In-park village management through Permanent Use Zone, the case of Korup National Park

Korup National Park (KPN) is one of the most important biodiversity hotspot in Africa, characterized by extremely rich tree diversity and a remarkably high level of endemism (Rodewald et al., 1994; Waltert, 2005; MINFOF, 2008; MINFOF, 2017). It’s a refuge of flagship and high vulnerable animal species like Elephante, Drill, Chimpanzee, Preuss’s red colobus monkey, Picathartes. Despite its highest value like generative income, ecosystem services and conservation value; KNP is suffering from a number of activities that are threatening it integrity and connectivity (Dupuy, 2015). Clearing of natural vegetation to provide land for agro-industrial plantations, commercial and subsistence agriculture is the biggest driver of deforestation in the area (Bobo et al., 2006a; Bobo, 2007; Guekeu et al., 2014; Dupuy, 2015; Tonleu et al., 2018). In villages that immediately border the different PAs, land has gradually become insufficient for cash crop cultivation and without alternatives; the risk of encroachment into PAs is increasing. With the fast disappearance of communal forests in favour of agricultural holdings, NTFPs harvesting and hunting is shifing as well into PAs (Dupuy, 2015).

The world's system of protected areas (PAs) has grown exponentially over the past 25 years, particularly in developing countries where biodiversity is greatest. Concurrently, the mission of PAs has expanded from biodiversity conservation to improving human welfare (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005). The relationship between protected areas and community land rights is important for both human rights and biodiversity conservation at a global scale (RRI, 2015). It is important for human rights because land and natural resources are fundamental to the existence, livelihoods, cultural heritage, identity, and future opportunities of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (Defries and al, 2007; RRI, 2015).

Thus, PAs are widely recognized as one of the most important strategies for achieving conservation and sustainable development. However, they face great challenges. Many studies have indicated that most of the problems affecting PAs involve land use changes and activities that originate in surrounding areas (Kozlowski and Vass-Bowen, 1997 ; Sharma, 1990; Rodríguez and Vega, 2018), seriously undermining the harmonious balance between conservation and sustainable development in and around PAs. A new approach to biodiversity conservation within human-dominated landscapes one that unites a focus on ecologically sustainable agriculture with existing efforts in protected areas to achieve lasting conservation outcomes at local and regional levels. This new approach recognizes farmers as stakeholders in conserving biodiversity and actively solicits farmers as partners to create resilient landscapes that foster wildlife and preserve rural livelihoods and local knowledge (Harvey and al., 2008).

Like most of PAs, KNP is surrounded by riparian communities, it host 32 villages in its periphery, with 05 villages inside the park. In fact, when KNP was created in 1986, it’s had already many enclaves’ villages (Erat, Esukutan, Bera, Ikondokondo I, Ikenge and Bareka-Batanga). According to the creation process all these enclaves inside the park were illegal and should be resettled. In 2000, the Korup Project succeeded to resettle only one village, Ikondokondo. But in the revised Management Plan of the Park (2008-2013) resettlement for various reasons no longer been considered as a feasible option and it was now foreseen to demarcate “Permanent Use Zones” (PUZ) for in-park villages. Hence, MINFOF through the PSMNR-SWR has initiated the process of PUZ establishment for the Erat, Esukutan and Bera communities. In addition with co-management approach, the community of Erat has signed the Conservation Development Agreements (CDA); in which the local population participates as partners in park management; while also benefiting from Infrastructure development and Income Generating Activities (IGAs) to improve their livelihoods. The PUZ process is in line with prescriptions specified in PUZ agreement and will permit the community, KNP and other partners to conveniently invest in the development of Erat village (Dupuy, 2015 ; KNP, 2015 ; MINFOF, 2017).

Despite these efforts, KNP remain an area of a wide rate of threatening wildlife, with many cases of elephant killing and bushmeat traffic (Dupuy, 2015); and there is still little agreement about how compliance with PA policies could be better achieved (Andrade and Rhodes, 2012). Furthermore, some villages are not signed the Conservation Development Agreement (CDA) and others don’t agreed with Permanents Use Zones (PUZ) establishment (Dupuy, 2015; MINFOF, 2017).

By TANEBANG Cyrille

Forestry and Wildlife Engineer

REFERENCES 

Bobo, K. S. 2007. From forest to farmland: Effects of land use on understorey birds of Afrotropical rainforests. Thèse de Ph.D. Université Georg-August de Göttingen, Allemagne. 169p.

Bobo, K. S., Waltert, M., Sainge, N. M., Njokagbor, J., Fermon, H. et Mühlenberg, M. 2006b. From forest to farmland: species richness patterns of trees and understorey plants along a gradient of forest conversion in Southwestern Cameroon. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 4097-4117.

DeFries, R,. Hansen, A,. Turner, B. L., Reid, R. and Liu, J. 2007. Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecological Society of America 17 (4): 1031–1038.

Dupuy, J. 2015. Collaborative management of Protected Areas, PSMNR-SWR approach and concepts. Programme for Sustainable Management of Natural resources, South West Region (PSMNR-SWR), Buea, Cameroon.

Guekeu, H. M., Bobo, K. S. et Tanebang, T. C. L. 2014. Large Scale Oil Palm Plantation Expansion by Herakles Farms in Southwest Cameroon: Local Communities Between Development and Conservation. Abstract. Tropentag. Czech Republic.

Harvey, C. A., Komar, O., Chazdon, R., Ferguson, B. G., Finegan, B., Griffith, D. M., Martínez-Ramos, M., Morales, H., Nigh, R., Soto-Pinto, L., Breugel, M. Van. and Wishnie, M. 2008. Integrating Agricultural Landscapes with Biodiversity Conservation in the Mesoamerican Hotspot. Conservation biology 22 (1): 8–15. https://10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00863.x

Kozlowski, J.; Vass-Bowen, N. (1997). Buffering external threats to heritage conservation areas: Planner’s perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 37 : 245–267.

Ministère des forêts et de la faune. 2008. Management Plan for the Korup National Park and its peripheral zone (2009-2013). MINFOF. Yaoundé. Cameroon. 136p.

Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M. H and Brandon, K. 2005. The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 219-252. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507

Rodewald, P. G., Dejaifve, P. A. et Green, A. A. 1994. The birds of Korup National Park and Korup Project Area, Southwest Province, Cameroon. Bird Conservation International 4: 1-68.

Tonleu, J., Bobo, K. S., Djoumessi, D W., Tanebang, T. C.L., Lontchi, W. T. G., Tanyimajob, A. C., Mfendem, K. L., Assoua, R. S; H., Nzitouo, T. U. et Mpoame, M. 2018. Prédation des nids de deux espèces de bulbuls (Pycnonotidae) dans un écosystème de forêt tropicale humide à Korup, Sud-Ouest Cameroun. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences. 12(5): 2328-2343. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v12i5.32

Waltert, M., Bobo, K. S., Sainge, M. N., Fermon, H. et Mühlenberg, M. 2005. From forest to farmland: Habitat effects on Afrotropical forest bird diversity. Ecological Application 15: 1351–1366.