Green cruelty.

I have nothing against this green imperialism, as long as it doesn't destroy the natives.

Batwa face uncertain future
By Thomas Fessy
One Planet, BBC World Service

Just after dawn, as the fog slowly leaves the slopes of the Muhabura volcano, some Batwa people make their way to the neighbouring farms hoping to get a job for the day.

The Nyarusisa community is landless. Families are squatting on other people's land or live in shabby camps with no sanitation.

The Muhabura volcano is one of the three inactive volcanoes that make the south-west Ugandan border with Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Right next to the Mgahinga National Park's boundaries, the slopes of these mountains are intensively cultivated and settled by dominant Bufumbira and Hutu people.

Nearly two decades ago, the Batwa lived in the mountain forest of Mgahinga as well as in the deep forest of Bwindi, called the Impenetrable Forest.

In these two places, where a small area of forest is surrounded by large numbers of poor rural farmers trying to scrape by and live off the land, conservation is a tricky issue.

"It is a question of trying to balance the protection of the forest with the needs of the local communities," says Alastair McNeilage, from the Wildlife Conservation Society, who works at Bwindi.

When the area was divided into three forest reserves - Mgahinga, Echuya and Bwindi - in the early 1930s, the Batwa stayed where they had been living for generations.

However, when the Ugandan government decided to reinforce the protection of the mountain gorilla habitat, the Batwa were moved from their lands to make way for national parks.

They have become conservation refugees. Anthropologist Chris Sandbrook explains that in the early days of conservation "local people were excluded from protected areas and kept out with some kind of law enforcement, which has been called fortress conservation".

Up on a hill, between the Echuya forest and the Bwindi Park, community leader Sembagare Francis recalls: "One day, we were in the [our] forest when we saw people coming with machine guns and they told us to get out of the forest. We were very scared so we started to run not knowing where to go and some of us disappeared. They either died or went somewhere we didn't know. As a result of the eviction, everybody is now scattered."

Conservationists, back then, saw local communities as a major threat to wildlife. John Makombo from the Uganda Wildlife Authority says that they aimed to achieve "sustainable conservation".

"Originally, when the Batwa were living in the forest they were hunting down all the fauna and that was eradicating almost all the animals: the gorillas were in danger, the chimps were in danger," Mr Makombo said.

"So, it was not wise to leave [the Batwa] inside the forest. I think it was better to manage them when they are outside the forest."

Conservation outcasts

It seems that the Batwa have suffered more than other people from the creation of the parks because they were the people whose livelihoods were most closely related to the forest.

Even now, they tend to be the poorest and most marginalised people who have fewer opportunities to benefit from tourism and other development programmes that have come along with the parks.

They live in unsanitary housing conditions, typically mud huts where the rain comes through.

According to the United Organisation for Batwa Development in Uganda (UOBDU), most are unable to invest in permanent structures as they fear being removed by the owner of the land on which they are squatting.

UOBDU co-ordinator Penninah Zaninka says that the government "should really think of resettling the Batwa and give them better shelters so that they could benefit from development projects that the government is doing for other citizens of Uganda".

The government seems to have handed over its responsibility to the few organisations and church groups looking at the plight of the Batwa people.

Minister of State for Tourism Serapio Rukundo told the BBC that it is for "their future that the government told them to leave the forest". [Sounds like the typical colonialist: I enslave you for your own freedom.]

He added: "The question is also: what is the quality of life you would like the Batwa to live? And what rights are you going to guarantee for the animals?"

However, the quality of life of the Batwa does not seem to be taken into account by conservation programmes.

UWA's John Makombo defended their approach: "Their conditions of living are not our responsibility. Questions of poverty are not our responsibility."

Eroding culture

Targeted worldwide by the many tribes evicted from protected areas, big conservation NGOs have now made it clear that they do not support the creation of protected areas that displace indigenous people.

WWF International director general James Leape says mistakes have been made in the past.

"I think that we have, over the last 20 years, learnt case after case that it's a mistake to see conservation and development as opposed to each other.

"It's clear that we will only be successful in conservation if it works for local communities." [yea, yea, Greenpeace, the criminal organisation, tries to red-wash itself, as always]

Nevertheless, hardly any of the staff working for the parks is from the Batwa communities.

"They don't give us a chance to work for the park, when they select people they forget the Batwa," a member of the Batwa community said.

The Batwa also complain that they cannot access the forest to practice their traditional culture. Most of them fear the park rangers.

"They told us that if anybody goes in the forest to carry out any activities they would be killed," says Bernard, an elder.

"We have all our traditional equipment here like things to help us collect honey, bows and arrows for hunting - but we haven't taught our children.

"Even if we wanted to teach them, we can't in this community as we would need to practice in the forest. I'm really not happy that our children cannot learn our culture."

While their forest-based culture is eroded, the United Nations passed a declaration at the end of last year on the rights of indigenous peoples. It says they cannot be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.

Margaret Lokawua, board member of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, says the Batwa have a case for compensation but it will take some time.

"The Batwa can use this declaration to defend their case and I think they will win; the government will give them a piece of land," she explained.

"But looking at the governments that we have in Africa, it takes time. Meanwhile the Batwa will continue to be squatters on other people's land."

There may be some hope, but this declaration is non-binding and Uganda was absent when it was adopted.

You can listen to One Planet, or download it as a podcast, by visiting the BBC World Service's One Planet website

BBC.

This is going on across Africa, SEAsia and Latin America.

The newest trend is for billionaires from Europe and the US to buy up entire forests, and kick out the millions of people who depend on these forests.

I find this cruelty more perverse than that of the traditional colonialist. Because a traditional colonialist always faced physical danger when kicking out the natives. So he had to take real risks. There have been many succesful resistance movements against the colonialists' terror.

Today's green imperialist, however, just needs to push a button on his computer and leaves it up to the black and the yellow and the brown locals to kick out their fellow natives.

Then the billionaire cashes in his carbon credits, and gives a round of champagne.

We need a new breed of Stalinists or Maoists to expose this green terrorism.

Virtually all of the areas to be acquired or managed under the conservation easement are undevelopable anyway. On paper the deal sounds good, but a close examination shows that very little is gained biologically

Its not a new tactic in business or gov to ask for alot just to get a little. All in all, its more sprawl...

ironic that if the NRDC, Sierra Club and especially the Center for Biological Diversity did not spend so much energy in an ill informed fight
There is no irony in this. It was the possibility of a "fight" with NRDC, Sierra, et al that brought Tejon around after a few years. Its not over though. Only 170,000 acres have been protected. 60k now have the option of purchase by the public. Check the article below: "plans still must be approved by state and federal regulatory authorities, as well as Los Angeles and Kern counties."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tejon8-2008may08, ...

"The agreement guarantees Tejon Ranch Co. the right to proceed with massive development projects near Interstate 5: Centennial, a planned community of 23, 000 homes east of Quail Lake in northern Los Angeles County; and Tejon Mountain Village in southern Kern County, which will include a resort featuring spas and boutique hotels, commercial space, golf courses and 3, 400 estate homes. The Tejon Industrial Complex in the Kern County portion of the ranch is already home to IKEAâ€TMs 2-million-square-foot main distribution warehouse, among others."

Every little bit helps.

I think conservation easements hold a lot of potential to create and protect carbon sinks as part of carbon offsets, protecting biodiversity as a side effect.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world