The forest fires at Karisparu in Region Eight, which have damaged agricultural lands and housing materials and threatened several homes and the main bridge connecting the village to its airstrip, are a reminder of how quickly an otherwise ordinary activity can become a serious threat. According to a press release from the Department of Public Information, initial reports indicated that the fires originated with the burning of garbage in the village before spreading out of control. It added that a joint team comprising personnel from the Guyana Defence Force, Guyana Fire Service, Guyana Forestry Commission and the Civil Defence Commission was subsequently deployed to respond, which included assessing the damage and identifying areas at risk.
There is little doubt that the agencies involved did what they could under the circumstances. Responding to forest fires is absolutely necessary, but preventing one in the first place is crucial. This raises questions about how much attention is being paid to fire prevention in hinterland communities that are surrounded by forests and other vegetation that can become highly combustible during prolonged dry periods.
The release said the government had established a multi-agency committee earlier this year in response to ‘Super El Niño’ conditions. This committee’s responsibilities include public awareness activities across the ten administrative regions, monitoring potential threats and preparing to mobilise resources. These are worthwhile initiatives, but one has to wonder whether they are sufficiently reaching the communities most vulnerable to forest fires and, more importantly, whether they are addressing the practical circumstances that sometimes make open burning unavoidable.
For instance, how do hinterland villages normally dispose of their garbage? If burning is discouraged or prohibited, what alternatives are available? Is there an organised system for collecting and disposing of household waste, or are residents simply expected to find other ways of dealing with it? These are not trivial questions. A public education campaign that tells people what they should not do without providing realistic alternatives is not likely to achieve much traction.
The problem is compounded by the changing nature of household waste. Guyana’s Indigenous peoples have been forest stewards for hundreds of years, with traditional practices and knowledge grounded in an intimate understanding of their natural surroundings. Their relationship with the forest is not simply one of living within it but of depending on it, respecting it and understanding the need to preserve it. However, the increasing availability and consumption of manufactured goods have introduced a different set of environmental challenges. Plastics, polystyrene, synthetic packaging and other non-biodegradable materials have become part of everyday life, including in communities where there may be few facilities for their proper disposal.
Unlike many traditional forms of waste, these materials do not simply decompose and return to the earth. Some are burned, potentially releasing harmful substances, while others are discarded in open spaces, waterways or the surrounding forest. A case in point is the ongoing littering of the area near the Iwokrama rainforest where forest rangers have had to take on garbage collection and disposal. Is any real assistance being provided to communities to manage a waste stream that has changed considerably over the years? It would be unfair to place the entire burden on residents when the availability of goods has expanded without a corresponding development of waste management infrastructure.
Meanwhile, there are other circumstances in which fire is used in hinterland communities that also deserve consideration. Vegetation is cleared for housing, farming and other development, and burning may be used as a convenient way of disposing of the resulting debris. Outdoor cooking is another familiar practice, while campfires and bonfires may form part of recreational, social or ceremonial activities. None of these activities necessarily has to be abandoned, but they require appropriate precautions, particularly when conditions are dry and the surrounding vegetation is susceptible to ignition.
There is a difference between using fire in a controlled manner and allowing it to become a hazard. Residents need to be equipped with practical guidance on safe locations, firebreaks, keeping water or other means of putting out fires nearby, and ensuring that fires are completely extinguished before being left unattended. These are matters that should be discussed with communities well before the dry season rather than after fires have already caused damage and destruction.
It is also worth asking whether there are adequate arrangements for detecting and reporting fires early, and whether hinterland villages have the equipment and training necessary to contain small blazes before they spread. A fire service response that depends on personnel travelling long distances to reach remote communities will inevitably face limitations. The answer must therefore include some level of community preparedness, supported by the relevant agencies. Village councils and other local leadership structures could play an important role.
The authorities should also consider whether fire prevention outreach is being conducted regularly in all hinterland communities, rather than relying on general public announcements or campaigns during periods of heightened risk. Such outreach must be culturally appropriate, practical and informed by the knowledge of the people who live in these environments. Indigenous communities should not merely be recipients of instructions from Georgetown. They should be active participants in developing solutions, drawing on generations of experience in managing their surroundings.
The Karisparu incident should therefore be treated as an opportunity to examine what can be done to prevent a recurrence, not simply as another emergency requiring the temporary deployment of personnel. Fire prevention requires more than warnings. It involves planning, resources, education and practical alternatives to activities that carry a high risk of fire. Above all, there needs to be an understanding that communities cannot be expected to change practices without being given the means to do so. There must be more proactivity in protecting our forests and the people who depend on them.
Discussion