The Rupununi presents a unique situation regarding the management of its heritage resources. It is an area which has primarily avoided detrimental impacts on its resources due to a lack of development activity and the early employment of sustainable practices (Watkins et al., 2010: 221). Although negative impacts have not been prolific, heritage resource management remains imperative in the sustainable development of the region. This will remain particularly true with the improvement of the Georgetown to Lethem road and also with increased interests in mining, forestry, oil exploration and commercial fishing (ibid). In addition, the inseparable link sustainable tourism shares with heritage resources means having effective management frameworks in place will determine future impacts from the industry on local communities and the natural environment (CI, 2010: 51-52).
In their questionnaire responses, Rupununi tourism stakeholders clearly indicated that heritage resource management is vital for sustainable tourism. Participants were asked to rank certain aspects of sustainable tourism in order of their importance, including: protecting local cultures, environmental conservation, providing benefits to the community, overall tourist satisfaction and providing benefits to the local industry. One hundred and fourteen respondents (96%) stated that all of the above options were equally important, clearly demonstrating that stakeholders do not value heritage resource management any less than other aspects of sustainable tourism development. Indeed, it appears that questionnaire participants understand that heritage resources (e.g.
172
local culture, physical environment) are interconnected with the economic benefits for the industry and overall tourist satisfaction.
A key aspect of heritage resource management which features frequently throughout this section is the importance of community involvement. Management plans should be inclusive of local community viewpoints and daily needs for survival in addition to minimising well-known negative social and environmental impacts (see Chapter 2) (Watkins et al., 2010: 221-222). Fortunately, under the new Amerindian Act, “Local communities governed by village councils own and have full management responsibility” for their lands and are therefore integral in its fate (Watkins et al., 2010: 224; see also CI, 2010: 10). CI (2010: 3) asserts that having communities involved in heritage resource management can be highly beneficial as communities become the stewards of the resources and are more likely to have continued participation.
Stakeholder perceptions on heritage resource management are explored in this section, along with a brief outline of the current management practices in the Rupununi. Analysing these perceptions is important in revealing strengths and weaknesses in the heritage management framework in the Rupununi – an area where ecomuseological principles could provide support. The first sub-section (6.4.1) examines heritage management plans concerning natural heritage including the guidance provided by local and international NGO’s and the role tourism has played in safeguarding natural resources. This section is then concluded by looking at management plans for cultural heritage resources, with a particularly reference to local archaeology (6.4.2).
6.4.1 Natural Heritage
There is a strong pro-environment ethos amongst Rupununi stakeholders. For example, 113 (95%) questionnaire participants disagreed that a community’s economic strength is more important than environmental conservation. This can be partly attributed to the fact that local communities consider themselves “…as part of the natural world”, where there is a distinct “…oneness of people and the forests, savannas, and wetlands” (Watkins et al., 2010: 172). Indeed, indigenous Rupununi communities have shared a sustainable relationship with the natural world for thousands of years (see sub-section 1.3.2). However, as the concept of sustainability became more integrated into heritage resource management and the world learned how important tropical rainforests and biodiversity were to the earth’s survival, attention has shifted to implementing
173
sustainable management frameworks for these regions, requiring indigenous communities to adapt their lifestyles.
Another factor relating to the raised environmental consciousness can be traced to the work of a few key organisations. As seen in Sections 5.5 and 5.6, there are several local, national and international conservation-based NGO’s and public sector organisations involved in natural resource management in the Rupununi. This includes Iwokrama, CI, the WWF and the NRDDB. For example, Iwokrama has been involved in training several communities about natural resource management skills, including the completion of community resource maps and how to use them for conservation (Iwokrama, 2003: 29; see also Watkins et al., 2010: 226). Furthermore, to raise conservation awareness and natural resource management practices, several outreach programmes have been initiated by Iwokrama, CI, the WWF and numerous other organisations (Mulder et al., 2009: 880; Bynoe, 2006: 16). In turn, this has led to multiple communities (e.g. Surama, Aranaputa) setting up their own zoning initiatives for hunting, fishing, tourism or other activities, which are important for communities seeking sustainability (CI, 2010: 45).
Stakeholders are also aware of the importance these organisations have had on natural resource management. An industry member (Interview I5, 2012) commented that through “…the presence of Iwokrama and the work that is being done there…I think the level of environmental awareness and stewardship is higher than most places and I think that has a lot to do with it”. A media stakeholder (Interview M2, 2012) recalled how Rewa had a tendency to over-exploit their natural resources (e.g. fish, wild game) which then “…changed slowly with Conservation International coming in”. An industry interviewee (Interview I3, 2012) argued that after seeing the success of the regions only two conservation areas, Iwokrama and the Kanuku Mountains, “…some of the communities themselves are establishing conservation areas”. Another industry member (Interview I4, 2012) who lives locally detailed one community’s conservation plan which covers “…basic restrictions to a guest coming in… so that [they] can’t just go and take things away. Basic stuff that would protect whatever is in the area”.
As the above-mentioned organisations educated local communities on the importance of natural resource management, tourism quickly became a key targeted activity, which also had conservation initiatives. This has been particularly true due to the emphasis on natural heritage as the main tourism product in the Rupununi. A host community
174
member (Interview C4, 2012) described one example of the effect tourism has had on managing natural resources:
“We banned trapping 20 years ago, we banned the trapping of birds in here…My son said ‘we used to see six macaws here and you trap them, you get GY$3,000 each…and you spend it…and then there is no more macaw, they have to go.’ But if you have one macaw on that island there, do you know how many tourists would come and pay to see that single one, do you know how much money you would make to see that single one?”
A member of the media (Interview M1, 2012) also discussed the trapping of birds, adding:
“Probably they [trappers] did that before because of the unawareness of the villagers and for them to have … their income, they started trapping these birds and selling them….Now since tourism has brought a new meaning for us and bird trapping has stopped. Already you are seeing the difference. Birds are there and tourists can come see them”.
In addition to these statements, all 119 (100%) questionnaire participants agreed that tourism and environmental conservation are compatible and can promote responsible use of the area’s natural heritage. Although there is a raised awareness amongst Rupununi stakeholders on the importance of protecting natural heritage and the benefits tourism can provide in this manner, there remains a lot to be done regarding the implementation of natural resource management plans. Only 60 questionnaire participants (50%) feel that host communities are knowledgeable on the environmental impacts from tourism, which indicates more education and management plans may be needed in the future. In addition, CI (2010: 39) feels that there should be more effort “…to identify and map all natural resources within the region with a potential for interpretive development”. This could be especially relevant for places like the Kanuku Mountains where tourism could play a vital role in both firmly establishing the protected area and also as an economic development plan for local communities (CI, 2003: 12-13).
6.4.2 Cultural Heritage
Although the natural heritage of the Rupununi has yet to witness any significant impacts and communities still live traditional lifestyles, the cultural heritage of the region has started to experience significant changes and losses. These changes started initially with the arrival of Europeans to the region, where though Westernisation, aspects of
175
Amerindian culture such as traditional lifestyles (e.g. hunting), communal ceremonies and dances have faded away (MRU, 1996: 14; Funnell & Bynoe, 2007: 169-170; Watkins et al., 2010: 165). Although the area has remained largely isolated for centuries, the culture of Amerindian communities has recently seen increased permeation from “outside influences”, as transportation in and out of the region improves (Funnell & Bynoe, 2007: 169-170; Wihak, 2009: 25). As a result, their culture is constantly transforming and runs the risks of losing more of its defining characteristics. Indigenous communities are some of the last remaining guardians of a “…vital part of our human heritage” in the midst of an increasingly globalised and developed planet, and therefore require effective management plans for cultural heritage resources (Wihak, 2009: 18). Wihak (2009: 25) argues, “The loss of Makushi culture, and their ability to act as stewards for an ecosystem precious to the whole planet would be a loss for us all, as is the loss of any indigenous culture”.
The on-going loss of Amerindian culture and lack of effective management structures was also reflected in the questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaire responses revealed that only 54 participants (45%) felt that cultural heritage resources were protected on site, with the remaining participants disagreeing or were unsure if there were any management frameworks in place. During the interviews, participants repeatedly described various cultural features that were disappearing. On the protection of local culture, one community member (Interview C3, 2012) stated, “It’s not like how we would like it to be, because everybody is going to the western side of it now….So you have changes, big changes”. Another community member (Interview C1, 2012) described how “…language is going away” along with traditional stories, because older community members “…don’t tell many stories” to younger generations. On the issue of cultural heritage fading away, another community member (Interview C2, 2012) added:
“The young people are not very keen on it. Let’s say for example, how many of the young girls could now ‘spin a cotton’ and make these threads out of cotton. Just a few…where is it? It’s dying. …If you do an assessment in these communities, how many of the young people could actually make the bow and arrow, or even craft the simple craft we have…it’s not there anymore.”
This feeling was shared with other stakeholders as well including a tourist (Interview T4, 2012) who commented, “That was the impression that we got from the elders…they were very concerned with the language being lost and the traditional ways of life”.
176
Language appears an especially fragile heritage feature that stakeholders mentioned was fading and this has also been highlighted in various publications (for examples see Stabroek News, 2012; Wihak, 2009: 18). A voluntary sector member (Interview V4, 2012) noted, “People are worried about the language” while a community member (Interview C3, 2012) confirmed, “…what is really not there is the language, like the Makushi, Wapishana, the Arawak”. She (ibid) also stated that this is “…because it’s not being passed on and the young people are not interested in taking up these things and learning it from their parents”. On why cultural heritage is fading, another community member (Interview C4, 2012) mentioned, “They [communities] do not know how valuable it is to maintain and nurture that culture…today they are ashamed…it’s a lack of the true sense of their identity, how valuable it is”. As for the future of cultural heritage in the Rupununi, a local industry member (Interview I2, 2012) commented, “We are at a crossroads. We’re about to have a cell [phone] tower constructed here in Annai. People are moving on, the youths aren’t speaking their language anymore. It’s a race against time now”. He (ibid) also added that whether or not much of the culture is lost “…depends on a lot of guidance …because if there is not guidance, we’re lost. My concern is that change may be too quick, and our young people may grasp things at the expense of maintaining their cultural heritage”.
Despite the ongoing deterioration of cultural heritage in the Rupununi, the local way-of- life remains distinctive and “…foreign to the ‘developed’ world” as people continue to straddle the balance between traditional lifestyles and Western life (Watkins et al., 2010: xv,168; see also Sinclair, 2003: 143). One community elder (Interview C4, 2012) argued, “We have not changed to another culture, the evidence is still there”. Indeed, cultural traditions remain important and practiced in the Rupununi due to a few cultural heritage management platforms which are discussed further below.
The wildlife clubs, found in 18 communities and with a membership of around 280, originally started as an opportunity for youth members to learn about natural resource management first-hand (James, 2012; Wihak, 2009: 23-24). For example, club members have visited the Iwokrama Research Centre to participate in environmental education programmes and training workshops in environmental monitoring (Wihak, 2009: 23-24). These clubs have since included elements of promoting Amerindian culture at events like the annual wildlife festival and encouraging youths to be proud and celebrate their cultural heritage (James, 2012). Activities at the wildlife festival include traditional skills such as cotton spinning, archery, cassava grating, basket
177
weaving and fire lighting. An industry stakeholder (Interview I5, 2012) remarked that although cultural heritage management is “…definitely more difficult” than natural heritage, “…there are things in place that are helping like the wildlife clubs”. Another industry member (Interview I1, 2012) added, “…the wildlife clubs are not just learning about the habitat of animals but the culture and everything else. And you see that in an excellent display when they do the annual wildlife club festival where they showcase the various cultures”. Wihak (2009: 23) contends that the wildlife clubs are able to inspire learning in the area’s youth through “culturally-appropriate” educational techniques, which focus on naturally occurring situations as opposed to formal education.
As mentioned in sub-section 5.4.5, The Makushi Research Unit (MRU), established in 1996, is a research-based group driven by women from the communities who document and research Makushi language, culture, traditional skills and nature-culture relationships (Wihak, 2009: 21; Iwokrama, 2003: 26; Ousman et al., 2006: 70). The group has travelled around to various schools in the north Rupununi, teaching and promoting Makushi language skills (Watkins et al., 2010: 221). One industry member (Interview I3, 2012) indicated, “They are actually a school within itself where people can come work with them for a while…They are reproducing, blending historical [knowledge] with the present to develop younger generations to continue with the process”. Concerning the MRU, Watkins et al. (2010: 221) argues:
“… the Makushi Research Unit has, over the past decade, led the way in addressing social development, gender equality, and human rights issues, using their role as ‘keepers of culture’ to challenge certain negative aspects of their way of life while affirming and promoting the positive foundations of Makushi heritage…The Makushi researchers themselves play an increasingly important role in community development and ensuring the welfare of their people.”
A voluntary sector member (Interview V1, 2012) stated that for the MRU, “…the emphasis has been documenting the language” through which they produced a “Makushi dictionary”. This publication, entitled Makusipe Komanto Iseru: Sustaining Makushi Way of Life, contains information on Makushi orthography, flora and fauna descriptions including medicinal and edible uses, family celebrations, religious beliefs and traditional practices and knowledge (Bowers & Corsane, 2012: 208; Watkins et al., 2010: 221; Wihak, 2009: 21; Ousman et al., 2006: 70). This work is regarded as the first of its kind in Guyana and has been an inspiration for other Amerindian
178
communities in revitalising their heritage (Bowers & Corsane, 2012: 208; MRU, 1996: vii). In addition, the female researchers in the MRU have reported that because of their involvement in the MRU and contribution to sustaining Makushi culture, they feel more comfortable contributing at village meetings and feel a sense of pride and “delight” at being involved in the project (Ousman et al., 2006: 70; Wihak, 2009: 21).
Although not the only means of safeguarding cultural heritage resources, these two in- situ projects stand out as the two most important and successful. Also important to the promotion of Amerindian cultural heritage is the Bina Hill Institute, which was established with assistance from the NRDDB and conducts training programmes for post-secondary school children and adults (Wihak, 2009: 24; Iwokrama, 2003: 25; Smock, 2008: 240; Watkins et al., 2010: 227). As mentioned in Chapter Five (Sub- section 5.4.5), training programmes at the Bina Hill Institute revolve around the preservation of local culture (e.g. traditional skills workshops) and improving local capacity for economic development (e.g. tourism courses) (Wihak, 2009: 24). These programmes have proven to be popular with local youth and continue to promote the local indigenous cultural heritage.
An important ex-situ cultural heritage management project is the national Amerindian Heritage Month. This is a government supported month-long (every September) celebration of Amerindian culture that features performances (e.g. cultural presentations, competitions, dances, crafts, food) in Amerindian communities across the country (Smock, 2008: 23; MRU, 1996: 47). An industry professional from Surama (Interview I4, 2012) commented that heritage month is one of the primary and few stages for celebrating Amerindian heritage. On whether or not heritage is celebrated enough in the Rupununi, he (ibid) stated:
“No, I don’t think so. Yes, between ourselves we are trying on our own. We have our month of celebration and we would try to do our songs and dance and so on. So it is there but I don’t think it is enough. Actually we have a culture group that really is not preparing for the tourists but for our own indigenous celebration. When the tourists come, we share with them but this is not for sharing with them. But if they come when the culture group is present, they will perform for them.”
Smock (2008: 23-24) describes heritage month as an event that focuses on the “…development of the Amerindian people” and celebrates their contributions to society. He (ibid) also states that “…in Georgetown the month passes highly unrecognized”. Interestingly, a brief visit during data collection (Jan. 2012) to the
179
National Trust in Georgetown, the organisation responsible for documenting cultural heritage on a national scale, revealed that no material had been collected on the Rupununi region at that time. Tourism has also been beneficial as a tool for protecting cultural heritage resources, especially in the village of Surama. However, this has been less efficient than natural heritage and is covered in more detail in the next section (6.5). Although cultural heritage appears to be fading with little management structures in place, communities still understand its importance with all 119 (100%) questionnaire respondents agreeing that cultural heritage resources are important for community well- being. One hundred and fourteen (96%) questionnaire respondents also felt that protecting cultural heritage resources is equally important to a community’s economic strength. This enthusiasm for culture will most likely be an important factor for the future management of cultural resources, including archaeological resources which are discussed further in the next sub-section.
6.4.2.1 Archaeology
A key aspect of cultural heritage in the Rupununi that remains unexplored and subsequently un-managed is the archaeological record. According to Plew (2004: 7), an archaeologist who has done research in the Rupununi, the archaeology of “…Iwokrama and the North Rupununi is relatively unknown but has great potential for addressing important research questions in north-eastern South America” (see also Watkins et al., 2010: 165). He (ibid) further adds that additional archaeological research could provide information on the long-term environmental changes within the region, based on the