Rural Development Rural Development Forestry Network Forestry Network

network paper 25e The Law, Communities and Wildlife Management in July 2001 Samuel E. Egbe A Community Wildlife Management Model from Mount Cameroon Kristin B. Olsen, Henry Ekwoge, Rose M. Ongie, James Acworth, Ebwekoh M. O’Kah and Charles Tako Gorilla-based Tourism: a Realistic Source of Community Income in Cameroon? Case DFID study of the villages of Goungoulou and Karagoua Elias Djoh and Mark van der Wal Community Hunting Zones: First Steps in the Decentralisation of Wildlife Management. Observations from the Village of Djaposten, Cameroon Mark van der Wal and Elias Djoh CONTENTS PAGE 25e(i) The Law, Communities and Wildlife Management in Cameroon 1 Samuel E. Egbe 25e(ii) A Community Wildlife Management Model from Mount Cameroon 13 Kristin B. Olsen, Henry Ekwoge, Rose M. Ongie, James Acworth, Ebwekoh M. O’kah and Charles Tako 25e(iii) Gorilla-based Tourism: a Realistic Source of Community Income in 31 Cameroon? Case Study of the Villages of Koungoulou and Karagoua Elias Djoh and Mark van der Wal 25e(iv) Community Hunting Zones: First Steps in the Decentralisation of 38 Wildlife Management. Observations from the Village of Djaposten, Cameroon Mark van der Wal and Elias Djoh

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Samuel E. Egbe is a Researcher and Lecturer in the Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Yaoundé II – Soa, and a researcher and consultant in environmental law. He can be contacted at: [email protected] Kristin Olsen, DFID APO for Community Resource Management, is seeking to integrate participatory monitoring and evaluation into the framework of community-based management initiatives. Henry Ekwoge, Area Manager for the Onge Mokoko area, is working to develop a Participatory Management Plan for a State Forest Reserve and adjacent forests. Rose Ongie, Area Manager for West Coast area, is working to develop and implement participatory approaches to sustainable wildlife management. James Acworth, DFID Forest Management and Conservation Adviser, provides advice on the process of developing sustainable, community-based resource management models, broader forest management systems, land use strategies to ensure long-term maintenance of biodiversity, and support to local livelihoods. Ebwekoh M. O’kah, GEF MCP wildlife unit, is responsible for collection of baseline information (on all forms of wildlife) on which to base management decisions, as well as providing advice on methods of participatory wildlife management and training to build local capacity. Charles Tako is the former area manager for the West Coast. The authors work for the Mount Cameroon Project (Limbe). This is a Ministry of Environment and Forests project funded by the UK Department for International Development and implemented under contract by LTS International, Scotland. The authors can be contacted at [email protected] and [email protected].

Elias Djoh is Director of the Lomié-based non-governmental organisation, CIAD (Centre International d’Appui au Développement), and can be contacted at: CIAD, P.O. Box 24 Lomié, Cameroon. Email: [email protected]. Mark van der Wal is a Consultant for the SNV-SDDL project. He can be contacted at: SNV Cameroon, P.O. Box 1239, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Email: [email protected] ISSN 0 85003 536 8 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

A COMMUNITY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT MODEL FROM MOUNT CAMEROON Kristin B. Olsen, Henry Ekwoge, Rose M. Ongie, James Acworth, Ebwekoh M. O’kah and Charles Tako

SUMMARY of Environment and Forests, some aspects of the model are not catered for within existing

The forest areas surrounding Mount Cameroon legislation. It is hoped that the model will serve A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon host some of the highest biodiversity in West to influence policy changes at national level so including many rare and endemic species that realistic community management of wildlife of plants and animals. Wildlife populations are can be achieved throughout Cameroon. in decline, due to an increasing trade in bushmeat, as well as problems of forest encroachment from INTRODUCTION farmers and large-scale plantation development. The Mount Cameroon Project (MCP)1 is a In collaboration with forest authorities, the conservation project with a mandate from the Mount Cameroon Project (MCP) has adopted Ministry of Environment and Forests a “participatory biodiversity conservation” (MINEF) to develop and test participatory approach to wildlife management. It is working biodiversity conservation approaches to with local communities in two forest areas to sustainable forest management. The project develop a viable model for participatory and aims to “establish the means by which sustainable wildlife management appropriate biodiversity on Mount Cameroon can be to local needs in terms of use, capacity and maintained and the livelihoods of local resource resources. This has involved organising local users improved” through a participatory groups and working with communities and biodiversity conservation strategy (PBCS). In government to develop systems for local the Mokoko and West Coast project areas, the wildlife management: hunting licenses, wildlife resource has provided an entry point developing and allocating sustainable quotas, to achieve wider resource management. This sanctions, monitoring and control. Other resource management groups are now seeking 1 MCP started in 1994 with support from the to emulate this model and to collaborate on a Governments of Germany and UK, building regional level to ensure effective control. on the latter’s support to the Limbe Botanic Although developed together with the Ministry Garden

13 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

Table 1 Environmental and socio-economic setting of the two case studies paper documents the “sustainable wildlife Box 1 Key principles of the PBCS West Coast and Mount Etinde Mokoko-Onge and Boa Plains management model” for the Mount Cameroon Natural resource base Natural resource base region based on the experiences of the • Conservation of scientific and locally community groups, MINEF and MCP over important biodiversity through a balance • 7,700 ha high biodiversity lowland evergreen • 27,000 ha high conservation value lowland forest and sub-montane forest with globally (of which 4,000 ha flooded forest) the last 5 years, and discusses the way forward. of protection and sustainable use of resources unique vegetation • 9,000 ha under CDC leasehold and 9,700 ha in the • Sustainable forest and land management 6,400 ha under CDC leasehold and 1,300 ha Mokoko River Forest Reserve (State owned Participatory Biodiversity Conservation • communal forest production forest) The PBCS is a strategy and plan of action to for a sustained production of forest Wildlife species of high biodiversity importance include Land use divided between natural, largely undisturbed secure the long-term conservation of the rich products through community-based • • the regional endemics, drill, Preuss guenon, red eared forest, secondary (logged) forest, small-scale shifting but fast dwindling biodiversity of Mount management and use systems, based on guenon, and Mount Cameroon francolin, and also agriculture and plantation agriculture Cameroon. It is centred around an approach agreed, viable and legally authorised , Ogilby’s duiker, bare headed rock fowl, High densities of endangered drill, red-eared guenon for integrating the management of biological management plans where the benefits • and the African forest elephant and chimpanzee. Seasonally flooded areas are valued and social factors to support mutually beneficial derived from them are ecologically development and conservation initiatives. sustainable and equitably distributed • Key bushmeat species include primates, duikers for bush pig, antelope and crocodiles • Support for livelihood options that are rodents, porcupine and river fish • Key bushmeat species include all primates, blue complementary to biodiversity • Important timber and fuelwood species include duiker, bushbuck, reptiles and porcupine

In line with the principles of the PBCS, MCP A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon Berlinia bracteosa, Pycnanthus angolensis Ironwood (Lophira alata), iroko (Milicia excelsa), aims to develop viable and replicable models conservation • (ilomba), Hymenostegia afzeli, and Alstonia doussie (Afzelia bipindensis) and ilomba are for participatory natural resource management • Empowerment of resource users and boonei common timber species for all project areas. The models aim to provide communities adjacent to forest areas The area is rich in NTFPs such as chewstick, Important NTFPs are rattan, bush mango, njansang, a prescription of the management system • Encouragement of resource users to join • • spices, medicinal plants and fruits and eru (methods of exploitation, regeneration and together in organised institutions in order monitoring) and agreements between to benefit from organisational capacity Socio-economic environment Socio-economic environment government and the community on rights and building and information exchange • Administered within Fako Division • Administered in Ndian Division responsibilities of the local community • Policy influence on the basis of field • Estimated population of 20,000 inhabitants fluctuates • Estimated population of 9,000 inhabitants towards sustainable natural resource realities and the PBCS over the year due to seasonality of economic activities • Culturally diverse region with four clans (Balondo, management. The key principles of the PBCS • Publication and dissemination of the • Population made up of local ethnic groups Barombi, Ekombe and Bakolle) and a large number are indicated in Box 1. achievements of conservation initiatives, (Bakweri, Bomboko), nationals and foreigners of immigrants from Cameroon and Nigeria the process used and lessons learned (Nigerian, Beninois and Ghanaian) • Decisions on issues such as land use and tenure and Environmental and socio-economic • Erosion of the authority of the traditional council forest exploitation made by chiefs and traditional setting over the years due to lack of transparency and an councils The model is based on the experiences of for wildlife management in these areas are influx of immigrants • Some 90% of households actively involved in wildlife management groups operating in two outlined in Table1. • Principal economic activities include fishing, farming both for cash and for subsistence. Other areas that differ in their biological and socio- hunting/ trapping, plantation work, government economic activities include fishing, land rental, economic contexts. The Mokoko Wildlife Institutional context administration, fuelwood and timber exploitation, hunting, timber exploitation, NTFPs, petty trading Management Association (MWMA) operates Since gaining independence in 1960, forestry farming, bushmeat and petty trading, and fish and CDC labour on the Boa Plains and the Mokoko-Onge legislation has progressively transferred smoking • Long-standing inter-village boundary disputes between forests. The West Coast Regional Wildlife responsibility to the State for all aspects of • Major trading port at Idenau an important centre the communities and CDC. Communities opposed to Committee represents local groups in the West forest management. In 1994 the new Forestry for economic activity. Plans for a deep sea port in further expansion by CDC Coast region, along the coast, on the south- Law recognised the rights of communities to the area will bring an influx of people, money and • Poor accessibility by dirt roads, where bridges often western slopes of Mount Cameroon. The participate in forest management (Egbe, 2000a, pressure on natural resources collapse during the rains regional biological and socio-economic settings b), through provision of community forests • Idenau and Limbe town linked by a tarred highway Source: EIA report (1998), Tchouto et al. (1999), Gadsby and Jenkins (1992) and Olsen et al. (2000) 14 15 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

and community hunting zones. The latter give environments in the Mount Cameroon area are Figure 1 Relationships between local forest users and others the community rights to a defined hunting outlined in Table 2 overleaf. territory, through a management contract Outside GovernmentGovernment Outside between a community and the wildlife service. STRATEGIES FOR WILDLIFE hunters hunters Bushmeat Unfortunately the procedure and responsi- MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL CDC marketsmarkets bilities of the wildlife service are very unclear. Furthermore, both community hunting zones Formation of community wildlife and community forests are highly impractical management groups due to their size limit of 5,000 ha and the fact MCP initiated contacts with communities Traditional Traditional MINEF that, legally, they cannot apply in any forest area through village-based stakeholder analyses for Council Council ZonalZonal wildlife wildlife MINEF where there is a pre-existing exploitation title. sustainable wildlife management in the two managementmanagement groups: groups: areas in 1996 and 1997. Focus group discuss- Village-basedVillage-based groups: groups: In the past, enforcement of illegal forest ions centred on wildlife use patterns, percep- •• Hunters/Hunters/ trappers exploitation in the Mount Cameroon area was tions about other stakeholders and the future •• PepperPepper Soup Soup SellersSellers • ineffective due to poor institutional capacity role of stakeholders in wildlife management. Local • InterestedInterested communitycommunity Local members communitycommunity MCP/

within MINEF and low motivation of its staff. The dialogue in turn led to the formation of a members MCP/ A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon and& Donors The principle of community participation number of interest groups. institutionsinstitutions Donors represents an appreciation of the long-term interest of local people in forest resources, as The Mokoko Wildlife Management Asso- bushmeat is an important local source of income ciation (MWMA), formed in late 1997, has as • •Ecotourists Ecotourists • •Regional Regional wildlife wildlife management management groups groups and protein. It is therefore reasonable to its goal to increase the wildlife population in • •Conservation Conservation Fund • •Biodiversity Biodiversity Conservation Conservation Centre Centre • • recognise the rights of local people to use and the Mokoko River Forest Reserve (the reserve) • Researchers Researchers • NGOs NGOs and and other other service service providers providers • •Conservationists Conservationists manage the forest resources, and enlist them in and the adjacent forests. The MWMA aims to • ECOTOURISTS sustainable resource management. manage hunting, control outside hunters and • Institutions (indicated by circles and boxes): ThicknessCONSERVATION of line illustrates strength FUND of relationship Institutions (indicated b y circles and boxes): Thickness of line• illustratesRESEARCHERS strength of relationship required fo r improve members’ income. Since its creation, requiredstrong community-based for strong community-based management. MCP/ Donor management. relationships areMCP/ temporary. Donor relationships are temporary. Over-exploitation is caused by outside hunters members have been pursuing this goal relent- RelationshipsRelationships (indicated (indicated b y arrows): by arrows): Thickness Thickness of line illustrates CONSERVATIONISTSof lineimportance illustrates of relationship importance and the arrowof relationship andillustrates the arrow direction illustrates of input. A direction solid line indicates of input. existing A solidrelationship line andindicates a dashed existingline indicates relationship a desired and a and an influx of people to the area. MCP has lessly, working together with MINEF and MCP. relationship requiring further capacity building. encouraged local forest users to become dashed line indicates a desired relationship requiring further capacity building. organised and to develop relationships with MWMA comprises indigenous and non- other institutions influencing forest use to indigenous hunters, trappers, pepper soup one Hunters Union (WMCs) were formed in forest monitoring, bushmeat off-take and manage these outside pressures. The strength sellers (mostly women), traditional councils, 1997. The groups were registered in 1999 as timber) have been created to facilitate a move and nature of these relationships are illustrated traditional societies and local MINEF staff. The Common Initiative Groups, and at the same towards broader forest management. in Figure 1. MWMA has 100 members from 11 villages time the West Coast Regional Wildlife along the north and western borders of the Committee was formed. The WMCs and MWMA received full CURRENT CONTEXT FOR WILDLIFE reserve, two zonal committees and an umbrella recognition by MINEF and were installed MANAGEMENT committee. Further, the group is seeking to The WMCs are represented by indigenous and (officially recognised and supported) by the involve villages in the creeks to the north west, non-indigenous hunters, trappers and pepper Administration in 1997 and 2000 respectively. Community wildlife management initiatives are and in Bomboko to the south, of the reserve. soup sellers and, following a resolved conflict limited by the policy and social environment of power, are also collaborating with the Agreements and by the biological resources of the area. The three West Coast Wildlife Management traditional council. Within the Batoke WMC, A major issue for wildlife management groups The opportunities and limitations of these Committees (Batoke, Etome and Bakingili) and three operational sub-committees (wildlife has been to secure agreements with government

16 17 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

Table 2 Opportunities and constraints for community wildlife management in the Mount formalising local rules and regulations, agree- an approval by the local administration of the Cameroon area ing roles and responsibilities, and giving legal use of locally fabricated guns in local hunting recognition to community resource manage- and encouraged all local hunters to register their Opportunities Constraints ment activities. guns with the authorities. They have also negotiated a 60% reduction in the cost of • National Forestry and Wildlife (1994) laws, • Commercial hunting by local people the Wildlife Decree (1995) and more recently without a licence is prohibited The MWMA has negotiated a wide range of hunting permits and are now seeking to the Yaounde Declaration (1999) and the new • The law does not detail the modalities for agreements with MINEF, including a Memo- negotiate group permits for the wildlife concept of Zone d community participation or local Gestion Communautaire’Int randum of Understanding that addresses legal management committee. However, very few érê tor Cyneg Community distribution of benefits for wildlife étique Managed Hunting Concession (2001) à management and policy issues for wildlife management. benefits have accrued to the wider community provides support for the concept of • The monies from hunting permits and Constraints to sustainable use of wildlife were from wildlife management. As a result, wider community management of wildlife exploitation are administered by the identified using problem trees. The ‘problems’ community support for the WMCs has • Local and regional MINEF are actively Treasury, a different government department involved in developing models for sustainable • Obtaining a community forest is slow and so identified (which included outside hunters, dwindled. The WMCs also failed to achieve wildlife management expensive indiscriminate trapping and hunting using effective control of non-registered hunters and

Legal framework• Communities can manage wildlife within a • Customary rights exclude the use of modern dogs) have been key to developing a strategy outside hunters, although authorised to do so. community forest or as sub-contractors to weapons and wire used by local hunters, or MINEF in a Protected Area sale of bushmeat for more sustainable hunting practices. Rules • Communities can legally organise themselves • Experimental status of community

and regulations were formulated in the light of A critical issue has been to agree on benefit A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon as Common Initiative Groups or Operations management initiatives is permitted by traditional wildlife management, then har- sharing from illegal exploitation of wildlife Committees of a community forest involvement of MCP which ends in 2002 • Customary rights are recognised by law as the after which time the community must obtain monised with the government’s regulations for between the community and MINEF. Although right to hunt non-endangered species for legal endorsement for its activities hunting through a series of workshops. Local the law stipulates that 10% of the ‘Taxe personal consumption only rules include trapping limits, respect of hunting d’Affermage’ (a tax on timber exploitation) is • Traditional Societies and village development • Costs of monitoring, control and seasons, species and methods. Tradi-tional redistributed locally, in reality no benefits have associations communication over 2,500 km2 area Councils and societies were co-opted into the accrued to the community. According to the • MCP Community Support Fund and the • Local bush meat trade is a high input, low 2 MWMA to ensure their total support in Joint Forestry Control mechanism (see below), MCRCF value investment • By law hunting permits cost 45,000 CFA enforcing rules and regulations. Village 30% of the sale was to be allocated to the annually per hunter traditional councils now play a lead role in community resource management group and • A large proportion of commercial bushmeat sanctioning defaulters, while traditional societies 70% to the Treasury. The MWMA argued for trading is by non-traditional forest users • In theory 10% of the Taxe d are enforcing the law on hunting and ‘fishing a fairer distribution to better reflect the low ’Affermage

Financial resources should be distributed to the community. In by poison’ now respected in all the villages. returns of bushmeat compared to timber. practice the tax is rarely distributed after Subsequently a new distribution of 70% for reaching the central Government coffers The WMCs have been key to negotiating more MWMA and 30% for the Treasury has been • Rich in natural resources for local • Subsistence agriculture and ‘chop’ (food realistic terms for hunting and gun permits. In agreed. The efforts of the MWMA in consumption: timber, fuel wood, bushmeat, crop) farm expansion collaboration with MCP they have argued for elaborating a sanction and benefit-sharing fish and farm land • CDC plantations of rubber, bananas and oil • Strong international conservation interest palm • Ongoing negotiations with CDC to release • Declining bushmeat resource land to local people • High pressure on biological resources from 2 The Community Support Fund is a MCP initiative that aims to support sustainable community an influx of CDC workers, the military and development initiatives compatible with and complementary to viable participatory natural

Biological resources army resource management. The Mount Cameroon Region Conservation Foundation (MCRCF) • MINEF/ MINPAT3/ MINAGRI/ MCP • Poor infrastructure limits regional co- aims to provide long-term support for biodiversity conservation in the Mount Cameroon region • Local resource management groups operation • Village development associations • Potential conflict between community through local civil societies, public sector organisations and research institutions, for the • Traditional institutions with cultural values of groups and traditional institutions sustainable use of management of forest resources by and for the benefit of local communities. nstitutions I wildlife 3 MINPAT - Ministry of Public Investment and Territorial Management ; MINAGRI - Ministry of Agriculture. 18 19 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

mechanism have encouraged a review of the to the high monitoring effort and the data Commitment of local institutions Setting sustainable hunting quotas West Coast system. analysis and interpretation were too complicated Commitment of registered hunters is measured Statistical analysis of the Mokoko wildlife for the community group to handle themselves. by recording bushmeat sales. Registered pepper survey data using ‘Distance’ software4 Monitoring the impact of wildlife soup sellers, to whom the hunters sell their generated estimates of population density for management A more appropriate wildlife monitoring bushmeat, make records of off-take. These key species (Olsen et al., 2000). Using density Local ownership of a management system system has now been put in place in Mokoko. provide information on the species and sex values and estimates of intrinsic breeding rates, means that the MWMA and WMCs are now It was developed on the basis of field trials ratio of the animals killed, the hunting methods maximum sustainable production was in a position to identify and act upon the effects and discussions with the MWMA and used and the location of hunting activities. The calculated. The proportion of recommended of management on wildlife. A monitoring members of the Cameroon Biomonitoring information is analysed simply and can easily off-take to ensure population increase varied system is needed to do this, and this should Network (Olsen, 2000), and aims to be be used to generate discussions on the impacts between 5 and 20% depending on the species. aim to measure how wildlife populations are financially, technically and socially of management and compliance of the registered These estimates were used by MCP technical responding to restrictions and control measures, sustainable, at the same time as providing hunters with their rules and regulations. Exper- staff during the elaboration of the participatory whether wildlife managers are complying with robust data to guide wildlife management. ience has shown that it is essential to follow up management strategy to advise, where the rules and regulations of their management The new system uses hunting paths and line with training in analysis and interpretation. necessary, on appropriate species quotas. system, whether wildlife managers are transects, and is combined with control

benefiting financially, and if livelihoods are activities, thereby making it more cost- Adherence of the registered hunters to their Through discussions and participatory exercises, A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon improving. Monitors must be involved in and effective. Participatory mapping was used Memorandum of Association is crucial. At the perceived relative abundance and breeding understand the data analysis and the wider to stratify the hunting zones according to present MWMA off-take data highlight the rates of the various species were obtained. community needs to understand how the results wildlife species and physical features, and failure of some hunters to comply with Relative ranking by the MWMA member agreed link to management of the wildlife resource. to identify paths to be used for monitoring. regulations in terms of hunting seasons, very closely with the wildlife survey data and The wildlife management strategy should A simple monthly analysis will allow com- hunting methods and species bans. This reflects with population growth figures. Discussions clearly define how it will change in response parison of changes in wildlife populations the fact that sanctions were not clearly stated showed that hunters have a good understanding to monitoring, including internal sanctions and over time and space, so that managers get and implemented by all members of the of the factors affecting population dynamics. They mechanisms for flexible quotas. Community- regular feedback on the effectiveness of their MWMA and WMCs. Funding from external understood that growth or decline depends upon based monitoring systems must build on the management, and can translate this into the sources should include conditionalities such the number of animals, breeding rate, and level of knowledge, skills and resources of the local necessary action. This system should serve as compliance with local rules and regulations, exploitation. It was also agreed that less common resource managers, and take into account the priority needs of local users, and the and mechanisms for cross-checking the and slow breeding species should be hunted at a constraints of time, money and technical skills. interest of conservation specialists. Cost accuracy of internal reporting. A benefit- lower intensity or not at all. benefit analysis of the wildlife management sharing system that provides returns to the Community-based wildlife monitoring system (see below) has shown that the community as a whole from wildlife On the basis of this information the MWMA Initially, baseline data for key bushmeat species monitoring component of management can management would also help to ensure that then identified broad management objectives for in the reserve were collected by Distance be self-financing in the future (Olsen and sanctions take effect. each animal. Off-take quotas were agreed. Where Sampling on four transects (O’kah, 1998). Yaron, 2000; Yaron, 2000), and has therefore these conflicted with Cameroonian Law or with These were walked on a monthly basis by a justified pre-financing from the Community Impact on livelihoods and biodiversity the quotas proposed by MCP on the basis of team of volunteer MWMA monitors from the Support Fund (Percy, 2000) of MCP. At present wildlife groups are not monitoring maximum sustainable off-take, the MWMA surrounding villages, recording observations impact on livelihoods or biodiversity. However agreed to respect this technical advice (which and signs of all identified animals. Transect Standard wildlife surveys, supported by a MCP-based working group is developing surveys generated estimates of animal density national or international conservation interests locally appropriate indicators of wealth and 4 Distance Version 3.5 Release 5 (1998-1999) (Olsen et al., 2000), the basis for setting hunting should be complementary to participatory forest condition with communities to facilitate Research Unit for Wildlife Population quotas (see below). As a monitoring system, methods as an independent verification of this in the near future (Sama et al., 2000; Assessment, University of St. Andrews, this method generated little information relative management achievements on a periodic basis. Davies, 2000). Scotland.

20 21 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

they themselves had invited). MINEF has agreed effect control in the area, thereby increasing of a legal catch, and 70% from auctioning of rare and took the form of small fines in cash that this quota will form the basis for a group manpower and providing encouragement to the illegally hunted bushmeat and fines. and kind divided between traditional permit given to the MWMA for the region, authorities, and a recognition of the need to institutions and the MWMA. Now sanctions and the MWMA is responsible for its effective collaborate and harmonise management efforts Negotiating an equitable and decentralised against all types of infractions (from setting implementation. The quota is divided between throughout the region. sharing of benefits at national level is likely to traps beyond trapping limits to embezzlement villages, while allowing for new member encounter resistance. As well as drawing funds and failure to report a kill) are clear, as are the villages. Village committees are responsible for Joint Forestry Control away from Central Government, the issue is authority and responsibilities of both the distributing the quota between individual Joint Forestry Control (Ngatoum and Tekwe, complicated as the central coffers are community and MINEF. Sanctions range hunters. The success of this quota system is 2000) is a locally endorsed initiative that aims administered by a different Ministry, MINPAT. from local fines (by MWMA) to court charges clearly dependent upon final approval of to set practical modalities for communities to Further, if benefit sharing is extended across (by MINEF) and are heaviest on members hunting licences to the MWMA and on the participate in, and share the benefits from, resources, this will require collaboration who abuse their responsibilities. effectiveness of the control system. regulation of legal and illegal exploitation. between the distinct Forests and Wildlife Communities are represented in joint controls departments. It is hoped that a planned Financial viability Control systems by organised wildlife management institutions economic study will show that legal A financial cost benefit analysis of the wildlife The control strategy in the Mount Cameroon and the State is represented by MINEF, exploitation is far more profitable to the State management systems was undertaken to ensure

area has been developed within the spirit of the gendarmes and the police. Local initiatives are than underground illegal activity, and therefore that sustainable wildlife management is A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon current forestry policy and laws to decentralise based on the agreed rules and regulations for enlist the support of the State. This may provide profitable, and to explore the financial sense of the management of forest resources to forest sustainable exploitation of wildlife resources a much-needed incentive to draft a piece of alternative policy options relative to illegal communities. General principles of the system in the area, as well as on local and national legislation that embraces community hunters. The model developed is illustrated in are the same for all areas, but may vary Forestry and Wildlife laws. WMCs and the management of all aspects of forest resource Figure 2 overleaf. according to local practicalities. MWMA are currently carrying out regular management, an opportunity missed during the controls, mainly involving destruction of traps drafting of the Forestry Law (Egbe, 2000a). Data were collected from a combination of Customary rights beyond trapping limits and destruction of bush interviews with registered hunters, stakeholder The law allows local people to exploit forest houses. The MWMA has agreed a regular Allocating and regulating quotas analyses and reports, and wildlife population resources for subsistence use. Both MWMA schedule of control with frequent surprise A new system has recently been developed in data. Results show that sustainable wildlife and WMC members have agreed to suspend controls and emergency controls when required Mokoko. Individual quotas will be allocated management can be financially sustainable for this right, stopping all hunting until quotas are (Mbani, 2001). The control teams also have to hunters in the form of metal tags. These tags local wildlife managers in the medium-term implemented in order to allow animal the authority to arrest hunters operating will be attached to the animal as soon as it has provided an effective control scheme is populations to increase. In return, MINEF has without gun or hunting permits and outside been killed, thereby making the kill legal. The implemented (Box 2, overleaf). made a number of concessions to the the quota. The groups have also recognised pepper soup seller purchasing the bushmeat communities, e.g. hunting permits and benefit- the importance of regionalising control efforts records the tag and returns it to a central In the long-term, however, wildlife sharing (see section on Agreements above). to increase pressure on illegal hunters committee. Anybody found in possession of management can only be viable if it sources throughout the area (Olsen et al., 2001). an untagged animal is subject to heavy funding from elsewhere. The concept of One problem, however, is that the majority of sanctions. broader forest management is evolving from illegal exploiters are hunters from outside who Lack of benefits from wildlife management has the approach of single resource management hunt indiscriminately for commercial markets, been a key issue in developing sustainable Sanctions in the area. This can generate more equitable and therefore have no interest in complying wildlife management systems. The Joint The MWMA has recently elaborated a benefit-sharing arrangements across resources, with either local or national laws. These are Control process and subsequent negotiations detailed sanction system to facilitate and ensure more effective management. In the seen as a major threat to the sustainability of between the MWMA and MINEF has resulted enforcement of its rules and regulations, and MCP area the MWMA is also hoping to raise the system. The problem has been addressed in fairer distribution of benefits derived from ensure financial returns to the Association. income from marketing domestic meat, through the empowerment of local hunters to wildlife control. Communities receive 100% Previously sanctions against offenders were encouraging tourists to their wildlife sanctuary

22 23 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

Figure 2 Financial Cost Benefit Analysis Model for Wildlife Management in Mokoko neighbouring villages. They are also proactive Box 2 Recommendations for financial in joint-control, training other wildlife groups sustainability of wildlife management in LevelLevel % and selling their skills to visiting researchers. PricePrice SupplySupply Mokoko ofof fine Fine Finesfines Furthermore, the group is working towards wider forest management objectives through • Groups receive pre-financing grant to collaboration with other resource user groups. SaleSale ofof implement monitoring and control No. of REVENUEREVENUE Number bushmeatbushmeat The confidence of the group to operate and huntershunters BushmeatBushmeat mechanisms, with conditionalities of Caught make decisions independently suggests they fined caught success to be assessed through monitoring fined are likely to succeed in the absence of MCP. systems • Financial sanction mechanism elaborated The groups have relied upon financial and Control QuotaQuota to include fines of up to 50,000 FCFA Control technical assistance from MCP to build effortEffort for severe disrespect of management HuntingHunting organisational capacity and knowledge base. Effort MWMAMWMA PopulationPopulation regulations effort Costs In the future, local community development costs • Benefit-sharing mechanism agreed with initiatives can receive grants from the evolving MINEF to ensure that managers receive

MonitoringMonitoring Mount Cameroon Region Conservation A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon ≥ 50% of fines and auction cash andand controlControl Foundation. The Foundation will also provide • Control efforts result in destruction of ≥ Equipment groups with access to information about Equipment COSTCOST 10% traps now and increasing to ≥ 50% funding, legal rights and management options, by 2010 through encouraging communication with local IndependentIndependent • Local hunting quotas are increased in Verification NGOs and the Mount Cameroon Biodiversity verification response to increases in wildlife Hunting Conservation Centre. Some of the capacity Hunting permits populations permits building requirements for community-based Source : Olsen and Yaron (2000) • Modalities of wildlife management are wildlife managers are illustrated in Figure 3 integrated into broader forest management and sourcing funds for monitoring and control stakeholder analyses, wildlife surveys, and overleaf. • Monitoring and control systems from conservation-interested bodies. various participatory exercises. The developed to encourage national and information needs for developing and The role of the local MINEF office is changing international financial support through implementing a wildlife management strategy from forest management through ‘policing’ to LESSONS SO FAR: PRE-CONDITIONS data exchange and contributions to global are summarised in Table 3 (overleaf). local participation resulting from skills acquired FOR SUCCESS biodiversity conservation through project activities. Success of the Key elements of a wildlife management The wildlife strategy should become an integral wildlife groups will largely depend on the strategy part of a forest management plan approved by in ensuring that management efforts are leadership and direction of MINEF in providing Motivation to initiate wildlife management the State. However the range of legal status of sustained in the absence of outside support. a conducive policy environment and their requires a justification to the local community forests in the region complicates this. The The MWMA has achieved a high level of participation in the elaboration of wildlife and to outside donors of significant negative requirements of management plans for State organisation and stability as a result of management plans. Frequent transfer of local trends in the wildlife resource and the reasons forest reserves, communal and community institutional capacity building in group MINEF staff after capacity building may pose behind the change. Changes in wildlife forests are all different (Egbe, 2000b). dynamics, communication and conflict a serious problem in future, though it is hoped population numbers and distributions, socio- resolution. Group members have a high sense that the MCP exit strategy will prevent this. economic patterns, cultural attitudes and Institutional landscape of ownership of the process and take self- changes in methods of exploitation can be Building the capacity of local institutions to initiated actions such as wildlife monitoring Suitable policy and legal environment recorded from local knowledge, supported by manage themselves and their resource is crucial and seeking to sensitise and involve An appropriate legal environment for effective

24 25 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

Table 3 Information needs for implementing a wildlife management strategy Figure 3 Capacity building requirements for community-based wildlife managers

Elements of wildlife Information required management ORGANISATION NETWORKING Local and legal wildlife Legal options for local organisation and participatory management institution resource management, stakeholder representation • Representation by all • Develop local Management objectives and Current trends and threats (based on local and scientific stakeholders communication quotas for each species knowledge), desired status, breeding rates and current • Empowerment networks exploitation • Organisational skills Local wildlife management • Build partnerships Rules and regulations for Management objectives, local and national legislation and • Village-based and organisation • Exchange visits hunting impact of current hunting methods, benefit-sharing zonal organisation • Disseminate results Control system Sanctions, rules and regulations, quotas, tagging system, • Administrative skills locally, nationally and agreed responsibility of MINEF and communities and equipment internationally Technically and socially Options for participatory monitoring and evaluation of TECHNICAL SKILLS dissemination appropriate monitoring systems resources, institutions and livelihoods, skills to monitor, analyse, interpret and effect management • Monitoring and survey Equitable benefit-sharing Costs and benefits of management, legal benefit-sharing • Management planning A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon mechanism system • Legal knowledge Integration into broader forest Knowledge of other resource user groups, identification • Financial management management at regional and of areas of collaboration and contributions to broader • Funding applications national level community, networks

management by local communities must control. between communities and authorities must and direct benefits from management activities. appreciate the values of field realities. Local • Responsibilities and procedures for be approved by the state. For populations to increase, baseline popu- laws must be detailed and transparent to enable dealing with offenders must be agreed in • Effective control operations must be lations must be sufficient to ensure rapid popu- unambiguous actions on management and unambiguous terms between communities regular and on a regional scale through lation growth for some fast-breeding, key control. In summary: and authorities. encouraging communication and exchange bushmeat species, such as bush pig and duiker. • Customary hunting rights should be adapted • National forest and wildlife laws should between groups. Animals which are illegal to hunt and which to recognise locally common, more modern, encourage wildlife management within the recover slowly, such as drills and , hunting methods and materials. This context of broader forest management. Financial viability must become intrinsically valuable through flexibility will also allow for occasional Policies should support cross-disciplinary Based on the Onge-Mokoko experience, a other direct benefits of management. In the traditional ceremonial practices. joint-control and advocate benefit-sharing number of conditions must be met in order to Mount Cameroon scenario these direct benefits • Hunting activities should be regulated through multiple resource use. ensure that a community wildlife management may include support to managers from a Con- through weapon and hunting permits, and • A wildlife management strategy should form initiative is financially sustainable (Box 3 servation Foundation and sharing of monitor- species quotas. an essential component of a forest overleaf). ing data with interested biomonitoring initiatives. • Hunting permits must be affordable to management plan and should allow for joint hunters if they are expected to legalise their community and MINEF roles in management WILDLIFE POPULATIONS SCALING UP FOR A REGIONAL activity. in all legal categories of forest areas where WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT MODEL • Quotas should be developed on the basis of communities express an interest in resource For long-term community interest in wildlife population dynamics and local knowledge. management. management, effective management must result Wildlife is a mobile resource, in high demand • Trapping activity should be restricted to pest • The mechanism for distributing benefits in improved livelihoods from increased hunting from traditional users and immigrants to the

26 27 RDFN paper 25e(ii) – July 2001

responsibilities will go a long way to ensure consultancy. Project report, MCP, Limbe. Box 3 Conditions for financial sustainability of community wildlife management that the forests and wildlife are not at risk from Egbe, S. (2000a) Communities and wildlife • Baseline wildlife populations should be high enough for fast recovery of key bushmeat these important economic developments. management in Cameroon. Consultancy species for local consumption report presented to the DFID – Cameroon • An effective control system must be implemented which generates financial benefits for ACRONYMS Community Forestry Development Project wildlife managers, significant costs for illegal hunters and increases wildlife populations (CFDP). • A benefit-sharing and sanction system should ensure that managers receive profits and can CDC Cameroon Development Corpor- Egbe, S. (2000b) Briefing report on the legal cover management costs ation and institutional review of the joint • To attract national and international conservation interests, a monitoring system that generates FCFA Currency in French-speaking management activities of the MCP. Project a high standard of data should be developed West and Central Africa. report, MCP, Limbe. • A regional control system is needed to ensure price elasticity operates in favour of the Exchange rate: Ekwoge, H., Mbani, J.M., Ntube, G. and community. Increased bushmeat prices are less likely to be undercut elsewhere in the region 100 FCFA = 1 FRF Acworth, J.A. (ed) (1998) Stakeholder if bushmeat supply is reduced throughout. 750 FCFA = 1 USD analysis report for participatory wildlife • Local hunters are willing to explore and adopt alternative income-generating activities MCP Mount Cameroon Project management in Mokoko River Forest Reserve MCRCF Mount Cameroon Region Con- and the surrounding forest. Project report,

servation Foundation MCP, Limbe. A community wildlife management model from Mount Cameroon Mount Cameroon area. Successful In areas of communal forest on Mount MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture Elsworth, L. (2000) A Cameroon mountains management requires co-operation between all Cameroon, communities are currently MINEF Ministry of Environment and conservation fund: feasibility, options and traditional resource users in the area, and involved in a land use planning exercise that Forests next steps. Project report, MCP, Limbe. financial and social motivation in the long-term. will result in appropriate legal status for MINPAT Ministry of Public Investment and Environmental Resources Management (1998) In collaboration with representatives from forest use and protection being defined. By Territorial Management Environmental impact assessment of wildlife management groups, MCP and dividing the forests into areas requiring MWMA Mokoko Wildlife Management plantation expansion in forested lowland of MINEF have developed a strategy for regional greater or lesser levels of protection and Association the Mount Cameroon Region: CNTR 97 wildlife management. A regional committee use, these areas can be legally endorsed NGO Non-Governmental Organisation 3285A. Report for DFID. Environmental aims to discuss how community groups can through the allocation of legal status or NTFP Non-timber forest product Resources Management, London. support each other through sharing skills and through a management plan. These legally PBCS Participatory biodiversity con- Gadsby, E.L. and Jenkins, P.D. (1992) Report experiences, regionalising control efforts, binding mechanisms aim to ensure both servation strategy on wildlife and hunting in the proposed Etinde developing networks and planning activities protection of forest areas and the rights of WMC Wildlife Management Committee Forest Reserve. Report to Limbe Botanic for regional education. Regional co-operation local people to use their forest resources. Garden and the Rainforest Genetic will not only ensure more effective control, This is particularly important in the future REFERENCES Conservation Project. but will increase the sense of responsibility of when major developments to the area are Mbani, J.M. (2001) A control strategy for the the local managers. anticipated. The privatisation of CDC brings Acworth, J. and Ekwoge, H. (2001) Towards Boa Plain area. In: Olsen, K.B., Mbani, the risk of further plantation expansion community management of forest resources J.M., Acworth, J., O’kah, E.M. and Ebile, The groups should now work towards (Acworth and Ekwoge, 2001) and a new deep in the Onge-Mokoko forests of Cameroon. A. Regional wildlife management workshop obtaining appropriate legal status for security sea port planned for the West Coast area will Rural Forestry Development Network Paper report. MCP, Limbe. of tenure and the right to manage the local bring an influx of people and demand for 25c. ODI, London. MCP Limbe Team (2000) Participatory forest. Further, MCP should assist resources to the area. A strong group of Buckland S, Anderson D, Burnham K and J. Biodiversity Conservation: A strategy for the communities to appeal for changes in national wildlife managers with clear rights and Laake (1993) Distance Sampling: Estimating Mt. Cameroon, September 2000. Project policy, through legalising modalities for the abundance of biological populations. report, MCP, Limbe. local wildlife management model. Chapman & Hall, London. Ministry of Environment and Forests (1994) Davies, R. (2000) Monitoring and evaluation New Forestry Law. Government of

28 29 Cameroon. Regulations of Wyoming Game and Fish Ministry of Environment and Forests (1998) Commission. Manual of the procedures for the attribution, Sama, M. and Livelihoods Working Group and norms for the management, of (2000) Livelihoods workshop report. community forests. Government of November 10th 2000. MCP, Limbe. Cameroon. Tchouto, P., Pouakouyou, D. and Acworth, J. Ngatoum, D. and Tekwe, C. (2000) Joint (1999) A rapid botanical survey of the forestry control review workshop report. lowland CDC leasehold in the West Coast A MINEF and MCP report, MCP, Limbe. area. MCP, Limbe. O’kah, E.M. (1998) Participatory bushmeat Yaron, G. (2000) Cost benefit analysis: A species surveys and monitoring of the short-term consultancy undertaken for MCP. Mokoko Forest Area. Training workshop and Aide Memoire and Brief Report, GY meeting report. MCP-Limbe and GEF- Associates. Wildlife Surveys Unit. Olsen, K.B., Mbani, J.M.M., Adolf, E., O’kah, E.M. and Acworth, J. (2001) Regional Wildlife Management Workshop report. MCP, Limbe. Olsen, K.B., O’kah, E.M. and Mokoko Team (2000) Wildlife management strategy workshop report. MCP, Limbe. Olsen, K.B. (2000) Case study: Monitoring of community-based wildlife management in the Mokoko River Forest Reserve. In: O’kah, E.M. (ed.) (In press) Proceedings of the first Cameroon Biodiversity Network meeting, Trobenbos, Kribi (12 – 13th October 2000). Olsen, K.B. and Yaron, G. (2000) Cost benefit analysis for sustainable wildlife management: The case of the Mokoko Wildlife Management Association in the Mokoko River Forest Reserve. MCP, Limbe. Percy, F.P. (2000) Community Support Fund: Policy document for supporting community development projects. MCP, Limbe. Pouakouyou, D., Ongie, R.M., Abonge, G. and Nchimfor, Z. (1996) Stakeholder analysis for participatory wildlife management in West Coast. MCP, Limbe. Powers, M.J. (1997) General Hunting

30 Please send comments on this paper to:

Rural Development Forestry Network Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7JD United Kingdom Email: [email protected]

Comments received will be passed on to the authors and may be used in future publications. Photocopies of all or part of this publication may be made providing that the source is acknowledged. The Network Coordinator would appreciate receiving details of any use of this material in training, research or programme design, implementation or evaluation. The opinions expressed in these papers are those of the author and members of the network. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the ODI.

CREDITS

Editors of this paper: David Brown and Kate Schreckenberg Layout: Rebecca Lovelace and Caroline Wood Administrative Editor: Vicky Pett Translation: Clare Lord (25e(iii)) Printed by: Russell Press Ltd, Nottingham on recycled paper RDFN logo by Redesign Rural Development Forestry Network Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7JD UK

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7922 0300 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7922 0399 Email: [email protected] Website: www.odifpeg.org.uk

This mailing of the Rural Development Forestry Network is funded by The UK Department for International Development