10.3.3). High-value timber species are often maintained within farms (Sect. 10.3.2)
to meet household needs, and not necessarily to generate external income through
selling. These NTFPs play an instrumental role for forest livelihoods, when compared to other forest products such as timber and fuelwood. In fact their contribution
to household income can be as high as 45% in some localities of South Cameroon,
where indigenous communities live a nomadic lifestyle (Van Dijk 1999; Mala 2009;
Diaw et al. 2016).
As already discussed throughout this chapter, local agro-diversity knowledge is
critical for sustainable land management approaches that reconcile livelihood needs
and biodiversity conservation (Lefroy et al. 1999; Michon and De Laforesta 1999;
Wiersum 2004; Mala et al. 2008a, b) (see Chap. 3, Vol. 2). However, it is not
straightforward to avoid trade-offs in such complex forest mosaics with multifunctional crops and trees. There is a need to develop management approaches
that are on the one hand able to reconcile local needs with biodiversity conservation.
Overall, our results suggest that the concept of forest–agriculture could deliver
broader benefits to local communities, compared to the prevailing slash-and-burn
agriculture practices. This could be achieved by reconciling forest livelihoods and
biodiversity conservation, and would require reversing the current bias in how
agricultural impacts on livelihoods, biodiversity and agro-ecosystem dynamics are
understood in humid tropical forests. Forest–agriculture innovations related to
cocoa, plantains, maize, peanuts and cassava are particularly relevant, considering
their high socio-economic importance in the study area (Gockowski et al. 2004,
2005) (Sect. 10.3.5). Many of these innovations are generally developed or tested by
disqualifying local ecological knowledge on agro-diversity and land use management, something that does not provide credit to the farmers to adopt them.
All of the above suggest that despite the significant effort to provide forest–
agriculture innovations in the study area, there is a disjoint with what the local
farmers actually need (Sect. 10.3.5). This is highlighted in the relatively high rates of
abandonment of certain innovations related to soil fertility and agroforestry. This
was possibly due to the fact that some of the innovations have sought to improve soil
fertility through the selection of plant species (e.g. Calliandra spp., Mucuna spp.
Inga edulis, see Nolte et al. 1997; FAO 1999; Kanmegne 2004; Mala 2009), often
overlapping with the range of domesticated crop species (Dounias and Hladik 1996;
Carrière 1999; Mala 2016, 2017).
The lack of property rights is one of the factors that might curtail the effectiveness
of forest–agriculture. Although local farmers in the study areas have access and user
rights, they do not have property rights. Essentially, the forests (and timber trees
wherein) are the property of the State, as stipulated in the Cameroon Forest Law of
1994, even if the farmers have domesticated the plant species and managed the land
over long periods of time. This affects considerably the number and types of plant
species encountered in farming plots. In fact, the lack of stable land tenure reduces
the interest and willingness of farmers to maintain timber species within their plots,
as these species can only be commercialized if farmers hold appropriate permits.
Such insecure rights over land and trees may create pre-conditions for the illegal
exploitation of timber, because according to the Cameroon Forest Law, even the use
10 Forest–Agriculture in the Centre–South Region of Cameroon: How Does. . .
343
to meet household needs, and not necessarily to generate external income through
selling. These NTFPs play an instrumental role for forest livelihoods, when compared to other forest products such as timber and fuelwood. In fact their contribution
to household income can be as high as 45% in some localities of South Cameroon,
where indigenous communities live a nomadic lifestyle (Van Dijk 1999; Mala 2009;
Diaw et al. 2016).
As already discussed throughout this chapter, local agro-diversity knowledge is
critical for sustainable land management approaches that reconcile livelihood needs
and biodiversity conservation (Lefroy et al. 1999; Michon and De Laforesta 1999;
Wiersum 2004; Mala et al. 2008a, b) (see Chap. 3, Vol. 2). However, it is not
straightforward to avoid trade-offs in such complex forest mosaics with multifunctional crops and trees. There is a need to develop management approaches
that are on the one hand able to reconcile local needs with biodiversity conservation.
Overall, our results suggest that the concept of forest–agriculture could deliver
broader benefits to local communities, compared to the prevailing slash-and-burn
agriculture practices. This could be achieved by reconciling forest livelihoods and
biodiversity conservation, and would require reversing the current bias in how
agricultural impacts on livelihoods, biodiversity and agro-ecosystem dynamics are
understood in humid tropical forests. Forest–agriculture innovations related to
cocoa, plantains, maize, peanuts and cassava are particularly relevant, considering
their high socio-economic importance in the study area (Gockowski et al. 2004,
2005) (Sect. 10.3.5). Many of these innovations are generally developed or tested by
disqualifying local ecological knowledge on agro-diversity and land use management, something that does not provide credit to the farmers to adopt them.
All of the above suggest that despite the significant effort to provide forest–
agriculture innovations in the study area, there is a disjoint with what the local
farmers actually need (Sect. 10.3.5). This is highlighted in the relatively high rates of
abandonment of certain innovations related to soil fertility and agroforestry. This
was possibly due to the fact that some of the innovations have sought to improve soil
fertility through the selection of plant species (e.g. Calliandra spp., Mucuna spp.
Inga edulis, see Nolte et al. 1997; FAO 1999; Kanmegne 2004; Mala 2009), often
overlapping with the range of domesticated crop species (Dounias and Hladik 1996;
Carrière 1999; Mala 2016, 2017).
The lack of property rights is one of the factors that might curtail the effectiveness
of forest–agriculture. Although local farmers in the study areas have access and user
rights, they do not have property rights. Essentially, the forests (and timber trees
wherein) are the property of the State, as stipulated in the Cameroon Forest Law of
1994, even if the farmers have domesticated the plant species and managed the land
over long periods of time. This affects considerably the number and types of plant
species encountered in farming plots. In fact, the lack of stable land tenure reduces
the interest and willingness of farmers to maintain timber species within their plots,
as these species can only be commercialized if farmers hold appropriate permits.
Such insecure rights over land and trees may create pre-conditions for the illegal
exploitation of timber, because according to the Cameroon Forest Law, even the use
10 Forest–Agriculture in the Centre–South Region of Cameroon: How Does. . .
343