Monitoring to Base Forest Management Conjlicts in ...

CHAPTER 9

Monitoring to Base Forest Management Conjlicts in Cameroon Phil René Oyono, Mariteuw Chimère Diaw, Samuel Efoua,William Mala, and Samuel Assembe

N 1994, C A M E R O O N L A U N C H E D A C O M P R E H E N S I V E restlUCturing o f

/

its forestry policy that had hitherto been dominated by governnicnt agen-

cies. Driven by dévolution and decentralization, many management rights and responsibilities were transferred to other actors— local communities and com ­ munes (local governments)— allowing them to create conimunity forests and council forests and to hâve direct access to forestry revenue (Carret 2000; M ilo l and Pierre 2000; Fomété 2001; Bigom bé L o go 2003). A new zoning plan was also designed to defme régimes for forest access.The paradigm ofadaptive collab­ orative management (A C M ), based on the interactions, collaboration, and mutual learning o f stakeholders (Lee 1999;Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000), made it seem relevant and innovative for forest management Systems under these policy con­ ditions. Thus A C M research was planned for Cam eroon with its new institutional developments and strong demand from stakeholders for more participation, collaboration, reciprocal adaptation, and horizontality (Ebene and O yo n o 2000; Diaw and O yon o 2001). T h e A C M research team undertook collaborative m onitoring efforts in five sites: Lom ié, Dimako, O ttotom o, Canrpo, and Akok (see O yon o et al. 2003a) (Fig­ ure 9-1). These sites are large management areas— a cluster o f five community forests, a communal forest, a State forest reserve, a national park, and a landscape mosaic that hosts many communities and forest stakeholders. This chapter focuses on Dimako, Lom ié, and Akok and describes different processes o f learning, each shaped by the resource issues that local stakeholders face. Located in the east o f Cameroon, Dimako has a council forest— a forest classified for or planted by a local government and belonging to the private estate o f that government. The classification lays down the boundaries and objectives o f the forests management. Lom ié, also in the east, covers five community forests. A

< liit|>l( i ') M u i i Hmi lii|t i " I > ■ I " "

i M iii.i|>rmriH ( oulhils in ( àimeroon • 95

Figure 9-1. Dimako, Lomié, and Akok, Cameroon

community forest belongs to the national estate and is subject to a management agreement signed bctwecn the village community and the forestry administration. Akok is the site o f a landscape mosaic— agricultural and forest land— in the humid forest zone o f Cameroon. The goal in eacli o f the three sites was to create a multistakeholder process that could generale a sustained and effective mechanism for managing forest régime changes and rclated institutional transformations. A C M team members worked as facilitators and data and information managers with a range o f stakeholders that are specified in each o f the three cases below. T h e -A C M work lasted from early 2001 to the first quarter o f 2003.

96 • Phil Oyono, Chimère Diaw, Samuel Efoua, W illiam Mala, and Samuel Assembe

Dimako: Competing Claims Dimako’s management plan was designed in 2000 by the French-funded Forêts et Terroirs (Forest and Lands) Project. Démarcation o f the council forest had ignored customary landownership, and land-use conflict emerged. Tw o villages toward the north ofthe council forest were claiming seven square kilometers o f agricultural land that they said had been snatched ffom them by the council forest and over which they asserted historical rights.The council responded that forestry législation gave forest ownership to the State. Thus the issue in Dimako was rooted in intergenerational access to the forest and different claims to rights and power over the forest. First, the A C M team members started a participatory action research (P A R ) process involving ail major stakeholders— the people o f the two villages, council authorities, and administrative authorities. T h e first P A R meetings enabled local stakeholders, the researchers, and project experts to better understand the problem and identify its causes and conséquences. Then, the A C M team organized several meetings to facilitate jo in t problem solving (O yon o et al. 2003a; Assembe and O yon o 2004). The tw o main protagonists-—the villages and the Dimako rural council— both resorted to legal arguments based on customary and m odem law. Nevertheless, they agreed to a dialogue facilitated by the A C M team. After many rounds o f discussion, council authorities and the forest management committee agreed to reinstate local rights over half the area taken from the tw o villages. In addition, the people o f another neighboring village, Ngolam bélé, agreed to give part o f their seeondary fallow land, which was not included in the council forest, to people o f one o f the affected villages, Nguinda.These decisions were the main outcome o f the P A R process and fornred the basis o f subséquent collaborative monitoring. On-site stakeholders drafted an agreement covering ail the stages o f the rétroces­ sion process. An ad hoc committee comprising local community représentatives, the municipal council, theTechnical Operational U nit o f the Ministry o f Environment and Forests, and the council forest management committee was created to follow up the process.To seal the plan, an official statement was signed by the stakeholders and witnessed by administrative authorities (Assembe and O yono 2004). After the agreement was reached, the ad hoc committee defmed how change would be implemented and determined that monitoring should focus on the rétro­ cession process and the allocation o f the additional fallow land to the tw o villages. O ver a period o f 10 months, the ad hoc committee and A C M team monitored the process o f change through various meetings, using the agreement and social and agroecological maps. Information related to the tw o main action areas. Thus meetings focused on how and when the council was returning the reallocated agricultural land to the tw o villages, on h ow the neighboring village was ceding its old fallow land, and on how the tw o villages were sharing the retumed land. Problems arose when the two villages had to share the old fallow lands ceded by Ngolam bélé. O n e village wanted to take the lion s share, arguing that it was o f the same lineage as Ngolam bélé. W h en the A C M facilitators and the ad hoc com ­ mittee suggested instead that the village population levels should détermine the division, that idea was accepted. In N ovem ber 2002, the rétrocession -process was

Chapter 9: Monitoring to Ease Forest Management Conflicts in Cameroon • 97

successfully concluded, in part because o f the collaborative m onitoring efforts. Since then, the rôle o f the committee has been to establish and implement local mechanisms aimed at sustaining change, and the m onitoring focus and responsibilities hâve been adjusted accordingly.

Lomié: Local Governance at Stake In the Lom ié région, newly created and established community forests had triggered a “ forestry fever” centered on access to revenue.This generated various conflicts: • between N G O s and local communities, on what the latter called “ excessive supervision” (Klein et al. 2001;Efoua 2002; Etoungou 2003); •

•

within local communities, on how their com m unity forest should be used,some favoring small-scale logging for sustainability reasons, an option defended by N G O s, and others favoring the more profitable nredium-scale loggin g through logging companies; and within local communities, on the mismanagement o f revenue by local manage­ ment committees, which created interest in m onitoring organizational arrange­ ments and ecological sustainability.

Stakeholders included local communities, the local office o f the Ministry o f For­ ests and Environment, the Fédération for the Developm ent o f Com m unity For­ ests, logging companies, and two N G O s, one local and one Dutch.1 During a strategie meeting organized in January 2002 with the fédération and the local N G O , the participants drew up a program o f action fbcused on exchanging expériences am ong the five community forests o f the Lom ié site. T h e idea was to strengthen village management committees and share information about negotiating timber sales, using income generated ffom any sales, and handling any related conflicts. During a forum bringing together ail stakeholders and the A C M team, the féd­ ération and the local N G O received a mandate to monitor this process o f capacity building within the committees with the methodological support o f the A C M team (O yon o et al. 2003a).The local communities were involved in the monitor­ ing through community forest management committees, which belonged to the fédération. Information about forest management and any related incom e and conflicts was collected ffom each village. M onthly on-site meetings were held to share expériences, discuss community forest management, and explore best prac­ tices leading to both community forest sustainability and human well-being (Box 9 -l).T h e s e village-level meetings brought together on average 30 participants. In parallel, the A C M team facilitated the collaborative development and simpli­ fication ofindicators ofsustainable community forests management and o f human w ell-being (Table 9-1). Tw o local meetings organized by A C M and the Dutch N G O in February 2001 brought together représentatives o fth e five villages man­ aging community forests, représentatives o fth e fédération, the local N G O , admin­ istrative authorities, and a timber company w orking with the five villages. During these meetings, participants were asked to identify signs showing that well-being

96 • Phil Oyono, Chimère Diaw, Samuel E foua,W illiam Mala, ami Samuel Av.eml>e

Dimako: Competing Claims Dimakos management plan was designed in 2000 by the I rencli liiudol I oicls cl Terroirs (Forest and Lands) Project. Démarcation o f the coi i i m il loicsi Iml iguuied custonrary landownership, and land-use conflict em ergcd.Two villages low.ud llic north ofthe council forest were claimingseven square kiloniclcrs ol agi n ulliii.il l.iiul that they said had been snatched front them by the counc il (otrsl .nul ovci wliu li they asserted historical rights.The council responded that forcstry leg,islat gave forest ownership to the S tate. Thus the issue in Dimako was rooted ..... ilei généra tional access to the forest and different claims to rights and powei ovci the loresl. First, the A C M team ntembers started a participatory action réseau li (P A R ) process involving ail major stakeholders— the people o f the two villages, * oinu il authorities, and administrative authorities. T h e first P A R meetings enabled loeal stakeholders, the researchers, and project experts to better understand (lie piublem and identify its causes and conséquences.Then, the A C M team organi/cd scvei.il meetings to facilitate join t problem solving (O yon o et al. 2003a; Assemhc and O yono 2004). The two main protagonists-—the villages and the Dimako rural cornu il both resorted to legal arguments based on custonrary and m odem law. Nevertheless, they agreed to a dialogue facilitated by the A C M team. After many rounds o f discussion, council authorities and the forest management committce agreed to reinstate local rights over halfthe area taken from the tw o villages. In addition, the people o f another neighboring village, Ngolam bélé, agreed to give part o f their secondary fallow land, which was not included in the council forest, to people o f one o fth e affected villages, Nguinda.These decisions were the main outconie o f the P A R process and formed the basis o f subséquent collaborative niotiitoring. On-site stakeholders drafted an agreement covering ail the stages o f the rétroces­ sion process. An ad hoc committee comprising local community représentatives, the municipal council, the Technical Operational Unit o fth e Ministry oflinvironm ent and Forests, and the council forest management committee was created to follow up the process.To seal the plan, an official statement was signed by the stakeholders and witnessed by administrative authorities (Assembe and O yono 2004). After the agreement was reached, the ad hoc committee defined how change would be implemented and determined that nionitoring should focus on the rétro­ cession process and the allocation o fth e additional fallow land to the two villages. O ver a period o f 10 months, the ad hoc committee and A C M team monitored the process o f change through various meetings, using the agreement and social and agroecological maps. Information related to the tw o main action areas. Thus meetings focused on how and when the council was returning the reallocated agricultural land to the tw o villages, on how the neighboring village was ccding its old fallow land, and on how the tw o villages were sharing the returned land. Problems arose when the tw o villages had to share the old fallow lands ceded by Ngolambélé. One village wanted to take the lion ’s share, argumg that it was o f the sanre lineage as Ngolambélé. W h en the A C M facilitators and the ad hoc com ­ mittee suggested instead that the village population levels should détermine the division, that idea was accepted. In Novem ber 2002, the rétrocession, process was

< l l i t p l t' I

•)

M l . l l l f I II l|l|

|. 1

l *

I mt'il

l l l > III I

>

» - (il