Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forest Policy and Economics
j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / fo rpo l
Opportunities for and capacity barriers to the implementation of REDD+ projectswith smallholder farmers: Case study of Awae and Akok, Centre and SouthRegions, Cameroon☆
Gillian A. Cerbu a,⁎,1, Denis J. Sonwa b,2, Benno Pokorny c,3
a International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA Humid Forest Ecoregional Center, B.P. 2008 Yaounde, Cameroonb Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Cameroon — Central Africa c/o IITA, Humid Forest Ecoregional Center, B.P. 2008 Yaounde, Cameroonc Chair of Silviculture, University of Freiburg, Akad. Rat, Tennenbacherstraße 4, 79085 Freiburg i. Br., Germany
☆ This article belongs to the Special Issue: Forest and coclimate.⁎ Corresponding author at: Chair of Forest Economics, U
Tennenbacherstraße 4, 79085 Freiburg i. Br., Germany. TeE-mail addresses: [email protected] (G.A. Cerbu
(D.J. Sonwa), [email protected] (B1 Present address: Graduate School ‘Environment, Socie
Environment and Natural Resources, University of FreiburFreiburg i. Br., Germany.
2 Tel.: +237 2222 7449, +237 2222 7451; fax: +2373 Tel.: +49 761 203 3680; fax: +49 761 203 3781.
1389-9341/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.06.018
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 6 December 2011Received in revised form 14 June 2013Accepted 16 June 2013Available online 21 August 2013
Keywords:REDD+Poverty alleviationSmallholdersSustainable livelihoodsAgroforestryCameroon
There is increasing consensus over the inclusion of smallholder farmers in REDD+ (Reduced Emissions throughreduced Deforestation and Degradation) initiatives, expected to be one essential component within the new setof “Flexible Mechanisms” in the post-Kyoto Climate Change Agreement. However, with few long-term REDD+pilot projects implemented with smallholders, this paper attempts to anticipate potential synergies and con-straints of such initiatives from smallholders' point of view by developing a framework to examine the capacitiesof two rural communities in Cameroon as a case study. Smallholder experiences with REDD+ pilots and theirpredecessors such as integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs), Payments for EnvironmentalServices (PES) and the Clean Development Mechanism's Afforestation/Reforestation Projects (CDM AR), areoutlined in order to highlight local-level REDD+ project requirements. This paper assesses the capacityfor smallholders in the South and Centre Provinces of Cameroon to respond to these requirements throughdata collected from individual and small-group key informant interviews. The two case study communitiespossess similar but different livelihood capitals regarding proximities to market, forest cover, livelihood strate-gies and access to extension services. For both villages smallholder capacity for future REDD+ project adoptionwas found to require reinforcement to guarantee local feasibility of REDD+ projects. Possibilities to encouragealready in use agroforestry systems under a REDD+ scheme are discussed. From these results, we outline recom-mendations, areas of concern and key targets for capacity building for future REDD+ initiatives with small-holders in rural Africa.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Land use changes—primarily deforestation—were responsible for anestimated 1.6 billion tCy−1 in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions duringthe 1990s (Bolin et al., 2000; Brown et al., 2007), or approximately20–25% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions (Rogner et al., 2007). Inthe humid forest zone of Cameroon, it is estimated that smallholder ag-ricultural activities are responsible for 50% of deforestation (Robiglio,2008). It has been recognized that the reduction of this smallholder
nservation policy in a changing
niversity of Freiburg, Akad. Rat,l.: +49 176 631 52223.), [email protected]. Pokorny).ty andGlobal Change’, Faculty ofg, Tennenbacherstraße 4, 79085
2222 7450.
ghts reserved.
driven deforestation in the Congo Basin is a key component of achievingan effective solution to climate change. Against this background, discus-sions are currently underway on adequately addressing smallholdersin a post-2012 climate agreement through the initiative for ReducedEmissions through reduced Deforestation and forest Degradation in de-veloping countries (REDD); which has since expanded to accommodatevarious country priorities including natural forests, protected areas, andforests under community-basedmanagement or REDD+ (Ashton et al.,2008; Mustalahti et al., 2012). Although many details remain to bedecided upon at the international level, on the country- and sub-national levels, REDD+ initiatives are moving forward (Blom et al.,2010). The success of this mechanism, however, is dependent on a vari-ety of factors including the potential for implementation, and localsmallholders' capacity for project uptake (IPCC, 2001; Minang et al.,2007; Fearnside, 2008).
For our purposes, we assume that REDD+ has dual goals of forestconservation and local livelihood development, and thus can be classi-fied as a type of “integrated conservation and development project”(ICDP). ICDPs are conservation projects with a rural developmentcomponent, with the initial goal of improving livelihoodswith grassroots
4 A carbon partnership developed by the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Managementwith funding from the Fondo Bioclimatico.
61G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
economic development and integrating the management of natural re-sources (Hughes and Flintan, 2001). Since their emergence in the mid-1960s, there has been a long history of concern over ICDPs (Child andDalal-Clayton, 2004; Garnett et al., 2007). Barrett et al. (2006) arguethat integration is the exception to the rule and that conservation andlivelihood development synergies do not develop naturally. Thus far,in themanydiscussions aroundREDD+and its correspondentmethod-ologies, uncertainties remain over scales of operation and payment ap-proaches, and form of ground data collection (Herold and Johns, 2007;Myers, 2008; Brown et al., 2007; Kanninen et al., 2007). International-level REDD+ discussions had previously focused on best practices fornational-level carbon accounting of land use change, and are now be-ginning to address the implication of REDD+ project implementationon local livelihoods and institutions, core components of landscapesdominated by the activities of smallholders such as in Cameroon(van Noordwijk et al., 2001; Ashley et al., 2006; Hajek et al., 2011;Murdiyarso et al., 2012). Several studies have examined the opportuni-ty costs of different land-use strategies in several regions (Swallowet al., 2007). However, it remains unclear, if and to what extent the re-quirements of such initiatives correspond to the capacities of localsmallholders and/or mesh with their livelihood strategies (Minanget al., 2007; Blom et al., 2010; Desanker, 2005).
Given the need for livelihood development in rural areas of mostAnnex II countries, the effective inclusion of smallholders and their per-spectives is imperative for positive REDD+ outcomes. In the Camerooncase, of the 9 sub-national REDD+ initiatives underway, none haveperformed any clear livelihood impact analysis (Freudenthal et al.,2011). As with any development intervention, there will be trade-offs,and a REDD+-like intervention's requirements could have the potentialto make communities less resilient and more vulnerable. Against thisbackground, here we develop a framework to investigate the potentialsuccess of a local-level REDD+ initiative in the villages of Akok andAwae, Cameroon examining the degree to which smallholder farmerspossess adequate capacity to implement a local REDD+ initiative.Following, we will discuss potential synergies and constraints betweenREDD+ project requirements and farmer livelihoods in this context.
The next section will briefly outline REDD+'s local-level require-ments, highlight smallholders' experiences with related projects, andoutline the framework developed to examine farmer capacity require-ments and livelihood synergies and constraints. Section 3 will describethe study sites and interview methods used. Based on the field results,Section 4 then reviews the local communities' capacity for REDD+ im-plementation as well as presents the effects of the local-level REDD+requirements on their livelihood strategies. Following, Section 5 dis-cusses the capacity development and/or external support needed fora successful REDD+ initiative, and the potential livelihood-REDD+synergies and conflicts. Finally, we outline recommendations, areasof concern and key targets for capacity building for future REDD+initiatives with smallholders within and beyond the Congo Basin.
1.1. Synthesized local-level REDD+ requirements
When a local-level REDD+project is implemented, there are certainrequirements of smallholders and/or smallholder communities in orderfor them to gain credits associated with carbon sequestration (Auneet al., 2005; Wunder, 2005; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). In developingthis framework, we focused on the requirements for local-levelREDD+ projects and will not be directly addressing the requirementsfor national-level or sectoral-level REDD+ activities and readiness.Specifically, in this case we assume a local-level REDD+ project willbe implemented at the sub-national level with the purpose of reducingactivities contributing to deforestation and degradation at the scale ofthe areawithin the project's bounds (taking into account potential spill-over or ‘leakage’ to neighboring areas and within the national context),while at the same time contributing to local populations' sustainabledevelopment.
Several authors have grouped community capacities, capitals and as-sets with regard to local-level REDD+ requirements in various ways.Kanninen et al. (2007) includes planning, data management, qualitycontrol and assurance, organizational capacity and recruitment of localpeople under the managerial component, while other authors pointto long-term land tenure, and in particular, ownership of the carboncredits produced, as a key requirement in ensuring the long-term suc-cess (BioClimate, 2004; Wunder, 2007). In a study written by theKatoomba Group, an international network working to improve capac-ity related tomarkets and payments for ecosystem services, a review of45 PES projects and markets implemented in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda,and South Africa, barriers to project success in PES projects were seen tobe a result of a lack of information and technical know-how, as well aspolicy/regulatory and institutional barriers (ForestTrends, 2005).
Where capacity gaps are identified, REDD+project implementationperformed by smallholders can be supported by intermediaries atdifferent points along the REDD+ supply chain through the phases of:(1) project investment, (2) project development and (3) technicalexpertise and capacity development, (4) validation, (5) carbon credittrading and retailing through to (6) carbon purchasing (Bernard et al.,2012). Here we assume that international actors or NGOs will beresponsible for the initial project investment (1) and alongwith the pri-vate sector (consultants) will support the project development (2) andvalidation (4); carbon credit brokerage and purchasing (5–6) wouldthen be performed by external international actors. We will be focusingon the degree to which local actors have the capacity for project imple-mentation and monitoring (contributing to components 2, 3 and 4),particularly: local actors' technical expertise and capacity and wheresupport from external actors would be needed.
In developing this framework, we divided evaluation criteria amongfour REDD+requirements categories from the literature (Penman et al.,2003; BioClimate, 2004; Ashley et al., 2006; Kanninen et al., 2007;Minang et al., 2007) to assess smallholder capacity: (1) technical capac-ity, (2) managerial capacity: resource management, (3) organizationalcapacity, (4) capacity to dealwith risk; potential REDD/livelihood devel-opment conflicts (Table 1).
By technical capacity, small-scale forest-carbon project developers,Plan Vivo,4 refer to the level of experience with technical aspects ofthe group or community and whether they are self-sufficient or requiretechnical support throughout the duration of the project (BioClimate,2004). This includes capacity to plan, account for carbon stored againstthe project baseline, prove the project's additionality, and account forleakage (within the surrounding regional or country context), performcarbon accounting and offset assessment (reporting) and verify ecosys-tem services maintained (if relevant according to the project's design).These are all necessary components for stages 3 and 4 in the REDD+supply chain. The community does not necessarily need to possessall of these capacities, but should have access to intermediaries whodo; however, to keep costs down and ensure benefits stay within thecommunity, involving external actors should be kept to a minimum(Danielsen et al., 2011).
In order for smallholders to be able to market their carbon credits,project implementers are required to demonstrate that their projectis “additional,” a measure of the degree to which, in this case, defor-estation would have taken place without the project's existence(BioClimate, 2004; PlanVivo, 2008). In most cases, baselines for emis-sion mitigation projects can either outline the current or historicallevel of carbon emissions or carbon stocks, and anticipated changeswithout the presence of the project (Brown et al., 2007; PlanVivo,2008). To establish an appropriate baseline, historical drivers of landuse change in the area also need to be identified and analyzed for theirrelative importance, and monitored throughout the project (Brownet al., 2007; PlanVivo, 2008). Establishing a baseline, planning a project,
Table 1Capacity requirements of participating smallholder community for the successful implementation of a REDD initiative.
Requirement Description Indicators
(1) Technical capacity a) Ability and/or access to assistance (through
intermediaries/extension services) to perform
REDD-associated technical tasks & comply with
requirements: i.e. Proving additionality,
Performing carbon accounting & offset
assessment, Verifying ecosystem services; Ability
to plan and execute project activities over longer
timescales (past 1 growing season)
Examples of financial planning & record-
keeping; Prior land-use planning experience
based on maps (also with extension
personnel through other projects/programs)
a) Ability to outline production objectives within
& adjacent to forests; Evaluate environmental
suitability; Choose appropriate species; Use of
both timber & non-timber forest products
(NTFPs); Silviculture practices
Level of education, forestry & agricultural-
specific education or training (and/or access
to extension services with these skills)
b) Forest management & silviculture experience;
Understanding of drivers of land use changes
Importance of cropping systems (annual vs.
perennial/agroforestry), land cover types
and trees (inside & outside forests) to
village; Perceptions of village land cover
evolution
(3) Organizational capacity a) Capacity to form groups, association and/or
other collective decision-making bodies; Social
stability; Coordination within the community
Degree of membership & involvement in
community groups (i.e. farmer associations)
b) Potential to engage in fair &inclusive
decision-making and organize activities;
Enforcement of project rules within the
community
Decision-making approach & conflict
resolution
a) Livelihood strategy diversity for risk aversion Level of diversity in crop production for
local consumption & market
b) Long-term land tenure De facto vs. de jure land rights & how these
are apportioned
c) REDD vs. Local Livelihood Development
Priorities: Conflicts & Synergies
Understanding of potential conflicts
between individual and local development
goals and efforts to maintain trees on the
landscape
(2) Managerial capacity: Resource Management
(4) Capacity to deal with risk; Potential REDD/livelihood development conflicts
62 G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
evaluating additionality and leakage (stages 2 & 3 of the supply chain)together require a certain level of land use planning and decision-making capacity, incorporating financial planning, record-keeping andcartography (GIS). For this reason, the following context-appropriateproxy indicators to assess technical capacity were selected: demon-strated examples of financial planning and record keeping, and land-use planning experience (with or without extension services).
The community's managerial capacity or resource managementrequirements within a REDD+ scheme would need to address thefollowing: production objectiveswithin the protected forest and adjacentto it, environmental suitability, species composition, use of both timberand NTFPs, integration of perennial cropping systems (agroforestry withcocoa), and silviculture practices (if there are to be any) (BioClimate,2004; PlanVivo, 2008). The management plans for reduced deforestationand degradation projects could, for example, set out guidelines for agri-cultural intensification and clearly define which areas will be set asideand removed from production. Based on these requirements, in order toevaluate smallholders' managerial and resource management capacity,the following indicators will be used: the level of education, forestryand agriculture/specific education or training and/or current access toextension services with these skills.
When the technical specifications are formulated by project devel-opers, smallholders and project developers should come to a commonunderstanding of how environmental service provision, other than car-bon sequestration, will be affected by the project's implementation andhow negative impacts will be avoided (BioClimate, 2004; PlanVivo,2008). Beyond forest management capacities, on the forest margin,
crop production efficiency and diversity in livelihood strategies willaffect the permanence of a REDD+project. Farmers that are already en-gaged in perennial agroforestry systems (like cocoa) have demonstratedtheir ability to plan over longer-term cycles, which could translate tohigher managerial capacity for a future REDD+ project at the locallevel. The relative importance of different cropping systems to small-holders, the land cover types and trees (inside and outside forests)and the perceptions of village land cover evolution will be used as indi-cators of their ability to join onto a REDD+ project.
By organizational capacity, Plan Vivo examines the potential for thesmallholders to engage in fair and inclusive decision-making through-out the process and organize their activities in an effective manner(BioClimate, 2004). This extends to the social stability of the community,their capacity to work together in farmer groups and other associations,and the degree to which disagreements between carbon supplier com-munity members could hinder the project's progress (BioClimate,2004). For these reasons, we chose the degree of membership and in-volvement in community groups like farmer associations and an indica-tor describing current and past forms of conflict resolution to assessorganizational capacity.
The capacity of local actors to address risk is highly dependent ontheir mix of livelihood strategies. Communities committing to certaintargets for canopy-cover and/or land uses, and curbing deforestationtake on inherent risks associated with less flexibility in land-usedecision-making.With a REDD+ initiative, less landwould be availablefor future cropping, thus necessitating the diversification of croppingsystems, and/or increased productivity within the current range of
63G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
systems (Kotto-Sameet al., 2000).When examining the risk, it is impor-tant to look at the livelihood strategies and priorities in the project area,and thus the relative rent of different crops to the villagers (Mustalahtiet al., 2012). For this reason, we have chosen diversity in crop produc-tion (destined for local consumption and the market) and the level oflivelihood diversity to deal with prior economic shocks as indicatorsof smallholders' capacity to deal with risk.
In the Cameroon case, annual crop production through shifting cul-tivation often requires forest clearing, while NTFP collection and cocoaproduction associated with cocoa-fruit-tree agroforests are performedin extensive forest-like land-use systems (Sonwa et al., 2007). Theissue of labor requirements is important when examining the potentialto implement longer-term land-use systems, such as cocoa agroforests.These systems will only be adopted if they increase returns to labor(Palm et al., 2004). Increasing the land area under agroforestry systems,such as cocoa incorporating fruit trees, increases demand on labor andcapital (Palm et al., 2004). Eventually, future profits gained fromREDD+, could have the potential to offset some of these initial invest-ments in the establishment or expansion of these land-use systems(Palm et al., 2004). NTFPs fill dual goals of contributing to local nutritionand increased income from products sold at the market. A REDD+scheme incorporating a focus on NTFPs could encourage their furtherprotection as well as propagation/domestication to increase these spe-cies' and systems' productivity.
In this area potential conflicts between a REDD+ project andfarmers' livelihoods become the most apparent. It was found thatwith an increase in agricultural yield between 1 and 4% in the com-bined area of Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon and Cote d'Ivoire, 20 155to 62 796 km2 of deforestation could have been avoided between1988 and 2006, (Gockowski, 2008). The success of a REDD+ initiativeover the medium- and longer- term is dependent on the degreeto which REDD+ requirements and local development objectives con-flict or complement each other. In order to assess the conflicts and syn-ergies between a future REDD+ project and local development goals,descriptive indicators will be used to capture anticipated trends invillage development, including: population, annual crop productionand other food sources (bushmeat, aquaculture, non-wood forestproducts, livestock), and whether or not maintaining tree cover is seenas a priority. In this way potential livelihood strategies under a futureREDD+ project and contradictions between farmers' and REDD+'sgoals can be highlighted.
In the case that REDD+ payments are made directly to communi-ties, carbon payments need to be aimed at actorswho are able to controlland use and/or who have clear land tenure or forest ownership ar-rangements, and whose land-use decisions would be affected by PES-like transfer payments or compensation (Kanninen et al., 2007; Jindal,2006; Wunder, 2007). A solution proposed for areas under customaryland tenure, such as in the case of the Centre and South Provinces ofCameroon, is that of operating in land areas held under common prop-erty of thewhole community (Jindal, 2006).Without formal legal rightsto land, environmental service providers, i.e. in this case smallholderfarmers conserving carbon in forest, cannotmake a strong enough com-mitment to continue to supply these serviceswhile investorswill be lesslikely to invest there (Jindal, 2006). While it cannot be guaranteed thatcommunity-level payments will reach individuals who have set asidetheir land to ‘not harvest’ or deforest as they could be siphoned forother community expenses or captured by elites, theywould encouragewhole-community participation in such an endeavor. Long-term landtenure in the context of the case studies is an additional criterion thatwill be used to assess capacity to deal with risk.
A REDD+ activity designed for the Cameroonian humid forest con-text (in the South and Centre Regions) could be implemented in a vari-ety of ways involving local smallholder farmers inhabiting these areas:(1) designed to support the development of a community forestryinitiative (Minang et al., 2007); (2) alongside new national parksto provide communities along nature corridors with an alternative
income to timber harvesting while encouraging conservation of extantforests; (3) funding could be directed towards encouragement ofmaintaining high-carbon mixed crop systems including cocoa-agroforestry and/or trees on agricultural lands (Gockowski and Sonwa,2008). In any of these cases, it must be ensured that the principlesof Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples arefollowed (Colchester and Ferrari, 2007).
Although not addressed in detail in this study, beyond requirementsof local communities, project initiators will need to assess additionalcontext factors prior to starting a REDD+ project such as an estimateof costs per ton of carbon sequestered through avoided deforestationmade in order to compare this to the cost of other providers of carbonsequestration opportunities (CCF, 2008). The design of projects underthe REDD+mechanismneed to include the opportunity cost to the pro-ducer (smallholder) per ton of C sequestered for maintaining forest orcanopy cover against other land uses, and create appropriate and trans-parent payment schemes that fit the institutional context (BioClimate,2004; Kanninen et al., 2007; Wunder, 2007; CCF, 2008). Whichevercompensation option is chosen, the interval of payment or provisionof services needs to be regular in order to maintain trust in the process(Jindal, 2006). Essential steps and the evaluation of transaction costsof attaining and marketing carbon credits, not addressed in this study,include but are not limited to costs associated with: baseline devel-opment, monitoring the carbon sequestration, market integration,obtaining investor confidence, verification, and certification (Cachoet al., 2005; CCF, 2008).
1.2. Prior experiences with smallholders
In a review of smallholder experiences with payments for environ-mental services (PES) schemes, a lack of technical capacity was themost difficult aspect for landowners to surmount and was usually aresult of a lack of access to personnel with this specialized knowledge(ForestTrends, 2005). However, in order to reduce these costs often as-sociated with hiring external professional staff for carbon monitoring,capacity building in the project communities was seen to be required(CCF, 2008). In a telling review of PES projects in Africa, potential localsellers (i.e. smallholders)were found to not understand the CDMguide-lines, whether or not they qualified as sellers under PES schemes, orcould connect to these markets (ForestTrends, 2005). Based on experi-ence with PES programs in Brazil, Costa Rica and Mexico, long waittimes for contract approval/payments could be barriers for smallholderentry; payments/compensation need to be secure and distributed atregular intervals in order to maintain farmer confidence in the projectover the long-term (Karousakis, 2007; Fearnside, 2008).
Farmers' land use systems are sensitive tomarket shifts and changesin institutional arrangements, necessitating monitoring of these factorsfor REDD+ success over the long-term (Swallow et al., 2005; Ashleyet al., 2006). Clear long-term land tenure and carbon credit ownershipare prerequisites to long-term REDD+ project success (Kanninenet al., 2007; Wunder, 2007). Whether the local traditional land use sys-tem is reinforced, or capacity enhanced for smallholders to officially reg-ister their parcels, capacity building to ensure tenure security would benecessary for these smallholder carbon sequestration projects (Jindal,2006). Customary land tenure arrangements could be a foreseeablebarrier to REDD+ project success in the case that land claims are madethrough forest clearing.
2. The case study
In order to ascertain the capacity of the two study communities,Akok and Awae, to partake in a REDD+ initiative, key informationand group interviewswere conducted along the aforementioned frame-work of community REDD+ requirements.
Fig. 1.Amap of theASB Benchmark area (IITA) in the humid forest zone in Cameroon spanning a gradient fromnorth–south or less-forested tomore densely forested land. Source of forestbackground: GLC2000; http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/glc2000.php.
64 G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
2.1. The study site
For this study, community groupmeetings and key informant inter-viewswere conducted in the villages of Akok (Ntem area near Ebolowa)andAwae (Mefou area nearMbalmayo) at the International Institute forTropical Agriculture's (IITA's) humid forest zone benchmark site in theCentre and South Provinces of Cameroon (Fig. 1) (Kotto-Same et al.,2000; Swallow et al., 2007). In this region, the local population is relianton the forest for constructionmaterials, food, medicine, NTFPs and agri-cultural land (Sonwa et al., 2007). The primary agriculture system in usein the study area is shifting cultivation occupying a quarter of the entireland in the benchmark area; with cocoa occupying 48% of this area(Brown, 2006; Sonwa et al., 2007).
The villages of Awae and Akok represent a gradient of proximity tothemarket, forest land and population density (Table 2). Akok is locatednear the city of Ebolowa, and Awae near Mbalmayo, within thebenchmark's north–south gradient from heavily populated, predomi-nantly deforested areas with shorter fallows to sparsely populated
Table 2Summary of key characteristics of study communities.Adapted from Kotto-Same et al. (2000), Brown (2006), and Sonwa et al. (2007).
Akok (rural) Awae (peri-urban)
Population density (persons/km2) 7.8 35.9Nearest market town Ebolowa Mbalmayo
— Distance (km) 35 15— Travel time (hours) 0.7 0.3
Nearest paved road— Distance (km) 20 15— Travel time (hours) 0.5 0.3
Capital city (Yaoundé)— Distance (km) 170 45— Travel time (hours) 3 1
Intensity of land use Extensive shiftingcultivation
Semi-extensive recurrentcultivation
Forest cover 22.0% 5.3%
areas with forest and long fallow agriculture systems. The villages areeach made up of a few hundred individuals (Kotto-Same et al., 2000).Average farm size is between 2 and 4 ha per household, with individualfield sizes up to 2.5 ha, and agricultural wages at an average of US$1.73/day or ~$631.45 annual income (Palm et al., 2004; Swallow et al., 2007;Robiglio, 2008). For the purposes of examining the future potential of aREDD+ activity, the forests near Awae, being closer to Cameroon's cap-ital, Yaounde, are an example of an area with greater pressure ofdeforestation and encroachment due to demand for agricultural goodsfrom the capital; meanwhile, in contrast, the example of Akok can beextrapolated to similar village cases with more available forest land(for the time being) and therefore less pressure on standing forest.
In Awae and Akok, cocoa is the greatest source of monetary income;however, in Awae smallholders aremore involved in food production tosupply the Yaoundé market (Swallow et al., 2007). The most importantfood source for these villages is the groundnut–cassavafield followed bycorn, plantain, and other tubers (Brown, 2006; Swallow et al., 2007).This agricultural system requires very low capital inputs in both landand labor with the addition of some hand tools, minimal agriculturalchemicals, and purchased seed (Brown, 2006). In peri-urban Awae,the cocoa plantation systems are enriched through fruit trees suchas mangos, avocados, Dacryodes edulis, and Citrus species grown along-side the cocoa plants (Swallow et al., 2007). In Awae land is scarcer, thepopulation is larger and the fallows are of medium length (Swallowet al., 2007).
Rural Akok is located 200 km from Yaoundé, and has a low popula-tion density, resulting in farmers having an abundance of land forcropping and using long-fallow cycles (Swallow et al., 2007). In Akokthere are two major cropping systems alongside cocoa: the groundnut–cassava field and the melonseed-plantain field, used for householdconsumption with surpluses sold at the market (Swallow et al., 2007).Akok residents have far poorer market access (Brown, 2006; Robiglio,2008). Key village statistics are presented in Table 2.
Interviewees were selected from community agriculture and churchgroups in both villages.
65G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
2.2. Methods
Two different types of interviews based on two distinct question-naires were conducted: (1) a small-group interview for each villageand (2) key-informant interviews withmembers of village associations.In the group interviews (1), information was collected to assess thesmallholder capacity within the framework developed based onthe aforementioned criteria. The key informant interviews (2) weredesigned to focus on organizational capacity aspects. These interviewswere not intended to be exhaustive, but provide anoverviewof farmers'perceptions on their associations, their ability to group together to per-form communal activities and the problems they encounter. Data wasgathered on farmers' group working, planning, group conflict resolu-tion, land-use changes, and record-keeping system along with theirconceptual understanding of REDD+ project-associated issues.
Both interview typeswere conducted following afixed questionnairewith a mix of multiple-choice, ranked list and open-ended questions.A combination of qualitative and quantitative data was assembled inorder to get amore detailed picture of the potential for each communityto engage in a local REDD project.
Both questionnaires were tested in villages in the Centre Province inorder to gain an appreciation of farmer opinions on the clarity of thequestions and adjust them according to this feedback. For each village,the resident village contact chose farmers and group representativesfor the interviews based on their knowledge of the land-use evolutionin the village aswell as on their ability to articulate their thoughts clear-ly. All interviewees were fully briefed about the nature of this studyas well as the broader REDD+ project concept. In Awae, the groupmeeting consisted of 14 male and 6 female participants at the startand then swelled to over 50 participants/onlookers and took placeover 3 h and 16 min. In Akok, the group meeting was made up of ap-proximately 6 males and 4 females with the group varying over the3 hour and 15 minute meeting.
Key informant interviews with members of farmers' associationstook place from 9–16 September 2008, ranging in length from 24 minto 1 h and 50 min, with average duration of 1 h and 14 min in Awaebased on 8 interviews, and 55 min in Akok based on 6 interviews.In Awae, 4 men and 4 women participated in this survey: 3 were mem-bers of GICs (Group of Communal Initiatives responsible for groupingtogether farmers in their production activities), 2 were members ofGIC unions, 2 were members of associations and 1 was a member of aChurch group. In Akok, 3 men and 3 women participated in our survey:4 were members of GICs, 1 was a member of a cooperative and 1 was amember of an association. Individuals did not seem reluctant to giveanswers on any of the questions asked. Where there were difficulties,the translator present who knew the local languages, would intervene.Otherwise, exampleswere given to help illustrate some of the questionsif there were difficulties.
The analysis followed the aforementioned framework. The open-ended answers given in both villages were placed into categories in anAccess Database for ranking and comparison purposes, with additionalcomments retained in order to understand site-specific issues.
2.2.1. Justification of approach usedThese questionnaireswere created and analyzed based on the frame-
work developed above on community capacity needs for REDD+ basedon prior studies' identification of capacity needs for carbon projectswithsmallholders (Penman et al., 2003; BioClimate, 2004; Ashley et al., 2006;Kanninen et al., 2007; Minang et al., 2007). This approach was seenas the most appropriate for this case as the indicators developed forthe framework were designed to capture local REDD+ requirementswhile keeping the local Cameroonian context inmind.We used a partic-ipatory approach for the interviews and data collection in order tomimic a future potential locally-driven REDD+ activity; this kind ofpro-poor approach would give voice to and incorporate local small-holders' priorities and interests, and give local actors agency (Peskett
et al. 2008). To remove potential bias or inaccuracy of responses, thequestionnaire was designed to repeat similar questions in differentways. For example, questions on perceived trends in tree cover in thevillage were asked with regard to the general village landscape, as wellas on a land-cover and tree species-by-tree species basis.
2.2.2. Assumptions made and risks of methodologyThe two interview formats used, both the larger and smaller group
interviews, presented particular risks to internal and external validityof the results.
Threats to internal validity in our interview design included history,since additional group members joined the large group interview inAkok. Our selection of subjects could also have implications for theinternal validity: in selecting participants for our key informant andgroup interviews, we assumed that the local village contact chose indi-viduals who understood the village agricultural priorities and context,could give representative answers, and who answered the question-naires truthfully. Village contacts had a tendency to choose more artic-ulate farmers; this could bias the results to demonstrate higheraverage capacity in the village than is actually the case. Similarly, it ispossible that interviewees informed other interviewees about detailsof the interview process, and that interviews that followed wereinfluenced by the early interviews carried out in each village. Therecould have been bias built into the responses given related to the ‘devel-opment needs’ of the village since the interviewers (although intro-duced as independent researchers) were seen as affiliated with theITTA whose mandate is to support development in tropical agriculture.Alongwith CIFOR, ITTAhad already implemented various projects in thevillages and thus it is possible that community members assumed thatwe would return to do the same, and that new investments would bemade in the village.
In terms of external threats to validity, there could have been aninteraction effect of selection biases and several experimental variablesor a reactive effect of the experimental arrangement. Either one or bothof these threats could have influenced interview results after the expan-sion of the focus group interview in Akok. This larger group size couldinvalidate some of the findings on gender. Due to the public nature ofthemeetingplaces used for the larger focus group interviews, additionalcommunity members joined the meeting. This flux of people made itdifficult to have a smaller group and equal representation of views ofmales and females—this could invalidate findings related to questionson gender representation in decision-making. As a byproduct of thegroup mix and size, some interview respondents could also have beenreluctant to speak truthfully about the procedure of conflict resolutionin the village.
2.2.3. Ways risks were managedIn order to counter these risks, we used a mix of key informant and
focus group interviews with overlapping and similar questions, whichfacilitated cross-checking between interview results for accuracy, andreduced threats to internal and external validity. The triangulation ofdata was not done for all aspects of all questions asked or analyzed, al-though certain questions in the interviews were asked multiple timesand framed in differentways, aswell as cross-checkedwithprior studiesdone in the same region. The smaller key informant interviews withmembers of groups of different genders in both villages with a 50/50gender spread, allowed both genders' views to be heard and remainfree of the other gender's influence.
In order to further reduce risk, especially in those questions whichweighted the relative importance of certain village activitiesand products sold at the market, questions were asked in differentways and scenarios of future macroeconomic shocks, or price increases(of cocoa, palm oil) and decreases were used as examples. In order toassess the importance of different village activities, questions wereasked directly about their importance, but also about the percentage ofland cover used for each, predictions of how this land cover spread
Table 3Key findings of capacity assessment of smallholder communities in Awae and Akok for the potential of successful implementation of a REDD initiative.
Capacity requirement Awae Akok
(1) Technical capacity
a) Examples of financial
planning & record-keeping;
Prior village-level land-use
planning experience based on
maps (also with extension
personnel through other
projects/programs)
Understanding of village-level land use planning: Mixed responses on land scarcity; neither community group familiar with
cartography nor made land use planning decisions based on maps (despite participatory mapping exercise in both villages)
Adequate land available for: annual crop, cocoa & oil palm
production; but total amount of land available considered ‘scarce’
Field sizes & changes recorded in 3/6 farmer group registers
No recorded information on land cover changes
Some groups had savings account systems (locally: ‘cotisation’); Members contributed regularly to account; payments aggregated,
used for equipment, member health, and/or saved and redistributed (like early insurance schemes)
Budget planning not performed; money spent on ad hoc basis
(2) Managerial capacity: resource management
a) Level of education, forestry
& agricultural-specific
education or training (and/or
access to extension services
with these skills)
Level of education (as described by group interview respondents):
Some primary school: ~80% of community
University education: ~10%
Technical forestry/agriculture education: ~10%
Some primary school: ~100% of community
University education: ~12%
Technical forestry/agriculture education: ~5%
Decrease in trees with products for home consumption related
to gap in species propagation knowledge
Neither community possessed tree-tending techniques nor forest management skills; both suggested strategies to conserve forest:
abstaining from cutting & burning, planting & protecting important species—sustainable forestry concepts
Experience with & access to extension services:
19 projects with extension services; 1 NTFP project
Community dissatisfied with past projects due to poor prior
explanation of project objectives: Participatory mapping exercise to
gain overview of village land cover, cocoa plantation areas,
hunting areas & potential tourist zones
No land-use planning decisions made with maps—not left in the
village’s possession
6 projects with extension services; Majority agricultural
improvement; 4 cocoa-related
Positive experience with development project: wells built to
compensate for forest loss, money & training provided for
maintenance (GIZ/logging company project)
Community was very satisfied with this project: self-sufficient
in maintaining potable water supply
b) Importance of cropping
systems (annual vs.
perennial/agroforestry), land
cover types and trees (inside &
outside forests) to village;
Perceptions of village land
cover evolution
Highest sources of revenue, in order of decreasing importance:
(1) annual crops, (2) fishing, hunting & NTFP collection
-Cocoa equally rentable as annual crops
(1) annual crops, (2) cocoa & NTFP collection
-Cocoa more rentable than annual crops; NTFP income higher
than timber extraction (residents receive no direct benefits from
timber exploitation in the area)
Annual crops & cocoa each seen as more rentable than oil palm
Most important trees (products for home consumption) & land cover evolution perception:
Domestic spp. (orange (Citrus sinensis), avocado (Persea americana), mandarin (Citrus reticulata), mango (Mangiferaspp.)): increasing
& 2 NTFP species (safou (Dacryodes edulis) & bush mango
(Irvingia gabonensis)): increasing
Timber trees: decreasing
NTFP/other product trees: remain stable
(due to ethic of conservation & planting for future generations)
Land cover evolution satisfactory (result of population increase)
Initiatives aimed at maintaining current forest-cover seen as
positive (less-forested of the two villages), for the following
reasons: production of NTFPs & living quality maintained
Domestic spp. (orange (Citrus sinensis)): increasing
NTFP species (wild/bush mango (Irvingia gabonensis), kola
nut (Colonidita colacuacciminata), ebam (Picralima nitida),
safou (Dacryodes edulis), bitter kola (Garcina kola), and essok
(Garcinia Lucida)): decreasing
Unhappy with deforestation trend (result of increasing
population, & increase in products sold at Ebolowa market);
Result of deforestation trend: 5-6km distance to fertile soil
(farming) & forests (hunting); 20 years prior: fertile land
alongside houses & bush-meat more abundant
To combat deforestation trend, mentioned: increasing soil
fertility, domesticate NTFP trees to increase harvest yield and
quality, raise more animals
Reactions to maintaining current tree/forest-cover mixed; seen
as restriction on construction & firewood harvest; forest as
threat: harboring crop-damaging herbivores
(3) Organizational capacity
a) Degree of membership &
involvement in community
80% of community in Groups of Communal Initiatives (GICs)
Most frequently mentioned group benefit:increased agricultural
production (mentioned 9 times)
Eldest organization founded: 1991; youngest: 2008
Group meetings: 1 every 4 months to 30x/ month (avg.5x/month)
90% of community in Groups of Communal Initiatives (GICs)
Most frequently mentioned group benefit:increased agricultural
production (mentioned 5 times)
Eldest organization founded: 1992; youngest: 2006
Group meetings: 1 -4 x/month (avg.3x/month)
Remaining community members belong to cooperatives, tontines, other associations; Membership in these groups predicted to
increase in 2018 (10 years after the original interviews were conducted)
Positive benefits of being in a group--increase in their popularity (2 new GICs in Awae in 2008); Being a farmer group member seen
as a way of ensuring family’s social & health security
groups (i.e. farmer associations)
66 G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
Capacity requirement Awae Akok
b) Decision-making approach
& conflict resolution
Residents satisfied with negotiations with outside parties
Village decisions made democratically (majority wins); Women & children included; Community’s suggestions heard at meetings;
most satisfied with results; Sometimes decisions contested, but usually resolved; Conflicts resolved by party(ies) involved +
mediator; when unresolved: by Chief (or local police)
All group members had access to the group’s documents and/or oral information
(4) Capacity to deal with risk and Potential REDD/livelihood development conflicts
a) Level of diversity in crop
production for local
consumption & market
(Capacity to deal with risk &
flexibility in livelihood
systems)
Residents would maintain current level of cultivation & increase
crop diversity in response to a future economic shock (example of
current dramatic rise in food prices used)
Domesticated fruit & wild NTFP species: increasing
Overall number of trees: stable (due to planting & protection)
Residents would increase production of crops for both home
consumption & market in response to a future economic shock
(example of current dramatic rise in food prices used)
NTFPs in 1-ary & 2-ary forests unpredictable in quality &
quantity depending on year, often far
Livelihood diversity for risk aversion: Agricultural improvement top priority; During Cameroon’s economic crisis (1990s) residents
abandoned cocoa as market price fell & increased annual crop production; Trend is reversing: more young cocoa plantations
b) De facto vs. de jure land
rights & how these are
apportioned
Ownership of treed parcels demarcated by flower borders;
Number of trees: decline over last 10 years due to forest
exploitation & customary land claims: “right of the axe”
(viewed as a well-functioning system)
Long-term land tenure: Treed property passed on through families; No mention of national or provincial laws/rules concerning
conservation or ownership of trees
Procuring official land title difficult due to: lack of knowledge of forms and procedures, cost & difficulties with neighbors
c) Understanding of potential
conflicts between individual
and local development goals
and efforts to maintain trees on
the landscape
Agricultural productivity limitations: lack of equipment,
finances, training & labour (& chemicals & seeds/seedlings)
Anticipated increase in village populations: in order to maintain or improve living standards, annual crop production & protein
sources (aquaculture, bush meat & livestock) would need to increase; Smallholder forest clearing reduces bush meat availability
Table 3 (continued)
67G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
will change, questions about important crops, marketable goods, etc. Inthis way we hoped to reduce threats to validity.
3. Results: the capacity of smallholders to respond to the challengeof REDD+ projects
Information gleaned from the interviews was evaluated using theframework presented to analyze the capacity for smallholders to partic-ipate in a REDD+ initiative. This section will outline the potential interms of livelihood flexibility and capacity for smallholder farmers tosuccessfully comply with local-level REDD+ requirements, addressingthe requirement categories outlined in Section 1: (1) technical capacity,(2) managerial capacity: resource management, (3) organizational ca-pacity, and (4) capacity to deal with risk; potential REDD/livelihood de-velopment conflicts. The potential role of intermediaries in supportingsmallholders along the REDD+ supply chain will also be addressedwithin each of the capacity categories. A summary of the key results ispresented in the accompanying Table 3.
4. Capacity gaps for a successful smallholder REDD+ initiative
4.1. Technical capacity
Although most of the village populations had at least some formal-ized education, technical capacity for a REDD+ project would need tobe further developed within the village communities and/or reinforcedby extension services or advisors. Both villages had contactwith variousextension agents who could potentially facilitate future REDD+ en-deavors. Compensation for carbon stored under a REDD+ project sce-nario could be aimed at boosting capacity in these areas.
Study results from both villages indicate that despite a high level oforganizational and technical skills, both of these areas would need rein-forcement in terms of skill-building within the community as well assupport from extension services; some of this training could be aimedat increasing farmers' or intermediaries' data collection and storage
abilities, and their cartography knowledge, as well as spread awarenessof REDD+and related concepts. This reinforcement could take the formof a mix of support from external agencies and neutral intermediaries,and/or community-level training to increase future project efficiency(Jindal et al., 2008). As a contribution to the technical capacity (3) andvalidation support (4) components of the REDD+ supply chain, this isan area where private consulting companies can offer their services todevelop technical capacity of smallholders, and/or national and sub-national authorities or local NGOs, in the form of GIS and land-coverchange analysis support (Bernard et al., 2012). Capacity building couldalso cover, among other things, REDD+ concept basics and the carbonmarket, contract writing, designing and implementing the project aswell as ongoing support for measurement and monitoring; this wouldhave the added benefit of reducing transaction costs (Bernard et al.,2012; CCF, 2008).
4.2. Managerial capacity: resource management
Both communities demonstrated some managerial capacity: con-ceptual knowledge of forest conservation and associated strategiesand available land cover information. Both communities mentioned anextant ethic of conservation of forests, which would support the under-lying concept of REDD+.
Dealing with long-term financial planning, farmer associations'banking and benefits distribution systems, the above-outlined farmer-run cotisation/insurance system could form the basis for REDD+compensation arrangements; and/or non-cash-based compensationmeasures could be considered. Smallholders, however, need capacitydevelopment in order to access appropriate channels to gain clear own-ership of their land and to improve their financial management sys-tems; this could be supported by external parties in the projectdevelopment in stage (2) of the REDD+ supply chain (Bernard et al.,2012).
In Awae farmers themselves recognize the opportunities for diversi-fying current production systems, increasing the long-term sustainability
68 G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
of cropping systems or increasing the area size of tree-based (perennial)cropping systems on the landscape, such as the mixed cocoa-fruit treesystem (Gockowski and Sonwa, 2008). This highlights a need for afuture REDD+ strategy to create alternative income sources in orderto ensure long-term forest conservation. The REDD+-associated con-cept of forest conservation is not entirely antithetical to farmers' goalsin both villages and has positive potential along the forest margins inthis case (Mustalahti et al., 2012).
A holistic approach to REDD+accounting including retained canopycover and trees on the landscape could be adopted to accommodatefarmers' agroforestry and other tree-based agricultural systems, ratherthan only covering set-aside forest areas, encouraging a more flexibleaccounting system. This would reduce the risk of a negative trade-offfor farmers to reduce the area of land under cultivation. In this way car-bon rich biodiverse cultivation systems such as mixed-fruit treeenriched cocoa agroforestry could be encouraged over clearing addi-tional forest for annual crops (Sonwa et al., 2007). In order to be suffi-ciently adapted to the smallholder context, an all land uses REDD+approach (or REALU) could maintain or improve a community's aggre-gate tree count across the landscape (Van Noordwijk et al., 2009).
4.3. Organizational capacity
The community was observed to have appropriate processes ofdecision-making and appropriate structures –both prerequisites forsustained project success (Schusler et al., 2002). Both the villages ofAkok and Awae possess farmer associations with strong organizationalcapacity in the form of: financial planning, and democratic processes—all of which are necessary requirements for the implementation of aREDD+ project. REDD+ projects should capitalize on the alreadyidentified benefits of being part of a group, including increased agricul-tural production, in order to reinforce group capacities resulting in awin–win livelihood enforcement-REDD+ approach. In planning aREDD+ initiative, attention should be paid to the REDD+ projectdesign (component 2 of the REDD+ supply chain) with communitiesas devolving organizational power to the community level will notautomatically result in a successful REDD+ initiative and positivelivelihood outcomes for the community (Kellert et al., 2000). Theseresponsibilities could also be transferred wholly or in part to anintermediary with a potentially positive outcome.
4.4. Capacity to deal with risk and potential REDD+/livelihooddevelopment conflicts
In terms of livelihood development and dealing with risk, respon-dents in both Akok and Awae emphasized the need for agricultural im-provement, as well as tree or forest conservation, both priorities thatshould be capitalized upon within the context of a REDD+ project.Limits to development mentioned by village organizations mostly re-lated to obstacles in increasing agricultural production—a barrier thatneeds to be addressed in order for the local-level REDD+ initiativeto be successful.
In terms of tackling land tenure issues under customary land rights,REDD+ projects would best operate on lands either clearly owned byan individual, held in common within the community, or within a kingroup in order to avoid conflicts. Clarity in property rights, at minimumin the form of statutory tenure, is essential in order to avoid morepowerful individuals from taking control over the land in question—animportant equity issue; this would result in no added benefits from car-bon sales or readiness investments, and prior owners could be at riskof losing access to their land (Kanninen et al., 2007; Wunder, 2007). Inthe Cameroonian cases presented here, land tenure is often definedthrough forest clearing or ‘the right of the axe’, which would need tobe addressed in order to implement a successful REDD project (Jindalet al., 2008; Mustalahti et al., 2012). Aside from broader land tenureissues, awareness of other kinds of property rights surrounding trees
is extremely relevant to a REDD+ strategy and in this case wouldneed enforcement.
In this case, a REDD+ project would need to take into account thatthe highest sources of revenue in both Awae and Akok are annualcrops, followed by cocoa and NTFP collection in Akok; and fishing,hunting and NTFP collection in Awae (Mustalahti et al., 2012). AsNTFPs are perceived as more important to the local population thantimber, a REDD+ project implemented in this area could take advan-tage of this aspect by providing more incentives to farmers to maintaincertain tree species on the landscape-a reducing emissions from all landuses (REALU) approach (Van Noordwijk et al., 2009). A future REDD+project could incorporate an NTFP and fruit tree component in orderto maximize revenue generated from the forest and agroforest systemsaside from carbon credit generation (Van Noordwijk et al., 2009).
If agricultural intensification is the desired direction in terms ofensuring a REDD+ project's success and minimizing leakage outsideof the project bounds, then considering farmer groups' most urgentneeds are necessary. Since local residents are the most familiar withtheir own particular agricultural needs, suggestions from residents onhow to solve the problems outlined above are particularly valuablein moving forward with REDD+ projects (Blom et al., 2010). Some ofthe self-help solutions with seemingly great promise for facilitating aREDD+ project provided by respondents include: facilitating the useof local materials and natural insecticides to increase agricultural out-put, increasing the exchange of ideas among farmer group members,creating substantial benefits to members of a future project, and im-proving group savings systems. Compensation for carbon stored undera REDD+ project scenario could be aimed at these areas. Perhaps aREDD+ project could include funding for hired labor, or provisions tomaximize the efficiency in the current crop production system.
Agricultural intensification in these cases could be a solution(Chomitz et al., 2006), however, project implementers should be waryof trade-offs: studies have shown that at low population densities,and high land availability, climate mitigation and food security goalscan bemet, butwith high population density and small farm sizes, addi-tional system inputs are required (mineral fertilizers) (Tomich et al.,2001). If REDD is implemented on a large scale, food and commodityprices could also be affected if formerly used productive agriculturalland is taken out of production (Peskett et al., 2008). Project implemen-ters should also understand the complexities of agricultural intensifica-tion and forest conservation trade-offs: runaway agricultural expansionthat could be the result of increased profitability fromagricultural inten-sification without improved enforcement and zoning could also leadto greater deforestation (Tomich et al., 2001).
In order to look at the feasibility of implementing a REDD+ project,the potential for improvement of smallholder livelihoods to create atruly pro-poor project needs to be thoroughly examined (Colchesterand Ferrari, 2007). The carbon compensation strategy should also beadapted to smallholder needs, and could operate through providinghealth and education benefits, agricultural materials, infrastructure, andmarket connections to farmers. In both villages within this case study,farmers themselves highlighted a need to increase the productivity anddiversity of their agricultural systems (Blom et al., 2010); here also tech-nical extension services could support this diversification and intensifica-tion of agricultural production (as part of phase 3 of the REDD+ supplychain). They also mentioned being highly dependent on certain non-timber forest product-producing tree species for home consumptionand cash earnings.
5. Conclusions and recommendations: summary of capacityassessment of a future REDD+ project
Important lessons can be learned from the villages of Akok andAwaeon how to best incorporate smallholders and their interests into aREDD+ scheme.While some results can be generalized to smallholdersas a whole, equally importantly this case study demonstrates the
69G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
importance of understanding the context-specific setbacks faced bycommunities when conducting ex-ante capacity assessments forREDD+projects. The two study villages in two regions of Cameroon, al-though having different levels of forest cover and proximity to themar-ket, face similar challenges in terms of both conservation anddevelopment related to: extant agricultural practices across the land-scape, reliance on NTFPs and access to extension personnel.
In this case, currently, the smallholder farmers in the study region donot possess adequate capacity to implement a local REDD+ initiative.This study proposes a set of criteria governing the feasibility of local-level REDD+ projects and examined the cases of the villages of Awaeand Akok in the Centre and South Regions of Cameroon to assesswhether they meet the criteria. Capacity building and external supportis needed to grant future REDD+ smallholder participants access to theappropriate channels to gain clear ownership over their land, increasetheir data collection and storage abilities, financial management, car-tography knowledge and personnel, and spread awareness of REDD+and its related concepts. These capacity building efforts should allowfarmers to be as self-sufficient as possible within a long-term REDD+project. Instead of adapting farmers' livelihood strategies to a REDD+project, REDD+ project requirements (aside from additionality andleakage avoidance) could also be further tailored to be mindful offarmers' needs—especially as relates to the technical requirements, tobest take advantage of their extant farming strategies.
There are many potential synergies and constraints between theREDD+ project requirements and farmer livelihoods. This study sug-gests that local populations' needs have to be met to ensure the long-term success of a REDD+project. A REDD+scheme should take advan-tage of opportunities to further commercialize and open upmarkets forNTFPs in forests andmixed fruit tree agroforests in order to make forestmaintenance profitable outside of REDD+ compensation payments. Aspreviously discussed in the case of Central and Southern Cameroon,a REDD+ project could reinforce commercialization efforts for NTFPs,as well as conservation and under-canopy planting of extensive cocoaagroforest systems.
National-level REDD+ capacity-building needs were not addressedin detail in this paper, but have been part of previous studies. Morestudies along this framework could create a more robust data set for fu-ture comparison, and more detailed information to guide the imple-mentation of future small-scale REDD+ projects. Future studies couldfurther examine political implementation barriers of such local projectswithin national programs and the costs of such capacity-buildingendeavors. The extent to which a reduced emissions from all land usesapproach' or REALU to REDD+ can encourage the in-use high-carbonsystems, like the local fruit-tree cocoa agroforestry system should beexplored further. Well-timed targeted training and investments foreffectively accompanying smallholders through a REDD+ initiativeand reinforcing livelihood strategies that minimize forest loss wouldbe necessary for successful implementation. This study demonstratesthe need for country and region-appropriate implementation of local-level REDD+ initiatives, as well as the need to involve local communi-ties from the beginning in REDD+ project design.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Müller Fahnenberg Stiftung for theirfinancial support and the Graduate School “Environment, Society andGlobal Change” (ESGC), Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Scienceat the University of Freiburg along with Prof. Marc Hanewinkel andProf. Margaret Shannon; Dr. Jim Gockowski and Dr. Stephan Weisewho facilitated this research; IITA's Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn andSustainable Tree Crops Programs in Yaounde for their personnel and fi-nancial support; Salaou &Martin and the communities of Awae & Akokfor their help and support in the field; Nathalie Ewane for the Frenchlanguage support for the questionnaires; and Dr. Peter Minang and
Dr. Valentina Robiglio, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpfuladvice and guidance.
References
Ashley, R., Russell, D., Swallow, B., 2006. The policy terrain in protected area landscapes:challenges for agroforestry in integrated landscape conservation. Biodiversity andConservation 15 (2), 663–689.
Ashton, R., Basri, C., Boer, R., Cosier, P., DeFries, R., El-Ashry, M., Flannery, T., Lovejoy, T.,Marcovitch, J., McKibbin, W., Nepstad, D., Nobre, C., Possingham, H., Schlamadinger,B., Soesastro, H., Stiglitz, J., Strassburg, B., 2008. How to Include Terrestrial Carbonin Developing Nations in the Overall Climate Change Solution. The Terrestrial CarbonGroup.
Aune, J.B., Alemu, A.T., Gautam, K.P., 2005. Carbon sequestration in rural communities: isit worth the effort? Journal of Sustainable Forestry 21 (1), 69–79.
Barrett, C.B., Gibson, C.C., Hoffman, B., McCubbins, M.D., 2006. The complex links betweengovernance and biodiversity. Conservation Biology 20, 1358–1366.
Bernard, F., McFatridge, S., Minang, P.A., 2012. The private sector in the REDD+ supplychain: trends, challenges and opportunities. Policy Brief. ASB Partnership for theTropical Forest Margins, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya, 9. Insti-tute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Winnipeg, Canada.
BioClimate, 2004. Plan vivo system manual: version 1.2. BioClimate Research andDevelopment.
Blom, B., Sunderland, T., Murdiyarso, D., 2010. Getting REDD to Work Locally: LessonsLearned From Integrated Conservation and Development Projects — Scholars PortalJournals.
Bolin, B., Sukumar, R., Ciais, P., Cramer, W., Jarvis, P., Kheshgi, H., Nobre, C., Semenov, S.,Steffen, W., 2000. Global perspective. In: Watson, R.T., Noble, I.R., Bolin, B.,Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo, D.J., Dokken, D.J. (Eds.), In Land Use, Land Use Changeand Forestry. A Special report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–51.
Brown, D.R., 2006. Personal preferences and intensification of land use: their impact onsouthern Cameroonian slash-and-burn agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems68 (1), 53–67.
Brown, S., Hall, M., Andrasko, K., Ruiz, F., Marzoli, W., Guerrero, G., Masera, O., Dushku, A.,DeJong, B., Cornell, J., 2007. Baselines for land-use change in the tropics: applicationto avoided deforestation projects. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange 12 (6), 1001–1026.
Cacho, O.J., Marshall, G.R., Milne, M., 2005. Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics10, 597–614.
CCF, 2008. Kyoto: Think Global, Act Local. www.communitycarbonforestry.org (www.communitycarbonforestry.org/barriers.htm. Last accessed: September 15, 2008).
Chomitz, K.M., Buys, P., De Luca, G., Thomas, T.S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., 2006. At logger-heads? Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction and environment in the tropicalforests. A World Bank Policy Research Report Review Draft.
Child, B., Dalal-Clayton, B., 2004. Transforming approaches to CBNRM: learning fromthe Luangwa experience, Zambia. In: McShane, T.O., Wells, M.P. (Eds.), Getting Biodi-versity Projects to Work: Towards More Effective Conservation and Development.Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 256–289.
Colchester, M., Ferrari, M.F., 2007. Making FPIC Work: Challenges and Prospects for Indig-enous Peoples.
Danielsen, F., Skutsch, M., Burgess, N.D., Jensen, P.M., Andrianandrasana, H., Karky, B.,Lewis, R., Lovett, J.C., Massao, J., Ngaga, Y., Phartiyal, P., Poulsen, M.K., Singh, S.P.,Sorensen, M., Tewari, A., Young, R., Zahabu, E., 2011. At the heart of REDD+: a rolefor local people in monitoring forests? Conservation Letters 4 (2), 158–167.
Desanker, P.V., 2005. The Kyoto Protocol and the CDM in Africa: A Good Idea but….Unasylva, 222(56), pp. 24–26.
Fearnside, P.M., 2008. Amazon forest maintenance as a source of environmental services.Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias 80 (1), 101–114.
ForestTrends, 2005. The Katoomba group: PES assessments and case studies, East and south-ern Africa. http://www.katoombagroup.org/~katoomba/regions/africa/assessments.php(Last Accessed: October 2008).
Freudenthal, E., Nnah, S., Kenrick, J., 2011. REDD and rights in Cameroon: a review of thetreatment of indigenous peoples and local communities in policies and projects.Rights, Forests and Climate Briefing Series, 28. Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, UK.
Garnett, S.T., Sayer, J., Du Toit, J., 2007. Improving the effectiveness of interventions to bal-ance conservation and development: a conceptual framework. Ecology and Society12 (1), 2.
Gockowski, J., 2008. Foundations of a strategy to address the agricultural productivity—REDD Nexus in the Cocoa Belt of West and Central Africa; International Institute ofTropical Agriculture, Impact and Policy—Sustainable Tree Crops Program ASB.UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP 14) to the Kyoto Protocol, Poznan, Poland.
Gockowski, J., Sonwa, D., 2008. Biodiversity and Smallholder Cocoa Production Systems inWest Africa. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Accra, Ghana.
Hajek, F., Ventresca, M.J., Scrive, J., Castro, A., 2011. Regime-building for REDD+: evidencefrom a cluster of local initiatives in south-eastern. Peru Environmental Science &Policy 14 (2), 201–215.
Herold, M., Johns, T., 2007. Linking requirements with capabilities for deforestation mon-itoring in the context of the UNFCCC-REDD process. Environmental Research Letters2, 045025.
Hughes, R., Flintan, F., 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: AReview and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. International Institute for Environ-ment and Development, London.
70 G.A. Cerbu et al. / Forest Policy and Economics 36 (2013) 60–70
IPCC, 2001. International panel on climate change. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, aSpecial Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Cambridge Univer-sity Press, New York.
Jindal, R., 2006. Payments for carbon sequestration inAfrica: status andchallenges to scalingup. In: Damassa, T., Hanson, S. (Eds.), Earth Trends. World Resource Institute, p. 26.
Jindal, R., Swallow, B., Kerr, J., 2008. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects inAfrica: Potential benefits and challenges. Natural Resources Forum 32, 116–130.
Kanninen, M., Murdiyarso, D., Seymour, F., Angelsen, A., Wunder, S., German, L.,2007. Do trees grow on money? The implications of deforestation research forpolicies to promote REDD. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),Bogor, Indonesia.
Karousakis, K., 2007. Incentives to Reduce GHG Emissions From Deforestation: LessonsLearned From Costa Rica and Mexico; Document:COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2007)1.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 50.
Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A., Lichtenfeld, L.L., 2000. Community Natural ResourceManagement: Promise, Rhetoric, and Reality. Society & Natural Resources 13 (8),705–715.
Kotto-Same, J., Moukam, A., Njomgang, R., Tiki-Manga, T., Tonye, J., Diaw, C., Gockowski, J.,Hauser, S., Weise, S., Nwaga, D., Zapfack, L., Palm, C., Woomer, P., Gillison, A., Bignell,D., Tondoh, J., 2000. Alternatives to Slash-and-Burn: Summary Report and Synthesisof Phase II in Cameroon, 72. ASB Coordination Office, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.
Lemos, M.C., Agrawal, A., 2006. Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environ-mental Resources 31, 297–325.
Minang, P.A., McCall, M.K., Bressers, H.T.A., 2007. Community capacity for implementingClean Development Mechanism projects within community forests in Cameroon.Environmental Management 39 (5), 615–630.
Mustalahti, I., Bolin, A., Boyd, E., Paavola, J., 2012. Can REDD+ reconcile local prioritiesand needs with global mitigation benefits? Lessons from Angai Forest, Tanzania. Ecol-ogy and Society 17 (1).
Murdiyarso, D., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W., Verchot, L., 2012. Some lessons learnedfrom the first generation of REDD+ activities. Current Opinion in EnvironmentalSustainability 4 (6), 678–685.
Myers, E.C., 2008. Climate Change and Forestry: A REDD Primer. Ecosystem Marketplace.Palm, C., Tomich, T., Noordwijk, M.V., Vosti, S., Gockowski, J., Alegre, J., Verchot, L.,
2004. Mitigating GHG emissions in the humid tropics: case studies from alternatives toslash-and-burn program (ASB). Environment, Development and Sustainability 6,145–162.
Penman, J., Gytarsky, M., Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Kruger, D., Pipatti, R., Buendia, L., Miwa, K.,Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., Wagner, F., 2003. Good practice guidance for land use, land-usechange and forestry (GPG LULUCF). Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf_contents.htm (IPCC National Greenhouse Gas InventoriesProgramme. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies (IGES). Kanagawa, Japan).
Peskett, L., Huberman, D., Bowen-Jones, E., Edwards, G., Brown, J., 2008. Making {REDD}work for the Poor. Prepared on behalf of the Poverty Environment Partnership({PEP}) (September 2008).
PlanVivo, 2008. www.planvivo.org (www.planvivo.com/fx.planvivo/scheme/manual-systems-selectingtargetgroups.aspx, Last accessed: September 30, 2008).
Robiglio, V., 2008. From plot to landscape. School of Environment and Natural Resources.Bangor University, Bangor, UK (Ph.D.).
Rogner, H.-H., Zhou, D., Bradley, R., Crabbé, P., Edenhofer, O., Hare, B., Kuijpers, L., Yamaguchi,M., 2007. Chapter 1: introduction. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R.,Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group IIIto the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Schusler, T., Decker, D., Pfeffer, M., 2002. Social learning for collaborative natural resourcemanagement. Society and Natural Resources 15, 309–326.
Sonwa, D., Nkongmeneck, B.A., Weise, S.F., Tchatat, M., Adesina, A.A., Janssens, M.J.J., 2007.Diversity of plants in cocoa agroforests in the humid forest zone of southern Cameroon.Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 2385–2400.
Swallow, B., Boffa, J.-M., Scherr, S.J., 2005. The potential for agroforestry to contribute tothe conservation and enhancement of landscape biodiversity. In: Mitchell, R.,Grayson, M. (Eds.), World Agroforestry and the Future. World Agroforestry Centre(ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya.
Swallow, B., van Noordwijk, M., Dewi, S., Murdiyarso, D., White, D., Gockowski, J., Hyman,G., Budidarsono, S., Robiglio, V., Meadu, V., Ekadinata, A., Agus, F., Hairiah, K., Mbile,P.N., Sonwa, D.J., Weise, S., 2007. Opportunities for avoided deforestation with sus-tainable benefits. An Interim Report by the ASB Partnership for the Tropical ForestMargins. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya.
Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Budidarsono, S., Kusumanto, T., Muriyarso, D., Stolle, H.,Fagi., A.M., 2001. Agricultural intensification, deforestation, and the environment:assessing tradeoffs in Sumatra, Indonesia. In Tradeoffs or Synergies? AgriculturalIntensification, Economic Development, and the Environment. CAB International,Wallingford, Oxon, UK. Available at: http:/www.cifor.org/online-library/browse/view-publication/publication/743.html.
van Noordwijk, M., Susswein, P.M., Palm, C., Izac, A.M., Tomich, T.P., 2001. Problem definitionfor integrated natural resource management in forest margins of the humid tropics:characterization and diagnosis of land use practices. Lecture Note 1. Alternatives toSlash and Burn (ASB). International Centre for Research inAgroforestry, Bogor, Indonesia.
van Noordwijk, M., Minang, P.A., Dewi, S., Hall, J., Rantala, S., 2009. Reducing Emissionsfrom All Land Uses (REALU): the case for a whole landscape approach. ASBPolicyBrief, 13. ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins, Nairobi, Kenya.
Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOROccasional Paper No.42.CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
Wunder, S., 2007. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical con-servation. Conservation Biology 21 (1), 48–58.
