Costs, benefits and impacts of community forests on livelihoods in Cameroon

THINKING beyond the canopyTHINKING beyond the canopy

Costs, Benefits and Impacts of Community Forests on Livelihoods in Cameroon

Verina Ingram1, Emilie Beauchamp4, Guillaume Lescuyer1 & 2, Marc Parren3, Claude Njomgang5 , Abdon Awono1

1 Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Cameroon [email protected] CIRAD, Cameroon3 Tropenbos International, Congo-Basin Programme4 Imperial College, UK5 University of Yaounde II, Cameroon

Taking stock of smallholder and community forestry: Where do we go from here?

MontpelierMarch 2010

THINKING beyond the canopy

Community forests in Cameroon

1994 Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Law (No 94/01) created Community Forestry concept to promote:

1. Participation of local community in forest management: exploitation & conservation

2. Decentralisation & transfer of exploitation rights (not property) & management responsibilities

3. Sustainable management of forest – includes silviculture, agroforestry, agriculture &/or other uses

4. Contribute to improve livelihoods of community

After 15 years - community forestry achievements still highly debated (Klein, et al 2001; Fomete et al, 2001; Vabi, 2002).

Mangroves, Bimbia Bonadikondo CFMangroves, Bimbia Bonadikondo CFEcotourism & biodiversity value

THINKING beyond the canopy

Hypothesis

• Community management of natural resources through community forests does contribute to rural poverty alleviation - by providing populations with more sustainable livelihoods in the long term,

compared to situation with no community forest.

Kongo CF,

Photo: SNV Zita Antoine Ondoa

THINKING beyond the canopy

Methodology• 1st phase: 8 exploiting (> 2 years) CFs, across 3 agro-ecological zones, in 5 regions

– random household questionnaires (25% village population), semi-structured interviews stakeholders & beneficiaries, market surveys, observation

– Financial, economic and environmental cost and benefit analysis– 2 scenarios extrapolated to 25 year CF period:

• Scenario 1 = Current exploitation activities

• Scenario 2 = “Without community forest’ situation

– Distinction between financial and economic costs and benefits: • Financial: market priced costs and revenues from activities

• Economic: Includes non-marketed incomes (inc household consumption) & opportunity costs of activities: Biodiversity value, Carbon Release/Storage, Soil fertility Loss, Ground Water protection

• 2nd phase: Meta-analysis 8 CFs cost-benefits• 3rd phase: Restitution to actors

Participatory cartography of CF borders (

)

Photo: SNV Zita Antoine Ondoa

THINKING beyond the canopy

Methodology

Small scale of CF compared to production forests! • By end 2008 174 SMP approved (621,245 ha), requested 402 (1306707 ha)  • Only 43% of CFs currently operational• CFs = 5% forest area and contribute 2% of timber to domestic timber market

Participatory cartography of CF borders (

)

Photo: SNV Zita Antoine Ondoa

THINKING beyond the canopy

Bihkov, NW

Bimbia Bonadikondo, SW

Copal, Centre

Akak, South

Doh, East

COVIMOF, Centre

REPA-CIG, SW

Comtang, Centre

Community forest

locations

THINKING beyond the canopy

Results

THINKING beyond the canopy

ResultsAverage per CF

3,950,998 ± 7,426,396

1,370,374 ± 3,143,643

824,037 ± 1,314,643

1,138,098 ± 2,323,942

THINKING beyond the canopy

Results

Returns • 66% of CFs economically & environmentally (slightly more) profitable - compared to ‘no CF’ scenario• ‘’With CF’’ Scenario demonstrates importance timber harvest to financial costs/benefits: total of 31m compared

to 6m FCFA ‘’with out ‘’ in benefits – average • With CF scenario compared to Without for economic costs shows little difference ; taking into account

bbiodiversity value, carbon, soil fertility loss & ground water protection : 10.9m compared to 9.1m CFA• 2nd major source of revenue (NTFPs) little difference with or without CF

THINKING beyond the canopy

Results

Distribution of costs/benefits• Users accrue greater benefits than other actors in CF process (83%)

• External actors (donors/NGOs) make a ‘’loss’’

• Community does receive some benefits in with CF Scenario (23%)

THINKING beyond the canopy

Results

• CFs do contribute to improvement in communities’ livelihoods

• CFs provides for (more) sustainable forest management

Photo: Emilie Beauchamp

Gic Doh, Koundi

THINKING beyond the canopy

Conclusions

• Legal reforms in 2009 Manual of Procedures offer potential to increase positive impacts

• Sharp differences between economic returns and low revenues of the 8 CFs highlight the importance of conditional factors.

• Factors influencing CFs’ success include communities’ technical and managerial capacities, access to market information, little access to finance, and equipment, and if necessary in conflicts, legal resources

• Up-scaling vertical integration could result in higher profits from timber.

• Access to external support can facilitate development of CFs: correlating factor rather than direct cause of profitability.

• Accounting for degradation as an economic cost demonstrates high value of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, despite CF management providing improved protection compared to ‘no CF’ scenario.

• Limits of current legislation in determining volume and value of exploitation of timber and non-timber products

THINKING beyond the canopy

Where to go from here?

Institutional reforms in implementation of CFs needed to ensure equity of community forestry and continued benefits to all actors.

Organizational changes needed by government and especially support actors to increase profitability and equity of community forestry: address the factors that influence success.

Factoring in PES into CFs is critical for long term sustainability

THINKING beyond the canopyTHINKING beyond the canopy

The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) is one of the 15 centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

Thank you www.cifor.cgiar.org