3.2.5. HOW THE FOREST WAS OCCUPIED Table 7.Way of accessing
to land into the forest
|
How
|
Effective
|
% of those with
parcel in Gishwati
|
% of the sample (60 people)
|
|
Governmental authorization
|
4
|
16
|
6.6
|
|
Illegal encroachment
|
9
|
36
|
15
|
|
By inheritance
|
5
|
20
|
8.3
|
|
Buy
|
3
|
12
|
5
|
|
Gift
|
4
|
16
|
6.6
|
|
Total people with
lands into the forest
|
25
|
100
|
41.6
|
Source: Field survey, Author, 2012
The above table shows how people have got the land parcels in
Gishwati natural forest. Among the interviewees with parcels in Gishwati 9%
occupied the forest illegally for grazing and farming it.
Only16 % have been allowed by the local authority to occupy
the land when they returned from DRC as there was no other land to be used by
these refugees. Many of those illegally occupy the land were pushed by the fact
that there was lower production on their own land out of the forest and the
land were very small so they could not satisfy their needs and they wanted to
be near or in the forest where they got fire wood without walking long
hours.
So, they occupy the forest in order to improve their feedings
and economy; as these occupied and used the land for different purposes the
remaining of the population were affected by the impacts caused by these used
forest but also themselves were affected by some of those impacts.
In doing so, 105 families were shifted from Gishwati forest
especially in two villages Kinyenkanda and Karambagiro and were distributed in
other villages of this cell.
34
3.2.6. THE VIEWS OF POPULATION ABOUT FOREST RESTORATION AND
THEIR LIVELIHOODS
The forest restoration was not viewed and agreed at the same
degree by all population because the conservation of this forest may have
adverse social consequences on the local population?s livelihoods even if this
could provide many advantages. These consequences include in among others:
? Deprivation of the communities to the opportunities
necessary for their survival and development, including their basic social
services.
? Lack of guaranteed access to resources is an impediment to a
truly participatory approach at the community levels.
? Local communities may have been subjected to eviction often
with grave consequences to their identity and future development. Indeed
eviction also creates a kind of sociocultural stress.
? Relocated population loses not only the economic base of
their survival but also undergo a considerable reduction of their cultural
heritage due to the temporary or definitive loss of their behavioral models,
their economic activities and their symbols. The living conditions of the
community evicted from the forest can become worse as a direct result of their
dislocation.
? There is no equitable balance between improving biodiversity
conservation and improvements in human well being
3.2.7. THE CURRENT SITUATION OF GISHWATI LANDSCAPE
Despite its heavy destruction, Gishwati forest is being
restored in order to turn it to its original form in biodiversity by making it
an African ecotourism area.
35
A MINALOC commission organized a land sharing process between
returnees and local resettled people in imidugudu. People were given houses,
water tanks and other projects are helping these families and their relatives
to improve their living conditions. These projects include:
? Nurseries of trees which can be planted with other crops and
those which give fruits ? Construction of dairy as they are farmers and this is
a participatory project
? Terracing and other erosion prevention methods in the
mountains surrounding Bitenga zone (Rundoyi and Gihira cells) where they settle
now.
All these projects were established to combat against climate
change by REMA and this zone was selected by this later among the three zones
in the whole country to test the climate change prevention. Population were
asked to be grouped into cooperatives in order to be given money for
implementing these projects but up to now some of these cooperatives have not
legal status and this is a constraint to this program. There is only one
cooperative with legal status (COPARUGI) and this was given the first round of
money for this project.
After being relocated, there was rehabilitation of a big part
of Gishwati which was destroyed through the great apes project of Americans by
planting native species and bamboos surrounded by a belt of Arnos whereby more
than 700 ha have been added to the remained area of Gishwati forest. The people
who have been planted trees such as eucalyptus were obliged to remove them and
this was done successfully. The sawmilling of these trees was allowed but the
charcoal making was prohibited within the forest.
There is also a project for allocating improved seeds of sweet
potatoes replacing maize, fertilizers such as NPK 171717 and pumps for these
sweet potatoes so that there will not be conflicts between the population and
monkeys in the forest by damaging their maize. This project is continuous.
According to the interview with in charge of agriculture in
Ruhango sector, the economy was affected by the changes but after relocation
and rehabilitation, the economy is being increased and this is also agreed by
many interviewees as shown in the following figure.
36
35 30
25 20 15 10
5
0
increase decrease no change
Source: Field survey, author, 2012
Figure 7.The current status of economy around
Gishwati
The increase in economy is proved by the following indicators: ?
Improved housing hence less expenditure in maintenance
? Schooling and health center (Bitenga) with a big number of
employees ? Closeness to the authority and this offers many opportunities
The problem of safe drinking water shortage is still faced by
this population but there is a project which will provide them the water.
All these infrastructures were provided by REMA (DEMP),
MINALOC, MINIRENA and the district of Rutsiro.
37
| 
