The Socio-Economic Context of the Harvesting andUtilisation of Mangrove Vegetation

C.Allan, Ph.D.

withSandra Williams

&Rickford Adrian

Produced for the Guyana Forestry CommissionGeorgetown, Guyana

May 2002

2

Contents

Contents........................................................................................................................................... 2List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................... 3List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................................... 4Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 41. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Terms of reference ................................................................................................................ 51.1.1 Main tasks ...................................................................................................................... 51.1.2 Main outcomes & deliverables....................................................................................... 5

1.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 62. Review of literature & existing knowledge................................................................................. 7

2.1 Profile of mangrove utilisation in Guyana ............................................................................ 72.1.1 Sea defence..................................................................................................................... 72.1.2 Nursery for off-shore fisheries ....................................................................................... 82.1.3 Eco-Tourism................................................................................................................... 82.1.4 Tanning bark .................................................................................................................. 82.1.6 Poles for fishing seines................................................................................................... 92.1.5 Burnt earth production................................................................................................... 92.1.7 Domestic fuel wood ....................................................................................................... 92.1.8 Honey production........................................................................................................... 92.1.9 Crab harvesting............................................................................................................... 92.1.10 Charcoal........................................................................................................................ 92.1.11 Other uses................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Profile of stakeholder communities and groups.................................................................. 102.2.1 Region 1 ....................................................................................................................... 122.2.2 Region 2 ....................................................................................................................... 122.2.3 Region 3 ....................................................................................................................... 132.2.4 Region 4 ....................................................................................................................... 132.2.5 Region 5 ....................................................................................................................... 132.2.6 Region 6 ....................................................................................................................... 142.2.7 Coastal harvesting stakeholder groups......................................................................... 14

3. Socio-economic context of mangrove utilisation...................................................................... 153.1 Profile of activities entailing harvesting of mangrove vegetation....................................... 15

3.1.1 Commercial activities................................................................................................... 153.1.1.1 Tanning industry................................................................................................... 153.1.1.2 Artisanal fisheries (including fin-fish, shrimp and crab) ...................................... 173.1.1.3 Burnt-earth production.......................................................................................... 183.1.1.4 Cash cropping........................................................................................................ 203.1.1.5 Construction.......................................................................................................... 213.1.1.6 Timber milling....................................................................................................... 21

3.1.2 Subsistence activities.................................................................................................... 213.1.2.1 Clearing of mangrove for settlement..................................................................... 213.1.2.2 Fuel wood for domestic use .................................................................................. 23

3.2 Stakeholder groups in mangrove utilisation........................................................................ 233.2.1 Tannin bark harvesters................................................................................................. 23

3

3.2.2 Fishermen..................................................................................................................... 253.2.3 Burnt-earth producers................................................................................................... 273.2.4 Cash crop farmers......................................................................................................... 273.2.5 Squatters living in mangrove vegetation...................................................................... 27

3.3 Socio-economic factors affecting mangrove harvesting practices...................................... 284. Conclusions & Recommendations ............................................................................................ 28

4.1 Ecological survey of human impacts .................................................................................. 284.2 Detailed socio-economic study of stakeholder groups........................................................ 294.3 Community outreach & sensitisation.................................................................................. 294.4 Improve communications and co-operation between Government Ministries ................... 304.5 Harvesting standards and zonation of use areas.................................................................. 304.6 Promotion and regulation of alternatives ............................................................................ 314.7 Community mangrove management projects...................................................................... 31

Bibliography.................................................................................................................................. 32

List of Figures and Tables

Table 2.1 Locations where extractive mangrove utilisation activities have been observed …….11Figure 3.1 Seine poles collected by fishermen or suppliers at the Canje Bridge: mangrove poles

in the rear and poles of alternative species in front……………………………………….. 17Figure 3.2 Burnt-earth production area with earth heaps on far left and fuel wood piles,

containing some mangrove, in front …………………………………………………… …19Figure 3.3 Timber mill off cuts (slab), a commonly used alternative fuel wood for burnt-earth

production ……………………………………………………………………………… …20Figure 3.4 Squatter home in mangrove area with mangrove poles used for fencing.……..… …22Figure 3.5 Squatter home in mangrove area ……………………………………….………… .. 23Figure 3.6 The CDC Chair and family from Smith’s Creek ................................................ ....... 24Figure 3.7 A family of shrimp fishermen at No. 66 beach……………………………… …….. 25Figure 3.8 Crab harvester in Region 6 …………………………………………………… …….26

4

List of Abbreviations

Burnt-earth Loose fired clay used to provide a base in road constructionCDC Community Democratic CouncilCoastlander Individual of Indo- or Afro-Guyanese ethnicityEPA Environmental Protection AgencyGFC Guyana Forestry CommissionICZMC Integrated Coastal Zone Management CommitteeNDC Neighbourhood Democratic CouncilNTFP Non-Timber Forest ProductRDC Regional Democratic CouncilSFP State Forest PermissionSquatter Someone living on land they have no title or legal permission to be on

Acknowledgements

The assistance of the following people is gratefully acknowledged: Julian Evans, DeputyCommissioner of Forests; Royston Peters, GFC Forest Ranger, Mabaruma; Janice Bollers, GFCDivisional Forest Officer, New Amsterdam; Mortimus Trim, Forest Ranger Corriverton; JagdeshSingh, Assistant Commissioner of Forests, Forest Resource Information Unit; Tasrif Khan,Assistant Commissioner of Forests, Forest Resource Planning Unit; Dawn Mason, FisheriesDepartment, Ministry of Fisheries, Crops and Livestock; Mr. George Howard, and the rest of theSea and River Defence Unit; and Mr. Ramesh Lilwah of the EPA.

This research would not have been possible if the harvesters and stakeholders involved in themangrove utilisation had not been so willing to discuss their views. Grateful thanks are due toevery participant who spoke with the researchers. Every effort was made to represent their viewsas accurately as possible and it is sincerely hoped that this was achieved.

This research was funded by the DFID-GFC support project.

5

1. Introduction

There is currently no legislation in Guyana dealing specifically with mangroves and to addressthis, the National Mangrove Management Action Plan was drawn up in 2001 (SSPA ProjectTeam, 1994; GFC & ICZMC, 2001). This action plan deals mainly with the current status ofmangroves and the urgent need to preserve and increase coastal mangroves for the purposes ofnational sea defence (GFC & ICZMC, 2001). It also identifies several research priorities,including the socio-economic values of mangrove forests and the tanning industry in relation tothe extent and use of mangrove forests (GFC & ICZMC, 2001). This report providesinformation on the socio-economic aspects of harvesting and utilisation of mangrove vegetationto contribute to the GFC Code of Practice on mangrove harvesting.

1.1 Terms of reference

1.1.1 Main tasks

1. Review existing literature and experience to identify main stakeholders and to prepare anoutline profile of the industry.

2. Develop a methodology for field work and agree this with the GFC.3. Interview end-users to identify social and economic issues and to further develop an

understanding of resource availability and supply mechanisms.4. Conduct field visits to the main harvesting areas to identify current management practices

and their social and economic importance.

1.1.2 Main outcomes & deliverables

1. An understanding of the socio-economic factors influencing the harvesting and utilisationof mangrove.

2. A socio-economic profile of all stakeholders that have a direct or indirect interest in themangrove resources.

3. An understanding of the critical issues impacting on sustainable resource use and thecontribution to national and rural economies.

4. Recommendations on an appropriate role for the GFC and further action required toachieve this.

6

1.2 Methodology

There is very little literature describing the utilisation of mangroves in Guyana. The literaturereview relied almost entirely on the National Mangrove Management Action Plan, its precursor(EPA, 2000) and the thesis by Evans (1998), all of which refer to various uses of mangrove butcontain very little information on the nature of these practices or the stakeholder groups. Keysource personnel in the EPA, Sea and River Defence Unit, Fisheries Department of Ministry ofFisheries, Crops and Livestock and GFC were interviewed and their statements are referenced aspersonal communications in this report.

This research project was carried out in tandem with a study of the socio-economic context ofmanicole harvesting. A total of 25 days were allowed for completion of both projects androughly 12.5 days were allotted to this project. Field work was carried out in the North Westdistrict between 13th and 18th May, in the Berbice and Corentyne coast areas between 22nd and25th May and in the coastal areas of Regions 3, 4 and 5 on day trips scattered throughout theresearch period. A total of 8 field work days were devoted to this project. Individual semi-structured interviews were carried out with key informants including: Georgetown tanners andleather craft producers; mangrove bark harvesters; fishermen; burnt-earth producers; cashcroppers; the Regional, Neighbourhood and Community Democratic Council officers in coastalareas; and squatters encroaching on mangrove areas.

There were two primary limitations on the field work. Firstly, the time limitation restricted thenumber of areas that could be visited and the number of stakeholders who would be consulted.Given that mangroves grow along almost the entire coast, that this stretches 434 km and about660,000 people live in the adjacent coastal zone, this survey could only take a brief andpreliminary look at the type of people involved in mangrove utilisation. Using informationreceived from key source personnel, a few important areas were identified for field visits and inaddition, NDC and CDC representatives were consulted all along the coast, to gain insights intorecent local experience of mangrove utilisation. Due to the limited time available, it was notpossible to visit Region 2, but all other coastal regions were visited during the survey. Secondly,people were aware of the restrictions on harvesting of mangrove acting as sea defence and manywere unwilling to talk freely to people attached to GFC, fearing legal repercussions. The latterproblem was compounded by the time limitation, which meant that it was rarely possible todevelop enough rapport with interviewees to overcome any reticence they might feel.

There is no estimation of the total number of people involved in mangrove harvesting. The onlyavailable information related to the harvesting of mangrove bark for the tanning industry: therewere estimated to be around 15 tanners currently operating in Guyana, of which 2 wereinterviewed giving a sample of 13%. The number of people involved in the various mangroveextraction activities was unknown and it is not possible to estimate sample size for these groups.The potential number of people who use mangrove vegetation indirectly in its role as coastaldefence (i.e. people who live work or otherwise are economically linked to areas protected byfrom flooding by the mangrove) is likely to be in the 100,000s. Since just 68 people wereinterviewed in the coastal areas this gives an estimated total sample of less than 0.1%. Themajority of people involved in mangrove harvesting are men and these formed the majority ofinterviewees (75%).

7

2. Review of literature & existing knowledge

A large portion of the coastal belt of Guyana was under mangrove vegetation 20-30 years ago,but since that time there has been serious depletion, especially in Regions 3 and 4 and parts of 2and 5 (Evans, 1998). Until recently, the mangrove vegetation was not valued for its role in seadefence, mechanical defences being preferred, and commercial harvesting or simply clearing ofmangroves were common (Evans, 1998; EPA, 2000). Although no formal monitoring has beencarried out, the Sea Defence personnel have amounted a wealth of qualitative observations of thechanges in coastal mangrove vegetation over the years. According to the Head of Sea Defence,the majority of current changes in mangrove vegetation (both increases and decreases) were dueto natural processes rather than anthropogenic factors (George Howard pers. comm., 2002).Natural erosion is currently affecting mangroves in Mon Repos, Good Hope and Harlem in WestDemerara (George Howard pers. comm., 2002). Another important source of mangrove die backis the blockage of drainage channels from mangrove areas which causes excessive salinity,observed in Region 5 (Evans, 1998). Nevertheless, human utilisation of mangrove is believed tobe causing degradation in certain areas (EPA, 2000).

Elsewhere in the world, human activities, particularly those associated with fishing industries,have been responsible for substantial mangrove destruction (Furley and Ratter, 1992; Dierbergand Kiattisimkul, 1996). It has been recognised that many of the unsustainable utilisationpractices in coastal zones are associated with poverty and these issues are best address throughintegrated coastal management programmes, which aim to incorporate community participationin coastal resource management (Lowry et al., 1999; Westmacott, 2002). There have been noprevious studies of mangrove utilisation in Guyana. This survey aims to provide the firstbaseline study of mangrove utilisation and provide information on stakeholder groups to supportthe development of the GFC code of practice for mangroves.

The basic ecology of the mangrove forest and its role in Guyana’s sea defence has beendescribed in Evans (1998) and GFC & ICZMC (2001). There are three main mangrove speciesoccurring in Guyana’s mangrove forest: Avicennia germinans (black mangrove or courida),Rhizsophora mangle (red mangrove), and Laguncularia racemosa (white mangrove) (Hussain,1990). When the term mangrove is used in this report, it refers to the vegetation type unless oneof these species is specified.

2.1 Profile of mangrove utilisation in Guyana

The only available information on mangrove utilisation is found in anecdotal accounts in the fewpublications on mangroves and coastal zone management; these are summarised below.

2.1.1 Sea defence

This is an indirect (in that it does not involve harvesting) but very important use of mangrovevegetation. Around 90% of Guyana's population lives in the coastal zone and 5 of its 6municipalities are located here (UNDP, 1996). It is the main agricultural area and total arableland in this area is 400,000 ha., most of which lies below sea level (Ministry of Agriculture,2002a). In many communities in these regions, very few other sources of employment exist

8

(SSPA Project Team, 1994). Agriculture contributed 27% of Guyana’s GDP in 2001, and 20%is due entirely to the key coastal crops of rice and sugar (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b).

There is no accurate information available on the cost of the damage by inundations to privateand public property and land, but there some anecdotal accounts. In the 1990s there was abreach a Corriverton which flooded land owned by GUYSUCO and used for cane production; 10years later, yields are still so low (due to the salinisation of the soil) that the company isabandoning cane farming there (George Howard pers. comm., 2002). The most effective andaffordable sea defence is a band of mangrove with a simple earthen damn behind and the cost ofartificial barriers giving a comparable level of defence is currently US$2200 per linear meter(George Howard pers. comm., 2002).

2.1.2 Nursery for off-shore fisheries

This is another indirect but economically important use of mangrove vegetation. Mangroves areimportant breeding areas for off shore fish and shrimp (SSPA Project Team, 1994; EPA, 2000).Fisheries contributed 3% of the GDP (prawns and shrimp being about 26% of production byweight) (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b). Although there has been no research into the role ofGuyana’s mangrove in supporting the national fishing industry, in the Philippines is has beenestimated that the removal of 1 ha of mangroves will lower fish catches in the nearby sea by 765kg/yr (Primavera, 1991).

2.1.3 Eco-Tourism

The third major indirect use of mangrove vegetation is tourism. The mangrove forest at Shellbeach in Region 1 is a key part of this tourist site, providing the habitat for the scarlet ibis(Eudocimus ruber) and many other species (Evans, 1998; EPA, 2000). In fact, the mangroveforest along the coast of Region 1 is such an important area for biodiversity in Guyana that it hasbeen proposed as one of the new protected areas, to preserve the nation’s wildlife and protect akey area for eco-tourism (EPA, 2000; GFC & ICZMC, 2001).

2.1.4 Tanning bark

A key commercial use of mangrove is the harvesting of bark for the domestic leather tanningindustry, which supplies the leather craft producers for the domestic and Caribbean markets(GFC & ICZMC, 2001). The bark of the red mangrove produces a high quality tannin which isused to tan all kinds of leather (GFC & ICZMC, 2001). The red mangrove does not normallyoccur in abundance in areas exposed directly to the ocean but is found dominating in shelteredareas of Barima-Waini, Esseqibo, Demerera and Corentyne rivers and canal banks (Evans,1998). The tree is locally abundant, occurring in mono-specific stands (Andel, 1998). Themajority of extraction takes place around the Mora Passage near Mabaruma in Region 1 (Andel,1998). To harvest the bark, the entire tree is cut down and debarked (Andel, 1998). There was areported nine-fold increase in the production of mangrove bark, all extracted from Regions 1 and2, during the period 1996-1999 according GFC records (GFC & ICZMC, 2001). This NTFP hasthe potential to be economically important for Guyana (Andel, 1998).

9

2.1.6 Poles for fishing seines

Mangroves produce strong and durable poles for the artisanal fishing industry and are mainlyused for the mooring of boats and for supporting fyke nets, commonly known as Chinese seines(GFC & ICZMC, 2001).

2.1.5 Burnt earth production

Mangrove is also used as a fuel in production of fired clay (‘burnt earth’ or ‘burnt brick’) whichis used in road building; 35-50 cords of wood are burnt to produce 500 cubic yards of burnt earth(SSPA Project Team, 1994).

2.1.7 Domestic fuel wood

Both the red and black mangrove can be used for fuelwood (GFC & ICZMC, 2001). There wasextensive use of mangrove for domestic fuelwood during the economic restrictions of the 1970s,but following the economic reforms of the mid 1980’s, kerosene and gas largely replacedmangrove wood as domestic fuel (SSPA Project Team, 1994). However, there are reportedlystill some rural communities who are dependent on mangroves for fuel wood (Evans, 1998).

2.1.8 Honey production

Black mangrove flowers produce high quality honey and at one time up to 75% of the honeyproduced in Guyana came from mangrove areas (Evans, 1998; EPA, 2000). Beekeeping inmangrove areas was widely practiced up to the 1960s but has declined in recent years (SSPAProject Team, 1994). However, there were reported to be numerous beehives in the Abary areain 2001 (GFC & ICZMC, 2001).

2.1.9 Crab harvesting

Harvesting the crabs which live in the mangroves is an important economic activity for somerural communities (Evans, 1998).

2.1.10 Charcoal

This is a reported use for mangrove in some areas and R. mangle can be converted into goodquality charcoal (GFC & ICZMC, 2001). However, commercial production of charcoal inGuyana is almost entirely confined to evergreen forest on white sands area (SSPA Project Team,1994).

10

2.1.11 Other uses

Other uses mentioned by (GFC & ICZMC, 2001) were sawn timber, pulpwood, manufacture ofcrab and fish traps (R. mangle only) and pharmaceutical products, but no other information wasavailable on these practices.

2.2 Profile of stakeholder communities and groups

The indirect uses listed in section 2.1 (sea defence, fisheries and tourism) involve a very largeand diverse number of stakeholders which could be said to extend to the entire population ofGuyana, since they all contribute directly to national economic performance. However, theintention of this survey was to identify the smaller stakeholder groups who use mangrove as partof their commercial or subsistence activities and this section will summarise what little is knownof these groups and their communities.

Virtually no specific locations or communities are identified in the existing literature. Interviewswith key source personnel from Sea Defence, EPA, GFC and the Fisheries Department,essentially drawing on the personal observations of these individuals, identified some locationswhere extractive activities were believed to be playing a role in mangrove destruction (DawnMason pers. comm., 2002; George Howard pers. comm., 2002; Ramesh Lilwah pers. comm.,2002). The most commonly described extractive activity was the harvesting of poles to anchorfishing seines, which had been observed in every coastal region apart from 1 (where coastal areawere very difficult to access and there was less commercial fishing) and 3 (where there was verylittle mangrove vegetation remaining) (Table 2.1). Bark harvesting for the tanning industry wasbelieved to occur only in Region 1 and no other mangrove extraction activities were known forthis area (Table 2.1). The clearance of mangroves to make fish farming ponds had beenobserved in Regions 2 and 6; the use of mangrove poles for climbing plants by cash crop farmersin Regions 2 and 6; the use of mangrove as fuel wood in Regions 2 and 3; and as constructionwood and for producing burnt earth in Region 5 (Table 2.1).

11

Table 2.1 Locations where extractive mangrove utilisation activities have been observed

Type of extractive activity

Region Community Bar

kha

rves

ting

Fish

ing

sein

epo

les

Fish

pon

ds

Cas

h C

rop

pole

s

Fuel

woo

d

Con

stru

ctio

nw

ood

Bur

nt E

arth

Region 1 Morrowhanna 4

Essequibo coast 4 4Region 2Pomeroon 4 4

Region 3 Vreed-en-hoop 4

Region 4 Mon Repos 4

Mahaicony Bridge 4 4 4

Lancaster 4Unity 4

Region 5

Better hope 4

43 village 4

52 village 4

56 village 4

Chesney Damn 4

66 village 4

79 village 4

Region 6

Corentyne coast 4

The harvesters of mangrove bark for the tanning industries are predominantly Amerindians whosell the bark to private middle-men (Andel, 1998). Apart from this brief account by Andel, thesocio-economic situation of the stakeholder groups involved can only be inferred from the natureof their activities and the socio-economic context of their location. Artisanal fishermenoperating along the coast are clearly a key stakeholder group. Cash cropping farmers, burntearth producers and poor households that might be reliant on fuel and construction wood and arealso stakeholders.

There was no information available on the possible locations of other extractive activities such ascrab harvesting, charcoal, timber and pulpwood production, or pharmaceutical use. Of non-extractive uses, Abary, in Region 5, had been identified as a key honey production area (GFC &ICZMC, 2001).

In the absence of more detailed information, a brief summary of the socio-economic conditionsfor each of the coastal regions will be given, followed by a description of the likely socio-economic circumstances of the main harvesting stakeholder groups.

12

2.2.1 Region 1

Region 1 is geographically, economically and culturally distinct from the other regions on thecoast. The Region encompasses the whole of the northern portion of Guyana, bounded by theNorth-West coast, the disputed boundary with Venezuela and the northern boundaries of Regions2 and 7. The townships are all inland and the majority of the population lives in communitieslocated along the banks of the many rivers, generally away from the coast (Vereecke, 1994;Forte et al., 1995). Region 1 has just 2.6% of the total population, but the majority are ofAmerindian (mainly Arawak, Carib, Warau) ethnicity, representing about 30% of the totalAmerindian population (Forte et al., 1995; UNDP, 1996; Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, 2000).

Region 1 is an economically depressed area with poor public service provision, especially to themore remote communities (Forte et al., 1995). Almost 80% of the population lives below thepoverty line (UNDP, 1996). The primary economic activities are located inland. Commerciallogging occurs throughout, with the majority of the region falling within the Barama Timberconcession and there being several other smaller timber operators also within the region (BaramaCompany Limited, 1992; Forte et al., 1995). Mining is concentrated around Matthews Ridge,Assakata and Port Kaituma (where there has been a recent increase in activity) (Forte et al.,1995; Allan, 2002). Manicole palm-heart harvesting is the primary employment of Amerindiansliving along the Barima & Waini Rivers and some of their tributaries (Andel et al., 1998; Allan,2002). Commercial farming has been declining but this region is still the fourth largest producerof cash crops other than sugar and rice, producing 100% of the country’s exportable crops ofcoffee, organic cocoa, ginger and tumeric (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b).

2.2.2 Region 2

This Region is the least populous of the coastal areas (outside of Region 1), with just 6% of thepopulation (UNDP, 1996). The majority of the population (85%) live along the coast and one ofGuyana’s 6 municipalities, Anna Regina, is located here (UNDP, 1996). The percentage of thepopulation living below the poverty line is 55%, about 10% higher than the national average(UNDP, 1996). It has the third largest population of Amerindians of all the regions, with 13% ofthe total (Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, 2000). However, the majority of Amerindians liveinland along the Pomeroon River and their primary economic activities are focussed on inlandresources, primarily timber and craft, including production of nibi and kufa furniture (Verheij,1997; Hoffman and Ehringhous, 1999; Allan, 2001).

The primary economic activities for the coastal population are agriculture and, to a lesser extent,fisheries. Two of the country’s major agricultural land development schemes are located in thisregion, at Anna Regina and Charity, the latter being an important market centre, a little inlandfrom the coast (UNDP, 1996; Verheij, 1997). There is no sugar production in Region 2, but it isan important rice producing area, with 22% of total national production in 1998 coming fromhere (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b). Region 2 is the third largest producer of commercialcrops other than rice and sugar and is a particularly important area for fruits and greens (Ministryof Agriculture, 2002b).

13

2.2.3 Region 3

This region is home to 12.7% of the population, mainly concentrated in strips along the Atlanticcoast, the right bank of the Essequibo and the left bank of the Demerara River (UNDP, 1996). Italso includes the large islands in the Essequibo River. There are two main settlements in Region3, Vreed-en-hoop, located directly opposite Georgetown at the mouth of the Demerara, andParika, located at the mouth of the Essequibo. The percentage of the population living below thepoverty line is 46%, almost the same as the national average (UNDP, 1996). This region has thesmallest Amerindian population of all the regions (just 0.6%), in one inland community, SantaMission-Aratack (Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, 2000).

The primary economic activities are agriculture and fisheries, although many residents of thisarea are employed in businesses and Government posts associated with the Capital. It is a largesugar producing area, 18% of the national output, although just over half of this is grown at aninland estate on the Demerara River (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b). Rice is less importantcompared to other coastal regions, Region 3 producing just 7% of the country’s rice in 1998(Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b). It is also the second most important producer of other crops,over 16% by weight, particularly of greens and fruit (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b).

2.2.4 Region 4

The presence of the national capital, Georgetown, dominates the socio-economic landscape ofthis region. Over 41% of Guyana’s population live here, 26% in Georgetown and its immediateenvirons (UNDP, 1996). The percentage of the population living below the poverty line is 32%,10% less than the national average, and in urban Georgetown, just 28.9% live below the povertyline (UNDP, 1996). The rest of the population is distributed along the coast, the west bank of theDemerara River and along the Linden highway. There is one relatively developed and populousAmerindian community, St. Cuthbert’s mission, located inland.

The primary economic activities are business enterprise, Government posts within the capital andagriculture, although fisheries are also important. Just under 18% of Guyana’s sugar productionoccurs within this region, although just 2% of the country’s rice is grown here (Ministry ofAgriculture, 2002b). However, it is the largest producer of other crops, growing a quarter (byweight) of all other farm crops in Guyana (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b).

2.2.5 Region 5

Region 5 is a relatively unpopulated and rural coastal region with 6.9% of the total population(UNDP, 1996). The percentage of the population living below the poverty line is 56%, about10% higher than the national average (UNDP, 1996). Communities are concentrated along thecoast, with just one Amerindian community, St. Frances, located inland (Ministry of AmerindianAffairs, 2000). None of Guyana’s major municipalities or townships is located in this region,with the largest communities being found at the bridges over the major rivers, Mahaicony andAbary.

With no major townships, agriculture and fisheries are the main economic activities of thisregion. It is the primary rice producing area of Guyana, growing 49% of the country’s total crop,

14

but there is no commercial sugar production (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b). Production ofother crops is very low, this region producing the second lowest output (by weight) of non sugarand rice crops (Ministry of Agriculture, 2002b).

2.2.6 Region 6

Region 6 is the second most populous region in Guyana with 19.1% of the population (UNDP,1996). It has three of the county’s municipalities, New Amsterdam, Rose Hall and Corriverton.The majority of residents are of Indo-Guyanese ethnicity, although Afro-Guyanese form asubstantial minority (about 35%), and the area has relatively good socio-economic conditionsand public services (Patterson-Campbell, 2001). The percentage of the population living belowthe poverty line is 37%, about 6% lower than the national average (UNDP, 1996). There is onelarge Amerindian community, Orealla-Siparuta, inland on the Corentyne River (Ministry ofAmerindian Affairs, 2000; Allan, 2001).

Agriculture and fisheries are both important economic activities in this region. Region 6 is theprimary sugar growing area, with 64% of sugar being produced here in 1999 (Ministry ofAgriculture, 2002b). Rice is also important, 20% of production occurring here in 1998 (Ministryof Agriculture, 2002b). Other crops are considerably less important, just over 2% (by weight)being produced in this region. In addition to these large agricultural concerns, there are severalsaw mills, timber concession inland, some employment in the bauxite industry and much trading,other businesses and Government posts associated with the municipalities (Patterson-Campbell,2001).

2.2.7 Coastal harvesting stakeholder groups

There are substantial differences both socio-economically and culturally between the harvestingstakeholders of Region 1 and those from Regions 2-6.

The harvesters of mangrove bark for the tanning industry are reported to be all Amerindians, themajority presumably from communities, near to Mora passage where most of the harvestingtakes place (Andel, 1998). They are almost certainly from impoverished communities, primarilypracticing subsistence agriculture and supplementing this by participating in various paidactivities, of which bark harvesting is one.

Those harvesting mangrove for various reasons in Regions 2-6 are likely to have more incommon culturally and socio-economically with each other than with harvesters in Region 1.The harvesting activities mentioned for these regions were artisanal fisheries, small scale cashcropping, fuel wood, construction wood and burnt earth production. The majority of theseactivities are carried out by members of the rural population and some uses (fuel andconstruction wood) are likely entirely within the poorer sectors. Of the rural coastal population,about 45% are living below the poverty line, just 2% higher than the national average, but still asubstantial proportion (UNDP, 1996). Levels of education are also lower among the rural coastalpopulation, just 15% of household heads having had secondary or higher schooling, compared to50% in Georgetown (UNDP, 1996). In addition, there is an inequality in land distribution inrural coastal areas, just 15% of farmers utilize about 80% of the agricultural land (UNDP, 1996).

15

Those harvesting mangrove resources along the coast are therefore likely to be from relativelypoor households, with few options for income generation.

3. Socio-economic context of mangrove utilisation

Since so little description of mangrove harvesting activities in Guyana exists in the literature, thissection will first provide a profile of various activities, based on observations made during thissurvey.

3.1 Profile of activities entailing harvesting of mangrove vegetation

These are divided into commercial and subsistence activities, since the socio-economicimplications of each are rather different. No observations of activities such as charcoalproduction, sawn timber, pulpwood, manufacture of crab and fish traps and pharmaceuticalproducts were made and none of the participants reported that they knew of such activities beingcarried out currently. There was reported to be honey production by one person near Abary, butit was unfortunately not possible to meet this individual.

3.1.1 Commercial activities

These are activities which supply a market either with mangrove products or with a somethingfor which mangrove is used in the production process and are therefore controlled to some extentby market forces.

3.1.1.1 Tanning industry

There are four SFP holders for mangrove bark harvesting, all of whom are working in Region 1.One SFP holder is resident in Morrowhanna, on the Barima below Mabaruma in Region 1.There are approximately 10 bark harvesters supplying this SFP holder, 6 from the nearbyAmerindian community of Smith’s Creek, and 4 from Coastlander settlements along the Barima.Each harvester supplies 1000-2500 lbs of bark per fortnight. It was estimated that an average of500 lbs of bark was obtained from each tree but this varied greatly according to the size of thetree and the thickness of bark. Trees are cut down and de-barked completely. Harvestersnormally selected larger trees, over 18” dbh and around 15’ in height, estimated to be over 25years old, and with bark at least an inch thick. However, the key parameter in selection of a treewas bark thickness and this was not directly related to tree age or size, large trees sometimeshaving thin bark and visa versa.

All tanners stated that this was currently the only source of tanning bark in Guyana and none ofthe survey participants were aware of any current bark harvesting elsewhere along the coast. Acomparison of the quantities supplied by the harvesters around Morrowhanna and the estimatesof total quantities used by the tanning industry indicated that these harvesters are producingsufficient bark to supply the current needs of the tanning industry. One individual was reportedto have been harvesting bark illegally in the mangroves behind the Vreed-en-hoop squatter’ssettlement in mid-2001. This was reported to the local GFC officer by another settlement

16

resident concerned that destruction of the mangroves would leave home and farm areasvulnerable to flooding. However, it was not known whether any action had been taken.

The SFP holding family purchases the red mangrove bark from the extractors. It wasunfortunately not possible to meet with this family, as they were in Georgetown during theperiod the research team visited the North-West. The bark harvesters reported that thesemiddlemen purchase the bark at prices ranging from G$3.5 to G$1.5 per lb, depending on thethickness of the bark, although in practice, the price paid rarely went above G$2 per lb. All ofthe cutters interviewed insisted that the SFP holder systematically cheated them in payments forbark and two participants had stopped harvesting for this reason. It was reported that the SFPholders had an inaccurate scale, which gave lower weights for the bark brought to them than thescales owned by the harvesters. It was also reported that in transactions, although a certain pricewould be agreed, when harvesters counted their payment later, it was found to be short.

The SFP holders organise transportation by boat to Georgetown, where it is purchased by thetanners at G$9 per lb. All the harvesters agreed that the bark would loose weight on this 24 hourjourney as it dried out in the sun. This was one of the reasons given by the SFP holder for thelow price paid to the harvesters. However, it was felt by those harvesters who had themselves atone time transported bark to sell in Georgetown that the SFP holder exaggerated the extent of thereduction in bark weight in order to keep the price low.

From the tanners estimations, about 12.5 lbs of bark is used to tan each cow hide, with the sameamount tanning two sheep hides. The majority of tanned leather is produced from cow hides,with about 10% being produced from sheep hides. It was estimated by the owner of the largesttannery that a maximum of 200 hides per week were produced in the whole of Guyana. Usingthe estimates above, consumption of red mangrove bark would be about 123,500 lbs (or 56,019kg) per year. This is actually considerably higher than the quantity recorded as extracted for2001 (14,399 kg) and even higher than the average extracted over 1999-2001 (36,713 kg)(calculated from GFC records). According to the records kept by GFC, mangrove barkharvesting has declined at a steady rate of around 53% between 1999 and 2001.

The majority of the tanned leather is sold locally to leather craft producers, although sometanners were exporting to Trinidad and buyers from elsewhere in the Caribbean andneighbouring Suriname come to purchase tanned hides in Guyana. The largest tanner inGeorgetown estimated his production had been at around 150-200 hides per month, remaining ata steady level for over 10 years up until September 11th 2001, after which, a fall in tourism led toa fall in purchases by foreign buyers. Craft producers selling only on the Guyana domesticmarket had noticed no such decline in demand. Another tanner estimated his production hadbeen 100 cow hides and 25 sheep hides per month until the political disturbances of 1997, afterwhich there was such a large decline in the domestic tourist market, that he was forced to closehis tannery and switch entirely to leather craft work.

A powdered extract of mimosa has been tried out as an alternative tanning agent to mangrovebark by several tanners in Georgetown. It is imported from Trinidad but reportedly originates inBrazil. One of the tanners found it preferable because it is easier and quicker to use and there isa reliable supply, whereas supplies of mangrove bark from the North-West can be unreliable.

17

However, craft producers prefer leather tanned with mangrove bark as it gives a better colour andlooks less ‘plastic’.

3.1.1.2 Artisanal fisheries (including fin-fish, shrimp and crab)

The mangrove poles used by fishermen are for securing the seines used for catching shrimp.These seines require two poles to pin either end, each with a bracing pole, although many shrimpfishermen set out a long line of these seines, with each pole pinning the sides of two seines, thetwo outside poles only requiring bracing poles. Each pole must be at least 10’ long and fairlystraight. The shrimping boats included in this survey had an average of 17 seines each, thereforeusing an average of 20 poles. Each pole lasts 2-4 months, if they are not either stolen by otherfishermen or swept away during a storm. The majority of fishermen harvested their own poles asthey needed them, but some fishermen operating around the Canje Bridge (Region 6) purchasedtheir mangrove poles from a supplier at G$100 each (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Seine poles collected by fishermen or suppliers at the Canje Bridge: mangrovepoles in the rear and poles of alternative species in front.

Shrimp fishermen in Region 3 could obtain up to 4 large buckets per day (1 bucket is estimatedto contain 2.5-3 lbs), which was sold in Georgetown at G$200-300 per bucket. In Region 6,shrimps were selling at between G$800 and G$1000 per bucket in Corriverton market. The localprice is said to fluctuate and is inversely related to supply. The best season for shrimp wasAugust and January to February. During the rainy season, catches are very low and fishermencan go over 2 months without a catch, but prices are the highest during this period. The majorityof shrimp caught by artisanal fishermen were sold within the same Region, usually at the nearestmarket, but sometimes even on the road at the point closest to the fishing area.

Fishermen harvesting mangrove poles in all the regions visited reported that they were finding itmore difficult to find poles of sufficient size and straightness to cut, which indicates that currentharvesting practices for seine poles are not sustainable. Most of the fishermen interviewed inRegion 6 were harvesting mangrove poles from areas far inland from the coastal defence strip,

18

the majority from riverian areas south of the farming areas which lay in turn to the south of thecoast road. One small fishing family paid a tractor G$500 to carry a load of around 20 polesfrom the farming area approximately every 4 months.

Fishermen were observed using alternatives to mangrove poles in both Region 3 and Region 6.These were poles of Kauta (Licania alba), Kabakalli (Goupia glabra) and probably Lauracea sp.of around 10-20 cm dbh. and up to 30’ in length. These poles were estimated to have a slightlyshorter duration in the water than mangrove (about 2 months). In Region 3 at least, these polesare harvested illegally. Fishermen take their boats up the Essequibo River to a forested area andharvest 100-200 poles at a time. In Region 6, some fishermen were purchasing these poles froma supplier for G$60-80, but it is not known whether these were harvested legally or not.

Fish ponds are shallow excavated pools, which are allowed to fill either with fresh water fromthe high water table or with brackish water from the mangrove, and in which fish are farmed.The ponds can be seeded with fish, but more often whatever fry come in with water are allowedto grow. In mangrove areas these frequently include shrimp and tilapia. Fish ponds wereobserved in several areas in Regions 5 and 6, but almost all were located well behind the coastalbelt of mangrove vegetation. One set of ponds (total area not more than 100m2) in Region 5 waswithin the mangrove belt and had been opened up in 1998 in an area where the mangrove wasvisibly dying back, apparently due to the blockage of drainage channels and over salinisationreported by Evans (1998).

Crabs are harvested throughout the mangrove areas by individual collectors and form a small butimportant part of Guyana’s fish exports, forming 1.4% (by weight) of all the fish productsexported (calculated from data provided by the Fisheries Department). This activity wasrecorded during this survey in Region 1 and 6. Crabs can be gathered at any time but the bestharvesting season is July – September. In the Mabaruma market (Region 1), crabs fetchedG$250 per ‘quake’ or basket (about 15-20 crabs). In Corriverton market (Region 6), crabs werereportedly sold at G$200 for a similar quantity. As for shrimp, the crab price varied and wasinversely related to availability. Purchasers come from Georgetown to buy crab at Mabaruma.Before the start of the palm-heart industry in the North-West (around 1989), crab harvesting hadbeen an important source of income for some communities (e.g. Imbotero). Crabs were mainlyharvested by women.

3.1.1.3 Burnt-earth production

Black mangrove wood, cut when green, is the preferred wood for firing the burnt earthreportedly burning slowly with a high temperature and thus producing high quality burnt earth.Several locations where burnt earth was being produced were observed along the coast ofRegions 5 and 6 and it was reported in Region 4. The mangrove wood is transported to a clayearth area. Earth is piled into long heaps, around which the wood is packed and then burned overseveral days (Figure 3.1). The producers interviewed all maintained they were harvesting inmangrove areas inland of the sea defence damn (therefore not considered protected) but oneNDC Chair in Region 6 reported that there was harvesting of mangrove seaward of the seadefence damn for burnt earth production.

19

Figure 3.2 Burnt-earth production area with earth heaps on far left and fuel wood piles,containing some mangrove, in front.

One producer estimated that about 60 ‘cords’ (cord � tonne) of wood are used to produce 40 m3

of burnt earth and that he harvested around 300 cords of wood per year. Another estimated thathe harvested around 300-400 cords per year. It was also estimated that about 2000 trees were cutto yield 100 cords of wood. Burning of the earth was carried out throughout the year, exceptduring the long rainy season (April-August). One producer estimated he carried out a ‘burn’about 5 times in the year, producing 40 m3 of burnt earth each time. All burnt earth producersemployed a number of labourers on a temporary basis.

The burnt earth is purchased at G$1800 - G$2000 per m3, mainly by private contractors,constructing roads for the Regional Administration or by the Local Authority itself, but also byindividuals doing domestic surface concreting. A decrease in the value of burnt earth wasreported. Greater competition had pushed the price down from a previous high of G$3000 perm3 and some producers were reported to be selling for G$1500 per m3.

The producers all described a decrease in the availability of the mangrove, stating that they nowhad to travel further to obtain the fuel wood they needed. A commonly used alternative tomangrove wood is ‘slab’ or off cuts from timber mills (Figure 3.2). This is used in areas wheremangrove wood is scarce (Region 4) and in other areas where restrictions on mangroveharvesting have discouraged its use (Region 6). However, it is both more expensive andproduces a smaller quantity of poorer quality burnt earth per unit of wood. One producerinterviewed in Region 5 stated he knew of only one good alternative wood for burning, a ‘redwood’ (thought to be bullet wood, Manilkaria bidentata, the harvesting of which is strictlycontrolled) which could be obtained from St Frances Mission, but this was expensive to purchaseand transport.

20

Figure 3.3 Timber mill off cuts (slab), a commonly used alternative fuel wood for burnt-earth production.

3.1.1.4 Cash cropping

Cash cropping, especially at a garden scale by individual householders, was almost universalthroughout the coastal zone. Virtually all householders interviewed kept a small plot on whichthey grew crops for sale in local markets to supplement their main income. Even individualswho were farming slightly larger areas did so as one of many income generation activities. Inthe small farms and garden plots observed, only those in squatting areas actually within themangrove were using mangrove wood as stakes. The most commonly used material for cropstakes was bamboo. However, in one large squatting area in Vreed-en-hoop, one farmer growingbora (climbing beans) for the Georgetown market estimated he used about 400 mangrove stakesper year, harvested from the surrounding vegetation.

It was observed in Region 6 and reported in Region 3 and 5 that some people living adjacent tothe mangrove belt, or owning, renting or squatting in land which was partly covered by themangrove belt, were clearing the vegetation to plant crops within the mangrove area itself.Several householders interviewed, who had cleared mangrove to plant crops, complained offlooding affecting their crops. There were many misperceptions about the laws protectingmangroves as sea defence. It was commonly believed that any mangrove behind the sea damnwas not protected and some interviewees also believed that if any other sea defence was present,then the mangroves were not a necessary part of the sea defences and could be cut. There wasalso at least one reported case where mangrove had been cleared for agriculture purposefully bythe land owners in protest at their lack of involvement in local decision making in the coastalarea (although this was apparently more to do with access to a beach than sea defence).

21

3.1.1.5 Construction

Mangrove poles are used in the construction of cement buildings as scaffold and to hold in placeform-boards for concrete. This activity was reported by a few participants but not observedduring this survey. Poles of juvenile hardwood species are commonly used as an alternative tomangrove, in a similar way to the fishing seine poles. The supplier of seine poles to fishermeninterviewed at Canje Bridge also supplied the construction industry, selling mangrove poles atG$100 and hardwood species at G$60-80 each.

In Region 1, mangrove was reportedly used to provide a foundation for construction of buildingson swampy ground. A lattice of several layers of mangrove trunks is sunk into the mud untiltotally submerged and then building begins on top of this layer. If the mangrove is submergedcompletely and no air can reach the wood, it reportedly does not decompose and provides a solidfoundation for many years. The primary school and teacher’s house in Ibotero had beenconstructed on such a platform.

3.1.1.6 Timber milling

Saw-mills in Region 6 had been established within clearings in coastal mangrove areas and werereported to be dumping their sawdust into adjacent mangrove vegetation, smothering the aerialroots and thus causing the mangroves to die back. This was not mentioned by any of theprevious surveys, but was given as a cause of mangrove destruction by several participants inRegion 6. However, the local sea defence officer in Region 6 had no knowledge of this issue.Two saw mill operators were interviewed, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, none admitted to such apractice.

3.1.2 Subsistence activities

The extent of these activities is related to the socio-economic circumstances of he stakeholdersconcerned and unsustainable utilisation is often linked to poverty.

3.1.2.1 Clearing of mangrove for settlement

The majority of mangrove clearing for settlement observed during this study was done bysquatters. However, there was one area adjacent to the Chesney Damn in Region 6 where theMinistry of Housing and Water had reportedly cleared land of mangrove vegetation in order tobuild a housing scheme. This was in an area where the mangrove was regenerating in a thickband several hundred meters inland from the sea defence damn. It was believed by local NDCofficers that it was quite legal to cut any mangrove which grew behind the sea defence damn.

There are squatter settlements in several areas of mangrove vegetation. Squatters clearing andbuilding within mangrove vegetation were recorded by this survey in Regions 3 and 4 (wherelarge areas had been and were continuing to be cleared) and in Region 6 (where only occasionalhouseholds were within the mangrove). New squatter households clear a compound area in themangrove usually large enough to build a house and establish a small garden. Mangrove polesare used to fence compounds and stake climbing crop plants, but were never observed used in

22

construction, poorer households apparently relying on reclaimed wood to build their houses(Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.4 Squatter home in mangrove area with mangrove poles used for fencing.

In several areas along the coast, squatters had moved into mangrove areas, established theirhome compounds, the settlement had subsequently been legalised and they had obtained legaltitle to the land they occupied. It was clear from the permanent and expensive nature of theconstruction in the squatters camp at Vreed-en-hoop, that the squatters were expecting to obtainlegal title to the lands they occupied through the same process (Figure 3.5).

23

Figure 3.5 Squatter home in mangrove area

3.1.2.2 Fuel wood for domestic use

The use of mangrove for fuel wood was an activity described by participants as having been verycommon in the past but which was now relatively rare. During the economic restrictions andassociated hardships of the 1970s and 1980s, many coastal communities relied heavily onmangrove for fuel wood and consequently, there was substantial clearing of mangrove duringthis period. Following the economic reforms of the mid 1980’s, kerosene and gas largelyreplaced mangrove wood as domestic fuel except in a few very poor households and squatters’communities immediately adjacent to mangrove areas. Apart from the squatter settlements, theonly observation of mangrove wood being used for firewood made during this survey was in thearea of Region 5 where mangrove is dying back due to blockage of drainage channels and oversalinisation and the dead wood was being harvested for fuel by local households.

3.2 Stakeholder groups in mangrove utilisation

The stakeholder groups involved in mangrove harvesting or clearing were found to be verynumerous and diverse. Due to the time limitation (discussed in section 2.1), this survey was ableto provide only a preliminary outline of these groups, based on meeting with a fewrepresentatives of each.

3.2.1 Tannin bark harvesters

This is perhaps the most socio-economically homogenous group, being almost entirelyAmerindians from the North-West.

The bark harvesters working for the SFP holder located in Morowhanna are drawn from Smith’sCreek, the Amerindian settlement on the opposite bank, and from nearby Coastlander households

24

on the Barima. There had also been harvesters from Imbotero, but these had stopped harvestingin 2001, since they felt they were being cheated by the SFP holder, and had decided toconcentrate on palm-heart harvesting instead. At the time of this survey, there were 6Amerindians from Smith’s Creek and 4 Coastlanders harvesting bark for this SFP holder. Ofthose interviewed, bark harvesting was just one of several income generation activities theyparticipated in, the other including: palm-heart harvesting, wild life trapping, and small-scalefishing for the local market. Of all these activities, wild life trapping was both the mostprofitable and the most dangerous, followed by palm-heart harvesting and then mangrove barkharvesting, with fishing the least profitable of all.

Smith’s Creek is a small, untitled community, mainly Warau, with a population of 214 (42households). The majority of households are reliant on the palm heart industry for employment;apart from this and the mangrove bark harvesting, there is some small scale fishing for the localmarket and limited trading within the community. Socio-economic conditions are poor and somefamilies have been forced to relocate to a camp on the Waini River, where they harvest palm-heart for AMCAR and endure very poor living conditions (see Allan, 2002). Conditions inImbotero were similar to Smith’s Creek and it is likely that the Coastlander householdsparticipating in the harvesting were living a similar lifestyle, under pressure from the poor socio-economic conditions of the North-West.

Harvesters from Smith’s Creek have worked in this industry for decades and the CDC Chairmanhad previously sold mangrove bark directly to the large tanners in Georgetown (Figure 3.6).However, on one occasion, when he was transporting a quantity of bark (45 sacks) toGeorgetown himself, he was intercepted by local police who impounded the bark. He travelledto town and consulted the Commissioner of Forestry who gave him a letter requesting the releaseof the bark. By the time he had returned to collect his bark from the police, it had spoiled. Sincethat time, he has not attempted to transport bark himself and said he believed only ‘big’ peoplewere able to do so.

Figure 3.6 The CDC Chair and family from Smith’s Creek

25

3.2.2 Fishermen

This was probably the most numerous and socio-economically diverse group, involving peoplewho had vary different levels of economic involvement with the fishing industry such as: poorlabourers on fishing boats, small fishing boat owners who do their own fishing, larger fishingboat owners who are only indirectly involved and anyone supplying fishing poles to the industry.No estimates were available of the number of individuals involved in the artisanal fishingindustry and in any case, only those who actually owned fishing boats tended to be identified asfishermen, leaving out the many labourers who work on other people’s boats and including boatowners who never participate in fishing (Dawn Mason pers. comm., 2002).

For many fishing boats, those actually doing the harvesting of the mangrove poles were oftenlabourers on the boats rather than boat owners themselves. These individuals were involved in awide range of employments including labouring in the large rice and sugar industries and smallprivate enterprises, such as rearing livestock. The basic rate of pay for labourers along the coastwas G$1000-G$1200 per day, but at least some fishermen working on the boats were workingjust half day, returning at midday to go to some other employment in the afternoon.

Several small fishing boats, run as family concerns and who would normally harvest mangrovepoles for themselves, were also observed during this survey (Figure 3.7). Fishing was just one ofmany income generation activities which contributed to support of the household. Shrimp arenotoriously unpredictable and shrimp fishermen reported that often, especially after rain, theyfound their seines to be empty, at which times they obtained no return for their time andexpenditure on fuel.

Figure 3.7 A family of shrimp fishermen at No. 66 beach

Only one individual who was supplying poles for the fishing industry was found during thisstudy, almost all fishermen or fishing labourers harvested their own poles.

The fish ponds observed in this survey varied from very small to very large and representeddifferent levels of investment and therefore wealth in the owners. Generally the larger, well

26

managed ponds were away from the mangrove areas, while the only one observed within themangrove was a small, almost passively managed pond. Although observations of this activitywere very limited, there does seem to be a suggestion that ponds within the mangrove areas maytend to be owned by poorer fishermen, given that the illegality of clearing mangrove for such anactivity might discourage any substantial investment.

Crab collection was reportedly carried out all along the coast and in their season, manyhouseholds would collect crab just for subsistence use. However, there is a thriving market forcrab meat both nationally and for export (Dawn Mason pers. comm., 2002), and it is animportant income generation activity for some households along the coast. In the Smith’s Creekand Ibotero communities of Region 1 there were a few households for which crab harvesting wasa minor but important economic activity, not least because it was mainly carried out by women,and it had been more important before the start of the palm-heart industry. One man in Region 6was interviewed for whom crab collection and sale was the primary economic activity (Figure3.8).

Figure 3.8 Crab harvester in Region 6

27

3.2.3 Burnt-earth producers

These are a relatively small and discrete group of stakeholders. In all the producers contacted inthis survey, the individual owning and managing the burnt-earth production business is the oneresponsible for deciding which fuel to use.

The burnt-earth producers were often businessmen for whom this activity was their primary oronly employment, or it was a family enterprise and the family would be involved in severalbusinesses, such as trading and rice farming. Individual burnt-earth producers would employ anumber of labourers on a temporary basis for collecting wood and building the clay mounds.

3.2.4 Cash crop farmers

This is a small portion of the large and diverse group of people who are involved in cash cropfarming. Those farmers likely to be using mangrove poles or clearing mangroves to plant weregeographically rather than socio-economically distinguished from other such farmers: from thelimited information gathered in this survey, they were not necessarily poorer than other farmers,but were always adjacent to mangrove areas.

The majority of people clearing mangrove vegetation to plant crops were doing so on a smallscale, effectively keeping up a garden and selling the produce to supplement an income mainlyobtained through labouring. Some of these small scale cash croppers were doing so on their ownland, in plots that ran down to the sea, others were poor migrants from other regions of Guyanawho were renting the land, and the majority of squatters observed in mangrove areas practicedthis activity. Several of the owners of coastal land in region 5 and 6, where tenants were clearingmangrove for cash crops, lived in Georgetown and rarely visited.

3.2.5 Squatters living in mangrove vegetation

The majority of squatters are very poor and have been driven into coastal squatting areas as partof an economic migration from more impoverished conditions elsewhere in Guyana. However,some of the squatters settlements are well established and some residents appear to haveachieved a higher socio-economic level, increasing the socio-economic diversity of these groups.Squatters settlements also tended to be culturally diverse, with residents from many differentgeographical origins, and therefore not necessarily functioning as a coherent community.

In the squatters areas visited, the residents were found to be drawn from all over Guyana,attracted to the better socio-economic conditions in the area of the squat relative to their previoushome (i.e. squatters near Crabwood Creek had come from Region 1 and squatters nearGeorgetown had come from other coastal areas). There were considerable differences inmangrove use between the richer and poorer sectors within the same squatters settlement. Thepoorer squatter households are dependent on mangrove wood for fuel and other uses while richerhouseholds would prefer to preserve the mangrove in its role as sea defence and protect theirproperty.

28

3.3 Socio-economic factors affecting mangrove harvesting practices

A reoccurring theme throughout the survey was of the poverty of those involved in directharvesting or clearing of mangrove vegetation. In particular, for the commercial activitiesutilising mangroves, it was often the poorest workers within the industry who were responsiblefor the harvesting decisions (e.g. the tanning bark harvesters, fishing labourers, pole suppliers tofishing and construction industries), with the notable exception of the burnt-earth producers.Subsistence use was also linked to the poverty of the stakeholders involved. Even thoseharvesters who appeared relatively well-off (e.g. the burnt-earth producers) were still drawn fromthe rural society of which 45% are known to be living below the poverty line (UNDP, 1996).

Some utilisation of mangrove was related to the availability of alternative resources. The use ofmangrove poles for crop stakes was one example where mangrove did not appear to be beingused preferentially, only where it was more abundant or cheaper than other materials. This wasalso true of its use as firewood and fencing material by squatters. However, mangroves wereutilised preferentially as seine poles and fuel for burnt-earth production.

There was some evidence of community level pressure by those interest groups most affected bythe flooding associated with loss of mangroves, on those groups responsible for the clearance.This was observed within the squatters camp, where one resident had reported another for illegalbark harvesting, presumably sometime after having illegally cleared his own plot within themangrove. It was also described by some NDC and CDC officers along the coast as a cause ofconflict within their own communities.

4. Conclusions & Recommendations

Utilisation of mangrove vegetation in Guyana entails many activities by culturally and socio-economically diverse groups of stakeholders. The problem of coastal zone management inGuyana has many problems in common with other coastal areas around the world, which arecharacterised by conflicts between coastal activities and destructive resource use exacerbated bypoverty (Paw and Chua, 1991; Lowry et al., 1999; Westmacott, 2002). This brief surveyprovides the first outline of the main uses of mangrove in Guyana and socio-economic context ofthese activities, upon which limited recommendations can be made. Many of theserecommendations expand upon those already made in the National Mangrove ManagementAction Plan (GFC & ICZMC, 2001).

4.1 Ecological survey of human impacts

The information gathered in this report needs to be supported by independent observations of theecological impacts of harvesting activities. Several of the harvesters (e.g. seine poles harvestersand burnt-earth fuel producers) reported that the resource was getting harder to obtain and theywere travelling longer distances. However, despite such reports from Region 6 harvesters, thelocal sea defence officer stated that mangrove was in fact increasing in that area. There is alsocurrently no way of estimating the area of mangrove forest which is affected by activities such assquatting and clearance for fish ponds. Extraction of mangrove bark is unmonitored and theextraction estimates provided by harvesters and tanners and declared by the SFP holder do not

29

agree. It is therefore recommended that an independent study of the ecological impacts of theactivities described in this report is carried out.

4.2 Detailed socio-economic study of stakeholder groups

A more detailed study of the stakeholder groups is recommended, perhaps as part of acommunity outreach programme (see 4.3). This is particularly important for the large anddiverse groups such as workers in the fishing industry and small-scale cash crop farmers, whereit would be desirable to focus efforts on the important decision makers with respect to mangroveharvesting.

4.3 Community outreach & sensitisation

There is great potential for community sensitisation on the links between mangrove clearance bysome residents and the impacts of associated flooding on others. With the promotion ofunderstanding of the role mangroves play in sea defences over recent years, mainly by the EPA(EPA, 2000), there is a growing awareness of its importance in protecting coastal homes andindustries. This has led to some community level social pressure to preserve mangroves. It isrecommended that community outreach programmes supported and promoted these localinitiatives.

There is great potential for conflicts between the interest groups at the community level, forexample the two main rural industries on the coast are the fishing industry (responsible forclearing and harvesting mangrove) and the agricultural industry (most vulnerable to flood relatedlosses). There is also potential for conflict between poorer sectors (more likely to be dependenton mangrove resources) and the wealthier sectors (more likely to be the large land owner farmersand property owning businessmen). Conflicts between such stakeholder groups have beenshown to play a key role in the failure of integrated coastal management programmes(Westmacott, 2002). It is therefore recommended that community outreach programmes includea conflict resolution component as early as possible.

There is a need for clarity on which mangroves are protected as part of the sea defence. The SeaDefence Act (1973; Cap. 64:02) declares that sea defence includes any “natural feature whichserves as a protection of the sea coast again the erosive action of the river current” and thiscertainly includes mangroves (Evans, 1998). However, how much of the mangrove belt iseffectively, or deemed in law, to be part of the sea defence? Does this declaration cover allmangrove vegetation, even in the waterways of the North West where mangroves reach manykilometres inland and in areas along the coast where mangroves are regenerating in areas severalkilometres inland of the sea defence damn and even of the coast road? This survey found awidespread perception that the coastal defence legislation pertaining to mangrove protectionprotects only the mangroves found seaward of the sea defence damn. However, such a thin stripof mangrove as this often is may be insufficient to be effective as sea defence (Evans, 1998). Atthe same time, mangrove was also observed to be regenerating on large areas of coastlandcurrently being used for housing and farming and blanket ban on cutting of mangrove wouldundoubtedly lead to many clashes of interest. It is recommended that this issue be clearlyresolved before the start of any community outreach programme.

30

4.4 Improve communications and co-operation between Government Ministries

The responsible Government bodies have already taken an integrated approach to coastal zonemanagement (GFC & ICZMC, 2001). However, there is clearly a need to improve this orperhaps improve implementation on the ground. This survey found two situations whereGovernment Agencies were directly or indirectly involved in activities which entailed clearing orharvesting of mangroves. The Ministry of Housing and Water was reportedly involved in theclearing of some mangrove vegetation to build a housing scheme (although it remains unclearwhether these were protected or not, see 4.3). The Ministry of Local Government or theRegional Administrations were reportedly the main purchasers for the burnt-earth producedusing mangrove wood as fuel. There also seems to be a general perception that legal possessionof land can be gained through occupation and use of that land, and this strategy has beensuccessful in the past. It is recommended that clarification is obtained on the Ministry’s policieson these issues and whether these are being followed at a ground level.

The involvement of these Ministries in implementation of any harvesting standards could play avery important role in their effectiveness. For example, the burnt-earth production industry wasreportedly growing and it is therefore a key area where harvesting standards need to be imposed.Since the Ministry of Local Government is indirectly the main purchaser, if they were to insiston proof of adherence to harvesting standards from their suppliers of burnt-earth, this wouldprovide a large incentive for the majority of producers to adhere to these standards.

4.5 Harvesting standards and zonation of use areas

In areas of mangrove vegetation which have been identified for multiple-use, there is a need todetermine harvesting standards for each utilisation practice (GFC & ICZMC, 2001). Indetermination of such standards, it is recommended that the harvesters be involved in theirnegotiation and agreement.

It is suggested that a more flexible zonation scheme for mangrove use than the one proposed inthe National Mangrove Management Action Plan be considered. The current scheme gives totalprotection to all mangroves in the North West, which would effectively prohibit mangrove barkextraction in this area. This is an important economic activity for many Amerindian householdsin a Region where there are few such opportunities and poverty is widespread. The proposedzonation would allow mangrove bark harvesting in costal areas of Regions 4 and 5, where thereare a greater number of employment options and where very few Amerindians are resident.Banning mangrove bark harvesting in the North West would effectively remove an economicactivity from the poorest cultural group in Guyana (87.5% of Amerindians live below thepoverty line [UNDP, 1996]), or more likely, harvesters would be forced by economicconsiderations to continue illegally. Given that the red mangrove grows more commonly insheltered rivers and canal banks away from the coast (Evans, 1998) and that there was no reportof mangrove bark harvesting in the key areas around Shell Beach, it seems possible that a smallportion of the mangrove forest in Region 1 could be assigned a multiple use status for controlledharvesting of mangrove bark.

Andel (1998) suggests that mangrove bark is an NTFP which has great potential for sustainableand profitable exploitation. Extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) can provide

31

important income for the inhabitants of tropical developing countries (MunizMiret et al., 1996).In the context of the North-West, where there are so few economic activities, bark harvesting isvery important although it currently employs only a few people. It is likely that the tanningindustry will increase again, both within the Caribbean, as time since September 11th elapses, andnationally, as eco-tourism is promoted. However, there is a need for harvesting guidelines basedon sound ecological information and for effective monitoring and enforcement to prevent thekind of poverty-driven over-harvesting which occurs with palm-heart harvesting in Region 1(Allan, 2002).

It is further suggested that the zonation be based on bands at different distances from the coastrather than sections of the coast and that it be more tailored to local needs. For example, inRegion 6, which has been designated a rehabilitation zone (GFC & ICZMC, 2001), widespreadregeneration of mangrove was both observed and reported. In this area, some harvesting for bothseine poles and burnt-earth fuel wood took place well inland from the coast, sometimes evenbehind the farmland south of the coast road. An accurate determination of the role each area ofmangrove is playing in sea defence and justification for its protection based on this wouldcertainly increase local support of protection and decrease conflicts over restrictions onharvesting.

4.6 Promotion and regulation of alternatives

In areas where mangrove forests are to be completely protected or rehabilitated, alternativeresources need to be promoted. This is a key role for GFC, since these alternatives will be forestproducts. There are already two industries using minor products of the timber industry: burnt-earth producers using saw-mill off-cuts and fishermen using timber poles. Currently, it appearsthat many of the juvenile hardwood species used as alternative poles for seines are harvestedillegally. If mangrove harvesting is further restricted, there may be an increase in the illegalharvesting of these alternative poles, which could in turn lead to unsustainable use. It isrecommended that GFC encourage the development of legal pole supply, perhaps by existingtimber harvest permit holders and by enforcing the law such that currently illegal pole suppliersmust apply for SFPs. It is also recommended that GFC explore the possibility of communityforest projects as alternative sources of alternative poles, stakes and fuel wood (see 4.7).

4.7 Community mangrove management projects

There is great potential for community forestry projects based around the protection andsustainable harvesting of mangrove forests. In Indonesia there have been successful mangroveagroforestry projects where communities re-established mangrove vegetation to act as seadefence of their land and, through controlled harvesting, produced sizable incomes through fuelwood sales (Weinstock, 1994). It is recommended that GFC support development of communityresource management and or plantation systems as part of their social forestry programme.

32

Bibliography

Allan, C. L. (2001) Forestry related social issues in Guyanese hinterland communities: aliterature review. Focussing on 17 Amerindian and 4 hinterland communities innorthern and central Guyana. With an annotated bibliography. DFID Social ForestryProgramme, Guyana Forestry Commission, Georgetown.

Allan, C. L. (2002) The socio-economic context of the manicole (Euterpe oleracea) palm-heartharvesting industry. Guyana Forestry Commission, Georgetown.

Andel, T. v. (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.

Andel, T. v., Huyskens, P. and Broker, K. (1998) Palmheart harvesting in Guyana's North-westdistrict. Exploitation and regeneration of Euterpe Oleraceae swamps. Tropbenbos-Guyana, Georgetown.

Barama Company Limited (1992) Barama Company Limited: Forest Management Plan 1992-1996. Barama Company Limited, Georgetown.

Dawn Mason pers. comm. (2002) Personal Communication. Unpublised Field NotesDierberg, F. E. and Kiattisimkul, W. (1996) Issues, impacts and implications of shrimp

aquaculture in Thailand. Environmental Management 20(5): 649-666.EPA (2000) Integrated Costal Zone Management Action Plan. Environmental Protection

Agency, Government of Guyana, Georgetown.Evans, I. J. (1998) The restoration of mangrove vegetation along the coastal belt of Guyana

M.Sc. Thesis. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.Forte, J., Pierre, L., Sohai, D., Welch, V., Johnson, D., Boisvert, R., Henfrey, C. and Benjamin,

A. (1995) Situation analysis: Indigenous use of the forest with emphasis on Region 1. Areport for the British Development Division in the Caribbean Overseas DevelopmentAdministration. Amerindian Research Unit, University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana.

Furley, P. A. and Ratter, J. A. (1992) Mangrove distribution, vulnerability and management inCentral America. ODA-ODI Forestry Research Programme, Edinburgh.

George Howard pers. comm. (2002) Personal Communication. Unpublised Field NotesGFC & ICZMC, E. (2001) National Mangrove Management Action Plan. Guyana Forestry

Commission, Georgetown.Hoffman, B. and Ehringhous, C. (1999) Furniture that grows on trees: the biology and harvest

of Nibbi and Kufa in Guyana. Conservation International, Georgetown.Hussain, M. Z. (1990) Restoration and expansion of the mangrove belt in Guyana. Technical

Paper No. 1. TCP/GUY/8953, FAO, Rome.Lowry, K., Pallewatte, N. and Dainis, A. P. (1999) Policy-relevant assessment of community-

level coastal management projects in Sri Lanka. Ocean & Coastal Management 42(8):717-745.

Ministry of Agriculture (2002a) Infrastructure Support. Ministry of Agriculture.http://www.sdnp.org.gy/minagri/moa_mfcl/moa/index.htm#Sugar

Ministry of Agriculture (2002b) Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture.http://www.sdnp.org.gy/minagri/moa_mfcl/moa/index.htm#Sugar

Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (2000) Names of villages, populations, captains, languages,tribes of the ten (10) administrative regions. Unpub. report by Ministry for AmerindianAffairs, Georgetown.

33

Patterson-Campbell, S. (2001) Regional baseline study on: The situation of children and womenin Region 6 and 10. Government of Guyana & UNICEF, Georgetown.

Paw, J. N. and Chua, T. E. (1991) Managing coastal resources in Cilacap, Indonesia, andLingayen Gulf, Philippines - an Asean initiative. Marine pollution Bulletin 23: 779-783.

Ramesh Lilwah pers. comm. (2002) Personal Communication. Unpublished field notesSSPA Project Team (1994) Guyana Shorezone Management Program design & feasibility study.

Guyana Forestry Commission, Georgetown.UNDP (1996) Guyana Human Development Report 1996 UNDP. UNDP, Georgetown.Vereecke, J. (1994) National report on indigenous peoples and development. UNDP - Guyana,

Georgetown.Verheij, W. B. (1997) Ethnicity and economic integration of Amerindians on a market place in

Guyana: An analysis of present ethnicity in exchange relationships between GuyaneseAmerindians and traders. Thesis. University of Utrecht, Utrecht.

Weinstock, J. A. (1994) Rhizophora mangrove agroforestry. Economic Botany 48(2): 210-213.Westmacott, S. (2002) Where should the focus be in tropical integrated coastal management?

Coastal Management 30(1): 67-84.