Defining a Participatory Biodiversity Conservation Niche for the Cameroon Mountains Conservation...

Defining a Niche for the Cameroon Mountains

Conservation Foundation (CAMCOF)

Report Submitted to CAMCOF and UNDP-Cameroon

Livelihood and Rural Development Expert Contribution to the UNDP-GEF PDF-B Proposal on

Catalysing Sustainability of Protected Areas in the Cameroon Mountain Range (CMR) through

Community Based Conservation and Sustainable Use

by

Emmanuel O. Nuesiri

(Livelihood & Rural Development Expert)

February 2006

Defining a Participatory Biodiversity Conservation Niche for CAMCOF E O Nuesiri

2

Introduction

Cameroon’s forest is of high global, national and local biodiversity conservation value. To

ameliorate loss of biodiversity and secure the long-term survival of representative ecosystems

the government has supported the design of a forest environment sector programme (FESP).

The programme has been formulated with strong donor support and is in the process of

receiving a World Bank/GEF grant of US$35 million dollars towards its implementation. The

main objective of the FESP is to secure and expand the protected areas (PA) network in

Cameroon. This is to be achieved through policing of the PA, co-management of its buffer

zones and biodiversity friendly community based management activities including

community forest (CF) in non-protected forest landscape. To ensure proper coordination of

these activities and synergistic benefits from multiple initiatives, the service in charge of

forestry activity, Ministry of Fauna and Flora (MINFOF) has zoned the national territory into

several management units referred to as technical operation units (TOU).

Each TOU as a rule contains a PA and its buffer zone, a production forests for timber, CF for

local communities wishing to secure their forest heritage and livelihood in the long term, and

communal forest accessible to a wider range of users. Given the institutional, human and

financial constraints on MINFOF, the FESP is designed for execution by MINFOF and major

stakeholders in the biodiversity conservation sector in Cameroon. Amongst the stakeholders

with pre-defined roles in the FESP is the Cameroon Mountains Conservation Foundation

(CAMCOF), a public utility trust fund. The principal actors involved in the defunct Mt.

Cameroon Project (MCP) and the Kilum-Ijim Forest Project (KIFP) set up CAMCOF. MCP

and KIFP were integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP), which succeeded in

formulating a participatory biodiversity conservation strategy (PBCS) for the Cameroon

Highlands, a biodiversity hotspot. MCP was executed with funding from governments of

Cameroon, Germany and the UK; additional funding was received from GEF. Birdlife

International executed KIFP with funding received from UNDP.

CAMCOF was created as part of the exit strategy of Birdlife and MCP in 2002, to assure

long-term support for local actors in the Cameroon Mountain Range (CMR) actively

implementing the PBCS. CAMCOF requires the support of major donors as it seeks to

capitalise a trust fund to enable it fulfil its globally relevant mission. This report contributes to

a proposal to the UNDP/GEF for financial support to capitalise the CAMCOF trust fund.


3

Participatory natural resource management in the Cameroon context

The revised Cameroon forestry law of 1994 is built upon the participatory natural resource

management (PNRM) ethos. PNRM calls for the inclusion of local communities living

adjacent to a natural resource in the design and implementation of management activities

regarding the exploitation and or protection of the said resource (Vira and Jeffery, 2001). In

the Cameroonian context where all land resources are vested in the state by Ordinance No.

74-1 of 1974 and Decree No. 76-166 of 1976, PNRM is usually between the state, civil

society organisations and local communities. There are PNRM schemes that involve all the

above-mentioned actors and the private sector but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Where a PNRM scheme has local communities as the major stakeholder and or driver of the

scheme, its more aptly referred to as community based natural resource management

(CBNRM). In the biodiversity conservation sector, CBNRM is preferably labelled community

based conservation (CBC) or community conservation (CC).

CBC is defined as ‘natural resources or biodiversity protection by, for, and with the local

community’ (Western and Wright, 1994). Adams and Hulme (2001) also define it as ‘those

principles and practices that argue that conservation goals should be pursued by strategies that

emphasize the role of local residents in decision making about natural resources’. Thus at the

heart of CBC is participation of local communities in biodiversity conservation and

management. In the Cameroonian context, Decree No. 95-466-PM of 1995 laying down the

conditions for the implementation of the of the 1994 forestry law, in article 2.14 defines

participatory management as ‘any wildlife resource management approach which, at every

stage in its design and implementation, involves the local population and all other

stakeholders as much as possible’. Following this definition, the 1994 forestry law makes

room two major types of participatory forest management regime, these are:

i. Co-management of Protected Areas (PA) in the permanent forest estate and

ii. Community forest in the non-permanent forest estate

To fully understand how these two regimes function, complement and contribute to ensuring

the long-term survival of the PA system, it is first necessary to provide an explanation of the

classification of Cameroon’s forest estate in the 1994 law.


4

Classification of Cameroon’s forest estate

Part 1, section 2 of the 1994 law, defines forest as ‘any land covered by vegetation, with a

predominance of trees, shrubs and other species capable of providing products other than

agricultural produce’. Part 3 of the said law divides Cameroon’s forest estate into:

1. Permanent forest consisting of

i. Gazetted state forest, which is sub-divided into

a. Protected areas

b. Forest reserves including production forest (timber concessions)

ii. Council forest

2. Non-Permanent forest consisting of

i. Communal forest (non-gazetted forest on state land)

ii. Community forest

iii. Private forest

Permanent forest is defined as ‘lands that are used solely for forestry and or as a wildlife

habitat’. The law stipulates that permanent forest should cover at least 30% of the country’s

surface area, should be gazetted and have a management plan.

Council forest is defined as ‘forest that had been classified on behalf of a local council

[municipal authority] or has been planted by the local council’. Council forests are subjected

to the same management regiment as state forest.

Non-permanent forests are simply non-gazetted state forestlands under open access

management regime (communal forest), managed common property regime (community

forest) and private property regime (private forest).

Note however that the law stipulates clearly that commercial exploitation of forest resources

in the non-permanent forest estate must be in accordance with an approved management plan

that guarantees the sustainability of the resource in perpetuity.

The non-permanent forest estate is considered ‘non-permanent’ because the state reserves the

right to allocate the forest estate for other land use activity including commercial agriculture,

road building, settlement expansion and mining.


5

In both the permanent and non-permanent forest, the law respects the usufruct rights of the

local population living around the forests. In the case of a protected area such as a national

park where local use rights are suspended the law in section 26.2 stipulates that the local

population is entitled to compensation.

Given the novelty and complexity of the 1994 law, a number of regulatory text where

published at a later date to guide day to day forest management. It is within these regulatory

texts that the context of participatory forest management in Cameroon was elaborated. There

are 3 specific regulatory instruments on forestry and wildlife management.

These are as follows:

i. Decree No. 95-466-PM of July 1995 on wildlife regulations

ii. Decree No. 95-531-PM of August 1995 on forestry regulations

iii. Decree No. 95-678-PM of December 1995 on framework for forest land use

Participatory management in Cameroon’s permanent forest estate

Cameroon’s permanent forest estate consists of protected areas/forest reserves and council

forest. Participatory management in the permanent forest estate is best elaborated in the

provisions contained in Decree No. 95-466-PM of 1995. Part 1 of this decree is highly

significant as it provides working definitions of terms used in the forestry regulations. While

it is not the purpose of this brief to recap all these definitions which can easily be consulted, a

few definitions are provided below to clarify the arguments herein:

i. Protected area is defined as ‘a zone geographically delimited and managed with a

view to attaining the specific objective of conserving and realizing the sustainable

harnessing of one or more given resources’.

ii. Management plan is defined as ‘a technical document drawn up by the service in

charge of wildlife, or by any natural person or corporate body commissioned by the

service, for the purpose of planning in space and time all strategies to be

implemented for the sustainable use of one or several given wildlife resources’.

iii. Management convention is ‘ a contract by which the service in charge of wildlife

entrust a community with a hunting zone on national land for the purpose of

ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of the wildlife resources therein in the

interest of the community’.


6

iv. National park is ‘an uninterrupted area whose fauna, flora, soil, subsoil,

atmosphere, waters and any natural environment as a whole are of special interest

and should be preserved from any natural deterioration and protected against any

human interference likely to alter their outlook, composition and evolution’. The

definition further elaborates that a national is for ‘preservation of endangered animal

and plant species…’, and goes on to list activities forbidden in national parks

including hunting, mining, farming and animal husbandry.

v. Buffer zone is ‘a protected belt around each national park, natural reserve or game

reserve designed to mark a transition between the above-mentioned areas and the

zones where cynegetic [hunting], agricultural and other activities are freely carried

out. Nevertheless, certain human activities may be regulated therein following a

management plan duly approved by the minister… the instruments setting up a

protected area shall lay down the limits of its buffer zone’.

vi. Participatory management is ‘any wildlife resource management approach which,

at every stage in its design and implementation, involves the local population and all

other stakeholders as much as possible’.

vii. User rights is defined as ‘ the exploitation of forestry, wildlife and fishery produce

by the local population for personal use. However, except for game reserves,

sanctuaries and buffer zone where they may be authorized, such rights shall apply

neither to integral ecological reserves, national parks, zoological gardens nor to

game ranches’.

viii. Biodiversity is ‘the sum total of living organisms, land, marine and aquatic

ecosystems and the ecological systems to which they belong, including diversity

within and between species, as well as diversity of the ecosystems’.

Part 2 of Decree No. 95-466-PM on setting up of national parks specifies that:

i. Affected persons will be compensated

ii. The area bounded by the national park and compensations due affected persons will

be agreed upon based on recommendations from a special broad based commission

set up to deliberate on these issues

iii. The broad based commission will consist of technical experts from government

services and members of parliament from the region in which park is to be located

iv. Development of the park should take into consideration interest of the local

population and the need to conserve biodiversity


7

In summary while Decree No. 95-466-PM of July 1995 on wildlife regulations does not

specifically and explicitly mention that the management regime of protected areas should be

via a co-management strategy involving the local populations, it implies that this is the

preferred strategy. This is argument is put forth based on the following considerations:

i. The decree stipulates that protected areas take into consideration the needs of the

local populace while mindful of biodiversity conservation, thus representatives of

local people are co-opted into the design phase of the protected area

ii. The decree stipulates that persons affected by creation of protected areas are due

compensation but does not state that this must be monetary, thus leaving room for

other dynamic compensatory mechanisms

iii. The decree stipulates that protected areas should have a clearly defined buffer

zone in which the use rights of the local population are respected and effected

following elaboration of an approved management plan

iv. The conditions for participatory management as defined by the law is met by the

(i) – (iii) above, therefore the legal text on protected areas in Cameroon effectively

decrees a co-management strategy for the permanent forest estate

An illustrative case study in support of the above argument is the experience of the Korup

National Park (KNP), created in 1986. The KNP management plan drawn up in 2002 is

effectively a co-management strategy, incorporating lessons learnt from the 15 year long

Korup Project, an integrated conservation and development project. A major lesson from this

project is that ‘participatory processes are long and costly but create a greater sense of

ownership among the target population and state authorities… their potential to have a

positive impact is much higher’ (GTZ, 2004, p. 35).


8

Participatory management in Cameroon’s non-permanent forest estate

Cameroon’s non-permanent forest estate consists of communal forest, community forest and

private forest. Participatory management in the non-permanent forest estate is best elaborated

in the provisions contained in Decree No. 95-531-PM of 1995 on community forest. In Part 1,

article 3(11) of the decree, a community forest is defined as as:

‘a forest of the non-permanent State forest, object of a management agreement

between a village community and the service in charge of forestry’.

Article 3(16) of the decree states that a management agreement is:

‘a contract by virtue of which the service in charge of forestry allots to a community, a

portion of national forest, which the community manages, preserves and exploits in its

own interest. The management agreement is accompanied by a simple management

plan which determines the activities to be carried out’

The decree further specifies that the ‘surface area of community forest may not exceed 5,000

ha’ and that the ‘area concerned must be free of any forest exploitation rights [timber

concessions]’.

In addition the community forest management plan shall be revised every 5 years, its

implementation is under the supervision of the ministry in charge of forest and under the

responsibility of the community concerned. Thus the community forest management

regime is a leasehold from the state to the community, and may be more appropriately

considered as a joint forest management scheme. The decree however stipulates that the

modalities of community forest in Cameroon will be detailed in a ministerial order. This was

done with the publication of the first edition of the manual of attribution for community forest

published in 1998. The manual had several shortcomings amongst which included a failure to

define ‘community’, a focus on timber as the principal high value forest product while failing

to recognize the various high value non-timber forest products (NTFP) in community forest.

The manual also failed to elaborate on ‘participation’, and on criteria and indicators for

assessing the success and continued viability of community forest. DFID worked with the

government to strengthen capacity to manage the community forest process through the

DFID/MINEF ‘Community Forest Development Project’ (CFDP). An output of this project is

a revised community forest manual yet to be officially published by the government.


9

Factors influencing the participatory forest management process in Cameroon

The 1994 law replaced the 1983 forest law, which in keeping the paradigm of its day was a

state-centric approach to forest management. The formulation of the 1994 law in line with the

PNRM paradigm was the result of green conditionality imposed on Cameroon by the Bretton

Woods institution in the late 80’s (Seymour and Dubash, 2000). This was at a time when the

World Bank and the IMF were guiding Cameroon through its first major structural adjustment

programme to alleviate the economic collapse of the mid-80’s. Ekoko (2000) notes that

though the regime was unhappy with the Bank’s prescriptions, its ‘financial and political

worries made perfect ammunition for the World Bank. The Bank… threatened to suspend

Bank co-operation if Cameroon failed to undertake the necessary economic reforms… and

comply with green conditionality’. It is no exaggeration to state that from 1994 to date the

Bretton Woods institutions and international development agencies have been the

principal drivers of the participatory forest management process in Cameroon.

Closely aligned with these donor institutions are the international conservation NGO’s in

Cameron’s forestry sector. These include IUCN, WWF, WCS, Birdlife and WRI. While these

have limited leverage on the political arena, international conservation NGO’s are the

actors determining the conservation paradigms in Cameroon forest policy and how

policy is elaborated, and implemented on the ground. Thus WWF was instrumental in

promoting the integrated conservation and development paradigm (ICDP) as the mainframe

for the Korup National Park (KNP) Project. This paradigm also guided the WCS Banyang-

Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary (BMWS) Project and the Birdlife Kilum-Ijim Forest Project (KIFP).

Bilateral funded projects such as the DFID/MINEF funded Mount Cameroon Project (MCP)

Limbe were run along the same lines as the NGO led projects. The logic behind the ICDP

approach in Cameroon is that local populations derive significant livelihood from forest

resources, therefore restricting use rights in protected areas without elaborating compensatory

social development packages is a recipe for socio-economic and ecological disaster.

The compensatory package therefore included the creation of buffer zones with participatory

sustainable use based management programmes, support for micro-projects and promotion of

alternative livelihood opportunities. The provision for community forest (CF) is part of the

compensatory package for the local populace. However CF does not only assure that

communities derive maximum benefit from the non-permanent forest estate but also ensures

the conservation of the non-permanent forest estate. This is a very significant role for CF


10

especially in areas of high conservation value such as the Cameroon Highlands. Thus CF

contributes to strengthening the protected area system in Cameroon by relieving

anthropogenic use pressures on the system in the short and long-term. In recognition of the

potential for poverty alleviation through CF, the Cameroon Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

(PRSP) recognises CF as one of the economically viable avenues for economic

diversification. Given that CF is a management regime based on grassroots participation, it is

argued that it is a tool for building the capacity for good governance from the bottom-up

(Brown et al., 2003).

Strengthening protected area system in Cameroon through participatory forestry

As stated above, a protected area is part of the permanent forest estate and in the Cameroon

context is defined as ‘a zone geographically delimited and managed with a view to attaining

the specific objective of conserving and realizing the sustainable harnessing of one or more

given resources’. Decree No. 95-466-PM of July 1995 on wildlife regulations states that the

following are considered as protected areas:

i. National park

ii. Wildlife sanctuary

iii. Integral ecological reserve

iv. Game reserve

v. Game ranch

In addition, Decree No. 95-531-PM of August 1995 on forestry regulations considers the

following types of forest reserves as protected areas:

i. Plant life sanctuary

ii. Protection forest

iii. Production forest

iv. Teaching and research forest

v. Forest plantations

Despite the formulation of policy and various donor funded projects across Cameroon

including a GEF funded multi-site biodiversity conservation project across the national

territory, there is consensus that the protected area network is still very weak and thus

biodiversity loss continues (MINEF, 2003).


11

The reasons for this poor state of affairs are numerous. They can be grouped into 4 broad

categories, these are:

i. Inadequate capacity and manpower to address the challenges of doing conservation

under a difficult political economy

ii. Institutional weakness in MINEF/MINFOF, the government service responsible for

managing protected areas

iii. Site specific project based approach which does not easily lend itself to replication

across the national territory

iv. High incidence of poverty in protected area landscape and the consequent continued

livelihood dependence of the populace on resources in the protected areas

To halt this trend of a continued erosion of the forest estate, considered a national patrimony,

the government with the support of international development partners have elaborated a

Forest Environment Sector Programme (FESP).

The FESP is a programme-based approach to forest conservation. It is built on

recommendations from a comprehensive institutional review of Cameroon’ forestry sector.

The global objectives of the FESP is:

to ensure the conservation, management and sustainable exploitation of forest

ecosystems so as to meet the local, national, regional and global needs of present and

future generations.

The development objective is:

to improve the living standards and conditions of rural dwellers through the

sustainable management of forest ecosystems.

The programme objective is:

to perpetuate the economic, ecological and social functions of all of Cameroon’s forest

ecosystems through a sustainable management of their forest and wildlife resources.

The FESP is elaborated in 5 interlinked components, which provides a comprehensive 10-

year strategy for forest conservation in Cameroon. The 5 components of the FESP are:

1. Regulation and environment information management

2. Production forests management

3. Protected area and wildlife management

4. Community forest resources management

5. Institutional strengthening, training & research


12

Detailed annual multi-year plans and budgets have been prepared for each component of the

FESP. MINFOF has identified major international and local partners in civil society, public

and private sectors who could contribute to its implementation. In this regard CAMCOF is

identified as a civil society partner in programme execution. The overall effectiveness of the

programme is linked to the synergy obtained in simultaneous multi-component execution. It is

worth noting that the FESP was designed by MINEF in 2003 before it was split up into

MINEP and MINFOF in 2004. Thus implementation of the FESP has consequently been split

up between MINEP with responsibility for component 1, and MINFOF with responsibility for

components 2-4. Component 5 is a crosscutting component affecting both ministries.

Tentative approval for a grant of US$35 million dollars for the implementation of the FESP

has been obtained from the World Bank (US$25 million) and GEF (US$10 million).

The Forest and Environment Policy Grant Document (World Bank 2005), which details the

World Bank/GEF support to the FESP, shows that this support is delimited to 8 selected sites

of high conservation value in Cameroon. The selected sites are:

1) Waza with Lac Chad and Logone Plains

2) Korup, Takamanda and Rumpi Hills Complex

3) Bakossi & Mount Kupe Complex

4) Campo Ma’an & Campo-Marine Complex

5) Mbam & Djerem

6) Ndongere Mangroves

7) Boumba Bek/Nki Complex

8) Bénoué Complex

Site 2 is partly located in the CMR, while site 3 is fully within the CMR. These sites are a

representative sub-set of MINFOF landscape administrative units of high conservation value

referred to as Technical Operations Units (TOU). Each site represents an ecosystem found

within Cameroon’s conservation landscape. The landscape conservation approach via TOU’s

is a recent innovation by the forestry and wildlife services, which it is hoped will enhance the

services management effectiveness. Each TOU is a delineated landscape unit, which

comprises of a protected area and its buffer zone, production forest (forest concession),

communal forest and community forest. The key component within the TOU is the protected

area. Thus management interventions in all the other components of the TOU would be

designed with a focus on enhancing the conservation of the PA in the TOU.


13

The logic therefore behind the adoption of the TOU approach is the strengthening of the PA

system across the national territory. Implicit in the TOU approach is an understanding that

management effectiveness in the PA is directly related to management strategies in non-PA

including buffer zones, forest concessions, communal forest and community forest. A socio-

economic evaluation of PA in Cameroon, during elaboration of the FESP, revealed that their

socio-importance to local communities were as high as their conservation importance to the

biodiversity community (MINEF and WWF, 2002). This exercise reinforced the case for

institutionalising co-management as a strategy for catalysing sustainability of protected areas

in Cameroon. To further promote the conservation ethos in local communities, the FESP

programme submission to the WB/GEF includes an output that requires MINFOF to promote

biodiversity conservation as one of the objectives of community forest alongside poverty

alleviation. Thus the argument for participatory forest management as a catalyst for

strengthening the protected area system in Cameroon is already articulated in the FESP

programme submission to the WB/GEF (see World Bank, 2005).

Thus an expected outcome of World Bank/GEF/FESP programme implementation in the 8

priority sites listed above is the strengthening of co-management activities and community

forests through elaboration of enabling policies, sensitisation of local populace and

operationalisation of co-management programmes around gazetted and proposed PAs. Given

that one of the main objective of the WB/GEF support is to strengthen the PA system, each of

the selected sites has a gazetted or proposed PA within its landscape. While the sites will be

managed within the TOU framework, each site is representative of an ecosystem and not a

TOU. Thus Korup (site 2) and Ndongere (site 6) together make up the Korup-Ndongere TOU

containing the Rumpi Hills complex, Takamanda (site 2) is a stand alone TOU, while Bakossi

& Mount Kupe Complex is grouped with the Banyang-Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary (BMWS) to

form the Banyang-Mbo-Bakossi TOU (see map in annex A). It should be mentioned that the

selection of priority sites was based not only on representativeness and complementarity but

also funding history with preference given to least funded site in each ecosystem type.


14

Defining a niche for CAMCOF

The CMR runs along the Cameroon volcanic line, which has produced a range of mountains

located in Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon and Nigeria. The Cameroon portion consist of:

a. Mt. Cameroon (Southwest Province)

b. Rumpi-Korup-Takamanda complex (SWP)

c. Bakossi-Kupe complex (SWP)

d. Kilum-Ijim/Bamenda Highlands (Northwest Province)

e. Ebo-Nlonako (Littoral Province)

f. Western Highlands (Western Province)

g. Adamawa Plateau (Adamawa Province)

At CAMCOF’s creation it was agreed that it focuses on portions of the CMR located in the

Southwest and Northwest Provinces. Thus the CAMCOF focal landscape is (a) – (d) above.

These landscapes are located within 5 TOUs namely:

1. Mt. Cameroon TOU

2. Korup-Ndongere TOU (Rumpi-Korup complex)

3. Banyang-Mbo-Bakossi TOU (Bakossi-Kupe complex)

4. Takamanda TOU

5. Kilum-Ijim TOU (still awaiting the text of creation)

Gazetted and proposed protected areas in TOU 2 – 4 above have been selected as

beneficiaries of the WB/GEF/FESP programme. PA in TOU 1 and 2 while listed as priority

sites in the broader FESP programme are not earmarked for WB/GEF support. The argument

for exclusion is that these TOU’s have a relatively sufficient level of financial support for

conservation activities. The financial support referred to at the time was the CAMCOF trust

fund. Thus the FESP has explicitly zoned the Mt. Cameroon and the Kilum-Ijim TOU to

CAMCOF as the principal conservation partner (see annex B)1.

In light of the above, the Mt. Cameroon and Kilum-Ijim TOU are recommended as

priority sites for CAMCOF/UNDP/GEF programme support.2

1 I have not provided a justification of how and why these sites were listed as priority sites in the FESP on the

assumption that this is available in the report submitted by the biodiversity expert. 2 This recommendation is strictly with respect to UNDP/GEF funding, it eliminates the issue of overlap with

WB/GEF funding for the other TOUs; reviewing the WB/GEF/FESP programme document shows that it will

take a huge effort to identify and avoid all areas of potential overlaps; CAMCOF’s work in other TOUs should

be preferably supported with funds from other donor partners


15

The above recommendation is based on the assumption that CAMCOF site selection unit is

the TOU, as agreed during consultations between in-country PDF-B experts and CAMCOF

director. The argument is that the TOU is the management unit adopted by MINFOF, so for

ease of coordination and synergy between CAMCOF, MINFOF and other conservation

partners, its best CAMCOF goes with the trend. Given that each TOU consist of a number of

land use types (protected area, buffer zone, production forest, communal forest and

community forest), there is need to develop a CAMCOF strategy within the TOU.

Catalysing sustainability of PA within the Mt. Cameroon and Kilum-Ijim TOU

CAMCOF’s objective is catalysing sustainability of PA by supporting appropriate community

conservation initiatives. Factors informing CAMCOF strategy in selected TOU include:

i. Major land use type

ii. Critical management requirement of the PA in TOU as determined from application of

the WB/WWF PA management effectiveness tracking tool (see annex C)

iii. Capacity for co-management activities in PA and its buffer zones

iv. Management plans for production forest

v. Forest resource use pressure in non-PA

vi. Management plans for community forest

vii. Related programmes and projects in TOU that could qualify as co-financing

The table below highlights the constitutive elements of each of the above factors.

While there are no statutory protected areas in the Mt. Cameroon TOU, there are a number of

gazetted forest estates proposed for protected areas status, these include:

i. Mt. Etinde (proposed as IUCN category 2 protected area)

ii. Wo’onge (proposed as IUCN category 2 protected area)

iii. Mekonge (proposed as IUCN category 2 protected area)

iv. Mabeta Mangroves (proposed as IUCN category 6 protected area)

The decree delimiting and defining the Kilum-Ijim TOU is still being awaited from the

government. However the proposed and gazetted forest estates in the TOU include:

i. Proposed Kilum-Ijim Plant Sanctuary (proposed as IUCN category 1b protected area)

ii. Mbi Crater Game Reserve (proposed as IUCN category 6 protected area)

iii. Bambui Protected Forest (not included within the FESP priority forest area)

iv. The Kom-Wum Forest Reserve (not included within the FESP priority forest area)


16

Table 1. Strategic factors informing CAMCOF programme strategy

Strategic

factors

TOU

Mt. Cameroon Kilum-Ijim Major land use

type Commercial farming

Subsistence farming

Coastal fisheries

Industrial activity

Residential estates

Commercial farming

Subsistence farming

Animal husbandry

Residential estates

Critical

management

requirement of PA

No legal status for proposed PAs

No management plan for PA and buffer

Insufficient resources (human, technical, material and financial)

Weak education programme

Absence of participatory M&E system

Absence of benefit sharing and compensation mechanism

No legal status for TOU and Plant Sanctuary

No management plan for sanctuary and Mbi crater

Insufficient resources (human, technical, material and financial)

Weak education programme for Kilum-Ijim and none for Mbi crater

Absence of participatory M&E system

Absence of benefit sharing and compensation mechanism

Capacity for co-

management in

PA & buffer zone

Weak policy framework

Weak capacity in MINFOF

Weak capacity in civil society

Weak policy framework

Weak capacity in MINFOF

Weak capacity in civil society

Management

plans for

concessions

No major timber concession in TOU

Inadequate consultation between MINFOF, local timber exploiters, CSO and community

Weak policy framework for private tree plantations

No major timber concession in TOU

Inadequate consultation between MINFOF, local timber exploiters, CSO and

community

Weak policy framework for private tree plantations

Resource use

pressure in non-

PA

Expansion of subsistence farms and small holder commercial farms

Unsustainable harvesting of fuelwood (including mangrove species for fish drying)

Unsustainable harvesting of wildlife

Unsustainable harvesting of Prunus

Expansion of subsistence farms, small holder commercial farms and livestock

Unsustainable harvesting of fuelwood

Unsustainable harvesting of wildlife

Unsustainable harvesting of Prunus

Management

plans for CF Inadequate local community capacity to formulate management plans

Insufficient attention paid to the need for biodiversity conservation in CF

Inadequate capacity of CF management institutions to implement management plans

Weak elaboration of enterprise strategy

Inadequate local community capacity to formulate management plans

Insufficient attention paid to the need for biodiversity conservation in CF

Inadequate capacity of CF management institutions to implement management plans

Weak elaboration enterprise strategy

Weak mechanisms to resolve grazer conflict

Co-financing Rumpi Area Participatory Development Project funded by African Development Bank (ADB)

Programme for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the South West Province

of Cameroon funded by KfW Germany

Natural Risk Management and Civil Protection Project (Project GRINP) funded by French

Cooperation

RIGC Project funded by HIPC

SNV Highlands Capacity Building Programme

HEIFER Project

Decentralisation and Rural Development Project (DERUDEP) funded by ADB

RIGC Project funded by HIPC

MINFOF Agroforestry Project (PAFRA)

SNV Highlands Capacity Building Programme

Birdlife/CBCS

Northwest Cooperative Association/International Coffee Partners/GTZ (NWCA-

ICP/GTZ) Coffee Project

HEIFER Project

PLAN INTERNATIONAL


17

Sequencing of CAMCOF programme strategy

The above table highlights elements that should inform CAMCOF programme strategy in selected TOUs. Based on the elements identified in the

table, the following recommendations are made regarding sequencing of CAMCOF programme strategy. The recommendations take into

consideration that CAMCOF is a trust fund whose field interventions is through service providers.

Table 2. Sequencing of CAMCOF programme strategy

Strategic

factors

Response Priority

ranking

Mt. Cameroon TOU

Tentative institutional collaborators

Kilum-Ijim TOU


Major land

use type

Strengthen CAMCOF knowledge base on:

Land use types in TOU

Land use actors in TOU

Land use plan for TOU

1 MINPLADAT

MINFOF/MINEP

MINADER (Rumpi Project)

GTZ (PGDRN)

Limbe Botanic Garden (GIS Unit)

Global Forest Watch

French Cooperation (Project GRINP)

MINPLADAT

MINFOF/MINEP

MINADER (DERUDEP)

CAM GIS (Local NGO)

Global Forest Watch

Kew Botanic Gardens UK

Critical

management

requirement

of PA

CAMCOF support focused on:

Direct contribution to process defining appropriate legal IUCN

status for proposed PA

Strengthening civil society participation in the consultative

process for creation of PA

Grant support to service providers for environmental education

activities

Grant support for strengthening capacity of civil society to

participate in participatory M&E in PA

2 MINFOF/MINEP

GTZ (PGDRN)

WWF

Southwest NGO network

Limbe Environmental NGO Network (LEONET)

Mokoko Wildlife Monitoring Association (MWMA)

SNV

Pan African Institute for Development West Africa

(PAID-WA) Buea

MINFOF/MINEP

Birdlife/CBCS

WHINCONET

ASSOFOMI

ASSOKOFOMI

SNV

PAID-WA Buea

Capacity for

co-

management

in PA &

buffer zone


Direct contribution to co-management policy review

Strengthening civil society participation in the policy review

process

Grant support to service providers for capacity building

initiatives in local communities

2 MINFOF/MINEP

GTZ (PGDRN)

WWF


SNV

PAID-WA Buea

MINFOF/MINEP

Birdlife/CBCS

SNV

PAID-WA Buea

Management

plans for

concessions


Strengthening civil society capacity to monitor, evaluate and

report on local timber industry

Grant support to service providers to work with industry to adopt

reduce impact logging techniques

3 MINFOF/MINEP

GTZ (PGDRN)

Local timber industry


LEONET

Mokoko Timber Monitoring Association (MOTIMA)

SNV

PAID-WA Buea

MINFOF/MINEP

Birdlife/CBCS

Local timber industry

WHINCONET

SNV

PAID-WA Buea


18

Strategic

factors

Response Priority

ranking

Mt. Cameroon TOU


Kilum-Ijim TOU

Tentative institutional collaborators Resource use

pressure in

non-PA


Strengthening civil society capacity to monitor, evaluate and

report on resource use in TOU

Grant support to service providers for sustainable use capacity

building initiatives in local communities

Grant support for strengthening of resource user groups

3 MINFOF/MINEP

GTZ (PGDRN)


LEONET

Mt. Cameroon Prunus CIG (MOCAP)

SNV

PAID-WA Buea

MINFOF/MINEP

MINADER (DERUDEP)

WHINCONET

Oku Honey Cooperative Society

(OHCS)

SNV

NWCA-ICP/GTZ Coffee Project

PAID-WA Buea

Management

plans for CF


Strengthening capacity of CF institutions to formulate

biodiversity friendly management plans for CF

Grant support to service providers to work with CF institutions to

develop biodiversity friendly enterprise strategy

Grant support for capacity building of micro-finance institutions

(MFI) to fund biodiversity friendly business initiatives

2 MINFOF/MINEP

RIGC

GTZ (PGDRN)

CF Institutions


LEONET

Cameroon Credit Cooperative Union League

(CAMCCUL)

Gatsby Trust (MFI)

SNV

PAID-WA Buea

MINFOF/MINEP

RIGC

Birdlife/CBCS

ASSOFOMI/

SSOKOFOMI

WHINCONET

CAMCCUL

MANCHOK Credit Cooperative

Kilum

Fundong Credit Cooperative Ijim

SNV

PAID-WA Buea

Co-financing Strengthen CAMCOF knowledge base on:

Programme and activities of co-financiers

Avenues for networking

1 MINPLADAT

HIPC (MINFOF RIGC Project)

MINADER (Rumpi Project)

KfW Southwest Programme

French Cooperation (Project GRINP)

SNV Highlands Programme

HEIFER Project

MINPLADAT

MINFOF/ PAFRA Project

HIPC (MINFOF RIGC Project)

MINADER (DERUDEP)

Birdlife/CBCS

SNV Highlands Programme

NWCA-ICP/GTZ Coffee Project

HEIFER Project

PLAN INTERNATIONAL


19

Conclusion

The objective of this report has been to define a niche for CAMCOF with respect to its goal of

catalysing sustainability of the protected area system in the Cameroon Mountain Range

through community based conservation and sustainable use. The report contributes to a

proposal to the UNDP/GEF for financial support to capitalise the CAMCOF trust fund. The

report reviews Cameroon’s policy on forest management with an emphasis on policy

instruments related to management of protected areas. The report highlights the role of

community based conservation in catalysing sustainability of the protected area system in

Cameroon. The report further provides an explanation of the forest environment sector

programme (FESP), the broad framework guiding conservation efforts in Cameroon.

The report recommends that CAMCOF’s proposal to the UNDP/GEF should be built on a

programme targeted at catalysing sustainability of the protected area system in the Cameroon

Mountain Range through community based conservation and sustainable use in the Mt.

Cameroon TOU and Kilum-Ijim TOU. The recommendation is based on the fact that these

sites have apriori been zoned in the FESP as CAMCOF focal sites, and has consequently been

excluded from the first phase of WB/GEF funding for the implementation of the FESP. The

report further argues that for reasons of harmonious collaboration and coordination between

CAMCOF and the service in charge of protected area management; it is prudent that

CAMCOF goes with the trend recommended in the FESP.

The report closes by identifying elements that should inform CAMCOF conservation

programme in the selected sites and proposes an implementation plan.


20

References

Adams W. M. and Hulme D., (2001a) Conservation and Community: Changing

Narratives, Policies and Practices in African Conservation in Hulme D. and M. Murphree

(eds.) African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community

Conservation, Oxford: Heineman, pp. 9-23.

Brown D., Vabi M. and Nkwinkwa R., (2003) Governance Reform in the Forest Sector: A

Role for Community Forestry?, Paper Prepared for the XII World Forestry Congress

Quebec City, Canada

Ekoko F., (2000) Balancing Politics, Economics and Conservation: The Case of the

Cameroon Forestry Law Reform, Development and Change 31(1): 131 – 154

GTZ, (2004) Lessons Learned from the GTZ-MINEF Project: Support to Korup National

Park, Eschborn/Germany: GTZ

MINEF and WWF, (2002) Analyses of the Evaluation of Management Effectiveness of

Cameroon Protected Area System, Yaounde: MINEF; WWF

MINEF, (2003) Programme Sectoriel Forets et Environnement (PSFE): Document De

Programme, Yaounde: MINEF

MINEF, (2004) Cameroon PAD for GEF Submission, Yaounde: MINEF

Seymour F. J. and Dubash N. K., (2000) The Right Conditions: The World Bank,

Structural Adjustment, and Forest Policy Reform, Washington D. C.: WRI

Vira B. and Jeffery R., (2001) Introduction in Vira B. and Jeffery R. (eds.) Analytical

Issues in Participatory Natural Resource Management, Basingstoke: Palgrave

Western D. and R. M. Wright, (1994) The Background to Community-Based

Conservation. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation in

Western D., R. Wright, and S. Strum (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives In

Community-Based Conservation, Washington D.C.: Island Press, pp. 1-12.

World Bank (2005) Program Document on Forest and Environment Development Policy

Grant for Cameroon, World Bank Report No. Report No: 33790-CM, Washington D. C.:

World Bank


21

Annex A

Technical Operation Units (TOU) in the Southwest Province

Annex B: FESP Priority Protected Areas

Tableau : sites with and without PSFE level of support

Landscape Aires Protegees, AP Propose et Site Critiques

Statut Statut UICN

Area AP

Total par zone ecologique

Importance biologique

Niveau d'importance no support

some support

High support Area newly created or biodiversity (ha)

Area effectivelly managed with IDA & GEF resources (ha)

Actuelle Propose HA HA Existing partners

Without GEF With GEF Aditional PSFE sources

Mangrove

Ndongore none II 140,000 Tres elevee Internationale WWF GEF 140,000

Douala-Edea RFaune IV/VI 160,000 Elevee national CWCS

Lac Ossa RFaune IV 4,300 Importante Internationale MINEF

304,300

Congolian Coastal

Campo Ma'an

PN II 260,000 Tres elevee International FEDEC/WWF GEF 260,000

Campo Marine

none II Elevee national GEF

260,000

Tropical moist forest

Korup PN II 125,900 Tres Elevee International GEF 220,000

Cross river coastal

Korup extention ouest

none 84,000 Tres Elevee GEF

Takamanda RForet Ib 62,000 Tres Elevee International GTZ GEF/GTZ

Mawne RForet Ib 45,600 Tres Elevee national GTZ

Nta Ali RForet VI 31,500 Elevee national GTZ

Rumpi Hills RForet VI 44,300 Tres Elevee national GEF/GTZ

393,300

Medium altitude tropical moist forest

Mt Koupe none Ib 4,300 Tres elevee national WWF GEF 4,300

Monts Bakossi

none Ib 36,000 Tres elevee International CRESS GEF 36,000

Banyang Mbo

Sanc. IV 69,000 Elevee local WCS

109,300

Mt Cameroon

Etindi none II 18,600 Tres elevee International CAMCOF 40,000

Wo'onge none II 8,000 Tres elevee International CAMCOF

Mekonge none II 2,500 Elevee national CAMCOF

Mangrove de none VI 15,000 Elevee local CAMCOF


23

Mabeta

44,100

Nlonako Santchou RFaune VI 6,900 Importante local MINEF

Mont Nlonako

RF VI 64,400 Tres elevee national WWF/CRESS

Mont Manengouba

none Ib 8,800 Tres elevee International CRESS MINEF

Ebo IV 142,300 Tres elevee national WWF

222,400

Forets Secs de Montagne

Kilum-Ijum none Ib 20,000 Tres elevee national Birdlife CAMCOF 20,000

Kimbi River GR

RFaune VI 5,200 Importante local MINEF

Mbi Crater RFaune VI 400 Elevee local CAMCOF

Tchabal Mbabo

none V Tres elevee International Birdlife

25,600

Foret congolais

Dja RFaune II 526,000 Tres elevee International ECOFAC

Mengame none IV 122,368 Elevee national ITTO

Nki none II 309,362 Tres Elevee International WWF GEF 540,000

Boumba Bek none Ib 238,255 Elevee national WWF GEF

Lobeke PN II 217,854 Tres Elevee International WWF

ZICs Lobeke & BB (10)

ZIC VI 1,056,380

elevee local MINEF

ZICGC Lobeke (3)

ZICGC important local

ZICGC Boumba (6)

ZICGC local GEF

2,470,219

Foret de transition

Vallee de Mbere

none ?? 77,760 Elevee local MINEF

Mbam et Djerem

PN II 425,000 Tres elevee International FEDEC/WCS GEF 425,000

ZIC Likini none VI 75,000 importante local

Lom Pangar none IV 250,000 importante national

Deng Deng RForet IV 50,000 Elevee national MINEF

Mpem et Djim

none ?? 95,000 importante local MINEF

972,760

Savanne sahelien

Lac Chad none Ramsar Importante International

Waza PN II 170,000 Tres elevee International GEF 170,000

Logone none Ramsar Importante International GEF

Kalamaloue PN VI 4,500 importante local MINEF


24

174,500

(Forets montagne secs - savanne)

Mozogo-Gokoro

PN V 14,000 importante local MINEF

14,000

Savane soudanien

Bouba Ndjidah

PN II 220,000 Tres elevee International EU

Benoue PN II 180,000 Tres elevee International GEF 180,000

ZICs Savanes

ZIC VI 2,305,736

Elevee local/national

Faro PN II/VI 340,000 Elevee national FFEM

ZICGC Faro (2)

ZIC important local FFEM

ZICGC Benoue (2)

ZIC-Co VI important local GEF

3,045,736

Crater Lakes

Barombi Mbo none Ia 415 Importante International

Bermin Ia Importante International

Edib Ia Importante International

Nyos III Importante national

Benakuma none III Importante national

176,000 1,859,300

Superficie totale des AP, APP et Sites Critiques

8,036,630

Superficie du territoire nationale

47,500,000

% du territoire nationale sous amenagement pour la conservation

16.92

Importance biologique

superficie pourcentage

tres eleve 3,112,416 38.73

eleve 4,468,899 55.61

importante 455,315 5.67

Totale 8,036,630 100

Source: Cameroon PAD for GEF submission (MINEF, 2004)


25

Annex C

Baseline PSFE Protected Areas – situation 2003/2004

Context Planning Inputs Process Outputs Outcome

Protected areas,

proposed protected

areas and Site Critiques

1.P

A le

gal sta

tus

2.A

pp

ropri

ate

co

ntr

ol

mecha

nis

ms

3.S

uffic

ien

t sta

ff &

resou

rce

s

for

law

enfo

r.

6.C

lear

PA

bo

un

dari

es

9.P

A h

as e

no

ug

h info

for

man

ag

em

en

t

4.P

A h

as c

lear

obje

ctives

5.P

A is a

pp

ropri

ate

ly d

esig

ned

7.P

A h

as a

pp

roved

man

ag

em

en

t pla

n

8.P

A h

as a

nn

ual w

ork

pla

n

12.P

A h

as a

deq

uate

sta

ff

15.P

A h

as b

udg

et to

im

ple

me

nt

mng

t pla

n

16.P

A h

as s

ecure

5-y

ear

bud

get

18.P

A h

as a

deq

uate

equip

ment

10.P

A h

as r

esea

rch

pro

gra

m

rele

van

t to

mngt

14.P

A s

taff

is w

ell

train

ed

11.P

A is a

deq

uate

ly p

rote

cte

d

13.P

A p

ers

onnel is

well

man

ag

ed

17.P

A b

ud

ge

t is

well

man

ag

ed

19.P

A e

quip

men

t is

well

main

tain

ed

20.P

A h

as e

duca

tion

&

aw

are

ness p

rog

ram

21.G

oo

d c

o-o

pe

ration

with

priva

te s

ecto

r

22.I

ndig

en

ou

s p

eo

ple

part

icip

ate

in d

ecis

ion m

akin

g

23.L

ocal p

eo

ple

part

i-cip

ate

in

decis

ion m

akin

g

25.P

A w

ork

s w

ith

to

urism

ope

rato

rs

30.P

A h

as e

ffective M

&E

syste

m

24.P

A h

as a

ppro

pri

ate

vis

itor

facili

ties

26.P

A d

ire

ctly b

en

efits

fro

m

derived

incom

e

27.P

A m

ana

ged

co

n-s

ista

nt

with o

bje

ctives

28.P

A m

ana

ge

men

t

mecha

nis

ms e

ffective

29.P

A p

rovid

es e

con

o-m

ic

ben

efit

to p

eople

To

tals

Ndongore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Douala-Edea 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Lac Ossa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Campo Ma'an 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 ? 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11

Campo Marine

Korup 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 22

Takamanda 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5

Mawne

Nta Ali

Rumpi Hills 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Mt Koupe 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Monts Bakossi 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Banyang Mbo 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13

Mount Cameroon

0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 16

Santchou 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Mont Nlonako

Mont Manengouba

Ebo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kilum-Ijum 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 20

Kimbi River GR

1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Mbi Crater 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Tchabal Mbabo

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


26

Dja 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 21

Mengame 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nki 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

Boumba Bek 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 16

Lobeke 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 22

ZICs Lobeke (10)

1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 22

ZICGC Lobeke (3)

ZICGC Boumba (6)

Vallee de Mbere

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Mbam et Djerem

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

ZIC Likini

Lom & Pangar

Deng Deng

Mpem et Djim 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Lac Chad

Waza Complex

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 20

Logone

Kalamaloue 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Mozogo-Gokoro

1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Bouba Ndjidah 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13

Benoue 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 24

ZICs Savanes (27)

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 17

Faro 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

ZICGC Faro (2)

ZICGC Benoue (2)

Barombi Mbo

Bermin

Edib

Nyos

Benakuma

Totals 20 7 6 22 16 13 16 3 14 5 9 2 10 15 8 8 11 13 13 11 8 2 12 6 6 8 4 9 8 4

Source: Cameroon PAD for GEF submission (MINEF, 2004)

Defining a Participatory Biodiversity Conservation Niche for the Cameroon Mountains Conservation...

Documents

Transcript of Defining a Participatory Biodiversity Conservation Niche for the Cameroon Mountains Conservation...