The debates

2.1.1 “Parks or People”: conservation for the animals and plants paradigm

The romantics consist of conservation biologists whose perception of parks is that they are better off as ecological islands and so should not accommodate people. Prior to the 1970s, the romantics’ tradition formed the basis for establishing national parks in tropical Africa.

Through this ideology, donor communities forced poor countries to hastily enact green forestry legislation to create pristine parks dedicated to preserving nature in the raw and at all costs. This macro-scale management satisfies global values of nutrient cycling and climate regulation (Arnold and Ruiz-Perez, 2005:139; Tutin, 2002:76). It also perceives existing parks inhabitants as villains and advocates expelling them (Khare et al., 2000:93).

The romantics’ ideology has already facilitated the eviction and impoverishment of about 120-150,000 people in the Congo basin and more will be displaced in the future, despite its deleterious outcomes (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006:1808). So, for the romantics, only tourism, recreation and research activities should be allowed in parks.

Romantics tie population growth to national parks degradation. Demographers and neo-Malthusians supporting this view have shown that population negatively affects forests (Burgess, 1992; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1991; Rudel, 1994; UN, 1992; WCED, 1987). This

camp hold the view that forests in the Congo basin³³are likely to experience the next wave of biodiversity loss from land clearance, based on population projections. A study using a regression model with projected population sizes, found that on average, the number of threatened species is expected to increase 7% by 2020, and 14% by 2050, due to human population growth alone (McKee et al., 2003:161). So, the flora and fauna of Congo are at great risk as the number of inhabitants is set to explode and a lot of biodiversity will be lost. Another controversial study based on projections also claims that footprints not heads or share numbers destroy natural resources in conservation hotspots (Liu et al., 2003).

Hence, household dynamics influence biodiversity through consumption of wood for fuel, habitat alteration for home building and associated activities (Ibid: 530). Adams and Mcshane (1996), claim that Africa’s wildlife heritage is under siege, due to heavy hunting pressures. Despite exploring a joint African/Western approach to conservation with the goal of returning control to the Africans, they still argue that indigenous populations are a big problem than a solution. However, these studies are united on the idea to abate human population growth in the area as a sufficient step in the epic attempt to conserve biodiversity. But their population assertions remain an untested guess in the Korup area.

Some scholars have condemned the allowance of human activities inside parks. In his book, John F. Oates (1999), calls the current conservation theory of wildlife protection through promoting human economic development, a myth because left to their own devices, poor tropical people will not act as good wildlife conservationists (Oates, 1999:44). He supports his argument with his view that where people are very poor, human well being is more likely to be promoted by large-scale political, social, and economic reforms than by community development through conservation projects (Ibid: 54-57). So, conservation projects should put the intrinsic value of nature to the forefront. Another book edited by Terborgh, J., Schaik, C.V., Davenport, L. and Rao, M. (2002), argues that allowing sustainable use of resources in parks is a defeatist and utopian idea and that protected areas are the only real hope for saving tropical biodiversity (P. 5). Their survey of 201 parks in 16 tropical countries found that more than 85% of them have poaching

33The Congo basin includes tropical rainforests found in countries around the central African sub region;

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo Brazzaville, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.

problems; 72% have encroachment and logging problems; and over 25% suffer from overgrazing, road construction, and fires (Ibid). It had been noted earlier that intensive local land use impedes attempts to protect biodiversity outside strictly protected reserves, which are crucial to minimizing the loss of tropical biodiversity (Terborgh and Schaik, 1997:15). John Terborgh, (1999 & 2004) supports this views and strongly voices that to save the old-growth forests entails suspending all economic activity in them; logging, prospecting, and recreation. In the extreme, he argues that tropical forests are worth more dead than alive and that when conservation organizations advocate sustainable use of tropical forests, it signals that conservation is on the run (Terborgh, 1999: 121-140). He opines that local livelihood activities are ‘unsustainable’ and negatively impact rainforests and advocates the top-down approach to protect parks because enforcement is in the hands of police and other armed forces that respond to orders from their commanders (Ibid:170).

However, the fate of the top-down approach advocated by romantics has been called to question. For instance, Claude Martin (2003) argues that for the sake of nature, top-down managements of government bodies exclude, and forcefully eject indigenous people, often with disastrous consequences for culture, quality of life and the biodiversity they are out to protect. Officials usually back their arguments with claims that without policing parks, hunting zone rotation, local population density, and reliance on swidden agriculture, will increase and this may overcome the self regenerative capacity of the ecosystem (De Avila-Pires et al., 2001). In Cameroon, intervention projects that were established on a conservation and development platform but ended up with strict enforcements faced local hostility and their coercive measures have been totally ineffective (Sharpe, 1998:26). Since the 1970s a new consciousness emerged that the strict conservation practices of macro-level institutions have failed to maintain the ecological values of parks through adequate species protection (Gibson et al., 2000; Gibson et al., 1998b). Attempts to reverse the situation have now focused on community participation in conservation (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999:629; Sharpe, 1998:26). This emerging but less criticized approach argues parks could succeed if they work for local people. The idea is that parks should be of prime importance to communities. Hence, established parks should work for people who live in or adjacent to them that for centuries has relied on its natural resources for their survival.

2.1.2 “Parks and People”: conservation for the people and with the people

Conversely, utilitarians argue that high population growth is not always a conservation problem because it could lead to technological advances and innovative uses of natural resources, stimulating economic development and innovative resource management practices or rural strategies (Agrawal, 1995; Binswanger and Pingali, 1989; Boserup, 1965, 1981; Simon, 1983, 1990). These rural strategies include: shorter fallow periods, intensive use of family labour, development and adoption of labour intensive technologies (Pender, 1999:2). The strategies arise when; some forest products provide early warning signals concerning forest conditions; forest products are predictably available; and when the forest users have developed accurate knowledge of the conditions or about natural forces. This Boserupian ideology gained momentum when a demographer conceded, “any theory of population and resources that overlooks cultural phenomena is likely to be deficient”

(Davis, 1991 cited in Agrawal, 1995). An often-cited study supporting the Boserupian perspective was carried out in the Machakos district in Kenya. It concluded that between the 1930’s and the 1990’s, despite a five-fold increase in population, per capita income had increased, erosion was much better controlled, and trees were more prevalent in the landscape, (Tiffen, et al., 1994; cited in Pender, 1999:2). The Boserupian view caused a shift away from the exclusion approach to the people-centered approaches. The new idea was to integrate conservation with development because of the belief that the former is a social and political process, especially for tropical forests that host many poor people. This new optimism to broaden the understanding of nature conservation is being supported.

In an article Brechin and colleagues, (2002) argue that the conservation community will necessarily have to reflect internally on the fundamental concepts, methods, and modes of organization that govern collective action. The authors stress that both the ‘what’ (the ends) and the ‘how’ (the means) need to be negotiated and applied in context and that the highly politicized idea of conservation and development increases both the complexity of the protection project as well as the incidence of conflict and resistance. This is why most areas considered to be high priority biodiversity ‘hot spots’ are also social and political ‘hotbeds’

(Myers 1988; Myers et al., 2000; Brechin et al., 2002:42). This idea inspired scholars to

criticize the essence of parks if locals are not involved in their management. In this light, Jonathan Adams (2006) thinks that national parks are just not an effective way to protect the wilderness, no matter how large they may be. To him, parks policies isolate and often degrade the fauna and flora they are meant to sustain. Reflecting on success stories, he favours a system of landscape connectivity that requires community support. In their work, Steenkamp and Grossman (2001:8) conclude that much of the social and political sustainability of conservation rests on rural people who inhabit and depend on these areas for survival. This idea forms the backbone of the collaborative forest management (CFM);

a working partnership between the local forest users, state forest departments, the local governments, civic groups, nongovernmental organisations, and private sector stakeholders (Carter and Gronow, 2005:2). Through it, local people gain a strong, legally backed voice in forest management; an ingredient of integrated conservation and development (Ibid: 1).

2.1.3 Integrated Conservation and Development: a rescue for tropical forests?

Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) were born in the late 1970s as a remedy to the backlash of the protected area approach. The rationale was to allow some extractive activities within protected areas as a means to match conservation with poverty alleviation. This reconciles parks managements with local peoples’ needs and aspirations (McShane and Wells, 2004). ICDPs attracted the lion’s share of the funding or “green aid comprising donations and loans from the international donor community” (Tutin, 2002:78).

These green aid packages were meant for developing areas that support livelihoods around parks. For Korup, a 300,000km² support zone was carved out of the periphery of the park in 1989 and reserved for promoting agricultural development. Huge amounts of money were spent on this buffer zone that was five times larger than the Park (Korup Management Plan, 2002: vii). The idea was to provide; extension and social buffering. The former aimed at extending the area of habitats protected in the park into the buffer zone, allowing larger breeding populations of animal and plant species. Under this process a proposal was made to extend the park boundaries to include a very big village Ekon I (with 46 houses and a population of 409) and earmarked for relocation. Social buffering was to provide products

or an equivalent cash value to support zone villages to domesticate resources they formerly collect from the park and divert attention away from it. It did not yield the desired results.

2.1.4 The ICDPs obsession questioned

A number of concerns have been raised about the 1970s obsession with ICDPs. Some argue it was a good intention but its implementation was and is still bureaucratic. For instance, Katrina Brown (2003), argues that this was an attempt to ‘get people on board’ existing strategies and that the policy, practice and institutions remain expert-driven, undemocratic and autocratic. The pending challenges are: a more pluralist approach to understanding the knowledge and values of different actors; greater deliberation and inclusion in decision-making; and a remodeling of the conservation institutions. Also, Caroline Tutin (2002) argues that ICDPs in the Congo Basin have not been able to reconcile conservation with development due to prevailing attitudes that condone exploitation of forest largely due to no clear understanding of the biodiversity threats that are still invisible (Tutin, 2002:78). To her, parks have come under attack from the utilitarian philosophies in favour of forest dwellers of having to pay their way or earn their living (Ibid: 82). Although the levels of hunting and logging in parks are very low but increasing, Tutin argues that allowing increasing extraction of resources compromises conservation. Her assertion that parks are the only proven way to conserve biodiversity may not be correct because of the 102,102 hotspots on the 2003 UN list of protected areas in the world, national parks make up only 3.8% or 3880 (Chape et al., 2003:21-22). The categories that allow sustainable out-take form the majority, which gives the impression that parks could reconcile conservation with development. In a book edited by T.O. McShane and M.P. Wells (2004), the authors hold the same views that ICDPs are showing disappointing results (p.4). The experience in Korup was that rural development activities within the support zone went to larger, more accessible villages, often at some distance from the park itself. The first ever management plan for the Korup National Park states that regrettably this wrong application of the ICDP approach did not yield the conservation goal hoped for (Korup Management Plan, 2002:

vii). However, the official claim was that communities inside the park must be relocated. It is worth noting that this is contrary to the ICDPs approach that makes for sustainable use.

2.1.5 ICDPs and human displacements: a review of the Korup case

Korup is one example of ICDPs where for long indigenes have been considered villains whose right of stay deters the right of way for conservation and must be prevented from parks (Berkes, 2002:293). Hence, population displacement activity was put to the forefront even though it is described as “irrelevant to the threatening situation at hand” and that “it relieves tension for the moment” (Terborgh, 1999:22). This exclusion policy is said to be an abuse of the human and property rights and interests of local communities (Aveodo, 2005:5; Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau, 2004:2; Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2003:44;

Schmidt-Soltau, 2002:9; 2003:9; Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2006:1809) because folding human rights under the umbrella of conservation seems to curtail the rights of these peoples (Weeks and Mehta, 2004:262). One of such rights is ‘not to be poor’. Conservation induced displacements is known to lead to daunting poverty for many generations of people who are often moved to already degraded sites (Cernea, 1991-2003; Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2003; Geisler, 2003; Lamb, 1997). The overshadowing nature of ecological reasons of not letting locals inside parks makes the mere argument for ‘people in parks’ on the basis of human rights, not sufficiently convincing to government officials. Displacement is the official conservation discourse in the Korup forest area and way back in 1981; enclaves were informed to stop; building houses and opening new farms because relocation was imminent. The official reason for relocation was to stop villagers from extracting from the park and to bring people closer to markets, hospitals and roads (development). This did not happen and so there is fierce resentments in the communities when resettlement is mentioned given that all eyes were on the flawed pilot scheme (Röschenthaler, 2000:7).

Locals think relocation hinders development as it has made them poorer (Korup Project, 1999:43). This is not what the rural development discourse at the time was preaching.

2.1.6 Relocation and the international development discourse

In the 1980s, the World Bank, a major international development partner of the government of Cameroon recommended the opening of farm-to-markets roads as a poverty alleviation tool. The relocation policy was linked to this new optimism on grounds that park villagers

would be moved closer to road terminals so that they could sell extracted products and get out of poverty. Two seasonal roads linking farms to markets were constructed around the Korup National Park. A military road was built crossing the southern part of the park, linking the military base in the Bakassi Peninsula. Another road in the northeastern sector links that region to other towns and villages. These roads now help people and weapons to enter conservation forests and large quantities of bush meat flow to urban centres (Egbeseh, 2007:18). Farm to market roads could cause immigration to ICDPs areas. A study in Northern Cameroon concluded that road construction and improvement in living standards may stimulate immigration and jeopardize the stability necessary in protected areas (Sholtes, 2003:54). Checking the negative consequences of such a poverty alleviation tool requires heavy human and financial resources. Unfortunately, the past decades have witnessed a global funding shortfall in the overall Official Development Assistance for forest conservation. A global review found that it has halved from US$ 2.2 billion per year in 1991 and 1992 to US$ 1.1 billion 2002 and 2003 (James et al., 1999:2). This is happening at a time when most government sector budgets remained the same at about US$

3 billion a year (Redford, 2005:2). Developing countries with nearly 60% of the total global area under protection, account for 10% of the global expenditures (James et al., 1999:4). The biodiversity rich Congo Basin countries have budgets of less than 3% and thus the inability to pay for staff salaries, uniforms, equipment or vehicle fuel makes most parks to exist as “paper parks” (Spergel, 2002:364). This chronic under-funding has precluded effective management of most parks, resulting in their progressive ecological impoverishment and the loss of biodiversity (Wilkie et al., 2001; Spergel, 2002:364). In the Korup case, external funding seized in July 2003. This funding shortfall makes it hard to sustain the strict protection approach, which calls for an assessment of local governance.