It is also worth mentioning that the local agro-diversity (and related knowledge/
management) covers a large spectrum of plant species (both crop and non-crop)
(Sects. 10.3.1–10.3.4). However, only few of the many different crop species are
used during the development of forest–agriculture policy, innovations and technological options in the region (Sect. 10.3.5). Many local crop species and varieties are
still poorly recognized by the conventional agricultural R&D approaches, which
instead promote more popular crops and cropping systems such as maize monocultures (Sects. 10.1 and 10.3.5). Most of these approaches are often ill adapted to
local conditions, the socio-economic context of the humid tropics and farmers’ needs
(Campbell et al. 2010; Willems et al. 2015).
It is important to understand better the interactions discussed above, if we are to
develop sustainable forest–agriculture innovations in Cameroon (and more broadly
tropic Central Africa). It would require moving beyond the conventional conceptualization of anthropogenic activity, as having only negative effects on agroecosystem dynamics (GEF 1993; ASB 1995, 2000). This understanding has, so
far, been based on the artificial separation of ‘agricultural’ and ‘forest’ issues, and
has seriously fragmented policy formulation, and the development of agricultural
innovations and technologies (Sect. 10.1). This has contributed substantially to the
current failure to link forestry and agricultural management in the complex social–
ecological systems of Cameroon (Colfer 2005; Mala et al. 2008a, b; Mala 2009).
Overall, we argue that it is not enough to use just a single approach for tackling
sustainability challenges in these agro-ecosystems and developing feasible innovations (Prabhu 2003; Robiglio et al. 2002; Colfer 2005; Robiglio and Mala 2005).
Instead, what is clearly required at the forest margins of Central Africa are
approaches that can integrate and use different flexible management processes/
approaches during the design and analysis of interventions. This would be necessary
for tackling effectively coupled sustainability issues (see Sect. 10.4.2).
10.4.2 Reconciling Trade-offs Between Forest–Agriculture
and Biodiversity Conservation
Inherently some agricultural practices and forest uses are mutually exclusive. In
particular, there is no single approach for the joint harvest of timber and non-timber
products, and satisfy at the same time household livelihoods related to agriculture
(e.g. crops for household use and selling) and industrial development (e.g. smallscale agroforestry, forest enterprises). More importantly many of these practices
have important trade-offs with biodiversity conservation (see also Chaps. 1, 3, Vol.
1; Chaps. 3, 6, Vol. 2).
Forest landscape mosaics encompass a complex combination of agricultural and
non-agricultural land uses, with the latter often containing different food/cash crops,
trees, poles, saplings and seedlings, which fulfil a range of biophysical and socioeconomic functions (Gockowski and Dury 1999; Mala et al. 2008b) (Sects. 10.3.2–
342
W. A. Mala et al.
management) covers a large spectrum of plant species (both crop and non-crop)
(Sects. 10.3.1–10.3.4). However, only few of the many different crop species are
used during the development of forest–agriculture policy, innovations and technological options in the region (Sect. 10.3.5). Many local crop species and varieties are
still poorly recognized by the conventional agricultural R&D approaches, which
instead promote more popular crops and cropping systems such as maize monocultures (Sects. 10.1 and 10.3.5). Most of these approaches are often ill adapted to
local conditions, the socio-economic context of the humid tropics and farmers’ needs
(Campbell et al. 2010; Willems et al. 2015).
It is important to understand better the interactions discussed above, if we are to
develop sustainable forest–agriculture innovations in Cameroon (and more broadly
tropic Central Africa). It would require moving beyond the conventional conceptualization of anthropogenic activity, as having only negative effects on agroecosystem dynamics (GEF 1993; ASB 1995, 2000). This understanding has, so
far, been based on the artificial separation of ‘agricultural’ and ‘forest’ issues, and
has seriously fragmented policy formulation, and the development of agricultural
innovations and technologies (Sect. 10.1). This has contributed substantially to the
current failure to link forestry and agricultural management in the complex social–
ecological systems of Cameroon (Colfer 2005; Mala et al. 2008a, b; Mala 2009).
Overall, we argue that it is not enough to use just a single approach for tackling
sustainability challenges in these agro-ecosystems and developing feasible innovations (Prabhu 2003; Robiglio et al. 2002; Colfer 2005; Robiglio and Mala 2005).
Instead, what is clearly required at the forest margins of Central Africa are
approaches that can integrate and use different flexible management processes/
approaches during the design and analysis of interventions. This would be necessary
for tackling effectively coupled sustainability issues (see Sect. 10.4.2).
10.4.2 Reconciling Trade-offs Between Forest–Agriculture
and Biodiversity Conservation
Inherently some agricultural practices and forest uses are mutually exclusive. In
particular, there is no single approach for the joint harvest of timber and non-timber
products, and satisfy at the same time household livelihoods related to agriculture
(e.g. crops for household use and selling) and industrial development (e.g. smallscale agroforestry, forest enterprises). More importantly many of these practices
have important trade-offs with biodiversity conservation (see also Chaps. 1, 3, Vol.
1; Chaps. 3, 6, Vol. 2).
Forest landscape mosaics encompass a complex combination of agricultural and
non-agricultural land uses, with the latter often containing different food/cash crops,
trees, poles, saplings and seedlings, which fulfil a range of biophysical and socioeconomic functions (Gockowski and Dury 1999; Mala et al. 2008b) (Sects. 10.3.2–
342
W. A. Mala et al.