Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Project Tittle:
The Environment-Development Nexus and Great Apes Conservation in Western Cameroon: the case of the proposed Tofala Hill Wildlife Sanctuary
Principal investigator in an interview with a key informant
Report Prepared by
Mbunya Francis Nkemnyi
Resource Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (RCESD), Cameroon/Institute of Development Policy and Management (IOB), University of
Antwerp, Belgium
0
Abstract The proposed Tofala Hill Wildlife Sanctuary (THWS) is located in the Lebialem-Mone Forest Landscape (LMFL), South West Cameroon. Despite the biodiversity importance of this forest area, it is faced with anthropogenic activities, which posses a big threat to this biodiversity. The main objective of this study was to assess the potential of combining conservation of great apes and livelihood improvement in communities living adjacent to the Tofala Hill Wildlife Sanctuary (THWS). The main methods used in the study included; questionnaires, interviews, field observation, scenarios analysis, focus group meetings and video interview. The main results of the study show that local perceptions and believes do not support conservation. In this line conservation strategies must be able to capture the interest and values of these perceptions and believes to enable conservation success. The main gap between great apes conservation and local development is the lack of community trust, poor conflict management and poor strategies in targeting livelihood support. Insufficient capacity of field staff in managing conservation conflict has also contributed to poor conservation strategies. The study concluded that while farming and hunting remain the most visible threat to conservation, the perceptions of most indigenous people toward the long-term objectives of conservation are also the main reasons they are not willing to support conservation and why they continue with forest destructive activities despite conservation efforts.
1
Acknowledgement I am grateful to everyone who contributed toward the realisation of this project. It
would have not been possible without your support. Particular, I would like to thank
the Rufford Small Grants Foundation (RSGF), UK for their financial support for this
project. Equipment support for this project was by IDEA WILD, USA. The execution
of this project would not have been possible without this financial and material
support.
My appreciation also goes to all the institutions that collaborated for the success of
this project. This included the University of Antwerp, Belgium, the University of
Buea, Cameroon, the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, Cameroon, the Environment
and Rural development Foundation, Cameroon and the Resource Center for
Environment and Sustainable Development, Cameroon. Furthermore, my sincere
gratitude goes to all the local community members who put in valuable time to
participate in this project. Lastly, I thank my field assistants; Chopjou Catherine and
Neba Celestine for their technical and moral support during the execution of this
project.
2
Table of content Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of content ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 Methodology and expected results ........................................................................................... 9
3.1 Secondary review ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Primary data collection ......................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Project kickoff meetings ............................................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Stakeholder analysis: Critical System Thinking (CST) Approach ............. 10
3.2.3 Preliminary field survey............................................................................................ 10
3.2.4 The sustainable Livelihood approach .................................................................. 11
3.2.5 Scenario analysis .......................................................................................................... 12
3.2.6 3.2.6 Video documentary .......................................................................................... 12
3.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.0 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Conservation strategies debates ........................................................................................ 13
4.2 Demographic characteristics of the study population .............................................. 13
4.3 Stakeholders, Influence and interest in the Cross River Gorilla Project ............ 15
4.3 Livelihood support as a tool for improving great apes conservation .................. 20
4.3.1 Forest dependent activities ......................................................................................... 20
4.3.2 Forest resources and their consumption ........................................................... 21
4.4 Impact of conservation strategies on local communities’ livelihood .................. 25
4.5 Integrated strategies for Cross River conservation .................................................... 26
4.5.1 Cross River Conservation programme as a system ............................................ 27
4.5.2 Integrating food security program into conservation strategies .................. 31
3
5.0 CONCLUSION AND NEXT ACTIONS ....................................................................................... 33
5.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 33
5.2 Next actions ................................................................................................................................ 34
5.2.1 Addressing immediate conservation needs in the study area ................... 34
5.3.2 Evaluation management effectiveness ................................................................ 35
Reference ................................................................................................................................................ 36
4
1.0 Introduction The forest of South West Cameroon and adjacent Southern Nigeria are generally
known to be rich in species diversity and are important areas for biodiversity
conservation (Sunderland et al. 2003). Tchatat et al. (1999) attributed this rich
species diversity to the fact that they are located in the high rainfall zone of the
Guinean Equatorial tropical forest, which contains more than half of the global
species diversity. It is also argued by Sunderland et al. (2003) that the area formed a
Pleistocene refugium during the last glacial period, becoming isolated and allowing
the development of regional endemic species. However, it is often subjected to
increasing anthropogenic pressure, which leads to loss of biodiversity (Tchatat et al.
2009).
The proposed Tofala Hill Wildlife Sanctuary (THWS) is located in the Lebialem-
Mone Forest Landscape (LMFL), South West Cameroon. The Lebialem highlands,
located on the mountainous north-eastern part of the South West Region, forms part
of the Cameroon-Nigerian Cross border forest, which have been recognized to be
extraordinarily diverse with a high degree of endemism (Davis et al., 1994). The
area ranges from 230m to 2400m above sea level thus conferring a high degree of
vegetation and mammalian diversity as well as ecosystem endemism (Nkembi
2004). This forest area range is known to contain 84% of African primates, 64% of
African passerine birds, and 66% of known African butterflies (Groomsbridge &
Jankings, 2000). The forest is home to some of Africa’s most threatened primates
species including the critically endangered Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli),
Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes vellerosus), drill (Mandrillus
leucophaeu), and Preuss’s guenon (Cercopithecuspreussi) (Nkembi et al. 2006). The
forest equally harbours endemic birds including the Bannerman’s turaco, Banded-
wattled eye, Bangwa forest warbler and the Bannerman’s weaver as well as many
endemic plants.
5
Despite the biodiversity importance of this forest area, it is faced with
anthropogenic activities, which posses a big threat to this biodiversity. Most
anthropogenic activities are link to poverty, poor indigenous capacity to manage
resourced and poor institutional capacity of local administrators governing resource
management (Alemagi 2011). In this line, this study set to examine to what extend
this general assumptions fit the case of the THWS.
1.1 Objectives The main objective of this study was to assess the potential of combining
conservation of great apes and livelihood improvement in communities living
adjacent to the Tofala Hill Wildlife Sanctuary (THWS). In this line, the study was
aimed at developing integrated strategies through field survey and scenarios
analysing for the improvement of natural resource management and human
livelihood needs. The specific objectives of the study included:
a. To evaluate conservation strategies and draw important lessons from them
in order to contribute to sustainable solutions on the human dimensions of
environmental challenges and great apes conservation
b. To identify different stakeholders and their interest in the great apes
conservation in the THWS
c. To assess livelihood support as a tool for improving great apes conservation
in the THWS
d. To develop an integrated strategy for livelihood implementation for the
THWS
e. To discuss the findings of the research and the current debate on the crisis of
CBNRM to benefit the THWS case and beyond.
6
2.0 Project area description
The study was conducted in the adjacent communities of the THWS, located in
the LMFL, Southwest Region of Cameroon. The THWS is located specifically
between 5037’ and 5042’ latitude and 9053’–9058’ longitude. The area is
characterised by an undulated landscape from Bechati community (230 m) in
the lower altitudes to Fossimondi com- munity (2,400 m) in the higher altitudes,
with a chain of peaks notably the Tofala Hill (866 m) from which the proposed
sanctuary takes its name (Nkemnyi et al. 2013). This area is situated within the
Wabane Sub-Division in the North and Alou Sub-Division in the south, in
Lebialem Division and adjacent to the Forest Management Unit 11-002 and the
Mone Forest Reserve (Fig. 1). The LMFL covers a surface area of approximately
800 km2 with the THWS making up approximately 15 km2 of the 800 km2. Apart
from it biodiversity importance, the area is also an important watershed with
many fast flowing streams that jointly form the Manyu River and run to the
Cross River in the Nigerian–Cameroonian boarders. The forest landscape is
within the equatorial rainforest zone characterised by two major seasons: the
dry season (November–February) and the wet season (March–October). The
annual rainfall recorded in the area is as high as 3,500 mm (Gartlan 1989). The
climate is characterised at high altitudes by low temperatures, low rainfalls, high
relative humidity and mountains often covered in clouds. Daily temperatures
vary between 20 and 350C, with the peak in March. It varies from the lowland
rainforest, through submontane to montane forest with the lowland and
submontane forests dominating. The variation in altitude (260–2,400 m above
sea level) accounts for the variation in forest types, which in turn accounts for
the huge floristic variety of the area.
7
Figure 2.1: Location of study area (proposed THWS) (Source: Nkembi et al. 2009; ESRI Data)
8
3.0 Methodology and expected results In order to examine how environmental conservation could align with local
development need, we used the methodology summarized in the scheme below
(Figure 3.1). The scheme also summary the expected results from the study.
3.1 Secondary review We obtained information from literature review, Questionnaires survey, focus-
group discussions, key informant interviews, field observations and workshops.
This study began by an extensive literature review, which enabled in-depth
knowledge on the concepts of environmental conservation and local development
with focus on the situation of Cameroon. Through secondary research, we were able
Interviews Research information
SUSTAINABLE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Challenges and suggested solutions
Conservation strategies
Literature review
Questionnaires
Field observations
Focus group Discussions
Video documentary
Secondary data
Community livelihood needs
Primary data
Capacity Building Integrated management
Management effectiveness
Research and education
9
to build a solid background about the field challenges and to identify research gaps,
which formed the objectives of this project. Literature review made use of scientific
manuscript from peer-reviewed journals, books and reports from local
organizations working in the sector of conservation and development in Cameroon.
3.2 Primary data collection
3.2.1 Project kick-off meetings
The project began with preparatory meetings with local collaborators and project
associates. The principal investigator held meetings with the representative of the
local collaborators (Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF), University of Buea
(UB), the Resource Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (RCESD)
and the Environment and Rural Development Foundation (ERuDeF). These
meetings enabled some practical arrangements on the research process and the
planning of the stakeholder and scenario analysis workshops.
3.2.2 Stakeholder analysis: Critical System Thinking (CST) Approach This method was used in identifying stakeholders and their interest in the great
apes conservation project. This method as proposed by (Achterkamp and Vos 2007)
identified and classified stakeholder involved at the different stages of the project.
CST considers two key points in stakeholder identification and classification, which
included the roles of Involvement and the phasing roles of involvement. The role of
involvement identifies the stakeholders’ base on the role played in the project.
Stakeholders were grouped as actively involved or passively involved. Stakeholders
important and level of inference to the project was also evaluated and given a score
on 10.
3.2.3 Preliminary field survey The preliminary phase of collective research provided the direction, impulse, and
coordination for subsequent inquiries (Bierschenk & Oliver De Sardan 1997). This
preliminary phase helped to integrate the research into a framework of comparative
10
research on the different study communities. The preliminary phase of collective
research involved the following steps; an individual inquiry on site to prepare
quickly the subsequent teamwork by identifying in summary the main local issues
and thus making it possible to predetermine the main strategic groups; a
preparatory seminar to familiarize participants with the problem and the methods;
collective research in which the research team will do a tour of the study
communities for two days each, meeting with strategic groups. This allowed the
researchers to perceive issues through the perspective of the strategic groups and at
the same time realizing the variety and relativity of the strategic groups.
3.2.4 The sustainable Livelihood approach The sustainable livelihood approach to wildlife conservation was used to assess
livelihood support as a tool for improving wildlife conservation (Ashley & Hussein
2000). In assessing livelihoods, we will gain an overview of livelihood strategies and
priorities, and the various impacts of the conservation project on development
objectives. Livelihood surveys were organised at 2 analytical units: household
survey and village survey. At the household level, the main tool for quantitative data
collection will be household questionnaires. A pilot study was used to modify pre-
field designed questionnaires and to fix samples according to Cochran's formula for
stratified sampling with optimum allocation (Cochran 1977). Stratified sampling
was then applied instead of simple random sampling because it generally improves
the efficiency of sampling since variation is reduced. The survey collected
information on key socio-economic elements, including household composition,
education, asset ownership, sources of income, sales and consumption of crop,
livestock and forest products, membership of organisations, and participation in
training and extension programmes (Soltani et al. 2012). A village survey was
conducted in all 10 villages through group discussions with 5 - 10 individuals. Group
discussion members included the representatives of all strategic groups in the
village. Participants were asked about livelihood strategies, income sources,
perceptions of change in income strategies and activities, human welfare, natural
resource conditions and land use and management. The common method of ranking
11
(major increase, minor increase, no change, minor decrease and major decrease)
based on Pender (2004) was used.
3.2.5 Scenario analysis Policy analysis and decision support was based on scenarios that will develop
information collected during field data collection. Scenarios analysis enables the
assessment of the future performance of conservation-development objectives
(Carlson et al. 2011). To inform the management plan of the THWS, scenarios
analysis explored the relative merits of conservation practices, livelihood strategies
and the linkages between conservation practices and development objectives.
3.2.6 3.2.6 Video documentary A video documentary was used to document some key informant opinions and
views on conservation values and livelihood needs of the local community involved.
A video documentary was introduced in this study because of its strength in
capturing public attention. Thus it will be very relevant for the result dissemination
of this study.
3.3 Data Analysis Data analysis synthesised and structured all the information generated into a form
that indicated direction and significance of livelihood changes and the key
explanatory factors. This will included; synthesis and structure of the field data
which could quickly help to reveal gaps and inconsistency, interpretation of field
results to address the livelihood questions, drawing conclusions about impacts,
identifying key factors influencing livelihood impact and summarising overall
finding and conclusion. Both qualitative and quantitative methods of data analysis
were employed. Qualitative data from this research were analysed using the
statistical software ATLAS.ti. 5 while quantitative data obtained was analysed using
SPSS.
12
4.0 Results and Discussion
4.1 Conservation strategies debates In this section we highlight some key conservation-development debates which,
contributed to the development this study and help in the analysis of some findings:
• Improving rural community's livelihoods is argued to be the basis and
starting point for alleviating poverty and improving environmental
conservation (Windle et al. 2009; De Herdt et al. 2004)
• It is widely argued that biodiversity loss and poverty are linked and that
conservation and poverty reduction should be tackled together (Diaw et al.
2009).
• Success with integrated strategies for biodiversity conservation is elusive
and no idea solutions best fit all situations (Adams et al. 2004; Guariguata et
al. 2010). In this line, problem analysis is critical for each case study to be
able to identify a sustainable solution.
• Failure to meet sustainable natural resource management is attributed to
inadequate human socio-political and economic institutions that shape the
human behaviours in an ecosystem (Dressler et al. 2010).
• The dimension of livelihood support and stakeholders' interests varies from
one community to another given the diversity in cultural background and
believes (Dressler et al. 2010).
• Power and interest often over shadowed the need of local people livelihood
in conservation programs (Nkemnyi et al. 2013).
4.2 Demographic characteristics of the study population In the study, we interviewed 224 households across 10 communities of the study
area. The study sampled opinions across different age groups and gave equal
opportunity for both gender classes to participate in the study. These communities
included the Bechati, Besali, Nkong, Bangang, Folepi, Banti, Egumbo, Bamumbu
Fossimondi and Mock M’mbin communities. These communities make up the key
communities living adjacent the proposed wildlife sanctuary (THWS).
13
Table 4.1: General characteristics of the study population
Characteristics Total count (n=224) Percentage
Gender Male 65 58 Female 47 42
Age
18-25 20 17.9 26-35 30 26.8 36-45 27 24.1 46-55 20 17.9 >55 15 13.4
Occupation
Peasant farmer 65 58 Hunting/trapping 18 16.1 Herbalist 5 4.5 Small business 4 3.6 Teacher 9 8 Student 9 8 Midwife 1 0.9 Medical doctor 1 0.9 Fisherman 0 0 Artisan 0 0 Trading 0 0
Education
No formal education 20 17.9 Primary education 63 56.2 Secondary education 24 21.4 University education 5 4.5
As observed from Table 4.1 68% of the population survey were men and 42%
female. The survey covered respondents from the age of 18 and above, ensuring the
representation of all age groups. Age was classified into sub-groups with an interval
of 10. Majority of the study population are involved in farming (58.0%) and hunting
(16.1%). These are the dominant occupations in the study area. About 17.9% of the
studied population did not attend primary education (this were mostly respondents
above the age of 35). Most of the respondents (56.2%) attended primary education
only, 21.4% attended secondary education and 4.5% attended university education.
There was a significant difference of educational level between sex (χ2=8.567,
14
p≥0.05, df=3). Men showed a higher level of literacy as compared to women as
presented in Table 3.3 below.
Table 4.2: Education level of males and females in the study area
Educational level
Total No formal
education Primary
Education Secondary education University
Gender Male 12 78 32 8 130 Female 28 48 16 2 94
Total 40 126 48 10 224
The trend above is due to the culture of the studied communities, women are not
considered to have equal rights in the society as men (Per. obs.). Women opinions
are generally not consider important in the society and they are less represented in
community developmental deliberations and decision-making. Generally, women
were also less informed about the conservation activities. They believe the role of a
woman is limited to her duty as a housewife. This cultural believes limits women’s
access to education. However, this is gradually changing with the assistance of
gender and development education/sensitisation in these communities by local
NGOs.
4.3 Stakeholders, Influence and interest in the Cross River Gorilla Project Below we present a list of stakeholders, their importance and influence on the Cross
River gorilla project. Stakeholders’ level of influence and importance was graded on
a scale of 10.We graded the stakeholders as:
a) Very important: have very high significant impact on the success of the project (score between 7 and 10)
b) Important: have an impact on the success of the project but this impact is not significant (score between 4 and 7)
15
c) Less important: have very low impact on the success of the project (score between 0 and 4)
On the other hand the ability of stakeholders to influence the success of this project was classified as
a) Very high: Project success highly rely on them (score between 7 and 10) b) High: Could contribute significantly to the success of the project if involve
(score between 4 and 7) c) Low: Have little or no influence on the project success (score between 0 and
7)
Note: This evaluation is based on field assessment during the execution of this project (January 2013 – October 2013). The degree of important and influence of stakeholders were also graded on a scale of 10.
Table 4.3: stakeholder classification in term of importance and influence
Stakeholders identified Importance Current influence Conservation organisations (ERUDEF) Very import Low
Hunters/Farmers Very import Very high NTFP collectors Very import High Women Important Low Youths Important Low Traditional Rulers Very import Very high Village management committee Very import Very high Forest management committee Important Low Elites Important High Local government Important Low Ministry of forestry and wildlife Important Low Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Devolvement Important Low Ministry of Education Important Low Research Institution Important Low Local institutions Important Low Common Initiative Groups Less important Low Local Investors Less important Low Individual researchers Important Low International community Less important Low Charity organisations Important Low
16
Figure 4.1: Evaluation of stakeholder importance verses influence
From table 4.3 and Figure 4.1 above, we can observe the discrepancy between
important of stakeholders and their influence on the project. The above result is an
early indication that, the program strategies are not effective at the moment. We will
normally expect stakeholder influence to equate their important in the same
direction. However, this is not the case in this situation. The conservation
organisation currently have a low (about 40%) influence on the project because
community member have not find enough incentives to support the conservation
project and majority of community member have a negative perception on the
project. In this line, despite conservation effort in the form conservation education
and targeted livelihood support, community member still not find sufficient reason
to fully support conservation initiatives. In addition to primary stakeholders not
finding enough incentive to support the conservation project, field surveys through
in-depth interviewing and observations reveal that culture, traditional believes and
17
the implementation strategy on the project is also affecting it success level. The
culture and the traditional believe of the indigenous people living adjacent this
wildlife sanctuary have strong links to this forest area. Conservation initiatives were
only introduce in this area in 2003 and is still gaining it roots. Before conservation
initiatives were introduce, local people have known nothing but forest exploitation
for livelihood. In this line, the see any secondary party with interest on conserving
forest resource as a threat to the free rights which have been transferred to them by
their ancestors. Some community members also believe their ancestor reside in the
forest and they feel that staying away from the forest will mean detaching from their
ancestor which is against their tradition. Some indigenous people also believe that,
forest resources (animals and tree alike) will never go extinct.
“Our ancestor have been using this forest for several years and we can still find all we
need from the forest, and we also believe after our generation, our children and
grandchildren will also be able to fine all what they need from the forest. I do not
believe in extinction, the more we use forest resources, the more the forest regenerate”
(local farmer point of view).
We can observe that local perception and believe in this case do not support
conservation. On the other hand, we also observe that, the conservation strategies
have not been able to capture local perceptions and believe fully in their
implementation strategies. They have so far placed more emphases on awareness
raising, targeted livelihood support and bio-monitoring. We also found out that
indigenous people perceive targeted livelihood support as a means to buy them off
the forest. In this line, they are equating this support to the benefits the get from
forest resource. Thus in their assessments, they find more convenient benefits forest
income compared to targeted livelihood support.
“We have received some livelihood support from the local NGO. They offer to support
us on piggery farming. However, many people turn the offer down because they believe
it cannot compensate their forest usage. In addition, the support only targeted specific
18
group of people and not everybody that uses the forest” (local community member
point of view).
Many community members had a similar view as the above. This suggests that, a
more convincing strategy is needed on livelihood support to enable more
conservation support from indigenous people.
Another line of threat to the conservation strategies was identified to be external
influence from the elites who are not resident in these local communities. We
recorded many scenarios where elites have influence community-based members in
the project area to rebel against conservation strategies. Elites are highly respected
in their community or origin and hold high position in decision making in the
community despite the fact that, they are not resident in the community. In addition,
we also recorded that some elites have also filed in petitions against the
organisation promoting the Cross River conservation project with the claim that
their main focus in the project area is not conservation but exploitation. This is a big
threat to conservation success in the area because local people believe so much on
their elites since they are the pillars of development but culturally and
institutionally. A further analysis of the later threat showed that, many elites do not
understand the concept of conservation and in this line they believe money
allocated for conservation purpose is “free money” which should be share to
primary stakeholders or directly allocated to community development. The
misinterpretation of the concept of conservation by elite motivate community-based
members to feel they need to be pay off the forest and that conservation promoters
are out for personal interest and benefits.
Furthermore, the local government and ministries responsible for supporting
conservation initiative play little or no role in encourage non-profit conservations
organisation promoting conservation. In this line conservation effort are left in the
hand s of non-profit organisation. This makes some indigenous people believe
conservation is not important as such.
19
“If conservation was a good thing why is it that only ERuDeF1 is talking about it? Why
do our children not learn it in school? Why are other people not also coming apart
from ERuDeF staff to talk to us about conservation?” (Local community member
point of view)
This implies more conservation minds and more institutional support are needed, if
conservation strategies need to succeed in this area.
4.3 Livelihood support as a tool for improving great apes conservation In other to analyse livelihood support as a tool for great ape conservation, we
assessed local people current livelihood options and how these options are related
to great apes conservation. As presented below:
4.3.1 Forest dependent activities From the occupation list in Table 4.3 above, livelihood activities are highly
dependent on forest resources. About 86% (combination of all forest dependent
activities) of livelihood is generated from forest resources. These activities include
hunting and trapping, crop production, NTFP harvesting and harvesting of forest
products for traditional medicine or for home usage. Most households depend
directly on forest resources for income, with very few alternatives available.
1 ERuDeF (Environment and Rural Development Foundation) – the local based non-profit organization promoting the conservation of the cross river gorilla in the project area.
20
Figure 4.2: Percentage distribution of main source of livelihood of respondents in different sectors
4.3.2 Forest resources and their consumption Main forest resources and their use were identified using questionnaires. Large
mammals hunted and NTFPs harvested in the study area were recorded using their
local names and common names (Tables 4.4 and 4.5). With the exception of the
Cross River gorilla and the Ellioti chimpanzee with a reduced level of hunting, most
of the large mammals listed in Table 4.4 below are still heavily hunted. Hunting in
this area is increasingly promoted by bush-meat buyers, which most often
encourage hunting by paying money to hunter before the even go to the forest to
hunt.
21
Table 4.4: List of large mammals’ species hunted in the THWS
Local Name Common Name Class A species2
1 Njimageng Gorilla 2 Bokob/Boa Chimpanzee 3 Bush baby Potto 4 Water beef Water chevrotain 5 Shumbo Drill 6 Flying squirrel Flying squirrel
Class B species3 7 Bush pig African wild pig 8 Red deer Red duiker 9 Mboma African python
10 Bush cow Buffalo Class C species4 11 Frutambo Blue duiker 12 White-nose monkey Putty-nose monkey 13 Red ear monkey Red ear monkey 14 Bush dog Fox 15 Catta beef Pangolin 16 Rat mole Rat mole 17 Chukuchuku beef Brush-tail porcupine 18 Cutting grass Cane rat 19 Bush fowls Francolin 20 Short snake Viper 21 Black snake Black mamba 22 Stone beef Rock hyrax 23 Bush cat African civet 24 Ngombe Iguana 25 Birds Birds (many common species) 26 White monkey White monkey 26 Antelope Antelope
2 Class A species are animals totally protected and may on no occasion be killed except as provided for in Section 82 and 83 of the Cameroon wildlife law 3 Class B species are animals protected and may be hunted, captured or killed subject to the grant of a hunting permit. 4 Class C species animal that are partially protected and their capture or killing is regulated by conditions laid down by order of the Minister in charge of wildlife.
22
27 Sleeping deer Bay duiker 38 Horn bird Horn bird 29 Tortoise Tortoise 30 White-chest monkey Mona Mmonkey 31 Ngoh beef -
NTFP harvesting contributes to raising household income and is practiced by both
men and women. Harvesting of forest plants, slashing of tree barks and collection of
herbs for traditional medicine remain a small but significant portion of forest
product usage, which is very important to the local community members. A greater
percentage of the local community members rely on traditional medicine for health
care as alternative health facilities are limited and when available, underequipped
and hard to afford. Table 4.5 below shows a list of some important NTFPs collected
in this forest area.
Table 4.5: List of some NTFPs collected from the THWS
SN Local name (Mundane and M’mock dialect) Scientific name
1 Bush mango Irvingia
2 Njangsanga Ricinodendron heudelotii
3 Bush onion Scorodophloeus zenkeri
4 Bitter cola Cola spp
5 Red colar Cola acuminata
6 Prunus Prunus africana
7 Bush pepper Piper guineensis
8 Cane Calamos deerratus
9 Eru Gnetum africanum
10 Ngogo leaf Magaphrinum sp
11 Mush room Mychorisae spp
23
12 Alakata pepper Aframomum sp
13 Chewing stick Garcinia mannii
14 Monkey cola Cola lepidota
15 Bush groundnut -
16 Bush coin -
17 Bush nginga -
18 Nkohsi -
19 Elap -
20 Flat -
To measure community members’ need for forest resources we used their
involvement in activities that are forest dependent. These activities included crop
production (subsistent farming), Cocoa and palm oil production (cash crops), NTFPs
harvesting and plant collection for traditional medicine. The percentage distribution
of these activities is presented in Figure 4.3 below.
Figure 4.3: Distribution of livelihood generating activities
Crop production (43%) in this study area is dependent on the forest because of the
farming method. The main farming practice is slash and burn and bush fallowing.
24
Hunting was practiced by about 17% of the respondents and constitutes a major
threat to large mammals’ species abundance and diversity in the forest area. Palm
oil production (17%) also requires large portions of primary forest for
establishment and this is resulting in a constantly shrinking forest habitat in this
area. Harvesting of NTFPs (5 %) and collection of plants (5 %) for traditional
medicine also contribute to forest resources degradation, as sustainable harvesting
practices are not commonly used during the harvest.
4.4 Impact of conservation strategies on local communities’ livelihood The impact of conservation strategies on local communities’ livelihood was
investigated by posing the question “Which conservation action will affect your
livelihood the most?” In response, the following results presented in Figure 4.4 were
recorded. For the purpose of this study, we asked respondent to quantify to what
extent these actions could affect their income activities (activity mainly to raise
income for household) and basic livelihood activities (activities to meet basic
household needs excluding raising income for household).
Figure 4.4: Main conservation actions that will affect local livelihood
25
Figure 4.4 show that hunting is practiced purposely for raising income for the
household rather than as basic livelihood needs (household consumption). This
implies that, incentive to fight against hunting should be in the direction of
providing alternative income source for hunters as hunting restriction will largely
affect income needs of households involved. On the other hand, we observe that,
most farmers were not so much interested in making income but were more
concern about having enough food that will sustain their household. Only excess of
farm produce are sold to the local market. In this line we also argue that incentive to
lobby farmers to support conservation should not only be income-based incentive
but also food security-based incentives. In addition we also observed that restriction
of NTFP collecting will largely affect income but will have a low impact on basic
livelihood because cultivated vegetables can easily substitute most NTFPs
consumption.
4.5 Integrated strategies for Cross River conservation
An integrated strategy for the Cross River gorilla conservation need to be well
informed about the internal and external threats to conservation and more
importantly to be able to protect and integrate the interest of the local people into
conservation objectives. The assumptions of poverty and lack of alternative
livelihood options should not be over emphasized as the main causes of
environmental degradation. In this study we, noted that some indigenous people are
bound to forest destructive activities not because they are poor or cannot take up
alternative livelihood opportunities that may be offer to them but rather because of
the previous attachments they have had with forest resources. These attachments
make them reluctant in accepting to face new challenges, which may arise as a result
of new livelihood options. In this line, to be able to inform an integrated strategy for
the Cross River gorilla, we adopted two approaches of analyses:
26
1. Firstly, We look the conservation program as a system by identifying possible
problems, their implications on conservation, current efforts in the field,
constraints of current effort and a possible way forward.
2. Secondly, we analyse how possible way forward may contribute positively or
negatively to the conservation programme.
4.5.1 Cross River Conservation programme as a system
Figure 4.5: Conceptual model for harmonising conservation and livelihood
Poaching, poor farming methods, external influence (mainly from elites), personal
interest (mainly from community heads and local government officials) and cultural
practices were all identified as threats to successful conservation. These threats
Capacity building
Adaptive collaborative management
Integrated policies and
research
Program staff capacity
Availability of funding
Implementation strategy
Poor project Management
Research and education
Conflict management
Land use planning
Local policies
Monitoring and Evaluation
Forest lost and climate change
Landslide and soil erosions
Species extinction and lost of
biodiversity
Threats to forest conservation
Possible impacts
Current mitigation measures
Major constraints
Way forward
Poaching
Poor farming
External influence
Personal interest
Culture and believes
Evaluate management effectiveness
Sustainable conservation
27
eventually led to forest degradation, possible climate change effects, land slide and
soil erosion, loss of biodiversity and is a severe threat to the extinction of the
critically endangered Cross River gorilla given its fragile population. Current effort
to solve these challenges included research and awareness raising, conflict
management, land use planning, local policies and monitoring and evaluation.
However, this study graded the current effort so far as unsuccessful based on field
data and observations. Firstly, local policies, which are implemented in
collaboration with the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife and the local government,
do not adequately take into consideration local needs (values, perceptions and
livelihood needs).
“The government and the local NGO have had several meetings with us to threaten us
to support the conservation project but we are not willing to collaborate because they
do not care about us, they prefer the animal in the forest to us” (Point of view of a
Community member in Fossimondi Village).
From the above statement and other supporting data from the field, we observe that,
most local people are not in full support of the current conservation strategies.
Further analysis showed that this is partly because of the way the conservation
project is presented to the local people. They don’t perceive the project as beneficial
to them and in this case do not deem it necessary to support it without any
rewarding incentive from the conservation organisation. This argument is further
supported by the fact that, the concern communities have turn down land use
planning projects and termed it as a strategy for the non-profit organisation to
delimit them from “their land” and ripe the benefit that will have belong to them.
The above perception subsequently have force some of the community members to
start cutting down primary forest just to make sure no forest will be available for
conservation in the future. With this action, they feel that conservation promoters
will have no forest to conserve and will eventually leave “their land”.
28
Figure 4.6: Primary forest cut down for subsistence farming
Secondly, we also observed that conflict management has continuously used a top-
bottom approach in resolving conflicts and in this line community members are
sceptical in given their full support for conservation, as they fear their right may
eventually be completely lost in the long run.
In evaluating while current mitigation actions have not been successful, we also
recorded some limiting factors, which might be contributing to the poor
implementation strategy. This included;
• The capacity of most field staff managing the project is very low. This limits
their ability to critically analyse challenges in the field and come up with
innovative solutions. The limitations in solving these challenges sustainably
make the program to rely on external assistance (local government - which
have little experience and follow-up in natural resource management). Given
the administrative background (bureaucracy) of the local government, their
involvement in conflict resolution often lead to poor conflict management.
• Availability of funding both to support local needs as well as hire expert who
can critically analyse problems and come up with solutions that are not
expensive to implement was also evaluated as some of the causes to poor
programme implementation. Little comprehensive student has been
29
conducted in this area to improve program implementation and design. Thus
insufficient funding for research also subsequently led to poor project design
and implementation.
On the other hand, we also evaluated possible solutions that could contribute
positively toward the current situation of the project. This analysis led the following
suggestions:
• Capacity building of project execution staff: most staff working for the
conservation organisation have gain field experience but have not been able
to translate this field experience into effective implementation strategies
because insufficient capacity. In this line, capacity building in the form of
training base on evaluation of the implementation effectively will
significantly improve the way challenges and conflicts are handle in the field.
On the other hand, it is also imperative to train indigenous community to
gradually take up the management of natural resource, so that they will feel
more secure on their rights and believes.
• Integrated policies and research: the ability to adapt policy to match
indigenous knowledge and cultural value is a strength to conservation
success if well harness. Indigenous community most often reject
conservation strategies because the most often do not adequately
accommodate their values and believe. Constant research on integrated
management will help strengthen conservation policies to capture these
values.
• Adaptive and collaborative management: this takes into consideration the
need of the local people and make sure the zeal to conserve wildlife do not
outweigh indigenous quest for secure livelihood. In this line, it is more
advisable to re-enforce existing livelihood options to add more meaning to
local livelihood than to introduce new options. The introduction of new
livelihood options should be carefully assess and introducing at a more relax
pace to enable it effectiveness.
30
4.5.2 Integrating food security program into conservation strategies
Figure 4.7: Linked incentives strategy
(Source: Salafsky and Wollenberg, 2000)
In other to demonstrate how sustainable livelihood (food security) could be attain
within the framework of the Cross River gorilla project, we will like to make
reference to the link incentive strategy of Salafsky & Wollenberg (2000) in figure 4.7
above. We acknowledged that, biodiversity conservation often posses a threat to
indigenous livelihood. However, we will also further argue that in as much as this
two aspects are strongly link in a rural setting as in this case study, it does not
necessary implies that maximum support of livelihood in such a setting will enable
equivalent support of biodiversity conservation. They are internal and external
variables that should be taken into consideration, which are directly or indirectly
link to local livelihood. For instant, in our case study, we observe that, the cultural
attachment of local people to the forest and its resource makes them reluctant to
take up alternative livelihood options. In the same line, external influences from
elite and the local government official, which may want personal benefits from the
conservation project cannot be ignore. In addition, as we noted earlier in this report,
increase livelihood related to old livelihood is an important aspect to consider. In
support to this view, many local people were also of the view that they will prefer to
Enhanced biodiversity value to local stakeholders
Increased benefits relative to old livelihood
activities
Internal threats (harmful livelihood
activities)
Stakeholder capacity to mitigate threat
External threats
Biodiversity
Promote linked
livelihood activity
Linkage
31
receive livelihood support toward activities that they are familiar with than to
venture into relatively new livelihood activity.
“If I have to leave my farmland in the forest for gorilla conservation, then the
conservation organisation should be ready to relocate me to another piece of forest
where I can continue with my farming. If they can do that, I will have no problem with
them” noted a local famer. In the same view an indigenous educated lady teaching in
a primary school the local community also noted that “Our rural women do not know
anything about what it take to set up a business. They have only been verse with
farming all their life and I believe support on farming will encourage them to support
gorilla conservation”
Thus we argue here that, for biodiversity value to be enhanced, we most see it
through the lens of indigenous people. We must be able to accept indigenous value
and practices and enhance this values and practices to support biodiversity
conservation. We must also be aware that, what we as implementers may perceive
as being linkages between livelihood and conservation may not be what a
stakeholder will perceive. In this line, it is imperative to involve stakeholders in the
designing of phase of projects aim at providing alternation livelihood support to
forest degrading livelihood.
32
5.0 CONCLUSION AND NEXT ACTIONS
5.1 Conclusion Farming and hunting are the biggest and most visible threat to the Cross River
gorilla conservation. The traditional methods of farming (shifting cultivation and
slash and burn) practiced in this area are constantly leaving cultivated land exposed
to erosion, landslide and subsequently infertility. This has been one of the main
causes of continuous forest encroachments. Farmers cut down virgin forest yearly
in search for fertile land for farming. Hunting remains a threat to species diversity
and species abundance in the forest area. Though the hunting of great apes has
subsided in the study area, other wildlife species including endangered primates
like the bush baby are still heavily hunted for the local market. In addition, we also
observed that, most livelihood activities remain forest dependent not because there
is no immediate alternative to forest destructive livelihood option but primarily
because forest dependent livelihood options yield more returns compare to the
alternative options. In this line, forest dependent activities remain the main source
of livelihood and provide income to households around the forest area.
Moreover, the perceptions of most indigenous people toward the long-term
objectives of conservation are one of the main reasons why they are not willing to
support conservation and why they continue with forest destructive activities
despite conservation efforts. Many private individuals also continue to cut up large
hectares of land in the gorilla habitat for farming purpose. On the other hand,
conservation efforts have not been able to effectively capture local attention toward
conservation activities due to insufficient strategies and poor conflicts management.
In this line, there still exist a gap between indigenous people views and conservation
views.
33
5.2 Next actions
5.2.1 Addressing immediate conservation needs in the study area
Based on the results of this study, we believe the following recommendations are
urgent for the next actions and will go a long way to contribute to conservation
success:
• Enhancing alternative livelihood options to yield more or equal returns as
forest dependent livelihood activities. However, a detail assessment of
alternative livelihood options that will comparatively yield more
conservation success will add more value to implementation success.
Notwithstanding, this study recommends support attention toward
sustainable agricultural activities, which integrate traditional knowledge and
modern technology.
• The gap between local views and conservation views need to be address.
This can be handle in two possible dimensions. Firstly, by implementing a
more incentive conservation strategy which support indigenous needs and
values as stated above and secondly integrating conservation education into
culture and traditional practices. In this line, it is also important to assess
which cultural and traditional practices will best accommodate this strategy.
• Conflicts should be revisited and re-addressed in a bottom-up management
approach where community members are empowered to play leading roles
in conflict management. Through this approach, key informants in each
community with conflict can be lobby and motivated to revolve such conflicts
internally without much external influence. This approach will also at the
same time empower community members and improve their participation
toward conservation success.
34
• Capacity building of staff on collaborative management and conflict
resolution will also significantly contribute to conservation success.
5.3.2 Evaluation management effectiveness
Evaluating the effectiveness of how well conservation activities are being managed
will also improve the success of conservation activities in the THWS. Management
effectiveness was recorded as one of the main shortcoming to the success of the
Cross River gorilla conservation project. Given that each protected area has a variety
of biological and social characteristics, pressures and uses, achieving effective
management is not an easy task. It requires adopting appropriate management
objectives and governance systems, adequate and appropriate resources and the
timely implementation of appropriate management strategies and processes
(Hockings et al. 2006). It is unlikely to be achieved fully without an approach to
management that is inquiring and reflective; that seeks to understand how effective
the current management regime is and how it could be improved. Information on
management effectiveness is thus a cornerstone of good management. Management
effectiveness for the THWS can draw inspiration from the framework of Hockings et
al. (2006). The framework provides a consistent basis for designing assessment
systems without attempting to impose one standardized methodology. It gives
guidance about what to assess and provides broad criteria for assessment, while
enabling different methodologies to be incorporated. In this line, assessment can be
undertaken at different scales and depths.
35
Reference
Adams, W.M. et al., 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science (New York, N.Y.), 306(5699), pp.1146–9. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15539593.
Alemagi, D., 2011. Sustainable development in Cameroon’s forestry sector : Progress, challenges, and strategies for improvement. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 5(2), pp.65–72.
Ashley, C. & Hussein, K., 2000. Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment : Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. , pp.1–61.
Bierschenk, T. & Oliver De Sardan, J., 1997. ECRIS : Rapid collective inquiry for the identification of conflicts and strategic groups. Human Organisation, 56(2), pp.238–244.
Carlson, M.J., Mitchell, R. & Rodriguez, L., 2011. Scenario Analysis to Identify Viable Conservation Strategies in Paraguay ’ s Imperiled Atlantic Forest. Ecology and Society, 16(3).
Diaw, M.C., Aseh, T. & Prabhu, R., 2009. In Search of Common Ground: Adaptive Collaborative Management in Cameroon, Bogor, Indonesia: Researched by the Center for International Forestry Research.
Dressler, W. et al., 2010. From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation, 37(01), pp.5–15. Available at: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0376892910000044 [Accessed March 6, 2012].
Guariguata, M.R. et al., 2010. Compatibility of timber and non-timber forest product management in natural tropical forests: Perspectives, challenges, and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(3), pp.237–245. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112709008342 [Accessed August 28, 2011].
De Herdt, T., Bastiaensen, J. & D’Exelle, B., 2004. Towards a Local Socio-Institutional Analysis of Anti-Poverty Interventions: A Critical Review of Methods and Researchers.
Hockings, M. et al., 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition 2nd ed., Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Nkemnyi, M.F. et al., 2013. Making hard choices: balancing indigenous communities livelihood and Cross River gorilla conservation in the Lebialem–Mone Forest landscape, Cameroon. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(3), pp.841–857. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10668-012-9416-y [Accessed March 15, 2013].
Salafsky, N. & Wollenberg, E., 2000. Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and Biodiversity. World Development, 28(8), pp.1421–1438. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305750X00000310.
Soltani, A. et al., 2012. Poverty, sustainability, and household livelihood strategies in Zagros, Iran. Ecological Economics, 79, pp.60–70. Available at:
36
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S092180091200170X [Accessed November 21, 2012].
Windle, S. et al., 2009. Harmful Traditional Practices and Women’s Health: Female Genital Mutilation J. Ehiri, ed. Maternal and Child Health, pp.167–189. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/b106524 [Accessed August 6, 2012].
37
