**3.1 Land use in the communities over the past 10 years**

As observed during the study, land within the study area was used primarily for the purposes of cultivation of mangroves and marshes; for establishment of residential area; for agriculture; and for recreation. Based on the data obtained,

**Figure 3.** *Land use at the study area in 2016.*

land use remained constant from 2009 to 2016. The illustration below (**Figure 3**), which shows land use in 2016—using GE and on-site observation and interviews in 2018—indicates that land use remained unchanged.

### **3.2 Mangrove coverage in the study area**

The intent, initially, was to obtain and use GE images for five-year intervals, from 2009 to 2018, but the GE coverage for 2018 was unclear. For this reason, GE images for the years 2009, 2013, and 2016 were used. The images were obtained on the same date. The quality of the images allowed for the spatial coverage of mangroves at the study area to be determined and evaluated. The amount of land covered by mangrove fluctuated for the period under study. The spatial changes of mangrove coverage in the 8-year period are shown in **Figure 3**. In 2009, mangrove forest coverage was 77.5 hectares, while in 2013 and 2016, it was 91.8 hectares, and 79.08, respectively. A comparison of data for 2009 and 2013 revealed that there was an increase in vegetation coverage of 14.3 hectares—which represents 15 percent increase—with some notable gains along the mudflats around the centre of the study area, and to the southeastern coast closer to Wellington Park for 2013 (**Figure 4(a)** and **(b)**). From 2013 to 2016, figure decreased by 12.72 hectares, which suggest that mangroves were destroyed either naturally or by human activities, or a combination of both (**Figure 4(c)**). The changes in mangrove stock varied in a particularly spatial pattern. They increased constantly toward the extreme west and east of the area, as shown in **Figure 4**, for all of the years, but they fluctuated in the central part. The villages identified in this study are located west and east of the study area as well. Major growth was recorded at Limlair, Eversham, Joppa, Good Hope, and No. 46 Villages. The balance of natural mangrove increase and decrease from 2009 to 2016 could not be determined due to the replanting efforts that were undertaken over the study period. In summary, during the period 2009 to 2016, the cumulative change or net increase in mangrove coverage in the study area was about 1.58 hectares.

**39**

**Figure 4.**

*Benn.*

*Effects of Rural Land Tenure System on Mangroves Management in Corentyne, Guyana*

Remarkably, the change in residential land use and the sporadic small-scale agricultural activities particularly in the villages of Limlair and Eversham did not cause a corresponding loss of mangrove in the villages, and, therefore, presented no risk to the mangrove ecosystem. However, at Wellington Park, where there has been a systematic attempt to replant and monitor mangroves over the last few years, it was observed in 2017 and 2018 that large sections of the mangrove stand have been severely eroded as a consequence of wave action. This village remained exposed to the natural cycles of erosion and accretion, but the rate of erosion predominates and is accentuated by the presence of a waterway west of the village. The overall decline of and damage to mangrove forest in 2016 could have been attributed to the loss experienced in this village. The decline in mangroves is expected to have resulted in loss of biodiversity and reduction in fishing yield in the village. On the contrary, Java, situated immediately east of Wellington Park and also unprotected from the tides, has witnessed rapid mangrove advancement on private lands, resulting in the clearance of the vegetation by property owners in order to gain access to sections of their plots of land and

The proliferation of mangroves in the other villages could only be possible as a consequence of the process of accretion, absence of competition from other vegetation, and protection by community members. The tides transport and deposit sediments and mangrove seeds along the windward side (area closest to the seashore) of the villages. The effect, therefore, has been the expansion of mangrove forests over the last decade. This explains why mangroves increased so rapidly in Adventure, Limlair, Java, Eversham, and No. 46 Villages. The reason for the two contrasting occurrences at Wellington Park and Java—both of which are in the same location only separated by a political demarcation—is still not clearly understood. Overall, the random peasant farming undertaken in some villages did not impact the mangrove ecosystem negatively, and the loss of the vegetation in some villages was appropriately compensated for by the natural regeneration of mangrove in

*The distribution of coastal mangroves over the study area in (a) 2009, (b) 2013, and (c) 2016. Courtesy Dina* 

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89610*

the seashore.

other sites.

### *Effects of Rural Land Tenure System on Mangroves Management in Corentyne, Guyana DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89610*

Remarkably, the change in residential land use and the sporadic small-scale agricultural activities particularly in the villages of Limlair and Eversham did not cause a corresponding loss of mangrove in the villages, and, therefore, presented no risk to the mangrove ecosystem. However, at Wellington Park, where there has been a systematic attempt to replant and monitor mangroves over the last few years, it was observed in 2017 and 2018 that large sections of the mangrove stand have been severely eroded as a consequence of wave action. This village remained exposed to the natural cycles of erosion and accretion, but the rate of erosion predominates and is accentuated by the presence of a waterway west of the village. The overall decline of and damage to mangrove forest in 2016 could have been attributed to the loss experienced in this village. The decline in mangroves is expected to have resulted in loss of biodiversity and reduction in fishing yield in the village. On the contrary, Java, situated immediately east of Wellington Park and also unprotected from the tides, has witnessed rapid mangrove advancement on private lands, resulting in the clearance of the vegetation by property owners in order to gain access to sections of their plots of land and the seashore.

The proliferation of mangroves in the other villages could only be possible as a consequence of the process of accretion, absence of competition from other vegetation, and protection by community members. The tides transport and deposit sediments and mangrove seeds along the windward side (area closest to the seashore) of the villages. The effect, therefore, has been the expansion of mangrove forests over the last decade. This explains why mangroves increased so rapidly in Adventure, Limlair, Java, Eversham, and No. 46 Villages. The reason for the two contrasting occurrences at Wellington Park and Java—both of which are in the same location only separated by a political demarcation—is still not clearly understood. Overall, the random peasant farming undertaken in some villages did not impact the mangrove ecosystem negatively, and the loss of the vegetation in some villages was appropriately compensated for by the natural regeneration of mangrove in other sites.

#### **Figure 4.**

*The distribution of coastal mangroves over the study area in (a) 2009, (b) 2013, and (c) 2016. Courtesy Dina Benn.*

*Land Use Change and Sustainability*

land use remained constant from 2009 to 2016. The illustration below (**Figure 3**), which shows land use in 2016—using GE and on-site observation and interviews in

The intent, initially, was to obtain and use GE images for five-year intervals, from 2009 to 2018, but the GE coverage for 2018 was unclear. For this reason, GE images for the years 2009, 2013, and 2016 were used. The images were obtained on the same date. The quality of the images allowed for the spatial coverage of mangroves at the study area to be determined and evaluated. The amount of land covered by mangrove fluctuated for the period under study. The spatial changes of mangrove coverage in the 8-year period are shown in **Figure 3**. In 2009, mangrove forest coverage was 77.5 hectares, while in 2013 and 2016, it was 91.8 hectares, and 79.08, respectively. A comparison of data for 2009 and 2013 revealed that there was an increase in vegetation coverage of 14.3 hectares—which represents 15 percent increase—with some notable gains along the mudflats around the centre of the study area, and to the southeastern coast closer to Wellington Park for 2013 (**Figure 4(a)** and **(b)**). From 2013 to 2016, figure decreased by 12.72 hectares, which suggest that mangroves were destroyed either naturally or by human activities, or a combination of both (**Figure 4(c)**). The changes in mangrove stock varied in a particularly spatial pattern. They increased constantly toward the extreme west and east of the area, as shown in **Figure 4**, for all of the years, but they fluctuated in the central part. The villages identified in this study are located west and east of the study area as well. Major growth was recorded at Limlair, Eversham, Joppa, Good Hope, and No. 46 Villages. The balance of natural mangrove increase and decrease from 2009 to 2016 could not be determined due to the replanting efforts that were undertaken over the study period. In summary, during the period 2009 to 2016, the cumulative change or net increase in mangrove coverage in the study area was about 1.58

2018—indicates that land use remained unchanged.

**3.2 Mangrove coverage in the study area**

**38**

hectares.

**Figure 3.**

*Land use at the study area in 2016.*

### **3.3 Land tenure issues and mangrove management**

In Guyana, land is owned under three distinct legal systems of tenureship: the public (state and government lands), Amerindians (Indigenous peoples), and private freehold/absolute grant arrangement. Interest, or what is commonly known as "ownership," is distributed as approximately 85, 14, and 1%, respectively [24, 25]. While the procedural requirements for leasing of state/public lands and allocation of Amerindian lands are relatively precise, private freehold arrangements and procedures are punctuated by ambiguity in the rules and regulations relative to a number of Acts and Statutes that set out the legislative and administrative frameworks for land management. The policies and regulations regarding private land owners' right to freehold property, which mangroves colonizes are not clear.

The ministerial proclamation was a response to the heightened level of vulnerability of the coast to sea level rise, threats to the protective and ecological functions of the vegetation, and associated issues. This proclamation has led to further hurdles prominently among which are overlapping and conflicting processes that do not represent best practices in tenure arrangements. It also resulted in a conflicting understanding, among policymakers and the local communities as well, of land ownership, and raised legitimate questions about the effectiveness of any mangrove management initiative, especially in those locations contiguous with the seashore. The tradition in some rural communities, including those where mangroves exist, is that individual property right is insecure and deemed by many owners as unnecessary; thus, a relatively large percentage of owners either do not register their property or keep their ownership rights updated. Effective and efficient mangrove management, therefore, requires a comprehensive set of legal and institutional reforms aimed at changing perceptions and understanding of the system at large, and attitudes toward property rights, enforcement, and the natural environment. It also requires a new set of procedures and written legal and institutional structures.

As stated before, in order to manage mangroves, the Government of Guyana, in collaboration with the European Union, established in 2010 the Guyana Mangrove Restoration Project (GMRP) administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and implemented by the National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute (NAREI). Since the commencement of the project, a number of other entities also worked closely with NAREI to undertake mangrove management activities. These include the Guyana Forestry Commission (GFC), the Sea and River Defense Department of the Ministry of Public Infrastructure (MPI), Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission (GLSC), National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) of the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs). The first four agencies cited have a more direct involvement in mangrove management. These agencies perform various functions, ranging from coordination and facilitation of mangrove activities to sea defense infrastructure development.
