1 / 22

World Congress of Agroforestry 2009 Nairobi - Kenya, 23-28 August

Forest and land tenure policies: constraint to participatory tree domestication ? Cases from forest zones in Cameroon P. 1 Mbile, L. Z 1 Tchoundjeu, C 2 Njebet, P 3 Pa’ah, D 4 Okon, O 5 Mambo, R 6 Oyono, A 1 Degrande & T 1 sado.

carlow
Download Presentation

World Congress of Agroforestry 2009 Nairobi - Kenya, 23-28 August

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Forest and land tenure policies: constraint to participatory tree domestication?Cases from forest zones in CameroonP. 1Mbile, L. Z 1Tchoundjeu, C 2Njebet, P 3Pa’ah, D 4Okon, O 5Mambo, R 6Oyono, A 1Degrande & T 1sado World Congress of Agroforestry 2009 Nairobi - Kenya, 23-28 August

  2. Participatory Tree domestication (PTD) • Tree domestication can refer to continuous farmer selection and cultivation of trees over many years or via deliberate breeding and can occur at all stages of improvement; from the wild to the genetically modified. • Sustained supply of products from both planted trees and naturally growing stocks entering into markets legitimately (without harassment) and with secure, recognized chains of custody protected by statutory law, • In ICRAF’s West and Central Africa programme PTD remains an iterative process involving client preferences to bring diverse indigenous trees into wider cultivation, marketing and cultivation

  3. Understanding around tree-based systems in parts of Cameroon has undergone 3 main dynamics • Minchon & De Foresta, 1997; Minchon 1986, 1983; Iskandar, 1980; Wersum, 1997, have attempted to conceive Agroforests based on multi-strata forest perspectives • Some analyses of cash crop systems, around rubber, oil palm and cashew Agroforestry, cocoa, coffee have been variously reported by (Duguma, 1998, Gokowski et al, 2004, Sonwa, 2004, Mbile et al, 2006, etc), can be noted • More recently with participatory tree domestication (PTD), we note works by Leakey & Tomich (1996), Leakey & Izac (1996), Ladipo et al, (1996), J.C. Okafor (1992), Tchoundjeu et al. (2002), Simons & Leakey (2004).

  4. Invariably, all these analyses make similar assumptions for success.. Key amongst these are that, Agroforest development requires……. • Unrestricted access to land to plant/mainatin trees; with enforceable long-term ownership and management rights strong enough to exclude intruders and facilitate business agreements with choice partners • A supporting policy environment sensitive to constraints in customary law, and to new proposals to strengthen local ownership, performance and continued protection for use and trade rights to diverse tree products

  5. There is however some mismatches between customary perceptions and the modern State.

  6. Customary – statutory law harmony presents some challenges .

  7. Nationally >2,638 villages exist within 4 km of PFE: Estimated Agroforestry zones around these communities stands at 6.3 million hectares. By end of 2008, 621,245 hectares of forests (9.8% of AFZ) came under community forest titles

  8. Stakeholder engagements to influence policy review now seems the only plausible course of action to remedy the situation • But we know that this requires participation – incidentally, the Achille’s heel of policy • However, political science teaches us a few theories, some of which we are using in a coalition of research, conservation and civil society advocacy in Cameroon.

  9. Cognitive phase Volition phase High Scientific community Society/Policy makers Consensus Science-Policy divide Low High Low Level of confidence The phases of resistance and acquiescence by society/policy makers to scientific information Confidence Adapted from Bradshaw, GA and JG Borchers. 2000

  10. Linking scientific knowledge to policy & action via different scales Functions/Actors Decisions/actions Information Interpretation Knowlegde DECIOSION-MAKERS MANAGERS ANALYSTS SCIENTISTS Regional National Scale Sub-national Community Household Cash & Moser, 2000

  11. Introduction:forest zoning plan laws interests needs symbolisms Constitution agendas forest policy

  12. Data • Interviews • Documentation • Com. Mapping • GIS analyses • Public events 2. Methods Issues & alliances 1:National Parks (Korup, DJA, Campo Ma’an. (..WWF, CED, FPP, PERAD) 2a: Agro industry (CDC, Socaplam) (MCP, NCI, CIL, CARPE, CED, FPP) 2b: BLCC, (BLCC, CDC) 3a: Timber concession, private sector, (CamEco, Consultants) 3b: Forest reserves, timber concession and each other (CamEco, Consultants) 4a&b:Pygmy and Bantu people with national parks and timber concessions and with each other (CED, FPP, PERAD) 1 2 3 4

  13. 3: Conceptual framework • Concentual framework focus:  ‘rule of law’ • Constitution: The broad principles of ‘governance • Policies: The philosophical and methodological frameworks • Laws = The substantive element or fixed rules or by-laws “to ensure the well-being of every citizen without discrimination; raise living standards and uphold their right to development. Within the possibilities of her resources the State will provide conditions necessary for human development.” (Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon, 1996) • Dicey, (1982) : substantive aspects of law (the rules) shape public behaviour (F. A. Hayek (1994): • Shen (2000) fixed rules to be implemented as formal or procedural justice; • Schauer (1988) transparency, participation, fairness and procedure provides guarantees that ‘fixed rules’ will possess the substantive element and shape public behaviour.

  14. 3: Analyses../ case 1 • 1.Korup: 100% park is customary, State attempts to resettle villages, fails. Park people. Persona non grata. Deadlock. Proposals being made to incorporate people’s needs in management plan.

  15. 3: Analyses../ case 2 • 2a.Boa plains: People’a lands intersect with CDC lands. Lands retro-ceded (people have a bad deals).

  16. 3: Analyses../ case 3 • 2b.BLCC: Case legitimacy validated by AU CHPR. Government challenges on procedure. AU CHPR advices on local, sovereign solution.

  17. 3: Analyses../ case 4 3a.Ngonga-Kopongo: Local people’s case strong. Government concedes, promises encalves. Then retracts following submission by private sector company. Deadlock

  18. 3: Analyses../ case 5 3b.Kienke: local case strong, conflicts between peoples, with state reserve. Government concedes to timber concesssion, symbolically recognizes people’s. legitimate needs. But seems to be turning the other way in finding permanent solution

  19. 3: Analyses../ case 6 3c.Socapalm/Hevecam/Campo: Racial minority rights acknowledged but none territorial occupancy of space presents problems. WWF incorporates these people’suse rights into park management with State blessing. Process is far from satisfactory.

  20. 3: Analyses../ case 7 • 4a&b. Southeast: Mainly minority rights acknowledged by park management authorities. People’s hunting zones built intomanagement plans in southeast. A temporary solution is found.

  21. SYNTHESES • A clear patterns: • Achilles’ heel of Policy has always been people’s participation, so ‘rule of law’ appropriately focusses on that. • Partial solutions in all cases have involved ‘grouping’ the problem to reduce the effect of ‘disarray’. • Where authority has been conferred local solutions, though requiring moderation are sought and appear to work (Boa, Campo, Southeast, developing in Korup) • Where there is a clash of powerful private or public sector interest the State seems ambivalent and confused (Kopongo, Boa, BLCC) • The State performs badly when dealing directly with people’s problems (Korup, Kienke). • The State is not creative enough in dealing with ‘unusual’ challenges like integrating racially unique lifelstyles into popular processes (Campo, Dja, Southeast). • The state avoids public embarrassement at all costs (BLCC)

  22. Our coalition is currently involved in the process of the ‘revision’ of the 1994 Forest ad Wildlife Laws of Cameroon Asante Thank you for your attention

More Related