Implementing REDD+: learning from forest conservation ... - BioOne

International Forestry Review Vol.19(2), 2017

209

Implementing REDD+: learning from forest conservation policy and social safeguards frameworks in Cameroon S. NGENDAKUMANAa,b, M.P. FEUDJIOc, S. SPEELMANd, P.A. MINANGc, S. NAMIREMBEc and P. VAN DAMMEa,e a

Laboratory of Tropical agricultural and Ethnobotany, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Coupure links 653, B-9000 Ghent University, Belgium Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, University of Burundi c The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi Kenya, and Yaoundé-Cameroon d Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Belgium e Faculty of Tropical AgriSciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic b

Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

SUMMARY In the past a wide spectrum of conservation strategies has been used to manage forests and recently a country-driven policy instrument known as REDD+ has been proposed as a new tool for forest protection. This paper reviews a set of Cameroon policy instruments alongside 86 relevant publications in the conservation area to feed the existing REDD+ debate. Two specific shortcomings are identified: (1) incoherence between existing forestry policy instruments with regard to community forest concept and REDD+ rules and (2) locally over-constraining approaches used in forest management which would provide guidelines and caution about the REDD+ implementation. These shortcomings, if not considered, may lead to ineffectiveness of emission reduction programs as well as to social disconnection at the local level. This means that effective implementation of REDD+ will require further policy actions mainly dealing with actors’ consents within developed equitable instruments while setting up efficient conflict management systems. Keywords: stakeholders, institutions, community rights, consents, effectiveness

Mise en œuvre de la REDD+: Leçons apprises des politiques de conservation forestière et des cadres de sauvegardes sociales au Cameroun S. NGENDAKUMANA, M.P. FEUDJIO, S. SPEELMAN, P.A. MINANG, S. NAMIREMBE et P. VAN DAMME Dans le passé, un large spectre de stratégies de conservation a été utilisé pour gérer les forêts et récemment un instrument piloté par les pays et connu sous REDD+ a été proposé comme nouvel outil de protection forestière. Cet article considère une série d’instruments en matière de politiques forestières au Cameroun et analyse environs 86 articles scientifiques du domaine de la conservation pour contribuer au débat en cours sur la REDD+. Deux points d’attention ont été spécifiquement identifiés: (i) l’incohérence entre les standards REDD+ et les instruments de politique forestière eu égard au concept de forêt communautaire et (ii) les approches locales très contraignantes utilisées dans la gestion forestière, lesquelles pourraient servir de guide et de précaution dans la mise en œuvre de la REDD+. Si ces points soulevés ne sont pas pris en compte, ils pourraient conduire à l’inefficacité du programme de réduction des émissions mais aussi l’exclusion sociale au niveau local. Cela signifie que la mise en œuvre effective du processus REDD+ aura besoin de plus en plus d’actions politiques principalement l’intégration des consentements des acteurs à travers un mécanisme équitable de développement des instruments en même temps qu’on mette en place un système efficient de gestion des conflits.

Implementación de REDD+: aprendizaje de los marcos de políticas de conservación forestal y de salvaguardas sociales en Camerún S. NGENDAKUMANA, M.P. FEUDJIO, S. SPEELMAN, P.A. MINANG, S. NAMIREMBE y P. VAN DAMME En el pasado se ha utilizado un amplio espectro de estrategias de conservación para gestionar los bosques y, recientemente, se ha propuesto un instrumento político impulsado a nivel de países conocido como REDD+, como una nueva herramienta para la protección de los bosques. Este artículo revisa un conjunto de instrumentos políticos de Camerún, junto con 86 publicaciones relevantes en el tema de la conservación, para aportar al debate existente sobre REDD+. Se identificaron dos limitaciones específicas: (1) la incoherencia entre los instrumentos existentes de política forestal en relación con el concepto de bosques comunitarios y de REDD+ y (2) enfoques ultrarrestrictivos a nivel local utilizados en el manejo forestal, que proporcionarían directrices y precauciones para la implementación de REDD+. Si no se tienen en cuenta estas deficiencias, éstas pueden llevar a una ineficacia de los programas de reducción de emisiones, así como a la desconexión social a nivel local. Esto significa que la aplicación efectiva de REDD+ requerirá políticas adicionales, que se hagan cargo principalmente del consentimiento de los actores dentro de los instrumentos equitativos desarrollados, a la vez que establecen sistemas eficientes para la resolución de conflictos.

210

S. Ngendakumana et al.

INTRODUCTION Reduced Emissions from avoided Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks and sustainable management of forests (REDD+) is a voluntary instrument which has received international legitimacy as the least expensive way to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in the forestry sector (Minang et al. 2014). It is considered a promising approach towards increasing forest sustainability. Smallholder farmers’ livelihood activities in forest areas such as agriculture, biomass burning and livestock pasturing cause carbon emissions resulting from the associated deforestation (Tomich et al. 2005, WB 2008, Springate-Baginski and Wollenberg 2010, Bernard et al. 2013). Many scholars have shown that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the likely cause of climate change even though several other GHGs such as methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) or tropospheric ozone (O3) are concurrent factors (IPCC 2007, van der Werf et al. 2009, Le Quéré et al. 2009). To counter climate change by harnessing C-stocks gained over time is the purpose for which REDD+ was developed. Based on REDD+, the international community wants to see forests preserved and would like to pay for the carbon they store, for the wealth of biological diversity they harbour, and for the many other environmental services they provide globally (Tomich et al. 2005 and UNFCCC 2007). Against the long-established fact that forests act both as sinks and sources of emissions (Angelsen et al. 2009, Sunderlin et al. 2009), developing countries are expected to implement REDD+ as an instrument to mitigate climate change and fight against poverty. A substantive body of research on mitigation agrees that REDD+ could be a vehicle for reducing pressure on forests in the tropics, which in turn could lead to CO2 emission reduction (Palmer and Engel 2009, Rametsteiner et al. 2009, Hajek et al. 2011, Kanowski et al. 2011, Angelsen et al. 2012, Minang and Van Noordwijk 2012, Malhi and Marthews 2013). In this line, several initiatives have started under the REDD Early Movers (REM) program – an international voluntary carbon market. Hamrick and Goldstein, (2016)show that in 2015, voluntary buyers transacted a total of 84 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) as under offsets deals at 3.3 USD/t on average. New prospects for the carbon market are found also in the fresh climate fund commitment of about 10 million dollars under the Paris agreement adopted in December 2015. The new instrument creates space for all countries to trade internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (known as “ITMOs”) (Article 6, Paris Agreement). However, since 2011, criticism and controversies have challenged the innovativeness and viability of REDD+ as a policy instrument. This seems to be mainly because the social and institutional dimensions continue to be overlooked (Brown 2013, Lyster et al. 2013). Brown (2013) contends that some issues, if not adequately addressed during the framing phase, could break REDD+ to the disappointment of several proponents, including national policy makers, international bodies and other REDD-impacting agencies. These critical

issues mostly relate to social feasibility and they include the interests of local stakeholders, who are participating and what forms of object are to be governed as well as social safeguards. Angelsen et al. (2012) and Brown (2013) warned that current REDD+ efforts have been geared towards more technical aspects, such as how to assess and monitor land-use change, and neglected the socio-economic dimensions. Others agree that very little effort has been made to integrate social and institutional challenges (Tacconi et al. 2010, Brown 2013, Bernard et al. 2013, Sunderlin et al. 2014). The social dimensions most referred to are effective stakeholder participation, socio-economic household characteristics, land tenure, governance arrangements and safeguards within the instrument design process. These aspects are considered pivotal to guarantee the on-the-ground effectiveness of REDD+ (Tacconi et al. 2010, Bernard et al. 2013, Brown 2013, Lyster 2013, Awono et al. 2014). Local communities may not agree to take part in the implementation if they have not been fully involved in the initial discussions during the design phase. At the end of the day, these social and institutional flaws can constitute a disincentive for communities to engage in activities to help avoid or reduce deforestation. REDD+ is presented as a new country-driven policy instrument which is consistent with the objective of environmental integrity to promote sustainable management of forests (Lyster 2013). Implementing REDD+ effectively involves aligning the negotiated forest conservation frameworks at global level to existing national policies governing forest management at national and local levels. Gradually after the Warsaw conference in 2014, a clearer framework provided an explicit roadmap for REDD+ implementation bringing together technical and institutional implementation guidelines (Atela et al. 2016). As REDD+ is still an evolving concept (Minang et al. 2014), it can be viewed under a two dimensional framework: conservation or ecological dimension and social dimension (Table 1). Such a framework provides information of how social safeguards, alongside designed participatory forest conservation, can be addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the REDD+ process. The focus of the table above is on conservation frameworks and tenure security in Cameroon with an emphasis on the policy constraints, to learn how REDD+ could be better implemented to reverse forest loss and to serve at the same time as a tool for sustainable development.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE DUAL DIMENSION Theoretically and learning from existing institutional and social processes, REDD+ implementation can be influenced by national forest conservation policies and safeguards principles simultaneously. The ecological and social dimensions are crucial in creating enabling conditions for REDD+ to deliver on community expectations and sustainable forest protection. These enabling conditions include measures to

Implementing REDD+ in Cameroon

211

TABLE 1 Issues mapped across global and national contexts to build up a conservation and safeguards based framework for REDD+ REDD+ components

Undertaken action

Ecological dimension Sustainable Forest Management by avoiding premature trees extraction

Social Dimension (REDD+ safeguards guidelines)

Global level guidance Decision 2/CP13 Decision 1/CP16

National level steps Embark on Readiness Adopt REDD+ rules

Reducing forest degradation by halting natural forest conversion into other land uses

Address deforestation drivers through policy reforms

Curbing deforestation by participatory forest conservation through addressing key depletion drivers

Address deforestation drivers through policy reforms

UNFCCC, 2010 Enhancing forest carbon stocks through afforestation using indigenous UN-REDD, 2012 agroforestry species

Ensure massive tree planting through community active involvement

Stakeholder participation in REDD+ process

Decision 12/CP17

Align with FPIC principles by controlling quality participation of stakeholders

Community consent on land tenure arrangement and carbon rights

Develop national methodologies Decision 4/CP15 and guidelines for FPIC-REDD+ Decision 1/CP16 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people

Sustainable development and poverty reduction

Decision 12/CP19 Accra Caucus 2013

Enact institutional transformation

Biodiversity conservation for cultural values

UNFCCC, 2010

Align with FPIC-REDD+ guidelines

Conflict Resolution and benefit sharing mechanism

FCPF-World Bank

Develop guideline for solving REDD+ related conflicts

tackle poverty and forest tenure issues as well as an appropriate institutional arrangement and a stakeholder participation mechanism. Acting across community and national scales, the above interplay has the potential to lead to the desired implementation plan for REDD+ which could be socially attractive and institutionally feasible (Figure 1). REDD+ implementation at the national level practically requires mainstreaming forest related policy reforms and FPIC based social safeguards. These are crucial in curbing deforestation and increasing carbon stocks within a dual purpose of ensuring that forests are protected while communities’ livelihoods are improved. According to Engel et al. (2009), REDD+ has a particular potential to act as an umbrella service in forest conservation. Nevertheless, it can be claimed that before introducing such a new mechanism for conservation, it is important to learn from the failures and successes of the existing tools. It is assumed that the development of appropriate REDD+ initiatives will serve as an incentive for the participation of local communities and indigenous people in forest conservation for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Therefore, it seems very important to capture literature and policy documents insights on what is known about forest regulations and social safeguards at country level. This could then inform and underpin the local-level actions which would govern effective emission reduction and carbon stock schemes.

This desk review examined the ‘state-of the-art’ in fourteen 14 legal and policy instruments within the forest regulations and 87 other publications including the high-level UNFCCC meeting reports to learn from global and national evolving contexts and recommend design of effective REDD+ implementation in Cameroon. Content analysis methodology is used to describe ongoing REDD+ process in Cameroon and analyse the global trend of conservation practices and safeguards principles. The insights have the potential to feed REDD+ debates in terms of institutional and policy arrangements. The paper can also support decision making as guideline for accelerating the take-off of the REDD+ implementation on the ground. The next section highlights the undertaken process at the country level followed by a brief description of the social dimension of deforestation drivers. Lessons from current conservation practices, policy based social conflicts and discussions on emerging issues are presented while the last section provides conclusions and a policy roadmap.

THE REDD+ PROCESS IN CAMEROON: EVOLUTIONS AND CHALLENGES Cameroon is located in Central Africa between 2°–13°N and 8°30′–16°10′E and is endowed with dense tropical

212

S. Ngendakumana et al.

FIGURE 1 REDD+ theoretical framework based on ecological and social dimensions

Source: adapted from Ngendakumana, 2016

rainforests. Cameroon is considered to be a high forest cover and these forests are of considerable importance for community livelihoods, habitats for varied biodiversity species and other ecosystem services. With around 48% of forest cover equivalent to more than 23 million ha (UN-REDD 2015), the country was selected by UN-REDD and the World Bank among those pilot areas to implement REDD+. Cameroon has recently committed to the Paris agreement with the United Nations (2016), is a signatory to the UNFCCC (in 1995) and is currently involved in REDD+ negotiations alongside the Central Africa Forest Commission (COMIFAC) (UN-REDD 2015). The country is engaged as participant to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) since September 2010 when the first grant agreement to develop the Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) was signed. Cameroon’s R-PP views REDD+ as an opportunity for achieving its sustainable development while addressing deforestation. Forests directly contribute 6% of Cameroon’s GDP while Agricultural sector represents about 21% with tree crops (cocoa, rubber, palm oil, coffee) being crucial as export products (CIA 2015). The R-PP therefore emphasises the need for REDD+ as a strategic venture to drive national economy and livelihoods. The Cancun agreements adopted in 2010 a three-phased process for the development of REDD+ at country level. These phases consist respectively of a national strategy development, early implementation and performance-based

actions (UNFCCC 2010, Decision 1/16, Para 71). To operationalise its REDD+ plans, Cameroon participated in the first phase since 2008 with the validation of the Readiness Preparation Idea Note. This was followed by two years of awareness-creation meetings at all levels. In 2010, preliminary assessments on existing REDD+ initiatives were carried out. This process led to the creation of the REDD+ steering committee and the development of the country’s R-PP which was approved by the FCPF in February 2013 (Ngendakumana et al. 2014). According to the R-PP content, the main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Cameroon are timber logging and agriculture particularly shifting cultivation (MINEPDED 2013). The estimated annual deforestation rates are respectively 0.05% (UNREDD 2015) and 0.06% (Ernst et al. 2012), placing Cameroon among the highest in the Congo Basin with the fear that the country may experience increasing higher rates (Megevand et al. 2013). Several studies have suggested that enforcement of efficient policies and political will have significant potential to drive a reduction in deforestation (Robiglio et al. 2010, Brown 2013, Megevand et al. 2013 and Minang et al. 2014,). Atela et al. (2016) in the case of Kenya show that institutional failures exacerbate underlying drivers of deforestation that conflict with REDD+ rules.

Implementing REDD+ in Cameroon

213

FIGURE 2 Operationalisation chart for the Cameroon REDD+ program

Source: Cameroon R-PP, 2013

Accordingly, while taking drivers of deforestation and social safeguards as the core business of REDD+, it is important to focus on improving policies and institutional arrangement. The Cameroon organisational chart suggested in the R-PP document is shown in Figure 2 below. The institutional body governing climate change issues including REDD+ is the Ministry of Environment, Nature Protection and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED). According to the R-PP, the Steering Committee chaired by the MINEPDED and co-chaired by the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife is set up to ensure institutional coordination at national level to deliver internationally expected carbon stocks-based performances (MINEPDED 2013). Practically, the main aim for this committee is to spearhead the development of the REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP), as well as the future implementation plan for the mechanism. With its legal mandate, the committee is quite inclusive with different relevant ministries, representatives from civil society and indigenous people organisations (UN-REDD 2015). At this juncture, the engagement mechanism can be viewed as useful to address the REDD+ safeguards concerns if quality participation and openness during meetings are guaranteed. However, this operationalisation scheme does not clarify how the private sector will be engaged in the on-the-ground process and it is also unclear about the rules and roles of local communities in the context of the ongoing forest rights contestations. Another aspect which seems not to be fully considered in the set-up is biodiversity safeguards. Learning from the current legal context, REDD+ may need to pay attention to social fairness, while anticipating a conflictsolving arrangement throughout the implementation cycle.

The REDD+ pilot phase had about 29 REDD+ related projects across Cameroon regions involving 39 organizations (Ngendakumana et al. 2014) ranging from Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) to biodiversity conservation using a landscape approach. In terms of typology based on carbon affairs since 2005, a quick overview indicates about 4 main categories: (1) forest management and biodiversity conservation based projects, (2) forestry and agricultural projects, (3) forest law enforcement initiatives and (4) agroforestry based tree planting schemes. In 2013 the country government received a short term grant from the FCPF to develop its REDD+ strategy. Given the lack of capacity within the forestry sector and limited transparency in public services, it was expected to contract international experts for the strategy drafting activity. At the end of the day, the planned duration has lapsed without concrete results on the ground. Early lessons herein indicate that such processes to be effective and efficient, coordination responsibilities and rules for decision making remain critical in Cameroon forestry sector. Critiques and concerns about those significant shortcomings and risks identified by Civil Society Organisations (CSO) to have drawn back the strategy development are recurrent in Cameroon with as negative effect the slow pace in the country policy processes (Oyono et al. 2008). Recently, a group of stakeholders including local communities critiqued openly the country REDD+ plans while Cameroon was preparing to submit its Emissions Reduction Program to the World Bank (REDD Monitor, 2015). The issues were pertaining to the top-down approach and limited transparency in the forestry sector, incoherence within policy

214

S. Ngendakumana et al.

instruments as well as the shrinking space for community and civil society participation in REDD+ process across scales. Several studies (e.g. Dkamela 2011, Ngendakumana et al. 2014, Awono et al. 2014) also report instances of inadequate stakeholder engagement in the design and upcoming operationalisation of REDD+ in Cameroon. The effectiveness of new mechanisms depends on their social feasibility and on the adaptive capacity of the associated institutional strategies (Leimona et al. 2011, van Noordwijk et al. 2011, Wollenberg et al. 2012). Undoubtedly, when building a forestry policy instrument, communities always need to be consulted on suggested management options in order to give their consent and express their interests through a participatory approach.

THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF DRIVERS OF DEFORESTATION The link between socio-economic development and deforestation has been extensively investigated. It is predicted that countries such as Cameroon and the Central African Republic, which have reached a population density of 20– 30 inhabitants/km2, could see their deforestation rates double due to increased demands for agricultural land, fuel wood and cash crops such as cocoa and palm trees (Ernst et al. 2012 and Megevand et al. 2012). Robiglio et al. (2010) noted that in southern Cameroon, there is rarely a single driver in a deforestation process, but most often, multiple drivers work simultaneously or sequentially. Micro- or socio-economic factors are also worth considering. As national attention increases on addressing poverty, deforestation and CO2 emissions (Neufeldt et al. 2012, MINEPDED 2013, UN-REDD 2015), it will be necessary to develop technical options backed up by appropriate incentives to achieve proper mitigation and improvements to livelihoods (Wollenberg et al. 2012). In the context of increasing poverty, land-use conversion for subsistence agriculture of many smallholder farmers represents a major source of carbon emissions (Ngendakumana 2011, Ngendakumana et al. 2013, Megevand et al. 2013, Awono et al. 2014). Moreover, the literature indicates that greater part of Cameroonian deforestation and forest degradation can be attributed to the growing local demand for mainly, wood fuel energy, domestic timber, and food, caused by population growth and rapid urbanization (Ernst et al. 2012, MINEPDED 2013, Robiglio et al. 2010). It can be argued that, with an increase in income, the structure of the national economy and energy demand patterns might shift towards coal- and petroleum-based fuels, thus reducing forest conversion pressures.

PAST AND ONGOING FOREST CONSERVATION STRATEGIES: LESSONS FOR IMPLEMENTING REDD+ The impact of local populations on protected areas can be curbed when there are provisions for alternative livelihood

options and when land surrounding protected areas is wellmanaged. Conservation strategies used to improve sustainable management of tropical forests could provide lessons to improve REDD+. The concept behind was in the form of forest projects known as ICDPs (Integrated Conservation and Development Programs) promoted by government and international conservation agencies to support the management of protected areas (Hasket and Gutman 2010). By the time of climate change debates after Rio, a suggestion came up to reward forgone efforts for avoided deforestation and increased reforestation. This change in scope reflected the outcome of UNFCCC agreements to value the goods and services that forests provide especially the atmospheric carbon sequestration and this inducted the concept of PES. Recent developments in defining strategies to reduce emissions from deforestation and other land uses highlighted their potential to mitigate the emerging negative effects of climate variability, especially if they are community-based and applied after stakeholder capacity building (Awono et al. 2014). These strategies may also provide livelihood benefits for local communities living in forest ecosystems (Mustalahti et al. 2012, Hoang et al. 2012). However, the existing simplistic approaches to tackle climate change, together with the limited local understanding of the links between the socioeconomic status of communities and trends in forest-cover loss, might result in the failure of emission reduction options, as well as the social disconnection of the REDD+ schemes in the tropics, as they are designed in the north. Tapping from Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDPs) According to Minang and van Noordwijk (2012), strong conceptual links can be found between ICDP and REDD+. They highlighted four main dimensions of the potential linkages between the two mechanisms namely: (1) the use of vast protected domains and ICDPs as part of REDD+ strategies; (2) use of REDD+ as source of finance for forest conservation and thus incorporate carbon emission reductions into current ICDPs; (3) operational modalities, as current REDD+ projects are laden with key ICDPs features; and (4) use of local knowledge and capacity building developed through ICDP initiatives for S&MRV (Surveillance and Monitoring, Reporting and Verification). In Cameroon, ICDPs were used as a way of compensating for the negative impact of creating protected areas on people’s livelihoods (Asanga 1995). Hakizumwami (2000) observed that in order for community forests to benefit future generation, the land surrounding a forest should be sustainably managed for farming and grazing to ensure local populations livelihoods. This type of management would address concerns on rural income, well-being, vulnerability, social organization, food security and use of natural resources. However, results within rural target communities seem to be mixed. Enchaw (2009) observed that when ICDPs are concentrated only in some of the affected communities, the rest of the population whose plight has not been addressed will find it difficult to sustain a living on the limited remaining resources. These people will then violate conservation norms.

Implementing REDD+ in Cameroon

Besong et al. (1995) basing on ICDP projects of Mounts Kilum, Ijim and Kupe Mountain recommended a long-term approach and financing in promoting community management of forests in general, and for conservation in particular, since this is new to Cameroon. Short-time financing had a perverse effect of putting projects teams in the position of ‘dominant leader’ rather than ‘process facilitator’ which compromised the projects’ own understanding of local political, social and resource use systems. Long-term opportunities for appropriate funding exist under the newly agreed climate green Funds in Paris within the UNFCCC mechanism provided that an enabling environment based on key social and technical REDD+ requirements. REDD+ may also benefit from ongoing multi-sectoral programs, such as the Forest and Environment Sector Program (PSFE), the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) and the new PRSP “Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper” for Cameroon. These are viewed as the main vehicles to implement a comprehensive sustainable development framework nationwide. Enchaw (2009, 2011) found that in Cameroon, the haste used in predefined top down projects led to non-attainment of projects’ goals especially those with the aim to ‘handover’ forest management to communities. Further, involved stakeholders could not explore different options for sustainable natural resource management (NRM). In this regard, lessons from the ICDP framework across household and community scales may be crucial for guiding the upcoming REDD+ implementation in Cameroon. Of course, the underlay search for best practice in NRM would be time-consuming but would eventually yield a sound impact at the level of both forests health and community livelihoods within REDD+ processes. Insights from Payment and rewards for environmental services for REDD+ The importance of Environmental Services (ES) has been clearly highlighted in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment carried out between 2003 and 2005 (MEA 2005). Thereafter, they gained interest around the world (Wunder 2005, Pagiola et al. 2007, Swallow et al. 2009, Leimona et al. 2009, Leimona et al. 2010, Haskett and Gutman 2010, Tacconi et al. 2010) as well as in Africa with case studies from Uganda, Mozambique and Malawi (German et al. 2010, Jindal 2010 and Ajayi et al. 2011). The MEA report (2005) mapped out the services that sustain functions and regulate life on earth. The same report goes on to define environmental services as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems, among which it is possible to distinguish supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural services. Haskett and Gutman (2010) highlighted some key services such as carbon stocks, biodiversity, scenic

1

215

beauty and water supplies for domestic, industrial and agricultural use. Wunder (2005) defined Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) as (a) a voluntary transaction where; (b) a well-defined ecosystem service (ES) or a land use likely to secure that service; (c) is being ‘bought’ by a (minimum of one) service buyer; (d) from a (minimum of one) service provider; (e) if and only if the service provider secures service provision (conditionality). A payment-based approach seeks to reach a negotiated agreement by stipulating some form of reward to incentivize ‘downstream1’ beneficiaries in recognition of the extra responsibility (burden) borne by ‘upstream’ communities in restoring or maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Many scholars have recently assessed the role of PES in forest management in tropical countries (Masinga 2011, Leimona et al. 2011 and Ajayi et al. 2011). All agreed that supporting PES in Africa may reverse the forest loss and enhance ecosystem functions in cultivated landscapes. In practice, PES deals are emerging through negotiation wherever businesses, publicsector agencies, and non-profit organizations have taken an active interest in addressing particular environmental issues. These schemes provide an alternative source of income for landholders, and can be extended to communities as a whole (Ajayi et al. 2011 and Leimona et al. 2011). Many investigations have contributed to a typology of environmental services (Van Noordwijk et al. 2004, Tomich et al. 2004, MEA 2005, Leimona 2009, Tacconi et al. 2010, Haskett and Gutman 2010 and Ajonina 2011). There is now a detailed picture of them across the world. Lessons from Asia and Africa show that, in the specific case of forests, external pressures and high threats to environmental services can create conditions whereby the local community cannot provide both individual and collective efforts to sustain trees in the forest without any positive incentives (Jindal 2010, German et al. 2010 and Leimona et al. 2011). In order to expand such systems, governments and national institutions have to guarantee the basic rules of the game to maintain the services under the form of a contract. REDD+, in this sense, is viewed as a form of global PES mechanism to enhance carbon stocks and reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. However, the challenge here is to design schemes that can meet people’s needs and expectations (Leimona 2011, Hoang et al. 2012, Minang and van Noordwijk 2012). It has been documented that most PES schemes are built on a voluntary basis through dialogue and negotiation between stakeholders (Swallow et al. 2007). The stakeholders’ experience could then be instrumental in developing further policy tools. Concrete case studies of reward and compensation payments schemes are found since 2008 in Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi and Kenya where farmers are paid through

According to Leimona et al. (2010), there are usually two categories of stakeholders in a PES scheme. Those creating or maintaining the environmental service like CO2 stocks in case of REDD+ are referred to as upstream stakeholders or “sellers”. They include farmer groups, local government, agricultural extension services and others like NGOs. In the same arena, there are other stakeholders who are mainly users of the target ecosystem service. These are referred to as downstream stakeholders or “buyers” and they include private companies, urban service users, national government body, green funds, green bankers, etc.

216

S. Ngendakumana et al.

voluntary market-based contract either for long-term tree planting and conservation, tonnage estimate of carbon stocks, watershed protection or avoided deforestation in protected areas (Namirembe et al. 2014, Atela et al. 2016). Currently, in Cameroon, there is no clear framework for organizing compensation in the forest conservation arena, despite its potential role in managing carbon stocks to mitigate climate variability at national, sub-regional and global levels (Ajonina 2011, Dkamela 2011, Ngendakumana et al. 2013). However, land tenure, forestry and other environmental laws contain provisions that relate to PES. They therefore offer an opportunity, albeit not in an extensive way, to roll out PES schemes, such as REDD+, that may tackle conservation, preservation and the sustainable use of natural resources. Since REDD+ involves a form of payment for carbon stocks to compensate foregone smallholders’ income, the concern is how to implement it at the local level. Practically, REDD+ implementation could follow PES experience in defining various operationalization tools. Three significant issues therefore should be kept in mind. They are (1) stakeholders negotiated contract implying conditionalities and clarification of payment forms, (2) involvement of all actors with stakes in deforestation such as those intervening in agricultural sector and timber exploitation and (3) opportunity within current policies and laws to integrate reforms (Leimona et al. 2011).

FORESTRY SECTOR POLICY INADEQUACIES AND LOCAL CONFLICTS Conflicts between local communities and forest management authorities have been reported by many studies across tropical ecosystems (India, Cameroon and Brazil). They often surface when preparing large- scale conservation projects (Pandey 2002, Oyono et al. 2008, Cotula and Mayers 2009). Emerging international governance approaches therefore opened the eyes of social scientists to consider additional safeguards to reduce risks of conflicts over forest resources as negotiated mechanisms would be put in place in the current context of climate change mitigation (Oyono et al. 2008, Angelsen and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2008, Larson et al. 2010, Galudra et al. 2011). This poses the challenge of mainstreaming various forms of key social safeguards such as community rights and equity in benefits sharing to enhance other forest-related co-benefits (watersheds, health, local climate regulation, biodiversity) under the existing community forestry within the whole NRM management policies. The forestry management sector and policies in Cameroon are still bogged down by historical inadequacies of the colonial era. Abuses, lacuna and conflicting legal provisions in the 1994 Forestry Law and its Decree of Application have created avenues for several conflicts in the forestry sector (Enchaw 2011, Ngendakumana et al. 2013). In order to give more legitimacy to this critical policy analysis, the identified inadequacies of the legal framework are structured considering the 5 pillars of the REDD+ (reduced emissions from

deforestation, reduced emissions from degradation, conservation of carbon stocks, sustain management of forests and increase in forest carbon stocks). Reduced emissions from deforestation Several scholars had argued that legal provisions as proscribed by the 1994 Forestry Law and its associated policy instruments are also a source of conflicts in the domain of community forestry leading to more deforestation (Bigome and Bikie 1998, Oyono et al. 2008, Nguiffo and Djeukam 2008, Enchaw 2009). For example, Article 28 stipulates that the head of a legal institution at site level is the forest management officer (FMO) and that he or she is the custodian of the simplified management plan (SMP). He or she enters into contract with the Forestry Administration on behalf of the authorized institution. Following the Articles of Association, the head of an association is the delegate. In sites studied by Enchaw (2009), each forest management institution has a simplified management plan and its articles of association. Applying the two legal instruments within the same set up created conflicts of authority and interest at the helm of the institution, since each body has at the same time two legitimate managers but with different interests and responsibilities (the forester and the community delegate). Such conflicts were investigated and confirmed by field work carried out in Cameroon. The legal classification of land and forest, coupled with the statutory exigency for obtaining land titles and registering private lands, has rather restricted access rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, whereas they depend directly on land and forest for their livelihood (RRI 2009, Sunderlin et al. 2014). One of the fundamental policy issues found on the ground is the nonapplication of some of the legal provisions that have been clearly promulgated and which should devolve access and ownership rights to local communities (Springate-Baginski and Wollenberg 2010). This inadequacy is likely to negatively affect the forest cover countrywide. Reduced emissions from degradation and increase in forest carbon stocks Following Article 27(4) of the 1994 Forestry Law, “a community forest is a delimited part of non-permanent forest that should not exceed 5,000 hectares” (MINEF 1998:10). When the boundary of a community forest is instituted, irrespective of the stakeholder, some individuals in the community are likely to lose access to their land and resources in the interests of establishing a community forest. In a situation where land and resources of only a fraction of the local population are more valuable for conservation, it stands to reason that if one wants to keep the specific area for other uses, the population would interpret this action in terms of land rent leading to greater benefits from the existing resource. If they are therefore not compensated first and/or other land is not allocated to them before collectively sharing the benefits accruing from the community forest, such a strategy and action will likely

Implementing REDD+ in Cameroon

encounter resistance (Enchaw 2009) In this case communities might opt for actions such as selective forest logging, undercanopy cultivation and settlement (degradation) as survival strategy. They may also opt out of implementing their roles for sustaining the community forestry scheme if it proves to be too restrictive. Resistance may not necessarily come from all local people but at least from the affected community individuals. Following the provisions of Article 28(3) of the decree of implementation of the forestry regulations, the Government of Cameroon requires legally established forest management institutions (such as association, co-operative, common initiative group and/or economic interest group) to manage community forests. Some proponents noted that in Cameroon, the creation of legal institutions for forest management is usually based on stakeholders’ powers or influence instead of tenure rights (Besong et al. 1995, Oyono et al. 2008, Nguiffo and Djeukam 2008, Awono et al. 2014). Moreover, it is increasingly acknowledged by the international community and by governments that the degradation of forests is partly caused by a lack of involvement of the rightful institutions and stakeholders in the conservation process (McNeely et al. 1990, Fobissie et al. 2012, Awono et al. 2014). Sustain management of forests and conservation of carbon stocks Chambers (1983) stressed that when local communities that dwell in and around forest locations are alienated from the management regime, such forest lands fall into ‘open access’ and, consequently, suffer the fate of the ‘tragedy of the commons.’ Cernea (1994) argued that although this situation has been referred to as the tragedy of the commons, it is actually the tragedy of open access, which originates from the dissolution of local-level institutional arrangements. The dissolution led to the disintegration of traditional tenure rights systems and the rise of the modern tenure rights. Many scholars (Oyono et al. 2008, Nguiffo and Djeukam 2008, Enchaw 2011 and Foundjem-Tita 2013) observed that these two legal systems continued to prevail in a kind of co-existence across Cameroon and other countries in Africa. However, existing literature does not dwell much on how the precedence of modern tenure rights over traditional rights affects definition and implementation of conservation strategies in forest areas and does not mention any issue about carbon stocks conservation. The above gaps and deficiencies in the Cameroon forestry policy are what REDD+ should pay attention at by turning them into best practices for improving its potential to halt deforestation and enhance sustainable management of forests. In instances where conflictual legal frameworks and stakeholders’ power struggle prevail, REDD+ performance would decrease and undertaken projects won’t be socially attractive to more local communities. Further, failing to take into account interests and benefits by developing appropriate policy instruments should be equivalent to plan the failure of REDD+ processes nationwide.

217

FOREST LAW IMPLEMENTATION AND SOCIAL RIGHTS CLAIMS The use of modern legal frameworks for the conservation of biodiversity often imposes a social change on local communities often they are deterred from participating in the management of protected areas. However, as noted earlier by Ngbo-Ngbangbo et al. (2010) based on a global literature review, the notion of protected areas has deep historical roots. They have existed in varying forms in diverse ancient cultures, dating back to early pre-agrarian societies in Asia and the Near East (Allin 1990, Runte 1997 cited by NgboNgbangbo et al. 2010). In the same vein, it was found that Chinese and South American civilizations recorded many decrees setting aside lands for plant and animal protection since more than 3,000 years before the present era. Sacred forest groves, in which all forms of extractive use were prohibited, represent an early manifestation of the notion of protected areas (Chandrashekara et al. 1998 cited by Pandey 2002). The business dictionary defines ownership as the ultimate and exclusive right conferred by a lawful claim or title and subject to certain restrictions to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent or sell, use, give away or even destroy an item of property (http://www.businessdictionary.com). In the light of this definition, there is definitely room for real concern about how the interests of forest people can be protected under REDD+. Forest tenure and resource ownership tends to be unsecure for communities living in forested areas in many countries where REDD+ is being implemented. This can be explained by the fact that the communities adhere to customary rights, which are often not formalized in statutory rights (Brown 2013). In the largest forested countries of the world such as Indonesia, Congo DR, Venezuela and even Cameroon, the state owns most forestland. Forests where local communities have statutory access or ownership rights tend to be small or inexistent (Tacconi et al. 2010, Awono et al. 2013, Sunderlin et al. 2014). This observation highlights the risk of social conflicts under the upcoming REDD+ schemes and stresses the need to partly shift forest resource ownership towards local people for them to positively contribute to reducing emission from deforestation. REDD+ is an opportunity to engage reforms in a way that would be equitable for local stakeholders.

POLICY PERSPECTIVE FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN REDD+ It is recognized that REDD+ policies and programs will not succeed if adequate tenure incentives to indigenous peoples, local communities and women are not included. Enchaw (2011) has worked on how tenure security for indigenous peoples (Baka) is an incentive for their participation in forest conservation within the framework of REDD+ policies and programs. He held that one of the greatest fallacies undermining the participation of indigenous peoples in sustainable forest management in Cameroon is the uncertainty of the tenure systems in practice. The author claimed that despite the

218

S. Ngendakumana et al.

TABLE 2 List of policy documents scooped and analyzed with REDD+ lenses Document name

Code and date

Scooped/Highlighted link in relation to REDD+

Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon

Provide overall guidelines on forests resources management

National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

Most actions are carbon stocks sensitive

The Forestry and Wildlife Law

Law No. 94-01 of 20 January 1994

Showcase the core business to address deforestation drivers including rights tenure

Environmental Management

Law No. 96/12 of 1996

Address GHG emissions at large and climate change mitigation

National Environmental Management Plan

(1996)

Detail actions on GHG emissions reduction

Community-Based Natural Resources Management Act

Act of 1992

Provide guidelines on Community rights tenures

Orientation of management and sustainable territorial development of Cameroon

Law No 2011/008 of Guide on development policy based on productive sectors 6 May 2011 (agriculture, timber, infrastructure)

Land use and Land Tenure Act of 1974

Law No. 74-1

Guide on land tenure with some highlights REDD+ safeguards

Law on Associations

Law No. 90/053 of 19/12/1990

Provide insights on community associative live

National observatory for Climate change in Cameroon.

Decree n°2009/410 of 10-12-2009

Set up an institutional pace for REDD+

Cameroon Readiness Project Idea Note

Set the basics for REDD+ process

Cameroon Readiness Project Proposal

February 2013

Draw early lessons from REDD+ pilots on institutional arrangements

Cameroon REDD+ Steering Committee

No103/CAB/PM of 13/06/2012

Regulate the REDD+ processes

Sectorial Program for Forestry and Environment (PSFE)

several forest management laws in the country, quantitative and qualitative depletion of forests is being aggravated by mistaken or unclear policies. Concerns have been raised about whether existing policy frameworks will be sufficient to effectively govern REDD+ in the context of rising deforestation in Cameroon (Robiglio et al. 2010, Dkamela 2011, IUCN 2011, Ngendakumana et al. 2012). A large number of proponents agree on the fact that Cameroon has successfully enacted several legal and regulatory instruments in forestry, environment, decentralization and land tenure (Ingram and De Baan 2005, Oyono et al. 2008, Ngendakumana et al. 2013, Awono et al. 2014). However, up until now, these laws have been unable to achieve the hoped-for results. Our review examined some 15 instruments with regards to REDD+ policy readiness (Table 2). With regard to the connection between country policy and the international governance system, some organizations such as Cameroon’s Ecology and Wildlife Conservation Society reported that cautious efforts have been made by the government in signing the different international instruments, followed by the elaboration of different national action plans (Ngendakumana et al. 2014). The latter include a national biodiversity action plan and proposals to revise various laws and codes. NGOs have also been at the forefront of forest

Give primary orientation to address drivers of deforestation and capacity strengthening

conservation and community-based forestry and biodiversity projects including policy reforms request initiatives in Cameroon. The State, NGOs, funding bodies and multilateral organizations still perceive climate change and forest conservation as issues requiring only technical and regulatory solutions that come from outside the indigenous peoples, whereas the latter are those who pay the price for conservation (Sunderlin et al. 2014). The solutions and opportunities offered to indigenous peoples through REDD+ policies and programs do not take their priorities and preferences into consideration. Still worse, such solutions require radical and fundamental shifts in socio-political structures, technological and economic systems, organisational forms, and modes of regulation that do not match with the social life of indigenous peoples (Brown 2013). These shifts are prone to distorting those cultural, socio-economic and spiritual values that have effectively established a harmonious relationship between indigenous peoples and their forest lands and territories. As it is, this relationship has enabled them to conserve the remaining forest massifs and enhanced carbon stocks long before REDD+ policies and programs were proposed (Brown 2013). The 1994 Forestry Law in Cameroon was developed under the auspices of the World Bank. It allowed local

Implementing REDD+ in Cameroon

peoples to acquire some community forests in non-permanent forest (MINEF 1995). A multiplicity of factors however has been identified by some scholars (Oyono et al. 2006, Enchaw 2009) to render ineffective the community forest concept in practice. The factors are: (1) limited political will of the State to devolve management; (2) vertical policy instruments development without prior consent of the local communities; (3) efforts by conservationists to take advantage of legal flaws to victimize indigenous peoples in order to justify demands for conservation funds and alleviate forestry staff poverty situation; (4) orientation of the process towards expert knowledge, whereby the time and implementation cost required constitute the bone of contention. The complex nature of the 1994 Forestry Law of Cameroon has rendered its implementation difficult. A 2009 report by the REPAR (Parliamentary Network) pointed out that despite the lacunas, omissions and contradictions in the law, there are many provisions that are good, but which are inadequately enforced. Sunderlin et al. (2014) found that in many tropical countries including Cameroon, issues of compensation and benefit-sharing are inadequately handled. The government may have the political will to act but external influence would probably frustrate its ambitions. Crucially, there is a lot of incoherence between the 1994 Forestry Law and other Forestry policy instruments of Cameroon that were created since 1995 after the law had been formulated (Enchaw 2009, Foundjem-Tita 2013). For instance, efforts by the government to mitigate the situation by adopting the Environment Code in 1996 could not be brought to fruition as the conditionality under which the State was subjected by funding bodies such as the World Bank weakened its bargaining power. Under such conditions, the government was forced to adopt a legal instrument which contains some lacunas, incomprehensive clauses and contradictions vis-à-vis local interests and aspirations. Learning from the current legal context, REDD+ may need to pay attention to social fairness while foreseeing a conflict-solving arrangement all along the implementation cycle. The absence of a national REDD+ strategy to define first the climate-change-related “rules of the game” (e.g. clarification on who holds rights to trade carbon credits and other environmental services), is a key challenge. Minang et al. (2014) state that in order to implement REDD+, norms and legal rules are needed to govern actors and regulate the relationships between them especially regarding forest carbon management. Other issues such as institutions’ responsibilities, consultation rules, funding and payment rules, participation costs are highlighted to be critical under REDD+ processes (Angelsen 2010, Ngendakumana et al. 2014, Awono et al. 2014). Second, the policy should provide guidance on how different stakeholder rights will be protected, whereby the latter rights should include rights to share in the financial benefits of REDD+, rights to participate in the decision-making processes, cultural rights (Lyster 2011), property rights to indigenous knowledge, and know-how about forestry resources. Third, this strategy should then reorient REDD+ targets, taking into account needed investments, conflict resolution mechanisms towards driving effective reduction in deforestation.

219

CONCLUSION This paper has reviewed instruments and evolutions of policies which may underpin REDD+ implementation process in Cameroon. Instruments and approaches such as ICDPs and PES were found to have strong linkages with REDD+ and can therefore guide the process thereof. Initiatives that were previously implemented in Cameroon and elsewhere are found useful to improve REDD+ effectiveness and reduce implementation cost in the current context of limited funding flows from donors. Lessons learnt from regulatory frameworks, past and ongoing conservation strategies as well as safeguards insights are mostly modalities to consider in implementing REDD+. These comprise the need for better targeting, stakeholder involvement, integration of positive aspects of traditional land tenure and opportunity within policies and laws to integrate reforms. Additionally, forest tenure conflicts need to be resolved through adequate reforms and instruments agreed upon before REDD+ is implemented. Furthermore several specific gaps or deficiencies in the conservation approaches and policy formulations were discovered: (1) incoherence between existing forestry policy instruments with regard to community forest concept and REDD+ rules, (2) the dilemma between modern forest and customary forest tenures resulting into community rights distortion, (3) overnormative and complex instruments used in forest management constraining the flow in REDD+ implementation, and (4) the reliance on top-down instead of bottom-up approaches which intentionally puts aside small farmer’s interest. These gaps are fueled by the inexistence of norms and legal rules to govern actors and regulate the relationships between them especially regarding forest carbon management. Other issues such as institutions’ responsibilities, consultation rules, funding and payment rules, participation costs could be critical under REDD+ processes. Accordingly, there is a need for national policy actions in tackling issues that would impede on REDD+ effectiveness. This means that coping with REDD+ effective implementation will require the operationalisation of three keys points (Table 3): (i) Dealing with actors’ diverse interests and consents, (ii) Developing equitable and sustainable policies and (iii) Setting up low-cost conflict management systems and (iv) readjust the sections and articles of the legal framework that are considered inadequate for the future of forestry sector in the country. The whole set of paradigms implies a rethinking of a fair and socially sound REDD+ implementation mechanism in order to attract local end users and forest stewards, mainly local communities. Research perspectives should therefore tackle the identified gaps and further explore links between household characteristics and deforestation hence REDD+, to assess key factors of success. From the findings thereof, adequate REDD+ structures could be developed based on the community forest concept in the light of local communities’ rights and interests.

220

S. Ngendakumana et al.

TABLE 3 Operationalization summary of emerging policy issues from the review Fundamental Policy issues

Expected output

Target action

Accountable stakeholders Government CBOs and CSOs Private sector

i) Dealing with actors’ diverse interests and consents

Improved community rights and forest management for increased carbon stocks

-Empower actors, strengthen coordination and secure community rights -Adopt FPIC principles and bottom up approach

Better stakeholder engagement in REDD+ process

-Increase sensitization for actors active participation -Organize business case meetings to extend stakeholder engagement

ii) Developing equitable and sustainable policies

Strong forest governance rules and institutions for REDD+

-Invest in and accelerate the forest policies reforms -Develop rules and clarify roles for REDD+ implementation

Government CBOS and CSOs

-Anticipate governance gaps and policy incoherencies -Develop fair REDD+ based payment options

Government Research services Private sector

Improved legitimacy and iii) Setting up payment options low-cost conflict management systems

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge logistic support from the Burundian groups ADISCO and BCM. Furthermore, the valuable suggestions and comments made by anonymous referees are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES AJAYI, C.O., JACK, K.B., and LEIMONA, B. 2012. Auction design for the private provision of public goods in developing countries: Lessons from PES in Malawi and Indonesia, World Development 40(6): 1213–1223. AJONINA, G. 2011. Assessing policy and institutional frameworks for Reward Based Approaches for Watershed and biodiversity management: Current practices, constraints and prospects in Cameroon. A Readiness Appraisal Report, PRESA-ICRAF-UNDP. ANGELSEN, A., STRECK, C., PESKETT, L., BROWN, J., and LUTTRELL, C. 2008. What is the right scale for REDD? The implications of national, subnational and nested approaches. CIFOR Info brief n015, November 2008. ANGELSEN, A., and WERTZ-KANOUNNIKOFF, S. 2008. What are the key design issues for REDD and the criteria for assessing options? Pages 11–21 in A. Angelsen (editor). 2008. Moving ahead with REDD. Issues, options and implications. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia. ASANGA, C.A. 2001. Facilitating viable partnerships in community forest management in Cameroon: The case of the Kilum-Ijim Mountain Forest Area. http://www.cifor. cgiar.org/acm/pub/toc-social-learning.html-11k. AWONO, A., SOMORIN, A.O., EBA’A ATYI, R., and LEVANG, P. 2014. Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: Insights from southern Cameroon. Environmental Science and Policy 35(2014): 76–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.01.017

ATELA, J.O., QUINN, C.H., MINANG, P.A., DUGUMA, L.A., and HOUDET, J.A. 2016. Implementing REDD+ at national level: Stakeholder engagement and policy coherences between REDD+ rules and Kenya’s sectoral policies. Forest Policy and Economics 65(2016): 37–46. BERNARD, F., MINANG, A.P., VAN NORDWIJK, M., FREEMAN, O.E., and DUGUMA, L.A. (Eds) 2013. Towards a Landscape approach for reducing emissions: A substantive report of the Reducing Emissions from All Land uses (REALU) Project. Nairobi, Kenya. World Agroforestry Centre, 119p. BESONG, J., J. CASEY, W. GARBER, and O’ REILLY, C. 1995. Mounts Kilum, Ijim and Kupe Mountain Forest Projects. Mid Term Review Report. BIGOMBE, L.P., and E.H. BIKIE. 1998. Women and land in Cameroon: questioning women’s land status and claims for change. A paper prepared for Emory University’s Women and Land Studies series. Emory University, Atlanta. [Online] URL: http://www.law.emory.edu/wandl/ WAl-studies/Cameroon.htm. BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL AND MINISTERE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET DES FORETS (MINEF). 2002. Kilum-Ijim Forest Project: Report on the demarcation of Fulani Enclaves within the Ijim Forest, Boyo Division. Report of the Demarcation Commission. BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL AND MINISTERE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET DES FORETS (MINEF). 2002. Kilum-Ijim Forest Project: Annual Report, JanuaryDecember 2002. BROWN, I.M. 2013. Redeeming REDD. Policies, incentives and social feasibility for avoided deforestation. Routledge, New York, USA, 330pp. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) 2015. The World Fact book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/ the-world-factbook/geos/cm.html. Accessed 04.10.2016 CERNEA, M.M. 1994. Sociology, Anthropology and Development. An Annotated Bibliography of World Bank Publications 1975–1993. The World Bank, Washington D.C., USA.

Implementing REDD+ in Cameroon

CHAMBERS, R. 1983. Rural Development, Putting the Last First. John Wiley, New York, USA. COTULA, L., and MAYERS, J. 2009. Tenure in REDD: Start Point or After Thought? IIED, UK. DKAMELA, G.P. 2011. The context of REDD+ in Cameroon: Drivers, agents and institutions. Occasional paper 57. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. ENCHAW, G.B. 2009. An assessment of conservation strategies in the management of natural resources in Kilum/Ijim Forest Project area (North West Region of Cameroon), Ph.D Thesis, University of Yaounde I, Yaounde, Cameroon. ENCHAW, G.B. 2011. Tenure security of indigenous peoples (Baka): An incentive for their participation in forest conservation within the framework of REDD-plus policies and programs. A consultancy report written for Lelewal Foundation, Yaounde, Cameroon. ERNST, C., MAYAUX, P., VERHEGGHEN, A., BODART, C., MUSAMPA, C., and DEFOURNY, P. 2012. National forest cover change in Congo basin: Deforestation, reforestation, degradation and regeneration for the years 1990, 200 and 2005. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12092. FORBISSIE, B.K., ESSOMBA, E.P., SONNE, N., NNAH NDOBE, S., and RETANA, V. 2012. Social safeguards and rights of indigenous people in the REDD+ process: Lessons from experience in natural resource management. WWF-CED Report, Yaoundé. Retrieved from: http:// loggingoff.info/sites/loggingoff.info/files/Report_REDD Safeguards_Cmr.pdf FOUNDJEM-TITA, D. 2013. A new institutional economic analysis of policies governing non timber forest products and agroforestry development in Cameroon. Doctoral Thesis, Ghent University, Belgium. GERMAN TECHNICAL COOPERATION (GTZ) and MINISTERE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET DES FORETS (MINEF). 2004. Lesson Learned from the GTZ-MINEF Project, Support to Korup National Park. GTZ - GmbH, Eschborn, Germany. HAKIZUMWAMI, E. 2000. Case study 3 Management effectiveness of the Dja Reserve, Cameroon. [On line] URL. http//:www.iucn.org/bookstore/html. HAMRICK, K., and GOLDSTEIN, A. 2016. Raising ambitions: State of the voluntary carbon markets 2016. Forest Trends.58p. HASKETT, J., and GUTMAN, P. 2010. Taking stock of the Global Environmental Facility experience with payments for environmental services projects. Pp26–53 In Tacconi, L., Mahanty, S. and Suich, H. (eds). Payements for environmental services, forest conservation and climate change: Livelihoods in the REDD. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Massachusetts, 267p. HOANG, M.H., DO TRONG, H., PHAM, M.T., VAN NOORDWIJK, M., and MINANG, P.A. 2011. Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Vietnam, Land Use Policy (2012). [On line] URL http://dx.doi:10. 1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.013. INGRAM, I., and DE BAAN, P. 2005. Forest governance facility: introducing a multi-stakeholder approach in

221

Cameroon’s forest and environment sector. Netherlands Development Organization, Department for International Development. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. LEIMONA, B., JOSHI, L., and VAN NOORDWIJK, M. 2009. Can rewards for environmental services benefit the poor? Lessons from Asia. International Journal of the Commons 3(1): 82–107. [On line] URL: http://www. thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/121. LE QUÉRÉ, C., RAUPACH, M.R., CANADELL, G.J., and MARLAND, G. et al. 2009. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, Nature Geoscience. http://www. pmel.noaa.gov/images/headlines/ngeo_689_aop.pdf. LYSTER, R. 2013. International legal frameworks for REDD+: ensuring legitimacy. pp3–25. In Lyster, R., MacKenzie, C. and McDermott, C. (eds). Law, tropical forests and carbon: The case of REDD+. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK, 289p. LYSTER, R., MACKENZIE, C., and McDERMOTT, C. 2013. Law, tropical forests and carbon: The case of REDD+. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 8RU. UK, 289p. MALHI, Y., and MARTHEWS, T.R. 2013. Tropical forests: carbon, climate and biodiversity. Pp26–43. In Lyster, R., MacKenzie, C. and McDermott, C. (eds). Law, tropical forest and carbon: The case of REDD+. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK, 289p. MASIGA, M. 2011. Payments for environmental services in Sub-Saharan Africa: Taking stock and generating evidence for increased investment and development of PES. UNDP assessment Report. MCNEELY, J.A., R.M. KENTON, W.V. REID, R.A. MITTERNMEIER, and WERNER, T.B. 1990. Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity. Gland, IUCN, WRI/CI/ WWF and World Bank. [On line] URL: http://pdf.usaid. gov/pdf_docs/PNABN263.pdf. MEGEVAND, C., MOSNIER, A., HOURTICQ, J., SANDERS, K., DOETINCHEM, N. and STRECK, C. 2013. Deforestation trends in the Congo Basin. Reconciling economic growth and forest protection. 179p. Washington DC, the World Bank. https://www.forestcarbonpartner ship.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/Deforestation%29Congo% 20Basin_full%20report_feb13.pdf. Accessed 22 December 2013. MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis report. Island Press. Washington, D.C., USA. MINANG, A.P., and VAN NOORDWIJK, M. 2012. Design challenges for achieving reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: Leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins. Land Use Policy 2012. [On line] URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.025 in Press. MINANG, A.P., VAN NOORDWIJK, M., and GOCKOWSKI, J. 2012. Carbon trade-offs along tropical forest

222

S. Ngendakumana et al.

margins: lessons learnt from ASB partnership work in Cameroon. Pages 391–398 in E. Wollenberg, A. Nihart, M.L. Tapio-Bistrom, and M. Greig-Gram, editors. Climate change mitigation and agriculture. Earthscan, London, England. MINANG, A.P., VAN NOORDWIJK, M., DUGUMA, L.A., ALEMAGI, D., HOAN DO, T., BERNARD, F., AGUNG, P., ROBIGLIO, V., CATACUTAN, D., SUYANTO, S., ARMAS, A., AGUAD, S.C., FEUDJIO, M., GALUDRA, G., MARYANI, R., WHITE, D., WIDAYATI, A., KAHURANI, E., NAMIREMBE, S., and LEIMONA, B. 2014. REDD+ Readiness progress across countries: time for reconsideration. Climate Policy 14(6): 685–708. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2014.905822. MINISTERE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET DES FORETS (MINEF). 1995. National Forestry Policy Document of Cameroon. Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Government document, Yaounde, Cameroon. MINISTÈRE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET DES FORÊTS (MINEF). 1998. Manual of the Procedures for the Attribution, and Norms for the Management of Community Forests. Yaounde, Cameroon, Editions CLE. MINISTÈRE DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT, DE LA PROTECTION DE LA NATURE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DURABLE-MINEPDED. 2012. Proposition des mesures pour l’état de préparation (R-PP “Readiness Preparation Proposal”): Soumission du Cameroun aux fonds FCPF de la Banque Mondiale et UN-REDD. Yaoundé. 157 p. MINISTERE DES FORETS ET DE LA FAUNE (MINFOF). 2008. Forêts Communautaires sous Convention de Gestion. Government document. MUSTALAHTI, I., BOLIN, A., BOYD E., and PAAVOLA J. 2012. Can REDD+ reconcile local priorities and needs with global mitigation benefits? Lessons from Angai Forest, Tanzania. Ecology and Society 17(1): 16. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04498-170116 NAMIREMBE, S., LEIMONA, B., VAN NOORDWIJK, M., BERNARD, F., and BACWAYO, K.E. 2014. Co-investment paradigms as alternatives to payments for tree-based ecosystem services in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2016, 6: 89–97. NEELY, C., and DE LEEUW, J. 2012. Home on the range: the contribution of rangeland management to climate change mitigation. Pages 333–346 in E. Wollenberg, A. Nihart, M.L. Tapio-Bistrom, and M. Greig-Gram, editors. Climate change mitigation and agriculture. Earthscan, London, England. NEPSTAD, D., SOARES-FILHO, B., MERRY, F., MOUTINHO, P., RODRIGUES, H.O., BOWMAN, M., SCHWAETZMAN, S., ALMEIDDA, O., and RIVERO, S. 2007. The cost and benefits of reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. Falmouth, Woods Hole Research Centre, Massachusetts, USA. [On line] URL: http://www. whrc.org/policy/pdf/cop13/WHRC_Amazon_REDD.pdf NEUFELDT, H., VAN DE SAND, I., DIETZ, J., HOANG, M.H., YATICH, T., LASCO, R., and VAN NOORDWIJK, M. 2012. Climate change, climate variability and adaptation options. in M. van Noordwijk, M.H. Hoang, H.

Neufeldt, I. Oborn, and T. Yatich, editors. How trees and people can co-adapt to climate change: Reducing vulnerability in multifunctional landscapes. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. NGBO-NGBANGBO, L.M., GE JIWEN, and NAHAYO, A. 2010. Assessment of socio economic factors and stakeholders involvement in Dzanga Sangha complex protected area, Central Africa Republic. Journal of Sustainable Development 3(2): 273–290. NGENDAKUMANA, S. 2011. Mapping policy and institutional landscapes for RES approaches in Watershed and biodiversity management schemes: current lessons and prospects in Guinea, Country Readiness Study report, ICRAF-UNDP Report for PRESA Project. NGENDAKUMANA, S., and NAMIREMBE, S. 2012. Engaging private sector in payment for ecosystem services: Case of Guinea water company in Coyah. PRESA project Guinea site brief. Unpublished. NGENDAKUMANA, S., BACHANGE E, G., VAN DAMME, P., SPEELMAN, S., FOUNDJEM-TITA, D., TCHOUNDJEU, Z., KALINGANIRE, A., and BANDIAKY, S.B. 2013. Rethinking rights and interests of local communities in REDD+ designs: Lessons learnt from current forest tenure systems in Cameroon. ISRN Forestry, Vol 2013 (2013). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/830902 NGENDAKUMANA, S., MINANG, P.A., SPEELMAN, S., FEUDJIO, P.M., VAN DAMME, P., and TCHOUNDJEU, Z. 2014. Institutional dimensions of the developing REDD+ process in Cameroon. Climate Policy 14(6): 769– 787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.877221 NGENDAKUMANA, S. 2016. Forest policy and institutional dimensions of REDD+ in Cameroon. PhD thesis, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, University of Ghent, University Press, Belgium. 265p. NGUIFFO, S., and DJEUKAM, R. 2008. Using the law as a tool to secure the land rights of indigenous communities in southern Cameroon. Pages 29–44 in L. Catula and P. Mattieu, eds. Legal Empowerment in Practice: Using legal tools to secure land rights in Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. OYONO, P.R., RIBOT, J.C., and LARSON, A.M. 2006. Environmental governance in Africa. WRI&CIFOR working paper no22, Bogor, Indonesia. OYONO, P.R., KOMBO, S.S., and BIYONG, M.B. 2008. New niches of community rights to forest in Cameroon: cumulative effects on livelihoods and local forms of vulnerability. Country Synthesis report, CIFOR, Yaounde, Cameroon. PAGIOLA, S., RAMÍREZ, E., GOBBI, J., CEES DE HAAN, IBRAHIM, M., E. MURGUEITIO, and RUÍZ, J.P. 2007. Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics 64(2): 374–385. PANDEY, D.N. 2002. Traditional knowledge systems for biodiversity conservation. Discussion paper. Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, India. [On line] URL: http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_ pande_conserve.htm

Implementing REDD+ in Cameroon

RAMETSTEINER, E., OBERSTEINER, M., KINDERMANN, G., and SOHNGEN, B. 2009. Economics of avoiding deforestaion. Pp39–48. In Palmer C and Engel S(eds). Avoided deforestation: Prospects for mitigating climate change. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 14 4RN. 258 p. REDD MONITOR, 2015. Cameroon’s REDD plans critiqued by NGOs ahead of World Bank meeting. DOI: http:// www.redd-monitor.org/2015/10/09/cameroons-reddplans-critiqued-by-ngos-ahead-of-world-bank-meeting/ RESEAU DES PARLEMENTAIRES DES PAYS D’AFRIQUE POUR LA CONSERVATION DES ECOSYSTEMES FORESTIERS (REPAR). 2009. Quinze ans de reformes forestières au Cameroun: Avancées, limites et perspectives d’amélioration. NESDA-CA, Yaoundé, Cameroun. RIGHTS AND RESOURCES INITIATIVES (RRI). 2009. Forest Tenure rights and REDD, Brochure for the African economic forum, November 2009, Addis Ababa-Ethiopia. ROBIGLIO, V., NGENDAKUMANA, S., YEMEFACK, M., TCHIENKOUA, M., GOCKOWSKI, J., TCHAWA, P., and TCHOUNDJEU, Z. 2010. Options for Reducing emissions from all land uses in Cameroon, World Agroforestry Centre, 2010. Yaoundé, Cameroon. SCRIECIU, SERBAN, S. 2007. Can economic causes of tropical deforestation be identified at a global level? Ecological Economics 62: 603–612. SUNDERLIN, W.D., LARSON, A.M., DUCHELLE, A.E., RESOSUDARMO, I.A.P., HUYNH, T.B., AWONO, A., and DOKKEN, T. 2014. How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia and Vietnam. World Development Vol. 55 pp 37–52. http//dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.worlddev.2013.01.013. SPRINGATE-BAGINSKI, O., and WOLLENBERG, E. (Eds). 2010. REDD, forest governance and rural livelihoods: The emerging agenda. CIFOR, Bogor. Pp.279. SWALLOW, B., VAN NOORDWIJK, M., and VERCHOT, L. 2007. La Déforestation Evitée aux Bénéfices durables, Une facon simple de réduire lesémissions des gaz à effet de serre émanant de la déforestation et de la dégradation. Brochure. ASB et World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. SWALLOW, B.M., M.F. KALLESOE, U.A. IFTKHAR, M. VAN NOORDWIJK, C. BRACER, S.J. SCHERR, K.V. RAJU, S.V. POATS, A.K. DURAIAPPAH, B.O. OCHIENG, H. MALLEE, and R. RUMLEY. 2009. Compensation and rewards for environmental services in the developing world: Framing pan-tropical analysis and comparison. Ecology and society 14(2): 26. [on line] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art26/. TACCONI, L., MAHANTY, S., and SUICH, H. 2010. PES schemes’ impacts on livelihoods and implications for REDD activities. Pp244–260 In Tacconi et al. (eds). Payments for environmental services, forests conservation and climate change: Livelihoods in the REDD. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Massachusetts, 267p. THE REDD DESK, 2015. REDD Countries Database. Accessible online at www.theREDDdesk.org/countries

223

TOMICH, T.P., D.E. THOMAS, and VAN NOORDWIJK, M. 2004. Environmental services and land use change in southeast Asia: from recognition to regulation or rewards. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104(2004): 229–244. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2008. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its thirteenth sessions, held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007. Addendum-Part two. http://unfccc.int/ resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf. Accessed 10. 10.2012. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2011. Cancun Accord. Decision 1/CP.16. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01. pdf#page=2. Accessed 10.10.2012. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 2013. UNFCCC Warsaw Framework, 2013. Convention Cadre des Nations Unies sur les Changements Climatiques CdP 19 et CRP-9.: Guide des Nagociaterus-13. 11–22 Novembre 2013. OIF et IFDD. 187p. UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2015). The Paris Agreement. 16p. Accessed 04.10.2016 DOI: https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_ nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf UNREDD (United Nations REDD Program) 2015. A collaborative resource for REDD readiness. Cameroon REDD+ Country Profile. http://www.theredddesk.org/countries/ cameroon/institutions. VAN DER WERF, G.R., MORTON, D.C., DEFRIES, R.S., OLIVIER, J.G.J., KASIBHATLA, P.S., JACKSON, R.B., COLLATZ, G.J., and RANDERSON, J.T. 2009. CO2 emissions from forest lost. Natura Geosci., 2, 737–738. www.nature.com/naturegeoscience. VAN DE SAND, I. 2012. Payments for Ecosystem Services in the context of adaptation to climate change. Ecology and Society 17(1): 11. [On line] URL: http://dx.doi. org/10.5751/ES-04561-170111. VAN NOORDWIJK, M., and LEIMONA, B. 2010. CES/ COS/CIS paradigms for compensation and rewards to enhance environmental services. Working paper 100. World Agroforestry Centre. Bogor, Indonesia. VAN NOORDWIJK, M., B. LEIMONA, L. EMERTON, T.P. TOMICH, S.J. VELARDE, M. KALLESOE, M. SEKHER, and SWALLOW, B. 2007. Criteria and indicators for environmental service compensation and reward mechanisms: realistic, voluntary, conditional and propoor. CES Scoping Study Issue Paper no. 2. ICRAF Working Paper no. 37. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agro-forestry Centre. WERTZ-KANOUNNIKOFF, S., and KONGPHAN-APIRAK, M. 2009. Emerging REDD+: A preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities. CIFOR working paper 46. Bogor, Indonesia. Printed in Denmark. WOLLENBERG, E., A. NIHART, M.L. TAPIO-BISTROM, and M. GREIG-GRAM (eds). 2012. Climate change mitigation and agriculture. Earthscan, London, UK. WUNDER, S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper no. 42, CIFOR, Indonesia.