Forest and land tenure policies: constraint to participatory tree domestication?
Cases from forest zones in Cameroon
P. 1Mbile, L. Z 1Tchoundjeu, C 2Njebet, P 3Pa’ah, D 4Okon, O 5Mambo, R 6Oyono, A 1Degrande & T 1sado
World Congress of Agroforestry 2009 Nairobi - Kenya, 23-28 August
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Participatory Tree domestication (PTD)
Tree domestication can refer to continuous farmer selection and cultivation of trees over many years or via deliberate breeding and can occur at all stages of improvement; from the wild to the genetically modified.
Sustained supply of products from both planted trees and naturally growing stocks entering into markets legitimately (without harassment) and with secure, recognized chains of custody protected by statutory law,
In ICRAF’s West and Central Africa programme PTD remains an iterative process involving client preferences to bring diverse indigenous trees into wider cultivation, marketing and cultivation
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Understanding around tree-based systems in parts of Cameroon has undergone 3 main dynamics
1. Minchon & De Foresta, 1997; Minchon 1986, 1983; Iskandar, 1980; Wersum, 1997, have attempted to conceive Agroforests based on multi-strata forest perspectives
2. Some analyses of cash crop systems, around rubber, oil palm and cashew Agroforestry, cocoa, coffee have been variously reported by (Duguma, 1998, Gokowski et al, 2004, Sonwa, 2004, Mbile et al, 2006, etc), can be noted
3. More recently with participatory tree domestication (PTD), we note works by Leakey & Tomich (1996), Leakey & Izac (1996), Ladipo et al, (1996), J.C. Okafor (1992), Tchoundjeu et al. (2002), Simons & Leakey (2004).
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Invariably, all these analyses make similar assumptions for success..
Key amongst these are that, Agroforest development requires…….
Unrestricted access to land to plant/mainatin trees; with enforceable long-term ownership and management rights strong enough to exclude intruders and facilitate business agreements with choice partners
A supporting policy environment sensitive to constraints in customary law, and to new proposals to strengthen local ownership, performance and continued protection for use and trade rights to diverse tree products
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
There is however some mismatches between customary perceptions and the modern State.
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Nationally >2,638 villages exist within 4 km of PFE: Estimated Agroforestry zones around these communities stands at 6.3 million hectares. By end of 2008, 621,245 hectares of forests (9.8% of AFZ) came under community forest titles
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Stakeholder engagements to influence policy review now seems the only plausible course of action to remedy the situation
But we know that this requires participation – incidentally, the Achille’s heel of policy
However, political science teaches us a few theories, some of which we are using in a coalition of research, conservation and civil society advocacy in Cameroon.
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Confidence
Cognitive phase Volition phase
Consensus
Level of confidence
High
Low
Low High
Scientific community
Society/Policy makers
Science-Policy divide
Adapted from Bradshaw, GA and JG Borchers. 2000
The phases of resistance and acquiescence by society/policy makers to scientific information
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
Linking scientific knowledge to policy & action via different scales
Cash & Moser, 2000
Functions/Actors
Decisions/actions
Regional
Sca
le
National
Household
Community
Sub-national
Information Interpretation Knowlegde
DECIOSION-MAKERS
MANAGERS ANALYSTS SCIENTISTS
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
2. Methods Data •Interviews•Documentation•Com. Mapping•GIS analyses•Public events
Issues & alliances1:National Parks (Korup, DJA, Campo Ma’an. (..WWF, CED, FPP, PERAD)
2a: Agro industry (CDC, Socaplam)(MCP, NCI, CIL, CARPE, CED, FPP)
2b: BLCC, (BLCC, CDC)
3a: Timber concession, private sector, (CamEco, Consultants)
3b: Forest reserves, timber concession and each other (CamEco, Consultants) 4a&b:Pygmy and Bantu people with national parks and timber concessions and with each other (CED, FPP, PERAD)
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
3: Conceptual framework
Concentual framework focus: ‘rule of law’Constitution: The broad principles of ‘governance
Policies: The philosophical and methodological frameworks
Laws = The substantive element or fixed rules or by-laws
“to ensure the well-being of every citizen without discrimination; raise living standards and uphold their right to development. Within the possibilities of her resources the State will provide conditions necessary for human development.” (Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon, 1996)
Dicey, (1982) : substantive aspects of law (the rules) shape public behaviour (F. A. Hayek (1994):
Shen (2000) fixed rules to be implemented as formal or procedural justice;
Schauer (1988) transparency, participation, fairness and procedure provides guarantees that ‘fixed rules’ will possess the substantive element and shape public behaviour.
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
3: Analyses../ case 1
1.Korup: 100% park is customary, State attempts to resettle villages, fails. Park people. Persona non grata. Deadlock. Proposals being made to incorporate people’s needs in management plan.
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
2a.Boa plains: People’a lands intersect with CDC lands. Lands retro-ceded (people have a bad deals).
3: Analyses../ case 2
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
2b.BLCC: Case legitimacy validated by AU CHPR. Government challenges on procedure. AU CHPR advices on local, sovereign solution.
3: Analyses../ case 3
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
3a.Ngonga-Kopongo: Local people’s case strong. Government concedes, promises encalves. Then retracts following submission by private sector company. Deadlock
3: Analyses../ case 4
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
3b.Kienke: local case strong, conflicts between peoples, with state reserve. Government concedes to timber concesssion, symbolically recognizes people’s. legitimate needs. But seems to be turning the other way in finding permanent solution
3: Analyses../ case 5
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
3: Analyses../ case 6
3c.Socapalm/Hevecam/Campo: Racial minority rights acknowledged but none territorial occupancy of space presents problems. WWF incorporates these people’suse rights into park management with State blessing. Process is far from satisfactory.
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
4a&b. Southeast: Mainly minority rights acknowledged by park management authorities. People’s hunting zones built intomanagement plans in southeast. A temporary solution is found.
3: Analyses../ case 7
WORLD AGROFORESTRY CENTRE
SYNTHESES
A clear patterns:– Achilles’ heel of Policy has always been people’s participation, so
‘rule of law’ appropriately focusses on that.
– Partial solutions in all cases have involved ‘grouping’ the problem to reduce the effect of ‘disarray’.
– Where authority has been conferred local solutions, though requiring moderation are sought and appear to work (Boa, Campo, Southeast, developing in Korup)
– Where there is a clash of powerful private or public sector interest the State seems ambivalent and confused (Kopongo, Boa, BLCC)
– The State performs badly when dealing directly with people’s problems (Korup, Kienke).
– The State is not creative enough in dealing with ‘unusual’ challenges like integrating racially unique lifelstyles into popular processes (Campo, Dja, Southeast).
– The state avoids public embarrassement at all costs (BLCC)