Ecotourism As Potential Conservation Incentive and Its Impact On Community Development Around Nyungwe National Park (NNP) : Rwanda
Ecotourism As Potential Conservation Incentive and Its Impact On Community Development Around Nyungwe National Park (NNP) : Rwanda
Ecotourism As Potential Conservation Incentive and Its Impact On Community Development Around Nyungwe National Park (NNP) : Rwanda
on natural resources by substituting alternative based conservation (CBC) that include local
livelihood activities (Sayer, 1991). Where those communities in the management of natural resources.
mentioned natural resources are intrinsic to everyday In our country, community conservation face
livelihood and household budgets, even well funded challenges related to the insufficient of natural
coercive conservation generally fails (FAO, 2005). resources base and rising population pressure.
Rwanda can be described as a country with severe
In order to involve the communities in park demographic stress relying for subsistence on a
protection and conservation and to let local limited resource base. About 57% of Rwandans live
community benefit from the park, the park authority, in abject poverty and people occupying or living in
Rwanda Development Board (RDB) has introduced a the vicinity of the world’s areas richest in
revenue sharing program that consists of sharing a biodiversity are the poorest (Rwanyiziri, 2011). In
percentage of tourism income between the country Rwanda, the level of public involvement in decision
and communities surrounding the park so that local making of natural resources management is still low.
communities who have to bear the cost of This low level of participation can be explained by
conservation also benefit from it and have a stake in available resources, schedules, budgets, and staffing
its success. On the park side, this is one of the ways (Rwanyiziri, 2011). The decentralization policy
that can increase awareness amongst local people allowed establishes environmental committees from
with the hope that they will support conservation and the village level to district level (REMA, 2010).
contribute to park protection. The revenue sharing However, these structures are not fully operating.
program has been in existence for several years and Officially, districts are supposed to allocate sources
ongoing sensitization and awareness raising to this program (fund, staff and other resources) but
campaigns are carried out by Park staff. However it is noted that some districts do not have sufficient
threats from the local communities towards the park resources to allocate all programs and environmental
and ongoing conflict still exist. issues are not mainstreamed in their plan and budget
(REMA, 2010). Community sensitization requires
fund mobilization and resources (money, facilities,
Therefore it is essential to have a better
etc.). However, most of time there is lack of fund for
understanding of local community attitudes towards
that activity (REMA, 2010).
the park and conservation and to the revenue sharing
program in particular (Adams and Hulme 2001 cited
by Scholte, 2010). This would help improve revenue 1.3. Ecotourism as an incentive to conservation
sharing to ensure that it meets community Ecotourism is defined by Honey (1999), as “travel to
expectations but would also help community fragile, pristine and usually protected areas that
conservation teams better guide their work to have a strives to be low impact and (usually) small scale.
bigger impact on improving community awareness Ecotourism occurs on a smaller scale than forms of
and support and to understand the needs and mass tourism, and is based on the conservation of
expectations of the communities for this support nature and gaining an understanding of local cultures
(Adams and Hulme 2001 cited by Scholte, 2010). (Hawkins and Khan, 1998:196).
Conservation approaches started with “fortress Since 2005, ORTPN has initiated a revenue sharing
conservation” that excluded the local populations scheme whereby 5 percent of tourism revenues from
from the use of natural resources (Kusters, 2009). the park fees are utilized to support local community
This approach considered local people as ignorant projects around national parks, aiming to sensitize
destructors against whom nature should be protected local people to fill that parks are as one of their own.
(Wells & Brandon, 1992:11). In the 1980’s, that old Some of the private tour operators also offer
conservation approach was replaced by a new community-based tourism activities, such as stays
conservation approaches known as “community with a local family, village walks, banana beer
( c) (b)
(c)
(d)
(f)
(b)
(a)
(c )
(b)
Among the Challenges faced by NNP as ORTPN’s represents an increasing threat to the survival of
staff indicated that poverty is a great challenge to the wildlife and of conservation efforts in NNP.
existence of the ANP. He mentioned that because the
community does not have enough food, they tend to Crop raiding is a critical issue for communities living
seek food from hunting in the park and practice other around NNP and is a cause of much of the conflict
illegal activities like seeking fire wood to prepare between community members and NNP. Most
their food. respondents in three districts reported that crop
raiding was a major threat to their economic survival.
In Rwanda and around NNP in particular,
communities depend on farming for their survival, so
crop raiding can lead to misery and friction between
local communities and wildlife. To-date, there has
been little interest from managers to investigate the
patterns of raiding activity by wildlife and its
potential impact on farmers’ food and household
economic security (Hill, et al., 2002). To understand
exactly how particular types of human-wildlife
conflict impact on people’s lives, we need to
understand something of what that situation means to
those individuals (Hill, et al., 2002). As one
community member put it, “when our animals by
mistake go to the park, they are impounded and we
are either charged a fine or imprisoned, but when
their wildlife comes to our fields, they don’t care and
expect us not to care either. Therefore, ORTPN has
to accept the responsibility.
Figure 6. Tourism benefit as incentive for
conservation
This feeling responds to Scheyvens’ (1999) eco-
4. DISCUSSION tourism framework, which spells out signs of
community disempowerment when agencies initiate
or implement ecotourism ventures and treat
Nature-based tourism is seen by many as one savior
communities as passive beneficiaries by failing to
of wildlife conservation, capable of generating a flow
involve them in decision-making, hence a majority of
of revenue to pay the costs of conservation and to
community members feel that they have little or no
meet the needs of local communities (Adams, 2004).
say over whether or not tourism initiatives operate or
Local communities living around NNP have
the way in which they operate. In due course, a
appreciated the ecological services provided to them
compensation program should be implemented to
by NNP. This appears to be a strong basis on which
ensure that local people are part of the overall
to improve the relationship between NNP and the
management of the problem, and can participate in
local community. Furthermore, local community
determining what they consider to be an appropriate
respondents in three districts appreciated the
compensation package. Otherwise, conflict between
importance of protecting and conserving NNP.
communities and wildlife around NNP will remain a
threat to conservation and survival of many species.
However, this support for NNP was based largely on The issue of loss of life and livelihood requires
their appreciation of the ecological services that NNP landmark, realistic and cost effective solutions that
provides. Therefore, it appears fundamental to will shift the economic burdens away from local
correct the imbalance in the flow of revenue and communities to institutions charged with managing
benefits from tourism to three districts, as a way of wildlife for the national benefit. In turn, this will
improving community-park relations. As human ultimately encourage a constructive engagement
populations in Rwanda have increased, and as natural between local communities and the task of
habitats face increasing threats from neighboring conserving wildlife in their neighborhood. A new
communities, people and animals are increasingly concept to share 5% of revenue deriving from
coming into conflict over space for farmland and tourism was proposed for implementation. Projects
food. Communities living around NNP have suffered were identified and money has been set aside since
reduced crop yields, are susceptible to injury and 2002.
death, as a result of which wildlife may attacked as a
means both of self-defense and of gaining some
As contended by Tosun (2000), community
compensation for the damage suffered, and this
involvement in tourism can be considered from at
development so as to provide useful input for future Sumatra, Indonesia. Amsterdam: Rozenberg
planning. Monitoring results must be carefully Publishers.
analyzed to determine appropriate management Lindberg, K. & Hawkins, D.E. 1993. Ecotourism: A
options that lead to specific management and Guide for Planners and Managers. The
awareness building. Ecotourism Society. North Bennington. Vermont
Lindberg, K., Wood, E.W., and Engeldrum, D.,
B. RECOMMENDATIONS (1998). Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and
Managers, Vol.2, The Ecotourism Society, North
Bennington, Vermont, USA.
Tourism activities in Nyungwe National Park should
Mehta, H and Katee, C. (2005). Virunga Massif
be appropriately planned, monitored and managed to
Sustainable Tourism Development Plan, ICCN,
ensure that they do not conflict with conservation
and sustainable use of resources, as well as ORTPN, UWA, IGCP, Kigali-Rwanda.
ORTPN, (2004) Rwanda Office of Tourism and
compromise the livelihood of local residents.
National Parks Strategic Plan 2004-2008, ORTPN,
IGCP, Kigali-Rwanda.
Local communities in NNP area should be engaged
and should be involved in development programmes REMA (2009). Rwanda State of Environment and
in their villages right from the start. outlook report-REMA (online)
REMA, (2010). Rwanda Environmental Education
REFERENCES for Sustainable Development Strategy. A strategy
and Action Plan for 2010-2015. Kigali: REMA
Adams, W.M. (2004). Against Extinction: The Story (online).
of Conservation, Earthscan, London. Rwanyiziri, G., (2011). Community Conservation,
Brandon, K. (1996). Ecotourism and Conservation: Msc Biodiversity Conservation lecture, theme
A Review of Key Issues, Environment Department II.P.22-30
Paper No. 033. The World Bank, Washington D.C, Sayer, J. 1991. Rainforest buffer zones: guidelines
USA. for protected areas management. Gland, Switzerland:
FAO, (2005). Negotiation and mediation techniques IUCN
for natural resource management by Antonia Engel Scholte, P. (2010). Don’t throw out the baby with the
and Benedikt Korf. bathwater: towards a third generation of Integrated
Goodwin, H., Kent, I., Parker, K., and Walpole, M., Conservation and Development, Towards ICD-3.0;
(1998). Tourism, Conservation and Sustainable unpublished
Development: Case Studies from Asia and Africa, Tosun, C. & Jenkins, C. 1998. The Evolution of
Wildlife and Development Series, No. 12, IIED, Tourism Planning in Third World Countries: A
London. Critique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality
Hawkins D. & Khan, M. 1998. Eco-tourism Research, Vol. 4, pp 101-114.
opportunities for developing countries. Global Tosun, C. 2000. Limits to community participation in
Tourism, Theobald, W. (ed), pp. 191-204. Oxford: the tourism development process in developing
Butterworth Heinemann. countries. Tourism management, Vol. 21, pp 613 –
Hvenegaard, G.T. 1994. Ecotourism: A status report 633.
and conceptual framework. The Journal of Tourism UNEP, (2005). Making Tourism more Sustainable: A
Studies, Vol. 5(2), pp 24-35. Guide for Policy Makers, UNEP and WTO, Madrid,
International Institute for Environment and Spain.
Development (IIED), (2009). Community
management of natural resources in Africa. Impacts, Wells, M. & K. Brandon. 1992. People and parks:
experiences and future directions. linking protected areas management with local
Isaacs, J.C. (2000). The Limited Potential of communities. Washington, DC: World Bank/World
Ecotourism to Contribute to Wildlife Conservation, Wildlife Fund/ U.S. Agency for International
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2000, 28(1): 61–69. Development.
John, Terborgh and all. Making Parks work,
Strategies for preserving tropical nature, pp. 365. 26
Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a
good use of biodiversity conservation funds, Ecology
and Evolution, Vol.19, No. 5.
Kusters, K., (2009). Non-timber product trade. A
trade-off between conservation and development.
Assessing the outcomes of non-timber forest product
trade on livelihoods and the environment, with
special emphasis on the damar agroforestry in