lac_tele-impact : Protected Areas in the Congo Basin: Failing both people and biodiversity?

Displacement: No available information.
Diminished livelihoods: Local communities are completely dependent on the natural resources of the reserve for their livelihood activities, but their access to these resources is restricted (IUCN/PACO 2012). The decree creating the reserve provides for an ‘integrally protected zone’, where movement and use rights have to be explicitly authorised by management, as well as a ‘rational use zone’, where local populations can carry out their traditional activities. However, as of 2011, this distinction was not enforced on the ground (PAPACO, 2011). Opportunities for income generation are very restricted: with nearly no access to employment, bans on bushmeat transport and the nearest commercial town being days away by dugout, economic opportunities from non-timber forest products or farming are extremely limited (RFUK field research, 2017). RFUK research also found that many communities are concerned about the destruction of their crops by wild boar and elephants, and the lack of compensation from park authorities.
Conflicts: Conflicts were reported, with local communities preventing eco-guards from accessing certain areas (PAPACO , 201 1).
Human rights abuses: Ecoguards frequently stop villagers and seize their game for their own consumption or profit. They abuse their power, insulting and degrading locals during these searches. Cases of physical assault and beatings have also been recorded. Ecoguards frequently enter and search people’s houses, sometimes at night, without warrants. In February/March 2015, ecoguards burned an entire Baka hunting camp north of Kinami.
Income generating activities: More than 90% of the reserve’s employees’ are reportedly from the local area (PAPACO, 2011), but RFUK field research has found that very few jobs have been created in the villagers, and few villagers were hired as ecoguards, creating tensions in the commuity. However, communities have reported a near complete lack of alternative activities despite promises of compensation through farming and fisheries. Micro-projects started by park management have either failed or been terminated. Furthermore, there is a lack of understanding of the land and local conditions, leading to half-measures that are poorly adapted (RFUK field research, 2017). Income from ecotourism was also promised, but tourism activities are currently almost non-existent. Infrastructure developments (schools, health centres) are still pending (RFUK field research, 2017).
Presence of indigenous peoples: While 90% of the local population belong to the Bomitaba Bantu group, there is a small number of indigenous semi-nomads in the northern periphery of the reserve. (IU CN/CARPE , 2011: 144).
Prior consultation: Overall, there was prior consultation and consent obtained from three out of four villages through meetings. However, few individuals reported being able to have a say in the decision to establish the reserve (RFUK field research, 2017).
Participation and consultation: Communities were expected to be included in decision-making processes. However, as of 2011, this expectation was not met (PAPACO, 2011). Most of the communities do not believe they had the opportunity to give their opinion and influence decisions concerning the management of the resources they depend on. There is a Local Management Committee (CLG) in Epena and Natural Resource Management Committees (CGRN) in each village, but these seem to be primarily information and outreach points. Furthermore, communities are not well informed as to the exact role of these structures (RFUK field research, 2017).