Research Article |
Corresponding author: Justin Kyale Koy ( koykyale@yahoo.fr ) Academic editor: José M. Martínez-Paz
© 2019 Justin Kyale Koy, Alphonse Maindo Monga Ngonga, D. Andrew Wardell.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Koy JK, Ngonga AMM, Wardell DA (2019) Moving beyond the illusion of participation in the governance of Yangambi Biosphere Reserve (Tshopo Province, Democratic Republic of Congo). Nature Conservation 33: 33-54. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.33.30781
|
The participation of local communities in the governance of protected areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo is challenged by several external and local factors. This article aims to understand the representation of local communities and factors that influence their participation in the governance of the Yangambi Biosphere Reserve. Three principal sources of information (archival records, focus group and semi-structured interviews) were used to collect data. The results indicate a top-down participatory approach. The cumulative failure of several projects in the context of local development has led to different perceptions by local communities of their role in the participative governance of Yangambi Biosphere Reserve. Initiatives in participatory management and local development only function during the lifetime of externally-funded projects when initiators are present in the intervention area. The results call into question formal claims made by both conservation projects and the Congolese government regarding the actual participation of local communities in the governance of Biosphere Reserves. Furthermore, although Biosphere Reserves in DRC are recognized as part of the national network of protected areas since 2002, their management is still not aligned to either the Seville Strategy or the statutory framework of the world network of Biosphere Reserves. To achieve this, local development initiatives need to focus on poverty alleviation (through the diversification of income sources, entrepreneurship, farmer training and the creation of employment opportunities) and a better understanding of local practices and cultures in the design of such projects.
Democratic Republic of Congo, Yangambi Biosphere Reserve, governance, protected areas, community participation
As noted by
Participation is, nevertheless, a concept that divides social actors and scientists and has not found a unanimous definition. Following
The implementation of this approach in the management of Biosphere Reserves has not been extensively studied. Despite being part of a global network, thanks to recognition by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1977, few studies have been conducted on the socio-economic impacts of Biosphere Reserves (see
The YBR is located about 100 km west and 62 km north of the city of Kisangani in the DRC (Map
The data presented in this article are from archival sources as well as focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews. The documentation was consulted at the libraries of INERA and the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) offices in Yangambi and Kinshasa, DRC, the Royal Museum of Central Africa (
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with household members based on a general questionnaire of the first author’s doctoral thesis comprising ca. 100 questions. Taking into account the objective pursued in this article, eight questions were analyzed to obtain the results presented below. The data from the other questions (92) were used in other articles.
The selection of 20 villages and 3 neighbourhoods constituting the geographic sample (
The collected data was first encoded into an Excel spreadsheet. They were then pre-processed to correct the typing errors. In addition to calculating percentages and arithmetic averages, data processing and analysis focused both on the search for dependencies between measured variables, and on the comparison of ethnic groups. The link between the (qualitative) variables was measured using the Chi-square test of independence under the validity conditions described by
Moreover, the participation of LCs in the design of local development policies was analyzed using three indicators tested by
From 1933 to 1960
INEAC (replaced by INERA in1970), was entrusted with the management of the Yangambi Floristic Reserve (now YBR) by the Belgian colonial administration. INEAC depended, in part, on male labour hired from villages bordering YBR. Archive data collected show that after its establishment in 1934, INEAC engaged with the following villages: in Bosukulu I, 88 adult men out of 147; in Yandimbia, 18 out of 60; in Yalolia, 29 out of 106. In the Yalibua and Yakombe villages, it recruited 58% and 32% of all adult men respectively (
INEAC attempted to protect YBR against slash and burn agriculture by, initially, limiting access to the reserve, and after 1942 by grouping farmers (
Another project carried out in the Lilanda village, from 1956 by INEAC, concerned the production and processing of cassava (
After independence
An effort to initiate management of YBR by multiple stakeholders was started in 1978 through a framework agreement on a Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Reserve concluded between UNESCO and the Congolese Government (
A subsequent project initiated in 2009 and implemented from 2010 with financial and technical support of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), ensured that all YBR management stakeholders (MAB, INERA, IFA, LCs, civil society and local government) were structured and organized within a Local Steering Committee (LSC) based in Yangambi (Toirambe 2011). This provided a platform for consultation and reflection involving all stakeholders engaged in the management of the reserve. Semi-annual meetings were held in Yangambi throughout the duration of the project (2010–2012). Motorcycles, raincoats and bicycles were distributed to eco-guards who also received a monthly bonus of approximately US$ 5 to US$ 10.
At the village level, the WWF project contributed to the creation of Local Development and Conservation Committees (LDCCs). These structures were intended to bring together village members who were supposed to carry out activities contributing to both local development and nature conservation (
Most recently, another project carried out by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) between 2014 and 2016 tried to revitalize the activities of the LDCCs by focusing on the rehabilitation and equipping of the MAB Yangambi office, the recruitment, paramilitary training, equipment, uniforms and monthly bonuses for 20 eco-guards, construction of two monitoring stations in Yapkondi and Yakombe, and drafting of the statutes and rules of procedure of the Local Steering Committee (
It is perceived that the management of YBR is equally facilitated by the local communities and services provided by state institutions, notably INERA, MAB, IFA and the Superior Institute of Agronomic Studies of Bengamisa (Figure
The participatory management initiatives of the WWF and IUCN projects described above were not influenced by local communities and had little impact. Most of these views were expressed in terms of local communities not being consulted during the establishment of the reserve nor in the design of the projects (Figure
Extent to which local communities were consulted in the creation of YBR and in project design.
In addition to the lack of consultation with local communities, state-backed managers of YBR and their global partners tried to educate and sensitize the local communities about reserve management and the importance of conservation in protecting YBR. We therefore asked the following question: were you made aware of the importance of nature conservation in the YBR? The interviews indicated that awareness had not been raised amongst most respondents (Figure
This lack of consultation with, and limited awareness of local communities, did not facilitate the flow of information concerning project initiatives and the management of YBR. In fact, the perceptions expressed by interviewees about the ownership of this protected area – by the State or in the customary domain were not unanimous (Figure
The interviews indicated that local development projects implemented to facilitate the participation of local communities did not have any significant impacts. Furthermore, most respondents considered the impacts to be negative, although a few thought the impacts were low i.e. not significant (Figure
From a statistical point of view, a significant dependence was noted between the ethno-linguistic groups and their opinions on the impacts of such projects (X-squared = 42.28, df = 2, p-value = 6.59e-10). The allochthones (generally met in Yangambi centre) and a few of the Turumbu people had varying opinions between low impact and negative impact. In contrast, for the Bamanga community, impacts were negative for all criteria surveyed.
This dissatisfaction of local communities reflected inter alia the limited knowledge of the importance or role of YBR in the area. A few people consider that YBR plays an important conservation role although the majority supports the opposite point of view, emphasizing YBR’s importance in providing local communities with multiple natural resources to support their subsistence economy and survival (Figure
In addition to the limited awareness of the ecological functions and importance of YBR, the management of the latter by state services was not favorably appreciated by the interviewees. Across all ethno-linguistic groups, most interviewees gave an unfavorable opinion on the management of YBR (Figure
The policies and projects implemented by different actors in order to involve local actors in the management of the natural resources of YBR have not contributed to developing sustainable land use systems. Archival sources show that until 1956 the Turumbu cooperative produced about 2,000 tons of agricultural products annually (
The MAB project has in turn met similar problems in its implementation. Even though its aim was to strengthen human and institutional capacities, the sustainability of the actions envisaged at the beginning has not been achieved. The maintenance of vehicles, outboard motors and laboratory equipment made available to the project by UNESCO has not been carried out by either the local or national government. UNESCO subsidies did not reach their intended beneficiaries. Four research programs were planned covering both the human and natural aspects of the YBR in the MAB-DRC agreement. None of these have been achieved. The internships and fellowships financed by UNESCO did not serve in the management of the YBR. This must, therefore, be considered a poor result of the MAB program.
The project implemented by WWF between 2010 and 2012 in the YBR failed to sustain its achievements. Today, the LSC and LDCCs are, to all intents and purposes, non-operational in the field. The same applies to the IUCN project. To collect the information on this subject, the following question was asked of the respondents: do you have some memories of the achievements of the projects implemented in your region? Across all ethno-linguistic groups, most of those surveyed said that, in the current context, the achievements of the local development projects are non-existent (Figure
The results show that for local communities there are two categories of management actors for YBR: state services and communities. However, it would be difficult to suggest that LCs are very much involved in making decisions about the management of the reserve. This perception arises because YBR offers almost completely open access for the communities, despite the presence of state management structures. YBR is, therefore, understood by local communities as simply a space for exploitation and extraction of natural resources where one rarely meets the state actors who are supposed to monitor and control such activities.
The results also revealed that LCs were not consulted either during the establishment of the reserve or the design of local conservation and development projects for which they were supposed to be the main beneficiaries. This state of affairs can be explained by several pieces of logic. On the one hand, projects carried out in the field were based either on experiences acquired elsewhere, or on the basis of studies in and around Yangambi carried out only by researchers. To facilitate community ownership of these projects, local knowledge remained poorly mobilized. As
How was it possible that all local communities who were members of the LDCCs were supposed to benefit from the same goods and services considering that their priority needs differed between them? Since the benefits for the local communities did not emanate from their own needs the actual intervention logic applied was already predisposed to failure and weak ownership. According to some authors, greater local participation in decision making or, at the very least, a better understanding of local needs and desires and the incorporation of these are key aspects in the design and implementation of conservation and development programs, and underpin decentralization theory (
The Belgian colonial period was not renowned for consultation with local communities. The establishment of YBR in 1939 was no different as INEAC expanded the area under its control. Rural farmers were considered as subjects (having only subsistence and usufruct rights) and not citizens (
Customary rights of local communities can be substantially reduced through policy interventions in biosphere reserves (
To compound matters, the legal texts that have governed the conservation of nature in DRC since the Belgian colonial era until 2014 have not been favorable to the participation of local communities.
The exclusion of local communities mitigates against the conservation of nature in protected areas, and constitutes a real challenge in the implementation of participative approaches and can be a frequent source of conflicts with states services. According to
The results of the study also highlighted that most respondents were not aware of either the importance of YBR and/or the different participatory projects implemented in and around YBR. Several factors could explain this state of affairs. First, there is weak representation of grass root representatives at the LSC level. Local chiefs have been negotiating compensation for land appropriated by INEAC/INERA and the Turumbu community spanning more than 80 years. This compensation has been the subject of complaint up to today by the local communities (Interviews with Basanga, Bosala Selenga and Kaisala Bosendji respectively on March 11, 2015, April 1, 2015, April 25, 2015). Second, project leaders often prefer to spend all their time in Yangambi where they have relations with INERA and MAB to the detriment of the local communities. Finally, isolation due to poor rural infrastructure and limited public transport services does not facilitate the movement of state and private actors involved in the management of the YBR. This is particularly acute for the Bamanga community.
The results of the study showed a strong dependence between ethno-linguistic groups and respondents’ opinions on the ownership of YBR which is contested between the state and local communities. The Bamanga people because of the isolation are rarely associated with the management activities of YBR. This has accentuated their relative ignorance about the very existence of the reserve. As a result, the “protected area” of YBR continues to be perceived as a part of customary lands managed by the LCs.
The question of meeting subsistence needs to survive is clearly mentioned in the respondents’ opinions on the importance of the reserve to the community (Figure
Local community perceptions of protected areas management can be either favorable (
As a result, prohibited activities are often practiced by agents who should normally be committed to their prohibition. Thus, INEAC/INERA which appropriated the customary lands of the Turumbu and Bamanga peoples and which has managed YBR since its creation, has not managed to put an end to the land disputes with the local communities.
Another factor concerns the relative lack of information about YBR, or access to information by local communities despite several conservation and development projects and their failed environmental education efforts. As
Finally, there is limited representation of, and consultation with, local communities. LCs representatives are often only associated in the last instance. One of the critical steps for sustainable management of protected areas is to know that the people living nearby have to be informed about permitted and prohibited activities, and they need to trust the responsible institutions for environmental management and their effectiveness (
The results highlighted weak sustainability in terms of the achievements of conservation and development projects. Apart from farmers linked to the Turumbu cooperative, which had produced results recognized by the people of the Yangambi region, the projects implemented by WWF and IUCN have generated very limited impacts. According to
In some cases the local communities argued that farmers and the Turumbu cooperative contributed to improving their basic socio-economic conditions in the past. This seems to be corroborated by the point of view of
However, even if the public authorities are failing in this area, it also seems necessary to analyze this issue from the angle of African tradition or culture. Tradition is marked by inequalities between ethno-linguistic group, status, roles, age and gender. To consider implementing cooperatives and/or participatory systems in this context remains a delicate undertaking.
The participation of local communities in the governance of Biosphere Reserves is still controversial to the present-day in the Democratic Republic of Congo some forty years after their establishment. The challenges are many and their origins are diverse. Focusing on the case of Yangambi Floristic reserve created in 1939/Yangambi Biosphere Reserve (YBR) (after 1977), this paper has identified the many challenges in the implementation of participatory approaches to managing YBR. In terms of external factors, it is important to underline the predominance of ‘logic from above’ comprising both the explicit and legal exclusion of local communities in protected area management and in the design of local conservation and development projects and policies. In terms of internal constraints, the almost permanent dependence of local actors on external support limits the sustainability of the impacts of local development projects. Thus, in the context of YBR, the participatory approach adopted has been essentially top-down, as defined by
The failure of local development and/or participatory projects and policies has resulted in the emergence of mitigated perceptions of local communities about their place in the participatory governance of YBR. Participatory management and/or local development initiatives are only functional while their initiators are present in the project area. Once the project is finished, any achievements are unlikely to be sustained by the local communities. Thus, the participatory approach is still an illusion in the context of the management of Biosphere Reserves in the DRC. Furthermore, although Biosphere Reserves in DRC are recognized as part of the national network of protected areas since 2002, their management is still not aligned to either the Seville Strategy or the statutory framework of the world network of Biosphere Reserves (
The authors express their gratitude to the European Union for the funds allocated to research in DRC through the Forestry and Climate Change in the Congo project (FCCC). They thank the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), the Centre for International Cooperation in Agronomic Research for Development (CIRAD) and the University of Kisangani (UNIKIS) for scientific supervision of the first author’s doctoral research. Resources and Synergies Development (RSD) is also thanked for the efficiency of its logistics management during the data collection period.