Skip to main content

A situational analysis of Cameroon’s Technical Operation Units (TOUs) in the context of the landscape approach: critical issues and perspectives

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The integrated landscape approach is re-emerging in the global agenda as an approach which can give a fair deal to landscape functions such as climate change response, biodiversity conservation, food security, poverty reduction and economic growth. However, transformational change might be required to enable landscapes respond to these different functions. This is due to the sensitive nature of landscapes to local, national and global economic, social and political drivers. Based on national policy instruments, this paper presents a situational analysis of the landscape concept in Cameroon, operationalized as Technical Operation Units (TOUs) and in the context of the present institutional, social, economic and political features, it examines the rationale for a landscape approach in Cameroon. We notice potential trade-offs, indicating that the landscape approach is an opportunity for TOUs in Cameroon. Firstly, TOUs are characterized by multiple resource regimes with overlapping claims each having a legal land allocation and management plan. Secondly, TOUs are characterized by different stakeholders, with different land-use interests and motives, each controlling key components in the landscapes. Thirdly, the interests and motives of stakeholders overlap spatially and are connected to different sectoral policies at the national level. This setting might threaten decision making and the sustainability potentials of landscapes. Nonetheless, we propose areas for in-depth studies to generate knowledge and information to orientate win–win policy construction for landscapes. This is relevant for the social, ecological and economic objectives that underpin the sustainable development goals proposed in the post-2015 development agenda.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Arnold, M., Powell, B., Shanley, P., & Sunderland, T. C. H. (2011). Editorial: Forests, biodiversity and food security. International Forestry Review, 13, 259–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Castella, J.-C., Douangsavanh, L., Messerli, P., & Weyerhaeuser, H. (2009). Global agendas versus local realities. Bonn: Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Changes Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  3. CBFP. (2006). The forests of the Congo basin—State of the forest 2006, Congo Basin Forest partnership. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  4. CBFP. (2008). The forests of the Congo basin—State of the forest 2008, Congo Basin Forest partnership. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  5. De Blas, E., Ruiz-Pérez, M., & Vermeulen, C. (2011). Management conflicts in Cameroonian community forests. Ecology and Society, 1, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eba’a Atyi, R., Lescuyer, G., Ngouhouo, P. J., & Moulendè., F. T. (2013). Étude de l’importance économique et sociale du secteur forestier et faunique au Cameroun—Rapport final. CIFOR.

  7. Endamana, D., Boedhihartono, A. K., Bokoto, B., Defo, L., Eyebe, A., Ndikumagenge, C., & Sayer, J. A. (2010). A framework for assessing conservation and development in a Congo Basin Forest landscape. Tropical Conservation Science, 3, 262–281.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Funoh, K. N. (2014). The impacts of artisanal gold mining on local livelihoods and the environment in the forested areas of Cameroon. CIFOR working paper no. 150. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

  9. German, L. (2012). Governance and large-scale investments in forested landscapes. ETFRN news no. 53.

  10. German, L., Schoneveld, G., & Mwangi, E. (2011a). Processes of large-scale land acquisition by investors: Case studies from sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 6–8). Brighton: International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  11. German, L., Schoneveld, G. C., & Pacheco, P. (2011b). Local social and environmental impacts of biofuels: Global comparative assessment and implications for governance. Ecology & Society, 16(4), 29. doi:10.5751/ES-04516-160429.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gibson, L., Lee, T. M., Koh, L. P., Brook, B. W., Gardner, T. A., Barlow, J., et al. (2011). Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature, 478, 378–381.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gignoux, J., Davies, I. D., Flint, S. R., & Zucker, J.-D. (2011). The ecosystem in practice: Interest and problems of an old definition for constructing ecological models. Ecosystems, 14, 1039–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. GoC. (1994). Law No. 94-01 of 20 January 1994 to lay down forestry, wildlife and fisheries regulations. Yaounde: Government of Cameroon.

  15. GoC. (1995). Decree No. 95-531-PM of 23 August 1995 to determine the conditions for implementation of forestry regulations. Yaounde: Goverment of Cameroon.

  16. GoC. (2005). Decree No. 2005/495 of 31 December 2005 amending and supplementing certain provisions of Decree No. 2005/099 of 6 April 2005. Yaounde, Cameroon: Government of Cameroon.

  17. GoC. (2013). Cameroon Vision 2035. Working Paper. Ministry of the Economy, Planning and Regional Development. Yaounde: Government of Cameroon.

  18. Görg, C. (2007). Landscape governance: The “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum, 38, 954–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Haber, W. (2004). Landscape ecology as a bridge from ecosystems to human ecology. Ecological Research, 19, 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hett, C., Castella, J.-C., Heinimann, A., Messerli, P., & Pfund, J.-L. (2012). A landscape mosaics approach for characterizing swidden systems from a REDD+ perspective. Applied Geography, 32, 608–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hilson, G., & Murck, B. (2000). Sustainable development in the mining industry: Clarifying the corporate perspective. Resources Policy, 26, 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Holmgren, P. (2013). Landscapes: Solutions for Sustainable Development. CIFORs Director Generals Presentation. http://www.slideshare.net/ifpri/holmgren-ifpri-washington-24-june-2013. Accessed 25 Apr. 2014.

  23. Jenkins, H. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry: Conflicts and constructs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 11, 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kanowski, P. (2014). To set priorities for research, ask the right questions. http://blog.cifor.org/22157/to-set-priorities-for-research-ask-the-right-questions. Accessed 24 May 2014.

  25. Kitula, A. (2006). The environmental and socio-economic impacts of mining on local livelihoods in Tanzania: A case study of Geita District. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, 405–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Klooster, D., & Masera, O. (2000). Community forest management in Mexico: Carbon mitigation and biodiversity conservation through rural development. Global Environmental Change, 10, 259–272.

  27. Locatelli, B., Kanninen, M., Brockhaus, M., Colfer, C. J. P., Murdiyarso, D., & Santoso, H. (2008). Facing an uncertain future: How forest and people can adapt to climate change. Indonesia, Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nasi, R., Taber, A., & Van Vliet, N. (2011). Empty forests, empty stomachs? Bushmeat and livelihoods in the congo and Amazon Basins. International Forestry Review, 13, 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Oyono, P. R. (2004). The social and organisational roots of ecological uncertainties in Cameroon’s forest management decentralisation model. European Journal of Development Research, 16, 174–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Oyono, P. R. (2005). Profiling local-level outcomes of environmental decentralizations: The case of Cameroon’s forests in the Congo Basin. Journal of Environment and Development, 14, 317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pacheco, P., Aguilar-Støen, M., Börner, J., Etter, A., Putzel, L., & Diaz, M. D. C. V. (2010). Landscape transformation in tropical Latin America: Assessing trends and policy implications for REDD+. Forests, 2, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pfund, J.-L. (2010). Landscape-scale research for conservation and development in the tropics: Fighting persisting challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2, 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 10, 2417–2431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Reed, J., Deakin, L., & Sunderland, T. (2014). What are ‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ and how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics: A systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence. doi:10.1186/2047-2382-4-2

  35. Rodrigues, A. S. L., Ewers, R. M., Parry, L., Souza, C, Jr, Verissimo, A., & Balmford, A. (2009). Boom-and-bust development patterns across the Amazon deforestation frontier. Science, 324, 1435–1437.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sandker, M., Campbell, B. M., Nzooh, Z., Sunderland, T., Amougou, V., Defo, L., & Sayer, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of integrated conservation and development interventions in a Central African forest landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, 2875–2892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sayer, J. (2009). Reconciling conservation and development: Are landscapes the answer? Biotropica, 41, 649–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sayer, J., & Campbell, B. M. (2004). The science of sustainable development: Local livelihoods and the global environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sayer, J., Margules, C., Boedhihartono, A. K., Dale, A., Sunderland, T., Supriatna, J., et al. (2014). Landscape approaches; What are the pre-conditions for success? Sustainability Science. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0281-5

  40. Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., et al. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 8349–8356.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith, R. J., Verissimo, D., Leader-Williams, N., Cowling, R. M., & Knight, A. T. (2009). Let the locals lead. Nature, 462, 280–281.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Somorin, O. A., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Arts, B., Sonwa, D. J., & Tiani, A.-M. (2014). REDD+ policy strategy in Cameroon: Actors, institutions and governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 35, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sonwa, D. J., Somorin, O. A., Jum, C., Bele, M. Y., & Nkem, J. N. (2012). Vulnerability, forest-related sectors and climate change adaptation: The case of Cameroon. Forest Policy and Economics, 23, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Spittlehouse, D. L., & Stewart, R. B. (2004). Adaptation to climate change in forest management. Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 4, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stewart, R. E., Desai, A., & Walters, L. C. (2011). Wicked environmental problems: Managing uncertainty and conflict. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Sunderland, T. C. H. (2011). Food security: Why is biodiversity important? International Forestry Review, 13, 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sunderland, T. C. H., Powell, B., Ickowitz, A., Foli, S., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Nasi, R., & Padoch, C. (2013). Food security and nutrition: The role of forests. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

  48. Tsanga, R., Lescuyer, G., & Cerutti, P. (2014). What is the role for forest certification in improving relationships between logging companies and communities? Lessons from FSC in Cameroon. International Forestry Review, 16, 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The paper originates from the project proposal development process related to landscapes, within the framework of the Congo Basin Forest and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation (COBAM) project, implemented by CIFOR and funded by the AfDB and CEEAC through the COMIFAC-PACEBCo program. The views expressed in this paper remain those of the authors and not of the donors or the affiliated organizations.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eugene L. Chia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chia, E.L., Sufo, R.K. 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 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9688-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Landscape functions
  • Multiple sectors
  • Multiple actors
  • Landscape approach
  • Technical Operation Units
  • Cameroon