86 clumps and 234 stems (dead and alive).

Four causes of E. oleracea stem death could be distinguished (Figure 5.2):

1) Cut for cabbage (harvested trunks were recognized by their slant surface). 2) Cut for clearing (suckers and young stems cleared away in order to reach the mature stems). 3) Dead by felling other stems (stems broken by falling trunks). 4) Natural mortality (visible as long bare stems without a crown). In order to get an idea about the recruitment of young Euterpe palms, the number ofseedlings (< 1.50 m) of both E. oleracea and E. precatoria were counted in subplotsof 2 x 2 m in every 100 m section of the plot. The total sample area for seedlings wasthus 12 m2 per plot. Fertile specimens were collected of all palm species harvestedfor palm heart. Duplicates were deposited at the Herbarium of the University ofGuyana (BRG) and the Utrecht branch of the National Herbarium of the Netherlands(U). Euterpe specimens were identified by palm specialist A. Henderson of the NewYork Botanical Garden Herbarium (NY).

Since clump mortality has been mentioned as a clear sign of overharvesting (Pollak etal., 1995), the numbers of dead clumps in the study plots were compared with thosein the control plot. A clump from which all stems and suckers have been removed maystill be alive, even though no living sprouts are visible. Its root system might havesufficient food reserves to produce new suckers from dormant buds. Theoretically then,there is a small chance that one sucker could turn a clump into a vital individual again(Hallé et al., 1978). However, this chance seemed to be so minute that we defined adead clump as an individual without any visible remains of living sprouts.


154

Figure 5.2 Euterpe oleracea

Socio-economical aspectsIn order to gain information on the socio-economic aspects of palm heart harvesting inlocal communities, we employed two extractors in each village to act as localinformants and assist with the fieldwork. Informal interviews were held with theseinformants, their families and several other people involved in palm heart extraction.Several topics were included in these interviews: the role of palm heart harvesting indaily life, other available means of cash income, subsistence activities (hunting,fishing, farming), harvesting techniques, types of palm heart collected, dailyproduction and earnings (mean and maximum), number of consecutive harvests in theplotted areas, relations with agents and the company, availability of palm hearts inthe area, and the distance to extraction sites. Following participatory researchmethods (Martin, 1995), we accompanied several extractors in the field to observetheir daily work. In total we questioned more than 40 extractors.


155

Additionally, several agents were interviewed to gather data on the number ofextractors in the area, selection criteria for palm hearts, availability of the resource, andthe relations with extractors and the Company. Piles of accepted and rejected palmhearts were counted and measured. The canning factory at Drum Hill was visited onseveral occasions to interview factory workers, boat drivers, and managementpersonnel. The Company offered us a guided tour through the factory compound, to beable to study the canning process. The staff in Drum Hill supplied unpublished data onexport volumes and quantities of palm heart collected per river. Meetings were heldwith members of the Company management in Georgetown, as well as a representativeof the Guyana Forestry Commission. The outcomes of these interviews were cross-checked and discussed with the Company management, the extractors, and severalanthropologists working in the North-West District at the time of our research (J.Forte, M. Reinders, and G. Ford).

Export and production data were compiled from the annual reports of the NewGuyana Marketing Cooperation (1996, 1997, 1998), the Guyana ForestryCommission and unpublished Company data. Throughout the chapter, monetaryvalues obtained in Guyana currency were converted into US dollars, using theofficial exchange rate in January 1998 (US$ 1 = G$ 142).

5.2.3 Data processing and statistical analysis In contrast to other palm species, Euterpe palms do show some secondary diametergrowth. In their Brazilian study, Pollak et al. (1995) found an allometric relationbetween the height and DBH of a stem and the diameter and weight of its palm heart.To see whether their equations were also valid for Guyanese E. oleracea populations,a sample of 66 stems of varying age was felled. Total length and DBH weremeasured, as were crownshaft diameters with all leaf sheaths, with only three sheaths(as transported to the factory), and without sheaths (as found in a can). A linearmultiple regression was used to test the newly found correlations. The slopes andintercepts of the equations were compared with the formulas by Pollak et al. Afterstatistically analysing these equations, one of the formulas fit our data in such a waythat it was used unaltered: Palm heart weight [g] = 27.255 * (palm heart diameter [cm])2 + 37.517 * palm heart

diameter - 16.603 (r2 = 0.66; n = 180) The following formulas were derived from our own data: Palm heart diameter [cm] = 0.18 * stem DBH + 0.687(r2 = 0.56; n = 66)

Stem height [m] = 11.7 * (stem DBH [cm])2 + 3.85 * stem DBH - 12.49(r2 = 0.59; n = 66)

Stem height [m] = 0.0284 + 6.01 * palm heart diameter [cm] - 0.15 * (palm heartdiameter)2

(r2 = 0.50; n = 66)


156

Palm heart yield in kg/ha was calculated from the diameters of harvested stems in theextraction sites. The current potential yield, which is derived from standing stock atthe time of measurement, was calculated using the above-mentioned equations of thepalm heart size of mature trees that remained in the plots after harvesting. Assumingthat each remaining mature stem in the plot was able to produce a commercial palmheart, the monetary value of the potential yield for the cutters was assessed using theJanuary 1998 unit price of G$ 8 (US$ 0.056) per cabbage.

Parameter values of the nine plots were averaged first per sample plot, using anunweighed mean. Data were then averaged per pressure category (NP, HP, LP),using a weighed mean, since the numbers of measured palms differed among thesample plots. Because of the great variability in the height and diameter of palms, notonly within the (rather large) plots, but also within one individual clump, we chose touse the palms as the unit of observation. Therefore, the number of measured palmswas taken as N for the stem parameters, and the number of clumps was used as N forthe clump comparisons. Mean values were compared between the pressure groups.Initially, a one-way ANOVA (Heath, 1995; Mead et al., 1995) was applied for theordinal parameters. If significant differences were found, contrasts were used todetect differences between the three pressure categories. A Bonferonni correctionwas used to correct for the number of comparisons made. Since it was not possible touse the one-way ANOVA for the nominal parameters, a Chi-square test (Sokal andRolf, 1995) was applied. The computer programme SPSS (Howitt and Cramer, 1996)was used for all statistical analyses.

5.3 THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING OF PALM HEARTHARVESTING

5.3.1 Types of palm heart harvested in the North-West DistrictLocal people involved in palm heart harvesting distinguish five different ‘types’ ofEuterpe by their habit, palm heart size, and crownshaft colour (Figure 5.3): threemulti-stemmed and two single-stemmed types. The most common multi-stemmedtype is the ‘green manicole’. This type has a bright green crownshaft and is preferredby the canning factory. The rare ‘red manicole’ has an orange-red crownshaft, hardwood, and a soft heart that quickly falls apart in the can. The Company occasionallyaccepts this type. Finally, the ‘savannah manicole’ has a pale yellow crownshaft anda trunk that is difficult to cut. Because of its soft texture, this type of palm heart isseldom harvested. All multi-stemmed types have similar bifid seedlings. Accordingto A. Henderson (pers. comm.), the three multi-stemmed types belong to Euterpeoleracea, but further taxonomic research is needed to see whether they can beconsidered different botanical varieties.

The two single-stemmed types are the common ‘winamoro’ or ‘big green manicole’,easily recognised by its large, bright green crownshaft, and the rare ‘abua’ or ‘dustywinamoro’, with its smaller, darker, drooping leaves and a yellowish-browncrownshaft covered with rusty brown scales. Both types have palmate seedlings andare classified as Euterpe precatoria.


157

They may, however, be considered as different genetic varieties (A. Henderson, pers.comm.). A fully sheathed abua crownshaft weighs about 10 kg and ca. 1 kg when allsheaths are removed.

Figure 5.3 Five different types of palm hearts, from left to right: green manicole, savanna manicole, redmanicole (all three Euterpe oleracea), abua and big green winamoro (Euterpe precatoria).

The heart of a young winamoro (the same size as a mature heart of a green manicole)can only be distinguished from the green manicole by its slightly greener core. TheCompany rejects mature winamoro cabbages, because of their large size and softtexture. Our informants indicated that some cutters try to sell immature winamorohearts, as they are not always recognised by the factory personnel. In general,winamoro and abua are harvested only for subsistence use, just like the hearts ofJessenia bataua subsp. oligocarpa and Maximiliana maripa, other palms growing inthe coastal wetlands.

5.3.2 Extraction techniquesThe following describes a typical extraction operation, based on our observation ofpalm heart harvesters in the field. A palm heart is obtained by cutting an individualstem with a machete and removing the crownshaft from the trunk. The leaves and thecoarse outer layer of the crownshaft are then cut off. The soft edible part of the palmheart lies the centre, surrounded by concentric layers of older leaf sheaths. Petiolestubs and encircling leaf sheaths are sliced along their length, one at a time, so thatthe entire piece can be removed. The procedure is repeated until the two last fibrousleaf sheath cylinders remain (Figure 5.4). These are left to prevent the dehydrationand discoloration of the hearts during transportation from the forest to the factory.


158

The cabbage, now a flexible white cylinder, is reduced to the standard length of 46cm, the length of the iron blade of a standard machete. The bottom of the palm heartis cut off two inches below the actual heart to prevent rotting. Harvesting one palmheart takes about five minutes. When sufficient cabbages are cut, they are tiedtogether in bundles of 25 to 50 and transported by canoe to an agent’s camp. Palmhearts can be stored for about three days before they turn brown and start decaying.

When entering a virgin swamp, cutters prefer to start with medium-sized stems (ca.9-14 cm DBH), as these are the easiest to fell. When there are no more medium-sizedstems, cutters shift to larger stems (DBH > 14 cm), which are harder to cut and oftenhave crowns that are entangled in the canopy. Since stems with ‘fastened’ crownsmay not fall after being chopped, they are usually ignored if there is enoughmanicole to choose from. In virgin swamps and low-pressure areas with large palmresources, cutters usually fell one to four stems per clump and leave the remainingmature stems as they are. Larger palms contain heavier cabbages, which means thatmore weight has to be carried for the same amount of money. When all the largerstems have been removed, cutters will start felling younger stems. These are easier tocut, but run the risk of being rejected because of their small-sized palm heart. Mostextractors said they knew from experience whether a palm heart had the requiredsize, just by looking at its crownshaft. This implies that immature cabbages arehardly ever cut without the cutter’s knowledge. The felling of mature stems oftendamages young manicoles or other small trees.

Figure 5.4 Cutting a palm heart out of a crown shaft.

In addition, some cutters clearyoung stems and suckers aroundthe clump before felling a maturestem. Chain saws are never usedand large trees are hardly everchopped down to facilitate palmheart extraction. Time and energycan be better spent searching forfreestanding manicoles. In siteswith abundant manicole resources,quite some mature palms remain inthe vegetation after the forest isconsidered ‘worked out’ andabandoned. In areas with limitedmanicole resources, however,cutters seem to be felling everymature stem they can find, eventhose with ‘fastened’ crowns.

Sometimes, lianas are cut and smalltrees chopped with axes to liberatecrowns. In heavily harvestedswamps, very few mature stems areleft when the area is abandoned.


159

5.3.3 Selection criteriaAgents act as middlemen between the Company and the cutters. In 1998, they paidthe harvesters US$ 0.056 per palm heart and sold them to the Company for US$0.063. According to a factory manager, the Company only buys fresh, straight palmhearts with a minimum diameter of 20 mm and a maximum of 35 mm. At least threeundeveloped leaves (‘bones’) must be visible in the palm heart. Cabbages with fewerthan three bones, a diameter less than 20 mm or a rotten bottom are rejected, as arethose from the red and yellow manicole, winamoro, and abua. Some of theseunsuitable palm hearts may slip through, as the cabbage boats travel day and nightand selection often takes place in the dark. To avoid the waste of raw material, these‘second-rate’ palm hearts are still processed when they reach the factory. At the timeof our research, arguments among extractors, agents, and boat personnel werereported to be common, especially in the high-pressure areas. Cutters complainedthat cabbages were ‘rejected without reason’, while the factory employees arguedthat extractors ‘tried to cheat the Company’ by selling small or otherwise unsuitablecabbages. Rejected palm hearts were often cooked in stew or fed to domesticanimals.

5.3.4 Provenance of the resourceFigure 5.5 illustrates the provenance of palm hearts collected in 1997. As can beseen, the canning factory obtained the majority of its raw material in this period fromthe Barima and Waini Rivers. Absolute amounts collected per river were presentedin van Andel et al. (1998). Only 2% of the cabbage were brought to the Drum Hillfactory by people living in its immediate surroundings. The bulk of the resource wasbrought in by the five factory boats, each capable of containing some 9000 palmhearts. These vessels travelled day after day throughout the concession to collectpalm hearts and to distribute provisions. They sailed from the Aruka River near theVenezuelan border to the upper Waini River in the southern part of the concession(Figure 5.1).

Aruka8%

Barima38%

Waini27%

Factory2%

Baramanni10%

Aruka-Koriabo

3%

Barima/Koriabo4%

Arawau6%

Morebo1%

Barama1%

Figure 5.5 Percentage of palm heart collected by river in 1997.Source: unpublished Company records (1998).


160

According to the factory management, palm heart resources in the northern part ofthe concession (Aruka and Koriabo Rivers) have sharply declined during the lastcouple of years. The boat personnel confirmed this by saying that sometimes onethird to one half of the cabbage offered for sale by Aruka extractors were rejectedbecause of their size. Travelling to this area, therefore, was considered to be nolonger economically feasible for the Company. Early in 1998, the Company plannedto reduce its purchases from the lower Barima, Arawau, Aruka, and Koriabo Rivers,while intensifying extraction along the Barama, Baramanni, and Waini Rivers.

According to the transport manager, the Company advised people from theoverharvested areas to move to the Waini and built several riverside camps toaccommodate the newcomers. The Waini has the largest remaining Euterperesources of the North-West District, but is rather isolated. In January 1998, therewas still a lack of available workforce, although Aruka cutters were slowlymigrating into the Waini area. The cabbage boats were used to transport bothconstruction material and cabbage cutters.

As the transport manager further explained, some people were willing to ‘movebehind the cabbage’, while others preferred to stay in their homeland. The lattergroup tried to convince the Company to continue its activities in the Aruka River,even though manicole resources had almost been depleted. The only option for theCompany to stay in Aruka was to encourage people to harvest manicole from theSebai area (Figure 5.1). Mature palms were still abundant there, but access to thisriver was limited in the dry season. In 1996, only two households were involved inpalm heart harvesting (Sullivan, 1999). The transport manager said the Companywas willing to pay US$ 0.007 extra per cabbage to cover transport costs. Accordingto Forte (1999a), who attended a community meeting in Sebai in November 1998,the Sebai villagers expressed their concern about the fact that people from the ArukaRiver were increasingly coming over to cut palm hearts near their titled land.

According to recent information (J. Gérin, pers. comm.), the Company stoppedpurchasing cabbages from Koriabo River in 1999. After requests from politicians andAmerindian communities, the Company agreed to buy palm hearts again from Arukaand Hotoquai in mid 1999. The camps along the Koriabo River remained closed. Inthe beginning of 2000, more than 50% of the raw material was coming from theWaini River. More camps had been built for cabbage cutters and their families.

The route of the cabbage boats, therefore, both influences and reflects extractionpatterns. In some areas, for example in Anabisi, Waini, and Barama, people werestimulated to cut palm hearts because the Company promised a regular boat servicethere. In other areas, such as Assakata, extraction already took place and cabbageswere paddled to the nearest camp before a regular boat service was arranged in thatdirection. At the time of our research, some boat routes (e.g., Santa Rosa, MorucaRiver) had already been abandoned due to depletion of the resource.

At a factory meeting in January 1998, a manager announced that there would be noincrease in cabbage production that year. The aim was to keep the annual productionat 6 million palm hearts, which would mean a reduction of 10% compared to 1994-1997. This was decided in order to prevent a further increase in pressure on the


161

swamps. The manager stated that when production at Drum Hill remained at itspresent level, there would be enough palm hearts left for future generations ofcabbage cutters. A new canning factory opened along the Berbice River (easternGuyana) in 1998, in order to meet sudden high demands from the world market.Early 2000, this second factory was producing 3200 cartons of palm heart cans permonth (J. Gérin, pers. comm.).

5.3.5 CanalsThe palm heart cutters we interviewed indicated that they harvested 30 to 200 palmhearts per day, depending on the availability of mature stems, the distance to theextraction site, and the means of transport. Transport by foot strongly limits the dailyharvest, as the bundles of cabbages are rather heavy (20-25 kg), and the water levelin the swamps becomes waist-deep in the rainy season. Felled trunks in the swampsimpede easy movement for the cutters. Extractors usually try to reach into the forestas far as possible by canoe to avoid walking long distances on the swampy ground.They said that although the flooded forest made walking more arduous, the need forcash urged them to continue their work in the wet season. The dry season waspreferred for harvesting, since the accessibility of the swamps was much better.

In order to facilitate access to remote swamps, the Company paid local cutters todeepen some of the forest creeks in several areas along the lower Barima. Cutterswelcomed these canals and used them frequently. Although hardly visible to thecasual visitor, these canals enabled the cutters to go deeper inland, reduce walkingdistances, and transport the harvest by canoe. More palm hearts were cut per day,because the harvest did not have to be carried on the cutter’s back for long distances.This system seems to relieve the pressure on the riparian swamps in the wet season,since cutters paddle up the canals to cut on drier grounds further inland. Even thoughpeople work somewhat closer to the river in the dry season, the hinterland remainsbetter accessible than it was before. According to a factory manager, preliminaryplans exist to build a canal from the Kaituma to the Barima River, in order to gainaccess to the remote swamps between these rivers.

5.3.6 Processing of palm heartsThe processing method described below is based on the information provided byCompany officials during a guided tour in the factory in November 1997. The firststep in the processing of palm hearts at the canning factory at Drum Hill is theremoval of the last two outer leaf sheaths. There are preliminary plans to build abiogas installation capable of converting the waste that is produced in the processinginto cooking gas or electricity. Currently, some of the palm heart waste is used asorganic fertiliser at the factory farm (J. Gérin, pers. comm.), but most of it is stilldumped in the factory yard. The tender cylindrical hearts are immediately cut intopieces of 10 cm long and placed in a solution of water, citric acid, and salt to preventoxidation and discoloration. In the third step, the pieces are put into cans filled withthe solution and hand-weighed to ensure the right content. The different types of cansare listed in Table 5.2.


162

Table 5.2 Can types produced by the Company.

Type of can Content [g] No. of pieces No. of palm hearts per can

Normal large cans 500 12 3.5-3.8

Normal medium cans 220 5 1.6-1.8

Aluminium rip cans 220 9 1.8-2.0

Subsequently, the cans are covered with a loose cap and left to rest for 20 minutes toallow the palm hearts to absorb the citric acid. After preheating the cans to 80 °C fora few minutes, temperature and pH are measured and the cans sealed. Next, the cansare sterilised in a computerised oven for a maximum of 36 minutes. Cooling is donewith river water, after which the cans are packed into cartons and shipped toGeorgetown, where they are labelled. At the time of the study, a carton with 24 smallcans or 12 large ones was exported for US$ 18.50 FOB (GFC, 2000). Several cansare opened each day to control diameter and quality.

The minimum diameter of a canned cabbage is 15 mm. Officially, only palm heartswith a diameter > 20 mm are accepted. Smaller pieces in cans come either fromimmature hearts that slipped through the selection or from large pieces from whichrotten or fibrous parts have been removed. No more than one piece of ‘soft’ cabbage(from other types of Euterpe) is allowed in a small can. Large cans may contain atmost two inferior pieces.

5.3.7 The economics of palm heart extractionAccording to a factory manager, a total of 160 employees (25% female) wereworking at the industrial unit in January 1998. The majority of the factory personnelwere recruited from the neighbouring village of Red Hill and from Mabaruma andSanta Rosa, the larger Amerindian towns of the district (Figure 5.1). They were paidUS$ 77 per month and received free food and lodging in large dormitories behind thefactory. Several recreational activities were available to the employees, such as avideo screen and a table tennis facility. Church services, dance parties, and sportsdays were also occasionally organised by the management.

At that time, a Company manager estimated the number of people selling palm heartsto the Company to be around 1000. All cutters worked on a freelance basis; nonewere officially employed by the Company. Most people extracted palm hearts onlypart-time and spent the rest of the week hunting, fishing, and farming. Most of thecutters said that the main reason why they got involved in palm heart harvesting wasto benefit from the cheap food offered by the Company. Sullivan (1997) estimatedthe mean income of a cabbage cutter in 1996 to be US$ 4 per day, based on anaverage of ten palm hearts per hour and 80 per day, if working eight hours a day. Shecalculated that the mean annual sum earned by palm heart extraction per householdin Assakata was US$ 396.


163

The production of canned palm heart has increased since the beginning of the 1990s(Table 5.3). Export revenues and production in tons peaked in 1995, with more thanUS$ 2 million in export value. The following year the production in tons had sloweddown by nearly 12%, but the number of palm hearts processed had increased. Thismay suggest that the palm hearts were smaller in size; according to the factorymanagement, however, the decline was caused by the rusting of cans and a suddendip in the world market. No Company profit figures were made available to theresearchers.

In 1997, the rust problem had been solved by the introduction of aluminium rip cansand by submerging the other cans in an oily mixture. Unpublished factory figuresrevealed that more than 23,000 palm hearts were processed per day in 1997. Themaximum capacity of the factory, 30,000 cabbages a day, was reached just beforeChristmas. According to a factory manager, extractors usually tried to earn a bonusfor their holiday and increased their cutting activities at the end of the year. In 1997,a total of 2.3 million rip cans and 0.6 million large cans were said to be produced andalmost seven million palm hearts processed. According to the Company,approximately 1,446 tons of canned palm hearts were produced that year; muchhigher figures (1,700 tons) were published by the New Guyana Market Corporation(NGMC), the national entity that monitors non-traditional agricultural export(NGMC, 1998).

The latest preliminary company figures point towards a considerable decline inproduction in 1999. The reason for this decrease was said to be a fall in demand onthe world market, caused by the competition of palm heart from Bactris gasipaesplantations elsewhere (GFC, 2000).

Table 5.3 Production figures and exports via seaports (1991-1997). Sources: NGMC (1996, 1997, 1998),Johnson (1995), GFC (2000), and unpublished Company data. - = data not available.

Year Cabbages processed [n] Weight [tons] Export value [US$]

1990 162,679 - -

1991 - 734 -

1992 4,514,231 797 -

1993 5,278,923 941 -

1994 6,454,976 1,218 1,500,000

1995 6,461,779 1,648 2,071,162

1996 6,835,820 1,456 1,965,978

1997 6,789,104 1,446 -

1997 - 1,700 2,338,431

1998 6,936,983 - -

1999 4,538,664 - -


164

Until 1996, palm heart was only exported to France and formed 35% of the totalexport volume of non-traditional agricultural produce from Guyana (NGMC, 1996).In 1997, this percentage had increased to 57%, and palm heart was the fourth mostimportant vegetal export product of the country after rice, sugar, and timber (NGMC,1998). According to a factory manager, palm hearts from Guyana comprised about5% of the 1997 world trade. In 1998, the Company started exploring the palm heartmarket in the USA (LaRose, 1999). Only recently have cans entered the Guyanesemarket. No difference in quality or cabbage diameter is made between cans forexport and those for the domestic market.

5.3.8 The role of palm heart harvesting in the village economyA great variation in the available Euterpe resources and existing alternative sourcesof income was found among the seven villages, reflected in the number of palmhearts harvested per day (Table 5.4). Daily income of extractors also varied greatly,from less than US$ 1 in high-pressure areas (Koriabo) to US$ 11.30 in low-pressureareas (Assakata), the latter being almost three times the shadow income of US$ 4calculated by Sullivan (1997). Socio-economic conditions in the settlements seemedto be influenced not only by palm heart resources and the level of dependence on thepalm heart industry, but also by the availability of alternative sources of income,population density, subsistence farming, and access to health and education.

Several household heads interviewed near vicinity of the factory (Red Hill, BlackWater, and other lower Barima and Aruka communities) said they started withcutting the manicole directly around their homes when the Company started thecommercial processing of palm hearts in 1989. Many of them decided to stopfarming, because they were now able to buy their food. They said that at first theywere not aware that full-time cutting would be needed to provide their families withdaily staple food (rice). Soon the nearby stocks of Euterpe declined and the cuttershad to search for palm hearts in more remote places. Over the years, more and moreeffort was needed to obtain the same income. This process continued until thedistance to new virgin swamps became too large to make palm heart extractioneconomically viable. The transport of palm hearts over large distances by footstrongly limited the amounts that could be extracted per day. The swamp forestsurrounding the settlements became severely overharvested, and, as they had nofarms to fall back on, severe socio-economic stress and poverty were the result.Similar complaints were made by the cutters interviewed by Forte (1995), Johnson(1995), and G. Ford (pers. comm.).

At the time this study was conducted, the situation in Black Water seemed the mostdesolate of all areas visited. Cutters explained that before the Company started to buypalm heart, they had been working as wage labourers on the several agriculturalgrants along the Barima River. They also had small subsistence farms on which theygrew their own food. In 1989, most of the farm labourers switched to cabbage cuttingand gave up farming completely. The landowners interviewed said could no longerget labourers and, by the end of 1997, quite a few of them had reduced or abandonedtheir grants. The salary they offered ($ 2.8 per day) apparently could not competewith the revenues from palm heart harvesting (ca. $ 5.50). According to the cutters,however, even the latter salary was barely enough to sustain a family without a farm.

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

165

Tab

le 5

.4G

ener

al s

ocio

-eco

nom

ic c

ondi

tion

s in

the

villa

ges

near

the

stud

y pl

ots

in J

anua

ry 1

998.

1 =

Fort

e an

d Pi

erre

(19

95)

and

G. F

ord

(per

s. c

omm

.).

- =

data

not

ava

ilabl

e

Har

vest

inte

nsity

No

Pres

sure

Low

Pres

sure

Hig

hPr

essu

re

Bul

let T

ree

Ass

akat

aK

oria

boW

arap

oka

Low

erK

aitu

ma

Low

erK

aitu

ma

Red

Hill

Bla

ck W

ater

Kor

iabo

Am

erin

dian

Res

erve

noye

sye

sye

sno

noye

sno

yes

Subs

iste

nce

farm

ing

noye

sye

sfe

w f

arm

sla

rge

farm

sla

rge

farm

sfe

w f

arm

sno

neye

s

Cab

bage

boa

t pas

ses

per

wee

k3x

2x1x

7x3x

3xfa

ctor

y3x

1x

Popu

latio

n 1

-30

026

226

2±

200

± 20

020

370

-200

262

No.

of

cutt

ers

per

villa

ge-

8-20

690

2020

37-6

0-

3-6

Day

s pe

r w

eek

spen

t cut

ting

5-6

1-2

3-4

3-6

33

3-6

4-6

3-4

No.

of

palm

hea

rts

/ day

(m

ax.)

110

(200

)10

0 (2

00)

50 (

60)

60-8

040

-65

(100

)30

-65

70-1

00(1

40)

80 (

115)

0-5

Dai

ly w

age

[US$

]6.

2-11

.35.

6-11

.32.

8-3.

43.

4-4.

52.

3-5.

61.

7-3.

73.

9-7.

94.

5-6.

5<

1

Do

cutte

rs s

tay

in c

amps

?no

som

etim

esso

met

imes

yes

nono

ofte

nye

sso

met

imes

Dis

tanc

e to

har

vest

sit

e [k

m]

512

85-

166.

52-

511

-12

-5

Dis

tanc

e in

tim

e1

hr2

hr2

hr-

1½ h

r<

1 h

r-

3½ h

r1½

hr

Mea

ns o

f tr

ansp

ort

foot

+ b

oat

foot

+ b

oat

foot

foot

+ b

oat

foot

foot

boat

foot

+ b

oat

foot

Firs

t yea

r of

har

vest

ing

1996

1992

1996

± 19

9419

9619

9019

8919

8919

92

No.

of

harv

ests

in p

lot

02

11

16

76

4

Eut

erpe

pre

cato

ria

sold

?no

noye

sso

me

occa

sion

aloc

casi

onal

yes

yes

yes

Len

gth

of f

allo

w p

erio

d-

> 2

yea

r2

year

1-2

year

1-2

year

1 ye

ar7

mon

ths

< 1

yea

r1

year


166

Drinking water was a problem in Black Water, since all of the creeks were brackish.According to the local agent and shopkeeper, weekly cabbage sales had droppedfrom around 3500 to 600 in the past years. He stated to have problems in gettingpayment for the goods he had given the cutters on credit and encouraged them tocontinue harvesting palm hearts. Black Water extractors had to travel the longest (3½hours) to reach their harvesting site (Table 5.4). They said that of the maximum 115cabbages they could cut per day, at least 20 would be rejected. To relieve thepressure on the heavily exploited riparian swamps, the Company had recruitedvillagers to deepen the head of a small Barima tributary.

According to Black Water cutters, arguments with factory personnel about immaturepalm hearts occurred regularly. There were few other means of income available inthe area. The social distress in the community had already been noted byanthropologist G. Ford (pers. comm.), and the situation seemed to have changed littlesince she visited the area in 1996. Some household heads in Black Water indicatedthey were thinking of starting a farm again, but few had actually done so. Theyrealised that farming meant food security and more independence, but said theycould hardly allow themselves to take time off from cabbage cutting to burn a pieceof forest, which would take several months before it started to produce. People alsobrought these aspects forward in Koriabo, Warapoka, and Red Hill. The situation inthese settlements, however, was not to such an extent, since other means ofemployment were available, such as gold mining, wildlife trapping, trading food withmining camps, logging, and factory jobs.

People who did maintain their cassava fields were never obliged to cut cabbage full-time to provide for their daily needs. They worked on a part-time basis and spent therest of the time hunting, fishing, and farming. Income earned by selling palm heartswas used to buy luxury items (e.g., kerosene, baking powder, and cigarettes) ratherthan staple food. In Assakata, where all households had a farm and 65% of thehouseholds were involved in cabbage cutting, people said they could harvestsufficient cabbage in two days to buy the weekly necessities for their families.Sullivan (1997) calculated that Assakata residents spent only 10% of their labourtime harvesting palm hearts; the same amount of time they spent on craft making.More time was dedicated to fishing (17%), while farming turned out to be the mosttime-consuming activity (38%). The average size of the farms was 1.4 ha (Sullivan,1999). These aspects may have contributed to the fact that Euterpe resources aroundAssakata were relatively abundant and the pressure on the forest was much lowerthan in the other study sites. Fallow periods indicated by the respondents in that areawere also the longest in the entire study area.

In some villages, both high and low pressure areas were present. In Koriabo, forinstance, villagers explained that cabbage resources had declined over the past years,as had the number of cutters (from 20 to 6). The village never had large Euterperesources, because in the upper Barima the tidal Euterpe forest gave way to Moraswamps with only few scattered manicoles (Figure 5.1). When the palm hearts fromthe Mora forest were exhausted, people moved to the Euterpe-dominated creekdepressions in the high forest back from the riverbanks. These swamps have beenintensively exploited since 1992.


167

In December 1997, manicole was extracted some five kilometres inland from the lastremaining virgin swamp, and no more than 50 to 60 palm hearts could be extractedper person per day, since the bundles had to be carried home on the cutter’s back.The Company said they were losing money on their weekly trip to Koriabo. Thevillagers said they were afraid to lose their opportunity to purchase cheap provisionsfrom the Company. The few remaining cutters estimated that there would be enoughpalm hearts for another four years. After that, there would be no palm hearts left. Atthe time of this study, the Company was encouraging Koriabo residents to spendmore time along the Anabisi River, which harboured large unexploited swamps; butcutters said they were reluctant to settle there, as there were no schools or suitablefarmland in the vicinity.

In Red Hill, palm heart yields had declined from almost 15,000 per week in 1989(Forte, 1995) to 2000 in 1997 (unpublished Company data, 1998). According toForte, the swamps around the village were already exhausted in 1994. At the time ofour survey, cutters reported that they extracted cabbage with very short intervalsbetween harvests. They said they could obtain a maximum of 120 cabbages a day ifthey worked continuously for eight hours. They remembered that in the early days,they extracted 170-180 palm hearts daily. At the time of our visit, a total of 17persons (predominantly women) were working in the processing plant. Most adultmales had left home to harvest palm hearts along the Morebo and Anabisi Rivers andstayed in riverside camps for several weeks to months. Children were either takenalong or left in the village to attend school.

The factory management was under the impression that no palm hearts had beenharvested along the Kaituma River for five years, because their boats had stoppedentering the Kaituma in 1992 when Barama Company Ltd. started to transport logsover the river. The logging firm used large pontoons that made other motorised rivertransport quite dangerous. A factory manager recommended Kaituma as a suitable tostudy Euterpe populations that had been regenerating for five years. Comparison ofthis forest with an undisturbed area could ascertain whether a five-year fallow periodwould be sufficient for a harvested population to recover from harvesting. However,after arriving at Kaituma, we found that cabbage cutting had continued in the areaover the years. In fact, it had never slowed down, as the agent had been paddling hispalm hearts to a camp on the Barima River for five years. Thus, conditions on theKaituma were no different from other areas studied. Because of this, only two smallplots (0.15 ha) were laid out to obtain additional data. One plot was set up in a high-pressure area close to the river, the other in a low-pressure site several kilometresinland.

There were about 20 cutters active in the village, who collected ca. 2500 palm heartsa week (Table 5.4). In the past, extractors used to cut 100-200 cabbages a day in theswamps close to the river. Now, they could harvest an average of 50 palm hearts aday and had to carry them on their backs for eight kilometres. Many immaturecabbages had also been rejected lately. Villagers said they badly needed a canal inorder to locate resources deeper inland.


168

The majority of the cabbage cutters were Amerindian males. In areas where farmingwas less practised, a substantial percentage of women and children participated inpalm heart harvesting as well. Only 5% of the women in Assakata said they extractedmanicole on a regular basis (Sullivan, 1997), while from our observations it seemedthat in Warapoka, a much higher percentage of female cutters were active. Sullivanestimated that women extracted 50% less than men under the same conditions, whilechildren harvested only half the amount of women. Schoolchildren in Warapoka saidthey helped their parents in the weekends. If families were staying in forest camps,all but the youngest members were involved in harvesting.

5.3.9 Opening the undisturbed areasUndisturbed ‘maiden’ swamps with large Euterpe resources were found at a one-hour walk inland from the lower Waini riverbanks. These dark forests had a highcanopy and the manicole clumps seemed to be much larger than in swamps subject torepeated extraction. Due to the shortage of labour and the large available resources,the Company built several camps at the previously abandoned settlement of BulletTree. That same year (1997), the first cutters from the Aruka region moved there towork. They were reported to extract 100-120 cabbages a day from the virginswamps, with an occasional maximum of 200. All cutters, even the local agent,worked full-time. No subsistence agriculture was practised and few fruit trees orhome gardens were planted. The only school in the area was too far away forchildren to attend. Except for the wage labour on one commercial farm, the onlyemployment was harvesting palm heart.

The migrated cutters said they were glad to escape the poverty of Aruka, where theycould only cut 30-50 cabbages a day, many of which were too small to be accepted.They said cabbage resources were plenty along the Waini, as were wildlife and fish.Several kilometres up the Waini, however, Warapoka residents feared the influx of‘homeless’ Aruka cutters. This was because cabbage resources in the WarapokaAmerindian Reserve had all been depleted and cutters had to travel up to 16 km perday or stay for months in riverside camps to make a living cutting palm hearts.Although they seldom came to harvest in Bullet Tree, Warapoka cutters wereanxious about future competition.

5.3.10 Relationship between cutters and the CompanyWe observed that the attitude towards the canning company varied greatly among thecommunities. In Red Hill, a positive relationship existed between the community andthe Company, since the village had been donated a school building. The residentsalso benefited more directly from the employment in the factory. In villages withrapidly declining Euterpe resources and a lack of agricultural self-sufficiency (BlackWater, Warapoka), the general opinion on the Company was quite negative.Residents were eager to utter their frustrations to the researchers. They blamed theCompany for the decline in palm hearts and accused them of being unwilling tolisten to their problems. Some communities seemed quite cohesive, in particularthose with official land titles. These villages had achieved many things in the past,such as a health centre, a village boat, etc. However, when palm heart extraction was


169

concerned, it was still ‘everybody for himself’, as a Warapoka cutter formulated it.No feeling of unity existed among the cutters and no attempts were made to organisethemselves into some sort of union. In general, however, people praised the fact thatthey had a steady income and were able to barter their palm hearts for the cheapgoods distributed by the Company. As one cutter explained: ‘it is the foreigncompanies who provide jobs here, not the Government of Guyana. If it wasn’t for theCompany, I don’t see how people could live in this place’.

One of the repeated complaints of extractors was that the Company seldom offeredany help or compensation for injuries suffered during cabbage cutting. They said theCompany refused responsibility, since they were not officially employed. Cuttersconsidered palm heart harvesting to be hard and dangerous work, especially in thewet season when the aggressive labaria (Bothrops atrox) was frequently foundbetween the clumps. This poisonous snake, whose bite can cause death within hours,was said to be the greatest risk of manicole harvesting. As most cutters walkedbarefoot, labaria bites were common.

Accidents from falling palms mostly happened during heavy rains, when extractorsdid not always hear the sound of breaking stems. Attempts to transport sick people tohospitals were often made too late. The cabbage boat occasionally transportedpatients to a hospital, but the Company did usually not cover the patients’ expenses.Forte (1995), Roopnaraine (1998), and G. Ford (pers. comm.) noted similargrievances. The Company contradicted these complaints and stated that snakebiteswere an extremely rare occurrence among manicole cutters and that they providedtransportation for injured cutters and their families to the Mabaruma hospital (X.Richard, pers. comm.). The Company had donated first-aid boxes and snakebite kitsto a number of villages. Unfortunately, these goods were often kept in thecommunity health hut or the captain’s house, while cutters usually worked far fromthe village and snakebites require immediate treatment. Synthetic antiserum is notavailable outside the major hospitals of the North-West District, as storage at a lowtemperature is required to keep this medicine effective. The Brazilian antidote‘Específico’, which does not need to be refrigerated, is frequently sold by interiorshops, but it has a questionable reputation.

The year 1998 was extra burdensome for many Guyanese, because of the severedrought caused by the ‘el niño’ weather phenomenon. Unlike the southern part of thecountry, no massive forest fires occurred in the North-West District. However,farming was impossible and clean drinking water was extremely difficult to obtain.In the critical months of March and April, the Company distributed free drinkingwater along the main rivers. According to a factory manager, more people than everwere involved in palm heart harvesting during the el niño period, since there was nowork to be found in mining, fishing, or agriculture. Fewer cabbages were harvestedper person due to competition and limited access to remote swamps because of drycreeks.


170

5.4 QUANTITATIVE IMPACTS OF PALM HEART HARVESTING ONEUTERPE POPULATIONS

5.4.1 Population structureIn the following section, we will concentrate on the effects of the different cuttingpractises on Euterpe populations. The results from the nine plots (Table 5.5) and theaverages of these figures per pressure group (Table 5.6) show several trends. Euterpestems in the high-pressure plots (HP) were significantly shorter than in the low-pressure plots (LP) and twice as small as the stems in the control plot (NP). Thenumber of living stems per hectare in HP areas was also much smaller than in the LPand NP plots, although these data were not tested statistically.

The results from the nine plots (Table 5.5) and the averages of these figures perpressure group (Table 5.6) show several trends. Euterpe stems in the high-pressureplots (HP) were significantly shorter than in the low-pressure plots (LP) and twice assmall as the stems in the control plot (NP). The number of living stems per hectare inHP areas was also much smaller than in the LP and NP plots, although these datawere not tested statistically.

In Figure 5.6, the diameter distribution of living stems is presented for the differentpressure groups. There were significant differences in the DBH of living stems(mature and juveniles > 2 m) between the pressure categories. Only a smalldifference in the DBH of harvestable stems was found between the NP and LP/HPplots. Stems in the virgin swamp were relatively equally distributed along sizeclasses, while almost 50% in the HP plots had a DBH between 3 and 4 cm.

15-1613-1411-129-107-85-63-4

50

40

30

20

10

0

% ofstems

17-1815-1613-1411-129-107-85-63-4

50

40

30

20

10

015-1613-1411-129-107-85-63-4

50

40

30

20

10

0

Diameter [cm.]Diameter [cm]

No pressure Low pressure High pressure

Figure 5.6 Diameter distribution of living stems in the three harvest pressure groups.

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

171

Tab

le 5

.5Pa

ram

eter

val

ues

from

the

indi

vidu

al p

lots

.

- =

dat

a no

t ava

ilabl

e.

Para

met

er v

alue

sN

o Pr

essu

reL

ow P

ress

ure

Hig

h pr

essu

re

Bul

let t

ree

Ass

akat

taK

oria

boW

arap

oka

L.K

aitu

ma

L. K

aitu

ma

Red

Hill

Bla

ck W

ater

Kor

iabo

mea

n ±

std.

mea

n ±

std.

mea

n ±

std.

mea

n ±

std.

mea

n ±

std.

mea

n ±

std.

mea

n ±

std.

mea

n ±

std.

mea

n ±

std.

Hei

ght o

f liv

ing

stem

s >

2 m

[m

]10

.36

± 7.

076.

94 ±

3.8

19.

36 ±

6.3

67.

28 ±

5.4

66.

72 ±

5.1

14.

72 ±

3.1

65.

19 ±

2.8

84.

33 ±

2.7

34.

43 ±

2.4

0

No.

of

livin

g st

ems

per

ha32

9014

7312

1011

0321

0013

9311

7710

6068

3

Dbh

of

livin

g st

ems

[cm

]7.

98 ±

3.4

76.

49 ±

2.6

78.

01 ±

3.7

66.

24 ±

3.2

66.

28 ±

3.6

75.

00 ±

2.8

15.

15 ±

2.4

54.

23 ±

2.4

64.

91 ±

2.2

7

Dbh

of

harv

este

d st

ems

[cm

]-

9.85

± 1

.97

11.7

8 ±

2.10

11.1

6 ±

1.96

10.2

8 ±

1.26

11.1

3 ±

1.90

10.1

2 ±

2.02

8.80

± 2

.46

13.1

7 ±

2.45

Dbh

of

dead

ste

ms

(nat

ural

) [c

m]

9.41

± 2

.79

9.47

± 3

.21

9.58

± 3

.23

8.41

± 3

.57

8.77

± 2

.74

9.24

± 3

.88

10.1

6 ±

2.01

9.01

± 2

.41

8.84

± 2

.97

% o

f re

prod

uctiv

e st

ems

15.5

3.8

4.2

86.

34.

31.

40

0.5

% o

f ha

rves

tabl

e st

ems

39.4

33.3

29.6

25.2

27.2

7.2

13.6

6.0

2.5

Stem

s ex

trac

ted

last

har

vest

[%

]0

29.9

56.2

64.4

21.2

3481

.573

.265

.2

No.

of

harv

ests

in p

lot

02

11

16

76

4

No.

of

stem

s /c

lum

p (d

ead

+ al

ive)

10.1

1 ±

6.1

5.31

± 3

.60

6.21

± 4

.46

5.43

± 4

.46

3.45

± 3

.62.

60 ±

2.6

43.

14 ±

2.7

91.

77 ±

1.6

64.

98 ±

6.1

0

No.

of

harv

este

d st

ems

per

clum

p0

0.39

± 0

.91

2.15

± 2

.30

1.53

± 1

.88

0.04

± 0

.20.

31 ±

0.9

60.

69 ±

1.1

50.

37 ±

0.8

71.

79 ±

3.1

1

No.

of

dead

(na

tura

l) s

tem

s /c

lum

p1.

31 ±

1.7

70.

7 ±

1.09

0.54

± 0

.89

0.26

± 0

.59

0.15

± 0

.54

0.27

± 0

.93

0.14

± 0

.46

0.11

± 0

.55

0.22

± 0

.78

No.

of

livin

g su

cker

s pe

r cl

ump

10.4

2 ±

10.4

64.

04 ±

3.6

93.

52 ±

4.0

63.

56 ±

3.0

83.

61 ±

3.0

72.

47 ±

2.4

15.

25 ±

6.9

31.

49 ±

1.9

53.

37 ±

3.8

5

No.

of

dead

suc

kers

per

clu

mp

0.01

± 0

.09

0.03

± 0

.22

0.08

± 0

.41

0 ±

00.

01 ±

0.1

00.

02 ±

0.1

30.

14 ±

0.7

50.

10 ±

0.5

00.

20±

0.47

No.

of

clum

ps /

plot

(de

ad +

aliv

e)11

411

427

011

011

812

616

626

810

1

No.

of

seed

lings

per

4 m

215

± 1

82.

7 ±

0.6

11.3

± 9

.910

.6 ±

14

13.5

± 7

.5-

9.0

± 7.

81.

0 ±

2.5

3.0

± 3.

5

No.

of

rem

aini

ng m

atur

e st

ems/

ha12

9649

035

827

857

110

016

064

17

Pote

ntia

l har

vest

[U

S$ /

ha]

73.0

27.6

20.2

15.7

32.2

5.7

9.0

3.6

1.0

Perc

enta

ge o

f de

ad c

lum

ps [

%]

3.5

04.

44.

56.

310

.36.

019

.05.

9

Clu

mp

heig

ht [

cm]

46.3

1 ±

24.1

729

.31

± 13

.58

36.1

2 ±

18.7

936

.45

± 23

.64

18.1

0 ±

12.4

915

.0 ±

12.

1332

.95

± 21

.83

14.4

1 ±

16.3

130

.25

± 18

.26


172

The diameter distribution of harvested stems is shown in Figure 5.7. Hardly anypalms were felled in the category 5-6 cm, since most of the hearts would probably bebelow the required diameter. It can be seen that fewer medium-sized stems (11-12cm DBH) were harvested in HP plots when compared to LP plots. This couldpossibly be caused by the fact that most medium-sized stems had already been felledand cutters had shifted to felling larger and smaller stems. Therefore, the mean DBHof harvested stems in LP and HP plots was almost the same (Table 5.6). Still, over20% of the stems harvested in the HP plots were close to the minimum diameter (ca.8.4 cm), which corresponds with a palm heart diameter of ca. 2.0 cm (can size).

Much fewer stems in this risky size class were cut in LP areas. This selectionstandard seems to prevent the felling of immature stems; the mean DBH of harvestedstems in HP plots would have otherwise been much lower than in LP plots.

17-1815-1613-1411-129-107-85-63-4

50

40

30

20

10

017-1815-1613-1411-129-107-85-6

50

40

30

20

10

0

% ofstems

Diameter [cm]

Low pressure Highpressure

Figure 5.7 Diameter distribution of harvested stems in low- and high-pressure plots.

Significantly fewer living stems per clump were found in HP plots than elsewhere.Figure 5.8 shows that clumps in the undisturbed plot often contained relatively largenumbers of stems, while 50-80% of the clumps in extraction areas had only one ortwo living stems. The increased establishment of saplings (new clumps) under theopen canopy may also have caused the high percentage of few-stemmed clumps inthe HP plots. More clumps were found per ha in extraction areas than in the virginswamp, but they had fewer mature stems per clump available for extraction (Table5.6).

Clumps in the control plot were significantly taller than clumps in areas subject toextraction. Although the felling of stems might decrease the height of the clumps, thelow clump height in harvested areas also result from a larger amount of youngclumps. Besides harvest intensity and age, clump height might also be influenced byfluctuations in water level and soil characteristics.


173

Table 5.6 Parameter values averaged per pressure group. Differences between values in a row arestatistically significant when the superscript letter is not identical and the p-value is <0.05- = no data available.

Parameter values No Pressure(NP)

NP-LP Low pressure(LP)

LP-HP High pressure(HP)

NP-HP

mean ± std. p-value mean ± std. p-value mean ± std. p-value

Height of living stems [m] 10.36 ± 7.07 a 0.000 7.59 ± 5.32 b 0.000 4.8 ± 2.52 c 0.000

Number of living stems per ha 3290 - 1472 ± 387 - 1078 ± 258 -

Dbh of living stems [cm] 7.98 ± 3.47 a 0.000 6.78 ± 3.41 b 0.000 4.71 ± 2.84 c 0.000

Dbh of harvested stems [cm] - - 11.44 ± 2.11 a 0.226 11.15 ± 2.92 a -

Dbh of dead stems [cm] 9.41 ± 2.79 a 0.088 9.31 ± 3.24 a 0.135 9.31 ± 2.98 a 0.205DBH of harvestable stems[cm]

11.58 ± 1.53 a 0.000 10.71 ± 2.6 b 0.391 10.03 ± 2.32 b 0.001

% of reproductive stems 15.5 a 0.000 5.6 b 0.000 1.4 c 0.000

% of harvestable stems 39.4 a 0.000 29.2 b 0.000 8 c 0.000

% of all stems harvested - - 22.1 a 0.103 23.8 a -

% of dead stems (natural) 12.89 8.2 5.98No. of stems per clump(dead and alive)

10.11± 6.10 a 0.000 5.24 ± 4.21 b 0.000 2.75 ± 3.34 c 0.000

No. of living stems per clump 8.86 ± 5.51 a 0.000 3.36 ± 2.81 b 0.000 1.92 ± 1.64 c 0.000

No. of dead stems per clump 1.31 ± 1.77 a 0.000 0.43 ± 0.85 b 0.000 0.16 ± 0.66 c 0.000

No. of harvested stems/clump 0 ± 0.0 a 0.000 1.16 ± 1.87 b 0.013 0.65 ± 1.59 c 0.005

No. of living suckers/clump 10.42 ± 10.46 a 0.000 3.67 ± 3.55 b 0.023 2.89 ± 4.37 c 0.000

No. of dead suckers/clump 0.01 ± 0.09 a 0.158 0.04 ± 0.26 a 0.000 0.11 ± 0.53 b 0.004

No. of seedlings per 4 m² 15 a > 0.05 10.4 ± 4.59 a > 0.05 4.33 ± 3.40 a > 0.05Total no. of clumps per ha(dead and alive)

380 - 510 ± 225 - 551 ± 212 -

Percentage of dead clumps 3.5 a 0.070 3.8 a 0.001 10.3 b 0.002

Average height clumps [cm] 46.31 ± 24.17a 0.000 31.72 ± 19.0 b 0.000 24.28 ± 20.8 c 0.000

Number of harvests in plot 0 1.25 5.75

Yield of last harvests [kg / ha] - - 149.94 - 108.14 -

Yield of last harvest [US$/ha] - 32.1 18.1

Potential yield [kg / ha] 383.01 - 108.03 - 20.53 -

Potential harvest [US$ / ha] 73.0 24.2 4.9Weight of harvested palmheart [g]

- -292.63

± 70.95 a0.170

286.74± 98.93 a

-

Weight of remaining palmheart [g]

295.38 ± 51.87a 0.000270.72

± 84.39 b0.085

247.78± 74.51 b

0.001


174

No Pressure Low Pressure High pressure

19-2017-1815-16

Number of stems

13-1411-12

9-107-8

5-63-4

1-2

20

10

017-18

15-1613-14

11-129-10

7-85-6

3-41-2

60

50

40

30

20

10

013-1411-129-107-85-63-41-2

100

80

60

40

20

0

% ofclumps

Figure 5.8 Number of living stems per clump in the three harvest pressure groups.

As Euterpe palms develop a crownshaft before producing inflorescences, allreproductive stems are in principle suitable for extraction. The removal of maturestems seemed to have consequences for the sexual reproduction of Euterpepopulations. There was a large variation in the number of flowering and/or fruitingstems among the nine plots, varying from 15.5% in the virgin swamp to 0% at BlackWater (Table 5.5). A low number of seedlings were present in the HP plots (Table5.6), but differences in seedling density were not significant due to the patchydistribution of juveniles and the small sample size (12 m2 per plot). Clumps in theundisturbed plot had more than three times as many suckers than clumps in HP plots,which might indicate that the extraction of palm hearts has a negative effect on thevegetative regeneration as well.

5.4.2 Sucker and clump mortalityClumps in the HP plots had significantly more dead suckers than those in the LP andNP plots, although some dead sprouts might have been overlooked as they tend to rotquickly. The ratio between living and dead suckers was about 1000:1 in the controlplot, 92:1 in the LP plots, and 26:1 in the HP plots. Increasing harvest pressureseemed to augment sucker mortality, a possible result of the clearing of clumps andremoval of energy-producing ramets. Table 5.6 also shows that the percentage ofdead clumps in the HP plots (10.3%) was almost three times as high as the naturalmortality in the control plot (3.5%). The mortality in the LP plots was notsignificantly different from that in the control plot.

5.4.3 Palm heart yieldThe last reconstructed yield in the LP plots, calculated from the DBH of harvestedstems, was more than 40 kg/ha higher than the last yield of the HP plots (Table 5.6).The current standing stock in the undisturbed plot was more than three times thepotential yield of the LP plots and more than 18 times that of the HP plots. Althougha slight downward trend was noticed in the average weight of harvested andremaining palm hearts, especially when compared to the standing stock in the virginplot, no significant differences were found between the LP and HP plots. This ismost probably the result of the minimum diameter (2.0 cm) required by theCompany. As smaller palm hearts are not accepted, our data suggest that extractorscan extract fewer mature palm hearts from the same sites at each subsequent harvest.If expressed in monetary value, this effect becomes even more obvious. The current


175

potential economic value of the undisturbed swamp was almost 15 times that of thehigh-pressure areas.

5.4.4 Effects of harvesting practices per study siteAvailable Euterpe resources and socio-economic conditions obviously have a greatinfluence on harvesting practises, as there was quite some variance in extractionmethods within the pressure groups. To illustrate the effects of harvesting practicesper study site, the absolute parameter values for the nine plots are listed in Table 5.5.Even though the plot in Assakata had just been harvested for a second time, manymature stems remained. The percentage of remaining mature stems after harvesting(33.3%) approached that of the undisturbed plot (39.4%). Cutters said they did notdeliberately leave one mature stem per cluster to enhance regrowth, but this did seemto happen in practice. Since there was ample choice in mature stems, the cutters didnot systematically eliminate all mature stems. They would fell one or two stems,walk a little further, and continue cutting from another clump. The absence of deadclumps, fallow periods of two years or more, and a maximum harvest of 200 palmhearts a day made Assakata the least affected area after the virgin swamp.

In most high-pressure areas, cutters regularly checked the swamps surrounding theirvillage on their way back home from the distant extraction sites. These forests wereheavily exploited as nearly all stems were felled just after reaching maturity. Thispractice is rather destructive, as it does not allow the population to recover fromharvesting and strongly limits sexual reproduction. The Koriabo HP plot was laid outin such an exhausted swamp. Not only had four ‘crops’ of palm heart been extractedin five years, but mature stems were also extracted between harvests. Stem heightand diameter were among the lowest of all plots (Table 5.5). Very few mature orreproductive stems were present and the number of dead suckers was relatively high.The canopy was very open and secondary pioneers had taken over the vegetation.Shrubs of Melastomataceae and Piperaceae and aggressive lianas competed with therecovering manicole for light and space. These secondary species usually do occur inEuterpe swamps (chapter 3), but they are less competitive in undisturbed conditions.The potential harvest in the Koriabo HP plot had been reduced to less than US$ 1 perhectare.

Cutters in high-pressure areas used undesired harvesting techniques, such as clearingyoung stems and suckers from a clump before felling a mature stem and rigorouslycutting almost every mature stem they could find, except those ‘fastened’ with theircrowns in the canopy. This is illustrated in Table 5.5 by the high percentage of stemsfelled during the last harvest. These intensively exploited areas require more time toregenerate than less rigorously harvested swamps, but their fallow periods were evenshorter. The HP plot at Red Hill had been harvested seven times in eight years. Thepercentage of dead clumps was almost twice of that found in the virgin swamp. RedHill cutters said they would leave a harvested swamp to regenerate for at least sevenmonths. Then, they would return to cut the ‘seven-month cabbage’, the smallest palmheart still accepted by the Company. The effects of overharvesting were clearest atBlack Water. The HP plot was harvested six times in the past five years. The meanheight and diameter of Euterpe stems were the lowest of all plots, while the


176

percentage of dead clumps was the highest (19%). Clumps hardly contained anyliving suckers. No single reproductive stem was left in the plot.

5.4.5 Harvesting the virgin swampTo see how much palm heart could be extracted from a virgin swamp in a normalsituation, an area of 0.2 ha was experimentally harvested in the control plot. In Table5.7 these data were extrapolated to one hectare. Cutters collected 57 cabbages in onemorning, with a total weight of 46 kg (the palm hearts still had two outer leafsheaths). The extractors said that they had only cut the ‘first-choice stems’ thatmorning. Under normal circumstances, they would return the following day toharvest the palms that were less easy to fell. Thus, the total yield of one harvestwould be higher than the actual yield listed in Table 5.7. The mean weight of thepalm hearts (without outer leaf sheaths) from the virgin swamp was higher than thatfrom previously harvested areas (ca. 319 gr vs. 248-271 gr, Table 5.6). The DBH offelled stems was also slightly higher; but then again the data from Table 5.7 do notrepresent the entire harvest. The potential value of palm heart in 1 ha of virginswamp was approximately US$ 73, assuming that all mature stems in the plot (1296)were suitable for harvest. In practice, cutters would not fell every mature stem, asseveral palms were entangled in tree crowns and were impossible to bring down.When there was a wide choice of suitable stems, the cutting intensity was generallymuch lower. This was also observed at Assakata. Due to the small sample size andthe experimental character of this harvest, parameters of harvested stems from thevirgin swamp were not included in the statistical analysis.

Table 5.7 Parameter values from the virgin swamp.

Parameter values mean ± st. dev.

DBH of harvested stems [cm] 11.7 ± 1.6

Height of harvested stems [m] 16.9 ± 2.5

Diameter harvested cabbage [cm] 2.8 ± 1.4

Palm heart weight (can size) [gr] 319.1 ± 82.8

No. of mature stems /ha 1296

No. of stems harvested /ha 285

Potential yield [kg/ha] 383

Potential yield [US $/ha] 73.0

Actual yield (first day) [kg/ha] 230

Actual yield (first day) [US $/ha] 16.1

5.4.6 Harvesting of Euterpe precatoria

Special attention was paid to the presence of Euterpe precatoria (winamoro or abua)in the plots. This single-stemmed palm species was much less abundant than E.oleracea. Few signs of extraction were notified in populations of E. precatoria.Moreover, E. precatoria was never sold in areas with extensive E. oleracearesources. People did not want to risk an argument with the Company and used thelarge palm hearts only in local stew dishes. Large E. precatoria palms remained afterextraction in the LP plots in Assakata and Lower Kaituma. However, in regions with


177

rapidly declining palm heart stocks and a tense relationships with the Company(Koriabo, Black Water, Warapoka), people admitted that they occasionally tried tocheat the Company by secretly mixing winamoro cabbages with the other cabbages.Despite this, only six (10%) of the 57 individuals of E. precatoria found in all plotstogether had been felled for palm heart.

5.4.7 Growth of Euterpe oleracea in cultivationIn 1993, a nursery with Euterpe oleracea seedlings was established in a cleared fieldnext to the factory building in Drum Hill. This plantation was started for researchpurposes and was frequently weeded. No fertilisers or insecticides were used. Thenursery offered a chance to study the growth of E. oleracea under plantationconditions. Results of the measurements from 86 clumps (about half of the nursery),with a total number of 234 stems (dead and alive), are shown in Table 5.8. Factoryworkers had secretly cut some of the stems in order to sell the palm hearts.

Table 5.8 Properties of Euterpe oleracea in the Company nursery

Parameter values (n = 234) Mean ± st. dev

Height of living stems [m] 3.3 ± 1.4

DBH of living stems [cm] 6.4 ± 3.0

DBH of harvested stems [cm] 9.2 ± 1.9

Percentage of reproductive stems [%] 5.9

Percentage of immature stems [%] 53.4

Percentage of harvested stems [%] 37.6

Percentage of dead stems (natural) [%] 1.7

Percentage of harvestable stems [%] 7.3

Number of suckers per clump 2.3

Palm heart weight [g] 217.9

Actual yield last harvest [kg] 19.2

Growing in full sunlight, the trunks were much sturdier than Euterpe stems in wildpopulations. Inflorescences were formed at no more than 2 m above the stem base. InJanuary 1998, the clumps were almost five years old and looked healthy. As thelargest stem was 7 m tall with a DBH of 17.1 cm, the maximum growth rate per yearunder these conditions would be 1.4 m in height and 3.4 cm in DBH. It wasimpossible, however, to determine which stems were indeed five years old and whichhad sprouted later.

These growth rates are thus merely an indication, but do confirm the theory thatstems invest less in height when planted in the open. Diameters of 17 cm wereseldom found in wild E. oleracea populations. The results from the nursery provedthat manicole can be easily grown in plantations and that it produces harvestablepalm hearts within five years. However, with such extensive wild resources at hand,it would be rather senseless to establish large plantations. Nevertheless, enrichmentplantings in open areas are an option, considering the rapid growth of the species.


178

5.4.8 Effects of palm heart harvesting on other NTFPsNo direct negative effects were noticed of palm heart harvesting on the availabilityof other NTFPs, although no quantitative data were collected on this subject.Rumours that cabbage cutters were destroying troolie palms (Manicaria saccifera,the major source of roof thatch in coastal Guyana) were not based on reality. Cuttersseldom damaged troolie leaves when extracting palm hearts and the palm was stillpresent in large numbers along the Waini and Barima Rivers. Increasing prices fortroolie leaves were probably the result of high transport costs, rather than of thescarcity of the product.

Wildlife is another important NTFP of the coastal Euterpe swamps. In fact, manycabbage cutters earn some additional cash by selling parrots, macaws, snakes,aquarium fish, wild meat, and living mammals to wildlife traders. Since many birdsfeed on Euterpe fruits, extraction of reproductive palms was thought to lead todeclining bird populations (Forte, 1995; Johnson, 1995). However, extractors saidthey had not noticed a decrease in the number of birds or other animals since theyhad started to cut manicole. They said that most birds did not depend entirely onmanicole, but also fed on the fruits of Euterpe precatoria, Jessenia bataua, Mauritiaflexuosa, and Inga spp. This corresponds with Galetti and Aleixo (1998), who foundno decline in parrot populations in Brazilian Euterpe edulis forests after exploitation.

5.5 DISCUSSION

5.5.1 Impact of palm heart harvesting on Euterpe populationsAlthough there were no detailed aerial photographs of the coastal manicole swampsavailable at the time of this survey, we estimate that most of the swamp forestdirectly alongside the large rivers of the North-West District (Barima, Aruka,Koriabo, Kaituma and Waini Rivers) can be considered high-pressure areas.Depending on the particular area, low-pressure areas are found several kilometresinland from the riverbanks, behind the heavily extracted riverine swamps. Themajority of the low-pressure areas can be found in the lower Waini, the Baramanni,and the lower Barama regions.

The significantly higher percentage of dead clumps in the HP plots compared to theundisturbed plot could be interpreted as a sign of excessive pressure on the Euterpepopulations. The percentage of dead clumps in the LP plots was not significantlydifferent from that of the control plot, suggesting that extraction in LP sites had notyet led to higher mortality rates. More dead stems were present in the control plotthan in the harvested plots, but probably the stems are felled in the harvested plotsbefore they get a chance to die by natural causes. Age, wind damage, insect attacks,and competition for light and nutrients are all probable causes of natural mortality ofstems (Calzavara, 1972; Hallé et al., 1978). Stems in all size classes run the risk of anatural death; however, since juvenile ramets decay much faster than larger ones, thelatter are more obvious to the observer. Our data do not indicate that felling a maturestem has an effect on the fitness of the remaining stems on that particular clump.


179

There were some differences in the depth of the pegasse layer between the plots (vanAndel et al., 1998), and there might also have been some variety in the salinity,length, and intensity of the flooding. However, the vegetation of the manicoleswamps seemed rather comparable throughout the North-West District (chapter 3).Moreover, since the variety in soil and hydrology was present both within andbetween the pressure groups, we do not consider them to have a great influence onthe outcomes of this study.

The extraction of palm hearts appeared to have a negative effect on the vegetativeregeneration, since less living suckers and more dead suckers per clump were foundin the HP plots. According to Strudwick (1990) and Pollak et al. (1995), palm heartextraction is considered sustainable if it has no long-term deleterious effect on theregeneration of the population and the yield remains more or less constantthroughout the years. Since the results of this study showed a steady decline in theheight and diameter of stems, clump vitality, reproduction, and palm heart yield, thecurrent methods of palm heart extraction cannot be considered ecologicallysustainable.

5.5.2 Fallow periods and growth ratesThe Company has been operating under the assumption that when all mature stemsof an Euterpe population are felled, a second harvest can be conducted in about fiveyears (Johnson, 1995). Results from this study point out that harvest cycles in thestudy area are not much longer than two years and often are even shorter. It alsobecame clear that extraction in the area with the longest fallow periods (Assakata)seemed to have the least impact. The time needed for full regeneration is determinedby the number of palm hearts extracted per harvest and the growth rate of thespecies. Although Euterpe oleracea is frequently cultivated in Brazil (Strudwick andSobel, 1988), few studies have been done on the growth rates of the palm, and theirresults are quite different. Calzavara (1972), for example, estimated a stem incrementof ca. 1 m per year in wild populations, while Ricci (1987) measured a maximumannual growth of 24 cm in height and 0.59 cm in diameter for young stems (DBH 3-5 cm). In Ricci’s experiment, Euterpe stems showed an initial stage of secondarygrowth, but after reaching a DBH of 8 cm, annual diameter increase was minimal.

Higher light intensities caused by the removal of mature stems resulted in a slightacceleration in the growth of young ramets. Nevertheless, the stress inflicted by toointensive harvests had a negative effect on growth rates (Ricci, 1987). Anderson(1988) found that the removal of adult stems stimulated sucker growth. In this study,extraction had a strongly negative effect on the number of suckers per clump and evenseemed to enhance sucker mortality; the effects on sucker growth have not beenmeasured. Calzavara (1972) warned for the clearing of debris around Euterpe clumps,as this practice seriously damaged suckers and slowed down regeneration. Removal ofadult ramets of the clonal palm Geonoma congesta also resulted in higher mortalityof the suckers (Chazdon, 1991).

Cabbage cutters in Guyana estimated that it would take five years for a sucker togrow into a mature stem. This more or less corresponds with the outcomes of thenursery experiment, although growth conditions in the open field are without doubt


180

much different than those in a natural environment. On the other hand, a sucker froma clump might grow much faster than a seedling, since the latter lacks thephotosynthetic support of its fellow ramets. Calzavara (1972) recommended aharvest cycle of at least four years for Brazilian Euterpe swamps, as did Ricci (1987,1989) for French Guiana. Although our results do not allow for a clear indication ofthe required fallow periods to ensure sustainable harvest, an interval of four to fiveyears seems reasonable for a population to recover from cutting damage. Extractioncycles of five years are relatively short compared to other wild species used for palmheart. For instance, a report by PROMAB (1998) recommends fallow periods of 30years between harvests of E. precatoria in Bolivia. It also states that only 20% of thesingle-stemmed adults should be extracted per harvest and that silviculturaltreatments are needed to guarantee sufficient regrowth. However, these extractionrates would still lead to declining populations. Because of the high managementcosts and long fallow periods, the authors conclude that sustainable extraction of E.precatoria would not be economically feasible.

5.5.3 Decline in production: Guyana versus BrazilAfter several years of exploitation, the Euterpe populations studied in the North-West District have shown a steady decline in height, diameter, reproductivity,potential, and actual yield. This indicates that with the current extraction levels andshort fallow periods, the harvesting of palm heart is not sustainable. Whencomparing our results with those of Pollak et al. (1995), there were several strikingdifferences with the situation in Brazil (Table 5.9). Guyanan palm hearts wererequired to have a minimum diameter of 2.0 cm, while Brazilian factories acceptedimmature cabbages of 1.3 cm diameter. Low-grade or small-sized palm hearts, whichwould have been rejected or discarded in Guyana, were kept for the national marketin Brazil (Strudwick and Sobel, 1988; Pollak et al., 1995). The BrazilianEnvironmental Agency IBAMA had proposed a minimum size of 2.0 cm, butregulations were not enforced and many ‘illegal’ palm hearts were being processed(Pollak et al., 1995). At the time of that study, Brazilian extractors were being paidaccording to the size of their palm hearts. They received US$ 0.04 for a smallcabbage (< 2 cm), $ 0.05 for a medium cabbage (2-3 cm), and $ 0.07 for a large palmheart (> 3 cm). In Guyana, the standard price for all palm hearts was ca. $ 0.06. Theslightly higher prices in Brazil resulted in a daily income of $ 8-10 for Marajóextractors, more than in most areas in the North-West District (Table 5.4).

Table 5.9 Comparison of palm heart harvesting between Guyana and Brazil.

Parameters North-West District Marajó Island, Brazil

< 2 timesharvested

> 2 timesharvested

4-5 yrs fallowperiod

1-2 yrs fallowperiod

DBH of harvested stems [cm] 11.44 11.15 10.6 6.2

DBH of living stems > 2 m 6.8 4.7 6.3 4.9

Palm heart diameter [cm] 2.75 2.69 2.6 1.3

Palm heart weight [g] 293 287 262 76

Actual yield [kg/ha] 149.9 108.1 192.3 43.9

No. of stems needed for this yield 512 377 734 577

Percentage of dead clumps 4 10 11 25


181

The average palm heart weight of the Brazilian plots with short fallow periods wasmore than three times lower than in the Guyanese HP plots (harvested more than 2times). The Company’s strict size control, therefore, is a good instrument to preventa strong decline in palm heart weight due to the harvesting of immature stems.Although they were difficult to find in Marajó, Pollak et al. showed that fallowperiods of 4-5 years led to a higher net yield than short periods of 1-2 years (Table5.9). No direct comparisons could be made between the low-pressure plots in Brazil(with a fallow period of 4-5 years) and LP plots in Guyana, since areas with fallowperiods longer than two years were not found in Guyana. The Brazilian LP plots alsohad a slightly higher yield than LP plots in Guyana, probably because of the highernumbers of small cabbages collected. The fallow periods in the Brazilian andGuyanese HP plots were more or less equal in length, which enables a more directcomparison. Although many more stems were cut in the Brazilian HP plots, the yieldin those plots was much lower than in Guyanese HP plots. As Pollak and co-workersdid not calculate potential yield, nothing is known about the number of stemsremaining in the field after harvest in Marajó Island.

One quarter of all the clumps was dead in the Brazilian stands subject to frequentharvest, while clump mortality was around 10% in Guyanese HP plots. Palm heartextraction in Brazil started in the 1970s, and Euterpe resources in the area havecertainly dwindled since then. Pollak et al. (1995) predicted that the economic boomin the palm heart industry would be short-lived, since many of the hundreds ofcanning factories in the Amazon estuary were closing down in the early 1990s.Overharvesting in the study area of Pollak et al. appeared to be more severe than inour study plots in Guyana; population parameters in Marajó low-pressure plotsseemed more similar to HP plots in Guyana. Nevertheless, if extraction continues atthe current level of intensity, in 10 years from now, Guyana may face similarproblems with future yields as Brazil.

Overharvesting and low-quality palm hearts have already weakened Brazil’s positionon the world market (Richards, 1993). In the 1990s, other Latin American countries(e.g., Costa Rica, Ecuador) started to harvest palm hearts from Bactris gasipaesplantations and filled the gap in the export market to France. This multi-stemmedspecies only needs two years to produce adequately sized palm hearts. If properlymanaged, a Bactris plantation can yield ca. 4500 palm hearts annually per hectare inthe first ten years (PROMAB, 1998). According to Arkcoll and Clement (1989),plantations of B. gasipaes can produce palm hearts at six times the rate of E.oleracea in experimental plantations.

5.5.4 Socio-economic benefits of palm heart harvestingAccording to Forte (1995), the traditional Amerindian culture in Guyana isthreatened by the long periods of absence of able-bodied males. Women can plantand tend their subsistence farms only after men have cut and burned a piece of forest.If heads of households work in remote cities, mines, or logging concessions, thefarms will be neglected. When the men return, their earnings rarely last to feed thefamily until the next paycheque. The socio-economic advantages of palm heartharvesting are that it provides locally available cash income and allows mostextractors to return home every day and maintain their indigenous lifestyle. Those


182

who stay in forest camps for long periods usually take their families with them. Infact, spending time in temporary camps during fishing and hunting trips has alwaysbeen part of Amerindian life (Roth, 1924). Commercial NTFP extraction is one ofthe few employment opportunities available within the Amerindian reservations(Forte, 1995; van Andel and Reinders, 1999). Although cabbage cutters haveneglected their farms in some areas, they still spend considerably more time at homewith their families than men who found work in remote logging or mining camps.Therefore, it is of great socio-economic importance that the Company continues itsactivities in the North-West District.

5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.6.1 Management planHarvesting palm hearts is not only socially more acceptable than the gold and timberindustry, it also appears to be less environmentally destructive. Flying over theNorth-West District, we immediately noticed large openings in the forest cover whenpassing logging or mining operations. In the palm heart region, the canopy appearedquite intact from the air, even in high-pressure areas. According to Johnson (1995),Euterpe swamps represent a concentrated resource that is potentially simple tomanage compared to more species-rich heterogeneous forests. To guarantee acontinuous supply of palm hearts in the future, the Company must develop amanagement plan as soon as possible. It should be based on adequate resourceinventories and include post-harvest monitoring. The Company should design astrategy to continue processing manicole while relieving the pressure onoverharvested areas. The Company has already announced informally that they wantto keep production in the North-West District at its present level to prevent furtherpressure on the forest. According to manager X. Richard (pers. comm.), theCompany tries as much to minimise its effects on the ecological and socialenvironment in the region. He further states that within the framework ofglobalisation, food processors have to be guided by the rules of the internationalmarket with regards to competition and marketing. In his opinion, the Company hasexperienced a strong influence of currency valuation, trade agreements, and mergers.A publicly available management plan, however, would give the Company a betterimage and lessen the suspicion felt by the Guyanese public. The plan might alsoserve as an instrument to monitor the sustainability of the extraction practices. Afterthe publication of the interim report by van Andel et al. (1998), the Guyana ForestryCommission requested the Company again to develop a management plan for thenext five years (G. Marshall, pers. comm.).

5.6.2 Further researchFor valid statements on regeneration periods and sustainable harvesting levels,further research is needed on the population dynamics of E. oleracea. Repeatedmeasurements on recovery are necessary to assess the long-term effects of differentharvest pressures. Experimental cutting at different intensities should be carried outin permanent sample plots. Regeneration should be measured for several years inorder to develop growth models and sustainable harvest levels. These models,accompanied by resource mapping made through aerial photographs and GIS


183

systems, should form the basis of a sustainable management plan. Attention shouldfurther be paid to the optimum relationship between the ecological limits of palmheart extraction and the socio-economic subsystem.

5.6.3 CertificationCanned palm heart is consumed mainly in developed countries like France and theUSA, where ‘green’ products from rainforests are popular among environmentallyminded people. These consumers are willing to pay a higher price for a product if itis harvested in a sustainable way and guarantees a better income for extractors indeveloping countries (Browder, 1992; Clay, 1992). Once the Company succeeds indeveloping an ecologically sustainable management system, in which attention ispaid to the social needs of the cabbage cutters, the Company could market its palmheart as a ‘sustainably harvested rainforest product’. This would benefit themarketing position of the Company and ultimately lead to better living conditions forthe cutters. Currently, the company is only certified to produce palm heart withoutfertilisers and pesticides (J. Gérin, pers. comm.).

5.6.4 Large-scale rotation systemsFrom an ecological viewpoint, the best solution for overharvesting would be to stopbuying palm hearts from heavily exploited areas. If the Company would withdrawfrom those areas and intensify extraction in less-disturbed areas, the damagedpopulations could regenerate and perhaps permit harvesting again in another fiveyears. An adequate control system is needed to prevent illegal cutting inoverharvested areas. A large-scale rotation system, however, may have severe socio-economic consequences. Local employment opportunities would suddenly be limitedand cheap commodities would no longer be available in closed areas. With few foodreserves grown at home, this could lead to extreme poverty and malnutrition amongcabbage cutter families. These cutters should either be offered alternative sources ofincome or stimulated to migrate to less-disturbed areas. Adequate housing, healthand education facilities would make it more attractive for people to move to newextraction sites. In addition, newcomers should definitely be encouraged to combinepalm heart harvesting with subsistence farming, in order to prevent resourcedepletion and forced migration in the future. This is especially relevant in the LowerWaini, where migrants from the Aruka and Barima Rivers have already startedharvesting on a full-time basis. Food security is essential to prevent a totaldependency on the canning industry and the consequent destruction of Euterpeswamps.

Several authors have designed large-scale management systems for the Brazilianpalm heart industry. Calzavara (1972), for example, presented results from aplantation in which palm hearts were harvested every four years, felling 30% of thestems > 10 m and 30% of the stems between 2 and 5 m during each harvest.Anderson and Jardim (1989) reported a system in which three large palm hearts wereextracted from each clump every third year, combined with selective thinning ofweeds and vines and girdling of canopy trees without local uses. Strudwick (1990)gave an example of a successful management plan in Marajó, in which a palm heartfactory divided an area of 5 x 2 km into smaller rectangles of 200 x 500 m. Theseplots were harvested every four years and actively managed by the Company.


184

Undesirable vegetation and palm leaf debris where cleared to provide sufficient lightand a better germination of E. oleracea. The forest was thus maintained in anoptimum state for the future production of palm heart. This system suppliedapproximately 700 harvestable stems per ha. It was estimated that it would take justover two years to harvest the entire area. Upon completion, the project would go toanother area and return two years later, when the palms had reached a sufficient sizeto harvest again. To encourage the cutters to follow this management scheme, theywere paid two times the standard payment. Palm heart operations of the samecompany, using similar methods in other areas, had been in practice for over tenyears, thus demonstrating the apparent sustainability of the system (Strudwick,1990). In the North-West District, 1296 harvestable stems per ha were counted in thecontrol plot, while ca. 400 mature stems per ha were left after harvest in the low-pressure plots. If a sustainable system allows the felling of 700 stems per ha everyfour years, extraction rates would still be lower than in the present LP plots. Furtherresearch should be conducted to see if this management system could be applied inGuyana as well.

At first glance, these harvesting systems look rather costly and complicated.However, Pollak et al. (1995) argued that low- and high-intensity managementsystems both resulted in significant long-term savings for factories, when comparedto the costs of purchasing wild palm hearts from independent extractors. Themanagement of forests dominated by economically important species could be asuccessful venture, if the product value is high and conflictive land uses are few(Anderson, 1988; Peters et al., 1989b). This seems to apply for northwest Guyana aswell, since commercial agriculture would require drastic changes in the swampy,saline environment of the coastal wetlands, while the absence of commercial timberspecies and valuable minerals make them unsuitable for logging or mining. Theharvesting of palm hearts (and other NTFPs) seems to be the most viable land use inthis region, provided that an adequate management plan is developed. Strudwick(1990) predicted that if the Amazonian coastal wetlands would be carefullymanaged, a steady, renewable source of palm heart could result, while at the sametime helping to conserve the native forests and soils.

5.6.5 Small-scale rotation systemsFrom a socio-economic standpoint, the best solution for overharvesting would be thedevelopment of rotation systems at community level. This would enable people toearn a living in their near surroundings, without having to move away from theirfamilies or homelands. As villages differ from each other in resource availability,each should make its own management plan. In such a system, some areas arepredestined for harvest, while others are left to regenerate for at least four years.Whichever occurs, at least one mature stem per clump should be spared and markedwith paint in order to enhance the growth of suckers and young stems. Otherrecommended silvicultural measures are: 1) avoid the cutting of suckers and youngstems when felling large stems; and 2) selective clearing of lianas and shrubs thatinhibit the growth of seedlings and young stems.


185

Strict agreements among cutters are needed to avoid extraction in regenerating areas.However, guaranteed land or access rights are a prerequisite for the success of such asystem. In high-pressure areas, subsistence agriculture should be stimulated toguarantee food security.

Training programs should focus on the following subjects:

• Improving agricultural techniques in subsistence farming• Designing village-based management plans for palm heart extraction• Developing community administration skills

At the time of this research, no attempts had ever been made by cabbage cutters toorganise themselves. Everyone was a direct competitor of his neighbour, a factor thatstrongly weakened his or her bargaining position. In addition, hardly any agreementswere made among villagers on the division of working space. Extractors wereinclined to harvest palm hearts as soon as possible, instead of waiting for the stems toreach larger size and thus losing them to other cutters. When a small-scale rotationsystem was discussed with extractors from Warapoka, they rejected the idea. Theyconsidered the palm heart resources around their village too limited to establish arotation system with such long fallow periods. People said they were too dependenton cabbage cutting to slow down harvesting. They needed the cash to meet theirdaily needs. They also wondered who would control the regenerating areas.

Since in the end it is the extractor who decides which stems to cut and which to leavefor future harvests, he exercises the ultimate control over whether or not the activityis sustainable (Pollak et al., 1995). For this reason, conditions must be madefavourable for the extractor to carry out his job in a way that protects the naturalresource against over-exploitation. According to Schwartzman (1990), the palm heartindustry in Brazil was a clear case where land reform would result in sustainablemanagement practices. This should happen through the combination of extractivereserves and cooperative marketing.

In Guyana, a system to relieve the pressure on the Euterpe swamps would only workif alternative resources were available to the cutters. To ensure food security andovercome the loss of income, self-help days could be organised during whichvillagers work together establishing farms in exchange for food. Similar programshave been executed successfully by SIMAP in other communities in the North-WestDistrict (Forte, 1995). Community-based management systems should first be testedin low-pressure areas, where sufficient manicole resources are still available. Villagecouncils should always be fully involved in this process, as well as local agents andrepresentatives from the Company. The lack of communication between theCompany and communities involved in palm heart harvesting has often led to tenserelations and mutual distrust. Therefore, it has been suggested that an intermediarybe employed to start a dialogue between cutters and the Company and to explaincompany policies (G. Ford, pers. comm.).


186

Communities should try to organise themselves and take a responsible attitudetowards the future. Harvest quota should be set for vulnerable areas. Villageadministration is essential in order to control the amounts of palm hearts extracted.Cutters must be registered, both at the Company and in at village itself. More creeksshould be deepened to avoid further depletion of riparian Euterpe stocks. Theseactivities should be co-ordinated by village councils and stimulated by the Company,the Guyanese government, SIMAP, and other (Amerindian) NGOs concerned withrural welfare.

5.6.6 SafetyPalm heart harvesters repeatedly mentioned snake bites as the greatest risk of theirwork. Ideally, every cutter should carry a personal snakebite kit, containing a suctionpump, a razor blade, and a bottle of anti-venom. This is of course quite expensive,but local health huts are often badly equipped for emergencies and hospitals may beas far as a day’s travel in a fast boat. The cheapest option is to minimise the risk ofsnakebites. Distribution of free rubber boots to all cabbage cutters would greatlyreduce injuries. When we recommended this in our interim report (van Andel et al.,1998), the Company replied that cutters found it impractical to wear boots in theforest (X. Richard, pers. comm.). When the GFC later urged the Company to providesafety gear for extractors, the general manager answered that cutters were notemployed by the Company (LaRose, 1999). LaRose also noted that neither cuttersnor agents were insured by the country’s National Insurance Scheme.

5.6.7 Utilisation of Euterpe fruitsIn Brazil, a popular drink (‘açai’) is made from the fruits of Euterpe oleracea. Peopleharvest the fruits by climbing the palms, cutting the inflorescences, and extractingthe pulp by hand. Açai supports a huge domestic economy in the Brazilian Amazon:in 1987 it had become the most important extractive product (by value) in theBrazilian economy (Richards, 1993). The liquid is processed into ice cream, pastries,and other food items. Mixed with cassava flour, rice, or sugar, açai is consumed inhuge quantities by the poor section of the Amazonian population. In some areas,people consume over two litres a day (Strudwick and Sobel, 1988; de Castro, 1993).E. oleracea has a major fruiting season from August to December in Brazil (Kahnand de Granville, 1992), but nothing is known about its phenology in Guyana. In thisstudy, reproductive adults were frequently observed between October and February,and locals said that fruits and flowers were produced throughout the year.

For some reason, the Guyanese do not fancy Euterpe juice, although a similar drinkfrom the fruits of Jessenia bataua is very popular. In this way, a product with suchan enormous potential remains unused, because it lacks opportunities on thedomestic market. The Company was not very positive about processing Euterpefruits (X. Richard, pers. comm.), but once a stable external market is found, theymight reconsider developing a conserving system for fruit pulp export. Using theexisting infrastructure for palm heart collection, the revenues from manicole swampscould then increase significantly, resulting in more income and employment for localpeople. Palm heart harvesting does not necessarily have negative consequences for


187

fruit collection (Peters et al., 1989b; Richards, 1993). Leaving intact one mature stemper cluster increases the vitality of the clump and supplies the extractor with fruits.

Once Euterpe fruits are considered valuable, fewer reproductive trees will be felled.In Surinam and Brazil, local people widely cultivate E. oleracea for its fruits.Anderson and Jardim (1989) found that pruning a few mature Euterpe stems perclump for palm heart did not have negative effects on the fruit production of theremaining stems and that selective thinning of forest competitors significantlyincreased fruit productivity. Alternative land use practices that permit both fruitharvest and palm heart extraction are being increasingly implemented by the ruralpopulation in Amazonia (Anderson and Jardim, 1989). Since malnutrition is notuncommon in the North-West District (Forte, 1995), the use of Euterpe fruits in thelocal diet should be promoted.

5.7 CONCLUSIONS

After several years of exploitation, Euterpe populations in the coastal wetlands ofnorthwest Guyana showed a steady decline in the height and diameter of stems,clump vitality, reproduction, and palm heart yield. The main reason for thisphenomenon is that the fallow periods between subsequent harvests are too short.Our data suggest that the present level of palm heart harvesting will lead to severeproblems with sustainability in the near future, in particular when harvest cyclesremain shorter than the generally recommended four to five years. Information aboutthe growth rates of E. oleracea is needed to confirm the evidence presented here.

Amerindians in the coastal swamp region rely heavily on the employment and cheapcommodities provided by the canning company. Declining Euterpe resources andneglect of traditional farming have caused severe socio-economic problems. Fallowperiods in these high-pressure sites were very short, leading to a very limited time forthe vegetation to regenerate. In areas where people combined palm heart harvestingwith subsistence farming, hunting, and fishing, less damage was done to thevegetation and harvest cycles were longer. This suggests a link between theavailability of alternative sources of income and subsistence and the intensity ofpalm heart extraction.

No significant decline in the mean weight of palm hearts and diameter of harvestedstems could be established. This was probably caused by the minimum palm heartsize required by the Company. This requirement appears to be a powerful method toprevent the extraction of immature stems, a practice that has led to severeoverharvesting in Brazil. Populations of Euterpe precatoria do not run much risk ofbeing depleted nor does the harvesting of manicole seem to have a strongly negativeeffect on other NTFPs.


188

It is of great economic and social importance that the Company continues itsactivities in the North-West District. However, a detailed management plan, based onadequate resource inventories and post-harvest monitoring, is needed to ensure thefuture supply of palm hearts, since sustainable harvesting of this resource is of vitalimportance to the country’s well-being. Palm heart extraction seems to be the mostviable land use for the coastal wetlands of Guyana, since the vegetation is dominatedby a fast-growing, economically important species with a lasting market value.Moreover, the potential for competitive land uses is minimal.

In the near future, the Company will probably implement large rotation systems thatallow the regeneration of overharvested areas, while intensifying extraction inundisturbed areas. To avoid the migration of extractors in the future, community-based rotation systems should also be encouraged. Subsistence agriculture should bestimulated to guarantee food security. The Company, extractors, and the governmentshould consider palm heart harvesting in the context of the social, economic, andecological realities of the North-West District. This implies that each party shouldassume its responsibilities in ensuring that palm heart harvesting continues to play itscurrent important role.


189

6. COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF NON-TIMBERFOREST PRODUCTS IN GUYANA’S NORTH-WESTDISTRICT1

6.1 INTRODUCTION

One of the ways to ensure that Guyana can profit from its natural resources withoutplundering them, is to diversify the forest-based portion of the national economy(Sizer, 1996). An increased commercial extraction of NTFPs, for example, couldadd more economic value to the forest, generate income for forest-dwelling people,and provide economic incentives for conservation and sustainable resourcemanagement (Vasquez and Gentry, 1989; FAO, 1991; Clay, 1992; Hall and Bawa,1993; Broekhoven, 1996). Guyana’s vast potential of NTFPs has only partly beendeveloped commercially. Many plant and animal products are gathered from naturalforests in Guyana, but the majority is used for subsistence purposes only. FewNTFPs are extracted on a commercial basis and even less are harvested for exportpurposes.

NTFPs are often viewed as a promising forest use, as they can often be harvestedwithout much damage to the ecosystem (Plotkin and Famolare, 1992). The impact oftheir extraction is minimal compared to logging, mining, or cattle ranching (Nepstadand Schwartzman, 1992). It was suggested that the long term potential value ofNTFPs, including plants, animals, ecotourism and pharmaceutical prospecting, couldoutstrip the value of the timber itself (Sizer, 1996). Therefore, only the commercialextraction of NTFPs, in contrast to extraction for subsistence, has the potential tocontribute to the economic development of forest-dependent people (Boot, 1997).

Furthermore, the labour-intensive, capital-extensive approach is well suited to localconditions in many tropical countries (Plotkin and Famolare, 1992). Economicallysuccessful NTFPs must have a permanent market appeal. Harvesters should receivea good price for the product in order to prevent destructive extraction techniques,wasting, or abandoning the product altogether. Distributors must be guaranteed aconsistent supply of the product and therefore its harvest should be ecologicallysustainable (Pollak et al., 1995).

1. Parts of this chapter have been published in the two following articles:van Andel, van T.R. 1998. Commercial exploitation of Non-Timber Forest Products in the North-WestDistrict of Guyana. Caribbean Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 2 (1): 15-28

van Andel, T.R. and M.A. Reinders. 1999. Non-Timber Forest Products in Guyana’s Northwest District:Potentials and pitfalls. In M.A.F. Ros-Tonen (ed.): Seminar Proceedings ‘NTFP Research in theTropenbos Programme: Results and Perspectives’, 28 January 1999. The Tropenbos Foundation,Wageningen, the Netherlands: 47-62.

6. Commercial exploitation of NTFPs in Guyana’s North-West District

190

Figure 6.1 Commercial extraction of NTFPs in Guyana’s North-West District. Drawing by H.R.Rypkema.


191

Amerindians in Guyana have traded forest products among each other since theirvery existence (Butt, 1973). Nowadays, substantial amounts of NTFPs are stilltraded on local village markets (Forte, 1996c), but quantitative data on NTFPs fromGuyana are scarce (Sizer, 1996; Sullivan, 1999). Apart from recent research onaerial roots harvesting (Hoffman, 1997) and on the availability of useful plants in theIwokrama Reserve (Johnston and Gillman, 1995; Johnston and Culquhoun, 1996;Johnston, 1998), and the household surveys of Sullivan (1999), there is little knownon the habitats and ecology of commercially important NTFPs, the amountsharvested, their importance for the local and national economy, or the impact of theirextraction on the forest.

The commercial exploitation of the interior forests is regulated by the GuyanaForestry Commission (GFC). Inadequate facilities, finance, and personnel haveforced the GFC to limit its activities to the allocation of harvesting rights, control ofthe timber export, and revenue collection (Sizer, 1996). Only recently, under theinfluence of international donor agencies and NGOs, Guyana is beginning toconsider its Amerindian inhabitants as stakeholders in the decision-making processin forestry issues (Government of Guyana, 1996). Guyana now faces the challengeto set up sustainable land use plans for its interior, in which commercial extractionof NTFPs should be fully integrated with other forest uses (Sizer, 1996). Accordingto Conservation International, the country’s opportunities for harmonising economicdevelopment with biodiversity conservation are extremely promising (Parker et al.,1993).

Marketing efforts for NTFPs should focus initially on products for which there arealready markets (Clay, 1992). Record keeping is essential to facilitate the publicaccess to the information of species harvested from the wild and the status of theirpopulations (Edwards et al., 1994). This chapter will focus on those NTFPs from theNorth-West District that are currently extracted for commercial purposes. Thegeneral aspects of their trade are discussed, after which some recommendations aregiven that might help to realise their sustainable extraction.

6.2 METHODOLOGY

During the fieldwork period of 1995-1998, regular surveys were held at the regionalmarkets of Charity, Mabaruma, and Georgetown. Local Amerindian markets (SantaRosa, Kariako), craft shops (Santa Rosa, Hossororo, Kabakaburi) and furnitureproducers (Haimaracabra, Pomeroon, Hossororo) were visited as well. Interviewswere held with NTFP harvesters, middlemen, and craftspeople in each of theseplaces, including some of the larger furniture factories and craft shops inGeorgetown. Export figures of NTFPs were calculated from commercial exportinvoices present in the archives of the Guyana Forestry Commission. Additionalinformation was derived from crude company figures, agricultural export reports,published, and unpublished literature.

6. C

omm

erci

al e

xplo

itatio

n of

NTF

Ps

in G

uyan

a’s

Nor

th-W

est D

istr

ict

192

Tab

le 6

.1M

ajor

com

mer

cial

NT

FPs

in G

uyan

a’s

Nor

th-W

est d

istr

ict a

nd P

omer

oon

regi

on. P

rice

s ar

e gi

ven

in U

S$.

The

exc

hang

e ra

te in

199

7 w

as 1

US$

= 1

42 G

uyan

a do

llars

.

Pro

duct

Spec

ies

Ext

ract

ion

regi

onE

nd u

seM

arke

tsP

rice

/uni

t(h

arve

ster

)P

rice

/uni

t(e

nd u

ser)

wild

life

bird

s, m

amm

als,

rept

iles,

fis

h, w

ild m

eat

enti

re N

orth

Wes

t Dis

tric

tan

d Po

mer

oon

pets

, ski

ns, f

ood

Geo

rget

own,

USA

, Eur

ope

$ 2.

50-1

0 / a

nim

alup

to $

10,

000/

anim

alpa

lm h

eart

Eut

erpe

ole

race

aco

asta

l sw

amps

cann

ed d

elic

acy

Fran

ce, U

SA, G

eorg

etow

n$

0.06

/ pa

lm h

eart

$ 1.

5 / c

anni

bi &

kuf

a ro

ots

Het

erop

sis

flex

uosa

Clu

sia

spp.

Pom

eroo

n, M

abar

uma

furn

iture

, bas

ketr

yG

eorg

etow

n, C

arib

bean

, USA

,co

asta

l Guy

ana

$ 5-

10 /

bund

le$

0.14

-0.3

5 / r

oot

$ 20

-700

/fu

rnitu

retr

oolie

leav

esM

anic

aria

sac

cife

raPo

mer

oon,

coa

stal

sw

amps

roof

s, w

alls

NW

D, W

est C

oast

Ess

equi

bo$

0.03

-0.1

1 / l

eaf

$ 12

7-40

8/ r

oof

man

grov

e ba

rkR

hizo

phor

a m

angl

eM

abar

uma,

Wai

ni m

outh

leat

her

tann

ing

Geo

rget

own

$ 0.

04 /

kg$

0.13

/ kg

(tan

nery

)tib

isir

i fib

reM

auri

tia

flex

uosa

Pom

eroo

n, M

oruc

aM

abar

uma

craf

ts, c

arpe

ts,

ham

moc

ks,

car

seat

s

Geo

rget

own,

Car

ibbe

an, U

SA$

0.35

/ ba

sket

$ 7

/ ham

moc

k$4

2 / c

arpe

t$

18 /

ham

moc

k

mok

ruIs

chno

siph

on a

roum

aI.

obl

iquu

sPo

mer

oon,

Mor

uca

Mab

arum

aba

sket

ry, c

raft

sG

eorg

etow

n, U

SA C

arib

bean

,N

WD

,$

0.20

-$4

/ bas

ket

$ 4-

10 /

bask

et

med

icin

al p

lant

sva

riou

s sp

ecie

soc

casi

onal

ly f

rom

NW

Dm

edic

ine

Geo

rget

own,

USA

, UK

$ 0.

07-0

.14

-cr

ab o

ilC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

enti

re N

orth

Wes

t dis

tric

tm

edic

inal

oil

Geo

rget

own,

NW

D$

3.5

/ lit

re$

7 / l

itre


193

6.3 RESULTS

6.3.1 Total export revenues of NTFPsSeveral NTFPs already account for a share in Guyana’s exports and many of thoseare harvested in the North-West District. Species and unit prices of the mostimportant commercial NTFPs (both concerning the national and the internationalmarket) are listed in Table 6.1. Unfortunately, even for products that have beentraded for years, little information is available on revenues earned and number ofpeople employed in the collection, processing, and trade. When the limitedpublished information (Edwards et al., 1994; World Bank, 1995; Sizer, 1996;NGMC, 1996, 1997, 1998), GFC tax forms, and unpublished production figureswere all compiled, total export figures of NTFPs could only be calculated with someaccuracy for 1996 (Table 6.2). This sum still might be a conservative estimation, asexporters often give low product values for reasons of tax evasion and wildlifeproducts are smuggled out of the country in substantial quantities (Sizer, 1996).Nevertheless, these figures at least provide some insight in the export of commercialNTFPs from Guyana.

As taxes had to be paid and licenses had to be issued before products were sentabroad, export revenues are the only data available on the NTFP trade in Guyana.Except for the harvesting of mangrove bark, of which records were kept by the GFC,there was no quantitative information available on NTFPs produced for the nationalmarket. At the time of the research there were no entities monitoring the volumes ofNTFPs put up for sale at local or regional markets. Except for the heart of palmindustry, it was not known how many people benefited from the NTFP trade inGuyana. Most commercial NTFPs in the North-West District were harvested closeto transportation facilities and regional markets (e.g., Mabaruma and Charity). Moredetailed accounts on the main products are given below, in order of importance.

Table 6.2 Annual export values in US$ of the major commercial NTFPs in Guyana, in order ofimportance. Figures are given in tons if revenues were not available. - = Data not available; *= Harvested in the North-West District only. Sources: Edwards et al. (1994), World Bank(1995), Sizer (1996), Thomas et al. (1996), NGMC (1996, 1997, 1998), and GFC (unpublisheddata). Revenues do not include export taxes.

Product 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Wildlife 1,500,000 1,871,000 banned banned - 2,100,000 -

Palm heart * 734 tons 797 tons 941 tons 1,500,000 2,071,162 1,965,978 2,338,431

Nibi and kufa * - - - - 190,133 137,120 125,165

Tibisiri - - - - 11,209 10,401 4,850Medicinalplants - - 0.33 tons 1.96 tons 5,361 6,213 2,313

Mokru - - - - 1,823 131 75

Total - - - - 2,279,688 4,219,843 -


194

6.3.2 WildlifeWildlife is by far the most important commercial NTFP in Guyana, both regardingthe foreign trade and the national market. The legal export of animals was estimatedto be worth around US$ 2 million annually, more or less equalling the palm heartexport (Table 6.2). However, this sum seems to be a moderate guess, since profitsgenerated by the domestic trade and illegal export of live animals and game meatwould add significantly to this estimate (Sizer, 1996; Forte, 1996c). Guyana’swildlife exports are significant on a global scale. The country ranks among theworld’s leading bird exporters, with Psittacidae (parrots, macaws and parakeets) asmain commercial product (Edwards et al., 1994). In 1986, more than 30 thousandparrots, over 5300 live primates and 52,000 reptile skins were exported fromGuyana (Broekhoven, 1996). The trade of ornamental fish with the USA wasestimated to have generated more than $ 250,000 in 1992 (World Bank, 1995).

The Wildlife Division under the Office of the President registers and monitors thelegal export of animals, but has little statutory authority to support the managementof wildlife. The Division is understaffed, ill equipped and inadequately funded tocarry out its responsibilities effectively (Brown, 1992; Thomas et al., 1996). Theanimal trade is scarcely monitored and reports of highly predatory collecting andexport methods are common (Sizer, 1996). In 1977, Guyana signed an agreementwith CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora). In 1987, quotas were set for all species legally exported, but thesewere only assumed to be below the levels at which wild populations might bethreatened. Except for the caiman (Caiman crocodrilus crocodrilus) and apreliminary survey of boid snakes, baseline population data and management planswere lacking (Edwards et al., 1994; De Souza, 1997).

Concerns over the sustainability of the commercial wildlife extraction prompted thegovernment in 1993 to suspend temporarily exports of wild species (Edwards et al.,1994). The export prohibition was said to last until a better system for harvestinglevels was established and administration and control procedures were improved(Stabroek News, 1993). The ban caused great consternation among wildlifeexporters, Amerindian trappers and Government officials (Guy, 1993; Persaud, citedin Stabroek News, 1993; Bisnauth, 1993). A detailed framework to conserve andmanage wild species for sustainable use was provided to the Government by theIUCN (Edwards et al, 1994). In this report, guidelines for all stakeholders wereclarified and scientific surveys were strongly recommended before the ban should belifted again.

The trade was reopened in November 1995, but according to De Souza (1997), therewere still no estimates of sustainable harvest levels for the majority of the wildanimals. The quota were in most cases not based on population surveys, nor locationspecific, which could lead to a local extinction of species if the situation was notmentioned clearly (De Souza, 1997). A closed season for trapping was set fromJanuary to April for birds and from June to August for mammals (Edwards et al.,1994). This system could enhance the recovery of populations, although it was not


195

known if the periods referred to breeding seasons of marketable species (De Souza,1997).

In spite of the country’s official CITES agreements, Georgetown souvenir shopswere still selling the skins of jaguar (Panthera onca) and puma (Puma concolor) in1998 (see Plate 31 of Part II of this thesis). These animals are listed on Appendix Iand thus officially banned for international trade (CITES, 1973). The trade inspecies mentioned on Appendix II (toucans, monkeys, parakeets and macaws) isonly permitted if this does not threaten their continued survival. Guyana has beenexporting these animals in large quantities, regardless of the fact that little researchhas been done on the effects of harvesting on their populations. In 1999, after thecountry failed to adopt a law that regulated the export of species listed on theAppendices, CITES recommended international wildlife dealers to suspend theanimal trade with Guyana (CITES, 1999). After a survey of the status anddistribution of Psittacidae, in which recommendations where made concerningharvest quota, scientific research, protected areas, and captive breeding, thetemporary export ban was lifted again by the end of the year (CITES, 1999).

Between 6000 and 54,000 people are estimated to earn a living in the wildlife tradein Guyana, the great majority of which are Amerindians (Catholic Standard, 1992;Forte et al., 1992). It remains unknown how much the North-West Districtcontributes to the international trade. The wildlife business certainly generatesconsiderable income and employment in the region (ECTF, 1993; Edwards et al.,1994), but it is not clear how many trappers and middlemen are directly supportedby this trade. In the household surveys conducted by Sullivan (1999) in threeAmerindian communities in the North-West District, it appeared that in somevillages up to 61% of the animals and 42% of the fish caught were sold. A total of1600 parrots were reported to be caught in Sebai in 1996, while 2300 parrots and1200 macaws were trapped in Karaburi, all for the purpose of trade. These figuresgreatly outweighed the numbers of animals caught for home consumption. However,the annual earnings of commercial trapping in these villages could not be recovered,as Sullivan summed these figures with hypothetical market values of wildlife caughtfor food. Living and dead mammals, reptiles, and birds are being sold toshopkeepers in the interior or directly to traders at the regional markets of SantaRosa, Mabaruma, and Charity, from where they are sometimes flown out bychartered aircraft. The large profits, however, seem to stay in the hands of foreigntraders. A trapper might receive US$ 10 for a rainbow boa (Epicrates cenchria),while the animal is offered for sale in the USA for over $ 200.

In spite of the low prices received by the trappers, wildlife is generally morelucrative per unit than any other non-timber forest product. Even if it takes a wholeday to catch a macaw, it still pays more than an average day of nibi or palm heartharvesting (Hoffman, 1997; van Andel et al., 1998). Animals are often the onlyNTFPs worthwhile to bring from remote areas. Song birds, in particular the lesserseed finch or towa towa (Oryzoborus angolensis), were among the few NTFPsprofitable enough to catch in Kariako (Barama) and bring out all the way to the coastto sell. Other forest products, such as nibi, kufa, crafts or medicinal plants, weredefinitely not worth the transportation costs. Merchants in Charity were sellingcaged call birds for US$ 28 to Amerindians travelling to the interior and offered $ 7


196

to 14 for each finch they would bring back (van Andel, 1998). In Europe a towatowa would cost at least US$ 80.

In 1996, the trade in aquarium fish was concentrated along the Barima River, wherebusinessmen were buying among others the small silver-hatchet (Gasteropelecussternicla), captured by local people in creeks and ponds in the beginning of the dryseason. Buyers distributed plastic containers and collected them again when full,paying $ 4 to $ 7 for a thousand fishes, depending on the species. The dealersmaintained that this trade did little ecological damage, as the fish would die anywayduring the dry season when the creeks stayed without water. However, no surveyshave been conducted and little is known about the impact of the extraction on thepopulations of these species. There is neither a harvest quota nor a closed season forthe ornamental fish trade. In 1992, the potential value of export quota for aquariumfishes was calculated at $ 251,002 (Edwards et al, 1994).

Almost no regulation or monitoring takes place in the domestic wildlife trade, eventhough bush meat and fish are the major protein source in the interior. In villageswith little access to markets, the majority of the catch is consumed within thehousehold, but communities more integrated into the money economy may sell up to61% of their catch (Sullivan, 1999). Bush meat and fish are commonly traded amongvillagers, gold miners, and loggers and at local markets. An increasing number ofrestaurants in Georgetown offer wild meat on their menu as a delicacy. There alsoexists a significant domestic market for parrots, monkeys, and songbirds (Forte,1996c). At the annual revenues earned from domestic wildlife trade can only beguessed (Thomas et al., 1996). Sullivan (1999) estimated the total amount of bushmeat caught in Assakata (pop. 176) at 27,735 kg per year and fish at 26,213 kg.However, these figures were based on questionnaires and only two weeks offieldwork. Seasonal variety in hunting and fishing yields was assumed to beminimal. Since quantitative data are lacking, it is impossible to estimate the impactof wildlife harvesting on animal populations.

Changing settlement patterns, resulting in large Amerindian towns (e.g., Santa Rosaand Mabaruma), have increased the local demand for fresh meat and fish. Wildliferesources around these villages seem to be rapidly declining, and people now dependheavily on salted sea fish. At the same time, Amerindians in remote gold miningareas complained that the silting of rivers by land and river dredges diminished theirfish resources (van Andel and Reinders, 1999). In order to establish sustainablemanagement systems for commercial species, extensive surveys are needed to assesspopulation sizes, spatial distributions, extraction rates, mortality, and breedingseasons of (potentially) commercial species (Edwards et al., 1994; Nasir et al., 1997;Iwokrama 1998). Only with these data sustainable extraction models can bedesigned, in which the rate of removal by humans does not exceed the rate of naturalreproduction (Redford and Robinson, 1987; van Wieren, 1999). The first steps inthis direction for Guyana are taken by Iwokrama, by means of organising workshopsto bring together all stakeholders in the wildlife business to discuss critical issuesrelating to wildlife harvesting in the Guiana Shield and the Rupununi in particular(Iwokrama, 1998).


197

According to Ziegler and Zago (1993), the export of wildlife from Guyana could bea profitable and sustainable use of renewable natural resources, if properly regulated.Problems of wastage, cruelty, and dishonesty characteristic for this trade should beaddressed and resolved. Edwards et al. (1994) states that benefits from usingGuyana’s wild resources could contribute to the country’s development and provideincentives to conserve its biodiversity. Sizer (1996), however, argues that trapping isan inherently unsustainable activity that does lasting damage to the forest. It mayprovide significant short-term employment for collectors, and certainly generateslarge profits for exporters and retailers abroad, but unless this trade can beadequately regulated and monitored, with quota based on scientific research, itshould be prohibited again.

6.3.3 Palm heartThe second most important commercial NTFP of Guyana is palm heart, harvestedfrom Euterpe oleracea and worth around US$ 2 million annually in export (Table6.2). In contrast to wildlife, the domestic market for canned palm heart is negligible,although the fresh product is occasionally consumed as a snack in the forest. Exportfigures of palm heart are much more transparent, as there is only one processingcompany involved and the marketing overseas is closely monitored by the NewGuyana Market Cooperation (NGMC). The extraction patterns and problemsconcerning the sustainability of the palm heart harvest have been discussed at lengthin the previous chapter and in van Andel et al. (1998). Compared to wildlife, palmheart is relatively easy to manage, since the species occurs in huge quantities,regenerates quickly and nearly forms monospecific stands. Still, there are strongindications that current palm heart harvesting is not sustainable. The neglect oftraditional farming and a total dependency on the palm heart industry has led toshort harvest cycles and subsequent overharvesting of Euterpe oleracea. This hascaused socio-economic problems in many Amerindian communities, as the canningindustry is a major source of income in the coastal swamp region. It is of vital socio-economic importance that the canning company continues its activities in the North-West District. Management plans are badly needed to guarantee the continuoussupply of palm hearts in the future, while ensuring the recovery of overharvestedareas.

6.3.4 Nibi and kufa furnitureAfter wildlife and palm hearts, the most important NTFPs in Guyana are the aerialroots of several hemi-epiphytes that provide the raw materials for the furnitureindustry. The most important species are Heteropsis flexuosa (‘nibi’), Clusiagrandiflora and C. palmicida (both known as ‘kufa’). The mature aerial roots ofthese species are pliable, strong, and serve as plaiting material for sturdy baskets andfurniture. The woody kufa roots are bent into frames, while the flexible nibi rootsare woven around these frames, in designs similar to rattan furniture. In the interiorthe strong roots of Thoracocarpus bissectus (‘scraping nibi’ or ‘mamuri’) are alsoused for the manufacture of heavy duty baskets (‘warishis’), when H. flexuosa isscarce. Heteropsis roots, also known as ‘peeling nibi’, are of finer structure and easyworkable. The cortex from the roots can be peeled off by hand and therefore thepeeling nibi is preferred for commercial furniture. Thoracocarpus roots are sturdierand less workable, since the cortex must be scraped off with a knife. Roots of the


198

scraping nibi are occasionally sold, when furniture producers place special orders forit, but they are mostly used for subsistence only. Both nibi species are veryimportant as binding material in local house construction and as a general ‘bushrope’. In remote areas, locally made warishis are sold for about US$ 4 to goldminers, who use them for carrying provisions and gasoline into their mines. As fewAmerindians in the interior posses elaborate furniture, kufa is of less commercialimportance here. The roots are sometimes employed in cassava storing baskets andthe cortex is used as a remedy against back pain (see Part II of this thesis).

The main area of commercial extraction and processing of nibi and kufa is thePomeroon River. The trade subsists on a smaller scale in the Hosororo area (nearMabaruma) and in Haimaracabra and Manawarin (near the Moruca River).Especially along the Pomeroon, the furniture business benefits a large number ofpeople. Most of the cheaper furniture is made here in small workshops byAmerindian and East Indian craftsmen. Some is sold locally (at about US$ 20-25 perchair), but the bulk is transported to Georgetown. The more elaborate furniture (upto US$ 700 a piece) is made in small factories in the capital. These firms send outmiddlemen to purchase the raw material in Charity. Nibi and kufa harvesting is themajor source of income for Amerindian families in the lower Pomeroon. Collectorsmay stay in the forest for weeks, combining root harvesting with hunting andfishing. Nibi is sold per bundle of 100 root pieces of ca. 4.5 m each. A person cancut one or two bundles of nibi per day (Hoffman, 1997). Extractors are paid $ 5-8per a bundle, depending on the length and quality of the roots. Kufa is sold in piecesof ca. 4 m, for $ 0.35 (a thick root) or $ 0.14 (thinner roots). Middlemen reject rootsthat are immature, cracked, or bent.

Extractors generally consider the price they receive too low for the hard work andthe long distance to harvesting sites. Tense relationships often exist betweenAmerindian extractors and middlemen, who are mainly of East Indian origin andhave better access to markets and credit (Verheij, 1998). They may take advantagewhen possible, but no extremely abusive relations were observed (Hoffman, 1997).Sometimes Caribbean traders travel directly to the Pomeroon to place their orders.Although they are willing to pay higher prices and offer advancements to thecollectors, complaints were heard about the reliability of the orders (Verheij, 1998).Because of the higher transport costs, furniture workshops in Mabaruma can hardlycompete with the mass production in the Pomeroon and Georgetown.

No more than 30% of the nibi and kufa crafts are sold on the domestic market, theremaining 70% is exported. In 1996, more than 30 craft shops in Georgetown wereexporting furniture and crafts. The two main exporters were responsible for 74% ofthe total export value (van Andel, 1998). Liana Cane Interiors Ltd., one of thelargest enterprises of this kind, used some 60,000 nibi and 20,000 kufa roots in1997, employing 56 persons on the work floor. Only a small percentage (5%) wasexported to Canada and the United States; the majority went to Barbados (29%),Trinidad (18%), and other Caribbean countries (48%). On these islands, furniture isused in tourist accommodations, while nibi crafts are sold again in souvenir shopsfor much higher prices. The craft business in Guyana seems to be triggered more bythe tourist industry in the Caribbean than by tourism in the country itself. Althoughcraft shop owners in Georgetown predicted a growing market, export figures seemed


199

to be dropping (Table 6.2). This is possibly caused by the fierce competition amongproducers, a shortage of the raw material, or by declining demands. Total exportrevenues are probably higher than those listed in Table 6.2, as exporters tend toreport low values on their invoices to avoid taxes.

All species of nibi and kufa are hemi-epiphytes, growing high in the treetops andsending down aerial roots, which eventually reach the soil to take up nutrients. Themajority of the roots wrap around the tree trunk or contain many knots, which makesthem unsuitable for plaiting. The roots preferred for craft production are the onesthat drop straight from the branches of the tree to the ground. According to Hoffman(1997), the present harvest techniques of nibi and kufa roots are unlikely to decimatepopulations, because people harvest much less roots than they leave behind.Research in Venezuela on Heteropsis spruceana, used for similar purposes as H.flexuosa, indicated that when all roots of a single plant were harvested, its survivalchance was reduced to only 5%. But when only half of the roots were cut off, thesurvival was 100% (Romero, 1993). Hoffman considered the ecologicalsustainability of nibi and kufa to be promising, since the plants occurred in relativelyhigh abundance, roots could be removed without killing the plant and there was ayear-round availability. When aerial roots are cut off, the epiphytes will form newones and some the cut roots grow back. Hoffman mentioned growth rates of 26 cmper month for H. flexuosa. Roots required approximately five years to reach the soil,after which they matured within six months and became suitable for craft making.

Nibi and kufa are common, but patchily distributed throughout the northwesternforests. The plants seem to have a preference for well-drained primary forest, asfewer individuals were found in swamp forests. Only a couple of mature roots werepresent in 60-year-old secondary forest and none were recorded in 20-year-old forest(chapter 4). This indicates that it takes decades before the epiphytes have settled intreetops. The maintenance of ‘terra firme’ forest is thus essential for the futuresupply of aerial roots. Unfortunately, most primary forest along the Pomeroon hasbeen given out as timber concession. Logs are also felled in Amerindian reservesand sold to sawmills (Forte, 1995). Companies sometimes offer extractors to harvestall suitable nibi and kufa before they start logging, but since trees full of nibi or kufamay be worth more in aerial roots over a few years than they are once by timber,host trees should better be spared from felling. Because of uncontrolled commercialextraction, logging of host trees, and the destruction of young roots, mature nibi andkufa roots are getting scarce around the Pomeroon villages. The epiphytes may bestill there, but only with young or unsuitable roots (Hoffman, 1997). Extractorscomplained they had to cover larger areas of forest than before to harvest thenecessary amounts. Hoffman (1997) estimated the revenues of H. flexuosaextraction in the lower Pomeroon mixed forest at US$ 2.4 per ha (62 matureroots/ha). Much more nibi and kufa roots were found in the remote Barama mixedforests (105 mature roots/ha), than in the densely populated Pomeroon and Morucaarea. However, the Barama nibi resources are too far away from the Pomeroonmarket to render their harvest economically profitable.

In 1998, Liana Cane Interiors planned to increase production. The firm said theywere willing to cooperate in sustainable harvesting, and with the help ofConservation International, they organised a workshop for local extractors in the


200

Pomeroon. The company agreed to pay a higher price for large kufa roots to preventthe harvesting of immature ones. Local craft making for the export market was alsoencouraged, as this would increase the revenues of nibi and kufa in the villages (F.Alfonso, pers. comm.). It was also mentioned that extractors could earn a largershare of the profits by forming an organisation that sells directly to Georgetownfactories. The Charity market bond should play a role in monitoring the volumes ofraw material put up for sale. A storage facility for roots is also needed, so harvesterscould wait for a better price instead of having to choose between taking amiddlemen’s first offer or paddling back home with their harvest (Verheij, 1998).Export of nibi and kufa furniture is likely to become more important in the future,since Asian rattan resources are declining steadily as a result of overharvesting anddeforestation, while the demand for ‘natural’ furniture is still rising (de Beer andMcDermott, 1996). Given the economic importance of nibi and kufa, thepossibilities for sustainable harvesting, and the increasing international demand,there is an urgent need for adequate management plans for these species.

6.3.5 TibisiriTibisiri is name of a fibre obtained from the young leaves of the ité palm (Mauritiaflexuosa). The outer skin of the leaves is rolled into a soft but strong twine andwoven into hammocks, tourist basketry, car seats, furniture seats, and carpets. Thepalms also have a local economic value, as hammocks and mats are used in ruralhouseholds, the fruits are eaten and made into drinks. Ité leaves are also used forroof thatch in the Rupununi. The species occurs in large quantities on the floodedcoastal plains (chapter 3 and 4), in swamp forests and on the Rupununi savannas.The majority of the handicrafts are made around Moruca, Santa Mission (Demerara)and St. Cuthberts (Mahaica River). Crafts are sold in shops in Moruca, Mabaruma,Charity, and Georgetown, where a hammock costs US$ 18 (retail) and a carpetbetween $ 7 and $ 30. Again, the export is predominantly directed to the CaribbeanIslands. Overseas sales dropped substantially in recent years (Table 6.2), but it isunclear whether this resulted from a dwindling market or from the low productvalues reported to the GFC. On some tax forms wholesale prices of no more thanUS$ 1 were given for a hammock. Tibisiri harvesters complained that because of thefrequent burning of ité savannahs in the dry season they could not approach thepalms and had to travel further each year to obtain their raw material. Althoughprobably beneficial at first, (the surrounding vegetation is eliminated and seedgermination is enhanced), the burning of the savanna eventually becomes fatal to theMauritia saplings (chapter 3). Overharvesting through felling of Mauritia palms forcraft material was reported from St. Cuthberts (DeFilipps, 1992), but this was notobserved in the North-West District.

6.3.6 MokruMokru is the name for two species of Marantaceae, Ischnosiphon arouma and I.obliquus (see Part II of this thesis). Both are shrubs of several meters high, growingin secondary or disturbed primary forest. The stem is split into thin strips, which areused as plaiting material for basketry and tourist souvenirs. I. arouma is preferredbecause it yields a stronger fibre and its crafts tend to last longer. I. obliquus is usedwhen there is a local scarcity of I. arouma, or when the basketry does not have toserve heavy-duty purposes. Mokru is of great importance for the Amerindian


201

society, because it provides the fibre for the manufacture of matapis, sifters, andfans. This equipment is indispensable for the processing of the staple food bittercassava (Manihot esculenta). Mokru basketry is made by traditional craft workersand sold in nearly all indigenous villages for ca. US$ 3.5 (a matapi) to $ 0.70 (a fan).The larger Amerindian towns (Mabaruma, Karakaburi, and Santa Rosa) have localcraft centres where mokru and tibisiri items are produced. The craft business of theNorth-West District is concentrated along the Pomeroon, where the basketry is soldto middlemen and transported to Georgetown. Mokru souvenirs are exported in verysmall quantities, mostly together with nibi and tibisiri basketry (Table 6.2). It couldnot be deduced from the invoice forms what percentage of the exported tibisiri andmokru crafts was produced in the North-West District. Mokru crafts may have alimited export value, but they contribute substantially to the local householdeconomy in Amerindian Reserves. Traditionally, the cassava basketry is made bymen, but since the craft shops are mostly run by women, they offer initiatives forempowerment on a small, but manageable scale (van Andel and Reinders, 1999).The craft industry could become more important when tourism in Guyana wouldincrease. However, other options for export should not be overlooked. Recently,furniture and basketry from Guyana are being offered for sale on the Internet(www.artscraftsGuyana.com/basketry).

6.3.7 Medicinal plantsA wide array of medicinal plants is used in the interior, but the great majority of thespecies are gathered for subsistence only. Money is occasionally involved whenservices are offered by herbal healers or in the case of specifically preparedmedicinal or magic brews (chapter 8). There is a modest, but steady demand forherbal medicine in the capital. The use of ‘bush teas’ is common amongcoastlanders. More than 15 stalls at the Georgetown markets sell a variety of driedand fresh medicinal plants. Although modern medicine is widely available, peopleprefer to treat some diseases with herbal medicines. Bush tea is also very cheap:prices vary between US$ 0.07 to 0.14 for a bundle of medicinal herbs. Some stallsare selling seven days per week, but a few of them stay open for 24 hours a day.During the market surveys, a total of 85 medicinal species were recorded, of whichalmost 60% were of wild origin. A list of all species and uses of medicinal plantsfound in northwest Guyana and at the Georgetown markets is given in chapter 8.

Most medicinal plants are harvested along the Lynden highway and the Timehriarea. Some species are cultivated (e.g., Aloe vera, Jathropa curcas), while many ofthe others are common weeds in secondary shrubland. There seems to be littledanger of overharvesting. The market stalls also sell a number of medicinal barksand roots gathered from primary forest, like Pinzona sp., Smilax schomburgkiana,Strychnos sp., Curarea candicans, and Clusia spp. Few of them are brought fromthe Moruca and Pomeroon area. Prices are generally too low to make extractionfrom remote areas economically feasible. The barks and roots are mostly used as‘builders’ or aphrodisiacs. They are either sold per piece or processed into milkshakes and tonics, which cost from $ 0.70 to $ 4.2 a bottle. The stands also sell craboil, extracted from of the seeds of the crabwood tree (Carapa guianensis). Becauseof its complicated processing method, the oil costs as much as $ 7 per litre. It is used


202

as internal and external medicinal oil, as hair oil and mosquito repellent. Crab oil isone of the few herbal remedies frequently sold in the North-West District. Atpresent, some pharmacies in Georgetown are taking initiatives to process the oilindustrially into soap, candles, and insecticidal washes.

Fresh and dried medicinal herbs and barks are exported in small quantities (Table6.2). No distinction into species was made in the export documents, probably toavoid custom problems. The exported plants were mentioned as ‘tea bush and bark’,‘plant parts’ or ‘medicinal herbs’ (NGMC, 1998). According to the New GuyanaMarketing Cooperation (pers. comm.), the bulk of the exported volume consisted ofcultivated lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) and wild caryla vines (Momordicacharantia), harvested in coastal sugarcane fields. These herbs are dried and exportedto the United Kingdom and the USA, where they are processed into tea bags. Exportpeaked in 1996, when 14.65 tons of medicinal herbs were sent abroad. It remainsunknown which other species are involved in this international trade. The diversityof Guyanese medicinal plants, barks, roots, oils, and resins could have a much largerpotential for the foreign market, if they would be processed in a more sophisticatedmanner and sold as ‘rain forest medicines’. Initiatives are being taken at the momentby small businesses (e.g., Family D’lite and Caledonia Canning Co.) to bottle certainaphrodisiacs industrially.

6.3.8 Mangrove barkAnother commercially harvested product in the North-West District is the bark ofthe red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), commonly used for tanning leather. Thebark is collected by Amerindians along the estuary of the Waini and Aruka Rivers.Entire trees are cut down and skinned, the bark is sliced into manageable pieces andsold to middlemen in Mabaruma for US$ 0.04 per kg. These traders ship the producewith the fortnightly ferry to the capital, where the actual leather production takesplace in small tanning industries. Hardly any tanning is done in northwest Guyana,as cattle are virtually absent here. In the 1940s, the bark was exported to the WestIndian islands (Fanshawe, 1948). In the 1960s, more than 250 tons were harvestedannually for the domestic market. Since the 1970s, mangrove has lost its economicimportance, probably as a result of the decline in cattle production in the Rupununi.Production dropped to 8 tons in 1991, but increased again to 53 tons in 1996. In1998, the production remained at 35 tons (GFC, unpublished data).

Requests for permission to harvest mangrove bark on larger scale in the North-WestDistrict were recently submitted to the Guyana Forestry Commission. According toa GFC official, some tanners nowadays prefer mangrove bark above syntheticsubstitutes. However, the GFC does not want to hand out permissions before aproper management plan is developed and criteria for harvesting techniques havebeen established. The GFC predicted that the bark could be exported again in thenear future if the necessary permits were issued. Although the species occurs in nearmonospecific stands along the coast, felling of trees could have certain risks.Mangrove forests play an essential role in protecting the seashore and riverbanksagainst damage by tidal movements. The dense aerial roots form a natural barrieragainst the waves and prevent the soil from being washed away. To minimise thedamage, the GFC advised harvesters not to fell trees growing directly along the


203

waterfront. No studies have yet been done on the impact of mangrove harvesting ontidal ecosystems in Guyana.

6.3.9 Palm leavesPalm leaves are widely used as roof thatch in the interior. These forest productshardly ever reach Georgetown and are not exported, but they still are of considerablecommercial importance in the interior. Troolie (Manicaria saccifera), dhalebana,(Geonoma baculifera), and to a lesser extend manicole (Euterpe oleracea) are themain palm species used in roof construction in the North-West District. A well-maderoof could last up to 12 years and is waterproof and cool. Special traditional skillsare needed to construct such roofs, so Amerindians are often hired to harvest palmleaves and build roofs for shopkeepers, gold miners, commercial farmers, andrestaurant owners.

Dhalebana grows in dense patches in the understorey of the riverine Mora forest,deep in the interior. Dhalebana roofs last long (6 to 12 years), but the plaiting islabour intensive. In Barama, prices of US$ 50-60 were paid for construction of aroof of 4.5 x 3 m, containing some 80 kg of leaves. The price included one day ofcollecting and half a day of paddling to the place where the dhalebana washarvested, since near to Amerindian villages the palm was rather scarce (chapter 3).No dhalebana is transported to the coastal areas.

Troolie is absent in the deep interior, but common in the coastal wetlands, wheredhalebana does not occur. Troolie roofs are made easier and quicker, but last shorterthan dhalebana roofs (4 to 8 years). Troolie provides an income for quite a numberof Amerindians, paddling with boats full of leaves from remote brackish swamps toregional markets and towns. Troolie grows in the same swamps as Euterpe oleracea,but rather occurs in narrow patches instead of in solid belts (chapter 3). Traditionallyused for roofs and walls of indigenous dwellings, troolie roofs are gaining popularityfor tourist accommodations and poultry farms. Most commercial extraction takesplace along the upper Pomeroon, where leaves are sold in bundles of 50 at theCharity market.

According to their size, $ 0.03 to $ 0.11 is paid per leaf. Every week several truckloads full of troolie leave Charity to various destinations along Essequibo andDemerara Coast, where the bundles are sold for $ 2.5 to $ 9, mostly to commercialpoultry farmers. Prices paid for the raw material and the plait work together varyfrom $ 127 for a small beer garden top in Charity to $ 400 for a chicken pen roof inGeorgetown. In the coastal swamp region, the roof of an average Amerindian housecosts $ 35 (without labour costs).

Due to the patchy distribution of troolie, leaves are not always widely available.Troolie does not occur around the large Amerindian towns of Santa Rosa andMabaruma, so it has to be brought from elsewhere to meet the large demand in thesesettlements. In the dry season, when transportation is difficult, the price of troolierises. People in Santa Rosa grumbled that troolie had become as expensive ascorrugated iron. Palm heart cutters were blamed for damaging troolie trees, causinga shortage of the product. But these accusations were not based on reality, as troolie


204

palms were seldom destroyed during palm heart harvesting. The palm is still presentin large quantities along the Waini and Barima River, and no signs of overharvestingwere observed. The reason for the higher price should be sought in the transportcosts rather than in the scarcity of the product.

6.3.10 Other NTFPsThere exists a substantial trade in wooden crafts (furniture, sculptures, andsouvenirs), but these are hardly produced in the North-West District and thus fallbeyond the scope of this research. Balata, the latex of the bulletwood tree Manilkarabidentata, used to be Guyana’s most important NTFP. It was exported as rawmaterial for the rubber industry, but has lost its economic importance since theinvention of synthetic substitutes and the establishment of Hevea plantations in Asia(Fanshawe, 1948; Pennington, 1990). Recently, a successful project in the Rupununihas reintroduced the use of balata for making handicrafts, sold at Georgetown touristshops (Conservation International, 1998). No balata products were made in the studyarea. In the capital there also exists a small business in jewellery made out of wildseeds, such as horse eye (Ormosia coutinhoi), lucky seed (Ormosia coccinea), andjob’s tears (Coix lacryma-jobi), the latter an introduced weed species. Theseproducts are mostly made around the capital or in southern Guyana.

The trade in living orchids from the North-West District is concentrated aroundChristmas. The living plants are sold to merchants in Parika (Essequibo) for up toUS $ 20 per individual. According to Edwards et al. (1994), the Guyana ForestryCommission authorises the export of orchids and bromeliads that are listed underCITES. No permits are issued for these species, in contravention of the treaty. Thefollowing species from the North-West District were said to be occasionallymarketed: Brassia verrucosa, Catasetum spp., Encyclia diurna, Oncidium baueri,Rodriguezia lanceolata, and Zygosepalum labiosum. These orchids are rathercommon elements in the coastal wetlands. None of them are listed on the CITESAppendices. Taxes paid by orchid exporters were reported as very low, while thespecimens were valued at hundreds of dollars in the USA (Edwards et al., 1994).Bromeliads were not mentioned as commercial items in the study area. No figurescould be found concerning the marketing of wild ornamental plants from Guyana,but various Heliconia species are commercially grown for the export market(DeFilipps, 1992). However, since these plants are multiplied in special nurseries,they cannot be considered as NTFPs.

A variety of non-timber forest products are offered for sale at the regional marketsof the North-West District, in particular those of Kumaka (Mabaruma), Santa Rosa,and Charity. Except for wild meat, living animals, and fish, these NTFPs are notcommercialised in huge quantities. The most frequently found products at themarkets were mokru basketry and paddles made from Aspidosperma spp. orTabebuia insignis (sold for $ 2-4, depending on the size). Other items includedarrows, fishing rods (from Duguetia pycnastera, $ 0.70), Lonchocarpus roots forfish poisoning (at $ 0.22 per kg), bird cages from Mauritia flexuosa ($ 0.70), wildhoney ($ 8 per litre) and firewood from Chrysobalanaceae ($ 0.25 per basket).Canoes were not sold on markets, but rather ordered from specialised boat builders.Dugouts made from valuable wood species (e.g., Carapa guianensis, Hymenaea


205

courbaril, Diplotropis guianensis, and Hyeronima alchorneoides) were valued ataround $ 55, depending on their size.

Although a wide variety of wild fruits are consumed in the region (see Part II of thisthesis), few of these are actually commercialised. The small numbers of fruits thatappear on local Amerindian markets are mostly prepared into (alcoholic) drinks. Theconsumption of fermented fruit drinks has always been popular among indigenouspeoples in Guyana (Schomburgk, 1848; Roth, 1924). These drinks can be kept forsome days, while unprocessed fruits tend to spoil quickly. An ample assortment ofhome made fermented drinks was available on the Saturday market of Santa Rosa.Most were made from cultivated food crops (e.g., cassava, sweet potato), but somewere prepared from wild fruits, such as Anacardium giganteum, Spondias mombin,or Syzygium cumini, the latter from both cultivated and wild (escaped) trees. Thepalm fruits of Maximilliana maripa and Astrocaryum aculeatum that were put up forsale also originated from wild and domesticated individuals.

6.3.11 Importance of non-commercial NTFPsThe vast majority of NTFPs extracted in Guyana are not marketed, and theirimportance tends to be underestimated. For the subsistence economy of mostAmerindian communities, however, these NTFPs provide a vital source of food,shelter, household equipment, medicine, and fuel. From the household surveys heldby Sullivan (1999) in Karaburi (near Santa Rosa), Assakata, and Sebai, it appearsthat 24 to 74% of the households interviewed were regularly hunting. In addition,38-70% said they collected medicinal plants from the forest, 27 to 94% were fishing,19-54% made crafts, 30-92% collected wild forest plants for food, and all but onehousehold collected firewood. Even if products are not directly exchanged for cash,their commercial value should not be overlooked. Without palm leaves for roofthatch, medicinal plants, or mokru to construct the cassava-processing equipment,life would be virtually impossible for most forest-dwelling people in Guyana. Thosewho cannot afford zinc sheets, prescription medicine, sawn boards, or plastichousehold items are heavily dependent on forest products. The deeper one goes intothe interior, the more expensive the transport costs. Inevitably, commodity itemsbecome extremely costly or simply unavailable. It is rarely worth the effort forremote communities to harvest NTFPs commercially, but the local use of NTFPs inthe far interior is often much higher than on the coast. Moreover, Amerindians inthose places live a more traditional life and retain an intensive knowledge of the useof plant and animal products. For example, in the far away village of Kariako,people used over 120 different wild plants for medicine, while only one species(Carapa guianensis) was commercialised.

6.4 DISCUSSION

6.4.1 Monitoring of NTFP harvesting and exportThe export revenues of NTFPs from Guyana are certainly dwarfed by the figures ofcountries like Indonesia, Ecuador, Brazil, and Bolivia (Broekhoven, 1996; de Beerand McDermott, 1996). But when figures are recalculated for population size, asmall country like Guyana exports more NTFPs per capita ($ 5) than Indonesia ($


206

1.4), Bolivia ($ 3.9), or Brazil ($ 0.4). Nonetheless, the NTFP export contributesmuch less to the Guyanese economy than the timber industry, which increased from$ 3 million in 1993 to over $ 30 million in 1995 (Sizer, 1996). And then again,logging still forms only a small part (2% in 1994) of the total exports from Guyana,which consist mainly of gold, sugar, bauxite and rice (Sizer, 1996; Haden, 1999).

Table 6.3 Export figures of several leading countries on the world market of NTFPs.

Country Total export of NTFPs Year Remarks[million US$]

Guyana 4.2 1996Indonesia 238 1987 $ 138 million by rattan aloneEcuador 13 1990

Brazil 53 1990$ 25 million in Brazil nuts$ 10 million in palm hearts

Bolivia 23 1990

In spite of its small contribution to the Gross Domestic Product, the extraction ofNTFPs is still an important factor in the economy of the North-West District.Therefore, it deserves a place in the regional land use planning, especially in thecoastal wetlands, where NTFP harvesting (troolie, tibisiri, wildlife, orchids,mangrove, palm hearts) seems to be the most viable form of land use. Due towaterlogged soils and the absence of valuable timber or minerals, the potential forcommercial farming, mining, or logging is minimal here. However, the lack ofinformation on export volumes, domestic and international trade, makes it difficultfor the Guyanese government to include NTFPs in their economic planning or todevelop sustainable harvesting policies for these products.

Not only the Wildlife Services Division in Guyana is under-staffed. In 1993, theFisheries Department had only one part-time person to oversee the ornamental fishtrade. No staff was assigned to oversee the harvest of NTFPs under the GuyanaForestry Commission (Edwards et al., 1994). In 1996, the GFC planned a nationalsymposium on NTFPs to assess the potential for developing and managing ‘new’forest products, but in the end this event never took place. It is hoped that with theirCode of Practice for Forest Operations (GFC, 1998), the Commission will be able toaddress the issue of NTFPs and hinterland communities more effectively. Theirefforts may be supported by the National Biodiversity Action Plan, set up by therecently created Environmental Protection Agency to act as a overall framework forbiodiversity related aspects (EPA, 2000, ter Steege, 2000).

The absence of entities monitoring the quantities of harvested and commercialisedNTFPs is a problem in many developing countries (Broekhoven, 1996; Ros-Tonenet al., 1995; de Beer and McDermott, 1996). However, even if clear guidelines exist,such as the management framework for wildlife produced by Edwards et al. (1994),the implementation of management plans still requires considerable political andfinancial commitment. Harvest rules may be difficult to implement in remote areas,but since the trade is concentrated on regional markets, price regulations and control


207

of illegal practices should start here. More effort should also be put to raise publicawareness for the protection of endangered species.

6.4.2 Social advantages of commercial NTFP extractionOne of the great socio-economic benefits of commercial NTFP extraction is that itallows most harvesters to return home every day. People involved in wildlifetrapping, hunting, fishing, the harvesting of palm heart, troolie, nibi, kufa, or tibisiri,spend considerable more time with their families than labourers in logging or miningconcessions. The NTFP trade allows harvesters to combine their work withtraditional subsistence activities and maintain their indigenous culture. This trendwas also noted by Hoffman (1997), Sullivan (1998), and Rivière (1984). The latterauthor also stated that the NTFP trade accorded much with the individual lifestyle ofGuyanese Amerindians. The decision to harvest NTFPs can be made on an ad-hocbasis, whenever a family is in need of cash. NTFP extraction minimises the contactwith ethnic groups outside their own social sphere, so there is less fear for abuse ordiscrimination (van Andel and Reinders, 1999). Despite the stressful relations thatmay exist between extractors and buyers, most Amerindians prefer the independentNTFP harvesting above the monotony of wage labour (Forte, 1995). Daily earningsmay be variable, ranging from $ 2.5 (nibi) to $ 11 (palm heart and wildlife), butthese are often higher than wages offered by other available employment (farming,mining, logging).

6.4.3 NTFP extraction: development or underdevelopment?The commercial extraction of NTFPs is contributing significantly to the income offorest-dwelling people and certainly stimulates the economic development of theNorth-West District. However, often the poorest indigenous families are involved inNTFP collection. Indigenous harvesters seem to perform a job that most otherGuyanese are not willing to do (Hoffman, 1997). For most urban citizens, theinterior forests are an unknown and dangerous place, which should be ‘developed’as soon as possible (van Andel and Reinders, 1999). Amerindians are on the loweststep of the social ladder in Guyanese society, and are looked down upon in social,economic, and political sense (Sanders, 1972). They encounter many obstructions toan equal participation on the regional markets, often are unfamiliar with prices andtransport costs, and do not have access to credit or storage facilities. The distrustbetween the different ethnic groups operating in the market hinders the developmentof durable trade relations (Verheij and Reinders, 1997). The lack of functioningAmerindian organisations or market cooperatives inhibits their independence intrade.

According to Forte (1997), the indigenous peoples in Guyana cannot fully benefitfrom the economic potential of the forests, as they are handicapped by a failingeducational system, precarious health conditions and poverty. She further argues thatwith approximately 88% of the Guyanese Amerindians living below the povertyline, some inherent contradictions in Guyana’s society seem to impede the potentialrole of NTFPs in the improvement of people’s livelihoods. Therefore, theconservation and sustainable use of forest resources in this region can only berealised if development projects include the support of basic human needs.


208

6.4.4 Land tenureOf Guyana’s 16 million hectare of forested lands, some 1.4 million is legally underthe control of Amerindians (Haden, 1999). Unlike the State Forests, which are underthe control of the GFC, the Amerindian Reserves are regulated by elected villagecaptains and councils. The GFC has neither jurisdiction over resources within titledAmerindian lands, nor on arrangements made between village councils and privatecompanies (Colchester, 1997). Most State Forests have already been leased to timberand mining companies (Sizer, 1996). Because of the inefficient forest laws,Amerindian reserves are an easy option for new enterprises looking for remainingland. Private businessmen and logging companies were reported to hand out freechain saws and buy the logs without any legal contract (Forte, 1995). Royalties areseldom paid for products harvested from indigenous lands, and reservationboundaries are not clearly marked (Colchester, 1997). Amerindians often lack theknow-how and financial means to effect binding contracts or seek legal recoursewhen agreements break down. Amerindians cannot request the GFC for legal advice,but have to deal with the Regional Democratic Council, whose bureaucracy scaresoff many people to lodge complaints. Unfortunate deals are usually announced toolate for any practical intervention to be effective (Forte, 1995; van Andel andReinders, 1999).

The extent of lands allocated to Amerindian communities under the Amerindian Actwas not based on sustainability studies of their subsistence patterns (Toppin-Allahar,1995). Twenty years after the publication of the Act in 1977, several communitieshave grown to such an extent that agricultural land has become scarce (Forte, 1995;van Andel and Reinders, 1999). The Act neither contains provisions for theprotection of wildlife or vulnerable habitats (Iwokrama, 1998). Apart from thosecommunities living within reservation boundaries, at least 30% of the indigenousgroups have not yet been granted official land titles (Haden, 1999). As control ofresources is a prerequisite for sustainable management (Freese, 1998), communalownership should be arranged for those communities lacking land rights. As long asthe property rights of forest areas are not clearly defined, even the most sustainableforms of resource use are highly subject to disruption (Peters et al., 1989b).

6.4.5 Participatory forest managementSince Guyana lacks a credible institutional and legal base for the management ofNTFPs, especially when located in Amerindian reserves, indigenous communitieshave little other options than designing their own management plans (Iwokrama,1998). Community-based resource management would allow people to continueNTFP extraction, without having to move away to search for jobs elsewhere.Rotation systems for NTFPs should be designed, with some areas predestined forharvest and others set aside for regeneration. Strict agreements among villagers areneeded on the division of working space and to avoid harvesting in recovering areas(see chapter 5). But communal systems are fragile in the face of strong commercialmarkets, and the lure for large profits causes a breakdown in social cohesion andmanagement rules within the community (Freese, 1998). Until today, no associationof NTFP extractors has ever existed in the North-West District; every harvester staysa direct competitor of his neighbour. Differences in tribal background and churchaffiliation further obstruct successful organisation. The ‘Tragedy of the Commons’


209

is still a topical phenomenon among Guyana’s rural poor (van Andel and Reinders,1999; Sullivan, 1999).

Subsistence agriculture techniques should definitely be improved to guarantee foodsecurity and relieve pressure on NTFP resources. Village administration is essentialto control the amounts of NTFPs marketed by the community. Extractors must beregistered and harvest quota should be set for vulnerable populations. Training isneeded in administration, law, marketing, farming techniques communitystrengthening, contract negotiation, and finance (Sizer, 1996). These activitiesshould be stimulated by the government, the GFC, Amerindian organisations, andother NGO’s concerned with rural welfare. Currently, forest service extension intorural areas is weak and national forest policy is often unclear to local communities.Development programmes should provide basic technical assistance to communitiesinterested in developing forest-based enterprises, including the access to small loans(Sizer, 1996). Finally, this participatory forest management depends on cooperationamong all stakeholders: extractors, village councils, traders, and exporters.

6.4.6 Future commercial NTFPsExisting products offer the best chance of quickly creating and benefiting from(inter-) national markets (Clay, 1992). Therefore, further research is needed ongrowth rates, population sizes, and optimum harvest levels for those NTFPs thatalready proved to be economically viable: palm heart, wildlife, nibi, kufa, troolie,tibisiri, and mangrove bark. However, a diversification of the market reduces therisk of commercial failure (Sizer, 1996). There are several NTFPs that are currentlyharvested for subsistence only, which have a promising potential for commercialextraction. In particular the so-called ‘oligarchic forests’, dominated by few species,offer interesting possibilities for the sustainable harvesting of NTFPs, provided thatthe dominant species generate useful products. Several of the successfullycommercialised NTFPs in the North-West District (palm heart, troolie, tibisiri) arealready being harvested from oligarchic vegetation types (manicole swamp and itésavannahs). These ‘natural monocultures’ also produce large volumes of ediblefruits (e.g., Euterpe oleracea, E. precatoria, Marlierea montana, Mauritia flexuosa,Jessenia bataua subsp. oligocarpa, Spondias mombin, and Humiriastrumobovatum). Unfortunately, too few Guyanese are familiar with these fruits. In thisway an abundant resource is left untouched.

In Iquitos, Manaus, and other large Amazonian towns, tons of these fruits (inparticular M. flexuosa, Spondias mombin, and Euterpe spp.) are processed annuallyinto juices, ice creams and preserves (Padoch, 1987; Peters et al., 1989b). A high-quality oil is extracted from Jessenia fruits and marketed as hair oil and medicine(Balick, 1988). If a stable export market for these products could be developed orlocal consumption would be stimulated, the coastal wetlands of Guyana could bringin much more economic revenues. Commercial fruit harvesting should primarilyfocus on palm fruits (as these species produce the largest volumes) and on species-poor seasonal swamps and alluvial plains, since these forests generally yield morefruits per hectare than more diverse primary forests (Phillips, 1993). Fruit collectiondoes little damage to the forest ecosystem (Peters, 1989), but programmes forcontrolled extractivism and non-destructive harvesting techniques should be


210

implemented (Peters et al., 1989b). This would imply a ban on the felling of fruit-producing trees and on the annual burning of ité savannas and quackal forest. Atpresent, large numbers of reproducing Euterpe oleracea stems are being harvestedfor palm heart (chapter 5). In Brazil, however, the monetary value of Euterpe fruitshas proved to stimulate the protection of reproductive individuals and even lead tothe cultivation of the palm (Strudwick and Sobel, 1988). Natural populations ofMauritia flexuosa in Peru, however, have dwindled due to the felling of trees fortheir fruits (Padoch, 1988).

A problems is that many NTFPs are harvested far away from major markets, andprocessing facilities, which often implies high transport costs and spoiling ofperishable products (Padoch, 1987; Peters et al., 1989b; Johnston, 1998). Theestablishing of cottage industries near productive forests could possibly solve thisproblem (Phillips, 1993). With local residents being responsible for the harvestingand processing of fruits (freezing, canning, candying or oil extraction), this wouldincrease the share of the product value (Peters et al., 1989b). Producers should alsoconsider ‘eco-certification’, to distinguish their products from others and improvethe marketing. Consumers are willing to pay a premium for products from well-managed forests, where environmental and social impacts are reduced to aminimum, laws are respected, and employment conditions are fair (Clay, 1992;Richards, 1993).

Market-oriented research is needed to introduce these ‘new’ NTFPs, as well as thedevelopment of innovative processing techniques. Other suggestions forcommercialisation of new NTFPs are the reproduction of locally abundant orchidsand other ornamental plants (DeFilipps, 1992; Sullivan, 1999), bee keeping (Forte,1995), and breeding wildlife for consumption and export (Edwards et al., 1994;Sullivan, 1998; Iwokrama, 1998). Products and market development, training, andinvestment in this sector may take several years to bear fruit on a scale comparableto logging, but the pay-off will be commensurate (Sizer, 1996).

6.4.7 The potential contribution of NTFPs to forest conservationEven if the extraction of NTFPs from forests dominated by one or few specieswould be done on a sustainable basis and provide substantial income for localpeople, it does not help to conserve the biodiversity of these forests (Boot, 1997).This can only be achieved if NTFP extraction is capable of preventing or reducingdeforestation, and when these products yield more revenue than other land uses. Inthe case of nibi and kufa, where primary forest is essential to gather the requiredproducts, their extraction could indeed contribute to forest preservation. But if pricesfor the raw material are low, the products are either overharvested or extractors mayshift to timber cutting again.

Commercial NTFP extraction has also little chance to compete with the large-scaleforest exploitation by multinational logging and mining companies. Particularlythose NTFPs from highly diverse forests that are located far away from the markettowns can hardly compete with similar products extracted closer to the market.Products from remote areas offer few incentives for forest conservation, unless theyare highly exclusive or heavily supported by external subsidies.


211

6.5 CONCLUSIONS

Commercial NTFPs provide an important source of income for Amerindians innorthwest Guyana. However, these indigenous groups do not fully enjoy the profitsmade in the NTFP business. Some communities heavily depend on NTFPs for theirsurvival. The main commercial products are wildlife, palm heart, nibi and kufafurniture, tibisiri crafts, troolie leaves, and mangrove bark. The latter two productsare only important on the national and regional market. The annual export of NTFPsfrom Guyana was estimated at US$ 4.2 million. Real export revenues are probablyhigher, as illegal export of wildlife is to be expected and traders often declare lowprices for their goods to avoid taxes.

The main obstructions for the successful commercialisation of NTFPs in the North-West District are the low prices paid for the raw material, the lack of storagefacilities for perishable products, the little organisation among harvesters, and thehigh transportation costs. Most commercial NTFPs are extracted close to theregional markets and transportation facilities. These markets are essential placeswhere monitoring of volumes, price regulation, and control of illegal trade shouldtake place.

Most commercial NTFPs have an ecological potential for commercial extraction.However, more research is needed on population densities, growth rates, andsustainable harvest levels. The absence of land use planning and government controlhas so far prevented the development of management plans for these products.

NTFPs can play an important role in participatory forest management, especially inareas where the possibilities for conflictive land uses are minimal. Several otherproducts present in the northwestern forests, some naturally occurring in largequantities, have a potential for commercial extraction. Unfortunately, the presentforest laws and land tenure system in Guyana make it difficult for indigenouspeoples to manage their reserves in a sustainable way.

7. The diverse uses of fish poison plants

212

7. THE DIVERSE USES OF FISH-POISON PLANTS INNORTHWEST GUYANA1

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Although the use of certain plants to poison fish has been documented on allcontinents, the indigenous tribes of South America use the greatest variety of plantspecies (Howes, 1930; Acevedo-Rodríguez, 1990). Poisoning methods may varyfrom place to place, but they usually consist of throwing macerated material ofichthyotoxic plants into creeks or shallow ponds. After a while, the stupefied fishstart to float to the surface, where they can be easily collected by hand or shot withbow and arrow.

One of the main chemical compounds of ichthyotoxic plants is rotenone. Thisisoflavonoid is extremely toxic to cold-blooded animals, but less active in birds andanimals. Rotenone is much more toxic to warm-blooded animals when applieddirectly in the bloodstream than when taken orally. Due to its low toxicity wheningested, fishes stupefied by rotenone can be eaten by humans without any adversereaction (Acevedo-Rodríguez, 1990). Rotenone causes respiratory depression in fish,forcing them to gasp for breath with wide-open gills at the water surface. The poisonis also highly toxic to insects. Rotenone has two major advantages: (1) humans candigest it relatively safe, and (2) it is unstable in light and heat, loosing almost all itstoxicity after 2-3 days (Matsumura, 1985; Leslie, 1994; Hamid, 1999).

In contrast to other flavonoids, rotenone has a rather limited taxonomic distribution.It occurs mainly within the Fabaceae, especially in the genera Lonchocarpus,Paraderris, and Tephrosia. When rotenone was isolated for the first time fromPeruvian Lonchocarpus roots by Clark (1929) and its effectiveness as an insecticidebecame known, a significant export trade in Lonchocarpus utilis and L. urucudeveloped in Peru and Brazil. The roots, locally known as ‘barbasco’ or ‘cube’, wereprocessed industrially into insecticides (Krukoff and Smith, 1937). As commercialextraction quickly depleted wild plants, they are now grown almost exclusively onplantations. The region around Iquitos (Peru) is currently the world’s largestproducer of Lonchocarpus (Rehm and Espig, 1991). Nowadays, the dried,pulverised roots are gaining renewed interest, since natural insecticides with rapidbiological degradation are very well received by both ecologists and consumers.

1. A slightly different version of this chapter was accepted for publication by Economic Botany.


213

The use of fish poisons by indigenous tribes in Guyana was describedcomprehensively in the first half of this century (Roth, 1924; Howes, 1930; Archer,1934; Gillin, 1936; Martyn and Follett-Smith, 1936; Fanshawe, 1948, 1953). Basedon the idea of commercial trade, some planting trials with Lonchocarpus nicou andan unidentified Lonchocarpus species were carried out in Guyana’s North-WestDistrict in 1929. These species were identified later as L. martynii and L.chrysophyllus (Krukoff and Smith, 1937). However, due to the low rotenonecontent, the species never became an export product (Archer, 1934; Martyn andFollett-Smith, 1936). In their search for South American rotenone-yielding plants,Krukoff and Smith (1937) also considered the rotenone content of the GuyaneseLonchocarpus species too low to be commercially competitive with those of Peruand Brazil: the fresh roots of the Brazilian species contained 5-12% rotenone, whilethose of the Guyanese species L. martynii and L. chrysophyllus possessed only 2.4%of the compound.

Local Amerindians have apparently been cultivating ichthyotoxic plants for a longtime. This can be deduced from field labels of early L. chrysophyllus collectionsfrom the upper Essequibo (A.C. Smith 2823) and Berbice regions (Krukoff 7699)and from the early reports by Howes (1930) and Archer (1934) on the cultivation ofthe ichthyotoxic species Euphorbia cotinifolia (syn.: E. cotinoides), Tephrosiasinapou (syn.: T. toxicaria), Clibadium sp., and Phyllanthus sp. in Guyana. In fact,this cultivation might even have a pre-Columbian origin, as species within thesegenera were already domesticated in Amazonia at the time of the first Europeancontact (Chevalier, 1925; Clement, 1999).

Although prohibited by law since the 1950s, recent anthropological studies indicatethat fish poisoning is still an important activity in the life of Guyanese Amerindianstoday (Reinders, 1993; Forte, 1996a; Sullivan, 1997; Riley, 1998). Theindiscriminate poisoning of creeks and ponds, however, has caused a decline in fishstocks around Amerindian settlements and has increased mortality among cattle thatdrink from poisoned pools (Forte et al., 1992; Forte, 1996a; Iwokrama, 1998). Sincethese anthropological studies did not always combine the recording of local nameswith plant collections, it remains unclear which kinds of fish poisons are currentlybeing used in Guyana.

When collections did take place, specimens were often lost or could not be identifiedproperly due to incomplete sampling, resulting in few reliable scientific names forthe fish poisons mentioned by indigenous informants. Unfortunately, no recent,comprehensive studies on fish poisons have been conducted in Guyana, like the oneby Moretti and Grenand (1982) in French Guiana. Furthermore, the scientific nameslisted in older publications are not always up-to-date and are often based on sterilecollections (Martyn and Follett-Smith, 1936), making it rather difficult to comparepresent-day plant use with that of the past.

Although reports from other countries have noted that plants with ichthyotoxicactivity are also used as arrow poisons, soap substitutes, and medicines (Acevedo-Rodríguez, 1990), very little is known of these additional uses in Guyana. As statedabove, few ethnobotanical studies have been conducted in Guyana (Austin andBourne, 1992), and not many authors have documented the use of fish poisons other


214

than for stupefying fish or killing insects. This chapter presents an overview of theichthyotoxic plant species currently being used by three Amerindian tribes ofNorthwest Guyana (Carib, Arawak, and Warao). Special attention is paid to thespecies’ state of domestication and their importance in activities other than fishing.Voucher specimens have been deposited in the Herbarium of the University ofGuyana (BRG) and the Utrecht branch of the National Herbarium of the Netherlands(U). The preliminary results of this study point out that, in present-day Amerindianlife, fish poisons are not only important in providing food, but also play an importantrole in religion and traditional medicine.

7.2 FISH POISONS PRESENTLY USED IN NORTHWEST GUYANA

Specimens of 11 plant species used as fish poison were collected in northwestGuyana: five are only known from cultivated sources, four are harvested exclusivelyin the wild, and two are collected in the forest, but also propagated by cuttings takenfrom wild plants (Table 7.1).

The fast-growing shrubs Clibadium surinamense and Phyllanthus brasiliensis arethe most frequently used species to poison fish and are cultivated on the majority ofAmerindian farms. A large basket full of leaves and branches is stuffed into a hole inthe ground and crushed with a wooden pestle into a pulpy mass. The pulp is thensimply thrown in the water or immersed along with the basket in a creek. Accordingto informants, both species are capable of stunning only small fish and Phyllanthusbrasiliensis is especially effective in catching huri (Hoplias malabaricus). P.brasiliensis seems to be more potent when in flower or fruit (Roth, 1924; Acevedo-Rodríguez, 1990), therefore adult individuals, which are fertile most of the time, aremost often used. Two cultivars were collected (one with green twigs and leaves andone with purplish stems), but local users did not indicate any difference in efficacybetween the two types. Clibadium and Phyllanthus occasionally ‘escape’ fromcultivation. The ‘wild’ Clibadium is considered less poisonous and thus lesspowerful.

Carib Indians living along the Barama River prepare ‘kunami balls’ as fish poison.They first pound Clibadium leaves mixed with freshly grated, but unsqueezedcassava roots, then roll the mixture in leaves and bake it in a fire. Ashes of burntCecropia leaves and sometimes some peppers are added to the sticky paste, afterwhich the mass is pounded in a mortar and kneaded into small balls. These balls arethen rolled in flour to make them white and, thus, more visible to fish. When thekunami balls are thrown in the water, the fish eat them whole. Soon thereafter thefish start floating belly upwards.

Leaves of the shrub Solanum leucocarpon are sometimes mixed with Clibadiumleaves. Since S. leucocarpon is only used in combination with another poison, it isnot clear whether the plant itself contains ichthyotoxic ingredients. Therefore, it wasnot included in the table. Tephrosia sinapou used to be one of the most common andeffective piscicides in Guyana (Martyn and Follett-Smith, 1936). Today, however,the shrub is only sporadically grown in northwest Guyana. Its black roots are


215

pounded with a club or hammer and thrown in a creek, giving the water a whitishappearance. The poison is capable of killing hassa (Hoplosternum littorale) andyarau (Hoploerythrinus unitaeniatus), but hardly affects huri.

Euphorbia cotinifolia is probably the most toxic of all fish poisons. Its white latexcauses blisters on human skin and temporary blindness if it comes in contact withthe eyes. A few branches are placed in an old basket and beaten after beingsubmerged in the water, to prevent the poisonous latex from touching the body. Gutsand scales should be removed from the fish immediately, so that the toxic triterpenescannot affect the consumer (Killip and Smith, 1935; Prance, 1972). The fish tends tospoil even before it is removed from the water (Fanshawe, 1953). For this reason, E.cotinifolia is rarely used as fish poison anymore. Every now and then, however, thespecies is cultivated in home gardens for ornamental, medicinal, or magicalpurposes. Two cultivars were collected for this study: one with green twigs andleaves (white kunaparu) and one reddish variety called ‘purple kunaparu’. The latteris said to be more poisonous than the white variety. Although E. cotinifolia will bedivided in two subspecies in the near future (Christenhusz, 1999), both cultivars fallwithin the same subspecies.

The wild plants providing the most effective fish poisons belong to the genusLonchocarpus, locally known as haiari. In the past, there was some confusion aboutthe exact species utilised, since the absence of flowering and fruiting material on thecollected specimens made it difficult to identify them to species level (Howes, 1930;Killip and Smith, 1935; Krukoff and Smith, 1937; Moretti and Grenand, 1982). Infact, the identification of Lonchocarpus remains a problem, as no comprehensiverevision of the genus exists for South America. Fortunately, taxonomic research iscurrently being conducted on this genus by Mr. Sousa Sánchez of the NationalHerbarium of Mexico (MEXU) and Mr. Poppendieck of the Institüt für AllgemeineBotanik in Hamburg (HBG).

Four species of Lonchocarpus are used as fish poison in northwest Guyana. Theblack haiari, Lonchocarpus chrysophyllus (see Part II of this thesis) is considered thestrongest of all. The stem of this large canopy liana can reach a diameter of 20 cm. Itis distinguished vegetatively from the other species by having darker twigs andleaves and fine golden hairs on young twigs and leaves. Both the stems and roots areused for poisoning, although the latter are said to be stronger. Black haiari isparticularly efficient in stunning yarau. In the past, several other species werecollected in Guyana under the name black haiari, e.g. L. rariflorus (A.C. Smith2161) and L. nicou (Killip and Smith, 1935). These species were not found duringthe present study.

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

217

Tab

le 7

.1

Spec

ies

used

as

fish

poi

sons

in n

orth

wes

t Guy

ana.

Act

ive

com

pone

nts

take

n fr

om A

ceve

do-R

odri

guez

(19

90).

Spec

ies

Fam

ily

Part

use

dM

edic

inal

use

sW

ild o

r cu

ltiva

ted

Act

ive

com

pone

nts

Clib

adiu

m s

urin

amen

seA

ster

acea

ele

aves

cold

, sna

ke b

ites

culti

vate

dic

hthy

octh

ereo

l

Eup

horb

ia c

otin

ifol

iaE

upho

rbia

ceae

leav

esan

t det

erre

nt, s

ores

culti

vate

dtr

iter

pene

bran

ches

disi

nfec

tant

, mag

ic

Phyl

lant

hus

bras

ilien

sis

Eup

horb

iace

aele

aves

ant b

ites

culti

vate

dcy

anog

enic

s, tr

iter

pene

bran

ches

Lon

choc

arpu

s ch

ryso

phyl

lus

Leg

umin

osae

-Pap

.ro

otsk

in s

ores

, AID

Sw

ild a

ndro

teno

ne, s

apon

ins

stem

canc

er, e

czem

acu

ltiva

ted

Lon

choc

arpu

s m

arty

nii

Leg

umin

osae

-Pap

.ro

otsk

in s

ores

, AID

Sw

ild a

ndro

teno

ne, l

onch

ocar

pin

canc

er, e

czem

acu

ltiva

ted

Lon

choc

arpu

s sp

ruce

anus

Leg

umin

osae

-Pap

.ro

othe

ad a

che

culti

vate

dro

teno

ne, l

onch

ocar

pin

Lon

choc

arpu

s sp

. (T

VA

1247

)L

egum

inos

ae-P

ap.

root

canc

er, A

IDS

wild

rote

none

, lon

choc

arpi

n

Tep

hros

ia s

inap

ouL

egum

inos

ae-P

ap.

root

canc

er, e

czem

acu

ltiva

ted

rote

none

, tep

hros

ine

Serj

ania

pau

cide

ntat

aSa

pind

acea

est

emth

rush

, aph

rodi

siac

wild

sapo

nins

Tal

isia

cf.

gui

anen

sis

Sapi

ndac

eae

woo

dno

new

ildsa

poni

ns

Tal

isia

hex

aphy

llaSa

pind

acea

ew

ood

none

wild

sapo

nins


218

The white haiari, Lonchocarpus martynii, is also a canopy liana, but has glabrous,lighter coloured twigs and leaves. Only its roots contain the poisonous substance.Most collections of white haiari in the North-West District were identified as L.martynii, although L. nicou was collected under that name by Martyn and Follett-Smith (1936). The ‘fine kind of haiari’, L. spruceanus, is less known. This shrubbytree with its small leaves was only observed once on an abandoned farm in a Waraovillage along the Waini River. Fanshawe (1948) identified the rare red haiari as L.rariflorus, while another red haiari, collected along the Barima River by Archer(2520a), was identified in 1997 as L. utilis. A sterile specimen of red haiari wascollected in Barama during the present study, but could not be identified to thespecies level (Lonchocarpus sp. TVA1247).

Figure 7.1 Bundle of Lonchocarpus roots collected from the forest, sufficient to poison a medium-sizedcreek.

The lateral roots of the haiari species are dug out and cut into pieces about 75 cmlong (Figure 7.1). About 15 pieces are needed to poison an average creek. The rootsare pounded with a wooden club on a trunk at the water’s edge, preferably at thehead of a forest creek (Figure 7.2). After a while, a white, milky juice is releasedfrom the roots. The shredded fibers are then soaked in the water and the creekbottom is stirred with the feet in order to mix the mud with the poison. After severalminutes, the first fish start coming to the surface. Although clearly stupefied, theydisappear quickly when touched. It still requires great expertise to kill these fish bystriking them on the head with a machete.

Larger fish like the haimara (Hoplias macrophtalmus) tend to sink when poisoned,forcing the fishermen to dive down and catch them by hand. To intercept fishfloating downstream, a wicker fence made from mokru stems (Ischnosiphon spp.) isused to close off the creek mouth.


219

If the fish reach the fresh river water,the poison rapidly loses its effect.Baskets full of fish are caught withthis method, and the surplus is oftensold to villagers. Local fishermenadvise washing the fish well andcarefully removing the gills, “becausethat is what sucks up the poison”.

Deeper in the interior, wherepopulation pressure is relatively low,informants said they needed one dayto collect the required amount ofhaiari to poison a creek. As quite adistance must be covered in the well-drained upland forest to find enoughroots, the search is often combinedwith hunting or gold prospecting.Cuttings from L. martynii and L.chrysophyllus are occasionallyplanted in farms or home gardens.

Figure 7.2 Beating the roots till they become fibrousand release the white juice that containsthe rotenone.

In the more densely populated coastal villages, wild haiari lianas have become soscarce that they are predominantly found in cultivation. It seems that the wild lianasare wrenched from the ground and do not survive the harvesting of the roots. Muchmore care is taken with the cultivated plants; in fact, some of the plants that are nowlarge lianas were planted in home gardens more than 20 years ago. Cuttings are putin the ground during the wet season, in a shadowy place, with a fruit tree as support.Owners of a haiari liana sporadically allow their neighbours to dig out some roots touse for poison.

The ribbed liana Serjania paucidentata is occasionally used by Arawaks and Waraoto poison small streams or ponds in the coastal savannas. The stem is chopped intosmall pieces and the saponins released from the bark and wood kill the smaller fishby asphyxiation (Moretti and Grenand, 1982).

The name ‘sand mora’ has been given to two rare tree species in mixed uplandforests: Talisia hexaphylla and T. cf. guianensis. According to Carib Indians, thewood is extremely poisonous. In order to catch fish, wood chips are thrown into thewater and apparently turn it pitch-black. Guts, scales, and skin of the fish must be


220

removed as quickly as possible and the flesh thoroughly cleaned with lime to avoidpoisoning the consumer. Although used more commonly in the past (Gillin, 1936),people are now reluctant to use these species. The wood is even considered to be toopoisonous for use in house construction or as firewood.

Apparently, the various poisons all have a different mode of action and vary in theirability to stupefy certain species of fish. Otherwise, why would people make theeffort to walk large distances to collect Lonchocarpus, if Phyllanthus or Clibadiumare available within the village boundaries and have the same effect? Unlike in thestudy of Moretti and Grenand (1982), no correlation was found between the salinityof the water and the type of fish poison used. Many other Guyanese plant specieshave been mentioned as fish poisons (Killip and Smith, 1935; Fanshawe, 1948,1953). Some of these species occur widely in Northwest Guyana (e.g., Moraexcelsa, Bauhinia spp., Alexa imperatricis, Clathrotropis brachypetala, Gustaviaaugusta, Macrolobium acaciifolium, Paullinia pinnata, Pentaclethra macroloba,and Ryania pyrifera), but they are not utilised by the local population for thispurpose.

7.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF FISH POISONS IN AMERINDIANSOCIETY TODAY

Poisoning is considered to be a very productive fishing method in northwestGuyana, more effective than hooks or fish traps (Sullivan, 1997). Nets, however, arepreferred above poisoning and are used most frequently, although not everyone canafford them. It seems that poisoning is more important in traditional, isolatedsettlements, where 16% of the fishermen said they used this method most. In largerand more acculturated villages, only 5.3% of the fishermen said they used poisonmore than any other fishing method (Sullivan, 1997).

In gold mining areas, where land dredges and hydraulic pumps have disrupted theriverbeds and increased water turbidity and pollution, fish in the large rivers havebecome so scarce that people are being forced to revert to poisoning forest creeks.Pounding holes for kunami leaves can be seen all along the creeks bordering thevillages. In densely populated Amerindian areas, where fish tend to beoverharvested, poisoning remains an easy option for poor families unable to buy fishor fishing gear. These people are very well aware that poisoning implies the killingof many small fish, but often see it as an emergency method to relieve hunger. Or asone informant put it: “Without this kunami, Amerindians would never live”.

Roots of L. chrysophyllus and L. martynii are regularly sold for US$ 0.10 per lb. atthe regional market in Mabaruma. Since approximately 25 lbs. of roots are needed topoison a medium-sized creek, then US$ 2.5 is needed per event. Buyers areAmerindians living in the brackish coastal swamps, where Lonchocarpus does notgrow. They live predominantly from commercial palm heart harvesting and manyhave abandoned the practice of slash-and-burn agriculture (van Andel et al., 1998).Since home gardens are not common in these communities, Clibadium andPhyllanthus are seldom grown.


221

Even though the Guyanese law prohibits the use of fish poison, people are onlyincidentally arrested for using it. In fact, in the largest Amerindian Reserve of SantaRosa (Moruca River), Clibadium and Phyllanthus are grown in the vicinity of thepolice station. Deeper in the interior, there is no control at all.

7.4 FISH POISONS IN TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

Fish poisons are used in various traditional remedies, not only by the indigenouspopulation, but also by the Creoles and East Indians living in Guyana. The juicefrom the leaves of Clibadium surinamense is squeezed into a cup, mixed with a fewdrops of kerosene, and drunk as a remedy for snake bites, in particular bites by thedeadly labaria or fer-de-lance (Bothrops asper) and the bushmaster (Lachesismutus). The kerosene is probably added to extract alkaloids that are only fat-soluble.Dried branches are boiled in water and drunk as tea to treat colds. A decoction of thewhole plant is also used to wash out cuts and sores.

The leaves of Serjania paucidentata are boiled and given to babies suffering fromthrush. Thrush is an infection of the mouth caused by the fungus Candida albicans,resulting from unhygienic milk bottles or dirty nipples (Lachman-White et al.,1992). The liana is also an ingredient of a popular aphrodisiac. For that purpose thewoody stem is boiled with one or more of the following products: the roots ofcockshun (Smilax schomburgkiana), kupa (Clusia spp.), and sarsparilla (Dioscoreatrichanthera), the wood of kapadula (Tetracera sp., Pinzona sp., or Doliocarpussp.), granny backbone (Curarea candicans), and devildoer (Strychnos spp.), andlocust bark (Hymenaea courbaril var. courbaril). These ‘builders’ are said to protectagainst a variety of diseases and stimulate the sexual activity of both men andwomen. Medicinal herb stalls in Georgetown sell dry branches of Clibadiumsurinamense, wood of Serjania paucidentata, and a wide assortment of ready-madetonics and aphrodisiacs.

The macerated leaves of Phyllanthus brasiliensis are heated above a fire and appliedas a poultice to the painful bites of the munuri ant (Pariponera clavata). The bitingsap of Euphorbia cotinifolia is dropped on inflamed fingernails to get rid of theinfection. A whole branch of E. cotinifolia is boiled in water into a thick syrup andapplied to persistent skin sores caused by bacteriosis or leishmaniasis parasites.

By far the most remarkable medicinal application of fish poisons is the use ofLonchocarpus and Tephrosia roots in the treatment of cancer and AIDS.Concentrated root juice is applied externally to sores and lesions caused by skincancer and AIDS. The poison is also dissolved in a bucket of water and used tobathe patients with skin cancer and eczema. Small doses of the poison, varying fromthree drops in a glass of water to one spoonful of undiluted sap, are taken orally inthe treatment of AIDS and cancer of the skin, stomach, liver, and intestines. Thesemedicines are taken on a daily basis. People believe the fish poison ‘to kill the germscausing cancer and AIDS’. People from different ethnicity and provenance innorthwest Guyana are enthusiastic about the healing properties of the fish poisons.They tell stories about miraculous recoveries after using this treatment, both of


222

terminally ill patients and people in the early stages of the disease. AIDS patientsfrom Georgetown have even been reported to visit Amerindian reserves, seeking tobe cured with haiari poison.

Only the roots of Lonchocarpus chrysophyllus, L. martynii, and Tephrosia sinapouare used in this treatment. The side effects of the poison are obviously quite bad.Incidents have been reported of desperate patients taking an overdose of a wholecalabash full of haiari juice. After suffering from heavy nausea, fainting, andvomiting for a few days, the patients were said to recover and feel much better. Inseveral cases, this therapy extended the lives of terminally ill patients for severalmonths, long after the hospital had given up on them. However, since most patientscould no longer be traced back, the exact diagnosis and history of their illness couldnot be studied during this investigation.

The juice of Lonchocarpus spruceanus is not mentioned as a cancer medicine, but itis applied to the forehead to relieve headaches. The red haiari (Lonchocarpus sp.TVA1247) is also not associated with cancer treatment. Lachman-White et al.(1992) reported that the bark of L. martynii is used in coastal Guyana as atranquilliser and a decoction of the root to treat venereal diseases. The stems androots are roasted, ground, and mixed with oil and applied externally for the relief ofpain. The authors also mentioned that the bark of L. chrysophyllus is used to treatlabaria bites and that a decoction of the bark mixed with the stems of Costus scaber,Justicia pectoralis, and a little alum is used as a suppressant for severe coughs. Noneof these uses, however, were mentioned in Northwest Guyana.

7.5 ADDITIONAL USES OF ICHTHYOTOXIC PLANTS

In the 1930s, Gillin (1936) saw Caribs pouring haiari juice around the roots of theirtobacco plants to kill the grubs infesting them. Nowadays, the use of fish poisons asinsecticides in northwest Guyana is very limited. High quantities of haiari juice aresaid to kill leaf cutter ants (Atta sp.), but people prefer to use the fruit pulp from theabundantly growing herb Renealmia orinocensis for this purpose. The toxic sap ofEuphorbia cotinifolia is also mentioned as an effective repellent for these ants(Dance, 1881, Grenand et al., 1987; Reinders, 1993). However, people said they didnot like to jam the branches of this plant into ants nests, because they feared skininjuries by the vesicant sap. The custom of planting these shrubs in cassava fields toprevent the ants from building their nests was not observed during this study. Theindigenous people of Northwest Guyana rub the oil of Carapa guianensis or thebark juice of Alexa imperatricis on their bodies to eradicate lice and scabies, insteadof using fish poisons like other indigenous groups do (Moretti and Grenand, 1982;Acevedo-Rodríguez, 1990; Lachman-White et al., 1992). Nevertheless, thepossibilities of producing cheap insecticides from haiari roots to handle local insectplagues should not be underestimated.

Finally, fish poisons play a role in the magical beliefs and practices of Amerindianlife, although informants seldom admit this when asked. If somebody diesunexpectedly under suspect circumstances, people may believe that the person was


223

poisoned or murdered, or that death was caused by a magic spell cast by an enemy.To find the offender, a cross of Euphorbia cotinifolia leaves is carefully placed inthe coffin before the deceased is laid down in it. A few days after the funeral, themurderer will betray him self by contracting a terrible itch over his body, which willsubsequently lead to his death. Despite its vesicant latex, this might be one of thereasons Euphorbia cotinifolia is still cultivated.

An evil spirit much feared by many Amerindian tribes is the Kenaima, a ruthlessmurdering ghost who seeks innocent victims in order to practice his revenge forinjustice done to him in the past. To complete his task, the Kenaima must visit thegrave of its victim and suck the fluids from the dead body through a hollow reedinserted in the ground. If he does not succeed in drinking the liquids of the deceased,he will die a horrible death (Gillin, 1936). To deceive and frighten the Kenaima, abowl with haiari juice mixed with some body fluids of the dead person is placed onthe grave. This custom is still sporadically practised among the Barama River Caribswhen a person is believed to have died from an attack by the Kenaima spirit.

7.6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Although over 3000 plants are used in various parts of the world for the treatment ofcancer (Hartwell, 1967-1971), few South American fish poisons appear on this list.Kosteletzky (1831-1836) mentions the use of Tephrosia sinapou roots to combattumours and scirrhosities in Brazil, while the roots of the Brazilian Lonchocarpuspeckoltii have been reported to treat glandular tumours (Peckolt, 1868). Peculiarly,some plants with proven antitumor activity (Hartwell, 1976) are used by theGuyanese to treat diseases other than cancer. For instance, Catharanthus roseus isprescribed for diabetes and heart failure, Allamanda cathartica for constipation, andHeliotropum indicum for venereal diseases. However, this might be explained by thefact that the alkaloids with antitumor activity are present in lower concentrations thanother effective chemical compounds in these plants.

Spjut and Perdue (1976) screened 254 ichthyotoxic species, belonging to 64 plantfamilies from all over the world, for anticancer properties. They found that some 39%of the species and 66% of the 158 genera proved to be active against tumours.Unfortunately, the authors did not provide a list of the species that were screened northe outcome of the tests. They just gave a number of references they used to selectplants. Howes (1930) is the only reference in this list that mentions fish poisons beingused in Guyana. Since he cited Tephrosia sinapou, it is likely that this species wasscreened for its antitumor properties. Howes was unable to identify the black andwhite haiari to the species level; thus, it is possible that the Lonchocarpus speciesmentioned in this chapter have never been screened for active compounds. Spjut andPerdue (1976) argue that most poisonous plants are likely to have antitumorproperties, especially those that are used in folk medicine, and that plants used asarrow poisons generally show a higher percentage of activity than fish poisonsbecause of their effectiveness on warm-blooded animals.


224

The most known active ingredient of Lonchocarpus and Tephrosia is rotenone,which could be responsible for the alleged antitumor effect. Hartwell (1976) testedrotenone in a chemotherapy program of the National Cancer Institute and found it tobe active against two types of tumours. He did not, however, consider this resultparticularly interesting. Fang and Casida (1998) reported that the 11 rotenoidconstituents present in cube insecticide (made from Lonchocarpus utilis) showedclear anticancer activity in rats and mice. They also predicted that rotenoidconcentrations would be potent in vivo against cultured human breast cancer cells.Intense cytotoxic activity of rotenone was observed in lymphocytic leukaemia,carcinoma of the nasopharynx, and a number of human cancer cells (e.g.,fibrosarcoma, lung cancer, colon cancer, melanoma and breast cancer cell lines).Hamid (1999) therefore evaluated rotenone as a potential antitumor agent.

Confusing is that Gosalvez and Merchan (1973) classified rotenone as an oncogenicagent, that induced mammary tumours in 60-100% of the female rats injected withthe substance. Apparently, numerous plant compounds have been shown to beoncogenic in animals, including certain antitumor agents. According to Farnsworthet al. (1976), this is not unexpected, since almost all clinically useful antitumoragents, both natural and synthetic, are also carcinogenic. It is known that rotenonehas a rat oral LD50 that ranges from 60 mg/kg to 1500 mg/kg, depending on thecarrier (Leslie, 1994). Although equivocal evidence exists on the carcinogenicactivity of a diet containing rotenone fed to rats and mice (NCTR, 1999), little isknown about the carcinogenic effects of the oral intake by humans regularly eatingpoisoned fish.

Screening of fish-poison plants or rotenone against HIV or AIDS has not beenmentioned in the literature at all. AIDS is spreading rapidly among female prostitutesin the Guyanese capital, as a result of inadequate information services, the refusal ofusing condoms, and severe poverty. More than 10% of these women are Amerindian,a rather disproportionate number, since they form only 1% of the population inGeorgetown (Carter, 1993). The disease is brought into the interior by gold minersfrom the coast and by the prostitutes travelling with them to work in mining camps.Since interior clinics are generally ill-equipped with regard to staff and medicines,cancer and AIDS patients from remote areas often try to seek treatment inGeorgetown hospitals. However, since these people are usually not aware that theyare infected with HIV until they start to develop AIDS, the disease is often in a latestage at the time of diagnosis. Furthermore, since most indigenous people can hardlymanage to pay for an aeroplane ticket to the capital and often lack proper insurance, along-term treatment for cancer or AIDS is not within their means. Many then returnto their village to be treated with traditional medicine or to die in peace.

The question remains whether treatment with rotenone-yielding fish poisons is only adesperate attempt to cure a mortal disease or indeed successful in relieving (some of)the symptoms of cancer and AIDS. Plants used in traditional medicine tend to haveactive ingredients and are far more likely to be useful as pharmaceuticals thanrandomly collected species (Mendelsohn, 1997). Therefore, more detailedpharmacological research on the effectiveness of rotenone on cancer and HIV isstrongly recommended.


225

More ethnobotanical studies are needed to find out if fish poisons are used for similarpurposes in other parts of the Guianas. Detailed ethnobotanical studies have beencarried out in French Guiana (Moretti and Grenand, 1982; Grenand et al., 1987),while no such studies exist for Surinam and southern Guyana. Furthermore, sinceonly six of the 18 species listed by Moretti and Grenand (1982) coincide with thoseused in northwest Guyana, a considerable diversity in utilisation, species preference,and domestication can be expected within the Guianas. The region counts 15 speciesof Lonchocarpus, 25 species of Phyllanthus, and six species of Tephrosia (Boggan etal., 1997) and harbours several indigenous tribes knowledgeable about traditionalmedicine. Since vernacular names differ from place to place and one name mayinclude several species, plant collections should definitely be included in thisresearch. The genus Lonchocarpus is especially in need of good fertile collections.The use of ethnobotany to identify promising plants could substantially reduce thecosts for the search of at least some pharmaceutical drugs (Mendelsohn, 1997).

It can be concluded that fish poisons play an important role in the lives of indigenoustribes in northwest Guyana. They serve not only as a quick method of providing(emergency) food, but also as important ingredients in magical practices andtraditional medicine. Conservationists calling for stricter laws and increased controlon fish poisoning should realise that a ban on the cultivation and use of fish poisonswould also deprive Amerindians of some essential medicines. Artificial fish pondsand community-based poisoning rules may be a better alternative than preventingpeople from using plants they have been gathering and growing for centuries - plantsthat one day might prove to have unexpected values for mankind in general.

8. Medicinal plant use

226

8. MEDICINAL PLANT USE

8.1 INTRODUCTION

Whereas forests have for long been regarded more or less exclusively as a sourcefor timber extraction, non-timber forest products, in particular plant products usedfor herbal medicine, have only recently gained attention. Medicinal plants, usedsince the early ages by traditional peoples, are assumed to be potential sources ofnew drugs and thus hold a great value for international industries developingpharmaceutical products, phytomedicines, and dietary supplements (King et al.,1999). Nowadays, 25 to 50% of all synthetic drugs prescribed in the USA is plant-based, although only 1% of the higher plant species has been screened for activecompounds (Sheldon et al., 1997; Swerdlow, 2000). This percentage will continueto grow, since the pharmaceutical industry continues to investigate (and confirm)the efficacy of many medicines and toxins used by indigenous peoples (Posey andDutfield, 1996).

The most effective way of finding new drugs is to follow the indigenous knowledgeon medicinal plants. This experience, passed down from generation to generation, isgained from thousands of years of trial and error with plant remedies (Spjut andPerdue, 1976; Mendelsohn and Balick, 1995; Swerdlow, 2000). The longer thehistory and the more common the use of a certain plant among indigenous groups,the more it is likely to be effective (Milliken, 1997; King et al., 1999). Usingethnobotany to identify promising plants could substantially reduce the costs fordeveloping at least some pharmaceutical drugs (Mendelsohn, 1997). As many as80% of the world’s population rely on traditional medicine, since for them nothingelse is affordable or available (Farnsworth et al., 1985). Especially in remote areasin developing countries, medicinal plants may form the only available source ofhealth care (Kasparek et al., 1996).

Guyana is no exception to this phenomenon. The better hospitals are all located inthe capital Georgetown and the densely populated coastal region. Infant mortality ishigh (48/1000 live births) and by 1992, an estimated 23% of children under 5 yearsof age were classed as undernourished (Government of Guyana, 1995). The healthsituation in the forested interior of the country is generally worse. The few hospitalsand health centres in the interior are often ill equipped and suffer from a lack ofmedicines and trained staff (ECTF, 1993). No commercial pharmacies exist in theinterior. Although many of the large Amerindian communities in the North-WestDistrict have a trained Community Health Worker (CHW), most small indigenoussettlements have not acquired this benefit (Forte, 1995). The few persons who canafford it travel to the hospitals in the capital when they need medical assistance,instead of seeking treatment in local health centres. For the majority of indigenouspeople in the interior, however, these facilities are out of reach. Many of them arenot even insured by the country’s National Insurance Scheme (LaRose, 1999), andlack the financial means to search treatment in private hospitals. The major healthproblems in the North-West District are created by malaria, malnutrition, and


227

diarrhoea caused by waterborne parasites. The prevention of malaria and parasiticinfections is very low. The whole area has the notoriety of a fever hole (Forte,1995). There is an urgent need for preventative medicine, more and better medicalfacilities and staff, improved sanitary conditions and pit latrines (ECTF, 1993).

Although in many Amerindian communities medicinal plants form the onlyavailable source of medical treatment, it seems that local indigenous remedies areless used now than before (ECTF, 1993; Forte, 1999). Due to the process ofacculturation and the antipathies to Amerindians expressed by other ethnic groups inGuyana, traditional knowledge is rapidly being lost (Forte, 1999). This is a globalprocess, and in many tropical regions indigenous knowledge is at risk of extinctionjust as is biodiversity (Slikkerveer, 1999).

Ethnobotanical research can play a key role in the revitalisation and revaluation ofindigenous knowledge (Martin, 1995; Posey, 1999). Guyana has received much lessethnobotanical attention than many of its smaller neighbours (Austin and Bourne,1992). Several anthropological and ethnographical studies have been conducted onthe indigenous tribes present in Guyana (e.g. Im Thurn, 1883; Roth, 1924; Gillin,1936; Yde, 1965; Wilbert, 1970, 1976; Coles et al., 1971; Adams, 1972; Butt, 1973,1976, 1977; Wilbert and Layrisse, 1980; Forte, 1988; Forte et al., 1992; Mentore,1995). Most of these studies have paid some attention to traditional health care, butlittle effort has been done to verify the scientific names of the medicinal plantsmentioned by local informants. Most works have just cited vernacular plant names,without supporting them with herbarium collections. The few extensive studies onthe region’s useful plants that were combined with professional herbariumcollections (Stahel, 1944; Fanshawe, 1948), unfortunately lack up-to-date botanicalinformation. In some of the recent ethnomedicinal studies for Guyana in which plantcollection was part of the research methods (Matheson, 1994; Forte, 1996a; Riley,1998), many specimens were lost or could not be identified properly due toincomplete sampling. The few research projects that provided rather adequatespecies lists are only available from the ‘grey literature’ (Lachman-White et al.,1992; Reinders, 1993). Only a handful of ethnobotanical studies has been publishedin international journals (Austin and Bourne, 1992; Johnston and Culquhoun, 1996;Johnston, 1998).

To highlight the importance of herbal medicine in the indigenous communities ofnorthwest Guyana, this chapter will deal with the variety of medicinal plants andtheir uses recorded during the two-year survey of NTFPs in that region. Detailedspecies descriptions and preparation methods are given in Part II of this thesis, butthe general aspects of present-day traditional health care and the role of medicinalplants in this system will be discussed here. The main research questions withregard to the use of herbal medicine were:

1. Which plant species are being used for which diseases?2. What is the present role of herbal medicine in the health care system of

indigenous communities?3. Are there differences in medicinal plant use between the two major ethnic

groups (Carib and Arawak)?4. In what ways are medicinal plants commercialised in Guyana?


228

One would expect that the relatively isolated and traditional communities have agreater knowledge of traditional medicine, because there is a greater need to practiseit than in the more ‘westernised’ areas, which have better access to governmenthealth facilities and prescription medicines.

It is hoped that the documentation of this herbal knowledge, which is often notpresent in an organised structure but rather spread among communities andindividuals, may contribute to the conservation of both cultural and biologicaldiversity in Guyana. By compiling and spreading this knowledge, many othergroups in the region could benefit from this locally abundant, relatively safe,effective, and cheap resource.

8.2 METHODOLOGY

The main part of the research on medicinal plants took part during the plantcollection in the seven hectare plots (chapters 2 and 3) and in the areas surroundingthese plots. Using the ‘walk-in-the-woods’ method (Prance et al., 1987), specialcollecting trips were organised with people involved in traditional healing, localmidwives, schoolteachers, and village elders. Children and adolescents were alsoasked to venture what they knew about herbal medicine. Informal interviews weremostly conducted during these collection trips. Most information was double-checked with other informants. In some cases, however, unconfirmed informationwas retained, since for many informants their personal experience was an importantfactor in their perception of efficacy of herbal medicines. Direct observation of theeffectiveness of medicinal plants in the field was in most cases not possible, so theinformation was largely based on the reports of informants.

Local hospitals and community health huts, which often served a double purpose asvillage guesthouse, were frequently visited. The researcher witnessed severalmedical expeditions of the Malaria Eradication Programme, US army volunteersand the Raleigh International team, and offered assistance during their vaccinationand malaria detection activities. In this way, a general impression of the local statusof the Primary Health Care was obtained.

All plants (trees, lianas, shrubs, herbs, epiphytes, and fungi) that were considered bylocal people to have medicinal properties were collected and identified. These plantsincluded not only wild species (NTFPs), but also cultivated plants and wild plantsthat had been taken from the forest and planted in home gardens or agriculturalfields. Plants used specifically for magic rituals or (hunting) charms were notincluded in the medicinal category, but are dealt with in Part II of this thesis.Medicinal plants and uses mentioned in other ethnobotanical studies (Gillin, 1936;Coles et al., 1971; Lachman-White et al., 1992; Reinders, 1993) were checked withinformants as well. Botanical specimens were collected of all useful plants. Onevoucher of each specimen is deposited at the Herbarium of the University ofGuyana; another complete collection exists in the Herbarium of Utrecht University(U). Additional vouchers were sent to international specialists for identification. Theinformation was stored in a FilemakerPro database, including scientific and local


229

plant names, uses, recipes, collection numbers, locations, ethnicity, and provenanceof the informants. The screening of medicinal plants on their therapeutic chemicalswas not part of this study.

8.3 STUDY AREA

The majority of the medicinal plants were collected in Kariako and Santa Rosa.Additional information on medicinal plant use was gathered in Koriabo, Assakataand Warapoka. Plants were also collected at the two major herbal markets inGeorgetown (Stabroek and Bourda), and interviews were held with the plantvendors. Supplementary information on herbal medicine was obtained fromcommunity health workers, gold miners, schoolteachers, and the numerous otherpeople that I met during my travels through the North-West District.

8.4 RESULTS

8.4.1 General health conditions in KariakoThe Caribs of the remote settlement of Kariako make a living of fishing, hunting,slash-and-burn-agriculture and gathering forest products for subsistence. Cashincome is earned by small-scale gold mining. The region has a relatively highprotein intake, since wildlife is still abundant (Forte, 1994). Nearly all villagers stillspeak their native language, while many elder people (especially women) speaklittle or no English. Their access to the market is limited to a few gold miner shops.Due to the discovery of gold close to Kariako at the end of the 19th century, therehas been an irregular influx of (mostly Afro-Guyanese) miners from the coast.Many Amerindian families had mixed feelings about the gold mining culture. Atone hand it offered the opportunity of earning fast money and the access to luxurygoods, but on the other hand it brought about the abuse of alcohol and drugs,prostitution, venereal diseases (including AIDS/HIV), typhoid, malaria, and thepollution of rivers and creeks.

At the time of this research, health facilities in Kariako were very limited. Amedical team visited the village about once a year to administer malariaprescriptions, worm and vitamin tablets, and vaccinations (DTP, German measles,polio, and whooping cough). There was one local miner who owned a microscopeand who was able to detect malaria in blood smears. He distributed free malariatablets, but lived several hours paddling upriver from the village. The few medicinesthat were sold in the nearby shops (painkillers, malaria tablets, and one type ofantibiotic) were fairly expensive and not always in stock. The nearest hospital,which still offered limited services, was located at Kwebanna (Waini River), some150 km downstream from Kariako. Only in emergency cases, people took the effortto carry out a patient to Kwebanna. Gold miners sometimes offered a ride down tothe Waini, but not every motorised boat was willing to bring out sick people fromthe village. Except for miners and shopkeepers, hardly anybody in the region couldafford the costs to visit one of the better hospitals in Georgetown.


230

Malaria, malnutrition, diarrhoea, and other gastrointestinal complaints caused bywaterborne parasites (e.g., typhoid, amoebas) seemed to be the major healthproblems in the area (Forte, 1995; Reinders and van Andel, 1996). In the dry seasonfrom February to April, drinking water was a major problem. Forest creeks ran dryand people depended on river water for washing clothes, bathing, and drinking. Fewpeople had water tanks or zinc roofs to collect rain water, and hardly anyone boiledthe water before drinking it. Pit latrines were a rarity.

In 1997, the Tropenbos scientists working in Kariako constructed a building, whichwas donated to the community as a health hut annex guesthouse. In 1997, a boat andan outboard motor were given to the village. In the same year, after long efforts ofthe community, two Kariako villagers participated in a training course in the districthospital in Santa Rosa to become a community health worker. The future healthworkers also received instruction in microscope reading. This enabled them todetect and treat malaria in their own community, since registered microscopists willreceive free malaria medicines from the Guyanese government.

In spite of these recent activities, the Kariako Caribs were still much deprived ofmodern medical facilities. For the majority of diseases, people entirely depended onherbal medicine and the traditional healing skills of the village elders. The last‘piaiman’ (shaman) died more than ten years ago, but he seemed to be moreinvolved in witchcraft and spiritual healing than in herbal medicine. Althoughpeople were somewhat ashamed to admit they used ‘bush medicines’ and preferredsynthetic tablets when available, medicinal plants were widely used in Kariako.Particularly elder men and women had a thorough knowledge of herbal medicine,which they still passed on to the younger generations. Since the Carib language wasstill spoken in many households, children had an ample opportunity to learn aboutindigenous plant names, their uses, and healing properties. However, the recentintroduction of the Assemblies of God Church (locally known as ‘handclapchurch’), which prohibited the use of alcohol and tobacco, has accelerated theprocess of acculturation and the subsequent loss of traditional Carib culture,language, and use of medicinal plants. The church leaders, Amerindians fromKwebanna who stayed in close contact with North American evangelists, urgedpeople to pray first when suffering from illnesses. They discouraged the use of‘uncivilised’ healing practices or visiting the nearby rum shops or gold mines toobtain medicine. Although it was too early to conclude that this resulted in a declinein the use of medicinal plants and an increase in illnesses, this may happen in thenear future.

The villages of Kariako and Koriabo are situated in the logging concession ofBarama Company Ltd. The firm has promised a more regular health service to theAmerindian settlements within their concession boundaries (ECTF, 1993), but priorto the publication by Forte (1994) on the village of Kariako, the company was noteven aware of the existence of this settlement (chapter 1). Logging is supposed tostart in the area within a period of 10 years, which may bring a further disruption oftraditional subsistence economy in the area, as well as a possible increase ofvenereal diseases and AIDS (ECTF, 1993).


231

8.4.2 General health conditions in MorucaThe Santa Rosa Amerindian Reserve is the largest indigenous village in Guyana. Itsprincipally Arawak population is still increasing, because of the attractiveness ofSanta Rosa as a centre of government, commerce, and religion. The Moruca districthospital offers its services not only to the Santa Rosa villagers, but also to peoplefrom faraway settlements. Although recently refurbished by a US army team, thehospital has only one trained doctor. Wealthy Morucans go for medical treatment tothe larger regional hospitals (Charity, Suddie) or the clinics in the capital. At thetime of this research, the medical staff posted at the Santa Rosa hospital had a verynegative attitude towards herbal medicine. Patients were sent away or verballyabused if it appeared they had been using medicinal plants prior to visiting theclinic.

As a result, people were reluctant to go to the hospital. They denied using traditionalmedicine towards the staff or waited long before seeking medical treatment. Others,often dissatisfied by the hospital treatment, preferred to consult the variousherbalists in the region. These herbalists were elder men and women, veryknowledgeable in the field of medicinal plant use, but also familiar with the so-called ‘Spanish prayers’. These prayers were spoken and sometimes written duringthe medical treatments. Remarkably, they were not Spanish at all, but turned out tobe traditional Arawak healing rituals, much valued because of their healing powers,but surrounded by mystery and not shared easily with outsiders. These Morucaherbalists were occasionally consulted by people from the urban region. In manycases, the complaints of their patients concerned ailments that ‘the hospital couldnot treat’, such as mental illness, paranoia, psychosomatic complaints, fertilityproblems, thrush, impotence and possession by evil spirits. In spite of theirreputation, none of these herbalists called themselves a traditional healer, piaiman,or ‘obeiahman’. To trivialise their activities, they preferred to say they ‘helped somepeople out some time’.

In spite of the antipathy of the local hospital staff towards traditional healingpractises, the general attitude of the villagers with regard to medicinal plants wasquite positive. One of the local herbalists, an Arawak lady of 93 years old who hadhelped hundreds of women with problematic births, earned great respect among thecommunity members. The Catholic Church, quite powerful in Santa Rosa, openlypraised her knowledge. The growing number of Gospel and Protestant churchesneither reacted negatively on the use of herbal medicine. Even though there was nocooperation between the two systems of health care in Moruca, local residents hadat least the opportunity to choose and compare between the traditional and themodern system.

Although malaria was not frequent in Moruca, young men returning from interiorgold mines and logging concessions often brought back the disease with them. Pitlatrines were more common in Santa Rosa, but drinking water facilities were farfrom hygienic. Malnutrition and infant diarrhoea were common. Synthetic drugs(painkillers, malaria tablets, antibiotics, and anti-flu medicine) were widely sold inthe village shops.


232

In the remaining three villages studied, the general health conditions weresomewhat in between the situation of Kariako (almost no access to Primary HealthCare) and Santa Rosa (reasonable health facilities). Warapoka, Assakata andKoriabo all had a trained community health worker and a health hut built by thenational NGO Futures Fund. Community health workers receive a regular supply ofmedicines from the district hospital, but in the dry season, transport is difficult andsupplies are few. Again, malaria, gastro-intestinal diseases, and malnutrition werecommon in these communities. Each community counted with one or more personsthat acted as traditional healers. The mother of the Koriabo village captain had agood reputation as a midwife, and was frequently asked to offer her services towomen in labour. Since most local health workers were indigenous communitymembers, they did not disapprove herbal medicine, but they neither were tooenthusiastic about it. In all three villages, subsistence activities (hunting, fishing,and farming) were important, while cash income was earned by small-scale goldmining (Koriabo) and the harvesting of palm hearts (Assakata, Koriabo, andWarapoka). People involved in gold mining regularly became infected by malariaand typhoid, while those working in the palm heart industry often contracted snakebites and injuries caused by falling trees (chapter 5).

8.4.3 Medicinal plant use in the North-West District.A total of 294 medicinal plant species were found in the North-West District,belonging to 214 genera and 99 families, and involved in more than 800 differenttreatments and recipes. Several animal species were involved in healing practises aswell, but these fell outside the scope of this research. A complete list of all plantspecies used for medicinal purposes is given in the Appendix of this chapter. Mostplants were used for more than one illness. The mean number of diseases treated perplant species was 2.5. The most widely used medicinal plant species were Carapaguianensis (15 different ailments), Senna occidentalis (12), Irlbachia alata subsp.alata (11), Desmodium barbatum (10), Costus scaber (10), and Stigmaphyllonsinuatum (8). The main plant families involved in herbal treatments werePapilionaceae (19 medicinal species), Euphorbiaceae (11 spp.), Araceae (10 spp.),Compositae (9 spp.), Annonaceae, Guttiferae, and Caesalpiniaceae (each 8 spp.).Detailed use descriptions and recipes are given in Part II of this thesis.

In general, people made a distinction between plants that only providedsymptomatic relief and those that actually cured the illness. However, the opinionsabout the efficacy of certain species differed among informants. People oftenwarned for the side effects caused by certain bark concoctions (e.g., Aspidospermaspp., Alexa imperatricis, Strychnos spp., and Lonchocarpus spp.). The obvioustoxicity of these plants should be taken into serious consideration when encouragingtheir local use. Stories were told about persons that became seriously ill or died aftertaking an overdose or by confusing the poisonous bark with another (aphrodisiac)species. In case toxic plant parts were used as ingredients in herbal medicine,detailed accounts were given of the quantities needed and the possible side effects.When the species were not toxic, the amount of plant material in the recipe wasoften less precise, like ‘a handful of leaves’, ‘some roots’, or ‘a piece of bark’.Along with the recipes, informants often provided stories about patients that werecured after using a certain plant remedy. In general, people seemed quite objective


233

on the effectiveness of a particular species. When they had tried a plant that did notwork, they would mention this sceptically and doubted its usefulness. Plants wereused for a wide variety of ailments, varying from headache and hair loss to cancerand AIDS (Figure 8.1).

8.4.4 Diseases treated with herbal medicineFigure 8.1 shows that the highest number of plants were used to treat fairly commondiseases, such as colds, skin sores, wounds, cuts, and diarrhoea. This was the caseby both Caribs and Arawaks, although these diseases were ‘ranked’ in a slightlydifferent order in each group.

Common coldsA total of 48 plant species was used to treat common colds, accompanied with asore throat, cough, and a running nose. Most remedies consisted of a decoction ofleaves (less frequently bark or shoots), that was drunk as tea. Apart from theircuring capacities, these brews may also supply the patient with some extra vitaminsor other nutritious elements usually found in green vegetables. These herbal teaswere sometimes boiled down with sugar into thick (cough) syrup. Some plants werespecifically used to treat children’s cold. Whooping cough, bronchitis, pneumonia,and tuberculosis were clearly distinguished from common colds and treateddifferently. Some plant species, however, such as Hebeclinium macrophyllum, Aloevera, and Pityrogramma calomelanos, were said to be effective against ‘everyheavy chest cold’, including the more severe lung ailments.

Wounds, cuts, and soresSpiny lianas, razorgrass, and machetes frequently cause skin cuts when walking in aforest. Cuts soon become infected and may develop into deeper wounds and evenskin sores (bacteriosis), a very common ailment in tropical regions. Properdisinfecting is a must, and quite a number of barks and leaves appeared to containantiseptic elements. Common treatments included squeezing the sap from heatedleaves directly in the cut, or cleansing the wound with a decoction of bark or leaves.Sores were put in a different disease category, since they were considered moresevere and included ‘lifetime sores’ or ‘bush yaws’ (leishmaniasis), persistent sorescaused by a protozoan spread by means of the bite of a phlebotomine sand fly(Fournet et al., 1994).

MalariaIf the number of plant species used against a certain disease could be interpreted asan indicator for the frequency and importance of that disease, malaria occupies analarming third place in the North-West District. As many as 30 plants were used totreat or prevent malaria in the study area. Caused by Plasmodium vivax and P.falciparum parasites, spread by Anopheles mosquitoes that breed in (gold mine)ponds and swamps with stagnant water, the disease is the leading cause of morbidityand mortality in the Guyanese interior (Forte, 1995, 1996b). Malaria occurredmostly in the wet season from May to July, but cases were known throughout theyear. The disease seemed to have a weakening effect on the overall fitness of boththe indigenous and coastlander population in gold mining areas. In 1994, close toone out of three of the blood smears taken by the government Malaria Eradication


234

Personnel had tested positive for malaria (Forte, 1995). Even though the commonsynthetic anti-malarial drugs (fansidar, halfan, and chloroquine) were regularlyavailable in the interior, patients often took these medicines too late, did not finishthe therapy, or did not understand the complicated prescriptions.

A large number of plants were used against malaria, but few species were said tocure the disease completely. Most treatments only lowered down the fever orenhanced the general resistance against malaria. Some of the most effectiveremedies, (e.g., the decoction of Aspidosperma bark), were said to be poisonous ifdrunk in excess. Many of the anti-malarial brews were distinctly bitter, (‘bitter likequinine itself’), which was believed to indicate their effectiveness against theparasite. It was a widespread practise to drink bitter tasting tonics or decoctionsmade from a mixture of barks, roots, woods, and herbs (e.g., Quassia amara,Scoparia dulcis, and Curarea candicans).

People suffering from diabetes, regular malaria outbreaks, or quickly developingskin sores were said to have ‘sweet blood’, a condition that called for a regularintake of ‘bitters’. These tonics were also taken to prevent malaria, skin sores, ordiabetes. Mosquitoes and ‘germs’ were said to dislike bitter blood. Laxatives werealso thought to ‘clean out’ the body from the malaria parasites. Gold miners wereoften quite knowledgeable on the preparation of malaria medicines and activelyexchanged recipes with local Amerindians to combat the disease. Some of them saidthat Amerindians had a greater resistance against malaria because of their frequentuse of bitters. The constant presence of alkaloids and other secondary plantcompounds in the body might indeed prevent certain diseases.

DiarrhoeaOften caused by amoebic or bacterial dysentery, typhoid, cholera, or othergastrointestinal parasites, diarrhoea is particular fatal to young infants. Most of thesecommon disorders are attributable to poor sanitary practises (lack of pit latrines) anddrinking water infected by parasites. Although people in the study area tried to drinkrainwater as much as possible, few boiled their water before consumption. In the drymonths, there was little choice than using the water from shallow pools or rivers.Heavy outbreaks of diarrhoea may occur in this season, which in some years havelead to the death of many children.

The year 1998 was extra burdensome for many Guyanese, since the severe droughtcaused by the ‘el niño’ weather phenomenon made clean drinking water extremelydifficult to obtain. Bark and root decoctions are specifically used to treat all sorts ofdiarrhoea. Some treatments were said to be effective against ‘diarrhoea with blood’,which indicates amoebic or bacterial dysentery. The term ‘operation’ was locallyused for diarrhoea accompanied with vomiting. The use of laxatives to treatintestinal disorders was common, as in this way the body was purified from all sortsof ‘dirt’ causing the illness.

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

235

0

102030405060

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

3132

3334

3536

3738

3940

4142

43

Figu

re 8

.1N

umbe

r of

pla

nt s

peci

es u

sed

for

diff

eren

t ill

ness

es i

n th

e N

orth

-Wes

t D

istr

ict.

1. c

omm

on c

olds

and

cou

ghs,

2.

skin

sor

es,

3. m

alar

ia,

4.di

arrh

oea,

5. w

ound

s an

d cu

ts, 6

. thr

ush,

7. s

nake

bite

s, 8

. hae

mor

rhag

e, 9

. sor

e ey

es, 1

0. f

ever

, 11.

hea

dach

e, 1

2. a

bsce

sses

, 13.

who

opin

g co

ugh,

14. s

tom

ach

ache

, 15.

spr

ain,

16.

aph

rodi

siac

, 17.

gen

eral

pai

n, 1

8. s

wel

ling,

19.

laxa

tive,

20.

bili

ousn

ess,

21.

ven

erea

l dis

ease

s, 2

2. h

yper

tens

ion,

23. h

eart

pro

blem

s, 2

4. b

ack

pain

, 25.

ski

n fu

ngi,

26. d

iabe

tes,

27.

mou

th s

ores

, 28.

hai

r lo

ss, 2

9. a

bort

ifac

ient

, 30.

tub

ercu

losi

s, 3

1. s

kin

burn

s,32

. sco

rpio

n bi

tes,

33.

kid

ney

prob

lem

s, 3

4. g

roun

d itc

h, 3

5. d

isin

fect

nav

el c

ord,

36.

ant

bite

s, 3

7. it

ches

, 38.

indu

ce v

omiti

ng, 3

9. to

otha

che,

40.

pneu

mon

ia, 4

1. e

czem

a, 4

2. e

ase

birt

h, 4

3. b

otfl

y la

rvae

.


236

ThrushTrush is the local Guyanese term for an infection caused by the fungus Candidaalbicans, which commonly occurs in the mouths of young babies (Lachman-Whiteet al., 1992). Symptoms are a rash on the whole body, sores bursting on the neckand between the legs, and a sore (white) mouth. Thrush is mostly caused byunhygienic feeding habits (dirty bottles or nipples). Local people also associatedthrush with the stomach cramps of a baby as a reaction on breast milk, after themother had eaten certain foods. In most cases, babies with thrush were given smallquantities of leaves macerated in water. Meanwhile, the mother had to refrain fromeating hot peppers, garlic, or catfish.

SnakebitesThe ferocious labaria snake (Bothrops asper) is a common snake in the North-WestDistrict, especially in swamp forests. When a person is bitten in the upper parts ofthe body, the bite can be deadly within hours. A famous medicine against labariabites was obtained by rubbing the crushed eyes and brains of the same snake withinfive minutes after its bite. It was said that the animal’s own anti poison worked forhumans as well. The bark of Unonopsis glaucopetala was considered as the mosteffective herbal cure for snakebites. The skin was sliced open, and some of the innerbark was applied to the bite. Meanwhile, the patient had to suck on some of thejuicy bark scrapings. The victim should drink the clear sap from the kapadula liana(Dilleniaceae spp.), instead of river- or rainwater, since this would worsen thesymptoms. All herbal medicines had to be taken as soon as possible after the bite.Synthetic antiserum was not available outside the major hospitals of the North-WestDistrict, as storage at a low temperature was required to keep them effective. TheBrazilian antidote ‘Específico’ did not need to be refrigerated. It was frequently soldin interior shops, but had a questionable reputation.

HaemorrhageQuite some plants that were used to stop haemorrhage (a term used for excessivebleeding during child birth or severe injuries), were also involved in the treatment of‘lining cold’ (puerperal fever), womb cramps, to prevent miscarriages and to keepdown the menstruation flow. Many of those species were also used by women to‘clean out the womb and tubes’, which implies widening the mouth of the uterusand initiating a curettage. Drinking high doses of these herbal teas in an early stageof pregnancy was said to cause abortions. They could even bring about completesterility. In remote areas, where there was no doctor to stitch a woman’s vagina afterit had been ruptured in childbirth, local midwives washed the women’s genitals witha warm decoction of astringent barks and leaves. This remedy was said to be veryeffective, as shortly afterwards the bleeding would stop and the birth channel wouldclose back. The effectiveness of some remedies against haemorrhage and generalweakness of blood (anaemia) was explained by the red colour of the particularherbal tea or exudate (‘red like blood itself’), which would help to replenish theblood lost by the patient.

Sore eyeSore or red eye is an inflammation of the conjunctiva, causing a red, itchy eye(Lachman-White et al., 1992). Sore eye was very common in the study area,especially among children. People believed that it was caused by diving in the river


237

with the eyes open. This could be true if the water would be polluted by bacteria,but sore eyes were mostly caused by rubbing the eyes with dirty hands or clothes.This highly contagious ailment was often treated by squeezing plant latex or sapdirectly into the affected eye.

AphrodisiacsQuite a number of barks, roots, and woods were used to prepare aphrodisiacs or‘builders’. These concoctions were drunk (mostly by men) ‘to cure a weak back’(impotence) and to stimulate their sexual activities. Aphrodisiacs were popular in thecapital and among coastlanders working in gold mines and logging operations in theinterior. Amerindians sometimes classified these beverages as ‘pork-knockermedicine’ or ‘black man’s tea’, implying that they were not familiar with them. Yetmany Amerindians knew exactly how to prepare these beverages. They were oftenasked to collect the ingredients from the forest when coastlanders could not identifythe required species. Young Amerindian men admitted that they tried out thesedrinks and told wild stories about their effects. The kapadula liana (represented bysix species of Dilleniaceae) was the most notorious ingredient in these aphrodisiacs.

AbortifacientsThe clear sap of the kapadula lianas can be drunk, but pregnant women were warnedthat this could cause abortion. The sap was sometimes deliberately drunk for thispurpose. Several other plant parts were said to provoke abortions, such as unripepineapples (Ananas comosus), calabash fruits (Crescentia cujete), the seeds ofGnetum nodiflorum, and the bark tea of Aristolochia daemoninoxia. It was believedthat even cutting the stems of the latter two lianas with a machete during pregnancywas sufficient to cause a miscarriage.

Disinfecting umbilical cordsSeveral species were used to disinfect the umbilical cord of a newborn. Infection ofthe navel could lead to the baby’s death, so precautions were needed to make surethat the navel dried up rapidly. The leaves of several species were burned; theirashes ground to powder and rubbed on the navel remains after cutting the umbilicalcord with a razor blade. This ash quickly dried the navel and preventedinflammation. This practise was only mentioned in remote settlements, wherewomen delivered their babies at home. In the areas within reach of a hospital,pregnant women preferred to give birth in the clinic.

Cancer and HIV/AIDSA remarkable aspect of herbal medicine was the involvement of several fish poisonsin the treatment of cancer and AIDS. The roots of Tephrosia sinapou andLonchocarpus spp., known to possess the chemical compound rotenone andgenerally used to stupefy fish, were mentioned as effective treatments for theselethal diseases. To treat intestinal cancer and AIDS, people drank small quantities ofthe sap from the roots of these species. The same liquid was applied externally onthe skin lesions caused by skin cancer and AIDS. This treatment was practisedthroughout the North-West District, by both coastlanders and Amerindians.Although the patients were said to suffer from heavy side effects (nausea,unconsciousness), cases were mentioned of the miraculous healing of terminalpatients. The strong poison was believed to ‘kill the cancer germs in the body’.


238

More information about the use and probable effectiveness of fish poisons in thetreatment of cancer and AIDS is given in chapter 7.

Illnesses caused by spirit attacksAlthough most people were aware that there existed certain ‘germs’ in the body thatcaused diseases, there were also cases of mysterious illnesses caused by maliciousforces. Some of these complaints had to be treated by an herbal specialist, but therealso existed numerous ‘household’ remedies and ceremonies to ward off evil spirits.These included burning the foul-smelling leaves of Jacaranda copaia under thehammock of a sick person, bathing children with a decoction of strong-scentedleaves (Crescentia cujete), rubbing them with the aromatic rhizome of Cyperusodoratus, or burning the fragrant resin of Protium spp. According to one informant,this resin was also used as incense in the Santa Rosa Catholic Church, ‘to chaseaway bad spirits and invite the good ones’.

Babies and toddlers were often thought to be attacked by bad spirits. ‘Sometimesthey cry all night with fever and you don’t know what is wrong with them’, onewoman explained. Laxative teas were also believed to loosen the grip which spiritshave taken on the bowels. One of the most powerful evil spirits was the ‘waterwoman’, a large anaconda disguised as a beautiful white woman, which luredpeople into the water to drown them. Menstruating women bathing in the river andyoung babies were extremely vulnerable to the attacks of these water ghosts. Spiritsstrongly disliked the smell of certain strong-scented plants. Newborn babies wereoften adorned with amulets made from scented plants to protect them against evilforces. In contrast, large strangler figs were believed to be inhabited by benevolentspirits. The trees were occasionally consulted by people in extreme despair aboutsick family members. If properly addressed, these spirits could cause miracles.

8.4.5 Collection and preparation of medicinesThe most common method of preparing medicines was cutting the particular bark,roots or leaves in pieces and boiling them in water. The decoction was then drunk astea, sometimes mixed with milk and sugar to camouflage its unpleasant taste.Decoctions were also used as steam baths or to bathe the body. Few infusions(solutions of plant material in cold water) were used. When the undiluted sap fromherbs was needed to disinfect cuts or sores, leaves were briefly heated over a fireuntil they became soft, and then rolled firmly between the hand palms and squeezed.Amerindians used most plants singly.

Complicated mixtures of several different species were prescribed onlyoccasionally. As is shown in Figure 8.2, most herbal treatments included leaves(34%), followed by bark (15%), the whole plant (12%, mostly in the case of smallerherbs), roots (10%, including tuberous rhizomes and bulbs), and exudate (8%,including latex, resin, or gum).


239

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

leave

sba

rk

whole

plant

root

exud

ate

seed

ssa

pwoo

dfru

itste

msh

oot

flower

sbu

ds

thor

ns

Figure 8.2 Number of recipes including the different plant organs.

From the 294 species of medicinal plants recorded in the North-West District, some80% was collected exclusively from the wild (Figure 8.3). These were all plantsnaturally occurring in different vegetation types (primary and secondary forest,secondary shrubland, swamp forest, and open savanna). Some 12% of these specieswere also taken from the forest and planted in home gardens or agricultural fields(e.g., Lonchocarpus chrysophyllus and Martinella obovata). This ‘semi-domestication’ reduced the need to cover long distances in the forest to search forrare plants. The high percentage of medicinal species collected from the wildillustrates the importance of non-timber forest products in traditional health care.

11% cultivated for food

6% cultivated for medicine

3% cultivated forother purposes

68% wild

12%

wild, but also plantedin home gardens

Figure 8.3 Provenance of medicinal plant species used in the North-West District.


240

Around 20% of the species involved in herbal healing practises were cultivatedplants. Although most of these (11%) were cultivated primarily as a food crop (e.g.,Manihot esculenta and Carica papaya), they were valued for their healingproperties as well. Only 6% of the medicinal species were cultivated exclusively fortheir medicinal value. Many of those were renowned herbal medicines throughoutthe continent, like Jathropa curcas and Bryophyllum pinnatum. A small percentage(3%) of non-food cultivated plants, such as cotton (Gossypium barbadense),tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), and fish poison (Clibadium surinamense), wasmentioned to have healing capacities as well.

8.4.6 Differences in medicinal plant use between Carib and ArawaksA total of 236 medicinal plant species were recorded among the Arawaks, while theCaribs mentioned only 138 species (Table 8.1). The higher number of ‘Arawak’medicinal plants might have several reasons. Firstly, the Arawak region in theNorth-West District had a greater variety in habitats (e.g., primary and secondaryforest, open savanna, manicole, mangrove, and quackal swamps). The Carib areawas only characterised by Mora swamp, primary and secondary forest (chapters 2and 3). Secondly, Carib uses were only recorded from the small, relatively isolatedcommunities of Kariako and Koriabo. In contrast, Arawak knowledge was recordedfrom the large village of Santa Rosa, and from the smaller communities Assakataand Koriabo. Thus, in total, more Arawak persons were interviewed than Caribs.Furthermore, the Arawaks have a longer history of contact with the urban region.Many coastlanders of East Indian or African origin have introduced medicinal (andnon-medicinal) plants from their countries of origin. Examples of these exotic plantsinclude Aframomum melegueta and Catharanthus roseus from Africa, and Syzygiumcumini and Asystasia gangetica from Asia. These species had entered the localpharmacopoeia of Santa Rosa, but they were not (yet) observed in the inland Caribcommunities.

The general knowledge on medicinal species, however, seemed to be greater in theCarib communities. As modern health care facilities in the deep interior were almostnon-existent, a greater number of people had to rely on medicinal plants than in thecoastal Amerindian areas. While most adults in Kariako and Koriabo had arelatively broad knowledge on herbal medicine, in Santa Rosa this information wasrestricted to a few ‘bush medicine specialists’. Since these herbalists were activelyinvolved in this study, the outcomes of this study seem to point at a highermedicinal plant use among the Arawaks than among the Caribs. However, sinceSanta Rosa citizens had a much greater access to hospital facilities and prescriptionmedicines, it is likely that they made use of medicinal plants less often than peopleliving in the deep interior.

Although the settlement of Kariako was surrounded by secondary forest, theprimary forest was not far away and was visited frequently by nearly all thevillagers. The Caribs harvested 84% of their medicinal plants from the wild (117species), of which 25% were species that only occurred in primary forest (Table8.1). Secondary vegetation types harboured 75% of the medicinal plants. The Caribs


241

cultivated only five medicinal species, all of which were grown in coastal Guyanaas well.

Table 8.1 Provenance of medicinal plants used by Caribs and Arawaks

Forest type Caribs Arawaks

Primary forest only 25% (35 spp.) 22% (51 spp.)

Secondary forest only 16% (22 spp.) 15% (36 spp.)

Primary and secondary forest 23% (32 spp.) 11% (25 spp.)

Open savanna 0.7% (1 sp.) 3% (7 spp.)

Secondary shrubland 19% (26 spp.) 22% (51 spp.)

Cultivated 16% (22 spp.) 27% (64 spp.)

Total 100% (138 spp.) 100% (236 spp.)

The Arawaks used much more agricultural species in their healing practises (27%)and cultivated 18 medicinal plant species (8%). They harvested less plant productsfrom the wild (73%), but the percentage of wild plants that was taken from theforest and cultivated (14%, 33 spp.), was higher than by the Caribs (7%, 10 spp.).Although the percentage of primary forest species was nearly equal to that of theCaribs, the absolute values were even higher. This could be explained by the factthat the communities of Assakata and Koriabo were located at a much shorterdistance from the primary forest than Santa Rosa. In particular the Assakatavillagers collected many medicinal plants in the (primary) manicole swamp forest(chapter 4). The percentage of primary forest-harvested medicinal plant species inSanta Rosa was much lower, since logging and slash-and-burn agriculture haveseverely reduced the area of undisturbed forest around Santa Rosa (chapters 2 and4).

The particular plant part needed for a medicine also determines in which vegetationtype the species is harvested. For instance, lianas with healing properties(Dilleniaceae, Strychnos spp., Curarea candicans, etc.) were present as juveniles insecondary forest. However, since their wood was needed, people harvested thelarger individuals that grew in primary forest. On the other hand, as was shown inchapter 4, distance is a decisive factor in plant collection. If the desired medicinalproduct could be collected from nearby secondary forest, people preferred to take itfrom there, instead of walking all the way to the primary forest.

The Warao during this study mentioned 50 medicinal plant species. However, sincemost of the time spent at Warao communities was reserved for the research on palmheart harvesting, no detailed description could be given on the Waraopharmacopoeia. For more information on this subject, the reader should consult thereport by Reinders (1993) or the publications of Wilbert (1970, 1976) and Wilbertand Layrisse (1980).


242

8.4.7 Commercialisation of medicinal plants

North-West DistrictOf the 294 species of medicinal plants recorded in the study area, only one wascommercialised on a regular basis. Crab oil, extracted from the seeds of thecrabwood tree (Carapa guianensis), was the sole herbal medicine offered for sale inthe interior shops. The oil is used throughout the country as mosquito repellent, hairoil, and medicinal oil; both for internal and external use (see Part II of this thesis).Because of its complicated processing method, crab oil is relatively expensive. Alitre bottle was sold for US$ 3 in the interior and for $ 7 in the capital. Rawmedicinal plant materials were seldom marketed in the interior; people simplyrefused to pay for goods they could easily collect themselves.

Money was occasionally involved in traditional healing practises in the North-WestDistrict. In small communities where the bartering principle was still prevalent,patients brought small gifts in the form of food when they came to be treated. But inmost cases, medicinal plants were collected and administered by the patientsthemselves or by their family members. In the surroundings of Santa Rosa, however,herbalists were not only consulted by fellow community members, but also bypeople from the urban region. They often required a payment for their services; inparticular when they were asked to prepare specific medicinal or magic brews.When their help was required to get rid of an evil spell or ‘obeiah’ (black magic),put on a patient by another person (in most cases an enemy or rival shaman), theirfee could even be pretty high. Most healing sessions were held in strict secrecy.

Decoctions of herbal medicines for heart problems, venereal diseases, and diabeteswere sold by a traditional healer in Moruca for up to US$ 7 per litre, although manyof his neighbours accused him of cheating. The bark of the kakarawa tree (Pradosiaschomburgkiana), growing only in remote quackal swamp and supposedly veryeffective in the treatment of tuberculosis, was occasionally sold in Moruca for US$ 7a rice bag (± 50 kg).

Urban areasMedicinal herbs, barks, and roots were not only used by Amerindians, but also bythe Afro-Guyanese and East Indian population in the urban areas. There was amodest, but steady demand for medicinal plants in the capital. Although modernmedicine was commonly available in the major urban centres, some diseases werepreferred to be treated with ‘bush medicine’. Medicinal plants were also very cheap;prices varied between US$ 0.07 to 0.14 for a bundle of dried leaves or a piece ofbark. A total of 85 species were offered for sale by more than 15 different marketvendors in Georgetown (Table 8.2).


243

Table 8.2. Dried and fresh medicinal plants sold at the Georgetown herbal markets

Family Species Family Species

Acanthaceae Justicia pectoralis Lauraceae Cinnamomum verum

J. secunda Persea americana

Ruellia tuberosa Leguminosae-Caesalp. Hymenaea courbaril

Adiantaceae Pityrogramma calomelanos Senna alata

Agavaceae Aloe vera S. alexandria

Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera S. bicapsularis

Anacardiaceae Mangifera indica S.occidentalis

Annonaceae Annona muricata S. reticulata

Apocynaceae Catharanthus roseus Leguminosae-Papil. Bauhinia guianensis

Araceae Montrichardia arborescens Desmodium sp.

Bignoniaceae Crescentia cujete Loganiaceae Strychnos spp.

Boraginaceae Cordia curassavica Malvaceae Gossypium barbatum

Heliotropium indicum Sida rhombifolia

Cactaceae Opuntia cochenillifera Meliaceae Azadirachta indica

Cecropiaceae Cecropia peltata Menispermaceae Curarea candicans

C. sciadophylla Moraceae Artocarpus altilis

Combretaceae Terminalia catappa Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camaldulensis

Commelinaceae Tripogandra serrulata Eugenia uniflora

Compositae Bidens cynapiifolia Pimenta racemosa

Clibadium surinamense Psidium guajava

Cyathillium cinereum Syzigium cumini

Mikania micrantha Palmae Euterpe oleracea

Sphagneticola trilobata Passifloraceae Passiflora foetida var. hispida

Struchium sparganophorum Passiflora laurifolia

Unxia camphorata Phytolaccaceae Microtea debilis

Costaceae Costus scaber Petiveria alliacea

Cucurbitaceae Luffa cylindrica Pinaceae Pinus caribea

Momordica charantia Piperaceae Piper reticulatum

Dilleniaceae Doliocarpus sp. Rubiaceae Chinchona sp.

Tetracera sp. Morinda citrifolia

Dioscoreaceae Dioscorea sp. Sapindaceae Cardiospermum halicacabum

Ebenaceae Diospyros discolor Serjania paucidentata

Euphorbiaceae Caperonia palustris Scrophulariaceae Scoparia dulcis

Croton trinitatis Simaroubaceae Quassia amara

Jatropha curcas Smilacaceae Smilax schomburgkiana

Gentianaceae Irlbachia alata subsp. alata Solanaceae Physalis cf. angulata

Gramineae Bambusa vulgaris Solanum stramoniifolium

Cymbopogon citratus Sterculiaceae Waltheria indica

Eleusine indica Verbenaceae Citharexylum spinosum

Guttiferae Clusia sp. Lantana camara

Labiatae Hyptis pectinata Lippia alba

Leonotis nepetifolia Stachytarpheta cayennensis

Ocimum campechianum


244

Thirteen of these species were not found in the North-West District. In contrast tothe Amerindian recipes, herbal vendors in Georgetown often prescribed mixtures ofseveral different species. Some of the medicinal herb stalls stayed open for sevendays a week. A few of them, mostly those selling aphrodisiac brews, were evenselling for 24 hours a day.

About half of the medicinal plants on the Georgetown market were cultivated. Mostof the wild species were common herbs in secondary shrubland (e.g., Unxiacamphorata, Stachytarpheta cayennensis). There seemed to be little danger ofoverharvesting. Most species were harvested along the Lynden highway and thenational airport. The barks and roots from lianas and epiphytes (e.g., Pinzona sp.,Smilax schomburgkiana, Strychnos sp., Curarea candicans, and Clusia spp.) weregathered from primary forest. They were either sold per piece for home preparationor processed into milkshakes and tonics. These species were mostly used asaphrodisiacs. Recently, some initiatives were taken by small businesses (e.g., FamilyD’lite and Caledonia Canning Co.) to bottle these aphrodisiacs on a larger scale.Some pharmacies in Georgetown have started to process crab oil industrially intosoap, candles, and insecticidal washes. A very small percentage of the medicinalspecies sold in the capital came from the Moruca and Pomeroon area. The majorityof the primary forest species was harvested in the nearby Essequibo and Demeraraforests. The prices paid for the raw material were too low to make extraction fromremote areas economically feasible. Although Amerindian men occasionally carrieda bag full of ingredients for aphrodisiacs with them when travelling to the capital,there was no regular trade in medicinal plants with the North-West District. Freshand dried medicinal herbs and barks were exported in small quantities (chapter 6),but export documents did not provide information on the particular species and plantparts marketed abroad.

8.5 DISCUSSION

8.5.1 The importance of herbal medicine in the North-West DistrictThe ancient system of indigenous health care and religion seems to havedisappeared in the North-West District. In the past, each indigenous communitycounted with a piaiman, who played the double role of medicine man and priest. Hepossessed supernatural powers and was able to communicate with spirits that causeddiseases. Through the medium of dreams and visions, enhanced by the use of arattle with magic stones, smoking tobacco and drinking a hallucinating infusion oftobacco leaves, the piaiman was able to diagnose the source of the evil. He thenperformed ritual healing ceremonies to combat the spirits that had possessed thepatient (Gillin, 1936; Forte, 1996a). Nowadays, not many of these piaiman remainin Guyana (Forte, 1996a), and if they do, they keep quiet not to upset the church orother authorities. However, in the past, only the serious cases of illness (oftencombined with psychological complaints) were cured by medicine men. For theless-complicated diseases, people consulted elder women or men, who constituted agroup of minor healers in the community (Gillin, 1936; Coles et al., 1971). Theresults of this study already proved that this part of the traditional healing system isstill very much alive in the North-West District. As was already mentioned by


245

Lachman-White et al. (1992), Austin and Bourne (1992), and Reinders (1993),medicinal plants are still widely used by both indigenous and non-indigenousgroups in Guyana. In the economic surveys of Sullivan (1999), 38 to 70% of thehouseholds said they collected medicinal plants from the forest, usually twice permonth. The annual weight of collected plants used for medicinal purposes wasestimated at 19 to 59 kg per household. According to Sullivan, a large proportion ofthe villagers she interviewed claimed that they preferred treatments with medicinalplants above those using synthetic medicine. As long as many people in Guyana’sinterior do not have access to good medical facilities, herbal medicine will continueto play its important, often life-saving role in traditional healing systems.

The belief that any manifestation of illness results from the presence of an evilspirit, as was noted among others by Forte (1996a) among the Macushi and byGillin (1936) among the Barama Caribs, was not widespread (anymore) in the studyarea. In the past, much more plants seemed to be used to ward off away evil spiritsthan today. Many of the magic plants listed by Gillin (1936) and Coles et al. (1971)for upper and middle Barama were not recognised as such by Barama Caribs duringthis survey. Only certain complaints were thought to be caused by evil forces. Theuse of pungent smelling plants to chase away bad spirits was noted among manyindigenous tribes in the region (Coles et al., 1971; Reinders, 1993; van ‘t Klooster,2000).

8.5.2 Comparisons with other regional studies on medicinal plant useTo see whether the pharmacopoeia of the North-West District had commoncharacteristics with those of neighbouring regions, the results of this study werecompared with the medicinal plants and uses found by other authors (Table 8.3).Both wild and cultivated medicinal species were taken into account.

Although the general patterns of plant use recorded during this survey wereexpected to show the greatest overlap with other ethnobotanical studies from theNorth-West District, this could not be verified with the existing literature. In theearlier Barama Carib studies (Gillin, 1936; Coles et al., 1971; Adams, 1972), plantcollection was minimal and botanical names were few and inaccurate. Comparisonshad to be based on vernacular (Carib) names only.

The expedition report of Coles et al. (1971) provided valuable information on theethnomedicine of the upper Barama Caribs. Many of their recipes and ideas aboutillnesses and healing were similar to those in Kariako: for instance, the variety ofherbal medicines for cuts and skin lesions, the common use of decoctions as a wayto administer medicine, and the food taboos for the nursing mother in the case ofinfant thrush. Unfortunately, botanical verification of the plant material was limited.


246

Table 8.3 Number of medicinal plant species mentioned in other ethnobotanical studies in the GuianaShield. The number of plant species with one or more identical uses is given betweenbrackets.

Researchers (year) Location Indigenousgroup

Medicinalspecies used

Species incommon

(# of uses incommon)

North-West District

This studyKariako, Koriabo,Assakata, Santa Rosa,Warapoka

Arawak, CaribWarao

294 -

Gillin (1936) Sawari (Barama River) Carib + 35 20 (16)Coles et al. (1971) Baramita (Barama River) Carib + 109 + 72 (15)Adams (1972) Baramita (Barama River) Carib + 29 + 15 (13)Reinders (1993) Wauna, Mabaruma Warao + 164 + 102 (72)

Coastal GuyanaAustin and Bourne(1992)

Kuru kururu(Lynden highway) unknown 55 36 (21)

Lachman-White et al.(1992)

Coastal Guyana diff. ethnicgroups 167 94 (75)

Central GuyanaJohnston andCulquhoun (1996) Kurupukari (Iwokrama) Arawak 130 37 (22)Matheson (1994) Great Falls (Essequibo) Akawaio 58 + 27 (18)

Southern GuyanaForte (1996a) North Rupununi Macushi + 139 + 19 (10)

Riley (1998)St. Ignatius(North Rupununi)

Macushi + 95 + 24 (10)

Fanshawe (1948) Total Guyana diff. ethnicgroups

127 100 (61)

Grenand et al. (1987) French Guiana Palikur, Wayãpi,Creoles

487 112 (52)

Raghoenandan (1994) Suriname Hindu 154 59 (38)

Milliken (1997)Brazil (Roraima)(anti-malaria plants only)

differentethnic groups

99 24 (8)

A substantial number of species and uses found among the Warao by Reinders(1993) were also recorded during this study. However, the overlap would have beengreater if more of Reinders’ plants had been identified. In general, the results of herstudy corresponded most with the plant lore of the coastal Arawaks. Only 11 of the83 recipes mentioned by the Warao in this study coincided with those found byReinders. This is probably a matter of geographical difference, as Reindersconducted her studies in the forested hills near Mabaruma, where there is a largeinfluence of non-Warao Indians and coastlanders. The Warao interviewed in thisstudy lived in rather isolated settlements in the dense manicole swamps (Warapokaand lower Waini River).

Many of the plant uses found in Santa Rosa were also mentioned in the coastalGuyana studies (Lachman-White et al., 1992; Austin and Bourne, 1992). Mostsimilarities were found with regard to the uses of ruderal herb species, common in


247

areas with a long history of cultivation. Many of these herbs (e.g., Hebecliniummacrophyllum and Waltheria indica), were less common or absent in the remoteinterior. The pharmacopoeia of the North-West District also showed a substantialoverlap with the study of Fanshawe (1948), who deposited an excellent plantcollection in several of the large herbaria in the world (Ek, 1990). Remarkably, thepresent study shared most medicinal plants with the pharmacopoeia of FrenchGuiana, composed by Grenand et al. (1987). Since there are substantial differencesin vegetation between French Guiana and the North-West District, the degree ofoverlap in plant lore with other studies seemed to be more a result of the plantcollection efforts of the particular researchers, than of similarities in indigenoushealth care. The extensive list of medicinal plants from the North-West Districtincludes a large number of species that has not yet been reported for medicinalpurposes. Many other plants were used distinctly than by indigenous groups. Thediscovery of so many medicinal plants in a region that harbours only threeindigenous tribes suggests that further research among the remaining six indigenousgroups in Guyana’s interior would yield a vast amount of so far unrecordedinformation.

8.5.3 Differences in medicinal plant use between indigenous groupsAccording to Prance et al. (1987), differences in plant use between indigenousgroups might be more a reflection of plant endemism within the tropical forest thanintercultural differences per se. This may be true when indigenous plant uses fromdistinct regions are compared, but it seems less relevant when plant lore iscompared between neighbouring groups. Although there existed a substantialoverlap in vegetation types and plant uses among the different northwestern tribes(chapter 4), recipes for medicinal plants varied not only between ethnic groups, butalso between villages and even between households. Still, it was hard to make out ifthese differences were caused by cultural heritage (e.g., Arawak vs. Carib), bydifferences in contact with outsiders (traditional vs. ‘modern’), or simply bydifferences in living standards and access to health facilities (using leaves todisinfect umbilical cords vs. giving birth in a clinic).

It seems that a complex set of factors, such as migration and contact patterns, thegeographical occurrence of certain plants, and individual experience of the efficacyof different cures has moulded the present pattern of dissemination of curativeknowledge (Coles et al., 1971). Milliken (1997) also states that the depth ofknowledge on medicinal plants depends on the degree and nature of contactbetween the group and neighbouring groups, the relative importance ofphytotherapy in the group’s traditional medicine, and the occurrence of effectivemedicinal plants in the area. Furthermore, Table 8.3 shows that the number ofmedicinal plants mentioned in ethnobotanical publications does not necessarilyreflect the real number of species used in a particular region. These figures arestrongly influenced by the amount of time the researcher has spent with the tribe,the accuracy of the plant collections, the scope of the research, the number ofcommunities visited and people interviewed.

Milliken (1997) further argues that the number of plants and recipes used to treatillnesses depends on the length of the time that a certain indigenous group has been


248

exposed to these diseases, and the seriousness of the epidemics when they came. Hefound that tribes in Roraima which came into contact with malaria long ago, knewmore plant species to combat this infection than groups that only recently contractedthe disease (Milliken and Albert, 1997; Milliken, 1997). The fact that the Arawaksin this study knew more anti-malarial species (26) than the Caribs (16), maypossibly be explained by the fact that the first group has a longer history as a labourforce in gold mines than the second, even though the majority of the gold mines inthe North-West District are located in Carib territory. According to Forte (1999) andReinders (pers. comm.) the Barama Caribs have only recently started miningthemselves.

The regularity at which certain illnesses occur in a community also seems toinfluence the number of plant species used to treat it. The wide array of plants usedagainst colds, cough, and cuts, may indicate that people have spent more time insearching for plant cures for common ailments than for rare diseases like cancer orepilepsy. However, it could also be that more plant species contain simpleantibacterial chemicals useful to disinfect cuts than complicated compounds thatwork against tumours or epilepsy. Finally, the desire to treat a certain ailment, asopposed to consider it a ‘fact of life’ and not paying attention to it, can also have acultural origin (Slikkerveer, pers. comm.).

Contact with outsiders may have negative effects on a group’s traditionalknowledge due to acculturation, but it can also broaden their knowledge due to theexchange of information and plants (Milliken, 1997). Gold prospectors may haveintroduced malaria to even the most remote areas in the North-West District, butthey have also played an important part in transmitting medical practises of differenttribes and groups (Coles et al., 1971). The famous ‘pork-knocker medicines’ areexamples of the transculturation process of African and Asian ideas and techniquesand Amerindian knowledge and ingredients. Especially on the coast, where mostAfro-Guyanese and East Indians live, Guyana’s medicinal plant lore is a carryoverof Amerindian, Asian, and African medical and spiritual traditions (Im Thurn, 1883;Lachman-White et al., 1992; Austin and Bourne, 1992). This was illustrated by thefact that herbalists in Georgetown more frequently recommended mixtures of plants(as is common in Africa), while the use of medicinal plants singly (or incombination with few other species) appears to be a characteristic of Amazonianmedicine (Grenand et al., 1987; Milliken, 1997). Another aspect is that through thecommercialisation of medicinal plant products, people may ultimately gain greaterknowledge of those NTFPs exported from the village economy to the non-localworld (Godoy et al., 1998). This was illustrated by the wide knowledge of plants bysome of the (commercial) herbal healers in the Moruca area.

Some of the indigenous perceptions of illness and healing in the North-West Districtseemed to be cosmopolitan in nature, for instance the connection between bitternessand supposed effectiveness against internal parasites. This concept was not onlyvoiced by many indigenous groups in the Guianas (Stahel, 1944; Fanshawe, 1948;Coles et al., 1971; Veth and Reinders, 1995; Milliken, 1997; Milliken and Albert,1997), but it was also noted among indigenous groups in Namibia (VanDamme etal., 1992), and it even forms part of the traditional Dutch folklore. However, thecommon use in the Guianas of herbal teas and tonics to ‘bitter the blood’ as a


249

preventive medicine against malaria and other parasites, was hardly practised byindigenous groups in Roraima (Milliken, 1997).

8.5.4 Loss of traditional knowledgeAs long as traditional cultures are stigmatised as backwards, savage or old-fashioned, indigenous people will be ashamed to speak their native language andlive according to their cultural heritage. The knowledge on medicinal plants,especially those with only indigenous names and uses, may even disappear soonerthan the plants themselves. If a tribe forgets its language, it also looses most of itsindigenous classification system of plant species, diseases, and treatments. Researchin several primary schools in the North-West District proved that many childrenwere still able to identify medicinal plants and give recipes, but the presentknowledge on traditional healing practices can be lost within a few decades iffurther pressure is put on indigenous tribes to become ‘civilised’. The fact that manyparents in the region were ashamed that their children ate small forest berries anddisdainfully called them ‘monkey food,’ and that most people denied usingmedicinal plants when first asked, illustrates the embarrassment of many indigenouspeople about the use of forest products. The neglect of traditional food andmedicines, however, may seriously deteriorate the health and well being ofindigenous peoples. Although often regarded as supplementary to local peoples diet,wild food and medicine is essential in times of crisis, and plays an importantnutritional role (FAO, 1992; IIED, 1994). Guyanese often referred to the use ofcertain plants ‘during Burnham times’. When former president Burnham’s socialistgovernment banned the import of luxury goods in the 1970s, many Guyanese wereforced to fall back on their knowledge of plants to substitute soap, toothbrushes,medicines, and other imported goods.

8.5.5 Incorporating medicinal plants in Primary Health CareThe neglect of traditional health care systems in Guyana is in great contrast to theincreasing importance of medicinal plants in western medicine and the worldwidemovement towards the revaluation of natural products and interest in indigenousplant use (Attisso, 1983; Posey and Dutfield, 1996; Ellen and Harris, 1999). In theearly 1980s, the World Health Organisation recommended each state to utilise itsnatural medicinal resources in the framework of its Global Strategy for Health forAll by the Year 2000 (WHO, 1993). Several health organisations and local NGOs inthe third world now promote the use of herbal medicine in Primary Health Care,since medicinal plants are cheap, locally available and more appealing to thephilosophy of local peoples (Richards, 1993; Slikkerveer and Slikkerveer, 1995;King et al., 1999).

Community health workers in Guyana should be made aware of the greatpossibilities of medicinal plants and incorporate elder community members withtraditional knowledge in the diagnosis and treatment of patients. Medicinal gardenscould be planted around community health centres for education purposes and whencertain herbs are not available in the neighbourhood. Since the supply ofprescription medicines to health facilities in the interior is often hampered, the needto include herbal medicines in remote health centres is essential. Schoolteachers inthe interior should also pay more attention to indigenous knowledge and culture.


250

The documentation of ethnobotanical practises, including local names of plants anddiseases, not only helps to conserve cultural diversity by revitalising localknowledge, it also contributes to the protection of biodiversity, since moreimportance is attached to a great number of useful plant species. However, theprinted or published ethnobotanical knowledge should by all means be made freelyavailable to the communities that provided the information. Furthermore,pharmacological companies and research institutes should find out ways to sharetheir economic benefits from ethnobotanical research with the indigenous peoplesinvolved. The quantity of compensation may depend on the stage in whichindigenous knowledge and resources have contributed to the final product, but theseaspects should be negotiated with the particular communities themselves. Money isnot always the most useful form of compensation for biogenetic resources andtraditional knowledge. According to the needs of the particular communities,donations could be done in an adequate form (community development funds,creation of protected areas, providing legal assistance for the demarcation oftraditional lands), ensuring that compensation is shared equitably between andwithin existing indigenous groups and future generations (Posey and Dutfield, 1996;King et al., 1999).

8.5.6 The commercial potential of Guyanese medicinal plantsThe enormous diversity of Guyanese medicinal plants, barks, roots, oils, and resinscould have a much larger potential for the national and regional market if theywould be processed in a more sophisticated manner, such as ready-to-use tonics,powders, tablets, ointments, or pre-packed ingredients for herbal teas and baths. Incountries like Indonesia, where the use of medicinal plants is much more acceptedand appreciated than in Guyana, the government even promotes the cultivation anduse of indigenous medicinal plants to enhance the self-reliance of ruralcommunities. The local manufacture of certain mixtures of herbal medicine provedto be so successful that part of it became commercialised into modern factories. Themedicinal plant trade in Indonesia is now a million-dollar industry (Slikkerveer andSlikkerveer, 1995; de Beer and McDermott, 1996). If laboratory studies onpharmacological and phytochemical properties and clinical trails are carried out inthe developing country itself, as it is done in Indonesia, it requires much less time todevelop a phytotherapeutic medicine from a medicinal plant than if the same speciesis processed into a patented medicine in one of the industrialised countries (Attisso,1983).

In Guyana, this process is still in its infancy, although a few medicinal plants areexported to the U.K. (chapter 6) and some basic screening and bioprospectingattempts have been done in the past (Lachman-White et al., 1992; Forte, 1999a).Guyana’s neighbouring country Suriname exports substantial volumes of fresh,dried, and frozen medicinal plants to the Netherlands, where they seem to play a keyrole in the health care of Surinamese immigrants. Van ‘t Klooster (2000) foundmore than 180 wild and cultivated plant species in an Amsterdam shop owned bySaramaccan Bush Negroes specialised in traditional Winti religion. Many of thespecies successfully marketed by Suriname also occur in Guyana, but it seems that


251

this country still has to discover the commercial potential of its ‘medical rain forest’on the world market.

At the same time, Suriname has reached an agreement with Bristol Myers Squibb, inwhich medicinal plants used by traditional Bush Negro communities are sold to thecompany for testing. Sales-based royalty payments will be deposited in a special‘Forest Peoples Fund’, controlled by the leaders of the country’s traditional peoplesand used to promote sustainable forest use and conservation (Sizer, 1996; FAO,2000). Up to now, Guyana’s enormous wealth of plant and animal products ofpharmaceutical value has practically been left unexplored. Bioprospecting wasrecently mentioned as an opportunity to obtain extra benefits from the country’sbiodiversity (Sizer, 1996; Iwokrama, 1999). The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is now developing a policy and institutional framework to regulate thecollection of specimens by scientists and pharmaceutical companies in Guyana(EPA, 2000). However, bioprospecting can only act as an innovative way to ‘savethe forests’ if it is carried out according to the guidelines of the Convention ofBiological Diversity (launched in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro). These include theconservation of biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and a fair andequitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources(Posey and Dutfield, 1996; King et al., 1999; Dutfield, 2000).

8.6 CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study have shown that indigenous tribes in the North-WestDistrict use a large number of medicinal plants for a wide variety of diseases.Although malaria and gastrointestinal diseases were the most precarious ailments inthe area, the largest number of plant species was used to treat common diseases,such as colds, skin cuts and sores. Many indigenous communities are almostcompletely dependent on medicinal plants for their health care, since modern healthfacilities are limited and prescription medicine is either unavailable or tooexpensive. Therefore, community health workers in the interior should includetraditional healers in their work. Medicinal plants have a great potential for ruralhealth care improvement, as they are cheap, locally available, and agree more tolocal people’s viewpoints than synthetic medicines.

The extensive list of medicinal plants used in the North-West District is remarkablenot only for its substantial number of species that have not previously been reportedfor medicinal purposes or have uses distinct from those of other indigenous groups,but also for its botanical and cultural diversity. The discovery of so many medicinalplants in a region that harbours only three indigenous tribes suggests that furtherresearch among the remaining indigenous groups in Guyana’s interior would yield atremendous amount of so far unrecorded information.

However, since the indigenous tribes in Guyana’s interior are under great pressurefrom the western society (logging, mining, churches, and prescription medicine), thepresent knowledge of herbal medicine may rapidly be lost. There is a great need forthe documentation and revitalisation of indigenous knowledge, as this may help to


252

preserve both cultural and biological diversity. Efforts should be made that thedocumented knowledge is made available to the indigenous groups and economicbenefits from ethnobotanical research are shared with the communities involved.

The great diversity of Guyanese medicinal plants could have a much larger potentialfor the (inter-) national market than it has today, if it would be processed in a moresophisticated way. However, commercial harvesting of medicinal plants andbioprospecting should be carried out according to the guidelines of the Conventionof Biological Diversity: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of naturalresources, and respecting traditional resource rights.

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

253

8.7

AP

PE

ND

IX

Med

icin

al p

lant

use

d in

the

Nor

th-W

est

Dis

tric

t of

Guy

ana:

Ar

= A

raw

ak, C

a =

Car

ib, W

= W

arao

, GT

= G

eorg

etow

n us

es (

coas

tland

ers)

. X =

sim

ilar

plan

t use

.w

= w

ild, c

= c

ulti

vate

d, w

(c)

= w

ild, s

omet

imes

cul

tiva

ted;

c (

w)

= c

ultiv

ated

, som

etim

es w

ild

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.A

cant

hace

aeA

syst

asia

gan

geti

caco

ugh/

cold

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Aca

ntha

ceae

Just

icia

cal

ycin

aco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

w (

c)A

cant

hace

aeJu

stic

ia c

alyc

ina

sore

eye

leav

esX

w (

c)A

cant

hace

aeJu

stic

ia c

alyc

ina

who

opin

g co

ugh

leav

esX

w (

c)A

cant

hace

aeJu

stic

ia p

ecto

ralis

haem

orrh

age

who

le p

lant

XX

c (w

)A

cant

hace

aeJu

stic

ia p

ecto

ralis

who

opin

g co

ugh

who

le p

lant

XX

Xc

(w)

Aca

ntha

ceae

Just

icia

sec

unda

anae

mia

leav

esX

w (

c)A

cant

hace

aeJu

stic

ia s

ecun

daco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

w (

c)A

cant

hace

aeJu

stic

ia s

ecun

dafe

ver

leav

esX

w (

c)A

cant

hace

aeJu

stic

ia s

ecun

dam

alar

iale

aves

Xw

(c)

Aca

ntha

ceae

Just

icia

sec

unda

mea

sles

leav

esX

w (

c)A

cant

hace

aeJu

stic

ia s

ecun

daw

hoop

ing

coug

hle

aves

w (

c)A

dian

tace

aePi

tyro

gram

ma

calo

mel

anos

asth

ma

who

le p

lant

Xw

Adi

anta

ceae

Pity

rogr

amm

a ca

lom

elan

osco

ugh/

cold

who

le p

lant

XX

wA

dian

tace

aePi

tyro

gram

ma

calo

mel

anos

pneu

mon

iaw

hole

pla

ntX

wA

dian

tace

aePi

tyro

gram

ma

calo

mel

anos

tube

rcul

osis

who

le p

lant

XX

wA

dian

tace

aePi

tyro

gram

ma

calo

mel

anos

who

opin

g co

ugh

who

le p

lant

Xw

Adi

anta

ceae

Pity

rogr

amm

a ca

lom

elan

osw

ound

/cut

leav

esX

XX

wA

mar

yllid

acea

eC

rinu

m e

rube

scen

sbi

lious

ness

root

Xw

Am

aryl

lidac

eae

Cri

num

eru

besc

ens

indu

ce v

omiti

ngro

otX

wA

mar

yllid

acea

eC

rinu

m e

rube

scen

sla

xati

vero

otX

wA

mar

yllid

acea

eH

ippe

astr

um p

unic

eum

asth

ma

root

Xw

(c)

8.7

App

endi

x

254

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.A

mar

yllid

acea

eH

ippe

astr

um p

unic

eum

bilio

usne

ssro

otX

w (

c)A

mar

yllid

acea

eH

ippe

astr

um p

unic

eum

indu

ce v

omiti

ngro

otX

w (

c)A

mar

yllid

acea

eH

ippe

astr

um p

unic

eum

laxa

tive

root

Xw

(c)

Am

aryl

lidac

eae

Hym

enoc

allis

tubi

flor

ahe

adac

hele

aves

Xw

Am

aryl

lidac

eae

Hym

enoc

allis

tubi

flor

ain

duce

vom

iting

root

Xw

Am

aryl

lidac

eae

Hym

enoc

allis

tubi

flor

asp

rain

leav

esX

wA

mar

yllid

acea

eH

ymen

ocal

lis tu

bifl

ora

swel

ling

leav

esX

wA

mar

yllid

acea

eH

ymen

ocal

lis tu

bifl

ora

swel

ling

root

Xw

Ana

card

iace

aeA

naca

rdiu

m g

igan

teum

diar

rhoe

aba

rkX

w (

c)A

naca

rdia

ceae

Ana

card

ium

occ

iden

tale

diar

rhoe

aba

rkX

XX

Xc

Ana

card

iace

aeA

naca

rdiu

m o

ccid

enta

ledi

arrh

oea

frui

tX

cA

naca

rdia

ceae

Ana

card

ium

occ

iden

tale

diar

rhoe

ale

aves

Xc

Ana

card

iace

aeA

naca

rdiu

m o

ccid

enta

leth

rush

bark

XX

cA

naca

rdia

ceae

Man

gife

ra in

dica

diab

etes

leav

esX

XX

cA

naca

rdia

ceae

Spon

dias

mom

bin

coug

h/co

ldba

rkX

w (

c)A

naca

rdia

ceae

Spon

dias

mom

bin

diar

rhoe

ale

aves

Xw

(c)

Ana

card

iace

aeSp

ondi

as m

ombi

nha

emor

rhag

eba

rkX

w (

c)A

naca

rdia

ceae

Spon

dias

mom

bin

haem

orrh

age

leav

esX

w (

c)A

naca

rdia

ceae

Spon

dias

mom

bin

sore

sle

aves

XX

w (

c)A

naca

rdia

ceae

Spon

dias

mom

bin

sore

sba

rkX

w (

c)A

naca

rdia

ceae

Tap

irir

a gu

iane

nsis

sore

sba

rkX

Xw

Ana

card

iace

aeT

apir

ira

guia

nens

isw

ound

/cut

bark

XX

wA

nnon

acea

eA

nnon

a m

onta

nafe

ver

leav

esX

w (

c)A

nnon

acea

eA

nnon

a m

onta

nahe

adac

hele

aves

Xw

(c)

Ann

onac

eae

Ann

ona

mur

icat

ahe

adac

hele

aves

XX

Xc

Ann

onac

eae

Ann

ona

mur

icat

ahe

art p

robl

ems

leav

esX

Xc

Ann

onac

eae

Ann

ona

mur

icat

ahy

pert

ensi

onle

aves

XX

c

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

255

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.A

nnon

acea

eD

ugue

tia m

egal

ophy

llasn

ake

bite

bark

Xw

Ann

onac

eae

Dug

uetia

pau

cifl

ora

snak

e bi

teba

rkX

wA

nnon

acea

eD

ugue

tia p

ycna

ster

aco

ugh/

cold

bark

Xw

Ann

onac

eae

Dug

uetia

yes

hida

nsn

ake

bite

bark

Xw

Ann

onac

eae

Rol

linia

exs

ucca

feve

rba

rkX

wA

nnon

acea

eR

ollin

ia e

xsuc

caha

emor

rhag

eba

rkX

Xw

Ann

onac

eae

Uno

nops

is g

lauc

opet

ala

snak

e bi

teba

rkX

XX

wA

pocy

nace

aeA

llam

anda

cat

hart

ica

bilio

usne

ssle

aves

XX

Xw

(c)

Apo

cyna

ceae

Alla

man

da c

atha

rtic

ala

xati

vele

aves

XX

w (

c)A

pocy

nace

aeA

llam

anda

cat

hart

ica

mal

aria

leav

esX

Xw

(c)

Apo

cyna

ceae

Asp

idos

perm

a cf

. cru

entu

mm

alar

iaba

rkX

wA

pocy

nace

aeA

spid

ospe

rma

exce

lsum

mal

aria

bark

Xw

Apo

cyna

ceae

Asp

idos

perm

a m

arcg

ravi

anum

head

ache

bark

Xw

Apo

cyna

ceae

Asp

idos

perm

a m

arcg

ravi

anum

mal

aria

bark

Xw

Apo

cyna

ceae

Cat

hara

nthu

s ro

seus

urin

ary

trac

tsle

aves

Xw

(c)

Apo

cyna

ceae

Fors

tero

nia

guya

nens

isco

ugh/

cold

root

Xw

Apo

cyna

ceae

Odo

ntad

enia

san

dwith

iana

pain

leav

esX

wA

pocy

nace

aeT

aber

naem

onta

na d

istic

hasc

orpi

on b

ite

bark

Xw

Apo

cyna

ceae

Tab

erna

emon

tana

dis

ticha

sore

eye

exud

ate

Xw

Apo

cyna

ceae

Tab

erna

emon

tana

und

ulat

ahe

adac

hero

otX

wA

pocy

nace

aeT

aber

naem

onta

na u

ndul

ata

mun

uri a

nt b

ite

exud

ate

Xw

Apo

cyna

ceae

Tab

erna

emon

tana

und

ulat

aso

re e

yeex

udat

eX

wA

race

aeC

alad

ium

bic

olor

botf

ly la

rvae

root

XX

w (

c)A

race

aeD

ieff

enba

chia

cf.

hum

ilis

botf

ly la

rvae

exud

ate

Xw

Ara

ceae

Mon

ster

a ad

anso

nii v

ar.

klot

zsch

iana

absc

ess

leav

esX

wA

race

aeM

onst

era

adan

soni

i var

. kl

otzs

chia

napa

inle

aves

XX

wA

race

aeM

onst

era

adan

soni

i var

. kl

otzs

chia

nasc

orpi

on b

ite

shoo

tX

w

8.7

App

endi

x

256

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.A

race

aeM

onst

era

adan

soni

i var

. kl

otzs

chia

nasn

ake

bite

shoo

tX

wA

race

aeM

ontr

icha

rdia

arb

ores

cens

coug

h/co

ldsa

pX

Xw

Ara

ceae

Mon

tric

hard

ia a

rbor

esce

nsdi

abet

esle

aves

XX

wA

race

aeM

ontr

icha

rdia

arb

ores

cens

stin

gray

bit

est

emX

wA

race

aeM

ontr

icha

rdia

arb

ores

cens

tube

rcul

osis

leav

esX

Xw

Ara

ceae

Mon

tric

hard

ia a

rbor

esce

nsw

ound

/cut

stem

XX

wA

race

aePh

ilode

ndro

n cf

. bre

visp

athu

msc

orpi

on b

ite

shoo

tX

wA

race

aePh

ilode

ndro

n de

flex

umm

unur

i ant

bit

ero

otX

wA

race

aePh

ilode

ndro

n fr

agra

ntis

sim

umap

hrod

isia

cro

otX

Xw

Ara

ceae

Philo

dend

ron

linna

eisk

in f

ungi

exud

ate

Xw

Ara

ceae

Philo

dend

ron

linna

eisw

ellin

gle

aves

Xw

Ara

ceae

Philo

dend

ron

peda

tum

back

pai

nle

aves

Xw

Ara

ceae

Philo

dend

ron

scan

dens

mun

uri a

nt b

ite

leav

esX

wA

race

aePh

ilode

ndro

n sc

ande

nssn

ake

bite

leav

esX

Xw

Ara

ceae

Philo

dend

ron

scan

dens

sore

eye

leav

esX

wA

race

aePh

ilode

ndro

n sc

ande

nsso

res

leav

esX

Xw

Ara

ceae

Philo

dend

ron

scan

dens

wou

nd/c

utle

aves

Xw

Ara

liace

aeSc

heff

lera

mor

otot

oni

scor

pion

bit

eba

rkX

wA

ralia

ceae

Sche

ffle

ra m

orot

oton

iso

res

bark

XX

wA

ralia

ceae

Sche

ffle

ra m

orot

oton

iw

ound

/cut

bark

XX

wA

rist

oloc

hiac

eae

Ari

stol

ochi

a da

emon

inox

iaab

orti

vest

emX

Xw

Ari

stol

ochi

acea

eA

rist

oloc

hia

daem

onin

oxia

cont

race

ptiv

est

emX

Xw

Ari

stol

ochi

acea

eA

rist

oloc

hia

daem

onin

oxia

fem

ale

ster

ility

stem

Xw

Ari

stol

ochi

acea

eA

rist

oloc

hia

daem

onin

oxia

feve

rst

emX

wA

rist

oloc

hiac

eae

Ari

stol

ochi

a da

emon

inox

iast

omac

h ac

hest

emX

wA

uric

ular

iace

aeL

aeti

pous

sp.

TV

A 1

997

men

stru

atio

nw

hole

pla

ntX

wA

uric

ular

iace

aePy

cnop

orus

san

guin

eus

men

stru

atio

nw

hole

pla

ntX

w

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

257

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.B

igno

niac

eae

Cre

scen

tia c

ujet

eab

orti

vefr

uit

XX

cB

igno

niac

eae

Cre

scen

tia c

ujet

eea

ses

birt

hfr

uit

Xc

Big

noni

acea

eC

resc

entia

cuj

ete

evil

spir

its

leav

esX

cB

igno

niac

eae

Jaca

rand

a co

paia

ssp

. co

paia

evil

spir

its

leav

esX

XX

wB

igno

niac

eae

Jaca

rand

a co

paia

ssp

. co

paia

feve

rle

aves

Xw

Big

noni

acea

eM

acfa

dyen

a cf

. ung

uis-

cati

fem

ale

ster

ility

who

le p

lant

Xw

Big

noni

acea

eM

acfa

dyen

a cf

. ung

uis-

cati

haem

orrh

age

who

le p

lant

Xw

Big

noni

acea

eM

artin

ella

obo

vata

sore

eye

root

XX

XX

w (

c)B

igno

niac

eae

Mar

tinel

la o

bova

taso

res

root

XX

w (

c)B

igno

niac

eae

Schl

egel

ia v

iola

cea

sore

eye

sap

XX

wB

igno

niac

eae

Tab

ebui

a in

sign

ism

alar

iaba

rkX

XX

wB

lech

nace

aeB

lech

num

ser

rula

tum

absc

ess

leav

esX

wB

omba

cace

aeC

atos

tem

ma

com

mun

esn

orin

gse

edX

wB

omba

cace

aePa

chir

a aq

uatic

adi

arrh

oea

bark

Xw

Bor

agin

acea

eC

ordi

a no

dosa

head

ache

leav

esX

wB

orag

inac

eae

Cor

dia

nodo

sahy

pert

ensi

onle

aves

XX

Xw

Bor

agin

acea

eC

ordi

a no

dosa

who

opin

g co

ugh

leav

esX

wB

orag

inac

eae

Hel

iotr

opiu

m in

dicu

mdi

abet

esw

hole

pla

ntX

w (

c)B

orag

inac

eae

Hel

iotr

opiu

m in

dicu

mve

nere

al d

isea

sew

hole

pla

ntX

w (

c)B

rom

elia

ceae

Ana

nas

com

osus

abor

tive

frui

tX

XX

cB

rom

elia

ceae

Ana

nas

com

osus

frac

ture

sle

aves

Xc

Bro

mel

iace

aeA

raeo

cocc

us m

icra

nthu

sth

rush

leav

esX

wB

urse

race

aePr

otiu

m d

ecan

drum

arth

ritis

exud

ate

Xw

Bur

sera

ceae

Prot

ium

dec

andr

umsk

in b

urns

bark

Xw

Bur

sera

ceae

Prot

ium

dec

andr

umw

ound

/cut

bark

Xw

Bur

sera

ceae

Prot

ium

sp.

TV

A 1

038

skin

bur

nsba

rkX

wB

urse

race

aePr

otiu

m s

p. T

VA

103

8so

res

bark

Xw

8.7

App

endi

x

258

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.B

urse

race

aePr

otiu

m s

p. T

VA

103

8w

ound

/cut

bark

Xw

Cac

tace

aeE

piph

yllu

m p

hylla

nthu

sba

ck p

ain

leav

esX

w (

c)C

acta

ceae

Epi

phyl

lum

phy

llant

hus

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

Xw

(c)

Cac

tace

aeE

piph

yllu

m p

hylla

nthu

sla

xati

vele

aves

Xw

(c)

Cac

tace

aeE

piph

yllu

m p

hylla

nthu

sw

hoop

ing

coug

hle

aves

Xw

(c)

Cac

tace

aeO

punt

ia c

ochi

nelli

fera

sple

en p

robl

ems

leav

esX

cC

ampa

nula

ceae

Cen

trop

ogon

cor

nutu

sbe

d w

etti

ngle

aves

Xw

Cam

panu

lace

aeC

entr

opog

on c

ornu

tus

sore

eye

exud

ate

XX

Xw

Cam

panu

lace

aeC

entr

opog

on c

ornu

tus

urin

ary

trac

tsle

aves

Xw

Car

icac

eae

Car

ica

papa

yadi

arrh

oea

bark

Xc

Car

icac

eae

Car

ica

papa

yadi

arrh

oea

leav

esX

cC

aric

acea

eC

aric

a pa

paya

hype

rten

sion

frui

tX

XX

cC

aric

acea

eC

aric

a pa

paya

vene

real

dis

ease

flow

erX

cC

aric

acea

eC

aryo

car

mic

roca

rpum

back

pai

nba

rkX

w (

c)C

ecro

piac

eae

Cec

ropi

a ob

tusa

back

pai

nle

aves

XX

wC

ecro

piac

eae

Cec

ropi

a pe

ltata

abce

sssh

oot

Xw

Cec

ropi

acea

eC

ecro

pia

pelta

taba

ck p

ain

leav

esX

Xw

Cec

ropi

acea

eC

ecro

pia

pelta

taki

dney

pro

blem

sle

aves

XX

wC

ecro

piac

eae

Cec

ropi

a pe

ltata

sick

ness

(ge

nera

l)le

aves

Xw

Cec

ropi

acea

eC

ecro

pia

pelta

taw

ound

/cut

shoo

tX

Xw

Cec

ropi

acea

eC

ecro

pia

scia

doph

ylla

abce

ssba

rkX

wC

ecro

piac

eae

Cec

ropi

a sc

iado

phyl

lahe

art p

robl

ems

leav

esX

wC

ecro

piac

eae

Cec

ropi

a sc

iado

phyl

laki

dney

pro

blem

sba

rkX

Xw

Cec

ropi

acea

eC

ecro

pia

scia

doph

ylla

liver

pro

blem

sle

aves

Xw

Cec

ropi

acea

eC

ecro

pia

scia

doph

ylla

wou

nd/c

utba

rkX

wC

elas

trac

eae

Gou

pia

glab

rach

icke

npox

bark

Xw

Cel

astr

acea

eG

oupi

a gl

abra

ecze

ma

bark

Xw

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

259

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.

Cel

astr

acea

eG

oupi

a gl

abra

toot

hach

eba

rkX

Xw

Cel

astr

acea

eM

ayte

nus

cf. g

uyan

ensi

ssk

in b

urns

bark

Xw

Chr

ysob

alan

acea

eL

ican

ia h

eter

omor

pha

vene

real

dis

ease

sba

rkX

wC

hrys

obal

anac

eae

Pari

nari

rod

olph

iisn

ake

bite

bark

XX

wC

omm

elin

acea

eC

omm

elin

a di

ffus

abi

lious

ness

who

le p

lant

Xw

Com

mel

inac

eae

Com

mel

ina

diff

usa

hair

fal

lw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

omm

elin

acea

eC

omm

elin

a di

ffus

aki

dney

pro

blem

sw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

omm

elin

acea

eC

omm

elin

a di

ffus

am

alar

iaw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

omm

elin

acea

eT

ripo

gand

ra s

erru

lata

bilio

usne

ssw

hole

pla

ntX

XX

w

Com

mel

inac

eae

Tri

poga

ndra

ser

rula

taha

ir f

all

who

le p

lant

Xw

Com

mel

inac

eae

Tri

poga

ndra

ser

rula

taki

dney

pro

blem

sw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

omm

elin

acea

eT

ripo

gand

ra s

erru

lata

clea

n w

omb

& tu

bes

who

le p

lant

Xw

Com

posi

tae

Bid

ens

cyna

piif

olia

diab

etes

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Com

posi

tae

Bid

ens

cyna

piif

olia

grou

nd it

chw

hole

pla

ntX

w (

c)C

ompo

sita

eB

iden

s cy

napi

ifol

iaso

re e

yesa

pX

w (

c)C

ompo

sita

eB

iden

s cy

napi

ifol

iath

rush

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Com

posi

tae

Clib

adiu

m s

urin

amen

sesn

ake

bite

leav

esX

c (w

)C

ompo

sita

eE

rech

tites

cf.

hie

raci

folia

sore

sle

aves

Xw

Com

posi

tae

Heb

eclin

ium

mac

roph

yllu

mas

thm

aw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

ompo

sita

eH

ebec

liniu

m m

acro

phyl

lum

bron

chiti

sw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

ompo

sita

eH

ebec

liniu

m m

acro

phyl

lum

coug

h/co

ldw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

ompo

sita

eH

ebec

liniu

m m

acro

phyl

lum

pneu

mon

iaw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

ompo

sita

eH

ebec

liniu

m m

acro

phyl

lum

tube

rcul

osis

who

le p

lant

Xw

Com

posi

tae

Heb

eclin

ium

mac

roph

yllu

mw

hoop

ing

coug

hw

hole

pla

ntX

wC

ompo

sita

eM

ikan

ia m

icra

ntha

ecze

ma

who

le p

lant

Xw

Com

posi

tae

Mik

ania

mic

rant

ham

alar

iaw

hole

pla

ntX

XX

w

8.7

App

endi

x

260

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.C

ompo

sita

eSp

hagn

etic

ola

trilo

bata

coug

h/co

ldw

hole

pla

ntX

Xw

Com

posi

tae

Stru

chiu

m s

parg

anop

horu

mth

rush

who

le p

lant

Xw

Com

posi

tae

Stru

chiu

m s

parg

anop

horu

mth

rush

leav

esX

wC

onvo

lvul

acea

eIp

omoe

a ba

tata

sm

easl

esle

aves

Xc

Cos

tace

aeC

ostu

s ar

abic

usco

ugh/

cold

shoo

tX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

arab

icus

coug

h/co

ldst

emX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

arab

icus

sore

sst

emX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

eryt

hrot

hyrs

usco

ugh/

cold

shoo

tX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

scab

erco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

scab

erco

ugh/

cold

shoo

tX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

scab

erco

ugh/

cold

stem

XX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

scab

ergr

oin

rupt

ure

flow

ers

Xw

Cos

tace

aeC

ostu

s sc

aber

groi

n ru

ptur

ero

otX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

scab

erha

emor

rhid

sfl

ower

sX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

scab

erha

emor

rhid

sro

otX

wC

osta

ceae

Cos

tus

scab

erm

alar

iaw

hole

pla

ntX

Xw

Cos

tace

aeC

ostu

s sc

aber

pneu

mon

iale

aves

Xw

Cos

tace

aeC

ostu

s sc

aber

sore

eye

flow

ers

Xw

Cra

ssul

acea

eB

ryop

hyllu

m p

inna

tum

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

XX

Xc

Cra

ssul

acea

eB

ryop

hyllu

m p

inna

tum

sore

eye

leav

esX

XX

cC

rass

ulac

eae

Bry

ophy

llum

pin

natu

mso

res

leav

esX

Xc

Cra

ssul

acea

eB

ryop

hyllu

m p

inna

tum

wou

nd/c

utle

aves

Xc

Cuc

urbi

tace

aeC

ucum

is m

elo

scro

tal h

erni

ale

aves

XX

cC

ucur

bita

ceae

Cuc

urbi

ta m

osch

ata

haem

orrh

age

leav

esX

cC

ucur

bita

ceae

Mom

ordi

ca c

hara

ntia

mal

aria

leav

esX

XX

c (w

)C

yath

eace

aeC

yath

ea c

yath

eoid

esst

rain

ed b

ack

stem

Xw

Cyp

erac

eae

Cyp

erus

art

icul

atus

stom

ach

ache

root

Xw

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

261

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.C

yper

acea

eC

yper

us d

igita

tus

sore

eye

root

Xw

Cyp

erac

eae

Cyp

erus

ligu

lari

sco

ugh/

cold

stem

Xw

Cyp

erac

eae

Cyp

erus

ligu

lari

sea

rach

est

emX

wC

yper

acea

eC

yper

us li

gula

ris

sore

eye

stem

XX

wC

yper

acea

eC

yper

us o

dora

tus

evil

spir

its

root

Xc

Cyp

erac

eae

Cyp

erus

odo

ratu

sfe

ver

root

Xc

Cyp

erac

eae

Cyp

erus

odo

ratu

sst

omac

h ac

hero

otX

Xc

Cyp

erac

eae

Rhy

ncho

spor

a ce

phal

otes

pain

who

le p

lant

Xw

Cyp

erac

eae

Rhy

ncho

spor

a ce

phal

otes

hair

fal

lw

hole

pla

ntX

wD

illen

iace

aeD

avill

a ku

nthi

iab

orti

vesa

pX

wD

illen

iace

aeD

avill

a ku

nthi

iap

hrod

isia

cw

ood

XX

wD

illen

iace

aeD

avill

a ku

nthi

ide

sinf

. nav

elba

rkX

wD

illen

iace

aeD

olio

carp

us c

f. d

enta

tus

abor

tive

sap

Xw

Dill

enia

ceae

Dol

ioca

rpus

cf.

den

tatu

sco

ugh/

cold

sap

Xw

Dill

enia

ceae

Dol

ioca

rpus

cf.

den

tatu

sde

sinf

. nav

elle

aves

Xw

Dill

enia

ceae

Dol

ioca

rpus

cf.

den

tatu

ssn

ake

bite

sap

Xw

Dill

enia

ceae

Dol

ioca

rpus

sp.

TV

A 1

914

aphr

odis

iac

woo

dX

wD

illen

iace

aePi

nzon

a co

riac

eaap

hrod

isia

cw

ood

XX

Xw

Dill

enia

ceae

Pinz

ona

cori

acea

desi

nf. n

avel

leav

esX

wD

illen

iace

aePi

nzon

a co

riac

eadi

abet

esw

hole

pla

ntX

Xw

Dill

enia

ceae

Tet

race

ra a

sper

ula

desi

nf. n

avel

leav

esX

wD

illen

iace

aeT

etra

cera

tiga

rea

abor

tive

sap

Xw

Dill

enia

ceae

Tet

race

ra ti

gare

aap

hrod

isia

cw

ood

XX

Xw

Dill

enia

ceae

Tet

race

ra ti

gare

ade

sinf

. nav

elba

rkX

wD

illen

iace

aeT

etra

cera

tiga

rea

desi

nf. n

avel

leav

esX

wD

illen

iace

aeT

etra

cera

vol

ubili

sap

hrod

isia

cw

ood

XX

wD

illen

iace

aeT

etra

cera

vol

ubili

sdi

abet

essa

pX

w

8.7

App

endi

x

262

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.D

illen

iace

aeT

etra

cera

vol

ubili

ssn

ake

bite

sap

XX

wD

illen

iace

aeT

etra

cera

vol

ubili

sso

re e

yesa

pX

wD

iosc

orea

ceae

Dio

scor

ea tr

icha

nthe

raap

hrod

isia

cro

otX

XX

wD

ryop

teri

dace

aeC

yclo

dium

men

isci

oide

s va

r. m

enis

cioi

des

abce

ssro

otX

wD

ryop

teri

dace

aeC

yclo

dium

men

isci

oide

s va

r. m

enis

cioi

des

who

opin

g co

ugh

root

Xw

Dry

opte

rida

ceae

Poly

botr

ya c

auda

taab

cess

root

Xw

Eup

horb

iace

aeC

haet

ocar

pus

scho

mbu

rgki

anus

evil

spir

its

bark

Xw

Eup

horb

iace

aeE

upho

rbia

cot

inii

folia

var

. kun

apal

uain

fect

ed n

ail

exud

ate

XX

cE

upho

rbia

ceae

Eup

horb

ia c

otin

iifo

lia v

ar. k

unap

alua

sore

sw

hole

pla

ntX

cE

upho

rbia

ceae

Eup

horb

ia n

erii

folia

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

XX

Xc

Eup

horb

iace

aeE

upho

rbia

ner

iifo

liadi

abet

esle

aves

Xc

Eup

horb

iace

aeE

upho

rbia

ner

iifo

liafe

ver

leav

esX

cE

upho

rbia

ceae

Eup

horb

ia n

erii

folia

infe

cted

nai

lle

aves

Xc

Eup

horb

iace

aeJa

trop

ha c

urca

sab

sces

sle

aves

XX

c (w

)E

upho

rbia

ceae

Jatr

opha

cur

cas

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

Xc

(w)

Eup

horb

iace

aeJa

trop

ha c

urca

she

art p

robl

ems

leav

esX

c (w

)E

upho

rbia

ceae

Jatr

opha

cur

cas

pain

leav

esX

c (w

)E

upho

rbia

ceae

Jatr

opha

cur

cas

sore

sle

aves

Xc

(w)

Eup

horb

iace

aeJa

trop

ha c

urca

sto

otha

che

leav

esX

c (w

)E

upho

rbia

ceae

Jatr

opha

gos

sypi

folia

brui

ses

leav

esX

cE

upho

rbia

ceae

Jatr

opha

gos

sypi

folia

head

ache

leav

esX

Xc

Eup

horb

iace

aeJa

trop

ha g

ossy

pifo

liahe

art p

robl

ems

leav

esX

Xc

Eup

horb

iace

aeJa

trop

ha g

ossy

pifo

liaso

res

leav

esX

Xc

Eup

horb

iace

aeJa

trop

ha g

ossy

pifo

liasw

ellin

gle

aves

XX

cE

upho

rbia

ceae

Mab

ea p

irir

iso

re e

yeex

udat

eX

Xw

Eup

horb

iace

aeM

anih

ot e

scul

enta

abce

ssro

otX

XX

cE

upho

rbia

ceae

Man

ihot

esc

ulen

taev

il sp

irit

sro

otX

c

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

263

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.E

upho

rbia

ceae

Man

ihot

esc

ulen

taso

res

root

XX

Xc

Eup

horb

iace

aeM

apro

unea

gui

anen

sis

itch

esle

aves

Xw

Eup

horb

iace

aeM

apro

unea

gui

anen

sis

sore

sle

aves

Xw

Eup

horb

iace

aeM

icro

stac

hys

corn

icul

ata

head

ache

who

le p

lant

Xw

Eup

horb

iace

aeM

icro

stac

hys

corn

icul

ata

hear

t pro

blem

sw

hole

pla

ntX

wE

upho

rbia

ceae

Mic

rost

achy

s co

rnic

ulat

aso

res

who

le p

lant

Xw

Eup

horb

iace

aeM

icro

stac

hys

corn

icul

ata

thru

shw

hole

pla

ntX

wE

upho

rbia

ceae

Mic

rost

achy

s co

rnic

ulat

aw

ound

/cut

who

le p

lant

Xw

Eup

horb

iace

aePe

dila

nthu

s tit

hym

aloi

des

war

tsex

udat

eX

cE

upho

rbia

ceae

Phyl

lant

hus

bras

ilien

sis

mun

uri a

nt b

ite

leav

esX

cFl

acou

rtia

ceae

Cas

eari

a af

f. a

cum

inat

agr

ound

itch

bark

Xw

Gen

tian

acea

eIr

lbac

hia

alat

a su

bsp.

ala

tabe

te r

ouge

sap

Xw

Gen

tian

acea

eIr

lbac

hia

alat

a su

bsp.

ala

tabi

lious

ness

leav

esX

XX

wG

enti

anac

eae

Irlb

achi

a al

ata

subs

p. a

lata

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

XX

wG

enti

anac

eae

Irlb

achi

a al

ata

subs

p. a

lata

ecze

ma

sap

XX

wG

enti

anac

eae

Irlb

achi

a al

ata

subs

p. a

lata

evil

spir

its

leav

esX

wG

enti

anac

eae

Irlb

achi

a al

ata

subs

p. a

lata

feve

rle

aves

XX

wG

enti

anac

eae

Irlb

achi

a al

ata

subs

p. a

lata

grou

nd it

chle

aves

XX

Xw

Gen

tian

acea

eIr

lbac

hia

alat

a su

bsp.

ala

tait

ches

sap

Xw

Gen

tian

acea

eIr

lbac

hia

alat

a su

bsp.

ala

tala

xati

vew

hole

pla

ntX

Xw

Gen

tian

acea

eIr

lbac

hia

alat

a su

bsp.

ala

tam

alar

iale

aves

XX

wG

enti

anac

eae

Irlb

achi

a al

ata

subs

p. a

lata

sore

sle

aves

XX

Xw

Ges

neri

acea

eC

odon

anth

e cr

assi

folia

impr

ove

eyes

ight

leav

esX

wG

esne

riac

eae

Cod

onan

the

cras

sifo

liaso

re e

yele

aves

Xw

Gne

tace

aeG

netu

m n

odif

loru

mab

orti

venu

tsX

wG

ram

inea

eA

xono

pus

com

pres

sus

hear

t pro

blem

sw

hole

pla

ntX

wG

ram

inea

eB

ambu

sa v

ulga

ris

abce

sssh

oot

Xc

(w)

8.7

App

endi

x

264

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.G

ram

inea

eB

ambu

sa v

ulga

ris

ease

s bi

rth

leav

esX

Xc

(w)

Gra

min

eae

Bam

busa

vul

gari

she

art p

robl

ems

leav

esX

c (w

)G

ram

inea

eB

ambu

sa v

ulga

ris

mal

aria

leav

esX

Xc

(w)

Gra

min

eae

Bam

busa

vul

gari

sm

alar

iash

oot

Xc

(w)

Gra

min

eae

Bam

busa

vul

gari

srh

eum

atis

mst

emX

c (w

)G

ram

inea

eC

ymbo

gopo

n ci

trat

usco

ntra

cept

ive

root

Xc

Gra

min

eae

Cym

bogo

pon

citr

atus

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

XX

Xc

Gra

min

eae

Cym

bogo

pon

citr

atus

feve

rle

aves

XX

cG

ram

inea

eC

ymbo

gopo

n ci

trat

usm

alar

iale

aves

XX

cG

ram

inea

eC

ymbo

gopo

n ci

trat

usve

nere

al d

isea

sele

aves

XX

cG

ram

inea

eE

leus

ine

indi

caco

ntra

cept

ive

leav

esX

Xw

Gra

min

eae

Ele

usin

e in

dica

haem

orrh

age

leav

esX

wG

ram

inea

eE

leus

ine

indi

caha

ir f

all

leav

esX

wG

ram

inea

eG

yner

ium

sag

ittat

umsn

ake

bite

stem

XX

w (

c)G

ram

inea

ePa

nicu

m p

ilosu

mea

ses

birt

hle

aves

Xw

Gra

min

eae

Sacc

haru

m o

ffic

inal

eco

ugh/

cold

sap

Xc

Gra

min

eae

Sacc

haru

m o

ffic

inal

esn

ake

bite

sap

Xc

Gut

tife

rae

Clu

sia

gran

difl

ora

back

pai

nro

otX

Xw

Gut

tife

rae

Clu

sia

gran

difl

ora

botf

ly la

rvae

exud

ate

Xw

Gut

tife

rae

Clu

sia

palm

icid

aba

ck p

ain

root

XX

XX

wG

utti

fera

eC

lusi

a pa

lmic

ida

botf

ly la

rvae

exud

ate

Xw

Gut

tife

rae

Clu

sia

palm

icid

aim

pote

nce

root

XX

Xw

Gut

tife

rae

Clu

sia

pana

-pan

ari

back

pai

nro

otX

wG

utti

fera

eM

amm

ea a

mer

ican

afl

eas/

lice

seed

sX

cG

utti

fera

eM

amm

ea a

mer

ican

aji

gger

sse

eds

Xc

Gut

tife

rae

Sym

phon

ia g

lobu

lifer

aab

cess

exud

ate

XX

wG

utti

fera

eSy

mph

onia

glo

bulif

era

diar

rhoe

aba

rkX

w

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

265

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.G

utti

fera

eSy

mph

onia

glo

bulif

era

sick

ness

(ge

nera

l)ba

rkX

wG

utti

fera

eSy

mph

onia

glo

bulif

era

skin

fun

gise

eds

Xw

Gut

tife

rae

Sym

phon

ia g

lobu

lifer

ath

rush

bark

XX

wG

utti

fera

eV

ism

ia g

uian

ensi

sgr

ound

itch

exud

ate

XX

wG

utti

fera

eV

ism

ia g

uian

ensi

ssk

in f

ungi

exud

ate

XX

wG

utti

fera

eV

ism

ia g

uian

ensi

sso

res

bark

XX

wG

utti

fera

eV

ism

ia g

uian

ensi

sw

arts

exud

ate

Xw

Gut

tife

rae

Vis

mia

laxi

flor

aec

zem

aba

rkX

wG

utti

fera

eV

ism

ia la

xifl

ora

itch

esba

rkX

wG

utti

fera

eV

ism

ia la

xifl

ora

skin

fun

giex

udat

eX

Xw

Gut

tife

rae

Vis

mia

laxi

flor

ask

in f

ungi

bark

Xw

Gut

tife

rae

Vis

mia

mac

roph

ylla

diar

rhoe

ale

aves

XX

wG

utti

fera

eV

ism

ia m

acro

phyl

lask

in f

ungi

exud

ate

XX

wG

utti

fera

eV

ism

ia m

acro

phyl

lask

in f

ungi

bark

Xw

Hae

mod

orac

eae

Xip

hidi

um c

aeru

leum

swel

ling

root

Xw

Hae

mod

orac

eae

Xip

hidi

um c

aeru

leum

wou

nd/c

utro

otX

wH

umir

iace

aeSa

cogl

otti

s af

f. c

ydon

ioid

esdi

arrh

oea

bark

Xw

Icac

inac

eae

Pora

quei

ba a

ff. g

uian

ensi

sit

ches

bark

Xw

Irid

acea

eE

leut

heri

ne b

ulbo

safe

mal

e in

fert

ility

root

Xc

Irid

acea

eE

leut

heri

ne b

ulbo

saha

emor

rhag

ero

otX

cL

abia

tae

Col

eus

ambo

inic

usco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

cL

abia

tae

Hyp

tis

pect

inat

alin

ing

cold

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Lab

iata

eO

cim

um c

ampe

chia

num

film

on

eye

seed

sX

cL

aura

ceae

Pers

ea a

mer

ican

abi

lious

ness

leav

esX

XX

cL

aura

ceae

Pers

ea a

mer

ican

adi

arrh

oea

bark

Xc

Lau

race

aePe

rsea

am

eric

ana

diar

rhoe

ale

aves

Xc

Lau

race

aePe

rsea

am

eric

ana

hear

t pro

blem

sle

aves

XX

c

8.7

App

endi

x

266

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.L

aura

ceae

Pers

ea a

mer

ican

ahy

pert

ensi

onle

aves

XX

cL

aura

ceae

Pers

ea a

mer

ican

am

alar

iale

aves

XX

Xc

Lau

race

aePe

rsea

am

eric

ana

stom

ach

ache

leav

esX

cL

ecyt

idac

eae

Lec

ythi

s co

rrug

ata

diar

rhoe

aba

rkX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeB

auhi

nia

guia

nens

isap

hrod

isia

cw

ood

XX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeB

auhi

nia

guia

nens

isdi

arrh

oea

root

XX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeB

auhi

nia

guia

nens

isdi

arrh

oea

sap

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Bau

hini

a gu

iane

nsis

pain

woo

dX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeB

auhi

nia

guia

nens

isve

nere

al d

isea

sest

emX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeB

auhi

nia

scal

a-si

mae

diar

rhoe

aro

otX

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Bau

hini

a sc

ala-

sim

aedi

arrh

oea

woo

dX

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Bau

hini

a sc

ala-

sim

aem

alar

iaw

ood

XX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeB

row

nea

lati

folia

coug

h/co

ldfl

ower

sX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeB

row

nea

lati

folia

haem

orrh

age

bark

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Bro

wne

a la

tifo

liaha

emor

rhag

efl

ower

sX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeB

row

nea

lati

folia

tube

rcul

osis

flow

ers

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Bro

wne

a la

tifo

liaw

hoop

ing

coug

hfl

ower

sX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeH

ymen

aea

cour

bari

lap

hrod

isia

cba

rkX

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Hym

enae

a co

urba

ril

coug

h/co

ldba

rkX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeM

ora

exce

lsa

diar

rhoe

aba

rkX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

alat

abe

te r

ouge

leav

esX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

alat

adi

arrh

oea

leav

esX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

alat

ala

xati

vefl

ower

sX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

alat

ala

xati

vele

aves

XX

wL

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

alat

ask

in f

ungi

leav

esX

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a al

ata

sore

sle

aves

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a al

ata

wor

ms

flow

ers

Xw

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

267

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.L

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

occi

dent

alis

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

Xc

(w)

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a oc

cide

ntal

isco

ugh/

cold

who

le p

lant

Xc

(w)

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a oc

cide

ntal

isdi

arrh

oea

root

Xc

(w)

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a oc

cide

ntal

isfe

ver

leav

esX

c (w

)L

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

occi

dent

alis

haem

orrh

age

seed

sX

Xc

(w)

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a oc

cide

ntal

isha

emor

rhag

ele

aves

Xc

(w)

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a oc

cide

ntal

ishe

adac

hele

aves

Xc

(w)

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a oc

cide

ntal

iski

dney

pro

blem

sse

eds

XX

c (w

)L

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

occi

dent

alis

linin

g co

ldw

hole

pla

ntX

c (w

)L

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

occi

dent

alis

thru

shle

aves

Xc

(w)

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a oc

cide

ntal

iscl

ean

wom

b &

tube

sse

eds

XX

c (w

)L

eg. C

aesa

lpin

iace

aeSe

nna

occi

dent

alis

wor

ms

seed

sX

Xc

(w)

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a re

ticul

ata

feve

rle

aves

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a re

ticul

ata

laxa

tive

flow

ers

XX

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a re

ticul

ata

laxa

tive

leav

esX

Xw

Leg

. Cae

salp

inia

ceae

Senn

a re

ticul

ata

pneu

mon

iale

aves

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Inga

alb

afe

mal

e st

erili

tyba

rkX

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Inga

alb

asw

ellin

gba

rkX

wL

eg. M

imos

acea

eIn

ga la

teri

flor

aso

res

bark

XX

wL

eg. M

imos

acea

eIn

ga la

teri

flor

aw

ound

/cut

bark

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Mac

rosa

man

ea p

ubir

amea

frac

ture

sba

rkX

wL

eg. M

imos

acea

eM

acro

sam

anea

pub

iram

easp

rain

bark

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Mim

osa

poly

dact

yla

brui

ses

leav

esX

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Mim

osa

poly

dact

yla

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Pent

acle

thra

mac

rolo

bach

icke

npox

leav

esX

wL

eg. M

imos

acea

ePe

ntac

leth

ra m

acro

loba

mea

sles

leav

esX

wL

eg. M

imos

acea

ePe

ntac

leth

ra m

acro

loba

snak

e bi

teba

rkX

Xw

8.7

App

endi

x

268

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.L

eg. M

imos

acea

ePe

ntac

leth

ra m

acro

loba

sore

sba

rkX

XX

wL

eg. M

imos

acea

ePe

ntac

leth

ra m

acro

loba

spra

inba

rkX

wL

eg. M

imos

acea

ePe

ntac

leth

ra m

acro

loba

toot

hach

eba

rkX

XX

wL

eg. M

imos

acea

ePe

ntac

leth

ra m

acro

loba

wou

nd/c

utba

rkX

XX

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Zyg

ia c

atar

acta

esp

rain

bark

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Zyg

ia la

tifo

liapa

inba

rkX

Xw

Leg

. Mim

osac

eae

Zyg

ia la

tifo

liasi

ckne

ss (

babi

es)

bark

XX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Ale

xa im

pera

tric

isda

ndru

ffex

udat

eX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Ale

xa im

pera

tric

isfl

eas/

lice

exud

ate

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eA

lexa

impe

ratr

icis

grou

nd it

chba

rkX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Ale

xa im

pera

tric

ism

alar

iaba

rkX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Ale

xa im

pera

tric

ism

unur

i ant

bit

eba

rkX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Ale

xa im

pera

tric

issn

ake

bite

bark

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eA

lexa

impe

ratr

icis

sore

sba

rkX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

And

ira

suri

nam

ensi

sm

outh

sor

esex

udat

eX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Cla

thro

trop

is b

rach

ypet

ala

abce

ssba

rkX

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eC

lath

rotr

opis

bra

chyp

etal

ait

ches

exud

ate

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eC

lath

rotr

opis

bra

chyp

etal

apa

insa

pX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Cla

thro

trop

is b

rach

ypet

ala

pain

bark

XX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Cla

thro

trop

is b

rach

ypet

ala

snak

e bi

teba

rkX

XX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Cla

thro

trop

is b

rach

ypet

ala

sore

sba

rkX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Cla

thro

trop

is b

rach

ypet

ala

swel

ling

bark

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eD

esm

odiu

m a

dsce

nden

sha

ir f

all

leav

esX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Des

mod

ium

bar

batu

mcr

amps

(ba

bies

)w

hole

pla

ntX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Des

mod

ium

bar

batu

mfe

ver

who

le p

lant

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eD

esm

odiu

m b

arba

tum

haem

orrh

age

who

le p

lant

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eD

esm

odiu

m b

arba

tum

hair

fal

lle

aves

Xw

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

269

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.L

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Des

mod

ium

bar

batu

mhe

art p

robl

ems

who

le p

lant

XX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Des

mod

ium

bar

batu

mim

pote

nce

who

le p

lant

XX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Des

mod

ium

bar

batu

mm

enst

ruat

ion

who

le p

lant

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eD

esm

odiu

m b

arba

tum

pain

who

le p

lant

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eD

esm

odiu

m b

arba

tum

prev

ent m

isca

rria

gew

hole

pla

ntX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Des

mod

ium

bar

batu

mst

omac

h ac

hew

hole

pla

ntX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Des

mod

ium

inca

num

haem

orrh

age

who

le p

lant

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eD

esm

odiu

m in

canu

mw

ound

/cut

who

le p

lant

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eD

iocl

ea s

cabr

adi

arrh

oea

exud

ate

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eD

iocl

ea s

cabr

am

outh

sor

esex

udat

eX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Dio

clea

sca

bra

stom

ach

ache

exud

ate

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eH

ymen

olob

ium

fla

vum

sore

sba

rkX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Indi

gofe

ra s

uffr

utic

osa

feve

rle

aves

Xc

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eL

onch

ocar

pus

aff.

mar

tyni

iA

IDS

root

XX

w (

c)L

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Lon

choc

arpu

s af

f. m

arty

nii

canc

erro

otX

Xw

(c)

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eL

onch

ocar

pus

aff.

mar

tyni

iso

res

root

Xw

(c)

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eL

onch

ocar

pus

chry

soph

yllu

sA

IDS

root

XX

w (

c)L

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Lon

choc

arpu

s ch

ryso

phyl

lus

canc

erro

otX

Xw

(c)

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eL

onch

ocar

pus

chry

soph

yllu

sso

res

root

Xw

(c)

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eL

onch

ocar

pus

sp. T

VA

124

7A

IDS

root

Xw

(c)

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eL

onch

ocar

pus

sp. T

VA

124

7ca

ncer

root

Xw

(c)

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eL

onch

ocar

pus

spru

cean

ushe

adac

hero

otX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Mac

haer

ium

cf.

flo

ribu

ndum

diar

rhoe

aex

udat

eX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Mac

haer

ium

cf.

flo

ribu

ndum

haem

orrh

age

exud

ate

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eM

acha

eriu

m c

f. f

lori

bund

umth

rush

exud

ate

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eM

acha

eriu

m s

p.T

VA

921

mal

aria

woo

dX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Muc

una

cf. u

rens

itch

esse

eds

Xw

8.7

App

endi

x

270

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.L

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Pter

ocar

pus

offi

cina

lisdi

arrh

oea

exud

ate

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

ePt

eroc

arpu

s of

fici

nalis

mou

th s

ores

exud

ate

XX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Pter

ocar

pus

offi

cina

listh

rush

exud

ate

XX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Tep

hros

ia to

xica

ria

canc

erro

otX

cL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Vat

aire

a gu

iane

nsis

ecze

ma

seed

sX

wL

eg. P

apili

onac

eae

Vat

aire

a gu

iane

nsis

scab

ies

bark

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eV

atai

rea

guia

nens

issc

abie

sse

eds

Xw

Leg

. Pap

ilion

acea

eV

atai

rea

guia

nens

isso

res

seed

sX

wL

ilia

ceae

Alo

e ve

raab

cess

leav

esX

cL

ilia

ceae

Alo

e ve

raas

thm

ale

aves

XX

cL

ilia

ceae

Alo

e ve

raco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

Xc

Lil

iace

aeA

loe

vera

laxa

tive

leav

esX

cL

ilia

ceae

Alo

e ve

ram

alar

iale

aves

Xc

Lil

iace

aeA

loe

vera

pneu

mon

iale

aves

XX

cL

ilia

ceae

Alo

e ve

raso

res

leav

esX

cL

ogan

iace

aeSt

rych

nos

eric

hson

iiap

hrod

isia

cba

rkX

XX

wL

ogan

iace

aeSt

rych

nos

mits

cher

lichi

iap

hrod

isia

cw

ood

XX

Xw

Log

ania

ceae

Stry

chno

s m

itsch

erlic

hii

aphr

odis

iac

bark

Xw

Lom

ario

psid

acea

eL

omar

iops

is ja

pure

nsis

abce

ssro

otX

wL

oran

thac

eae

Phor

aden

dron

per

rott

etii

mal

aria

leav

esX

wL

oran

thac

eae

Phor

aden

dron

per

rott

etii

spra

inle

aves

Xw

Lor

anth

acea

ePh

orad

endr

on p

erro

ttet

iith

rush

leav

esX

wL

oran

thac

eae

Phor

aden

dron

per

rott

etii

vene

real

dis

ease

leav

esX

wL

oran

thac

eae

Phth

irus

a py

rifo

liam

alar

iale

aves

Xw

Lor

anth

acea

ePh

thir

usa

pyri

folia

spra

inle

aves

Xw

Lor

anth

acea

ePh

thir

usa

pyri

folia

thru

shle

aves

Xw

Mal

pigh

iace

aeSt

igm

aphy

llon

sinu

atum

abor

tive

leav

esX

w

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

271

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.M

alpi

ghia

ceae

Stig

map

hyllo

n si

nuat

umea

ses

birt

hle

aves

Xw

Mal

pigh

iace

aeSt

igm

aphy

llon

sinu

atum

feve

rle

aves

XX

wM

alpi

ghia

ceae

Stig

map

hyllo

n si

nuat

umhe

adac

hele

aves

XX

Xw

Mal

pigh

iace

aeSt

igm

aphy

llon

sinu

atum

hear

t pro

blem

sro

otX

wM

alpi

ghia

ceae

Stig

map

hyllo

n si

nuat

umsk

in b

urns

leav

esX

wM

alpi

ghia

ceae

Stig

map

hyllo

n si

nuat

umsk

in f

ungi

leav

esX

wM

alpi

ghia

ceae

Stig

map

hyllo

n si

nuat

umsw

ellin

gro

otX

wM

alva

ceae

Abe

lmos

chus

esc

ulen

tus

dand

ruff

leav

esX

cM

alva

ceae

Abe

lmos

chus

esc

ulen

tus

ease

s bi

rth

frui

tX

cM

alva

ceae

Abe

lmos

chus

esc

ulen

tus

sore

eye

frui

tX

cM

alva

ceae

Abe

lmos

chus

esc

ulen

tus

stin

gray

pun

ctur

ele

aves

Xc

Mal

vace

aeG

ossy

pium

bar

bade

nse

diar

rhoe

ale

aves

XX

cM

alva

ceae

Gos

sypi

um b

arba

dens

ela

xati

vele

aves

XX

cM

alva

ceae

Gos

sypi

um b

arba

dens

eth

rush

leav

esX

Xc

Mal

vace

aeH

ibis

cus

bifu

rcat

usco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

wM

alva

ceae

Hib

iscu

s ro

sa-s

inen

sis

abce

ssle

aves

Xc

Mal

vace

aeH

ibis

cus

rosa

-sin

ensi

sin

duce

vom

iting

leav

esX

cM

alva

ceae

Hib

iscu

s ro

sa-s

inen

sis

who

opin

g co

ugh

flow

ers

Xc

Mal

vace

aeM

alac

hra

alce

ifol

iaso

res

leav

esX

cM

alva

ceae

Sida

rho

mbi

folia

kidn

ey p

robl

ems

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Mal

vace

aeSi

da r

hom

bifo

liam

enst

ruat

ion

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Mal

vace

aeSi

da r

hom

bifo

liacl

ean

wom

b &

tube

sw

hole

pla

ntX

w (

c)M

alva

ceae

Ure

na lo

bata

linin

g co

ldw

hole

pla

ntX

w (

c)M

aran

tace

aeC

alat

hea

cycl

opho

raco

ugh/

cold

sap

Xw

Mar

anta

ceae

Cal

athe

a cy

clop

hora

skin

bur

nsle

aves

Xw

Mar

anta

ceae

Cal

athe

a cy

clop

hora

sore

eye

sap

Xw

Mar

anta

ceae

Isch

nosi

phon

fol

iosu

sw

arts

leav

esX

w

8.7

App

endi

x

272

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.M

aran

tace

aeIs

chno

siph

on f

olio

sus

wou

nd/c

utle

aves

Xw

Mar

cgra

viac

eae

Mar

cgra

via

cori

acea

sore

eye

sap

Xw

Mar

cgra

viac

eae

Nor

ante

a gu

iane

nsis

diar

rhoe

aw

ood

Xw

Mar

cgra

viac

eae

Nor

ante

a gu

iane

nsis

stop

vom

iting

woo

dX

wM

arcg

ravi

acea

eSo

urou

bea

guia

nens

isve

nere

al d

isea

sew

hole

pla

ntX

wM

elas

tom

atac

eae

Aci

otis

ann

uaco

ugh/

cold

who

le p

lant

Xw

Mel

asto

mat

acea

eA

ciot

is p

urpu

rasc

ens

coug

h/co

ldw

hole

pla

ntX

wM

elas

tom

atac

eae

Clid

emia

japu

rens

isso

res

leav

esX

wM

elia

ceae

Car

apa

guia

nens

isco

ugh/

cold

seed

sX

XX

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

diar

rhoe

aba

rkX

XX

wM

elia

ceae

Car

apa

guia

nens

isgr

oin

rupt

ure

seed

sX

wM

elia

ceae

Car

apa

guia

nens

isha

emor

rhid

sse

eds

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

inse

ct b

ites

seed

sX

XX

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

mal

aria

seed

sX

XX

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

mal

aria

bark

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

skin

bur

nsba

rkX

wM

elia

ceae

Car

apa

guia

nens

isso

res

bark

XX

wM

elia

ceae

Car

apa

guia

nens

isso

res

seed

sX

XX

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

stom

ach

ache

bark

XX

wM

elia

ceae

Car

apa

guia

nens

isth

rush

seed

sX

XX

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

who

opin

g co

ugh

seed

sX

XX

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

wou

nd/c

utba

rkX

Xw

Mel

iace

aeC

arap

a gu

iane

nsis

wou

nd/c

utse

eds

XX

XX

wM

elia

ceae

Ced

rela

cf.

odo

rata

sore

sba

rkX

wM

elia

ceae

Gua

rea

guid

onia

indu

ce v

omiti

ngba

rkX

wM

elia

ceae

Gua

rea

pube

scen

sbi

lious

ness

root

Xw

Mel

iace

aeG

uare

a pu

besc

ens

indu

ce v

omiti

ngro

otX

w

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

273

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.M

enis

perm

acea

eC

urar

ea c

andi

cans

aphr

odis

iac

woo

dX

Xw

Men

ispe

rmac

eae

Cur

area

can

dica

nsm

alar

iaw

ood

XX

wM

enis

perm

acea

eC

urar

ea c

andi

cans

sore

sw

ood

Xw

Men

ispe

rmac

eae

Tel

itox

icum

sp.

TV

A 1

265

diab

etes

woo

dX

wM

enis

perm

acea

eT

elit

oxic

um s

p. T

VA

126

5fe

ver

woo

dX

wM

enis

perm

acea

eT

elit

oxic

um s

p. T

VA

126

5m

alar

iaw

ood

Xw

Mon

imia

ceae

Sipa

runa

gui

anen

sis

mun

uri a

nt b

ite

bark

XX

XX

wM

onim

iace

aeSi

paru

na g

uian

ensi

ssi

ckne

ss (

babi

es)

bark

Xw

Mon

imia

ceae

Sipa

runa

gui

anen

sis

wou

nd/c

utle

aves

Xw

Mor

acea

eA

rtoc

arpu

s al

tilis

abce

ssex

udat

eX

cM

orac

eae

Art

ocar

pus

alti

lisbr

uise

sex

udat

eX

cM

orac

eae

Art

ocar

pus

alti

lissp

rain

exud

ate

Xc

Mor

acea

eA

rtoc

arpu

s al

tilis

urin

ary

trac

tsle

aves

Xc

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

amaz

onic

aab

cess

exud

ate

Xw

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

amaz

onic

apa

inex

udat

eX

wM

orac

eae

Ficu

s am

azon

ica

swel

ling

exud

ate

Xw

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

caba

llina

spra

inex

udat

eX

wM

orac

eae

Ficu

s ca

balli

naw

ound

/cut

exud

ate

Xw

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

nym

phae

ifol

iafr

actu

res

exud

ate

Xw

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

nym

phae

ifol

iasp

rain

exud

ate

Xw

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

para

ensi

ssp

rain

exud

ate

Xw

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

para

ensi

sw

ound

/cut

exud

ate

Xw

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

vs. r

orai

men

sis

frac

ture

sex

udat

eX

wM

orac

eae

Ficu

s vs

. ror

aim

ensi

ssp

rain

exud

ate

Xw

Mor

acea

eFi

cus

sp. T

VA

892

spra

inex

udat

eX

wM

usac

eae

Mus

a pa

radi

siac

afi

ts (

epile

psy)

frui

tX

cM

usac

eae

Mus

a sp

. TV

A 1

720

wou

nd/c

utsh

oot

Xc

8.7

App

endi

x

274

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.M

usac

eae

Mus

a sp

. TV

A 1

854

haem

orrh

age

sap

Xc

Mus

acea

eM

usa

sp. T

VA

185

4lin

ing

cold

sap

Xc

Mus

acea

eM

usa

sp. T

VA

185

4st

rain

ed b

ack

sap

Xc

Myr

isti

cace

aeIr

yant

hera

jur

uens

ism

outh

sor

esex

udat

eX

wM

yris

tica

ceae

Irya

nthe

ra j

urue

nsis

thru

shex

udat

eX

wM

yris

tica

ceae

Irya

nthe

ra j

urue

nsis

wou

nd/c

utex

udat

eX

wM

yris

tica

ceae

Vir

ola

calo

phyl

lam

outh

sor

esex

udat

eX

wM

yris

tica

ceae

Vir

ola

calo

phyl

lath

rush

exud

ate

Xw

Myr

isti

cace

aeV

irol

a cf

. elo

ngat

am

outh

sor

esex

udat

eX

Xw

Myr

isti

cace

aeV

irol

a cf

. elo

ngat

ath

rush

exud

ate

XX

wM

yris

tica

ceae

Vir

ola

sebi

fera

mou

th s

ores

exud

ate

Xw

Myr

isti

cace

aeV

irol

a su

rina

men

sis

mou

th s

ores

exud

ate

Xw

Myr

isti

cace

aeV

irol

a su

rina

men

sis

thru

shex

udat

eX

wM

yris

tica

ceae

Vir

ola

suri

nam

ensi

sto

otha

che

exud

ate

Xw

Myr

tace

aeC

alyc

olpu

s go

ethe

anus

hype

rten

sion

leav

esX

wM

yrta

ceae

Psid

ium

gua

java

diar

rhoe

aba

rkX

Xc

Myr

tace

aePs

idiu

m g

uaja

vadi

arrh

oea

leav

esX

XX

cM

yrta

ceae

Syzy

gium

cum

ini

diab

etes

seed

sX

c (w

)M

yrta

ceae

Syzy

gium

cum

ini

diar

rhoe

aba

rkX

Xc

(w)

Myr

tace

aeSy

zygi

um c

umin

idi

arrh

oea

frui

tX

c (w

)M

yrta

ceae

Syzy

gium

cum

ini

diar

rhoe

ale

aves

Xc

(w)

Myr

tace

aeSy

zygi

um c

umin

ist

op v

omiti

ngba

rkX

Xc

(w)

Myr

tace

aeSy

zygi

um c

umin

ite

eth

whi

teni

ngbr

anch

Xc

(w)

Nym

phae

acea

eN

ymph

aea

ampl

aw

arts

leav

esX

wO

chna

ceae

Sauv

ages

ia e

rect

aco

ugh/

cold

who

le p

lant

Xw

Ole

andr

acea

eN

ephr

olep

is b

iser

rata

wou

nd/c

utle

aves

Xw

Oxa

lidac

eae

Ave

rrho

a ca

ram

bola

crac

ks in

fee

tfr

uit

Xc

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

275

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.Pa

lmae

Ast

roca

ryum

gyn

acan

thum

desi

nf. n

avel

leav

esX

Xw

Palm

aeA

stro

cary

um g

ynac

anth

umth

rush

leav

esX

Xw

Palm

aeC

ocos

nuc

ifer

aha

emor

rhag

ero

otX

cPa

lmae

Coc

os n

ucif

era

hype

rten

sion

frui

tX

cPa

lmae

Coc

os n

ucif

era

skin

oil

seed

sX

XX

cPa

lmae

Eut

erpe

ole

race

aha

emor

rhag

esa

pX

wPa

lmae

Eut

erpe

ole

race

asc

orpi

on b

ite

sap

Xw

Palm

aeE

uter

pe o

lera

cea

wou

nd/c

utsa

pX

Xw

Palm

aeM

anic

aria

sac

cife

radi

arrh

oea

frui

tX

wPa

ssif

lora

ceae

Pass

iflo

ra f

oeti

daco

ugh/

cold

who

le p

lant

XX

w (

c)Pa

ssif

lora

ceae

Pass

iflo

ra f

oeti

datu

berc

ulos

isw

hole

pla

ntX

w (

c)Pa

ssif

lora

ceae

Pass

iflo

ra f

oeti

daw

orm

sw

hole

pla

ntX

XX

w (

c)Pa

ssif

lora

ceae

Pass

iflo

ra n

itid

abo

wel

dis

orde

rsle

aves

Xw

(c)

Phyt

olac

cace

aeM

icro

tea

debi

lisco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

w (

c)Ph

ytol

acca

ceae

Mic

rote

a de

bilis

feve

rle

aves

XX

w (

c)Ph

ytol

acca

ceae

Mic

rote

a de

bilis

thru

shle

aves

XX

w (

c)Ph

ytol

acca

ceae

Peti

veri

a al

liace

afe

ver

leav

esX

cPi

pera

ceae

Pipe

r av

ella

num

cram

psle

aves

Xw

Pipe

race

aePi

per

avel

lanu

msn

ake

bite

leav

esX

Xw

Pipe

race

aePi

per

avel

lanu

mst

omac

h ac

hele

aves

Xw

Pipe

race

aePi

per

vs. b

erbi

cenc

esn

ake

bite

leav

esX

wPi

pera

ceae

Pipe

r cf

. gla

bres

cens

snak

e bi

tele

aves

Xw

Pipe

race

aePi

per

cf. h

ostm

anni

anum

scor

pion

bit

ele

aves

Xw

Pipe

race

aePi

per

cf. h

ostm

anni

anum

snak

e bi

tele

aves

Xw

Pipe

race

aePi

per

nigr

ispi

cum

snak

e bi

tele

aves

Xw

Pipe

race

aePi

per

sp. T

VA

266

6sc

orpi

on b

ite

leav

esX

wPi

pera

ceae

Pipe

r sp

. TV

A 2

666

snak

e bi

tele

aves

Xw

8.7

App

endi

x

276

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.Pi

pera

ceae

Pipe

r sp

. TV

A 2

666

stom

ach

ache

leav

esX

wPi

pera

ceae

Poth

omor

phe

pelta

taab

cess

leav

esX

wPi

pera

ceae

Poth

omor

phe

pelta

taco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

wPi

pera

ceae

Poth

omor

phe

pelta

taha

emor

rhag

ele

aves

Xw

Pipe

race

aePo

thom

orph

e pe

ltata

head

ache

leav

esX

XX

wPi

pera

ceae

Poth

omor

phe

pelta

tasw

ellin

gle

aves

XX

wPi

pera

ceae

Poth

omor

phe

pelta

tacl

ean

wom

b &

tube

sle

aves

XX

wPo

lygo

nace

aeC

occo

loba

mar

gina

tadi

arrh

oea

bark

XX

wPo

lypo

diac

eae

Poly

podi

um a

dnat

umw

hoop

ing

coug

hbu

dsX

wPt

erop

hyta

ePt

erop

hyta

e T

VA

177

4w

hoop

ing

coug

hst

emX

Xw

Rap

atac

eae

Rap

atea

pal

udos

a va

r. p

alud

osa+

B67

0ha

ir f

all

exud

ate

Xw

Rhi

zoph

orac

eae

Rhi

zoph

ora

man

gle

diar

rhoe

aro

otX

wR

hizo

phor

acea

eR

hizo

phor

a m

angl

edi

arrh

oea

bark

Xw

Rub

iace

aeC

offe

a lib

eric

ahe

adac

hele

aves

Xc

Rub

iace

aeC

offe

a lib

eric

aso

re e

yele

aves

Xc

Rub

iace

aeG

eoph

ila r

epen

ssk

in f

ungi

frui

tX

wR

ubia

ceae

Psyc

hotr

ia p

oepp

igia

na v

ar. b

arce

llana

coug

h/co

ldfl

ower

sX

Xw

Rub

iace

aePs

ycho

tria

poe

ppig

iana

var

. bar

cella

naco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

Xw

Rub

iace

aeSa

bice

a gl

abre

scen

sfe

mal

e st

erili

tyw

hole

pla

ntX

wR

ubia

ceae

Sabi

cea

glab

resc

ens

haem

orrh

age

who

le p

lant

Xw

Rub

iace

aeU

ncar

ia g

uian

ensi

sco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

wR

ubia

ceae

Unc

aria

gui

anen

sis

tube

rcul

osis

leav

esX

wR

utac

eae

Cit

rus

aura

ntif

olia

dand

ruff

frui

tX

cR

utac

eae

Cit

rus

aura

ntif

olia

grou

nd it

chfr

uit

Xc

Rut

acea

eC

itru

s au

rant

ifol

iaha

emor

rhag

ero

otX

cR

utac

eae

Cit

rus

aura

ntif

olia

vene

real

dis

ease

root

Xc

Rut

acea

eC

itru

s au

rant

ium

bilio

usne

ssfr

uit

Xc

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

277

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.R

utac

eae

Cit

rus

med

ica

coug

h/co

ldfr

uit

XX

Xc

Rut

acea

eC

itru

s m

edic

am

alar

iafr

uit

Xc

Rut

acea

eC

itru

s re

ticul

ata

splin

ter

thor

nsX

cSa

pind

acea

ePa

ullin

ia c

apre

olat

ade

sinf

. nav

elle

aves

Xw

Sapi

ndac

eae

Paul

linia

cap

reol

ata

sore

sba

rkX

wSa

pind

acea

ePa

ullin

ia c

apre

olat

aso

res

leav

esX

wSa

pind

acea

ePa

ullin

ia c

apre

olat

aw

ound

/cut

bark

Xw

Sapi

ndac

eae

Paul

linia

cap

reol

ata

wou

nd/c

utle

aves

Xw

Sapi

ndac

eae

Serj

ania

pau

cide

ntat

ath

rush

leav

esX

wSa

pota

ceae

Man

ilkar

a za

pota

diar

rhoe

afr

uit

Xc

Sapo

tace

aePr

ados

ia s

chom

burg

kian

aco

ugh/

cold

bark

Xw

Sapo

tace

aePr

ados

ia s

chom

burg

kian

atu

berc

ulos

isba

rkX

Xw

Schi

zaea

ceae

Lyg

odiu

m v

olub

ileba

ck p

ain

leav

esX

wSc

hiza

eace

aeL

ygod

ium

vol

ubile

thru

shle

aves

XX

wSc

roph

ular

iace

aeC

apra

ria

bifl

ora

gal s

tone

sle

aves

Xc

Scro

phul

aria

ceae

Mou

rand

ia c

f. e

rube

scen

sar

thri

tisro

otX

cSc

roph

ular

iace

aeSc

opar

ia d

ulci

sbi

lious

ness

who

le p

lant

XX

wSc

roph

ular

iace

aeSc

opar

ia d

ulci

sco

ugh/

cold

who

le p

lant

Xw

Scro

phul

aria

ceae

Scop

aria

dul

cis

laxa

tive

who

le p

lant

Xw

Scro

phul

aria

ceae

Scop

aria

dul

cis

mal

aria

who

le p

lant

XX

Xw

Scro

phul

aria

ceae

Scop

aria

dul

cis

sore

sw

hole

pla

ntX

XX

wSc

roph

ular

iace

aeSc

opar

ia d

ulci

sve

nere

al d

isea

sew

hole

pla

ntX

Xw

Sim

arou

bace

aeQ

uass

ia a

mar

abi

lious

ness

woo

dX

cSi

mar

ouba

ceae

Qua

ssia

am

ara

feve

rle

aves

XX

cSi

mar

ouba

ceae

Qua

ssia

am

ara

mal

aria

seed

sX

cSi

mar

ouba

ceae

Qua

ssia

am

ara

mal

aria

woo

dX

Xc

Sim

arou

bace

aeQ

uass

ia a

mar

aso

res

woo

dX

c

8.7

App

endi

x

278

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.Sm

ilaca

ceae

Smila

x sc

hom

burg

kian

aap

hrod

isia

cro

otX

XX

wSm

ilaca

ceae

Smila

x sc

hom

burg

kian

aba

ck p

ain

root

XX

Xw

Sola

nace

aeC

apsi

cum

fru

tesc

ens

coug

h/co

ldfr

uit

XX

cSo

lana

ceae

Nic

otia

na ta

bacu

mbo

tfly

larv

aele

aves

Xc

Sola

nace

aePh

ysal

is a

ngul

ata

skin

dis

ease

sw

hole

pla

ntX

w (

c)So

lana

ceae

Phys

alis

pub

esce

nsgr

ound

itch

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Sola

nace

aePh

ysal

is p

ubes

cens

kidn

ey p

robl

ems

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Sola

nace

aePh

ysal

is p

ubes

cens

swel

ling

leav

esX

w (

c)So

lana

ceae

Phys

alis

pub

esce

nsw

orm

sw

hole

pla

ntX

w (

c)So

lana

ceae

Sola

num

leuc

ocar

pon

sore

sle

aves

XX

wSo

lana

ceae

Sola

num

str

amon

iifo

lium

feve

rro

otX

XX

wSo

lana

ceae

Sola

num

str

amon

iifo

lium

mal

aria

root

XX

Xw

Sola

nace

aeSo

lanu

m s

tram

onii

foliu

mm

alar

iale

aves

Xw

Sola

nace

aeSo

lanu

m s

tram

onii

foliu

mst

omac

h ac

hele

aves

Xw

Sola

nace

aeSo

lanu

m s

tram

onii

foliu

mve

nere

al d

isea

sero

otX

Xw

Sola

nace

aeSo

lanu

m s

ubin

erm

epa

inle

aves

Xw

Sola

nace

aeSo

lanu

m s

ubin

erm

efe

ver

who

le p

lant

Xw

Sola

nace

aeSo

lanu

m s

ubin

erm

em

alar

iaw

hole

pla

ntX

wSt

ercu

liace

aeW

alth

eria

indi

caco

ugh/

cold

leav

esX

Xw

(c)

Ster

culia

ceae

Wal

ther

ia in

dica

hype

rten

sion

leav

esX

w (

c)St

ercu

liace

aeW

alth

eria

indi

cath

rush

leav

esX

w (

c)T

ecta

riac

eae

Tec

tari

a in

cisa

f. v

ivip

ara

fem

ale

infe

rtili

tyle

aves

Xw

Tili

acea

eA

peib

a pe

toum

osn

ake

bite

bark

Xw

Tili

acea

eT

rium

fett

a al

theo

ides

haem

orrh

age

leav

esX

wT

urne

race

aeT

urne

ra u

lmif

olia

hair

fal

lle

aves

Xc

(w)

Tur

nera

ceae

Tur

nera

ulm

ifol

iath

rush

leav

esX

c (w

)U

lmac

eae

Tre

ma

mic

rant

haso

re e

yesa

pX

w

Non

-Tim

ber

For

est P

rodu

cts

of th

e N

orth

-Wes

t Dis

tric

t of G

uyan

a P

art I

279

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.U

mbe

llife

rae

Ery

ngiu

m f

oeti

dum

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

Xw

(c)

Um

belli

fera

eE

ryng

ium

foe

tidu

mfi

ts (

epile

psy)

leav

esX

w (

c)U

mbe

llife

rae

Ery

ngiu

m f

oeti

dum

haem

orrh

age

who

le p

lant

Xw

(c)

Um

belli

fera

eE

ryng

ium

foe

tidu

mhe

adac

hele

aves

Xw

(c)

Urt

icac

eae

Lap

orte

a ae

stua

nsbe

d w

etti

ngle

aves

Xw

(c)

Urt

icac

eae

Lap

orte

a ae

stua

nsha

emor

rhag

ele

aves

Xw

(c)

Ver

bena

ceae

Lan

tana

cam

ara

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

XX

w (

c)V

erbe

nace

aeL

anta

na c

amar

aha

emor

rhag

ele

aves

Xw

(c)

Ver

bena

ceae

Lan

tana

cam

ara

sore

sle

aves

Xw

(c)

Ver

bena

ceae

Lip

pia

mic

rom

era

coug

h/co

ldle

aves

Xc

(w)

Ver

bena

ceae

Stac

hyta

rphe

ta c

ayen

nens

isdi

abet

esle

aves

Xw

(c)

Ver

bena

ceae

Stac

hyta

rphe

ta c

ayen

nens

ishy

pert

ensi

onw

hole

pla

ntX

Xw

(c)

Ver

bena

ceae

Stac

hyta

rphe

ta c

ayen

nens

ism

alar

iale

aves

Xw

(c)

Ver

bena

ceae

Stac

hyta

rphe

ta ja

mai

cens

ishy

pert

ensi

onle

aves

Xw

(c)

Ver

bena

ceae

Stac

hyta

rphe

ta ja

mai

cens

issk

in b

urns

leav

esX

w (

c)V

itac

eae

Cis

sus

vert

icill

ata

sore

sle

aves

Xw

(c)

Vit

acea

eC

issu

s ve

rtic

illat

asw

ellin

gle

aves

Xw

(c)

Voc

hysi

acea

eV

ochy

sia

cf. g

uian

ensi

sto

otha

che

bark

Xw

Zin

gibe

race

aeA

fram

omum

mel

egue

taco

ugh/

cold

seed

sX

Xc

Zin

gibe

race

aeA

fram

omum

mel

egue

tafi

ts (

epile

psy)

seed

sX

cZ

ingi

bera

ceae

Afr

amom

um m

eleg

ueta

pain

seed

sX

Xc

Zin

gibe

race

aeA

fram

omum

mel

egue

taso

re th

roat

seed

sX

cZ

ingi

bera

ceae

Afr

amom

um m

eleg

ueta

stom

ach

ache

seed

sX

cZ

ingi

bera

ceae

Afr

amom

um m

eleg

ueta

win

dse

eds

Xc

Zin

gibe

race

aeC

urcu

ma

xant

horr

hiza

pain

root

Xc

Zin

gibe

race

aeC

urcu

ma

xant

horr

hiza

spra

inro

otX

cZ

ingi

bera

ceae

Ren

ealm

ia a

lpin

iahy

pert

ensi

onle

aves

Xw

8.7

App

endi

x

280

Fam

ilySp

ecie

sIl

lnes

sP

lant

par

tA

rC

aW

GT

wild

/cul

t.Z

ingi

bera

ceae

Ren

ealm

ia a

lpin

iasn

ake

bite

shoo

tX

wZ

ingi

bera

ceae

Ren

ealm

ia a

lpin

iast

omac

h ac

hesh

oot

Xw

Zin

gibe

race

aeR

enea

lmia

alp

inia

stra

ined

bac

kro

otX

Xw

Zin

gibe

race

aeR

enea

lmia

ori

noce

nsis

stom

ach

ache

shoo

tX

wZ

ingi

bera

ceae

Zin

gibe

r of

fici

nale

haem

orrh

age

root

Xc

Zin

gibe

race

aeZ

ingi

ber

offi

cina

lem

alar

iaro

otX

c


281

9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

9.1 HECTARE PLOTS VS. ‘WALK IN THE WOODS METHOD’

A total of 587 useful plant species was recorded from northwest Guyana during thisstudy. Some 61% of these species (357 species) were found in the seven hectareplots. Of the 230 NTFP species that were found outside these plots, the majority(44%) was encountered in secondary shrubland, pastures, and abandoned fields(Table 9.1). Many of them also occurred as ‘weeds’ in cultivated fields and gardens.The ‘remaining’ NTFPs found in mixed and secondary forests were often quite rare(e.g., Manilkara bidentata, Disteganthus lateralis), while those from Mora forestwere mostly found directly along the riverbank (e.g., Inga nobilis, Cydistaaequinoctialis). A total of 11 species were only found in cultivated state (e.g.,Annona montana, Inga pilosula, Buchenavia grandis), although they were explicitlyreferred to as wild species in literature (Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana, 1995-1999; Boggan et al., 1997; Pennington, 1997). Their status as NTFPs in Guyana isthus open to discussion. Finally, some additional NTFPs were encountered invegetation types that were not included in the hectare plots, such as flooded savanna,mangrove forest, and white sand shrubland.

Table 9.1 Provenance of the NTFP species found outside the hectare plots.

Vegetation type No. of species found(%)

Secondary shrubland 102 (44%)

Riverbank Mora forest 30 (13%)

Mixed primary forest 30 (13%)

Flooded savanna 18 (8%)

Secondary forest (> 20 years old) 12 (5%)

Only found cultivated 11 (5%)

Manicole swamp 11 (5%)

White sand shrubland 7 (3%)

Quackal swamp 5 (2%)

Mangrove forest 4 (2%)

Total 230 (100%)

The majority (134 spp.) of the plants found outside the study plots were used formedicinal purposes. These included many herbs and shrubs growing in pastures androadsides, such as Stachytarpheta cayennensis and Eleusine indica. Some 60 speciesof the remaining NTFPs were used for food, some of which were rare but highlyesteemed primary forest trees (Anacardium giganteum, Caryocar nuciferum), whileothers were common berries in secondary shrubland (Solanum stramoniifolium,

9. Discussion and conclusions

282

Miconia spp.). In the miscellaneous category (55 spp.), magic and fish bait plantswere often found outside the plots. Magic plants or ‘binas’ are sporadically found inthe wild and mostly confined to house yards, while species used for fish bait oftenoccur in overhanging riverbank and creek vegetation. The remaining species usedfor construction (19 spp.) were mostly rare primary forest trees. If we compare theuse categories of the plants found outside and inside the plots, we see thatconstruction material is an important commodity harvested from the forest plots (34-56% of the species, Table 4.1), while little of these NTFPs are found in secondaryshrubland or savannas. The same accounts for firewood. Food and medicine areimportant categories in the forest plots (23-33% resp. 31-39%), but these species areobviously not confined to these vegetation types.

We may conclude from these results that the seven hectare plots surveyed in theNorth-West District only yielded a narrow majority of the available NTFP species inthe region. The species-area curves presented in the chapters 2 and 3 (Figures 2.4and 3.2) already suggested that enlarging the sample area (within a certain foresttype) would bring about more species. This was in particular the case in the better-drained forest types, and indeed, the search for useful plants outside the hectare plotsyielded several ‘new’ NTFPs.

Although two plots of succession forest were sampled (20- and 60-year-oldsecondary forest), a large number of useful secondary species seemed to occur onlyin earlier stages of forest regeneration. Establishing hectare plots in young secondaryforest is quite complicated, because of its patchy structure, the uncertainty of its age,and the habit of ‘cleaning up’ secondary shrubland by villagers.

Hectare plots force the researcher to examine (nearly) every single species in anenclosed space, while the ‘walk in the woods method’ offers the opportunity to findspecies that have a limited distribution or just grow outside the sampling area.Inconspicuous species, however, are often overlooked by this technique. Thecombination of two methods proved to be successful in obtaining the most completeoverview of useful plants in the study area. Although it seems likely that the greatmajority of NTFPs from the North-West District is covered in this thesis, it is by nomeans totally exhaustive. Further research in less accessible areas of the North-WestDistrict, such as the upper tributaries of the Barama, Barima, Waini, and ArukaRivers, which have a high potential of endemic richness (ter Steege, 2000), mightyield thus far unrecorded species and uses.

With regard to the size of the one-hectare plots, the 10 x 1000 m plots used in thisstudy showed to be less suitable to assess the distribution of NTFPs within a certainforest type. Particularly in the secondary forests, the elongated hectare stripsincluded a range of microhabitats, so smaller plots had to be laid out next to eachother to cover a more homogeneous area. To be sure that a plot covers a uniformforest type instead of forming a belt transect, rectangles of 20 x 500, 50 x 200 oreven square plots may be more functional (Martin, 1995). However, sample areaswith square dimensions are less easy to survey, require more time in the field, andthere is a larger effect of ‘roads’ in the plots.


283

9.2 SECONDARY FOREST AND ENRICHMENT PLANTING

Results of this study point out that secondary forest, both of natural (gaps) and man-made origin, is an important vegetation type for NTFP extraction. Succession forestharbours a wide variety of useful plant species, it is found close to the settlements(which implies low transport costs), and its floristic composition is generally wellknown (due to its proximity). This is especially the case in the more denselypopulated areas like Santa Rosa, where the primary forest may be too far away formany NTFP collectors (in particular women and children). Although the area ofsecondary forest is rapidly extending in the tropics and many products are collectedfrom this vegetation, this does not mean that the role of primary forests in NTFPextraction is minimal (de Beer and McDermott, 1996; van Rijsoort, 1999). Certainuseful plants and animals may be more abundant in succession forest (Elliot andBrimacombe, 1986; Grenand, 1992; van Dijk and Wiersum, 1999), but manyvaluable species are refined to primary forest (Whitmore, 1980; Jessup and Peluso,1985). This is also the case in Guyana, where most commercial NTFP extractiontakes place in primary forest (including climax swamp forests), such as palm heart,troolie, nibi and kufa, mangrove, dhalebana, canoes, and a variety of animal species.When primary forest is found much at closer distance to the village, like in the moreremote Amerindian communities (e.g., Kariako, Assakata), it is also more frequentlyvisited by NTFP collectors of different age and gender groups.

Enrichment planting is frequently suggested to increase the production of NTFPsand relieve the pressure from natural forests (Anderson, 1990; Richards, 1993;Dubois, 1996; van Valkenburg, 1997; Wiersum, 1999). In forests where the majorityof NTFPs has a low density (< 5 individuals per ha), it is often seen as the onlypossibility to harvest NTFPs on a commercial scale (Browder, 1992; Boot, 1997;van Dijk, 1999). During the present research, it was frequently observed that peoplestimulated the growth of valued wild species by planting their roots or cuttings intheir yard, sparing them when weeding or cutting the surrounding vegetation, oractively sowing their seeds. Examples are the propagation of rare fish poison plants(Lonchocarpus spp.), the protection of medicinal herbs in house yards(Stachytarpheta spp.), and the planting of valuable forest fruit trees (Caryocarnuciferum, Annona montana). The Santa Rosa Arawaks were clearly more involvedin the domestication of NTFPs than the Barama Caribs, which may be explained bythe relative high population density and scarcity of primary forest in the Morucaarea. Evidently, enrichment planting is only an option if the plants are scarce innatural forest, if they are frequently needed, easily propagated, and their productvalue is high enough to make these investments worthwhile (Sheldon et al., 1997).

9.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF NTFPS FOR LOCAL INDIGENOUSTRIBES

One of the main conclusions of this research is that the Amerindian communities inthe North-West District rely heavily on their surrounding forest for subsistence. Thisis illustrated by the enormous amount of useful plants found during this study and


284

the remarkably high use percentages in the forest plots: 90 to 99% of the individualsin the tree layer were considered useful (Table 4.1). Although the well-drained forestharboured more useful species per hectare, swamp forests were also regularly visitedto gather forest products. The nested sampling method has shown that 35 to 65% ofthe species in the undergrowth of the hectare plots were utilised. These percentagesand the numerous NTFPs found in secondary shrubland (Table 9.1) demonstrate theimportance of smaller growth forms in the ethnobotany of local indigenous groups.Although many NTFPs are used only occasionally, they may serve as an emergencybuffer during times of famine and seasonal or economic scarcity. The total harveston a yearly basis may be small, but subsistence NTFPs often play a vital role inhelping people through lean times (de Beer and McDermott, 1996). According toFalconer and Arnold (1989), fruits and seeds consumed between meals might be oneof the most significant dietary contributions of wild plants, especially for children.This is certainly true for northwest Guyana, where children were often seensearching for small berries in the secondary forest (chapter 4). The surveys ofSullivan (1999) in Assakata, Sebai, and Karaburi, showed that 43 to 62% of thelabour time of the households was spent on collecting and processing NTFPs,including hunting and fishing.

The variation in NTFP use between the Caribs, Arawaks and Warao was caused byseveral factors: local floristic diversity, socio-economic conditions, and culturaldifferences. We have seen in the chapters 4 and 8 that (among others) the greatervariety in habitats in the Moruca area resulted in a higher number of plant speciesused by the Arawaks than by the Barama Caribs. Another explanation for thisoutcome is that Arawaks have a longer history of contact with outsiders, which hasled to the exchange of ethnobotanical knowledge (chapter 8). The deeper in theinterior, the less available and the more expensive commodity items and medicinesbecome. It was obvious that on average, the Barama Caribs depended more on theforest for their primary needs than the residents of Santa Rosa. The Moruca districthospital also reduced the need for certain herbal medicines. For instance, plants usedduring childbirth or to set broken limbs were only used far from the hospital. Forquite a number of diseases, however, Moruca people still preferred to search fortraditional cures (chapter 8). Moreover, for the poorer section of the Morucapopulation (which was still the great majority), NTFP harvesting was still a part ofevery day life, as synthetically manufactured goods were largely beyond theirmeans. With regard to the cultural differences, it seems that several of the ancienttribal specialities in NTFP use and craft making as reported by Im Thurn (1883) andRoth (1924) still exist today. The Caribs remain the best potters, the Warao continueto build good canoes, and the Arawak tibisiri hammocks have become a populartourist craft. But then again, the craftspeople in the larger Amerindian towns mostlybelong to the less fortunate classes (Jara and Reinders, 1997).

The tendency towards substitution with cultivated or synthetic alternatives underbetter socio-economic conditions is often mentioned as a potential pitfall of NTFPharvesting (FAO, 1989; Richards, 1993; van Valkenburg, 1999; Ros-Tonen, 1999).An increased degree of exposure to the market is thought to lead to foragingspecialisation, resulting in the extraction of fewer (types of) NTFPs and less timespent in forest-related activities (Godoy et al., 1998; Overman and Demmer, 1999).It was also suggested in this study that the greater access to the market and the loss


285

of traditional culture in coastal Amerindian villages would reduce the need forNTFPs (chapter 1). Wealthier households in Santa Rosa did not depend (anymore)on NTFPs for their income and subsistence, but the poorer ones still did. Consistentwith what Pearce (1989) and de Beer and McDermott (1996) found in South EastAsia, it seems that even when commercial alternatives are available, rural peoplecontinue to use foods and material from the forest. In most cases, and certainly inGuyana, NTFPs are free and easily available, which is of great relevance to peoplewho lack the cash for purchases. Furthermore, NTFPs are more familiar andculturally more attractive to local peoples than industrial substitutes (Slikkerveer andSlikkerveer, 1995; de Beer and McDermott, 1996). This phenomenon was illustratedby the steady demand of herbal medicine in Georgetown, even though the citycounted several modern pharmacies and hospitals (chapter 8).

The easier connection with the coastal market did enhance the possibilities for themarketing NTFPs in the North-West District, but the influx of luxury goods did notreduce the need to harvest NTFPs, as was assumed in the introduction of this thesis.Forte (1988) already noted that in spite of their constant exposure to the ‘modern’coast and their incorporation in the money economy, the coastal way of living hasnot completely replaced Amerindian traditions in Santa Rosa. A web of indigenouscustoms and beliefs still survives among Guyanese Arawaks, which wasdemonstrated by the varied use of NTFPs in the region. It seems that in Guyana,higher standards of living do not reduce the need for NTFPs, but rather cause a shiftin the demand for certain products. For example, nibi and kufa furniture is hardlyused in traditional indigenous villages, but it is gaining popularity in coastalAmerindian towns. Canned palm heart was recently launched on the Guyanesemarket, troolie roofs for holiday facilities are becoming trendy along the coast, andan increasing number of restaurants in the capital offer wild meat on their menu(chapter 6). The development of a tourist industry in Guyana would only furtherincrease the demand for NTFPs (e.g., crafts, furniture, wild fruit juices, wild meat,and rustic cottages).

Integration into the market through the sale of NTFPs also seems to have a positiveinfluence on the retention of indigenous knowledge (Godoy et al., 1998). Duringtheir research in two Honduran indigenous villages with different degrees ofexposure to the market, they found that integration into the market through the saleof agricultural crops and labour was associated with the loss of knowledge on wildplants and animals. However, people who were specialised in the commercialisationof NTFPs seemed to have a wider ethnobotanical knowledge. Spending more timeharvesting these goods in the forest than villagers not involved in NTFP extractionexpanded their understanding of the forest environment. This phenomenon was alsonoticeable in the North-West District. People in Santa Rosa that were not involvedin palm heart extraction did not know the difference between the single-stemmedwinamoro (Euterpe precatoria) and the multi-stemmed manicole (E. oleracea),while cabbage cutters in Assakata distinguished two genetic types winamoro andthree types of manicole (chapter 5).


286

9.4 THE FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL NTFP HARVESTING INGUYANA

The annual world trade in NTFP was estimated at several billion US dollars,including nearly three billion in rattan products from Southeast Asia (de Beer andMcDermott, 1996). With just US$ 4 million in export revenues per year, Guyana isjust a very small actor in this play. But taking into account its modest populationsize, the export of NTFP per capita is much higher in Guyana than in most otherexporting countries (chapter 6). In general, the relatively species-poor mixed forestsof the Guiana Shield offer better opportunities for the sustainable harvesting ofNTFPs than those of the middle and eastern Amazon Basin, which are characterisedby an extremely high diversity and a low density of conspecific species (Johnston,1998). Guyana’s large forest resources, its wide array of useful plant and animalproducts, and its relatively low deforestation rate, further enhance the possibilitiesfor the development of commercial NTFP harvesting. Within Guyana, the oligarchicforests of the North-West District (chapter 4) seem to offer much better possibilitiesfor sustainable single-species harvesting than the more species-rich mixed forests. Inthe coastal wetlands, where the potential for logging, mining, and agriculture isminimal, commercial NTFP extraction even appears to be the most viable form ofland use.

The main obstacles for the marketing of NTFPs are the poor infrastructure (resultingin high transport costs), the low prices paid for the raw material, and the lack ofinformation on market opportunities and sustainable management systems. Theselimitations seem to be typical to the extractive industry in the Amazon Basin(Richards, 1993). Products that have already shown to be economically viable offerthe best chances of success (Clay, 1992), so policy makers and researchers shouldfocus on the trade in palm heart, wildlife, nibi, kufa, troolie, tibisiri, and mangrovebark. All presently marketed NTFPs seem to have a potential for commercialextraction, and apart from certain species of wildlife, increasing demands have notyet led to a severe degradation of resources. Further research is needed on growthrates, population sizes, environmental impacts of extraction, and optimum harvestlevels for these NTFPs, as well as the development of community managementsystems. Although this sounds like a huge investment in time and money,management systems for NTFPs are generally much easier in their application thanthose for timber products. In contrast to most timber species, NTFPs generally haveshorter harvest cycles, many providing products annually over long periods (Petersand Hammond, 1990).

Since the diversification of the market reduces the risk of commercial failure,marketing efforts should also pay attention to ‘new’ NTFPs, which may now only beharvested for subsistence, but have a potential for commercial extraction (chapter 6).The establishment of small-scale processing units near productive forests couldsolve the problem of high transport costs and the spoiling of perishable products. Aworking example of such an industry is the palm heart processing plant, located inthe centre of the coastal manicole swamps. The collection of fresh palm hearts bythe factory boats strongly reduces the transport costs for the individual harvester and


287

thereby enables remote communities to participate in the marketing of NTFPs aswell.

To be able to cope with unstable demands, variation in product quality, andfluctuating prices, marketing strategies should not focus merely on the export marketto Europe and the USA, but also include the domestic and regional economy (theGuianas, Brazil, and the Caribbean). Products and market development, training, andinvestment in this sector may take several years to produce results on a scalecomparable to logging, but the reward will be equal (Sizer, 1996). Producers shoulddefinitely consider to obtain a certification of environmental sustainability for theirproducts, to improve their chances on the growing ‘green market’ in Europe and theUnited States (Clay, 1992; Richards, 1993).

A key factor in the development of a successful NTFP trade is the improvement ofthe institutional and legal base for the management of NTFPs. The Guyana ForestryCommission, the Wildlife Services Division, and the Environmental ProtectionAgency should be more involved in the monitoring of harvested volumes, land useplanning, price regulation and control of illegal trade. Further aspects that requireattention are the absence of storage facilities for harvested products, the low level oforganisation among extractors, and the lack of information about prices andmarketing opportunities among local extractors. Hoffman (1997) calculated that thevalue of a bundle of nibi roots increased more than 35 times in moving from anindigenous harvester to becoming a component of export-quality furniture.Harvesters could get a larger share of the profits by forming an organisation thatsells directly to the Georgetown furniture shops, evading the chains of middlemen.Training programs are needed for designing village-based management plans forNTFP extraction and developing community administration skills (chapter 5). Theseprograms should make an effort to include women, since they are important actors inthe harvesting and processing of NTFPs (van Andel and Reinders, 1999; Sullivan,1999). Finally, one should keep in mind that the development of the NTFP tradeoffers no guarantee that rural people receive benefits (de Beer and McDermott,1996). Moreover, in the more remote communities in the forested interior,commercial trade in NTFPs only plays a minor role in the livelihood strategies.

9.5 NTFP EXTRACTION AS A POTENTIAL FOR FORESTCONSERVATION

9.5.1 Can NTFP extraction prevent forest destruction?Another conclusion of this study is that extractivism can only act as a potentialsaviour of the rain forests if it is able to prevent or reduce deforestation. There arestrong indications that this process has already taken place and is still going on inthe North-West District. Before the canning company started processing palmhearts, logging was the primary economic activity of the indigenous communities inthe coastal swamplands. Large Virola logs were rolled out of the manicole swampsby manpower to be sold to the Surinamese Company Bruijnzeel for plywoodproduction. From the upper Barima, Mora excelsa, Goupia glabra, and othervaluable timbers were floated down in rafts to the Aruka sawmill (Forte, 1995). The


288

introduction of palm heart harvesting has put an end to this practise. However, in themore remote areas, commercial logging was replaced by a much more profitableland use than commercial NTFP extraction: mining. Until a few decades ago, localAmerindians used to float crabwood logs (Carapa guianensis) down the Barama to asawmill along the Waini. At the beginning of the 20th century, almost all crabwoodin the riverine forest along this river had been felled for timber (Anderson, 1912).Nowadays, gold has become the major source of income in this region, and it seemsobvious that few NTFPs have such a high unit values that they can compete withthis resource.

Apart from the use of cyanide to extract gold and the total removal of forest cover inthe gold pits, land and river dredges also seem to have drastic environmentalconsequences, as was indicated by the decline in fish stocks in the Barama River(van Andel and Reinders, 1999; Reinders, in prep.). The impact of mining andlogging on the availability of NTFPs was not quantitatively measured during thisstudy. The secondary forest sampled was caused by slash-and-burn agricultureinstead of by commercial logging, although wood from the forest farms may havebeen commercialised. No hectare plots were established in logged-over forest orabandoned mining sites. Logging and mining operations are known to scare awaywildlife and increase the hunting and fishing pressure, caused both by their labourersand by local Amerindians (Sullivan, 1999; ter Steege, 2000). An example wasprovided by the community of Sebai, which found a steady market for its bush meatand fish in Port Kaituma, the centre of the logging activities of Barama CompanyLtd. The majority of the Sebai villagers thought that the numbers of animals in theregion had declined over the past 10 years (Sullivan, 1999).

Direct competition between logging and NTFP collection was reported from thePomeroon River, where host trees for furniture fibres were regularly felled fortimber (chapter 6). Not only has most primary forest outside the AmerindianReserves been designated as timber concession, logs are also felled in Amerindianreserves and sold to sawmills (Forte, 1995). Companies sometimes offer extractorsto harvest all suitable nibi and kufa roots before they start logging, but the host treescan be worth more in aerial roots over a few years than they are once by timber. Inaddition, the timber species themselves often produce valuable NTFPs (e.g., Carapaguianensis, Aspidosperma spp., and Catostemma commune). The harvesting ofepiphyte roots has a great potential for forest conservation, since standing forest isessential to provide the particular product. This aspect was also brought forward byGentry (1992) with regard to Heteropsis crafts around Iquitos, and by Whiteheadand Godoy (1991), who stated that the rattan-like furniture in Brazil was one of thefew highly promising NTFPs in the Neotropics. Unfortunately, the prices paid fornibi and kufa roots in Guyana are often too low to convince the harvester to sparethe host tree from felling and selling its timber. Further research on nibi and kufaharvesting should include the possibilities to combine timber and aerial rootextraction in logging concessions.

Changing settlement patterns in northwest Guyana have resulted in largerAmerindian towns (e.g., Santa Rosa, Mabaruma). These population concentrationswere stimulated by the government to allow easy access to education, church, andhealth facilities. However, they have increased the local demand for agricultural soil


289

and for wild meat, fish, craft materials, and other frequently used NTFPs (Forte,1988; van Andel and Reinders, 1999). Common Amerindian management practises,such as the burning of swamp forests, are getting out of hand. We have seen in thechapters 3 and 4 that the fibre extraction from Mauritia flexuosa is not capable ofpreserving its natural habitat. On the contrary, the original quackal swamp isdestroyed in order to facilitate the harvest of the desired product. Although thispractise might enhance the germination of palm seedlings at first, it becomes fatalafter a few years when juvenile palms are killed by the annual fires.

9.5.2 NTFP harvesting in high-diversity forestsThere is a need to create economic activity at the edge of rainforests to provideincentives for sustainable resource management (Sheldon et al., 1997). It was oftenstressed that harvesting plants in the increasingly prevalent secondary forest couldhelp deflect some of the development pressure from primary forest (Gentry, 1992;van Dijk, 1999; Wiersum, 1999). Some authors even state that non-timber forestryshould not be initiated in forests of exceptionally high diversity, as the chances forsustainable extraction are minimal (Pendelton, 1992). Others have the opinion thatharvesting NTFPs from species-poor (swamp or secondary) forests does not help toconserve the species-richness of tropical forests (Boot, 1997). Without the addedfinancial value of NTFPs, there would be even less motivation for the protection ofprimary forest (Richards, 1993; LaFrankie, 1994; de Beer and McDermott, 1996).

The mixed primary forests of this research ranked among the most diverse plotsstudied in Guyana so far (chapter 2), which should have its influence in the planningof protected areas in Guyana. Since several of the sampled forest types werethreatened, either immediately by local timber harvesting and shifting cultivation(Moruca), or by (future) commercial logging and mining (Barama), there is anurgent need for protection measurements and sustainable management plans. The(relatively) diverse mixed forests have shown to harbour a wide array of useful plantproducts (chapter 4), but since product value for vegetable NTFPs in Guyana isgenerally low, the only viable option for these forests would be multiple-speciesextraction (Clay, 1992; Richards, 1993; La Rotta, 1992; Johnston, 1998). If theharvest of a large number of products is combined simultaneously under a scheme of‘high diversity forestry’, the productivity of searching would increase and theeconomic portrait may greatly improve (LaFrankie, 1994; van Valkenburg, 1999).However, it is essential to conduct socio-economic research on existing activities tosee how new approaches can be integrated into existing livelihood systems(Richards, 1993).

An example of this product diversification could be the harvesting of barks, roots,and lianas for medicinal purposes (e.g., Strychnos spp., Dioscorea trichanthera,Dilleniaceae spp.). Medicinal plants offer great possibilities, since the worldwidedemand for plant-derived medicine still increases. Although in some casesresearchers have been able to synthesise the active components of medicinal plants,there are numerous important species which are either to difficult to domesticate ortoo expensive to synthesise and thus continue to be harvested from the wild(Sheldon et al., 1997). We have seen in chapter 8 that medicinal forest products weresold in Georgetown at very low prices per volume. Therefore, processing is needed


290

close to the extraction sites to increase the local share of the product value andprevent spoiling of the material on its way to the market. This could include oilextraction (e.g., Carapa guianensis), and the preparation of herb- or resin-basedointments, dried mixtures for herbal baths, alcoholic tinctures, or aphrodisiacaltonics like the ones listed in Part II of this thesis. This production could be combinedwith the manufacture of crafts (in stead of harvesting only the raw materials) andpreserved food products (e.g., cooking oil from Jessenia bataua, candying forestfruits or preparing cassareep from cultivated cassava roots). For the remote mixedforests of the North-West District, such incentives would only become successfulwith the help of external subsidies. In this way, the products have the capacity tocompete with NTFPs harvested from forests closer to the capital. In Brazil,government subsidies for rubber extraction have avoided the negative externaleffects of alternative (more destructive) land uses (Richards, 1993).

9.6 THE CONTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL NTFPS TO RURALDEVELOPMENT

We can conclude from this study that the commercial extraction of NTFPs iscontributing significantly to the income of forest-dwelling people of northwestGuyana and certainly stimulates the economic development in the region. However,the indigenous extractors do not fully benefit from the profits made in the NTFPtrade. It are often the poorest indigenous families that are involved in the collectionof forest products. Indigenous harvesters seem to perform a job that most otherGuyanese are not willing to do (Hoffman, 1997). For most urban citizens, theinterior forests are an unfamiliar and hazardous place, and both Amerindians andNTFP extraction are looked down upon. As a result, many young people areashamed of being Amerindian and living in the forest, by believing that it is anotherlink with poverty, backwardness, and underdevelopment (Forte, 1988). Unlike otherforested areas in South America and Southeast Asia (Richards, 1993; de Beer andMcDermott, 1996; Assies, 1997; van Valkenburg, 1997), the North-West District isnot subjected to an influx of urban-based seasonal labour gangs getting engaged inNTFP extraction and thereby replacing and marginalising the forest-dwellingextractors. Only in the case of palm heart harvesting in the previously sparselyinhabited lower Waini River, the NTFP business opened a structure for permanentsettlement in the forest. But this concerned just a small number of Amerindianextractors moving from one indigenous settlement to another.

A crucial factor limiting the potential of NTFPs to improve local people’s income isthat extractors are seldom paid in cash for their work. Instead they are advancedgoods by the buyers or middlemen, so that many labourers find themselves unable toescape from the contractual obligations with their employers (Hoffman, 1997; Forte,1999a). This was illustrated in chapter 5 by the canning company, which offeredlow-priced food to extractors, but only when exchanged for palm hearts. This formof ‘bonded labour’ was considered by Forte (1999a) as a form of debt-peonage, ahighly regressive credit and marketing system which is still prevalent in many (moreand less exploitative) forms in the Amazon Basin (Richards, 1993; Ros-Tonen,1999). However, one should keep in mind that in Guyana, these in-debt relationships


291

are not confined to NTFP extraction. They are also quite common in other laboursections, such as cash crop agriculture and gold mining. Furthermore, the canningcompany supplies food at relatively low prices, while in most debt-peonage systems(such as the mining industry), market goods are supplied on credit at inflated costs,while low prices are offered for the extractive products. Richards (1993) affirms thatthis system maintains extractors in severe deprivation, but he points out that it alsohas the capacity to bridge the gap between the remote, non-market subsistenceeconomy and the market economy. Furthermore, the system forces extractors tomaximise the time devoted to the collection of NTFPs and leaves little time forsubsistence agriculture. According to Richards (1993), this structure is thus moreenvironmentally sound than alternative, more autonomous labour relationships. Thesituation in the North-West District is just the reverse, since apart from the areasaround the major Amerindian towns like Santa Rosa and Mabaruma, deforestationdue to subsistence agriculture is not a major problem. In the coastal swamp region,the bonded labour and the consequent neglect of traditional agriculture has led to thedestruction of palm heart resources.

NTFP extraction has often been mentioned as a viable alternative to slash-and-burnagriculture (Peters et al., 1989a; Richards, 1993; LaFrankie, 1994), but in manycases, extractors need to combine NTFP harvesting with subsistence agriculture inorder to make a decent living (Mori, 1992; Richards, 1993). If one of the extractiveactivities declines in importance, they need to compensate the loss by expandingtheir agricultural activities. Commercial NTFP extraction can hardly be defined as aseparate land use type (Ros-Tonen, 1999). One of the key elements in the ruralhousehold economy is the provision of nutrition and food security (de Beer andMcDermott, 1996), but in most cases, the natural forest is unable to produce thehuman staple food, while the NTFP harvest is too unpredictable to provide for allneeds. The concept of this ‘agro-extractive cycle’, which was introduced withreference to Brazil nut gatherers in Bolivia (Assies, 1997), is very relevant forGuyana as well, although the situation in the two countries seems to be quitedifferent. In Bolivia, the conversion of forest to farming land threatens thesustainability of the agro-extractive cycle, while in Guyana, the pressure on NTFPresources should be relieved by improving subsistence agriculture techniques andguarantee food security (chapter 5). This is in accordance with Richards (1993), whostated that for indigenous groups with a historical tradition of extractivism andswidden farming, their indigenous technical knowledge provides a firm basis forsustainable forest management, incorporating multi-species extractivism andtraditional swidden management techniques.

Moreover, we have seen in the chapters 5 and 6 that commercial NTFP extractionhas the great advantage that it allows most harvesters to earn a living while spendingmost of their time within their traditional dwelling-grounds. The NTFP harvestallows for a combination with subsistence activities (hunting, fishing, and slash-and-burn agriculture), while this opportunity is not offered by other means ofemployment in the North-West District. In communities where most men havefound work in distant logging and mining camps, women are performing maleactivities, such as burning pieces of forest for farms, weaving cassava processingequipment from mokru, and hunting (van Breugel, 1998). The workload for womenhas increased even more, as children are attending school and cannot assist with the


292

farm work. When their men return, their earnings rarely last to feed the family untilthe next pay cheque (Forte, 1995).

9.7 LAND TENURE

The lack of secure land tenure in tropical forest countries brings into question thebroad applicability of non-timber forestry (Pendelton, 1992). As long as the propertyrights of forest areas are not clearly defined, even the most sustainable forms ofresource use are highly subject to disruption (Peters et al., 1989b). AlthoughAmerindian Reserves comprise about 16% of Guyana’s surface, as many as 41Amerindian communities (home to more than 8000 people) have not been officiallyrecognised (Forte, 1990b; Sizer, 1996). For those indigenous groups that live withina logging or mining concession and have not (yet) been granted official land rights,direct action is required to make sure their forest is still available to them in thefuture. The situation is most urgent for groups like the Kariako Caribs, who heavilydepend on the biodiversity of the surrounding forests, but find their traditionaldwelling grounds covered with logging and mining claims.

The Guyanese law states that Amerindians have the right to enter state lands and toextract forest products for their own uses (Pierre and Marco, 1992). But sinceNTFPs are still an open-access resource, nobody feels responsible for themanagement of the resource. The overharvesting of palms hearts (chapter 5) and thedepletion of fish and wildlife around the larger indigenous villages (chapter 6) hasmade clear that secure land tenure is not a guarantee for sustainable resourcemanagement in Amerindian Reserves. One of the reasons for this phenomenon isthat the extent of lands designated to Amerindian communities under theAmerindian Act of 1977 was not based on sustainability studies of their subsistencepatterns (Toppin-Allahar 1995). Furthermore, many communities have grown tosuch an extent that agricultural land has become scarce (Jara and Reinders, 1997).The Act neither contains provisions for the protection of wildlife or vulnerablehabitats (Iwokrama, 1998), and there is a lack of clear land demarcation due toinaccurate surveying of reserve boundaries (Sizer, 1996; Colchester, 1997). As Forte(1995) argued, there is a threshold of poverty below which the poor becomedisproportionally destructive, damaging the very resources that could nurture themfor years. She further states that without the most basic improvements in socialconditions, development more specific to resource use appears to be mostly wishfulthinking.

Since indigenous communities have little other options than designing their ownmanagement plans (Iwokrama, 1998), increasing harvester’s political power andmarketing efficiency by means of cooperative organisations would be a crucial steptowards responsible management (Hoffman, 1997). Development programmesshould provide basic technical assistance to communities interested in developingforest-based enterprises, including the access to small loans. Training is needed inadministration, law, marketing, subsistence farming techniques, communitystrengthening, contract negotiation, and finance (Sizer, 1996).


293

There is an obvious task here for the government, the Guyana Forestry Commission,the Environmental Protection Agency, indigenous and non-indigenous NGOsconcerned with rural welfare. The Iwokrama programme has already begun todevelop land use systems that incorporate biodiversity conservation, in closecooperation with indigenous communities (Iwokrama, 1998). International donorsshould therefore continue to support institution building in these sectors. Finally, allstakeholders in the NTFP trade (extractors, village councils, traders, and exporters)are challenged to assume their responsibilities and make sure that NTFPs cancontinue to play their present important role in Guyana’s forested interior.

1. INTRODUCTION - Tropenbos International

Documents

Transcript of 1. INTRODUCTION - Tropenbos International