On 28 June, a workshop was organized in Gatumba to “Awareness” on human-wildlife conflicts and community incentives to comply with the regulations in force for effective conservation in Burundi.

This workshop was invited to grassroots administrators including hill chiefs, technical managers including agricultural instructors and judges, security forces in the area of the site and representatives of local communities and users of natural resources (agri-farmers, beekeepers, beekeepers, beekeepers, beekeepers, traditional practitioners, fishermen, and park managers).

In his welcome speech, Mr. ININAHAZWE Pacific, Responsible for Rusizi National Park, thanked the OBPE for organizing the workshop. He recognized that the relationship between the protected area and the coastal communities was marred by some irregularities. On the one hand, that coastal communities disregard the law and carry out prohibited activities. These include vast plantations of maize and cassava, rice, rice, tomatoes, eggplants and others illegally planted inside the park, illegal fishing with inadequate equipment and in sensitive spawning areas, the cutting of herbs, wood and charring, charring, wood and charring, bushfires during the dry season, bushfires during the dry season, animal trapping and poaching, etc. On the other hand, these include animals in particular hippopotamuses who ravage these fields installed inside the park or sometimes come out and ravage those around him outside in private properties. It is this situation that is the source of misunderstanding between the communities and the park.

Taking the floor, Mr. MASABO Onesphore, thanked on behalf of the OBPE and the Director General the participants in this mini workshop. He reported that today's activity follows the results of exploiting the data collected during a study on “Indicators on conflicts between Buffaloes in the Ruvubu NP and hippopotamuses in the Rusizi NP and the local communities living in the area” conducted in 2020.

He reassured that among the participants, one or the other would have participated in answering the survey questionnaire or would have provided information or clarification on one or the other issue during the field work.

With these words, he invited the participants to follow with interest the presentation by Prof. NKENGURUTSE Jacques on the “Analysis of the conflictual cohabitation between the Rusizi National Park and the neighbouring populations”.

In his presentation, Prof NKENGURUTSE called for the protection of biological diversity in a sustainable manner and for compliance with current regulations.

He then returned to the importance of setting up PAs for maintaining biodiversity.

He recognized that PNRusizi is an important site for its biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Close to the capital Bujumbura (14km on the RN to Uvira), it is a potential asset for the development of Burundi through tourism revenues. Despite its ecological importance and function, PN Rusizi is located in the coveted area for the installation of infrastructure and agriculture as well as the implementation of other types of projects. This leads to the degradation of the site, its biodiversity and the loss of its functions, which are nevertheless recognized for the sustainable development of neighbouring and remote communities.

He said that the results of surveys on (i) Importance of the PNR for the coastal communities; (ii) the possible conflicts between the park and the communities in turn, and (iii) the mode of governance of the site and its perception by the population show that:

• 58.67% of respondents recognize the services provided by the PNR ecosystem,
• A proportion of 82.4% of respondents recognize that the park is home to delicious meat animals
• 84.5% of the population surveyed recognize the problems caused by park animals.

That the factors that influence the Relationship between the Communities and PNRusizi are the ban on entry to the park, the damage caused by animals, the offenses committed in the park, the punishments inflicted in case of violation and the governance of PNRusizi.

The measures taken by the communities to counter the damage concern: the physical aggression of park staff, the blocking of hippopotamuses exit routes, entrapments including the digging of ditches and the fencing of fields and some people remain indifferent.

Respective proportions of 58%, 23% and 18% require regulation, protection and elimination of these animals.

The punishments for offenses committed include: maintenance work, amicable settlement, confiscation of equipment and seizures, fines and possibly imprisonment.

For the governance of PN Rusizi as in all PAs in Burundi, an unanswered question (not provided for by the law in force) remains: “Offences committed by communities are punished but communities that have suffered losses caused by animals are not compensated”.

Respondents raised the lack of a collaborative framework to find solutions to the problems that oppose them as well as the lack of community management committees.

74% of respondents recognize awareness-raising actions related to the protection of the environment in general and PAs in particular.

However, it is concerned about the follow-up to the measures taken during these awareness-raising activities.

 

In conclusion, the results show that the relationship between PNRusizi and the communities in turn is not healthy. These irregularities mainly concern the non-compliance with the regulations in force, on the one hand, and a law that remains silent on certain issues that arise and that were not taken into consideration when drafting regulatory texts relating to the management of PAs. This includes dealing with questions related to the possible damage that may be caused by animals outside of PAs.

The participants thanked the organizers and referred to the effects of degradation of the environment in general and of biodiversity in particular.

Based on these results, the observation is that it is noticeable that the relationship between PNRusizi and the communities in turn is not healthy. The following suggestions were put forward: set up a conflict management committee, compliance with the regulations in force by all parties, develop community development projects (in particular ecotourism, the breeding of small animals (rabbits and poultry, beekeeping, etc.) as alternatives, develop community development projects (in particular ecotourism, farming of small animals (rabbits and poultry, poultry, beekeeping, etc.) and highlight the people affected.

MASABO Onesphore