Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2022/Creating space for Guyana's Amerindian Communities through Local Knowledge

From UBC Wiki

Summary

The Co-operative Republic of Guyana has a history of colonial rule that has historically and continues to impact the country’s people including Guyana’s Amerindian communities. This Wiki page explores the history of colonisation in Guyana and existing land tenure agreements, highlighting how these impact local knowledge which is embedded into the ways of life of Guyana’s Amerindian communities. Recognition, protection and integration of Amerindian local knowledge is essential for the protection of Amerindian communities and for ensuring the recognition of Amerindian customary rights. This article highlights some of the challenges and solutions to the protection and integration of local knowledge in Guyana.

Key words

Amerindian, Customary land, Customary right, Forest, Guyana, Indigenous, Local knowledge

Guyana land use map.

The Co-operative Republic of Guyana  

The Co-operative Republic of Guyana (hereafter referred to as Guyana) comprises approximately 21.5 million hectares of land situated to the north-east of South America, bordered by Brazil, Suriname, Venezuela and the Atlantic Ocean[1]. An estimated 87% of Guyana’s territory (approximately 18.4 million hectares of land) is forested comprising a diverse set of habitats including rainforest, marsh, swap, mangrove and mountain forests[2][3]. Much of the remaining territory comprises coastal land along the north-east of the country and this is where 90% of the country's 700,300 citizens reside[4].

Guyana is considered to be part of the Caribbean (West Indies) as well as the Commonwealth as a former British colony[5]. Guyana’s modern population is heavily influenced by the movement and settlement of people (primarily slaves) during colonial times, with much of the population dominated by those of Indian (40%), African (29%) or mixed descent (20%), known locally as Indo-Guyanese[5]. The remaining population comprises European, Chinese or Indigenous peoples known locally and legally as Amerindians[5][6]. English is the official language of Guyana however the majority of the population speak Guyanese Creole which is English with African, Amerindian, Dutch and Indian influences[7]. Many of Guyana’s Amerindian communities also have their own locally spoken language[6].

Guyana is a third world country which has historically had the lowest GDP per capita among all the Latin American and Caribbean countries[4]. The economy is still heavily reliant on the extraction of natural resources with most of Guyana’s exports limited to timber, sugar, rice, gold, shrimp and alumina[4][5]. The discovery of offshore oil in 2015 has been an important driving force of the countries recently increasing GDP however, there is still much to be done for this increase in wealth to be reflected back to the people of Guyana with infrastructure, education and health services still limited[4].

Colonial Rule

Guyana has a complex history of colonial rule which is reflected in the land, people and governance seen today. The Dutch were the first Europeans to land on the shores of Guyana in 1580, their initial focus appeared to be the establishment of trading agreements with historical records showing the signing of treaties between Dutch and pre-existing Amerindian communities [5][6][8]. The later arrival of rival European forces changed the narrative with the Dutch then moving to secure their own land claim to Guyana[8]. This was initially fuelled by disputes between the Dutch and Spanish which was settled in 1648, at this point the Dutch officially claimed sovereignty over Guyana through the Treaty of Munster[9]. Between 1792 – 1815 the British and French had entered the picture starting their own colonial settlements along the coast[5]. Between the late 1790’s and early 1830’s European powers fought over Guyana with the British eventually establishing control in 1831, here the British were able to lay claim to sovereignty over Guyana as a result of conquest [5][6][8]. The first years of British rule in Guyana were unsettled and sought with economic uncertainty and political unrest[5]. In 1948 adult suffrage was established providing the people of Guyana with the power to vote however elections caused further divides among the country and led to Britain suspending the Constitution[5]. The Constitution was eventually restored in 1957 and not long after in 1966 Guyana established independence from British independence from British rule[5][10].

Patamona Amerindians along the Kaieteur plateau.

Guyana’s Amerindian Communities

Prior to colonial take over Guyana was inhabited by the Amerindian’s, with historic records evidencing the presence of human populations dating back an estimate 9000 years[11]. Guyana’s Amerindian communities can be defined geographically into two groups, those who reside along the coast and those who reside outside the coastal plain, in land known as the hinterlands. Coastal communities include the Kalihna, Lokono and Warau while hinterland communities include the Akawaio, Arekuna, Patamona, Waiwai, Makushi and Wapishana[6]. In 2012 there were an estimate 78,500 Amerindians in Guyana representing 10% of the overall population; 90% of these communities live in the hinterlands and are heavily reliant on the forest for subsistence and livelihoods[6][12].

In comparison to coastal communities Guyana's hinterland Amerindians where in some respects isolated from some of the initial impacts of colonial rule which largely resulted in activity along the coast. However, with claims of British sovereignty came the development of industrial forestry, mining and ranching that expanded activities into the hinterlands[5][8]. Here the British enforced restrictions on who could access and use Guyana's natural resources with Amerindian ancestral rights to lands ignored[8]. Post-independence there has been work to re-establish Amerindian land claim through the creation of Amerindian Land (AL) however, this process has been subject to scrutiny and in some cases associated with further exploitation of Amerindian communities [6][8].


Land Tenure and Governance

An estimate 85% of land in Guyana is managed under the government of Guyana (hereafter referred to as the ‘State’), remaining land is held under private freehold tenures[13]. Land managed under the State is divided into State Land (formally known as Crown Land) and Government Land[13].

  • State Land is land that was transferred to State, under the State Lands Act when Guyana became independent from the Crown in 1966[13]. This land is managed under the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC) which determines the designation of State Land for agriculture, forestry and mining through leases, licences or permit agreements[13].
  • Government Land is land that has been specifically purchased by the State for development, revenue from development projects undertaken on Government Land is circled back into the economy and used to pay for public goods and services[13].  
View of rainforest within Iwokrama Protected Area.

Guyana’s Forests

State managed forests and protected areas

Most of Guyana is forested and an estimate 86% of  forests are classified as State Land and either designed as so or as State Forest[14]. The latter includes land as declared by the Forest Act and currently comprises around 67% of State owned forest in Guyana[13][14]. State Land is still managed by the GLSC however, State Forests are managed by a further subdivision of the State, titled the Guyana Forest Commission (GFC). The aim of the GFC is to ensure management of Guyana's State Forests by advising the Minister on forest regulation, policy and law, the GFC is also responsible for forest conservation, research, monitoring and resource extraction or export and, must ensure management is undertaken in line with objectives of the National Forest Plan[2][14]. The GFC is divided further into three technical divisions, these encompass the planning and development division, the forest monitoring division and the forest resource management division[15]. The remainder of Guyana’s forested land is designed as a Protected Area (PA) or AL[14]. PAs are still largely owned and managed by the State however,  specific subdivisions have been developed to support PA management including the Protected Areas Commission of Guyana and the Guyana Tourism Authority. The State also encourages the formation of partnerships for the management of PA’s, current partnerships include work with groups such as the Protected Area Trust[16].

Amerindian land

In Guyana communities may claim AL if they (1) have had a population of at least 150 people over the last five years and (2) can provide evidence for use and occupation of land dating back more than 25 years[17]. This means both communities that have Amerindian customary land rights (based on pre-colonial heritage) as well as those who are non-indigenous but have a long history of relation to the land (post-colonisation) may apply for AL[18]. Under AL communities fully own their land title and are responsible for management of their lands.

The concept of AL first arose in Guyana a year after independence when the Amerindian Land Commission was created [18][19]. The Commission resulted in an amendment to the Amerindian Act 1976 (now superseded by the Amerindian Act 2006) that grants Amerindians the ability to apply and be granted land from the State[19]. By 1991, more than 50 communities had received legal ownership of land under these amendments however, there was heavy critique of the initial process for the assignment of land as limited to no consultation with undertaken with Amerindian communities[19]. This resulted in land boundary conflicts[19]. As a result the State formulated a consultation policy in 1995 following discussions with elected Amerindian leaders known as the National Toshaos Council, this consultation policy was further enhanced during creation of the Amerindian Act 2006 [19]. In 2007, 71 of the 91 Guyanese Amerindian communities had or where in the process of securing land title, as of 2018 most Guyanese Amerindian communities are considered to have legal title to some land within Guyana, accounting for around 13% of Guyana’s territory[19][6].

Local Knowledge

What is local knowledge?

Local, traditional or Indigenous knowledge is knowledge that has developed and continues to develop overtime within a community that has a long history of interaction with a land base; this knowledge is associated with skills, philosophies and ways of life of said community[20][21]. Local knowledge differs from western science which may be described as positivist, focused on the establishment of objectives and data that proves or disproves a hypothesis[22]. Instead, local knowledge is generally based on lessons learned from experience and ideologies linked to a community’s belief system, here knowledge is typically passed down from one generation to the next through oral stories or similar[22]. Where western science is subject to peer-review for validation, local knowledge is simply developed from experience throughout time allowing it to be well tested [20].

Why is local knowledge important?

Local knowledge is important to many rural and Indigenous communities as it provides a form of human capital, forming part of everyday learning and decision making [20][23]. Local knowledge is adapted to a community’s local environment, needs and culture, it is embedded into their relations, practices and institutions, thereby helping to reinforce customary rights within a community[20]. For example Mistry et al (2016) investigated fire management across Indigenous communities in Guyana, Venezuela and Brazil by reviewing existing literature[24]. Through their review researchers were able to highlight the importance of fire within the local knowledge systems of several communities. Specifically researchers found that fire management was embedded into communities’ lives and used for agriculture, hunting, medical care and other cultural practices[24]. The erosion of local knowledge surrounding fire management was seen as a threat to these communities’ way of life and was highlighted by researchers as an important consideration for government policy[24].

Customary rights or customary law are typically held by Indigenous or Tribal peoples with a long-standing community and relationship with the land; these rights are based on habitual or customary actions repeated over time that are representative of the communities’ practices, values, cultural and traditions[25][26].

Recognition of local knowledge and customary rights

World leaders at the Rio Earth Summit 1992.

There is increasing recognition at an international level of the importance of local knowledge and in turn the role that Indigenous Peoples have to play in global aims to ensure social and environmental justice. The first international policy to include mention of local or Indigenous knowledge was Agenda 21 of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit[23]. This was followed by several other international agreements, two of the most notable being Article 8 and Aichi Target 18 of the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations (UN) Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)[23]. These two international agreements acknowledged that practices and knowledge of Indigenous peoples needs to be respected and conserved, with Indigenous Peoples given the right to control, protect and develop their knowledge systems[23].

The role that Amerindian communities and local knowledge have to play in sustainable management in Guyana has been highlighted by Bynoe (2019)[27]. In their 2019 study Bynoe investigated the role of local knowledge in sustainable management through interviews with teachers and heads of households in Amerindian communities in the Rupununi, Guyana. Bynoe concluded that local knowledge was important for the preservation of Amerindian practices and the promotion of sustainable living, with sustainable practices embedded into existing local knowledge systems used by Amerindian communities[27]. This is likely linked to the fact that many Amerindian communities have a direct connection and reliance on the natural world[27]. In another recent study based in Guyana Henfrey (2020) highlighted how local knowledge can help improve our understanding of ecological systems[28]. Specifically Henfrey looked to investigate the ecology of primates typically hunted by Amerindian communities in Guyana. Henfrey compared knowledge from hunters (representing local knowledge) with information published in scientific articles (representing western science) and found overlap between the two datatypes. Further to this where gaps were present in data presented within scientific articles Henfrey argued that local knowledge could help bridge the knowledge gap[28].

Within international law customary rights are considered an inherent right of a community; as such these rights should be recognised and agreed to by the state[11]. In the case of Guyana there is no specific legal document acknowledging the customary rights of Amerindian communities, with power over Guyanese land mostly still held by the State as a result of sovereignty claims[27][29]. However, the Guyanese Constitution does state recognition of Guyana’s Indigenous peoples and their right to land, security and the promulgation of their community policies, language and ways of life[30]. The Amerindian Act of 2006 shows further recognition of Guyanese Amerindian communities, recognising Amerindian authority to govern land held under Amerindian title[29]. As local knowledge is inherently representative of Guyana’s Amerindian communities and their customary rights, there is a need for the State to recognise Amerindian local knowledge if truth is to be held to the Constitutional declaration and Amerindian Act. Further to this the State has a duty to recognise and ensure the protection of local knowledge and therefore Amerindian customary rights as a member of the UN and signatory of the CBD and Paris Agreement, 2015. This recognition should go beyond simply noting Amerindian local knowledge, it calls for the State to actively seek to integrate local knowledge with national policy to encourage sustainable resource management and give a voice and power to Amerindian communities[31].

Challenges to the Conservation of Local Knowledge in Guyana

Until 1966 the Crown and later the State claimed sovereignty over Guyanese territory. Sovereignty was won through conquest from the Dutch after settlements with the Spanish however, we know from historical records that Amerindian communities resided in Guyana many years before the arrival of the European forces. As such, it can be argued that Guyana was not truly discovered by Europeans and could therefore not be claimed under European sovereignty. Further to this, due to Amerindian communities long standing history and relations with the land, Amerindian communities in Guyana have customary rights to Guyanese land.

The ability for Amerindians to claim back land through the Amerindian Act 2006 goes someway to recognizing Amerindian customary rights and the local knowledge systems that are inherently tied to these rights however, there are still many obstacles that modern Amerindians face in attempting to establish land claim and implement local knowledge systems that support their way of life.

The issue with untitled Amerindian land

  • Due to claims of sovereignty the State has and continues to permit resource extraction (primarily mining) in unallocated State Forest which includes areas considered to be untitled customary Amerindian land[11][32]. Where this is the case, Amerindian communities are unable to return to their ancestral land and uphold local knowledge systems.
  • The Forest Act 2009 restricts access and use of State Forest by Amerindian communities, this again impacts the ability for Amerindians to access their ancestral lands and uphold local knowledge systems[8].
  • AL is owned and managed by Amerindian communities, however the State may access such land for official government business and is able to allocate mining in Amerindian community titled villages if this activity is undertaken in the interest of the public[8].  This continues to re-enforce State power and colonial claims to Amerindian land restricting Amerindian use of their land and the ability to uphold local knowledge systems.

The erosion of Amerindian local knowledge

  • Colonial rule has historically and still to this day defines law, policy and practices in Guyana which Bulkan (2016) argues has led to the erosion of Amerindian customary rights which is inherently tied to local knowledge systems[8]. This erosion is associated with the direct loss of customary land as well as limitations to Amerindian communities including but not limited to the lack of benefits fed back into communities from the extraction of natural resources from titled or untitled customary Amerindian land[8].
  • Other challenges to conservation of Amerindian local knowledge include a lack of recognition or consideration in research or government policy and, reduced opportunities for knowledge to be passed down to younger generations[27][33].
  • Where Amerindian communities are vulnerable to a breakdown in social structure (likely to be associated with other challenges including economic instability and environmental pressures from climate change) local knowledge systems may be more easily subject to erosion[33][32].

Creating Space for Amerindian local knowledge

Integrating local knowledge and western science - the spider monkey and nematode

Black Spider Monkey (Ateles paniscus)

Western science is seen as a means to create evidence-based, reliable and accurate data that is often used to inform local, national and international policy. In comparison, due to the fundamental differences between western science and local knowledge the latter has not typically been used to direct decision making. This denotes the notion that local knowledge is somehow lesser than western science and continues to leave Indigenous Peoples in a world where their values, heritage and voice is disregarded. Over the last three decades there has been a movement to correct this, ensuring local knowledge has a seat in the world of science and subsequently at the decision-making table. Integration of western science and local knowledge in Guyana can be seen in work complete by Shaffer et al (2022) and Milstein et al (2022)[34][35]. Here researchers investigated the potential for zoonotic disease risk occurring from interactions with bushmeat. Researchers interviewed Amerindian hunters to gain an understanding of local knowledge surrounding a parasitic nematode known to infect spider monkeys, a common species hunted for bushmeat[34][35]. Through the interviews researchers gathered an understanding of local knowledge systems, pairing this qualitative data with histopathology and molecular testing of the nematode[34][35]. Overall local knowledge shared by the hunters allowed researchers to gain perspective of how the nematode and monkey were viewed by local communities, allowing them to gain in-depth understanding of the nematode spider monkey relationship and, therefore improve characterization of the nematode when paired with other analysis techniques[34][35].  Further to this, there was the potential for other zoonotic risks to be explored by reviewing which parasites hunters did consider to be dangerous[34][35]. Here researchers learnt more by integrating the two knowledge systems, showing respect to Amerindian local knowledge by including reflection of Amerindian values within their research article. Here the integration of the two knowledge systems represents one viable way for local knowledge to have a voice not only in the scientific world but also the policy and decision making.

Providing local knowledge with a voice in decision making - the importance of multi-stakeholder participatory workshops

Integrating western science and local knowledge can help promote recognition and validation of Indigenous Peoples, their local knowledge systems and subsequently their customary rights. However, there is also a place for direct liaison and discussion between Indigenous Peoples and those with decision-making power. The key component here is setting up the right channel for such discussions, allowing Indigenous Peoples to truly be seen and heard. Bilbao et al (2019) looked to investigate Indigenous fire management practices in South America and create a platform for discussion between Indigenous communities and those in power[36]. Researchers completed participatory workshops with representatives of the government, research institutions and Indigenous communities in Guyana, Venezuela and Brazil. Workshops involved exploring connections, interest, desire for change, action and feasibility, with an aim to produce a collaborative solution to fire management in the various regions investigated[36]. Through these collaborative workshops Guyanese Amerindians were able to voice local knowledge and the cultural and environmental importance of fire practices to their communities. The workshop therefore provided a platform for the sharing of local knowledge and creating understanding from external groups of why local knowledge and specifically fire was important for the Amerindian communities[36]. From these workshops co-management strategies could then be developed taking account of Amerindian community needs and goals of the government with support from research institutes (representing western science)[36].

Another similar facilitation exercise was undertaken by The Darwin Initiative (DI) in 2017[33]. The DI is a UK NGO that aims to protect the natural environment through local projects. In 2017 the DI set up the “Integrating Traditional Knowledge into National Policy and Practice in Guyana” project to try to address the insufficient progress that had been made towards the CBD Aichi goal 18[33]. The project involved work with eight Amerindian communities and decision-making bodies involved in management of two of Guyana’s protected areas, Iwokrama and the Kanuku Mountains. Specifically the DI worked to facilitate the dissemination of local knowledge and community concerns about PA management to decisions-makers so collaborative solutions could be developed. DI was able to achieve such collaboration through the use of participatory video[33]. Videos were created for each community allowing them to voice their concerns and these were in-turn played to decisions makers who reviewed the videos and in-turn provided their own video response. The project was regarded as an innovative way to establish collaborative decision making between Amerindian communities and decision-making bodies. The use of participatory videos was regarded as particularly important for the success of the project creating a voice for Amerindian communities that lived in rural geographical isolated locations[33]. Further to this the use of videos may have reduced potential conflict that may have arose from in-person meetings, resulting in more fruitful discussions as both decision-makers and communities were able to reflect and then comprise a response to each video[33].

Education and women

Amerindian Makushi schoolchildren at Suraman village in North Rupununi, Guyana.

The passing down of local knowledge from elders to the next generation is important for the conservation of local knowledge systems however, increasing influences from western society, disinterest from young community members and/or the movement of people away from Indigenous settlements due to limited opportunities is impacting the ability for local knowledge to be passed down[24][27]. Education programmes can support the conservation of local knowledge systems through the protection of Indigenous language and direct teaching of Indigenous practices. The form of education is important here and should be inclusive of a diverse set of teaching types including use of oral stories which are a primary means to communicate local knowledge within many Indigenous communities. In a study complete by Mulder et al (2009) focusing on Amerindian communities of the Rupununi researchers also highlighted the importance of wildlife clubs and NGOs for conservation education[37]. NGOs run by or supporting Amerindian communities could also be used in the same way as conservation NGOs to help bring increased awareness to Amerindians about their cultural heritage and its importance. It is also important to note here that education should not solely be aimed at young Amerindians, older community members who have become disconnected to their community local knowledge systems through years of erosion should also be able to benefit from education.

In addition to education, there is research to suggest that women play a particularly significant role in the dissemination of local knowledge. Garibay-Orijel et al (2012) reflects on the role of women as gathers of mushrooms in rural communities across the world including Guyana[38]. Researchers note how women often congregate together to harvest mushrooms in comparison to men who tend to harvest by themselves[38]. Women in Guyana are considered to be champions of mushroom picking and through organised harvesting groups can share local knowledge[38]. The sharing of local knowledge though women is also reflected upon Simpson's 'Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation' and Kimmerer's 'Braiding sweetgrass'[39][40]. As such the conservation of local knowledge also mean the protection of women and their rights.

Affected and interested stakeholders

There are a number of stakeholders that need to be considered when addressing the conservation and integration of Amerindian local knowledge systems into Guyanese governance; this is tied to discussions surrounding the conservation of Amerindian customary rights and settlement of Amerindian land claims. Stakeholders can be classified as affected or interested, as well as most and least influential (or powerful). Some of the key stakeholder groups are considered below.

Affected stakeholders are those who are likely to be subject to the effects of a given activity, where the discussion is focused on natural resource management these groups are generally highly connected to the natural world and may have customary rights to said resources or land. Interested stakeholders are those who are associated with a given activity but do not have a long-term dependency on the outcome  and will ultimately not be impacted directly by it. Stakeholder influence is related to power dynamics and those who have the most or least power to initiate an action.

Amerindian communities

Stakeholder position: Local knowledge is embedded into Guyana’s Amerindian communities’ ways of life and is important for these ways of life to be maintained[28]. Discussions surrounding Amerindian local knowledge, customary rights and land claim will directly impact Amerindian communities. As such they are considered to be an affected stakeholder.

Stakeholder influence: Amerindian communities owning land title manage their land, providing them with the power to maintain local knowledge systems within their communities. However, the State can still access this land and utilise Amerindian village land for the extraction of natural resources removing some power from Amerindian communities to manage their ands[8]. Further to this, Amerindian communities do not have the power to extend their local knowledge systems beyond their titled land boundary, this means they are also unable to exact influence over untitled customary Amerindian land. As such Amerindian communities are considered to have high but not full influence in titled land but no legal influence in untitled or State land.

The National Toshaos Council

Stakeholder position: The National Toshaos Council comprises elected Amerindian leaders that are responsible for representing Guyana’s Amerindian communities in a government setting. As the council is formed from elected Amerindian community members the council would be directly impacted by any decisions related to local knowledge, customary rights and land claim. As such the council is considered to be an affected stakeholder.

Stakeholder influence: The purpose of the National Toshoas Council is to represent Amerindian communities at State meetings. The council therefore has the power to weigh in directly on decision making processes undertaken by the State. As such they would be considered a high influence stakeholder.

The State (and subdivisions under the State)

Stakeholder position: The State has an interest and should have a want to ensure the protection and integration Amerindian local knowledge systems into decision-making processes due to Guyanese Constitution and the State obligations as part of the UN, CDB and Paris Agreement. The State may be penalised if it does not make active progress towards UN goals however, in reality there will be limited direct repercussions that will impact the ability for the State to function if local knowledge is not protected or integrated, as such the State is considered to be an interested stakeholder.

Stakeholder influence: The State has sovereignty over Guyana and owns and manages most of Guyana's territory. The State has the ability to allows access and use of State or Government Land and has the authority to declare land as AL as well as access and extract from AL if it is in the interest of the public. As such the State is considered a high influence stakeholder.

Research Institutions and NGOs

Research institutions and NGOs could include both national and international groups that are interested in undertaking research within Guyana or in supporting causes such as conservation or Indigenous rights.

  • Iwokrama International Centre is an example of the internationally funded research institution located in Guyana’s interior that helps manage Iwokrama PA and regularly carries out work with Guyana’s Amerindian communities.
  • The Amerindian People's Association (APA) is an example of a Guyanese NGO focused on Amerindian issues in Guyana.

Stakeholder position: Research institutions and NGOs are likely to be an interested stakeholder as these groups may have an interest in local knowledge, customary rights and customary land claims (either researching these areas or assisting Amerindian communities). However, they themselves are unlikely to be severely impacted in the long term from discussions surrounding these topics. The only exception to this are NGOs that are formed from existing members of Amerindian communities, such as the APA, which is run by Amerindians for Amerindians.

Stakeholder influence: Research institutions and NGOs include a collective of people and may have a national and international reach. These groups are likely to have a range of influence over decision making processes depending on their status however, in general their influence is likely to be higher than a single Amerindian community. Research institutions or NGO's that actively undertake research may have more influence on-the-ground action than those that do not undertake active research as research can help direct policy.

Discussion and Recommendations

Colonial rule in Guyana has left an imprint on the land, people and governance of the country. This has in many cases adversely impacted Guyana’s Amerindian communities, leaving them in a position where they have had to fight back for ancestral lands which where unlawful procured. Local knowledge is vital to the conservation of Amerindian ways of life and is inherently tied to the concept of customary rights and title over Amerindian customary lands. The government of Guyana has a duty under the Guyanese Constitution and international agreements to acknowledge, protect and integrate Amerindian local knowledge into Guyanese governance systems. The State has made strides towards this, with many Guyanese Amerindian communities now provided title to their ancestral land so they can continue local knowledge learning and development. However, in reality there are still areas of State Land that Amerindians have customary claim to but cannot access or call their own. This and instability within Amerindian communities as a result of colonial history means Amerindian local knowledge and customary rights have been and continue to be eroded away.

For the State to truly uphold the Constitution and signing of international agreements Amerindian local knowledge needs to be recognised and protected. This may include integration of local knowledge and western science so both can be used to inform decision making and policy. This may also include the establishment of more participatory workshops between Amerindian communities and decision makers, with workshops aiming to ensure full representation of Amerindian communities (including geographically isolated communities and women). In addition to the above there is a need to ensure the continued development and sharing of local knowledge within Amerindian communities. This may include giving Amerindians access to ancestral customary untitled land so they may conduct traditional practices as well as giving Amerindians space to teach local knowledge in schools and other education facilities. As women are a key group in the dissemination of local knowledge, women’s rights must also be upheld and protected.

Guyana is representative of many countries across the world that have been subject to colonial rule. As such successful action to protect Guyana’s Amerindian communities’ local knowledge and customary rights may help pave the way for similar acts of reconciliation in other countries across the globe.

Theme: Local Knowledge
Country: Guyana
Province/Prefecture: N/A
City: N/A

This conservation resource was created by Ayesha Carew.


References

  1. Guyana Forest Commission, 2017. Guyana Forestry Commission. [online] Available at: <Guyana Forestry Commission – Ensuring Sustainable Forestry>. [Accessed 15 December 2022].  
  2. 2.0 2.1 Guyana Forest Commission, 2017. Guyana Forestry Commissionabout us. [online] Available at: <https://forestry.gov.gy/about-us/>. [Accessed 15 December 2022].  
  3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2022. Global forest resource assessment 2020. [pdf]. Available at:< https://www.fao.org/3/ca9825en/CA9825EN.pdf>. [Accessed 15 December 2022].
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 World Bank, 2022. The World Bank in Guyana. [online]. Available at:<https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/factsheet/2020/09/02/the-world-bank-in-guyana> [Accessed 18 December 2022].
  5. 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 Menke, J.k. and Richardson, B.C. 2022. "Guyana" - encyclopedia britannica. [online]. Available at: <https://www.britannica.com/place/Guyana> [Accessed 16 December 2022].
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Minority Rights Group International, 2018a. World directory of minorities and indigenous peoples – Guyana: indigenous peoples – profile. [online]. Available at: < https://www.refworld.org/docid/49749d16c.html> [Accessed 14 December 2022].
  7. Holbrook., D. J., and Holbrook., H. A., 2001. Guyanese creole survey report. [pdf]. Available at:< https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/38/76/04/38760471482055391381018793098061686571/SILESR2002_011.pdf> [Accessed 21 December 2022].
  8. 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 Bulkan, J., 2016. 'Original lords of the soil'? The erosion of Amerindian territorial rights in Guyana. Environment and History, 22(3), pp.351-391.https://doi.org/10.3197/096734016X14661540219276
  9. Merill, 1992. Guyana: a country study. [online]. Available at: <http://countrystudies.us/guyana/>. [Accessed 15 December 2022].  
  10. Minority Rights Group International, 2018b. World directory of minorities and indigenous peoples – Guyana: indigenous peoples - minorities and indigenous peoples. [online]. Available at: < https://www.refworld.org/docid/4954ce3723.html> [Accessed 14 December 2022].
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 Forest Peoples Programme, 2015. Indigenous peoples' rights, forests and climate policies in Guyana: a special report. [online]. <https://issuu.com/forestpeoplesprogramme1/docs/guyana_special_report_2014/131>. [Accessed 15 December 2022].  
  12. World Bank Group, 2006. Guyana - national protected area (GEF) project (English). [pdf]. Available at:<http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/891521468250489243/Guyana-National-Protected-Areas-GEF-Project>. [Accessed 14 December 2022].  
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 Guyana Land and Surveys Commission, 2018. Dequing international seminar on the united nations global geospatial information management “effective land administration”. [pdf]. Available at:<https://ggim.un.org/meetings/2018-Deqing-International-Seminar/documents/4.2Durwin-Humphrey.pdf> [Accessed 14 December 2022].  
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Timber Trade Portal, 2022. Forest Resources and Context of Guyana. [online]. Available at:<Forest resources and context of Guyana (timbertradeportal.com)>. [Accessed 14 December 2022].
  15. Ministry of Natural Resources (n.d.). Guyana Forestry Commission. [online]. Available at:<https://nre.gov.gy/guyana-forestry-commission/>. [Accessed 15 December 2022].
  16. Protected Areas Trust Guyana., n.d. About the Protected Areas Trust. [online]. Available at:<https://protectedareastrust.org.gy/about-us/> [Accessed 14 December 2022].
  17. Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (n.d.). Land Tenure. [online]. Available at:<Land Tenure - Ministry of Amerindian AffairsMinistry of Amerindian Affairs (moaa.gov.gy)>. [Accessed 14 December 2022].
  18. 18.0 18.1 Justice Institute Guyana, 2022. Submission to the 77th general assembly report - the situation in Guyana, South America: protected areas and Amerindian peoples’ rights. [pdf]. Available:< JusticeInstituteGuyana.pdf (ohchr.org)>. [Accessed 19 December 2022].
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (n.d.). Land Tenure. [online]. Available at:<Land Tenure - Ministry of Amerindian Affairs Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (moaa.gov.gy)>. [Accessed 14 December 2022].
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 Food and Agriculture Organization, 2004. Building on gender, agrobiodiversity and local knowledge. [online]. Available at:<https://www.fao.org/3/y5610e/y5610e00.htm#Contents> [Accessed 15 December 2022].  
  21. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization., n.d. Local and indigenous knowledge systems. [online]. Available at:< https://en.unesco.org/links> [Accessed 16 December 2022].  
  22. 22.0 22.1 Mazzocchi, F., 2006. Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO reports, 7(5), pp.463-466.
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2017. Local Knowledge, global goals. [pdf]. Available at:<https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259599/PDF/259599eng.pdf.multi#:~:text=For+rural+and+indigenous+peoples%2C+local+knowledge+informs,resource+use+practices%2C+social+interactions%2C+rituals+and+spirituality> [Accessed 16 December 2022].
  24. 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 Mistry, J., Bilbao, B.A. and Berardi, A., 2016. Community owned solutions for fire management in tropical ecosystems: case studies from Indigenous communities of South America. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1696), p.20150174. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0174
  25. Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance, 2008. Climate, community and biodiversity project design standards. [pdf]. Available at:<https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CCB_Standards_2nd_Edition_ENGLISH.pdf>. [Accessed 19 December 2022].
  26. United Nations REDD Programme., n.d. Customary rights. [online]. Available at:<https://www.un-redd.org/glossary/customary-rights>. [Accessed 19 December 2022].
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 Bynoe, P., 2019. Examining the Role of Indigenous Knowledge in Sustainable Living in the North Rupununi (Guyana). In Culture and Environment (pp. 75-91). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004396685_005
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 Henfrey, T., 2020. Relationships Between Scientific Ecology and Knowledge of Primate Ecology of Wapishana Subsistence Hunters in Guyana. In Neotropical Ethnoprimatology (pp. 263-282). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27504-4_12
  29. 29.0 29.1 Sustainable Wildlife Management, 2022. Customary law – customary norms and practices used to strengthen the sustainable use and management of wildlife resource sin the Rupununi by Wapichan communities. [pdf]. Available at:< https://www.swm-programme.info/documents/20142/422403/Customary+norms+and+practices+used+to+strengthen+the+sustainable+use+and+management+of+wildlife+resources+in+the+Rupununi+by+Wapichan+communities.pdf/81f7cc63-8867-7ae7-2b1e-70205ce0098f?t=1662379679433 >. [Accessed 16 December 2022].
  30. Bulkan, J., 2013. The protection for Amerindian rights in the laws of Guyana – the case of Isseneru Amerindian village. [online]. Available at:<The protection for Amerindian rights in the Laws of Guyana | Guyanese Online>. [Accessed 16 December 2022].
  31. Mistry, J., 2018. Traditional knowledge in Guyana – lets talk about wetlands. [online]. Available at:< https://cobracollective.org/news/traditional-knowledge-in-guyana-lets-talk-about-wetlands/>. [Accessed 16 December 2022].
  32. 32.0 32.1 International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 2019. Indigenous world 2019: Guyana. [online]. Available at:< https://www.iwgia.org/en/guyana/4221-iw-2021-guyana.html>. [Accessed 19 December 2022].
  33. 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 Mistry, J., Jafferally, D., Mendonca, S., Xavier, R., Albert, G., Robertson, B., Benjamin, R., George, E. and Ingwall-King, L., 2021. Video-mediated dialogue for traditional knowledge inclusion in Guyana. [pdf]. Available at:<https://cobracollective.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Annex-7.5-Video-mediated-dialogue-for-traditional-knowledge-inclusion-in-Guyana_EN.pdf>. [Accessed 20 November 2022].
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 Shaffer, C.A., Milstein, M.S., Lindsey, L.L., Wolf, T.M., Suse, P., Marawanaru, E., Kipp, E.J., Garwood, T., Travis, D.A., Terio, K.A. and Larsen, P.A., 2022. “Spider monkey cotton”: bridging Waiwai and scientific ontologies to characterize spider monkey (Ateles paniscus) filariasis in the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Guyana. International Journal of Primatology, 43(2), pp.253-272.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-021-00272-w
  35. 35.0 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.4 Milstein, M.S., Shaffer, C.A., Lindsey, L.L., Wolf, T.M., Suse, P., Marawanaru, E., Kipp, E.J., Garwood, T., Travis, D.A., Terio, K.A. and Larsen, P.A., 2020. Integrating indigenous knowledge, ontology, and molecular barcoding to characterize spider monkey (Ateles paniscus) filariasis. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.26.354985
  36. 36.0 36.1 36.2 36.3 Bilbao, B., Mistry, J., Millán, A. and Berardi, A., 2019. Sharing multiple perspectives on burning: towards a participatory and intercultural fire management policy in Venezuela, Brazil, and Guyana. Fire, 2(3), p.39. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire2030039
  37. Mulder, M.B., Schacht, R., Caro, T., Schacht, J. and Caro, B., 2009. Knowledge and attitudes of children of the Rupununi: Implications for conservation in Guyana. Biological Conservation, 142(4), pp.879-887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.021
  38. 38.0 38.1 38.2 Garibay-Orijel, R., Ramírez-Terrazo, A. and Ordaz-Velázquez, M., 2012. Women care about local knowledge, experiences from ethnomycology. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 8(1), pp.1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-8-25
  39. Simpson, L.B., 2014. Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization: indigeneity, education & society, 3(3).
  40. Kimmerer, R., 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed editions.