Participatory Wildlife Monitoring and Management for Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihood Improvement in Takamanda: Searching Solutions to the Bushmeat Crisis

Final Technical Report for the Central African Regional Programme for the Environment (CARPE/IUCN)

By:

Stella Asaha Roland Ndah Rose Mukete Hamadou Aboubakar

July 2011

List of Contents

PROJECT DETAILS INFORMATION ...... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 3 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 3 1.2 PROBLEM IDENTIFIED ...... 4 1.3 OBJECTIVE ...... 4 1.4 EXPECTED RESULTS ...... 4 1.5 CONTEXT OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ...... 4

2.0 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY ...... 6 2.1 LOCATION...... 6 2.2 ACCESSIBILITY ...... 6

3.0 EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT ...... 8 3.1 INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS ...... 8 3.1.1 Meeting with Stakeholders ...... 8 3.1.2 Inception Workshop ...... 8 3.2 FIELD SURVEYS ...... 9 3.2.1 Socio-economic Survey ...... 9 3.2.2 Mammal Survey ...... 12 3.3 TRAININGS AND WORKSHOPS ...... 14 3.3.1 Sensitization and Pre-planning Workshop ...... 14 3.3.2 Workshop on Wildlife Laws and Animal Classification ...... 15 3.3.3 Field Training on Wildlife Monitoring ...... 18 3.3.4 Planning Community Wildlife Management Strategy ...... 19 3.4 DISSEMINATION WORKSHOP ...... 20 3.4.1 Presentations ...... 20 3.4.2 General and Group Discussions ...... 22 3.5 STUDIES ON AGRO-FORESTRY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BUSHMEAT HUNTING ...... 28

4.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ...... 29 4.1 IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT ...... 29 4.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ...... 29 4.3 POLICY AND GOVERNANCE ...... 29

5.0 EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNED ...... 32 5.1 POSITIVE EXPERIENCES ...... 32 5.2 NEGATIVE EXPERIENCES AND LIMITATIONS...... 32 5.3 LESSONS LEARNT ...... 33

6.0 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND INTEREST ...... 34 6.1 VILLAGES AND LOCAL COUNCIL...... 34

i

6.2 ORGANIZATIONS (FOREP, CARPE, WCS, DED/GIZ) ...... 34 6.3 GOVERNMENT (MINFOF AND MINEP) ...... 34 6.4 BUSHMEAT TRADERS (WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS) ...... 34

7.0 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY AND WAY FORWARD ...... 35

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 36 8.1 CONCLUSIONS ...... 36 8.2 SUMMARY OF SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 36

List of Tables

Table 1 Composition of Existing VFMC ...... 9 Table 2 List of species encountered in Okpambe ...... 12 Table 3 List of Species Encountered in Assam and Takpe Area ...... 13 Table 4 Elected Members of Assam Takpe Awuri Wildlife Management Association (ATA-WMA) ...... 15 Table 5 Local animal classification exercise ...... 17 Table 6 Seasonal Calendar of Bushmeat Related Activities ...... 19 Table 7 Historical trend of hunting and farming activities ...... 19 Table 8 Requirement of Community Wildlife Management ...... 22 Table 9 Results of Group Discussions ...... 23 Table 10 Summary of Project Planned Activities ...... 26 Table 11 Summary of Expected Results ...... 28

List of Figures

Figure 1 Geographic Map of Project Site …………………………………………...... 6 Figure 2 Common Animals Sold in the Area ...... 10 Figure 3 Seasonal Variations of Hunting Activities ...... 11

List of Photographic Plates

Photo Plate 1 Planning Session during the Inception Workshop ...... 9 Photo Plate 2 Smoked porcupine and dead duiker ...... 12 Photo Plate 3 Classification of Animals According to the National Wildlife Law ...... 17 Photo Plate 4 Participatory Mapping Exercise at Okpambe Village ...... 19 Photo Plate 5 Presentations at the workshop ...... 21 Photo Plate 6 Dissemination Workshop Group discussions...... 22 Photo Plate 7 Presentations after group discussions ...... 22 Photo Plate 8 Discussion, questions and answers session ...... 25

ii

List of Acronyms

ATA-WMA ...... Assam-Takpe-Awuri Wildlife Management Association CARPE ...... Central African Regional Programme for the Environment CBC ...... Community Based Conservation CBO ...... Community Based Organisation CIFOR ...... Centre for International Forestry Research DDMINFOF ...... Divisional Delegate of Forestry and Wildlife FMC ...... Forest Management Committee FMU ...... Forest Management Unit FOREP ...... Forests, Resources and People GIZ/ DED ...... German Development Services GPS...... Global Positioning System KFW ...... German Development Bank KGS ...... Kagwene Gorilla Sanctuary MFR ...... Mone Forest Reserve MINEP ...... Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection MINFOF ...... Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife NGOs ...... Non-governmental Organizations PRA ...... Participatory Rural Appraisal PROFA ...... Protection of the Forest around Akwaya PSMNR/SWR ...... Programme for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources/South West Region PWM ...... Participatory Wildlife Management TNP ...... Takamanda National Park TOU ...... Technical Operations Units VC ...... Village Council VFMC ...... Village Forest Management Committee WCS ...... Wildlife Conservation Society

iii

Project Details

Project number: 0789/09

Project title: “Participatory Wildlife Monitoring and Management for Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihood Improvement in Takamanda: Searching Solution to the Bushmeat Crisis’’

Forests, Resources and People (FOREP), B.P. 111, Limbe, Cameroon

Tel: (+237) 99 85 09 34

Fax: (+237) 33 33 29 55

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Starting date: August 2009

Duration: 12 months

Period covered so far: October 2009 - June 2011 (No-cost extension period inclusive)

Total cost of the Project: USD 16,668

CARPE/IUCN: USD 14,777 FOREP: USD 1,891

1

Executive Summary

The Takamanda-Mone Technical Operations Unit (TOU) is a mosaic of different land use types. It comprises the Takamanda National Park (TNP), the Mone Forest Reserve (MFR), the Kagwene Gorilla Sanctuary (KGS) and a forest management unit (FMU 11004). This TOU (444,172 ha) (see Figure 1) is located within the Akwaya subdivision in Manyu Division of the South West Region of Cameroon. The area is made up of more than 100 villages with very limited road access and lacks basic social amenities, such as schools and hospitals. The local communities depend mainly on the forest and its resources for income and household sustenance.

Research carried out in this region identified it as a biologically important (Comiskey et al. 2003) particularly for the conservation of the Cross River Gorilla. Unsustainable bushmeat hunting for food and income in the Takamanda is highly practiced; consequently, there is serious threat to the local survival of many tropical species, including mammals (including numerous primate species), birds, reptiles and amphibians. Anti-poaching teams have not yielded adequate fruits for conservation. Human development activities such as farming and road construction, as well as logging activities, have led to deterioration of local habitat. It is clear that there is the need to conserve the fast-depleting wildlife populations of this area, while on the other hand meet human development needs. The major problem is to find a balance between these two life options: preserving natural resources and satisfying human needs.

The objective of the project is to contribute to the sustainable use of wildlife for the benefit of the local communities while ensuring the conservation of the endangered species, through the establishment of community based wildlife management plans.

This project was executed in five villages located at the border of the TNP. To achieve its objectives, the project comprised three phases, including research, sensitization of local communities through education, and training and capacity building of local people.

During the implementation of the project, much experience was gained by both the communities and the implementation organization (FOREP). The lessons learned have been of great help in formulating policy statements (as recommendations) to improve on the legislation of wildlife management in Cameroon.

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Hunting for food in Central Africa is an issue of concern because there is strong evidence to suggest that the scale of hunting poses a real threat to many tropical wildlife species; this directly translates to threats to food security for the forest dependent inhabitants of these forests in Africa, most of who rely largely on bushmeat for protein. The so-called "bushmeat crisis" is the focus of many conservation organizations and of a number of development programs throughout Central Africa. Most of the efforts by conservation NGOs to reduce the impacts of hunting on biodiversity have focused on law enforcement and sensitization campaigns which warn against the illegality of the trade in bushmeat, the risk of species extinction and health-related problems by playing with infected animals. However, these activities have not been successful in preventing local extirpation of some hunted species until now. Effective wildlife management models need to be developed to secure bushmeat as a resource and make it available for future generations without compromising conservation efforts. In most countries wildlife remains state property and hunting is illegal, leading to a situation of low ownership, non-recognition of user rights and even criminalization of use. A recent report by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Centre for Forestry Research (CIFOR) entitled Conservation and Use of Wildlife-Based Resources: The Bushmeat Crisis argues that if local hunters are bestowed with some user rights and the knowledge to understand the consequences of their decisions, they will embrace their responsibility to hunt sustainably. To address this issue, many countries are seeking ways to devolve user rights to communities to create an incentive to invest in the long-term sustainable use of resources. Community wildlife management models may be one of the key mechanisms to engender support for attempts to make the bushmeat harvesting more sustainable. The focus of these is on enhancing the livelihoods of the people living in and from the forest who are often the poorest and most marginalized in society. Community wildlife management is based on the assumption that it is possible to improve rural livelihoods, conserve the environment and promote economic growth. However, there are few places where management rights are given to local communities under a community management system, and little is known about the circumstances in which such systems can serve both economic and ecological purposes under current conditions.

The Takamanda region has been identified as a biologically important area (Comiskey et al. 2003), particularly for the conservation of the Cross River Gorilla. However, given the presence of four enclaves in the TNP (Obonyi 1 and 3, Kekpane, Matene) and the heavy reliance of local people (15,700 inhabitants; Mdaihli, et. al. 2002) on several non-timber forest products (NTFPs) including wildlife, it is important to ensure that conservation objectives do not undermine local people’s needs.

3

1.2 Problem Identified

Hunting for food and income in the Takamanda cluster villages is a concern because there is strong evidence that shows a high level of hunting occurring in the region. Another problem identified is the sensitization campaigns and the use of law-enforcement officer to reduce hunting and forest encroachment which have not yielded adequate fruits for conservation. Compounding these problems is the creation of logging roads within this region which have opened the forest to poachers from Nigeria. Illegal logging is also identified as a threat to forest resources. Local inhabitants and intruders from neighboring countries use poor harvesting techniques that seriously destroys habitat. The major issue in this region is to find a balance to meet these two life options; preserving natural resources and satisfying human needs.

1.3 Objective

The overall objective of the project is to contribute to the sustainable use of wildlife for the benefit of the local communities while ensuring the conservation of endangered species. The specific focus is to facilitate the establishment of participatory wildlife management (PWM) and monitoring plan in focus villages around the TNP and to formulate and contribute to policy recommendations for solutions of bushmeat crisis at the regional and national levels.

1.4 Expected Results

• two community wildlife management plans are in place and functional • a final report clearly states “best practices” and lessons learned for the implementation of community wildlife management plans • put forth policy recommendations at the regional and national level

1.5 Context of the Project

This is a one-year project geared towards the sustainable use of bushmeat to meet with conservation imperatives on the one hand and satisfy the local people who depend on them on the other hand.

This project was initially designed to function in three communities with easy proximity to the TNP (i.e.Assam, Takpe and Awuri). These villages are located in the Takamanda-Mone Technical Operation Unit (TOU) (see Figure X) and have access to the resources (including bushmeat) in the buffer zone of the TNP where there are populations of the Cross River Gorilla. These villages are remote and have limited access to the nearest markets; they depend on bushmeat both as a source of protein and income; and practice unsustainable hunting.

The project commenced in September 2009 and realized some of its intended activities before its suspension in February 2010 due to some conflicts that arose in the field. The gravity of this conflict seems to have been underestimated from the onset, as all resolution measures undertaken with the project

4 villages failed. It finally took about 12 months for the conflict to be resolved. However, during this time the FOREP team decided to work in two alternate villages in the same area that were not involved in the conflict. From January to June 2011, and thanks to CARPE’s no-cost extension, the project continued with the villages of Awuri and Okpambe. The results presented here include activities that were carried out in 2009 in Assam, Takpe and Awuri) as well as within Okpambe and Awuri.

5

2.0 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

2.1 Location

The project focused on villages around the recently created TNP, located within the Takamanda-Mone TOU. The Takamanda-Mone TOU, was created in June 2007 (MINFOF, 2005) includes the Mone Forest Reserve, Forest Management Unit (FMU #11 004), the Kagwene Gorilla Sanctuary and the recently created TNP. Administratively, the area is located in the Akwaya subdivision of the Manyu Division.

Figure 1 Geographic Map of Project Site

2.2 Accessibility

The communities of Assam and Takpe share common boundaries with the TNP and both villages did not have road access until March 2009. the TNP could only be reached after two hours of trekking from the road terminal at Okpambe, passing through Awuri. Recently, a farm-to-market road constructed by the Programme for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources - South West Region (PSMNR - SWR) (funded by the German Development Bank [kfw]), makes it easy to reach Assam and Takpe by motorbike. Between Okpambe and Awuri, the Ebeh River is crossed by means of a hand-pulled canoe, especially during the rainy season. No cars can reach Assam. 6

Okpambe village is accessible through an earth road from Mamfe at a distance of 33 km, taking an average of 1h 45 min drive time depending on the state of the road. It is located at the road terminus where footpaths lead to other villages in the area such as Takamanda, Obony I and II, Nyang and where the newly constructed moto bike road leads to Awuri, Takpe, Assam on the other side of Ebeh River.

7

3.0 EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT

3.1 Involvement of Local Stakeholders

3.1.1 Meeting with Stakeholders

During the process of introducing the project to the other active partners (i.e., DED, WCS, and MINFOF) in the area, meetings were held with all interest groups separately. Visits to the target villages were important to meet with the chiefs and the elders. During this time, the development and conservation partners were briefed on the objectives and main activities of the project. Partners had opportunity to offer their point of view about the project, and make suggestions. During these meetings, MINFOF was identified as an implementing partner, meaning that it was included as part of the project execution and was active at all the stages of the planned activities.

The MINFOF divisional delegate officially opened the inception workshop in Mamfe. MINFOF staff was present at all project village meetings and workshops and had a role in the training on animal classification and wildlife laws.

3.1.2 Inception Workshop

The main aim of this workshop was to bring together the various interest groups working in the Takamanda region for an official introduction of the project. This workshop included three main presentations. In the first presentation, FOREP and CARPE explained the project objectives, including information about the fauna situation and finally brief introduction to participatory wildlife management with lessons learned from other areas.

There was the brief stakeholder analysis session, during which every person or group of persons thought to be involved in bushmeat was identified.

The workshop went into a planning session which started with brainstorming on which group of persons or individuals are concerned or involved in bush meat exploitation in the Takamanda region.

The following groups were identified;

• villagers (men and women) • government of Cameroon (MINFOF) • international development organization (DED) • international conservation organization (WCS) • local non-government organization (FOREP) • external bushmeat traders • urban dwellers (traders and consumers)

8

The next important issue was whether the project should continue with the existing village forest management committee (VFMC) formed by WCS and MINFOF or to form a separate wildlife management committee. Following discussions, the decision was made to work with the existing VFMCs of the three. The next question concerned membership of the committee. This question came up mainly to balance the gender of the VFMC, particularly to get as many women as possible to be involved. Table 1 lists the number of members per village and their gender.

Table 1 Composition of Existing VFMCs Village No. of Men No. of Women Total Assam 9 1 10 Takpe 9 0 9 Awuri 7 0 7 Given the gender imbalance in the VFMCs, discussions ensued about the need to get more women involved. Some community representatives who raised concerns on the role of women in VFMCs felt that it was inappropriate for women (especially married woman) to be involved in strenuous forest-based activities. After further discussion, it was agreed that each community would take as an assignment to add at least two women to their VFMC before the next meeting.

Photo Plate 1 Planning Session during the Inception Workshop

The next meeting on general village sensitization and action planning’s scheduled for January 9, 2010 at the Assam village community hall.

3.2 Field Surveys

3.2.1 Socio-economic Surveys

Socio-economic studies were undertaken with the main objective of capturing cultural aspects related to wildlife, the market chain of bushmeat product at the regional level, as well as the economic and social importance of bushmeat (especially in relation to other sources of protein). The specific objectives of this study were:

9

• to determine the type of hunting practices and methods carried out within the area • to determine the rate of hunting per month as well as seasonal variations in hunting activities • to identify the most common type of hunted animals and species preferred • to identify rules that regulate hunting and the sale of bushmeat • to identify any rules regulating strangers from hunting in the area • to identify and explain the route of market trends in and out of the area Data for this study was collected through structured questionnaires administered to a random sample of about 15% of the village households, irrespective whether they hunt or not. Another second set of questionnaires were specifically administered to those identified as bushmeat traders in the village. Other data for this report was generated from group discussions with village leaders and hunters, as well as external bushmeat traders.

Data showed that bushmeat is hunted for income as much as it is for consumption; an average of about 121,636.3 FCFA per household per year comes from hunting, and a corresponding 139,330 FCFA per year comes from bushmeat trade in the area. However, some bushmeat, such as the cane rat, the rat mole and the catabeef (pangolin) is not sold due to its small size. Larger animals are usually sold and fetch good money for the household. Some parts of the animals such as the internal organs, head and feet, are consumed by the household.

Figure 2 Common Animals Sold in the Area

Hunters use locally made guns or, more commonly wire traps; use of bait is usually limited to around farms for small rodents. Traps are used by all hunters including those who own guns and younger people who are learning how to get bushmeat for the family. During the trapping season, an average of 200 traps are set and checked every two or three days. The high number of traps is very destructive to the local wildlife because animals may rot if traps are not checked daily. Guns are usually handed down from parent to children (which is against the law) or purchased from Nigeria. Most hunters who use guns hunt for income about 45% to 50% of the time. However, with the introduction of cocoa farming in recent years, progressively less of men are hunting; those that do spend just less than 30% of their time engaged in hunting.

10

Bushmeat trading is an age old occupation among villagers of the Takamanda region. According to Chief Tabe Takomba of Okpambe village, many years ago income from bushmeat provided for construction of houses and education. This was typically a male-dominated activity, but in the recent years more women are hunting. According to project surveys, bushmeat traders now also comprise women age 25 to 34 years who hunt to generate household income. Bushmeat is either traded within the villages or carried to nearby towns where they will yield relatively higher income. Within the villages they are sold in small pieces for about 100 to 200 FCFA, which is much more affordable to most households. Bushmeat is also cooked by woman and sold.

There is no designated hunting season, but, there are peak seasons, especially for trapping. Hunting rates are low (approximately 9%) from January to March because hunters are more involved in clearing of farms or farm labour jobs for those who do not have personal farms. About 35% of respondents indicated they hunt from April to June as a result of a reduction in the farming activities. Hunting activities are limited from July to September (about 25% of hunters hunt during these months) because of intensive rains and high water levels. As a result of the heavy rains, hunters mostly use traps or sit under particular fruit trees and wait for animals. Approximately 31% hunt between October to December, mainly to look for bushmeat to be sold or eaten during the Christmas season.

Figure 3 Seasonal Variations of Hunting Activities

In the last decade, when farming activities were mainly for household consumption, hunting was a full- time activity and the main source of household income. Although this has changed, some hunters, though involved more in farming activities, still give some of their time to hunting. The number of days spent in the forest for each hunting trip generally indicates whether a hunter is full time or part time. On average, a full-time hunter spends about three weeks in the forest in their bush huts. Meanwhile part-time hunters spend less than a week in their bush huts since they are involved in faming or other activities.

11

Photo Plate 2 Smoked Porcupine and Duiker

3.2.2 Mammal Surveys

Collection of biological data focused on selected target species, such as forest duiker (Cephalophus spp.), brush tailed porcupine (Atherurus africanus), and other large rodents which are mentioned by the villagers as being common in the area. Assessment methods included reconnaissance and various (direct/indirect) line transect surveys across different forest and land-use types. Hunter’s knowledge was also taken into account during this survey. Mammal surveys were carried out by a two-person team which included a mammal specialist and a local field assistant (typically a good hunter was chosen). Transects were positioned along human trails, about 50 m apart, and perpendicular to the trail. The “zero” position of each transect was recorded using a GPS unit and marked with a red tag on a wooden stick or pole. The mammal team walked towards the given bearing looking for direct observations of mammals until they reached 200 m (measured using a hip chain). The team then walked back along the transect to search for dung and nest signs. Information about species, distance from “zero” point, perpendicular distance to the transect (using a 50 m tape), type of sign, habitat type and local name of trail was recorded. Animal signs observed included dung, hair, sound tracts and feeding habits.

A total of 13 mammal species were encountered in Okpambe (see Table 2). The most abundant species were cane rat (Thryonomys swinderianus) followed by red duiker (Cephalophus spp) (see Figure 5). Red duiker species were lumped together for ease of identification and to avoid confusion of species specificity. Fifty-seven percent of the mammals encountered were small rodents and 40% were ungulates. Only one monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans) was seen.

Table 2 Species Encountered in Okpambe Area Common Name Latin Name Type of Sign porcupine Atherurus africanus dung African yellow bat Scotophilus dinganii dung cane rat Thryonomys swinderianus dung blue duiker Cephalophus monticola dung red duiker spp. Cephalophus callipygus, C. nigrifrons, C. ogylbi., C. dung dorsalis

12 putty nose monkey Cercopithecus nictitans dung civet Civettictis civetta dung red river hog (bush pig) Potamochoerus porcus dung potto Perodicticus potto dung tortoise none direct encounter wild dog Lycaon pictus dung Eighteen different mammal species were encountered in Assam (see Table 4 and Figures 11 through 15). The most abundant species were red duikers (Cephalophus spp) followed by blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola). Fifty percent of the mammals encountered were small rodents and 30% were ungulates. Three monkeys (putty nose - , mona and black (putty nose - Cercopithecus nictitans, black monkey - C. preussi, and mona monkey - C. mona)--were seen; the black monkey (C. preussi) was discovered dead on the ground at transect 71. A lone tree nest of the great ape family was seen along the Takpe/Assam/Awuri hill. It was difficult to associate it to a Cross River gorilla nest or that of a chimpanzee.

A mixed group of about 20 monkeys (Cercopithecus nictitans, C. preussi, C. mona, C. erythrotis (red- eared guenon) comprising infants, juveniles and feeding adults were encountered early morning out of the transects along the Takpe/Assam/Awuri Hills (data not included in this analysis).

Table 3 Species Encountered in Assam and Takpe Area

Number Common Name Latin Name of Sitings Sign Encounter Rate black monkey Cercopithecus preussi 1 seen 0.0625 blue duiker Cephalophus monticola 133 dung 8.3125 bush baby or Galago Galago spp 1 dung 0.0625 bush buck Tragelaphus scriptus 3 dung 0.1875 bush pig Potamochoerus porcus 31 dung 1.9375 cane rat Thryonomys swinderianus 107 dung 6.6875 civet Civettictis civetta 3 dung 0.1875 chimpanzee Pan troglodytes, 1 nest 0.0625 Cross River Gorilla Gorilla gorilla diehli none -- -- mona monkey Cercopithecus mona 1 seen 0.0625 mongoose Herpestes spp 4 dung 0.25 porcupine Atherurus africanus 25 dung 1.5625 potto Perodicticus potto 4 dung 0.25 putty nose monkey Cercopithecus nictitans 1 seen 0.0625 rat mole Cricetomys spp 4 dung 0.25 red duiker Cephalophus spp 141 dung 8.82 squirrel Funisciurus spp 2 seen 0.125 wild dog Lycaon pictus 1 dung 0.0625 yellow bat Scotophilus dinganii 1 dung 0.0625

13

Analysing abundance, richness and diversity per habitat type in Okpambe, fallows provide the highest abundance of mammal observations, followed by mature forests and secondary forests. The most abundant species in fallows and farmland is the cane rat (more than 80% of the observations, whereas the most abundant species in mature forests and secondary forests are the red duikers (70.3 % of observations in mature forests and 47.8% in secondary forests; see Figure 10). Blue duiker was equally abundant in mature forests and secondary forests, while porcupines were more abundant in secondary than in mature forests. A low number of red river hog signs were found both in secondary forests and mature forests.

In the Assam–Takpe forest area, mature forests provide the highest abundance of mammal observations, followed by secondary forests and farmlands. The most abundant species in farmlands and fallows is the cane rat (more than 50% of observations), while the most abundant species in mature forests and secondary forests is the red duiker (43.8 % of the observations in mature forests and 33% in secondary forests). Blue duiker was equally abundant in all four habitat types, whereas bush pig or red river hog and bush buck were common only in mature and secondary forests.

3.3 Trainings and Workshops

A series of workshops were held with men and women in the villages during the period of the project. The aim of these workshops was to educate, train and derive information that was considered useful for developing a management strategy. These meetings included presentations, discussions and the use of different participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods, specifically historical trends, seasonal calendars, scoring of different land-use types and participatory mapping.

3.3.1 Sensitization and Preplanning Workshop

For an effective participatory wildlife management model to be developed and functional there is need for the local community to be involved. Their active involvement requires sensitization on the various issues related to sustainable wildlife management. It is in this light that the sensitization and planning workshop was held in Assam village as agreed upon by at the inception workshop in Mamfe. The main objective of this exercise was to sensitize the rest of the community on the agreements arrived at the inception workshop that took place at Mamfe and also to create forum where the rest of the villagers can come and discuss about the project and give their point of view.

The meeting was characterized by presentations on the project and the need for a community wildlife management. Another important discussion during this meeting was on whether to form a common wildlife management association with members from the three villages (Assam, Takpe and Awuri) or to function with the existing village forest management committees. This same meeting was held at Okpambe when the project was shifted to another cluster of villages due to the conservation and development conflict (see section 3.5 above)

The meeting at Assam was opened to all the community members of Assam, Takpe and Awuri villages and it was attended thus. There were presentations about the project which provoked a lot of questions

14 and answers, not limited to the project but extended to forest use and the recently created Takamanda National Park.

One of the main issues discussed in this meeting was how the project is going to function; whether the existing VFMC or with another ‘body’ formed by the villages. This discussion was carried over from the inception workshop. It was finally agreed that the project will function with the VFMC members, but that it is important to have a ‘body’ put in place, made up of members of the VFMCs of these three villages. The functions of this group and the mode of functioning were to be laid down in the next meeting. This group was formed as indicated in the table below.

Table 4 Elected Members of Assam-Takpe-Awuri Wildlife Management Association (ATA- WMA)

No. Name Position Village 1 Besong Cletus President Assam 2 Enow Peter messenger Assam 3 Ebai Christain Treasurer Assam 4 Achaw Nelly Member Assam 5 Etchu Gregory Member Assam 6 Daniel Ekwelle Ndip Vice President Takpe 7 Ekwelle Samuel Financial sec. Takpe 8 Ekwelle Blessings Member Takpe 9 Maurice Keto Member Takpe 10 Dorothy Anya Member Takpe 11 Eyong Fidelis Member Awuri 12 Besong Thomas Member Awuri 13 Jacob Debi Adviser Awuri 14 Besong Lilian Member Awuri 15 Besong Anderson Secretary Awuri 16 Ekwelle John Adviser Awuri 17 Etchu Alfred Adviser Assam 18 Eyong Thomas messenger Awuri

3.3.2 Workshop on Wildlife Laws and Animal Classification

This workshop was crucial as it gives a base on which the communities will build their management strategy on. It was important for them to understand what the national law says about wildlife exploitation and its related activities. The training pack included wildlife classification and significance and importance of the animals in each class. Laws on hunting and trapping were also discussed with much insight and questions from the community members. During this time, they were asked to list the animals common in the area; this was cross checked with the results of the mammal surveys. Based on the model of classification in the national wildlife law, local classification exercise was conducted using the local

15 knowledge of animal abundance and scarcity. The workshop had the following specific objectives to meet.

• to sensitize community members on what the laws say on bush meat harvesting and management • to categories the different animals (mammals) into the different classes, A, B, and C • to list the different types of animals present within their region and the abundance of the different species present • to list the different equipments or instruments use in hunting of the different species of animals • to encourage community members to enforce indigenous rules and laws on wildlife management • to explain the need of animal shifting to different classes and the reason for management of the buffer zone (out of the TNP)

ANIMAL CLASSIFICATION

At the start of the training, each participant was asked to list the different species of animals found within their communities and the Takamanda Region as a whole. Community members were also asked which ecological types these animals are often seen, is it often seen in farmland, fallowed land, swamps, virgin forest or within the community.

The training on wildlife classification and law was very participatory starting with the village members listing the animals which are most abundant and the species which are mostly hunted. The types of equipments use in hunting were also listed. Some of the equipments include traps, guns, and bait to kill the animals.

From the list of animals listed by the participants within the Takamanda regions, species of animals were categorized into three main groups (A, B, and C) as it is stipulated in the wildlife law (MINFOF, 2007). During the training on the wildlife laws participants were asked to classify the animals listed into the various classes based on prior knowledge of the regions. Most of the species were wrongly classified by the participants who are not aware of the recent wildlife laws. Nevertheless some of the animals were grouped in their right classes such as the drills, gorilla and the chimpanzees.

The trainees were then exposed to the different classes of animals (A, B, and C), those which are found within the Takamanda region and those which are found else were in Cameroon in case inhabitants travel to other parts of the country (Appendix 1, 2, and 3). The trainees were taught that animals in class A were in no occasion being hunted or trapped under all course since most of these species within this group are threaten, and some getting to extinction. Animals in group B were equally not exploited in a manner in which the species could be endangered or threatened. Therefore only licensed hunters are allowed to hunt such class of animals. In the class B animals restrictions are given to licensed hunters stating the number of animals which could be hunted, the hunting region and some time the sex of the animal may be considered.

16

Photo Plate 3 Classification of Animals According to the National Wildlife Law The trainees were then exposed to the class C animals which were mostly farm pest and other rodents which destroy farm produced. Forest community members are allowed to trap some of these farm pests around their farmlands or agricultural fields. At the end of the exercise the trainees were then asked to group the listed animals found within their region into the different classes.

Table 5 Local Wildlife Classification Exercise Scientific name Common name Vernacular name Class ‘A’ Animals Chevrotain aquatique Water beef Egkwoh Papio leucophaeus Mandrill Mandrill Gorilla gorilla gorilla gorilla Pan troglodytes chimpanzee chimpanzee Class ‘B’ Animals Hylochoerus meinertzhageni Bush pig Mukuande Loxodonta africana Elephant Meshuh Genetta genetta Cat nensooh Viverra civetta Cat geshuah Class ‘C’ Animals Atherurus africain Porcupine Miogh Ctenodactylus gundi Grass cutter ebih Cricetomys gambianus Rat mole mewumbuh Ichneumia albicauda Twenty in line ebiankah

INDIGENOUS LAWS AND REGULATIONS ON WILDLIFE EXPLOITATION

Communities within forested regions or parks usually have native or traditional rules and laws that regulate the exploitation of both trees and animals. Some traditional rules put forth by participants on wildlife and forest management include:

• The number of traps an individual can use within a season. The trainees mentioned a maximum of 100 traps, and the removal of traps after the trapping season.

17

• Traps are checked every three days to avoid animals getting rotten. The number of traps per individuals is monitored and ensures that the number of traps put in place the trap should be able to checked the trap within a day. • Community members are not allowed to clear more than 3 ha of land within one farming season. • Some large animals such as the crocodiles are not hunted, and some species are eaten only by the chief, quarter head or village notable, thus reducing the pressure on such animals since eaten by few numbers of persons. • Streams are not to be used as toilets and there are heavy fines for stream poisoning. Based on the above rules and regulation listed by the trainees, the consultant encourages most of the traditional or native laws that favours wildlife management. The positive laws were enforced with the sanctions stated by the participants. Such sanctions stated by the participants included.

• the use of traditional juju to swear ignorance of a particular situation • An injunction order is put on community members who clear the forest more than the stated size (maximum of 3 ha within a year). • there is organized removal of traps by youths of the communities supervised by the chief and his council • Using poison of any form to fish is deemed a fine of 50,000 FCFA, to be shared with the community. • Limits are placed on hunting during the breeding season, from around October to December.

It was realized through informal discussions however that some of these laws are not respected and no serious sanctions has been put on the defaulters. However, the idea to put down these laws is a good one, but will take some time to take effect as people are still used to the traditional ‘free-access’ to forest theory.

3.3.3 Field Training on Wildlife Monitoring

Because men are more involved in cocoa farming and fishing (especially in Okpambe), it was not easy to identify full-time hunters. However, it was discussed that this group should include those who hunt or trap sparingly, as long as they do it once in a while. Considering that the VFMC and the village council will be the executing bodies of the wildlife management strategy, they were also included in this training.

This session was opened with discussions on the different hunting methods being practiced, as well as materials used for hunting. They also discussed traditional laws and rules of hunting in the area.

The monitoring exercise began with discussions on the data monitoring sheets and transects methods. It was decided that the scientific transects methods will not be used, but rather normal paths. For example, the group was divided in half and took different directions led by hunters who had past experience with the mammal survey team. After the field exercise, the session focused on how to adapt the field datasheet more for easy use by the village monitoring teams.

18

3.3.4 Planning Community Wildlife Management Strategy

This workshop started with a participatory mapping exercise attended by men and women. The aim was to identify available land marked as hunting zones. By the end of this exercise, there was a clear realization that there is very little hunting area available for this village because of the nearby logging concession and other forest areas marked as farming zones.

Photo Plate 4 Participatory Mapping Exercise at Okpambe Village

Other exercises carried out in project villages included the historical trends limited to farming, hunting and road access, as well as seasonal activities of the people.

Table 6 Bushmeat-Related Activities by Season

Activity Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Hunting x x x x x x x x x xx xx xx Trapping (in the xx xx xx x x forest) Breeding season x x x x x Bushmeat trade x x x x x x x x x x x x

Table 7 Historical Trend of Hunting and Farming Activities

Activity Year 1980-1990 1990-1995 1996-2001 2002-2006 2007-2011 Hunting/Trapping XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXX XX Farming X x XX XX XXXXX Road Foot path Timber roads Motor-able Motor-able Motor-able

X= intensity of the activity

19

Equipped with knowledge on the wildlife laws and the ideas on what it is all about community wildlife management, the men and women of Okpambe village where ready to develop a plan to manage the exploitation of wildlife in their surrounding forests, for the benefit of conservation and continuous livelihood support for households. This was a crucial exercise because it included important decisions to be agreed upon and implemented by the VFMC and the village council. The plan considered protection of the most endangered species such as the Cross River Gorilla, income from tourism and research and, most importantly, alternative livelihood options for full-time hunters.

3.4 Dissemination Workshop

Toward the end of the project, lessons learned and experience acquired in the workshop was discussed and shared with other stakeholders. This took place at a workshop in Mamfe on the 28th of June 2011 with the following objectives:

• to present progress made on the project • to share experience, weaknesses and lesson learned • to prepare possible recommendations towards policy formulation The workshop was characterized by presentations, group and plenary discussions and involved some of the partners operating in the area; government services (MINEP and MINFOF), national and international organizations as well as village communities. Taking advantage of the presence of all necessary stakeholders in this workshop, group discussions were focused on the current national wildlife law and its implication or effects on the execution of community wildlife management. During this time suggestions where made as statement for consideration for policy formulation.

3.4.1 Presentations

The first was on the introduction and background of the project, presented by the coordinator of FOREP. She explained that the Takamanda-Mone landscape was chosen for two main reasons. First because previous research have proven that the forest is rich in animal species of conservation interest such as the Cross River Gorilla, elephants, chimpanzee etc and second because human activities including hunting and general forest exploitation are a serious threat to these animals.

The presentation emphasizes the point that ‘bushmeat crisis’ to be addressed, there is need for an effective wildlife management model to be put in place with the full involvement of the local communities. This should be by making them understand the basic concepts of conservation and get an assured sense of empowerment. The workshop participants were also reminded of the three main objectives of the project.

The expected results from the above objectives were also presented to participants as a means to stimulate discussions and get realistic contributions from participants that will help in future work in the Takamanda-Mone landscape.

20

The procedure used in executing planned activities was presented. The main aspects of the procedure include sensitization, pre-planning and improvement on the scope, size and gender of the existing forest management committees (VFMCs). The flexibility of the procedure enabled the team to orientate their activities to a second cluster as soon as the initial plan developed with the first cluster was disrupted due to the conflict that broke up.

Photo Plate 5 Presentations at the Workshop

A summary of the national wildlife laws was presented by the Divisional Delegate of Forestry and Wildlife (DDMINFOF) for Manyu. Emphasis was on those sections of the law specific to the area, such as:

• Section 80 which lists the activities that are forbidden even if one acquires an exploitation license. • Section 79 which stipulates that hunting of certain animals shall be temporary closed in all or part of the national territory. • Section 86 which states that local population has the right to exercise customary rights to collect forest product and hunt those animals that are not protected freely but for personal use and not for sale. • Article 62 which stipulates that animals killed during official killing (abattue) for safety reason shall belong to the wildlife service or the voluntary hunter with a hunting permit. • Section 78 (1) which stipulate that all animals in the national territory are classified into three categories (A, B and C) according to their level of protection and shall be updated every five years. • Section 83 (1) states that any person who hunt a protected animal for urgent need of his defense or his property should in 72 hours report with proof to the nearest wildlife service. • Section 101: any person found in possession with whole or part of a life or dead class A or B animal shall be considered to have captured or killed the animal. • Section 82 states that the wildlife service may undertake to hunt animals which constitute a danger or caused damaged to persons or property.

21

Another presentation was made to remind participants on the basic concepts of community wildlife management. The detail of what the community wildlife management requires to succeed was presented as seen in table 8 below:

Table 8 Requirements of Community Wildlife Management

• shared vision • active participation • motivation • negotiation • sacrifice • agreements • commitment • transparent decision making • partnership and collaboration • follow-up and monitoring

3.4.2 General and Group Discussions

This session was aimed at giving participants the room to discuss the concept of community wildlife management in relation to the national wildlife law. After listening to the presentations on the project activities and lessons learned as well as the wildlife laws, the participants were expected to bring out possible solutions to build policy recommendations towards favourable participative wildlife management. Participants were then shared into groups and each group was given a theme to discuss on, after which there were presentations by team leaders. It was realized that there was a cross-cutting of ideas as some issues or suggestions featured in more than one group. Group discussions are presented in the table below.

Photo Plate 6 Dissemination Workshop Group discussions

Photo Plate 7 Presentations after group discussions

22

Table 9 Results of Group Discussions

Group members Theme Recommendations Made Tabi Derrick Exploitation license • Government to empower MINFOF to sign the authorization to carry hunting guns rather than the Nwesse James Ministry of Territorial Administration. Ashu Martin • The cost of issuing wildlife exploitation licenses to be reduced to minimize illegal hunting and the Eyong Ferdinand validity permits to be increased from 3 to 6 months (Dec-May) Tambe Asa Daritson • Government to make provisions for continuous sensitization on the forestry, wildlife and environmental laws to communities to raise awareness. • Easy communication facilities should be put in place for VFMCs to communicate in case of danger from wild protected animals species. • MINFOF to provide technical support to communities to create community hunting zones and to collaborate with the VFMCs to specify number and species of animals to be hunted at the beginning of the hunting season based on species abundance within the specific forest area, (setting quotas). Agbor Delphine Hunting permits • The review of the cost and conditions of issuing hunting permits is important for local communities Anya Collins • Dain guns to be authorize for hunting and recognized to apply for hunting permit. Debi Veronica • Government to give specific consideration to communities involved in participatory wildlife Achuo Nelly management in issuing hunting permits Akenghe • Government to give authorization to issue hunting permits to Divisional Delegates of MINFOF. • The number and species of animals to be hunted should be included in the hunting permits to reflect the inventory results of the specific forest area. • Communities to be issued hunting permits to hunt animals of class C so that they can sell and generate income. • The village forest management committee capacity to be built to follow up and monitor use of hunting permits. Agbor Osong Felix. Use of Dane Guns • The use of Dain to be legalized in communities involved in participatory wildlife management, with the Chief S.T Nyambi number and species of animals to be hunted clearly specified. Wenja John • Government to empower VFMCs and traditional councils so that they can monitor and control the use Tabe Abraham of Dain guns within their area of control in collaboration with MINFOF. Tiku Delphine Raymond Enow Motivation/benefits • Participatory wildlife management involving local communities to be fully encouraged.

23

Anya Alex Ebai Sharing • Government to include communities involved in participatory wildlife management in allocating Hamadou Aboubakar investment credits. Ashu Melvin Ncha • Government to provide at least 40% of income generated from tourism, research, fines etc to Eyong Jecinta communities involved in participatory wildlife management. • More social infrastructure be provided to communities involved in wildlife management • Government to support the management of forest, environment and agricultural activities within the communities as a single entity. • Government to support the communities to be assured of continuous external financial, material and logistical support to sustain them at the early stages of the project.

24

Discussions came up at intervals after each presentation. A major worry expressed by participants was on the ‘Takamanda’ in the title of the project. This they said could be interpreted as the project for the Takamanda village (per say) and is possible to create misconception amongst the villages in the area. There were a lot of discussions on this especially from the village representatives. It is noted that such a discussion did not come out during the inception workshop at the beginning of the project; it is obvious that the reason for this is the recently resolved conflicts which has left both villagers and external partners very sensitive. Although it was made clear that the project has come to an end, the participants went ahead to propose that consideration should be given to the ‘Mawambi Hills’ if there is going to be an extension of the project. In that case the project name was therefore proposed as “PARTICIPATORY WILDLIFE MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT IN TAKAMANDA-MONE LANDSCAPE (Case of Mawambi Hills)

Photo Plate 8 Discussion, questions and answers session

Another point of debate was the issue of community management of the Mawambi Hills which according to WCS research results and others currently is home to a considerable number of Cross River gorillas. The villages of Assam Takpe and Awuri are in the immediate surroundings of this forest area, they however did not agree to the fact that Okpambe village should be part of it as well. This is one of the reasons why Awuri village has been very reluctant in collaborating with Okpambe on this project.

The issue of community motivation in wildlife and forest management in general was also raised and discussed. Questions were asked on how the villages will get immediate benefits if they get fully committed and manage their wildlife population successfully. After listening to what the law says on hunting, it was clear that all hunting practice currently going on in the villages are illegal, therefore the community members think that they have no place in the law and will be wasting their time if they carry on with the management of wildlife.

‘After this, what next?’ This was another point of interest raised and the question was basically thrown to FOREP. Not much could be said on this rather than the fact that funds are still going to be raised to effect the implementation of what has been put in place.

25

Table 10 Summary of Project Planned Activities

Expected Activities Activities Realized Period Observations Meeting with other interest groups Meeting with and introduction of project to WCS, Oct 2009 The partners where positive about the project and working in the area MINFOF and DED brought in ideas on implementation Community meetings held with Introduction of project and giving out invitations letters Oct 2009 Turn out for the meeting was good village heads, elders and village for the inception workshop to be held in Mamfe Positive reaction from village members members of the three villages (Takpe, Assam and Awuri)

Inception workshop with local Presentations of the project objectives implementing Nov 2009 Attendance was encouraging, all village stake holders (MINFOF, WCS, organization (FOREP), donor (CARPE). representative and other stakeholders. DED) and village representatives Presentations of the work programme Village representative understood the project and Reactions from participants now open to collaborate and participate fully in it. Planning of next meeting at Assam village Participatory socioeconomic study Questionnaires administered to a sample population of Jan 2010 Report completed and market chain the three villages Sensitization and Pre-planning Workshop held in Assam as planned. Attended by the Jan 2010 Workshop was participative workshop members of the VFMC of the three villages and other village members. Presentations, games discussions, Formation of the Assam-Takpe-Awuri-Wildlife Management Association (ATA-WMA) Agreement on date and venue for the next workshop, (2 days training on Cameroon wildlife laws) Community meetings held with Introduction of project and giving plans for next village January, The villages of Assam and Takpe were involved in village heads, elders and village workshop 2011 conflict between village around the TNP and members of Okpambe and Awuri WCS/MINFOF. This conflict took many months to be resolved (see details in ‘Comments’ below) Group discussion with hunters and This meeting was held with the hunters of Okpambe and February, In the recent years more men are getting involved trappers Awuri 2011 in cocoa farming and less in forest activities. Exchange of ideas on traditional Because of this, it is difficult to find full time hunters in these villages, however, there are still

26 hunting and trapping practices. some who do trap, though seasonal. The group Discuss local hunting and trapping discussion was held with these ones. rules and laws Training workshops on national Meeting was held at Okpambe (see attached field report) January So much awareness was raised on the issue of wildlife laws 2011 wildlife classification and laws. Bring a synergy between national and local wildlife rules and laws Field training of members of A workshop with field exercise which the villages found February Field training undertaken in the secondary and VFMC as well as hunters and interesting 2011 primary forest around Okpambe village trappers on wildlife monitoring

Workshop on the preparation of Workshop held at Okpambe village April 2011 Community members were very participative and the wildlife management strategy contributed brilliant ideas for the management in the area (hunting zones stated in strategy land use plans of the villages) Dissemination workshop Workshop held at Mamfe with all stakeholders present June 2011 Working groups discuss on policy issues Reporting findings to the stake holders and other villages around Monitoring of the activities of the To be continued by FOREP VFMCs and planning way forward for the groups

27

The overall expected results of this project are summarised in the table below.

Table 11 Summary of Expected Results Expected Results Results achieved Observations Two community wildlife • Village training workshops have The activities in the ‘Results management plans have been been held achieved’ column are gearing agreed upon and are functional • socio-economic and wildlife towards the management plan surveys preparation. • Training on wildlife monitoring • Scenario building game exercise A final report clearly states the • Field activity reports This result might not be fully “best practices” and lessons learned • Progress reports achieved giving the short time (6 for the implementation of months) the project has to run • New lessons are learned by both by community wildlife management within the new extension time. all implementing partners plans. Policy recommendations are • Policy statements formulated Group discussions at the formulated at the regional and dissemination workshop national level

3.5 Studies on Agro-forestry as an Alternative to Bushmeat Hunting

As part of this project, a Masters student from Yaounde University 1 undertook a field study on the above subject. He worked in five villages within Takamanda- Mone TOU. The main objective of this study was to look into the potentials of income from agro-forestry as an alternative to income from bushmeat hunting and trade. To attain this objective, a number of methodologies were used; literature review on wildlife exploitation and management with particular interest on the Takamanda-Mone TOU, separate group discussions with hunters, bushmeat traders and other stakeholders, administration of structured questionnaires farmers, bushmeat traders and hunters and farm visits were effectuated in five villages in the area (Kajifu, Kekukesim, Akwa, Mukonyong and Okpambe). Particular attention was paid to the farmers who have useful tree crops such as bush mango, njansang, bush plums, njabe, bitter cola, cola nuts and other fruit trees in the farms; the income from these crops was estimated

During this research it was realised that agro-forestry could be considered as an ideal alternative to bushmeat hunting for income. Full-time agro-forestry headed households were seen to be more food secured and have year round sources of income. Relatively more revenue is obtained annually from the harvesting and sale of agro-forestry farm products (175,403.21 FCFA), with a net balance of 60,403.21 FCFA) than bushmeat trade (130,483FCFA), with a net balance of 3,122.1 FCFA. The recommendations derived from this study go to support the fact that if agro-forestry farming practices are encouraged, they could highly add to household income and discourage bushmeat hunting as a profession.

28

4.0 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT

4.1 Impact on the Environment

It is previewed that the project is going to contribute significantly to the general conservation of the forest environment in the area. Giving the series of trainings conducted in the course of the project, many more people are aware of the need to protect the forest ecosystems. With the wildlife management strategy put in place and functioning, there will be a great degree of control on hunting and trapping as this control will come from within members of the community or cluster. The distribution and abundance of the species within the cluster will definitely increase since threatened and endangered species will not be harvested. The management strategy which is aimed at controlling hunting and trapping out of the protected area (Takamanda National Park) will also go to preserve wild species in the park.

During the course of these trainings, issues on general forest protection and government forestry and wildlife laws were well elaborated to the people. Protecting the flora and fauna goes to protect the habitats of plants and animals thus ensuring flourishing of the forest ecology. To execute the community wildlife management strategy, indigenous rules and laws on the use of the forest and the environment in general have to be enforced. This is a strong point to work as there will be a controlled use of the forest especially forest clearance for agriculture.

4.2 Socio-economics

Bushmeat currently contributes significantly to the household income of some households in these villages, there is however, the general complain of dwindling bushmeat which means less income from wildlife. With regular monitoring and proper control system or management strategy put in place, there could be an increase in the animal population around. The management strategy also took into consideration control over bushmeat trade within the village; the sales of bushmeat controlled by the management body will place the hunters on the advantage over the external buyers. The Cross River Gorilla in this area is an international and national attraction; maintaining their population will attract visitors and researchers who will engage the services of the village youth especially the hunters and trappers. This opens another way for household income to the community members in particular and to the village development fund in general.

4.3 Policy and Governance

From the activities that have been carried out so far within the course of this project, it is evident that there are traditional laws and rules laid down by the village authorities. These rules are however not very stringent and some still violate them; working with the villagers on both the local and national laws will bring out recommendable laws for better wildlife management.

29

The Takamanda-Mone forest area, like most of the forest with high biological diversity in Cameroon is inhabited by poor indigenous and tribal peoples. These forest people have been using and managing the forest for many years, with basic indigenous knowledge, practices, rules and beliefs. Forest resources exploited by these people for consumption do not generally show a significant change in the ecosystem over many years. However, when external pressure starts coming in as a result of high market demand for these resources, very significant changes will be seen within a few years. For example farming in the Takamanda area in the last few decades was generally for household consumed food crops; forest clearance was very slow. But in the last few years, there is a high demand for cocoa which has motivated many households to extend their farms by an average of 0.5 hectares every year. The same story could probably be for elephants if they were not hunted for their tusk.

The forest tenure system in Cameroon does not give the people total rights to the territories, land and resources around them, there are however, user rights for them which are limited to exploitation for sustenance only. This means they cannot fully take decision on what to do with their territory without the consent of the government. At the same time, many indigenous territories are increasingly threatened by unsustainable activities such as logging, mining, and plantations while the communities are not, or are only minimally, involved in official decision-making and management of these areas. This is the case with Okpambe village where they are fully engulfed in the logging concession (FMU 11004), giving them limited land for farming, hunting and NTFP collection. In the process of developing this management strategy document, there was need to map out specific hunting zones around the village. This was not possible because they cannot make plans on the control of hunting in the FMU which obviously has its own management plan. This problem kills the spirit of community wildlife management has there is not sense of ownership and responsibility. Hunting with traditional guns and wire traps are seriously contrary to what the law says, yet these are practiced in the area. Hunting activities are also for income which is also a strong point mentioned by the law. The length procedure and high costs of obtaining permits and or hunting licenses does not favour the local people and usually these are more theoretical than practical. It is very clear that local people cannot afford this but need to hunt for income and household sustenance. Without the right permits, hunters and or bushmeat traders will constantly be in conflict with forestry officers. Encouraging community involvement and participation in wildlife and other forest resource management gives them a sense of ownership.

In most cases communities will not react positively to top-down decisions on forest and environmental management, as these decisions usually violate their rights. They think it is their right to be part of this decision making, otherwise, they fill cheated and neglected. Such is the case with the communities in and around the Takamanda National Park, who stood strongly against the government and all other external organizations working in the area, demanding their right to decide where to construct the park main office. The driving force behind this, however, was the quest for development.

Community involvement in decision-making is limited to the chiefs and elders who are invited to meetings out of the village. These village leaders, during such meetings are usually intimidated by the

30 number and type of people in attendance and could say very little about what they think. Reporting the resolutions of the meeting to their subjects on return most often results to strong disagreement between them and their subjects about the final decisions. However, there is always a good consolation for them, the promises of social, infrastructural and livelihood projects, which is usually a strong bargaining tool used by the external conservation and development agencies.

31

5.0 EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS LEARNED

5.1 Positive Experiences

• Partner organizations operating in the area as well as MINFOF have seen the project as an added value to their work, because it has supplemented most of their activities. • The villagers find the whole concept of community wildlife management very interesting. This could be cause of either one or all of the following reasons; the concept is new in the area and they are very inquisitive to see the outcome or the project gives them some confidence in deciding how to use and manage the forest. • Team spirit, working together as a group (different villages) is an evidence of success, since short comings could be shared and possible solutions derived at. • Commitments, responsiveness, and law abiding have been observed in the group, agreement and commitments made by the group is respected and defaulters are called to book according to the law stipulated by the groups. Group responsibilities have been shown in handling, keeping and managing workshop materials. • The village forest management committee working in close collaboration with the village councils has a stronger backing and could be more successful. • Indigenous knowledge on forest environment, existing customary laws and rules set for forest management are seen to be useful in participatory forest and wildlife management. • Motivations and benefit sharing mechanisms are useful for a successful planning and implementation of a community participatory wildlife management. • Taking the community members through a series of trainings informs and gives them a background knowledge which is important during the planning and even implementation of wildlife management plan.

5.2 Negative Experiences and Limitations

• The customary laws which gives the people free access to the forest and its resources is deeply rooted; they find it difficult to accept the State’s laws on the use of forest and its resources. • Bad roads during the rainy season led to the late start of the project. The inception workshop for the project was postponed as a result of the bad roads. However, it was held despite this obstacle. • The community members though fully participating in the project are sometimes reticence towards its activities as they think that there are no immediate or direct benefits for them in the project. Further explanations by the team did help to make them understand their benefits though not immediate.

32

• The conflict explained above had a major impact on the project. Funds were spent to on transportation to the villages to have consultative meetings with the two project villages. The project was delayed for eleven months; a major challenge to FOREP.

5.3 Lessons Learned

• The national wildlife law does not clearly consider the involvement of communities in the management of wildlife resources; this therefore leaves some doubts in the minds of this people about their benefits in getting involved in wildlife management. • The concept of community wildlife management is usually new especially to areas such as the Takamanda – Mone which is not very exposed to the public. Therefore to establish and implement a successful community wildlife management plan there is a strong need for external facilitation and assistance. • In the communities where people are advanced in cocoa farming, bushmeat hunting activities are very minimal; it is rare to find full-time hunters in such communities. This does not actually depend on accessibility of the village, on the contrary one of the studies showed that the villages with easy access to market are more involved in bushmeat hunting and trade than the less accessible ones.

33

6.0 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND INTEREST

6.1 Villages and Local Council

These communities have the interest, legitimacy and to some extend the power over forest resource management. They depend on and derive direct benefits from forest resources and have customary rights over the forest environment and its resources, which gives them the legitimacy and the power thereof.

Sustainable wildlife management would lead to increase in animal population eventually constant supply of meat for the household. Continue to supplement household income from bushmeat sales, work as porters, guides to researchers and visitors, which all go to improve on the livelihood and general well-being of the people. There could be potential for future ecotourism especially with the gorilla population in the Mawambi hills.

6.2 Organizations (FOREP, CARPE, WCS, DED/GIZ)

These organizations have the interest and because they are operating in close collaboration and legally with the state to conserve these resources, they have the power and legitimacy over the forest resources. They all have the same main goal to achieve; that is the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources as well as development of the people’s living conditions.

6.3 Government (MINFOF and MINEP)

The state has the interest, the power and legitimacy over the forest and its resources The government, through the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife also aim at achieving maximum forest and wildlife protection; protecting endangered and endemic species of plants and animals.

6.4 Bushmeat Traders (wholesalers and retailers)

This group of stakeholders is made of people with high interest in forest resources. They are interested in making money and generally do not care about the sustainability of these resources. Some of them do have the power because they either have the money and the political backing or both to operate but do not generally have legitimacy because they usually operate without permits or licenses.

34

7.0 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY AND WAY FORWARD

Due to the time wasted the project did not go into the implementation of the community wildlife strategy planned. FOREP will therefore continue to assist Okpambe and Awuri to raise funds for the implementation.

It is previewed that with all the trainings acquired during the project, there will be effective continuation of wildlife monitoring for better management by the village VFMCs and MINFOF. Capacity building of the members of the community based organizations (CBO), in this case VFMC and village councils (VC) will go to assist in proper record keeping especially revenue collected from visitors and researchers for the development of the villages.

35

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Conclusions

After decades of creating and establishing the Takamanda Forest Reserve, this area became a point of concern from the mid-1990s, when the Cross Gorilla was being researched by a small team led by Jacqui Sunderland-Groves. After that came the GTZ project for the protection of the forest around Akwaya (PROFA) in the early 2000s; this also was basically a research and baseline information collection phase. From this time, the communities of this area have been through different phases of fear, suspense, expectations and resentment. The ground work of research and negotiations eventually led to the establishment of the Takamanda National Park (TNP) in November 2008.

Participatory wildlife management which is a component of community based conservation (CBC) is an important approach in biodiversity management and conservation of wild species. With this approach the community members do not feel left in decision making therefore minimizing conflict between them and conservation agencies. This very contrary to the top-bottom decision making and makes them feel that their rights have been violated. This approach will encourage sustainable harvesting of bushmeat which will lead to conservation and improvement of protein intake. MINFOF is seen as a main partner in this project; this gives the villagers a positive perception about MINFOF staff and enforces more collaboration between the VFMCs and MINFOF staff.

In this area just like in many indigenous communities, there are clear divisions in men’s and women’s perceptions and tasks relating to biodiversity appreciation and use. Here, among the most important animal species mentioned by women, deer (Cephalophus sp.) is particularly appreciated because of its marketable meat and because its meat is often required for the celebration of funerals. The porcupine (“chuku-chuku”) is appreciated for its tasty meat. Monkeys are important for their meat but also for their skin, used sometimes for drum construction. Men particularly value bush pigs (Potamochoerus porcus) and duiker (Cephalophus monticola) both for food, income and use of their skins in tradition (drums).

Our team believe that within all the complexities of forest use and management there is need to be strategic in planning management, paying particular attention to the involvement of the local people who depend on these resource on day to day bases.

8.2 Summary of Selected Recommendations

• To better understand the concept of community wildlife management, there is a need for the villagers to visit another community where this practice is functional and has been successful. • Decision makers should give more attention to indigenous people’s rights in particular and general governance issues on bushmeat exploitation.

36

• Incentives or benefit- sharing mechanism should be clearly stated in texts to give local the right and increase their willingness to implement wildlife management. This should be stated in an established legal joint management agreement document between the communities and the State through MINFOF. • Seeing that other income-generating activities could easily distract people from hunting and bushmeat trade, it is therefore recommended that such opportunities be offered to absorb labour and provide alternative income. • Bushmeat is the main source of animal protein for most rural households, it is also proper to develop and provide other sources of protein such as agro-pastoral practices, needed especially for the growing children and nursing mothers. • There is the need for full external support to local communities that have showed the interest and are actually willing to put in their time in protecting forest resources.

37

REFERENCES

CBD 2008. Conservation and Use of Wildlife-Based Resources: The Bushmeat Crisis. CBD Technical Series No.33.

Comiskey, J.A., T.C.H. Sunderland, Sunderland-Groves J.L. (eds). (2003). Takamanda: the biodiversity of an African rainforest. SI/MAB Series No 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.

Mdaihli, M,. Schmidt-Soltau, K, and Ayeni, J.S.O. 2002. Socio-economic baseline survey of the villages in and around the Takamanda Forest Reserve. Volume 1 of unpublished PROFA report to MINEF. 71pp.

MINFOF. 2005. Technical note for the creation of the Takamanda Mone Technical Operations Unit. Prepared by the South West Provincial Delegation of Forestry and Wildlife with the Technical Assistance of WCS and GTZ, Buea, Cameroon. MINFOF. 2007. The Wildlife Law as a Tool for Protecting Threatened Species in Cameroon.

38