Attempts by policy makers to enforce the hunting and selling of endangered species will be ineffective if ..... schemes (if refined) could become an income and dietary option. Participatory ...... My next question was who buys the products. .... and makes between 4,000 and 12,000 CFA each day ($9 and $28 USD). He can sell ...
EXPLOITATION, CONSERVATION AND THE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE BUSHMEAT TRADE IN SOUTHWEST CAMEROON
__________________________________
A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University
__________________________________
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Resource Management __________________________________ by
August 2008
1
2
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies
We hereby approve the thesis of
Candidate for the degree of Master of Science
APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY
_______________
__________________________________________ Dr. Lori K. Sheeran
_______________
__________________________________________ Dr. Lene Pedersen
_______________
__________________________________________ Dr. Kathleen Barlow
_______________
__________________________________________ Dean of Graduate Studies
3
ABSTRACT EXPLOITATION, CONSERVATION AND THE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE BUSHMEAT TRADE IN CAMEROON’S SOUTHWEST PROVINCE by
November 2008
Several wildlife species in SW Cameroon have become threatened with extinction due to an increasing commercial trade, a fluctuating national economy, and to a lesser extent cultural traditions and taste preferences. The conservation efforts in this area often do not adequately address the local and regional economic histories or the cultural influences that shape forest and wildlife exploitation. A more nuanced view of wildlife exploitation and its relationship with conservation is described here. Interviews were conducted with various stakeholders that revealed 1) financial and legal stresses of rural people, 2) the ways that conservation and wildlife laws have impacted local people 3) the pervasive wildlife customs, and 4) the varying taste preferences for wildlife by people in both rural and urban areas. A more collaborative effort between wildlife conservation efforts, government economic policies, and economic development programs has the potential to more effectively address sustainable use of wildlife with less economic impact on rural forest dependent people.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe the following people my gratitude and thanks for helping me through my thesis project. Dr. Lori Sheeran of the Department of Anthropology and Primate Behavior and Ecology and Resource Management programs for her support, guidance, and friendship during this entire process. Her positive reinforcement kept me on track and inspired. I owe immense gratitude to Mr. Thomas Nche of the Bakingili village for his insight, knowledge, friendship and long discussions, and for eloquently describing the issues of the Bakingili Village and the surrounding area. I would also like to thank his family for their hospitality and warmth. The people of the Bakingili Village Forest Management Plan for so readily welcoming me to their village and allowing me to interview them. My parents for their unconditional love, support and encouragement through all my efforts in pursing my goals and endeavors. Dr. Lene Pedersen of the Department of Anthropology and Resource Management programs for her critical input and for raising the bar of my work that improved the end result of this paper. Mr. Joseph Mulema the Educator for the Wildlife Conservation Society for informing me of the Bakingili Village upon my first trip to Cameroon. He is the reason I came to realize my thesis project. Simone de Vries the Assistant Manager of the Limbe Wildlife Center and the staff at LWC for their warmth, assistance and conversations.
5 Aaron Nichols and Ymke Warren of the Wildlife Conservation Society for the time they took to let me interview them and for their friendly and hospitable nature which made me feel much more at home in Limbe. Fred Stuben for his constant unconditional love, friendship support and encouragement. Lindsey Shank for her friendship, humor, understanding and kindness. Faith Haney for continually instilling confidence in me, and for her friendship and sense of humor. Randy Gibson for his friendship, insight, mysterious faith in me, and for pressing me to stay on track in pursuing my passions and goals. The Milotte Foundation for graciously awarding me the nature observer scholarship. This financial assistance was invaluable.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I
Page INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...1 Statement of the Problem ………………..……………………………3
II
LITERATURE REVIEW………………………..…………….………........6 Introduction………………………………………………………........6 The Bushmeat Trade…………………………………………………...8 Cameroon’s Recent Economic History……………………………….15 Bushmeat Economics………………………………………………....20 Cultural Traditions of the Mount Cameroon Area…………………....26 Cultural Traditions, Taste Preferences and Demand for Bushmeat…..28
III
STUDY AREA……………………….…………………………..………34 Cameroon……………………………………………………………..34 Southwest Province of Cameroon..…………………………………..34 Mount Cameroon Area……...………………………………………..36 Bakingili Village Community………………………………………..38
IV
METHODS……………………………...……………………………......41 Bushmeat Sellers in Bakingili and Batoke…………….……………..42 Government Senior Wildlife Officer…………………………………43 Ex-hunter Daniel……………………………………………………..44 Local Fishermen…………………...…………………………………45 Nongovernment Organizations.………………………………………45
V
RESULTS ……………………………………...………………………….47 Bushmeat Market…………………………………………………......47 Enforcement………………………………………………………......55 Local Importance of Bushmeat…………………………………...…..64 Interviews with Bushmeat Hunters…………………………………...65 About the Bakingili Forest Management Committee...........................69 Interviews with Mr. Nche about the Forest Management Plan……….70 Interviews with Local Fishermen……………………………………..82 Fishing Discussion……………………………………………………88
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
VI
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………......99 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………….107
8
LIST OF TABLES Table
Page
1 Batoke Market Data from Two Vendors from 15 Visits..……………49 2 Limbe Wildlife Center Incoming Class A Animals 1996 – 2007.…...59 3 Sale Price of Bushmeat according to Bakingili Hunter Joseph.……...68 4 Organization and Hierarchy of BACOFMAC………………………..74
9
LIST OF FIGURES Figure
Page
1
Map of Africa………………………………………………...............34
2
Map of Cameroon……………………………………………………35
3
Map of Mount Cameroon…………………………………………....37
10
Courses presented for the Master’s degree Course No. REM 506 06 REM 505 06 REM 496 06
Course Title Resource Mgmt Colloquium
Number of Credits 1
Quarter Instructor Completed Dr. Lori Sheeran WIN
Introduction to Grad Research
3
Dr. Pat Lubinski
WIN
Individual Study
6
Dr. Lori Sheeran
WIN
REM 562 06 REM 540 06
Issues and Conflicts in Res Mgmt
3
Dr. Tracy Andrews
SPR
Ecology and Culture
4
Dr. Lene Pedersen
SPR
REM 593 06 ANTH 488 06
REM Field Experience
8
Dr. Lene Pedersen
SUM
Advanced Research Cultural Anth
2
Dr. Lori Sheeran
SUM
ECON 462 REM 501 REM 595
Economics of Energy Res and En Introduction to Resource Mgmt Internship
5 4 1
Dr. Charles Wassell FALL06 Dr. Pat Lubinski FALL06 Dr. Lori Sheeran FALL06
REM 502 ANTH 499 GEOL 499
Policy and Law in Res Mgmt Primate Conservation Creation Evolution
5 4 2
Dr. McCutcheon WIN 07 Dr. Lori Sheeran WIN 07 Dr. Alexander Glass WIN 07
REM 595 REM 522 ANTH 416
Graduate Research Resource Analysis Pongid Behavior
1 5 4
Dr. Lori Sheeran Dr. Jim Sullivan Dr. Mary Jensvold
REM 506 REM 700
Resource Mgmt Colloquium Thesis
1 6
Dr. Jennifer Lipton FALL07 Dr. Lori Sheeran WIN 08
SPR 07 SPR 07 SPR 07
11 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Undergraduate Study: Western Washington University, 1989-1993 Graduate Study: Central Washington University, 2006-2008 Professional Experience: Data Control Supervisor: University of Washington, Fetal Alcohol and Drug Unit, 1999-2005 Marine Mammal Observer: RPS GeoCet Group, 2008 Certification: Helicopter Underwater Egress Training certification, 2008 Safe Gulf training, 2008 Volunteer: Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, 1995, 1996 King County Superior Court, Seattle, WA 1996 Habitat for Humanity, Malawi, Central Africa, 1997 Kalaweit Gibbon Rehabilitation Program, Kalimantan Indonesia, 2001 Projet Grands Singes, Dja Reserve, Cameroon West Central Africa, 2005 Limbe Wildlife Center, Limbe Cameroon, West Central Africa, 2007
12 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Wildlife is an important resource for rural communities in Central Africa whose people depend on it for food and for financial income from commercial sale of meat and other products. In sub-Saharan Africa, Asibey (1977) and Milner-Gulland et al. (2003) report that people rely on hunted game, or “bushmeat,” to meet essential dietary protein needs and as primary and secondary sources of income (as cited in Bakarr, Adomako, & Ham, 2001). Bushmeat, which is the meat obtained from wild animals, provides an important source of protein in household diets because domestic meats are often not available or are too expensive (Fa, Ryan, & Bell, 2004). Rural people may also prefer wild meats because they are familiar with it and have a long history of consuming it (Rose, 2001). Wild meat is also an integral part of traditional customs and ceremonies such as weddings and funerals Schenck et al., 2006, p. 443) Decline of a regional economy can increase exploitation of wildlife as moneymaking industries shift to forest resources, urban unemployment rises, and few livelihood options are available. Rural communities sometimes default to forest exploitation because it is available to them and people already have the skills needed to access bushmeat. Also, urban people may immigrate to more rural areas to exploit forest resources in order make money. The scarcity of jobs often leads to forest dependence for both rural and urban people (Ndoye & Kaimiwitz, 2000). Such exploitation of wildlife is rarely sustainable.
13 Government and nongovernment organizations face economic and cultural problems in their efforts to combat the overexploitation of wildlife. Economically, Cameroon lacks competitive cash crop exports to stabilize incomes on a national and regional scale. This is unfortunate since agriculture is the primary sector comprising 70% of the global economy (Tanyi Tako, 1999). The shallow manufacturing base of the country and heavy reliance on the usually fluctuating prices of raw materials in the world market make the country’s economy very unstable (Tanyi Tako). The decline of some wildlife populations is compounded by the depletion of habitat caused by logging, commercial agriculture and urban to rural migrations, all of which are affected by changes in international markets and government polices. Because of all these factors, many species are becoming more and more scarce and are threatened with extinction. Therefore, livelihoods as well as biodiversity are in jeopardy. Attempts by policy makers to enforce the hunting and selling of endangered species will be ineffective if macroeconomic and microeconomic factors and cultural habits are not addressed. In addition to the strong economic and cultural (e.g., wildlife use in ceremonies) demand for bushmeat, many people like the taste of wild animals and it is part of their diet. Rose (2001) states that although hunger and the need for nourishment clearly influence food choice, so too do availability and cultural norms (see also Schenck et al., 2006). Thus, lack of economic stability, limited access to domestic meat, high prices of bushmeat, wildlife scarcity, and cultural norms, and taste preferences all contribute to the demand for bushmeat.
14 Dependence on bushmeat hunting is considered one of the greatest threats to wildlife conservation in the tropics (Brown, 2003, p. 2). Bushmeat levels of off take (decline) are highest in the humid forests of West-Central Africa are lower (though still significant) in Asia and South America (Brown, p. 2). Cameroon is a West-Central African country where bushmeat hunting is depleting wildlife (Tanyi Tako, 1999). The national and international economic status of Cameroon is an important consideration when looking at conservation efforts to curb overexploitation of forests and the plants and animals that live in them. Local communities are impacted by economic polices that take place at the national and international level and cannot effectively respond to overexploitation. Overexploitation should be addressed by policy makers and conservation focused nongovernment organizations (NGOs) that can provide expertise to better manage important local resources. A variety of macroeconomic, agricultural, and infrastructure policies influence forest use; therefore, policy makers should consider ways to use these policies to promote environmental management (Ndoye & Kaimowitz, 2000). Statement of Problem The purpose of this thesis is to depict the socioeconomic and cultural realities of Cameroonians in the Mount Cameroon area that contribute to bushmeat hunting and overexploitation of the forest. The socioeconomic realities there include boom and bust economic cycles, uncompetitive cash crop exports, poorly managed foreign investments, poorly managed natural resources and poverty. Based on this economic history, I contextualize the lives of hunters and sellers of bushmeat in a small village in the aftermath of an economic boom and bust cycle that increased poverty and exploitation of
15 forest resources. I also describe cultural dependence on wildlife as a factor that contributes to the depletion of wildlife species. In addition I will explain the recent history of Cameroon’s economy and how international policies associated with it affect domestic exports and how international prices and the international and domestic demand for food crops create migratory trends in the behavior of impoverished people that result in rural dependence on the forest caused by a decline in urban employment. In the recent past, the decline in urban jobs in Cameroon forced many people back to rural areas to establish their own farms and/or to harvest nontimber forest products (NTFPs), such as wildlife, for commercial sale (Tanyi Tako, 1999). Cultural habits such as ceremonies and taste preferences for bushmeat also contribute to the depletion of species. I will address the question of whether an improved economy with more financial income and dietary options in the form of affordable domestic meat will offset the cultural desire for bushmeat to the extent that it will reduce (probably not eliminate) dependence on forest resources, especially wildlife. This case study documents examples of how people living in economically marginal environments struggle to support themselves through hunting, fishing, farming, and selling of NTFPs, such as bushmeat. From these resources, I identify specific animal species that are favored and/or are the most profitable. I also describe a situation that shows that despite the strong cultural habits and financial need to sell bushmeat in this region, some villagers are inspired to protect their forest for sustainable use in the future. I use one village, Bakingili, in Southwest Cameroon, as an example of how a rural community supports itself by exploiting its natural resources. I describe these same
16 villagers’ attempts to take control over and protect their forest, and their struggle to compete with commercial interests over the villagers’ traditional core resources. My research focuses on species that are both economically and culturally important to the local communities. My cultural and economic case study can contribute to the research done by the United Nation’s Department for International Development (DFID). DFID’s case studies revealed a lack of socioeconomic data that would allow us to analyze the impact of wildlife interventions on poverty and assess the local scale of poverty wildlife linkages (Elliott, 2001). One example of a poverty wildlife linkage is that the poorest people in underdeveloped countries rely on wildlife more than domestic meat for food and cash income and the rural poor often cannot afford domestic meat. An extension of this example is that these poor hunters and rural bushmeat vendors suffer the consequences of wildlife conservation programs and policies (Elliott). My case study demonstrates the resentment that bushmeat hunters and vendors have of Cameroon’s government imposed wildlife law caused by the negative impacts the enforcement has had on their livelihoods. Most pragmatic conservationists agree that you can’t have sustainable conservation alongside endemic poverty—that this is politically and socially untenable (Elliott). Conservation policies work best in practice alongside economic growth, where employment opportunities and income levels are increasing, dependence on wild resources is reduced and pressure preventing sustainable use removed (Elliott).
17 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction In sub-Saharan Africa many wild animal species are being depleted to the point of local extinction. The severity of this phenomenon is known as the bushmeat crisis (Bennett et al., 2006). There are several interrelated factors contributing to the bushmeat crisis in Cameroon. The primary factors include a fluctuating boom and bust economic cycle causing urban to rural population migrations, shifting international cash crop markets, a growing commercial trade of bushmeat, and inconsistent regulation of this trade. Secondary factors contributing to bushmeat exploitation in Cameroon are the use of wildlife species for traditional ceremonial purposes, and taste preferences for wildlife. However, it is the primary factors associated with the state of regional and national economies that are largely responsible for shifting populations and various levels of forest dependence. For example, in the recent past Cameroon experienced an economic upswing that created urban jobs and migrations from rural areas to urban centers decreasing overall forest use (Ndoye & Kaimowitz, 2000). In this case, an improved economy benefited the forest environment. However, studies other than those analyzing national economies, such as those done by Wilkie, et al. (2005) and Damania, et al. (2005) have shown that with an increase in wealth, there is an increase in the consumption of both wild and domestic meat, which can result in unsustainable bushmeat exploitation. Once Cameroon’s economic boom ended many people were forced to move back to rural areas and exploit forest resources as a means to make money (Ndoye &
18 Kaimowitz, 2000). This behavior was instigated by economic hardship. The literature cited in this thesis paper demonstrates that economic development programs should be paired with conservation for a more holistic approach that can improve and maintain the standard of living for rural people while at the same time supporting sustainable harvesting practices. The literature further emphasizes that the harvesting behavior of rural communities is generally in response to limited financial options and an immediate need for food or cash income. Poor rural communities tend to sell more hunted game than they eat themselves (relying on household farmed food for consumption) because of the higher financial reward for forest animals (de Merode, Homewood, & Cowlishaw, 2003), purchased predominantly by wealthier people from urban areas and people from Europe and the United States (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000, p. 261). It is this demand (primarily from wealthier people in more urban areas and western countries) that government policies should focus on rather than penalizing the rural poor who have few financial options. Development programs and careful marketing of cash crops and natural resources may create more jobs and improve the financial and food security for rural communities if rural communities also have easier access to affordable domestic meat. If successful, these programs could curb the rural community’s need to hunt and increase the potential to preserve traditional hunting for ceremonial purposes without depleting wild stocks. The Bushmeat Trade The term “bushmeat” applies to African wildlife species that are hunted and used for food from cane rats to elephants (Bennett et al., 2006). The term “bushmeat trade” often refers to the unsustainable exploitation of animals for food or for sale because
19 species that are the target of the bushmeat trade are threatened with extinction (Bennett). However, bushmeat may also consist of small mammals for example monkeys, or reptiles that are not endangered or threatened with extinction. The term bushmeat crisis is the overexploitation of endangered species that are illegally consumed and/or traded from Asia, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and especially Africa (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000, p. 242). Wildlife species that are scarce and reproduce slowly such as gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants, and bongo are particularly at risk of local extinction (Bennett). Reproduction rates in these large-bodied mammalian species does not occur quickly enough to offset hunting levels (Bennett). The bushmeat crisis is both an international and a local issue. On the local level, poor rural villagers in the country of origin rely on bushmeat for food, but more often rely on it for cash income. Domestic meat is either unavailable or is too expensive and jobs are extremely hard to come by. Local hunters also sell bushmeat that is transported to urban areas for profit (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000, p. 257-158). On the international level people from wealthier countries such as the United States and Britain import endangered live animals illegally for biomedical research, pets or for the entertainment industry (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, p. 260-261). The western world’s demand for live exotic animals creates a black market. Even though endangered and protected species are legally protected, illegal transactions occur, especially in the countries of origin where poverty and corruption are common. Individuals or organizations from western countries have the money to pay for exotic animals and may not know or care about the laws that are meant to protect them. The opportunity then is provided for those from the
20 developing countries to sell and trade these animals, especially where law enforcement is weak and bribery is inherent (Zangwill, 2004). The Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is the international agreement that regulates trade, including bushmeat and live animals (Cowlishaw & Dunbar, 2000, p. 261). When an animal is considered endangered or threatened it is placed in the Appendices, which means the import and export of these animals are carefully controlled and permits are required to important specimens or individuals. However, it is up to each country to be a signatory of CITES. If a country chooses not to be a signatory, this noncompliant country can act as a trade route for endangered animals and, therefore, undermine CITES and the species themselves. Additionally, signatory countries may not effectively enforce wildlife laws. Cameroon is a signatory of CITES and, therefore, has instituted national wildlife and forest protection laws using CITES as a framework. The enforcement of these laws is carried out by a Cameroonian government agency called the Ministry of Forests and Fauna (MINFOF). Cameroon MINFOF officials sometimes use the assistance of armed military police to enforce penalties and make arrests. Not all countries in Central Africa are signatories of CITES. In addition, much of the bushmeat and pet trade are part of a black market and, therefore, are not detected by CITES or other forms of regulation. The multiple demands for bushmeat by the rural poor, people in urban areas, and the international pet trade put immense pressure on these animal populations. Although hunting for household consumption may be locally sustainable, the level of extra local demand associated with the commercial trade in bushmeat is typically far greater than the forests can supply (Bennett et al., 2006). Once these larger mammals are over-exploited,
21 smaller mammals are hunted. Because smaller mammals reproduce more quickly than larger mammals, these smaller mammals can be hunted sustainably as long as human population growth and habitat depletion do not increase too rapidly. For instance, a wildlife hunting study done by Muchaal and Ngandjui in the Dja Reserve in Cameroon documented snare density and wildlife species off take (loss). The research noted that snare density was reduced as proximity to villages increased and that wild game decreased with an increase in snares. Duikers (small antelopes), in this study, were the species observed to be hunted and caught the most. However, even with this high hunting pressure, the three Cephalophus (duiker) species appeared to have populations within a range that would not detrimentally affect the biological populations as long as the stresses on the populations do not increase (Muchaal & Ngandjui, 1999). These stresses are hunting and human population growth. Bushmeat hunting is a major component of people’s livelihoods (de Merode et al., 2004; Damania, Milner-Gulland, & Crookes, 2005). Because bushmeat is so important to rural communities, regulations or restrictions coming from an outside entity can cause hostility and resentment. Tensions have existed between those entities focused on wildlife and conservation issues and people who depend on bushmeat for food and income (Bowen-Jones, Brown, & Robinson, 2002). This tension is attributed to a combination of poverty driven economies and intervention by outsiders, who do not fully appreciate or understand the economic, cultural and dietary needs of those dependent on wildlife. For example, the country of Cameroon has a population of about 14 million people (Ayukegba, 1999). Agriculture is 25% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and employs about 75% of the workforce. Approximately 35% of the population lives in rural areas
22 with half of them living below the poverty level (Ayukegba). Often wildlife conservation intervention does not address poverty and does not provide incentives or alternatives to the dietary or financial limitations of the community. In many areas, unsustainable exploitation of bushmeat is the result of the failure of development policies that have led to an absence of rural-sector investment or sustained income opportunities in rural areas (Bennett et al., 2006). If the problem of few income options and poverty levels are not addressed, bushmeat hunting will continue and the black market will be maintained. Development programs that provide jobs and financial opportunities do not necessarily relieve the bushmeat crisis. In fact, they can contribute to further species or population decline in several ways. An increase in household income can make bushmeat more affordable and, therefore, increase the demand. Development projects that create jobs may also create infrastructure such as roads, which reduce habitat by clearing forest and provide easier access to forests. Understanding and implementing development and conservation policies and practices that are complementary and that reconcile different values of wildlife and people is the challenge that faces national and international decision makers if the bushmeat crisis is to be solved (Bennett et al., 2006). More generally, there has been greater awareness of conservation and development concerns with an increase of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) (de Merode et al., 2004). The question among those interested in economic development and those in conservation arenas is whether it is possible for economic incentives and opportunities to reduce dependence on the forest and, at the same time, enforce the restrictions on the hunting and selling of bushmeat. Can conservation and development act in harmony to curb the decline of wildlife populations and, at the same time improve
23 the standard of living for rural human populations? As stated by Oates (1999), Roe et al. (2000), and Hulme and Murphree (2001), these projects have the potential to simultaneously address issues of poverty and support the sustainable use of wild resources, but their success as a conservation tool is still being debated (as cited in de Merode). The goal of wildlife conservationists is to deter or reduce local community dependence on the forest and wildlife, namely endangered species. Approaches include creation of reserves and parks to protect habitats, support for effective enforcement against illegal hunting and selling of endangered species, making domestic meat more available and affordable and developing alternative sources of income. The role of community-based wildlife management (CWM) programs can potentially help the problem by creating jobs that assist researchers and provide research training for local individuals. These NGOs are also developing money making alternatives that aim to be self sustaining such as bee farming for the sale of honey, snail farming for the sale of escargot to restaurants, and cocoa farms to sell cocoa to people living in surrounding areas. Alternative sources of income usually are projects under participatory management programs that aim to include local communities in the conservation and sustainable use of a nearby forest area. This approach is fairly new and contrasts with historical ‘people-removal’ programs such those sometimes used when establishing National Parks. Several conservation NGOs such as World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) now use this participatory approach that hires local people as guides, cooks and research assistants.
24 Recently, research has focused on the potential success of wildlife domestication to provide protein. For example, 600 farmers are keeping 18,000 animals for the German Technical Program (GTZ) project in Benin (Elliott, 2001). Rural communities could raise cane rats as they would goats or sheep and then sell the animals and or the processed meat. The aim is to provide income for rural communities and satisfy the demand for “wild” meat. Captive breeding schemes (cane rat in Africa, paca in South America) have attracted publicity, and are seen by some as an effective conservation strategy (Brown, 2003, p. 12). It must be wondered, however, if captive breeding could ever successfully compete with hunting, if wild-caught animals are abundant in the surrounding bush, and available as, more or less, a free good (Brown, p. 12). Economically, captive breeding schemes face challenges such as start up costs and market competition with hunted meat. Most cultivation or wildlife farming will be competing with material harvested from the wild that is supplied to the market by commercial gatherers, who have incurred little or no input costs (Chamberlain, Cunningham, & Nasi, 2004, p. 16). This captive breeding approach has not been proven successful so far in reducing species decline. Where they have succeeded has tended to be in urbanized settings remote from the forest environment, where the returns are enough to justify the investment costs (Brown, p.12). Also, the strategy of making alternative protein sources available and accessible can only succeed if issues of cultural preference are fully analyzed and understood by all (Bakarr et al., 2001, p. 7). In addition, the time and money needed for a domestication project may not be realistic. The rural poor often need money now rather than later. The logic of domestication may not resonate with hunters who can quickly and easily go to the forest and hunt. Some
25 people may both sell domestic cane rat and still hunt and sell wild meat. The domestication program, by itself, does not guarantee that people will stop hunting. Yet, if species such as the cane rat continue to be rare in the future, these captive breeding schemes (if refined) could become an income and dietary option. Participatory programs have been criticized for a fundamental flaw of not involving the communities in the decision making, and thereby over looking specific cultural and practical needs. Despite the worldwide move toward more “participatory” methods, there are still problems in finding ways to consult local people to find out which areas they themselves would like to conserve (Lawrence, Ambrose-Oji, Lysinge, & Tanyi Tako, 2000). According to McNeely and Miller (1984), and Browrigg (1985), the role of cultural values in building support for conservation has been noted, but has been largely ignored in practice (as cited in Infield, 2001). And, while it is important to acknowledge and act on sustainable activities to maintain a natural resource on which local people depend, economic policies and international trade relations should not be ignored. The national economy of Cameroon has gone through fluctuations in the last 50 years and in periods of overall decline; rural people have defaulted to wildlife for subsistence living. This demonstrates the importance of wildlife resources. However, a mere subsistence level of living should not be an acceptable standard to be maintained. Rather, conservationists should collaborate with development organizations to improve on national and international policies that can improve standards of living and create an environment where rural people do not have to resort to forest exploitation activities for survival. A distinction needs to be made between livelihood benefits for the poor that
26 relate primarily to safety-net functions, and benefits that have potential to contribute to growth of the rural economy (Brown, 2003, p. 7). Cameroon’s Recent Economic History Cameroon’s natural resource industries, such as oil, as well as its agricultural cash crops experienced significant changes from the mid 1960s through the mid 1980s, which has increased the use of forest resources and ultimately reduced wildlife populations. Oil Boom and Forest Impact Prior to 1967, Cameroon was mostly rural with coffee and cocoa industries being the primary contributors to the foreign exchange in the country. The government invested little in agriculture during that time (Ndoye & Kaimowitz, 2000). During the next 10 years (1977-1987), the cocoa and coffee industries remained strong, and Cameroon was on an economic upswing, with agricultural industries increasing by 5% a year (Ndoye & Kaimowitz). Then, almost simultaneously, from 1975 to 1985, Cameroon experienced an oil boom. Cameroon had a booming economy with most foreign exchange revenue coming from petroleum, cocoa, and coffee (Sunderlin et al., 2000). According to the Economist Intelligence Unit EIU (1997) annual real GDP growth averaged 7% from the late 1970’s through 1985 (as cited in Sunderlin). International petroleum prices were high, causing a spike in the already booming economy. The oil windfall caused many changes in the use of the forest and the movement and behavior of Cameroon’s people. High international coffee and cocoa prices during the first few years, and more favorable policies for producer prices during later years, encouraged clearing forests to plant coffee and cocoa. Government investment of oil revenues in commercial palm and rubber plantations increased deforestation (Ndoye & Kaimowitz).
27 Rural people began moving to the cities for jobs. Rapid urban population and income growth made it more attractive for farmers to grow food for urban consumers, which also likely caused deforestation (Ndoye & Kaimowitz). The government invested the new revenue into the public sector creating more infrastructures, such as hospitals. This also created more jobs. Because of the increase in money and jobs from oil profits, some of the less lucrative agricultural food crops declined. However, cocoa and coffee remained strong because of high international prices. Timber exports increased as well because of a growing international demand for lumber for construction. The oil boom also created more demand for food, but this demand did not result in a significant increase in domestic food crop industries for two possible reasons. One reason was the slow growth in the rural labor force and, according to Van Soest (1996), the oil boom promoted rapid rural to urban migration and, as a result, the rural population of the Humid Forest Zone (HFZ) grew much more slowly than the population as a whole (as cited in Ndoye & Kaimowitz, 2000). Another reason was that urban consumers preferred foodstuffs produced elsewhere. The portion of national food consumption supplied by subsistence agriculture fell from 81% to 60% between 1976 and 1988 (Ndoye & Kaimowitz). Government policies favoring food imports and rice and maize production in other regions of the country, and the low-income elasticities of most HFZ crops, limited forest clearing for food crops (Ndoye & Kaimowitz). Food crop subsidies in other areas kept food prices low, making it cheaper to import. The timber demand created some forest loss, but overall, the oil boom put less pressure on the forest. According to the World Bank (1988), timber exports initially grew, but then stagnated as companies sold more timber domestically (as cited in Ndoye and Kaimowitz). In short,
28 an overall decline in the rate of deforestation during the oil boom was caused by a population shift to the urban areas as well as a decline in food crops. So, while the oil boom accelerated rural to urban migration by stimulating the urban economy, the net effect was to reduce the rural population growth in the HFZ (Ndoye & Kaimowitz). Economic Crisis and Forests Cameroon’s oil boom in the late 1970s was short lived and Cameroon approached an economic crisis from which it is still recovering today. In the 1980s, global prices for products made from agricultural cash crops such as cocoa, coffee, rubber, oil palm and banana fell, causing many Cameroonian industries to fail, and many workers were laid off (Tanyi Tako, 1999). This caused a further chain of events that lead to a 50% decrease in the value of the Cameroonian franc (CFA) (Tanyi Tako). The economic depression forced many Cameroonians to turn to the forest to support their livelihood, through intensive use of the forest for diverse purposes: artisan timber exploitation; hunting; gathering of NTFPs, such as bushmeat; and replacing forest with small farms (Tanyi Tako). Poverty, perpetuation of traditional subsistence patterns with few other livelihood options, and pervasive corruption were the consequences of ineffective investment and weak international market exports. The 10-year economic boom based on the petroleum industry ended and Cameroon suffered a severe economic downturn when oil revenues fell in the late 1980s (Brown & Ekoko, 2001). Exploited petroleum resources were also nearly depleted. At the same time, international prices for cocoa and coffee also fell. The decline of these three industries hit Cameroon very hard. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU; 1997) reported that in 1986 foreign exchange revenue fell because of a decline in the world
29 prices of oil, cocoa, and coffee and because of diminishing supplies of Cameroonian oil (as cited in Sunderlin et al., 2000). The EIU also reported that from 1987 to 1993, average annual GDP change was negative (as cited in Sunderlin et al.). The government accepted much needed support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank through a structural adjustment agreement. This agreement included a reduction in public spending, liberalizing markets and institutional reform (Ndoye & Kaimowitz, 2000). The results of this reduction of government spending in the public sector caused an increase in unemployment and a deterioration of government buildings and roads. Through pressure from the World Bank and the IMF, public sector employment was reduced in 1991-1992 and extreme public sector wage cuts were made in 1993 (Sunderlin et al., 2000). Government subsidies for pesticides were eliminated or reduced causing insect damage to coffee and especially cocoa plantations. Losch (1990) explained that production and export of cocoa and coffee declined after 1989, in response to the government cut of producer prices and subsidies (as cited in Sunderlin et al.). To compensate for damaged crops, more forest was cleared to plant more crops in attempts to get adequate returns in a declining market. As Demenou (1997) explained, the government measures led to a dramatic fall in robusta coffee and cocoa production (as cited in Ndoye & Kaimowitz). The government also encouraged farmers to devote more effort to cultivating food crops, hunting, collecting forest products and fuel wood, to compensate for the fall in cash crop incomes (Ndoye & Kaimowitz). However, some food crops were also in jeopardy and were not able to compete with the international market because the government had set the export prices too low.
30 With the crisis depressing urban food markets along with an overvalued exchange rate that took food imports to their highest levels ever, farmers received much lower prices for the food they sold. The crisis caused population decline in urban centers and swung migration back to rural areas, which in turn created an increase in subsistence farms. People were doing what they could to make a living. In addition, the government encouraged people to use the forest for their own means such as harvesting non-timber forest products and wildlife. The sharp decrease in the price of export crops, the general disengagement of the state, and the devaluation of the CFA had severe repercussions in both the rural and urban populations of Cameroon (Brown & Ekoko, 2001). According to Tchouongi (1995), Kaimowitz (1998), and Reed (1996), these conditions have had a range of impacts on livelihoods in rural areas, and, also on forest cover and management (as cited in Brown & Ekoko). Overall, the economic crisis accelerated deforestation and, in the process, depleted valuable wildlife and plant species. Cameroon’s deforestation demonstrates how macroeconomic factors combined with specific government policies impact local trends and exploitation of forest resources. This perspective is rarely considered in conservation efforts. The implication of these findings is that a wide gamut of policies, which are not typically considered to be relevant (for example, exchange rate, trade, urban employment, and infrastructure policies), must be taken into account and modified, if the goal of reducing inappropriate deforestation is to be taken seriously (Sunderlin, 2000). Conservation policies work best in practice alongside economic growth, when money making opportunities and income levels
31 increase, dependence on forest resources is reduced and pressures that prevent sustainable use are removed (Elliott, 2001). Bushmeat Economics People depend on bushmeat as a food source in rural areas, but they also sell it to people living in urban areas. Ntiamoa-Baidu (1997) and Caspary (1999) point out that bushmeat utilization in West Africa is primarily for subsistence, but the commercial trade also contributes to human livelihood, by providing income for hunters and retailers in both rural and urban areas (as cited in Bakarr et al., 2000, p. 4). In a region where informal sectors predominate, bushmeat commerce plays a significant role in the national economy (Bakarr et al., 2001, p. 20). The problem, according to current data, is that bushmeat hunting is usually unsustainable (Bowen-Jones et al., 2002). Therefore, conservationists develop management plans to work at the local level to modify hunting practices, in order to make hunting sustainable through regulation, education, and sometimes by introducing alternative food and/or income sources. A study done in Gabon that focused on bushmeat prices and bushmeat demand showed that urban households tend to consume more domestic protein than wildlife, while rural households consume more wildlife than domestic animal protein (Wilkie et al., 2005). Prices of wildlife are higher in urban areas than in rural areas and prices of domestic meat are higher in rural areas than in urban. For example, in this study wildlife was least expensive in the forest villages (purchasing power parity, or ppp, $0.76/kg) and most expensive in Libreville (a large city) (ppp $1.94/kg) (Wilkie et al.). The correlation between price and consumption seems to be strong. As price went up for domestic or wildlife meat, consumption went down. In both rural and urban households fish seemed
32 to be a more common substitute than domestic meat. If fish prices went up, chicken replaced fish (Wilkie et al.). Wealth is complementary to price as a factor of consumption. In the Gabon study by Wilkie et al. (2005), consumption of wildlife, fish, chicken, and livestock meat increased with wealth. Wealthier households consumed more animal protein than did poorer households in the same location (Wilkie et al.). The results lead to the conclusion that if economic development increases wealth in rural areas, policies will need to be in place to prevent the overexploitation of wildlife. However, if wealth and employment increases in urban areas, the pressure on the forest and wildlife may decrease, especially if domestic meat is the primary source of protein in the cities, and commercial agriculture is not the primary source of wealth in rural areas. Policies, such as enforcement, to limit supply, or taxation to increase price, are both instruments that can be used to reduce consumption of dwindling species. If economic development does indeed increase wealth and regulation of wildlife consumption, fish (as the probable replacement animal protein) will also need to be regulated so these populations do not also decline. Economic development efforts, whose goal is to increase the standard of living for those in underdeveloped countries, should address how an increase in regional household wealth can affect the consumption of natural resources (Wilkie et al.). In addition, development organizations should partner with conservation organizations to ensure that development initiatives do not result in undesirable or unforeseen impacts on the conservation status of wildlife and fish (Wilkie et al.). Damania, Milner-Gulland, and Crookes (2005) focused on bushmeat hunting behavior in west Central Africa and developed a simulation model to measure economic
33 incentives in hunting techniques (guns vs. snares). This bioeconomic analysis includes factors that influence bushmeat hunting. Price impacts on the chosen form of hunting show mixed results. If the use of guns was more efficient in harvesting the higher-valued species then there was an increase in the use of guns. If snares were more efficient, then snares were used. However, guns are more expensive than snares, so the financial reward from the given species must be high enough to offset the cost of the guns. An increase in income or standard of living can also instigate gun purchases. Conservationists have attempted to provide alternative food and income for hunting villages. One of these alternatives is an agricultural crop, but this can backfire. If the price of agriculture goes up households initially reduce hunting with snares and focus on the lucrative agricultural crops. But, once they make a profit, households invest in guns for hunting and supplement their income through selling bushmeat as well as agricultural products. Research has shown that hunting actually goes up when agricultural prices go up (Damania et al., 2005). The study by Damania et al. (2005) also showed that the price flux of hunting and agriculture has a combination of results. For example, if the price of certain species of bushmeat goes up, more effort goes toward hunting these species than toward agriculture. Also, the higher-valued species are sold at the market, whereas the lower-valued species are used for household consumption. If harvest of these lower-valued species increases sufficiently, households switch to the lower-valued product to be consumed (Damania et al., 2005). In short, the higher-valued product (species) is always sold and the lowervalued product is consumed. Profits from selling bushmeat are used to pay for medicine, for school for their children, and to purchase commodities and other food items.
34 Another research project done by de Merode, Homewood, and Cowlishaw (2003) focused on the relationship between wild foods (bushmeat) and poverty. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the dietary needs and dietary choices of households living in poverty in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). From a conservation perspective, these needs and choices are important since they can threaten sustainability of wild foods. Sustainability of wild foods is also important to human development organizations such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), since impoverished people in the DRC rely on wild foods either for consumption or for sale. The depletion of wild foods further threatens rural livelihood. Little is known about the relationship between the use of wild food and poverty. The article aimed to provide more insight into these relationships. The results of the research project showed that while a large percentage (31%) of wild foods were processed in the household, only a small percentage (10%) were consumed. The percentage of agricultural production and consumption in the household is even higher than wild foods, 53% and 43% respectively. A larger percentage of wild foods (24%) were sold at the markets than agricultural products (12%). Furthermore, there is a clear distinction between the use of meat and plants. Less than 25% of the production of agricultural products and wild plants were sold at the market compared to 90% of bushmeat and fish production (de Merode et al., 2004). These same authors compared the use of wild foods across seasons. The results in the lean season differ from those in the more plentiful season. In the lean season, agricultural production is reduced by as much as 50%. During this time, household consumption of bushmeat and fish go up considerably (75% and 45%, respectively).
35 There also seems to be a correlation between wealth and types of food consumed. The poorest households consume more wild plants than bushmeat and fish. When there is a jump to a wealthier status more bushmeat and fish are consumed than wild plants. This observation is consistent with research done by Damania (2005) that also showed that wealthier households consumed more animal protein (domestic and wild) than poorer households in the same area. Despite the variations in the food consumed in lean periods, more meat was sold than any other type of food. Bushmeat comprised 25% of all market sales and fish comprised 39%, while wild plants comprised only 2% of sales. Wild foods were obtained by extracting them from nature, as gifts and purchased at the market. Except in lean months, wild foods tended to be sold more than they were consumed (de Merode et al., 2004). Commercial hunting is usually perceived as a greater conservation threat than subsistence hunting, and it is the market sale and not consumption of wild foods that can be most important to households living in extreme poverty (de Merode et al.). The study shows that these rural households have greater access and means to obtain food than to obtain cash income. This information is important for both conservationists and human development organizations. Penalties through fines on hunting bushmeat produce results similar to a reduction in prices by reducing profitability. If the penalty is high enough, the financial reward for hunting goes down. High penalties make it too expensive to hunt, so these penalties are somewhat effective in reducing hunting effort. However, penalties placed on the sale of bushmeat are even more effective than are penalties on hunting. Hunters are often willing to pay the penalty since they still profit from the effort (Damania et al., 2005).
36 Penalties on the sale of bushmeat can bring about significant recovery in populations of select species because the hunter’s selling options are limited. Damania et al. (2005) found a correlation between price increase of bushmeat and wildlife population decline. For example, with a 20% increase in price there is a reduction in the population of all species. A 30% increase causes populations to decline even further and with a 50% price increase for bushbuck (small antelope) and grass cutter (cane rat), extinction results (Damania et al.). Higher prices and profits justify investing in guns for harvesting. However, with these higher prices and, therefore, a decrease in wildlife populations, there is ultimately a decline in the welfare of the households that depend on the wildlife for their livelihoods (Damania et al.). This is the reason why proactive efforts and programs for sustainable use of the forest are critical to rural communities that need the forest and its wildlife. Conservation policies should be aimed at restricting markets for hunting, especially in the urban areas, rather than placing a financial penalty on hunting. Financial penalties are more effective when they are enforced at the point of sale of targeted species. Then markets are deterred from selling bushmeat and hunter incentive to pursue certain species is reduced. Price regulation of agricultural products and bushmeat could be useful tools for manipulating demand and hunting investment (guns) and effort. This work now needs to be integrated with detailed empirical studies of the bushmeat trade to produce a more holistic understanding of the factors underlying the “bushmeat crisis” (Damania et al., 2005).
37 Cultural Traditions of the Mount Cameroon Area Traditional legends and lore related to wildlife are still known and continue to be told in the Limbe/Mount Cameroon area, but the taboos associated with these traditional stories have become weakened over the years because of population migrations and an influx of other tribes and beliefs. Current younger generations do not take these stories as seriously as their elders did. For example, in the recent past, the chimpanzee was not eaten by the locals because of its close resemblance to man. According to the Bakingili Forest Manager and his grandfather, both of whom I interviewed during this study, chimpanzees and gorillas are referred to as “Ewoke” (ay-wah-kee). The legend is that Ewoke, man and rat all lived together. Man and Ewoke were always gathering things from the forest. The rat would always take what they collected and so was cast out because of its greed, leaving just Ewoke and man. To avoid being thought of as greedy, Ewoke always shared its goods with man, giving him more than what they kept for themselves. Because of this, man prospered but did not share with Ewoke. Ewoke resented man for this and a rift was created. Man cast Ewoke into the forest to live. Man had this power because of his superiority. Even though there was a conflict, Ewoke is still respected by man and considered to be a relative because of its intelligence and resemblance to humans. Therefore, traditional Bakweri did not hunt, kill, or eat Ewoke. Also, the native Bakweri historically perceived the mountain and its resources as belonging to them, and they have been collecting forest products since time immemorial (Tanyi Tako, 1999). This relationship with the forest created traditions and myths associated with the wildlife, in particular, the elephant. The Bakwerians had an elephant
38 society (known as Malai), whose duty was to protect the elephant. The Malai also believed that elephants on the mountain belong to people. To kill an elephant, one must have special powers (Tanyi Tako). The Bakwerians held a special identity with the wildlife that traditionally played a role in organizing the society. They believed in human incarnation as animals and they used their transformed animal identity to gain prestige and power (Tanyi Tako). Mount Cameroon also had spiritual significance to the Bakwerians. The god of the mountain, Efasa moto, is believed to have all the resources necessary for life. When the mountain erupts, Efasa moto is angry and must be appeased by pouring libations (lava) from the mountain (Tanyi Tako, 1999). Another legend is that of the antelope or “frutambo.” In my research, Bakingili pepper soup (soup using bushmeat) vendors explained to me that this animal was not eaten because it was believed that if either a man or woman ate it, their child would be born with skinny legs like the antelope. Some elders still don’t eat frutambo because of this, but it is now a commonly eaten animal in most rural communities in the area. Many of these traditional legends and taboos are dying because of the influence on the society of immigrants (Tanyi Tako, 1999) and people’s conversion to Christianity, with prayer taking the place of traditional stories. Some of the older members of the community still hold the traditional beliefs and honor past taboos, while others do not hold Ewoke in as high regard as do the elders and will hunt and kill it. For example, frutambo (duiker) is one of the animals most commonly sold at bushmeat markets and restaurants and used is as a main ingredient in pepper soup.
39 Cultural Traditions, Taste Preferences, and Demand for Bushmeat Understanding why people eat bushmeat and the role that bushmeat consumption plays in household nutrition and income is critical to developing politically acceptable ways to manage wildlife hunting and trading and halt unsustainable exploitation (Schenck et al., 2006). The market activity reveals that wildlife are still the main source of food and income that villagers have used for millennia and also demonstrates that the cultural use of wildlife such as for ceremonies, is still pervasive. Consumption has even increased in the last few decades (Fa et al., 2006). To learn specifically the cultural factors leading to why people eat bushmeat, I have looked at research that examines taste preferences, price of both wild and domestic meat and cultural traditions. The importance of looking at these cultural factors and dietary habits is to aim for culturally sensitive policies and implementation. Ideally, policies should focus on patterns and behaviors to control overexploitation of wildlife that would not negatively impact the poor (Bowen-Jones, etal., 2002). As Chardonnet (1995), explained, if bushmeat is eaten because consumers prefer the taste of wildlife, then demand may be less responsive to price changes and the meat of livestock may not be an acceptable substitute. And, as Njiforti (1996) pointed out, bushmeat may also be eaten to add variety to the diet and for special occasions because it has cultural significance (as cited in Schenck et al., 2006). The results of a taste test study done in Gabon revealed that overall people did not prefer bushmeat to domestic meat. However, their preference for domestic meat was not significantly higher than for bushmeat. Less than half the subjects reported a primary preference for bushmeat (44%). The majority preferred fish (28%) or the meat of
40 domestic animals (poultry 19% and livestock meat 6%) (Schenck et al., 2006). This study also revealed that familiarity of certain meats determines stated preferences. Those more familiar with eating mostly bushmeat as a protein source preferred bushmeat to domestic meat when given a choice. Those familiar with eating both domestic meat and bushmeat preferred domestic meat. There are also differences in geographic location and environment between those that preferred bushmeat and those that preferred domestic meat. Since rural people have less access to domestic meat, they tended to prefer bushmeat while more urban people preferred domestic meat. The majority of village subjects (65%) stated a preference for bushmeat over other sources of meat. In contrast only 42% of Libreville (the capital of Gabon) subjects and 34% of Franceville (a large city) subjects stated a preference for bushmeat (Schenck et al.). Even within bushmeat species there are preferences such that wildlife cannot be treated as a generic food source. Schenck et al. (2006) found that of those that stated a preference for bushmeat, 56% identified porcupines as their favorite bushmeat species The taste preferences for bushmeat may be caused by exposure (or lack of exposure) to domestic meats or possibly other cultural or economic factors. As Rose (2001) and Garine (1993) state, many believe that humans prefer familiar flavors and aromas, and often express negative preferences for unfamiliar foods (Schenck et al., 2006). Consumers in Gabon have only a weak preference for bushmeat and it is only rural consumers who consistently prefer bushmeat to alternatives. Since the study population over represented bushmeat, consumers in Schenck et al.’s study suggest that it is not simply taste that is driving demand for bushmeat. Price or other culturally mediated factors such as familiarity, tradition, and prestige also play a role. The recent studies of
41 Apaza, et al. (2002), Wilkie and Godoy (2001) and Wilke (2005), have shown that price and income have significant roles in determining the level of consumption of bushmeat, fish, chicken and beef. This correlation is consistent with the previously mentioned studies done by de Merode et al. and Damania et al., who also observed an increase in protein consumption with an increase in wealth. Dietary habits can change when other foods are introduced into the diet. When urban to rural population migrations occur, dietary habits become intermingled, and rural people may become familiar with domestic meat, thereby modifying their taste preferences from bushmeat species if other meat is affordable. Another study done by Fa, Juste, Burn and Broad (2002) also revealed differences in preferences of meat by two different groups in a particular area. These differences indicate the cultural adaptation of a given population to its food system and the feeling of well-being derived from it, which in turn may have an important influence on the biological status of the food species consumed (Fa, Juste, Burn, Broad, 2002). This study highlighted that familiarity and availability are common threads in food choices. The study, done on Bioko Island in Equatorial Guinea, West Africa, examined the consumption and taste habits of two ethnic groups, the Bubi and the Fang. The study also examined whether consumption and preferences of bushmeat species obtainable on the island were related to their availability and prices in the market (Fa, et al. 2002). The Bubi are the original inhabitants of Bioko, while most of the Fang migrated from mainland Equatorial Guinea but have been on Bioko Island for at least 10 years. The Bubi generally live in the rural areas and have traditionally been farmers more so than hunters. The more powerful and prestigious Fang, on the other hand, came from the
42 mainland and concentrated in the cities. These geographic and political differences contribute to variation in dietary choices based on availability, accessibility and past exposure. Bioko is a relatively isolated island and has a limited number of wildlife species. Therefore, the Bubi have had limited dietary options and focused on farmed food. In contrast, the Fang not only had more wildlife species available to them on the mainland, but were also exposed to other foods such as domestic meat, and focused their hunting on the large variety of species available to them. Both groups now live in juxtaposition but have different backgrounds and therefore, expectations of their environment (Fa et al., 2002). The study differentiated between the stated meat preferences of the Bubi and the Fang, which were revealed through interviews with members of each ethnic group. Respondents named a total of 55 animal species (37 mammals, 14 birds, and 4 reptiles). All species mentioned by the Bubi were indigenous to the island but only 7 out of the 44 species mentioned by the Fang (birds = 9, mammals = 32, reptiles = 3) were found in Bioko as well as in the continental region (Fa et al., 2002). While there were differences in species preferred by each group, there was some overlap in species consumed. For example, both ethnic groups regularly consumed three species, the blue duiker (Cephalophus monticola), pouched rat (Cricetomys emini), and porcupine (Atherurus africanus). In addition to these three species, the Bubi also consumed the three-toed pangolin (Phataginus tricuspis), and the Fang consumed the giant pangolin (Smutsia gigantean) as well as the three-toed pangolin. However, stated preferences differed between the two groups. For example, the Bubi expressed taste preferences for both blue
43 duiker and porcupine, while the Fang did not express a preference for either of these species even though they consumed them. The Fang stated preferences for both the three-toed and giant pangolin (Fa et al., 2002). The Fang also preferred species not found on Bioko, such as the moustached guenon (Cercopithecus cephus), the giant pangolin (S. gigantean), and the dwarf crocodile (Osteolaemus tetraspis), species that the Bubi never mentioned. The variety of meats eaten by the Fang was significantly greater than that declared by the Bubi. The prevalent and significant preference for mainland species (such as the giant pangolin or some monkeys) by the Fang may indicate their traditional link to eating these species (Fa et al., 2002). Certainly the Fang’s ability to pay extra for the cost of transport of these animals allows for the perpetuation of their traditional dietary choices. In contrast, the Bubi consume more of the cheaper meats, namely pouched rat and porcupine, than did the Fang. This may be either cultural or a reflection of the Bubi’s socioeconomic status on the island, which does not enable them to purchase the more expensive meats (e.g., primates) (Fa et al., 2002). These two studies demonstrate that cultural and taste preferences for bushmeat are significant factors that contribute to the demand, but price, income, and accessibility can also influence consumption. Even those that can afford domestic meat may buy and consume both domestic meat and bushmeat. But, those that do not have access or financial resources to purchase a variety of meat eat and consume what is readily available to them. Farmed foods are often the sustenance that rural people default to. However, fish is also a secondary protein source if bushmeat is being sold rather than eaten. The exploitation of wildlife species puts pressure on other resources. For example, as wildlife populations decline, price goes up making it a more worthwhile
44 commodity to sell at the market. If it is being sold rather than eaten, rural people will be relying more on farmed good, which causes an increase in forest clearing. If rural people are turning to fish for sustenance then fish populations also need to be monitored so populations don’t drop to unsustainable levels. Bushmeat is an inherent part of people’s cultural habits and is being sold because it is one of the only ways rural people can make money.
45 CHAPTER III STUDY AREA Cameroon The country of Cameroon is located on coastal West Africa (see Figure 1). It is 475,000 km2 in area, and located on the west coast of Central Africa, between Nigeria in the west, Chad in the northeast, the Central African Republic in the east, Congo (Brazzaville), Gabon and Equatorial Guinea in the south (Foahom, 2001).
Figure 1. Map of Africa
46 Cameroon (see Figure 2) has a population of about 14 million people with agriculture being 25% of the GDP and employing about 75% of the workforce (Ayukebga, 1999). Deforestation is a serious issue in Cameroon. The estimated rate of deforestation according to Cameroon Forest Policy (1995) is 2,000 km2/year, the FAO with forest loss being 100,000 ha yearly, while the government estimates that about 2 million hectares of forest have disappeared in Cameroon since 1975 (as cited in Ngwa & Fonjong, 2002).
Figure 2. Map of Cameroon
47 The Southwest Province of Cameroon is tropical forest and is supported primarily by agriculture. Agricultural cash crops include cocoa, coffee, banana, rubber, and palm oil (Tanyi Tako, 1999). The Mount Cameroon forest constitutes part of the Cameroon rain forest that stretches across five provinces: the Center, East, Littoral, South and Southwest (Ngwa & Fonjong, 2002). The forests are primarily secondary growth with only small patches of primary growth (Mount Cameroon Ecotourism Organization [MCEO], 2004). Closer to shore and around the western side of Mount Cameroon are palm trees, mangroves and subsistence agricultural crops grown on as well as commercial banana, rubber, oil palm and tea plantations (MCEO). The West Coast area is reputed to be the second wettest place on earth, with an average of 10,000mm (up to 17,000mm rainfall per year) at the village Debundscha (Tanyi Tako, 1999) and with temperatures ranging from 27° to 32° C (Ayukegba, 1999). The area is very green and lush, and this remarkable beauty combined with the beaches in the Southwest Province make it one of Cameroon’s main tourist attractions. People enjoy hikes on Mount Cameroon, walks through the Botanical Garden, a visit to the Wildlife Center and swimming and relaxing at any of the several beaches (Ayukegba). Mount Cameroon Area The Mount Cameroon region of the SW Province has many unique features (see Figure 3) with Mount Cameroon the most obvious. It is an active volcano, the second highest peak in West Africa and rises from the Atlantic Ocean to 4095 m (over 13,000 feet) (Mount Cameroon Ecotourism Organization [MCEO], 2004). The beaches are another obvious feature and are made up of volcanic soil, which gives the sand a dark
48 brown color, making it both visually and geologically unique. This volcanic soil is also highly fertile and enables both successful subsistence farming and commercial agriculture. The mountain, combined with the nearby ocean (see Figure 3), creates a spectacularly beautiful landscape.
Figure 3. Map of Mount Cameroon Mount Cameroon is one of the world’s most biologically diverse areas (MCEO, 2004). Large bodied animal species in the area include forest elephant, white collared mangabey, chimpanzee, greater white nosed monkey, drill, guenon, western bushbuck, western bush pig, duiker, giant pangolin and others (MCEO). Small animal species include splendid sunbirds, allied hornbills, pygmy kingfishers and several species of
49 lizards and chameleons (MCEO). The village of Batoke, where the main bushmeat market in the area resides, is located about five miles north the town of Limbe and about 10 miles to the south of the village of Bakingili. It is in the town of Limbe and the villages of Batoke and Bakingili that I conducted all my research. Unfortunately, there are other features in the area that are not unique to Cameroon, such as illegal bushmeat hunting, logging and intensive agriculture (also causing deforestation). The extensive commercial palm plantations here have infringed on indigenous people’s traditional land that some are just now attempting to get back (Tanyi Tako, 1999). Population growth, agriculture and poor agricultural practices as well as logging concessions continue to threaten the future of the Cameroon forest (Ngwa & Fonjong, 2002). Bakingili Village Community The Bakingili Village is located on the bottom of the southwestern slope of Mount Cameroon and is also just a few yards from the beaches of the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 3). The Bakingili village has approximately 500 inhabitants (Bakingili Community Forest Management Committee, [BACOFMAC] 2002). Bakweri is the largest native ethnic group in the area. Historically, the Bakweri have had a close relationship with the forest around them. Bakingili villagers are also comprised of several ethnic groups including Balundus, Bakossi, north westerners, Bayangi and nonCameroonians (BACOFMAC). Immigrants to the Mount Cameroon area outnumber the Bakweri by about ten to one (Tanyi Tako, 1999). While Bakingili was historically a fishing village, as is true of the rest of the Southwest province, farming has become the villager’s primary economic activity alongside fishing (BACOFMAC). There are also traditional activities that
50 generate income such as bushmeat hunting. Hunting is a significant economic activity, and there is a strong social link between the hunters (mainly young men) and pepper soup sellers (petty traders in bush meat), who are mainly women (Tanyi Tako). Hunters provide the meat that the pepper soup vendors sell at the market. Income from bushmeat sales may be the primary source of income for a household. The Cameroonian Development Corporation (CDC) is contributing to a change in traditional society, initiated by the British prior to WWII. This change is the immigration of workers from other areas of Cameroon as well as other areas of Africa. This immigration has modified and diluted traditional belief systems and cultural habits. The CDC is one of the most significant players in the Southwest Province and is one of the largest landowners in the area. The CDC is also the second largest employer in the country next to the government. In addition to altering long held traditions, the CDC has also impacted the environment, the politics, and the economics of the area. CDC is now a government organization created for the purpose of managing and exploiting Cameroon’s rich forest in the name of economic development (Tanyi Tako, 1999). The CDC has transformed much of the original forest into agricultural land. Large palm (for palm oil), rubber, banana, and tea plantations were put in place as cash crops. Many people from other parts of Cameroon and neighboring countries come to the Mount Cameroon area to work on the CDC plantations. The CDC activities throughout the area dictate the rhythm and pattern of daily life for the local communities and have significant impacts on the quantity and quality of forest resources in the area (Tanyi Tako). Also, as will be discussed in my interview with Mr. Thomas Nche, Bakingili
51 Forest Manager, land tenure issues are becoming a problem because local people are now recognizing their indigenous land rights were squandered by their forefathers. Population expansion attributed to immigration and the cutting down of forests for cash crops threaten biodiversity as well as cultural traditions. Timber development has also contributed to the changing landscape. Logging reduces and alters the forest, resulting in soil erosion, crop destruction, water and fuel wood shortages on a small scale, to loss of important biodiversity climatic change on a large scale (Ngwa & Fongjong, 2002). CHAPTER IV METHODS In this thesis I will describe activities that impact wildlife in a small community in Cameroon. I will detail market vendor activities and villagers’ initiative to protect their forest. The village initiative and bushmeat market are intertwined entities that both depend on wildlife. The motivation of market vendors is to meet immediate financial needs, where as the villagers’ forest protection plan objective is conservation and sustainability for long term use and prosperity. I spent approximately eight weeks in the Limbe, Mount Cameroon area beginning in June of 2007. I obtained information through several interviews with various stakeholders such as bushmeat vendors, the Bakingili Forest Management Officer, the Bakingili Wildlife Officer, local fishermen, local hunters, the Cameroon MINFOF’s Chief Wildlife Officer, and individuals representing various conservation NGOs in the area. Bushmeat vendors are women villagers who sell wild animals (bushmeat) whole or in the form of pepper soup. Pepper soup is a prepared meal by the bushmeat vendors. Pepper soup consists of cut up chunks of bushmeat that
52 are cooked in a thin broth with spices. The vendors make lots of the pepper soup to sell at a public market in their village. The market is similar to an outdoor restaurant. Each vendor has their own stall and there are tables and chairs are available for people to sit. Drinks such as beer and soda are also sold at the bushmeat market. Patrons approach the stall to buy a plate of pepper soup to be eaten there. Whole or partial raw wildlife species can also be purchased from the vendors at the stall. I received approval from Central Washington University’s Human Subject’s Review Board to conduct interviews with all subjects with the requirement that I protect the identity of bushmeat market vendors. For this reason I refer to them as Vendor 1 and Vendor 2. During market visits I did not observe the buying and selling of any legally protected species. Also, the vendors say that they do not sell legally protected species because they are fearful of wildlife law enforcement. Other villagers may also sell pepper soup out of their home. These women put a pot outside their home or on the side of the road to “flag” passers by that pepper soup is available. Bushmeat Sellers in Bakingili and Batoke I visited the bushmeat market/bushmeat restaurant in the village of Batoke fifteen times. Each time I spoke with the same two bushmeat vendors. The first three visits I was escorted by the Bakingili Forest Manager and the Bakingili Wildlife Group President, who is a hunter and who also sells bushmeat to the Batoke vendors. These two men escorted me so they could introduce me to the vendors and give the vendors assurance that I was not there to criticize their business or to get them into trouble. After the three initial visits, the women vendors trusted me and so my subsequent visits I visited the market alone to conduct interviews.
53 The visits began on 28 June 2007 and ended on 6 August 2007. The interviews were informal and I asked the same questions each time. To learn about bushmeat market activities, exploited species, and the economic importance of the bushmeat, I interviewed bushmeat market and pepper soup vendors. I conducted 15 interviews with the bushmeat market vendors in Batoke beginning on 28 June 2007 and ending on 6 August 2007. I used a questionnaire to ask about species sold that day and/or the day before, price, number of species sold, who purchased the soup, who purchased whole animals and if the whole animals purchased were to be used for ceremonial purposes, household use or for retail sale at restaurants. I also asked the vendors the last time the forest police or wildlife officer had been to the market, what the penalty is for selling endangered or threatened species, and how these visits impact business. I will document the species sold, the species that provide the most profit, who the consumers are and where they are from. I interviewed pepper soup vendors in Bakingili on two separate occasions on 26 June 2007 and on 1 August 2007. There were three women present for each interview session. I asked these women who purchases the soup, how much pepper soup the patrons usually buy, the price of the soup, how long it takes the soup to sell, the most common or popular kind of soup (type of meat used), what they use the pepper soup income for, if Cameroonian wildlife law has impacted this business, and how, and if the wildlife police ever come and inquire bout their soup or what type of meat they are using. Government Senior Wildlife Officer I also had a brief informal discussion with the Cameroon MINFOF Senior Wildlife Officer on 13 July 2007. This discussion took place at his old office at the Limbe
54 Wildlife Center (LWC) since his new office at Cameroon MINFOF’s new Southwest Province building in Limbe was not yet available. I took hand written notes during this discussion and no one else was present. I asked him role as a wildlife officer and when enforcement takes place and process of doing enforcement and/or confiscations. Ex-hunter Daniel On 19 July 2007 I met with Daniel, an ex bushmeat hunter at LWC. We sat on a bench outside while tourists and staff came and went. The interview was informal. No one else was present during the interview. I asked very few questions and mostly listened, as he was eager to tell his story and circumstances. My notes were hand written. Bakingili Wildlife Group President and hunter On 2 August 2007 I met with Joseph the Bakingili Wildlife Group President who is also a hunter by trade. This interview took place in the business in front of his home, which is a bar. A couple of patrons were in the room, but he and I sat at our own table and were not interrupted. I asked him questions about how often he goes hunting, how long a hunting excursion takes, the species sought or normally caught and what he does with his catch. The interview was semiformal and I took handwritten notes. Bakingili Community Forest Management Plan (BACOFMAC) To learn about the Bakingili Community’s Forest Management Plan, I interviewed Mr. Thomas Nche, the Bakingili Forest Management Officer in his home in the Bakingili Village. Prior to these interviews I reviewed the BACOFMAC official written document, which describes the forest area, the management plan’s activities, the farming and hunting jurisdictions as well as the various stakeholders in the forest. Only Mr. Nche and I were present for all the interviews. I conducted formal interviews with him on five
55 separate occasions asking interrelated questions. The first interview was conducted on 22 June 2007, the second interview was conducted on 28 June 2007, the third one on 6 July 2007 and the fourth one on 24 July 2007. While asking him the interview questions I took notes on my laptop. The interview questions pertained to the initiation of the management plan and the structure of the plan, such as the activities of group members and the government’s relationship to a community forest. I asked Mr. Nche about the successes and challenges of the forest management plan and his hopes and objectives for the future. I had informal discussions with him on a regular basis to learn details about the area and some perspectives of people regarding participatory approaches of foreign NGOs as well as how community members viewed wildlife law. I discussed with him the various livelihood options in the Bakingili community, such as fishing, farming and the sale of non-timber forest products. Local Fishermen On 12 July 2007, I interviewed a Bakingili skin diver fisherman. I met with him at Mr. Thomas Nche’s home. The interview was conducted in Mr. Nche’s living room. The interview was informal and Mr. Nche was present. I took notes on my laptop. On 27 July 2007, I spoke with a fisherman at Limbe’s fishing hub called Down Beach. The interview was informal and conducted outside on the beach. The next day on 28 July 2007 I returned to Down Beach and spoke with another local Fisherman. This interview was also informal and conducted outside. Again I took hand written notes. The questions I asked were in regards to the amount of time they invest in fishing, the kind of fish they typically catch, the equipment they use and the value of each type of fish harvested.
56 Nongovernment Organizations (NGOs) To learn more about the projects and roles of conservation NGOs in the area I made appointments with their respective managers and directors at their individual offices in Limbe. The meetings were informal and no one was present but the interviewee and myself. I interviewed the Wildlife Conservation Society’s (WCS) Program Director of Southwest Province on 25 June 2007, and WCS’s Research Coordinator Ymka Warren’s on 20 June 2007. I also interviewed the GTZ director Eberhardt Gotz on 2 July 2007 and then interviewed Mr. Ekobo, the Program Director of the WWF in the Southwest Province on 18 July 2007. On 10 July 2007 I interviewed Simone de Vries, the Assistant Manager of LWC. LWC is both a government and nongovernment organization as it receives funding from both entities. For all these interviews I took handwritten notes. Three of the four directors are from Europe with MR. Ekobo of WWF being the only Cameroonian national. The directors of four NGO’s explained to me the mission of each of their organizations and the specific projects that they are currently engaged in, the progress they have made, and the challenges they face. CHAPTER V RESULTS In an effort to gain a holistic perspective on the role of bushmeat in the Bakingili, Batoke and Limbe area, I interviewed bushmarket vendors, wildlife officials, hunters, directors of conservation organizations, and fishermen. These interviews revealed 1) factors that lead to the hunting and selling of wildlife in an impoverished environment where money making opportunities are limited, 2) the mixed influence that conservation
57 efforts have had on people’s livelihoods, and 3) the variety of ways people make a living such as the selling of products acquired from hunting, farming, fishing. Bushmeat Market Market activity is one venue for gaining insight into the commercial trade in wildlife while also learning how externally imposed conservation efforts impact rural bushmeat vendors and hunters. I spoke with several pepper soup vendors in Bakingili and the two main pepper soup vendors at the bushmeat market in the nearby village of Batoke. I chose these two locations because of their close proximity to each other and because of the different roles they play in the community. For example, Batoke is the location of the main bushmeat market in the area, while Bakingili juast a few miles down the road has initiated its own forest management plan. Some Bakingili women, who are members of the forest management committee, also sell bushmeat in the form of pepper soup. The vendors from both Bakingili and Batoke sell bushmeat almost every day. The species the vendors sell depends on what the hunters bring to them. The most common animals sold are porcupine, duiker, deer, cane rat and monkey. Monkey is the only animal out of those five that is potentially considered threatened or endangered under Cameroonian Wildlife Law and the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). Monkey species in the Mount Cameroon area that are categorized as endangered are Pruess’s guenon (Cercopithecus pruessi), re-eared guenon (Cercopithecus erythrotis), red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torquatus) and drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus). Not all monkey species are so classified, such as other mangabey and guenon species. The consumers of bushmeat are passersby, such as CDC
58 agricultural workers, fishermen, or people from the larger cities such as Douala and Yaoundé who travel to the area for business and pleasure. Those from the city may be businessmen there to buy fish and bushmeat, or to sell a non-timber forest product called “eru,” a staple plant served with cassava to make “foo foo.” Eru is a leafy plant grown in the South Central province, which is then transported by truck to the port town of Idenau located just north of Batoke and Bakingili. Batoke Bushmeat Market Batoke, the site of the main bushmeat market in the province, is directly en route to the port town Idenau, and therefore receives considerable traffic from across the country. There are paved roads that link the large city of Douala to Limbe, Batoke, Bakingili, Idenau and other villages along the way. The trading port town of Idenau is a busy gateway to Nigeria. The roads create easy access to resources, especially wildlife. Outside hunters come there to poach out the last ivory of Mount Cameroon (Tanyi Tako, 1999). Most of the meat at the market is sold in the form of pepper soup to passersby who purchase a plate of soup for 500 francs ($1.20 USD) and eat it at the market. However, occasionally a whole animal carcass is sold to a restaurant owner or to a head of household for a special ceremony such as a funeral, wedding or school graduation. Many of the patrons that I observed visiting the market were men who arrived by truck or car. These men were likely CDC workers, truck drivers transporting eru to the port town of Idenau. I determined this by the logos on the cars or trucks they were driving, or because they were driving a large truck carrying eru. Other patrons arrived on foot and likely lived in the village of Batoke.
59 The species I observed being sold are consistent with those reported in other bushmeat market research done by John Fa et al. (2006). By far, the animal being sold most often was porcupine (see Table 1). Table 1. Batoke Market Data from Two Vendors from 15 Visits
Species
Common Name
Number Species Sold
Percent species sold
Frequency present
Frequency in percent
Atherurus africanus
Porcupine
38
43%
14
93%
Cephalophus spp
Duiker
15
17%
8
53%
Tragelaphus spp
Deer
11
13%
9
60%
Cercopithecus spp
Guenon/Monkey
11
13%
7
47%
Manis tetradactyla
Pangolin
7
8%
5
33%
Cane Rat
3
3%
3
20%
Fish Bush Pig
2 1
2% 1%
2 1
13% 6%
Thryononys swindarianus Various Unknown
By far the most profitable animal sold at the market is deer (Tragelaphus dorsalis). This is because of the size of the animal and the price paid to the hunter. The average cost of a deer is 10,900 CFA ($26.00 USD). One deer can be used to make several pots of pepper soup. This species of antelope is the largest of all the animals currently sold. The size makes this animal desirable because of the profit potential, along with the taste. But, like other large mammals, it is becoming more and more rare in the forest and therefore, at the market. Just a portion of a deer can be used to make one pot
60 of soup. For example, a leg or chest may be portioned off for one pot of soup, or two parts of an animal can be portioned off for two pots. The rest of the animal can be smoked and preserved and sold in portions or prepared for pepper soup the following day. Other smaller animals are not as profitable at the single transaction level. Over time, however, the preferred smaller animals such as porcupine and duiker may become more profitable since they are more abundant, and can be hunted and sold much more consistently than a large deer. The average daily profit the vendors gain can be hard to determine because of the variability of the number of plates of soup sold per day, the varying profit margins per species, varying profit margins because the size within the species, and the species being sold changes daily and weekly. Selling the meat in the form of pepper soup is much more profitable than selling the animal whole. This is because several plates of prepared pepper soup yield more in several transactions than that of unprepared meat in one transaction. For example, two porcupines purchased by a vendor for 7,500 CFA ($18.00 USD) are used to make one pot of pepper soup. If 25 plates of porcupine pepper soup are sold, the vendor makes about 12,500 CFA (or $30 USD) and makes a profit of 5,000 CFA ($12.00 USD). In contrast, one whole porcupine bought for approximately 4000 CFA ($9.50 USD) (depending on the size) was sold for 6000 CFA ($14.25) a profit of 2,000 CFA (or about $4.75 USD). Two porcupines, roughly the same size, sold whole would yield a profit of 4000 CFA compared to a 5000 CFA (or more) profit of porcupine sold in the form of pepper soup. The higher yield of pepper soup sales over whole meat compensates for the time and labor invested in the preparation.
61 In addition to recording bushmeat sales data, I also spoke with each vendor separately. I asked Vendor 1 which species are commonly purchased for ceremonies. She said that porcupine, pangolin and cane rat are most desired for ceremonies. I then inquired how often the hunters come to them to sell meat. She said that it takes about one week for the meat to be replenished and the hunter will have brought some kind of meat within that time period. She added that porcupine is purchased the most. I asked her if there are any taboos or traditions concerning bushmeat species. She mentioned the taboos against eating “ewoke” (chimpanzee and gorilla) and “frutambo” (duiker), but most young people no longer pay attention to the taboos. My next question was how the wildlife law impacts her. She simply stated that it worries her. She added that they (wildlife officer and gendarmeries) came to the bushmeat market twice in three years, and they never came before that. She explained that they do not sell gorilla, elephant, or chimpanzee at the market because the hunters do not hunt them. She added that even if the hunters brought these animals to the vendors, they would not buy them from the hunters because it causes them too much trouble with law enforcement officials. She did not indicate, however, that the hunters actually do bring illegal species to sell to her. The monitoring and confiscations of the enforcement officials disrupted the business significantly enough to deter her from selling bushmeat. In this case, the enforcement seems to be effective. I asked Vendor 2 similar questions. The responses were mostly consistent with those of Vendor 1 with a few variations. In response to my question about how long it takes to sell the meat, Vendor 2 said it only takes one or two days and that the hunters come every two or three days to replenish it. This varies with the response of Vendor 1
62 who said it takes up to one week for the hunter to come and replenish the meat. The variation in responses is likely caused by an average range of days that hunters return with fresh meat. For example, hunters return between three days and one week. In response to the numbers of species sold, she said porcupine, pangolin and cane rat are sold the most. When I inquired how law enforcement has impacted her business she said that the law has reduced her business because she cannot sell ewoke anymore. Now she will not buy ewoke from the hunters because of the problems the police may cause her. She also said that the police came three times last year, and that they seized the meat and the pepper soup. She added that because of fear of the police, not as many species are being sold. Vendors cannot make the money they used to because the market has been reduced. Now there are only two main vendors in Batoke and three intermittent vendors, whereas there used to be six or seven. Vendors were put out of business because of the government restrictions on the sale of meat. Bakingili Pepper Soup Vendors Bakingili pepper soup vendors sell plates of pepper soup for less than the vendors in Batoke, in order to compete with the Batoke vendors whose market is a well-known bushmeat destination. In Bakingili a plate of pepper soup sells for 300 CFA ($ .71 USD) instead of 500 CFA (or 350 CFA with plantains). The price per plate does not vary. Also, unlike the vendors in Batoke, the Bakingili vendors do not sell pepper soup every day, but only when the hunters have had a successful catch and bring meat to sell to them. Bakingili hunters sell their catch to the vendors in Batoke as well as Bakingili, and their soup is made once or twice a week. The soup always sells quickly to passersby such as CDC workers or businessmen en route to Idenau. It takes one to two hours to sell a pot in
63 the busier dry season and three to four hours in the rainy season. Porcupine and duiker are the types of soup most often sold. Vendors use the money from pepper soup sales to buy things for their children, to pay for school, to buy dresses, medicine, household items and beer. When I asked the Bakingili vendors how Cameroon wildlife law has impacted sales, the four vendors from the first interview stated that if species were not illegal they would use them in their soup and sell it. Given my position as an outside interviewer, I was not able to determine definitively that hunters and vendors were not selling legally protected species. My role was not to seek out illegal behavior of interviewees. My goal was to document species mostly commonly sold and attitudes of vendors and hunters toward conservation and law enforcement. I never witnessed a carcass of protected species and usually the meat was already rendered and prepared, and therefore could not be identified. The vendors commented that hunters now have to work harder to bring meat for them to buy. Since hunters now have to work harder, they charge more so the vendors are not getting the profit they used to. They have continued to charge the same amount per plate of soup because that is what people can afford and expect. If it costs more, customers will go somewhere else. Unlike Batoke, the wildlife police do not visit the Bakingili market. This may be because Bakingili does not have a bushmeat market per se. Batoke, having the main bushmeat market in the area is an obvious target and enforcement of it would likely provide a more productive outcome as far as the amount of potential illegal meat being sold there versus Bakingili. I interviewed the Bakingili Pepper Soup Vendors on two separate occasions. Each interview was a session with three women. Different women were interviewed during each session. The first interview took place next door at a bar owned by The Bakingili
64 Forest Management Committee’s Wildlife President, which is attached to the front of his home. The first interview was conducted on 26 June 2007 and the second one was conducted on 1 August 2007. The commerce between market vendors, bushmeat hunters, and consumers or purchasers of bushmeat demonstrates the dependence that they have on each other. Consumers rely on the bushmeat market for single meals on a daily basis and for the purchase of whole animals for household and/or ceremonial use. Equally, hunters and vendors rely on their business for cash income. This economic dependence on wildlife in an impoverished area can be very sensitive to conservation efforts by both government and nongovernment organizations. According to the Chief Wildlife Officer, villagers can become angry with law enforcement officers, and according to vendors, resentful of conservation NGOs because their livelihood has been impacted by regulations and restrictions imposed by these agencies. Enforcement Meeting with Cameroon Ministry of Forests and Fauna’s Senior Wildlife Officer I spoke with William, Cameroon MINFOF’s Senior Wildlife Officer in Limbe at LWC on 13 July 2007. William spoke freely while informing me of the procedures for wildlife confiscations and describing some recent examples of confiscations. William explained that before acting on a reported illegal transaction (the illegal selling or trading of an endangered or threatened species), he must wait for the order or instruction from the Provincial Delegation in the provincial capital of Buea. They have the authority and the money to make the order. They provide (pay for) three trained army police (gendarmeries) and a vehicle. Once he gets permission William and the
65 gendarmeries go to several markets or restaurants in the surrounding area in one day. The Wildlife Officer must get a document, essentially a search warrant, from the State Council authorizing the search before taking any action against a vendor, hunter, or holder of wildlife. The confiscated meat is taken to the Provincial Office in Buea. Buea is a large town about 70 km from Limbe and is the location of the headquarters of several government offices. The law states that the Provincial Office can sell the confiscated meat. The money from the sold meat goes to the state treasury. The last time the police went to the Batoke market they confiscated from market vendors all the meat, the pots and the flasks (used to heat the meat). They took everything but the freezers. The Wildlife Officer told the vendors that next time, if they find any illegal meat in the freezers, they would take the freezers too. The operation is quick and direct with no discussion; officials simply go to the market and confiscate the meat. The military police are required because the vendors and villagers have the potential to be hostile and brutal (William says he has witnessed this), but usually there is no penalty beyond the confiscation. The penalty is, however, left to the wildlife officer’s discretion. For example, if there is opposition such as rudeness or yelling from the seller, they will only confiscate the goods. If there is more overt resistance or hostility such as physical threats or attacks, they make an arrest. In 2006 William patrolled the markets twice. He has not patrolled at all so far in 2007 because of a lack of funding. So even though funding issues deter regular market monitoring and confiscations, the vendors is Batoke say they are still fearful of the risk the monitoring. The last confiscation at the Batoke market occurred over a year ago but the vendors state they are reluctant to sell legally protected species.
66 The potential emotional and/or physical reaction by villagers toward enforcement officials that William mentions is a result of poverty and limited livelihood options. Villagers can be very sensitive when the only means they have to make money is infringed upon. Also, the wildlife laws are fairly new and villagers may not feel like their lives have been taken into consideration when these laws and penalties were made. Their livelihoods often have been inherited from their parents and forefathers. Also, many perceive wildlife as given to them by God and is meant to be used and appreciated. Live Animal Confiscation Examples Over a year ago an anonymous source reported to a wildlife official that he or she saw a young chimpanzee in Idenau. William, as the Senior Wildlife Officer, was informed, and so he confiscated the animal from the people holding it. The chimpanzee was then taken to the LWC. In another incident, William received a witness account of a person keeping a python as a pet. The snake handler showed off the snake to people, and also sold medicine derived from the snake’s venom. When William tried to seize the snake, the snake handler threw the snake to his friend, ran, and left on his motorcycle. The gendarmeries caught and put him in jail for three days. He was then released on bail. William and the gendarmeries also confiscated his medicine and made an arrest warrant. According to William, villagers very rarely report illegal wildlife activity. Usually it is a passer by, a western tourist, or someone from outside the area who cares about wildlife. Occasionally, however, if there is friction between people or households, one will report the other to get them into trouble. The results of my interview with William indicate that there is very little enforcement of wildlife laws in the province. The order has to come from the Delegate in
67 Buea who has to supply the money to pay the military police. The effort is expensive and complicated and so is often not executed. According to William, there are insufficient manpower, financial resources and will to adequately monitor and control illegal wildlife activity. Reports of illegal activities are random and infrequent—a chance occurrence. Cameroon Wildlife Law Cameroonian wildlife law prohibits hunting, selling or eating of endangered species. The government imposed financial penalties and punishments are quite severe, but are rarely exercised. For example, Cameroon MINFOF’s Wildlife Law states that the financial penalty for killing or capturing a protected animal is 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 CFA with one to three years of imprisonment. In 1994 Cameroon wildlife law increased protection of endangered and threatened species. According to this law, any person found with a protected animal (living or dead), or part of it, in his possession is considered to have killed it. Since 1994, some efforts have been made by Cameroon’s MINFOF to enforce the wildlife law but none of these efforts resulted in a trial (Zangwill, 2004). Cameroon has had wildlife laws in place for more than a decade, but there have been few, if any prosecutions for violations of this law (United Nations Environmental Program [UNEP] 2005). Often situational negotiations are made between forestry police and hunters or market vendors. For example, the Senior Wildlife Officer explained to me during an interview that if forestry police see illegal bushmeat being sold by market vendors, the meat is confiscated and a fine may or may not be imposed, depending on the hostility or cooperation of the vendor. Arrest of the vendor is based at the discretion of the Senior Wildlife Officer and the military police. Other less severe penalties may be negotiated
68 but can still act as a deterrent to hunting and selling bushmeat since seizures and confiscations disrupt business. Forestry police also may opportunistically keep the meat and/or money for themselves and not report the crime. Cameroon is the only country in the Central African sub-region that has a law protecting endangered animals. This shows the strong political will of the government, but because of corruption and the financial hardship that enforcing the law places on local people, government officials are reluctant to enforce it (Ndifor, 2007). Because of these inherent flaws in the system hunters and vendors are rarely held accountable for illegally hunting and selling bushmeat, so the hunting and selling of nominally protected species continues. Despite the law, endangered and rare animals are traded openly at most markets in the capital, which explains why people are shocked when they hear of arrests for possession of parts of an endangered species (Ndifor). The number of endangered primates such as drills, chimpanzees and gorillas that steadily flow into the LWC is evidence of governmental corruption and weak enforcement of wildlife laws (see Table 2). Table 2. Limbe Wildlife Center Incoming Class A Animals 1996-2007 Year
Chimpanzee
Gorilla
Drill
Mandrill
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
6 5 1 2 5 5 6 4 6
5 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 0
2 2 0 1 2 7 2 3 3
1 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 1
Statistics provided by Limbe Wildlife Center, 2007.
Pruess's Guenon 0 0 1 0 4 4 2 0 1
Yearly Total 14 8 3 3 14 17 13 12 11
69 Cameroon wildlife law categorizes wildlife species based on rarity. There are three classes, Class A, Class B and Class C. Enforcement officials may impose these laws on those who hunt and sell legally protected species. The law states that Class A animals are comprised of rare species or species threatened with extinction. As such, they are totally protected and it is forbidden to kill them. However, any person who wishes to capture or keep them for management purposes or within the framework of scientific research or for protection of persons and their property must obtain a special authorization issued by the services in charge of wildlife (Djeukam, 2004). There are 24 mammals in the Class A category. Of these, nine are primate species. Of the nine primate species, five are consistently flowing into LWC (Table 2). These Class A primate species are chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), gorilla (Gorilla gorilla), drill (Papio leucophaeus), mandrill (Papio sphinx), and Pruess’s guenon (Cercopithecus hoesti) (Cameroon MINFOF). In 12 years (1996-1997), an average of four orphaned chimpanzees, two orphaned gorillas, two orphaned drills, less than one orphaned mandrill and one orphaned Pruess’s guenon, whose mothers and/or other family members were killed by hunters, enter LWC each year. In this twelve-year period there were three peaks with more animals entering center. The first peak in 1996 was because of the start of the project (under the American NGO Pandrillus) so all the animals that were in cages in the surroundings of Limbe were taken to LWC. The second peak in 2000 was due to the negotiations with Cameroon MINFOF having created two posts of a Conservator and Senior Wildlife Officer post whose roles are leading and carrying out wildlife confiscations. Simone de Vries, the LWC Assistant Manager, told me “It was then easier to confiscate animals and that shows.” There was a third peak in 2007. Four incoming gorillas known as the “Taiping
70 Four” can partially explain this peak. These gorillas were illegally smuggled from Cameroon via Nigeria to the Taiping Zoo in Malaysia. After an investigation that revealed that these four young gorillas were acquired illegally, the International Primate Protection League (IPPL) informed the Malaysian, Cameroonian and Nigerian governments, which led international efforts and negotiations to return these animals to their home country. The issue began in 2002 and finally ended in 2007 when the gorillas were shipped back to Cameroon via South Africa (McGreal, 2008). Village bushmeat vendors state that they do not sell animals such as primate species and would not buy them from a hunter even if given the opportunity because of potential trouble with authorities, yet the animals presence at LWC indicates that poachers and pet traders are still active. This demonstrates two things: 1) The demand for bushmeat appears to be coming from cities (rural people sell more bushmeat than they eat), and that species are more often sold in urban centers than in the rural markets, and 2) the few poachers caught and the few animals rescued likely represent just a fraction of the illegal trade that is occurring. Apes and elephants are generally no longer hunted for villagers’ pots—their meat is an exclusive product, which fetches high profits from wealthy customers in modern towns (Zangwill, 2004). Impact of Wildlife Law Enforcement on Vendors According to pepper soup (bushmeat) vendors, Cameroonian wildlife law prohibits the killing of endangered species (and some threatened species), so hunters have to work harder (spend more time and energy) harvesting bushmeat. Because of this increase in effort, hunters charge more for their catch. Women in the village buy bushmeat from the hunters to make pepper soup. The market value for pepper soup is
71 limited to a certain price. When pepper soup vendors are required to pay more to the hunter they are unable to maintain steady profits sufficient to support themselves. The vendors also say that the laws restricting the selling of endangered species inhibits their business. It is, after all, their livelihood and often their household’s only means of income. All of the vendors that I spoke with in the villages of Batoke and Bakingili expressed negative feelings about the law protecting endangered and threatened species and its enforcement. They feel the law has reduced their income as it is more difficult now to sell pepper soup and the amount of bushmeat available to sell has been reduced. All the vendors I spoke with stated that they would sell the endangered or threatened species if it were not illegal to do so. Despite their resentment of the wildlife laws and the concern for their way of life, the vendors also acknowledged that the wildlife are becoming more scarce and many species are much more difficult to find than in the past. They understand that the purpose of the law is to regulate hunting so the wildlife will not disappear altogether. But, the law makes their life much harder. The laws are a clear example of conservation imposing hardship and change on indigenous people’s income and culture; people who feel they have a right to hunt wildlife. Cameroonians say they do not understand why anyone should be jailed for killing a source of food, like the chimpanzee (Ndifor, 2007). This sentiment expresses the contradiction for the Bakingili people between a moral obligation to obey the law and their sense of their indigenous right to hunt. It may be that many of the species (especially the larger animals) have become so scarce from over-hunting that hunters have to work harder to find them.
72 The Bakingili villagers that I spoke with (see above section ‘The Impact of Wildlife Law Enforcement on Vendors’, p. 57 and ‘The Bakingili Community Forest Manager Interviews about BACOFMAC’, p. 67) indicated an understanding that in the general southwest Mount Cameroon region, wildlife is economically and culturally significant. Wildlife has sustained local economies for millennia. Now, the government laws restrict this way of life for what some think is a political move to appeal to Western governments and organizations. These laws were made without consulting with hunters and others who depend on the forest. Because of this, wildlife laws are not respected in general, but fear of the law causes some to obey it some of the time. Despite the fear, the penalties given are rarely as strict as the official law states. Cameroonians living in rural areas who have been sensitized to the importance of conservation feel that the law needs to be there as a deterrent, but they also feel that it can harm individuals and their families since most people live in poverty. For example, a financial penalty can cause long-term hardship for an entire household. A penalty in the form of property confiscation can shut down a business or cause a setback for bushmeat vendors or restaurants from which they may not recover. This happened in Batoke less than two years ago. The Chief Wildlife Officer and armed police confiscated the pots and other equipment from the bushmeat vendors. This action caused a temporary shut down of the business and made the bushmeat vendors angry and fearful. Also, the number of bushmeat vendors in Batoke has decreased significantly in the past three years from what the vendors say is a fear of enforcement at the market level. However, the market business is also likely to have declined because of a reduction in species that can be sold legally. According to the Batoke vendors, there were up to seven pepper soup
73 vendor stalls three years ago. Now there are only three; one of which only occasionally sells bushmeat or pepper soup. Some hunters (See section below ‘Interviews with Bushmeat Hunters’, p. 62 and 63) have reduced or given up their trade and have pursued other ways to make a living such as farming. Farming as an option is becoming more common; either because profits from selling bushmeat have declined with the reduction of species in the forest, such as larger animals, or because of the fear of enforcement, or both. Even though there appears to be slow yet inconsistent change in attitudes toward hunting and eating endangered species, these animals are still vulnerable to commercial hunters and their populations have yet to become stable. This could mean that the sensitization efforts by government and nongovernment organizations is creating awareness that influences dietary and selling behaviors of some people, who either have an appreciation of the problem, or who have been persuaded by law enforcement. Therefore, the vendors and others who live in the area feel the emphasis should be on education rather than enforcement. Local Importance of Bushmeat Bushmeat is the meat from wildlife indigenous to the local forest. One of the most important roles bushmeat plays in the economies of poor people is as a safety net against these short-term livelihood crises (Bennett et al., 2006). The consumption of bushmeat is a traditional activity of the Bakingili community. However, much of the consumption of bushmeat has been transferred to selling it for household income. According to Mr. Nche, (See section ‘The Bakingili Forest Manager Interviews about BACOFMAC’ p. 67) the Bakingili Forest Manager, people in Bakingili eat very little bushmeat. Most of the bushmeat harvested in the nearby forest is sold in the form of pepper soup by bushmeat
74 vendors, or whole animals are sold to restaurants in the village of Batoke or in the town of Limbe. The cash income from the bushmeat is more useful to them than the meat itself. The money derived from bushmeat sales is used to buy medicine and/or to pay for school for the children. These two things are the priorities, however, some of the money may be used for clothing such as nice dresses for the women or school clothes or books for the children. Money is also used for special occasions and celebrations such as weddings, funerals or graduations. For these occasions, a party is organized where a favorite bushmeat meal is prepared, such as porcupine, and served to everyone along with purchased soft drinks and beer. Bakingili villagers consume very little bushmeat on a daily basis. Household meals are usually comprised of dishes made from cassava, rice or plantains. At times, fish is included in a dish. Several hunters from the Bakingili Village go to the forest two or three times a week and come back with as few as none or as many as five animals. The meat is sold to the pepper soup vendors. Pepper soup is a common meal that always contains some kind of bushmeat and is cooked with a spicy, broth. There are eight pepper soup vendors in Bakingili. These vendors sell each bowl of pepper soup for 300 CFA ($.71 USD). The spices used in the pepper soup broth do not seem to vary much. I have tasted porcupine pepper soup in Bakingili and deer pepper soup in Batoke. Each of these animals taste very different from each other, but the seasoning did not taste much different. The vendors sell the pepper soup to local “passers by” that know that soup is available there. Since Bakingili is on a main, well-paved road between the tourist attraction Limbe and the port village of Idenau, the soup sells quickly. For these women, selling pepper soup is their only household income.
75 If hunters want to sell the raw meat in portions or a whole animal, they take the meat to a nearby market at the next main village where restaurants and bushmeat markets are known. There are no restaurants, per se, or bushmeat markets in Bakingili. Interviews with Bushmeat Hunters Discussion with ex-bushmeat Hunter Daniel I met with Daniel on Thursday, 19 July 2007 at the LWC. This interview was informal, and Daniel readily provided me with information, so I did not need to ask many questions. Daniel is an ex-bushmeat hunter who has lived in Batoke for over 25 years. Daniel learned how to hunt from his father when he was just a boy. His father hunted for income for the family. Daniel is originally from another village in Cameroon. He quit hunting when he went to primary school. When he finished primary school in Batoke he tried to find a job but could not, so he resumed hunting. Hunting was one of the only options he had. He hunted for many years and began seeing a difference in the forest. Animals became more and more difficult to find and kill. When he was younger he could just go a few meters into the forest and catch ten animals. Before he quit hunting he had to go much farther and came back with fewer animals. About that time NGOs and the government began conservation efforts in the area. One of the steps in the effort was to sensitize the villages to the importance of the forest and its resources. The Mount Cameroon Project (MCP) was one of these efforts. The project entailed educating the villagers and explaining to them that if they did not over hunt and did not sell particular species they would be given income alternatives. One of these alternatives was employment in conservation such as research and ecotourism. MCP, after changing management and names to CAMCOF, ultimately failed because of internal corruption.
76 The people in Batoke, especially the hunters and bushmeat vendors, became very disappointed and bitter. Daniel was also bitter, but he still agreed with the principle of the effort because he saw for himself that the animals were being depleted. While CAMCOF was failing, LWC was also holding some educational seminars and workshops in the area to sensitize people to the importance of sustainability and wildlife conservation. The wife of LWC’s manager went to Batoke to talk to the bushmeat vendors and hunters. She filmed their comments about making money and being given empty promises. According to Daniel, she also went to the forest with the hunters. Through this project she met Daniel. She told Daniel that she would try to help him. When friends or volunteers came she had them hire Daniel to take them to the forest, to Mount Cameroon, or to other destinations in the area such as Crater Lake. Daniel quit hunting altogether and still makes a living assisting visitors. He told me that the bushmeat vendors in Batoke do not sell endangered species anymore because of the law. He says they are afraid that the police will come and confiscate their meat and pots again. He explained to me what the bushmeat vendors had also told me, which is that Batoke used to have about seven vendors and now there are only two or three because there is not enough bushmeat to sell anymore because of the legal restrictions. Daniel further explained that while he cannot speak for other villages, hunters in Batoke do not hunt chimpanzees, elephants or other endangered species. He said that these species may still be being hunted in the forest but the meat is sold behind the scenes and will not be seen at the market.
77 Interview with “Joseph,” Bakingili Wildlife Group President and hunter I met with Joseph at his bar in front of his home on 2 August 2007. Prior to me asking any questions, Mabia Betot “Joseph,” the BACOFMAC Wildlife Group President provided me with some basic information about hunting and the hunters from Bakingili. He explained that there are both gun hunters and trap hunters in Bakingili and there are about four steady gun hunters and approximately fifteen trap hunters. Not all hunters in Bakingili are members of the BACOFMAC Wildlife Group, however. He explained that these other hunters may not have a license and may be hunting illegally. They can also be stubborn and do not want to take instructions from BACOFMAC members. I then asked Joseph how many days a week he goes hunting and how long each hunting expedition takes. He said that he hunts three or more days a week and is in the forest for about six hours each time. He added that he spends more time now than in the past because of the scarcity of animals. I then asked him if he catches animals every time he goes hunting, to which he responded that he only catches animals one or two days a week, if he is lucky. Next I asked him the selling price for each type of animal. He said that the price depends on the size, but that he sells deer for between 15,000 and 18,000 CFA ($35.00 and $42. 00 USD), frutambo (duiker) for between 4,000 and 5,000 CFA ($9.00 and $12.00 USD), chukuchuku (porcupine) for 5,000 CFA ($12.00 USD), monkey for between 5,000 and 7,000 CFA ($12.00 and $16.50 USD) cutter grass (cane rat) for between 5,000 and 7,000 CFA ($12.00 and $16.50) and catta beef (pangolin) for between 3,000 and 5,000 CFA ($7.00 and $12.00 USD) (see Table 3).
78 Table 3. Sale Price of Bushmeat According to Bakingili Hunter Joseph Deer
Duiker
Porcupine
Monkey
Cane Rat
Pangolin
Price Range
15,000 -
4,000 –
5,000
5,000 –
5,000 –
3,000 –
CFA
18,000
5,000
7,000
7,000
5,000
Price Range
35.00 -
9.00 –
12.00 –
12.00 –
7.00 –
USD
42,00
12.00
16.50
16.50
12.00
Animal
12.00
Joseph sells bushmeat to both the Bakingili and Batoke bushmeat vendors. Joseph said that he only catches deer if he is very lucky because they are so scarce. Deer, he explained, are more profitable because they are large, and bigger animals are more rare than smaller animals. Joseph added that hunting is difficult and becoming more challenging. He said, “going to the forest for nothing makes me feel reluctant and tired. It is a long way.” My last question for Joseph was what he thinks of the proposed Mount Cameroon National Park. He stated that he thinks it is a good thing because of the increased protection and enforcement it will provide. About the Bakingili Forest Management Committee The significance of the BACOFMAC initiative is two fold. First rural people may be pushed off their lands because they typically lack secure land rights and the ability to enforce them (Bennett, et al., 2006). BACOFMAC has garnered political power and been able to take back some traditional lands from the Cameroon Development Corporation (CDC). Second, it is rare for impoverished villagers to be proactive in planning for the future in the protection of resources, particularly when this protection
79 puts immediate constraints on their livelihood. For example, neighboring villages, such as Batoke do not have a forest management program in place and they do not regulate the hunting in the nearby forest. BACOFMAC has instituted sustainable practices through regulation of land use and is also in the process of developing moneymaking options that are alternatives to using forest products for income. It is unusual, but important, for local community members to address conservation of their own forest, on their own terms, because they are the ones who have the most to lose from conservation measures imposed by outsiders who may not appreciate the myriad ways conservation plans can impact forest-dependent people. For example, the Western press coverage tends to treat the bushmeat issue in an emotional way, with few concessions to local interests and little recognition of cultural sovereignty or the notion of cultural relativity. Such a stigma makes moving towards management systems that offer any real prospect of sustainability more difficult (Bowen-Jones et al., 2002). If more villagers took control over forest management initiatives, conservation of endangered plants and animals and their habitat could be more successful. The challenge is that these community conservation efforts are not financially sustaining, at least in the short term. It is difficult for community members to see the purpose of abstaining from common harvesting when they need money now. Also, many of the activities and plans under the forest management project require financial investment in order to be executed. These are finances the community members lack. Local people are the best conservators, but when they live in extreme poverty sustainable use of resources is not always possible. Pressure on forest habitats is particularly acute – forest resources are themselves valuable and the opportunity cost of
80 forested land is often high (Elliott, 2001). The government and developers see forests as being worth more in the form of timber or other commercial product with very little value for subsistence use. Interviews with Mr. Nche about the Forest Management Plan First Interview with Mr. Nche, on the initiation and development of BACOFMAC Mr. Nche is The Forest Manager of BACOFMAC. I met with him on 22 June 2007 in his house in Bakingili village. I used a semiformal interview format. The first question I asked Mr. Nche was how he came to initiate the Bakingili Forest Management Plan/Committee. He explained at length that it came about through the government instituted land use plan for the Southwest province. According to a 1994 amendment to the forestry law, communities were given the right to manage forest tracts (“nonpermanent forest”) as community forest and given options for community forestry. The size of track of protected forestland should not exceed 5,000 hectares. As a consequence, both government and NGOs advised many communities on how to manage their non-permanent forest. After that, the traditional council assembled the community members to discuss the issues at stake. Community members agreed to the plan and the option of creating their own community forest. From this initial agreement, a group was established, which included two members each from the forest users group under BACOFMAC. All the forest user group representatives came together as stakeholders. Also, two people from each current ethnic group in the Bakingili community were presented to the Bakingili traditional council. The forest user and ethnic group representatives assembled and constituted BACOFMAC. The first assignment was to choose a legal statute through which
81 BACOFMAC would operate. The statue was that of a common initiative group, and BACOFMAC was registered as such in 2001. BACOFMAC has an immediate objective to manage the community forest on behalf of the community. The group’s responsibilities are to: 1) sensitize other villagers about the importance of sustainable forestry practices, 2) to ensure strategic planning to sustain forest resources and proper implementation of forest-related policies, 3) to demarcate and maintain forest boundaries, 4) to carry out inventories of species within the forest and 5) to monitor and control the area inside the forest boundaries. These five responsibilities are intended to ensure forest regeneration. BACOFMAC was also given an assignment of other related activities to facilitate sustainable farming, to identify and carry out developmental project standards for sustainable livelihood activities and to support the groups presented in the community initiative. The second question I asked Mr. Nche during this interview was what steps he took to make the forest management plan official. He explained that once all the responsibilities were agreed upon, BACOFMAC compiled the necessary documents for the reservation of the chosen area of the community forest. The forest was then demarcated, the coordinates were recorded, the internal and external boundaries were known and a consultation meeting was held with a Cameroon MINFOF representative from Buea the provincial capital. All this information was documented and forwarded to the Cameroon MINFOF headquarters in Yaoundé, the capital of Cameroon. The forest was officially reserved on 30 March 2005. The Bakingili villagers had a feast and party to celebrate. BACOFMAC then went ahead to elaborate a management plan for the community forest. It was a participatory exercise, and every action in the management
82 plan was derived from a consensus of participants in which they are ALL stakeholders in the forest. The third question I asked Mr. Nche was if it was difficult for him to get agreement in the Bakingili community to develop BACOFMAC and develop his vision of the management plan. He stated that it was very difficult in the beginning because people had different notions of the entire project. He explained that some people thought that the plan was a calculated attempt to bar them from their forest related activities. Some thought it was an attempt to reduce their farmlands, while others thought it was an attempt to drive them into poverty. All this, he said, brought confusion within different facets in the community. After a lot of sensitization and education, and with the assistance of some NGOs such as GTZ, community members realized the entire project would be beneficial to them and to the community at large. Seminars and lectures were held inside and outside the village. It took about one month for Bakingili community members to come to agreement on the management plan. The fourth question I asked Mr. Nche was about the role that the government plays in facilitating plans or supporting BACOFMAC. Mr. Nche explained that the Cameroonian government had revised the forestry law to give communities the right to manage their forests. The government, he said, has also put in place funds through which communities can borrow money from the government to develop their forest management plan. Bakingili did not, however, solicit funds from the government. Instead, the traditional council, and an NGO called CAMCOF gave money to BACOFMAC. Government technical staff were consulted and gave assistance only where and when necessary. Mr. Nche went on to explain that the government lends
83 money for the forest communities to purchase equipment to be used in the implementation of the forest plan. But, again, BACOFMAC did not solicit money for this option because they did not want to take out loans. BACOFMAC is a new community forest program, and Mr. Nche, as the forest plan committee manager, felt a loan would have been too risky in the committee’s early, vulnerable stages. The fifth question I asked Mr. Nche was if the government’s wildlife laws have impacted the Bakingili Village, and if so, how? Mr. Nche immediately responded “YES!! The village could no longer hunt the animals and could no longer pursue the animals they used to. They were restricted to certain species, and were also limited to a particular area in the forest.” (Nche, 2007). Mr. Nche explained that economically villagers were impacted because of the government imposed hunting restrictions that made hunters have to work harder. He said that getting a catch takes longer because types of species legal to hunt and the legal hunting area are limited. These restrictions mean they have to travel farther into the forest. The daily returns from the sales of wildlife by community members were drastically reduced (villagers eat very little bushmeat). Most of the hunted game is sold. The hunting restrictions affected the hunters’ day-to-day activities. They could not enjoy the same meals as easily, pay for their children’s education, or pay for medication. Culturally, Mr. Nche explained, BACOFMAC was not impacted by the Cameroon Wildlife Law restrictions. Second Interview with Mr. Nche: Structure and Organization of BACOFMAC I scheduled another meeting with Mr. Nche to ask him questions about the different committees under BACOFMAC and their respective roles. We met on 28 June 2007 at his house in Bakingili.
84 We sat in his living room as I conducted a semiformal interview comprised of specific questions. The first thing I asked Mr. Nche on this second interview was for him to explain all the committees under the forest management plan and their roles. He began by explaining the structure of the groups and committees under the plan. (see Table 4) Table 4. Organization and Hierarchy of BACOFMAC
Mr. Nche said that within BACOFMAC there is The General Assembly, The (forest management) Board and the Operational Committee. The Bakingili Delegate heads, The Board and the Forest Management Officer heads the Operational Committee. The Delegate is the village representative under the Idenau Municipality which is a political union consisting of six villages in the area that work together to achieve common goals. The Forest Management Officer (or Forest Manager) is Mr. Nche. Mr. Nche has had the privilege of obtaining a university degree in microbiology. He is also the pastor in the village and so has acquired some leadership skills and credibility in the village. The Board formulates policies for BACOFMAC while The Operational Committee implements the policies made by the board, and the General Assembly approves of the board’s policies before being implemented by the Operational
85 Committee. All of these policies are included within the Simple Forest Management Plan. The Operational Committee, as the implementing body of the BACOFMAC’s activities, is made up of representatives of forest reserve groups with activities to be carried out in the community forest. These groups are the Eco-tourism Group, the Wildlife Group, the Bee Keeping Group, the Charcoal Burners Group, the Forest Patrolling Group, and the Nontimber Forest Product Collector Group. All these groups are within the Operational Committee and each carries out specific activities relating to their objectives as spelled out in the Simple Management Plan. For example, if there is an activity in the forest management plan in bee keeping, the plan is under the review of the Bee Keeping Group, or if there is an activity relating to eco-tourism, that plan is overseen by the Eco-tourism Group. Thirty percent of the profits made from the activities of these groups are paid to the BACOFMAC authorities, while 70% of the profits are shared among all members of BACOFMAC. The authorities use the profits for running the committee and for implementing community development projects. As a consequence the activities of each group has individual and community benefits. I asked Mr. Nche how often each group meets. He stated that the General Assembly and the Board each meet three times a year. The Operational Committee meets as often as is necessary. Since this latter committee heads the activities of six groups, the Operational Committee meets whenever the activities of these groups require a meeting, for example, if order is needed and/or if protocols need to be re-established.
86 Third Interview with Mr. Nche about Progress, Challenges and Hopes of BACOFMAC I scheduled a third interview with Mr. Nche on 6 July 2007 to ask him questions about changes, improvements, and challenges of BACOFMAC. Again, the interview was in the living room of his home in Bakingili and the interview was semiformal. I started this interview by asking Mr. Nche about the improvements he has made since the initiation of the plan. He stated that there have been many improvements. He then elaborated by noting the main areas that BACOFMAC has improved its services such as better use, access and ownership of the forest. He explained that as far as use of the forest, the community members have been exposed to many resources and have improved the sustainability of these resources, whereas before some villagers didn’t even know that these resources existed. Access has improved in that now, under BACOFAC, access is understood under the scope of the plan while before the plan, access was restricted because it was under CDC leasehold. Ownership has improved in that now there is a degree of ownership at the community level. Prior to BACOFMAC the forest was mapped under the CDC leasehold. People used to have little rights over the land. Now they have a degree of ownership that facilitates sustainable management of the forest. Mr. Nche added other areas that have improved since the development of BACOFMAC such as livelihoods, sustainability and recognition. He explained that livelihoods of community members have improved since organized forestry groups enjoy benefits of their activities and the community at large benefits from the 30% profits from the user group activities. He also explained that sustainability has improved because the forest is now managed, evaluated, monitored and controlled. The community is also now
87 recognized by organizations such as GTZ, CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research), SNV (Netherlands Development Organization), and FGF (Forest Governance Facility). Getting recognition from these groups is important for BACOFMAC because these groups can offer their ecological and planning expertise and can potentially support some activities financially. Another improvement is the community knowledge of the forest and sustainability. The next question I asked Mr. Nche was the problems he has faced as the Forest Manager. He replied that he has had many challenges and went on to describe several of them. He said that the issue of land rights and ownership had been a very serious problem to resolve with CDC because community members believe that this land belongs to their forefathers and it is their forefathers that gave it to the CDC. They think that it is their right to take back their land, especially those portions of land that have not been planted by the CDC. Mr. Nche stated he thinks the land should be used for conservation. He added that some community members do not understand the activities of the community forest and, as a consequence, they think that revenue from activities of the community forest should be shared with the members, used for drinks and food instead of invested in the management plan and its proposed activities. A very big problem is also the lack of any financial incentives, as villagers receive very little support or allowance of any kind. If any money is generated most of it goes back into to the plan to fund activities. If, in the future, there is more financial backing and, the activities are able to become self-sustaining, villagers will then receive a percent as described under the management plan. The lack of money has made the implementation of the management plan difficult, according to Mr. Nche. He says there
88 are so many activities that need financing to be executed, but the money is never there. Legal challenges can also delay progress. Every year a community forest has to get a Certificate of Exploitation from the Ministry. The Minister, located in the capital of Yaoundé, must sign before any exploitation can legally occur. In addition, marketing of non-timber forest products is a challenge because there isn’t a suitable market. If BACOFMAC had the money, Mr. Nche said he would hire a consultant to do a market survey on all the NTFPs in the forest. Learning the commercial value of these forest products and where to sell them could give BACOFMAC some financial leverage. The implementation process of the forest management plan was challenging for Mr. Nche because, he said, some people in the village think that the plan is a way for the committee to get money from them or to reduce their income. They did not trust it. It took a couple of months for them to trust and realize the benefits of the plan. Also, farming has increased in the community and the plan restricts the amount of land people can use to farm to limit infringement on the forest by an increasing farming business. Most villagers in Bakingili have their own farm. Under the management plan they are restricted on the size. This means they are not allowed to clear more forest to increase their farm size over the limit. The last question I asked Mr. Nche was his plans and hopes for the future of BACOFMAC and the Bakingili Community. He explained that the community is not static so people come and go and the environment changes with the mentality of the people. The forest management team has to continue to sensitize people to the importance of regulating forest use. They must respect forest management. His plans are to mobilize support from national and international organizations to come and help build
89 the community’s capacity and assist in the functions of the management plan. He also hopes to mobilize funding of specific activities of the management plan. Mr. Nche said his hope is that community members are aware of the sustainability. He added that there is hope because the community’s awareness of the importance of the forest is growing every day. Fourth Interview with Mr. Nche about the importance of farming in Bakingili This interview was conducted on 24 July 2007 at Mr. Nche’s home in Bakingili. The interview was semiformal. I asked him a series of specific questions about the farming done by Bakingili villagers in order to get an idea of how much forest is cleared for farming, how much households depend on farming for income and food and to learn if farming is a successful business. I began this interview by asking Mr. Nche if farming has increased in the last ten years and how many farmers there are per household in Bakingili village. He told me that the number of farms in Bakingili has doubled in the last several years and this doubling has been a slow increase over time. He said currently there is about one farmer per household in Bakingili, which has fifty households. Fishing, he said, was a predominant occupation of the Bakingili people. But, as more settlers have migrated into the community, farming became a more practical livelihood option. The settlers, having little or no knowledge of fishing, resorted to farming. These settlers are mostly CDC retired workers and their extended families. These settlers were hired by the CDC to do seasonal or temporary work such as forest clearing. When the job ended, these workers settled in the area. The fishing occupation is less lucrative, which caused both the settlers and indigenous people to turn to farming.
90 I then asked him what types of crops the villagers grow. He explained that farmers in Bakingili grow tree and plant crops. The tree crops consist of palm and cocoa. The plant crops include, maize, cassava, plantains and some cocoa yams. The vegetable crops are bitter leaf and huckleberry. Next I asked him what food or products are harvested or made from the crops. He explained that palm is processed to make palm oil, and cassava is processed to make “fufu” (a starchy staple food). The rest of the farmed products are sold whole and are not processed. I then asked him where the products are sold. He responded that some of the products are sold in Bakingili and some are sold at the market in Limbe. However, market vendors from Limbe will go to Bakingili to buy palm oil, which is purchased in twenty liter bottles. The vendors pay 6,000 to 9,000 CFA ($14 to $21 USD) per bottle, depending on the season. The vendors then transfer the palm oil to smaller bottles and sell it for a profit at the market. The vendors purchase as many bottles as are available from Bakingili farmers. My next question was who buys the products. Mr. Nche said vendors from Limbe, mostly businessmen, buy the products. Women from surrounding villages also buy the palm oil and then sell it at the market in smaller bottles for profit. When they go to Bakingili to buy palm oil, they buy as much as is available. I then ask Mr. Nche what the most profitable crop is. He said palm oil is the most lucrative crop followed by maize, plantains, then cassava. Under the Bakingili Forest Management Plan, 92 hectares of land are allocated for farming and to be used specifically for agro-forestry. The agro-forestry program is in the beginning stages. Each farmer is then allocated one or more maximum plots for a maximum of 3.5 hectares. Mr. Nche, for example, has three pieces of land that total 3.5 hectares. He grows palms, cassava, maize and a few plantains. In the peak season he
91 makes as much as 80,000 CFA ($188 USD) a month and in the low season makes 40,000 to 50,000 CFA ($90 to $118 USD) a month. This amount is considered a good living in Bakingili. Mr. Nche explained that income of 40,000 to 80,000 CFA ($94 to $188 USD) a month from farming is common in Bakingili. He further explained that one of the challenges farmers face is getting viable seedlings that are resistant to disease. Healthy viable seedlings produce more fruit. Access to land is one of the issues that the Forest Management Plan has with the agro-forestry program. Bakingili villagers want to use more land for farming to make more money but are restricted under BACOFMAC because the sustainability of the forest is a priority. Farming in Bakingili can provide households with a stable income if they have enough land. But, with increasing population and limited access to land because of CDC ownerships, there is a clear need for a management plan that can leverage and negotiate land tenure rights, regulate access to land and to initiate sustainable practices. Interviews with Local Fishermen The Importance of Fishing Fishing has traditionally been the main livelihood for people living on the western shores of Mount Cameroon. Bakingili, for example, was originally a fishing village with fish being a staple food. Fishing in now done primarily to make money and is a main economic activity in the area. Villagers are now more likely to fish to make money than to provide sustenance for their household. However, fishermen still reserve some fish to be eaten by their family. Limbe, is a main fishing hub in the Southwest Province. Local fishermen have grown up learning the trade, while others travel and relocate to Limbe to
92 learn and take advantage of the fishing industry there. Limbe is the home of a large with many vendors and outdoor restaurants. People travel from other towns and cities to buy fish there. Bakingili fishermen take their catch to the Limbe fish market to sell to the vendors there. Despite the strong presence of fishing in this area, an increase in commercial fishing by large companies has restricted this livelihood and so many have resorted to hunting and farming to supplement their income. Bakingili Skin Diver Interview Because of the importance of fishing, I interviewed fishermen on fishing techniques, the types of fish they harvest, the prices of these fish and the challenges they face. For these interviews I took hand written notes. Bakingili is located just a few yards from an ocean beach. There are approximately fifty fishermen in Bakingili who use three different fishing techniques. On 24 July 2007 I met with a Bakingili Village fisherman named Noel Elangwe Joseph (“Noel”) at Mr. Nche’s home. We sat in Mr. Nche’s living room. Mr. Nche was present while he watched television with his young child. I interviewed Noel because of his expertise as a fisherman in the village and his knowledge of the local fishing industry. I began the interview by asking Noel to tell me about the fishing process. He explained that there are three kinds of fishing with net fishing being the most common. The second most common is skin diving and the third is rod and reel. All three types of fishing use the traditional wooden dugout canoe made by local craftsmen. The net fishermen always have two or more fishermen on the boat to assist with the net and to pull in heavy catches. A large net can be up to 100 m long. Some rod and reel, or hook, fishermen fish from shore and some fish from a canoe. Hook fishermen can go out in the canoe alone.
93 Noel is a skin diver. He dives into the ocean wearing goggles, flippers and a snorkel and uses an air-propelled gun to get the fish. Skin divers dive deep down in the water to catch large fish that can only be found at lower ocean levels. The gun is similar to a bow and arrow and contains a harpoon like spear. The spear is about 1.5 m long. There are smaller ones that are used to get fish under stones. There are also two different types of guns: pressurized and non-pressurized. The pressurized ones have more power but are more expensive, and most skin divers in the area cannot afford them. Noel further explained that the peak fishing season is September to November, which is when most of the largest fish can be caught. There is another short season from December to March when the catches are smaller. During the peak season he fishes everyday except Sunday. If the tide is too high and there is wind Noel said he does not go fishing because it is too dangerous. Skin divers usually have three people in the canoe, one person to man the boat, one to act as a lookout, and the third to dive for the fish. Noel said that he takes most of his catch to Down Beach in Limbe to sell since Bakingili does not have good buyers. Down Beach is a fishing hub and is the largest fish market in the Southwest Province. Noel briefly described the challenges of his job. He said he does not have good materials, and he has to use a small boat. Commercial net fishing interferes with the skin divers. These large vessels come from Nigeria and China. They have huge nets and, when they cast these nets, they take everything, including the fish and other fishermen’s nets. The large, commercial vessels also destroy a lot of fish. For example, there are often small dead fish on the shore that had been injured by the large vessels’ nets. This commercial fishing contributes to the poverty to the local fishermen because they cannot
94 compete. Local fishermen complain to the district head, but nothing is done. Legally, the large vessels are supposed to fish 8km from land, but they come right up to the shore, and the police do not penalize these large vessels. According to Noel, the police just confiscate the fish and don’t enforce the law. Noel added that he feels that if the government would take measures to sanction the big vessels, local village poverty would be eliminated. Local fishermen make their money from the sea. Enforcement of the law as it applies to commercial fishing will, he said, create a better standard of living for the local fishermen. Noel added that there are no laws restricting the fishing of local fishermen. I continued the interview by asking Noel some specific questions about local fishermen. I asked him how many fishermen are in Bakingili. He said at the most 50, and then explained that almost all the indigenous people fish. Most of the youths use the diving technique. Noel then reiterated that most of the fishing is specialized by technique, net, hook and diving, then added that a few skin divers will hook fish if the conditions are favorable, but not many. Also, net fishermen catch some of the same fish as divers and some small fish. Next, I asked Noel to name of the fish that he catches. He said, red snapper, barracuda, golden fish, crocka, capitan, and black snapper. All these fish are big (30 kg or more). He added that capitan sells better than do the other fish and always has a good price in the market, in part because people like the taste. I then asked how many fish he typically catches in one outing. He said that 15 to 20 fish a day is a good day, but, he can go fishing two days in a row and catch nothing. The next question I asked was what he does with the fish. He said households consume
95 some of the fish, but much of it is sold to fish market vendors. Bakingili fishermen save a small portion of their catch for household consumption, and sell another small portion to other villagers. The majority of their catch, however, is taken to the town of Limbe to be sold to restaurant owners or to fish vendors at the large Limbe fish market. Noel said that he takes most of his catch to Down Beach or to nice hotels. I asked him who tends to buy the fish. He said restaurants, hotels or women fish-smokers who sell it for commercial purposes. I asked him if there are conflicts in Bakingili with fishermen from other villages. He said no. I then asked if there are conflicts with the commercial fishermen. He said, yes, that the locals are angry but they do not have access to speak to commercial fishermen. To get an idea of the success of fishing as a trade I asked Noel approximately how much he makes a week from fishing. He said that he makes between 70,000 and 100,000 CFA a week ($165 to $235 USD) in the peak season. I then asked Noel if Bakingili fishermen do other things to make money. He said that some farm as well and some have other small businesses such as little stores. To get an idea of the labor or expenses of the fishing trade, I asked Noel who makes the nets. He said that the net fishermen buy the nets from specialists in Limbe at Down Beach. He was not sure what they cost. I then asked him who makes or carves the canoes. He said some of the fishermen specialize in boat making, but some non-fishermen also make the boats. They are all from Bakingili. Noel added that everyone just uses the boats if they are from the Bakingili community because they are one. If fishermen are from outside of Bakingili, they have to rent the
96 boat. The guns, he said, come from Douala. The fishermen share the costs of the guns, and they use them for a long time. Meetings with Down Beach Fishermen On 27 July 2007 I arranged to go to Down Beach to talk to the fishermen. I walked to the area of the beach where all the fishing boats were and introduced myself to the first young man I saw standing near the boats. I first spoke with a young fisherman named Gabriel. The conversation was informal. Gabriel has his own boat and is a net fisherman. Gabriel informed me that he fishes four times a week, is successful each time and makes between 4,000 and 12,000 CFA each day ($9 and $28 USD). He can sell one large barracuda for up to 12,000 CFA ($28 USD). He added that the Chinese commercial fishing vessels disrupt his fishing by damaging his nets. On 28 July 2007 I walked to Down Beach again. This time I met with another Down Beach fisherman named Martin. Martin and I talked at length about his fishing business. He is also a net fisherman. He gets up at 2 am to go fishing. He says he tries to make 20,000 CFA a day ($47 USD), but often only makes 5,000 CFA ($12.00 USD). However, he can make as much as 50,000 CFA ($118. 00 USD) on a good day. He said there are less fish than there used to be and more fishermen. He said most of the fishermen are Cameroonian and come from both the Northwest and Southwest provinces and the Dja area in the south central region of Cameroon. He said there are now about 200 fishermen based out of Down Beach, while there used to be about 50. There are one to three men per boat. The marine animals Martin catches are bouchette, bossu, barracuda, crab, strokander, shark, capitan, and tortoise. Tortoises are endangered and illegal to hunt.
97 The fine is high if one is caught. The fish he catches are seasonally available. For example, bossu is caught in the rainy peak season and shark and dolphin are caught in the dry peak season. Also, there are different kinds of nets for different marine life. The mesh size varies: small mesh size is to catch small fish and large mesh size is used to catch large fish. Twenty eight millimeter is the smallest mesh size and is used to catch strokander and bossu. Legally, commercial fishermen are restricted from using this size because it damages the catch and is wasteful. Forty millimeter is medium sized and is used to catch barracuda and bouchette. Fifty to sixty five millimeters is large sized and used to catch tortoise, shark and dolphin. Some fishermen will harvest tortoise even though it is illegal to do so. Martin says he does not catch tortoise because the fine is too high if caught. Eighty millimeter is very large and is also used to catch shark dolphin and tortoise. When I asked Martin how much he sells the fish for, he said that it depends on the size and quality of the fish. Bouchette, he said, is more expensive than barracuda. A large bouchette, for example, can sell for 45,000 CFA ($106 USD) while barracuda sells for between 18,000 and 30,000 CFA ($42 and $71 USD). One kilogram of shark sells for 45,000 CFA ($106 USD). Shark fins are valuable, but Martin said he does not know what they are used for and fins are more expensive than the meat. A large tortoise also sells for about 45,000 CFA, but they are rare. Some fishermen consider themselves lucky if they catch a tortoise because it is rare and worth a lot. For some catching a tortoise is worth the risk. Martin said he prefers to use a big net to catch the large more valuable fish so he doesn’t have to fish as often. He added that the price of fish has gone up because of scarcity.
98 Martin sells his catch to the fish vendors at the market. The vendors smoke or grill the fish before they sell it. Martin noted that his income also depends on the ocean current. Fishing is Martin’s career. He owns two boats and rents the second boat out for 10,000 CFA ($24.00 USD) a month. Fishing Discussion My interviews with the three fishermen indicate that fishing, as a livelihood in the Limbe/Bakingili area is fairly lucrative. Once these fishermen’s catch arrives at the seashore, it is usually bought wholesale by women who then smoke it and sell it at retail. Traders come from nearby towns of Tiko and Douala to buy and smoke fish (Tanyi Tako, 1999). However, the fishing industry is becoming much more competitive with more people coming from other areas to make a living. Fishermen complained that stocks seem to be smaller, and it is more difficult to get larger fish than it was in the past. Also, the presence of commercial fishing vessels in the last few years is not only impacting fishermen, but is creating more pressure on the forest. Local fishermen supplement their income with farming, which means they clear areas of forest to establish agricultural plots. Interviews with Directors of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) Several prominent NGOs have programs in the Mount Cameroon area aimed at preserving the region’s high biodiversity. They collaborate with each other while also managing their respective activities to achieve their own missions in the region. I interviewed several NGO directors each in his or her respective offices based in Limbe. All the interviews were semiformal.
99 Meeting with German Technical Program (GTZ) Director I spoke with Mr. Eberhardt Gotz, the director of Cameroon’s GTZ program on 2 July 2007. I did not need to ask many questions, as Mr. Gotz readily explained the mission of GTZ in Cameroon and their associated projects. Mr. Gotz stated that GTZ’s mission is to use a holistic landscape approach to conservation by assessing the political, socioeconomic and socio-ecological characteristics of communities in the area. GTZ manages three main protected areas in Cameroon: the Takamanda National Forest (3,500 hectares), Korup National Park (1.2 million hectares) and, the up and coming Mt. Cameroon National Park (3,000 hectares) which will be officially announced in early 2008. Mt. Cameroon National Park, he explained, is mainly a collaboration of the WWF and the Cameroonian government organization, MINFOF. Other NGOs in the area also are participating in the protection of the National Park. GTZ advanced its program by collaborating with these other NGOs. Such collaborations were rare in the past. They now work with WWF, WCS, and the German Development Service (DED). GTZ is financed by the German Development Bank (KFW). KFW also gives some funding to the other the NGOs along with GTZ whom has collaborated for project specific programs. This means that these specific projects have some expenses covered by KFW such as specific research projects and some overhead costs, but KFW does not pay salaries. GTZ, Mr. Gotz said, works with about 11 villages in the area whose members are motivated to protect their resources. They educate the public about in issues regarding wildlife, sustainable management, conservation, etc.. They assist villages in developing management plans and help pay for roads, running water and the resolution of land tenure
100 disputes. Roads are important because they make it easier for farmers to bring their products to the market. GTZ is also responsible for making land use maps that are used to plan for improvement in land use. They have a GIS unit and an officer trained to make accurate maps. The land use recommendations and maps are discussed with a provincial planning group and are used to mark roads and the community forests of separate villages. Meeting with Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Research Coordinator I met with Ymka Warren, Cameroon’s Southwest Province Research Coordinator, at her office in the WCS building in Limbe on 20 June 2007. Ymka is an English woman who had previously worked for a mountain gorilla project in Uganda. I began by asking her to explain WCS’s mission. The mission, she said, is to improve protected areas using a countrywide landscape approach, similar to that of GTZ’s mission. WCS uses sciencebased solutions with a field focus. Their projects are results oriented so the work is monitored. WCS’s goal is to manage landscapes sustainably. This means that an area such as a national park is considered a landscape where community based natural resource management (CBNRM) is the conservation approach. Because of WCS’s collaboration with GTZ, the KFW bank funds some WCS projects. I then asked Ymka what projects WCS is working on in Cameroon. She explained that WCS manages three projects: the CamRail project that monitors and enforces bushmeat trafficking on the rail from Ngaoundere (a large town in eastern Cameroon) to Yaoundé (the capital city), the Banyang-Mbo Wildlife Sanctuary Project whose goal is to establish a protected area for endangered species such as the chimpanzee and elephant, and the Takamanda-Mone Landscape Project whose goal is to protect biodiversity and
101 the Cross River gorilla’s (Gorilla gorilla diehli) habitat in collaboration with the government. The agency uses the Cross River gorilla as a flagship species to generate money and interest in Takamanda. But, there are several other charismatic flagship animal species in the forest such as chimpanzee and elephant, in addition to many plant species. Meeting with Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Program Director Southwest Province I met with Aaron Nichols, the Program Director of WCS’s Southwest Province program, at his office in the WCS building in Limbe on June 25th, 2007. Aaron’s role is to coordinate activities for the Takamanda-Mone Landscape project. This is the blending of two previous projects, which were the Cross River Gorilla project and the Cameroon/Nigeria Trans-boundary project. The focal species for this project remains the Critically Endangered Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli). Aaron explained that there are eleven isolated groups of Cross River gorillas. Seven of the groups are in Cameroon, three are in Nigeria and one is on the Cameroon/Nigeria border. The proposed Takamanda National Park holds three of the eight Cameroon groups. One of the main activities that the Takamanda landscape project is involved with is establishing protected areas including the proposed Takamanda National Park and Kagwene Gorilla Sanctuary. The Banyang-Mbo forest has already been established as a wildlife sanctuary. WCS also manages a research station there. Aaron elaborated that research underpins many of the actions that WCS implements and, with a long history of a presence in SW Cameroon, the project has at its heart a number of local researchers (many ex-hunters) who have gained significant skills
102 over the years related to field surveys and particularly Cross River gorilla monitoring. The organization now has a good understanding of where these gorillas occur and their genetic relatedness. One of the most important current issues is to develop ways to ensure Cross River gorilla conservation across the landscape through investigating the species’ use of corridors connecting the various populations. Lasting progress can really only be measured over the longer term. WCS Southwest Province is currently looking five to ten years ahead for assessing progress on many of their larger initiatives. Meeting with Worldwide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) Southwest Province Director, Cameroon I met with Dr. Atanga Ekobo, Cameroon’s Southwest Province Director, at his office in the WWF building in Limbe on 18 July 2007. Dr. Ekobo is a Cameroonian national. It is rare for nationals to hold these higher posts in these conservation NGOs that are originated in western countries. I asked Dr. Ekobo a few questions. He readily answered all questions and added information about the programs that WWF is leading in the Southwest Province. I started by asking him what WWF’s role is in the Southwest Province and what projects are going on now. He said there is a coastal forest program, which addresses sustainable management of the natural resources in the Southwest Province. WWF also manages the Korup National Park and will also be managing the soon to be announced Mount Cameroon National Park. WWF also manages the Bakossi landscape project. Bakossi is an area just east of Bakingili and the Bakossi people are a local ethnic group. WWF’s goal in this project is to mitigate overexploitation of forest resources while addressing alternative livelihood
103 options for the Bakossi people. The KFW bank helps Cameroon MINFOF finance these projects through a joint funding effort. Next, I asked Dr. Ekobo the successes WWF has had so far in protecting wildlife. He said that in regards to the Bakossi landscape project, which integrates conservation with alternative livelihoods, WWF has been successful in reducing illegal forest use. Some hunters, he said, have resigned and taken up small-scale activities, such as cane rat farming, bee keeping, snail farming and domestic livestock farming. Snail farming, he added, has the potential to be a lucrative business, but it takes time because of the processing, freezing and selling involved. There is an international market that he hopes to exploit. WWF is looking for a certified buyer for a regular market. Cane rat domestication is still being studied as WWF staff need to assess the popularity of it and the likelihood of success of production. A number of cane rat farms, 15 snail farms and 30 bee farms can be seen in the Bakossi area. The bee farms, Dr. Ekobo added, are successful both in production and at the market. Products such as honey and wax are sold at a local market. One major success WWF has had with the Mount Cameroon and Korup National Parks is the regulation of elephant poaching. They do this by monitoring the movements of the elephants, by documenting local forest-users’ visual reports of elephant activities, such as crop raiding, and by measuring harvesting levels. He said poaching is still occurring in Korup National Park. I then asked Dr. Ekobo what the biggest conservation challenges in Cameroon are. He said conservation conflicts with people’s needs, so WWF tries to understand and accommodate these needs relative to the specific cultures of each group of people. Deception is another challenge, he said. There have been promises made by NGOs,
104 individuals, and the government and then they don’t follow through with alleged job opportunities or new livelihood alternatives. This may be because the funding isn’t there or because those heading the projects keep the money for themselves. Meeting with Limbe Wildlife Center’s (LWC) Assistant Manager I met with LWC’s Assistant Manger, Simone de Vries, in her office at the wildlife center in Limbe on 10 July 2007. I first asked her how the wildlife center is funded. This wildlife center, she explained, works in collaboration with the Cameroonian government. The vast majority of the funding comes from Pandrillus of the United States and Born Free of England, but LWC also gets some financial and police support from the Cameroonian government. For example, the government pays staff salaries, but Pandrillus pays for everything else, including “top offs”—a little extra money paid to the staff to cushion their salaries. I then asked Simone about the mission of LWC. She responded that LWC’s mission is to protect endangered species in the area by providing a refuge for these endangered animals that have been victims of the bushmeat or pet trade. She elaborated that all the animals at LWC were the offspring of adult animals killed by a hunter for bushmeat, and then sold as a pet. Most all of the animals (mostly primates) at the center are there because someone reported to the police or LWC staff that they witnessed someone keeping or selling a legally protected animal. Occasionally, someone owning an animal illegally will voluntarily give the animal to LWC. This may be because the animal has become too big and unruly for the person to handle, or because they have been informed by LWC staff or someone else that owning an endangered species is illegal and that LWC can better care for the animal.
105 Next I asked Simone how LWC acquires these animals. She explained that once an animal is reported, the center contacts the Senior Wildlife Officer, who then contacts the police, who then assist the wildlife officer in confiscating the animal. Often the people who have the pet in their custody want money before they will relinquish it. Simone stated that it is not LWC’s policy to pay for any animals because of the financial incentive this provides hunters and traders and its potential to perpetuate illegal activity. However, it is LWC’s policy to try to befriend those who capture or trade the animals, and by doing so, create an opportunity to embrace and educate the perpetrator with an attempt to change their views on animals, with the hope that they will not repeat the offense. Simone also explained that often a first-time offender will not be penalized to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, a small financial penalty may be incurred along with an explanation of why one should not sell or own endangered species. However, a repeat offender will be treated much more seriously. Also, those in remote villages often are not penalized under the law since they are living in poverty and rely on forest animals to survive. Those who are aware of the laws and the issues are not given as much leniency, and their crime is reported to the police. The approach is to educate and sensitize people in the process of confiscation and enforcement. LWC also provides several types of educational programs. There are a Nature Club and different kinds of workshops. Simone then went on to explain all the education programs that they organize. Limbe Wildlife Center’s Education and Outreach Programs and Efforts The primary purpose of the Nature Club is to teach children about the biodiversity of the Mt. Cameroon area in hopes of instilling an appreciation of the area and encourage
106 a sense of stewardship. The Nature Club was established in 1997. The Nature Club is comprised of interested primary school children. There are about 20 children who attend the meetings every week, and a few who come more sporadically. A couple of the Nature Club members are now volunteers at LWC. Workshops for school age children are organized by LWC and occur as the need arises or if there is a special request. For example, LWC has held holiday workshops for the past nine years sponsored by the Bush Garden Zoo in Florida. The holiday workshop is intended to teach children about Mount Cameroon’s unique environmental features, its surrounding forests, the endangered species in the area, wildlife enforcement and the problem with over hunting, as well as problems with the buying and selling of live animals for pets. The bushmeat trade is usually the main workshop topic, but in 2007 the topic was the proposed Mount Cameroon National Park, since it is a current and important issue in the area. The students attending the workshop were taken to a village called Mapanja, which is on the edge of the proposed park, to talk to the villagers. The students were instructed to make a list of questions for the villagers. They asked about how the villagers use their forest and what the villagers think about the Park. The students learned that the villagers tended to think that the National Park could restrict their use of the forest, because they see the forest as theirs to use as they wish and should not be told by outsiders how to use it. Also, this year as part of a workshop the children participated in an international online chat with Bush Garden Zoo students at a holiday camp. Simone said that the students loved it the opportunity to interact online. A wildlife researcher, Dr. Bethan Morgan, has organized workshops for hunters from villages near Ebo Forest, which is Northeast of Limbe. The workshop is designed
107 to educate the hunters and explain why they should not hunt endangered species. Last year they asked the hunters to divide into two groups for a mock debate on hunting. One group debated on the side of hunters and the other on the side of conservationists. LWC has also conducted workshops for tourist guides in the nearby town of Buea. The workshop’s purpose was to explain to the guides how to present environmental issues, how to treat western tourists and how to show general good manners and etiquette when dealing with the public. In addition, LWC has an outreach program where two staff members, Wilson and Evelyn, go to the schools and teach for five months. LWC also organized and sponsored a law enforcement workshop that teaches government officials such as gendarmeries the names and physical appearance of endangered species so officials can quickly identify an illegal species that a hunter, pet seller or bushmeat vendor is selling or has in his or her possession. The presence of these well-established conservation organizations gives credence to the importance of conservation in this unique area. WCS’s efforts with preserving and protecting the Cross River gorillas to the north, WWF’s effort to address poverty and livelihood options, and GTZ’s effort to preserve a landscape by getting community cooperation represent a high regard and concern for all the components that need care and consideration that go beyond a western world’s concern for wildlife. These organizations realize that embracing the hunters and farmers and other forest dependent people will garner better results than merely placing restrictions on their traditional habits.
108 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION Cameroon is one of several sub-Saharan African countries where bushmeat is exploited, and several species have become endangered or threatened with extinction as a consequence. Cameroon’s changing economy is partially to blame for an increase in local people’s forest dependence and hence an increase in hunting and farming. Cameroon’s boom and bust economic cycle caused population migrations from urban to rural areas when a declining economy caused a reduction in urban jobs, which forced people to relocate to rural areas to exploit the forest to make a living (Ndoye & Kaimowitz, 2000). This forest dependence puts intense pressure on wildlife. Cultural norms, such as the use of wildlife for special occasions and ceremonies and people’s taste preferences for wild meat also continue to contribute to the exploitation of bushmeat (Fa et al., 2002). The forests of the Southwest Province of Cameroon have been exploited for these reasons, and bushmeat is an integral part of people’s everyday lives as they depend on it for both food and income. The high biodiversity and pressure on forest resources in the Southwest Province has attracted several nongovernmental conservation organizations working to protect endangered species and to assist local communities in the development of alternative life ways. Some of these NGOs also provide education for and outreach to local communities. These education programs, along with enforcement of legally protected species, have influenced the behavior of both hunters and sellers of bushmeat. Bushmeat and pepper soup vendors who I interviewed from the Southwest Province villages of Batoke and Bakingili said that they do not sell legally protected
109 species. I found that the species that all vendors sell are consistent with each other: porcupine, duiker, monkey, deer, and cane rat. Porcupine is the animal sold the most consistently by these vendors because it is still abundant in the forest and because people like the taste. Deer is not sold very often because it is more rare than small animals, but it reaps the most profit compared to the other species sold because of its larger size. The Batoke bushmeat vendors told me that they do not sell legally protected species because they are fearful of the wildlife law enforcement. Batoke vendors indicated that they resent the law because it has impacted their livelihoods and has resulted in a decline in the number of bushmeat vendors in Batoke in the past three years. By contrast, Bakingili pepper soup vendors told me that they are not fearful of the law because the wildlife police do not patrol there. The reason Bakingili pepper soup vendors do not sell legally protected species is because it goes against BACOFMAC’s memorandum, which does obligate villagers to uphold the law. Both Bakingili and Batoke vendors stated in my interviews with them that they would sell threatened and endangered species if it were legal to do so. The attitudes of the vendors towards the law as well as their reduced incomes demonstrate that these wildlife dependent livelihoods are vulnerable to conservation efforts by government and nongovernment entities. The women’s attitude was expressed in their fear of the wildlife law enforcement, their reluctance to sell endangered species and also their disappointment in losing profits because of being forced to limit market sales to only certain species. My research indicates that current bushmeat hunter (Joseph) from Bakingili, like the pepper soup vendors, is part of BACOFMAC and does not hunt legally protected species. Other hunters from Bakingili, however, do hunt protected species because they
110 are skeptical of BACOFMAC and are unwilling to alter their hunting agenda and risk losing potential income. Joseph told me during interviews that hunting is his main livelihood. He sells most of his catch to the markets in Batoke but may keep some of his catch for household use or to be prepared and sold as pepper soup to sell to passers by. Daniel, a former hunter from Batoke, told me that he gave up hunting because he became sensitized to the conservation efforts by a nongovernment organization in the area. Also, he noticed that species were becoming scarce in the forest. He told me that bushmeat hunters in Batoke do not hunt endangered species, but these species are being hunted by others and sold behind the scenes. Daniel has been able to get paid as a forest guide through his connections with personnel based at LWC. Since he was able to establish an alternative income, the pressure for him to hunt for a living was reduced. Despite vendors and hunters from Bakingili and Batoke telling me that they do not hunt legally protected species, and despite conservation efforts and law enforcement, endangered species still continue to flow into LWC, and I saw several orphaned chimpanzees, guenons, drills and gorillas during my visit there. This indicates that protected species are not normally sold in rural bushmeat markets, but are likely being sold on the black market to people in the urban areas. In addition to hunting and farming, fishing is also an important livelihood for some people in the Bakingili Village and in Limbe. However, I was told in my interviews with fishermen that it has become more difficult because of an increase in the numbers of local fishermen and because of the presence of commercial fishing vessels in the past few years. This increased competition has caused a decline in fish stocks. Fishermen have resorted to farming to supplement their income. Therefore, both fishermen and bushmeat
111 hunters out of necessity have created an increase demand for farming in the area, which has put increased pressure on the forest. The pressure on the forests demonstrates the importance of conservation in the area and the vital role played by Bakingili’s forest management plan (BACOFMAC). Because of the creation of BACOFMAC Bakingili villagers were able to garner the authority and power to negotiate traditional land rights with the large agriculture company, the CDC. Through these negotiations, a community forest zone was demarcated and regulated hunting and farming zones were established. External conservation efforts have influenced BACOFMAC, and NGO projects have inspired Mr. Thomas Nche to these as a model for creating BACOFMAC. Yet, these other organizations have international (mostly western world) financial backing, making it much easier for them to afford the initial investment needed to carry out these projects. They also have access to western world philanthropic organizations and individuals to promote their conservation agendas. BACOFMAC’s lack of money is what makes their effort so interesting. I found that no one involved in its respective committees gets personal compensation to carry out their duties. For example, BACOFMAC’s Wildlife Group does not get paid to patrol the Bakingili forest to deter intruders from hunting there. However, Mr. Nche was able to instill in Bakingili community members a sense of responsibility for their forest, so some duties are carried out even without the financial incentive. Mr. Nche told me during interviews that generating the will to do something is more important than generating money. Money is needed only after the importance of a forest management plan is realized and the desire to obtain it is felt. Now that the will to protect the forest has been achieved, BACOFMAC
112 could benefit from financial backing to propel activities. Therefore, financial backing would not only be practical, but would also provide hope and inspiration for these committee members who are sacrificing immediate return for the future of their forests. NGOs based in Limbe have overlapping goals of wildlife conservation, but they may differ in their approaches. During my interviews with NGO officials, I found WCS focuses on wildlife monitoring and protection, WWF focuses on livelihood options to deter overexploitation of the forest, GTZ focuses on community based forest management for long term use and sustainability, and LWC has a focus on providing a sanctuary for animals and has a strong community education agenda. All of these organizations have a strong presence in the surrounding Mount Cameroon area. Part of this presence is the jobs they provide. These organizations mostly hire nationals and are invested in providing training for interested and/or qualified personnel. So, to an extent, NGOs contribute to the local economy. I found, however, that these jobs are limited and are usually only offered to the more formally educated. Education is still a novel opportunity that few can afford. In the course of my research, I found that another type of NGO presence is a subtle but pervasive awareness in the community that conservation is important. How this awareness translates to the community members’ everyday lives is ambiguous. For example, the bushmeat vendors resent law enforcement, but have come to see that more time and energy goes into harvesting wildlife than was true in the in the past. The BACOFMAC Wildlife Group Manager, who is also a hunter, has a vested interest in protection of his forest for the long term and feels the new Mount Cameroon National Park is a positive thing for the area, the animals, and the Bakingili Forest. Daniel, an ex-
113 hunter, has made a career opportunity out of the conservation in the area. The BACOFMAC treasurer, who has his own farm, also works for the CDC. Given the limited job opportunities available and conservation restrictions, people do whatever they can to make money. Although people I interviewed sometimes blamed conservation and enforcement for jeopardizing livelihoods, it may be conservation and enforcement, which in the end, prove to be the essential tools to maintain sufficient populations of animals for hunters and soup vendors to continue their rural livelihoods. Community-based wildlife programs, such as the one I describe in this thesis, have the potential to use conservation tools that are acceptable to those whose livelihoods are vulnerable by means of inclusion and collaboration of both funders and community members. Enforcement of hunting regulations can deter hunting of endangered species as long as hunters have alternative livelihoods. Given the cultural habits, taste preferences, and economic incentives that perpetuate the harvesting of bushmeat, is it possible that economic and dietary alternatives provided by NGOs can deter overexploitation of wildlife? Is it possible for education by government and NGOs to deter the hunting of only the larger endangered species such as drills, giant pangolin, chimpanzee and elephant? Or, will people continue to hunt whatever they can to supplement their incomes even if other economic and dietary options become more available? One possible solution is a government policy that makes domestic meat affordable and readily available to rural populations while also imposing high penalties on the selling and trading of threatened and endangered species in the cities. If effective, rural taste preferences for domestic meat could change over
114 time. Strong law enforcement to deter hunting and selling of rare species combined with options of affordable domestic meat could have long-term benefits for wildlife conservation. Manipulating potential changes in taste preferences does not, however, solve the rural economic problem. It is those in the urban areas that have greater opportunities for both education and jobs. Rural people, besides having limited dietary options, also need cash income to pay for education, medicine and other commodities. In an instance where an improved national and/or regional economy occurs, governments could subsidize domestic breeding schemes or other programs to provide income and jobs for marginalized, rural people. The redistribution of wealth may reduce forest dependence. Environmental projects in the Mount Cameroon area highlight the need to ensure a more even value distribution between government and local people, if livelihood improvements are to be significant and sustainable (Elliott, 2001). Conservation is so important in the Mount Cameroon because of the poverty induced forest exploitation. The forest, being an important resource as a means for rural people to make money, will benefit from conservation efforts to manage the exploitation levels sustainably for the future of the national economy, rural livelihoods and wildlife populations. Collaboration between conservationists, governments, policy makers, and developers is key in order to encourage economic development that is practical for the futures of both people and wildlife. One step in this complex effort is prudent management of natural resource exploitation that fairly compensates rural people.
115 REFERENCES Ayukegba, P. (1999). Biodiversity in Development Case Study Series 2. Cameroon Mount Cameroon Project. Biodiversity in Development 1-34. Bakarr, M.I., Adomako, O., & Ham, R. (2001, September). Bushmeat Utilization, Human Livelihoods and Conservation of Large Mammals in West Africa. Links between Biodiversity and Conservation, Livelihoods and Food Security: The sustainable use of wild meat. Prepared for the IUCN/FAO/TRAFFIC workshop, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Bakingili Community Forest Management Committee document. (February, 2002). Simple Forest Management Plan for Bakingili Community Forest. Bennett, E.L., Blencow, E., Brandon, K., Brown, D., Burn, R.W., & Cowlishaw, G. (2006). Hunting for consensus: reconciling bushmeat harvest, conservation, and development policy in West and Central Africa, Conservation Biology 21, 884887. Bowen-Jones, E., Brown, D., & Robinson, E. (2002). Assessment of the solutionoriented research needed to promote a more sustainable bushmeat trade in Central and West Africa. Wildlife & Countryside Directorate 1-125. Brown, D. (2003, May). Is the best the enemy of the good? Livelihoods perspectives on bushmeat harvesting and trade – some issues and challenges. Presented at The International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, Germany. Brown, K. & Ekoko, F. (2001). Forest Encounters: Synergy Among Agents of Forest Change in Southern Cameroon. Society and Natural Resources 14, 269-290.
116 Chamberlain, J.L., Cunningham, A.B., & Nasi, R. (2004). Diversity in Forest Management: Non-Timber Forest Products and Bush Meat. Renewable Resources Journal Summer. Central Intelligence Agency (1998). University of Texas Libraries. Map of Cameroon. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/cameroon_pol.98.jpg Central Intelligence Agency (1995). University of Texas Libraries. Map of Mount Cameroon. University of Texas Libraries. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/calabar_tpc_1996.jpg Cowlishaw, G. & Dunbar, R. (2000). Primate Conservation Biology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Damania, R., Milner-Gulland, E.J., & Crookes, D.J., (2005). A bio-economic analysis of bushmeat hunting, The Royal Society, 272, 259-266. de Merode, E., Homewood, K., &Cowlishaw, G. (2004). The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological Conservation 118, 573-581. Djeukam, R., (2004). The Wildlife law as a tool for protecting threatened species in Cameroon. Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MINEF), Department of Wildlife and Protected Areas. Elliot, J. (2001). Wildlife and Poverty Study, Phase I Report. Life Stock and Wildlife Advisory Group, Department for International Development. Fa, J.E., Juste, J., Burn, R.W., & Broad, G. (2002). Bushmeat Consumption and Preferences of Two Ethnic Groups in Bioko Island, West Africa. Human Ecology 30(3), 397-415.
117 Fa, J.E., Ryan, S.F., & Bell, D.J. (2005). Hunting vulnerability ecological characteristics and harvest rates of bushmeat species in afrotropical forests. Biological Conservation 121, 167-176. Fa, J.E., Seymour, S., Dupain, J., Amin, R., Albrechtsen, L., & Macdonald, D. (2006). Getting to grips with the magnitude of exploitation: Bushmeat in the CrossSanaga rivers region, Nigeria and Cameroon. Biological Conservation 129(4), 497-510. Infield, M. (2001). Cultural Values: a Forgotten Strategy for Building Community Support for Protected Areas in Africa. Conservation Biology 15(3), 800-802. Lawrence, A., Ambrose-Oji, B., Lysinge, R., & Tako, C. (2000). Exploring Local Values for Forest Biodiversity on Mount Cameroon. Mountain Research and Development 20(2), 112-115. Map of Africa (2007). (http://leemeiee.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/map_of_africa.jpg) McGreal, S., (2008). Victory for IPPL: “Taiping Four” Gorillas Return to Cameroon. International Primate Protection League newsletter, http://www.ippl.org/taiping-four-home.php. Mount Cameroon Ecotourism Organization (2004). Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://www.mount-cameroon.org/index.htm. Muchaal, P.K., & Ngandjui, G. (1999). Impact of Village Hunting on Wildlife Populations in the Western Dja Reserve, Cameroon. Conservation Biology, 13(2), 385-396. Nche, T. (June 22, 2007). Quote by Mr. Thomas Nche, the Bakingili Community Forest Management Committee Manager.
118 Ndifor, A. (2007, February 6). Cameroon Cracks Down on Poachers, Cameroon, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007. Ndoye, O. & Kaimowitz, D. (2000). Macro Economics, Markets and the Humid Forests of Cameroon, 1967-1997. The Journal of Modern African Studies 38(2), 225-253. Ngwa, N.E., & Fonjong, L.N. (2002). Actors, options and the challenges of forest management in Anglophone Cameroon, GeoJournal 57, 95-111. Rose, A.L., (2001). Social Change and Social Values in Mitigating Bushmeat Commerce. Bakarr, Fonseca, Mittermeir, Rylands & Walker 1-19. The Biosyergy Institute, Palos Verdes Peninsula, California. http://bushmeat.net/pdf/csc/social-changevalues.pdf. Schenck, M., Effa, E.N., Starkey, M., Wilkie, D., Abernathy, K., & Telfer, P., (2006). Why People Eat Bushmeat: Results From Two-Choice, Taste Tests in Gabon Central Africa. Human Ecology 34(3), 433-445. Sunderlin, W.D., Ndoye, O., Bikie, H., Laporte, N., Mertens, B., & Pokam, J. (2000). Economic crisis, small-scale agriculture, and forest cover change in southern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 27(3), 284-290. Tanyi Tako, C. (1999). Sustainable Wildlife Management: West Coast Area of Mount Cameroon, Limbe Botanic Garden – Carpe IRI Collaborative Research, Desktop Study. United Nations Environment Program (2005). NGO-Governmental Collaboration in Enforcing Wildlife Laws in Cameroon. http://www.unep.org/dec/onlinemanual/Enforcement/InstitutionalFrameworks/Pu blicParticipationProcesses/Resource/tabid/1047/Default.aspx.
119 Wilkie, D.S., Starkey, M., Abernathy, K., Nstame Effa, E., Telfer, P., & Godoy, R. (2005). Role of Prices and Wealth in Consumer Demand for Bushmeat in Gabon Central Africa. Conservation Biology. 19(1), 268-274. Zangwill, Z. (2004). Wildlife law Enforcement in Cameroon, Gorilla Journal 29.
