The document compares community forests and domestic forests in Cameroon. Community forests are granted by the state for 25 years and have management plans, while domestic forests are under customary ownership with no state oversight. However, community forest rules are often not followed in practice due to local livelihood needs. While community forests may offer economic opportunities, domestic forests still provide most household income from agriculture and resources remain managed under customary rules rather than conservation plans. Overall community forests have not significantly changed local forest management approaches.
Sustainable forest management at the local scale: A comparative analysis of community and domestic forests in Cameroon
1. Sustainable forest management at the local scale: A comparative analysis of community and domestic forests in Cameroon Guillaume Lescuyer CIRAD-CIFOR Cameroon POPULAR project
2.
3.
4. Divergences between community and domestic forests Community forest Domestic forest Max 5000ha granted by the State for 25 years No legal boundaries but legitimate “terroir” Complex and costly procedure to request a CF No cost Managed by an official community entity Regulated by families and lineages Legal tenure on resources (but not land) Customary (informal) ownership of land and resources Products extracted from forest can be sold Products only for self-consumption According to a Simple Management Plan, validated by the State According to customary rules, with no State control Restriction to local uses No restriction to local uses
8. At the forest cover level % of land without forest cover Domestic forest 21% Community forest 9% Protected area 12% Logging concesssion 11%
9. At the vegetal biodiversity level Community forest Domestic Forest Logging concession Shanon index 7,12 6,92 6,6 Simpson index 56,01 43,86 45,58 Total number of inventoried timber species 321 334 299 Density (stem/ha) 2620 2794 1592 Number of local HCV species 68 70 58
10. Where local people extract forest resources In the Community Forest Out the Community Forest Including domestic forest NTFP 30% 70% 20% Bushmeat 54% 46% 6%
11. At the household income level Shifting cultivation 1 393 65.6% Hunting 43 2.0% NTFP 54 2.6% Fishing 4 0.2% Local trade 73 3.4% Other commercial activities 293 13.8% Wage 94 4.4% from agricultural activities 38 (1.8%) from timber exploitation 56 (2.7%) Savings, gifts 167 7.9% TOTAL 2 122
Chasse et pêche principalement régulées, surtout pour interdire les pratiques commerciales individuelles Agriculture régulée (« pas d’extension ») alors qu’elle est autorisée dans le DFNP Peu de contrôle du timber cutting: problème de cohérence avec la vocation centrale de la forêt
Forêt domestique est la plus proche du village et supporte l’essentiel de l’agriculture
une préférence pour la chasse dans la FC qui s’explique par une présence encore importante de la forêt avec pas mal de champs, qui permet de combiner différents types de chasse
20 foyers (sur 38 foyers), suivi des revenus pendant 1 an
Natural capital: conservation and valorization of trees (and biodiversity) (but related to distance) Physical capital: very little impact on collective infrastructure Social and human capitals: internally (trainings, techniques,…) and externally (social network with NGOs,…)