REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON Paix - Travail - Patrie Peace - Work - Fatherland ------

MINISTERE DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT MINISTRY OF THE ET DES FORETS ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY ------

Evaluation of the technical, financial and organisational sustainability of village-natural-resource-management- committees in the support zone of Korup national park

Final Report 14/01/2004

Carried out on behalf of GTZ – Korup Project

By Dr. Kai Schmidt-Soltau (research supervisor), Dr. Athanasius Nkwatoh Mrs. Marie Meboka Mr. Peter Sanga

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 2

Table of content______

Executive Summary...... 3 1. Introduction...... 9 1.1. Research Strategy ...... 11 1.2. Sampling...... 12 2. Findings ...... 14 2.1. General description...... 14 2.1.1. Village Natural Resource Management Committees...... 14 2.1.2. Umbrella organisations ...... 17 2.1.3. Members of VNRMC...... 18 2.1.4. Stakeholder organisations ...... 19 2.2. Organisational sustainability ...... 20 2.2.1. Meetings ...... 20 2.2.2. Decision making and feedback...... 22 2.2.3. Cooperation and new ideas...... 23 2.2.4. Documentation...... 25 2.3. Technical sustainability...... 25 2.3.1. Activities...... 26 2.3.2. Training...... 27 2.3.3. Management of natural resources ...... 30 2.4. Financial sustainability ...... 31 2.5. Summary...... 35 3. Recommendations...... 35 4. Bibliography ...... 38 Annex 1: Term of reference...... 40 Annex 2: List of VNRMC provided by Korup Project...... 41 Annex 3: Itinerary...... 42 Annex 4: Stakeholder questionnaire...... 44 Annex 5: VNRMC questionnaire ...... 48 Annex 6: Membership-list VNRMC ...... 58 Annex 7: Personal assessment form...... 59 Annex 11: Workshop report By Marie Meboka ...... 60 Annex 12: General Comments...... 63 Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 3

Executive Summary

Village based natural resource management committees (VNRMC) are important stakeholders for integrated conservation and development projects. From 1992 onward, Korup Project (KP) assisted communities in the establishment of VNRMC. The report is based on an analysis of a representative sample of the VNRMC in the KP area. It outlines aims and objectives of the stakeholders, assesses the organisational, technical and financial capacities of the VNRMC in view of the question whether they are sustainable (self-sufficient) and elaborates recommendation how a three dimensional sustainability (organisational, technical and financial) could be achieved.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION Less than 20 % of the villages in the KP region have VNRMC. Of the existing committees 1/3 are inactive. More than half of the VNRMC existed before the implementation of KP. VNRMC were founded mainly to manage the natural resources of the village and to keep foreigners away from the forest traditionally owned by the villages (common law). Those VNRMC working till date are mainly doing so to manage the natural resources of the villages and to generate income from forest exploitation. The members of VNRMC are of the view that their committees have developed over the years. Their main achievements are among other a sustainable (reduced) utilisation of natural resources, an increase of income and wealth and better infrastructure. The VNRMC have high expectations for the future and want to achieve within the next 10 years mainly a further increase in income and wealth, a more sustainable management of natural resources and the establishment of better infrastructure. The conservation related aims are losing ground over the years towards development related aims, but the VNRMC and their villages are of the view, that they have a positive impact on natural resources. The concept of natural resource management is well known and well perceived. KP is seen as having a positive impact on the natural resource management and has offered benefits to villages and VNRMC. The VNRMC are of the view that their committees will at least lose force or change their objectives after the end of KP. The members of the VNRMC are on average sad about the departure of KP. 78 % of the VNRMC are organised in three umbrella organisations (ENARESMAC, ERNARMAC & NDIG). While ENARESMAC and ERNARMAC are quite active, NDIG did not carry out any meeting and only became active on social issues. Umbrella organisations VNRMC with an active umbrella organisation, are significantly more satisfied with their Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 4

development. The umbrella organisations as intermediates between KP and the VNRMC have influence on the aims and objectives of the VNRMC: ERNARMAC members have more conservation related aims than others. ENARESMAC members are more convinced than others, that they will continue after the closure of Korup Project in the same directing. VNRMC members 206 members of VNRMC - of whom 86% were male - were interviewed. They have an average age of 43 years and have finished on average at least the first school The secretaries have the highest educational level. 84% of the VNRMC members consider farming as their main occupation. On average they are quite sad about the closure of KP. Members of VNRMC, which have not been visited by KP in 2002/3 and members, who only joint the VNRMCs within the last two year were not as sad as others. MINEF MINEF structures have very limited knowledge on the VNRMC and have never collaborated with them. MINEF officers do not have much hope that the VNRMC continue to work in the future, but in case that they do, MINEF is prepared to cooperate with them and offer technical advice and financial support.

ORGANISATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY On the basis of the interviews, the following criteria were established as benchmark of sustainability in the area of organisational development: 1. Organise independently from external agents in a participatory manner meetings to different topics, which are perceived positive by the members. 2. The decision making process is democratic and carried out in accordance with the traditional organisations of the village (through feedbacks and joined decision making processes). 3. Organise and carry out activities in cooperation with strategic partners on different subjects, which are perceived positively by all actors. 4. Gather new ideas from cooperation and training and use these new ideas successfully (internal development). 5. Document the developments of the committee to learn from errors and achievements (lessons learned). Ad. 1: The VNRMC held on average 3 meetings per year, most of them on two or more different topics. Most of them were initiated by the presidents and organised jointly by the president and the secretaries. KP was involved in one way or the other in 61% of the meetings, mainly as advisor and facilitator. Those VNRMC without an umbrella organisation organised less meetings, to less subjects and were more dependent on KP assistants than others. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 5

49% of the meetings did not have any financial backing and also most others had only very limited budgets. Ad. 2: Most decisions were made either participatory or by elections but within the VNRMC and not - as it was planned – in cooperation with the traditional council. Nevertheless, the VNRMC tried in their majority to keep contacts with the traditional setting of their villages. Most committees reported on average 3 times per year back to the community. Most of the time, the reported activities and decisions were approved and resulted in activities. Ad.3: VNRMC searched mainly for cooperation with the umbrella organisations and other VNRMC. On average, cooperation with other villages is considered positively, while the Ekpe society and the youth are perceived as the most fruitful partners. The VNRMC are able to search for strategic partners: training with Korup, forest patrols with the umbrella organisation, youth and Ekpe, etc., but this collaboration did not show fast success. Ad.4: 33% of the VNRMC did – according to their own statement - not learn anything new from their cooperation partners and only 19% received more than one new idea within the last 10 years. Ad.5: 34% of the VNRMC could not produce any documents at all and 67 % did not have any reports at hand. Technical sustainability Based on the interviews and discussions, the view was developed that VNRMCs are sustainable, when they are able to 1. carry out successfully several activities per year, 2. plan, organise, evaluate these activities without external assistance, 3. work hand in glove with the village, 4. organise several trainings per year, 5. evaluate the results of these trainings and utilise the new knowledge, 6. elaborate a detailed training need catalogue, which is related to past activities and the objectives of the group, and 7. establish a clear and successful control over the various natural resources. Ad.1: 7% of the VNRMC did not carry out any activity and 33% only a single activity. On average the VNRMC carried out 2 activities per year. On average the VNRMC and the villages are satisfied with these activities. Ad.2: Most activities are initiated, planed and implemented by the VNRMCs, while KP and the traditional council play only a marginal role. 64 % of the activities were carried out by the VNRMC. Ad.3: The VNRMC initiated and planed under the leadership of their presidents several activities and carried them out in close collaboration with the village, which are the main beneficiary of the activities and played an even more important role than the VNRMC in the evaluation. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 6

Ad.4: 47% of the VNRMC did received trainings between 2000 and 2003. KP suggested 96%, paid for 81% and conducted 69% of all trainings offered. Ad.5: Especially the training on NTFPs marketing is perceived as success, but was never formally evaluated. The VNRMC members are quite satisfied with the trainings offered and use most of the new knowledge. In this light, it is surprising, that their training need assessments are not correlated with the assessment of the trainings offered in the past. The VNRMC are not able to position ‘training’ within the planning and development circle of their organisational and technical development. This goes along with the request that others (KP 81%) should pay and conduct the trainings. Ad.6: The management of natural resources is carried out in 90% of the villages with quite some success. Especially the control of timber and NTFP exploitation was considered as success story, while wildlife control was considered as least successful. To carry out controls, the VNRMC utilised a full array of instruments such as fines, exploitation quota and prohibition, mostly in a combination of two or more instruments. The work was supervised by delegates and supported through forest patrols in collaboration with the village.

FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Based on the interviews the view was developed, that a sustainable VNRMC should be 1. able to generate more income than expenditure, 2. able to generate sufficient income, 3. able to generate funds from different sources, 4. utilising a clear management system (collecting, storing and disbursement of funds), 5. documenting all financial transaction, 6. contributing financially to the greater good of the village etc., and 7. operate without major conflicts arising from financial aspects, can be considered as sustainable. Ad.1: The majority of the VNRMC have ended 2002/2003 with a positive balance (more income than expenditure). Ad.2 & 3: More than half of the VNRMC have an income below FCFA 100,000 from less than 2 different sources of income such as levies, penalties, NTFP exploitation and logging. Nevertheless, the VNRMC were quite satisfied with their financial capacities. Ad.4: In 90 % of VNRMC the money was handled by the treasures and in 10 % of the cases by the traditional council, but in nearly all cases the management was not very transparent. Ad.5: 90% of the VNRMC claimed to have financial records, but in most cases they were not available at the time of interview. Ad.6: VNRMC spend their funds on a variety of expenditures ranging from the holding of meetings to the purchase of materials for forest patrols. The payment of PTA levies is the highest expenditures in all groups and also the one, which is perceived most positive. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 7

Ad.7: 27% of the VNRMC reported conflicts resolving from financial issues mainly resolving from a lack of transparency.

SUMMARY In general, the VNRMC of the KP region are quite powerful institutions, which are successful and dynamic managers of their environment. Nevertheless, most VNRMC have still much space to develop their various capacities to overcome the documented shortcomings. While it became obvious, that some of the VNRMC only existed to apply for outside aid, others utilised the facing out strategy of KP to increase their activities. That their aims and objectives are more development oriented to address the poverty in the region than promoting the protection of wildlife and forest is not a real surprise.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Aims and objectives · The aims and objectives should be more realistic. · The aims and objectives should be discussed with the members and the village. · On the basis of the aims and objectives a detailed action plan should be developed. · This process should be facilitated by the umbrella organisations. KP should train 2 members of each umbrella organisations and 4 elected members of the VNRMC without umbrella organisations in the elaboration of action plans. Organisational sustainability · The VNRMC should produce reports on their activities and have a system of putting them together, so that they and others can learn from past experiences. · There is need for both the umbrella organisations and the VNRMC to have a common understanding and agreement on the way they interact and function for the greater good. · The communities, umbrella organisations, VNRMC and other stakeholder should evaluate after a certain period their experiences, problems and plans for the future to harmonise their activities and detect problems at an early stage. · The VNRMC and the villages should think on a method to encourage and reward hardworking members of the committees. KP should produce – based on its own experience - a guideline for the VNRMC on how to establish and capitalise lessons learned. Technical sustainability · The participation of MINEF should be increased to provide a legal backing for the activities of the VNRMC. Umbrella organizations, VNRMC and MINEF should elaborate minutes of understanding and try to legalize their activities. · The objectives and subjects of further training should be clearly defined on the basis of the evaluation of past activities and trainings. Mechanisms should be put in place to monitor their application to yield the desired impacts. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 8

KP should focus on key activities currently done by the VNRMC and facilitate their implementation (incl. monitoring and evaluation system). Financial sustainability · In exchange visits, the VNRMCs should learn from each other proper ways of fund sourcing and management (best practice). · If the need arises, further training in the field of fund sourcing and management should – on request - be channelled through the umbrella organisations. · There is a need for continues back stopping on proper financial management. KP should increase its technical support in the area of financial management and channel it through the umbrella committees or NGOs.

Three Steps to achieve an increased sustainability of village natural resource management committees in the Korup Project region 1. Organise and facilitate training workshops on a) participatory planning methods (incl. the elaboration of lessons learned) b) financial management (incl. bookkeeping) and c) participative methods of interaction on village level. Participants should be representatives the umbrella organisations (and elected representatives of active VNRMC without an umbrella organisation). Korup project should provide the technical assistance (expertise, trainers, facilitators, etc.) free of charge, while the running costs of the training sessions (transport, food, accommodation, etc.) should be covered by the participants, since they can request a reimbursement from those VNRMC, which are requesting one or more of the trainings on these subjects. 2. Organise and facilitate a training workshop for the MINEF structures in the region to clarify their role in community based conservation (legal proceedings, PSFE, etc.). 3. Establish in a participatory manner with all active VNRMC (25), all umbrella organisations (3), the traditional authorities of all villages in question (25) and MINEF structures (3) a common understanding on the mission, responsibilities and rights of the VNRMC in the context of sustainable development. As result, the VNRMC and the umbrella organisations should be legalised – following the definition provided in the PSFE - as village based conservation organisations. Korup Project should facilitate this process, which should be finalised before 4/2004 by providing technical assistance (expertise, trainers, facilitators, etc.). All running costs (transport, food, etc.) should be covered jointly by the stakeholders (committees and communities) utilising the revenues of the VNRMC.

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 9 Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 10

1. Introduction

Environmental research has documented, that areas of high biodiversity are mostly found in areas, where the local population is economically and politically marginalised (Dove 1996, Posey 1999). Following the guiding principles of international politics (sustainable development = poverty reduction & biodiversity conservation) Korup Project was designed from the beginning as integrated conservation and development project (ICDP, Masterplan 1989) to link this two equally important elements. The basic belief behind the ICDP approach is the notion that conservation is doomed to fail as long as local people are not participating in the management of the conservation of natural resource utilised by them (Wells et al 1990, Ghimire and Pimbert 1997). Literature prescribes a number of interventions to link conservation with the development needs of the rural population: 1. Establishing buffer zones. 2. Promote alternative natural resource management interventions in the fields of agriculture and forestry. 3. Promote alternative sources of income to replace existing income-generating activities, which are perceived as contra-productive to the conservation goals. 4. Reinforce existing forest management strategies and distribute the benefits directly resolving from sustainable forest use. 5. Provide benefits such as roads, communal infrastructure and social services. 6. Distribute benefits arising from conservation such as income from tourism and biological prospecting. In all these activities local communities are considered as important stakeholders (Brown & Wyckoff-Baird 1991), whose ‘participation’ is critical for the success of the conservation goals. WWF - the main management organisation of Korup Project - and other conservation organisations have declared that the rural population ‘should be recognised as rightful, equal partners in the development and implementation of conservation strategies that affect their lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources, and in particular in the establishment and management of protected areas’ (WWF et al. 1999, principle 1). Only with the full participation of the communities can sustainable natural resource management be truly ‘by, with and for the community’ (Murphree 1996: 8). In the case of Korup Project, the project invited a consultant from Zimbabwe to introduce community based natural resource management in the support zone of Korup National Park. Morumbedze tried to link his CAMPFIRE experience (Metcalfe 1993) with the regional setting (Egbe 1996, Pénelon 1997) and established guidelines for the implementation of village natural resource management committees (VNRMC; Morumbedze 1992). In the following years, officers from the conservation and development component (CDC) of Korup Project (funded by GTZ) organised, facilitated and supported financially the foundation of natural resource management committees on village level (PC Sanga 10/2/03). The effectiveness and smooth functioning of the committees was evaluated from time to time by Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 11

project staff (Sanga 1996, Tamajong & Symonds 1995) and by external researchers (Sakah 1998, Müller 1998). The general perception of the Korup intervention in the area of community based conservation differs. While some conceptualise Korup as success-story (Brown 1999, Borrini-Feyerabend et al 2000) others are quite critical (from a societal perspective: Sharp 1998, Schmidt-Soltau 2000, 2002; and from a biological perspective: Oates 1999, Walters et al. 2002). In what follows we try to establish an analysis of the organisational, technical and financial capacities of the VNRMCs in the Korup Project area in view of the question whether they are organisational sustainable (self-sufficient) as it is predicted by the ICDP-theory. Since sustainability and/or self-sufficiency are depending on the perspectives of the actors, it was seen as necessary to establish an assessment of the aims and objectives of the various stakeholders before the focus is shifted towards the different capacities of the VNRMCs. In the discussion with all parties involved, 4 stakeholders had been identified: 1 Korup Project, as the main promoter of the establishment of VNRMC. 2 MINEF, as representative of state authority in direction of natural resource management. 3 The social organisations on community level (traditional council, chief, etc.), which installed the VNRMC within the traditional setting of the village. 4. The members of the NRMC themselves. The level of sustainability – the question, whether the VNRMC are able to function without further assistance – resolves from their capacities in the various fields. The team surveyed these capacities and elaborated benchmarks for sustainability. In this report this process is documented in three chapters devoted to the organisational, technical and financial capacities of the VNRMCs. The final topic, which rounds up this report, is an assessment of possible and realistic interventions of Korup Project in the area of training to assist the VNRMC to achieve this three dimensional sustainability. These recommendations are closely interrelated with the assessment of the aims and objectives of the VNRMC, because there are several scenarios (following the observation of Sharp 1998), where a sustainable VNRMC does not or hardly contribute to the overall aim of Korup project (biodiversity conservation), but even accelerate biodiversity destruction. The recommended interventions should be “realistic”, which means that the recommendations should reflect the limited time remaining for these trainings. It was agreed with the donor in charge of further training of VNRMC, that the deadline for any training should be 4/2004, since the donors are not prepared to invest in VNRMC, which – after ten years of funding – are still in need of massive and ongoing training. 1.1. Research Strategy Following the prescribed procedures, the research team tried to establish a prior informed Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 12

consent on the ‘reasons for this activity, the specific procedures the activity would entail and the potential risks involved in the full implications that can realistically foreseen as result of the research’ (Laird 2002: 189/190). A prior informed consent was established on 5 different levels: · Governmental level (SDO Ndian 10/2/03, DO Eyumojock 9/4/03) · Project level (Presentation of research goals: Mundemba 12/2/03) · MINEF (Divisional delegation Ndian 14/2/03, Divisional delegation Manyu 15/4/03) · Village leadership level (at the arrival in the village) · Village level (at the beginning of the interviews) · VNRMC (at the beginning of the interviews) The research conditions were in generally quite good. In all villages the members of the VNRMC, the traditional councils, the chiefs and the general public were very open and interested in the study and highly prepared to answer our question, which took in some cases up to 3 hours. 1.2. Sampling Based on the finding, that the various databases established by Korup Project provide different information on number and location of natural resource management committees, the team elaborated in discussions with the officers in charge of the different project regions a new list, which is provided in Annex 2. This list, which was used as baseline data for our sampling, named 38 village natural resource management committees. While the VNRMC in the north and the east of the project region are assembled in three umbrella committees, the committees in the south, west and centre do not have such structure. Among the 38 village level natural resource management committees 30 VNRMC (79 %) were selected at random following the 2 strata: region (Eyumojock, Nguti and Mundemba) and accessibility (existence of road to village).1 In the village the community and the committee were interviewed separately (using two teams of two researchers each). Beside of that, all umbrella organisations, the MINEF structures at divisional level (Ndian, Manyu) and the Korup project authorities were visited, since they are important stakeholders for the sustainable management of natural resources. To gather data four different questionnaires were utilised: 1. Stakeholder questionnaire (Annex 4): It was used to interview the 30 communities, 2 MINEF structures and Korup Project. In 13 questions the stakeholders’ knowledge on, experience with and perception of the VNRMCs were assessed. Beside of that the options for future cooperation were surveyed. 2. VNRMC questionnaire (Annex 5): It was used to interview the 30 VNRMCs and the three umbrella organisations. With the help of 38 detailed questions general information (their perception on wildlife, forest, Korup project and natural resource management), assessed aims and objectives (original setting, contemporary approach and lessons learned), organisational capacity (meetings, decision making processes, feedbacks,

1 The second strata (accessibility by car) did not work out, since we were able to travel also to most of those villages, sampled as villages without roads (Ekoneman Awa, Ayoke, Dikome Ngolo and Iwassa), by car. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 13

cooperation, development of new ideas and documentation), technical capacity (activities, trainings, training needs, controlling of access to natural resources) and their financial capacity (income, expenditure and finance related problems) were collected. 3. Membership-list VNRMC (Annex 6): This questionnaire was used to get information on the various members of the 30 VNRMC and their 3 umbrella organisations. Information on age, sex, source of income, level of education, function, duration of memberships, frequency of participation in meetings and trainings, and the personal perception on the closure of Korup Project were gathered. 4. Personal assessment form (Annex 7): With the help of this data collecting material, the two researchers interviewing the VNRMC documented their personal perceptions of the organisational, technical and financial sustainability (on a scale between 0 and 100), observations and recommended training needs directly after the interview. For data analysis SPSS 11.5 was employed and 4 different databases for the 4 materials were established with the help of SPSS Data Entry Builder 3. Due to the fact, that only the research supervisor had priory knowledge of computer based quantitative data analysis and SPSS, the data analysis became on the same time – as planed – a training workshop, which was carried out in the office of the Mt. Cameroon Project in Buea (15-26.4). Following the training session, the team members elaborated draft chapters, which were later compiled by the research supervisor in elaboration of a draft report. The restitution workshop took place in Nguti on June 2nd. A workshop report is provided in Annex 8. The remarks and recommendations of the participants (one per VNRMC, MINEF staff was invited but did not attend) are considered within this report and contributed significantly to the overall recommendations. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 14

2. Findings

2.1. General description

2.1.1. Village Natural Resource Management Committees

Three of the 30 survey villages did - in contrast to the statement of the regional task officers - not have a village natural resource management committee. In all three cases VNRMCs were originally founded, but abandoned earlier or later due to certain problems. In Baro, the village had been sensitised by the community development component (CDC), had elected a president and a secretary and had elaborated together with the CDC a constitution. The interaction stopped and the VNRMC collapsed soon after, because Baro was declared as one of the villages in the 3 km zone around the park, out of bound for the CDC-officers (PC). In Eyang Manghe, the VNRMC stopped its activity in 1999, because the village had the impression, that ‘Korup did no longer support them’ (PC) and in Ayukaba, the recent chieftaincy conflict resulted in a break down of the council and all its committees. In some cases VNRMCs and their villages confessed that the committee did not carry out any activity between 2000 and 2003. Nevertheless, only in the case of Iwassa and Kita the community and the VNRMC agreed on that view, while in Mbio and Nchemba the village did not realise any activity in contrast of the VNRMC’s statements, that they did something in the last years (forest patrols and joint labour respectively). Also one of the umbrella organisations stopped their meetings and other activities, after the death of the Korup project extension officer in charge of the region (late Frida Arrey) in 2000. In Onaku, Nfaitok and Ashum no meeting was held in 2002, but at least some activities were organised. In summary one can say, that of the remaining 27 committees surveyed, 2 (7 %) were inactive since 2000 and in about 5 (19%) cases question marks have to be placed behind their functionality, which would lead to the assumption, that of the 30 sampled committees at least 20 (67%) were active (meetings & activities, which were also realised by their villages). The same picture resolves from the umbrella organisations: from the 3 existing umbrella organisations 2 were active. If one extrapolates the finding, one can assume that 34 villages in the Korup project support zone – or 18.2% of the existing 187 villages (Bijnsdorp 2001) - have VNRMCs, of which 25 – 13.5% - are surly active. 86.7% of the visited VNRMCs were accessible by road, which is a significantly better accessibility than for the overall project area (roads in 53.8% of the villages: Butcher 1996)2. Most of the committees are situated at the eastern and southern side of the Nta-Ali forest reserve and the northern part of the Ejagham forest reserve. The few villages in the

2 This finding might be related to infrastructural development between 1996 and 2003. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 15

south are assembled around Madie and along the Ekundu Titi – Mundemba - Toko road (see map 1). The reason for this disproportionality is unknown. 56% of the surveyed 27 villages had management structures for their natural resources before the creation of the ir VNRMCs (traditional council = 47%, village committee = 20%, Ekpe 13%, others = 20%). Since 1992, VNRMCs were created in the villages - mostly due to the intervention of Korup project (78%, village = 7%, others = 15%) - to manage the natural resources of the village (33%), to keep foreigners away from the forest traditionally owned by the villages (common law) (15%), to work for and with Korup project (13%,) to control NTFP and timber exploitation (13%), generate income (8%), apply for community forest (8%) and to carry out several other activities (10%, n<2). Those committees working till date are doing so to manage the natural resources of the villages (29%), to generate income (25%), to collect taxes from natural resource users (14%), because Korup Project asked them to do so (14%) or due to several other reasons (18%, n<2). They are of the view, that their committees have since the time, when the committees were founded on average developed a bit (Ø = 6.6+2.4; 15%<5, 15=5, 70%>5 on a scale between 0 (everything has become worse), 5 (no change) and 10 (everything is better now)). Their main achievements are – according to their own perception - among others (46%, n<3) a sustainable (reduced) utilisation of natural resources (20%), an increase of income and wealth (20%) and better infrastructure (14%). Interestingly, no correlation could be documented between these achievements and their perception of the past or their plans for the future. They have high expectations for the future (Ø = 7.7+2.0), but this optimism is neither based in VNRMCs achievements (Pearson, p = 0.79), nor in reasons for the functioning of VNRMCs (Pearson, p = 0.38) nor in the reason, which resulted in the foundation of the committee in the first place (Pearson, p = 0.27) nor in the aims and objectives, they want to see their committee to fulfil in the future. The VNRMCs should achieve within the next 10 years an increase in income and wealth (36%), sustainable management of natural resources (23%), better infrastructure (20%), forest protection against strangers (7%) and other objectives (14%, n<3). A good number of these aims and objectives are not directly related to natural resource management and on average the VNRMCs are more development oriented than aiming at sustainable natural resource management (On a scale between 1 (pure development goals) and 3 (pure conservation goals) they scored Ø = 1.8+0.8). The existence of institutions to manage natural resource before the creating of VNRMC had a significant influence on the goals and objectives. Those villages, which developed the idea of forest committee before the arrival of Korup project, have aims, which are significantly more often conservation related (Ø = 2.5+0.7) than those, which only learned about natural resource management from Korup project (Ø = 1.6+0.6).3

3 ANOVA, p=0.048. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 16

Figure 1 documents a significant change in the aims and objectives, which keeps the members of VNRMCs active. In summary, one can say that conservation related aims (to manage NR, to keep strangers out of forest, control forest exploitation, community forest) are losing ground to development related aims (income generation & infrastructure).

40 The development of VNRMCs' objectives

30 Past Present Future

20

Average Frequency 10

0 Others Income forest farm village To keep of forest generation manage and with community and NTFP To support To work for community To manage expliotation To apply and strangers out infrastructure Korup Project our resources Control timber Develop NTFP Fig.1: The development of the aims and objectives (in average frequency) of the various VNRMCs from the time when they were created (past) towards their wishes for the year 2013 (future) (ANOVA p=0,012). Nevertheless, the VNRMC are of the view, that they have a positive impact on natural resources (Ø = 7.0+1.9; on a scale between 0 (we are very distractive), 5 (no impact) and 10 (we have a very positive impact)). A view, which is supported by their villages (Ø = 7.1+2.0). The concept of natural resource management is well known (by 95%) and well perceived by the VNRMC (Ø = 8.9+0.9; on a scale between 0 (very negative) and 10 (very positive)). For nearly all of them it is important to have wildlife in the forest (96 %)4. They were not that certain, who is the owner of the forest or the wildlife. The forest is equally seen as the property of the government (53 %, including Korup Project), the village (47%, including individuals) or a mixture of the two (government as owner and village as caretaker). A majority perceived themselves to be the owner of wildlife (village 41%, the individual hunter 15%, God/nobody 7%), while the government and/or Korup project is only considered by 37% as the rightful owner of wildlife. Korup Project is seen as having a positive impact on the natural resource management (Ø = 7.2+2.1; on a scale between 0 (they are very distractive), 5 (no impact) and 10 (they have a

4 This finding significantly differs from the overall perception towards animals in the forest in the entire project region: 40.4% of the respondents of the 2000 Korup project impact assessment were of the view, that they do not need animals in the forest (Schmidt-Soltau 2000:15). Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 17

very positive impact))5 and has offered benefits to villages (59%)6 and VNRMCs (52%). The facing out strategy of Korup project has reduced the frequency of visits of Korup staff: While in 2000 only 25% of the villagers had not seen project staff in the village for more than a year (frequency of visit < once a year; Schmidt-Soltau 2000: 25), in 2002, 44% of the villages have not been visited by Korup project officials. The fact that a good number of them have already worked during the last years without assistance, technical advice and/or visits has prepared them to judge on the impact of the closure of Korup Project later this year. On average, the VNRMC are of the view that their committees will at least lose force or change their objectives (Ø = 2.1+0.9 on a scale between 1(we will stop all activities) 3 (we will continue to work as before) and 5 (we will become more effective without Korup Project)), while the villages are a bit more optimistic (Ø = 2.3+1.1). The members of the various VNRMC are on average sad about the departure of Korup project (Ø = 2.6+2.3, on a scale between 0 (I am very sad), 5 (Does not mean anything for me) and 10 (I am very glad)), but there is a significant group of people who does not have any opinion on the closure (7%) or are happy that Korup project ends its activities (12%). The VNRMC of Otu is in their majority very happy with the departure of Korup project (Ø = 7.5+1.9), Nfaitok does not mind the latest developments (Ø = 5.0+3.0), while all other VNRMCs are on average sad about the end of Korup project.7 2.1.2. Umbrella organisations

78% of the VNRMC are organised in three umbrella organisations (ENARESMAC = 44%, ERNARMAC = 26%, NDIG = 8%, no umbrella organisation = 22%). While ENARESMAC and ERNARMAC are quite active (they carried out 4 respectively 2 meetings & 4 respectively 2 activities), did NDIG not carry out any meeting and only became active on social issues. VNRMCs, which have an active umbrella organisation, are significantly more satisfied with their development (ERNARMAC Ø = 6.8+2.1; ENARESMAC Ø = 8.0+1.1) than those with a non-active umbrella organisation (NDIG Ø = 4.5+0.7) or no umbrella organisation (Ø = 4.2+2.9).8 The umbrella organisations as intermediates between Korup Project and the village have - as to be expected - also an influence on the aims and objectives of the VNRMC. ERNARMAC membership groups have more conservation related aims (Ø = 1.9+0.7, on a scale between 1 (pure development aims) and 3 (pure conservation goals)), than ENARESMAC members (Ø = 1.6+0.5) or VNRMC without umbrella organisation (Ø =

5 This is a better result than Korup project has scored in the 2000 impact assessment. While in 2000 only 64% of the respondents were of the view that KP contributed positively to natural resource management (Schmidt-Soltau 2000: 31) 85% of the members of the VNRMC believed that in 2003. 6 56% of the overall villages had realised benefits in 2000 (Schmidt-Soltau 2000: 25) 7 ANOVA, p=0.00 0. 8 ANOVA, p=0.003. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 18

1.2+0.5).9 ERNARMAC-VNRMCs have a less positive perception of natural resource management (Ø = 8.6+0.6) than ENARESMAC-members (Ø = 9.2+0.8), but again have VNRMCs without umbrella organisations or inactive umbrella organisation a significantly lower perception of natural resource management (Ø = 7.9+0.4).10 The expected reaction of the various VNRMCs towards the closure of Korup project is also significantly correlated with the umbrella organisations. While VNRMCs, which are member of ENARESMAC, believe, that they will continue after the closure of Korup Project in the same directing and only face minor problems (Ø = 2.8+0.4 on a scale between 1(we will stop all activities) 3 (we will continue to work as before) and 5 (we will become more effective without Korup Project)), ERNARMAC (Ø = 2.0+1.0) and VNRMC of NDIG or without umbrella organisations (both together = Ø = 1.3+0.5) are not that optimistic. 11 In the case of ENARESMAC the villages joined this optimistic perception of the sustainability of the VNRMCs (Ø = 2.9+0.7), while the ERNARMAC-villagers’ perception of the expected outcome (Ø = 1.9+0.8) is similar to those of villages without an umbrella or an inactive umbrella organisation (Ø = 2.1+1.2).12 2.1.3. Members of VNRMC

We interviewed 178 members of 27 VNRMC (3>n<17) and 28 members of 3 umbrella- organisations on their personal background and their position in the village and the committees. These 206 people - of whom 86% were male - have an average age of 43+13 years and an average education of 3.3+1.2 (on a scale between 1 (no formal education), 3 (First school higher than class 4), 4 (secondary school) and 6 (university). 84% of them considered farming, 3% skilled labour, 3% hunting, 3% business and 7% other activities (n<5) as their main source of income. On average, they have been members in the committees for 4.5+2.5 years. 64% are members of traditional societies such as Ekpe, which enforces laws at village level. 13 18% of them did not attend any meeting in 2002, 10% one, 20% 2 and 12% 3, 30% between 4 and 10 and 10% more than 10 meetings. On average they are quite sad about the closure of Korup project (Ø = 2.6+2.3, on a scale from 0 (very sad) over 5 (does not mean anything to me) and 10 (very glad)). 47% of the members claimed to have special knowledge on one or more natural resource (41% NTFP, 27% Timber, 14% wildlife, 7% fish, 7% medicinal plants and 4% other natural resource or natural resource related activities (n<3). The social stratification follows the normal Cameroonian patterns: the younger people are better educated (No formal education Ø = 53+11 years, Primary school up to class 4 Ø =

9 ANOVA, p=0.034. 10 ANOVA, p=0,033. 11 ANOVA, p=0,000. 12 ANOVA, p=0,043. 13 The members of traditional societies are on average significantly older (Ø = 45+13 years) than those, who have not joint these organisations of law enforcement (Ø = 40+12 years). ANOVA, p=0.004. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 19

54+14 years, Primary school higher than class 4 Ø = 44+13 years; Secondary school Ø = 36+8 years, College Ø = 39+13 years, University Ø = 38+8 years)14 and man have on average a better educational level (Ø = 3.4+1.1 (on a scale between 1 (no formal education), 3 (First school higher than class 4), 4 (secondary school) and 6 (university). than female (Ø = 2.4+1.2) 15. The secretaries have the highest educational level (Ø = 4.1+1.1), while vice-presidents (Ø = 2.8+1.4) and treasures (Ø = 2.5+1.3) – of whom 69% are female - are below the average level of formal education16. Secretaries (Ø = 40+11 years) and public relation (Ø = 35+7 years) officers are younger than the average while especially vice-presidents (Ø = 51+13 years) and technical advisors (Ø = 52+14 years) are above the average age 17. Interestingly, the only question, in which the answers of the presidents of VNRMCs differs significantly from the other member of their committees, were the question on the perception towards the closure of Korup Project: Presidents are more positive towards the closure of Korup project (Ø = 3.1+2.4, on a scale from 0 (very sad) over 5 (does not mean anything to me) and 10 (very glad)) than the average VNRMC member (Ø = 2.6+2.3) 18. Members of VNRMC, which have not been visited by Korup project in 2002/3 were not as touched by the news of the closure of Korup (Ø = 3.1+1.8, on a scale from 0 (very sad) over 5 (does not mean anything to me) and 10 (very glad)) as VNRMC which have been visted regular by Korup project staff (Ø = 2.0+1.6).19 The same is true for members, who only joint the VNRMCs within the last two year (Ø = 4.2+3.3) 20. 2.1.4. Stakeholder organisations

We interviewed 30 stakeholders (the 27 villages sampled for the evaluation of VNRMC, Korup Project and the MINEF Divisional Delegations Ndian and Manyu). In all meetings with the villages, the key-figures of the social and administrative setting were present (chief, elders, councillors), but in some villages a huge crowd with more than 40 people attended the discussion. They held the view, that the VNRMCs were mainly founded as institutions of natural resource management (57.1%), while income generation (11.4%), village development (8.6%), work with Korup Project (8.6) and other objectives (n<2; 14.3%) were perceived as minor aims in the formation process. In contrast to the VNRMCs themselves, only two of the 27 villages (7.4%) were of the view, that they themselves had developed the idea to establish committees to control the forest. While the VNRMCs had a quite elaborated idea, why they exist as group, a good number of the

14 ANOVA, p=0.000. 15 ANOVA, p=0.000. 16 ANOVA, p=0.034. 17 ANOVA, p=0.000. 18 ANOVA, p=0.037. 19 ANOVA, p=0.042. 20 ANOVA, p=0.000. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 20

villages (13.7%) have the impression that the VNRMCs are extension agencies of Korup Project. Nevertheless, the majority is aware that the VNRMCs are out to manage the forest (33.3%), help the village (15.7%), contribute to development (11.8%), collect ‘taxes’ from natural resources exploitation (9.8%) and are involved in other activities (n=1, 15.7%). MINEF structures have a very limited knowledge of the VNRMCs (never heart of them of them = 50%, Manyu), because the officers are – according to their own statements - not often in the villages (100%). Due to this absence from the field, they also have never collaborated with the community based conservation actors (100%). They do not have much hope, that the VNRMCs continue to work in the future, but – if they continue to function – is MINEF prepared to cooperate with them and offer technical advise (100%) and financial support (50%, Ndian).

2.2. Organisational sustainability The sustainability of an organisation is mostly related to its ability to keep its members interested, to attract new members and to facilitate an interaction, which is considered as harmonic and fruitful by all actors. The most common concept prescribes for topic related groups – like the VNRMCs – a constant development towards a clear and democratic defined goal. To assess the organisational sustainability of the VNRMCs, we surveyed their capacity to initiate, plan, facilitate and evaluate meetings, decision making processes, feedback sessions and the cooperation with others. On the basis of these interviews, we established the following criteria as benchmark of sustainability in the area of organisational development: · Organise independently from external agents (Korup Project, etc.) in a participatory manner meetings to different topics, which are perceived positive by the members. · The decision making process is democratic and carried out in accordance with the traditional organisations of the village (through feedbacks and joined decision making processes). · Organise and carry out activities in cooperation with strategic partners on different subjects, which are perceived positively by all actors. · Gather new ideas from cooperation and training and use these new ideas successfully (internal development). · Docume nt the developments of the committee to learn from errors and achievements (lessons learned). 2.2.1. Meetings The VNRMC held on average 3.4+3.0 meetings per year – most of them (80%) on two or more different topics. Most of them were initiated by the presidents (89.9%) and organised jointly by the president and the secretaries (86.5%). Korup Project initiated and organised only 3 (sensitisation) meetings (4.3%) but were involved in one way or the other in 60.9% Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 21

of the meetings: As advisor (23.2%), facilitator (21.7%), donor (7.2%) and/or in another role (n<2, 8.8%). Those VNRMCs without an (or without a functional) umbrella organisation (83.3%) organised less meetings, to less subjects and were more dependent on the assistants of Korup (7.6% of their meetings were organised by Korup and Korup Project played a role in nearly all their meetings) than others. 49.3% of the meetings did not have any financial backing and also most others had only a very limited budget (17.9% = FCFA 1000, 13.4% between 2000 and 6000 FCFA). Nevertheless, in 19.4% of the meetings the VNRMCs spend more than 10.000 FCFA. The data did not offer any correlation to explain this disproportion, but – interestingly – the amount available for the meetings did not influence the level of satisfaction. Table 1 documents, that the committee members did not like information sharing and problem solving meetings to the same extent as sensitisation meetings, but the data did not offer any explanation for this variation in perceptions. One might suspect, that sensitisations are preferred due to item 11 (entertainment), but there was no significant difference in the financial backing of the different types of meetings.21

Subject of meeting Frequency Evaluation22 n % Average + STD Planning 11 15.94 7. 59+1.39 Information sharing 10 14.49 6.45+0.76 Exploitation licence 8 11.59 6.63+1.41 Sensitisation 7 10.14 8.57+1.40 Problem solving 6 8.70 6.67+1.21 Progress on activity 6 8.70 7.83+1.33 NTFP marketing and contribution 4 5.80 7.50+1.47 Fines 2 2.90 - Timber exploitation 2 2.90 - Village development 2 2.90 - Evaluation of activities 2 2.90 - Others (n=1) 9 13.04 - Total 69 100 7.30+1.43 Tab.1: The frequency of the various subject related meetings and their evaluation In general, are most VNRMCs able to organise independently meetings to different topics, which are perceived by their members as success, but the gap between the number of planning meetings and evaluation meetings (11:2) document some shortcomings in the planning process.

21 ANOVA, p=0.432. 22 ANOVA, p=0.0493. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 22

2.2.2. Decision making and feedback Most decisions were made either participatory (73.2%) or by elections (21.4%), while autocratic decisions were an exception (5.4%). Interestingly, most decisions are made within the VNRMC (64.3%) and not - as it was planned - by the traditional council (12.5%), the chief (8.9%) or the village as such (14.3%). Table 2 document an interesting disproportion between the evaluation of NTFP- exploitation and NTFP-marketing. It seems, as if the decision to exploit the forest jointly – and ban outside harvests – had it easier to document its advantage for the villagers, than the quite complex issue of marketing structures and strategies for NTFPs. It was interesting, that in these complex issue, which only works when VNRMC and village are joining hands, the involvement of the village, the traditional council and the chief in the decision making process could not been documented.

Decision making on: Frequency Evaluation 23 N % Average + STD NTFP-exploitation 18 32.14 7.97+1.46 Penalties to defaulters 14 25.00 7.39+1.67 NTFP marketing 5 8.93 7.00+1.58 Conflicts 3 5.36 6.33+1.53 Ban of outside hunters 3 5.36 9.00+1.00 Timber exploitation 2 3.57 - Forest patrols 2 3.57 - Others (n=1) 9 16.07 - Total 56 100 7.68+1.54 Tab.2: Subjects of decision making processes and their evaluation through VNRMC members Nevertheless, the VNRMCs still tried in their majority to keep contacts with the traditional setting of their villages. Most committees reported from time to time – on average 2.74+2.40 times per year - to the traditional council (37.2%), the community (37.2%) and the chief (11.6%), while 14.0% gave their feedbacks to organisations outside the traditional setting (other VNRMCs or umbrella organisations). Most of the time, the reported activities and decisions – outlined in table 3 - were approved (88.4%) and resulted in activities (76.2%), but the most controversial subject of decision making - NTFP marketing - was missing as subject of the feedback. The feedback on trainings received the lowest score in the evaluation and also resulted in less than average cases in activities. These might be a result of the finding that training was not considered as a subject of decision making or of planning meetings – as one will see later. A good number of our respondents expressed as reason for their positive perception of feedbacks on the financial situation, that the handing over of money, which was generated through

23 ANOVA, p=0.0352. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 23

their involvement in forest management, to finance communal activities, such as levies for PTA teachers, satisfied them and justified their individual involvement in the VNRMCs.

Feedback on: Frequency Evaluation 24 N % Average + STD Results of activities 11 25,58 7.96+1.42 Meetings 11 25,58 7.04+2.32 Progress on activities 11 25,58 7.36+1.80 Financial management 3 6,98 8.83+1.26 Training 2 4,65 6.00+1.41 Problem solving 2 4,65 7.50+2.12 Others (n=1) 3 6,98 - Total 43 100 7.23+2.05 Tab.3: Subjects of feedback and the evaluation of the success of the feedback circle 2.2.3. Cooperation and new ideas Another important method to increase the visibility of a group and to gather new energy for the daily work is the cooperation with others. It is also an important tool to legitimise the existence of the group as committee of the tradition councils. In front of this theoretic premises, it is surprising, that the traditional council was only mentioned in 3.8% of the cases as cooperation partner of the VNRMCs, while the umbrella organisations were in 28.8%, other VNRMCs in 17.4%, Korup Project, Ekpe society and village youth in 9.6%, women 5.8%, MINEF 3.8%, other villages 3.8% and others (n=1) in 7.8% of the documented cooperation involved. The collaboration-partners influenced significantly the perception of the success of the cooperation25: While the cooperation with other villages is perceived as most successful (10+0), the cooperation with MINEF was perceived most negatively (4.0+1.4). On average, cooperation is considered positively (7.13+1.97) and the Ekpe society (8.8+1.1) and the youth (8.8+1.0) are perceived as the most fruitful partners. On average the committees collaborated on various subject - outlined in table 4 - 3.02+2.75 times in 2002. Nevertheless, the frequency is quite low: 3 VNRMCs (11%) cooperated with nobody and 4 (15%) only with one partner and on one subject.

24 ANOVA, p=0.029. 25 ANOVA, p=0.032. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 24

Frequency 26 Cooperation on: Evaluation N % Average + STD Forest patrols 15 29.41 7.17+1.87 Boundary problems 5 9.80 9.00+1.41 Training 4 7.84 5.50+0.58 Boundary clearing of F.R. 4 7.84 5.75+2.06 Financial 4 7.84 8.25+1.71 F.R. patrols 3 5.88 6.33+1.16 Socials 3 5.88 6.33+3.21 Evaluation 3 5.88 7.33+1.53 NTFPs marketing 2 3.92 - Problem solving 2 3.92 - Community forest 2 3.92 - Others (n=1) 4 7.84 - Total 51 100 7.13+1.98 Tab.4: Subjects of collaboration and the evaluation of its success The VNRMCs are able to search for strategic partners27: training with Korup, forest patrols with the umbrella organisation, youth and Ekpe, etc., but this collaboration did not show fast success. 33% of the VNRMC did not learn anything new from their partners and only 18.5% received more than one new idea within the last 10 years. These new ideas, their evaluation by the VNRMC members and their initiators are outlined in table 5.

Frequency Average New idea Initiator of new idea n % + STD Requesting exploitation fees 3 13.08 7.00+2.65 Korup, Chief, Members Agricultural production 3 13.08 7.00+3.61 Korup, Chief, Vice president NTFP marketing 2 8.7 7.75+1.06 Korup, Members Obtaining community forest 2 8.7 8.50+0.71 Korup Prohibiting fish poisoning 2 8.7 8.50+2.12 Korup, Members Systematic planning 1 4. 34 - Addition of fish species to lake 1 4. 34 - Employment of a PTA teacher 1 4. 34 - Self organisation 1 4. 34 - Definition of roles and positions 1 4. 34 - Establishment of sub-committees 1 4. 34 - Utilisation of grinding machines 1 4. 34 - Harmonise exploitation licences 1 4. 34 - Team work 1 4. 34 - Forest patrols 1 4. 34 - Sand pit development 1 4. 34 - Total 23 100 7.76+1.74 Tab.5: New ideas, their perception and sources

26 ANOVA, p=0.035. 27 Pearson, p=0.008. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 25

Beside of the low number of new ideas resulting from cooperation, exchange visits and training, it is interesting to see, that most new ideas were developed within the village (52.1% = members 34.9%, chief, president, vice-president, youth each 4.3%), while Korup Projects contributed 34.9%, the umbrella organisations 8.7% and MINAGRI 4.3% of the new ideas. One might, in view of the high number of training and sensitisation meetings offered by Korup Project at least before 1999, be surprised about the low number of new ideas arriving at village level, but the data are consistent with earlier findings (Schmidt-Soltau 2000). 2.2.4. Documentation

The documentation of planning processes, activities, agreements with cooperation partners and evaluation in form of ‘lessons learned’ are a condition sine qua non for organisational development and organisational sustainability, but 14.8% of the surveyed VNRMCs confessed, that they did not have any documentation on their activities and additional 18.5% could not produce them during our visit. Reports on activities, meetings, experiences, etc. are even rarer: 40.7% did not have reports at all and additional 25.9% did not have any report available. In general, even those documents, which were produced to us, were hardly able to serve their purpose and had on average 3 or less entries in 10 years.

2.3. Technical sustainability

Sustainability within the framework of technical processes and capacities is a multidimensional process. It is important, that the activities carried out by the group make sense for the members, generate income, support the capacity development of the group (learning by doing), are carried out in accordance with the village and can be considered as sustainable forest management. In theory, is looks easy to unite the parts divided, but on the ground is community based forest management one form of exploitation, which might be sustainable or nor. While the last is not evaluated in this report, the others will stand in the limelight of the following paragraph. With the help of the questionnaires, we assessed three general topics: activities, training and control over natural resources. Based on the interviews and discussions, we are of the view, that VNRMCs are sustainable, when they are able to · carry out successfully several activities per year, · plan, organise, evaluate these activities without external assistance, · work hand in glove with the village, · organise several trainings per year, · evaluate the results of these trainings and utilise the new knowledge, · elaborate a detailed training need catalogue, which is related to past activities and the objectives of the group · make these trainings happen, and · establish a clear and successful control over the various natural resources. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 26

2.3.1. Activities

Two (7%) of the surveyed 30 committees (the 27 VNRMC and the 3 umbrella committees) did not carry out any activity (Iwassa, Kita) and 9 (33%) only a single activity. Nevertheless, on average the VNRMCs fulfil nearly our criteria of sustainability (Ø = 1.9+1.2) and some of the committees (10%) even carried out 4 or more activities.

Committees Communities Activities carried out Frequency Evaluation Frequency Evaluation beside of meeting 28 29 n % Mean+STD n % Mean+STD Forest patrols 21 36.2 7.6+1.8 19 33.9 7.0+2.0 Nursery development 6 10.3 6.2+2.6 2 3.6 6.0+1.4 NTFPs exploitation 5 8. 6 7.4+2.9 9 16.1 7.1+2.8 Water maintenance 4 6. 9 7.6+1. 9 2 3.6 9. 5+0.7 Community forest 3 5. 2 9.2+0. 8 1 1.8 8.0 NTFPs marketing 2 3. 4 8.3+2. 5 2 3.6 3.0+2.2 Timber exploitation 2 3. 4 5.5+2. 1 4 7.2 7. 5+1.4 Community farm 2 3. 4 9.0+0. 0 3 5.4 4.7+4.0 Keep village clean 2 3. 4 8.0+0. 0 0 0 Sensitisation 2 3. 4 7.5+0. 7 0 0 Others (n=1) 9 15.5 14 25 Total 58 100 7.4+1. 9 56 100 7.0+2.5 Tab. 6: The various activities and their perception by NRMC and stakeholders On average the committees are more satisfied with their activities, than the ordinary villagers. That is a bit contradictory, because according to the VNRMC the communities are the major beneficiary (86 %), while the committee member are only considered to have benefit from 5% of the activities carried out between 2000 and 2003 (others (n< 2) 9 %). Especially forest patrols were considered as supporting the community30, while this activity only scored an average perception in the evaluation through the communities. Most activities are initiated from within the VNRMCs (president 24%, members 22% and secretary 2 %), while Korup (22 %), the traditional council (7%), the chief (5%) and others (n<2 18%) play only a marginal role. As to be expected, are activities in their majority also planed within the VNRMCs (members 41%, president 29% and secretary 5%), while Korup (10%) and others (n<3 15%) only played a marginal role in the planning of the outlined activities. The VNRMCs were also the main implementer of the activity initiated and planed by them. 64 % of the activities were carried out by the VNRMCs (62 % by the members and 2 % by the presidents, 12 % by the community, 10% by the youth, 7 % by the traditional council and 7% by others (n<2).

28 ANOVA, p= 0.048. 29 ANOVA, p= 0.031. 30 Pearson Correlation p= 0.016. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 27

The VNRMC were also the main evaluators of the activities (members 29%, presidents 13% and secretaries 2%). The traditional council evaluated 25 % of the activity and the community, which is considered as the main beneficiary 9 %. Since Korup project planed 10 % of the activities, they also evaluated these 10%, while others (n<2) evaluated 12 %.

70 VNRMC member 60 President Community 50 Korup 40 Others

30

20

10

0 Initiator Planer Activist Evaluator Fig.2: The various actors and their roles in % From figure on can draw the conclusion, that the activities of the VNRMC are based on quite a good interaction with the village. The committee initiated and planed under the leadership of their president several activities and carried them out in close collaboration with the village, which are the main beneficiary of the activities and played an even more important role than the committees in the evaluation. In front of this background, it is understandable that all VNRMC want to continue with their activities (100%). 2.3.2. Training

16 (53%) VNRMC did not receive any training between 2000 and 2003, while Kita even received 4 trainings in the same period (4 VNRMCs received one training, 7 attended two trainings, 2 were trained 3 times and one VNRMCs 4 times). The heterogeneity of this distribution does – according our data - not follow any particular pattern. The facing out strategy of Korup project had affected the trainings provided, since Korup is still the main initiator, planer and implementer of trainings. While in 2000 11 trainings were offered, in 2001 and 2002 this number was reduced to 7&8. But the facing out strategy did not lead to an increase in activities carried out by the other actors. Korup suggested 96.2% of training units, paid for 80.8% and conducted 69.2% of all trainings offered. Nevertheless, to some extend did the strategy of facing out generate new training providers as one can see from table 7, which documents the roles of the different actors in training sessions.

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 28

Date of training Topic Actor 31 2000 2001 2002 Korup 100 100 87.5 Who suggested MINAGRI 0 0 12.5 training? Total 100 100 100 Korup 90.9 100 50 Who paid for VNRM Cs 9.1 0 37.5 training? Community 0 0 12.5 Total 100 100 100 Korup 72.7 71.4 62.5 Vice President 18.2 0 0 Who conducted MINEF 9.1 28.6 25.0 the training? MINAGRI 0 0 12.5 Total 100 100 100 Tab.7: The different roles and the different actors in trainings offered to the VNRMC (n=26)

Frequency Evaluation % of new % of Subject of training n Percent Mean+STD32 knowledge trainings used evaluated Nursery development 6 23,1 8.17+1.33 100 66.7 Logging 5 19,2 7.6+1.14 80 80 Water maintenance 3 11,5 8.0+0.0 100 0 Marketing of NTFPs 2 7,69 9.0+1.41 100 100 Exchange visits 2 7,69 7.75+3.18 50 50 Forestry law 2 7,69 7.75+0.35 50 100 Others (n=1) 6 23,1 Total 26 100 8.08+1.26 84.6 69.2 Tab.8: The different subjects of training courses, their utilisation and evaluation Table 8 documents the impact and perception of the different trainings offered. Especially the training on NTFPs marketing is perceived as success, but was never evaluated. In general, the people are quite satisfied with the trainings offered and use most of the new knowledge. In this light, it is surprising, that their training need assessments are not correlated with the assessment of the trainings offered in the past.33 There is also no correlation existing between the reasons, why the VNRMCs are asking for trainings and the subject of these trainings. It can be presumed, that the reason can be found in the approach of Korup Project to visit villages and offer trainings without prior request, etc. (PC). From this perspective, it becomes clear, that the VNRMCs are at the present stage not able to position ‘training’ within the planning and development circle of their organisational and technical development, but conceptualise ‘training’ within a potential list of subjects of interest. This passive approach goes along with

31 Interestingly, there is no preference for any specific planner, introducer or conductor of trainings. (ANOVA, p=0.403, p=0.982, p=0.343). 32 ANOVA, p=0.0441. 33 Surprisingly did Kita, which received the most trainings in the past, not ask for any further training in the future, while all other VNRMCs asked as least for one training. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 29

the request that others (Korup 80.5%, MINEF 4.5%, other NGOs 3%, MINAGRI 1.5%) should pay for the training. Only a minority of the VNRMCs is prepared to pay for their training themselves (VNRMCs 9%, traditional council 1.5%).34 It has to be seen in that light, that Korup is asked in 76.5% of the cases to conduct the training, the other governmental services such as MINEF, MINAGRI and MINEPIA in 12%, other NGOs in 3%, the umbrella organisations in 1.5%, the traditional council in 1.5% and the village members themselves want in 1.5% of the cases conduct the training. Even those trainings to be conduced by the VNRMCs themselves should be – according to their request - be paid by others.

Suggested subjects for training in the Frequency future n % Livestock rearing 14 20.90 Logging 9 13.43 Regeneration techniques for NTFPs 8 11.94 Group dynamics 5 7.46 Agriculture 4 5.97 Forestry procedures 2 2.99 Financial management 2 2.99 Bio monitoring 2 2.99 Beekeeping 2 2.99 Protection of farms 2 2.99 Medical plants 2 2.99 Wildlife management 2 2.99 Snail rearing 2 2.99 Sustainable harvesting of NTFPs 1 1.49 Improvement of soil fertility in fallow areas 1 1.49 Water maintenance 1 1.49 Environmental education 1 1.49 Livelihood improvement 1 1.49 Reporting 1 1.49 NTFP marketing 1 1.49 Forestry laws 1 1.49 Forest management 1 1.49 Income generating activities 1 1.49 Fish pond development 1 1.49 Total 67 100 Tab.9: The suggested subjects for training in the future Facing the fact, that livestock rearing was promoted intensively but without any success during the time of ODA funding for rural development in the Korup National Park support zone (Mid -term review 1998), one might wonder, why the VNRMCs are still asking for it.

34 This attitude (attentism) is not limited to VNRMCs. In the process of the elaboration of this study the Korup Project team members, who want to become independent consultants, were asking for extra payment to attend the training sessions on quantitative data analysis. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 30

The other topics are quite interesting – even though, as stated above, they are not correlated to the description of problems, activities or past training experiences and are in quite a good number of cases supporting our findings. Table 10, which outlines the reason for further training, documents similar phenomena as figure 1. The VNRMCs and their reasons of acting are quite heterogeneous. While some request training for the greater good (committee development & community interest), others have quite individual motives (personal development & increase income). Nevertheless, as justifications for further training most people referred to common interests.

Frequency Reasons for further training N % Committee development 15 22.39 Community interest 12 17.91 Personal development 11 16.42 Improve technical capacity of committee members 11 16.42 Improve organisational capacity 5 7.46 Improve marketing skills 4 5.97 Increase income 4 5.97 To reduce the dependence on wildlife 2 2.99 To reduce the destruction of farms caused by animals 1 1.49 Use of abandoned logs 1 1.49 Management of community forest 1 1.49 Total 67 100 Tab.10: Reasons for the request for further training 2.3.3. Management of natural resources The management of natural resources, which might be considered as the main activity of the VNRMCs, is carried out in all villages, beside of Dikome Ngolo, Madie 1 and Iwassa with quite some success (Ø =7.02+1.92). Especially the control of timber and NTFP explo itation, which is the main activity of VNRMCs, was considered as success story, while wildlife control was considered as least successful.

Natural Frequency Evaluation These natural resources are controlled by …. (in%)35 Resource n % Mean+ VNRMC Traditional Community Umbrella MINEF Total STD36 Council organisation Timber 27 31.76 7.13+1.81 66.67 14.82 11.11 3.70 3.70 100 NTFPs 24 28.24 7.29+1.59 75.00 4.17 16.66 4.17 0.00 100 Wildlife 14 16.47 6.23+1.64 64.29 7.14 21.43 7.14 0.00 100 Fish 13 15.29 6.85+2.67 61.54 15.38 23.08 0.00 0.00 100 Sand 7 8.24 7.42+2.27 85.71 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00 100 Total 85 100 7.02+1.94 69.41 9.41 15.29 4.71 1.18 100 Tab.11: The different natural resources, their controlling bodies and the evaluation of the success

35 Pearson, p=0.037. 36 ANOVA, p=0.049. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 31

To carry out controls, the VNRMCs utilised a full array of instruments, mostly in a combination of two or more instruments. Since fines (14.5%), exploitation quota (14.5%) and prohibition (16.9%) themselves hardly work they were supervised by delegates (9.6%) and supported through forest patrols (44.6%). 2.4. Financial sustainability

The VNRMCs, which are like small entities in the villages of the Korup project area, are facing similar problems as cooperatives, common initiative groups, associations and other entities. Their survival depends on good steering and sufficient and sustainable financial sources and management. We are of the view, that a VNRMC, which is · able to generate more income than expenditure, · able to generate sufficient income, · able to generate funds from different sources, · utilising a clear management system (collecting, storing and disbursement of funds), · documenting all financial transaction, · contributing financially to the greater good of the village etc., and · operate without major conflicts arising from financial aspects, can be considered as sustainable. From the foregoing, it is the focus of this chapter, to make a retrospective look into the sources of funding, sources of expenditure and problems associated with financial management. Two of the interviewed VNRMCs were not involved in any financial activity (Eyang Atem Ako & Iwassa) and the VNRMC of Madie 1 had expenditures in 2002, but no income, while the committee of Nfaitok had income, but no expenditure.

Income 37 Expenditure38 Balance Evaluation39 Self-evaluation40 Name of village FCFA n FCFA n FCFA 0

37 ANOVA, p= 0.036. 38 ANOVA, p=0.061. 39 The evaluation is based on the criteria developed above. Each of the criteria provides 33% to the assessment. 40 The data provided here is the average level of satisfaction of the VNRMC with their various income s and expenditures. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 32

Income 37 Expenditure38 Balance Evaluation39 Self-evaluation40 Ikondo-Kondo 1 70,000 2 164,000 3 -94,000 0 8.0 8.2 Inokun 213,000 2 242,000 5 -29,000 33 7.5 9.5 Iwassa 0,000 0 0,000 0 0,000 0 Kita 655,000 3 480,000 3 175,000 99 5.0 5.3 Madie 1 0,000 0 5,000 1 -5,000 0 7.0 Mbakem 15,000 2 5,000 2 10,000 33 6.0 7.0 Mbenyan 400,000 2 320,000 3 80,000 99 8.0 8.7 Mbinjong 10,000 1 13,000 2 -3,000 0 2.0 7.5 Mbio 15,000 1 63,000 3 -48,000 0 5.5 5.3 Nchemba 1 5,000 2 8,000 2 -3,000 0 8.0 7.8 Ndebaya 470,000 3 385,000 4 85,000 99 6.0 7.3 Ndiba 56,000 2 50,000 2 6,000 33 7.0 8.0 Nfaitok 12,000 2 0,000 0 12,000 33 10.0 Nsanaragati 33,500 2 227,000 2 -193,500 0 6.0 7.0 Onaku 20,000 1 10,000 1 10,000 33 8.0 9.0 Otu 30,000 1 108,000 3 -78,000 0 5.0 9.3 Tabu 250,000 2 145,000 3 105,000 99 8.5 9.0 NDIG 21,000 2 22,000 1 -1,000 0 7.5 7.0 ERNARMAC 38,000 1 40,000 1 -2,000 0 4.0 10 .0 ENARESMAC 644,000 5 283,000 4 361,000 99 8.4 7.5 Total 4633,500 51 4066,000 67 567,500 37.4 7.0 8.0 Tab. 12: The operational budget of the VNRMC and its evaluation The overall result documents that on average the VNRMCs fulfil one criteria of sustainability. More than half of the VNRMCs have an income below FCFA 100,000 and the average diversity of income sources is below 2. Nevertheless, on average the VNRMCs were quite satisfied with their financial capacities. If one compares the result of the auto- evaluation with our assessment of the financial data provided to us, one notice a significant difference. This could have at least two reasons: We were not provided with all data and/or the different criteria were not compatible.

Source of funding N Income % of % of n Evaluation Mean+STD42 Sum income Mean+STD 41 Levies 15 127,867+123,680 1,918,000 41.4 29.4 6.8+1.73 NTFP Exploitation 8 124,000+122,908 992,000 21.4 15.7 7.25+1.49 Timber exploitation 6 95,833+92,543 575,000 12.4 11.8 7.42+1.8 Others (n<2) 5 559,000 12.1 9.8 6.8+0.8 Penalties 9 56,778+40,245 511,000 11.0 17.6 7+1.5 Royalties 4 11,250+10,308 45,000 1.0 7.8 6+2.83 Donations 4 8,375+5,218 33,500 0.7 7.8 7.5+2.52 Total 51 4,633,500 100 100 Tab. 13: The various sources of funding and their evaluation

41 ANOVA, p=0.0132. 42 ANOVA , p= 0.0357. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 33

An interesting finding can be reported in directio n of penalties. While it seems a very common process for the VNRMC to implement penalties, the amount resolving from that is quite limited. In any constituted organisation, sourced funds need safe keeping and management. In 90 % of VNRMC this was done by the treasures and in 10 % of the cases by the traditional council of the village. As to be expected are those VNRMC, which control their funds on their own (through a treasurer) more satisfied with the result (Ø = 7.2+1.7 on a scale between 0 completely unsatisfied and 10 completely satisfied) than those VNRMC, whose funds are controlled by the council (Ø = 5.6+1.3).43 90% of the VNRMC had a documentation of their income sources, but in most cases they were not available at time of interview. VNRMCs spend their funds on a variety of expenditures ranging from the holding of meetings to the purchase of materials for forest patrols. Interestingly, the payment of PTA levies is the highest expenditures in all groups and also the one, which is perceived most positive.

Expenditure in FCFA Evaluation Area of expenditure N Mean+STD 44 Sum Mean+STD45 PTA levies 8 189,875+121,814 1519,000 8.69+1.65 Credits 4 128,250+121,541 513,000 7+1.41 Meetings 16 29,875+35,238 478,000 8.16+1.43 Transportation 7 52,571+57,844 368,000 8.5+1.85 Community development 4 76,500+57,390 306,000 7.75+2.22 Celebration 7 32,857+24,471 230,000 8.07+0.93 Forest patrols 4 32,250+33,430 129,000 7.125+1.55 Road work 2 52,500+38,891 105,000 6 Reception of strangers 6 16,083+17,287 96,500 8.25+1.99 Stationary 3 30,333+23,459 91,000 6.33+0.58 Contribution to umbrella organisation 2 30,500+28,991 61,000 8.75+1.06 Community forest inventory 1 60,000 60,000 10 Materials for forest patrols 1 40,000 40,000 9 Purchase of poly bags 1 35,000 35,000 6 Death celebrations 1 30,000 30,000 8 Community forest demarcation 1 5,000 5,000 10 Total 68 4066,500 8.01+1.59 Tab. 14: The expenditures of the VNRMC and their evaluation

Important questions for the sustainability of a group are: who is authorising payments, who controls them and who disburse the money? The VNRMCs of the Korup project region do not have a common system and the different systems do not correlated with the results of

43 ANOVA , p= 0.046. 44 ANOVA, p= 0.01. 45 ANOVA, p=0.023. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 34

the self-evaluation of the committees and also do not correlate with the level of expenditure46, which means that none of the systems is from the perspective of the VNRMCs preferable.

Authorisation Control Disbursement President 54 28 9 VNRMC member 13 21 0 Traditional Council 12 25 9 Community 12 4 0 Chief 9 0 0 Secretary 0 15 0 Committee 0 4 0 PTA chairman 0 1 0 Adviser 0 1 0 Treasure 0 0 82 n=68 100 100 100 Tab. 15: The organisation of expenditures in % 87% of the disbursements were documented, but the documentation was in most cases not available during the interview, but the existence of documents did not have an impact on the level of satisfaction. There is also no system behind the bookkeeping, like documenting only major expenditures. In general the VNRMC are quite satisfied with their disbursements of which a good number contribute to rural development. The payment of PTA teachers from the income of the VNRMCs is perceived as an important activity by the VNRMCs and the general village, which evaluates the success of this activity as highest (Ø = 9.0+1.7).47 8 VNRMCs (27%) reported conflicts resolving from financial issues. A lack of transparency of the financial interaction is the most common problem (39%). Other problems such as poor keeping of records, payback of credits, unclear disbursements and unclear role of VNRMCs in their relation with the council were also reported but can – due to their limited frequency – not analysed. The only thing one can say, is that there are some problems - some more serious than others - which are mostly tried to be solved at village level, with quite different levels of success. Nevertheless, VNRMCs, which reported conflicts, have scored a significantly lower in our assessment - documented in table 12 - (Ø = 25+22 in contract to Ø = 42+39)48.

46 The data are documenting significant correlations between some of the elements and it seems as if especially the treasures are not really in control of the disbursement of funds, but the limited data available prohibit further analysis. 47 ANOVA p= 0.048. 48 ANOVA p= 0.026. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 35

2.5. Summary In general, one can say that the VNRMCs of the Korup project region are quite powerful institutions, which are successful and dynamic managers of their environment. Nevertheless, most VNRMCs have still much space to develop their various capacities to overcome the documented shortcomings and blockages. While it became obvious, that some of the VNRMCs only existed to apply for outside aid, others utilised the facing out strategy of Korup Project to increase their activities. That their aims and objectives are – following the overall poverty in the region – more development oriented than promoting the protection of wildlife and forest is not a real surprise. It will be the responsibility of Korup project, which promoted and assisted them throughout their existence, to facilitate before their final closure a process, which guarantees that conservation and development needs are harmonised to achieve a sustainable development. According to the study team, the establishment of a fruitful interaction between MINEF and the VNRMCs - organised and coordinated by their umbrella organisations - is the only solution. To assist the village based natural resource management committees and the governmental agencies in charge of conservation in the process, which should bridge the approaches divided, we developed on the basis of our analysis certain recommendations outlined in chapter 3.

3. Recommendations

The following recommendations were discussed and approved by the surveyed VNRMCs on the restitution workshop in Nguti on June 2nd 2003. Aims and objectives · The aims and objectives should be more realistic (not “contribute to development”, but contribute within the next 3 years 1 Million Franc for the construction of a hall). · The aims and objectives should be discussed with the members and the village. · On the basis of the aims and objectives a detailed action plan (what to do, when, who, what do we need to carry out this activity) should be developed. · This process should be facilitated by the umbrella organisations. The role of Korup Project: Korup should train two members of each umbrella organisations and 4 elected members of the VNRMC without umbrella organisations in the elaboration of action plans. Organisational sustainability · The VNRMCs should produce reports on their activities and have a system of putting them together (lessons learned), so that they and others can learn from past experiences. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 36

· There is need for both the umbrella organisations and the VNRMCs to have a common understanding and agreement on the way they interact and function for the greater good. · The communities, umbrella organisations, VNRMCs and other stakeholder should evaluate after a certain period their experiences, problems and plans for the future to harmonise their activities and detect problems at an early stage. · The VNRMCs and the villages should think on a method to encourage and reward hardworking members of the committees. The role of Korup Project: Korup should produce – based on their own experience - a guideline for the VNRMCs on how to establish and capitalise lessons learned. Technical sustainability · The participation of MINEF should be increased, because in case of any trouble the committees have – at the moment - no legal backing. Umbrella organizations, VNRMCs and MINEF should elaborate minutes of understanding and try to legalize the activities of VNRMCs. · The objectives and subjects of further training should be clearly defined on the basis of the evaluation of past activities and mechanisms should be put in place to monitor their application to yield the desired impacts. The role of Korup Project: Korup project or any other institution supporting VNRMCs should focus on key activities currently done by the VNRMCs and facilitate their implementation (incl. monitoring and evaluation system). Financial sustainability · In exchange visits, the VNRMCs should learn from each other proper ways of fund sourcing and management (best practice). · If the need arises, further training in the field of fund sourcing and management should – on request - be channelled through the umbrella organisations. · There is a need for continues back stopping on proper financial management. The role of Korup Project: Korup project should increase its technical support in the area of financial management and channel it through the umbrella committees or NGOs.

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 37

Three Steps to achieve an increased sustainability of village natural resource management committees in the Korup Project region 1. Organise and facilitate training workshops on a) participatory planning methods (incl. the elaboration of lessons learned) b) financial management (incl. bookkeeping) and c) participative methods of interaction on village level. Participants should be representatives the umbrella organisations (and elected representatives of active VNRMCs without an umbrella organisation). Korup project should provide the technical assistance (expertise, trainers, facilitators, etc.) free of charge, while the running costs of the training sessions (transport, food, accommodation, etc.) should be covered by the participants, since they can request a reimbursement from those VNRMCs, which are requesting one or more of the trainings on these subjects. 2. Organise and facilitate a training workshop for the MINEF structures in the region to clarify their role in community based conservation (legal proceedings, PSFE, etc.). 3. Establish in a participatory manner with all active VNRMCs (25), all umbrella organisations (3), the traditional authorities of all villages in question (25) and MINEF structures (3) a common understanding on the mission, responsibilities and rights of the VNRMCs in the context of sustainable development. As result, the VNRMCs and the umbrella organisations should be legalised – following the definition provided in the PSFE - as village based conservation organisations. Korup Project should facilitate this process, which should be finalised before 4/2004 by providing technical assistance (expertise, trainers, facilitators, etc.). All running costs (transport, food, etc.) should be covered jointly by the stakeholders (committees and communities) utilising the revenues of the VNRMCs.

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 38

4. Bibliography

Abbot, J. & Ananze, F.G. & Barning, N. & Burnham, E. & de Merode, E. & Dunn, A. & Fuchi, E. & Hakizumwami, E. & Hesse, C. & Mwinyihali, R. & Mahaman Sani, M. & Thomas, D. & Trench, P. & Tshombe, K. 2000. Promoting partnership: Managing wildlife resources in Central and West Africa. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Bijnsdorp 2001. List of villages in Korup Project Area: Demographic data and an overview of Korup Project Activities. Nguti: Korup Project Report. Brown, M. & Wyckoff -Baird 1991. Integrated conservation and development projects: lessons learned and implication for design. Washington: WWF. Brown, D. 1999. Principles and practice of forest co-management: Evidence from West-Central Africa. London: Overseas Development Institute. Butcher, K. et al. Socio-economic baseline database. Nguti 1996. Dove, M.R. 1996. Centre, periphery and biodiversity: a paradox of governance and a developmental challenge. In: Brush, S.B. & Stabinsky, D. (eds) Valuing local knowledge: Indigenous people and intellectual property rights. Washington: Island. Dubois, O. 1997. Assessing local resilience and getting roles right in collaborative forest management: some current issues and a potential tool, with special references to sub-Saharan Africa. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Egbe, S. 1996. Forest tenure and access to forest resources in Cameroon: An overview. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. FAO 2000. Proceedings of the international workshop on community forestry in Africa: Participatory forest management: a strategy for sustainable forest management in Africa. Rome: FAO. Ghimire, K.B. & Pimbert, M. 1997 (eds). Social change and conservation. London: Earthscan. Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (ed) 1997. Beyond fences: Seeking social sustainability in conservation. Gland: IUCN. Borrini-Feyerabend, G. & Farvar, M.T. & Nguinguiri, J.C. & Ndangang, V. 2000. Co-management of natural resources: Organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing. Gland: IUCN. Korup Project 2001: How does Korup Project work? Orientation workshop for village animators in Mundemba 22-26 January 2001. Laird, S. (e d) 2002. Biodiversity and traditional knowledge: Equitable partnership in practice. London: Earthscan. Little P.D. 1994. The link between local participation and improved conservation: a review of issues and experiences. In: Western, D. & Wright, R.M. & Strum, S.C. (eds) Natural connections: Perspectives in community-based conservation. Washington: Island. Malleson, R.C. 2000. Forest livelihood in southwest Province Cameroon: An evaluation of the Korup experience. London: PhD-thesis. Masterplan 1989 = Minis try of plan and regional development. The Korup project plan for developing the national park and its support zone. Yaoundé: WWF. Metcalfe, S. 1993. CAMPFIRE: Zimbabwe’s communal area management programme for indigenous resources. Paper presented at an international workshop on community based conservation (Harare 13- 23 July). Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 39

Midterm Review 1998. Review of the Korup Project - Final Report. London: ODA Consultancy Report. Milner-Gulland, E.J. & Mace, R. 1998. Conservation of biological resources. Oxford: Blackwell. Morumbedze 1992. Village based natural resource management. Mundemba WWF-consultancy report. Müller, G. 1998. The functioning of natural resource management committees in the northern and eastern sectors of Korup project area. Mundemba: Research-Report. Murphree, M.W. 1996. Community based conservation. Harare: CAMPFIRE. Oates, J.F. 1999. Myth and reality in the rainforest – How conservation strategies are failing in West Africa. Berkley: University of California. Pénelon, A. 1997. Community forestry: It may indeed be a new management tool, but is it accessible? Two case studies from Eastern-Cameroon. London: International Institute for Environment and Development Posey, D.A. 1999 (ed). The cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. Nairobi: UNEP. Redford, K.H. & Richter, B.D. 1999. Conservation of biodiversity in a world of use. Conservation Biology 13(6): 1246-1256. Sakah, M. 1998. Management of rainforest and its resources: A case study of community participation strategy in the Korup south support zone. Yaoundé: MSc-Thesis. Sanga, P. 1996. An extention approach to community based natural resource management. Nguti: Report. Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2000b. The perception of Korup Project among the inhabitants of the project area: An impact assessment. WWF: Consultancy Report Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2002. ‘Conservation initiatives and local responses around Korup National Park (Cameroon)’. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Anthropology in Southern Africa (Grahamstown, 9-11 September). An earlier version was presented under the title ‘Human activities and conservation efforts in and around Korup National Park (Cameroon)’ at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment (The Hague, 15-22 June). Sharpe, B. 1998. First the forest: Conservation, community and participation in south-west Cameroon. Africa 68(1): 25-45. Tamajong, M. O. & Symonds, P.A. 1995. Community participation and conservation. Mundemba: Report. Walters, et al. 2002. Wells, M. & Brandon, K. & Hannah, L. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected area management with Local Communities. Washington: World Bank. Western, D. & Wright, R.M. & Strum, S.C. (eds) 1994. Natural connections: Perspectives in community- based conservation. Washington: Island. WWF & WCPA & IUCN 1999. Principles and guidelines on indigenous and traditional peoples and protected areas. (WWW.panda.org/resources/publications/sustainability /indigenous2/index.html.)

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 40

Annex 1: Term of reference GTZ-Korup Project ToR: Evaluation of natural resource management structures in the project area Korup Project has been in action since February 3rd 1988 in a huge project area including 187 settlements. The project applied different approaches and strategies to achieve its main goals: the conservation of biodiversity in the area and especially in the Korup National Park. Since 1992 the GTZ component facilitated the creation of natural resource management committees on village cluster level. At the moment the project cooperates with about 40 natural resource management committees and 4 regional or umbrella organisations. Another important actor in the area is MINEF, which is operating in the project region with 3 divisional delegations and 3 forestry posts. The technical, financial and organisational capacities of the different committees and of the regional MINEF structures should be assessed in view of the fact that the GTZ contribution will end within the next year. The study should clarify whether the NRM committees and the approach applied by the GTZ component are sustainable and – if not – to outline realistic measurements to achieve that in the remaining period of time. Special emphasis should be laid on the possible involvement of MINEF and CODEF. Beside of the outlined research goals the consultancy should embody a training component: 3 CODEF-consultants should be trained in research design, quantitative research methods and computer based quantitative analysis (SPSS). The aim of the consultancy is to evaluate the technical, financial and organisational sustainability of the NRM committees and their umbrella organisations to provide a solid knowledge basis for further support and capacity building activities before the GTZ funding finally comes to an end in 9 months. The ma jor consultant should: 1. Facilitate, support and document the participatory elaboration of evaluation criteria carried out by the three parties involved (GTZ Korup component & NRM Committees & MINEF). 2. Conduct on-the-job training of 3 CODEF consultants in quantitative research methods and research design. 3. Supervise and assist in the participatory evaluation of all umbrella organisations, MINEF-structures and natural resource management committees according to the outlined research aims. 4. Conduct a training need assessment for all parties involved. 5. Conduct training of 3 CODEF consultants in quantitative data analysis and the utilisation of SPSS. 6. Facilitate and assist in the analysis of the collected data with the help of SPSS. 7. Facilitate and document the participatory elaboration of necessary steps to achieve the technical, financial and institutional sustainability of the various NRM committees and their umbrella organisations on the basis of the research findings.

Note: Following discussions with the client, the assessment of the sustainability of MINEF structures was not carried out in this research due to the low level of interaction between MINEF and the VNRMC. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 41

Annex 2: List of VNRMC provided by Korup Project

List of Village Natural Resource Management Committees in the various sectors and their umbrella organisations provided by Korup Project at the beginning of the research

No Sector Umbrella Committtee Name of Committee Status 1 Eyumojock ENARESMAC Nsanaragati ++ 2 Otu ++ 3 Ayoake +++ 4 Eyumojock ++ 5 Ndepaya +++ 6 Mbenyam ++ 7 Akwen +++ 8 Tabo + 9 Inokun +++ 10 Onaku ++ 11 Eyang Maghae + 12 Ekok + 13 Eyukaba + 14 Babong + 15 Ekoneman Awa + 16 Oguran + 17 Mbakem ++

18 Nguti ERNARMAC Eyang Atem Ako ++ 19 Nfaitok + 20 Ashum ++ 21 Bakebe +++ 22 Mbio ++ 23 Nfainchang + 24 Nchemba ++ 25 Mbinjong ++ 26 Obang Bachou ++ 27 NDIG Etinkem +++ 28 Bayip Asibong +++ 29 Akak ++ 30 Bayenti + 31 PZ new Bajoh 32 Baro

34 Mundemba Kita ++ 35 Madie I ++ 36 Madie II +++ 37 Mapanja + 38 Iwassa +++ 39 Dikome Ngolo + 40 Iyombo + 41 Ndiba ++ 42 Ikondo KondoI ++ +++- Very Strong ++- Strong + - Weak Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 42

Annex 3: Itinerary Date Activity (Research in …) Nr. Mo 23/12 Preparation (Preliminary discussion with team) 1 Fr 7/2 Transfer Yaoundé – Kumba 2 Sat 8/2 Transfer Kumba- Mundemba. Discussion with Dr. Walters, Lien, Mr. 3 Ndangang So 9/2 Literature review. Elaboration of research material 4 Mo 10/2 Literature review. Elaboration of research material. Meeting with SDO 5 Ndian. Tue 11/2 Literature review. Elaboration of research material. 6 Wed 12/2 Presentation of research aims and objectives & Teambuilding 7 Thu 13/2 Elaboration of research material 8 Fr 14/2 Korup, MINEF Ndian 9 Sat 15/2 Ekundu-Kundu, Ndiba 10 So 16/2 Kita – Tranfer to Nguti 11 Mo 17/2 Dikome Ngolo, Iwassa 12 Tue 18/2 Madie 1 – return Nguti 13 Mi 19/2 Bakebe, Nfaitok 14 Thu 20/2 Ashum, Eyang Atem Ako 15 Fr 21/2 Mbio, Nchemba, Mbinjong 16 Sa 22/2 Akak, Bayip Asibong 17 So 23/2 Bara, NDIG. 18 Mo 24/2 ERNARMAC. Review of first phase of fieldwork. 19 Thu 25/2 Transfer to Yaoundé 20 Mon 13/3 Elaboration of short report on the first field phase 21 Tue 14/3 Preparation of research and training material for phase 2 22 Tue 8/4 Transfer Yaoundé – Kumba 23 Wed 9/4 Transfer Kumba-Eyumojock. Meeting with D.O. Eyumojock. Inokum. 24 Thu 10/4 Onaku, Eyang-Magha, Mbenyan, Ndebanya 25 Fri 11/4 Akwen, Mbakem 26 Sat 12/4 Ayukaba, Tabo 27 Son 13/4 Eyumojock, Nsamaragati. ENARESMAC. 28 Mon 14/4 Ekonoman, Out 29 Tue 15/4 Ayouke, MINEF Manyu. Transfer to Nguti 30 Wed 16/4 Transfer to Buea. Preparation for data analysis 31 Thu 17/4 Training in database establishment and management (SPSS & SPSS data 32 entry builder), organization of data Fri 18/4 Data screening and coding 33 Sat 19/4 Data base establishment (conception) 34 Son 20/4 Data base establishment 35 Mon 21/2 Data base establishment 36 Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 43

Tue 22/4 Data entry 37 Wed 23/4 Training in data analysis 38 Thu 24/4 Training in data analysis 39 Fri 25/4 Training in data analysis 40 Sat 26/4 Training in report writing 41 Son 27/4 Report writing – Transfer to Yaoundé 42 Thu 1/5 Report writing 43 Sat 3/5 Report writing 44 Son 4/5 Report writing 45 Wed 7/5 Report writing 46 Mon 12/5 Revue of draft contributions (chapters) 47 Tue 13/5 Revue and commenting of draft contributions (chapters) 48 Wed 14/5 Commenting of draft contributions 49 Sat 31/5 Traveling day 50 Son 1/6 Preparation of presentation on restitution workshop 51 Mon 2/6 Restitution workshop, Transfer to Buea 52 Transfer to Yaoundé 53 Elaboration of final report 54 Elaboration of final report 55 Elaboration of final report 56 Elaboration of final report 57

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 44

Annex 4: Stakeholder questionnaire

Evaluation of the sustainability of natural resource management committees in the Korup Project area Stakeholder – Questionnaire (communities, Korup Project, MINEF)

Interviewers ______/______Date______

Name of stakeholder ______

1. Name and Function of the three most senior people present in the meeting Name Function

2. What is – from your perspective - the major aim of a natural resource management committee? ______Do not know ?

3. Have you yourself seen, what NRMC are doing? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents:

3.a. If yes: What have you seen, when was that and how would you evaluate the results? Activity Where? Date Evaluation

Activities: Nursery development =1, Boundary clearing of FR. = 2, Forest patrols =3, NTFPs marketing = 4, Enrichment planting = 5, Forest Reserve patrols = 6, Reporting of illegal activities = 7, Catchment-area protection = 8, Exploitation of NTFPs = 9; others (specify). Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: Very counter productive = 0; Useless = 5; Very productive = 10. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 45

3b. If no: Why? They are not carrying out any activities ? ; I am not often in the village ? , I am not interested in them? , other (specify) ______

4. Who was the main initiator of the founding process of NRMC in the Korup region? (Only one answer) The Village Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents: Somebody else (specify): Number of respondents: Korup Number of respondents:

5. What do you think is the main reason for the NRMC to work today? Because Korup ask them to do so ? To manage the natural resources ? To help the village ? To contribute to development ? To collect taxes from natural resource users ? Do not know ? Other (Specify) ______

6. Do you cooperate with NRMCs? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents:

6a.2. If no: Why? They are not carrying out any activities ? ; I am not often in the village ? , I am not interested in them? , other (specify) ______

6.a.1. If yes: with whom, in which major field of cooperation, how often did you meet them in the last 12 month and how would you evaluate their commitment? Name of NRMC Main field of cooperation Nbr. of meetings in 2002 Evaluation

Main field of cooperation: Training=1, Nursery development=2, Boundary clearing of forest reserve=3, Forest patrols=4, NTFPs marketing=5, Enrichment planting=6, forest reserve patrols=7, Meetings = 8, others (specify). Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: Disinterested = 0; Very committed =10.

6.b If yes: Did you realise any major changes in your work with NRMC in the last years? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents: Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 46

6c. Do you think that your working relation with the NRMC will change after the closure of Korup Project (if applicable)? Yes ? No ? Do not know ?

7. How do you evaluate the NRMC today in comparison with the time when you first met them? Do not know ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: It has become much worse = 0, No change = 5, Everything is better now =10.

8. How do you think will the NRMC look like in 10 years in comparison with today? Do not know ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: It will b much worse = 0, No change = 5, Everything will be better =10.

9. Are you prepared to cooperate with the NRMC in the future (if applicable)? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents:

9a. If yes: Where would you see your role in this cooperation? ______

10. Do you have any records on the NRMC? Yes? 1R? Do not know ?

11. How would you evaluate the impact of NRMC towards natural resource management? Do not know ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: They are very distractive = 0, No impact = 5, Very positive impact =10.

12. What is the major aim, you would like to see fulfil by the NRMC until the year 2013? An increase in income and wealth ? A reduction of natural resource utilisation ? Contribute to the management of protected forests? Better infrastructure (roads, hospitals, offices) ? An increased agriculture ? No hunting ? Sustainable management of wildlife outside the protected areas ? Sustainable management of natural resource outside the protected areas? Other (Specify) ______Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 47

13. What do you think will happen to the NRMC, if Korup Project closes? They will stop their work ? They will change their objectives ? They will continue in the same direction ? They will increase their activities ? They will be more effective than KP ?

12. Any further comment: ______

T H A N K Y O U F O R Y O U R C O O P E R A T I O N

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 48

Annex 5: VNRMC questionnaire Evaluation of the sustainability of natural resource management committees in the Korup Project area NRMC – Questionnaire

Interviewers ______/______Date______

Village Name______

1. What is the name of your NRMC? ______

2. When was your committee founded? ______/______(Month/Year)

3. Why was your NRMC founded? ______Do not know?

4. Who was the main initiator of the founding process? The Village (Village Traditional Council) Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents: Somebody else (specify): Number of respondents: Korup Number of respondents:

5. What is the main reason for you to work as NRMC today? Because Korup ask us to do so ? To manage the natural resources ? To help t he village ? To contribute to development ? To collect taxes from natural resource users ? Do not know ? Other (Specify) ______

6. How do you evaluate your committee now in comparison with the time, when it founded? Do not know ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: It has become much worse = 0, No change = 5, Everything is better now =10. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 49

7. What is the main achievement of your work as NRMC? An increase in income and wealth ? A reduction of natural resource utilisation ? Sustainable management of wildlife outside the protected areas ? Sustainable management of natural resource outside the protected areas? Cooperation in the management of protected forests? Better infrastructure (roads, hospitals, offices) ? An increased agriculture ? Hunting has stopped ? Other (Specify) ______

8. How do you think will the NRMC look like in 10 years in comparison with today? Do not know ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: It will be much worse = 0, No change = 5, Everything will be better =10.

9. What is the major aim, your NRMC should fulfil until the year 2013? An increase in income and wealth ? A reduction of natural resource utilisation ? Contribute to the management of protected forests? Better infrastructure (roads, hospitals, offices) ? An increased agriculture ? No hunting ? Sustainable management of wildlife outside the protected areas ? Sustainable management of natural resource outside the protected areas? Other (Specify) ______

10. How would you evaluate the impact of your NRMC towards natural resource management? Do not know ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: We are very distractive = 0, No impact = 5, We have a very positive impact =10. 11. What does natural resource management actually mean? Don’t hunt ? Hunt some and leave some ? Don’t harvest ? Don’t cut ? Use the natural resources small small ? Don’t enter protected areas ? Others (Specify)______

12. Did you have any institution before the foundation of the NRMC, which was managing the natural resources? 12a.If yes, what was the name of this organisation? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents: Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 50

13. Who is the owner of the forest outside the farmland? The village Number of respondents: The individual Number of respondents: Korup Project Number of respondents: The government Number of respondents: Other (specify) Number of respondents:

14. Is it important for you to have a forest with animals? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents:

15. Who is the owner of the animals? The village Number of respondents: The individual Number of respondents: Korup Project Number of respondents: The government Number of respondents: Other (specify) Number of respondents:

16. What do you think about natural resource management in general? Do not know ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: Very negative = 0, Very positive = 10.

17. How often did you have meetings with Korup Project Staff in your village during the last 12 month? _____

18. Have your village benefited from Korup Project activities? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents:

19. Have you as NRMC benefited from Korup Project? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents:

20. How would you evaluate the impact of Korup Project on natural resource management? Do not know ? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10: They are very distractive = 0, No impact = 5, Very positive impact =10.

21. What do you think will happen, when Korup Project stops its activity? We will stop our work ? We will change our objectives ? We will continue in the same direction ? We will increase our activities ? We will be more effective than KP ? Other (Specify) ______Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 51

The organisational capacities of VNRMC

22. Do you have a file with documents for your VNRMC? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents:

22.a. Are they available? Yes ? , No ? If yes: assess them later with the help of question 38. 23. Do you write reports about activities, meetings or anything else? Yes Number of respondents: No Number of respondents: Do not know Number of respondents:

23.a. Are they available? Yes ? , No ? If yes: assess them later with the help of question 38

24. How do you organise your meetings? Subject Who calls for Nbr. in Who sets Role of Who assist How Level of meetings 2002 (check up the Korup financially much/ Success per month) agenda or meeting topics

Subject: Sensitisation=1, planning=2, problem solving=3, progress on activity=4, information sharing=5, Fines = 6, Exportation Licence = 7. Others (specify) Who organises: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Traditional council =11, Umbrella organisation = 12, external elites = 13, MINEF=14, Others (specify). Role of Korup: Facilitator = 1, Organiser = 2, Donor =3, no role = 4; researcher =5. Others (specify). Who assists financially: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, Others (specify). How much per meeting: Cash in FCFA. Kind: food and drinks=1, Others (specify) Level of success on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsatisfying = 0, So so la la = 5, Complete satisfaction = 10

25. How do you make decisions in your committee? Subject Who decides Process Level of Success

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 52

Subject: Collection periods=1, sharing of finance=2, penalties to defaulters=3, conflicts=4, representation=5, Exploitation =6; Farmwork=7, Community work=8. others (specify). Who: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, Others (specify). Process: autocratic = 1, participatory = 2, laisser faire=3 election=4, others (specify) Level of success on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsuccessful = 0, Very successful = 10

26. How does your committee give feedback to others? Subject To whom How often in What reaction Did any Level of 2002 activity Satisfaction result

Subject: training=1, result of activities=2 meetings=3, progress on activities=4, Problem solving = 5. others (specify) To whom: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, 0thers (specify) Type of reaction: no reaction = 1, disapprove = 2, Approve = 3, Do not know = 4. Did any activity result: Yes = 1, No = 2, Do not know = 3. Level of success on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsuccessful = 0, Very successful = 10

27. How do you collaborate with other groups? With whom How often in 2002 Why Subject Level of Success

With whom: Korup = 1, NGO = 2 other VNRMC = 3 , Umbrella organisation = 4, MINEF=5, 0thers (specify) Why: information = 1, training = 2, working together = 3, decision-making = 4, others (specify) Subject: training=1, Nursery development=2, Boundary clearing of F.R.=3, Forest patrols=4, NTFPs marketing=5, Enrichment planting=6, F.R patrols=7 financial = 8, social = 9, Problem solving =10. others (specify). Level of satisfaction on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsatisfied = 0, Completely satisfied = 10. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 53

28. What new ideas have you developed? What kind of new ideas? Who initiated Level of satisfaction

Who initiated: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, 0thers (specify) Level of satisfaction on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsatisfied = 0, Completely satisfied = 10.

The technical capacities of VNRMC

29. Which activities did you carry out between 2000 – 2003 beside of meetings? Who Who Who Who Continue with Who Activities Successful? suggested? planned? carried out? Evaluated? activity (yes/no) Benefited?

Activities: Nursery development =1, Boundary clearing of FR. = 2, Forest patrols =3, NTFPs marketing = 4, Enrichment planting = 5, Forest Reserve patrols = 6, Timber exploitation = 7; NTFP exploitation = 8. Community farm= 9, Hired labour =10, Others (specify). Who Suggested & Who carried out & Who evaluated: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, Exploiter = 14. 0thers (specify) Level of success on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsuccessful = 0, Completely successful = 10. Level of interest to continue with activity on a scale between 0 and 10: Uninterested = 0, Completely interested = 10. Who benefited: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, 0thers (specify)

30. Which trainings were organise between 2000 – 2003? None ? New Result of Type of Who Who Who Who Level of knowledge Date training Training suggested paid? attended conducted satisfaction used? evaluated? (yes/no)

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 54

Type of training: Harvesting techniques =1, Nursery establishment =2, conflict management =3, Marketing of NTFPs =4, Logging = 5, Water maintenance. Others (specify). Who Suggested: & Who paid: & Who attended: & Who conducted: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, 0thers (specify) Results of training evaluated: Yes = 1, No =2, Do not know = 3. Level of satisfaction on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsatisfied = 0, Completely satisfied = 10.

31. In which areas, would you like to attend further training? (Training Need Assessment): Subjects Reason Who should conduct it? Who should pay?

Training Subject: Conflict management=1, Regeneration techniques for NTFPs=2, Sustainable harvesting of NTFPs=3, Forestry procedures=4, Improvement of soil fertility in fallow areas=5, Group dynamics=6, Financial management=7, Logging = 8, Water maintenance = 9. Others (specify) Reasons: Personal development=1, committee development=2, Community interest=3, improve marketing skills =4, improve organisational capacity = 5, Improve technical capacities of committee members=6; increase income =7. Others Who should do it: & Who should pay: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, 0thers (specify)

32. Who has some special knowledge on natural resources? Resources Who controls? How is it controlled? How would you evaluate the success?

Resource: Wildlife =1, Timber =2, NTFPs= 3, Fish=4, Other (Specify) Who controls: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, no control=14. Others (specify) How is it controlled: Patrol in the forest=1, Fines=2, setting exploitation quotas=3, prohibition=5, Others (specify). Level of success on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsuccessful = 0, Completely successful = 10.

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 55

The financial capacities of VNRMC

33. What are your sources of funding?

Source of How much Who provided Who keeps it Level of Documentation funds in 2002 them in 2002 Satisfaction

Sources: Donations =1, Levies = 2, Royalties = 3, Penalties=4, Municipal council subventions,=5 Government Subvention=6, Timber Exploitation =7, NTFPs Exploitation =8, Village council subvention = 9, Gifts =10, Sand and Gravel extraction =11, Korup project support =12. Community work = 13. Others (specify) Who organised them & Who keeps them: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, Treasurer = 14. Others (specify) Level of satisfaction on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsatisfied = 0, Completely satisfied = 10. Documentation: Yes =1, No = 2, Do not know = 3.

34. On what do you spend the money of your VNRMC? Areas of How much in Who Who Who disburses Level of Documentation expenditure 2002 authorises controls satisfaction

Areas of expenditure: Meetings=1, transportation=2, celebration=3, Community development=4, PTA levies=5 Cases=6, Credits = 7, Strangers = 8. Death celebration =9. Others (specify). Who authorises & Who controls & Who disburse: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, Treasure = 14. Others (specify) Level of satisfaction on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsatisfied = 0, Completely satisfied = 10. Documentation: Yes =1, No = 2, Do not know = 3. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 56

35. Are there any conflicts related to financial management? No ? Sources of problems Degree of problem How is it solved How often did it Level of success occurs in 2002

Sources of problems : Mismanagement =1, Poor keeping of records =2, Lack of transparency =3, Lending to members/villagers= 4, Disbursement =5. Others (Specify ) Degree of problem on a scale between 0 and 10: Low level problem = 0, High level problem= 10. How is it solved: Internal (committee level NRMC) =1, Village level (Ekpe, TC, WC)=2, External (Administration, Court)=3 Not solved = 4. Level of success on a scale between 0 and 10: Completely unsuccessful = 0, Completely successful = 10. 36. Any further comment: ______

T H A N K Y O U F O R Y O U R C O O P E R A T I O N In case that there are documentations or reports available assess them with the following questions. 37. Evaluation of the Documentation (survey on the basis of the available materials) Subject Who is doing the Date of 1st Date of last No. of How would documentation? document document documents you evaluate it

Subject: correspondence=1, activities=2, Administration=3, Status=4, b ye-laws=5, reports=6, Membership list = 7. Minutes = 8, Community forest = 9. Others (specify) Who is doing the documentation: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, NGO = 9, other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, DO = 14. Others (specify). Evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10 (Useless = 0, Professional = 10). Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 57

38. Evaluation of the reporting (survey on the basis of the available materials) Subject Author Date To whom is the report Quality of report addressed

Subject: Training=1, result of activities=2 meetings=3, progress on activities=4, planning=5, Evaluation=6, Others (specify) Author: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Traditional council =11, Umbrella organisation = 12, external elites = 13, MINEF=14, Others (specify). To Whom: Korup = 1, President = 2, V. President = 3, secretary = 4, VNRMC Member = 5 Chief =6, Trad. Council = 7, Community =8, other NGO = 9 other VNRMC = 10, Umbrella organisation = 11, external elites = 12, MINEF=13, Others (specify). Basic criteria for an evaluation on a scale between 0 and 10 (Useless = 0, Professional = 10): Date, Specify purpose, State key result, follow-up action (if possible).

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 58

Annex 6: Membership-list VNRMC Natural Resource Management Committee of ______Date: ______

Major Member in How many How many How do Area of special Ag S Source Level of Function Member any meetings of the trainings in you feel knowledge in the area of Name e e of Education in since traditional NRMC did you NRMC did about natural resource x income NRMC (year) society attend in 2002 you attend in KP management (Yes/No) 2002 closure

Coding: Sex: Male = M, Female = F Major Source of income: Farming = 1, Hunting = 2, Fishing = 3, Gathering of NTFP = 4, Korup Project = 5, Unskilled labour = 6, Skilled labour = 7; Business=8; Other (specify in writing) Level of education: No formal education = 1; Primary School not higher than class 4 = 2; Primary School higher than class 4 = 3, Secondary school = 4; College/High School = 5 University = 6. Function in NRMC: President = 1, Vice-President = 2, Treasurer = 3, Technical Advisor = 4, Ordinary Member = 5, Financial Secretary = 6; Secretary = 7; Announcer = 8, Assistant Secretary=9, Women representative = 10. Other (specify) How do you feel about: Evaluate on a scale between 0 and 10: Very sad = 0; Does not mean anything to me =5; Very glad=10 ) ; DNK = Do not know Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 59

Annex 7: Personal assessment form Personal Assessment of the Village Natural Resource Management Committee

Village ______assessed by ______Date______

Organisational Sustainability ______(on a scale between 0 and 100 = sustainable)

Reason ______

Technical Sustainability ______(on a scale between 0 and 100 = sustainable)

Reason ______

Financial Sustainability ______(on a scale between 0 and 100 = sustainable)

Reason ______

Any other observation ______

Training need ______

Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 60

Annex 8: Workshop report By Marie Meboka

The restitution meeting took place on the 2nd of June 2002. The intentions of the workshop was to present the findings from the evaluation to the representative of the various committees that were contacted during the evaluation exercise.

Workshop Topics The main topic of concern during the workshop were: § Prayer § Opening by the Divisional Officer § Introduction of Participants /Expectations from participant and expectation from the workshop § Presentation of Findings o Introduction o Aims o Discussions o Organisational Sustainability o Discussion o Technical Sustainability o Discussion o Financial Sustainability o Discussions § Presentation of Recommendation. o Discussion § Way Forward

Opening While opening the workshop the DO of Nguti thanked Korup project for the effort they have made so far to foster conservation and development in the area. He explained that this workshop was timely for it is important during this transition period to assess the level of preparedness of the VNRMC to assume the role of Korup project. He also reiterated that it was Government policy to develop partnership with the community and create a sense of responsibility and awareness in the local community

Expectation Expectation from Participants The participants were very pleased with the workshop and had the following expectations: § To learn more on what they knew and to correct the errors of the past § To know how to evaluate the work of committees § To get the result of the evaluation so as to equip the VNRMC to work with other NGOs even after Korup Project § It was said that what they have done so far was good, so they needed to have knowledge on how to maintain what they have done and have new ideas for continuity. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 61

§ To have a constructive discussion to check whether the evaluation was done correctly or not. § To learn from Korup experience on villages to take back to PROFA. § To know how to evaluate VNRMC. § To take back information to share with they colleagues in the villages.

Expectation from the workshop It was expected that after the presentation of the findings the participants would: § Give their opinions on the findings § Contribute towards the approach/strategy for the way forward of the VNRMCs

Participants Present at the workshop were representatives of village natural resource management committee, and other sister projects.

Methodology Presentations were made on the findings from the study according to the following topics, focusing: - Introduction, which included the concept and methodology of study; and aims, which focused on the aims and purpose of existence of the VNRMCs. - Organisational Sustainability - Technical sustainability and - Financial sustainability Discussion followed after each presentation aimed at getting feedback from the participants from the findings of the study.

After discussions on all the findings, followed the presentation on the recommendations. The recommendations were presented to the participants and discussion was facilitated to enable the participants also bring out their ideas on the way forward to strengthen and enhance the sustainability of the natural resources management committees of the various villages.

Recommendation on Way Forward from Participants After lots of discussions on the recommendation presented the participant thought that the addressing the following points is crucial for the continuity and strengthening of the village committees. - Formation of network of umbrella committee to exchange ideas. - Strengthen umbrella organisation to carryout their functions with respect to VNRMCs. - Strengthen capacity against river poisoning and protection - Marketing of NTFPs o Korup to suggest to MINEF to create NTFP market. o Korup to facilitate bargaining power of local communities for NTFPs. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 62

o Korup to assist in the development of buyers and sellers union through MINEF. o Assist in the formation of cooperatives to buy and sell NTFPs. - Assist VNRMCs to improve knowledge on o NTFP market information o Value adding (processing) o Storage methods. - Development of legitimate marketing system for NTFPs. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 63

Annex 9: General Comments

General Comments of the interviewed VNRNCs VNRM C Comments Akak The village is not represented in NDIG. There was only one NDIG meeting since 2000. How should we continue with our work if KP does not prvide transport and food Ashum We need · Training on organisational capacity and decision making process, · More water points · Generator Did KP collect the bark of some trees? Ayoake What of the maintenance of KP sponsored bridges? Donations? Bakebe Thanks to KP for the education on Community Forest. Bayip Arsibong KP need to us achieve our Community Forest. We regret the closure of KP. Dikome Ngolo Our VNRMC needs financial assistance. Ekoneman Awa We need better collaboration from the Government and Korup Project to assist us work. Need a lot of training. Need help in the keeping of domestic animals Eyumojock Eyumojock has not benefited any development of infrastructure. The water point is not completed Ikondo Kondo I Need oilpalm seedlings, Repair tool kit for the grinder, Mould to repair the houses. Inokun What is coming after KP? There problems in the communication with the umbrella organisations. The bridge on the – river is a problem. There will be a problem of control. Kita Balue The main problem is the road. Iwassa Need somebody to guide us in the management of natural resources Need traing on animal keeping and general agriculture.. Madie I Korup should continue their work. Mbakem Continue to have seminars on capacity building on pigs etc Flooring of the classroom to be completed. Mbenyan Need water point, salt extraction machine and school building. Mbinjong Before KP is closing down try to assist the committee so that they can continue their activities. Mbio Korup should increase support to Mbio community. Mbio community are impressed with the work of KP. Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 64

Nchemba We would like in Korup project map. Land use mapping. Need community forest. Ndebaya Need community forest, training in natural resource management, patrol boat, community farm (tools and training) patron Ndiba Need bush mango seedlings for replacement and Farm tools from the project. Nsanaragati The have no bat to control the river border with Nigeria. We did not receive any aid from KP. Onaku Need KP to help develop their water point after feasibility study and hel in the construction of their school. Akwen Need training for the community guards for their community forest. What happens to our community forest after the end of KP What about the mobile chain saw mil Need exchange visit with Ekuri initiative in Nigeria ERNARMAC If KP is closing she should support the committee with means of transport and stationery. ENARESMAC We need an external force to operate. We need support for transportation (boat and vehicle) and training.

General comments of the interviewed stakeholder Stakeholder Comments

Akak NRMC should continue for the well-being of the village. KP should continue because they help the community a lot. Include Ashum for care taking training. Ayoake If KP closes will it come back? If KP closes how shall we communicate with them? KP has clo sed what other name will we give the next project? Bakebe We don not want KP to close. We want KP to up a structure in the village as sign for their remembrances. Byip Arsibong Papa Korup should send their children to help the VNRMC to survive Dikome Balue Increase the production capacity of the community in the introduction of new crops to add to the dominant food crop, Xanthosoma. Enourage the keeping of livestock (pigs and gaots ) as an alternative to bush meat. Increase production of oil palm and paper. Ekoneman Awa We receive text books for 53,000 for our school but promised building was not constructed. There are a lot of problems with other villages in relation to natural resource management (boundary dispute): Eyang Atem Need school building from KP. We are the best village and the bst Schmidt-Soltau et al.: Evaluation of VNRMC in the Korup support zone – Final Report 65

Ako people but KP never helped us at all, KP should go. Eyumojock Need water supply and electricity, further support for the VNRMC is necessary. Support for fishing in Lake Ejagham. Ikondo Kondo I Need njasanga seedlings, bush mango etc. Game guards are arresting Ikondo Kondo I people. Inokun How can benefit be sustained after the closure of KP? I want to understand who or what is this government? Kita Request for materials to facilitate forest operations (boots, compass, binoculars) Need a boat or a bridge for crossing of the river during the rainy season. Madie I Role of VA to be clarified Mbenyan Need water point, Akarim bridge to be built, improvement on the state of the road and school building. Mbinjong Need support from KP Mbio Need road Ndebaya The NRMC should improve on its work. Ndiba Can KP help to change to committee to CIG Nfaitok Korup should give us a truck Nsanarangati There conflicts within the committee o it needs re-organisation

Otu We will like to have community forest. Our wells are incomplete, we have not profited from KP. We need a bridge from KP now that she is closing our hopes are dashed. Tabor We did not receive any benefit from KP in contrast to neighbouring villages. Provide material Akwen There is the problem of split between the members of the VNRMC and the council members need unity among them. An NGO should continue to assist the VNRMC for the acquisition and management of the Community Forest. MINEF Ndian KP to write congratulatory letters to the committees Where there are uncompleted projects KP should complete them. Korup Project Lesson learnt from the committees to be documented and used for KNP management committee. VNRMC need alernative structure to support them from collapsing after the closure of KP KP stopped the creation of VNRMC after 1998 to let the idea spread to other villages