Frustration that emerges as different faces--Community Forest Destruction

Maybe some of you remember the Community forest project that I wrote about early on in my service. Maybe you could go back and read the posting again. So the frustration this time came in the form of the events with our Community Forest in Mafa Kilda, and it came to announce itself Sunday evening at my house, when the bureau of the community forest came over to my house. They sat down on my mat outside and began to tell me how, a few days before I got back, the Sousprefet came to the village and gave away the field where we had been planting trees since last year, to another farmer. Now this story has a background, for sure, complicated, but not too much. The field we chose last year was on school property, property that was chosen in 2005 by all the area officials, property that was infertile land farmed by nobody. The whole school property is very large, and only a part of it has the primary school built on it, but the villagers wanted to delimit the territory around it in expectation of growth and new schools being built and using the land later on, namely a technical shool and nursery school. Around 2007/2008 with the aggressions against Mbororo en brousse, a population of Mbororo came to settle in Mafa Kilda and their cows started sleeping on the school property land at nights. As they left their manure there, the field started to regain its fertility and last year and the year before, the old owner of the field (a Laka man from Sanguere Ngal, the neighboring village who owned the field before it was taken as school property) started farming it again, especially the area that had been set apart for a community forest. Last year, therefore we had some major problems with land tenure, as the community forest group planted 216 trees, given by WWF, and the farmer complained they had disturbed his corn. All of this debate finally ended at the office of the sousprefet, a regional authority. There, last year, in the sousprefets office, in front of the farmer and Sanguere Ngal chief, the school director, the president of the Community forest, and the Mafa Kilda chief, the sousprefet said : A field is for one person only; a school and trees are for a community. This land in dispute should be for the community forest. From this day forward, in addition, I don't want anyone else farming in it. It should be left solely for the trees. You should protect these trees and put out a guardian. If anyone starts to farm it next year, Laka or Mafa, come immediately to my office and tell me." We were so happy that now the community forest had protection, could continue and had it's place in the village. Over the dry season, we rearranged the committee members, planned for this year, and while I was gone, the villagers dug holes and planted 100 new trees to start to replace the 120 that died during the dry season (yes low success rate, but 86 trees from last year remained, and the group was much better organized this year in planting earlier). Because it was such a low success rate 86 out of 216, WWF would not donate trees this year for the project, and rightly so. However, the group decided it was important enough, that they would pay for these trees this year themselves, in order to keep going and see the dream of their forest realized. So they dug, they planted, all while I was gone, all on their own, really making me proud and demonstrating ownership of the project. About a week before I came back, they noticed that the Laka man plowed the field, in plowing it killing a good amount of the new seedlings. So the chief went to the sousprefet's office as directed and told him about it. The sousprefet called in the Sanguere Ngal chief and farmer party, as well as Mafa Kilda chief. But instead of all of them sitting down and talking about it, as is necessary resolving any dispute, to come to a general solution, he said simply that he would come to the field on Thursday in two days. Thursday came, he showed up at Sanguere Ngal, picked up the men there, bypassed the Mafa Kilda chief and townspeople and drove straight to the field. As villagers saw the sousprefet's car go by they figured they'd better go see what this was about, and got there in time for the sousprefet to ask the farmer "where are the limits to your field?" The farmer showed him. And he said to the farmer "Ok, all of that then is for you," giving away over half the school property. People obviously became upset, and started asking "Well what of our forest that you said we should protect? What of you saying it should no longer be farmed? Why do you go back on your word?" At this the sousprefet went to his car, telling the chief, "Well you'll just have to come to my office to work that out another day." The problem is that this, instead of resolving disputes, causes a continuation and often escalation of disputes, as people feel their voice was not heard nor were they involved in the final solution.
The day after the sousprefet gave the land away, Friday, someone came and cut down and pulled up about 120 of the total 186 trees in the field. (They finished up the job Tuesday destroying all but perhaps 10 trees.) The Laka people say it was Mafa. The Mafa say it was Laka people. An "eyewitness" says different things to each side.
So the men told me about this Sunday night, and I went to the field to see, called the sousprefet, to talk about this problem, and find out why things happened the way they did. I asked if he'd be in his office on Monday and he said yes, and we went to speak with him. We must have talked about 1 hour, maybe more, or maybe it just felt like more because I was so frustrated. And it was an incredibly frustrating conversation, the type where you state clearly your problems with something, or ideas, but the other party will just not listen at all. I had two main questions. 1) what exactly was it that made you change your decision from last year, and all the things you said, to just giving the field away 2) why did you not go about this by sitting down with both groups and working it out, as is generally done, hearing both sides, saying ok, this could work like this, we'll give part of this field to this person, but leave the community forest in place. His answer to number 1: "Well, things change." That was really it. And I kept thinking, well change them again then. See that you did wrong and right it. But he said "Well I can't go back on the decision I've made." I said, "Well you did this year on last year's decision." And he said, "Well I can't do that every time." Another reason he gave for giving away the field: For peace. Really, for peace. I told him that I also work for peace here, and work with people of many different ethnicities, groups that don't get along with each other. And the way that he went about making this decision is the type of action that works contrary to peace. You work for peace between groups by sitting down and talking about things and coming up with a solution together (something that may not be possible in Gaza Strip and West Bank, but is certainly possible here in our situation). But just arbitrarily making a decision like that, without talking it through only breeds animosity and feelings of injustice. I got the impression that his idea of "creating peace" is by giving one side a concession and then going back and giving the other side a concession so that noone gets too mad, and everyone is always a little mollified. He said its him afterall who makes the final say so why would he have to consult both sides. Some of the things he said during our meeting floored me. "Well I find it strange, frankly to want to plant trees in a village. Outside the village, in the country yes, but in the village, that's just not normal." As I responded to that listing the benefits of having a small woodlot in the village and not miles away, such as not having animals destroy all the trees, as in water access, and easier access to the trees to take care of them, as in tired volunteer villagers who have been in the field all day and then go to give their time to dig holes and plant and water and take care of trees not having to walk another hour to their woodlot, his response to me was "Well that's just a question of desire. If the people really have the desire for this, they can just find land out far away and do it there. If that's too much of a problem it's evident they don't have enough will to do it." That made me so sad, because if ever you find a group who has shown will and desire, which is very difficult to find, here they are. Here they are having given time and energy and money and sweat last season and this to make this happen. Here they are in the face of land disputes last year, perservering because they want this woodlot. Yes, you need will and desire. But you also need to work within the confines of reality. You don't say "Oh well, if they really had the desire and will for a woodlot, they could just do it on the moon." This type of interchange went on, and towards the end I stopped speaking at all, and just listened, realizing that there's no way to talk, or influence, or reason with. Anyway, I think most of what he said was just words, not necessarily his actual convictions or reasons. But I will say this, I was incredibly proud of the other 6 villagers, becuase each of them spoke up and had something thoughtful and firm to say. No matter how much the sousprefet tried to intimidate, by shouting, by writing in other papers while they were talking, by turning on the radio in the middle of the meeting, they were even and spoke their word, which is really something in this culture of god-like authorities who treat general people like dirt. It also goes to show how strongly these men feel injusticed and how much they want to fight for their woodlot.
So here I am, not knowing what to do philosophically. Because honestly, after the meeting with him, I went away from it truly thinking, "If that is the case, I cannot in my right mind, encourage people to plant trees. I really can't. There is no point to plant trees, because even when it's on your land, even when problems are resolved, even when the authorities are behind it, tomorrow, they will just go give it away. And the fact is, not all authorities are like this. Peace Corps has a strong policy, and for very good reasons, not to get involved with politics, and I will stand by that. But at the same time, its hard to stand by and watch things like this happen. I think the best course of action is to encourage and act as a witness, and stand by those who are trod upon. And I will continue to seek peace and resolution, even between ethnicities that have a culture of disliking each other. One of the important things is to encourage that disputes be settled locally first, with all parties present and able to share their points of view. There needs to be better communication between groups. I am lucky that I have other successful work going on though, because if this were my major project...it'd be very difficult (and still is) to watch 1 1/2 years worth of work be thrown out the window.