COMMUNITY-BASED BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

MANAGEMENT

Reaching the goal of Biodiversity Conservation and Community

Development

A Case Study of the Korup National Park and its support zone

Cameroon

Presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of

M.Sc. "Tropical and International Forestry"

at the

Faculty of Forest Science and Forest Ecology

Georg-August-University Goettingen, Germany

Submitted by:

Cornelius Yufanyi

July 2007

Goettingen, Germany

---

COMMUNITY-BASED BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

MANAGEMENT

Reaching the goal of Biodiversity Conservation and Community

Development

A Case Study of the Korup National Park and its support zone

Cameroon

ii

---

BIODIVERSITÄTS- UND NATURSCHUTZMANAGEMENT

AUF DER EBENE LOKALER GEMEINDEN

...mit dem Ziel, Biodiversitätsschutz mit der Entwicklung

ruraler Gemeinden zu verbinden

Eine Fallstudie im Korup Nationalpark und seiner Umgebung

Kamerun

iii

---

The donors are gone but the forests remain that of the villagers and

have to be conserved

KREO/KOGAN, 2006

iv

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to use this opportunity to express my profound appreciation and gratitude to all

those who gave me the possibility and support to complete this thesis.

In this manner I want to first of all thank my colleagues of the Hans Boeckler Stiftung

(Foundation) especially Dr. Irmgard Kucharzewski and Dagmar Jans for the wonderful

financial and moral support they gave in making my Master Studies possible, especially in the

collection of the data for this thesis in Cameroon.

Many thanks and appreciation also goes to Dr Schmidt-Soltau Kai who accepted to advice

and supervised me, providing me with primary materials for the collection of my data in the

Korup National Park. Furthermore I want to thank Mrs Mary Meboka, the deputy Mayor in

Mundemba, Cameron who provided me with inside information about the different villages in

the support zone and helped in the selection of the sampled villages.

I am bound and indebted to Chief Adolf Nwese and Prince Cletus Nwese of the

KREO/KOGAN indigenous NGO and their families, all in Mundemba, for their sincere and

familial assistance which I obtain. This goes especially to Prince Nwese who was with me all

through my trip in the 11 villages in and around the National Park. I would not have made it

without him. My gratitude also goes to Mr Akwaba

alias

"Akwa works" for the heart beating

experience I had with him during the survey.

Without forgetting the assistance and help of the Chief of Post for Forestry and Wildlife in

Idenau, Mr Nemoh George and the technical consultant for natural resource management for

the GTZ in Buea, Mr. Okenye Mambo who provided me with much needed secondary data;

to them all I extend my deepest and special gratitude.

I am deeply indebted to my supervisors in Goettingen, Germany, Prof. Dr. Max Krott, Dr.

Christian Hubo, PD Dr. Olschewski Roland, for granting me the possibility and liberty to

work in my own way as well as supervision of this thesis and whose help, stimulating

suggestions and encouragement helped me in all the time of research for and writing of this

thesis.

v

---

To my present and former colleagues from the George-August-University Goettingen,

Germany in the Masters Programme, "Tropical and International Forestry", I want to thank

them for all their help, support, interest and valuable hints. I am especially obliged to Bianca

Dunker and Christoph Neitzel who looked closely at the final version of the thesis for English

style and grammar, correcting both and offering suggestions for improvement. Many thanks

also to Marco Harbusch, Sol Heber, Chistof Jaszczuk and all the others whose names have not

been listed here.

I would like to give my special thanks to my most dear girlfriend Mai Zeidani, who was of

great help in difficult times and whose patience and love enabled me to complete this work.

Spiritual thanks also to my deceased landlady Prof. Dr. Gerda Freise who just passed away.

Her continuous political support and encouragements led me through. To all my colleagues,

brothers and sisters in the struggle for freedom and justice and against Racism here in

Germany and elsewhere in the world, I express my deepest thanks for your support and

solidarity.

Last but not least, special thanks to my daughter who might not realise it now, but she was the

driving force of my convictions to study and also finish this work. To my family in Cameroon

and in Germany, I express my heart-felt gratitude. This work also goes to my deceased

parents who would have certainly been proud of my accomplishments and are definitely

proud wherever they are now. To them I owe a great deal of knowledge and strength.

vi

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xii

GLOSSARY xiv

ABSTRACT xvii

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG xix

1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Problem

setting 2

1.2 Objectives 4

1.3

Importance of the study 5

1.4

Scope and limitations of the study 6

2

COUNTRY AND AREA BACKGROUND 8

2.1

The Government of Cameroon (GoC) 10

2.2

Korup National Park (KNP) 11

2.3

The Korup Project (KP) 12

3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 14

3.1 Theoretical

concepts 14

3.2 Hypotheses 17

3.3 Conceptual

framework 20

4

LITERATURE REVIEW 24

4.1

Trend towards linking livelihood and conservation 24

4.2

The arguments behind local community involvement 27

4.3

Role of national/international environmental NGOs and communities in ICDPs ... 29

4.4 Biodiversity

conservation

and rural development 32

4.5

Economic and other incentives 34

5

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 36

5.1 Research

methods 36

5.2

Research design and survey procedure 39

5.3

Field research instruments 40

5.4 Sample

Design 41

5.5 Data

collection 43

vii

---

6

RESULTS PRESENTATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 45

6.1 Research

findings 45

6.2

Interpretation of the findings 63

6.2.1

Results to Hypothesis 1 63

6.2.2

Results to Hypothesis 2 65

6.2.3

Results to Hypothesis 3 66

7

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68

7.1 Discussion 68

7.2 Conclusions 70

7.3 Recommendations 72

REFERENCES I

ANNEX I. VI

ANNEX II IX

viii

---

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of Cameroon, also showing neighbouring countries 8

Figure 2 Protected Area Network in Cameroon 10

Figure 3 Korup National Park in the South West Province 12

Figure 4 Villages in and around the KNP 13

Figure 5 Conceptual Framework to investigate the implementation of CBC in Cameroon, with

case study of the KNP 21

Figure 6 No linkage 24

Figure 7 Indirect linkage 25

Figure 8 Direct linkage 26

Figure 9 A general model of conservation projects 26

Figure 10 Models of three conservation strategies 27

Figure 11 Four sources of error in social survey research 38

Figure 12 Fabe Village showing the structure of the houses 41

Figure 13 Sampled Village circled in KNP and support zone 43

ix

---

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Citizen involvement in Conservation decision-making 16

Table 2 Name of the village and population 45

Table 3 Sex 46

Table 4 Sex * How old are you? Cross tabulation 46

Table 5 How do you see the forest? 47

Table 6 Quantitative: Why? 47

Table 7 Is it important for you to have a forest with animals? 47

Table 8 Quantitative: Why? 47

Table 9 What do you think about conservation of the forest? 48

Table 10 Quantitative argument why 48

Table 11 Have you heard about Korup Project? 49

Table 12 Is it still existing? 49

Table 13 Quantitative: What do you think about KP? 50

Table 14 Quantitative: What were the major activities of the KP? 50

Table 15 Quantitative: What were ist aims and objectives? 51

Table 16 Do you have any traditional methods of conservation? 52

Table 17 Quantitative: Which method and how effective is it? 52

Table 18 Was your village involved and consulted in the planning and implementation of the

KP activities? 52

Table 19 Was the creation of the KNP a good or a bad approach? 53

Table 20 Quantitative: Why? 53

Table 21 Did the KP contribute to the conservation of the forest? 54

Table 22 How effective were the methods used? 54

Table 23 Are the methods still implemented today? 55

Table 24 How often did you see the KP Staff in your village? 56

Table 25 Were you satisfied with the interaction of the KP Staff and local population? 56

Table 26 Do they still come today? 57

Table 27 Have you or your village benefited from the KP/NP activities? 57

Table 28 How was the end of the KP for you? 58

Table 29 Has there been any change in the village due to the activities of the KNP? 59

Table 30 What is the importance of the government in the KP? 60

Table 31 What is the importance of the WWF in the KP? 60

x

---

Table 32 What is the importance of the EU/GTZ in the KP? 61

Table 33 What is your importance in the KP? 62

Table 34 How do you feel now after the KP is no longer working in your village? 62

xi

---

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

"A" Levels

Advance Level Certificate

CAP

"Certificat d′Aptitude Professionnelle" (CAP)/Vocational

Training Qualification

CBC

Community-Based

Conservation

CBCI

Community-based

conservation

initiative

CBRMP

Community Based Resource Management Project

CBD

Convention

on

Biological

Diversity

CED

Centre for Environment and Development

CERD

Committee

on

the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination

CI

Conservation

International

CITES

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora

CODEV Conservation/Development

(NGO)

DED

Deutscher Entwicklungs Dienst (German Development Service)

DFID

Department

for

International

Development

DRC

Democratic

Republic

of

Congo

E

East

EC

European

Commission

EU

European

Union

FCFA

Francs of the African Financial Community, Communaute

Financiere Africaine

FFI

Fauna

&

Flora

International

FPP

Forest

Peoples

Program

FSLC

First

School

Leaving

Certificate

Ft

feet

GCE

General

Certificate

of

Education

GDP

Gross

Domestic

Product

GoC

Government

of

Cameroon

GTZ

Deutsche

Gesellschaft

fur Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH

ha

hectare

ICDP

Integrated

Conservation

and

Development

Project

xii

---

IUCN

World

Conservation

Union

km²

square

kilometre

KP

Korup

Project

KPA

Korup

Project

Area

KNP

Korup

National

Park

KREO/KOGAN

Korup Rainforest Ecotourism Organisation/Korup Guide

Association

m

metre

MINEF

Ministry of Environment and Forestry

MSc.

Master

of

Sciences

N

North

NEMP

National

Environmental

Management

Plan

NGO

Non-governmental

Organisation

NP

National

Park

NRMC

Natural Resource Management Committee

NTFP

Non-timber

Forest

Product

ODA

Overseas

Development

Administration

"O"

Levels

Ordinary Levels Certificate

PA

Project

Area

PRA

Participatory

Rural

Appraisal

UNEP

United

Nations

Environmental

Program

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

USDoD

United States Department of Defence

VA

Village

Animator

VMC

Village

Management

Committee

Vs

Versus

WCS

Wildlife

Conservation

Society

WWF

World

Wide

Fund

for

Nature

%

Percent

xiii

---

GLOSSARY

Contextual Definition of Terms

Community

refers to a heterogeneous group of people who share residence in the same

geographic area and access to a set of local natural resources. The degree of social cohesion

and differentiation, strength of common beliefs and institutions, cultural diversity and other

factors vary widely within and among communities (Schmink 1999)

Community Forest

is "That part of Non-permanent forest estate (not more than 5000ha) that

is the object of an agreement between government and a community in which communities

undertake sustainable forest management for a period of 25 years renewable". (under

Cameroon law of 1994). It is a forest established through an agreement by which the service

in charge of forestry allots to a community a portion of national forest, which the community

manages, preserves and exploits in its own interest (Manga

et al.

, 2001).

Community participatory policies

: Formulation of policies with the objective of involving

the local stakeholders or communities in projects which affect them

Conservation

refers to the long-term maintenance of ecosystem biodiversity through the

management of multiple forms of resource use and preservation. The concept, as defined here,

applies to the landscape scale (as opposed to genetic or species-level conservation), and

includes the different human groups as well as the natural species that inhabit the ecosystem

(Schmink 1999).

A Dependent variable

is the value of an outcome, i.e. output. E.g the dummy variable 0 and

1

Devolution of authority

is the decentralization of power and responsibilities from state level

to local stakeholders and NGOs with operating authority from their institutions following the

bottom-up strategy instead of top-down rule

The Dja Reserve

is located in the East and South Provinces of Cameroon. It covers an area of

5,260 sq. km and is classified among the largest protected areas of the Guinea-Congolian

xiv

---

tropical rain forests. The Dja Wildlife Reserve is located at the meeting point of the low

Guinean area and the Congolese Basin. The Reserve accommodates a large proportion of the

equatorial flora and wildlife species including such endangered species as the forest

elephants, the chimpanzees, and the gorillas (Jean Lagarde BETTI).

An independent variable

is any of the arguments, i.e. input or a variable on which one has

control; e.g. satisfaction of interaction of park staff with local community.

Indicators

are performance objectives or targets; i.e. they are concrete, specific descriptions

of what one has to measure. E.g., "participatory natural resource management can only be

successful if nearly everybody (

more than 75%

) is satisfied with the

benefits

, the

level of

participation

, the

methods applied

and the

general interaction

(Ghimire and Pimbert,

1997; cited in Schmidt-Soltau, 2000).

Level of integration

implies the intensity and stages of interaction of the different

stakeholders.

Macro- and Micro levels

: Between national institutions and local people, e.g. a forestry

department vs shifting Cultivators. (Grimble

et al.,

1997)

Opportunity Cost

is the value of the next best choice that one gives up when making a

decision. Any decision that involves a choice between two or more options has an opportunity

cost. E.g. forgoing forest activities like hunting to conserve the forest or maintain wildlife.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

is a short-cut method of data collection. It is a

methodology for action research and utilizes a range of techniques. It involves local people

and outsiders from different sectors and disciplines. Outsiders facilitates local people in

analyzing information, practicing critical self-awareness, taking responsibility and sharing

their knowledge of life and conditions to plan and to act. (Handari 2003).

Stakeholders

are different social actors, formal or informal, who can affect, or be affected by,

the resource management issues at hand (Schmink 1999).

xv

---

Stakeholder analysis

involves different levels of analysis and relationships to resources,

including organizations, groups and individuals at international, national, regional and local

levels, as well as different actors within local communities and domestic groups (Schmink

1999)

Support (buffer) zone

: A 3km

Peripheral Zone

including 23 villages and a population of

2,700. The Peripheral Zone aims to target those people living closest to the Park boundary

who necessarily bear the brunt of the costs of KNP and who have most impact on it ( KNP

Management Plan 2002-2007). This was created in order to help local people find sustainable

economic alternatives to the present hunting, trapping, gathering and deforesting practices in

the park.

Traditional and indigenous conservation methods

: These are carried out through

traditional hunting seasons, NTFPs harvesting practices, establishment of sacred forest by the

secret traditional societies, dealing with the problems of the environment through self or

transferred experience, with the respect to certain taboos.

Traditional institutions

are village or customary councils like the village traditional council

e.g., the Ekpe Society for the regulation of traditional norms/customary laws.

With and Without principle

: The impacts of a concrete project can be depicted as the

difference between the situation

with

and

without

project. When this

"With and without

principle"

is applied, it has to be taken into consideration that a situation without project is

likely to change over the planning horizon. This holds especially for forestry projects with a

long duration. If CBC is not sustainable, project costs or benefits are likely to be over- or

underestimated. Additionally, only effects that are actually caused by the project are to be

included in the analysis (Bergen et al., 2002; Hanusch, 1994; Olschewski, 2004; cited in

Heber

et al.

, 2006).

xvi

---

ABSTRACT

Community-Based Conservation

(CBC) refers to wildlife conservation efforts that involve

rural people as an integral part of a wildlife conservation policy. In Africa and specifically in

Cameroon, there have been changes in state policies towards natural resources management

particularly forest resources. This study deals basically on Cameroon, with national forest

cover of over 42% which constitutes one of its major economic resources. Since 1995, a new

forest policy act was enacted (proclaimed in 1994) to accommodate two approaches, that is,

Community Forestry and sustainable forest management. Conserving and enhancing

biodiversity through rural peoples′ involvement was one of the components of the new forest

policy act of 1995. The study analyses the conditions under which the CBC policies can be

successfully implemented in Cameroon, with the case of the Korup National Park (KNP) and

its support zone and the former Korup Project (KP). It also investigates the interest and the

relationship of the different stakeholders concerned, especially the local community.

The thesis uses three hypotheses (which are limited to CBC), semi-structured questionnaires

and secondary data to test or investigate successful policy implementation in the KNP by

analysing, (i) the role the local communities, (ii) the international environmental NGOs and

groups played in the former Korup Project (1988-2003) and (iii) the level of biodiversity

conservation and rural development in the Korup Project Area (KPA). The study was carried

out in the southern sector of the KNP with a simple-random sampling of 78 respondents out

of 11 villages of the 32 villages in and around the National Park.

The results indicate: (i) low participation of the local communities in the Integrated

Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) and later joint participatory biodiversity

conservation and rural development approach of the KP, (ii) a difficult relationship between

the international stakeholders and the local communities, and (iii) a temporary success in

biodiversity conservation and a failure in rural development.

From the results, it is concluded and recommended that though the Government of Cameroon

(GoC) has enacted many policies of authority devolution in the forestry and wildlife sector to

include the local communities in biodiversity conservation projects, much still has to be done

to practically implement these policies. Furthermore, it is recommended that a better

interactive relationship be established between future project authorities and the local

xvii

---

communities. This would then most probably enhance successful joint participatory

biodiversity conservation and rural development in the KPA.

Although more research is needed, the study indicates that it is not too late to successfully

implement a community-based biodiversity project which will reduce pressure in the KNP

and at the same time enhance rural development for the communities in and around the Park.

Keywords

: Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation, Integrated Conservation and

Development Project, local communities, Korup National Park, Korup Project.

xviii

---

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

In Afrika - speziell in Kamerun - gab es in der Vergangenheit bezüglich des

Naturressourcenmanagements und dort im speziellen gegenüber der Waldressource

bemerkenswerte Veränderungen in der politischen Linie. Diese Studie befasst sich im

Wesentlichen mit Kamerun, dessen Waldfläche über 42% umfasst, und somit eines der

wertvollsten Ressourcen des Landes darstellt. Seit 1995 greift eine ,,neue" Forststrategie,

welche zwei Ansätze miteinander verbinden soll: Gemeindewald und nachhaltige

Forstverwaltung.

Community-Based Conservation

(CBC) bezieht sich auf Bemühungen des

Wildtierschutzes unter Einbeziehung der ländlichen Bevölkerung als ein integraler

Bestandteil von

Wildlife Conservation Policy

. Erhaltung und Erhöhung der Artvielfalt unter

Einbeziehung der ländlichen Bevölkerung ist eine zentrale Komponente der ,,neuen"

Forststrategie von 1995. Die Studie analysiert die Bedingungen unter denen die politischen

Leitlinien des CBC erfolgreich in Kamerun umgesetzt werden konnten bzw. können.

Besonderer Bezug wird hierbei genommen auf den Korup National Park (KNP) und das

ehemalige Korup Project (KP). Außerdem wird das Interesse und die Beziehung zwischen

den verschiedenen s

takeholders

untersucht ­ im Speziellen die der lokalen Gemeinde.

Die Arbeit basiert auf drei Hypothesen (begrenzt auf CBC), den Ergebnissen aus einem

halbstandardisierten Fragebogen und Sekundärliteratur. Dies dient dazu, zu erfahren, ob und

wie erfolgreich der KNP war bzw. ist. Hierzu werden analysiert, (i) die Rolle der lokalen

Gemeinden, (ii) die internationalen Umwelt-NGOs und ähnliche Akteure im ehemaligen

Korup Projekt (1988-2003), und (iii) der Level von Artenvielfaltschutz und ländlicher

Entwicklung in dem Korup Project Gebiet (KPA). Die Studie wurde in dem südlichen Sektor

des KNP durchgeführt. Die Interviewpartner wurden durch einfache Zufallsauswahl zur

Befragung ermittelt. Insgesamt wurden in 11 von 32 Dörfern in und um den Nationalpark 78

Befragungen durchgeführt.

Die Ergebnisse deuten an: (i) geringe Beteiligung der lokalen Gemeinden im

Integrated

Conservation and Development Project

(ICDP) und späteren gemeinschaftlich mitwirkenden

Artvielfaltschutz- und ländlichen Entwicklungsansatz des KP, (ii) eine schwierige Beziehung

zwischen internationalen s

takeholders

und den lokalen Gemeinden, und (iii) einen

kurzweiligen Erfolg im Artenvielfaltschutz und ein Scheitern in der ländlichen Entwicklung.

Aus den Ergebnissen lässt sich schließen: trotz des Erlasses entsprechender politischer

xix

---

Richtlinien zur Dezentralisierung im Bereich Forst und Wildlife (unter Einbeziehung der

lokalen Gemeinden in Artvielfaltschutzprojekte) durch die kamerunische Regierung (GoC),

fehlt es noch an Erfolgen in der praktischen Umsetzung. Darüber hinaus empfiehlt sich eine

bessere interaktive Beziehung zwischen zukünftigen Projektleitungen und den betroffenen

lokalen Gemeinden. Das würde sehr wahrscheinlich zu einer Verbesserung des

gemeinschaftlich mitwirkenden Artvielfaltschutzes und ländlichen Entwicklung in der KPA

führen.

Auch wenn weitere Forschung erforderlich ist, deutet diese Studie darauf hin, dass es nicht zu

spät ist, erfolgreich ein CBC-Projekt durchzuführen. Es erscheint plausibel, dass ein solches

Projekt den Nutzungsdruck of den KNP reduziert und gleichzeitig zur Verbesserung der

ländlichen Entwicklung in Gemeinden in und um den Park beiträgt.

Schlüsselwörter:

Community-Based Biodiversity Conservation, Integrated Conservation and

Development Project, lokale Gemeinden, Korup National Park, Korup Project.

xx

---

1 INTRODUCTION

In Africa and specifically in Cameroon, there has been changes in state policies towards

natural resource management; particularly forest resources. Cameroon has a national forest

cover of 42% (CERD, 1997) which constitutes one of its major economic resources. Since

1995, a new forest policy act was enacted (proclaimed in 1994) to accommodate two

approaches, that is, Community Forestry and Sustainable Forest Management. Conserving

and enhancing biodiversity through rural peoples involvement was one of the components of

the new forest policy act of 1995. This was done with the aim of protecting the environment

and conserving resources and also as a mechanism to alleviate poverty through rural

development. And like most other less industrialised countries, which have tried to implement

new forest laws or direct participation of the local communities in forest management,

Cameroon has had its successes and failures in formulating and implementing such new laws.

The Government of Cameroon (GoC) with its new forest policy of 1994 represented an

important step towards addressing sustainable renewable resource management in the context

of an overall national development strategy. The new forest law defined the regulatory basis

for management of the forest estate. The law provides participation of local communities in

the management of certain categories of gazetted forests, and requires the preparation and

implementation of government-approved management plans for forests to be re-gazetted

under the law as a prerequisite for granting future timber concessions.

The effectiveness of this law has since then been dependent on the government′s capacity to

develop management plans for sustainable forest exploitation and biodiversity conservation

on a participatory basis and to monitor and enforce their implementation, especially in

gazetted areas. Though the protected areas management approaches that involve the

participation of local communities are now being widely promoted all over in Cameroon, the

impacts of such Community-Based Conservation Initiatives on local communities remain

poorly defined. This also includes national parks like the Korup National Park (KNP).

Historically, most of Cameroon′s national parks have been established in the more accessible

savannah zone, in the North of the country. It was only at the beginning of the fourth quarter

of the last century, with the growing interest in biodiversity conservation and concern over

1

---

deforestation that more attention has been paid by western conservationists, with pressure on

some West and Central African states, to the conservation of tropical rainforests. It was in this

light that in the early 1980s due to "the rising awareness of conservation, and especially the

willingness of international donors to support conservation of the tropical rainforest in

Cameroon, that resulted in the creation of the KNP by presidential decree No. 86/1283,

October 30, 1986, in 1986" (Schmidt-Soltau, 2004) as the first lowland tropical rainforest

National Park.

1.1 Problem

setting

Community-Based Conservation (CBC) management is gaining grounds year after year in

Cameroon propagated by international and national NGOs, the Cameroon government and

local communities. Community forests, gazetted areas like forest reserves and national parks

have been created with the consultation of local and indigenous populations. International and

state financed projects and programmes have been carried out in the last two decades to

sustainably manage and conserve biodiversity through the communities involved.

The KNP stands as a model, with conflicts and harmony for the implementation of a variety

of biological diversity conservation policies in Cameroon. Since its inception in 1986, the

KNP has seen many changes in policy implementation, from state control, through support of

environmental NGOs with Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs),

sustainable and participatory natural resource management, with local community

involvement.

Since the onset of the idea of a national park in Korup, the creation of the KNP itself and the

Korup Project (KP, the main interest of the study) that followed, much research and surveys

have been carried out to review the formulation, planning and implementation of policies in

the Korup Project Area (KPA, which is the KNP and its support zone). This however, has not

really led to outstanding results to set an example to other park managements. And as Ruth

Malleson (2000:295) in her dissertation described, "the KP′s socio-economic survey provided

much important information and sound recommendations; but the project′s failure to make

use of it and revise its rural development strategy in the light of the findings meant that the

project continued to make poor progress and errors that could have been avoided". How far

this failure contributes to the end results of the KP and influences the continuous management

2

---

of the KNP, with the importance of information flow in rational resource management and

planning will be analyzed by this study.

The final phase of the KP in the South West of Cameroon was full of conflicts, distrust and

mismanagement. Even though this phase of the project was oriented towards integrated

community involvement, its impacts still have to be fully studied. An impact assessment was

commissioned, which came out with results in June 2000 and reported to the then project

staff. The findings of the research was a problem and as its author puts it, "it was an open

secret that a good number of villages had informed the Korup Project that they were not

interested in any further cooperation and that the Korup staff were not allowed to enter their

villages or traditionally owned forest areas" (Schmidt-Soltau 2004: 111).

Although literally much is known about the stakeholders and the defined roles that they are

supposed to play in conservation projects or programmes, the practicality on the field comes

out with conflicting results. Officially, the KP which ended in 2003 was supposed to be an

ICDP or a CBC with a development component, which implies the full involvement of the

locals or indigenous people. Reports from many researches carried out in the area have proven

otherwise. Studying the level and effects of conservation and development in the area three

years after the end of the KP, will on the one hand confirm or shed more light on some of

similar researches that were carried out during the project′s lifespan and on the other hand

demonstrate the impacts, benefits or price endured, acquired or paid respectively by the local

communities in the KPA after the end of the project.

This research study analysed the conditions under which the CBC concepts can be

successfully implemented in Cameroon, investigating the interest and the relationship of the

different stakeholders concerned with focus on the local community.

Using the theory on CBC, the successes and failures in the approaches in management, the

social effects and how they impact the local community will be analysed in the thesis. In

doing this, the research will come up with recommendations for the policy makers and also

proposals to the local communities on how to better plan, coordinate and implement CBC

policies.

3

---

With all these in mind, this thesis intends to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the prerequisites for success or failure of CBC Projects like that of the KNP?

2. What are the policies that mirror CBC management and how is it practiced in

Cameroon, with the example of the KNP?

3. Who are the stakeholders (focus groups and individuals) involved and their level of

involvement in conservation projects and programmes? KNP as case study

4. What are the strategies of policy implementation of CBC projects, their impacts and

effects on the indigenous community (perception of the local communities of the

KNP)?

1.2 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to contribute to the better understanding of the conditions

to a successful CBC initiative, by analysing the policies, interests, activities, and practical

realities of implementing CBC projects/programmes in Cameroon. Doing this is worthwhile;

to better understand the successes and failures so as to propose recommendation for policies

and projects/programmes, vis-à-vis biodiversity conservation management.

The specific objectives are:

1. To describe the overall concept of conditions for a successful CBC and contribution of

the local community in the success or failure of biodiversity conservation projects.

2. To identify and analyse factors that lead to local communities′ participation in

resource planning and management and the policies that control these factors.

3. To explore and analyse the role of NGOs, local communities′ participation and their

level of involvement in the conservation of biodiversity in Cameroon, with the case

study of the KNP.

4. To identify the links between conservation and development and the conditions of

success, analysing how it was practiced in the KPA with community participation in

the KP.

4

---

1.3

Importance of the study

Over the last three decades, the participation of the local communities and the indigenous

people in nature conservation projects has been seen as a precondition for the success of such

undertakings. In many countries of the tropics and in Cameroon in particular, financial and

technical support from international conservation organizations and groups only come with

the preconditions that the local communities participate and their interests equally represented

in conservation project formulation and implementation.

This research carries the same weight of importance like any other research which has been

carried out in the KPA. It also seeks to continue the line of researches concerning the

formulation and implementation of policies of CBC projects and programmes in this area. The

western style conservation of the rich African humid rainforest has come into much criticism

and this study also addresses some of the criticism, problems and successes through analyses

of the former KP of the KNP. The targeted groups on which this study would like to impact

are the policy makers in the concerned region, but most important are the local NGOs and the

communities who are trying to reshape their daily lives after the departure of the KP. This

study also targets master students working in this and related fields of study.

Even those who were proclaimed through many reports of the different international

organisations to have taken part in the KP (the communities in the KPA) did not know what

the activities and objectives of the project were. The few who knew could not really connect

these to their daily lives. This study would want to confirm or reject the results of Schmidt-

Soltau (2000) who wrote, "while the theoretical premises of the Korup Project are focusing on

a close interaction between rural development and conservation, only a small educated

minority in the villages recognised this relation". That is why this research is important in

comparing theory and reality on the ground, based on quantitative and qualitative data that

were collected in the area.

Furthermore, as earlier stated the study hopes to contribute in the field of study by identifying

the conditions under which CBRMPs in Cameroon (example of KNP) are implemented,

contributing in the better understanding of the characteristics and prerequisites of the success

or failure of CBC Management projects. Although with reservations and limitations, this

5

---

would enhance the possibilities in successful project implementation or highlight reasons for

failures.

1.4

Scope and limitations of the study

The scope of this research is limited to the KPA in general and in particular, to the KNP and

its support zones, the communities that must play a vital role in the management of the park.

It explores and describes the nature of the KP during and after its lifespan. Though it tries to

highlight the different activities of the project with the birth of forest resource management

devolution after the 1994 proclaimed Community Forestry law enactment in Cameroon, it

stops short of representing the overall picture of community involvement in conservation

projects in Cameroon (although results could be similar elsewhere in Cameroon). It is also in

part, a follow-up of a previous research carried out in the year 2000 by Dr. Kai Schmidt-

Soltau, as can be seen by most of the formulated questions in the questionnaires that were

used (see ANNEX I).

Due to the benchmarks of this thesis, it did not focus on establishing the quantitative

significance on the relationships between variables but rather descriptive statistics in the

analysis of data like frequencies and percentages. This does not mean it is not possible to

establish this relationship from data collected. Different variables and indicators, through

questionnaires and interviews are used to analyse the perception of rural people and other

stakeholders. Part of the research methods follows the basis of an empirical-analysis approach

whereby theory-based description and explanation of empirical evidence will be checked.

Although the study is confined to a specific project location, the southern part of the park and

its buffer zones, which may not be enough to arrive at a generalization that may be applicable

to any other locations, it is worthwhile noting that the impact of the results has a broader

scope and implication. Despite these limitations, the study provides an in-depth information

and valuable insights about the importance of the local community in reaching the goals CBC

and rural development in Cameroon.

This chapter ends with a structural and background highlight of how the study is going to be

analyzed. The geopolitical representation of Cameroon and the historical background of the

project area will be reviewed in chapter 2. The theoretical framework (chapter 3) will be

6

---

delineated, by first illustrating two of the different theoretical concepts of biodiversity

conservations as

per se

, highlighting the involvement of the local communities and other

stakeholders and later, a background of the three hypotheses. Also in this chapter, analytical

models are going to be presented through a conceptual framework and background

assumptions, so as to get a better understanding in using the research questions to build up the

different variables, portraying the relationship (link) between them. Chapter 4 reviews the

literature, relating the study objectives, questions and hypotheses, also citing important works

related to CBC in the KNP, making it easier to understand the theoretical and practical

methods used in the study. Chapter 5 then gives a brief theoretical and detailed practical

methodology of how the empirical field study was carried out, describing the sample methods

and population and also the instruments used to carry out the study and data collection and

how the results were arrived at. This is followed by chapter 6, dealing with the results

presentation and analysis of the data collected through the questionnaires. Finally, chapter 7

deals with the discussion, conclusions and recommendations of the study.

7

---

2

COUNTRY AND AREA BACKGROUND

This chapter is very important due to the geopolitical location of Cameroon and the

motivation behind the conservation of its biodiversity. The area and historical background of

the KNP and the KP also recounted.

Cameroon, which acts as a bridge between West and Central Africa is situated in the

geographical coordinates of 6 00 N, 12 00 E. With an area almost one and a half times bigger

than Germany (Area total: 475,440 km2 ­ comparative: Germany: total area 356,733 km2;

www.stepin.org), Cameroon is located in Western Africa (sometimes Central Africa is

preferred). It is bounded on the North by Lake Chad; on the East by Chad and the Central

African Republic; on the South by the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea;

and on the West by the Bight of Biafra (an arm of the Atlantic Ocean) and Nigeria. The

country situated on the Gulf of Guinea, is shaped like an elongated triangle, and is with a rich

forest and a relatively well-developed flora and fauna system. It is usually described as Africa

in miniature because its diversity in ecosystems and climatic conditions are comparable with

many African regions.

Figure 1 Map of Cameroon, also showing neighbouring countries

Source: worldatlas.com

Cameroon has four distinct topographical regions. In the south is a coastal plain, a region of

dense equatorial rain forests; the Adamawa Plateau in the center, a region with elevations

reaching about 1,370 m (about 4,500 ft) above sea level. This is a transitional area where

forest gives way in the north to savanna regions. In the far north the savanna gradually slopes

into the marshland surrounding Lake Chad and in the west is an area of high, forested

8

---

mountains of volcanic origin. Located here is Mount Cameroon (4,095 m/13,435 ft), the

highest peak in western Africa and an active volcano. The country′s most fertile soils are

found in this region (www.encarta.msn.com).

With a population of a little over 17 million people (July 2006 estimate) the Cameroon′s

traditionally agricultural economy began changing in the late 20th century with the discovery

and exploitation of offshore petroleum reserves. Seen as one of the main occupation of the

country, agriculture is practiced by approximately 70 percent of Cameroon′s population and

still contributes the largest share of the country′s gross domestic product (GDP). It also has a

relatively well developed system of forest and faunal reserves, most of which were

established in the colonial era during the 1930s and 1940s (Ruth Malleson, 2000).

Almost a third of its territory is covered by tropical moist forests. Among African countries,

Cameroon ranks second only to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in diversity of

forest-dwelling primates, and among the top five in diversity of plant species. Cameroon is

home to the only remaining population of black rhinoceroses in west central Africa. The

humid forests of the littoral zone and the mountains of south-western Province rank among

the world′s top 100 areas for endemic bird species and exhibit high endemism for amphibians,

reptiles and plants. The lowland forests of south-eastern Cameroon, although altered by

accelerated harvesting practices over the past two decades, support some of the most

concentrated and diverse populations of large mammals (elephants, forest ungulates, great

apes) recorded in west or central Africa (World Bank, 1995). There are also well known

protected areas and National Parks.

9

---

Figure 2 Protected Area Network in Cameroon

(Source: Management Plan for KNP and peripheral zone 2002-2007)

2.1

The Government of Cameroon (GoC)

The Government of Cameroon, with technical support from the United Nations Development

Program (UNDP) and other international bodies, initiated a national environmental

management planning process which led to a National Environmental Management Plan

(NEMP). In doing so, the GoC seek to gain experience with locally integrated resource

management with regard to community participation in protected area management, to help

expand grass-root participation in formulation of the NEMP. This would strengthen the

scientific rigor and quality of the biodiversity conservation strategy to be developed within

the framework of the NEMP. The then Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MINEF), now

Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, is the lead governmental agency that ensures coordination

of programmes or projects concerning wildlife or biodiversity in particular. In addition to its

other responsibilities, it is mandated (in coordination with the Ministry of Environment) to

supervise nature conservation activities and is the governmental agency responsible for the

organisation of protected areas and management of the country′s natural heritage.

10

---

2.2

Korup National Park (KNP)

The KNP is situated in the South West Province of Cameroon, adjacent to the international

boundary with Nigeria, 50 kms inland from the Bight of Biafra. It was originally gazetted as a

forest reserve in 1937 as ,,Korup Native Administration Forest Reserve" by the British

colonial powers. This humid tropical forest which is found in the Congo basin is believed by

scientists to be one of the oldest of their kind in Africa and to have more than 3000 species of

trees, plants, animals and insects. One of the veteran Korup pioneer researchers Stephen

Gartlan after his researches estimated that the Korup forest is the home to 25% of African′s

primate species. Based on the research of Stephen Gartlan and Phil Agland, first conservation

activities were carried out in the early eighties by the Earthlife Foundation and the GoC

(Schmidt-Soltau, 2000: 6). Due to these activities, in June 1986, the ODA (now DFID)

decided to sponsor further research in the area. As a result of these, the KNP was created and

since then has received funding from a number of organisations like WWF, the EC, DFID,

GTZ, USDoD, DED and FFI which have contributed towards the development of the Park

and its support zone.

The KNP is the only lowland tropical rainforest national park (the southern part of which is

almost certainly primary) in Cameroon, with most of the other national parks found in the

more accessible savannas in the north of the Country. The park covers an area of 126,900 ha

(1269 km2), with a human population of about 50,000 people living in 187 villages, 5 of them

in the park (still waiting to be resettled) and 27 very close to the park, a 3 km support zone

(which was before a much wider peripheral zone surrounding the park). It is believed that

Korup lies at the centre of the Guinea-Congolian forest refugium, one of only two Pleistocene

refugia proposed for Africa (KNP Management Plan 2002-2007).

Because of the park management, the Korup Project was established (1988-2003) to facilitate

the smooth functioning and also to achieve the goals of the Park, which were to preserve the

biodiversity and development of the Korup region. Found in Ndian Division, the headquarters

of the park is situated in Mundemba, which in itself is a subdivision.

11

---

KNP

Source: MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR KORUP NATIONAL PARK AND ITS PERIPHERAL ZONE 2003-2007

Figure 3 Korup National Park in the South West Province

2.3

The Korup Project (KP)

Funded by ODA and WWF (which took over from Earthlife after the charity went into

liquidation in March 1987), a first project proposal to secure the Korup National Park was

elaborated and signed on February 3rd 1988 by the Government of Cameroon and WWF. This

was the beginning of the KP, which lasted until the end of 2003 and about which this thesis is

going to be based on. The rationale behind the establishment of the Korup Project was to

contribute to "the protection of old, undisturbed forest in Korup National Park area, through

the improvement in living standards and economic conditions in the surrounding support

zone, through the raising of environmental awareness among local communities, and through

protection of the National Park" (Mid-Term, 133).

12

---

Source: MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR KORUP NATIONAL PARK AND ITS PERIPHERAL ZONE 2002-2007

Figure 4 Villages in and around the KNP

13

---

3 THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORK

Here, the theoretical perspectives are of utmost importance to understand the study. This is

structured in the form of a background theoretical concept of the study (CBC), followed by

the hypotheses. The hypotheses are limited to Community-Based Conservation from which

two synonyms will be analysed. Furthermore, this chapter also deals with a conceptual

framework to analyse the relationships between the communities and other stakeholders. The

rationale behind all these is to define the variables that are vital for the study.

First of all, the term conservation will be defined; which according to the IUCN/WWF/UNEP

World Conservation Strategy Definition, is "the maintenance of essential ecological processes

and life-support systems, the preservation of genetic diversity, and the sustainable utilization

of species and ecosystems" (Talbot, L. M., 1980; cited in MacDonald, Kenneth Iain-undated).

Because conservation in the past decades has become a global issue, one has realised the

importance of the indigenous and local populations and the roles they play in the maintenance

and preservation of the endless depletion of our biodiversity. These roles are also defined in

the following two concepts:

Community-Based Conservation Initiatives (CBCIs),

And Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs).

3.1 Theoretical

concepts

Community-Based Conservation Initiatives (CBCIs)

The concept of CBCIs, by definition, operates at a local or community level. They tend to

be voluntary, people-centred and participatory, with community members making

management decisions (Murphree, 1994, cited in Forgie, V.

et al.

, 2001: 6). Expertise may

be provided by outside agencies but management responsibility remains with the

community group. For conservation purposes a community can be defined as a number of

people who have a goal and decide to work together to do something about it. While

groups can contain mutual, overlapping and divergent interests and perspectives, the goal

binds people together, giving them a common identity despite individual differences. The

minimal trappings of a community (according to Daly & Cobb 1994, p. 175, cited in

Forgie, V.

et al.

, 2001) are:

14

---

· Allowing all citizens to participate;

· Accepting citizens′ responsibility;

· And respecting the diversity of citizens.

The rationale behind CBCIs is that, by working together, people are able to achieve more than

individuals or organisations working on their own, and involving those affected is likely to

result in a better and more acceptable long-term solution (Forgie, V.

et al.

, 2001: 6). They

reverse top-down, centre-driven conservation by focusing on the people who bear the costs of

conservation. In the broadest sense, then, community-based conservation includes natural

resource or biodiversity protection by, for, and with local communities (Western & Wright

1994, p. 7, Forgie, V.

et al.

, 2001: 6).

In his paper, Wilcox (1994) also points out 5 points for effective stakeholder participation in a

project or programme, stressing citizens′ involvement. These are: information, consultation,

deciding together, acting together and supporting independent community initiatives. These

points are furthermore explained by the statements of Forgie, V.

et al.

(2001) that state,

"CBCIs promote a more active form of participation where citizens influence outcomes.

Citizens are actively involved in suggesting options and sharing decision-making with other

stakeholder groups. Power is decentralised, and community groups make decisions that affect

their immediate environment. Community initiatives can be placed along a continuum from

highly specialised activities that require the dedicated skills of specialists, to activities

requiring no specific skills, just the willingness of individual members of the public to

coordinate and be involved in projects. The table below taken from Forgie, V.

et al.

(2001)

based on Wilcox (1994), illustrates this progression.

15

---

Table 1 Citizen involvement in Conservation decision-making

* Action Planning is a process where experts, agencies and community members work together in intensive sessions to look at

Issues in an holistic way. Using a visual approach with drawings or scaled models people consider and communicate visions for

their community′s future (see Wates, 1996; cited in Forgie, V.

et al

l, 2001).

Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs)

Even though there is no universally accepted definition of what ICDPs are, biodiversity

practitioners see them as biodiversity conservation projects with rural development

components. ICDPs have many different names like "People-Centered Conservation and

Development", "Eco-development", "grassroots conservation", community-based natural

resource management (CBNRM) and community wildlife management (CWM). All of

which were created by the conservation organizations, rather than the indigenous and

local people (Chapin, 2004). In a broader sense, the concept behind it is, "an approach that

aims to meet social development priorities and conservation goals" (Hughes and Flintan,

2001), through integration of the indigenous and local community. Firstly introduced by

the WWF in the mid-1980s, they have characteristic of biodiversity conservation

objectives using socio-economic investment tools. ICDPs are more often than not seen as

CBC projects but their approaches have common features that are more distinct from

other CBC projects as highlighted below by Hughes and Flintan (2001):

· Biodiversity conservation is the primary goal;

· There is a recognised need to address the social and economic requirements of

communities who might otherwise threaten biodiversity, and the natural resource base

in general;

16

---

· The core objective is to improve relationships between state-managed protected areas

and their neighbours;

· ICDPs do not necessarily seek to devolve control or ownership of protected area

resources to local communities nor address this issue on the periphery of the parks;

· ICDPs usually receive funding from external sources, i.e., from bilateral or

multilateral donors, and international conservation organisations. Without some form

of external financial assistance government wildlife (or other conservation-related)

department budgets can rarely afford to implement these projects;

· The majority of ICDPs are externally motivated and are initiated by conservation

organisations and/or development agencies (even if implemented by governmental

bodies);

· And they are generally linked to a protected area, more often than not, a national park.

There are also some assumptions that go in hand with the concept of ICDPs. These are:

· Creating other local livelihood options or alternatives will reduce human pressure on

biodiversity, leading to its improved conservation;

· The local community and their livelihood practices, rather than `external factors′,

comprise the most important threat to the biodiversity resources of the area in

question;

· And ICDPs offer sustainable alternatives to traditional protectionist approaches to

protected area management.

3.2

Hypotheses

Now based on these premises of the two concepts of CBC, the hypotheses below will be

tested or better said confirmed or rejected using the study questionnaires.

Hypothesis 1

The involvement of the local community is important for the success of

Biodiversity Conservation.

To confirm or reject this hypothesis, the level of involvement of the local

communities in planning and implementation of conservation policies in the KNP

through the KP will be analysed.

17

---

To test this first hypothesis, the perception of the community towards the KNP and the former

KP will be investigated. This perception depends on several factors, one of them being the

connections between conservation and the lives of the local community. Total dependence on

forest means conservation will have a high impact on the livelihood of the community.

Previous research from Schmidt-Soltau (2000) highlighted that the Korup Project was not

very popular among the inhabitants of the region. As he also stated, "the perception of

something is mostly linked to actions undertaken by the other side (other stakeholders)"

(Schmidt-Soltau, 2000). Based on this statement, actions which were still in the memory of

the villagers after the end of the KP were investigated. A survey was also made on the

knowledge of the ordinary villager about the aims and objectives of the Korup Project. One

main indicator will be the reaction of the villagers towards the end of the Korup Project. The

questions used are especially related to the image of the Korup Project and will contribute in

testing of the overall assessment of the political influence of the local community in the KP.

Hypothesis 2

The consideration of traditional conservation methods by international

conservation groups and organisations is a success factor for sustainable

conservation.

This hypothesis will be tested by analyzing the role of national and international

environmental NGOs in ICDPs.

"Over the past 50 years, however, as biodiversity loss has been constructed as an international

problem, conservation has also increasingly become the purview of international non-

governmental organizations (NGOs), many of which have come to hold greater environmental

authority than the governments of nation states. Often structured through class and racial bias,

and ignorant of community-based practices for environmental management, contemporary

conservation policy, practice and jurisdiction has emerged out of a past littered with struggles

over sovereignty, competing ideologies of nature, conflicting use rights, and markedly

inequitable power relations"(MacDonald, 2003: 2).

Traditional conservation methods (through the indigenous ways of living, working and sacred

protected grounds) in Africa, and especially in Cameroon has made it possible that today,

centuries after slavery and colonisation, there are still biodiversity conservation hotspots to be

found here. In the recent past, conservation of biodiversity has become a contemporary issue

18

---

which makes it difficult or counter-productive to ignore the interests of local and indigenous

people or their traditional methods. International conservation groups and organisations have

historically worked to exclude the local populace in conservation projects but now, those who

in one way or the other still ignore the interests of indigenous or local people do that at their

peril. Notwithstanding, one still finds that for example the history until present date of the

creation of the KNP represents the colonial African myth propagated by the white colonial

masters of "wilderness" and "vacant land without people", a conservation myth, which even

with CBC programmes in the so-called independent African state conservation policies still

exist. The evacuation or resettlement of one of the six villages (Ikondo Kondo) outside the

KNP is just an example. The remaining five villages are still waiting for resettlement, though

not in the near future.

Not emphasising much on the contemporary thoughts, the aim here is to investigate the

importance of local knowledge and traditional conservation methods to successfully

implement a sustainable CBC conservation project with international NGOs and groups as

stakeholders.

NGOs on the one hand, under Cameroon law are formed "under the Law on liberty of

Associations (NO 90/053 of 19th December 1990), with their headquarters as well as their

funding sources determining whether they are local, national or international" (UNEP, 1999;

xxi). While on the other hand the "International Community" are basically characterised

through interests generally expressed by some specific technical organisations concerned

world-wide with conservation, exploitation and trade (e.g. European Union, UNEP, WWF,

IUCN, CITES). The interests of these groups are manifested through participation by their

representation at the various discussion seminars, workshops and meetings on biodiversity

conservation. Several NGO′s in the country are specifically orientated towards the

sustainability of biological diversity.

Hypothesis 3

The integration of rural development is essential for the success of Biodiversity

Conservation Projects.

This is based on the theory that Conservation involving the local community

enhances biodiversity conservation and rural development. Here the theoretical

objectives of biodiversity conservation and rural development will be practically

19

---

tested using the KP, if it reached its targets.

As earlier highlighted, in biodiversity conservation projects, there are internal and external

stakeholders. The internal stakeholders in this case are the Government of Cameroon (GoC)

and the local communities in the KPA who are supposed to conserve biodiversity. The

external stakeholders are the international NGOs or organisations like the WWF and the GTZ

who try to influence the formulation and implementation of conservation projects through

ideological, financial and technical assistance. In creating incentives through direct or indirect

methods, they try to sensitise and motivate local communities through rural development and

also using the capabilities of the local community to foster conservation objectives.

The ICDP was a model of the CBC used in the KP to provide support in the Park management

plans and since the Korup Project was not a rural development project, but a conservation

project, which used rural development as a method to reduce the pressure on forest resources,

the local knowledge of the community on forest and conservation is very important. The third

hypothesis will be used to analyse the local knowledge in biodiversity conservation and the

methods used by the project in carrying out conservation and development. The purpose is the

attempt to prove if there are direct and concrete linkages in the conservation and development

objectives of the KP to attain its goal - the conservation of biodiversity in the KPA.

3.3 Conceptual

framework

Since the ratification of the CBD by Cameroon, the State has embarked on many measures

leading to the devolution of authority to the different stakeholders in the forestry and wildlife

sector, especially the indigenous and local community. The results can be traced back to

certain factors that can be statistically analysed. In dealing with the impact of implementing

the CBC in Cameroon, one has to analyse some of these factors which might act as indicators

for positive or negative correlations being influenced by certain changes. This research uses

the following conceptual framework (below) as the basis for investigating the relationship or

interaction in a CBC initiative between local communities and other stakeholders like the

Government and international NGOs and groups:

20

---

Community-based Conservation

Korup Project Area

Government/State

Devolution of

Rights of participation

authority

/ influence and power

Financial and

(policies)

technical support

Level of involvement/

Community perception

International

Organisations/NGOs

Interest/role of

community

Local

Stakeholders/Communities

Level of interaction /building

capacity

(conservation/development

Figure 5 Conceptual Framework to investigate the implementation of CBC in Cameroon, with case study

of the KNP

(Source: from author).

In figure 5, one sees that Government policies will affect the level of involvement of the local

communities. This is indicated as shown with the yellow arrows and circles on the left of the

diagram. On the right, because the Government gets financial and technical assistance from

international bodies, it allows these Organisations to formulate and carry out projects with the

aim of conservation and development. This again can be illustrated in green. Also at the

bottom of the diagram (illustrated in turquoise), the international Organisations attempt to

strengthen the capacity of the local communities to sustainably conserve biodiversity and help

develop their communities through recognising and understanding their interests and roles.

All these are focused to involve the community in conserving biodiversity while enhancing

their development.

This is not as easy as shown in figure 5 and that is why this study will try analysing these

variables and factors. There are obviously constraints in these relationships. In fact, at the root

of the difficulties or conflicts between the Government, indigenous/local communities,

international environmental organisations and groups and conservation itself lies a

combination of historical, cultural and socio-political factors. These can be modelled in the

following analyses:

21

---

Every biodiversity conservation project impacts on people, either as direct users of its

resources, or as beneficiaries of the goods and services it provides. Even when a

protected area′s resources are not directly used, its management is, above all, the

management of the relationship (whether economic, cultural or spiritual; permanent or

sporadic; immediate or distant) between people and the area′s resources, as well as of

the human interactions that are engendered.

Indigenous and local people often rely on products, services, or land from nearby

natural areas to meet their livelihood needs. Their use constitutes one demand on the

biological resources of these areas, while their conservation objectives coupled with

those of the state, and outside groups constitute another. The resulting conflict,

compatibility, or complementarities between the demands created by livelihood

activities and conservation objectives have been the focal point of much discussion

and effort over the last three decades, hence, linkage of conservation and livelihood

activities and the role of the community in policy formation and implementation.

The concept of conservation and local community helps managers to focus on the

needs and rights of categories of users who have in the past been marginalized by

conservation efforts. However, it can be ill-suited to the analysis and understanding of

the place of people in complex natural resource use systems, because it suggests a

homogeneity that does not exist at all levels, and it ignores those people who cannot

be identified with a local, geographic community.

The concept of "stakeholder"

has gained prominence in development and natural

resource management circles because of its usefulness in the identification and

definition of those who have influence on, or can be affected by, the management

process. It recognizes, for example, that poor people not in the Project Area (PA)

buffer zones but in the KPA (out of the buffer zone) as a whole, potentially affected

by the impact of conservation have a direct stake in the management of the KNP; but

although stakeholders, they cannot be termed "local".

Stakeholders like international donor Organisations and environmental NGOs are

more and more using different strategies to balance conservation and development.

This can be explained through investigating the State policy amendments towards

22

---

authority devolution with the help of environmental NGOs in the forestry and wildlife

sector. Community Forestry and Community-Based Conservation are just part of that

change.

The relationships among and between stakeholders and their use rights of natural

resources and influence on biodiversity conservation projects, are governed by

institutions, both formal and informal, which are almost always complex, fluid and

dynamic. These institutions, including rules, norms, laws, policies and Organisations,

regulate and guide the lives and actions of people.

Management, including protected area management, is the task of transforming these

institutions to meet defined goals. Increasingly these include social and economic

goals, such as the provision of human needs, the elimination of poverty, social justice,

and equity, in addition to environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation.

The process of transforming these institutions must recognize the complexity and

coherence of existing institutions and the diversity and interests of the various

stakeholders. It therefore must give stakeholders the opportunity to participate in the

design of new arrangements, instead of providing external and technocratic answers. It

should also embrace the range of development and natural resource management

issues, instead of confining itself to narrow conservation objectives.

The working assumption here is that the village communities involved in the

implementation of the CBC strategy are becoming owners of the resources and its

management that they are changing from being managed to managers themselves.

Secondly, that the village communities are custodians of priceless indigenous

knowledge which is important for resource management and protection of the park.

Thirdly, that the socio-economic level of the participating partners is being improved.

Here expectations must be kept low and false promises avoided.

23

---

4 LITERATURE

REVIEW

In this chapter of the study, the background reasoning of the different concepts in relation to

the hypotheses will be expanciate on, throwing more light on the justification to prove them.

4.1

Trend towards linking livelihood and conservation

Over the past century, there have been different approaches in trying to reconcile the demand

of conservation and people′s livelihood. Most conservation programmes and projects in

Cameroon come to life with the premise: that poverty and over-population are leading to more

land grab, farming and other agricultural activities for subsistence or income earning, leading

to biodiversity loss. Linking conservation and livelihood, positively or negatively, has been a

long development and can be described along a spectrum as explained by Salafsky (2000): (a)

no linkage, (b) indirect linkage and (c) direct linkage between livelihood activities and

conservation.

a) No linkage between livelihoods and conservation: protected areas

The key feature of the protected area strategy is that local livelihood is assumed to conflict

with conservation. Protected areas have strictly defined borders that unauthorized people are

not supposed to cross. People are meant to use resources outside of the park and plants and

animals are meant to stay in the park.

Figure 6 No linkage

(Salafsky 2000)

24

---

b) Indirectly linking livelihoods and conservation: economic substitution

This approach is called the buffer zone strategy. The key feature of the buffer zone strategy is

to establish a zone that is used to create a spatial compromise that enables local people to

continue to meet their livelihood needs while still protecting key species and habitats. In

particular, the theory is to decrease reliance on the natural biodiversity by substituting other

livelihood activities. Conservationists might, for example, assist local residents to grow coffee

in the buffer zone, intensify agricultural production, or set up a leather tannery. The idea here

is that providing substitute economic activities will keep local people from livelihood

activities that damage the local biodiversity. The focus is thus on economic incentives, with

little consideration of the biophysical environment.

Figure 7 Indirect linkage

(Salafsky 2000)

c) Directly linking livelihoods and conservation: linked incentives for conservation

The key feature of the linked incentive strategy involves developing dependent relationships

between the biodiversity and the surrounding people. Local stakeholders are given

opportunities to benefit directly from the biodiversity, and thus presumably have an incentive

to stop external threats to the biodiversity. Livelihoods drive conservation, rather than simply

being compatible with it. Furthermore, the strategy recognizes local people′s role in

maintaining biodiversity. Under this strategy, conservationists might, for example, help local

25

---

communities set up a non-timber forest product harvesting enterprise, tourism enterprise or

development of local institutions to help foster profit sharing.

Figure 8 Direct linkage

(Salafsky 2000)

These strategies are then generalised in the following diagram:

Figure 9 A general model of conservation projects

(Source: Adapted from Salafsky & Wollenberg, 2000. Note: Rectangles indicate conditions of the project site.

Hexagons indicate interventions undertaken by the project team.)

26

---

Here below, the three different models are illustrated are once more analysed:

Figure 10 Models of three conservation strategies

(Note: Rectangles indicate conditions of the project site. Hexagons indicate interventions undertaken by the

project team. In this study, the models, focusing in particular on the linkage between biodiversity and the

livelihood activity will be of great help)

4.2

The arguments behind local community involvement

People are usually proactive in protecting things of value to them, and it is in this context that

biodiversity conservation initiatives have to be understood (Forgie, V.

et al.

, 2001).

Community-Based Conservation management should involve the rural people as an integral

part of conservation policy planning, implementation and control. If the local communities

feel they have been neglected or sidelined in conservation projects, then these projects are

vulnerable to failure but if they feel included in all stages and levels and also responsible for

27

---

the success or failure, they will work hand in hand with other stakeholders. Here, the focus is

on the analysis of the theoretical definition of CBC, and the rights and the role of the

community. These background information makes possible the intention to investigate the

first hypothesis with the results of the data collected (through questionnaires) from the

communities (villages) in the KNP and its support zone, describing their role in the KP,

hence, the KNP.

The Korup Project (1988 ­ 2003) was one of the first Integrated Conservation and

Development Projects (ICDPs) established in the tropical rainforest zone of the Congo Basin

with objectives being "the protection of old, undisturbed forest in Korup National Park area,

through the improvement in living standards and economic conditions in the surrounding

support zone, through the raising of environmental awareness among local communities, and

through the protection of the National Park. In later years through the process of developing a

master plan for the Park, it was also proposed that "there is need to adopt Community-Based

Conservation in the area with an approach that builds social analysis of power into park

management processes" (Vabi M.B., 1999: 56). Vabi also argued that this will lead to a

potential future outstanding beneficial relationship between the park management authorities

and the local community.

In the participation theory it is argued that local communities′ involvement in decision-

making is vital as a means of encouraging community members to consider issues of common

interest. There are many potential benefits. Foremost, these include the ability to build local

skills, interests and capacities that are on-going. Others include the ability to improve

outcomes by extending the range of values and inputs into the decision-making process, and,

the increased probability of acceptance and successful implementation when decisions are

seen by those involved as responsible and appropriate. Involvement, it is argued, enhances

cooperation, as cooperation is strongly influenced by the possibility of individuals having to

deal with each other repeatedly (Berry

et al.

, 1993; Putnam, 1993, p. 172; cited in Forgie, V.

et al.

, 2001).

With the objectives of conservation and rural development, the Management Plan (2002-

2007) of the KNP which runs out this year also lays emphasis on the fact that, "community

participation in the management of Korup National Park is important. To this end the creation

of a

National Park Management Advisory Committee

was proposed. The committee is

28

---

supposed to act as a forum for information exchange, planning, implementation, monitoring

and evaluation of community programmes" (KNP Management Plan 2002-2007). The

community referred to in this case are the five existing Park villages and the twenty three (23)

villages which share a common boundary with the Park or within the range of the 3km buffer

or support (peripheral) zone of the Park.

After 15 years of the KP, its image as perceived by the communities is related to the Project′s

overall aims and objectives and its impact on them. The sustainability and impact of the

project after its termination can be indicated by the effective cooperation during the lifespan

of the project. The indicator for effective co-operation is at least the knowledge of Korup

Project′s existences and its aims and objectives. The continuation of the biodiversity

conservation by the communities in and around the KPA and their genuine integration in

future projects should be related to a certain level of knowledge after 15 years of Korup

Project activities in the region. An absolute minimum of cooperation is based on knowledge

of the activities of the other stakeholders. "If this does not exist, all "fruitful interaction"

would be based on images rather than on realities and would therefore fail to be sustainable"

(Schmidt-Soltau 2000). This furthermore, will limit the level of political influence of the local

community in conservation and development projects.

4.3

Role of national/international environmental NGOs and communities in ICDPs

Most, if not all biodiversity conservation projects in Cameroon are to a great extend

sponsored or supported by international conservation groups and organisations and to a lesser

extend by the GoC. The extent of equitable influence in the planning and implementation of

participatory natural resource management projects by the different stakeholders is important.

This is based on the line of argument that "Community-Based Conservation reverses top-

down, centre-driven conservation by focusing on the people who bear the costs of

conservation. In the broadest sense, then, community-based conservation includes natural

resource or biodiversity protection by, for, and with local communities" (Western & Wright

1994, cited in Forgie, V.

et al.

, 2001). In a more concrete sense, the role of the NGOs and

international community was analysed through questions asked to some communities in and

around the KNP who were involved in the KP.

29

---

The creation of the KNP and its subsequent KP was supported and sponsored by international

NGOs and Organisations like the EC, DFID, GTZ, USDoD, DED and FFI, which contributed

towards the development of the Park and its support zone. The project was seen as a joint

venture of the GoC, ODA (DFID), GTZ, EU and WWF-UK, forming the project authorities.

The Park is run at the moment by the WWF and the GoC, with sponsors from the EC. During

the KP, the WWF and GTZ were the main international organisations involved in the

formulation, coordination and implementation of the project, with the cooperation of the GoC

and to a lesser extent, the indigenous and local communities concern. There was actually no

local NGO working with the project except at the end-phase when the CODEV Service was

formed to facilitate a phase-out strategy to continue with the conservation initiatives of the

Park. The other local NGO now present is the KREO/KOGAN, which was the former tourism

component of the project.

The main aim was to use CBC strategies in the form of an ICDP and later a sustainable and

participatory natural resource management concept to conserve the biodiversity of the

National Park and at the same time foster development. As earlier highlighted, an ICDP

concept has a goal of linking biodiversity conservation in protected areas with local social and

economic development. The ICDP in KPA incorporated activities that focused on the KNP

and its support zone. This was to provide incentives which increase the net local benefits and

therefore attractiveness of conservation and sustainable resource use in and around the Park,

emphasizing local participation in design and implementation.

The ICDP was seen to be popular as a form of CBC in the KPA because it offered the

attractive prospect of contributing to three of the most sought-after goals on the sustainable

development agenda: more effective biodiversity conservation, increased local community

participation in conservation and development, and economic development for the rural poor.

But as cited by Coppolillo

et al.

(2005), if "ICDPs mimic earlier top-down development

initiatives, typical not only of colonial days but the big integrated rural development projects

of the 1970s, local people are often treated as recipients of aid rather than partners in

development; as such, communities can feel disenfranchised from the project, promoting old

feelings of dependency and an unsurprising urge to pursue personal benefits from the project,

whenever possible".

30

---

Biotas rich in biodiversity around the world are almost always found in regions were the

communities live in subsistence or at least their daily livelihoods are dependent from the

forest. This is also highlighted by Conservation International (CI) stating that "the high-

biodiversity wilderness areas claim more than 70 percent of original vegetation, have low

human population densities and are among the last places where indigenous peoples can

maintain traditional lifestyles" (www.conservation.org).

Even with this knowledge, the western strategies of biodiversity conservation through Parks

and protected areas are oblivious of the fact that these communities have been custodians of

their forests and have conserved them for centuries. The western conservationists through big

international NGOs and organisations with strong financial and political influence formulate

policies and pressurise low income countries (examples in Africa, South America and Asia) to

accept them and create incentives through sponsors, funding and technical assistance, with

hidden agendas. As Schmidt-Soltau

et al.

(2003) explains, "the existence of different,

sometimes hidden agendas is not limited to the community level". This was not a coincidence,

when one local official who has worked in the KP from onset stated that, "conservation is

donor oriented and he who pays the piper dictates the tone".

This is also described by the Centre for Environment and Development (CED) and the Forest

Peoples Programme (FPP), in their study relating to international Organisations: "the

persistent marginalisation and negative experience of indigenous and local communities over

protected area plans for their traditional areas, the continuing violations of their rights by eco-

guards, and with mounting evidence that the situation is similar elsewhere in Cameroon,

underlines serious gaps in the implementation of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected

Areas in Cameroon, especially its Programme Element 2 on Governance, Participation,

Equity and Benefit Sharing" (CED and FPP, 2005).

On the other hand as Nelson John. (2004) explains, "experience in Cameroon and elsewhere

shows that local communities whose rights to forests are confiscated by conservation projects

will not become an ally of conservation organisations, even where communities share the

desire to protect the same forests from other forms of outside exploitation. Most will not be

swayed by promises to deliver "new income sources" to their communities in order to

compensate them for their loss of forest access and use if these projects do not deliver. Recent

experience in Cameroon suggests that communities are right to be sceptical", especially when

31

---

it cannot be recognised that through traditional methods, they have practiced conservation for

centuries.

Following the participatory approach adopted after the restructuring of the KP in 1997, the

ICDP concept was supposed to achieve its aims by integrating the local community in

conservation and at the same time enhancing development of their communities in the form of

capacity building of local institutions, infrastructure, economic, socio-cultural and spiritual

aspects, improving community livelihoods. The role of the NGOs (here only international) in

community-based conservation and development will be tested through the ICDP and its

activities. Since no national NGO was involved in the KP except the CODEV Service at the

end phase, the questions (see ­ANNEX I) were related only to the international NGOs in

cooperation with the GoC.

The indicator used for the second hypothesis is the level of capacity building in the KPA

through the intensity and impact of the interventions of the KP. Although this is not the only

indicator to measure the impacts of the role of the international NGOs, it plays a central role

in sustainable conservation and development.

The aspect of participation and fruitful interaction between Korup Project and local

population was one focus of the research, because the implementation of a participatory

approach was the main change after the restructuring of the KP. Also, the emphasis on the

perception of the local communities (using questions in ANNEX I) on the importance,

integration and collaboration with the other stakeholders since this also acts as an indicator to

measure the degree of participation from them, popularly known for the cause of biodiversity

loss through poverty and over-population. And as Agi Kiss (2002) described, ,,rather than

poverty or human population growth

per se

, the fundamental cause of biodiversity loss

worldwide is that those in a position to preserve it lack sufficient incentives to do so".

4.4

Biodiversity conservation and rural development

Community-based conservation is based on the idea that if conservation and development

could be simultaneously achieved, then the interest of both could be served (Fikret Berkes,

2004). On the one hand, it is argued that conservation cannot be effective unless the residents

of the area to be conserved are thoroughly involved and that they gain economically from the

32

---

utilization of wildlife, while on the other hand it is claimed that CBC schemes are inherently

contra the goals of biodiversity conservation at large, being strongly based on biological

science and thus, doomed to failure, no matter who runs them or how they are being run.

Furthermore, CBC is based on the premise that, in order to succeed in the long term,

biodiversity conservation must yield economic benefits for local communities. This was also

one of the objectives behind the ICDP in the KP but as Kiss (2002) puts it, "despite the

popularity of ICDPs and other CBC models, there is increasing evidence and growing

acknowledgement that this approach is in most cases failing to achieve either conservation or

lasting development benefits".

The objective of the KP was to conserve the unique natural resources of the African tropical

rainforest, extremely rich in species diversity and endemism. It used a two-part

complementary strategy to achieve this goal which was:

a) To establish a national park in a part of the Korup rainforest area in order to provide a

high level of protection for the genetic diversity and also to provide the level of

protection necessary for the development of new economic opportunities based on

research and tourism industry.

b) To integrate resource management and development plans for natural resources

outside the national park; which will develop sustainable resource utilisation and

establish integrated management controls (Hazam, 1990; cited in Schmidt-Soltau,

2000).

Also, the concrete aims of the project were (Financial Agreement, 1992 p.1/2; cited in

Schmidt-Soltau, 2000):

1) Developing a management and controlling system of the Korup Programme that could

be operated and maintained by the appropriate government institutions and indigenous

NGO′s;

2) Creating the necessary infrastructure related to the conservation and protection of the

protected areas, including its physical demarcation;

3) Resettling (on a voluntary basis) at least 4 of the 6 villages presently located within

the Korup National Park;

33

---

4) Building and implementing a development programme directed towards the rural areas

surrounding the Korup Park (′support zone′) in order to help local people find

sustainable economic alternatives to the present hunting, trapping, gathering and

deforesting practices in the park. The programme outside the park will be based on the

development of appropriate, sustainable farming and extractive systems, the

improvement of community social infrastructure and the development of small scale

economic activity;

5) Establishing three forest reserves within the support zone;

6) Developing an environmental education and awareness programme that would assist

the local people to take part in the decision-making process, manage their own

resources and address issues of poverty, population, health, environment and

sustainable development;

7) Undertake research and monitoring of the ecosystem of the Korup Park and the

support zone.

4.5

Economic and other incentives

Because the local communities of the KPA are mostly forest dependent and poor, the

probability that they trade-off activities like farming, hunting and gathering in the forest for

biodiversity conservation in the long-term is questionable. There is clearly a serious practical

and conceptual problem finding an economic link between rural communities and CBC

programmes. These problems are partly because most CBC programmes or projects are donor

oriented and it will be difficult for communities to produce enough revenues for the long

term. The projects also value wildlife in the same grade as revenues acquired from alternative

activities.

As Hackel (1999) elaborates, "if a rural community accepts a CBC program based on its

economic benefits, they might also reject it if a better economic alternative comes along. And

if rural people cannot pursue economic options that would bring them greater income, then

they are in fact still subsidizing wildlife conservation". This could be seen as an "opportunity

cost", defined contextually as forgoing forest activities to conserve the forest or maintain

wildlife. Hackel goes further to say, "if this scenario proves true, conservationists would face

the same problem that produced the CBC approach in the first place: rural people may feel

that the restrictions that they must bear to safe wildlife are costing them too much". It is also

34

---

important to understand that the widespread application of CBC programs requires significant

changes between the central governments and rural areas.

35

---

5

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Before elaborating on the practical empirical research methodology, an inside explanation

will be given to some social research methods and how the sample design was determined.

There are two main research methods in social research: the quantitative and qualitative

research methods.

5.1 Research

methods

Quantitative research is the systematic scientific investigation of quantitative properties and

phenomena and their relationships. It is widely used in both the natural and social sciences,

from physics and biology to sociology and journalism. The research method is used to

develop and employ mathematical models, theories and hypotheses pertaining to natural

phenomena. And as John W. Creswell (2003) puts it, "in quantitative studies, investigators

use research questions and hypotheses to shape and specifically focus the purpose of the

study. It can be characterised as a linear series of steps moving from theory to conclusions,

investigating the "what, where and when" of certain policies and activities. The measurement

process entails the search for indicators and it is important for accessing their quality by

establishing the reliability and validity of the indicators measured. From Bryman (2001),

"quantitative research can be characterised as exhibiting certain preoccupations, the most

central of which are: measurement, causality, generalisation, and replication". This research

method has been subjected to many criticisms by qualitative researchers. These criticisms

tend to revolve around the view that a natural science model is inappropriate for studying the

social world.

The other method, the qualitative research method involves an in-depth understanding of

human behaviour and the reasons that govern it. Unlike quantitative research, it relies on

reasons behind various aspects of behaviour. Simply put, it investigates the why and how of

decision-making, as compared to what, where, and when of quantitative research. This

research method usually emphasizes words rather than numbers, attempting to accurately

describe and interpret the precise meanings (Bryman, 2001).

36

---

Although this study is in use of both quantitative and qualitative research methods (because of

the enumeration and in-depth explanation of respondents), much emphasis is placed in

following the theoretical process of a quantitative research approach. This is described by

Bryman (2001) as follows:

The process of quantitative research (Bryman 2001)

1) Theory

2) Hypothesis

3) Research design

4) Devise measures of concepts

5) Select research site(s)

6) Select research subjects/respondents

7) Administer research instruments/collect data

8) Process data

9) Analyse data

10) Findings/conclusion

11) Write up findings/conclusions

The study did not follow directly the steps of Bryman′s process because most research studies

are never or rarely found in the above form but it represents a useful starting point in ones

approach and links between steps followed. Nevertheless, this study uses the research steps

(which were already explained at the end of chapter 1) shown below:

1) Introduction

2) Country and Area Background

3) Hypothesis

4) Conceptual Framework

5) Literature Review

6) Empirical Research

7) Results Presentation and Statistical Analysis

8) Discussions, Conclusions and Recommendations

37

---

Most of the steps in Bryman (2001) have been inculcated in the whole study and this chapter

will not try to compare or explain the specific relationships to the different steps.

Another important part of Social science research is the error that can occur when carrying out

sampling. This can be summarised with the following diagram and statements below.

Sampling Error in survey research

Error

sampling error

sampling-related error

Data collection error

Data processing error

Figure 11 Four sources of error in social survey research

(Source: Alan Bryman, 2001 - Social research Methods)

Below, is a list of some sources of error, when one is dealing with a structured or semi-

structured questionnaire:

· A poorly worded question;

· The way the question is asked by interviewer;

· Misunderstanding on the part of the interviewee;

· Memory problems on the part of the interviewee;

· The way the information is recorded by the interviewer;

· And the way the information is processed, either when answers are coded or when data

are entered into the computer.

After giving a brief overview of the theoretical background of the main research methods, it

becomes clear why both of them were used. All research is quantitative, because anything can

be counted; even purely verbal responses, perhaps after sorting comments into similar groups,

for example, the different villages (11) from which respondents were interviewed. On the

other hand, all research is qualitative, because answers to even the firmest numeric questions

38

---

may conceal a variety of meanings, for example, some respondents who said they were

involved and consulted in the KP meant just being informed about the ongoing of the project,

while others meant taking part in decision making. In other words, the study used both

methods complementarily.

5.2

Research design and survey procedure

Part of the research methods followed the basis of an empirical analysis approach whereby

theory-based description and explanation of empirical evidence were checked. This was based

on the assumption that the implementation of community-based conservation strategies

follows regularities that can be described and explained scientifically with a theory. Statistical

analysis was used for the different Ys (dependent) and Xs (independent) variables. Dealing

with the different research questions, both case studies and representative samples were used

due to the heterogeneity of the different communities. Some communities were more affected

by the KP than others. In the KPA, the different levels of awareness and local knowledge

were also decisive in shaping the research design. Primary and secondary data were collected,

through meetings and interviews with members of the communities and observations on the

field.

Since the study dealt with a case study of the former Korup Project, the National Park and its

support zone, samples were taken from different communities, interviews with individuals

and representatives of organisations to represent a general viewpoint of the whole population

or the different stakeholders, based on the research questions. Research procedures dealt with

statistical analysis and quantitative research methods like interviews and structured or semi-

structured questionnaires. This was made as far as possible to attain a validity status (internal-

interpretability, and external-generalizability), falling in line with previous or standard socio-

economic research methods already carried out in the study area. Representative research

designs were also made since these represent the different interests of the actors concerned

and at the same time bring out the difficulties due to conflict of interest and irregularities.

Data collection involved both primary and secondary data relating to the different research

questions and also data from the pre-survey of the research area. Population and stakeholder

identification was based on previous studies. The samples in relation to the KPA were small

in scale and limited in scope of case studies due to limited time and resources. Thus, there

39

---

was also a review of the secondary data collected to locate the different communities engaged

in the KP and also in defining the sample frame. A small part of the results analysis also

included other qualitative research approaches (like open ended questions) in trying to

understand the "why" and "how" behind certain policy implementation and activities.

5.3

Field research instruments

For the field research instruments, analyses based on statistics were carried out through

questionnaires (taken from other standard questionnaires with related research and amended

to suit present situation), otherwise open ended interviews. Pre-knowledge of the research

area and good contacts with elders of the different communities helped overcome barriers like

language, mistrust and traditional customs. The level of education of the different respondents

(households) was taken into consideration when executing interviews or translating

questionnaire.

For the different X (independent) and Y (dependent) variables, two examples could be used to

define them.

Example 1

: In the Conceptual Framework, the level of interaction with other stakeholders

(for a village community) in the KP is the Y variable, while the state policy is the X variable.

Survey question: Are you satisfied with the interaction of Korup Project Staff and local

population? 1 = Yes, 0 = No. In this case, satisfaction of interaction is the X variable while

the Y variable is the dummy variable with 0 for No and 1 for Yes.

Example 2:

The level of involvement of the rural community is the Y variable and the local

stakeholders or international conservation groups are the X variables.

Survey question: Was your village involved and consulted in the planning and

implementation of Korup Project activities? 1-Yes 2-No 3-Do not know

The same holds for the second example above.

40

---

5.4 Sample

Design

For the sample design, a Simple Random Sampling method was chosen, which is in line with

previous researches in the KPA. The sample area was in the southern sector of the National

Park where many activities have been carried out. Questionnaires were collected in 11

villages, 1 situated in the park and 10 around the park. This was done in a PRA (Participatory

Rural Appraisal) form with the help of an indigene of the area, who is also the executive

coordinator of a local NGO, Korup Rainforest Ecotourism Organisation/Korup Guide

Association (KREO/KOGAN). He also used the opportunity to inform his fellow indigenes

on the activities of their NGO. In each village, the chief of the village or his representative

were the first to be informed about the subject and aim of the study. At least one person from

the village was designated to accompany the interviewer in all the villages that were visited.

At times there was a general village meeting before the beginning of interviews, to inform

everybody about the study.

Figure 12 Fabe Village showing the structure of the houses

(Source: from author)

41

---

A maximum of 5 households were interviewed in villages with small populations (up to 250

inhabitants) and 10 households, for villages with more than 250 inhabitants. This is due to the

fact that social sciences hold the view, that 2% random selection produces a result, which is

98,2% representative (Schmidt-Soltau, 2000). The questionnaires were submitted after a

random selection of the households - 2% of the overall population approximations of

populations were made from different demographic sources in the research area. In total, 78

respondents filled the questionnaires. No village interviewed had the population of more than

500 inhabitants. Houses were randomly selected within each village and if there was no one in

a selected house, then the neighbouring house were selected.

The procedure of choosing the 11 villages as samples was with the premise that these

communities were (stakeholders) either directly or indirectly affected by activities of the KP

and the KNP. Out of the 11 villages, 9 were found in the support zone of the project, 1 (Erat)

was a village within the National Park still awaiting resettlement (not in the near future) and 1

(Meka) was found in the KPA but not in the support zone.

42

---

Figure 13 Sampled Village circled in KNP and support zone

(Source: MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR KNP)

5.5 Data

collection

In the first phase of the study, which was also the first part of literature review, use was made

of the information already collected in Göttingen, Germany. This was specifically on the KNP

and its vicinity. In Cameroon, a review was made on some literature concerning newly

gazetted forest reserves in the South West Province for example, a newly proposed Mount

Cameroon National Park (to better understand the procedures of creating a National Park).

This was done through internet research and also with assistance from the study supervisor in

Cameroon, Dr. Kai Schmidt-Soltau. Apart from the literature review, this time was also used

43

---

to make some field preparations for the trip to the KNP in Mundemba and its support zone

and it was then that the southern sector of the park was designated for the field study.

The second phase was to collect data on the perception of the villages affected by the KNP.

To analyse the perception of the villages within and around the KNP, it was necessary to

collect qualitative and quantitative data through questionnaires and open interviews. The third

phase was to collect primary and secondary data concerning other stakeholders like the

government, national and international NGOs and Organisations with stakes in the KNP.

Direct interviews were carried out with the Conservator of the Park (a government

representative), the WWF, GTZ (they preferred handing over data than giving interviews) and

the KREO/KOGAN. These interviews were also backed with secondary data collection from

the respective bodies.

The fieldwork in collecting data in the form of questionnaires and open interviews in the KNP

and support zone was carried out between the 18th of August and the 7th of September 2006.

The trips to the villages in and around the park also included trekking distances of about 150

km in total, covered in about 8 days, with stops in-between.

44

---

6

RESULTS PRESENTATION AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

In the first part of this chapter, the research findings of the interviews with the 78 respondents

will be presented with the use of the SPSS programme. This will be followed by a second

part: the interpretation of the research findings to answer some of the research questions and

also to confirm or reject the three formulated hypotheses. All the tables below were results of

information collected through the research questionnaires.

6.1 Research

findings

As earlier mentioned, this research study was carried out in the southern sector of the KNP

and its support zones. In its total, there are the five existing Park villages and the twenty three

(23) villages which share a common boundary with the Park or are within the range of the

3km buffer- or support-zone of the Park. Apart from Meka-Ngolo, all the other 10 villages

listed below are found within this southern sector. Following the table below, one sees the

approximate populations, the number of respondents and the percentage weight they carry in

the study. The "Valid percent" in the tables below is percentage of respondents who answered

the question as it was asked. It is based on a total that does not include respondents who did

not know the answer or did not wish to answer the questions.

Table 2 Name of the village and population

Name of village and population

Village and population

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Meka-Ngolo = 450

10

12,8

12,8

12,8

Ndian town = 250

10

12,8

12,8

25,6

Ikondo Kondo 1 = 253

5

6,4

6,4

32,1

Ikassa village = less

6

7,7

7,7

39,7

than 300

Mosongesele = 160

10

12,8

12,8

52,6

Fabe = 175

9

11,5

11,5

64,1

Massaka Bima = 237

5

6,4

6,4

70,5

Mokango Bima = 220

4

5,1

5,1

75,6

Mofako Bima = 150

5

6,4

6,4

82,1

Ngenye = 150

4

5,1

5,1

87,2

Erat = less than 500

10

12,8

12,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

45

---

From the 78 respondents of the 11 villages, the gender and age distribution are divided as

shown below.

Table 3 Sex

Sex

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Male

54

69,2

69,2

69,2

Female

24

30,8

30,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Table 4 Sex * How old are you? Cross tabulation

Sex * How old are you? Crosstabulation

Count

How old are you?

15 to 25

26 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 55

56 to 65

Above 65

Total

Sex

Male

7

12

11

7

5

11

53

Female

2

6

7

1

4

2

22

Total

9

18

18

8

9

13

75

From the above two tables, one realises that 2 females and 1 male respondents could not say

their ages. This was because they did not know or where not able to trace their dates of birth.

Because of the mass and details of the findings, the study results were limited only to those

questions that shed light and confirm or reject the formulated hypotheses tested.

Based on the fact that the people in and around the KNP depend mainly on the forest for their

subsistence and income, the respondents were asked about the importance of the forest to

them. The detailed results concerning the activities in the forest are referred to in the ANNEX

II but below, one can see the perception of the forest by the communities. None of the

respondents saw the forest as negative or very negative and all of them found it important as a

source of their livelihood. This is where they carry out activities like farming, fishing,

collecting of NTFPs, hunting, etc.

46

---

Table 5 How do you see the forest?

How do you see the forest?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Very Positive

76

97,4

97,4

97,4

Positive

2

2,6

2,6

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Table 6 Quantitative: Why?

quantitative: Why?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

source of livelihood

78

100,0

100,0

100,0

Now, after knowing how important the forest is for the communities′ livelihood, the next

objective was to find out their knowledge about conservation and the reasons behind the

actions that they take to protect their natural resources. At this point, it is also important to

come back to the theoretical argument of the CBC that states that, people are ready or better

protect their resources when they know they are owners or proprietors of these resources. The

tables below analyses this.

Table 7 Is it important for you to have a forest with animals?

Is it important for you to have a forest with animals?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

60

76,9

76,9

76,9

No

18

23,1

23,1

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Table 8 Quantitative: Why?

quantitative: why?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

positive for livelihood

45

57,7

57,7

57,7

positive for conservation

15

19,2

19,2

76,9

and biology

negative

18

23,1

23,1

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Here, it can be seen that more than 75% of the inhabitants of the communities in and around

the KNP see the importance of animals in the forest. Although a relatively high percentage of

47

---

23% see it as negative, the reasons behind that are diverse. For example, almost 58% like

animals in the forest because it is a source of their protein, food and income; 19% sees it as

important for the future generation, seed dispersal, recreation and research (positive for

conservation and biology). Of the 23% who do not like animals in the forest, it is not because

they don′t want animals to exist at all. The reasons behind that are that animals destroy their

crops in the farms, limiting them to have good harvest or any harvest at all.

The fact that the main objective behind the KNP and its subsequent KP was to conserve the

biodiversity of this area, it was very important to know what the people think about

conservation. Although a previous research of this kind by Schmidt-Soltau (2000) already

gave an answer to this thought, saying "2/3 of the villagers hold the view that forest

conservation is good or even very good", it was important to find out again the community′s

view after the end of the KP. This is also analysed in the tables below.

Table 9 What do you think about conservation of the forest?

What do you think about conservation of the forest?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Very bad

1

1,3

1,3

1,3

bad

2

2,6

2,6

3,9

good

11

14,1

14,3

18,2

very good

63

80,8

81,8

100,0

Total

77

98,7

100,0

Missing

98

1

1,3

Total

78

100,0

Table 10 Quantitative argument why

Quantitative argument why

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

securing livelihood

26

33,3

34,2

34,2

and income

securing biodiversity

48

61,5

63,2

97,4

and for posterity

prevention from

2

2,6

2,6

100,0

usage of forest

Total

76

97,4

100,0

Missing

98

2

2,6

Total

78

100,0

It is not surprising again to see that the majority of the population sees it positive to conserve.

What is surprising is that this time more than 97% see it good or very good and that the

reasons are weighing strongly for posterity and biodiversity whereas, many other researches

and also the previous research of Schmidt-Soltau (2000) have shown that the majority of the

48

---

community conserves more because they want to secure their livelihood and source of income

and understands conservation as a method of securing their major source of income.

So, with the proclamation of the KNP and the subsequent KP to enforce the policies of the

national park, there were drastic changes in the peoples′ lives that came with it. After the end

of the KP, it is normal that some impacts are felt by the people who were affected by the

project, both positive and negative. To get this impact, it was important to first get the

knowledge of the people about the Park and its project.

Table 11 Have you heard about Korup Project?

Have you heard about Korup Project?

Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Yes

75

96,2

96,2

96,2

No

3

3,8

3,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Table 12 Is it still existing?

Is it still existing?

Cumulative

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid

Yes

28

35,9

48,3

48,3

No

30

38,5

51,7

100,0

Total

58

74,4

100,0

Missing 98

20

25,6

Total

78

100,0

More than 96% of the respondents have heard about the KNP and the KP and from this,

48.3% said the project was still existing while 51.7% knew of its end. 25.6% did not know if

the project still existed or not. Here it is also worth mentioning that many of the respondents

did not know the difference between the KNP and the KP.

Getting the opinion of the communities about the KP after its termination is important to

understand their relation to the project and also their level of integration in the project. This

has been analysed in the table below.

49

---

Table 13 Quantitative: What do you think about KP?

quantitative: what do you think about KP?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Good

24

30,8

30,8

30,8

average

5

6,4

6,4

37,2

Bad

35

44,9

44,9

82,1

don′t know

14

17,9

17,9

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

While 96.2 % of the inhabitants of the project zone had heard of KP, the opinion about the KP

is highly differentiated. Quite a number of people did have a very negative impression of KP

(they were liars and thieves), which is related to the wish, that the methods of interactions

should be changed if any other project will be carried out in the area in future. Almost 45% of

the inhabitants saw the project as bad because of the implementation of its policies, while

only about 31% saw it as good. It is also shocking that nearly 18% of the inhabitants did not

have any opinion about the project since the project did not have any impact on them.

Since opinions are usually linked to actions carried out or personal experiences, knowing the

activities of the project and also its aims and objectives, as seen by the inhabitants was

necessary.

Table 14 Quantitative: What were the major activities of the KP?

quantitative: what were the major activities of the KP?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

conservation

33

42,3

42,3

42,3

development

12

15,4

15,4

57,7

conservation & dev′

12

15,4

15,4

73,1

non of the above

9

11,5

11,5

84,6

don′t know

12

15,4

15,4

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Because there were many different responses, the categories as shown above were formulated.

Responses like: game guards arrest people who exploited natural resources, resettlement,

protecting plants and animals, etc, were seen as conservation activities. Also, responses like:

the project helped the village in building schools, classrooms, trained and gave materials to

carpenters, donation of farming materials to villagers, etc, were seen as development

50

---

activities. Mixtures of answers with any of the above activities were seen as conservation and

development activities. From the above table one can see that 42.3% saw the KP activities as

conservation activities, 15.4% saw it as for development while another 15.4% saw it as both.

While 11.5% did not see the activities as conservation or development, a relatively high

percentage of 15.4% did not know of any activities of the KP. Again, the findings to this

particular question were reformulated because not all the respondents could see the direct

linkage of the activities of the KP as having anything to do with conservation or development.

What is striking is that many of the inhabitants did not know why all these activities were

being carried out in their villages. The table below analyses the aims and objectives. Almost

54% of the locals did not know the purpose of the KP.

Table 15 Quantitative: What were ist aims and objectives?

quantitative: what were its aims and objectives?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

conservation

31

39,7

39,7

39,7

development

4

5,1

5,1

44,9

conservation & dev′t

1

1,3

1,3

46,2

don′t know

42

53,8

53,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

The study also tried to find out the traditional methods of conservation in the communities.

Traditional methods like regular forest clearing, the creation of sacred forests, regular local

patrols, selective hunting and fishing, shifting cultivation, etc, were now and then mentioned

in the responses of the villagers. They described these under their customary laws which are

set by the village councils. Although in this region some cultural groups have traditional

conservation methods and others do not, there was a clear indication in all the villages visited

that they have a traditional conservation method. This is represented below.

51

---

Table 16 Do you have any traditional methods of conservation?

Do you know traditonal methods of conservation?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

58

74,4

74,4

74,4

No

10

12,8

12,8

87,2

Do not know

10

12,8

12,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Table 17 Quantitative: Which method and how effective is it?

Quantitative: which method and how effective is it?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Customary laws,

46

59,0

67,6

67,6

very effective

Customary laws

12

15,4

17,6

85,3

none

10

12,8

14,7

100,0

Total

68

87,2

100,0

Missing

98

10

12,8

Total

78

100,0

As one can see from the above tables, more than 74% of the inhabitants said they have

traditional methods to conserve their forest. About 85% could categorise this under the

customary laws and more than 67% said it was very effective.

The KP was a conservation project that emphasized the role of the local communities as an

integral part in the implementation and management of the national park. This is why it is also

important to find out the level of involvement of the community during the KP lifespan. The

table below analyses this aspect of collaboration.

Table 18 Was your village involved and consulted in the planning and implementation of the KP
activities?

Was your village involved and consulted in the planning and implementation of

the KP activites?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

21

26,9

26,9

26,9

No

34

43,6

43,6

70,5

Do not know

23

29,5

29,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

52

---

Here, it is important to say that of the almost 27% of inhabitants who said they were involved

and consulted, some meant they were just being told that the KP was coming to their village

or they ate and drank with the staff of the KP. Anyway, it is still surprising that almost 44%

said they were not involved and almost 30% did not know of their village′s consultation and

involvement.

17 years of the KNP, 15 years of the KP and 3 years after the end of the KP, it was also very

important to find out how the communities perceived the approach of the creation of the

National Park. Here, one should also state again that most of the respondents did not know the

difference between the KNP and the KP. This is also one of the reasons why some

respondents said the KP still exists today even after its end 3 years ago.

Table 19 Was the creation of the KNP a good or a bad approach?

Was the creation of the KNP a good or a bad approach?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Good

39

50,0

52,7

52,7

Bad

30

38,5

40,5

93,2

Never heard of KNP

5

6,4

6,8

100,0

Total

74

94,9

100,0

Missing

98

4

5,1

Total

78

100,0

Table 20 Quantitative: Why?

Quantitative: Why

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Forest conservation

38

48,7

55,1

55,1

bad policy

31

39,7

44,9

100,0

implementation

Total

69

88,5

100,0

Missing

98

9

11,5

Total

78

100,0

Even after a high percentage (44.9%) of the inhabitants still have a bad perception about the

KP (from previous results above), almost 53% still found the creation of the KNP a good

approach and almost 41% found it as bad. For those who saw the approach as bad, the reasons

were diverse. Some said the reasons were because they were either totally prevented from

utilising the forest although they lived from it or they were beaten and arrested by game

guards even when they did not commit any crime. Reasons like land seizure or lying to the

community were also mentioned. These reasons were connected to personal experiences and

53

---

information from neighbours. It also indicates that they are principally not against any

conservation approach but reject the KNP due to maltreatment from the authorities that be

(law enforcement) through its policies. 44.9% said the reason for not liking the approach is

because of bad policies implementation.

Two of the main components used as instruments to implement the KP policies were the law

enforcement and the environmental education components. The study wanted to know if after

the lifespan of the project, it contributed to the joint conservation goal and also the

effectiveness of the methods used.

Table 21 Did the KP contribute to the conservation of the forest?

Did the KP contribute to the conservation of the forest?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

54

69,2

69,2

69,2

No

10

12,8

12,8

82,1

Do not know

14

17,9

17,9

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

The result that 69.2% of the inhabitants of the southern sector believe that the KP contributed

to the joint conservation goal, can be seen as a confirmation that 15 years of conservation

work in the region had an impact. Although many did not like the project, they could still

acknowledge the contribution to conservation made by the project. It is also important to see

that almost 31% did not see any contribution or did not know if the project′s policies

implementations contributed in its conservation goal.

Table 22 How effective were the methods used?

How effective were the methods used?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Very effective

36

46,2

52,2

52,2

effective

7

9,0

10,1

62,3

not effective

6

7,7

8,7

71,0

useless

3

3,8

4,3

75,4

destructive

17

21,8

24,6

100,0

Total

69

88,5

100,0

Missing

98

9

11,5

Total

78

100,0

54

---

Although the villagers listed critical methods in use by the KP to implement their

conservation policies like harassments, arrests, burning down huts in the forest during patrols

by game guards, a significant number, and 52% found the methods in general very effective.

Other methods used as stated by the villagers were anti-poaching activities, lectures on

environment and the forming of Village Management Committee (VMC), to sensitise and

counsel the villagers. Still, almost 25% perceived the methods as destructive, which is very

significant in the evaluation of a project like the KP. Here it is important to state that even

amongst those who found the methods used to be effective, many were of the view that the

output was not related to the effort made by the project.

Because the KP was initiated to help foster the conservation of biodiversity in the KNP, it was

important to know if the methods used during the project′s lifespan were still used today. As

one can see below, almost 54% of the inhabitants could confirm that the methods are still in

place. Still, almost 35% could not confirm this. According to informants, those who still

believe the methods are in place do so because they still see game guards in the forest in the

park. It is also said that these game guards have abandoned their jobs and become ecotourism

guides, due to months of no salaries. This was also confirmed by the chief of the game guards.

In reality, the methods are not implemented anymore after the KP since there is no capacity to

do so.

Table 23 Are the methods still implemented today?

Are the methods still implemented today?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

42

53,8

53,8

53,8

No

27

34,6

34,6

88,5

Do not know

9

11,5

11,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

A significant potential for a shared vision of conservation especially community-based

conservation is the cooperation between staffs of a conservation project and the local

communities which are affected by the project. The frequency of interaction of the project

staff with the community is of utmost importance for a successful bilateral relationship

(Schmidt-Soltau, 2000). This is why the study tried to find out through the villagers how often

the KP staff frequented the villages.

55

---

Table 24 How often did you see the KP Staff in your village?

How often did you see the KP Staff in your village?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

every day

4

5,1

5,4

5,4

once a week

6

7,7

8,1

13,5

once a month

14

17,9

18,9

32,4

every few months

20

25,6

27,0

59,5

once a year

12

15,4

16,2

75,7

hardly ever

9

11,5

12,2

87,8

never

9

11,5

12,2

100,0

Total

74

94,9

100,0

Missing

98

4

5,1

Total

78

100,0

As one can see from the above table, the average frequency of visits in the villages is less than

once a month. In fact, 27% of the villagers saw the KP staff once every few months and more

so, more than 16% saw them only once a year.

From the results above, it is clear that theoretically, CBC would be a problem without

frequent interactions from the project staff with the community. Still, there was a need to find

out what the communities perceive about the interactions. As shown below, it is not surprising

that more than 51% of the population (almost 44% of the respondents) were not satisfied with

the interaction.

Table 25 Were you satisfied with the interaction of the KP Staff and local population?

Were you satisfied with the interaction of KP Staff and local population?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

32

41,0

48,5

48,5

No

34

43,6

51,5

100,0

Total

66

84,6

100,0

Missing

98

12

15,4

Total

78

100,0

What is surprising is that, still almost 49% were after all satisfied with the interaction. This

could be explained by the fact that some respondents who were satisfied with the interaction

of the KP staff were saying so because they did not know that the KP was already ended and

56

---

were hoping that in saying they were satisfied, they would gain from the project in the near

future.

Asked if the KP staff still visited the villages at that time, more than 70% could not tell (table

below) while above 28% said no, representing over 95% of the local communities. This could

be understood due to the fact that the project was already ended.

Table 26 Do they still come today?

Do they still come today?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

1

1,3

4,3

4,3

No

22

28,2

95,7

100,0

Total

23

29,5

100,0

Missing

98

55

70,5

Total

78

100,0

The joint goals of the KP was to foster the conservation of biodiversity in the KNP, while at

the same time develop the rural communities through infrastructural and capacity building,

and also by creating alternatives to forest dependent activities like hunting and gathering. If

the local communities can be developed and alternatives to forest dependency found, then the

pressure on the adjacent KNP would be reduced or even stopped.

Table 27 Have you or your village benefited from the KP/NP activities?

Have you or your village benefited from the KP/NP activities?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

37

47,4

50,0

50,0

No

37

47,4

50,0

100,0

Total

74

94,9

100,0

Missing

98

4

5,1

Total

78

100,0

So, the villagers were asked if they have since benefited from the activities of the KP or the

KNP. The above table produces an even response. Exactly half of the population said they

benefited from the KP activities while the other half could not notice any benefits. Even

though the KP activities could not have satisfied everyone, those who said they or their

village did not benefit anything were many enough to show the disappointed of the project

activities. Many of those who benefited could only attribute this to traditional forms of

57

---

donations and not to participatory interactions. The most significant benefits were donations

through school aid (building a classroom for primary school) and distribution of calendars.

Some said their children were given scholarships and carpenters were trained. Farm materials

were also donated to them.

To find out more about the impact that the communities felt 3 years after the end of the KP

was also important in the study. The table below analyses the responses of the population. It

should also be noted here that it was not clear to all that the KP was over long ago. This result

is also partly because one had to explain to the people that there is no KP anymore. Many

villagers greeted the new knowledge with disappointment and others with relief. Those who

were disappointed said it is because the KP should have stayed to fulfil their failed promises

and those who were pleased said they do so because they can now go back to the forest since

there is no more control from the game guards through the KP.

Table 28 How was the end of the KP for you?

How was the end of the KP for you?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Good

31

39,7

39,7

39,7

Bad

33

42,3

42,3

82,1

Do not know

14

17,9

17,9

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

But above, one can still see that the impact remains divided. While almost 40% of the

communities saw the end of the project as a good thing, more than 42% saw it as bad. Almost

18% did not know what it meant for them. This result will be analysed in more detail through

the last question.

To find out if there have been changes in the communities in general due to the activities of

the KNP, with principal focus on the KP, the results below were obtained. The changes meant

were in the form of development.

58

---

Table 29 Has there been any change in the village due to the activities of the KNP?

Has there been any change in the village due to the activities of KNP?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Yes

27

34,6

37,0

37,0

No

46

59,0

63,0

100,0

Total

73

93,6

100,0

Missing

98

5

6,4

Total

78

100,0

The majority of the inhabitants, that is 63%, said they have experienced no change while only

37% could say there were changes. This positive note was sounded mostly in villages that

benefited in road construction to or through the village. But some were also critical of the

development and refused to see changes like building of a classroom for their primary school

as a real change for a project like the KP which has taken all their land. Nevertheless, this

only proves that the development component of the project was less appreciated or did not

work at all.

As earlier mentioned in Chapter 5, the stakeholders in the KNP and its subsequent KP were

mainly the GoC, international conservation groups (NGOs and western governmental

technical organisations like the EU and GTZ) and the local communities of the KPA. The

survey also aimed to know the roles played by these different stakeholders in carrying out the

joint goal of the KNP in biodiversity conservation. The villagers were asked to give marks or

credits to the different bodies or institutions ranging from zero which is equivalent to no

importance to 20, equating to very high level of importance (relating to the primary and some

secondary schools methods of accreditation).

59

---

Table 30 What is the importance of the government in the KP?

What is the importance of the government in the KP?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

No importance

12

15,4

15,4

15,4

1-9 = Very little

15

19,2

19,2

34,6

importance

10 = Average importance

18

23,1

23,1

57,7

11-14 = important

3

3,8

3,8

61,5

15 = very important

3

3,8

3,8

65,4

16-20 = Excellent

1

1,3

1,3

66,7

don′t know

26

33,3

33,3

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Here, it is interesting that more than 15% of the population did not see any role the GoC

played in conserving the biodiversity of the KNP. While more than 19% said the government

played a minimum role, a little more than 23% saw the role of the government as average. A

high portion of the population (33.3%) could not even define the role played by the

government. This should be actually a serious negative point to the GoC which was so

successful in mobilising funds (amounting to one of the highest subsidised projects in Africa)

from international donors for the conservation of biodiversity in the rainforest of the KPA

(seen by scientists as one of the oldest of its kind in the world).

Trying to find out the same for the WWF which is momentarily the main international

environmental NGO involved in the running of the KNP and was the main backbone and so to

say the vertebral column of the KP, the results below were obtained.

Table 31 What is the importance of the WWF in the KP?

What is the importance of the WWF in the KP?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

No importance

17

21,8

21,8

21,8

1-9 = Very little

11

14,1

14,1

35,9

importance

10 = Average importance

7

9,0

9,0

44,9

11-14 = important

2

2,6

2,6

47,4

15 = very important

6

7,7

7,7

55,1

16-20 = Excellent

5

6,4

6,4

61,5

don′t know

30

38,5

38,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

60

---

The WWF has been involved in the KNP from the very onset and were mainly in charge of

the conservation components of policy formulation and implementation of the KP. It was

most shocking to see that close to 39% of the population did not know its importance or did

not even know them at all. Almost 22% did not see any role they played in conserving the

forest through their policies or better said through the KP. A little above 14% saw very little

while only close to 8% saw it as a major stakeholder.

Table 32 What is the importance of the EU/GTZ in the KP?

What is the importance of the EU/GTZ in the KP?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

No importance

17

21,8

21,8

21,8

1-9 = Very little

12

15,4

15,4

37,2

importance

10 = Average importance

7

9,0

9,0

46,2

11-14 = important

2

2,6

2,6

48,7

15 = very important

4

5,1

5,1

53,8

16-20 = Excellent

5

6,4

6,4

60,3

don′t know

31

39,7

39,7

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Almost the same results were found for the EU/GTZ (above) who were also responsible for

the development components of the KP. It should also be noted here that most of the

population saw no difference between the international institutions. They were all mostly seen

as white Europeans coming with some learned Cameroonians working for them, to do

research in their villages.

When asked the role they played or their importance in the conservation of the biodiversity in

the area through the KP, the results were interesting. Although as previously seen almost 44%

said they were not consulted or involved in the implementation of the KP policies, 50% saw

their role through their independent activities in the support of the KP as very vital and

unquestionable in the conservation of biodiversity in the KPA. Also, more than 19% did not

know the role they played in the KP while close to 13% said they did not contribute in the

joint conservation goal (table below).

61

---

Table 33 What is your importance in the KP?

What is your importance in the KP?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

No importance

10

12,8

12,8

12,8

10 = Average importance

7

9,0

9,0

21,8

11-14 = important

4

5,1

5,1

26,9

15 = very important

3

3,8

3,8

30,8

16-20 = Excellent

39

50,0

50,0

80,8

don′t know

15

19,2

19,2

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

The different independent activities that the community inhabitants mentioned carrying out

ranges from: their land being taken away from them, voluntarily giving up their land to the

KNP, the KP people were always welcome to "I helped protect the forest and I am still doing

it now". Again, this role of the local was not and is still not an officially recognised role.

Here, it is worth mentioning that a good number of the villagers are calling on the authorities

of the KNP to respect and better recognise the role which they play in the management of the

KNP and that their integration is inevitable for the success of any conservation programme or

project.

The process of interviewing the respondents also served as an information gathering process

for the villagers. At the end of each questionnaire, they either confirmed the fact that the KP

does not exist anymore or became aware of this fact. So when asked how they feel about the

KP not working anymore in their village, the result was almost different from the previous

question about the end of the KP but with almost the same reasons.

Table 34 How do you feel now after the KP is no longer working in your village?

How do you feel now after the KP is no longer working in your village?

Cumulative

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Percent

Valid

Good

32

41,0

41,0

41,0

Does not mean

16

20,5

20,5

61,5

anything to me

Negative

30

38,5

38,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

62

---

This time, a lower percentage of almost 39% said they felt it negatively. This was not because

biodiversity will be lost with the KP end, their main reason was that they realised they were

fooled or with the end of the project they will not receive any help again or donations from

the Project′s authorities. They never saw themselves as part of the project and that is why

41% said they felt good and almost 21% said it did not mean anything to them. Many of those

who said they felt good were because they could now utilise the resources of the KNP and its

support zones unchallenged. They will now, not be afraid of the game guards or any authority.

6.2

Interpretation of the findings

The KNP was created in 1986 and its subsequent KP was initiated in 1988. Until the end of

2003, the KNP has seen a paradigm change in policy and management implementation. This

can be described as follows: from state control, to management through an ICDP by the KP

and later at the end phase of the project through sustainable and participatory natural resource

management. The last two approaches were already described in the beginning of chapter 3 as

CBC and as social scientists hold, "participatory natural resource management can only be

successful if nearly everybody (more than 75%) is satisfied with the benefits, the level of

participation, the methods applied and the general interaction (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997;

cited in Schmidt-Soltau, 2000). This is the benchmark on which the interpretations of the

findings are established, in confirming or rejecting the three hypotheses.

6.2.1 Results to Hypothesis 1

The involvement of the local community is important for the success of Biodiversity

Conservation.

For the better understanding in the testing of this hypothesis one should come back to the

theoretical background of CBC previously mentioned, "People are usually proactive in

protecting things of value to them, and it is in this context that biodiversity conservation

initiatives have to be understood" (Forgie, V.

et al.

, 2001). From the result findings it was

found that all the respondents which translate to 100% of the population saw the forest as

important for their livelihood. It was also observed that 76.9% of the inhabitants saw it

important for animals to be in the forest for different and positive reasons. Again, one saw

63

---

that 95.1% saw conservation as very good or good, with diverse but positive reasons. On the

question about traditional methods of conservation, 74.4% acknowledged the knowledge of

indigenous conservation methods and 67.3% saw it as very effective. These results are just

clear indices to positively confirm the first hypothesis that the involvement of the local

community is vital for biodiversity conservation success.

Forgie V.

et al.

(2001) further say, "Community-Based Conservation Management should

involve the rural people as an integral part of conservation policy planning, implementation

and control. If the local communities feel they have been neglected or sidelined in

conservation projects, then these projects are vulnerable to failure but if they feel included in

all stages and levels and also responsible for the success or failure, they will work hand in

hand with other stakeholders". This phenomenon was also tested with the question:

Was your

village involved and consulted in the planning and implementation of the KP activities?

As was seen, 26.9% said yes against 73.1% who either said no (43.6%) or do not know

(29.5%). Also the question at the end:

How do you feel now after the KP is no longer

working in your village?

38.5% said they felt it negatively against 61.5% who either felt

good (41%) or it did not mean anything to them (20.5%). The last touch to the hypothesis was

the question:

What is your importance in the KP?

This

role

or

importance was independent

of any official involvement in the project or National Park activities. 67.9% saw their role as

vital, with 50% stressing the utmost importance. It is important at this point to say that

although most of the communities did not see themselves as officially involved, they could

cite their private contributions in supporting the conservation project.

From this, it can only be repeated again that a good number of the villagers are calling on the

authorities of the KNP to respect and better recognise the role which they play in the

management of the KNP and that their integration is inevitable for the success of any

conservation programme or project.

From these questions and response, it can clearly be seen that the majority of the inhabitants

of the study area of the KPA never saw themselves officially as part of the project. They

nevertheless saw their informal participation as very important in making the project what it

was.

64

---

6.2.2 Results to Hypothesis 2

The consideration of traditional conservation methods by international conservation

groups and organisations is a success factor for sustainable conservation.

There is no dispute here that international conservation groups and Organisations are one of

the main stakeholders of the KNP and were also in the forefront of the KP. Through their

policy formulation, international donors tend to support mostly conservation projects that are

community oriented. In the case of KNP and the KP the strategies using CBC methods have

already been described in chapter 4. As Hackel (1999) describes it, "CBC is seen as an

alternative to the more exclusionary protectionist policies of the past, which often alienated

rural people from conservation efforts. The new approach acts to make rural people a

constituency for wildlife and therefore active backers of wildlife protection". This approach

also reverses the top-down method of conservation.

To see if this functioned in the KP or if it is functioning in the present management of the

KNP, indicators like the knowledge of the local community about the KP, what they think

about it, their activities, the aims and objectives of the project, level of interaction with the

locals and the role the international groups played in the project, were used. It is already

known from the first hypothesis that the communities had traditional methods to conserve the

forest. They were asked if they knew about the KP and if it still existed. This is a base to find

out if there was a healthy communication flow during the project time. From the results

already indicated above, 96.2% of the inhabitants said they have heard of the KP while on the

contrary 61.5% of the inhabitants either said it is still existing (35.9%) or could not say

anything (25.6%). Almost 45% of the inhabitants saw the project as bad because of the

implementation of its policies, while only about 31% saw it as good. It is also shocking that

nearly 18% of the inhabitants did not have any opinion about the project.

About the level of integration which is also indicated through activities carried out, 73.1%

said the activities of the KP involved conservation (42.3%), development (15.4%) or

conservation and development (15.4%). Although it was clear what they meant, these

activities were described in negative terms like: game guards arrest people who exploited

natural resources, which was termed as a conservation activity and answers like: the project

65

---

helped the village in building schools and classrooms, trained and gave materials to

carpenters, donation of farming materials to villagers, etc., were seen as development

activities. 53.8% of the population did not know why the KP was carrying out all these

activities. 40.5% said the approach of creating the KNP was bad and 44.9% said the reason

was because of the bad policies implementation.

The average frequency of visits in the villages by the KP staff was less than once a month. In

fact, more than 25% of the villagers saw the KP staff once every few months and more so,

more than 15% saw them only once a year. 59% said they were either not satisfied (43.6%)

with the interaction of the KP staff or did not know (15.4%) what to say. 98.7% either said the

authorities are not frequenting their villages anymore (28,2%) or were not aware of any visits

(70.5%). In general, 60.3% did not see any contribution (21.8%) or did not know of any

contribution (38.5%) of an international NGO like the WWF, which was one of the main

coordinators of the KP. Almost the same results were found for the EU/GTZ (see findings

above) which was also part of the main project coordinators.

From the results obtained, it cannot be absolutely said that the KP authorities (mainly

influenced by WWF and GTZ) overseeing the project mimicked the top-down strategy of

conservation, because of the 75% majority. But one can say with almost unquestionable

certainty that there was a tendency in this direction due to relatively large majority of the

community whose level of communication, interaction and cooperation with the project

authorities was poor and everything but amicable. This also means recognising the

complexity and coherence of existing institutions and the diversity and interests of the various

stakeholders could not be possible. Participation in the design of new arrangements was not

possible, while the KP authorities instead confined to narrow conservation objectives,

providing external and technocratic answers against local indigenous knowledge. In doing

this, the traditional conservation methods were neglected.

6.2.3 Results to Hypothesis 3

The integration of rural development is essential for the success of Biodiversity

Conservation Projects.

66

---

As previously mentioned, the KP tried to use the ICDP concept to try to harmonise

conservation and rural development. In its concept, an ICDP aims to meet social development

priorities and conservation goals through integration of the local community. Biodiversity

conservation is its primary goal, with a core objective of improving the relationships between

state or international conservation organisations-managed protected areas and their

neighbours (the rural communities). One should also bear in mind Fikret Berkes (2004) who

said that Community-based conservation is based on the idea that if conservation and

development could be simultaneously achieved, then the interest of both could be served. It is

based on this premise that the hypothesis was tested.

From the second hypothesis, it was seen that the relationship between the KP authorities and

the rural communities was all but good. From the findings, 69.2% of the inhabitants believe

that the KP contributed to the joint conservation goal. Although many did not like the project,

they could still acknowledge the contribution to conservation made by the project. It is also

important to see that almost 31% did not see any contribution (12.8%) or did not know

(17.9%) if the project contributed in its conservation goal. Although the villagers listed

critical methods through game guards, in use by the KP to implement their conservation

policies, a significant number, 52% found the methods in general very effective.

Concerning rural development, half of the population said they have benefited from the

activities of the KNP/KP while the other half could not confirm any benefits. These benefits

came from short-term extension services like farm material (seeds and seedlings) and other

materials like KP made calendars. Again, 63% said they did not see any development change

in the villages, while only 37% could confirm development changes due to the activities of

the KNP.

Here it can be seen that although there was an integration of rural development in the KP, it

was not effective and less successful. One can say that the communities were rather

marginalised with a deceit of a so-called community development component.

67

---

7 DISCUSSION,

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter brings out certain arguments to clarify points of assumptions and doubts. It also

makes some conclusions and spells out some suggestions or recommendations derived from

the study.

7.1 Discussion

The first part of this discussion is based on the validity and how far the results of study can be

representative or conferrable to other parts of the country. This is followed by points of

discussion on the findings and interpretations of the overall results of the study.

The reliability and validity of this study can be traced to a previous research carried out in the

year 2000 by Dr. Kai Schmidt-Soltau (on behalf of the KP) on the perception of the

inhabitants of the KPA to the KP. This can be seen by most of the formulated questions in the

questionnaires that were used. Most of the findings in this study could only confirm the

results of his previous research. In his end report he states that, "in spite of many activities

realised in the project area, it seems as if the reputation of the project is rather bad as far as

local communities and authorities are concerned" (Schmidt-Soltau, 2000). The methods used

in this study were similar to that of the previous research but with a smaller sample size.

Although previously stated in chapter 1.4 that this study stops short of representing the overall

picture of community involvement in conservation projects in Cameroon, there are many

protected areas in Cameroon where the results of the three hypotheses and other responses

from the study could be conferrable to and similar conclusions and recommendations can be

drawn. This can be argued with the study of the Dja Reserve in the South of Cameroon

carried out by the CED and FPP.

This study, of indigenous and local communities′ forest use, their role in the management of

biological resources, and the impact of protected areas on their rights (in a project similar to

the KP) came out in 2002 with the results that, "after 10 years local communities were still

not involved in planning for the Dja Reserve, and had almost no role in the management of

the park. The effects on local and indigenous communities of this management approach were

often very severe, and included aggressive persecution of communities by eco-guards for their

68

---

subsistence hunting activities, even of non-protected species collected far outside the

Reserve" (CED & FPP, 2005). This statement also mirrors the findings of this study.

Furthermore, their results (also mentioned in chapter 4.3) stated that, "communities have not

been consulted about any of these forest plans. The persistent marginalisation and negative

experience of indigenous and local communities over protected area plans for their traditional

areas, the continuing violations of their rights by eco-guards, and with mounting evidence that

the situation is similar elsewhere in Cameroon".

With these in mind, the following points are discussed:

· The findings indicate how the conservation and development project, with the

participation of the community was carried out and how it could even question the

"with and without" principle of a conservation project like the KP with a long-term

goal of conservation and sustainable practices. In fact, when a state official states that

the KP was donor-oriented and the Conservator of the KNP, left with 22 Game Guards

(going for months without payment) to secure a protected area of 126,900 ha, one is

left to doubt the successes of the KP. This could also be seen in the results stating that

only 26.9% said they were involved or consulted in the planning and implementation

of a joint project of biodiversity conservation and development.

· Results from this exploratory analysis show multiple interests held by three actors

stated to have taken part in the KP (the GoC, international environmental NGOs and

groups and the local community of the KPA). D. B. Raik and D. J. Decker (2007) in

their analysis on stakeholder framework stated that, the interests held by all three

actors (mentioned above) seem to converge around the Nature and Wealth categories

and diverge around the People and Power categories. In this study, Nature is seen in

the form of the resources in the KPA, Wealth in economic and rural development

terms, the People as the interest they represent and Power in form of influence,

interaction and level of involvement. These categories portray the holistic nature of

the local communities of the KPA, the authorities of the former KP and the present

authorities of the KNP.

69

---

· Community-based conservation initiatives can only be successful if there is political

will and capacity on the side of project authorities to implement and enforce policies

and not only formulating them. Most of the policies embedded in chapter 6.2 of the

Management Plan (2002-2007, expiring this year) of the KNP, dealing with the local

communities have not been implemented, not to talk of enforced. The Park

Conservator confirmed that even the Management Consultative/Advisory Committee

which was proposed to deal with the interests of the local people and administration is

still not yet functioning.

· The findings and results of the hypothesis, coupled with the present situation in the

KNP and its support zone have implications or deeper significance for how the

structure could be modified and for improvements that could be made under the

current structure.

· The failure of successfully implementing the participatory approach of the KP was

based on the lack of trust by the local community on the KP staff. This was partly due

to their level of interaction with the local community and partly due to their harsh

methods of law enforcement and as Schmidt-Soltau (2000) states, "this negative

perception of the activities of Korup Project must be related to the methods used,

because a significant majority of the villagers join the Korup Project interest to

conserve the forest in the region". It can also be further argued that the government′s

and KP authority′s incapability of fighting corruption and unaccountability was an

overall constraint in the approach′s failure. The present KNP authorities also have not

got the required capacity to do that.

7.2 Conclusions

From the study and its finding, the following conclusions can be drawn:

· The legislation of the Forestry law in 1994 by the Government, which included a

provision for community forestry, in the sense of community management of state

forest lands, primarily though not exclusively for timber extraction was a landmark

move in the direction of devolution of authority and multi-level governance, which is,

70

---

"the complex of ways by which individuals and institutions, public and private,

manage their common concerns" (Grazia

et al.

, 2000). This move demonstrates the

mutually supportive roles that can be played by the `supply-side′ policy changes and

the `demand-side′ means to build accountability from below and illustrates the

importance of macro- and micro-level connections i.e. the government, international

environmental and development institutions and the local communities respectively, in

promoting pro-poor change, community involvement and the ways in which improved

governance can be made to satisfy both a poverty reduction and governance agenda.

This also acts as a prerequisite for a successful community-based conservation

management.

· The creation of the KP in 1988 had the objective to contribute to the protection of old,

undisturbed forest in KNP area, through the improvement in living standards and

economic conditions in the surrounding support zone, through the raising of

environmental awareness among local communities, and through protection of the

National Park. The KP in its policy formulation used the CBC management initiatives

in the form of an ICDP with objectives of effective biodiversity conservation, increase

local community participation in conservation and development, and economic

development for the rural poor. But as seen in the interpretation of the results of the

first hypothesis, the practicality of the local communities′ participation was a failure.

This has also led to the present situation of the communities in and around the

National Park who now see the departure of the KP as a time to steal from the forest

before the project comes back. This feeling does not represent ownership, which was

one of the goals of the project and of a CBM programme: to let the people feel they

are owners and responsible for their natural resources.

· The stakeholders involved in the running of the KNP and its subsequent KP were the

Government, international environmental NGOs and development groups like the

WWF, GTZ and the EU and to a lesser extent, the communities of the KPA. The level

of involvement of the local communities was also analysed in the results interpretation

of the second hypothesis. Not many people knew the activities of the KP and their

objectives. There was no local NGO involved in KP until the end when the CODEV

Service (made of former staff of the project) and the KREO/KOGAN were created as

71

---

a phase-out strategy of the KP. Because of less interaction between the KP staff and

the indigenes leading to dissatisfaction and distrust, one can only conclude that the

relationship between the KP staff and the local community was all but positive. This

also means negligence of traditional conservation methods, leading to little or

unsustainable capacity building of traditional institutions in the KPA.

· Policy implementation by the authorities in the case of the KP and the KNP failed to

fulfil the promises made to the people. Though after the end of the project, it was seen

that its approach succeeded through its harsh law enforcement (through the game

guards) to conserve the biodiversity of the National Park, but it failed in winning the

support of the local community through its rural development component. Now after

the end of the KP, the Park has been left on its own with little or no "forceful" law

enforcement and weak government institutions and a dissatisfied local community,

with the very success achieved in conservation at stake. Now, with little or no

technical assistance to the Park and extension services to the local community like

during the KP, activities like hunting and encroachment which were illegal in the

National Park during the KP are carried out unquestioned.

· Though a very large part of the indigenous community saw the KP as bad (44,9%) and

also their approach of the creation of the National Park (40,5%), still 69,2% saw the

project as contributing to conservation. The 15 years of work of the KP in the KPA

brought much more awareness to the benefits and importance of conservation. This

should not be left to disappear.

7.3 Recommendations

Finally, based on the findings the following recommendations are proposed:

· The implementation of Government policies should focus more on awareness of the

importance of the local communities affected. Most of the policies that concern the

participation of the local communities of the KPA in the management of the KNP

(Management Plan 2003-2007) have not been implemented until the time of study. At

the time of the study, there were villages even inside the Park to which the Park

72

---

Conservator had no contact for years; he was actually banned by the locals from

coming there. This should change and it is highly recommended that the Government

and the Park authorities should play a more rigorous role in implementing these

community participatory policies.

· The results of the hypothesis should be taken seriously, since these act as a base of

better understanding the worries and the interest of the local communities. Any future

project that has to do with the KNP with the aim of conserving it should fully

implement a participatory approach with the local population and their traditional

institutions, leading to a smooth information flow between all stakeholders. This will

foster capacity building and trust, creating the opportunity for traditional conservation

methods. If the local communities fell engaged in all levels of a conservation project,

then they will feel the sense of ownership and hence, be motivated to participate in

conservation and sustainable development of their resources.

· For international stakeholders like the WWF which is still involved in the running of

the Park, the GTZ and the EU which are active in the support zone, it is recommended

that they work with local NGOs like the KREO/KOGAN which are establishing

indigenous initiatives to conserve biodiversity in the support zone. This was not the

case during the KP.

· The KNP authorities should use the opportunity to learn from the lesson acquired

during the time of the KP now that the success in biodiversity is partly still intact

before it is completely reversed. This could be in the form of the practical approach

explained in chapter 4.1.c, that is, directly linking livelihoods and conservation with

linked incentives for conservation.

· It is also highly recommended to carry out more research on stakeholder analysis and

the perception and expectations of the local communities of and about biodiversity

conservation, to better understand and discover successful conditions in implementing

CBC conservation approaches for which this study also serves. This recommendation

should also be seen in the same way for development projects or the two combined.

73

---

· Last and most important, the local communities in and around the KPA and especially

in and around the KNP and its support zone have been custodians of the Korup forest

for centuries and should know that the forest is theirs. It is highly recommended that

they continue to protect their wildlife and forest resources instead of destroying it

because of the fear of the return of the KP. In working with indigenous NGOs like the

KREO/KOGAN, they should rebuild trust and confidence, strengthening their

traditional institutions. The first step of signing a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) between the KREO/KOGAN and the chiefs/representatives of the villages of

the KNP and its peripheral (support) zone was a good beginning for collaboration

between the villages the local NGO in trying to protect and sustain their natural

resources. It is recommended that this should continue so as to represent the local

community under one voice. This most probably, will enhance more political power

and influence in decision making on matters that concern them.

74

---

REFERENCES

Alexander N. Songorwa, 1999.

Community-Based Wildlife Management (CWM) in

Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested? World Development Vol. 27, No. 12, pp.

2061±2079, 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd.

Alpert, Peter, 1996

. Integrated Conservation and Development Projects: Examples from

Africa.

BioScience

, Vol. 46, No. 11 (Dec., 1996), pp. 845-855.

Anne B. Johannesen and Skonhoft, A., 2003

. Human-wildlife conflicts under different

management regimes Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Department of

Economics, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway.

Anne B. Johannesen, 2004.

Designing Integrated Conservation and development Projects

(ICDPS): Illegal hunting, wildlife conservation and the welfare of the local people

WORKING PAPER SERIES No. 2/2004 ISSN 1503-299X

Berkes, Fikret, 2004

. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology,

Volume 18, No.3

Berkes, Fikret, 2006

. "The

Problematique

of Community-Based Conservation in a Multi-

Level World" Paper presented at

International Association for the Study of Common Property
Global Conference

, June 19-23, 2006, Bali, Indonesia.

Brown D., Vabi M. B. and Nkwinkwa R., 2003.

Community Forestry as Entry Point for

Governance Reforms in the Forestry Sector in the Central African Sub-region. The Case of

the Republic of

Cameroon. Paper prepared for the XII World Forestry Congress to be held in

Quebec City, Canada, September 2003

CED, FPP, 2005.

Protecting and Encouraging Traditional Sustainable Use in Cameroon:

Customary Use of Biological Resources by Local and Indigenous Peoples in Western Dja

Reserve, Cameroon Case study on Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas

CERD, 1997.

Fourteenth periodic reports of States parties. CERD/C/298/Add.3. (State Party

Report), 15/10/97.

Chan M. A. Kai et al. 2007

. When Agendas Collide: Human Welfare and Biological

Conservation. Conservation Biology Volume 21, No. 1, 59­68, 2007 Society for

Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00570.x

Coppolillo, Peter et al., 2005.

Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture:

Princeton University Press page 259

Diaw M.C. et al., July 2003

. Assessing Long-term Management Options for the Villages in

the Korup National Park. An evaluation of all options.

Ferraro J. Paul and Subhrendu K. Pattanaya k, 2006.

Money for Nothing? A Call for

Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments. PLoS Biology April 2006,

Volume 4 | Issue 4 | e105| www.plosbiology.org

I

---

Forgie Vicky, Peter Horsley, Jane Johnston, 2001

. Facilitating community-based

conservation initiatives, Science for conservation, 1173-2946 ; 169)

Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000.

Co-management of Natural Resources. Organising,

Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. Kasparek Verlag, Mönchhofstr. 16, 69120 Heidelberg,

Germany

Grimble, R. & Wellard, K., 1997

.

Stakeholder Methodologies in Natural Resource

Management: A Review of Principles, Contexts, Experiences and Opportunities. Agricultural

Systems, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 173 - 193, (1997) ,J 1997 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Handari B.B Bishnu, 2003

. Participatory Rural Appraisal, Module 4. Institute for Global

Environmental Strategies (IGES).

Heber, Sol et al., 2006.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Five Different Land-Use Types in Lao.

PDR. Final Report M.Sc. Course Tropical and International Forestry Faculty of Forest

Sciences and Forest Ecology Georg-August-University Göttingen

Hughes, R. and Flintan, F. 2001.

Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A

Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. London: International Institute for

Environment and Development

IUCN, 2001

. ICDPS: Working with Parks and People. PARKS Vol. 11 No. 2, Protected Area

Management.

IUCN, 2002.

Local Communities and Protected Areas. PARKS Vol. 12 No. 2, Protected Area

Management

Jean Lagarde BETTI, (?).

Impact of Forest Logging in the Dja Biosphere Reserve,

Cameroon.

Ministry of Environment and Forestry/PSRF, Yaoundé/ Cameroon e-mail:
betlagarde@yahoo.fr:

www.cbd.int/programmes/areas/forest/case-studies.asp

Jeffrey D. Hackel, 1999.

Community Conservation and the Future of Africa′s Wildlife.

Conservation Biology, Volume 13 Issue 4.

John W Creswell, 2003.

Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method

Approaches, Second Edition. University of Nebraska Lincoln

Kiss, A., 2002.

Making Biodiversity Conservation a land use priority. Columbia University

Press.

Korup Project Management Workshop, 1999.

Held at the Chimpanzee Camp inside the

National Park on the 7th ­ 10th December 1999.

Lopez, Pascal et al., 2004.

Lessons Learned from the GTZ Project, Eschborn/Germany,

October 2004.

Mac Chapin, 2004.

A Challenge to Conservationists,

Excerpted from the
November/December 2004

WORLDWATCH magazine © 2004 Worldwatch Institute

II

---

MacDonald, Kenneth Iain, 2003.

Community-Based Conservation: A Reflection on History

.

Dept. of Geography and Programme international Development Studies, University of

Toronto. Toronto, Ontario Mimeo.

Mackinnon, K, 2001

. Editorial ­ Integrated Conservation and Development Projects, can

they work? PARKS Vol 11 No 2, Protected Area Management. ICDPS: WORKING WITH

PARKS AND PEOPLE 2001

Malleson, R., 1993.

Harmony and Conflict between NTFP use and Conservation in the

Korup National Park. (Rural Development Forestry Network) RDFN Paper 15c Summer 1993

Malleson, R., 2000.

Forest Livelihoods in South-West Province, Cameroon: An evaluation on

the Korup experience, Submitted for Ph.D., Dept. of Anthropology, University College,

London, 2000.

Manga, P. Tambe, G., and S.B. Besong, 2001.

Rules and Regulations for Sustainable

Resources Management in the Takamada Forest Reserves

Michael M. Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau Kai, 2003.

Biodiversity conservation versus

population resettlement: Risks to nature and risks to people. Paper presented at The

International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity 19-23 May 2003,

Bonn, Germany

Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MINEF), 2002

. A Management Plan for Korup

National Park and its Peripheral Zones 2002-2007

Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MINEF), 2002

.

Mid Term evaluation of the Korup

Project: Final Report, July 2002.

Ministry of Plan and Regional Development, 1989.

Plan for developing the Korup National

Park and its Support Zone.

Molnar, Augusta, Sara J. Scherr, and Arvind Khare, 2004.

Who conserves the world′s

forests? Community-driven strategies to protect forests and respect rights.

Preliminary
Version as of July 19, 2004.

Moseley Cassandra, 2003.

Constrained Democracy: Evaluating Community-based

Conservation Using Environmental Outcomes. Ecosystem Workforce Program · Institute for

a Sustainable Environment. University of Oregon. cmoseley@uoregon.edu. September 7,

2003

Nelson, John, 2004.

Still off of the Conservation Map in Central Africa: Bureaucratic

Neglect of Forest Communities in Cameroon, By

John Nelson,

Forest Peoples Programme -

http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Cameroon/still.html.

Raik, D. B., and D. J. Decker, 2007.

A multisector framework for assessing community-

based forest management: lessons from Madagascar.

Ecology and Society

12

(1): 14. [online]

URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art14/

III

---

Röschentaler

,

Ute et al. 2000

. Culture, History and Perceptions on Resettlement: A baseline

study of the six villages in the Korup National Park. Socio-economic survey of the villages

inside the Korup National Park.

Salafsky Nick and Wollenberg Eva (2000

). Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: A

Conceptual Framework and Scale for Assessing the Integration of Human Needs and

Biodiversity. World Development Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1421±1438, 2000. Elsevier Science Ltd

Salafsky Nick, Margoluis Richard, Redford H, Kent and John G. Robinson, 2002.

Improving the Practice of Conservation. A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for

Conservation Science

Schmidt-Soltau, K et al., 2000

. The Perception of KORUP Project among the inhabitants of

the project region- An Impact Assessment. Korup Project, Mundemba 2000.

Schmidt-Soltau, K et al., 2003

. Evaluation of the technical, financial and organizational

sustainability of Village-Natural-Resource-Management Committee (VNRMC) in the support

zone of KNP ­ carried out on behalf of the GTZ ­ Korup Project

Schmidt-Soltau, K. 1999.

The socio-economic impact of resettlement in the context of

national park management. Ekundu-kundu - a case study, Korup Project, Mundemba, 1999.

Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2003.

,,Conservation-related Resettlement in Central Africa:

Environmental and Social risks",

Development and Change

34(3): 525-551, 2003.

Schmidt-Soltau, K. 2004.

The Costs of Rainforest Conservation: Local responses Towards

Integrated Conservation and development projects in Cameroon. Journal of Contemporary

African Studies, 22.1.2004

Simone L. Sobrevivencia et al., 2001

. Forests and the Convention on Biological Diversity. A

Dossier of Relevant Articles and Decisions Prepared by the Global Forest Coalition Draft, 6

March 2001 (http://www.wrm.org.uy/GFC/material/CBD.html)

SOBZE, J.M., 2003.

Analysis of implication of forest policy reform on CF in Cameroon:

Case study of Lomié

Steinhauer-Burkart, Bernd and Arno Mattes 2001

. Support to KNP ­ A Study on

economical issues in Communal Forest Management, (ECO ­ Gesellschaft für

sozialökologische Programmberatung) PN: 00.2123.8., GTZ Cameroon 2001)

Stephen A. Dembner et al., 1994.

Parks and protected area. Unasylva - No. 176 -. An

international journal of the forestry and food industries - Vol. 45 - 1994/.

(http://www.fao.org/docrep/v2900E/v2900e00.HTM)

Thanakvaro Thyl De Lopez, 2001.

Stakeholder Management for Conservation Projects: A

Case Study of Ream National Park, Cambodia. Environmental Management Vol. 28, No. 1,

pp. 47­60 © 2001 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

Tighe Geoghegan and Yves Renard, 2002.

Beyond community involvement: lessons from

the insular Caribbean. Parks, Local Communities and Protected Areas. Vol. 12 No 2 2002.

IV

---

UNDP/UNEP/GEF, 2001.

The Integration of Biodiversity into National Environmental

Assessment Procedures; National Case Studies Cameroon: Produced for the Biodiversity

Planning Support Programme.

UNEP, 1999.

Republic of Cameroon′s Biodiversity Status Strategy and Action Plan.

Vabi M. B., 1999

. Development of a Management Plan for the Korup National Park

,

. Socio-

Economic Surveys of Human Use Inside and with the Three kilometres of the Korup National

Park ­ With Recommendations for Socio-Economic Management Actions. ­WWF-CPO,

page 56

Western, D.; Wright, M. (eds) 1994:

Economic dimensions of community-based

conservation (page 428).

In

: Western, D.; Wright, R.M. (eds)

Natural Connections:
Perspectives in Community-based Conservation.

Island Press, Washington, DC.

Wilcox, D. 1994:

The Guide to Effective Participation. Delta Press, Brighton, UK.

World Bank, 1995.

Republic of Cameroon: Biodiversity Conservation and Management

Project Document.

Yufanyi, C. 2005

. Analysis of the impact of Community Forestry (CF) on Poverty alleviation

and Sustainable forest management in Cameroon. Case study: SW Province, (Paper submitted

for the module Quantitative Research Methods in Rural Development Economics, (Prof. Dr.

M. Zeller) SS 2005.

Internet References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_method

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761576170

http://library.thinkquest.org/16645/national_parks/ca_knp.shtml

http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/cm.htm

http://www.audiencedialogue.org/qualiquant.html

http://www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/regions/priorityareas/wilderness/

http://www.fao.org/docrep/v2900E/v2900e00.HTM

http://www.kerinci.org/icdp.html#WHAT

http://www.postnewsline.com/2005/05/strongbiodivers.html

http://www.stepin.org/country.php?id=7

http://www.wrm.org.uy/GFC/material/CBD.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cm.html

V

---

ANNEX I.

Questionnaire for Korup

No.

1. How do you see the forest?

1-Very Positive 2-Positive 3-Average 4-Negative 5- Very

Negative

2. Why?

3. How often do you go to the forest?

1-daily 2-four times a week 3-twice a week 4-

once a week 5-irregularly 6-never

4. What are you doing in the forest?

1-farming 2-hunting 3-collecting forest products

4-fishing 5-rituals 6-to collect medical plants 7-logging timber 8-others: specify!

5. Has anything changed after the Korup project ended?

6. How much income do you receive from the above-mentioned activities per week?

7. What changes have you observed in the forest?

8. Is it important for you to have a forest with animals?

1-Yes 2-No

9. Why?

10. What do you think about conservation of the forest?

1-Very bad 2-bad 3-good 4-

very good

11. Why?

12. Was the creation of Korup National Park a good or bad approach?

1-Good 2-Bad

3-Never heard of Korup National Park

13. Why?

14. Do you have any traditional method of conservation?

1-Yes 2-No 3-Do not know

15. Which method and how effective is it?

16. Have you heard about Korup Project?

1-Yes 2-No

17. Is it still existing?

1-Yes 2-No

18. What do you think about Korup Project?

19. What were the major activities of the project?

VI

---

20. What were its aims and objectives?

21. Did the Korup Project contribute to the conservation of the forest?

1-Yes 2-No 3-

Do not know

22. Which methods did they use?

23. How effective were they?

1-very effective 2-effective 3-not effective 4-useless 5-

destructive

24. Are they still implemented today?

25. How often do you see Korup Park Staff in your village?

1-every day, 2-once a

week, 3-once a month, 4-every view month 5-once a year 6-hardly ever 7-never

26. What are they doing in your village?

27. Have you or your village benefited from Korup Project/National Park activities?

1-Yes 2-No

28. Why and in which way?

29. Was your village involved and consulted in the planning and implementation of

Korup Project activities?

1-Yes 2-No 3-Do not know

30. Are you satisfied with the interaction of Korup Park Staff and local population?

1-Yes 2-No

31. Why?

32. Has there been any change in the village due to the activities of Korup National

Park?

1-Yes 2-No

33. Which?

34. How was the end of the Korup project for you?

1) Good 2) Bad 3) Don′t know.

35. What is the importance of the Government in the Korup Project?

1-20, don′t know.

36. What is the importance of the WWF in the Korup Project?

1-20, don′t know.

37. What is the importance of the EU/GTZ in the Korup Project?

1-20, don′t know.

38. What is your importance in the Korup Project?

VII

---

1-20, don′t know.

39. How do you feel now after Korup Project is no longer working in your village?

1-

Good 2-Does not mean anything for me 3-Negative

40. Why?

41. How old are you?

42. Where are you from?

43. Do you live here all the time?

1-Yes 2-No

44. What is your occupation?

45. Level of education?

46. Are you a member of the village council?

1-Yes 2-No

Observation and comment:

Sex

1-Male 2-Female

Name of village

Additional Information

VIII

---

ANNEX II.

Frequency Tables

How do you see the forest?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Very Positive

76

97,4

97,4

97,4

Valid Positive

2

2,6

2,6

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Quantitative: Why?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid source of livelihood

78

100,0

100,0

100,0

How often do you go to the forest?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

daily

44

56,4

56,4

56,4

four times a week

24

30,8

30,8

87,2

Valid twice a week

9

11,5

11,5

98,7

irregularly

1

1,3

1,3

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

What are you doing in the forest? Activity: farming?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

77

98,7

98,7

98,7

Valid No

1

1,3

1,3

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Activity: hunting?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

41

52,6

52,6

52,6

Valid No

37

47,4

47,4

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Activity: collecting forest products?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

74

94,9

94,9

94,9

Valid No

4

5,1

5,1

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

IX

---

Activity: fishing?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

58

74,4

75,3

75,3

Valid

No

19

24,4

24,7

100,0

Total

77

98,7

100,0

Missing System

1

1,3

Total

78

100,0

Activity: rituals?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

23

29,5

29,5

29,5

Valid No

55

70,5

70,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Activity: collecting medical plants?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

67

85,9

85,9

85,9

Valid No

11

14,1

14,1

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Activity: logging timber?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

45

57,7

57,7

57,7

Valid No

33

42,3

42,3

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Quantitative: which other forest activities?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

fuelwood, palmwine/oil, honey

34

43,6

73,9

73,9

Valid

none

12

15,4

26,1

100,0

Total

46

59,0

100,0

Missing System

32

41,0

Total

78

100,0

X

---

Have you heard about Korup Project?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

75

96,2

96,2

96,2

Valid No

3

3,8

3,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Is it still existing?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

28

35,9

48,3

48,3

Valid

No

30

38,5

51,7

100,0

Total

58

74,4

100,0

Missing 98

20

25,6

Total

78

100,0

Any changes after Korup Project ended

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

24

30,8

32,9

32,9

Valid

No

49

62,8

67,1

100,0

Total

73

93,6

100,0

Missing 98

5

6,4

Total

78

100,0

Quantitative: what changes have you observed in the forest?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

positive change

13

16,7

16,9

16,9

no change

50

64,1

64,9

81,8

Valid

negative change

9

11,5

11,7

93,5

don′t know

5

6,4

6,5

100,0

Total

77

98,7

100,0

Missing System

1

1,3

Total

78

100,0

XI

---

How much income do you receive from the above-mentioned activities per week?

Currency FCFA* Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

95

2

2,6

3,5

3,5

230

2

2,6

3,5

7,0

290

1

1,3

1,8

8,8

325

1

1,3

1,8

10,5

385

4

5,1

7,0

17,5

530

1

1,3

1,8

19,3

675

2

2,6

3,5

22,8

770

1

1,3

1,8

24,6

865

1

1,3

1,8

26,3

960

2

2,6

3,5

29,8

1000

1

1,3

1,8

31,6

1155

1

1,3

1,8

33,3

1440

1

1,3

1,8

35,1

1615

1

1,3

1,8

36,8

1920

1

1,3

1,8

38,6

2000

2

2,6

3,5

42,1

2500

1

1,3

1,8

43,9

Valid

3000

2

2,6

3,5

47,4

3845

1

1,3

1,8

49,1

4000

1

1,3

1,8

50,9

4615

1

1,3

1,8

52,6

4810

1

1,3

1,8

54,4

5000

4

5,1

7,0

61,4

6000

1

1,3

1,8

63,2

10000

4

5,1

7,0

70,2

13000

1

1,3

1,8

71,9

15000

2

2,6

3,5

75,4

20000

6

7,7

10,5

86,0

22500

1

1,3

1,8

87,7

25000

2

2,6

3,5

91,2

26925

1

1,3

1,8

93,0

30000

1

1,3

1,8

94,7

40000

1

1,3

1,8

96,5

50000

2

2,6

3,5

100,0

Total

57

73,1

100,0

Missing System

21

26,9

Total

78

100,0

*1 Euro = 650 FCFA

XII

---

Is it important for you to have a forest with animals?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

60

76,9

76,9

76,9

Valid No

18

23,1

23,1

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Quantitative: why?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

positive for livelihood

45

57,7

57,7

57,7

positive for conservation and biology

15

19,2

19,2

76,9

Valid Negative

18

23,1

23,1

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

What do you think about conservation of the forest?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Very bad

1

1,3

1,3

1,3

bad

2

2,6

2,6

3,9

Valid

good

11

14,1

14,3

18,2

very good

63

80,8

81,8

100,0

Total

77

98,7

100,0

Missing 98

1

1,3

Total

78

100,0

Quantitative argument why

Valid

Cumulative

Frequency Percent

Percent

Percent

securing livelihood and income

26

33,3

34,2

34,2

securing biodiversity and for

48

61,5

63,2

97,4

Valid

posterity

prevention from usage of forest

2

2,6

2,6

100,0

Total

76

97,4

100,0

Missing 98

2

2,6

Total

78

100,0

XIII

---

Was the creation of the KNP a good or a bad approach?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Good

39

50,0

52,7

52,7

Bad

30

38,5

40,5

93,2

Valid

Never heard of KNP

5

6,4

6,8

100,0

Total

74

94,9

100,0

Missing 98

4

5,1

Total

78

100,0

Quantitative: Why

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Forest conservation

38

48,7

55,1

55,1

Valid

bad policy implementation

31

39,7

44,9

100,0

Total

69

88,5

100,0

Missing 98

9

11,5

Total

78

100,0

Do you know traditonal methods of conservation?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

58

74,4

74,4

74,4

No

10

12,8

12,8

87,2

Valid Do not know

10

12,8

12,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Quantitative: which method and how effective is it?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Customary laws, very effective

46

59,0

67,6

67,6

Customary laws

12

15,4

17,6

85,3

Valid

none

10

12,8

14,7

100,0

Total

68

87,2

100,0

Missing 98

10

12,8

Total

78

100,0

XIV

---

Quantitative: what do you think about KP?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Good

24

30,8

30,8

30,8

average

5

6,4

6,4

37,2

Valid Bad

35

44,9

44,9

82,1

don′t know

14

17,9

17,9

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Quantitative: what were the major activities of the KP?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

conservation

33

42,3

42,3

42,3

development

12

15,4

15,4

57,7

conservation & dev′t

12

15,4

15,4

73,1

Valid non of the above

9

11,5

11,5

84,6

don′t know

12

15,4

15,4

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Quantitative: what were its aims and objectives?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

conservation

31

39,7

39,7

39,7

development

4

5,1

5,1

44,9

Valid conservation & dev′t

1

1,3

1,3

46,2

don′t know

42

53,8

53,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Did the KP contribute to the conservation of the forest?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

54

69,2

69,2

69,2

No

10

12,8

12,8

82,1

Valid Do not know

14

17,9

17,9

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

XV

---

How effective were they?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Very effective

36

46,2

52,2

52,2

effective

7

9,0

10,1

62,3

not effective

6

7,7

8,7

71,0

Valid

useless

3

3,8

4,3

75,4

destructive

17

21,8

24,6

100,0

Total

69

88,5

100,0

Missing 98

9

11,5

Total

78

100,0

Are they still implemented today?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

42

53,8

53,8

53,8

No

27

34,6

34,6

88,5

Valid Do not know

9

11,5

11,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

How often do you see the KP Staff in your village?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

every day

4

5,1

5,4

5,4

once a week

6

7,7

8,1

13,5

once a month

14

17,9

18,9

32,4

every few months

20

25,6

27,0

59,5

Valid

once a year

12

15,4

16,2

75,7

hardly ever

9

11,5

12,2

87,8

never

9

11,5

12,2

100,0

Total

74

94,9

100,0

Missing 98

4

5,1

Total

78

100,0

Do they still come today?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

1

1,3

4,3

4,3

Valid

No

22

28,2

95,7

100,0

Total

23

29,5

100,0

Missing 98

55

70,5

Total

78

100,0

XVI

---

Have you or your village benefited from the KP/NP activities?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

37

47,4

50,0

50,0

Valid

No

37

47,4

50,0

100,0

Total

74

94,9

100,0

Missing 98

4

5,1

Total

78

100,0

Was your village involved and consulted in the planning and implementation of the KP activites?

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Yes

21

26,9

26,9

26,9

No

34

43,6

43,6

70,5

Valid Do not know

23

29,5

29,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Are you satisfied with the interaction of KP Staff and local population?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

32

41,0

48,5

48,5

Valid

No

34

43,6

51,5

100,0

Total

66

84,6

100,0

Missing 98

12

15,4

Total

78

100,0

Has there been any change in the village due to the activities of KNP?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

27

34,6

37,0

37,0

Valid

No

46

59,0

63,0

100,0

Total

73

93,6

100,0

Missing 98

5

6,4

Total

78

100,0

How was the end of the KP for you?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Good

31

39,7

39,7

39,7

Bad

33

42,3

42,3

82,1

Valid Do not know

14

17,9

17,9

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

XVII

---

What is the importance of the government in the KP?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

No importance

12

15,4

15,4

15,4

1-9 = Very little importance

15

19,2

19,2

34,6

10 = Average importance

18

23,1

23,1

57,7

11-14 = important

3

3,8

3,8

61,5

Valid 15 = very important

3

3,8

3,8

65,4

16-20 = Excellent

1

1,3

1,3

66,7

don′t know

26

33,3

33,3

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

What is the importance of the WWF in the KP?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

No importance

17

21,8

21,8

21,8

1-9 = Very little importance

11

14,1

14,1

35,9

10 = Average importance

7

9,0

9,0

44,9

11-14 = important

2

2,6

2,6

47,4

Valid 15 = very important

6

7,7

7,7

55,1

16-20 = Excellent

5

6,4

6,4

61,5

don′t know

30

38,5

38,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

What is the importance of the EU/GTZ in the KP?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

No importance

17

21,8

21,8

21,8

1-9 = Very little importance

12

15,4

15,4

37,2

10 = Average importance

7

9,0

9,0

46,2

11-14 = important

2

2,6

2,6

48,7

Valid 15 = very important

4

5,1

5,1

53,8

16-20 = Excellent

5

6,4

6,4

60,3

don′t know

31

39,7

39,7

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

XVIII

---

What is your importance in the KP?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

No importance

10

12,8

12,8

12,8

10 = Average importance

7

9,0

9,0

21,8

11-14 = important

4

5,1

5,1

26,9

Valid 15 = very important

3

3,8

3,8

30,8

16-20 = Excellent

39

50,0

50,0

80,8

don′t know

15

19,2

19,2

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

How do you feel now after the KP is no longer working in your village?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Good

32

41,0

41,0

41,0

Does not mean anything to me

16

20,5

20,5

61,5

Valid Negative

30

38,5

38,5

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

How old are you?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

15 to 25

9

11,5

12,0

12,0

26 to 35

18

23,1

24,0

36,0

36 to 45

18

23,1

24,0

60,0

Valid

46 to 55

8

10,3

10,7

70,7

56 to 65

9

11,5

12,0

82,7

Above 65

13

16,7

17,3

100,0

Total

75

96,2

100,0

Missing 98

3

3,8

Total

78

100,0

Do you live here all the time?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

68

87,2

87,2

87,2

Valid No

10

12,8

12,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

XIX

---

Level of education?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

No education

20

25,6

25,6

25,6

Less than primary, without FSLC

13

16,7

16,7

42,3

FSLC

30

38,5

38,5

80,8

Secondary, without GCE "O" Levels

7

9,0

9,0

89,7

Valid GCE "O" Levels or CAP

3

3,8

3,8

93,6

GCE "A" Levels

4

5,1

5,1

98,7

Uni Graduate

1

1,3

1,3

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Are you a member of the village council?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes

46

59,0

59,0

59,0

Valid No

32

41,0

41,0

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Sex

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Male

54

69,2

69,2

69,2

Valid Female

24

30,8

30,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

Name of village

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Meka-Ngolo

10

12,8

12,8

12,8

Ndian town

10

12,8

12,8

25,6

Ikondo Kondo 1

5

6,4

6,4

32,1

Ikassa village

6

7,7

7,7

39,7

Mosongesele

10

12,8

12,8

52,6

Fabe

9

11,5

11,5

64,1

Valid Massaka Bima

5

6,4

6,4

70,5

Mokango Bima

4

5,1

5,1

75,6

Mofako-Bima

5

6,4

6,4

82,1

Ngenye

4

5,1

5,1

87,2

Erat

10

12,8

12,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

XX

---

Village population

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Meka-Ngolo = 450

10

12,8

12,8

12,8

Ndian town = 250

10

12,8

12,8

25,6

Ikondo Kondo 1 = 253

5

6,4

6,4

32,1

Ikassa village = less than 300

6

7,7

7,7

39,7

Mosongesele = 160

10

12,8

12,8

52,6

Fabe = 175

9

11,5

11,5

64,1

Valid Masaka Bima = 237

5

6,4

6,4

70,5

Mokango Bima = 220

4

5,1

5,1

75,6

Mofako Bima = 150

5

6,4

6,4

82,1

Ngenye = 150

4

5,1

5,1

87,2

Erat = less than 500

10

12,8

12,8

100,0

Total

78

100,0

100,0

XXI

---