mosaics. Failure to employ such a coupled understanding increases the risk of
perpetuating the sharp distinction between forests and agricultural systems, which
has largely contributed to the current failure to seriously tackle deforestation, food
insecurity and poverty alleviation in the region.
Third, in order to achieve effective biodiversity conservation, especially within
forest–agriculture mosaics outside of protected areas, would most likely need the
reconciliation of multiple competing objectives. Deploying integrated approaches
that engage local communities would be necessary to achieve this reconciliation. For
example, ILK practices anchored on the coexistence and utilization of different plant
species within farms could promote some of the multiple sustainability objectives
discussed above such as biodiversity conservation, food security and sustained
livelihoods. The development of novel policies and innovations would require the
better articulation, understanding and integration of these trade-offs in decisionmaking processes at different scales ranging from the farm to the international level.
Fourth, there is a need for adaptive management practices considering the rapid
demographic, socio-economic and environmental change (including climate change)
in the humid forest areas of Central Africa. Access to climate information and
capacity-building efforts that would allow learning through experimentation will
be necessary to assist local communities deal with the high degree of uncertainty that
characterizes agro-ecosystems in the region.
10.5 Conclusions
This study sought to understand how traditional knowledge is mobilized in the
highly biodiverse forest–agriculture systems of Centre–South Cameroon, and how
it can contribute to the development of integrated policy and technology options.
Through household surveys and FGDs we track the strong and well-established
human–nature relationships that guide how local knowledge systems inform livelihoods strategies and natural resources management. Two good indications of these
strong relationships are (a) the social definition of forest based on forest uses rather
than simply biophysical characteristics and (b) the ILK-based multi-criteria
approaches used for the management of forest–agriculture systems.
Overall, agro-diversity management is a crucial activity throughout the study
area. Agro-diversity management is informed by a deep knowledge of the biophysical characteristics and socio-economic functions of tree species and crops, including
their qualities for subsistence and selling. This attest to the capacity of local
communities to conserve biodiversity outside of protected areas, as a means of
sustaining livelihoods. However, many of the agricultural innovations disseminated
in the recent past have neither met social demand nor reflected local knowledge and
worldviews. Most of these forest–agriculture innovations are entirely dominated by
technical approaches that are at odds with local sensibilities. This has possibly
contributed to the high abandonment rates of some of these innovations.
346
W. A. Mala et al.
perpetuating the sharp distinction between forests and agricultural systems, which
has largely contributed to the current failure to seriously tackle deforestation, food
insecurity and poverty alleviation in the region.
Third, in order to achieve effective biodiversity conservation, especially within
forest–agriculture mosaics outside of protected areas, would most likely need the
reconciliation of multiple competing objectives. Deploying integrated approaches
that engage local communities would be necessary to achieve this reconciliation. For
example, ILK practices anchored on the coexistence and utilization of different plant
species within farms could promote some of the multiple sustainability objectives
discussed above such as biodiversity conservation, food security and sustained
livelihoods. The development of novel policies and innovations would require the
better articulation, understanding and integration of these trade-offs in decisionmaking processes at different scales ranging from the farm to the international level.
Fourth, there is a need for adaptive management practices considering the rapid
demographic, socio-economic and environmental change (including climate change)
in the humid forest areas of Central Africa. Access to climate information and
capacity-building efforts that would allow learning through experimentation will
be necessary to assist local communities deal with the high degree of uncertainty that
characterizes agro-ecosystems in the region.
10.5 Conclusions
This study sought to understand how traditional knowledge is mobilized in the
highly biodiverse forest–agriculture systems of Centre–South Cameroon, and how
it can contribute to the development of integrated policy and technology options.
Through household surveys and FGDs we track the strong and well-established
human–nature relationships that guide how local knowledge systems inform livelihoods strategies and natural resources management. Two good indications of these
strong relationships are (a) the social definition of forest based on forest uses rather
than simply biophysical characteristics and (b) the ILK-based multi-criteria
approaches used for the management of forest–agriculture systems.
Overall, agro-diversity management is a crucial activity throughout the study
area. Agro-diversity management is informed by a deep knowledge of the biophysical characteristics and socio-economic functions of tree species and crops, including
their qualities for subsistence and selling. This attest to the capacity of local
communities to conserve biodiversity outside of protected areas, as a means of
sustaining livelihoods. However, many of the agricultural innovations disseminated
in the recent past have neither met social demand nor reflected local knowledge and
worldviews. Most of these forest–agriculture innovations are entirely dominated by
technical approaches that are at odds with local sensibilities. This has possibly
contributed to the high abandonment rates of some of these innovations.
346
W. A. Mala et al.