Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Non-Timber Forest Products : Indigenous ethnobotanical knowledge and livelihood security in West Suriname van den Boog, Tim 2017

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2017_may_vandenboog_tim.pdf [ 117.59MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0344020.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0344020-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0344020-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0344020-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0344020-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0344020-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0344020-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0344020-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0344020.ris

Full Text

Non-Timber	Forest	Products	–	Indigenous	ethnobotanical	knowledge	and	livelihood	security	in	West	Suriname.		by		Tim	van	den	Boog		BSc.,	University	of	Amsterdam,	2013				A	THESIS	SUBMITTED	IN	PARTIAL	FULFILLMENT	OF	THE	REQUIREMENTS	FOR	THE	DEGREE	OF		MASTER	OF	SCIENCE	in	The	Faculty	of	Graduate	and	Postdoctoral	Studies	(Forestry)		The	University	of	British	Columbia	(Vancouver)		April	2017		Ó	Tim	van	den	Boog,	2017		 ii	Abstract	Suriname	is	highly	forested	and	inhabited	by	Indigenous	peoples	who	are	dependent	on	a	diverse	range	of	Non-Timber	Forest	Products	(NTFPs)	for	their	subsistence	and	income.	Traditional	knowledge	about	NTFPs	tends	to	decrease	due	to	fragmented	knowledge	transmission.	The	NTFP-containing	forests	are	also	of	interest	to	multinational	extractive	companies.	Without	well	co-managed	governance	and	given	the	lack	of	tenure	security,	livelihoods	and	biodiversity	can	become	jeopardized.	This	thesis	focuses	on	two	ethnically	distinct,	Indigenous	communities	that	vary	in	forest-dependency	and	length	of	exposure	to	acculturation	and	urbanisation.	Children’s	ethnobotanical	knowledge	is	compared	to	determine	the	causes	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge	losses.	In	addition,	land	tenure	regimes	are	assessed	and	ecological	impacts	from	NTFP	harvests	are	determined.	Voucher	specimens	were	collected	and	ethnobotanical	data	were	obtained	from	informants.	Questionnaires	were	used	to	elicit	and	record	children’s	ethnobotanical	knowledge	and	that	of	NTFP	gatherers	to	define	important	NTFP	species.	Market	surveys	were	held	to	determine	commercial	NTFPs.	It	was	shown	that	school	attendance	and	the	limited	time	spent	in	forests,	disrupt	the	acquisition	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge	by	children.	At	the	same	time	acculturation	can	lead	to	cross-cultural	knowledge	exchange,	strengthening	the	communities’	knowledge	about	NTFPs.	The	research	further	demonstrated	that	the	uses	of	commercial	and	food	NTFPs	were	known	prior	to	the	acquisition	of	knowledge	of	plant	names,	confirming	that	ethnobotanical	knowledge	acquisition	at	a	young	age	happens	through	observation.	Ecological	risks	from	overharvesting	seeds	from	vegetal	NTFPs	included	trophic	cascades:	population	declines	of	targeted	species	and	animals	that	feed	on	them.	For	the	commercially	most	traded	animals,	a	decrease	in	abundancy	was	noticed	as	a	result	of	increased	local	and	non-local	demands.	Because	of	a	sudden	high	global	demand	for	Potamotrygon	boesemani,	stocks	of	this	endemic	stingray	are	imperilled.	NTFP	gathering	largely	happened	outside	the	communities’	communal	forest	on	State	lands	under	active	or	proposed	logging	concessions.		 iii	Traditional	NTFP	practices	should	be	safeguarded	by	protecting	gathering	sites	and	targeted	species.	Strengthening	of	Indigenous	with	government	co-management	is	needed	for	effective	forest	governance.	Moreover,	long-term	research	is	desirable	on	current	NTFP	stocks	and	the	impacts	of	NTFP	harvesting	on	target	species	and	their	ecosystem.	An	immediate	moratorium	on	P.	boesemani	is	required	to	prevent	this	species	from	further	collapse	or	potential	extinction.			 iv	Lay	abstract	Communities	inhabiting	forests	often	depend	on	surrounding	natural	resources	for	food	and	income.	Due	to	globalisation	forest	are	cut	down	and	traditional	forest	knowledge	disappears.	This	study	covers	two	Indigenous	communities	in	Suriname,	South	America.	It	compares	their	wild	plant	knowledge	and	determines	on	which	forest	products	they	rely	most	for	economic	welfare.	The	study	found	that	most	wild	plant	knowledge	is	lost	in	the	first	15	years	of	exposure	to	urbanisation	but	that	peer-to-peer	exchanges	can	strengthen	plant	knowledge.	Overharvesting	of	seeds	from	wild	plants	causes	a	decrease	in	population	size	of	the	plants	and	animals	that	feed	on	them.	The	populations	of	commercially	traded	wild	animals	were	in	decline,	especially	a	stingray	that	only	occurs	in	this	river	basin.	Many	of	the	wild	plants	and	animals	were	collected	from	lands	that	do	not	belong	to	the	communities.	Recommendations	are	given	to	improve	livelihood	security	and	preserve	biodiversity.		 v	Preface	This	dissertation	is	an	original	intellectual	product	of	the	author,	Tim	van	den	Boog,	except	for	chapter	4	which	was	co-authored	by	Dr.	Janette	Bulkan	and	Prof.	Dr.	Tinde	van	Andel,	who	have	both	supervised	me	throughout	this	research.	Chapter	4	is	currently	under	revision	for	publication	in	the	journal	Economic	Botany.	The	contents	of	chapter	3	will	be	published	after	graduation.	Chapter	3	is	not	co-authored.	The	fieldwork	for	this	research	was	conducted	by	the	author	between	January	and	April	2016	and	covered	by	UBC	ethics	certificate	number	H15-02527.		 vi	Table	of	Contents	Abstract	..................................................................................................................................	ii	Preface	....................................................................................................................................	v	Table	of	Contents	...................................................................................................................	vi	List	of	Tables	...........................................................................................................................	x	List	of	Figures	.........................................................................................................................	xi	List	of	Abbreviations	..............................................................................................................	xv	Acknowledgments	...............................................................................................................	xvii	Chapter	1:	Introduction	..........................................................................................................	1	1.1	 Biogeography	.......................................................................................................................	1	1.2	 Indigenous	and	Tribal	peoples	..............................................................................................	2	1.2.1	 A	brief	history	.........................................................................................................................	2	1.2.2	 Current	territories	..................................................................................................................	4	1.2.3	 Traditional	authorities	............................................................................................................	6	1.3	 Non-Timber	Forest	Products	................................................................................................	6	1.4	 Forestry	sector	.....................................................................................................................	8	1.4.1	 Institutions	and	laws	...............................................................................................................	8	1.4.2	 Forest	tenure	types	................................................................................................................	9	1.4.3	 Deforestation	........................................................................................................................	10	1.4.4	 Timber	harvesting	procedures	..............................................................................................	12	1.4.5	 Illegal	logging	activities	.........................................................................................................	12		 vii	1.5	 Land	rights	and	tenure	security	..........................................................................................	13	1.6	 Research	hypotheses	and	questions	...................................................................................	18	Chapter	2:	The	study	area	and	involved	communities	............................................................	20	2.1	 Study	site	...........................................................................................................................	20	2.2	 Communities	......................................................................................................................	21	2.2.1	 Apoera	..................................................................................................................................	21	2.2.1.1	 History	........................................................................................................................................	21	2.2.1.2	 Current	situation	........................................................................................................................	23	2.2.2	 Trio	community	in	Sandlanding	............................................................................................	27	2.2.2.1	 History	........................................................................................................................................	28	2.2.2.2	 Current	situation	........................................................................................................................	29	Chapter	3:	Children’s	plant	knowledge	..................................................................................	33	3.1	 Background	........................................................................................................................	33	3.2	 Materials	and	methods	......................................................................................................	35	3.2.1	 Ethnobotanical	data	collection	.............................................................................................	35	3.2.2	 Questionnaires	.....................................................................................................................	35	3.2.3	 Data	analysis	.........................................................................................................................	37	3.3	 Results	...............................................................................................................................	37	3.4	 Discussion	and	conclusions	................................................................................................	43	Chapter	4:	Livelihood	security	through	Non-Timber	Forest	Product	commercialisation:	an	ecological	and	land	tenure	assessment	..................................................................................	48	4.1	 Background	........................................................................................................................	48	4.2	 Methods	............................................................................................................................	51		 viii	4.2.1	 Ethnobotanical	data	collection	.............................................................................................	51	4.2.2	 Interviews	and	surveys	.........................................................................................................	51	4.3	 Results	and	discussion	.......................................................................................................	52	4.3.1	 Land	tenure	in	West	Suriname	.............................................................................................	52	4.3.2	 Most	important	commercial	vegetal	NTFPs	.........................................................................	58	4.3.2.1	 Carapa	guianensis	(Meliaceae)	..................................................................................................	59	4.3.2.2	 Bertholletia	excelsa	(brazil	nut)	and	Caryocar	nuciferum	(butter	nut)	......................................	62	4.3.2.3	 Ormosia	costulata	......................................................................................................................	65	4.3.3	 Most	important	commercial	animal	NTFPs	..........................................................................	66	4.3.3.1	 Potamotrygon	boesemani	(Boesemani	stingray)	.......................................................................	66	4.3.3.2	 Tayassu	pecari	(white-lipped	peccary)	and	Cuniculus	paca	(lowland	paca)	..............................	71	4.3.3.3	 Hoplias	aimara	(wolf	fish)	..........................................................................................................	72	4.4	 Conclusions	........................................................................................................................	73	4.5	 Recommendations	.............................................................................................................	75	4.5.1	 Research	on	ecological	impact	of	harvesting	NTFPs	.............................................................	75	4.5.2	 Safeguard	traditional	NTFP	practices	–	protect	lands	and/or	species	(through	REDD+)	......	76	4.5.3	 Stingray	conservation	and	sustainable	harvesting	education	..............................................	77	4.5.4	 Strengthen	Indigenous	co-management	(through	REDD+)	..................................................	79	Chapter	5:	Conclusions	and	future	perspectives	....................................................................	82	5.1	 Conclusions	........................................................................................................................	82	5.2	 Future	perspectives	............................................................................................................	84	Bibliography	..........................................................................................................................	86	Appendices	...........................................................................................................................	96	Appendix	A	-	Table	of	commercial	NTFPs	sold	by	the	communities	of	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	......	97		 ix	Appendix	B	-	Voucher	specimens	made	during	fieldwork	...............................................................	99			 x	List	of	Tables	Table	1.1:	Relevant	international	human	and	Indigenous	rights	agreements	for	Suriname.	......	17	Table	3.1:	Local	and	scientific	names	of	the	nine	key	NTFPs	used	in	this	research.	....................	38	Table	4.1:	Most	important	commercial	vegetal	NTFPs	for	the	Apoera	and	Trio	community.	.....	58	Table	4.2:	List	of	most	important	commercial	NTFPs	for	the	Trio	and	Apoera	communities,	with	correlated	tenure	and	ecological	issues.	......................................................................................	74			 xi	List	of	Figures	Figure	1.1:	The	Guiana	Shield	in	northern	South	America.	Borders	after	Gibbs	&	Barron	(1993).	Map	modified	from	https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guiana_shield_map-fr.svg	.........	2	Figure	1.2:	Map	of	living	areas	of	Indigenous	(Amerindian)	and	Tribal	(Maroon)	communities	by	tribe	in	Suriname,	user	and	ancestral	territories	are	not	displayed	9.	...........................................	5	Figure	1.3:	Traditional	authorities	of	Indigenous	and	Tribal	Peoples	in	Suriname.	The	granman	is	the	highest	authority,	a	basya	the	lowest.	.....................................................................................	6	Figure	2.1:	Study	sites	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	in	West	Suriname	in	South	America.	Map	modified	from	http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/tpc/txu-pclmaps-oclc-22834566_l-28a.jpg.	...	20	Figure	2.2:	Children	selling	locally	grown	produce	for	a	special	mathematics	event	at	the	primary	school.	.............................................................................................................................	24	Figure	2.3:	Traditional	agricultural	plot,	called	a	kostgrondje.	.....................................................	26	Figure	2.4:	Greenheart’s	sawmill	in	Apoera,	Suriname.	...............................................................	27	Figure	2.5:	Naomi	Kupuru,	the	wife	of	basya	Jang	Djeneninpe,	displays	some	of	her	seed	jewellery.	On	the	left	hangs	a	traditional	cassava	press	which	is	made	by	basya	Jang,	his	son	is	not	interested	in	learning	the	skill	of	traditional	braiding.	..........................................................	30	Figure	2.6:	Trio	settlement	in	Sandlanding,	Suriname.	Typical	traditional	Trio	housing	constructions.	...............................................................................................................................	32	Figure	2.7:	Living	room	and	kitchen	with	view	on	the	Courantyne	River.	In	the	center	a	dead	boesemani	stingray	is	being	prepared	as	food	for	the	dogs.	.......................................................	32		 xii	Figure	3.1:	Children	taking	the	vegetal	NTFP	questionnaire.	.......................................................	36	Figure	3.2:	Linear	regression	of	individual	scores	for	Apoerian	(n	=	51)	and	Trio	(n	=	23)	children	by	age.	..........................................................................................................................................	39	Figure	3.3:	Comparison	of	correctly	identified	NTFP	names	and	uses	between	Apoera	and	Trio	children	for	all	ages	(n	=	74),	ages	4	to	9	(n	=	42)	and	ages	10	to	14	(n	=	32).	.............................	40	Figure	3.4:	Comparison	of	identified	NTFP	characteristics	(names	and	uses)	for	a	group	of	commercial/food	NTFPs	and	medicinal	NTFPs.	............................................................................	41	Figure	3.5:	Linear	regression	of	correctly	identified	medicinal	NTFP	(mNTFP)	and	commercial/food	NTFP	(cNTFP)	names	and	uses	by	age.	Each	dot	represents	the	participant’s	percentage	of	a	correctly	identified	NTFP	characteristic	(cNTFP	use,	cNTFP	name,	mNTFP	use,	mNTFP	name).	..............................................................................................................................	41	Figure	3.6:	Different	languages	used	by	Apoera’s	and	Trio	children	for	correctly	identified	NTFP	names	per	species.	.......................................................................................................................	43	Figure	3.7:	Transmission	disruptions	of	NTFP	knowledge	from	adults	to	children	and	between	children	from	Apoera	and	the	Trio	community	in	Sandlanding.	1:	School	limits	traditional	teaching	occasions	2:	School	bus	limits	forest	walks	3:	Distant	and	diminishing	agricultural	plots	limit	forest	walks	4:	Migration	from	different	environment	limits	local	plant	knowledge	..........	46	Figure	4.1a	and	b:	This	document	from	1979	proposed	the	creation	of	a	nature	reserve	bordering	the	West	Surinamese	Indigenous	communities’	communal	forest	in	the	north	and	east,	still	‘in	process’	today.	.........................................................................................................	55		 xiii	Figure	4.2:	Map	of	West	Suriname.	This	map	is	modified	from:	1)	map	which	visualizes	customary	uses	(mapped	by	individuals	of	the	communities	in	a	collaborative	project	with	VIDS),	and	2);	forest	tenure	map	made	by	the	Surinamese	Foundation	for	Forest	Management	and	Production	Control	(SBB).	Numbers	show	certain	NTFP	collection	sites,	roman	numbers	show	different	tenure	regimes.	Figure	continues	on	next	page.	.................................................	56	Figure	4.3:	Leaves,	fruits	and	seeds	of	Carapa	guianensis	Aubl.	..................................................	59	Figure	4.4:	Crabwood	seeds	collected	from	the	forest	floor.	.......................................................	60	Figure	4.5:	Husband	and	son	help	to	gather	seeds.	The	bags	can	weigh	over	50	kilograms.	......	60	Figure	4.6:	Bags	of	crabwood	seeds	are	emptied	into	a	huge	bowl.	After	adding	leaves	from	a	certain	plant	(chef’s	secret),	the	seeds	are	ready	to	be	boiled.	...................................................	60	Figure	4.7:	After	ca.	6	hours	of	boiling,	the	water	is	drained	and	the	seeds	are	ready	be	stored	for	about	2	weeks.	........................................................................................................................	60	Figure	4.8:	An	orange	fungus	appears,	indicating	the	time	to	crack	them	with	a	knife,	one	by	one	by	one	by	one	by	one.	...........................................................................................................	60	Figure	4.9:	The	inner	pulp	from	the	cracked	seeds	is	kneaded	and	left	to	drain	for	about	a	week.......................................................................................................................................................	60	Figure	4.10:	The	drained	pulp	is	massaged	thrice	per	day	for	about	five	minutes	each	time.	....	61	Figure	4.11:	The	crabwood	oil	that	has	dripped	out	of	the	pulp	is	removed	from	the	bowl	and	stored	in	bottles.	..........................................................................................................................	61	Figure	4.12:	Several	bowls	containing	krapa	seed	paste	are	stored	overnight.	...........................	61		 xiv	Figure	4.13:	Colleting	ingi	noto	(Bertholletia	excelsa	nuts)	in	two	warimbo	(Ischnosiphon	arouma)	leaves.	............................................................................................................................	64	Figure	4.14:	Bags	filled	with	brazil	nuts	collected	on	a	multiple	day	trip	by	two	Indigenous	harvesters.	....................................................................................................................................	64	Figure	4.15:	One	of	the	ingenious	pieces	of	jewellery	made	by	Naomi	Kupuru.	The	black/purple	spotted	dark	orange	seeds	come	from	Ormosia	costulata.	Most	parts	are	made	from	vegetal	NTFPs	as	well,	some	of	which	were	collected	far	upstream	or	in	Guyana.	..................................	65	Figure	4.16:	Potamotrygon	boesemani	just	coming	to	shore.	.....................................................	68	Figure	4.17:	A	spari	specimen	is	carried	to	the	bus	of	a	stingray	buyer.	......................................	68	Figure	4.18:	A	large	stingray	died	prior	to	arrival.	It	was	boiled	and	fed	to	the	dogs.	.................	69	Figure	4.19:	Potamotrygon	boesemani	offered	for	sale	on	a	Chinese	website	(http://51hongyu.com/category-44-b0.html,	accessed	on	02	February	2017)	for	up	to	80,000	yuan,	the	equivalent	of	about	US$	11,570.	..................................................................................	70		 xv	List	of	Abbreviations	ACT	 	 	 	 Amazon	Conservation	Team	Ar	 	 	 	 Arawak	Ca	 	 	 	 Carib	CBD	 	 	 	 Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	CITES	 	 	 	 Convention	on	the	International	Trade	in	Endangered	Species	of			 	 	 	 Wild	Flora	and	Fauna	FPIC	 	 	 	 Free,	Prior	and	Informed	Consent	FAO	 	 	 	 Food	and	Agriculture	Organization	FCPC	 	 	 	 Forest	Carbon	Partnership	Facility	FPP	 	 	 	 Forest	Peoples	Programme	HFLD	 	 	 	 High	Forest	Cover	and	Low	Deforestation	HKV	 	 	 	 Houtkapvergunning	(logging	permit)	IACHR	 	 	 	 Inter-American	Court	for	Human	Rights	ICCWC		 	 	 International	Consortium	on	Combating	Wildlife	Crime	ICCPR	 	 	 	 International	Covenant	on	Civil	and	Political	Rights	ICESCR		 	 	 International	Covenant	on	Economic,	Social	and	Cultural	Rights	ICRMW	 	 	 International	Convention	on	the	Protection	of	the	Rights	of	All			 	 	 	 Migrant	Workers	and	Members	of	Their	Families	IPO	 	 	 	 Indigenous	People	Organization	CAT	 	 	 	 Convention	against	Torture	and	Other	Cruel,	Inhuman	or		 		 	 	 	 Degrading	Treatment	or	Punishment	CEDAW	 	 	 Convention	on	the	Elimination	of	All	Forms	of	Discrimination			 	 	 	 against	Women	CPED	 	 	 	 International	Convention	for	the	Protection	of	All	Persons	from			 	 	 	 Enforced	Disappearance	CRC	 	 	 	 Convention	on	the	Rights	of	the	Child	CRPD	 	 	 	 Convention	on	the	Rights	of	Persons	with	Disabilities	IACHR	 	 	 	 Inter	American	Court	for	Human	Rights	IUCN	 	 	 	 The	International	Union	for	Conservation	of	Nature	IP	 	 	 	 Indigenous	People	ITP	 	 	 	 Indigenous	and	Tribal	People	NB	 	 	 	 Natuurbeheer	NTFP	 	 	 	 Non-Timber	Forest	Product	REDD+		 	 	 Reducing	Emissions	from	Deforestation	and	forest	Degradation	SBB	 	 	 	 Stichting	voor	Bosbeheer	en	Bostoezicht	||	The	Foundation	for			 	 	 	 Forest	Management	and	Forest	Control	Sr	 	 	 	 Sranantongo	Tr	 	 	 	 Trio	UN	 	 	 	 United	Nations	UNCERD	 	 	 United	Nations	Convention	on	the	Elimination	of	All	Forms	of			 xvi		 	 	 	 Racial	Discrimination	UNDRIP	 	 	 United	Nations	Declaration	on	the	Rights	of	Indigenous	Peoples	VIDS	 	 	 	 Vereniging	van	Inheemse	Dorpshoofden	in	Suriname	//		 		 	 	 	 Association	of	Indigenous	Village	Leaders	in	Suriname	VSG	 	 	 	 Vereniging	van	Saramakaanse	Gezagsdragers	//		 	 	 	 Association	of	Saamaka	Traditional	Authorities		xvii	Acknowledgments	First	of	all,	I	would	like	to	express	my	gratitude	to	my	supervisors,	Prof.	Dr.	Tinde	van	Andel	and	Dr.	Janette	Bulkan,	for	their	guidance	throughout	the	whole	research	process,	their	kind	though	thorough	criticism	and	for	teaching	me	the	ins	and	outs	of	doing	research.	Thank	you	Dr.	Sue	Grayston	and	Dr.	Sue	Watts	for	serving	on	my	committee	and	providing	me	with	insightful	feedback.	I	thank	the	three	funding	institutions	that	have	generously	supported	this	research.	Without	their	monetary	aid,	it	would	have	been	hard	to	conduct	this	research.	To	Alberta	Mennega	Stichting,	van	Eeden	Fonds	and	Hendrik	Muller	Fonds,	I	express	my	sincere	gratitude.		Last	but	not	least,	actually	the	most,	I	would	like	to	thank	the	communities	of	West	Suriname.	All	the	people	from	the	Indigenous	communities	of	Apoera,	Sandlanding,	Washabo,	Hardlanding	and	Section	have	welcomed	me	with	such	warm	hearts.	I	will	never	forget	the	wisdom,	kindness	and	happiness	you	have	all	shared	with	me.	I	express	my	respect	and	gratitude	to	the	kind	Indigenous	locals	who	have	shared	their	knowledge	(see	pictures	on	the	next	pages)	and	to	all	the	people	who	have	opened	themselves	to	me.	You	have	shown	me	your	culture,	your	families,	your	lives	and	have	become	sincere	friends	who	will	not	be	forgotten.	West-Suriname	yu	abi	mi	ati.	De	mensen,	de	planten,	de	dieren,	het	eten,	de	dansen,	de	grote	grijnzen,	de	kashiri	en	de	Corantijn	rivier	die	een	paar	meter	hoger	is	komen	te	staan	door	de	tranen	bij	het	afscheid.	Mi	wan	tak	a	ala	sma	fu	west	Sranangkondre:	gran	gran	tangi	fu	sor	anga	ler	mi	someni	sani.	Mi	wensi	mi	kon	baka	esi,	wan	lobi! 		xviii		Kapitein	Carlos	Lewis		Basya	Jang	Djeneninpe		Naomi	Kupuru		Julius	Lingaard		Oma	Tine		Boyke	Aroepa		Armand	April		Martin	Soenda		Marcelle	Alpin		 xix		Cyril	Henry		Meneer	King		Dani	Simons	(1987	–	2016,	adyosi	mi	mati)			Mevrouw	Kaiwade		Mevrouw	Alarama		‘Piki’	Denju	Djeneninpe		Mati	Ali		 			 1	Chapter	1: Introduction	This	chapter	presents	background	information	on	Suriname	to	contextualize	the	livelihoods	of	Surinamese	Indigenous	and	Tribal	peoples	(ITPs).	The	rich	tropical	ecosystem	has	made	it	possible	for	many	Indigenous	communities	to	exist	and	build	up	an	extensive	amount	of	ecological	knowledge	over	the	past	8,000	years	or	more.	The	country’s	turbulent	colonial	history	had	displaced	many	of	the	Indigenous	communities	and	introduced	Maroons;	descendants	of	escaped	slaves	who	formed	Tribal	communities	in	the	interior.	Since	independence	in	1975,	the	inhabitants	in	both	urban	and	interior	areas	have	experienced	politically	and	economically	unstable	times	that	last	until	today.	The	natural	resources	located	on	and	under	the	customary	lands	that	the	Indigenous	and	Tribal	communities	depend	on	are	also	of	great	interest	to	the	country’s	economy	and	international	extractive	companies.	This	chapter	concludes	with	the	research	objectives.		1.1 Biogeography	Suriname	is	located	on	the	northern	coast	of	South	America	and	is	bordered	by	Guyana	in	the	west,	French	Guiana	in	the	east	and	Brazil	in	the	south.	Suriname	has	a	forest	cover	of	94.7%	1.	The	larger	(forest)	ecosystem	is	formed	with	French	Guiana	and	Guyana,	collectively	known	as	the	Guianas.	With	a	part	of	eastern	Venezuela,	southeastern	Columbia	and	northern	Brazil,	the	Guianas	are	located	on	an	ancient	Precambrian	geological	shield,	known	as	the	Guiana	Shield	(Figure	1.1)	2,3.	The	Shield	ecosystem	is	highly	forested	with	mainly	mesophytic	humid	forests.	It	contains	great	biodiversity	and	is	home	to	47	larger	sized	rivers	that	make	up	almost	a	quarter	of	South	America’s	freshwater	flows	to	the	Atlantic	ocean	2,4,5.	An	estimated	40%	of	the	biodiversity	in	the	Guiana	Shield	is	endemic,	meaning	that	40%	of	the	species	solely	occur	in	this	region	4.	In	Suriname,	between	the	edge	of	the	Guiana	Shield	and	the	ocean,	lies	a	savanna	belt	and	a	stretch	of	swampy	coastal	plain	where	90%	of	the	population	is	located,	see	Figure	1.1	between	the	red	line	and	the	coast.	The	main	forest	types	of	Suriname	are:	1)	high	dryland	forest	(rainforest),	with	13.3	million	hectares;	2)	high	and	low	swamp	forests,	covering	over	700.000	hectares;	3)	marsh	forest,	which	make	up	468.000	hectares,	and	4)	high	savanna	forest		 2	with	132.000	hectares,	5.	Extractive	industries	mainly	operate	in	the	pristine	high	dryland	forests,	which	contain	many	valuable	hardwood	species.				Figure	1.1:	The	Guiana	Shield	in	northern	South	America.	Borders	after	Gibbs	&	Barron	(1993).	Map	modified	from	https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guiana_shield_map-fr.svg		1.2 Indigenous	and	Tribal	peoples	1.2.1 A	brief	history	The	British	were	the	first	to	colonize	Suriname	and	bring	the	institution	of	slavery	to	the	country	in	1651.	They	ceded	the	country	to	the	Kingdom	of	the	Netherlands	in	exchange	for	Manhattan	in	1667	6.	Over	the	following	200	years,	a	total	of	approximately	200,000	Africans		 3	were	shipped	to	Suriname	to	work	under	harsh	conditions,	mainly	on	coffee	and	sugar	plantations	7.		In	the	early	colonial	period,	most	of	the	estimated	60,000	to	70,000	Indigenous	peoples	–	whose	ancestors	had	occupied	those	lands	for	many	centuries	8	–	fled	from	the	coastal	regions	into	the	interior	6,7,9.	While	the	number	of	African	slaves	kept	growing	in	the	18th	century,	an	increasing	number	of	enslaved	people	started	to	escape	the	plantations	and	established	Tribal	Maroon	communities	in	the	interior	forests	6,9–11.	The	colonizers	tried	to	capture	the	Maroons	and	conquer	their	settlements,	which	led	to	bloody	battles	6.	Not	only	did	the	Maroons	fight	organized	battles	against	the	Dutch	colonizers,	but	Indigenous	communities	also	started	guerilla	actions,	whereby	more	slaves	were	able	to	flee	the	plantations	9.		In	the	second	half	of	the	18th	century,	after	more	than	half	a	century	of	fighting,	several	peace	agreements	were	signed	between	the	Dutch	colonial	government	on	one	side	and	Maroon	communities	and	Indigenous	peoples	on	the	other	6,9.	These	treaties	stated	that	ITPs	were	allowed	to	use	and	sell	forest	products	and	to	inhabit	all	areas	at	more	than	10	hours	travel	from	the	plantations	9.	The	customary	laws	of	the	Indigenous	and	Tribal	peoples	were	recognized	in	these	peace	treaties	7,	however	it	was	the	colonial	government	that	retained	power	to	break	or	renew	these	rights.	In	the	1830s,	treaties	with	the	Maroon	communities	were	indeed	renewed	and	their	use	of	land	was	further	confined	9.	The	new	agreements	stated	that	no	Maroon	community	was	allowed	to	migrate,	therefore	their	territories	had	to	be	mapped	and	demarcated	9.	From	the	mid	1900s	the	colonial	government	started	to	increasingly	exploit	natural	resources	in	the	interior	7.		More	recently,	mining	and	logging	concessions	took	place	on	customary	lands.	ITPs	started	to	realize	how	few	rights	and	little	power	they	had	over	their	own	territories	7.		When	Suriname	became	independent	in	1975,	about	40,000	Surinamese	migrated	to	the	Netherlands.	In	Suriname	the	political	field	was	rather	unstable	as	two	military	coups	and	a	military	dictatorship	were	in	effect	between	1980	and	1991	7.	In	1986	a	civil	war,	known	as	the	Interior	War,	was	initiated	by	a	series	of	attacks	by	Maroon	insurgents	who	acted	for	recognition	of	their	customary	laws	and	lands	7.	The	military	government	fought	against	the	Maroon	insurgents	and	various	smaller	Indigenous	groups	until	the	war	officially	ended	in	August	of	1992,	when	the	Lelydorp	Peace	Accord	was	signed	7.	Some	10.000	Maroons	and	Amerindians	were	displaced		 4	from	their	homes	and	many	institutions	such	as	hospitals	were	closed	during	the	war	leading	to	higher	mortality	rates	10.		1.2.2 Current	territories	The	interior	forests	of	Suriname	are	currently	inhabited	by	4	self-identified	Indigenous	peoples	(Amerindians)	and	6	Tribal	peoples	(Maroons)	8.	Their	living	areas	are	shown	Figure	1.2.	This	map	excludes	the	usufruct	areas	where	they	hunt,	gather	NTFPs	and	carry	out	other	traditional	activities.	The	distinct	Amerindian	groups	who	inhabit	the	rural	and	interior	of	Suriname	are:	1)	approximately	3500	Arawak	(Lokono)	people,	inhabiting	coastal	regions	from	West	to	East;	2)	Carib	(Kaliña),	with	about	2500	people,	inhabiting	mainly	the	central	and	eastern	coastal	regions;	3)	Wayana,	inhabiting	the	central	and	eastern	part	of	the	southern	interior	with	a	population	estimated	at	500	individuals;	4)	Trio,	inhabiting	the	southern	central	and	western	part	of	the	interior	with	a	total	population	of	about	1500	individuals	8,9,12.	All	the	Indigenous	communities	together	make	up	less	than	4%	of	the	Surinamese	population	8.	The	Tribal	peoples	–	Ndyuka,	Saramaka,	Aluku,	Paramaka,	Matawai	and	Kwinti	Maroons	–	mainly	inhabit	the	central	and	eastern	parts	of	the	interior	and	make	up	approximately	15%	of	the	total	Surinamese	population	8.		Given	the	ecosystems	they	are	surrounded	by	it	is	self-evident	that	these	ITPs	are	dependent	on	the	surrounding	forest	for	resources.	These	resources	include	water,	timber,	wildlife	and	numerous	other	NTFPs	as	daily	subsistence	sources.	The	level	of	forest-dependency,	traditional	agriculture	and	hunting	varies	greatly	among	Suriname’s	local	communities	depending	on	distance	to	larger	cities,	access	to	markets	and	the	economic	situation.			 5		Figure	1.2:	Map	of	living	areas	of	Indigenous	(Amerindian)	and	Tribal	(Maroon)	communities	by	tribe	in	Suriname,	user	and	ancestral	territories	are	not	displayed	9.				 6	1.2.3 Traditional	authorities	All	Indigenous	and	Tribal	peoples	have	traditional	authorities	in	place,	who	used	to	work	independently	from	the	state.	Currently,	traditional	authorities	are	recognized	and	paid	positions	by	the	government	of	Suriname.	In	general,	a	granman	is	the	highest	traditional	authority,	followed	by	hoofdkapiteins	(head	captains),	see	Figure	1.3.	Kapiteins	are	assisted	by	basyas.	Arawak	and	Carib	Amerindians	in	Suriname	do	not	have	a	granman	in	place.			Figure	1.3:	Traditional	authorities	of	Indigenous	and	Tribal	Peoples	in	Suriname.	The	granman	is	the	highest	authority,	a	basya	the	lowest.		1.3 Non-Timber	Forest	Products	Forest	dwelling	peoples	have	derived	a	vast	amount	of	resources	from	(tropical)	forests	for	numerous	purposes	over	the	past	millennia.	While	living	in	close	harmony	with	nature,	these	peoples	have	built	up	an	extensive	amount	of	knowledge	about	their	habitat.	From	generation	to	generation	this	knowledge	is	transmitted	in	order	to	survive	the	resource	rich,	though	dangerous	forests.	Knowledge	about	plants	and	animals	in	particular	have	been,	and	still	are,	vital	to	sustain	the	livelihoods	of	millions	of	forest-dependent	people	13,14.	All	wild	plant	and	animal	products	that	are	derived	from	forests	or	other	natural	and	man-made	vegetation	types,	except	for	commercial	timber,	are	referred	to	as	Non-Timber	Forest	Products	(NTFPs)	15.	This	includes	the	roots,	flowers,	any	resin,	a	piece	of	bark	or	any	other	part	of	wild	plants	and	trees.	Also	insects,	fish	and	monkeys	are	included,	as	well	as	stones	with	spiritual	value.	NTFPs	are	important	sources	for	food,	for	people	themselves	and	also	for	their	domesticated	animals.	Numerous	NTFPs	serve	as	medicine	that	are	either	used	fresh,	prepared	in	some	way	or	stored.	Other	NTFPs	may	serve	as	ornaments,	building	materials	or	tools	13.	NTFPs	are	also	widely	used	for	cultural	and	spiritual	practices.	Next	to	tangible	products,	some		 7	plants	and	other	forest	products	are	said	to	have	intangible,	magical	powers	16,17.	These	magical	plants	(or	objects)	are	used,	for	example,	to	extend	one’s	powers	while	hunting,	bring	luck	in	love,	increase	crop	yields	or	to	protect	one’s	household	against	bad	spirits	16,17.	Such	plants	are	referred	to	as	charm	plants	and	are	believed	to	“have	spirits	or	soul-matter	which	can	detach	from	the	physical	component	of	the	plant”	17.	The	above-mentioned	uses	of	NTFPs	are	mainly	focused	on	the	subsistence	uses	of	NTFPs.	Over	the	past	decades	however,	an	increasing	demand	for	forest	products	has	been	seen	on	a	local,	regional	and	international	scale	13,	stimulating	the	commercialisation	of	(tropical)	NTFPs.	Mainly	for	poor	and	remote	forest-dwelling	communities,	the	sales	or	processing	of	NTFPs	can	alleviate	poverty	through	direct	sales	or	handling	processes	13,18.	These	sales	can	be	worth	up	to	hundreds	of	US	dollars	on	a	yearly	basis	19.	The	increase	of	NTFP	commercialisation	is	also	linked	to	the	greater	need	for	cash	in	local	communities,	who	are	becoming	increasingly	dependent	on	the	market	economy	19.	These	commercial	NTFPs	range	from	wild	animals	that	serve	as	food	or	show	piece	20,	to	a	wide	variety	of	exported	medicinal	wild	plants	21	or	forest	products	that	have	been	converted	into	cosmetic	products.	Also,	any	wild	plant	sold	on	local	or	regional	markets,	woven	baskets,	jewellery	made	from	forest	seeds,	wild-collected	honey,	fuelwood	or	wild	mushrooms	19.	The	drive	to	find	NTFPs	for	cash	instead	of	subsistence	purposes	changes	the	overall	knowledge	about	wild	plants	that	local	communities	possess.	Traditional	knowledge	about	NTFPs	held	by	Indigenous	peoples	has	shifted	and	declined	over	the	past	century	for	various	reasons.	Influence	of	colonizing	farmers,	missionaries	and	government	personnel,	conflicts	over	land	rights,	acculturation	and	urbanization	continue	to	cause	social,	economic	and	environmental	changes	to	Indigenous	communities	and	their	territories	8,22–25.	Some	losses	of	NTFP	knowledge	are	due	to	changes	in	the	livelihoods	and	lifestyles	of	Indigenous	peoples.	Certain	NTFPs	are	substituted	by	modern	goods	that	are	less	time-consuming	to	prepare,	more	effective	and	considered	up-to-date	24,	others	have	become	more	important	due	to	their	commercial	value.	Although	new	charm	plants	have	been	introduced	–	like	the	‘cash	bina’,	‘Georgetown	bina’	and	a	‘gold	mine	bina’	–	youngsters	fail	to	believe	in	the	powers	of	these	plants	17.	As	a	result,	formerly	important	knowledge	about	NTFPs		 8	becomes	superfluous	and	can	be	quickly	forgotten	or	deliberately	rejected	when	no	longer	used	in	(traditional)	activities.		In	Suriname	and	the	rest	of	the	Guianas,	succesive	ethnobotanists	have	documented	NTFP	uses	of	by	Amerindians	for	over	a	century.	Among	the	early	ethnobotanists	documenting	plant	uses	by	Amerindians	in	Suriname	are	Ahlbrink	(1931),	Stahel	(1944)	and	Ostendorf	(1962)	26–29.	Their	work	was	continued	by	a	new	generation	of	ethnobotanists	from	the	1990s	onwards.	Reinders	(1993)	did	research	on	medicinal	plant	use	among	the	Warao	in	Guyana	30.	Extensive	fieldwork	was	done	by	van	Andel	among	Arawaks,	Caribs	and	Waraos	in	northwest	Guyana	on	both	subsistence	and	commercial	NTFPs	31.	More	recent	research	among	Guianas’	Amerindian	tribes	include	a	study	and	a	review	paper	on	magical	charm	plants	16,17	and	a	study	on	variation	of	usage	of	NTFPs	among	different	ethnic	and	socioeconomic	Makushi,	Arawak,	and	Wapishana	peoples	and	with	distinct	socioeconomic	status	32.	Ruysschaert	documented	NTFP	uses	among	Powakka	Awaraks	(van	Andel	&	Ruysschaert,	2011).	Among	the	Wayana	Amerindians,		Chapuis	(2001)	has	documented	several	charm	plant	uses	33	and	the	Amazon	Conservation	Team	(ACT)	Suriname	produced	an	ethno-ecological	baseline	study	including	some	relevant	NTFP	uses	among	the	Wayana	and	Trio	34	35.	Extensive	ethnobotanical	fieldwork	was	conducted	by	Plotkin	and	Hoffman	amongst	the	Trio	on	NTFP	names	and	uses	36,37.	Still,	in	various	Indigenous	areas	of	Suriname,	traditional	knowledge	on	and	use	of	NTFPs	has	never	been	documented.		1.4 Forestry	sector	The	lands	that	the	ITPs	use	for	the	collection	of	their	NTFPs	are	also	of	interest	to	many	multinational	logging	and	mining	companies.	In	order	to	understand	how	this	legal	pluralism	system	works,	it	is	necessary	to	clarify	some	practices	of	the	Surinamese	forestry	industry	as	well.		1.4.1 Institutions	and	laws	In	order	to	protect	natural	forest	resources	and	to	control	extractive	industries,	Suriname	has	laid	out	well-developed	policies	and	management	systems	in	different	national	Acts	that	are		 9	administered	by	several	governmental	institutions.	The	Foundation	for	Forest	Management	and	Forest	Control	(in	Dutch:	Stichting	voor	Bosbeheer	en	Bostoezicht,	SBB)	is	the	main	institution	that	enforces	the	Forest	Management	Act	of	1992.	This	Act	includes	regulations	about	the	harvesting	of	trees	and	their	export.	The	SBB	manages	all	logging	concession	licenses	for	private	landowners	and	extractive	companies.	In	2003,	the	National	Forest	Policy	document	was	issued,	which	has	laid	out	national	strategies	to	enhance	the	national	economy	through	forestry	practices.		Another	important	governmental	institution	is	the	Department	of	Nature	Protection	(in	Dutch:	Natuurbeheer,	NB),	which	controls	nature	reserves	and	protected	areas	including	wildlife	as	laid	out	in	the	Conservation	Act	and	Game	Act	established	in	1954	5.	In	March	2006,	a	new	national	biodiversity	strategy	report	was	published	by	the	Ministry	of	Labour,	Technological	Development	and	Environment	38.	The	report	contains	the	national	guidelines	to	protect	and	sustainably	conserve	Suriname’s	rich	ecosystems	in	order	to	fulfil	their	commitments	to	the	Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	(CBD).	However,	even	the	mere	mentioning	of	Indigenous	and	Tribal	Peoples	is	absent	in	this	report.	 1.4.2 Forest	tenure	types	The	forests	in	Suriname	cover	14.8	million	hectares	in	total	and	are	divided	into	several	statutory	tenure	types	39–41:	• 5.32	million	hectares	are	designated	for	natural	production,	which	is	meant	for	commercial	harvesting	of	timber;	this	includes:	o 1.73	million	hectares	for	117	logging	concessions,	roughly	11.7	%	of	the	total	forested	area;	407,000	hectares	hereof	are	FSC	certified;	o 0.61	million	hectares	have	been	allocated	to	88	Indigenous	and	Tribal	Peoples’	communities	as	communal	forests;	o 2.98	million	hectares	are	not	under	active	concession	• 2.19	million	hectares	are	official	protected	forests;	• 7.29	million	hectares	have	neither	a	logging	designation	nor	a	protection	status		 10	The	policies	governing	a	communal	forest	are	of	great	importance	for	hinterland	communities.	The	Forest	Management	Act	of	1992	introduced	tenure	regulations	for	communal	forests	as	“…forests	for	the	benefit	of	forest	peoples	living	in	villages	and	settlements	in	tribal	societies,	and	that	serve	to	meet	subsistence	needs	of	food	and	forest	products,	as	well	as	for	the	purpose	of	possible	commercial	timber	extraction,	the	collection	of	Non-Timber	Forest	Products,	and	land	clearing	for	agricultural	use”	42.	The	communal	forest	title	looks	promising	since	even	though	it	does	not	accord	ITPs	full	legal	rights	over	their	lands.	It	provides	the	assurance	that	these	lands	should	benefit	the	local	communities.	A	communal	forest	title	allows	a	community	the	right	to	practice	agriculture	for	the	community’s	subsistence	needs,	gather	vegetal	and	animal	Non-Timber	Forest	Products	(NTFPs)	and	to	commercially	harvest	timber,	either	directly	or	as	rentiers	7.	As	rentier,	a	community	allows	a	company	access	to	their	communal	forest	to	harvest	natural	resources	and	for	which	the	company	pays	the	equivalent	of	a	royalty.	In	reality,	communal	forests	cover	only	a	small	portion	of	customary	territories,	the	lands	claimed	by	Indigenous	and	Tribal	communities	in	accordance	with	their	customs	and	traditions.	Customary	territories	are	estimated	to	have	a	50%	overlap	with	extractive	concession	areas	in	Suriname	8.		1.4.3 Deforestation		Suriname	belongs	to	the	High	Forest	Cover	Low	Deforestation	(HFLD)	countries	which	collectively	cover	about	18	%	of	global	tropical	forests	4.	For	a	country	to	be	categorised	as	an	HFLD	country,	it	has	to	meet	the	conditions	of	having	a	national	forest	cover	higher	than	50	%	and	a	deforestation	rate	lower	than	0.22	%	per	year	43.	With	about	80	%	44	to	94	%	45	(the	latter	is	data	provided	by	SBB	to	the	FAO)		of	land	area	covered	in	forest	and	a	deforestation	rate	between	0.03	%	to	0.04	%	per	year	46,	Suriname	easily	meets	these	standards	40.	Taking	into	account	that	these	numbers	are	from	2012,	that	is,	five	years	ago,	and	that	the	production	of	roundwood	had	grown	by	39.9	%	in	2014,	the	deforestation	rate	would	have	been	around	0.06	%	in	2014.	Even	after	adding	the	potential	33	%	of	unregistered,	illegally	harvested	roundwood	(see	section	1.4.5),	deforestation	rates	will	still	not	tip	the	HFLD	threshold.	Suriname	has	retained	this	low	deforestation	rate	mainly	due	to	its	low	populace	and	the	practice	of	selective		 11	logging	of	only	a	few	commercially-desirable	species.	As	90%	of	the	population	inhabits	the	coastal	regions,	infrastructure	in	the	interior	forests	is	limited	and	transportation	of	the	heavy	timber	logs	is	expensive	46.		Extractive	industries	are	the	main	driver	behind	deforestation	and	forest	degradation	in	Suriname	39.	The	country’s	largest	extractive	industries	are	gold,	timber	and	bauxite	42,	executed	by	both	small-scale	miners	and	loggers,	as	well	as	(multi-)national	mining	and	logging	companies.	These	companies	have	property	rights	over	large	concession	areas	for	which	they	pay	minimum	annual	fees	and	royalties	to	the	government	47.	The	annual	fees	per	hectare	lie	between	US$	0.009	and	US$	0.036,	depending	on	the	size	of	the	concession	48.	Royalties	for	A-graded	wood	are	US$	6,-	per	m3	and	for	grade	B	US$	5.50	per	m3	48.	Among	the	largest	logging	companies	are	numerous	Asian	players,	who	were	responsible	for	about	90	%	of	Suriname’s	annual	rough	wood	export	in	2014	49,50.		Agriculture,	energy	production	and	housing	development	are	other	minor	drivers	of	deforestation	in	Suriname	39.	The	agricultural	sector	accounts	for	both	modern	and	traditional	operations.	Traditional	agriculture	in	the	interior	happens	through	rotational	or	shifting	cultivation	or	slash	and	burn	practices	39.	ITPs	depend	on	these	techniques	for	subsistence	and	are	therefore	likely	to	continue	these	practices.	Traditional	shifting	agriculture	takes	up	an	estimated	246,700	hectares	in	total,	whereas	slash	and	burn	is	estimated	at	16,400	hectares	39.		The	current	low	deforestation	rates	may	last	for	a	while	in	spite	of	the	fact	that	timber	export	has	been	increasing	over	the	past	two	decades	and	the	agricultural	sector	is	about	to	expand	46.	Suriname	has	an	estimated	1.5	million	hectares	of	arable	lands	on	the	treeless	coastal	plain	of	which	just	10%	is	being	used	39.	Therefore,	an	increase	in	agriculture	does	not	consequently	mean	an	increase	in	deforestation,	nor	expansion	into	ITPs’	customary	territories.	The	Surinamese	government	has	signed	a	Memorandum	of	Understanding	(MoU)	with	both	an	Indian	and	Chinese	company	to	expand	current	agricultural	operations	46.			 12	1.4.4 Timber	harvesting	procedures	The	SBB	controls	all	timber	harvesting	activities,	which	can	only	find	place	on	(short-,	medium-	or	long-term)	concessions,	in	communal	forests	or	on	lands	that	are	held	under	an	Incidental	Cutting	License	51.	Harvesting	activities	can	only	begin	after	a	harvesting	management	plan	is	approved,	which	should	include	an	inventory	of	species	with	accompanying	size	and	spatial	data.	According	to	the	Reduced	Impact	Logging	system	52,	ecological	impacts	by	tree	felling	should	be	minimized.	For	every	tree	that	is	felled,	a	unique	label	number	is	supplied	(beforehand)	by	the	SBB.	For	any	following	procedures,	the	label	number	has	to	be	entered.	Therefore,	in	theory,	the	unique	number	shows	where	a	log	is	felled,	when	and	where	it	was	in	transport	(through	forest-service	checkpoints)	and	at	which	mill	the	log	has	been	processed.	However,	Suriname	scored	36	out	of	100	points	in	the	Transparency	International’s	Corruption	Perception	Index	in	2015	and	performed	no	better	in	previous	years.	This	is	an	indication	that	the	government	has	relatively	weak	governance	and	that	official	documentation	is	often	unreliable	and	not	easily	accessible.		1.4.5 Illegal	logging	activities	Illegal	logging	activities	and	corruption	in	the	forestry	sector	in	Suriname	are	undisputed.		An	average	of	15	%	of	the	total	roundwood	production	was	illegally	produced	and	detected	between	2000	and	2005	44.	This	figure	takes	seized	and	fined	roundwood	into	account.	Another	estimated	20	%	(with	up	to	a	maximum	of	33	%)	of	total	roundwood	is	assumed	to	be	undetected,	illegally	produced.	This	timber	enters	the	markets	unregistered	44.	There	has	not	been	written	much	about	illegal	logging	in	Suriname.	However,	news	articles	help	to	clarify	the	poor	governance	and	legality	of	the	industry.	Just	in	the	first	quarter	of	2017	the	SBB	and	its	employees	have	been	in	the	spotlight	several	times.	In	March	2017,	the	national	fraud	police	stated	that	they	have	an	ongoing	investigation	of	current	fraudulent	procedures	regarding	concession	allocations	by	SBB	53.	According	to	the	report,	large	sums	of	money	are	paid	to	circumvent	official	concession	request	procedures.	Consequently,	the	secretary	of	the	board	of	directors	has	officially	resigned.	In	late	January		 13	2017,	the	minister	of	Physical	Planning,	Land-	and	Forestry	Management,	Steven	Relyveld,	was	laid	off,	being	suspected	of	fraudulent	forestry	practices.	Under	his	administration,	various	large	concessions	were	given	out	to	Chinese	businessmen	and	in	the	last	week	of	his	tenure	four	other	concessions	were	allocated	(to	Tong	Seng	Wood	NV,	Suriwood	Lumber	Company	and	April	International),	covering	95,000	hectares	54.	Relyveld	had	replaced	a	previous	minister	who	was	suspected	of	corruption	as	well.	Earlier	in	January	2017,	two	SBB	foresters	had	neglected	to	halt	the	transportation	of	illegal	logs	close	to	Zanderij,	Suriname	55.		1.5 Land	rights	and	tenure	security	Having	abandoned	their	nomadic	lifestyle,	many	Indigenous	communities’	traditional	subsistence	lifestyle	practices	became	concentrated	around	their	villages.	Agricultural	fields	were	located	close	to	their	homes,	with	hunting	and	NTFP	gathering	sites	in	a	wider	perimeter.	Local	communities	with	traditional	lifestyles	need	their	customary	territories	for	their	individual	and	collective	wellbeing.	Without	access	to	such	a	territory	local	forest-dependent	communities	cannot	provide	for	their	traditional	subsistence	life.	Their	customary	territories	are	often	owned	by	other	people	or	institutions	(e.g.	governments),	which	set	rules	about	who	can	use	these	lands	and	the	resources	it	contains.	I	define	land	tenure	here	as	the	‘set	of	institutions	and	policies	that	determine	locally	how	the	land	and	its	resources	are	accessed,	who	can	hold	and	use	these	resources,	for	how	long	and	under	what	conditions’	56.	Land	tenure	security	depends	on	three	main	principles:	1)	whether	land	rights	are	protected	by	a	third	person	or	institution,	who	is	able	to	punish	violators;	2)	the	breadth	of	rights	one	possesses	over	the	land	and	resources,	and;	3)	the	duration	of	a	lease	or	ownership	to	the	land.	Since	colonial	times	many	Indigenous	peoples	around	the	world	have	struggled	to	gain	title	over	their	territories,	and	no	less	so	for	the	communities	in	Suriname.	Finally	in	1992	after	the	Internal	War,	the	Lelydorp	Peace	Accord	stated	that	Indigenous	peoples	and	Maroon	communities	would	get	title	over	the	lands	requested	by	them	7.	However,	most	rights	and	land	titles	that	were	promised	are	still	not	issued	and	the	legal	status	of	the	Indigenous	Peoples	and	Maroons	has	not	improved	or	changed	7.	All	governments	that	have	ruled	since	1991,	have		 14	failed	to	improve	tenure	security	and	acknowledge	land	rights	for	Indigenous	Peoples	and	Maroon	communities	in	Suriname	7.	The	report	‘Who	owns	the	world’s	land?’	from	the	Rights	and	Resources	Initiative	(2015),	shows	that	Suriname,	up	to	today,	is	the	only	country	in	Central	and	South	America	that	has	0%	of	their	lands	either	designated	to	or	owned	by	ITPs	57.	The	report	based	its	findings	on	the	judgment	issued	in	favour	of	the	Surinamese	plaintiffs,	in	the	Case	of	Saramaka	People	of	Suriname	by	the	Inter-American	Court	of	Human	Rights	(IACHR).	That	judgment	states	that	‘Suriname	does	not	have	a	statutory	or	regulatory	framework	that	recognizes	Indigenous	Peoples’	or	local	communities’	rights	to	own	or	control	land’	57.	Indeed,	the	Constitution	does	not	take	the	existence	of	ITPs	into	account	and	their	customary	legal	and	tenure	systems	are	not	protected	by	national	law	11.	Moreover,	land	titles	that	are	accessible	to	ITPs	are	(i)	individual	leaseholds	which	are	intended	for	building,	planting	or	recreation	(useless	from	an	Indigenous	collective	point	of	view),	and	(ii)	communal	forest	titles.	Communal	forests	are	definitely	areas	designated	for	Suriname’s	local	communities.	It	is	likely	that	the	Rights	and	Resources	Initiative’s	report	did	not	recognize	this	fact	because	‘Suriname	has	no	community-based	tenure	regime	that	recognizes	a	robust	enough	bundle	of	rights	to	constitute	community	ownership	or	control’	under	RRI’s	methodology.	As	noted	below,	communal	forests	have	been	rescinded	by	the	State	and	awarded	to	extractive	companies.	The	communal	title	is	a	form	of	land	decentralization	and	is	managed	by	the	highest	present	traditional	authority,	who	is	elected	by	their	local	community	and	recognized	as	occupying	a	governmental	position.	The	traditional	authority	(or	his/her	assistants	and/or	council)	needs	the	consent	of	the	village	to	allow	third	parties	such	as	logging	and	mining	companies	on	their	communal	lands.	However,	several	aspects	are	not	in	accordance	with	international	law.	Amongst	others,	the	communal	forest	title	contradicts	Article	XVIII.2	of	the	American	Convention	on	Human	Rights	(ratified	by	Suriname	in	1986)	which	states	that	‘Indigenous	peoples	have	the	right	to	the	legal	recognition	of	their	property	and	ownership	rights	with	respect	to	lands,	territories	and	resources	they	have	historically	occupied,	as	well	as	to	the	use	of	those	to	which	they	have	historically	had	access	for	their	traditional	activities	and	livelihood.’	Only	a	small	percentage	of	the	areas	that	are	asserted	as	customary	territories	have	been	titled		 15	as	communal	forests.	Additionally,	in	Suriname’s	Handbook	Of	Mining	Laws	And	Regulations	the	lesser	rights	of	communal	forests	are	explicitly	mentioned:	“…the	government	will	further	regulate	the	utilization	and	the	control	of	the	communal	forest”	58.	Any	disputes	that	arise	from	overlapping	territorial	claims	are	usually	settled	in	favour	of	national	or	international	extractive	companies	that	are	backed	by	State-issued	permits.	Such	evidence	is	apparent	in	several	cases	in	which	communal	forest	titles	were	nullified	by	title	allocations	to	concession	holders	5.	In	the	Brokopondo	district	a	communal	forest	title	was	taken	and	given	to	the	international	gold	mining	company	Iamgold	5.	Likewise	in	the	district	of	Marowijne,	communal	forest	titled	lands	were	cancelled	and	the	lands	allocated	to	a	Chinese	multinational	investing	in	large-scale	palm	oil	plantations	5.	One	of	the	main	laws	that	upholds	these	revocations	of	communal	forest	titles	is	Article	41	of	the	Surinamese	Constitution,	which	states	that	the	nation	has	the	inalienable	right	to	take	full	possession	of	all	natural	resources	for	any	economic	or	social	development	11.	Article	41	thereby	does	not	recognize,	amongst	others,	Article	14	of	the	ILO	Convention	169,	which	states	that:	“Ownership	and	property	rights	on	the	lands	[Indigenous	Peoples]	traditionally	inhabit	must	be	recognized.	Moreover,	in	some	cases	special	measures	are	needed	to	protect	the	rights	of	these	peoples	to	use	the	lands	where	they	not	only	live,	but	also	traditionally	have	access	for	their	traditional	subsistence	activities	…”.	ILO	Convention	169	has	not	been	ratified	by	Suriname	so	the	government	does	not	have	to	implement	those	regulations.	Pressure	from	ITPs	on	the	government	to	recognize	the	normative	nature	of	the	regulations	set	out	in	the	ILO	Convention	169	to	protect	their	customary	territories	have	failed	so	far.	A	full	overview	of	international	conventions,	treaties	and	declarations	presently	signed	and/or	ratified	by	Suriname	is	shown	in	Table	1.1	Suriname,	which	has	been	a	member	of	the	Organization	of	American	States	(OAS)	since	1977,	ratified	the	American	Convention	on	Human	Rights	in	1986.	In	doing	so,	it	accepted	the	compulsory	jurisprudence	of	the	Inter-American	Court	of	Human	Rights.	However,	to	date	the	government	of	Suriname	has	failed	to	implement	and	execute	international	jurisprudence.	Ratified	conventions,	treaties	and	declarations	are	being	neglected	and	individual	and	communal	forest	land	titles	are	limited	in	the	extent	to	which	they	safeguard	collective	land	rights	against	extractive	concession	holders	or	the	national	government	42.	As	a	result,	local		 16	communities	enjoy	weak	rights	with	(or	without)	a	communal	forest	title.	Several	land	rights	cases	have	been	brought	by	ITPs	against	the	Government	of	Suriname	to	the	Inter-American	Court	of	Human	Rights	(IACHR).	In	2007,	the	IACHR	ruled	that	the	Saramaka	people	form	a	(Tribal)	collective	through	their	individual	rights	to	culture	and	religion	59and	that	the	State	had	violated	the	Saramaka’s	right	to	property	and	the	right	to	judicial	protection	42.	The	court	stated	that:	“The	State	shall	delimit,	demarcate,	and	grant	collective	title	over	territory	of	the	members	of	the	Saramaka	people,	in	accordance	with	their	customary	laws.”	9,42.	More	recently,	in	November	2015,	the	IAHCR	found	the	state	of	Suriname	guilty	in	the	case	of	‘the	Kaliña	and	Lokono	Peoples	versus	Suriname’	on	multiple	grounds.	Suriname	had	failed	to	recognize	the	collective	territorial	rights	of	the	two	Indigenous	tribes	and	had	allocated	customary	territories	to	non-Indigenous	individuals	and	bauxite	mining	companies	(Alcoa	and	BHP	Billiton)	60.	Although	the	court’s	orders	are	binding,	the	court	itself	lacks	an	enforcement	mechanism	and	so	cannot	enforce	their	jurisprudence.	Suriname	has	so	far	failed	to	implement	the	orders	that	were	ruled	by	the	IACHR.															 17	Table	1.1:	Relevant	international	human	and	Indigenous	rights	agreements	for	Suriname.	Name	 Created	 Ratified/adopted	Conventions,	treaties	and	declarations	of	the	United	Nations	 		 		Universal	Declaration	of	Human	Rights	(UDHR)	 1948	 adopted	International	Convention	on	Elimination	of	All	Forms	of	Racial	Discrimination	(ICERD)	1965	 1984	(ratified)	International	Covenant	on	Civil	and	Political	Rights	(ICCPR)	 1966	 1977	(ratified)	International	Covenant	on	Economic,	Social	and	Cultural	Rights	(ICESCR)	1966	 1977	(ratified)	The	Convention	on	the	Elimination	of	all	Forms	of	Discrimination	Against	Women	(CEDAW)	1979	 1993	(ratified)	Convention	against	Torture	and	Other	Cruel	Inhuman	or	Degrading	Treatment	or	Punishment	(CAT)	1987	 Not	ratified	Convention	on	the	Rights	of	the	Child	(CRC)	 1989	 1990	(ratified)	Declaration	on	the	Rights	of	Indigenous	Peoples	(UNDRIP)	 2007	 2007	(adopted)	Conventions	within	the	Inter-American	system	 		 		The	American	Convention	on	Human	Rights	 1969	 1986	(ratified)	CARICOM	Charter	of	Civil	Society	 1997	 adopted	Environmental	treaties	 		 		Rio	Declaration	 1992	 1992	(ratified)	Agenda	21	 1992	 1992	(ratified)	Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	(CBD)	 1992	 1996	(ratified)	International	Tropical	Timber	Agreement	(ITTA)	 2011	 2013	(ratified)	Other	international	conventions	and	declarations	 		 		International	Labour	Organization	(ILO)	Convention	169	 1989	 Not	ratified			 18	1.6 Research	hypotheses	and	questions	This	research	was	conducted	in	two	Indigenous	communities	in	West	Suriname.	The	village	of	Apoera	is	inhabited	by	an	acculturated,	predominantly	Arawak	community	that	has	been	exposed	to	non-local	influences	for	several	decades.	The	second	community	is	a	more	forest-dependent	Amerindian	Trio	community,	who	settled	in	Sandlanding	in	2002.	As	the	two	communities	are	separated	only	by	a	40-minute	walk,	they	hunt	together	at	times	and	their	children	attend	the	same	school	in	Apoera.		This	study	location,	further	explored	in	Chapter	2,	has	been	chosen	for	various	reasons.	The	Trio	community	in	Sandlanding	moved	recently	to	this	less	remote	territory	and	is	therefore	not	represented	in	any	literature.	The	two	communities	are	ethnically	different,	vary	in	forest-dependency	and	the	length	of	exposure	to	urbanization	and	acculturation.	This	site	is	therefore	ideal	to	compare	NTFP	knowledge	and	observe	potential	cross-cultural	knowledge	transmission.	Chapter	3	covers	the	topic	of	(differences	in)	NTFP	knowledge	that	is	held	by	the	children	(age	4	to	14)	of	both	communities.	The	following	hypotheses	are	posed:	1) Trio	children	possess	more	knowledge	about	NTFPs	than	their	peers	from	Apoera,	because	the	Trio	are	more	forest-dependent	and	have	been	less	exposed	to	acculturation	and	urbanization;	2) Cross-cultural	knowledge	transmission	finds	place	between	the	community	of	Apoera	and	the	Trio	community	in	Sandlanding;	3) Nourishing	and	economically	important	NTFPs	are	better	known	than	medicinal	NTFPs;		4) Knowledge	about	NTFPs	is	similar	for	boys	and	girls;	Furthermore,	there	is	little	knowledge	of	which	NTFPs	have	been	commercialised	in	this	region,	who	these	products	are	sold	to	and	if	these	communities’	livelihoods	depend	on	the	sales	of	NTFPs.	Chapter	4	covers	the	most	important	commercial	NTFPs,	assesses	the	land	tenure	status	of	the	areas	NTFPs	are	collected	on	and	evaluates	potential	threats	to	the	ecosystem	as	a	result	of	NTFP	harvesting.	In	this	chapter,	the	following	research	questions	are	posed:	1) What	is	the	status	of	the	Indigenous	communities’	land	tenure	over	their	customary	territories	in	West	Suriname?		 19	2) Which	wild	plants	and	animals	are	most	important	for	the	communities’	economy?		3) When	and	where	are	these	NTFPs	harvested?		4) Does	the	harvest	threat	the	targeted	species’	populations	or	the	ecosystem?				 20	Chapter	2: The	study	area	and	involved	communities	2.1 Study	site	The	Kabalebo	jurisdiction	of	district	Sipaliwini	in	West	Suriname	is	home	to	the	Indigenous	settlements	and	villages	of	Sandlanding,	Apoera,	Section	and	Washabo,	along	the	Courantyne	River	(Figure	2.1).	This	research	took	place	in:	1)	Apoera	(5°	11.43'N	and	57°	10.38'W)	–	a	predominantly	Arawak	village,	and	2)	a	young	Trio	settlement	in	Sandlanding	(5°	9.81'N	and	57°	10.20'W),	which	falls	under	Apoera’s	jurisdiction	and	is	on	a	30	to	40-minute	walk	from	facilities	in	Apoera.	Access	to	cities	entails	either	a	7-	to	10-hour	(or	longer	when	roads	become	less	accessible	due	to	heavy	rains)	drive	east	towards	Paramaribo,	the	capital,	or	a	120	km	boat	ride	north	to	Nickerie	which	also	gives	access	to	the	coastal	highway	towards	the	capital.	The	area,	located	in	a	tropical	rainforest	climate,	has	a	mean	annual	temperature	of	27	°C	and	an	annual	precipitation	of	1895	mm.	The	ecosystem	along	the	Courantyne	River	is	characterized	by	tropical	lowland	forest	vegetation,	surrounded	by	highland	forests	and	swamp	forests.		Figure	2.1:	Study	sites	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	in	West	Suriname	in	South	America.	Map	modified	from	http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/tpc/txu-pclmaps-oclc-22834566_l-28a.jpg.		 21	2.2 Communities	2.2.1 Apoera	2.2.1.1 History	Around	1870	shaman	James	Lingaard	had	an	argument	with	a	fellow	shaman	who	made	James	take	his	family	and	his	korjaal	(a	traditional	boat)	to	leave	the	village	of	Poaka.	James	Lingaard,	originally	James	Achocado	(pronouced	as	ashucadu),	created	a	new	settlement	called	Epira	together	with	his	wife	and	their	children	Adolphus,	Maurius	and	Paulus.	Their	fourth	child,	daughter	Adolphina,	stayed	behind	with	the	Poaka	community.	James	Lingaard	was	a	knowledgeable	man	who	shared	some	of	his	traditional	knowledge	with	his	children.	This	knowledge	still	runs	in	the	family	today.	The	shaman	had	built	a	wooden	kaaiman	(crocodile)	shaped	bench,	which	would	walk	with	him	to	the	riverbank.	Together	with	the	kaaiman	James	was	said	to	be	able	to	stay	under	water	in	contact	with	the	spirits	of	nature	(pers.	communication	J.	Lingaard).	Their	family	thrived	next	to	the	Courantyne	River	where	more	families	continuously	joined	the	small	Epira	community.	In	1914,	these	families	were	ripped	apart	when	(most	likely)	the	Spanish	flu	killed	5	to	8	people	on	a	daily	basis.	The	community	had	to	leave	their	new	homes	and	peddled	to	Perulu	where	Adolphina	Lingaard	now	joined	them	as	well.	Five	years	later,	in	1919,	the	mission	to	create	a	new	‘Achocado’	settlement	was	continued	by	Adolphus	Lingaard:	Washabo	–	which	means	‘let	us	get	together’	–	was	created	downstream	the	Courantyne	River,	close	to	the	already	existing	tiny	settlement	of	Apoera	(pers.	communication	J.	Lingaard).	Although	Apoera	was	existent	before	1900,	it	gained	its	name	in	1902.	Back	then,	the	balata	bleeders	Wix	and	Lashly	were	active	in	the	region.	On	an	expedition	on	the	Courantyne	River,	they	had	brought	a	young	boy	aged	7	or	8	back	to	their	balata	fields.	The	boy	knocked	with	his	fist	firmly	on	his	heart	and	said	‘Aporo’.	Wrongly	interpreted,	Wix	and	Lashly	named	their	balata	field	‘Apoera’.	The	village	of	Section,	originally	called	‘Middle	Section’	as	it	was	in	between	Apoera	and	Washabo,	is	about	80	years	old	(pers.	communication	J.	Lingaard).		Adolphus	Lingaard	was	married	to	Arubella	who	gave	him	five	children:	Christine,	Clarice,	Justine,	Herriete	and	James.	The	latter	is	the	father	of	Julius	Lingaard	who	shared	this	history		 22	and	many	local	Amerindian	stories	(ingi	tori)	with	me	and	who	is	still	writing	proposals	for	community	development	projects.	When	Suriname	gained	independence	in	1975,	the	first	government	(which	was	in	place	since	24	December	1973)	planned	for	Apoera	to	become	the	second	largest	city	in	the	country,	a	project	called	‘Plan	West	Suriname’.	Despite	protests	by	the	Indigenous	inhabitants,	the	developments	were	approved	and	funded	by	the	Dutch	government.	According	to	one	of	the	elders	the	Dutch	invested	500	million	Dutch	guilders.	An	American	company	built	a	railway	from	Apoera	to	Bakhuys,	where	the	extraction	of	natural	resources	found	place.	The	project	also	included	the	expansion	of	housing	and	other	facilities	such	as	a	harbor,	market,	education	center	and	swimming	pool	on	‘Phase	1’.	‘Phase	2’	was	already	deforested	for	further	development	(pers.	communication	C.	Henry	&	J.	Lingaard).	Several	companies	were	involved	in	the	development	of	Apoera	(pers.	communication	C.	Henry).	Van	Kessel	and	Tjanga	Langa	established	the	harbor	and	the	streets,	whereas	extraction	companies	such	as	Suriname	Timber	were	involved	in	the	extraction	of	timber	and	stone.	In	the	early	1980’s	Gresalco	bought	two	locomotives	from	the	American	company	that	had	constructed	the	railway.	From	1975	to	1985	many	Guyanese	from	across	the	river	had	traveled	to	West	Suriname	to	find	work	in	the	extractive	industry.	In	the	80’s,	they	applied	for	Surinamese	nationality	in	order	to	ease	labor	contracts	and	get	access	to	national	health	insurance.	In	1986	the	Internal	War	ignited	in	Suriname.	The	national	army	was	also	based	in	Apoera	and	recruited	locals	to	defend	their	towns.	However,	many	of	the	families	fled	to	Guyana	in	1987,	where	they	had	built	camps	in	the	pristine	forest.	Brunswijck’s	fighters	came	until	camp	52	(at	52	kilometers	from	Apoera)	after	which	the	fighters	went	south	to	Blanche-Marie	which	they	took	over.	The	fighters	did	not	come	further	towards	Apoera	since	one	of	the	main	bridges	on	the	only	road	to	the	villages	was	blown	up	by	locals	or	the	national	army.	In	1992,	when	families	returned	from	Guyana,	many	recently	settled	inhabitants	and	companies	had	left	West	Suriname	because	of	the	Internal	War.	Moreover,	Plan	West	Suriname	was	not	further	supported	after	the	military	coup	of	Bouterse.	The	development	site	‘Phase	2’	is	thereby	up	to		 23	today	a	large	piece	of	deforested	land	next	to	the	village	(pers.	communication	J.	Lingaard,	C.	Henry	&	Bony).		2.2.1.2 Current	situation	As	a	result	of	extractive	industrial	development	in	the	1930s	(timber),	1940s	(latex	derived	from	Manilkara	bidentata)	and	1970s	(timber	and	stone),	people	from	coastal	Suriname	and	Guyana	moved	to	West	Suriname	in	search	of	employment	61,62.	As	the	immigrants	were	not	allowed	to	settle	in	Washabo	and	Section	by	the	traditional	authorities,	they	settled	in	Apoera,	exposing	the	original	community	to	other	cultures.	Nowadays,	Apoera	has	approximately	1150	inhabitants	who	descend	from	mainly	Arawak,	but	also	Warao	and	Carib	Amerindians,	speaking	Guyanese	Creole	and	Sranantongo	(Dutch	Creole)	63	(personal	communication	Capt.	Lewis,	2016).	Most	people	in	Apoera	are	religious.	The	Roman	Catholic	church	is	the	largest	in	town,	followed	by	Evangelists.	There	are	also	2	Jehovah	churches.	In	2005,	37	%	of	the	inhabitants	were	children	between	0	and	17	years	of	age	61.	There	is	a	primary	school	in	both	Apoera	and	Washabo.	Children	generally	attend	school	from	age	4	to	12	(Figure	2.2).	The	state	schools	are	heavily	subsidized	as	school	fees	entail	only	SRD$	10	per	person	per	year	(pers.	communication	Juf	Moor),	which	is	the	equivalent	of	less	than	US$	2.	A	secondary	school	has	opened	its	doors	in	2006	where	children	can	attend	school	for	another	4	years	after	the	primary	school	(pers.	communication	kapitein	Lewis).	To	continue	studying	people	have	to	go	to	Paramaribo	or	Nickerie	to	attend	boarding	schools,	something	many	Indigenous	people	cannot	afford.	The	direction	of	the	studies	codetermines	whether	people	return	as	there	are	more	divergent	job	opportunities	in	the	city.	Apoera	has	its	own	police	station,	fire	department	and	an	institution	for	child	abuse,	which	opened	early	2016	(and	received	over	50	reports	within	the	first	2	months).	There	is	a	department	of	the	national	electricity	company	EBS.	Electricity	is	generated	through	the	burning	of	diesel	and	bills	are	distributed	to	all	households	on	a	monthly	basis.	The	District	Commissioner	is	also	placed	in	Apoera	and	inhabits	a	modern,	large	building.	In	Apoera	and	Washabo	there	is	a	policlinic,	which	is	a	department	of	the	Medical	Sending	care	system	at		 24	which	outpatients	are	treated.	In	case	of	more	serious	health	problems,	a	patient	has	to	travel	to	a	larger	city	(often	a	bumpy	10-hour	drive	to	the	hospital	in	Paramaribo).	Other	people	prefer	to	use	natural	medicine	obtained	from	the	forest.	These	medicine	can	be	made	from	a	single	plant	or	a	mixture	of	plants	(and	other	NTFPs).	Many	hunters	possess	the	knowledge	on	how	to	use	plants	for	first	aid	medication.	Incidents	in	the	forest	causing	open	wounds	or	snakebites	and	such	are	often	treated	with	these	bush	medicine,	locally	referred	to	as	‘busi	dresi’.				Figure	2.2:	Children	selling	locally	grown	produce	for	a	special	mathematics	event	at	the	primary	school.		The	houses	that	are	built	on	‘Phase	1’	(State	owned	land)	in	Apoera	differ	from	the	ones	in	‘Apoera	town’	(communal	forest	land).	The	generally	larger	houses	on	Phase	1	are	built	on	cement	pillars	and	have	toilets	that	are	connected	to	sewers.	The	houses	in	Apoera	town	are		 25	entirely	built	with	lumber	and	have	outside	toilets	that	are	not	connected	to	the	sewers.	Most	people	own	a	television	and	some	have	Wi-Fi	as	well.	The	pristine,	drinkable	tap	water	is	available	from	about	6	am	to	11	pm.	The	water	comes	from	a	water	source	nearby,	is	filtered	and	then	pumped	into	the	water	tower,	which	distributes	water	for	all	the	households	in	the	area.	Water	is	supposed	to	be	supplied	24/7,	however	the	one	person	regulating	the	water	tower	has	to	sleep	as	well,	by	which	no	water	is	available	during	his	sleeping	hours.	The	main	food	sources	are	locally	grown	crops	from	traditional	agricultural	plots	(Figure	2.3),	fish	and	bush	meat.	Fruits,	nuts	and	other	NTFPs	are	also	gathered	for	nourishment	from	the	forest.	Some	of	these	NTFPs	are	eaten	fresh,	others	can	be	stored	or	have	to	be	prepared.	Less	people	grow	their	own	crops	compared	to	before	the	1970s.	Some	households	still	cook	on	a	wood	stove	using	fuelwood,	however	most	people	own	a	gas	stove	for	which	the	gas	tanks	have	to	come	from	Nickerie	(and	run	out	every	once	in	a	while).	People	who	have	a	daily	job	do	not	have	time	to	farm	themselves	and	often	buy	their	vegetables	directly	from	the	farmers,	at	the	market	or	in	the	tiny	(Chinese)	supermarkets.	Fish	is	usually	caught	by	local	fishermen,	from	whom	one	can	easily	buy	some	fish.	As	for	meat,	American	frozen	chicken	at	the	Chinese	supermarket	is	cheaper	and	less	time-consuming	than	buying	a	locally	raised	chicken	alive	that	needs	to	be	fully	processed.	Frozen	meats	from	the	supermarkets	substitute	bush	meat	more	frequently	(pers.	communication	kapitein	Lewis	&	meneer	King).			 26		Figure	2.3:	Traditional	agricultural	plot,	called	a	kostgrondje.			Village	captain	C.	Lewis	from	Apoera	explained	that	he	is	trying	to	keep	the	traditional	sharing	system	in	place:	he	would	share	bush	meat	with	family	members	first	and	then	neighbors	and	relatives.	Mister	King	explained	that	when	he	grew	up	all	people	used	to	share	food	and	would	get	something	in	return.	This	traditional	sharing	custom	has	faded	and	replaced	by	more	‘household	individualism’,	he	explains:	“I	think	this	is	due	to	the	fact	that	sales	have	become	bigger	too:	you	can	get	extra	money	if	you	sell	the	meat	that	your	household	will	not	consume,	instead	of	just	giving	it	away”.		Many	inhabitants	of	Apoera,	Section	and	Washabo	earn	an	income	by	working	for	logging	companies	(Greenheart	and	Nootje,	see	Figure	2.4).	These	companies	pay	their	employees	in	US	dollars,	therefore	this	community	has	not	seriously	undergone	the	impact	of	the	current	national	economic	crisis	(in	November	2015,	1	SRD	was	worth	just	over	US$	0.30,	one	year	later	it	was	worth	less	than	US$	0.13).	Other	people	sell	locally	grown	produce	and	various	NTFPs.		 27	Some	of	these	NTFPs	are	also	bought	up	by	fotoman,	traders	from	the	city.	Others	make	extra	money	by	providing	goods	or	services	such	as	being	a	taxi	driver,	barber,	iceman,	vendor	of	vegetables,	cassava	bread	or	other	homemade	nourishments.	Hunters	sell	bush	meat	locally	and	to	buyers	from	the	city.	However,	as	the	unemployment	rate	is	very	high,	people	leave	to	the	city	or	different	parts	in	the	country	to	find	temporary	work	(e.g.	timber	harvesting,	gold	mining).	Tourism	is	not	big	in	Apoera	(yet).	There	are	several	guesthouses,	which	usually	house	people	overnight	who	are	on	passage	for	fishing	or	jungle	trips.	Besides	the	peak	seasons	however,	almost	no	tourists	(usually	Surinamese	or	Dutch)	are	to	be	found	in	Apoera.	A	fair	number	of	locals	from	Guyana	(mainly	Orealla)	 	visit	West	Suriname,	usually	because	they	have	family	living	in	West	Suriname.				Figure	2.4:	Greenheart’s	sawmill	in	Apoera,	Suriname.		2.2.2 Trio	community	in	Sandlanding	Some	Trio	communities	moved	from	Brazil	to	Suriname	in	the	late	17th	century.	These	Amerindians	currently	still	inhabit	areas	on	both	sides	of	the	border	35.	Most	of	the	Surinamese	Trio	(approximately	1000	individuals)	live	in	the	Tapanahoni-Palumeu	river	basin,	located	in	southwest	and	central	Suriname	(Figure	1.2),	where	they	share	some	living	and	usufruct	areas	with	Wayana	Amerindians.	The	Sipaliwini-Courantyne	River	basin	in	the	southwest	of	the		 28	country	is	inhabited	by	just	the	Trio	tribe	35.	Over	the	past	four	decades,	Trios	have	seen	many	changes	due	to	acculturation	and	increased	contact	with	the	modern	world.	These	changes	have	had	positive	impacts	on	health	care,	life	expectancy	and	education.	However,	these	changes	have	enhanced	the	loss	of	traditional	ecological	knowledge,	which	includes	forest	management,	spiritual	and	mythical	stories	and	medicinal	plant	properties	35.		2.2.2.1 History	In	1989	the	Trio	community	of	Kwamalasamutu	(in	the	south	of	Suriname)	had	proposed	to	Jang	Djeneninpe	to	become	a	basya.	At	the	time	he	was	13	years	old	and	flattered	by	the	invitation.	A	friend	of	his	was	also	approached	by	the	granman	to	become	a	basya	and	together	they	decided	to	accept.	After	10	years	of	being	a	well-respected	basya,	Jang	Djeneninpe	moved	to	the	island	Wanapan	in	the	Courantyne	River	near	the	Wonotobo	water	falls	to	start	a	new	settlement.	On	the	Surinamese	side,	this	area	is	completely	uninhabited.	They	only	had	contact	with	some	local	fishermen	from	Guyana.	On	one	day	when	basya	Jang’s	daughter	was	very	ill,	they	decided	to	ask	the	Guyanese	fishermen	to	take	her	with	them	to	see	a	doctor.	When	months	later	another	child	from	the	Wanapan	community	got	very	ill,	basya	Jang	set	out	in	his	new	boat	to	Apoera	(about	200	kilometers	downstream)	in	search	of	medical	care.	Here,	basya	Jang	came	in	contact	with	the	kapitein	of	Apoera,	Carlo	Lewis.	They	discussed	the	possibilities	for	the	Trio	community	to	move	close	to	Apoera.	Basya	Jang	had	the	desire	for	his	community	to	have	access	to	education	and	health	care,	as	both	were	absent	in	Wanapan	(pers.	communication	basya	Jang	Djeneninpe).		In	agreement	with	the	kapitein	and	basyas	from	Apoera,	the	Trios	were	allowed	to	build	some	camps	on	Sandlanding,	which	is	on	customary	lands	of	the	Apoera	community	(pers.	communication	basya	Jang	Djeneninpe	&	kapitein	C.	Lewis).	In	2001,	beginnings	were	made	to	build	a	camp,	which	the	Trio	finished	on	their	return	in	2002.	In	June	or	July	of	2002	basya	Jang	returned	with	10	people	from	Wanapan	to	officially	move	to	Sandlanding.	In	2005	another	10	Trio	families	have	migrated	to	Sandlanding	(pers.	communication	basya	Jang	Djeneninpe).	In	order	to	prevent	misconceptions:	Sandlanding	is	part	of	Apoera’s	customary	territory	and	is		 29	also	inhabited	by	some	people	from	the	Apoera	community,	not	just	the	Trio.	However,	most	of	Sandlanding’s	inhabitants	are	from	Trio	descent.		2.2.2.2 Current	situation	As	of	March	2016,	Sandlanding	counts	75	Trio	individuals	and	Wanapan	is	uninhabited.	Hence,	most	individuals	within	this	community	have	only	been	exposed	to	urban	influences	(acculturation,	schooling,	medical	facilities	and	shops)	for	about	the	past	10	to	14	years.	All	individuals	speak	the	Trio	language,	some	know	Sranantongo	and	few	possess	little	Dutch.	In	Sandlanding	there	is	no	school.	Children	are	bused	to	school	in	Apoera	Monday	through	Friday.	There	are	36	Trio	children	that	go	to	school	here.	From	the	age	of	four	it	is	compulsory	for	children	to	attend	primary	school.	By	that	age	the	Trio	children	only	possess	the	Trio	language,	while	education	is	given	in	Dutch.	Trio	children	are	thereby	educationally	disadvantaged	from	the	day	they	start	and	often	attend	primary	school	for	at	least	one	or	two	extra	year(s).	Currently,	three	Trios	are	employed	at	the	Greenheart	sawmill	(pers.	communication	Rena),	others	make	some	money	by	selling	NTFPs	such	as	seed	jewellery	(Figure	2.5),	stingray	and	other	wildlife.	Their	subsistence	and	limited	market-sales	are	entirely	based	on	traditional	farming,	hunting	and	gathering	of	NTFPs.	Since	they	have	to	walk	with	their	goods	to	the	market	for	about	40	minutes,	they	usually	go	to	the	market	maximum	once	a	week	although	the	market	is	held	thrice	a	week.					 30		Figure	2.5:	Naomi	Kupuru,	the	wife	of	basya	Jang	Djeneninpe,	displays	some	of	her	seed	jewellery.	On	the	left	hangs	a	traditional	cassava	press	which	is	made	by	basya	Jang,	his	son	is	not	interested	in	learning	the	skill	of	traditional	braiding.		All	houses	that	were	built	in	the	first	decade	of	2000,	were	made	in	the	traditional	Trio	way,	see	Figure	2.6	and	Figure	2.7.	Two	more	recent	houses	are	made	in	‘Apoera	style’	on	high	wooden	pillars.	Close	to	their	homes,	the	Trio	do	some	minor	agriculture.	Here,	they	have	planted	corn,	maripa	(Maximiliana	maripa),	banana	(Musa	sp.),	watermelon	(Citrullus	lanatus),	cashew	and	certain	plants	from	which	they	use	the	seeds	to	create	jewellery	with.	At	10	kilometers	from	their	home,	they	have	their	larger	agricultural	fields	(kostgrondjes)	where	they	plant	both	bitter	and	sweet	cassava	(Manihot	esculenta),	napa	(Ipomoea	batatas)	and	pineapple	(Ananas	comosus).	All	food	products	derived	from	these	lands	are	for	their	own-use	and	not	for	sale.	The	Trio	usually	go	to	their	kostgrondjes	during	the	weekends	with	both	women	and	men,	unless	the	men	are	out	hunting.	Because	the	Trio	do	not	possess	transportation	(bikes,	scooters		 31	or	cars),	a	driver	from	Apoera	is	asked	to	bring	them	in	the	morning	to	their	kostgrond	and	collect	them	and	their	products	later	that	the	day.	Hunting	happens	twice	a	week	on	Wednesdays	and	Saturdays	with	two	or	three	men.	Animals	that	have	been	hunted	together	will	be	equally	shared	between	the	hunters,	with	which	they	provide	their	families.	Catches	are	not	shared	with	others	in	the	community	unless	the	hunters	and	their	family	cannot	consume	it	themselves.	Fishing	happens,	but	not	on	a	regular	basis.	When	the	tide	rises,	they	use	a	motorboat	to	go	south	on	the	river.	Further	up	the	river	large	piranhas	are	to	be	found.	When	ebb	comes,	the	men	slowly	return	home	while	fishing.	Women	know	when	the	men	will	approximately	return	and	prepare	the	wood-fueled	fires	as	gas	stoves	are	absent	within	this	community.	Vegetal	NTFPs	such	as	fruits	and	nuts	are	usually	collected	during	hunting	trips.		At	the	market,	vegetables	are	bought	from	farmers	in	Apoera.	Other	items	such	as	frozen	chicken	and	rice	are	bought	in	the	Chinese	supermarket.	Some	Trio	individuals	prefer	to	take	bush	medicine,	others	visit	the	policlinic	in	Apoera,	also	depending	on	the	symptoms.		All	Trio	people	are	Baptists	since	the	American	missionaries	have	overwhelmingly	gone	through	all	of	West	and	South	Suriname	since	1959	35.	There	is	a	church	in	Sandlanding	which	the	Trio	attend	every	Sunday.			 32		Figure	2.6:	Trio	settlement	in	Sandlanding,	Suriname.	Typical	traditional	Trio	housing	constructions.			Figure	2.7:	Living	room	and	kitchen	with	view	on	the	Courantyne	River.	In	the	center	a	dead	boesemani	stingray	is	being	prepared	as	food	for	the	dogs.		 33	Chapter	3: Children’s	plant	knowledge	3.1 Background	The	body	of	traditional	knowledge	on	Non-Timber	Forest	Products	(NTFPs)	held	by	Indigenous	peoples	has	been	declining	over	the	past	century.	Influence	of	colonizing	farmers,	missionaries,	conflicts	about	land	rights,	acculturation	and	urbanization	continue	to	cause	social,	economic	and	environmental	changes	to	Indigenous	communities	and	their	territories	8,22–25.	Some	losses	of	traditional	ethnobotanical	knowledge	are	triggered	by	restricted	access	to	forests	imposed	by	industries	or	governments	that	exclude	local	communities	from	the	harvesting	of	NTFPs	on	their	customary	territories	5.	Other	losses	are	due	to	changes	in	the	livelihoods	and	lifestyles	of	Indigenous	peoples	in	which	certain	NTFPs	are	substituted	by	modern	goods	that	are	less	time-consuming	to	prepare,	more	effective	and	considered	up-to-date	24.	Moreover,	urbanization	(e.g.	the	introduction	of	state	schools,	shops	and	medical	clinics)	causes	less	time	to	be	spent	on	traditional	activities	that	involve	NTFPs	64–67.	As	a	result,	formerly	important	ethnobotanical	knowledge	becomes	superfluous	and	may	be	quickly	forgotten	or	deliberately	rejected	when	no	longer	used	in	(traditional)	activities,	by	which	the	forest-dependency	of	local	communities	is	reshaped.	Factors	that	determine	the	forest-dependency	of	a	community	include	the	economic	situation	(where	poorer	people	are	found	to	be	more	dependent),	access	to	local	and/or	urban	markets	and	the	remoteness	of	the	area	(i.e.	the	lack	of	roads	and	transportation	availability)	23.	Bryon	and	Arnold	(1999)	distinguish	three	phases	that	describe	the	forest-dependency	of	local	communities:	1)	the	main	source	to	sustain	a	community’s	livelihood	depends	on	the	surrounding	forest.	This	category	includes	hunter-gatherers	and	subsistence	farmers;	2)	a	community	relies	on	nearby	forests	and	its	NTFPs	for	both	subsistence	and	economic	purposes	through	market	sales;	3)	people	are	not	dependent	on	the	forest	for	their	livelihood,	but	their	economic	welfare	depends	(partially)	on	the	benefits	derived	from	NTFPs.	For	communities	that	evolve	through	these	categories,	the	importance	of	NTFPs	changes	from	subsistence-oriented	(use	value)	towards	economic	importance	(exchange	value),	hence	changing	certain	ethnobotanical	knowledge	that	is	passed	on	to	younger	generations.			 34	Traditional	knowledge	is	transmitted	in	three	varying	ways	64,68,69:	1)	vertical	transmission	describes	the	knowledge	transfer	between	generations	but	within	genealogy	of	a	family;	2)	horizontal	transmission	describes	knowledge	exchange	between	peers	of	the	same	generation,	and;	3)	oblique	transmission	references	knowledge	transfer	between	generations	but	without	familial	ties.	Research	has	shown	varying	outcomes	in	whether	acculturation	leads	to	discontinued	or	disturbed	knowledge	transmission	25,65.	However,	cross-cultural	knowledge	transmission	can	strengthen	the	(ethnobotanical)	knowledge	acquisition	between	people	with	different	traditional	backgrounds.	Most	knowledge	on	NTFPs	is	acquired	during	childhood	and	adolescence	25,66,70,71	through	playing,	experiential	participation	and	observation	and	during	informal	(traditional)	activities	such	as	walks	through	the	forest,	(historical	and	mythical)	stories,	agricultural	activities,	rituals	and	medicinal	or	spiritual	plant	applications	64,66.	Besides	parents	and	peers,	older	siblings	also	play	an	important	role	in	the	transmission	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge	70.	Three	to	five	year	olds	are	already	able	to	distinguish	and	identify	various	edible	and	non-edible	plants	72,	whereas	children	aged	12	were	able	to	identify	most	of	the	important	cultivated	plants	67,70,73.	For	NTFPs,	Zent	(2009)	shows	that	knowledge	about	strongly	increases	until	the	age	of	twenty.	Disruption	of	knowledge	transmission	during	childhood	and	adolescence	can	therefore	reinforce	the	overall	loss	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge	within	Indigenous	communities.	Many	ethnobotanists	have	documented	Amerindian	plant	uses	in	Suriname	16,27–29,34–37,74.	Still,	in	West	Suriname,	traditional	knowledge	on	and	use	of	NTFPs	has	never	been	documented.	No	data	exist	on	the	current	transfer	of	traditional	knowledge	among	Amerindians	in	the	country’s	rapidly	changing	society.	This	chapter	compares	children’s	knowledge	about	NTFPs	between	the	acculturated,	predominantly	Arawak	village	of	Apoera	that	has	been	exposed	to	non-local	influences	for	several	decades	and	the	more	forest-dependent	Trio	community	in	Sandlanding.	As	the	two	communities	live	close	to	each	other,	they	hunt	together	at	times	and	their	children	attend	the	same	school.	This	offers	opportunities	for	cross-cultural	exchange	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge.	The	hypotheses	are:			 35	1) Trio	children	possess	more	knowledge	about	NTFPs	than	their	peers	from	Apoera,	because	the	Trio	are	more	forest-dependent	and	have	been	less	exposed	to	acculturation	and	urbanization;	2) Cross-cultural	knowledge	transmission	finds	place	between	the	two	of	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	communities;	3) Nourishing	and	economically	important	NTFPs	are	better	known	than	medicinal	NTFPs;		4) Knowledge	about	NTFPs	is	similar	for	boys	and	girls;		3.2 Materials	and	methods	3.2.1 Ethnobotanical	data	collection	Prior	to	the	start	of	ethnobotanical	fieldwork,	a	meeting	was	set	up	with	the	local	authorities	of	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	to	request	their	consent	according	to	Free,	Prior	and	Informed	Consent	(FPIC)	guidelines	75.	Fieldwork	took	place	in	March	and	April	2016	for	five	weeks.	Forest	walks	were	held	with	four	women	and	eight	men	from	both	communities,	whose	personal	data	such	as	age,	gender	and	ethnicity	were	documented.	During	the	walks,	their	knowledge	of	NTFPs	was	documented	and	photographs	and	voucher	specimens	were	taken	of	the	studied	plants	in	accordance	with	the	plant	collecting	permit	issued	by	the	Foundation	for	Forest	Management	and	Production	Control	(SBB)	in	Suriname.	The	specimens	were	deposited	in	the	National	Herbarium	of	Suriname	(BBS)	and	Naturalis	Biodiversity	Center	(L)	at	Leiden,	the	Netherlands.	Scientific	names	were	verified	through	theplantlist.org.	For	a	complete	overview	of	described	NTFP	species,	please	refer	to	Appendix	A.	Since	the	uses	are	not	public	(solely	available	to	the	communities)	and	the	herbarium	specimen	lie	in	two	Dutch	speaking	countries,	the	full	descriptions	are	written	in	Dutch. 	3.2.2 Questionnaires	In	order	to	gather	data	on	children’s	NTFP	knowledge,	eight	individuals	from	each	class	at	the	primary	school	were	each	asked	to	identify	the	names	and	uses	of	nine	freshly	collected	NTFPs.		 36	Generally,	five	boys	and	five	girls	were	selected,	but	always	included	all	present	Trio	children	since	they	formed	a	minority	and	would	otherwise	be	underrepresented.	The	NTFP	species	were	selected	from	data	collected	and	described	in	section	2.2	and	represented	commonly	known	species	present	in	the	near	vicinity	of	both	villages.		Besides	leaves	and	flowers	(when	present),	used	plant	parts	were	displayed	as	well.	Age,	ethnicity	and	gender	of	all	participants	were	recorded.	One	Trio	adult	translated	for	younger	Trio	children	who	had	trouble	understanding	Dutch	or	Sranantongo.	The	NTFPs	were	divided	into	food,	commercial	and	medicinal	plants.	The	details	on	the	uses	of	NTFPs	have	been	documented	but	this	information	is	not	reported	here,	but	made	fully	available	to	the	communities,	as	agreed	in	the	FPIC	contract	with	the	communities.	Local	names	were	verified	with	data	obtained	during	fieldwork	and	existing	literature	36,74,76.			Figure	3.1:	Children	taking	the	vegetal	NTFP	questionnaire.			 37	3.2.3 Data	analysis	To	determine	the	level	of	knowledge	of	a	participant,	the	children	could	score	one	point	per	correct	answer	for	either	the	vernacular	name	or	the	use	of	an	NTFP,	so	a	total	of	18	points	could	be	scored.	Correctly	identified	NTFP	characteristics	(names	and	uses)	were	considered	as	a	proxy	for	the	NTFP	knowledge	of	a	participant.	The	totals	were	then	transformed	to	percentages.	Linear	regression	was	used	to	model	the	relationship	between	NTFP	knowledge	and	age.	Independent	samples	t-tests	were	done	to	test	for	differences	in	scores	between	Indigenous	group	and	gender.	Paired	t-tests	were	performed	to	analyse	whether	the	means	differed	between	dependent	groups,	such	as	the	known	uses	and	names	of	NTFPs	and	different	NTFP	categories	(food/commercial	and	medicine).	Statistical	tests	were	carried	out	by	using	SPSS	24.0.	Differences	were	considered	significant	when	p	<0.05.		3.3 Results	In	total,	74	children	(39	girls	and	35	boys)	participated	in	the	questionnaire	to	identify	names	and	uses	of	nine	frequent	occurring	NTFP	species,	known	to	both	communities	(Table	1).	Ethnicity	was	given	preference	over	gender	as	fewer	Trio	children	attended	the	school,	thereby	shifting	the	50-50	gender	ratio.	Of	all	participants,	51	were	children	from	Apoera	(predominantly	Arawak	with	mixed	Warao	and	Carib)	and	23	were	of	Trio	descent	who	inhabited	Sandlanding.	Six	children	decided	not	to	participate	in	this	study.		 38	Table	3.1:	Local	and	scientific	names	of	the	nine	key	NTFPs	used	in	this	research.	Sranantongo	 Arawak	 Trio	 Scientific	name	 Family	 Use	Kokriki	 Barakaro	 Weteu	 Ormosia	costulata	 Fabaceae	 Commercial	Krapa	(siri)	 Karaba	 Karapa	 Carapa	guianensis	 Meliaceae	 Commercial/Med.	Ingi	noto	 Totoka	 Tuhka	 Bertholletia	excelsa	 Lecythidaceae	 Commercial/Food	Redi	loksi	 Shimiri	kuru	 Kauru	 Hymenaea	courbaril	 Fabaceae	 Food	Slabriki	 Yawahe	pesi	 Pianaroy	 Senna	alata	 Fabaceae	 Medicinal	Sangrafu	 Hokuri	shikaro	 Oloke	 Costus	scaber	 Costaceae	 Medicinal	Mokomoko	 Yurika	 Kurukuni	 Montrichardia	arborescens	 Araceae	 Medicinal	Kwasi	bita	 Kareudan	 Malaria	epi	 Quassia	amara	 Simarubaceae	 Medicinal	Busi	papaja	 Wana	soro	 Ume	 Cecropia	sciadophylla	 Cecropiaceae	 Medicinal		Linear	regression	analysis	showed	a	strong	relationship	between	age	and	correctly	identified	NTFP	names	and	uses	(p	=	0.000	for	both	ethnic	groups,	Figure	3.2).	Although	Apoerian	informants	scored	slightly	higher	than	Trio	informants,	there	was	no	significant	difference	found	in	NTFP	knowledge	between	children	of	both	communities	(p	=	0.210).			 39		Figure	3.2:	Linear	regression	of	individual	scores	for	Apoerian	(n	=	51)	and	Trio	(n	=	23)	children	by	age.			On	average,	Trio	children	were	able	to	name	14	%	of	the	NTFPs,	while	Apoerian	children	named	20	%	correctly,	but	this	difference	was	insignificant	(p	=	0.215,	Fig.	3).	For	NTFP	uses	a	similar	pattern	was	seen:	Trio	children	knew	23	%	of	the	NTFP	uses,	whereas	Apoerians	29	%.	The	differences	were	not	significant	(p	=	0.189,).	When	the	groups	were	split	up	into	two	age	classes	(4	to	9	and	10	to	14),	we	did	not	find	significant	differences	in	NTFP	knowledge	between	Trio	and	Apoera	children	(Figure	3.3).	However,	when	the	ethnic	variances	were	disregarded,	we	found	that	younger	children	(aged	4	to	9)	scored	significantly	higher	on	identifying	NTFP	uses	(20	%)	than	NTFP	names	(7	%),	(p	=	0.000).	For	the	older	children	this	difference	was	insignificant	(p	=	0.155).		R2 = 0.652 R2 = 0.637 0102030405060704 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14%	correctly	identified	ntfp	names	and	usesageApoera	children Trio	children	 40		Figure	3.3:	Comparison	of	correctly	identified	NTFP	names	and	uses	between	Apoera	and	Trio	children	for	all	ages	(n	=	74),	ages	4	to	9	(n	=	42)	and	ages	10	to	14	(n	=	32).			When	we	further	analyzed	participants	of	both	communities	taken	together,	we	found	that	correctly	identified	names	for	food/commercial	and	medicinal	NTFPs	did	not	significantly	differ	(p	=	0.896,	Figure	3.4).	However,	uses	of	food/commercial	species	were	significantly	more	often	correctly	identified	(53	%)	than	medicinal	uses	(8	%),	see	Figure	3.4.	When	analyzed	by	age,	we	found	that	the	uses	of	commercial/food	NTFPs	are	understood	by	the	youngest	children,	while	knowledge	of	the	names	of	commercial/food	NTFPs	and	medicinal	NTFPs	appears	to	be	acquired	later.	The	knowledge	acquired	the	latest	were	the	medicinal	plant	uses	(Figure	3.5).	The	youngest	Apoerian	who	named	a	medicinal	NTFP	correctly	was	4	years	old,	while	the	youngest	Trio	was	9	years	of	age,	both	were	boys.	For	correctly	answering	the	use	of	a	medicinal	NTFP,	the	youngest	child	from	Apoera	was	aged	6	(boy)	and	from	the	Trio	a	10-year-old	girl.		 41			Figure	3.4:	Comparison	of	identified	NTFP	characteristics	(names	and	uses)	for	a	group	of	commercial/food	NTFPs	and	medicinal	NTFPs.				Figure	3.5:	Linear	regression	of	correctly	identified	medicinal	NTFP	(mNTFP)	and	commercial/food	NTFP	(cNTFP)	names	and	uses	by	age.	Each	dot	represents	the	participant’s	percentage	of	a	correctly	identified	NTFP	characteristic	(cNTFP	use,	cNTFP	name,	mNTFP	use,	mNTFP	name).	* p	=	0.896 p	=	0.000 010203040506070NTFP	names NTFP	uses%	correctly	identifiedCommercial/food	NTFPs Medicinal	NTFPsmNTFP	nameR2		=	0.554 cNTFP	useR2		=	0.348 cNTFP	nameR2		=	0.426 mNTFP	use R2		=	0.251 01020304050607080901004 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14%	correctly	identifiedAge	 42		Knowledge	about	edible/commercial	and	medicinal	NTFPs	were	compared	between	Apoerian	and	Sandlanding	children.	Overall,	the	children	possessed	similar	NTFP	knowledge	except	for	the	uses	of	medicinal	plants,	with	which	the	Apoerian	children	were	better	acquainted	(p	=	0.041)	When	comparing	knowledge	among	gender	groups	on	the	names	and	uses	of	NTFPs,	there	was	no	significant	difference	found	for	any	of	the	tested	values.	Neither	were	any	significant	differences	found	for	gender	when	the	data	of	one	community	was	analyzed:	boys	and	girls	of	the	Trio	community	scored	similar	to	our	test,	likewise	for	their	Apoerian	peers.	Figure	3.6	displays	the	languages	used	by	the	children	when	they	correctly	identified	the	species	used	in	the	questionnaire.	Sranantongo	was	mostly	used	by	both	Apoera’s	(50.5	%)	and	Trio	(46.2	%)	children,	followed	by	Dutch	(45.5	%	by	children	from	Apoera,	38.5	%	Trio)	and	the	Trio	language	(3.0	%	by	Apoerians,	15.4	%	by	Trios).	English	was	used	once	to	identify	Carapa	guianensis,	Arawak	was	never	used	by	any	of	the	children.	Although	frequently	occurring	in	and	around	the	villages,	Senna	alata	was	not	correctly	identified	once	–	possibly	because	the	specimen	lacked	the	conspicuous	yellow	flowers,	neither	was	Costus	scaber	by	Trio	children.			 43		Figure	3.6:	Different	languages	used	by	Apoera’s	and	Trio	children	for	correctly	identified	NTFP	names	per	species.		3.4 Discussion	and	conclusions	The	main	findings	of	this	study	include	that	the	more	acculturated	and	urbanized	children	from	Apoera	possessed	similar	knowledge	on	NTFPs	as	the	more	forest-depending	Trio	children.	In	both	groups,	edible	and	commercial	NTFPs	are	better	known	than	medicinal	NTFPs	and	no	knowledge	differences	existed	between	boys	and	girls.	Cross-cultural	knowledge	transfer	exists	between	Apoerians	and	Trios.	Trio	children	had	acquired	more	knowledge	from	their	Apoera	peers	than	vice-versa.	As	predicted,	overall	knowledge	on	NTFPs	increased	with	age,	as	older	children	must	have	observed	and	experienced,	both	actively	and	passively,	more	traditional	activities	that	involve	NTFPs.	We	found	that	different	characteristics	(names	and	uses)	were	acquired	at	different	ages.	Younger	children		were	better	acquainted	with	NTFP	uses	than	with	names,	confirming		 44	that	ethnobotanical	knowledge	transmission	at	a	young	age	mostly	happens	through	observation	66.	This	finding	also	makes	evolutionary	sense	as	it	is	more	important	to	know	whether	a	biological	element	is	edible	(e.g.	the	observation	of	fresh	consumption)	or	potentially	fatal	(e.g.	observing	the	process	of	boiling),	rather	than	knowing	the	name	of	an	object.	In	the	youngest	group,	NTFPs	with	commercial	or	nourishing	value	were	better	known	than	medicinal	plants.	Older	children	steadily	increased	their	knowledge	on	NTFP	uses	and	their	corresponding	local	names,	including	the	medicinal	plants.	Acquisition	of	plant	knowledge	seems	thus	more	observer-oriented	with	a	focus	on	food	and	commercial	plants	for	younger	children,	whereas	older	children	probably	acquire	more	factual	information	on	medicinal	plants	through	active	teaching.	In	contrast	to	food	and	commercially	extracted	NTFPs,	medicinal	plants	are	not	used	on	a	daily	basis	and	their	application	requires	specialized	traditional	knowledge	25.	Whereas	feeding	and	trading	happen	constantly,	medicinal	plants	are	collected	only	when	someone	is	ill.	That	means,	even	though	basic	medicinal	plant	knowledge	is	known	to	many	individuals,	children	are	likely	to	acquire	this	knowledge	when	they	reach	the	age	to	join	hunting	and	NTFP	gathering	trips.	Therefore,	it	would	be	interesting	to	follow-up	on	this	research	with	adolescents.	In	line	with	an	earlier	review	on	61	studies	on	gender	and	ethnobotanical	knowledge	77,	no	significant	differences	were	found	in	NTFP	knowledge	between	boys	and	girls	in	the	two	groups.		As	the	Trio	community’s	subsistence	was	still	entirely	dependent	on	their	natural	environment	until	12	to	14	years	ago,	we	anticipated	that	their	children	would	have	more	NTFP	knowledge	than	their	Apoerian	peers.	Apoera’s	community	have	been	exposed	to	acculturation	and	urbanization	for	several	decades,	factors	which	tend	to	erode	vertical	knowledge	transmission	66.	Moreover,	the	Trio	are	still	more	reliant	on	traditional	hunting,	NTFP	gathering	and	agricultural	practices	than	their	Apoerian	neighbors,	who	are	economically	more	prosperous	and	can	therefore	afford	to	buy	food	and	tools	in	local	shops.	In	contrast	to	our	expectation,	our	comparisons	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge,	showed	that	Trio	children	possess	similar	knowledge	on	NTFPs	as	Apoera	children,	or	less,	in	the	case	of	medicinal	plant	applications.		 45	First	of	all,	several	studies	have	found	that	attending	state	schools	reduces	the	amount	of	traditional	knowledge	that	children	possess	64,67.	They	reasonably	argue	that	children	spend	less	time	with	other	individuals	(peers,	siblings	and	adults)	in	the	community,	during	which	traditional	(ethnobotanical)	knowledge	could	have	been	acquired	through	the	course	of	daily	activities.	Besides,	state	schools	in	Suriname,	like	many	other	countries,	do	not	include	the	teaching	of	traditional	practices	in	their	curriculum.	This	means	that	(state)	schooling	hours	disrupt	vertical,	horizontal	and	oblique	traditional	knowledge	transmission,	visualized	by	line	1	in	Figure	3.7.		The	journey	to	and	from	school	is	also	an	important	moment	for	children	to	become	acquainted	with	forest	products	through	(playing)	interaction	with	peers	31,78.	In	our	case,	Trio	children	are	collected	and	returned	to	Sandlanding	by	a	school	bus,	which	eliminates	their	daily	forest	walk	and	thereby	possibly	disrupts	horizontal	traditional	knowledge	transmission	(line	2	in	Figure	3.7),	so	children	from	the	two	communities	do	not	spend	much	time	together	after	school.	The	school	bus	also	limits	the	opportunity	for	cross-cultural	horizontal	knowledge	transmission	outside	school	hours.	However,	they	still	have	the	rest	of	the	day	to	interact	with	their	siblings,	parents	and	other	community	members,	during	which	traditional	knowledge	is	actively	and	passively	passed	on	(own	observation).	The	Trio’s	agricultural	plots	are	located	more	than	10	kilometers	from	their	settlement.	Practically	this	means	that	adults	(usually	the	women)	charter	an	Apoerian	car	owner	to	take	them	to	their	agricultural	fields.	It	is	economically	and	spatially	inconvenient	to	bring	children	along	in	a	car	that	could	also	be	filled	up	with	other	workers	and	produce	(mainly	cassava).	Plots	closer	to	home	would	have	created	more	opportunities	for	Trio	children	to	acquire	ethnobotanical	knowledge	on	their	way	to	their	gardens	79.		In	Apoera	it	has	become	less	common	to	have	familial	agricultural	plots,	leading	to	discontinued	NTFP	knowledge	transmission.	For	both	children	groups,	this	results	in	disrupted	vertical	traditional	knowledge	transmission	(line	3	in	Figure	3.7).	A	third	explanation	for	the	comparable	NTFP	knowledge	for	both	children	groups	is	the	fact	that	the	Trios	migrated	from	an	ecologically	different	environment.	The	Trio	adults	explained	that	they	had	grown	up	in	‘a	different	flora,	of	which	they	learned	all	the	traits	and	practices’.		 46	Trio	women	repeatedly	mentioned	that	there	was	a	wider	variety	of	delicious	fruits	and	herbs	in	their	birthplace	(Kwamalasumutu)	in	southern	Suriname.	It	is	likely	that	the	Sandlanding	Trio	lack	knowledge	on	plants	in	West	Suriname.	As	a	result,	the	vertical	and	oblique	transmission	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge	to	their	children	is	limited	to	species	that	occur	in	both	ecosystems	and/or	cultures	(line	4,	Figure	3.7).	Figure	3.7	shows	that	the	Trio	children	experience	more	knowledge	transmission	disruptions	than	their	Apoerian	peers.			Figure	3.7:	Transmission	disruptions	of	NTFP	knowledge	from	adults	to	children	and	between	children	from	Apoera	and	the	Trio	community	in	Sandlanding.	1:	School	limits	traditional	teaching	occasions	2:	School	bus	limits	forest	walks	3:	Distant	and	diminishing	agricultural	plots	limit	forest	walks	4:	Migration	from	different	environment	limits	local	plant	knowledge		The	local	names	reported	by	children	showed	that	NTFP	knowledge	transmission	took	place	between	the	two	communities.	Children	from	Apoera	did	not	mention	any	Arawak	name.	This	was	not	surprising	as	only	some	elderly	people	still	speak	the	Arawak	language.	Trio	children	identified	three	NTFPs	(all	commercial/food	NTFPs)	usually	in	their	own	language	(wetei,	Ormosia	costulata;	kauru,	Hymenaea	courbaril;	tuhka,	Bertholletia	excelsa),	while	the	other		 47	names	were	usually	given	in	Sranantongo	or	Dutch.	For	both	groups,	NTFP	uses	were	described	in	Dutch,	likely	because	questions	were	asked	in	Dutch	(or	translated	to	Trio	when	necessary).	When	children	from	Apoera	correctly	identified	the	seeds	of	Ormosia	costulata	(the	most	important	commercial	vegetal	NTFP	for	this	Trio	community),	these	were	called	‘weto’,	using	the	Trio	name	instead	of	the	Sranantongo	name	‘kokriki’.	The	fact	that	Trio	children	mostly	knew	Sranantongo	or	Dutch	names	and	Apoerian	offspring	knew	one	Trio	name,	indicates	that	cross-cultural	NTFP	knowledge	transmission	takes	place	between	these	communities,	especially	from	the	community	of	Apoera	to	the	Trio.	Further	research	could	clarify	whether	this	happens	through	direct	horizontal	knowledge	transmission	between	the	children,	or	through	other	ways.	There	is	an	opportunity	for	a	traditional	teaching	program	as	state	schools	do	not	include	this	in	their	curriculum	and	children	were	eager	to	know	more	about	the	NTFPs	presented	in	the	questionnaire.	To	some	it	will	be	of	great	use	as	families	currently	still	depend	on	their	surrounding	environment.	Because	the	curriculum	is	developed	by	the	state,	such	a	program	would	have	to	be	approved	and,	if	possible,	funded	by	the	government.	The	development	and	execution	of	a	traditional	teaching	program,	however,	should	be	done	by	locals	with	sufficient	knowledge	of	the	locally	relevant	NTFP	practices.		 48	Chapter	4: Livelihood	security	through	Non-Timber	Forest	Product	commercialisation:	an	ecological	and	land	tenure	assessment	4.1 Background	Non-Timber	Forest	Products	(NTFPs)	sustain	the	livelihoods	of	millions	of	people	worldwide,	serving	as	nourishment,	medicine,	construction	material,	ritual	objects	and	other	(traditional)	purposes.	NTFPs	have	been	traded	and	sold	on	local	and	regional	markets	for	centuries.	In	the	past	decades,	globalisation	has	increased	the	international	demand	for	certain	forest	products	enormously	and	several	NTFPs	nowadays	have	a	global	market	13.	Examples	of	such	widely	traded	NTFPs	are	Brazil	nut	(Bertholletia	excelsa),	natural	oils	(such	as	Andiroba	oil	derived	from	Carapa	spp.)	and	the	pet	trade	(such	as	macaws	and	snakes).	The	commercialisation	of	NTFPs	creates	employment	opportunities	for	local	harvesters	and	processors,	thereby	alleviating	poverty	for	many	rural	and	Indigenous	communities	18,19.	However,	the	shift	from	subsistence	oriented	NTFP	use	by	local	communities	to	commercial	extraction	for	international	trade,	can	only	be	sustainable	with	secure	land	tenure	for	harvesters,	well	adopted	institutional	arrangements	and	adequate	monitoring	and	enforcement	strategies	80.	Every	NTFP	that	is	harvested	for	commercial	purposes	has	a	unique	production-to-consumption	chain	18,	also	called	a	value	chain.	The	value	chain	of	an	NTFP	describes	the	actions	of	harvesting,	processing	and	the	transportation	of	a	given	forest	product	to	final	consumers	81.	The	involved	actors	range	from	individual	harvesters	and	accomplices	to	middlemen	and	large-scale	commercial	factories	18.	Short	chains,	locally	sold	NTFPs	for	instance,	are	simple	and	come	with	little	governance	82.	However,	internationally	sold	forest	products	have	a	much	more	complex	producer-to-consumer	system	with	many	more	actors	involved	18	who	are	bound	to	national	and	international	top-down	policies.	In	order	for	local	communities	to	continue	to	collect	and	sell	NTFPs,	they	need	–	at	least	to	some	extent	–	rights	and	access	to	the	lands	they	collect	these	NTFPs	on.	All	lands	are	under	a	national	property	or	tenure	regime,	usually	categorized	as	private	property,	state	property,	communal	property	or	open	access	83.	Forest	governance	systems	are	laid	out	by	governmental	institutions	in	statutory	laws	and	regulations.	In	many	forest	tenure	systems	however,	local		 49	communities	also	have	their	own	governance	system	in	place,	referred	to	as	customary	laws	84.	Customary	laws	are	often	not	recognized	or	protected	in	statutory	law	84.	Within	one	regime	multiple	governance	systems	can	overlap,	this	is	known	as	legal	pluralism.	Within	one	regime,	multiple	actors	can	each	have	a	different	bundle	of	rights	over	the	same	land	(e.g.	locals	can	gather	NTFPs	while	a	logging	company	is	allowed	to	harvest	trees).	However,	when	land	rights	are	legally	held	by	outside	individuals	or	companies	(such	as	extractive	or	large-scale	agriculture	companies)	that	have	different	interests	than	local	communities,	the	access	to	and	duration	of	gathering	NTFPs	can	be	constrained.	As	mentioned	previously	in	the	general	introduction,	secure	land	tenure	regimes	depend	on	three	principal	factors:	1)	whether	land	rights	are	protected	by	a	higher	authority,	whether	third	person	or	institution,	including	the	(devolution	of)	power	to	sanction	violators;	2)	the	rights	one	has	associated	with	its	territory	and	resources,	referred	to	as	a	bundle	of	rights.,	and;	3)	the	duration	of	a	lease	or	ownership	to	the	land.	Since	Indigenous	people	have	a	pre-existing	right	to	have	(native)	title	over	their	customary	territories,	their	land	rights	are	recognized	by	several	international	institutions,	treaties	and	conventions.	The	International	Labour	Organization	Convention	no.	169	(ILO169),	the	Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	(CBD)	and	the	United	Nations	Declaration	on	the	Rights	of	Indigenous	Peoples	(UNDRIP)	are	the	most	important	ones.	Inter-governmental	institutions	such	as	the	Organization	of	American	States	(OAS)	and	the	associated	Inter-American	Court	for	Human	Rights	(IACHR)	set	policies	and	can	convict	States	that	not	comply.	However,	they	cannot	levy	sanctions	in	national	jurisdictions	for	violations	of	human	and	Indigenous	rights.	The	government	of	Suriname	has	adopted	or	ratified	the	CBD	and	the	UNDRIP,	but	not	the	ILO169	(see	for	more	treaties	and	conventions	Table	1.1).	Besides	potential	issues	for	local	peoples	caused	by	insecure	land	tenure,	the	resilience	of	species	populations	and	entire	ecosystems	can	be	seriously	affected	by	the	unsustainable	harvesting	of	NTFPs	85.	Overharvesting	of	certain	animal	species	or	entire	plants,	leaves,	fruits,	roots	or	bark	can	cause	population	decline	and	trigger	trophic	cascades	when	these	include	ecological	keystone	species	86.	The	international	trade	in	wildlife	and	timber	is	also	regulated	by	international	institutions,	conventions	and	treaties	(e.g.	United	Nations,	Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	-	CBD,	International	Consortium	on	Combating	Wildlife	Crime	-	ICCWC,		 50	World	Bank,	the	Convention	on	Trade	in	Endangered	Species	of	Wild	Fauna	and	Flora	-	CITES,	the	International	Union	for	Conservation	of	Nature	-	IUCN	and	the	wildlife	trade	monitoring	network	called	TRAFFIC)	87.	The	CITES	treaty	(adopted	by	183	States,	including	Surname)	regulates	the	import	and	export	of	threatened	species	to	prevent	those	from	extinction	based	on	recommendations	from	institutions	such	as	IUCN	and	TRAFFIC.		Suriname	exports	both	vegetal	and	animal	NTFPs	to	various	countries.	By	statutory	law,	Indigenous	and	Tribal	peoples	have	to	obey	the	national	hunting	calendar,	which	indicates	hunting	seasons	per	species88.	The	calendar	also	states	the	quantity	of	allowed	hunted	specimens	per	species	per	hunt,	known	as	the	bag	limit.	If	these	regulations	are	disregarded,	hunters	risk	imprisonment	and/or	fines	about	US$	2,650	89.	For	local	communities	inhabiting	the	southern	part	of	the	country,	hunting	season	is	open	all	year	except	for	(inter-)	nationally	protected	species.	International	wildlife	export	from	Suriname	is	regulated	by	CITES,	therefore,	threatened	species	cannot	be	legally	traded.	In	2005,	revenues	from	wildlife	were	worth	over	US$	1	million	40.	After,	2007	this	amount	dropped	to	US$	404,000	due	to	restrictions	from	the	European	Union	on	bird	imports.	In	Suriname,	the	domestic	and	international	trade	in	medicinal	plants	–	over	245	plant	species	–	were	more	valuable	in	financial	terms	than	the	export	of	wildlife:	an	estimated	US$	1.5	million	21.	A	study	by	van	Andel	and	Havinga	(2008)	on	medicinal	plant	extraction	by	Maroons	showed	that	49%	of	the	commercial,	medicinal	species	were	collected	in	the	wild	and	thus	can	be	considered	as	NTFPs.	Due	to	the	large	percentage	of	cultivated	and	domesticated	medicinal	species,	and	the	dominance	of	weedy	and	secondary	forest	species,	the	harvesting	pressure	on	wild	medicinal	species	was	relatively	low90.	For	the	past	decade,	there	is	no	data	available	on	the	commercial	extraction	of	NTFPs	and	their	potential	ecological	impact	in	Suriname.	The	current	research,	carried	out	in	two	indigenous	communities	in	West	Suriname,	focused	on	the	economically	most	important	NTFPs,	their	collection	localities	and	their	corresponding	production-to-consumption	chains.	Subsequently,	the	status	of	the	communities’	land	tenure	was	assessed.	The	following	research	questions	were	posed:			 51	1) What	is	the	status	of	the	Indigenous	communities’	land	tenure	over	their	customary	territories	in	West	Suriname?	2) Which	wild	plants	and	animals	are	most	important	for	the	communities’	economy?		3) When	and	where	are	these	NTFPs	harvested?		4) Does	the	harvest	threat	the	targeted	species’	populations	or	the	ecosystem?			4.2 Methods	4.2.1 Ethnobotanical	data	collection	Prior	to	the	start	of	ethnobotanical	fieldwork,	a	meeting	was	set	up	with	the	local	authorities	of	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	to	request	their	consent	according	to	Free,	Prior	and	Informed	Consent	(FPIC)	guidelines.	Plant	collection	and	export	permits	were	obtained	from	the	Foundation	for	Forest	Management	and	Forest	Control	(SBB).	Fieldwork	was	done	in	March	and	April	2016.	Forest	walks	were	held	with	individuals	from	both	communities	(four	women,	eight	men),	whose	age,	gender	and	ethnicity	were	documented.	We	documented	traditional	ethnobotanical	knowledge	of	NTFPs	and	took	photographs	of	the	animals	and	collected	voucher	plant	specimens,	which	we	identified	and	deposited	at	the	National	Herbarium	of	Suriname	(BBS)	and	the	Naturalis	Biodiversity	Center	(L)	in	the	Netherlands.	 4.2.2 Interviews	and	surveys	To	identify	the	economically	most	important	NTFPs	(vegetal	and	animal),	semi-structured	interviews	were	held	with	hunters	and	NTFP	gatherers	from	Apoera	(n	=	7)	and	Sandlanding	(n	=	6).	Our	questionnaires	were	based	on	the	‘National	socioeconomic	surveys	in	forestry’	sourcebook	by	the	FAO	(2016).	We	gathered	information	on	when	NTFPs	were	harvested	and	sold	and	NTFP	processing	periods	to	construct	a	complete	profile	of	the	producer-to-consumer	chain.	We	also	collected	information	on	the	legal	ownership	status	and	access	to	areas	where	these	products	occurred,	pirces	and	sales	units	and	on	collectors,	buyers	and	consumers	of	the	NTFPS.	We	included	questions	of	the	availability	of	NTFPs	and	whether	these	had	been	increasing	or	declining	and	the	reasons	for	this.			 52	Three	market	surveys	were	carried	out	during	which	vendors	were	questioned	about	their	products,	prices	and	quantities	sold,	and	vegetation	types	from	which	they	were	harvested.	Additionally,	questionnaires	were	held	with	local	informants	and	the	traditional	authorities	to	clarify	land	tenure	status.	Other	data	such	as	maps	and	background	information	on	land	tenure	regimes	were	obtained	with	the	help	of	other	researchers,	the	communities,	an	IPO	and	from	literature	and	the	internet.	All	questionnaires	and	interviews	were	conducted	after	having	obtained	the	Free,	Prior	and	Informed	Consent	of	all	participants.		4.3 Results	and	discussion	4.3.1 Land	tenure	in	West	Suriname	In	the	1950s,	the	three	Indigenous	communities	of	Apoera,	Section	and	Washabo	were	assigned	one	collective	piece	of	land,	nowadays	renamed	to	‘communal	forest’.	Until	1997,	one	village	captain	was	the	traditional	chief	for	all	three	villages.	After	that	date,	each	of	the	villages	has	had	their	own	traditional	authorities	in	place,	captains	and	basyas	(assistants).	Currently,	the	highest	authority	in	Apoera	is	a	captain	who	is	assisted	by	six	basyas,	three	women	and	three	men.	The	highest	traditional	authority	of	the	Trio	in	Sandlanding	is	a	basya.	Within	the	communal	forest,	villagers	are	allowed	to	practice	their	traditional	customs,	i.e.	sourcing	housing	materials,	hunting,	farming,	logging	and	gathering	NTFPs.	They	also	have	the	right	to	exclude	others	from	their	territory.	However,	the	communal	forest	(shown	in	orange	on	Figure	4.2)	covers	only	a	small	portion	of	the	territory	that	has	been	customarily	used	by	the	current	Indigenous	communities	and	their	ancestors.	This	is	clearly	visualized	by	the	extensive	range	of	‘traditional	marks’	that	fall	outside	the	communal	forest,	shown	in	Figure	4.2.	The	tenure	regime	in	the	communal	forest	is	allegedly	under	a	State-recognized	common	property	regime,	held	by	the	communities	of	Washabo,	Section	and	Apoera.	However,	as	I	have	not	found	the	official	gazette	notice	that	covers	this	communal	forest,	it	might	be	a	de	facto	communal	property	system.	The	State	of	Suriname	remains	the	holder	of	the	radical	title	to	these	lands	and	has	the	right	to	alienate	their	rights.		 53	Fishermen	on	the	Courantyne	River	are	subject	to	regulations	set	out	by	the	ministry	of	(agriculture,	animal	husbandry	and)	fisheries.	The	fishermen	operate	in	a	common-pool	resource	system,	which	–	at	times	–	also	functions	as	a	de	facto	open	access	regime.	First	of	all,	it	should	be	made	clear	that	the	river	belongs	to	the	State	of	Suriname.	Guyana’s	territory	starts	at	the	high-water	mark	on	the	left	bank	of	the	Courantyne	River.	Guyana	does	not	own	any	part	of	the	river.	Therefore,	(local)	(Amerindian	and	coast-lander)	Guyanese	fishermen	are	only	allowed	to	fish	in	these	Surinamese	waters	with	the	requisite	licenses.	Enforcement	is	carried	out	by	coast	guards	and	national	police,	which	indeed	has	resulted	in	fines,	arrests	and	taxes	for	Indigenous	subsistence	fishermen	from	Guyana	91,92.	Surinamese	fishermen	generally	knew	which	fish	species	were	allowed	to	be	caught	during	each	season	and	reported	no	issues	with	law	enforcers.	However,	for	all	resources	that	are	not	listed	by	the	ministry	of	fisheries,	the	river	works	as	a	de	facto	open	access	regime.	This	will	be	further	explored	in	Section	4.3.3.1.	North	of	the	villages,	the	Kaboerikreek	(Kaboeri	creek)	is	intensively	used	for	hunting,	fishing,	farming,	gathering	NTFPs	and	other	traditional	activities,	see	Figure	4.2.	Kaboeri,	in	Arawak	language,	translates	as	‘rich	in	fish’.	Agricultural	plots	and	some	camps	are	still	to	be	found	along	the	creek.	However,	the	last	permanent	inhabitants	left	about	70	years	ago.	The	entire	Kaboeri	creek	system,	which	partly	falls	inside	the	communal	forest,	also	falls	within	a	proposed	nature	reserve.	Since	this	proposal	dates	back	to	1979,	it	seems	unlikely	that	this	area	is	still	under	active	consideration	for	protected	area	status	although	it	is	still	labelled	as	such	on	the	forest	tenure	map	published	by	the	national	Foundation	for	Forest	Management	and	Production	Control	(SBB)	in	2013.	State	owned	nature	reserves	often	jeopardize	traditional	activities	when	they	overlap	with	customary	territories.	However,	a	signed	document	(written	in	Dutch)	from	October	1979	(see	Figure	4.1)	states	that	the	Indigenous	communities	would	still	be	allowed	to	practice	their	traditional	activities	within	the	nature	reserve.	However,	expansion	of	customary	activities	(including	commercial	hunting	and	fishing)	would	not	be	allowed	within	the	nature	reserve.	Although	the	document	takes	the	communities’	subsistence	needs	into	account,	it	prioritizes	the	national	interest	and	states	that	“…the	faster	the	hinterland	communities	will	develop,	the	less	they	will	be	emotionally	attached	to	their	traditional	territory,	which	only	covers	a	very	small	portion	of	Surinamese	domain,	and	the	more	they	will		 54	see	themselves	as	Surinamese	citizens”.	However,	as	this	whole	area	is	far	from	road	access	and	as	the	creek	is	solely	accessible	to	very	small	boats,	these	lands	can	also	be	considered	de	facto	open	access.	Further	west,	south	and	southeast	of	the	communities,	most	of	their	customary	territory	has	been	allocated	to	multinational	timber	harvesting	companies,	as	shown	on	the	green	areas	on	the	map.	The	property	regime	in	this	area	is	State	owned,	with	time-limited	leaseholds	to	concession	holders	who	have	the	exclusive	right	to	harvest	timber.	On	these	concession	lands,	unless	FSC	certified,	the	Indigenous	communities	are	also	allowed	to	hunt	and	gather	NTFPs	for	customary	purposes.	However,	when	active	logging	finds	place,	locals	are	not	allowed	on	the	concession	(mainly	for	safety	reasons).	Again,	enforcement	of	these	rules	is	proven	to	be	difficult,	according	to	an	SBB	employee.	The	area	where	the	Trio	live	(Sandlanding)	and	hunt,	falls	outside	the	communal	forest,	though	within	the	customary	territory	of	Apoera.	As	earlier	mentioned	in	Section	2.2.2.1	the	Trio	gained	access	to	this	territory	in	2001	through	consultation	with	the	local	authorities	of	Apoera.	These	lands	are	State-owned	under	statutory	law,	called	domein.	State	‘domain’	is	accessible	for	local	communities	and	are	considered	open	access	lands.	However,	the	white-with	red	striped	area	in	Figure	4.2,	south	of	Sandlanding,	where	many	locals	from	all	the	villages	hunt,	is	under	request	for	logging	purposes.	The	traditional	authority	kapitein	Lewis	explained	that	the	allocation	of	logging	rights	to	these	lands	was	postponed,	partially	due	to	consultations	with	the	traditional	authorities.	It	is	obvious	that	land	tenure	security	for	the	communities	of	West	Suriname	is	very	minimal	to	non-existent	over	their	customary	territories	outside	the	communal	forest.	The	map,	(Figure	4.2)	clearly	shows	that	concession	areas	overlap	the	customary	territories	and	interfere	with	traditional	activities	of	the	Indigenous	communities.			 55									 		Figure	4.1a	and	b:	This	document	from	1979	proposed	the	creation	of	a	nature	reserve	bordering	the	West	Surinamese	Indigenous	communities’	communal	forest	in	the	north	and	east,	still	‘in	process’	today.	 56		Figure	4.2:	Map	of	West	Suriname.	This	map	is	modified	from:	1)	map	which	visualizes	customary	uses	(mapped	by	individuals	of	the	communities	in	a	collaborative	project	with	VIDS),	and	2);	forest	tenure	map	made	by	the	Surinamese	Foundation	for	Forest	Management	and	Production	Control	(SBB).	Numbers	show	certain	NTFP	collection	sites,	roman	numbers	show	different	tenure	regimes.	Figure	continues	on	next	page.	 57					 58	4.3.2 Most	important	commercial	vegetal	NTFPs	For	the	community	of	Apoera,	crabwood	oil	derived	from	Carapa	guianensis	was	the	most	important	commercial	vegetal	NTFP,	followed	by	the	Brazil	nut	(Bertholletia	excelsa)	and	the	nut	of	the	Caryocar	nuciferum,	locally	called	sawari.	See	Table	4.1	for	an	overview	of	the	most	important	commercial	NTFPs	for	both	communities.	For	the	community	of	Sandlanding,	the	only	vegetal	NTFPs	used	for	commercial	purposes	are	the	ones	used	to	make	jewellery.	The	most	frequently	used	are	the	seeds	of	Ormosia	costulata.	See	Appendix	A	for	a	complete	list	of	commercial	NTFPs	sold	by	the	communities	of	Apoera	and	Sandlanding.		Table	4.1:	Most	important	commercial	vegetal	NTFPs	for	the	Apoera	and	Trio	community.		L	 1st	most	important	NTFP	 2nd	most	important	NTFP	 3rd	most	important	NTFP	Apoera	-	vegetal	 Carapa	guianensis	krapa	(Sr)	crabwood	oil	(En)	Bertholletia	excelsa		ingi	noto	(Sr),	tuhka	(Tr)	brazil	nut	(En)	Caryocar	nuciferum		sawari	(Sr)	souari	(En)	Trio	-	vegetal	 seeds	for	jewellery,	mainly:		Ormosia	costulata		wetei	(Tr),	kokriki	(Sr)		-		-	Apoera	-	animal	 Potamotrygon	boesemani		spari	(Sr)	stingray	(En)	Tayassu	pecari		pingo	(Sr)	white-lipped	peccary	(En)	Cuniculus	paca		hei	(Sr)	lowland	paca	(En)	Trio	-	animal	 Potamotrygon	boesemani		spari	(Sr)	stingray	(En)	Tayassu	pecari		pingo	(Sr)	white-lipped	peccary	(En)	Hoplias	aimarat		anjumara	(Sr)	wolf	fish	(En)						 59	4.3.2.1 Carapa	guianensis	(Meliaceae)													Figure	4.3:	Leaves,	fruits	and	seeds	of	Carapa	guianensis	Aubl.		The	seeds	from	the	crabwood	tree	(Carapa	guianensis,	Figure	4.3),	which	belongs	to	the	Meliaceae	family,	are	referred	to	as	krapa	siri	and	are	used	to	make	crabwood	oil.	This	is	hard	work	and	a	lengthy	process:	first,	the	crabwood	seeds	are	collected	from	the	forest	floor	starting	in	March	(Figure	4.4).	The	making	of	crabwood	oil	is	solely	done	by	women,	however	the	men	help	to	collect	seeds	and	return	the	bags	that	can	weigh	over	50	kilograms	home	(Figure	4.5).	The	seeds	are	boiled	for	a	couple	of	hours	(Figure	4.6	and	Figure	4.7)	and	are	stored	to	dry.	After	about	2	to	3	weeks,	when	red	fungi	start	to	appear,	the	seeds	are	cracked	open	by	knife,	one	by	one,	in	order	to	remove	the	inner	seed	paste	(Figure	4.8).	Next,	the	paste	is	left	to	drain	for	a	week	(Figure	4.9),	after	which	it	has	to	be	massaged	thrice	a	day	for	5	minutes	(Figure	4.10).	In	between	massaging	periods,	the	oil	will	drip	out	over	a	period	of	another	three	weeks	(Figure	4.11).	This	whole	process	is	continuously	repeated	until	no	more	fresh	seeds	are	to	be	found	on	the	forest	floor.		 60		Figure	4.4:	Crabwood	seeds	collected	from	the	forest	floor.		Figure	4.5:	Husband	and	son	help	to	gather	seeds.	The	bags	can	weigh	over	50	kilograms.		Figure	4.6:	Bags	of	crabwood	seeds	are	emptied	into	a	huge	bowl.	After	adding	leaves	from	a	certain	plant	(chef’s	secret),	the	seeds	are	ready	to	be	boiled.		Figure	4.7:	After	ca.	6	hours	of	boiling,	the	water	is	drained	and	the	seeds	are	ready	be	stored	for	about	2	weeks.		Figure	4.8:	An	orange	fungus	appears,	indicating	the	time	to	crack	them	with	a	knife,	one	by	one	by	one	by	one	by	one.		Figure	4.9:	The	inner	pulp	from	the	cracked	seeds	is	kneaded	and	left	to	drain	for	about	a	week.		 61		Figure	4.12:	Several	bowls	containing	krapa	seed	paste	are	stored	overnight.		Crabwood	oil	is	used	throughout	the	Guianas	to	rub	on	dry	skin	and	hair,	and	sometimes	drunk	to	rinse	their	body	from	the	inside.	It	is	bought	directly	from	the	makers	and	sold	on	the	local	market	in	Apoera	for	US$	5	–	7	per	liter.	In	2015,	52	crabwood	oil	makers	produced	3939	liters	of	oil	in	Apoera,	Section	and	Washabo	93.	Buyers	from	larger	cities	(Paramaribo	and	Nickerie)	come	to	Apoera	to	buy	the	oil	as	well,	which	they	resell	on	markets	in	the	city.	Some	relatives	of	the	crabwood	oil	makers	go	to	the	market	in	Paramaribo	because	they	can	sell	it	for	a	better		Figure	4.10:	The	drained	pulp	is	massaged	thrice	per	day	for	about	five	minutes	each	time.		Figure	4.11:	The	crabwood	oil	that	has	dripped	out	of	the	pulp	is	removed	from	the	bowl	and	stored	in	bottles.		 62	price	and	in	larger	quantities.	They	mentioned	that	middlemen	who	sell	crabwood	oil	on	city	markets,	often	say	that	smaller	quantities	were	delivered	or	bottles	were	stolen.	On	amazon.com	and	other	websites	in	Europe,	the	US	and	Canada,	a	125	ml	bottle	of	crabwood	oil	costs	about	US$	10,	up	to	a	16-fold	the	local	price.	Crabwood	seeds	are	largely,	though	not	exclusively,	collected	in	an	area	that	falls	outside	the	communal	forest	(number	1,	Figure	4.2)	and	was	under	request	by	an	extractive	company	to	become	a	logging	concession	(in	2013),	as	indicated	on	the	map	(Figure	4.2).	The	nuts	are	collected	as	close	as	possible	to	roads	because	the	collection	bags	are	heavy	when	filled	with	seeds.	Areas	close	to	roads	are	easily	accessible	for	logging	once	a	logging	permit	would	be	issued.	Crabwood	trees	also	occurred	closer	to	Apoera	(right	next	to	‘Phase	2’),	but	when	an	airstrip	was	built	and	therefore	most	of	the	crabwood	trees	were	removed	without	the	consent	of	the	community.	Whether	this	piece	of	land	falls	within	or	just	outside	the	communal	forest	is	not	clear,	but	it	shows	the	community’s	poor	tenure	security	over	their	lands	where	they	collect	their	economically	most	profitable	NTFPs.	Over	time,	seed	gathering	influences	the	number	of	tree	seedlings	and	juveniles	in	a	negative	way	94,95,	which	would	impact	the	population	of	Carapa	trees.	Seed	collectors	also	compete	with	animals	that	feed	on	crab	seeds.	However,	as	the	crabwood	forests	are	otherwise	rather	undisturbed,	animals	can	forage	in	places	away	from	the	road,	which	limits	the	effects	of	foraging	humans.	Carapa	guianensis	is	increasingly	harvested	as	A-class	roundwood	timber:	1146	m3	in	2012,	over	a	4-fold	increase	compared	to	2	years	earlier	49,	which	made	up	0.29	%	of	total	roundwood	production.	Increased	logging	of	crabwood	trees	is	likely	to	conflict	with	the	customary	uses	of	crabwood	harvesters	and	the	animals	that	feed	on	the	seeds.	Such	foraging	animals	can	also	serve	as	bush	meat,	impacting	wildlife	stocks	for	local	hunters.			4.3.2.2 Bertholletia	excelsa	(brazil	nut)	and	Caryocar	nuciferum	(butter	nut)	The	brazil	nut	(Bertholletia	excelsa,	Lecythidaceae	family)	is	a	well-known	nut	in	the	Western	world	that	occurs	in	South	America.	The	large	capsule	containing	the	nuts	ripens	for	12	months		 63	before	it	drops	on	the	ground.	The	outer	shell	is	extremely	tough	and	is	usually	opened,	by	humans,	using	a	machete.	According	to	the	harvesters,	the	only	animal	that	can	open	the	fruits	are	macaws	(Ara	spp.),	because	of	their	strong	beak.	The	nuts	inside	the	woody	capsule	also	have	a	hard	shell	(Figure	4.13).	These	are	eaten	fresh	and	used	to	make	oil	with.	The	nuts	are	collected	February	through	May	in	large	bags	(Figure	4.14).	Brazil	nuts	are	sold	locally	on	the	market	for	US$	1.80	per	kilogram	and	are	bought	up	by	one	man	in	Apoera	in	bulk,	who	sells	them	to	market	vendors	from	Paramaribo.	Online,	(e.g.	amazon.com	and	amazon.ca),	these	nuts	are	sold	for	about	US$	25	–	35	per	kilogram,	at	14	to	19-fold	the	local	price.	The	butter	or	souari	nut	(Caryocar	nuciferum,	Caryocaraceae	family)	is	locally	valued	at	the	same	price,	collecting	happens	in	June	and	July.	The	nuts	of	both	these	species	are	collected	outside	the	communal	forest	and	occur	on	state	domain	(number	2	on	Figure	4.2),	in	the	proposed	nature	reserve.		The	ecological	risk	of	collecting	large	quantities	of	nuts	results	in	a	decline	in	seedlings	and	seed-depended	animals	(such	as	agoutis	and	large	herbivores),	and	therefore	the	sustainability	of	the	harvest	94,95.	Both	species	are	protected	from	logging	by	the	Forest	Management	Act	of	Suriname.	Bertholletia	excelsa	is	listed	as	vulnerable	on	the	IUCN	Red	List	of	threatened	species,	while	Caryocar	nuciferum	has	not	been	assessed.			 64		Figure	4.13:	Colleting	ingi	noto	(Bertholletia	excelsa	nuts)	in	two	warimbo	(Ischnosiphon	arouma)	leaves.			Figure	4.14:	Bags	filled	with	brazil	nuts	collected	on	a	multiple	day	trip	by	two	Indigenous	harvesters.			 65	4.3.2.3 Ormosia	costulata	The	seeds	of	weteu	(Trio)	or	kokriki	(Sr)	(Ormosia	costulata,	Fabaceae	family)	formed	the	most	important	parts	to	create	jewellery	with	for	the	women	of	the	Trio	community	in	Sandlanding	(Figure	4.15).	Other	than	seed	jewellery,	these	Trio	did	not	sell	any	vegetal	NTFPs.			Figure	4.15:	One	of	the	ingenious	pieces	of	jewellery	made	by	Naomi	Kupuru.	The	black/purple	spotted	dark	orange	seeds	come	from	Ormosia	costulata.	Most	parts	are	made	from	vegetal	NTFPs	as	well,	some	of	which	were	collected	far	upstream	or	in	Guyana.		Because	the	market	in	Apoera	is	on	a	40-minute	walk,	the	Trio	women	sold	their	jewellery	usually	every	other	Saturday	on	the	market.	The	women	explained	that	locals	do	not	frequently	buy	any	jewellery,	however	when	present,	national	or	international	tourists	were	better	customers.	Since	the	Trio	women	had	no	access	to	a	larger	market	and	kept	making	jewellery,	they	each	had	hundreds	of	pieces	of	jewellery	ready	to	be	sold.	Through	a	connection	in		 66	Paramaribo,	the	Trio	women	now	also	sell	jewellery	in	the	capital	and	in	shops	in	the	Netherlands.	Ormosia	costulata	produces	many	seeds	and	cannot	all	be	collected,	the	Trio	women	explained.	They	reported	that	a	new	flag-line	was	set	out	by	the	logging	company	that	owns	the	concession	in	the	area	where	they	collect	weteu	seeds,	visualized	by	number	3	on	Figure	4.2.	It	is	a	matter	of	time	before	logging	activities	start	on	this	part	of	their	customary	territory.	The	Trio	would	then	probably	have	to	find	another	site	to	collect	this	NTFP.			4.3.3 Most	important	commercial	animal	NTFPs	For	both	communities,	a	stingray	endemic	to	the	Courantyne	River,	Potamotrygon	boesemani,	was	the	most	important	commercially	traded	animal	NTFP	by	far.	There	is	little	literature	on	this	remarkable	species.	Other	economically	important	species	included	the	white-lipped	peccary	(Tayassu	pecari),	lowland	paca	(Cuniculus	paca)	and	wolf	fish	(Hoplias	aimara).			4.3.3.1 Potamotrygon	boesemani	(Boesemani	stingray)	Potamotrygon	boesemani	was	described	as	a	new	species	in	2008	96.	It	occurs	solely	in	the	Courantyne	River	basin	and	is	not	listed	on	the	IUCN	Red	List	of	threatened	species	96.	This	species,	well	known	to	the	Indigenous	communities	for	its	venomous	sting	and	its	delicious	taste,	has	become	the	most	important	commercial	animal	NTFP	for	the	communities	along	the	Courantyne	River.	At	times,	this	stingray,	called	spari	in	Sranantongo	and	amerare	kure	irepo	in	Trio	language,	used	to	be	cooked	alive	by	the	Trio	and	eaten	as	a	delicacy.	However,	spari	has	become	the	most	expensive	local	delicacy	known	to	the	region	as	buyers	from	the	city	paid	up	to	US$	300	per	specimen.	The	boesemani	stingray	has	become	a	highly	desirable	showpiece	in	mainly	Asian	aquaria.	This	species	is	most	easily	caught	during	dry	seasons	(at	night),	when	the	water	level	in	the	river	and	creeks	is	less	high.	Several	methods	were	used	to	catch	the	spari.	Spears	with	a	small	though	sharp	tip	were	shot	through	one	of	the	fins	of	the	animal,	immobilising	it.	Other	hunters		 67	used	Y-shaped	(home-made)	sticks	to	pin	the	stingrays	to	the	ground	and	some	used	nets	to	trawl	river	and	creek	beds.	Once	a	specimen	was	immobilised,	the	hunter	would	wear	swim	goggles	(if	he/she	possessed	a	pair)	and	put	his/her	head	underwater	to	cut	off	the	spari’s	sting(s)	using	scissors	or	a	knife.	This	species	has	one	or	two	serrated	caudal	stings	which	reach	a	length	up	to	2.5	times	the	size	of	the	tail	width	96.	People	who	got	stung	in	their	feet	and	legs,	would	suffer	extreme	pain	for	weeks.	However,	a	spari’s	sting	is	not	fatal,	if	the	right	antidote	is	available.	If	a	person	is	stung	in	the	upper	body,	the	sting	could	very	well	be	fatal	according	to	many	hunters.	No	fatal	accounts	were	reported	during	the	time	of	my	fieldwork.	Transportation	of	this	species	comes	with	difficulties.	Local	hunters	and	fishermen	reported	that	spari	need	fresh	water	every	15	to	30	minutes,	otherwise	it	suffocates.	Transportation	was	reported	to	be	most	successful	in	cages	behind	a	boat	at	slow	speed	or	in	baskets	with	air	pumps.	However,	since	many	people	did	not	own	a	boat,	air	pumps,	cages	or	the	knowledge	about	how	to	keep	this	species	alive	in	captivity,	hundreds	of	stingray	died	during	transportation	to	the	villages	during	the	period	I	spent	in	West	Suriname	(late	January	through	late	April	2016).	People	who	did	not	own	a	boat	would	go	hunting	at	night	wearing	rubber	boots,	wading	through	creeks	with	a	headlamp	on	their	head,	a	spear	in	one	hand,	and	in	the	other	an	empty	basket.	The	wading	individuals	were	surrounded	by	people	in	small	boats,	also	on	the	hunt.	In	both	directions	of	the	creek,	headlamps	from	spari	hunters	were	visible.	A	majority	of	the	population,	including	some	women	in	these	communities	who	generally	do	not	hunt,	were	on	the	hunt	for	spari.	Hunters,	NTFP	gatherers	and	others	without	a	daily	job	who	could	get	their	hands	on	a	boat,	would	go	on	multiple	day-to-week	trips	in	search	for	some	stingrays.	In	February	and	early	March	2016,	the	animals	were	caught	close	to	the	villages	in	the	river	and	surrounding	creeks.	When	spari	populations	started	to	decline	in	the	vicinity	of	the	villages,	hunters	were	travelling	further	and	further	away.	Around	late	March	and	April	2016,	people	were	often	not	successful	in	catching	a	single	specimen	on	multiple	day	hunts,	even	as	far	away	as	the	Wonotobo	falls	(7	hours	of	travel	by	small	motorboat),	located	on	the	Courantyne	River.	Similar	spari	hunting	scenery	was	apparent	in	the	Guyanese	creek	system	of	the	Courantyne	River.		 68	These	stingrays	were	solely	hunted	by	locals	and	then	sold	to	buyers	from	Paramaribo	who	would	arrive	in	charter	planes,	by	car	or	in	four-wheel	drive	vans	and	buses	(Figure	4.17).	Guyanese	buyers	and	fishermen	tried	to	buy	spari	during	transportation	on	the	river,	before	the	animals	would	have	arrived	on	the	Surinamese	riverbank.	In	Apoera,	a	middleman	had	set	up	three	large	tanks	equipped	with	air	pumps	to	store	stingrays.	In	Sandlanding,	one	inhabitant	used	an	inflatable	swimming	pool	to	store	some	specimens.	Buyers	would	await	larger	batches	to	come	in	(up	to	15	or	20	spari	a	time)	for	days.	Often,	many	of	the	stingrays	would	have	died	before	arrival	in	the	village	(Figure	4.18).	At	the	time,	on	a	single	trip	to	the	Wonotobo	falls	15	animals	died,	worth	US$	3,750,	or	the	equivalent	of	2,678	Trio	bracelets.	Then,	travel	to	the	capital	by	car	or	bus	was	a	high	risk	for	both	buyers	and	spari,	as	many	of	the	latter	died	during	the	journey.	One	buyer	reported	that	a	live	spari	could	fetch	US$	1,250	per	specimen,	or	five	times	the	price	paid	in	the	village,	when	sold	to	an	international	buyer.	Mid-sized	(18	–	25	cm)	females	were	most	wanted.		Figure	4.16:	Potamotrygon	boesemani	just	coming	to	shore.		Figure	4.17:	A	spari	specimen	is	carried	to	the	bus	of	a	stingray	buyer.		 69		Figure	4.18:	A	large	stingray	died	prior	to	arrival.	It	was	boiled	and	fed	to	the	dogs.		When	fieldwork	was	finished,	I	started	to	call	and	email	international	stingray	salesmen	and	companies.	Specimens	for	sale	were	located	in	France,	the	Netherlands,	Russia,	China	and	Taiwan.	The	most	expensive	specimen	I	found	for	sale	was	in	China	(local	name:	stingray,	boesemani,	 )	for	80,000	Yuan	or	US$	11,570	for	a	42-centimeter	sized	male	(Figure	4.19),	46	times	the	amount	paid	to	local	fishermen.	Apparently,	further	international	transportation	was	not	managed	any	better	as	a	Taiwanese	dealer	explained:	“I	got	Boesemani	rays	from	Suriname	directly.	This	ray	is	the	most	difficult	[animal]	for	acclimation	I	ever	met,	really	wild	style	rays	and	I	lost	many	pieces.”.	His	retail	price	was	US$	10,000	for	a	30	–	40	cm	sized	pair.	The	spari	are	often	sold	in	pairs	as	well.	On	the	Dutch	market	prices	were	lower:	US$	3200	for	a	pair	of	15	to	25	cm	ones,	US$	8,500	for	a	45	to	50	cm	sized	pair.			 70		Figure	4.19:	Potamotrygon	boesemani	offered	for	sale	on	a	Chinese	website	(http://51hongyu.com/category-44-b0.html,	accessed	on	02	February	2017)	for	up	to	80,000	yuan,	the	equivalent	of	about	US$	11,570.		Although	spari	species	are	seen	by	the	locals	as	valuable	and	beautiful	creatures,	the	large	amount	of	money	that	can	be	earned	with	it,	takes	precedence	over	traditional	ecological	‘feelings’	for	a	species.	When	an	SBB	team	came	to	Apoera	in	early	2016	to	organize	a	workshop	on	the	role	of	ecological	keystone	species,	only	the	local	authorities	and	a	handful	of	people	showed	up	at	the	meeting.	The	SBB	basically	explained	that	it	was	better	to	catch	two	spari,	instead	of	10.	However,	there	are	no	regulations	on	offtake.	An	open	access	regime	can	be	sustainable	when	the	demands	for	open	access	resources	are	low	and	harvesting	practices	do	not	harm	the	populations	and	the	surrounding	ecosystem	80.	Clearly,	in	a	de	facto	open	access	scenario	like	this	one,	local	hunters	opt	to	take	the	‘swimming	cash’	of	US$	2,500	for	10	rays	instead	of	US$	500	for	two	specimens	before	returning	home.	Theoretically,	the	spari	are	common-pool	resources	since	they	are	subtractable	and	the	exclusion	of	fishermen	is	possible,	albeit	expensive	97.	With	the	income	earned	by	spari	sales,	the	Trio	in	Sandlanding	who	first		 71	gained	access	to	electricity	in	March	2016,	were	buying	freezers,	a	huge	flat	screen	television	and	started	to	replace	their	traditional	houses	for	partially	concrete	houses.	Since	this	stingray	was	only	recently	scientifically	described,	its	role	in	the	ecosystem	of	the	Courantyne	River	basin	is	still	unclear.	However,	literature	on	different	stingray	species	show	that	these	keystone	species	have	a	great	influence	on	their	ecosystem	as	they	modify	physical	and	biological	habitat	elements	through	foraging	and	predation	98.	Moreover,	stingrays	are	known	to	prey	on	different	trophic	groups	within	their	ecosystem	99.	Removing	such	a	substantial	number	of	boesemani	stingrays	within	a	few	months	is	therefore	likely	to	have	serious	impacts	on	local	trophic	systems	of	the	Courantyne	River	basin	and	the	entire	ecosystem.	Because	so	many	species	die	during	transportation,	the	actual	sales	of	this	species	are	much	lower	than	the	numbers	that	have	been	captured.	The	species’	narrow	endemic	state,	the	great	loss	of	animals	during	transportation,	the	lack	of	national	and	international	recognition	of	this	species	in	combination	with	a	sudden	increase	in	international	demand,	has	seriously	endangered	this	species	of	stingray.		4.3.3.2 Tayassu	pecari	(white-lipped	peccary)	and	Cuniculus	paca	(lowland	paca)	Another	commercially	traded	animal	was	the	white-lipped	peccary	(Tayassu	pecari,	Tayassuidae	family)	is	the	second	most	important	commercialised	animal	NTFP	for	the	community	of	Apoera	and	the	Trios	from	Sandlanding.	This	species	is	IUCN	red-listed	as	vulnerable	(VU)	because	of	an	estimated	decline	of	30%	of	the	population	within	the	last	18	years	due	to	(illegal)	hunting	and	habitat	loss	100.	By	Surinamese	statutory	hunting	laws,	this	animal	is	only	allowed	to	be	hunted	(and	sold)	during	the	open	season	from	August	through	March,	with	a	maximum	(called	a	bag	limit)	of	one	specimen	per	hunting	trip	88.		The	lowland	paca	(Cuniculus	paca,	Cuniculidae	family),	referred	to	as	hei	in	Sranantongo,	is	listed	on	the	IUCN	red	list	as	LC,	‘Least	Concern’.	For	Apoera’s	community,	this	is	the	third	most	important	commercial	animal	NTFP.	Members	of	the	Trio	community	do	consume	and	sell	paca	as	well.	However,	it	does	not	appear	in	their	top	3.	These	species	are	directly	bought	from	hunters	by	other	locals	for	subsistence	purposes.	The	meat	of	both	animals	was	sold	for	US$		 72	2.80	per	kilogram.	People	come	to	West	Suriname	to	buy	or	hunt	peccary	themselves	for	own	consumption.		Local	hunters	reported	that	almost	all	wildlife	is	in	decline,	especially	compared	to	20	years	and	longer	ago.	The	reasons	they	gave	for	the	decline	were	the	following:	1) Increased	demand	for	subsistence	bush	meat	from	local	people	as	a	result	of	a	population	increase;	2) Increased	local	commercial	hunting	for	bush	meat	(for	local	sales);	3) Increased	demand	for	bush	meat	from	non-locals	(non-local	hunters	and	subsistence	oriented	users);	4) Wildlife	retreats	from	nearby	concession	areas	(machinery	noise,	people);	5) Wildlife	has	learned	to	avoid	frequently	visited	hunting	areas.	Hunting	by	the	communities	of	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	takes	place	entirely	outside	their	communal	forest	(see	the	bow-and-arrow	icons	on	the	map	in	Figure	4.2.	The	hunting	marks	depicted	on	Figure	4.2	within	the	communal	forest	are	frequently	used	by	the	inhabitants	of	Washabo.	Southeast	of	Apoera	hunters	are	limited	by	active	logging	concessions.	Expansion	of	logging	activities	closer	to	the	villages	would	have	consequences	for	hunters,	because	wildlife	will	keep	their	distance	from	machinery	and	people.	Also,	access	to	hunting	grounds	could	be	restricted	on	active	or	FSC-certified	concession	sites.		4.3.3.3 Hoplias	aimara	(wolf	fish)	The	wolf	fish,	called	anjumara	in	Sranantongo,	is	a	large	predator	fish	that	reaches	lengths	over	100	cm	101.	This	species	is	more	commonly	consumed	and	sold	by	the	Trio,	because	it	occurs	in	their	old	habitat	near	the	Wonotobo	falls	where	they	still	hunt.	The	Trio	placed	this	NTFP	as	the	third	most	important	commercial	species	and	sell	the	fish	for	SRD	17.50	per	kilogram,	about	US$	2.40.	They	used	to	sell	their	catch	on	the	same	day	of	their	return	from	hunting,	because	of	the	lack	of	electricity	(and	thereby	fridges	and	freezers),	in	Sandlanding	up	to	March	2016.	Both	local	and	city	people	buy	wolf	fish.		 73	Fishermen	have	noticed	a	decrease	in	abundancy	of	anjumara	in	the	Courantyne	River.	The	fish	is	no	longer	found	in	waters	closer	to	Apoera,	because	of	increased	in	fishing	by	locals	and	organized	fishing	trips	for	tourists.		4.4 Conclusions	The	most	important	commercial	NTFPs	are	listed	in	Table	4.2,	including	their	buyers,	the	land	tenure	status	of	harvesting	sites	and	whether	ecological	impacts	have	been	observed.	This	study	shows	the	land	tenure	insecurity	in	the	areas	where	commercial	NTFPs	are	harvested	by	the	communities	of	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	in	West	Suriname.	Some	families	within	these	communities	depend	entirely	on	the	income	generated	by	NTFPs	sales,	other	families	partially	and	just	a	few	families	generate	their	entire	income	through	other	work.	Although	Suriname	has	ratified	the	Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	(CBD)	and	adopted	the	Declaration	on	the	Rights	of	Indigenous	Peoples	(UNDRIP),	the	government	has	not	yet	started	any	form	of	collaborative	management	(in	West	Suriname’s)	ITP’s	territories.	This	gap	opens	up	a	space	for	developing	collaborative	management	regulations	which	could	be	incorporated	into	national	policies	and	procedures,	and	would	represent	an	important	step	in	advancing	local	governance	and	biodiversity	management.			As	for	the	species	that	are	harvested	and	hunted,	another	important	lesson	is	learned.	There	are	an	untold	number	of	species	which	are	not	listed	by	CITES	82,	such	as	the	Potamotrygon	boesemani	and	Caryocar	nuciferum	and	which	are	traded	internationally.	When	national	policies	are	also	non-existent,	the	quantity	of	gathered	and	sold	NTFPs	depends	entirely	on	the	local	communities’	decisions,	which	are	driven	by	demand	from	outside	The	current	globalised	world	can	create	a	sudden	high	demand	for	certain	NTFPs.	The	astronomical	amounts	of	money	that	the	sale	of	live	spari	generatea	for	these	local	communities,	signals	that	in	the	absence	of	sustainable	harvesting	rules	this	animal	will	soon	join	the	ranks	of	the	many	species	made	extinct	through	human	action.					 74	Table	4.2:	List	of	most	important	commercial	NTFPs	for	the	Trio	and	Apoera	communities,	with	correlated	tenure	and	ecological	issues.	NTFP,	vegetal	(v)/animal	(a)	 Market	 Tenure	status	 Ecological	risks		Carapa	guianensis,	(v)		Local	and	non-local	consumers	Middle	men	[small-scale]	State	domain	under	request	for	timber	harvesting	Overharvesting	seeds	for	long	period	can	decrease	regeneration	and	food	source	for	game	animals	Bertholletia	excelsa,	(v)	Local	consumers	Locally	commercialized	[small-scale]	Middle	men	from	city	market	[small-scale]	State	domain,	proposed	nature	reserve	Overharvesting	seeds	for	long	period	can	decrease	regeneration	and	food	source	for	game	animals	Caryocar	nuciferum,	(v)	Local	consumers	Locally	commercialized	[small-scale]	Middle	men	from	city	market	[small-scale]	State	domain,	proposed	nature	reserve	Overharvesting	seeds	for	long	period	can	decrease	regeneration	and	food	source	for	game	animals	Ormosia	costulata,	(v)	Non-local	customers,	tourists,		Paramaribo	and	international	market	[small-scale]	Logging	concession	site		Unknown		Potamotrygon	boesemani,	(a)	Paramaribo	and	international	market	[large-scale]	State	domain,	de	facto	open	access	regime	Extreme	decrease	in	population,	may	lead	to	extinction.	Potential	threats	to	ecosystem	Tayassu	pecari,	(a)	Local	and	non-local	consumers	Locally	commercialized	[small-scale]	State	domain	and	logging	concession	sites		Decrease	in	population	noticed		Cuniculus	paca,	(a)	Local	and	non-local	consumers	Locally	commercialized	[small-scale]	State	domain	and	logging	concession	sites		Decrease	in	population	noticed		Hoplias	aimara,	(a)	Local	and	non-local	consumers	Locally	commercialized	[small-scale]	State	domain,	de	facto	open	access	regime		Decrease	in	population	noticed			 75	4.5 Recommendations	In	order	to	improve	NTFP	security	for	the	communities	of	West	Suriname	and	to	prevent	further	harmful	decline	in	wildlife	and	foremost	in	Potamotrygon	boesemani	stingray,	some	policy	recommendations	are	laid	out	for	collaborative	forest	governance.	The	most	important	principles	that	result	in	successful	outcomes	for	local	communities	and	ecosystems	are	80:	i)	secure	land	tenure;	ii)	collaboratively-developed	rules	that	reflect	and	respect	local	communities	and	the	ecosystems;	iii)	effective	monitoring	and	enforcement.	One	of	the	international	conservation	programs	that	covers	these	principles	is	Reducing	Emissions	from	Deforestation	and	Forest	Degradation	(REDD+).	The	REDD+	proposal	issued	by	Suriname	has	been	approved	in	2014.	This	provides	opportunities	for	future	collaborative	(research)	projects.	The	main	idea	behind	REDD+	is	that	Northern	countries	pay	for	carbon	sequestration	in	Southern	countries	through	forestry	practices	whilst	taking	biodiversity	and	the	needs	and	rights	of	local	communities	into	account.	The	following	four	recommendations	will	build	on	the	above-mentioned	principles	to	safeguard	biodiversity	and	local	communities’	interests,	and	include	potential	REDD+	opportunities.		4.5.1 Research	on	ecological	impact	of	harvesting	NTFPs	The	ecological	impact	from	harvesting	seeds	from	different	tree	species	is	currently	unknown,	as	is	the	impact	from	hunting	wildlife.	A	five-step	long-term	research	process	could	be	set	up	to	determine	and	manage	the	sustainability	of	gathering	NTFPs	102:		1)	Situation	analysis	(gather	existing	data	on	species,	the	ecosystem	and	collecting	operations);		2)	Resource	inventory	(quantity	of	targeted	species);		3)	Yield	and	generation	studies;		4)	Assessment	of	harvest	impacts;		5)	Periodic	monitoring	and	harvest	adjustments		 76	This	collaborative	research	could	be	done	to	determine	impacts	on	targeted	NTFP	species	and	their	surrounding	ecosystem.	Local	NTFP	gatherers	can	help	to	do	the	monitoring	for	vegetal	NTFPs,	while	hunters	could	monitor	wildlife.	Currently,	the	hunting	calendar	focuses	on	bag	limits	–	a	number	of	species	you	can	carry	in	your	bag,	on	a	single	trip.	Within	this	system,	a	hunter	could	theoretically	make	3	trips	a	day	for	the	entire	hunting	season	carrying	the	maximum	number	of	hunted	animals	each	time.	It	seems	advisable	to	co-develop	by	government	and	local	community	representatives	a	system	for	sustainable	off-take	number	of	hunted	animals	per	hunting	season,	rather	than	per	hunting	trip.	However,	as	in	many	other	cases,	the	monitoring	and	enforcement	of	NTFP	hunting	and	gathering	rules	are	a	major	challenge	and	often	costly	83.	Because	there	is	currently	no	effective	monitoring	system	in	place,	the	success	of	any	rules	will	depend	on	full	participation	of	all	affected	and	interested	parties.		4.5.2 Safeguard	traditional	NTFP	practices	–	protect	lands	and/or	species	(through	REDD+)	Traditional	cultural	practices	such	as	gathering	subsistence	NTFPs	and	commercial	NTFPs	(as	disclosed	in	this	chapter)	should	be	safeguarded,	as	long	as	these	practices	are	in	consonance	with	the	conservation	of	biodiversity.	By	affirming	respect	for	the	policies	set	out	in	the	United	Nations	Declaration	on	the	Rights	of	Indigenous	Peoples	(UNDRIP),	the	government	of	Suriname	could	take	steps	to	comply	with,	amongst	others,	Article	2C:	“States	shall	provide	effective	mechanisms	for	prevention	of,	and	redress	for	any	action	which	has	the	aim	or	effect	of	dispossessing	them	of	their	lands,	territories	or	resources.”	In	order	to	safeguard	the	making	of	crabwood	oil	and	traditional	jewellery,	the	lands	these	seeds	are	collected	on	should	be	demarcated	and	protected.	If	allocating	land	rights	to	traditional	authorities	is	not	considered	feasible,	then	co-management	of	activities	on	these	lands	involving	the	government,	logging	companies	and	the	communities	could	be	an	important	interim	step.	It	should	be	guaranteed	to	the	communities	that	these	areas	should	not	be	logged,	especially	the	tree	species	of	interest	(Ormosia	costulata	and	Carapa	guianensis).		 77	Safeguarding	these	tree	stands	would	also	make	an	excellent	REDD+	project,	as	it	includes	all	the	pillars	of	REDD+:	1)	trees	will	be	saved	from	being	cut,	resulting	in	the	sequestration	of	carbon;	2)	forest	biodiversity	and	ecosystem	services	will	be	maintained	and/or	enhanced;	3)	it	will	promote	the	sustainable	livelihoods	of	Indigenous	communities;	4)	it	could	promote	the	application	of	Free,	Prior	and	Informed	Consent	(FPIC)	guidelines	over	these	areas,	strengthening	Indigenous	land	rights;	5)	promote	‘fair	funding’	through	implementing	an	equitable,	transparent	and	participatory	funding	mechanism.	The	latter	could	be	realized	by	improving	market	access	and	establishing	direct	connections	to	(international)	companies	that	sell	crabwood	oil	or	other	NTFPs.		4.5.3 Stingray	conservation	and	sustainable	harvesting	education	As	the	research	in	this	chapter	has	shown,	there	are	very	clear	signs	that	the	Potamotrygon	boesemani	population	has	been	heavily	reduced	within	a	matter	of	months.	In	order	to	stave	off	localized	extinction,	it	would	be	necessary	to	place	an	immediate	moratorium	on	the	export	of	P.	boesemani.	Prior	to	the	export	ban,	consultations	should	take	place	with	the	local	communities	to	discuss	and	agree	on	specific	steps.	Inter-governmental	discussions	should	also	take	place	with	the	Guyanese	government	officials	and	local	communities,	so	as	to	prevent	all	the	boesemani	stingrays	simply	being	sold	in	and	exported	through	Guyana.	Any	moratorium	will	cut	the	income	of	the	remaining	spari	hunters,	which	will	cause	dissatisfaction	in	the	communities.	However,	hunters	and	other	community	members	have	experiences	of	boom-and-bust	commodities.	They	have	the	most	direct	knowledge	of	the	growing	scarcity	of	spari	and	so	would	come	around	to	accepting	that	continuation	of	current	unsustainable	harvesting	practices	would	soon	result	in	zero	income	through	spari	sales.	That	would	be	the	most	unwelcome	outcome	for	both	the	communities	and	the	stingray	population.		A	sustainable	program	could	be	set	up	to	breed	stingrays	in	controlled	environments	within	the	local	communities.	This	is	already	being	done	in	the	Netherlands.	Knowledgeable	stingray	breeders	could	come	to	the	Indigenous	villages	to	set	up	water	tanks	with	air	pumps	and	other	necessary	equipment.	They	could	explain	what	conditions	are	best	for	the	spari	to	produce		 78	offspring	and	guide	the	local	families	throughout	the	process.	In	this	way	the	communities	could	still	earn	money	through	the	sales	of	spari,	and	the	natural	population	might	find	a	new	balance.	To	monitor	whether	the	P.	boesemani	population	is	resilient	enough	to	make	a	comeback,	research	and	monitoring	systems	should	be	in	place.	Since	long-term	assessments	are	difficult	to	make	with	short-term	scientific	studies,	monitoring	can	be	done	by	the	former	harvesters	103,	for	which	they	should	receive	fair	compensation.	Besides	keeping	track	of	the	natural	population,	further	research	should	determine	what	the	effects	are	on	other	natural	elements	of	the	Courantyne	River	basin.	In	order	to	prevent	future	boesemani	stingray	stocks	from	being	depleted,	it	would	be	helpful	if	the	bond	with	the	animal	is	nurtured.	A	governmental	program	through	the	SBB,	which	sought	to	educate	the	villagers	on	the	potential	impacts	of	overharvesting	of	this	species,	was	poorly	attended	by	the	locals	(held	early	2016	in	Apoera).	Among	the	Maori	of	New	Zealand	stingrays	occur	in	narratives	and	are	considered	to	be	guardians	of	the	waters	where	the	Maori	collect	NTFPs	104,105.	It	would	be	interesting	and	instructive	to	have	a	few	Maori	people	share	their	beliefs	and	customs	regarding	their	spari	with	the	Courantyne	villagers.	These	projects	could	be	funded	by	the	government	of	Suriname,	since	they	are	–	according	to	the	ratified	Convention	on	Biological	Diversity	(CBD),	Article	10C	–	legally	bound	to:		“Protect	and	encourage	customary	use	of	biological	resources	in	accordance	with	traditional	cultural	practices	that	are	compatible	with	conservation	or	sustainable	use	requirements.”	If	these	recommendations	regarding	spari	conservation	are	followed,	the	government	would	fulfil	its	role	to	protect	both	biodiversity	and	Indigenous	practices.	The	Indigenous	communities	of	West	Suriname	could	develop	a	deeper	bond	with	the	spari,	the	stingray	population	would	have	a	chance	to	recover	and	through	breeding	the	species,	the	communities	could	still	earn	an	income.			 79	4.5.4 Strengthen	Indigenous	co-management	(through	REDD+)	Because	large	areas	where	the	Indigenous	communities	depend	on	fall	outside	their	communal	forest,	co-management	over	the	‘extended’	customary	territory	should	be	established	among	the	government,	intermediate	NGOs,	Indigenous	Peoples	Organizations	(IPOs)	and	the	involved	local	communities.	This	might	include	the	devolution	of	forest	governance	over	an	extended	area,	than	just	the	communal	forest.	Devolution	of	forest	governance	is	defined	as	‘the	formal	transfer	to	local	communities,	indigenous	groups,	private	firms	or	individuals	of	rights	and	responsibilities	over	forest	resources	previously	vested	in	centralized	national	governments’	80.	It	should	be	clear	that	such	devolution	will	only	work	when	the	different	levels	of	governing	bodies	work	together	and	the	local	communities	receive	conservation	education	and	training	80.	It	is	thereby	common	for	communities	to	develop	management	plans	(in	collaboration	with	experts/researchers/IPOs/NGOs)	that	have	to	be	approved	by	other	authorities	such	as	a	national	forestry	department	80.	However,	it	requires	the	traditional	authorities	and	individuals	from	all	communities	to	work	together,	instead	of	the	current	four	(Apoera,	Section,	Washabo,	Sandlanding)	solo-operating	institutions.		Areas	that	could	be	included	in	the	communal	forest:	1) Southeast	of	the	villages	where:	o crabwood	stands	occur;	o (subsistence)	hunting	finds	place;	o jewellery	seeds	are	collected;	o traditional	farming	grounds	are	located		2) The	nature	reserve	that	was	proposed	in	1979	Since	the	latter	proposed	nature	reserve	borders	the	communal	forest	and	serves	for	many	traditional	activities,	it	forms	an	excellent	site	for	the	devolution	of	powers	to	the	Indigenous	communities.	This	area,	which	surrounds	the	biodiversity-rich	Kaboeri	creek,	could	also	become	the	locus	of	another	REDD+	project	by	promoting	ecotourism,	while	safeguarding	biodiversity	and	excluding	outsiders	from	commercial	fishing,	hunting	and	timber	harvesting.	Monitoring		 80	and	enforcement	can	be	done	by	the	locals	while	taking	tourists	on	trips	(a	camp	is	already	built	for	overnight	jungle	stays).	Ecotourism	would	also	create	jobs	within	the	communities	for	many	others.	Hereby,	think	of	people	with	accommodation,	boats,	cars,	tour	guides	(cultural	and	natural),	small	restaurants,	shops,	bars.	People	can	sell	their	handicrafts,	their	vegetables,	fish,	meat,	cassava	bread	etc.	Money	raised	through	ecotourism	could	be	used	communally	to	improve	healthcare	and	traditional	education,	for	example.	Two	hours	per	week	in	school	could	be	spent	on	traditional	education	where	children	can	learn	their	original	language,	play	traditional	songs,	get	to	know	medicinal	plants	(they	were	eager	to	learn	during	the	NTFP	questionnaires	in	primary	school,	see	Chapter	3)	and	become	acquainted	with	other	traditional	customs	that	tend	to	be	forgotten.	Teachers	should	be	(elder)	locals	who	receive	fair	payment	for	their	hours.	In	general,	the	basis	of	this	co-management	could	be	formed	through	strengthening	the	communities’	bundle	of	rights.	These	rights	can	include	84:	• Rights	of	access	–	which	should	be	limited	to	the	communities	of	Apoera,	Washabo,	Sandlanding,	Section	and	Hardlanding;	• Rights	of	extraction	-	to	gather	natural	resources	for	subsistence	(and	co-managed	commercial)	purposes;	• FPIC	–	the	right	for	the	communities	to	take	part	in	decision-making	processes	over	activities	that	take	place	within	their	co-managed	territories;	• The	right	to	exclude	others	(e.g.	hunters	from	the	city,	logging	companies	etc.);	• The	duration	of	these	rights	should	not	be	time-limited;	• Extinguishability	of	rights	–	the	government	currently	retains	the	right	to	alienate	the	lands	for	the	public	good	and	revoke	a	communal	title	However,	it	should	be	clear	that	solely	allocating	these	rights	or	granting	title	over	customary	lands	without	proper	governance	systems	in	place,	would	have	limited	outcomes	for	ecosystem	management.	The	important	message	is	that	the	locals	depend	on	the	natural	resources	extracted	from	their	customary	lands.	If	someone	higher	up	the	chain	of	authority	decides	to	allocate	these	lands	to	an	actor	with	different	interests,	the	livelihoods	of	these	communities		 81	can	easily	be	destroyed.	By	strengthening	governance	and	their	breadth	of	rights,	the	communities’	livelihood	security	would	improve.	Realising	these	goals	through	a	conservation	program	such	as	REDD+	could	result	in	a	win-win	situation	for	both	the	government	and	the	communities.		 82	Chapter	5: Conclusions	and	future	perspectives	5.1 Conclusions	This	research	has	shown	that	the	Trio	community	in	Sandlanding	and	the	Amerindian	inhabitants	of	Apoera	make	extensive	use	of	natural	resources	extracted	from	the	forests	that	surround	their	villages.	They	collect	many	different	NTFPs	that	serve	for	subsistence	and	commercial	purposes.	The	body	of	knowledge	about	these	NTFPs	has	been	built	up	over	millennia	and	is	still	passed	on	to	younger	generations	today.	Against	expectations,	the	children	of	the	more	forest-dependent	Trio	community	did	not	possess	more	knowledge	about	NTFPs	than	their	more	urbanised	and	acculturated	peers	from	Apoera.	This	finding	shows	that	the	time	of	acculturation	and	urbanisation	does	not	influence	the	rate	of	NTFP	knowledge	loss	between	15	years	(exposure	of	Trio	community)	and	several	decades	(exposure	of	Apoera	community),	but	rather	that	this	knowledge	is	lost	in	the	first	15	years	of	exposure.	Adult	Trio	members	have	been	entirely	dependent	on	their	natural	surroundings	before	they	came	to	Sandlanding.	Therefore,	their	children	are	the	first	generation	to	being	exposed	to	urban	influence.	Attending	a	State	(primary)	school	and	limited	forest	walks	seemed	to	be	the	main	drivers	behind	disrupted	NTFP	knowledge	transmission.	Fundamental	to	this	argument	is	the	fact	that	children	have	less	time	being	involved	in	(traditional)	activities	that	partake	NTFPs.	For	the	ethnobotanical	knowledge	that	is	passed	on,	it	was	shown	that	children	were	acquainted	with	the	applications	of	commercial	and	edible	NTFPs	prior	to	mastering	the	corresponding	plant	names.	This	finding	confirms	that	knowledge	acquisition	at	a	young	age	happens	through	observation.	This	result	also	makes	evolutionary	sense	because	a	name	will	not	clarify	whether	a	plant	is	deadly	or	edible.	Knowledge	of	the	application	of	a	plant	on	the	other	hand,	could	help	identify	potential	risks.	For	all	children,	the	application	of	commercial	and	food	NTFPs	were	much	better	known	than	the	applications	of	medicinal	NTFPs.	Besides	the	fact	that	the	use	of	medicinal	NTFPs	is	specialized	knowledge,	it	is	also	only	applied	when	people	are	sick.	Therefore,	the	application	of	medicinal	NTFPs	is	likely	to	happen	less	frequently	than	commercial	and	food	NTFPs.	Since	specialized	medicinal	plant	knowledge	is	known	to	only	certain	villagers,	it	is	prone	to	be	eroded	the	soonest.		 83	The	use	of	Sranantongo	plant	names	by	the	Trio	children	and	the	use	of	Trio	plant	names	by	the	children	from	Apoera,	showed	that	ethnobotanical	knowledge	exchange	indeed	takes	place	between	the	two	communities.	These	Amerindian	communities	exchange	ethnobotanical	information	and	thereby	strengthen	their	body	of	knowledge	about	certain	NTFPs.	This	finding	contradicts	that	acculturation	erodes	the	body	of	traditional	knowledge.	Rather,	at	least	on	‘small-scale	acculturation’	level,	it	can	strengthen	the	ethnobotanical	knowledge	as	both	communities	learn	customs	that	involve	NTFPs	from	one	another.	For	these	communities,	it	is	therefore	clear	that	urbanisation	(i.e.	schools	and	shops)	augment	the	loss	of	traditional	ethnobotanical	knowledge,	while	acculturation	can	reverse	that	process.	By	defining	the	three	most	important	commercial	NTFPs,	land	tenure	issues	were	identified	on	the	lands	these	NTFPs	were	collected	on.	Land	tenure	security	for	the	Indigenous	communities	of	West	Suriname	was	found	to	be	poor	as	most	of	the	gathering	sites	fall	outside	the	communal	forest	–	the	piece	of	territory	the	communities	have	title	over.	Some	of	the	collection	sites	fell	within	active	logging	concessions,	others	were	under	request	for	the	allocation	of	land	or	access	rights.	The	three	principles	that	secure	tenure	is	based	on	(i:	how	many	rights	one	enjoys	–	bundle	of	rights;	ii)	whether	those	rights	are	protected;	iii)	duration	of	rights)	are	almost	non-existent	over	many	of	their	customary	collection	territories.	In	accordance	to	the	by	Surinamese	government	ratified	and	accepted	CBD	and	UNDRIP,	and	in	accordance	to	the	jurisprudence	from	the	IAHCR,	the	government	should	improve	local	participation	processes	through	FPIC	principles.	It	also	should	ensure	that	areas	where	NTFPs	are	collected	are	not	being	logged	or	become	inaccessible	to	the	communities,	as	their	livelihoods	and	income	depend	on	it.	When	these	steps	are	found	to	be	too	radical,	the	protection	of	important	NTFP	species	could	be	an	interim	step	towards	co-management.	Besides	land	tenure	issues,	an	assessment	was	made	on	current	and	future	(potential)	harmful	impacts	on	NTFP	species	and	their	ecosystems	as	a	result	of	unsustainable	harvesting	practices.	For	vegetal	NTFPs,	it	is	hard	to	determine	potential	risks	as	little	literature	covers	how	many	plant(s)	(parts)	are	collected,	what	the	resource	inventory	is,	how	long	(re)generation	of	targeted	species	can	take	up	and	what	the	impacts	are	from	harvesting	on	the	rest	of	the	ecosystem.	For	animal	NTFPs,	hunters	noted	a	clear	decrease	in	both	wildlife	and	fish	stocks,		 84	although	not	substantial	enough	that	hunting	was	becoming	strenuous.	However,	for	the	endemic	stingray	Potamotrygon	boesemani,	the	tides	have	turned	within	a	matter	of	months.	Because	of	a	sudden	increase	in	global	demand	for	this	species	as	showpiece,	the	population	of	the	boesemani	stingray	has	imperiled.	Besides	the	colossal	impact	on	the	population,	the	consequences	to	the	trophic	biome	of	the	Courantyne	River	basin	are	unknown.	The	underlying	cause	is	human	imprudence	and	globalisation	on	one	side.	On	the	other	side	the	lack	of	conservation	governance.	Since	this	species	(and	many	other)	is	not	listed	by	CITES,	international	and	national	regulations	regarding	the	export	of	P.	boesemani	are	absent.	Although	unsustainable,	the	incentive	of	earning	a	year’s	salary	within	a	week	is	too	big	to	spare	the	animal	for	the	local	communities.	If	not	you,	a	hundred	others	will	catch	the	stingray.		The	outcomes	of	this	research	show	how	nature’s	bounty	in	the	customary	territories	of	the	Indigenous	communities	in	West	Suriname	are	of	irreplaceable	value	up	to	today.	The	sustainable	continuation	of	many	activities,	however,	calls	for	co-management	between	branches	of	governmental	institutions,	NGOs,	Indigenous	Peoples	Organizations	(IPOs)	and	the	local	communities	themselves.	The	government	will	need	to	reach	out	to	the	communities	to	involve	them	at	the	level	of	decision-making	processes	(FPIC	principles),	NGOs	and	IPOs	will	need	to	support	and	educate	individuals	from	the	communities	to	become	competent	with	existing	and	future	programs.	However,	without	the	devotion	of	the	Indigenous	communities	themselves	to	start	governing	(traditional)	activities	through	implementation	of	co-developed	rules	and	regulations,	participatory	programs	will	not	succeed.		5.2 Future	perspectives	The	FPIC	agreement	stated	that	all	documented	traditional	knowledge	belonged	to	the	local	communities	and	that	they	would	indicate,	per	species,	which	knowledge	was	allowed	to	be	shared.	After	a	few	discussions,	it	became	clear	that	the	communities	only	wanted	to	make	the	usage	categories	public	(such	as	‘food’,	‘building	material’,	‘medicine’	and	‘spiritual’).	I	fully	understand	and	respect	this	decision.	Therefore,	this	thesis	does	not	include	any	of	the	documented	traditional	knowledge	that	was	captured	during	the	fieldwork.	However,	due	to		 85	time	pressure	from	the	late	issued	government	research	permits	that	led	in	turn	to	a	restricted	available	fieldwork	period,	a	limited	amount	of	NTFP	knowledge	has	been	documented.	To	prevent	traditional	ethnobotanical	knowledge	to	be	lost	(which	is	solely	passed	on	orally),	knowledgeable	locals	should	continue	recording	their	knowledge,	in	collaboration	with	a	researcher	or	organisation	if	preferred.	The	study	on	the	trans-cultural	transmission	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge	was	appealing.	A	follow-up	study	however,	to	determine	how	this	knowledge	is	transferred	between	different	generations	and	between	the	communities	would	be	very	interesting.	Through	such	research	it	could	become	clear	in	what	ways	acculturation	could	strengthen	and	expand	communities’	traditional	knowledge,	instead	of	weakening	it.	The	greatest	need	for	more	research	is	in	the	area	of	ecological	impacts	from	the	harvesting	of	NTFPs.	Since	no	literature	is	available	on	the	endemic	stingray	Potamotrygon	boesemani,	further	research	could	focus,	inter	alia,	on	their	numbers,	age	classes	and	their	roles	and	influence	on	the	trophic	levels	within	the	ecosystem.	Other	research	should	be	carried	out	to	determine	the	impact	of	seed	collection	intensity	by	area	and	season	(for	Carapa	guianensis,	Bertholletia	excelsa,	Ormosia	costulata	and	Caryocar	nuciferum)	on	the	occurrence	of	seedlings.	Population	numbers	on	different	species	of	‘bush	meat’	and	fish	stocks	are	completely	absent	and	would	be	highly	desirable	to	regulate	allowed	hunting	numbers.	I	would	be	very	pleased	to	return	and	carry	out	some	of	these	studies,	in	cooperation	with	the	local	communities.			 86	Bibliography	1.	 UNDP	REDD+	Team.	Readiness	Preparation	Proposal	(R-PP)	Assessment	note	on	the	proposed	project	with	Suriname	for	REDD+	readiness	preparation	support.	(2014).	2.	 Lujan,	N.	K.	&	Armbruster,	J.	W.	The	Guiana	Shield.	Historical	Biogeography	of	Netropical	Freshwater	Fishes	211–225	(2011).	3.	 Boggan,	J.	et	al.	Checklist	of	the	Plants	of	the	Guiana	Shield.	(Biological	Diversity	of	the	Guianas	Program,	Department	of	Botany,	National	Museum	of	Natural	History,	Smithsonian	Institution,	Washington,	D.C.	20560	U.S.A,	1997).	4.	 WWF.	REDD+	Developments	in	the	Guianas.	The	evolution	of	the	concept	and	activities	undertaken	in	Guyana,	Suriname	and	French	Guiana.	(2012).	5.	 Blaser,	J.,	Sarre,	A.,	Poore,	D.	&	Johnson,	S.	Status	of	Tropical	Forest	Management	2011.	ITTO	Technical	Series	38,	376–384	(2011).	doi:10.1017/S0032247400051135	6.	 Price,	R.	Rainforest	Warriors:	Human	rights	on	Trial.	Philadelphia:	University	of	Pennsylvania	Press	(2011).	7.	 Heemskerk,	M.	Rights	to	land	&	resources	for	indigenous	peoples	&	maroons	in	Suriname.	The	Amazon	Conservation	Team	1–109	(2005).	8.	 Kambel,	E.	R.	Indigenous	Peoples	and	Maroons	in	Suriname.	Inter-American	Development	Bank	RE3-06-005,	1–54	(2006).	9.	 Heemskerk,	M.	Demarcation	of	indigenous	and	maroon	lands	in	Suriname.	Report	commissioned	by	the	Gordon	and	Betty	Moore	Foundation	and	Amazon	Conservation	Team	Suriname.	(2009).	10.	 Price,	R.	Maroons	in	Suriname	and	Guyane:	how	many	and	where.	New	West	Indian	Guide	/	Nieuwe	West-Indische	Gids	76,	81–88	(2002).	doi:10.1163/13822373-90002544	11.	 VIDS.	An	analysis	of	international	law,	national	legislation,	judgments,	and	institutions	as	they	interrelate	with	territories	and	areas	conserved	by	indigenous	peoples	and	local	communities.	(2012).	12.	 Carlin,	E.	B.	&	Arends,	J.	Atlas	of	the	Languages	of	Suriname.	(Koninklijk	Instituut	voor	Taal-,	Land-	en	Volkenkunde/Ian	Randle	Publishers,	2002).	13.	 Shackleton,	S.,	Shackleton,	Ch.	&	Shanley,	P.	Non	Timber	Forest	Products	in	the	Global		 87	Context.	(Springer-Verlag	Berlin	Heidelberg,	2011).	doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17983-9	14.	 Peters,	C.	M.	Observations	on	the	Sustainable	Exploitation	of	Non-Timber	Tropical	Forest	Products.	An	ecologist’s	perspective.	in	Current	issues	in	non-timber	forest	products	(eds.	Ruiz	Pérez,	M.	&	Arnold,	J.	E.	M.)	19–40	(Center	for	International	Forestry	Research,	1996).	15.	 van	Andel,	T.	Non-timber	forest	products	of	the	Northwest	district	of	Guyana.	(Tropenbos-Guyana	Series	8A	&	8B,	Utrecht,	2000).	16.	 van	Andel,	T.,	Ruysschaert,	S.,	Boven,	K.	&	Daly,	L.	The	use	of	Amerindian	charm	plants	in	the	Guianas.	Journal	of	Ethnobiology	and	Ethnomedicine	11,	66	(2015).	doi:10.1186/s13002-015-0048-9	17.	 Daly,	L.	Plant	perspectivism?	Plant	people	and	cosmo-botany.	1–26	(2015).	18.	 Belcher,	B.	&	Schreckenberg,	K.	Commercialisation	of	non-timber	forest	products:	A	reality	check.	Development	Policy	Review	25,	355–377	(2007).	doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2007.00374.x	19.	 Shackleton,	S.,	Delang,	C.	O.	&	Angelsen,	A.	From	Subsistence	to	Safety	Nets	and	Cash	Income:	Exploring	the	Diverse	Values	of	Non-timber	Forest	Products	for	Livelihoods	and	Poverty	Alleviation.	in	Non-Timber	Forest	Products	in	the	Global	Context	(eds.	Shackleton,	S.,	Shackleton,	Ch.	&	Shanley,	P.)	55–81	(Springer-Verlag	Berlin	Heidelberg,	2011).	doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17983-9_3	20.	 Nijman,	V.	An	overview	of	international	wildlife	trade	from	Southeast	Asia.	Biodiversity	and	Conservation	19,	1101–1114	(2010).	doi:10.1007/s10531-009-9758-4	21.	 van	Andel,	T.,	Behari-ramdas,	J.,	Havinga,	R.	&	Groenendijk,	S.	The	Medicinal	Plant	Trade	in	Suriname.	Ethnobotany	Research	&	Applications	5,	351–372	(2007).	22.	 van	Dam,	C.	Indigenous	Territories	and	REDD	in	Latin	America:	Opportunity	or	Threat?	Forests	2,	394–414	(2011).	doi:10.3390/f2010394	23.	 Ros-tonen,	M.	A.	F.	&	Wiersum,	K.	F.	The	importance	of	non-timber	forest	products	for	forest-based	rural	livelihoods:	an	evolving	research	agenda.	(2003).	24.	 Voeks,	R.	A.	&	Leony,	A.	Forgetting	the	forest:	assessing	medicinal	plant	erosion	in	eastern	Brazil.	Economic	Botany	58,	94–106	(2004).	doi:10.1663/0013-	 88	0001(2004)58[S294:FTFAMP]2.0.CO;2	25.	 Zent,	S.	&	López-Zent,	E.	Ethnobotanical	Convergence,	Divergence,	and	Change	among	the	Hotï	of	the	Venezuelan	Guayana.	Ethnobotany	and	Conservation	of	Biocultural	Diversity	15,	37–78	(2004).	26.	 Van	Andel,	T.	&	Ruysschaert,	S.	Medicinale	en	rituele	planten	van	Suriname.	(LM	Publishers	and	VACO	uitgeversmaatschappij,	2014).	27.	 Stahel,	G.	De	nuttige	planten	van	Suriname.	Landbouwproefstation	in	Suriname.	Bulletin	59,	(1944).	28.	 Ahlbrink,	W.	G.	Encyclopaedie	der	Karaïben.	Behelzend	taal,	zeden	en	gewoonten	dezer	Indianen.	Geïllustreerd	door	E.	la	Rose.	Verhandelingen	der	Koninklijke	Akademie	van	Wetenschappen	(Verhandelingen	der	Koninklijke	Akademie	van	Wetenschappen,	1931).	29.	 Ostendorf,	W.	F.	De	nuttige	planten	van	Suriname.	Landbouwproefstation	in	Suriname.	Bulletin	79,	(1962).	30.	 Reinders,	M.	Medicinal	plants	and	their	uses	and	the	ideas	about	illness	and	healing	among	the	Warao	of	Guyana.	MSc	thesis,	Dept.	of	Cultural	Anthropology,	Utrecht	University,	the	Netherlands.	(1993).	31.	 van	Andel,	T.	Non-timber	forest	products	of	the	Northwest	district	of	Guyana.	(Tropenbos-Guyana	Series	8A	&	8B,	Utrecht,	2000).	32.	 Ozanne,	C.	M.	P.,	Cabral,	C.	&	Shaw,	P.	J.	Variation	in	indigenous	forest	resource	use	in	central	Guyana.	PloS	one	9,	e102952	(2014).	doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102952	33.	 Chapuis,	J.	Du	végétal	au	politique:	étude	des	plantes	à	pouvoir	chez	les	Indiens	Wayana	du	Haut-Maroni.	87,	(2001).	34.	 Heemskerk,	M.,	Delvoye,	K.,	Noordam,	D.	&	Teunissen,	P.	Wayana	baseline	study.	A	sustainable	livelihoods	perspective	on	the	Wayana	Indigneous	Peoples	living	in	and	around	Puleowine	(Apetina),	Palumeu,	and	Kawemhakan	(Anapaike)	in	Southeast	Suriname.	ACT	(2006).	35.	 Heemskerk,	M.,	Delvoye,	K.	&	Trio	communities.	Trio	baseline	study.	A	sustainable	livelihoods	perspective	on	the	Trio	Indigneous	Peoples	of	South	Suriname.	ACT	(2007).	36.	 Hoffman,	B.	Drums	and	Arrows:	ethnobotanical	classification	and	use	of	tropical	forest		 89	plants	by	a	Maroon	and	Amerindian	community	in	Suriname,	with	implications	for	biocultural	conservation.	(2009).	37.	 Plotkin,	M.	J.	Ethnobotany	and	Conservation	of	the	Tropical	Forest	with	Special	Reference	to	the	Indians	of	Southern	Suriname.	(1986).	38.	 NIMOS.	National	Biodiversity	Strategy.	(2006).	(Accessed:	2nd	March	2017)	https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/sr/sr-nbsap-01-en.pdf	39.	 CCDA.	Readiness	Preparation	Proposal	(RPP)	For	Country:	Suriname.	Climate	Compatible	Development	Agency	Suriname	1–161	(2013).	40.	 FAO.	Global	Forest	Resources	Assessment.	Country	Report	Suriname.	(2010).	41.	 SBB.	Surinaamse	Bosbouwsector	2014.	(2015).	42.	 Velthuizen,	L.	T.	van.	The	relationship	between	the	non-recognition	of	the	land	rights	of	Indigenous	people	and	descendants	of	the	Maroons	and	economic	activities	of	the.	(2013).	43.	 Best,	L.	International	Conference	on	the	impact	of	REDD+	for	HFLD	countries.	(2014).	44.	 Playfair,	M.	Law	Compliance,	Prevention	and	Control	of	Illegal	Activities	in	the	Forest	Sector	in	Suriname.	(2007).	45.	 FAO.	Global	forest	resources	assessment.	Country	report	Suriname.	(2015).	46.	 Latawiec,	A.	E.	et	al.	Suriname:	Reconciling	agricultural	development	and	conservation	of	unique	natural	wealth.	Land	Use	Policy	38,	627–636	(2014).	doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.007	47.	 Wittenberg,	E.	E.	An	Assessment	of	the	social	accountability	of	the	Gold	Industry	in	Suriname	An	Assessment	of	the	social	accountability	of	the	Gold	Industry	in	Suriname.	University	of	Amsterdam	(University	of	Amsterdam,	2010).	48.	 SBB.	Information	sheet:	Forestry	in	Suriname.	(2015).	(Accessed:	8th	February	2017)	http://sbbsur.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Information-Sheet-bosbouw-in-Surinam.pdf	49.	 Foundation	for	Forest	Management	and	Production	Control	(SBB).	Forest	Statistics	Production,	export	and	import	of	timber	and	timberproducts	in	2012.	(2013).	50.	 MIT	OEC.	The	Observatory	of	Economic	Complexity.	(2014).	(Accessed:	6th	January	2016)		 90	http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/sur/show/4403/2014/	51.	 The	Forest	Trust.	Country	Guide	To	Timber	Legality:	Suriname.	(2013).	52.	 ITTO.	Reduced	Impact	Logging.	(Accessed:	22nd	March	2017)	http://www.itto.int/feature15/	53.	 De	Ware	Tijd.	http://www.dwtonline.com/laatste-nieuws/2017/03/11/politie-onderzoekt-fraude-bij-uitgifte-houtconcessies/.	2017	(Accessed:	23rd	March	2017)	http://www.dwtonline.com/laatste-nieuws/2017/03/11/politie-onderzoekt-fraude-bij-uitgifte-houtconcessies/	54.	 De	Surinaamse	Krant.	Korps	Politie	Suriname	onderzoekt	mogelijke	corruptie	bij	uitgifte	houtconcessies	bij	SBB.	2017	(Accessed:	23rd	March	2017)	http://www.de-surinaamse-krant.com/2017/03/er-wordt-bij-sbb-gesjoemeld-bij-het.html	55.	 De	Ware	Tijd.	Mogelijk	corruptie	ontdekt.	January	2017	(Accessed:	23rd	March	2017)	http://dwtonline.com/laatste-nieuws/2017/01/23/mogelijk-corruptie-ontdekt-bij-sbb/	56.	 Robinson,	B.	E.,	Holland,	M.	B.	&	Naughton-treves,	L.	Does	secure	land	tenure	save	forests?	A	review	of	the	relationship	between	land	tenure	and	tropical	deforestation.	CGIAR	Research	Program	on	Climate	Change,	Agriculture	and	Food	Security	(CCAFS),	Copenhagen,	Denmark	(2011).	57.	 Rights	and	Resources	Initiative.	Who	owns	the	world’s	lands?	A	global	baseline	of	formally	recognized	indigenous	and	community	land	rights.	Washington,	DC:	RRI.	(2015).	58.	 IPB.	Suriname	mining	laws	and	regulations	handbook.	International	Business	Publications	1,	(2012).	59.	 Clemmer,	R.	O.	Anthropology,	the	indigenous	and	human	rights:	Which	billiard	balls	matter	most?	Anthropological	Theory	14,	92–117	(2014).	doi:10.1177/1463499614528925	60.	 FPP.	Indigenous	peoples	in	Suriname	win	important	case	in	the	Inter-American	Court	of	Human	Rights.	(Accessed:	24th	January	2017)	http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/inter-american-human-rights-system/news/2016/02/indigenous-peoples-suriname-win-important-cas	61.	 Romalo,	D.,	James,	H.,	Lingaard,	E.	&	Jeffrey,	S.	Lokono	Wawrora	Jaha	Coeritjien	-		 91	Inheems	grondgebied	hier	aan	de	Corantijn.	(2009).	62.	 Zschuschen,	E.	NTFP	-	Balata.	Tropenbos	-	Vakblad	bos	&	natuur	7,	27	(2011).	63.	 VIDS.	Our	Indigenous	Territory	on	the	Corantijn:	Traditional	occupation,	use,	and	management	of	the	Lokono	People	in	West-Suriname.	(2008).	64.	 Ruiz-Mallén,	I.,	Morsello,	C.,	Reyes-garcía,	V.	&	Barros	Marcondes	De	Faria,	R.	Children’s	use	of	time	and	traditional	ecological	learning.	A	case	study	in	two	Amazonian	indigenous	societies.	Learning	and	Individual	Differences	27,	213–222	(2013).	doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.012	65.	 Furusawa,	T.	Changing	ethnobotanical	knowledge	of	the	Roviana	people,	Solomon	Islands:	Quantitative	approaches	to	its	correlation	with	modernization.	Human	Ecology	37,	147–159	(2009).	doi:10.1007/s10745-009-9223-8	66.	 Zent,	S.	Traditional	ecological	knowledge	(TEK)	and	biocultural	diversity:	a	close-up	look	at	linkages,	delearning	trends	&	changing	patterns	of	transmission.	Safeguarding	the	transmission	of	indigenous	knowledge	103–121	(2009).	67.	 Reyes-García,	V.	et	al.	Cultural	transmission	of	ethnobotanical	knowledge	and	skills:	an	empirical	analysis	from	an	Amerindian	society.	Evolution	and	Human	Behavior	30,	274–285	(2009).	doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.02.001	68.	 Eyssartier,	C.,	Ladio,	A.	H.	&	Lozada,	M.	Cultural	Transmission	of	Traditional	Knowledge	in	two	populations	of	North-western	Patagonia.	Journal	of	Ethnobiology	and	Ethnomedicine	4,	1–8	(2008).	doi:10.1186/1746-4269-4-25	69.	 Cavalli-Sforza,	L.	L.,	Feldman,	M.	W.,	Chen,	K.	H.	&	Dornbusch,	S.	M.	Theory	and	Observation	in	Cultural	Transmission.	American	Association	for	the	Advancement	of	Science	Stable	218,	19–27	(1986).	70.	 Zarger,	R.	K.	Acquisition	and	Transmission	of	Subsistence	Knowledge	by	Q’eqchi’	Maya	in	Belize.	in	Ethnobiology	and	biocultural	diversity.	(eds.	Stepp,	J.	R.,	Wyndham,	F.	S.	&	Zarger,	R.)	592–603	(Athens:	University	of	Georgia	Press,	2002).	71.	 Hunn,	E.	S.	Evidence	for	the	Precocious	Acquisitions	of	Plant	Knowledge	by	Zapotec	Children.	in	Ethnobiology	and	biocultural	diversity	(eds.	Stepp,	J.	R.,	Wyndham,	F.	S.	&	Zarger,	R.	K.)	604–613	(Athens:	University	of	Georgia	Press,	2002).		 92	72.	 Quinlan,	M.	B.,	Quinlan,	R.	J.,	Council,	S.	K.	&	Roulette,	J.	W.	Children’s	Acquisition	of	Ethnobotanical	Knowledge	in	a	Caribbean	Horticultural	Village.	Journal	of	Ethnobiology	36,	433–456	(2016).	doi:10.2993/0278-0771-36.2.433	73.	 Zarger,	R.	K.	&	Stepp,	J.	R.	Persistence	of	Botanical	Knowledge	among	Tzeltal	Maya	Children.	Current	Anthropology	45,	413–418	(2004).	74.	 Van	Andel,	T.	&	Ruysschaert,	S.	Medicinale	en	rituele	planten	van	Suriname.	(LM	Publishers	and	VACO	uitgeversmaatschappij,	2011).	75.	 University	of	British	Columbia.	BREB	Guidelines.	(2015).	(Accessed:	26th	November	2015)	https://ethics.research.ubc.ca/behavioural-research-ethics/breb-guidance-notes/guidance-notes-behavioural-application	76.	 van	’t	Klooster,	C.	I.	E.	A.,	Lindeman,	J.	C.	&	Jansen-Jacobs,	M.	J.	Index	of	vernacular	plant	names	in	Suriname.	Blumea	Supplement	15,	(2003).	77.	 Torres-Avilez,	W.,	Medeiros,	P.	M.	de	&	Albuquerque,	U.	P.	Effect	of	Gender	on	the	Knowledge	of	Medicinal	Plants:	Systematic	Review	and	Meta-Analysis.	Evidence-Based	Complementary	and	Alternative	Medicine	2016,	12–15	(2016).	doi:10.1155/2016/6592363	78.	 Ros-Tonen,	M.	A.	F.	et	al.	Methods	for	non-timber	forest	products	research:	the	tropenbos	experience	.	The	Tropenbos	Foundation	(1998).	79.	 Reyes-García,	V.	et	al.	Schooling	and	local	environmental	knowledge:	Do	they	complement	or	substitute	each	other?	International	Journal	of	Educational	Development	30,	305–313	(2010).	doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.11.007	80.	 McLain,	R.	J.	&	Lawry,	S.	Good	governance.	A	key	element	of	sustainable	non-timber	forest	product	harvesting	systems.	in	Ecological	sustainability	of	Non-timber	Forest	Products	(eds.	Shackleton,	C.,	Pandey,	A.	K.	&	Ticktin,	T.)	235–259	(2015).	81.	 te	Velde,	D.	W.	et	al.	Entrepreneurship	in	value	chains	of	non-timber	forest	products.	Forest	Policy	and	Economics	8,	725–741	(2006).	doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.06.010	82.	 UNODC.	World	Wildlife	Crime	Report:	Trafficking	in	protected	species.	(2016).	83.	 Shackleton,	C.	M.,	Pandey,	A.	K.	&	Ticktin,	T.	Ecological	Sustainability	for	Non-timber	Forest	Products.	(Routledge,	New	York,	2015).		 93	84.	 RRI.	What	Rights?	A	Comparative	Analysis	of	Developing	Countries’	National	Legislation	on	Community	and	Indigenous	Peoples’	Forest	Tenure	Rights.	(2012).	85.	 Neumann,	R.	P.	&	Hirsch,	E.	Commercialisation	of	non-timber	forest	products:	review	and	analysis	of	research.	Center	for	International	Forestry	Research	(2000).	86.	 Arroyo,	J.	et	al.	Beyond	species	loss:	the	extinction	of	ecological	interactions	in	a	changing	world.	Functional	Ecology	29,	299–307	(2015).	doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12356	87.	 Ros-Tonen,	M.	A.	F.	&	Kusters,	K.	Pro-poor	Governance	of	Non-timber	Forest	Products:	The	Need	for	Secure	Tenure,	the	Rule	of	Law,	Market	Access	and	Partnerships.	in	Non-Timber	Forest	Products	in	the	Global	Context	189–208	(Tropical	Forestry	7,	2011).	doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17983-9_9	88.	 Gov.sr.	Jachtkalender.	(Accessed:	1st	March	2017)	http://www.gov.sr/media/741247/jachtkalender.pdf	89.	 De	Surinaamse	Krant.	Boete	van	Srd	21.900	voor	zes	mannen	in	Apoera	die	teveel	pingo’s	hebben	doodgeschoten.	(2016).	(Accessed:	22nd	February	2017)	http://www.de-surinaamse-krant.com/2016/10/boete-van-srd-21900-voor-zes-mannen-in.html?m=1	90.	 van	Andel,	T.	&	Havinga,	R.	Sustainability	aspects	of	commercial	medicinal	plant	harvesting	in	Suriname.	Forest	Ecology	and	Management	256,	1540–1545	(2008).	doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.031	91.	 Stabroek	News.	Detained	fishers	released	by	Suriname	military.	(Accessed:	21st	March	2017)	http://www.stabroeknews.com/2016/news/stories/02/07/detained-fishers-released-suriname-military/	92.	 Demerarawaves.com.	Guyana	alleges	Suriname’s	Coast	Guard	harassing	Amerindians,	fishermen.	(Accessed:	21st	March	2017)	http://demerarawaves.com/2016/01/26/guyana-alleges-surinames-coast-guard-harassing-amerindians-fishermen/	93.	 Playfair,	M.	&	Esseboom,	M.	Carapa	forest;	a	source	of	wealth	for	the	indigenous	people	in	Apura,	Suriname?	(2017).	(Accessed:	1st	April	2017)	http://www.biodiversityguyana.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/wed_RC_presentation_esseboom_playfair_finalCarapaforest.	 94	pdf	94.	 Galetti,	M.,	Donatti,	C.	I.,	Pires,	A.	S.,	Guimarães,	P.	R.	&	Jordano,	P.	Seed	survival	and	dispersal	of	an	endemic	Atlantic	forest	palm:	the	combined	effects	of	defaunation	and	forest	fragmentation.	Botanical	Journal	of	the	Linnean	Society	151,	141–149	(2006).	95.	 Peres,	C.	A.	et	al.	Demographic	Threats	to	the	Sustainability	of	Brazil	Nut	Exploitation.	Science	302,	(2003).	96.	 Rosa,	R.	S.,	De	Carvalho,	M.	R.	&	Wanderley,	C.	D.	A.	Potamotrygon	boesemani	(Chondrichthyes:	Myliobatiformes:	Potamotrygonidae),	a	new	species	of	Neotropical	freshwater	stingray	from	Surinam.	Neotropical	Ichthyology	6,	1–8	(2008).	doi:10.1590/S1679-62252008000100001	97.	 Ostrom,	E.	Governing	the	Commons.	The	Evolution	of	Institutions	for	Collective	Action	302	(1990).	doi:10.1017/CBO9780511807763	98.	 O’Shea,	O.	R.,	Thums,	M.	&	Van	Keulen,	M.	Bioturbation	by	stingrays	at	Ningaloo	Reef,	Western	Australia.	Marine	and	Freshwater	Research	189–197	(2011).	doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF111180	99.	 Barría,	C.,	Coll,	M.	&	Navarro,	J.	Unravelling	the	ecological	role	and	trophic	relationships	of	uncommon	and	threatened	elasmobranchs	in	the	western	Mediterranean	Sea.	Marine	ecology	progress	series	539,	225–240	(2015).	doi:10.3354/meps11494	100.	 IUCN.	iucnredlist.org.	(Accessed:	25th	February	2017)	http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41778/0	101.	 Mattox,	G.	M.	T.	et	al.	Taxonomic	Study	of	Hoplias	aimara	(Valenciennes,	1846)	and	Hoplias	macrophthalmus	(Pellegrin,	1907)	(Ostariophysi,	Characiformes,	Erythrinidae).	Copeia	516–528	(2006).	102.	 Leaman,	D.	J.	The	international	standard	for	sustainable	wild	collection	of	medicinal	and	aromatic	palnts	(IISC-MAP).	(2008).	103.	 Ticktin,	T.	The	ecological	sustainability	of	non-timber	forest	product	harvest.	in	Ecological	sustainability	of	Non-timber	Forest	Products	(eds.	Shackleton,	C.,	Pandey,	A.	K.	&	Ticktin,	T.)	31–52	(2015).	104.	 Te	Ara	-	the	Encyclopedia	of	New	Zealand.	Te	Ahukaramū	Charles	Royal,	‘Kaitiakitanga	–		 95	guardianship	and	conservation	-	Kaitiaki	–	guardians’.	105.	 Te	Kete	Ipurangi.	Te	Kete	Ipurangi.	(Accessed:	13th	March	2017)	http://eng.mataurangamaori.tki.org.nz/Support-materials/Te-Reo-Maori/Maori-Myths-Legends-and-Contemporary-Stories/Whaitere-the-enchanted-stingray			 96	Appendices	Appendix	A	shows	a	full	list	of	commercial	NTFPs	used	by	the	communities	of	Apoera	and/or	Sandlanding.	Appendix	B	shows	all	NTFP	species	from	which	traditional	knowledge	was	collected	and	herbarium	specimens	were	made.	The	traditional	knowledge	is	only	available	to	the	communities	themselves	and	not	to	the	public.			 97	Appendix	A		-	Table	of	commercial	NTFPs	sold	by	the	communities	of	Apoera	and	Sandlanding	Local	name	 English	name	 Scientific	name	 Type	 Unit	Price	per	unit	(in	US$)	Price	per	unit	(in	SRD)	 Months	sold	IUCN	red	list	status	krapa	siri	(Sr)	 crabwood	oil	 Carapa	guianensis	 Plant	 liter	 5	-	7	 40	-	50	 Jul	-	Sept	 -	ingi	noto	(Sr)	 brazil	nut	 Bertholletia	excelsa	 Plant	 kilo	 1,82	 13	 Feb	-	May	 -	sawari	(Sr)	 souari	 Caryocar	nuciferum	 Plant	 kilo		 	Jun	-	Jul	 -	spari	(Sr)	 stringray	 Potamotrygon	boesemani	 Fish	 animal	 200	-	300	 -	 -	 not	listed	pingo	(Sr)	 white-lipped	peccary	 Tayassu	pecari	 Meat	 kilo	 2.80	 20	 Aug	-	Mar	 VU	hei	(Sr)	 lowland	paca	 Cuniculus	paca	 Meat	 kilo	 2.80	 20	 Jan	-	Dec	 LC	anjumara	(Sr)	 wolf	fish	 Hoplias	amara	 Fish	 kilo	 2.45	 17.5	 -	 not	listed	konkoni	(Sr)	 agouti	 Dasyprocta	leporina	 Meat	 animal	 2.80	–	5.60	 25	-	50	 Jan	-	Dec	 LC	marai	(Sr)	 marail	guan	 Penelope	mombin	 Bird	 animal	 2.80	–	5.60	 25	-	50	 Jul	-	Nov	 not	listed	pakira	(Sr)	 collared	peccary	 Pecari	tajacu	 Meat	 kilo	 4.90	 35	 Aug	-	Mar	 LC	dia	(Sr)	 red	brocket	 Mazama	americana	 Meat	 kilo	 2.60	 18.5	 Mar	-	Sept	 DD	sekrepatu	(Sr)	 turtle	 Chelonoidis	carbonaria	 Meat	 animal	 5	-	10	 40-70	 -	 -	kapuwa	(Sr)	 capybara	 Hydrochaeris	hydrochaeris		 Meat	 kilo	 1.40	 10	 Jan	-	Dec	 LC		 98	Local	name	 English	name	 Scientific	name	 Type	 Unit	Price	per	unit	(in	US$)	Price	per	unit	(in	SRD)	 Months	sold	IUCN	red	list	status	kapasi	(Sr)	 armadillo	 unknown	 Meat	 kilo	 1.40	 10	 Aug	-	Mar	 -	powisi	(Sr)	 black	currasow	 Crax	alector	 Bird	 animal	 8	-	14	 60	-	100	 Jul	-	Nov	 VU	bofru	(Sr)	 lowland	tapir	 Tapirus	terrestris	 Meat	 kilo	 1.40	 10	 Jun	-	Aug	 VU	kubi	(Sr)	 pacora	 Plagioscion	surinamensis	 Fish	 kilo	 1.40	 10	 -	 -	pacu	(Sr)	 tambaqui	 Colossoma	macropomum	 Fish	 kilo	 3.50	 25	 -	 -	mopé	(Sr)	 true	yellow	mombin	 Spondias	mombin	 Plant	 kilo	 -	 -	 Feb	-	Jun	 -	kujaridu	(Tr)		unknown	 Plant	 kilo	 1.05	 7.5	 Jul	 -	karau	(Tr),	switi	bonki	(Sr)	 cf.	Ice-cream-bean	 Inga	sp.	 Plant	 kilo	 0.70	 5	 Jan	-	Mar	 -	oloi	(Tr),	boskasju	(Sr)	 kill	my	darling	 Dimorphandra	conjugata	 Plant	 kilo	 -	 -	 Feb	-	Mar	 -	groene	boomboa	(NL)	 emerald	tree	boa	 Corallus	caninus	 Animal	 animal	 200	 -	 Jan	-	Dec	 LC		 99 Appendix	B		-	Voucher	specimens	made	during	fieldwork	PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			warimbo	(Sr),	waruma	(Trio)		MARANTACEAE	Ischnosiphon	arouma	(Aubl.)	Körn.			#TvdB001	 20	March	2016		De	stengel	van	de		warimbo	wordt	gespleten	om	vlechtwerk	te	maken.	Onder	andere	worden	casave	persen	en	manden	gemaakt.		Beschrijving:	 Bladeren	 waaiervormig	 gegroepeerd,	 blad	 asymmetrisch,	 bladrand	 gaaf,	 bovenzijde	 blad	donkergroen	en	onderzijde	licht	groen	met	grijs-paarse	tint.	Bloeiwijze	eindstandig	gegroepeerde	aar	met	7	tot	15	bloemen	per	aar.		Coördinaten:	4.860351;	-57.283119			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 			 	 	PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			karapa	(Tr),	karaba	(Ar),	krapa	boom	(NL),	krapa	siri	(Sr)		MELIACEAE	Carapa	guianensis	Aubl.		#TvdB002	 20	March	2016		Arawak	 gebruik:	 De	 noten	 van	 de	 krapa	 boom	 worden	 gebruikt	 om	 krapa	 olie	 te																																							 		 100 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			busi	pepre,	anesi	wiri	(Sr)		PIPERACEAE	Piper	peltatum	L.			#TvdB003	 20	March	2016		De	bladeren	van	deze	plant	worden	verwarmt	boven	een	vuur	en	worden	daarna	om	een	 (gezwollen)	 lichaamsdeel	 gewikkeld	 met	 bijvoorbeeld	 bostouw.	 De	 werking	hiervan	is	pijverdovend.	//		Trio:	geen	gebruik	bekend.		Beschrijving:	 Kruid	 tot	 2m	 hoog.	 Blad	 sterk	 hartvormig,	 bladeren	 verspreid,	 nerven	 handvormig.	 Stengel	bezet	met	zwarte	spikkels.	Bloemen	wit-groenig,	bloeiwijze	scherm.	Geurt	naar	anijs,	vandaar	de	naam.		Coördinaten:	5.126562;	-57.152102			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 			 	 	PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			sangrafu	(Sr),	oloke	(Trio),	hokuri	shikaro	(Ar),	turtle	cane	(En)		COSTACEAE	Costus	scaber	Ruiz	&	Pav.			#TvdB004	 21	March	2016		Arawak:	 	Bij	het	 samen	persen	van	de	bloem	komt	er	 slijmerig	 sap	uitlopen	wat	als				 101 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			korsu	weri	(Sr)		ASTERACEAE	Chromolaena		odorata	(L.)	R.M.King	&	H.Rob.			#TvdB005	 21	March	2016		Arawak:	Dit	 kruid	wordt	 in	 een	pot	met	heet	water	 gestopt.	De	 stoom	die	 vrijkomt	laat	 men	 in	 een	 doek	 trekken	 om	 een	 persoon	mee	 te	 bedekken.	 Hierdoor	 zal	 de	persoon	veel	gaan	zweten	en	genezen	van	koorts.		//	Trio:	geen	werkingen	bekend.		Beschrijving:	Kruid	 tot	1m	hoog.	Bladeren	 tegenoverstaand	met	4	pseudo-steunblaadjes.	Bovenkant	blad	licht	 behaard,	 onderkant	 heviger	 behaard	 en	 goudgroen	 licht-weerkaatsende	 kliertjes.	 2	 nerven	 in	 blad	splitsen	 zich	 af	 na	 voetblad.	 Bloeiwijze	 eindstandige,	 vertakte	 trossen.	 Bloemen	 licht	 paars.	 Talrijke	meeldraden.	Stengel	bezet	met	haartjes.		Coördinaten:	5.126562;	-57.152102			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 			 	 	PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			sipyo	(Ca),	haiawa	(Ar),	boskaars	(NL)		BURSERACEAE	Protium	heptaphyllum	(Aubl.)	Marchand			#TvdB006	 23	March	2016		Arawak:	 Als	 de	 bast	 gekapt	wordt,	 komt	 er	wit	 sap	 uitlopen	 dat	 na	 een	 aantal	 uur		 			 102 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			brasabrasa	(Sr)		ARACEAE	Philodendron	hederaceum	(Jacq.)	Schott			#TvdB007	 23	March	2016		Caraïb:	Wordt	gebruikt	tijdens	de	jacht	op	pingo's.	Als	de	dieren	weglopen	wordt	de	brasabrasa	 aan	 een	 boom	 gehangen	 met	 een	 kamina	 (bostouw).	 Een	 klier	 in	 het	achterste	van	de	pingo	is	geestelijk	verbonden	met	de	plant	waardoor	hij	terug	moet	komen	 naar	 de	 hangende	 brasabrasa.	 Na	 het	 jagen	 dient	 de	 plant	 weggehaald	 te	worden,	anders	pienaar	 je	de	pingo’s	aangezien	ze	zich	aangetrokken	blijven	voelen	aan	 de	 plant.	 //	 Arawak:	 minstens	 3	 bladeren	 van	 de	 brasabrasa	 worden	samengekneden	en	op	een	slangenbeet	gebonden	om	de	giftige	werking	ervan	tegen	te	gaan.		Beschrijving:	Epifiet,	klimt	strak	tegen	de	boom.	Bladeren	iets	los	van	stam,	verspreid,	bladvoet	hartvormig	tot	geoord,	bladtop	(stekel)puntig.	Rond	bladnerven	donkergroen,	de	rest	van	het	blad	licht	grijze	waas.		Coördinaten:	5.261204;	-57.104354			 			 	 	PLANTS	OF	SURIN ME	Kabalebo	Resort			ume	(Tr),	wanasoro	(Ar),	busi	papaja	(Sr)		CECROPIACEAE	Cecropia	cf.	sciadophylla	Mart.			#TvdB008	 24	M rch	2016	Arawak:	een	afkooksel	van	de	bladeren	wordt	gedronken	om	geelzucht	tegen	te	gaan.																										 		 103 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			ingi	pipa	(Sr),	wadara	(Ar)		LECYTHIDACEAE	Couratari	sp.			#TvdB009	 24	March	2016		Arawak:	 de	 binnenkant	 van	 de	 bast	 wordt	 eerst	 geveld	 en	 vervolgens	 aan	 de	bovenkant	 op	 geslagen	 om	 vezelstrips	 los	 te	 krijgen.	 Hier	worden	 dunne	 strips	 van	afgescheurt	om	te	gebruiken	als	vloei.	//	De	binnenkant	van	de	bittere	bast	van	een	jonge	 boom	 wordt	 vers	 gegeten	 om	 het	 lichaam	 te	 reinigen	 omdat	 het	 werkt	 als	antibiotica.		Beschrijving:	 Hoge	 boom	 (30-40m)	 met	 grote	 plankwortels.	 Bladeren	 verspreid,	 bladsteel	 verdikt,	veernervig	blad,	bladschijf	langwerpig,	bladtop	puntig,	bladvoet	afgerond/licht	hartvormig.		Coördinaten:	5.130335;	-57.147122			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 					 	PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			yarakopie	(Sr),	moniridan	(Ar)		SIPARUNACEAE	Siparuna	guianensis	Aubl.		#TvdB010	 24	March	2016		Arawak:	 een	 pot	 water	 met	 de	 bladeren	 van	 de	 yarakopie	 worden	 gekookt	 en		 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			oke	(Ar)		ARACEAE	Philodendron	sp.			#TvdB011	 30	March	2016		De	knol	van	deze	plant	wordt	op	de	haak	van	een	hengel	gedaan	om	mee	te	vissen.	De	plant	jeukt	enorm.		 			 104 	 	 	PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			popokainangra	(Sr),	piana	iroi	(Trio)		RUBIACEAE	Uncaria	guianensis	(Aubl.)	J.F.Gmel.		#TvdB012	 30	March	2016		Arawak:	de	 jonge	bladeren	van	de	popokainangra	worden	gestampt	en	vers	op	een	(open)	 wond	 geplaatst.	 Verversen	 tot	 de	 wond	 geneest.	 //	 Trio:	 als	 bloed	 bij	 de	ontscheiding	 te	 zien	 is,	 dienen	 de	 bladeren	 van	 deze	 plant	 gekookt	 te	 worden	 en	wordt	het	afkooksel	gedronken.		Beschrijving:	Verzameld	aan	zijkant	weg	die	achter	Washabo	loopt	richting	Kaboerikreek.		Coördinaten:	5.221389;	-57.173802			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			menu	(Trio),	lana	(Ar),	tapuripa	(Sr)	tapurupo	(Ca)		RUBIACEAE	Genipa	americana	L.			#TvdB013	 1	April	2016		Arawak	&	Trio:	de	kleurstof	van	de	vrucht	wordt	gebruikt	op	feestdagen	om	tattoos	te		 			 105 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			malaria	epi	(Tr),	kareudan	(Ar),	kwasi	bita	(Sr),	malaria	epi	(Trio)		SIMARUBACEAE	Quassia	amara	L.		#TvdB014	 1	April	2016		Beschrijving:	Struik	2m	hoog.	Samgenstelde	bladeren,	verspreid.	Tussen	tegenoverstaande	deelbladeren	(5)	gevleugelde	 bladnerven.	 Okselstandige	 bloeiwijze	 in	 de	 vorm	 van	 een	 met	 rode	 buisbloemen	 bezette	schicht.		Coördinaten:	5.130335;	-57.147122			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			aromata	(Ar)		FABACEAE	Clathrotropis	brachypetala	(Tul.)	Kleinhoonte			#TvdB015	 2	April	2016		Arawak:	 Deze	 boom	 is	 zwaar	 giftig.	 De	 binnenkant	 van	 de	 bast	 wordt	 op	 een	slangenbeet	gewreven	om	vergiftiging	tegen	te	gaan.	De	bast	dient	strak	ingebonden		 			 106 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			alata	udu	(Sr),	kuri	dan	(Ar)		APOCYNACEAE	Geissospermum	argenteum	Woodson			#TvdB016	 2	April	2016		Arawak:	 de	 alata	 udu	 wordt	 gebruikt	 als	 bouwmateriaal.	 Er	 worden	 zoal	 pilaren	 in	kampen	mee	gemaakt	omdat	het	hout	heel	sterk	is	en	niet	snel	brandt.		Beschrijving:	Boom	met	inkepingen	en	gaten	in	de	stam.	Twijgen	en	onderkant	van	het	blad	dicht	bezet	met	zilverkleurige	 haartjes.	 Bladeren	 verdpreid.	 Petiolen	 niet	 verdikt,	 steunbladeren	 afwezig.	 Bladpunt	stekelpunitg,	bladvoet	afgerond.		Coördinaten:	5.062318;	-57.114338			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			fungu	(Sr),	bogorada	(Ar)		CHRYSOBALANACEAE	Licania	sp.				#TvdB017	 3	April	2016			Beschrijving:	 Boom	 18m	 hoog.	 Bast	 geschilferd	 lichtbruin-gelig.	 Plankwortels.	 Takken	 bezet	 met	 lichte		 			 107 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			kapadula	(Ar),	brontitei	(Sr),	sakataitu	(Trio)		DILLENIACEAE	Tetracera	volubilis	L.			#TvdB018	 3	April	2016		Arawak:	 met	 de	 bladeren	 van	 deze	 liaan	 wordt	 een	 kruidenbad	 gemaakt	 waar	vrouwen	na	de	bevalling	in	kunnen	gaan	om	het	lichaam	te	reinigen.	//	Trio:	de	bast	van	 deze	 liaan	 wordt	 uitgekookt	 om	 een	 lekkere	 thee	 van	 te	 zetten	 zonder	 extra	werkingen.		Beschrijving:	 Liaan,	 8cm	 dik,	 sijpelt	 water	 uit	 na	 kappen.	 Bladrand	 gezaagd,	 bladvoet	 aflopend,	 punt	toegespitst.	Onderkant	als	schuurpapier.		Coördinaten:	5.062318;	-57.114338			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			wojeng	(Trio)		CANNABACEAE	Trema	micrantha	(L.)	Blume			#TvdB019	 4	April	2016		Trio:	De	binnenkant	van	de	bast	(die	makkelijk	 in	stroken	van	de	plant	afhaalbaar	is)	wordt	op	o.a.	open	snijwonden	geplaatst.	Dit	dient	men	vijf	dagen	lang	toe	te	passen,		 			 108 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			wetei	(Trio),	Barakaro	(Ar),	kokriki	(Sr)		FABACEAE	Ormosia		costulata	(Miq.)	Kleinhoonte			#TvdB020	 5	April	2016	Trio:	 met	 de	 zaden	 van	 de	 wetei	 worden	 sieraden	 gemaakt.	 Met	 scherpe	 naalden	boren	 de	 vrouwen	 een	 gaatje	 in	 deze	 harde	 zaden	 zodat	 deze	 geregen	 kunnen	worden.		Beschrijving:	 Binnenbast	 geel	 en	bruin,	 licht	 aromatisch.	 Boom	20m	hoog.	Onevengeveerd	 samengesteld	blad.	 Bladvoet	 wigvormig,	 top	 rond	 toegespitst.	 Bovenkant	 blad	 donkergroen,	 onderkant	 licht	 groen.	Enkelvoudige	vrucht	met	roodoranje	zaden	met	zwart-paarse	vlek.		Coördinaten:	5.056088;	-57.096651			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			spatae	(Trio)		SMILACACEAE	Smilax		schomburgkiana	Kunth			#TvdB021	 5	April	2016		Trio:	de	wortel	 van	deze	plant	wordt	gekookt	 in	water.	Het	afkooksel	 kan	men	elke	ochtend	drinken	om	rugpijn	tegen	te	gaan	totdat	de	pijn	weg	is.		 			 109 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			wuradi	(Trio)		LOGANIACEAE	Strychnos	cf.	erichsonii	M.R.Schomb.	ex	Progel			#TvdB022	 5	April	2016		Trio:	de	wortels	van	deze	plant	worden	eerst	geraspt	en	vervolgens	gekookt.	Hierdoor	onstaat	een	plakkerige	substantie	die	op	jachtpijlen	gesmeerd	wordt.	Na	twee	dagen	drogen	zijn	de	pijlen	klaar	voor	gebruik	om	mee	te	jagen.		Beschrijving:	Liaan,	10cm	doorsnee.	3	nerven	beginnend	0,5cm	van	bladvoet,	2	nerven	bij	voet.	Secundaire	nerven	 horizontaal.	 Pseudostipules	 in	 oksels.	 Bladtop	 stekelpuntig,	 voet	 wigvormig.	 Bij	 basis	 van	 tak	bladstand	kruisgewijs,	zijtakken	niet.		Coördinaten:	5.056129;	-57.092279			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			yariyari	(Ar)		ANNONACEAE	Anaxagorea	dolichocarpa	Sprague	&	Sandwith			#TvdB024	 6	April	2016		Arawak:	Met	de	strips	van	de	bast	wordt	touw	gemaakt.	//	Van	jonge	bomen	maakt	men	hengels.		 			 110 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			mato	(Tr),	kasarerodan	(Ar)		ANNONACEAE	Guatteria	scandens					#TvdB025	 8	April	2016		Arawak:	 van	 deze	 boom	wordt	 een	 stuk	 van	 de	 stam	met	 kerf	 gekapt.	 Op	 de	 kerf	wordt	 een	 bolletje	 katoen	 (uit	 het	 bos)	 geplaatst	 en	 vervolgens	 dient	 wrijving	gecreëerd	te	worden	met	een	stok	(spindel)	van	hardhout,	waardoor	het	katoen	vlam	vat	en	vuur	ontstaat.	//	Boom	wordt	6	duim	dik,	worden	ook	hengels	mee	gemaakt.		Beschrijving:	 Boom	 5m	 hoog.	 Rode	 bast,	 niet	 aromatisch.	 Bladvoet	 gewicht,	 toptoegespitst.	 Duidelijke	intramarginal	vein.	Bovenkant	blad	donker	groen,	onderkant	dicht	bezet	met	grijze	haartjes.		Coördinaten:	5.259571;	-57.084836			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			hikuridan	(Ar)		APOCYNACEAE	Tabernaemontana	undulata	Vahl			#TvdB026	 8	April	2016		Caraïb:	het	witte	sap	van	de	hikuridan	werd	door	voorouders	gebruikt	als	eerste	hulp	tegen	slangenbeten.		 			 111 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			morokokohehe	(Trio),	sekrepatu	trapu	(Sr)		FABACEAE	Bauhinia	guianensis	Aubl.			#TvdB027	 19	April	2016		Trio:	 Een	 stuk	 van	 deze	 liaan	 wordt	 gekookt,	 het	 afkooksel	 wordt	 gedronken	 om	buikpijn	tegen	te	gaan.		Beschrijving:	Platte	liaan	met	sleufvormige	inkepingen,	25cm	breed	tot	6cm	dik.	Bladeren	enkelvoudig	met	7	nerven	beginnend	bij	 bladvoet.	Bladsteel	 verdikt	bij	 zowel	oksel	 als	bladvoet.	Bovenzijde	donkergroen,	onderzijde	paarsbruine	gloed,	bezet	met	haartjes.		Coördinaten:	5.064108;	-57.106617			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			kajwa	(Ar),	maho	(Sr)		MALVACEAE	Hibiscus	tiliaceus	L.			#TvdB028	 8	April	2016		Arawak:	De	bast	vam	de	lakwa	wordt	geschild,	samen	geknoopt	en	gebuikt	als	vislijn	of	als	touw	voor	een	kurukuru	(draagmand).		 			 112 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			shishimbiri	obano	(Ar),	sibi	wiri	(Sr)		SCROPHULARIACEAE	Scoparia	dulcis	L.			#TvdB029	 20	April	2016		Arawak:	 veel	 gedroogde	 takken	 worden	 samen	 gebonden	 om	 een	 bezem	 mee	 te	maken.	//	de	hele	plant,	inclusief	de	wortels,	wordt	in	water	gekookt.	Drinken	van	het	afkooksel	 heeft	 een	 rustgevende	 uitwerking	 en	 zuivert	 het	 bloed.	 //	 Ook	wordt	 dit	kruid	gebruikt	om	boze	geesten	 te	verdrijven	uit	een	huis	of	 landgoed.	 In	elke	hoek	van	 het	 landgoed	 dient	 gezwaaid	 te	 worden	 met	 dit	 kruid	 om	 de	 geesten	 te	verdrijven.		Beschrijving:	Groeit	op	open	plekken	naast	huizen	en	wegen.		Coördinaten:	5.214197;	-57.186383			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			konsakawiwiri	(Sr),	teteliu	bina	(Ar)		PIPERACEAE	Peperomia	pellucida	(L.)	Kunth			#TvdB030	 20	April	2016		Arawak:	dit	kruid	wordt	verwarmd	boven	een	vuur	en	vervolgens	geperst	om	het	sap	op	 een	 wond	 te	 laten	 druipen	 om	 deze	 te	 ontsmetten.	 //	 Ook	 kan	 dit	 kruid	 vers		 			 113 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			gado	dede	(Sr)		COMMELINACEAE	Commelina	diffusa	Burm.f.			#TvdB031	 20	April	2016		Arawak:	Een	bosje	van	dit	kruid	wordt	in	het	water	gestopt	om	mee	te	baden.	Dit	zal	de	 badende	 extra	 jong	 doen	 voelen	 en	 extra	 sterk	 maken	 om	 niet	 te	 overleiden.	(Spiritueel)		Beschrijving:	 Kruipend,	 opstaand	 kruid,	 30cm	 hoog.	 Stengel	 bordeaux	 kleurig	 afgewisseld	 met	 groen.	Bladeren	 verspreid	 met	 tot	 2cm	 grote	 gesloten	 bladschede.	 Bladeren	 zittend,	 bladtop	 toegespitst	 en	bladvoet	aflopend.		Coördinaten:	5.184141;	-57.164226			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			tonka	bin	(Ar),	tonka	wiwiri	(Sr)		CANTACEAE	Justicia	pectoralis	Jacq.			#TvdB032	 21	April	2016		Arawak:	Deze	plant	wordt	vers	aan	krapa	of	kokos	olie	toegevoegd	voor	een	lekkere	geur.		 			 114 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			Lowisa	weri	(Sr)		EUPHORBIACEAE	Phyllanthus	amarus	Schumach.	&	Thonn.			#TvdB033	 21	April	2016		Arawak:	 Na	 deze	 plant	 schoongewassen	 te	 hebben,	 wordt	 deze	 gekookt.	 Het	afkooksel	wordt	gedronken	om	het	lichaam	te	reinigen	en	de	nuttiger	ervan	sterker	te	maken.		Beschrijving:	45cm	hoog	kruid.	Bladeren	samengesteld	evengeveerd,	8	tot	28	deelblaajdes	van	2-7mm	x	5-20mm.	Elk	deelblaadjespaar	heeft	een	bloemetje	(wit)/vruchtje	(groen)	eronder.		Coördinaten:	5.184141;	-57.164226			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			wilde	sopropo	(NL)		CUCURBITACEAE	Momordica	charantia	L.			#TvdB034	 22	April	2016		Arawak:	Deze	plant	kookt	men	om	als	thee	te	nuttigen.	Ook	wordt	er	mee	gebaad	om	jeuk	aan	het	lichaam	te	verminderen.		 			 115 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			pianarov	(Tr),	yawahe	pesi	(Ar),	slabriki	(Sr)		FABACEAE	Senna	alata	(L.)	Roxb.			#TvdB035	 22	April	2016				Beschrijving:	Verzameld	langs	weg	in	Apoera.		Coördinaten:	5.262247;	-57.210792			Duplicaten:	2:	NHS,	Paramaribo,	SR;	NHN,	Leiden,	NL.																																								 	PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			kurkuni	(Tr),	Yurika	(Ar),	mokomoko	(Sr)		ARACEAE	Montrichardia	arborescens	(L.)	Schott			#TvdB036	 22	April	2016		Ar:	 Kan	worden	 gebruikt	 als	 oeverbescherming	 (vooral	 vroeger):	 de	 stekels	 kunnen	pijnlijk	zijn	en	het	sap	uit	de	mokomoko	jeukt	enorm.	//	Kinderen	meldden	dat	ze	met		 			 116 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			boter,	melk	en	kaas	(NL)		SAPINDACEAE	Paullinia	pinnata				#TvdB037	 20	April	2016		Ar:	 Stukjes	 van	 het	 hout	 wordt	 uitgekookt	 en	 vervolgens	 gedronken	 om	 hoge	bloeddruk	en	bloedsuiker	tegen	te	gaan.		Beschrijving:	Liaan.		Coördinaten:				Duplicaten:	0.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			kapi	(Tr)		CONNARACEAE	sp.					#TvdB038	 19	April	2016		Trio:	als	men	een	snijwond	heeft,	wordt	de	binnenkant	van	de	bast	gebruikt	om	de	wond	 te	 bedekken.	 Het	 stukje	 bast	 wordt	 stevig	 vastgebonden	 om	 het	 bloeden	 te		 			 117 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			pula	(Tr),	khareme	jarula	(Ar)		APOCYNACEAE	cf.	Aspidosperma	sp.				#TvdB039	 19	April	2016		Arawak:	 De	 plankwortels	 worden	 gebruikt	 om	 peddels	 mee	 te	 maken.	 Trio:	 Een	afkooksel	 van	de	bast	 van	de	pula	wordt	 gedronken	om	malaria	 en	 koorts	 tegen	 te	gaan.	Het	 afkooksel	wordt	 dan	 om	8uur	 's	 ochtends	 en	 3uur	 ’s	middags	 gedornken	voor	4	dagen	op	rij.		Beschrijving:			Coördinaten:				Duplicaten:	0.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			arita	(Tr)		BURSERACEAE	Tetragastris	sp.			#TvdB040	 19	April	2016		Trio:	het	witte	vruchtvlees	wordt	gegeten.			 			 118 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			buba	(Ar)		ARECAEAE	Socratea	exorrhiza				#TvdB041	 8	April	2016		Arawak:	de	buba	wordt	gebruikt	om	een	boog	mee	 te	maken	gezien	het	buugzaam	hout	is.	//	Ook	worden	er	latten	van	gemaakt	(schaven,	schuren	en	vernissen).	 		Beschrijving:			Coördinaten:				Duplicaten:	0.				PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			adaba	(Ar)		ULMACEAE	cf.	Ampelocera	edentula				#TvdB042	 8	April	2016		Ar:	 Strips	 van	 de	 bast	 worden	 om	 een	 deel	 van	 het	 lichaam	 gewikkeld.	 Als	 de	binnenbast	een	aantal	uur	met	de	huid	in	contact	staat	komt	er	een	blaar	tevoorschijn		 			 119 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			busi	papaja	(Sr),	wanasoro	(Ar)		CECROPIACEAE	Cecropia	peltata			#TvdB043	 		Ar:	De	top	van	de	wanasoro	wordt	doormidden	gesneden,	waarna	de	witte	vezels	uit	de	 binnekant	 worden	 geschraapt.	 Dit	 goedje	 wordt	 op	 open	wonden	 geplaatst	 om	bloeden	te	stoppen	en	infectie	te	voorkomen.		Beschrijving:			Coördinaten:				Duplicaten:	0.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			kauru	(Tr),	rode	lokus	(NL),	shimiri	kuru	(Ar),	loksi	redi	(Sr)		FABACEAE	Hymenaea	courbaril				#TvdB044	 6	April	2016		Ar:	Een	(min	of	meer)	vierkant	stuk	van	de	bast	wordt	gekapt.	Kleine	stukjes	hiervan	worden	gebruikt	om	thee	mee	te	zetten	en	melk	en	suiker	worden	toegevoegd	om	de		 			 120 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			kakarali	(Ar),	bajkrati	(Sr)		LECYTHIDACEAE	Eschweilera	sp.				#TvdB045	 6	April	2016		Ar:	 Men	 schraapt	 de	 binnenkant	 van	 de	 bast	 af	 en	 eet	 dit	 vers	 om	 diarree	 te	verminderen.	//	De	bast	is	makkelijk	af	te	strippen,	de	strips	worden	gebruikt	om	een	tas	of	mand	mee	vast	te	binden	om	het	lichaam.	//	Rechte	bomen	worden	gebruikt	als	postpalen	voor	huizen.		Beschrijving:	Boom	tot	12m	hoog,	gelig	hout.	Plankwortels.		Coördinaten:				Duplicaten:	0.				PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			ooto	(Trio)		FABACEAE	Dipteryx	odorata			#TvdB046	 5	April	2016		Trio:	 De	 zaden	 van	 deze	 boom	 worden	 verwarmt	 boven	 een	 vuur	 om	 olie	 uit	 te	winnen.	 De	 olie	 wordt	 op	 het	 lichaam	 van	 mannen	 gesmeerd	 die	 hierdoor	 kracht		 			 121 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			wiri	(Tr),	dali	(Ar),	baboenhout	(NL)		MYRISTICACEAE	Virola	sp.				#TvdB047	 4	April	2016		Trio:	 Als	 een	 baby	mondzweren	 heeft,	 wordt	 het	 rode	 sap	 dat	 uit	 een	 gekapt	 stuk	hout	 komt	 druipen	 over	 de	 mond	 gewreven.	 De	 mondzweren	 zullen	 hierdoor	verdwijnen.		Beschrijving:			Coördinaten:				Duplicaten:	0.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			kwata	patu		LECYTHIDACEAE	sp.					#TvdB048	 2	April	2016		Trio:	Zaad	wordt	gegeten			 			 122 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			tuhka	(Tr),	totoka	(Ar),	ingi		noto	(Sr)		LECYTHIDACEAE	Bertholletia	excelsa				#TvdB049	 23	April	2016		Noten	 worden	 gegeten.	 Ook	 worden	 de	 noten	 soms	 geraspt	 en	 samen	 met	cassavebrood	gebakken.			Beschrijving:			Coördinaten:				Duplicaten:	0.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			prokoni	(Ar)		FABACEAE	Inga	alba				#TvdB050	 2	April	2016	Beschrijving:			Coördinaten:				 			 123 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			pari	udu	(Sr),	harira	arula	(Ar)		APOCYNACEAE	cf.	Aspidospermum	sp.				#TvdB051	 2	April	2016		Ar:	 Uitkepingen	 worden	 van	 de	 boom	 gekapt,	 hiermee	 worden	 peddels	 gemaakt.	Door	alleen	één	stuk	van	de	boom	te	kappen	blijft	de	boom	in	leven.		Beschrijving:			Coördinaten:				Duplicaten:	0.			 		PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			bergi	bita	(Sr)		APOCYNACEAE	Geissospermum	cf.	laeve				#TvdB052	 2	April	2016		 			 124 PLANTS	OF	SURINAME	Kabalebo	Resort			podosiri	(Sr),	pina	(Sr)		ARECAEAE	Euterpe	oleracea				#TvdB053	 20	March	16			 		Gran	tangi.	

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0344020/manifest

Comment

Related Items