of timber for domestic purposes and housing construction requires the authorization
of a forest officer. As a result farmers’ decision-making is constrained between
conserving the trees that are the property of the state, cutting selectively trees, selling
the standing trees to artisanal sawyer obtaining some minor income or retaining the
valued trees species for their progeny. Most of the above options may have negative
biodiversity conservation outcomes. More importantly, some of the recent developments based on market-based conservation instruments such as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (REDD+) schemes may also be developed at smaller scales. A concrete
example of such Access and Benefits Sharing schemes in Cameroon have those
related to Echinops and Monidia, which have covered a large number of farmers and
surface area as a means of reinforcing forest-agriculture and biodiversity conservation (Bellamy and Hill 2010).
To achieve the effective uptake of forest–agriculture (and related innovations),
there is a need for flexible and participatory approaches that engage meaningfully the
knowledge and perspectives of local communities. Such approaches should start
from identifying potential conflicts, and then evaluating and monitoring how innovative agricultural and forestry practices are implemented. Different organizations
such as multilateral funders (e.g. African Development Bank, Work Bank) and
science–policy interfaces (e.g. IPBES) have proposed relevant approaches (Munang
et al. 2013, 2015; World Bank 2012, 2016; Bechini et al. 2017).
10.4.3 Linking External and Local Perspectives
and Knowledge Systems
When promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the humid
tropical forests of SSA, agro-diversity needs to be considered alongside forest tree
species and animals (Sect. 10.3.3). To achieve this, it is imperative to move beyond
the current disjointed understanding and management of agricultural and forest
landscape elements (Sect. 10.4.1). The current lack of integrated approaches at the
interface of forest, agriculture and biodiversity conservation (compounded by weak
tenure systems and little consideration of local knowledge/practices and decisionmaking processes), has curtailed the possibility of achieving some short of sustainable slash-and-burn agriculture in the region (Sect. 10.4.2) (Diaw 1997; Diaw and
Oyono 1998; Oyono et al. 2003a; Diaw et al. 2005).
However, by viewing forest–agriculture practices through the lens a forestcropping fallow-forest conversion cycle, can partially help establish a better understanding of practices that have had positive biodiversity conservation outcomes
(including agro-diversity) (Mbolo Abada et al. 2016; Chirwa and Mala 2016).
Such a broader understanding of biodiversity conservation can create the conditions
for forest regeneration (Carrière 1999; Mala 2009; Van Vliet et al. 2012) and also
offer opportunities to develop broader conservation policies and approaches
344
W. A. Mala et al.
of a forest officer. As a result farmers’ decision-making is constrained between
conserving the trees that are the property of the state, cutting selectively trees, selling
the standing trees to artisanal sawyer obtaining some minor income or retaining the
valued trees species for their progeny. Most of the above options may have negative
biodiversity conservation outcomes. More importantly, some of the recent developments based on market-based conservation instruments such as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (REDD+) schemes may also be developed at smaller scales. A concrete
example of such Access and Benefits Sharing schemes in Cameroon have those
related to Echinops and Monidia, which have covered a large number of farmers and
surface area as a means of reinforcing forest-agriculture and biodiversity conservation (Bellamy and Hill 2010).
To achieve the effective uptake of forest–agriculture (and related innovations),
there is a need for flexible and participatory approaches that engage meaningfully the
knowledge and perspectives of local communities. Such approaches should start
from identifying potential conflicts, and then evaluating and monitoring how innovative agricultural and forestry practices are implemented. Different organizations
such as multilateral funders (e.g. African Development Bank, Work Bank) and
science–policy interfaces (e.g. IPBES) have proposed relevant approaches (Munang
et al. 2013, 2015; World Bank 2012, 2016; Bechini et al. 2017).
10.4.3 Linking External and Local Perspectives
and Knowledge Systems
When promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the humid
tropical forests of SSA, agro-diversity needs to be considered alongside forest tree
species and animals (Sect. 10.3.3). To achieve this, it is imperative to move beyond
the current disjointed understanding and management of agricultural and forest
landscape elements (Sect. 10.4.1). The current lack of integrated approaches at the
interface of forest, agriculture and biodiversity conservation (compounded by weak
tenure systems and little consideration of local knowledge/practices and decisionmaking processes), has curtailed the possibility of achieving some short of sustainable slash-and-burn agriculture in the region (Sect. 10.4.2) (Diaw 1997; Diaw and
Oyono 1998; Oyono et al. 2003a; Diaw et al. 2005).
However, by viewing forest–agriculture practices through the lens a forestcropping fallow-forest conversion cycle, can partially help establish a better understanding of practices that have had positive biodiversity conservation outcomes
(including agro-diversity) (Mbolo Abada et al. 2016; Chirwa and Mala 2016).
Such a broader understanding of biodiversity conservation can create the conditions
for forest regeneration (Carrière 1999; Mala 2009; Van Vliet et al. 2012) and also
offer opportunities to develop broader conservation policies and approaches
344
W. A. Mala et al.