The Unique and Valuable Region of Nyungwe Tropical Montane Rainforest in Rwanda

Home , Nyungwe Forest, Tourism in Rwanda

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

The unique and valuable region of Nyungwe Tropical Montane Rainforest in Rwanda

-An analysis of stakeholders’ attitudes and awareness towards ecosystem services

Sofie Fagerlund & Sofia Öberg

Degree project for Bachelor of Science with a major in Environmental Science 2015, 180 HEC First Cycle Supervisor: Göran Wallin

Abstract Today, many countries in the world are dealing with balancing economic growth while improving social development with a rapidly growing population, which often takes its toll on the preservation of regions with unique ecosystems. Ecosystem services are directly linked to the different physical environments in which organisms live and together form these ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment has defined ecosystem services as; the benefits people obtain from the environment. It is therefore of paramount importance for both people and the environment that different ecosystems are controlled sustainably. For this to be possible, all actors engaged in and around different ecosystem need to be aware of the importance of sustainable development in the region.

In this interview study, conducted in the valuable region of Nyungwe Tropical Montane Rainforest in Rwanda, we compared the attitudes and awareness of the ecosystem services provided by the forest among actors from three groups (locals, businesses and researchers). The locals were selected from three different villages/sectors in which 30 people were interviewed from each sector. Among other aspects, this study was expected to demonstrate the importance of forest-related training for the local communities, for increased awareness of the importance of protecting these ecosystem services. However, it turned out that awareness did not differ significantly between those with and without forest-related training. Overall the majority of the respondents showed high awareness about the importance of protecting the forest, despite a variation of forest-relating training. Another aspect was to investigate if there was any relation between attitudes on benefits of tourism, in correlation to where people lived. It turned out to be no significant difference between the three sectors.

Sammanfattning Det är idag en utmaning för många länder att balansera ekonomisk tillväxt med social välfärd för en ökande befolkning samtidigt som den värdefulla miljön och dess ekosystem inte får försummas. Ekosystemtjänster är direkt kopplade till de olika fysiska miljöer där organismer lever och tillsammans bildar ekosystem. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment har definierat ekosystemtjänster som de fördelar människor får av miljön. Det är alltså av största vikt för både människa och miljö att dessa ekosystem utnyttjas hållbart. För att det ska vara möjligt krävs att samtliga aktörer, engagerade i och kring skogen, är medvetna om vikten av en hållbar utveckling i regionen.

I denna intervjustudie, som utfördes i den värdefulla regionen av den tropiska bergsregnskogen Nyungwe i Rwanda, har attityd och medvetenhet kring ekosystemtjänsterna som skogen tillhandahåller undersöks aktörer från tre olika grupper (lokalbefolkning, företagare, forskare). Fokus har riktats mot lokalbefolkningarnas attityder och medvetenhet där jämförelser gjorts mellan tre olika sektorer (30 personer per sektor). Bland annat förväntades föreliggande studie visa på vikten av skogsrelaterad utbildning för ökad medvetenhet om skogens skyddsvärda ekosystemtjänster. Dock visade det sig att medvetenheten inte skiljde sig signifikant åt mellan de med och utan skogsrelaterad utbildning. Överlag visade det sig att en majoritet av de tillfrågade hade god förståelse för vikten av att bevara skogen, trots en varierande grad av utbildning inom frågan. En annan aspekt var att undersöka om det fanns något samband mellan attityder på fördelarna med turism, i relation till där människor levde. Det visade sig inte vara någon signifikant skillnad mellan de tre sektorerna.

Acknowledgement We would like to share our deepest appreciation to Dr. Göran Wallin for supervising us through our study. Also thanks to SIDA for believing in us and providing us with the scholarship that enabled us to travel to Rwanda to collect our data for this thesis. Thank you to all the wonderful people in Rwanda who welcomed us, especially Ange Imanishimwe, without your generous help we would not have been able to succeed with our data collection. Also thanks to friends and family who helped and supported us throughout our work. We would like to thank Lennart Bornmalm who has been the course coordinator of this examination course in environmental science.

Finally, we would like to thank all the participants that took part in our study, without you, this study would not have been possible.

Göteborg 27-05-2015 Sofie Fagerlund & Sofia Öberg

Table of contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Deforestation ‐ a global issue ...... 1 1.2. Ecosystem services ...... 1 1.3. Nyungwe Tropical Montane Rainforest ...... 2 1.3.1 Compensation ...... 3 1.4. Ecosystem services in Nyungwe forest ...... 3 1.4.1. Training and awareness ...... 4 1.4.2. Tourism ...... 5 1.5. The sectors ...... 5 1.6. Aim of the study ...... 6 1.7. Previous research ...... 6 1.7.1. Training ...... 6 1.7.2. Tourism ...... 7 2. Method ...... 8 2.1. Preparing field work ...... 8 2.2. Literature study ...... 8 2.3. Data collection ...... 8 2.3.1. Respondents ...... 8 2.3.2. Questionnaires ...... 8 2.4. Data analysis ...... 9 2.5. Potential sources of error ...... 10 3. Results ...... 10 3.1. General attitude towards ecosystem services in Nyungwe ...... 10 3.2. Training and awareness ...... 11 3.2.1. Forest related training ...... 11 3.2.2. Interest in cultivating in the National Park ...... 12 3.2.3. Taking goods from the forest ...... 12 3.2.4. Locals ...... 13 3.2.5. Business and researchers ...... 13 3.3. Tourism ...... 14 3.3.1. Benefit from tourism ...... 14 3.3.2. Attitude on increasing tourism ...... 15 3.3.3. Working in the tourism sector ...... 16 3.3.4. Visits in the National Park ...... 16 3.3.5. Locals ...... 16 3.3.6. Business and researchers ...... 17 3.4. Negative effects ...... 17 4. Discussion ...... 17 4.1. Training and awareness ...... 17 4.2. Tourism ...... 18 4.3. Negative effects...... 19 5. Conclusion ...... 20 References ...... i Appendix I ...... I Appendix II ...... VI

1. Introduction

1.1. Deforestation - a global issue Today, many countries around the world are dealing with the same issue: How to increase the economic growth and social development for a growing population while at the same time preserve regions with unique ecosystems. In recent years (2000-2010) Africa had an annual forest loss of 3.4 million hectares per year, which is the second fastest deforestation rate after South America. Most of the deforestation is anthropogenic as a result of conversion to agriculture or infrastructure (FAO, 2010). Rwanda is one of five countries in the world with the highest positive annual change in forest area with a gain of 2.4 percent (FAO, 2010) where 18% of the land area is covered by forest (UN, 2015). Approximately 90% of Rwanda's population is engaged in agriculture and large parts of the country are cultivated for food production (Chew, 1990). However, it is important to keep in mind that Rwanda is the country in Africa with the highest population density, 435 per km2 in 2012, and an annual growth rate of 2.7 percent (UN, 2015), causing high demand for increasing agriculture production. It is only 21 years ago (1994) since the civil war in Rwanda ended. Since then the country has successfully achieved economic development as well as rebuilding the national infrastructure (Clark, 2014). Essential, at times like that, is not to forget the significance of the forests. Also, when exploiting the forests the supply of ecosystem services decreases, this may lead to negative consequences not only locally but also nationally and globally (MA, 2005).

1.2. Ecosystem services The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (MA, 2005) defines ecosystem services in the following way: “Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems”. These services are directly linked to the physical environment where different organisms live and together form an ecosystem (Marshak, 2015). Further, the services have been divided into four categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural (MA, 2005). In this thesis the MA definition will be used as a benchmark. The provisioning services might be the most obvious ones since it consist of material goods, such as fuel wood for energy or timber for construction. The regulating services are non-material, for example filtration of water through soil or pollination. These services are also important on a global scale since the sequestration of greenhouse gases is a service that moderates global warming. Cultural services are activities like tourism, recreation and spiritual practices. Tourism is both recreational for tourists as well as an important source of income and employment for local communities (MA, 2005). Finally, there are the supporting services that have an indirect impact on humans but are essential to the other three categories, for example primary production or soil formation (MA, 2005).

When protecting an area, it is handled with consideration of the environment, biodiversity and the ecosystem services mentioned above. As the definition indicates, the human species is benefitting from the ecosystem services, however, what may easily be overlooked is the fact that the local population not only benefit from a protected area but can also suffer from it

(Masozera et al. 2006). By protecting an area the locals’ access to resources needed for their daily life is being restricted. Lack of education and understanding of the values of keeping an ecosystem protected may lead to feelings of injustice for the local population, which later could lead to illegal activities in the forest (WCS, 2016). This issue could be prevented with support from the government and local meetings where information about the consequences of destroying an important ecosystem is communicated together with optional sources of energy and food (Masozera & Alavalapati, 2004). One of the most important factors could simply be to spread well-organized information in the local communities.

Figure 1: Map of Rwanda with Nyungwe forest and other protected areas (One world 365, 2015).

1.3. Nyungwe Tropical Montane Rainforest The study was conducted in the area of Nyungwe montane tropical rainforest. Nyungwe is located in southeastern Rwanda between 2o17´-2o50´S, 29o07´-29o26´E ranging from 1600 to 2950 m.a.s.l. In total it covers an area of 970 km² (Masozera & Alavalapati, 2004). Nyungwe forest was chosen for the study, as it today is the largest remaining forest in Rwanda (Mazosera & Alavalapati, 2004). The forest is surrounded by a buffer zone, planted with different kinds of eucalyptus and pine trees (Gross-Camp et al. 2015). The interviews were divided into two districts, with three sectors from the two districts, to capture variation of location. Kitabi, Bushekeri and Rangiro were the chosen sectors. These sectors were suitable for the study because of their locations, no further away than ten kilometres from the park border.

This is an empirical study on ecosystem services in the valuable ecosystem of Nyungwe tropical montane rainforest in Rwanda, with the surrounding buffer zone (hereafter referred to as Nyungwe forest). The study is focused on the local communities attitudes and awareness towards some of the ecosystem services of the forest. Attitudes in this thesis clarify whether the stakeholders are positive or negative towards Nyungwe forest. Further, elucidating if they are aware of the ecosystem services it provides together with the importance of protecting this unique area. Nyungwe is the largest remaining forest in Rwanda (Mazosera & Alavalapati, 2004) and together with Kibira National Park in Burundi it forms the largest remaining tropical montane forest in Africa (WCS, 2016). Nyungwe forest has somewhat been protected since 1903, but became a National Park in 2005. Wildlife Conservation Society, WCS, have

the main responsibility to protect the forest (WCS, 2008). Neighbouring communities have neither legal right to enter the forest without permission, nor be part of decision making when it comes to the National Park (Crawford, 2012).

The park hosts a high biodiversity with about 280 bird species, more than 200 tree species, and 13 species of primates, among them the endangered chimpanzee (Plumptre et al. 2007). Large areas have been disturbed by fires and cutting, resulting in the regrowth of secondary forest together with a large area with undisturbed primary forest. Primary tropical forest is interesting to mention since it is the most diverse terrestrial ecosystem (FAO, 2010). The forest is surrounded by a planted buffer zone with exotic species consisting mainly of Eucalyptus sp and Pinuspatula (Gross-Camp et al. 2015). Outside the buffer zone large tea plantations have been established together with extensive areas of small-scale agriculture. As explained in Rwanda Wildlife Policy, RWP, (2013) a buffer zone is a border area that acts a barrier separating or surrounding an area designated for special protection.

Nyungwe forest is an interesting area for the study since many of the ecosystem services are conserved in the protected area but challenged by poverty and at the same time by economic growth, due to a growing population (Randell & McCloskey, 2014). As a rule the greater biodiversity, the more services the ecosystem provides (MA, 2005) and with Nyungwe forest being a rainforest with partly primary forest, there are numerous of services within this region. The soils inside the forest with its high biodiversity have not been used for agriculture, however, the land surrounding the forest has been exposed to intensive farming on steep hills. This has led to soil acidity, low fertility, accelerated erosion and low crop yields in the farming areas (Yamoah et al. 1990).

1.3.1 Compensation According to the compensation law (N°26/2011), laws exist that cover compensation for people getting hurt, killed or crops raided by animals coming from the National parks or other protected areas. People can be compensated for transport costs, financial loss, moral loss and physical loss. The Prime Minister is in charge of the compensation for any harm caused by animals.

1.4. Ecosystem services in Nyungwe forest Among with many other developing countries Rwanda has a great demand for fuel wood; this has shown to be a major concern in discussions in resource use in Rwanda (Ndayambaje & Mohren, 2011). Nearly 85% of the Rwandan population uses fuel wood for cooking (MINECOFIN, 2003). Wood is also used in many small-scale industries and public institutions. It is not sustainable to use trees from a protected area mainly since it is a unique area, but also because of the prevention of erosion that the trees are responsible of (Ndayambaje & Mohren, 2011). Taking trees from sustainable sources is of highest importance for a sustainable development in the area. In this study, an analysis was conducted on the correlation between forest related training of people and goods taken from the Nyungwe forest.

Figure 2: Nyungwe rainforest.

The buffer zone was originally created as a protection of the rare animals and plant species that lives within it, as well as a protection from animals coming and raiding the crops of neighbouring communities. The buffer zone was privatized in 2011 by the British New Forest Company, NFC (Gross-Camp et al. 2015). This has resulted in an additional decrease of resources for the local communities living around the forest. The most important provisioning services of the buffer zone used to include timber, dead branches for firewood, grass for the domestic animals and other plants for medicine and craftwork (Gross-Camp et al. 2015), but these are no longer legal for the locals to access. Restriction from these services together with poverty has led to problems including illegal activity where people take goods from the forest without permission (Wildlife Conservation Society, Rwanda, 2007-2015). Information about the value of the ecosystem and its services together with economical and alternative sources of goods could help decrease illegal activity in Nyungwe forest.

1.4.1. Training and awareness When the Buffer zone was developed in 1987, WCS created an educational program for the communities closest to Nyungwe forest. This program made it possible for the communities to learn about conservation and how to protect the forest (Gross-Camp et al., 2015). The action plan UNSD (1992), made by the United Nations, elucidated the importance of education to achieve sustainable development. Not only education at higher level but also small-scale public meetings are important to improve the level of awareness of the environment and sustainable development (UNSD, 1992). By transmitting knowledge about the relation between protection of the forests and the ecosystem services it provides, a sustainable use of these and other ecosystems could become reality. Environmental and ethical awareness is of great importance not only on a global scale but also locally. In Rwanda there have been public awareness campaigns since 1980 to engage the communities in

community-level activities of different conservation themes. According to Chew (1990) these campaigns have been rewarding for the country. Training and information about the value of the ecosystems as well as the preservation of biodiversity is crucial for Rwanda, both for protecting the ecosystem services it provides, but also for keeping a steady national income from tourism.

One of the aims in this study was to investigate the importance of training in local communities around Nyungwe forest.

1.4.2. Tourism Tourism has throughout the last years been a factor, a minor but still an important one, for the sub-Saharan countries in their economic growth (World Tourism Organization, 2014). National parks, together with other conserved and protected regions, contribute to the most popular tourist attractions among people traveling to Africa. East Africa belongs to the African regions that most tourists travel to when it comes to experiencing wildlife.

Increasing tourism could be an important solution for local communities who suffer from unemployment, and also as a catalyser for the local economic growth (Wearing & Parsonson, 1991). For some remote regions with no other financial income, this can be a great chance for development and it is also a business where women can be included (World Tourism Organization, 2014). In Rwanda, tourism is the fourth source of foreign exchange for the country (Chew, 1990) and it is a growing business (Spenceley et al. 2010). In Nyungwe forest there are various kinds of tourist attraction such as bird watching, wildlife observation and tracking of the threatened chimpanzee. In 2005, the Rwandan development board (RDB, 2015), started a revenue sharing program initiative, where 5% of the total revenues from the three national parks in Rwanda is shared among the communities. This revenue is supposed to support community projects such as infrastructure, schools and beekeeping. This is also supposed to serve as an incentive for the local communities to take part in the conservation of the national parks.

1.5. The sectors Rwanda is divided into 30 districts with in total 416 sectors, three of these sectors have been chosen for this study. Kitabi is one of 17 sectors in Nyamagabe district, which is the district on the east side of Nyungwe forest. Kitabi is not yet developed in tourism provisions, but the area is emerging with plans for at least one more hotel according to A. Imanishimwe (personal communication, 27-02-2015). The other two sectors, Bushekeri and Rangiro are both from Nyamasheke district, located northwest of Nyungwe forest. In Bushekeri, there are a few well-established hotels that offer a range of tourism attractions. Nyamagabe and Nyamasheke are located almost as far away from each other as possible among the districts surrounding the forest. All villages in the Rangiro sector are complicated to travel to, for example one of the villages only has a poorly developed dirt road leading down to the village. The two other sectors had more developed infrastructure.

Figure 3: Bushekeri sector.

1.6. Aim of the study In this study the attitudes and awareness of the ecosystem services in the region of Nyungwe forest was investigated among three different stakeholder groups; locals, businesses and researchers. This was conducted by peruse an interview survey among selected samples among individuals within these groups. The locals were also selected from three different sectors where the people have received various degree of training and different experience of tourism. The following hypotheses were developed: i) Forest related training would result in greater awareness of the importance of Nyungwe forest; ii) There is a relation between where locals live and their attitudes on benefits of tourism.

1.7. Previous research

1.7.1. Training By having the local communities respect and understand the value of nature, it can benefit both the local region and the world globally (Cobbinah, 2015; Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997; Snyman, 2014). By teaching the local communities about the value of nature disturbances as fire; illegal harvesting; hunting bush meet, can be prevented (Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997) and important knowledge can be shared (Swanson & Brown, 2004). Furthermore, it has been shown that rural people get more involvement and show greater understanding of their complex livelihoods and environment, if they have had some kind of training (Ghimire & Pimbert, 1997; Snyman, 2014).

By being aware of their benefits from ecosystem services, rural people can have a positive attitude about their own interest in protecting the valuable nature, as well as having the power to influence decision makers to adopt further eco-friendly policies, to maintain the ecosystem services and the environment (Asah et al., 2014).

A study conducted in a protected area in Uganda showed that the local population were positive both towards the conservation of the area as well as preserving education (Oonyu,

2009). The same study also points out the importance of continued education with an increasing population of people and livestock, which also occurs in Rwanda, to be able to keep up the locals’ appreciation towards conservation of the area of interest (Oonyu, 2009).

Oonyu (2001) suggests that positive attitudes towards conservation of a park and environmental awareness, also can derive from the locals’ dependence of the parks’ resources, so necessarily it doesn’t have to come from training. However, this willingness to conserve valuable regions, must be combined with education to provide the locals with effective tools for conservation for a sustainable result (Oonyu, 2009) Oonyu also suggest to combine training about environmental awareness with conflict resolution, to avoid dissatisfaction from locals’ that in one way or another may feel violated. Differences in locals’ attitudes towards conservation may be due to a difference or transformation in their received socio-economic benefits (Cobbinah, 2015; Oonyu, 2009; Ite, 1996; Sekhar, 2003). Conflicts may lead to negative attitudes towards the conservation (Oonyu, 2009; Sekhar, 2003).

1.7.2. Tourism Tourism in and around protected areas can be positive for local communities but must be done in a sustainable and well-planned manner (Gunce, 2003; Snyman, 2014). Positive attitudes towards tourism could be important for the conservation of the area, since it can generate positive attitudes towards conservation (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Snyman, 2014; Xu et al., 2009). There are reasons for local communities to have positive attitudes towards tourism: it can benefit the local population by job opportunities (Brankov et al., 2015; Gunce, 2003) as well as being a possible driver of development in the area (Brankov et al., 2015; Gunce, 2003; Snyman, 2014)

Furthermore, it is more likely that locals that depend on tourism will have more positive attitudes on tourism than locals not depending on tourism, regardless how far away from the tourist are they are situated (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Sekhar, 2003; Mansfeld & Ginosar, 1994). Studies show different results on the relation of how close people are situated from the tourist area and if they benefit from tourism (Sekhar, 2003). Examples shows that locals living closer to protected areas have a more negative look on tourism and conservation of the area, since they suffer from damaged crops by wildlife (Snyman, 2014). Studies have shown cases where locals feel that other people benefit more from tourism than the locals themselves (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Sekhar, 2003; Xu et al., 2009) and it is therefore a good idea to even out the benefits among the local communities (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001), to get the support to conserve from all local communities neighbouring the protected area.

2. Method

2.1. Preparing field work To start the study a workshop was held with the authors of this study, two professors and one student from University of Rwanda together with Dr. GöranWallin from Gothenburg University. This meeting enabled to get an extensive understanding of the area together with the ecosystem services it provides. The study is an empirical study consisting of both quantitative and qualitative data in form of a household questionnaire conducted in the three selected sectors connected to the forest.

2.2. Literature study Secondary data was reviewed initially through the university library using a range of information sources such as previous undergraduate thesis, articles from bibliographic databases, and Internet search engines.

2.3. Data collection In total 110 interviews were held with respondents from three different stakeholders; locals from neighbouring communities, small-and large scale businesses and researchers from different scientific areas. From the three chosen sectors 30 respondents were selected with quota sample. Chosen for the interviews were locals actually living, and not only working in the sectors. In case of any respondent not willing to answer some of the questions, this was noted and registered in the results. When interviewing the respondents an interpreter was hired, and when possible the interviews were held in English. Due to a limited time schedule four different interpreters were used in this study. All interpreters were familiar with the region and three out of four were in addition educated in the area of interest.

2.3.1. Respondents The study focused on investigating the three different stakeholders’ awareness and attitudes towards ecosystem services of Nyungwe forest. All of the chosen stakeholders are dependent on the forest one way or another; hence the interest in learning if there are any differences in attitudes and awareness. These stakeholders are all active either in or around the National Park within an area of ten kilometres from the park border, with an exception for the researchers since the University of Rwanda is located in Butare. This distance was chosen because it is important for the study to interview stakeholders in close contact to the forest. To avoid the results being too disperse, the respondents were categorised into the three different stakeholder classifications; locals, businesses and researchers. Different businesses were contacted and asked to be interviewed for the study. In total ten businesses from the three sectors accepted to participate. The businesses were both small-scale local entrepreneurs, like shop-owners, as well as big companies such as an international road building company with hundreds of employees only in Rwanda. From the university of Rwanda ten researchers with different backgrounds and scientific expertise were interviewed.

2.3.2. Questionnaires Two different questionnaires, see appendix I, were developed, the first one where the respondents own point of views was determined for locals and businesses. A checklist

attached to this questionnaire was conducted to be able to map from where they got their daily use of materials, such as fuel wood, construction material etc. The second questionnaire was focused on the researcher's awareness around the ecosystem services and the benefits of the local population. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: General information of the respondent, General about benefits, and Specific benefits. Part one was to collect the quantitative data about the respondent, such as age, gender etc. Part two included questions where the respondent could answer freely about the benefits of Nyungwe forest. Part three was specific about their daily needs connected to ecosystem services and lastly the mentioned checklist. The questionnaires were developed in English and translated by the interpreters to the local language Kinyarwanda. All interviews were conducted orally and each question was reported back so corrections could be made. To reduce risk of bias, a test interview was held with all interpreters before starting the interviews. The interviews started out with a detailed description for the respondents of how, by whom and why the study was created.

Figure 4: Meeting with the interpreter.

2.4. Data analysis In this empirical research it was decided to collect both quantitative and qualitative data to get a wider understanding of the stakeholders’ attitudes and awareness towards ecosystem services of Nyungwe forest. The main part of the results has been managed quantitatively. The answers collected from the researchers and businesses have been used in the analysis and discussion. All the respondents have a separate anonymous code from 1- 110. The answers were coded and turned into nominal-scale for easier use in the statistical program.

SPSS was used for handling the statistical data. Due to the fact that the data in this study was measured on a nominal scale, Chi-square test for independence was used: a non-parametric technique. The Chi-square test was used to determine whether two categorical variables are related. The full output from the statistical analysis is attached in appendix II.

Summative content analysis was used as a method for analysing the qualitative data. The questionnaires were repeatedly read through and quotes relevant for the issue and mentioned

by the majority were selected. The qualitative questions were used in the analysis and discussion.

2.5. Potential sources of error A higher number of respondents would have resulted in more robust results. Due to lack of time and financial resources for further interviews the given interviews were decided to be sufficient. Using an interpreter was necessary for the study but can also lead to biased results. Errors could occur when translating from English to Kinyarwanda and the other way around. It was clarified what each question meant, and both the interpreter and the respondent had the opportunity to get every question explained and expressed more wide-ranged to reduce misunderstandings. The interpreter asked questions and reported back to the interviewer after each question. Notes were taken of the answers and there was a possibility to ask follow-up questions after the given answer. Neither the respondents nor the interviewers were able to contact each other for further complimenting questions after the interviews been held.

The locals are today restricted by rules and regulations regarding taking goods from both the National Park (Biodiversity law, 2013) and the buffer zone (A. Imanishimwe, personal communication, 05-03-2015). There could have been a risk of locals not telling the truth regarding what they actually take from the forest. To reduce this risk it was made sure that the respondents understood that given answers only will be used in this study and were anonymous.

3. Results

3.1. General attitude towards ecosystem services in Nyungwe In total 92.2% of the interviewed locals considered Nyungwe forest to be important for them and their daily life, the remaining 7.8% said it is not important. What many mentioned as the most important benefits was that the forest provides rain and good air (what we interpreted as carbon sequestration, but by respondents explained as good air, however there could also be other benefits included in this). One local said, “Without the forest this area would turn into a desert”. 74.4% of the locals said that their benefits mainly come from the national park, 11.6% indicate that their benefits mainly come from the buffer zone and the remaining from both or neither areas. There were examples of locals arguing that the benefits have decreased since the privatization of the buffer zone in 2011. One local respondent said “Everyone benefit from the National Park one way or another but it is only the companies that benefit from the buffer zone”. Several locals talked about the financial compensation they could obtain from the government but they also mentioned how complicated it was to receive it. The researchers had no clear overview of the negative effects that could influence the locals. The majority of the participating locals in this study claimed that they benefit from local tourism, even though it is not directly but indirectly through the revenue sharing program. More than 93% of the locals are positive about increasing tourism in the region with the hope that it will lead to more job opportunities. Overall between the three sectors there was a resemblance in the results.

Table 1: The local respondents all answered what they perceived as the most important ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services Kitabi sector Rainfall Oxygen Good air Bushekeri sector Rainfall Tourism Good air Rangiro sector Rainfall Tourism Good air

Figure 5: Forest related training about Nyungwe forest in the three different sectors.

3.2. Training and awareness

3.2.1. Forest related training The locals were asked if they have had any forest related training concerning Nyungwe forest. There was a significant difference, see figure 5, with Bushekeri having the highest amount of trained people. Furthermore there was no significant difference between the other two sectors, Kitabi and Rangiro. Among the younger respondents, age group < 20 years old, many said that they got forest-related training in school. Some of them even took part in environmental clubs in school. Through these clubs they did not only get education about these matters but were also provided with for example books from RDB, as a reward to encourage the students to participate in these questions. Among the people who answered no to this question some explained that they through talking to neighbours and family members had received some kind of information but nothing formal. From that mouth-to-mouth method the importance of the forest was spread in the villages. One woman from Kitabi sector also mentioned the radio as a source of information about the forest and the environment. This was also mentioned by one of the researchers.

Figure 6: Showing if locals from the three different sectors would like to be able to cultivate crops in the National Park.

3.2.2. Interest in cultivating in the National Park Locals were asked if they would like to be able to cultivate crops (if allowed) in the National Park. There were no significant differences between the three different sectors (see figure 6). The majority of the responding locals would not like to cultivate in the National Park. As a continuation to this question the majority stated that it would cause more harm than benefits to cultivate in the forest area. However, there were a few examples of respondents who were interested in cultivating in the forest if allowed, “if I was allowed I would cultivate in the forest, the soil there is much better than the soil outside the forest”, one respondent in Kitabi said. But figure 6 distinguishably shows that only a minority of the respondents want to cultivate in the rainforest even though it has fertile soils.

3.2.3. Taking goods from the forest The locals were asked if they took food, fuel wood, charcoal, material for construction, material for craftwork, medicine or any other kind of goods from Nyungwe forest. The questions were later summarised into if they took anything from the forest. There were no significant differences between the three different sectors (see figure 7). The majority of the responding locals stated that they are not taking goods from the forest, however more than one third of the people do. Among the ones taking goods from the forest, fuel wood was the most common answer (Table 2). The questions were personal, but some of the respondent said that members of the family take goods from the forest to use in the household but this has not been included in the results since the questions were addressed specifically if the respondent took goods from the forest. Overall, the results where similar between the sectors.

Figure 7: Showing if locals from the three different districts take any goods from the buffer zone or National Park.

Table 2: Indicating how many of the local respondents taking the different kinds of goods from Nyungwe forest.

Type of Fuel Material for Material for Anything Food Charcoal Medicine goods wood construction craftwork else Amount of 5 30 0 5 2 7 2 respondents

3.2.4. Locals Inhabitants of Bushekeri have significantly more training and there are examples of locals from this area taking goods such as plants for medicinal use from the protected area. However, there is no significant difference in doing so compared to the sectors with less number of locals with training. A third of the locals claimed they took fuel wood from the forest. Overall it did not show significantly in our study that the ones without forest related training had different awareness of the value of the forest than the respondents with training. The locals without training did not take more goods from the forest or showed more interest in growing crops in the National Park compared to the ones with training.

3.2.5. Business and researchers The businesses participating in this study highlighted the importance of the forest for their business. All representatives from this stakeholder group had received information/training about protection of the forest, which was made clear through all of the interviews. The majority of these representatives showed great awareness of the forest both for the local communities as well as for the whole country “the actual forest is a great benefit for the whole country. If it was not here we would suffer from environmental problems”.

Some of the researchers mentioned how important it is to educate the local communities about the values of the ecosystem services in Nyungwe forest. This to be able to obtain a sustainable

future for the forest and it was also mentioned that there was a lack of needed information today, and also already trained locals are more attractive for the business to hire, which was mentioned by majority of the businesses. On the other hand another researcher mentioned how good the communication system is in Rwanda today and that all the locals get the training they need through the radio.

3.3. Tourism

3.3.1. Benefit from tourism

Figure 8: Indicating if locals think they benefit or not from tourism.

Locals were asked if they consider themselves benefit from tourism or not. There was no significant difference between the three sectors (see figure 8). This question was for each and every respondent to interpret. It could either be from a financial perspective or as one respondent said, “tourism in the region is a great way to spread knowledge about our country to the rest of the world”. The majority of the respondents considered themselves benefitting from tourism. The majority of the people who considered themselves benefiting from tourism said that the benefits came from job opportunities, either for the respondent themselves or to someone in the family. It could either be jobs directly linked to tourism working as guides or at the hotels, nevertheless as the community's economy grows job opportunities can appear also in other sectors. Some of the businesses wouldn't exist without the tourists, hotels and tourist agencies. Other businesses that would survive without tourism still saw that they benefitted from tourism since they had received an increased amount of customers in their shop after the National Park was announced.

Figure 9: Indicating locals’ attitude on increasing tourism between the three different sectors.

3.3.2. Attitude on increasing tourism Locals were asked about what their opinion on increasing tourism was and there was no significant difference between the three different sectors (see figure 9). No one answered no to this question, only yes or do not know. The majority answered yes on this question. This is a continuation of previous question (see figure 8). The majority of the people answering yes to whether they benefit or not from tourism, used the same reasoning on this question to why they were positive towards increasing tourism in the area.

Figure 10: Showing how many locals who have tourism related job between the three different sectors.

3.3.3. Working in the tourism sector Locals were asked about where they got their financial income from, the ones who had a tourism-related job, were added up in the three different sectors. There was a significant difference between the three sectors (see figure 10), where Rangiro had the highest amount of people with a tourism-related job. The most common source of income was from selling products grown on their own crops.

Figure 11: Showing how frequently locals from the three different sectors visits the National Park.

3.3.4. Visits in the National Park Locals were asked how often they visit the National Park. There was a significant difference (see figure 11) regarding how often the individuals visited the National Park. Rangiro was the sector where people visited the National Park more regularly. Respondents in this sector visited the park because of work-related activities in the park, for example guiding tourists or assist researchers. They also had to pass through the park to get to other regions in the country, unlike the other two sectors where people could travel to other regions without having to pass the park. Barely no one visited the park for educational or recreational purposes, simply because they could not afford it. Many respondents talked about their interest of seeing some of the animals in the park and the primary forest and how they would want to visit if it would be free of charge or at least cheaper.

3.3.5. Locals The majority of the local respondents said that they benefit from tourism in the area and were also positive towards an increase in tourism. Mainly because they hoped for more job opportunities “If there will be more tourists, there will be more job opportunities for me and my family” one local from Kitabi sector replied. Tourism was mentioned by the locals as one of the most important ecosystem service in both Rangiro and Bushekeri sector. In Rangiro, a significantly higher amount of people had employment within the tourism sector, compared to the other two sectors.

3.3.6. Business and researchers All of the responding business representatives were positive towards increasing tourism in the area. For example some of these representatives mentioned that they were directly dependent on the forest and the tourism that it attracts, “without Nyungwe we would have to close down our business” one business representative explained.

Among the researchers there is a common opinion that tourism is beneficial both locally and nationally. “We don't have industries so tourism is good. It's better for developing countries, not only the locals but for the whole country, to work for more tourism, it's income generating. It helps spreading information about our country,” one of the researchers said.

3.4. Negative effects With all the experienced benefits there is still 55.6% that stated that there are some negative effects from the protected forest. The most common negative effect is animals coming from Nyungwe forest and destroying the neighbouring communities’ crops “before the area was declared as a National park we could protect our crops from the animals, but now we are not allowed to do that anymore”, one local claimed. The businesses agreed with the locals about the animals causing harm and mentioned that a fence would decrease their problems.

4. Discussion Chi-square tests were made on various combinations and parameters to capture potential differences between the locals’ attitudes and awareness. A great part of the tests did not show any significant difference. Attitudes on the forest and its ecosystem services might not be able to view from only parameters like location of home, age and sex etc. An extensive research has to be conducted to get the whole picture of the attitudes and knowledge.

4.1. Training and awareness The locals from the different sectors were asked if they had participated in any kind of training or information about Nyungwe forest. There was a significant difference between the three sectors, where Bushekeri having the highest number of people with forest related training. One reason for this could be the well-established hotels that are located on this side of the forest. These hotels offered different kind of tourism attractions where locals were hired as for example guides and porters. Furthermore, both RDB and WCS have offices located in Bushekeri; this might also be a reason to easier access to training and information for the local community. WCS arrange local meetings and inform selected local leaders in villages (WCS, 2016). Even though there was a significant difference in training, the results do not show a difference in attitudes and awareness about the benefits of Nyungwe forest. This was showed in both the analysis of whether locals would gather goods from the forest and if they would (if allowed) like to cultivate in the National Park. Again, this indicates that even though they have training or not they understand consequences of exploiting the forest. This has also been shown in previous research, where being dependent on different resources is stated as an example (Oonyu, 2001). However, there were some local respondents telling us that they would like to be able to take more from the forest or be able to cultivate crops, but due to the

legal consequences they did not go through with it. Even though the locals seem to have knowledge, the rules and regulations need to be communicated for total protection. It is important to bear in mind that it is illegal to take wood from the forest since it is a National Park and nowadays it is also illegal to take from the buffer zone since the management of it got privatized. So there is a risk that some of the respondents have not answered fully truthful on this which is indicated by the follwing commentary: “It is not legal to take wood from the park so I don’t do it, but I know others in my village that do”, by a respondent from Rangiro sector.

There are cooperatives that provide former poachers with alternative work or domestic animals, as well as teaching them not to perform illegal activities (WCS, 2008). “Training people has reached a level where even ancient poachers have become guards”, this is something researchers are aware of. Our results show that the level of forest related training has not affected the attitude towards the National Park and its ecosystem services. However, some of the businesses used the advantages of already trained locals and saw the great possibility in hiring locals that were trained earlier in conservation and protection of the forest. If RDB and WCS finance training for a larger part of the local population in all sectors surrounding the forest, the possibility for them to get employed by recently developed and future businesses in the area could increase. The chances of employment might increase with the level of training and information of Nyungwe forest, which is important for keeping the positive attitudes towards the conservation among the local communities (Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Snyman, 2014; Xu et al., 2009).

4.2. Tourism An increase of tourism is in many ways good for the country and might be necessary for a stable economic growth (Wearing & Parsonson, 1991). On the other hand, there might be negative consequences of tourism; there is the risk of stressing the animals and wearing down of tracks. The chimpanzee is an endangered species that lives in Nyungwe forest; frequent visits of tourists could harm their natural habitat. If tourism would increase intensely there is a risk of consequences that could not be reversed (Green et al., 2001). As shown in this study, tourism is valued by the locals as one of the most important ecosystem services for two of the sectors. Furthermore, there is no significant difference in whether the locals benefit from tourism or not and their views on increasing tourism. Our results show that most respondents in all three stakeholder groups were positive towards increasing tourism. Many also mentioned that this could provide more job opportunities. As mentioned before by providing training to locals it might increase their possibility for more job opportunities. Furthermore, many of the respondents mentioned the revenue sharing program organized by RDB. The majority of the local respondents were aware of these and felt positive about this project but were hoping for more support and further revenue to be able to be independent and self- sufficient and not depending on someone else for their income and livelihood.

An increase in local initiatives such as selling craftwork, art, tea, coffee and honey is something that could generate more income directly to the locals. Also small cafés that only serve locally made products are rare to see around the forest. “People are willing to leave

agriculture into tourism and handicraft, work as guides, set up some small businesses. Opening those opportunities will let them stay proud of staying close to the forest. They would feel that they protect the forest while getting something for it” as a business representative mentioned.

There are many places around the world that could act as an inspiration Nyungwe forest for handling and turning tourism into an advantage for more locals, for example in Northern Ontario, Canada, where an economically weak island used ecotourism to create a sustainable livelihood in the community. They have not only successfully created a tourism-based economy but also integrated the culture and values of the indigenous people (Graci, 2012). A manager of one of the businesses in this study were aware of the possibilities and proposed an initiative where tourists could visit the local villages and get customary Rwandan food and traditional African massages. It is important to make sure that increasing tourism is handled in a sustainable manner (Gunce, 2003; Snyman, 2014).

Rangiro was the sector with the highest amount of local people visiting the National Park. The study showed the differences between the numbers of visits, see figure 11, and the fact that Rangiro also is the sector with the highest amount of people having tourism related jobs, see figure 10. Also Rangiro is located centrally in the National Park so people have to travel through both the buffer zone and National Park when going somewhere. Almost all respondents were positive towards increasing tourism; among the locals the main reason for this was a wish for more job opportunities. The businesses saw an increase in tourism as a mean for increasing their profit. In Rangiro they even stated tourism as one of the top three most important ecosystem services. This was also mentioned in Bushekeri sector with the largest amount of hotels and other tourism establishments. Tourism was not on the top three list in Kitabi sector and that is probably because fewer people work with tourism related jobs and do not experience the direct benefits from tourism. Another factor that could affect the results is the fact that there is no expanded hotel range in this area.

4.3. Negative effects Many of the respondents have mentioned animals destroying crops as the main negative effect of Nyungwe National Park. Even though we have focused on three different sectors and three different stakeholders, this problem has been overall the most mentioned one. As many respondents mentioned it should be easier to put up a fence, or some other solution, to protect the animals from humans and the other way around. One of the business respondents discussed the problems in terms of the lacking security around the forest; “both animals and people break in and vandalize the facilities”. The majority of the respondents interviewed were highly dependent on private crops for both a source of food and income, and many expressed negative feelings about the fact that they always had to worry about these animals. Some kind of protection from the animals could help decrease their problems and the attitudes towards the forest would hopefully improve.

5. Conclusion None of the hypothesis: i) Forest related training will result in greater awareness of the importance of Nyungwe forest; ii) There is a relation between where locals live and their attitudes on benefits of tourism, were supported by our findings;

Earlier studies have shown that information and training is important for a sustainable protection of valuable areas. It did not show significantly in our study that the ones with less forest related training had a poorer understanding of the importance of protecting the area. A majority of the respondents, with or without training, understood that the forest must be protected and behaved accordingly, without performing illegal activity in the National Park and its surrounding buffer zone, in contrast to our hypothesis. Our results show that the level of forest related training has not affected the attitude towards the National Park and its ecosystem services; further studies are necessary to get more information.

Almost all respondents were positive towards increasing tourism no matter where they lived, again in contrast to our hypothesis. Among the locals the main reason for this was a wish for more job opportunities. The businesses saw an increase in tourism as means of heightening their profit. Importantly, it must be managed in a sustainable way that will not harm the valuable ecosystem of Nyungwe forest. There are some locals benefitting from tourism today, but relatively more effort needs to be done to include more people in this matter. When large hotels are established it could for example be mandatory to involve local communities at some degree in development.

The main negative effect from the forest; animals raiding crops could be prevented with some sort of protection, for example a fence that could separate the animals from the humans, however, before doing that the effects of restricted migration needs to evaluated.

Forest related training, sustainable eco-tourism and some kind of protection from and for the animals is needed to enhance the positive attitudes and awareness of the stakeholders in and around Nyungwe forest. This would most likely lead to involvement of all stakeholders in and around Nyungwe forest, in protecting the valuable area and its ecosystem services. Protecting this unique and valuable area is not only important for the local communities, but also nationwide and globally.

References Asah, S. T., Guerry, A. D., Blahna, D. J., & Lawler, J. J. (2014). Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: Human behaviour, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosystem Services, 10, 180-186. Assessment, M. E. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Brankov, J., Jovičić, D., & Milijašević, D. (2015). Sustainable tourism in National Park "Đerdap", Serbia-attitudes of local population. Journal of the Geographical Institute Jovan Cvijic, SASA, 65(2), 183-199. Chew, S. T. (1990). Natural resources Management: issues and lessons from Rwanda. US. Agency for international development. Clark, P. (2014). After genocide: Democracy in Rwanda, 20 years on. Juncture, 20(4), 308- 311. Cobbinah, P. B. (2015). Local attitudes towards natural resources management in rural Ghana. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 26(3), 423-436. Crawford, A. (2012). Conflict-Sensitive Conservation in Nyungwe National Park: Conflict analysis. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development. FAO, U. (2010). Global forest resource assessment. UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome. Ghimire, K. B., & Pimbert, M. P. (1997). Social change and conservation: an overview of issues and concepts. Social change and conservation: Environmental politics and impacts of national parks and protected areas, 1-45. Green, R., Higginbottom, K., & Northrope, C. (2001). A tourism classification of Australian wildlife. CRC for Sustainable Tourism. Gross-Camp, N. D., Martin, A., McGuire, S., & Kebede, B. (2015). The Privatization of the Nyungwe National Park Buffer Zone and Implications for Adjacent Communities. Society & Natural Resources, 28(3), 296-311. Gunce, E. (2003). Tourism and local attitudes in Girne, Northern Cyprus. Cities, 20(3), 181- 195. Ite, D.U.E. 1996, Community perceptions of the Cross River National Park, Nigeria, Environmental Conservation, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 351-357. Mansfeld, Y., & Ginosar, O. (1994). Determinants of locals' perceptions and attitudes towards tourism development in their locality. Geoforum, 25(2), 227-248. Marshak, S. (2015). Earth: portrait of a planet, 5th edn, W.W. Norton & Company, New York. Masozera, M. K., Alavalapati, J. R. (2004). Forest dependency and its implications for protected areas management: a case study from the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19(S4), 85-92. Masozera, M. K., Alavalapati, J. R., Jacobson, S. K., & Shrestha, R. K. (2006). Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(2), 206-216.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning. (2003). 3rd General Census of Population and Housing of Rwanda, August 2002. Kigali: Republic of Rwanda. Ndayambaje, J. D., &Mohren, G. M. J. (2011). Fuelwood demand and supply in Rwanda and the role of agroforestry. Agroforestry systems, 83(3), 303-320. Official Gazette n°34. (27 07 2011). Law on compensation for damages caused by animals. 26. Kigali: Ministry of justice. Official Gazette n°38. (23 09 2013). Biodiversity law. Kigali: Ministry of justice. One world 365. (2007 - 2015). Rwanda - Volunteer, Gap Year & Tours. Gathered from: http://www.oneworld365.org/travel/rwanda the 24 05 2015. Oonyu, J. C. (2009). Conservation education and the attitudes of local communities living adjacent to Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 8(3-4), 153-164. Oonyu, J. (2001). Environmental awareness of local communities living around Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda. Environmental Education and Information, 20(3), 169-186. Plumptre, A.J., Davenport, T.R.B., Behangana, M., Kityo, R., Eilu, G., Ssegawa, P., Ewango, C., Meirte, D., Kahindo, C., Herremans, M., Peterhans, J.K., Pilgrim, J.D., Wilson, M., Languy, M. & Moyer, D. (2007) The biodiversity of the Albertine Rift, Biological Conservation, vol. 134, no. 2, pp. 178-194. Randell, S. (2014). Sustainable Rural Development in Rwanda: The Importance of a Focus on Women in Agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Extension, 107-119. Republic of Rwanda Ministry of Infrastructure. (2010). National Policy & Strategy for Water Supply and Sanitation Services. Gathered from: http://www.mininfra.gov.rw/uploads/media/National_Policy_and_Strategy_for_water_and _sanitation.pdf the 25.05.2015 R GRACI, Sonya. (2012) Putting Community Based Tourism into Practice: The Case of the Cree Village Ecolodge in Moose Factory, Ontario. Téoros. Revue de recherche en tourisme Hors série-1: 65-70. Rwanda Development Board (RDB). (2015). Community Initiatives. Gathered from: http://www.rdb.rw/tourism-and-conservation/conservation/community-initiatives.html the 25 .05.2015 Sekhar, N. U. (2003). Local people's attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of environmental Management, 69(4), 339- 347. Snyman, S. (2014). Assessment of the main factors impacting community members' attitudes towards tourism and protected areas in six southern African countries. Koedoe, 56(2), 1- 12. Spenceley, A., Habyalimana, S., Tusabe, R., &Mariza, D. (2010). Benefits to the poor from gorilla tourism in Rwanda. Development Southern Africa, 27(5), 647-662. Swanson, W. F., & Brown, J. L. (2004). International training programs in reproductive sciences for conservation of Latin American felids. Animal reproduction science, 82, 21- 34. United nations sustainable development (UNSD). (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 28(02), 160-166. Wearing, S., & Parsonson, R. (1991). Rainforest tourism. Tourism Management, 12(3), 236- 244. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Rwanda. (2008). Community Enterprise Development. Wildlife Conservation Society- Rwanda Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Rwanda. (2016). Places Africa. Gathered from: http://www.wcs.org/saving-wild-places/africa/nyungwe-forest-rwanda.aspx the 25.05 .2015 Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Rwanda. (2016). Welcome to WCS Rwanda. Gathered from: http://programs.wcs.org/rwanda/Home.aspx the 22.05.2015. World Tourism Organization. (2014). Towards Measuring Value of Wildlife Watching Tourism in Africa - Briefing Paper. UNWTO. Madrid Xu, J., Lü, Y., Chen, L., & Liu, Y. (2009). Contribution of tourism development to protected area management: local stakeholder perspectives. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 16(1), 30-36. Yamoah, C. F., Burleigh, J. R., & Malcolm, M. R. (1990). Application of expert systems to study of acid soils in Rwanda. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 30(3), 203-218.

iii

Appendix I MAPPING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE REGION OF NYUNGWE FOREST (Questionnaire for Locals)

We are two students from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, Europe. We are doing a study on ecosystem services in Nyungwe forest region. Everything you say will only be used in this study and will be anonymous. Ecosystem services are both material and nonmaterial services you benefit from the forest with its surroundings. It could for example be that it provides you with wood for building houses and medicines for different diseases. It could also be that the trees clean your air and the soil filter your water. Another ecosystem service could be that a beautiful area attracts tourists that could generate economic growth for the local inhabitants. We think it is interesting to hear about different views on this forest from different people. 1. General information about the respondent: a) Stakeholder group (your classification) b) Location of the interview (your classification) c) What is the main surroundings (agriculture land, buffer zone, tea plantations, other)? d) Sex (your classification), e) Age (<20, 20-40, >40) f) Where do you live / is your business located? g) How far is your home / company from the buffer zone? <30 minutes, 30-60 minutes, >1 hour h) How many are there in your household / works at the company? i) Have you got any information about the forest or been involved in any training related to the forest or activities in the forest? (Yes/No) If yes, what kind of information and from whom did you get the information?

j) Do you work? Not work? From which activities do you get your income?

k) Do you have electricity in your household / at your business? (yes/no) If yes, when did you get electricity? Approximate year:

l) Which fuel do you use for cooking/production in your household/business? a. Fuel wood b. Charcoal c. Other fuel, specify?

2. General about benefits a) How often do you visit the National Park? b) How often do you visit the buffer zone? c) Do you believe that the forest or the National Park is important for you/your business? (Yes/No) i. If yes, why is it important?

ii. If yes, do the benefits mainly come from the National Park or buffer zone?

iii. If no, why is it not important?

d) Have these benefits changed during the last 10 years or since it became a National Park? e) Do you wish to have more benefits from the forest? (Yes/No) i. If yes, which are the most important benefits you wish to have from the forest? Do they come from the buffer zone or the National park?

ii. If no, are there any special reasons why you don’t wish more benefits from the forest? Which?

f) Do you believe that the forest or the National park have any negative influences on your daily life and/or your business? (Yes/No) i. If yes, which are the most important negative effects of the forest?

g) Except for your own and your households’/ business benefits, do you think that there are any other benefits from the forest? i. If yes, which benefits do you believe are most important benefits of the buffer zone?

ii. If yes, which benefits do you believe are most important benefits of the National Park?

h) Do you think that your daily life/business would be affected if the National Park disappears? (Yes/No) i. If yes, how do you think it will change?

i) Do you think that your daily life/business would be affected if the buffer zone disappears? (Yes/No) i. If yes, how do you think it will change?

j) Would you like to cultivate/increase crops in the forest area?

Buffer zone (Yes/No), National Park (Yes/No)

k) Do you/your business benefit from tourism? (Yes/No) l) How do you feel about increasing tourism?

m) Are you/your business affected by natural disasters? (Landslides, heavy water flow etc.) i. If yes, what kind of disasters? ii. If yes, how often do they occur? iii. If no, do you know other people that is affected by natural disasters?

3. Specific benefit a) Where do you get your water from? b) How long do you have to walk to get your water? <30 minutes, 30 – 60 minutes, >60 minutes? c) Do you need to boil/filter your water before use? d) Do you use water for irrigation of the crops? e) Do you get food from the forest? i. If yes, what kind of food do you get? ii. If no, from where do you get your food?

Services Buffer zone Protected area How often do Could you get Do you pay I do not know (yes/no) (yes/no) you get these these supplies for these supplies? from supplies? elsewhere, if you can from where? Do you use wood for fuel from the forest? Do you get charcoal locally made by wood from the forest? Do you get material for construction from the forest? Do you get material for craftwork from the forest? Do you get any medicine from the forest? Do you get anything else from the forest?

III

MAPPING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE REGION OF NYUNGWE FOREST (Questionnaire for Researchers and Business representatives)

We are two students from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. We are doing a study on ecosystem services in Nyungwe forest region. We will focus on investigating different stakeholders’ knowledge and opinions about the ecosystem services of Nyungwe tropical montane rainforest. Local communities mentioned in the questions below refer to the communities within a ten kilometre distance from the boarder of the National park. The answers given will only be used in this study and will be anonymous.

1. General information about the respondent: a. Faculty b. Department c. Location d. Education level e. Position f. Area of research g. Location of the interview (your classification) h. Sex i. Age (20-40, >40) j. How would you briefly describe “Ecosystem services” k. Are your research interests related to forest resources (very much, to some degree, nothing)? l. If very much or to some degree, explain briefly how: m. Have you been involved in any information or training related to Nyungwe forest or activities in the forest? (Yes/No) If yes, what kind of information or training was it? n. How often do you visit Nyungwe national park (or buffer zone)?

2. General about benefits a. Which ecosystem services in general do you consider being the most important in the Nyungwe national park? The buffer zone? The surroundings? b. Which ecosystem services do you think is the most important for the local population living around Nyungwe national park? c. Many of the locals around Nyungwe forest has never been visiting the national park, how do you feel about this? Do you think they should have easier access to the forest? d. What are your thoughts around the privatization of the buffer zone? e. How do you think knowledge about the importance of the National park should be communicated to the local communities? f. How do you think the benefits have changed for the local communities in the last 10 years or since it became a National park? g. What benefits do you think the local communities wish to gain from the forest? Do you believe they mainly come from the buffer zone or the National park?

h. Do you believe that the forest or the National park have any negative influences on the local communities? If yes, which are the most important negative effects of the forest? i. Do you think the daily lives of the local communities will change if the forest in the national park decreases or disappears? If yes, how do you think it will change? j. Do you think the daily lives of the local communities will change if the forest in the buffer zone decreases or disappears? If yes, how do you think it will change? k. What are your thoughts around people being able to cultivate crops in the buffer zone or National park? l. Do you believe many of the local communities benefit from tourism? m. Do you have any ideas of how to involve the local communities in more tourism initiatives? n. What are your thoughts around increasing tourism? o. How much do you know about natural disasters taking place in the local communities? Do you have any ideas on how to protect the locals from these natural disasters? p. Which are the main threats to the ecosystem services from the National park and the buffer zone? How severe are these threats? Is it a risk that the forest disappears in a 50 years’ time?

3. Specific benefit a. Where do you think the local communities get their water from? b. Do you think there is needed for them to boil or filter their water before use? c. Do you think the locals use water for irrigation of the crops? d. Do you believe that people still get food or medicine from the National park or buffer zone? If yes, what kind of food or medicine do they get from the forest? e. The main part of the people living around Nyungwe forest uses fuel wood or charcoal as their fuel source for cocking and boiling. How do you think this is influencing the forest? If it is influencing the forest negatively, which solutions can you see?

Appendix II Training * Sector Crosstab Training no yes Total Sector Bushekere Count 3 27 30 Expected Count 16,3 13,7 30,0 % withinSector 10,0% 90,0% 100,0% % withinTraining 6,1% 65,9% 33,3% % of Total 3,3% 30,0% 33,3% Kitabi Count 25 5 30 Expected Count 16,3 13,7 30,0 % withinSector 83,3% 16,7% 100,0% % withinTraining 51,0% 12,2% 33,3% % of Total 27,8% 5,6% 33,3% Rangiro Count 21 9 30 Expected Count 16,3 13,7 30,0 % withinSector 70,0% 30,0% 100,0% % withinTraining 42,9% 22,0% 33,3% % of Total 23,3% 10,0% 33,3% Total Count 49 41 90 Expected Count 49,0 41,0 90,0 % withinSector 54,4% 45,6% 100,0% % withinTraining 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 54,4% 45,6% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square 36,914a 2 ,000000010 LikelihoodRatio 40,864 2 ,000000001 N of Valid Cases 90 a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 13,67.

Cultivate in National Park * Sector Crosstab Cultivate_NP no yes Total Sector Bushekere Count 28 2 30 Expected Count 25,3 4,7 30,0 % withinSector 93,3% 6,7% 100,0% % withinCultivate_NP 37,3% 14,3% 33,7% % of Total 31,5% 2,2% 33,7% Kitabi Count 22 8 30 Expected Count 25,3 4,7 30,0 % withinSector 73,3% 26,7% 100,0% % withinCultivate_NP 29,3% 57,1% 33,7% % of Total 24,7% 9,0% 33,7% Rangiro Count 25 4 29 Expected Count 24,4 4,6 29,0 % withinSector 86,2% 13,8% 100,0% % withinCultivate_NP 33,3% 28,6% 32,6% % of Total 28,1% 4,5% 32,6% Total Count 75 14 89 Expected Count 75,0 14,0 89,0 % withinSector 84,3% 15,7% 100,0% % withinCultivate_NP 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 84,3% 15,7% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4,648a 2 ,098 LikelihoodRatio 4,701 2 ,095 N of Valid Cases 89 a. 3 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 4,56.

VII

Anything from the forest * Sector Crosstab Anything_from_forest no yes Total Sector Bushekere Count 20 10 30 Expected Count 18,9 11,1 30,0 % withinSector 66,7% 33,3% 100,0% % withinAnything_from_for 35,7% 30,3% 33,7% est % of Total 22,5% 11,2% 33,7% Kitabi Count 17 13 30 Expected Count 18,9 11,1 30,0 % withinSector 56,7% 43,3% 100,0% % withinAnything_from_for 30,4% 39,4% 33,7% est % of Total 19,1% 14,6% 33,7% Rangiro Count 19 10 29 Expected Count 18,2 10,8 29,0 % withinSector 65,5% 34,5% 100,0% % withinAnything_from_for 33,9% 30,3% 32,6% est % of Total 21,3% 11,2% 32,6% Total Count 56 33 89 Expected Count 56,0 33,0 89,0 % withinSector 62,9% 37,1% 100,0% % withinAnything_from_for 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% est % of Total 62,9% 37,1% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,767a 2 ,681 LikelihoodRatio ,761 2 ,684 N of Valid Cases 89 a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 10,75.

VIII

Benefit from tourism * sector Crosstab Benefit_tourism no yes Total Sector Bushekere Count 11 18 29 Expected Count 10,5 18,5 29,0 % withinSector 37,9% 62,1% 100,0% % withinBenefit_tourism 34,4% 32,1% 33,0% % of Total 12,5% 20,5% 33,0% Kitabi Count 12 18 30 Expected Count 10,9 19,1 30,0 % withinSector 40,0% 60,0% 100,0% % withinBenefit_tourism 37,5% 32,1% 34,1% % of Total 13,6% 20,5% 34,1% Rangiro Count 9 20 29 Expected Count 10,5 18,5 29,0 % withinSector 31,0% 69,0% 100,0% % withinBenefit_tourism 28,1% 35,7% 33,0% % of Total 10,2% 22,7% 33,0% Total Count 32 56 88 Expected Count 32,0 56,0 88,0 % withinSector 36,4% 63,6% 100,0% % withinBenefit_tourism 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 36,4% 63,6% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,558a 2 ,756 LikelihoodRatio ,564 2 ,754 N of Valid Cases 88 a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 10,55.

Increase in tourism * Sector

Crosstab Increasing_tourism Do_not_know Positive Total Sector Bushekere Count 1 28 29 Expected Count 2,0 27,0 29,0 % withinSector 3,4% 96,6% 100,0% % 16,7% 34,6% 33,3% withinIncreasing_tourism % of Total 1,1% 32,2% 33,3% Kitabi Count 3 27 30 Expected Count 2,1 27,9 30,0 % withinSector 10,0% 90,0% 100,0% % 50,0% 33,3% 34,5% withinIncreasing_tourism % of Total 3,4% 31,0% 34,5% Rangiro Count 2 26 28 Expected Count 1,9 26,1 28,0 % withinSector 7,1% 92,9% 100,0% % 33,3% 32,1% 32,2% withinIncreasing_tourism % of Total 2,3% 29,9% 32,2% Total Count 6 81 87 Expected Count 6,0 81,0 87,0 % withinSector 6,9% 93,1% 100,0% % 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% withinIncreasing_tourism % of Total 6,9% 93,1% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square ,990a 2 ,610 LikelihoodRatio 1,052 2 ,591 N of Valid Cases 87 a. 3 cells (50,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 1,93.

Workwithintourism * Sector

Crosstab Work_tourism no yes Total Sector Bushekere Count 24 6 30 % withinSector 80,0% 20,0% 100,0% % withinWork_tourism 36,4% 25,0% 33,3% % of Total 26,7% 6,7% 33,3% Kitabi Count 25 5 30 % withinSector 83,3% 16,7% 100,0% % withinWork_tourism 37,9% 20,8% 33,3% % of Total 27,8% 5,6% 33,3% Rangiro Count 17 13 30 % withinSector 56,7% 43,3% 100,0% % withinWork_tourism 25,8% 54,2% 33,3% % of Total 18,9% 14,4% 33,3% Total Count 66 24 90 % withinSector 73,3% 26,7% 100,0% % withinWork_tourism 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 73,3% 26,7% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6,477a 2 ,039 LikelihoodRatio 6,273 2 ,043 N of Valid Cases 90 a. 0 cells (0,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 8,00.

Visit National Park * Sector

Crosstab Visit_NP_freq Morerarely weekly Total Sector Bushekere Count 29 1 30 Expected Count 22,0 8,0 30,0 % withinSector 96,7% 3,3% 100,0% % withinVisit_NP_freq 43,9% 4,2% 33,3% % of Total 32,2% 1,1% 33,3% Kitabi Count 26 4 30 Expected Count 22,0 8,0 30,0 % withinSector 86,7% 13,3% 100,0% % withinVisit_NP_freq 39,4% 16,7% 33,3% % of Total 28,9% 4,4% 33,3% Rangiro Count 11 19 30 Expected Count 22,0 8,0 30,0 % withinSector 36,7% 63,3% 100,0% % withinVisit_NP_freq 16,7% 79,2% 33,3% % of Total 12,2% 21,1% 33,3% Total Count 66 24 90 Expected Count 66,0 24,0 90,0 % withinSector 73,3% 26,7% 100,0% % withinVisit_NP_freq 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% % of Total 73,3% 26,7% 100,0%

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square 31,705a 2 ,00000013 LikelihoodRatio 32,626 2 ,00000008 N of Valid Cases 90 a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 8,00.

XII