Forest cover in Rwanda is already very limited. However, the distribution pattern of tree cover relative to settlements follows an inverse relationship.
According to Rwanda’s Vision 2020 development plan, the country had a total of 10% of forest cover in 2000 (MFEP, 2000), and it has reportedly increased to 30.4 % in 2020. Moreover, Rwanda is also the most densely populated country in continental Africa and is largely dependent on forest resources for energy (Ordway, 2015).
Fuelwood provides 90% of the country’s energy supply (Ordway, 2015). Therefore, it is likely that deforestation for fuelwood has been a major driver of tree cover loss in the areas closest to settlements. As seen in figure 1., the relationship between settlements and tree cover is inversely proportional but non-linear.
There is relatively no forest cover from 0.3 to 2 Km of distance from settlements. However, from 2 to 10 Km forest cover increases dramatically as protected areas start to appear.
As seen in Figure 2, and graphed in Fig 1. forest cover within the 1500m buffer zone was limited. It should be noted though, that there is slightly higher forest cover closed to settlements, probably due to the benefits associated with trees: shade, aesthetics, fruits, etc.
This degree of degradation could be explained by Rwanda’s history of conflict. Ordway, 2015, studied the impacts armed conflict had on forest cover in this very same area of Rwanda, and found evidence to support the theory that armed conflict promoted high rates of deforestation in the Gishwati Forest National Park. Many “conflict-induced” settlements were established in western Rwanda, especially near conservation areas due to their abundance of resources compared to other regions of Rwanda that were already completely deforested. In consequence, the park lost 22% of its tree cover, compared to only 1% in surrounding areas (Ordway, 2015).
Finally, one idea to study tree cover patterns in this area could be by specifically looking at the surrounding areas of the Gishwati Forest National Park. I noticed that there are no buffers between the borders of the forest, and surrounding areas. Different types of farming can be identified right at the edge of this conservation area. Therefore, it would be interesting to see if different land uses at the border serve as buffers themselves or contribute to tree cover loss. To do this we could follow these steps:
- Identify all the land uses that border with the forest.
- Using historical data, analyse whether the adjacent forest has increased or decreased in treecover
- Determine if any forest adjacent land use helps with the conservation of the park or its degradation.
References
MFEP (Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning), 2000. Rwanda Vision 2020. Republic of Rwanda.
Ordway, E. M. “Political Shifts and Changing Forests: Effects of Armed Conflict on Forest Conservation in Rwanda.” Global Ecology and Conservation, vol. 3, 2015, pp. 448-460.