Quantifying the Use of Forest Ecosystem Services by Local Populations in Southeastern Cameroon

Abstract

In order to improve sustainability and design adequate management strategies in threatened tropical forests, integrated assessments of the use of ecosystem services are needed, combining biophysical, social, and economic approaches. In particular, no integrated ecosystem services (ES) assessment has been conducted in Central Africa, where rural communities deeply depend on forests in a high-poverty context. Here, we aimed to quantify the use of ES provided by tropical forests to local populations in the Dja area (Cameroon), identify its determinants and evaluate its sustainability. We conducted various interviews and field surveys with 133 households in three villages, focusing on three provisioning services (bushmeat, firewood, and timber), and five cultural services (cultural heritage, inspiration, spiritual experience, recreation, and education). Local populations consumed a mean of 56 kg of bushmeat/person/year (hunting zones covering on average 213 km2), 1.17 m3 of firewood/person/year (collection zones covering on average 4 km2), and 0.03 m3 of timber/person/year. Between 25% and 86% of respondents considered cultural services as important. The use of ES was mainly influenced by population size, deforestation rate, and forest allocations, whereas the influence of socio-demographic characteristics of households remained limited to slight differences between Baka and Bantu people. We conclude that the consumption of firewood and timber is sustainable, whereas high hunting pressure has resulted in severe defaunation in the area due to the large decline in the abundance and biomass of forest mammals hunted for bushmeat by local populations.

Environmental Services: A New Approach Toward Addressing Sustainable Development Goals in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…This approach therefore views human activity and human intervention in Earth systems as a key component in the provision and use of environmental resources on a global scale (e.g., Knight and Harrison, 2014;Knight, 2015), therefore that environmental resources and human activity are intimately related (Figure 4). This contrasts with many studies that view ecosystem services as some fixed, pre-existing and inherent entity of the physical environment that is separate from human activity and the human world, and that human activity seeks only to draw from ecosystem services rather than interact with it (e.g., Chaigneau et al, 2019;Lhoest et al, 2020). In the Anthropocene, several studies show that environmental resources (sensu lato) are vulnerable as a result of human activity and climate change in combination (Knight, 2015;Bradshaw et al, 2021), which sets the scene for their more careful examination with respect to achieving future developmental benchmarks such as the SDGs.…”

“…Ecosystem services are well-known and documented especially in a southern African context (van Jaarsveld et al, 2005;Egoh et al, 2008;Fenta et al, 2020;Mowat and Rhodes, 2020) and these are linked directly to human-environment (socio-ecological) relationships and aspects of sustainable development (Bailey and Buck, 2016;Sigwela et al, 2017;Cerretelli et al, 2018;Bengochea Paz et al, 2020). Many local case studies worldwide have described different ecosystem services and their uses by communities in different, mainly agricultural, contexts (e.g., Mensah et al, 2017;Swemmer et al, 2019;Herd-Hoare and Shackleton, 2020;Lhoest et al, 2020). The conceptual basis for understanding these ecosystem services is well-founded because it is based on ecological processes set in a landscape context, and studies of ecosystem services are framed by well-defined theoretical approaches, which include:…”

The complexity of the conservation-development nexus in Central African national parks and the perceptions of local populations

“…On the other hand, the commercial use of bushmeat plays a major role in rural livelihoods of studied areas in Rwanda and Congo. Impoverished people seem to be more dependent on sales of bushmeat than the rich because of its high value and tradable commodity (Lhoest et al, 2020a;Merode et al, 2004) but wealthier households are the ones receiving most income from bushmeat hunting (Coad et al, 2010). In addition, this commercial dimension opens opportunities for illegal hunting of protected species, which provides important short-term income for local hunters, sometimes going towards food insecurity to ensure revenues for their family (van Vliet et al, 2010).…”

“…It is estimated that the bushmeat extraction rate in Central Africa is six times higher than the sustainable rate, with over 4.5 million tonnes extracted each year (Bennett, 2002;Nasi et al, 2011). While most urban households consume bushmeat on a regular basis (for instance 88% of households in Brazzaville in 2006; Mbete et al, 2011), rural populations daily use bushmeat for both basic protein needs (15% to 27% of meals in a village in Cameroon; Lhoest et al, 2020a) and as a source of income (Fa et al, 2015;Mbete et al, 2010). In Tanzania, three-quarters of hunters aim to generate income while a quarter only hunts for their protein intake (Loibooki et al, 2002).…”

“…In Tanzania, three-quarters of hunters aim to generate income while a quarter only hunts for their protein intake (Loibooki et al, 2002). In south-eastern Cameroon, 57% of the volume of rural bushmeat consumption is purchased from local hunters and villagers eat on average 56 kg of bushmeat per person and per year (Lhoest et al, 2020a). Illegal hunting also affects protected species, with some revenue generated for the local populations, but more importantly causing links with criminal networks and armed groups leading to instability of rural areas (Wittig, 2016).…”