Environmental Management

, Volume 62, Issue 1, pp 118–127 | Cite as

An Assessment of Institutional Capacity for Integrated Landscape Management in Eastern Cameroon

  • H. Carolyn Peach BrownEmail author


Landscape approaches have become prominent in efforts to address issues of conservation and development through bringing together different actors and sectors, to reconcile diverse land uses, and promote synergies. Some have suggested that integrated landscape management approaches are consistent with the goals of REDD+ and offer a strategy to address multiple goals of climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, maintenance of ecosystem services, and socio-economic development. Institutional or governance arrangements have been shown to be a critical component in influencing outcomes in landscapes. Using diverse methodologies, this study investigated the capacity of institutions to support the planning, implementation, and resource mobilization needed to integrate climate change mitigation, conservation, and livelihood goals in a forest mosaic landscape in East Cameroon. Results showed that diverse institutions are present in the landscape, including institutions of relevant government agencies, local government, local non-government, the private sector, and hybrid institutions of conservation, development and research institutions. However, the overall institutional capacity for integrated landscape planning and management in the study area is limited, although some institutions exhibit increased capacity in some areas over others. Multiple strategies can be employed to build the necessary human, financial, and leadership capacity, and facilitate the institutional planning and coordination that is foundational to multi-stakeholder landscape governance. Given the complexity of integrating climate change mitigation, conservation and livelihood goals in a landscape, building such institutional capacity is a long term endeavour that requires sustained effort and ongoing financial, technical and human resource support.


Africa Cameroon Landscape approach Institutions Climate change REDD+ 



I would like to thank all of the participants for giving time from their busy schedule to take part in this study. I appreciate the help of my research assistant MBOCK Germain. Funding for this research was provided by an internal research grant from the University of Prince Edward Island and an Insight Development Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval

All data collection involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the Research Ethics Board at the University of Prince Edward Island and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Agrawal A (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 29:1649–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Chatre A, Hardin R (2008) Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science 320:1460–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assembe-Mvondo S, Wong G, Loft L, Sinarra Tjajadi J (2015) Comparative assessment of forest revenue redistribution mechanisms in Cameroon Working Paper 190. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey I, Buck L (2016) Managing for resilience: a landscape framework for food and livelihood security and ecosystem services Food Secur 8:477–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastos Lima MG, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Braña-Varela J, Gupta A (2017) A reality check on the landscape approach to REDD+: lessons from Latin America. For Policy Econ 78:10–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown HCP, Lassoie JP (2010) Institutional choice and local legitimacy in community-based forest management: lessons from Cameroon. Environ Conserv 37:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chia EL, Sufo RK (2016) A situational analysis of Cameroon’s technical operation units (TOUs) in the context of the landscape approach: critical issues and perspectives. Environ Dev Sustain 18:951–964.
  8. Clay N (2016) Producing hybrid forests in the Congo Basin: a political ecology of the landscape approach to conservation. Geoforum 76:130–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale (COMIFAC) (2017) Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  10. Cundill G, Fabricius C (2010) Monitoring the governance dimension of natural resource co-management. Ecol Soc.
  11. Deans H, Ros-Tonen MAF, Derkyi M (2018) Advanced value chain collaboration in Ghana’s cocoa sector: An entry point for itegrated landscape approaches? Environ Manage
  12. Devisscher T, Bharwani S, Tiani AM, Pavageau C, Essoungou Kwak N, Taylor R (2013) Current vulnerability in the Tri-National de la Sangha landscape, Cameroon Working Paper 107. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
  13. Djeumo A (2001) The development of community forests in Cameroon: Origins, current situation and constraints Rural Development Forestry Network 25b:1–16Google Scholar
  14. Dkamela GP (2011) The context of REDD+ in Cameroon: Drivers, agents and institutions vol 57. Center for International Forestry Research, BogorGoogle Scholar
  15. Ecoagriculture Partners (2017) Landscape performance scorecard. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  16. Endamana D et al. (2010) A framework for assessing conservation and development in a Congo Basin Forest Landscape Tropical Conservation. Science 3:262–281Google Scholar
  17. Estrada-Carmona N, Hart AK, DeClerck FAJ, Harvey CA, Milder JC (2014) Integrated landscape management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: an assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean. Landsc Urban Plan 129:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foli S, Ros-Tonen MAF, Reed J, Sunderland TCH (2018) Natural resource management schemes as entry Points for integrated landscape approaches: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso Environmental Management.
  19. Gardner TA et al. (2012) A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biol Conserv 154:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gizachew B, Astrup R, Vedeld P, Zahabu EA, Duguma LA (2017) REDD+in Africa: contexts and challenges. Nat Resour Forum 41:92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvey CA et al. (2014) Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture Conservation Letters 7:77–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ingram V, Tieguhong JC, Schure J, Nkamgnia E, Tadjuidje MH (2011) Where artisanal mines and forest meet: Socio-economic and environmental impacts in the Congo Basin. Nat Resour Forum 35:304–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Institut National de la Statistique du Cameroun (2017) Cameroon Socio-Economic Database. Accessed 2 April 2018
  24. Jalloh A, Roy-Macauley H, Sereme P (2012) Macro agro-ecosystems of West and Central Africa: Brief description, species richness, management, environmental limitations and concerns. Agric Ecosyst Environ 157:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kusters K, Buck L, de Graaf M, Minang P, van Oosten C, Zagt R (2018) Participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation of multi-stakeholder platforms in integrated landscape initiatives Environ Manage.
  26. La Fondation Tri-National de la Sangha (2017) La Fondation Tri-National de la Sangha,. Accessed November 2017
  27. McCall MK (2016) Beyond “Landscape” in REDD+: the imperative for “Territory”. World Dev 85:58–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milder JC, Buck LE, DeClerck F, Scherr S (2012) Landscape approaches to achieving food production, natural resource conservation, and the Millennium Development Goals. In: Ingram JC, DeClerck F, Rumbaitis del Rio C (eds) Integrating ecology and poverty reduction: ecological dimensions. Springer, New York, NY, p 77–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Duguma LA, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D (2015) Introduction and basic propositions. In: Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D (eds) Climate-smart landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, p 3–17Google Scholar
  30. Mwitwa J, German L, Muimba-Kankolongo A, Puntodewo A (2012) Governance and sustainability challenges in landscapes shaped by mining: Mining-forestry linkages and impacts in the Copper Belt of Zambia and the DR Congo. For Policy Econ 25:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nielsen TD (2016) From REDD+forests to green landscapes? Analyzing the emerging integrated landscape approach discourse in the UNFCCC. For Policy Econ 73:177–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Norris K, Asase A, Collen B, Gockowski J, Mason J, Phalan B, Wade A (2010) Biodiversity in a forest-agriculture mosaic - The changing face of West African rainforests. Biol Conserv 143:2341–2350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of Institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ostrom E (1997) Local institutions for resource management. In: Borrini-Feyerabend G (ed) Beyond fences, seeking social sustainability in conservation, vol 2. IUCN, Gland, p 14–16Google Scholar
  35. Oyono PR (2004a) Institutional deficit, representation, and decentralized forest management in Cameroon. In: Ribot JC (ed) Environmental Governance in Africa Working Papers. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, p 1–36Google Scholar
  36. Oyono PR (2004b) The social and organisational roots of ecological uncertainties in Cameroon’s forest management decentralisation model. Eur J Dev Res 16:174–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oyono PR, Efoua S (2006) La représentation environnementale au Cameroun: une exploration des liens entre les choix institutionnnels, la démocratie local et les résultats de la gestion décentralisée des forêts. Afr Dev XXXI:149–184Google Scholar
  38. Programme d’Appui à la Conservation des Ecosystèmes du Bassin du Congo (2017) Programme d’Appui à la Conservation des Ecosystèmes du Bassin du Congo. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  39. Reed J, van Vianen J, Barlow J, Sunderland T (2017) Have integrated landscape approaches reconciled societal and environmental issues in the tropics? Land Use Policy 63:481–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reed J, Van Vianen J, Deakin EL, Barlow J, Sunderland T (2016) Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Glob Change Biol 22:2540–2554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ribot JC (2002) Democratic decentralization of natural resources: institutionalizing popular participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Robiglio V, Lescuyer G, Cerutti P (2013) From farmers to loggers: The role of shifting cultivation landscapes in timber production in Cameroon. Small-Scale For 12:67–85Google Scholar
  43. Rodriguez-Ward D, Larson AM, Gordillo-Ruesta HA (2018) Top-down, bottom-up and sideways: the multilayered complexities of multi-level actors shaping forest governance and REDD+ arrangements in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environ Manage.
  44. Ros-Tonen M, Derkyi M, Insaidoo T (2014) From co-management to landscape governance: Whither Ghana’s modified Taungya system? Forests 5:2996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sayer J, Endamana D, Boedhihartono AK, Ruiz-Perez M, Breuer T (2016) Learning from change in the Sangha Tri-National landscape. Int For Rev 18:130–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sayer J, Margules C, Boedhihartono AK, Dale A, Sunderland T, Supriatna J, Saryanthi R (2015) Landscape approaches; what are the pre-conditions for success? Sustain Sci 10:345–355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sayer JA et al. (2017) Measuring the effectiveness of landscape approaches to conservation and development sustainability. Science 12:465–476. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sayer JA et al. (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. PNAS 110:8349–8356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scherr S, Shames S, Friedman R (2012) From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes. Agric Food Secur 1:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schure J, Ingram V, Tieguhong JC, Ndikumagenge C (2011) Is the god of diamonds alone? The role of institutions in artisanal mining in forest landscapes. Congo Basin Resour Policy 36:363–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shames S et al. (2016) Building local institutional capacity to implement agricultural carbon projects: participatory action research with Vi Agroforestry in Kenya and ECOTRUST in Uganda. Agric Food Secur 5:13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sunderlin W, de Sassi C, Ekaputri A, Light M, Pratama C (2017) REDD+contribution to well-being and income is marginal: the perspective of local stakeholders. Forests 8:125Google Scholar
  53. Tadjuidje MH (2010) Analyse des acteurs et évaluation des besoins en renforcement de capacité dans le Tri-National de la Sangha (TNS). La Fondation pour le Tri-National de la Sangha (FTNS)Google Scholar
  54. Tadjuidje MH, Dipapoundji B, Mowawa SB (2012) Tri-National de la Sangha Landscape. CIFOR, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  55. The REDD Desk (2018) Cameroon. Accessed 2 April 2018
  56. Thompson MC, Baruah M, Carr ER (2011) Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ Sci Policy 14:100–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tiani AM, Bele MY, Sonwa DJ (2015) What are we talking about? The state of perceptions and knowledge on REDD+and adaptation to climate change in Central Africa. Clim Dev 7:310–321. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tri-National de la Sangha (2015) État de Conservation du Tri-National de la Sangha. Tri-National de la SanghaGoogle Scholar
  59. Turnhout E et al. (2017) Envisioning REDD+ in a post-Paris era: between evolving expectations and current practice. Wiley Interdiscip Rev 8:n/a–n/a. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UN-REDD Programme (2017) The United Nations Collaborative Programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. Accessed 12 July 2017
  61. United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2016) Towards a Common Understanding of REDD+ under the UNFCCC, Technical Resource Series 3. UN-REDDGoogle Scholar
  62. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2017) Sangha Trinational. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed 2 Nov 2017
  63. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2015) Warsaw Framework for REDD-plus. Accessed 7 July 2017
  64. Usongo L, Nzooh Z (2009) Sangha tri-National (TNS) Landscape. In: De Wasseige C, Devers D, De Marcken P, Eba’a Atyi R, Nasi R, Mayaux P (eds) Les Forêts du Bassin du Congo - État des Forêts 2008. Office des publications de l’Union européenne, pp 283–294Google Scholar
  65. World Wide Fund for Nature WWF (2017) WWF in the Green Heart of Africa. Accessed 1 Nov 2017
  66. WWF Cameroon (2016) Des Succès Étonnants Malgre les Révélations Alarmantes. WWF Cameroon, Yaoundé, CameroonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Associate Professor and Director of Environmental StudiesUniversity of Prince Edward IslandCharlottetownCanada

Personalised recommendations